Commander Riker Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 That's a fair description and I respect your position. I'm not a gun nut, though I'm sure Mike would say otherwise. I do enjoy shooting them for the sake of doing it, because I'm a geek. That you touched on... it's like anything else... it's mechanical and the science behind weaponry is really cool to me. However, I'm against the regulations you purpose because you are stating policies employed by other governments, which are vastly different from ours. I do not trust our government AT ALL. I trust governments abroad more then I trust my own, because at the end of the day, they do not do anything well. Nothing. At all. Having 3-6 month mental evaluations I feel is a bit extreme... or having an ongoing re-registration. That isn't going to do anything against someone who wants to be an asshole in that instant. If they want to cause harm, they are going to do it. As far as sandy hook and all that... I understand the fears... I work at a school. However, none of the legislation you cited or potential reforms in registration habits would ensure that wouldn't happen. Which is why I believe that guns don't kill people... people kill people. Being in this school, I've got to witness as a direct result of sandy hook swat teams practice on active shooter drills with the kids in class. They get zero warning, have to go into lockdown mode with lights off, silence, and doors locked... while they play out killing a guy in the halls. That to me does far more damage to this country psychologically then the actual school shooting will. On top of that, it conveys to a would be shooter, who is often a student of the institution that is shot up, how much power they would have for 10-15 minutes over everyone in the facility. Not good. The argument of "people do not need above X level gun or X level power or X level capacity of rounds" doesn't make sense to me. If I were to follow that logic, that would suggest that X percentage of car accidents in the US involve vehicles that have modifications, thus making them X times more powerful. Therefore, we should regulate all modifications to be below a certain power level so as to keep people from potentially being killed by a modified vehicle. We should entrust our current government to make sure everyone drives a weak as possible vehicle to ensure someone doesn't maybe get hurt. Unrealistic. Would you want that? Education of weapons and how they work I would do wonders. I had to learn myself, and once I had cleaned a weapon and fired it, I had vastly larger amounts of respect for them. I'm do not align myself with left or right parties... in fact, fuck a whole bunch of our failed two party system. But I feel that people should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as they are not treading on others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 The difference between cars and guns Lucas is the absolute level of regulations that are in place and the extent of checks that we do to ensure they are safe and the owners are safe in using them. If we regulated guns in the same manner as cars this would already be something. The other issue with that analogy is that guns are designed to kill people. That is their purpose plain and simple. So used properly, they're doing the job when someone shoots and kills someone else. Homicides are the second highest cause of death among 15-34 year olds annually in this country. 70% of all homicides are with firearms - that's roughly 6,000 deaths each year. Don't believe me you can look up the CDC data on it. http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leadingcauses.html Whereas cars are designed as transportation and only kill people when accidents happen. That there is the very distinct difference between the two. And yet we don't regulate and register firearms anywhere close to as heavily as we do cars and their owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Riker Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 A car isn't a weapon until I decide that I want to use it as one. A gun isn't a weapon until I decide that I want to use it as one. Claiming their difference is their designed purpose is a cop out, IMO. You know... I could potentially drown in a swimming pool. Therefore, we should ban swimming pools. Their intension was never for parties, arm floaties, and good times... we all know pools were secretly designed to drown people. (sarcasm) Either are capable of killing people if a person decides to use them for that. Either can be used for fun if a person decides to use them for that. I could use a pool to splash someone... or drown them... if I decided to use it for that. Those who are against the right to bear arms seem to never put the people into the equation. They are unwilling to see that the people are the root cause of the problem. I motion to ban people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piston Slapper Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 I motion to ban people. A little OT, but relevant to that sentiment: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 I'm sorry but you are in denial. Look at how cars are marketed: Volvo’s energetic sports sedan is the perfect blend of performance, luxury and innovative technology. Its driver-oriented experience delivers on the promise of S60’s dynamic exterior design. Coupled with class-leading safety, the S60 is the ultimate expression of confidence. It's all about driving and safety... Now let's look at how the Bushmaster is marketed: This is the civilian version of this rifle. The difference from the military grade firearm? You can't configure it to hold a grenade launcher. Notice the tag line? In a world where survival of the fittest can mean surviving at all, no rifle is a better fit than the one-of-a-kind, all-new Bushmaster ACR. Similar advertisements for the AR15 says, "If it's good enough for the professional, it's good enough for you." Pray tell Lucas, what exactly does a professional do with the M16? He points it at people. And as lesson one of firearm handling teaches, don't point a gun barrel at anything you do not intend to shoot. You're better than that argument Lucas. You know it and I know it. To claim that these guns are not specifically advertised as civilian versions of military weapons is denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piston Slapper Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 The difference from the military grade firearm? You can't configure it to hold a grenade launcher. Wrong. The only difference is that the military version has a select fire fire control group and the civilian version only has a semi-automatic fire control group. Love how you're trotting out some of the weakest rifles ever as proof of your so called "high powered semi-automatic sports rifle"... just a reminder, the military almost didn't adopt the M16 because they considered it too weak. It's the weakest rifle the military has ever adopted. They're too weak to be legally used to hunt deer because it would be inhumane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 Go read the review for the ACR. They specifically call out the lack of the grenade launcher configuration. I ignore the select fire vs semi-automatic because it's a given. Automatic is simply illegal in new firearms sold to civilians. Now, weak only matters when you're attempting to shoot something from a long distance. Like a deer. Given that most homicides are personal, careful research will show you that they typically happen within 25 yards of the target...or less. Now dumbass, go ask the parents of all those kids in Newtown or the loved ones of the 82 casualties in Aurora how much it mattered that the AR was a "weak weapon?" 28 dead in Connecticut, 12 dead in Aurora. The bodies start stacking up for such a weak weapon. Your idiocy knows no limits and I bet you must be a joy to deal with for all the techs at your dealership. Why would I trot out the weak rifles? Because the AR platform is the most popular semi-automatic rifle in the US. And it also happens to be a rifle of choice among deranged mass murderers. So I don't worry about the higher powered rifles Howard because if you regulate and restrict the AR platform it's pretty easy to put heavier regulations on more powerful weapons. Capisce? I'm done arguing with you. It's like, well it's like: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piston Slapper Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 Automatic is simply illegal in new firearms sold to civilians. Only because of a loophole. A loophole that will be closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Riker Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 Alain... you said they were for different purposes... but then you show me different marketing. First. If someone is in marketing... they should kill themselves. (*credit bill hicks) Second. Marketing doesn't sway me. I can buy an M16, or an M4, or even an M1 Garand... none of these things instill in me a desire to "professionally kill people." They are just guns. Inanimate objects that do not do anything until a PERSON commands them to. Let's talk about the personification of evil. Because I believe weapons have been labeled or are believe to be evil, which they are not. Just as a tiger who comes into your village and eats your kid is not evil... your kid was just simply the slowest. Mass murders are terrible... and I do not defend or condone those acts. People are fucked up... and until you see that, you cannot see the forest full of trees. Why people do not wish to see other people as the problem is beyond me. Maybe we might find fault in ourselves? I don't know. While we're at it... I would like to additionally point out that I feel I'm a person from a fairly middle position... and that the anti-gun crowd is prone to insinuating a "better then you" position because somehow they feel they are more humane or more enlightened or something. Every person I've met, regardless of this position that each of us hold, has been very cool and no one has been shot. It saddens me that you would lend to allow the terrible deranged shitty acts of a select minority dictate the restrictions upon US ALL. Fuck them. They suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 Only because of a loophole. A loophole that will be closed. Oh wow, you do live in la la land. If you think the legislatures and courts are ever going to allow new fully automatic weapons to be sold to civilians.... :lol: I never said firearms were evil Lucas. What I said was they are specifically designed to be used for maiming and killing. Tell me that's not their purpose. Because if it was all about target shooting then the single shot bolt rifles they use for international shooting events are perfectly designed for that use. Marketing is highly persuasive in spite of what people think. Imagery, words, video and all kinds of hands on interactions are extremely good at convincing people they need something. And the message they sell is precisely what you look at to understand what motivations the seller is trying to encourage. You are an ethical gun owner. There are plenty who are. But the problem is, with a lethal item, specifically designed for lethal purposes, there comes greater responsibility in regulating use and ownership. Tell me you do not think guns should have similar regulations to a drivers license, equipment testing and the rest that we require for cars. Because we don't even come close to that today. And much pain and misery follows as a result. We put guns into the hands of children, specifically designed for them, without thinking about the proper education that is necessary. We don't allow teenagers to get behind the wheel without 30 hours of instruction and 6 hours of driving time learning and that's just to get a permit. Then there are extensive restrictions on where you can drive and who can drive with you and when you can drive. Then you have to drive 50 hours behind the wheel with a parent including 10 hours at night before you can move beyond a restricted license. But you have to have 9 months with that permit without any traffic violations before you can apply for a restricted license. Then once you turn 18 you may apply for an unrestricted drivers license but you still can't use a cell phone while driving until you are 19. All of this for what you say is just a car that is merely a vehicle. Except we regulate its usage with people, especially young people, because we recognize that they are very dangerous if not handled properly. I'm sorry Lucas but the anecdotal "no one has been shot" doesn't hold up against the ~6000 young people 15-34 years old per year who are killed each year. And these are deaths that could be reduced with proper regulations in place. A culture can change and we should want it to because it's not just deranged people who shoot others. It's those who are trying to prove their man card is still intact. Something about testosterone and guns doesn't really mix very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piston Slapper Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 Oh wow, you do live in la la land. If you think the legislatures and courts are ever going to allow new fully automatic weapons to be sold to civilians.... :lol: There's a case right now that could close the loophole. I linked it earlier, but I guess you missed it. http://www.scribd.com/doc/245057730/Hollis-v-Holder-Complaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Riker Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 Alain... if I used a gun as regularly as I used a vehicle... I could see potentially the case for similar regulation. For example... if I buy a vehicle and it sits on my property 100%... it should never have to be registered or insured. But since I drive it daily... it should be inspected and I have to pay for a license every year. While quite a bit of that is arguably for recurring money purposes to the government, I don't see why a CCW would be much different. Aren't hours required for a CCW? I think they are. Do you have to renew? I believe you do. You or I are more likely to be killed in a car accident in this country then a firearm related incident. I live in the dirty south... and you live in Chicago. Welcome to the opposite sides of the US lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Riker Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 PS. I hope we're still friends Alain. <3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 There's a case right now that could close the loophole. I linked it earlier, but I guess you missed it. http://www.scribd.com/doc/245057730/Hollis-v-Holder-Complaint :lol: :lol: What a pipe dream. This is like the guys who claim the federal government doesn't have a right to collect income tax. Oh wait, if you believe that case is going to even earn more than a summary dismissal let alone make its way up to the Supreme Court then you're probably a tinfoil hat wearer and believe taxes don't apply to you also. Alain... if I used a gun as regularly as I used a vehicle... I could see potentially the case for similar regulation. For example... if I buy a vehicle and it sits on my property 100%... it should never have to be registered or insured. But since I drive it daily... it should be inspected and I have to pay for a license every year. While quite a bit of that is arguably for recurring money purposes to the government, I don't see why a CCW would be much different. Aren't hours required for a CCW? I think they are. Do you have to renew? I believe you do. You or I are more likely to be killed in a car accident in this country then a firearm related incident. I live in the dirty south... and you live in Chicago. Welcome to the opposite sides of the US lol Actually, the government doesn't care how often you drive your car. If you intend to use it AT ALL then it has to be insured, registered, inspected and YOU have to licensed. While that may seem like all about money grabs it's really about maintaining a moderate level of safety on the roads. Any gun ownership ought to undergo similar restrictions and requirements. Especially if we're talking about something with a semi-automatic capability. You asked and that's my position. Probabilities are only minimally useful here though because how often do you drive a car versus put yourself in a situation where you might encounter someone with a gun? Or use it yourself. Logic says the person who CCWs significantly increases the probability they are going to use that gun or have it used on them. Me, I've already had a gun put in my face twice in my lifetime and I still advocate that CCW would have done nothing to protect me in that situation and potentially only would have made things worse. Lucas, you will always be my friend. Who else is going to come crush Lee for me when he does something stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Riker Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 This : http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2014/10/beyond-cit.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts