rushmc 23 #176 February 23, 2012 QuoteQuote How many MORE do we need to have? There's already over 20 THOUSAND gun laws on the books. NO MORE are needed. Fewer, better, less easily circumvented laws are needed. Quote QuoteNo firearms to people with a history of domestic violence, nor to ex-cons nor those with mental disorders that tend to lead to violence against others. That's already law, and part of the NICS check at the federal level. . A check that is easily circumvented and therefore ineffective. What do you propose?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #177 February 23, 2012 You do realize that the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters to take over the planes, don't you? If they can take over a plane with a $1.99 box cutter, what makes you think someone couldn't carjack with one? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #178 February 23, 2012 Quote Quote Quote How many MORE do we need to have? There's already over 20 THOUSAND gun laws on the books. NO MORE are needed. Fewer, better, less easily circumvented laws are needed. Fewer/better, I agree with - you've still not provided any proof of the circumvention you keep claiming. Quote Quote No firearms to people with a history of domestic violence, nor to ex-cons nor those with mental disorders that tend to lead to violence against others. That's already law, and part of the NICS check at the federal level. . A check that is easily circumvented and therefore ineffective. And I'll believe that as soon as you FINALLY provide some proof of it. Easy. Since a NICS check is NOT required of all purchases, it's easy to circumvent. Jeez!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #179 February 23, 2012 QuoteYou do realize that the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters to take over the planes, don't you? If they can take over a plane with a $1.99 box cutter, what makes you think someone couldn't carjack with one? His version has the "jacker" outside the vehicle, your has the "jacker" inside the vehicle, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #180 February 23, 2012 QuoteQuoteYou do realize that the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters to take over the planes, don't you? If they can take over a plane with a $1.99 box cutter, what makes you think someone couldn't carjack with one? His version has the "jacker" outside the vehicle, your has the "jacker" inside the vehicle, When someone wants to "jack" something, they will find a way. Makes no difference if they have a gun or not. Unless you are going to claim that "jacking" only began with the invention of the gun. Ever hear of "Highwaymen"? Quote Man Shot Trying to Hijack a Train Armed with a bow and arrow, he's arrested after seizing a freight engine in Montclair, police say. October 11, 2005|Susannah Rosenblatt | Times Staff Writer A man armed with a bow and arrow who commandeered a Union Pacific freight train stopped in Montclair on Sunday night was shot and wounded by police, authorities said. Juventino Vallejo-Camerena, 43, of Pomona climbed onto one of the train's two locomotives about 10:45 p.m. and threatened the two crew members with a bow and arrow, Union Pacific spokesman Mark Davis said. The engineer and conductor fled the train, which was stopped at a signal, and cut off fuel to the engine with an emergency button outside the cab. They were not harmed, Davis said. Alone in the cab, Vallejo-Camerena refused to drop his bow and arrow after Montclair police officers ordered him to do so, said Capt. Keith Jones, spokesman for the department. He nocked and pointed the arrow at officers on the scene, near Monte Vista Avenue in western San Bernardino County, and threatened to take over the train, Jones said. Police then shot Vallejo-Camerena in the wrist and upper arm, according to a Montclair Police report. The attempted train-jacking was "the first time I remember in 25 years something like this ever happening," Davis said. "How many times does somebody come and take over a train with a bow and arrow?" Vallejo-Camerena was arrested on suspicion of train robbery, assault with a deadly weapon and resisting arrest, and was treated for non-life-threatening wounds at Chino Valley Medical Center. He is in custody at West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga, Jones said. Authorities said Vallejo-Camerena was homeless and the did not disclose whether they knew why he tried to hijack the train. Railroad police are assisting the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department with the investigation, Davis said. Locomotives are not equipped with locking devices on doors, which could jeopardize the crew's safety if they needed to escape a train in an emergency, he said. The 71-car train was hauling retail goods from Salt Lake City to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Davis said. Sunday night's incident did not cause any major delays, he said. http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/11/local/me-trainbandit11 Good thing someone had a gun to stop him. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #181 February 24, 2012 Quote Good thing someone had a gun to stop him. . whether someone (else) uses a gun for a nutjob killing, or if someone (else) uses a gun to save a baby from a terrorist doesn't matter to me in these debates I have the right to own property and the reason doesn't matter one single bit to anyone but me. Restricting that right just because someone else doesn't like me owning something that I can own responsibly is just plain horrible. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #182 February 24, 2012 QuoteWhat do you think the gun o phobes would think about this? In Iowa in 2010 179,000 hunting licenses were issued (two died) I think we should have a memorial service and an ash dive for those two licenses.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #183 February 24, 2012 Let's see... you're from South Africa, a country that has some of the strictiest gun control laws in the world, as well as one of the highest crime rates in the world. And the gun laws make it such a hassle for a law-abiding person like yourself to own a legal gun, that you don't bother going through all the expense, trouble and bureaucracy to own one for your own self defense. Is this situation your idea of a model of effective gun control laws? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #184 February 24, 2012 Quote Still doesn't make sense. If I put a balloon on one table and a gun on the table next to it. I doubt any rational thinking person is going to say both tables hold the same risks, regardless of who is at the end of each object. Both can be used to murder a person, but one is far far more likely to. You're talking like a true gun-o-phobe here. Why didn't you use baby aspirin in your example instead of balloons? THAT'S what makes no sense. I guess I am irrational. A balloon and a tank sitting on the table present the same risks....none. Put a person in the mix and all bets are off. Quote The gun equalizes the odds for the defender, just as it sometimes aids the attacker. Quote Not everyone should have to feel as though they need to. Idealistic but yes, I agree with that. Quote You're also looking at the problem backwards, instead of trying to work to remove the problem, you're aiming at ways to deal with it. I like your use of the word 'aiming'. Meso, please don't tell me that you think banning guns will eliminate "the problem". What that will do is create a bigger problem...for all those newly disarmed citizens being victimized by the crooks who could give a shit about stupid laws. You want to continue to be a potential victim? Have at it. Do NOT tell me that I have to join you in your dreamland. Quote Instead of focusing on defence, logic would say it would make more sense to focus on removing to opposing offence. Again, the logic is flawed here. Your logic seems to assume that some law is going to remove the crooks offense. Good luck with that. ...and you forget one small detail....we do have constitutional rights. You're not going to remove anything until the entire country goes to Hell....we're trying, but we just aren't quite there yet.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #185 February 24, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote How many MORE do we need to have? There's already over 20 THOUSAND gun laws on the books. NO MORE are needed. Fewer, better, less easily circumvented laws are needed. Fewer/better, I agree with - you've still not provided any proof of the circumvention you keep claiming. Quote Quote No firearms to people with a history of domestic violence, nor to ex-cons nor those with mental disorders that tend to lead to violence against others. That's already law, and part of the NICS check at the federal level. . A check that is easily circumvented and therefore ineffective. And I'll believe that as soon as you FINALLY provide some proof of it. Easy. Since a NICS check is NOT required of all purchases, it's easy to circumvent. Jeez!That lame old strawman? Even the clothes are you tattered you can't get the stuffing to stay.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #186 February 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhat do you think the gun o phobes would think about this? In Iowa in 2010 179,000 hunting licenses were issued (two died) I think we should have a memorial service and an ash dive for those two licenses. LOL"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #187 February 24, 2012 Quotewhether someone (else) uses a gun for a nutjob killing, or if someone (else) uses a gun to save a baby from a terrorist doesn't matter to me in these debates I have the right to own property and the reason doesn't matter one single bit to anyone but me. Restricting that right just because someone else doesn't like me owning something that I can own responsibly is just plain horrible. Now there is a statement I can agree with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #188 February 24, 2012 QuoteWhen someone wants to "jack" something, they will find a way. Makes no difference if they have a gun or not. Unless you are going to claim that "jacking" only began with the invention of the gun. Ever hear of "Highwaymen"? Sigh, dude if you can't see the difference between the two scenarios, I can't help you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #189 February 24, 2012 QuoteThe better a tool is at killing, the more rules, regulations and laws are involved Like stated already, cars kill more people than guns each year by a significant number. Alcohol kills more people each year by a significant number. QuoteComparing apples to oranges. Just because currently more people are being killed by motor vehicles compared to firearms does not mean the motor vehicle is a more effective killing tool. The fact it kills more does in fact mean exactly that..... You can pretend otherwise, but the numbers show you to be wrong. QuoteWhy is it that the pro-gun crowd cannot even admit that firearms are more effective killing tools than bats, knives, cars, ballpoints, paperclips etc.? Why is it the anti-gun crowd refuses to admit that most gun owners don't do anything wrong? Why is it that the anti-gun crowd refuses to understand that a criminal is not going to follow the law and register/not carry/not use certain calibers/fillout forms/get a license... etc? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #190 February 24, 2012 QuoteAll US penis owners are registered at or shortly after birth. Doesn't prevent rape though. A PERFECT answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #191 February 24, 2012 QuoteOf course I am worried about the object. And yet when people say you have an irrational fear of guns you claim that it is not true. Fact is that I am more worried about the ATTACKER than the weapon. Because a gun by itself does absolutely nothing. http://montego.roughwheelers.com/gun_cam.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #192 February 24, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote How many MORE do we need to have? There's already over 20 THOUSAND gun laws on the books. NO MORE are needed. Fewer, better, less easily circumvented laws are needed. Fewer/better, I agree with - you've still not provided any proof of the circumvention you keep claiming. Quote Quote No firearms to people with a history of domestic violence, nor to ex-cons nor those with mental disorders that tend to lead to violence against others. That's already law, and part of the NICS check at the federal level. . A check that is easily circumvented and therefore ineffective. And I'll believe that as soon as you FINALLY provide some proof of it. Easy. Since a NICS check is NOT required of all purchases, it's easy to circumvent. Jeez! That lame old strawman? Even the clothes are you tattered you can't get the stuffing to stay. Are you claiming that a NICS check is required of ALL gun purchases? Or is it just that you still don't know the definition of a strawman? Maybe you're thinking of "straw purchase", a common way for disqualified people to buy a gun while evading a background check.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #193 February 24, 2012 QuoteAnd cannot just say 'guns are not dangerous, the people behind them are'. Yes you can.... A gun by itself does NOTHING. QuoteYes a baseball bat can kill, yes a knife can kill, yes a box cutter can kill... But you're going to struggle to find a criminal who would attempt to hijack a car with these objects. In hijackings especially, a gun is almost the only effective way to commit the crime. The 9/11 hijackers didn't have a single gun. QuoteFact of the matter is a gun does make crime a much easier action for criminals and in most cases if it weren't for the gun the victim on the other end would stand a much better chance at running away or defending themselves. And if the 'victim' were armed they would also have a much better chance at protecting themselves. Quoterestrictions need to exist to prevent these weapons from getting into the hands of criminals. No firearms to people with a history of domestic violence, nor to ex-cons nor those with mental disorders that tend to lead to violence against others. We already have these rules.... The criminals ignore them. QuoteHonestly, I think that guns should come with GPS tracking, not sure how but in a way that makes it extremely difficult to remove. Granted there would need to be strict privacy laws that require that tracking only take place once a gun is reported stolen by the owner 1. With a govt that is bugging phone calls on its citizens without a warrant already.... Already a clear violation, you think that this would not be abused? 2. The original intent of the 2nd was to be able to be armed AGAINST the govt. Giving them the ability to track you down is not exactly inline with the intent of the 2nd. QuoteGuns are fine given that there is an obvious effort and regulations stated that keeps them out of the hands of people who are a danger with them. I am fine with regulations and laws to keep guns out of criminals hands... What I am not fine with is rules that hurt citizens that have not been proven guilty of anything. I'd rather just tag the criminals with GPS devices. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #194 February 24, 2012 Quote A check that is easily circumvented and therefore ineffective. Not really. A criminal can't fillout a 4473 and walk out with a gun. And you still have not provided your 'plan' on how to stop criminals without trashing the rights of honest citizens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #195 February 24, 2012 QuoteQuote A check that is easily circumvented and therefore ineffective. Not really. A criminal can't fillout a 4473 and walk out with a gun. And you still have not provided your 'plan' on how to stop criminals without trashing the rights of honest citizens. A NICS check is not required of all gun purchases.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #196 February 24, 2012 Quote A NICS check is not required of all gun purchases. So what? So it means a felon can illegally buy a shotgun privately, the same way he would if the NICS check was required...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #197 February 24, 2012 Quote Quoterestrictions need to exist to prevent these weapons from getting into the hands of criminals. No firearms to people with a history of domestic violence, nor to ex-cons nor those with mental disorders that tend to lead to violence against others. We already have these rules.... The criminals ignore them. Let me summarize your position: We have rules that forbid certain undesirables from getting guns. We have made these rules trivially easy to circumvent at the urging of the NRA and people like DaVinci and mnealtx. Therefore criminals circumvent the rules. Therefore there's no sense in having rules.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #198 February 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteA NICS check is not required of all gun purchases. So what? So mnealtx's and DaVinci's claims (above) are deliberately misleading.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #199 February 24, 2012 QuoteQuote Quoterestrictions need to exist to prevent these weapons from getting into the hands of criminals. No firearms to people with a history of domestic violence, nor to ex-cons nor those with mental disorders that tend to lead to violence against others. We already have these rules.... The criminals ignore them. Let me summarize your position: We have rules that forbid certain undesirables from getting guns. We have made these rules trivially easy to circumvent at the urging of the NRA and people like DaVinci and mnealtx. Therefore criminals circumvent the rules. Therefore there's no sense in having rules. So, what changes do you suggest that would stop criminals from circumventing laws?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #200 February 24, 2012 You are damned good at bitching about things here, but you are real short when it comes to offering solutions"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
