Author Topic: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache  (Read 30884 times)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #50 on: July 13, 2016, 07:56:03 AM »
It's like having a fleet of 2015 Nissans that you're calling your car collection and holding onto as "investments."  It's the same logic behind some comic book collections. 

Depends on which Nissans. The Versa? Not so much. The GTR - yes if it is a low mile museum piece.

Wait until the next president bans the import or manufacture street-racing style vehicles like that - who needs a car with a spoiler?  Then their value will really skyrocket.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #51 on: July 13, 2016, 08:01:26 AM »
This forum is funny.  We have many people that will do anything almost to save a penny, but yet when they talk about spending several hundred dollars, or more on guns, that is some how mustachian.

It's not "mustachian", but there are few other hobbies where you can go spend several hundred dollars on equipment, enjoy the equipment (while paying for consumable) and then when you get tired of it, resell the equipment for 80-90% of what you paid for it in the first place.  Can't do that with golf, bicycling, travel, gardening, cooking, cars (usually), motorcycles (usually), boating (usually), etc etc etc.  Go buy yourself a $300 (golf) driver and try to resell it 2-3 years later, it's worth $100 at most.  I have a bike I spent ~$1200 on in 2004, I'd struggle to get $500 for it.  But go buy a $300 shotgun, at resell time it's probably worth $250+ in any kind of decent condition.   

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #52 on: July 13, 2016, 08:02:43 AM »
The GTR aka Skyline story in the USA is a trip. The car enthusiast websites tell the whole story but in short some guys tried to import them before Nissan was importing them only to have the Fed seize them and crush them. These are $100K cars... Ouch! I've always thought our car import regs are stupid here. Here in the "Land of the Free" we are very limited what we can import and drive. We are told it is about air pollution when there are plenty of sources of air pollution already here. We are told it is about safety when there are millions of vehicles (motorcycles too) that would kill you faster than some random French car involved in a fender bender. ;)

On the top of guns I want a 1911 again. Carried one in the military and always qual'd expert with it. Good gun. Expensive to shoot though.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #53 on: July 13, 2016, 08:15:07 AM »
It's like having a fleet of 2015 Nissans that you're calling your car collection and holding onto as "investments."  It's the same logic behind some comic book collections. 

Depends on which Nissans. The Versa? Not so much. The GTR - yes if it is a low mile museum piece.

Wait until the next president bans the import or manufacture street-racing style vehicles like that - who needs a car with a spoiler?  Then their value will really skyrocket.

You can have my assault car when you pry the clutch pedal from my cold dead toes.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #54 on: July 13, 2016, 08:17:34 AM »
The GTR aka Skyline story in the USA is a trip. The car enthusiast websites tell the whole story but in short some guys tried to import them before Nissan was importing them only to have the Fed seize them and crush them. These are $100K cars... Ouch!

Sorta.  They were fetching close to $100k in the US thanks to "can't get it here" syndrome.  In reality, they sell like old Corvettes in other parts of the world, maybe worth $15-20k or something, but not particularly valuable ($100k).  So these guys who bought them overseas never paid anything close to US market value. 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #55 on: July 13, 2016, 09:41:21 AM »
It's like having a fleet of 2015 Nissans that you're calling your car collection and holding onto as "investments."  It's the same logic behind some comic book collections. 

Depends on which Nissans. The Versa? Not so much. The GTR - yes if it is a low mile museum piece.

Wait until the next president bans the import or manufacture street-racing style vehicles like that - who needs a car with a spoiler?  Then their value will really skyrocket.

You can have my assault car when you pry the clutch pedal from my cold dead toes.

You car people are all the same. What about my right to drive safely? All I'm saying is, who NEEDS a fully automatic transmission? No one needs to change gears that fast. Or a military-grade race car with hood scoops and matte paint? Blacked out rims are scary, and something only criminals would need. I can't wait for Trump to be elected, and the import of all those scary-fast foreign cars will be stopped. Gather them all up and crush them, I say.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14311
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #56 on: July 13, 2016, 09:54:44 AM »
It's like having a fleet of 2015 Nissans that you're calling your car collection and holding onto as "investments."  It's the same logic behind some comic book collections. 

Depends on which Nissans. The Versa? Not so much. The GTR - yes if it is a low mile museum piece.

Wait until the next president bans the import or manufacture street-racing style vehicles like that - who needs a car with a spoiler?  Then their value will really skyrocket.

You can have my assault car when you pry the clutch pedal from my cold dead toes.

You car people are all the same. What about my right to drive safely? All I'm saying is, who NEEDS a fully automatic transmission? No one needs to change gears that fast. Or a military-grade race car with hood scoops and matte paint? Blacked out rims are scary, and something only criminals would need. I can't wait for Trump to be elected, and the import of all those scary-fast foreign cars will be stopped. Gather them all up and crush them, I say.

Haha, yeah.  Can you imagine that some assholes think you should need a license and minimal training to drive your assault car?  What crazy government overreach with no safety benefits to anyone . . . glad we don't live under that kind of ridiculous oppression.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #57 on: July 13, 2016, 10:15:23 AM »
It's like having a fleet of 2015 Nissans that you're calling your car collection and holding onto as "investments."  It's the same logic behind some comic book collections. 

Depends on which Nissans. The Versa? Not so much. The GTR - yes if it is a low mile museum piece.

Wait until the next president bans the import or manufacture street-racing style vehicles like that - who needs a car with a spoiler?  Then their value will really skyrocket.

You can have my assault car when you pry the clutch pedal from my cold dead toes.

You car people are all the same. What about my right to drive safely? All I'm saying is, who NEEDS a fully automatic transmission? No one needs to change gears that fast. Or a military-grade race car with hood scoops and matte paint? Blacked out rims are scary, and something only criminals would need. I can't wait for Trump to be elected, and the import of all those scary-fast foreign cars will be stopped. Gather them all up and crush them, I say.

Haha, yeah.  Can you imagine that some assholes think you should need a license and minimal training to drive your assault car?  What crazy government overreach with no safety benefits to anyone . . . glad we don't live under that kind of ridiculous oppression.

America is a safe place for ALL. Cars kill over 700 bicyclists a year. They are the number one cause of death in children. It's time that common sense regulation be put in place to stop the senseless deaths. Could you imagine Granny Smith driving around in a vehicle with 200+ horsepower? What if she just drives off into a parade crowd?

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1143
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #58 on: July 13, 2016, 11:03:21 AM »
It's like having a fleet of 2015 Nissans that you're calling your car collection and holding onto as "investments."  It's the same logic behind some comic book collections. 

Depends on which Nissans. The Versa? Not so much. The GTR - yes if it is a low mile museum piece.

Wait until the next president bans the import or manufacture street-racing style vehicles like that - who needs a car with a spoiler?  Then their value will really skyrocket.

You can have my assault car when you pry the clutch pedal from my cold dead toes.

You car people are all the same. What about my right to drive safely? All I'm saying is, who NEEDS a fully automatic transmission? No one needs to change gears that fast. Or a military-grade race car with hood scoops and matte paint? Blacked out rims are scary, and something only criminals would need. I can't wait for Trump to be elected, and the import of all those scary-fast foreign cars will be stopped. Gather them all up and crush them, I say.

Haha, yeah.  Can you imagine that some assholes think you should need a license and minimal training to drive your assault car?  What crazy government overreach with no safety benefits to anyone . . . glad we don't live under that kind of ridiculous oppression.

America is a safe place for ALL. Cars kill over 700 bicyclists a year. They are the number one cause of death in children. It's time that common sense regulation be put in place to stop the senseless deaths. Could you imagine Granny Smith driving around in a vehicle with 200+ horsepower? What if she just drives off into a parade crowd?

WON'T YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!

I have some common sense proposals that over 107% of Americans agreed on in recent polls given by car manufacturers themselves.

1.  Gasoline tank capacity limits.  No more of this 10+ gallon craziness.   No one needs more than 10 gallons on a single tank unless they're up to no good.

2.  Waiting periods of 1 month for any car purchase or rental.  Why would you need one so quickly unless you were going to do something horrible with it?

3.  No cars for people on the TSA watch list.  Due process is great and all, but come on, some of those folks are probably terrorists!  It's not like they can just put you on the list for no reason.

4.  No cars for anyone who's ever been seen by a psychiatrist.  Them folks be crazy.  Can't have crazy people driving.

5.  The ability to sue the car manufacturer if you or a loved one is killed by someone in a car.  The manufacturers MUST be held responsible for what their products are being used for.  It's a travesty that they get total immunity from their actions.

6.  Assault vehicle ban.  Anything that has 4 or more of the following features, and anything with any of these features that's imported and has less than 29 American made parts is now banned.  Features are: Spoiler, under lights, racing stripes, tinted windows, racing tires, manual transmission, turbocharger, removable gas cap.

7.  Common sense restrictions on mufflers.  These are used by people sneaking up on unsuspecting victims.  Mufflers will require a $200 tax stamp, and take approximately 8-12 months to process.  If anything is entered incorrectly on the myriad of forms, the process starts over.  If you own a muffler, no one else may use that vehicle without you present.  Forming a trust with a local attorney including all participants will allow multiple users to use the muffled vehicle. Fingerprint records are mandatory, and it must be signed off by the local treasurer of your municipality.  The treasurer has full veto authority on all muffler registrations.  At any point when out with your muffler you may be stopped and required to present all paperwork for your muffler.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2016, 11:04:57 AM by ooeei »

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #59 on: July 13, 2016, 11:31:17 AM »
It's like having a fleet of 2015 Nissans that you're calling your car collection and holding onto as "investments."  It's the same logic behind some comic book collections. 

Depends on which Nissans. The Versa? Not so much. The GTR - yes if it is a low mile museum piece.

Wait until the next president bans the import or manufacture street-racing style vehicles like that - who needs a car with a spoiler?  Then their value will really skyrocket.

You can have my assault car when you pry the clutch pedal from my cold dead toes.

You car people are all the same. What about my right to drive safely? All I'm saying is, who NEEDS a fully automatic transmission? No one needs to change gears that fast. Or a military-grade race car with hood scoops and matte paint? Blacked out rims are scary, and something only criminals would need. I can't wait for Trump to be elected, and the import of all those scary-fast foreign cars will be stopped. Gather them all up and crush them, I say.

Haha, yeah.  Can you imagine that some assholes think you should need a license and minimal training to drive your assault car?  What crazy government overreach with no safety benefits to anyone . . . glad we don't live under that kind of ridiculous oppression.

America is a safe place for ALL. Cars kill over 700 bicyclists a year. They are the number one cause of death in children. It's time that common sense regulation be put in place to stop the senseless deaths. Could you imagine Granny Smith driving around in a vehicle with 200+ horsepower? What if she just drives off into a parade crowd?

WON'T YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!

I have some common sense proposals that over 107% of Americans agreed on in recent polls given by car manufacturers themselves.

1.  Gasoline tank capacity limits.  No more of this 10+ gallon craziness.   No one needs more than 10 gallons on a single tank unless they're up to no good.

2.  Waiting periods of 1 month for any car purchase or rental.  Why would you need one so quickly unless you were going to do something horrible with it?

3.  No cars for people on the TSA watch list.  Due process is great and all, but come on, some of those folks are probably terrorists!  It's not like they can just put you on the list for no reason.

4.  No cars for anyone who's ever been seen by a psychiatrist.  Them folks be crazy.  Can't have crazy people driving.

5.  The ability to sue the car manufacturer if you or a loved one is killed by someone in a car.  The manufacturers MUST be held responsible for what their products are being used for.  It's a travesty that they get total immunity from their actions.

6.  Assault vehicle ban.  Anything that has 4 or more of the following features, and anything with any of these features that's imported and has less than 29 American made parts is now banned.  Features are: Spoiler, under lights, racing stripes, tinted windows, racing tires, manual transmission, turbocharger, removable gas cap.

7.  Common sense restrictions on mufflers.  These are used by people sneaking up on unsuspecting victims.  Mufflers will require a $200 tax stamp, and take approximately 8-12 months to process.  If anything is entered incorrectly on the myriad of forms, the process starts over.  If you own a muffler, no one else may use that vehicle without you present.  Forming a trust with a local attorney including all participants will allow multiple users to use the muffled vehicle. Fingerprint records are mandatory, and it must be signed off by the local treasurer of your municipality.  The treasurer has full veto authority on all muffler registrations.  At any point when out with your muffler you may be stopped and required to present all paperwork for your muffler.

While we're reforming the way we handle cars we also need to:

8. Stop required testing of a driver's skill and knowledge in order to get an initial license to drive.

9. Stop requiring liability insurance to own a car.

10. Stop required registering of vehicles by owners with the government in an electronically searchable database with required annual renewals.

11. Stop arresting people if they are observed operating a car while drinking alcohol.

12. Start boycotting car companies that build cars which mechanically or electronically prevent people from driving them without the owner's permission.


Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #60 on: July 13, 2016, 11:41:04 AM »
I know this is sort of in jest, but seeing the views of some of you in other threads I know what you're doing.  You guys need to learn the difference between the right to own and operate a car, and the right to own and operate a car on public roads.  For instance, assuming sufficient space, I am welcome to get piss drunk on my own land and start firing guns, or driving my car around like a mad man (not on my .2 acre suburban lot, but sure on the 100 acres of family hunting ground).  I just can't do those things in public.  I also don't need a license to buy, own, and operate a car on my own land.  I do need a license to drive a car on public roads, and in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces.  I shouldn't need a license to own or carry a gun on my own land (and in most places outside stupid Illinois, I don't). 

So while some of you are being cute, you're showing your ignorance of the difference between owning/possessing/using a gun on public versus private property.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14311
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #61 on: July 13, 2016, 11:49:06 AM »
I know this is sort of in jest, but seeing the views of some of you in other threads I know what you're doing.  You guys need to learn the difference between the right to own and operate a car, and the right to own and operate a car on public roads.  For instance, assuming sufficient space, I am welcome to get piss drunk on my own land and start firing guns, or driving my car around like a mad man (not on my .2 acre suburban lot, but sure on the 100 acres of family hunting ground).  I just can't do those things in public.  I also don't need a license to buy, own, and operate a car on my own land.  I do need a license to drive a car on public roads, and in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces.  I shouldn't need a license to own or carry a gun on my own land (and in most places outside stupid Illinois, I don't). 

So while some of you are being cute, you're showing your ignorance of the difference between owning/possessing/using a gun on public versus private property.

Careful with that ignorance you're showing.  At my last count, (EDIT - more than I thought) thirty one of the US states allow open carry of hand guns in public areas without a license.  If you want to openly carry a loaded long gun, it's legal in 41 states.

It is idiotic to compare owning a car with owning a gun (for a variety of reasons), but I didn't start the comparison . . .
« Last Edit: July 13, 2016, 11:54:40 AM by GuitarStv »

MrMoogle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1118
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #62 on: July 13, 2016, 11:52:03 AM »
I know this is sort of in jest, but seeing the views of some of you in other threads I know what you're doing.  You guys need to learn the difference between the right to own and operate a car, and the right to own and operate a car on public roads.  For instance, assuming sufficient space, I am welcome to get piss drunk on my own land and start firing guns, or driving my car around like a mad man (not on my .2 acre suburban lot, but sure on the 100 acres of family hunting ground).  I just can't do those things in public.  I also don't need a license to buy, own, and operate a car on my own land.  I do need a license to drive a car on public roads, and in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces.  I shouldn't need a license to own or carry a gun on my own land (and in most places outside stupid Illinois, I don't). 

So while some of you are being cute, you're showing your ignorance of the difference between owning/possessing/using a gun on public versus private property.

Careful with that ignorance you're showing.  At my last count, twenty five of the US states allow open carry of hand guns in public areas without a license.

It is idiotic to compare owning a car with owning a gun (for a variety of reasons), but I didn't start the comparison . . .
I always thought this was weird.  Many states don't require a license for open carry, but almost all require a license for conceal and carry.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #63 on: July 13, 2016, 11:54:08 AM »
I know this is sort of in jest, but seeing the views of some of you in other threads I know what you're doing.  You guys need to learn the difference between the right to own and operate a car, and the right to own and operate a car on public roads.  For instance, assuming sufficient space, I am welcome to get piss drunk on my own land and start firing guns, or driving my car around like a mad man (not on my .2 acre suburban lot, but sure on the 100 acres of family hunting ground).  I just can't do those things in public.  I also don't need a license to buy, own, and operate a car on my own land.  I do need a license to drive a car on public roads, and in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces.  I shouldn't need a license to own or carry a gun on my own land (and in most places outside stupid Illinois, I don't). 

So while some of you are being cute, you're showing your ignorance of the difference between owning/possessing/using a gun on public versus private property.

Careful with that ignorance you're showing.  At my last count, twenty five of the US states allow open carry of hand guns in public areas without a license.

It is idiotic to compare owning a car with owning a gun (for a variety of reasons), but I didn't start the comparison . . .

What ignorance?  "in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces."  Am I wrong? 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14311
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #64 on: July 13, 2016, 11:56:02 AM »
I know this is sort of in jest, but seeing the views of some of you in other threads I know what you're doing.  You guys need to learn the difference between the right to own and operate a car, and the right to own and operate a car on public roads.  For instance, assuming sufficient space, I am welcome to get piss drunk on my own land and start firing guns, or driving my car around like a mad man (not on my .2 acre suburban lot, but sure on the 100 acres of family hunting ground).  I just can't do those things in public.  I also don't need a license to buy, own, and operate a car on my own land.  I do need a license to drive a car on public roads, and in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces.  I shouldn't need a license to own or carry a gun on my own land (and in most places outside stupid Illinois, I don't). 

So while some of you are being cute, you're showing your ignorance of the difference between owning/possessing/using a gun on public versus private property.

Careful with that ignorance you're showing.  At my last count, twenty five of the US states allow open carry of hand guns in public areas without a license.

It is idiotic to compare owning a car with owning a gun (for a variety of reasons), but I didn't start the comparison . . .

What ignorance?  "in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces."  Am I wrong?

Yes, you are.  You're allowed to carry a loaded long gun with you in 41/50 states.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #65 on: July 13, 2016, 11:58:24 AM »
I know this is sort of in jest, but seeing the views of some of you in other threads I know what you're doing.  You guys need to learn the difference between the right to own and operate a car, and the right to own and operate a car on public roads.  For instance, assuming sufficient space, I am welcome to get piss drunk on my own land and start firing guns, or driving my car around like a mad man (not on my .2 acre suburban lot, but sure on the 100 acres of family hunting ground).  I just can't do those things in public.  I also don't need a license to buy, own, and operate a car on my own land.  I do need a license to drive a car on public roads, and in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces.  I shouldn't need a license to own or carry a gun on my own land (and in most places outside stupid Illinois, I don't). 

So while some of you are being cute, you're showing your ignorance of the difference between owning/possessing/using a gun on public versus private property.

Careful with that ignorance you're showing.  At my last count, twenty five of the US states allow open carry of hand guns in public areas without a license.

It is idiotic to compare owning a car with owning a gun (for a variety of reasons), but I didn't start the comparison . . .

What ignorance?  "in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces."  Am I wrong?

Yes, you are.  You're allowed to carry a loaded long gun with you in 41/50 states.

Okay captain semantics. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14311
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #66 on: July 13, 2016, 12:02:34 PM »
I know this is sort of in jest, but seeing the views of some of you in other threads I know what you're doing.  You guys need to learn the difference between the right to own and operate a car, and the right to own and operate a car on public roads.  For instance, assuming sufficient space, I am welcome to get piss drunk on my own land and start firing guns, or driving my car around like a mad man (not on my .2 acre suburban lot, but sure on the 100 acres of family hunting ground).  I just can't do those things in public.  I also don't need a license to buy, own, and operate a car on my own land.  I do need a license to drive a car on public roads, and in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces.  I shouldn't need a license to own or carry a gun on my own land (and in most places outside stupid Illinois, I don't). 

So while some of you are being cute, you're showing your ignorance of the difference between owning/possessing/using a gun on public versus private property.

Careful with that ignorance you're showing.  At my last count, twenty five of the US states allow open carry of hand guns in public areas without a license.

It is idiotic to compare owning a car with owning a gun (for a variety of reasons), but I didn't start the comparison . . .

What ignorance?  "in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces."  Am I wrong?

Yes, you are.  You're allowed to carry a loaded long gun with you in 41/50 states.

Okay captain semantics.

Glad to help you clear that up, since ignorance about guns seems to bother you.

Untrained people are able to carry unlicensed guns in public in most of the US.  Letting the untrained people drive around without a license would meet with a lot of concern.  The comparison is quite apt.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #67 on: July 13, 2016, 12:07:08 PM »
I know this is sort of in jest, but seeing the views of some of you in other threads I know what you're doing.  You guys need to learn the difference between the right to own and operate a car, and the right to own and operate a car on public roads.  For instance, assuming sufficient space, I am welcome to get piss drunk on my own land and start firing guns, or driving my car around like a mad man (not on my .2 acre suburban lot, but sure on the 100 acres of family hunting ground).  I just can't do those things in public.  I also don't need a license to buy, own, and operate a car on my own land.  I do need a license to drive a car on public roads, and in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces.  I shouldn't need a license to own or carry a gun on my own land (and in most places outside stupid Illinois, I don't). 

So while some of you are being cute, you're showing your ignorance of the difference between owning/possessing/using a gun on public versus private property.

Careful with that ignorance you're showing.  At my last count, twenty five of the US states allow open carry of hand guns in public areas without a license.

It is idiotic to compare owning a car with owning a gun (for a variety of reasons), but I didn't start the comparison . . .

What ignorance?  "in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces."  Am I wrong?

Yes, you are.  You're allowed to carry a loaded long gun with you in 41/50 states.

Since we're arguing data points:  What percentage of the population of the USA does that cover?  If Wyoming and ND and SD all have open carry, it's still less than the population of D.C., for instance.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #68 on: July 13, 2016, 12:15:10 PM »
I know this is sort of in jest, but seeing the views of some of you in other threads I know what you're doing.  You guys need to learn the difference between the right to own and operate a car, and the right to own and operate a car on public roads.  For instance, assuming sufficient space, I am welcome to get piss drunk on my own land and start firing guns, or driving my car around like a mad man (not on my .2 acre suburban lot, but sure on the 100 acres of family hunting ground).  I just can't do those things in public.  I also don't need a license to buy, own, and operate a car on my own land.  I do need a license to drive a car on public roads, and in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces.  I shouldn't need a license to own or carry a gun on my own land (and in most places outside stupid Illinois, I don't). 

So while some of you are being cute, you're showing your ignorance of the difference between owning/possessing/using a gun on public versus private property.

Careful with that ignorance you're showing.  At my last count, twenty five of the US states allow open carry of hand guns in public areas without a license.

It is idiotic to compare owning a car with owning a gun (for a variety of reasons), but I didn't start the comparison . . .

What ignorance?  "in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces."  Am I wrong?

Yes, you are.  You're allowed to carry a loaded long gun with you in 41/50 states.

Since we're arguing data points:  What percentage of the population of the USA does that cover?  If Wyoming and ND and SD all have open carry, it's still less than the population of D.C., for instance.

Precisely.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14311
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #69 on: July 13, 2016, 12:18:29 PM »
I know this is sort of in jest, but seeing the views of some of you in other threads I know what you're doing.  You guys need to learn the difference between the right to own and operate a car, and the right to own and operate a car on public roads.  For instance, assuming sufficient space, I am welcome to get piss drunk on my own land and start firing guns, or driving my car around like a mad man (not on my .2 acre suburban lot, but sure on the 100 acres of family hunting ground).  I just can't do those things in public.  I also don't need a license to buy, own, and operate a car on my own land.  I do need a license to drive a car on public roads, and in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces.  I shouldn't need a license to own or carry a gun on my own land (and in most places outside stupid Illinois, I don't). 

So while some of you are being cute, you're showing your ignorance of the difference between owning/possessing/using a gun on public versus private property.

Careful with that ignorance you're showing.  At my last count, twenty five of the US states allow open carry of hand guns in public areas without a license.

It is idiotic to compare owning a car with owning a gun (for a variety of reasons), but I didn't start the comparison . . .

What ignorance?  "in most states, I need to comply by lots of different laws, including licensing, to carry a gun in public spaces."  Am I wrong?

Yes, you are.  You're allowed to carry a loaded long gun with you in 41/50 states.

Since we're arguing data points:  What percentage of the population of the USA does that cover?  If Wyoming and ND and SD all have open carry, it's still less than the population of D.C., for instance.

I have no idea.

But is your argument that it should be OK to drive without a license is most states, as long as the majority of people require licenses to operate a motor vehicle?  If so, can you explain why?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #70 on: July 13, 2016, 12:29:02 PM »
I have no idea.

But is your argument that it should be OK to drive without a license is most states, as long as the majority of people require licenses to operate a motor vehicle?  If so, can you explain why?

No. It would be that if you're allowed to drive without a license across the majority of country, and it does not lead to a significant increase in the crash/death rates, why would only some cities require licenses? And why would those cities or states not recognize licenses from other, similarly concerned, states or cities?  Perhaps if a national standard could be set that allows all drivers, properly licensed, to drive anywhere within the bounds of the United States, legally. Then it would reduce crashes and injuries everywhere, and allow citizens free movement with minimal restriction.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14311
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #71 on: July 13, 2016, 12:35:42 PM »
Perhaps if a national standard could be set that allows all drivers, properly licensed, to drive anywhere within the bounds of the United States, legally. Then it would reduce crashes and injuries everywhere, and allow citizens free movement with minimal restriction.

Sounds like a good idea.

Suggesting the same for firearms will get you crucified as a rabid gun control supporter though.  Ha ha, common sense country wide licensing and databases?  You just earned an NRA blacklist.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5690
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #72 on: July 13, 2016, 12:40:17 PM »
Do we really need three of these threads?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #73 on: July 13, 2016, 12:40:35 PM »
Perhaps if a national standard could be set that allows all drivers, properly licensed, to drive anywhere within the bounds of the United States, legally. Then it would reduce crashes and injuries everywhere, and allow citizens free movement with minimal restriction.

Sounds like a good idea.

Suggesting the same for firearms will get you crucified as a rabid gun control supporter though.  Ha ha, common sense country wide licensing and databases?  You just earned an NRA blacklist.

Actually, most gun-right supporters are clamoring for federal-level ccw regulations. States like Minnesota and California and New York disagree.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #74 on: July 13, 2016, 12:43:55 PM »
Perhaps if a national standard could be set that allows all drivers, properly licensed, to drive anywhere within the bounds of the United States, legally. Then it would reduce crashes and injuries everywhere, and allow citizens free movement with minimal restriction.

Sounds like a good idea.

Suggesting the same for firearms will get you crucified as a rabid gun control supporter though.  Ha ha, common sense country wide licensing and databases?  You just earned an NRA blacklist.

Eh?  Lots of states have reciprocity for CCW permits, and the NRA is all for it.  The pushback is about registering guns, and/or requiring a license to OWN a gun*, not about a national standard for a CCW. 

*IOW, if you want to own a gun and stay off a "list" you sacrifice the ability to lawfully carry said gun concealed in public.  I don't have the option in IL, I must have a license to own a gun legally in the state at all.  Which honestly I would not be opposed to IF it allowed me to sidestep other BS like mandatory "cooling off" periods and such.  But no, I have to have a background check to get a license to buy a gun, then another background check to buy a gun, then another background check for every additional gun I buy.  Seems like a waste of resources to me.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #75 on: July 13, 2016, 12:44:44 PM »
Do we really need three of these threads?

I don't know. There were three different ops who started them, the discussion has largely been civil, and information on both sides has been backed up by research and stastistics.  I would say we have exactly the number of threads the market can bear.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #76 on: July 13, 2016, 12:48:37 PM »
Now Chris, what is wrong with waiting periods? Just because one owns six guns does not mean that one is not just waiting for the 7th one before they commit a crime of passion.  I mean, that's just 'common sense.'

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14311
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #77 on: July 13, 2016, 12:59:12 PM »
*IOW, if you want to own a gun and stay off a "list" you sacrifice the ability to lawfully carry said gun concealed in public.  I don't have the option in IL, I must have a license to own a gun legally in the state at all.  Which honestly I would not be opposed to IF it allowed me to sidestep other BS like mandatory "cooling off" periods and such.  But no, I have to have a background check to get a license to buy a gun, then another background check to buy a gun, then another background check for every additional gun I buy.  Seems like a waste of resources to me.

That does sound like a waste of resources.  I don't see why a licensed gun owner would need a cooling off period, or a background check when buying another gun.  Time taken getting the license should stand in as the cooling off period, and the license should be revoked if something comes up that would cause a background check failure.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #78 on: July 13, 2016, 01:13:05 PM »
*IOW, if you want to own a gun and stay off a "list" you sacrifice the ability to lawfully carry said gun concealed in public.  I don't have the option in IL, I must have a license to own a gun legally in the state at all.  Which honestly I would not be opposed to IF it allowed me to sidestep other BS like mandatory "cooling off" periods and such.  But no, I have to have a background check to get a license to buy a gun, then another background check to buy a gun, then another background check for every additional gun I buy.  Seems like a waste of resources to me.

That does sound like a waste of resources.  I don't see why a licensed gun owner would need a cooling off period, or a background check when buying another gun.  Time taken getting the license should stand in as the cooling off period, and the license should be revoked if something comes up that would cause a background check failure.

Your liberal card has been revoked.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #79 on: July 13, 2016, 01:14:28 PM »
*IOW, if you want to own a gun and stay off a "list" you sacrifice the ability to lawfully carry said gun concealed in public.  I don't have the option in IL, I must have a license to own a gun legally in the state at all.  Which honestly I would not be opposed to IF it allowed me to sidestep other BS like mandatory "cooling off" periods and such.  But no, I have to have a background check to get a license to buy a gun, then another background check to buy a gun, then another background check for every additional gun I buy.  Seems like a waste of resources to me.

That does sound like a waste of resources.  I don't see why a licensed gun owner would need a cooling off period, or a background check when buying another gun.  Time taken getting the license should stand in as the cooling off period, and the license should be revoked if something comes up that would cause a background check failure.

I believe (not 100% sure) that there are also separate background checks for FOID versus CCW (not sure you can apply concurrently).  Given the requirement to qualify with a weapon for CCW, it's probably apply for FOID (background check, wait), buy handgun, wait 7 days, take CCW class, qualify with weapon, another background check and wait for license.  Probably looking at 2 months minimum. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14311
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #80 on: July 13, 2016, 01:44:59 PM »
*IOW, if you want to own a gun and stay off a "list" you sacrifice the ability to lawfully carry said gun concealed in public.  I don't have the option in IL, I must have a license to own a gun legally in the state at all.  Which honestly I would not be opposed to IF it allowed me to sidestep other BS like mandatory "cooling off" periods and such.  But no, I have to have a background check to get a license to buy a gun, then another background check to buy a gun, then another background check for every additional gun I buy.  Seems like a waste of resources to me.

That does sound like a waste of resources.  I don't see why a licensed gun owner would need a cooling off period, or a background check when buying another gun.  Time taken getting the license should stand in as the cooling off period, and the license should be revoked if something comes up that would cause a background check failure.

I believe (not 100% sure) that there are also separate background checks for FOID versus CCW (not sure you can apply concurrently).  Given the requirement to qualify with a weapon for CCW, it's probably apply for FOID (background check, wait), buy handgun, wait 7 days, take CCW class, qualify with weapon, another background check and wait for license.  Probably looking at 2 months minimum. 

Again, that does seem silly and like a big waste of time.

Probably as silly as it seems to you that anyone can buy a gun from craigslist without a background check or safety training, load it, and walk around in public legally in most states.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #81 on: July 13, 2016, 01:49:54 PM »
Probably as silly as it seems to you that anyone can buy a gun from craigslist without a background check or safety training, load it, and walk around in public legally in most states.

Since that only applies to long guns, which account for 2% of firearm deaths in the US, per capita, per year... why would that seem silly? Criminals and the mentally ill are banned from possessing them, and legal gun owners are almost never involved in shootings in public. Are open carriers endangering large amounts of people? Statistics would say no...

Fishindude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #82 on: July 13, 2016, 01:51:48 PM »
Yep, Illinois has some pretty anti gun regs. regarding handguns and the FOID card for ammo purchase.
95% of the state is relatively rural, good people who cause no problems, yet the crummy politicians and crime in Chicago dictate politics for the whole state.
I can carry my handgun in IN, MO, KY & WI (all states that touch IL), but it's a crime to come in to IL with it.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14311
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #83 on: July 13, 2016, 01:59:41 PM »
Probably as silly as it seems to you that anyone can buy a gun from craigslist without a background check or safety training, load it, and walk around in public legally in most states.

Since that only applies to long guns, which account for 2% of firearm deaths in the US, per capita, per year... why would that seem silly? Criminals and the mentally ill are banned from possessing them, and legal gun owners are almost never involved in shootings in public. Are open carriers endangering large amounts of people? Statistics would say no...

You are forgetting that more than half of the states allow open carry of hand guns.  My understanding is that 2/3rds of homicides are due to hand guns.

Criminals and the mentally ill can easily purchase firearms.  There's no background check from a private seller, the private seller doesn't even need to see ID of the person he's selling to.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #84 on: July 13, 2016, 02:06:38 PM »
You are forgetting that more than half of the states allow open carry of hand guns.  My understanding is that 2/3rds of homicides are due to hand guns.

Criminals and the mentally ill can easily purchase firearms.  There's no background check from a private seller, the private seller doesn't even need to see ID of the person he's selling to.

All the above points may be true... but outlawing open carry would not solve any of them? So is there an issue with this?

And since it's already illegal for criminals and the mentally ill to possess firearms, what additional laws would have any effect of reducing their activities, with are already highly illegal?

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1143
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #85 on: July 13, 2016, 02:09:51 PM »
*IOW, if you want to own a gun and stay off a "list" you sacrifice the ability to lawfully carry said gun concealed in public.  I don't have the option in IL, I must have a license to own a gun legally in the state at all.  Which honestly I would not be opposed to IF it allowed me to sidestep other BS like mandatory "cooling off" periods and such.  But no, I have to have a background check to get a license to buy a gun, then another background check to buy a gun, then another background check for every additional gun I buy.  Seems like a waste of resources to me.

That does sound like a waste of resources.  I don't see why a licensed gun owner would need a cooling off period, or a background check when buying another gun.  Time taken getting the license should stand in as the cooling off period, and the license should be revoked if something comes up that would cause a background check failure.

I believe (not 100% sure) that there are also separate background checks for FOID versus CCW (not sure you can apply concurrently).  Given the requirement to qualify with a weapon for CCW, it's probably apply for FOID (background check, wait), buy handgun, wait 7 days, take CCW class, qualify with weapon, another background check and wait for license.  Probably looking at 2 months minimum. 

Again, that does seem silly and like a big waste of time.

Probably as silly as it seems to you that anyone can buy a gun from craigslist without a background check or safety training, load it, and walk around in public legally in most states.

Actually craigslist doesn't allow gun postings on its site, I've tried before. 

The loaded open carry with no license is a good point, that seems excessive.  With that being said, how big of a problem are open carriers?  Generally the bad guys aren't trying to broadcast their weapons. 

The background check in private sales has been brought up many times.  Implementation is the issue there.  If you allow citizens to run background checks on each other, is abuse of the system going to outweigh the benefits from it?  If it's voluntary, you've got the same problem you have now.  If it's not voluntary, how do you enforce it?  It always comes back to registration, which gun owners are understandably wary of considering how many states treat gun owners and guns. 

It's like the last place I worked, if something in the manufacturing area went wrong, they had to do SOMETHING.  It didn't matter if everyone knew it wouldn't work or there was no evidence that it would, they had to change or do something and it almost always made the job more of a pain and didn't prevent the next screw up.  I can't recall a single time out of over 100 of these incidents where any training documentation or requirements were removed, only added. 

The logical conclusion of the "we have to do something" mentality with regard to guns is confiscation, as nothing other than 0 guns being in the country will completely stop gun violence incidents.  There are plenty of people and politicians out there who think any more than 0 people being killed by guns is too many, and it's simply not realistic or achievable, so the regulations will never stop.  The same could be said about cars, but luckily for car owners, pretty much everyone uses them so they don't want to make "common sense" restrictions in the name of saving lives.  We've decided collectively that driving 70mph on highways is worth some extra lost lives compared to driving 40mph.  With guns, a huge portion of the population doesn't have them or ever care to, so they have no interest in keeping the regulations reasonable.


dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #86 on: July 13, 2016, 02:56:40 PM »
It always comes back to registration, which gun owners are understandably wary of considering how many states treat gun owners and guns. 

So how MANY states do actually treat gun owners and guns in ways that make gun owners paranoid? I know California is always mentioned as the poster child for the stereotypical gun hating state, but most states seem to lean in the opposite direction.

How would a state need to treat gun owners to convince them that an electronic database of guns ownership is not the first step towards government seizure of firearms?

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1143
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #87 on: July 13, 2016, 03:22:10 PM »
It always comes back to registration, which gun owners are understandably wary of considering how many states treat gun owners and guns. 

So how MANY states do actually treat gun owners and guns in ways that make gun owners paranoid? I know California is always mentioned as the poster child for the stereotypical gun hating state, but most states seem to lean in the opposite direction.

How would a state need to treat gun owners to convince them that an electronic database of guns ownership is not the first step towards government seizure of firearms?

Well Washington DC is maybe the best example, and also happens to be where the politicians who make the laws all are (and is the murder capital of the country).  California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York along with DC all have magazine size restrictions, and most of them ban "assault weapons" based on varying definitions of what that is.  Some require excessive background checks, some don't issue concealed carry licenses even though they legally could. 

For the second part of your question, it would take a lot more than we see right now.  Currently we have members of congress throwing temper tantrums to get congress to vote the way they want.  Every time a shooting happens, there is a national uproar from a lot of people about how we need to do this, that, and the other.  We're compared with Australia, a country with less than 1/10th of our population and the same land mass where the data doesn't totally support their measures.  Places like France where two separate mass shootings that together tripled the number in our most recent "worst ever" one occurred despite their very strict gun laws are ignored. 

Personally, I'd have to be confident that there won't be an emotional outburst after a shooting happens.  I'd also need to be confident that the people designing those laws put some sort of value on gun ownership that isn't an afterthought.  Well researched ways that will solve our problems (with provisions to remove them if they don't work) while preserving our rights are fine.  That's not what we ever get currently.  There's a good reason the assault weapons ban in the 90's was allowed to expire, it didn't work.  Yet still today there's a big push for repeating it because it emotionally feels like doing something productive.  There's just an overwhelming urge to do something when you see a room full of bodies.  It's understandable, because humans aren't wired to see the problems of 300 million people. 

There has to be an acceptable number of gun deaths per year.  The same as with car wrecks, child abuse, etc.  We could all live in a crazy safe world if no one was allowed guns, and everyone constantly had cameras on them everywhere they went and could only drive 10mph.  If you could achieve a 0% homicide/abuse rate in exchange for everyone constantly being monitored and driving 10mph, would you?  Probably not.  Yet there are many who hold that standard for gun violence, and will keep adding laws until the number hits 0, which it never will. 

What happens if we allow registration, and another mass shooting happens (which it will)?  I tell you what won't happen, the people who are pushing for registration now won't shrug their shoulders and say "Well, we got registration which helped, so this is probably far enough.  Sometimes bad things just happen."

Magilla

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #88 on: July 13, 2016, 03:49:55 PM »
How would a state need to treat gun owners to convince them that an electronic database of guns ownership is not the first step towards government seizure of firearms?

Isn't that a bit like asking what can the state do to trick you into believing up is down and down is up?  There is no other reason for an electronic database than for the express purpose of confiscation at some point.  It doesn't help in crime solving or any other reason.  The main reason is that if "condition X" is reached the state can see who fails that and go confiscate.  Now "condition X" could be something reasonable but then again it could not.  State is fickle like that, especially if you give it all the power.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #89 on: July 13, 2016, 04:20:09 PM »
It always comes back to registration, which gun owners are understandably wary of considering how many states treat gun owners and guns. 

So how MANY states do actually treat gun owners and guns in ways that make gun owners paranoid? I know California is always mentioned as the poster child for the stereotypical gun hating state, but most states seem to lean in the opposite direction.

How would a state need to treat gun owners to convince them that an electronic database of guns ownership is not the first step towards government seizure of firearms?

Well Washington DC is maybe the best example, and also happens to be where the politicians who make the laws all are (and is the murder capital of the country).  California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York along with DC all have magazine size restrictions, and most of them ban "assault weapons" based on varying definitions of what that is.  Some require excessive background checks, some don't issue concealed carry licenses even though they legally could. 

For the second part of your question, it would take a lot more than we see right now.  Currently we have members of congress throwing temper tantrums to get congress to vote the way they want.  Every time a shooting happens, there is a national uproar from a lot of people about how we need to do this, that, and the other.  We're compared with Australia, a country with less than 1/10th of our population and the same land mass where the data doesn't totally support their measures.  Places like France where two separate mass shootings that together tripled the number in our most recent "worst ever" one occurred despite their very strict gun laws are ignored. 

Personally, I'd have to be confident that there won't be an emotional outburst after a shooting happens.  I'd also need to be confident that the people designing those laws put some sort of value on gun ownership that isn't an afterthought.  Well researched ways that will solve our problems (with provisions to remove them if they don't work) while preserving our rights are fine.  That's not what we ever get currently.  There's a good reason the assault weapons ban in the 90's was allowed to expire, it didn't work.  Yet still today there's a big push for repeating it because it emotionally feels like doing something productive.  There's just an overwhelming urge to do something when you see a room full of bodies.  It's understandable, because humans aren't wired to see the problems of 300 million people. 

There has to be an acceptable number of gun deaths per year.  The same as with car wrecks, child abuse, etc.  We could all live in a crazy safe world if no one was allowed guns, and everyone constantly had cameras on them everywhere they went and could only drive 10mph.  If you could achieve a 0% homicide/abuse rate in exchange for everyone constantly being monitored and driving 10mph, would you?  Probably not.  Yet there are many who hold that standard for gun violence, and will keep adding laws until the number hits 0, which it never will. 

What happens if we allow registration, and another mass shooting happens (which it will)?  I tell you what won't happen, the people who are pushing for registration now won't shrug their shoulders and say "Well, we got registration which helped, so this is probably far enough.  Sometimes bad things just happen."

What you seem to be wanting is not a change in state policies so much as a change in public perception in regards to gun violence.

I think that some of the current emotions we are seeing is a backlash against a perceived helplessness or unwillingness of government and government officials to take any actions whatsoever in the wake of gun violence. I know that gun rights supporters deride the 'doing something for the sake of doing something' approach. However, 'doing nothing because there is nothing we can do' approach doesn't seem to be convincing anyone on the other side of the debate.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14311
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #90 on: July 13, 2016, 04:32:14 PM »
It doesn't help in crime solving or any other reason.

[[citation needed]]

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #91 on: July 13, 2016, 04:39:15 PM »
How would a state need to treat gun owners to convince them that an electronic database of guns ownership is not the first step towards government seizure of firearms?

Isn't that a bit like asking what can the state do to trick you into believing up is down and down is up?  There is no other reason for an electronic database than for the express purpose of confiscation at some point.  It doesn't help in crime solving or any other reason.  The main reason is that if "condition X" is reached the state can see who fails that and go confiscate.  Now "condition X" could be something reasonable but then again it could not.  State is fickle like that, especially if you give it all the power.

The current system as I understand it is that individual stores maintain their own files of paper records with the actual quality of record maintenance being hit or miss. When stores go out of business or burn down or flooded, the records can easily get lost, damaged or destroyed. Do you really think that making that storing that information in a database such that the records can be better preserved and are easily accessible and searchable would have no benefit to law enforcement over the current setup? If that is the case, a lot of companies have been wasting a lot of money when they converted from paper files to databases and the entire field of information technology is suspect.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #92 on: July 13, 2016, 04:54:20 PM »
Magilla's post hit the nail on the head regarding the issue of gun rights supporters fears that liberals and/or government want to take their guns away from them and would only want an electronic database to make that possible. As far as I know, this sort of thing would be totally unprecedented here in the US. It would also be unconstitutional. Aside from a few extremists, I think the vast majority of liberals would be aghast at the idea of government agents going door to door to confiscate guns. That is just totally unamerican. Yet the paranoia persists. I'm truly curious what, if anything, can be done by liberals to bring gun rights folks to the negotiating table trusting that the liberals don't want to confiscate their guns. Is something like a database such a nonnegotiable issue that can only be resolved one way or the other by whose side controls the politicians?

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #93 on: July 13, 2016, 05:02:51 PM »
Well to start, you could have states stop making it illegal to posses firearms that were formerly legal (looking at you, CA). 

But frankly, no, you'll never convince me that the government needs to know what guns I own for any reason. Frankly, "my friend" is considering the purchase of an AR-15 soon, and that friend would do it in cash at a gun show because the friend simply doesn't believe that they won't be made illegal soon, and the friend wants a minimal record of ownership to avoid trouble.

clarkevii

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Dallas TX
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #94 on: July 13, 2016, 07:44:09 PM »
It's strange but I use the 2nd Ammendment in a way to actually make me money.

I am a very serious Craigslister who owns no guns... BUT in my home state of Texas "Castle Doctrine" makes it very easy to do transactions in your home.  I have made some nice side cash doing this and I might do an an in-depth post on how to game Craigslist later.

Heywood57

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #95 on: July 13, 2016, 09:45:11 PM »
Whatever the politicians ban, the violent people use something else.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036154/A-knife-attack-4-minutes-130-000-year--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html

The problem has more to do with violent people than the weapon.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14311
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #96 on: July 14, 2016, 06:10:25 AM »
Whatever the politicians ban, the violent people use something else.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036154/A-knife-attack-4-minutes-130-000-year--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html

The problem has more to do with violent people than the weapon.

This is half true.

The root cause of the excessive violence certainly should be addressed.  This is something that gun rights advocates are constantly bringing up, so I have to assume that they are fully on board paying more taxes for additional mental health resources for others, more studies regarding violence, and programs to help prevent it.

That said, you're never going to completely eliminate violent people.  The problem with a gun is that it makes it far easier for a violent person to hurt and kill a bunch folks at one time.  If knives were as deadly as guns, the military would save a lot of money on bullets and just tell everyone to fix bayonets.  It's easier to get away from a guy with a knife.  It's easier to fight back.  It's harder to kill dozens of people.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1143
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #97 on: July 14, 2016, 06:28:49 AM »
It always comes back to registration, which gun owners are understandably wary of considering how many states treat gun owners and guns. 

So how MANY states do actually treat gun owners and guns in ways that make gun owners paranoid? I know California is always mentioned as the poster child for the stereotypical gun hating state, but most states seem to lean in the opposite direction.

How would a state need to treat gun owners to convince them that an electronic database of guns ownership is not the first step towards government seizure of firearms?

Well Washington DC is maybe the best example, and also happens to be where the politicians who make the laws all are (and is the murder capital of the country).  California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York along with DC all have magazine size restrictions, and most of them ban "assault weapons" based on varying definitions of what that is.  Some require excessive background checks, some don't issue concealed carry licenses even though they legally could. 

For the second part of your question, it would take a lot more than we see right now.  Currently we have members of congress throwing temper tantrums to get congress to vote the way they want.  Every time a shooting happens, there is a national uproar from a lot of people about how we need to do this, that, and the other.  We're compared with Australia, a country with less than 1/10th of our population and the same land mass where the data doesn't totally support their measures.  Places like France where two separate mass shootings that together tripled the number in our most recent "worst ever" one occurred despite their very strict gun laws are ignored. 

Personally, I'd have to be confident that there won't be an emotional outburst after a shooting happens.  I'd also need to be confident that the people designing those laws put some sort of value on gun ownership that isn't an afterthought.  Well researched ways that will solve our problems (with provisions to remove them if they don't work) while preserving our rights are fine.  That's not what we ever get currently.  There's a good reason the assault weapons ban in the 90's was allowed to expire, it didn't work.  Yet still today there's a big push for repeating it because it emotionally feels like doing something productive.  There's just an overwhelming urge to do something when you see a room full of bodies.  It's understandable, because humans aren't wired to see the problems of 300 million people. 

There has to be an acceptable number of gun deaths per year.  The same as with car wrecks, child abuse, etc.  We could all live in a crazy safe world if no one was allowed guns, and everyone constantly had cameras on them everywhere they went and could only drive 10mph.  If you could achieve a 0% homicide/abuse rate in exchange for everyone constantly being monitored and driving 10mph, would you?  Probably not.  Yet there are many who hold that standard for gun violence, and will keep adding laws until the number hits 0, which it never will. 

What happens if we allow registration, and another mass shooting happens (which it will)?  I tell you what won't happen, the people who are pushing for registration now won't shrug their shoulders and say "Well, we got registration which helped, so this is probably far enough.  Sometimes bad things just happen."

What you seem to be wanting is not a change in state policies so much as a change in public perception in regards to gun violence.

I think that some of the current emotions we are seeing is a backlash against a perceived helplessness or unwillingness of government and government officials to take any actions whatsoever in the wake of gun violence. I know that gun rights supporters deride the 'doing something for the sake of doing something' approach. However, 'doing nothing because there is nothing we can do' approach doesn't seem to be convincing anyone on the other side of the debate.

You asked what it'd take to convince me they're not looking to confiscation.  That's what it would take.

After the recent Orlando shooting I can't count how many people on facebook and politicians pointed to Australia as the model for gun safety.  Australia had a gun registry, and confiscated guns in 1996.  Their gun violence rate was already lower than the U.S. and on a steep decline before the confiscation, but when the same decline continued after the confiscation everyone said "Look how great the confiscation worked!"

I'm not saying do nothing.  I'm curious why the something we have to do always relates to restrictions on gun ownership.  A kid in Austin a couple years back got drunk and drove a car through the bar district and killed 2 people and injured 23.  Afterward I don't recall seeing anyone talk about instituting background checks for alcohol, quantity restrictions, or mandatory breathalyzers in every car.  Why weren't there politicians tearfully telling the stories of the two killed, and begging us for common sense restrictions on alcohol purchasing?  A convicted felon with multiple DUIs can go into any liquor store and buy whatever he wants. 

Why is it that with guns the answer is always restrictions on guns?  Is it possible there's something else we can do to help with gun violence?  Since the mid 90's gun violence has decreased by almost 50% in the united states without extra regulations (in fact, the assault weapon ban expired in that time frame).  Why has it decreased since then?  Maybe let's try to do that some more.

France has very strict regulations on guns, yet just had an attack last year with illegal firearms that killed 130 people, almost 3x this recent event in the US. 

Magilla's post hit the nail on the head regarding the issue of gun rights supporters fears that liberals and/or government want to take their guns away from them and would only want an electronic database to make that possible. As far as I know, this sort of thing would be totally unprecedented here in the US. It would also be unconstitutional. Aside from a few extremists, I think the vast majority of liberals would be aghast at the idea of government agents going door to door to confiscate guns. That is just totally unamerican. Yet the paranoia persists. I'm truly curious what, if anything, can be done by liberals to bring gun rights folks to the negotiating table trusting that the liberals don't want to confiscate their guns. Is something like a database such a nonnegotiable issue that can only be resolved one way or the other by whose side controls the politicians?

Unprecedented in the US because a large vocal group actively opposes it.  It's very precedented in numerous other countries.  Plenty of Americans I know would be fine with gun confiscation. 

Which of these recent mass shootings would a registration have stopped?  I can't think of one.  Even if you argue it'd bring our overall gun violence rate down (which I'm not convinced of), the only time people get up in arms about registrations and gun violence is after mass shootings.  Registration will not stop mass shootings, so the next mass shooting after registration takes place will have people calling for restriction, then confiscation, both of which are not possible without registration.

As I said earlier, the only thing that ever happens is more restrictions, not less.  You never hear of lawmakers saying "Well, looks like our restrictions didn't work, guess it's time to get rid of them and try something else."

If there's another mass shooting at a school in Connecticut, do you think they'll rethink their weapons bans and registration requirements?  Or will they simply add more restrictions? 


ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1143
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #98 on: July 14, 2016, 06:31:57 AM »
Whatever the politicians ban, the violent people use something else.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036154/A-knife-attack-4-minutes-130-000-year--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html

The problem has more to do with violent people than the weapon.

This is half true.

The root cause of the excessive violence certainly should be addressed.  This is something that gun rights advocates are constantly bringing up, so I have to assume that they are fully on board paying more taxes for additional mental health resources for others, more studies regarding violence, and programs to help prevent it.

That said, you're never going to completely eliminate violent people.  The problem with a gun is that it makes it far easier for a violent person to hurt and kill a bunch folks at one time.  If knives were as deadly as guns, the military would save a lot of money on bullets and just tell everyone to fix bayonets.  It's easier to get away from a guy with a knife.  It's easier to fight back.  It's harder to kill dozens of people.

I'm down for paying more for things like that, granted I'd rather they get rid of some other things we're paying for first, but that's a whole other topic. 

I'm a staunch pro gun rights supporter, who also wants national healthcare and is fine with transgendered people using the same bathroom as me.  Just saying.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Guns: A Second Amendment Drain on Your Stache
« Reply #99 on: July 14, 2016, 06:35:12 AM »

That said, you're never going to completely eliminate violent people.

Sure.  And what you and your ilk have a real hard time understanding is that you're never going to completely eliminate guns, given that there are 300M+ of them in the US already.  If you could wave a wand tomorrow and have all guns disappear, you gun grabbers might have a point trying to ban them.  But you can't.  Given that there will always be bad guys with guns, it is immoral to strip the right to bear arms away from law abiding citizens who want the right to defend themselves. 

Quote
It's easier to get away from a guy with a knife.  It's easier to fight back.

Nice theory, but there's a reason that someone within 21' of you holding a knife is considered to satisfy the "capability" leg of the deadly force triangle.  Someone in that range is considered just as lethal with a knife as with a gun.  You're right that it's hard to kill lots of people with a knife, but that doesn't do much for the people who are killed.  I also find the "it's easier to fight back" thing laughable for someone who has accused others about their "fantasy" of defending themselves with a gun.  How much hand to hand combat training have you had?  Ever been instructed on how to fight someone with a knife?  I have, in the military.  Know what the first rule is?  "You're going to get cut, know that going in."