silly wabbit...guns are for criminals.

Guns are for whover wants them, period. And anyone who doesn't realize that is delusional.

Behavioral modification is the cure. Starts on an individual level, but it is a societal problem.

Imagine, for a moment, that you are not driven by fear and feel no need to strap a gun on to go see a movie or buy groceries. Imagine that for just a moment, if you can. Suspend, for a moment, your professed belief that carrying a gun actually makes you safer. If you managed to actually do that, you would get a glimpse of the world I and, thankfully, most people live in.

OTOH, if you are who I actually think you are, then you already live in that world.

Guns with internet access and GPS so they can instantly judge a complex, fast changing scenario; apply federal, state, county, and municipal laws; then decide whether to discharge.

since it is well know guns have telepathic abilities, they can read the minds of the user and if it is a criminal the gun can self-destruct

See? Between the two of us we've got it all figured out!

No guns, no criminals with guns. Certainly the most efficient method.

Those suggestions are great for making presales checks for non-FFL sellers.

However, the reality is that so few of the illegal sales get prosecuted that the sellers are willing to take the risks.

Crime is at what, a forty year low? I support severe mandatory minimums for anyone that commits a crime while using a firearm. I support prosecuting those that lie on the 4473. But that's it.

Universal background checks are a non starter. Why? Because the controllers have zero interest in stopping at UBCs. Next we will need a national registry and a national FOID. From there they can build an ever growing complex regulatory scheme that slowly kills off our right to keep and bear arms. While periodically icing the cake with approved "gun rosters", cosmetic AWBs, magazine capacity restrictions, lengthy waiting periods, and whatever other balogna they manage to fry. Every where that has caved to UBCs, eventually goes down the drain - New York, New Jersey, Maryland, etc.

The #meltthemdown crowd means it. Our side needs to push for a piece by piece dismantling of gun control in an effort to make Bloomberg stay on defense.

Last edited Tue Aug 18, 2015, 09:03 AM - Edit history (1)

Make the consequences for carrying not worth the risk.

Many who commit crimes with firearms are first time offenders. Think about it.

committing crimes aren't criminals. As weird as that may sound to some.

OTOH, it could be argued that convicted felons who carry guns responsibly are not criminals. Or does the debt never get paid?
Why should anyone without a record of violence be denied the right to carry?

No, that could not be argued. Convicted felons have forfeited their gun rights just as they have forfeited their right to vote. Possession of a firearm would be a crime until such time as their civil rights are restored by their state governor or the President.

Great constitution you've got when huge chunks of the minority population must walk in fear of those exercising their constitutional right. Way to go America!

Whatever, dude. You're just grousing.

That's pretty funny. I love your choice of words. Hunting and fishing words. Well, I hope my carping and grousing helped you think a little more about things. Always good talking to you.

we didn't like the king. What about you?

The Second Amendment took it out of the federal government's hands and left it to the States to decide how to regulate guns. I'm not looking to get into a complete discussion of the history or gun regulations and court decisions since Presser v. Illinois, but that was essentially the deal.

Most states have decided that a felony conviction costs you your right to legally possess a gun -- even gun happy states like Tennessee.

Actually, I'm not quite sure what you're saying...

in DC and Chiraq?

And what is Chiraq?

Cops are routinely armed. Gangs are armed. Problems are solved with guns. Sounds very Republican to me.
You can't expect it to work unless it is pushed nationally on every level. Like seatbelts, alcohol, recreational and pharmaceutical drugs; use them, by all means, but do it responsibly and NOT in public.

Education, parenting, the media, community based organizations, the legislature, the courts; this is a team effort if it is to have a chance. It isn't easy to change a cultural belief.

for decades, and not Republican. Sad and inconvenient fact, but a fact never the less. Part of the problem is the mutually beneficial relationships City Hall has with the gangs. IOW, Tammany Hall has been replicated, and still alive and well.
None of your suggestions will do anything about it.

it has been that way for decades. Still has not stopped criminal violence. It is almost as if criminals break laws for some reason.

The OP asks the question

"What would be the most efficient means of keeping guns away from criminals?"

You want numbers, you can probably find them here
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

But what number is OK? What constitutes "many", or "too many"?

Many gun homicides are commited by LE who get away with it, and by wannabe cops and vigilantes like Trayvon Martin's killer.

Don't expect "criminals" to disarm as long as the "good guys" are armed. Ain't gonna happen.

Last edited Wed Aug 19, 2015, 10:16 PM - Edit history (1)

there is a reason large cities have the highest murder rates - that is where violent gangs are concentrated and fighting over territory and profits.

Criminals will never disarm regardless of what the good guys do. They are not related.

death penalty for getting out of the car to see where someone is running, to answer the operator's question?
Or did you not watch the trial?

If Zimmerman had no gun, he would not have been there and one less homicide would have occured. The system supports this kind of killing. Oh, he was following the "operator's instructions"? The same operator who told him not to pursue? Regardless, it was a senseless killing and another tragedy, which would not have happened without the gun being carried as a potential "problem solver". Put a gun into play between a hotheaded kid and a creepy wannabe cop and someone is gonna get seriously hurt. The presence of the gun upped the ante, that's all. Hopefully, Zimmerman has learned something, though I doubt it. More importantly, what has America learned.

So be it. I still say he would not have been in the situation to start with, had he not been armed. The gun gave him both courage and the solution. Fucked up in so many ways.

Zimmerman is a cowardly piece of shit who continues to demonstrate what an asshole he is, from pulling a gun on his girlfriend to selling racist flags to support anti-muslim gun peddlers.

"Innocent" is the last adjective I'd use to describe him. Looks like the "show trial" convinced you that he was the good guy and the kid with the skittles was the "thug" killer.
Mindfuckingboggling!

Last edited Wed Aug 19, 2015, 11:41 PM - Edit history (1)

principle, ethics. That is what I am defending. Those are the values of true liberalism and being an ethical and decent human being. The principle applies to those you don't like as well as those who do. The rules apply to everyone, those you like, don't like, and those you are indifferent to. I hold those values very deeply, and quite priggish about.

In grade school, we learned about the founders. Out of the ones the teacher mentioned that day, I decided John Adams was the one I admired the most. Why? He did something unpopular or a greater principle. My opinion of Adams hasn't changed since since the fourth grade.
http://www.john-adams-heritage.com/boston-massacre-trials/

I'm indifferent to Zimmerman. You are free to think whatever you want about him. Just remember everything you read or heard were proven to be complete lies in open court with overwhelming evidence. Everything you believe came from an Orlando PR firm hired by a POS ambulance chaser to create a false narrative to make money from a wrongful death suit. Then money grubbing racists like Sharpton got in the act for his piece of the action and passed on stupid bloggers and dishonest assholes like Cenk Uyger and his crew of dim witted hipsters who copied and pasted the same bullshit without even bothering to look up the law or the facts for partisan gain. Think what you will, just remember the source. I saw all of the facts and evidence, including what the jury didn't see in different hearings. Like the legal blog Talk Left pointed out, the Florida legal system was hijacked by opportunists for personal profit. It wasn't justice for Trayvon, it was about making money and staying elected. You read blogs by people who can't find shit on a map. I have interests in Florida, especially Citrus County, I keep a good pulse on what is going on.

We agree about Florida Gun Supply owner. After a couple of ISIS wantabes murders some people, he smeared millions of people with the same broad brush (where else do we see a lot of that? Oh right, this very space.) and religious bigotry. Religious bigotry...............other than the religion in question, how is he different than many progressives? Do you call out bigotry wherever you see it? Misogyny? Racism? It is very easy to do it when the offender is someone who is the "other" and the target is one of your own. During the last election, progressive anti Mormon bigots came out of the woodwork. Mike Papantonio, Lawrence O'Donnell, and Thom Hartman all jumped on that bandwagon. The very same people who attacked Glen Beck for his equally bizarre anti Muslim rants.
Were you disgusted when Martin Bashier said on MSNBC that someone should shit in Palin's mouth?
The different anti Mormon rants mentioned above?
How about John Stewart's racist impression of Herman Cain?
I found them all disgusting, bigoted, and offensive. The fact that they happen to support support the same political party that I do is irrelevant. The fact that I disagree politically with the targets is also irrelevant. The principle still applies, certain things are always wrong, no exceptions. If you disagree with that, and were clapping like an unthinking trained seal because the targets were people you don't like or agree with, then you have no business lecturing or judging me or anyone else on what a liberal is or should think.

A few years ago, I had a similar conversation with another DU member who accused me of defending a white racist because I said an FBI agent should have been fired and thrown to Idaho prosecutors for machine gunning a fleeing unarmed 14 year old on his property. His attitude was that it was OK since he didn't like the politics of the kid's father. You might remember this conversion. When I read your reply on my phone, it reminded me of that conversion. Justice for people you like, injustice for those you don't. That isn't liberal, nor is that American. I also don't like dogma.

On edit, perfect song for the occasion

Zimmerman was acquitted, and rightly so. I respect the judicial procedure, just as I did in the OJ Simpson trial. It is a good system. Imperfect, but good, and should always lean toward the defendant and demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt from the prosecution.
I have no issue with the trial result.

My point is that none of it would have happened if Zimmerman had not been an asshole with a gun in the first place. And he continues to be an asshole with a gun. And a racist.

OJ was reasonable doubt, there was a lot of evidence of his guilt. Zimmerman should have never gone to trial because there was ZERO evidence of guilt. OJ was not malicious prosecution. Zimmerman was. 100 percent of the evidence showed self defense. It was a show trial because Sharpton threatened violence and Rick Scott caved. There were also issues of the State withholding exculpatory evidence, which is a crime in Florida.

You think someone who cares about the neighborhood and gets out of the car to see where someone is running is being an asshole? While tactically stupid, but not being an asshole. The gun had nothing to do with Zimmerman's impulsive stupidity that set himself up for an ambush. The only thing different would be Zimmerman would be dead or a brain damaged and if Trayvon didn't take off before the cops got there, he would be either dead or in prison. Regardless of your opinion of Zimmerman, it doesn't change the fact that Martin was committing a violent felony when he was shot. You can't escape that. Based on the data dump from Trayvon's phone, if it wasn't Zimmerman that night it would have been someone else somewhere sometime. More on that later.

What if Zimmerman stayed in the car and drove off? Trayvon would be behind Jane Surdyka's bushes, where he dropped his burglary tools, longer than planned. Go back to his Dad's girlfriend's house?

The data dump from Trayvon's phone was very interesting. There were a lot of issues surrounding it which deserves an entire conversation in itself. Among the texts and social media posts about drug sales, an illegal gun transaction, fights, saying that he wants to beat the shit out of someone again because "he didn't bleed enough". I also told a friend that he learned an MMA technique where you sucker punch someone, stunning them so it is easier to get them to the ground. Then you straddle them and enables the attacker to pound their fists into the victim's face without the victim being able to block or defend themselves. Martin also said that he was looking forward to trying out on someone. That is what Zimmerman described happened to him, and that is what witnesses saw. As the lead investigator said, there was no evidence inconsistent with self defense.

Innocent child my ass. Had it not been Zimmerman that night, it could have been the occupant of a home he broke into. Remember the burglary tools. Maybe it would be someone walking to the mail box or school bus days later. We don't know.

You know that photo of the 11 year old kid that was waved as being Trayvon? It was as phony as the claims that Zimmerman is a racist.

Williams and a friend were minding their own business. Three drunk rednecks were making racial slurs, a couple of the white racists got physical. Williams is black.
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/28972473/prosecutors-rule-fatal-waffle-house-shooting-case-of-self-defense#.VdXJB3UViko
Is Williams a coward and an asshole for carrying a gun? If it is a different standard for him, that is racist.

Yes, I understand where you are coming from. You are making assumptions based on ideology and nothing else. Ideology is OK, but it only goes so far. Pushing ideology when it is proven wrong is dumb and irresponsible. It also takes away any credibility. Just like the false meme of Zimmerman being a racist, based on no evidence and contrary to a ton of evidence showing otherwise, just like the claim that "SYG is shoot first, ask questions later" is also a lie. Anyone half way literate who takes the time to read the statutes or jury instructions with an ounce of curiosity knows that is bullshit. Yet, you stick to using poorly written scribbling in the Daily Kos vanity press as "news". Never mind none of those people have the intellect or curiosity to bother to do any research.

You think someone who cares about the neighborhood and gets out of the car to see where someone is running is being an asshole? While tactically stupid, but not being an asshole. The gun had nothing to do with Zimmerman's impulsive stupidity that set himself up for an ambush.

I guess your idea of center is in line with Attila. Everything is relative.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2015/0818/George-Zimmerman-sells-painting-for-Muslim-free-zone-gun-shop

I didn't say I supported him personally, nor his art. Again, you fail the rational argument test. I already said I wouldn't darken this asshole's door if he had a two for one sale, assuming I could buy a gun in Florida. The Gun Control Act says I can't.

I am not defending religious bigotry. This painting doesn't have a fucking thing to do with the shooting. Like I said, I was defending facts, evidence, and rule of law. It has nothing to do with him. It is irrelevant and a red herring. If it gives you a reason to hate him, it seems that you have to, fine. I'm still indifferent. I don't have to hate someone to prove my liberalism to myself.

Like I said, I don't like bigots and ideologues be they on the right or left. I was disgusted with him just as I was disgusted by O'Donnell's anti Mormon bigotry and Martin Bashier's misogyny. Given the fact that I was raised Mormon, I have more reason to find O'Donnell more offensive. The principle applies across the board, no matter who it is.


I asked you a question you never answered.
When the anti Mormon bigots like O'Donnell came out of the woodwork, where were you? You never answered that question. Hard question isn't it? Stand up for tolerance and inclusion even when it comes to religions you were told to hate, feel the wrath of the left's World Nut Daily equivalents. Answer "I was clapping saying you tell them Larry", and you realize that you just as bigoted as the two assholes in Florida.
Which is it?

I also support the rule of law, though I wouldn't go so far as to say I believe in it. He was found not guilty and I am OK with that.
My point was that if he had not been carrying, none of it would have happened, period. Carrying guns around is not smart.

I have no idea who O'Donnell or Bashier are, or what Mormonism has to do with carrying guns around, which is where this all started.
I am tolerant of all religions, BTW. I judge people by their actions, not their religious beliefs.

trained him poorly. Any firearms instructor from the great Massad Ayoob to the guy who trains the local PD and does CCW courses on the side will tell you, Zimmerman was fucking stupid for the reason given. BTW, I wonder if the gun shop would sell ammo to Ayoob, given his Arabic name and heritage. The instructors I talk to use Zimmerman as a "lessons learned" of the importance of going out of your way of avoiding the chance of conflict.

Whoever taught Mr. Williams, the guy who defended himself from a some drunk racist assholes, was taught very well and did everything right. Read the link. He was cornered in a Waffle House, nothing he could do.

O'Donnell and Bashier are Bill O'Reilly clones on MSNBC. Bashier was fired over the "somebody should shit in her mouth" bit. Think of them as Bill O'Reilly and some other Fox guy becoming progressives and still being arrogant assholes
.
The gun shop was part of the conversion, which lead to a larger conversation about principle, consistency, and religious bigotry. That is where the Mormonism comes in.

According to the quiz at Political Compass, I am a left leaning libertarian. On their xy axis, I am at 1,-5. That puts me far to the left of President Obama. It actually puts me closer to Ralph Nader.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

That is an amazing admission of just making stuff up.

Is there a number you are OK with, or do you think it is zero?

"What is claimed without evidence..."

I also supplied a link to ample data on the subject.

of gun owners who commit crimes relative to the tens of millions of gun owners in the USA who obey the law somehow justifies the banning of all carrying of firearms in public by anyone other than law enforcement, apart from the fact that such a blanket prohibition would almost certainly be unconstitutional and obviate the "bear" of the right to keep and bear arms.

The existence of criminals does not effectively overrule the First, Fourth, Fifth, etc. Amendments, and I see no rationale canon of jurisprudence that exempts the Second Amendment.

People do bad things with objects. It does not necessarily follow that therefore an object needs to or should be banned.

I am always saddened when fellow liberals suddenly become authoritarian tyrants when it comes to the topic of firearms.

but liberals don't carry guns. Scared people carry guns, because they think they may need to defend themselves by killing someone.
I don't know where you get the notion we are "authoritarian tyrants". Most just want minor things like registration and accountability. Hardly authoritatian tyranny.

I do not advocate the banning of any object, though I must admit I would prefer to live in a nuke-free world. But that ain't gonna happen.
Guns are everywhere. Pointless to ban them. Can't expect those who are afraid not to carry, as long as you have a paramilitary police force that kills civilians on a daily basis, with virtual impunity. The most effective deterrent seems to be the ubiquitous smartphone user who records these atrocities. Thankfully, almost everyone carries a camera/smartphone these days and they shoot people without bloodshed.

And regarding the Constitution, it is time for some serious updates. Time to catch up America, on so many levels.

You're effectively claiming robbers, rapists, stalkers, homophobes, racists, murderers, etc. don't exist.

Take your pedantic tripe elsewhere.

What does one have to do with the other?
Are you saying you carry because those on your list might carry? Does that mean you are scared of them, or want to be like them in some way? What is your point?
Or are you making my point for me?

Can you give me a reason to carry that does not involve fear of others? Just one will do.

Those who prey on others aren't entitled to feel scared.

I am equating nothing. We're talking about why people carry guns, and I say the reason is out of fear, regardless who is carrying.
If you are carrying to protect yourself from a rapist, then I assume you are afraid. I don't blame you. I would be afraid of a rapist too. I thought you said it was your husband who carried, not you. Maybe I'm mistaken. But if you have been stalked or threatened, I would definitely recommend you consider carrying. There is nothing wrong with being afraid. It is very natural. I often feel afraid, sometimes afraid of other people. Fortunately, I have never needed or wanted a gun in those situations, but that doesn't mean others have been so fortunate, or that guns have no validity when it comes to self defense.

Why do you say "carping" about fear? I am just stating the obvious.
My fears are very real, but have nothing to do with guns. More with the weather and other natural forces than human related, apart from fear of my own ability to deal with every situation. The important thing is to recognize our fears and keep them from controlling our lives. Fear is a healthy emotion and nothing to be ashamed of. Succumbing to it is the problem.

I spend a fair amount of time in those mountains, and occasionally far off the tracks. I've found some very isolated, lonely spots. When I venture there, I usually bring my .44. Bear spray is the first line of defense, but I'm not confident enough in it to be the only.

And if they carry guns, then they are also probably scared. If I were scared of being attacked I would probably carry a gun. I'm just curious to know at what point we become so afraid. I am not judging any individual who decides to carry, but I am curious. To deny that fear is involved is ludicrous. We all feel fear. It's how we process it that determines how we live.

This act you put on about being open and tolerant while insulting and judging gets tedious.

Fear is not something to be ashamed of. I am not judging. I'm stating a fact. What the heck is wrong with that.
Maybe you can give us a better explanation, if fear is not part of the equation.

You keep mentioning

would label people who carry homeowners insurance as being scared. Your words have every appearance of trying to label people as acting out of irrational emotionalism.

I never said people were acting out of "irrational emotionalism". I asked you a simple question. Let me ask you another. Do you think being afraid is something to feel ashamed of?

is something to be ashamed of?

Those reasons are robbers, rapists, homophobes and other horrible people. Why would anyone carry a gun if they didn't fear being attacked by them?
You are the one that suggested them as potential assailants. Please correct me if I am wrong. I am not judging anyone for being afraid. Fear is a natural emotion. If you can point a gun at someone and not feel afraid that you may take a life, then maybe your motive for carrying is not fear.

And then you say silly things about fire extinguishers (if one could fit in a purse would you yammer about people putting out fires?). It's possible to prepare for emergencies without being scared. Maybe it's not possible for you but for others it is quite possible.

And you equate home owners insurance with carrying a gun around.

How does an AR-15 fit in a purse? And if it did, a purse would be the most ridiculous thing to use for carrying a gun, or are you not worried about purse snatchers, who are a lot more common than rapists, murderers, robbers and alien space invaders.

Do you think it is OK for folk to carry an AR-15 around, or not? After all, you might need some real fire power, when trying to fend off all the "robbers, rapists, stalkers, homophobes, racists, murderers, etc."
How about a hand grenade or two for some extra insurance?

See, my silly just builds on your silly.

AR-15s in their purses while they are in public.

I would also like to congratulate you on your efforts to eliminate other purse-borne weapons such as Molotov cocktails, claymore swords, nunchuks, flame-throwers, katanas, caltrops, land mines, chainsaws and the odd can of beans. Society is indebted to you for your tireless crusade towards eliminating the pestilence of these weapons being carried by women in their purses. We can all sleep safer tonight knowing your vigil endures.

...evil lurks in the purses of women? ST knows!

Oh the horror...

A good sense of humor goes a long way. Watch out for those purse grabbers. Wouldn't want your pistol to end up in the wrong hands. Stay safe.

While not actually knowing why people do carry guns, you proclaim all of them fearful

Granted, you are somewhat more coherent than than the usual 'telepsychologists' one
observes frothing at the mouth about gun owners on DU...

Some have no fear. Some have no emotions. Some are sociopaths.
I cannot imagine carrying a gun without being motivated by some emotion, fear, anger, hatred, whatever. Maybe that's just me.

I don't want anything. Do you actually read my posts?

You guys" in this case, defined as being those who default to the parochial logic of focusing on the instrument, with the 'most' that you say just want 'registration and accountability' marching in lockstep among those with that mindset.

You say you don't want anything. Fine.

That really doesn't change the rest of what I said, however, does it.

Obviously, registration is ineffective. Accountability is another subject, but with SYG laws and a prevailing mindset of "shoot first and ask questions later" in LE circles, you have a problem. Couple that with the pro-gun side seeing the problem as being the "banners/controllers", and the "banners/controllers" seeing the problem as being the object, and you have a real clusterfuck.

Not easy to solve a problem when everyone is on a different page. The gunners want to be left alone, and I don't blame them. The controllers want to save lives, and I don't blame them.

Huh? Your really need to get out more, or "liberal" doesn't mean what you think it means. Besides the fact that you are not judge and jury of who is a true liberal, the fact that you are participating in this forum is ample evidence of liberals who both own and carry firearms. Heck, although I personally don't own any firearms, I know quite a few very liberal Democrats here in NYC who own guns for a variety of reasons, albeit they rarely talk about it because of attitudes like yours in many Democratic circles. Nevertheless, the polls, votes in Congress and various statehouses, and court decisions, speak for themselves.

If you believe that our Constitution needs some "serious updates," note we have amended it 27 times, and there are multiple mechanisms to do detailed in the document.

If you would like to repeal or update the Second Amendment, you need only convince two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states, or convince the states of the need both for a Constitutional Convention and the wisdom of eliminating the RKBA. I would note that this would have no effect on the various state constitution analogs to the Second Amendment.

Good luck with that...

Your interlocutor does not even live in America.

Let me clarify. Scared people carry guns. Some may even be liberals politically, but they are still scared. Otherwise, why would they carry?
I don't blame them. If I were scared of other people I would also probably carry. Being liberal or conservative has nothing to do with it. Being afraid has everything to do with it.
I also know many people who own guns, and I have owned them in the past. Owning and carrying in public are very different things.

27 amendments in 240 years is not very impressive. Windows has been updated about 9 times in 20 years and it is still far from perfect. Both are works in progress. Get over yourselves and your outdated 2nd Amendment, and it is you who should get out more, into the real world where we don't even think about carrying guns or worry about other idiots who might be carrying.

It's your Constitution, not mine. You fix it, or not, it's up to you. I'm just a member of the audience who has some perspective on the issue.

This is why aliens won't speak to us.

Do you really think laws are improved by being in constant flux?

And I would hazard a guess that if the 2A were repealed you would declare that the most timeless unrepealable act of legislation EVAH!

Just out of curiosity: Are there any other fundamental rights that have an expiration date?

Keeping in tune with the times is more like it. To some that means fancier guns that kill more efficiently. To others it means growing as a society and not living in fear of each other. Your choice.

Rigidity is not the answer. That's the conservative approach. Calling carrying a gun a "fundamental right" is exactly what a right wing fundamentalist would call it. The rest of the world calls it stupid.
By all means carry a gun if you truly feel the need, but don't for one minute think it is a FUNDAMENTAL right in terms of human rights. It is a legal, constitutional right in ONE country, the US.

Do you think the rest of us are stupid, or that we live in a repressive society? Is that what you think?

It seems to be the Controllers who live in fear of 80+ million people who would never do them harm yet demand people with guns invade the lives of those 80+ million.

I dare say that needing to be of age/have ID to buy kitchen table silverware would be viewed by more than a few here on DU, and more than a few Americans at large, and even more than a few of your countrymen, as being repressive, no matter the intentions.

Funny how those who are happy to declaim at length about others' supposed moral faults
(Josh Duggar, et al) get very quiet if certain inconvenient truths are pointed out...

Does that include places where criticizing the state is a crime? Where the second class status of women is codified into law? Where apostasy is punishable? Think I care what someone who supports that kind of rubbish calls it?

Its sure to include places like Japan, with their strict gun control...

(nevermind that their suicide rate is ridiculously high, and definitely nevermind that authorities in Japan can beat you until you confess to whatever crime they suspect you of)


That poster has a funny (read: very selective) idea of what 'living in the 19th century' means.

what is your opinion of this liberal? http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html

I tend to agree with him on everything regarding gun ownership.
Now, when it comes to carrying them around without a helluva good reason...not to mention training, certification etc..
Maybe I missed that part.

are committed by repeat offenders, not people with clean records.

For example, from Chicago: http://home.chicagopolice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2011-Murder-Report.pdf

The overwhelming majority were gang related, and nearly 90% of murderers (and 75% of victims, interestingly) had prior arrest records.

I think because it does not comport to the Narrative as promulgated by MSM: A deranged white kid with an AR, a goofy white guy marching in the street (how many are STILL surprised AND ambivalent when they see pics of the HP Newton Gun Club?), a white Forida Man Road Rager, a white anti-semite shooting up a Jewish facility, or a black church, etc.

But as has been stated many times in DU, we don't like to talk about race and racism and the ways to deal with the latter. We prefer old-line prohibitions.

Thanks for the data.

My finger print works for my phone access. No reason this could not be made more robust and applied to firearms. Would also be good for guns to have a marker in them in the form of RFID or smart chip that records gun ID / GPS / time stamp when fired.

They don't like it and I'm sure they'll tell you why. Like, "You can't trust the technology", yet they trust their gun. Maybe it's a hi-tech/lo-tech thing.

Because everybody knows the more complicated something becomes the more reliable it is.

Something that does what it was designed to do. Nothing wrong with that. But, if you want to take your killing tool around in public, does it not make sense that only you should be able to kill with it? Of course, there are no stats to show that people sometimes get killed with their own guns, and I'm not talking suicide.
Stay safe out there on the range.

So you want people to sacrifice proven reliability based on what, exactly?

why not address the concerns?

Noting that people don't trust a thing is not the same as refuting their concerns; it's merely an admission that their concerns remain unanswered.

What is the reliability of the transmitter?

What is the reliability of the receiver?

What is the battery?

Can outside signals interfere?

Is the system weather resistant?

Does it take time to cycle on?


Remember, failure means the life of an innocent person trying to defend themselves is at stake.

Stay safe NU and keep your powder dry.