#BoycottNRA

#877
#877
evillawyer said:
You also have to look at the societal benefits of driving vs. the societal risks. I think it'd be impossible to have the modern economy we have without driving. But as other nations demonstrate (Japan, Scandinavian nations, etc.), it doesn't appear that guns held by private citizens are necessary for having a functioning economy or safe society.
Click to expand...

Switzerland?
 
#879
#879
luthervol said:
They never will be able to. They will trace it to the last legal owner and that person will have to explain why the gun in no longer in their possession. If it was stolen, it should have been reported immediately. If it was sold or given away, proper paper work should have been submitted. Hold the last legal owner partially responsible. If they had follow the law, they have nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...

Slippery slope...
 
#880
#880
evillawyer said:
You also have to look at the societal benefits of driving vs. the societal risks. I think it'd be impossible to have the modern economy we have without driving. But as other nations demonstrate (Japan, Scandinavian nations, etc.), it doesn't appear that guns held by private citizens are necessary for having a functioning economy or safe society.
Click to expand...

Installing interlocks on cars would save more lives than all the gun homicides committed in a year. What say you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#881
#881
Rasputin_Vol said:
Just curious as to what difference does it make if a gun a I bought 15 years ago ends up in the wrong hands and the wrong hands use that gun in a crime?

If it was stolen and then used in a crime, that isn't my fault. It is the criminal that used the gun, not me.
Click to expand...

Why would you not report a gun if it was stolen?

It would help to slow down the number of guns finding their way into the hands of criminals. I would think that would be an objective most would agree on, everyone except those that would lose a source of income or those with delusional paranoia causing them to think people are trying to take their right to own a gun away.
 
#882
#882
luthervol said:
That's a little like saying the poison that is easy to open and looks and tastes like a candy bar is no more deadly than the horrible tasting poison in a well marked child-proof bottle, so why pick out the candy bar poison to ban.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that an AR is not different than any other weapon, and therefore should be illegal (using your poison analogy) or are you saying that because of its appearance that the AR should be considered more dangerous (the part where you said the candy looked more tasty/appealing)?

I guess I'm confused by what you are trying to say. :unsure:

Either way, neither one makes sense.
 
#883
#883
CABVOL said:
Guess he should explain why he believes so.
Click to expand...

Is taking cyanide more inherently dangerous than drinking water? I think we'd all agree that it is. But both can kill you (cyanide if consumed in small amounts; water if consumed in copious amounts). So yes, some things are more inherently dangerous than other things.

As applied to weapons, a slingshot can kill, just as much as an AR-15 can. But the AR-15 is much faster, more powerful and more accurate than a slingshot, meaning that in two identical situations, an assailant with a slingshot is much less likely to kill as many people as an assailant with an AR-15. That's why I would say some weapons are more inherently dangerous than others.
 
#884
#884
luthervol said:
You just proved the validity of my point. If the original owner is no longer in possession of the gun either a) it should have been immediately reported as stolen or b) the gun should have been legally (officially) transferred to the new owner. Amazingly enough, when guns are confiscated in crimes and the original owner is contacted, they frequently report it as stolen but never reported. Interesting.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't. You've have just proved my point. You don't have a desire to keep the guns out of criminals hands, your desire is to know where all guns are all the time. If you're true desire is to keep guns from criminals, there is no need have the serial number as part of any background check. Your desire is regulate law abiding gun owners. If I'm permitted to have guns, it's none of yours or definitely not the governments what guns I have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#885
#885
Rasputin_Vol said:
Slippery slope...
Click to expand...

Not really. Makes perfect sense and would benefit society without hurting any law abiding citizen or touching 2A.

The fact that even common sense measures like these are opposed by the NRA crowd speaks volumes about motive.
 
#886
#886
evillawyer said:
Is taking cyanide more inherently dangerous than drinking water? I think we'd all agree that it is. But both can kill you (cyanide if consumed in small amounts; water if consumed in copious amounts). So yes, some things are more inherently dangerous than other things.

As applied to weapons, a slingshot can kill, just as much as an AR-15 can. But the AR-15 is much faster, more powerful and more accurate than a slingshot, meaning that in two identical situations, an assailant with a slingshot is much less likely to kill as many people as an assailant with an AR-15. That's why I would say some weapons are more inherently dangerous than others.
Click to expand...

No, you said the AR15 is more inherently dangerous than any other weapon.
 
#887
#887
luthervol said:
Why would you not report a gun if it was stolen?

It would help to slow down the number of guns finding their way into the hands of criminals. I would think that would be an objective most would agree on, everyone except those that would lose a source of income or those with delusional paranoia causing them to think people are trying to take their right to own a gun away.
Click to expand...

That is only under the assumption that the police are actually able to find that gun in the first place.

Even if you report a gun being stolen from you, that isn't going to mean that are going to be able to find it. Reporting a gun being stolen from you doesn't give the police anymore clues as to who might have stolen it.

I'm not sure where you are going with your argument about reporting or not reporting a gun being stolen and what difference that would make in police being able to recover it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#888
#888
evillawyer said:
Yes I do.
Click to expand...

Well, that's your first mistake, LG alter.

But if we are to use the car analogy, I would say a high performance sports car is more dangerous than your run of the mill Toyota. Because in untrained hands, it poses not only a danger to the driver, but to other drivers on the road. And even when mastered, still poses a risk because of the desire to "open up" and go way over the speed limit. Which can cause hazardous conditions to others drivers when weaving in and out of traffic.

The analogy is not unfounded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#890
#890
Rasputin_Vol said:
That is only under the assumption that the police are actually able to find that gun in the first place.

Even if you report a gun being stolen from you, that isn't going to mean that are going to be able to find it. Reporting a gun being stolen from you doesn't give the police anymore clues as to who might have stolen it.

I'm not sure where you are going with your argument about reporting or not reporting a gun being stolen and what difference that would make in police being able to recover it.
Click to expand...

I had a gun stolen out of my vehicle about 10 years ago. I have no idea if that gun was ever recovered or if it has been used in a crime or if it is still in circulation.
 
#891
#891
evillawyer said:
As applied to weapons, a slingshot can kill, just as much as an AR-15 can. But the AR-15 is much faster, more powerful and more accurate than a slingshot, meaning that in two identical situations, an assailant with a slingshot is much less likely to kill as many people as an assailant with an AR-15. That's why I would say some weapons are more inherently dangerous than others.
Click to expand...

If you banned guns, that school shooter would have just built a bomb instead.

The gun isn't the problem. In this last case, you not only could blame the obvious person (the shooter), but you also had a breakdown in law enforcement. And pizz poor parenting and adoptive/live in parenting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#892
#892
luthervol said:
Not really. Makes perfect sense and would benefit society without hurting any law abiding citizen or touching 2A.

The fact that even common sense measures like these are opposed by the NRA crowd speaks volumes about motive.
Click to expand...

You're going to hold me responsible for being violated and having my weapon stolen? Really?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#893
#893
evillawyer said:
Is taking cyanide more inherently dangerous than drinking water? I think we'd all agree that it is. But both can kill you (cyanide if consumed in small amounts; water if consumed in copious amounts). So yes, some things are more inherently dangerous than other things.

As applied to weapons, a slingshot can kill, just as much as an AR-15 can. But the AR-15 is much faster, more powerful and more accurate than a slingshot, meaning that in two identical situations, an assailant with a slingshot is much less likely to kill as many people as an assailant with an AR-15. That's why I would say some weapons are more inherently dangerous than others.
Click to expand...

My bad. I made the assumption that since this thread was about boycotting the NRA, which supports gun owner rights, that your comment concerning the AR15 was in relation to other guns, and therefore, you were stating an AR15 was inherently more dangerous than other guns. My mistake.
 
#895
#895
luthervol said:
Not really. Makes perfect sense and would benefit society without hurting any law abiding citizen or touching 2A.

The fact that even common sense measures like these are opposed by the NRA crowd speaks volumes about motive.
Click to expand...

You often use language like - common sense, rational and reasonable. You then align it with liberal mouth breathers who told you to believe what is reasonable, rational and common sensical.

Liberals are like incurable hemorrhoids, a persistent pain in the ass.

common-sense.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#896
#896
DancingOutlaw said:
Installing interlocks on cars would save more lives than all the gun homicides committed in a year. What say you?
Click to expand...

Don't think this is an either/or situation though, is it? Seems like you can address making cars safer while at the same time addressing other things (gun violence). Or is the argument that you should prioritize addressing one cause of death over another if the first causes more deaths than the second. I generally agree with that, but it leads to consequences I think you wouldn't like (for example, terrorists kill fewer Americans on an annual basis than many other things, but I think we rightly prioritize addressing terrorism over those other things).
 
#897
#897
evillawyer said:
Is taking cyanide more inherently dangerous than drinking water? I think we'd all agree that it is. But both can kill you (cyanide if consumed in small amounts; water if consumed in copious amounts). So yes, some things are more inherently dangerous than other things.

As applied to weapons, a slingshot can kill, just as much as an AR-15 can. But the AR-15 is much faster, more powerful and more accurate than a slingshot, meaning that in two identical situations, an assailant with a slingshot is much less likely to kill as many people as an assailant with an AR-15. That's why I would say some weapons are more inherently dangerous than others.
Click to expand...

You do realize there are plenty of magazine fed semi auto weapons available right now, right? What will we do with those? Also semi auto shotguns. And semi auto .22 rifles that hold 10-15 rounds internally. Many of these have been around for 100+ years with no real issues. I guess people have just recently started figuring out how to use them to kill people.
 
#898
#898
SpaceCoastVol said:
For what purpose? If the gun has been removed, what purpose would that serve? Oh, that's right, the criminal thugs will most certainly abode by the law and register those serials.
Click to expand...

Are you guys actually this blind or just practicing selective blindness?

The ability to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is partially reliant on identifying the sources. Why does that scare you guys so much?

If, stolen guns were reported within 48 hours and all legal transfer of gun ownership was reported, guns would be easily traceable. Also many sources of guns for criminals would suspiciously and immediately disappear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#899
#899
evillawyer said:
Don't think this is an either/or situation though, is it? Seems like you can address making cars safer while at the same time addressing other things (gun violence). Or is the argument that you should prioritize addressing one cause of death over another if the first causes more deaths than the second. I generally agree with that, but it leads to consequences I think you wouldn't like (for example, terrorists kill fewer Americans on an annual basis than many other things, but I think we rightly prioritize addressing terrorism over those other things).
Click to expand...

My position is if we're going to add more stupid laws, I want the most bang for my buck. Banning "assault rifles", hi cap mags, moving the buying age up, etc. MIGHT save a few dozen lives. Maybe. Mandating interlocks would save at least ten thousand lives a year. So yes, let's make laws that markedly move the needle, instead of ones that just produce feels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#900
#900
Squints said:
You often use language like - common sense, rational and reasonable. You then align it with liberal mouth breathers who told you to believe what is reasonable, rational and common sensical.

Liberals are like incurable hemorrhoids, a persistent pain in the ass.

common-sense.jpg
Click to expand...

Now that exemplifies a common sense and reasonable rebuttal......lol
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top