U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
 
Old 02-09-2015, 03:09 PM
 
468 posts, read 457,511 times
Reputation: 1117

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper View Post
FANTASTIC!! kudos to you my friend.

Now I cannot ABIDE the idiocy of the pro gun lobby so that is all I wanted to say.

Well done, America, FINALLY you begin to see the light....!
The 2nd Amendment is there for a reason. Please read history. There are many countries where people do not have guns or gun rights. I say to people like you, move there. Leave this country the way it was when you came into the world. You have no right to tell other adult humans what to own and what not to own.
In Australia they took the guns from the people, that did not stop a deranged person from shooting a person in the head with a "nail gun." My point being your arguments against guns is nothing more than being a "control freak" trying to control other adults. NOT acceptable. Most normal adults who cannot abide by a situation pick up and move. There are numerous countries that have no guns amongst the populous, you may be very happy there. There is no light to see here but a bunch of people who try to control other people. LIVE AND LET LIVE. Or leave.

 
Old 02-09-2015, 04:18 PM
 
Location: West Madison^WMHT
3,271 posts, read 3,086,905 times
Reputation: 4047
Exclamation New York State firearms confiscations related to mental health laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by yourmomlivesintally View Post
If people were considered for employment they would not have to kill off each other. DUH ! Job development which leads to income which leads to less stress decreases stressors.
Statistically, unemployment does not cause violent crime. However, there are very good reasons why people who kill people are not considered for employment -- 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and few employers want to hire criminals, especially violent criminals!

If unemployment doesn't make people into killers, perhaps being a criminal cause both unemployment and also murderousness?
Given that over 50% of murders have a prior felony arrest, and
slightly less than half of murderers were actively in the criminal justice system (on probation, parole, or pretrail release) at the time of their arrest, I'd think that the problem isn't unemployable people, it's violent people, who are only coincidentally unemployable.


Quote:
Here is another example: Retired cop had fire arms for well over thirty plus years, never a problem.
He goes to the Dr. for insomnia. The NYS politicians cross reference his medical record to his pistol licenses, a cadre of cops show up on his door step and take his guns. Why? "Insomnia is a mental health issue!!"
The Donald Montgomery [scribd]250931668[/scribd]case[/url] is bad, apparently the hospital erroneously marked him as an involuntary admission, triggering the NY-SAFE act. But it's not an isolated confiscation, this problem is common in New York state.

How about having $100K in firearms stolen, because you shouted at your adult son? Real case involving Nassau County (NY) Police.
 
Old 02-09-2015, 04:29 PM
 
Location: 57
1,428 posts, read 832,146 times
Reputation: 1262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron1022 View Post
The 2nd Amendment is there for a reason. Please read history. There are many countries where people do not have guns or gun rights. I say to people like you, move there. Leave this country the way it was when you came into the world. You have no right to tell other adult humans what to own and what not to own.
In Australia they took the guns from the people, that did not stop a deranged person from shooting a person in the head with a "nail gun." My point being your arguments against guns is nothing more than being a "control freak" trying to control other adults. NOT acceptable. Most normal adults who cannot abide by a situation pick up and move. There are numerous countries that have no guns amongst the populous, you may be very happy there. There is no light to see here but a bunch of people who try to control other people. LIVE AND LET LIVE. Or leave.
Uh, that's just it; this country has WAY more guns, gun shows, more types of guns meant for killing-not-sport, than it EVER did when I came into this world. We've even got a "Silencer Store" near my home; somebody's watched too many movies and is living the fantasy.
We could do something about this, but it would mean that current, law abiding gun owners would need to take responsibility for their guns. They'd have to know where they were at all times, keep them locked up when they weren't in their immediate control, etc. They'd have to know who they sold them to, and if one went missing they'd have to report it to a central data base. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be better than the chaos we have now. Heck, if everyone bought the same type of gun and ammo and registered their weapons, we might even be on our way to a "well regulated militia." I shudder to think what would happen now should our current band of gun enthusiasts attempt to form a militia. It wouldn't be safe to leave your house.
 
Old 02-09-2015, 04:52 PM
 
44,248 posts, read 17,634,045 times
Reputation: 18642
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
But they WEREN'T and are irrelevant. The concealed carry holder didn't use his gun so saying he could have is irrelevant. The Aurora shooter was stopped by police who didn't need to shoot because he surrendered so that too is irrelevant. The Sandy Hook shooter shot himself so that too is irrelevant.
Your use of the word irrelevant here is incorrect because you have taken it out of context.
 
Old 02-09-2015, 04:58 PM
 
44,248 posts, read 17,634,045 times
Reputation: 18642
One more time. Gun control advocates fail in their arguments because their entire point is based on a simple fallacy. i.e.
  • Criminals break laws by using guns to commit violence. (Fact)
  • So lets create more laws to stop the criminals. (The Fallacy)
There is no answer to this this simple dichotomy so gun control advocates must resort to more fallacy, distraction, and even insult to try and make some sort of point.

Gun control laws only treat honest law abiding people like criminals and do nothing to stop crime.
 
Old 02-09-2015, 05:00 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,087 posts, read 15,640,540 times
Reputation: 9805
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck View Post
Stealing, seems like we have laws against that already

Guns available at home, I do think we need to make firearms owners more responsible if a firearm falls into a childs hands or something similar.

Unlawful sales, again we already have laws in place for this.

Seems to me like we need to enforce what we already have instead of adding band aids to the problem.
Which could likely use "band aids" to actually help the problem.
You can't enforce stealing laws if there isn't a way to catch the person stealing. Maybe make more identifying symbols on the gun that can't be rubbed or painted off.
Unlawful sales is tough to enforce due to the underground nature of the act that these are only really used when the criminal is being investigated and a case forms.
The band aids we need, is strengthening existing laws, more resources to LEOs and writing new laws to fill holes not covered by laws.
 
Old 02-09-2015, 05:05 PM
 
10,067 posts, read 6,208,903 times
Reputation: 5685
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Which could likely use "band aids" to actually help the problem.
You can't enforce stealing laws if there isn't a way to catch the person stealing. Maybe make more identifying symbols on the gun that can't be rubbed or painted off.
Unlawful sales is tough to enforce due to the underground nature of the act that these are only really used when the criminal is being investigated and a case forms.
The band aids we need, is strengthening existing laws, more resources to LEOs and writing new laws to fill holes not covered by laws.

So how do propose to enforce these new "hole covering " laws if they can't enforce our current ones? What ever you propose only will hurt the law abiding.
 
Old 02-09-2015, 05:07 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,087 posts, read 15,640,540 times
Reputation: 9805
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
Your use of the word irrelevant here is incorrect because you have taken it out of context.
Let me go back to your post that opened the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
Gifford's killer was stopped by a guy with a CCW permit who was carrying his own gun at the time. (though he did not fire the weapon).

In all of these cases, the gunman could have been stopped by people carrying their own guns.
You stated that Gifford's killer could have been stopped by people who was carrying their own gun, he was BUT the person never drew his gun and was able to wrestle the shooter to the ground. The fact that the guy had a gun was irrelevant because it wasn't used in the act of subduing the shooter. The LEOs that captured the Aurora shooter had guns but didn't need to use them because the Aurora shooter surrendered his arms and willingly got arrested. Again, the fact the LEOs had guns was irrelevant because they again weren't used in the act of subduing the shooter. With Sandy Hook, the shooter took their own life after killing 20+ kids and adults. Yet again, the fact the shooter could have been stopped by people carrying guns is irrelevant because he was planning on taking his own life and besides, nobody took his life but his own.
 
Old 02-09-2015, 05:11 PM
 
44,248 posts, read 17,634,045 times
Reputation: 18642
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Let me go back to your post that opened the question.You stated that Gifford's killer could have been stopped by people who was carrying their own gun, he was BUT the person never drew his gun and was able to wrestle the shooter to the ground. The fact that the guy had a gun was irrelevant because it wasn't used in the act of subduing the shooter. The LEOs that captured the Aurora shooter had guns but didn't need to use them because the Aurora shooter surrendered his arms and willingly got arrested. Again, the fact the LEOs had guns was irrelevant because they again weren't used in the act of subduing the shooter. With Sandy Hook, the shooter took their own life after killing 20+ kids and adults. Yet again, the fact the shooter could have been stopped by people carrying guns is irrelevant because he was planning on taking his own life and besides, nobody took his life but his own.
In the case of Gifford, where I did state that he didn't fire the gun, the fact that he had a gun may have given the confidence to go after the shooter. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you have to use it for it to provide protection.

In the other cases, you miss the phrase "could have". In any of those cases a person with a gun in the right place could have put an end to it after the first shot was fired. Teachers of course, even when licensed, are not allowed to bring guns onto campus. So it's a very very relevant point.

Back to this.
  • Criminals break laws by using guns to commit violence. (Fact)
  • So lets create more laws to stop the criminals. (The Fallacy)
 
Old 02-09-2015, 05:36 PM
 
1,119 posts, read 1,505,810 times
Reputation: 1496
Quote:
Originally Posted by pop251808 View Post
We've even got a "Silencer Store" near my home; somebody's watched too many movies and is living the fantasy.
No, you don't unless it's just a name with no basis in what is actually sold. Silencers in the USA are NFA regulated and a giant pain to acquire.

It requires:

- Filing forms with the ATF and paying $200 for a tax stamp

- Fingerprinting + Current photos provided with the ATF form.

- The signature of a chief law enforcement officer for your location of residence, such as the county sheriff, a state or federal judge, etc. They (in almost all jurisdictions) can arbitrarily deny you if they feel like it, no reason required, no appeal possible.

- Waiting 3 months - 1 year for them to actually process the paperwork.

- Living in a jurisdiction which doesn't prohibit civilian ownership of NFA weapons.

As you can tell, very few people actually go through with purchasing these items, and certainly not enough to make a profitable store out of.

It's actually quite unfortunate that they are heavily restricted in the USA, as unlike the movies, silencers do not remotely make a firearm quiet or not sound like a gun.

However, they do make firearms far safer to the hearing of those firing them as well as near them. As such they also make things like shooting ranges have far less impact on their neighbors. In a number of countries (Such as Norway) they are sold openly and considered an important health/safety item.
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.


Closed Thread


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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - 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 - Top