Another idiot with a gun

[HAL 9000 96]

From what I've read on this and other threads preventing this sort of thing invariably comes down to ensuring that everyone should be allowed to carry a gun for protection, because you just never know when your father, brother, or uncle will snap and start shooting.

"Johnny dear, what have I told you about wearing your gun at the dinner table?"

"** off b!tch! How dare you infringe on my constitutionally enshrined, God ordained holy rights! I don't trust any of you bastards as far as I could kick you! and if dad tries to slap me again I'll blow his motherfucking head off!"

Lemme at my holster to settle some scores the old fashion way.

yes, you did agree with natty's post. or do you just run off and post without thinking about the ramifications?

now tell me what's so special about a high capacity magazine? a bit of practice and one can swap out magazines in a very short time. that is, after all, what they were designed for.

ammo piercing ammo is already banned for private use. surely you knew that, didn't you? no?

as for sharing information between state and federal government, you might check out the brady bill and what it requires. it's already in effect, although as from the story in the op, not effectively.

and before anyone else decides to fire rounds my way, i'm all for someone losing their firearms on the first incident of domestic violence........

First sane thing you've said all day

As who my employer is, I'm privy to quite a bit of info that I can't share. However, I can tell you charles that there are companies out there that still produce those rounds. They simply modify one aspect of them and sell them under the radar. Yes, I do agree that someone trained could reload smaller magazines quickly enough that they could pump out almost as many rounds as a high capacity. However, I'm not worried so much about those with that sort of training. Someone with law enforcement, or military training could do a lot more damage with a lot less than your average citizen. Those people are also a lot smaller in number.

How can you honestly defend having high capacity magazines or assault rifles?

now we're off on assault rifles.......

and somewhere on vj i've posted before two pics and asked for people to identify the "assault rifle" funny thing was, only those familiar with guns knew the answer.

it was the same gun, just cosmetic modifications were made.

I believe I was the one of the people that answered that one correctly.

fixored

you may have answered the question correctly ... just not the first and only one ...

Cool beans. I thought I was the first to do so in a public post. You know, avoiding the backstage drama.

just askin'...how did McVeigh get roped in to this?

maybe I should just read the thread.

-------

my 2/c on topic -I own a weapon and I am not an idiot. That's all.

My thought experiment allows idiots to own guns, FYI.

Just not lunatics.

[Heracles 417]

Now kids, its important to be prepared. The important thing is that you shoot your father before he shoots you!

It's not only that. Some here clearly think they are Steven Segal and will knock out the 'bag guys' weapon before they are killed. That is not reality but fantasy. Hence the one American dying every 56 minutes. What is reality is Brits having tight gun laws; hence, in comparison, the one Brit being killed every 37,542 minutes. Even a two year old can do the math and see which system, which approach, is working better at actually saving lives; which is apparently what keeping a gun is all about in the first place.

Unless you are a cop or in the military, keeping a gun to save lives is basically an epic fail.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Booyah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You won't get rid of guns from this society - it just isn't feasible, and I think people are generally desensitised to the reality of gun violence (even the rampage stuff), or given that much of it occurs in deprived areas that anyone who doesn't live in or near those places can essentially ignore it.

[Heracles 417]

Rid of? No. Controlled? certainly. Britain, New Zealand, Australia and Canada are living breathing proof of its effectiveness.

When it comes to being desensitized, a murder is a big deal in Melbourne or Sydney. These are cities of close to 5 million people, so by US comparison the would almost be the 10th largest American cities. Now compare that to here where every few days alone, someone is murdered in DC, the nations capital. o the average American here they don;t even blink an eye anymore. I think people assume this is the norm and it's the same deal everywhere. Wrong. The only developed country that has this issue? you guessed it, America. By the way on some days they have multiple murders. That is a joke and an embarrassment. If that was to Happen in Canberra, a city similar to DC, size and all. The parliament would have responded accordingly.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Booyah!

[The Dude 206]

Rid of? No. Controlled? certainly. Britain, New Zealand, Australia and Canada are living breathing proof of its effectiveness.

Yeah, but those countries would easily be invaded, they just don't have the same rights and guns that America has. Come on now.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I believe I read somewhere that NSW has a big problem with illegally imported guns. You can control the import of weapons to an extent, but that's dependent largely on geography. Easier if you don't have neighbouring countries that don't share the same restrictive gun laws.

Guns are already controlled by State Laws anyway - you're not going to change anything at the national level without a consitutional amendment (which isn't likely).

Edited September 9, 2009 by Private Pike

[natty bumppo 297]

now we're off on assault rifles.......

and somewhere on vj i've posted before two pics and asked for people to identify the "assault rifle" funny thing was, only those familiar with guns knew the answer.

it was the same gun, just cosmetic modifications were made.

I believe I was the one of the people that answered that one correctly.

fixored

you may have answered the question correctly ... just not the first and only one ...

Cool beans. I thought I was the first to do so in a public post. You know, avoiding the backstage drama.

sorry ... sent charles a pm so as not to spoil the pics

agree ... I think you were the first to go public ...

[Peikko 1,575]

The trivialization of weaponry astounds me. What does a 'Hello Kitty' gun say to you? It says to me that the person wanting such a gun does not understand what a gun is for, and the implication of that is that they have not really understood the value of life and therefore are not truly in a position to take life, be it human or animal. Trivialize weaponry and reap the consequences but it's not 'responsible' in any shape or form. It's not the be all and end all, but it is a starting point for those who wish to posses guns.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[rebeccajo 14]

kinda like some are when gun laws and ownership is explained to them?

personally, i tend to think we'll see more and more instances like this as the left wingers continue their campaign to paint gun owners as "nutcases" "weirdos" and so on. and as more and more fall for the rhetoric and dispose of their means of self defense, that's just more unarmed victims for the dregs of society to prey upon.

*sigh*

Charles you are just so seriously over-reaching.

I give up.

This is EXACTLY the end result that I was waiting to see. Abortion, Gun Control, Religion, Politics: The end result of these toxic topics only leave us exasperated, unsatisfied, and not feeling good, the same as hitting one's head against your favorite brick wall. What do we learn from this, boys and girls?

I don't know what we learn.

I'm not so hard-headed that I refuse to learn if somebody can give me good information. I've learned stuff in OT and I've had my opinion changed. I've had instances where my opinion wasn't changed, but I could at least see the other persons point of view.

All I come away from this discussion with is this, I guess - some people don't want to learn. They don't want to admit there might be another side to a coin. They want to think that people like me want to take away their guns. We don't. We want a safer society. It's too bad we can't have a flippin' civilized discussion about it without defenses coming up.

[tmma 467]

there is alot of stereotyping of gun owners here. Speaking as an owner-- I'm not Wild Bill Hicock and I am not about to go Segal on people or start popping off my own family. Target shooting is a hobby for us, my dad hunts ( and dresses/processes and cooks the meat) and, yes home/self protection is an important consideration to me too. Other than that I am just a nerdy geek who likes to spout off about the weather.

[natty bumppo 297]

no, what's really obnoxious is someone who can't even vote here telling usc's that they shouldn't own guns.

Someone must be scared about potentially taking a mental health exam

maybe you should be required to pass a test to vote? sound fair?

maybe you should be required to pass a test to prove you can live alone ... without gov't people in your house?

maybe you should be required to pass a test before writing, talking, etc

maybe you should be required to pass a test to to be protected from a unnecessary search and or seizure

maybe you should pass a test to determine if you are accorded due process

etc ....

The first one, I would agree to, and would welcome it in this country. The rest of those are a red herring. None of those have the ability to take someone elses lives. Nice try though natty, do try again.

so you support jim crowe laws. amazing how full circle the left has become.

well ... at least NS is honest in support of the old jim crowe laws. wonder which USC demographic will suffer the most?

LoL.... Charles and Natty posting is like watching these two

don't you have someone to go oppress?

I sense denial (and not the river in africa)

wonder if RJ has a room ready for NS yet?

I see Natty and Charles are sipping from the same cup of fail today. Nice try though.

now deflection ....

Oh RJ .... NS is ready for the evaluation room !!

[The Dude 206]

lmao, well, I'm done with the snarky banter for now. On a serious note, could someone link me the post about identifying the assault rifle thread? I don't recall that one and couldn't find it searching. I'd like to take a look at that one.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The trivialization of weaponry astounds me. What does a 'Hello Kitty' gun say to you? It says to me that the person wanting such a gun does not understand what a gun is for, and the implication of that is that they have not really understood the value of life and therefore are not truly in a position to take life, be it human or animal. Trivialize weaponry and reap the consequences but it's not 'responsible' in any shape or form. It's not the be all and end all, but it is a starting point for those who wish to posses guns.

Well... what it says to me that the thing itself is being divorced from the meanings with which others imbue it - focusing on its aesthetics rather than its intended use (which doesn't change no matter what color you paint it).

Some dodgy existentialism at work there... Not to mention some pretty grotesque psychology.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Private Pike

[Heracles 417]

I believe I read somewhere that NSW has a big problem with illegally imported guns. You can control the import of weapons to an extent, but that's dependent largely on geography. Easier if you don't have neighbouring countries that don't share the same restrictive gun laws.

Guns are already controlled by State Laws anyway - you're not going to change anything at the national level without a consitutional amendment (which isn't likely).

Well Thailand and the Philippines are nearby and those guys make Mexico look like girl scouts in terms of guns and murders. However, this actually illustrates that gun control really does work. The guns are coming from Mexico argument is in accurate anyway. Mexico's homicide rate is significantly lower than the US. Heck, Mexicans are importing guns into Mexico from America; which shoots that bullshit that people are importing guns from Mexico straight in the foot.

The thing about countries like Australia or the UK or Canada is that their constitutional amendments have heavily restricted the movement of guns, is simple and clearly does work. If they find out someone is bringing in guys, they track the source and kill it off.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Booyah!

[rebeccajo 14]

there is alot of stereotyping of gun owners here. Speaking as an owner-- I'm not Wild Bill Hicock and I am not about to go Segal on people or start popping off my own family. Target shooting is a hobby for us, my dad hunts ( and dresses/processes and cooks the meat) and, yes home/self protection is an important consideration to me too. Other than that I am just a nerdy geek who likes to spout off about the weather.

In case you missed it, the original question was whether or not someone who has had a mental health commitment or has in some way been certified mentally unstable should be forced to surrender their weapons.

So unless that's you or any of the other people in this thread, there's no stereotyping. There are only responses.