are new gun laws really what the people of CA want? (Los Angeles: fit in, neighborhoods)

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Hands, blunt objects and pools are weapons? Do I have to treat a pool like its loaded? Do I have to be careful where I point a pool?

A firearm is a weapon. It is intrinsically dangerous by design. It is intended to destroy targets and cause potentially lethal damage to humans.

When I was in the Navy, and I relieved the topside watch, we didn't say "I have positive control of the harmless tool akin to a screwdriver."

We said "I have positive control of THE WEAPON."

What difference does intent make? If pools kill more people than all rifles combined while being less in number they are drastically more dangerious and serve no purpose. A rifle at least serves a purpose and is constitutionally protected.

A pool is intrinsically dangerious as designed, humans are land going mammals with no adaptations is survive in a water environment. Why do you allow these bellow service death chambers to cause more than ten times as many deaths as rifles?

[1AngryTaxPayer]

We should ban airliners because too many are hijacked by bad guys. You can do all the flying you need to do with a single engine Cessna.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

A rifle at least serves a purpose and is constitutionally protected.

Specifically a semiautomatic rifle or fully automatic rifle -- as opposed to a lever action or bolt action hunting rifle -- has no real civilian purpose. It is not a hunting weapon (at least not for real men), it is not a self defense weapon.

The right to defend oneself is what is constitutionally protected. Specific weapons are not constitutionally protected.

A pool is intrinsically dangerous as designed,

No it isn't. A swimming pool is designed for recreation. A firearm is designed to cause damage to a target or harm to a person.

A FIREARM IS A WEAPON. NOT A HARMLESS TOOL AKIN TO A SCREWDRIVER.

Really, you shouldn't be handling firearms if you do not think they are weapons. You need to respect them, and handle them carefully, because they are intended to kill. That's the difference between a military or police professional, or hunter, versus a gun nut. The gun nut thinks it is a harmless toy and people should let him have fun with his toy. A Sony Playstation is a harmless toy.

A firearm is a weapon.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

We should ban airliners because too many are hijacked by bad guys. You can do all the flying you need to do with a single engine Cessna.

[sarcasm] Because an airliner is designed to kill. [/sarcasm]

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

I don't see anywhere in that summary where "car ownership" is argued as implicit to the 1st amendment. Why do you keep lying?

Let's try this again. The Constitution implies a right to freedom of movement or freedom of travel.

One way to travel is by walking. Another is by riding a bus. Another is by operating a motor vehicle. If you choose to operate a motor vehicle, you are operating a device which may cause harm to others. The government has a responsibility to protect public safety. Therefore cars are regulated, despite your freedom to travel.

You also have the freedom to defend yourself. One way to do that is with your bare hands. Another way is using a stick. Another way is using a sword. Another is using a firearm. Sticks, swords and firearms are all dangerous to others. Therefore they are regulated, despite your freedom to defend yourself.

You have the right to express yourself. You can do so by standing in public and reading the Bible. You can do so by writing a fictional book. You can do by publishing classified information. You can do so by yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. The final two examples are illegal, despite your freedom to express yourself.

All rights are limited by the rights of other people.

Just common sense here.

You claim to have served as a sailor on a submarine.

Seriously? I shouldn't honor this with a reply but whatever.

http://neutrino78x.angelfire.com/submarine-stuff.jpg

It is ironic because gun nuts often claim to have so much "respect for veterans". What, I'm not a far right wing gun nut, therefore I didn't serve?

So you got to use a fully automatic rifle in an enclosed sub 1000 ft below the sea?

The main reason a warship carries small arms is for force protection, to prevent enemy forces from being able to attack and gain control of the ship while in port. However we can also board other ships, and we would do that while armed. As well as other purposes. Here is an example of how we use small arms on submarines:

scranton+force+protection.jpg (image)

(that is not me in the picture, but I have stood that watch many times. Most likely that is a select fire weapon with safe, semiauto, and full auto settings, although we had both that and the version with 3 round burst instead of full auto on the Florida.)

Wrong again. Can't you find actual facts before you clumsily type on your keyboard the first ignorant thought that floats through your head? There are an estimated 110 million rifles in the United States of which it's estimated by the FBI that 40% of them are of the semi-auto variety. That would mean 50,000,000 semi-auto rifles of various makes and configurations. There are an estimated 5-6 million AR15s in private civilian hands and that number is growing.

Still not that common compared to pistols. Rifles are more expensive than pistols and semiauto rifles are more expensive than hunting rifles, so it stands to reason that the semiauto rifle would be least common, and that is borne out in your statistics. I agree that the number is probably growing.

Okay so you're only concerned about "mass shootings"

Not exclusively but we're only talking about this because of mass shootings.

I agree with the general argument that it should be harder for psychos to get guns. But disagree with your PRIMARY solution to ban all semi-auto rifles.

It is your delusion that it is my primary solution. I never stated that.

The guy at Sandyhook illegally broke into his mother's safe, and stole the firearm.

Did he?

Originally Posted by Daily Beast

When asked if Connecticut state police believe Mrs. Lanza handled her guns responsibly, spokesman Lt. Paul Vance paused for a moment behind his cluttered desk at state police headquarters and cryptically told The Daily Beast, “I think you’ll be surprised” to learn the truth about that once the final police report is released.

Did Nancy Lanza Handle Her Guns Responsibly?

No, he didn't:

Originally Posted by Connecticut Post

Seeking to disarm the next Adam Lanza before it's too late, a key Republican lawmaker and upholder of the Second Amendment wants the state of Connecticut to require gun owners to lock up their weapons if they live with someone who is mentally unstable. State Sen. L. Scott Frantz, R-36, a gun owner himself who represents all of Greenwich and parts of Stamford and New Canaan, recently introduced a bill that would tighten the law applying to safekeeping of firearms.

The Nancy Lanza law: Bill focuses on safekeeping of guns - Connecticut Post


I don't think this fully addresses the issue, though. Really Adam Lanza should not have been allowed to stay with her.

btw notice how the guy advancing this bill is himself a gun owner. As I said, not all of us who are familiar with firearms are far right wing gun nut lunatics. Some of us think people should be able to have firearms for self defense or hunting, but still think there should be reasonable restrictions.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Specifically a semiautomatic rifle or fully automatic rifle -- as opposed to a lever action or bolt action hunting rifle -- has no real civilian purpose. It is not a hunting weapon (at least not for real men), it is not a self defense weapon.

The right to defend oneself is what is constitutionally protected. Specific weapons are not constitutionally protected.



No it isn't. A swimming pool is designed for recreation. A firearm is designed to cause damage to a target or harm to a person.



A FIREARM IS A WEAPON. NOT A HARMLESS TOOL AKIN TO A SCREWDRIVER.

Really, you shouldn't be handling firearms if you do not think they are weapons. You need to respect them, and handle them carefully, because they are intended to kill. That's the difference between a military or police professional, or hunter, versus a gun nut. The gun nut thinks it is a harmless toy and people should let him have fun with his toy. A Sony Playstation is a harmless toy.

A firearm is a weapon.

The majority of firearms sold today are designed for recreation. What difference does intent of design even make? The outcome is what matters, if I design a Rx drug that is supposed to cure cancer but really kills 10k people and saves no one is the Rx now good because it was designed to help or bad because it actually killed people?

When my guns start hurting someone you can feel free to confiscate them.

I still don't know why you keep talking about hunting.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

ok.

You really don't understand that your right to carry a firearm affects the rights of other people? Seriously? And you call yourself a responsible firearm owner?

I have to assume you're kidding/trolling.

Look. The above quoted statements are correct, but there is a reason why these are the preferred actions of individuals: because firearms are inherently dangerous. Your right to carry a firearm affects my right not to die as a result of your negligence (or intent). You also need a license to drive a car, despite the 1st amendment right "peaceably to assemble".



Indeed. For example:

California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 6263. Hand Tools.

(c) Battered, laminated, or crystallized iron wedges, chisels, punches, hammers, and similar equipment, mushroomed more than 1/4-inch from the body of the tool, shall be replaced or properly repaired.
(d) Exceptionally hard hammers, wedges, and similar tools shall not be used.



There are also ANSI standards for hammers, for example:


ANSI/ASME B107.53-2008 Ball Peen Hammers - Freestd - American National Standards Institute (ANSI)


If you're going to manufacture any kind of tool there are usually standards for you to follow.

Wrong. Wrong. Absolutely wrong. "Carrying" a gun doesn't affect you at all. Firing a gun would. But since guns don't fire themselves, they are not inherently dangerous. A gun can sit untouched for decades, and never once present a danger to anyone.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

There is an expressed right to travel. The means by which you choose to travel may be regulated. For example if you choose to travel at 100 miles per hour in an area where the speed limit is 60, the government may wish to talk with you, despite your 1st Amendment right "peaceably to assemble".

There is an expressed right to keep and bear arms. The weapons you choose to own, where you choose to carry them, the requirements you must meet to carry particular arms, etc., all may be regulated. For example if you choose to walk around near an airport carrying a Stinger (portable anti-aircraft missile system), the government may wish to talk with you. If you're walking around with a pistol in a residential area where there are kids playing, someone may call the police. Even in a small town in Texas, a police officer will probably approach you, because he is not an idiot and does not wish for you to shoot anyone, accidentally or otherwise (multiple examples of that on youtube even in areas where it is common to open carry).

Common sense. I'm just asking for common sense regarding firearms. Perhaps it is too much to ask from a gun nut like yourself.



I advocate neither banning ownership of cars nor banning of all firearms. Please refrain from your cookie cutter replies that do not apply to my position on the issue.



Now you know how people feel when they talk to gun nuts. See the above excrement of a bull in the post to which I am replying.

Ignoring your ludicrous tying together of the 1st Amendment and cars, you actually just proved everyone else's point, and debunked your own.

My gun "could", with human intervention, shoot someone. My gun "cannot", without human intervention, shoot someone.

My car "could", with a human behind the wheel, travel 100 mph. My car "cannot", without a human at the wheel, travel 100 mph.

The means with which you use your gun or car can be regulated. I believe it is already illegal to shoot someone, right?

I live in Texas. There are a lot of guns here. They don't, in spite of your "YouTube" examples, go off willy nilly, killing people. And if you walk around with a pistol, some idiot neighbor may call the cops. But there will be nothing a cop can do, because it's legal.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

lol.

Well, cars and dangerous and we do regulate them. We should regulate firearms for the same reason and it is legal to regulate both.

Nope, not legal. Cars are not a protected right.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

[sarcasm] Because an airliner is designed to kill. [/sarcasm]

So, you don't care about saving lives? Isn't that your end game or is it fear of a piece of metal.