Even the most responsible gun-owners can snap...

[Ace Boobtoucher]

And apparently America is ashamed of me. If America knew what I did on the tilt-a-whirl at Adventureland park in 1989, then they probably would be, yes. But America has no need to know and I ain't gonna tell.

 

[BlkHawk]

OK...here's your last chance to act like a well-trained Aussie Special Person...
Unlike the last link I remember, where you disproved your own BS accidently with a linked article, post a link where the actual records show A) Otrama received in one election more physical (popular) votes than GWB received in his two elections.
And that
B) there was higher voter turnout for Barry's first election then any time since Tricky Dick's first.

Don't embarrass yourself claiming it's not worth bothering, it's so beneath your great intellect, or some other lame ( I run from conflict!) excuse often used by the habitually wrong/idiotic poster...of which you are a double winner!

I just can't wait to see if I really misjudged Barry's awesome popularity and greatness, or once again correctly judged you.

(Door Number Two, probably)

Well you got me curious, for the record I am neither a Bush, or Obama fan.

Popular vote Obama scored higher in his elections than Bush did in his:
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/common/pop_vote.html

If he was saying Obama received more in one election than Bush in both, he is mistaken. If he meant Obama received more in both than Bush received in both he is correct. Obama's lowest popular vote is greater than Bush's highest.

Voter turnout apparently he is correct as well, the most turnout since 1968:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/turnout.php

1968 60.84%
1972 55.21%
1976 53.55%
1980 52.56%
1984 53.11%
1988 50.15%
1992 55.23%
1996 49.08%
2000 51.30%
2004 55.27%
2008 57.48%

As for the sources I just picked the top EDU results from a google search, how accurate they are I don't know.

 

[BlkHawk]

Question time, I have owned rifles and shotguns, but never handguns.

Do you have to have a license to own a handgun?
If so do you have to renew that license the way you have to renew a drivers license?

My real question is this, in order to drive a potentially deadly vehicle you have to prove you are physically and mentally capable, you also have to reprove that every four or two years depending on your age.

Why don't we do that with firearms? Will it stop all shootings, no, will it stop some, yes. As a former gun owner I don't have a problem with paying a fee and getting certified every four years. Yes some people would ignore it, thats what the fee is for, to fund a system that monitors who needs to renew. If you don't renew you lose your guns, same as if you failed the renew process.

I don't have a problem with guns, I started shooting when I was eight, and hunting by twelve, but goddammit I am fucking sick of seeing children murdered in their own schools. The simple fact is that their are people who have guns in this country, legally and illegally, who shouldn't have them.

 

[Philbert]

Question time, I have owned rifles and shotguns, but never handguns.

Do you have to have a license to own a handgun?
If so do you have to renew that license the way you have to renew a drivers license?

My real question is this, in order to drive a potentially deadly vehicle you have to prove you are physically and mentally capable, you also have to reprove that every four or two years depending on your age.

Why don't we do that with firearms? Will it stop all shootings, no, will it stop some, yes. As a former gun owner I don't have a problem with paying a fee and getting certified every four years. Yes some people would ignore it, thats what the fee is for, to fund a system that monitors who needs to renew. If you don't renew you lose your guns, same as if you failed the renew process.

I don't have a problem with guns, I started shooting when I was eight, and hunting by twelve, but goddammit I am fucking sick of seeing children murdered in their own schools. The simple fact is that their are people who have guns in this country, legally and illegally, who shouldn't have them.

As well as cars and alcohol...which have killed hundreds more innocent women, children, and whole families than all our firearms combined.
How do you think we should prioritize the prohibition of these deadly weapons and the incompetents who possess them? Perhaps concentrate on the most dangerous rather than the most popular political cause du jour ?

(Yes, for most states a license is required. I don't know the norm for renewal.)

 

[BlkHawk]

As well as cars and alcohol...which have killed hundreds more innocent women, children, and whole families than all our firearms combined.
How do you think we should prioritize the prohibition of these deadly weapons and the incompetents who possess them? Perhaps concentrate on the most dangerous rather than the most popular political cause du jour ?

(Yes, for most states a license is required. I don't know the norm for renewal.)

Mostly convictions of violent crimes, some court ordered psychiatric treatment, publicly issuing death threats (there have been cases of this happening at town halls and nothing was done until after a shooting). Most of these are checked when you purchase a gun, I don't know if they are checked after the fact.

Example: x buys gun legaly at 20 and is licensed no problem. X at 28 is diagnosed with schizophrenia, is there a check in place then to see if x has firearms? Yes x could use a knife, or a bat, or most likely be fine with medication. However worst case scenario x with a knife most likely cannot harm/kill as many people as x with an 8 round gun.

Example: x gets a car license at 16 no problem. X at 40 diagnosed with severe epilepsy and is prone to seizures even while on medication. License suspended.

We as a society don't think twice about doing this in the second example. Do we currently do this for the first example? If not than why not?

Yes alcohol has killed a lot of people, and we regulate what you can do while intoxicated. Yes cars kill a lot of people, and we regulate who can be licensed to drive.

Guns can be used to kill people, and last I knew we still allow some gun shows to sell without background checks for violent crime, or severe mental health issues.

I don't have all the answers, as I said before I am just tired of seeing kids murdered in their own schools. As someone who grew up with firearms I am willing to discuss options to prevent mass shootings in the future, without having to trample the 2nd amendment.

 

[Mayhem]

Question time, I have owned rifles and shotguns, but never handguns.

Do you have to have a license to own a handgun? It completely depends on where you are, mostly by state but also some municipalities. Most places, No.
If so do you have to renew that license the way you have to renew a drivers license? Same as above.

My real question is this, in order to drive a potentially deadly vehicle you have to prove you are physically and mentally capable, you also have to reprove that every four or two years depending on your age. Let's dispense with that myth. I can't remember the last time I took a drivers test. Renewing or switching states, I turned in the old one and got a new one.

Why don't we do that with firearms? Will it stop all shootings, no, will it stop some, yes. As a former gun owner I don't have a problem with paying a fee and getting certified every four years. Yes some people would ignore it, thats what the fee is for, to fund a system that monitors who needs to renew. If you don't renew you lose your guns, same as if you failed the renew process. To make what you're describing legal, you have to gurantee that every American citizen, regardless of location, is able to recieve said cerification. You have to gurantee that the exact same training I'm getting in Bangor, Maine is the exact same training you're getting in San Diego, CA.

I don't have a problem with guns, I started shooting when I was eight, and hunting by twelve, but goddammit I am fucking sick of seeing children murdered in their own schools. The simple fact is that their are people who have guns in this country, legally and illegally, who shouldn't have them. I am by no means arguing with you but how is this different than every place else in the world? And to the multitudes who claim that what happens in America doesn't happen other places, bullshit. Yugoslavia, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Africa. And don't think that there isn't alot that isn't happening that doesn't make it onto the news sites.

...

 

[Rey C.]

Question time, I have owned rifles and shotguns, but never handguns.

Do you have to have a license to own a handgun?
If so do you have to renew that license the way you have to renew a drivers license?

My real question is this, in order to drive a potentially deadly vehicle you have to prove you are physically and mentally capable, you also have to reprove that every four or two years depending on your age.

Why don't we do that with firearms? Will it stop all shootings, no, will it stop some, yes. As a former gun owner I don't have a problem with paying a fee and getting certified every four years. Yes some people would ignore it, thats what the fee is for, to fund a system that monitors who needs to renew. If you don't renew you lose your guns, same as if you failed the renew process.

I don't have a problem with guns, I started shooting when I was eight, and hunting by twelve, but goddammit I am fucking sick of seeing children murdered in their own schools. The simple fact is that their are people who have guns in this country, legally and illegally, who shouldn't have them.

As of the end of 2013, most states in the U.S. did NOT require a license to purchase a firearm (handgun or long gun). 12 states did. Of the 12, 7 did not require any sort of safety training course or exam - the purpose is more to have personally identifiable information on the purchaser and the type of weapon (including serial number) that they bought. Now, there are some localities or cities, within states that do not require licenses, that do require licenses. It is a Federal law that when purchasing a modern firearm from an FFL holder, one must pass the NICS check. Class 2 and 3 weapons (select fire and specialty weapons and suppressors) have a totally different licensing scheme for the Feds, states and locals. In most states, private sales, not involving FFL holder, require no background check. Other than Class 2 and 3 weapons, there is no Federal law, that I'm aware of, which deals with private firearms sales.

While licensing is an interesting idea, even with an automobile license, there isn't really a "mental test" (they don't pull your mental health history). In most states, once you get your drivers license the first time (at 16-21), you'll never take anything more than an eye test after that. When you first get the license, you will take a written exam to test your knowledge of transportation laws and you may take a road test. My father got his drivers license renewed when he was 90... the year after he'd had a stroke. I'm ordering a car next month that is the road going equivalent of a full-auto AK47 with a drum magazine (155mph top speed and 0-60 in about 4.5 seconds). And while I used to have an SCCA racing license, I don't any longer. All that the DMV knows about me is that I haven't gotten a ticket in over 10 years (*touch wood*). Should I (or anyone) really be able to get something like that? Probably not. But as long as I am a responsible driver, I'll be able to have it (and keep my license). Unlike Mr. Justin Bieber (check the news today), I won't get drunk & high and race other cars in a residential area.

As for what to do about the issue of gun violence in the U.S., rather than just follow the attention grabbing "shark attack" headlines, I would look at the actual data. Yes, the issue of kids killing other kids and teachers in schools is horrible. But that's not THE problem, as presented by the media, any more than when the talking news heads ran story after story of shark attacks several years ago (giving the impression that shark attacks were a major problem... when they weren't - not statistically). But yes, gun violence most certainly is a problem here. And the data I have seen points to the major contributor to that problem being guns in the hands of convicted criminals. We need to do a true deep-dive and find out how people, already convicted of violent felonies, who are already prohibited from owning firearms anywhere in the United States, are able to secure firearms.

I'm an NRA Life Member (have been for a very long time). But I *think* that I'm a fairly reasonable fellow and I no more agreed with the NRA proposal to arm teachers than I did Obama surrounding himself with young children... and then turning the matter over to Joe Biden facepalm. Two dumbs do not make a smart. And a big part of the problem (IMO) is that there aren't enough unemotional, intelligent, practical, data-driven people involved on either side, who can work together, to get us to a better place.

 

[mongo18]

You're a sad little hateful twat who relies on personal attacks in an effort to boost his own ego.
I thought dissent was the truest form of patriotism.
You're offended by this? Fuck you and your offense.

Oh boy, yes, I should be a man like you and negative rep you all! I only joined this thread because I was amused that a person tried to have an intelligent conversation about guns in this country and all he could get was you idiots beating your chests and flinging your shit and making zero points.
Dissent is fine, trying to destroy your own country just so you can blame it on the president, republican style, is treason.
Nothing you could say would offend me, I would have to respect you, or care what you say. The only thing about you that offends me is that you're allowed to contribute to the downfall of America with no ramifications.

post a link where the actual records show A) Otrama received in one election more physical (popular) votes than GWB received in his two elections.
And that
B) there was higher voter turnout for Barry's first election then any time since Tricky Dick's first.
or once again correctly judged you.

In case you don't trust BlkHawk, here's a wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin
You've never been right about anything philbert, and I'm pretty sure you're mentally deficient.


As for the conversation in general, this bullshit comparison to driving cars and drinking, people need cars for living, and nobody has ever killed anybody else using alcohol. Guns are designed for killing. That's all they do. You can't put them in the same category as anything else, except other weapons, which are all heavily regulated as far as what you can carry in a public place.

 

[BlkHawk]

As for what to do about the issue of gun violence in the U.S., rather than just follow the attention grabbing "shark attack" headlines, I would look at the actual data. Yes, the issue of kids killing other kids and teachers in schools is horrible. But that's not THE problem, as presented by the media, any more than when the talking news heads ran story after story of shark attacks several years ago (giving the impression that shark attacks were a major problem... when they weren't - not statistically). But yes, gun violence most certainly is a problem here. And the data I have seen points to the major contributor to that problem being guns in the hands of convicted criminals. We need to do a true deep-dive and find out how people, already convicted of violent felonies, who are already prohibited from owning firearms anywhere in the United States, are able to secure firearms.

I'm an NRA Life Member (have been for a very long time). But I *think* that I'm a fairly reasonable fellow and I no more agreed with the NRA proposal to arm teachers than I did Obama surrounding himself with young children... and then turning the matter over to Joe Biden facepalm. Two dumbs do not make a smart. And a big part of the problem (IMO) is that there aren't enough unemotional, intelligent, practical, data-driven people involved on either side, who can work together, to get us to a better place.

Granted school shootings do not make up a high percentage of the victims of violent crime involving guns, but they are the ones to grab our attention and get us talking. The violent felons with guns is exactly my point, people who shouldn't have guns. People who right now cannot legally own firearms, are still able to purchase them from legal vendors. This is a dangerous oversight, and I am confused as to why it is so difficult to correct.

A gun licensing program would need more checks and balances then a drivers license, though my situation may be different. I used to fall under the pickup/trailer.

http://www.iowadot.gov/mvd/ods/MCRforCDLfaq2.html

Iowa farmer or helper – Interstate Commerce – within 150 airmiles of home farm:

Pickup / no trailer - No medical certificate required
Pickup / trailer - Medical certificate required if over 10,000 GCWR
Straight truck / no trailer - No medical certificate required
Straight truck / trailer - Medical certificate required
Truck-tractor / semitrailer - Medical certificate required

As a diabetic my father also falls under certification, though I see now it is also because he is over 70.

http://www.dmv.com/ia/iowa/senior-drivers

MEDICAL EXAMINATION
Older drivers with medical conditions such as diabetes, seizures, heart disease, or other conditions should provide a medical report indicating their ability to drive safely. Night vision might be a problem and you might chose to limit your night driving. Drivers with a history of seizures should have been seizure-free for at least 6 months before resuming driving. Furthermore, if you are on medications which can affect your alertness, extra caution is required.

His last renewal process required a medical certification, that is what got me thinking if we require this for driving, why can't we require it for gun ownership.

 

[Elwood70]

Driving is a privilege, gun ownership is a right.

 

[BlkHawk]

Driving is a privilege, gun ownership is a right.

Yes, and I believe voting is also considered a right. We suspend that right for felony convictions in some states as well. I don't actually agree with that in all cases, but it does establish a precedent. I am not advocating removing gun ownership as a right, I'm saying people legally barred from owning guns, should be prevented from obtaining them, legally or otherwise. If a licensing program would help with that, without preventing law abiding citizens from owning weapons, then I think we should look into it.

Per this Google search on gun ownership:
http://www.google.com/search?q=what+percent+of+the+us+owns+guns&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en
First page results vary from under 30% to just under 50% of Americans owning firearms. At a glance most, not all, agree ownership has gone down steadily since the seventies, and is continuing to do so.

If this continues I suspect we have two possible outcomes in the next 50 to 100 years.

1. People who don't, and have never owned firearms, who may not respect the 2nd amendment, will pass legislation restricting gun ownership for all citizens. Law abiding and not.

2. People who do own, or have owned firearms, who respect the 2nd amendment, can work with the first set of people to prevent firearms from ending up in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, while preserving the rights of law abiding citizens.

I belong to the second set of people, and that is the future I would prefer to see. I'm afraid if too many people in the second group continue to resist implementing changes needed to prevent firearms from ending up in the wrong hands, option one is the future we will see. I don't want that.

 

[Philbert]

'...and nobody has ever killed anybody else using alcohol

If I ever needed proof (I don't) that Wrongo is a retarded conceptional thinker, there's some.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

I give you the party of "tolerance" and "compassion." You're a sad little hateful twat who relies on personal attacks in an effort to boost his own ego. I'm not fit to share your daughter's...WHAT THE BLOODY BLUE FUCK ARE YOU ON ABOUT?!?

I thought dissent was the truest form of patriotism. Or was that just the jingoistic response to any criticism of how people behaved while G.W. Bush was in office? If a reasonable person raises a concern about the fucked up way Dear Leader has underperformed then he is labeled a racist. You're offended by this? Fuck you and your offense. That's generally why I write what I write; to show that ingrates like you can't come up with a true defense of your fucked up world view.

Stay offended. Get so mad you move back to wherever the fuck you come from and hump wallabies all day.

The best part of this thread is, the original poster, once again stirs up a controversial bullshit topic....then in typical Frenchman fashion, bails out, and lets someone else fight his battles.

 

[Lacey Black]

Some of the replies in this thread are absolutely shameful. Cowardly expressing a desire to cause someone physical harm just because they start a thread you do not like or agree with is the most juvenile thing you can possibly do, and it only weakens whatever argument and point you are trying to make.



To address the OP's post, yes even people that you would think are responsible enough to own a gun can snap. But the reality is guns are here and they aren't going anyway. In a perfect world there would be no need for guns at all but we do not live in a perfect world. Better accessibility to psychiatric care, background checks, and a required written test and training class just like when you get a drivers license would solve a lot of the gun issues we have in this country. Sadly though even if all those things were implemented I still think instances like this would happen.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

No. What's sad, shameful, and pathetic, is someone negatively repping another, when they have little to no clue, of the history behind the 2 people involved. What's sad, is neg rep, because even though you are not in the argument, you feel a need to interject yourself, and come the rescue...a problem France has CLEARLY had for decades. I guess in your location..."slutville"....the only guns they have, shoot cum, but in the real world, criminals will ALWAYS have them, and they have no qualms about using them. The fact is, in a perfect world, EVERYONE would carry a gun on their hip, in plain site....an armed society, is a polite society. Criminals pray on the weak, and vulnerable. They are shitty little shitheads, that are scared shitless, and haven't got the balls to face an armed man...or woman. As far as me being cowardly...you're just clueless. My desire to beat the snot out of either of these 2 numbnuts, has absolutely NOTHING to do with their political views...that's the thing no one EVER gets about pro gun people. We could give a shit less if you don't want one...just keep your hands off of mine. It does however have EVERYTHING to do with their snotty little arrogant mouths, which they bravely flap at an anonymous distance, because they don't have the half an inch of dick it takes to be a man, and say it to a persons face. As far as the neg rep you gave me....it hardly makes a dent in the 2 positive reps I got from this thread.

 

[BlkHawk]

EVERYONE would carry a gun on their hip, in plain site....an armed society, is a polite society.

I have never understood this argument, from what I have read Somalia is currently quite well armed, and doesn't appear to be very polite. Rather it seems to be a society where the young and strong prey upon the old and weak.

This also reminds me of a customer I had years ago. After removing a virus infection from his PC, I installed Microsoft updates to lesson a reinfection, this disabled a counterfeit copy of Microsoft Office he had installed. I informed him of this when he picked it up, he wanted me to get his illegal copy working again, I informed him as a Microsoft Partner I was unable to do that, he would need to purchase a legal copy from me or someone else. He was so pissed off he picked up his computer and threw it at me. I've no doubt if he had a gun on his hip he would have shot me. If we had both been armed one, or both of us, would have been shot or killed. As it was, I just stepped out of the way of the flying computer. He calmed down when his computer smashed on the floor, and I told home to leave, and never return, he did.

With a gun on his hip his two seconds of uncontrollible rage would have ended far worse. This man was a middle aged lawyer who, for whatever reason, made a very bad decision, with a gun his life would have been over right there. Many people snap for many stupid reasons every day, if everyone was packing a gun we would be reading about similar incidents daily.

The OP posted a news article about a man who seemingly led a good respectable life for seventy years. He had a gun, he snapped over a rude person texting during a movie. Results one dead, one wounded, and possibly one in prison for the rest of his life. I like guns, I like shooting, as mentioned I started shooting when I was kid. Even I don't think everyone should have a gun, and pack it around all the time.

 

[mongo18]

snotty little arrogant mouths, which they bravely flap at an anonymous distance, because they don't have the half an inch of dick it takes to be a man, and say it to a persons face.

Once again, this is the guy who flew off on a rant about beating someone up every day and flushing their head in the toilet for asking a reasonable question. Also, you're making some pretty bold assumptions about how much dick anyone here has, based on circumstances that apply equally to you. I've said similar things as I've said in this thread to many faces and I'd say them to yours as well. Just because you think you're a badass doesn't make it so.

 

[Philbert]

I think he should have shot your shitty self.

And another example provided by your self of your sub-normal personality and concept of right and wrong. Non-existing in a moral sense.
A smug and twisted dogma spouting cartoon character (maybe best described as a "Butthead" doppleganger) with large vacancies in the developmental areas of your psyche.
Or just...asshat.

 

[BlkHawk]

I think he should have shot your shitty self.

And another example provided by your self of your sub-normal personality and concept of right and wrong. Non-existing in a moral sense.
A smug and twisted dogma spouting cartoon character (maybe best described as a "Butthead" doppleganger) with large vacancies in the developmental areas of your psyche.
Or just...asshat.

I should have been shot for not helping someone do something illegal? Nice sentiment.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

I have never understood this argument, from what I have read Somalia is currently quite well armed, and doesn't appear to be very polite. Rather it seems to be a society where the young and strong prey upon the old and weak.

Okay, really...you can't compare Somalia, with ANYONE, or ANYTHING. They are animals, and need to be eradicated. In fact, we should still be carpet bombing them, because of what they did to our soldiers.

This also reminds me of a customer I had years ago. After removing a virus infection from his PC, I installed Microsoft updates to lesson a reinfection, this disabled a counterfeit copy of Microsoft Office he had installed. I informed him of this when he picked it up, he wanted me to get his illegal copy working again, I informed him as a Microsoft Partner I was unable to do that, he would need to purchase a legal copy from me or someone else. He was so pissed off he picked up his computer and threw it at me. I've no doubt if he had a gun on his hip he would have shot me. If we had both been armed one, or both of us, would have been shot or killed. As it was, I just stepped out of the way of the flying computer. He calmed down when his computer smashed on the floor, and I told home to leave, and never return, he did.

You don't know that. He very well may have just turned and walked away, knowing he could have come out on the losing end of the deal. He could have hit you with the computer, and killed you...you could have thrown one back and killed him. Guessing and speculation doesn't count....you never know, until you're there.

With a gun on his hip his two seconds of uncontrollible rage would have ended far worse. This man was a middle aged lawyer who, for whatever reason, made a very bad decision, with a gun his life would have been over right there. Many people snap for many stupid reasons every day, if everyone was packing a gun we would be reading about similar incidents daily.

You don't know this either...what we do know is, States that enact carry laws, see a decrease in crime, over a period of time, because people defend themselves, and cowardly criminals know they don't have easy prey any longer. Chicago has some of the strictest anti gun laws in the country, and one of the highest murder rates by gun...they just instituted a carry law, and I would bet that murder rate steadily goes down over the next 5 years.

The OP posted a news article about a man who seemingly led a good respectable life for seventy years. He had a gun, he snapped over a rude person texting during a movie. Results one dead, one wounded, and possibly one in prison for the rest of his life. I like guns, I like shooting, as mentioned I started shooting when I was kid. Even I don't think everyone should have a gun, and pack it around all the time.

Again, the op's post not only provides a news story, but clearly has a sarcastic tone, as all of his anti gun posts do...he starts shit, berates gun owners, and to be honest, I'm fucking tired of his shit. He doesn't live in America, and hopefully he will never come here. If he doesn't like the way things are handled here, he should avoid reading news about our country, and anyone that knows him, and his bullshit gun posts, knows he made this post to start shit, and not out of concern for the victims. As a gun owner, and a licensed carry holder, this guy that shot up the theater sickens me, but my rights should not be compromised because of his actions.

........