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.
2012/12/21 05:11:05
Subject: Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
In reply to the OP I live in southern California. And I plan on leaving. The gun laws are one reason but not the only one. I work on the border. In my area it seems like Spanish has become the primary language. California is a tree hugging/gun hating state that wants to help the immigrants more than its citizens. I see it everyday and I'm done with it.
2012/12/21 05:22:57
Subject: Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
yellowfever wrote: In reply to the OP I live in southern California. And I plan on leaving. The gun laws are one reason but not the only one. I work on the border. In my area it seems like Spanish has become the primary language. California is a tree hugging/gun hating state that wants to help the immigrants more than its citizens. I see it everyday and I'm done with it.
I know right? Charming has changed and it's time to go before it turns into another Lodi.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2012/12/21 06:18:44
Subject: Re:Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
I have friends who don't permit firearms to be carried into their homes.
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
Seaward wrote: Spoken like someone who's never spent five hours in a northern Virginia DMV.
I'd say that is more to do with your DMV being crap than anything else. But I guess it is easier to scream "THAT WON'T WORK! I NEED ME MY GUNZ!" than it is to actually get proactive to come up with something that might actually work for the majority of people.
And I love you too Fraz
We have a solution that works for a majority of our people.
Thanks for visiting.
Exalted
SOFDC wrote: I moved to California from the United States because of school, knowing the gun laws were absolutely terrible and that owning a gun here is walking a felony tightrope. Yes, I am an idiot.
However, once school is done and I move to a state that isn't completely insane on the issue:
I look forward to being able to change the grips or stocks on my rifle and not worry about going to jail for 2-8 years.
I look forward to not worrying about whether someone can manage to stuff 1 more round (Even if this includes damaging the magazine to the point of only working once and only chambering that first round) into a magazine over an arbitrary limit and send me to a small cage for a year+ stripping me of firearms rights.
I look forward to being able to make a firearm purchase and walk out with the item after my background check comes back clean, as opposed to after the 5 minute background check comes back.....plus a 10 day arbitrary wait (Despite the fact that I already own upwards of 30 firearms anyway, and the ridiculous notion that someone DRIVEN TO THE POINT OF COMMITTING MURDER will actually "Cool off" rather than find another method.)
I look forward to being able to purchase a handgun that isn't on some politician`s list of models that are "OK" for me to buy.
I look forward to not be looking at 2-8 years for threading the barrel of my pistol to accept a recoil comp for target shooting.
SilverMK2 wrote: And do people feel that this flagrant breach of their 2nd amendment rights is something that is worth suffering through for the greater good? Do you daily have to struggle on through the pain of knowing that you can't own a fully automatic weapon without filling out some paperwork and undergoing some kind of security checks?
I think the greater good would be served by letting them back on the market. The cold truth is we'd probably have fewer fatalities in situations like this if these scrawny outcasts tried to off their class with the selector on rock and roll.
I never understood why flamethrowers were banned. Sure, you will probably take out the building, but most of these guys probably couldn't even lift one and they are only good for a handful of shots
Flamethrowers are legal in most states, you just gotta make it
As to me, Colorado is lax as hell and I'd only consider moving to equally lax or laxer within the United States. I have as some of you know considered a move down under, but different country, different rules.
For everyone concerned about the Children don't bother locking up your guns, fill in your backyard swimming pool, it's over 100% more likely to result in your child's death.
Just for funsies. Though this photo's out of date. The little black one (S&W M&P40c) is gone (sold in a perfectly legal private transaction ) and two long guns have been added. A Marlin .30-30 lever action and of course the M1 Garand which will hopefully get here next month.
and now a brief musical number
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/21 07:07:33
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
Gun-free zones are premised on a lie: that murderers will follow rules, and that people like my student are a greater danger to those around them than crazed killers. That's an insult to honest people.
The issue, of course, is that I have no way of knowing if any given person is honest, or whether or not their honesty extends to an ability to effectively use a firearm.
In fact, as gun ownership has expanded over the past decade, crime has gone down.
I assume the author was referring to gross ownership rates by way of background check statistics, because actual rates of gun ownership are nearly impossible to determine due to the sheer lack of data. But, even then, gun ownership per capita fell significantly during the '90s, during which time the most significant decreases in crime rate also occurred; which does not suggest correlation as the upward trend in ownership did not occur until the 00's.
As they say, if it saves just one life, it's worth it.
A platitude based on inducing agreement by way of emotion. Whether or not a life is saved is relevant only if no other lives are taken. Outside of that, its simply a question of whether or not people want, or want to restrict, a CCW permit to a degree that makes it a significant political issue, which it presently is not; even in the wake of Sandy Hook.
djones520 wrote:
I've also heard, but was unable to verify, that of 99 mass shootings that occured between 1980 and 2010, 98 were in Gun-Free Zones.
If that is true, and I couldn't verify it either, then I would be more interested in the location of the 1 shooting which was not a Gun-Free Zone, given that they are so widespread.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2012/12/21 07:28:24
Subject: Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
The Michigan legislature just passed a law that would allow an upgraded version of the CPL to be carried in "gun-free zones", but Gov. Snyder vetoe'd it because he had intended for it to allow places like schools to still make the decision themselves on whether or not to allow it, and the language of the bill just made it a blanket CPL can carry no matter what. He told me* he expected a fixed version of the bill to be passed sometime in the near future.
*It was a reply to an email I sent giving my viewpoint on the bill.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2012/12/21 08:46:27
Subject: Re:Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
A lot of gun folks are worried the NRA's going to sell out "assault weapons" and high caps in their press conference later today. I found this brief bit of analysis elsewhere, and thought it was interesting:
...sigh
Look, the NRA isn't perfect. But all this anti-NRA nonsense is just silly and shortsighted; this isn't 1994 any more people. Unlike '94, we haven't been getting our asses kicked all over the place, in fact we've been winning. In political terms, this is more like the Battle of the Bulge; yes the Nazis are wrecking our trash cans for the moment, but that's only because they know the same thing that NRA knows: that if the anti-gun people can't get their agenda passed in the wake of Sandy Hook, they're over as a political force.
It's not our last stand, it's theirs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/21 08:46:50
2012/12/21 08:53:06
Subject: Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
Banning the assault weapons would be a step in the right direction... nobody needs one unless they are planning on going into war-like scenario.
Why do you need a car?
GW Rules Interpretation Syndrom. GWRIS. Causes people to second guess a rule in a book because that's what they would have had to do in a GW system.
SilverMK2 wrote: "Well, I have epilepsy and was holding a knife when I had a seizure... I couldn't help it! I was just trying to chop the vegetables for dinner!"
2012/12/21 09:06:24
Subject: Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
Banning the assault weapons would be a step in the right direction... nobody needs one unless they are planning on going into war-like scenario.
Why do you need a car?
Care to explain how this is relevant to my post?
Well, in the United States, cars kill more people per year than guns. Nobody actually needs a car, they have feet. If they don't feel like walking the state provides public transportation. If you need something transported, you can call a government approved shipping service to move your items for you.
GW Rules Interpretation Syndrom. GWRIS. Causes people to second guess a rule in a book because that's what they would have had to do in a GW system.
SilverMK2 wrote: "Well, I have epilepsy and was holding a knife when I had a seizure... I couldn't help it! I was just trying to chop the vegetables for dinner!"
2012/12/21 09:20:40
Subject: Re:Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
Cigarretes are on the exact same principle. Nobody needs them. They serve no good purpose at all. Yet they kill more people to a scale of 25 times more, then guns do in America. Where's the cries of justice and outlawing, and questioning peoples need, and all that BS?
djones520 wrote: Cigarretes are on the exact same principle. Nobody needs them. They serve no good purpose at all. Yet they kill more people to a scale of 25 times more, then guns do in America. Where's the cries of justice and outlawing, and questioning peoples need, and all that BS?
All over the place, really. It's how extortionist cigarette taxes keep getting passed.
I'm a cigarette-smoking gun owner. Thank Jebus I live in Virginia.
2012/12/21 09:29:51
Subject: Re:Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
djones520 wrote: Cigarretes are on the exact same principle. Nobody needs them. They serve no good purpose at all. Yet they kill more people to a scale of 25 times more, then guns do in America. Where's the cries of justice and outlawing, and questioning peoples need, and all that BS?
All over the place, really. It's how extortionist cigarette taxes keep getting passed.
I'm a cigarette-smoking gun owner. Thank Jebus I live in Virginia.
Well I know the anti-smoking lobby is just as established, if not more established then the anti-gun lobby. The question was aimed more at the guy who keeps asking for our "need".
Maybe when he can get cig's banned in his hometown, he can come tell us how we should be living our lives.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2012/12/21 09:34:46
Subject: Re:Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
djones520 wrote: Nobody needs cigarettes, and they kill more people then anyone else in Great Britain.
I don't know what it is like in the USA, but in Europe there have been big pushes to eliminate smoking. In the UK you are no longer alowed to display smoking products (my local supermarket now has them behind some sliding screens), you cannot advertise cigarettes, there are huge warnings about the dangers of smoking on the packets, they have heavy taxes associated with them and smoking has now been banned from virtually all public buildings and places that serve food. There are also free quit smoking groups run by the NHS.
I'd say that "smoking control" is progressing rather well in Europe.
As to cars, they are one hell of a lot more necessary than guns. You can't drive your gun to work (and from what I hear in the US you need a car to get everywhere since most of your towns and cities were built to take advantage of mass car ownership), you can't use your gun to move heavy loads of shopping/etc and from what I hear in the US there is effectively no public transport system outside of the inner city areas, meaning you almost have to have a car to get anywhere.
If they kill so many people maybe you need a) to ban the more dangerous types of cars (I understand that the US loves huge armoured tanks of a car which are bloody dangerous to those that drive them and those that are hit by them), b) making driving tests better, c) introduce more safety measures/systems including both in-car and on-road systems.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/21 09:35:36
SilverMK2 wrote: As to cars, they are one hell of a lot more necessary than guns. You can't drive your gun to work (and from what I hear in the US you need a car to get everywhere since most of your towns and cities were built to take advantage of mass car ownership), you can't use your gun to move heavy loads of shopping/etc and from what I hear in the US there is effectively no public transport system outside of the inner city areas, meaning you almost have to have a car to get anywhere.
If they kill so many people maybe you need a) to ban the more dangerous types of cars (I understand that the US loves huge armoured tanks of a car which are bloody dangerous to those that drive them and those that are hit by them), b) making driving tests better, c) introduce more safety measures/systems including both in-car and on-road systems.
Well sure cars have their uses, more than guns. But who's to say whether you need them or not? Saying nobody needs an assault weapon is like saying nobody needs a car.
GW Rules Interpretation Syndrom. GWRIS. Causes people to second guess a rule in a book because that's what they would have had to do in a GW system.
SilverMK2 wrote: "Well, I have epilepsy and was holding a knife when I had a seizure... I couldn't help it! I was just trying to chop the vegetables for dinner!"
2012/12/21 09:45:01
Subject: Re:Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
Mattman154 wrote: Well sure cars have their uses, more than guns. But who's to say whether you need them or not? Saying nobody needs an assault weapon is like saying nobody needs a car.
Only if you believe that using a false analogy is a good way to carry on debate.
Mattman154 wrote: Well sure cars have their uses, more than guns. But who's to say whether you need them or not? Saying nobody needs an assault weapon is like saying nobody needs a car.
Only if you believe that using a false analogy is a good way to carry on debate.
But why is it false? Who determines need?
GW Rules Interpretation Syndrom. GWRIS. Causes people to second guess a rule in a book because that's what they would have had to do in a GW system.
SilverMK2 wrote: "Well, I have epilepsy and was holding a knife when I had a seizure... I couldn't help it! I was just trying to chop the vegetables for dinner!"
2012/12/21 09:51:22
Subject: Re:Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
It is fairly obvious that cars have become a necessary part of modern life. Take every single gun away and the vast majority of people would carry on their life without any problem what so ever. Look at societies like, well, most civilised western societies for examples of people going about their day to day lives without guns.
Take away every single car and the whole of modern life will crumble. Look at the fuel shortages that the UK went through for an example of how things fall apart if people are unable to use their cars even for a short period of time. People couldn't get into work, companies couldn't deliver goods and services, etc. Thankfully on the odd occasion when fuel shortages occured they were only brief.
Granted, if cars were removed there would eventually be some replacement found (such as horses or something), but the fact is that modern life is built around the car; it has become necessary. Guns are in no way similar.
DiRTWaL wrote: One big factor that stops me from backpacking Europe is the fact that I can not have a fire arm with me at all times
Where abouts would you be looking to go backpacking? I can tell you that I know plenty of people who have been backpacking through Europe who have come back alive and unscathed without the need to carry a gun (or indeed weapon of any sort ).
Backpacking through Europe is one of the big things for a lot of students in the UK and hundreds/thousands of people do it each year without a problem.
I've also heard, but was unable to verify, that of 99 mass shootings that occured between 1980 and 2010, 98 were in Gun-Free Zones.
What about general gun related crime and accidents?
Part of the argument about the school killings is that licensing is not necessary because such incidents are rarer than being struck by lightning. We should remember the other bad effects of gun crime too, which are much more common.
It is fairly obvious that cars have become a necessary part of modern life. Take every single gun away and the vast majority of people would carry on their life without any problem what so ever. Look at societies like, well, most civilised western societies for examples of people going about their day to day lives without guns.
So we agree that there is an acceptable ratio between the need of an object and people getting killed by it on a daily basis?
2012/12/21 10:44:59
Subject: Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
And if you had a kid, would the "back of the nightstand" be a safe place to store it?
I grew up in a house with seven kids in it of various ages, and our guns were safely stored under a bed. None of us shot anybody or ourselves, or even used them to commit any crimes.
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
2012/12/21 10:50:16
Subject: Re:Would gun laws alone deter you from living in a certain place?
d-usa wrote: So we agree that there is an acceptable ratio between the need of an object and people getting killed by it on a daily basis?
I believe that implication is fairly clearly defined. You can never hope to entirely eliminate danger, simply reduce it to a level where it is "acceptable". It is why cars now have seatbelts, crumple zones, airbags, and you are required to pass a test before you can use one etc; these all make driving safer but do not really inconvenience people in the car (though I know there was a big row over seatbelts when they were first introduced much as there is a big row over anyone mentioning gun control now, which should let you know how pathetic some people can be ).
However, the point being, no one actually "needs" a gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lordhat wrote: I grew up in a house with seven kids in it of various ages, and our guns were safely stored under a bed. None of us shot anybody or ourselves, or even used them to commit any crimes.
Good for you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/21 10:50:57
Exalted
never going back.
