Hey, welcome to the Pit. Glad you could visit.
Shit, double post. Dammit.
Okay, I can understand that (and other wild west varmints). We don’t get too many coyotes down here, so I hadn’t heard that one. 
Most of the stuff 'round here is either too big or too small. The stopping power thing was what I was referring to. I’m still a little surprised people use those things for deer. Learn something new every day.
In return, I’d like to let everybody know that Loach is a police officer and, lest the wrath of artemis descend on you like a plague of gnats, may not be spoken harshly to (at least about guns and ignorance, other subjects may be fair game, check with artemis for further details).
Pinmin, I think the issue is that, to many, at least hunting guns have a purpose other than somebody just having a cool collection of deadly weapons. Not saying I agree with the logic, mind you.
That’s exactly what it is - lots of people (including many who are not sportsmen themselves) approve of hunting, so attacking weapons commonly used by game hunters would be an act of political suicide. The problem, of course, is that there is no clear division of firearms into “hunting guns” and “non-hunting” guns.
The term you are looking for is “divide and conquer”.
Hunting is an inexpensive way to manage wildlife. It is a food source for, among others, the rural poor. It also provides some tourism dollars for small towns. Hands off. IMO, hunting is the sole legit civilian use for firearms. Sports shooting is excusable because it can be controlled. Personal and home defense-- well, if I could see a workable law that would limit such a thing to women, yeah, OK. But I can’t.
What, because I’m a guy, I’m automatically a skilled street fighter? :dubious:
Are you likely to be a rape target, sir?
Probably not, but what’s that got to do with anything?
what do you think, brainiac?
I think it’s a good thing that people who think like you can’t force laws on the rest of us.
Why’s that? Because I might do something other than nothing? What new laws do you want?
I asked an ironic question to give you a chance to realize what ridiculous things you were about to type. I am nothing if not merciful.
But no, really, I’m stumped. Obviously I’m too stupid to figure it out. You’ll have to explain to me why a woman can use a gun to defend herself against rape, but I, as a man, have no similar reason to defend myself if, to choose just one example, some redneck decides to try bashing my skull in.
dunno, maybe a lot more women get raped than random dudes get bashed for no reason.
I’ve offered them so many times in the last few weeks I have them handy, just for you:
-
All firearm purchases are subject to a background check. All of them. No exceptions.
-
All firearms must be registered through permissive process that does not allow the local government authorities an opinion on the matter. Further, the list must only be accessible to law enforcement in the event of the commission of a crime.
-
Going along with that, a firearm owner must report a stolen weapon as soon as possible, allowing for the possibility that they may be unable to report something they simply don’t know about.
-
HIPAA must be repealed insofar as mental health history must be accessed during the NICS check. If you are unable or unwilling to allow that access you will be denied a firearm.
-
In order to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, you must pass a test that is modest in scope, offered freely, and is not cost prohibitive. It should not be a thousand questions, given once a year for 15 minutes 500 miles away, or cost $1000.
-
Any crime committed with your firearms will result in you being charged with a crime as well. If you can’t take care of your weapons you have no business having them.
Note that none of them have any asinine ideas such as disarming men but allowing women to carry to protect themselves. All would be productive, all are “reasonable” and constitute major concessions from gun-rights people who truthfully don’t have to give up anything at all, and all are better ideas than anything you might propose. Sex qualifications for firearms… give me a break. While you’re at it, if you could show me the “hunting” clause of the 2nd Amendment I’d be obliged. Thanks ever so very much.
Dunno, maybe that doesn’t matter very much to a person, a human being, man or woman, who is currently being made the victim of a violent crime. And who said anything about random? In the grand scheme of things, “let’s kill this queer” isn’t a good reason, but that doesn’t stop some people from acting on it.
How many have you suffered? Recently.
You poor thing, I hear ya.
Recently? None. But I’m fortunate enough to live in a liberal, progressive part of the country where my sexual orientation is pretty unlikely to make me the target of violence. Lots of people in other places are less lucky, and your bizarre attempts at justifying your little-minded prejudice are yet another example of what I was talking about when I mentioned I was trying to give you a chance to not make a complete arse of yourself.
Okay, I can get behind all of those. I’m assuming that you would want CCW permits being “must issue”, right? It’s a corollary of 2, but just wanted to clarify.
As long as 1, 2, 5, and 6 are made retroactive (you must register existing guns at which time you will be subject to background check, if you fail to register any crime committed with your guns becomes your crime) with a reasonable buy-back option for those who don’t want the hassle or can’t pass the background.
#4 is the retarded pining of someone so ignorant about the real world to esentially disqualify you from further discussion.
Also, I find it ironc that the searchable database of gun owners is afforded careful restricton, but the searchahle database of mental health history is open to any fuck selling guns.