Just one more firearms thread

mickeyrat

goingtoverona said:

if I had to guess i'd say that a permit to carry concealed allows you to do something with your gun(carry it in public), whereas registering doesn't, it's just hey here's who I am and all the guns I own. but it doesn't give a person more freedom or rights.
I can appreciate both sides of the argument of whether registration should be done, but the whole government coming to take my guns idea is a bit preposterous. it's just not possible, even if they know everything about you, how many guns you have, and where you keep them, it just can't be done. if the government did try to come and take everyone's guns, they wouldn't make it through ten percent of the population before word would get out and peoples guns would miraculously be stolen or lost. not to mention all the violence that would come from the resistors willing to fight. that being said, i'm totally down with registering all my shizzle, so long as it doesn't cost me anything.

Thank you. I appreciate the open mind and IMO common sense approach or thoughts you have in this.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

goingtoverona said:

if I had to guess i'd say that a permit to carry concealed allows you to do something with your gun(carry it in public), whereas registering doesn't, it's just hey here's who I am and all the guns I own. but it doesn't give a person more freedom or rights.
I can appreciate both sides of the argument of whether registration should be done, but the whole government coming to take my guns idea is a bit preposterous. it's just not possible, even if they know everything about you, how many guns you have, and where you keep them, it just can't be done. if the government did try to come and take everyone's guns, they wouldn't make it through ten percent of the population before word would get out and peoples guns would miraculously be stolen or lost. not to mention all the violence that would come from the resistors willing to fight. that being said, i'm totally down with registering all my shizzle, so long as it doesn't cost me anything.

I agree with the notion that the idea of the government looking to disarm its citizens for an Orwell style takeover is outrageous. Such an argument is really weak and not one that merits much credit at all in the gun control debate. I also appreciate your flexibility with regards to the idea of registering firearms- this demonstrates responsibility.

Question: Say, for example, a person with registered firearms is cited for domestic abuse. The police look on their data file and discover the man has weapons. They move to seize these registered weapons as a safeguard until the case is finalized. In the event the man is found guilty, his weapons would not be returned to him and his access to over the counter guns would be restricted for a lengthy period of time.

Are you okay with such a scenario?

goingtoverona

hmmm that's a tough one. I think it would be easier to remove the man than the guns. removing the guns could keep the wife and or kids from being shot, but it wouldn't stop the abuse. in suicide kings that dude beat the shit out of a guy with a toaster. but that being said, I don't think any wife beater or child abusers should have guns. obviously their actions show an extreme lack of self control which is a necessity when owning firearms.

unsung

dignin said:

The United States is getting scarier by the day.

I love visiting the states but this shit is some wild west type stuff and makes me second guess where I will visit.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/georgia-s-guns-everywhere-bill-celebrated-by-pro-gun-lobby-1.2597232


It will no longer be illegal to bring a firearm to a place of worship, as long as the congregation says it’s allowed. If someone is caught with a firearm in a church that bans guns there will be a $100 fine.

School districts will be allowed to decide if staff can carry firearms in elementary and high schools. Firearms still won’t be legal on college campuses but the penalty for licence holders is dropped to $100.

Licensed carriers will be able to bring firearms into bars unless the owner disallows it. Someone who doesn’t co-operate with a no-gun rule could be charged with trespassing on private property.

No more bans on firearms in public housing.

Firearms can be carried in non-secure areas of airports. A person with a gun caught in a secure area will simply be asked to leave, without risk of arrest, jail or a fine.

Police won't be able to stop people to ask to see a carry permit.

No database allowed of concealed carry permit holders.



YEEEEHAAWWWW!!!!!!!

I agree with the yeehaw, much of that is unconstitutional.

Banning people from owning firearms that live in public housing? Gee, that couldn't be more racist if a KKK member wrote it.

brianlux

gimmesometruth27 said:

brianlux said:

^^^ Good question, Cosmo, and while we're waiting for an answer I have another question: Why do people who are worried that the government wants to take their guns away openly and often frequently talk about all the guns they have- often in specific terms- on a public forum? That just seems odd to me.

yeah why do i not constantly brag about my guitar collection?? i mean, it is just something that i own. i have pride in it, but i don't brag about it.

i guess it just seems like macho dudes have to express the machasimo they can not show us in person by typing about all of the guns and ammo they have.

Be careful, gimme. The government is going berserk confiscating guitars nationwide. Here we see the ever sly Inspector Clouseau about to seize a shipment of these dangerous six stringers:

Thirty Bills Unpaid

goingtoverona said:

hmmm that's a tough one. I think it would be easier to remove the man than the guns. removing the guns could keep the wife and or kids from being shot, but it wouldn't stop the abuse. in suicide kings that dude beat the shit out of a guy with a toaster. but that being said, I don't think any wife beater or child abusers should have guns. obviously their actions show an extreme lack of self control which is a necessity when owning firearms.

Removing the man from the situation prevents the spontaneous violence that tends to erupt in some domestic situations, but we know of countless estranged men that re-enter their past lives in violent fashion.

Can gun legislation have an effect on domestic violence?

Canada underwent significant reform within the last few decades. The following is what we have observed:

In 1991, Bill C-17 proposed some controls on rifles and shotguns. The following resulted:
85 women murdered with a firearm (0.3 rate per 100,000) and 185 murdered without (0.6 rate per 100,000).

In 1995, Bill C-68 strengthened controls on rifles and shotguns. The following resulted:
43 women murdered with a firearm (0.1 rate per 100,000) and 152 murdered without (0.5 rate per 100,000).

* Among other things, Bill C-68 also required registration of all firearms and firearm license holders; banned short-barreled and small caliber handguns ("grandfathering" in previous owners); and required a license to buy ammunition.

In 2005, after time had elapsed to assess the impact of gun legislation, the following resulted:
32 women murdered with a firearm (0.09 rate per 100,000) and 115 murdered without (0.35 rate per 100,000) .


These statistics present a scenario where, after introducing serious gun reform, in just over two decades a country has experienced a 62% reduction in the number of overall domestic homicides and a 38% reduction in domestic homicides by firearm. The homicide rates have seen a reduction from 0.3 to 0.09 homicides by firearm (per 100,000) and 0.6 to 0.35 homicides (per 100,000).

Would you suggest the reforms have little to do with the distinct and notable changes?

Are such measurable worth a change effort?


Sources:
http://www.learningtoendabuse.ca/sites/default/files/Coalition for Gun Control.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

goingtoverona

I would say that no, gun legislation would not have much of an effect on domestic violence. wife beaters and child abusers are gonna beat women and children regardless of whether or not there are guns in the house.
as far as the reforms go, it's difficult to tell if it was the reforms that made the numbers change or the people. meaning, how can we tell that the drop in numbers isn't because Canadians are getting less violent and less impulsive? if you noticed, the number of people killed without a firearm dropped as well. why or how would gun legislation make that number drop?
are the measures worth a change effort? that opinion will be different for everyone. personally I would say no, but keep in mind I feel the way about people killed with guns that most people feel about people killed by cars. it sucks, but so what? I wouldn't be down for strengthened controls on rifles and shotguns nor bans on handguns or sbr's. not sure how I feel about needing a license to buy ammo. I already underwent an extensive FBI background check to carry concealed, that ID alone should be enough to buy ammo.

dignin

goingtoverona said:

I would say that no, gun legislation would not have much of an effect on domestic violence. wife beaters and child abusers are gonna beat women and children regardless of whether or not there are guns in the house.
as far as the reforms go, it's difficult to tell if it was the reforms that made the numbers change or the people. meaning, how can we tell that the drop in numbers isn't because Canadians are getting less violent and less impulsive? if you noticed, the number of people killed without a firearm dropped as well. why or how would gun legislation make that number drop?
are the measures worth a change effort? that opinion will be different for everyone. personally I would say no, but keep in mind I feel the way about people killed with guns that most people feel about people killed by cars. it sucks, but so what? I wouldn't be down for strengthened controls on rifles and shotguns nor bans on handguns or sbr's. not sure how I feel about needing a license to buy ammo. I already underwent an extensive FBI background check to carry concealed, that ID alone should be enough to buy ammo.

If we are comparing guns to cars then why do you have a problem with paying to register your gun when I'm sure you pay to register your car?

goingtoverona

the same reason I was given of why I can't compare gun deaths and car deaths.....because it doesn't get used in public, and when it does get used(at a range or large lot of land) it's not putting anyone's life in danger. with a car you're interacting with the public, constantly putting your life and others at risk. and for what it's worth, I have no problem with registering any guns I own, but I shouldn't have to pay for it. I don't want to pay for car registration either, but being that you have to drive in public, you can't really boycott it without getting in trouble.

edited to say, I wasn't really trying to compare cars to guns, rather just point out that I put people killed by cars on the same pedestal that gunshot victims get put on. some people feel passionately about cancer, some tobacco, some drunk driving, some guns. everyone has their own reasons for what's most important to them.

gimmesometruth27

brianlux said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

brianlux said:

^^^ Good question, Cosmo, and while we're waiting for an answer I have another question: Why do people who are worried that the government wants to take their guns away openly and often frequently talk about all the guns they have- often in specific terms- on a public forum? That just seems odd to me.

yeah why do i not constantly brag about my guitar collection?? i mean, it is just something that i own. i have pride in it, but i don't brag about it.

i guess it just seems like macho dudes have to express the machasimo they can not show us in person by typing about all of the guns and ammo they have.

Be careful, gimme. The government is going berserk confiscating guitars nationwide. Here we see the ever sly Inspector Clouseau about to seize a shipment of these dangerous six stringers:

in my opinion, the feds can seize those jankass guitars. probably sound like crap anyway since there is not enough substance to them to make it possible for them to sound good.

ever seen one of those guitars in the shape of a giant penis? those should come free when someone buys one of these gun guitars. you know, like a buy one gun guitar, get a large penis shaped one free kinda deals.

unsung

Cosmo said:

goingtoverona said:

if I had to guess i'd say that a permit to carry concealed allows you to do something with your gun(carry it in public), whereas registering doesn't, it's just hey here's who I am and all the guns I own. but it doesn't give a person more freedom or rights.
I can appreciate both sides of the argument of whether registration should be done, but the whole government coming to take my guns idea is a bit preposterous. it's just not possible, even if they know everything about you, how many guns you have, and where you keep them, it just can't be done. if the government did try to come and take everyone's guns, they wouldn't make it through ten percent of the population before word would get out and peoples guns would miraculously be stolen or lost. not to mention all the violence that would come from the resistors willing to fight. that being said, i'm totally down with registering all my shizzle, so long as it doesn't cost me anything.

...
I agree. The government isn't going to storm people's homes and confiscate legally owned guns... and I don't want the government to do it, even if I don't own a gun because it goes against our Constitution.
The worst analogy used by the gun lobby.... that Hitler took away the guns in order to take control. Like, if the Jews were armed, they would have been able to defend themselves and avoid the Holocaust.
Seriously? Don't people remember who the Nazis were and what it took to finally defeat them? It took the combined Armies of the U.S., Britian, Russia, Canada, Austrailia, New Zealand and insurgents in France armed with tanks and machine guns and bombers and fighter planes to do it. No one will ever convince me that the Jews and gypsies in the the Berlin ghettos, armed with hand guns would ever have been able to hold off and defeat the German Army.

What if laws were passed that made currently legal firearms illegal to own?

Would you support door to door confiscation after that?

JWPearl

gimmesometruth27 said:

brianlux said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

brianlux said:

^^^ Good question, Cosmo, and while we're waiting for an answer I have another question: Why do people who are worried that the government wants to take their guns away openly and often frequently talk about all the guns they have- often in specific terms- on a public forum? That just seems odd to me.

yeah why do i not constantly brag about my guitar collection?? i mean, it is just something that i own. i have pride in it, but i don't brag about it.

i guess it just seems like macho dudes have to express the machasimo they can not show us in person by typing about all of the guns and ammo they have.

Be careful, gimme. The government is going berserk confiscating guitars nationwide. Here we see the ever sly Inspector Clouseau about to seize a shipment of these dangerous six stringers:

in my opinion, the feds can seize those jankass guitars. probably sound like crap anyway since there is not enough substance to them to make it possible for them to sound good.

ever seen one of those guitars in the shape of a giant penis? those should come free when someone buys one of these gun guitars. you know, like a buy one gun guitar, get a large penis shaped one free kinda deals.

)

brianlux

gimmesometruth27 said:

brianlux said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

brianlux said:

^^^ Good question, Cosmo, and while we're waiting for an answer I have another question: Why do people who are worried that the government wants to take their guns away openly and often frequently talk about all the guns they have- often in specific terms- on a public forum? That just seems odd to me.

yeah why do i not constantly brag about my guitar collection?? i mean, it is just something that i own. i have pride in it, but i don't brag about it.

i guess it just seems like macho dudes have to express the machasimo they can not show us in person by typing about all of the guns and ammo they have.

Be careful, gimme. The government is going berserk confiscating guitars nationwide. Here we see the ever sly Inspector Clouseau about to seize a shipment of these dangerous six stringers:

in my opinion, the feds can seize those jankass guitars. probably sound like crap anyway since there is not enough substance to them to make it possible for them to sound good.

ever seen one of those guitars in the shape of a giant penis? those should come free when someone buys one of these gun guitars. you know, like a buy one gun guitar, get a large penis shaped one free kinda deals.

No, haven't seen one of those penis guitars- not sure I want to. ) But I get what you're saying!

mickeyrat

unsung said:

Cosmo said:

goingtoverona said:

if I had to guess i'd say that a permit to carry concealed allows you to do something with your gun(carry it in public), whereas registering doesn't, it's just hey here's who I am and all the guns I own. but it doesn't give a person more freedom or rights.
I can appreciate both sides of the argument of whether registration should be done, but the whole government coming to take my guns idea is a bit preposterous. it's just not possible, even if they know everything about you, how many guns you have, and where you keep them, it just can't be done. if the government did try to come and take everyone's guns, they wouldn't make it through ten percent of the population before word would get out and peoples guns would miraculously be stolen or lost. not to mention all the violence that would come from the resistors willing to fight. that being said, i'm totally down with registering all my shizzle, so long as it doesn't cost me anything.

...
I agree. The government isn't going to storm people's homes and confiscate legally owned guns... and I don't want the government to do it, even if I don't own a gun because it goes against our Constitution.
The worst analogy used by the gun lobby.... that Hitler took away the guns in order to take control. Like, if the Jews were armed, they would have been able to defend themselves and avoid the Holocaust.
Seriously? Don't people remember who the Nazis were and what it took to finally defeat them? It took the combined Armies of the U.S., Britian, Russia, Canada, Austrailia, New Zealand and insurgents in France armed with tanks and machine guns and bombers and fighter planes to do it. No one will ever convince me that the Jews and gypsies in the the Berlin ghettos, armed with hand guns would ever have been able to hold off and defeat the German Army.

What if laws were passed that made currently legal firearms illegal to own?

Would you support door to door confiscation after that?

There wont be door to door to much manpower and risk of confrontation.
One word.
Drones.

dignin

goingtoverona said:

the same reason I was given of why I can't compare gun deaths and car deaths.....because it doesn't get used in public, and when it does get used(at a range or large lot of land) it's not putting anyone's life in danger. with a car you're interacting with the public, constantly putting your life and others at risk. and for what it's worth, I have no problem with registering any guns I own, but I shouldn't have to pay for it. I don't want to pay for car registration either, but being that you have to drive in public, you can't really boycott it without getting in trouble.

edited to say, I wasn't really trying to compare cars to guns, rather just point out that I put people killed by cars on the same pedestal that gunshot victims get put on. some people feel passionately about cancer, some tobacco, some drunk driving, some guns. everyone has their own reasons for what's most important to them.

Thanks for the response.

Godfather.

In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States ..
In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound.
In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States ..
In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States ..
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States ..
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.
In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis ..
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school.
As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.
One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns. Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, nor Republican conservative was involved in these shootings and murders.
We dont need gun control, we need Democrat control


not that really matters....just say'n LOL!!!


Godfather.

EarlWelsh

Godfather. said:

In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States ..
In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound.
In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States ..
In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States ..
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States ..
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.
In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis ..
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school.
As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.
One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns. Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, nor Republican conservative was involved in these shootings and murders.
We dont need gun control, we need Democrat control


not that really matters....just say'n LOL!!!


Godfather.

You're right about one thing...it doesn't really matter.

rgambs

cherrypicking. I wonder why you left out charles whitman and all the other conservatives who have shot people?

brianlux

I noticed on another thread, Kat suggested we not create so many new gun threads. Here's an idea- what if (OP willing) this were renamed "One Last Gun Thread" and carry on the discussion here?

Maybe the same with Global warming. I'm guilty of creating several AGW threads. In fact I'll start one now and suggest we keep it to one.

jmuscatello

Godfather. said:

In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States ..
In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound.
In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States ..
In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States ..
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States ..
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.
In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis ..
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school.
As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.
One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns. Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, nor Republican conservative was involved in these shootings and murders.
We dont need gun control, we need Democrat control


not that really matters....just say'n LOL!!!


Godfather.

and not a woman on this list, huh. I'd say young males might be a demographic to worry about. I'd like to see the average age of the shooters....and average age that mental illness presents.... and maybe throw in IQ data (higher average IQ often correlated with higher rates of mental illness), which would of course explain all the democrats... higher IQs! Yes!
(Just kidding, mostly...)