Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5201  
Old 07-17-2015, 06:49 AM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 26,902
Yeah it was obvious. Good one.
  #5202  
Old 07-17-2015, 07:00 AM
Double Foolscap is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 1,192
Serious question: what are pistols called if the term "gun" is restricted to stuff like artillery? Sidearms?
  #5203  
Old 07-17-2015, 07:08 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
I think enhancing weapon discipline, training and accountability would be awesome. Anything that actually achieves those goals, I would be for.

However, I thought personnel were generally prohibited from carrying on base. I thought sidearms were stored in the armory. Seem to recall reading a lot about that.
  #5204  
Old 07-17-2015, 07:20 AM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 26,902
Double: they are pistols. Rifles and pistols, they are.

Hentor: correct, weapons are stored in the armory, or were back when I was in, 80s & 90s. They are then issued for training and when we're in the field and not in garrison, that's when we lived with them, 24/7 for days or weeks.

Another point besides training is repeated certification. You can develop the good habits but if they're not practiced regularly they degrade. I've seen this in myself.
  #5205  
Old 07-17-2015, 07:25 AM
Double Foolscap is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 1,192
Cool, thanks.
  #5206  
Old 07-17-2015, 10:52 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Maybe we should take it easy on poor Bullitt. I mean, there's nothing about Bullitt that suggests he is unduly fixated on compesating for his general sense of impotence in the world. What do we really know about Bullitt that would give us any sense that he has to project a facade of strength and power? It isn't like Bullitt did anything when joining this board that would suggest he needs other people to see him as quite the rough customer. Not Bullitt.
Maybe he just really likes Steve McQueen movies. Have you considered that?
  #5207  
Old 07-17-2015, 11:07 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Maybe he just really likes Steve McQueen movies. Have you considered that?
I did, in fact! The spelling might suggest thar. However, I've only really encountered him in discussions on guns, and not Steve McQueen or Mustangs, so I made a guess as to his motives.
  #5208  
Old 07-17-2015, 01:45 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
I think enhancing weapon discipline, training and accountability would be awesome. Anything that actually achieves those goals, I would be for.
I could see requiring anyone who owns a gun to have to report for "militia" duty, which would consist of a training and certification class. If they pass, they're certified for the next 4-5 years. If they fail, they have to keep coming back every month until they get it right. If they're caught lying about owning a gun, they get a big fat fine and the maximum non-felony sentence (12 months iirc).
  #5209  
Old 07-17-2015, 02:10 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
I could see requiring anyone who owns a gun to have to report for "militia" duty, which would consist of a training and certification class. If they pass, they're certified for the next 4-5 years. If they fail, they have to keep coming back every month until they get it right. If they're caught lying about owning a gun, they get a big fat fine and the maximum non-felony sentence (12 months iirc).
I like that. I might argue for more frequent recert, but let's agree to agree at the moment.

I see one problem, though. How do we know who needs to be reporting for training or for recert?
  #5210  
Old 07-17-2015, 02:24 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 26,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Maybe he just really likes Steve McQueen movies. Have you considered that?
Steve McQueen, who was also a Marine.

(hey that rhymes!)
  #5211  
Old 07-17-2015, 02:38 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
That is not the question.
Of course it is. People are objecting to the people legally carrying concealed weapons because its dangerous but we see that the people who end up carrying concealed weapons are more law abiding that the general population.
  #5212  
Old 07-17-2015, 03:02 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Because the implication is that it has something to do with CHL licensure, when that may be completely irrelevant or even may mask the opposing effect. That's why any research controls for potential third variables.
Where does anyone imply that getting the license makes people law abiding? I think most people on the gun rights side would say that the effect was in the opposite direction. Law abiding people are the ones who tend to get CHL licenses. Just like law abiding people are the ones who are going to be most affected by gun bans.

Quote:
This is another example of you saying something really dumb.
This is another example of you using insults to try to bolster your argument.

At this point it is clear that you are just pissed that your side has such poor arguments even thought you just "KNOW" your side is right.

Quote:
For example, pretend that living in socioeconomic disadvantage causes increased criminality. Now pretend that the segment of people getting CHL lives in disproportionately advataged circumstances. That may very well make it look like they are less disposed to criminality.
Lets say all that is true (and I don't think that it is), how does that change the fact that all the hand-wringing on your side over giving people the legal right to carry a concealed weapon is silly because the people who actually end up exercising that right are more law abiding than the general population, by large margins? Why do you need to control for anything?

Quote:
However, it could very well be that people who get CHLs are in fact more disposed to criminality that people who live in the same SES circumstances but who don't get CHL. It's very possible that getting a CHL is an actual marker for risk that is outweighed by the effects of ses.
OK, so lets say that the pudgy white suburbanites that end up getting CHL licenses are the most criminal minded ones and they are more dangerous than the average pudgy white suburbanite (but still more law abiding than the general population). So what? If you are arguing against giving people the right to carry concealed in public, who gives a shit if the people who choose to do so are all wealthy and are on average more criminal minded than other wealthy people (there are a lot of "ifs" in there that I don't necessarily agree with, I doubt there is any income based study of CHL license holders but around here a lot of the CHL holders are veterans or )? Why do you have to look beyond actual effect when determining whether CHLs are danglaw abiding or not?

Quote:
See, I have to explain fundamentals like this to you, but I guarantee that you will turn around and say again in the future that I have nothing but insults. This will again be a lie, but you will do it nevertheless because you are too stupid to retain this knowledge.
You are trying to inject variability (into a question that does not care about your variables) to undermine a fact that you find inconvenient. If you weren't so impotent it would be annoying but coming from someone in your position its kinda cute (in a yapping chihuahua sort of way).
  #5213  
Old 07-17-2015, 03:07 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Yes.
But only in a "its a good first step" sort of way

You basically want to ban the private ownership of guns and are resistant to stopping short of that. Sure you'll take whatever you can get for now but your ultimate goal is a total ban.
  #5214  
Old 07-17-2015, 03:13 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
Double: they are pistols. Rifles and pistols, they are.

Hentor: correct, weapons are stored in the armory, or were back when I was in, 80s & 90s. They are then issued for training and when we're in the field and not in garrison, that's when we lived with them, 24/7 for days or weeks.

Another point besides training is repeated certification. You can develop the good habits but if they're not practiced regularly they degrade. I've seen this in myself.
Heck I see it after just a couple of months away from a range.
  #5215  
Old 07-17-2015, 03:15 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
I like that. I might argue for more frequent recert, but let's agree to agree at the moment.

I see one problem, though. How do we know who needs to be reporting for training or for recert?
Everybody who owns a gun. Heck we could make it part of the licensing process under a licensing and registration regime.
  #5216  
Old 07-17-2015, 03:25 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 26,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Everybody who owns a gun. Heck we could make it part of the licensing process under a licensing and registration regime.
I would agree to this. A gun is a powerful and potentially dangerous tool. Owners need to show proficiency in safely handling them, to include managing emotions and adrenaline in potentially unsafe tactical situations, the decision to deploy your rifle/pistol (it is NOT a gun!) or not, and then how to control it when under stress. We can all hit black on paper in tight groups on the range (well, some in the classes were all over the place - scary), but under stress and when your heart is pumping, will you act and react appropriately?

I, for one, hope I never have to find out.

And the California HSC, Handgun Safety Certificate, for example, is a joke. I've taken CCW classes in NV, FL and TX, and there are wide variances in training and proficiency standards. The instructors do a good job and they are sincere, but the requirements they train to are not sufficient. IMO, anyway.

These will not eliminate accidental deaths by shooting but I believe they would result in dramatic improvement. There will never be zero deaths, unfortunately.

Last edited by Bullitt; 07-17-2015 at 03:29 PM.
  #5217  
Old 07-17-2015, 05:46 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
I could see requiring anyone who owns a gun to have to report for "militia" duty, which would consist of a training and certification class. If they pass, they're certified for the next 4-5 years. If they fail, they have to keep coming back every month until they get it right. If they're caught lying about owning a gun, they get a big fat fine and the maximum non-felony sentence (12 months iirc).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
I like that. I might argue for more frequent recert, but let's agree to agree at the moment.

I see one problem, though. How do we know who needs to be reporting for training or for recert?
In principle it would apply to everyone, except for those exempted or disqualified. One class of exemption would be people willing to swear that they don't own a gun and don't plan to get one, who promise to notify the testing agency if they do acquire a gun, and the aforementioned penalties for so swearing falsely.
  #5218  
Old 07-17-2015, 06:57 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
In principle it would apply to everyone, except for those exempted or disqualified. One class of exemption would be people willing to swear that they don't own a gun and don't plan to get one, who promise to notify the testing agency if they do acquire a gun, and the aforementioned penalties for so swearing falsely.
It's just that this would require a registration process. This seems to be a nonstarter with the NRA and their devotees. Or at least the nutters who post on the internet on this topic.

I am heartened to hear such strong advocacy for accountability.
  #5219  
Old 07-17-2015, 07:05 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
@Dumuri: it would be shorter if you just wrote, "I do not understand stats." The third variable problem as about as basic as it gets. You clearly don't grasp it; there's no way you'll understand anything more complicated.

By the way, controlling for a third variable doesn't increase variability, dummy. Imagine the whole population and think about the variability in height. Now introduce a new variable: gender. Have I increased the variability in height? Fucking imbecile.
  #5220  
Old 07-17-2015, 07:27 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
It's just that this would require a registration process. This seems to be a nonstarter with the NRA and their devotees. Or at least the nutters who post on the internet on this topic.

I am heartened to hear such strong advocacy for accountability.
That's the beauty of it: it would be entirely in line with the Founding Father's vision of an armed populace, and technically there would be no list of people with guns- just a list of people without.

I've always said that if you fear the irresponsible use of firearms, then maybe the answer is more responsibility, not fewer guns.
  #5221  
Old 07-17-2015, 09:30 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
I've always said that if you fear the irresponsible use of firearms, then maybe the answer is more responsibility, not fewer guns.
I'm all in favor of responsible gun ownership. If a child gets ahold of someone's gun and hurts themselves or others, the gun owner is held responsible. If someone's gun is stolen and used in a crime, the gun owner is held responsible. Yes, responsible gun ownership is the way to go, don't you think?
__________________
“If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let 'em go, because man, they're gone.” ~~Jack Handey
  #5222  
Old 07-20-2015, 11:13 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
I would agree to this. A gun is a powerful and potentially dangerous tool. Owners need to show proficiency in safely handling them, to include managing emotions and adrenaline in potentially unsafe tactical situations, the decision to deploy your rifle/pistol (it is NOT a gun!) or not, and then how to control it when under stress. We can all hit black on paper in tight groups on the range (well, some in the classes were all over the place - scary), but under stress and when your heart is pumping, will you act and react appropriately?

I, for one, hope I never have to find out.

And the California HSC, Handgun Safety Certificate, for example, is a joke. I've taken CCW classes in NV, FL and TX, and there are wide variances in training and proficiency standards. The instructors do a good job and they are sincere, but the requirements they train to are not sufficient. IMO, anyway.

These will not eliminate accidental deaths by shooting but I believe they would result in dramatic improvement. There will never be zero deaths, unfortunately.
I am all for improving safety and proficiency but only as long as it isn't a back door way of restricting access. The standards must be easily achieved by virtually anyone.

We should try to prevent accidental shooting fatalities but I am more concerned with the deliberate shooting fatalities.
  #5223  
Old 07-20-2015, 11:22 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
If you're concerned with deliberate shooting fatalities, as you claim, doesn't it necessarily follow that there are people who should not have guns?
  #5224  
Old 07-20-2015, 11:24 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
@Dumuri: it would be shorter if you just wrote, "I do not understand stats." The third variable problem as about as basic as it gets. You clearly don't grasp it; there's no way you'll understand anything more complicated.

By the way, controlling for a third variable doesn't increase variability, dummy. Imagine the whole population and think about the variability in height. Now introduce a new variable: gender. Have I increased the variability in height? Fucking imbecile.
The simple fact of the matter is that you don't like the fact that CHL holders are more law abiding than the general population and you what that implies because so much of your position on this topic revolves around legal gun owners being villains.

If the CHL pudgy white subrbanites are actually more dangerous than their nonCHL counterparts then why haven't we seen increases in gun murders as states started issuing CHL? You put up supposition as fact while pretending that correlation=causation when it suits your purposes.

Its true I am not a statistician but I am sure I can understand anything that is competently explained. If you are a statistician then you have no respect for your own profession.
  #5225  
Old 07-20-2015, 11:29 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
I'm all in favor of responsible gun ownership. If a child gets ahold of someone's gun and hurts themselves or others, the gun owner is held responsible.
Frequently they are. In gun loving states no less. If the child is old enough to defeat a lock then not so much.

Quote:
If someone's gun is stolen and used in a crime, the gun owner is held responsible. Yes, responsible gun ownership is the way to go, don't you think?
If someone steals your car and drives into a crowd of widowed orphans then that's your responsibility too?

We almost never hold Person A liable for the crimes of Person B unless Person A was committing a crime as well. I could see holding a gun runner liable for any murders committed by the guns sold to fellow criminals.
  #5226  
Old 07-20-2015, 11:30 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
If you're concerned with deliberate shooting fatalities, as you claim, doesn't it necessarily follow that there are people who should not have guns?
Yes, they are called Prohibited Persons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ibited_persons
  #5227  
Old 07-20-2015, 11:31 AM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 26,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I am all for improving safety and proficiency but only as long as it isn't a back door way of restricting access. The standards must be easily achieved by virtually anyone.
That's akin to saying that if you have a pulse, you can own a firearm. Do you really want your next door neighbors, and the people across the street, if they are people who have little regard for other people, are inconsiderate and sloppy and not careful with how they operate their weedwhacker (so, okay, they might injure themselves with that), do you really want such morons all owning firearms?

Last edited by Bullitt; 07-20-2015 at 11:32 AM.
  #5228  
Old 07-20-2015, 11:42 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Yes, they are called Prohibited Persons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ibited_persons
Evading the question. How is it that you refuse to restrict ownership in any way, if you do indeed want to limit gun murders?
  #5229  
Old 07-20-2015, 01:32 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
If you're concerned with deliberate shooting fatalities, as you claim, doesn't it necessarily follow that there are people who should not have guns?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Yes, they are called Prohibited Persons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ibited_persons
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Evading the question. How is it that you refuse to restrict ownership in any way, if you do indeed want to limit gun murders?
I thought he answered the question; there are indeed laws forbidding obviously untrustworthy people from having guns. Now are you saying that there are too many shootings so obviously the prohibited category needs to be expanded? If so, by what standard? The one you keep proposing- "nobody except police and soldiers should have guns"- has been repeatedly rejected by the voting public. Short of a Minority Report standard of infallibility, how do you guess who might misuse a gun?
  #5230  
Old 07-20-2015, 01:43 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
I thought he answered the question; there are indeed laws forbidding obviously untrustworthy people from having guns. Now are you saying that there are too many shootings so obviously the prohibited category needs to be expanded? If so, by what standard? The one you keep proposing- "nobody except police and soldiers should have guns"- has been repeatedly rejected by the voting public. Short of a Minority Report standard of infallibility, how do you guess who might misuse a gun?
Perhaps people that have been diagnosed by a doctor with PTSD, but are on a long waiting list to receive help.
Like my nephew Christopher, who couldn't get the help he needed after the military diagnosed him them discharged him, but who had no trouble getting a gun. He self-treated his PTSD on June 3oth.
  #5231  
Old 07-20-2015, 01:47 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
I thought he answered the question; there are indeed laws forbidding obviously untrustworthy people from having guns.
I was asking how that is consistent with his claim that "The standards must be easily achieved by virtually anyone."

Quote:
Now are you saying that there are too many shootings so obviously the prohibited category needs to be expanded? If so, by what standard?
I'm asking YOU what YOUR standards are. It seems to depend on who's asking.
  #5232  
Old 07-20-2015, 02:04 PM
Projammer's Avatar
Projammer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW Arkansas
Posts: 6,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
I'm all in favor of responsible gun ownership. If a child gets ahold of someone's gun and hurts themselves or others, the gun owner is held responsible. If someone's gun is stolen and used in a crime, the gun owner is held responsible. Yes, responsible gun ownership is the way to go, don't you think?
If someone steals your car and drives into a crowd of widowed orphans then that's your responsibility too?

We almost never hold Person A liable for the crimes of Person B unless Person A was committing a crime as well. I could see holding a gun runner liable for any murders committed by the guns sold to fellow criminals.
It doesn't work that way. You have to follow the causal chain back to the beginning. If someone robs a bank and uses the money to purchase a gun from one of his gang buddies it's the fault of the bank.

Or the federal government for having printed the money in the first place. If the government hadn't printed the money, it couldn't have been stolen from the bank.
  #5233  
Old 07-20-2015, 02:52 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
And that's the sort of post that leads readers to think you don't even know what responsibility even is.
  #5234  
Old 07-20-2015, 03:21 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
That's akin to saying that if you have a pulse, you can own a firearm. Do you really want your next door neighbors, and the people across the street, if they are people who have little regard for other people, are inconsiderate and sloppy and not careful with how they operate their weedwhacker (so, okay, they might injure themselves with that), do you really want such morons all owning firearms?
Its not a matter of what I want. What I want is for me to own all the weapons and for no one else to have any. What I think the constitution demands (at a minimum) is that everyone have reasonable access to guns unless there is some particular reason to disqualify them. I think reasonable access can include a written and practical safety test.
  #5235  
Old 07-20-2015, 03:24 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Evading the question. How is it that you refuse to restrict ownership in any way, if you do indeed want to limit gun murders?
WTF? You asked if I was willing to restrict ownership and I show you a list of people that cannot own firearms and that I agree should not be able to own firearms. Wasn't it clear that I agree that prohibited persons should be prohibited from owning firearms?
  #5236  
Old 07-20-2015, 03:25 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
What is clear is that you asserted "The standards must be easily achieved by virtually anyone." With no exceptions.
  #5237  
Old 07-20-2015, 03:30 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Perhaps people that have been diagnosed by a doctor with PTSD, but are on a long waiting list to receive help.
Like my nephew Christopher, who couldn't get the help he needed after the military diagnosed him them discharged him, but who had no trouble getting a gun. He self-treated his PTSD on June 3oth.
I agree that we should have more categories of temporarily prohibited persons (like people who are subject to restraining orders) and people who are undergoing evaluation or waiting to undergo evaluation should be in this category.
  #5238  
Old 07-20-2015, 03:51 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 26,902
I wonder if there are enough gun owners who feel that gun ownership is a privilege and not a right?

The NRA hard core members and 2nd amendment activists (extremists?) would never go for that.
  #5239  
Old 07-20-2015, 05:16 PM
Scumpup is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I was asking how that is consistent with his claim that "The standards must be easily achieved by virtually anyone."

I'm asking YOU what YOUR standards are. It seems to depend on who's asking.
I'm asking you if you refuse to own a gun because you fear you would kill someone. I've asked you that many times without you answering. So, as I figure things, anybody you ask a question would be entirely within hir rights to just tell you to go fuck yourself. You don't seem to get how the whole quid pro quo thing works, along with the mind boggling tonnage of other things you don't get.

Last edited by Scumpup; 07-20-2015 at 05:17 PM.
  #5240  
Old 07-20-2015, 05:18 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
I'm asking you if you refuse to own a gun because you fear you would kill someone. I've asked you that many times without you answering. So, as I figure things, anybody you ask a question would be entirely within hir rights to just tell you to go fuck yourself. You don't seem to get how the whole quid pro quo thing works, along with the mind boggling tonnage of other things you don't get.
Rape any toddlers today?
  #5241  
Old 07-20-2015, 05:22 PM
Projammer's Avatar
Projammer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW Arkansas
Posts: 6,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
I wonder if there are enough gun owners who feel that gun ownership is a privilege and not a right?

The NRA hard core members and 2nd amendment activists (extremists?) would never go for that.
It was still the Bill of Rights the last time I checked. Now if you can initiate a successful referendum to have it reclassified as the Bill of Privileges, you might have a point.
  #5242  
Old 07-20-2015, 05:50 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
That's akin to saying that if you have a pulse, you can own a firearm. Do you really want your next door neighbors, and the people across the street, if they are people who have little regard for other people, are inconsiderate and sloppy and not careful with how they operate their weedwhacker (so, okay, they might injure themselves with that), do you really want such morons all owning firearms?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I was asking how that is consistent with his claim that "The standards must be easily achieved by virtually anyone."

I'm asking YOU what YOUR standards are. It seems to depend on who's asking.
If you're referring to the post below-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I am all for improving safety and proficiency but only as long as it isn't a back door way of restricting access. The standards must be easily achieved by virtually anyone.

We should try to prevent accidental shooting fatalities but I am more concerned with the deliberate shooting fatalities.
-I took him to mean that proficiency standards are fine, but not if they deliberately call for a ridiculously high level of mastery simply to deny as many people as possible; and that in any case it would do little to prevent premeditated shootings. I don't believe he was referring to mental health standards

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Perhaps people that have been diagnosed by a doctor with PTSD, but are on a long waiting list to receive help.
Like my nephew Christopher, who couldn't get the help he needed after the military diagnosed him them discharged him, but who had no trouble getting a gun. He self-treated his PTSD on June 3oth.
My condolences Czarcasm; there have been calls for better mental-health screening but ironically that's sparked a backlash against "stigmatizing" the mentally ill. And if the V.A.'s track record of imbecilic bureaucracy when it comes to determining who is and who isn't a threat to themselves and others is any indication, such screening would probably be "imperfect", to put it kindly.

Last edited by Lumpy; 07-20-2015 at 05:51 PM.
  #5243  
Old 07-20-2015, 06:04 PM
Scumpup is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Rape any toddlers today?
No, I didn't. I never have and don't see myself ever doing that. I think it is evil. It is your buddy ElvisL1ves who is strangely reticent on the topic. Plus, of course, there is the fact that you are catastrophically retarded confusing things for you. Tertiary syphillis is a terrible thing. If only your father hadn't had that penchant for visiting prostitutes on the sly....
  #5244  
Old 07-21-2015, 03:08 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
What is clear is that you asserted "The standards must be easily achieved by virtually anyone." With no exceptions.
I don't know what "virtually everyone" means to you but in this context, "virtually everyone" means "almost everyone" or is this the first time you have heard the phrase virtually everyone? I have already said that I don't think guns should be accessible for prohibited persons. I don't get your misunderstanding unless the misunderstanding is deliberate (or you are a total moron).
  #5245  
Old 07-21-2015, 04:18 PM
Scumpup is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I don't get your misunderstanding unless the misunderstanding is deliberate (or you are a total moron).
Dishonesty and stupidity are both very safe bets when we are talking about ElvisL1ves.
  #5246  
Old 07-21-2015, 05:16 PM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,526
The patriots turn out to guard the Army:

Quote:
Armed men have taken up self-appointed sentry duty outside military recruitment centers after another armed man opened fire on a recruiting center and killed five in Chattanooga, Tennessee last week.

The military has asked they not do so....

In Iowa, some militiamen are hiding, ready to spring out in case of an attack, Kim Paulsen told local WHOTV....
What could possibly go wrong?
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #5247  
Old 07-21-2015, 08:23 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 26,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
What could possibly go wrong?
It already went wrong.
  #5248  
Old 07-23-2015, 10:39 PM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 7,579
Well, it's time again to reset the "Days Since the Last Mass Shooting" counter. Two dead (including the shooter) and eight wounded in a theater in Louisiana.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...ooting-n397586
  #5249  
Old 07-24-2015, 08:06 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
It already went wrong.
Your prescience astounds me.

Quote:
The armed civilians who have been guarding a military recruitment center here are gone, ordered off the property after one of them accidentally discharged his rifle on Thursday.

...


I’m nobody special,” Reed said in a telephone interview on Thursday. “I’m just a guy doing my job because my own government wouldn’t do it.”

Reed said he is not a military veteran. He described himself as an active gun enthusiast who makes a living working side jobs.

He downplayed what happened. “It is what it is,” he said. “Nobody got hurt.”
  #5250  
Old 07-24-2015, 08:34 AM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 26,902
It was bound to happen. The guy is an idiot.

Look, I was concerned after 9/11 when I saw armed National Guardsmen guarding the Golden Gate Bridge - they were carrying their rifles, but I could not tell if they also carried ammo. Seems silly to not carry ammo, but if they did have ammo then I was concerned about their training level. Were those guys infantry or otherwise field soldiers in combat MOSs who train regularly with their weapons? Or were they desk clerks, cooks and supply warehousemen who touched a rifle once, in boot camp?

I remember being stationed at Treasure Island in San Francisco. One sailor was walking by, saw my weapon and said in wonderment, "Oh wow, is that an M-16? Can I look at that?"
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017