Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Daphne
Trad climber
Northern California
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2014 - 10:03pm PT
|
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/nation-debates-extremely-complex-issue-children-firing-military-weapons
CREDIT PHOTOGRAPH BY SVEN NACKSTRAND/AFP/GETTY
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Across the United States on Wednesday, a heated national debate began on the extremely complex issue of children firing military weapons.
“Every now and then, the nation debates an issue that is so complicated and tricky it defies easy answers,” says pollster Davis Logsdon. “Letting small children fire automatic weapons is such an issue.”
Logsdon says that the thorny controversy is reminiscent of another ongoing national debate, about whether it is a good idea to load a car with dynamite and drive it into a tree.
“Many Americans think it’s a terrible idea, but others believe that with the correct supervision, it’s perfectly fine,” he says. “Who’s to say who’s right?”
Similar, he says, is the national debate about using a flamethrower indoors. “There has been a long and contentious national conversation about this,” he says. “It’s another tough one.”
Much like the long-running national debates about jumping off a roof, licking electrical sockets, and gargling with thumbtacks, the vexing question of whether children should fire military weapons does not appear headed for a swift resolution.
“Like the issue of whether you should sneak up behind a bear and jab it with a hot poker, this won’t be settled any time soon,” he says.
|
|
ß Î Ø T Ç H
Boulder climber
extraordinaire
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2014 - 11:36pm PT
|
nation-debates-extremely-complex-issue-children-firing-military-weapons
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2014 - 08:15pm PT
|
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2014 - 01:06pm PT
|
"Learn how to kill...."
Or not!
Can you goofballs find one single thing wrong with what this woman did to save herself?
http://news.yahoo.com/woman-uses-her-gun-ward-off-abduction-190207403.html
Ohio, which began issuing concealed carry permits in 2004, has experienced a massive surge of new concealed carry permit requests. According to an article from the Columbus Dispatch earlier this year, 96,972 new permits were issued in 2013 — a 50 percent increase from 2012. Permit renewals quadrupled over the same time span to 48,370.
Hopefully this incident will produce a significant increase in CC holders in Ohio.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2014 - 01:20pm PT
|
“I said, ‘Well, what do you want?,’ and as I was saying that I reached in to my pocket and slipped my gun out, slipped the safety off as I pulled it out,” Burns said.
Sounds like that came right out of a novel.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2014 - 01:24pm PT
|
Someone help me, tell me I am following the reasoning.
Premise: Criminals don't care about or follow any "laws".
Therefore: There is no point whatsoever in passing ANY gun laws, correct?
Premise: Stupid parents will not buckle their infants in the car with safety belts.
Therefore: We don't need no seat belt laws, correct?
Premise: Stupid people don't follow traffic laws.
Therefore: We don't need any laws limiting speeding, reckless driving, DUI laws, etc
Any fool can see that not only don't we need any new laws, we don't need any old laws.
That's my story and I am sticking to it.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2014 - 01:35pm PT
|
It's a simple question: Can you goofballs find one single thing wrong with this woman having a gun and using it as she did?
Don't change the subject!
You post all sorts of articles to claim that "guns are bad."
So, pony up and respond to this one.
You won't admit the simple and obvious truth, which is: This is a textbook example of WHY it is a GOOD thing for people just like her (meaning almost everybody) to carry a gun.
Do you think that this woman will now stop carrying? I mean, after all, she's had her incident.
Do you think that she will now argue (as many of you have on this thread): "Well, the odds of me ever needing a gun (again) are so low that it's not worth the hassles and dangers of doing so"?
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2014 - 02:12pm PT
|
These anti-gunners going after the tool rather than the act are a sorry bunch.
I just got back from Flyin' Brian's memorial after 3 hours of Labor Day traffic. The idiots were out in force, weaving, obstructing, cutting off, ignoring, texting etc.
You want to save innocent lives? Then raise the bar on obtaining and keeping a driver's license.
Oh wait. Drat! That would be unpopular. It might even be personally inconvenient.
Going after guns is so much sexier (not to mention self righteous, oops, I just did).
Yeah, I'd like to see what all these ersatz Gandhis would do when a crazed lunatic with an axe is cutting through their flimsy front doors while the cops are an hour out. I'm sure that even if an assault rifle was available they wouldn't use it to protect themselves and their families because there is no sporting purposes for it.
Yeah, at most they would grab an axe so as not to be unsportsmanlike.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2014 - 03:42pm PT
|
LOL... good post, Toker. Notice that in response to my question, the crickets are out in force!
Edit: "ersatz Gandhis" is a phrase that should be popularized!
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujò de la Playa
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2014 - 08:43pm PT
|
Surely it's not the guns, but rather the brooms operating them. Or perhaps, the rodents directing the brooms. In any event guns are only neutral.
All the way with the NRA.
"I won't piss in your pool, if you don't shoot me."
-Walt Disney
[Click to View YouTube Video]
Crazed lunatic at my door with an axe? I'd chop his mf'ing head off.
And you?
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
It's a simple question: Can you goofballs find one single thing wrong with this woman having a gun and using it as she did?
Nothing, but unless you can find a couple of thousand of those stories each week, they don't balance out the illegal uses facilitated by the current absurd ease of getting and carrying a gun, and absurd penalties for helping those criminals. They wouldn't balance out the illegal uses perpetrated by up to then "law abiding" citizens. They wouldn't even balance out the number of deaths and injuries caused by careless handling each year.
On a constructive note, I agree that when the government not only fails, but refuses to even try to protect its citizens from violence, that prohibiting people from owning guns for protection is "not good", for want of a less contentious term. I would like to see the ownership and use of guns for self-defense, like another divisive issue, to be safe, legal and rare. Reducing gun crime is the goal, but reducing legal demand for guns would a beneficial secondary effect.
There are no simple or quick solutions, but there are several steps that could be taken. Universal background checks, that you and 90% of the population support. Much stricter regulation of dealers and much stricter penalties for straw-purchasers and rogue dealers. Much better training before public carrying of guns and much stricter penalties for illegally carrying a gun (a misdemeanor in most states). Abolish stand your ground laws, which are a playbook for murderer and an excuse to shoot first, ask questions later. None of these infringes on anybody's right to self-defense or freedom to decide what weapon is most suitable for that purpose.
So, if this thread had caused you to go out and buy a gun, know also that it has increased my contribution to Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC, and my determination to financially support the Democratic Party candidate in the upcoming election for an open congressional seat in my swing district. My way leaves less dead people.
TE
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Tradeddie, aren't you same dude posting up on the Ferguson thread against excessive Police force in this country?
Not me at all. But if armed police killed fifty innocent people for every one dead criminal (as is the case with civilian-owned guns), I certainly would.
I spent ten years of my life shooting guns almost every single week, I have repeatedly said I have no problem with guns, no problem with responsible gun ownership, or responsible gun trade, however simply trusting people to be responsible is a sure way be be disappointed. Legally mandated responsibility for the ownership, carrying and sale of guns, and genuine penalties for those that are irresponsible would be a huge step forward in saving the lives of thousands of Americans each year.
Please explain to me why it's illegal to buy a gun for someone else (even if that person is not prohibited, as a recent court case determined), but perfectly legal to buy a gun, then sell it the next day to a total stranger, even posting online that the sale will require no background check?
TE
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Wrong! Publicly illegally carrying a loaded weapon is a felony in most states
Without other aggravating factors, such as being prohibited from owning guns, or while committing another crime, I'll stand by my original statement. Show me otherwise and I'll retract and apologize.
California - First offense - misdemeanor.
Pennsylvania - Misdemeanor.
Nevada - A Gross Misdemeanor.
Colorado - Misdemeanor.
Chicago - Class A misdemeanor.
Where do you live?
TE
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
What state/s is that process legal in?
Every state where is is legal to privately sell a gun as long as you do not know or "reasonably believe" the buyer to be prohibited. Suspicion is not belief, and who could know the legal history of a total stranger?
TE
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
You have a viable source for that claim.
200 justifiable civilian homicides, vs. 10,000+ murders. But you wouldn't trust the CDC or FBI statistics anyway, so why ask?
And don't give me any crap about all the times guns are legally used to prevent a crime without being discharged, because for every one of those there are many more crimes where the gun wasn't discharged either.
TE
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
In NEVADA, it is perfectly legal to open carry a loaded firearm most any where you wish, unless posted otherwise, also, govt bulidings, schools and such. In some other states , no permit is required to carry concealed.
And the trend is going that way. More and more states are combining carry permit acceptance from other states as well.. Concealed classes have never been more full, and gun purchases are still at all time highs.
At least Nevada requires classes, that's more than many states, and one of the items on my wishlist.
TE
|
|
Delhi Dog
climber
Good Question...
|
|
I dig how Tradeddie sounds so calm, while the Chief seems to be huffing and puffing.
Carry on:-)
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
That has absolutely NOTHING to validate your original claim TRADEDDIE
Facts and numbers aren't your strongpoint? 10,000 murders by civilians with guns, divided by 200 justifiable homicides by civilians with guns = 50:1. If cops behaved liked that I'd want something done about it.
Nobody has been able to point out any factual statement of mine that was BS. If they can, I'll retract and apologize. You can criticize my opinions, I can take that, but if you want to call my numbers or facts BS, you need more.
Nevada Penal Code:
NRS 202.350
1. Except as otherwise provided in this section and NRS 202.355 and 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive, a person within this State shall not:
(d) Carry concealed upon his or her person any
(3) Pistol, revolver or other firearm, or other dangerous or deadly weapon;
2. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 202.275 and 212.185, a person who violates any of the provisions of:
(a) Paragraph (a) or (c) or subparagraph (2) or (4) of paragraph (d) of subsection 1 is guilty:
(1) For the first offense, of a gross misdemeanor.
NOT A FELONY!!!!! Be a man, admit you are wrong.
TE
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Selling guns to strangers: Only seventeen states have background check laws that exceed Federal law. Even among those seventeen, background checks are not required for all gun sales. I will admit an error I made in previous posts, Pennsylvania is now one of those states.
For the remaining states, (33 states, which is more than half, so a majority, i.e. most states), federal law applies, which says:
U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 922
18 U.S. Code § 922 (d)
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person (is prohibited from possession).
So, in 33 states, if you don't know or reasonably believe a buyer to be a criminal/psychopath/underage, it's perfectly legal to sell a gun to a total stranger without any background check.
Straw purchasing is illegal, but when the seller of a gun later used in a crime can simply say "I sold it to some dude in a bar", straw purchasing is virtually un-prosecutable unless it can be proven that the seller knew the purchaser was a criminal. The low odds of a prosecution, combined with the logistical difficulties of tracing crime guns means that very little police effort is spent on this.
TE
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!