Gun that killed 3-year-old... (1 Viewer)

[Spanky267]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

It's a circular argument: the threat of registration is proof that the tyranny they fear exists. That's why we'll never win this argument with them.

And the other problem is that while a majority of Americans are in favor of gun registration and background checks, very few of us (those in favor) are willing to vote on the issue. Whereas gun owners who are against these ideas vote as if this were the ONLY issue that is important. Given the pluralistic nature of our society, it will be very hard in the future to convince lawmakers to put forth any reasonable gun legislation.

Perhaps it's a piece of evidence. It's a stretch IMO to say it's actual proof.

I don't understand what you're trying to write here.

If I told you that I planted flowers on Saturday and they were gone on Sunday and this event was proof I had a deer problem, would that be correct? No...it's not proof. It's evidence that I have most likely have an animal problem. Reality is, it could be one of 100 different animals. There's a difference between evidence and proof.

OK- gotcha.

By the way, I DO have a deer problem and I don't know what to do short of going caveman and pissing on everything around my house, so if anyone has any suggestions, I'd like to hear them

Pet wolf/coyote or buy a gun?

 

[Clifford]

I had written more but I deleted it and left it at that. To the normal person a gun is nothing more than a very dangerous tool they need for certain tasks.

I think to the angry white man (could be angry man of any racial variety, but white seems to fit most cases), it is a means to empower him against a world he sees as increasingly against him. It is a means to strike back against a world in which he is increasingly marginalized and ignored.

Look at the cases we have seen recently: Zimmerman, Dunn, Reeves - all of them use their gun as a protector that allows them to fight back against not the people they shot, but the aspects of society those people represented.

I think there is a deeper pathology associated with folks who see their gun as their line between them and an extremely violent world. Problem is, their paranoia makes the world seem much more violent than it actually is, and their assumptions cause them to act out against these perceived threats, and our laws allow them to kill these perceived threats because they allow these people to walk around carrying loaded guns just waiting one of their many imagined scenarios to take place.

 

[The Commish]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

It's a circular argument: the threat of registration is proof that the tyranny they fear exists. That's why we'll never win this argument with them.

And the other problem is that while a majority of Americans are in favor of gun registration and background checks, very few of us (those in favor) are willing to vote on the issue. Whereas gun owners who are against these ideas vote as if this were the ONLY issue that is important. Given the pluralistic nature of our society, it will be very hard in the future to convince lawmakers to put forth any reasonable gun legislation.

Perhaps it's a piece of evidence. It's a stretch IMO to say it's actual proof.

I don't understand what you're trying to write here.

If I told you that I planted flowers on Saturday and they were gone on Sunday and this event was proof I had a deer problem, would that be correct? No...it's not proof. It's evidence that I have most likely have an animal problem. Reality is, it could be one of 100 different animals. There's a difference between evidence and proof.

OK- gotcha.

By the way, I DO have a deer problem and I don't know what to do short of going caveman and pissing on everything around my house, so if anyone has any suggestions, I'd like to hear them

Pet wolf/coyote or buy a gun?

We have coyotes already...doesn't seem to matter. Guns can't be discharged for "recreation" where we live...not zoned for it.

 

[The Commish]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

What pray tell are the real threats to our freedom?

Have you been paying attention to our government agencies or Snowden?

Yes all the more reason to not willingly give them more information.

In this case, I can't think of anything you'd be giving them that they don't already have

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The government (local law enforcement) has at times confiscated guns. Sometimes appropriately, sometimes inappropriately. There are politicians that would like to ban guns, some have said all guns, some have said certain guns, but to think that the federal government will never try to confiscate guns is silly. If it weren't for pro-gun folks fighting back, I expect there would have been many gun bans (in one for or another) and subsequently, confiscations already.

If the government has record of every firearm that everyone owns, as soon as legally possible, there will be a confiscation of some sort. I trust Pro-gun organizations will fight those potential confiscations tooth and nail, and any legislation that may be one step closer to it..

Gun registrations will not save lives unless it eventually leads to less guns in public hands, which can only be dun through bans and confiscations.

Education and safety features are the best ways to avoid accidental deaths, registration doesn't help in this instance at all. I have no idea what gun registration has to do with this thread..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I had written more but I deleted it and left it at that. To the normal person a gun is nothing more than a very dangerous tool they need for certain tasks.

I think to the angry white man (could be angry man of any racial variety, but white seems to fit most cases), it is a means to empower him against a world he sees as increasingly against him. It is a means to strike back against a world in which he is increasingly marginalized and ignored.

Look at the cases we have seen recently: Zimmerman, Dunn, Reeves - all of them use their gun as a protector that allows them to fight back against not the people they shot, but the aspects of society those people represented.

I think there is a deeper pathology associated with folks who see their gun as their line between them and an extremely violent world. Problem is, their paranoia makes the world seem much more violent than it actually is, and their assumptions cause them to act out against these perceived threats, and our laws allow them to kill these perceived threats because they allow these people to walk around carrying loaded guns just waiting one of their many imagined scenarios to take place.

What percentage of white men do you think own guns vs black men?

And if you had to guess, are more gun crimes attributable to white men or black men?

Also, what percentage of white gun owners vs black gun owners do you think own a gun for recreation vs protection.

Your narrative is showing, you might want to cover that up...

 

[Spanky267]

I had written more but I deleted it and left it at that. To the normal person a gun is nothing more than a very dangerous tool they need for certain tasks.

I think to the angry white man (could be angry man of any racial variety, but white seems to fit most cases), it is a means to empower him against a world he sees as increasingly against him. It is a means to strike back against a world in which he is increasingly marginalized and ignored.

Look at the cases we have seen recently: Zimmerman, Dunn, Reeves - all of them use their gun as a protector that allows them to fight back against not the people they shot, but the aspects of society those people represented.

I think there is a deeper pathology associated with folks who see their gun as their line between them and an extremely violent world. Problem is, their paranoia makes the world seem much more violent than it actually is, and their assumptions cause them to act out against these perceived threats, and our laws allow them to kill these perceived threats because they allow these people to walk around carrying loaded guns just waiting one of their many imagined scenarios to take place.

I see what you are saying. There is a segment of gun owners that are a little off their rocker when it comes to their "need" to own or carry a gun. There is something wrong with George Zimmerman. Dunn went far beyond what he should have done in that scenario as did Reeves. Reeves is a different case all together as he is a retired LEO and that status gives him gun carrying priveledges that the general citizenry doesnt have.

But I agree that there are people out there that shouldnt own a gun. More states should contribute their mental health records to the NICS background check system. It would help deny some mentally unstable people the chance to buy a gun.

 

[Spanky267]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

It's a circular argument: the threat of registration is proof that the tyranny they fear exists. That's why we'll never win this argument with them.

And the other problem is that while a majority of Americans are in favor of gun registration and background checks, very few of us (those in favor) are willing to vote on the issue. Whereas gun owners who are against these ideas vote as if this were the ONLY issue that is important. Given the pluralistic nature of our society, it will be very hard in the future to convince lawmakers to put forth any reasonable gun legislation.

Perhaps it's a piece of evidence. It's a stretch IMO to say it's actual proof.

I don't understand what you're trying to write here.

If I told you that I planted flowers on Saturday and they were gone on Sunday and this event was proof I had a deer problem, would that be correct? No...it's not proof. It's evidence that I have most likely have an animal problem. Reality is, it could be one of 100 different animals. There's a difference between evidence and proof.

OK- gotcha.

By the way, I DO have a deer problem and I don't know what to do short of going caveman and pissing on everything around my house, so if anyone has any suggestions, I'd like to hear them

Pet wolf/coyote or buy a gun?

We have coyotes already...doesn't seem to matter. Guns can't be discharged for "recreation" where we live...not zoned for it.

You arent shooting them for fun. You are standing your ground and defending your homestead against unwanted intruders!!!

 

[Clifford]

I had written more but I deleted it and left it at that. To the normal person a gun is nothing more than a very dangerous tool they need for certain tasks.

I think to the angry white man (could be angry man of any racial variety, but white seems to fit most cases), it is a means to empower him against a world he sees as increasingly against him. It is a means to strike back against a world in which he is increasingly marginalized and ignored.

Look at the cases we have seen recently: Zimmerman, Dunn, Reeves - all of them use their gun as a protector that allows them to fight back against not the people they shot, but the aspects of society those people represented.

I think there is a deeper pathology associated with folks who see their gun as their line between them and an extremely violent world. Problem is, their paranoia makes the world seem much more violent than it actually is, and their assumptions cause them to act out against these perceived threats, and our laws allow them to kill these perceived threats because they allow these people to walk around carrying loaded guns just waiting one of their many imagined scenarios to take place.

What percentage of white men do you think own guns vs black men?

And if you had to guess, are more gun crimes attributable to white men or black men?

Also, what percentage of white gun owners vs black gun owners do you think own a gun for recreation vs protection.

Your narrative is showing, you might want to cover that up...

You can't read. That makes me laugh. You can't even read one parenthetical clause right next to what you bold. You are hilarious.

 

[Clifford]

I had written more but I deleted it and left it at that. To the normal person a gun is nothing more than a very dangerous tool they need for certain tasks.

I think to the angry white man (could be angry man of any racial variety, but white seems to fit most cases), it is a means to empower him against a world he sees as increasingly against him. It is a means to strike back against a world in which he is increasingly marginalized and ignored.

Look at the cases we have seen recently: Zimmerman, Dunn, Reeves - all of them use their gun as a protector that allows them to fight back against not the people they shot, but the aspects of society those people represented.

I think there is a deeper pathology associated with folks who see their gun as their line between them and an extremely violent world. Problem is, their paranoia makes the world seem much more violent than it actually is, and their assumptions cause them to act out against these perceived threats, and our laws allow them to kill these perceived threats because they allow these people to walk around carrying loaded guns just waiting one of their many imagined scenarios to take place.

I see what you are saying. There is a segment of gun owners that are a little off their rocker when it comes to their "need" to own or carry a gun. There is something wrong with George Zimmerman. Dunn went far beyond what he should have done in that scenario as did Reeves. Reeves is a different case all together as he is a retired LEO and that status gives him gun carrying priveledges that the general citizenry doesnt have.

But I agree that there are people out there that shouldnt own a gun. More states should contribute their mental health records to the NICS background check system. It would help deny some mentally unstable people the chance to buy a gun.

I don't think there's anything we can do to keep guns out of the hands of unhinged ####wads like Zimmerman, Dunn, and Reeves unless we are ready to make owning and carrying a gun a privilege and not a right. That would require repealing the second amendment. Also safety enhancements to the guns themselves would not have stopped them.

If Dunn and Reeves both go to jail for murder then maybe we see some of that tide start to pull back. But I think there will still be a large segment of the gun-owning population that feel that their gun is more than a dangerous tool, that it is their protection against the world.

 

[Clifford]

I had written more but I deleted it and left it at that. To the normal person a gun is nothing more than a very dangerous tool they need for certain tasks.

I think to the angry white man (could be angry man of any racial variety, but white seems to fit most cases), it is a means to empower him against a world he sees as increasingly against him. It is a means to strike back against a world in which he is increasingly marginalized and ignored.

Look at the cases we have seen recently: Zimmerman, Dunn, Reeves - all of them use their gun as a protector that allows them to fight back against not the people they shot, but the aspects of society those people represented.

I think there is a deeper pathology associated with folks who see their gun as their line between them and an extremely violent world. Problem is, their paranoia makes the world seem much more violent than it actually is, and their assumptions cause them to act out against these perceived threats, and our laws allow them to kill these perceived threats because they allow these people to walk around carrying loaded guns just waiting one of their many imagined scenarios to take place.

I see what you are saying. There is a segment of gun owners that are a little off their rocker when it comes to their "need" to own or carry a gun. There is something wrong with George Zimmerman. Dunn went far beyond what he should have done in that scenario as did Reeves. Reeves is a different case all together as he is a retired LEO and that status gives him gun carrying priveledges that the general citizenry doesnt have.

But I agree that there are people out there that shouldnt own a gun. More states should contribute their mental health records to the NICS background check system. It would help deny some mentally unstable people the chance to buy a gun.

CH, in case you want to learn from one your betters, this is what an intelligent response looks like.

 

[[icon]]

I had written more but I deleted it and left it at that. To the normal person a gun is nothing more than a very dangerous tool they need for certain tasks.

I think to the angry white man (could be angry man of any racial variety, but white seems to fit most cases), it is a means to empower him against a world he sees as increasingly against him. It is a means to strike back against a world in which he is increasingly marginalized and ignored.

Look at the cases we have seen recently: Zimmerman, Dunn, Reeves - all of them use their gun as a protector that allows them to fight back against not the people they shot, but the aspects of society those people represented.

I think there is a deeper pathology associated with folks who see their gun as their line between them and an extremely violent world. Problem is, their paranoia makes the world seem much more violent than it actually is, and their assumptions cause them to act out against these perceived threats, and our laws allow them to kill these perceived threats because they allow these people to walk around carrying loaded guns just waiting one of their many imagined scenarios to take place.

wow...

No doubt there are people who may fit this mold somewhat but injecting race into this, or projecting gun owners as Angry white men wielding vengeance in the form of lead is borderline insane if you actually believe that.

 

[Chaka]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

What pray tell are the real threats to our freedom?

The ones that are taking your money. Good luck shooting them.

 

[Chaka]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

What pray tell are the real threats to our freedom?

Have you been paying attention to our government agencies or Snowden?

More like corruption in our financial markets and the rise of the corporatocracy.

Good luck shooting them.

 

[Chaka]

I'd rather a few criminals go free than innocent people be harrassed or prosecuted.

I am sure you would.

Kill all the innocents you want but heaven forbid you harass a gun owner.

 

[Chaka]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that concealed carry is the white man's great equalizer to a world that he sees as increasingly set against him.

Only the white man? It is the honest, law abiding citizens equalizer against the criminal element.

Doesn't work out so well when that equalizer is arming the criminals too.

You want to go common sense and start aggressively targeting corrupt FFL holders then I will consider changing my stance on a registry but the pro gun set wants nothing short of the complete deregulation of firearms and the return of the rootin'-tootin'-shootin'-wild-mother-#######-west. Giddyup!

It's insanity.

 

[MaxThreshold]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that concealed carry is the white man's great equalizer to a world that he sees as increasingly set against him.

Only the white man? It is the honest, law abiding citizens equalizer against the criminal element.

Doesn't work out so well when that equalizer is arming the criminals too.

You want to go common sense and start aggressively targeting corrupt FFL holders then I will consider changing my stance on a registry but the pro gun set wants nothing short of the complete deregulation of firearms and the return of the rootin'-tootin'-shootin'-wild-mother-#######-west. Giddyup!

It's insanity.

Now you're just being a drama-queen. Blatant hyperbole and patently false.

 

[Chaka]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that concealed carry is the white man's great equalizer to a world that he sees as increasingly set against him.

Only the white man? It is the honest, law abiding citizens equalizer against the criminal element.

Doesn't work out so well when that equalizer is arming the criminals too.

You want to go common sense and start aggressively targeting corrupt FFL holders then I will consider changing my stance on a registry but the pro gun set wants nothing short of the complete deregulation of firearms and the return of the rootin'-tootin'-shootin'-wild-mother-#######-west. Giddyup!

It's insanity.

Now you're just being a drama-queen. Blatant hyperbole and patently false.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I had written more but I deleted it and left it at that. To the normal person a gun is nothing more than a very dangerous tool they need for certain tasks.

I think to the angry white man (could be angry man of any racial variety, but white seems to fit most cases), it is a means to empower him against a world he sees as increasingly against him. It is a means to strike back against a world in which he is increasingly marginalized and ignored.

Look at the cases we have seen recently: Zimmerman, Dunn, Reeves - all of them use their gun as a protector that allows them to fight back against not the people they shot, but the aspects of society those people represented.

I think there is a deeper pathology associated with folks who see their gun as their line between them and an extremely violent world. Problem is, their paranoia makes the world seem much more violent than it actually is, and their assumptions cause them to act out against these perceived threats, and our laws allow them to kill these perceived threats because they allow these people to walk around carrying loaded guns just waiting one of their many imagined scenarios to take place.

What percentage of white men do you think own guns vs black men?

And if you had to guess, are more gun crimes attributable to white men or black men?

Also, what percentage of white gun owners vs black gun owners do you think own a gun for recreation vs protection.

Your narrative is showing, you might want to cover that up...

You can't read. That makes me laugh. You can't even read one parenthetical clause right next to what you bold. You are hilarious.

There is no reason to use the word "White" at all.. You're too obvious..

And of course you completely avoid the questions.. The answers don't work with your narrative..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that concealed carry is the white man's great equalizer to a world that he sees as increasingly set against him.

Only the white man? It is the honest, law abiding citizens equalizer against the criminal element.

Doesn't work out so well when that equalizer is arming the criminals too.

You want to go common sense and start aggressively targeting corrupt FFL holders then I will consider changing my stance on a registry but the pro gun set wants nothing short of the complete deregulation of firearms and the return of the rootin'-tootin'-shootin'-wild-mother-#######-west. Giddyup!

It's insanity.

The push back against regulation is reactionary. I find it interesting that you anti-gun folks ignore all of the anti-gun rhetoric spewed by some of our more liberal politicians. There are folks in Washington that want a UK or Australia like weapons ban. If you can't admit this then I understand how you can get the bolded portion of your post wrong.

 

[Schlzm]

Whole lot of insanity on this page wow! Glad to see racism and "kill everyone" get trotted out. Way to destroy any ground you might have had in this debate.

Schlzm

ETA: And you get upset when called hysterical and panicky...

 

[The Commish]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

It's a circular argument: the threat of registration is proof that the tyranny they fear exists. That's why we'll never win this argument with them.

And the other problem is that while a majority of Americans are in favor of gun registration and background checks, very few of us (those in favor) are willing to vote on the issue. Whereas gun owners who are against these ideas vote as if this were the ONLY issue that is important. Given the pluralistic nature of our society, it will be very hard in the future to convince lawmakers to put forth any reasonable gun legislation.

Perhaps it's a piece of evidence. It's a stretch IMO to say it's actual proof.

I don't understand what you're trying to write here.

If I told you that I planted flowers on Saturday and they were gone on Sunday and this event was proof I had a deer problem, would that be correct? No...it's not proof. It's evidence that I have most likely have an animal problem. Reality is, it could be one of 100 different animals. There's a difference between evidence and proof.

OK- gotcha.

By the way, I DO have a deer problem and I don't know what to do short of going caveman and pissing on everything around my house, so if anyone has any suggestions, I'd like to hear them

Pet wolf/coyote or buy a gun?

We have coyotes already...doesn't seem to matter. Guns can't be discharged for "recreation" where we live...not zoned for it.

You arent shooting them for fun. You are standing your ground and defending your homestead against unwanted intruders!!!

Hey....FWIW, I appreciate your willingness to talk about this stuff with me. It's a million times better than the recent drivel in the thread and helps me understand the viewpoints opposite of mine. Hopefully others see the difference between you and the usual suspects as well and don't lump you in with them.

 

[The Commish]

The push back against regulation is reactionary. I find it interesting that you anti-gun folks ignore all of the anti-gun rhetoric spewed by some of our more liberal politicians. There are folks in Washington that want a UK or Australia like weapons ban. If you can't admit this then I understand how you can get the bolded portion of your post wrong.

It's ignored by any normal person because while they might be shouting and stumping for it, we know it's never going to happen. Very similar to the people who get worked up when conservatives start pounding the "anti-abortion" drum. That's been going on for decades and will continue to go on for decades but it's not going to change, so why worry about it? I love the irony of conservatives complaining that "the other side" just uses fear tactics to get what they want while other conservatives are doing the same....to the same people

ETA: And I'll point out for the millionth time, it's clear you don't know what "anti-gun" means.

 

[Clifford]

I had written more but I deleted it and left it at that. To the normal person a gun is nothing more than a very dangerous tool they need for certain tasks.

I think to the angry white man (could be angry man of any racial variety, but white seems to fit most cases), it is a means to empower him against a world he sees as increasingly against him. It is a means to strike back against a world in which he is increasingly marginalized and ignored.

Look at the cases we have seen recently: Zimmerman, Dunn, Reeves - all of them use their gun as a protector that allows them to fight back against not the people they shot, but the aspects of society those people represented.

I think there is a deeper pathology associated with folks who see their gun as their line between them and an extremely violent world. Problem is, their paranoia makes the world seem much more violent than it actually is, and their assumptions cause them to act out against these perceived threats, and our laws allow them to kill these perceived threats because they allow these people to walk around carrying loaded guns just waiting one of their many imagined scenarios to take place.

wow...

No doubt there are people who may fit this mold somewhat but injecting race into this, or projecting gun owners as Angry white men wielding vengeance in the form of lead is borderline insane if you actually believe that.

Look at the cases I reference. Not insane at all. It's an opinion and if you can't see the trend I don't think you're looking very hard. And get off your defend the white man kick, I said it could be any race. But in the cases I read about it's usually a white guy. Was not the case of the lawn shooter which is why I said most cases.

Zimmerman wasn't tailing Trayvon, he was tailing the ####### punks who always get away. Why? Because his heater gave him the requisite courage, and he knew he had it if #### went wrong and he got his ##### ### kicked.

Dunn didn't have a problem with Jordan Davis, he had a problem with Jordan Davis's entire race and the "rap crap" they listen to, and that they don't listen to him when he told them to turn down their music. If you don't believe that read his letters from jail. But you think Dunn would have had the balls to say #### to a car full of scary black teenagers if he wasn't packing? Not a ####### chance.

Reeves didn't have a problem with Paulson, but couldn't stand the fact that someone didn't immediately obey what he told them to do. And he had his gun on his lap just waiting for this punk in front of him to give him a reason to use it.

Three cases, three people dead, and three marginalized, angry men trying to be much bigger men than they are because they are carrying.

Sorry, there's a trend there.

 

[Clifford]

Whole lot of insanity on this page wow! Glad to see racism and "kill everyone" get trotted out. Way to destroy any ground you might have had in this debate.

Schlzm

ETA: And you get upset when called hysterical and panicky...

Actually I really don't give a crap. I find it ####### hilarious that a crowd the believes their ####### pea shooters are going to hold off the NWO feel fit to call anyone panicky. I see a trend. It's not all gun owners and it's not all white men, but the cases I see are mostly white men and they seem to be striking out against the world, not the people they shoot.

Also, do you know what the word panic means? Or hysterical? I have suggested two things: a long-term solution to accidental gun deaths based on emerging technology, and that certain members of the gun crowd are using their concealed carry permits as a way to feel like they are still in control.

Which of those two seem hysterical or panicky to you? And which one seems more panicky than thinking your entire government is out to get you and the only thing standing between you and total enslavement is your trusty AR-15?

 

[Spanky267]

I had written more but I deleted it and left it at that. To the normal person a gun is nothing more than a very dangerous tool they need for certain tasks.

I think to the angry white man (could be angry man of any racial variety, but white seems to fit most cases), it is a means to empower him against a world he sees as increasingly against him. It is a means to strike back against a world in which he is increasingly marginalized and ignored.

Look at the cases we have seen recently: Zimmerman, Dunn, Reeves - all of them use their gun as a protector that allows them to fight back against not the people they shot, but the aspects of society those people represented.

I think there is a deeper pathology associated with folks who see their gun as their line between them and an extremely violent world. Problem is, their paranoia makes the world seem much more violent than it actually is, and their assumptions cause them to act out against these perceived threats, and our laws allow them to kill these perceived threats because they allow these people to walk around carrying loaded guns just waiting one of their many imagined scenarios to take place.

I see what you are saying. There is a segment of gun owners that are a little off their rocker when it comes to their "need" to own or carry a gun. There is something wrong with George Zimmerman. Dunn went far beyond what he should have done in that scenario as did Reeves. Reeves is a different case all together as he is a retired LEO and that status gives him gun carrying priveledges that the general citizenry doesnt have.

But I agree that there are people out there that shouldnt own a gun. More states should contribute their mental health records to the NICS background check system. It would help deny some mentally unstable people the chance to buy a gun.

I don't think there's anything we can do to keep guns out of the hands of unhinged ####wads like Zimmerman, Dunn, and Reeves unless we are ready to make owning and carrying a gun a privilege and not a right. That would require repealing the second amendment. Also safety enhancements to the guns themselves would not have stopped them.

If Dunn and Reeves both go to jail for murder then maybe we see some of that tide start to pull back. But I think there will still be a large segment of the gun-owning population that feel that their gun is more than a dangerous tool, that it is their protection against the world.

Dunn has already been convicted of 2nd Degree Murder. States Attorney wants to retry him on the 1st degree charge that the jury came back hung on. I just dont see premeditation in his act. I think 2nd degree is the correct charge. He's going to get 60+ years in jail.

Reeves will probably be convicted too. Reeves is a different case all together. This is a guy who was a retired cop. He had the authority to tell people what to do for most of his adult life. I dont think that feeling, desire or what ever you call it goes away once you retire. I think it stays with you. He was trying to use his "authority" as a police officer to back down another patron in the theatre. The only problem is that he's a 71 year old retiree at this point and not a 50 year old Police Captain. I dont know if he was unhinged or a lunatic. I think his reflexes may have taken over even at 71. Its still wrong and he should pay the price for his actions. If he had still be a LEO this probably would have ended with him flashing his badge and the other gentleman being in silver bracelets if he had continued his jaw jacking.

 

[Spanky267]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that concealed carry is the white man's great equalizer to a world that he sees as increasingly set against him.

Only the white man? It is the honest, law abiding citizens equalizer against the criminal element.

Doesn't work out so well when that equalizer is arming the criminals too.

You want to go common sense and start aggressively targeting corrupt FFL holders then I will consider changing my stance on a registry but the pro gun set wants nothing short of the complete deregulation of firearms and the return of the rootin'-tootin'-shootin'-wild-mother-#######-west. Giddyup!

It's insanity.

Not this pro gun guy. I think going after reckless FFL holders should be one of the primary focuses of BATFE. Its a sure way to curb the sale of guns to criminals through what are normally legal channels. I also wouldnt be opposed to background checks on private sales at gun shows as long as the cost is reasonable and it can be handled right there at the show. By private sales I mean the guys who buy a table at the show and bring in their "collection" of guns to sell. They group that puts on the show should be facilitating background checks for them. Make the cost $5 and who could argue?

I want to be able to own as many guns as I want. I like to target shoot. I am not a hunter, I have no desire to kill wild animals. Okay except for Rats, I hate rats. I want criminals to have as close to zero guns as possible. If we can find means, like cracjing down on unscrupulous FFLs and requring private sellers at gun shows to do background checks we'll restrict two avenues for criminals to get guns without really making it harder for the good guys to purchase them. I also think a mandatory 5 year sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, with no opportunity for parole/probation would help curb the problem as well.

 

[Spanky267]

The push back against regulation is reactionary. I find it interesting that you anti-gun folks ignore all of the anti-gun rhetoric spewed by some of our more liberal politicians. There are folks in Washington that want a UK or Australia like weapons ban. If you can't admit this then I understand how you can get the bolded portion of your post wrong.

It's ignored by any normal person because while they might be shouting and stumping for it, we know it's never going to happen. Very similar to the people who get worked up when conservatives start pounding the "anti-abortion" drum. That's been going on for decades and will continue to go on for decades but it's not going to change, so why worry about it? I love the irony of conservatives complaining that "the other side" just uses fear tactics to get what they want while other conservatives are doing the same....to the same people

ETA: And I'll point out for the millionth time, it's clear you don't know what "anti-gun" means.

I agree that there are loonies on the left who would like us to adopt the restrictive measures in place in Australia and the UK. I also agree that its never going to happen with our present form of government. That being said you brough up abortion and it does have some parralels here. Recent polling shows that there is a shift in the US regarding abortion.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/01/poll_shows_pro-life_sympathies_of_americans.html

The data is in the link above. 60% of those polled believe that abortion is morally wrong.

I think this is largely because of the work of pro-life groups. My own position on the subject has evolved over the years. I think a simialr media and educational campaign could bear similar fruit in regards to properly securing guns to prevent senseless accidents.

 

[Clifford]

I had written more but I deleted it and left it at that. To the normal person a gun is nothing more than a very dangerous tool they need for certain tasks.

I think to the angry white man (could be angry man of any racial variety, but white seems to fit most cases), it is a means to empower him against a world he sees as increasingly against him. It is a means to strike back against a world in which he is increasingly marginalized and ignored.

Look at the cases we have seen recently: Zimmerman, Dunn, Reeves - all of them use their gun as a protector that allows them to fight back against not the people they shot, but the aspects of society those people represented.

I think there is a deeper pathology associated with folks who see their gun as their line between them and an extremely violent world. Problem is, their paranoia makes the world seem much more violent than it actually is, and their assumptions cause them to act out against these perceived threats, and our laws allow them to kill these perceived threats because they allow these people to walk around carrying loaded guns just waiting one of their many imagined scenarios to take place.

I see what you are saying. There is a segment of gun owners that are a little off their rocker when it comes to their "need" to own or carry a gun. There is something wrong with George Zimmerman. Dunn went far beyond what he should have done in that scenario as did Reeves. Reeves is a different case all together as he is a retired LEO and that status gives him gun carrying priveledges that the general citizenry doesnt have.

But I agree that there are people out there that shouldnt own a gun. More states should contribute their mental health records to the NICS background check system. It would help deny some mentally unstable people the chance to buy a gun.

I don't think there's anything we can do to keep guns out of the hands of unhinged ####wads like Zimmerman, Dunn, and Reeves unless we are ready to make owning and carrying a gun a privilege and not a right. That would require repealing the second amendment. Also safety enhancements to the guns themselves would not have stopped them.

If Dunn and Reeves both go to jail for murder then maybe we see some of that tide start to pull back. But I think there will still be a large segment of the gun-owning population that feel that their gun is more than a dangerous tool, that it is their protection against the world.

Dunn has already been convicted of 2nd Degree Murder. States Attorney wants to retry him on the 1st degree charge that the jury came back hung on. I just dont see premeditation in his act. I think 2nd degree is the correct charge. He's going to get 60+ years in jail.

Reeves will probably be convicted too. Reeves is a different case all together. This is a guy who was a retired cop. He had the authority to tell people what to do for most of his adult life. I dont think that feeling, desire or what ever you call it goes away once you retire. I think it stays with you. He was trying to use his "authority" as a police officer to back down another patron in the theatre. The only problem is that he's a 71 year old retiree at this point and not a 50 year old Police Captain. I dont know if he was unhinged or a lunatic. I think his reflexes may have taken over even at 71. Its still wrong and he should pay the price for his actions. If he had still be a LEO this probably would have ended with him flashing his badge and the other gentleman being in silver bracelets if he had continued his jaw jacking.

Dunn was convicted only of attempted murder of the other three kids. Hung Jury on all murder counts as 3 of 9 ruled self-defense.

Reeves, none of that matters. Even as an active on-duty cop he has no authority to tell someone not to text in a movie theater as it is not against the law. Also given your comments about needing to stop abuses of power in LE, kinda strange to hear you say someone should be dragged away in handcuffs given that said person did not commit a crime. And he definitely fits my definition of an unhinged lunatic given that he killed someone over nothing.

Point is the why they are doing these things? Why do they bring their gun into situations where it is clearly not needed (Zimm I will allow for some debate on this, but we all know Zimm doesn't die from getting his ### beat)?

 

[Schlzm]

Whole lot of insanity on this page wow! Glad to see racism and "kill everyone" get trotted out. Way to destroy any ground you might have had in this debate.

Schlzm

ETA: And you get upset when called hysterical and panicky...

Actually I really don't give a crap. I find it ####### hilarious that a crowd the believes their ####### pea shooters are going to hold off the NWO feel fit to call anyone panicky. I see a trend. It's not all gun owners and it's not all white men, but the cases I see are mostly white men and they seem to be striking out against the world, not the people they shoot.Also, do you know what the word panic means? Or hysterical? I have suggested two things: a long-term solution to accidental gun deaths based on emerging technology, and that certain members of the gun crowd are using their concealed carry permits as a way to feel like they are still in control.

Which of those two seem hysterical or panicky to you? And which one seems more panicky than thinking your entire government is out to get you and the only thing standing between you and total enslavement is your trusty AR-15?

Do you read what you type? You like to talk about the meanings of words and try to convey what other people are doing but I am only addressing you and how you are acting. Maybe it's your avatar, but you seem shrill and rediculous.Schlzm

 

[Spanky267]

Whole lot of insanity on this page wow! Glad to see racism and "kill everyone" get trotted out. Way to destroy any ground you might have had in this debate.

Schlzm

ETA: And you get upset when called hysterical and panicky...

Actually I really don't give a crap. I find it ####### hilarious that a crowd the believes their ####### pea shooters are going to hold off the NWO feel fit to call anyone panicky. I see a trend. It's not all gun owners and it's not all white men, but the cases I see are mostly white men and they seem to be striking out against the world, not the people they shoot.

Also, do you know what the word panic means? Or hysterical? I have suggested two things: a long-term solution to accidental gun deaths based on emerging technology, and that certain members of the gun crowd are using their concealed carry permits as a way to feel like they are still in control.

Which of those two seem hysterical or panicky to you? And which one seems more panicky than thinking your entire government is out to get you and the only thing standing between you and total enslavement is your trusty AR-15?

I want an AR-15 to ward off the waves of undead in the coming zombie apocalypse. I'd like an M1 Garand because my grandfather carried one in WWII and George Patton called it one of the greatest battle implements ever devised. They are incredibly well crafted machines. I'd also like an M1903 Springfield rifle. The weapon our doughboys carried into combat in WWI. The same rifle I learned to drill on in JROTC. Another finely crafted machine and basically an American copy of the Mauser 98k that the German Army carried for almost 50 years. I have no desire to shoot anyone with any of these rifles. But I would like to shoot targets with them, maybe even targets shaped somewhat like people or zombies or Osama Bin Laden. I never want to fire any weapon I own at another human being or even another living creature, the undead are another store. I like my brains ungnawed upon. I will shoot the zombies without hesitation. I respect firearms for the implements they are. I'd love to own a Ferrari F70(LaFerrari) not because I ever think I'll be able to reach its top speed of 217mph or because I have an insatiable desire to go from 0-60mph in 3 seconds. But largely because the cars are exquisitely built and are the pinnacle of automobiles designed and built by human hands. They are mechanical art. I find more beauty in a well designed and visually pleasing car than I do in most works of art.

 

[[icon]]

Welp... Clifford's lost it.

 

[Spanky267]

I had written more but I deleted it and left it at that. To the normal person a gun is nothing more than a very dangerous tool they need for certain tasks.

I think to the angry white man (could be angry man of any racial variety, but white seems to fit most cases), it is a means to empower him against a world he sees as increasingly against him. It is a means to strike back against a world in which he is increasingly marginalized and ignored.

Look at the cases we have seen recently: Zimmerman, Dunn, Reeves - all of them use their gun as a protector that allows them to fight back against not the people they shot, but the aspects of society those people represented.

I think there is a deeper pathology associated with folks who see their gun as their line between them and an extremely violent world. Problem is, their paranoia makes the world seem much more violent than it actually is, and their assumptions cause them to act out against these perceived threats, and our laws allow them to kill these perceived threats because they allow these people to walk around carrying loaded guns just waiting one of their many imagined scenarios to take place.

I see what you are saying. There is a segment of gun owners that are a little off their rocker when it comes to their "need" to own or carry a gun. There is something wrong with George Zimmerman. Dunn went far beyond what he should have done in that scenario as did Reeves. Reeves is a different case all together as he is a retired LEO and that status gives him gun carrying priveledges that the general citizenry doesnt have.

But I agree that there are people out there that shouldnt own a gun. More states should contribute their mental health records to the NICS background check system. It would help deny some mentally unstable people the chance to buy a gun.

I don't think there's anything we can do to keep guns out of the hands of unhinged ####wads like Zimmerman, Dunn, and Reeves unless we are ready to make owning and carrying a gun a privilege and not a right. That would require repealing the second amendment. Also safety enhancements to the guns themselves would not have stopped them.

If Dunn and Reeves both go to jail for murder then maybe we see some of that tide start to pull back. But I think there will still be a large segment of the gun-owning population that feel that their gun is more than a dangerous tool, that it is their protection against the world.

Dunn has already been convicted of 2nd Degree Murder. States Attorney wants to retry him on the 1st degree charge that the jury came back hung on. I just dont see premeditation in his act. I think 2nd degree is the correct charge. He's going to get 60+ years in jail.

Reeves will probably be convicted too. Reeves is a different case all together. This is a guy who was a retired cop. He had the authority to tell people what to do for most of his adult life. I dont think that feeling, desire or what ever you call it goes away once you retire. I think it stays with you. He was trying to use his "authority" as a police officer to back down another patron in the theatre. The only problem is that he's a 71 year old retiree at this point and not a 50 year old Police Captain. I dont know if he was unhinged or a lunatic. I think his reflexes may have taken over even at 71. Its still wrong and he should pay the price for his actions. If he had still be a LEO this probably would have ended with him flashing his badge and the other gentleman being in silver bracelets if he had continued his jaw jacking.

Dunn was convicted only of attempted murder of the other three kids. Hung Jury on all murder counts as 3 of 9 ruled self-defense.

Reeves, none of that matters. Even as an active on-duty cop he has no authority to tell someone not to text in a movie theater as it is not against the law. Also given your comments about needing to stop abuses of power in LE, kinda strange to hear you say someone should be dragged away in handcuffs given that said person did not commit a crime. And he definitely fits my definition of an unhinged lunatic given that he killed someone over nothing.

Point is the why they are doing these things? Why do they bring their gun into situations where it is clearly not needed (Zimm I will allow for some debate on this, but we all know Zimm doesn't die from getting his ### beat)?

I never said that if Reeves had still been a cop I would have condoned him cuffing the man who became his victim. I just said that I could see it happening. Sorry if I left that in doubt.

I was mistaken in regards to Dunn he was convicted of 3 counts of attempted 2nd Degree Murder. Thats essentially a life sentence for a guy who is 47 years old. My mistake.

 

[The Commish]

The push back against regulation is reactionary. I find it interesting that you anti-gun folks ignore all of the anti-gun rhetoric spewed by some of our more liberal politicians. There are folks in Washington that want a UK or Australia like weapons ban. If you can't admit this then I understand how you can get the bolded portion of your post wrong.

It's ignored by any normal person because while they might be shouting and stumping for it, we know it's never going to happen. Very similar to the people who get worked up when conservatives start pounding the "anti-abortion" drum. That's been going on for decades and will continue to go on for decades but it's not going to change, so why worry about it? I love the irony of conservatives complaining that "the other side" just uses fear tactics to get what they want while other conservatives are doing the same....to the same people

ETA: And I'll point out for the millionth time, it's clear you don't know what "anti-gun" means.

I agree that there are loonies on the left who would like us to adopt the restrictive measures in place in Australia and the UK. I also agree that its never going to happen with our present form of government. That being said you brough up abortion and it does have some parralels here. Recent polling shows that there is a shift in the US regarding abortion.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/01/poll_shows_pro-life_sympathies_of_americans.html

The data is in the link above. 60% of those polled believe that abortion is morally wrong.

I think this is largely because of the work of pro-life groups. My own position on the subject has evolved over the years. I think a simialr media and educational campaign could bear similar fruit in regards to properly securing guns to prevent senseless accidents.

I think education would help significantly as well. I brought up abortion not because it's similar with respect to circumstance, but it's an example of how the left "fears" it will be overturned some day. It's irrational. There's no evidence to suggest it will ever happen. So any time a "pro gun" guy brings up the irrational fear that the government is trying to take their guns, I can't do anything but shake my head. I also agree with your comments about the background checks at shows. Personally, I'd like to see a "process" of selling a gun...similar to a title for a car. You hold the title to that gun, it's your responsibility.

 

[Chaka]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that concealed carry is the white man's great equalizer to a world that he sees as increasingly set against him.

Only the white man? It is the honest, law abiding citizens equalizer against the criminal element.

Doesn't work out so well when that equalizer is arming the criminals too.

You want to go common sense and start aggressively targeting corrupt FFL holders then I will consider changing my stance on a registry but the pro gun set wants nothing short of the complete deregulation of firearms and the return of the rootin'-tootin'-shootin'-wild-mother-#######-west. Giddyup!

It's insanity.

Not this pro gun guy. I think going after reckless FFL holders should be one of the primary focuses of BATFE. Its a sure way to curb the sale of guns to criminals through what are normally legal channels. I also wouldnt be opposed to background checks on private sales at gun shows as long as the cost is reasonable and it can be handled right there at the show. By private sales I mean the guys who buy a table at the show and bring in their "collection" of guns to sell. They group that puts on the show should be facilitating background checks for them. Make the cost $5 and who could argue?

I want to be able to own as many guns as I want. I like to target shoot. I am not a hunter, I have no desire to kill wild animals. Okay except for Rats, I hate rats. I want criminals to have as close to zero guns as possible. If we can find means, like cracjing down on unscrupulous FFLs and requring private sellers at gun shows to do background checks we'll restrict two avenues for criminals to get guns without really making it harder for the good guys to purchase them. I also think a mandatory 5 year sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, with no opportunity for parole/probation would help curb the problem as well.

Amen to all of that.

Of course the background check system also needs a complete overhaul because it needs to be national and comprehensive. Otherwise there is no way to get it done as quickly or cheaply as you would like. You okay with that?

 

[msommer]

I had written more but I deleted it and left it at that. To the normal person a gun is nothing more than a very dangerous tool they need for certain tasks.

I think to the angry white man (could be angry man of any racial variety, but white seems to fit most cases), it is a means to empower him against a world he sees as increasingly against him. It is a means to strike back against a world in which he is increasingly marginalized and ignored.

Look at the cases we have seen recently: Zimmerman, Dunn, Reeves - all of them use their gun as a protector that allows them to fight back against not the people they shot, but the aspects of society those people represented.

I think there is a deeper pathology associated with folks who see their gun as their line between them and an extremely violent world. Problem is, their paranoia makes the world seem much more violent than it actually is, and their assumptions cause them to act out against these perceived threats, and our laws allow them to kill these perceived threats because they allow these people to walk around carrying loaded guns just waiting one of their many imagined scenarios to take place.

I see what you are saying. There is a segment of gun owners that are a little off their rocker when it comes to their "need" to own or carry a gun. There is something wrong with George Zimmerman. Dunn went far beyond what he should have done in that scenario as did Reeves. Reeves is a different case all together as he is a retired LEO and that status gives him gun carrying priveledges that the general citizenry doesnt have.

But I agree that there are people out there that shouldnt own a gun. More states should contribute their mental health records to the NICS background check system. It would help deny some mentally unstable people the chance to buy a gun.

I don't think there's anything we can do to keep guns out of the hands of unhinged ####wads like Zimmerman, Dunn, and Reeves unless we are ready to make owning and carrying a gun a privilege and not a right. That would require repealing the second amendment. Also safety enhancements to the guns themselves would not have stopped them.

If Dunn and Reeves both go to jail for murder then maybe we see some of that tide start to pull back. But I think there will still be a large segment of the gun-owning population that feel that their gun is more than a dangerous tool, that it is their protection against the world.

Dunn has already been convicted of 2nd Degree Murder. States Attorney wants to retry him on the 1st degree charge that the jury came back hung on. I just dont see premeditation in his act. I think 2nd degree is the correct charge. He's going to get 60+ years in jail.

Reeves will probably be convicted too. Reeves is a different case all together. This is a guy who was a retired cop. He had the authority to tell people what to do for most of his adult life. I dont think that feeling, desire or what ever you call it goes away once you retire. I think it stays with you. He was trying to use his "authority" as a police officer to back down another patron in the theatre. The only problem is that he's a 71 year old retiree at this point and not a 50 year old Police Captain. I dont know if he was unhinged or a lunatic. I think his reflexes may have taken over even at 71. Its still wrong and he should pay the price for his actions. If he had still be a LEO this probably would have ended with him flashing his badge and the other gentleman being in silver bracelets if he had continued his jaw jacking.

Hmmmm, is it then wise to let him carry?

 

[Clifford]

Whole lot of insanity on this page wow! Glad to see racism and "kill everyone" get trotted out. Way to destroy any ground you might have had in this debate.

Schlzm

ETA: And you get upset when called hysterical and panicky...

Actually I really don't give a crap. I find it ####### hilarious that a crowd the believes their ####### pea shooters are going to hold off the NWO feel fit to call anyone panicky. I see a trend. It's not all gun owners and it's not all white men, but the cases I see are mostly white men and they seem to be striking out against the world, not the people they shoot.

Also, do you know what the word panic means? Or hysterical? I have suggested two things: a long-term solution to accidental gun deaths based on emerging technology, and that certain members of the gun crowd are using their concealed carry permits as a way to feel like they are still in control.

Which of those two seem hysterical or panicky to you? And which one seems more panicky than thinking your entire government is out to get you and the only thing standing between you and total enslavement is your trusty AR-15?

I want an AR-15 to ward off the waves of undead in the coming zombie apocalypse. I'd like an M1 Garand because my grandfather carried one in WWII and George Patton called it one of the greatest battle implements ever devised. They are incredibly well crafted machines. I'd also like an M1903 Springfield rifle. The weapon our doughboys carried into combat in WWI. The same rifle I learned to drill on in JROTC. Another finely crafted machine and basically an American copy of the Mauser 98k that the German Army carried for almost 50 years. I have no desire to shoot anyone with any of these rifles. But I would like to shoot targets with them, maybe even targets shaped somewhat like people or zombies or Osama Bin Laden. I never want to fire any weapon I own at another human being or even another living creature, the undead are another store. I like my brains ungnawed upon. I will shoot the zombies without hesitation. I respect firearms for the implements they are. I'd love to own a Ferrari F70(LaFerrari) not because I ever think I'll be able to reach its top speed of 217mph or because I have an insatiable desire to go from 0-60mph in 3 seconds. But largely because the cars are exquisitely built and are the pinnacle of automobiles designed and built by human hands. They are mechanical art. I find more beauty in a well designed and visually pleasing car than I do in most works of art.

No problem with any of this. I don't think you are unhinged, but then I know you are kidding about the zombie apocalypse. The Red Dawn crowd isn't kidding.

Whole lot of insanity on this page wow! Glad to see racism and "kill everyone" get trotted out. Way to destroy any ground you might have had in this debate.

Schlzm

ETA: And you get upset when called hysterical and panicky...

Actually I really don't give a crap. I find it ####### hilarious that a crowd the believes their ####### pea shooters are going to hold off the NWO feel fit to call anyone panicky. I see a trend. It's not all gun owners and it's not all white men, but the cases I see are mostly white men and they seem to be striking out against the world, not the people they shoot.Also, do you know what the word panic means? Or hysterical? I have suggested two things: a long-term solution to accidental gun deaths based on emerging technology, and that certain members of the gun crowd are using their concealed carry permits as a way to feel like they are still in control.

Which of those two seem hysterical or panicky to you? And which one seems more panicky than thinking your entire government is out to get you and the only thing standing between you and total enslavement is your trusty AR-15?

Do you read what you type? You like to talk about the meanings of words and try to convey what other people are doing but I am only addressing you and how you are acting. Maybe it's your avatar, but you seem shrill and rediculous.Schlzm

Well if it's in what I wrote should be easy to come up with some shrill and ridiculous things I have posted. I've posted on two subjects, and really only one in depth.

If there is something you find shrill and ridiculous about the long-term strategy involving existing tech post it.

On the second, I realize it is unpopular to call out the paranoia and delusions that some concealed carry holders show. It's unpopular to express that recent shootings we have discussed on this board all seem to have a central theme. That doesn't make the assertion that they all carry a similar theme shrill or ridiculous. Far-fetched would at least fit for an opposing view saying there is no central theme or connection.

Seems like a common refrain to say that anyone actually challenging the established notions and positions that have led this country to where it is on guns is being panicky or crazy. Having lived outside this country, I can say that this view is unique to the US and probably much more prevalent in people who have never lived outside of it. The rest of the world views us as completely bat#### ####### crazy on this issue. Hopelessly mentally deranged. Given that our gun violence level per capita in on par with third-world republics rather than our first-world economic counterparts, I think we are the ones in need of self-examination. Realizing that the gun lobby is so entrenched in our politics, and gun culture so entrenched as a national value, I feel the need to try and find some points of common ground with the opposition.

If this is viewed as shrill and panicky or "losing it" so be it, I'm not going to change my views unless someone actually presents a good argument. Name calling is not going to get it done.

ETA: Just want to add in my defense I have not gone after magazine clips, semi-auto or "scary" looking guns, and I have not suggested any type of ban. I have suggested government action to spur investment in better technology to make guns safer.

 

[Schlzm]

Whole lot of insanity on this page wow! Glad to see racism and "kill everyone" get trotted out. Way to destroy any ground you might have had in this debate.

Schlzm

ETA: And you get upset when called hysterical and panicky...

Actually I really don't give a crap. I find it ####### hilarious that a crowd the believes their ####### pea shooters are going to hold off the NWO feel fit to call anyone panicky. I see a trend. It's not all gun owners and it's not all white men, but the cases I see are mostly white men and they seem to be striking out against the world, not the people they shoot.Also, do you know what the word panic means? Or hysterical? I have suggested two things: a long-term solution to accidental gun deaths based on emerging technology, and that certain members of the gun crowd are using their concealed carry permits as a way to feel like they are still in control.

Which of those two seem hysterical or panicky to you? And which one seems more panicky than thinking your entire government is out to get you and the only thing standing between you and total enslavement is your trusty AR-15?

Whole lot of insanity on this page wow! Glad to see racism and "kill everyone" get trotted out. Way to destroy any ground you might have had in this debate.

Schlzm

ETA: And you get upset when called hysterical and panicky...

Actually I really don't give a crap. I find it ####### hilarious that a crowd the believes their ####### pea shooters are going to hold off the NWO feel fit to call anyone panicky. I see a trend. It's not all gun owners and it's not all white men, but the cases I see are mostly white men and they seem to be striking out against the world, not the people they shoot.Also, do you know what the word panic means? Or hysterical? I have suggested two things: a long-term solution to accidental gun deaths based on emerging technology, and that certain members of the gun crowd are using their concealed carry permits as a way to feel like they are still in control.

Which of those two seem hysterical or panicky to you? And which one seems more panicky than thinking your entire government is out to get you and the only thing standing between you and total enslavement is your trusty AR-15?

Do you read what you type? You like to talk about the meanings of words and try to convey what other people are doing but I am only addressing you and how you are acting. Maybe it's your avatar, but you seem shrill and rediculous.Schlzm

Well if it's in what I wrote should be easy to come up with some shrill and ridiculous things I have posted. I've posted on two subjects, and really only one in depth.1: If there is something you find shrill and ridiculous about the long-term strategy involving existing tech post it.

On the second, I realize it is unpopular to call out the paranoia and delusions that some concealed carry holders show. It's unpopular to express that recent shootings we have discussed on this board all seem to have a central theme. That doesn't make the assertion that they all carry a similar theme shrill or ridiculous. Far-fetched would at least fit for an opposing view saying there is no central theme or connection.

Seems like a common refrain to say that anyone actually challenging the established notions and positions that have led this country to where it is on guns is being panicky or crazy. Having lived outside this country, I can say that this view is unique to the US and probably much more prevalent in people who have never lived outside of it. The rest of the world views us as completely bat#### ####### crazy on this issue. Hopelessly mentally deranged. Given that our gun violence level per capita in on par with third-world republics rather than our first-world economic counterparts, I think we are the ones in need of self-examination. Realizing that the gun lobby is so entrenched in our politics, and gun culture so entrenched as a national value, I feel the need to try and find some points of common ground with the opposition.

If this is viewed as shrill and panicky or "losing it" so be it, I'm not going to change my views unless someone actually presents a good argument. Name calling is not going to get it done.

ETA: Just want to add in my defense I have not gone after magazine clips, semi-auto or "scary" looking guns, and I have not suggested any type of ban. I have suggested government action to spur investment in better technology to make guns safer.

1: You mean the item I agreed with you on ultimately? As to the rest of your post, it's all in your writing. Your posts have a tone of a scared person screaming about things they don't understand. Of course a country that has more personally owned firearms than pretty much anywhere is going to have more firearm related violence so attempting to compare other countries in this area is mostly pointless. Pointing out three recent events where "angry white men" killed "innocent black kids" as some terrifying trend pointing to the inevitable, oh wait what was your point other than "angry white men" owning guns is bad?, while barely giving lip service to the countless other violent acts commited by people of all walks of life also comes off as pretty shrill. Finally I don't expect you to ever conede any argument good enough to change your point of view on the subject. You are entrenched, and that's fine, but at least except it. I'm just pointing out that your tone isn't going to win over anyone.

Schlzm

 

[Spanky267]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that concealed carry is the white man's great equalizer to a world that he sees as increasingly set against him.

Only the white man? It is the honest, law abiding citizens equalizer against the criminal element.

Doesn't work out so well when that equalizer is arming the criminals too.

You want to go common sense and start aggressively targeting corrupt FFL holders then I will consider changing my stance on a registry but the pro gun set wants nothing short of the complete deregulation of firearms and the return of the rootin'-tootin'-shootin'-wild-mother-#######-west. Giddyup!

It's insanity.

Not this pro gun guy. I think going after reckless FFL holders should be one of the primary focuses of BATFE. Its a sure way to curb the sale of guns to criminals through what are normally legal channels. I also wouldnt be opposed to background checks on private sales at gun shows as long as the cost is reasonable and it can be handled right there at the show. By private sales I mean the guys who buy a table at the show and bring in their "collection" of guns to sell. They group that puts on the show should be facilitating background checks for them. Make the cost $5 and who could argue?

I want to be able to own as many guns as I want. I like to target shoot. I am not a hunter, I have no desire to kill wild animals. Okay except for Rats, I hate rats. I want criminals to have as close to zero guns as possible. If we can find means, like cracjing down on unscrupulous FFLs and requring private sellers at gun shows to do background checks we'll restrict two avenues for criminals to get guns without really making it harder for the good guys to purchase them. I also think a mandatory 5 year sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, with no opportunity for parole/probation would help curb the problem as well.

Amen to all of that.

Of course the background check system also needs a complete overhaul because it needs to be national and comprehensive. Otherwise there is no way to get it done as quickly or cheaply as you would like. You okay with that?

The NICS system is national. You buy any firearm at a retail establishment and they all use the system. Here is the FBI brief on the NICS system.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/participation-map

 

[Chaka]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that concealed carry is the white man's great equalizer to a world that he sees as increasingly set against him.

Only the white man? It is the honest, law abiding citizens equalizer against the criminal element.

Doesn't work out so well when that equalizer is arming the criminals too.

You want to go common sense and start aggressively targeting corrupt FFL holders then I will consider changing my stance on a registry but the pro gun set wants nothing short of the complete deregulation of firearms and the return of the rootin'-tootin'-shootin'-wild-mother-#######-west. Giddyup!

It's insanity.

Not this pro gun guy. I think going after reckless FFL holders should be one of the primary focuses of BATFE. Its a sure way to curb the sale of guns to criminals through what are normally legal channels. I also wouldnt be opposed to background checks on private sales at gun shows as long as the cost is reasonable and it can be handled right there at the show. By private sales I mean the guys who buy a table at the show and bring in their "collection" of guns to sell. They group that puts on the show should be facilitating background checks for them. Make the cost $5 and who could argue?

I want to be able to own as many guns as I want. I like to target shoot. I am not a hunter, I have no desire to kill wild animals. Okay except for Rats, I hate rats. I want criminals to have as close to zero guns as possible. If we can find means, like cracjing down on unscrupulous FFLs and requring private sellers at gun shows to do background checks we'll restrict two avenues for criminals to get guns without really making it harder for the good guys to purchase them. I also think a mandatory 5 year sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, with no opportunity for parole/probation would help curb the problem as well.

Amen to all of that.

Of course the background check system also needs a complete overhaul because it needs to be national and comprehensive. Otherwise there is no way to get it done as quickly or cheaply as you would like. You okay with that?

The NICS system is national. You buy any firearm at a retail establishment and they all use the system. Here is the FBI brief on the NICS system.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/participation-map

I am not sure how comprehensive it is and only 13 states are participating. It needs to be mandatory, comprehensive and national. Is that a problem?

Also you can own as many guns as you want, how would a comprehensive national registry prevent that?

 

[Spanky267]

Whole lot of insanity on this page wow! Glad to see racism and "kill everyone" get trotted out. Way to destroy any ground you might have had in this debate.

Schlzm

ETA: And you get upset when called hysterical and panicky...

Actually I really don't give a crap. I find it ####### hilarious that a crowd the believes their ####### pea shooters are going to hold off the NWO feel fit to call anyone panicky. I see a trend. It's not all gun owners and it's not all white men, but the cases I see are mostly white men and they seem to be striking out against the world, not the people they shoot.

Also, do you know what the word panic means? Or hysterical? I have suggested two things: a long-term solution to accidental gun deaths based on emerging technology, and that certain members of the gun crowd are using their concealed carry permits as a way to feel like they are still in control.

Which of those two seem hysterical or panicky to you? And which one seems more panicky than thinking your entire government is out to get you and the only thing standing between you and total enslavement is your trusty AR-15?

I want an AR-15 to ward off the waves of undead in the coming zombie apocalypse. I'd like an M1 Garand because my grandfather carried one in WWII and George Patton called it one of the greatest battle implements ever devised. They are incredibly well crafted machines. I'd also like an M1903 Springfield rifle. The weapon our doughboys carried into combat in WWI. The same rifle I learned to drill on in JROTC. Another finely crafted machine and basically an American copy of the Mauser 98k that the German Army carried for almost 50 years. I have no desire to shoot anyone with any of these rifles. But I would like to shoot targets with them, maybe even targets shaped somewhat like people or zombies or Osama Bin Laden. I never want to fire any weapon I own at another human being or even another living creature, the undead are another store. I like my brains ungnawed upon. I will shoot the zombies without hesitation. I respect firearms for the implements they are. I'd love to own a Ferrari F70(LaFerrari) not because I ever think I'll be able to reach its top speed of 217mph or because I have an insatiable desire to go from 0-60mph in 3 seconds. But largely because the cars are exquisitely built and are the pinnacle of automobiles designed and built by human hands. They are mechanical art. I find more beauty in a well designed and visually pleasing car than I do in most works of art.

No problem with any of this. I don't think you are unhinged, but then I know you are kidding about the zombie apocalypse. The Red Dawn crowd isn't kidding.

Oh no my friend. The zombie apocalypse is very real. Very real indeed. Have you seen Doomsday Preppers on Nat Geo?

http://5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen

 

[Spanky267]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that concealed carry is the white man's great equalizer to a world that he sees as increasingly set against him.

Only the white man? It is the honest, law abiding citizens equalizer against the criminal element.

Doesn't work out so well when that equalizer is arming the criminals too.

You want to go common sense and start aggressively targeting corrupt FFL holders then I will consider changing my stance on a registry but the pro gun set wants nothing short of the complete deregulation of firearms and the return of the rootin'-tootin'-shootin'-wild-mother-#######-west. Giddyup!

It's insanity.

Not this pro gun guy. I think going after reckless FFL holders should be one of the primary focuses of BATFE. Its a sure way to curb the sale of guns to criminals through what are normally legal channels. I also wouldnt be opposed to background checks on private sales at gun shows as long as the cost is reasonable and it can be handled right there at the show. By private sales I mean the guys who buy a table at the show and bring in their "collection" of guns to sell. They group that puts on the show should be facilitating background checks for them. Make the cost $5 and who could argue?

I want to be able to own as many guns as I want. I like to target shoot. I am not a hunter, I have no desire to kill wild animals. Okay except for Rats, I hate rats. I want criminals to have as close to zero guns as possible. If we can find means, like cracjing down on unscrupulous FFLs and requring private sellers at gun shows to do background checks we'll restrict two avenues for criminals to get guns without really making it harder for the good guys to purchase them. I also think a mandatory 5 year sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, with no opportunity for parole/probation would help curb the problem as well.

Amen to all of that.

Of course the background check system also needs a complete overhaul because it needs to be national and comprehensive. Otherwise there is no way to get it done as quickly or cheaply as you would like. You okay with that?

The NICS system is national. You buy any firearm at a retail establishment and they all use the system. Here is the FBI brief on the NICS system.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/participation-map

I am not sure how comprehensive it is and only 13 states are participating. It needs to be mandatory, comprehensive and national. Is that a problem?

Also you can own as many guns as you want, how would a comprehensive national registry prevent that?

You are misreading the brief.

13 states have their own middle man agency. Background checks get shuffled through that agency from retailers for all firearm purchases before they are sent to FBI NICS section.

36 states have the retailers submit directly to the FBI NICS section for all firearm purchases.

7 states have an agency that serves as a middle man for some background checks, retail purchase of handguns only or the issuance of handgun permits. All long gun requests from retailers in these states go straight from the retailer to the FBI NICS.

I know that is 56 "states" but DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, N. Mariana Islands, US Virgin Islands and American Samoa all abide by US law. Every retail transaction in this country receives a background check.

 

[Chaka]

So what is the scenario where certain gun owners think their guns will be used to protect themselves from the government?

Will the government make one law too many that infringes on civil liberties and all the gun owners will take to the streets and overthrow the government by force? Start some kind of insurgency movement and foment an American Spring?

Other than the one where the government tries to take your guns (we know how you feel about that) which infringement on civil liberties will be the one that unleashes this uprising?

If it is only about personal protection, or hunting, or target shooting how does a registry limit your ability on any of those fronts? The answer is that it doesn't and if the government decides to take away everyone's guns, which we all know will never happen, then they will have fired the shot across your bow and the uprising can commence.

 

[Chaka]

The argument against being able to track every gun from manufacturer to distributor to each subsequent owner seems entirely illogical. Having that information would help immensely to identify where guns are getting into the hands of the criminals and actually allow law enforcement to do something about it. That would increase everyone's safety. Why don't gun owners want to increase everyone's safety?

 

[Chaka]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that concealed carry is the white man's great equalizer to a world that he sees as increasingly set against him.

Only the white man? It is the honest, law abiding citizens equalizer against the criminal element.

Doesn't work out so well when that equalizer is arming the criminals too.

You want to go common sense and start aggressively targeting corrupt FFL holders then I will consider changing my stance on a registry but the pro gun set wants nothing short of the complete deregulation of firearms and the return of the rootin'-tootin'-shootin'-wild-mother-#######-west. Giddyup!

It's insanity.

Not this pro gun guy. I think going after reckless FFL holders should be one of the primary focuses of BATFE. Its a sure way to curb the sale of guns to criminals through what are normally legal channels. I also wouldnt be opposed to background checks on private sales at gun shows as long as the cost is reasonable and it can be handled right there at the show. By private sales I mean the guys who buy a table at the show and bring in their "collection" of guns to sell. They group that puts on the show should be facilitating background checks for them. Make the cost $5 and who could argue?

I want to be able to own as many guns as I want. I like to target shoot. I am not a hunter, I have no desire to kill wild animals. Okay except for Rats, I hate rats. I want criminals to have as close to zero guns as possible. If we can find means, like cracjing down on unscrupulous FFLs and requring private sellers at gun shows to do background checks we'll restrict two avenues for criminals to get guns without really making it harder for the good guys to purchase them. I also think a mandatory 5 year sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, with no opportunity for parole/probation would help curb the problem as well.

Amen to all of that.

Of course the background check system also needs a complete overhaul because it needs to be national and comprehensive. Otherwise there is no way to get it done as quickly or cheaply as you would like. You okay with that?

The NICS system is national. You buy any firearm at a retail establishment and they all use the system. Here is the FBI brief on the NICS system.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/participation-map

I am not sure how comprehensive it is and only 13 states are participating. It needs to be mandatory, comprehensive and national. Is that a problem?

Also you can own as many guns as you want, how would a comprehensive national registry prevent that?

You are misreading the brief.

13 states have their own middle man agency. Background checks get shuffled through that agency from retailers for all firearm purchases before they are sent to FBI NICS section.

36 states have the retailers submit directly to the FBI NICS section for all firearm purchases.

7 states have an agency that serves as a middle man for some background checks, retail purchase of handguns only or the issuance of handgun permits. All long gun requests from retailers in these states go straight from the retailer to the FBI NICS.

I know that is 56 "states" but DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, N. Mariana Islands, US Virgin Islands and American Samoa all abide by US law. Every retail transaction in this country receives a background check.

My bad. And what is your assessment for how that system has worked to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or people who should not own guns due to mental illness or similar issues? Do you consider it in no need of improvement?

 

[Spanky267]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that concealed carry is the white man's great equalizer to a world that he sees as increasingly set against him.

Only the white man? It is the honest, law abiding citizens equalizer against the criminal element.

Doesn't work out so well when that equalizer is arming the criminals too.

You want to go common sense and start aggressively targeting corrupt FFL holders then I will consider changing my stance on a registry but the pro gun set wants nothing short of the complete deregulation of firearms and the return of the rootin'-tootin'-shootin'-wild-mother-#######-west. Giddyup!

It's insanity.

Not this pro gun guy. I think going after reckless FFL holders should be one of the primary focuses of BATFE. Its a sure way to curb the sale of guns to criminals through what are normally legal channels. I also wouldnt be opposed to background checks on private sales at gun shows as long as the cost is reasonable and it can be handled right there at the show. By private sales I mean the guys who buy a table at the show and bring in their "collection" of guns to sell. They group that puts on the show should be facilitating background checks for them. Make the cost $5 and who could argue?

I want to be able to own as many guns as I want. I like to target shoot. I am not a hunter, I have no desire to kill wild animals. Okay except for Rats, I hate rats. I want criminals to have as close to zero guns as possible. If we can find means, like cracjing down on unscrupulous FFLs and requring private sellers at gun shows to do background checks we'll restrict two avenues for criminals to get guns without really making it harder for the good guys to purchase them. I also think a mandatory 5 year sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, with no opportunity for parole/probation would help curb the problem as well.

Amen to all of that.

Of course the background check system also needs a complete overhaul because it needs to be national and comprehensive. Otherwise there is no way to get it done as quickly or cheaply as you would like. You okay with that?

The NICS system is national. You buy any firearm at a retail establishment and they all use the system. Here is the FBI brief on the NICS system.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/participation-map

I am not sure how comprehensive it is and only 13 states are participating. It needs to be mandatory, comprehensive and national. Is that a problem?

Also you can own as many guns as you want, how would a comprehensive national registry prevent that?

You are misreading the brief.

13 states have their own middle man agency. Background checks get shuffled through that agency from retailers for all firearm purchases before they are sent to FBI NICS section.

36 states have the retailers submit directly to the FBI NICS section for all firearm purchases.

7 states have an agency that serves as a middle man for some background checks, retail purchase of handguns only or the issuance of handgun permits. All long gun requests from retailers in these states go straight from the retailer to the FBI NICS.

I know that is 56 "states" but DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, N. Mariana Islands, US Virgin Islands and American Samoa all abide by US law. Every retail transaction in this country receives a background check.

My bad. And what is your assessment for how that system has worked to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or people who should not own guns due to mental illness or similar issues? Do you consider it in no need of improvement?

I do consider it in need of improvement. The criminal records are being uploaded to the system. Where the states are falling down is in uploading mental health records.

Story from the Boston Globe on the issue

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/01/28/massachusetts-among-worst-sharing-mental-health-data-for-gun-background-checks/WmvEKsnUWsQWxvvsXwLY5O/story.html

Massachusetts has submitted 1 mental health record to NICS since 1999 and it was a test record.

While I agree that we should be extremely clear about what mental health records are submitted. People who are involuntarily commited should be allowed to buy a gun for at least some period of time. I also dont know if it should be a permanent exclusion or if it should sunset if no additional records are added to the system.

 

[Clifford]

Whole lot of insanity on this page wow! Glad to see racism and "kill everyone" get trotted out. Way to destroy any ground you might have had in this debate.

Schlzm

ETA: And you get upset when called hysterical and panicky...

Actually I really don't give a crap. I find it ####### hilarious that a crowd the believes their ####### pea shooters are going to hold off the NWO feel fit to call anyone panicky. I see a trend. It's not all gun owners and it's not all white men, but the cases I see are mostly white men and they seem to be striking out against the world, not the people they shoot.Also, do you know what the word panic means? Or hysterical? I have suggested two things: a long-term solution to accidental gun deaths based on emerging technology, and that certain members of the gun crowd are using their concealed carry permits as a way to feel like they are still in control.

Which of those two seem hysterical or panicky to you? And which one seems more panicky than thinking your entire government is out to get you and the only thing standing between you and total enslavement is your trusty AR-15?

Whole lot of insanity on this page wow! Glad to see racism and "kill everyone" get trotted out. Way to destroy any ground you might have had in this debate.

Schlzm

ETA: And you get upset when called hysterical and panicky...

Actually I really don't give a crap. I find it ####### hilarious that a crowd the believes their ####### pea shooters are going to hold off the NWO feel fit to call anyone panicky. I see a trend. It's not all gun owners and it's not all white men, but the cases I see are mostly white men and they seem to be striking out against the world, not the people they shoot.Also, do you know what the word panic means? Or hysterical? I have suggested two things: a long-term solution to accidental gun deaths based on emerging technology, and that certain members of the gun crowd are using their concealed carry permits as a way to feel like they are still in control.

Which of those two seem hysterical or panicky to you? And which one seems more panicky than thinking your entire government is out to get you and the only thing standing between you and total enslavement is your trusty AR-15?

Do you read what you type? You like to talk about the meanings of words and try to convey what other people are doing but I am only addressing you and how you are acting. Maybe it's your avatar, but you seem shrill and rediculous.Schlzm

Well if it's in what I wrote should be easy to come up with some shrill and ridiculous things I have posted. I've posted on two subjects, and really only one in depth.1: If there is something you find shrill and ridiculous about the long-term strategy involving existing tech post it.

On the second, I realize it is unpopular to call out the paranoia and delusions that some concealed carry holders show. It's unpopular to express that recent shootings we have discussed on this board all seem to have a central theme. That doesn't make the assertion that they all carry a similar theme shrill or ridiculous. Far-fetched would at least fit for an opposing view saying there is no central theme or connection.

Seems like a common refrain to say that anyone actually challenging the established notions and positions that have led this country to where it is on guns is being panicky or crazy. Having lived outside this country, I can say that this view is unique to the US and probably much more prevalent in people who have never lived outside of it. The rest of the world views us as completely bat#### ####### crazy on this issue. Hopelessly mentally deranged. Given that our gun violence level per capita in on par with third-world republics rather than our first-world economic counterparts, I think we are the ones in need of self-examination. Realizing that the gun lobby is so entrenched in our politics, and gun culture so entrenched as a national value, I feel the need to try and find some points of common ground with the opposition.

If this is viewed as shrill and panicky or "losing it" so be it, I'm not going to change my views unless someone actually presents a good argument. Name calling is not going to get it done.

ETA: Just want to add in my defense I have not gone after magazine clips, semi-auto or "scary" looking guns, and I have not suggested any type of ban. I have suggested government action to spur investment in better technology to make guns safer.

1: You mean the item I agreed with you on ultimately?As to the rest of your post, it's all in your writing. Your posts have a tone of a scared person screaming about things they don't understand. Of course a country that has more personally owned firearms than pretty much anywhere is going to have more firearm related violence so attempting to compare other countries in this area is mostly pointless. Pointing out three recent events where "angry white men" killed "innocent black kids" as some terrifying trend pointing to the inevitable, oh wait what was your point other than "angry white men" owning guns is bad?, while barely giving lip service to the countless other violent acts commited by people of all walks of life also comes off as pretty shrill. Finally I don't expect you to ever conede any argument good enough to change your point of view on the subject. You are entrenched, and that's fine, but at least except it. I'm just pointing out that your tone isn't going to win over anyone.

Schlzm

I understand the opposing arguments, I just don't find them compelling

More education: more of what already isn't working all that well.

Any new solution has to be 100% effective: Current solutions aren't 100% effective

Guns are a separate class because of the 2nd amendment: I agree that guns can not be rendered useless or ineffective, but I do not agree that there is anything in the 2nd amendment that makes them a protected class of product that our government can not regulate. They just can't impose regulations that render guns ineffective or useless.

As to the trends I see they are my opinion and have more to feelings of marginalization than race. However that relates more to whites than other races. And it relates more to the middle class than any other class. I realize I am connecting dots here, but I don't see anything wrong with that. It has striking similarities with the whole "take back America" movement coming from the right, which is predominantly lower and middle-class whites. Sorry, that's just how the racial demographics fall. I don't see being white as a causal factor for being angry or unhinged. It has more to do with worldview and demographics.

 

[Chaka]

I do consider it in need of improvement. The criminal records are being uploaded to the system. Where the states are falling down is in uploading mental health records.

Story from the Boston Globe on the issue

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/01/28/massachusetts-among-worst-sharing-mental-health-data-for-gun-background-checks/WmvEKsnUWsQWxvvsXwLY5O/story.html

Massachusetts has submitted 1 mental health record to NICS since 1999 and it was a test record.

While I agree that we should be extremely clear about what mental health records are submitted. People who are involuntarily commited should be allowed to buy a gun for at least some period of time. I also dont know if it should be a permanent exclusion or if it should sunset if no additional records are added to the system.

So you are okay with private medical records being put in an national database but against a comprehensive gun registry?

 

[Spanky267]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that concealed carry is the white man's great equalizer to a world that he sees as increasingly set against him.

Only the white man? It is the honest, law abiding citizens equalizer against the criminal element.

Doesn't work out so well when that equalizer is arming the criminals too.

You want to go common sense and start aggressively targeting corrupt FFL holders then I will consider changing my stance on a registry but the pro gun set wants nothing short of the complete deregulation of firearms and the return of the rootin'-tootin'-shootin'-wild-mother-#######-west. Giddyup!

It's insanity.

Not this pro gun guy. I think going after reckless FFL holders should be one of the primary focuses of BATFE. Its a sure way to curb the sale of guns to criminals through what are normally legal channels. I also wouldnt be opposed to background checks on private sales at gun shows as long as the cost is reasonable and it can be handled right there at the show. By private sales I mean the guys who buy a table at the show and bring in their "collection" of guns to sell. They group that puts on the show should be facilitating background checks for them. Make the cost $5 and who could argue?

I want to be able to own as many guns as I want. I like to target shoot. I am not a hunter, I have no desire to kill wild animals. Okay except for Rats, I hate rats. I want criminals to have as close to zero guns as possible. If we can find means, like cracjing down on unscrupulous FFLs and requring private sellers at gun shows to do background checks we'll restrict two avenues for criminals to get guns without really making it harder for the good guys to purchase them. I also think a mandatory 5 year sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, with no opportunity for parole/probation would help curb the problem as well.

Amen to all of that.

Of course the background check system also needs a complete overhaul because it needs to be national and comprehensive. Otherwise there is no way to get it done as quickly or cheaply as you would like. You okay with that?

The NICS system is national. You buy any firearm at a retail establishment and they all use the system. Here is the FBI brief on the NICS system.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/participation-map

I am not sure how comprehensive it is and only 13 states are participating. It needs to be mandatory, comprehensive and national. Is that a problem?

Also you can own as many guns as you want, how would a comprehensive national registry prevent that?

You are misreading the brief.

13 states have their own middle man agency. Background checks get shuffled through that agency from retailers for all firearm purchases before they are sent to FBI NICS section.

36 states have the retailers submit directly to the FBI NICS section for all firearm purchases.

7 states have an agency that serves as a middle man for some background checks, retail purchase of handguns only or the issuance of handgun permits. All long gun requests from retailers in these states go straight from the retailer to the FBI NICS.

I know that is 56 "states" but DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, N. Mariana Islands, US Virgin Islands and American Samoa all abide by US law. Every retail transaction in this country receives a background check.

My bad. And what is your assessment for how that system has worked to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or people who should not own guns due to mental illness or similar issues? Do you consider it in no need of improvement?

Here is another angle. People that get rejected on background checks arent being prosecuted for providing false information. At least they arent being prosecuted in significant enough numbers to deter people from attempting.

http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2013/mar/22/kelly-ayotte/most-people-trying-buy-gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/

 

[Spanky267]

I do consider it in need of improvement. The criminal records are being uploaded to the system. Where the states are falling down is in uploading mental health records.

Story from the Boston Globe on the issue

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/01/28/massachusetts-among-worst-sharing-mental-health-data-for-gun-background-checks/WmvEKsnUWsQWxvvsXwLY5O/story.html

Massachusetts has submitted 1 mental health record to NICS since 1999 and it was a test record.

While I agree that we should be extremely clear about what mental health records are submitted. People who are involuntarily commited should be allowed to buy a gun for at least some period of time. I also dont know if it should be a permanent exclusion or if it should sunset if no additional records are added to the system.

So you are okay with private medical records being put in an national database but against a comprehensive gun registry?

Well the cat is already out of the bag on that one. Pretty sure the law that created the NICS system has been challeneged legally and has withstood the challenge. The law requires that states provide the records. I guess with the passage of HIPAA the law could be challenged again.