Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-02-2013, 12:53 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,824,055 times
Reputation: 6509

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by zdg View Post
That is the most ridiculous, made up, movie induced nonsense I've ever heard. You believe that roaming hordes of bandits are doing their research to figure out which houses are armed and which are not before they break in, Mission Impossible style and try to steal the diamonds hidden under my precious art? Turn the TV off, man. It's a gorgeous day outside in California.
And you believe every gun in someone's home is just going to magically to off and kill people.

His scenario is much more likely than your irrational fear of three pounds of metal and plastic.

It is a miracle I am not dead with all the guns at my house with some, gasp, loaded and not in a safe. It is a miracle that I am still alive with all these super dangerous weapons of war I keep at my house.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-02-2013, 12:55 PM
zdg
 
Location: Sonoma County
845 posts, read 1,973,134 times
Reputation: 1144
For the trabillionth time, gun nuts, having a gun puts you at significantly more risk than it protects you.

You think ME + GUN = SAFER no matter how much proof to the contrary is shoved in your faces. Or is Stanford University just on the take from the anti-gun lobby; the one that stands to make no money whatsoever from the passing of gun restrictions?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2013, 12:57 PM
zdg
 
Location: Sonoma County
845 posts, read 1,973,134 times
Reputation: 1144
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
And you believe every gun in someone's home is just going to magically to off and kill people.

His scenario is much more likely than your irrational fear of three pounds of metal and plastic.

It is a miracle I am not dead with all the guns at my house with some, gasp, loaded and not in a safe. It is a miracle that I am still alive with all these super dangerous weapons of war I keep at my house.
My fear of your stupid metal and plastic that was compiled in a manner to SHOOT PEOPLE is RATIONAL. Nobody said ALL GUNS GO OFF AND KILL PEOPLE, you're just building more straw man horsepoo.

Only a moron would suggest that ALL guns go off and accidentally kill their owners. Are you this bad at understanding calculated risk in every aspect of life? Do you use nothing but anecdotal evidence to make all your decisions?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2013, 03:59 PM
 
Location: O.C.
2,821 posts, read 3,539,051 times
Reputation: 2102
Quote:
Originally Posted by zdg View Post
You believe in gun rights because you believe your high powered death cannon makes you safer. Period. You don't care about the constitution, you don't care about your freedom, you don't care about facts or figures or studies. You sleep better at night believing that your gun will protect you when the bad guys from the movie you watched last night come to life and show up at your house. I know this is hard to understand (obviously) but to the rest of us outside your heads, you are now the problem. You are the armed stranger who may or may not be sane, well trained, and safety-first. It isn't The Man In The Black Cape we are concerned about you protecting your wife and kids from, it's you that we're worried about. And if you can't step back for a second and go "oh right, that makes sense. If I saw a man I didn't know with a .45 on his hip at a school, I'd probably assume there was at least a 50/50 chance he was unhinged, too," then you're kind of a jerk.

Sincerely,
The Rest Of Us
So you are lumping law abiding gun owners in with insane criminals? Wow, great analogy! So I will just lump YOU in with drunk drivers who kill people with their car because YOU also own and drive a car. Shame on you! You are disgusting and pathetic! YOU are the problem! I also find your ramblings quite funny. Yes, my gun WILL protect me if someone were to break into my house. Too bad your only defense will be calling 911 and hoping police with their GUNS show up in time to protect you. Good luck with that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2013, 06:05 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,824,055 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by zdg View Post
For the trabillionth time, gun nuts, having a gun puts you at significantly more risk than it protects you.

You think ME + GUN = SAFER no matter how much proof to the contrary is shoved in your faces. Or is Stanford University just on the take from the anti-gun lobby; the one that stands to make no money whatsoever from the passing of gun restrictions?
All of the "guns in the house cause more danger" studies never take into account all of the times a gun is used to protect someone without the perpetrator being killed. They count homicide, include suicide, and don't take I to account all the times an assailant runs away without being shot.

Guns are used at least 250k times each year to protect their owner. Even the recent CDC studies Obama asked for show that.

If you do not want a gun in your house that is fine. No one is forcing you to have one. Stop acting like you know what is best for me and my family.

When life and death are seconds apart, the police are only 11 minutes away (average response time to a 911 call).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2013, 06:08 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,824,055 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by zdg View Post
My fear of your stupid metal and plastic that was compiled in a manner to SHOOT PEOPLE is RATIONAL. Nobody said ALL GUNS GO OFF AND KILL PEOPLE, you're just building more straw man horsepoo.

Only a moron would suggest that ALL guns go off and accidentally kill their owners. Are you this bad at understanding calculated risk in every aspect of life? Do you use nothing but anecdotal evidence to make all your decisions?
Fear of an inanimate object is not rational.

Maybe you should take a new shooter safety course and try to understand just a little bit about the thing you are so scared of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2013, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,714 posts, read 31,180,231 times
Reputation: 9270
Quote:
Originally Posted by zdg View Post
For the trabillionth time, gun nuts, having a gun puts you at significantly more risk than it protects you.

You think ME + GUN = SAFER no matter how much proof to the contrary is shoved in your faces. Or is Stanford University just on the take from the anti-gun lobby; the one that stands to make no money whatsoever from the passing of gun restrictions?
Since you like data, do you acknowledge that homicides in the US, including those that include firearms, are at or near 50 year lows? That is in spite of gun ownership at well over 300 million? Do you also acknowledge that the ten year ban of "assault weapons" at the federal level had no measurable impact on homicides?

How is it that California, rated at the top by Brady for gun regulations, has a homicide rate just slightly higher than Texas, with vastly different firearm regulations? The two largest states in the US, both sharing large borders with Mexico have about the same homicide rates. How can that be?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2013, 10:35 AM
 
Location: Upstate NY 🇺🇸
36,754 posts, read 14,831,521 times
Reputation: 35584
[quote=zdg;31993142]From the second amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Are you in a militia? No? Oh. So really, you just keep trotting this out, not because you give a rat's anus about the Constitution, but because you believe that guns make you safe in the face of study after study to the contrary and it makes it easy for you to not have to defend your position by yelling "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!" even though you have no intention of joining a militia to defend the American peoples from the King of England or his successor in 1776 America.
the state of California has made it ridiculously easy for you to do what you do by cultivating one of the most robust fashion industries on the face of the Earth. So, it's almost like not only is California not "communist" but quite the opposite.
...




LOL is the above meant to be comical? Because it sure was.

Are you a supreme court justice? Good thing you're not because it's clear you don't know a thing about the constitution.

That clause imposes nothing about one's having to be in the militia with respect to bearing arms. Since militias were citizen-groups, and the framers knew that there might come a time when they'd have to take up arms, it's a simple statement of why the second amendment was needed. Check out the Federalist Papers in your spare time.

I can tell that pesky amendment (Yup. It's the second one, too) just ticks off you control freaks no end. Too bad, because it's there to stay.

Interesting, too, ...so now the Bill of Rights set forth the rights of the state and not the people...

The things you learn on these boards!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2013, 11:33 AM
jw2
 
2,028 posts, read 3,266,879 times
Reputation: 3387
Quote:
Originally Posted by zdg View Post
From the second amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Are you in a militia? No? Oh. So really, you just keep trotting this out, not because you give a rat's anus about the Constitution, but because you believe that guns make you safe in the face of study after study to the contrary and it makes it easy for you to not have to defend your position by yelling "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!" even though you have no intention of joining a militia to defend the American peoples from the King of England or his successor in 1776 America.
...
If you are not aware, the Supreme Court has clarified the meaning of "well regulated", "militia", and "right of the people to keep and bear arms"

Summarized:
well regulated trained and disciplined in the operation of a firearm
militia a group or an individual
right of the people to keep and bear arms 'people' in this case was ruled to be an individual

in DC v Heller (2008) the Court ruled that that the amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Since DC is federal land, this ruling did not specify the states rights to rule differently

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions to apply to each state as well.


ETA - FTR, I am not pro-gun at all but I am pro-law

Last edited by jw2; 11-04-2013 at 12:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2013, 12:33 PM
 
1,614 posts, read 2,072,494 times
Reputation: 804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
I'd be against it under all circumstances. People who have long commutes or otherwise have to drive around to make a living already have a disadvantage from insurance, gas prices, wear and tear on their vehicles, STRESS, possible tolls, etc. And it's completely opposite of the "logic" of healthcare reform. I mean, pick a side already
People choose to have a long commute.

However, this seems unnecessary, doesn't a gas tax achieve the same thing with less expense?

Use more gas because you drive more or your car is heavier, and you pay more...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:39 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top