Pages: 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 105

 

2012-12-15 12:58:04
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5569|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

I don't believe in concealed carry so they shouldn't have a gun in their glove box.

How did they get to the gun if it was in a safe?

The majority of guns are registered.

Yawnface
You don't have to register rifles or shotguns. The majority of weapons are rifles and shotguns.

What if they are carrying a handgun in their glovebox on the way to the range?

See Macbeth, you're behaving like everyone else on the left, big dreams, no details. Your idea is impossible to implement and would just be an annoyance, not a deterrent.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-12-15 13:06:19
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5797

See Macbeth, you're behaving like everyone else on the left, big dreams, no details.
I just gave details. Guns safes, you crack baby.
2012-12-15 13:09:59
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5569|London, England
That's not a detail Macbeth. How often would you like them inspected? Who's going to inspect them? Is it on the honor system? How are you going to get around fourth amendment issues? How are you going to track people with unregistered rifles and shotguns? How will you know to force them to buy your gun safe? What if they are too poor to buy a gun safe, or the gun safe is defective? What if the guns are locked in the safe and it's broken into anyway? These are details Macbeth. Saying that everyone should have to buy a gun safe is like saying the world should be terraformed flat. Ideas are useless without the details worked out to see if they are feasible.

And frankly, the best response to your idea is this: why aren't the cops better at protecting homes from being broken into and weapons stolen out of them in the first place? If the cops were better at their job i.e. not on the side of the road bullshitting with each other all shift, it wouldn't be an issue at all. But then you want these same lazy incompetent cops to have access to everyones home to inspect their gun safes.

Last edited by Jay (2012-12-15 13:12:16)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-12-15 13:16:01
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5797

Are you going to keep asking me the same thing and make me copy and paste my previous answers?

Jay wrote:

Are you going to have cops inspect everyones home to make sure they have a safe or a trigger lock? Are you going to have those cops check in every day to make sure the weapons are secure?

Macbeth wrote:

Prosecute people if their guns were used in crimes. If the proper precautions are in place there shouldn't be any stolen guns used in killings. That is enough stick to make sure people start using safes and locks.
2012-12-15 13:17:09
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5569|London, England
So what you're saying is that you don't know and don't care. Ok. I bet it sounded nice in your head before you posted it though.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-12-15 13:22:52
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5797

That's not a detail Macbeth. How often would you like them inspected? Who's going to inspect them? Is it on the honor system? How are you going to get around fourth amendment issues? How are you going to track people with unregistered rifles and shotguns? How will you know to force them to buy your gun safe? What if they are too poor to buy a gun safe, or the gun safe is defective? What if the guns are locked in the safe and it's broken into anyway?
I already said there is no need to to do inspections if you have a policy of prosecution for failure to comply.
Most guns are registered especially the ones where the real problem lies: handguns
If you are too poor to buy a safe then you shouldn't own a gun. No wonder why you grew up so poor. Your family must have some bad decision making skills.
If your safe is defective explain that when you are questioned.
Same with if they managed to crack it.


These aren't really details by the way.

Last edited by Macbeth (2012-12-15 13:23:44)

2012-12-15 13:28:57
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5569|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

That's not a detail Macbeth. How often would you like them inspected? Who's going to inspect them? Is it on the honor system? How are you going to get around fourth amendment issues? How are you going to track people with unregistered rifles and shotguns? How will you know to force them to buy your gun safe? What if they are too poor to buy a gun safe, or the gun safe is defective? What if the guns are locked in the safe and it's broken into anyway?
I already said there is no need to to do inspections if you have a policy of prosecution for failure to comply.
Most guns are registered especially the ones where the real problem lies: handguns
If you are too poor to buy a safe then you shouldn't own a gun. No wonder why you grew up so poor. Your family must have some bad decision making skills.
If your safe is defective explain that when you are questioned.
Same with if they managed to crack it.


These aren't really details by the way.
No, most guns are not registered. Most states do not require any form of registration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_i … ed_States_(by_state)

Are you going to advocate a federal registry next? Good luck with that. Even your own state doesn't require registration.

Last edited by Jay (2012-12-15 13:30:24)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-12-15 13:30:34
CC-Marley
Member
+407|7040

Macbeth wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

This shooting and the Ohio shooting were both done with stolen weapons. Gun safes and trigger locks were have stopped these shootings without stomping all over the 2nd amendment. Gun people still hate both of those though.
Who knows how he got the guns from her. They may have been locked up and he may of beat his mother until she unlocked them. We just don't know enough at this point.
2012-12-15 13:32:41
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5797

Number I last saw said 200 million out of 300 million were. Do you have anything to say about any of my other points?!
2012-12-15 13:37:55
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5569|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

Number I last saw said 200 million out of 300 million were. Do you have anything to say about any of my other points?!
The point where you made fun of me for growing up poor? Nah, got nothing to say about that. I did report you for it though. Kept trying to tell you to remain civil...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-12-15 13:40:13
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5797

So I guess all of my other points were correct then since you have to go to the mods to complain. Another win for me.
2012-12-15 13:42:53
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5569|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

So I guess all of my other points were correct then since you have to go to the mods to complain. Another win for me.
Nah, you didn't make any real points. I already poked a dozen holes in your idea but you refuse to acknowledge them. I reported you because you can't go more than three posts without insulting someone and you add nothing to the forum except creepiness. Hopefully it's permanent this time.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-12-15 13:45:50
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5797

I responded to all of your "holes" and now you are trying to find a way out of admitting you were wrong. So I guess I win here. Gun control is good.
2012-12-15 13:51:39
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5797

There should also be federal registries to track guns between states.
2012-12-15 13:51:55
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5390|Sydney
The fact remains that assault rifles and the like should never have been made available to the public. That's for military use only and should've stayed that way. Handguns should've been hard to get, made registered and made it a legal requirement to report them when discovered stolen or missing within a 48 hour period or some such timeframe.

All these talking points and more are irrelevant now. There are far too many guns in the US to even begin tracking them all and people gave had these rights for so long now that they violently (almost literally) oppose even moderate forms of gun control. Pandora's Box has been open for far, far too long and it would take a couple decades and most likely political suicide or bipartisan support for it to ever happen, ergo it won't.
2012-12-15 13:54:28
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5569|London, England

Jaekus wrote:

The fact remains that assault rifles and the like should never have been made available to the public. That's for military use only and should've stayed that way. Handguns should've been hard to get, made registered and made it a legal requirement to report them when discovered stolen or missing within a 48 hour period or some such timeframe.

All these talking points and more are irrelevant now. There are far too many guns in the US to even begin tracking them all and people gave had these rights for so long now that they violently (almost literally) oppose even moderate forms of gun control. Pandora's Box has been open for far, far too long and it would take a couple decades and most likely political suicide or bipartisan support for it to ever happen, ergo it won't.
What is an assault rifle?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-12-15 14:20:16
rdx-fx
...
+955|6803

Jaekus wrote:

The fact remains that assault rifles and the like should never have been made available to the public. That's for military use only and should've stayed that way.

Jay wrote:

What is an assault rifle?
It is illegal for civilians to own actual assault rifles (automatic M4, M16, or such), with very rare exception.

It is also illegal to possess firearms for people with violent crime convictions, potentially violent psychiatric histories, felony convictions, or sex offenders.

Anyone that legally owns a registered short barrel rifle, registered automatic weapon, or registered suppressor("silencer") is subject to random ATF inspection of the premises where said item is stored.

If you want to add another law to the books in the interest of public safety, make a law that everyone with a violent conviction, sex offender conviction, felony conviction, or potentially violent psychiatric diagnosis is subject to random law enforcement inspection of their person and living area.  Same as if you're a completely law-abiding, non-violent suppressor owner.

Edit: Personally, I'd add "DUI conviction" to the above.  If you are too stupid to not drink and drive, you are too stupid to own a firearm. Or, make it where you have to pass the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Index) to be eligible for firearms ownership.

The problem is not that we need more laws.
The problem is how to enforce the laws we already have.
You can make all the laws you want - they're useless without adequate enforcement.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2012-12-15 14:26:50)

2012-12-15 14:34:48
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5390|Sydney

rdx-fx wrote:

If you want to add another law to the books in the interest of public safety, make a law that everyone with a violent conviction, sex offender conviction, felony conviction, or potentially violent psychiatric diagnosis is subject to random law enforcement inspection of their person and living area.  Same as if you're a completely law-abiding, non-violent suppressor owner.

Edit: Personally, I'd add "DUI conviction" to the above.  If you are too stupid to not drink and drive, you are too stupid to own a firearm. Or, make it where you have to pass the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Index) to be eligible for firearms ownership.

The problem is not that we need more laws.
The problem is how to enforce the laws we already have.
You can make all the laws you want - they're useless without adequate enforcement.
Agreed, especially the last paragraph.
2012-12-15 14:38:06
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5569|London, England
It's too bad about that Fourth Amendment thing...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-12-15 14:41:50
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6883|UK
US constitution kinda sucks dick.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2012-12-15 14:42:42
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5569|London, England

m3thod wrote:

US constitution kinda sucks dick.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-12-15 14:47:13
rdx-fx
...
+955|6803

Jay wrote:

It's too bad about that Fourth Amendment thing...
Doesn't seem to slow down the TSA
2012-12-15 14:56:00
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5569|London, England
True, but they can make the argument that it is voluntary to fly. I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.

You're basically asking cops to harass people. When people serve time in jail for violent crimes, or sex crimes or whatever else do you not feel that they get a clean slate when they complete their sentence? Because that's how our justice system is set up now. You do your time, you get released back into society. If you fuck up again you get a harsher sentence, but if you don't, you get to move on with your life. You're basically advocating lifetime punishment and harassment. Frankly, I think the way ex-cons are treated by society when they are released contributes more to recidivism rates than anything else. We already make it next to impossible to find work by forcing them to put convictions on their job application, now you want to add more to the burden?

Regardless, it wouldn't have done anything to stop what happened yesterday. White kid killed his mom, stole her guns and her car, drove to a different state and murdered a bunch of children. Please tell me how ramping up enforcement and randomized searches of peoples homes would've prevented that. Hint: it wouldn't.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-12-15 15:38:50
rdx-fx
...
+955|6803

Jay wrote:

When people serve time in jail for violent crimes, or sex crimes or whatever else do you not feel that they get a clean slate when they complete their sentence?
Probable cause.

Prior violent offenders are more likely to repeat offend, people with no criminal record are unlikely to become violent offenders.

They served their sentence, they did not erase what they've done.

Just because a rapist served a couple years in prison doesn't erase the nightmares his victim has, doesn't erase her fear walking alone at night.

Large difference between serving a jail term, and becoming a decent human being.
2012-12-15 15:44:53
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5569|London, England

rdx-fx wrote:

Jay wrote:

When people serve time in jail for violent crimes, or sex crimes or whatever else do you not feel that they get a clean slate when they complete their sentence?
Probable cause.

Prior violent offenders are more likely to repeat offend, people with no criminal record are unlikely to become violent offenders.

They served their sentence, they did not erase what they've done.

Just because a rapist served a couple years in prison doesn't erase the nightmares his victim has, doesn't erase her fear walking alone at night.

Large difference between serving a jail term, and becoming a decent human being.
Then you feel that prison sentences should be longer? Or should we just put a bullet in the head of everyone convicted of a violent crime?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

 

Pages: 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 105

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard