Gun laws do they work

In other words when the weapon leaves the owners property it will not work.? They are too late.Chicago Il. already has a gun law that permits a person to have a gun within their home (under permit). However, it is my understanding that it cannot be seen outside of the Home even in the yard, on any porches just strictly inside the home.

This amounts to them taking them away. Once they get this passed, what is next, we have to turn in our old guns that do not have the new technology.. I think not.

Why would this amount to taking them away, First of all why would you have a gun in your back garden or on your porch? (this disregards bringing one back from the store where you brought one)

This would just mean that to keep this firearm, you would need to keep it within the household, I'm sure where hunting is permitted they would adjust the laws for the area accordingly. They aren't trying to track your every movements! I'm sure they are much more busy with current affairs then knowing where and which deer you shot! ;)
 
As it stands Blade, we live in a world that seems to be getting worse day by day.

If anyone says they are safe walking outside their front door, be it here in the UK or any other place - then they simply do not see the dangers of life around them.

Criminals here in the UK have access to firearms where citizens such as myself have no form of protection.

This is the post I replied bullshit to, where does it mention accidents, I've checked other posts and it is not until Fothringsloth replied and mentioned accidents , after my post, that Connor included them.

He may consider me all sorts of things , but at least I'm not a liar.

Brian
 
This is the post I replied bullshit to, where does it mention accidents, I've checked other posts and it is not until Fothringsloth replied and mentioned accidents , after my post, that Connor included them.

He may consider me all sorts of things , but at least I'm not a liar.

Brian

I'll give you the courtesy of one last post,

Excuse me to the fact I thought that I had posted before you, for that I am sorry - But that doesn't excuse you.

I interpret you the way you put yourself across, Where in my post did I even claim that Accidents weren't included? That is where your "Mind Reading" ability claim comes from Brian. I meant entirely safe not just via criminals as Frothingslosh proclaimed.

By the way, I would have posted in reply to Frothingslosh's "100% safe" before you even posted your "Bullshit" comment, but I finish work at that time and If you have noticed do not reply past 4:30.

You seem to jump to conclusions without even asking first, which is a very bad trait to uphold, At least in Frothingslosh's post he had the decency to include that I could have meant 100% safe but you felt the need to proclaim I "Didn't" mean that when you had no clue to the fact whatsoever.

Brianwarnock said:
Connor I have decided to ignore you in future, you have come onto this forum and not only think you should control it by telling others what they can and cannot post, but also twist your arguments, in the context of your original post and this thread my statement was correct.
you were not talking about accidents


Brian

I truly hope in future you will take into account what people could have meant before taking your personal opinion on their comment. As it seems though, One last thing, calling Bullshit on my comment as Dan-Cat seems to have called you out on has silenced you.

But where is the return comment to that? Thought so.

Here's to hoping you don't target anyone else in future. As for you, You are now a troll by (only) my account, I shall let the other people decide on your standing with themselves.

You shall not be fed.
 
Last edited:
I'll give you the courtesy of one last post,

Excuse me to the fact I thought that I had posted before you, for that I am sorry - But that doesn't excuse you.

I interpret you the way you put yourself across, Where in my post did I even claim that Accidents weren't included? That is where your "Mind Reading" ability claim comes from Brian. I meant entirely safe not just via criminals as Frothingslosh proclaimed.

By the way, I would have posted in reply to Frothingslosh's "100% safe" before you even posted your "Bullshit" comment, but I finish work at that time and If you have noticed do not reply past 4:30.

You seem to jump to conclusions without even asking first, which is a very bad trait to uphold, At least in Frothingslosh's post he had the decency to include that I could have meant 100% safe but you felt the need to proclaim I "Didn't" mean that when you had no clue to the fact whatsoever.



I truly hope in future you will take into account what people could have meant before taking your personal opinion on their comment. As it seems though, One last thing, calling Bullshit on my comment as Dan-Cat seems to have called you out on has silenced you.

But where is the return comment to that? Thought so.

Here's to hoping you don't target anyone else in future. As for you, You are now a troll by (only) my account, I shall let the other people decide on your standing with themselves.

You shall not be fed.

You tried to censor my post last week and then assumed my motive for posting it. Pots and kettles.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt of what you meant. But even including accidents and rounding up - cos of course things can happen. 100% of the time outside of my front door I feel safe and crossing the road also!

And I'm a worry wart.
 
You tried to censor my post last week and then assumed my motive for posting it. Pots and kettles.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt of what you meant. But even including accidents and rounding up - cos of course things can happen. 100% of the time outside of my front door I feel safe and crossing the road also!

And I'm a worry wart.

Sorry Anthony if you felt I was censoring, But where did I say "Don't post" I only proclaimed you were being a little personal and that I didn't want you to be punished (since I don't know the rules too well) - I'm sorry if you felt me trying to help you as censoring.

You feel safe walking outside your door? But that doesn't mean you actually are safe. As Frothingslosh has said, there has never been a 100% safe and never will be.

Feeling safe and being safe are two different things Ant (If you don't mind me calling you that?). Hey you could be sitting next to someone on a bus who doesn't go to a doctor (the I'll be okay types) but is very ill and it could be contagious. Wouldn't be the first time I've seen that! My family has been one of those types for years, It is only know that I am older I feel the need to see a doctor (just in case).

(A little bizarre one) A woman walking along a country side and was impaled by a frozen shard of urine that had leaked from a plane.

Anything can happen at any given time, No matter how bizarre, I guess that is the spice of life - never knowing what comes next!

I guess I have grown into a worry wart too Ant! :D
 
To be quite honest, Connor, when you're talking about safety in the middle of a discussion on gun control, unless you say otherwise people are going to expect that you meant safety from firearms, not safety from every freak circumstance the universe can possibly throw at you.

In this case, your safety comment really was pretty terrible, and everyone else was right to take it how they did. My comment on accidents was really intended to point out how absurd your argument was, not to support it.
 
To be quite honest, Connor, when you're talking about safety in the middle of a discussion on gun control, unless you say otherwise people are going to expect that you meant safety from firearms, not safety from every freak circumstance the universe can possibly throw at you.

In this case, your safety comment really was pretty terrible, and everyone else was right to take it how they did. My comment on accidents was really intended to point out how absurd your argument was, not to support it.

I admit I should have added the word "Entirely" before safe.

But how was it absurd? Please tell me?

Just because you take it one way Frothingslosh, doesn't mean you speak for everyone, especially me so please don't try to.

I said it in terms of the accidents to highlight that the world is a dangerous place without the use of firearms/criminals. People as it seems are becoming clumsier (I'll use this phrase lightly - Perhaps say more careless) and the world is becoming a dangerous place. (See where I am going?) For example Car crash fatalities has been on the increase for years upon years. Most of those class as accidents but still is making the world a more dangerous place.

I know what I meant, Doesn't mean you would know, so why call my argument absurd? Yes you are free to comment on my posts, but If you aren't going to be civil, don't expect me to be.
 
Last edited:
Just because you take it one way Frothingslosh, doesn't mean you speak for everyone, especially me so please don't try to.

The three people who responded all took it the same way. You cannot expect people to guess what you mean, I've no doubt if we ignored what you actually said and put our own spin on the post you would complain about that too.

Everybody is wrong and out of step except Connor.

Why on earth didn't you just admit that you got it wrong in the first place, we all make mistakes, just be big enough to admit it.

Brian

BTW. How was Frothingslosh uncivil?
 
As it seems though, One last thing, calling Bullshit on my comment as Dan-Cat seems to have called you out on has silenced you.

After posting on these boards for a number of years, you get a certain feel for people's characters and nuances. Brian is one of the more calming presences you'll find on the site which made his outburst amusing, to me anyway. Nothing to do with supporting your position.

I'm not quite sure how you've rankled him but I would recommend burying the hatchet. ;)
 
First I get ridiculed for trying to keep the thread calm,

Now I seem to be being ridiculed for not putting my point across properly.

I'm done...

6e31d4d3db73abde59f4d96f4a80576219cff6e4a6d7680647a22b904a020ab6.jpg


(Please excuse the language, couldn't find a filtered one)
 
After posting on these boards for a number of years, you get a certain feel for people's characters and nuances. Brian is one of the more calming presences you'll find on the site which made his outburst amusing, to me anyway. Nothing to do with supporting your position.

I'm not quite sure how you've rankled him but I would recommend burying the hatchet. ;)

:o
I actually took it that you were amused by my language, but after Connor's comment wondered if I had been arrogant not to take it as a criticism, I'm relieved to see that the former is the case.

I am willing to bury the hatchet and move on, however Connor now seems bent on upsetting even more people.

Brian
 
What a small world. Here is the boards complete address:
16500 N star circle
Sale Creek, TN

Next time I am up that way I will PM you. Do you know if TN has reciprocal CWP with FL.

OF Course,,,,,, Any which way you want to get to TN from FL.
 
This weekend I got outdoors in the cold rain and shot tin cans with my young grandson (<10). Believe it or not, We all had fun and safety was always in the back of our minds. No one got shot and everybody learned a few important gun safety lessons as well as a few lessons concerning how to use the gun.

I say that as I see that this thread has drifted from it original question to arguments that are really meaningless over something that will never happen at least in my lifetime or what I got left of it..

That is gun control here in the USA where it allows the ordinary citizen unrestricted use of a firearm while having enough restrictions that protect others from being victims to those firearms both from accidents and the bad guys.

It was mentioned that bracelets, smart guns with chips that would only allow the REGISTERED handler to fire the gun could be a way to do this. Yes, but what about all those guns that are not registered. I have my dads 12 GA. unregistered single shot Long-Tom Shotgun. Am I going to fix this gun up with a chip that will in-effect make it a smart gun thereby allowing only me to fire it? NO!

Thus, my question is: How do you apply this principle to all the other guns in the US (both bad guy guns and law abiding citizens (other) guns). What about the world that probably has a 10 billion or more guns? (Extrapolated figure)

Well in my opinion it is like having a big pile of Cow poop, and you are are trying to get rid all the flies blowing the poop one or two at a time with the intent of finally getting relocating all the flies allowing the poop to disintegrate in piece. ( a little humor here but a very serious thought). Gun Control unless you target the whole world is ridiculous and 'pie in the sky' and it will have to be more than one or two at a time.

No, I am not saying that one person's life is Not worth trying to make them safe from accidents but when you place the amount of restrictions on guns and their owners that would in effect prevent these accidents in any appreciable amount (not one death), you will be rendering them almost if not useless. Therefore, like the UK, we citizens in USA will become impotent as far as protecting ourselves, our property and our loved ones.

How would you propose protecting all the people with no method of protecting themselves. Well, it seems that France has called up part of its military to protect them. Tens of thousands of law officers and military are restricting people rights (at least some of them) for safety. Your talking about Sheep here,,, (well when my dogs perceive a threat, they herd the sheep into one small area and will not let them do anything (eat, etc)until the threat is gone.) Is this what we want? You might say no, but if you would like to see what a scenario might look like with the military in a large city like NYC, then watch the movie "The Siege".

It is estimated that there are 90 guns for every 100 citizens in the US. This was based on REGISTERED guns. That figure I am sure includes the bad guys guns as well. That is 300,000,000 guns or more in the US alone. . Now again, pray tell me, how does these bracelets, smart guns chips, etc. going to deal with all these guns and keep the citizens rights intact while making a difference in the crimes that are committed with gun in hand.

People,,,,It is a poopy situation. LOL

Blade
 
This weekend I got outdoors in the cold rain and shot tin cans with my young grandson (<10). Believe it or not, We all had fun and safety was always in the back of our minds. No one got shot and everybody learned a few important gun safety lessons as well as a few lessons concerning how to use the gun.

I say that as I see that this thread has drifted from it original question to arguments that are really meaningless over something that will never happen at least in my lifetime or what I got left of it..

That is gun control here in the USA where it allows the ordinary citizen unrestricted use of a firearm while having enough restrictions that protect others from being victims to those firearms both from accidents and the bad guys.

It was mentioned that bracelets, smart guns with chips that would only allow the REGISTERED handler to fire the gun could be a way to do this. Yes, but what about all those guns that are not registered. I have my dads 12 GA. unregistered single shot Long-Tom Shotgun. Am I going to fix this gun up with a chip that will in-effect make it a smart gun thereby allowing only me to fire it? NO!

Thus, my question is: How do you apply this principle to all the other guns in the US (both bad guy guns and law abiding citizens (other) guns). What about the world that probably has a 10 billion or more guns? (Extrapolated figure)

Well in my opinion it is like having a big pile of Cow poop, and you are are trying to get rid all the flies blowing the poop one or two at a time with the intent of finally getting relocating all the flies allowing the poop to disintegrate in piece. ( a little humor here but a very serious thought). Gun Control unless you target the whole world is ridiculous and 'pie in the sky' and it will have to be more than one or two at a time.

No, I am not saying that one person's life is Not worth trying to make them safe from accidents but when you place the amount of restrictions on guns and their owners that would in effect prevent these accidents in any appreciable amount (not one death), you will be rendering them almost if not useless. Therefore, like the UK, we citizens in USA will become impotent as far as protecting ourselves, our property and our loved ones.

How would you propose protecting all the people with no method of protecting themselves. Well, it seems that France has called up part of its military to protect them. Tens of thousands of law officers and military are restricting people rights (at least some of them) for safety. Your talking about Sheep here,,, (well when my dogs perceive a threat, they herd the sheep into one small area and will not let them do anything (eat, etc)until the threat is gone.) Is this what we want? You might say no, but if you would like to see what a scenario might look like with the military in a large city like NYC, then watch the movie "The Siege".

It is estimated that there are 90 guns for every 100 citizens in the US. This was based on REGISTERED guns. That figure I am sure includes the bad guys guns as well. That is 300,000,000 guns or more in the US alone. . Now again, pray tell me, how does these bracelets, smart guns chips, etc. going to deal with all these guns and keep the citizens rights intact while making a difference in the crimes that are committed with gun in hand.

People,,,,It is a poopy situation. LOL

Blade

When I was a kid we had a shooting game called tin can alley. Good fun and could be played in complete safety in you front room!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPNIau7nIis
 
Seriously, Connor? Politely disagreeing with you is now being uncivil?

Uncivil is posting a rant followed by an image that says 'Fuck it, I'm out'.
 
First I get ridiculed for trying to keep the thread calm,

Now I seem to be being ridiculed for not putting my point across properly.

I'm done...

TOOK OUT THE TRASH. HOPE YOU DID NOT MIND!

(Please excuse the language, couldn't find a filtered one)

Does anyone know who that fellow is in the picture. He is apparently having a real bad day.. had a few of those myself........eeehwqhhqhqhqhhqh?

lol

Blade
 
That would be Bill Murray and yes I was having a bad day too.... So fits the "Bill" (Pun intended)

I was wrong to post it. My bad.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom