One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
More idiots with guns
Page <<first <prev 6 of 8 next> last>>
Sep 17, 2013 13:04:31   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
mmccarty12 wrote:
Using the automobile deaths per year versus the number of gun deaths per year is comparing apples to oranges.

To legally drive an automobile in this country you have to have a driver's license which requires a written, and in some states a driving, test. To license an automobile, you are required to have proof of insurance on that vehicle that meets or exceeds the State's standard of minimum insurance. The vehicle, in some States, must also pass a safety inspection. There is no longer, in many States, a prerequisite of taking some form of driving training or driver education, just the written test with questions taken straight from the State's driving handbook.

To legally purchase a gun in this country, from a gun store, you are required to undergo a Federal background check to see if you have been convicted of any crimes in which you would be ineligible to purchase a gun, be it a handgun or a long gun. This does not include the purchase of a weapon capable of being fired on full auto. Burst weapons I am unsure if it is necessary to under more Federal scrutiny to purchase. After the purchase, depending on the State of Residence, you may be required to be licensed by the local law enforcement authorities, through the State law enforcement authorities, to carry a weapon concealed or open. Some States do not have a licensing requirement to carry open, but do allow for open carry without a license. Some States do not allow open carry at all, but also do not require you to be licensed for concealed carry. A gun owner is not required by law, in any State I know, to carry insurance in the event the weapon is used in a manner that causes injury or harm to persons or property.

In both of the above cases, the States themselves regulate what constitutes the rules and regulations to follow when licensing a person to operate an automobile or to license an automobile.

Compare California's automobile licensing standards to those of most States in the Union, they are more restrictive in most circumstances.

Each State also sets its own rules and regulations governing who is allowed to obtain firearms legally and how that is done, with some Federal standards that are required to be met. As each State is reliant upon the Federal government for the accuracy of the database containing the criminal records of all person who should be there; which in turn is reliant upon the States to provide the proper information to be supplied to the Federal database, you have a co-dependency upon one another for the accuracy of the database.

When you look at the number of accidents on the road, you have to look at the number of those accidents in which the driver was legally licensed to drive a motor vehicle, the number of drivers who were legally and properly insured and then derive your statistics from those data.

As the factors for the licensing and the regulation of both automobiles and firearms is completely different and incompatible, comparing the two is also incompatible.

One other thing to point out, at least if you believe in the wording of the Constitution, one has the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, where as driving is a privilege. The legal purchase of a gun is regulated by the State, the legal purchase of an automobile is not, one just needs the funds or credit. The licensing of an automobile and the right to carry a gun is also regulated by the State. Any idiot can drive a car, any idiot can purchase and use a gun. Any responsible person can drive a car, any responsible person can purchase and use a firearm.

The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,0001 to 310,000,000http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

Overall, there were an estimated 247,421,120 registered passenger vehicles in the United States according to a 2005 DOT studyhttp://www.usa.org/cars/

US Population: 316.7 Million at time of postinghttp://www.census.gov/popclock/

The point is, apples to oranges.
Using the automobile deaths per year versus the nu... (show quote)


"Burst weapons" are full auto, there is no distinction. There is, however, a vast difference between buying a semi and full auto weapon. It requires an expensive Federal Permit, and roughly a half ton of paperwork. It has also been illegal to manufacture full auto firearms for the civilian market since the 1980s. Any purchasing of these weapons is simply shuffing around the ones that already exist. They are hideously expensive, to purchase, to own, and to shoot.

Reply
Sep 17, 2013 13:18:25   #
AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State
 
BoJester wrote:
Aaaah, the words of a goober teabag knuckledragger. Goobers like you just hate the truth and reality don't you. The shooter(s) are the idiots. The other idiots are those who don't think guns need to be controlled. And they think that they cn control the situation. They are morons. The navy base is highly secured and still the idiot got in. Think how easy it would be for a shooter to get into your shack. But then maybe not, since you would have nothing of value


Obviously the shooter could not have been a "teabagger", according to your definition, as he was black. Remember, according to you, "TeaBaggers" are racist.

Reply
Sep 17, 2013 13:19:04   #
Doug Rodrigues
 
mmccarty12 wrote:
Using the automobile deaths per year versus the number of gun deaths per year is comparing apples to oranges.

To legally drive an automobile in this country you have to have a driver's license which requires a written, and in some states a driving, test. To license an automobile, you are required to have proof of insurance on that vehicle that meets or exceeds the State's standard of minimum insurance. The vehicle, in some States, must also pass a safety inspection. There is no longer, in many States, a prerequisite of taking some form of driving training or driver education, just the written test with questions taken straight from the State's driving handbook.

To legally purchase a gun in this country, from a gun store, you are required to undergo a Federal background check to see if you have been convicted of any crimes in which you would be ineligible to purchase a gun, be it a handgun or a long gun. This does not include the purchase of a weapon capable of being fired on full auto. Burst weapons I am unsure if it is necessary to under more Federal scrutiny to purchase. After the purchase, depending on the State of Residence, you may be required to be licensed by the local law enforcement authorities, through the State law enforcement authorities, to carry a weapon concealed or open. Some States do not have a licensing requirement to carry open, but do allow for open carry without a license. Some States do not allow open carry at all, but also do not require you to be licensed for concealed carry. A gun owner is not required by law, in any State I know, to carry insurance in the event the weapon is used in a manner that causes injury or harm to persons or property.

In both of the above cases, the States themselves regulate what constitutes the rules and regulations to follow when licensing a person to operate an automobile or to license an automobile.

Compare California's automobile licensing standards to those of most States in the Union, they are more restrictive in most circumstances.

Each State also sets its own rules and regulations governing who is allowed to obtain firearms legally and how that is done, with some Federal standards that are required to be met. As each State is reliant upon the Federal government for the accuracy of the database containing the criminal records of all person who should be there; which in turn is reliant upon the States to provide the proper information to be supplied to the Federal database, you have a co-dependency upon one another for the accuracy of the database.

When you look at the number of accidents on the road, you have to look at the number of those accidents in which the driver was legally licensed to drive a motor vehicle, the number of drivers who were legally and properly insured and then derive your statistics from those data.

As the factors for the licensing and the regulation of both automobiles and firearms is completely different and incompatible, comparing the two is also incompatible.

One other thing to point out, at least if you believe in the wording of the Constitution, one has the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, where as driving is a privilege. The legal purchase of a gun is regulated by the State, the legal purchase of an automobile is not, one just needs the funds or credit. The licensing of an automobile and the right to carry a gun is also regulated by the State. Any idiot can drive a car, any idiot can purchase and use a gun. Any responsible person can drive a car, any responsible person can purchase and use a firearm.

The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,0001 to 310,000,000http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

Overall, there were an estimated 247,421,120 registered passenger vehicles in the United States according to a 2005 DOT studyhttp://www.usa.org/cars/

US Population: 316.7 Million at time of postinghttp://www.census.gov/popclock/

The point is, apples to oranges.
Using the automobile deaths per year versus the nu... (show quote)


Am I supposed to infer that guns have no legitimate purpose? How about self defense? Do automobiles have a legitimate purpose? After all, there are busses, trains, and taxis too?

Reply
 
 
Sep 17, 2013 13:21:16   #
bmac32 Loc: West Florida
 
MOST of what you post I agree with. All states should require much more than they do, NRA backs most or this until some little lawyer comes along and sticks a bunch of meaningless crap in bills. That is a big reason states don't pass them. Look at Chicago, tough laws full of and/or's which changes the law to mean whatever a judge decides. Judges MAKING law?

mmccarty12 wrote:
Using the automobile deaths per year versus the number of gun deaths per year is comparing apples to oranges.

To legally drive an automobile in this country you have to have a driver's license which requires a written, and in some states a driving, test. To license an automobile, you are required to have proof of insurance on that vehicle that meets or exceeds the State's standard of minimum insurance. The vehicle, in some States, must also pass a safety inspection. There is no longer, in many States, a prerequisite of taking some form of driving training or driver education, just the written test with questions taken straight from the State's driving handbook.

To legally purchase a gun in this country, from a gun store, you are required to undergo a Federal background check to see if you have been convicted of any crimes in which you would be ineligible to purchase a gun, be it a handgun or a long gun. This does not include the purchase of a weapon capable of being fired on full auto. Burst weapons I am unsure if it is necessary to under more Federal scrutiny to purchase. After the purchase, depending on the State of Residence, you may be required to be licensed by the local law enforcement authorities, through the State law enforcement authorities, to carry a weapon concealed or open. Some States do not have a licensing requirement to carry open, but do allow for open carry without a license. Some States do not allow open carry at all, but also do not require you to be licensed for concealed carry. A gun owner is not required by law, in any State I know, to carry insurance in the event the weapon is used in a manner that causes injury or harm to persons or property.

In both of the above cases, the States themselves regulate what constitutes the rules and regulations to follow when licensing a person to operate an automobile or to license an automobile.

Compare California's automobile licensing standards to those of most States in the Union, they are more restrictive in most circumstances.

Each State also sets its own rules and regulations governing who is allowed to obtain firearms legally and how that is done, with some Federal standards that are required to be met. As each State is reliant upon the Federal government for the accuracy of the database containing the criminal records of all person who should be there; which in turn is reliant upon the States to provide the proper information to be supplied to the Federal database, you have a co-dependency upon one another for the accuracy of the database.

When you look at the number of accidents on the road, you have to look at the number of those accidents in which the driver was legally licensed to drive a motor vehicle, the number of drivers who were legally and properly insured and then derive your statistics from those data.

As the factors for the licensing and the regulation of both automobiles and firearms is completely different and incompatible, comparing the two is also incompatible.

One other thing to point out, at least if you believe in the wording of the Constitution, one has the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, where as driving is a privilege. The legal purchase of a gun is regulated by the State, the legal purchase of an automobile is not, one just needs the funds or credit. The licensing of an automobile and the right to carry a gun is also regulated by the State. Any idiot can drive a car, any idiot can purchase and use a gun. Any responsible person can drive a car, any responsible person can purchase and use a firearm.

The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,0001 to 310,000,000http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

Overall, there were an estimated 247,421,120 registered passenger vehicles in the United States according to a 2005 DOT studyhttp://www.usa.org/cars/

US Population: 316.7 Million at time of postinghttp://www.census.gov/popclock/

The point is, apples to oranges.
Using the automobile deaths per year versus the nu... (show quote)

Reply
Sep 17, 2013 13:27:48   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
Doug Rodrigues wrote:
Am I supposed to infer that guns have no legitimate purpose? How about self defense? Do automobiles have a legitimate purpose? After all, there are busses, trains, and taxis too?


If I may interject, the statement that you must look at the number of licensed drivers involved in accidents and derive your data from that is not exactly correct. Most drivers who are involved in accidents are licensed. The possession of a valid license has no bearing on accidents, usually. Other factors, such as drinking, texting, inattention, inexperience and road conditions are almost always the reason. Meanwhile, here in GA, more than 400.000 concealed carry permits have been issued, and to date, there have been less than 100 cases of criminal misuse of a firearm by CCW holders. The violent crime rate has also decreased, following the National trend, except in places like DC and Chicago, whose Draconian gun control laws have had no effect on crime.

Reply
Sep 17, 2013 13:31:19   #
bmac32 Loc: West Florida
 
He could be from the Tea Party but I have doubts. The system failed and badly to save a few bucks or as a party favor. Fire them all, I hardly don't think so but move the bench marks back to 95 levels at least.


AuntiE wrote:
Obviously the shooter could not have been a "teabagger", according to your definition, as he was black. Remember, according to you, "TeaBaggers" are racist.

Reply
Sep 17, 2013 13:32:32   #
BoJester
 
Since I don't use that term, I am unsure what you are yapping about. My use of the term 'teabag' is for the adornments party members wear on their hats and'or jackets. While some are undoubtedly racist, there have numerous posts here about black racism. At this point, I have no idea what the shooter's motive, and neither do you.




AuntiE wrote:
Obviously the shooter could not have been a "teabagger", according to your definition, as he was black. Remember, according to you, "TeaBaggers" are racist.

Reply
 
 
Sep 17, 2013 13:37:34   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
BoJester wrote:
Since I don't use that term, I am unsure what you are yapping about. My use of the term 'teabag' is for the adornments party members wear on their hats and'or jackets. While some are undoubtedly racist, there have numerous posts here about black racism. At this point, I have no idea what the shooter's motive, and neither do you.


I refer you, oh paragon of probity, to your post on page 1 of this thread that you, yourself, started:"Racist goober teabags like you........" . Is your attention span that short?

Reply
Sep 17, 2013 13:39:04   #
bmac32 Loc: West Florida
 
Having been to three gathering I have seen more blacks at each one, this last one was about 1/3 black. Normal regular people whom are tired of lies, over taxed and crime.



BoJester wrote:
Since I don't use that term, I am unsure what you are yapping about. My use of the term 'teabag' is for the adornments party members wear on their hats and'or jackets. While some are undoubtedly racist, there have numerous posts here about black racism. At this point, I have no idea what the shooter's motive, and neither do you.

Reply
Sep 17, 2013 13:44:26   #
BoJester
 
Too bad you are unable to read. The post menopausal made the same mistake. I don't use the term 'teabagger', and if you equate the word 'teabag' with that, then you are the one with the problem. Talk about very short attention spans, it is you.





banjojack wrote:
I refer you, oh paragon of probity, to your post on page 1 of this thread that you, yourself, started:"Racist goober teabags like you........" . Is your attention span that short?

Reply
Sep 17, 2013 13:51:50   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
BoJester wrote:
Too bad you are unable to read. The post menopausal made the same mistake. I don't use the term 'teabagger', and if you equate the word 'teabag' with that, then you are the one with the problem. Talk about very short attention spans, it is you.


Oh, I see. You use teabag to describe how teabaggers accessorize? So you were saying that teabags are racist goobers, not the people who wear them. You stupid bastard, an inanimate object cannot be a racist. You got caught in one of your lies, and you aren't smart enough to lie your way out.

Reply
 
 
Sep 17, 2013 13:53:11   #
bmac32 Loc: West Florida
 
I do have problem with the heading,'idiots' one gunmen, did we jump the gun so to speak?



BoJester wrote:
Too bad you are unable to read. The post menopausal made the same mistake. I don't use the term 'teabagger', and if you equate the word 'teabag' with that, then you are the one with the problem. Talk about very short attention spans, it is you.

Reply
Sep 17, 2013 13:56:05   #
BoJester
 
You miserable sissy, I thought you hade already changed your tampax and depends, but you are still a disgusting, foul mouthed angry woman, who is constantly ragging it. You like the word teabagger, OK fool you got, you are a true teabagger and enjoy it with your conservatard pals.





banjojack wrote:
Oh, I see. You use teabag to describe how teabaggers accessorize? So you were saying that teabags are racist goobers, not the people who wear them. You stupid bastard, an inanimate object cannot be a racist. You got caught in one of your lies, and you aren't smart enough to lie your way out.

Reply
Sep 17, 2013 14:12:21   #
mmccarty12 Loc: Zionsville, Indiana
 
Doug Rodrigues wrote:
Am I supposed to infer that guns have no legitimate purpose? How about self defense? Do automobiles have a legitimate purpose? After all, there are busses, trains, and taxis too?

There was nothing to infer whatsoever, I simply stated that comparing the number of deaths attributed to automobile accidents and the number of deaths by firearm is not a legitimate comparison. Guns have many purposes: hunting, sport, protection of self, others and home. Automobiles have a purpose as well, mostly as a convenience, my opinion, especially in areas where the alternatives are limited or non-existent. I live and work in an area where I could use alternative forms of transportation, even taxis, but the expense outweighs the benefits, especially financially.

I have thought to use that same argument, guns vs cars, myself at times when asking why the left does not want to remove the so-called "right" to drive from all individuals based on the actions of a few, and after doing the research came to the realization that I could not legitimately do so. I am sure if you did your own research, you would come to the same conclusion. I did nothing more than state the conclusion to what my previous research into the subject matter led me.

I am a staunch advocate of personal defense weapons and concealed carry. I also own and shoot several different types of firearms, both handguns and long arms. I myself am licensed to carry in my home State and my home State reciprocates with several other States in this country validating my legal right to carry a concealed weapon in those States as well. There are other States that do not recognize my license to carry issued by my State as legal to carry concealed in those States. Some of those States do not recognize my States license to carry because they recognize no right to carry concealed in their State to even legal residents. Some States do not reciprocate my States license to carry because my State does not meet or exceed that States standards.

I will have to amend my previous post at the end. Here is what I originally wrote:
mmccarty12 wrote:
One other thing to point out, at least if you believe in the wording of the Constitution, one has the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, where as driving is a privilege. The legal purchase of a gun is regulated by the State, the legal purchase of an automobile is not, one just needs the funds or credit. The licensing of an automobile and the right to carry a gun is also regulated by the State. Any idiot can drive a car, any idiot can purchase and use a gun. Any responsible person can drive a car, any responsible person can purchase and use a firearm.
One other thing to point out, at least if you beli... (show quote)


The statement needs to be amended thusly:
Any idiot can drive a car, legally or not, just as any idiot can legally, or not, purchase and use a gun.
Any responsible person can drive a car, any responsible person can purchase and use a firearm.
Not all idiots with automobiles or access to automobiles should be allowed on the road driving an automobile.
Not all idiots with guns, legal or not, should have guns.
The question is who decides who the idiots are?

Until an idiot does something stupid no one knows they are there until it is too late.

Reply
Sep 17, 2013 14:57:31   #
alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa
 
BoJester wrote:
Goobers love to hurl insults and name call, but act like little sissies when the same happens to them. Speaking of loathsome, look in the freaking mirror, you will get ill.


maybe before you run your mouth so much you should listen to a bit of his history

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.