Then what is?
Because a drunk armed driver does not have all the armed forces of the United States of America behind him.
If you can’t see why it might be useful to distinguish between gun murders generally and gun murders committed by people who are legally permitted to own a gun is relevant in a discussion about gun control, then I don’t know what to say.
Any gun control is going to affect law abdiing gun owners and have vitrually no effect on people who illegally possess gun.
Based on Brainglutton’s response, you had no better idea of what he was thinking than I did. But of course you didn’t let that stop you from making a fool of yourself.
And those people mostly think you’re an idiot. Calling someone who promotes licensing and registration of all guns an absolutist pretty much pegs you as an unreasonable.
This is the pit so you can say whatever you want but you normally don’t undermine the credibility of evidence by simply stating you don’t believe it.
I agree, if you sell a gun to a guy who just caught his wife cheating on him and he is foaming at the mouth a foaming at the mouth, then sure. But what if he seemed perfectly fine when you sold it to him? Or are we imposing a different standard when guns are involved than we impose in any other situation
What if he bought the liquor at a liquor store and then ended up plowing through a school full of orphans because he got drunk?
If you are limiting your extensions of liability to illegal transfers of firearms then I withdraw my objection. I’m not sure what you mean by negligent transfers of firearms but once again, I am afraid you are extending CRIMINAL liability in a way that we do not in any other situation.
For example if I do not properly secure poisons I use in my business and a kid gets into them and dies, then I should be on the hook for that kid’s death. If I do not properly store poisons and someone steals it and kills some kids on the other side of the continent, I would not normally be liable for the death of those children.
Well, at least you’re consistent. What if the liquor cabinet was locked and the same thing happened because the kids jimmied the lock.
So if we had a licensing regime, then you would cut off liability to anyone that sold a gun to someone that possessed a license, right?
If you can’t see that the discussion is, among other things, about who *should *be legally permitted to carry, then I don’t know what else to say, except that you need to grow the fuck up.
Again, you SAY you do, but your ACTIONS say otherwise.
Already been debunked for you, but the thought of accepting that fact is so frightening that all you can do is grab your binkie and start stroking.
Of course we fucking are, fool. And you know why, too, even if you’re going to fall back on your talking points in denial.
How about you save yourself some keystrokes in future posts and just say “Law abiding, AWB, Feinstein, you’re an idiot, AWB, cars, swimming pools, Feinstein, AWB, law-abiding, AWB, you’re an idiot, AWB”. Save you some time and have equal substance.
Sad and stupid. Driver shot and shooter dies. Over a bus fare.
“There is no such thing as society.” -Margaret Thatcher
There’s no such thing as Margaret Thatcher.
I thought we had already established that the folks who are most likely to commit gun murders are already not legally permitted to possess (never mind carry) a firearm. The people whoa re legally permitted to “carry” a firearm are even less likely to commit gun murder than the general public.
And what does growing up have to do with any of this? I understand that insults are the crux of your argument but at least make them sensible or amusing.
What actions? The fact that i think only retards support an AWB? The fact that I wasn’t upset that the largely ineffective Manchin Toomey bill died? What actions indicate that I don’t support licensing and registration? You’ve just built caricature in your mind and apply that caricature to all gun owners.
Yeah, I know, your post is your cite.
So we apply a higher standard to a gun than dynamite and you think that this makes sense?
So we have established that accidental gun deaths hovers around ~700/year.
We know that the vast majority of the 12,000 gun murders committed each year are committed by people who are not legally permitted to possess a firearm.
We know that justifiable homocides hover around ~300/year
The best information we have tells us that there are ~350,000 defensive gun uses per year.
And from all this you conclude that your position is so unassailable that you don’t even need to make arguments. Its all so self evident that your arguments can be limited to calling other people poopyheads. :rolleyes:
My penis, on a good day.
“Permitted”? Gee, that’s mighty white of you.
Having debated firearms with you ElvisL1ves as much as I see any point to, let’s get down to brass tacks here: I simply don’t care whether you think I deserve, ought, or should own and carry a firearm or not. Bite me. And if you think that someone else (government, the police, etc.) will disarm me on your behalf, let me point out a couple of difficulties with that: First, enforcing a prohibition on firearms would be just a wee bit harder than banning things like marijuana or even meth because guns are the contraband that defends itself against confiscation. Even police in New York publicly stated that confiscating guns would be hazardous. Second, any power that could disarm rebellious gun owners would have both the power and the will to do whatever it felt like; and if you disapproved would tell you “shut up and do what you’re told, you goddamn peasant”. And no, a civil rights lawsuit would not do you any good at that point. IOW, if you fear citizens with guns, think how much more you should fear someone who can defeat them.
Cite?
Law abiding citizens of California peacefully submitted to the confiscation of some firearms. Aside from the fact that Elvis’s dreams of banning all guns from private ownership is politically impossible and constitionally impermissible, it will not make any sort of difference to the folks who are most responsible for the violence and murder that Elvis pretends to be concerned about. Criminals simply will not give up their guns because we pass a law that tells them to surrender the guns that they are already breaking the law to possess.
You want a cite for common sense? So some criminal who is breaking the law by owning a gun is going to suddenly comply with a law that tells him to hand in his gun at the local police station? Or am I misunderstanding your request for a cite?
Welcome to the SDMB, Dr. Butts. It’s a fun and interesting place. I hope that once you become familiar with it, you’ll stick around.
Just like at Ruby Ridge and Waco, right? 
If you think you can outfight the government with fucking sidearms, you’re even crazier than I thought.
Welcome to the concept of having a government. Perhaps someday you’ll even realize that we have a democratic one here, and that the government is therefore us.
Look around you, fool. That’s already the case. And it always *has *been.
I don’t think most of the people who ranting about fighting tyranny on the internet are serious, mostly they are full of shit. However, there will be more than a few Wacos and Ruby Ridge’s if the feds try to enforce national gun confiscation. You might have to impose martial law in places like Wyoming and the northern plains states. Its just infeasible.
Its one thing to wish we never had guns, its another to think you can disarm the public just by passing a law.
Absolutely, and this government supports the individual right to possess firearms. or is it only “us” when it does what you want?
I think you are assuming a level of cooperation from front line troops that will not be present. If you told the marines to go invade Montana and take their guns, I don’t know if you’ll get the sort of compliance you think you will.
Confiscation will NEVER happen.
I can’t name 30 states where a senator that would vote for such a thing could ever get elected. And if you did get 60 senators to vote for confiscating everybody’s guns you couldn’t enforce the law.
Nobody (military, police or national guard) would enforce this law in many parts of the country.
You would probably need martial law to get compliance in some parts of the country.
And once again, you would not get compliance from criminals.
Crap! I don’t know how that happened, what I wanted a cite for is this:
Funny. ?
A local happening concerning carrying:
In Minnesota, a permit holder who sends in prior notification can carry in otherwise restricted areas including the state capitol building. Back in January when in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings many states including MN were considering expanded gun restrictions, pro-gun supporters showed their opposition to the proposed laws by packing the public hearings at the capitol. Many, myself included, exercised their legal right to attend while carrying. Some of the legislators pushing the proposed gun control laws complained that they felt “intimidated”; and as a result there is now a move to rescind the provision allowing carrying in the capitol. There were hearings on the subject today and more scheduled for next week.
Now I should add that currently there is no screening at the state capitol- anyone could smuggle in a gun easily enough. And since murder, assault with a deadly weapon and carrying without a permit are all felonies, additional provisions would seem to merely make the misuse of firearms illegaler. Not to mention that permit holders have been vetted as having clean records, and that anyone willing to jump through the hoops to meet the permit law’s requirements is likely to be respectful of the law. But the anti-gun faction seems positively obsessed with the idea that anyone could be allowed to carry in the state capitol.
To permit holders, this feels like if teenage girls who sought to obtain birth control were denigrated as promiscuous sluts, while teenage girls who didn’t bother to obtain birth control were ignored.
So why would you *want *to have a gun with you when visiting the Capitol? What purpose do you see it serving? Is it something more than showing them damn librul politishuns what might happen if they try some of that tyranny stuff on yew? And is their statement about feeling intimidated not justified? And is that how you think democracy should work?
You’re a fucking menace, in more than one way.
Limited categorical thinking is apparently a burden no gun advocate can overcome.
Nearly half (47%) of murderers had no prior conviction for a felony or misdemeanor.
Determining that someone at a given point in time has not committed a crime does not mean that that person will never commit a crime. People are not static.
This is worth noting: regardless of what gun policies, or not, are actually being brought to the floor of any given legislature, you’ll note that there are a LOT more incidences of “bring a gun to the capitol” requests, gun-carrying rallies, etc. when the GOP is out of power.
Realistically, this shit started REALLY getting insanely popular in the midst of some of the most laissaez-faire gun policies in decades (given the Heller decision, etc.), in the face of Obama and the legislature being so entirely disinterested in gun control that people resorted to making up conspiracy theories about the government buying up all the ammo to prevent gun owners from getting any.
Somewhat obviously, this next bit is not addressed directly at Elvis (but he’s got the verbal skill of a baboon on meth so I figured I’d clarify):
I personally strongly disapprove of non-habitual carriers who carry to political functions to make a point–it’s not quite criminal, but it certainly speaks to your motive being as much to frighten as to assert your rights. If it was that important to you, you WOULD carry habitually–and if you don’t carry habitually, carrying your gun is not going to be any more rhetorically powerful than carrying a sign like a normal protester, it’s just going to make you look somewhere between silly and a would-be tyrant.