Author Topic: Guns again  (Read 15792 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #464 on: April 24, 2013, 08:54:07 AM »
That said, I am totally for a database and registration.  Register every single gun.  Make posessing an unregistered gun a felony.  You should be able to trace ownership of every weapon.  This is how you ensure background checks are made.  If someone who already has guns - like Adam Lanza's mother - goes on the "should not have" list, this is how you know they should turn in their guns and what they should be turning in.  It is how you find out how people who should not have them got them.

I realize registration is not the same as repealing the 2nd Amendment.  But, this video shows how idiotic the average person is, and how little they listen.  It also shows what the real effect of gun registration would be.  No one who now owns guns, and who is not supposed to own guns, would register their guns.  Over a long period of time, say 100 years, registration could become more effective, as the owners of unregistered guns died off. 



Odin, King of the Gods

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4356
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Guns again
« Reply #465 on: April 24, 2013, 09:02:48 AM »
this video shows how idiotic the average person is, and how little they listen.

Holy cow.  That would be funny if it weren't so frightening.  The guy explicitly says, more than once, that his petition is to ensure that only criminals will have guns -- and these idiots sign it.  Yikes!

Quote
No one who now owns guns, and who is not supposed to own guns, would register their guns.

In fact, under Haynes v. United States, they cannot be required to do so.  The ruling in that case said that prohibited persons are exempt from gun registration laws because compelling them to register their guns would constitute a violation of their Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate themselves.  Thus, when it comes to gun ownership, felons, wifebeaters, and so on have a greater right to privacy than the law-abiding.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #466 on: April 24, 2013, 09:03:49 AM »
I think that's the point though. It's a "feel good" law they're trying to pass, and will have zero impact on death by bullet stats. All it does is infuriate many gun owners, and create a divide.... Exactly. So why the 10 round limit then?

You got me, Dante.  I am at a loss to justify the limit.  Somehow it does make me feel good, especially if police were also limited to 10-rounders.  And, I pulled the 10-round limit from my colon.  To put AR-15s on a par with hunting rifles, the limit would need to be 5-rounds. 

As I have said, Pandora's Box has been opened.  How do we close it? 

By the way, the guns I own, with one exception, are target shotguns.  I shoot 12-gauge sporting clays, skeet and trap with an over-under shotgun, capacity exactly two, using 7.5 or 8 shot.  This gun would be deadly only within a 20 yard range, +/-.  I could shoot you at 150 yards and not break your skin.  (Yes, I could opt to use it with buck shot or slugs, and it would be more "deadly.")  Not all guns are equal.

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4755
  • Darwins +540/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Guns again
« Reply #467 on: April 24, 2013, 09:09:57 AM »
Sorry, Jaime, but I don't want to have a discussion badly enough to lose my self-important attitude.  If you are going to be offended every time I point out something I don't agree with, whether you made a glaring error in logic or it's just something I disagree with, then we aren't going to have any meaningful discussions.
You can make points without saying asinine, insulting things like "put on your big boy pants".  That is what I mean by your self-important attitude.  That is not the same thing as refraining from pointing out places where you disagree or where I got something wrong.  I don't mind when people disagree with me, and I certainly don't mind when they point things out to me that I got wrong.  I do mind when a person decides to cop an attitude while they're doing those things, because it's often just a way to make themselves look better - to show off, to boast, pick your verb.

When you denigrate me by telling me things like that, you're trying to puff yourself up at my expense.  Even when you're right, you come across as a self-important jerk.  What do you think happens when you cop that kind of attitude and end up being wrong?

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4356
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Guns again
« Reply #468 on: April 24, 2013, 09:12:53 AM »
As I have said, Pandora's Box has been opened.  How do we close it?

We don't.  Among other things, with the increased availability of 3-D printers, it is going to become increasingly easy for people to manufacture their own gun magazines right in their own homes.  In fact, after I typed that sentence, it occurred to me that people are probably already working on that, and a Google search confirms that that's the case.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Guns again
« Reply #469 on: April 24, 2013, 10:00:33 AM »
No one who now owns guns, and who is not supposed to own guns, would register their guns.  Over a long period of time, say 100 years, registration could become more effective, as the owners of unregistered guns died off. 

I could not watch the vid.  blocked at work.

I don't think getting registration compliance would be that hard.  At hunting season, have a few state troopers with the game warden.  When he's checking for hunting licenses, the troopers can check for gun registration.  Spot sheck for registration at shooting ranges.  After a few guns are confiscated or a few people arrested, people will get the point.

And it does not have to be that draconian off the bat.  Phase it in.  Give people two years to do it.  During that time if they get caught with unregistered guns, it is just a misdemeanor or a ticket.  After that, heavy fines and confiscation.  After that, jail.

Register the mags too, so that people who actually need larger capacity clips can have them.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #470 on: April 24, 2013, 10:43:17 AM »
You can make points without saying asinine, insulting things like "put on your big boy pants".  That is what I mean by your self-important attitude.  That is not the same thing as refraining from pointing out places where you disagree or where I got something wrong.  I don't mind when people disagree with me, and I certainly don't mind when they point things out to me that I got wrong.  I do mind when a person decides to cop an attitude while they're doing those things, because it's often just a way to make themselves look better - to show off, to boast, pick your verb.

When you denigrate me by telling me things like that, you're trying to puff yourself up at my expense.  Even when you're right, you come across as a self-important jerk.  What do you think happens when you cop that kind of attitude and end up being wrong?

Fine.  You have degraded into comments about my attitude, and nothing else.  You didn't even bother to respond to the rest of my post.  I have decided not to respond to any more of your posts.  Goodbye.  And, sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Odin, Kind King of the Gods

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2176
  • Darwins +71/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Guns again
« Reply #471 on: April 24, 2013, 10:46:01 AM »
Register the mags too, so that people who actually need larger capacity clips can have them.

They're not serialized, so it'd be nigh impossible. Not to mention unnecessary.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #472 on: April 24, 2013, 08:11:54 PM »
But guns?  What is the purpose of a gun? 

To shoot.  To kill or maim.  That is the purpose.  That is what guns are made to do.

Apparently you are not familiar with the target shooting sports.  Or hunting.  My 12-gauge over and under two shot sporting gun, loaded with 7.5 or 8 shot, is not lethal, at least not in the strictest sense.  It will kill small game at short range, and would also kill a person at very short range.  Beyond 40 yards or so, it probably wouldn't cause serious injury to a human, unless a shot went into the eyes.  Beyond 100 yards, it wouldn't even sting much.

All guns are not created equal, and should not be lumped together.

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #473 on: April 24, 2013, 08:25:06 PM »
In other news, Chicago just reached 500 homicides on the year, in one of the most, if not the most, regulated gun markets in the US.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/chicago-reaches-500-homicides-fatal-shooting-18082567

how many of them are gun related?  If it is the most regulated market in the US[1], what does that mean?  Keep in mind, "the most regulated" is a relative thing.  It still might not be regulated enough for the desired outcome.
 1. assuming it is.  I don't want to argue that point

It has been "illegal" to own a handgun in Chicago for at least thirty years.

Maybe they should pass a new law that says, "It's now illegal to own a handgun in Chicago, and this time, we really, really, really mean it."

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #474 on: April 24, 2013, 08:35:32 PM »
I live in Montana. Last year we had 28 murders in the whole state, and around 200 auto fatalities. To the Chicago ratio is 3/1, murder/car death-wise In Montana it is closer to 1/8.
 

Montana has 6.86 people per square mile.  Illinois has 232 people per square mile.  You'd have a hard time finding someone in Montana to kill!  [snicker]

The largest city in Montana is Billings, with an estimated 2012 population of a little over 151,000.  It's the only city in Montana with more than 100,000 people. 

Hell, on game day there are more than 151,000 people within a 5-mile radius of Wrigley Field.

Odin, King of the Gods


Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #475 on: April 24, 2013, 08:39:08 PM »
Also, even if it is the most regulated market, by whatever measure you wish to make, that doesn't mean that people do not carry guns across state borders. Wisconsin and Indiana are quite close to Chicago, not to mention that a dozen other states are within an easy day drive of Chicago. Heavy regulations in one state have little impact when guns can be traded privately in other states with lax requirements.

But, you are missing the point.  It is ILLEGAL to have the handguns in Chicago.  I'm sure things would change if we just told the citizens of Chicago what the law really says.  And, tell them handguns are illegal in Chicago, even if they were legally purchased in Indiana or Wisconsin.

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2306
  • Darwins +124/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: Guns again
« Reply #476 on: April 24, 2013, 08:45:34 PM »
But, you are missing the point.  It is ILLEGAL to have the handguns in Chicago.  I'm sure things would change if we just told the citizens of Chicago what the law really says.  And, tell them handguns are illegal in Chicago, even if they were legally purchased in Indiana or Wisconsin.

It appears that you adhere to the position that we should repeal laws that criminals don't follow. Near every tree is a forest.

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #477 on: April 24, 2013, 09:00:15 PM »
But, you are missing the point.  It is ILLEGAL to have the handguns in Chicago.  I'm sure things would change if we just told the citizens of Chicago what the law really says.  And, tell them handguns are illegal in Chicago, even if they were legally purchased in Indiana or Wisconsin.

It appears that you adhere to the position that we should repeal laws that criminals don't follow. Near every tree is a forest.

That's not even close to what I was saying, Chronos.  The point is that a city with the most restrictive handgun laws in the country has a very high handgun homicide rate.  Passing another law to say that handguns are illegal in Chicago would not have much effect.

I dare say that if the war on drugs were eliminated, and drugs were all legalized, the murder rate in Chicago would drop dramatically.  Do you agree?

Odin, King of the Gods

Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2698
  • Darwins +218/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Guns again
« Reply #478 on: April 25, 2013, 01:38:05 AM »

I realize registration is not the same as repealing the 2nd Amendment.  But, this video shows how idiotic the average person is, and how little they listen.  It also shows what the real effect of gun registration would be.  No one who now owns guns, and who is not supposed to own guns, would register their guns.  Over a long period of time, say 100 years, registration could become more effective, as the owners of unregistered guns died off. 


It's not a terribly useful video, because what it shows is a bunch of people signing a petition without being told anything. I don't know if it demonstrates that people will sign any petition, just to get rid of the tall fat guy.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #479 on: April 25, 2013, 05:19:59 AM »
It's not a terribly useful video, because what it shows is a bunch of people signing a petition without being told anything. I don't know if it demonstrates that people will sign any petition, just to get rid of the tall fat guy.

I disagree.  They were told that they were signing a petition to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  And it would make sure only criminals had guns.  It was obvious the signers weren't listening.

Try this one.



Odin, King of the Gods

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Guns again
« Reply #480 on: April 25, 2013, 09:32:56 AM »
But, you are missing the point.  It is ILLEGAL to have the handguns in Chicago.  I'm sure things would change if we just told the citizens of Chicago what the law really says.  And, tell them handguns are illegal in Chicago, even if they were legally purchased in Indiana or Wisconsin.

That would change if there was a gun registry that recorded who bought them.  And if every gun buyer had to have a license.  They would go to Indiana, not have a licence and not be able to buy a gun.  Or they could buy a gun, but Chicago authorities would know a Chicago resident purchased a gun and possibly had one illegally.

I know you have worries about it, but do you see how practical it is?

Passing another law to say that handguns are illegal in Chicago would not have much effect.

Right.  You would have to have a comprehensive and consistent national policy to keep guns from leaking in from lax areas.  This is why mexican criminals cross the border to Arizona to buy their guns.  We bitch about cartel drug violence, but it is in part supported by guns sold here.

I dare say that if the war on drugs were eliminated, and drugs were all legalized, the murder rate in Chicago would drop dramatically.  Do you agree?

yep.  Also, if we had a better jobs program, better national health policy and a bunch of other really liberal, socialist ideas.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4755
  • Darwins +540/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Guns again
« Reply #481 on: April 25, 2013, 10:02:26 AM »
Fine.  You have degraded into comments about my attitude, and nothing else.  You didn't even bother to respond to the rest of my post.  I have decided not to respond to any more of your posts.  Goodbye.  And, sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Thank you for illustrating the problem I was trying to get at so well.  Instead of curbing your attitude even a little, or being willing to discuss it at all, you'd rather stop talking to people who criticize you for it, because it's not "on subject".  And you think rude, asinine comments about me are "on subject", I suppose?  I didn't comment on the rest of what you wrote because I wanted to get this out of the way first.  Just as well, given that you would have ignored it otherwise, like you did the last time, and at least I have your measure now.



I found out about a meme being spread today on Breitbart's network (and naturally went viral on various conservative websites).  Apparently, hammers and clubs are used to commit more murders than guns - at least according to a person who smugly commented on my criticism of a person who wrote a letter suggesting "background checks" for screws, nails, etc, which were used as shrapnel in the Boston bombings.

Well, not quite.  It's actually just one category of guns, rifles.  Add shotguns into the mix, and the numbers swing the other way.  Add handguns into the mix, and there isn't even any comparison.

Not only that, but it's deceptive in other ways too.  A person armed with a hammer or club is not going to be able to murder dozens of people at a school, whereas you can do that with a firearm, whether it's a rifle, a shotgun, a handgun, or something else.

Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2698
  • Darwins +218/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Guns again
« Reply #482 on: April 25, 2013, 11:03:15 AM »

I disagree.  They were told that they were signing a petition to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  And it would make sure only criminals had guns.  It was obvious the signers weren't listening.


Nothing is "obvious" because the preamble is never shown. They are always signing the petition as he is talking. He may have introduced himself as someone wanting to save trees.

It's pretty easy to manipulate vox pop interractions, by picking the dumbest people ->

« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 11:11:07 AM by Add Homonym »
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #483 on: April 25, 2013, 01:26:05 PM »
That would change if there was a gun registry that recorded who bought them.  And if every gun buyer had to have a license.  They would go to Indiana, not have a licence and not be able to buy a gun.  Or they could buy a gun, but Chicago authorities would know a Chicago resident purchased a gun and possibly had one illegally.

I know you have worries about it, but do you see how practical it is?

The folks who go to Indiana and bring a handgun back into Chicago are criminals.  They are breaking the law in Chicago, as well as Illinois state law.

And get this - they are also breaking federal law, as well as the sellers are breaking federal law.  It is illegal under federal law for a hangun to be sold to someone from outside that state.  To veryify this (which I knew anyway), I called a Federal Firearms Licensee in Indiana.

The other way for a Chicago resident to obtain a firearm is to have an Indiana resident buy it, and then sell it to the Chicago resident.  This is illegal on the federal level, worse than above because they are not an FFL, and illegal under the straw buyer law. 

Do you see yet how much misinformation is out there?

{edit to clarify the law}  An Illinois resident could go to Indiana, pick out a handgun, pay for it, and go home.  The buyer would then have to find an Illinois FFL to accept shipment of the gun.  The gun is, in technical terms, sold from the Indiana seller to the Illinois FFL.  The Illinois FFL then has to transfer the gun to the Illinois buyer.  Further, in Illinois you have to have a Firearms Owner's Identification Card (FOID) in order to obtain the firearm from the FFL.  A background check is done before the FOID card is issued.  (I was visiting relative in Illinois once.  I could not handle handguns in a gun store because I didn't have the FOID card.)  I am making a leap of faith that a Chicago resident, during the time when handguns were illegal to own, could not have legally taken the transfer from the FFL.  http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/  {end edit}

Quote
Right.  You would have to have a comprehensive and consistent national policy to keep guns from leaking in from lax areas.  This is why mexican criminals cross the border to Arizona to buy their guns.  We bitch about cartel drug violence, but it is in part supported by guns sold here.

I hope you are starting to see that the laws are already in place.  Criminals ignore the laws.

Odin, King of the Gods

« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 02:52:11 PM by Odin »

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4755
  • Darwins +540/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Guns again
« Reply #484 on: April 25, 2013, 03:00:39 PM »
I hope you are starting to see that the laws are already in place.  Criminal ignore the laws.
The fact that criminals break laws is not in and of itself a good reason to repeal those laws.  That point comes when law enforcement is unable to effectively enforce those laws, whether it is because citizens routinely break them or because it is easy to bypass them.

Chicago is a good example of this, as Chicago's gun laws were significantly more restrictive than the state's laws regarding firearms (never mind surrounding states).  In effect, it made it fairly trivial to break the laws with a relatively small risk of being caught.  Even if every law-abiding citizen had obeyed Chicago's handgun ban, it would still have been terribly difficult to enforce the Chicago ban.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2176
  • Darwins +71/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Guns again
« Reply #485 on: April 25, 2013, 03:03:26 PM »
I hope you are starting to see that the laws are already in place.  Criminal ignore the laws.
The fact that criminals break laws is not in and of itself a good reason to repeal those laws.

I don't think Odin is arguing that those laws should be repealed. He's arguing that any laws already on the books, and any subsequent laws, will be ignored entirely by criminals.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4755
  • Darwins +540/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Guns again
« Reply #486 on: April 25, 2013, 03:11:06 PM »
I don't think Odin is arguing that those laws should be repealed. He's arguing that any laws already on the books, and any subsequent laws, will be ignored entirely by criminals.
The fact that criminals will not obey a law is also not a good reason in and of itself to not pass that law.  The questions are whether the law is effectively enforceable, and whether law-abiding citizens will comply with it.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4356
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Guns again
« Reply #487 on: April 25, 2013, 03:13:16 PM »
I hope you are starting to see that the laws are already in place.  Criminal ignore the laws.
The fact that criminals break laws is not in and of itself a good reason to repeal those laws.

I don't think Odin is arguing that those laws should be repealed. He's arguing that any laws already on the books, and any subsequent laws, will be ignored entirely by criminals.

Right.  And a big part of the problem with this is that the government doesn't even try to enforce many of the existing laws.

Probably the best example is the background check for gun purchases.  In the year 2010, for example, there were 73,000 denials, out of which there were only 13 guilty pleas.  The government just doesn't make it a priority, for whatever reason.  Things like this are a big part of the reason that gun rights advocates are so often opposed to creating new gun control laws: the government isn't even enforcing the ones we already have.  What point is there to adding additional steps to the background check if, after a denial, the convicted felon/wifebeater/drug dealer/whatever is simply allowed to walk out the door and go on his merry way?
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2176
  • Darwins +71/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Guns again
« Reply #488 on: April 25, 2013, 03:18:32 PM »
I don't think Odin is arguing that those laws should be repealed. He's arguing that any laws already on the books, and any subsequent laws, will be ignored entirely by criminals.
The fact that criminals will not obey a law is also not a good reason in and of itself to not pass that law.  The questions are whether the law is effectively enforceable, and whether law-abiding citizens will comply with it.

No, the question is whether the law does anythiing to help curb gun violence. Period. Otherwise, it's just more feel good bullshit that will do nothing EXCEPT make some otherwise law abiding individuals into criminals.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4755
  • Darwins +540/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Guns again
« Reply #489 on: April 25, 2013, 03:24:44 PM »
No, the question is whether the law does anythiing to help curb gun violence. Period. Otherwise, it's just more feel good bullshit that will do nothing EXCEPT make some otherwise law abiding individuals into criminals.
That's what "effectively enforceable" means - that the law can accomplish its purpose.

And also, you shouldn't dismiss whether law-abiding citizens will comply with the law.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2176
  • Darwins +71/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Guns again
« Reply #490 on: April 25, 2013, 03:35:54 PM »
And also, you shouldn't dismiss whether law-abiding citizens will comply with the law.

I can already tell you, many will not, depending on which laws you're speaking of. The majority of those many will not see any justification whatsoever to register their weapons, especially if the weapons were obtained without any kind of paper trail.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4755
  • Darwins +540/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Guns again
« Reply #491 on: April 25, 2013, 03:41:59 PM »
But how many?  A thousand, ten thousand?  A million?  Compared to how many gun owners that would be okay with a gun registration?

You see the point, I hope.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2176
  • Darwins +71/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Guns again
« Reply #492 on: April 25, 2013, 03:46:09 PM »
But how many?  A thousand, ten thousand?  A million?  Compared to how many gun owners that would be okay with a gun registration?

You see the point, I hope.

You tell me; how many is too many?

ETA:

Sorry, I shouldn't have been so dismissive. My apologies.

The point I was looking for is, how many is too many to you? Is there a number where you would say it doesn't make sense to pass laws that even law abiding individuals will scoff at?

For numbers, we could start with probably all the Tea Baggers, nearly all neo-cons, a whole lot of general Repubs, and more than a couple of indepents/progressives. YMMV.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 03:54:07 PM by Dante »
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.