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.

 Smacks wrote:
Lastly, I do not buy that guns are more heavily regulated than cars

They aren't more heavily regulated than cars. It is easier to buy a gun then it is to apply for a job, get a drivers license or even buy a car.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Lastly, I do not buy that guns are more heavily regulated than cars

They aren't more heavily regulated than cars. It is easier to buy a gun then it is to apply for a job, get a drivers license or even buy a car.

Depends on where you live.

In CA I can walk onto any used car lot, buy a car, and drive it home that day.

I have to wait for several days to buy a gun.

Yes the 2nd is a constitutional right and the 1st is just a privilege.

 Dark Severance wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Everyone who buys a gun from a dealer has to pass a background check and have a clean criminal record proving themselves to be law abiding citizens. There is no way for somebody to have a criminal record and be able to buy a gun from a dealer so the vast majority of gun owners are actually law abiding citizens.

I highlighted the one issue with the statement. I also want to point out that all "law abiding citizens" are law abiding until which time they break the law. A good portion of those involved in mass shooting were law abiding, at least until they pulled the trigger and then they were no longer law abiding. Law abiding also doesn't equal "responsible" gun owners.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Likewise any registration requirement would be strictly a state matter. Most states have never had registration so it's difficult to drum up support for one. Since you need to have a clean record to buy them and to keep them there's no compelling reason to register them because such a registry wouldn't have an impact since law enforcement would only be able to confiscate firearms after a crime is committed.

Part of the problem is most regulation is a state matter. I realize that they haven't required it. It is why I think to effectively implement any changes it would require to grandfather in a good portion. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen moving forward. Again everyone who has a clean record does so until they commit an illegal crime. Everyone who has ever committed an illegal crime was a legal citizen at one point. The main compelling reason though to register would be to properly link guns from buyers/owners to crimes and going over those owners that were irresponsible, sold their gun illegally, had it stolen but didn't report, careless neglect in storing them cause them to be stolen and in some case not even realizing it was gone because they had so many. It isn't so much about prevention as it is about tracking the sources more effectively.

Obviously everyone has a clean record until they get convicted of something. People with clean records can buy guns and keep them until such time as they commit a crime that disqualified their right to own them. That will always be true regardless of the existence of a registry. We don't have precognition everyone is innocent until proven guilty and gets the benefit of the doubt. Registration is not going to change the fact that the authorities can't take your guns away until after you give just cause for such action.

We already have storage laws, transport laws, laws that prohibit the selling of guns to disqualified people, laws that require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns, laws against straw purchases and negligence and endangerment laws.

A registry won't solve the problem of a person not realizing a gun was stolen and consequently not reporting it.

There aren't many prosecutions of straw purchases and the reasons why it's a difficult crime to prosecute aren't resolved by a registry.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Lastly, I do not buy that guns are more heavily regulated than cars

They aren't more heavily regulated than cars. It is easier to buy a gun then it is to apply for a job, get a drivers license or even buy a car.

That's only true for buying guns. That's not necessarily the case for carrying or transporting them, which varies widely by state. And in some states it's definitely easier to buy a car.

 Smacks wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I didn't misconstrue or mislead, my statement is accurate. I can take my car that is legal to drive in my home state and drive it in any of the 50 states without needing to make any changes or adjustments to it or how I operate it. If I have my firearms in the car with me or on my person every time I cross state lines the legal restrictions on how I can carry and transport my firearms changes and any failure on my part to comply with the various laws that change state to state can result in criminal charges and serious lengthy prison sentences because guns are much more heavily regulated than cars.

Firstly, you did mislead because there is no basis in reality for the 20,000 figure you regurgitated. Secondly, a car is a machine that is almost purpose built for making long journeys (such as across state lines), so it's hardly surprising that the law would facilitate that. Thirdly, you will still be subject to local laws, such as speed limits. An unscrupulous person could define each speed sign as a unique local regulation if they wanted (for example, if they wanted to arrive at a falsely inflated number like 20,000).

Lastly, I do not buy that guns are more heavily regulated than cars, but even if they were, the numbers would be bulked out with stupid things like "you can't shoot beer cans off a donkey's ass on St Patrick's day" in Deadend, Missouri. Back in the real word, cars have just as many rules that might disqualify people from driving them. They also require a licence and registration, which in practical terms makes them more regulated than guns.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Since you need to have a clean record to buy them and to keep them there's no compelling reason to register them because such a registry wouldn't have an impact since law enforcement would only be able to confiscate firearms after a crime is committed. If you commit a crime you lose your guns whether they are registered or not and if you don't commit a crime you get to keep them and buy more whether they are registered or not. There doesn't seem to be a point to putting people on a government list just for the sake of having a list. I don't see the need for a list that does nothing for prevention and would only be useful after the fact.

This shows an incredible lack of foresight. The idea of a registry is not to fix gun problems overnight, it's to keep track of guns once the original law abiding owner passes them on. It's an investment in the future.

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you commit a crime you lose your guns whether they are registered or not.

How do you lose your guns if no one knows you have them?

We already have laws governing the buying and selling, gifting and bequeathing of firearms. A registry isn't needed, we've gotten along fine without one and for much of our naion's history we had higher gun ownership rates with less restrictions than we have now.

The authorities will know if I've had a gun lost or stolen the same way they'll know if any other valuable piece of personal property of mine is lost or stolen, by me filing a lost/stolen property report with local law enforcement as required by law and my insurance company.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dark Severance wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Lastly, I do not buy that guns are more heavily regulated than cars

They aren't more heavily regulated than cars. It is easier to buy a gun then it is to apply for a job, get a drivers license or even buy a car.

ATF form 4473 look it up and then show me equivalent form needed to buy a car. I've purchased guns and cars but never had fill out anything like a 4473 to get a car and I wasn't facing a felony charge if my car buying paperwork was inaccurately filled out or if the sale was refused.

 Grey Templar wrote:
In CA I can walk onto any used car lot, buy a car, and drive it home that day.

I have to wait for several days to buy a gun.

It depends on the state on if you have to wait several days to buy a used gun. A person only has to wait in most instances if buying from a dealer, private sales are different and differ greatly from state to state. The average person I know however doesn't have thousands to walk in and buy a car. They do need to have a few things like a job, drivers license, insurance, income and credit check to get a loan and those things take time. The credit check and loan process itself is fairly short, only a couple hours if that but to accomplish that isn't that easy for everyone.

Prestor Jon wrote:
People with clean records can buy guns and keep them until such time as they commit a crime

Not all crimes are equal nor disqualify someone from owning a gun. Again this is only if they buy from a dealer and varies from state to state. Registration isn't also about taking the guns away, it is a completly seperate purpose.

Prestor Jon wrote:
We already have storage laws, transport laws, laws that prohibit the selling of guns to disqualified people, laws that require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns, laws against straw purchases and negligence and endangerment laws.

That vary greatly from state to state, that is the main issue. It isn't even a simple matter of border states having similar laws, they are polar in some cases.

Prestor Jon wrote:
There aren't many prosecutions of straw purchases and the reasons why it's a difficult crime to prosecute aren't resolved by a registry.

Registry again isn't for prosecuting someone who used a gun who committed a crime, unless they happened to purchase it legally. In most cases it should be used to enforce "responsible" gun owners into being responsible. Here is the thing, yes a dealer risks losing a license and that is why they follow the law. A private sale has no risks. Gun owner A can easily sell to Joe Smith without going through legal channels because there is no way to hold Gun Owner A accountable. Also this varies from State, as some states don't require a person to do a background check for a private sale.

Prestor Jon wrote:
ATF form 4473 look it up and then show me equivalent form needed to buy a car.

My loan paperwork for the car purchase is larger than that form. Also still only have to fill that out if this was a Over-the-Counter sale. I can order parts for firearm without filling out any forms, and then assemble it. There are also various websites where you can buy them private sale, without filling out any forms. Since they aren't registered no one will really be able to trace fully where they came from. You can trace where they were essentially manufactured but not who owned, or how many hands it has changed. When I buy a used car, I can tell you if it has been in an accident, been repaired, how many owners has had it and even how many oil changes have been done on it.

Prestor Jon wrote:
A registry isn't needed, we've gotten along fine without one and for much of our naion's history we had higher gun ownership rates with less restrictions than we have now.

So then that would infer that you don't believe there is a problem and that the current statistics are considered an accessible loss (which isn't a bad answer since we know we can't completely resolve or solve the issue of gun violence, it is just a matter of how much is considered acceptable). Since we've gotten along fine because absolutely nothing has changed in the world in our nations history, there is no reason to change. Does that mean the correct answer and response is to do nothing? Because doing nothing will absolutely change nothing.

 Dark Severance wrote:
So then that would infer that you don't believe there is a problem and that the current statistics are considered an accessible loss (which isn't a bad answer since we know we can't completely resolve or solve the issue of gun violence, it is just a matter of how much is considered acceptable). Since we've gotten along fine because absolutely nothing has changed in the world in our nations history, there is no reason to change. Does that mean the correct answer and response is to do nothing? Because doing nothing will absolutely change nothing.

If something is acceptable, its not a problem. And given that the numbers are steadily declining, and every ban and tightened legislation hasn't had any effect on crime at all, we can infer that doing nothing is the best course of action. Especially when its a constitutional right we are talking about.

Prestor Jon wrote:
A registry isn't needed, we've gotten along fine without one

Evidently, that's highly debatable.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you commit a crime you lose your guns whether they are registered or not.

How do you lose your guns if no one knows you have them?

The authorities will know if I've had a gun lost or stolen the same way they'll know if any other valuable piece of personal property of mine is lost or stolen, by me filing a lost/stolen property report with local law enforcement as required by law and my insurance company.

Come on man, at least read your own posts, I've had more structured conversations with my dog.

You said: If you commit a crime you lose your guns. Since there is no logical connection between committing crimes and misplacing things, I assume that by "lost" you mean: someone in authority takes them away. I said: (after you commit a crime,) how do the authorities know what (and how many guns) you might have, if the guns aren't registered?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Dark Severance wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Lastly, I do not buy that guns are more heavily regulated than cars

They aren't more heavily regulated than cars. It is easier to buy a gun then it is to apply for a job, get a drivers license or even buy a car.

ATF form 4473 look it up and then show me equivalent form needed to buy a car. I've purchased guns and cars but never had fill out anything like a 4473 to get a car and I wasn't facing a felony charge if my car buying paperwork was inaccurately filled out or if the sale was refused.

Yes you can "buy" a car, in the same way I can "buy" a plot of land on the moon. To actually use it in a meaningful way, you need to pass the driving test.

I can go to a gun show and buy almost any weapon imaginable and walk off the lot with it that day, my background is irrelevant. I can buy guns off private citizens via Facebook, Craig's List, or any other number of social media and web forums. No muss, no fuss, no credit check, no background check, no waiting period.

No driving test is required to purchase a car. If you have a driver's license, that is usually sufficient. They don't care how many tickets you have or anything of the sort. If you wreck the car? That's not their problem, you still have to pay for it.

 Dark Severance wrote:
That isn't entirely true, the time isn't a true factor nor is decision making because it isn't conscious part of the process.

No, riots are immediate things. They don’t occur in bits and pieces over many months for reasons.

To think that the internet can not create, have impact or cause a mob would be highly inaccurate.

Of course it can be a factor, but to put it first and foremost as a primary factor would mean that every country with high levels of internet use would have high levels of spree killing. That obviously isn’t true, the rate of spree killing in the US, and the US rate of murder in general, is unique among developed countries. So while the internet might be a factor, it clearly isn’t anywhere near the major factor you’re putting it out to be.

Seriously dude, every developed country has crazies, and every one of those developed countries has the means to spread crazy from person to person. But they don't have the gun violence problem the US has. Because obvious reason.

 Psienesis wrote:
I can go to a gun show and buy almost any weapon imaginable and walk off the lot with it that day, my background is irrelevant. I can buy guns off private citizens via Facebook, Craig's List, or any other number of social media and web forums. No muss, no fuss, no credit check, no background check, no waiting period..

As a quick aside, Facebook has been shutting down gun trading groups, but it seems like a mixed initiative - I know a few that got shut down, and a bunch that stayed open. Not that it changes the point you were making.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If something is acceptable, its not a problem. And given that the numbers are steadily declining, and every ban and tightened legislation hasn't had any effect on crime at all, we can infer that doing nothing is the best course of action. Especially when its a constitutional right we are talking about.

It is acceptable if someone considers the current death and losses a "acceptable risk" to ensure that their rights aren't changed. That is a perfectly valid opinion... most people however won't just say that. I didn't say that I think it was acceptable or agree with it, however I do respect that people will have different opinions and points of views. I just wanted to know if he thinks there isn't an issue. If he does there is no point discussing anything else because there is no need to find a solution or talk about different ideas for changes as there is a belief there isn't an issue.

I have never said I'm taking anyone's rights away. Registration or tightened legislation doesn't take anyone's right away.

I would have to disagree that tightened legislation hasn't had any effect on crime at all... that is a very broad statement.

 sebster wrote:
No, riots are immediate things. They don’t occur in bits and pieces over many months for reasons.

I've gone through a few legal definitions of riot and mob. I've also done various searches, checked the wiki, and other than one reference which defines one type of riot, "An immediate riot is unrest among a section of the population , nearly always in the wake of a violent episode of state coercion.". There is no correlation that a riot is an immediate thing. I've looked at the police studies of riots and the psychology reports on riots but I'm not seeing it. This tends to be a common misconception about mobs/riots though, one assumes that a right can be immediate because they are common at sports events or after a violent episode but those aren't all riots. As time changes new things happen that change the definition of "what" something is or "how" something is caused because there is more data to correlate those studies. There are quite a few different types of mobs and riots types and isn't limited to "immediate".

 sebster wrote:
Of course it can be a factor, but to put it first and foremost as a primary factor would mean that every country with high levels of internet use would have high levels of spree killing.

Are you implying that the US has high levels of killing sprees? It isn't just simply the internet, there are certain laws which is why I mention environment that factor into it. As an example there are still many countries where you can't speak out against the government, they don't have free speech like the US. All those factor into them to create a different environment.

 sebster wrote:
That obviously isn’t true, the rate of spree killing in the US, and the US rate of murder in general, is unique among developed countries. So while the internet might be a factor, it clearly isn’t anywhere near the major factor you’re putting it out to be.

I never said it was a major factor. I think you focused on one thing instead of understanding the whole social psychology behind what is being said. I wasn't specifically talking about murder in general. I was specifically talking about mass shootings and their increased rate, which is different than murder in general as well as suicides (which tend to account for the largest portion of gun violence). Crimes of passion and suicides obviously aren't effected by a riot/mob mentality, there is no manifesto, there aren't a few dozen photos of poses with the guns in classic poses of violent intent, there are records that they researched other shootings.

Just to relate back to the origial topic:

The shooting is being investigated as accidental. He said no charges have been filed yet but authorities will work with the State Attorney’s Office to determine if Gilt will be charged depending on how the investigation pans out as to how the boy obtained the weapon.

There was no criminal crime that happened. She is still considered law abiding citizen. Do you think that if she is charged that her guns will be taken away? Do you think that her being irresponsible, creating this incident is a valid reason to take her guns away? If they do take her guns away, how does anyone know how many she has or what to take away?

Keep in mind this was posted by her mother as a response:

“This was an accident and nothing more,” Gilt’s 71-year-old mother Jane Bramble told the London Sun.“All the gun control people are jumping on this, but it will not change her opinion about owning guns. She is very pro-gun and will not change her opinion about owning them. She will keep her guns and I’m happy that she will.”

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
flashbang bras,

Sir you have peeked my curiosity.

flashbang bras?

It is a holster that is attached to a bra, and I am not risking breaking forum rules by posting images. I am not super keen on them because drawing from them can cause you to muzzle sweep a very blood rich and organ dense part of the body.

Oh its just a holster.. thats disappointing. i though it was some kinda anti rape device or something :/

 Dark Severance wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If something is acceptable, its not a problem. And given that the numbers are steadily declining, and every ban and tightened legislation hasn't had any effect on crime at all, we can infer that doing nothing is the best course of action. Especially when its a constitutional right we are talking about.

It is acceptable if someone considers the current death and losses a "acceptable risk" to ensure that their rights aren't changed. That is a perfectly valid opinion... most people however won't just say that. I didn't say that I think it was acceptable or agree with it, however I do respect that people will have different opinions and points of views. I just wanted to know if he thinks there isn't an issue. If he does there is no point discussing anything else because there is no need to find a solution or talk about different ideas for changes as there is a belief there isn't an issue.

I have never said I'm taking anyone's rights away. Registration or tightened legislation doesn't take anyone's right away.

I would have to disagree that tightened legislation hasn't had any effect on crime at all... that is a very broad statement.

The automatic gun ban did absolutely nothing. Crime committed with automatic weapons was for all practical purposes non-existent before the ban, and it was non-existent during the ban.

The bans on larger magazines will do nothing. Reloading doesn't take long at all, particularly if any sort of practice has been done. A guy with one 30 round mag will do just as much damage as a guy with three 10 round mags.

Proposed bans on "assault rifles"(whatever the hell that means) will do nothing. The vast majority of crimes are committed with pistols.

Registration or tightened legislation doesn't take anyone's right away.

Good thing the Constitution says "shall not be infringed" instead of "shall not be removed". Restrictions are by definition infringements. So yes, toughening legislation does in fact infringe on our rights.

 Dark Severance wrote:
Keep in mind this was posted by her mother as a response:

“This was an accident and nothing more,” Gilt’s 71-year-old mother Jane Bramble told the London Sun.“All the gun control people are jumping on this, but it will not change her opinion about owning guns. She is very pro-gun and will not change her opinion about owning them. She will keep her guns and I’m happy that she will.”

Wait, this woman has clearly demonstrated that she isn't responsible with guns, yet she is continuing to keep them? Where is personal responsibility?


Edit: fixed quote boxes

 Grey Templar wrote:
The automatic gun ban did absolutely nothing. Crime committed with automatic weapons was for all practical purposes non-existent before the ban, and it was non-existent during the ban.

The bans on larger magazines will do nothing. Reloading doesn't take long at all, particularly if any sort of practice has been done. A guy with one 30 round mag will do just as much damage as a guy with three 10 round mags.

Proposed bans on "assault rifles"(whatever the hell that means) will do nothing. The vast majority of crimes are committed with pistols.

I think you are confusing tighten legislation with ban, they are not the same thing. I also never said that current legislation itself was correct response. At no point did I mention banning at all, at least I don't think I did.

I would need more information on mass shootings where they were larger magazines. It was my understanding that the majority of them were already with smaller maganzines and not a 30 magazine. If that is true then yes larger magazines don't really have an impact on it. Banning assault rifles also won't work because the definition of 'assault rifle' is incorrect in most cases and not properly defined. I also don't believe banning is an answer. I do believe the process of how we get a gun, who can have access to guns and that there should be different versions of licenses for guns and different types are needed. Better legislation and an accurate NICS database for better background checks are needed, currently not everything gets reported to it and it isn't very accurate in its current state.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Restrictions are by definition infringements. So yes, toughening legislation does in fact infringe on our rights.

The 2nd Amendment is actually an article added to the Constitution. The whole definition of amendment means it can be added, altered or amended by its very purpose. Otherwise that would mean the majority of laws we have today already infringes on our rights.

I will ask the question, "Do you believe there is an issue with gun violence and therefore something has to change? If you do then how do you suggest that be reduced?"

 feeder wrote:
Wait, this woman has clearly demonstrated that she isn't responsible with guns, yet she is continuing to keep them? Where is personal responsibility?

At this time she gets to keep them. If they charge her with something it just depends on if that charge is enough that she no longer can legally buy a gun. They can charge her with child neglect which won't effect her ability to purchase or own guns depending on state. Even if she was charged with something that made her unable to buy guns, it may not illegal for her to own them. There is also nothing forcing her to turn them in as there is no real records of what she has. It has a fairly high profile so there might result in a charge, previously similar situations has resulted in no charges or such charge that it hasn't impacted their gun ownership.

That is where the main flaw and issue of accountability comes into play. There isn't a way to properly enforce or hold someone accountable. These types of situations happen probably more frequently than people would like to admit or know about. For example a woman with a concealed permit at Home Depot in Auburn Hills, MI pulled her concealed weapon to shoot at an alleged shoplifter getting into a vehicle, while the vehicle drove away in the parking lot.

She was arraigned on a misdemeanor count of reckless use, handling or discharge of a firearm. She could face jail time, fines and probation but there wouldn't be a firearms restriction unless it became a felony instead of a misdemeanor. On the chance the charge changes to a felony, she is supposed to get rid of her guns. If you don't know how many guns she has, how do you enforce she get rid of her guns? Depending on the state laws for private sales, nothing stops her from simply selling the guns to someone else, without a background check. Even if she did sell them illegally there is no way to hold her accountable for that, since there is no registration.

 Dark Severance wrote:
For example a woman with a concealed permit at Home Depot in Auburn Hills, MI pulled her concealed weapon to shoot at an alleged shoplifter getting into a vehicle, while the vehicle drove away in the parking lot.

She was arraigned on a misdemeanor count of reckless use, handling or discharge of a firearm. She could face jail time, fines and probation but there wouldn't be a firearms restriction unless it became a felony instead of a misdemeanor.

Any place I have lived, she would lose the concealed carry permit, regardless of felony or misdemeanor, if convicted.

If only she had another gun on her she could have shot the child in self-defense preventing this tragedy...

 CptJake wrote:
Any place I have lived, she would lose the concealed carry permit, regardless of felony or misdemeanor, if convicted.

That is correct, in almost all situations I believe they would lose a concealed carry permit. I was more referring that they still have guns, it wouldn't effect her ability to own guns. It was implied earlier that if someone broke a law, they lose their guns and that seemed efficient enough answer for them. It however doesn't work out clearly like that.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Any place I have lived, she would lose the concealed carry permit, regardless of felony or misdemeanor, if convicted.

That is correct, in almost all situations I believe they would lose a concealed carry permit. I was more referring that they still have guns, it wouldn't effect her ability to own guns. It was implied earlier that if someone broke a law, they lose their guns and that seemed efficient enough answer for them. It however doesn't work out clearly like that.

Seems pretty clear to me. Loses the permit if convicted. Loses the right to own if convicted of a felony. And just like ANY type of property, she will make an individual decision to comply with the law and get rid of her guns or not. Works the same way with things like cocaine or types of chemicals which require licensing to posses. If she fails to obey the law and is caught, there are further consequences.

 CptJake wrote:
And just like ANY type of property, she will make an individual decision to comply with the law and get rid of her guns or not. Works the same way with things like cocaine or types of chemicals which require licensing to posses. If she fails to obey the law and is caught, there are further consequences.

Don't you guys always say that only law abiding people will get rid of their guns, when the discussion is about a ban? Now the discussion is about a registry, suddenly criminals will turn over their own guns. Sounds like more having your cake and eating it.

 CptJake wrote:
Seems pretty clear to me. Loses the permit if convicted. Loses the right to own if convicted of a felony. And just like ANY type of property, she will make an individual decision to comply with the law and get rid of her guns or not. Works the same way with things like cocaine or types of chemicals which require licensing to posses. If she fails to obey the law and is caught, there are further consequences.

Apparently I was wrong there are states that a misdemeanor doesn't prevent someone from getting or keeping a concealed permit. I made a mistake at the initial state I was looking and was looking at Minnesota and saw they didn't have such law. Michigan does have lists on what misdemeanors effect it, one is "reckless discharge of a firearm". In New York (where the woman was shot by her child) apparently only "convicted of a serious offense" which is arbitrarily decided by the county issuing it. However I am not sure she has a concealed permit in the first place. Those only effect concealed weapons though and not owning or possession of a firearm... even after displaying they were not responsible owners, so basically no accountability for their actions unless they committed a felony and even then it depends on the felony.

 Smacks wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
And just like ANY type of property, she will make an individual decision to comply with the law and get rid of her guns or not. Works the same way with things like cocaine or types of chemicals which require licensing to posses. If she fails to obey the law and is caught, there are further consequences.

Don't you guys always say that only law abiding people will get rid of their guns, when the discussion is about a ban? Now the discussion is about a registry, suddenly criminals will turn over their own guns. Sounds like more having your cake and eating it.

You're not understanding.

Probably intentional on your part.

In the case mentioned, the lady is not a career nor habitual criminal. She tried to do what she thought was right, and fethed up pretty good. If convicted of a felony, she can make the choice to BE a habitual criminal and keep her guns, or she can return to her previous state of being a law abiding citizen (though a convict) and get rid of them. In most cases, if she is convicted of a felony she is going to have to do prison time. She won't have her guns there. Once released she will not be allowed to posses/own a gun. That is when she will decide.

Career/habitual criminals with guns (or any convicted felon with a gun who has not had rights restored) has made a conscious decision to break the law. Those folks are not likely to give up guns even if caught again. Once released from prison for getting caught again they'll have the chance to decide again. Some will try to be law abiding at that point and forgo acquiring a new gun, others will continue pervious behavior.

 Smacks wrote:

Also cars haven't changed a great deal mechanically either, there have been lots of tweaks and improvements, but they are fundamentally the same sort of thing.

Please tell us you are joking.

 CptJake wrote:
You're not understanding.

Probably intentional on your part.

No I understand perfectly well. When "criminals" are just statistics you tar them all with the same brush, but when we actually look at an individual, you start contradicting yourself. Most people who break the law aren't career criminals either.

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

Also cars haven't changed a great deal mechanically either, there have been lots of tweaks and improvements, but they are fundamentally the same sort of thing.

Please tell us you are joking.

Sorry, did you have something to add to the conversation besides patronising spam? I have already posted at length about how cars have changed (try reading the topic). However, "fundamentally" they are still four wheels, seats, steering wheel, driven by an internal combustion engine. If you are crossing the street and I run you over in a modern car or a 1930s sedan, you're not going to feel much difference.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
But also exactly the kind of thing you'd expect from an industry whose solution to getting more women to buy guns was to make them available in pink.

Judging by the sales it seems to be working for them

 Desubot wrote:
Oh its just a holster.. thats disappointing. i though it was some kinda anti rape device or something :/

No, but it does help transport a device that may be used in an anti rape capacity

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
But also exactly the kind of thing you'd expect from an industry whose solution to getting more women to buy guns was to make them available in pink.

Judging by the sales it seems to be working for them

Yeah, I know more then a handful of women who have purposefully bought pink firearms.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
But also exactly the kind of thing you'd expect from an industry whose solution to getting more women to buy guns was to make them available in pink.

Judging by the sales it seems to be working for them

 Desubot wrote:
Oh its just a holster.. thats disappointing. i though it was some kinda anti rape device or something :/

No, but it does help transport a device that may be used in an anti rape capacity

Not as Flashy... well enough of that tangent.

I didn't want to make a new thread for this since it dovetails so nicely into this one. I'm told but haven't been able to verify that this happened while trying to take an anti-Trump selfie.

John Wayne once said, "Life is hard. It's harder when you're stupid."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/washington-man-dead-shooting-selfies-police/

Cops: Couple's selfie session with gun takes deadly turn

CONCRETE, Wash. -- A 43-year-old man has died after authorities say he accidentally shot himself in the face while taking selfies.

The Skagit Valley Herald reports the man and his girlfriend were photographing themselves with the weapon on Sunday at a residence when he shot himself.

Skagit County Sheriff's Office Patrol Chief Chad Clark says the woman reported that she and the man had taken photos with the gun several times that day and that the man had loaded and unloaded bullets multiple times.

Clark says a bullet apparently remained in the gun the final time he fired.

The death is being investigated as accidental. The man's name has not been released.

According to San Francisco-based data service provider Priceonomics, there have been 49 recorded selfie-linked deaths since 2014, not including this incident. Four of those 49 deaths were caused by guns.

Well cant say they didnt deserve that..