Gun Control

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Leave the strawmen alone, please.

It isn't. You repeatedly make the suggestion, so it's reasonable to assume it's your own idea.

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

Same could be said about booze. Let's get ADT in the hizzouse.

Leave the strawmen alone, please.

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

I made no strawman statement there. Forcing unreasonable locks on guns is unconstitutional, period. It's been ruled as such.

Leave the strawmen alone, please.

No, the left routinely say "mind your damned business." That is no strawman. That's just reality. Before the screaming left in the 60s came along doing that, people were much more involved in their communities and neighborhoods, watching what all the kids were up to. Now it's "mind your effing business you effing b--."

And since I'm not a lefty anymore...

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?

Why would I allow my child to go there? I'd also inquire with the local police.

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

So then the woman that survived the Killeen massacre whose testimony I already posted at the top of page 1 in this thread is "an armchair dork." After all, she said what I did. That makes no sense. Further, it's not an argument against CCW, if that's what you're trying to make. With CCW, at least those folks in that theater would have had a fighting chance, and that's the bottom line.

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.

No, it isn't. It's happened plenty of times. People have used CCW successfully in many situations, stop hiding your head in the ground. Some videos of such instances have been posted here, most recently the 70 year old man in Florida that shot a thug and ran the others off. You seem to be intent on ignoring valid instances of it being effective choosing to focus on slamming someone for considering it may be effective.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

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

How is the NRA assisting folks in responsible gun ownership practices "unconstitutional"? What if the NRA offered cut-rate or free gun safes?

Is Eddie Eagle "unconstitutional"?

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by W*GS

How is the NRA assisting folks in responsible gun ownership practices "unconstitutional"? What if the NRA offered cut-rate or free gun safes?

Is Eddie Eagle "unconstitutional"?

I already answered this and I'm not going in circles with you.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

I made no strawman statement there. Forcing unreasonable locks on guns is unconstitutional, period. It's been ruled as such.

Who said anything about "forcing unreasonable locks on guns" besides you? Certainly I made no mention whatsoever of trigger locks or mandatory anything regarding safe storage.

Stop with the BS.

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

No, the left routinely say "mind your damned business." That is no strawman. That's just reality. Before the screaming left in the 60s came along doing that, people were much more involved in their communities and neighborhoods, watching what all the kids were up to. Now it's "mind your effing business you effing b--."

I didn't realize libertarians were leftists. They're the ones most frequently claiming that they merely want to be left alone.

Who came up with the idea of a Nanny State? The left or the right?

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Why would I allow my child to go there? I'd also inquire with the local police.

Why get the police involved? There's no law, and according to you, cannot be any law, regarding the proper and safe storage of firearms. What purpose would be served by bugging the police?

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

So then the woman that survived the Killeen massacre whose testimony I already posted at the top of page 1 in this thread is "an armchair dork."

Uh, no, you're the dork, claiming that it would have been no big deal and quite easy to stop Holmes, despite never having been in nor trained for the scenario.

In that particular instance, it's entirely possible an innocent person would have been shot, or that Holmes would have kept shooting people anyway.

That Ratliff fellow, who was shot in his office, apparently tweeted that he carried and wished there had been another Batman incident. That's rather sick.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

I already answered this and I'm not going in circles with you.

Grow a pair and admit error.

[Requiem]

Drinks won't stain this birth.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Grow a pair and admit error.

Then by your own standards you don't have a pair - or are you still pretending it was OK to let Syria invade and butcher Israel with impunity?

Christ.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Who said anything about "forcing unreasonable locks on guns" besides you? Certainly I made no mention whatsoever of trigger locks or mandatory anything regarding safe storage.

Stop with the BS.

You keep mentioning it so as I said.

I didn't realize libertarians were leftists. They're the ones most frequently claiming that they merely want to be left alone.

Libertarians are morons, and they aren't the ones who were out en masse in the 60s undermining traditional social institutions and demanding that standards be changed to their suiting. I'd call this one not a straw man but a non sequitur.

An example of lefty culture rot: When I was 7 years old there were two boys across the street who kept playing in a parked car, unsupervised. I was alarmed by this and eventually mentioned it to their lovely father who told me to "mind my effing business." About 2 weeks later, the boys were at it yet again, this time apparently with matches. They lit the car on fire, and though they escaped unharmed, the car was totaled. Pops apologized shortly thereafter and said he should have listened.

Do you really think such things would have happened in say, the 1950s? No, it was popularized much later.

Why get the police involved? There's no law, and according to you, cannot be any law, regarding the proper and safe storage of firearms. What purpose would be served by bugging the police?

Difference between gun laws and child endangerment, Einstein.

Uh, no, you're the dork, claiming that it would have been no big deal and quite easy to stop Holmes, despite never having been in nor trained for the scenario.

No, I said I think it was possible that someone with CCW could have done it., not that I specifically was some pistol packin' cowboy, which is NOT what I said. That's ALL I said, yet I'm trashed for it, even if there are numerous examples of such very things happening.

In that particular instance, it's entirely possible an innocent person would have been shot, or that Holmes would have kept shooting people anyway.

Welcome to life - there are risks. As I said, a fighting chance is better than no chance.

That Ratliff fellow, who was shot in his office, apparently tweeted that he carried and wished there had been another Batman incident. That's rather sick.

That's nice. And this means what? You're insinuating this somehow applies to me? How retarded.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by Blart

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

The talk isn't backed up by statistics.

I notice how nobody's touched this. I love how clowns like nyuk nyuk talk tough about the movie theater incident. As if everyone is Jack Bauer, trained and ready to handle a crisis situation. Such profound stupidity. A bunch of amateurs with guns would only lead to one thing: more dead bodies.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Then by your own standards you don't have a pair - or are you still pretending it was OK to let Syria invade and butcher Israel with impunity?

Christ.

Ironic.

Syria is Israel's problem. Why is Syria's tiff with Israel our problem?

Oh yeah - our shared Judeo-Christian heritage, in which our Jesus is their YHWH.

Never mind that you christians called Jews "Christ killers" for a few centuries...

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

You keep mentioning it so as I said.

I never said "mandatory" or "forcing" - those were entirely from your fetid imagination.

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Libertarians are morons,

That's true.

It's good your 7-year-old self was such a law-n-order kid. Never mind that any verification of your claim is impossible.

What is it with you righties and your promotion of personal experience to the universe? Please explain.

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Difference between gun laws and child endangerment, Einstein.

What's dangerous to a kid about a loaded gun? Given that gun owners are always responsible (correct?) it shouldn't be any more dangerous than a knife in the block by the stove.

What do you think the police would do, or should do? Arrest Dad? On what charge?

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

No, I said I think it was possible that someone with CCW could have done it., not that I specifically was some pistol packin' cowboy, which is NOT what I said.

You're just fantasizing Rambo, that's all. Too typical of gun owners.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by TonyR

I notice how nobody's touched this. I love how clowns like nyuk nyuk talk tough about the movie theater incident. As if everyone is Jack Bauer, trained and ready to handle a crisis situation. Such profound stupidity. A bunch of amateurs with guns would only lead to one thing: more dead bodies.

Yup.

I suspect that many of these tough talkers would soil themselves when presented with a real-world situation.

I'm reminded of the folks who do a couple months of martial arts and think themselves Bruce Lee. Until one trains with realistic scenarios, all the babble is just bull****.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by TonyR

I notice how nobody's touched this. I love how clowns like nyuk nyuk talk tough about the movie theater incident. As if everyone is Jack Bauer, trained and ready to handle a crisis situation. Such profound stupidity. A bunch of amateurs with guns would only lead to one thing: more dead bodies.

Nobody's touched a simplistic assumption of correlation/causation?

It's not "tough talk," I've been to that theater and in my humble opinion it's not so dark in there, like the media claimed, that if someone in the crowd had a CCW those folks would have had a fighting chance. Tell it to the families of the dead your garbage about how it would have been worse if someone had a defense weapon in there, and how much better off they are without one.

Here's a hint:

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Nobody's touched a simplistic assumption of correlation/causation?

It's not "tough talk," I've been to that theater and in my humble opinion it's not so dark in there, like the media claimed, that if someone in the crowd had a CCW those folks would have had a fighting chance. Tell it to the families of the dead your garbage about how it would have been worse if someone had a defense weapon in there, and how much better off they are without one.

I suspect that many of these tough talkers would soil themselves when presented with a real-world situation.

I'm reminded of the folks who do a couple months of martial arts and think themselves Bruce Lee. Until one trains with realistic scenarios, all the babble is just bull****.

[TonyR]

[cutthemdown]

I agree with liberals that everyone with guns trying to stop a criminal would just lead to innocent bystanders being shot. You should be able to have a gun in your car loaded and ready to go though. But walking through the mall in CA with everyone packing seems sort of crazy to me. Whats the biggest city you can carry in? Dallas? Somewhere in TX probably right? I would love to see the stats on how many times citizens used guns in public and if innocent people ever got shot.

If I saw that its a low% then maybe i would agree to everyone open carrying. I just worry one citizen thinks he's helping, but another citizen gets confused and thinks he's the gunman, and we shoot the wrong guy.

But carrying weapons in public and assault rifle bans aren't really the same issue at all.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by W*GS

I suspect that many of these tough talkers would soil themselves when presented with a real-world situation.

I'm reminded of the folks who do a couple months of martial arts and think themselves Bruce Lee. Until one trains with realistic scenarios, all the babble is just bull****.

I really don't give a rat's ass what you suspect. Let these folks have a chance to carry CCW and give themselves a fighting chance.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

I agree with liberals that everyone with guns trying to stop a criminal would just lead to innocent bystanders being shot.

Nobody has ever advocated for this. What are you talking about? "Trying to stop a criminal"? What is that?

CCW and its legal use are laid out in explicit detail, and it does not involve "trying to stop a criminal."

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by TonyR

They should demand a plan to control their own behavior and pay off all their child support debts.

Neon Deion is one to talk, anyway, even though he and his wife do pose nicely for mugshots.





Oh and how many here think the Sanderses and these other athletes don't carry?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

I really don't give a rat's ass what you suspect. Let these folks have a chance to carry CCW and give themselves a fighting chance.

Thus speaketh the fake tough guy.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by W*GS

We always hear from conservatives that it's up to Muslims to denounce and eliminate the jihadists from their communities; it's up to blacks to rebuild families and stop the problems caused by single motherhood; it's up to Hispanics to clean up their problems.

I figure that the pro-RKBA crowd can be given the same lecture and clean out the bad apples in the community of gun owners.

That won't happen, because any rational response to mass murder becomes a pathetic, "The government is trying to take our guns."

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Thus speaketh the fake tough guy.

Thus speaketh someone who thinks people have a right to defend themselves.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

That won't happen, because any rational response to mass murder becomes a pathetic, "The government is trying to take our guns."

I think you should be asking why there should be all of this going on over extremely rare cases to begin with. People ask those questions, they suspect a political pretext, and they point it out. Indeed what is going on other than attempts to confiscation from citizenry?

We aren't applying the same standards to booze even though we have over 10,000 killed each year in drunken driving crashes, so why do it here? Smells fishy to me.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

I think you should be asking why there should be all of this going on over extremely rare cases to begin with. People ask those questions, they suspect a political pretext, and they point it out. Indeed what is going on other than attempts to confiscation from citizenry?

We aren't applying the same standards to booze even though we have over 10,000 killed each year in drunken driving crashes, so why do it here? Smells fishy to me.

Paranoid much??

Some the the proposed recommendations. Point out the Government attempt to repeal the 2nd.

Close the" Gun Show" Loophole: Extend Brady Background Checks to All Gun Purchases
Close the Terror Gap: Prohibit Gun Sales to Suspected Terrorists
Stop the Sale of Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines (aka Big Bullet-Blasting Boxes)
Require Gun Owners to Report Lost or Stolen Guns
Restrict Large-Volume Gun Sales
Require Licensed Dealers to Adopt Safeguards to Prevent Gun Thefts
Require Licensed Dealers to Perform Background Checks on Employees
Prohibit The Transfer of Gun Inventory Without Background Checks After a Dealer's License Has Been Revoked
Support new technologies to help law enforcement more effectively trace crime guns and supporting development of safety features to childproof guns

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Paranoid much??

How's it paranoid? I've already pointed out the ridiculousness of such massive overreactions. As I said, we have over 10k dead each year in the US in drunken driving crashes, yet nobody calls for these measures to be taken with alcohol.

Several things on your list violate the 2nd: "Closing the 'terror gap' gun sales to SUSPECTED terrorists." I shouldn't have to explain that one. Further, "safety features" you want - such as forced trigger lock usage - have already been ruled a violation of the 2nd by the US Supreme Court. Why did it go that far? Because local liberal-controlled municipalities (in this case DC) have attempted to subvert the Constitution.

But oh wait - you're a Brit. You really don't know what you're doing.

Let's apply your rationale to alcohol, which should already be applied since after all you and yours are so terribly worried about deaths and ****.

Background Checks to All Booze Purchases
Close the Drunkard Gap: Prohibit Booze Sales to Suspected Drunkards
Stop the Sale of Large Capacity Alcohol Containers (aka Kegs and 24 packs)
Require Booze Owners to Report Lost or Stolen Booze
Restrict Large-Volume Booze Sales
Require Licensed Dealers to Adopt Safeguards to Prevent Booze Thefts
Require Licensed Dealers to Perform Background Checks on Liquor Store Employees
Prohibit The Transfer of Booze Inventory Without Background Checks After a Dealer's License Has Been Revoked
Support new technologies to help law enforcement more effectively trace drunk driving booze and supporting development of safety features to childproof booze

What... Crickets?

Let's look at the numbers, courtesy of the Mother Jones Mass Shooting Study.

Point 1 based on MOJO's own admission: Only 25% of mass shootings have involved so-called "assault weapons." If you break down that figure, it amounts to exactly 7.5 people/year injured or killed by such a weapon. Contrast that to 10,228 people killed in drunken driving crashes in 2010 alone, including 211 children.

Yet people are still boozing up without a flinch.

Point 2 based on MOJO's own admission: 981 deaths and injuries have taken place since 1982 in "mass shootings." That averages out to under 30/year.

You and yours want to harass legal owners and trash the Constitution to save 30 lives a year while boozing your brains out and swerving over the median. If you take the 10,228 dead in 2010 as an average drunken driving figure, that amounts to 204,560 killed in drunken driving crashes over the same 30 year period of MOJO's mass shooting study.

So if you aren't going to push these weirdo restrictions on booze ownership, shut your pie hole about guns, little man.

Have a nice day.