Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

Lace · 11-01-2011, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I read the other day that gun ownership is up too - half of American houses now have guns in them.

I understand why. Local city governments are strapped for cash, and cutting back on police. This is exactly what's happened in my small home town here. We used to have a massive police presence. Now, not so much.

We had one single Sheriff, who was let go last year. Our closest police station is about 30 minutes away. My neighbor is a State Police Lieutenant for the county below us which is nice but there isn't much he's going to do in the event of an emergency. I live in the sticks but I still like to protect myself. Crazy shit can happen anywhere.

Vendzilla · 11-01-2011, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

We already do, and should continue to do so.
We should also be punishing anyone who fails to secure a weapon they legally own.
Securing it should be required by the fact you chose to own it.
Failing to secure it is no better than misusing it.

It's funny how asshole thinking like this has lead the US to be the leader in most people in prison per capita, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita.

You're a moron, I thought I would just throw that out there

12clicks · 11-01-2011, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ

They

This makes as much sense as if someone breaks into your home, steals a knife from the kitchen, stabs you with it, you are just as responsible as the attacker, attacking you, as you "both" deserve to go to prison? - That's just stupid

he makes a lot of idiot statements. then types paragraph after paragraph explaining how everyone else is wrong, slowly changing his argument with each post to make him seem right.

Vendzilla · 11-01-2011, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Yup. Two years of experience to prove it... little gay white boy dressed nice and strolling through the ghetto at 2 am without a incident to speak of. You're the expert though.

What's your experience besides getting arrested? (Something else that has never happened to me, btw)

I keep thinking of this video everytime you say shit like that, LMAO

grumpy · 11-01-2011, 09:13 AM

yeah, more guns in the usa. It makes it a much safer place.

Vendzilla · 11-01-2011, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domain Diva

The statistic was " More USA children die in gun accidents than anywhere else in the civilized world" not that its the number 1 cause of child deaths in the USA.

I asked where that statistic you had was, still waiting!!

Vendzilla · 11-01-2011, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grumpy

yeah, more guns in the usa. It makes it a much safer place.

Good thing you live in the US then isn't, love how people from other countries are chiming in

MaDalton · 11-01-2011, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Good thing you live in the US then isn't, love how people from other countries are chiming in

this is an international board, if you only want to discuss with american people you need to post somewhere else. but since your employer probably also wants international webmasters you have to live with our opinions

scottybuzz · 11-01-2011, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Good thing you live in the US then isn't, love how people from other countries are chiming in

dont make a post on an international board then idiot

Relentless · 11-01-2011, 09:37 AM

Quote:

This makes as much sense as if someone breaks into your home, steals a knife from the kitchen, stabs you with it, you are just as responsible as the attacker, attacking you, as you "both" deserve to go to prison? - That's just stupid

Yes, that example is stupid and also has nothing to do with what I have said. Kitchen knives and cars are not weapons (anything can be used as a weapon but that is not the sole intent of owning the object). Owning a weapon carries responsibility to secure it. If someone steals your gun and shoots YOU with it, losing your weapon did not injure or harm anyone but you. However, if someone steals your gun and shoots your neighbor, your failure to secure your gun is absolutely part of what proximately caused your neighbor to be killed.

The laws that exist right now which are intended to 'punish' people for losing a gun or having one 'stolen' are much too lax. They ought to be much more strict. If losing a legally registered handgun were a felony, existing Felony Murder statutes would be easy to apply. If you want to go with something less, like a 1+ year jail sentence, 10K dollar fine and being forbidden from ever owning a gun again I'd be fine with that. The idea that people can 'report a gun lost or stolen' and be completely absolved from the damage that gun does in the future is ridiculous. You own it, you secure it. You can't or won't... you should be accountable for that failure.

theking · 11-01-2011, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

Yes, that example is stupid and also has nothing to do with what I have said. Kitchen knives and cars are not weapons (anything can be used as a weapon but that is not the sole intent of owning the object). Owning a weapon carries responsibility to secure it. If someone steals your gun and shoots YOU with it, losing your weapon did not injure or harm anyone but you. However, if someone steals your gun and shoots your neighbor, your failure to secure your gun is absolutely part of what proximately caused your neighbor to be killed.

The laws that exist right now which are intended to 'punish' people for losing a gun or having one 'stolen' are much too lax. They ought to be much more strict. If losing a legally registered handgun were a felony, existing Felony Murder statutes would be easy to apply. If you want to go with something less, like a 1+ year jail sentence, 10K dollar fine and being forbidden from ever owning a gun again I'd be fine with that. The idea that people can 'report a gun lost or stolen' and be completely absolved from the damage that gun does in the future is ridiculous. You own it, you secure it. You can't or won't... you should be accountable for that failure.

Pigshit.

Relentless · 11-01-2011, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

thinking like this has lead the US to be the leader in most people in prison per capita, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita.

No. The reason our prisons are overflowing with people is precisely what my stance would fix. Right now prisons are overcrowded with people convicted of illegally selling drugs. I would make the sale of every drug legal. I'd tax it and have it supervised the same way liquor is currently handled... and just like liquor I would punish the hell out of anyone who misused it.

If you want to do heroin or vodka, the law should be identical. Use it at home by yourself or with other consenting adults and stay within the law... have fun. Use it around minors, drive while high or do other things outside the law and find yourself being severely punished for your misuse of the item.

Guns are exactly the same. They are an inherently dangerous item that require an exceptional amount of care to use properly and stay within the limits of the law. If you use a gun properly and secure it when it is not in use, I am happy you - go own 10K guns and fire them off at your leisure. If you use them improperly or fail to secure them you should be accountable for that failure AND for the damage that your failure proximately causes.

If you put every person who had a gun stolen IN jail and took out every person convicted of selling dime bags of pot on a street corner the prison population would shrink immediately and forever. Best of all, you would have the actually dangerous people in prison instead of two-bit pot dealers. Gun owners who allow their guns to be lost or stolen ARE dangerous to society and so are people who allow drugs and alcohol to fuel their misconduct, people who properly use their guns or do drugs responsibly are not.

Vendzilla · 11-01-2011, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

this is an international board, if you only want to discuss with american people you need to post somewhere else. but since your employer probably also wants international webmasters you have to live with our opinions

You're right, I should never question those that talk about the US that don't live here. wait, that doesn't make sence? Do I get involved in the politics of your country?

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottybuzz

dont make a post on an international board then idiot

Sorry, I thought the fact that the thread was titled, "Record-Low 26% in US Favor Handgun Ban" was a give away.

Vendzilla · 11-01-2011, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

If you put every person who had a gun stolen IN jail and took out every person convicted of selling dime bags of pot on a street corner the prison population would shrink immediately and forever. Best of all, you would have the actually dangerous people in prison instead of two-bit pot dealers. Gun owners who allow their guns to be lost or stolen ARE dangerous to society and so are people who allow drugs and alcohol to fuel their misconduct, people who properly use their guns or do drugs responsibly are not.

So you want to lock up the victims of theft? BRILLIANT!

Relentless · 11-01-2011, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

So you want to lock up the victims of theft? BRILLIANT!

As a gun owner you should never be the victim of gun theft. You should be required to take extraordinary precautions to secure your own weapons from theft because it is an inherently dangerous object to own, not unlike dynamite or a tiger. Owning a gun puts those around you at risk if it is ever lost or stolen, your should be responsible for creating that risk and failing to safeguard against it sufficiently. If you are unable or unwilling to secure your own weapons, simply choose not to own weapons.

If you do CHOOSE to own a weapon and you FAIL to secure it, that's your fault and should be severely punished.

Relentless · 11-01-2011, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ

Who defines how secure a weapon is in your home?

That's why you can't write legislation requiring a certain level of security. If the law said 'the gun must be kept in a locked gun locker' those who 'lose' their guns would simply claim it was somehow taken from their gun locker whether it was in one or not. The litmus test should be very simple. If your gun has become lost or stolen, you failed to properly secure it. If you do not want to accept that responsibility... don't own a gun.

Quote:

What if I knocked on a gun owners door and then pointed a gun at his head to unlock his gun safe. Then took his gun and shot him and his neighbor?

The person doing the shooting goes to jail for murder, the person failing to secure their gun is punished severely as well. The only person in your example who is injured and innocent is the neighbor. Had you not chosen to own the gun which was taken from you and failed to secure it, he would not have been shot by a gun you owned.

Quote:

In short, it's people like you who flood our court system positioning stupid laws, causing more bureaucracy because you're common sense can't grasp self responsibility wanting a government entity to manage your life due to your flawed thinking.

Actually my method would immediately reduce the case load in courts from what it is presently. You would very quickly see less guns on the streets, would have less people choosing to own guns and would have those who do choose to own guns taking their care and security more seriously. There would be no lengthy trial or bureaucracy. If you 'lose' a gun, you are punished. If your gun is used in the commission of a subsequent crime you share in the blame for that incident as well.

The current system is what creates bureaucracy, protects incompetent gun owners and perpetuates the black market nexus between 'lost legal guns' and crimes committed by people with 'illegal guns' which are the same exact firearms in different hands.

theking · 11-01-2011, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ

You can't be serious? Although, the volume of your text is impressive, it's completely irrelevant. Who defines how secure a weapon is in your home? What if I knocked on a gun owners door and then pointed a gun at his head to unlock his gun safe. Then took his gun and shot him and his neighbor?

In short, it's people like you who flood our court system positioning stupid laws, causing more bureaucracy because you're common sense can't grasp self responsibility wanting a government entity to manage your life due to your flawed thinking.

In short, your dumb-ass thinking is what causes more government in our lives.

In addition National Guard Armories have been broken into and weapons stolen as well as gun stores have been broken into and weapons stolen...so are the National Guardsmen and store owners to be punished if any of the guns are found to have been used in a crime. A ridiculous concept.

I have a friend that was a gun collector and his guns were well secured...because they were very valuable...but that did not keep a thief from breaking into his home and stealing his entire collection. The thief was never caught and none of his guns were ever recovered. But if it ever turns up that one of his guns that was stolen about fifteen years ago was ever found to be involved in a crime to punish him would be a total injustice.

MaDalton · 11-01-2011, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

You're right, I should never question those that talk about the US that don't live here. wait, that doesn't make sence? Do I get involved in the politics of your country?

the thing is probably that you have no clue at all about the politics in my country - may it be germany or cz

while many people like to be informed about whats going on in the world, you and your opinions are completely US centered. which is too bad, cause sometimes it helps to look beyond your own nose

Relentless · 11-01-2011, 10:33 AM

Quote:

I have a friend that was a gun collector and his guns were well secured...because they were very valuable...but that did not keep a thief from breaking into his home and stealing his entire collection. The thief was never caught and none of his guns were ever recovered. But if it ever turns up that one of his guns that was stolen about fifteen years ago was ever found to be involved in a crime to punish him would be a total injustice.

Was your friend fined or punished in any way for allowing those guns to fall into the hands of a criminal? Where do you think criminals get guns? Very few if any criminals on the street committing violent crimes are capable of manufacturing their own guns. The pro-gun lobbyists are very fond of pointing out that the vast amount of gun related crimes are not committed by people who legally own guns. The fact is, most guns on the street were legally purchased originally... 'lost' intentionally or unintentionally and allowed to enter the black market where criminals have access to them.

One solution is to make owning any guns illegal. I am very much against that. People who responsibly own and secure their guns should be free to use them in any way allowable under the law. However, when someone decides to buy 25 guns and keep them in an unlocked showcase or has a firearm stolen out of their night table... they should be held to a very strict standard and punished severely for allowing their guns to find their way into the hands of criminals who would use them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

In addition National Guard Armories have been broken into and weapons stolen as well as gun stores have been broken into and weapons stolen...so are the National Guardsmen and store owners to be punished if any of the guns are found to have been used in a crime. A ridiculous concept.

If you have any links to those events please post them. I'd be very curious to see what penalty was enforced against the National Guardsmen responsible for securing those guns who failed to do so and allowed them to become lost or stolen. I'd expect that they faced very significant penalties and an extremely rigorous investigation took place to identify any breach of security so that it would never happen again. I look forward to reading the news articles detailing these events that you are aware of...

Relentless · 11-01-2011, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ

If an intruder held a gun at a gun-owners head and had him open his "secure" gun safe and then took his gun and committed a crime with it. Should the original gun owner be held responsible because it was his gun?

My prior post answers that question very directly.

"The person doing the shooting goes to jail for murder, the person failing to secure their gun is punished severely as well. The only person in your example who is injured and innocent is the neighbor. Had you not chosen to own the gun which was taken from you and failed to secure it, he would not have been shot by a gun you owned."

Vendzilla · 11-01-2011, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

the thing is probably that you have no clue at all about the politics in my country - may it be germany or cz

while many people like to be informed about whats going on in the world, you and your opinions are completely US centered. which is too bad, cause sometimes it helps to look beyond your own nose

Our politics are pretty screwed up, and I know that what happens here effects the rest of the world. I do read about whats going on with the politics in Greece and Germany and a few others, it's hard to not hear about them and their problems. I try to not comment on it, because I don't live there and don't know all the history and I do know that what ever I hear on the news, that's the only information I'm getting and that it's incomplete , bias and not worth debating over with that little information about it.

Relentless · 11-01-2011, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Our politics are pretty screwed up, and I know that what happens here effects the rest of the world. I do read about whats going on with the politics in Greece and Germany and a few others, it's hard to not hear about them and their problems. I try to not comment on it, because I don't live there and don't know all the history and I do know that what ever I hear on the news, that's the only information I'm getting and that it's incomplete , bias and not worth debating over with that little information about it.

I like your humility.

It is good to know that you are only 'all-knowing' with regard to the 307,006,550 people and 103671742065706.34375 square feet of property that comprises the United States.

Relentless · 11-01-2011, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ

You're a fool with a slanted position/opinion. In short, a gun hater.

I'm not a gun hater at all. Actually I am in favor of gun ownership because it makes our country impossible for any foreign power to invade or occupy (much more effectively than our military could ever accomplish). I'm also in favor of drug legalization and the legalization of just about any other activity any free person would like to engage in - however, when you choose to do something dangerous and fail at it, the fault should rest on your shoulders. Having your gun become lost or stolen is failing to own it responsibly.

P.S. - Your post above to MaDalton about flawed ethnocentric views proves you to be a fool. My position is one you might disagree with, but it is far from foolish.

theking · 11-01-2011, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

Was your friend fined or punished in any way for allowing those guns to fall into the hands of a criminal? Where do you think criminals get guns? Very few if any criminals on the street committing violent crimes are capable of manufacturing their own guns. The pro-gun lobbyists are very fond of pointing out that the vast amount of gun related crimes are not committed by people who legally own guns. The fact is, most guns on the street were legally purchased originally... 'lost' intentionally or unintentionally and allowed to enter the black market where criminals have access to them.

One solution is to make owning any guns illegal. I am very much against that. People who responsibly own and secure their guns should be free to use them in any way allowable under the law. However, when someone decides to buy 25 guns and keep them in an unlocked showcase or has a firearm stolen out of their night table... they should be held to a very strict standard and punished severely for allowing their guns to find their way into the hands of criminals who would use them.

If you have any links to those events please post them. I'd be very curious to see what penalty was enforced against the National Guardsmen responsible for securing those guns who failed to do so and allowed them to become lost or stolen. I'd expect that they faced very significant penalties and an extremely rigorous investigation took place to identify any breach of security so that it would never happen again. I look forward to reading the news articles detailing these events that you are aware of...

Nothing was done to my friend...as he had not committed any crime and suffered damage to his home and lost his gun collection...which was insured so he did not suffer any real monetary loss...but would have preferred to have his collection over any monetary reimbursement.

If you google you can find numerous cases of NG Armories being broken into. My favorite one is the guy that stole an M60 tank from a National Guard Armory and went on a rampage with it.

BTW...if the weapons were secured per regulation...nothing would be done to a Guardsmen.

Vendzilla · 11-01-2011, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

I like your humility.

It is good to know that you are only 'all-knowing' with regard to the 307,006,550 people and 103671742065706.34375 square feet of property that comprises the United States.

Not all knowing, like I didn't know a NOD from a guy standing outside a 7/11 made you gangster.
I didn't understand that someone wanted to lock up victims of theft
I didn't understand why people would get so passionate about the laws in a country they don't live in or understand

Relentless · 11-01-2011, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Nothing was done to my friend...as he had not committed any crime and suffered damage to his home and lost his gun collection...which was insured so he did not suffer any real monetary loss...but would have preferred to have his collection over any monetary reimbursement. If you google you can find numerous cases of NG Armories being broken into. My favorite one is the guy that stole an M60 tank from a National Guard Armory and went on a rampage with it. BTW...if the weapons were secured per regulation...nothing would be done to a Guardsmen.

In the specific instance of military enforcement, that's outside the civil courts in any case and the soldier following regulations should not be punished, though the regulations ought to be changed if they are faulty. In the case of a gun store owner or gun collector they ought to be responsible for the loss or theft of their weapons. If securing guns is too difficult, that's a good reason not to own them... not a good reason to excuse people for losing them.

Relentless · 11-01-2011, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ

So for all to understand this. If an intruder came to my home and held me at gun point to open my secured gun safe, then took my firearm and committed a crime with it, I should be "punished severely" for it.

You should not be punished at all for the robbery. However, if a gun you CHOSE to own and FAILED to secure ends up being used to hurt others... you should share in the blame for those subsequent actions. Had you not CHOSEN to own a gun and FAILED to secure it, your neighbor would never have been shot by your gun.

12clicks · 11-01-2011, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

You should not be punished at all for the robbery. However, if a gun you CHOSE to own and FAILED to secure ends up being used to hurt others... you should share in the blame for those subsequent actions. Had you not CHOSEN to own a gun and FAILED to secure it, your neighbor would never have been shot by your gun.

wrong.

here in America, you have a RIGHT to own a gun. Having someone steal it today is more punishable than when the right was enumerated.

but the lunatic fringe will always make dopey arguments to the contrary.

theking · 11-01-2011, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

In the specific instance of military enforcement, that's outside the civil courts in any case and the soldier following regulations should not be punished, though the regulations ought to be changed if they are faulty. In the case for a gun store owner or gun collector they ought to be responsible for the loss or theft of their weapons. If securing guns is too difficult, that's a good reason not to own them. Not a good reason to excuse people for losing them.

The insurance company was the one that dictated to him the security measures he had to take to secure his collection and he had to comply or not be insured. He went beyond the measures they provided. Who ever did it was clearly aware that he had the collection as they by passed his home alarm system...cut a hole in the wall of his secured room and used torches to cut into his gun safes. He had three safes.

Nothing is %100 secure including FT. Knox. Your suggestion is in fact a foolish one.

Relentless · 11-01-2011, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

wrong. here in America, you have a RIGHT to own a gun. Having someone steal it today is more punishable than when the right was enumerated. but the lunatic fringe will always make dopey arguments to the contrary.

I am convinced you act ignorant by choice. If a person steals your gun they should absolutely be held accountable for doing so. If they misuse your gun they should be punished for doing so. If they kill someone they should be convicted of murder. All of that is already the case and remains unchanged by this discussion. However, the person who failed to secure a gun should be held to account for that failure as well. If they were, you would see less guns 'lost', less guns on the street, less gun related crimes and responsible gun owners would be able to own their guns and use them within the limits of the law. The 'anti-gun' lobby would no longer exist... and so would most gun related crime.

Relentless · 11-01-2011, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

The insurance company was the one that dictated to him the security measures he had to take to secure his collection and he had to comply or not be insured. He went beyond the measures they provided. Who ever did it was clearly aware that he had the collection as they by passed his home alarm system...cut a hole in the wall of his secured room and used torches to cut into his gun safes. He had three safes. Nothing is %100 secure including FT. Knox. Your suggestion is in fact a foolish one.

In this example, nobody got hurt as a result of the lost guns. Had your friend's gun collection been used to shoot up a school, rob banks, kill cops or harm the neighboring society in any way... his failure to secure those guns and decision to own them would have been a significant cause of danger to the other people in the equation. Even in this extreme example, he should have been fined and punished for failing to secure the guns he chose to own. The decision to own a gun and failure to secure it is what puts illegal guns on the streets.

theking · 11-01-2011, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

In this example, nobody got hurt as a result of the lost guns. Had your friend's gun collection been used to shoot up a school, rob banks, kill cops or harm the neighboring society in any way... his failure to secure those guns and decision to own them would have been a significant cause of danger to the other people in the equation. Even in this extreme example, he should have been fined and punished for failing to secure the guns he chose to own. The decision to own a gun and failure to secure it is what puts illegal guns on the streets.

Pigshit.

cykoe6 · 11-01-2011, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

If you put every person who had a gun stolen IN jail and took out every person convicted of selling dime bags of pot on a street corner the prison population would shrink immediately and forever. Best of all, you would have the actually dangerous people in prison instead of two-bit pot dealers.

That is has to be the single most ridiculous thing I have ever seen posted....... even by GFY standards it is uniquely idiotic. Nicely done.

mountainmiester · 11-01-2011, 02:16 PM

What is the most disconcerting thing about this survey is that it is worded to enlist bias opinions.

"Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and authorized persons?"

I am a 2nd amendment advocate and i agree with this. I don't think "unauthorized" people should have guns and most agree. Unauthorized means Convicted Felons, the Mentally Unstable and every other group currently listed as Unauthorized to have a hand gun.

The survey wording on this is misleading. If you look at the rest of the survey the truth comes out but who wants to get a little truth in the way of a good thread right? The differentiators on the Assault Gun shows a great image. Is that to mean that more people are ok with Assault Rifles than handguns?

Also below many say the gun laws are fine but need better enforcement. If you want to give up your handguns I commend you and wish you well. You have that right much like I have the right to defend my home and my family.

As well as what Rochard said about gun ownership being at an all time high so is the right to carry in most states. For the first time ever, 49 states have the right to carry with only Illinois withstanding. Ironically, gun control has worked well for Illinois where Chicago is among the leaders in Hand Gun Murders. (15th in the country of all cities over 100,000 in population)

Mr Pheer · 11-01-2011, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

If you put every person who had a gun stolen IN jail and took out every person convicted of selling dime bags of pot on a street corner the prison population would shrink immediately and forever. Best of all, you would have the actually dangerous people in prison instead of two-bit pot dealers. Gun owners who allow their guns to be lost or stolen ARE dangerous to society and so are people who allow drugs and alcohol to fuel their misconduct, people who properly use their guns or do drugs responsibly are not.

So, you want to put a crime victim in prison, and let the law breakers go?

Someone here is batshit crazy and has fucked up thought processes. And its not me.

12clicks · 11-01-2011, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

I am convinced you act ignorant by choice. If a person steals your gun they should absolutely be held accountable for doing so. If they misuse your gun they should be punished for doing so. If they kill someone they should be convicted of murder. All of that is already the case and remains unchanged by this discussion. However, the person who failed to secure a gun should be held to account for that failure as well. If they were, you would see less guns 'lost', less guns on the street, less gun related crimes and responsible gun owners would be able to own their guns and use them within the limits of the law. The 'anti-gun' lobby would no longer exist... and so would most gun related crime.

I am convinced you act ignorantly because you're simply an unintelligent slug.
You can fantasize about any silly law you'd like to dream up.
The FACTS are that gun ownership is a right and no one will be prosecuted for the crime of being a victim.
Prattle on for as long as you'd like. There are facts and there are are your fantasies.
The two never mix

12clicks · 11-01-2011, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainmiester

What is the most disconcerting thing about this survey is that it is worded to enlist bias opinions.

"Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and authorized persons?"

I am a 2nd amendment advocate and i agree with this. I don't think "unauthorized" people should have guns and most agree. Unauthorized means Convicted Felons, the Mentally Unstable and every other group currently listed as Unauthorized to have a hand gun.

The survey wording on this is misleading. If you look at the rest of the survey the truth comes out but who wants to get a little truth in the way of a good thread right? The differentiators on the Assault Gun shows a great image. Is that to mean that more people are ok with Assault Rifles than handguns?

Also below many say the gun laws are fine but need better enforcement. If you want to give up your handguns I commend you and wish you well. You have that right much like I have the right to defend my home and my family.

As well as what Rochard said about gun ownership being at an all time high so is the right to carry in most states. For the first time ever, 49 states have the right to carry with only Illinois withstanding. Ironically, gun control has worked well for Illinois where Chicago is among the leaders in Hand Gun Murders. (15th in the country of all cities over 100,000 in population)

Actually, you can't carry in NJ

Choker · 11-02-2011, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

In this example, nobody got hurt as a result of the lost guns. Had your friend's gun collection been used to shoot up a school, rob banks, kill cops or harm the neighboring society in any way... his failure to secure those guns and decision to own them would have been a significant cause of danger to the other people in the equation. Even in this extreme example, he should have been fined and punished for failing to secure the guns he chose to own. The decision to own a gun and failure to secure it is what puts illegal guns on the streets.

Dude, we get it, your a broken record. No matter how many times you type out in detail your beliefs on this, NOBODY here is gonna agree with you. That fact alone should make you stop and realize that maybe something is wrong with your thinking?

12clicks · 11-02-2011, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

Dude, we get it, your a broken record. No matter how many times you type out in detail your beliefs on this, NOBODY here is gonna agree with you. That fact alone should make you stop and realize that maybe something is wrong with your thinking?

you've obviously not seen his other 10,000 posts.

11-01-2011, 09:13 AM	#105
grumpy Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Holland Posts: 9,870	yeah, more guns in the usa. It makes it a much safer place. __________________ Don't let greediness blur your vision \| You gotta let some shit slide icq - 441-456-888

11-01-2011, 02:16 PM	#134
mountainmiester Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arizona Posts: 509	What is the most disconcerting thing about this survey is that it is worded to enlist bias opinions. "Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and authorized persons?" I am a 2nd amendment advocate and i agree with this. I don't think "unauthorized" people should have guns and most agree. Unauthorized means Convicted Felons, the Mentally Unstable and every other group currently listed as Unauthorized to have a hand gun. The survey wording on this is misleading. If you look at the rest of the survey the truth comes out but who wants to get a little truth in the way of a good thread right? The differentiators on the Assault Gun shows a great image. Is that to mean that more people are ok with Assault Rifles than handguns? Also below many say the gun laws are fine but need better enforcement. If you want to give up your handguns I commend you and wish you well. You have that right much like I have the right to defend my home and my family. As well as what Rochard said about gun ownership being at an all time high so is the right to carry in most states. For the first time ever, 49 states have the right to carry with only Illinois withstanding. Ironically, gun control has worked well for Illinois where Chicago is among the leaders in Hand Gun Murders. (15th in the country of all cities over 100,000 in population) __________________ Randall Crockett LIMELIGHT NETWORKS [email protected] Last edited by mountainmiester; 11-01-2011 at 02:24 PM..