The government is not going to take away guns.

Period

Wasted argument

(09-02-2015 05:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 04:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 04:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 01:33 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Why do some people rant about the necessity for gun registration ? I purchased a claw hammer the other day , should that be registered as well?

You can disagree with my statement, but making this comparison makes you look silly. A gun is a dangerous instrument, that is crafted for one purpose. Acting as if any tool which can be used as a weapon is the same as a tool made explicitly to be a weapon hurts the legitimate arguments that gun owners have.

And what purpose would that be?

To shoot a projectile at an intended target.

And that makes it dangerous how?

(09-02-2015 05:26 PM)shere khan Wrote:  The government is not going to take away guns.

Period

Wasted argument

Tell that to those that registered theirs in New York, then got a letter in the mail to turn them in or remove them from the state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(09-02-2015 05:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 05:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 04:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 04:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 01:33 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Why do some people rant about the necessity for gun registration ? I purchased a claw hammer the other day , should that be registered as well?

You can disagree with my statement, but making this comparison makes you look silly. A gun is a dangerous instrument, that is crafted for one purpose. Acting as if any tool which can be used as a weapon is the same as a tool made explicitly to be a weapon hurts the legitimate arguments that gun owners have.

And what purpose would that be?

To shoot a projectile at an intended target.

And that makes it dangerous how?

Is this a serious question? Listen, I'm a gunowner and have grown up shooting guns my entire life, the first rule I was ever taught was to respect the firearm for what it is. It's a dangerous weapon that if not treated with the respect it deserves, can end someones life very easily. You don't treat it as a toy, you always assume it's loaded, and you don't point it at anything you don't intend to destroy. These are all rules you abide by because of the dangerous nature of firearms.

That is not to say using firearms cannot be done safely, but to do so safely requires that you respect them and their capabilities.

(09-02-2015 05:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 05:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 05:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 04:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 04:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You can disagree with my statement, but making this comparison makes you look silly. A gun is a dangerous instrument, that is crafted for one purpose. Acting as if any tool which can be used as a weapon is the same as a tool made explicitly to be a weapon hurts the legitimate arguments that gun owners have.

And what purpose would that be?

To shoot a projectile at an intended target.

And that makes it dangerous how?

Is this a serious question? Listen, I'm a gunowner and have grown up shooting guns my entire life, the first rule I was ever taught was to respect the firearm for what it is. It's a dangerous weapon that if not treated with the respect it deserves, can end someones life very easily. You don't treat it as a toy, you always assume it's loaded, and you don't point it at anything you don't intend to destroy. These are all rules you abide by because of the dangerous nature of firearms.

That is not to say using firearms cannot be done safely, but to do so safely requires that you respect them and their capabilities.

Let's work with what you gave us:

Listen, I'm a chainsaw owner and have grown up running chainsaws my entire life, the first rule I was ever taught was to respect the chainsaw for what it is. It's a dangerous tool that if not treated with the respect it deserves, can end someones life very easily. You don't treat it as a toy, you always assume it's rotating, and you don't point it at anything you don't intend to cut. These are all rules you abide by because of the dangerous nature of chainsaws.

See how that works?


A hammer is a tool designed to deliver a concentrated amount of force to a small area. When used in an improper manner it can be very dangerous.

A firearm is a TOOL designed to send a projectile at a target at a high velocity. When used in an improper manner it can be very dangerous.

Quote:A hammer is a tool designed to deliver a concentrated amount of force to a small area. When used in an improper manner it can be very dangerous.

A firearm is a TOOL designed to send a projectile at a target at a high velocity. When used in an improper manner it can be very dangerous.

This is a really poor argument. Using a gun correctly can lead to the death of another person, it's hard to make that argument about other tools. And that doesn't begin to mention the fact there are guns designed for combat, whose entire purpose is to kill or maim people. That doesn't mean they're evil, wrong, or should be made illegal, but that is literally their purpose.

I recently bought a nail gun. Loews. No registration. No background check. Put a 22 shell in and a nail and fire away. Bought it to nail into extremely hard concrete. VERY effective.

(09-02-2015 06:30 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I recently bought a nail gun. Loews. No registration. No background check. Put a 22 shell in and a nail and fire away. Bought it to nail into extremely hard concrete. VERY effective.

At putting nails into surfaces it touches. Try firing it accurately from a distance. There is a reason the military does't use nailguns. Please stop with these silly comparisons.

(09-02-2015 06:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:A hammer is a tool designed to deliver a concentrated amount of force to a small area. When used in an improper manner it can be very dangerous.

A firearm is a TOOL designed to send a projectile at a target at a high velocity. When used in an improper manner it can be very dangerous.

This is a really poor argument. Using a gun correctly can lead to the death of another person, it's hard to make that argument about other tools. And that doesn't begin to mention the fact there are guns designed for combat, whose entire purpose is to kill or maim people. That doesn't mean they're evil, wrong, or should be made illegal, but that is literally their purpose.

If I use a hammer effectively and as it was designed on your head I can kill you.

If I use a chainsaw effectively and as designed on your leg I can kill you.

As for why it was designed, the pike pole that every piece of structural fire apparatus carries on it was originally designed as a combat weapon to kill or maim people.

(09-02-2015 06:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:A hammer is a tool designed to deliver a concentrated amount of force to a small area. When used in an improper manner it can be very dangerous.

A firearm is a TOOL designed to send a projectile at a target at a high velocity. When used in an improper manner it can be very dangerous.

This is a really poor argument. Using a gun correctly can lead to the death of another person, it's hard to make that argument about other tools. And that doesn't begin to mention the fact there are guns designed for combat, whose entire purpose is to kill or maim people. That doesn't mean they're evil, wrong, or should be made illegal, but that is literally their purpose.

I use a firearm correctly each and every time and have yet "killed someone". I must be doing somethin wrong according to you.

(09-02-2015 06:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:A hammer is a tool designed to deliver a concentrated amount of force to a small area. When used in an improper manner it can be very dangerous.

A firearm is a TOOL designed to send a projectile at a target at a high velocity. When used in an improper manner it can be very dangerous.

This is a really poor argument. Using a gun correctly can lead to the death of another person, it's hard to make that argument about other tools. And that doesn't begin to mention the fact there are guns designed for combat, whose entire purpose is to kill or maim people. That doesn't mean they're evil, wrong, or should be made illegal, but that is literally their purpose.

Well. Some people need killin'. You gotta have the right tool for the job.

(09-02-2015 11:27 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

Hey!!! There's me at 3:22.

(09-02-2015 04:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 01:33 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Why do some people rant about the necessity for gun registration ? I purchased a claw hammer the other day , should that be registered as well?

You can disagree with my statement, but making this comparison makes you look silly. A gun is a dangerous instrument, that is crafted for one purpose. Acting as if any tool which can be used as a weapon is the same as a tool made explicitly to be a weapon hurts the legitimate arguments that gun owners have.

Making the comparison between a Constitutionally protected right and any other 'capability' is similarly silly. You don't have a specifically protected right to fly or drive or use a hammer. The barrier to take away or in any way infringe upon a Constitutionally protected right isn't merely 'it's better than nothing' which is essentially the argument that is being made by many.... not saying you, merely extending your complaint in the opposite direction.

Registering guns and reporting them as stolen doesn't in any way stop them from being stolen. Once they are stolen, registering them and having them be reported as stolen doesn't in any way prevent them from being used in crimes, NOR does it in any way implicate any of the people involved in those illegal actions.

So why are we going to violate a Constitutionally protected right in order to have effectively ZERO impact on the usage of guns in crimes?


The ONLY person it can possibly implicate in ANY way is the person who had his property stolen... previously known in most jurisdictions as 'victim'. In fact, I can imagine that in the future, leaving a lawfully registered and subsequently stolen gun at the scene of the crime would cause the police to expend resources interrogating the original owner, who is a law abiding citizen and likely to be cooperative, which means he is likely to get implicated to some degree because it is easy, while the person who used the gun to commit a crime gets fewer resources expended towards HIS capture, because that is much harder to do. If I were a crook, that is what I would do.

(09-03-2015 10:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 04:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 01:33 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Why do some people rant about the necessity for gun registration ? I purchased a claw hammer the other day , should that be registered as well?

You can disagree with my statement, but making this comparison makes you look silly. A gun is a dangerous instrument, that is crafted for one purpose. Acting as if any tool which can be used as a weapon is the same as a tool made explicitly to be a weapon hurts the legitimate arguments that gun owners have.

Making the comparison between a Constitutionally protected right and any other 'capability' is similarly silly. You don't have a specifically protected right to fly or drive or use a hammer. The barrier to take away or in any way infringe upon a Constitutionally protected right isn't merely 'it's better than nothing' which is essentially the argument that is being made by many.... not saying you, merely extending your complaint in the opposite direction.

Registering guns and reporting them as stolen doesn't in any way stop them from being stolen. Once they are stolen, registering them and having them be reported as stolen doesn't in any way prevent them from being used in crimes, NOR does it in any way implicate any of the people involved in those illegal actions.

So why are we going to violate a Constitutionally protected right in order to have effectively ZERO impact on the usage of guns in crimes?


The ONLY person it can possibly implicate in ANY way is the person who had his property stolen... previously known in most jurisdictions as 'victim'. In fact, I can imagine that in the future, leaving a lawfully registered and subsequently stolen gun at the scene of the crime would cause the police to expend resources interrogating the original owner, who is a law abiding citizen and likely to be cooperative, which means he is likely to get implicated to some degree because it is easy, while the person who used the gun to commit a crime gets fewer resources expended towards HIS capture, because that is much harder to do. If I were a crook, that is what I would do.

Just throwing stuff out there but what if there was a law that fined the gun owner if their gun wasn't secured when the gun was stolen?

What if gun owners were required to have their weapon in a secured lock box of some sort when they aren't in the home?

Why? You have a reasonable expectation no one is going to be in your home while you're away and the HOME IS SECURED. I lock my house... it's a secured lock box.

Under your scenario, I don't only have my gun stolen, I lost a $150.00 lock box too. And then the added insult, more out of pocket in the form of a fine.

And all because I'm a victim of a crime. Crazy talk.

Fit.
How can I conceal. "Lock box" and a weapon on my person?

Think boy!

(09-03-2015 10:12 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Just throwing stuff out there but what if there was a law that fined the gun owner if their gun wasn't secured when the gun was stolen?

What if gun owners were required to have their weapon in a secured lock box of some sort when they aren't in the home?

Agreeing with Paul in general, but more specifically I'd cite the New York experience where very few gun owners voluntarily register them so as to avoid that risk. The risk of being fined for being a victim.

We don't fine women who dress provocatively and are raped. We don't fine people who wear their jewels out and get robbed. We don't fine people who don't lock their cars or their windows who get robbed.

What your suggestion does is make it less likely that law abiding citizens would comply with the new law, making them criminals... or making it less likely that law abiding citizens would decide to own guns.... and lock boxes make the use of a gun for home protection from break-ins less effective... so it's actually a plus for burglars.

We all see what impact you are going to have on law abiding citizens, but what does the impact of a lock box have on the actual criminals? That they now have a gun AND a lock box?

BTW, there already are penalties for negligence with regard to things like firearms. You leave a loaded gun on your table and a kid shoots himself, you're (generally) liable... but we're talking about what burglars, who aren't allowed to be in your home do.

It should never be a crime or even a mitigating circumstance (you somehow asked for it) to have your home violated, even if you left a gun lying about, just as it should never be a crime or even a mitigating circumstance to have your person violated, even if you somehow (in someone's mind, not mine) 'asked for it'

Lots of people (especially those with lots of guns) DO have gun safes, but they are 800 pound things that cost many hundreds if not thousands of dollars.... not little $20 tin boxes. I suspect a court would say that requiring a $500-$5,000 gun safe is the equivalent of a 'poll tax', and a cheap tin box or even a trigger lock is really useless. The only point of those is to stop children from accidentally using them, not to keep thieves from doing so. You'd need a 200+ pound safe to be a deterrent to a thief, and lets be honest, they steal things from safes all the time as well. It might make it more lucrative to be a home burglar.



***ETA. I understand your thoughts and on the surface they seem logical, but the clear implication of this study and the reality of the situation tells us that it isn't a deterrent to the use of guns to commit crimes. LOTS of these guns are bought through straw purchases.. especially in Chicago I think it is half of them. SO that person has a big safe and every other year, he reports a big break in where 50 guns were stolen. What's the difference between that and what happens now? Where he buys lots of guns and when they check on him, he says, I sold them to 'a guy'? The focus must be on the use of guns and the transference of guns between criminals.