Guns

[myrkul]

I think your mother may have something to say to you about your choice of words.

Fucktard.

I'm sure she'd be proud of you for that one, too.

[1713981946]

1713981946

[1713981946]

1713981946

[1713981946]

1713981946

[1713981946]

1713981946

[1713981946]

1713981946

[vampire]

I think your mother may have something to say to you about your choice of words.

Fucktard.

I'm sure she'd be proud of you for that one, too.

Since we have established that I am smarter than you. What do you think?

[myrkul]

I think your mother may have something to say to you about your choice of words.

Fucktard.

I'm sure she'd be proud of you for that one, too.

Since we have established that I am smarter than you. What do you think?

All you have established is that you are more vulgar than I am. And more willing to use slurs. As to what I think, I agree that "Profanity is the last refuge of the truly ignorant." So, unless you have something productive to add, kindly silence yourself, so the adults can speak.

[nimda]

In the U.S., "no, you're not 'supposed' to." Elsewhere, it is, and often is.

As for "not 'supposed' to," it can and will happen anyways. Put a huge tax on it, require $100K in licenses, papers, registration etc, then start passing laws banning them in theaters, New York City, residential areas, etc. You'll wind up with 100 rich white survivalist gun owners who also own a million acres of land, 320 million gun-less civilians, and 30 million "criminals" owning guns, some of whom will kill a person in their lifetime and some who are perfectly law-abiding minus the guns part.

Because there's a lot of guns here already.

If that's response to me. Let me ask questions ( I can guess the answers)

First question:

Do you think that CCW should be unrestrictive.
CCW should be allowed only after a formal training.
CCW should be allowed only after a formal training and state certification.

I am all for gun education. In fact, formal training with state certification is fine, as long as it is provided free by the state. Or very cheaply, but a poor person's definition of "cheap" is often at odds with that of a Congressman.

I am also all for education on the perils of drugs, including alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs, and pharmaceutical drugs.

Second question:

If a gun gets stolen the owner isn't responsible for any crime that it caused
The owner only responsible for the portion of the damages.
The owner has a full responsibility.

This one is tricky. Doesn't the gun owner have a responsibility for the gun; shouldn't he keep it safe? Yet he didn't do the killing. He can't have a full responsibility, because he didn't kill anyone or rob any banks. I'm gonna have to go with partial responsibility.
If someone drowns in my pool, I can be sued. Never mind that they were there without my permission and trying to rob me.
If a child is at my house who eats some pills that look like M&M's, I can be sued.
What about if someone steals my knife and uses it to commit murder? Should that be different than if someone steals my gun?

In any case, gun education would include a lengthy section on keeping guns dismantled and secure, to avoid accidental injury (child plays with gun, shoots self) and theft.

Third question:

Should be businesses be allowed to established their own rules:

1) yes, they could restrict guns in their establishments
2) no.

Is a bank a business? Should people be allowed to carry guns into banks? What about knives? Poison darts? Hammers? Glass bottles? Stump remover (stump remover, when used correctly, is explosive BTW)?
There's two sides to this, and both can end badly:
1.a A bank or other business bans guns on their property. Someone comes in and shoots up the bank. Defenseless victims.
1.b A bank or other business bans guns on their property. Someone comes in and robs the bank using a non-gun weapon.
1.c A bank or other business bans guns on their property. Criminals don't obey the law, so they bring guns in anyways. They rob or shoot up the bank.
2. A bank does not ban guns on their property. Someone comes in and shoots up the bank or tries to rob it.

At least in bad scenario 2, there are civilians who can come to the defense of themselves and others. Ultimately, I believe that it is the bank's property, and they should be able to make their own decisions. They should have security on-hand. Perhaps the security is armed and can come to the defense of themselves and others. If enough customers believe that the security is inadequate, they will use a bank which allows open-carry or has better security.
[/quote]

Did you guess correctly?

[vampire]

@nimda

Yes, you have a similar stance.

My own answers:

Mandatory certification from a gun club. Negative about the state certification. Mandatory school training.

Opens the person to lawsuits, damages depends if the gun was reported stolen early/properly stored/etc

Private business can set their own rules, vote with your dollar to change them.

I had mandatory training in weapons at age of 14 in my high school. AK-74 and .22 rifles, in college we were trained with AA guns.

[nimda]

I thought about something during dinner re: businesses controlling guns.

Airports and banks are high-risk and require control. In fact in the case of American airports, guns, knives, stump remover, glass bottles, pencil sharpeners, box cutters, etc, even water can be and are banned in multiple sections of the airport and certainly on the plane. And I have nothing against that.

Airports are businesses and shouldn't get special treatment just because they fly planes. There's no place to draw the line, so all businesses should be able to restrict guns on their property. The free market will take care of it soon enough if there's enough demand.

It also means that airports are a defenseless victim zone, so they should have security personnel there. If they don't, I'm gonna take my business elsewhere.

[vampire]

I think your mother may have something to say to you about your choice of words.

Fucktard.

I'm sure she'd be proud of you for that one, too.

Since we have established that I am smarter than you. What do you think?

All you have established is that you are more vulgar than I am. And more willing to use slurs. As to what I think, I agree that "Profanity is the last refuge of the truly ignorant." So, unless you have something productive to add, kindly silence yourself, so the adults can speak.

Adults? I had to repeat myself 3 times to you over the course of 3 days to prove that the study is faulty. There are limits to my patience.

[vampire]

I thought about something during dinner re: businesses controlling guns.

Airports and banks are high-risk and require control. In fact in the case of American airports, guns, knives, stump remover, glass bottles, pencil sharpeners, box cutters, etc, even water can be and are banned in multiple sections of the airport and certainly on the plane. And I have nothing against that.

Airports are businesses and shouldn't get special treatment just because they fly planes. There's no place to draw the line, so all businesses should be able to restrict guns on their property. The free market will take care of it soon enough if there's enough demand.

It also means that airports are a defenseless victim zone, so they should have security personnel there. If they don't, I'm gonna take my business elsewhere.

TSA is out of control, no doubt about it. And yes, private owners should set the rules. Though I am not sure who is the owner of the airports in NYC. I think some airlines own some terminals, but in general they are owned by a public (government) corporation  - ny/nj Port authority.

[myrkul]

I think your mother may have something to say to you about your choice of words.

Fucktard.

I'm sure she'd be proud of you for that one, too.

Since we have established that I am smarter than you. What do you think?

All you have established is that you are more vulgar than I am. And more willing to use slurs. As to what I think, I agree that "Profanity is the last refuge of the truly ignorant." So, unless you have something productive to add, kindly silence yourself, so the adults can speak.

Adults? I had to repeat myself 3 times to you over the course of 3 days to prove that the study is faulty. There are limits to my patience.

Yes, adults. People who don't call things "retarded", or "gay" as denigrating terms. People who would not be ashamed to speak in front of their mother as they do amongst their peers. People who have enough of a grasp of the English language to thoroughly insult someone without using terms such as "fucktard". Unless I have missed your point entirely, and your use of that term was not meant as an insult, but as an admission? In which case, I retract my admonition, I'm sure your mother would wholeheartedly agree.

Now, if you're done acting your shoe size instead of your age, you could address the first part of my post, ie:

A gun is a tool. A tool for self-defense.
A hammer is a tool. A tool for pounding pointy pieces of metal into wood.
A car is a tool. A tool for getting from place to place.

Can these tools be misused? Yes, yes they can.
Can they be used for violence? Yes, yes they can.
Should they, by that virtue, be outlawed? No, No they should not.

[vampire]

Now, if you're done acting your shoe size instead of your age, you could address the first part of my post, ie:

A gun is a tool. A tool for self-defense.
A hammer is a tool. A tool for pounding pointy pieces of metal into wood.
A car is a tool. A tool for getting from place to place.

Can these tools be misused? Yes, yes they can.
Can they be used for violence? Yes, yes they can.
Should they, by that virtue, be outlawed? No, No they should not.

I already addressed it. I can quote quiet few times:

Guns don't reduce or increase crime - no statistics ever conclusively proved it either way. And that's what we're arguing about.

I don't care about guns in general - you can have them, just don't wave in-front of my face. On my property and my businesses you aren't allowed to have guns.

[myrkul]

Now, if you're done acting your shoe size instead of your age, you could address the first part of my post, ie:

A gun is a tool. A tool for self-defense.
A hammer is a tool. A tool for pounding pointy pieces of metal into wood.
A car is a tool. A tool for getting from place to place.

Can these tools be misused? Yes, yes they can.
Can they be used for violence? Yes, yes they can.
Should they, by that virtue, be outlawed? No, No they should not.

I already addressed it. I can quote quiet few times:

I wish you would quote some damn quiet.

Here's another little video with some simple mathematics in it, that even you should be able to understand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=epZod2qyyN4

And while we're on the subject of videos, why has nobody responded to the Ice-T video in the original post about these stats?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-GwIbyp4xBU

[TheBitcoinChemist]

I'd bet that I'm the only person in this thread that has ever openly carried a loaded firearm onto a commercial aircraft. 

[myrkul]

I'd bet that I'm the only person in this thread that has ever openly carried a loaded firearm onto a commercial aircraft. 

Not taking that bet...seems like I'd lose.

[vampire]

Here's another little video with some simple mathematics in it, that even you should be able to understand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=epZod2qyyN4

Already addressed it. Search my post history if you will.

[myrkul]

Here's another little video with some simple mathematics in it, that even you should be able to understand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=epZod2qyyN4

Already addressed it. Search my post history if you will.

OK, just did. Nowhere in there (I went back 4 pages, to before I posted my original video) did I see you reference the statistic:
Average police response time: 6 minutes;
Average CCW draw time 5 seconds.

And that statistic is the core of my argument that rampages stopped by civilians will always have a lower average casualty rate than those stopped by cops.

In fact, - and this should make FirstAscent happy - I can expand that to any criminal action stopped by a civilian will have a lower average casualty rate than one stopped by cops.

Nor, by the way, did I see you reference the first video I posted... Do I really need to post the meme that came from it to get a response out of you people?

[nimda]

I'd bet that I'm the only person in this thread that has ever openly carried a loaded firearm onto a commercial aircraft. 

Care to pop a squat and tell us about it?

[TheBitcoinChemist]

I'd bet that I'm the only person in this thread that has ever openly carried a loaded firearm onto a commercial aircraft. 

Care to pop a squat and tell us about it?

It was about 1997 or so.  I was finishing up my contract in the USMC in the active reserves.  I was out of a communications company stationed in Cincinnati, Ohio.  When summertime came and we were scheduled to head to Camp Penalton, California for our "two weeks" (more like three, usually) C130 transports were not available for some strange reason.  So a 737, I believe owned by Delta IIRC, was chartered for our trip out to Cali.  We arrived in full gear as if we were leaving for war, which is how we went anywhere, at the Cincinnati International Airport around 3am.  We walked single file straight off the trucks & busses, right through the metal detectors (while the agent stood by and watched as his panel kept beeping, loudly) without a single one of us saying a word.  There was only one or two families in that wing of the airport at that time of night, and I recall walking past a family sitting on a bench watching us as a little girl about seven was wide eyed and mouth open staring.  They must have thought we really were headed to war.

We were entirely seated in the aircraft when the Captain (of the aircraft) started pitching a fit and ordered us all off the aircraft.  "Get off my plane and unload those rifles!"  So we calmly filed back off, unloaded our magazines from our M16A2's and walked back onto the aircraft with our bolts pulled back so that the Captain himself could see down into our chambers and know that there were no rounds loaded.  When we all got on and seated, we were ordered (in no uncertain terms) by the Captain (over the plane's intercom) to hang our rifles muzzle down on the back of the seat in front of us, and no magazines shall leave our packs much less come anywhere near a rifle.

So, for a few minutes, I was calmly seated onto a commercial aircraft with a loaded "assault rifle", although I was properly in Condition 3.  Can't speak for any of the other rockheads I was on that aircraft with, however.

I have no doubt that the Captain of that aircraft was former military, either.

[vampire]

OK, just did. Nowhere in there (I went back 4 pages, to before I posted my original video) did I see you reference the statistic:
Average police response time: 6 minutes;
Average CCW draw time 5 seconds.

And that statistic is the core of my argument that rampages stopped by civilians will always have a lower average casualty rate than those stopped by cops.

In fact, - and this should make FirstAscent happy - I can expand that to any criminal action stopped by a civilian will have a lower average casualty rate than one stopped by cops.

Nor, by the way, did I see you reference the first video I posted... Do I really need to post the meme that came from it to get a response out of you people?

I addressed by saying that the guy missed 70-80% of shots, these shots could have killed someone.

Now if he missed and shot some innocent bystander he would be in jail, and rightfully so. This video that was claimed to be a massacre, a blatant lie, doesn't prove anything. I can post hundreds of news articles where children get shot by gun accidents, and that's just accidents and per year.

Next time you call me out, make sure you have hard facts ready.

Here are some innocent people getting shot by someone in self-defense...
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/15154920/detail.html
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2012/05/accused-folklife-festival-gunman-told-officers-that-he-was-sorry-an-innocent-person-was-shot/

[myrkul]

OK, just did. Nowhere in there (I went back 4 pages, to before I posted my original video) did I see you reference the statistic:
Average police response time: 6 minutes;
Average CCW draw time 5 seconds.

And that statistic is the core of my argument that rampages stopped by civilians will always have a lower average casualty rate than those stopped by cops.

In fact, - and this should make FirstAscent happy - I can expand that to any criminal action stopped by a civilian will have a lower average casualty rate than one stopped by cops.

Nor, by the way, did I see you reference the first video I posted... Do I really need to post the meme that came from it to get a response out of you people?

I addressed by saying that the guy missed 70-80% of shots, these shots could have killed someone.

Could you quote that post? 'cause... yeah.... I don't see it anywhere. Especially since the first time I mentioned that video was here:

Here's another little video with some simple mathematics in it, that even you should be able to understand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=epZod2qyyN4

and your first response to that video is here:

Already addressed it. Search my post history if you will.

So where, pray tell, did you address it? Or are you so desperate to defend your position that you will out and out resort to lying?

Now if he missed and shot some innocent bystander he would be in jail, and rightfully so. This video that was claimed to be a massacre, a blatant lie, doesn't prove anything. I can post hundreds of news articles where children get shot by gun accidents, and that's just accidents and per year.

Nowhere does it claim to be a massacre. It's a suggestion on how to prevent massacres in the future.

Next time you call me out, make sure you have hard facts ready.

Next time you purport to have facts... have them.

Here are some innocent people getting shot by someone in self-defense...
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/15154920/detail.html
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2012/05/accused-folklife-festival-gunman-told-officers-that-he-was-sorry-an-innocent-person-was-shot/

Yes, accidents happen. And when accidents happen, responsible people make their victims whole.

But STILL you do not address the first video I posted!
Here, I'll link it again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-GwIbyp4xBU
Ice-T says we need guns for a reason. What do you say?

[vampire]

Could you quote that post? 'cause... yeah.... I don't see it anywhere. Especially since the first time I mentioned that video was here:

Here's another little video with some simple mathematics in it, that even you should be able to understand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=epZod2qyyN4

First time mentioned? Oh wow.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90086.msg1048767#msg1048767

I am done with you, as you can't argue any points and you generally waste my time. So far I consistently beat your arguments.

The video title is: How to stop a massacre.

When you can make a coherent point contact me until then -  I don't argue with fanatics.