Bloomberg/New York City: "Guns = Prison"

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

So drink drivers should only be arrested if they wreck and hurt someone, after all just being drunk at the wheel is not bad, I mean you will probably be OK, most of the time they will not wreck.
The law is trying to prevent a bad situation from even happening, it is not the law that it daft.

Bad analogy.

Being drunk behind the wheel of a car is inherently dangerous and likely to cause an accident.

Carrying a handgun is not.

Carrying a handgun is not dangerous???

Even in the hand of a professional, things can go wrong:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/gunsafety.asp

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So drink drivers should only be arrested if they wreck and hurt someone, after all just being drunk at the wheel is not bad, I mean you will probably be OK, most of the time they will not wreck.
The law is trying to prevent a bad situation from even happening, it is not the law that it daft.

Bad analogy.

Being drunk behind the wheel of a car is inherently dangerous and likely to cause an accident.

Carrying a handgun is not.

Carrying a handgun is not dangerous???

Even in the hand of a professional, things can go wrong:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/gunsafety.asp

That's really doesn't support your argument. Drivers have accidents all the time too, even when sober. There may be a million cops in the country carrying and they don't often shoot themselves. I dare guess it happens less often than they get in bad car/bike accidents.

But drinking substantially increases the likelihood of a bad outcome.

[kallend 1,653]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So drink drivers should only be arrested if they wreck and hurt someone, after all just being drunk at the wheel is not bad, I mean you will probably be OK, most of the time they will not wreck.
The law is trying to prevent a bad situation from even happening, it is not the law that it daft.

Bad analogy.

Being drunk behind the wheel of a car is inherently dangerous and likely to cause an accident.

Carrying a handgun is not.

Carrying a handgun is not dangerous???

Even in the hand of a professional, things can go wrong:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/gunsafety.asp

That's really doesn't support your argument. Drivers have accidents all the time too, even when sober. There may be a million cops in the country carrying and they don't often shoot themselves. I dare guess it happens less often than they get in bad car/bike accidents.

But drinking substantially increases the likelihood of a bad outcome.

It's certainly a good thing that people carrying guns never drink alcohol.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,442]

>If it were, then we should take them away from all the police
>officers immediately, before they hurt someone innocent.

If there is someone dressed up as a police officer who is not one, walking around carrying a gun, you are right - we should take his gun away and at the very least fine him for impersonating an officer. Even though wearing a cop's outfit is not inherently dangerous.

If there is someone illegally carrying a weapon, same thing. Even though carrying a gun is not inherently dangerous.

(Of course, if it's a cop with a legal weapon - or a citizen with a legal weapon - no problem.)

[jm951 0]

Let's think this one analogy put forward about banning an activity or possession on the mere possibility of "something happening"

Swooping should be banned because swoopers "might" injure themselves or someone else.

See just how stupid that analogy is? I think the root problem is that some folks just can't stand the thought that somebody out there might have a gun, legal or not, so they want to ban guns in the hands of legal owners. Here's new idea, when somebody commits a crime, lock their a$$ up without parole or time off!!!

Time to take responsibility for yourself and your own behavior and quit leaving it up to the nanny state to legislate morality, or gun ownership. Scariest words anyone could hear "I'm from the government and I'm here to help...."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It's certainly a good thing that people carrying guns never drink alcohol.

Apparently they don't very much.

DUIs are responsible for 18-20k deaths per year. That well exceeds the entirely of the toll to gun violence.

[billvon 2,442]

>Swooping should be banned because swoopers "might" injure themselves
>or someone else.

Swooping through Times Square, along Interstate 5, into a casino pool _should_ be prohibited unless exceptional precautions are taken (i.e. a ground crew, a landing area, a NOTAM filed etc.) Fortunately, that's the way the law is written now. OTOH, when there is an area set aside for swooping, no problem at all.

>Here's new idea, when somebody commits a crime, lock their a$$ up
>without parole or time off!!!

I agree. When a gun-toting criminal breaks the law in NY by carrying an illegal loaded weapon, lock their asses up.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

When a gun-toting criminal breaks the law in NY by carrying an illegal loaded weapon, lock their asses up.

How about this guy - is that worth 3.5 years in prison?

[Armour666 0]

Quote

Quote

ya well when the last time you've heard of a bag of weed shooting out in the middle of a neighbourhood ? there is no reason for a person to be packing unless they are trained for it. to many yahoos out there without a clue. and light sentences are no deterent ,

I've owned a gun since before age 10. My first was a Mossberg 20gauge pump. I had it untill it was stolen, along with my truck in Mississippi.
I have never had "training" on a gun. I learned gun safety from my dad.
As for guns "shooting out". Guns don't shoot out unless someone pulls the trigger. I have no problem with responsible ownership. Responsible people do not go around shooting up neighborhoods. Assholes do. They ruin it for everyone else. Those people are the yahoos and are mostly responible for stricter gun laws. If gun laws targeted solely these people then no problem with sending someone up the creek. However, when the law is designed to target everyone, regardless, then it is draconian.

Quote

and light sentences are no deterent

Neither is a heavy sentence. Those who are determined to carry an illegal gun, for whatever reason, will do so without regard.
It's all grey and completely void of contrast. How can a law that cast a net over everyone be anything other than draconian. There are far more responsible gun owners than there are those looking to cause harm. They should fight for the middle ground.

Still dosnt cut it I learnt from my dad as well and Have been shooting since I was around the same age as you living in northeren ontario hunting and shooting was the norm. but it was a whole world of difference and training to shoot under stress and in a urban center when you have to worry about where you shot is goign to go.

having a shoot out in a urban enviroment is not a day at the range. I've seen many peopel that are compent profecient shooters that when in put under stress and under teh clock to react shot well but thier target fixation and tunel vision didn't alow them to see the other friendly targets positioned around the souranding aera. That was a big wakeup for many.

It's not hard to take a shot once trained what is hard it knowing when not to take the shot and I feel many do not posses that level of sitiual awaerness.

SO this one time at band camp.....

"Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most."

[kallend 1,653]

Quote

Quote

Quote

ya well when the last time you've heard of a bag of weed shooting out in the middle of a neighbourhood ? there is no reason for a person to be packing unless they are trained for it. to many yahoos out there without a clue. and light sentences are no deterent ,

I've owned a gun since before age 10. My first was a Mossberg 20gauge pump. I had it untill it was stolen, along with my truck in Mississippi.
I have never had "training" on a gun. I learned gun safety from my dad.
As for guns "shooting out". Guns don't shoot out unless someone pulls the trigger. I have no problem with responsible ownership. Responsible people do not go around shooting up neighborhoods. Assholes do. They ruin it for everyone else. Those people are the yahoos and are mostly responible for stricter gun laws. If gun laws targeted solely these people then no problem with sending someone up the creek. However, when the law is designed to target everyone, regardless, then it is draconian.

.

Assholes are the reason for just about every law on the books.

How do you think a law should be framed that will (a) only impact assholes, and (b) not violate the Constitution.

If you can design such a law, I'm sure you will achieve fame and fortune.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[jm951 0]

I'd have to agree with that.

As far as framing the laws, write constitutional laws, the penalties are there, enforce them. Those who choose to break the laws will find themselves sanctioned with removal from polite society to a less polite one.

Mere possession of a firearm shouldn't be against the law, especially if no crime has been committed.