Gun Control: Shiny Toy Guns

[Manokan Republic]

That is not living. That is the exact opposite of living and a strong example of why the Second Amendment should exist. I get it. You don't like guns; I'd go so far as to say that you hate guns. That's cool. If they aren't for you, then don't get one. Meanwhile, there are better alternatives than an all out ban.

Ill let the gun issue go when we stop having so many shootings.

Statistically, mass shootings are responsible for less than 1% of murders, at most 300-400 a year, out of 15,000 total murders. On top of that, mass shootings are one type of mass murder, with certain attacks, like say, 9/11, killing 10 years worth of mass shootings combined. Guns really aren't the problem, so much as criminals, which don't go away. If they don't use a gun, they'll use a truck, or a bomb, or a plane, or poison, or arson, or any number of attacks. Burning down an apartment building and killing 100 people doesn't take some kind of complicated weaponry, as does pushing someone down the stairs to kill them or runnin them over with a truck. On the other hand, I can't defend myself by hoping the criminal is standing on a flight of stairs, will take my poison, or will miracously be burned alive but no-one else in an apartment fire. A gun allows you to respond to threats immediately in front of you, where as none of these other methods of killing do. And they can and have killed more people than guns. If a bunch of backwards doofuses with box cutters can take over a plane and kill 3000 people, are we every really protected just because we got rid of guns?


And then there's more pertinent issues, like drugs, with alcohol killing 88,000 people a year, and cigarettes 480,000. That's way more than guns, and often it's other people in car accidents or second hand smoke and whatnot. But, no desire to stop that, right, because that's all a part of the plan? The simple reality is that as scary as guns can seem, ultimately, objectively, they're not the biggest threat.

And monitoring everything doesn't stop crimes. The fact the police know about a murder in progress doesn't mean they can get there in time to stop it. Monitoring activity, which they can't even monitor all people at all times due to sheer manpower issues (as in there aren't 12 government agents per citizen), still doesn't get a cop to your house in time. You still need a means to defend yourself before the police arrive. You still need something like a gun.

[Kernen]

A statement like that is why people do not take you seriously. I mean, I lean to the left but even I have to stop and think "This has to be a joke". People on both sides of the aisle view "1984" as a warning, not an instruction manual, and definitely not a utopia.

A country where every action and spoken word was monitored would be the safest and least crime ridden county in the world. You could still live life normally but all crime would be stoppable before it began.

That isn't free. You wouldn't be able to live life normally under this situation. Why do you hate freedom?

[Ors Might]

A country where every action and spoken word was monitored would be the safest and least crime ridden county in the world. You could still live life normally but all crime would be stoppable before it began.

That isn't free. You wouldn't be able to live life normally under this situation. Why do you hate freedom?

Because that means people might make what he considers to be the wrong choice. Which is dangerous because reasons.

[The New California Republic]

A country where every action and spoken word was monitored would be the safest and least crime ridden county in the world. You could still live life normally but all crime would be stoppable before it began.

That isn't free. You wouldn't be able to live life normally under this situation. Why do you hate freedom?

And the evidence suggests that kind of mass surveillance doesn't prevent crime, the Stasi for example had the most extensive system of surveillance over people that the world has thus seen, and crime still occurred at a rate comparable to nations without mass surveillance, so Keshiland really doesn't know what he is talking about.

[Sovaal]

Oh -_- armed tress passing is the most I could legally say. Invasion requires intent to harm >_> that sucks.

You cant be serious, can you?

I mean how can you claim to love democracy and say the things you’ve said?

Either you’re delusional or you’re playing us all.

[Kernen]

Oh -_- armed tress passing is the most I could legally say. Invasion requires intent to harm >_> that sucks.

Armed trespassing is generally not a crime unless the weapon was used in some way. Its generally an aggravating factor designed to discourage violent intentions on top of an existing crime (inapplicable to your intentions), or to deter crimes like poaching, where it's hard to find evidence of the crime prior to the commission (also not helping you).

Frankly, calling the police on somebody who is on your property who has a (lawful) gun with no criminal intent isn't going to be liable for anything but plain old civil trespass. If you try to sue somebody for civil trespass under the facts that you've laid out, you're going to win...wait for it...$1.00 in nominal damages. It will cost you a trial attorney for the duration of a civil trial. That will likely lose you about $10,000.00, when all is said and done.

If you call the police and make a report designed to evoke a response involving greater force than necessary, you're going to be liable for what happens to the trespasser, even if they are trespassing. Medical bills, lost opportunity, pain and suffering, so on and so forth.

The legal system says your idea is full of shit, Keshi.

[Gun Manufacturers]

You're probably fine because you feel exempt from these searches merely because you're already banned from owning a gun.

You won't be.

You'll get searched, too. Every time a gun-permitted person visits. Including police officer visits.

what's this? Anti-government rhetoric on your computer? Off to Gitmo with you!

Lol no I would not let any gun owner in my house infact if they even step on foot in I am calling the police for armed home invasion.

I would not let any non gun owner in my house, in fact if they even step one foot in I am calling for the garden hose.

[Republic of Keshiland]

Oh -_- armed tress passing is the most I could legally say. Invasion requires intent to harm >_> that sucks.

Armed trespassing is generally not a crime unless the weapon was used in some way. Its generally an aggravating factor designed to discourage violent intentions on top of an existing crime (inapplicable to your intentions), or to deter crimes like poaching, where it's hard to find evidence of the crime prior to the commission (also not helping you).

Frankly, calling the police on somebody who is on your property who has a (lawful) gun with no criminal intent isn't going to be liable for anything but plain old civil trespass. If you try to sue somebody for civil trespass under the facts that you've laid out, you're going to win...wait for it...$1.00 in nominal damages. It will cost you a trial attorney for the duration of a civil trial. That will likely lose you about $10,000.00, when all is said and done.

If you call the police and make a report designed to evoke a response involving greater force than necessary, you're going to be liable for what happens to the trespasser, even if they are trespassing. Medical bills, lost opportunity, pain and suffering, so on and so forth.

The legal system says your idea is full of shit, Keshi.

If the couple in the hot tub was not liable when they said that dude had an assault rifle when it was just an air soft then I would not be liable to calling 911 about armed home invasion if the same outcome accrues the police shooting the trespasser.

Edit- also in most states you can kill someone for protection of property so I don't see how I would be liable for the police hurting someone who I didn't invite into my home that has a gun.

[Manokan Republic]

Armed trespassing is generally not a crime unless the weapon was used in some way. Its generally an aggravating factor designed to discourage violent intentions on top of an existing crime (inapplicable to your intentions), or to deter crimes like poaching, where it's hard to find evidence of the crime prior to the commission (also not helping you).

Frankly, calling the police on somebody who is on your property who has a (lawful) gun with no criminal intent isn't going to be liable for anything but plain old civil trespass. If you try to sue somebody for civil trespass under the facts that you've laid out, you're going to win...wait for it...$1.00 in nominal damages. It will cost you a trial attorney for the duration of a civil trial. That will likely lose you about $10,000.00, when all is said and done.

If you call the police and make a report designed to evoke a response involving greater force than necessary, you're going to be liable for what happens to the trespasser, even if they are trespassing. Medical bills, lost opportunity, pain and suffering, so on and so forth.

The legal system says your idea is full of shit, Keshi.

If the couple in the hot tub was not liable when they said that dude had an assault rifle when it was just an air soft then I would not be liable to calling 911 about armed home invasion if the same outcome accrues the police shooting the trespasser.

Edit- also in most states you can kill someone for protection of property so I don't see how I would be liable for the police hurting someone who I didn't invite into my home that has a gun.

You originally said "Lol no I would not let any gun owner in my house infact if they even step on foot in I am calling the police for armed home invasion."

This implies without a gun, just being a gun owner. Which is probably what so people are concerned about. Armed trespassing depends on the circumstances.

[Telconi]

Armed trespassing is generally not a crime unless the weapon was used in some way. Its generally an aggravating factor designed to discourage violent intentions on top of an existing crime (inapplicable to your intentions), or to deter crimes like poaching, where it's hard to find evidence of the crime prior to the commission (also not helping you).

Frankly, calling the police on somebody who is on your property who has a (lawful) gun with no criminal intent isn't going to be liable for anything but plain old civil trespass. If you try to sue somebody for civil trespass under the facts that you've laid out, you're going to win...wait for it...$1.00 in nominal damages. It will cost you a trial attorney for the duration of a civil trial. That will likely lose you about $10,000.00, when all is said and done.

If you call the police and make a report designed to evoke a response involving greater force than necessary, you're going to be liable for what happens to the trespasser, even if they are trespassing. Medical bills, lost opportunity, pain and suffering, so on and so forth.

The legal system says your idea is full of shit, Keshi.

If the couple in the hot tub was not liable when they said that dude had an assault rifle when it was just an air soft then I would not be liable to calling 911 about armed home invasion if the same outcome accrues the police shooting the trespasser.

Edit- also in most states you can kill someone for protection of property so I don't see how I would be liable for the police hurting someone who I didn't invite into my home that has a gun.

I'm curious how you plan on determining if they're a gun owner or not?

[Kernen]

If the couple in the hot tub was not liable when they said that dude had an assault rifle when it was just an air soft then I would not be liable to calling 911 about armed home invasion if the same outcome accrues the police shooting the trespasser.

Edit- also in most states you can kill someone for protection of property so I don't see how I would be liable for the police hurting someone who I didn't invite into my home that has a gun.

As usual, wrong.

The couple who called in the guy with the airsoft gun weren't liable because they didn't deliberately exacerbate a situation with the intention of making it worse. Which is what you admitted to doing. They made an erroneous police report in good faith. That's the difference between what you argue and what other people do: They don't have ulterior motives involving getting people harmed.

What you're discussing is the Castle Doctrine, which creates a presumption of justified use of lethal force in defense of one's home. That presumption can be rebutted if there is evidence that the individual who is shot did not present a threat to your life. It is not a Kill One Guy Free card.

Your ignorance of the law is painful. Stop pretending you know anything about it.

[Republic of Keshiland]

If the couple in the hot tub was not liable when they said that dude had an assault rifle when it was just an air soft then I would not be liable to calling 911 about armed home invasion if the same outcome accrues the police shooting the trespasser.

Edit- also in most states you can kill someone for protection of property so I don't see how I would be liable for the police hurting someone who I didn't invite into my home that has a gun.

I'm curious how you plan on determining if they're a gun owner or not?

Looking at the belt since the state im in does not have CC If they have it ill ask them to politely leave and if they don't in 1 sec get out of my house ill call 911

[Telconi]

I'm curious how you plan on determining if they're a gun owner or not?

Looking at the belt since the state im in does not have CC If they have it ill ask them to politely leave and if they don't in 1 sec get out of my house ill call 911

What state would that be?

Also, people own guns that aren't perpetually present on their belt...

[Topoliani]

I'm curious how you plan on determining if they're a gun owner or not?

Looking at the belt since the state im in does not have CC If they have it ill ask them to politely leave and if they don't in 1 sec get out of my house ill call 911

That's bullshit Keshi

There is Concealed Carry in Maryland, you just need a license to do so

[Republic of Keshiland]

Looking at the belt since the state im in does not have CC If they have it ill ask them to politely leave and if they don't in 1 sec get out of my house ill call 911

What state would that be?

Also, people own guns that aren't perpetually present on their belt...

MD and MI (predominantly open carry)

[Republic of Keshiland]

Looking at the belt since the state im in does not have CC If they have it ill ask them to politely leave and if they don't in 1 sec get out of my house ill call 911

That's bullshit Keshi

There is Concealed Carry in Maryland, you just need a license to do so

We are technically neither since there is no distinction in MD law

Open and Concealed Carry. Carrying a handgun, whether openly or concealed, is prohibited unless one has a permit to carry a handgun or is on their own property or their own place of business. The Maryland State Police may issue a permit to carry a handgun at their discretion and based on an investigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Maryland

Concealed Weapons Permitting in Maryland. Maryland generally prohibits wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person without a permit. ... Any person wishing to obtain a handgun carry permit must also: Be an “adult;”

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/concealed-weapons-permitting-in-maryland/

[Len Hyet]

That's bullshit Keshi

There is Concealed Carry in Maryland, you just need a license to do so

We are technically neither since there is no distinction in MD law

Open and Concealed Carry. Carrying a handgun, whether openly or concealed, is prohibited unless one has a permit to carry a handgun or is on their own property or their own place of business. The Maryland State Police may issue a permit to carry a handgun at their discretion and based on an investigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Maryland

Concealed Weapons Permitting in Maryland. Maryland generally prohibits wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person without a permit. ... Any person wishing to obtain a handgun carry permit must also: Be an “adult;”

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/concealed-weapons-permitting-in-maryland/

So, like was said, concealed carry is legal, with a permit. Just like almost every other state.

[Gig em Aggies]

We are technically neither since there is no distinction in MD law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Maryland


http://lawcenter.giffords.org/concealed-weapons-permitting-in-maryland/

So, like was said, concealed carry is legal, with a permit. Just like almost every other state.

You know it's funny he said their was no distinction between the two yet he cited evidence that contradicts his point yet again.

[Telconi]

So, like was said, concealed carry is legal, with a permit. Just like almost every other state.

You know it's funny he said their was no distinction between the two yet he cited evidence that contradicts his point yet again.

I'd also point out, that people own guns they don't carry. If I came to Keshiland's house to do my job, I would hardly be toting every gun I own.

[Gig em Aggies]

You know it's funny he said their was no distinction between the two yet he cited evidence that contradicts his point yet again.

I'd also point out, that people own guns they don't carry. If I came to Keshiland's house to do my job, I would hardly be toting every gun I own.

Well you could with newer holsters that allow you to conceal just about any weapon on the civilian market from a small ass .22 to a 12gauge shotgun and a assault rifle.

I found some links here to YouTube that shows Keshi doesn't get how good people can conceal guns and big ones too.

Link: https://youtu.be/ZyFE4yT51Jc

[Sovaal]

That's bullshit Keshi

There is Concealed Carry in Maryland, you just need a license to do so

We are technically neither since there is no distinction in MD law

Open and Concealed Carry. Carrying a handgun, whether openly or concealed, is prohibited unless one has a permit to carry a handgun or is on their own property or their own place of business. The Maryland State Police may issue a permit to carry a handgun at their discretion and based on an investigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Maryland

Concealed Weapons Permitting in Maryland. Maryland generally prohibits wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person without a permit. ... Any person wishing to obtain a handgun carry permit must also: Be an “adult;”

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/concealed-weapons-permitting-in-maryland/

So it does, indeed, have CC. I mean basic reading comprehension is all you need.

[Telconi]

I'd also point out, that people own guns they don't carry. If I came to Keshiland's house to do my job, I would hardly be toting every gun I own.

Well you could with newer holsters that allow you to conceal just about any weapon on the civilian market from a small ass .22 to a 12gauge shotgun and a assault rifle.

I found some links here to YouTube that shows Keshi doesn't get how good people can conceal guns and big ones too.

Link: https://youtu.be/ZyFE4yT51Jc

Yeah but for every gun I own I'd need dozens of pant legs...

[Big Jim P]

You know it's funny he said their was no distinction between the two yet he cited evidence that contradicts his point yet again.

I'd also point out, that people own guns they don't carry. If I came to Keshiland's house to do my job, I would hardly be toting every gun I own.

And should a permit holder do the same, then K wouldn't even know it was there.

[Big Jim P]

Ill let the gun issue go when we stop having so many shootings.

Statistically, mass shootings are responsible for less than 1% of murders, at most 300-400 a year, out of 15,000 total murders. On top of that, mass shootings are one type of mass murder, with certain attacks, like say, 9/11, killing 10 years worth of mass shootings combined. Guns really aren't the problem, so much as criminals, which don't go away. If they don't use a gun, they'll use a truck, or a bomb, or a plane, or poison, or arson, or any number of attacks. Burning down an apartment building and killing 100 people doesn't take some kind of complicated weaponry, as does pushing someone down the stairs to kill them or runnin them over with a truck. On the other hand, I can't defend myself by hoping the criminal is standing on a flight of stairs, will take my poison, or will miracously be burned alive but no-one else in an apartment fire. A gun allows you to respond to threats immediately in front of you, where as none of these other methods of killing do. And they can and have killed more people than guns. If a bunch of backwards doofuses with box cutters can take over a plane and kill 3000 people, are we every really protected just because we got rid of guns?


And then there's more pertinent issues, like drugs, with alcohol killing 88,000 people a year, and cigarettes 480,000. That's way more than guns, and often it's other people in car accidents or second hand smoke and whatnot. But, no desire to stop that, right, because that's all a part of the plan? The simple reality is that as scary as guns can seem, ultimately, objectively, they're not the biggest threat.

And monitoring everything doesn't stop crimes. The fact the police know about a murder in progress doesn't mean they can get there in time to stop it. Monitoring activity, which they can't even monitor all people at all times due to sheer manpower issues (as in there aren't 12 government agents per citizen), still doesn't get a cop to your house in time. You still need a means to defend yourself before the police arrive. You still need something like a gun.

There haven't been 15,000 homicides per year in a long time, if ever. They've been under 10,000 since 2008 in fact

2012: 8855

2011: 8583

2010: 8775

2009: 9,146

2008: 9,484

2007: 10,086

2006: 10,177

2005: 10,100

[Thermodolia]

What state would that be?

Also, people own guns that aren't perpetually present on their belt...

MD and MI (predominantly open carry)

Why am I going to open carry? It makes no gooddamn sense