Guns guns guns GUNS GUNS

alafairnadia

you're so funny. that wasn't an insult - it was a statement of perceived fact based on your posts. so you're a libertarian? how nice. now I know.

if someone wants to steal my stuff, fine. that's why I have property insurance. I'll make it as hard as I can, but, as I said, I don't want some gun sitting in my nightstand being used on me. you have a problem with that?

evilbert

alafairnadia wrote: you're so funny. that wasn't an insult - it was a statement of perceived fact based on your posts. so you're a libertarian? how nice. now I know.

When you make assumptions about someone, you usually come over as an ass. You insinuated I was a KKK member. How you came to that conculsion I've no idea but yes, I do find that highly insulting. Ask about my opinions, don't assume them - you only come away looking stupid.

alafairnadia wrote: if someone wants to steal my stuff, fine. that's why I have property insurance. I'll make it as hard as I can, but, as I said, I don't want some gun sitting in my nightstand being used on me. you have a problem with that?

I have no problem with that whasoever, nor have I ever suggested that anywhere in this thread. You, however, seem to have a problem with me wanting to go target shooting. Your attitude is pretty typical of the nanny-state liberals in this neighborhood so I'm not completely surprised.

I've noticed some NYC police officers posting on here - it'd be cool if one of those guys would give us their opinion on private firearm ownership.

alafairnadia

Evilbert wrote: [quote=alafairnadia]you're so funny. that wasn't an insult - it was a statement of perceived fact based on your posts. so you're a libertarian? how nice. now I know.

When you make assumptions about someone, you usually come over as an ass. You insinuated I was a KKK member. How you came to that conculsion I've no idea but yes, I do find that highly insulting. Ask about my opinions, don't assume them - you only come away looking stupid.

I never insinuated that you're a KKK member. read the post again. there is a historic issue in Texas among Vietnamese fishmongers and the KKK. also, the KKK activity along the eastern border has affected many blacks and cajuns. I was talking about Texas - about the political changes I thought would be coming and you seemingly didn't think were coming. are you now claiming to be a Texan?

and yeah, I've heard the ass assumption thing a million times. brilliant. too bad we all make thousands of assumptions a day - makes us all asses, eh?

evilbert

alafairnadia wrote: [quote=Evilbert][quote=alafairnadia]you're so funny. that wasn't an insult - it was a statement of perceived fact based on your posts. so you're a libertarian? how nice. now I know.

When you make assumptions about someone, you usually come over as an ass. You insinuated I was a KKK member. How you came to that conculsion I've no idea but yes, I do find that highly insulting. Ask about my opinions, don't assume them - you only come away looking stupid.

I never insinuated that you're a KKK member. read the post again. there is a historic issue in Texas among Vietnamese fishmongers and the KKK. also, the KKK activity along the eastern border has affected many blacks and cajuns. I was talking about Texas - about the political changes I thought would be coming and you seemingly didn't think were coming. are you now claiming to be a Texan?

and yeah, I've heard the ass assumption thing a million times. brilliant. too bad we all make thousands of assumptions a day - makes us all asses, eh?

Vietnamese fishmongers? what the hell are you talking about now?

I'm done with you. I've tried to stay polite and I've refuted every single point you've brough up. You've lied, been dishonest and resorted to insults when your argument doesn't hold up. It's behavior I've found to be pretty typical of nanny-statists.

I'll be back to respond to anyone else who'd like to contribute. I'd be especially interested in hearing opinions from the NYPD guys on here.

Stay safe.

alafairnadia

well, you're a really nice man. don't shoot your foot off.

alafairnadia

oh, and for the record,

http://www.unclaw.com/chin/scholarship/fishermen.htm

http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/06/dragging.death.02/index.html

(those, obviously, are the most famous incidents - there are thousands of smaller scale and/or unpublicized incidents. these also serve to illustrate why, for instance, the asian community and the black community would band together politically in texas.)

the political tide of texas is one of population. right now, partly because of redistricting in the last 10 years (a last ditch effort of the republicans that control the local, state, and federal representation of texans), the numbers are still off and enough districts are republican to keep step with new laws proposed by the folks in power. it's pretty bewildering.

once, however, the population of minorities overwhelms the efforts of republican control, all bets are off. there might even be some judges that are democrats again.

lilbangladesh

Somehow, I think arguing with evilbert is a lost cause.

This guy misreads and misinterprets EVERYTHING!! He totally didn't get what I was saying. And if he's so gungho about owning a gun (and I never said that he shouldn't) then WHY is the requirement that he get some training to know how to use it properly so onerous?

You want a gun? Fine. Learn to use it responsibly. Get training.

I really don't know why this one little point, which is different from Alfy's, is even debatable. :roll:

evilbert

lilbangladesh wrote: Somehow, I think arguing with evilbert is a lost cause.

Strange - I'm thinking the exact same thing about other people here.

lilbangladesh wrote: This guy misreads and misinterprets EVERYTHING!! He totally didn't get what I was saying. And if he's so gungho about owning a gun (and I never said that he shouldn't) then WHY is the requirement that he get some training to know how to use it properly so onerous?

You're not paying attention to anything I've said so far. I've never said anyone should handle a firearm without proper training. For licensing in NYC I think it's actually mandatory. Most of the training you have is to do with safe handling, ie: not accidentally shooting yourself or others with it.

You're just so scared by the concept than anyone should own a big, scary gun that you can't even put a coherent argement together. Tell me, have you ever fired one in your entire life? Do share some details!

lilbangladesh wrote: You want a gun? Fine. Learn to use it responsibly. Get training.

I've had military firearms training for 7 years, as well as firearms safety courses in Conetticut and 6 years range firing experience. Please share your experience and let me know how you're qualified to even comment on this subject.

lilbangladesh

I don't believe I said one thing or another about me owning a gun or not, but you keep conflating me with other users.

I choose not to have a gun. That doesn't make me an automatic victim. It's *my* choice, just as it is yours to have a gun. For a libertarian, you're AWFULLY intolerant of other people's choices. Or should we all march out and get guns simply because you think it's a hot idea?

The advice about getting training wasn't just to you, it was to everyone on this board who agrees with you about getting a gun. Gun ownership comes with responsibility and far too many people DON'T take that seriously at all.

No one, least of all me, is trying to get in the way of you having a legally owned firearm. Some of us think it's not such a great idea, but hey... whatever floats your boat. Just don't get so nasty because we disagree with you.

evilbert

lilbangladesh wrote: I don't believe I said one thing or another about me owning a gun or not, but you keep conflating me with other users.

I'd like to hear what experience you have with the subject at hand. What experience do you have with gun handling or ownership? can you just answer the question without getting defensive?

lilbangladesh wrote: I choose not to have a gun. That doesn't make me an automatic victim. It's *my* choice, just as it is yours to have a gun. For a libertarian, you're AWFULLY intolerant of other people's choices. Or should we all march out and get guns simply because you think it's a hot idea?

Please point out my post where I suggested you should run out and buy a gun. Or are you being as dishonest a poster as alafairnadia?

lilbangladesh wrote: No one, least of all me, is trying to get in the way of you having a legally owned firearm. Some of us think it's not such a great idea, but hey... whatever floats your boat. Just don't get so nasty because we disagree with you.

alafairnadia has made it quite plain she doesn't like the idea of myself or others owning firearms and fully supports attempts to make it illegal.

I tried to have a civillised discussion but she went off on tangents about Texas, lied about gun laws down there then started wittering on about Vietnamese fishmongers.

It's difficult to have any kind of discussion when you're all so evasive and defensive. Please try to stay on track.

homeowner

Okay so here's the track.

For every person like you that has years of firearms training, experience around firearms and understands the responsibility that comes with weapons ownership, there are tens or maybe hundreds of people that purchase guns that do not. Those are people that buy guns because they believe that a weapon provides power and they feel powerless. They buy guns because they believe that owning a weapon is cool. They puchase weapons because they have the mistaken belief that an object can make them feel safer, or more in control, or better able to deal with situations.

I think the 2nd amendment does allow each of us to own weapons but I also think that in today's world it is incumbent upon us to make sure that the people that have weapons aren't complete and total idiots or nutjobs. If waiting periods, identity checks and tons of paperwork will do that, then I'm all for it. If I need to take a written test and show proficiency with a vehicle before I'm allowed to drive a car, why would I mind waiting for a couple of weeks for my background check to be completed before I'm permitted to buy a weapon?

lilbangladesh

Precisely. That's all we're trying to say.

YOU'RE the one being defensive and projecting your crap on everyone else, Evilbert.

Why would shooting a gun make whatever I have to say on this issue be more pertinent? Do I really have to shoot a gun to know that too many children have died because they found their parent's gun? There are serious risks to gun ownership so I choose not to partake. If other people want to own guns, then it's on them.

The only thing I really care about is what homeowner said. I do not feel it's an infringement on the 2nd amendment to have background checks and require training so that only responsible, law-abiding people have guns. It's too easy for nutjobs to get guns now, even in NYC. Would you really want guns freely available to anyone like that nutjob who took a fully loaded rifle onto the St. John's university campus? Or Virginia Tech? Even if other students had guns, these guys were too crazy to be deterred by the thought that they might be gunned down.

And here's an interesting thought: in countries where there is strict gun control, they have a FRACTION of the violent crime per capita that we do. Could it be that it's because it's TOO easy to get a gun here?

Nah!

evilbert

lilbangladesh wrote: Precisely. That's all we're trying to say.

YOU'RE the one being defensive and projecting your crap on everyone else, Evilbert.

Now you're just resorting to insults. Please try to remain civil. I've tried to address peoples' objections in this thread, but you're just not readin what I write. Please go back and re-read the thread, I'd be happy to answere any questions you may have after that.

lilbangladesh wrote: Why would shooting a gun make whatever I have to say on this issue be more pertinent?

Because you've been screaming about "training" when you have no idea what that training implies, what it involves, or the fact that it's mandatory in NYC before the issue of a firearms license. In short, you have no knowledge of the subject matter whatsoever.

lilbangladesh wrote: Do I really have to shoot a gun to know that too many children have died because they found their parent's gun?

No. Perhaps you could post some statistics?

lilbangladesh wrote: There are serious risks to gun ownership so I choose not to partake. If other people want to own guns, then it's on them.

That's your choice. Your decision has no effect on my desire to go target shooting.

lilbangladesh wrote: The only thing I really care about is what homeowner said. I do not feel it's an infringement on the 2nd amendment to have background checks and require training so that only responsible, law-abiding people have guns.

Me neither, however NYC makes it unncessarily difficult. Also, a handgun permit can be denied without good reason, contrary to the 2nd amendment meaning a lengthy and expensive legal hearing.

lilbangladesh wrote: It's too easy for nutjobs to get guns now, even in NYC.

NYC has perhaps the most restrictive licensing requirements in the US. I'm not sure how much more difficult it could be.

lilbangladesh wrote: Would you really want guns freely available to anyone like that nutjob who took a fully loaded rifle onto the St. John's university campus? Or Virginia Tech? Even if other students had guns, these guys were too crazy to be deterred by the thought that they might be gunned down.

No, crazy people shouldn't be allowed to own guns. The problem is, in a free society, it's difficult to weed them all out and some do, unfortunately, fall through the cracks.

Anti-gun proponents are always keen to point out the latest example of gun violence (especially in colleges - which are all "gun-free establishments!) but they tend to forget the cases where a shooting spree was stopped by an armed citizen, as in the Appalachian Law school in 2002:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200209%5CNAT20020917a.html

That one didn't get much publicity, did it? Neither did the students' campeign to have a campus gun ban lifted in the wake of that incident.

lilbangladesh wrote: And here's an interesting thought: in countries where there is strict gun control, they have a FRACTION of the violent crime per capita that we do. Could it be that it's because it's TOO easy to get a gun here?

One of the reasons I left the UK was the ever-expanding nanny-state mentality preventing people from defending themselves. Since the handgun ban, violent crime has actually increased. Worse, it's practically illegal to defend yourself in your own home. No thanks, it's not the way I'd like to live.

carnivore

Evilbert wrote: I've had military firearms training for 7 years, as well as firearms safety courses in Conetticut and 6 years range firing experience. Please share your experience and let me know how you're qualified to even comment on this subject.

Because clearly spending a lot of time on the firing range and feeling very comfortable around guns guarantees safe behavior with them...

lilbangladesh

I'm through. I'm tired of having everything I say be twisted.

Good Lord, the guy even thought that Alfy was comparing him to the KKK!

:roll:

caaahyoko

alafairnadia wrote: since you decided to drag me back into this, Evilbert, I'll point out that:

[quote=Evilbert]I've had people call me callous before due to my willingness to use lethal force to defend my property. Interpret it that way if you wish, the truth is I am just less willing to become a victim than most New Yorkers. One really good method of avoiding harm would be to not break into my apartment. Should you choose to ignore that advice, I am not responsible for the consequences. Call it social Darwinism if you will.

isn't even legal in Texas anymore. yep. former criminal defense attorney from Texas speaking. you're s*** outta luck on this one being legal.

Unfortunately, the castle law just got expanded in Texas. Now you don't even have to retreat before shooting a home invader. Its amazing how these things slip by. I wouldn't have even heard if it weren't for my boss' dear friend getting shot for pounding on the neighbors door while intoxicated.
(EDIT: Sorry, I didn't see page 2 of the comments before I posted this.)
http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/pressreleases/PressRelease.2007-03-27.0601

Anyway, I have to agree that, unless you can stay perfectly calm while being robbed, it doesn't seem very smart to have a gun in plain sight where the assailant can just grab it. Why give someone motivation to shoot you?

evilbert

lilbangladesh wrote: I'm through. I'm tired of having everything I say be twisted.

Good Lord, the guy even thought that Alfy was comparing him to the KKK!

:roll:

What you're experiencing is someone not sharing the same opinion as you. This is what grown-ups call "disagreeing", and can usually discuss it without getting histerical, or accusing the other of twisting words. Might be hard for you to understand, but them's the breaks. I think you have some growing up to do.

For now, just put your fingers in your ears, squeeze your eyes tight shut and keep repeating "NANANANANA NOT LISTENING" until the nasty libertarian goes away. You'll be fine. :roll:

evilbert

caaahyoko wrote: Unfortunately, the castle law just got expanded in Texas. Now you don't even have to retreat before shooting a home invader. Its amazing how these things slip by. I wouldn't have even heard if it weren't for my boss' dear friend getting shot for pounding on the neighbors door while intoxicated.

Is their neighbor being charged with murder? because if your statement is true then they should be. Banging on someone's door is not just cause for them to shoot you, that's not what the no-retreat laws are about. There merely give you just cause to stand your ground in the face of an assailant, rather than being legally obliged to try and run away.

caaahyoko wrote: Anyway, I have to agree that, unless you can stay perfectly calm while being robbed, it doesn't seem very smart to have a gun in plain sight where the assailant can just grab it. Why give someone motivation to shoot you?

Nobody in their right mind would keep a gun in plain sight, I agree. Furthermore, keeping a loaded gun anywhere insecure is downright irresponsible and dangerous. If you must keep a firearm close to hand, keep it in a drawer, unloaded.

lilbangladesh

You weren't merely disagreeing. You are being nasty and shouting everyone down because only YOU are right. It's called "arguing in bad faith" and sane people stop talking to people who do that.

I'm glad you have the sense not to have a loaded weapon out in the open and unsecured. However, if your weapon is unloaded and someone breaks in, how are you going to have time to load it?

Here's how to stay safe: get an extra deadbolt to your door.

Don't advertise your possessions.

And for God's sake DON'T advertise that you have a gun, because the more likely scenario is that burglars will wait until you're not home, and then steal your gun, thus adding to the excessive pool of illegal guns in the city, most of which were legitimate weapons that were stolen.

You have your gun registered and you report your gun stolen. Great. You're responsible. But it's still a little bit like closing the barn door after the horse has been stolen. The gun will probably not resurface until a crime had been committed with it.

After the school shooting in Cleveland yesterday (14-year-old was able to get his hands on TWO guns) this statistic was aired on MSNBC: There are 300,000,000 people in the U.S. and 280,000,000 guns. This statistic makes me feel less safe.

caaahyoko

Evilbert wrote: [quote=caaahyoko]Unfortunately, the castle law just got expanded in Texas. Now you don't even have to retreat before shooting a home invader. Its amazing how these things slip by. I wouldn't have even heard if it weren't for my boss' dear friend getting shot for pounding on the neighbors door while intoxicated.

Is their neighbor being charged with murder? because if your statement is true then they should be. Banging on someone's door is not just cause for them to shoot you, that's not what the no-retreat laws are about. There merely give you just cause to stand your ground in the face of an assailant, rather than being legally obliged to try and run away.

Nope, he's not being charged with murder according to the Dallas newspapers. And that's enough talk about that. It was an awful tragedy.

lilbangladesh

<param></param><param></param>"><param></param><param></param>

evilbert

caaahyoko wrote: Nope, he's not being charged with murder according to the Dallas newspapers. And that's enough talk about that. It was an awful tragedy.

Why did you bring it up if you didn't want to talk about it?

evilbert

lilbangladesh wrote: *movie snipped*

Well, you didn't have much in the way of discussion material in the first place so I can't see how resorting to a youtube video is going to add anythiing.

I'm done with you. You seem to have very little idea about firearms so I suggest you go and educate yourself before jumping into debates about them.