| |
Enough
BucketHead
PeaNut 553,030
April 2012
Posts: 656
Layouts: 0
 |  Posted: 2/27/2013 6:02:00 PM
| |
|
MizIndependent
Is there another word for synonym?
PeaNut 256,623
April 2006
Posts: 13,815
Layouts: 2
Loc: Right where I'm s'posed to be.
 | Posted: 2/27/2013 6:22:17 PM
Just when you think 'Teh-Stupid' can't get any more stupid, some moron goes and out-stupids them all.
*face/palm*
ETA: I agree this is necessary though - "Requiring in-person training for concealed-weapons permits, which now can be obtained through online courses"
|
|
|
IleneTell
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 434,842
August 2009
Posts: 2,427
Layouts: 651
 | Posted: 2/27/2013 6:22:55 PM
The link takes you to an app store (I'm on an iPad though) |
|
|
MizIndependent
Is there another word for synonym?
PeaNut 256,623
April 2006
Posts: 13,815
Layouts: 2
Loc: Right where I'm s'posed to be.
| Posted: 2/27/2013 6:23:44 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22523196/colorado-democrats-roll-out-tougher-gun-proposals-tuesday |
|
|
Nightowl scrapper
Intl Assoc of Epic Length Posters - USA Chapter
PeaNut 103,889
August 2003
Posts: 24,976
Layouts: 0
Loc: Colorado
 | Posted: 2/27/2013 6:24:40 PM
This is the equivalent of holding Coors, the distributor and the 7-Eleven from which the 12-pack of beer was stolen responsible for the drunk-driving accident."
|
"Until you put a thought into words, clearly and precisely, it is not a thought at all. It is a kind of fog rolling around inside the skull."
| |
|
|
WillowJane
Running the Marathon, Not the Sprint
PeaNut 110,589
October 2003
Posts: 6,600
Layouts: 8
Loc: Texas
| Posted: 2/27/2013 6:34:58 PM
This is the equivalent of holding Coors, the distributor and the 7-Eleven from which the 12-pack of beer was stolen responsible for the drunk-driving accident."
And all car manufacturers being held responsible for car accidents where alcohol is not involved, all knife and scissor makers being held responsible for cuts, all food makers being held for people getting fat, and the list goes on.
However, for a state as like Colorado that is so pro-gun control to have an online concealed weapons class is beyond me. We have to physically show up for the class in Texas and actually show proficiency before we get a passing grade. | |
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,751
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
| Posted: 2/27/2013 6:38:37 PM
Holding manufacturers liable for the actions of idiots, is idiotic.
...and I'm in favor of gun control...not stupidity. | |
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,776
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
 | Posted: 2/27/2013 6:39:19 PM
And the Vice President being held accountable for everyone who follows his gun advice.....
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
Sarah*H
Bring me that horizon!
PeaNut 239,162
December 2005
Posts: 27,943
Layouts: 413
Loc: The final frontier
| Posted: 2/27/2013 6:39:56 PM
No need to hold the gun manufacturers responsible. Just require every gun owner to purchase liability insurance for every gun they own. Let the insurance company bean counters assess and quantify the risk. |
|
|
Nightowl scrapper
Intl Assoc of Epic Length Posters - USA Chapter
PeaNut 103,889
August 2003
Posts: 24,976
Layouts: 0
Loc: Colorado
| Posted: 2/27/2013 6:52:39 PM
No need to hold the gun manufacturers responsible. Just require every gun owner to purchase liability insurance for every gun they own. Let the insurance company bean counters assess and quantify the risk.
Here's the problem with that
Several states, for example, are considering gun-insurance mandates modeled after those for automobile insurance. There is no conceivable public-safety benefit: Insurance policies cover accidents, not intentional crimes, and criminals with illegal guns will just evade the requirement. The real purpose is to make guns less affordable for law-abiding citizens and thereby reduce private gun ownership. Identical constitutionally suspect logic explains proposals to tax the sale of bullets at excessive rates.
The courts, however, are no more likely to allow government to undermine the Second Amendment than to undermine the First. A state cannot circumvent the right to a free press by requiring that an unfriendly newspaper carry millions in libel insurance or pay a thousand-dollar tax on barrels of ink-the real motive, in either case, would be transparent and the regulation struck down. How could the result be any different for the right to keep and bear arms?
|
"Until you put a thought into words, clearly and precisely, it is not a thought at all. It is a kind of fog rolling around inside the skull."
| |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,214
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
 | Posted: 2/27/2013 6:57:22 PM
Yeah like the gang members who kill each other are going to go out and buy insurance for the guns they use. 
This is all unreasonable and plain stupid. None of these options will do anything to reduce gun violence caused by criminals. | |
|
Sarah*H
Bring me that horizon!
PeaNut 239,162
December 2005
Posts: 27,943
Layouts: 413
Loc: The final frontier
| Posted: 2/27/2013 7:06:48 PM
I'll let the police worry about the criminals and illegal weapons. I want to keep unstable and unfit people from using legally purchased weapons since those are the weapons that have been used in the majority of mass shootings in our country in recent years.
If an insurance company had assessed Adam Lanza's mother's home and any potential risks, she would not have been able to insure those weapons. The pro-gun people keep saying they don't want the government involved, they don't want new laws, they don't want background checks, they don't want limitation on types of weapons, they don't want limitation on ammunition - quite frankly, in practical terms they don't seem to want anything to change. Well, let the free market handle it then. If you're insurable, buy as many guns of as many types as you like. Shoot all the targets and skeet that fill your heart with joy and contentment. You can bet if an insurance company is potentially on the hook for any crime committed by a legally purchased weapon, they are going to make damn sure that weapon is unlikely to be used in the commission of a crime. |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,214
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 2/27/2013 7:17:54 PM
Sarah, people will still buy the gun and not have it insured. It really won't change anything. And I don't see anyone saying we are against any and all changes. | |
|
batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.
PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 31,933
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse
 | Posted: 2/27/2013 7:21:07 PM
Fine. Then what changes do you support? |
OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.
| |
|
|
Sarah*H
Bring me that horizon!
PeaNut 239,162
December 2005
Posts: 27,943
Layouts: 413
Loc: The final frontier
| Posted: 2/27/2013 7:24:00 PM
That's why you make insurance a requirement. Any law abiding person who doesn't pose a risk can then still purchase any weapon they choose. But you weed out those who are falling through the cracks of the current system of checks. States don't turn over their mental health records to the feds, criminal databases don't match, software isn't compatible. Let the insurance companies figure all of this out, assessing risk is what they are good at.
|
|
|
Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,094
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County
| Posted: 2/27/2013 7:24:41 PM
You are assuming insurance companies will want to take the risk and write the coverage. Since 99.9% would be bodily injury claims my guess is that they won't want the risk as it will be unprofitable or if they write the coverage the premiums would be high with low liability limits so no one would buy the coverage.
Which would leave individual state run plans. Again low limits and high premiums.
By the nature of the risks the losses would be high. | |
|
MontanaCowgirl
TaWanDa Riot!
PeaNut 298,090
February 2007
Posts: 7,194
Layouts: 50
Loc: Big Sky Country
 | Posted: 2/27/2013 7:40:10 PM
Fine. Then what changes do you support?
bears repeating and repeating and repeating until we get some answers..... |
Stephi
"people generally see what they look for,
and hear what they listen for.
-To Kill a Mockingbird-
| |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,214
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 2/27/2013 7:53:57 PM
Fine. Then what changes do you support?
Do you not remember the three or four multi-page threads back in December outlining the regulations that we do support? It has been answered over and over.
Many of us have repeatedly shared what gun control regulations we do support. I'm sorry you have such poor memory. Maybe I'll go back and look for some of those old threads, but really, it's ridiculous that you're demanding answers that have already been given so many times. | |
|
Plapple
ResPEAratory therapist in flight
PeaNut 27,059
January 2002
Posts: 8,517
Layouts: 48
Loc: Albuquerque, NM
 | Posted: 2/27/2013 7:57:05 PM
Here's an idea: Let's hold the CRIMINALS responsible for their own actions? How about that? I realize I'm a fringe-thinker with that kind of logic going on. Just an idea I have.
That's about as stupid as holding spoons accountable for making people fat. This country needs to stop allowing everyone to just "feel good" and start holding everyone accountable for their own actions. Everyone! I know there are consequences to be had if I break the law. If I choose to break the law, I therefore have also chosen to accept the consequences of my behavior. It's a pretty simple concept, really. |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,214
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 2/27/2013 7:58:28 PM
Here was Mapchic's original post providing answers you claim haven't been given.
On many different threads people have been discussing gun rights, gun laws and what should be done in the wake of the killings in Sandy Hook.
Because of my posts supporting gun rights some people have assumed I am opposed to all gun laws. That is not true.
In the middle of one of the many threads on this topic I posted some of my thoughts on what types of laws and regulations I would support.
It seems to have gotten lost in that thread and with all the different threads I am getting dizzy. So, I decided to start a whole new thread to (hopefully) try and consolidate the conversation. Of course, this might just add another thread to add to the confusion
This is my personal position and I know that people on both sides of the issue will not like these ideas for a variety of reasons. I have included the arguments I could think of off the top of my head against these from gun rights supporters. I am sure that those who do not support gun rights here on 2peas will offer there perspective of what is wrong with these ideas.
I have been thinking a great deal in the last several days about what gun regulations might have possibly stopped this tragedy from occurring. I have asked the question on at least two (perhaps more) threads here and with virtually zero response.
I know lots of people are calling for an 'assault weapon ban' but CT has an assault weapon ban... and the gun used was not covered by that ban. Nor would it have been covered in the federal assault weapon ban that expired.
An assault weapon ban is a classic case of politicians 'doing something just to be seen doing something' kind of thing. Gun bans are usually written by politicians who have no idea what they are talking about (ie - there is no such thing as an assault weapon) and it's no particular surprise that they are then badly written and fail.
I do believe in federalism and think that most gun laws should be on a state by state basis. What is sensible for Rhode Island may not be sensible for Alaska.
I do think that there should be a push to teach gun safety in schools. We live in a national with hundreds of millions of guns and a profound ignorance about guns by many people. If more people were better educated on the topic than perhaps that would help to break the allure of guns that is presented in so much of the media (be it video games or movies). We could also have more productive discussions on the topic if there was a more universal baseline of factual knowledge held throughout the nation.
Here in Illinois there is something called a FOID (firearm owner ID) card. The card is issued by the state police after a background check and can be revoked. It's sort of like a drivers license in that you don't have to own a gun to have the card, but you do need the card in order to purchase a gun or ammo. That seems like something that could be instituted in other states. I would add some sort of a system where in order to get a FOID there would be a test (like a drivers license).
This idea would get push back. Some people really, really don't like the idea of a FOID. My father refused to get one - technically all the guns were my mother's and she was the one who would buy ammo (she always knew what to get him for gifts!). However for me it is much, much more preferable to any system of gun registry (which I would fight and which is presently illegal under FOPA)
I *think* (and this is just opinion) that there is some sort of breakdown between HIPPA and reporting of those who should no longer be trusted to posses firearms because of mental issues. This should be fairly seamless and there should be very, very clear guidelines of when medical professionals should have a duty to report patients. Failure to report should have dire consequences.
Once a person has been determined to not be able to safely possess firearms then no firearms should be permitted to be in that person's household. Other family members or household members should be required to store any firearms in a different safe location. This is the only new regulation I can think of that might have made a difference on Friday.
I would love to know what other people think would be good ideas for new gun regulations. Particularly what regulations would have stopped the events in Sandy Hook. Statements like 'Nobody needs guns' or 'outlaw all guns' are not sensible and don't help. Perhaps some people feel better once they have vented that but it is not ever going to happen in America.
| |
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,214
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 2/27/2013 8:00:47 PM
And here was my first post on that same thread about what I do support.
I'll chime in because I also feel the discussion points brought up over the multiple anti-gun threads have virtually been disregarded and/or ignored.
I am all for individual STATES having a registry of citizens who have a gun permit.
I am all for requiring a permit.
I am all for requiring safety courses.
I am all for conceal and carry permits.
I am all for background checks.
I am all for restricting ownership if the applicant has a history of mental health issues (though obviously there would have to be some give on the patient's privacy for that to happen and that could be a slippery slope in a lot of ways.)
I am all for more education regarding guns and having opportunities for gun safety. (Our district already teaches archery to middle and high schoolers- with bows, arrows, targets, etc. not that I want them actually firing guns during the school day, but an informational course wouldn't be a bad idea at all.)
I am obviously against messing with the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution or any of the Amendments that are a part of the Bill of Rights. These rights were considered inherent to citizens and something that no government can ever take from us. Based on writings and statements from the Founding Fathers, including James Madison who penned the Bill of Rights, I understand the 2nd Amendment to be protecting the rights of states to maintain a militia AND the rights of individual citizens to keep and bear arms (and this is how the Supreme Court has interpreted it as well.) And I fear that if we are allowed to determine that one of the rights and liberties provided in the Bill of Rights is now out of date or obsolete, then we are at risk of that being decided for all of them.
I believe that all of the proposed (and in my state already existing) gun control options I listed above are fantastic and doable- however, none of them would have prevented the massacre at Sandy Hook last Friday. Nor would a complete ban on all guns prevent all gun violence.
I am for guns used for hunting.
I am for guns used for personal protection.
I am for guns used for target shooting.
I am for guns used for collectors items.
I am not for "killing machines" for the use of "mowing down innocent children" as many peas have accused.
Just as I know that guns can be used to take lives, I also know that guns can save lives.
I don't live my life in fear of criminals and violence. I actually fear the government stripping away individual rights more than I fear violence.
I don't live in a "gun culture" that glorifies guns and I don't "love my guns more than I love my children".
Hopefully the misunderstandings and misconceptions regarding those of us who support the right to bear arms are cleared up.
Just one of many threads on this subject. | |
|
MizIndependent
Is there another word for synonym?
PeaNut 256,623
April 2006
Posts: 13,815
Layouts: 2
Loc: Right where I'm s'posed to be.
| Posted: 2/27/2013 8:06:47 PM
s an idea: Let's hold the CRIMINALS responsible for their own actions? How about that? I realize I'm a fringe-thinker with that kind of logic going on.
Sorry Plapple, logic has no place in this discussion.
|
|
|
Plapple
ResPEAratory therapist in flight
PeaNut 27,059
January 2002
Posts: 8,517
Layouts: 48
Loc: Albuquerque, NM
| Posted: 2/27/2013 8:08:52 PM
Sorry Plapple, logic has no place in this discussion.
Yeah, I got that when I read the rest of the thread after I posted. I should have known.  |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,214
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 2/27/2013 8:12:54 PM
That's why you make insurance a requirement. Any law abiding person who doesn't pose a risk can then still purchase any weapon they choose.
I guarantee you that most current gun owners will not be going out to purchase insurance on their guns. I guarantee that this would go over like a lead balloon and guns will still not be insured regardless of any new law requiring it. Are they going to come to my house and search for any weapons I might have and force me to insure them? Try getting past my front door. | |
|
Sarah*H
Bring me that horizon!
PeaNut 239,162
December 2005
Posts: 27,943
Layouts: 413
Loc: The final frontier
| Posted: 2/27/2013 8:23:39 PM
Let's hold the CRIMINALS responsible for their own actions? How about that? I realize I'm a fringe-thinker with that kind of logic going on.
How would holding Adam Lanza responsible for what he did change anything about what happened at Sandy Hook? I agree that holding gun manufacturers accountable is foolish but the only way to keep this from continuing to happen is to keep the guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
If this became a law and you're a law abiding person and you choose not to insure your gun, then you choose to become a criminal. Free will and all of that. I would think that most people would rather have a private entity rather than the feds collect the info re. mental health, substance abuse, domestic violence, criminal history, etc. If we're so worried about a bloated, inefficient, ineffective federal government, just take it out of the equation. |
|
|
Gia LuPeaA
StuckOnPeas
PeaNut 416,889
March 2009
Posts: 2,625
Layouts: 0
Loc: The right place, at the right time.
| Posted: 2/27/2013 8:25:11 PM
Are they going to come to my house and search for any weapons I might have and force me to insure them? Try getting past my front door.
They actually did try to put that into legislation in Washington.  |
| Princess of Procrasti Nation. | |
|
|
Nightowl scrapper
Intl Assoc of Epic Length Posters - USA Chapter
PeaNut 103,889
August 2003
Posts: 24,976
Layouts: 0
Loc: Colorado
| Posted: 2/27/2013 8:51:35 PM
How would holding Adam Lanza responsible for what he did change anything about what happened at Sandy Hook? I agree that holding gun manufacturers accountable is foolish but the only way to keep this from continuing to happen is to keep the guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
Which gun laws that are proposed would have changed anything about what happened at Sandy Hook, or Aurora, or the Sikh Temple?
If outrageous mass murders of innocents are what is putting gun laws front and center, where is the logic to pass laws that actually would have effectively stopped those slaughters? Where is the analysis of what actually went wrong and what could have reasonably raised red flags and stopped the threat? Instead, these horribly tragic events are being callously used to trot out the favorite legislation that has been proposed off and on for years, legislation that cannot be logically connected to preventing another Aurora or Columbine.
For example, there's a new law in CO that is moving through the legislature about universal background checks. But James Holmes had NOTHING in his history that would have stopped him from buying the guns he bought. He WAS under the care of a psychiatrist, and there is some possibility (not yet proved in court) that perhaps more should have been done to alert authorities about his mental state. But that's not a given. Nor is it a given that the mechanism exists to allow that sort of reporting. Has anyone proposed a law to even review how that process now works and what could be done to change it? Heck no. Let's put gun buyers under yet another law that won't be enforced because, in actuality, it cannot be enforced. Private sales between buyers are not traceable in the absence of a gun registry, and even then someone would have to audit the registry and demand to see if guns listed for each person are still in the possession of that person. Which has all sorts of issues.
Another law proposes to charge gun buyers for background checks. Again, paying an extra $50 or $200 would not have stopped him from getting the guns he wanted. So let's charge law abiding citizens getting their background checks more money so we can stop a mentally disturbed person from killing...oh, wait, how does that tie in again? No, it doesn't.
The list goes on. Laws that 'sound' good. 'Doing something.' Yay for the caring legislators. But I haven't heard the laws that make people familiar with gun violence say "YES! If we had had THAT law and it had been enforced, _______ could not have happened because _______" |
"Until you put a thought into words, clearly and precisely, it is not a thought at all. It is a kind of fog rolling around inside the skull."
| |
|
|
*Kath*
Official Time Clock of 2Ps
PeaNut 2,739
February 2000
Posts: 9,991
Layouts: 0
Loc: On a cruise ship fighting zombies
 | Posted: 2/27/2013 9:22:42 PM
And the Vice President being held accountable for everyone who follows his gun advice.....
Ha, ha, good one! 
Then what changes do you support?
I support enforcing the current laws. That would be a change.
|
--------------------
Welcome to Hotel California, the Green Room, where the laws of physics don't apply, effect determines cause, Deja Vu is Master, and the white rabbit runs free.
Your punch-in has been duly noted.
| |
|
|
Nightowl scrapper
Intl Assoc of Epic Length Posters - USA Chapter
PeaNut 103,889
August 2003
Posts: 24,976
Layouts: 0
Loc: Colorado
| Posted: 2/27/2013 9:38:01 PM
I support researching improvements to biometric trigger locks so they are reliable. That's a really, truly basic tool that could be used to prevent a thief from using a stolen firearm, or a child or teen from doing harm to self or others. But what I've read indicates they are not yet reliable enough to justify requiring them. Apparently sweat, for example, can cause malfunction.
I support a serious review of the mental health care system, the reporting requirements for doctors, and the related civil rights. I believe that CO is ahead of the curve in the information that can be put in state background checks - more comprehensive than can be tracked in the federal system, thus we do deny guns that would have passed the federal system, but not failsafe.
I support gun education in the schools, alongside the logic we use for sex education. Being silent on sex education puts children and the adults they will become at risk. Being silent on guns does the same. If the only exposure and discussion of firearms is video games and Hollywood movies and news reports of sensational massacres, there is a mystique and curiosity that is dangerous.
DS just finished a report on gun violence/gun control, and it was sobering, even though we have openly discussed guns at various times in our home (we don't own one).
Guns are a serious matter, and kids ought not to be sheltered from understanding the realities. If they're going to be voting for laws regulating guns, is it really too much to ask that we at least educate folks on what's what with firearms?
We would be remiss if we left the information about sex to PG-13 and R movies. But that's precisely what our society is doing with guns when we are so delicate we won't speak of them except to buy our kids the latest X-Box game or ticket to a blockbuster movie. |
"Until you put a thought into words, clearly and precisely, it is not a thought at all. It is a kind of fog rolling around inside the skull."
| |
|
|
Live4Crafts
PeaNut
PeaNut 536,949
January 2012
Posts: 85
Layouts: 3
Loc: The middle of the middle of nowhere
| Posted: 2/27/2013 10:25:53 PM
How would holding Adam Lanza responsible for what he did change anything about what happened at Sandy Hook?
---
Do you really believe for one minute that he wouldn't have found another way? Insurance on guns isn't going to stop someone who wants a gun but can't get it for whatever reason before he goes on a murderous rampage. You (general you) are trying to apply logic to an illogical person and situation.
I have no problems with more strict background checks, the biometric triggers, waiting periods, really just about anything else that has been put on the table. But to put a business man in an office to have the ability to say yeah or nay because his "insurance company" doesn't like that 20 years ago I had to be on antidepressants for situational depression brought on by an assault...I don't call that reasonable at ALL. Day after day I hear people talk about how screwed up insurance companies are...and you seriously want to put them in charge of gun control?
I just love (yes, a LOT of sarcasm intended) that weeks after Sandy Hook we are STILL debating gun laws, but in my state, we're cutting services to community mental health...I just don't get when the ptb are going to realize that legislating guns doesn't fix everything. | |
|
batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.
PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 31,933
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse
| Posted: 2/27/2013 10:40:28 PM
Wow. Mrs. T. You are being downright nasty. |
OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.
| |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,214
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 2/27/2013 10:42:36 PM
If this became a law and you're a law abiding person and you choose not to insure your gun, then you choose to become a criminal.
When the government crosses the lines established by the Constitution, it's the responsibility of the citizens to do something about it. A law like that would be ineffective and very unpopular. They could not possibly require all existing guns owned by law abiding citizens to be insured because they couldn't possibly know about every single gun owned by all US citizens. Heck, the government failed to track the guns THEY supplied to foreign criminals in the Fast and Furious debacle. This is not a solution that is reasonable or doable. I do understand why you might think it's a viable solution, but I will tell you it is not workable because of all the guns already owned by US citizens. They can't realistically enforce that kind of legislation and we already have far too many gun control laws that aren't being enforced. No need to add any new restrictions or legislation when we can't enforce the ones we already have. | |
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,214
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 2/27/2013 10:43:18 PM
Wow. Mrs. T. You are being downright nasty.
Really? How is that? | |
|
batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.
PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 31,933
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse
| Posted: 2/27/2013 10:45:40 PM
Do you talk to people like this IRL? You don't see how this is rude? 
Do you not remember the three or four multi-page threads back in December outlining the regulations that we do support? It has been answered over and over.
Many of us have repeatedly shared what gun control regulations we do support. I'm sorry you have such poor memory. Maybe I'll go back and look for some of those old threads, but really, it's ridiculous that you're demanding answers that have already been given so many times.
I regret that I tried to take you seriously and inquired. My mistake. |
OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.
| |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,214
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 2/27/2013 10:52:52 PM
Batya, You didn't exactly "inquire" politely. You demanded as if we've never listed anything regarding gun control that we do support and I know that you have seen those answers already because you participated and responded to those threads back in December. I hardly think my response to you was "nasty". Snippy? Yup. Because you took a bitchy tone with me demanding I provide what I DO support when I know that question has been addressed many times.
ETA: I'll admit my "poor memory" comment was edging towards nasty. However, the rest is responding to your rude comment- especially since I KNOW you were a part of the discussion where the answer to your question was already provided. | |
|
batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.
PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 31,933
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse
| Posted: 2/27/2013 11:00:45 PM
You've never heard of saying, "I'm sorry," have you?
You could have said, 'I took your tone to be rude and I responded in kind. I should not have, I'm sorry.'
You could have said, 'here are things I would support, but you know, I took your tone as rude. That wasn't necessary.'
I was simply saying, Fine. You don't accept the insurance solution, etc. Then what changes do you support? That did not warrant your very nasty response. It was not snippy. You told me I have a poor memory, I am ridiculous, you were sarcastic and rude and I am demanding answers when you yourself said : "I don't see anyone saying we are against any and all changes." It invited the inquiry. You could have simply answered the question.
You have a lot to learn and a lot of growing up to do.
|
OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.
| |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,214
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 2/27/2013 11:11:48 PM
Batya, I don't owe you an apology. You came across as bitchy and you have been that way specifically to me for many months. I'm done trying to appease you. I gave you the response you deserved because of your tone. Your "inquiry" was not polite and you have certainly already discussed that very question with me and other gun rights peas in these past months.
You have a lot to learn and a lot of growing up to do.
Interestingly, I feel the same about you. You have expectations for others to treat you differently than you treat them.
ETA: At this point I will not respond to any further personal attacks from you. I'm interested in discussing the topic of this thread which is reasonable vs unreasonable gun control solutions. Your personal angst with me is known and noted. | |
|
batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.
PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 31,933
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse
| Posted: 2/27/2013 11:18:23 PM
I was interested in the same, but you were clearly reluctant to answer me when I asked. Funny, frequently when I meet peas, like today, they say they thought I'd be older. Not younger or more immature. Interesting.
You NEVER think you owe anyone an apology. Yet often peas think you do. Food for thought.
ETA:
I'm done trying to appease you.
You have to start something to be 'done' with it. |
OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.
| |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,214
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 2/27/2013 11:23:50 PM
you were clearly reluctant to answer me when I asked
And yet you still got clear responses from me with quotes and a link to refresh your memory. Ask and you shall receive.
ETA: Oh darling, I tried for many years to be respectful towards you. We interacted many times in peamail messages and I used to care what you thought. But since December that has changed and you have lost my respect because of your incredibly rude and condescending manner.
Anyway, trying to hold gun makers and gun store owners responsible for the actions of criminals is ineffective and unenforceable gun control policy. Trying to require current legal gun owners to go out and purchase insurance for their guns is ineffective and unenforceable policy. Neither option will prevent gun violence. | |
|
batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.
PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 31,933
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse
| Posted: 2/27/2013 11:28:37 PM
After you were compelled to be nasty to me. That cut off any interest in your response. I made the error of giving you an opportunity. I can read more compelling sources than yours and do not need lend any credibility or give an ear to your opinions. Not a problem.
You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. If you want to spray vinegar all over the place you can catch other flies.  |
OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.
| |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,214
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 2/27/2013 11:33:03 PM
You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. If you want to spray vinegar all over the place you can catch other flies.
Perhaps you should take your own advice then. [Try not spraying so much vinegar and maybe you'll get honey from others.] Food for thought.
Goodnight. | |
|
batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.
PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 31,933
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse
| Posted: 2/27/2013 11:35:10 PM
Oh darling, I tried for many years to be respectful towards you. We interacted many times in peamail messages and I used to care what you thought. But since December that has changed and you have lost my respect because of your incredibly rude and condescending manner.
Darling? Unless my name is Clementine, you can save it. You are digging your insolence in deeper and deeper. You just don't learn. 
Your nastiness is neither warranted nor charming. It overshadows the points you want to make. Do you want people to know and understand your thoughts? Do you think they can make a difference? Or do you just want to have the last word and be the loudest? It always seems like the latter. I'd rather from me, the former. |
OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.
| |
|
|
batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.
PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 31,933
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse
| Posted: 2/27/2013 11:36:51 PM
You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. If you want to spray vinegar all over the place you can catch other flies.
Perhaps you should take your own advice then. Food for thought.
Now you're not actually making sense.  |
OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.
| |
|
|
Mrs_Tyler
Sorting Laundry
PeaNut 197,836
March 2005
Posts: 24,214
Layouts: 246
Loc: Enjoying the humid continental climate zone.
| Posted: 2/27/2013 11:44:46 PM
Trying to hold gun makers and gun store owners responsible for the actions of criminals is ineffective and unenforceable gun control policy. Trying to require current legal gun owners to go out and purchase insurance for their guns is ineffective and unenforceable policy. Neither option will prevent gun violence.
Before we pass any new gun control legislation, we need to qualify the reason behind it.
What is the legislation in response to?
What is the purpose of the legislation?
Is this legislation reasonable to ask of law-abiding citizens or does it place undue burden on the law-abiding citizens as punishment for the criminal who isn't going to follow the new legislation anyway?
Is this legislation something that is enforceable?
Is this legislation something that can be reasonably funded or is this another way to piss away taxpayer money this country just doesn't have?
Will the legislation actually address the root of the problem or is it just doing "something" to make it look like you're fixing the issue?
I have yet to see something proposed that provides the right answers to the above questions. Everything has been reactionary, punitive to law-abiding citizens, doesn't come close to addressing the root of the problem, and is not enforceable. | |
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,751
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
| Posted: 2/27/2013 11:59:50 PM
When the government crosses the lines established by the Constitution, it's the responsibility of the citizens to do something about it. A law like that would be ineffective and very unpopular. They could not possibly require all existing guns owned by law abiding citizens to be insured because they couldn't possibly know about every single gun owned by all US citizens. Heck, the government failed to track the guns THEY supplied to foreign criminals in the Fast and Furious debacle. This is not a solution that is reasonable or doable. I do understand why you might think it's a viable solution, but I will tell you it is not workable because of all the guns already owned by US citizens. They can't realistically enforce that kind of legislation and we already have far too many gun control laws that aren't being enforced. No need to add any new restrictions or legislation when we can't enforce the ones we already have.
I'm not clear on how this is crossing the line established by the Constitution. Can you be more specific?
I hadn't given much thought to the idea of insuring guns before, and I'm not sure how one would go about doing that but surely, if the Govt. required it, all those 'responsible' gun owners would comply. Would it not be the responsible, legal thing to do?
If we have to insure our vehicle, why not our guns?
I agree that a lot of the laws on the books are not being enforced.
Here's an idea: Let's hold the CRIMINALS responsible for their own actions? How about that?
Are criminals not held accountable for their actions? Presuming they are caught, and convicted.
There's a lot of people, sitting in prison today, who were not criminals until they picked up the gun that was purchased for 'protection', but ended up being used to shoot their spouse, neighbor, or some other person who pissed them off.
If outrageous mass murders of innocents are what is putting gun laws front and center, where is the logic to pass laws that actually would have effectively stopped those slaughters?
It was outrage over drunk drivers getting away with vehicular homicide that caused stricter DUI laws. It does stop drunk drivers, it doesn't stop people from being killed by drunk drivers, but it sure has heck has lowered the rate of both. | |
|
Nightowl scrapper
Intl Assoc of Epic Length Posters - USA Chapter
PeaNut 103,889
August 2003
Posts: 24,976
Layouts: 0
Loc: Colorado
| Posted: 2/28/2013 12:10:57 AM
If outrageous mass murders of innocents are what is putting gun laws front and center, where is the logic to pass laws that actually would have effectively stopped those slaughters?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was outrage over drunk drivers getting away with vehicular homicide that caused stricter DUI laws. It does stop drunk drivers, it doesn't stop people from being killed by drunk drivers, but it sure has heck has lowered the rate of both.
The difference is that stricter DUI laws had some sort of relationship to the actual problem. Maybe I didn't word the above quote well, but I dont' see logical relationships between what is causing gun violence (and it's often mental illness in the notorious mass murders that have ginned up the desire to 'do something, anything') and such things as background checks that can't be enforced, or charging gun owners for background checks. There is a disconnect between the laws proposed and the crimes we are trying to prevent in the gun debate. I think that's a problem. Because we are expending time, energy, and money to make laws that don't have a logical connection to what is occuring that we want to stop, and thus will do nothing to stop them.
It's as if, in order to curb DUI we said that everyone who owns a car, including those who never drink, never have had a ticket, needs to pay an extra $50 to register it. That would have had no effect on DUI's.
Show me gun laws that have a demonstrated relationship to cutting gun violence, and we can have a discussion. But no one can explain how the gun laws being proposed will actually stop the next Sandy Hook, the next Aurora, etc. At most, we are asking to restrict magazines to hold 10-15 bullets to give people under assault a break while the shooter reloads (and I've been told a practiced gunman can reload in 2-4 seconds, so I'm not seeing that this is where our efforts need to be exerted if we're serious about trying to save lives) Slowing someone down to be able to shoot 2 seconds slower is not a serious solution.
|
"Until you put a thought into words, clearly and precisely, it is not a thought at all. It is a kind of fog rolling around inside the skull."
| |
|
|
Some-Pea
PeaNut
PeaNut 519,825
September 2011
Posts: 98
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 2/28/2013 12:57:32 AM
I was simply saying, Fine. You don't accept the insurance solution, etc. Then what changes do you support?
Oh, you are so full of shit. You know that was designed to incite her to respond in kind. And it was designed to do so with as few words as possible so you could come back, play innocent and say all you said was fine and meant nothing by it. Again, you are full of shit.
You could have said, 'I took your tone to be rude and I responded in kind. I should not have, I'm sorry.'
You could have said, 'here are things I would support, but you know, I took your tone as rude. That wasn't necessary.'
When she responded in kind you could have said 'I see how that might come off as condescending, I'm sorry.'
Since you are so clearly a much better person and have no agenda you could have let it go by and continued on with the discussion as you claim was your only intent after all. If that was your only intent, that is what you would have done. A+B=C
You've never heard of saying, "I'm sorry," have you?
You apparently think only other people should say I'm sorry. You're above apologizing?
You have a lot to learn and a lot of growing up to do.
As do you. You've made that perfectly clear.
| |
|
leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.
PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 19,776
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.
| Posted: 2/28/2013 1:52:25 AM
We would be remiss if we left the information about sex to PG-13 and R movies. But that's precisely what our society is doing with guns when we are so delicate we won't speak of them except to buy our kids the latest X-Box game or ticket to a blockbuster movie.
You forgot how many people get their information about firearms from politicians.
We can always count on them to be accurate.
I hadn't given much thought to the idea of insuring guns before, and I'm not sure how one would go about doing that but surely, if the Govt. required it, all those 'responsible' gun owners would comply. Would it not be the responsible, legal thing to do?
If we have to insure our vehicle, why not our guns?
You don't have to insure a vehicle that is on your property and not being used. It's not a good comparison.
Health insurance is working so well for all Americans these days. Very efficient. No problem getting coverage. Let's add mandatory firearm insurance to what is required.
Oh, and while we're at it, maybe we can actually ask for photo ID's when people vote.
What? That's not fair? Some people find it difficult to acquire a photo ID that's mandatory for many benefits of modern living, but any difficulty may impede a person's Constitutional right to vote.
Yet mandating that people get insurance, when there's no evidence to support the idea that insurance will even be available, is not an impediment to the Constitutionally protected right to bear arms?
And just because it's front page news......Jodi Arias shot Travis Alexander. After she stabbed him 29 times slitting his throat from ear to ear. We definitely need to hold the knife manufacturer accountable for this crime, as well as the manufacturer of the gun. The government can charge a tax on both payouts. All of us will benefit.
|
If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.
| |
|
|
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,751
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
| Posted: 2/28/2013 2:18:59 AM
Show me gun laws that have a demonstrated relationship to cutting gun violence, and we can have a discussion. But no one can explain how the gun laws being proposed will actually stop the next Sandy Hook, the next Aurora, etc. At most, we are asking to restrict magazines to hold 10-15 bullets to give people under assault a break while the shooter reloads (and I've been told a practiced gunman can reload in 2-4 seconds, so I'm not seeing that this is where our efforts need to be exerted if we're serious about trying to save lives) Slowing someone down to be able to shoot 2 seconds slower is not a serious solution.
To be honest, it's not the Sandy Hooks, and Auroras that bother me as much as the number of guns that are owned by people who use them to commit single homicides, and the number of people who use them to kill themselves. Despite the fact we have had a fairly dramatic increase in mass shootings, they are still rare compared to the one on one homicides that occur every single day in this country.
These are not committed by people who are psychologically disturbed, a lot of them are homicides committed by people who lost it for a couple of minutes and had a lethal weapon available.
Whenever a solution is suggested, there's a cacophony of voices coming from the pro-gun side, asserting 'that won't work'. Nothing is going to stop the bloodshed completely, but I'd like it better if it went from a river to a stream. The easy access to guns by law abiding citizens is one of the biggest reasons criminals have them...but nobody on the pro-gun side ever takes responsibility for that. The NRA would have us believe that all those illegal guns just appear in the hands of criminals....then they demand the right to buy more guns to combat the criminal element.
Maybe it's time that gun owners accepted some restrictions, quit claiming that if gun ownership is restricted in anyway, the 2nd Amendment is going to implode. Admit that the rate of armed intruders shooting homeowners is negligible compared to the number of guns that were legally purchased, then found their way into the hands of criminals....or take responsibility for the river of blood that is shed when people shoot each other....but something has to give.
The louder y'all object, and the more offensive the NRA gets with their ads, the more I believe y'all don't give a damn about the number of gun deaths in this country....and that includes gang bangers who kill each other....they're still someone's son, brother, husband, best friend. Every gun death is mourned by someone. This is becoming more about who's going to win the argument than it is about reducing gun violence.
It's starting to remind me of little kids fighting over toys, screaming 'it's mine, it's mine', mom saying 'no, you have to share'. If the screaming child refuses to budge, won't accept a compromise, mom says 'fine, you wanna be like that, I'm taking all your toys away until you learn to be more reasonable'.
| |
|
*maureen*
Bad Wolf
PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 5,394
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton
| Posted: 2/28/2013 6:23:49 AM
When the government crosses the lines established by the Constitution, it's the responsibility of the citizens to do something about it. A law like that would be ineffective and very unpopular. They could not possibly require all existing guns owned by law abiding citizens to be insured because they couldn't possibly know about every single gun owned by all US citizens.
I'm interested in hearing why you think insuring against potential misuse is a violation of the second amendment. I'm also not comfortable with you speaking for all gun owners, I for one wouldn't have a problem complying with such a law. The second amendment guarantees the right to own a weapon, it doesn't guarantee it would be cheap. | |
|
