mnealtx 0
Recommended Posts
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteMy comment and corrections in red.
***
There are about 250 million guns in America, according to the BATF. OK
There were 10,369 murders with guns in 1996, according to the FBI. 1996 - one year only
Thus, only one out of every 24,000 gunsiswas used to commit murder. in 1996, one year only
That is .004% of all guns. OK, for 1996, one year only
99.996% of all gunsare neverwere not used to murder anyone in 1996!
I agree that JR should have specified that his percentages were for a single year. However - you have NO way to show that ANY of those guns were used in a murder, whether before or after that year.
I didn;t make any claims at all except that JR's conclusion was incorrect.
Quote
The reverse is, of course, also true - there's no way for us to show that a used gun, now owned by a law abiding individual, *wasn't* used for some sort of crime at some point in the past, although I'm pretty doubtful that a murderer is going to be dropping the pistol that he just shot 3 people with off at the pawnshop.
And, there's ALSO a couple mistakes that all 3 of us have made:
1. That all the 'murder guns' are from the number estimated by BATF. Unless I'm mistaken, the BATF numbers are for legally owned guns. I would be willing to make a wager that most of the 'murder guns' for that year were not among those poll respondents.
2. Assuming #1 is true, and that all the 'murder guns' WERE legally owned prior to the murders, that all the murders were done by individual weapons - this is certainly not the case.
Without a whole lot more data at my disposal I wouldn't venture any guesses on this topic. I doubt that anyone has the necessary data.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
Quote
Without a whole lot more data at my disposal I wouldn't venture any guesses on this topic. I doubt that anyone has the necessary data.
Agreed.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
21, by 3 different people. I don't seem to think that's making any difference as to the status of the victims.
Locals were sure there were more murderers, it's just those three were caught, and they claimed they committed all those crimes (and a bunch of robberies too) - a typical practice in ex-USSR law enforcement, and there is a good reason to do that. But it is irrelevant. The point is that it is much easier for a single average Joe - who is not a professional killer, and often doesn't even have a criminal background - to start massacre and murder a lot of people with a gun comparing to other things used as weapons, be it a knife or a chain saw.
Quote
So? Are they any LESS dead because it's a large city?
No, this is just to show the fact that this statistics should be compared with the statistics from similar cities, not from Texas villages statistics.
Quote
How about if you just admit that you have an agenda, rather than (unsuccessfully) trying to make people think that you're on the fence about gun ownership.
How about you stopping putting your words in my mouth? You don't like my posts? Ignore them.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Quote
Murder is not the only reason to buy a gun.
No, its not. But how many gun owners bought a gun to murder someone, and how many car owners bought a car to murder someone?
Quote
Dead is still dead, regardless of the method.
In your dreams, maybe. But the law does not agree with you. It makes a huge difference for a bunch of people whether a grandma was murdered by a black guy, or just died from a stroke - even though it makes no difference for grandma.
Quote
And your agenda is still showing.
Well, your posts indeed make very bad impression of gun owners - and you're helping Brady guys tremendously. I can easily imagine a few of your quotes like above on their site with a slogan like "Do you really want guys like above to be able to take your life by just pulling a trigger?"
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
Murder is not the only reason to buy a gun.
No, its not. But how many gun owners bought a gun to murder someone, and how many car owners bought a car to murder someone?
Nobody knows but the people who did it.
If you have different info, share it.
QuoteQuote
Dead is still dead, regardless of the method.
In your dreams, maybe. But the law does not agree with you. It makes a huge difference for a bunch of people whether a grandma was murdered by a black guy, or just died from a stroke - even though it makes no difference for grandma.
If you want to talk about law enforcement, talk about law enforcement. If you want to talk about nations and wmds, then do so. If you want to talk about reasons for gun ownership, we're here for ya too.
Could you just PLEASE make up your fucking mind WHICH???
QuoteQuote
And your agenda is still showing.
Well, your posts indeed make very bad impression of gun owners - and you're helping Brady guys tremendously.
In YOUR opinion. I have little patience for trolls, and it's not like you weren't already in the Brady camp based on your posts.
QuoteI can easily imagine a few of your quotes like above on their site with a slogan like "Do you really want guys like above to be able to take your life by just pulling a trigger?"
And I can imagine YOUR quotes on the NRA website with slogans like "Do you want THESE idiots to decide if you can protect yourself?"
Now that we're done with the snark, here's a thought for you - come to the conversation with an HONEST desire to learn and quit trying to play gotcha games with people. You don't have the requisite knowledge to succeed and you make yourself out as a troll.
If you TRULY want to learn, we'll teach you why we feel as we do. Come in showing your ass like you have so far and you'll continue to get it handed to you in discussion.
Your choice.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteSo this bad guy was beating someone with a bat, was illegally carrying a gun, it some how went off and was shot in the stomach?
Once again, a bad person was illegally carrying a gun and doing bad things to other people. Whats your point? That bad people don't care about the laws they break, no matter what they are? You really should read the articles before you post them.
Surely the point here is quite a simple one, that of "poetic justice", also know by some as "natural justice", or "Karma"?
i.e. the person carrying the firearm ended up being the person that got shot, whilst the person being beaten by the bat did not get shot?
But what do I know anyway?
The Jump Shop
Simply the Best Parachute Equipment
Simply the Best Parachute Equipment
Zach 0
QuoteQuote
I'm certainly no expert on the subject (it doesn't appear you need to be in this thread) but another difference between an "average," law abiding conceal/carrier and some of the countries mentioned might also be that a CHL holder will be highly unlikely to supply his/her firearm to a third party, with which they might then do harm to others.
Seems to be the same with countries, they do not typically share their nuclear technologies - even though it indeed happened in past (USSR/China). But when everyone has access to the weapons, why would they ever need that?
I see your point, but everyone does NOT have access to a CHL.
As to why they would need or want
Quote
I would argue that the most dangerous aspect of certain countries having nuclear/chemical/biological weapons is that they may be willing to supply others with those weapons (terrorist groups) who might enjoy the chance to use them.
Then why didn't it happen already? There are terrorist groups in Pakistan and India, there are (or were?) such groups in Russia and Japan, even France had its share - and all those countries maintain nuclear arsenal.
Your question is kind of silly. Just because something has yet to happen doesn't mean that it can't or won't. But I'll address it anyway.
Could be because I'm wrong, or maybe the "right" circumstances haven't come into play. The goals of the group with the weapon would have to coincide with the goals of the group that they give the weapon to. I never said that BECAUSE a country has wmds that it would follow that they WOULD supply them to others. If I was unclear I apologize, but I meant it as a possibility, given certain circumstances.
For example, if western-hating Iran acquired nuclear weapons, I would be less worried about them using them directly, as I would that they would give access to them to any number of western-hating terrorist groups. If they used them directly, they would certainly understand that there would be a good possibility that they would cease to exist by the end of the day.
Zach
Quote
I see your point, but everyone does NOT have access to a CHL.
Why? AFAIK access to CHL is only restricted by your actions, and it is not restricted just because you're black, you're poor or you believe in socialism.
Quote
As to why they would need or wantto do that: I would think it would be the same reason anyone fights a war by proxy, so they can achieve ends favorable to their goals, without technically being directly involved. I could be wrong about my inferences though.
The probability for someone starting nuclear war in modern world is very unlikely, so I wouldn't consider it a possibility. Especially in the proxy case, as the country being attacked can (and likely will) retaliate.
Quote
Could be because I'm wrong, or maybe the "right" circumstances haven't come into play. The goals of the group with the weapon would have to coincide with the goals of the group that they give the weapon to. I never said that BECAUSE a country has wmds that it would follow that they WOULD supply them to others. If I was unclear I apologize, but I meant it as a possibility, given certain circumstances.
Yes, this is one of good points. I can add a few more. A terrorist group which gets nuclear technologies becomes too dangerous for everyone around, so it guarantees pretty extreme manhunt and termination from any country. As in your example, Iran giving terrorists access to nuclear arsenal (a ballistic rocket with nuclear warhead is not something really transportable in a trunk), so if they decide to launch it, the retaliation strike will obviously hit Iran, and nobody will care (or have time for that) whether the strike was authorized by Iran government or by some terrorist group.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Quote
Nobody knows but the people who did it.
If you have different info, share it.
We can compare the number of gun owners who murdered others with a gun with the number of car owners who murdered others with a car.
Quote
If you want to talk about law enforcement, talk about law enforcement. If you want to talk about nations and wmds, then do so. If you want to talk about reasons for gun ownership, we're here for ya too.
Could you just PLEASE make up your fucking mind WHICH???
Apparently it was you who was saying that there is no difference between killing in car accident or being murdered by a gun, because it does not matter for the victim. I disagree with your logic, and the law also disagrees with you.
Quote
In YOUR opinion. I have little patience for trolls, and it's not like you weren't already in the Brady camp based on your posts.
Yes, in MY opinion, as you're discussing with me. But from other discussions on different topics I've got an opinion that you reply with the same hostility and rudeness to anyone who does not agree with your thoughts. If you have little patience, then you probably should avoid discussions with those who do not agree with your opinion, as you're only weakening your position, and hurting the reputation of those groups you claim to be in.
Quote
And I can imagine YOUR quotes on the NRA website with slogans like "Do you want THESE idiots to decide if you can protect yourself?"
The obvious difference, of course, is that in your case it doesn't matter if you do or not - we already can vote.
Quote
Now that we're done with the snark, here's a thought for you - come to the conversation with an HONEST desire to learn and quit trying to play gotcha games with people. You don't have the requisite knowledge to succeed and you make yourself out as a troll.
Well, if by "honest desire to learn" you mean that I need to ask you for what should I think about those massacres around, and accept your explanation without challenging it, then it will never happen. Maybe that's the way you learn, but it is not the same for everyone. As I said, if you don't like it, you don't have to reply to my posts; in fact you can just ignore them.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
kallend 2,027
What they seem to be suggesting with this comparison with cars is that firearms and firearms owners should be regulated in the same way cars and car owners are regulated. Tests, licenses, annual registration, mandatory insurance...
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Ron 10
QuoteRecent events, however, make me to reconsider this position. We had a few gun murders locally here in Bay Area, which although didn't make it up to Va Tech victim count, still were worrying. Both, by the way, happened in places which as far as I know did not restrict carrying guns
Might want to check again. Most offices do not allow you to carry at work. Also, if you are talking about the guy that set fire to the house... you might want to outlaw matches.
QuoteSo I am trying now to get the whole picture, and statements like "guns don't kill" are the least helpful here, and in fact make pro-gun people look pretty much like Brady people (who don't look smart by any means).
You don't seem to be trying to get anything. You asked for evidence of a person with a gun stopping a killing spree and I provided plenty of examples....You didn't accept them. You tried to cite examples like VA tech to prove your point, while ignoring that VA tech had rules that didn't allow a CHL person to be there with a firearm.
You don't really seem to be trying to get anything. And like it or not, guns don't kill, they are only tools.
QuoteAssistant Principal Joel Myrick. He did not stop a shooting spree, he arrested Woodham when he was leaving the school. You can speculate whether he was going to shoot more people
No, POLICE said he planned on going to the Jr, High next. He killed his mother and then drove to the school. He was trying to leave the school and he still had loaded weapons and extra bullets.
QuoteAnd it's basically the authority which was used, not a gun itself - Joel Myrick might have had a dummy or unloaded gun as well.
Maybe the dumbest thing ever written. If Myrick had walked up to the kid empty handed he most likely would have been killed just like the kids Mom and the two others he killed, or shot and wounded like the seven others.
And while he didn't have to fire... IT WAS STILL A GUN that stopped him. I never said you had to kill the attacker, or even shoot him. You just have to be ABLE to stop the attack and in this case Myrick did stop it... WITH A GUN.
QuoteAndrew Wurst shooting. This is more relevant, but still questionable example, as the buy was out of ammo, and reloading. Something like "Police! Freeze!" might have worked the same way. Same as above, it is authority which stopped the boy, not the gun - the gun might have been broken or unloaded, it didn't matter.
Good god... It is clear you just are not listening, and defiantly not trying to get anything. Yelling would not work.... I can't believe you can't grasp the simple fact that a crazy gunman is not going to stop when you ask.
QuotePeter Odighizuwa shooting was stopped by an armed police officer and county sheriff, and as I said before, a police officer is much more than average Joe with a gun.
And I and others are former military. That makes us more than the average Joe also. So your point is invalid.
QuoteThis is a conclusion based on what you have said, and I assume you have data to support YOUR statement, don't you?
I have, you have shown you are just going to make up BS like yelling stop will work.
QuoteThen the question is, how exactly the NRA statement like "gun ownership reduces crimes even for those who do not carry guns" work?
Because criminals don't know who is carrying. Simple really. And you have admitted that a criminal is not going to attack in a place he knows could have armed people.
It is pretty clear that you are not willing to listen. In each of the limited examples I have provided people with GUNS stopped attacks. The fact they didn't have to shoot or kill just proves the GUN did it and not tactics or lethal force.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
Nobody knows but the people who did it.
If you have different info, share it.
We can compare the number of gun owners who murdered others with a gun with the number of car owners who murdered others with a car.
By that logic, every one of those 40k drivers per year bought their car to murder someone.
QuoteQuote
Now that we're done with the snark, here's a thought for you - come to the conversation with an HONEST desire to learn and quit trying to play gotcha games with people. You don't have the requisite knowledge to succeed and you make yourself out as a troll.
Well, if by "honest desire to learn" you mean that I need to ask you for what should I think about those massacres around, and accept your explanation without challenging it, then it will never happen.
I don't recall saying that - but seeing as how you've been trying to put words in my mouth all fucking thread, I shouldn't be surprised.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteWhat they seem to be suggesting with this comparison with cars is that firearms and firearms owners should be regulated in the same way cars and car owners are regulated. Tests, licenses, annual registration, mandatory insurance...
So, what you're suggesting is... I can get one at 18, 15/16 with a hardship exemption after a (*very*) simple test. No background checks, no mental health checks.
I can carry it anywhere within the US with the one card, renewable every 4-6 years at a very minor fee. A violation is a simple ticket that comes off my record in 3 years, rather than a misdemeanor/felony.
That also means I can buy/carry anything from a derringer (economy car) to a fully automatic machine gun (corvette) - after all, once you have the license, you can buy any car you want.
I can buy as many as I want and keep them however I want - just like cars. No 'one gun per month'. No special "FOID".
I can *BUILD* any gun I want, just like I can build a street legal car. And, as long as I keep it on my own property, I don't need your 'license' at all.
Where do I sign up?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteWhat they seem to be suggesting with this comparison with cars is that firearms and firearms owners should be regulated in the same way cars and car owners are regulated. Tests, licenses, annual registration, mandatory insurance...
So, what you're suggesting is... I can get one at 18, 15/16 with a hardship exemption after a (*very*) simple test. No background checks, no mental health checks.
I can carry it anywhere within the US with the one card, renewable every 4-6 years at a very minor fee. A violation is a simple ticket that comes off my record in 3 years, rather than a misdemeanor/felony.
That also means I can buy/carry anything from a derringer (economy car) to a fully automatic machine gun (corvette) - after all, once you have the license, you can buy any car you want.
I can buy as many as I want and keep them however I want - just like cars. No 'one gun per month'. No special "FOID".
I can *BUILD* any gun I want, just like I can build a street legal car. And, as long as I keep it on my own property, I don't need your 'license' at all.
Where do I sign up?
Yep, and your "street legal" gun would need to be approved before you could register it, it would need to be regularly inspected for compliance, and carry liability insurance.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat they seem to be suggesting with this comparison with cars is that firearms and firearms owners should be regulated in the same way cars and car owners are regulated. Tests, licenses, annual registration, mandatory insurance...
So, what you're suggesting is... I can get one at 18, 15/16 with a hardship exemption after a (*very*) simple test. No background checks, no mental health checks.
I can carry it anywhere within the US with the one card, renewable every 4-6 years at a very minor fee. A violation is a simple ticket that comes off my record in 3 years, rather than a misdemeanor/felony.
That also means I can buy/carry anything from a derringer (economy car) to a fully automatic machine gun (corvette) - after all, once you have the license, you can buy any car you want.
I can buy as many as I want and keep them however I want - just like cars. No 'one gun per month'. No special "FOID".
I can *BUILD* any gun I want, just like I can build a street legal car. And, as long as I keep it on my own property, I don't need your 'license' at all.
Where do I sign up?
Yep, and your "street legal" gun would need to be approved before you could register it, it would need to be regularly inspected for compliance, and carry liability insurance.
Simple safety check, and homeowner's policies cover liability - both *only* applicable if I take it on the street.
No regulations on how I store it or *if* I have to store it at all. Same for ammunition. No 'assault weapon ban' or any ban at all, for that matter - Chicago and NYC will have to allow them. No denials for prior criminal records, either. No 'bar bans' or 'school bans' or 'gov't property' bans.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 2,998
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>No regulations on how I store it or *if* I have to store it at all.
Provided you store it in your home and don't take it out - agreed.
> Same for ammunition.
Sure. It just has to be sold in approved stores (following state safety regulations.)
> No 'assault weapon ban' or any ban at all, for that matter - Chicago and
>NYC will have to allow them.
Eh, no, sorry there. Each state will have its own regulations, although most guns will be legal in most places. In some places you'll have to "park" it before entering the facility/area. In other places only long guns will be allowed, or guns with safeties.
> No denials for prior criminal records, either.
Oh, you'll be able to "lose your license" for everything from improper operation, to too many infractions while you're using it, to not paying for its storage when you're in a prohibited areas.
>No 'bar bans' or 'school bans' or 'gov't property' bans.
Again, sorry. You can't drive through an airport or a school playground. You'll have to find a nearby legal storage facility before entering.
This idea that "guns should be like cars" falls squarely under the old adage of "be careful what you wish for - you might get it."
Provided you store it in your home and don't take it out - agreed.
> Same for ammunition.
Sure. It just has to be sold in approved stores (following state safety regulations.)
> No 'assault weapon ban' or any ban at all, for that matter - Chicago and
>NYC will have to allow them.
Eh, no, sorry there. Each state will have its own regulations, although most guns will be legal in most places. In some places you'll have to "park" it before entering the facility/area. In other places only long guns will be allowed, or guns with safeties.
> No denials for prior criminal records, either.
Oh, you'll be able to "lose your license" for everything from improper operation, to too many infractions while you're using it, to not paying for its storage when you're in a prohibited areas.
>No 'bar bans' or 'school bans' or 'gov't property' bans.
Again, sorry. You can't drive through an airport or a school playground. You'll have to find a nearby legal storage facility before entering.
This idea that "guns should be like cars" falls squarely under the old adage of "be careful what you wish for - you might get it."
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat they seem to be suggesting with this comparison with cars is that firearms and firearms owners should be regulated in the same way cars and car owners are regulated. Tests, licenses, annual registration, mandatory insurance...
So, what you're suggesting is... I can get one at 18, 15/16 with a hardship exemption after a (*very*) simple test. No background checks, no mental health checks.
I can carry it anywhere within the US with the one card, renewable every 4-6 years at a very minor fee. A violation is a simple ticket that comes off my record in 3 years, rather than a misdemeanor/felony.
That also means I can buy/carry anything from a derringer (economy car) to a fully automatic machine gun (corvette) - after all, once you have the license, you can buy any car you want.
I can buy as many as I want and keep them however I want - just like cars. No 'one gun per month'. No special "FOID".
I can *BUILD* any gun I want, just like I can build a street legal car. And, as long as I keep it on my own property, I don't need your 'license' at all.
Where do I sign up?
Yep, and your "street legal" gun would need to be approved before you could register it, it would need to be regularly inspected for compliance, and carry liability insurance.
Simple safety check, and homeowner's policies cover liability - both *only* applicable if I take it on the street.
No regulations on how I store it or *if* I have to store it at all. Same for ammunition. No 'assault weapon ban' or any ban at all, for that matter - Chicago and NYC will have to allow them. No denials for prior criminal records, either. No 'bar bans' or 'school bans' or 'gov't property' bans.
I can't drive my car into a schoolhouse, bar, supermarket or courtroom, and clearly the test and criteria would be tailored to the situation.
I think "assault" weapons bans are silly, just as I think people are immature who want to own "scary" looking weapons.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat they seem to be suggesting with this comparison with cars is that firearms and firearms owners should be regulated in the same way cars and car owners are regulated. Tests, licenses, annual registration, mandatory insurance...
So, what you're suggesting is... I can get one at 18, 15/16 with a hardship exemption after a (*very*) simple test. No background checks, no mental health checks.
I can carry it anywhere within the US with the one card, renewable every 4-6 years at a very minor fee. A violation is a simple ticket that comes off my record in 3 years, rather than a misdemeanor/felony.
That also means I can buy/carry anything from a derringer (economy car) to a fully automatic machine gun (corvette) - after all, once you have the license, you can buy any car you want.
I can buy as many as I want and keep them however I want - just like cars. No 'one gun per month'. No special "FOID".
I can *BUILD* any gun I want, just like I can build a street legal car. And, as long as I keep it on my own property, I don't need your 'license' at all.
Where do I sign up?
Yep, and your "street legal" gun would need to be approved before you could register it, it would need to be regularly inspected for compliance, and carry liability insurance.
No inspections for "compliance" for cars needed here in Iowa sir. I do have my vehicles licensed but we all know that is for tax reasons only. Nothing to do with the legality of owning one to begin with.
Oh yes, I can buy a used car with no inspections here. As it should be. Iowa dropped the inspections bullshit years ago because it was a waste of time. Still gotta do it in IL?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
So I guess you get to define "scary"????QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat they seem to be suggesting with this comparison with cars is that firearms and firearms owners should be regulated in the same way cars and car owners are regulated. Tests, licenses, annual registration, mandatory insurance...
So, what you're suggesting is... I can get one at 18, 15/16 with a hardship exemption after a (*very*) simple test. No background checks, no mental health checks.
I can carry it anywhere within the US with the one card, renewable every 4-6 years at a very minor fee. A violation is a simple ticket that comes off my record in 3 years, rather than a misdemeanor/felony.
That also means I can buy/carry anything from a derringer (economy car) to a fully automatic machine gun (corvette) - after all, once you have the license, you can buy any car you want.
I can buy as many as I want and keep them however I want - just like cars. No 'one gun per month'. No special "FOID".
I can *BUILD* any gun I want, just like I can build a street legal car. And, as long as I keep it on my own property, I don't need your 'license' at all.
Where do I sign up?
Yep, and your "street legal" gun would need to be approved before you could register it, it would need to be regularly inspected for compliance, and carry liability insurance.
Simple safety check, and homeowner's policies cover liability - both *only* applicable if I take it on the street.
No regulations on how I store it or *if* I have to store it at all. Same for ammunition. No 'assault weapon ban' or any ban at all, for that matter - Chicago and NYC will have to allow them. No denials for prior criminal records, either. No 'bar bans' or 'school bans' or 'gov't property' bans.
I can't drive my car into a schoolhouse, bar, supermarket or courtroom, and clearly the test and criteria would be tailored to the situation.
I think "assault" weapons bans are silly, just as I think people are immature who want to own "scary" looking weapons.
Ya, I suppose YOU would think that way. Just as YOU think you can (better than others) define immature.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
dks13827 3
Guns = bad ![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
Gun bans = good 
a simple minded concept for simple minded folk.
mnealtx 0
Quote>No regulations on how I store it or *if* I have to store it at all.
Provided you store it in your home and don't take it out - agreed.
Incorrect. As long as I'm on my own property, or someone else's private property, I'm good.
Quote> Same for ammunition.
Sure. It just has to be sold in approved stores (following state safety regulations.)
No different than what we have now.
Quote> No 'assault weapon ban' or any ban at all, for that matter - Chicago and
>NYC will have to allow them.
Eh, no, sorry there. Each state will have its own regulations, although most guns will be legal in most places. In some places you'll have to "park" it before entering the facility/area. In other places only long guns will be allowed, or guns with safeties.
Disagree - nice attempt to tie to restrictions due to weight/size limits on various vehicles, though. I can drive my Texas car with my Texas DL to Chicago, NYC, etc...
Quote> No denials for prior criminal records, either.
Oh, you'll be able to "lose your license" for everything from improper operation, to too many infractions while you're using it, to not paying for its storage when you're in a prohibited areas.
As I said before, a cheap ticket that comes off the record in 3 yrs, vs what we have now...and just what would those infractions be? Virtually all the current gun laws would no longer be valid as malum prohibitum would no longer apply.
Quote>No 'bar bans' or 'school bans' or 'gov't property' bans.
Again, sorry. You can't drive through an airport or a school playground. You'll have to find a nearby legal storage facility before entering.
Wrong - I can drive a vehicle to a bar, and I can drive a vehicle within 500 feet of a school. Nice attempt, though.
QuoteThis idea that "guns should be like cars" falls squarely under the old adage of "be careful what you wish for - you might get it."
Which is why you don't hardly see the anti's mentioning it, anymore - it would be a HUGE blow to their goals.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I agree that JR should have specified that his percentages were for a single year. However - you have NO way to show that ANY of those guns were used in a murder, whether before or after that year.
The reverse is, of course, also true - there's no way for us to show that a used gun, now owned by a law abiding individual, *wasn't* used for some sort of crime at some point in the past, although I'm pretty doubtful that a murderer is going to be dropping the pistol that he just shot 3 people with off at the pawnshop.
And, there's ALSO a couple mistakes that all 3 of us have made:
1. That all the 'murder guns' are from the number estimated by BATF. Unless I'm mistaken, the BATF numbers are for legally owned guns. I would be willing to make a wager that most of the 'murder guns' for that year were not among those poll respondents.
2. Assuming #1 is true, and that all the 'murder guns' WERE legally owned prior to the murders, that all the murders were done by individual weapons - this is certainly not the case.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites