Gun violence

[moke123]

Ultimately I think some guns should be banned (as long as we can get them away from criminals too, so we're evenly matched)

In order to get the guns away from the criminals you need to cut off their supply chain. Unfortunately that supply chain is very often the criminals stealing them from legal gun owners who don't properly secure them and don't take kindly to any regulation. Kind of a circle jerk.

 

[ColinEssex]

Honestly it wouldn't take much for a single action revolver to fire if dropped on the hammer. Of course, the drop would have to be just right, then someone in the line of fire, but it does require caution.

Thank you - I rest my case, guns can kill. Pat is wrong.
Col

 

[Isaac]

In order to get the guns away from the criminals you need to cut off their supply chain. Unfortunately that supply chain is very often the criminals stealing them from legal gun owners who don't properly secure them and don't take kindly to any regulation. Kind of a circle jerk.

I think most of the supply chain is probably just buying them both legally and from each other, but I'm sure guns being burglarized fits in somewhere, I can't imagine it being a major % of their overall supply. They don't need to.

 

[NauticalGent]

Guns and drugs are big business. As long as someone is making money, or it plays a factor in our "foreign policy", they will never go away.

 

[Isaac]

Guns and drugs are big business. As long as someone is making money, or it plays a factor in our "foreign policy", they will never go away.

Instinctively I tend to believe that, but what do you think is the best thing to do with hard drugs like heroin, meth, and all things opioid?

I don't blame Oregon for trying what they did, but more on the 'selling drugs' side, how can we stop the cartels from slowly getting a bigger and bigger footprint INSIDE the usa ? As it is already, occasionally I read stories about like a family of 5 gunned down in a remote CA desert and pretty sure the cartel et al may have been involved, couple other distinctly 'assasination' cases in CA too

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Thank you - I rest my case, guns can kill. Pat is wrong.

Except that the gun was mishandled to allow it to fall. The careless gun owner was responsible. And the ultimate test of who is wrong is to ask whether the police will arrest the gun and charge it with manslaughter, or will they instead arrest the owner? Case closed.

 

[NauticalGent]

Even if I never used Access again, I would still visit AWF for the banter...

 

[AccessBlaster]

Except that the gun was mishandled to allow it to fall. The careless gun owner was responsible. And the ultimate test of who is wrong is to ask whether the police will arrest the gun and charge it with manslaughter, or will they instead arrest the owner? Case closed.

Love it, BTW I'm not giving up guns or freedom because stupid people exist. It's a very good reason to own them.

 

[Isaac]

Even if I never used Access again, I would still visit AWF for the banter...

I agree. I use no social media except AWF, such as it is. No longer use Access but you never know what the future holds! We are not guaranteed tomorrow, but especially not that tomorrow will be like today!

 

[ColinEssex]

Except that the gun was mishandled to allow it to fall. The careless gun owner was responsible. And the ultimate test of who is wrong is to ask whether the police will arrest the gun and charge it with manslaughter, or will they instead arrest the owner? Case closed.

Except that the gun was on a table and the cat pawed it and it fell on the floor. Nobody was responsible. The great Pat is wrong. Case closed.
Col

 

[Pat Hartman]

yea, also a "no show" for his congressional subpoena.

Perhaps I don't know who you are talking about. Isn't he running the committees that are issuing the subpoenas?

 

[Pat Hartman]

Thank you - I rest my case, guns can kill. Pat is wrong.

Yes it can - in the same way that a shoelace can kill. That is the point you always miss. Someone has to point the gun and shot it or mishandle it and have an accicent. Granted dropping a shoelace probably won't kill you but dropping a knife could and so could losing focus while driving and a raft of other things.

The gun in and of itself is no danger to any one. It is inert. The gun requires positive or accidental action to be dangerous.

I have no idea what you are arguing for. You have no positive suggestion to solve any problem whereas I have one - ENFORCE THE EXISTING GUN LAWS to the MAX. There is no need for new laws and we already have too many. Adding more just gives authorities more laws to ignore.

Look at those IDIOTS in NYC who arrested the illegal aliens who beat up the two cops and then just let them walk out free, whereupon they promptly got on a bus for points west and disappeared. I can think of nothing more stupid than a "law" that allowed those criminals to just walk free.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Except that the gun was on a table and the cat pawed it and it fell on the floor. Nobody was responsible.

The person who left the gun in a precarious situation is responsible. The cat will not be arrested. The gun's owner will bear the burden of this hypothetical incident.

YOU are irresponsible because you continue to focus on the wrong point.

 

[ColinEssex]

Almost anything could kill someone. So no need for you and Doc to list random items.
My scenario is a cat paws a gun off a table. It falls and fires and shoots someone in the heart. Guns kill. I really don't know why you can't accept it. But please continue trying by listing random items that have nothing to do with this discussion.

Your turn to try to justify your ridiculous comment, get Doc to help, you obviously need it.
Col

 

[AccessBlaster]

There seems to be no limit to the lengths individuals will go to in order to assert their viewpoint.

 

[NauticalGent]

There seems to be no limit to the lengths individuals will go to in order to assert their viewpoint.

None. You should meet my son-in-law...

 

[ColinEssex]

There seems to be no limit to the lengths individuals will go to in order to assert their viewpoint.

I agree, this could have ended days ago, but 'super' people have too big an ego to be shown to have stated a fallacy.
Col

 

[AccessBlaster]

@ColinEssex, it's quite a contortionist act you're performing just to justify some random cat potentially harming an innocent bystander.

 

[ColinEssex]

@ColinEssex, it's quite a contortionist act you're performing just to justify some random cat potentially harming an innocent bystander.

Firstly, the cat is not harming anyone.
The original post by super Pat was 'guns don't kill. . . ', I'm just saying in certain circumstances, they can. I really don't know why the deadly duo continue to argue, especially as Doc admitted days ago it could happen however remote. Still, if they want to continue arguing then that's up to them.
Col

 

[moke123]

Perhaps I don't know who you are talking about. Isn't he running the committees that are issuing the subpoenas?

yes, He is. And he was served with a subpoena and didn't show. Shouldn't he be locked up too?

I think most of the supply chain is probably just buying them both legally and from each other, but I'm sure guns being burglarized fits in somewhere, I can't imagine it being a major % of their overall supply. They don't need to.

Actually I believe gun thefts from cars is #1. A number of years ago almost every gun found during drug raids in my area all came back stolen from Tennessee. There were at least 15-20 of them.

Ma. has strict gun laws. But we also border New Hampshire who has barely any. Just a quick hop over the border and you can arm up no problem.