Merle
-
Posts
789 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Partners
Immigration Wiki
Guides
Immigration Forms
Times
Gallery
Store
Blogs
Posts posted by Merle
-
-
3 minutes ago, CaliCat said:
By the same token, we should ask why the need to observe local burn laws, when lightning may strike and start a wild fire anyway?
There is only one way to stop that from happening: a lightning ban on all lightning! We need to expel elementary students from drawing pictures of it at school as well.
-
1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:
It's hard to imagine a scenario where someone could kill 50 people with a screw driver. Some of those comparisons are sketchy.
Why not the opposite scenario though? Say I wan't to carry a jar of ricin around for protection. Any problem with that?
Well I would have listed that but I don't have all day. Isn't it already illegal to have ricin? How can we make it more illegal to use it to kill people in mass quantities? I am having a hard time understanding your point. FYI, howitzers, nuclear weapons, missiles, grenades, and many other things are restricted for civilian ownership as well just in case you want to bring those up.
-
Just now, smilesammich said:
you don't accept your local burn laws? only you, merle, can prevent forest fires.
i think you accept more restrictions than you realize, you're just hyper focused on the idea that the government wants to take your guns. just an observation.
Current restrictions, yes. Additional restrictions on fire? No. I like BBQ.
-
8 minutes ago, smilesammich said:
you don't accept restricting the use of anything that can be used improperly to do harm to others? interesting.
If you mean guns, there are plenty of restrictions already on them. I also don't accept the restricting of sticks, stones, hammers, fire, pressure cookers, baseball bats, screwdrivers, saw blades.....
-
5 minutes ago, smilesammich said:
thanks, but i already know that guns are used in self defense. there are still plenty of storys where guns did not serve the purpose of self defense properly, or where even used with that intent in the first place.
obviously, in the shooting that occurred in las vegas, owning a personal weapon and/or having it on one's person did absolutely no good. do you think we should just accept that there will always be 'evil' people who are fully within their right to amass the means to spray down hundreds of people?
Of course I don't accept it but I also don't accept the banning or restricting the use of anything that could be used improperly to do harm onto others either. Some of the worst mass murders in history didn't involve guns whatsoever. Guns are just the en vogue means of mass murderers lately. You need mo to do some more googling for you?
-
2 minutes ago, smilesammich said:
owning a gun makes you feel more secure. of course there's plenty of facts that speak to that sense of security being false. but at least you feel safer. any other feelings?
I could copy and paste story after story of intruders being killed in people's homes while up to no good but instead I'll make it easier for you.
-
4 minutes ago, smilesammich said:
if you can't be the safest place on earth - why be safe at all?
yes, let's focus on how guns make their owners feel. where to start..
Personally my guns make me feel safer knowing that I have the means to defend myself from those wanting to do bodily harm on me or a member of my household.
-
50 minutes ago, CaliCat said:
We agree to disagree.
Ok let's take a look at a few restrictions we have nowadays that we didn't have in the recent past. We'll start with your state CA which has some of the most restrictive gun laws there is yet a high crime rate.
Firearm Registration
The California Department of Justice ("DOJ") retains information about the purchaser and seller of all in-state firearm sales and transfers, and requires that any firearms imported into the state be reported to the DOJ.[10] Furthermore, the Attorney General is required by law to maintain a registry containing the fingerprints and identifying information of the transferee, and the unique identifying information of every firearm transferred in the state, pursuant to §11106.[11] All handgun serial numbers and sales are recorded by the state in the Department of Justice's Automated Firearms System, along with those of many long guns. While there is no requirement for California residents to register handguns owned prior to 1991 with law enforcement, §12025 and §12031 enhance several misdemeanor offenses to felonies if the handgun is not on file in the Department of Justice's Automated Firearms System. New residents must register handguns (purchased outside of California) with DOJ within 60 days. As of January 1, 2014, long gun serial numbers are also recorded, where as previously only the sale was recorded. However, it is not required that owners of long guns purchased prior to 2014 register their firearms and it is not a crime to be in possession of an un-registered firearm.
Magazine Capacity Restriction
Section 32310 of the Penal Code states: "commencing January 1, 2000, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment". Thus, the offenses listed can be charged as a felony or a misdemeanor at the discretion of the prosecutor.[13] The section continues further by explaining that: "'manufacturing' includes both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of parts, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, to be a fully functioning large-capacity magazine". Until January 1, 2014, it was only a crime to "manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give or lend any large-capacity magazine". Assembly Bill 48 was signed by Governor Jerry Brown on October 11, 2013 and expanded previous prohibitions by making it illegal to buy or receive a large-capacity magazine or magazine rebuild kit.[14] Peace officers (under Penal Code Section 830) and "person licensed pursuant to [CA Penal Code] Sections 26700 to 26915" are exempt this prohibition on the purchase and sale of large-capacity magazines for personal use. However, federal law enforcement officers are not exempt and must obtain large-capacity magazines through their agency.[15] In November 2016 California voters approved Proposition 63. The referendum outlaws the possession of magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition, requires background checks for all ammunition sales, and mandates the reporting of lost or stolen firearms.[16] On June 30, 2017, a federal judge blocked the enforcement of Proposition 63's ban on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, pending the outcome of litigation concerning the ban. Magazines that would have been subject to the Proposition 63 ban are legal for private citizens to keep until the injunction is either lifted and/or the ban is upheld by the courts.
NFA Weapons
Possession of automatic weapons or short-barreled shotguns or rifles prohibited without DOJ "Dangerous Weapons Permit"; permission rarely granted outside of film industry (it's quite ironic how the gun hating Hollywood types can glorify the use of machine guns yet they are banned for everyone but them in the state). Suppressors (aka silencers) prohibited. Destructive devices are prohibited unless are designated as curios & relics, in which case a collectors permit can be obtained. The only AOWs that are permitted are smoothbore pistols and firearms with a combination of a smoothbore and rifle barrel.
And the list goes on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California
With all these laws CA has it should be the safest place on earth, but it isn't.
-
4 minutes ago, CaliCat said:
By sheer virtue of their becoming more easily procured.
They were just as procurable 30 years ago as they are now, probably even more so. If anything, they have become more regulated in many places.
-
29 minutes ago, CaliCat said:
Guns were available but they didn't carry the same lethal punch as they do today.
How have guns become more lethal? The .223 Remington/5.56x45 cartridge available today has the same ballistic energy as it did when it was fired from the AR15 in 1963, which is the year this particular rifle was available for purchase by the public. Back in the 80s and 90s you could go to many local sporting good stores and buy a surplus SKS rifle for less than $100 and a case of ammo (1000 rounds or more) for another $100 yet I don't remember anyone using one to commit a mass murder.
-
Just now, Il Mango Dulce said:
You are comparing a cabinet member to the president?
Michell Obama was the president?
-
Wow that's almost the same cost as Michelle Obama's 2 vacation trips to Spain and South Africa.
-
10 hours ago, bcking said:
What is your suggestion for how we deal with our homicide rate in the USA, which is 7 times higher than other high income countries? Homicide rate, not just gun violence.
A reasonable alternative would be focusing on mental health, but that gets ignored as well. Every healthcare bill attempting to repeal the ACA so far would have eliminated coverage for people, including what little mental health coverage they have. Furthermore, the proposed bills wanted to eliminate the requirements of a set minimum coverage, allowing insurance companies to strip down their plans and make coverage even worse.
So if not better gun control, and not mental health. What should we do to make sure these events stop happening with such frequency? We are unique in the world for this problem, so what do you see is the solution? Are we just an inherently more violent group of people?
This problem stems from the breakdown of morals and values in this country. You have to ask yourself why these kinds of crimes weren't commonplace 20, 30, 40 years ago. Guns were just as available then as they are now. What has happened to societal values and norms since then? No more school spankings maybe? Glamorization of violence? I don't remember growing up having students cussing out the teacher in class or kids walking up and punching strangers on the street for fun. Maybe we should make people have a psychological evaluation before reproducing more idiots like themselves. Some of you talk about how the founders couldn't have envisioned the weapons we have today but I say they couldn't envision how far our society would decline down the toilet.
-
3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:
steps toward limiting gun violence via unfettered access - basically the reasoned opposite of rounding up all american citizens and taking away all their guns - which i haven't actually seen anyone suggest.
What "steps"?
-
25 minutes ago, smilesammich said:
meh, wanting reasonable gun laws is not the same as eliminating the 2nd amendment - i don't care how well nra propaganda works on ya, it's a pretty big leap.
and i beg to differ, big picture it is needed as this sort of meme is used to change the narrative - as you say - with little to no relevance.
why focus on a old white guy getting off over 200 rounds into a crowd of innocent people when a gun trafficking crime was committed by a black man in 2014 during the obama administration?
What's "reasonable" to you?
-
3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:
criminals are going to do as they will, talk to merle about the pointlessness in having laws.
Ha! Yes, more laws is always the answer. If only they made it extra super duper doubly illegal to commit murder then none of this would have ever happened.
-
2 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:
Although the mass shootings make news, they are a tiny tiny fraction of gun deaths. Last time I checked assault looking guns killed less people than hands and feet. Almost 400 people have been kiled just in chicago aline this year, almost entirely wirh cheap illegal handguns.
What do you propose to a adress the real issue of handguns
You can keep yourself up to date with all the Chicago tomfoolery here: http://heyjackass.com/
-
-
4 minutes ago, IDWAF said:
Private gun sales at a gun show? Pretty sure that is against the law already.
I think it depends on the state. The vast majority of people who sell guns at gun shows are licensed dealers who are required to do background checks weather they are selling at a gun show or anywhere else. Here is a pretty good read in regards to the "gun show loophole" that people like to spout off about who have no idea about guns yet want to make the laws for the rest of us.
-
1 minute ago, spookyturtle said:
In 2016, there were 31 dog bite related fatalities in the US. 22 of them were by pit bulls. Solution to problem? Ban poodles.
I think the best solution would be a ban on irresponsible dog owners but that's not very feasible.
-
17 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:Our ruling
Hillary Clinton suggested gun silencers would have worsened the Las Vegas attack in a tweet.
It’s certainly possible that silencers or suppressors could make some shootings worse than they would be otherwise. But the specifics of the Las Vegas shooting don’t fit that scenario. Experts told us it’s highly unlikely a silencer would have made the Las Vegas shooting even more deadly, because of the distance of the shooter from the crowds and because of the crowded, urban environment where the victims were targeted.
Gun silencers can slightly lower the visual and sound impact of a shooter, but experts agreed the impact would have been negligible in the case of Las Vegas.
We rate this statement False.
And just like everything else, if a criminal wanted a suppressor (calling it silencer is a Hollywood thing) he would get one no matter what the laws are. Suppressors aren't too difficult to manufacture. I've even seen YouTube videos where people show you how to make them out of flashlight bodies.
-
32 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:
so Universal checks, even at gun shows? Y / N
Sure, why not. I just moved to AZ from WA where they have made it mandatory that every gun purchase must go through a dealer background check. It has not shown to have had any impact on crime whatsoever. What it did do was make it a hindrance for law abiding people to buy a gun. Criminals still get their guns any way they can (stealing them, buying them from other criminals, etc.) But what does universal background checks have to do with the Las Vegas shooter? According to the things I've read and heard on the news this guy bought all his guns legally from dealers who would have had by law to do background checks. You might as well ask if I prefer vanilla or chocolate ice cream because it's about as relevant to this particular situation as background checks.
-
9 minutes ago, Póg mo said:
So a whole lot of Americans murder a bunch of other Americans week after week with guns. So what? It's not like anyone's constitutional rights were trampled on, or anything? Am I wrong? Why should someone be separated from their beloved guns, just because they might be mentally ill or something, or even likely to go out and kill a bunch of people. Priorities people
I'm having a hard time understanding what your point is. I doubt if you'll find any member here that would think mentally ill people should own any kind of gun. If you can find an example of such please post a link.
-
1 hour ago, GandD said:
We can't really do without "lorries"
We could probably live without the sheer quantities of readily available weapons.
What would gun control laws do about the massive amounts of guns that already exist in this country? Confiscation?
At least 50 dead, 400 injured in shooting near Mandalay Bay casino, 1 suspect 'down'
in Current Events and Hot Social Topics
Posted
I'm still waiting for you to show me how a 223 caliber cartridge is more dangerous now than it was 30 years ago.