|
 Kryptos
Stranger
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,647
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
|
|
You know, I've read those studies, thinking there had to be some sort of bias. I couldn't find any. Then I looked around, and the countries in the world that *don't* have more guns than people don't have appreciably higher crime rates. But the studies show that 1% of the population will use a gun defensively every year, which means that places without guns must be swamped in crime.
Then, I thought about it from a different perspective. How many of those "defensive gun uses" were warranted? How often was the gun used in an appropriate situation, as opposed to using a gun as an open escalation of force? The nuclear option, for lack of better term.
When I was in college, I was in a bike crash which destroyed my wrist completely. I have a metal wrist now. But that's beside the point. After the crash happened, which was at night in a residential neighborhood, I knocked on a few doors, mostly in shock. Looking for help. Nobody opened the door, but more than a few times I saw the peephole darken, or the shades flutter as someone checked the door. Then, about 15 minutes later, cops showed up, saying that there were reports of a strange man knocking on doors and some yelling in the street (because you try simultaneously smashing every bone in your arm and wrist to gravel without making a sound).
Now I think back and wonder-how many people stayed up all night with a shotgun pointed at the door, just because I naively believed somebody would help a kid with bones sticking out of his arm?
I know that as a salesman, I more than once knocked on a door only to be met with a gun pointed at my face. I wonder how many of those guys (It's always a guy, literally every time) sat down to dinner later that night satisfied that their quick thinking saved them from a home invasion, while I was just confused about why someone would bring a gun to a cable sale?
If there were that many defensive gun uses only to prevent crimes, then the american public commits crimes at a rate orders of magnitude above the rest of the world. Just, an insanely bloodthirsty nation. But I've lived around the world, and people are pretty much the same everywhere. It's just in America, it seems that everyone is afraid of crime to the point where they answer the door with guns, on the off chance that a criminal decides to knock before entering.
|
bio_alchemist
Shroom Operator
Registered: 03/21/18
Posts: 590
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 19 days, 15 hours
|
 Re: March of Our Lives Protest  [Re: Kryptos] 1
#25093127 - 03/26/18 08:29 PM (6 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sweeper54 said:
The main point is being missed here.
If the age limit to buy a gun is 21, 90+% of school shootings are eliminated.
Please see the two posts before my last about raising the Age limit
That idea is degenerate.  Because surely all school shooters were under 21 and purchased their guns through legal means 
Quote:
If you screen for tards, more people live.
If you do background checks everywhere, more people live.
Yeah It is FEDERAL LAW that anytime you buy a firearm from a licensed dealer, You go through a background check that will DENY you the firearm if you have ever...
*Been convicted of a felony
*Been Charged with domestic Violence
*Been charged with a drug related crime
*Have a restraining order on you
*Been hospitalized for a mental illness, or declared mentally unfit by a doctor.
This has been law since the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention act of 1993 (It was about all guns haha those sneaky bastards...)
Quote:
If you check for investigate and prosecute Straw Buyers, more people live.
We do, Thats a crime, We Have an entire Government organization called the ATF whos sole Job is to enforce these laws. They run operations all the time to stop crimes like this.
Quote:
And thru all that the individual that want a gun can do so, no 2nd amendment violations
Awesome! Im Glad we agree 
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Then, I thought about it from a different perspective. How many of those "defensive gun uses" were warranted? How often was the gun used in an appropriate situation, as opposed to using a gun as an open escalation of force? The nuclear option, for lack of better term.
All of them, that is the definition of a defensive gun use. If it was not warranted it would be a violent crime... It is illegal to escalate a violent encounter to a deadly force encounter...
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Now I think back and wonder-how many people stayed up all night with a shotgun pointed at the door, just because I naively believed somebody would help a kid with bones sticking out of his arm?
I know that as a salesman, I more than once knocked on a door only to be met with a gun pointed at my face. I wonder how many of those guys (It's always a guy, literally every time) sat down to dinner later that night satisfied that their quick thinking saved them from a home invasion, while I was just confused about why someone would bring a gun to a cable sale?
Im sorry that happened to you but That is ILLEGAL it is a violent crime to point a gun at someone knocking on your front door. You should have called the police!!
Anyone who acts let alone thinks the way you described would end up in prison or a mental institution before they knew it.
Quote:
Kryptos said:
If there were that many defensive gun uses only to prevent crimes, then the american public commits crimes at a rate orders of magnitude above the rest of the world. Just, an insanely bloodthirsty nation. But I've lived around the world, and people are pretty much the same everywhere. It's just in America, it seems that everyone is afraid of crime to the point where they answer the door with guns, on the off chance that a criminal decides to knock before entering.
Everything you spoke of is a crime, Not Socially acceptable, Not Normal, I have never heard anything like that from anyone I know and remember I am around guns a lot!
Pointing a gun at someone is the fastest way to get yourself killed and responsible gun owners know that more than anyone..
--------------------
"I prefer Dangerous Freedom over peaceful Slavery" ~ 3rd President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson.
 Liberty ** Capitalism ** Love ** Guns ** Self Responsibility
Edited by bio_alchemist (03/26/18 08:29 PM)
|
Kryptos
Stranger
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,647
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
|
|
Quote:
bio_alchemist said:
Yeah It is FEDERAL LAW that anytime you buy a firearm from a licensed dealer, You go through a background check that will DENY you the firearm if you have ever...
*Been convicted of a felony
*Been Charged with domestic Violence
*Been charged with a drug related crime
*Have a restraining order on you
*Been hospitalized for a mental illness, or declared mentally unfit by a doctor.
This has been law since the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention act of 1993 (It was about all guns haha those sneaky bastards...)
None of this applies if you go and legally buy your gun from a private seller. Joe Six Shooter can sell a gun to a felon with domestic violence and drug charges who's missing half his brain and has a restraining order against him by everyone else in the state, and that would be a legally acquired gun. Joe Six shooter doesn't have to be a licensed dealer.
Quote:
bio_alchemist said:
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Then, I thought about it from a different perspective. How many of those "defensive gun uses" were warranted? How often was the gun used in an appropriate situation, as opposed to using a gun as an open escalation of force? The nuclear option, for lack of better term.
All of them, that is the definition of a defensive gun use. If it was not warranted it would be a violent crime... It is illegal to escalate a violent encounter to a deadly force encounter...
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Now I think back and wonder-how many people stayed up all night with a shotgun pointed at the door, just because I naively believed somebody would help a kid with bones sticking out of his arm?
I know that as a salesman, I more than once knocked on a door only to be met with a gun pointed at my face. I wonder how many of those guys (It's always a guy, literally every time) sat down to dinner later that night satisfied that their quick thinking saved them from a home invasion, while I was just confused about why someone would bring a gun to a cable sale?
Im sorry that happened to you but That is ILLEGAL it is a violent crime to point a gun at someone knocking on your front door. You should have called the police!!
Anyone who acts let alone thinks the way you described would end up in prison or a mental institution before they knew it.
Quote:
Kryptos said:
If there were that many defensive gun uses only to prevent crimes, then the american public commits crimes at a rate orders of magnitude above the rest of the world. Just, an insanely bloodthirsty nation. But I've lived around the world, and people are pretty much the same everywhere. It's just in America, it seems that everyone is afraid of crime to the point where they answer the door with guns, on the off chance that a criminal decides to knock before entering.
Everything you spoke of is a crime, Not Socially acceptable, Not Normal, I have never heard anything like that from anyone I know and remember I am around guns a lot!
Pointing a gun at someone is the fastest way to get yourself killed and responsible gun owners know that more than anyone..
In order:
1) Not a deadly force encounter if nobody dies. Just an illegal escalation of force. Think they'd get charged?
2) Yeah, but it being illegal doesn't stop anyone. And why the hell would I waste half my day talking to cops about some nutter with a gun? I got better shit to do with my time. I just avoid gun owners, under the assumption that they're nutters. Plus, then it becomes a "he said she said" situation, and what if that guy really did fear for their life when they stuck a gun in my face? Castle doctrine and all that.
3) It's only illegal to make an open threat with a gun, which is called "brandishing". If one routinely answers the door with a gun with no intention of threat, that's not illegal. Again, he said she said, nobody gives a shit. I'm not gonna waste my time dealing with cops all because of some gun nut.
Huh, I guess technically I *have been* the victim of gun violence on many occasions, it's just that the offenders were all legal and responsible gun owners with a paranoid streak.
|
bio_alchemist
Shroom Operator
Registered: 03/21/18
Posts: 590
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 19 days, 15 hours
|
Re: March of Our Lives Protest [Re: Kryptos] 3
#25093307 - 03/26/18 09:58 PM (6 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said:
1 " None of this applies if you go and legally buy your gun from a private seller.
2 "that would be a legally acquired gun.
3 "doesn't have to be a licensed dealer.
1. - A private seller is just a guy like you or me selling one of his old guns to a friend or a guy he met online that is a resident of his state.
Its personal property, I should be able to sell it if I want to. and if you are a concerned citizen, you can go to an FFL dealer and pay them to run a background check on someone that wants to buy a gun from you.
How would we stop criminals from trading and selling guns? You said yourself a few sentences later " it being illegal doesn't stop anyone."
Thats true, making the law almost entirely only effect people like me who might want to sell a gun to someone they know well and trust. Or give one to a family member. Now i have to bend over backwards and pay the government everytime i wanna sell a gun while the criminals trade em all day. No way to prove they did it illegally because most guns are lawfully unregistered.
2. No it would not, It is illegal for a prohibited person to purchase, manufacture, or posses a gun...
3. Duh they are just some guy! Not some black market business man...
Besides many states including mine have Seriously regulated private transfers, 9 have outright banned them.
Quote:
Kryptos said:
In order:
1) Not a deadly force encounter if nobody dies. Just an illegal escalation of force. Think they'd get charged?
2) Yeah, but it being illegal doesn't stop anyone. And why the hell would I waste half my day talking to cops about some nutter with a gun? I got better shit to do with my time. I just avoid gun owners, under the assumption that they're nutters. Plus, then it becomes a "he said she said" situation, and what if that guy really did fear for their life when they stuck a gun in my face? Castle doctrine and all that.
3) It's only illegal to make an open threat with a gun, which is called "brandishing". If one routinely answers the door with a gun with no intention of threat, that's not illegal. Again, he said she said, nobody gives a shit. I'm not gonna waste my time dealing with cops all because of some gun nut.
Huh, I guess technically I *have been* the victim of gun violence on many occasions, it's just that the offenders were all legal and responsible gun owners with a paranoid streak.
1. Yes. That is a Crime, Only criminals behave that way. Suggesting otherwise is a little rude.
This man pointed a gun at people for a few moments and was charged with
10 counts of Menacing
10 counts of unlawful use of a weapon
1 charge of disorderly conduct of the 2nd Degree
Good!! Gun owners agree with punishing criminals!! Especially ones that make us look bad
2. Uhhh because you care about your community and you just witnessed someone mentally unstable or violent point a gun at your face. even if you have no evidence, its important to let people know it happened, becuase anyone who does something that retarded will do it again. You could save lives.
Castle doctrine has nothing to do with pointing a gun at a stranger on your front porch.... Your emotions are irrellevant. Remember its the pro gun guys usually saying their "rights don't end where your feelings begin"
3. Answering the door holding a gun or being strapped with one is Not related in any way shape or form to " a gun pointed at my face."
If what you said was true you were the victim of "gun violence" committed by CRIMINALS not legal gun owners. Gun violence is a CRIME
Criminals are definitely NOT "responsible gun owners" and again to suggest that is incredibly rude. A group of people at almost any shooting range or gun store will be multiple times more open minded, accepting, welcoming, and responsible than any group you would find at a bar or walking around downtown.
--------------------
"I prefer Dangerous Freedom over peaceful Slavery" ~ 3rd President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson.
Liberty ** Capitalism ** Love ** Guns ** Self Responsibility
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US 
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: March of Our Lives Protest [Re: Kryptos]
#25093395 - 03/26/18 10:52 PM (6 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said:
You know, I've read those studies, thinking there had to be some sort of bias. I couldn't find any. Then I looked around, and the countries in the world that *don't* have more guns than people don't have appreciably higher crime rates. But the studies show that 1% of the population will use a gun defensively every year, which means that places without guns must be swamped in crime.
Then, I thought about it from a different perspective. How many of those "defensive gun uses" were warranted? How often was the gun used in an appropriate situation, as opposed to using a gun as an open escalation of force? The nuclear option, for lack of better term.
When I was in college, I was in a bike crash which destroyed my wrist completely. I have a metal wrist now. But that's beside the point. After the crash happened, which was at night in a residential neighborhood, I knocked on a few doors, mostly in shock. Looking for help. Nobody opened the door, but more than a few times I saw the peephole darken, or the shades flutter as someone checked the door. Then, about 15 minutes later, cops showed up, saying that there were reports of a strange man knocking on doors and some yelling in the street (because you try simultaneously smashing every bone in your arm and wrist to gravel without making a sound).
Now I think back and wonder-how many people stayed up all night with a shotgun pointed at the door, just because I naively believed somebody would help a kid with bones sticking out of his arm?
I know that as a salesman, I more than once knocked on a door only to be met with a gun pointed at my face. I wonder how many of those guys (It's always a guy, literally every time) sat down to dinner later that night satisfied that their quick thinking saved them from a home invasion, while I was just confused about why someone would bring a gun to a cable sale?
If there were that many defensive gun uses only to prevent crimes, then the american public commits crimes at a rate orders of magnitude above the rest of the world. Just, an insanely bloodthirsty nation. But I've lived around the world, and people are pretty much the same everywhere. It's just in America, it seems that everyone is afraid of crime to the point where they answer the door with guns, on the off chance that a criminal decides to knock before entering.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Kryptos
Stranger
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,647
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
|
|
Quote:
bio_alchemist said:
Criminals are definitely NOT "responsible gun owners" and again to suggest that is incredibly rude. A group of people at almost any shooting range or gun store will be multiple times more open minded, accepting, welcoming, and responsible than any group you would find at a bar or walking around downtown.
See, that's the problem. Every school shooter is a "responsible gun owner" right up until they aren't. And a bunch of kids die. Vegas shooter was a responsible legal gun owner, right up until 58 people died.
Why do you think the FBI never did anything about the Florida shooter? If they did, NRA's legal shotgun would have sued everyone and everything, because right up until he decided to shoot up a school, he was a legal and responsible gun owner, and if the FBI or police acted on any of the tips, half the country would have been up in arms over it. The "responsible gun owner" getting stepped on by the man? TYRANNY!
All those guy that answered the door with a gun in their hand? responsible gun owners. The ex-marine back from Afghanistan (according to him) that opened the door with a 1911 pointed straight at me? Responsible, HERO gun owner!
I remember the ex-marine pretty well, because I stopped by his house twice. First time, wife opens the door, mid 20s, seems excited, friendly, tells me to come back later when her husband is home. So, I come back later to a gun in my face, and she's standing in the background, holding a baby, with a fresh bruise. Multiple crimes happened that day, none of which were reported. My job was commission based-calling the cops meant less money to take home. It wasn't my neighbor, let his members of the community deal with it.
Then there was the guy that answered the door with a shotgun pointed at me because he thought I was the repo man coming to take his truck. Then there was the guy that sicced his dog on me. Then there was the trailer trash that thought I was there to turn off the power for failure to pay....etc. All responsible gun owners. Right up until they weren't. But that's not my problem.
|
 Enlil 
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,265
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: March of Our Lives Protest [Re: Kryptos] 1
#25093930 - 03/27/18 08:18 AM (6 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Nice speech, but you could make exactly the same point about automobile owners, dog owners, etc. The world is filled with danger and risk. The only way to eliminate risk is to eliminate freedom. I'd rather be more free and face more risk.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
Kryptos
Stranger
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,647
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
|
Re: March of Our Lives Protest [Re: Enlil] 2
#25093937 - 03/27/18 08:20 AM (6 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Well, automobile users, and in some states owners, have to demonstrate safe handling abilities before they get to drive. Driver's Licenses and all that.
Gun owners do not have to demonstrate anything, besides a pulse and a fat(~ish) wallet.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,265
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: March of Our Lives Protest [Re: Kryptos]
#25093950 - 03/27/18 08:25 AM (6 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Actually, you're incorrect. One does not need a license to drive. One only needs a license to drive on public roads. One can keep and use his/her own vehicle on private property without any test or license. Your point would only be valid if people could use their guns in public without a license, and that's simply not the case.
Of course, there is no fundamental right to drive a car or own a vehicle.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
MagicMush123
moon person
Registered: 01/22/15
Posts: 5,153
Loc: Chinada 
|
Re: March of Our Lives Protest [Re: Kryptos]
#25093963 - 03/27/18 08:32 AM (6 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Well, automobile users, and in some states owners, have to demonstrate safe handling abilities before they get to drive. Driver's Licenses and all that.
Gun owners do not have to demonstrate anything, besides a pulse and a fat(~ish) wallet.
So in the future, if they perfect the self driving car, it drives perfectly with zero chance of accident. And they said that, there are too many road fatalities and accidents, and they want to outlaw human drivers completely, for safety reasons, would you be for or agianst it? Or would you say that, your freedom and pleasure to drive, out weigh the safety risks?
|
MagicMush123
moon person
Registered: 01/22/15
Posts: 5,153
Loc: Chinada
|
Re: March of Our Lives Protest [Re: Kryptos]
#25093977 - 03/27/18 08:41 AM (6 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Well, automobile users, and in some states owners, have to demonstrate safe handling abilities before they get to drive. Driver's Licenses and all that.
Gun owners do not have to demonstrate anything, besides a pulse and a fat(~ish) wallet.
and yeah, initially. But they dont routinely re test drivers to establish competence. Theyll only get their license taken away by blatantly breaking too many rules, and accumulating too many fines. By contrast if a gun owner was blatantly being irresponsible, he would get reported, and would get his privileges taken away as well.
|
Kryptos
Stranger
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,647
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
Actually, you're incorrect. One does not need a license to drive. One only needs a license to drive on public roads. One can keep and use his/her own vehicle on private property without any test or license. Your point would only be valid if people could use their guns in public without a license, and that's simply not the case.
Of course, there is no fundamental right to drive a car or own a vehicle.
What about open carry?
And yeah, there isn't a fundamental right to drive. I'm very much for repealing the second amendment. Its a harmful relic of history. Slavery used to be legal, now it isn't, because we realized it was harmful. Gay marriage used to be illegal, now it is, because we realized the ban was harmful. Laws can change, and this is one that needs changing. Seems like a bunch of young people agree. With any luck, we'll vote to change it sooner rather than later.
Quote:
MagicMush123 said:
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Well, automobile users, and in some states owners, have to demonstrate safe handling abilities before they get to drive. Driver's Licenses and all that.
Gun owners do not have to demonstrate anything, besides a pulse and a fat(~ish) wallet.
So in the future, if they perfect the self driving car, it drives perfectly with zero chance of accident. And they said that, there are too many road fatalities and accidents, and they want to outlaw human drivers completely, for safety reasons, would you be for or agianst it? Or would you say that, your freedom and pleasure to drive, out weigh the safety risks?
I am all for removing the human element from driving. I'd be more than happy to give up my right to drive.
Quote:
MagicMush123 said:
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Well, automobile users, and in some states owners, have to demonstrate safe handling abilities before they get to drive. Driver's Licenses and all that.
Gun owners do not have to demonstrate anything, besides a pulse and a fat(~ish) wallet.
and yeah, initially. But they dont routinely re test drivers to establish competence. Theyll only get their license taken away by blatantly breaking too many rules, and accumulating too many fines. By contrast if a gun owner was blatantly being irresponsible, he would get reported, and would get his privileges taken away as well.
Yes they do, that's why driver licenses are only valid for a certain period of time. Of course, most states don't retest until you're over 65.
|
MagicMush123
moon person
Registered: 01/22/15
Posts: 5,153
Loc: Chinada
|
Re: March of Our Lives Protest [Re: Kryptos]
#25094008 - 03/27/18 08:58 AM (6 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Quote:
Enlil said:
Actually, you're incorrect. One does not need a license to drive. One only needs a license to drive on public roads. One can keep and use his/her own vehicle on private property without any test or license. Your point would only be valid if people could use their guns in public without a license, and that's simply not the case.
Of course, there is no fundamental right to drive a car or own a vehicle.
What about open carry?
And yeah, there isn't a fundamental right to drive. I'm very much for repealing the second amendment. Its a harmful relic of history. Slavery used to be legal, now it isn't, because we realized it was harmful. Gay marriage used to be illegal, now it is, because we realized the ban was harmful. Laws can change, and this is one that needs changing. Seems like a bunch of young people agree. With any luck, we'll vote to change it sooner rather than later.
Quote:
MagicMush123 said:
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Well, automobile users, and in some states owners, have to demonstrate safe handling abilities before they get to drive. Driver's Licenses and all that.
Gun owners do not have to demonstrate anything, besides a pulse and a fat(~ish) wallet.
So in the future, if they perfect the self driving car, it drives perfectly with zero chance of accident. And they said that, there are too many road fatalities and accidents, and they want to outlaw human drivers completely, for safety reasons, would you be for or agianst it? Or would you say that, your freedom and pleasure to drive, out weigh the safety risks?
I am all for removing the human element from driving. I'd be more than happy to give up my right to drive.
Quote:
MagicMush123 said:
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Well, automobile users, and in some states owners, have to demonstrate safe handling abilities before they get to drive. Driver's Licenses and all that.
Gun owners do not have to demonstrate anything, besides a pulse and a fat(~ish) wallet.
and yeah, initially. But they dont routinely re test drivers to establish competence. Theyll only get their license taken away by blatantly breaking too many rules, and accumulating too many fines. By contrast if a gun owner was blatantly being irresponsible, he would get reported, and would get his privileges taken away as well.
Yes they do, that's why driver licenses are only valid for a certain period of time. Of course, most states don't retest until you're over 65.
Would you enjoy living in an totalitarian society? Should our goal be to remove every element of danger or risk? No matter how many freedoms we lose in the process?
|
relic
of a bygone era
Registered: 10/14/14
Posts: 5,624
Loc: the right coast
|
Re: March of Our Lives Protest [Re: Kryptos]
#25094009 - 03/27/18 08:58 AM (6 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
calling the FL shooter a responsible gun owner is a bit of a stretch since we have vid of him brandishing some sort of handgun outside his home in a residential area, but i'm quibbling. wait, maybe that was an airsoft handgun or something? IDK or care, he was a menace either way.
i inherited more than 25 guns, handguns and long arms, about 1.5 years ago when my mom's cousin died. his brother lives about 800 miles away so he asked me to take the guns, sell them, give him the first $1K, and start a college fund for my niece with the rest of the proceeds from sales. he is a super nice guy and didn't have to do that, but he did.
i sold all but five of them within a couple months to friends and friends of friends. of the ones i didn't personally know, i made them come meet me face to face and talk to me before i made any transfer. one of the men i know has a felony from 38 years ago, when he was 17 years old, when beat someone with a lead pipe because he was an addict at the time and made a really, really idiotic decision. i've now known him for 25 years and he's a harmless, soft spoken, law abiding gentleman. he hasn't even had a speeding or parking ticket since his violent incident so many years ago...but i transferred a vintage 22 magnum to him and shouldn't have according to laws on the books. i'm conflicted in this type of situation but yet i support universal background checks, even in personal transfers like this one.
many laws make criminals out of normally law abiding citizens (not really, laws don't "make" criminals, but anyway) and a universal background check law that is skirted by some people will do so as well. in my opinion we gun owners are going to have to take our lumps and suck it up when we can't transfer a weapon to someone like the person i mentioned...tough shit, something has to be done, and a universal background check system, wherein even private transfers qualify, is a start.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,265
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: March of Our Lives Protest [Re: Kryptos] 1
#25094010 - 03/27/18 08:59 AM (6 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said:
What about open carry?
You can carry your vehicle in public without any license. Quote:
And yeah, there isn't a fundamental right to drive. I'm very much for repealing the second amendment. Its a harmful relic of history. Slavery used to be legal, now it isn't, because we realized it was harmful. Gay marriage used to be illegal, now it is, because we realized the ban was harmful. Laws can change, and this is one that needs changing. Seems like a bunch of young people agree. With any luck, we'll vote to change it sooner rather than later.
Hopefully, not. It's obvious that the vast majority of guns will never harm a human being, and the vast majority of gun owners will never be violent with their guns. It would be very sad if 100 million people lost a right they use because of the younger generation's irrational fear.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
relic
of a bygone era
Registered: 10/14/14
Posts: 5,624
Loc: the right coast
|
Re: March of Our Lives Protest [Re: Enlil]
#25094017 - 03/27/18 09:06 AM (6 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
You can carry your vehicle in public without any license.
unless you consider valid, up to date registration and license plates to be a type a "license".
in my state, it is against the law to have a vehicle in your driveway that doesn't have valid plates on it.
carryon.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,265
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: March of Our Lives Protest [Re: relic]
#25094031 - 03/27/18 09:12 AM (6 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
You can put it in your garage though. It's also illegal for you to have garbage strewn across your front lawn. That has nothing to do with the legality/prohibition of garbage or cars. That's about public safety and property values.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
Kryptos
Stranger
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,647
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
|
|
Quote:
MagicMush123 said:
[previous quote deleted for readability]
Would you enjoy living in an totalitarian society? Should our goal be to remove every element of danger or risk? No matter how many freedoms we lose in the process?
I fail to see the jump from "bad law" to "totalitarianism". If anything, I think the suppression of free speech by FOX pundits and other republicans in relation to the marchers is the symbol of the totalitarian society.
And yes, I believe that we, as members of a society, should lose some freedoms. For example, by being a citizen of a civilized nation, you have given up your freedom to murder. You have given up your freedom to rape. Are these freedoms worth protecting? Hell no. I'm cool with giving up my freedom to own guns in the interests of not being murdered by some nutter with a gun.
|
Kryptos
Stranger
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,647
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
|
Re: March of Our Lives Protest [Re: Enlil] 2
#25094035 - 03/27/18 09:14 AM (6 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
You can put it in your garage though. It's also illegal for you to have garbage strewn across your front lawn. That has nothing to do with the legality/prohibition of garbage or cars. That's about public safety and property values.
Why can't guns be a public safety issue? They clearly are.
|
relic
of a bygone era
Registered: 10/14/14
Posts: 5,624
Loc: the right coast
|
Re: March of Our Lives Protest [Re: Enlil]
#25094041 - 03/27/18 09:15 AM (6 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
You can put it in your garage though. It's also illegal for you to have garbage strewn across your front lawn. That has nothing to do with the legality/prohibition of garbage or cars. That's about public safety and property values.
is inside of a garage "in public"?
anyway, moving on, i'm just interjecting nonsense.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Kratom Powder for Sale 
Bridgetown Botanicals 
Red Vein Kratom
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
ekomstop
BuzzDoctor
Angry Mycologist
Spiffy
Evolving
pattern
kykeon
daussaulit