|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 24 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 04:41 Jormundr wrote:On April 23 2013 16:46 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 16:43 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Don't be silly. He is referring to regular individuals in civilian settings...not a sovereign military. Why is it that word games are the focus more often than the brunt of points? Make a silly implication, get a silly response. Just because his civilians do not own guns does not mean they are not protected by them. Incorrect. Guns don't protect people, people protect people. He would also be perfectly fine if only the military were allowed guns and not civilians--I think that's actually what most gun control advocates really want.
And I think most Americans are so lazy, cheap, and arrogant that they would rather endanger the safety of everyone than support higher standards for gun ownership.
Wow, it's really easy to argue when you pull offensive generalizations out of your ass!
/sarcasm
|
Based on the broken english and ignorance of government structure and law in general, I'd guess Thieving Magpie is either a troll account, young child, or someone not from the US.
The truth is, you can't just "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," as Thieving Magpie would have you believe. Most people in the United States cannot legally even discharge a firearm on their private property, much less "do what the fuck you want", because they reside inside city limits. In rural areas, you still cannot legally "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," because things like homicide and illegal hunting are serious crimes. If firearm discharge is legal for the jurisdiction in which your property resides, you can target shoot so long as it doesn't endanger anyone or violate some other law like waste disposal or pollution.
|
On April 24 2013 07:05 Zealotdriver wrote:
Based on the broken english and ignorance of government structure and law in general, I'd guess Thieving Magpie is either a troll account, young child, or someone not from the US.
The truth is, you can't just "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," as Thieving Magpie would have you believe. Most people in the United States cannot legally even discharge a firearm on their private property, much less "do what the fuck you want", because they reside inside city limits. In rural areas, you still cannot legally "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," because things like homicide and illegal hunting are serious crimes. If firearm discharge is legal for the jurisdiction in which your property resides, you can target shoot so long as it doesn't endanger anyone or violate some other law like waste disposal or pollution.
I guess that's why only 8/50 states have laws against that... as my link showed.
What evidence do you have?
|
On April 24 2013 07:04 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 04:41 Jormundr wrote:On April 23 2013 16:46 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 16:43 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Don't be silly. He is referring to regular individuals in civilian settings...not a sovereign military. Why is it that word games are the focus more often than the brunt of points? Make a silly implication, get a silly response. Just because his civilians do not own guns does not mean they are not protected by them. Incorrect. Guns don't protect people, people protect people. He would also be perfectly fine if only the military were allowed guns and not civilians--I think that's actually what most gun control advocates really want. And I think most Americans are so lazy, cheap, and arrogant that they would rather endanger the safety of everyone than support higher standards for gun ownership. Wow, it's really easy to argue when you pull offensive generalizations out of your ass! /sarcasm
Most countries that ban guns still have a military--who are armed.
They are usually confused as to why the US has an armed civilian population.
Those people who are confused by an armed civilian population are not arguing for an unarmed military.
IE: People who want unarmed civilians are normally okay with an armed military. Which is what this quote string is talking about.
I don't see where the generalization comes from?
|
On April 24 2013 07:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 07:05 Zealotdriver wrote:
Based on the broken english and ignorance of government structure and law in general, I'd guess Thieving Magpie is either a troll account, young child, or someone not from the US.
The truth is, you can't just "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," as Thieving Magpie would have you believe. Most people in the United States cannot legally even discharge a firearm on their private property, much less "do what the fuck you want", because they reside inside city limits. In rural areas, you still cannot legally "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," because things like homicide and illegal hunting are serious crimes. If firearm discharge is legal for the jurisdiction in which your property resides, you can target shoot so long as it doesn't endanger anyone or violate some other law like waste disposal or pollution. I guess that's why only 8/50 states have laws against that... as my link showed. What evidence do you have?
Really, you're asking for evidence that homicide is illegal?
As far as firearm discharge, municipal codes all over the country prohibit it. Pick a city and look it up. States generally let municipalities decide laws with respect to firearm discharge because they recognize the cultural and physical differences between rural and urban areas.
|
On April 24 2013 07:21 Zealotdriver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 07:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 07:05 Zealotdriver wrote:
Based on the broken english and ignorance of government structure and law in general, I'd guess Thieving Magpie is either a troll account, young child, or someone not from the US.
The truth is, you can't just "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," as Thieving Magpie would have you believe. Most people in the United States cannot legally even discharge a firearm on their private property, much less "do what the fuck you want", because they reside inside city limits. In rural areas, you still cannot legally "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," because things like homicide and illegal hunting are serious crimes. If firearm discharge is legal for the jurisdiction in which your property resides, you can target shoot so long as it doesn't endanger anyone or violate some other law like waste disposal or pollution. I guess that's why only 8/50 states have laws against that... as my link showed. What evidence do you have? Really, you're asking for evidence that homicide is illegal? As far as firearm discharge, municipal codes all over the country prohibit it. Pick a city and look it up. States generally let municipalities decide laws with respect to firearm discharge because they recognize the cultural and physical differences between rural and urban areas.
lol
At which point did I say murder isn't illegal?
People hearing a gunshot in a suburb is assumed to be murder or violence because it isn't normal to hear that. Urban areas have a high density population and so they have a lot of restrictions when it comes to gun use. But they also have a lot of restriction when it comes to vehicle use. Cars are forced to drive slower, go through more stops, there are more police officers waiting to give you tickets, less parking, more fees for vehicle ownership, etc... In more rural areas speed limits are higher, less police are present, less stop signs and more parking. This is the nature of dense populations--dangerous objects gets more regulation be it guns or cars.
As I stated in my previous point--firearm discharge is not made illegal by most state laws. Municipal laws differ from area to area and you can literally drive around and depending which road your on you shooting out your window might or might not be illegal--much like depending which road your own driving 55 might or might not be legal.
Local laws differ from location to location to maximize safety. The closer people are to each other--the less they like others having guns. The farther they are from each other, they more comfortable they are about guns. It depends on the city council's decision on what that distance should be. That's kind of how municipalities and city ordinances work... Go to city council meetings, you'll see how local laws and practices are decided there.
|
Sometimes I feel like the pro gun control crowd severely underestimates the respect most gun owners, like myself, have for firearms. We know how dangerous they are and choose to take that responsibility. Just because you don't want the responsibility doesn't mean you can dictate that we cannot have it. Its like police and military are somehow more responsible and by default less fallible, they are not. More people in our country need to be less dependent on government and more self reliant in my opinion.
|
On April 24 2013 07:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 07:21 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 24 2013 07:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 07:05 Zealotdriver wrote:
Based on the broken english and ignorance of government structure and law in general, I'd guess Thieving Magpie is either a troll account, young child, or someone not from the US.
The truth is, you can't just "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," as Thieving Magpie would have you believe. Most people in the United States cannot legally even discharge a firearm on their private property, much less "do what the fuck you want", because they reside inside city limits. In rural areas, you still cannot legally "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," because things like homicide and illegal hunting are serious crimes. If firearm discharge is legal for the jurisdiction in which your property resides, you can target shoot so long as it doesn't endanger anyone or violate some other law like waste disposal or pollution. I guess that's why only 8/50 states have laws against that... as my link showed. What evidence do you have? Really, you're asking for evidence that homicide is illegal? As far as firearm discharge, municipal codes all over the country prohibit it. Pick a city and look it up. States generally let municipalities decide laws with respect to firearm discharge because they recognize the cultural and physical differences between rural and urban areas. lol At which point did I say murder isn't illegal? People hearing a gunshot in a suburb is assumed to be murder or violence because it isn't normal to hear that. Urban areas have a high density population and so they have a lot of restrictions when it comes to gun use. But they also have a lot of restriction when it comes to vehicle use. Cars are forced to drive slower, go through more stops, there are more police officers waiting to give you tickets, less parking, more fees for vehicle ownership, etc... In more rural areas speed limits are higher, less police are present, less stop signs and more parking. This is the nature of dense populations--dangerous objects gets more regulation be it guns or cars. As I stated in my previous point--firearm discharge is not made illegal by most state laws. Municipal laws differ from area to area and you can literally drive around and depending which road your on you shooting out your window might or might not be illegal--much like depending which road your own driving 55 might or might not be legal. Local laws differ from location to location to maximize safety. The closer people are to each other--the less they like others having guns. The farther they are from each other, they more comfortable they are about guns. It depends on the city council's decision on what that distance should be. That's kind of how municipalities and city ordinances work... Go to city council meetings, you'll see how local laws and practices are decided there.
So you concede that your statement that you can "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property" is incorrect?
|
On April 24 2013 07:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
lol
At which point did I say murder isn't illegal?
People hearing a gunshot in a suburb is assumed to be murder or violence because it isn't normal to hear that. Urban areas have a high density population and so they have a lot of restrictions when it comes to gun use. But they also have a lot of restriction when it comes to vehicle use. Cars are forced to drive slower, go through more stops, there are more police officers waiting to give you tickets, less parking, more fees for vehicle ownership, etc... In more rural areas speed limits are higher, less police are present, less stop signs and more parking. This is the nature of dense populations--dangerous objects gets more regulation be it guns or cars.
As I stated in my previous point--firearm discharge is not made illegal by most state laws. Municipal laws differ from area to area and you can literally drive around and depending which road your on you shooting out your window might or might not be illegal--much like depending which road your own driving 55 might or might not be legal.
Local laws differ from location to location to maximize safety. The closer people are to each other--the less they like others having guns. The farther they are from each other, they more comfortable they are about guns. It depends on the city council's decision on what that distance should be. That's kind of how municipalities and city ordinances work... Go to city council meetings, you'll see how local laws and practices are decided there.
I grew up on a ranch two miles outside a rural town of 450 people. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that its illegal to shoot a firearm on any state or public road, especially from a moving vehicle.
|
On April 24 2013 07:47 Rhino85 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 07:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
lol
At which point did I say murder isn't illegal?
People hearing a gunshot in a suburb is assumed to be murder or violence because it isn't normal to hear that. Urban areas have a high density population and so they have a lot of restrictions when it comes to gun use. But they also have a lot of restriction when it comes to vehicle use. Cars are forced to drive slower, go through more stops, there are more police officers waiting to give you tickets, less parking, more fees for vehicle ownership, etc... In more rural areas speed limits are higher, less police are present, less stop signs and more parking. This is the nature of dense populations--dangerous objects gets more regulation be it guns or cars.
As I stated in my previous point--firearm discharge is not made illegal by most state laws. Municipal laws differ from area to area and you can literally drive around and depending which road your on you shooting out your window might or might not be illegal--much like depending which road your own driving 55 might or might not be legal.
Local laws differ from location to location to maximize safety. The closer people are to each other--the less they like others having guns. The farther they are from each other, they more comfortable they are about guns. It depends on the city council's decision on what that distance should be. That's kind of how municipalities and city ordinances work... Go to city council meetings, you'll see how local laws and practices are decided there. I grew up on a ranch two miles outside a rural town of 450 people. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that its illegal to shoot a firearm on any state or public road, especially from a moving vehicle.
Not all roads are public...
|
On April 24 2013 07:44 Zealotdriver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 07:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 07:21 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 24 2013 07:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 07:05 Zealotdriver wrote:
Based on the broken english and ignorance of government structure and law in general, I'd guess Thieving Magpie is either a troll account, young child, or someone not from the US.
The truth is, you can't just "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," as Thieving Magpie would have you believe. Most people in the United States cannot legally even discharge a firearm on their private property, much less "do what the fuck you want", because they reside inside city limits. In rural areas, you still cannot legally "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," because things like homicide and illegal hunting are serious crimes. If firearm discharge is legal for the jurisdiction in which your property resides, you can target shoot so long as it doesn't endanger anyone or violate some other law like waste disposal or pollution. I guess that's why only 8/50 states have laws against that... as my link showed. What evidence do you have? Really, you're asking for evidence that homicide is illegal? As far as firearm discharge, municipal codes all over the country prohibit it. Pick a city and look it up. States generally let municipalities decide laws with respect to firearm discharge because they recognize the cultural and physical differences between rural and urban areas. lol At which point did I say murder isn't illegal? People hearing a gunshot in a suburb is assumed to be murder or violence because it isn't normal to hear that. Urban areas have a high density population and so they have a lot of restrictions when it comes to gun use. But they also have a lot of restriction when it comes to vehicle use. Cars are forced to drive slower, go through more stops, there are more police officers waiting to give you tickets, less parking, more fees for vehicle ownership, etc... In more rural areas speed limits are higher, less police are present, less stop signs and more parking. This is the nature of dense populations--dangerous objects gets more regulation be it guns or cars. As I stated in my previous point--firearm discharge is not made illegal by most state laws. Municipal laws differ from area to area and you can literally drive around and depending which road your on you shooting out your window might or might not be illegal--much like depending which road your own driving 55 might or might not be legal. Local laws differ from location to location to maximize safety. The closer people are to each other--the less they like others having guns. The farther they are from each other, they more comfortable they are about guns. It depends on the city council's decision on what that distance should be. That's kind of how municipalities and city ordinances work... Go to city council meetings, you'll see how local laws and practices are decided there. So you concede that your statement that you can "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property" is incorrect?
About as much freedom as you could when doing wheelies in your backyard and revving your engine loudly at night while in suburbia.
|
On April 24 2013 07:40 Rhino85 wrote:
Sometimes I feel like the pro gun control crowd severely underestimates the respect most gun owners, like myself, have for firearms. We know how dangerous they are and choose to take that responsibility. Just because you don't want the responsibility doesn't mean you can dictate that we cannot have it. Its like police and military are somehow more responsible and by default less fallible, they are not. More people in our country need to be less dependent on government and more self reliant in my opinion.
What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are anything like you? Are you aware of the statistics on those with firearms having their weapons rendered either useless or turned against them? Even if only a small minority of people with guns are dangerously under-trained and stupid, their very presence in the public space warrants systemic monitoring of those with weapons, because, you know, it is pretty easy to kill people with guns.
Furthermore, I think firearm use in suicide needs to be brought up. A sizeable number of suicides are committed with firearms, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that it is precisely their ease of use and procurement that inflates such a number. Isn't making suicide harder to commit a good thing, because, you know, it is often an action born out of despair and belligerence?
|
On April 24 2013 08:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 07:44 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 24 2013 07:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 07:21 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 24 2013 07:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 07:05 Zealotdriver wrote:
Based on the broken english and ignorance of government structure and law in general, I'd guess Thieving Magpie is either a troll account, young child, or someone not from the US.
The truth is, you can't just "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," as Thieving Magpie would have you believe. Most people in the United States cannot legally even discharge a firearm on their private property, much less "do what the fuck you want", because they reside inside city limits. In rural areas, you still cannot legally "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," because things like homicide and illegal hunting are serious crimes. If firearm discharge is legal for the jurisdiction in which your property resides, you can target shoot so long as it doesn't endanger anyone or violate some other law like waste disposal or pollution. I guess that's why only 8/50 states have laws against that... as my link showed. What evidence do you have? Really, you're asking for evidence that homicide is illegal? As far as firearm discharge, municipal codes all over the country prohibit it. Pick a city and look it up. States generally let municipalities decide laws with respect to firearm discharge because they recognize the cultural and physical differences between rural and urban areas. lol At which point did I say murder isn't illegal? People hearing a gunshot in a suburb is assumed to be murder or violence because it isn't normal to hear that. Urban areas have a high density population and so they have a lot of restrictions when it comes to gun use. But they also have a lot of restriction when it comes to vehicle use. Cars are forced to drive slower, go through more stops, there are more police officers waiting to give you tickets, less parking, more fees for vehicle ownership, etc... In more rural areas speed limits are higher, less police are present, less stop signs and more parking. This is the nature of dense populations--dangerous objects gets more regulation be it guns or cars. As I stated in my previous point--firearm discharge is not made illegal by most state laws. Municipal laws differ from area to area and you can literally drive around and depending which road your on you shooting out your window might or might not be illegal--much like depending which road your own driving 55 might or might not be legal. Local laws differ from location to location to maximize safety. The closer people are to each other--the less they like others having guns. The farther they are from each other, they more comfortable they are about guns. It depends on the city council's decision on what that distance should be. That's kind of how municipalities and city ordinances work... Go to city council meetings, you'll see how local laws and practices are decided there. So you concede that your statement that you can "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property" is incorrect? About as much freedom as you could when doing wheelies in your backyard and revving your engine loudly at night while in suburbia.
Sounds like a great way to get the police called on you and have them tell you to stop or they'll arrest you for creating a public nuisance / noise disturbance.
Except when the police get called on you for shooting your gun in your backyard, they aren't going to be as nice about telling you to stop or about making you stop as they are telling you to stop or making you stop revving your engine or popping wheelies in your backyard.
Especially if it's in an area where it is legal to target shoot in your own backyard, police in those areas figure people should know better than to be shooting off their guns in a manner that pisses off their neighbors. They aren't happy campers if they have to show up and tell you to stop being an asshole with your guns in a place you're lucky enough to get to shoot them off without having to go to a range.
Also, private roads have to be marked as such.
Do you have anything to say other than sarcastic riffs that turn out to be based on your own ignorance and misconceptions?
What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are anything like you? Are you aware of the statistics on those with firearms having their weapons rendered either useless or turned against them? Even if only a small minority of people with guns are dangerously under-trained and stupid, their very presence in the public space warrants systemic monitoring of those with weapons, because, you know, it is pretty easy to kill people with guns.
Oh farv. What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are not anything like him?
300+ million guns in the country, around 80 million people living in a household with a gun, and around 75,000 (2010 statistics) injuries and 600 (also from 2010, these numbers on accidental injuries and deaths provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) deaths a year from dumb people (or smart people) accidentally shooting themselves or someone else. So if you're around a gun every single day because at least one is in your home, you have about a .0009% chance each year of getting a new hole somewhere in your body because of dumb (or not, accidents do just happen) gun owners. I don't think I need to do the math to say that your chance of being killed is even more statistically insignificant.
So, is it really necessary for there to be "systemic monitoring" of those 80 million people because you know it is pretty easy to kill people with guns? Obviously not.
On the other hand, a certain group of people commits the vast majority of gun murders (75%+) and gun violence in general. We would call these people those whose main occupation is committing crimes. Most of those are young black or Hispanic gang members living in cities with very strict gun control and a high level of "systemic monitoring" from local authorities. Yet this systemic monitoring fails to prevent them killing each other by the thousands every year. In many cities this "systemic monitoring" amounts to near-overt racial profiling and heightened targeting of minority areas. Perhaps law-abiding gun owners should be treated with the same kind of government pressure as gang members are. I'm sure that would work.
So why should we implement "systemic monitoring" for a problem that doesn't exist in a statistically meaningful sense when "systemic monitoring" already fails at preventing thousands of gun murders a year? Once again, law-abiding citizens should be punished because guns are scary and that's all that matters. While the criminals still do what they do despite facing already strict scrutiny in a gun-hostile (city) political and legal environment.
Maybe gun owners wouldn't be so adamant about not giving one step backwards if the arguments advanced for gun control were based more on reality than on "oh it's pretty easy to kill a person with a gun." Yeah, it is. Why doesn't it happen more then? Why do the 80 million people with direct and easy access to guns who have created this wasteland of a .0009% chance of getting shot (even smaller chance if you use all 310+ million people in the US) deserve to have the State come down on them when the few hundred thousand (if even that) responsible for the vast majority of gun injuries and deaths already have the State down on them and they still manage to do it?
Face up to the facts farv: there's nothing that will substantially reduce gun violence in this country except spending trillions one way or another to raise the inner cities out of structural poverty, or trying to confiscate nearly all privately held guns. Good luck accomplishing either one, but I think that there is one option there more likely to result in more gun deaths than the other. Guess which now.
|
On April 24 2013 08:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 08:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 07:44 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 24 2013 07:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 07:21 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 24 2013 07:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 07:05 Zealotdriver wrote:
Based on the broken english and ignorance of government structure and law in general, I'd guess Thieving Magpie is either a troll account, young child, or someone not from the US.
The truth is, you can't just "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," as Thieving Magpie would have you believe. Most people in the United States cannot legally even discharge a firearm on their private property, much less "do what the fuck you want", because they reside inside city limits. In rural areas, you still cannot legally "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," because things like homicide and illegal hunting are serious crimes. If firearm discharge is legal for the jurisdiction in which your property resides, you can target shoot so long as it doesn't endanger anyone or violate some other law like waste disposal or pollution. I guess that's why only 8/50 states have laws against that... as my link showed. What evidence do you have? Really, you're asking for evidence that homicide is illegal? As far as firearm discharge, municipal codes all over the country prohibit it. Pick a city and look it up. States generally let municipalities decide laws with respect to firearm discharge because they recognize the cultural and physical differences between rural and urban areas. lol At which point did I say murder isn't illegal? People hearing a gunshot in a suburb is assumed to be murder or violence because it isn't normal to hear that. Urban areas have a high density population and so they have a lot of restrictions when it comes to gun use. But they also have a lot of restriction when it comes to vehicle use. Cars are forced to drive slower, go through more stops, there are more police officers waiting to give you tickets, less parking, more fees for vehicle ownership, etc... In more rural areas speed limits are higher, less police are present, less stop signs and more parking. This is the nature of dense populations--dangerous objects gets more regulation be it guns or cars. As I stated in my previous point--firearm discharge is not made illegal by most state laws. Municipal laws differ from area to area and you can literally drive around and depending which road your on you shooting out your window might or might not be illegal--much like depending which road your own driving 55 might or might not be legal. Local laws differ from location to location to maximize safety. The closer people are to each other--the less they like others having guns. The farther they are from each other, they more comfortable they are about guns. It depends on the city council's decision on what that distance should be. That's kind of how municipalities and city ordinances work... Go to city council meetings, you'll see how local laws and practices are decided there. So you concede that your statement that you can "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property" is incorrect? About as much freedom as you could when doing wheelies in your backyard and revving your engine loudly at night while in suburbia. Sounds like a great way to get the police called on you and have them tell you to stop or they'll arrest you for creating a public nuisance / noise disturbance. Except when the police get called on you for shooting your gun in your backyard, they aren't going to be as nice about telling you to stop or about making you stop as they are telling you to stop or making you stop revving your engine or popping wheelies in your backyard. Especially if it's in an area where it is legal to target shoot in your own backyard, police in those areas figure people should know better than to be shooting off their guns in a manner that pisses off their neighbors. They aren't happy campers if they have to show up and tell you to stop being an asshole with your guns in a place you're lucky enough to get to shoot them off without having to go to a range. Also, private roads have to be marked as such. Do you have anything to say other than sarcastic riffs that turn out to be based on your own ignorance and misconceptions?
Well yes, police and people in general don't like it when you act dangerously and will get pretty damn upset at you for doing it. Which is also what I said they'd do. In general, people hate guns if other people use them, they're okay if they themselves use them, but not when others use them. Every been to burning man? People going to the desert shooting whatever they damn please because they're in the desert and YOLO? I've known friends who spent sunday afternoons going to the back of an abandoned farm to shoot at empty barns and run down cars. I also know some people who like going to gun ranges. So yeah, you can do most anything you want with guns so long as you don't be a dick about it. Much like you can do most anything with a car--so long as you don't be a dick about it.
|
On April 24 2013 08:08 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 07:40 Rhino85 wrote:
Sometimes I feel like the pro gun control crowd severely underestimates the respect most gun owners, like myself, have for firearms. We know how dangerous they are and choose to take that responsibility. Just because you don't want the responsibility doesn't mean you can dictate that we cannot have it. Its like police and military are somehow more responsible and by default less fallible, they are not. More people in our country need to be less dependent on government and more self reliant in my opinion. What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are anything like you? Are you aware of the statistics on those with firearms having their weapons rendered either useless or turned against them? Even if only a small minority of people with guns are dangerously under-trained and stupid, their very presence in the public space warrants systemic monitoring of those with weapons, because, you know, it is pretty easy to kill people with guns. Furthermore, I think firearm use in suicide needs to be brought up. A sizeable number of suicides are committed with firearms, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that it is precisely their ease of use and procurement that inflates such a number. Isn't making suicide harder to commit a good thing, because, you know, it is often an action born out of despair and belligerence?
Maybe I shouldn't have said "most gun owners." Instead I should have said, "all gun owners I know and interact with."
I'm not aware of those statistics but I would assume that its reasonable to think that it is similar to the amount of times a cop's gun has been rendered useless or turned against him. Or at the very least I don't think you should be able to tell me my firearm is more of a danger to myself then a cop's firearm is to him.
Suicide is a terrible thing and reducing it would be a just cause. Would suicides be reduced if I (and everyone else in the US) wasn't allowed to legally have a gun.... maybe. Wouldn't it be better to look at the causes of despair and belligerence though instead?
|
|
|
On April 24 2013 08:08 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 07:40 Rhino85 wrote:
Sometimes I feel like the pro gun control crowd severely underestimates the respect most gun owners, like myself, have for firearms. We know how dangerous they are and choose to take that responsibility. Just because you don't want the responsibility doesn't mean you can dictate that we cannot have it. Its like police and military are somehow more responsible and by default less fallible, they are not. More people in our country need to be less dependent on government and more self reliant in my opinion. What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are anything like you? Are you aware of the statistics on those with firearms having their weapons rendered either useless or turned against them? Even if only a small minority of people with guns are dangerously under-trained and stupid, their very presence in the public space warrants systemic monitoring of those with weapons, because, you know, it is pretty easy to kill people with guns. Furthermore, I think firearm use in suicide needs to be brought up. A sizeable number of suicides are committed with firearms, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that it is precisely their ease of use and procurement that inflates such a number. Isn't making suicide harder to commit a good thing, because, you know, it is often an action born out of despair and belligerence?
And yet you would need someone to do a James Holmes shooting every hour every day to match the amount that doctors kill with poorly prescribed medicine each day. Doctors are pretty much some of the most highly trained people in society.
Why should the suicide rate matter? People smoke cigs and they are very well documented to be tantamount to a slow suicide with incredibly high cancer rates in smokers and other health problems. Gun owners should be allowed to decide if they want to manage the increased risk of suicide you shouldn't dictate what they can and can't do to their own bodies.
Obviously a reasonable attempt should be made to weed out people seeking a firearm solely for suicide but Idk how you would even weed out the people who would want to commit suicide anyways. Asking that question "Are you suicidal/Bankrupt/lose a loved one recently?" Seem fairly easy to fool imo.
|
On April 24 2013 08:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 24 2013 08:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 07:44 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 24 2013 07:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 07:21 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 24 2013 07:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 07:05 Zealotdriver wrote:
Based on the broken english and ignorance of government structure and law in general, I'd guess Thieving Magpie is either a troll account, young child, or someone not from the US.
The truth is, you can't just "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," as Thieving Magpie would have you believe. Most people in the United States cannot legally even discharge a firearm on their private property, much less "do what the fuck you want", because they reside inside city limits. In rural areas, you still cannot legally "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," because things like homicide and illegal hunting are serious crimes. If firearm discharge is legal for the jurisdiction in which your property resides, you can target shoot so long as it doesn't endanger anyone or violate some other law like waste disposal or pollution. I guess that's why only 8/50 states have laws against that... as my link showed. What evidence do you have? Really, you're asking for evidence that homicide is illegal? As far as firearm discharge, municipal codes all over the country prohibit it. Pick a city and look it up. States generally let municipalities decide laws with respect to firearm discharge because they recognize the cultural and physical differences between rural and urban areas. lol At which point did I say murder isn't illegal? People hearing a gunshot in a suburb is assumed to be murder or violence because it isn't normal to hear that. Urban areas have a high density population and so they have a lot of restrictions when it comes to gun use. But they also have a lot of restriction when it comes to vehicle use. Cars are forced to drive slower, go through more stops, there are more police officers waiting to give you tickets, less parking, more fees for vehicle ownership, etc... In more rural areas speed limits are higher, less police are present, less stop signs and more parking. This is the nature of dense populations--dangerous objects gets more regulation be it guns or cars. As I stated in my previous point--firearm discharge is not made illegal by most state laws. Municipal laws differ from area to area and you can literally drive around and depending which road your on you shooting out your window might or might not be illegal--much like depending which road your own driving 55 might or might not be legal. Local laws differ from location to location to maximize safety. The closer people are to each other--the less they like others having guns. The farther they are from each other, they more comfortable they are about guns. It depends on the city council's decision on what that distance should be. That's kind of how municipalities and city ordinances work... Go to city council meetings, you'll see how local laws and practices are decided there. So you concede that your statement that you can "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property" is incorrect? About as much freedom as you could when doing wheelies in your backyard and revving your engine loudly at night while in suburbia. Sounds like a great way to get the police called on you and have them tell you to stop or they'll arrest you for creating a public nuisance / noise disturbance. Except when the police get called on you for shooting your gun in your backyard, they aren't going to be as nice about telling you to stop or about making you stop as they are telling you to stop or making you stop revving your engine or popping wheelies in your backyard. Especially if it's in an area where it is legal to target shoot in your own backyard, police in those areas figure people should know better than to be shooting off their guns in a manner that pisses off their neighbors. They aren't happy campers if they have to show up and tell you to stop being an asshole with your guns in a place you're lucky enough to get to shoot them off without having to go to a range. Also, private roads have to be marked as such. Do you have anything to say other than sarcastic riffs that turn out to be based on your own ignorance and misconceptions? What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are anything like you? Are you aware of the statistics on those with firearms having their weapons rendered either useless or turned against them? Even if only a small minority of people with guns are dangerously under-trained and stupid, their very presence in the public space warrants systemic monitoring of those with weapons, because, you know, it is pretty easy to kill people with guns. Oh farv. What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are not anything like him? 300+ million guns in the country, around 80 million people living in a household with a gun, and around 75,000 (2010 statistics) injuries and 600 (also from 2010, these numbers on accidental injuries and deaths provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) deaths a year from dumb people (or smart people) accidentally shooting themselves or someone else. So if you're around a gun every single day because at least one is in your home, you have about a .0009% chance each year of getting a new hole somewhere in your body because of dumb (or not, accidents do just happen) gun owners. I don't think I need to do the math to say that your chance of being killed is even more statistically insignificant. So, is it really necessary for there to be "systemic monitoring" of those 80 million people because you know it is pretty easy to kill people with guns? Obviously not. On the other hand, a certain group of people commits the vast majority of gun murders (75%+) and gun violence in general. We would call these people those whose main occupation is committing crimes. Most of those are young black or Hispanic gang members living in cities with very strict gun control and a high level of "systemic monitoring" from local authorities. Yet this systemic monitoring fails to prevent them killing each other by the thousands every year. In many cities this "systemic monitoring" amounts to near-overt racial profiling and heightened targeting of minority areas. Perhaps law-abiding gun owners should be treated with the same kind of government pressure as gang members are. I'm sure that would work. So why should we implement "systemic monitoring" for a problem that doesn't exist in a statistically meaningful sense when "systemic monitoring" already fails at preventing thousands of gun murders a year? Once again, law-abiding citizens should be punished because guns are scary and that's all that matters. While the criminals still do what they do despite facing already strict scrutiny in a gun-hostile (city) political and legal environment. Maybe gun owners wouldn't be so adamant about not giving one step backwards if the arguments advanced for gun control were based more on reality than on "oh it's pretty easy to kill a person with a gun." Yeah, it is. Why doesn't it happen more then? Why do the 80 million people with direct and easy access to guns who have created this wasteland of a .0009% chance of getting shot (even smaller chance if you use all 310+ million people in the US) deserve to have the State come down on them when the few hundred thousand (if even that) responsible for the vast majority of gun injuries and deaths already have the State down on them and they still manage to do it? Face up to the facts farv: there's nothing that will substantially reduce gun violence in this country except spending trillions one way or another to raise the inner cities out of structural poverty, or trying to confiscate nearly all privately held guns. Good luck accomplishing either one, but I think that there is one option there more likely to result in more gun deaths than the other. Guess which now.
Your criticism of "systemic monitoring" fails to take into account the possibility that it fails in its current form because it is, you know, not systemic. Every time I read a gun rights advocate point to Chicago like a stupid child in line for the ice cream truck pointing at a Bomb Pop, a angel loses its wings. Every single instance of "failed gun control" can easily be linked to its geographic proximity to easy come, easy go guns. Literally the entire East Coast is less than 5 or 6 hours away from a place where guns are easy to buy (if that), and it doesn't take a genius to see how Illinois shapes up compared to its neighbors in terms of access to weapons.
Look, I know its easy to point at urban blacks and hispanics and say, "well look, they're the ones doing all the crime!", but in the end, we can't all be racists. Some of us feel the need to look past the vulgar representation of race in place of poverty and look for the how and why, and with that frame of mind instead of one that puts a piece of metal in a place of prostrate reverence, it is easy to see that spotty, urban centric gun control surrounded by gun country is not a recipe for success. Let's get over that.
|
Slightly off topic but do you think any prominent Republican leaders will have a speech addressing immigration issues with the families of the Boston Marathon bombing victims standing behind them?
I don't either but if that made you sick to think about then you know how pro gun owners felt when Obama used that tactic to attack gun rights.
|
On April 24 2013 08:50 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 08:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 24 2013 08:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 07:44 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 24 2013 07:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 07:21 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 24 2013 07:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 07:05 Zealotdriver wrote:
Based on the broken english and ignorance of government structure and law in general, I'd guess Thieving Magpie is either a troll account, young child, or someone not from the US.
The truth is, you can't just "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," as Thieving Magpie would have you believe. Most people in the United States cannot legally even discharge a firearm on their private property, much less "do what the fuck you want", because they reside inside city limits. In rural areas, you still cannot legally "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," because things like homicide and illegal hunting are serious crimes. If firearm discharge is legal for the jurisdiction in which your property resides, you can target shoot so long as it doesn't endanger anyone or violate some other law like waste disposal or pollution. I guess that's why only 8/50 states have laws against that... as my link showed. What evidence do you have? Really, you're asking for evidence that homicide is illegal? As far as firearm discharge, municipal codes all over the country prohibit it. Pick a city and look it up. States generally let municipalities decide laws with respect to firearm discharge because they recognize the cultural and physical differences between rural and urban areas. lol At which point did I say murder isn't illegal? People hearing a gunshot in a suburb is assumed to be murder or violence because it isn't normal to hear that. Urban areas have a high density population and so they have a lot of restrictions when it comes to gun use. But they also have a lot of restriction when it comes to vehicle use. Cars are forced to drive slower, go through more stops, there are more police officers waiting to give you tickets, less parking, more fees for vehicle ownership, etc... In more rural areas speed limits are higher, less police are present, less stop signs and more parking. This is the nature of dense populations--dangerous objects gets more regulation be it guns or cars. As I stated in my previous point--firearm discharge is not made illegal by most state laws. Municipal laws differ from area to area and you can literally drive around and depending which road your on you shooting out your window might or might not be illegal--much like depending which road your own driving 55 might or might not be legal. Local laws differ from location to location to maximize safety. The closer people are to each other--the less they like others having guns. The farther they are from each other, they more comfortable they are about guns. It depends on the city council's decision on what that distance should be. That's kind of how municipalities and city ordinances work... Go to city council meetings, you'll see how local laws and practices are decided there. So you concede that your statement that you can "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property" is incorrect? About as much freedom as you could when doing wheelies in your backyard and revving your engine loudly at night while in suburbia. Sounds like a great way to get the police called on you and have them tell you to stop or they'll arrest you for creating a public nuisance / noise disturbance. Except when the police get called on you for shooting your gun in your backyard, they aren't going to be as nice about telling you to stop or about making you stop as they are telling you to stop or making you stop revving your engine or popping wheelies in your backyard. Especially if it's in an area where it is legal to target shoot in your own backyard, police in those areas figure people should know better than to be shooting off their guns in a manner that pisses off their neighbors. They aren't happy campers if they have to show up and tell you to stop being an asshole with your guns in a place you're lucky enough to get to shoot them off without having to go to a range. Also, private roads have to be marked as such. Do you have anything to say other than sarcastic riffs that turn out to be based on your own ignorance and misconceptions? What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are anything like you? Are you aware of the statistics on those with firearms having their weapons rendered either useless or turned against them? Even if only a small minority of people with guns are dangerously under-trained and stupid, their very presence in the public space warrants systemic monitoring of those with weapons, because, you know, it is pretty easy to kill people with guns. Oh farv. What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are not anything like him? 300+ million guns in the country, around 80 million people living in a household with a gun, and around 75,000 (2010 statistics) injuries and 600 (also from 2010, these numbers on accidental injuries and deaths provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) deaths a year from dumb people (or smart people) accidentally shooting themselves or someone else. So if you're around a gun every single day because at least one is in your home, you have about a .0009% chance each year of getting a new hole somewhere in your body because of dumb (or not, accidents do just happen) gun owners. I don't think I need to do the math to say that your chance of being killed is even more statistically insignificant. So, is it really necessary for there to be "systemic monitoring" of those 80 million people because you know it is pretty easy to kill people with guns? Obviously not. On the other hand, a certain group of people commits the vast majority of gun murders (75%+) and gun violence in general. We would call these people those whose main occupation is committing crimes. Most of those are young black or Hispanic gang members living in cities with very strict gun control and a high level of "systemic monitoring" from local authorities. Yet this systemic monitoring fails to prevent them killing each other by the thousands every year. In many cities this "systemic monitoring" amounts to near-overt racial profiling and heightened targeting of minority areas. Perhaps law-abiding gun owners should be treated with the same kind of government pressure as gang members are. I'm sure that would work. So why should we implement "systemic monitoring" for a problem that doesn't exist in a statistically meaningful sense when "systemic monitoring" already fails at preventing thousands of gun murders a year? Once again, law-abiding citizens should be punished because guns are scary and that's all that matters. While the criminals still do what they do despite facing already strict scrutiny in a gun-hostile (city) political and legal environment. Maybe gun owners wouldn't be so adamant about not giving one step backwards if the arguments advanced for gun control were based more on reality than on "oh it's pretty easy to kill a person with a gun." Yeah, it is. Why doesn't it happen more then? Why do the 80 million people with direct and easy access to guns who have created this wasteland of a .0009% chance of getting shot (even smaller chance if you use all 310+ million people in the US) deserve to have the State come down on them when the few hundred thousand (if even that) responsible for the vast majority of gun injuries and deaths already have the State down on them and they still manage to do it? Face up to the facts farv: there's nothing that will substantially reduce gun violence in this country except spending trillions one way or another to raise the inner cities out of structural poverty, or trying to confiscate nearly all privately held guns. Good luck accomplishing either one, but I think that there is one option there more likely to result in more gun deaths than the other. Guess which now. Your criticism of "systemic monitoring" fails to take into account the possibility that it fails in its current form because it is, you know, not systemic. Every time I read a gun rights advocate point to Chicago like a stupid child in line for the ice cream truck pointing at a Bomb Pop, a angel loses its wings. Every single instance of "failed gun control" can easily be linked to its geographic proximity to easy come, easy go guns. Literally the entire East Coast is less than 5 or 6 hours away from a place where guns are easy to buy (if that), and it doesn't take a genius to see how Illinois shapes up compared to its neighbors in terms of access to weapons. Look, I know its easy to point at urban blacks and hispanics and say, "well look, they're the ones doing all the crime!", but in the end, we can't all be racists. Some of us feel the need to look past the vulgar representation of race in place of poverty and look for the how and why, and with that frame of mind instead of one that puts a piece of metal in a place of prostrate reverence, it is easy to see that spotty, urban centric gun control surrounded by gun country is not a recipe for success. Let's get over that.
Pointing out facts is racist? I should have mentioned the white trash meth cookers and people like that with white skin who do their share of murders caused by rival criminals I guess, just to make sure my racism armor had no chinks.
But yes Farv let's get to the real questions.
Are you willing to admit that anything short of near-total gun confiscation will not do much to reduce gun deaths and injuries?
Are you willing to fight - and lose - a civil-war scenario over guns? There are millions of people willing to fight a war to keep their guns, and tens of millions more who would non-violently resist or give aid and comfort to the people violently resisting.
What I'm saying is, farv, the truth is harsh, and the truth is that we're generations away from a situation where your perspective on guns can win out without major violence. If that day ever comes. It's not like it's inevitable.
Just how far are you willing to go on gun control? My side is willing to go to the cold, dead hands end. Is yours?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
