i never said illegal, i said banned.

9/17/2006 2:32:07 PM

very well. they aren't banned, either, with the exception of certain hunting uses. this puts them in the company of spotlights and corn.

9/17/2006 2:34:30 PM

Quote :

"why do yall fail to hold people accountable for their actions but yet blame inanimate objects"

Because it's easier.

9/17/2006 2:43:39 PM

I didn't think it would get a response when I said it, but thats what it boils down to


I do think it's laughable how ignorant some people from the opposing viewpoint are when it comes to things such as this


and yeah... crossbows are perfectly legal to own and shoot in NC, you can't hunt with them unless you're disabled... I think theya re trying to change that so you can hunt with them period and not be disabled

9/17/2006 7:30:02 PM

Quote :

"PinkandBlack is about the closest thing i've seen to an exception to this rule, and he seems only moderately pro gun control."

yeah, i only support moderate measures, such as stricter puchasing laws. responsible owners should have no problem with going through the correct procedures to own, and i see being able to do so as a sign of maturity, realizing that, yes, some people do in fact fear you as an owner and this small inconvenience is the least you can do to make them feel safer. i just dont have faith in the majority of gun owners to be very responsible, because sadly ive met so many (esp. in the NRA) that seem to not be sympathetic to those w/ concerns about guns, and instead of engaging in dialogue, choose to try to pass the other party off as a bunch of pussies and not care about it. there needs to be more dialogue, and then i might take the NRA more seriously.

in a perfect world, id be Libertarian, but I realize the importance of taxes and social programs in ensuring certain liberties that would be sadly unobtainable to many if we did rid ourselves of the social safety net (and taxes should be at as low a level as possible to still provide this net, id even support the switch to the fair tax program if the issues of black market collection could be minimized). im a pragmatist first and foremost.

Quote :

"why do yall fail to hold people accountable for their actions but yet blame inanimate objects"

I agree on this too, and its sad that for some reason "blame the tools" has become associated w/ those left of center, even slightly left, such as myself. it seems to me like the social conservatives, the ones rushing back to washington to ban video games, would be the ones taking this stance.



[Edited on September 17, 2006 at 7:36 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2006 7:31:35 PM

guns aren't bad, things people do with them sometimes are.

9/17/2006 7:37:42 PM

they're too easily obtained in mass quantities the world over.

this is both our blessing and curse.

9/17/2006 7:38:45 PM

^^^ Similar things could be said for the gun-control crowd: they seem to not be sympathetic to those w/ concerns about gun ownership, and instead of engaging in dialogue, choose to try to pass the other party off as stupid, irresponsible rednecks and not care about it. there needs to be more dialogue, and then gun owners might take the gun control measurements more seriously.

Quote :

"PinkandBlack: i just dont have faith in the majority of gun owners to be very responsible"

Quote :

"cyrion: i dont have a very high opinion of the regular citizens"

[Edited on September 17, 2006 at 8:09 PM. Reason : ]

9/17/2006 8:08:30 PM

im going to agree that I dont trust anyone with a device that can shoot peices of metal very fast.

9/17/2006 8:10:06 PM

So, you want gun owners to repect the views of people who'd like more gun-control while you condemn the gun owners as irresponsible and untrustworthy?

9/17/2006 8:13:24 PM

well here im doing what pwrstrk wants and blaming the people. my statement wasnt directed only at gun-owners, but the population at large. i dont trust them with quite a few things, gun-ownership being one.

9/17/2006 8:19:20 PM

I'm pretty sure he meant blame crimes on those who commit the crimes, not blame all gun-owners and declare them (and in your case, the world at large) untrustworthy.

9/17/2006 8:25:51 PM

the only difference is where we draw the line. you guys have this large, ambiguous "criminal" line, while im not giving ANYONE the benefit of the doubt.

how is it that when im pro-police i have too much faith in humanity/the police force, but when i hate on the dumbass masses im being cynical and untrusting? i cant win.

9/17/2006 9:52:47 PM

actually, i take that back

as long as protection against the gov. is allowed, and power is left decentralized, we can go as far to the left as democracy allows us (which really wont be that far) for all i care.

you know, the more i think about it, guns are the only solid common groud i can find w/ most conservatives, and even then, i support moderate measures to control them.

[Edited on September 17, 2006 at 11:49 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2006 11:36:09 PM

Guns are bad because people are poor at teaching responsibility to their children.

9/18/2006 2:52:10 PM

^
Oddly enough, it's the ones who are raised with guns from youth who are least likely to do dumb shit with guns.

Funny, that.

9/18/2006 3:03:38 PM

I believe that. I also believe that people die of accidents involving them at young ages far too often.

Help me resolve this conflict.

9/18/2006 3:05:14 PM

gun nuts told me that trigger locks werent ethical because they could fail

9/18/2006 3:06:01 PM

^^^ you got any type of stats on that or you just taking a guess at it?

9/18/2006 3:14:13 PM

^
Page 30.

Also, anecdotal experiences at ranges, gun shows, random exhibits...people who haven't had some kind of exposure to guns do all kinds of silly/stupid/dangerous shit when they pick them up. No-brainer, really. Get them early, drill the safety rules in.

^^


Unethical is the wrong word. "Stupid" and "dangerous" are far more sensible. If a gun is stolen, a gun lock isn't going to help any, because any lock can be picked or cut. And if you need to use a gun, you need it RIGHT NOW, not 20 seconds later when you've finally fumbled the lock off.

Way to use baiting language.

[Edited on September 18, 2006 at 3:22 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2006 3:20:37 PM

I think firearm education should be mandatory

at least be able to recognize if a gun is loaded or not and how to safely unload it

and basic things like:

DON"T POINT THE FUCKING THING AT TARGETS YOU DON'T INTEND TO SHOOT
safety on/off
proper storage
safe handling

9/18/2006 3:25:45 PM

^ Amen.

9/18/2006 3:28:15 PM

Quote :

"people are poor at teaching responsibility to their children."

Yeah, a lack of responsibility is ultimately at fault here, and normally I'm not all about the government stepping in and doing what parents should be doing...but this, I think, is a special case. This isn't kids getting to see boobs on TV, this is kids shooting each other in the face.

So yeah, I'm for putting a rudimentary firearms safety course in elementary schools.

9/18/2006 3:31:57 PM

Quote :

"I'm for putting a rudimentary firearms safety course in elementary schools."

hahaha

9/18/2006 3:33:37 PM

it'll never happen, but I'd be all for it and would volunteer to teach it

9/18/2006 3:37:23 PM

I'm not talking about taking kids to a gun range, I'm talking about extending the ten-minute lesson we got every year (which amounted to repeating "Never ever touch a gun" many times and then maybe an educational video with a talking dog) into a few half-hour sessions or something.

9/18/2006 3:37:31 PM

exactly

and actually let them handle firearms and learn how to properly unload them

and how to handle them safely

and let them see that a gun doesn't just shoot by looking at it

9/18/2006 3:39:22 PM

Quote :

"you need it RIGHT NOW, not 20 seconds later when you've finally fumbled the lock off."

so there are people who actually shoot guns who are such bumbling pussies that it takes then 20 seconds to take a trigger lock off?

9/18/2006 3:39:48 PM

Quote :

"and actually let them handle firearms and learn how to properly unload them"

in the long run i'm sure it would help but this would NEVER EVER happen

9/18/2006 4:19:20 PM

I'm a fan of that idea. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than the current debate over what guns "are" and what guns "are not." Seems like a stupid debate based on semantics to me.

9/18/2006 4:30:52 PM

Quote :

"so there are people who actually shoot guns who are such bumbling pussies that it takes then 20 seconds to take a trigger lock off?"

Working a key lock in the dark when you're jittery on adrenaline and barely awake is hard. I have trouble with my door in the dark sometimes, even when I'm not jittery and barely awake.

Electronic locks are nice, but what if you screw up? Your typical electronic lock will lock out key-in attempts for 15-30 minutes if you screw up more than once. Even completely alert people manage to lock themselves out of ATMs every now and then.

Don't even get me started on INTERNAL trigger locks.

There's a reason not a single police or military force uses "smart gun" technology or trigger locks—because the things can render a gun inoperable when the operator needs it. If you lock yourself out of your computer by accident, or your doorlock's sticky, you're out a few seconds/minutes, maybe some oxygen from cursing at the stupid thing, but ultimately you're fine. If you hear someone crashing his way across your house, you do not want to fucking around with a trigger lock. Especially if, say, you have a spouse and kids to worry about.

Anyway, since you're such a badass, I'd like to see you unlock and make ready faster than you can make ready (without having to unlock) and transit your house, apartment, whatever.

9/18/2006 5:58:10 PM

Quote :

" Electronic locks are nice, but what if you screw up? "

youd rather a child shoots himself?

9/18/2006 9:35:40 PM

^ I'd rather the child know what a gun is and what not to do with it. Not saying you shouldnt' store your guns properly, but in the end if the child wasn't stupid enough to start waving the damn thing around in the first place....

9/18/2006 11:11:01 PM

THEN THE CHILDREN DESERVE TO DIE

9/18/2006 11:14:15 PM

^^^
Again with the failure to get basic gun safety.

1. You don't leave a gun around in the open.
2. You don't leave a gun and ammo around in the open.
3. You don't leave a loaded gun around in the open.

Jesus tittyfucking Christ. Would you leave a meat cleaver out on the kitchen table? No, you would have it out when you're using or think you might need to use it, and then you put it back in the drawer when you're not.

Meat cleaver:gun::drawer:a locked safe.

What are you, stupid?

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 12:06 AM. Reason : .]

9/19/2006 12:03:29 AM

how many kids die of meat cleavage every day?

9/19/2006 12:06:49 AM

^
You're being obtuse, and you know it. Or you really are as dumb as you read.

9/19/2006 12:07:28 AM

^He really is that dumb. All his posts are like that.

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 12:20 AM. Reason : this and that]

9/19/2006 12:20:09 AM

1) "Gun Grabbers"

Are you arguing that the laws are perfect?

2) "Gun Nuts"

Same question.

3) Then what the fuck do you suppose should be done about it?

9/19/2006 12:34:08 AM

1.) N/A

2.) No. Too restrictive, and there are a lot of completely inane laws which, while not particularly harmful, are still un-Constitutional.

3.) Abolish a bunch of laws, and enforce the ones we have (especially straw purchase and "crimes committed with guns get 3x sentence" laws) better.

9/19/2006 12:57:03 AM

Holy fuck. Sound opinion. I can agree with a "Gun Nut."

9/19/2006 1:08:37 AM

♥

More seriously, the biggest problem within the gun control debate is that there is almost ZERO actual dialogue. There's a whole lot of ignorance coming from the anti-gun side and a whole lot of invective coming from the pro-gun side ("out of my cold, dead, hands" is not a good way to cool heads, people), and the way media tends to ignore any of the positive aspects of citizen armament does not help. To the pro-gun types, anti-gunners sound shrill and uninformed. To the anti-gun side, pro-gunners sound shrill and unstable. Not much room for intelligence of discourse there.

That said, I give a lot more credit to the pro-gun side, since they are more likely to base arguments on statistics and legal theory; anti-gun arguments are almost exclusively emotional in nature, and often based on misinformation, wrong information, or deliberate lies.

*shrug*

As for the broader context of gun control, Ms. Froman (current Prez of the NRA) puts it well: guns are just used as a convenient scapegoat for much larger, and much scarier, social issues.

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 2:14 AM. Reason : .]

9/19/2006 2:08:47 AM

Quote :

"so there are people who actually shoot guns who are such bumbling pussies that it takes then 20 seconds to take a trigger lock off?"

i don't care if it's 5 seconds...if I'm going for my pistol, things have likely already gotten bad. i may not have that extra time.

the solution, for my money, is in proper storage.

Quote :

"He really is that dumb. All his posts are like that."

yeah. i actually can't remember the last time I saw him post something well thought out and worthwhile. he's pretty much just an annoying troll. maybe we'll luck out and he'll do something that justifies suspension.



__________________________________

Quote :

"1) "Gun Grabbers" Are you arguing that the laws are perfect? 2) "Gun Nuts" Same question. 3) Then what the fuck do you suppose should be done about it?"

Quote :

"1.) N/A 2.) No. Too restrictive, and there are a lot of completely inane laws which, while not particularly harmful, are still un-Constitutional. 3.) Abolish a bunch of laws, and enforce the ones we have (especially straw purchase and "crimes committed with guns get 3x sentence" laws) better. "

2. There are a few things that I find to be overly restrictive, but not TOO bad. i'm not really that up in arms about it--I mostly just don't want any MORE restriction.

what i really hate is the attitude i see sometimes in the anti-gun crowd of "yeah, this law may be ill-conceived and not efficient or very effective, and I know that I don't really know what I'm talking about, and I know that it will be a thorn in the side of a lot of people, but they don't really need those guns anyway, and if it will just get rid of a few guns...if it could stop just one wrongful shooting, it will be worth it."

that's not how we should be legislating things. if you have to pass a law to restrict something, it should be tightly focused, efficient and to the point, and in keeping with a "less is more" approach. i hate the telemarketer, bigger-hammer approach to legislation.

Quote :

"More seriously, the biggest problem within the gun control debate is that there is almost ZERO actual dialogue. There's a whole lot of ignorance coming from the anti-gun side and a whole lot of invective coming from the pro-gun side ("out of my cold, dead, hands" is not a good way to cool heads, people), and the way media tends to ignore any of the positive aspects of citizen armament does not help. To the pro-gun types, anti-gunners sound shrill and uninformed. To the anti-gun side, pro-gunners sound shrill and unstable. Not much room for intelligence of discourse there. That said, I give a lot more credit to the pro-gun side, since they are more likely to base arguments on statistics and legal theory; anti-gun arguments are almost exclusively emotional in nature, and often based on misinformation, wrong information, or deliberate lies."

Yep, that pretty much nails it.

9/19/2006 3:11:04 AM

^
Well...

Laws which are bothersome and serve no apparent purpose other than keeping us from having stuff:
1. NFA
2. GCA

Also the "assault weapon" import ban.

Would someone explain to me why swapping the standard 10-round magazine for a detachable 5-round one on an SKS makes me a felon?

9/19/2006 8:08:12 AM

Quote :

"Laws which are bothersome and serve no apparent purpose other than keeping us from having stuff: 1. NFA 2. GCA"

Bingo. And NFA wasn't really even that bad (it still was and is quite bad) until amdended by GCA. NFA stuff was still quite available to those who were willing to go through the hassle, and the destructive device category wasn't even heard of.

Also, GCA is pretty much the foundation of ALL modern gun laws. No GCA, no FFL system, no DD category, no 86 ban, etc...

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 11:20 AM. Reason : /]

9/19/2006 11:19:33 AM

i'm in ur governmentz

takin all ur gunzz

9/19/2006 11:22:08 AM

^^
I'm a little bit conflicted about FFLs. While I do think there should be a licensing system for dealing in firearms, with background checks and "reasonable" (ugh) storage requirements, and some other commercial reqs (analogous to a liquor license—not so much about the guns as the business itself), the level of harassment that goes along with being an FFL is just insane.

Also, something along the lines of an FFL is necessary (or at least useful) for enabling efficient non-direct (i.e. "requires shipping") trade/sales of firearms. Unless you want to make it impossible to check if a buyer is a criminal or not.

NICS is good, long live NICS. But FFLs shouldn't be required to hold onto 4473s. That's a de facto registry right there.

I say we abolish the BATF. That would make A LOT of problems go away overnight.

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 11:57 AM. Reason : .]

9/19/2006 11:39:01 AM

Why can't we use the model that has been established for racism? Stay with me here: That model is ignorance breeds fear and fear breeds hatred. So, many in this thread are obviously (1) ignorant of guns, (2) that ignorance breeds fear of guns, and (3) that fear breeds hatred of guns. With me? And I can give strong evidence for my position.

To Josh8315: Please define "assault weapon." You frequently mention such weapons, so that should be no problem, right?

To Josh8315 and/or any of the other socialists: What is a machete designed for? Most of the 800,000 people who were killed in the 1994 massacre in Rwanda were hacked to death with machetes. I await your machete control plan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3246291.stm

And if you antigunners do not feel that you fit the description in my first paragraph, then you're probably just run-of-the-mill socialists. Well, you can't win'em all.

9/19/2006 2:22:07 PM

^smart man

9/19/2006 4:08:05 PM

to be fair, Rwanda and the US are a bit different. it is my understanding of people that makes me fear guns, not the guns themselves.

9/19/2006 11:01:41 PM