jgoins Report This Comment Date: July 27, 2013 10:32AM
I guess you're not going to get a bite from the gun nuts.
Mrkim Report This Comment Date: July 28, 2013 06:14AM
When viewing it in this context it's a hard argument to breach
jgoins Report This Comment Date: July 28, 2013 10:14AM
It is hard to argue with logic. Until violence is gone in the world then there
will always be a need for guns.
blinkermann Report This Comment Date: July 31, 2013 04:25AM
If you visit lots of schools, you will pretty quickly see police with guns.
Maybe inside the school, maybe nearby outside. Most school districts in the US
have police forces and they carry guns, The gun-free business applies to
civilians.
Meanwhile, many restaurants, banks, sporting venues, etc. don't allow guns
except for cops. So even if you have your CHP, you cannot take it inside or you
have to check it with someone. This is true in court. This is true in
government buildings. Should you see the president, the ss will not let you
have a gun.
So in the land of logic, this is meaningless at best since schools are protected
by guns, but don't let just anyone in with a gun, just like everything else on
the list
Or maybe I am missing something. Please tell me.
There are very compelling reasons for gun ownership -- especially in your home,
but crap like this makes it looks like gund rights people are not very smart.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: July 31, 2013 11:25AM
Well gun rights people are not very smart. They think it is possible to
legislate gun out of existence and laws only apply to those who obey the laws
not criminals. There will never be a law which will make a person intent on
armed robbery give up their guns.
blinkermann Report This Comment Date: July 31, 2013 12:44PM
j- the guns right people are the ones who want to keep guns. This issue seems
to cause brain freeze in people (on both sizes) where catchy slogans and
oversimplification prevent real discussion.
Surprisingly, almost everyone agrees that guns are here to stay and that law
abiding citizens have the right to buy a gun. There are some gun abolition
people, but they are not main stream. Some version of concealed carry (mostly
with a permit) is legal is every state and that is not up for challenge. Some
guns are already not legal, and certain behaviors with guns will always be
illegal because of inherent risks (like shooting in the air to celebrate).
The debate should just be about how and where people by guns, how and where they
buy ammunition (and how much can be stored), exactly what the limits are on what
guns people can by (i.e. fire rate and magazine capacity), and how hard do we
try to keep the guns away from the bank robber in jgoin's post -- right now,
when he needs a new gun, he can skip the gun store and make a private purchase
at a gun show without anyone seeing that he is a serial criminal.
I am a gun owner, and I expect to always be. None of the areas under debate
threaten that.
BlahX3 Report This Comment Date: July 31, 2013 04:05PM
There are stupid people on both sides. Problem is stupid people don't know when
to shut up so we end up hearing more stupid arguments than anything else.
blinkermann Report This Comment Date: August 01, 2013 01:22AM
Point taken. I'll shut up now.
Mrkim Report This Comment Date: August 01, 2013 02:53AM
The point seems to be that when you display a sign that states "Gun Free
Zone" you might just as well place a substatement that says "Another
Fine State Sponsored Shooting Gallery" beneath it.
When you implement a "Gun Free Zone: you've done 3 very disturbing things:
1. you've taken away every lawful citizens right to be armed for the protection
of themselves and others 2. you've empowered the police/nanny state mentality
and 3. you've placed in jeopardy every person who enters such a zone from the
actions of any individual who bears the intent to do harm to others with a
firearm. Honestly, does anyone really believe such a sign stops anyone intent on
doing harm to others?
Anyone who thinks signs like this deter anyone from doing harm to others, let me
introduce you to another cuppla similar fantasies .... Santa Claus and the
Easter Bunny.
If schools (and add to that list now, theaters) are so well protected by
designations as "Gun Free Zones" and the gun carrying cops, perhaps we
should ask the families of victims of mass shootings at these areas how well
that worked in protecting their loved ones.
Better yet, how about asking some of the right to carry permit owning teachers
and theater patrons who had to sit idly by and watch as others around them were
injured and killed because they chose to obey the inane "Gun Free
Zone" policies, making themseleves and those around them nothing more than
moving targets in a government sanctioned shooting gallery
GAK67 Report This Comment Date: August 01, 2013 03:29AM
My 2c worth on this is that gun free zones work if they are effectively
enforced. If you prevent anybody taking a gun into an area there will be no
shootings in that area - it's simple logic. The problem is that they are not
enforced, or if they are it's ineffective. Having a sign proclaiming a gun free
zone is as useful as reading glasses for Stevie Wonder.
Most of you here know my stance on gun control but I have to agree that having a
gun free zone that is not enforced will only take guns away from those who could
step in to defend the innocent in the event of a crisis.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: August 01, 2013 11:49AM
Signs are not enough to make a fun free zone, you need metal detectors and
security guards as well as many other expensive facets which is why you only see
signs at movie theaters and other places. Should these signs even apply to off
duty police officers? You can't tell from the signs. Do off duty police
officers have to leave their weapons in their car when the go to schools about
their children? Mr Kim is right the signs only advertize places as easy targets
for anyone who desires to kill others. I don't know about other places but most
government buildings here in Arkansas don't have any way to ensure no one is
carrying in them. It just seems to me it would be easier to allow everyone to
openly carry weapons as long as they are visible, at least then you would see
who is armed. Police are trained to think everyone they stop is armed and act
accordingly so if they can clearly see the gun they can more easily guard
against it's use.
Excuse my brain fart from earlier I meant gun grabbers not gun rights.
BlahX3 Report This Comment Date: August 01, 2013 02:21PM
My comment was not directed at you Blinkerman and in fact I agree with you and
most of the folks here. The stupid loudmouths I mean are the lobbyists and
politicians and the ignorant pubic that parrots their stupidity.
blinkermann Report This Comment Date: August 01, 2013 11:21PM
I know Blah. I was just being silly. I really did not want to start the
debate, I was just pointing out that almost everything listed in that list is
also a gun-free zone, just less advertised. The whole gun-free zone theory is
really aimed at students and often their thug-life relatives. Accidental
shootings are still a problem when kids have guns. Forget criminal intent for a
moment. How to we get people to handle guns better? Do we have rules to keep
them out of the hands of dumb-shits? If so, how do we do it without stepping on
Fossil's rights. Or are his rights so important that we can tolerate some
dumbshits having guns as a necessary cost of protecting legitimate rights. I
really don't know.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: August 02, 2013 11:29AM
There are no accidental shootings, they are dumb ass shootings. Unfortunately
there are no tests to show who is a dumb shit. We can't make getting guns
harder for everyone because of some dumb shits any more than we can make driving
cars any harder for everyone because of the dumb shits behind the wheel. We
have to tolerate dumb asses everywhere which is why my wife won't let me put a
PA speaker in my car. Used to have one but she got tired of me telling everyone
their short comings.
BlahX3 Report This Comment Date: August 03, 2013 06:07AM
There are plenty of dumb shit tests. Making comparisons between firearms and
cars is one of them.
Mrkim Report This Comment Date: August 03, 2013 06:46AM
In other news today ... plus613 acquired it's own self proclaimed head of
analogy policing,
We can all rest easier tonight
jgoins Report This Comment Date: August 03, 2013 11:06AM
Another dumb shit test is thinking cars can't kill just as easily as guns can.
BlahX3 Report This Comment Date: August 03, 2013 05:49PM
It's an opinion Kim.
I would not like to see guns being as controlled by the government as cars are
JG.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: August 04, 2013 10:43AM
I wouldn't either but cars can kill just as easily as guns and nobody is trying
to ban them.
GAK67 Report This Comment Date: August 04, 2013 07:09PM
Cars are registered and insured plus you need a licence to drive it and are
required to follow certain rules while using it. They are also hard to conceal
and, at least when new, are significantly more expensive than guns. There is
also significant pressure on car manufacturers to be responsible for their
vehicles until disposal, not to mention safety and environmental pressures on
the manufacturers. Are you sure you want guns controlled as much as cars?
jgoins Report This Comment Date: August 05, 2013 11:15AM
I was just saying there are many things just as deadly as guns and nobody is
trying to ban them. I am sure there are some who would like to see guns as
controlled as cars but I am not one of them, I just want people to understand
that guns are no more dangerous than any other device by themselves.
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: August 20, 2013 08:37PM
i haven't been on in a while now, and have now plans to be on in the near
future, but am glad the same 'ole debates haven't turned sour yet.
you guys know how i feel, so i shall plead the Goins.
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: August 20, 2013 08:42PM
hat was a stupid comment, please disregard and continue.
i guess i'm rusty.
