|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 11, 2010 15:30:01 GMT -5
The Brady Bill is a perfect example. I've seen people credit it for lowering crime, though crime was already on the fall before the ban was passed. It really stopped nothing, the banned weapons already on store shelves and in the US remained unaffected except their price went up, while manufacturers just made cosmetic enhancements mostly to get by it all. Case in point, I owned a completely legal Yugo SKS bought well after the ban was in effect. How it went from legal to evil with the addition of a pistol grip is beyond me. The best part is that the morons who wrote that law actually thought that it would stop gun manufacturers from making evil black rifles. You could circumvent the AWB with a hack saw. Just like versions of the AR-15 making the ban list, yet it's counterpart, the 223 hunting rifle that had the same basic design but a wood stock instead of that evil black stock was completely legal and not seen as a dangerous tool aswell. The whole ban lived up to the nickname, 'The Ugly Gun Ban' |
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jul 11, 2010 16:32:35 GMT -5
Cons seem to base so many of their decisions on fear, maybe they just assume everybody else does as well. I found an article, about a small study, that seems to back this up. Granted, there are definite flaws in the thing (like having so little people and it being a tiny geographic region), but yeah, still posting it. www.denverpost.com/politicswestnews/ci_10503487?source=bbThere was a study of personality traits done some years ago that suggested a fairly strong correlation between anxiety and conservativism, although I can't recall a lot of details. Maybe I can find it. |
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Jul 11, 2010 20:34:49 GMT -5
Stage 1: Buy a cheap pistol and a can of pink paint. Stage 2: Paint the gun pink. Stage 3: Post pics to this thread. Spray paint would likely cause too much trouble with gluing or gumming together parts that shouldn't be glued or gummed together. A 1" brush head with a second detail brush head and a small can of modeler's paint would actually be a better choice, as said resulting gun should still be quite functional. Alternatively, depending on where you live (there are a few in Chicago, at least) there are some gun shops that will do "girl gun" colors for free, in an attempt to bring more women into the fold. They'll do the painting and detailing on an expert level without the risk to damaging the gun. However, Stage 3 of aaa's post remains the same: let us see the end results, if you do something like this! We do have a gun and pawn shop in my town, but since it's small town I don't think they do anything like that. Besides, I'd like to have my own place before I get my own firearm. |
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on Jul 11, 2010 23:44:47 GMT -5
I'd love to own a pink pistol, but I don't know where to buy one in my town. I'd be surprised if there weren't Hello Kitty guns somewhere. Prepare to be exceedingly not surprised.  |
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Jul 12, 2010 19:49:41 GMT -5
Hehehe. After the chainsaw, I was sure there'd be a huge market for deadly Hello Kitty products.
I blame crystalhall.org
|
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Jul 12, 2010 19:53:09 GMT -5
Kitty is packing heat man.
|
|
|
|
Post by katz on Jul 12, 2010 20:15:08 GMT -5
Well, gotta recruit those Chinese girls for the People's Army somehow.
In all seriousness, I very badly want one of those. I wonder if they come in Sailor Moon?
|
|
|
|
Post by faythofdragons on Jul 13, 2010 1:26:48 GMT -5
Speaking of dumbass laws, here in Washington, if you have a pistol you pretty much have to get a concealed pistol license for it. You can carry weapons openly, but if anyone feels threatened, it's brandishment, even if you never draw it. It's slightly ridiculous.
|
|
Phys
Full Member
Posts: 137
|
Post by Phys on Jul 14, 2010 3:05:58 GMT -5
I am a non-US atheist and pro-gun-rights. However, I support a licensing scheme for all weapons based on whether they are ranged or not and on how dangerous they are to others (in the hands of someone wishing to do harm, of course). Thus all ranged weapons would require extra safety training, and possibly an eyesight requirement like there is in many places for driving. Then I would classify weapons into four categories (each of which can be divided into ranged and non-ranged): ordinary unconcealable weapons (rifles, shotguns, swords, etc.), ordinary weapons which are readily concealable (pistols, knives, daggers and so on), automatic weapons under, say, .50 cal and single-shot weapons over, say, .50 cal, and low powered explosives (excluding fireworks) and finally everything else, including artillery, tanks, and anything you care to imagine..
The first class would be the easiest to get a permit for, merely requiring a criminal record check and safety training, the second something like 3 years with a level 1 licence, no prior convictions including those wiped from the criminal record and say, 5 years with no non-criminal citations for drunken or disorderly conduct.. The third class would require a further period, plus a check for gang connections and a psychological exam, however anyone who passes those tests would have the right to a licence. The fourth class would have much more rigorous background checks and require the person to explain the reason they want the weapon and so on, with the decision made nominally by a relevant minister.
I would also favour registering all guns, including taking metallurgical samples and recording the rifling marks and so on, and numbering all weapons, with a requirement that if you carry a weapon you have to carry a permit of that class or higher, and possession of a weapon without a permit for it or a permit for the class and a declaration from the owner of the weapon should earn serious jail time, on the assumption that if you are carrying a weapon illegally means you are intending to commit a violent crime (naturally, there needs to be a common-sense provision for people who find weapons and so on).
|
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Jul 14, 2010 10:54:13 GMT -5
US atheist gun owner here. I have a few hunting guns (rifles and shotguns) as well as a .22 semi auto handgun for plinking cans and paper targets. The rifles I have were my grandfather's that he used during the Depression for putting food on the table. I still occasionally fire them at targets. But they are mostly for being heirlooms and almost like windows to another time. The shotguns are for hunting. And as I said the pistol is for, I'm trying to find another word for "fun". But it is fun to me to be out setting up old cans and targets to perforate.
As far as regulations, I have a couple ideas. I'd like to see a test based on general common sense. Can the perspective buyer safely load and unload the weapon? Does the person know the effective range of the gun? How about how to adjust the sights? General safety like don't point it at people? And does that person understand the gun laws of the state as far as storage, transportation, etc.? This is of course provided that the background check comes back clean. I'll get to that in a minute. It would be easy enough to do. Someone licensed by the governing body (like either state or federal) could easy enough work in the gun shop as a sales person. Much like a driving instructor at some CDL training places.
Background checks. Most people said they are fine keeping guns away from criminals. I agree to a point. For those convicted of violent crimes, absolutely they don't need guns. But for nonviolent criminals, I'm not so sure. Someone who is convicted of say income tax evasion or practicing law without a license. Point is, these crimes are of a nonviolent nature. It is very hard to use a gun while not paying taxes. I believe these types of criminal pose no physical danger to others if they have a gun for legal reasons (hunting, target shooting, collectors). But I suppose that is an issue for lawyers and not cooks.
As far as what kind of weapons should be available to the general public, I think it should be done on a case by case basis. Most people have no real reason to own fully automatic weapons. But some people do. Like people who make war movies. Kinda hard to have the bad guys without AKs. Or the good guys without M-16s (or whatever the appropriate machine gun is). There are also businesses that use them for rentals. That is, they have a gun range and will rent autos to people to use at that range under the watch of employees. It's not cheap or easy to do, both for the renter and proprietor. But it is a legitimate business.
Anyways, that's just my opinion. There are a lot of people who disagree with me and that's fine. I respect that. Differing points of view are healthy as long as it is being discussed in a respectful manner.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 14, 2010 11:31:48 GMT -5
I'd be surprised if there weren't Hello Kitty guns somewhere. Prepare to be exceedingly not surprised. Rule 34 needs an addendum: If it exists, there's a Hello Kitty version of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Fishcake on Jul 15, 2010 4:16:48 GMT -5
A quick back-story: My neighbor, a pretty hard-core Christian, recently declared that Atheists were "gun-scared Liberals who would make us bow down to the first gunmen we see."  Why can't these people keep their delusional narratives straight?  |
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Jul 15, 2010 10:41:56 GMT -5
A quick back-story: My neighbor, a pretty hard-core Christian, recently declared that Atheists were "gun-scared Liberals who would make us bow down to the first gunmen we see." Why can't these people keep their delusional narratives straight? Apparently there are such things as good guy guns and bad guys guns.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Joe on Jul 15, 2010 11:11:20 GMT -5
I own a gun safe and 9 different firearms. Two of which are assault rifles. 1 is a shotgun, the rest are hand guns, save for one high powered rifle.
I likey.
|
|
|
|
Post by aaa on Jul 16, 2010 0:13:44 GMT -5
I own a gun safe and 9 different firearms. Two of which are assault rifles. 1 is a shotgun, the rest are hand guns, save for one high powered rifle. I likey. Tell me more. I would like to know more. |
|
