Trayvon Martin

[Brian]

George Zimmerman arrested...again.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/george...-weapon-n283586

[GGajewski18]

George Zimmerman arrested...again.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/george...-weapon-n283586

 

This dude just doesn't get it.

[Balta1701]

This dude just doesn't get it.

Clearly he just needs more guns.

[Texsox]

Did you mean to put that in green?

[Y2HH]

Did you mean to put that in green?

 

I hope so, because his deadly weapon was a wine bottle.

[Balta1701]

I hope so, because his deadly weapon was a wine bottle.

Well, not the time he heroically killed that person.

[Y2HH]

Well, not the time he heroically killed that person.

 

Too bad you weren't talking about that time.

[Balta1701]

Too bad you weren't talking about that time.

If he'd had a gun this time he'd have been fine because no one would have been able to file charges against him and he'd be able to be the hero he was last time.

 

We already know he's a responsible gun owner. He's exactly the kind of person I think of when I think of a responsible gun owner.

[Y2HH]

If he'd had a gun this time he'd have been fine because no one would have been able to file charges against him and he'd be able to be the hero he was last time.

 

We already know he's a responsible gun owner. He's exactly the kind of person I think of when I think of a responsible gun owner.

 

He's also a responsible wine bottle owner.

 

And if that's what you think is a responsible gun owner that explains a lot about your preconceptions about people. You're better than this.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

He's also a responsible wine bottle owner.

 

And if that's what you think is a responsible gun owner that explains a lot about your preconceptions about people. You're better than this.

Then help me do something that takes guns out of the hands of people who get arrested multiple times and shoot young black kids while thinking they're being heroes.

 

Show me that there's a difference.

[Y2HH]

Then help me do something that takes guns out of the hands of people who get arrested multiple times and shoot young black kids while thinking they're being heroes.

 

Show me that there's a difference.

 

As soon as you help me take illegal guns out of the hands of people who get arrested multiple times and shoot young black kids for no reason whatsoever, while "keepin' it real" livin' the thug life, yo!

[Texsox]

Then help me do something that takes guns out of the hands of people who get arrested convicted multiple times and shoot young black kids while thinking they're being heroes.

 

Show me that there's a difference.

 

I believe the editing is necessary in this country.

[Texsox]

As soon as you help me take illegal guns out of the hands of people who get arrested multiple times and shoot young black kids for no reason whatsoever, while "keepin' it real" livin' the thug life, yo!

 

Doesn't reducing the supply of guns do both? When something is cheap and plentiful, everyone can have one.

[Y2HH]

Doesn't reducing the supply of guns do both? When something is cheap and plentiful, everyone can have one.

 

You can't reduce the supply of something that already exists, in an area where they will continue to exist. So, you can speak in hypotheticals, accomplishing nothing, or in reality, and attempt to accomplish something in the process. This discussion requires everyone involved to play within the bounds of the rules, exactly like a game of baseball...there are rules, you can wish some of them didn't exist, but they do, so either make suggestions within those rules, or don't bother.

[Balta1701]

As soon as you help me take illegal guns out of the hands of people who get arrested multiple times and shoot young black kids for no reason whatsoever, while "keepin' it real" livin' the thug life, yo!

I'd love to make guns harder to get! Thanks for finally agreeing that part of our problem is way too many guns in this country. Now let's start with some basics, basic background check for all sales, requirement that stores register their guns so that we know which ones are being lost/stolen/sold off the books and can recognize which stores are major suppliers for weapons used in crime and close them as nuisance businesses.

[Y2HH]

I'd love to make guns harder to get! Thanks for finally agreeing that part of our problem is way too many guns in this country. Now let's start with some basics, basic background check for all sales, requirement that stores register their guns so that we know which ones are being lost/stolen/sold off the books and can recognize which stores are major suppliers for weapons used in crime and close them as nuisance businesses.

 

I can get behind ALL of that.

 

I'm not a gun person.

[Texsox]

I'd love to make guns harder to get! Thanks for finally agreeing that part of our problem is way too many guns in this country. Now let's start with some basics, basic background check for all sales, requirement that stores register their guns so that we know which ones are being lost/stolen/sold off the books and can recognize which stores are major suppliers for weapons used in crime and close them as nuisance businesses.

 

I usually agree with you but . . .

 

Background checks are required in all states to buy a gun from a dealer. Private sales are not included. How are you going to regulate private sales? What penalties will you impose?

 

Stores are required to track all guns in their inventory by serial numbers. ATF regularly audits stores for compliance. A couple years back I can remember Glick Twins and Academy Sports, one a local sporting goods store, the other a regional sporting goods store, were both fined for having missing guns. Both stores claimed they were stolen by employees or "customers". Are you going to close them down, putting thousands of employees out of work because they were victims of theft?

 

You seem to also be suggesting that a store who legally sells guns that are later used in a crime should be closed. Legally sold. The buyers passed the state background check. Based on a legal transaction, approved by the government, a store owner would be forced to close? Would every WalMart have to close or just the store that had the high rate? Isn't bankruptcy a cruel and unusual punishment for someone who completed a legal transaction and later the other person committed a crime? Moat of the guns used in crimes have passed through multiple hands, why ruin the life of the original dealer?

[Balta1701]

I usually agree with you but . . .

 

Background checks are required in all states to buy a gun from a dealer. Private sales are not included. How are you going to regulate private sales? What penalties will you impose?

 

Stores are required to track all guns in their inventory by serial numbers. ATF regularly audits stores for compliance. A couple years back I can remember Glick Twins and Academy Sports, one a local sporting goods store, the other a regional sporting goods store, were both fined for having missing guns. Both stores claimed they were stolen by employees or "customers". Are you going to close them down, putting thousands of employees out of work because they were victims of theft?

 

You seem to also be suggesting that a store who legally sells guns that are later used in a crime should be closed. Legally sold. The buyers passed the state background check. Based on a legal transaction, approved by the government, a store owner would be forced to close? Would every WalMart have to close or just the store that had the high rate? Isn't bankruptcy a cruel and unusual punishment for someone who completed a legal transaction and later the other person committed a crime? Moat of the guns used in crimes have passed through multiple hands, why ruin the life of the original dealer?

Point 1: if your argument is that it's too difficult to regulate them, then let's ban them. f*** it, they kill tens of thousands of people per year. Half a million dead people in 15 years is a bigger deal than people being unable to hunt.

 

2. You want a gun? You have a certificate saying you passed a background check. Put it in families too, these things are tools for killing. We should act like it. Try to give your child a car, doesn't the government have to know about it?

 

3: 20% of guns used in crimes in Chicago are purchased at 4 stores. 4. Most stores in the area on average have 3 guns tracked to crimes in Chicago over a 4 year period. One store had 1516. One single store sold guns used in one thousand, five hundred, sixteen crimes in Chicago in 4 years. If 1516 people living next to any kind of factory got cancer over a 4 year period when a normal area saw 3, we'd do something about that. We'd declare, accurately, that factory to be killing people.

[Y2HH]

Point 1: if your argument is that it's too difficult to regulate them, then let's ban them. f*** it, they kill tens of thousands of people per year. Half a million dead people in 15 years is a bigger deal than people being unable to hunt.

 

2. You want a gun? You have a certificate saying you passed a background check. Put it in families too, these things are tools for killing. We should act like it. Try to give your child a car, doesn't the government have to know about it?

 

3: 20% of guns used in crimes in Chicago are purchased at 4 stores. 4. Most stores in the area on average have 3 guns tracked to crimes in Chicago over a 4 year period. One store had 1516. One single store sold guns used in one thousand, five hundred, sixteen crimes in Chicago in 4 years. If 1516 people living next to any kind of factory got cancer over a 4 year period when a normal area saw 3, we'd do something about that. We'd declare, accurately, that factory to be killing people.

 

There are plenty of things that kill far more people and we don't ban those...so...where do you draw the line? Sterilize society so much that life is boring and nobody wants to live it?

[Balta1701]

There are plenty of things that kill far more people and we don't ban those...so...where do you draw the line? Sterilize society so much that life is boring and nobody wants to live it?

Easy. With things that are specifically designed to kill and have no other purpose.

 

And IMO, anyone who "doesn't want to live in a society because they don't have a gun" has bigger problems than not having a gun...and probably isn't the best person to have a gun.

[Y2HH]

Easy. With things that are specifically designed to kill and have no other purpose.

 

And IMO, anyone who "doesn't want to live in a society because they don't have a gun" has bigger problems than not having a gun...and probably isn't the best person to have a gun.

 

Eh, I don't disagree with that reasoning...but again, I'm not a gun person. I know how to shoot them, I've been trained to handle them, etc...I just have no use for them.

[Texsox]

Point 1: if your argument is that it's too difficult to regulate them, then let's ban them. f*** it, they kill tens of thousands of people per year. Half a million dead people in 15 years is a bigger deal than people being unable to hunt.

 

2. You want a gun? You have a certificate saying you passed a background check. Put it in families too, these things are tools for killing. We should act like it. Try to give your child a car, doesn't the government have to know about it?

 

3: 20% of guns used in crimes in Chicago are purchased at 4 stores. 4. Most stores in the area on average have 3 guns tracked to crimes in Chicago over a 4 year period. One store had 1516. One single store sold guns used in one thousand, five hundred, sixteen crimes in Chicago in 4 years. If 1516 people living next to any kind of factory got cancer over a 4 year period when a normal area saw 3, we'd do something about that. We'd declare, accurately, that factory to be killing people.

 

Point 1. I'm not saying it is too difficult in regulating them, I am saying that to regulate them to the level you want creates a police state that I am not comfortable with. We both have spoken out through the years about privacy concerns for honest citizens. I believe that applies to honest gun owners as well. I'm not a fan of open carry, I never had guns in my home when the kids were growing up and will not have any here when the grandkids are visiting.

 

Point 2. I agree.

 

Point 3. It shouldn't be too tough to find illegal sales at those stores and shut them down. Why haven't they? Using the factory as an example, we'd find out how they are polluting, if it was legal, we would work to find a solution. We have earthquakes near fracking fields, let's shut the companies down and put hundreds of thousands of people out of work, then find out if that is really the cause or not. You don't seem to mind punishing law abiding people. I do. Punishing anyone for following the law seems strange. We punish people who break the law.

[Balta1701]

Point 3. It shouldn't be too tough to find illegal sales at those stores and shut them down. Why haven't they?

Because they're selling guns and there's virtually no level of carnage that will cause a gun dealer to be shut down.

 

Point 1. I'm not saying it is too difficult in regulating them, I am saying that to regulate them to the level you want creates a police state that I am not comfortable with. We both have spoken out through the years about privacy concerns for honest citizens. I believe that applies to honest gun owners as well. I'm not a fan of open carry, I never had guns in my home when the kids were growing up and will not have any here when the grandkids are visiting.

And if we could get rid of a lot of that trash, it would literally save thousands of lives per year and it'd leave me a lot less to complain about. I could find ways to be ok with that. But if all people give me is the choice between the lunacy we have right now and banning outright, I'm going to pick the one with hundreds of thousands fewer corpses. So, when I hear "this is too complex" as a reply in some form, my answer is going to be "ok, here's the simplest way to do it."

[Texsox]

Easy. With things that are specifically designed to kill and have no other purpose.

 

And IMO, anyone who "doesn't want to live in a society because they don't have a gun" has bigger problems than not having a gun...and probably isn't the best person to have a gun.

 

At least 99.99% of the shots I have taken in my life were not to kill anything. In fact, I don't know anyone who hasn't shot hundreds or thousands of times without killing anything. Would you care to back up your first opinion with some facts? I love shooting clays and skeet. Plinking with a .22, I'm just not into killing anything. I prefer someone else kill my food and leave it at the supermarket for me. It makes me feel morally superior than killing it myself.

 

 

[Texsox]

Because they're selling guns and there's virtually no level of carnage that will cause a gun dealer to be shut down.

 

And if we could get rid of a lot of that trash, it would literally save thousands of lives per year and it'd leave me a lot less to complain about. I could find ways to be ok with that. But if all people give me is the choice between the lunacy we have right now and banning outright, I'm going to pick the one with hundreds of thousands fewer corpses. So, when I hear "this is too complex" as a reply in some form, my answer is going to be "ok, here's the simplest way to do it."

 

So this dealer is making thousands of illegal sales and no one will shut them down? Wow. Any other criminal enterprises on that level operate in the open and don't get shut down?