Forums | MacLife

avkills wrote:

Daniel wrote:

DevoDoc wrote:

I don't recall any recent incidents of someone buying a car from a private seller and using it in a college campus killing spree.  Apples and oranges.

No.  You're the one with the faulty analogy.  What college campus killing spree do you think stemmed from a private sale?

Ummm, Columbine Highschool ... Virginia Tech.  I know for a fact that the shooters at Columbine bought their weapons from private sellers directly and indirectly (a friend purchased guns from the Tanner Gun Show).

The Columbine weapons were purchased in a straw purchase, which is already illegal.  What possible purpose could additional regulation then have?  The VA Tech weapons were purchased from a licensed dealer.  Please check your facts -- wikipedia is often incomplete.

avkills wrote:

Don't misunderstand, I believe we have the right to bear arms -- but some of what you guys own and want is a smurfing joke.  There is no "real" proof that you need any of these weapons other than maybe for bragging rights and perhaps to look cool.

Since when have I had to have proof of need to own a car?  A golf bag?  A cutlery set?  A fridge?  I have a friend with a bolt gun that can hit and kill a human sized target a mile away.  It would not be banned under the FAWB that Obama wants to reinstate.  But my semi-automatic AK-47, which shoots one shot at a time to a maximum effective distance of 300 yards on a windless day, would be.  The FAWB is nonsensical and unconstitutional.  The second amendment does not have any fine print.

Edited because one sentence came off assholish when I didn't intend it to.

Last edited by Daniel (2009-01-21 10:12 pm)

jkahless wrote:

I have no problems with guns, but I think the gun nuts who don't think that there should be any safeguards or restrictions are smurfing stupid.  Way I see it, anyone should be able to own a gun, after taking an in depth gun use and safety course including gun would specific first aid and the necessary background checks.  They're a piece of dangerous machinery, and I know full well how important good training is.

The vast majority of restrictions in the United States began in 1968. That banned mail order of guns, required dealers of guns to pay special business fees, and other things. Up until 1984, one could go to a gun dealer and buy a gun cash and carry. So for the first 200 years of our nation these restrictions were unimportant, but something changed so drastically in our society in a short time that we now need government permission to exercise a right?

This is all performed under the guise of crime control. I have a better solution. How about we mandate background checks on renters and homeowners, and anyone who fails must let a room out to a cop. The tax payer can pay for his food and what not. A constant watcher will do a whole hell of a lot more to reduce crime than stopping someone from buying a gun at a dealer - particularly since there are already 200 million guns in the hands of United States Citizens.

I agree that training is important. I do not agree that training must be a condition of ownership, any more than a literacy test should be required before voting or writing a book.

Here is the DC requirements to getting a gun.

Hereis the New York requirements.

Here is the requirement in Arizona. [show up, buy gun, federally mandated background check, go home. no link needed.]

So now you want a gun for your nightstand because you hear on the news that burglaries are on the rise.

Now - go fill out those forms. After about a month you will have your pistol in D.C. You will have it in 6 months in NY. In AZ, you will generally have it that night.

Unless of course you buy one off the streets. Then you don't have to fill out any paperwork. You don't have to pay any fees. You don't have to ask any permission. You just buy it, go home, and put it on the nightstand.

So. How does mandating a gun safety test help you? Mr. Thug got his that day. You are still waiting for the chance to take your test sometime in the arbitrary future.

edit: typo

Last edited by Jdude (2009-01-21 10:06 pm)

ScifiterX wrote:

As long as they aren't full auto, lack sound & flash suppressors and don't have bayonet lugs but have no more than say a 10 round magazine, commercial AR-15s and their ilk can be used and have any look you want AFAIC.

So they can have any look I want except for the looks you disagree with. They are the exact same rifle, shoot the exact same round, but I have to take a hacksaw to it and cut some scary looking parts off. Is this your position?

ScifiterX wrote:

As long as they aren't full auto, lack sound & flash suppressors and don't have bayonet lugs but have no more than say a 10 round magazine, commercial AR-15s and their ilk can be used and have any look you want AFAIC.

My PSL-54C has a flash hider and a bayonet lug and a detachable 10-round magazine.  A flash hider is designed to hide the flash from me, so I'm not blinded by my own shots.  It is not designed, as the Brady Campagin suggests, to make it possible to snipe undetected at night.  A suppressor is an NFA item.

And a 10-round max capacity is ludicrous.

ScifiterX wrote:

I disagree on training. A vote cannot literally kill. A gun, on the other hand, can and is in fact is designed to kill. We and have training periods and skill tests for other complex & deadly tools such as the automobile. That said  I feel training is justifiable as is a reasonable waiting period.

Bows, Swords, clubs and knives are all designed for the same thing. Shall we put a waiting period and training class on your paring knife and baseball bat?

ScifiterX wrote:

We and have training periods and skill tests for other complex & deadly tools such as the automobile.

For many states this is already the case. You can drive a vehicle and own a gun all you want on private property, but when you carry it around in public you have to have a license, either drivers or concealed carry.

Jdude wrote:

The vast majority of restrictions in the United States began in 1968. That banned mail order of guns, required dealers of guns to pay special business fees, and other things. Up until 1984, one could go to a gun dealer and buy a gun cash and carry. So for the first 200 years of our nation these restrictions were unimportant, but something changed so drastically in our society in a short time that we now need government permission to exercise a right?

Umm, gee.  Maybe because society did drastically change during the last 50 years?

So. How does mandating a gun safety test help you? Mr. Thug got his that day. You are still waiting for the chance to take your test sometime in the arbitrary future.

edit: typo

Probably because most rational people don't live in fear of statistically unlikely as hell occurrences to happen.  And if you live in a place where it's likely you're going to be accosted by an armed thug within 30 days, you should really move out of that smurf.

Steyr AUG wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

We and have training periods and skill tests for other complex & deadly tools such as the automobile.

For many states this is already the case. You can drive a vehicle and own a gun all you want on private property, but when you carry it around in public you have to have a license, either drivers or concealed carry.

Which is a good start.

jkahless wrote:

Probably because most rational people don't live in fear of statistically unlikely as hell occurrences to happen.  And if you live in a place where it's likely you're going to be accosted by an armed thug within 30 days, you should really move out of that smurf.

You've never lived in a city, have you?

As a civilian in a nation relatively free of armed conflict that action range argument is ludicrous especially when 10 rounds per clip is a relatively high amount of ammo in most non-combat situations. Beyond that, not having the melee option on the rifle doesn't prevent you from having a melee option.

Oh and ear protection devices are a more consistent, cheaper, and longer lasting means of protecting one's hearing than suppressors. Some firearms can't effectively be suppressed and suppressors take a lot of abuse wear out and lose effectiveness.

Last edited by ScifiterX (2009-01-21 11:46 pm)

Daniel wrote:

jkahless wrote:

Probably because most rational people don't live in fear of statistically unlikely as hell occurrences to happen.  And if you live in a place where it's likely you're going to be accosted by an armed thug within 30 days, you should really move out of that smurf.

You've never lived in a city, have you?

Two actually, one of which has a major drug problem.