Ten Gun Myths and Memes-- Shot Down

[Vandalshandle]

If I seem to be a little on edge, Windbag, it is because I have very strong feelings about people who imply that I am dishonest. Frankly, I won't tolerate it, and usually put people on 'ignore" if they do it. If you want to disagree with my opinion on a subject, I have no problem. If you want to get personal, then I have a problem.

Having said that, I will move on. First, I am a Sheriff's Auxcillary Volunteer, which means that I have no special legal authority to do anything. I patrol, wear a uniform, drive a sheriff's car, and have a radio. I can not arrest anyone, and am not allowed to carry a weapon while in uniform. Second, I would never give out information that could possibly be used to identify a citizen involved in any incident that I may have encountered in my line of duty.

The indisputable fact that a man who has a history of mental illness, with violent incidents in his past, can walk into a gun show, lay down his money, and walk out with an AR-15 with a 100 round ammo cartradge, and several hundred rounds of ammo, without being required to submit to a background check, is a self evident example of total irresponsibility on the part of our society. What happened, or did not happen, to me, does not change that fact.

What law do you think would change that?
That same man can walk into any feed store and buy ammonia based fertilizer, gas station and buy diesel fuel, and mix up some high explosives. He can walk into any car dealership and buy a car and run people over with it. He can buy poison and kill lots of people with it.
Why aren't you concerned about these things?

he could even buy a hammer at home depot and kill more people than deadly assualt weapons did

Ok, I read you, Spoon. Since he could kill just as many people with a hammer as with a 100 round ammo cartradge and an AR-15 (yes, folks, that IS what Spoon is saying...I'm not making it up!!), then we should not do anything to stop him from buying a gun, because....??? what? we would have to put him on the hardware store banned list as well? Or maybe your point is that the problem is so severe that we simply should do nothing at all?? or is your point that it would be an unfair advantage, saleswise, to hammer manufacturers, at the expense of AR-15 manufacturers? The fact that a hammer is available to a psycho is not a good reason to make it easy for the psycho to buy a firearm. Secondly, if you really believed that hammers are that dangerous, compared to an AR-15, you would have no problem if the government took AR-15's off the market, because you can kill just as many government gun grabbers with a hammer as you can with an AR-15.

 

[Bfgrn]

so why don;t you take up a cause to get people off the streets when their issues have been identified? and there is a problem with background checks. you've identified a problem and did nothing about it. go ahead and ban guns, if he wants one he'll still get one. the black market doesn do background checks. and what's to stop him from wacking you with a pipe?

you have identified a problem and you are letting it rome the streets unattended. you are the problem

Spoon, you really have to get past this belief system you have that everyone who wants some common sense regulation of guns wants to "ban guns".

Second, keeping people off the street who are mentally ill, and requiring background checks and registration are not mutually exclusive concepts. There is no reason whyc we can not do both, or at least try.

Actually, you have to get rid of the delusion that the intent of gun control is not to ban guns. That means that anyone that wants "common sense" regulations on guns is nothing more than a tool of the people that want to ban guns. It might make me look extreme if you actually are sincere, but I prefer to err in the side of freedom than to let people who want to eliminate any of our rights any flexibility.

You are as little as a person can get. I wouldn't use the term 'man' for someone as infested with paranoid fear as you are. What you see proposed by Obama is as far as it will ever go. NO ONE is proposing or has a hidden agenda to ban all guns. That is just messages you hear inside your sniveling little weak and paranoid pea sized mind.

 

[Spoonman]

What law do you think would change that?
That same man can walk into any feed store and buy ammonia based fertilizer, gas station and buy diesel fuel, and mix up some high explosives. He can walk into any car dealership and buy a car and run people over with it. He can buy poison and kill lots of people with it.
Why aren't you concerned about these things?

he could even buy a hammer at home depot and kill more people than deadly assualt weapons did

Ok, I read you, Spoon. Since he could kill just as many people with a hammer as with a 100 round ammo cartradge and an AR-15 (yes, folks, that IS what Spoon is saying...I'm not making it up!!), then we should not do anything to stop him from buying a gun, because....??? what? we would have to put him on the hardware store banned list as well? Or maybe your point is that the problem is so severe that we simply should do nothing at all?? or is your point that it would be an unfair advantage, saleswise, to hammer manufacturers, at the expense of AR-15 manufacturers? The fact that a hammer is available to a psycho is not a good reason to make it easy for the psycho to buy a firearm. Secondly, if you really believed that hammers are that dangerous, compared to an AR-15, you would have no problem if the government took AR-15's off the market, because you can kill just as many government gun grabbers with a hammer as you can with an AR-15.

and i thought you said you weren't disingenuous. now the point is there aren't really a bunch of people running around with ar 15's killing people are there? its just a bunch of liberal spin. there aren't a bunch of high capacity magazines taking thousands of lives are there? more lies and spin. the fact is more lives were taken last year that with a deadly assault weapon with a large capacity magazine. in fact, the 323 rifle deaths were from all rifles including single shot bolt action. the number of deaths from deadly assault weapons was a lot less. now the hammer number was from actual hammers

 

[Bfgrn]

What law do you think would change that?
That same man can walk into any feed store and buy ammonia based fertilizer, gas station and buy diesel fuel, and mix up some high explosives. He can walk into any car dealership and buy a car and run people over with it. He can buy poison and kill lots of people with it.
Why aren't you concerned about these things?

he could even buy a hammer at home depot and kill more people than deadly assualt weapons did

Ok, I read you, Spoon. Since he could kill just as many people with a hammer as with a 100 round ammo cartradge and an AR-15 (yes, folks, that IS what Spoon is saying...I'm not making it up!!), then we should not do anything to stop him from buying a gun, because....??? what? we would have to put him on the hardware store banned list as well? Or maybe your point is that the problem is so severe that we simply should do nothing at all?? or is your point that it would be an unfair advantage, saleswise, to hammer manufacturers, at the expense of AR-15 manufacturers? The fact that a hammer is available to a psycho is not a good reason to make it easy for the psycho to buy a firearm. Secondly, if you really believed that hammers are that dangerous, compared to an AR-15, you would have no problem if the government took AR-15's off the market, because you can kill just as many government gun grabbers with a hammer as you can with an AR-15.

They have reached the desperate straw man argument. I mean, people still drive too fast, so why have speed limit signs. Save the metal. Why have any laws, criminals don't obey them.

 

[Spoonman]

Spoon, you really have to get past this belief system you have that everyone who wants some common sense regulation of guns wants to "ban guns".

Second, keeping people off the street who are mentally ill, and requiring background checks and registration are not mutually exclusive concepts. There is no reason whyc we can not do both, or at least try.

Actually, you have to get rid of the delusion that the intent of gun control is not to ban guns. That means that anyone that wants "common sense" regulations on guns is nothing more than a tool of the people that want to ban guns. It might make me look extreme if you actually are sincere, but I prefer to err in the side of freedom than to let people who want to eliminate any of our rights any flexibility.

You are as little as a person can get. I wouldn't use the term 'man' for someone as infested with paranoid fear as you are. What you see proposed by Obama is as far as it will ever go. NO ONE is proposing or has a hidden agenda to ban all guns. That is just messages you hear inside your sniveling little weak and paranoid pea sized mind.

obama is just testing the limits of what he feels he can get. he is taking advantage of sandy hook to try to further an agenda he coudn't push through before the tragedy and the election. if he is allowed to move the line in the sand now, he'll try to push it a little further later.

 

[Bfgrn]

Actually, you have to get rid of the delusion that the intent of gun control is not to ban guns. That means that anyone that wants "common sense" regulations on guns is nothing more than a tool of the people that want to ban guns. It might make me look extreme if you actually are sincere, but I prefer to err in the side of freedom than to let people who want to eliminate any of our rights any flexibility.

You are as little as a person can get. I wouldn't use the term 'man' for someone as infested with paranoid fear as you are. What you see proposed by Obama is as far as it will ever go. NO ONE is proposing or has a hidden agenda to ban all guns. That is just messages you hear inside your sniveling little weak and paranoid pea sized mind.

obama is just testing the limits of what he feels he can get. he is taking advantage of sandy hook to try to further an agenda he coudn't push through before the tragedy and the election. if he is allowed to move the line in the sand now, he'll try to push it a little further later.

Absolute BULLSHIT paranoia. The President has signed two bills into law in his first term. BOTH expanded gun rights. You right wing turds need to stop listening to the little voices of fear that infests your little brains.

Obama supports the second amendment. Liberals in Congress support the second amendment. You right wing absolutists are opposed to any common sense gun laws. It is because your brains are too tiny.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Why have any laws, criminals don't obey them.

I've been waiting very patiently for someone to drop this line, to counter the argument of Pro-Gun activists, that "Criminals will not obey the law."

We have Laws, because LAW ABIDING CITIZENS OBEY THEM. Most people are LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

If there was no law against murder, LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WOULD MURDER OTHER LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

We write laws to retain order and civilization among the majority of law abiding citizens.

Hence, when you ban guns, ONLY THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WILL TURN THEM IN.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why have any laws, criminals don't obey them.

I've been waiting very patiently for someone to drop this line, to counter the argument of Pro-Gun activists, that "Criminals will not obey the law."

We have Laws, because LAW ABIDING CITIZENS OBEY THEM. Most people are LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

If there was no law against murder, LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WOULD MURDER OTHER LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

We write laws to retain order and civilization among the majority of law abiding citizens.

Hence, when you ban guns, ONLY THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WILL TURN THEM IN.

IF anyone is ever required to turn in a particular type of weapon, which is doubtful, that would not take away from all the legal weapons law abiding citizens can own. AND, if a particular type of weapon were banned, THEN the criminal could be arrested for the mere possession of that weapon. Hopefully before he uses it in a criminal manner.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If I seem to be a little on edge, Windbag, it is because I have very strong feelings about people who imply that I am dishonest. Frankly, I won't tolerate it, and usually put people on 'ignore" if they do it. If you want to disagree with my opinion on a subject, I have no problem. If you want to get personal, then I have a problem.

Having said that, I will move on. First, I am a Sheriff's Auxcillary Volunteer, which means that I have no special legal authority to do anything. I patrol, wear a uniform, drive a sheriff's car, and have a radio. I can not arrest anyone, and am not allowed to carry a weapon while in uniform. Second, I would never give out information that could possibly be used to identify a citizen involved in any incident that I may have encountered in my line of duty.

The indisputable fact that a man who has a history of mental illness, with violent incidents in his past, can walk into a gun show, lay down his money, and walk out with an AR-15 with a 100 round ammo cartradge, and several hundred rounds of ammo, without being required to submit to a background check, is a self evident example of total irresponsibility on the part of our society. What happened, or did not happen, to me, does not change that fact.

News flash, everyone lies. You are a deputy, even if only a volunteer one, you know this just as much as I do. People lie for no reason at all, and even when it actively hurts their case. If you put me on ignore simply because I understand reality, then you are the one with the problem, not me.

Your indisputable fact is not only disputable, it has actually been disproven in various places on this forum. Theory and practice are not the same thing, and anyone that goes to a gun show with the intent of avoiding a background check will be noticed.

By the way, how can society be irresponsible?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Spoon, you really have to get past this belief system you have that everyone who wants some common sense regulation of guns wants to "ban guns".

Second, keeping people off the street who are mentally ill, and requiring background checks and registration are not mutually exclusive concepts. There is no reason whyc we can not do both, or at least try.

Actually, you have to get rid of the delusion that the intent of gun control is not to ban guns. That means that anyone that wants "common sense" regulations on guns is nothing more than a tool of the people that want to ban guns. It might make me look extreme if you actually are sincere, but I prefer to err in the side of freedom than to let people who want to eliminate any of our rights any flexibility.

You are as little as a person can get. I wouldn't use the term 'man' for someone as infested with paranoid fear as you are. What you see proposed by Obama is as far as it will ever go. NO ONE is proposing or has a hidden agenda to ban all guns. That is just messages you hear inside your sniveling little weak and paranoid pea sized mind.

Oh no, whatever will I do now that you have called me names?

Lots of people want to ban guns, anyone that denies that reality is either crazy, or lying because they want to ban guns and are trying to sneak their agenda in.

 

[Bigfoot]

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass how many gun homicides they have in the UK, or Australia. I tend to focus on what happened to my realtor in Dallas in 1982, when some guy walked into a bar, and shot and killed her, and five other women sitting at the bar, because one of them had rebuffed him. I am concerned about what I perosnally saw in 1965, which was a drunk, thrown out of a bar in Atlanta, who returned with a gun and killed 5 patrons, and the bartender. I tend to think in terms of what I saw on the streets of Vegas in 1997, which was a drive by shooting right off the strip on Flamingo Rd. I also remember the two times that I was sitting on my apartment balcony in Reno in 1996 when I heard gunshots fired, and in both cases, read the next day of gang related shootings in the nieghborhood. Could all of these shootings been avoided if gun registration and background checks were in force? Of course not. Could some of them been prevented? Yes.

I am a sheriff's Auxcillary Volunteer in my community. Three weeks ago, we did a background check on a guy who wanted to attend our acadamy. We discovered a history of mental illness, and turned him down. However, such history of mental illness did not prevent him from buying a gun, and he made threats against us, which were relayed to us. We had to lock down the facility, and were told not to leave the building until he was apprehended. They did so, and took him to a hospital under arrest. He was bi-polar, and dangerous, when not taking his meds.

Question, sinvce you are so sure that gun registration would have actually prevented some of the deaths you just described, lay out an actual list of facts surrounding each of those cases and explain, in detail, why registration would have been effective in some cases, and not in the others. Until you do that all you are doing is blathering personal opinion with no basis in reality.

As for you getting threats, if you don't like them you are free to go do soemthing else that will mean you will never get threatened, like burying yourself in a bunker without any outside contact. The simple fact is that the exact same thing would have happened if the guy you are talking about did not have a gun. In fact, unless you provide evidence he actually legally bought a gun, I am just going to assume you are making this entire story up in an attempt to prove how stupid organizations are when they respond to threats.

This thread is not about me, Windbag, and no, I do not need to pass your interagation to make my point that it makes no sense that there is not a law requiring a background check on a person who might have a dangerous mental illness before he is allowed to buy a gun.

I couldn't agree more. Vandalshandle is a bullshitter. With a streak of crybaby woven in.

 

[OKTexas]

he could even buy a hammer at home depot and kill more people than deadly assualt weapons did

Ok, I read you, Spoon. Since he could kill just as many people with a hammer as with a 100 round ammo cartradge and an AR-15 (yes, folks, that IS what Spoon is saying...I'm not making it up!!), then we should not do anything to stop him from buying a gun, because....??? what? we would have to put him on the hardware store banned list as well? Or maybe your point is that the problem is so severe that we simply should do nothing at all?? or is your point that it would be an unfair advantage, saleswise, to hammer manufacturers, at the expense of AR-15 manufacturers? The fact that a hammer is available to a psycho is not a good reason to make it easy for the psycho to buy a firearm. Secondly, if you really believed that hammers are that dangerous, compared to an AR-15, you would have no problem if the government took AR-15's off the market, because you can kill just as many government gun grabbers with a hammer as you can with an AR-15.

and i thought you said you weren't disingenuous. now the point is there aren't really a bunch of people running around with ar 15's killing people are there? its just a bunch of liberal spin. there aren't a bunch of high capacity magazines taking thousands of lives are there? more lies and spin. the fact is more lives were taken last year that with a deadly assault weapon with a large capacity magazine. in fact, the 323 rifle deaths were from all rifles including single shot bolt action. the number of deaths from deadly assault weapons was a lot less. now the hammer number was from actual hammers

Actually it was blunt objects of all types, including hammers.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually it was blunt objects of all types, including hammers.

There MUST be comprehensive background checks, and a 10 day waiting period, for all hammer sales.

Think of the children.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

IF anyone is ever required to turn in a particular type of weapon, which is doubtful, that would not take away from all the legal weapons law abiding citizens can own. AND, if a particular type of weapon were banned, THEN the criminal could be arrested for the mere possession of that weapon. Hopefully before he uses it in a criminal manner.

And how are they going to know that this criminal has the weapon illegally, unless he first commits a crime that allows them to search him? For instance, even in non-gun crimes, for instance, drunken driving/bar fist fight/caught smoking weed, they only catch these criminals having the weapons illegally (if they have them at all, most drunk drivers don't own weapons), after:

1) They've committed a crime, allowing them to search them and research whether or not they have the weapon legally.

2) They happen to have the weapon on them at the time. There are plenty of illegally owned weapons that criminals possess, that they don't carry on them on a regular basis.

3) They happen to be stupid enough to store illegal weapons at their home, allowing police to find them easily when they bust their residence with a search warrant for something else other than guns.

4) Gets caught in a sting


----------------------------------

Also, let's start basing our facts and figures on this irrefutable principal:

The funny part is, you really can't COMPARE the US to ANOTHER COUNTRY. So we are we even doing that?

You need to get LOCAL when it comes to the United States. We have this thing called FEDERALISM. The LAWS of each of the 50 States are DIFFERENT. Also, the LAWS of every CITY/TOWN are also different. We are NOT a UNITARY government. In a UNITARY government, the laws only vary microscopically.

So, keeping that in mind. How are those gun control laws working in Chicago, Rochester and Detroit?

The funny part is, you really can't COMPARE the US to ANOTHER COUNTRY. So we are we even doing that?

You need to get LOCAL when it comes to the United States. We have this thing called FEDERALISM. The LAWS of each of the 50 States are DIFFERENT. Also, the LAWS of every CITY/TOWN are also different. We are NOT a UNITARY government. In a UNITARY government, the laws only vary microscopically.

So, keeping that in mind. How are those gun control laws working in Chicago, Rochester and Detroit?

The funny part is, you really can't COMPARE the US to ANOTHER COUNTRY. So we are we even doing that?

You need to get LOCAL when it comes to the United States. We have this thing called FEDERALISM. The LAWS of each of the 50 States are DIFFERENT. Also, the LAWS of every CITY/TOWN are also different. We are NOT a UNITARY government. In a UNITARY government, the laws only vary microscopically.

So, keeping that in mind. How are those gun control laws working in Chicago, Rochester and Detroit?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Also, let's pretend that the OP was right.

I still wouldn't care, because the 2nd Amendment is about TYRANNY. It is NOT about crime. I would prefer dangerous freedom, over quiet servitude.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually it was blunt objects of all types, including hammers.

There MUST be comprehensive background checks, and a 10 day waiting period, for all hammer sales.

Think of the children.

You would need to include baseball bats and 2x4's also. Damn should we let kids use bats unsupervised or does everyone need a bat safe?

 

[Vandalshandle]

It is clear to me that if a person sees nothing wrong with allowing a mentally ill person with a violent history to buy a gun with no waiting period or background check, then it is obvious that self eveident common sense is absent with regard to that person. I therefore resign, and move to the real world, and converse with those that understand that insanity and semi-automatic weapons don't mix.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is clear to me that if a person sees nothing wrong with allowing a mentally ill person with a violent history to buy a gun with no waiting period or background check, then it is obvious that self eveident common sense is absent with regard to that person. I therefore resign, and move to the real world, and converse with those that understand that insanity and semi-automatic weapons don't mix.

Like, for example, a person of mental problems who also used a gun to commit an offense? Interestingly enough, the state of California, with the toughest gun laws in the country, saw no reason not to allow Jeremy Goulet to buy a gun, and to register it legally, despite the fact he used one to commit a crime, and was a sex offender.

He shot, and killed, two police officers yesterday.

Keep telling me about how background checks will make people safer.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

It is clear to me that if a person sees nothing wrong with allowing a mentally ill person with a violent history to buy a gun with no waiting period or background check, then it is obvious that self eveident common sense is absent with regard to that person. I therefore resign, and move to the real world, and converse with those that understand that insanity and semi-automatic weapons don't mix.

Who decides who is mentally ill or not? The government? They can already declare you a terrorist with no evidence and lock you up forever without a trial or lawyer. In fact, although it cannot be proven, they probably just kill them ... how would you know if they don't?

Keep in mind, that in order to to bar mentally ill people from buying a gun, there must be a NATIONAL REGISTRY of mentally ill people. Such a registry could be used to force mentally ill people to be sterilized. Later it could be used to force mentally ill people to be "euthanized." Also, since the government can decide who is mentally ill, and who is not, without evidence, it is most likely they would use this against anyone who could or has resisted them.

Do this sound like crazy talk, then read this thread:

Nazi Persecution of the Mentally and Physically Disabled

 

[varelse]

Mexico is third world country with a weak central government.

While some conservatives might want to emulate it, I don't.

The valid comparisons are other first world countries- Western Europe, Canada and Japan.

Compared to them (all with strong social welfare states, strong gun laws and a penal system not based on profit) we are doing very poorly in terms of crime and violence.

Comrade Stalin, you're a fucking moron.

Mexico is NOT a third world country.

{Mexico is quickly becoming an emerging market heavy-weight. Its economic output, as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was nearly $1.7 trillion in 2011. This was much less than its primary trading partner, the U.S. ($14 trillion) but larger than its other NAFTA partner, Canada ($1.4 trillion). Mexico's geographic size is equivalent to Saudi Arabia, but supports five times as many people while exporting 1/4 of the oil.}

Mexico Economy Facts

Is Canada "third world," shit fer brains?

Mexico is similar to China in this regard- small, centralized economic districts surrounded by vast stretches of abject poverty...

"Actually, you have to get rid of the delusion that the intent of gun control is not to ban guns. That means that anyone that wants "common sense" regulations on guns is nothing more than a tool of the people that want to ban guns. It might make me look extreme if you actually are sincere, but I prefer to err in the side of freedom than to let people who want to eliminate any of our rights any flexibility. " (Windbag)

Ok, so you are on to us. We all want to take your guns away. After that, we will take your wife, your money, your Playboy Channel, your 8 cyclinder car, your incadecent light bulbs, your swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated, your computer, your American Leagion membership card, and your vote. How foolish of us that we did not know that you could see through our sinister plot?
__________________

DOMA, CAFE, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, UN to Seek Internet Kill Switch Next Month, Documents Show , Border search exception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Loser-Take-All-Subversion-Democracy/dp/0978843142]Amazon.com: Loser Take All: Election Fraud and The Subversion of Democracy, 2000 - 2008 (9780978843144): Mark Crispin Miller: Books[/ame] ....

The indisputable fact that a man who has a history of mental illness, with violent incidents in his past, can walk into a gun show, lay down his money, and walk out with an AR-15 with a 100 round ammo cartradge, and several hundred rounds of ammo, without being required to submit to a background check, is a self evident example of total irresponsibility on the part of our society.

There is no such thing as the 'gun show loophole'

The exception deals with private sales (because of the difficulties involved with requiring Joe Schmoe to perform a background jack on Mr Smith), regardless of location. Licensed dealers must perform background checks, regardless of location.