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.
You maybe done with this thread, which is a good thing: Your logic and police dispatcher wife, which means nothing, is flawed and basically stupid/ignorant.
Like I said, stupid is stupid -- including the cops. What you say about the courts and facts and evidence being essentially meaningless is pretty true though. Just read my story above about the ignorant cop. First cop on that scene said she didn't smell of alcohol or exhibit any lack of coordination - he just didn't know the laws he is sworn to uphold so he arrested her. Second cop arrived and said she reeked of alcohol (15 minutes after leaving her classroom full of students who said she was sober as a judge) and he told that lie in his report and on the stand. Then when he took her to jail, the intake staff reported "no smell of alcohol or any other behavior problems", just like the first cop. So the jury believes the lying cop.
Make sense so far, Officer Friendly?
But you are right about the cost to undo peoples' lies. Cost my buddy $50k to beat one lying cop and a stupid jury.
Why do you guys lie like that? And then go around calling the public "stupid/ignorant? Huh?
Like I said, stupid is stupid -- including the cops. What you say about the courts and facts and evidence being essentially meaningless is pretty true though. Just read my story above about the ignorant cop. First cop on that scene said she didn't smell of alcohol or exhibit any lack of coordination - he just didn't know the laws he is sworn to uphold so he arrested her. Second cop arrived and said she reeked of alcohol (15 minutes after leaving her classroom full of students who said she was sober as a judge) and he told that lie in his report and on the stand. Then when he took her to jail, the intake staff reported "no smell of alcohol or any other behavior problems", just like the first cop. So the jury believes the lying cop.
Make sense so far, Officer Friendly?
But you are right about the cost to undo peoples' lies. Cost my buddy $50k to beat one lying cop and a stupid jury.
Why do you guys lie like that? And then go around calling the public "stupid/ignorant? Huh?
No clue. How about you not respond to threads you aren't going to respond too anymore? Or, more importantly, snuggle up to that "police dispatcher wife" and figure out what is going on.
No clue. How about you not respond to threads you aren't going to respond too anymore? Or, more importantly, snuggle up to that "police dispatcher wife" and figure out what is going on.
Your response is incoherent. Hard day?
I agreed with some of what you wrote as it might reflect on the topic bill. And I used an example to inquire why you wrapped your comments in uncalled for insults toward "the public". You cops are no more intelligent or educated or informed on average than "the public". So can the arrogant attitude and stick with the issue maybe?
Ummm, I don't see an issue, I own a couple guns and have a CCW permit that covers two of my pistols. From what I understand this would only affect people perceived as a threat to themselves and others, pending a case before a judge/magistrate. I don't see how this would pose a issue or additional barrier for me or my friends.
from what you understand? you better hope your neighbor likes you. your guns get taken away and THEN you go to court to get them back buddy. You got money to hire a lawyer just to prove your innocent? you guilty before proven innocent. and your not proven innocent unless you pay money to prove it. unnecessary drama. they are trying to account for gun owners who have owned firearms for awhile and they are nervous because they dont know what they are mentally capable of. O well its life. If you want to make a change they should start making it a process where you have to undergo a mental test or something before you can buy a gun. you cant change the past, but you can change the future. these law makers are getting too drastic with the're IDEAS and these lobbyists should be shot on sight
These arguments that consistently devolve into a list of all the things that can kill all fail to acknowledge the prime fact that: of all things that can kill, only one is designed for that sole purpose. Guns. If all other things that can kill are banned, we all lose their multifaceted usefulness.
That said, killing with guns is the most efficient way to kill. And, sorry as it may sound, killing does have a purpose in this reality. As a gun owner I would urge advocates to knock off the silly arguments. Stick with the positions that stress the value of the highest and best use.
Once again, Tulemutt, I agree with you. This is a very rational response.
Should all guns be banned? No way.
Would banning all guns work? No, it would create a black market like it does for drugs and other things.
Do people need machine guns and assault rifles to defend themselves? No.
Do people need high powered guns to protect themselves from the government? No. Good luck trying to fight against rocket launchers, missiles, drones, and tanks.
But people can use other things like knives and cars to kill, so why shouldn't we ban them? Cars and knives were not created for the sole purpose of hurting or killing people. There are rare exceptions when a knife kills multiple people in a short period of time, but it's not common. It's harder to get a higher death count with a car or knife. People would run away if they saw a car heading towards them. Many times it takes multiple stabs with a knife to kill someone. People do survive after being stabbed multiple times, but with a gun, not too likely if they were shot multiple times. With a gun, it takes 10 to 20 seconds to kill and/or injure dozens.
I don't think all guns should be banned, but I also don't think people need high powered assault weapons or machine guns.
People need to be more responsible with the guns they own. Supposedly the mother of Adam Lanza kept guns in the house unlocked and took him out shooting even though she knew full well he was a mentally sick individual. Where were the parents of the Columbine shooters when they were building bombs and shooting out in the woods? There are countless news stories every year where a kid finds a gun in their house and plays with it and ends up killing themselves or someone else by accident.
Once again, Tulemutt, I agree with you. This is a very rational response.
Should all guns be banned? No way.
Would banning all guns work? No, it would create a black market like it does for drugs and other things.
Do people need machine guns and assault rifles to defend themselves? No.
Do people need high powered guns to protect themselves from the government? No. Good luck trying to fight against rocket launchers, missiles, drones, and tanks.
But people can use other things like knives and cars to kill, so why shouldn't we ban them? Cars and knives were not created for the sole purpose of hurting or killing people. There are rare exceptions when a knife kills multiple people in a short period of time, but it's not common. It's harder to get a higher death count with a car or knife. People would run away if they saw a car heading towards them. Many times it takes multiple stabs with a knife to kill someone. People do survive after being stabbed multiple times, but with a gun, not too likely if they were shot multiple times. With a gun, it takes 10 to 20 seconds to kill and/or injure dozens.
I don't think all guns should be banned, but I also don't think people need high powered assault weapons or machine guns.
People need to be more responsible with the guns they own. Supposedly the mother of Adam Lanza kept guns in the house unlocked and took him out shooting even though she knew full well he was a mentally sick individual. Where were the parents of the Columbine shooters when they were building bombs and shooting out in the woods? There are countless news stories every year where a kid finds a gun in their house and plays with it and ends up killing themselves or someone else by accident.
I see nothing wrong with this bill.
It is already illegal if you leave your guns accessible to a minor and they use it. Do we need another law to make it double illegal?
Lanza tried to buy a gun, but was denied, seams like the system worked. Maybe we should make it illegal for him to murder his mother so that he does not steal the guns.
Machine guns are already highly regulated, only the wealthy can afford them in the states they are still legal. It has been decades since a crime was committed with a legally owned machine gun. I guess you support the regressive taxes and regulations in place that hurt the working poor and minorities the most.
Still wondering what a "high powered assault rifle" is and what makes it so much more deadly than regular rifles. Especially when rifles are used in less than 5% of all crimes. If these "high powered assault rifles" were so deadly and available criminals would be tripping over themselves to use them to commit crimes.
The simple fact is you want to restrict the civil rights of hundreds of millions of people because something (mass murder with an assault rifle) that is less likely to happen then getting struck by lightning and you want to put into place a law that allows any joe blow off the street to get someone's guns taken away without due process. Sounds reasonable.
A simple, terrible, reactionary, and supposed solution to an admittedly fundamental problem, mental illness.
If a bad person wants to get their hands on a gun, they will. Us good guys can't stop them from obtaining guns, which is why all-out gun control (which I realize AB 1014 is not, but I believe nonetheless is a step in that direction) will never be successful in the U.S. Us good guys, however, can be effective in stopping bad guys in their tracks, such as the recent situation in Long Beach involving an 80-year-old homeowner who killed a woman who had physically abused him (or at least been an accomplice) during the process of burglary, then tried to manipulate him into not shooting her by claiming she was "pregnant."
But back on topic, my biggest concern is that angry, estranged, bitter spouses and ignorant or dishonest physicians would use this law to fulfill their selfish ulterior motives. And if a judge rules in favor of said spouse or physician, the wo/man with the "gun restraining order," as I'm going to refer to it, will potentially have an extremely difficult time appealing, while attempting to prove selfish ulterior motives on the part of the applicant.
More government funding of mental illness programs is the key, and that has been reduced since the 1980s unfortunately. If estranged spouses or physicians deem fit for their spouse or patient to seek psychological or psychiatric help, then they should get that ball rolling.
This law would be flat out unconstitutional.
AND AS A SIDE NOTE: this Elliot Rodger douche did more damage to property and life using his car and knife than with a gun. Should we report all selfish drivers to the police and make them undergo psychological evaluations every time a cop pulls them over for erratic driving? Should we have knife control?
"Good luck trying to fight against rocket launchers, missiles, drones, and tanks."
The US military has been driven out of Afghanistan by men who did.
Umm, no. The US military was not driven out of Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam by mythically more rugged souls with pea-shooters. All those wars, and most other wars as well in modern history, were driven by political and economic maneuvering conducted by businessmen in suits you don't see, and their political lackeys who brazenly and publicly commit, and simultaneously stealthily limit, the world's most sophisticated, best armed, most highly trained fighting force in the history of planet earth - all to play out propaganda and political and economic advantage.
It's called "rules of engagement". It killed many Americans in Vietnam where I served in airborne search and rescue, picking up the dead and barely living out of hell holes. There is NO military as fine as American troops. There is no enemy more formidable than our own leadership in Washington and Wall Street.
The same is true of Afghanistan and Iraq.
No fantasy American freedom fighters with pea shooters can overcome today's government forces if they are directed to stop insurgencies. This ain't 1776 no mo'. That sh*t is long passed.
In skimming through the text of this bill, it seems like it mainly duplicates the 5150 W&I code section. Another way to judge proposed legislation like this is to consider whether it would honestly have prevented different tragedies like Columbine, Sandy Hook, Elliot Rodger, etc. or not. Families, friends and neighbors already have the ability to report suspicious behavior if they choose and yet nobody chose to report any of those 3 tragedies in a timely manner. The warning signs were there but people (sometimes family) chose to ignore them. Passing a similar law isn't going to fix that problem of non-reporting.
Somebody mentioned that guns are designed for a sole purpose of killing but stating such ignores far more common uses, designs, etc. An overwhelming # of people who own guns do not use them for killing people and many guns are designed for something besides killing. Like many other items, guns can be misused but that is the result of a person deliberately making bad choices, not an inanimate object like a gun.
It's sad that the legislature tries to pass emotional legislation like this that doesn't really fix the problem. It would be much more effective if the legislature did something to improve quality and access for mental health treatment and made it easier for families to get said mental health treatments for their family members if needed.
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.
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.
