Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Official Gun Control Thread. « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 40

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19169
Online
#30 : June 08, 2013, 08:31:27 PM

At my age, I'm thinking old men and young women (over 18) are better.    I go by the following rule when looking for a lady.    Take my age and divide by 2, then add 3.    If I am 50, divide by 2 to get 25 and add 3 to get 28 to find the perfect age for a woman for me.   

It's interesting that I believed in gun control my entire life and just now saw the light that I have been wrong all these years.   Any opinion that Vin has is always wrong, so my original way of thinking was undoubtedly wrong.   I'm buying a gun and joining the NRA Monday.

you look for a lady Java? . . . which is why you downloaded photos of male posters from this site (and apparently others) and kept them on your computer for years . . . and which is why you routinely post photos of ladyboys . . .believe me, I hope you join the NRA (they will love you) and anything you can do to stay as far away from me as possible is a good thing. here's the link for you:

http://membership.nrahq.org/

lol

: June 08, 2013, 08:34:39 PM VinBucFan


Escobar06

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2503
Offline
#31 : June 08, 2013, 09:28:43 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/08/houston-free-guns/2404307/

"Strain's northwest Houston community of Oak Forest is the first neighborhood in the country being trained and equipped by the Armed Citizen Project, a Houston nonprofit that is giving away free shotguns to single women and residents of neighborhoods with high crime rates."


Vin I can hear your teeth chattering already. Hope you don't live in Houston.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19169
Online
#32 : June 09, 2013, 02:00:19 AM

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/08/houston-free-guns/2404307/

"Strain's northwest Houston community of Oak Forest is the first neighborhood in the country being trained and equipped by the Armed Citizen Project, a Houston nonprofit that is giving away free shotguns to single women and residents of neighborhoods with high crime rates."


Vin I can hear your teeth chattering already. Hope you don't live in Houston.

You must not read English. Se Habla Espanol?


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19169
Online
#33 : June 09, 2013, 03:09:30 AM



olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21323
Offline
#34 : June 09, 2013, 10:47:34 AM

Yep, those background checks and waiting periods in Cali did the trick.  Nothing to worry about on the streets there.  "Everyone is perfectly safe we have tightened some loop holes."

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19169
Online
#35 : June 09, 2013, 11:06:45 AM

Yep, those background checks and waiting periods in Cali did the trick.  Nothing to worry about on the streets there.  "Everyone is perfectly safe we have tightened some loop holes."

The first sentence actually PROVES the lunacy of the "strictest gun laws" argument.

The last sentence is a common:



It is gun advocates that try to dismiss any law that doesn't make us "perfectly safe."


Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31564
Online
#36 : June 09, 2013, 11:10:28 AM

Hey look, it's another thread where the PeanutButterCheeseBoy is making himself look like an ass for multiple pages.  Who would've guessed it?


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19169
Online
#37 : June 09, 2013, 11:23:34 AM

Few things are more part of American culture than CARS.  Cars are essential to every day life in America and Americans have had a love affair with cars since they were invented. 

When CAR DEATHS skyrocketed, the US government tried to do something about it by passing safety laws, one of which is mandatory seat belts, and by getting manufacturer to take safety measure.  Was it a PERFECT SOLUTION?  Of course not, people die in cars all the time.  But it did have an impact:




If we were to apply "gun logic"  to CARS there would be no seat belt law, no seat belts in cars, and many of those saved lives would have been lost lives.  Think about that the next time one argues that no restriction on guns is worthwhile unless its perfect.


Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
#38 : June 09, 2013, 12:02:27 PM

You are ignoring this user

dude, you post here night and day - do you ever get out of your house?

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19169
Online
#39 : June 09, 2013, 12:19:10 PM

You are ignoring this user

dude, you post here night and day - do you ever get out of your house?

I am a nurse, flexible hours. ;-)

How's the ignore shtick working out?


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7028
Online
#40 : June 09, 2013, 12:53:12 PM

Few things are more part of American culture than CARS.  Cars are essential to every day life in America and Americans have had a love affair with cars since they were invented. 

When CAR DEATHS skyrocketed, the US government tried to do something about it by passing safety laws, one of which is mandatory seat belts, and by getting manufacturer to take safety measure.  Was it a PERFECT SOLUTION?  Of course not, people die in cars all the time.  But it did have an impact:


If we were to apply "gun logic"  to CARS there would be no seat belt law, no seat belts in cars, and many of those saved lives would have been lost lives.  Think about that the next time one argues that no restriction on guns is worthwhile unless its perfect.

Note they introduced a bill to mandate seat belts which actually helped the problem. Not ejector seats which probably would have made it worse.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19169
Online
#41 : June 09, 2013, 02:28:11 PM

Few things are more part of American culture than CARS.  Cars are essential to every day life in America and Americans have had a love affair with cars since they were invented. 

When CAR DEATHS skyrocketed, the US government tried to do something about it by passing safety laws, one of which is mandatory seat belts, and by getting manufacturer to take safety measure.  Was it a PERFECT SOLUTION?  Of course not, people die in cars all the time.  But it did have an impact:


If we were to apply "gun logic"  to CARS there would be no seat belt law, no seat belts in cars, and many of those saved lives would have been lost lives.  Think about that the next time one argues that no restriction on guns is worthwhile unless its perfect.

Note they introduced a bill to mandate seat belts which actually helped the problem. Not ejector seats which probably would have made it worse.

right, so you suggest that the scope of the law makes a difference BUT they really there doesnt appear to be any reasonable scope you will accept in most instances, even though you note that the law on seat belts saved lives.

For example, I asked you to post what you would accept in terms of background checks that would still close the obvious loopholes, all you offered was an exemption (concealed permit to con concealed permit).  I take that to mean there are NO CIRCUMSTANCE under which you would accept universal background checks, even with your exemption (which, by the way, I agree with the exemption). 

To use the seat belt analogy, not only do you NOT want "ejector seats" (who does?) but you dont even want seat belt mandates to apply to all cars (non-universal background checks) and, in fact, you want some cars specifically without seats belts and with rocket engines (assault weapons with high volume clips). That is basically where we are now.


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7028
Online
#42 : June 09, 2013, 03:42:00 PM

Few things are more part of American culture than CARS.  Cars are essential to every day life in America and Americans have had a love affair with cars since they were invented. 

When CAR DEATHS skyrocketed, the US government tried to do something about it by passing safety laws, one of which is mandatory seat belts, and by getting manufacturer to take safety measure.  Was it a PERFECT SOLUTION?  Of course not, people die in cars all the time.  But it did have an impact:


If we were to apply "gun logic"  to CARS there would be no seat belt law, no seat belts in cars, and many of those saved lives would have been lost lives.  Think about that the next time one argues that no restriction on guns is worthwhile unless its perfect.

Note they introduced a bill to mandate seat belts which actually helped the problem. Not ejector seats which probably would have made it worse.

right, so you suggest that the scope of the law makes a difference BUT they really there doesnt appear to be any reasonable scope you will accept in most instances, even though you note that the law on seat belts saved lives.

For example, I asked you to post what you would accept in terms of background checks that would still close the obvious loopholes, all you offered was an exemption (concealed permit to con concealed permit).  I take that to mean there are NO CIRCUMSTANCE under which you would accept universal background checks, even with your exemption (which, by the way, I agree with the exemption). 

To use the seat belt analogy, not only do you NOT want "ejector seats" (who does?) but you dont even want seat belt mandates to apply to all cars (non-universal background checks) and, in fact, you want some cars specifically without seats belts and with rocket engines (assault weapons with high volume clips). That is basically where we are now.

That is not only what I said is it? And what is more, I specifically said I am against the background check proposals as they are now because they are flawed. Totally different  to what you just said. Taking that into consideration, explain to me why I should now take you seriously?

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19169
Online
#43 : June 09, 2013, 04:02:10 PM

That is not only what I said is it? And what is more, I specifically said I am against the background check proposals as they are now because they are flawed. Totally different  to what you just said. Taking that into consideration, explain to me why I should now take you seriously?

I get that you are against current proposals because they are "flawed," that is why I asked you to give a proposal you would accept that would close the current loopholes.  Here's the whole conversation, my comments follow. Maybe I am confused?

For one I think if both parties have a concealed weapons permit they ought to be able to sell or give weapons between them without checks.

That is a caveat to a restriction, right?  Fair enough, I guess, but does that mean you are for universal background checks with just that caveat? I guess not because you said "for one"

Btw, this was ny comment from before:

Spartan, on background checks I will call your bluff. You tell me what plan you would accept that would close the current wide open system that allows me to go online or to my neighbor right now and buy an AR15 and 500 rounds of ammo without a background check?

How about anonymous background checks? Not as stupid as it sounds before you say anything.

Right now when you buy a firearm from a FFL dealer you have to fill out about 3 pages of paperwork and the call the FBI/ATF or whoever. They get some kind of clearance number and then keep that paper work.  If I want to sell a gun, I can take it into a FFL or police station with the purchaser. We need to provide ID with SSN, photo and address. A background check is run but no record of the check is kept by the FFL of Law enforcement. If the purchaser fails, the sale should not continue.

I do not think you should require a background check if I want to lend my gun to a friend. For example if I take him to a range to introduce him to shooting. Similarly I don't think a range (for example) should have to run a background check to rent guns at a range if someone wants to go shooting for 30 minutes.

While I am at it, I will 'fess up and state that I see those who are driving gun control and I have no confidence they are trying to solve any problem, which to some extent enforces my resistance. All they are doing is seizing on an opportunity to eliminate, restrict or curtail something they don't like. That is not necessarily you Vin because I think you are up front on your reasons, but others? Not so much,

So I think the following is your position:
1. against universal background checks because they are "flawed"
2. Want any background check system to include an exemption for CWP to CWP sales (I agree, fine . .  BUT note you said "for one," which implies additional exemptions, right?)
3. lending a gun to a friend TO USE AT A RANGE and ranges in general shouldn't require a background check (I agree, who wouldn't the gun is AT A RANGE  . . . but my guess - and I have to guess because you still havent said what you would support -- is that you want to be able to cede control of a gun to a friend outside a range. That's more complicated but as a base line if you were accepting civil (and potentially even criminal -aid/abet) then perhaps. The point is to keep the guns out of some peoples hands so what if your friend is a criminal or has mental issues etc.?
4. On anonymous, I still dont know if you mean all sales or private sales or just some private sales? I am guessing you want anonymous because of a concern that the government will come take your guns?

Its really not that complicated though. You questioned why you should take me serious, I guess I would respond with the same. Ive given you several opportunities, but let me try again.  If you start from the premise that the loophole now is that many sales are exempt from the background check requirement, that means the solution is to close the loophole, (i.e., universal background checks).  So . . .  we'll try again if you want:

What would it take for you to accept universal background checks?  Just number 2, 3 and 4?


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19169
Online
#44 : June 09, 2013, 04:30:03 PM

The recipe for this shooting and Sandy Hook:

1. person with mental issues
2. family strife (and family in denial about child's mental issues)
3. fascination with guns
4. access to guns

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-santa-monica-gunman-had-fascination-with-guns-friend-says-20130609,0,4286367.story

"gun logic" says do nothing about 3 and 4 even though 1 and 2 are not uncommon and much more challenging to deal with.  The simple, common sense, approach is to TRY to do something about ALL of them.  We dont know yet how he got the guns

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 40
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Official Gun Control Thread. « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools