Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Trying to market and sell a new .22-caliber handgun that uses a radio frequency-enabled stopwatch to identify the authorized user so no one else can fire it. The manufacturer, Armatix, intended to make the weapon the first "smart gun" for sale in the United States. But shortly after Armatix went public with its plans to start selling in Southern California, it encountered the same uproar that has stopped gun control advocates, Congress, President Barack Obama and lawmakers across the country as they seek to pass tougher laws and promote new technologies they contend will lead to fewer firearms deaths. "Right now, unfortunately, these organizations that are scaring everybody have the power," said Belinda Padilla, who leads the company's fledgling American division. "All we're doing is providing extra levels of safety to your individual right to bear arms. And if you don't want our gun, don't buy it. It's not for everyone."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Armatix said it had an agreement with the Oak Tree Gun Club, a large gun range and retailer north of Los Angeles, to sell its iP1 pistol, which can be fired only after the owner enters a five-digit PIN into a watch that transmits a signal to the gun. The gun, which retails for about $1,800, disables itself if it is more than 10 inches from the watch.

But once Oak Tree's owner, James Mitchell, went public saying the iP1 "could revolutionize the gun industry," Second Amendment activists went into overdrive, flooding social media with threats to boycott the club. They took to Calguns.net, a forum for gun owners, and called for vigilante-style investigations of Padilla and Armatix. "I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans," one commenter wrote.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Lol. An 1800 dollar .22 that requires a 5 digit code to use. Talk about not knowing your market.

#1 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-04-29 08:15 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Talk about not knowing your market.

#1 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-04-29 08:15 AMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

There's a market for it. Why is the gun club afraid of that?

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-29 08:18 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans," one commenter wrote.

What's wrong with you people? Seriously, what's wrong with you?

#3 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-29 08:20 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 5

There's a market for it. Why is the gun club afraid of that?

#2 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2014-04-29 08:18 AM | FLAG:

Are you gonna buy it? I know a lot of gun owners. None would buy that, and there's no evidence at all to suggest it will succeed in the market. Only one place in America has even agreed to attempt to try to sell it.

Every attempt to have a commercially successful "safe gun" has failed. They've been around since the 60s. 50+ years, all failures. Most of those weren't plagued with obvious design issues like putting bright LEDs on a gun, or trying to release a gun in a specific caliber when that ammo is extraordinarily scarce, or needing 2 separate battery-dependent devices to operate. They still failed in the market. The only way for them to be a commercial success is to force their integration into new guns via gun control legislation (lol @ that notion).

#4 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-04-29 08:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

Seriously, what's wrong with you?

Mostly the problem is the really crazy paranoids are the loudest.

#5 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-04-29 08:43 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Lets see the military or police accept it first.

#6 | Posted by rearendhat at 2014-04-29 09:06 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

There's a market for it. Why is the gun club afraid of that?

#2 | Posted by Zed

Are you crazy? What market?

#7 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-04-29 10:05 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

You guys sound petrified that'll it work.

Just let the company go belly up, buy some more people killers, and be happy.

#8 | Posted by 88120rob at 2014-04-29 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Lets see the military or police accept it first.
#6 | Posted by rearendhat at 2014-04-29 09:06 AM

The overreaction by gun-fetishists to the offering of Armatrix's smart gun is ridiculous. There is no mandating going on here; merely the offer for sale of weapons to those who desire to purchase the weapon.

Anywho, you have a good point regarding the police. Given the number of police officers shot with their own weapons, usually by criminals, they should be at the front of the line mandating smart guns for police use if they are effective. So yeah, lets see police officers adopt them first before insisting that these weapons are good enough for the rest of the populace.

#9 | Posted by censored at 2014-04-29 10:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

I know a lot of gun owners. None would buy that, and there's no evidence at all to suggest it will succeed in the market.

If that was true, the NRA and other gun rights extremists wouldn't be trying so aggressively to prevent this product from entering the market.

If you truly believe in gun rights, you should support the right of people to own smart guns. You don't want others controlling what guns you can buy, but you're doing exactly that.

#10 | Posted by rcade at 2014-04-29 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Are you crazy? What market?
#7 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-04-29 10:05 AM

People who want to own guns but don't want those guns to be used by anyone else? Or is it somehow incomprehensible to you that a gun owner may not want their kids to find their gun and start shooting?

#11 | Posted by censored at 2014-04-29 10:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

This gun sounds stupid.

But hey, if they want to bring it to market and watch it fail, that's their perogative.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-04-29 10:17 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

This sounds like excuse making by the company. What company cares about what other groups or people think if they can make money?

#13 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-04-29 10:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

What company cares about what other groups or people think if they can make money?

A company that's being blocked from entering a market through a campaign of harassment against their prospective business partners and customers.

#14 | Posted by rcade at 2014-04-29 10:30 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

If you truly believe in gun rights, you should support the right of people to own smart guns.

#10 | Posted by rcade

Or the right to own one that is just some metal and plastic. What would come down the pike next would be for all guns to be smart guns by the stroke of the obummer pen.

#15 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-04-29 10:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

A company that's being blocked from entering a market through a campaign of harassment against their prospective business partners and customers.

#14 | Posted by rcade

They are NOT being blocked................. They have the right to build the gun and I have the right to call "BS". When the wackky left starts raising hell about something I don't see you standing up and telling them to shut up and go home.

#16 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-04-29 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Censored, My point is based on being in the field. Having been in combat, and possibly needing to pick up another weapon, why would I want it to only fire to the person in question? Maybe the enemy wants it that way.

#17 | Posted by rearendhat at 2014-04-29 10:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

If you truly believe in gun rights, you should support the right of people to own smart guns. You don't want others controlling what guns you can buy, but you're doing exactly that.

#10 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2014-04-29 10:14 AM | FLAG:

Was I not clear enough before? I fully support your right to go buy as many smart guns as you can afford. I believe their product will fail miserably in the market, like every other "safe gun" product has.

A handful of gun owners from a forum are protesting a "club" (shooting range called a club, new popular thing to do) for it's agreement to attempt to market a product developed by a company that is actively lobbying for mandatory adoption of that companies technology.

Separately, the actual gun industry is lobbying against mandatory adoption of smart gun tech, not "banning smart firearms" like the headline would mislead people to believe. Many of the companies in that lobby have developed their own version of the tech but chosen not to market it because it's a bad production ROI.

That's basically it. That's the entire story.

#18 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-04-29 10:57 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Censored, My point is based on being in the field. Having been in combat, and possibly needing to pick up another weapon, why would I want it to only fire to the person in question? Maybe the enemy wants it that way.

#17 | POSTED BY REARENDHAT AT 2014-04-29 10:49 AM | FLAG:

That technology is coming from a different company, and soldiers in the field will have magic bracelets with permissions assigned at different levels, not strictly individual. You could make a rifle work for anybody in the company. Considering the massive pile of weapons left in our wake everywhere we send the Army that proliferate all over the world, it's a bad idea on paper.

#19 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-04-29 11:00 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

What would come down the pike next would be for all guns to be smart guns by the stroke of the obummer pen.

That sounds like paranoia to me. Obama can't even get universal background checks enacted even though the country overwhelmingly supports it.

#20 | Posted by rcade at 2014-04-29 11:13 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

You would be saying we don't vote on our rights if it was on gay marriage though.

#21 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-04-29 11:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

NO GI wants to worry about having some *watch* to make his or her gun fire in battle conditions. Suggesting that we'd handicap our fighting troops like that is insane and ignorant.

#22 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2014-04-29 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

You would be saying we don't vote on our rights if it was on gay marriage though.

The Second Amendment does not prohibit reasonable restrictions on firearms such as background checks. Read the Heller decision.

#23 | Posted by rcade at 2014-04-29 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

" Obama can't even get universal background checks enacted even though the country overwhelmingly supports it."

Easy to get support from the uninformed when dancing on the graves of children.
But did you ever look at the polls?
Did you notice that the same ones that asked that question as well as asking if gun laws should be more or less strict came out to even?

What about when the propaganda died down and people became informed about the existing laws notice how support for such ridiculous laws went away?

Even before that did you notice how the support was not there for most of the situations talked about?

did you notice that the majority of the support came when questions were asked about laws that already exist?

Did you ever notice how the people pushing the absurd laws were so ill informed that they had no knowledge of the current laws or even the issue as a whole?

Did you wonder why they kept trying to convince people that the laws were "reasonable" by continued use of the word rather then talking about what the law actually said?

Unfortunately it was this sort that preyed on the uninformed. It was this sort that used dead children to promote their unrelated political agenda. It was this sort that held that Americans were too stupid or too trusting to actually think for themselves. And i must say it worked for a while. Even those you would normally consider intelligent were fooled. Luckily reason won out in the end.

#24 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Separately, the actual gun industry is lobbying against mandatory adoption of smart gun tech, not "banning smart firearms" like the headline would mislead people to believe. "

Yup, no boogyman, no paranoid gun nuts, just reasonable objection to a absurd idea before it is forced upon them. Not that it maters to those who suffer from the irrational fear of inanimate objects.

#25 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is it true the gun industry has tried to sell finger print resistant grips in the past?

#26 | Posted by Tor at 2014-04-29 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Why 'Smart' Guns Won't Transform the U.S. Firearm Industry" www.businessweek.com

#27 | Posted by et_al at 2014-04-29 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

That technology is coming from a different company, and soldiers in the field will have magic bracelets with permissions assigned at different levels, not strictly individual. You could make a rifle work for anybody in the company. Considering the massive pile of weapons left in our wake everywhere we send the Army that proliferate all over the world, it's a bad idea on paper.

#19 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Damn.............. I'm sure glad you arn't in charge.

I suppose they can program that bracelet to only let the person;
1) only fire one shot every minute
2) only allow the gun to fire 5 rounds
3) limit the number of rounds fired

I suppose they can remote program the damn thing too. Sniper fired 20 shots this month, that's way too much. We need to cut him back to 15 next month. Ph crap......... he's a believer in the constitution, don't let him ever fire another shot.

#28 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-04-29 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Is it true the gun industry has tried to sell finger print resistant grips in the past?"

Yes, sort of, but not for the reasons the anti-gun nuts want you to think.
It was not the grips, it was the finish on the gun.

Fingerprints leave behind a residue that is corrosive to steel, even blued steel. The finish used prevented the acids in your fingerprints from coming into contact with the metal. It did not prevent fingerprints at all and actually gave a better surface to leave them as it was slightly coarser but only prevented the chemical damage from them.

Again this was something that was well known to the informed but used in anti-gun propaganda to scare people and defame the manufacturer.

So just like the "cop killers" or the fingerprint proof finish or the "assault weapon" this is another case of intentional misinformation designed to instill fear in people to prevent rational thought.

#29 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Second Amendment does not prohibit reasonable restrictions on firearms such as background checks. Read the Heller decision.

#23 | Posted by rcade at 2014-04-29 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't need to read it. You and I won't see eye to eye on this subject b/c I think we have reasonable gun laws already. I don't think individuals should have to run a background check on family to family sell. Gun dealers already have to run the check. Even the one's at the gun shows. If those dealers aren't following the law then the ATF should do something productive and run some sting operations and put the offenders in jail.

#30 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-04-29 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

The first thing the makers of these weapons need to do is come up with a new name. You're never going to get the NRA's support using the word "smart". Call the the bracelet a "master bracelet" or something like that. "This weapon only responds to its master" or something equally idiotic would be a good tagline.

Next, dont' market this as "We're doing this so your kids can't shoot themselves". The NRA doesn't like discussing that leaving guns around is dangerous. Market it as "This product makes it pointless for some minority to break into your home to steal your guns. Imagine the look on 'ole Leroy's face when he tries to shoot a cop with your stolen gun and nothing happens when he pulls the trigger!"

Lastly, the "master bracelet" itself should be a single shot weapon. If its technically a gun, it becomes a holy item that no loyal NRA member could possibly have a problem with.

Make these changes and every idiot will have at least three by the end of the year.

#31 | Posted by Sully at 2014-04-29 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

NO GI wants to worry about having some *watch* to make his or her gun fire in battle conditions. Suggesting that we'd handicap our fighting troops like that is insane and ignorant.

#22 | Posted by phesterOBoyle

If you are "in battle" and all you have access to is a .22-caliber handgun (smart or not) you have bigger problems my friend.

Why isn't the NRA defending our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear smart arms and let the markets and the American People decide if they are worth pursuing?

Cowards.

#32 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-04-29 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who wants this crap. Its unsafe. Wont work when the bat is deal wont work wet and wont work if you cant find your watch or forget the pin what good is it.

#33 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-04-29 02:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Why isn't the NRA defending our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear smart arms and let the markets and the American People decide if they are worth pursuing?
Cowards."

Uhh, perhaps you misunderstand what is going on. Most non-hoplophobes merely acknowledge that the idea is stupid. There have been many products in the past that have done the same thing, even one made by colt that was abandoned because it was dumb.
There are several on the market today. The only think the gun rights people are speaking against is the mandated used of idiotic measures like this one. the company is under attack because they are actively lobbying to require their technology on firearms.

So if you pay attention you will see that the big scary gun rights people are doing exactly what you ask of them.

#34 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

They're terrified this technology might work; it would defy their mythology that nothing can be done to reduce gun accidents.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Gun dealers already have to run the check. Even the one's at the gun shows.

While that is technically true you are once again being dishonest with the facts.

The Gun Show Loophole does exist and the hole is very large and leaking like a sieve and still needs to be plugged.

And that is but one example of how we could be strengthening our Gun laws.

As Rcade pointed out (which you and salamador choose to ignore) the country overwhelmingly supports universal background checks that work.

So you may disagree and that is your right but if our gun laws do not actually work then they are not "reasonable".

#36 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-04-29 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"They're terrified this technology might work; it would defy their mythology that nothing can be done to reduce gun accidents."

Yes terrified, that is why major manufacturers have attempted this in the past and given up because of reliability. That is why there are already companies who sell bio metric safeties without any issue from the gun rights people.

Yup definitely terrified, yeah sure thing there buddy.

#37 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

the country overwhelmingly supports universal background checks that work."

That is untrue, the country supported background check but when questions that asked specific questions about who would be required the support fell to only a few point above half. And that was still at the time where the anti-gun nuts were still standing over the graves of children pushing laws that would have no effect on it. It was a sickening display of just how terrible the people are who would use such a thing to push their stupidity on those who were touched by tragedy. Luckily the propaganda died out to reason and the laws were dropped as any reasonable person would have no choice but to do.

"The Gun Show Loophole does exist"

Very untrue. There is no such thing, it is a lie to propagate fear in the uninformed. The so called gun show loophole is the same as every other place where 2 or more people might happen to meet. But for some that is to scary for them to think that someone might sell a gun to someone else and that inanimate piece of metal might just jump out of a drawer and come after them. No, gun show loophole an intentional law that allows private sale.

#38 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 02:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Explain the opposition of the "gun club" then.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 03:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is it true the gun industry has tried to sell finger print resistant grips in the past?

#26 | Posted by Tor at 2014-04-29

Yes.

#40 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-29 03:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

They're terrified this technology might work; it would defy their mythology that nothing can be done to reduce gun accidents.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2014

Yes.

#41 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-29 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm sorry, SAL, the gun club continues to do anything in its power to make sure guns are not traced. I love the wrinkle in GA, by the way. The cops can't even ask to see the permit.

#42 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-29 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Damn.............. I'm sure glad you arn't in charge.
I suppose they can program that bracelet to only let the person;
limit the number of rounds fired
I suppose they can remote program the damn thing too.

#28 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2014-04-29 01:58 PM | FLAG:

If I was in charge, soldiers would be allowed to carry their weapons on their own bases and personal weapons would stay mechanical. I'm not in the military though. The people in the military, in charge of development, are exploring this technology to address post-conflict weapons proliferation, contagious fire, and some other issues. Don't like it, quit the military.

#43 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-04-29 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Explain the opposition of the "gun club" then."

The opposition is against a company that is among a few that are not attempting to use the market but to manipulate it with lobbying.

As i said before they are not the first, they are among many companies most of whom there is no issue with.

So exactly how are they against this one because of wanting to be in the market but not the others?

Simple it has nothing to do with that and has to do with something else entirely.
No different the if a car company tried to make their place by lobbying to craft laws that would require they be the primary source for cars.

See?
No issue with the tech, it has existed for a long time. Only a problem with the way the company is going about their business which is seedy.

#44 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"SAL, the gun club continues to do anything in its power to make sure guns are not traced."

Are you high?
This has nothing to do with tracing. It is about some company attempting to manipulate the law to give them a mandated place in the market.


" I love the wrinkle in GA, by the way. The cops can't even ask to see the permit."

Not a wrinkle, just the law as it applies to the rest of the people applied equally.
Would you support cops being able to stop any driver for no reason to see their licence? Or what about stopping someone to see if they are a citizen?

I guess asking to see papers when you have not committed a crime is only a bad thing if it is applied to everyone. The gun carrying minority should not be allowed their rights. Laws for thee not for me.

#45 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 03:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Is it true the gun industry has tried to sell finger print resistant grips in the past?
#26 | Posted by Tor at 2014-04-29

Yes."

See my explanation. Even those against the tec-9(the gun that advertised it) admitted that only those who did not know better would think it meant you did not leave fingerprints.

"B. Navegar Produced Brochures Promoting TEC-9 as "Resistant to Fingerprints."
Navegar brochures advertised the "TEC-KOTE" finish available on the TEC-9 as providing "excellent resistance to fingerprints." People who didn't know any better could understand this to mean that fingerprints would not be left on the weapon."
www.cpmlegal.com

So as you can clearly see it is another attempt to obfuscate the subject by introducing lies to scare people into being unable to reasonably asses the issue. [...]

#46 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 03:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

those scared -------- by little pieces of metal.
#46 | Posted by salamandagator

Wait, you're not afraid of guns?

Which do you think is a bigger threat, an assailant with a gun or an assailant without one?

Why do you think the police support gun restrictions, are they too scared by little pieces of metal?

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

The cops can't even ask to see the permit.

Is it really necessary to just make up crap. politics.blog.ajc.com

Operative words, "sole purpose." See also Fourth Amendment standard for conducting a stop of someone engage in lawful activity.

#48 | Posted by et_al at 2014-04-29 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Would you support cops being able to stop any driver for no reason to see their licence?

#45 | Posted by salamandagator at

You don't care who has guns, SALMANAGATOR. You're concern with guns to protect you from criminals is a fraud.

You want criminals to be armed.

#49 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-29 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Wait, you're not afraid of guns?"

Not at all. Why would i be? I have never been attacked by a gun. None of mine have tried to hurt or kill me even though some have had to endure the torture of being hung up on a wall. None of mine have tried to hurt me even though i have hurt them.

But then again i guess i am just brave for not thinking that magically a gun will get up and decide to hurt someone.

#50 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 04:03 PM | Reply | Flag:


I guess asking to see papers when you have not committed a crime

#45 | Posted by salamandagator

That freak in GA? The one walking around scaring kids with his gun? You support not being able to find out if he's carrying that gun legally.

You guys have become so damned crazy you're going to kill the 2nd Amendment eventually.

#51 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-29 04:03 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"You don't care who has guns, SALMANAGATOR. You're concern with guns to protect you from criminals is a fraud.
You want criminals to be armed."

The exact same "logic" that required people to carry around their papers.

You should be ashamed of yourself.
But i guess gun owners are not real people to you and have none of the same protections you should have, right?

#52 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You guys have become so damned crazy you're going to kill the 2nd Amendment eventually."

You are worried about the 2nd now?
So worried that you are willing to take away the 1st and 4th to protect the thing you wish to go away?

Talk about crazy.

#53 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 04:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

#51 | Posted by Zed

An emotional response to a calculated question based on fundamental Fourth Amendment search and seizure doctrine. Typical.

#54 | Posted by et_al at 2014-04-29 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"An emotional response to a calculated question based on fundamental Fourth Amendment search and seizure doctrine. Typical."

It is the response that has been programmed into people by lies, propaganda and fear mongering. It is the type of response that allows people to see others as being lesser citizens and therefore can be treated in whatever way deemed fit for a subspecies. History is rife with examples of the same mentality.

#55 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 04:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

See also Fourth Amendment standard for conducting a stop of someone engage in lawful activity.
#48 | Posted by et_al

Meanwhile, back in realty, See Also: Stop and Frisk

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 04:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

The exact same "logic" that required people to carry around their papers.
#52 | Posted by salamandagator

A logic you stand behind when it comes to voting...

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 04:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Wait, you're not afraid of guns?"
Not at all. Why would i be? I have never been attacked by a gun.
#50 | Posted by salamandagator

Try answering the rest of the question. It will be informative. Particularly the part about whether or not the possession of a gun makes an assailant more dangerous.

We've had four Presidents assassinated by guns. I'm not sure what the count is by other means of assassination, maybe you'd like to educate me on that?

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Meanwhile, back in realty, See Also: Stop and Frisk"

So because some don;t follow the law no one should?
I also believe that it was ruled unconstitutional but is still in the appeal process.

#59 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Particularly the part about whether or not the possession of a gun makes an assailant more dangerous."

The assailant is what makes the assailant dangerous. A tool is a tool and nothing more.

#60 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 04:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

I could understand the problem with this particular SMART firearm....

The code to lock the device is wireless, its possible that the government already has a mechanism so it could easily shut the device off, for say after a Hurricane or an emergency event.

Or if not now, in the future demand this sort of "fail safe".

#61 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-04-29 04:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

The assailant is what makes the assailant dangerous. A tool is a tool and nothing more.
#60 | Posted by salamandagator

The tool doesn't change the threat profile of the assailant?
That's just stupid, man.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 04:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

The assailant is what makes the assailant dangerous. A tool is a tool and nothing more.

#60 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 04:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Still pushing this nonsense? Regardless of how you feel about gun control, only an idiot would pretend that a loaded gun doesn't make someone with bad intentions more dangerous.

I don't know why you undermine your credibility with stuff like this. Its not like it makes any more sense to you than it does anyone else.

#63 | Posted by Sully at 2014-04-29 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

If guns aren't more dangerous than the alternatives, why does the army use them? Why do the police use them?

I mean really.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

The overreaction against it is pretty unwarranted, but I could see people not liking the basic premise of wireless controlled gun that anyone with the right code can disable.

#65 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2014-04-29 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Folks like salamandagator are the ones most severely affected by some sort of magical thinking where guns are no more dangerous than car antennas.

There's simply no getting through to somebody this far gone.

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 04:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The tool doesn't change the threat profile of the assailant?"

Any tool ads threat.
A hammer, a pipe, a knife, a blackjack, whatever. The tool make the assailant no more of a threat. The assailant is the threat and you know it.

Pretending like saying that is equal to saying that guns cannot be used as a tool to hurt someone is disingenuous.

#67 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Folks like salamandagator are the ones most severely affected by some sort of magical thinking where guns are no more dangerous than car antennas.

There's simply no getting through to somebody this far gone.

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 04:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

The guy said no such thing, why lie to prove your point?

#68 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2014-04-29 04:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

" only an idiot would pretend that a loaded gun doesn't make someone with bad intentions more dangerous. "

See, at lest you quantified it to resemble a somewhat coherent statement. Intent is what makes someone dangerous. The tool is what may facilitate the intent. But the tool by itself make no threat.

#69 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 04:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"There's simply no getting through to somebody this far gone."

funny to talk about someone who has "gone this far" when all you have offered about it is false equivalency. When you have to make up an argument to fight it why even bother?

#70 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 04:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Simple question,
Does having a firearm make someone inherently more dangerous?

There is only one tight answer to that.

#71 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

I initially saw Sal's comment as Sully and Snoofy did.

However, #69 clarifies his point and makes sense.

#72 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-04-29 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Meanwhile, back in realty, See Also: Stop and Frisk
#56 | Posted by snoofy

If only you knew what what the terminology means.

A standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than probable cause, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable suspicion exists when a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed. www.law.cornell.edu
Mere possession of the gun by the idiot in GA does not meet the standard. The idiot's behavior does.

#73 | Posted by et_al at 2014-04-29 04:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

I initially saw Sal's comment as Sully and Snoofy did.

However, #69 clarifies his point and makes sense.

#72 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-04-29 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah but he's still obfuscating. As if a blackjack and a gun are equally effective killing tools.

And really a gun is one of the few weapons that is dangerous regardless of intent. What do real responsible gun owners say:

Every gun is loaded.

Never point a gun at something you don't expect to shoot.

You know why they say these things? Because its really friggin easy to kill or seriously injure someone else or yourself with a gun even if you're not trying. A little bit of carelessness can cause major issues. And trust me, Sal knows this. If he were teaching a young kid to shoot he'd be telling him these things too.

Basically when Sal portrays himself as not knowing what a gun is, he's making a great case for gun control. If people who claim to be responsible gun owners can't be honest about what a gun is, what it can do and what the potential dangers are if it is mishandled then you have to question whether there is such a thing as a responsible gun owner.

#74 | Posted by Sully at 2014-04-29 05:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

You are worried about the 2nd now?

#53 | Posted by salamandagator at

It'll be people like me who save the 2nd Amendment, not people like you.

#75 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-29 05:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not at all. Why would i be? (Afraid of guns) I have never been attacked by a gun.

#50 | Posted by salamandagator at

Never been attacked by a leopard either, I imagine. Friendly advice: Be frightened of leopards anyway.

#76 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-29 05:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

An emotional response to a calculated question based on fundamental Fourth Amendment search and seizure doctrine. Typical.

#54 | Posted by et_al at 2014-04-29 04:17 PMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Part of the problem with law schools is that they wring every human emotion from law students, with the notable exception of greed.

#77 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-29 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Never been attacked by a leopard either, I imagine. Friendly advice: Be frightened of leopards anyway."

A leopard is not inanimate. they have been known to hurt animals and humans. No gun ever has killed someone or hurt someone on it's own accord. If you choose to live in fear of something that is not even a thing that is up to you, you can be afraid of a unused roll of toilet paper for all i care but it does not make that irrational fear valid.

#78 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 05:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

#74

Again you create a strawman.
Argue with something i said not some purposely bastardized depiction.

#79 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 05:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It'll be people like me who save the 2nd Amendment, not people like you."

Yes, to save it we must destroy it. Only then will it be safe from people who might want it to stick around with it's original intent. After all as long as it is still there in namesake it is just as good right?
I mean that must be how you feel if you are willing to also abandon the 4th and 1st as well, right?

#80 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 05:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Part of the problem with law schools is that they wring every human emotion from law students,"

Emotion is the antithesis of reason. I would prefer a cold emotionless argument that is reasoned and accurate over an unsupported emotional argument any day. One will further understanding and reason one is just spewing subjective conjecture without reason.

#81 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 05:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

But the tool by itself make no threat.
#69 | Posted by salamandagator

Do you think you're saying anything that isn't already known?

Obviously guns don't go off by themselves.
But you'd have to be a (willful) idiot to maintain, all things being equal, an armed assailant is less dangerous than an unarmed one.

Remind me again how many Presidents were assassinated with "tools" other than firearms?

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 05:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's not like we think guns are radioactive and can harm you merely by their physical proximity.

Did you really not understand that, sala? Wow.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 05:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Again you create a strawman.
Argue with something i said not some purposely bastardized depiction.

#79 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 05:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not creating a strawman. You've claimed that there is nothing inherently dangerous about guns and it is all about intent.

In reality, gun safety experts rule don't give a squirt about intent when they talk about how to handle a firearm. Why? Because they are dangerous is mishandled regardless of intent.

Its not my fault that you're making garbage arguments you know to be untrue. If you don't want it pointed out then quit doing it. Don't lie and claim I'm putting words in your mouth...

#84 | Posted by sully at 2014-04-29 05:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Part of the problem with law schools is that they wring every human emotion from law students...

One of the functions of a lawyer is to distance a client from emotional responses to legal problems because they rarely help. Expecting to be paid for the skill is not greed.

#85 | Posted by et_al at 2014-04-29 05:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Do you think you're saying anything that isn't already known?"

Then why the irrational fear?

Do you fear the person or the tool?

Simple question.

If you fear the tool then the person does not matter.
If the person is not to be feared then the tool does not matter.
Do you fear a cop who has a gun?
No, the gun does not make him a threat to you. Do you fear the guy who attacks you in the alley? Yes, regardless of what he has or does not have.
It is as simple as that.

"Remind me again how many Presidents were assassinated with "tools" other than firearms?"

You wanna compare assassinations of leaders by method?
Bombings, poisonings, stabbings ext... well outnumber gunshots.
But if you are restricting it to 4 cases then you are making an argument based off a sample that is not objective whatsoever.
I could just as easily say that 4 of the 4 mimes i asked prefer camels over marlboros.

#86 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 05:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The Gun Show Loophole does exist"

Very untrue. There is no such thing, it is a lie to propagate fear in the uninformed. The so called gun show loophole is the same as every other place where 2 or more people might happen to meet. But for some that is to scary for them to think that someone might sell a gun to someone else and that inanimate piece of metal might just jump out of a drawer and come after them. No, gun show loophole an intentional law that allows private sale.

#38 | Posted by salamandagator

You should not be allowed to sell deadly weapons without a background check.

Period. (understanding that there are some exceptions to every rule but they should be limited and documented)

The fact that you can STILL do this proves there is a loophole. People meet at gun shows to exploit this loophole. People can buy weapons over the internet without background checks.

Proven.

Deny it if you like as we know your denial runs deep.

Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks.

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, federal law clearly defined private sellers as anyone who sold no more than four firearms per year. But the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act lifted that restriction and loosely defined private sellers as people who do not rely on gun sales as the principal way of obtaining their livelihood.

"Today, private parties sometimes sell large numbers of new and used firearms while claiming hobbyist status and exemption from the requirements imposed on licensed retailers," according to Inside Gun Shows: What Goes on When Everybody Thinks Nobody's Watching, a 2009 report from the Violence Prevention Research Program at University of California Davis.

Some states have opted to go further than federal law by requiring background checks at gun shows for any gun transaction, federal license or not. Five states, most recently Colorado and Connecticut, mandate universal background checks, an even more stringent standard that imposes background checks on almost all gun purchases, including over the Internet.

www.governing.com

These are loopholes that need to be filled. Some states have recognized this and stepped up to the plate.

And by doing so proving that more can be done.

#87 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-04-29 05:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Basically when Sal portrays himself as not knowing what a gun is, he's making a great case for gun control. If people who claim to be responsible gun owners can't be honest about what a gun is
#74 | Posted by Sully

He says it's "just a tool."

It would be informative if he'd take a stab why one specific tool warranted a Constitutional amendment, but there's nothing in the Constitution about hammers, saws, and sextants.

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 05:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"He says it's "just a tool.""

Nobody interesting in having an honest discussion would compare a gun to a hammer.

He knows what he's doing, doesn't like being called out on it and yet continues to do it in every gun related thread on the site.

Just weird.

#89 | Posted by Sully at 2014-04-29 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

You wanna compare assassinations of leaders by method?
Bombings, poisonings, stabbings ext... well outnumber gunshots.
But if you are restricting it to 4 cases then you are making an argument based off a sample that is not objective whatsoever.
#86 | Posted by salamandagator

Few things. First, as an American, and within the context of the Second Amendment, I think this discussion should be limited in scope to American leaders.

But you make a good point about the limited sample size. After all, there are only four Presidents killed out of 45. So let's include lower-level politicians like Harvey Milk and Robert Kennedy in the final report. I can't think of American politicians killed by bombings or poisonings, but I'm sure you can enlighten me.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Right now, unfortunately, these organizations that are scaring everybody have the power," said Belinda Padilla, who leads the company's fledgling American division. "All we're doing is providing extra levels of safety to your individual right to bear arms. And if you don't want our gun, don't buy it. It's not for everyone."

Posted by rcade at 08:06 AM | 83 COMMENTS

1.Actually, in some ways it's not a bad idea. I'm sure there are some that would avail themselves of the opportunity.

2.Belinda has the wrong organizations in her gun sights----the reason there is such an uproar is that the organization to fear is the Federal government-----the uproar has grown larger because of the NSA revelations.

3.Once a gun like this is marketed, the fear is the next step is for all guns to have the feature---then who's to know if the wristwatch is NSA friendly. "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you."

#91 | Posted by matsop at 2014-04-29 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It's not like we think guns are radioactive and can harm you merely by their physical proximity."

That's the thing, no sane person would think that way and yet that mentality is absolutely necessary to support such ludicrous gun laws if the facts are known.
That is necessary to think that the way you hold a gun makes it more lethal, or how many things you can mount or that your grandmother should have to conduct a background check on you to sell you a gun.

If the guns, are not the issue, which you seem to agree that they are not, then why in the world are they the target for control?

Why is it so hard to look at the facts about how criminals get their guns?
Why is it so hard to look at who is committing gun crime?
Why is it so hard to look at people who might want to protect themselves as equals?

As you said the gun's don't go off themselves. So why bother with a tiny percentage of crime that could even be addressed with stupid laws? Why add more that will not be subject to any fewer people ignoring them?

That is the biggest thing i do not understand.
I get that everyone wants to reduce violence but knowing the facts precludes the effectiveness of anything proposed thus far and only would serve as a band aid on a festering wound. I would only give people a chance to think they had done something and remove it from the priority is should be.

#92 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 05:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

He knows what he's doing, doesn't like being called out on it and yet continues to do it in every gun related thread on the site.
Just weird.
#89 | Posted by Sully

That's why I called it a pathology earlier. Further evidence of the logical breakdown is that it's coming from the same guy who said "I would prefer a cold emotionless argument that is reasoned and accurate."

It's entirely accurate to say, generally speaking, an assailant with a gun is a bigger threat than an assailant without one.

But if you're so sure I'm wrong, explain why the military issues weapons to soldiers. Since, according to you, it's the intent which determines the potency of the militia, not the materiel.

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 05:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You should not be allowed to sell deadly weapons without a background check.
Period. (understanding that there are some exceptions to every rule but they should be limited and documented)
The fact that you can STILL do this proves there is a loophole. People meet at gun shows to exploit this loophole. People can buy weapons over the internet without background checks.
Proven. "

Okay so include knives, cars, bats, lamps, rocks, sticks and every other thing under the sun.
Okay that would obviously be ridiculous only a tiny percentage of those items sold will ever be used in a crime.

Kinda like the .7 percent of guns criminals got coming from gun shows.
Yes the decimal point is supposed to be there.

Some loophole. 0.7 percent of guns criminals owned(according to the fbi are acquired at a gun show.

#94 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 05:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

As you said the gun's don't go off themselves. So why bother with a tiny percentage of crime that could even be addressed with stupid laws?

What kind of argument is that? Were you happy enough getting Cs and Ds in high school, when a little more work would get you As and Bs?

Please forgive the world for daring to exceed your standard of mediocrity. That you'd ask why others can't simply embrace your standard of what's acceptable is even more telling of the laziness of your arguments.

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 05:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If you fear the tool then the person does not matter.
If the person is not to be feared then the tool does not matter.
Do you fear a cop who has a gun?
No, the gun does not make him a threat to you. Do you fear the guy who attacks you in the alley? Yes, regardless of what he has or does not have.
It is as simple as that."

That simple, huh?

If you were to come across a toddler with a loaded gun, you'd be a complete idiot not to be scared until that toddler is disarmed.

But yeah let's keep pretending guns are just like any other tool.

#96 | Posted by Sully at 2014-04-29 06:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Please forgive the world for daring to exceed your standard of mediocrity."

Uhh, read what i wrote.

Why bother with bandaging a tiny paper cut while you are bleeding out from your femoral artery.
It's priority, deal with major causes then look for the fractions of a single percent that may still exist.

It is not my mediocrity that would say slap the bandage on the little thing and ignore the big ones. It is basic common sense.

#97 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 06:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If you were to come across a toddler with a loaded gun, you'd be a complete idiot not to be scared until that toddler is disarmed."

Only if you were an idiot.

#98 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 06:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

If the person is not to be feared then the tool does not matter.

Bud if the person is to be feared, then the tool matters. A lot.
Which is scarier to you, terrorists with nukes or terrorists without nukes?
You're just phoning it in at this point, sala.

If you've ever been to a grocery store, you probably know what a "price gun" is. The modern equivalent has a barcode reader and doesn't actually print price stickers; instead it communicates with servers on the back end.

It's also not called a "gun" any more. I couldn't figure out why, until somebody explained to me when customers hear the store workers asking "where's the gun" or "can I borrow your gun?" they might get the wrong idea about the superior level of customer service they're about to receive.

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 06:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why bother with bandaging a tiny paper cut while you are bleeding out from your femoral artery.

Because the femoral artery bleed can't be addressed without people like you crying "Second Amendment! Second Amendment!"

You really don't get that, do you?

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 06:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But yeah let's keep pretending guns are just like any other tool."

Well heaven forbid we treat them like the other things that kill more people then guns.

#101 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Bud if the person is to be feared, then the tool matters. A lot."

If the person is to be fear the person is to be feared. Believing that a single tool is the difference between reason to fear and not is beyond insane.

#102 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 06:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If you were to come across a toddler with a loaded gun, you'd be a complete idiot not to be scared until that toddler is disarmed."
Only if you were an idiot.
#98 | Posted by salamandagator

Just for you sala:
www.youtube.com
"Monkey with AK47"

#103 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 06:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

If the person is to be fear the person is to be feared. Believing that a single tool is the difference between reason to fear and not is beyond insane.
#102 | Posted by salamandagator

So you perceive exactly the same threat from a guy who wants to do you harm whether he's holding a candy cane or a gun?

Your stated position simply isn't credible. I'm surprised you can even bring yourself to spew such nonsense. You're truly a testament to the power of willful ignorance.

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 06:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Because the femoral artery bleed can't be addressed without people like you crying "Second Amendment! Second Amendment!"
You really don't get that, do you?"

That is patently untrue and you know it. You already admitted that the gun is not the issue but the person using it now you are back to the same tired rhetoric that has been laughed at for decades.

You want a solution that involves making laws to make something that is illegal illegal and you think that makes any sense whatsoever?

Yeah, it sounds like silly bumper sticker stuff but really the concept that some people will not follow the laws regardless should be a given to anyone with an iq greater then that of a small squash.

#105 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 06:28 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Just for you sala:
www.youtube.com
"Monkey with AK47""

Trying to prove your point with a terribly fake video?

#106 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 06:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

You already admitted that the gun is not the issue but the person using it

It's both.
The gun is no threat in the absence of a person to use it.
The person is a much greater threat in possession of a gun.
Are you really this thick, or are you getting paid to post this drivel?
You still haven't explained why they give soldiers guns, and clearly you can't.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 06:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm glad I came up with this "why do they give soldiers guns?" question.
I'll remember to ask you early the next time this topic comes up.
Since it lays bare the willful intellectual dishonesty of your position.

#108 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 06:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you choose to live in fear of something that is not even a thing that is up to you,

#78 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014

Well, guns are a "thing", unless the English language has had a sudden revolution.

I'm not frightened of guns. I dislike the sort of gun culture you represent. We can do better.

#109 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-29 06:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

One of the functions of a lawyer is to distance a client from emotional responses to legal problems because they rarely help. Expecting to be paid for the skill is not greed.

#85 | Posted by et_al at 2014-04-29 05:

Professional detachment can be good; being a cold-hearted bastard, not so much. I also don't mind if you get paid for what you do; but pardon me if I mistrust and profession that makes quite such an idol out of money.

#110 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-29 07:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

that the gun is not the issue but the person using it

#105 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 06:28 PM

You guys gloss over do much damned stuff. I recall having a discussion, perhaps it was with you----The gun nut wouldn't even concede that an armed man MIGHT be intimidating to another person, even if the second party is also armed.

This is why you're going no place.

#111 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-29 07:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

The gun lobby don't want no guns smarter than their owners.

#112 | Posted by danni at 2014-04-29 07:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

The gun lobby don't want no guns smarter than their owners.

#112 | POSTED BY DANNI

Why can't you appreciate their response instead of putting them in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position and criticizing them, danni?

Typical proggie

#113 | Posted by goatman at 2014-04-29 07:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

107
I thought you were starting to get it. But now you are back to the gun makes someone dangerous. So which is it? You cannot keep going back and forth and pretend like you have a point. So pick one.

As to the soldiers thing, why give a carpenter a hammer? You give someone the tool to do the job. It's a simple concept.

But that begs the question, is a soldier more dangerous to you just because he is armed? It's the same as with a cop and the only honest answer is no.

#114 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 07:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thankfully 75% of folks are sane and do not own guns. When I see an idiot with a gun holstered on his belt I get as far away from them as possible, I have walked out of restaurants and stores because a dope with a gun was inside. The problem is the jerks who have concealed weapons, they should have to wear a sign notifying SANE people that they are armed and ready to kill-murder
Sammy in "GUN CRAZY ARIZONA"
and also in gun-sane Rhode Island

#115 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-04-29 07:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

111

I gloss over stuff?
I come with facts and figures that you have to ignore to continue to hold your option only supported by uninformed rhetoric. I find your attempt at an insult quite amusing. I mean if irony could be harnessed your comment could solve the world's energy crisis for generations.

#116 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 07:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

115

That's your definition of sane?
Keep away from law abiding citizens because they have a gun. Never mind that you are far far more likely to be hurt by a criminal then them you can see it so you should be afraid. But do you run away every time you see a cop?

#117 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 07:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

is a soldier more dangerous to you just because he is armed? It's the same as with a cop and the only honest answer is no.

#114 | Posted by salamandagator at

Well, yes. Any man with a gun is more dangerous to me. Just like any man with a battle ax is more dangerous to me.

#118 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-29 07:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

I come with facts and figures

#116 | Posted by salamandagator

You aren't an honest partner in debate. On this subject. You're love of firearms is quite clear. So powerful that you accuse those of us who don't love them of being frightened of them.

You're right. Guns are tools. To me. To you they have great emotional depth.

#119 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-29 08:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've never owned a gun but for the first time ever, my wife and I've discussed the possibility. I don't like what I'm seeing right now in the country and I feel we're at risk like we've never been----and it's not from external forces either unless you consider economic retaliation as a huge risk.

#120 | Posted by matsop at 2014-04-29 08:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

As to the soldiers thing, why give a carpenter a hammer? You give someone the tool to do the job. It's a simple concept.
#114 | Posted by salamandagator

Okay, now explain to me what job it is a soldier does, and why that specific tool was chosen to help him or her do that job. How does the tool help?

#121 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 08:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Keep away from law abiding citizens because they have a gun. Never mind that you are far far more likely to be hurt by a criminal then them you can see it so you should be afraid.
#117 | Posted by salamandagator

Typically, the criminality doesn't come into play until the otherwise law-abiding citizen uses their gun to commit a criminal act.

Unless you're suggesting "criminal" means something one is, not shorthand for describing an otherwise law abiding citizen now engaged in crime. In which case, presuming you have ever jaywalked, you are and forever will be a criminal, and your guns should be taken away.

#122 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 08:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

You do not get to speak of honesty when you chose to ignore all facts to hold an unsupportable oppinion. Just because I do not hold the same irrational fear that drives people from reason does not make me dishonest. It is not me who's opinion changes to whatever is needed to avoid blatant contradiction. You speak of me not being legitimate in debate but you forget that debate is about reason. You on the other hand will not even a dress fact. Discussion is not limited to the level of little girls talking about if the Jonas Brothers or beiber is cuter. What is sad to me is that you are not alone in believing that gun owners should be treated as lessor humans. It saddens me that it goes deep enough that you would remove 3 constitutionally secured rights from others so your fear is satiated.

#123 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 08:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

What is sad to me is that you are not alone in believing that gun owners should be treated as lessor humans. It saddens me that it goes deep enough that you would remove 3 constitutionally secured rights from others so your fear is satiated.

#123 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 08:22 PM | Reply

Sala; like I said; I don't own a gun but some of my best friends are gun owners. Many of them are "pillars" of the community.

#124 | Posted by matsop at 2014-04-29 08:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

122.

Really?
You are going down that road?
You are going to be that deliberately obtuse?

You know exactly what was said and meant.

#125 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 08:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

124.

Exactly, it is the person not the thing.

#126 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 08:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Why can't you appreciate their response instead of putting them in ------ed if you do, damned if you don't position and criticizing them, danni?"

Maybe it was the day my son and I were coming home on I-595 and some a*****e thought we had cut him off which we absolutely had not done. So, he's in a Land Rover and he races up next to us waving his gun. That ans several other incidents leave me little patience for any of the anti gun regulation crowd. If they could make guns that little kids couldn't pick up and kill themselves or their little friends but we don't because it might inconvenience some gun nut then we are cowards and we are not protecting our children the way we can and should.
Tell me, what number of children killed by guns that could have been prevented by "smart guns" is too many?
Of course I know that we already have millions of not so smart guns out there but we need to start some place if we ever hope to end the slaughter.

#127 | Posted by danni at 2014-04-29 08:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

#127: It seems that episode would make you welcome a response that aims to lessen gun technology instead of responding in a knee-jerk fashion.

#128 | Posted by goatman at 2014-04-29 08:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just because I do not hold the same irrational fear that drives people from reason does not make me dishonest.
#123 | Posted by salamandagator

You are as dishonest as the day is long when you claim a bad guy with a protractor is exactly as threatening as a bad guy with a gun.

Can you explain why handguns aren't allowed on airplanes? Or is that just an irrational fear too?

You still haven't explained why soldiers are armed with guns and not some other tool. I doubt you ever will.

#129 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 08:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

DAVID E. VANDERCOY

Professor of Law, Valparaiso University School of Law

------------------------------
------------------------------
------------

VI. CONCLUSION

English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the
only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these
premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands
of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the
public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged
to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be
abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group
trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical
government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute
that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English
theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed
population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since
such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would
comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common
public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms,
thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create
a right for other (pg.1039) governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a
free state, just as it says.



#130 | Posted by Visitor2 at 2014-04-29 08:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

122.
Really?
You are going down that road?
You are going to be that deliberately obtuse?
You know exactly what was said and meant.
#125 | Posted by salamandagator

Yeah, and I know it was far too simplistic. Take Danni's example. The gun owners was not a criminal until he started brandishing his weapon on the highway. Until that very moment he might have never broken a single law... though of course it's impossible to imagine anyone on a Florida highway not criminally speeding, but I digress.

#131 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 08:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It seems that episode would make you welcome a response that aims to lessen gun technology instead of responding in a knee-jerk fashion."

Why? I would welcome technology that makes it harder for children to shoot a gun and which more clearly identifies the gun that a bullet came from and, if possible, who pulled the trigger.

#132 | Posted by danni at 2014-04-29 08:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tell me, what number of children killed by guns that could have been prevented by "smart guns" is too many?
Of course I know that we already have millions of not so smart guns out there but we need to start some place if we ever hope to end the slaughter.

#127 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2014-04-29 08:39 PM | FLAG:

Start some place? You are in luck, everything you want is happening. "Safe gun" development, as noted earlier, started over 60 years ago. "Smart gun" techs are just the most recent evolution that started 15-20 years ago. There is no legislation anywhere being lobbied for or considered attempting to curtail development of these technologies, whether they be mechanical or digital. The only thing being protested is 1 companies attempt to force mandatory integration of their technology into all firearms, basic crony capitalism.

#133 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-04-29 09:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Can you explain why handguns aren't allowed on airplanes?

???

You actually have to ask this? No wonder you are such a scaredy cat when it comes to guns.

The reason is that people who want to bring guns on planes are much more likely to do so with malice in mind than responsible gun owners like me. Also, the possibility of hundreds of innocent people dying (instead of one bad guy who may enter my home uninvited) is much more likely

Geez, snoofy. Get in touch with reality if you want to debate gun ownership realistically. But I do thank you for proving that uninformed people like you aren't to be taken seriously.

#134 | Posted by goatman at 2014-04-29 09:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed
population, the militia."

Coincidentally, the armed militia was just the thing that Southerners needed to put down slave rebellions.
The very idea, that you think your weapons will protect you from the power of our modern military is completely ridiculous.
The 2nd amendment was put there to appease southern interests.

"Slavery and the Second Amendment: Slave Patrol Militias"

www.thehypertexts.com

#135 | Posted by danni at 2014-04-29 09:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government,

Any examples of that actually happening?
Or can we finally bury this inane talking point at Wounded Knee?
Either the 1890 massacre or the 1973 "incident," doesn't really matter, the government wasn't "checked" any way you slice it.

#136 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 09:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why? I would welcome technology that makes it harder for children to shoot a gun and which more clearly identifies the gun that a bullet came from and, if possible, who pulled the trigger.

#132 | POSTED BY DANNI

Because you make a flippant post against the folks who agree to curtail a type of gun that makes it easier for a gun to cause a death.

You didn't get that part?

Really?

#137 | Posted by goatman at 2014-04-29 09:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

The reason is that people who want to bring guns on planes are much more likely to do so with malice in mind than responsible gun owners like me.
#134 | Posted by goatman

So? The gun isn't the threat, the person is.
That is Sala's central thesis.
Glad you agree it's stupid.

#138 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 09:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

The gun isn't the threat, the person is.

#138 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Exactly. Glad you agree that guns don't kill people. People kill people.

#139 | Posted by goatman at 2014-04-29 09:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

So then we should allow guns on airplanes... seeing as the guns are no threat.

#140 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 09:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

So then we should allow guns on airplanes.

I guess if you put blind trust in humanity. In which case, I suppose you see no reason for banks to have safes.

I'm not as trusting of people as you, snoofy. But I live withing the bounds of reality.

#141 | Posted by goatman at 2014-04-29 09:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Salamandagator doesn't. He thinks a terrorist with a gun is no more a threat than a terrorist without a gun. Hard to believe, I'm sure you'll agree.

#142 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 09:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm sure you'll agree.

You are sure of a lot of crazy things, snoofy.

I still can't get over your open admission of being a racist on the Sterling thread, either

#143 | Posted by goatman at 2014-04-29 09:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

140

The funny thing is that they are. Certain people can. Luckily your theory that magically guns make someone dangerous is absurd otherwise it would turn out badly again and again. I just find it funny that the example you used is so ludicrous as it proves you wrong. Even the authorities agree it is the people not the thing.

#144 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 09:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

142
Terrorists have done far more damage without guns then with them. Yet another example you use that blows up in your face.

#145 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 09:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

140
The funny thing is that they are. Certain people can.
#144 | Posted by salamandagator

"Certain people" being law enforcement professionals.
Please, stop being so disingenuous with your phrasing.
You really can't bring yourself to agree that people kill people, and guns are a tool that makes it easier?

#146 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 09:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

I mean, you've stated that guns are a tool.
What is the function of the tool... you've never quite gotten around to describing that.
What are some of the potential uses and misuses of the tool?
Can you think of other tools that kill as many as guns do?
I can, it's called the car.
Of course, cars and their use are highly regulated, and safety features have been continuously incorporated into cars over the years.
I'm not aware of a safety innovation in guns since the addition of the safety, perhaps the trigger lock... and then there's this electronic bracelet thing, which for some reason you vehemently oppose...

#147 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 09:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

So now you are back to the gun does not cause the crime. Seriously get your story straight. Or don't the comedic value is quite high in your flipity floppity antics.

#148 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 09:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

142
Terrorists have done far more damage without guns then with them.
#145 | Posted by salamandagator

What's that got to do with anything? Terrorists still do plenty of damage with guns; there's a shopping mall in Nairobi and a bunch of ISI videos you can watch on LiveLeak if you need a reminder.

#149 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 09:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

So you would support background checks on all car sales? Interlocks on all of them making only one person able to drive it? Guns are far more regulated then cars and the laws are constantly changing. If you paid attention you would know this.

#150 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 09:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

So now you are back to the gun does not cause the crime. Seriously get your story straight.
#148 | Posted by salamandagator

I've never departed from the stance that the person armed with the gun is the greater threat than either alone.

That you can't bring yourself to admit that an armed soldier is more effective than an unarmed one sinks whatever credibility you might have had.

#151 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 09:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

149
You asked if terrorists were more dangerous with guns but the facts are that the kill more without. Just pointing out another failed example.

#152 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 09:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

151 now you redefine your stance? I guess it must be nice to have such a fluidity in your opinion.

#153 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 09:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

So you would support background checks on all car sales? Interlocks on all of them making only one person able to drive it?
#150 | Posted by salamandagator

I'd support licensing of all drivers, mandatory insurance of all drivers, and some sort of occasional safety check on cars, either according to some schedule or whenever a violation is noticed by law enforcement. Pretty sure that achieves most of the same goals of background checks, such as keeping those who have had their license suspended for bad behavior behind the wheel from legally driving.

Of course, this does nothing to stop illegal driving and willful misuse of the tool known as a car. So I suppose you're of the opinion it's all a waste of time.

And the interlock is called a "key," silly. You can give it to your friend just like you can give your gun bracelet to your friend. And just like the key permits function of the car, your friend will have a hard time operating the gun without it.

#154 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 09:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

149
You asked if terrorists were more dangerous with guns but the facts are that the kill more without. Just pointing out another failed example.
#152 | Posted by salamandagator

The example I gave was a terrorist armed with a gun vs. a terrorist armed with nothing (and in one example the bad guy was armed with a candy cane). Not a terrorist armed with an IED or other tool of destruction. Get your facts straight.

#155 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 09:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

" only an idiot would pretend that a loaded gun doesn't make someone with bad intentions more dangerous. "

See, at lest you quantified it to resemble a somewhat coherent statement. Intent is what makes someone dangerous. The tool is what may facilitate the intent. But the tool by itself make no threat.

#69 | Posted by salamandagator

A pencil makes someone with bad intentions more dangerous. A took is just a tool, nothing more. The threat comes from the loose nut on the other end. As they say, it's the Indian, not the arrow, chief.

#156 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-04-29 09:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Really, the intellectual dishonest lengths you'll go to claim people armed with guns aren't dangerous is striking.

For the third time, can you explain why soldiers are armed? Does the tool have a function that is well suited to the art of waging war?

#157 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 09:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

A pencil makes someone with bad intentions more dangerous.
#156 | Posted by Sniper

Not according to Sala. Perhaps you'd care to explain it to him. It's a sad day when Sniper and I can agree on guns and yet there's someone who still doesn't get it.

#158 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 09:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Really, the intellectual dishonest lengths you'll go to claim people armed with guns aren't dangerous is striking.

For the third time, can you explain why soldiers are armed?

My irony meter just pegged and blew a fuse

#159 | Posted by goatman at 2014-04-29 09:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Intent is what makes someone dangerous. The tool is what may facilitate the intent. But the tool by itself make no threat.
#69 | Posted by salamandagator

Ah, but there's more to danger than intent. For example, when it comes to guns, there's accidental discharge. Do a google news search for "child accidentally shot" and see for yourself.

#160 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 09:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

. For example, when it comes to guns, there's accidental discharge.

And with cars there're lethal accidents -- far, far more than accidental deaths with guns

Your point? Is it to ban anything that can accidentally cause a death?

#161 | Posted by goatman at 2014-04-29 09:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

158.

Obviously you have not bothered to read my posts. Well either that or you have graduated from feigned ignorance to bald faced lies.

#162 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 09:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

All of our families should be at risk because many men think owning guns is cool. People's children will die, that isn't even questionable. Some breadwinners will be wounded or killed. Hey, some moms will catch a bullet because so many American men think it is part of their manhood to own guns. SAy whatever you want but that really is the truth. If you are a gun nut, a gun afficionado, whatever, you share the responsibility for all the guys like you whose guns end up killing kids, wives, husbands, friends, etc. If you don't need a gun for your job and you "pack" other than hunting or target guns then you are the problem and you share responsibility for the deaths others like you cause.
I don't object to hunters who hunt with guns.
I don't object to security guards and police who use guns.
I don't object to people who target shoot.
I don't object to people transporting valuable things packing guns.
I do object to people who pack just because it makes them feel tough and there are millions of them in this country.

#163 | Posted by danni at 2014-04-29 09:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've read your posts. It's the combination of the people and the thing. Obviously a terrorist with a gun is a bigger threat than a terrorist with nothing. Unless you'd like to again deny this is the case.

#164 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 09:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

"And with cars there're lethal accidents -- far, far more than accidental deaths with guns"

Difference being, of course, lethal automotive accidents happened because someone was trying to get from one place to another while accidental deaths involving guns have no such logical purpose. The comparison is absolutely ridiculous, shameful in fact.

#165 | Posted by danni at 2014-04-29 09:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

160

First valid point you have brought up. Actually I am amazed it took so long. At first I just assumed it was beneath you and you were well aware of how rare it is comparatively and why rare phenomenon are not often given much weight. But now it appears it just occurred to you.

#166 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 09:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Stupid gun but I have nothing against it being sold

#167 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2014-04-29 09:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you are a gun nut, a gun afficionado, whatever, you share the responsibility for all the guys like you whose guns end up killing kids, wives, husbands, friends, etc.

And if you consume butter and red meat you share the responsibility for those like you who end up dying of cardiac failure.

Geez, danni -- get real. I am doing you a favor when I tell you that you don't wear the drama queen tiara very well. You are better than this.

#168 | Posted by goatman at 2014-04-29 09:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obviously an assassin with a gun is a greater threat to an American President than an assassin with nothing. History bears this out, seeing as there have been four Presidents assassinated with guns and a few attempted assassination with guns too. Not that this is the only method of attempted assassination, it's merely the only one that's ever worked.

Your silence on specifying the purpose(s) for which the tool known as the gun can be used speaks volumes. As an American, you owe it to Presidents Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy to end your shameful silence.

#169 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 09:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obviously a terrorist with a gun is a bigger threat than a terrorist with nothing.

This is an exact repeat of buffalo bob spamming his pointless claim of, "A car antennae you can get to is a better weapon than a gun you can't."

Sorry to see that desperation has brought you to this point, snoofy,

#170 | Posted by goatman at 2014-04-29 09:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obviously an assassin with a gun is a greater threat to an American President than an assassin with nothing.

And so is this one.

Sorry (but not surprised) to see you reach this point in the debate, snoofy.

#171 | Posted by goatman at 2014-04-29 10:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

rare phenomenon are not often given much weight.
#166 | Posted by salamandagator

Well, Presidential assassinations are rare.
But then, so are Presidents.

#172 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 10:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

163

So no objection to people transporting valuable thing but if you want to protect your family it's an issue? So a painting can be protected but not my daughter?

#173 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 10:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

A person with gasoline in his car is more of a threat than those with empty tanks. Ban gasoline!

#174 | Posted by goatman at 2014-04-29 10:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

and why rare phenomenon are not often given much weight. But now it appears it just occurred to you.
#166 | Posted by salamandagator

I brought up rare assassinations of rare Presidents to demonstrate that guns make some people more dangerous.

On the larger topic, 25 people in America die daily from guns, 80 if you count suicides. There are parts of this country where gunshot wound is the #1 reason for ER visits. That tells me gun violence is not nearly rare enough.

#175 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 10:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

So no objection to people transporting valuable thing but if you want to protect your family it's an issue? So a painting can be protected but not my daughter?
#173 | Posted by salamandagator

That's not what Danni said.
It's the Mr. Tough Guy brandishing a gun in traffic that has to go.
Are you the type who would pull a stunt like that?

#176 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 10:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

175

And is the reason because guns exist or because there are more bad people there?

#177 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 10:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Geez, danni -- get real. I am doing you a favor when I tell you that you don't wear the drama queen tiara very well. You are better than this."

OK Goatman, how many people who owned guns but had no real need for them had the guns they owned somehow killing someone they loved? That's not drama, that's reality. That's why I don't have a gun. That's why I'm glad my son and my daughters don't own guns. My grandchildren are very unlikely to be killed by a gun. I like it that way.
BTW, my daughter (the one who had cancer) and her boy friend are bow hunters.

#178 | Posted by danni at 2014-04-29 10:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

176

That millions of tough guy gun nuts is a figment of her imagination. And she did leave out protection of family, but should she say it was an accident and she supports carrying for protection then fine.

#179 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 10:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

And is the reason because guns exist or because there are more bad people there?
#177 | Posted by salamandagator

Why can't it be both?

Unless you're saying there are far, far more bad people in America than in any other modern country, I don't buy that it's wholly attributable to people.

But let's clear this up: Are you saying it's entirely attributable to people?

#180 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 10:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Follow-up, are the numbers of gun accidents in America because Americans are clumsier than their counterparts in the modern world? Or is it because there are more guns in America, and our equivalent level of clumsiness results in more accidental firearm discharges?

#181 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 10:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, take intent to harm away and virtually all violence is gone. Do you dispute that?

#182 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 10:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

OK Goatman, how many people who owned guns but had no real need for them had the guns they owned somehow killing someone they loved?

I don't know. It's an irrelevant question. It's like asking, "How many people who owned cars but didn't really need one (because of availability of public transportation or their lifestyle) had loved ones killed in or because of those cars?"

Lethal accidents can happen with jillions of items, danni. One can't justify banning an object because it may accidentally kill someone. More people accidentally drown in pools (not a necessary object either) than accidentally die of fire arms.

Accidents (six causes)

Falls 13,322
Poison (solid, liquid) 12,757
Choking on food or other object 4,313
Drowning 3,402
Fires, flames 3.337
Firearms 776

gunowners.org

(yes, I know this data is from 2004, but it was the first on my google search and I didn't feel like poring over a lot of links.. But I can't imagine this disparity is much different today. If you want to do more research and prove it is different in 2013, I'll concede the point)

So (in 2004 at least) 4 times as many people died of accidental drowning that accidental firearm deaths. Do we bann swimming and backyard pools since they aren't a vital necessity?

#183 | Posted by goatman at 2014-04-29 10:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't dispute that, and for sake of brevity I will pretend unintentional discharges aren't violent.

Let's look at the other side of the coin. Take all guns away while intent to harm remains constant; what happens?

#184 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 10:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry, it's hard to have this conversation in the midst of a spam storm, my #184 is responsive to #182.

#185 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 10:28 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

184

Simple
Violence stays the same. The tool changes. Would you dispute that?

#186 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 10:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Many if not most sidearms are intended for self defense. Having to enter a 5 digit pin, potentially in dim lighting in a split second, on an electronic system that has potential for unreliability, only destroys the purpose of such a firearm.

I suspect this is but a profit making scheme by her (or partners) taking advantage of biased bigoted policies that give preferential treatment to a "woman owned business", while playing on the anti-gun obsession of the oligarch owners of our media and Democrats so as to add huge costs to a firearm for average Americans.

#187 | Posted by Robson at 2014-04-29 10:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans," one commenter wrote.

What's wrong with you people? Seriously, what's wrong with you?

#3 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-29 08:20 AM

Americans need to be much more skeptical rather than gullible to the output of the media machine and propaganda scientists that are intended to have them blindly believe that only white supremacists paint swastikas, OR that only political Party A would sabotage the house of candidate Party B, ensuring that candidate Party B gets publicity and sympathy. Or that corporate interests don't have violent perps embedded in labor demonstrations.

Typically the operators are much more devious that that. Provocateurs have become a way of PR life in America and they are regularly used to gain sympathy and attack issues and individuals in a very non-obvious way.

#188 | Posted by Robson at 2014-04-29 10:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Americans should understand by now that we the people must fight to maintain our rights and privacy.

If we do not actively oppose every such effort the momentum of our corporate owned corrupt government is to take them all from us one chip at a time in the name of security, safety and to create political divide. Average Americans have been conditioned to fight each other, when the real fight is for all to defend the Bill of Rights and freedoms that we were endowed with.

#189 | Posted by Robson at 2014-04-29 11:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

184
Simple
Violence stays the same. The tool changes. Would you dispute that?
#186 | Posted by salamandagator

Yes, I would dispute that. Let me clarify, the other tools of violence would be less effective, for example were I to become violent I'd have a much easier time killing someone with a gun than the other methods readily available.

So perhaps the rates of violent outburst would not change, but the severity would decrease.

It really depends on what you're calling violence; I feel like we are commingling intensity and frequency into one metric which confuses things.

As supporting evidence I'd point to the lower rates of gun violence in places where guns are banned. And I wouldn't point to Mexico, I'd try to compare the United States to other modern countries like Australia, Switzerland, etc. One of which has a gun ban and one of which doesn't.

Perhaps you've seen the Archie Bunker bit where the daughter says how many people are killed with handguns and Archie responds "Would it make you happier if they were pushed out of windows?" Fact of the matter it's much easier to kill someone with a gun than by pushing them out a window. Let's say my target wife is really fat; she might not even fit out the window and even if she did I might not be able to push hard enough to get her out.

#190 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-29 11:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

I like the way Robson's comments drop into any thread, regardless of topic.

#191 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-04-29 11:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

#174

You jest, but I don't think many liberals would have an issue with this.

#192 | Posted by mariosanchez at 2014-04-30 02:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Fact of the matter it's much easier to kill someone with a gun than by pushing them out a window."

It's actually easier to hit them with a car or an airplane. Espcially if mass casualties are what you are looking for. You first need to ignore gun related suicides, unless you're going to at the same time examine the possibility of restricting access to method that a person could use to kill themselves. And if you're looking at murder, and inflicting mass casualities in particular, vehicles are your best bet. And it's only a matter of time before the next Harris/Klebold figures that out. You could run a semi or other large truck through the soccer field my kids play on any random saturaday morning and kill far more than you could ever hope to with a gun. And since you're already moving, there's a good chance you could even escape the scene. And unless there is someone there with a gun who is an exceedingly good shot, there is nothing anyone could do to stop you.

"As supporting evidence I'd point to the lower rates of gun violence in places where guns are banned. And I wouldn't point to Mexico, I'd try to compare the United States to other modern countries like Australia, Switzerland, etc. One of which has a gun ban and one of which doesn't."

So you would omit Mexico because it contradcited the narrative you were trying to present?

And Switzerland actually provides it's citizens with automatic weapons and subsidizes the cost of ammunition. Australia banned guns, but the ban had no apparent affect on the occurrence of violent crime. Great Britain banned guns, and violent crime increased.

#193 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-04-30 08:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

That being said, the position that the smart gun is going to introduce a wider ban on gun sales or ownership is probably a bridge too far at this point. While no one would want a .22 for home defense, I would consider purchasing a .40 or .45 that I could keep cocked and loaded on my night table, without fear that the kids might accidentally fire it. Currently I keep it de-cocked without magazine. So if I need to use it, there are three steps that need to be taken before it can be fired.

#194 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-04-30 08:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's the Mr. Tough Guy brandishing a gun in traffic that has to go.
Are you the type who would pull a stunt like that?

#176 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2014-04-29 10:06 PM | FLAG:

Look! COMMON GROUND! I assume you agree with NRA members in that gun laws we have need to be enforced.

What that guy did was illegal. Call the police. He will be taken the jail and the legal system will do what it does.

#195 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-04-30 08:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

And Switzerland actually provides it's citizens with automatic weapons and subsidizes the cost of ammunition.

#193 | Posted by madbomber at 2014

Because each citizen is a member of the Armed Forces. The USA isn't going that route, either. Gun lobby will kill it.

#196 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-30 08:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

What that guy did was illegal.

#195 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-04-30 08:36 AM

You mean wave a gun at one of our fellow posters because he thought he had a grievance?

SALMANAGATOR'S position is that the gun wasn't really there. That maniac could as well have waved a hot dog in someone's face.

#197 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-30 09:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

"If you were to come across a toddler with a loaded gun, you'd be a complete idiot not to be scared until that toddler is disarmed."

Only if you were an idiot.

#98 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-29 06:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

LOL. What does that even mean? Anyone who wouldn't be terrified upon walking into a room with a toddler armed with a gun is a complete and utter moron.

I actually don't believe you're at all honest on this topic. But if you really did believe half the stuff you spew in these threads you'd be a Darwin Award waiting to happen.

#198 | Posted by sully at 2014-04-30 09:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

"That maniac could as well have waved a hot dog in someone's face"

I actually think I'm well-qualified to handle a man wielding a dangerous hot dog. For some reason the man with the innocuous gun poses more of a problem. Can't quite figure it out.

#199 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-30 09:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

If they could come up with reasonably priced, reasonably powerful firearm that required proximity to a durable, coded RFID bracelet (or whatever) that didn't require a 5-digit code and got it's power the same way my G-shock does, they might sell some. The ungodly price, .22 caliber and code entry requirement are show-stoppers.

More likely, some entrepreneur will invent an aftermarket device that acts in a similar way, like a trigger lock that pops open when your RFID device gets within 12 inches.

#200 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-04-30 09:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Because each citizen is a member of the Armed Forces. The USA isn't going that route, either. Gun lobby will kill it."

My personal opinion is that the US government should provide its citizens with weapons. Think about it this way-it's a constitutional right that one can only exercise if they have the money to do so. And guns are expensive.

Progressives clamor daily that services like healthcare be made available free of charge, even though there is nothing in the costitution providing for the right to free healthcare. Or voting. Progressives routinely claim that any required act on the part of the voter to enagage in the act of voting is deterrent to voting, intentional or otherwise.

Why are progressives not equally outraged about the cost of exercising one's second amendment rights?

#201 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-04-30 09:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why are progressives not equally outraged about the cost of exercising one's second amendment rights?

#201 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-04-30 09

You're in the military. You know when you're being stupid on this subject.

#202 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-30 09:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

You mean wave a gun at one of our fellow posters because he thought he had a grievance?
SALMANAGATOR'S position is that the gun wasn't really there. That maniac could as well have waved a hot dog in someone's face.

#197 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2014-04-30 09:14 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Somehow I doubt that's his position. Suffice to say they could have just been run off the road. It's a hell of a lot easier than trying to hit a target from a moving vehicle.

#203 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-04-30 09:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

While no one would want a .22 for home defense, I would consider purchasing a .40 or .45 that I could keep cocked and loaded on my night table, without fear that the kids might accidentally fire it. Currently I keep it de-cocked without magazine. So if I need to use it, there are three steps that need to be taken before it can be fired.

#194 | Posted by madbomber

You know why it is in .22, the electronics that are in it likely do not fair well with such massive calibers as the 32 ACP, 380, 9mm. They have been asked repeatedly why is it in .22, they wont answer that question. If a simple signal activates the gun then it is an equally simple signal to cancel the original signal rendering firearm inert. A simple trip to radio shack any one can build a RF jammier can be made and punching the code in will be the least of your worries. If this is such great tech lets see the cops try it out first, and lets see how many cops die because of it. People want a reliable firearm not more crap that makes it less reliable. Locking your gun in a quick access gun vault takes care of the safety issues with children and that 1,800 cost for a .22 caliber gun is a joke, For all the cost you could pay for very good retention training if you think a person is going to take your gun from you.

#204 | Posted by zack991 at 2014-04-30 09:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

Bolt to floor or closet takes care of the safety issue for having a gun at the ready without fear of a child getting to it. A much similar and cheaper fix than 1,800 junk .22. If you want to risk more problems that could arise when you need it the most, wish you luck. Use Common sense and there are a ton of quick access systems for firearms for HD without risking a child getting to it already exists.

www.youtube.com

www.youtube.com

#205 | Posted by zack991 at 2014-04-30 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

(Bolt the safe to the floor or in your closet and that takes care of the safety issue for having a gun at the ready without the fear of a child getting to it. It is a much simpler and cheaper fix then buying a 1,800 undependable handgun. If you want to risk more problems that could arise when you depend on it the most, then I wish you luck. Using Common sense and using more affordable vaults already exists.)

#206 | Posted by zack991 at 2014-04-30 10:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Somehow I doubt that's his position.

#203 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014

If its not his position then he has none. It's the person, its not the gun. Gun is not a factor. Ignore the gun. Gun is wise; gun is good.

#207 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-30 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's the person, its not the gun.

#207 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2014-04-30 10:28 AM | FLAG:

That would be correct. That's why we have a legal system for people and not inanimate objects.

#208 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-04-30 10:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Bolt the safe to the floor or in your closet and that takes care of the safety issue for having a gun at the ready without the fear of a child getting to it."

Why would that be necessary? Why is there such a thing as a gun safe or a trigger lock? Why do some guns have safeties? Why do people say "Every gun is loaded" and "Dont' point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot"?

All this gun safety stuff is such silliness. According to some here, its all about intent. I'm not sure exactly how it works but apparently "intent" is some kind of magical ingredient without which bullets just harmlessly pass right through anything in their way.

We'll have to get one of our experts to explain it better....

#209 | Posted by Sully at 2014-04-30 10:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

We don't would want a gun that is smarter than we are! Or requires a code that has more digits than we have teeth.

NRA Membership

#210 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-04-30 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

That would be correct. That's why we have a legal system for people and not inanimate objects.

#208 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-04-30 10:34 AMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

WHAT IT IS (caps intentional)is the interaction between the gun and the man using it. Its as plain as the nose on your face, unless in some past interaction with a firearm you shot that organ off.

#211 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-30 11:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Its this deliberate distance the gun club is placing between themselves and ordinary common sense which will be their undoing.

#212 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-30 11:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

Poor zed is upset he can't get rid of a constitutional right.

#213 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-04-30 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Its this deliberate distance the gun club is placing between themselves and ordinary common sense which will be their undoing."

I think we have found your problem.
You are confusing the terms common sense with absolute insanity.
It is your very brand of insanity that they are distancing themselves from and that in and of itself is an act of common sense.

#214 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 11:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Poor zed is upset he can't get rid of a constitutional right."

Read up-thread, he wanted to get rid of a few other constitutional rights too.

#215 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 11:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

I bet he's all for abortion which was read into the constitution.

#216 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-04-30 11:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Lot of stupid statements on this thread. But one thing sure rings true. Gun manufacturers wouldn't be opposing another company developing 'smart' firearms unless they feared there was an actual market for it that will cut into their market share.

#217 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-04-30 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

WHAT IT IS (caps intentional)is the interaction between the gun and the man using it. Its as plain as the nose on your face, unless in some past interaction with a firearm you shot that organ off.

#211 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2014-04-30 11:25 AM | FLAG:

1,500+ violent road rage incidents end in injury and death each year (and climbing) with no gun present. Turns out cars make highly effective weapons when you want them to be one. I'm not sure what you're missing about "intent". If somebody wants to harm you they can come up with a variety of lethal weapons that aren't guns. Changing the weapon doesn't change the intent of a person to do harm, which is the illegal part.

en.wikipedia.org(criminal_law)

and I have all my bits and pieces still attached. If you come around this way, I will even take you out to shoot them so you can get an education in all the different types, what each ones specialty is, and how they work.

#218 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-04-30 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Rather, take you out to shoot firearms from my collection. It tripled recently. I need a bigger safe now.

#219 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-04-30 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

" Gun manufacturers wouldn't be opposing another company developing 'smart' firearms unless they feared there was an actual market for it that will cut into their market share."

That is unfounded.
There are plenty of other products that do the same thing and have been on the market for years. Even large manufactures have developed some, specifically colt had the exact same thing, a chip in a bracelet.
There is no fear of these things because they exist and have virtually no presence in the market because no one wants them. Which is why some unscrupulous manufactures like this one are trying to force it via lobbying. That is what people are mad about, and if it were not guns then they would have all the support in the world but as you can see if the word gun is involved many will jump in to defend this company simply because the fact that guns exist scare them and they want them all gone.

#220 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

I will even take you out to shoot them so you can get an education in all the different types, what each ones specialty is, and how they work."

That is the only way to get through to a lot of these types of people. A quick education as to what a firearm even is and then sit back and watch opinions change as fer fades.

#221 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 11:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I'm not sure what you're missing about "intent". If somebody wants to harm you they can come up with a variety of lethal weapons that aren't guns. Changing the weapon doesn't change the intent of a person to do harm, which is the illegal part."

I'm not missing anything. Some people who are making really bad arguments are pretending that intent is what makes firearms dangerous and that is demonstrably untrue. Nobody who teaches gun safety would ever say that intent is necessary for someone to harmed by a gun.

Its also stupid to pretend that every weapon is equally lethal, which is another ridiculous claim the "intent" crowd tries to push against all reason.

I would ask what you people are missing that you keep making the same asinine, thoroughly debunked argument.

#222 | Posted by Sully at 2014-04-30 12:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I would ask what you people are missing that you keep making the same asinine, thoroughly debunked argument."

Just because you refuse to allow yourself to understand the simple concept does not mean it is debunked. Look, i get it, blaming a thing is easier then blaming people, a thing could be gotten rid of but the fact of the matter it is is just untrue. Guns do not posses people and make them do bad things as you would like to believe. Take away one tool and another will take it's place. But there is an effect, gun ownership has been steadily rising for decades and crime has been falling. If guns caused crime this would be impossible and you know it.
As stated it is a simple concept, guns do not cause crime. Guns do not make a person dangerous the person does. If you wish to ignore the real problem, fine, that is your prerogative but don't sit there and pretend like you have a legitimate point. At least do like ZED and own that it is purely emotional and has nothing to do with facts or reality.

#223 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

#218 | Posted by sitzkrieg at

None of that matters. Guns are inherently dangerous. They're designed to be dangerous. They are in fact designed to wound and kill with a very few exceptions I can think of, one of these being flare pistols.

You go on and on concerning intent. I get it. I worry about that too. I worry about mean and crazy people with guns. I also worry about ordinary people whose mean and crazy becomes more liberated by the power of a gun.

I'm sorry. The gun club as it now stands appears to be composed of simpletons. You guys keep wanting to reduce this issue down to a limited set of variables that support what you feel should be the truth.

You won't be able to. Big subject, guns. Bigger subject, people who use them. The interaction of possibilities is almost limitless, and not a few of them are bad.

#224 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-30 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

#223 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

None of that drivel addresses the fact that guns are lethal with or without intent. You want to pretend that I'm saying that people wouldn't harm each other without guns. And the reason you want to pretend this is that you are incapable of addressing what I'm actually saying.

I notice you chickened out with your response to my post about a toddler with a gun. Would you be scared if you walked into a room to find a four year old holding a gun? Its an easy enough question that you will never answer directly.

#225 | Posted by Sully at 2014-04-30 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rather, take you out to shoot firearms from my collection. It tripled recently. I need a bigger safe now.

#219 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-04-30 11:47 AM | Reply |

I'm glad you have your collection. I hope it gives you pleasure. But never in one hundred years would I even consider collecting firearms. I'd consider it dull.

You can wonder at my personality for not getting hot and bothered over one of the central facts of your life. But I wonder in turn how in hell something like this could ever be so important to anyone at all.

Its you who will have to accommodate to the variety of human psychology surrounding this issue; I'll never be required to be as shallow about all this as you are.

#226 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-30 12:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You want to pretend that I'm saying that people wouldn't harm each other without guns. "

I never claimed that. However you have said specifically that guns make people more dangerous which is asinine.

"I notice you chickened out with your response to my post about a toddler with a gun."

It is amazing that still you attempt to make a point by using examples that range from statistically insignificant to non-existent. It's kinda like not wanting to go to a park because if the chance an airplane might crash on you and pretending like that is a reasonable fear.

Look, phobias are nothing to be ashamed about. I am sure you can get some help and it would fade.

#227 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:


At least do like ZED and own that it is purely emotional and has nothing to do with facts or reality.

#223 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 12:22 PMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Let me give you an example of an emotional belief concerning guns: that combat veterans can't determine who is carrying one.

Veterans often spend 12 waking hours or more in Iraq each day, for an almost a solid year, watching for guns and holders of guns, because their freaking lives depend upon knowing. They carry this skill, and this concern, back to the States.

The freaking know who SALMANAGATOR is when they see him. If you think otherwise, your feelings on this subject are in the way.

If you're lucky, SAL, they've studied you decided you're an armed but stupid civilian wuss not worth their time.

#228 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-30 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

#228

Medication, time for you to get back on it.

#229 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

I do not see where the [not so] smart guns are being stopped. Let the market determine whether or not this product will make it. As a 'gun guy' I know that most of the gun buying public would have little or no interest.

#230 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-04-30 12:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

#229 | Posted by salamandagator at

You aren't really a participant in this culture.

Combat vets learn to assess people and situations for danger. Their attention is immediately attracted to firearms, and the possibility of firearms.

Because INTENT is an issue, especially as being made manifest by GUNS.

#231 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-30 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

#231

Dude, what the hell are you even talking about now?
You seem to have gone from mostly incoherent to absolutely mental.
Seriously what did you just take?

#232 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

"However you have said specifically that guns make people more dangerous which is asinine."

What I said early in the thread is that it makes someone who intends to do harm more dangerous and you agreed. But it also makes ignorant or stupid people much more dangerous because a mishandled firearm is very dangerous.

"It is amazing that still you attempt to make a point by using examples that range from statistically insignificant"

I told you would cop out again and you proved me right. I didn't bring it up because four year olds are going around shooting people in large numbers. I OBVIOUSLY brought it up because it totally destroys your assertion that intent is necessary to make a person with a gun dangerous. And that is the same reason you keep chickening out when I ask you a simple question. Sorry to ruffle your feathers.

#233 | Posted by Sully at 2014-04-30 12:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Dude, what the hell are you even talking about now?
You seem to have gone from mostly incoherent to absolutely mental.
Seriously what did you just take?

#232 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-

Well, Dude. I'm tasking you with the fact that combat veterans don't share your attitudes or beliefs in regards to firearms.

You're not the expert here. They are. You can be humble and live with that obvious fact, or do what you're doing.

#234 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-30 12:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I told you would cop out again and you proved me right."

What are you on about now?

you are more likely to be struck by lightning multiple times a year then to be shot by a toddler.
Using something that essentially does not exist to prove a point is pretty much just conceding it.

#235 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

" I'm tasking you with the fact that combat veterans don't share your attitudes or beliefs in regards to firearms.
You're not the expert here. They are. You can be humble and live with that obvious fact, or do what you're doing."

I have never met one that shares your phobia objects. I have known plenty , i spend time at the range with plenty, your view is not shared by many if any of them.

#236 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have never met one (veteran) that shares your phobia objects.

#236 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 12

They aren't phobic, you fool. Many of them own guns themselves. Some even have CCLs.

The point being, if you strap on that roscoe and wear it around town, YOUR THE PROBLEM FOR THEM.

THEY have guns in large part out of concern for people like YOU.

#237 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-30 12:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

"YOU'RE the problem for them....."

They don't see guns as a neutral object, just like they don't see you as a neutral object. You and your silly gat have got the adrenalin flowing just being arrogant enough to go places where most of them would dearly love NOT TO BE NEAR YOU AND YOUR GUN.

#238 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-30 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

you are more likely to be struck by lightning multiple times a year then to be shot by a toddler.
Using something that essentially does not exist to prove a point is pretty much just conceding it.

#235 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not sure if you're serious or just putting on an act but that's an amazingly stupid response to the point I was making. Even more foolish than the stuff you were saying when you were almost banned because Rcade couldn't believe anyone could be that dumb and assumed you were trolling.

Frequency has nothing to do with what I was saying. The point I'm making is about the inherent danger associated with handling firearms. I've also proven my point by pointing out gun safety rules such as "There is no such thing as a loaded gun" and "Never point a gun at something you don't want to shoot" - Both of which are entirely based on the obvious fact that intent isn't necessary for a gun to be dangerous.

#239 | Posted by Sully at 2014-04-30 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Both of which are entirely based on the obvious fact that intent isn't necessary for a gun to be dangerous.
#239 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2014-04-30 01:21 PM | FLAG:

Intent is not required for many, many things to be dangerous to you. Intent is only for establishing criminality.

Wow this thread has derailed badly from the original, intentionally misleading headline.

#240 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-04-30 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Frequency has nothing to do with what I was saying. The point I'm making is about the inherent danger associated with handling firearms."

See it is statements like that that just make you go what?

So frequency is not an issue but they are inherently dangerous even though they are safer then a walk in the park.
Do you even listen to yourself?

What is the point of arguing if the crux of your argument is that something that is statistically proven to be far, far safer then a whole lot of other things that there could be no objection to?

Seriously what would go through your mind to consider that as a legitimate reason for your phobia?

#241 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

They aren't phobic, you fool."

I did not say they were, specifically i said they do not share your phobia.

"THEY have guns in large part out of concern for people like YOU."

If they have guns to keep themselves safe from law abiding people like me then they have an issue.
But luckily you scenario is complete fantasy and does not really exist. But it is noted that you have devolved once again into making things up to try to prove an unsupportable opinion. Your hole is just growing deeper and deeper.

#242 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

you were almost banned because Rcade couldn't believe anyone could be that dumb and assumed you were trolling."

I received an apology for that. Try again.

#243 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not sure if you're serious or just putting on an act but that's an amazingly stupid response to the point I was making."

Just because you refuse reason does not make reason stupid.
If you stopped and set aside your emotions you would see that logically there is no alternative to my position. It may be difficult for you but that is exactly the problem with this issue. Too many are unwilling to allow the possibility that there fear is unwarranted and refuse all facts and reason to hold onto their boogyman. You are just a prime example of that mentality.

#244 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

If they have guns to keep themselves safe from law abiding people like me then they have an issue.

#242 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04

You're just another idiot with a gun from their point of view, to be handled accordingly.

#245 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-30 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

But luckily you scenario is complete fantasy and does not really exist.

#242 | Posted by salamandagator at

What I described is the world you live in. You don't get it. You're part of the problem.

#246 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-30 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

#239 Sully....those training axioms exist to ingrain in gun users with the proper handling of a firearm. You act as if the gun itself is going to jump out of the user's hands and start shooting people. If your argument is that intent is not necessary for a gun to kill someone, then I will concede that accidents happen with firearms just like they do with lots of things. For instance:

Estimates put about 300 million firearms in circulation in the United States. In 2010, there were about 100,000 deaths or injuries attributed to those firearms (most deaths being suicides). That means that statistically, .03% of firearms result in an injury per annum, assuming each gun was responsible for one death (false assumption).

The DOT puts about 250 million cars on the road in the United States. In 2010, there were 34,000 deaths from car accidents and an additional 2.36 million people were injured. That means that 0.9% of automobiles were responsible for injuring or killing someone. That means an automobile is THIRTY times more likely to kill or injure someone than a firearm. And you know what they call it when a car is involved in an event that kills or injures someone? An accident.

#247 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-04-30 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You're just another idiot with a gun from their point of view, to be handled accordingly."

Funny how you think it works.
Just because you have no support from a reasonable standpoint you develop these fictional characters who anyone in their right mind would know would be exactly the opposite of what you want them to be and then think that your fantasy proves your point.

It's kinda like saying you have a pet burrito and chihuahua that pees only on rhinstoned pink trees so all trees must be rhinstoned and pink.

#248 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"What I described is the world you live in."

Do not pretend to confine me to your delusions.

#249 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm glad you have your collection. I hope it gives you pleasure. But never in one hundred years would I even consider collecting firearms. I'd consider it dull.
#226 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2014-04-30 12:34 PM | FLAG:

It's extremely dull. No "collecting" is exciting. It's like stamps. It's a bunch of inanimate objects that sit in a safe and increase in value.

If you want adrenaline hobbies, competitive submission grappling, skydiving, and flying have worked out for me. I'd highly recommend those.

#250 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-04-30 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

I received an apology for that. Try again.

#243 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

He apologized because he was wrong to accuse you of trolling: You were not trolling and really did believe the incredibly stupid things were you were saying, meaning you're dumber than he thought possible.

Congrats!

#251 | Posted by Sully at 2014-04-30 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"#239 Sully....those training axioms exist to ingrain in gun users with the proper handling of a firearm."

I know. And why is proper handling vital?

"You act as if the gun itself is going to jump out of the user's hands and start shooting people."

That's nonsense.

All those numbers about guns and cars are just silly. Most people own one car for personal use and use it every day. Most people do not use their guns every day. And many guns are in the hands of collectors who own many more guns than they shoot regularly. So of course the item that gets used much, much more is going to be involved in more accidents per item.

That said, cars are inherently dangerous just like guns and the consequences for using them improperly are just as severe (or possibly more severe). That can't be said for most items.

People here are comparing guns to pipes and bats, which is completely asinine. Even knives, which are dangerous if handled improperly, are not as inherently dangerous as guns.

Going back to the toddler example- You'd be worried for a toddler if you saw him carrying a knife. But you wouldn't fear rushing over and grabbing it from him. You'd be worried about everyone in the immediate area if you saw the same kid with a gun. And you'd be VERY careful about disarmign him. Because regardless of intent, the gun is much more dangerous.

#252 | Posted by Sully at 2014-04-30 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

"#239 Sully....those training axioms exist to ingrain in gun users with the proper handling of a firearm."

I know. And why is proper handling vital?

"You act as if the gun itself is going to jump out of the user's hands and start shooting people."

That's nonsense.

All those numbers about guns and cars are just silly. Most people own one car for personal use and use it every day. Most people do not use their guns every day. And many guns are in the hands of collectors who own many more guns than they shoot regularly. So of course the item that gets used much, much more is going to be involved in more accidents per item.

That said, cars are inherently dangerous just like guns and the consequences for using them improperly are just as severe (or possibly more severe). That can't be said for most items.

People here are comparing guns to pipes and bats, which is completely asinine. Even knives, which are dangerous if handled improperly, are not as inherently dangerous as guns.

Going back to the toddler example- You'd be worried for a toddler if you saw him carrying a knife. But you wouldn't fear rushing over and grabbing it from him. You'd be worried about everyone in the immediate area if you saw the same kid with a gun. And you'd be VERY careful about disarmign him. Because regardless of intent, the gun is much more dangerous.

#253 | Posted by Sully at 2014-04-30 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

#251

Don't speak of things of which you do not know.

Well i guess that would not be fair as it would seem to remove all speech form you.

Nevermind.

#254 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 02:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do not pretend to confine me to your delusions.

#249 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-

I won't bother after this point. I'll just contribute money to whatever organization most directly opposes your ideas.

#255 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-30 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I won't bother after this point. I'll just contribute money to whatever organization most directly opposes your ideas."

That's what i figured. Much easier to live in fantasy land, delusions are much easier for you to deal with.

Good luck with that.

As far as the contributions go, you never once accurately described my position even though it had been stated and clarified countless times, so again good luck finding something you could not even begin to define.

A closed mind, subject only to individual emotion and void of all reason is barely a mind at all.

#256 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 03:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

" And you'd be VERY careful about disarmign him. Because regardless of intent, the gun is much more dangerous."

Well first things first, you obviously have no experience with any guns. A toddler would have a very difficult time firing a pistol and a rifle is out of the question as a threat to you approaching.
If you knew about firearms you would know that there are many types but none that lend to easy manipulation by a toddler.
Between trigger pull of a double action, slide spring tension, grip size, mainspring tension on a revolver and a safety on a single action the threat becomes negligible. And then you have weight and aim. Maybe that is why is is so incredibly rare.
So i think i would approach the very very rare case of a toddler with a gun with less fear then one holding a knife.

But had you been informed about firearms you would already know that.
Got any more examples that are easily picked apart and show the minutia that you rely on to combat reason?

#257 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 03:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sul,
I see what you were trying to get at, but a toddler with scissors is more dangerous. But then again, you know you're talking right by each other. He's black and white/literal, and you're painting pictures. You're both aware if it, and neither will even so much as acknowledge it.

If the hammer were pulled back for the child, he was riding on a unicycle, while getting a tattoo, and he was high on pcp, I'd fear the toddler with a pistol.
The little toddler hands would find it difficult to work the trigger. Of course it can happen. I've seen those vids of super young kids driving a car they stole.

#258 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-04-30 03:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

You'd be worried about everyone in the immediate area if you saw the same kid with a gun. And you'd be VERY careful about disarmign him. Because regardless of intent, the gun is much more dangerous.

#253 | Posted by Sully at 2014-04-30 02:53 PM | Reply |

I don't think so----a toddler hardly can hold a gun up plus be accurate with it weaving all over the place. Besides, all you would have to say is: "look, Gummy Bears" and the little sucker would drop the tool for something preferable.

#259 | Posted by matsop at 2014-04-30 03:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'd disarm that little booger eater by putting a .45 through his still developing skull.

#260 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-04-30 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

RE: #257-260

The problem with what you guys are telling me is that toddlers do shoot people. These 11 incidents are all from the 1st half of 2013. All but one involve a kid of age 4 or younger. The youngest kid is 2.

Jan. 10: 6-year-old playmate shoots and kills 4-year-old Trinity Ross, Kansas City, Kan.

Feb. 11: 4-year-old Joshua Johnson shoots and kills himself, Memphis, Tenn.

Feb. 24: 4-year-old Jaiden Pratt dies after shooting himself in the stomach while his father sleeps, Houston.

March 30: 4-year-old Rahquel Carr shot and killed either by 6-year-old brother or another young playmate, Miami.

April 6: Josephine Fanning, 48, shot and killed by 4-year-old boy at a barbecue, Wilson County, Tenn.

April 8: 4-year-old shoots and kills 6-year-old friend Brandon Holt, Toms River, N.J.

April 9: 3-year-old is killed after he finds a pink gun that he thinks is a toy, Greenville, S.C.

April 30: 2-year-old Caroline Sparks killed by her 5-year-old brother with his Cricket "My First Rifle" marketed to kids, Cumberland County, Ky.

May 1: 3-year-old Darrien Nez shoots himself in the face and dies after finding his grandmother's gun, Yuma, Ariz.

May 7: 3-year-old Jadarrius Speights fatally shoots himself with his uncle's gun, Tampa, Fla.

June 7: 4-year-old fatally shoots his father, Green Beret Justin Thomas, Prescott Valley, Ariz.

10 incidents (not including the 6 year old) in six months is alot considering that nobody would intentionally give a 4 year old a loaded gun.

People have been shot by their dogs, for crying out loud.

#261 | Posted by Sully at 2014-04-30 04:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

-People have been shot by their dogs, for crying out loud.

"But.... but... he had a licence!"

#262 | Posted by Corky at 2014-04-30 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"Fact of the matter it's much easier to kill someone with a gun than by pushing them out a window."

It's actually easier to hit them with a car or an airplane. Espcially if mass casualties are what you are looking for
#193 | Posted by madbomber

No. It makes much more sense for me to murder my fat wife with a gun than a car or an airplane. For starters, it's cheaper. A highly reliable firearm might only cost a few hundred dollars. I suppose I could buy a lemon for the same price, but it might not run or have enough pick-up to really crush her body. Plus, I couldn't really bring the car into the bedroom our out into the woods without attracting some attention or letting her know what's about to transpire; whereas I could easily sneak in a gun. She might never know I had a gun until it's dispensing bullets into her corpulent flesh; try keeping a new car from your S.O. As for an airplane, those are far more expensive than guns or cars, plus I'd have to learn to fly it, convince her to get in it with me, and then I'm still faced with the task of pushing her out the window. Perhaps a barrel roll would make that easier, but on the whole neither a car or a plane is nearly as good a tool for killing as a gun is. Especially, and this is important, if I wanted to get away with the crime. It's a lot easier to make a gun "disappear" than a wrecked car or airplane. And then there are lots of firearm "accidents" which kill children, what, weekly? Legal penalties for those aren't usually as severe as what you'd face for murder.

You know what wouldn't so anything to stop me shooting my wife? A "smart" firearm. It would, however, prevent her from turning my own weapon on me, or beating me to the punch and killing me pre-emptively in my sleep, provided she can't get her hands on the bracelet or whatever it is that allows it to work.

Mass Casualties is you moving the goalsosts. If I wanted mass casualties, an actual gun i.e. artillery piece would be more lethal than a car or a plane. So would a box of hand grenades. So would chemical weapons. So would any of the tools specifically designed to inflict mass casualties. Though they are probably going to be hard for me to acquire. Tes, I could perhaps re-purpose a civilian airliner to inflict mass casualties, like in some Tom Clancy book. But that would require either gaining control of said aircraft while it's in flight, either by hijack or by going to flight school and getting a job as an airline pilot. Renting a truck and packing it full of fertilizer and oil will likely be my most accessible method of inflicting mass casualties. But this is really beyond the scope, which is some gun-lovers are opposed to smart firearms even being available for sale in the first place.

It is refreshing that most gun lovers in this thread, it seems, have no problem with this product coming to market and winning or losing on its merits.

Finally, I need to ask Sala to check out the Islamic State of Iraq videos on LiveLeak and explain to me how they'd be just as violent if they didn't have any guns. What nonsense.

#263 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

But had you been informed about firearms you would already know that.
Got any more examples that are easily picked apart and show the minutia that you rely on to combat reason?

#257 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 03:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

No but my last post just proved that all your "experience" is worthless considering toddlers can and do shoot people when you give them guns.

#264 | Posted by Sully at 2014-04-30 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually 8 of the incidents involved a shooter 4 or younger. 2 were 6 and one was 5.

Still as 8 times in 6 months is much more frequent than "almost never", we can see what the experience of someone like Sal is worth.

#265 | Posted by Sully at 2014-04-30 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

I'd disarm that little booger eater by putting a .45 through his still developing skull.
#260 | Posted by 101Chairborne

I too support abortion until the 30th trimester.

#266 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 04:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Still as 8 times in 6 months is much more frequent than "almost never", we can see what the experience of someone like Sal is worth.
#265 | Posted by Sully

Eight times in six months is "almost never?"
I'm having way more sex than I thought!

#267 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 04:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

I honestly do not believe all of those shootings happened as they say. Nobody said it couldn't happen, just that its not likely to happen.

Have you ever fired a pistol (I'm not playing gotcha)? Some require much more pull than others, but unless modified, I've never fired one that was an easy pull. Sure, a toddler could work his toe in there and stand on it, or some such, but simply squeezing a trigger without help isn't very likely.

I'm not saying you made the stories up, or that most of them are made up, but its simply not believable that there are that many freakishly big and strong toddlers out there capable of getting an even half aimed shot off. It's like people claiming the gun went off when they dropped it...it happens, but not nearly as much as its been reported to have happened.

#268 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-04-30 04:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

#261

There are an average of about 600 accidental deaths from firearms in the US each year of those between 5-8% involve a child under 10.

Do the math.

Given the sample size the number of accidental deaths from firearms regarding children it is extremely rare. A child is far, far more likely to be hit by lightning then to be shot accidentally.

Seriously give it up.
Either start relying on reason or facts or just admit that you fear them and that is why you object to them.
Continuing to base your whole argument on the tiny fraction as the crux is pointless and you know as well as anyone else that it is an invalid argument.

#269 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Have you ever fired a pistol (I'm not playing gotcha)? Some require much more pull than others, but unless modified, I've never fired one that was an easy pull. Sure, a toddler could work his toe in there and stand on it, or some such, but simply squeezing a trigger without help isn't very likely."

Yeah, I've fired a pistol. Not for some time. I don't recall it being particularly difficult but full disclosure - I was alot older than 4.

Still, I think the fact that it has happened puts to bed the idea that toddlers can't pull a trigger.

"I'm not saying you made the stories up, or that most of them are made up, but its simply not believable that there are that many freakishly big and strong toddlers out there capable of getting an even half aimed shot off. It's like people claiming the gun went off when they dropped it...it happens, but not nearly as much as its been reported to have happened."

I wouldn't say these are "aimed shots". Most of them are a kid shooting himself or another kid. In those cases the barrel is probably inches away from the person who got shot. And its unlikely that incidents where a kid gets ahold of a gun and fires it without hitting anyone are reported due to the consequences the adults in their lives would face.

Also, remember these are fatal shootings. Autopsies are mandatory. They would have tested both the kids and the adults on the scene to see if they had fired a weapon. Its not easy to get away with making up a story especially when you have to rely on a small kid to stick to the script.

#270 | Posted by sully at 2014-04-30 04:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

#269 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Once again, you're an idiot who doesn't understand the the statistics he's spewing.

Of course kids are involved in a very small % of accidental shootings. You know why? Because they don't typically handle guns. If a toddler has a gun in his hands its because someone screwed up. Duh.

If kids handled guns as frequently as adults do, they'd be involved in the vast majority of accidental shootings, you idiot.

#271 | Posted by Sully at 2014-04-30 04:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Have you ever fired a pistol (I'm not playing gotcha)? Some require much more pull than others, but unless modified, I've never fired one that was an easy pull. Sure, a toddler could work his toe in there and stand on it, or some such, but simply squeezing a trigger without help isn't very likely.
#268 | Posted by 101Chairborne

You've never handed a pill bottle to a kid so they can open it for you?

A kid can get multiple fingers inside that trigger guard; we're lucky to squeeze one of our sausage fingers in there.

#272 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 05:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

" Because they don't typically handle guns. If a toddler has a gun in his hands its because someone screwed up. Duh."

Ha ha ha, you realize of course you are now only helping my argument right?

You wanted to look at a tiny little fraction because you know on the whole you have no leg to stand on. But now you are willing to admit that it is a very rare occurrence and pretend like that somehow proves your point which is that they are inherently dangerous.

The fact is it is an incredibly rare occurrence and you know it. Stop being disingenuous and trying to obfuscate with idiotic rhetoric.

At this point it is past time to admit you are wrong and have been all along. There is no need to keep displaying your ignorance.

#273 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 05:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

But now you are willing to admit that it is a very rare occurrence and pretend like that somehow proves your point which is that they are inherently dangerous.

Guns are more dangerous than most things children handle.

You'd pretend a gun is as dangerous as a Barbie. It's possible more children choke on dolls than are killed with guns. That's because nearly every child plays with dolls; very, very few play with guns.

#274 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 05:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

" I don't recall it being particularly difficult but full disclosure - I was alot older than 4."

Lets look at some common examples.
Baretta 92 is a dual action pistol. If the hammer is cocked then there is a manual safety. That is a little lever that requires a bit of strength to operate with a thumb, if it is moved past safe and fire it would decock raising the trigger pull. A child would need to figure out how to disengage the safety without decocking it before it became dangerous.
Then there is the 1911, it is a single action. It also has a thumb safety that would be very difficult to disengage. Once that is done there is a grip safety that requires the webbing of the hand to be on the back of the grip before the trigger is pulled, that is a physical impossibility for most toddlers.
Or there is a glock, DA only, with a trigger safety. The trigger needs to be depressed in a precise manner and has a fairly hard trigger pull. Both would make it incredibly difficult for a toddler to fire.
Those are probably the most common guns in this country. As you can see with a little information you can see that there are many reasons why it is so incredibly rare. Again education prevents your opinion from ever occuring to someone.

#275 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 05:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

It also has a thumb safety that would be very difficult to disengage.

Such nonsense. Kids are fascinated by machines with moving parts. Put a gun on the floor and let a child bring their weight to bear on that safety and it's coming off.

Kids tend to play in physical proximity, not across the room from each other. If they were all in a ten meter safety bubble I'm sure accidental shootings of one kid by another would drop, since the target would be much smaller.

#276 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 05:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Which is the more dangerous toy, Sala?
A loaded gun or an unloaded gun?

#277 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 05:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Guns are more dangerous than most things children handle."

Children are exposed to many many dangerous things on a daily basis. One is picked out that ends up being a lot less harmful then others that they are even exposed to less. And supposedly there is a point here?

It truly is sad that the anti-gun nuts always seem to resort to the graves of children once it becomes clear logic and reason have no place in their argument.

Yes, yes the whole even one argument. It's old and invalid and you know it.

#278 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 05:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Would you rather your child played with a loaded gun or an unloaded gun?

This is not about children, it's about the difference between a loaded gun an and unloaded gun.

Of course, if that difference exists, then there must also be a difference between a loaded gun and a doll.

And admitting that difference seems to be an insurmountable challenge for you.

#279 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 05:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Put a gun on the floor and let a child bring their weight to bear on that safety and it's coming off."

See what i mean?

You are so intent on fabricating a scenario that you expose you ignorance even more. The thumb safety is a rather hard thing to manipulate and a child would probably not even find it. If they did it is something that they would not be able to bear their weight on as it is only about a quarter of an inch wide.

Maybe this will help. As you should be getting a bit of an education from this and from my experience even hardcore anti gun loons are likely to change opinion once the know what they are talking about.

#280 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 05:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is not about children, it's about the difference between a loaded gun an and unloaded gun."

It's about children, now its not, now it is again, do you even have the slightest idea of what your opinion is?

#281 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 05:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your refusal to address #277 speaks volumes about the intellectual dishonesty of your position.

#282 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 05:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

" it's about the difference between a loaded gun an and unloaded gun."

Hey which one will jump off a shelf by itself and try to kill you as you seem to fear so much?

A loaded gun on a shelf is no more dangerous(except maybe in the case of a fire) and you know it.

But if you were honest about it you would admit that you have to add more and more parts to the story before it comes anywhere near to what you want it to be.

The reduction in terms you are trying to uses only shows how weak your argument is and how little even you think of it.

#283 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 05:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

do you even have the slightest idea of what your opinion is?
#281 | Posted by salamandagator

Yeah. It's that guns are dangerous. That guns make bad guys more dangerous. That loaded guns make for more accidents than unloaded guns.

All of which you deny.

#284 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 05:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

#282

It has been addressed the many other times you have asked the same question in a different form. You are desperately searching for one exception and even here you are barking up the wrong tree.

#285 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 05:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hey which one will jump off a shelf by itself and try to kill you as you seem to fear so much?

It won't jump off the shelf "by itself." Did anyone ever claim that? You're tilting at windmills now.

Address #277 if you dare.

#286 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 05:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It's that guns are dangerous."

So you are on record as saying that a gun is going to hurt you with no additional stimuli. Yes sir, that makes you officially crazy. But we already knew that now didn't we?

#287 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 05:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Refresh my memory then.

Would you rather have your child toying around with a loaded gun or an unloaded gun? Only one of those scenarios has the possibility of your child being shot... or choking on a bullet.

#288 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 05:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

" Did anyone ever claim that? "

you have again and again and again.

So change your position some more.
But i think i am done arguing with someone who can't even keep his own story straight.

#289 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 05:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

#288 awaits your sage wisdom.

#290 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 05:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Dangerous. dictionary.reference.com
2. able or likely to cause physical injury: a dangerous criminal.

Of course the criminal isn't dangerous to anyone in the absence of "additional stimuli."
Does that mean he's not dangerous? According to you, yes.
Reality has a different definition of "dangerous."

#291 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 06:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

But i think i am done arguing with someone who can't even keep his own story straight.
#289 | Posted by salamandagator

What a coward you are.

#292 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 06:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

What a coward you are.

#292 | Posted by snoofy

Ask him how big his gun is.

#293 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-30 06:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Seeing as he thinks his gun isn't dangerous, and that his gun doesn't increase the effectiveness of his response to an assailant, I wonder why he loves it so much?

#294 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 06:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you want adrenaline hobbies, competitive submission grappling, skydiving, and flying have worked out for me. I'd highly recommend those.

#250 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014

I've been interested at times to study guns in museums. The Texas Ranger Museum in Waco has some interesting ones.

I've never had any problems with guns; I've always been confused when men appear to confuse them with women.

#295 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-30 06:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Seeing as he thinks his gun isn't dangerous, and that his gun doesn't increase the effectiveness of his response to an assailant,

#294 | Posted by snoofy at 2014

I wonder when these people will start saying such things on television? I hope soon. It will sink their entire movement.

#296 | Posted by Zed at 2014-04-30 06:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Doubtful.
Every other gun nut realizes how out to lunch he is.
Not even Chairborne could mount a spirited defense of this tripe.

#297 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 06:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

#275 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 05:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why are you telling me about specific pistols?

Small kids have shot people. Fact.

#298 | Posted by sully at 2014-04-30 07:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've been interested at times to study guns in museums. The Texas Ranger Museum in Waco has some interesting ones.
I've never had any problems with guns; I've always been confused when men appear to confuse them with women.

#295 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2014-04-30 06:13 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

I'm no museum. I can barely span 150 years.. lots of hunting stuff, some war pieces, all but 2 are long arms and only 1 is an AR (my wife's rifle). You are still welcome to come learn about any piece I have and I'll take you to try it at this city's nationally renowned public range if it is operable and ammo is available.

#299 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-04-30 07:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

It truly is sad that the anti-gun nuts always seem to resort to the graves of children once it becomes clear logic and reason have no place in their argument.

Yeah..so it's not fair to appeal to emotions?

Jon Stewart did a great job with this meme.

thedailyshow.cc.com

enjoy

#300 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-04-30 08:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

298

Very very few. Statistically it is not an issue. It is only used to mount an emotional argument because that argument lacks reason. It's no different then the arguments used against vaccines.

I nnamed a few models so you could see that while there are freak accidents guns are not inherently more dangerous then plenty of normal household items. And the stats that prove that prove my point.

#301 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 09:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Still no answer on whether it's safer for children to play with loaded guns or unloaded.

That question is like kryptonite. Dangerous. Merely by its existence.

#302 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-04-30 10:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Aww, ain't that cute little snooty thinks he has somthing. To bad he never bothered to read up thread where it was answered many times.

#303 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-04-30 11:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

#300 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

So did Hitler.

#304 | Posted by Federalist at 2014-05-01 12:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

That question is like kryptonite. Dangerous. Merely by its existence.

Or it's just a dumb question.

Is it safer for a kid to play with a knife in its sheath or without the sheath?

#305 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-01 01:01 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

There are 24 Americans killed everyday by illegal aliens but lets talk about guns.

#306 | Posted by Federalist at 2014-05-01 01:15 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

That question is like kryptonite. Dangerous. Merely by its existence.
Or it's just a dumb question.
#305 | Posted by jpw

It's frickin' genius compared to Sala's (unspoken) answer.

#307 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-01 05:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort