DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => Political and Religious Forum (aka the echo chamber) => Topic started by: El Barto on December 06, 2017, 05:46:54 PM

Title: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on December 06, 2017, 05:46:54 PM
So the house passed a so-called reciprocity bill today demonstrating, yet again, that state's rights only matter if you like the right in question. If you don't that's when you get Uncle Sam to compel them otherwise. As everybody knows I'm a gun rights guy, and I've driven across country on several occasions with a weapon on me. Try to figure out what to do when crossing borders into  Colorado, Wyoming, and South Dakota sometime. It's a bitch. One mile you have to keep it concealed and then the next it must  to be in plain sight at all times. Eventually I gave up and kept my gun stashed in the back, and relied upon my being a law abiding white guy driving in republican states as a fallback plan. I fully get the desire from the right for reciprocity, and support it whole-heartedly. That ain't what we got, though.

Reciprocity is when two kids on the playground enter into an agreement whereby "you show me yours and I'll show you mine." What the house passed is effectively one kid whipping it out, waiving it around, and yelling "hah, suck it bitch!" There is no agreement. There's compulsion. Proper reciprocity already existed all over the country. It just wasn't universal because some states want stricter requirements than others. If my state commands that a license holder actually be able to hit the broad side of a barn with their weapon, it'd be willing to accept permits from other states with comparable requirements. And if another state comes along and requires no more than a pulse and one working eye to get a permit, it's probably not going to accept theirs. Sounds pretty damned reasonable to me. Apparently not to our NRA overseers, though.

Which leads to another point, how on Earth could this be constitutional? Properly constitutional, not the Clarence Thomas "sounds good to me" definition. Reasonable restrictions on gun ownership are "presumptively lawful." As the dead justice Scalia put it, we find what the minimum constitutional right is and everything above that is up to the States. Seems to me that the minimum hasn't included the absolute right to carry a weapon in public for upwards of 150 years. There's also 18 USC §926A (peaceable journey) which has already established federal accommodation for transporting weapons across state lines. It's a royal pain in the ass, but the end result is that you already can travel with weapons, even in New York. You just can't have it sitting your lap like your beloved puppy.

So in summary, fuck the NRA and the scumbag representatives they own. I started a new thread because historically all gun discussion has taken place in threads about kill-crazy rampages, and rather than digging up one of those I decided to just start a proper second amendment thread.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: gmillerdrake on December 07, 2017, 08:33:47 AM
I'm a big states rights guy and I don't like when the Federal Government decides that they can just overrule whatever law they want that a state passes. This is no different. However, I will say that having been a conceal carry permit holder for 10 years now I think that there should be some legislation or law, test....something that I can do to validate my competency with my weapon and some sort of test that I can take to prove I'm not bat shit insane that would allow me to carry wherever I want.

My major gripe right now is professional sports arenas. I can't speak for other cities but in St. Louis you are a sitting duck when walking back to your vehicle from either the Cardinals or Blues games. The criminals know it and year after year there are a dozens of robberies and assaults happening to folks walking back to their vehicles.

Same can be said for the last few concerts I've attended in St. Louis. Wanded at the door. I get the need to do that at the arenas and at these venues. I do. But, I think there should be a next level of certification for those of us who would A.) Pay for it and B.) Want it.....available so we aren't denied our right to defend ourselves. Because in my eyes that's exactly what is happening. I'm being told by the Cardinals, Blues and these music venues that I don't have the right to protect myself or my loved ones when I choose to go to their venue.

So, I simply don't go anymore. Haven't been to a Cardinal or Blues game in years since they instituted metal detectors at every entrance and the only two concerts I've seen in St. Louis were HAKEN and Dream Theater but I made the choice to 'risk' it because I really wanted to see them.

But as far as your OP EB......it's like you said their just pandering to the folks who are lining their pockets...cough cough NRA..cough...cough. Peaceable travel is already a law so that negates the need for this to allow across border movement and.....lets be honest.....conceal carry is 'conceal' carry. As long as your an obedient citizen and not walking down the street twirling your gun on your finger.....you can conceal a weapon and go pretty much anywhere you want to. As long as there are no metal detectors.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on December 07, 2017, 08:57:06 AM
I think your problem here is that the odds of you getting mugged and needing your gun to defend yourself are quite a bit lower than the odds of a drunk Cardinals fan with a CCW going off his nut. Brouhahas at sporting events aren't exactly a rarity. Search YT for "drunk sports fan St Louis" and look at some of the results.

This was my favorite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJgwqSGNCLk
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Cool Chris on December 07, 2017, 09:01:57 AM
I'm being told by the Cardinals, Blues and these music venues that I don't have the right to protect myself or my loved ones when I choose to go to their venue.

Not a gun guy, as I said in another thread, and I don't want to be overly judgmental of your thoughts, but are we really at the point in this country where we can't go watch a bunch of Canucks slap a puck around with a stick without fearing for our lives? Is this America or the Middle East?
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Chino on December 07, 2017, 09:33:04 AM
I think your problem here is that the odds of you getting mugged and needing your gun to defend yourself are quite a bit lower than the odds of a drunk Cardinals fan with a CCW going off his nut. Brouhahas at sporting events aren't exactly a rarity. Search YT for "drunk sports fan St Louis" and look at some of the results.

This was my favorite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJgwqSGNCLk

This is exactly what I was thinking.

I agree with your sentiment, Gary, but there are too many drunken idiots in sports arenas for me to feel safe with them carrying a loaded gun. I could maybe get behind a program where if you were carrying, you get a bracelet that can only be removed on your way out of the venue that lets vendors know that you are not allowed to drink. For a parking lot mugging, a good can of mace would be just as effective and wouldn't accidentally kill someone in the process if the person being assaulted fucks up.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: gmillerdrake on December 07, 2017, 09:36:26 AM
I'm being told by the Cardinals, Blues and these music venues that I don't have the right to protect myself or my loved ones when I choose to go to their venue.

Not a gun guy, as I said in another thread, and I don't want to be overly judgmental of your thoughts, but are we really at the point in this country where we can't go watch a bunch of Canucks slap a puck around with a stick without fearing for our lives? Is this America or the Middle East?

It's certainly not the wild west but given the current state of affairs I'd rather have the option of protecting myself from a disgruntled buss boy who was fired from a restaurant returning to get revenge or whatever/whoever it is deciding they are going to shoot up some place.

Eliminating my chance to defend myself and/or my family simply does not sit well with me.


I think your problem here is that the odds of you getting mugged and needing your gun to defend yourself are quite a bit lower than the odds of a drunk Cardinals fan with a CCW going off his nut. Brouhahas at sporting events aren't exactly a rarity. Search YT for "drunk sports fan St Louis" and look at some of the results.

This is probably true. But, I'd rather have my gun on me and not need it than encounter and instance where my gun could have saved my life or someone I care and love's life but it's locked up in my car 800 yards away because I was restricted in carrying it.

and that video was hiarious  :lol   deep baby laughs like that are awesome also.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on December 07, 2017, 09:37:25 AM
I think your problem here is that the odds of you getting mugged and needing your gun to defend yourself are quite a bit lower than the odds of a drunk Cardinals fan with a CCW going off his nut. Brouhahas at sporting events aren't exactly a rarity. Search YT for "drunk sports fan St Louis" and look at some of the results.

This was my favorite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJgwqSGNCLk

This is exactly what I was thinking.

I agree with your sentiment, Gary, but there are too many drunken idiots in sports arenas for me to feel safe with them carrying a loaded gun. I could maybe get behind a program where if you were carrying, you get a bracelet that can only be removed on your way out of the venue that lets vendors know that you are not allowed to drink. For a parking lot mugging, a good can of mace would be just as effective and wouldn't accidentally kill someone in the process if the person being assaulted fucks up.

I get pretty hammered at sporting events and I don't buy their overpriced, nasty tasting beer. I drink up in the parking lot and possibly take some inside with me.

Also, they're not going to let you take a can of mace inside, either.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on December 07, 2017, 09:38:41 AM
This is probably true. But, I'd rather have my gun on me and not need it than encounter and instance where my gun could have saved my life or someone I care and love's life but it's locked up in my car 800 yards away because I was restricted in carrying it.

and that video was hiarious  :lol   deep baby laughs like that are awesome also.
The issue isn't whether or not you should be allowed to carry. The issue is whether or not the guy in the video should. If you can, he can.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: gmillerdrake on December 07, 2017, 09:42:13 AM
I think your problem here is that the odds of you getting mugged and needing your gun to defend yourself are quite a bit lower than the odds of a drunk Cardinals fan with a CCW going off his nut. Brouhahas at sporting events aren't exactly a rarity. Search YT for "drunk sports fan St Louis" and look at some of the results.

This was my favorite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJgwqSGNCLk

This is exactly what I was thinking.

I agree with your sentiment, Gary, but there are too many drunken idiots in sports arenas for me to feel safe with them carrying a loaded gun. I could maybe get behind a program where if you were carrying, you get a bracelet that can only be removed on your way out of the venue that lets vendors know that you are not allowed to drink. For a parking lot mugging, a good can of mace would be just as effective and wouldn't accidentally kill someone in the process if the person being assaulted fucks up.


Like I said....I totally get that. But if you're carrying a gun lawfully then you should not be drinking anyway, period.

This past summer a couple retired military men petitioned for a license to have a mobile gun storage van they could park outside arenas in St. Louis:

https://fox2now.com/2016/06/29/mobile-gun-safe-could-be-up-and-running-by-july/

But they were denied the permit:

https://fox2now.com/2016/07/15/entrepreneur-says-permit-process-shut-down-his-mobile-gun-locker-business-downtown/

I think this would be a good middle ground solution and would immediately remedy mine and others concerns.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Chino on December 07, 2017, 09:42:17 AM
I think your problem here is that the odds of you getting mugged and needing your gun to defend yourself are quite a bit lower than the odds of a drunk Cardinals fan with a CCW going off his nut. Brouhahas at sporting events aren't exactly a rarity. Search YT for "drunk sports fan St Louis" and look at some of the results.

This was my favorite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJgwqSGNCLk

This is exactly what I was thinking.

I agree with your sentiment, Gary, but there are too many drunken idiots in sports arenas for me to feel safe with them carrying a loaded gun. I could maybe get behind a program where if you were carrying, you get a bracelet that can only be removed on your way out of the venue that lets vendors know that you are not allowed to drink. For a parking lot mugging, a good can of mace would be just as effective and wouldn't accidentally kill someone in the process if the person being assaulted fucks up.

I get pretty hammered at sporting events and I don't buy their overpriced, nasty tasting beer. I drink up in the parking lot and possibly take some inside with me.

Also, they're not going to let you take a can of mace inside, either.

Fair points.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: gmillerdrake on December 07, 2017, 09:45:19 AM
This is probably true. But, I'd rather have my gun on me and not need it than encounter and instance where my gun could have saved my life or someone I care and love's life but it's locked up in my car 800 yards away because I was restricted in carrying it.

and that video was hiarious  :lol   deep baby laughs like that are awesome also.
The issue isn't whether or not you should be allowed to carry. The issue is whether or not the guy in the video should. If you can, he can.

That just comes down to being responsible. I haven't seen many stories come across where a drunken sports goer's gun accidentally fires or whatever. Most if not all the people I know who CCW when they are drinking either do not carry their gun or keep it locked up. I think the majority of people who CCW think responsibly like that...again, that's just based off the community of people I know.

But again...I understand where you, Brian and Chris ar coming from.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: cramx3 on December 07, 2017, 09:46:36 AM
Sometimes I feel like I live in a different country where people feel the need to have a gun on them at all times.  I just don't understand that mentality at all.  I am for gun rights (so I am not arguing against that), but unless you've unfortunately had some tragic event happen to you, I don't know why you feel so uncomfortable in this country.

As for the law, I don't like it because I have a bit more conservative values with the idea of less government and states rights, something I thought this current government would believe as well, but clearly it's selective. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on December 07, 2017, 09:48:07 AM
I get pretty hammered at sporting events and I don't buy their overpriced, nasty tasting beer. I drink up in the parking lot and possibly take some inside with me.

That's me.   At UConn games here in CT, it's $12.00 for a 16 oz. Coors Light.  Fuck that noise.   $12.00 gets me a 12-pack of same. 

I'm a gun rights guy as well, but I don't really have a problem with "Time Place and Manner" restrictions, especially since there are more effective means of providing the same protection.   The solver at the St. Louis sporting events is not arming the fanbase, but putting in lights and providing greater security in that hemisphere.   Given the types of terrorist attacks we've seen, that's prudent anyway.

Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: gmillerdrake on December 07, 2017, 10:04:32 AM
Sometimes I feel like I live in a different country where people feel the need to have a gun on them at all times.  I just don't understand that mentality at all.  I am for gun rights (so I am not arguing against that), but unless you've unfortunately had some tragic event happen to you, I don't know why you feel so uncomfortable in this country.

I don't feel uncomfortable and am not living in fear. I view it no differently than why I pay $109 every month for my wife and I's car insurance. Most likely will never use it...but IF the time comes when I need it I'll have it. That's it. I view it as a responsibility as a Husband and Father. I regularly fire my weapon to make sure I'm as competent as I can be, and if my gun is not on me it's in a safe. all my weapons are safely locked up.

My initial point was I particularly don't like when the option for me to carry my weapon is taken away from me. I'm being denied that chance to protect myself and my family IF something were to happen. And that's a big IF. As EB said, the odds on me personally ever being in a situation where I was forced to draw and use my gun are very slim. But I don't want to not have that choice.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: vtgrad on December 07, 2017, 01:02:19 PM
I'm being told by the Cardinals, Blues and these music venues that I don't have the right to protect myself or my loved ones when I choose to go to their venue.

Not a gun guy, as I said in another thread, and I don't want to be overly judgmental of your thoughts, but are we really at the point in this country where we can't go watch a bunch of Canucks slap a puck around with a stick without fearing for our lives? Is this America or the Middle East?

Coming back to that, during my time in the Middle East (Israel, Jordan, Egypt), I never once felt unsafe... even during my detainment (in another thread I tell the story; I was profiled because of my looks by the Israeli military).  And looking back on that, two days after I returned to the states, the border crossing that my party used to go from Israel to Egypt was bombed... go figure.

On the other hand, I can think of many, many times here in the states (after concerts, sporting events, etc) that I've felt a little hair raise on the back of my neck walking through certain places (yeah, I'm looking at you Baltimore) and after having been approached by other bystanders in my vicinity with requests and suggestions of where I should and shouldn't be.  I will say that roughly half of those times I've been armed.

It's not necessarily about fearing for your life I don't think, it's about being prepared for the unthinkable.  The 6-P's.

I'll have to read the legislation before I can comment on it.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Dave_Manchester on December 07, 2017, 03:26:35 PM
Surprised to hear you chaps across the pond can still drink in sports stadia. It's been all but outlawed at elite football ('soccer') games over here, due to the sport's inherent tribalism and hooliganism. The result has been fans getting plastered before the games, such as this magnificent human specimen right here at last week's Sunderland-Reading match (my mate was there):

https://deadspin.com/sunderland-fan-explains-that-he-did-not-drunkenly-shit-1821012484

And I want to give a shout-out to the British police here, this is why they're alright. They took to Facebook to back up the kid's defense that he only took a sit-down piss, not a shit. So it was ok:

https://metro.co.uk/2017/12/04/police-back-trouserless-sunderland-fans-claim-he-did-not-defecate-at-his-seat-7130499/
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: cramx3 on December 07, 2017, 03:30:02 PM
Surprised to hear you chaps across the pond can still drink in sports stadiums. It's been all but outlawed at elite football ('soccer') games over here, due to the sport's inherent tribalism and hooliganism. The result has been fans getting plastered before the games, such as this magnificent human specimen right here at last weeks's Sunderland - Reading match (my mate was there):

https://deadspin.com/sunderland-fan-explains-that-he-did-not-drunkenly-shit-1821012484

And I want to give a shout out to the British police here, this is why they're alright. They took to Facebook to back up the kid's defense that he only took a sit-down piss, not a shit. So it was ok:

https://metro.co.uk/2017/12/04/police-back-trouserless-sunderland-fans-claim-he-did-not-defecate-at-his-seat-7130499/

It's interesting the idea of drinking at sporting events.  It's allowed at pretty much all of them except at College games held on college campus's.  And in those cases, people do as you mention, drink excessively before the game and enter completely shit faced.   I've done this myself.  There's been lots of talk about more colleges allowing drinking during the event since not allowing it has lead to lots of alcohol poisoning.  Plus might as well make some money since people are going to booze whether you try to stop it or not.   
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Cool Chris on December 07, 2017, 03:45:15 PM
Drinking at sporting events is never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going to be outlawed.

And vtgrad, I didn't mean to disparage the Middle East (well, maybe a little). I can't say I've ever felt the slightest bit unsafe anywhere I have ever been in the past 20 years where it remotely crossed my mind to carry a firearm.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on December 07, 2017, 03:56:17 PM
Nobody would go to games if they couldn't' get drunk. Most stadiums have family sections where no beer is served, but you're talking about a couple of small balcony sections seating <5% of the crowd. The only restrictions I know of were instituted by the leagues after the comically violent 10˘ beer night riot in Cleveland. I believe such beer promotions were banned at MLB games shortly thereafter. They still sell a shit-ton of beer, though.

Quote
After the Indians had managed to tie the game, a 19-year-old fan named Terry Yerkic ran onto the field and attempted to steal Texas outfielder Jeff Burroughs' cap. Confronting the fan, Burroughs tripped. Thinking that Burroughs had been attacked, Texas manager Billy Martin charged onto the field with his players right behind, some wielding bats. A large number of intoxicated fans – some armed with knives, chains, and portions of stadium seats that they had torn apart – surged onto the field, and others hurled bottles from the stands. Hundreds of fans surrounded the outnumbered Rangers.

Realizing that the Rangers' lives might be in danger, Cleveland manager Ken Aspromonte ordered his players to grab bats and help the Rangers, attacking the team's own fans in the process. Rioters began throwing steel folding chairs, and Cleveland relief pitcher Tom Hilgendorf was hit in the head by one of them. Hargrove, after subduing one rioter in a fistfight, had to fight another on his way back to the Texas dugout. The two teams retreated off the field through the dugouts in groups, with players protecting each other

(https://s3media.247sports.com/Uploads/Assets/618/917/2917618.jpg)

There's also a pretty amusing documentary on YT about Disco Demolition Night. More drunken baseball fans tearing up a stadium.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on December 08, 2017, 07:52:45 AM
Surprised to hear you chaps across the pond can still drink in sports stadia. It's been all but outlawed at elite football ('soccer') games over here, due to the sport's inherent tribalism and hooliganism. The result has been fans getting plastered before the games, such as this magnificent human specimen right here at last week's Sunderland-Reading match (my mate was there):

https://deadspin.com/sunderland-fan-explains-that-he-did-not-drunkenly-shit-1821012484

And I want to give a shout-out to the British police here, this is why they're alright. They took to Facebook to back up the kid's defense that he only took a sit-down piss, not a shit. So it was ok:

https://metro.co.uk/2017/12/04/police-back-trouserless-sunderland-fans-claim-he-did-not-defecate-at-his-seat-7130499/

For some reason, I found this very funny:

"In a Facebook post this morning he said: ‘I’m so regretful but I can’t remember any of it at all. That was me it’s real I’m so regretful but I can’t remember any of it at all and for the record I didn’t actually have a shit. ‘I honestly didn’t have a shit. The club even released a statement saying there was nothing wrong with the chair.’"

Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: vtgrad on December 08, 2017, 10:55:29 AM
Drinking at sporting events is never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going to be outlawed.

And vtgrad, I didn't mean to disparage the Middle East (well, maybe a little). I can't say I've ever felt the slightest bit unsafe anywhere I have ever been in the past 20 years where it remotely crossed my mind to carry a firearm.

I didn't take it as you disparaging the Middle East at all (honestly, wouldn't matter if I did  :biggrin:)... it's a valid opinion that part of the world is violent, because it is violent.  I guess my point was more about how well prepared the citizenry is in the Mid East for random violence on a large scale and how ill-prepared we (the US citizenry) are by comparison.

Regarding drinking at collegiate events: I don't ever remember being explicitly told that we could not bring drinks into Lane Stadium while I was a student... and everyone around me had drinks.  Hell, I never got out of there without getting some sort of alcohol spilled on me.  Those restrictions (and there are printed restrictions and I assume there always have been) are likely much, much more heavily enforced now then they were when I was there (98-03).  When I drank, I was only a casual drinker and even I always had an airline bottle of Jack with me in the stadium, though not in plain sight.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Cool Chris on December 08, 2017, 11:10:38 AM
Drinking at sporting events is never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going to be outlawed.

And vtgrad, I didn't mean to disparage the Middle East (well, maybe a little). I can't say I've ever felt the slightest bit unsafe anywhere I have ever been in the past 20 years where it remotely crossed my mind to carry a firearm.

I didn't take it as you disparaging the Middle East at all (honestly, wouldn't matter if I did  :biggrin:)... it's a valid opinion that part of the world is violent, because it is violent.  I guess my point was more about how well prepared the citizenry is in the Mid East for random violence on a large scale and how ill-prepared we (the US citizenry) are by comparison.

Yeah, not sure why I would think the ME is a violent place.  :laugh:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/08/middleeast/jerusalem-trump-friday-prayers-protests-intl/index.html

vtgrad, I was at UVa in 94-96. Couldn't handle the pretentiousness, humidity, and most importantly the course load so dropped out before I could flunk out.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on December 08, 2017, 11:14:06 AM
Having lived in Israel for several years, at no point did I feel unsafe.


Though I knew when to avoid certain places because of increased violence, and I wasn't allowed to go to The West Bank or any other occupied territories besides Jerusalem.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Cool Chris on December 08, 2017, 11:18:24 AM
Sounds like Paradise  :)  Kidding aside, I know you are Jewish (at least I think you are) but do not know anything about your beliefs beyond that, so please do not feel I am disparaging your culture in any way.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on December 08, 2017, 11:19:45 AM
Sounds like Paradise  :)  Kidding aside, I know you are Jewish (at least I think you are) but do not know anything about your beliefs beyond that, so please do not feel I am disparaging your culture in any way.

Too late. Expect Mossad to be taking you within the hour.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Cool Chris on December 08, 2017, 11:40:51 AM
Can you at least send Ziva from NCIS?
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on December 08, 2017, 11:42:06 AM
Ah yes, Cote de Pablo. The most Israeli person ever.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Cool Chris on December 08, 2017, 11:47:28 AM
 :rollin
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on December 08, 2017, 01:09:48 PM
Ah yes, Cote de Pablo. The most Israeli person ever.

It passed muster with me, but then again, I have low standards. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on December 08, 2017, 01:10:32 PM
Having lived in Israel for several years, at no point did I feel unsafe.


Though I knew when to avoid certain places because of increased violence, and I wasn't allowed to go to The West Bank or any other occupied territories besides Jerusalem.

Why weren't you "allowed"?  Passport?  Nationality?  Prudence on the part of whoever brought you there?
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on December 08, 2017, 01:12:31 PM
Having lived in Israel for several years, at no point did I feel unsafe.


Though I knew when to avoid certain places because of increased violence, and I wasn't allowed to go to The West Bank or any other occupied territories besides Jerusalem.

Why weren't you "allowed"?  Passport?  Nationality?  Prudence on the part of whoever brought you there?

Israel doesn't allow citizens into those areas unless they're settlements. I refuse to go to settlements on moral grounds.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on December 08, 2017, 01:16:08 PM
Ah yes, Cote de Pablo. The most Israeli person ever.

It passed muster with me, but then again, I have low standards.

I mean, it'd be like saying inspector Clouseau did a good enough American impression.

Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on December 08, 2017, 01:23:06 PM
Ah yes, Cote de Pablo. The most Israeli person ever.

It passed muster with me, but then again, I have low standards.

I mean, it'd be like saying inspector Clouseau did a good enough American impression.
I don't know who this Cote de Pablo is, but Peter Sellers did probably the best American impression I've ever heard. When I first realized he was Merkin Muffly I was astonished.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on December 08, 2017, 01:25:11 PM
Ah yes, Cote de Pablo. The most Israeli person ever.

It passed muster with me, but then again, I have low standards.

I mean, it'd be like saying inspector Clouseau did a good enough American impression.
I don't know who this Cote de Pablo is, but Peter Sellers did probably the best American impression I've ever heard. When I first realized he was Merkin Muffly I was astonished.

Peter Sellers, not Clouseau.  :P
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Cool Chris on December 08, 2017, 01:29:02 PM
When I first realized he was Merkin Muffly I was astonished.

Boy if you Google image search Merkin Muffly, you get quite the results!
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on December 08, 2017, 01:54:50 PM
Having lived in Israel for several years, at no point did I feel unsafe.


Though I knew when to avoid certain places because of increased violence, and I wasn't allowed to go to The West Bank or any other occupied territories besides Jerusalem.

Why weren't you "allowed"?  Passport?  Nationality?  Prudence on the part of whoever brought you there?

Israel doesn't allow citizens into those areas unless they're settlements. I refuse to go to settlements on moral grounds.

Assuming I had the will and no moral compunction (which I'm not saying I do or don't) would I, as an American citizen, be allowed?
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on December 08, 2017, 01:55:59 PM
Ah yes, Cote de Pablo. The most Israeli person ever.

It passed muster with me, but then again, I have low standards.

I mean, it'd be like saying inspector Clouseau did a good enough American impression.

I can't defend my position and not turn myself into a hypocrite in the other threads here.  :)
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on December 08, 2017, 01:57:16 PM
Having lived in Israel for several years, at no point did I feel unsafe.


Though I knew when to avoid certain places because of increased violence, and I wasn't allowed to go to The West Bank or any other occupied territories besides Jerusalem.

Why weren't you "allowed"?  Passport?  Nationality?  Prudence on the part of whoever brought you there?

Israel doesn't allow citizens into those areas unless they're settlements. I refuse to go to settlements on moral grounds.

Assuming I had the will and no moral compunction (which I'm not saying I do or don't) would I, as an American citizen, be allowed?

Yup! Americans are allowed anywhere but Gaza. Just Israelis aren't.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Dave_Manchester on December 08, 2017, 02:32:54 PM
My own West Bank story, which I've told already at MP's place but I'll tell it briefly here.

In the summer of 2013 I fulfilled an ambition and went to Jerusalem. One day I decided to take the bus to Bethlehem, which - being an utter dunce about this whole region and its politics and history - I didn't realise was in the Palestinian Territories. When we got to the border there was a big red sign warning Israeli citizens to turn back now because it was dangerous for their lives to proceed. The bus stopped and gun toting police got on to check our passports (making sure we weren't Israelis). I'm used to frightening situations because I was going to east Ukraine almost every month during the height of the war, but I wasn't prepared for that. It's a different kind of threat and danger, one I'm not familiar with. It was very scary, and also very depressing.

The church itself (the Church of the Nativity, said to be where Jesus was born) was of course fascinating once you're inside (on the way to it there's a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet which rather disturbs the ambience). But it was one of the least 'spiritual' experiences of my life. Everywhere is suspicion and nervousness and tension and a pervading sense of close danger.

By contrast, the single most 'spiritual' experience of my life was the following evening, when I took a short walk out into the fringe of the desert behind the Mount of Olives (my hotel was on top of the Mount of Olives, a stone's throw from the Garden of Gethsamane; in fact my window looked onto the spot where Christ's Passion and arrest is said to have taken place). A very eerie experience, especially when you look back and see the city in the darkness. You're in near total silence and you see this benighted city with all its bloody and unhappy history. It's easy to understand why the desert gave birth to the religions, it takes you very close to your own 'soul' and makes you afraid and small to the point of almost nothing.

Sorry to hijack your thread a bit Barto, just wanted to share that story.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: KevShmev on December 09, 2017, 08:18:41 AM
I find most gun discussions nowadays pretty frustrating.

I take the middle of the road approach that there should absolutely be stronger restrictions on who should be able to legally purchase a firearm, but I don't yell and scream about guns 3 minutes every time there are mass killings done with guns.

The people on one side dig their heels in about how no one should be able to take their guns away and get all defiant when anyone suggest putting any restrictions on their ability to buy more guns, and the people on the other side kick and scream about guns being the cause of all the suffering in the world when some nutjob kills 33 people with one. 

It's maddening.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: sylvan on December 09, 2017, 10:50:35 AM
My friend's dad just died, and he had 14 guns. Now my buddy is dealing with them because he's the only one with gun experience (former Army). But he recently got rid of his gun, and doesn't want more, so he has to go through the process of selling them off. Well, his uncle said he wanted the scoped hunting rifle. My buddy is gonna have to ask around with other family members to see if the guy can be "trusted", and even then he thinks he might just not go down that road anyways. I'm glad he's trying to do the responsible thing.

I had another friend years ago sell his pistol to a neighbor kid, who was arrested within the week for armed robbery...
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on December 11, 2017, 08:34:20 AM
My friend's dad just died, and he had 14 guns. Now my buddy is dealing with them because he's the only one with gun experience (former Army). But he recently got rid of his gun, and doesn't want more, so he has to go through the process of selling them off. Well, his uncle said he wanted the scoped hunting rifle. My buddy is gonna have to ask around with other family members to see if the guy can be "trusted", and even then he thinks he might just not go down that road anyways. I'm glad he's trying to do the responsible thing.

I had another friend years ago sell his pistol to a neighbor kid, who was arrested within the week for armed robbery...

I guess I would ask why that's "unusual".  Wouldn't you do that with anything that has the potential to be misused?  A car, for example?  I'd like to think I would.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: sylvan on December 11, 2017, 10:01:32 AM
My friend's dad just died, and he had 14 guns. Now my buddy is dealing with them because he's the only one with gun experience (former Army). But he recently got rid of his gun, and doesn't want more, so he has to go through the process of selling them off. Well, his uncle said he wanted the scoped hunting rifle. My buddy is gonna have to ask around with other family members to see if the guy can be "trusted", and even then he thinks he might just not go down that road anyways. I'm glad he's trying to do the responsible thing.

I had another friend years ago sell his pistol to a neighbor kid, who was arrested within the week for armed robbery...

I guess I would ask why that's "unusual".  Wouldn't you do that with anything that has the potential to be misused?  A car, for example?  I'd like to think I would.

I wasn't really implying it was unusual, although the second example might not be unusual either. More so, some people are actually interested in "the greater good" if you will.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on December 11, 2017, 10:43:44 AM
My friend's dad just died, and he had 14 guns. Now my buddy is dealing with them because he's the only one with gun experience (former Army). But he recently got rid of his gun, and doesn't want more, so he has to go through the process of selling them off. Well, his uncle said he wanted the scoped hunting rifle. My buddy is gonna have to ask around with other family members to see if the guy can be "trusted", and even then he thinks he might just not go down that road anyways. I'm glad he's trying to do the responsible thing.

I had another friend years ago sell his pistol to a neighbor kid, who was arrested within the week for armed robbery...

I guess I would ask why that's "unusual".  Wouldn't you do that with anything that has the potential to be misused?  A car, for example?  I'd like to think I would.

I wasn't really implying it was unusual, although the second example might not be unusual either. More so, some people are actually interested in "the greater good" if you will.

No, I'm less coming back at you, than I am pointing out to others that this should be the norm. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: portnoy311 on January 09, 2018, 10:09:14 PM
My friend's dad just died, and he had 14 guns. Now my buddy is dealing with them because he's the only one with gun experience (former Army). But he recently got rid of his gun, and doesn't want more, so he has to go through the process of selling them off. Well, his uncle said he wanted the scoped hunting rifle. My buddy is gonna have to ask around with other family members to see if the guy can be "trusted", and even then he thinks he might just not go down that road anyways. I'm glad he's trying to do the responsible thing.

I had another friend years ago sell his pistol to a neighbor kid, who was arrested within the week for armed robbery...

I guess I would ask why that's "unusual".  Wouldn't you do that with anything that has the potential to be misused?  A car, for example?  I'd like to think I would.

A valid Driver's License shows that your state has run a background check on you, knows your entire driving history as well as pertinent medicals (you're not blind, or at risk for various health events while driving), and is a clear 'go ahead.' That does not exist for private gun ownership. I would say it is a very different scenario.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on January 10, 2018, 10:41:40 AM
My friend's dad just died, and he had 14 guns. Now my buddy is dealing with them because he's the only one with gun experience (former Army). But he recently got rid of his gun, and doesn't want more, so he has to go through the process of selling them off. Well, his uncle said he wanted the scoped hunting rifle. My buddy is gonna have to ask around with other family members to see if the guy can be "trusted", and even then he thinks he might just not go down that road anyways. I'm glad he's trying to do the responsible thing.

I had another friend years ago sell his pistol to a neighbor kid, who was arrested within the week for armed robbery...

I guess I would ask why that's "unusual".  Wouldn't you do that with anything that has the potential to be misused?  A car, for example?  I'd like to think I would.

A valid Driver's License shows that your state has run a background check on you, knows your entire driving history as well as pertinent medicals (you're not blind, or at risk for various health events while driving), and is a clear 'go ahead.' That does not exist for private gun ownership. I would say it is a very different scenario.

Unfortunately, you can't compare "gun ownership" with "driving license" as much as we want to.  If you want to compare the license given for an abortion, or the license granted entitling you to speak freely, then we're on to something.   
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on January 10, 2018, 11:59:04 AM
My friend's dad just died, and he had 14 guns. Now my buddy is dealing with them because he's the only one with gun experience (former Army). But he recently got rid of his gun, and doesn't want more, so he has to go through the process of selling them off. Well, his uncle said he wanted the scoped hunting rifle. My buddy is gonna have to ask around with other family members to see if the guy can be "trusted", and even then he thinks he might just not go down that road anyways. I'm glad he's trying to do the responsible thing.

I had another friend years ago sell his pistol to a neighbor kid, who was arrested within the week for armed robbery...

I guess I would ask why that's "unusual".  Wouldn't you do that with anything that has the potential to be misused?  A car, for example?  I'd like to think I would.

A valid Driver's License shows that your state has run a background check on you, knows your entire driving history as well as pertinent medicals (you're not blind, or at risk for various health events while driving), and is a clear 'go ahead.' That does not exist for private gun ownership. I would say it is a very different scenario.

Unfortunately, you can't compare "gun ownership" with "driving license" as much as we want to.  If you want to compare the license given for an abortion, or the license granted entitling you to speak freely, then we're on to something.
Which if you think about it is fairly insane.

I get your point, one is a constitutional right and the other is not a right and is regulated by the states. In practice they're about the same, though. You have the right to speak, get an abortion, or own a gun. You do not get to make threatening remarks, abort a foetus afflicted with a condition that republicans like, or own a gun if you're a convicted felon, just like you can't hold a license after a DUI conviction. As far as I know the only prohibition on driving that isn't behavioral is poor eyesight. Laughingly, I doubt that's a prohibition to gun ownership anywhere. Different in theory. The same in practice.

And the solution to P311's problem, or any other conscientious gun owner's, is to tell the uncle to go get a CCL before he can buy the gun. When The Man certifies that you're competent to own a firearm you can buy mine.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on January 11, 2018, 08:59:15 AM
Well, you're right, and I'm not arguing the practicalities as much as I'm highlighting that the procedure is different.  You can most assuredly put a limitation - reasonable, least restrictive, and with a compelling interest of the state - on a right, but the process is different (and should be).   I think what I'm asking for is some caution.  We're on a gun kick now, so it seems so "common sense" (you know how much I hate that phrase) to put all these restrictions in, but when and if that same restriction is put on abortion, a whole sector of our society goes bat shit crazy like you're trying to sterilize half the population.   I'm all for thoughtful consideration on all these points, but it's not an unreasonable request to ask for some continuity and consistency, and some acknowledgement that even if you (not you personally, but collectively) don't like that it is a "right", you recognize that it is, and deal with it accordingly.

As much as I rail against the idiocy* of gun control, I have no issue with clear, concise, and reasonable controls over the ownership (including purchase and sale) of firearms.  I will lay claim, though, unpopular as they may be, to having similar thoughts about things like abortion and speech. 

*Idiocy = shorthand for lack of analytical reasoning, and in direct defiance of the statistics that we now know show that many of the proposed "solutions" actually make the situation on the ground worse, while serving as a panacea and a "feel-good" to those who feel they have to "do something!". 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on January 11, 2018, 09:26:53 AM
They've been putting ridiculous restrictions on abortion for years now. Targeted restrictions that serve no purpose other than to close down clinics. Yet if we try to institute a system where gun buyers have to submit to a background check people lose their fucking minds. Has there been any significant gun regulation in the last 10 years? Kansas will set a minimum number of mourners for the legally mandated funeral of some indistinguishable clump of tissue, but suggest that maybe we should make sure you're not meshuga before you buy a mini-14 and it's utter fascism.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: bosk1 on January 11, 2018, 09:30:29 AM
We've had such onerous restrictions in California for so long that I forget and am shocked when reminded that many states do NOT have background checks.  I really don't know what there is to lose one's mind about over a background check. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on January 11, 2018, 09:35:10 AM
We've had such onerous restrictions in California for so long that I forget and am shocked when reminded that many states do NOT have background checks.  I really don't know what there is to lose one's mind about over a background check.
If you sell one of your guns on Craigslist would you have to require a background check? I don't think people object to the check itself, other than the nutjobs who view any restriction at all as a trampling of their rights, but the extent to which they're required.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: bosk1 on January 11, 2018, 09:38:40 AM
We've had such onerous restrictions in California for so long that I forget and am shocked when reminded that many states do NOT have background checks.  I really don't know what there is to lose one's mind about over a background check.
If you sell one of your guns on Craigslist would you have to require a background check? I don't think people object to the check itself, other than the nutjobs who view any restriction at all as a trampling of their rights, but the extent to which they're required.
As a practical matter, you CAN'T sell a gun on Craigslist here.  You can only sell or gift a firearm in California through a registered, authorized dealer.  So, for example, if you wanted to sell Herr Sig to me, you would have to contact the local gun shop and conduct the transaction through them.  They would conduct the requisite background checks and make sure all the other steps are followed. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on January 11, 2018, 09:47:54 AM
We've had such onerous restrictions in California for so long that I forget and am shocked when reminded that many states do NOT have background checks.  I really don't know what there is to lose one's mind about over a background check.
If you sell one of your guns on Craigslist would you have to require a background check? I don't think people object to the check itself, other than the nutjobs who view any restriction at all as a trampling of their rights, but the extent to which they're required.
As a practical matter, you CAN'T sell a gun on Craigslist here.  You can only sell or gift a firearm in California through a registered, authorized dealer.  So, for example, if you wanted to sell Herr Sig to me, you would have to contact the local gun shop and conduct the transaction through them.  They would conduct the requisite background checks and make sure all the other steps are followed.
I'll be damned. I believe that down here FFLs are only required for new gun purchases. Used gun purchases or sales from non-retail shops are mono-a-mono. The seller's only obligation is to make sure the person is in-state.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on January 11, 2018, 10:40:13 AM
They've been putting ridiculous restrictions on abortion for years now. Targeted restrictions that serve no purpose other than to close down clinics. Yet if we try to institute a system where gun buyers have to submit to a background check people lose their fucking minds. Has there been any significant gun regulation in the last 10 years? Kansas will set a minimum number of mourners for the legally mandated funeral of some indistinguishable clump of tissue, but suggest that maybe we should make sure you're not meshuga before you buy a mini-14 and it's utter fascism.

HAHA, that's a good one.   Seriously.

We may be talking geography here, though; remember, I live in Connecticut, home state to the anti-gun crusader and professional crier, Chris Murphy.   It's really the opposite here. 

Look, I understand your point, and maybe the debate isn't between you and me, as much as it is with the anti-abortionist and the gun-nuts.   Whether we do across the nation or not, I think philosophically (if not practically) we SHOULD be handling abortion and guns the same, because the underlying premise for them is the same.   If we just allow a woman to walk in and abort, no names, no restrictions, that GENERAL premise ought to be extended to guns, and we shouldn't be asking for a finger and a sperm sample to buy a gun.  If you're advocating for - as you said - a minimum number of mourners, and for abortion to only be available between 12:00 noon and 2:00 pm on the 32nd of each month, then you ought not to have too much discontent with a stricter gun ownership policy. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Cool Chris on January 11, 2018, 11:07:22 AM
we SHOULD be handling abortion and guns the same, because the underlying premise for them is the same.

What??
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on January 11, 2018, 11:08:24 AM
we SHOULD be handling abortion and guns the same, because the underlying premise for them is the same.

What??


Yea. Why?
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on January 11, 2018, 11:41:59 AM
Both are constitutionally protected rights, and while restrictions are permissible they're required to meet specific criteria. I don't think he was equating the two, but suggesting that they should both be afforded the same status when imposing new restrictions.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on January 11, 2018, 12:22:24 PM
Both are constitutionally protected rights, and while restrictions are permissible they're required to meet specific criteria. I don't think he was equating the two, but suggesting that they should both be afforded the same status when imposing new restrictions.

Exactly.   The fact remains that LEGALLY we can't just "license" whatever we want when we want, and how we want.    ANY restrictions to a constitutional right fall under a separate scheme for evaluation, called the "rational basis test".   Then there are a select number of rights called "fundamental rights" which are held to a higher evaluation standard, called the "strict scrutiny" test.  Under this test, there must be a compelling state interest (real, not imagined, and vital, not "preferred"), the law must be narrowly tailored to further that specific state interest, and it has to be the least restrictive means of accomplishing the goal (close to, but not the same thing as, narrowly tailored). 

Right to a grand jury trial is part of the Constitution; it is not, however,  fundamental right, and would be evaluated under the rational basis test.   The right to free speech is a fundamental right, and would be evaluated under the strict scrutiny test.   The right to bear arms is considered a fundamental right (the Supreme Court said so, I believe in 2010), so any restrictions on that right would be evaluated under the strict scrutiny test. The right to an abortion is generally considered to be a fundamental right (though not as crystal clear as some would like following a case called Planned Parenthood v Casey, which muddied the waters somewhat), so any restrictions on that right would also be evaluated under the strict scrutiny test. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on February 20, 2018, 09:19:17 AM
Question for Bosk: I was unaware until now that this is a thing.

Quote
In 2011, California enacted a law that said the money could also be used for the state’s Armed Prohibited Persons System. That program targets an estimated 18,000 people who acquired their weapons legally but then became ineligible to own a gun because of a criminal conviction, domestic-violence order, or mental-health condition.

Does it work? Honestly, this is something I've thought should happen everywhere. In fact it's quite insane not to have such a mechanism in place. There's not a chance in hell we could do it nationwide, but it actually does seem to be something that could actually make a difference.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: bosk1 on February 20, 2018, 09:51:58 AM
It's a great idea.  But as to whether or not it actually works in practice, I have no idea.  I mean, banning people in those categories from purchasing in the first place is a no-brainer.  That OBVIOUSLY works.  If you fall into one of those categories, you go into the database.  And when they check the database at Cabella's when you are trying to finalize that new purchase, you get a big, fat exploding "nope" card dropped on you (100 points to anyone who gets the reference).  But as far as confiscating for those who become ineligible after the fact, I have no idea.  I would hope it works, but I haven't seen any data on it, and I have no experience to draw from in that area.  It seems really dumb and shortsighted that we can't do some of this stuff nation-wide.  Although I do think CA's gun laws are TOO strict, a lot of what we do actually does make a lot of sense, and it is kind of shocking that some other states are so lax.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on February 20, 2018, 10:05:22 AM
Okey-doke. Figured you might have read something pro or con on it. Like I said, I had no idea it was even a thing.

As for the rest of us, neither Uncle Sam nor Governor Cripple has any idea I even own a gun, so if I did something to get flagged on the NICS who would know? If my gun were to turn up at a homicide they'd no doubt trace it back to the original retailer somewhere in Carolina, and possibly to the local shop that did the FFL. They might even have a record of who purchased it, but whatever happened to it in the intervening years is unknown.

Presumably Cali requires guns to be registered, and that's the sort of thing that'll never fly to the nation at large. I don't suppose there's anything constitutionally prohibited in requiring gun registration, but it'd be rejected outright on general principle. Sort of like a federal ID card.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: bosk1 on February 20, 2018, 10:20:54 AM
Yeah, I don't get the rationale for rejecting something like that.  While I don't like the government unduly prying into the private lives of its citizens, I don't know how you don't require registration of something so inherently dangerous that can readily be bought and sold. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on February 20, 2018, 10:35:46 AM
Yeah. A government that has no qualms whatsoever about tracking how much cold medicine I purchase in a six month period.  :lol
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: kingshmegland on February 20, 2018, 12:28:20 PM
Yeah. A government that has no qualms whatsoever about tracking how much cold medicine I purchase in a six month period.  :lol

Show your license and have it scanned to buy Sudafed in case you are making meth.   I'll tell you what El Barto, my wife has worked at a Pharmacy for 20 years and it is amazing how many people are hook on drugs and the things they will try to do to get their perception early.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: bosk1 on February 20, 2018, 12:50:32 PM
I'll tell you what El Barto, my wife has worked at a Pharmacy for 20 years and it is amazing how many people are hook on drugs and the things they will try to do to get their perception early.

I think your "perception" is wearing off.  You should go and pop a few more.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: kingshmegland on February 20, 2018, 12:56:54 PM
I'll tell you what El Barto, my wife has worked at a Pharmacy for 20 years and it is amazing how many people are hook on drugs and the things they will try to do to get their perception early.

I think your "perception" is wearing off.  You should go and pop a few more.

Perscription....perception, seems poetic.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: bosk1 on February 20, 2018, 01:04:34 PM
Oh, it is.  It is.  You should write a haiku.  :lol
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: kingshmegland on February 20, 2018, 01:11:02 PM
 :lol
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Chino on February 20, 2018, 01:17:28 PM
Seventeen are dead
Again? Please, no. Not again.
Still too soon to talk
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: bosk1 on February 21, 2018, 08:46:36 AM
Heard a good discussion on the radio this morning where they were talking about two things: Trump's memo directing the ban on bump stocks and the renewed discussion on the "assault weapon ban." 

Regarding the former:  Good move on Trump's part, even if it is really only a token gesture.  It at least breaks the ice in terms of a "Republican administration" taking SOME steps at reasonable controls.  Maybe that at least gets the ball rolling, even if it does roll painfully slowly.

Regarding the latter:  They mentioned how students were shocked that the measure didn't pass and angered that the "Republicans" could do such a thing, but were blissfully unaware that in 2013, when the Dems were in power, THEY were the ones who let the existing ban expire in the first place.  Of course, if you want to play partisan finger-pointing rather than try to solve problems, it's convenient to bury that fact.  But that said, I think that is one of the dumber, more useless restrictions anyway.  "Assault weapons" is great as a soundbite.  But the definition is too arbitrary and doesn't really mean anything, other than, as has been discussed here in the past, ban things that are "scary looking" while allowing guns that are equally or more powerful and destructive (but less "scary looking") to be perfectly legal.  To me, this was just another Band-Aid that made people feel better, but didn't accomplish what it set out to accomplish and was destructive to having open debates about what actually TO do. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: kingshmegland on February 21, 2018, 03:30:54 PM
Isn't it time to stop pointing fingers at one another and have true reform.  I'm not saying taking guns away but lets make it harder for those who might have mental issues and bad background to purchase guns.  Also, lets have true healthcare reform (I'm looking at you Dems & Reps) and lets get something done.

Also people need to speak up when they know a certain person is not quite right.  A lot of kids said they knew something was wrong but never spoke up.  It's time to teach our children to see something, say something.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: cramx3 on February 21, 2018, 03:34:37 PM
Isn't it time to stop pointing fingers at one another and have true reform.  I'm not saying taking guns away but lets make it harder for those who might have mental issues and bad background to purchase guns.  Also, lets have true healthcare reform (I'm looking at you Dems & Reps) and lets get something done.

Also people need to speak up when they know a certain person is not quite right.  A lot of kids said they knew something was wrong but never spoke up.  It's time to teach our children to see something, say something.

As for the first paragraph, we will keep dreaming.  I agree, but I have no realistic hope on our congress working together for the better good of the people.  As for the bottom part, I agree, but in this latest one, it seems people were reporting about this guy left and right and yet no one intervened.  It must be really deflating to make the report and it didn't get the attention it deserved.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: kingshmegland on February 21, 2018, 04:33:14 PM
Ok I just read that.  There needs some accountability for not getting this kid help. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on May 12, 2018, 01:54:19 PM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/12/oklahoma-governor-vetoes-bill-aimed-allowing-adults-carry-gun-without-license/604716002/

So does anybody who isn't a lobbyist for the gun manufactures think constitutional carry is a good idea? Most states will already allow some sort of carry option, providing you pass a security check and demonstrate one or two other aspects of not-crazy. Now the background checks are bad? The NRA is now looking forward to the ouster of the governor of one of the most bat-shit conservative states in the union because she listened to the law enforcement agencies of her state who told her this would be dangerous. I just can't imagine that even the rank and file members are actually in line with this. It amazes me that normal people support these ass-hats.

I'll also point out that the NRA's raison d'etre is to keep the government from encroaching on the 2A. Not an unreasonable goal, IMO. However, that would be a defensive stance. Their rationale for opposing things like universal background checks, which even its own membership supports, is ostensibly on the basis that if you give The Man an inch he'll take a mile. Bad logic, but somewhat correct. What we're seeing from them now is specifically offensive, though. They're not defending gun owners against state intrusion. They're actively seeking to expand gun ownership at many levels, as one would expect from the lobbying branch of the gun industry. This really is a very bad group of people.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: KevShmev on May 12, 2018, 02:17:36 PM
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/man-charged-in-ballpark-village-killing-but-he-s-still/article_7af63e0c-8ec2-5659-b8c2-abaedf1651c6.html

Just awful.  And I was actually at the Cardinals game on 5/1 where they had a moment of silence for the man who was killed.  Such senseless violence.   :( :(
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: gmillerdrake on May 12, 2018, 05:25:37 PM
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/man-charged-in-ballpark-village-killing-but-he-s-still/article_7af63e0c-8ec2-5659-b8c2-abaedf1651c6.html

Just awful.  And I was actually at the Cardinals game on 5/1 where they had a moment of silence for the man who was killed.  Such senseless violence.   :( :(

Yeah. I saw that. All this means is there will now be metal detectors installed which will guarantee that’s yet another venue downtown I won’t support.

Not a fan of having my Missouri Constittutuonal (and National) right to defend myself taken away by these businesses.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on May 14, 2018, 08:08:32 AM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/12/oklahoma-governor-vetoes-bill-aimed-allowing-adults-carry-gun-without-license/604716002/

So does anybody who isn't a lobbyist for the gun manufactures think constitutional carry is a good idea? Most states will already allow some sort of carry option, providing you pass a security check and demonstrate one or two other aspects of not-crazy. Now the background checks are bad? The NRA is now looking forward to the ouster of the governor of one of the most bat-shit conservative states in the union because she listened to the law enforcement agencies of her state who told her this would be dangerous. I just can't imagine that even the rank and file members are actually in line with this. It amazes me that normal people support these ass-hats.

I'll also point out that the NRA's raison d'etre is to keep the government from encroaching on the 2A. Not an unreasonable goal, IMO. However, that would be a defensive stance. Their rationale for opposing things like universal background checks, which even its own membership supports, is ostensibly on the basis that if you give The Man an inch he'll take a mile. Bad logic, but somewhat correct. What we're seeing from them now is specifically offensive, though. They're not defending gun owners against state intrusion. They're actively seeking to expand gun ownership at many levels, as one would expect from the lobbying branch of the gun industry. This really is a very bad group of people.

I'm with you on this.  I am adamant about following the data - which in my estimation does NOT support "removing guns themselves as a solution to the increasing tendency for people to use public violence as an outlet" - but I do support background checks and administrative controls on gun ownership and usage.    I can't really fathom the NRA strategy here, though.   If "give an inch, he'll take a mile" is the premise, why would you expect the other side to give YOU that inch?   Being on the offensive here doesn't help them.  This isn't the political version of two boxers in a stalemate and pushing each other away in order to engage again.  This is just... I don't know what this is.   Even I - a relative constitutional zealot - don't really buy into this scheme. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on May 14, 2018, 08:45:16 AM
Yeah, it goes right in line with their bizarre understanding of what reciprocity is. As much as they say otherwise, their goal is very clearly to make sure as many guns as possible are on the streets at any time.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: gmillerdrake on May 14, 2018, 09:30:52 AM
Missouri has constitutional carry now and I hate it. Anyone over age (19) without a record can just conceal a firearm....no class....nothing. Just hide the weapon.

Funny enough....I was pulled over on Friday night and as I mentioned my weapon being near my wallet the officer and I got to talking about how I no longer needed a CCW license and that I could just carry. Fast forward five full minutes and we were still talking guns...training etc. He ended up giving me a written warning and just told me to slow down (54 in a 40)

I am all about conceal carry....think that I should be able to take my gun anywhere at anytime. But I also think that with that responsibility there should be mandatory classes, extended background checks and mandatory scheduled training to achieve that type of CCW privilege. I'd do whatever it took to guarantee  me that I could surpass metal detectors or whatever security screening there was.

Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: XeRocks81 on May 14, 2018, 09:55:36 AM
for some reason I'm suddenly reminded of this Dave Chappelle bit... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ3dk6KAvQM
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on November 20, 2018, 01:28:24 PM
https://6abc.com/mercy-hospital-gunman-what-we-know/4725117/

So in what idiotic world does a person with a protection order out against him get a permit to carry a damn gun? Yeah, I know, the answer will be that it's the idiotic world of Chicago, but isn't the common gripe that they have some of the strictest gun laws around and still manage to kill each other? There were red flags all over the place about this guy, but not only was he still allowed to purchase weapons he was permitted to carry them in public.

Like I asked in the other thread, does anybody think this guy should have been allowed to own a gun?
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Cool Chris on November 20, 2018, 01:53:13 PM
I echoed your question in that thread and expanded on it with my thoughts. Never developed in to a discussion though.

Wasn't sure where to put this. WA passed a pretty comprehensive initiative about gun ownership (look it up, I-1639), and King County passed the below. The Warning Sign deal is a bit silly, but whatever. I am not a gun owner so did not read through the epic text of the initiative, but is already on the way to the courts, not necessarily because of the text but how it was presented "They argued that initiative language printed on the back of petition forms was too small and that it did not include customary strike-throughs to show how current law would be changed. State law requires initiative petitions to include a “readable, full, true and correct” copy of the measure." Hard to say how it will go if it makes it to the State SC. I imagine them saying "Well, the people voted for this, and we like it, so it stands" but it's too early to say.

https://www.kirklandreporter.com/news/king-county-approves-gun-warning-sign-requirement/
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on November 20, 2018, 02:28:10 PM
I echoed your question in that thread and expanded on it with my thoughts. Never developed in to a discussion though.

Wasn't sure where to put this. WA passed a pretty comprehensive initiative about gun ownership (look it up, I-1639), and King County passed the below. The Warning Sign deal is a bit silly, but whatever. I am not a gun owner so did not read through the epic text of the initiative, but is already on the way to the courts, not necessarily because of the text but how it was presented "They argued that initiative language printed on the back of petition forms was too small and that it did not include customary strike-throughs to show how current law would be changed. State law requires initiative petitions to include a “readable, full, true and correct” copy of the measure." Hard to say how it will go if it makes it to the State SC. I imagine them saying "Well, the people voted for this, and we like it, so it stands" but it's too early to say.

https://www.kirklandreporter.com/news/king-county-approves-gun-warning-sign-requirement/
The warning sign thing is a bit silly, but some of the other stuff is pretty reasonable. I have no doubt it'll get challenged, but whatever. The authorization to purchase a semi-automatic long gun is actually something I through out a while back. I'd limit it to large caliber ammunition, though. I thought it a fair compromise (though our boss in Fairfax would certainly have it nixed).

With regards to what the gun store owner said, I'd now change the required warning signs to read "The odds of your weapon being used in crime, accidental shooting, or suicide are far greater than the odds of you using it to kill a bad guy."  :biggrin:
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Cool Chris on November 21, 2018, 12:18:26 PM
With regards to what the gun store owner said, I'd now change the required warning signs to read "The odds of your weapon being used in crime, accidental shooting, or suicide are far greater than the odds of you using it to kill a bad guy."  :biggrin:

No doubt, but kidding aside, I am fearful we are moving in the direction of people who would not otherwise consider owning firearms moving in that direction due to a (real or perceived) increase in crime and lack of authorities handling it. We can't let our society go to the point of the common citizen thinking "the cops and city hall aren't going to protect me, so I'm going to do what I can to protect myself."
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on November 21, 2018, 12:49:54 PM
With regards to what the gun store owner said, I'd now change the required warning signs to read "The odds of your weapon being used in crime, accidental shooting, or suicide are far greater than the odds of you using it to kill a bad guy."  :biggrin:

No doubt, but kidding aside, I am fearful we are moving in the direction of people who would not otherwise consider owning firearms moving in that direction due to a (real or perceived) increase in crime and lack of authorities handling it. We can't let our society go to the point of the common citizen thinking "the cops and city hall aren't going to protect me, so I'm going to do what I can to protect myself."


Well, I can't speak for everyone, but there are large numbers of our society, specifically minorities, who, often correctly, assume authorities will not protect them.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: gmillerdrake on November 21, 2018, 01:03:38 PM
With regards to what the gun store owner said, I'd now change the required warning signs to read "The odds of your weapon being used in crime, accidental shooting, or suicide are far greater than the odds of you using it to kill a bad guy."  :biggrin:

No doubt, but kidding aside, I am fearful we are moving in the direction of people who would not otherwise consider owning firearms moving in that direction due to a (real or perceived) increase in crime and lack of authorities handling it. We can't let our society go to the point of the common citizen thinking "the cops and city hall aren't going to protect me, so I'm going to do what I can to protect myself."
[/b]

Well...specifically the officers.....the odds of them being there in the off chance I'd need them to be there to protect me or my family are extremely low. I have a CCW just for that fact.

 The Police won't be in my car with me if someone tries to car jack me when I'm parking for a Cardinals game......they won't be there if I'm accosted by a group or individual when walking back to my car with my family in the mall parking lot. They aren't going to be there if someone breaks into my home and tries to either harm me or my family.

They'll do the grunt work in the aftermath but in the moment they simply won't be there to protect you.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: bosk1 on November 21, 2018, 01:24:33 PM
The Police won't be in my car with me if someone tries to car jack me when I'm parking for a Cardinals game...

And, to go off on a brief tangent, Busch Stadium is REALLY cool.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on November 21, 2018, 08:37:12 PM
With regards to what the gun store owner said, I'd now change the required warning signs to read "The odds of your weapon being used in crime, accidental shooting, or suicide are far greater than the odds of you using it to kill a bad guy."  :biggrin:

No doubt, but kidding aside, I am fearful we are moving in the direction of people who would not otherwise consider owning firearms moving in that direction due to a (real or perceived) increase in crime and lack of authorities handling it. We can't let our society go to the point of the common citizen thinking "the cops and city hall aren't going to protect me, so I'm going to do what I can to protect myself."


Well, I can't speak for everyone, but there are large numbers of our society, specifically minorities, who, often correctly, assume authorities will not protect them.

"Correctly"?   Who says "correctly", and more importantly "when"? 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on November 21, 2018, 09:06:31 PM
Lots of people say correctly. It's a commonly used word. Often.  :-*
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Cool Chris on February 01, 2019, 10:54:50 AM
This is curious....

https://www.krem.com/article/news/politics/chelan-co-sheriff-joins-ozzie-knezovich-others-opposed-to-i-1639/293-beb89b25-cce3-4150-821e-2e6a6c1b7c2b

WA recently passed an initiative related to gun purchases/ownership. I am not a gun owner so I didn't read all the details in this initiative, and there are many. Being a very "progressive" state (well, Seattle is anyway, and by virtue of population, this initiative passed pretty handily. Of course there are legal challenges to the initiative, and some small town authorities are not going to enforce it within their jurisdiction, ironically liking their area to a "sanctuary" as more liberal cities/states have with regards to other legislation, particularly immigration enforcement.

Humor aside, this makes me think of EB's frequent posts about how some cities/states are placing so many restrictions on abortion that make it nearly legal only in name. Are we going to see gun legislation tip so far that the right to bear arms has so many restrictions on it that it becomes such a limited right?
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on February 01, 2019, 12:00:53 PM
This is curious....

https://www.krem.com/article/news/politics/chelan-co-sheriff-joins-ozzie-knezovich-others-opposed-to-i-1639/293-beb89b25-cce3-4150-821e-2e6a6c1b7c2b

WA recently passed an initiative related to gun purchases/ownership. I am not a gun owner so I didn't read all the details in this initiative, and there are many. Being a very "progressive" state (well, Seattle is anyway, and by virtue of population, this initiative passed pretty handily. Of course there are legal challenges to the initiative, and some small town authorities are not going to enforce it within their jurisdiction, ironically liking their area to a "sanctuary" as more liberal cities/states have with regards to other legislation, particularly immigration enforcement.

Humor aside, this makes me think of EB's frequent posts about how some cities/states are placing so many restrictions on abortion that make it nearly legal only in name. Are we going to see gun legislation tip so far that the right to bear arms has so many restrictions on it that it becomes such a limited right?
It's a valid point, but I think the same obstacle applies to both. My most recent post re abortion (and I'd hardly say they're frequent  :lol) was about Indiana as a counterpoint to New York. So long as we're only looking at it at the state level there will be states where abortions are de facto1 illegal and guns are abundant and easy to obtain, and other states where you can't but a gun but can ruthlessly murder your child2 whenever you wish.

In the real world, this court will likely shoot down many of the provisions you're talking about, so I wouldn't be too concerned about WA. When the SCOTUS signs off on no abortions after six weeks it wouldn't surprise me to see an attempt to pass a federal law stating same. So for now, both sides get some solace from state's rights, but as I (in this case frequently) have pointed out state's rights is only a thing when you like the right, so what the future holds is a big question.


1That one's for Metty
2This one's for Bosk
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: bosk1 on February 01, 2019, 12:04:17 PM
I feel the love.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on February 02, 2019, 06:36:10 PM
Next time someone poo-poohs the idea of a "slippery slope", the notion of "sanctuary" as simply a means to defy the law should be your example.  Now, whenever someone or some entity decides "hey, I don't like that!" it's deemed a "sanctuary" for that law. 

That's not what laws are; they're not an "option" from which we get "sanctuary".     
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on February 27, 2019, 03:37:32 PM
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

And then there's this asshole:
Quote from: Steve Scalise
I'm proud to work with the NRA to oppose these gun control bills they are bringing to the Capitol – HR 8 and HR 1112
SMH
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on February 27, 2019, 04:09:41 PM
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

Don't misunderstand, I have no beef with this generally (even if I find it woefully irrelevant to solve the problem of school and workplace violence in our society) but this attempt to close the gunshow loophole... seems to create as many loopholes as it closes.   Does this stop Sandy Hook?   Parkland?   
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on February 27, 2019, 04:41:16 PM
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

Don't misunderstand, I have no beef with this generally (even if I find it woefully irrelevant to solve the problem of school and workplace violence in our society) but this attempt to close the gunshow loophole... seems to create as many loopholes as it closes.   Does this stop Sandy Hook?   Parkland?
Nope. They'd still happen, and others like them will happen. And that means precisely dick.

And ironically, the loopholes were probably added at the behest of the republican co-sponsors who chickened out when it actually came time to vote for the thing.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Chino on February 28, 2019, 06:16:23 AM
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

Don't misunderstand, I have no beef with this generally (even if I find it woefully irrelevant to solve the problem of school and workplace violence in our society) but this attempt to close the gunshow loophole... seems to create as many loopholes as it closes.   Does this stop Sandy Hook?   Parkland?

Drunk driving laws don't stop all instances of drunk driving and deaths related them, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 28, 2019, 07:34:56 AM
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

I have zero argument with anything specified here. I don't know how much more 'common sense' you can get with it? I think any and every law abiding gun owner will not have an issue with simple measures like this. The unfortunate thing is I don't think any law out there would have stopped a large chunk of these shooters.

The Sandy Hook kid use a weapon that was just laying around his mom's house. That vegas shooter for all intents and purposes was 'law abiding'. Now this recent dude in Chicago did have his gun rights revoked but there was no follow up or verification that he didn't have a weapon.

I guess my point is one that's been made a hundred times.....if someone gets it in their head to shoot up the local supermarket.....they're going to no matter what law is in place.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Chino on February 28, 2019, 07:42:35 AM
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

I have zero argument with anything specified here. I don't know how much more 'common sense' you can get with it? I think any and every law abiding gun owner will not have an issue with simple measures like this. The unfortunate thing is I don't think any law out there would have stopped a large chunk of these shooters.


I direct you to the comment section of this article.

https://www.infowars.com/house-passes-sweeping-gun-legislation-to-expand-background-checks-to-cover-virtually-all-sales/



Keep your eye on it throughout the day. I'm sure there will be plenty more gems like this:

Quote
This is it where you decide to die for your rights or you fold like a wimp. If they come to your door to get your gun which they surely will you must do all you can to kill just one of the tyrants who comes to your door and be prepared to die. If we all manage to kill just one of the tyrants we win because our army is so much bigger than theirs.

I know we can't prevent the mass events like Vegas or Sandy Hook, but I wouldn't mind keeping guns out of the hands of that guy. I know the law won't allow that, but personally, that post alone would be enough justification for me to deem that person not mentally sound enough to possess a firearm.

Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 28, 2019, 08:23:53 AM
I direct you to the comment section of this article.

https://www.infowars.com/house-passes-sweeping-gun-legislation-to-expand-background-checks-to-cover-virtually-all-sales/

Keep your eye on it throughout the day. I'm sure there will be plenty more gems like this:

Quote
This is it where you decide to die for your rights or you fold like a wimp. If they come to your door to get your gun which they surely will you must do all you can to kill just one of the tyrants who comes to your door and be prepared to die. If we all manage to kill just one of the tyrants we win because our army is so much bigger than theirs.

I know we can't prevent the mass events like Vegas or Sandy Hook, but I wouldn't mind keeping guns out of the hands of that guy. I know the law won't allow that, but personally, that post alone would be enough justification for me to deem that person not mentally sound enough to possess a firearm.

Ugh. I totally get where you're coming from. Being (what I consider) a 'responsible' gun owner.....comments like this are tough to listen to. Freaking sucks.

Locally, last week.....a man and his wife were car jacked at a supermarket at 11:15 in the morning. Car Jacker just walked up to them in the parking lot while they were loading their car and demanded the keys and took the car. So....as the car jacker drives away in this guys car the car jack victim takes out his gun and proceeds to fire 4 rounds at the dude.

What the holy  :censored   You have to be kidding me. Not only are you shooting at your car and possibly damaging it.....you're haphazardly firing across a parking lot to where anyone of those bullets could strike an innocent bystander. In order to use deadly force in Missouri you have to have a 'fear for your life or the lives of loved ones'. A car jacker fleeing in your car does not give you the right to fire off a few rounds. Maybe if he'd tried to run you over....but even then you're outside and a stray shot could hurt someone.

I haven't read if they've charged that guy with unlawful use of a weapon or something like that but I'd revoke his right to carry in a heartbeat. Just idiotic and it adds to a negative perception of gun owners.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on February 28, 2019, 08:25:56 AM
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

I have zero argument with anything specified here. I don't know how much more 'common sense' you can get with it? I think any and every law abiding gun owner will not have an issue with simple measures like this. The unfortunate thing is I don't think any law out there would have stopped a large chunk of these shooters.

The Sandy Hook kid use a weapon that was just laying around his mom's house. That vegas shooter for all intents and purposes was 'law abiding'. Now this recent dude in Chicago did have his gun rights revoked but there was no follow up or verification that he didn't have a weapon.

I guess my point is one that's been made a hundred times.....if someone gets it in their head to shoot up the local supermarket.....they're going to no matter what law is in place.
The secret service accepted this as an axiom years ago. If a bad guy is determined enough there's nothing they can do to stop him. Their role is to make it difficult enough that he won't want to try. A parallel to this is that the more difficult they make it the greater the likelihood that he slips up along the way. Could a shooter still obtain weapons illegally? Sure, but there's also a possibility that he gets busted buying them in a back alley from a known gangster. Or gets pulled over for speeding along the way and is questioned about the guns in his car. Isn't this how McVey got busted?
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 28, 2019, 08:35:16 AM
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

I have zero argument with anything specified here. I don't know how much more 'common sense' you can get with it? I think any and every law abiding gun owner will not have an issue with simple measures like this. The unfortunate thing is I don't think any law out there would have stopped a large chunk of these shooters.

The Sandy Hook kid use a weapon that was just laying around his mom's house. That vegas shooter for all intents and purposes was 'law abiding'. Now this recent dude in Chicago did have his gun rights revoked but there was no follow up or verification that he didn't have a weapon.

I guess my point is one that's been made a hundred times.....if someone gets it in their head to shoot up the local supermarket.....they're going to no matter what law is in place.
The secret service accepted this as an axiom years ago. If a bad guy is determined enough there's nothing they can do to stop him. Their role is to make it difficult enough that he won't want to try. A parallel to this is that the more difficult they make it the greater the likelihood that he slips up along the way. Could a shooter still obtain weapons illegally? Sure, but there's also a possibility that he gets busted buying them in a back alley from a known gangster. Or gets pulled over for speeding along the way and is questioned about the guns in his car. Isn't this how McVey got busted?

Oh I  understand that.....I'm speaking more to the contingent of people out there that truly believe should we have much more strict gun laws that shootings (etc) will just go away. Because there are people out there who believe that.

Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on February 28, 2019, 08:41:32 AM
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

I have zero argument with anything specified here. I don't know how much more 'common sense' you can get with it? I think any and every law abiding gun owner will not have an issue with simple measures like this. The unfortunate thing is I don't think any law out there would have stopped a large chunk of these shooters.

The Sandy Hook kid use a weapon that was just laying around his mom's house. That vegas shooter for all intents and purposes was 'law abiding'. Now this recent dude in Chicago did have his gun rights revoked but there was no follow up or verification that he didn't have a weapon.

I guess my point is one that's been made a hundred times.....if someone gets it in their head to shoot up the local supermarket.....they're going to no matter what law is in place.
The secret service accepted this as an axiom years ago. If a bad guy is determined enough there's nothing they can do to stop him. Their role is to make it difficult enough that he won't want to try. A parallel to this is that the more difficult they make it the greater the likelihood that he slips up along the way. Could a shooter still obtain weapons illegally? Sure, but there's also a possibility that he gets busted buying them in a back alley from a known gangster. Or gets pulled over for speeding along the way and is questioned about the guns in his car. Isn't this how McVey got busted?

Oh I  understand that.....I'm speaking more to the contingent of people out there that truly believe should we have much more strict gun laws that shootings (etc) will just go away. Because there are people out there who believe that.
I disregard those people. There are plenty who feel that we should all have as many guns as possible for when the ghost of Janet Reno comes to the door to seize their weapons. Like the first group they're in the fringes. Both are unworthy of consideration in my book. My concern is over a fucking US congressman who claims pride in being a roadblock on behalf of the NRA, over an idea that something like 90% of people support.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on February 28, 2019, 09:51:55 AM
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

Don't misunderstand, I have no beef with this generally (even if I find it woefully irrelevant to solve the problem of school and workplace violence in our society) but this attempt to close the gunshow loophole... seems to create as many loopholes as it closes.   Does this stop Sandy Hook?   Parkland?

Drunk driving laws don't stop all instances of drunk driving and deaths related them, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

Except that many of the gun control measures aren't "good not great" fixes to "reduce harm not eliminate it".  Drunk driving is not a good analogy, because there aren't other drunks thinking "oh, there are less people out there driving drunk, therefore my drunkenness will be more effective".     There are legitimate studies (including one conducted by Harvard) that have shown that in some instances, gun control measures have INCREASED the harm.  In Australia, for example (the best the Harvard study could do is to say that the impact on improved metrics was "inconclusive" at best, and likely attributable to other measures taken in the wake of an initial erosion of metrics following the passing of the ban.)

Look, I've no beef with background checks - assuming they cover the right metrics - as I think there will ultimately be a benefit to society independent of the gun issue.   I also think that creating a database in the event that there is a catastrophe is ultimately a good thing.  But if anyone thinks that school shootings are going to decrease because if this, well, I have a long lost Hendrix album I want to sell you.  No seriously, he gave it to me when I met him in '69. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 28, 2019, 10:11:48 AM
Along with these seemingly common sense laws I firmly believe that there should be a National Conceal Carry license available to obtain to allow 'me' permissions to carry anywhere.... Strict background check(s)....large enough fee to where only the 'serious' people would consider it.....whatever it takes. I don't even care if I had to 'register' or whatever. I just want the ability to carry my weapon into any establishment, amusement park, Sporting event....wherever.

I still do it anyway in Missouri because of the language in the Conceal Carry law.....it's not a 'criminal act' if I am found to be carrying in the locations that display 'no weapons'. I would just be asked to leave...if I refused then the police would step in and if I continued to be a dick about it my carry license would be revoked.

But, places like concert events, sports....etc are adding metal detectors.....which I understand.....but I do not go to these events any longer due to the fact that I can't carry into them.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on February 28, 2019, 10:14:23 AM
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

Don't misunderstand, I have no beef with this generally (even if I find it woefully irrelevant to solve the problem of school and workplace violence in our society) but this attempt to close the gunshow loophole... seems to create as many loopholes as it closes.   Does this stop Sandy Hook?   Parkland?

Drunk driving laws don't stop all instances of drunk driving and deaths related them, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

Except that many of the gun control measures aren't "good not great" fixes to "reduce harm not eliminate it".  Drunk driving is not a good analogy, because there aren't other drunks thinking "oh, there are less people out there driving drunk, therefore my drunkenness will be more effective".     There are legitimate studies (including one conducted by Harvard) that have shown that in some instances, gun control measures have INCREASED the harm.  In Australia, for example (the best the Harvard study could do is to say that the impact on improved metrics was "inconclusive" at best, and likely attributable to other measures taken in the wake of an initial erosion of metrics following the passing of the ban.)

Look, I've no beef with background checks - assuming they cover the right metrics - as I think there will ultimately be a benefit to society independent of the gun issue.   I also think that creating a database in the event that there is a catastrophe is ultimately a good thing.  But if anyone thinks that school shootings are going to decrease because if this, well, I have a long lost Hendrix album I want to sell you.  No seriously, he gave it to me when I met him in '69. 
That's just it. Plenty of us aren't looking at it from the school shootings side. As much as you hate it, I look at managing who can and cannot buy guns as common fucking sense. This isn't rocket surgery. Taking reasonable steps to try and prevent bad actors from purchasing guns should be pretty obvious. Just because it won't cure all of the nation's ills doesn't make it any less reasonable.

And while I find the "gun control reduces safety" argument specious, it's not really relevant here anyway. This proposal doesn't stop anymore good people from buying guns than the existing laws.

And lastly, if we can't even agree to make everybody submit to a background check, how could we possibly agree to fix the problem of background check failures? What we're seeing aren't instances of good people being denied purchase. We're seeing bad actors being allowed purchase. Another problem ~90% of people agree we need to resolve. Do you really think that shitbags like Steve Scalise want to solve that problem if they don't even want background checks in the first place? Again, my point in posting this wasn't to argue that we need better background checks. We all know that already and nobody seems to disagree. My point was to highlight one particular piece of shit who's proud to obstruct obvious and benign measures to do so.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on February 28, 2019, 10:19:58 AM
Along with these seemingly common sense laws I firmly believe that there should be a National Conceal Carry license available to obtain to allow 'me' permissions to carry anywhere.... Strict background check(s)....large enough fee to where only the 'serious' people would consider it.....whatever it takes. I don't even care if I had to 'register' or whatever. I just want the ability to carry my weapon into any establishment, amusement park, Sporting event....wherever.
This is where you and I part ways. If a state doesn't want concealed carry then that's their right. The federal government stepping in and insisting to the contrary flies against everything republicans are supposed to stand for, and in this case me too. Just because Alabama will allow a blind ninety year old felon to carry a weapon doesn't mean that New Jersey has to let him.

Also, this is the very reason I started this thread, as seen in the very first post.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 28, 2019, 10:38:39 AM
Yeah. Just re read those first few pages. Haven’t really changed my opinion on what I stated then.....
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on February 28, 2019, 10:56:29 AM
That's just it. Plenty of us aren't looking at it from the school shootings side. As much as you hate it, I look at managing who can and cannot buy guns as common fucking sense. This isn't rocket surgery. Taking reasonable steps to try and prevent bad actors from purchasing guns should be pretty obvious. Just because it won't cure all of the nation's ills doesn't make it any less reasonable.

And while I find the "gun control reduces safety" argument specious, it's not really relevant here anyway. This proposal doesn't stop anymore good people from buying guns than the existing laws.

And lastly, if we can't even agree to make everybody submit to a background check, how could we possibly agree to fix the problem of background check failures? What we're seeing aren't instances of good people being denied purchase. We're seeing bad actors being allowed purchase. Another problem ~90% of people agree we need to resolve. Do you really think that shitbags like Steve Scalise want to solve that problem if they don't even want background checks in the first place? Again, my point in posting this wasn't to argue that we need better background checks. We all know that already and nobody seems to disagree. My point was to highlight one particular piece of shit who's proud to obstruct obvious and benign measures to do so.

But that's not the way it's playing out on the ground.  First, with the reminder of what I think about "common sense" (it's a euphemism for "I want this and I can't really articulate a good reason why beyond that I want this"), and second, I regret using "school shootings", and should have used "mass killings" or something more broad.   But with that, what's the point here?   Why limit that access if it's not keeping people alive/safe?   Honest question:  are you assuming that Mr. Las Vegas would have been screened out because of this? If not, who would and what is the gain? 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on February 28, 2019, 11:11:21 AM
That's just it. Plenty of us aren't looking at it from the school shootings side. As much as you hate it, I look at managing who can and cannot buy guns as common fucking sense. This isn't rocket surgery. Taking reasonable steps to try and prevent bad actors from purchasing guns should be pretty obvious. Just because it won't cure all of the nation's ills doesn't make it any less reasonable.

And while I find the "gun control reduces safety" argument specious, it's not really relevant here anyway. This proposal doesn't stop anymore good people from buying guns than the existing laws.

And lastly, if we can't even agree to make everybody submit to a background check, how could we possibly agree to fix the problem of background check failures? What we're seeing aren't instances of good people being denied purchase. We're seeing bad actors being allowed purchase. Another problem ~90% of people agree we need to resolve. Do you really think that shitbags like Steve Scalise want to solve that problem if they don't even want background checks in the first place? Again, my point in posting this wasn't to argue that we need better background checks. We all know that already and nobody seems to disagree. My point was to highlight one particular piece of shit who's proud to obstruct obvious and benign measures to do so.

But that's not the way it's playing out on the ground.  First, with the reminder of what I think about "common sense" (it's a euphemism for "I want this and I can't really articulate a good reason why beyond that I want this"), and second, I regret using "school shootings", and should have used "mass killings" or something more broad.   But with that, what's the point here?   Why limit that access if it's not keeping people alive/safe?   Honest question:  are you assuming that Mr. Las Vegas would have been screened out because of this? If not, who would and what is the gain?
I don't get it. Are you actually trying to say there's no reason to prohibit wife beaters, violent felons, and crazy fucks from buying guns? That seems to be the logic of your question. In any case, something that gets overlooked here is that what we're looking for isn't inherently quantifiable. We have no means of calculating how many shootings haven't happened in California because of their overtly fascist gun control laws. It creates an obstacle to a class of bad actors to overcome. That's what actually matters.

As to Vegas Shooter, wasn't he a FFL holder? In any case, no, it most likely wouldn't have stopped him. There's a possibility he gets nicked for something gun related before he goes off, but that's admittedly a crapshoot. However, my stance on people like him has always been shit happens. We're never going to prevent people like him. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to discourage or hinder him in some way.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on February 28, 2019, 11:44:08 AM
That's just it. Plenty of us aren't looking at it from the school shootings side. As much as you hate it, I look at managing who can and cannot buy guns as common fucking sense. This isn't rocket surgery. Taking reasonable steps to try and prevent bad actors from purchasing guns should be pretty obvious. Just because it won't cure all of the nation's ills doesn't make it any less reasonable.

And while I find the "gun control reduces safety" argument specious, it's not really relevant here anyway. This proposal doesn't stop anymore good people from buying guns than the existing laws.

And lastly, if we can't even agree to make everybody submit to a background check, how could we possibly agree to fix the problem of background check failures? What we're seeing aren't instances of good people being denied purchase. We're seeing bad actors being allowed purchase. Another problem ~90% of people agree we need to resolve. Do you really think that shitbags like Steve Scalise want to solve that problem if they don't even want background checks in the first place? Again, my point in posting this wasn't to argue that we need better background checks. We all know that already and nobody seems to disagree. My point was to highlight one particular piece of shit who's proud to obstruct obvious and benign measures to do so.

But that's not the way it's playing out on the ground.  First, with the reminder of what I think about "common sense" (it's a euphemism for "I want this and I can't really articulate a good reason why beyond that I want this"), and second, I regret using "school shootings", and should have used "mass killings" or something more broad.   But with that, what's the point here?   Why limit that access if it's not keeping people alive/safe?   Honest question:  are you assuming that Mr. Las Vegas would have been screened out because of this? If not, who would and what is the gain?
I don't get it. Are you actually trying to say there's no reason to prohibit wife beaters, violent felons, and crazy fucks from buying guns? That seems to be the logic of your question. In any case, something that gets overlooked here is that what we're looking for isn't inherently quantifiable. We have no means of calculating how many shootings haven't happened in California because of their overtly fascist gun control laws. It creates an obstacle to a class of bad actors to overcome. That's what actually matters.

Well, no, that's not what I'm saying, but I don't think the Parkland kids are on the cover of Time Magazine (I'm assuming they were on the cover; I don't read it) for protecting abused spouses.   (And I need not say, because I think you agree with this, that there shouldn't be too many absolute deal breakers; it ought to be a totality of the evidence).   

I don't disagree with you if you're taking the "Secret Service" approach from above; but in this instance, the "slippery slope" argument DOES apply to a degree.  If this law passes and there's a school shooting two weeks later, you know full well the call will be "we didn't do enough!" and the Parkland kids will be back at it. 

Quote
As to Vegas Shooter, wasn't he a FFL holder? In any case, no, it most likely wouldn't have stopped him. There's a possibility he gets nicked for something gun related before he goes off, but that's admittedly a crapshoot. However, my stance on people like him has always been shit happens. We're never going to prevent people like him. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to discourage or hinder him in some way.

Don't disagree.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on February 28, 2019, 12:20:15 PM
That's just it. Plenty of us aren't looking at it from the school shootings side. As much as you hate it, I look at managing who can and cannot buy guns as common fucking sense. This isn't rocket surgery. Taking reasonable steps to try and prevent bad actors from purchasing guns should be pretty obvious. Just because it won't cure all of the nation's ills doesn't make it any less reasonable.

And while I find the "gun control reduces safety" argument specious, it's not really relevant here anyway. This proposal doesn't stop anymore good people from buying guns than the existing laws.

And lastly, if we can't even agree to make everybody submit to a background check, how could we possibly agree to fix the problem of background check failures? What we're seeing aren't instances of good people being denied purchase. We're seeing bad actors being allowed purchase. Another problem ~90% of people agree we need to resolve. Do you really think that shitbags like Steve Scalise want to solve that problem if they don't even want background checks in the first place? Again, my point in posting this wasn't to argue that we need better background checks. We all know that already and nobody seems to disagree. My point was to highlight one particular piece of shit who's proud to obstruct obvious and benign measures to do so.

But that's not the way it's playing out on the ground.  First, with the reminder of what I think about "common sense" (it's a euphemism for "I want this and I can't really articulate a good reason why beyond that I want this"), and second, I regret using "school shootings", and should have used "mass killings" or something more broad.   But with that, what's the point here?   Why limit that access if it's not keeping people alive/safe?   Honest question:  are you assuming that Mr. Las Vegas would have been screened out because of this? If not, who would and what is the gain?
I don't get it. Are you actually trying to say there's no reason to prohibit wife beaters, violent felons, and crazy fucks from buying guns? That seems to be the logic of your question. In any case, something that gets overlooked here is that what we're looking for isn't inherently quantifiable. We have no means of calculating how many shootings haven't happened in California because of their overtly fascist gun control laws. It creates an obstacle to a class of bad actors to overcome. That's what actually matters.

Well, no, that's not what I'm saying, but I don't think the Parkland kids are on the cover of Time Magazine (I'm assuming they were on the cover; I don't read it) for protecting abused spouses.   (And I need not say, because I think you agree with this, that there shouldn't be too many absolute deal breakers; it ought to be a totality of the evidence).   

I don't disagree with you if you're taking the "Secret Service" approach from above; but in this instance, the "slippery slope" argument DOES apply to a degree.  If this law passes and there's a school shooting two weeks later, you know full well the call will be "we didn't do enough!" and the Parkland kids will be back at it. 

Quote
As to Vegas Shooter, wasn't he a FFL holder? In any case, no, it most likely wouldn't have stopped him. There's a possibility he gets nicked for something gun related before he goes off, but that's admittedly a crapshoot. However, my stance on people like him has always been shit happens. We're never going to prevent people like him. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to discourage or hinder him in some way.

Don't disagree.
So what? If they do and they foster another proposal then we'll evaluate it on its own merits, just like we should be doing with this proposal. I haven't seen any discussion on merits here. I've seen "it wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook" and I've seen "because the NRA said so, that's why!" I've seen one guy point out that it'll make criminals out of law abiding gun owners but with no explanation for how or why. If he's got the stones to actually stand behind that statement I'll try and find it. I'm genuinely curious.

And flip the tables around. If this happened and there were another school shooting next week, what would Scalise say? "It was pointless and didn't do what it was supposed to." I would consider that a specious argument, far more so than the Parkland kids', and I certainly wouldn't consider it anything with any bearing whatsoever on this particular law.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on February 28, 2019, 03:50:11 PM
I won't argue with you on Scalise; though you have to give him credit of a sort.  He's LITERALLY taken a bullet for the NRA on this one.  I don't support his inflexibility, but I do admire his not claiming the moral high ground while making his specious arguments. 

I'm more than willing to discuss merits.  On this particular subject, though, it goes nowhere.   I've posted the Harvard article that showed that increased law enforcement and other social programs helped curb crime and (begin to) reduce gun deaths, and it went nowhere.   It's the same sort of argument "well, even if there's a chance it would help, why not do it?"  Well, because it's a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, that's why.  If Trump argued "well, free speech is cool and all, but we could stop all the bickering if we just stopped some people from saying shit. Even if there's a chance, why not do it?"    I've posted the correlation between the large scale mass violence events and the states with the harshest gun laws, and it went nowhere.  "ALL states have to have them the same strength if you want it to work", which is partly true, except, it's not really.   Adam Lanza was not capable of going to the next town to get his guns, let alone to a state halfway across the union.   Stephen what's his name actually brought the guns from a STRICTER jurisdiction into the more LAX jurisdiction.  Florida is, well, Florida, so there's that.

The only statistic consistently shown to actually improve - with a high correlation - to banning or more strictly controlling access to guns is suicide.   For whatever reason, people who get the bright idea to blow their heads off aren't keen on hanging, pills or other means.   If they don't have a gun they tend to not bother. 

EDIT: I wrote this quickly and while dinner is cooking/burning; any short-temperedness or snarkiness is certainly not intended.   
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: bosk1 on February 28, 2019, 04:11:02 PM
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

Sorry, didn't check the thread. 

No problem with any of that.  My state still goes farther than any of that, which I think is nonsense.  But I have no problem with those restrictions.  Those seem perfectly reasonable to me.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on February 28, 2019, 04:30:37 PM
I won't argue with you on Scalise; though you have to give him credit of a sort.  He's LITERALLY taken a bullet for the NRA on this one.  I don't support his inflexibility, but I do admire his not claiming the moral high ground while making his specious arguments. 

I'm more than willing to discuss merits.  On this particular subject, though, it goes nowhere.   I've posted the Harvard article that showed that increased law enforcement and other social programs helped curb crime and (begin to) reduce gun deaths, and it went nowhere.   It's the same sort of argument "well, even if there's a chance it would help, why not do it?"  Well, because it's a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, that's why.  If Trump argued "well, free speech is cool and all, but we could stop all the bickering if we just stopped some people from saying shit. Even if there's a chance, why not do it?"    I've posted the correlation between the large scale mass violence events and the states with the harshest gun laws, and it went nowhere.  "ALL states have to have them the same strength if you want it to work", which is partly true, except, it's not really.   Adam Lanza was not capable of going to the next town to get his guns, let alone to a state halfway across the union.   Stephen what's his name actually brought the guns from a STRICTER jurisdiction into the more LAX jurisdiction.  Florida is, well, Florida, so there's that.

The only statistic consistently shown to actually improve - with a high correlation - to banning or more strictly controlling access to guns is suicide.   For whatever reason, people who get the bright idea to blow their heads off aren't keen on hanging, pills or other means.   If they don't have a gun they tend to not bother. 

EDIT: I wrote this quickly and while dinner is cooking/burning; any short-temperedness or snarkiness is certainly not intended.
The merits discussion I was referring to, or in this case lack thereof, was from our representatives. We can discuss these things. From what I've seen they're forbidden from discussing them.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: XeRocks81 on March 16, 2019, 05:19:32 PM
I guess everybody is so sick of this discussion to even talk about NZ, eh?   Can't say I disagree,  it's just so horrible what else there is there to say really, other than as these events keep happening the focus seems to be shifting more and more around radicalisation (through youtube, social media etc.) than guns themselves.   Progress?
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on March 16, 2019, 06:20:38 PM
I guess everybody is so sick of this discussion to even talk about NZ, eh?   Can't say I disagree,  it's just so horrible what else there is there to say really, other than as these events keep happening the focus seems to be shifting more and more around radicalisation (through youtube, social media etc.) than guns themselves.   Progress?

Well Trump recently said he doesn't think White Nationalists are a problem. While a lawmaker in Australia said that, while violence is bad, this is mostly because New Zealand has so many Muslims.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: MirrorMask on March 17, 2019, 03:52:23 AM
I guess everybody is so sick of this discussion to even talk about NZ, eh?   Can't say I disagree,  it's just so horrible what else there is there to say really, other than as these events keep happening the focus seems to be shifting more and more around radicalisation (through youtube, social media etc.) than guns themselves.   Progress?

I admit I'm ignorant about the gun laws in New Zeleand, but I assume that not each and everyone can have them even before they're allowed to drink or drive. So there's a difference between a white supremacist and bigot racist making for the first time in a country history a terrorist attack of this magnitude, and the fifth random kid of the month and 40th since the beginning of the year that shoot his classmates.

Guns are criticized when they're easily avalaible for the random persons. No one blames guns in Italy when organized crime such as the mafia or the camorra do their killing, because the point is that they're criminals. They would be criticized if they were avalaible for any random person and, for example, the rate of school shootings would be way higher than what it is today, which is 0.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: TAC on March 17, 2019, 08:32:24 AM
The fuck?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/missouri-lawmaker-files-bills-requiring-some-residents-to-own-ar-15s-handguns/ar-BBURzRk?li=BBnbfcL
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: gmillerdrake on March 17, 2019, 09:02:24 AM
The fuck?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/missouri-lawmaker-files-bills-requiring-some-residents-to-own-ar-15s-handguns/ar-BBURzRk?li=BBnbfcL
Sweet. Been wanting to get one but can’t convince my wife to let me spend the cash on it. Now I’d just have to say I’d be breaking the law if I didn’t get one.  :lol

Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: TAC on March 17, 2019, 09:48:11 AM
 :lol
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: lonestar on March 18, 2019, 08:32:10 AM
:lolpalm:


Just curious, say that law actually passed, would the 2nd protect in an opposite way? Could it be used to defend the freedom not to bear arms?
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on March 18, 2019, 09:38:25 AM
I guess everybody is so sick of this discussion to even talk about NZ, eh?   Can't say I disagree,  it's just so horrible what else there is there to say really, other than as these events keep happening the focus seems to be shifting more and more around radicalisation (through youtube, social media etc.) than guns themselves.   Progress?

I admit I'm ignorant about the gun laws in New Zeleand, but I assume that not each and everyone can have them even before they're allowed to drink or drive. So there's a difference between a white supremacist and bigot racist making for the first time in a country history a terrorist attack of this magnitude, and the fifth random kid of the month and 40th since the beginning of the year that shoot his classmates.

Guns are criticized when they're easily avalaible for the random persons. No one blames guns in Italy when organized crime such as the mafia or the camorra do their killing, because the point is that they're criminals. They would be criticized if they were avalaible for any random person and, for example, the rate of school shootings would be way higher than what it is today, which is 0.

But that's incomplete.  You have to be more clear about what "available" means.  If I legally, and with a license to carry, own a firearm, and my seven year old gets it and shoots someone, that's ON ME, that's not a "legal issue" of "availability", unlike, say, someone who is 35, has a history of domestic violence, mental instability, and a felony prison record.   

I would be remiss if I didn't point out YET AGAIN that since no gun on record has ever unilaterally fired itself into a mass of people, there is also an element to which the WILL TO KILL is necessary here.   Our intentional homicide rate here in the States - independent of method or weapon - is about 5.5 out of 100,000 inhabitants, whereas New Zealand is less than 1 out of 100,000 inhabitants.

Also, suicide rate here is almost 25% higher (depending on what numbers you use) than New Zealand. 

There is an urge to kill - we can call this what you want; apathy, callousness, desperation - here that is disturbing, independent of "guns".  If we're REALLY interested in keeping people alive, we would be far more interested in why so many people want to see so many other people dead.  Sure, that's an exponentially harder question, but it at least would be honest. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on March 18, 2019, 09:42:53 AM
I could really use a gun right now, cause I agree with Stadler.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: MirrorMask on March 18, 2019, 12:55:22 PM
Sorry not sorry.

(https://scontent.fmxp6-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/53910539_2633107793448925_3971451328265191424_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_eui2=AeE1PAix9f2rnURKftNrPqm2Q5VkF7BUFhXQm9BcZKdtSKxrHO9ksqkARe6LOOTeb7nKuON2c17jWdYeNeM9QUZGswnVQSN34E1TPirb2ykUfw&_nc_ht=scontent.fmxp6-1.fna&oh=b309a6ec04370dc58142043f02157b4c&oe=5D15C628)
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on March 18, 2019, 01:17:12 PM
And that's the level of debate in our country in a nutshell.   Snark and quip. 

God forbid if rights are compromised, god forbid if the actually statistics don't match up with either the behavior or the reaction, and god forbid if lives are ACTUALLY saved.  At least we acted!   

Sorry, not sorry. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on March 18, 2019, 01:28:25 PM
And that's the level of debate in our country in a nutshell.   Snark and quip. 

God forbid if rights are compromised, god forbid if the actually statistics don't match up with either the behavior or the reaction, and god forbid if lives are ACTUALLY saved.  At least we acted tried something!   

Sorry, not sorry.

Something's actually happening, reg! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55fqjw2J1vI)
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: MirrorMask on March 18, 2019, 01:32:13 PM
Well, as sarcastic and simplicistic that image is, that's what basically thinks every country in the world which isn't named USA about the guns issue. I see it as a problem with a easy solution, and a very difficult implementation.

I mean, to make an example: what should we do with the basically non existent rights for women in Saudi Arabia? it's quite simple, stop oppressing them and let them be free. Well, D'UH. Where to even begin with that? you can' t change a country overnight.

Same with the guns in USA issue. Give or take, right or wrong, with all the superficial approach that you want, it's the opinion of every country in the world except the USA that the root problem is that it's too easy over there for anyone to have a gun. But the solving of the issue it's more difficult because you have to take into account the culture of it all, the way it's always been, even the geography and the way the cities are built - those lonely houses which are easier to reach when you do trick or treat on Halloween night (something that would look silly over here in Europe with children having to climb the stairs to reach all the apartments of high buildings, or even houses with three floors like mine), are also easier prey for burglars hence the need to be prepared for the worst, and so on.

So I won't pretend to have the road to the solution, 'cause I wouldn't know where to start. But the solution itself, it's painfully obvious to anyone else in the world. To the point that it can get summarized in a simplified and sarcastic comment.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: cramx3 on March 18, 2019, 01:41:06 PM
Same with the guns in USA issue. Give or take, right or wrong, with all the superficial approach that you want, it's the opinion of every country in the world except the USA that the root problem is that it's too easy over there for anyone to have a gun. But the solving of the issue it's more difficult because you have to take into account the culture of it all, the way it's always been, even the geography and the way the cities are built - those lonely houses which are easier to reach when you do trick or treat on Halloween night (something that would look silly over here in Europe with children having to climb the stairs to reach all the apartments of high buildings, or even houses with three floors like mine), are also easier prey for burglars hence the need to be prepared for the worst, and so on.

So I won't pretend to have the road to the solution, 'cause I wouldn't know where to start. But the solution itself, it's painfully obvious to anyone else in the world. To the point that it can get summarized in a simplified and sarcastic comment.

I think you kind of hit it with the culture of America but then you kind of miss when you say it's painfully obvious to everyone outside of America which kind of goes against the idea that the culture is the problem.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: MirrorMask on March 18, 2019, 01:46:06 PM
I didn't really think of the culture as the problem per se, it was more a concession on the terms of "I know that you just can't stop using guns overnight and that it would be silly to overlook the fact that, if you americans have guns, it's because of historical and also practical reasons " (See the "you have way more isolated houses than people in Europe, hence the major risk of being singled out for an home invasion" example).
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on March 18, 2019, 02:05:27 PM
Well, as sarcastic and simplicistic that image is, that's what basically thinks every country in the world which isn't named USA about the guns issue. I see it as a problem with a easy solution, and a very difficult implementation.

I mean, to make an example: what should we do with the basically non existent rights for women in Saudi Arabia? it's quite simple, stop oppressing them and let them be free. Well, D'UH. Where to even begin with that? you can' t change a country overnight.

Same with the guns in USA issue. Give or take, right or wrong, with all the superficial approach that you want, it's the opinion of every country in the world except the USA that the root problem is that it's too easy over there for anyone to have a gun. But the solving of the issue it's more difficult because you have to take into account the culture of it all, the way it's always been, even the geography and the way the cities are built - those lonely houses which are easier to reach when you do trick or treat on Halloween night (something that would look silly over here in Europe with children having to climb the stairs to reach all the apartments of high buildings, or even houses with three floors like mine), are also easier prey for burglars hence the need to be prepared for the worst, and so on.

So I won't pretend to have the road to the solution, 'cause I wouldn't know where to start. But the solution itself, it's painfully obvious to anyone else in the world. To the point that it can get summarized in a simplified and sarcastic comment.

But I work for a French company, and before that, I did a significant amount of work for a large American conglomerate in Europe.  If I've had the conversation once, I've had it a thousand times "Well, no, that's not how it really is when you live there."   It's NOT that easy to have a gun, at least not as easy as it's been presumed.  I've had a gun license.  I have no felonies, no convictions, no psychological events that might catch me up, and yet, it's not a given that I can get my (lapsed) license renewed.   Do you want to talk about "illegal guns"?   I might be able to get one.  Not sure, I've never tried.  But ZERO of the propositions that are regularly put forth by our politicians (my local state Senator, Chris Murphy, has made this issue his national topic) address that. 

The statistics are not what people think they are.   Sure there are a plethora of guns, but the NUMBER OF OWNERS (though each owner owns many more guns than in other countries) is consistent with Canada and many other countries.  Switzerland is a far more "gun-ready" country than America, and yet... none of the problems.

Why do we associate "mass killings" with guns, right out the gate, but ignore the extremely high rates of depression, of anti-depressant use (among women), of illegal drug use, of high suicide rates, of high television watching, porn production, etc. etc. (there are other potentially "negative" indicators that I'm just not remembering right now)?  Because "common sense"?   "Common sense" is the buzzword, the fail-safe, that we use when we can't be bothered to articulate a real argument.    The fact is, the strenuous laws in Australia did NOT lead to the intended results, and almost every study has confirmed that including the landmark Harvard study.   

We've ALWAYS had guns. We've not always wanted to kill each other (and ourselves) with such abandon.    Funny enough, one of the best possible correlators is almost universally ignored.  Look up when social media really took a foothold in America.  (I'll tell you:  '97, '98).  When was Columbine, widely recognized as the start of the "epidemic" of mass shootings, even if there were events prior to that?  (I'll tell you that too:  '98)   

Am I right?  I don't know, no idea. But it's a worthy point of discussion, and the point is, that discussion ISN'T happening, because "common sense" and "every other country says..."     
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on March 18, 2019, 02:13:13 PM
I'm still not convinced our desire to inflict pain and suffering on others is significantly greater now than in history.

It might look different, but we've always really liked the idea of other people suffering. It just is manifested in different ways in different times in history.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: cramx3 on March 18, 2019, 02:25:09 PM
I didn't really think of the culture as the problem per se, it was more a concession on the terms of "I know that you just can't stop using guns overnight and that it would be silly to overlook the fact that, if you americans have guns, it's because of historical and also practical reasons " (See the "you have way more isolated houses than people in Europe, hence the major risk of being singled out for an home invasion" example).

I know you used the culture as part of a different direction you were going, but I kind of feel our culture is the problem.  Removing guns completely might help stopping a 50 person murder, but it's not going to stop mass killings.  Such a killer will find a way to do lots of damage, such as driving a truck through times square.

I'm still not convinced our desire to inflict pain and suffering on others is significantly greater now than in history.

It might look different, but we've always really liked the idea of other people suffering. It just is manifested in different ways in different times in history.

I'm not sure if we are worse or not compared to the past in terms of being blood hungry, but I do think it's possible we are a bit more dull to it.  Not just seeing it in the news, but I shoot people in videos games most nights of the week.  We watch TVs and movies that show some really gory stuff.  The idea that 50 people were shot up, just doesn't even shock me anymore.  This recent guy live streamed the whole thing, my friend got the video and was sharing it in our group chat.  I couldn't comprehend why.  Why do people WANT to watch this?  I didn't watch and that link got taken down, my friend later said he felt pretty wrong about watching it and sharing.  Like how fucked up have we become?
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on March 18, 2019, 02:54:05 PM
Again, I don't we're any more screwed up than we have been. We're a people (universally speaking) that have spent much of history in one war or another, and that (among a ton of other examples) used to gather in masses and cheer as people were publicly executed. It's not gotten really worse, just different in how we express it. We're not at war as much as we were. We can't just go around killing people and get away with it like we used to back in the day. So it comes out as it does now.

Actually, in thinking about this, maybe one thing that HAS changed is that we're aware of how messed up it is. That might be a good sign, believe it or not.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on March 18, 2019, 03:21:24 PM
Again, I don't we're any more screwed up than we have been. We're a people (universally speaking) that have spent much of history in one war or another, and that (among a ton of other examples) used to gather in masses and cheer as people were publicly executed. It's not gotten really worse, just different in how we express it. We're not at war as much as we were. We can't just go around killing people and get away with it like we used to back in the day. So it comes out as it does now.

Actually, in thinking about this, maybe one thing that HAS changed is that we're aware of how messed up it is. That might be a good sign, believe it or not.
That's an intriguing point.

One thing that seems different, though, is that we're content to kill each other without the pretext. While killing has always been a point of interest, it was usually prefaced on some strange sense of justice, territorial needs, fear, profit, or some other perceived need. Now it's pretty much just something someone does when they don't have a better idea. Seems to me it might be that lack of a socially agreeable pretext which is the reason people are upset about the modern disregard for life.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on March 18, 2019, 03:28:03 PM
And that might be a good sign as well. We're moving away, (slowly) as a society (Western Society at least) from a culture that uses violence whenever, putting the natural urges onto the individual. So it's becoming more individualistic and less group based.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: XeRocks81 on March 18, 2019, 03:35:00 PM
Again, I don't we're any more screwed up than we have been. We're a people (universally speaking) that have spent much of history in one war or another, and that (among a ton of other examples) used to gather in masses and cheer as people were publicly executed. It's not gotten really worse, just different in how we express it. We're not at war as much as we were. We can't just go around killing people and get away with it like we used to back in the day. So it comes out as it does now.

Actually, in thinking about this, maybe one thing that HAS changed is that we're aware of how messed up it is. That might be a good sign, believe it or not.

The public executions thing is a real head scratcher.  Hell even less than a 100 years ago we have pictures of people attending lynchings. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: MirrorMask on March 19, 2019, 02:46:39 AM
Lots of interesting points in the latest posts.

I would also take into consideration the emulation issue, the bad idea that someone gets and then it gets used.

I mean, you know what shocked me the most about 9/11? using planes as weapons. I totally didn't think of it, I couldn't even imagine it was an option. But then it happened, and other people would have done it if drastic security measures would have not been implemented. Then some assholes tried to use vans to mow down people, and once the idea got out, you had many copycats attacks with vans, 'cause you can lock all the doors on a plane but you can't just deny the renting on a van to anyone who has a darker shade of skin.

Same with other acts of violence - once a single asshole at Columbine shoots his school companions, the idea is out there, and it sticks in the mind of someone who eventually down the line thinks it's a good idea.

In Italy we don't have kids doing shooting at school, but we have a lot of domestic abuse, it seems that month does not go by without hearing in the news that someone killed his ex wife or something like that. Same basic idea, once you read in the news that one, five, ten, fifty people killed their ex, the idea sticks in someone who eventually considers it as a "valid" option when the strain of marital problem breaks their lucid thinking.