namelesstavern.net

Arlos wrote:The harm irresponsible people do with hazardous objects is why we have a LOT of the laws we do. You did note that I did not in any way advocate repealing the 2nd amendment? I just feel that when you have something as immediately and potentially life threatening as a firearm, you should need to obtain SOME level of safety training with it. Possibly even pass a "home safety" certificate. (without it, own guns just fine, just store them at a range). If you're responsible, why should you balk at proving it, wnd how does it impede your right to own all the firearms you wish? Why should doing more to ensure that ALL owners are responsible be a negative? Hell, even irresponsible people could own them, they just couldn't take them to places where they'd be dangers to other people through their irresponsibility.

-Arlos

The problem that then arises is that there must be with this sort of system some paper trail. Case in point, there is a school board here in Oregon that is now trying to find out what teachers in it's school district have CWP's. It goes without saying that they aren't trying to find this information out to asses how well protected the students are since it is the school boards stance that teachers who hold CWP's are still not allowed to concealed carry on school grounds. It's not the government trying to takes peoples guns, but it is the government threatening peoples jobs over their registration. I'd be all for some sort of training course before purchase, provided that there was no lasting paper trail, and regardless of how you did it you would still need to address private firearm sales. I do agree though that education about fire arms would make vast improvements to the situation, no it won't stop the mass shootings, but it would stop people being irresponsible and the resulting accidents.

Question to those of you who "anti-gun", would you have a problem with general fire arm safety being taught in schools at a certain age? I'm pretty sure in many cases grade schools expose kids somewhat in teaching if they find a fire arm in mom and dads bedroom it's not a toy, but I was thinking more along the lines of something more in depth for high schoolers.

It would depend on what you're trying to teach for me to agree, really. I think in a lot of cases, especially with the crazy kids, if you hold a class profiling guns in any sense it'll just spark more interest in them rather than deter, which I think would be detrimental.

As far as the fishbowl scenario mentioned, the reason it's so much higher in those places is because the perpetrator knows there is a lack of defenses there of course, but if the offense wasn't so readily available it would be less of a problem, imo.

I tend to agree with Tikker on the whole.

Lueyen wrote:Question to those of you who "anti-gun", would you have a problem with general fire arm safety being taught in schools at a certain age? I'm pretty sure in many cases grade schools expose kids somewhat in teaching if they find a fire arm in mom and dads bedroom it's not a toy, but I was thinking more along the lines of something more in depth for high schoolers.

I would agree with this after attending the class myself. In my view, gun owning parents ALSO must teach their kids proper handling and respect for all weapons. no matter what type. Will the kids be interested in them. In most cases i would think so but if you provide the proper education the curiosity can be satisfied in a controlled and safe mannner.

Lueyen wrote:I'm sure there were people at the mall in Omaha carrying pepper spray or tazers, of course they do little good when someone is a floor above you out of range of your non-lethal weapon.

And they could have easily just walked away if they were a floor above.

The idea that these psychopaths actually target "gun free zones" is of course completely misguided since they always go to specific places which have meaning for them. I'd hardly call a mall a gun free zone though, so that pretty much rebukes that asinine argument.

Lueyen wrote:Question to those of you who "anti-gun", would you have a problem with general fire arm safety being taught in schools at a certain age? I'm pretty sure in many cases grade schools expose kids somewhat in teaching if they find a fire arm in mom and dads bedroom it's not a toy, but I was thinking more along the lines of something more in depth for high schoolers.

This is exactly the problem I'm talking about. You're just going to teach the kids how to obsess over guns by indoctrinating them at a young age about guns.

Zanchief wrote:

Lueyen wrote:Question to those of you who "anti-gun", would you have a problem with general fire arm safety being taught in schools at a certain age? I'm pretty sure in many cases grade schools expose kids somewhat in teaching if they find a fire arm in mom and dads bedroom it's not a toy, but I was thinking more along the lines of something more in depth for high schoolers.

This is exactly the problem I'm talking about. You're just going to teach the kids how to obsess over guns by indoctrinating them at a young age about guns.

no you are going to teach kids how to properly handle guns (or not handle) in case they happen to find one or the parents are gun owners. see this is problem i am talking about. Lets shirk the responsibility and remove the right instead of taking the responsibility. its the answer to everything

That's fucking retarded.

So we should stop teaching sex ed as well by that reasoning? Why not stop teaching them about the dangers of drugs while we're at it?

Harrison wrote:That's fucking retarded.

So we should stop teaching sex ed as well by that reasoning? Why not stop teaching them about the dangers of drugs while we're at it?

we should stop teaching kids how to swim to and not let them in a pool or the ocean. Lets pass legislation to ban the ocean or you backyard swimming pool while we are at it. after all they could drown.

sex is required for reproduction, it is a necessary survival tool - that is it's main purpose even if it's used in other ways. it is inevitable that it will be needed.

swimming is recreation. that is it's main purpose. it is inevitable that it will be utilized at times, and does not injure or maim with every utilization.

guns kill. that is their main purpose. the world has survived long before their invention. it is not something that is an inevitable requirement for survival. it is something that promotes the opposite. its sole purpose is to injure, maim, and kill.

*vast* differences in the items you're comparing.

Gypsiyee wrote:guns kill. that is their main purpose.

Exactly. There is no need for them. Why are you guys so fucking crazy about your guns?

OMG the government is going to take my guns away?!?!! But I don't know how to live without my bloated artificial sense of power!

Exactly. There is no need for them. Why are you guys so fucking crazy about your guns?

OMG the government is going to take my guns away?!?!! But I don't know how to live without my bloated artificial sense of power!

I bet you 100% of the kids that go postal on their schools where brought up with guns in the house. They were most likely taught how to use them. It's not like a 20 minute discussion about how guns are bad is suddenly going to make a fucked up kid think he probably shouldn't shoot a school full of people. I think he knows it's not the "right" thing to do.

Don't teach them about guns because they have absolutely no use in a civilized society, continue for a few generations until you weirdos are bred out of existence and the problem is solved.

No more John Wayne complex.

Gypsiyee wrote:sex is required for reproduction, it is a necessary survival tool - that is it's main purpose even if it's used in other ways. it is inevitable that it will be needed.

Artificial insemination, after all it's all about safety!

Actually, it's good some people carry guns. This woman took down this murderer.

While I won't own a gun since I have little kids, it's sometime a good thing.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14 ... etail.html

Assam worked as a police officer in downtown Minneapolis during the 1990s and is licensed to carry a weapon. She attends one of the morning services and then volunteers as a guard during another service.

Boyd said Assam was the one who suggested the church beef up its security Sunday following the Arvada shooting, which it did. The pastor credited the security plan and the extra security for preventing further bloodshed.

Boyd said there are 15 to 20 security people at the church. All are volunteers but the only ones armed are those who are licensed to carry weapons.

The security guards are members of the church who are screened and not "mercenaries that we hire to walk around our campus to provide security," Boyd said.

Harrison wrote:

Gypsiyee wrote:sex is required for reproduction, it is a necessary survival tool - that is it's main purpose even if it's used in other ways. it is inevitable that it will be needed.

Artificial insemination, after all it's all about safety!

you've obviously either completely missed the point or simply have no better rebuttal than a "neener neener."

lyion - thats fair enough, but it wouldn't have been needed if it weren't for the first gun. guns can fight guns just fine, I wouldn't debate that at all.. but it doesn't matter if the chicken or the egg came first, each will provide a meal just like each gun only serves the purpose of slaughter and will provide such.

Gypsiyee wrote:swimming is recreation. that is it's main purpose. it is inevitable that it will be utilized at times, and does not injure or maim with every utilization.

guns do not injure or maim at every utilization either. In fact accidental drownings kill more kids then guns do every year. I was shooting at the range last night. no one died or was injured or maimed. amazing.

Irrefutible fact of the matter is guns do not kill. People kill. why do you refuse to accept this? ignoring this fact is doing much more damage then the guns themselves.

Evermore wrote:Irrefutible fact of the matter is guns do not kill. People kill. why do you refuse to accept this? ignoring this fact is doing much more damage then the guns themselves.

I'll give you another "irrefutible" fact. People kill, and people with guns kill people a lot more easily.

Banning guns will not change that in any way shape or form. More legislation from a non functional government is not going to resolve anything. Obviously you have no experience whatsoever with this. go ahead ban guns. it will not change a thing except make them a bit more expensive to get. You will still be able to go to a street corner and pick one up.

Its easy to sit in judgement when you are so far removed from the issue.

I have a huge problem with people thinking the government should provide protection, food, money, essentially every-fucking-thing possible to everyone...and they're ok with this.

You're ok with the only armed people in your country being your government?

Zanchief wrote:

Lueyen wrote:I'm sure there were people at the mall in Omaha carrying pepper spray or tazers, of course they do little good when someone is a floor above you out of range of your non-lethal weapon.

And they could have easily just walked away if they were a floor above.

The idea that these psychopaths actually target "gun free zones" is of course completely misguided since they always go to specific places which have meaning for them. I'd hardly call a mall a gun free zone though, so that pretty much rebukes that asinine argument.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315563,00.html

Yes I know it's fox, but it's the only major one I found reporting that the mall was in fact established as a "gun free zone".

Well I've never advocated the government being the ones to solve the problem, but I don't blame either of you for not being able to read. That is the fault of the government that you are oh so afraid of.

I've maintained that people need to change their own way of dealing with guns. They need to change the way they raise their kids and how they teach them about guns.

Feel free to actually read the dozens or so posts I've made in this thread if you actually want my opinion rather then just assuming it. Just because you're a stereotype, doesn't mean I am.

Harrison wrote:
You're ok with the only armed people in your country being your government?

yup

that being said, I don't have a problem with people who own hunting rifles/shotguns
I also don't have a problem with people who want to be collectors, and have nice little locked cabinets of nice looking guns


I just don't think that people need to run around carrying guns all the time

Tikker wrote:

Harrison wrote:
You're ok with the only armed people in your country being your government?

yup

that being said, I don't have a problem with people who own hunting rifles/shotguns
I also don't have a problem with people who want to be collectors, and have nice little locked cabinets of nice looking guns


I just don't think that people need to run around carrying guns all the time

You realize that the hunting rifle and shotguns were the first types of assault weapons?

This is my main HD weapon. mine is slighly modified for better handling. I have a pistol grip and an open choke for a better spread at short distance.

Look Chief! its not an assault weapon!

http://www.mossberg.com/products/default.asp?id=5&section=products

Evermore wrote:
You realize that the hunting rifle and shotguns were the first types of assault weapons?

You realize that a rock was the first assault weapon?


don't be a stupid fuck evermore, you know what I'm saying~

If you want to keep a shotgun for home defense, that's your prerogative. I just don't support people owning big clip automatic weapons

do you know how long it takes to change magazines?

Actually, if they're internal tube magazines that have to be loaded 1 bullet at a time, it can take a significant amount of time to reload.

I have no problem whatsoever with someone having hunting rifles and shotguns. I have problems with assault weapons, like with greater than 5 round clips. I also do not care for handguns at all, though I still believe they should be legal to own.

I am, as I said, in favor of requiring people who wish to take their guns home to take a safety & handling course, and then pass a safety licensing test. Those who do not wish to take those steps could still own guns, they would just need to be stored at a local firing range.

I am NOT, however, in any way in favor of making it easy for any yahoo to get a concealed carry permit. Yes, the current crop may be doing tolerably well, they are also a highly select group who have to jump through a large number of hoops to get the license. That woman in Denver was not an average citizen either, she was a trained armed security guard. Hardly a representative example of the mass population.

The reason I am so against it is because I cannot in any way trust the vast bulk of moron-level humanity in this country to be responsible. I do not trust them to only use the weapons in last-resort self defense, nor do I expect them to be expert shots and never kill innocent bystanders who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time with ill-aimed shots, even if they ARE firing at a potential attacker. Is the life of a 2 year old playing in the apartment next to you on the street when you fire at that mugger and miss, sending the round through the wall and killing him worth less than the contents of your wallet?

Hell, my own little brother was nearly killed at just under 2 years old by kids with rifles using them irresponsibly. They were firing at random targets without checking what was beyond them, and they sent a round through the outside wall of my grandparents house, under the table where we were at dinner, right through the head of the table opening where my brother had been standing not 20 seconds before, then through a half-inch oak bar panel, before falling into one of the pots in the cabinet behind the panel. So, don't tell me it's impossible for stray rounds to take out completely uninvolved people, even toddlers. I nearly saw it happen 2 feet from me.

-Arlos

Tuggan wrote:do you know how long it takes to change magazines?

a lot longer than it takes to rattle off a 50 round clip into a crowd