America's Gun Violence

Godfather. · May 2016

catefrances said:

show previous quotes
jeffbr said:

catefrances said:

callen said:

catefrances said:

jeffbr said:

Degeneratefk said:

callen said:

eddiec said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
F**k.

Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.

Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.

Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.

Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.

I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.

We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).

If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.

And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.

And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
I'm with Callen. Completely against random checkpoints. I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment and has no place in this country. It is a completely fascist notion. I understand that the Supremes made it legal in 1990, but it was a hotly debated issue back then and I completely disagree with their ruling that it isn't a violation of a persons protection against illegal search and seizure.Thankfully the Supremes left it up to states to decide, and I live in a state that doesn't allow it.
a fascist notion is murdering 6 million Jews just cause.

we have random breath tests(RBT) here in Australia. no one think its a violation of any right. driving whilst over the legal limit is a crime here. isn't it over there?.
if you make the stupid decision to get behind the wheel of a car drunk, putting not only your life but also the lives of others in danger then stiff shit for you if you get caught. better than having to inform ones next of kin youre dead cause you're stupid or informing someone else their child/father/husband/whatever is dead cause some arsehole decided driving whilst drunk was a good idea.
Sad sad sad.

Willing to give up a fundamental right so easily.

And we wonder how Hitler pulled it off.
so you think its a right to drive drunk?

sad sad sad

I can't tell if you're just reading what you want into this discussion, are intentionally misconstruing what people are saying, or just not understanding, but nobody is condoning drunk driving. Some of us just have a different tolerance level for authoritarian state actions.
im trying to understand why anyone would take issue with a checkpoint whose sole purpose is to catch people driving over the legal alcohol limit and remove them from the roads. I don't see RBT(random breath test) as they're called here in Australia as an authoritarian measure nor an invasion of my rights.

agreed, but they're also a great source of revenue in California, ever notice they always do them on holiday's or during a celebration of some kind, a few of my friends have had 502's and it cost them in the end about $10,000 when all was said and done.

Godfather.

Godfather. · May 2016

catefrances said:

show previous quotes
jeffbr said:

catefrances said:

callen said:

catefrances said:

jeffbr said:

Degeneratefk said:

callen said:

eddiec said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
F**k.

Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.

Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.

Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.

Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.

I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.

We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).

If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.

And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.

And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
I'm with Callen. Completely against random checkpoints. I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment and has no place in this country. It is a completely fascist notion. I understand that the Supremes made it legal in 1990, but it was a hotly debated issue back then and I completely disagree with their ruling that it isn't a violation of a persons protection against illegal search and seizure.Thankfully the Supremes left it up to states to decide, and I live in a state that doesn't allow it.
a fascist notion is murdering 6 million Jews just cause.

we have random breath tests(RBT) here in Australia. no one think its a violation of any right. driving whilst over the legal limit is a crime here. isn't it over there?.
if you make the stupid decision to get behind the wheel of a car drunk, putting not only your life but also the lives of others in danger then stiff shit for you if you get caught. better than having to inform ones next of kin youre dead cause you're stupid or informing someone else their child/father/husband/whatever is dead cause some arsehole decided driving whilst drunk was a good idea.
Sad sad sad.

Willing to give up a fundamental right so easily.

And we wonder how Hitler pulled it off.
so you think its a right to drive drunk?

sad sad sad

I can't tell if you're just reading what you want into this discussion, are intentionally misconstruing what people are saying, or just not understanding, but nobody is condoning drunk driving. Some of us just have a different tolerance level for authoritarian state actions.
im trying to understand why anyone would take issue with a checkpoint whose sole purpose is to catch people driving over the legal alcohol limit and remove them from the roads. I don't see RBT(random breath test) as they're called here in Australia as an authoritarian measure nor an invasion of my rights.

agreed, but they're also a great source of revenue in California, ever notice they always do them on holiday's or during a celebration of some kind, a few of my friends have had 502's and it cost them in the end about $10,000 when all was said and done.

Godfather.

oftenreading · May 2016

Of course they do them more on holidays, since that's when people are more likely to drink. I have no sympathy for people who get caught driving while impaired and have to pay a fine (though I'll admit I don't know what a 502 is, since I don't live in California). In BC you would have a driving prohibition for a period of time, may have to do a driving course, may have to have an interlock device put in, and may also face criminal charges. I don't have a problem with any of that, as long as the method of measuring impairment is valid.

PJfanwillneverleave1 · May 2016

oftenreading said:
I don't have a problem with any of that, as long as the method of measuring impairment is valid.

Method?
If you're pissed you're pissed.
It takes one to know one.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · May 2016

oftenreading said:
Of course they do them more on holidays, since that's when people are more likely to drink. I have no sympathy for people who get caught driving while impaired and have to pay a fine (though I'll admit I don't know what a 502 is, since I don't live in California). In BC you would have a driving prohibition for a period of time, may have to do a driving course, may have to have an interlock device put in, and may also face criminal charges. I don't have a problem with any of that, as long as the method of measuring impairment is valid.

This (regarding the holidays item).

tempo_n_groove · May 2016

Gern Blansten said:

show previous quotes
mace1229 said:
I listed some above. Some guns are banned literally because they "look mean."

I'm not a gun expert or dealer, but my understanding is other guns can be purchased used if it is already in the state, but no new guns of that make and model can be brought through state lines. Or a gun made in 2001 is fine, but an identical 2002 is illegal. I've been told through gun dealers this is a result of extensive (aka expensive) testing such as the gun drop test. Most states require a test once, where CA may require it every year even if no changes are made to the gun, requiring gun manufactures to pay high fees to complete the testing on a gun that is already being sold and already passed the safety tests. So a gun made while the tests were performed are okay, any year after (even though they are identical) are not. CA is one of a few, if not the only, state with those requirements.
but you said "zero consideration to safety" when it appears that the gun drop test relates to safety

That's why I asked...there is generally a good reason for restrictions. Reasons beyond "the gubment dun gone tak ma gunz away"

What's funny is Feinstein has always hated guns in the hands of the people yet for years she carried concealed.

Do as I say and not as I do...

Also California started their "assault weapons ban" years ago with a list of criteria such as having a bayonet, pistol grip, flash suppressor, threaded barrel etc, etc. So yes all the mean looking guns were targeted.

This brought on one of the more interesting pistol designs called the thumbhole stock.

Gern Blansten · May 2016

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-explains-rationale-auctioning-pistol-killed-trayvon/story?id=39330161&cid=abcn_fb

ick

Gern Blansten · May 2016

tempo_n_groove said:

show previous quotes
Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:
I listed some above. Some guns are banned literally because they "look mean."

I'm not a gun expert or dealer, but my understanding is other guns can be purchased used if it is already in the state, but no new guns of that make and model can be brought through state lines. Or a gun made in 2001 is fine, but an identical 2002 is illegal. I've been told through gun dealers this is a result of extensive (aka expensive) testing such as the gun drop test. Most states require a test once, where CA may require it every year even if no changes are made to the gun, requiring gun manufactures to pay high fees to complete the testing on a gun that is already being sold and already passed the safety tests. So a gun made while the tests were performed are okay, any year after (even though they are identical) are not. CA is one of a few, if not the only, state with those requirements.
but you said "zero consideration to safety" when it appears that the gun drop test relates to safety

That's why I asked...there is generally a good reason for restrictions. Reasons beyond "the gubment dun gone tak ma gunz away"
What's funny is Feinstein has always hated guns in the hands of the people yet for years she carried concealed.

Do as I say and not as I do...

Also California started their "assault weapons ban" years ago with a list of criteria such as having a bayonet, pistol grip, flash suppressor, threaded barrel etc, etc. So yes all the mean looking guns were targeted.

This brought on one of the more interesting pistol designs called the thumbhole stock.

I don't think you are making an equal comparison. If she had lobbied against personal ownership of handguns you might have a point.

She didn't do that.

tempo_n_groove · May 2016

Gern Blansten said:

show previous quotes
tempo_n_groove said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:
I listed some above. Some guns are banned literally because they "look mean."

I'm not a gun expert or dealer, but my understanding is other guns can be purchased used if it is already in the state, but no new guns of that make and model can be brought through state lines. Or a gun made in 2001 is fine, but an identical 2002 is illegal. I've been told through gun dealers this is a result of extensive (aka expensive) testing such as the gun drop test. Most states require a test once, where CA may require it every year even if no changes are made to the gun, requiring gun manufactures to pay high fees to complete the testing on a gun that is already being sold and already passed the safety tests. So a gun made while the tests were performed are okay, any year after (even though they are identical) are not. CA is one of a few, if not the only, state with those requirements.
but you said "zero consideration to safety" when it appears that the gun drop test relates to safety

That's why I asked...there is generally a good reason for restrictions. Reasons beyond "the gubment dun gone tak ma gunz away"
What's funny is Feinstein has always hated guns in the hands of the people yet for years she carried concealed.

Do as I say and not as I do...

Also California started their "assault weapons ban" years ago with a list of criteria such as having a bayonet, pistol grip, flash suppressor, threaded barrel etc, etc. So yes all the mean looking guns were targeted.

This brought on one of the more interesting pistol designs called the thumbhole stock.
I don't think you are making an equal comparison. If she had lobbied against personal ownership of handguns you might have a point.

She didn't do that.

I remember it being quite differently.

"If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ’em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here."

From her lips to our ears.

Gern Blansten · May 2016

The guy that designed the AR-15 (M-16) was interviewed on Bryant Gumbel's HBO show last night.

He can't believe that the AR-15 is available for public purchase.

That's enough evidence for me folks....should be for you too.

He designed the weapon for war. A $90 addition makes the AR-15 fully automatic.

mace1229 · May 2016

enough evidence for what? To ban the AR-15 or ban all guns?

Gern Blansten · May 2016

mace1229 said:
enough evidence for what? To ban the AR-15 or ban all guns?

enough evidence to support that civilians shouldn't be able to buy AR-15s.

It's being sold as a "sporting" weapon...it's not. It's an assault weapon built for war.

mace1229 · May 2016

I think that is a reasonable statement. They can be easily modified.
They make guns that look just like the AR-15, but internally have different components, function differently, hold different calibers and can't be modified easily or hold large magazines. That should be good enough as a "sporting" weapon without the real thing.

PJPOWER · May 2016

Gern Blansten said:

show previous quotes
mace1229 said:
enough evidence for what? To ban the AR-15 or ban all guns?
enough evidence to support that civilians shouldn't be able to buy AR-15s.

It's being sold as a "sporting" weapon...it's not. It's an assault weapon built for war.

So I built an AR-15 specifically for hunting wild hogs...not for war...unless you are talking about waging war on those damn 4-legged menaces. I chose that platform as it is lighter weight and easier to carry through the thick brush where I hunt and sometimes those bastards require quick follow up shots (if you've ever been charged by one, you would understand).
I'm pretty sure the rifles the military uses are fully automatic and not semi-auto only (like the AR-15).
There are many many semi-auto rifles out there in different platforms that fire at the exact same rate as AR-15s and have been used for hunting for years. Oh, I forgot, AR-15s "look scary".
I would rather ban the toy replicas that encourage improper safe handling.

mickeyrat · May 2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/25/we-had-to-watch-my-sweet-beautiful-6-year-old-boy-take-his-last-breath-the-tragic-shooting-that-began-with-a-neighbors-unsecured-gun/?tid=sm_fb

It’s justice and it’s also awareness,” Brandon Holt’s mother added. “I just want everyone to know — just lock up your guns. Just lock up your guns.”

Godfather. · May 2016

there are more deaths from legal and illegal drugs every year, a gun kills with a loud bang and drugs kill for the most part silently, something to think about while people are protesting guns while they're high on who knows what.

Godfather.

eddiec · May 2016

Godfather. said:
there are more deaths from legal and illegal drugs every year, a gun kills with a loud bang and drugs kill for the most part silently, something to think about while people are protesting guns while they're high on who knows what.

Godfather.

Nobody fears walking into a movie theater and having some guy start tossing cocaine into the air.

mace1229 · May 2016

Crap, now that's all I'll be thanking about the next time I'm watching a movie. Thanks a lot.

PJ_Soul · May 2016

eddiec said:

show previous quotes
Godfather. said:
there are more deaths from legal and illegal drugs every year, a gun kills with a loud bang and drugs kill for the most part silently, something to think about while people are protesting guns while they're high on who knows what.

Godfather.
Nobody fears walking into a movie theater and having some guy start tossing cocaine into the air.

That's funny, but is a very good point.
I know that I wouldn't really have any issue with guns if people only used them to kill themselves by choice.

tempo_n_groove · May 2016

Gern Blansten said:
The guy that designed the AR-15 (M-16) was interviewed on Bryant Gumbel's HBO show last night.

He can't believe that the AR-15 is available for public purchase.

That's enough evidence for me folks....should be for you too.

He designed the weapon for war. A $90 addition makes the AR-15 fully automatic.

Eugene Stoner also designed "sporting rifles" and described them as such.

Also the add on to make the weapon automatic is a felony. Why a legal gun owner would do that is beyond me.

America's Gun Violence

Comments

Quick Links

Categories