Gun owners keeping it classy

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by Monketey Ghost

Again, Europe doesn't compare to the US because our 2nd Amendment allows us to have the culture we have.

That is the very reason comparisons are so useful.

Do Europeans enjoy less political liberty than Americans?

Are they less safe in their homes and public places?

If not, then what is the value of the 2d Amendment, other than nostalgia?

[Monketey Ghost]

Obviously it has none apart from our right to make people in other countries feel superior to us while they deal with their own issues which they smugly pretend don't exist.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Oh, and by the way, that's a real nice slippery slope argument you're employing there. Let's try to avoid the logical fallacies and not speak from emotion, yeah?

I don't see it as a L.F. Maybe you can help me understand? I feel it's a completely logical question.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Sounds good to me.

I fail to see how what you're describing is not a Good Thing. Ban 'em. Ban 'em and get them off the streets, out of the hands of civilians and back into military and police arsenals where they belong.

Because it literally makes, I'd say 85% of firearms, not just handguns, but most guns, illegal.

All Glocks would be banned. Most Colts, Reuger, Beretta, Kel-Tec, Brownings, can accept a larger than 10 round magazine.

It's irrational, and doesn't do much to accomplish the goal of keeping guns out of the hands of madmen and criminals.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

You (and others) have admitted that handguns are the most common form of weapon used in gun crime, rather than "assault weapons", and that greater control of handguns, rather than "assault weapons", is what's needed to reduce gun crime. Well, here's a measure to achieve exactly that.

The problem is that it doesn't address the REAL problem. It's a knee-jerk law that doesn't accomplish anything other than removing guns from law abiding citizens.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

No, I'm not advocating that approach as either necessary or realistic. It's an admirable goal to work towards, but as I've said before, addressing America's gun crime problem will take decades, probably generations, and must start first and foremost in education.

I agree to a point. IMO, it's not an admirable goal to disarm millions of law abiding citizens, based on the actions of a few.

I do agree that it will take years, and that education is certainly needed.
I have no problem with reasonable, responsible restrictions. I do have a problem with wholesale banning of guns because of simple features.

[ben m]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

It's not important till a mother at home with her child and needs to defend herself against two guys beating in the front door.

It's not important till someone really needs it. Then it is.

Somebody walks up to your garage sale and offers you $75 for a rusty Sig Sauer. Let's say you make a list of things that might happen with this gun:

• a) The buyer might be a felon. (It's a private party sale and your state may not require background checks.)
  
• b) The buyer might be suicidal.
  
• c) The buyer might be a drug addict
  
• d) The buyer might be mentally ill.
  
• e) The buyer might in the future become a/b/c/d above.
  
• f) The buyer might live in a household with a current or future felon, suicidal person, addict, or suffer of mental illness.
  
• g) The buyer might resell the gun, and the next buyer may be (see above)

Oh, yeah, I guess there are two more. The buyer might do nothing except let it rust. Or:

• h) The buyer may turn out to be one of the incredibly rare cases where a lawful gun owner fights off crooks with their own weapons.

In any sane logic---the logic of "what's the right thing to do"---you should look at the (incredibly common) risks of this buyer being of type A through G. You'd balance that against the (stupidly rare) upside in which [i]this buyer is Type H.

By the logic of NRA land, the seller should ... well, just sell the buyer the gun he/she asked for, and hope it's a Type H. And forget that Type B/C/D ever existed. And pretend that the one gun you sold to a Type H will magically "fight back" against the 10 guns you probably sold to Type As.

Quote:

So, you want to come into my home to verify I have something? No. I'm against this 100%. Forcing me to allow an officer of the law, to enter my home, without a warrant or probable cause, is a violation of my 4th Amendment right to be free of illegal searches.

(First, this is just one of many suggestions for minor inconveniences law-abiding gun nuts could agree to put up with to get lots of guns away from felons. I'm not wedded to it but your objection invites a rebuttal.) You don't want the government to inspect your gun locker? Well, (I will ask if this law were to pass) why did you buy a gun, sign the form saying "I, buyer, agree to store this in an licensed and inspected gun locker"? After signing that form, you were given a list of the local gun ranges, hunting clubs, etc., with licensed gun lockers---why did you instead fill out the other form saying "I, buyer, would like to establish a licensed gun locker at home, and agree to inspections as a condition of that license"? Stop calling the searches illegal, stop griping about the 4th amendment---those are your signatures saying that it's what you wanted to happen.

(I repeat: the locker-inspection thing is just an idea, and probably not that much benefit compared to other things and compared to the bureaucracy involved.)

Quote:

Um, black market? Can you define that?

Suppose you're a felon. You walk into Wal-Mart and try to buy guns or ammo. They run a background check and refuse to sell you anything. (Oddly, they don't report you for the attempt.) You go to X instead and you buy the same thing successfully. X is a black market. This is not hard to understand.

Quote:

Really? So, someone who objects to a violation of their 4th Amendment right, means that these people have problems and cause problems?

Read that 4th amendment again. Unreasonable searches. I can think of nothing more reasonable than periodic inspection of legal gun owners in order to insure continued safe storage, handling, and non-resale. And remember, if we're talking about this law at all then we're talking about the gun buyer signing up voluntarily for the inspections. "I, Triforcharity, wish for unmonitored stewardship of a portable long-distance death machines simple enough to operate while drunk. With great power comes great responsibility, so I hereby agree to periodic safety inspections to ensure that such machines are not mislaid or misused." (It's not hard to imagine, in a world where gun-fetishism were vaguely responsible and rational ... like, oh, the rest of the Western world.)

[StankApe]

Govt, is the last refuge of a coward IMO.

To listen to some of the anti-gun loons on here, we would have to hire a few million people to handle the job of inspecting houses to ensure they didn't have guns, or have them stored improperly ... "papers please?"

no thank you

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

You might say that at least at this point in history, fear of crime is greater than crime itself. Most of us will never be the victims of violent crime, but a hugh number are arming themselves in preparation for it. That creates anxiety, at best, and tragedy at worst.

Most of us will never be victims of a housefire, but I still have smoke alarms (required by law) and a fire extinguisher (not required by law). I don't feel particularly anxious, and I expect a gun owner who takes the reasonable precaution of arming himself in his home against the unlikely event that someday he may have to confront an intruder feels no more anxiety over his choices.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by StankApe

Govt, is the last refuge of a coward IMO.

To listen to some of the anti-gun loons on here, we would have to hire a few million people to handle the job of inspecting houses to ensure they didn't have guns, or have them stored improperly ... "papers please?"

no thank you

I happen to think guns are the refuge of cowards, so there.

[StankApe]

bwahahahahaha!!!!!!

so much spittle!!!!

I can't imagine how it must feel walking around that smugly embittered all the time!

But, you live in the proper place for it I guess..... like attracts like


papers please?

[thaiboxerken]

Spittle? I can't imagine how you live, being scared of the gubmint all the time.

[StankApe]

I'm not scared of anything mein freund, I'm not a gun owner, nor a member of any anti-gubmint groups.

HOWEVER, we don't get to pick and choose the parts of the constitution we like and dislike. Not in the manner in which some people on here seem to think.

If you have a problem with the 2nd amendment, then deal with it properly. write up a bill to repeal/amend it, submit it to be passed by bth houses and signed by the President, THEN have it ratified by 2/3rds of the states. This "end around" gestapo crap is for the birds. It's akin to Jim Crow laws as used to "end around" the 13th amendment.

[thaiboxerken]

Sure we do. I don't care for the recent SCOTUS interpretation of the second amendment.you can't make me like it either.

[shawmutt]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I happen to think guns are the refuge of cowards, so there.

You're just mad because even with all your training a 98-year old grandma with a gun can still take you down.

Which is the way it should be.

But yes, battered women, old people, young women, poor people, families with young children, all weak turds who need to be flushed.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Because it literally makes, I'd say 85% of firearms, not just handguns, but most guns, illegal.

All Glocks would be banned. Most Colts, Reuger, Beretta, Kel-Tec, Brownings, can accept a larger than 10 round magazine.

Sounds excellent to me. In fact, I don't think it goes far enough. I'd make 100% of guns illegal for civilians without a permit. That'd still make guns available to hunters and sporting shooters while preventing anyone without a good reason from having one at all.

Originally Posted by triforcharity

It's irrational, and doesn't do much to accomplish the goal of keeping guns out of the hands of madmen and criminals.

It's not at all irrational. As several people have suggested, one of the biggest problems is that there are so many guns - the country is saturated ("flooded" is the word I usually see) with guns. This would go a long way to reducing the total number of guns in the country. Fewer guns = fewer gun crimes. If this disproportionally affects handguns, then GREAT! Handguns are the most common firearm used to commit crimes, right?

Originally Posted by triforcharity

The problem is that it doesn't address the REAL problem.

What, in your view, is the REAL problem, and how would you go about addressing it? It doesn't sound to me like you think there's a problem at all.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by shawmutt

You're just mad because even with all your training a 98-year old grandma with a gun can still take you down.

Which is the way it should be.

But yes, battered women, old people, young women, poor people, families with young children, all weak turds who need to be flushed.

Yes, guns empower the weak. This includes criminals.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by ben m

Somebody walks up to your garage sale and offers you $75 for a rusty Sig Sauer.

First off, I would never have a rusty weapon. Even my "junk" guns are well oiled and taken care of. Especially a Sig. They're damn expensive.

Originally Posted by ben m

Let's say you make a list of things that might happen with this gun:

• a) The buyer might be a felon. (It's a private party sale and your state may not require background checks.)
  
• b) The buyer might be suicidal.
  
• c) The buyer might be a drug addict
  
• d) The buyer might be mentally ill.
  
• e) The buyer might in the future become a/b/c/d above.
  
• f) The buyer might live in a household with a current or future felon, suicidal person, addict, or suffer of mental illness.
  
• g) The buyer might resell the gun, and the next buyer may be (see above)

Oh, yeah, I guess there are two more. The buyer might do nothing except let it rust. Or:

• h) The buyer may turn out to be one of the incredibly rare cases where a lawful gun owner fights off crooks with their own weapons.

In any sane logic---the logic of "what's the right thing to do"---you should look at the (incredibly common) risks of this buyer being of type A through G. You'd balance that against the (stupidly rare) upside in which [i]this buyer is Type H.

Ok, not sure what this has to do with my post, but we'll go with it.

Originally Posted by ben m

By the logic of NRA land, the seller should ... well, just sell the buyer the gun he/she asked for, and hope it's a Type H. And forget that Type B/C/D ever existed. And pretend that the one gun you sold to a Type H will magically "fight back" against the 10 guns you probably sold to Type As.

Wow. What horrible logic. You really think that 90% of private sales of firearms are to convicted felons and criminals? That's sad.

Originally Posted by ben m

(First, this is just one of many suggestions for minor inconveniences law-abiding gun nuts could agree to put up with to get lots of guns away from felons. I'm not wedded to it but your objection invites a rebuttal.)

No, not minor. We'll discuss that later.

Originally Posted by ben m

You don't want the government to inspect your gun locker?

No. Not without a warrant. No, I most certainly don't. I value my rights, especially ones that protect me from illegal searches.

Originally Posted by ben m

Well, (I will ask if this law were to pass) why did you buy a gun, sign the form saying "I, buyer, agree to store this in an licensed and inspected gun locker"? After signing that form, you were given a list of the local gun ranges, hunting clubs, etc., with licensed gun lockers---why did you instead fill out the other form saying "I, buyer, would like to establish a licensed gun locker at home, and agree to inspections as a condition of that license"? Stop calling the searches illegal, stop griping about the 4th amendment---those are your signatures saying that it's what you wanted to happen.

First, I would never agree to it. So, I guess it's a moot point, but you're not understanding the point.

Forcing someone to give up their 4th Amendment rights, to secure their 2nd Amendment right, is absurd. Absolutely absurd.

Not to mention that even if proposed, it most likely wouldn't pass muster in the judicial committee, and if for some flying pigs and worm ears reason it did, I guarantee that gun sales drop, and the law ends up overturned by the SCOTUS.

Originally Posted by ben m

(I repeat: the locker-inspection thing is just an idea, and probably not that much benefit compared to other things and compared to the bureaucracy involved.)

So, what, it's just for ***** and giggles? WTF? Dumb. Just *********** dumb.

Originally Posted by ben m

Suppose you're a felon. You walk into Wal-Mart and try to buy guns or ammo. They run a background check and refuse to sell you anything. (Oddly, they don't report you for the attempt.) You go to X instead and you buy the same thing successfully. X is a black market. This is not hard to understand.

Now, put it in context of your post, that I quoted. I know what a black market it. However, if I sell it to my brother, who sells it to some friend of him, who sells it on the black market, unbeknownst to him, then I am responsible? No.

Secondly, anyone can purchase ammo, legally. Possess it is another story. Background checks for ammo is going to be extremely expensive. EXTREMELY.

Originally Posted by ben m

Read that 4th amendment again. Unreasonable searches. I can think of nothing more reasonable than periodic inspection of legal gun owners in order to insure continued safe storage, handling, and non-resale.

No. It's most certainly not reasonable. First off, the inspection is not for the purpose of investigating a crime, so no probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or will be committed. So, fails that requirement.

Secondly, no warrant from a judge. Who, incidentially, would also require probable cause that a crime IS being committed, or will be, and there's evidence to back it up, so a warrant-less search is against the law.

Perhaps you need to read up on the 4th Amendment and how it works.
Because as it sits right now, you're proving that you're completely ignorant of the Constitution, and how it's applied.

Originally Posted by ben m

And remember, if we're talking about this law at all then we're talking about the gun buyer signing up voluntarily for the inspections.

Thereby voluntarily giving up my RIGHT to be free from illegal search and seizure, to secure my RIGHT to bear arms.

You don't see the problem with that? You don't see the twisted, retarded logic in that?

Originally Posted by ben m

"I, Triforcharity, wish for unmonitored stewardship of a portable long-distance death machines simple enough to operate while drunk. With great power comes great responsibility, so I hereby agree to periodic safety inspections to ensure that such machines are not mislaid or misused." (It's not hard to imagine, in a world where gun-fetishism were vaguely responsible and rational ... like, oh, the rest of the Western world.)

I, Triforcharity, am a law abiding citizen, and this check of NCIC proves that. Please give me my damn gun, and stay the **** out of my house without a warrant."

There's your answer to that. Wanna search my house? Get a damn warrant. Plain and simple.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I happen to think guns are the refuge of cowards, so there.

I need a damn irony smiley. You, telling anyone about using a tool for defense, or for sporting purposes, is the perfect representation of irony.

[shawmutt]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

What, in your view, is the REAL problem, and how would you go about addressing it? It doesn't sound to me like you think there's a problem at all.

• Lack of single payer health care, employer based healthcare sucks
• War on drugs
• piss poor government management of financial support programs
• lack of development in the inner cities, they are abandoned in favor of suburban sprawl
• piss poor enforcement of current laws and regulations

Fixes:

Stop employer-based healthcare. Too many people don't have healthcare because they can't find jobs or stay in ****** jobs just for the healthcare. It's simply bad for the country. Institute a single-payer system.

End the war on drugs. Legalize (or at least decriminalize) marijuana. Free the million or so people in jail for non-violent drug offenses. Allow coffee shops similar to Amsterdam, and restrict/tax similar to cigarettes.

Reform Welfare. No more cash options. Severely restrict what can be bought with food stamps. Enact and enforce severe penalties for abuse.

Offer more tax incentives for living and doing business in inner cities. Severely restrict licenses for "less desirable businesses" such as liquor stores, strip clubs, casinos, bars, etc. Increase the local taxes on surrounding suburban areas, relax tax rates in the cities.

Enforce laws on the books. People are allowed one discretionary "mistake", depending on what the judge wants to do. Next offense means max time.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Sure we do. I don't care for the recent SCOTUS interpretation of the second amendment.you can't make me like it either.

Well, since the SCOTUS doesn't care what your OPINION is, we'll just dismiss it. Rightfully so.

Nobody said you have to like it. Stank explained that if you don't like the 2nd Amendment, the process to get it changed or repealed, and you respond with a rant about the SCOTUS.

Don't like it? Get working on getting it changed.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

I need a damn irony smiley. You, telling anyone about using a tool for defense, or for sporting purposes, is the perfect representation of irony.

Why? Is it because i don't use that tool?

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Yes, guns empower the weak. This includes criminals.

Still looking for an irony icon.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Well, since the SCOTUS doesn't care what your OPINION is, we'll just dismiss it. Rightfully so.

Nobody said you have to like it. Stank explained that if you don't like the 2nd Amendment, the process to get it changed or repealed, and you respond with a rant about the SCOTUS.

Don't like it? Get working on getting it changed.

That's why i support Feinstein's bill.

[shawmutt]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Yes, guns empower the weak. This includes criminals.

And protects the weak. Like this 2 month old infant last night:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...bber-shot.html

eta: and OMG, yet another shooting where the one shot didn't die!

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Sounds excellent to me. In fact, I don't think it goes far enough. I'd make 100% of guns illegal for civilians without a permit. That'd still make guns available to hunters and sporting shooters while preventing anyone without a good reason from having one at all.

Heller and McDonald would prevent this from happening. Both recent SCOTUS rulings that aren't likely to change anytime soon.

I'm not opposed to sensible gun control. I am opposed to irrational, wholesale bans, as they do nothing good.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

It's not at all irrational. As several people have suggested, one of the biggest problems is that there are so many guns - the country is saturated ("flooded" is the word I usually see) with guns.

I disagree that the problem is the amount of guns. I'll explain further later.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

This would go a long way to reducing the total number of guns in the country. Fewer guns = fewer gun crimes. If this disproportionally affects handguns, then GREAT! Handguns are the most common firearm used to commit crimes, right?

Oh, like Chicago? Some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, and the highest murder rate in the country, (IIRC) with about 500 murders in 2012.

So, why is Chicago, and by proxy, Illinois, one of the most dangerous places in the US? Should make it opposite, right?

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

What, in your view, is the REAL problem, and how would you go about addressing it?

See below.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

It doesn't sound to me like you think there's a problem at all.

Arth, seriously? I'd expect this from an irrational, ignorant fool, not you. You're better than this. I enjoy conversing with you, as your comments tend to make me think, and are well worded and usually logical. This though.....makes me sad.

Of course guns in the wrong hands are a problem. Of course our murder rate is too high. However, violent crime is down over 50% in the last 30 (I think) years. This is great progress. What more can be done? I'm not exactly sure, but here's my ideas.

Stiffer penalties for violent crimes committed with a gun. Rob a store with a firearm? 10 years. Fire a weapon at someone: 20. Minimum mandatory.

Hit someone, no matter if they live or die, natural life, no parole, no release. Bye bye.

Better education of gun owners. I'm not opposed to requiring a 1 hour, or 4 hour, gun safety course, for all new gun purchasers. Once you've got the course, as long as you don't use your gun inappropriately, or display a lack of sense when you've got it, you're fine.

Titles for guns. Similar to cars, but for guns, and all sales must complete an NCIC check, even for private sales, with a reasonable fee for the background check and transfer fee, and penalties for failure to do so.


Minimum sentences for leaving a gun accessible to minors. This I believe is a serious problem. Leaving a loaded firearm, within easy access to a minor, is a problem. An easily prevented problem.

But most importantly, severe penalties for gun crimes. This I believe is the biggest problem.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Why? Is it because i don't use that tool?

This is my point. It's here ---------->







Here's you. Right here ----------->


You've missed my point.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by shawmutt

And protects the weak. Like this 2 month old infant last night:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...bber-shot.html

eta: and OMG, yet another shooting where the one shot didn't die!

Protect from what? The robber didn't seem intent on killing anyone until after having a gun pulled on him. The gun escalated that situation.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

This is my point. It's here ---------->







Here's you. Right here ----------->


You've missed my point.

I hope your aim is as bad as your points if you ever decide to go postal.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

That's why i support Feinstein's bill.

Nit try at trolling. Feinstein's bill most likely will have to be severely altered to conform with Heller and McDonald.

As it stands right now, I highly doubt it would pass the judicial committee in one piece. Sorry that your ignorance prevents you from seeing that.

[thaiboxerken]

I doubt it would get past the house. But i still support it. In time, guns well be strictly controlled.

[StankApe]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Minimum sentences for leaving a gun accessible to minors. This I believe is a serious problem. Leaving a loaded firearm, within easy access to a minor, is a problem. An easily prevented problem.
.

They make those fast access hand gun boxes now, it's like a 3 button code and gives access (but you push 2 buttons at once). You can go from sealed box to loaded weapon in a second or 2. But if they don't know the code, it takes a torch to cut the box open. seems like something any smart person would use for a "bedside" handgun.

[shawmutt]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Protect from what? The robber didn't seem intent on killing anyone until after having a gun pulled on him. The gun escalated that situation.

You seem to have a higher opinion than I do of those that choose a life of crime. When you submit yourself to a criminal how far that criminal chooses to go is now his prerogative.

Why do you automatically give the criminal the benefit of the doubt? "Just give him the money so he can be free to rob another day!" While calling those that use the best tool to protect themselves and their loved ones "weak". Submitting to a criminal is a refuge of cowards.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I doubt it would get past the house. But i still support it. In time, guns well be strictly controlled.

Oh, you mean more strictly controlled.

[shawmutt]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Protect from what? The robber didn't seem intent on killing anyone until after having a gun pulled on him. The gun escalated that situation.

Let me ask you a question, in the following situation, was fighting the mugger the right thing to do?

"According to police, the "victim" said Miranda approached his car near Kenneth Ave. and 55th St. and asked for a light for a cigarette. When the man, who did not want to be identified, said he didn’t have a light Miranda pulled a gun, demanded valuables and told the driver to get out of the car, police told the Tribune.
What happened next is probably what you would expect when someone tries to rob an MMA fighter: a one-sided struggle.
Instead of cash and valuables, Miranda came away with bruises all over his face, a bullet in his ankle after his gun discharged during the fight and a mugshot for the ages.
The UFC fighter was able to hold Miranda on the ground until police arrived."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/mo...#ixzz2HRmN8FK2

Should he just have complied and turned over his car and valuables, so the situation would not be "escalated"?

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Protect from what? The robber didn't seem intent on killing anyone until after having a gun pulled on him. The gun escalated that situation.

Um, no. Not even close.

Did you miss this part?

Quote:

Kelby Smith, 34, had just gotten out of his car in his brother’s driveway on Crescent Drive about 8:45 p.m. when a man with a pistol approached him and demanded money, police said.

Smith was carrying his 2-month-old son in a car seat at the time. He knelt down in front of his son to shield him as the robber held the gun to Smith’s head, police said.

Seems like the robber was pretty intent on using deadly force, had Mr. Smith not complied.

I for one want to congratulate Mr. Smith on NOT being a coward. I am going to take a collection to buy him some more bullets, and shooting lessons.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I hope your aim is as bad as your points if you ever decide to go postal.

Because the point is going COMPLETELY over your head, you try to result to insults. Cool.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by StankApe

They make those fast access hand gun boxes now, it's like a 3 button code and gives access (but you push 2 buttons at once). You can go from sealed box to loaded weapon in a second or 2. But if they don't know the code, it takes a torch to cut the box open. seems like something any smart person would use for a "bedside" handgun.

This is what I use.

http://www.amazon.com/Stack-On-PS-5-...ngerprint+safe


But there are others, that require a sequence of the levers to be pushed.

Similar to this. http://www.buyasafe.com/gv1000std-mi...FQ0GnQodZyIAwQ

[shawmutt]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Because the point is going COMPLETELY over your head, you try to result to insults. Cool.

"Anti-gunners keeping it classy"

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by shawmutt

You seem to have a higher opinion than I do of those that choose a life of crime. When you submit yourself to a criminal how far that criminal chooses to go is now his prerogative.

Why do you automatically give the criminal the benefit of the doubt? "Just give him the money so he can be free to rob another day!" While calling those that use the best tool to protect themselves and their loved ones "weak". Submitting to a criminal is a refuge of cowards.

If the criminal, in this instance, wanted to kill...he would shoot first.

[StankApe]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

If the criminal, in this instance, wanted to kill...he would shoot first.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by shawmutt

• Lack of single payer health care, employer based healthcare sucks
• War on drugs
• piss poor government management of financial support programs
• lack of development in the inner cities, they are abandoned in favor of suburban sprawl
• piss poor enforcement of current laws and regulations

Fixes:

Stop employer-based healthcare. Too many people don't have healthcare because they can't find jobs or stay in ****** jobs just for the healthcare. It's simply bad for the country. Institute a single-payer system.

End the war on drugs. Legalize (or at least decriminalize) marijuana. Free the million or so people in jail for non-violent drug offenses. Allow coffee shops similar to Amsterdam, and restrict/tax similar to cigarettes.

Reform Welfare. No more cash options. Severely restrict what can be bought with food stamps. Enact and enforce severe penalties for abuse.

Offer more tax incentives for living and doing business in inner cities. Severely restrict licenses for "less desirable businesses" such as liquor stores, strip clubs, casinos, bars, etc. Increase the local taxes on surrounding suburban areas, relax tax rates in the cities.

Enforce laws on the books. People are allowed one discretionary "mistake", depending on what the judge wants to do. Next offense means max time.

Good answer. Thank you.

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Of course guns in the wrong hands are a problem. Of course our murder rate is too high. However, violent crime is down over 50% in the last 30 (I think) years. This is great progress. What more can be done? I'm not exactly sure, but here's my ideas.

Stiffer penalties for violent crimes committed with a gun. Rob a store with a firearm? 10 years. Fire a weapon at someone: 20. Minimum mandatory.

Hit someone, no matter if they live or die, natural life, no parole, no release. Bye bye.

Better education of gun owners. I'm not opposed to requiring a 1 hour, or 4 hour, gun safety course, for all new gun purchasers. Once you've got the course, as long as you don't use your gun inappropriately, or display a lack of sense when you've got it, you're fine.

Titles for guns. Similar to cars, but for guns, and all sales must complete an NCIC check, even for private sales, with a reasonable fee for the background check and transfer fee, and penalties for failure to do so.

Minimum sentences for leaving a gun accessible to minors. This I believe is a serious problem. Leaving a loaded firearm, within easy access to a minor, is a problem. An easily prevented problem.

But most importantly, severe penalties for gun crimes. This I believe is the biggest problem.

Another good answer. Thanks again.

This is all I want. Acknowledgement from gun owners that there is a problem, and potential solutions. Being not from your country, I cannot take any direct actions to improve your situation. But hopefully I can encourage responsible American gun owners to try to address the problem themselves. With the level of gun ownership in the country, no solution is going to be possible without the involvement of responsible gun owners.