Gun Control

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Put up a sign in your front yard that says "Protected by Smith & Wesson" and let us know what happens.

I'd wager nothing.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Dukes

I've got one that says "We don't call 911" with a revolver under it. Haven't had anyone try anything so far.

I just hope you have a good security system and a quality safe for your weapons for when you're not at home.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

I'd wager nothing.

For all you know, your friend from NM might be interested in a place that so blatantly advertises "Guns inside!".

[Dukes]

Originally Posted by W*GS

I just hope you have a good security system and a quality safe for your weapons for when you're not at home.

Indeed. Bought a Superior 31 gun safe a little while back. Have to have it with little ones running around.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by W*GS

I just hope you have a good security system and a quality safe for your weapons for when you're not at home.

Security system? You've just excluded poor people from gun ownership.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Dukes

I've got one that says "We don't call 911" with a revolver under it. Haven't had anyone try anything so far.

How about, "We call 911 after we're done."

[Dukes]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

How about, "We call 911 after we're done."

If they had that one, I would have gotten it.

[Dukes]

I need to get this one

[Blart]

If guns deterred crime, USA would be the safest country on earth.

The talk isn't backed up by statistics. It's like you're telling me Mark Sanchez is the best QB in the NFL, shouldn't his stats kind-of support that, at least a little bit? Show me a record he's broken. Give me some numbers.

Originally Posted by W*GS

Put up a sign in your front yard that says "Protected by Smith & Wesson" and let us know what happens.

As it turns out, even if you're a top-10 youtube star with insane weapons, you're still likely to be killed. Always someone crazier than you.


RIP FPSRussia
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/us...dayspaper&_r=0

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

I already gave you two potential scenarios, one in which explains why people are against trigger locks and other forced security measures.

I know why they're against such things. I never said I favored them nor wanted them imposed. You're criticizing views I've never stated.

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

What do you consider "properly secured"?

That Mr. Lanza couldn't get ahold of the guns. Ms. Lanza was obviously having major problems with young Mr. Lanza, so she should have been more responsible with her weapons. Do you disagree?

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

What are the chances that someone in the home takes those guns and uses them on their mother and others outside the home? Yes - One in over 300,000,000. Not remotely enough to debate over.

Not "One in over 300,000,000". There are ~100,000 deaths and injuries from the use of guns in this country every year. That's unacceptable and abhorrent. Do you disagree?

There are some very irresponsible gun owners out there. Agreed?

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Responsible ownership is often in the eye of the beholder. I'm going to be purchasing a CCW weapon. 1) Visit a gun range and try out guns, (I lean toward the .357 2" barrel based on advice from a lifelong sportsman friend) 2) Purchase the gun of my choice along with a lock box, 3) Take an NRA-approved CCW course, and 4) Apply for the CCW license.

Good for you. What's your plan for maintaining control over your weapon at all times? Yes, I mean all times.

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

I think that's responsible, but not everyone needs to take my path, nor should they be forced to.

Suppose you're at a buddy's house, the place where all the neighborhood kids like to go. He's also a gun owner, and has a habit of leaving loaded guns in plain sight. Would you say anything, or just stay quiet because it's none of your business?

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

I don't believe it is. For one thing, I listened carefully to what the witnesses recounted. There was enough visibility that they saw him emerge through the door with weapons, they saw what he was wearing, they saw what he was carrying, they saw where he was. He was standing on the stairs in the upper section of seats when he paused to reload. Secondly, the Century Aurora theater re-opened to the public less than 2 weeks ago. I went to catch a movie there to support the theater and the community. I in specific went to sit in row 2 of the old Theater 9 which is now Auditorium XD about 20 feet from the still-there emergency exit door Holmes used. I inspected the layout of the place quite closely. It's not that dark in there during a film that you couldn't have seen him and shot his ass off, sorry. Just my humble opinion.

Ever been under fire? In a panic situation with a screaming crowd and folks moving rapidly in random directions, in a quite dark and unfamiliar location? I haven't, but I think it's pretty safe to say that just because you plopped your butt into a seat in the same theater means that you'd be able to shoot Holmes is a fantastical stretch.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Security system? You've just excluded poor people from gun ownership.

Perhaps part of the NRA's multimillion-dollar budget could be used to subsidize those too poor to afford proper gun ownership.

[Dukes]

Originally Posted by Blart

If guns deterred crime, USA would be the safest country on earth.

The talk isn't backed up by statistics. It's like you're telling me Mark Sanchez is the best QB in the NFL, shouldn't his stats kind-of support that, at least a little bit? Show me a record he's broken. Give me some numbers.


As it turns out, even if you're a top-10 youtube star with insane weapons, you're still likely to be killed. Always someone crazier than you.


RIP FPSRussia
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/us...dayspaper&_r=0

It's still true today. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Blart

By your reasoning, shouldn't more guns = less violence? I don't see that correlation in the statistics above.

It doesn't matter if it does or doesn't correlate somewhere to your liking. People have a basic right to defend themselves. The bottom of this is that no amount of liberal protestation overrides the US Constitution, and that yes, like it or not CCW does indeed save lives and plenty of them.

I'm old enough to recall when liberals defecated dynamite bricks over Colorado's so-called "Make My Day" law back in the 1980s, swearing up and down that giving people *GASP!* the right to self-defense in the home was going to "start a wild west shootout" and we'd "have people shooting all over." We're still waiting and the screaming liberals quietly slinked off back to the rocks they crawled from under.

Now they're making ridiculous demands about CCW licensing while criminals carry as they please, which of course does nothing but leave regular people vulnerable and the criminals in charge. CCW licenses are a load of horse ****.

What should be done instead? Crack down on crime? That doesn't seem to be solving much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rceration_rate

USA: Rank #1
Switzerland: Rank #167

What should we do instead of absolving the behavior of poor thugs because they're poor? Is this a troll post?

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Perhaps part of the NRA's multimillion-dollar budget could be used to subsidize those too poor to afford proper gun ownership.

I think it easier if you stopped demanding unconstitutional controls on personal possession.

[Blart]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

What should we do instead of absolving the behavior of poor thugs because they're poor? Is this a troll post?

We now incarcerate more people than any country in the world, yet our homicide rate is still the highest compared to countries of similar wealth.

I'm just curious if you believe that to be a solution, and why.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

I think it easier if you stopped demanding unconstitutional controls on personal possession.

Show me where I have done so.

Show me where I've "demanded" anything in regards the RKBA.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Blart

We now incarcerate more people than any country in the world, yet our homicide rate is still the highest compared to countries of similar wealth.

I'm just curious if you believe that to be a solution, and why.

Would you like the criminals running free on the streets, instead?

[Dukes]

Originally Posted by Blart

We now incarcerate more people than any country in the world, yet our homicide rate is still the highest compared to countries of similar wealth.

I'm just curious if you believe that to be a solution, and why.

Would that still be true if you discount non violent criminals incarcerated?

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Show me where I have done so.

Show me where I've "demanded" anything in regards the RKBA.

You really need it stamped onto your noggin that forcing home security systems isn't constitutional when forced trigger locks have already been ruled to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court?

One word: D'oh.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

You really need it stamped onto your noggin that forcing home security systems isn't constitutional when forced trigger locks have already been ruled to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court?

One word: D'oh.

Indeed. Show me where I said security systems should be made mandatory.

Just one instance, please.

BTW, what would you do if a gun-owning buddy was irresponsible with his firearms? Anything?

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by W*GS

I know why they're against such things. I never said I favored them nor wanted them imposed. You're criticizing views I've never stated.

You want a "quality security system" which apparently includes forcing home security systems on people, no?

That Mr. Lanza couldn't get ahold of the guns. Ms. Lanza was obviously having major problems with young Mr. Lanza, so she should have been more responsible with her weapons. Do you disagree?

I don't know what the exact home situation was but no, I don't think everyone should be forced to lock down like a maximum security prison with blinking alarms everywhere because one woman in Connecticut had a batty son.

Not "One in over 300,000,000". There are ~100,000 deaths and injuries from the use of guns in this country every year. That's unacceptable and abhorrent. Do you disagree?

Yes, the Lanza family is one in over 300 million.

Lots of things are unacceptable and abhorrent. Doesn't mean I'm going to rescind everyone's constitutional rights nor does it mean I'm going to put law abiding citizens through hell in a lame attempt to snap at the ankles of criminals who ignore all laws in existence.

Suppose you're at a buddy's house, the place where all the neighborhood kids like to go. He's also a gun owner, and has a habit of leaving loaded guns in plain sight. Would you say anything, or just stay quiet because it's none of your business?

The "mind your business" is a favored view of the left, and I'm not of the left. I speak out, and do it plentifully, so no.

Does that mean everyone should lock up as I do? No. It means they should determine what is best for their needs, not that it's OK to leave a loaded gun lying about.

Ever been under fire? In a panic situation with a screaming crowd and folks moving rapidly in random directions, in a quite dark and unfamiliar location? I haven't, but I think it's pretty safe to say that just because you plopped your butt into a seat in the same theater means that you'd be able to shoot Holmes is a fantastical stretch.

Nope. Not yet, and hopefully never will be. But if it happens, I certainly don't want to be an unarmed sitting duck. Visit the theater, maybe you can understand what it would have been like there to be an unarmed sitting duck, sitting in a place where people were gunned to death en masse in your immediate vicinity when you could all clearly see the gunman in close range. Personally the thought makes me sick... And angry.

Is there something wrong with giving them and us a fighting chance?

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Indeed. Show me where I said security systems should be made mandatory.

Just one instance, please.

BTW, what would you do if a gun-owning buddy was irresponsible with his firearms? Anything?

Why would you call for NRA assistance for home security if you didn't want it?

Trolling?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Why would you call for NRA assistance for home security if you didn't want it?

Trolling?

If the NRA is interested in responsible gun ownership, and properly securing weapons is definitely a part of that, then perhaps the NRA can assist those who have difficulty with the expense of properly securing their weapons.

What's so offensive about that?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

You want a "quality security system" which apparently includes forcing home security systems on people, no?

I don't know what the exact home situation was but no, I don't think everyone should be forced to lock down like a maximum security prison with blinking alarms everywhere because one woman in Connecticut had a batty son.

Leave the strawmen alone, please.

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Yes, the Lanza family is one in over 300 million.

At least ~100,000 families have to deal with the aftermath of irresponsible gun ownership. The Lanzas are far from alone.

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Lots of things are unacceptable and abhorrent. Doesn't mean I'm going to rescind everyone's constitutional rights nor does it mean I'm going to put law abiding citizens through hell in a lame attempt to snap at the ankles of criminals who ignore all laws in existence.

Leave the strawmen alone, please.

Since criminals by definition break the law, perhaps we shouldn't have any laws?

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

The "mind your business" is a favored view of the left, and I'm not of the left. I speak out, and do it plentifully, so no.

Leave the strawmen alone, please.

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Does that mean everyone should lock up as I do? No. It means they should determine what is best for their needs, not that it's OK to leave a loaded gun lying about.

What would you do if your kid was a frequent visitor to such a house? What's more important - your child's safety or this person's irresponsible use of his RKBA?

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Nope. Not yet, and hopefully never will be.

Well then, you're speaking from ignorance. Don't be such an armchair dork.

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

But if it happens, I certainly don't want to be an unarmed sitting duck. Visit the theater, maybe you can understand what it would have been like there to be an unarmed sitting duck, sitting in a place where people were gunned to death en masse in your immediate vicinity when you could all clearly see the gunman in close range. Personally the thought makes me sick... And angry.

Is there something wrong with giving them and us a fighting chance?

Unless and until one practices such a scenario, time and again, until the proper reaction becomes nearly instinctual and a matter of muscle memory, pat pronouncements of "I'd cap the sucker and not be a sheep" is just misplaced bravado and assholitude.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by W*GS

If the NRA is interested in responsible gun ownership, and properly securing weapons is definitely a part of that, then perhaps the NRA can assist those who have difficulty with the expense of properly securing their weapons.

What's so offensive about that?

As I said, your suggestion is unconstitutional. There is no need for discussion beyond that.