The guy inside is still alive through dumb luck. Would you brush it off so easily if he’d been killed?
Also, you forgot to say “responsible” gun owner loses all common sense when drunk. That’s what he was before he lost his shit, right? He had a legal permit and everything. I doubt he got a brain transplant with a different personality that made him shoot through the door.
Yeah, because if he didn’t have a gun, no telling what might have happened. He might even have drunk dialed his ex.
“Law-abiding”, too.
His “bad day” means nothing compared to the bad day of a guy who nearly got killed by a human being with normal levels of self-control, including the willingness to get drunk on occasion (something I expect you yourself know well), who had the means to act on his reduced impulse control.
IOW, you haven’t identified the real problem yet, although I do think you subsconsciously recognize it in yourself, as your constant references to having bad days attest. Now try a little harder and see where that realization gets you.
The muzzle-breathalyzer-lock would not be activated until after you disengage the safety.
We have 50 states that require car registration. What do you think the odds are of getting gun registration in 50 states without a federal mandate?
And why is a federal registry any more tyrannical than 50 state registries
My favorite entries in this thread are, far and away, the ones where the antis (who are all about not wanting people killed, they keep telling us) start wishing harm or death on gun owners. These are largely the same people who will pule and moan in other threads over the death of a burglar because “we don’t have the death penalty for burglary.” I love it when you show your true beliefs as it reinforces that compromising with you has no good end.
I don’t know how “responsible” it is to get drunk while in possession of a firearm.
In fact its illegal in many places.
With that said, much like drunk driving, some people with guns still get drunk.
So, in your view, at what point did this latest yahoo become no longer “law-abiding”? And what would you propose to do to prevent or limit the danger that such yahoos present to the rest of us?
Not seeing anything about that but the usual facile sermons from you, pard.
We could stop the rape epidemic by preemptively castrating men, because every rapist was originally a law-abiding citizen until they committed their first rape. A human being with normal levels of self-control, including the willingness to get drunk on occasion, who had the means to act on his reduced impulse control. I nominate ElvisL1ves for the pilot program.
You don’t have a serious answer, do you? It’s a serious problem, and you need to think about it for a change.
It’s telling that you equate being unarmed with being castrated. Not surprising, no, but telling anyway.
OK, I’ll try to spell it out in short simple words that even you might understand.
What you’re proposing- severely limiting what weapons people can own- is what’s legally called prior restraint: someone hasn’t done anything wrong, but they might and therefore they can’t be trusted. Your position, as amply attested to in multiple threads on this board, is that the vast majority of people shouldn’t be trusted with firearms to begin with, and that the misuse of them justifies eliminating the legal right of people who’ve never done anything wrong to own them. In other words, that civil society is to be based on a degree of helplessness: not that people should be taught right from wrong, expected to take responsibility for their actions, and punished when they harm others, but that they must be depowered to limit how much harm they could do.
My castration example was facetious but logically identical to the arguments made for gun control. Think about it.
[quote=“Lumpy, post:7032, topic:648729”]
OK, I’ll try to spell it out in short simple words that even you might understand.
What you’re proposing- severely limiting what weapons people can own- is what’s legally called prior restraint: someone hasn’t done anything wrong, but they might and therefore they can’t be trusted. Your position, as amply attested to in multiple threads on this board, is that the vast majority of people shouldn’t be trusted with firearms to begin with, and that the misuse of them justifies eliminating the legal right of people who’ve never done anything wrong to own them. In other words, that civil society is to be based on a degree of helplessness: not that people should be taught right from wrong, expected to take responsibility for their actions, and punished when they harm others, but that they must be depowered to limit how much harm they could do.
My castration example was facetious but logically identical to the arguments made for gun control. Think about it./QUOTE]
You know you’re talking to Elvis, right? He’s the guy that other gun control folks think is too stupid to be on their side.
Half marks for getting half the point.
Was he a responsible gun owner before he got drunk?
Here’s the latest stupid gun news: Young girl finds gun under pillow and kills self.
According to the initial investigation, police say the girl found the gun in an upstairs bedroom and shot herself while the grandmother was downstairs. Police say two other young children, ages 1 and 3, also were upstairs at the time. They weren’t injured.
The Tooth Fairy’s not messing around.
And I have my pea shooter.
One gun for sale. Auction starts tomorrow. Guess the seller.
Oh George, you fucking wanker.
Which is how you should probably view Lumpy, but maybe the gap between you isn’t large.