- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Still waiting to hear about your knowledge of Arizona gun laws. For someone who accused me of dodging a point you are really putting on a show yourself.
A loan is not a constitutional right. That is all.
no one is saying you are denied the right to own a weapon ... only that you must offer the documentation to give basis to believe you are not medically incapacitated to use it properly in our society
being prohibited to personally own an arm consisting of a nuclear weapon does not deprive you of your right to bear arms
no one is saying you are denied the right to own a weapon ... only that you must offer the documentation to give basis to believe you are not medically incapacitated to use it properly in our society
Hey, Wiseone, I live in a state bordering AZ and have to be familiar with your gun laws because I pass through AZ several times a year on my way to CA. Now... try to contribute intelligently to the discussion.
O ok I get so you say you are familar, and thats supposed to be enough? Well I lived in Arizona and I'm telling you there are ways it can be improved, of course I'm using your standard and simply stating it as a fact without providing an backing. Now we have two "facts" that contradict each other, how is that possible? And really, you drive through the state on your way to California and that makes you an expert on AZ gun laws?
you seem confused-federal gun laws are the same in every state
federal gun control laws control this
what you are claiming is that the federal laws are not strict enough
WBone:
I live in AZ. Guns laws are just fine. If you purchase from a dealer a background check is done. I do not feel that should ever be a requirement for a private seller selling his/her weapon. If someone really wants a weapon, they will find a way to aquire it (legally or illegally).
O ok I get so you say you are familar, and thats supposed to be enough? Well I lived in Arizona and I'm telling you there are ways it can be improved, of course I'm using your standard and simply stating it as a fact without providing an backing. Now we have two "facts" that contradict each other, how is that possible? And really, you drive through the state on your way to California and that makes you an expert on AZ gun laws?
Your last sentence demonstrates your misunderstanding of gun laws in general. As a CCW holder in my state, it is my responsibility to know other states laws if I wish to legally carry while traveling through any other state. Hence, I've had to thoroughly read AZ's firearm laws. It's not hard to understand, I promise. Frankly, however, I could care less if you believe me or not.
Here's the problem, you're saying that gun laws need to be improved, but you have no constructive idea how to do so. That's like saying cancer treatments need to be improved but we have no idea how. I would be the first person to turn in my gun in a society that was guaranteed to be completely free of violence, but until then, our best option is self-defense, NOT crippling our ability to protect ourselves with more government tape.
I'm quite flattered, though, at your desire to prove me wrong at all costs. Your devotion is quite touching. :lol:
I'm guessing you don't just talk people at their word for everything do you? But no apply a different standard for yourself, because you're special, ok bud.
And no you're right I don't claim to have a solution, even though I clearly see a problem. Its just like how I can say a truck is broken when I don't exactly whats wrong with it or how to fix it. What really bugs me is that you are so keen to not accept reality when it doesn't fit into your politics. Going all the way back again you've said the only solution to the problem of gun crime is to have gun laws. However its clearly been shown through the world that there are other ways to reduce gun crime without have looser gun laws, but you can't acknowledge it as a solution. You're stuck on your opinion as being right.
Going back to the example of China, they can pull off completely outlawing civilian ownership of weapons and still have a society nearly free of gun crimes. Why? Well part of the reason is the government keeps such tight control over its people, which is the reason I don't support that solution. However if we go by your words again "The only solution is less gun laws to reduce gun crime" than you're clearly wrong. A more intelligent argument would be there are other solutions however I don't think there are as good as mine because they limit the freedom of the people among other negative consequences.
Thats whats really been bugging me this whole time, not your politics because on this issue they are very close to mine, but the way you go about looking at the world as if you're opinion is fact.
I have no idea what the hell this argument is in reference to, but... uh... ok, whatever you say.
You're over simplifying the issue again, we both know guns can work either way for example look at Somalia or Mexico. We also know you are specifically talking about legal guns, not just guns in general. If it were just guns that deterred crime in general, it wouldn't matter if they were acquired legally or illegally. However a central pillar of your argument is that criminals will get guns one way or another, and its the availability of guns to the responsible population that really matters. Its these qualifiers and explanations of your positions you constantly leave out."I don't know what the answer is, but I know you're not right." That's what I'm hearing here. Guns are a proven crime deterrent. This is not an opinion. This is not up for debate.
I was simply trying to show there were other solutions to gun crime, something you refused to admit because of politics. If I'm simply trying to show there is not only one of something, I only need to demonstrate and show there's just one other. A second example wasn't necessary but Germany still works perfect as a case where stricter gun laws and stricter control has led to less gun crime. Germany Reevaluates Gun Laws After School Shooting | Germany | Deutsche Welle | 23.11.2006"So... communism is a great model for what we should do in the United States? We should give up the majority of our freedoms for the illusion of safety. Got it. Btw, I notice you don't list Germany as an example any more, after I called you on their failed attempt at gun control last time you tried that example.
Cry me a river. Our views are clearly nothing alike. If you don't wish to take personal responsibility for your safety, that's fine, but don't force your misguided moral code on me and my family.
The point is the improbability that any gun laws of any kind would have stopped this individual from doing what he did.
If he were unable to buy a gun legally from a licensed dealer, he could have bebopped down to his local drug dealer and got hooked up with a gun within 24 hours. Not a problem.
Most mass-shootings have taken place in areas where it was already a crime to be in possession of a gun. Those "gun free zones" have never stopped a single shooter.
It just isn't likely that there's any legislative solution that would have prevented this crime, short of turning our society into a draconian police-state.
that is a magazine, not a clip and it was most likely 33 rounds=G 18 magazine
so what-I can reload a glock in under a second and a half
or carry two
I don't think it was a matter of accurracy, just a tightly packed group. People couldn't get away in time, from the sound of it.
I'm going to ask you the same thing I've been asking the other guy almost this entire topic. What knowledge of gun laws, both Arizona state and now Federal, do you have which allows you to justify an opinion such as there is no way to improve the law, or that its very improbable? Are you that confident there's no loophole which may be closed? Or no additional item added to the check, like say history of mental illiness and criminal activity which may be important to know when selling a firearm? Or if those things are already on the list, which most mental illinesses and criminal activity is, could there not have been a mistake or an error somewhere down the line that allowed this man to purchase this weapon? Are you so confident nothing can be done that no investigation or look over of state gun laws may be worthwhile, even if not to change or add onto them but to ensure they are enforced more effectively?
And you're right an individual can acquire a gun illegal through different means, its not impossible by no means. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws which govern guns. Just like how people will always speed doesn't mean we just shouldnt bother with speed limits. The capacity and ability of people to commit a crime, for example an illegal sale or purchase of a firearm, doesn't mean there should be no or less laws governing the legal sale of firearms.
so people's medical records should be divulged without court action
So what back at you.What difference does it make what it's called? :mrgreen: 33 bullets is a lot freaking fire power especially when a coward goes ballistic (no pun intended) against defenseless civilians.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?