the only difference between an unloaded gun and a plastic toy gun is the weight.
Yep (minus potential of course, but that's not really relevant to my situation).
the difference between a loaded and unloaded gun as far as the law goes is nil. if you rob a bank with an unloaded gun the punishment is the same. it's also the same if you rob a bank with a plastic gun.
Ok. No guns are banned of any type. Got it. Keep in mind that others are proposing banning certain guns here.
OK, I don't see why anyone would want those certain guns, but if laws are indeed tougher, I would have no problem with it.
Did it ever occur to you that people are going to be killed in the government's efforts to stop the black market, that the regulations themselves will create situations wherein additional criminals, cops, and innocent bystandards are killed?
Yes.
Of course it is, if you're proposing similar statutes to those on drugs. If you're not talking about banning anything, but rather just increasing regulations on guns, I'm not seeing any specifics, just words like "tougher".
Well the reason I use vague words is because English is not my native language and I have no idea how to say the things I want to say in English.
Prove it.
I said "might."
Yes. Notice how it's also used in the opening post to this thread?
Yes, but I think you were addressing me and not the person who started this thread.
why is it so hard to understand I would like a ban on certain guns but not ALL? if others have suggested a ban on all, great. I didnt
It isn't hard to understand, except when you say you'd support an all out ban. Or when you say that you "hate guns" to justify your position, which implies that you hate all guns and therefore would apply that position to all of them.
If you wish to take a hard position, do so. But don't expect someone else to take it for you and absolve you of the responsibility.
Yep (minus potential of course, but that's not really relevant to my situation).
I have no plans to rob any banks.
well; good luck to you. there are many people who carry guns as part of their living. hopefully you won't show your gun to an off duty cop who may shoot faster than you can think. we don't play with guns out west here. they are tools. tools which require respect.
why is it so hard to understand I would like a ban on certain guns but not ALL? if others have suggested a ban on all, great. I didnt
i was watching some police video show the other day and it showed rioters usung home-made guns. another program showed an entire room the FBI has for confiscated home-made guns. to ban guns you must first extract the technology from the minds of people.
OK, I don't see why anyone would want those certain guns, but if laws are indeed tougher, I would have no problem with it.
You don't see why? Many people here have already told you why. They enjoy using them. They believe they provide a form of self defense. They believe in spiting others who wish to ban them. There are a multitude of reasons.
Well the reason I use vague words is because English is not my native language and I have no idea how to say the things I want to say in English.
Fair enough.
I said "might."
Ok.
Yes, but I think you were addressing me and not the person who started this thread.
is framed as representing the opposition to my posts from not only yourself but others. Your questions ask about "tougher gun laws", which can certainly include bans, particularly considering that you mention that no one is calling for a "total ban" which implied that a partial ban is completely on the table in your mind. You later clarified this by saying "forget the word ban".
Or when you say that you "hate guns" to justify your position, which implies that you hate all guns and therefore would apply that position to all of them.
stop assuming. I hate guns. thats my personal opinion. I would like a ban on certain guns and tougher laws for others. I think its a privilege not a right to own one.
You don't have to. Just don't pretend you have when you haven't. You can't equivocate and then attack someone for misunderstanding your position when you haven't even really taken one.
i'm just one guy with an opinion. people can say whatever they want in here.
Of course! Now why haven't you used that same logic when considering my posts?
You don't see why? Many people here have already told you why. They enjoy using them. They believe they provide a form of self defense. They believe in spiting others who wish to ban them. There are a multitude of reasons.
is framed as representing the opposition to my posts from not only yourself but others. Your questions ask about "tougher gun laws", which can certainly include bans, particularly considering that you mention that no one is calling for a "total ban" which implied that a partial ban is completely on the table in your mind. You later clarified this by saying "forget the word ban".
Fair enough. A partial ban is indeed on the table in my mind. But if I wanted to start a discussion about what's in my mind I would have mentioned it and not implied it.
Fair enough. A partial ban is indeed on the table in my mind. But if I wanted to start a discussion about what's in my mind I would have mentioned it and not implied it.
what does a partial ban mean? if it means criminals are banned from posessing guns; i'm all for it. if you want to dictate what technology i am allowed to posess; i can't agree. if a criminal can buy a fully automatic weapon smuggled over the border from mexico; i should be allowed the same technology.
* Fundamental guarantees for lawful gun ownership
* Increased gun safety education
* Instant background checks to prohibit felons from purchasing guns
* Strong enforcement of existing gun laws
* Voluntary child safety locks
* A ban on assault and high-capacity automatic weapons, and
* An end to frivolous lawsuits by cities against gun manufacturers.
Common sense, Constitutional solutions while maintaining individual liberties.
The gun doesnt fire itself, come on. It needs a host to pull the trigger
this is a dead end.
guns dont kill people. people with guns kill people
(easy far, I can already see the smoke coming out your ears, its just an analogy, I dont mean all people)
farfrom, I have lost my cool a few times in this thread. I meant no offense and apologize if I did so. I think you are a smart guy and a fun challenge to debate with
what does a partial ban mean? if it means criminals are banned from posessing guns; i'm all for it. if you want to dictate what technology i am allowed to posess; i can't agree. if a criminal can buy a fully automatic weapon smuggled over the border from mexico; i should be allowed the same technology.
I thought you faked your death, which I can't imagine is legal, so in my opinion you shouldn't be allowed to have that technology.
* Fundamental guarantees for lawful gun ownership
* Increased gun safety education
* Instant background checks to prohibit felons from purchasing guns
* Strong enforcement of existing gun laws
* Voluntary child safety locks
* A ban on assault and high-capacity automatic weapons, and
* An end to frivolous lawsuits by cities against gun manufacturers.
Common sense, Constitutional solutions while maintaining individual liberties.
Why stop at felons? Most criminal cases are pled down to misdemeanors and many can be violent, such as assault, resist arrest, etc.
Maybe limit to only certain offenses to prevent gun ownership.
Why stop at felons? Most criminal cases are pled down to misdemeanors and many can be violent, such as assault, resist arrest, etc.
Maybe limit to only certain offenses to prevent gun ownership.
I couldnt agree more my friend. like I said, I would want tougher laws then are currently in place
The gun doesnt fire itself, come on. It needs a host to pull the trigger
Ok. So people kill people. We've established that. People are killers, so you decide to give these same people, killers, guns, which are made for killing... That's just a bit weird in my opinion.
I thought you faked your death, which I can't imagine is legal, so in my opinion you shouldn't be allowed to have that technology.
i see you have memory problems. let me help. i became invisible. there's a big difference. retirement is not illegal and either is coming out of retirement. nothing illegal was done by me and the ones who did give false information; are in jail. income tax is paid when you receive income. if you do not draw income; you do not have to file a tax return. can you understand that or should i type slower?
I couldnt agree more my friend. like I said, I would want tougher laws then are currently in place
i lived in the northern chicago burbs when guns were outlawed in towns like morton grove. guess where the crime rate went up? criminals want/prefer unarmed victims. if i were to break into a house i'd do it where i knew the homeowner wouldn't have a gun.
but seriously, the assault weapons that kill people in the streets over drug deals are purchased and sold on the black market. They are guns that are illegal under current law. Therefore, any changes to current law would be an unnecessary breach of 2nd amendment rights.
Guns are tools. The radical shift that society has made towards violence and the devaluing of human life has caused guns to become tools of violence and devaluation of life. The guns are not the problem: it is this society.
Take away our guns and we'll still be a violent society that kills its weakest members. We'll just find different ways of doing it.
Attack the problem where it lies: value human life!
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
but seriously, the assault weapons that kill people in the streets over drug deals are purchased and sold on the black market. They are guns that are illegal under current law. Therefore, any changes to current law would be an unnecessary breach of 2nd amendment rights.
Guns are tools. The radical shift that society has made towards violence and the devaluing of human life has caused guns to become tools of violence and devaluation of life. The guns are not the problem: it is this society.
Take away our guns and we'll still be a violent society that kills its weakest members. We'll just find different ways of doing it.
Attack the problem where it lies: value human life!
YOU'RE RIGHT. we have several redundant laws made to appease those calling for more laws. for example; it is unlawful to discharge a firearm within city limits. it's also unlawful to discharge a gun in the air within city limits. it's also unlawful to discharge a firearm within 300 yards of a building or dwelling. we also have megans law here which says you can't fire a gun in the air in celebration. 4 different laws for the same reason. all cover the same offence. i wonder how much tax money we would have saved just having one law for the one offence.
you can, if you pass a series of requirements. ones that are much tougher now.
one more time. get this through your thick fucking skull. I do not want ALL guns banned.
I want very dangerous ones banned. who determines that? a panel of experts. how bout that?
for guns deemed not very dangerous, I would like a series of very tough requirements. even tougher then now. who determines that? a panel of experts. how bout that?
If tougher laws mean, 20 less people killed every year... I think it's worth it, even one.
LOL. If it saves just one life it is worth being stripped of your liberties? Blah. With that logic we'd be better off banning swimming pools, Big Macs, automobiles, motorcycles, etc...
As Benjamin Franklin said: They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
maybe what i'm looking for is tougher penalties for people illegally having a gun.
I do not want a total ban on all guns. but I do want tougher laws to get one, strict background check, credit check, mental history.....this would take serious thought and decided by someone other then me. find some way to ensure guns get into the hands of law abiding people.
I DO want a ban on assault weapons. where to draw the line? I dont know.
I have changed my mind when it comes to it being a constitutional right. now I understand better why it is. The government/FBI/Police can never be the only ones allowed to have weapons.
I still am confused why people really feel the need to carry a gun. I, more then many people here, believe terrorism is a real threat. especially someone like me, who lives downtown chicago in a high rise building, close to a federal building, next to the site of the 90 story trump building, work 2 blocks from the Sears Tower (tallest building in North America), take public transportation daily, travel on a plane monthly. that being said, I understand I am at more of a risk of being mugged on the subway by a fellow american.
but never have I felt the need to carry a gun, let alone use one on somebody.
I also firmly believe that over time, possibly a generation, with tough penalties, and tough laws to obtain one, crime would decrease. specifically crimes committed with guns.
I have changed my mind when it comes to it being a constitutional right. now I understand better why it is. The government/FBI/Police can never be the only ones allowed to have weapons.
I haven't kept up with this thread, but this point intrigues me. Could you elaborate on it?
I really can't understand the mentality that makes people feel the need to carry a gun 'for protection'. I grew up around firearms, and I still use them occasionally, but I just can't fathom the kind of paranoid mindset that makes you feel that its justifiable to carry a handgun.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
I haven't kept up with this thread, but this point intrigues me. Could you elaborate on it?
I really can't understand the mentality that makes people feel the need to carry a gun 'for protection'. I grew up around firearms, and I still use them occasionally, but I just can't fathom the kind of paranoid mindset that makes you feel that its justifiable to carry a handgun.
I feel the same way you do. believe me, on all points you make.
but I feel it should be Americans right to bear arms in the insane and unlikely case that the government turns against us. the government should never be the only one to control every firearm ever made.
Comments
Yes I have been. It's hard not to do so, considering:
That's just page 1.
Yep (minus potential of course, but that's not really relevant to my situation).
I have no plans to rob any banks.
OK, I don't see why anyone would want those certain guns, but if laws are indeed tougher, I would have no problem with it.
Yes.
Well the reason I use vague words is because English is not my native language and I have no idea how to say the things I want to say in English.
I said "might."
Yes, but I think you were addressing me and not the person who started this thread.
naděje umírá poslední
why is it so hard to understand I would like a ban on certain guns but not ALL? if others have suggested a ban on all, great. I didnt
It isn't hard to understand, except when you say you'd support an all out ban. Or when you say that you "hate guns" to justify your position, which implies that you hate all guns and therefore would apply that position to all of them.
If you wish to take a hard position, do so. But don't expect someone else to take it for you and absolve you of the responsibility.
well; good luck to you. there are many people who carry guns as part of their living. hopefully you won't show your gun to an off duty cop who may shoot faster than you can think. we don't play with guns out west here. they are tools. tools which require respect.
i was watching some police video show the other day and it showed rioters usung home-made guns. another program showed an entire room the FBI has for confiscated home-made guns. to ban guns you must first extract the technology from the minds of people.
You don't see why? Many people here have already told you why. They enjoy using them. They believe they provide a form of self defense. They believe in spiting others who wish to ban them. There are a multitude of reasons.
Fair enough.
Ok.
Can't have this both ways. Your post to me here:
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=3958044&postcount=281
is framed as representing the opposition to my posts from not only yourself but others. Your questions ask about "tougher gun laws", which can certainly include bans, particularly considering that you mention that no one is calling for a "total ban" which implied that a partial ban is completely on the table in your mind. You later clarified this by saying "forget the word ban".
yes I would. but I know its impossible and impractical
stop assuming. I hate guns. thats my personal opinion. I would like a ban on certain guns and tougher laws for others. I think its a privilege not a right to own one.
why do I have to take a hard postion? i'm just one guy with an opinion. people can say whatever they want in here.
You don't have to. Just don't pretend you have when you haven't. You can't equivocate and then attack someone for misunderstanding your position when you haven't even really taken one.
Of course! Now why haven't you used that same logic when considering my posts?
I see.
Fair enough. A partial ban is indeed on the table in my mind. But if I wanted to start a discussion about what's in my mind I would have mentioned it and not implied it.
naděje umírá poslední
what does a partial ban mean? if it means criminals are banned from posessing guns; i'm all for it. if you want to dictate what technology i am allowed to posess; i can't agree. if a criminal can buy a fully automatic weapon smuggled over the border from mexico; i should be allowed the same technology.
* Fundamental guarantees for lawful gun ownership
* Increased gun safety education
* Instant background checks to prohibit felons from purchasing guns
* Strong enforcement of existing gun laws
* Voluntary child safety locks
* A ban on assault and high-capacity automatic weapons, and
* An end to frivolous lawsuits by cities against gun manufacturers.
Common sense, Constitutional solutions while maintaining individual liberties.
The gun doesnt fire itself, come on. It needs a host to pull the trigger
this is a dead end.
guns dont kill people. people with guns kill people
(easy far, I can already see the smoke coming out your ears, its just an analogy, I dont mean all people)
farfrom, I have lost my cool a few times in this thread. I meant no offense and apologize if I did so. I think you are a smart guy and a fun challenge to debate with
I thought you faked your death, which I can't imagine is legal, so in my opinion you shouldn't be allowed to have that technology.
naděje umírá poslední
Maybe limit to only certain offenses to prevent gun ownership.
I couldnt agree more my friend. like I said, I would want tougher laws then are currently in place
Ok. So people kill people. We've established that. People are killers, so you decide to give these same people, killers, guns, which are made for killing... That's just a bit weird in my opinion.
naděje umírá poslední
i see you have memory problems. let me help. i became invisible. there's a big difference. retirement is not illegal and either is coming out of retirement. nothing illegal was done by me and the ones who did give false information; are in jail. income tax is paid when you receive income. if you do not draw income; you do not have to file a tax return. can you understand that or should i type slower?
i lived in the northern chicago burbs when guns were outlawed in towns like morton grove. guess where the crime rate went up? criminals want/prefer unarmed victims. if i were to break into a house i'd do it where i knew the homeowner wouldn't have a gun.
Hey now. A little respect for the slingshot, you know?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
but seriously, the assault weapons that kill people in the streets over drug deals are purchased and sold on the black market. They are guns that are illegal under current law. Therefore, any changes to current law would be an unnecessary breach of 2nd amendment rights.
Guns are tools. The radical shift that society has made towards violence and the devaluing of human life has caused guns to become tools of violence and devaluation of life. The guns are not the problem: it is this society.
Take away our guns and we'll still be a violent society that kills its weakest members. We'll just find different ways of doing it.
Attack the problem where it lies: value human life!
-Enoch Powell
YOU'RE RIGHT. we have several redundant laws made to appease those calling for more laws. for example; it is unlawful to discharge a firearm within city limits. it's also unlawful to discharge a gun in the air within city limits. it's also unlawful to discharge a firearm within 300 yards of a building or dwelling. we also have megans law here which says you can't fire a gun in the air in celebration. 4 different laws for the same reason. all cover the same offence. i wonder how much tax money we would have saved just having one law for the one offence.
Who's experts? The NRA's or the Brady Campaign's?
It will never work. Get it?
What if it mean 2,000 more people killed every year because they had no means to defend themselves? Would you still be for 'tougher laws'?
By an overwhelming percentage, guns are used to PREVENT violence.
LOL. If it saves just one life it is worth being stripped of your liberties? Blah. With that logic we'd be better off banning swimming pools, Big Macs, automobiles, motorcycles, etc...
As Benjamin Franklin said: They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
maybe what i'm looking for is tougher penalties for people illegally having a gun.
I do not want a total ban on all guns. but I do want tougher laws to get one, strict background check, credit check, mental history.....this would take serious thought and decided by someone other then me. find some way to ensure guns get into the hands of law abiding people.
I DO want a ban on assault weapons. where to draw the line? I dont know.
I have changed my mind when it comes to it being a constitutional right. now I understand better why it is. The government/FBI/Police can never be the only ones allowed to have weapons.
I still am confused why people really feel the need to carry a gun. I, more then many people here, believe terrorism is a real threat. especially someone like me, who lives downtown chicago in a high rise building, close to a federal building, next to the site of the 90 story trump building, work 2 blocks from the Sears Tower (tallest building in North America), take public transportation daily, travel on a plane monthly. that being said, I understand I am at more of a risk of being mugged on the subway by a fellow american.
but never have I felt the need to carry a gun, let alone use one on somebody.
I also firmly believe that over time, possibly a generation, with tough penalties, and tough laws to obtain one, crime would decrease. specifically crimes committed with guns.
good debate. discuss
I haven't kept up with this thread, but this point intrigues me. Could you elaborate on it?
I really can't understand the mentality that makes people feel the need to carry a gun 'for protection'. I grew up around firearms, and I still use them occasionally, but I just can't fathom the kind of paranoid mindset that makes you feel that its justifiable to carry a handgun.
-C Addison
I feel the same way you do. believe me, on all points you make.
but I feel it should be Americans right to bear arms in the insane and unlikely case that the government turns against us. the government should never be the only one to control every firearm ever made.