Man shot with own gun

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

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.

You *can*, however, drive your car anyplace open to the public...within 500 ft of a school, for example.

"Well, I can't physically drive my car through the doors of the supermarket, so you couldn't carry there" - let's not get *TOO* idiotically slavish to the car=gun idea, ok?

The operative point is that 'treating guns like cars' would effectively erase the overwhelming majority of firearms laws and would 'level the field' in regards to CCW reciprocity between states.

Quote

I think "assault" weapons bans are silly, just as I think people are immature who want to own "scary" looking weapons.

If "scary" is their only reason for wanting one, I agree it is just as silly as the ban.

Of course, when we talking about 'evil black rifles' or 'scary black rifles', it's to tweak the noses of the ban supporters.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

By that logic, every one of those 40k drivers per year bought their car to murder someone.

Nope. You again pretend to ignore the difference between murder and accidental killing.

Quote

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.

That's a direct consequence of your position, which is based on being vague on everything, and avoiding confirming anything. People have hard time to understand what you're really saying.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

By that logic, every one of those 40k drivers per year bought their car to murder someone.

Nope. You again pretend to ignore the difference between murder and accidental killing.

And again you pretend to know exactly what was going through someone's mind when they bought an item.

Quote

Quote

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.

That's a direct consequence of your position, which is based on being vague on everything, and avoiding confirming anything. People have hard time to understand what you're really saying.

Odd - nobody ELSE had any problems with comprehension. Maybe it's just you.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Quote

Nope. You again pretend to ignore the difference between murder and accidental killing.

And again you pretend to know exactly what was going through someone's mind when they bought an item.

No, I do not - that's why I'm asking you to compare the numbers of cars used to murder someone versus number of guns used to murder someone. Which, of course, you avoided saying that "it doesn't matter for victim whether they were murdered by a gun or by a car". This is, of course, completely meaningless statement, but I admit it takes some thought to understand that - probably even a high school education may be required.

Quote

Odd - nobody ELSE had any problems with comprehension. Maybe it's just you.

Wow. So how many people did you ask?

P.S. It looks more and more to me that gun owners have a huge paranoia that everyone else who is not a gun owner is there only for one purpose - to take their guns away, and those anti-gun people spend all their time and effort to get to that point. Are they all like this, or we just had a non-representative sample?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Nope. You again pretend to ignore the difference between murder and accidental killing.

And again you pretend to know exactly what was going through someone's mind when they bought an item.

No, I do not - that's why I'm asking you to compare the numbers of cars used to murder someone versus number of guns used to murder someone.

Sure about that? Because upthread, that's EXACTLY what you said about the gun owners - that they bought the guns to commit murder. You have no way to know that, absent confession of the murderer. The same thing holds true for autos - something you are unwilling or unable to grasp.

Quote

but I admit it takes some thought to understand that - probably even a high school education may be required.

No wonder you're having problems, then.

Quote

Quote

Odd - nobody ELSE had any problems with comprehension. Maybe it's just you.

Wow. So how many people did you ask?

You're the only one griping about it - QED.

Quote

a huge paranoia that everyone else who is not a gun owner is there only for one purpose - to take their guns away

More *ass*umptions.

Quote

and those anti-gun people spend all their time and effort to get to that point. Are they all like this, or we just had a non-representative sample?

When you're waddling around quacking, I'm gonna call you "Daffy". Don't like the nickname, change the behavior.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Sure about that? Because upthread, that's EXACTLY what you said about the gun owners - that they bought the guns to commit murder.

And some of them indeed did, and committed murder.

Quote

You have no way to know that, absent confession of the murderer. The same thing holds true for autos - something you are unwilling or unable to grasp.

We don't need their confessions. I agree to count all the cases when someone used a car to murder (but not accidentally kill) someone as those who bought a car to use it for murder, and count all the cases when someone used a gun to murder (but not accidentally shot) someone as those who bought a gun to use it for murder. No confession needed.

Quote

No wonder you're having problems, then.

Sure I have, I got university degree and it's hard to explain things in a way understandable to someone without a high school education :D

Quote

You're the only one griping about it - QED.

Ok, so you didn't ask anyone. You should try; maybe they're just being polite.

Quote

More *ass*umptions.

This was a questions (and I do not need your answer, it is obvious anyway what would it be)

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

We don't need their confessions. I agree to count all the cases when someone used a car to murder (but not accidentally kill) someone as those who bought a car to use it for murder, and count all the cases when someone used a gun to murder (but not accidentally shot) someone as those who bought a gun to use it for murder. No confession needed.

You STILL can't understand that it's the criminal and not the tool, can you? If someone is determined to murder, they're going to murder. The presence of a gun isn't going to make a difference in that respect.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,998]

>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...

Sure. Now try driving your ATV to work, or your commercial pickup on the Southern State Parkway. How about that unregistered, uninsured car that's been in your garage for the past six years?

Like I said, some of your guns might be legal in many places, but the state will decide that for you.

>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?

The usual. No silencer, inoperative safety, firing more than ten rounds per hour, no insurance, no ID markings, no license, handling while under the influence. That sort of thing.

>Wrong - I can drive a vehicle to a bar, and I can drive a vehicle within
>500 feet of a school. Nice attempt, though.

Right. You'll be able to keep your gun on you as long as you stay in the street. Just don't try to go into that bar, or onto the playground. Guns aren't allowed there, just as cars aren't.

>Which is why you don't hardly see the anti's mentioning it, anymore -
>it would be a HUGE blow to their goals.

Or the gun nuts. Even they know how stupid it would be.

[Ron 10]

Quote

I think "assault" weapons bans are silly, just as I think people are immature who want to own "scary" looking weapons.

Your ignorance is showing. For Pro gunners, it is not how they look, it is a matter of functionality. For Anti's it is "scary looking" issues based on fear.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

You don't need a background check to buy a car from a dealer, but you do need a background check to buy a gun from a dealer.

No one is trying to make it so you HAVE to buy a used car from a dealer.... Yet people are trying to make it so you have to go through an FFL to buy any gun.

You do need a license to drive it on public streets, and you need a license to carry on public streets.

There are no bans on TYPES of cars... you want a Corvette, you can buy one, and they can still be made. You can't buy a 50 cal in CA, and you can't own a MG in IL.

I can drive my car in ANY of the 50 States to include DC. Yet I can't carry in all of them.

Your comparisons are getting worse.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,998]

>You don't need a background check to buy a car from a dealer . . .

You generally do around here. Before the car leaves the lot, they take a copy of your license to their DMV service to get plates for it. If the license isn't valid, or is suspended or something, no car. (OTOH you can get one of their approved towing companies to tow the car on a flatbed somewhere.)

>I can drive my car in ANY of the 50 States to include DC.

That's because you have a certain type of car that's allowed everywhere. My next door neighbor can't drive his sand buggy on most streets, and I couldn't drive my old Mazda on the Southern State Parkway. That's up to the state.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

I think "assault" weapons bans are silly, just as I think people are immature who want to own "scary" looking weapons.

Your ignorance is showing. For Pro gunners, it is not how they look, it is a matter of functionality. For Anti's it is "scary looking" issues based on fear.

I took the adjective "scary" from previous posts by "pro gunners", describing these weapons. Links available on request

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

You don't need a background check to buy a car from a dealer, but you do need a background check to buy a gun from a dealer.

No one is trying to make it so you HAVE to buy a used car from a dealer.... Yet people are trying to make it so you have to go through an FFL to buy any gun.

You do need a license to drive it on public streets, and you need a license to carry on public streets.

There are no bans on TYPES of cars... you want a Corvette, you can buy one, and they can still be made. You can't buy a 50 cal in CA, and you can't own a MG in IL.

I can drive my car in ANY of the 50 States to include DC. Yet I can't carry in all of them.

Your comparisons are getting worse.

WRONG.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

You generally do around here. Before the car leaves the lot, they take a copy of your license to their DMV service to get plates for it. If the license isn't valid, or is suspended or something, no car. (OTOH you can get one of their approved towing companies to tow the car on a flatbed somewhere.)

Thats not a background check. That is a license check. And you even stated you CAN buy and take the car... You just can't drive it home.

That would be comparable to me being able to buy a gun, but not slip it in my holster for the way home... I'd have to carry it in the case.

Quote

That's because you have a certain type of car that's allowed everywhere.

Name the type of gun that can be taken everywhere. Cause I don't know the type of gun I can carry in DC, Chicago, or LA legally with my FL permit.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,998]

>Thats not a background check. That is a license check.

Call it whatever you want. If you lose your license due to crimes, they'll know. Seems like semantics to me; your background has been checked.

> And you even stated you CAN buy and take the car... You just can't drive it home.

Right - or ever use it in public.

>Name the type of gun that can be taken everywhere.

None! Nor can any type of car be _driven_ anywhere. Again, try driving through an airport. You're not going to be able to do it with your Chevy, but you might be able to do it in a golf cart.

But many types of cars can be driven in many places.

[Ron 10]

Quote

I took the adjective "scary" from previous posts by "pro gunners", describing these weapons.

Yes, and those people have already stated they used that term to tick off your ilk.... Links available on request .

Here is one just for fun: http://www.spectacle.org/0304/assault.html

Quote

Gun advocates call it the “scary weapons ban,” because the law primarily regulates certain cosmetic features.

Also, Feinstein was on record saying how she came up with the weapons that she wanted to ban by name was by flipping through a gun catalog and banning the ones that "looked" the same. This is where the phrase came from.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

WRONG.

Show me where.... Or stop acting like the 5 year old in the NO stage.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Call it whatever you want. If you lose your license due to crimes, they'll know. Seems like semantics to me; your background has been checked.

Big difference between a license check and a criminal background check. You know it, you just do not want to admit it.

Quote

Right - or ever use it in public.

And that AGAIN is a big difference. You can use the car on private land, yet with BANS you can't even own the item.

Quote

None! Nor can any type of car be _driven_ anywhere.

I can drive my car on any public road in all 50 States and DC. Name one type of gun I can carry in public areas in all 50 States and DC.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,998]

>Big difference between a license check and a criminal background check.

I'll let you argue semantics with yourself.

The "guns should be regulated like cars" analogy is a stupid one, and you would not like the result. Guns aren't cars, and cars are pretty heavily regulated. Again, it falls squarely in the "be careful what you wish for, you might get it" category.

[Ron 10]

Quote

I'll let you argue semantics with yourself.

It is not semantics. You just know you can't defend your position so you are trying to claim it is.... thats fine, you can run away and claim victory if you must. But it does not change the facts at all.

Quote

The "guns should be regulated like cars" analogy is a stupid one

Never claimed it was great one.

But I do see that you can't answer my questions without BS, so you distort and avoid.

Like I asked before I can drive my car on any public road in all 50 States and DC. Name one type of gun I can carry in public areas in all 50 States and DC.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I took the adjective "scary" from previous posts by "pro gunners", describing these weapons. Links available on request

And *we* took the idea of it from the antis.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

I took the adjective "scary" from previous posts by "pro gunners", describing these weapons. Links available on request

And *we* took the idea of it from the antis.

No, you PROJECTED it.

Your (plural) previous argument was that assault weapons bans were unjustified because they were based on appearance and not functionality. Now you seem to have reversed course (at least, Ron has).

You are making up your own facts to suit the moment.

(And just for the sake of completeness, I have never supported an "assault weapons" ban, I think it's rather silly, but not for the knee-jerk reasons you and Ron invent).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I took the adjective "scary" from previous posts by "pro gunners", describing these weapons. Links available on request

And *we* took the idea of it from the antis.

No, you PROJECTED it.

Your (plural) previous argument was that assault weapons bans were unjustified because they were based on appearance and not functionality. Now you seem to have reversed course (at least, Ron has).

You are making up your own facts to suit the moment.

Wrong and wrong - unless, of course, you are asserting that 'scary black rifle' refers to it's function and not it's appearance.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Ron 10]

Quote

Now you seem to have reversed course (at least, Ron has).

You would actually have to start reading what I write to know what I have said.... Either that, or your reading comprehension needs work. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just ignore and pretend.

Quote

Your (plural) previous argument was that assault weapons bans were unjustified because they were based on appearance and not functionality.

Nope, I have said it was STUPID and did nothing to prevent crime since many of the items that defined an "assault" weapon were cosmetic or stupid. The 94 AWB banned:

Quote

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

The stock and grip do NOTHING to change how dangerous the weapon is.

When was the last time you heard of a mass stabbing with fixed bayonets?

Flash suppressors don't make the weapon more dangerous... people who have shot both know that the difference really only matters on Full Auto, and that is slight at best.

Grenade Launchers..... Really!!!!!! When was the last time you saw a gangbanger launching grenades? They are already illegal.

Plus the dumbest thing of all.... you cold have TWO of the items and be fine.

So yeah, it was an indescribably stupid law that studies have shown did NOTHING to reduce crime.

That is a different track than your claims of immaturity and desire being dumb.

But you are not willing to admit that you actually don't know something, so you will continue to make up things that were never said, dodge answering simple questions, and jump to unsupported conclusions like you always do.

Really.... For some odd reason you are incapable of logic when it comes to politics.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Zach 0]

Quote

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 want to 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.

1) I never mentioned anything about black people, poor people, or socialists when I commented about CHLs.

2) I never mentioned anyone starting a nuclear war... I was referring to a country providing a terrorist group with a (most likely) small yield, relatively easily transportable nuclear device, but it could just as easily be some sort of dirty bomb. The idea being that this country and the terrorist group would both have issue with some third party, and the country providing the weapon could enjoy the benefits of its use without being the one to actually pull the trigger, as it were.

And 3) When I mentioned Iran giving a terrorist group access to a nuclear WEAPON, not the their entire nuclear ARSENAL, I again was referring, not to a ballistic missile, but to a small device capable of being delivered in a car say, or a cargo container. I was intentionally not trying to be too specific, but thought I was being clearer than I apparently was.

3b) When you say "pretty extreme manhunt," do you mean more or less extreme than the one for Bin Laden? (Kind of rhetorical question)

I guess I don't have the skills many on this site do, to be able to clearly state my point, because you seem to be misinterpreting some of what I'm saying. For that reason, and because I'm going to be enjoying my second amendment rights long after this thread is forgotten, I give up.

Merry Christmas,
Zach