Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Banning guns

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Banning guns

    So a woman shot her boyfriend at his request while recording it at his request. Supposedly a stunt for likes/views. They thought a book would stop the bullet. WTH is wrong with people?! This is the kind of stupidity people who want to ban guns point to, but this level of stupidity would have found another outlet.
    A Minnesota woman killed her boyfriend Monday by shooting at a book he was holding over his chest, in a YouTube video stunt gone wrong.
    Gonna change my evil ways...one of these days

  • #2
    This is a special level of stupidity. I'm not one that looks to have guns banned, but I do believe they should be restricted and regulated better. The knee-jerk reaction of "BAN ALL THE GUNS" does nothing. Ban all the blank will not magically stop blank from happening, no matter what it may be. Maybe this kid's life would have been saved if they didn't have access to the gun, or better gun safety education, or better education in general. As a society we need to work together to prevent stuff like this from happening, but compromise is key.

    Comment


    • #3
      Even with the gun, the man's life could have been spared if they weren't seeking attention by making a YouTube video of her shooting him. Or even by doing some research to see if the book would actually stop the bullet like a Google search or the old fashioned way by propping the book up somewhere (without anyone behind it) and shoot it. Dumbass attention whores are the reason the baby will grow up without it's father.
      Gonna change my evil ways...one of these days

      Comment


      • #4
        True that. The problem is rarely, if ever, as simple as "They had a gun." It's always just one part of the problem.

        Comment


        • #5
          The problem is always "they had a gun"

          Regulate it and the problem will get smaller over time. Arm everyone and problems never end. It's not that hard to understand
          May flights of Demons guide you to your final rest...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Nicholas Ward View Post
            The problem is always "they had a gun"

            Regulate it and the problem will get smaller over time. Arm everyone and problems never end. It's not that hard to understand
            Humans existed for a long long time and were killing themselves and each other long before guns were invented. People are the problem. Ban people and let the robot revolution begin.

            The problem in this story was the guy thinking that having his girlfriend shoot him would make for a great YouTube video and get him lots of attention. He could have saved his family tons of heartbreak by getting counseling for a puppy.
            Gonna change my evil ways...one of these days

            Comment


            • #7
              Too stupid for words. There is a new TV show that is a cross between Myth Busters and Jack Ass - and I'd tell you the name if I could recall it. Dangerous something or another. The em cee comes up with a new way to almost kill himself every week, but explains why physics won't let it happen. We watched a single episode and concluded that even though they test everything out before aiming at the em cee target guy, eventually he's going to get some bit of random variance and (perhaps literally) bite the bullet. It's like we all knew that Steve Irwin wasn't going to die of old age.
              “A sinner can always repent, but stupid is forever.”
              Billy Sunday

              Comment


              • #8
                If it's any consolation, the idiot that had his girl friend shoot him, tested by shooting a book before hand.
                “A sinner can always repent, but stupid is forever.”
                Billy Sunday

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Nicholas Ward View Post
                  The problem is always "they had a gun"

                  Regulate it and the problem will get smaller over time. Arm everyone and problems never end. It's not that hard to understand
                  So true. They banned them outright in Chicago and over time the murder rate dropped to almost nothing.



                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Darwin rules.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well, of course, they didn't actually ban guns, nor were they able to get rid of the guns in Chicago (like, the baddies gave up their guns?). More important, note that the Chicago rate jumped after the Supreme Court threw out the laws. And while all that was going on "gunless" Washington D.C.'s rate plummeted. I'd say we don't have the complete picture yet.
                      “A sinner can always repent, but stupid is forever.”
                      Billy Sunday

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Draknoir2 View Post

                        So true. They banned them outright in Chicago and over time the murder rate dropped to almost nothing.


                        If only it was simple. I mean murder has always been banned.
                        Gonna change my evil ways...one of these days

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The Chicago police have a pretty clear picture of what the problem is, and it's not whether guns are legal or triple dog illegal. Play spin doctor with the statistics all you like. Makes no difference if your penal system has a revolving door.


                          Edit: Just wanted to point out that I said "penal".
                          Last edited by Draknoir2; 06-30-2017, 06:56 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Coolwater View Post
                            Well, of course, they didn't actually ban guns, nor were they able to get rid of the guns in Chicago (like, the baddies gave up their guns?). More important, note that the Chicago rate jumped after the Supreme Court threw out the laws. And while all that was going on "gunless" Washington D.C.'s rate plummeted. I'd say we don't have the complete picture yet.
                            I don't think we have the same definition of "plummet".

                            Washington D.C. was a problem before the SC decision and it's still a problem.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Draknoir2 View Post

                              I don't think we have the same definition of "plummet".

                              Washington D.C. was a problem before the SC decision and it's still a problem.
                              I grew up outside of DC back when it was the "murder capital of the world". Good ole Marion Barry won re-election for Mayor after getting busted with prostitutes and cocaine. Not only that, but got an even bigger percentage of the votes than his first election.
                              Gonna change my evil ways...one of these days

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by Draknoir2 View Post

                                I don't think we have the same definition of "plummet".

                                Washington D.C. was a problem before the SC decision and it's still a problem.
                                Play with the stats all you want, Drak. You can't get around the fact that if people don't have guns, they have to hurt each other up close and it gets harder to do. That road rage guy that killed the teenaged girl for cutting him off in traffic the other day couldn't have done it from his car without a gun.

                                Yeah, or a drone.

                                Now, what my NRA buddy and I discovered is that we have the same opinion. If people want to use guns, they should be subjected to the same type of laws that drivers are. Get required training, pass tough written and practical tests (at a different time from the training), get a license to use guns and have insurance. Then enforce the laws the same way we do for driving.
                                “A sinner can always repent, but stupid is forever.”
                                Billy Sunday

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Training and licensing sounds like the Common Sense Gun Legislstion™ the Democrats have been peddling for over a decade. Mayor Rahm is also fond of the "is what it isn't/isn't what it is" rhetoric and, like the D.C. pols, he's quick to claim credit for a fleeting downtick in the murder rate and slow to answer for the chronic blood loss.

                                  Should be easy enough to track down the usual suspects for training... they are well known to law enforcement. Might as well do it the next time they are processed through the Cook County legal system. More gang bangers who can shoot straight means less gang bangers to shoot straight.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by Coolwater View Post
                                    Well, of course, they didn't actually ban guns,

                                    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...n-violence-ban

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by Nicholas Ward View Post
                                      The problem is always "they had a gun"

                                      Regulate it
                                      They do. Quite a bit. It's only particularly easy to get a shotgun or rifle, though even those rights can (and do) get taken away. In my state of WA they even just passed (an insane, IMHO) a law where if someone -- it can be anyone -- calls the police and says, "I'm concerned about Andrew... I think he's been angry a lot lately" they can just come and take away all of my guns on that alone.
                                      Highlander: Dark Places

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        In NJ the definition of a firearm includes anything that can propel a projectile by means including air, rubber bands, and springs. If you take a Bic pen, remove the ink parts, chew a wad of paper, and insert it in the pen barrel, you have a firearm. They make no distinction between an Airsoft gun and the actual weapon it emulates. I can hardly wait for people to turn them in at "gun buy back" drives. It gets pretty scary when the toys of your childhood could land you in prison.

                                        Comment


                                        • #21
                                          Firearm definitions are weird, no contest here. When I was robbed at knifepoint (nightshift at a convenience store) the guy ended up with firearm charges, even though what he had used was basically a high-end steak knife. He was barred from owning or using guns for a certain length of time, with the judge mentioning in his sentencing statement that that functionally barred him from hunting as well. In Saskatchewan (Canada).
                                          I understand that my sword collection qualifies as 'firearms', even though only one is more than a wallhanger. I get that a sword is 'arms' but where does the fire come in?

                                          Comment


                                          • #22
                                            Originally posted by Perfect Warrior View Post
                                            Firearm definitions are weird, no contest here. When I was robbed at knifepoint (nightshift at a convenience store) the guy ended up with firearm charges, even though what he had used was basically a high-end steak knife. He was barred from owning or using guns for a certain length of time, with the judge mentioning in his sentencing statement that that functionally barred him from hunting as well. In Saskatchewan (Canada).
                                            I understand that my sword collection qualifies as 'firearms', even though only one is more than a wallhanger. I get that a sword is 'arms' but where does the fire come in?
                                            I've never heard people with bladed weapons get "firearms" charges before, ever. Maybe it's just a thing in your particular state? I've heard of "Brandishing a Dangerous Weapon" charge, but that's pretty vague.
                                            Highlander: Dark Places

                                            Comment


                                            • Draknoir2
                                              Draknoir2 commented
                                              Editing a comment
                                              I'm surprised they didn't call it an "Assault Rifle®".

                                          • #23
                                            Maybe it was a prohibited weapon charge? It was a decade ago. But if what I'm remembering is the judge stretching a good sharp steak knife into a prohibited weapon, that's still a headshake. (In 2010, six year later, my city was trying to ban knives because of a rash of robberies with knives.)

                                            One interesting thing came up on my wide-wandering search: (To go closer to the original subject.)
                                            7. The device known as the “Constant Companion”, being a belt containing a blade capable of being withdrawn from the belt, with the buckle of the belt forming a handle for the blade, and any similar device. Is a prohibited weapon.
                                            Remember that guy on the old board who was pushing these things?

                                            Comment


                                            • #24
                                              I think "bump stocks" should deserve a healthy bit of scrutiny in light of current events. They're not even accurate.
                                              Highlander: Dark Places

                                              Comment


                                              • #25
                                                Originally posted by Coolwater View Post
                                                Now, what my NRA buddy and I discovered is that we have the same opinion. If people want to use guns, they should be subjected to the same type of laws that drivers are. Get required training, pass tough written and practical tests (at a different time from the training), get a license to use guns and have insurance. Then enforce the laws the same way we do for driving.
                                                This makes very good sense to me! It is heartening that at least one NRA member believes this is a good idea.


                                                Comment

                                                Working...
                                                X