Two guys with guns being stupid. Shocker.

[RandomGuy]

In your OP both men had instant access to deadly force, and nothing happened. And your thread le is a lie, only one man acted stupid. You act as if open carry is some new idea, it's been around a long while yet not many people choose to exercise the right, so no, everybody will not start wearing guns, and those that choose to do so aren't shooting everyone up as you seem to imply.


And lol @ your mass shooting scenario.

Mass shootings exist, and will be a certainty as long as guns exist and are available.

I trust you aren't too closeminded to acknowledge they aren't.

If you get more people taking advantage of open carry laws, yes or no, will one or more of these people almost certainly find themselves in the area of a mass shooting?

[RandomGuy]

Hundreds oe thousands of children are killed each year by cars.

Hundreds of children are killed each year playing.

Unknown tens, or hundreds of thousand children are murdered each year by abortion.

What is your point?

Provably false.

Define "child", sophist.

[RandomGuy]

I didn't wander flippantly into anything. RG wanted a specific number of "child" deaths that would make me reconsider gun rights. I gave him 10% of the # of abortions that occur, that's roughly the number of late term abortions. So let's see how you answer...

Are these children...




Are these children...



Now we already know RG couldn't care less about the first two but is so distraught that some "children" like in the last pic might get shot that he's willing to give up his cons utional rights. What say you pgardn?

LOL "I'm not racist, but...."

[RandomGuy]

thread le should be changed to "one guy with gun being stupid." sounds like the second guy was totally calm and did nothing wrong at all. walked into the store, made his purchase, and called the police when somebody with a weapon was acting beyond himself

Hmm. You are right. Just one guy was being a real idiot.

Mea culpa, I stand corrected, and a bit guilty of hyperbole.

[RandomGuy]

I'd consider an unborn infant more of a child than the teenage gangbangers you're so distraught over.

"I'm not racist, but I assume that when RG talks about child deaths, he is talking about teenage blacks and mexicans in gangs"







I guess your thinking is different when I was mostly talking about actual children, and no few of them white?

Is it a problem now?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Speaking of dodging questions.....

What restrictions on gun ownership that have not been enacted into law would have saved the children I am willing to let die?

[RandomGuy]

What restrictions on gun ownership that have not been enacted into law would have saved the children I am willing to let die?

Fair question.

I would simply require guns to only be owned by someone who has a license. Requirement of license is a hundred hours or more of training, and an acknowledgment that if anybody dies from an accident, you are firmly responsible and prosecuted for negligence.

No license, no gun. Period.

I can accept a few gun deaths, if those responsible for accidents are held accountable.

[TheSanityAnnex]

It also makes it really hard to identify WHO is the shooter in some mass shooting when everybody has a gun.

Everybody? Give me a ing break. The mass shooter is easily identified, he is the guy walking around shooting everybody.

Mass shootings exist, and will be a certainty as long as guns exist and are available.

I trust you aren't too ed to acknowledge they aren't, although given your lack of any attempt at critical thinking when it comes to the subject so far, that may be a bit of an assumption on my part.

If you get more people taking advantage of open carry laws, yes or no, will one or more of these people almost certainly find themselves in the area of a mass shooting?

You'll have to define a time frame before I can answer yes or no that an open carrier will certainly find themselves in the area of a mass shooting.

[elbamba]

Fair question.

I would simply require guns to only be owned by someone who has a license. Requirement of license is a hundred hours or more of training, and an acknowledgment that if anybody dies from an accident, you are firmly responsible and prosecuted for negligence.

No license, no gun. Period.

I can accept a few gun deaths, if those responsible for accidents are held accountable.

I am not a gun owner nor have I ever fired a gun so I might be a bit off on my safety precautions.

Not sure your standard would work. Negligence is usually a reasonable standard as in, "what would a reasonable person in a similar situation do". If I am a gun owner and I keep my gun locked up, bullets separated and some how someone gets a hold of my gun, I don't know that you could prosecute for negligence. You might be looking for more of a strict liability standard.

That said, I like the idea of training hours but I think it needs to be a monthly requirement as opposed to a hundred hours up front. Perhaps 40 hours before you can own a gun and then 2-5 hours of training each month to keep up your license. Failing to comply is an automatic 90 day probation period where you can get current on your hours. Failing to meet this would be automatic suspension where you must turn in your firearms and appeal the suspension. Possession of a firearm after suspension is an automatic felony.

I also think there should be specific safety protocols with respect to types of safes that a gun owner must have and separate safes for bullets. This might not be plausible, as I said, I am not a gun owner and know virtually nothing about guns. But I think there are safety measures that can be taken to improve the general safety of the public.

I don't think you will ever prevent children taking their lives or mass shootings. People who are motivated to kill will find ways to kill. This, however, should not be an excuse to facilitate potential acts of violence.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Fair question.

I would simply require guns to only be owned by someone who has a license. Requirement of license is a hundred hours or more of training, and an acknowledgment that if anybody dies from an accident, you are firmly responsible and prosecuted for negligence.

No license, no gun. Period.

I can accept a few gun deaths, if those responsible for accidents are held accountable.

A hundred hours seems a bit excessive but fine. I'm in agreement with the owner being responsible for anything that happens with said firearm. How would these changes save more children though? I feel the effects would be negligible.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I am not a gun owner nor have I ever fired a gun so I might be a bit off on my safety precautions.

Not sure your standard would work. Negligence is usually a reasonable standard as in, "what would a reasonable person in a similar situation do". If I am a gun owner and I keep my gun locked up, bullets separated and some how someone gets a hold of my gun, I don't know that you could prosecute for negligence. You might be looking for more of a strict liability standard.

That said, I like the idea of training hours but I think it needs to be a monthly requirement as opposed to a hundred hours up front. Perhaps 40 hours before you can own a gun and then 2-5 hours of training each month to keep up your license. Failing to comply is an automatic 90 day probation period where you can get current on your hours. Failing to meet this would be automatic suspension where you must turn in your firearms and appeal the suspension. Possession of a firearm after suspension is an automatic felony.

I also think there should be specific safety protocols with respect to types of safes that a gun owner must have and separate safes for bullets. This might not be plausible, as I said, I am not a gun owner and know virtually nothing about guns. But I think there are safety measures that can be taken to improve the general safety of the public.

I don't think you will ever prevent children taking their lives or mass shootings. People who are motivated to kill will find ways to kill. This, however, should not be an excuse to facilitate potential acts of violence.

A separate safe for bullets?

Hold on home invader....let me open up my second safe so I can get my bullets.

And to all your other points...criminals will simply not comply and the burden is on law abiding citizens.

[vy65]

if anybody dies from an accident, you are firmly responsible and prosecuted for negligence.

That's the status quo. There isn't some "gun-owner immunity" from civil liability, much less voluntary/involuntary manslaughter.

Don't see how this saves the kids you're always obsessing about you pedo

[elbamba]

A separate safe for bullets?

Hold on home invader....let me open up my second safe so I can get my bullets.

And to all your other points...criminals will simply not comply and the burden is on law abiding citizens.

So should we not require car companies to install seat belts because people will just not buckle?
The home invader is not going to know whether your gun has bullets in it. And it is not like you have to keep the bullets in the garage. Do you have any suggestions or do you simply think that we should take no action because happens and there is nothing we can do to stop it?

[TheSanityAnnex]

The home invader is not going to know whether your gun has bullets in it. And it is not like you have to keep the bullets in the garage.

So I now have a gun with no bullets, should I throw it at the home invader? I'm guessing you also think racking a shotgun is all you need to scare off the home invader. An unloaded gun completely defeats the purpose of having a gun in the first place.

Do you have any suggestions or do you simply think that we should take no action because happens and there is nothing we can do to stop it?

I store all of my guns loaded in a safe that is bolted down to concrete and have a loaded gun in a drawer in my nightstand. If I had kids the gun in the nightstand would be moved to the locked safe. When friends bring their kids to my house the gun in the nightstand moves to the locked safe. No dead kids at my house so far. Being responsible goes a long long way, making new laws does little.

[RandomGuy]

That's the status quo. There isn't some "gun-owner immunity" from civil liability, much less voluntary/involuntary manslaughter.

Don't see how this saves the kids you're always obsessing about you pedo

Wow, you resurfaced.

[vy65]

Wow, you resurfaced.

Yah sorry, having a real job gets in the way of posting on a political forum attached to a spurs message board. I guess I need to get my priorities straight, right?

[TheSanityAnnex]

It's tough to have a decent discussion when the two people I'm directing questions at refuse to answer.

Boutons---how will your ideas save the children?

RandomGuy---why do you believe there is going to be some sudden surge in open carry? It's been around for a long time and as far as I know no new laws permitting open carry have been passed. "Everybody" will not have a gun. People who exercise their right to open carry are rare compared to the number of gun owners, mass shootings are even more rare. Assuming an open carrier will "certainly" be at a mass shooting is quite the leap no? And so what if one is?

[boutons_deux]

Please explain point by point how it would save the children.

on the good guys side:

change culture of lackadaisical, sloppy, low-cost gun ownership with confiscations/gun-destruction, and severe penalties, including prison, for accidents, crimes, etc committed with good guys' guns.

Gun owners have an average of 9 or 10 guns. Paying registration fees, annual re-up fees, mandatory liability insurance ON EACH GUN should stimulate extreme caution in operating, securing the guns.

on the bad guys side:

another policy: pay handsome bounties (very attractive to the the poor) to anyone fingering an illegal gun owner.

anybody stopped with gun without permit, le, insurance on his person will have the gun(s) confiscated and destroyed, no appeal.

the person will also be arrested, fined, maybe jailed, and LONG probation, just like DWI arrests.

It will take time, but eventually the 300M+ guns and the lackadaisical/criminal/fun culture around guns will change, as will the number of guns decrease.

[SnakeBoy]

LOL "I'm not racist, but...."

LOL typical liberal. Liberals like to use statistics that include gang/drug related shootings for "children" up to age 19, which comprise the majority of gun related violence, and as soon as someone points it out you run straight to the racist card.

[SnakeBoy]

"I'm not racist, but I assume that when RG talks about child deaths, he is talking about teenage blacks and mexicans in gangs"







I guess your thinking is different when I was mostly talking about actual children, and no few of them white?

Is it a problem now?

No more than any number of household accidents that kill children every year. I'm not willing to give up my cons utional rights for those either.

[RandomGuy]

No more than any number of household accidents that kill children every year. I'm not willing to give up my cons utional rights for those either.

Ah, so any number of dead children is ok with you.

Thanks for clearing that up.

That is essentially trading real dead children for some imagined loss.

[RandomGuy]

LOL typical liberal. Liberals like to use statistics that include gang/drug related shootings for "children" up to age 19, which comprise the majority of gun related violence, and as soon as someone points it out you run straight to the racist card.

"no, really, i'm not racist, I just don't care about them hood rat gang bangers killing each other."



If you are going to keep digging, get a shovel.

[RandomGuy]

..."child" deaths
Are these children...



Now we already know RG couldn't care less about the first two but is so distraught that some "children" like in the last pic might get shot that he's willing to give up his cons utional rights.

translation of the above posts: "I'm not racist, but I assume that when RG talks about child deaths, he is talking about teenage blacks and mexicans in gangs"

waah you called me racist

[RandomGuy]

RandomGuy---why do you believe there is going to be some sudden surge in open carry? It's been around for a long time and as far as I know no new laws permitting open carry have been passed. "Everybody" will not have a gun. People who exercise their right to open carry are rare compared to the number of gun owners, mass shootings are even more rare. Assuming an open carrier will "certainly" be at a mass shooting is quite the leap no? And so what if one is?

I don't believe there is going to be some sudden surge in open carry.

I am, however, pointing out the logical flaws in said policy.

Over time the probability of an event happening, even improbable ones, approaches 1.

If the open carry policy being pushed by the whackos goes through, that will mean more people running around openly with guns.

The wider the policy, the sooner the event will occur.

QED

In this case, we had a policy in place for exactly a day before the first incident, however benign, does not bode well for the long term soundness of such laws.

[RandomGuy]

A hundred hours seems a bit excessive but fine. I'm in agreement with the owner being responsible for anything that happens with said firearm. How would these changes save more children though? I feel the effects would be negligible.

Honestly, there are so many guns in the US now that it would be almost impossible to realistically enact any meaningful restrictions, IMO.

Sadly the march of sacrifices on the altar of gun fetishism will continue unabated. However much I might not like that, I can be realistic. The gun lobby is effective, and virulent, whatever one might think of them.