Montana threatens to secede

[wevsspot]

You can't rationalize with irrational behavior.

 

I wonder what percentage of murders that make big time news (and i'm not talking about daily murders in DC, Detroit, Baltimore or every other day murders in Memphis)

 

I'm talking about people who walk into a church, a nursing home, a college dorm or a school and start shooting

 

I wonder how many of the perps in those crimes were "legally" qualified to own a gun. I'll bet the majority of them could and did legally purchase firearms. Additional registrations or even outright bans aren't ever going to stop those things from happening. That's because our society is sick, sick, sick.

 

I mean we can't even enforce the current gun control laws. We still have felons that carry weapons around 24/7, we have mentally unstable persons with access to firearms, we have wife beaters who have gun safes in their houses. None of that is going to change regardless of what laws are put into place.

 

Hell, I wonder what the hell our representatives and congressmen are doing anyway. They debate steroids in MLB, they are involved trying to come up with a better college football playoff system. I mean what the heck.

 

We have two wars going on, our economy is in shambles, the taliban is within 60 miles of the capital of Pakistan, we can't secure our southern border and we can't figure out how to get health and dental care for the neediest in our population.

 

And here they are worried about steroids, the college bowl system and gun control.

 

I don't trust those yahoos to pull of anything correctly.

Edited May 7, 2009 by wevsspot

[Waco]

If I wanted to , I could get a gun today or a half of coke, etc.

The big point is that you'd only be able to buy from a licensed dealer legally...so to buy a gun if said restrictions were in place whomever you buy from is either on the hook for what you do or already has an illegal gun. Without the restriction you could buy it from anyone. I don't see a problem with the former. I do with the latter. Not a big problem, considering you'd still get the gun in the end (though it'd be arguably harder the first way), but all the same I do think the 2nd hand sales should be more regulated.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Waco

[Verran]

I vote that we ban certain pacifiers and only sell government approved pacifiers to people willing to register them, have themselves fingerprinted and have all of their information uploaded into a central government database.

 

Charge a $25 registration fee and require that the parents notify the attorney general with 2 months of any relocation, or the sale of said pacifier to any other private third party.

 

That should eliminate stupidity all together.

 

Alternately, we could just fry the b*&^% or leave her to her own demise in the prison system.

I brought this quote over from here because it's really just itching to drag that thread off-topic...

 

But I see what you're doing here. It's nothing new. My personal favorite is a shoelace. One loop around the neck, pull... and lights out. So why do we regulate guns when shoelaces can kill too? Shouldn't we ban shoelaces, or at least regulate them?

 

It's a fun little tongue-in-cheek poke at the issue but it doesn't really mean anything. It's just stupid. If I have to explain to someone why a gun is more dangerous than shoelaces, that's a debate I'd rather just not have. They're obviously way too entrenched to ever even listen to me, so what's the point?

 

The fact is no one's ever robbed a bank with the help of a pacifier. No one's ever been robbed at shoelace-point in a dark alley. Yes, many (if not all) objects have the potential to be dangerous, but some have more potential than others. There's no escaping that fact. It really is that simple.

[Kingfisher]

This is very short-sighted logic. If you want to get a gun illegally, maybe you can, but where did the guy you're getting it from get it? Where'd the guy before him get it? Yes, some of this traces out of the country but a lot of it doesn't (as mentioned by the second-hand sales stuff). If you regulate this stuff more closely, you start reducing the supply which means they get harder to get, even illegally.

 

Again, this stuff takes time, like I said with my Monday/Friday example. You use the word naive, but I think your attitude on this could be described as such as well.

 

EDIT###

Also, I resent the use of the "feel good law" thing. Do you disagree with limiting carry in malls/theaters/etc? Do you disagree with age limits for carry permits? Couldn't that be called "feel good" by the same logic? It seems like it only becomes "feel good" when you personally disagree with it.

Have you ever seen the bad side of life Verran? Have you ever had someone point a gun at you?

 

Call it what you will, its called life and it aint pretty. There are a lot of people around that could care less and those gun laws are not going to stop these people.

 

I truly do hope you never have to see the ugly side of life but trust me it exists.

 

I myself don't carry a gun and probably never will. I could care less as you say, but to believe that these gun laws will limit crime is fantasy.

 

And about your edit, do I really have to coment on that sillyness?

Common sense will take one very far in life.

[ClayMeow]

robbed at shoelace-point in a dark alley.

[ClayMeow]

Have you ever seen the bad side of life Verran? Have you ever had someone point a gun at you?

 

Call it what you will, its called life and it aint pretty. There are a lot of people around that could care less and those gun laws are not going to stop these people.

 

I truly do hope you never have to see the ugly side of life but trust me it exists.

 

I myself don't carry a gun and probably never will. I could care less as you say, but to believe that these gun laws will limit crime is fantasy.

As Verran stated, stricter restrictions and regulations won't change things overnight. It'll take years.

And about your edit, do I really have to coment on that sillyness?

Common sense will take one very far in life.

That was Verran's point. That pro-gun people often use silly analogies to get their point across. It's been done in this thread already.

[Verran]

Have you ever seen the bad side of life Verran? Have you ever had someone point a gun at you?

 

Call it what you will, its called life and it aint pretty. There are a lot of people around that could care less and those gun laws are not going to stop these people.

 

I truly do hope you never have to see the ugly side of life but trust me it exists.

 

I myself don't carry a gun and probably never will. I could care less as you say, but to believe that these gun laws will limit crime is fantasy.

 

And about your edit, do I really have to coment on that sillyness?

Common sense will take one very far in life.

I think I made a perfectly good example of how those gun laws could help reduce people's ability to get guns illegally. Meanwhile, your response is nothing more than you getting in my face and telling me "life is hard" like I'm listening to those jail guys on "Scared Straight" or something. I'm sorry, but the "oooohh, sssccccaaaarrrryyy" point doesn't get you anywhere. I don't see how you jump from "life ain't pretty" to the deregulation of guns. I think you've made a non-point here.

 

On the point of "do I really have to comment?", I guess that's up to you. It seems to me that by your logic of "if I want to kill you I'll kill you" that all gun restrictions can be looked at as "feel good". Heck, most laws in general can. If I want to rob a bank, I'll rob a bank. If I want to be a serial killer, I'll be a serial killer. Repeat ad nauseum. What laws aren't "feel good" laws by that logic?

 

EDIT###

That was Verran's point. That pro-gun people often use silly analogies to get their point across. It's been done in this thread already.

That's exactly what I meant. By calling it a "feel good law" you can just write it off as worthless without thinking about it, even though plenty of the stuff you agree with could be classified the same way. Clearly, that's what you're (King) doing now. You've got this thing of "if they want to, they will" in your head and that's that. But it's silly. By that rationale, why have laws at all? All the laws in the world won't stop people from doing horrible things. Let's just give up!

[wevsspot]

Since this thread has been so hotly debated I'm ready for some fun!

 

Maybe not robbed at shoe-lace point blank, but how about attacked from behind and strangled (wevsspot makes sick gurgling sounds)

Robbed by someone who jabbed a woman's high heel shoe into your forehead (ouch that would hurt)

Commit a crime using a box knife (not so funny since it actually happened and my heart out to those it affected)

Suffocated with a ball of silly putty

Wrapped up in silly string and thrown off a bridge

 

Lets start a new thread topic of all the ways to commit crimes with every day items. Should be fun.

Edited May 7, 2009 by wevsspot

[Coors]

That was Verran's point. That pro-gun people often use silly analogies to get their point across. It's been done in this thread already.

Silly questions get silly awnsers?

 

[Kingfisher]

I can't cut and paste too good on my BackBerry but basically to Verran:

 

I am agreeing with you, I could care less about gun laws.

What's wrong with the current system?

I never said anywhere that there should be no laws. I am pointing out that attempting to restrict further won't matter.

stop all the dramatics!!!

[Verran]

I am agreeing with you, I could care less about gun laws.

I never said anywhere that there should be no laws. I am pointing out that attempting to restrict further won't matter.

Please elaborate. I don't understand what you're agreeing with me on.

 

It seems to me that you're saying that new laws won't make a difference because criminals are going to do what they're going to do. If so, you're not agreeing with me. My point with the "no laws" thing is to show you that the logic you're using, when traced to conclusion, just doesn't work. You don't stop trying to prevent something just because people are going to try to figure a way around it. That's really crappy logic IMO, because if you really believe it then you might as well have no laws.

 

Also, per the "stop all the dramatics" stuff, I was thinking the same thing in regards to all your "ugly side of life/gun pointed at you" fluff. I thought that was really silly.

[ClayMeow]

I can't cut and paste too good on my BackBerry but basically to Verran:

 

I am agreeing with you, I could care less about gun laws.

What's wrong with the current system?

I never said anywhere that there should be no laws. I am pointing out that attempting to restrict further won't matter.

stop all the dramatics!!!

What's wrong with the "current system" is that there is none! As has been stated, every state has its own rules, and that never works for anything.

 

In addition, the point Verran is making, and I agree on, is that restricting further WILL matter...down the road. No, things won't change overnight, but eventually, it'll be harder for criminals to acquire guns. Using the "war on drugs" argument is ridiculous. You can't hire people to stick a gun up their azz to smuggle onto a plane like you can with drugs. You can't stuff firearms inside teddy bears and avoid metal detectors like you can drugs. They're a completely different beast. Yeah, guns will still be available on the black market, but don't for a second think they'll be as readily available as some coke or heroin.