TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 14 of 26 FirstFirst ... 491011121314151617181924 ... LastLast
Results 326 to 350 of 642

Thread: The Gun Thread About Guns And Gun Related Gunnery

  1. #326
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Chimpy Chompy View Post
    I'm fine with individuals justifying ownership of an item that is highly dangerous and not essential to their livelihoods.
    I hate to go back to this analogy, but if 'because it's fun' isn't a sufficient justification for owning something dangerous not essential to one's livelihood, that doesn't leave much room for alcohol. But as far as I'm aware, no European country has outlawed the stuff, simply because it has high recreational value despite high societal harm. There's no justification besides a desire for recreational use, but that's enough.

    I don't think the perspectives of the US and Europe are too different in this regard. On some level we both recognize that recreational use is a legitimate justification for ownership of harmful objects and substances, provided the harm doesn't dramatically outweigh the recreational use. If the demonstrable societal harm from allowing ownership of certain weapons is negligible, I don't see how you can consistently require justification for ownership on any grounds other than special pleading.

    I'd much rather invest time and effort into regulating stuff that shows a clear need for regulation, rather than stuff that seems scary but hasn't presented any risk. At the very least, as a matter of practicality, it can avoid alienating those owners who would be affected.
    Last edited by catbarf; 22nd Mar 2018 at 13:28.

  2. #327
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Iacon
    whatabouting

    Even if I singularly fail to make an argument for booze, and crumple under the weight of my own hypocrisy as I down a bottle of Black Sheep: easy access to AR-15s is still a bad idea.

    Anyway the most harm that can be caused by drinking is if someone then goes and drives. That's already very illegal and can result in severe punishment even if you don't hit anything.

    Otherwise, the individual potential for harm for 1 beer is pretty low compared to 1 gun. The problems come in because there are more beers than guns. That said I'm all for reigning in drinking culture somehow. We drink far too much in the UK. I'd be happy, for example, to see US-style laws against walking around with an open container.

  3. #328
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Fair on all points, although I have to point out that to your statement about drinking and driving already being illegal, well, so's attempted homicide. We're talking about regulating the means, rather than the act. I agree with you, easy access to AR-15s (or any firearm) is a bad idea, I was just talking about the really minor edge case of stuff like high-caliber rifles.

    What I'm trying to say is that I think we should be instituting regulation necessary to mitigate the societal risk posed by different types of firearms, not blindly instituting gun control on the basis of what seems most threatening. That approach is how we wound up in this current situation of debating AR-15s while deaths due to handguns outnumber deaths due to rifles (of any kind) a hundred to one, and it's either not productive or downright counterproductive.

  4. #329
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    be happy to look at ANYTHING else that does NOT infringe on my gun rights.... few states have opted a version to Rodgers law. https://www.independent.com/news/201...s-legislature/
    Williams’s bill — which he cosponsored with Assemblymember Nancy Skinner — would allow law enforcement, blood relatives, or roommates of someone suspected of posing a serious threat to themselves or others to seek a judge’s order to remove any firearms from that person’s possession. Although the Williams bill cleared both chambers handily, it encountered some last-minute flak from the National Rifle Association and other Second Amendment rights organizations that testified and mobilized robo-calls from throughout the state against it. Williams stressed these calls came from outside the district and insisted that the measure enjoyed strong bipartisan support in both Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.

    At issue was the level of due process governing the decision-making process. Williams said the bill was amended to require a higher burden of proof for a judge to issue such an order. The target of such an action would have to wait 21 days to file an appeal contesting the decision. “If the judge screws up, the person gets a chance to make their case 21 days later, and they get their guns back,” Williams said. “But if someone gets shot to death by a madman with a gun, well, they don’t get a chance to come back 21 days later.”

  5. #330
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: LosAngeles: Between Amusements
    Problem is, if you take away a madman's guns, and he knows that you ratted him out, then how likely is he not to be a little annoyed with you and decide to go irrational on you by whatever means are still handy? After all, he is a madman.

  6. #331
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    in that case arm yourself................................. or file a restraining order or pray ..... whatever is more convenient for you. at least he won't be able to shoot you

  7. #332
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    JESUS GOD, SAVE US FROM THOSE...

    ...ELLIPSES!

  8. #333
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: LosAngeles: Between Amusements
    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    at least he won't be able to shoot you
    Want to bet that he can't just walk into a gun show and buy some more?

  9. #334
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    how much? and in what state? obviously you are not that up to date with CA laws. then again he would have to be in the prohibited list for the back ground check to deny him.

  10. #335
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    you guys are funny.
    AR-15 is a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle, which is widely used in militaries all over the world.


    https://gundigest.com/reviews/the-ar...supposed-to-be

    The AR-15 made use of high-impact fibrite stocks, pistol grips and handguards. A selector lever on the left side of the rifle could be manipulated with the shooter’s right thumb without removing the hand from the pistol grip. The magazine release, on the right side of the receiver, could be operated with the trigger finger; when pressed, the magazine would drop free.

    A fresh magazine, requiring no camming — or 'rocking' — could be inserted straight into the magazine well. This attribute contributed significantly to speedy reloading in combat situations compared to its closest rival, the AK47/AKM. These are two of the main reasons why the AR-15/M16-series rifles are considered the finest human-engineered assault rifles in the world.
    Also, with a bump stock, you can easily turn it into automatic again:

    Last edited by Starker; 22nd Mar 2018 at 21:36.

  11. #336
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    lmao. You guys do have guns. Hell you have Norinco nice up there and SBRS , no problem with Bg checks, already have a wait limit here in CA and we do have basic firearms certification as well , no deal in the mags or high rate of fire , wait should only be for first time buyers and with all that crap we still got the San Bernardino shooters
    These are not federal standards. This patchwork of regulations almost worse than no regulation.

    be happy to look at ANYTHING else that does NOT infringe on my gun rights....
    So no, you are not willing to balance your rights against the rights of others because your rights are more right... right?

  12. #337
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    These are not federal standards. This patchwork of regulations almost worse than no regulation.



    So no, you are not willing to balance your rights against the rights of others because your rights are more right... right?
    Feel good do nothing laws is all you guys can come up with. So not one more inch gun wise. Come up with something else

  13. #338
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    AR-15 is a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle, which is widely used in militaries all over the world.




    Also, with a bump stock, you can easily turn it into automatic again:

    You know it’s still no where near an m16 right. ?

  14. #339
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2001
    Location: Somewhere
    they use the same magazines, they fire the same ammunition, they have equal range and equal accuracy and have the almost identical capacity to do harm to human beings.

  15. #340
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: LosAngeles: Between Amusements
    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    So not one more inch gun wise. Come up with something else
    Let me see if I get this right. You are perfectly willing to compromise on gun control laws so long as nothing discussed involves gun control laws.

  16. #341
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryG View Post
    Let me see if I get this right. You are perfectly willing to compromise on gun control laws so long as nothing discussed involves gun control laws.
    I’m fine with the law passed the n post 329. You are in CA. And this state has gone full está d with feel good laws that do nothing so yeah no more of that
    Last edited by jkcerda; 23rd Mar 2018 at 13:05.

  17. #342
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    You know it’s still no where near an m16 right. ?
    Aside from literally every part save for the auto sear being a drop-in replacement, and even that can be installed with just five minutes of drilling a third pin hole? Or circumvented by using a lightning link?

    I have issues with the 'military-grade' label myself but come on. You can easily build an AR-15 from an M16 parts kit and the only difference will be the lack of auto or burst, they're the same gun in all but the most uselessly pedantic sense. The differences between commercial-spec and mil-spec parts are manufacturer variations, not substantive design differences, let alone changes which have any effect on the performance of the rifle.

  18. #343
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryG View Post
    Let me see if I get this right. You are perfectly willing to compromise on gun control laws so long as nothing discussed involves gun control laws.
    Yup. That's basically jkcerda's argument.

    Meanwhile, still waiting for gun enthusiasts to tell us what they will do to offer ANY protection from their fetish. Crickets.

  19. #344
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    Yup. That's basically jkcerda's argument.

    Meanwhile, still waiting for gun enthusiasts to tell us what they will do to offer ANY protection from their fetish. Crickets.
    you spelled "rights" wrong, and it's simple. don't break in or become a threat and you will live ..........well over 50 million gun owners out there and well over 300 million guns as well, if we were as violent as you liberals pretend we are there would be no liberals left
    I also posted a law that I am fine with on post 329, no problems with back ground checks for purchase both private & commercial.
    Last edited by jkcerda; 23rd Mar 2018 at 13:38.

  20. #345
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    Meanwhile, still waiting for gun enthusiasts to tell us what they will do to offer ANY protection from their fetish. Crickets.
    I gave a brief list of suggestions on the second page.

    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    Off the top of my head:
    -The overwhelmingly most common source of firearms used in crime is straw purchase. Currently the DoJ lacks the resources to prosecute straw purchase, making it an easy way for gangs to acquire guns, and the people who illegally buy firearms for felons suffer no punishment. Earmark additional funding to straw purchase law enforcement, and assign straw purchasers liability for crimes committed with the weapons they purchase.
    -The second most common source of firearms is law-breaking FFL holders (sellers), but the ATF only has the resources to investigate each FFL on average once every 27 years. Earmark additional funding to FFL auditing.
    -Revise HIPAA's interaction with the NICS to ensure that mental health records are being ingested into the background check system.
    -Increase liability on stolen firearms, especially if they were not adequately secured when stolen. Too many unsecured guns wind up on the street through theft.
    -Allow background checks for non-FFLs, then mandate background checks on all sales. Senator Coburn had a pretty good proposal a few years ago, based on the Swiss model.
    -Subject handgun sales to ATF investigation similar to that on Form 1 applications, to provide a little more scrutiny on their sale and transfer.
    Is there anything in there you'd like to discuss?

  21. #346

  22. #347
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    I gave a brief list of suggestions on the second page. Is there anything in there you'd like to discuss?
    Fair enough. Are these federal or state regulations / jurisdictions? Are you OK with states doing the regulation or would you agree that firearms need to be a federal matter?
    Last edited by Nicker; 23rd Mar 2018 at 16:02.

  23. #348
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    you spelled "rights" wrong, and it's simple. don't break in or become a threat and you will live ..........well over 50 million gun owners out there and well over 300 million guns as well, if we were as violent as you liberals pretend we are there would be no liberals left
    I also posted a law that I am fine with on post 329, no problems with back ground checks for purchase both private & commercial.
    The right is to own firearms as part of a well regulated militia, not a private army of one. The elevation of guns to bestowed by gawd is a fetish, not a right.

    You don't have to break in or threaten anyone to become a victim of gun violence - you just have to go to school.

    Offering the continued existence of liberals is proof that regulations are sufficient is pure straw-man, since nobody has suggested that all gun owners are murderers. Either talk straight or tell jokes but stop mixing them up just so you can back track at will.

    Your appeal to "William's bill" is pretty lame considering your blanket refusal to consider anything infringing on your ""rights"", regardless of the rights of others.

  24. #349
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    The right is to own firearms as part of a well regulated militia, not a private army of one. The elevation of guns to bestowed by gawd is a fetish, not a right.

    You don't have to break in or threaten anyone to become a victim of gun violence - you just have to go to school.

    Offering the continued existence of liberals is proof that regulations are sufficient is pure straw-man, since nobody has suggested that all gun owners are murderers. Either talk straight or tell jokes but stop mixing them up just so you can back track at will.

    Your appeal to "William's bill" is pretty lame considering your blanket refusal to consider anything infringing on your ""rights"", regardless of the rights of others.
    militia? nah here you go

    been in school a few years, it's odd I was not a victim of gun violence as you imply .
    if you need the supreme court ruling, then here it is
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
    the Second
    Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms
    Last edited by jkcerda; 23rd Mar 2018 at 16:31.

  25. #350
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: LosAngeles: Between Amusements
    Penn and Teller are great magicians. That does not make them great constitutional law experts or even grammerians. ref. http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthrea...=1#post2385262 and http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthrea...=1#post2385385

    What about the repeal of the Dickey Amendment? Can we agree that we need actual research and data analysis into the issue of gun violence? Right now we are all talking from entrenched philosophic positions. While I am 100% certain that I'm right and the rest of you are wrong, I would much prefer to have actual scientific research data and analysis to prove that to all you bozo's so that we can then get on with the real work of passing laws which will have the effect of driving down gun homicides and suicides while letting the sportsmen just kill the wildlife or tear holes in harmless targets from a distance. Data driven change is what we need, but we don't have the data and have legislated against collecting and analyzing it to inform the debate. Why are the NRA and 2nd amendment hardliners against having actual hard data about the effectiveness of various controls? Ignorance is not bliss.
    Last edited by LarryG; 23rd Mar 2018 at 16:40.

Page 14 of 26 FirstFirst ... 491011121314151617181924 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •