Good gun control policy in CA

[frankenbeemer]

Not at all. I fired one in Pakistan a few years ago and fell in love with it.

As for the rest of your babble, why do you need an assault rife or whatever you want to call it to defend yourself? Is it Red Dawn up in this bitch? Training Day? No. I'm sorry, but it's not. I have an S&W 637 and I'm really not too worried about being outgunned. In close quarters, it'll be easier to aim as well. You'll be hitting walls and shit trying to aim that thing.

Guns are banned in most of the civilized world and criminals still do what they do, but you don't see malcontents blasting away at schools or their family in any statistically relevant amount. What people do in the hood doesn't concern me though. Let them blow each other away.

Since you're the one making a facile hypothetical, let me do the same: Bombs are, let's say, banned and terrorists still get their hands on them. But you know what? Those who try to get their hands on that stuff are easier to track and nab before they do anything.

Bombs are banned. You may enter the Boston Marathon without worry.

I like the "facile hypothetical" accusation, that is rich. Hypocrisy is a cool word, and very appropriate here, if you were serious.

[einhander]

thats not an assault rifle its a sporting rifle that LOOKS like an assault rifle.

Hey guess what destructive devices you know BOMBs are all but banned too, does not stop one for going to the local hardware and procuring all the items needed to make them.

I hate to break it to you, but guns are destructive devices too.

Anyway, if bombs are banned then one can reasonably consider that the people going to procure items to make one have some sort of malicious intent.

I'll leave it at that.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Or they have a bothersome tree stump.

[einhander]

Or they have a bothersome tree stump.

You funny fucker, you!

[mrsleeve]

I hate to break it to you, but guns are destructive devices too.

.

Not according to the BATF.

You are also talking to a guy that has used explosives to remove tree stumps before as well

[nando]

yay, another school shooting!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/21/nevada-middle-school-shooting/3143903/

when is enough going to be enough?

they are so commonplace now, it's not even very shocking.

[mrsleeve]

Yup that was the fault of the firearm, it just got all vendictive and shit annd took itslef too the school and began shooting people all by itself


Cultural problem when the news media glorfies this shit for weeks on end after they happen further inspiring other shit heads with an ax to grind and piss poor parrents trying to be their best friends and not parrents

[nando]

when did I mention blaming guns?

the solution from the right is still "good guys don't do bad stuff". Until they walk into a school and blow a bunch of kids away.

[mrsleeve]

The shooter was a 7th grader. I didn't see the type of weapon used but its a fairly sure bet that he's not allowed to own a gun by law yet. There for he stole it to pull this stunt.

You have consistanty argued to limit rights and regulate tools and inanimate objects based on what someone might do with them. Yet don't propose similar regulation and restrictions on other objects and tools that have just as much probability to be missused. Just getting to your own implied poinnt before you do

[Farbin Kaiber]

^The ACA should be banned then, because it could hurt people. Sure, it could save people's lives, but it will also cause people to die, so, I say we ban it.

[nando]

The shooter was a 7th grader. I didn't see the type of weapon used but its a fairly sure bet that he's not allowed to own a gun by law yet. There for he stole it to pull this stunt.

You have consistanty argued to limit rights and regulate tools and inanimate objects based on what someone might do with them. Yet don't propose similar regulation and restrictions on other objects and tools that have just as much probability to be missused. Just getting to your own implied poinnt before you do

for sure the parents are at fault, but isn't it highly likely that they were law abiding gun owners?

I mean, let's take your point about other "things" that can kill. like cars - except you need a license to drive a car (although the requirements are pretty low, you still need one). Why not require a license to own a gun? Something that would require training and being responsible with storage.

[mrsleeve]

Driving is a privilege. Firearms ownership is a right. Need I explain the differance

[nando]

it's a right that some people shouldn't have, no? because they go crazy and shoot a bunch of people, or they're irresponsible and leave it where a 7 year old can get their hands on it. is that not a problem?

I'm not certain, but I don't think they had problems with nut jobs walking into schools and killing everyone back in the 1700s. am I wrong?

last I saw, the redcoats weren't roaming the streets and the military could crush even well armed civilians.

[BraveUlysses]

Driving is a privilege. Firearms ownership is a right. Need I explain the differance

So, do you support felons or mentally unstable people being allowed to own and carry guns?

[mrsleeve]

Loaded question is loaded................................. yes and no mostly no.

Firearms ownership is not the only rights forefited when convited of a felony though now is it