This is scary - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/07/2013 06:06:50 AM · #127

Originally posted by Cory:

I, of course, don't really fit into either group very well.

The truth is that I simply don't support that with doesn't make good sense.

Magazine bans = pure bullshit nonsense
Background checks = great idea
Mental Health Screening = great idea
wait periods = great idea
"assault weapons ban" = Shit idea ....

I guess we will have to disagree of the magazine capacity issue. I will even grant you the ability to change a clip in 1 second, but if the clip only had a capacity of say ten, you would have to carry many clips to equal the capacity of one of the clips currently on the market. It would definitely make things a tad more difficult.

How poor of a shot are those people that need these massive clips. My father was a trapper and went into the woods carrying no more than 3 bullets and if he shot all three it meant he had bagged three.

Regarding assault weapons... why on earth would anyone other than the military and others such as SWAT personnel require these... they were designed with a specific purpose in mind and I doubt that civilian use was at the forefront of the design stage.

Just another man's view.

Ray

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/07/2013 07:42:02 AM · #128

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Watch it. I'm pretty sure Ray thinks that when Canada takes a dump the US smells roses... ;)

I have no idea what this is in reference to Doc, but truth be told I would venture most folks in the USA know diddle about Canada and really don't give a shit about us.

Ask your friends and neighbours where most of your crude oil imports originate from and my money says that they will say either some Saudi Arabia or Venezuela.

It's Sunday, have a great day.

Ray

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/07/2013 11:30:50 AM · #129

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
it boils down to this : If it makes significant difference, then I'm ok with it ...magazine capacity bans are just going to be ineffective, and since I happen to like large magazines, now I'm a gun nut. *shrug* Whatever. You can call me what you want..

Ooh, can I call you clueless?

Ummm... People tend to hide illegal things... Duh.

Haven't you consistently said that banning things or making them illegal is not going to impact their use by criminals? Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways. If you're going to insist that the drop is due to the criminals HIDING their "illegal" weapons from the cops, then you're stretching even further than I thought you were for rationales...

Do you honestly think that people don't make a greater effort to conceal things which are illegal?

Look at the prohibition, or the current drug war for a myriad of examples: people are damned clever at hiding contraband, I can't see why this would be any different.

And the fact that the numbers went down here is almost certainly a function of more-or-less law abiding citizens getting rid of them - remember that the police don't only seize weapons from hard-core criminals who would seek to do mass harm with these weapons. In truth, the VERY small percentage of hard-core criminals and psychos, who do want to cause the greatest amount of harm, will not be significantly affected by these laws. To believe otherwise is against all logic and previous examples.

Message edited by author 2013-04-07 11:34:27.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/07/2013 11:50:59 AM · #130

Originally posted by Cory:

And the fact that the numbers went down here is almost certainly a function of more-or-less law abiding citizens getting rid of them...

So, let me see if I have this right: the PURPOSE of a ban, let us say, is to take assault weapons out of circulation as much as possible. The RESULT of the ban includes "more-or-less law-abiding citizens" voluntarily turning in their assault weapons in significant numbers, therefore (as far as this is true) reducing the number of assault weapons in circulation. And this is bad? How do you figure?

You basically seem to be denying a correlation between bans and absolute numbers on the one hand ("They just HIDE 'am, see?"), and then on the other hand pointing out that people are turning them in? You're just scrambling, Cory. You can't POSSIBLY make any rational argument that bans on certain things don't affect quantities of those things. Heck, even during prohibition there was less BOOZE around.

Look, I can understand an argument against these bans based on "unintended consequences" (that's what happened with prohibition, the cure was worse than the disease) but it's hard to be sympathetic when you try to manipulate what are essentially peripheral issues ("Who's REALLY turning the guns in and why?").

04/07/2013 12:14:24 PM · #131

Originally posted by Paul:

First, I think that separating the two is really difficult.

Secondly, I want to point out that there are plenty of weapons that are more deadly than guns, we could go off into a serious tangent here, but suffice to say that it's not exactly rocket science to build destructive devices, or create nasty chemical cocktails.

As a third and final issue, I'd like to point out that a really big part of my problem with this is that the proposed restrictions and regulations aren't going to do anything to curb the problem, all they do is lower the fun-quotient of some types of shooting - not exactly something I think we should be spending tax money on.

But, given all of that - as to your first question, I think the first consideration is more important, although with that being said, people being victimized who could have otherwise defended themselves is a shameful state of affairs.

As to your question about being in the UK with the gun bans - the thing you have to understand is that I personally rarely carry - my gun usually lives in the closet - but my 100lb girlfriend does carry when she's sleeping on the side of the road at night in her RV while on the road working - and I damn sure want her to be able to continue doing so.

When it comes to myself, I'm the sort of guy who's won paintball games without ever firing a shot, I don't really need guns, I personally think I'd be safer if there weren't so damned many guns - sure I fear getting shot, but the truth is that most people will hesitate long enough for me to either disarm them or escape.

So, no I wouldn't at all object - guns really aren't even something I use for self-defense purposes, so it wouldn't be a problem for me in the least. Besides, I travel for work all the time within the US, and since I fly, I don't carry since there's no way I'm going through the bull-shit of trying to fly with weapons as it is.

And I don't carry even when I go to the most dangerous damn places you can imagine, 9th Ward NOLA, Overtown Miami, Liberty City Miami, Meadow Lakes NM, and a host of other places. I carry a magnesium body DSLR with a big assed lens, and drive around in a 2000+lb vehicle - I don't need guns to feel safe my friends.

So, I hope you can understand that I'm really not arguing this point because I need guns. It's purely about erosion of rights, and the other people who DO actually NEED their guns.

In the end, even if I try to argue this from a hunting standpoint, I prefer a bow and arrow to a firearm any day. Hell, it'd be FREAKING awesome if the only hunts that were allowed were with non-firearm type weapons. Of course, I don't even hunt anymore, so that's pretty much a non-issue as well anyway...

Message edited by author 2013-04-07 12:34:07.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/07/2013 12:31:10 PM · #132

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Cory:
And the fact that the numbers went down here is almost certainly a function of more-or-less law abiding citizens getting rid of them...

So, let me see if I have this right: the PURPOSE of a ban, let us say, is to take assault weapons out of circulation as much as possible. The RESULT of the ban includes "more-or-less law-abiding citizens" voluntarily turning in their assault weapons in significant numbers, therefore (as far as this is true) reducing the number of assault weapons in circulation. And this is bad? How do you figure?

You basically seem to be denying a correlation between bans and absolute numbers on the one hand ("They just HIDE 'am, see?"), and then on the other hand pointing out that people are turning them in? You're just scrambling, Cory. You can't POSSIBLY make any rational argument that bans on certain things don't affect quantities of those things. Heck, even during prohibition there was less BOOZE around.

Look, I can understand an argument against these bans based on "unintended consequences" (that's what happened with prohibition, the cure was worse than the disease) but it's hard to be sympathetic when you try to manipulate what are essentially peripheral issues ("Who's REALLY turning the guns in and why?").

You've got this twisted up Bear - it's not that they're turning the guns in and hiding them - it's that the number of seizures went down because the folks who are basically law abiding did turn theirs in - these same more-or-less law abiding citizens then did something stupid and criminal and were subsequently subject to the seizure of their firearms. My argument is that the ones that were still being seized actually represent the criminal population that would have maintained the possession of these weapons no matter what laws are enacted, and that furthermore, this smaller number of weapons are actually the ones that are going to be used in crimes.

The question becomes, what is the half-life in the environment for weapons and contraband in general? In other words, at what rate can the police remove 50% of these weapons from circulation? How long does it really take before you are significantly safer? Realize that the most committed criminals will pay the most for the weapons, thereby creating a situation in which the last people to actually be deprived of weaponry are those who were originally targeted as the "problem" owners.

Do you think that during prohibition the ones who were deprived of alcohol were the responsible drinkers or the problem drinkers? Who is more likely to bother going to the risk and effort to acquire illegal booze?

Message edited by author 2013-04-07 14:21:32.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

04/07/2013 01:38:35 PM · #133

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Watch it. I'm pretty sure Ray thinks that when Canada takes a dump the US smells roses... ;)

I have no idea what this is in reference to Doc, but truth be told I would venture most folks in the USA know diddle about Canada and really don't give a shit about us.

Ask your friends and neighbours where most of your crude oil imports originate from and my money says that they will say either some Saudi Arabia or Venezuela.

It's Sunday, have a great day.

Ray

I just gotta say, I like Canada a lot, and I have rarely met a Canadian I didn't like. Just so you know... :-)

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/07/2013 03:08:21 PM · #134

Originally posted by Cory:

the number of seizures went down because the folks who are basically law abiding did turn theirs in - these same more-or-less law abiding citizens then did something stupid and criminal and were subsequently subject to the seizure of their firearms. My argument is that the ones that were still being seized actually represent the criminal population that would have maintained the possession of these weapons no matter what laws are enacted, and that furthermore, this smaller number of weapons are actually the ones that are going to be used in crimes.

Now you're contradicting yourself. If the same 'more-or-less law abiding citizens who did turn theirs in then did something stupid,' they would no longer be in possession of the item you claim is subsequently seized. You're also using some ridiculous assertions in the process. First, EVERY criminal is more-or-less law abiding until he commits a crime. Precisely NONE of the shooters at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, Colorado, or Newtown had violent criminal records (if any record at all). Second, NO ban on large capacity magazines would result in people turning theirs in since these bans invariably have grandfather clauses that only affect future sales. Third, the vast majority of violent crimes are not at the hands of "the most committed criminals," but those same more-or-less law abiding citizens who went off the deep end and happened to have ready access to serious firepower. Lastly, even if all of the above were true, something like 15% of weapons used in violent crime are stolen, so anything that lowers the availability of weapons also affects the bad guys, too.

All of this in an utterly lame attempt to dispute real numbers of large capacity magazines seized in Virginia before, during and after a ban that you falsely deemed useless. Magazines seized by police is a measurable effect specifically and directly tied to criminals since mere possession by law abiding citizens would not warrant seizure due to the aforementioned grandfather clauses. You're in denial of plain fact.

Message edited by author 2013-04-07 15:10:36.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

04/07/2013 08:26:34 PM · #135

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by scalvert:
"Reidâ��s advisers say the murder of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., has changed the political landscape and Reid now views gun violence from a different perspective."

While Sandy Hook was a great tragedy, I do find it sad that an event like it has so much greater effect on the majority than the 3,296 people who have been killed by guns since. Are we so numbed to the day to day murders in our nation that we can no longer feel them?

Same thing happened with 9/11. A couple of thousand died on that day, which is a drop in the bucket when compared to the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths as a result of Americans' retribution. Just goes to show if you want to kill thousands or even millions just space it out a bit and you'll get away with it.

Message edited by author 2013-04-07 20:29:48.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

04/07/2013 08:47:13 PM · #136

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Harry Reid has been an obstacle, not a boon for the latest attempts at gun control.
I'm pretty sure the NRA is smart enough to sniff out a fair weather friend and lower their grade...

Are the 2013 ratings out yet? "Reidâ��s advisers say the murder of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., has changed the political landscape and Reid now views gun violence from a different perspective."

I'm not making this up. Search the op/ed pages of various left-leaning newspapers and you will see people frustrated with Reid. I don't really trust much of what comes out of a politician's mouth (let alone an advisor (chuckle), but I'll judge based on actions. Reid's actions have insidiously left a lot to be desired.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/07/2013 09:52:56 PM · #137

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm not making this up.

Granted, however Reid's B rating and NRA support was due in large part to a large 2010 earmark for a gun range in Nevada and the non-trivial fact that a Reid loss with democrats maintaining a majority would mean a senate led by even less gun-friendly Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin. Don't kid yourself, though, Reid has a lifetime "F" rating from the Gun Owners of America, and the apparent watering down of senate gun control proposals might actually be better than a firm stance that has no chance of passing.

Regardless of any particular senator, future policy will be dictated by the realities of public sentiment. The trend has been for more gun violence and increasingly sensational massacres as guns have proliferated even though the overall violent crime rate has declinedâ�� exactly as common sense and international experience predicts, and in direct opposition to the NRA's position that more guns = less violence. Unfortunately, it will take a few more Newtowns to push public opinion back to pre-radical NRA concepts of the 2nd amendment, but it will assuredly happen.

04/08/2013 12:58:47 AM · #138

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
the number of seizures went down because the folks who are basically law abiding did turn theirs in - these same more-or-less law abiding citizens then did something stupid and criminal and were subsequently subject to the seizure of their firearms. My argument is that the ones that were still being seized actually represent the criminal population that would have maintained the possession of these weapons no matter what laws are enacted, and that furthermore, this smaller number of weapons are actually the ones that are going to be used in crimes.

Now you're contradicting yourself. If the same 'more-or-less law abiding citizens who did turn theirs in then did something stupid,' they would no longer be in possession of the item you claim is subsequently seized. You're also using some ridiculous assertions in the process. First, EVERY criminal is more-or-less law abiding until he commits a crime. Precisely NONE of the shooters at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, Colorado, or Newtown had violent criminal records (if any record at all). Second, NO ban on large capacity magazines would result in people turning theirs in since these bans invariably have grandfather clauses that only affect future sales. Third, the vast majority of violent crimes are not at the hands of "the most committed criminals," but those same more-or-less law abiding citizens who went off the deep end and happened to have ready access to serious firepower. Lastly, even if all of the above were true, something like 15% of weapons used in violent crime are stolen, so anything that lowers the availability of weapons also affects the bad guys, too.

All of this in an utterly lame attempt to dispute real numbers of large capacity magazines seized in Virginia before, during and after a ban that you falsely deemed useless. Magazines seized by police is a measurable effect specifically and directly tied to criminals since mere possession by law abiding citizens would not warrant seizure due to the aforementioned grandfather clauses. You're in denial of plain fact.

I'm really not contradicting myself, you're just too slow to follow me I guess. ;) Really dude, this makes sense, I know it does because the scenario I'm talking about isn't complex or hard to understand.

What I hear you saying is that you think there was no way that we could have expected these fellows to go off committing crimes? More or less law abiding, you say? Well I ask you what about the stack of warning signs? What about the warnings from all of these guys, they were all clearly dangerous and off their rockers - realize that each one of these guys had people ignoring their problems, giving them material support, sheltering them and protection from discovery, do you really think that they wouldn't have succeeded at their twisted goals somehow, no matter what?.. Seriously, how can you even claim that crap with a straight face? Surely you realize that any gun at a home where domestic violence occurs is seized, surely you realize that every pothead who is raided and has guns has them taken, etc. And it would make very good sense, would it not, that when something is not illegal, then it would be generally more openly displayed, and no extraordinary measures would be taken to hide it, yes? Now, if that same item is illegal, it would make good sense that it would now be placed in some sort of hiding. So the same guy being arrested for DV is now less likely to have an illegal weapon seized, simply because it would be more likely to be well hidden. And of course, unless the guy felt he needed it, he probably would have already sold it off to someone who was willing to pay more for it - since illegal items are immediately worth more money. (see the price trend of the AR-15 rifle and all similar rifles over the last six months... And they're not even illegal yet)

If you think the number of items seized by the police is a direct measure of how many dangerous people are deprived of weaponry, then you are a very silly man who doesn't understand how the world works at all. I'm sure you're really not that silly though, so I can't, for the life of me, figure out why you're insisting that every one of these that was seized was always from a very dangerous person... In truth, it's more likely that after the ban the people, on average, who still possessed them WERE MORE DANGEROUS, simply because they clearly had some reason to feel that they needed the illegal weapon, and were willing to flaunt the law to get it. Surely this makes sense to you.

Message edited by author 2013-04-08 01:08:54.

04/08/2013 01:10:36 AM · #139

Based on some of the writings here, by several parties, one could quite possibly conceive that some of you are truly off your rockers. And possibly dangerous.

So who makes the final determination?

04/08/2013 01:28:38 AM · #140

Originally posted by Melethia:

Based on some of the writings here, by several parties, one could quite possibly conceive that some of you are truly off your rockers. And possibly dangerous.

So who makes the final determination?

I wrote an eloquent and lengthy response, but since most of you have demonstrated a complete inability to read, here's a simple version that you'll understand.

Accusing people of these things is upsetting, dangerous, and completely inappropriate.

Message edited by author 2013-04-08 02:30:30.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

04/08/2013 01:57:36 AM · #141

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not making this up.

Granted, however Reid's B rating and NRA support was due in large part to a large 2010 earmark for a gun range in Nevada and the non-trivial fact that a Reid loss with democrats maintaining a majority would mean a senate led by even less gun-friendly Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin. Don't kid yourself, though, Reid has a lifetime "F" rating from the Gun Owners of America, and the apparent watering down of senate gun control proposals might actually be better than a firm stance that has no chance of passing.

Regardless of any particular senator, future policy will be dictated by the realities of public sentiment. The trend has been for more gun violence and increasingly sensational massacres as guns have proliferated even though the overall violent crime rate has declinedâ�� exactly as common sense and international experience predicts, and in direct opposition to the NRA's position that more guns = less violence. Unfortunately, it will take a few more Newtowns to push public opinion back to pre-radical NRA concepts of the 2nd amendment, but it will assuredly happen.

I'd probably say the B rating comes from his vote against an assault rifle ban in 2004 and 1993 and voting for limiting gun manufacturer liability in 2005. "Harry Reid is the most calculating individual I have ever covered in politics,â�� was a quote by a Nevada beat reporter. But I know you like to choose a narrative and stick with it. We can both hope for some sensible gun control. I'm pulling for universal background checks, but we'll see if dysfunctional Washington will get anything done.

04/08/2013 02:01:11 AM · #142

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Melethia:
Based on some of the writings here, by several parties, one could quite possibly conceive that some of you are truly off your rockers. And possibly dangerous.

So who makes the final determination?

I wrote an eloquent and lengthy response, but since most of you have demonstrated a complete inability to read, here's a simple version that you'll understand.

Dude. It was basically a rhetorical question not aimed at anyone in particular, but to raise the question as to who, exactly, has final say on batshit crazy, since it does tend to vary from one viewpoint to the next. Little old lady next door may seem batshit crazy with her 20 cats, yes? And if she has a weapon or six, should someone determine she is dangerous? Political radio talk show host with arsenal (and I really have no idea if there is such a thing, so don't hold that against me) - who determines if he is batshit crazy?

Get my drift? Who decides?

(P.S. This is what I was referring to: "What I hear you saying is that you think there was no way that we could have expected these fellows to go off committing crimes? More or less law abiding, you say? Well I ask you what about the stack of warning signs? What about the warnings from all of these guys, they were all clearly dangerous and off their rockers - realize that each one of these guys had people ignoring their problems, giving them material support, sheltering them and protection from discovery, do you really think that they wouldn't have succeeded at their twisted goals somehow, no matter what?" My question was based on who decides these guys are dangerous?)

Message edited by author 2013-04-08 02:03:12.

04/08/2013 02:03:45 AM · #143

Oh, and cheers right back at you, Cory! Promise not to enter the fray again. :-)

04/08/2013 02:18:21 AM · #144

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Melethia:
Based on some of the writings here, by several parties, one could quite possibly conceive that some of you are truly off your rockers. And possibly dangerous.

So who makes the final determination?

I wrote an eloquent and lengthy response, but since most of you have demonstrated a complete inability to read, here's a simple version that you'll understand.

Dude. It was basically a rhetorical question not aimed at anyone in particular, but to raise the question as to who, exactly, has final say on batshit crazy, since it does tend to vary from one viewpoint to the next. Little old lady next door may seem batshit crazy with her 20 cats, yes? And if she has a weapon or six, should someone determine she is dangerous? Political radio talk show host with arsenal (and I really have no idea if there is such a thing, so don't hold that against me) - who determines if he is batshit crazy?

Get my drift? Who decides?

(P.S. This is what I was referring to: "What I hear you saying is that you think there was no way that we could have expected these fellows to go off committing crimes? More or less law abiding, you say? Well I ask you what about the stack of warning signs? What about the warnings from all of these guys, they were all clearly dangerous and off their rockers - realize that each one of these guys had people ignoring their problems, giving them material support, sheltering them and protection from discovery, do you really think that they wouldn't have succeeded at their twisted goals somehow, no matter what?" My question was based on who decides these guys are dangerous?)

Anyway, look, don't leave the fray if you don't want to, if that wasn't directed at me, so be it. I just don't think that's a fair tactic to levy personal attacks, especially accusing your opposition of being crazy.

So, as to who SHOULD have had the final say here? I suppose the people who love them, the people who know them, but this is a truth about humanity - families close ranks - it's why you always hear about how he was such a nice boy.. etc, right after they rob a bank and kill two people.

The sad truth is that we might never be able to stop these people because the folks who should stop them simply won't. Of course, if they did try to do something, no one would listen anyway - the cops and system don't approve of family turning in family. Honestly, do you have any idea HOW the cops look at me when I've had to actually call them on my mother? They really treat me like a scumbag for even thinking of calling the cops on my mother, the reproach would be intolerable if I didn't absolutely know I that I am completely right. Hell, it's so bad that I even had to bribe an assistant DA with a website to get them to prosecute her when she took $10,000 from me (insurance settlement from her drunk boyfriend who drove us into a ditch at 60mph)... You see, I know how life works, and how the world works, and my friends, let me tell you - it is fucked. Everyone and everything is corrupt at some level, nothing goes as planned, everything has unintended consequences, and nothing actually works as it was intended to work.

Now, I'm going to continue to soak my liver in delicious whiskey, and stop ranting here. Good night, I'm sure I'm done with this thread now - for once I'll just quit a /rant thread, since this one really is headed nowhere.

Cheers all.

Message edited by author 2013-04-08 02:31:07.

04/08/2013 10:00:22 AM · #145

Cory, I was not aiming anything at you, and to be honest, I thought your reaction was in a way showing exactly what the problems with "identifying those people" can be. It's a slippery and scary slope even more terrifying than taking guns away, in my opinion, and you are right - don't go around randomly accusing people of stuff BECAUSE it can be terrifying.

You certainly don't want The Government or Law Enforcement deciding who's crazy and a who might be a potential mass murderer based on random citizen input, do you? The opportunities for abuse here are chilling. Let's say I *DO* think you're crazy and dangerous - all I would have to do is alert the proper authorities and they'd have to investigate and make a determination - but based on what? Something you wrote and I misinterpreted on the internet? (Happens now, by the way, with stuff people post on Facebook, but in most of those cases it's sheer stupidity and false bravado, like the guys who brag about what they stole and from where ... seriously.)

Families. That has the potential to be even worse. Johnny has always been a dark boy - reads dark comics, plays violent video games, dresses in black, is a subatomic particle genius, has no friends. Susie, his sister, wants him out of the will. Oh so easy to say he's a potential mass murderer, yes? And if Susie can convince Mom, who's a bit scared of Johnny to begin with, well, done deal!

Now what? What do we DO with these dangerous, might be mass murderer people?

By the way, I worked with a guy who if he shot up a McDonalds, not a soul would say "oh, he was such a nice boy!" They'd say "that's not at all surprising." He was very smart, very cunning, very mean. He liked to torture and kill small animals and describe it as a mercy. He is not batshit crazy. He's just pretty much evil. What do you do with people like that?

Mousie

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

04/08/2013 11:49:55 AM · #146

Background checks, do they work? Do they work if you use them only for commercial sales, and not personal sales?

Let's look at weed in California. You need a green card to buy it legally. The government controls the distribution of green cards, via legislation and doctors. They background check you.

Nobody's effectively controlling the sale of weed between friends. It just happens.

Guess how easy it is to get weed in California, even if you can't do so legally.

cowboy221977

Canon EOS-60D

04/08/2013 10:41:18 PM · #147

Smart newtown parent

You wont see this on CNN

ETA My heart bleeds for all the families affected by new town. This father seems to be going in the right direction as far as keeping this from happening again

Message edited by author 2013-04-08 22:47:58.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

04/10/2013 07:22:59 AM · #148

i'm pretty sure the parents involved here were glad guns were around to keep the family safe:

//www.nj.com/ocean/index.ssf/2013/04/four-year-old_shoots_neighbor_in_head_in_apparently_accidental_shooting_in_toms_river.html

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/10/2013 09:03:03 AM · #149

Originally posted by mike_311:

It looks like they haven't updated this story, but the little boy has died. And quite a few more guns were taken from the home.

eta: //abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=9015992

Message edited by author 2013-04-10 09:05:46.

Mike