Gun Legislation

[bannination]

"You turn your back on your purse with a loaded weapon in it? Forget that, you carry your loaded weapon in your purse? Like I said, idiot."

Women have had thousands of dollars that they were carrying in their purse stolen when they turned their back for just a brief moment; that's a pointless argument. Men and women alike have been robbed of pocket or purse contents, whether confronted or had their pocket/purse picked. So I ask you......what good is a gun in your purse/pocket if it's not loaded? duh.

LOL, women or men carrying around thousands of dollars are idiots too.

[JTA]

... Then the test question "when picking up a firearm, do you consider it (a) loaded (b) found (c) broken (d) stolen"

(e) my manhood

In movies whenever somebody grabs a pistol and gets ready to roll out, they always stick the pistol in their pants with the barrel pointing towards their junk. This has always bothered me big time because why would you ever want a gun that close to your junk.

[bannination]

... Then the test question "when picking up a firearm, do you consider it (a) loaded (b) found (c) broken (d) stolen"

(e) my manhood

In movies whenever somebody grabs a pistol and gets ready to roll out, they always stick the pistol in their pants with the barrel pointing towards their junk. This has always bothered me big time because why would you ever want a gun that close to your junk.

Most don't have a problem with teeth being that close to their junk. Just sayin!!! Either way a misfire is .... bad.

[Mr.B]

"LOL, women or men carrying around thousands of dollars are idiots too."

I'm certain that you wouldn't mind being in a position to be one of those idiots.

I know I wouldn't....and I would have a loaded gun too...wouldn't you?

[O Really]

Here's an article by the guy I took training from (not him personally, but his company) Gives some perspective as to what one needs to know just to carry around a firearm safely. http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob103.html

Another discussion on how to carry your firearm... http://thinkinggunfighter.blogspot.com/ ... r-why.html

50 shots and a pretend test - indeed.

[Mr.B]

"Have you noticed that all your claims of the imminent need for lethal self-defense - "carry weapons to protect themselves from all those poor, underprivileged, formerly abused, mentally incapacitated, drug using, murderers, rapists, and pedophile scumbags that prowl shopping centers looking for an easy target" - have now fallen apart?"

Nope. Violent crime knows no specific geographical area. Remember the motorcycle shop in SC down off Hwy 11? Who'da thunk that someone would walk in there, in a secluded rural area, and wipe out everyone there? That wasn't NY, LA, or even Podunk, Idaho. Crime happens; or hasn't your liberal-denying little mind noticed? Scream, baby scream.

[rstrong]

"Have you noticed that all your claims of the imminent need for lethal self-defense - "carry weapons to protect themselves from all those poor, underprivileged, formerly abused, mentally incapacitated, drug using, murderers, rapists, and pedophile scumbags that prowl shopping centers looking for an easy target" - have now fallen apart?"

Nope. Violent crime knows no specific geographical area.

Yes, violent crime is everywhere. But a small amount of gun control makes a huge difference.

But nice (and as usual, dishonest) strawman argument there.

You know how many shootings there have been at Japanese universities there have been in the last 5 years? Zero. Guess why? Because of rigid gun control. Sure the Yakuza (Japanese mafia) here still have guns, It just means they will get 10 more years in prison if they get busted while holding one.

A better indicator would be to compare similar cities. Canada's capital city of Ottawa had 16 murders in a year, and Washington, D.C., which has roughly the same population, has 195 murders.

Handguns are available for self protection in Seattle, but not in nearby Vancouver, Canada; handgun killings are five times more common and the handgun suicide rate is ten times greater in Seattle. Guns make impulsive killing easy.
- Carl Sagan, Demon Haunted World

[Mr.B]

Yes, violent crime is everywhere. But a small amount of gun control makes a huge difference.

But nice (and as usual, dishonest) strawman argument there.

You know how many shootings there have been at Japanese universities there have been in the last 5 years? Zero. Guess why? Because of rigid gun control. Sure the Yakuza (Japanese mafia) here still have guns, It just means they will get 10 more years in prison if they get busted while holding one.

A better indicator would be to compare similar cities. Canada's capital city of Ottawa had 16 murders in a year, and Washington, D.C., which has roughly the same population, has 195 murders.

Handguns are available for self protection in Seattle, but not in nearby Vancouver, Canada; handgun killings are five times more common and the handgun suicide rate is ten times greater in Seattle. Guns make impulsive killing easy.
- Carl Sagan, Demon Haunted World

So what's keeping you from packing up your mess and moving to Japan?...or any other "perfect" society?

[rstrong]

So what's keeping you from packing up your mess and moving to Japan?...or any other "perfect" society?

Ah, the sort of pathetic cop-out one can only expect from Mr.B.

In any case, I'm already in Canada. Not perfect, but we don't have the gun culture of the US. When there are gun killings, the gun is inevitably found to have been illegally smuggled in from the US.

[Mr.B]

So what's keeping you from packing up your mess and moving to Japan?...or any other "perfect" society?

Ah, the sort of pathetic cop-out one can only expect from Mr.B.

In any case, I'm already in Canada. Not perfect, but we don't have the gun culture of the US. When there are gun killings, the gun is inevitably found to have been illegally smuggled in from the US.

Ah, the sort of pathetic cop-out one can only expect from a bleeding heart rstrong.
Perhaps you've forgotten that guns don't kill people; people kill people. Guns don't smuggle themselves in.

You're "already in Canada?" Who said anything about Canada?

[rstrong]

Ah, the sort of pathetic cop-out one can only expect from a bleeding heart rstrong.

"Bleeding heart"? Is that your term for conservatives without your comically incompetant dishonesty?

Perhaps you've forgotten that guns don't kill people; people kill people.

Perhaps you've forgotten how - as pointed out yesterday - places with the same amount of people, roughly the same demographics, but not a "guns EVERYWHERE" culture, just don't have even remotely the name number of gun deaths.

Do you blame the toddler for the mother recently killed with her own gun?

You're "already in Canada?" Who said anything about Canada?

Read your last post, and the post you were responding to.

[Mr.B]

The US murder rate is 4.7 per 100K, 3 times that of Canada's 1.6.
Your point is? Like I said...guns don't kill people, people kill people.....unless of course, guns have grown legs and a mind of their own.
It is a shame though that the U.S. is not a perfect society like Canada and Japan.

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws......well, you know." You pizz and moan about failed drug policies; do you honestly think that outlawing guns will be any different from the law that outlaws drugs? Who controls the drug trade now...? Who will control the gun trade if they're made illegal? You also pizz and moan about cops; if they're corrupt now (in your small mind), what do you think will keep them any less corrupt if there's no guns?

Maybe you should consider moving in with rstrong; or follow him to Japan; you're already a perfect pair.

... Run away, Mr.B, run away from your flubs, again. As usual.
I've not ran anywhere; I'm right here, and your imagination is working overtime.

[Mr.B]

Ah, the sort of pathetic cop-out one can only expect from a bleeding heart rstrong.

"Bleeding heart"? Is that your term for conservatives without your comically incompetant (sic) dishonesty?
You may be a member of a conservative by name political party, but you aren't a conservative in the same sense that US citizens are.

Perhaps you've forgotten that guns don't kill people; people kill people.

Perhaps you've forgotten how - as pointed out yesterday - places with the same amount of people, roughly the same demographics, but not a "guns EVERYWHERE" culture, just don't have even remotely the name number (huh?) of gun deaths.
Key word..."people".....guns don't handle themselves.

Do you blame the toddler for the mother recently killed with her own gun?
No....do you? He/she was a child with no knowledge or comprehension what he/she was doing. Adults know full well what the consequences of handling a gun can produce.

You're "already in Canada?" Who said anything about Canada?

Read your last post, and the post you were responding to.
Correction: I said nothing about Canada; you said you were "already in Canada".

[rstrong]

"Bleeding heart"? Is that your term for conservatives without your comically incompetant (sic) dishonesty?

You may be a member of a conservative by name political party, but you aren't a conservative in the same sense that US citizens are.

I'm conservative as in the traditional and dictionary meaning of conservative. Or even the traditional Republican Party meaning of conservative.

As opposed to your Palin / Cruz / Santorum / Tea Party / (today's) NRA meaning, which is most definitely NOT conservative.

(The rest)

If you don't have an intelligent response, just say so rather than repeating the same dumb claims.

[O Really]

"outlaws and guns...guns don't kill; people do..." yada.
Nobody for years has considered it even remotely possible to "outlaw guns" in any broad sense. It's become apparent that even maintaining the illegal status for most people of fully automatic rifles is shaky. The battleground on which the issue will be fought is cultural, and the gun - ummmmm - "enthusiasts" are losing that one.

[Mr.B]

"As opposed to your Palin / Cruz / Santorum / Tea Party / (today's) NRA meaning, which is most definitely NOT conservative."
You have me confused with someone else...

"If you don't have an intelligent response, just say so rather than repeating the same dumb claims."
Pardon me! I should have known you wouldn't understand the part that guns don't have a mind of their own.

"outlaws and guns...guns don't kill; people do..." yada. Nobody for years has considered it even remotely possible to "outlaw guns" in any broad sense. It's become apparent that even maintaining the illegal status for most people of fully automatic rifles is shaky. The battleground on which the issue will be fought is cultural, and the gun - ummmmm - "enthusiasts" are losing that one."

If the "gun - ummmmm - "enthusiasts" are losing that one", why is there still so much screaming, shrieking, and moaning over the gun issue from the liberals? OK...let's use "gun control" in the place of "outlawing guns"....is there that much difference? If guns are "controlled", who eventually will really control them?

You should watch the movie "The Purge" and then decide if government control of guns is really a good idea. Although it's 'just a movie', we are living in a society that places very little value on human life; come to think of it, we also live a society that not only disrespects human life, but feels that any form of personal indecency and perversion, public or private, should be a matter of personal choice.

[rstrong]

If the "gun - ummmmm - "enthusiasts" are losing that one", why is there still so much screaming, shrieking, and moaning over the gun issue from the liberals?

Gee, perhaps all the gun massacres might have something to do with it.

If guns are "controlled", who eventually will really control them?

Almost entirely the same people who control them now. The exceptions being the mentally ill and those with criminal backgrounds. But mostly it's about making people take personal responsibility for their guns.

Sure, criminals will still have access. But after a few years of much stricter sentences for crimes involving guns, gun crime will drop. We KNOW this, just by looking at other countries.

You should watch the movie "The Purge" and then decide if government control of guns is really a good idea.

[Mr.B]

"Sure, criminals will still have access. But after a few years of much stricter sentences for crimes involving guns, gun crime will drop.
We KNOW this, just by looking at other countries."

Finally! You've supplied the answer I've been waiting to see who would say it first! You get a gold button! (your button disappeared...sorry)

Therein lies the solution; it's not the absolute control of weapons that would solve the issue; it's the punishment that would deter gun-related crimes. We live in a society where swift and strict punishment is non-existent. For instance, trials for murder and other heinous crimes can take years to prosecute and carry out the sentence. (money talks) As long as paid-off attorneys and panty-waist judges can delay and have trials put off, strict sentences are a farce and will never happen.

Our judges, for instances, tend to pass judgment based on their political affiliation. (i.e., the relative of a political acquaintance being charged with a crime)

Our entire legal system dealing with crime and punishment needs revamping before any hopes of gun control will be realized.

[rstrong]

We live in a society where swift and strict punishment is non-existent. For instance, trials for murder and other heinous crimes can take years to prosecute and carry out the sentence.

That's why I said that it would take a few years. Rather than an instant result.

That it would take time is no excuse. "Why weren't such laws passed in 2005? Because the full effect might not happen in 2015!"

Our entire legal system dealing with crime and punishment needs revamping before any hopes of gun control will be realized.

This is pure BS. Stricter rules against drunk driving cut drunk driving way down. There was no need to "revamp the entire legal system", even though all the problems you list applied.

That the legal system isn't perfect doesn't mean that it doesn't work. It doesn't mean that it should be scrapped, rather than improved. That's just a lame excuse.

[Mr.B]

Our entire legal system dealing with crime and punishment needs revamping before any hopes of gun control will be realized.

This is pure BS. Stricter rules against drunk driving cut drunk driving way down. There was no need to "revamp the entire legal system", even though all the problems you list applied.

That the legal system isn't perfect doesn't mean that it doesn't work. It doesn't mean that it should be scrapped, rather than improved. That's just a lame excuse.

Drunk driving...OK that's one. I didn't say the legal system should be scrapped; what part of "revamping" are you having a problem understanding?

Now...what to do about punishment that is more lenient for some than it is for others? Understand "revamping" much?