Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If someone owns a gun illegally, they're not going to give a damn about needing a license to carry a concealed weapon. So they'll carry it anyway.

An assertion which is completely unsupported by evidence.

So, aside from your opinion, do you have anything else to offer?

 Melissia wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because making Murder illegal does reduce the people committing it.

The anarchist (his own words) who released the design in the original post was discouraged from making a plastic-only gun by the current existing laws-- an example of gun laws making people change their minds on how they act, preventing people from doing the proscribed act.

In Texas, you are not permitted to openly carry a handgun on your person, and you can only carry handguns if you have a concealed carry license-- and, as the license name suggests, the gun must be concealed. This law, shockingly enough (if you're an anarchist gun crazy like the nut in the original post), prevents people from openly carrying handguns in the state of Texas-- another example of gun control laws making people change their minds on how they act and limits the number of unlicensed handguns on the street.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Have you really edited your post 10 times? Re-read what I wrote about the perils of emotional response.

So instead of a rational, intelligently thought out response, you troll by suggesting an emotional response. I wish I was surprised.

Guns are deadly, dangerous killing machines. That's all they are. Nothing more than that. I believe, firmly, that anyone who shows as much disrespect for guns as many people in this thread have doesn't deserve the right to have have a gun in the first place. People stupidly not treating guns with due respect causes people-- and not always themselves-- to be maimed or killed. If this argument sounds "emotional" to you, I would suggest that you are not mentally mature enough to handle a gun-- or to participate in this debate.

So an emotional little girl presumes to tell a trained combat veteran that he isn't qualified to handle firearms? This is grand.

Hey, keep it civil you two.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Hey, keep it civil you two.

Indeed.

More on topic: Do you have any evidence at all to back up your assertion?

Yes, criminals disregard the law by their very nature (it is the definition of criminal, after all). But criminals stupid enough to openly carry an illegal weapon in a place where such things are NOT permitted is not going to last very long anyway, and soon will be taken away from society-- as they should be. You don't see armed gangs of thugs wandering around Fort Worth's streets openly displaying their firearms, like your argument suggests we should be seeing.

 Melissia wrote:

In Texas, you are not permitted to openly carry a handgun on your person, and you can only carry handguns if you have a concealed carry license-- and, as the license name suggests, the gun must be concealed. This law, shockingly enough (if you're an anarchist gun crazy like the nut in the original post), prevents people from openly carrying handguns in the state of Texas-- another example of gun control laws making people change their minds on how they act and limits the number of unlicensed handguns on the street.

Handguns are not required to be licensed in Texas, so an "unlicensed handgun" is...well, not an extant thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Yes, criminals disregard the law by their very nature (it is the definition of criminal, after all). But criminals stupid enough to openly carry an illegal weapon in a place where such things are NOT permitted is not going to last very long anyway, and soon will be taken away from society-- as they should be. You don't see armed gangs of thugs wandering around Fort Worth's streets openly displaying their firearms, like your argument suggests we should be seeing.

No, his argument suggests you would be seeing criminals illegally carrying concealed.

 Melissia wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Hey, keep it civil you two.

Indeed.

More on topic: Do you have any evidence at all to back up your assertion?

Yes, criminals disregard the law by their very nature (it is the definition of criminal, after all). But criminals stupid enough to openly carry an illegal weapon in a place where such things are NOT permitted is not going to last very long anyway, and soon will be taken away from society-- as they should be. You don't see armed gangs of thugs wandering around Fort Worth's streets openly displaying their firearms, like your argument suggests we should be seeing.

I was saying they would illegally carry their weapons concealed. Not carry them openly.

And even if it was legal for anyone to open carry, criminals would still conceal their weapons.

So saying no open carry is a pointless law as it only restricts law abiding citizens.

In which case they're breaking the law, and therefor are punished even more harshly than if they were not carrying them-- so again, there's no problem.

Yeah, so why needlessly limit law abiding citizens for no gain?

Because to some....we're all guilty

1. I get the feeling sometimes that if I own weapons I'm a bad man by the vibe of some of the posts
2. I still see no reason why I should not own a weapon.....Assualt Weapons.....high capacity mags...tacticool gear that I can attach to the rail system
3. Do know weapons prices has gone up on quite a few weapons....my M4/AR15....my M1 is an Assualt Wweapon...due to the bayonet stud
4. Not detered so far to purchase another weapon....thinking a .40 for the wife...
5. Thinking another M4/AR15. SO one side of the weapons safe is mine and the other side is hers.
6. Need to slowly grind my way on round purchases. Literally have to plan going once a month to ping some targets......wonder how bad reloading 5.56mm rounds....KM...link me a website lol. I trust you

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, so why needlessly limit law abiding citizens for no gain?

On the contrary. They ensure that the person is knowledgeable about their guns and the laws regarding them, because the CCL requires that you take courses as such. This is both necessary and proper, as guns are an inherent danger to society. Their very existence and presence endangers everyone around them, since they are tools of deadly violence and not petty toys to be brandied about, or some kind of a fashion statement.

Or, to quote Chief Justice Scalia's response re: open carry: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
1. I get the feeling sometimes that if I own weapons I'm a bad man by the vibe of some of the posts

Be more specific aboutwhich posts.

Certainly you should not get such a vibe from me. I own guns myself-- anyone who claims that I am saying gun owners are bad for owning guns is fighting a strawman argument.

My own argument about gun control is based off of the fact that guns are designed for the exclusive purpose of killing things as efficiently as possible, and thus they are inherently dangerous weapons which need to be respected for exactly what they are. Not some pathetic, phallic, petty toy like gun manufacturers depict them, or a fashion statement like the NRA depicts them. They're inherently dangerous and should never be treated as anything other than such.

That they often are treated as toys or fashion is what pisses me off so much about gun culture. I have no problem with people wanting to use guns to defend themselves, or shoot at a target range, or go hunting. I have a problem with people not taking guns seriously enough.

I think the main issue with making the plastic gun illegal is that it's unenforceable. I mean, look at how much stuff gets through China's vastly more draconian internet laws and how they struggle to enforce them.

Passing a law against it cannot stop it now that it exists, all it ends up doing is wasting additional taxpayer dollars trying.

Its punishment is enforceable enough, and functions as a deterrant. You won't be able to stop everyone, but laws don't exist to stop EVERYONE from doing every bad thing. If that were the case, no laws would exist.

 Melissia wrote:
Its punishment is enforceable enough, and functions as a deterrant. You won't be able to stop everyone, but laws don't exist to stop EVERYONE from doing every bad thing. If that were the case, no laws would exist.

....

If punishment were the deterrent you think it is, then why are America's prisons full to bursting and many criminals go right back to crime when released? Or are you suggesting that we make the punishment death, like China?

Further, we're talking about something who's difficulty to detect is what makes it dangerous. Enforcement, and hence, punishment, are dependent on detection. Given the ease of which it can be disposed of, how do you propose that police divine that it was used at all? You can't very well tell a jury 'we found melted plastic in a burn barrel therefor he used a plastic gun' when most people would ask the simple question 'How do you know it wasn't a mountain dew bottle'?

Passing laws to solve every single problem is one of the reasons the US is such a mess anymore and the government is barely working.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, so why needlessly limit law abiding citizens for no gain?

because if you cant outright ban gun ownership, any step in that direction is a good one.

having talked with many people intimately involved with the canadian anti/pro gun lobbies.

my favorite discussion was with of of trudeaus minions, went like this (keep in mind, he thought I was an anti gun rights advocate)

me"so how are you going to ban handguns?"
him"well they are only used to kill people, they have no other use, so its really a no brainer"
me"well, your average hunting rifle has much longer range, accuracy, and power then even the most powerfull hangun on the market."
him"those are very good points, Ill keep that in mind when we go after those guns, but one step at a time."


when they banned normal capacity magazines in canada, it did nothing to criminals, they are still routinely caught with illegally obtained weapons, and they do not pin their glock mags at 10 either.

what it DID do was neuter IDPA and IPSC competitions, as well as incurre a large cost on legitimate users (a normal mag is about 20$, an pinned one is 40-50$ since extra work is required) and generally contributed to the endless list of new gun laws designed to disencourage gun ownership through making it as hard and as complicated a process as possible.

An example of how laws can be made to make something illegal, without actually making it illegal:

Before it was challenged and thrown out on the grounds of the 5th Amendment, Federal law was that it was legal to own weed. All you had to do was have a permit stamp. Otherwise possession of weed was a crime. However, to get the stamp,you already had to have the weed in order to get the stamp, so anyone who actually tried to get the paper to make themselves legal had to confess to already having committed a crime.

Melissia wrote:Certainly you should not get such a vibe from me. I own guns myself-- anyone who claims that I am saying gun owners are bad for owning guns is fighting a strawman argument.

My own argument about gun control is based off of the fact that guns are designed for the exclusive purpose of killing things as efficiently as possible, and thus they are inherently dangerous weapons which need to be respected for exactly what they are. Not some pathetic, phallic, petty toy like gun manufacturers depict them, or a fashion statement like the NRA depicts them. They're inherently dangerous and should never be treated as anything other than such.

That they often are treated as toys or fashion is what pisses me off so much about gun culture. I have no problem with people wanting to use guns to defend themselves, or shoot at a target range, or go hunting. I have a problem with people not taking guns seriously enough.

I'm actually quite alarmed that Melissia and I agree on something here. That is... unusual.

 Melissia wrote:
Apparently according to the ignorant minds of many gun rights advocates, including easysauce, the only people who are arguing for gun control want to eventually ban all guns.

Because how DARE someone desire a reasonable middle ground!

because I was told the "we dont want to ban guns" lie over and over, by people who very much want to do just that.

EVERY single step in our absurd "gun control" law has been "reasonable", yet its never enough, and there is alwas that next "reasonable" step they want to force upon us the next time there is a tragedy for them to capitalize upon.

you can only lie to me so many times before I stop believing you.

you can repeat the mantra "reasonable gun control" as much as you want, but that doesnt make YOUR OPINION that these are "reasonable middle ground" a fact.

current canadian laws all sold as "REASONABLE"

-capping mags at 5rnds was "reasonable"
-constant background checks, even after decades of proven lawful ownership is "reasonable"
-getting an authorization from the government EVERY time you want to go to the range with a pistol is "reasonable"
-being put on a list, just like pedophiles, and registered, is "reasonable"
-banning every single handgun under 4.5" is "reasonable"
-thowing people in prison for not knowing the law changed and their family heirlooms are now illegal is "reasonable" (applies to you melissa, had your fathers guns come to you before you got your license, they would have been confiscated, or you would be a criminal for illegal possesion)
-registering guns, then CONFISCATING many guns using that registry, is "reasonable"
-having overfilled, farbetween, mandatory courses that cost 300$ for a "shotgun/rifle" license, and additional 300$ for pistol licence is "reasonable" because why should getting a gun license take less then 3 months or cost any less then some guns (costs are actually much higher, assuming you even get a spot in the course, in areas that have less access to instructors. I have seen prices as high as 500$ for one licence course)
-no hunting with handguns, even handguns designed for hunting, because no "reasonable" person hunts with a handgun
-forcing you to get your current OR EX SPOUSES permission to own a hand gun is "reasonable
-by owning a gun, you give up the right to be free from search and seizure, any representitive of the CFO (ie the police) can enter your home, at any time, with no warrent, and you HAVE to assist the search by opening containers/locks ect (ie incriminate yourself) all because this is a "reasonable" way to treat gun owners


but thanks for personally calling me ignorant, and yet again being emotional/insulting to me directly by name, simply because my opinion is that the "reasonable" gun control you propose, is in fact ludicrous, tyrannical, ineffective and not-reasonable

not like decades of shooting, and living the "reasonable" gun law utopia life that is canada would shine a light on my ignorance of guns and gun law.

What? You didn't know? All lawful gun owners on here are evil....wait wait.....its the weapon thats evil not the operator themselves....those that defend the 2nd amendment are evil..ignorant..whatever..tis all good. Just sit back and watch the thread and get som laughs.

Pro-gunners are the devil apparently

easysauce:

-capping mags at 5rnds was "reasonable"
5 for semi-auto centerfire rifles, but yeah, this is kinda arbitrary

-constant background checks, even after decades of proven lawful ownership is "reasonable"
How are the checks "constant"?

-getting an authorization from the government EVERY time you want to go to the range with a pistol is "reasonable"
This is recommended by not necessary. You only need to explain the route once. The reason behind this is sound, but the execution is very, very poor.

-being put on a list, just like pedophiles, and registered, is "reasonable"
Actually, I don't think sex offenders are required to notify police of address changes. However, firearms owners with possession & acquisition licenses are. In any case, this is so the police know if there is a firearm present when/if they have to respond to a call at that address, and I do not have a problem with it. Anyway, you're already on a voter's list, and you include your address when filing taxes. So unless you alos want to use an inflammatory comparison between being a registered sex offender and being a registered voter, this comparison is pointless.

-banning every single handgun under 4.5" is "reasonable"
This is entirely to prevent easily-concealed firearms from being freely available. While the 4.5" sizing may be arbitrary (I'm not sure) I do know the purpose was to ensure that people didn't walk around with Deringers. Perhaps another case of a good intention with a poor execution; but I'm not sure. Why is this point such a sore spot for you?

-thowing people in prison for not knowing the law changed and their family heirlooms are now illegal is "reasonable" (applies to you melissa, had your fathers guns come to you before you got your license, they would have been confiscated, or you would be a criminal for illegal possesion)
Has anyone been jailed for not knowing the law changed? I was under the impression that the federal registry allowed for police to notify owners of changes to possession laws in order to prevent that situation.

-registering guns, then CONFISCATING many guns using that registry, is "reasonable"
The guns weren't confiscated because there was a registry; they were confiscated because those firearms became illegal when we banned full-auto (however, as you've demonstrated, there are some select models that were also banned for stupid reasons. But that is not the fault of the registry)

-having overfilled, farbetween, mandatory courses that cost 300$ for a "shotgun/rifle" license, and additional 300$ for pistol licence is "reasonable" because why should getting a gun license take less then 3 months or cost any less then some guns (costs are actually much higher, assuming you even get a spot in the course, in areas that have less access to instructors. I have seen prices as high as 500$ for one licence course)
I only paid $250 in total for both licenses (including the safety courses); I can't say about where you are, but over here that's the going rate. And it only takes a 2-day safety class, and then 30 days wait time following the receipt of your application. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here.

-no hunting with handguns, even handguns designed for hunting, because no "reasonable" person hunts with a handgun
Yeah, okay, this is stupid beyond measure. Anyone who walks into bear territory without at least a .357 magnum handgun is not what I consider "reasonable".

-forcing you to get your current OR EX SPOUSES permission to own a hand gun is "reasonable
Yeah, because nobody has ever gone through a divorce and tried to kill their ex... although, you don't need their permission explicitly; they're simply contacted as part of a background check, and with good reason.

-by owning a gun, you give up the right to be free from search and seizure, any representitive of the CFO (ie the police) can enter your home, at any time, with no warrent, and you HAVE to assist the search by opening containers/locks ect (ie incriminate yourself) all because this is a "reasonable" way to treat gun owners
You are not required to open all containers and locks. You are required to show the officers your firearms, which may entail opening a gun safe. If you are storing your firearms elsewhere, then you are already breaking a perfectly reasonable law (lock up your guns). Upon showing the officers each firearm that is registered to you, there is no more searching permitted. They cannot enter your home at any time; you must be present. They cannot search without a warrant, however they can arrest you for failing to comply with their request to search. The search is limited to the firearms you possess, and the storage container (eg, gun safe) in which you keep them. Now, is this reasonable? This one is a grey area to me. I have difficulty in seeing how it's a violation of a right when it is a known result of a privilige that you choose to engage in.

Stop King.....
I'm on meds
Laughing hurts

Also looking at the top ten firearms for a viking funeral.....

az, nothing personal, but you dont live the laws every day, you are off on your inferences.

 azazel the cat wrote:
easysauce:

-capping mags at 5rnds was "reasonable"
5 for semi-auto centerfire rifles, but yeah, this is kinda arbitrary

-constant background checks, even after decades of proven lawful ownership is "reasonable"
How are the checks "constant"? checks are done periodically on you while you hold the license

-getting an authorization from the government EVERY time you want to go to the range with a pistol is "reasonable"
This is recommended by not necessary. You only need to explain the route once. The reason behind this is sound, but the execution is very, very poor. umm try telling the CFO that it is a "recommendation" its not, it is ILLEGAL to transport a restricted firearm to a range/gunsmith with out an authorization to transport in writing. It is illegal to take any restricted anywhere without this prior authorization

-being put on a list, just like pedophiles, and registered, is "reasonable"
Actually, I don't think sex offenders are required to notify police of address changes. However, firearms owners with possession & acquisition licenses are. In any case, this is so the police know if there is a firearm present when/if they have to respond to a call at that address, and I do not have a problem with it. Anyway, you're already on a voter's list, and you include your address when filing taxes. So unless you alos want to use an inflammatory comparison between being a registered sex offender and being a registered voter, this comparison is pointless. police officers have to always assume a gun is present, the gun registry only works for the legally aquired and registered guns, in fact at least two cops are dead because the gun registry said "no guns" on a house that had guns. All the cops I know say only an idiot trusts the registry, and that their standard operating procedure is to assume EVERY home has a gun

-banning every single handgun under 4.5" is "reasonable"
This is entirely to prevent easily-concealed firearms from being freely available. While the 4.5" sizing may be arbitrary (I'm not sure) I do know the purpose was to ensure that people didn't walk around with Deringers. Perhaps another case of a good intention with a poor execution; but I'm not sure. Why is this point such a sore spot for you? well, aside from me supporting concealed carry, again, crooks still have sawed offs, and short concealable guns. this law only affected the already law abiding. its not a personal pet peeve, but many women I know are very upset they cannot carry, nor can they buy firearms that fit their stature.



-having overfilled, farbetween, mandatory courses that cost 300$ for a "shotgun/rifle" license, and additional 300$ for pistol licence is "reasonable" because why should getting a gun license take less then 3 months or cost any less then some guns (costs are actually much higher, assuming you even get a spot in the course, in areas that have less access to instructors. I have seen prices as high as 500$ for one licence course)
I only paid $250 in total for both licenses (including the safety courses); I can't say about where you are, but over here that's the going rate. And it only takes a 2-day safety class, and then 30 days wait time following the receipt of your application. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. this varies by location, as I have already stated, here the going rate is 300$ per licence, and it was a few months waiting list to get in when I went. this will vary from location to location

-no hunting with handguns, even handguns designed for hunting, because no "reasonable" person hunts with a handgun
Yeah, okay, this is stupid beyond measure. Anyone who walks into bear territory without at least a .357 magnum handgun is not what I consider "reasonable".

-forcing you to get your current OR EX SPOUSES permission to own a hand gun is "reasonable
Yeah, because nobody has ever gone through a divorce and tried to kill their ex... although, you don't need their permission explicitly; they're simply contacted as part of a background check, and with good reason. actually you do need the ex spouse to sign off the paper work, I had never been married so I only needed two references to sign the papers, and be called by the rcmp/cfo to verify my "lawful abidingness"

-by owning a gun, you give up the right to be free from search and seizure, any representitive of the CFO (ie the police) can enter your home, at any time, with no warrent, and you HAVE to assist the search by opening containers/locks ect (ie incriminate yourself) all because this is a "reasonable" way to treat gun owners
You are not required to open all containers and locks. You are required to show the officers your firearms, which may entail opening a gun safe. If you are storing your firearms elsewhere, then you are already breaking a perfectly reasonable law (lock up your guns). Upon showing the officers each firearm that is registered to you, there is no more searching permitted. They cannot enter your home at any time; you must be present. They cannot search without a warrant, however they can arrest you for failing to comply with their request to search. The search is limited to the firearms you possess, and the storage container (eg, gun safe) in which you keep them. Now, is this reasonable? This one is a grey area to me. I have difficulty in seeing how it's a violation of a right when it is a known result of a privilige that you choose to engage in. they sure can, and have, I personally have had this happen, and no its not a violation of my gun rights (i have none as a canadian) its a violation of my other rights. When police tell you you are under arrest if you dont let them search your house, thats searching without a warrent, the choice between a warrentless search and jail is not a free choice. aside from that, yes, you DO have to open anything they ask, because otherwise they do not know there are no guns in there.

none of those laws actually did anything to make anyone safer, only the 2 million lawful gun owners actually followed the new regulations. gang bangers are 100% un affected, and can still get illegal guns from some back alley dealer.

2billion dollars spend on the registry program, we could have sent some people to mars for that kind of $, instead we got NOTHING, a registry that saved NO ONE, and was implicit in the deaths of at least two officers who were shot on calls to houses that the registry said were "gun free"

at best, all the above I have listed are inconvenient/costly to lawful gun owners, and ineffective on the crooks,

at worst, all the above make crooks of lawful gun owners, and make crooks laugh and become even more confident no one will oppose them with any real methods.

I'm kind of baffled why they think a 4 inch gun is too easy to hide, but a 4.5 inch is hard enough to be ok.

I really don' see how that extra half inch is going to make a big difference...

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I'm kind of baffled why they think a 4 inch gun is too easy to hide, but a 4.5 inch is hard enough to be ok.

I really don' see how that extra half inch is going to make a big difference...

half an inch makes a world of difference, just ask KC's wife (take that you Michigan bearded giant! Insinuate I stare at men's junk will ya!)*


* - KC and his wife are pretty awesome, he made a joke about me elsewhere on dakka insinuating I stare at men's junk, good light hearted fun.

Dang....now I'm waiting for KC to respond

This problem would a be a lot simpler if America had laws that were uniform across the country...

How, exactly?

 purplefood wrote:
This problem would a be a lot simpler if America had laws that were uniform across the country...

What are you ever talking about?

Purple kind of tracking but not tracking.....Seperation of State and Federal Government.

 purplefood wrote:
This problem would a be a lot simpler if America had laws that were uniform across the country...

I actually agree with that. We wouldn't have disgusting examples like this one that just came in:

Huffington Post wrote:A man was arrested for violating New York's new gun restrictions after state troopers discovered a gun loaded with two more bullets than are allowed by law.

Gregory Dean Jr. was pulled over on Sunday in New Lebanon when authorities noticed his car's license-plate lamp wasn't working properly.

Troopers then noticed a .40 caliber handgun, legally registered to Dean, on the passenger seat of the car. The weapon was loaded with nine bullets rather than the seven bullets allowed under the state's recently passed SAFE Act.

Dean, who was also allegedly driving on a suspended license at the time, has been charged with unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices.

If he had a Big Gulp in the car's cupholder, I believe he'd be classified as a "career criminal" under New York law.