Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-14-2018 12:34 AM
185 online now:
PaulK, xongsmith (2 members, 183 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 841,909 Year: 16,732/29,783 Month: 720/1,956 Week: 223/331 Day: 1/98 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3536
37
38394041Next
Author Topic:   Gun Control III
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10237
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 542 of 607 (842410)
10-31-2018 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 541 by ICANT
10-31-2018 3:16 AM


Re: Today's carry package:
Seat belts, speed limits, insurance requirements, licensing, registration etc. Aren't restricted to the UK. You have these things in the US too. And the fact that some people break these laws is not an argument against them. They have had a significant effect on automobile safety.

So - I ask again - What would be the problem with guns being equally well regulated?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by ICANT, posted 10-31-2018 3:16 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 545 by ICANT, posted 11-02-2018 12:33 AM Straggler has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17861
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 543 of 607 (842411)
10-31-2018 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 539 by ICANT
10-30-2018 7:02 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
ICANT writes:

Percy writes:

It is a fact, not bias, that firearms are extremely dangerous and deadly.

Firearms are extremely deadly in the hands of trained people.

Given the 38,000+ people killed by firearms each year, they're extremely deadly in anyone's hands.

No firearm by itself is extremely dangerous. If you can find me an example where a firearm got the shells out of the box inserted them in the magazine loaded one in the chamber and discharged killing someone or wounding someone I will agree with you that firearms are extremely dangerous.

What is wrong with you? Why do you keep rebutting something I've never said and that I've repeatedly reminded you I've never said? No one, including me, denies that a firearm sitting by itself is not going to harm anyone. To clarify, we can draw these equivalences:

  • "Firearms by themselves" = not dangerous
  • "Unarmed people" = not usually very dangerous
  • "People + firearms" = very dangerous

This is why people and firearms shouldn't mix.

Until then I will believe that the person holding a firearm is responsible for what the firearm does, not the firearm.

I have said the exact same thing. Again, a person with a firearm is very dangerous, which is why people shouldn't have firearms. There was a point in time not very many messages ago where you seemed to understand that I want to take people's guns away. I've never made any ridiculous statements about guns shooting people by themselves. I think your memory is failing you. Perhaps you should reread the thread.

The same thing goes for automobiles. It is the driver that is responsible for what the automobile does.

Yes, of course, we agree. But both motor vehicles and licenses to operate them are tightly regulated. Guns and gun licenses should be, too. Random inspections of homes to insure safe storage and proper maintenance should be part of it.

Percy writes:

You've made this argument before. The answer hasn't changed. Transportation is essential to any economy. Guns are not.

My guns are just as essential to my peace of mind and to my ability to protect my family and myself and friends. As cars are to the survival of the human race.

Your peace of mind is grounded in a delusion that your guns make you safer. And neither guns nor cars are essential to the survival of the human race - you're getting absurd again. You seem to ping-pong between "wrong", "crazy", "silly", "irrelevant" and "absurd".

Mankind got by without automobiles for over at least 5,000 years.

More like a couple hundred thousand years.

But mankind would not be here if he had not had weapons to defend his family and himself and provide food for the table. They didn't have the supermarket to run to and get food, like you do.

There are undoubtedly times and places where weapons are necessary. The modern United States is not one of them.

Percy writes:

True. Would that guns were regulated as tightly as motor vehicles.

Weapons have been around a lot longer than cars have.

Is there a coherent argument in there somewhere?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by ICANT, posted 10-30-2018 7:02 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3087
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 544 of 607 (842460)
11-01-2018 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by ICANT
10-23-2018 11:10 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
I am fairly sure you don't use an AR-15 to do your hunting.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by ICANT, posted 10-23-2018 11:10 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 546 by ICANT, posted 11-02-2018 1:09 AM ramoss has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 545 of 607 (842501)
11-02-2018 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 542 by Straggler
10-31-2018 9:06 AM


Re: Today's carry package:
Hi Straggler,

Straggler writes:

So - I ask again - What would be the problem with guns being equally well regulated?

Seat belts, do not stop automobiles from having wrecks.

speed limits, even when obeyed do not stop automobiles from having wrecks.

insurance requirements, don't stop automobiles from having wrecks whether a person is covered or not.

licensing, Putting a tag on the vehicle don't stop automobiles from having wrecks.

registration, being on record don't stop automobiles from having wrecks.

You purchase a gun from a licensed dealer and it will be registered today. Nothing stops someone from taking a registered gun and killing someone with it.

A license is required to carry a concealed weapon. But nothing keeps a person without a license from concealing a weapon on his/her person and then using it to kill someone.

As you can see government rules and regulations don't stop automobile wrecks from happening and gun laws don't stop guns from being used to kill people.

Both require an operator for them to be operate.

Fix the humans and you will fix the problem.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 542 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2018 9:06 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 547 by Straggler, posted 11-02-2018 9:24 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 551 by Percy, posted 11-02-2018 6:05 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 546 of 607 (842502)
11-02-2018 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 544 by ramoss
11-01-2018 10:38 AM


Re: Today's carry package:
Hi ramoss,

ramoss writes:

I am fairly sure you don't use an AR-15 to do your hunting.

I don't even own an AR15 I classify them as toys.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 544 by ramoss, posted 11-01-2018 10:38 AM ramoss has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 548 by ringo, posted 11-02-2018 12:10 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 552 by Percy, posted 11-02-2018 6:25 PM ICANT has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10237
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 547 of 607 (842512)
11-02-2018 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 545 by ICANT
11-02-2018 12:33 AM


Re: Today's carry package:
†Fix the humans and you will fix the problem

Humans are innately imperfect. Even the superhuman, ever vigilant honed to flawlessness, ICANT is only a mistake or mental breakdown away from his guns hurting himself or those he loves or just innocent strangers in the vicinity at the time. That's just a fact of the human condition. Nobody can guarantee 100% it won't be them.

Anyway- Autombile regulation has had a dramatic effect on road safety. Are you really going to dispute that?

So - Again - Why not regulate guns to the same extent as automobiles?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by ICANT, posted 11-02-2018 12:33 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 550 by ICANT, posted 11-02-2018 4:57 PM Straggler has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15567
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 548 of 607 (842523)
11-02-2018 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 546 by ICANT
11-02-2018 1:09 AM


Re: Today's carry package:
ICANT writes:

I don't even own an AR15 I classify them as toys.


So your claim about guns being "tools" was false.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 546 by ICANT, posted 11-02-2018 1:09 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 549 by ICANT, posted 11-02-2018 4:50 PM ringo has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 549 of 607 (842536)
11-02-2018 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 548 by ringo
11-02-2018 12:10 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
Hi ringo,

ringo writes:

So your claim about guns being "tools" was false.

Guns are tools. I classify an AR15 as a toy. I have no use for one. Therefore I don't own one. I have fired an AR15.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 548 by ringo, posted 11-02-2018 12:10 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 566 by ringo, posted 11-04-2018 1:06 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 550 of 607 (842537)
11-02-2018 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 547 by Straggler
11-02-2018 9:24 AM


Re: Today's carry package:
Hi Straggler,

Straggler writes:

So - Again - Why not regulate guns to the same extent as automobiles?

What laws are applied to automobiles that are not applied to guns?

There are guns that it is against the law to own.

I don't know of any automobile that it is against the law to own. Even the street legal ones that will do 250 mph.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 547 by Straggler, posted 11-02-2018 9:24 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 555 by Straggler, posted 11-03-2018 1:26 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17861
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


(4)
Message 551 of 607 (842553)
11-02-2018 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 545 by ICANT
11-02-2018 12:33 AM


Re: Today's carry package:
So many of your replies seem to run along the lines of, "I have no coherent answer, so I shall string together a bunch of non sequiturs," and this reply is just more of the same.

ICANT writes:

Straggler writes:

So - I ask again - What would be the problem with guns being equally well regulated?

Seat belts, do not stop automobiles from having wrecks.

Is there anyone, not just in this thread but anywhere in the world, who has claimed that seat belts prevent motor vehicle accidents? No, of course not. Then why are you saying such a silly thing?

Seat belts help reduce the likelihood and severity of injury in the event of an accident. I can't think of anything equivalent that you could do to a gun, but a bullet-resistant vest would be something like the equivalent of a seat belt in a gun context.

speed limits, even when obeyed do not stop automobiles from having wrecks.

This isn't as bad as your previous response, but it's pretty close. Speed limits help reduce the likelihood and severity of motor vehicle accidents. The equivalent for a gun might be to reduce the firing rate.

insurance requirements, don't stop automobiles from having wrecks whether a person is covered or not.

This one's just as ludicrous as the first. Of course insurance doesn't prevent motor vehicle accidents. What idiot would think they would?

The gun equivalent would be requiring gun insurance in the event your gun causes property or personal injury or death, in the same way that insurance is required for motor vehicles.

licensing, Putting a tag on the vehicle don't stop automobiles from having wrecks.

This is about as bad as the second one. Motor vehicle licensing helps minimize the frequency with which motor vehicles are operated by people who have not fulfilled the requisite criteria, such as receiving training, passing a driving test and an eyesight test, recording whether they need vision correction to drive, etc. A gun license would do pretty much the same.

registration, being on record don't stop automobiles from having wrecks.

This one is pretty bad, too. A fully registered vehicle means it has clear ownership, that it has been inspected and is safe to drive, and that its pollution control devices are working. A registered gun would mean it has clear ownership, that it has been inspected and is safe to fire, that no registration information has been filed off or obscured, that its rifling pattern is recorded, and that it has not had any illegal modifications performed.

You purchase a gun from a licensed dealer and it will be registered today.

Registration isn't required in most states. For guns purchased from gun dealers it depends upon the state, and for guns purchased privately or at gun shows usually no registration is required at all. There are no federal laws regarding registration, and there is no national gun registry. Here's a list, this is taken from the Wikipedia article on gun laws in the United States:

StateRegistration Required
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
ConnecticutX (in-state purchases only)
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
HawaiiX (with some exceptions)
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
MarylandX (not long guns)
MassachusettsX (with many exceptions)
MichiganX (not long guns)
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New JerseyX (not long guns)
New Mexico
New YorkX (not long guns)
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
PennsylvaniaX (not long guns, partial for handguns)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
WashingtonX (not long guns, partial for handguns)
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

As you can see, few states require registration of any kind.

Nothing stops someone from taking a registered gun and killing someone with it.

Of course not, and that's stupid - registration, no matter for what, doesn't prevent misuse. But if rifling were recorded at the time of registration, and if there were a national registry, then many otherwise unsolved murders could be solved. And knowing all bullets could be traced back to the gun that fired them, and that guns can be traced back to their owners, could act as a discouragement to murder.

A license is required to carry a concealed weapon. But nothing keeps a person without a license from concealing a weapon on his/her person and then using it to kill someone.

You seem to be having a great deal of difficulty understanding simple things, like the purpose of licensing and registration. It isn't prevention.

As you can see government rules and regulations don't stop automobile wrecks from happening and gun laws don't stop guns from being used to kill people.

This is as meaningless as all the other ways you said it.

Both require an operator for them to be operated.

Well, duh.

Fix the humans and you will fix the problem.

Take the guns away and it will fix the problem.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by ICANT, posted 11-02-2018 12:33 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 571 by ICANT, posted 11-05-2018 9:54 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17861
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 552 of 607 (842557)
11-02-2018 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 546 by ICANT
11-02-2018 1:09 AM


Re: Today's carry package:
ICANT writes:

I don't even own an AR15 I classify them as toys.

You just never give up saying incredibly stupid things. These toys, as you call them (including similar weapons like the Bushmaster), have been used to carry out a number of mass murders. Here's a list going back as far as the Sandy Hook Elementary School and Aurora shootings:

IncidentYearKilledInjured
Pittsburgh Synagogue2018117
Stoneman Douglas High School20181717
Las Vegas201759422
Sutherland Springs Church20172720
Orlando Nightclub20165053
San Bernardino20151624
Umpqua Community College2015108
Washington Navy Yard2013138
Sandy Hook Elementary2012282
Aurora20121270

AR-15's and similar weapons are not toys. That you call them toys says that you are cold, insensitive and irrational, and that you place a lower value on human life than on making sure these murderously dangerous weapons that you consider toys remain in wide circulation - but then we knew that already.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 546 by ICANT, posted 11-02-2018 1:09 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 572 by ICANT, posted 11-05-2018 10:24 AM Percy has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 553 of 607 (842567)
11-02-2018 8:20 PM


Another snub nosed day.
Today I carried my Taurus 605 Protector, a five round revolver chambered for 38 Special or 357 Magnum. I chose 38 Special today.

The old Gould & Goodrich paddle type holster I bought about 20 years or so ago is a perfect fit for the much newer Taurus 605 and I must admit that the new handguns are almost as pleasant as my older ones and also somewhat lighter. My 1903 Smith & Wesson DA (Double Action; pulling the trigger advances a cylinder, cocks and releases the hammer) weighs right at a pound. It too has five cylinder but initially I carry with an empty cylinder under the hammer and two speed loaders with additional five rounds each. Fast forward to the 1980s and my Colt Detective Special was a full six rounds but weighed in at slightly over one and a third pounds; but it is safe to carry with all six cylinders loaded. Looking a couple similar modern revolvers like the Smith & Wesson 642 and Taurus 605 Protector we find five rounds with a transfer bar so that the hammer cannot hit a cartridge unless the trigger is pulled fully back and stronger alloy frames to handle more powerful loadings than the earlier handguns but with lighter weight frames. The Smith & Wesson 642 weighs almost exactly the same as the Smith & Wesson DA Model 4 from 115 years ago while the Taurus at just under one and a quarter pounds is slightly lighter than the Colt Detective Special.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios † † My Website: My Website

Replies to this message:
 Message 554 by Straggler, posted 11-03-2018 12:44 AM jar has responded
 Message 557 by Percy, posted 11-03-2018 8:46 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10237
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 554 of 607 (842572)
11-03-2018 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 553 by jar
11-02-2018 8:20 PM


Re: Another snub nosed day.
Itís impressive you can still type whilst touching yourself in that way...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 553 by jar, posted 11-02-2018 8:20 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 556 by jar, posted 11-03-2018 8:36 AM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10237
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 555 of 607 (842576)
11-03-2018 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 550 by ICANT
11-02-2018 4:57 PM


Re: Today's carry package:
I donít know of any automobile that it is against the law to own

What are you talking about? There are tons of regulations and safety standards imposed by the NHTSA that all cars must pass before they can be shipped and sold in America.

As for the laws equivalence, I will simply refer you to Percyís post Message 551

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by ICANT, posted 11-02-2018 4:57 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 556 of 607 (842584)
11-03-2018 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 554 by Straggler
11-03-2018 12:44 AM


Re: Another snub nosed day.
That's interesting. Now go play with your little friends.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios † † My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by Straggler, posted 11-03-2018 12:44 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 562 by Straggler, posted 11-03-2018 1:14 PM jar has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
3536
37
38394041Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018