So this is what we are expected to learn



  • @WeatherGod said:

    And I never said anything about forcing people to carry guns (hence the statement "significant portion of the populance").  Significant can be as low as %20 (at least, according to Black's Law Dictionary back when I was in High School).
     

    But that is NOT the argument. No one here is arguing that more people or a 'significant' number of people should own firearms. We are arguing everyone (clauses above) should have the right. Things are fine as are with the numbers as they are.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @slyadams said:

    Such crimes are very rare in ths country. So therefore I don't feel the need to arm myself to the teeth to defend myself against something that is so incredibly unlikely to happen
     

    You are right. I am going home to throw my first aid kit out. After all, it is very unlikely I will cut myself in a way where I might bleed to death. I can just throw it away, and if anything happens, hey, the goverment  will be there for me. I will just curl up into a ball and hope that I don't bleed to death all over the floor.

    This is probably the single stupidest argument you could have ever made. 

    The difference between a first aid kit and a gun is that one is designed to fix injury, the other is designed to cause injury.  Why would I choose not to use a first aid kit?  It only serves as a benefit.  Meanwhile, one can have reasons to choose not to have a gun because it is explicitly designed to cause injury.

    The car analogy has also been used, but is ridiculous.  Proper use of a gun entails purposeful destruction of something else.  Proper use of a car or a first aid kit does not.  This is why cigarettes are largely considered 'bad', because the proper use of them is very harmful.  (Please do not take that previous statement as a intent that I want to outlaw cigarettes.  It just serves to illustrate the 'proper use' argument). 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @cklam said:

    Spewed crap
     

    Anyone who would use a FMJ for home or personal protection is a fucking idiot.

    Please go back to giving advice on Youtube.

     

    Okay, calm down. I am not slyadams. No need to take my head off - take a deep breath. Neither I am trying to convince you.

    Take a look at [url="http://www.security-glazing.com/bullet_tech.html"]this[/url]. You will see that 9 mm FMJ penetrates quite well - better than some other popular handgun rounds. Worser than rifle rounds - OK.

    Stopping power: it will stop allright unless you have heavy ballistic armor. And if you don't, you have a second and a third on the way already just to make sure.

    As an aside (warning - boring stuff ahead): FMJ does not stop that well compared to some of that other stuff that is available because it was designed to wound not to kill. FMJ rounds originated in the military because wiser heads than me decided to avoid the horrible mutilations of other ammunition types. If my memory serves me right, that happened after the Boer-British war of 1898 when "white" armies were first shooting each other with Dum-Dum ammunition. Dum-Dum and other ammunition types similar are banned nowadays by the Geneva Convention.



  • @cklam said:

    You will see that 9 mm FMJ penetrates quite well
     

    Again, you are an idiot. Go back to youtube.

    People don't use FMJ in home/personal protection DUE TO THE PENETRATION.

    A hollow point is used for it's expansion, superior stopping power and it's ability to stay in the body it was intended for.



  • @WeatherGod said:

    The difference between a first aid kit and a gun is that one is designed to fix injury, the other is designed to cause injury.
     

    They are both meant to save lives.

    Plain and simple.

    You are still arguing that not everyone should have a gun. Fine. We get your point. Unfortunately for you, no one is arguing everyone should. 

    But we want to keep the right to have one if we choose to. Please try and grasp this concept before you continue to argue.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @WeatherGod said:

    And I never said anything about forcing people to carry guns (hence the statement "significant portion of the populance").  Significant can be as low as %20 (at least, according to Black's Law Dictionary back when I was in High School).
     

    But that is NOT the argument. No one here is arguing that more people or a 'significant' number of people should own firearms. We are arguing everyone (clauses above) should have the right. Things are fine as are with the numbers as they are.

    And I am not arguing it either... my post never stated that.  I said that an argument (rationale) for allowing people to carry guns (like CCW) is so that they can defend themselves from violent crime.  This is merely a background statement from which I gave my hypotheticals regarding the kinds of violent crimes.

    I am genuinely interested in anybody's thoughts about the kinds of violent crimes and if the extended logic regarding the level of punishment as a deterent.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @cklam said:

    You will see that 9 mm FMJ penetrates quite well
     

    Again, you are an idiot. Go back to youtube.

    People don't use FMJ in home/personal protection DUE TO THE PENETRATION.

    A hollow point is used for it's expansion, superior stopping power and it's ability to stay in the body it was intended for.

     

    Then why use a rifle with it's much more superior penetrating rounds (hollow point regardless) ?

     



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @WeatherGod said:

    The difference between a first aid kit and a gun is that one is designed to fix injury, the other is designed to cause injury.
     

    They are both meant to save lives.

     

    Yes, a gun can be used to save a person's life, but in order to do so, it must inflict (potentially) lethal damage to another person's life.   A car or a first aid kit doesn't.


    You are still arguing that not everyone should have a gun. Fine. We get your point. Unfortunately for you, no one is arguing everyone should. 

    But we want to keep the right to have one if we choose to. Please try and grasp this concept before you continue to argue.

     

    You have me confused for someone else.  I never stated anything of the sort.  At this point, I will declare my personal opinion: I personally believe it to be a choice and my choice is to not have such a weapon because I am fundamentally a pacifist.  However, I will not impose my beliefs upon others. 



  • @cklam said:

    Then why use a rifle with it's much more superior penetrating rounds (hollow point regardless) ? 
     

    A .223 with 65 grain hollow points will be an effective CQB rifle, as well as a round capable of handling animal predators on a farm, and for hunting.

    Not to mention, you can build a CQB rifle with quite a few very nice options for home protection. Things that would be impractical on a handgun.



  • @WeatherGod said:

    I personally believe it to be a choice and my choice is to not have such a weapon because I am fundamentally a pacifist.  However, I will not impose my beliefs upon others. 
     

    Ok. Then why are you here arguing?

    You don't want a gun. No one here wants you to have one.

    Have a good day.

     



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Ok. Then why are you here arguing?
     

    Did I ever claim I was arguing?  I am merely throwing out a thought with regards to how criminals react to an armed populance versus an unarmed populance... which is a fundemental issue with regards to the level of protection we need.  For your benefit, I will reiterate my original quote:

    Numerous times, we have seen the argument that because criminals can commit a violent crime against you, it is best to be prepared and have some sort of weapon available (or, at least, a significant portion of the populance should).  At face value, that argument seems fairly solid.  However, one should note a distinction.  There are crimes that are comitted where violence is merely a tool in the crime (i.e. - someone beating you to take your wallet) and then there are crimes that are comitted where violence is the goal (i.e. - rape, first-degree murder, etc.)  The argument presented applies best to the second kind of crime because if a person has comitted himself to violence against you, then the only defence is to stop that person (through lethal or non-lethal means).

    For the first kind of crime, however, one must consider why the criminal felt the need to use violence to accompish their goal.  If the criminal knows that the person is not armed or capable of inflicting injury back, then wouldn't they not feel the need to go so far as to use violence.  It has been said before that criminals would think twice about killing someone during a crime because that is a significant difference in penatly.  We can take that logic a step further and say that a criminal would consider the difference of a week in jail for petty theft versus theft with a gun, couldn't we?

    I am speaking entirely in hypotheticals and I am just wondering what others think about this.


    								    </div>
    								    
    								    </div><p>&nbsp;</p>


  • @slyadams said:

    No, but things that are specifically designed to kill people I don't think have a place in a civilised society.

    Anything can be used as a murder weapon.  Stop with this stupidity.

     

    @slyadams said:

    I am making myself a promise here, I will not post on this thread after today.

    So when the British start losing they pack it in and head home?  Sounds about right. 



  • @WeatherGod said:

    For the first kind of crime, however, one must consider why the criminal felt the need to use violence to accompish their goal.  If the criminal knows that the person is not armed or capable of inflicting injury back, then wouldn't they not feel the need to go so far as to use violence.  It has been said before that criminals would think twice about killing someone during a crime because that is a significant difference in penatly.  We can take that logic a step further and say that a criminal would consider the difference of a week in jail for petty theft versus theft with a gun, couldn't we?

    I am speaking entirely in hypotheticals and I am just wondering what others think about this.


    Your hypothetical is pointless, though.  Some crimes turn violent because the person tries to defend themselves.  If nobody tried to defend themself then people would steal wantonly.  People have a right to kill in order to protect their property -- this is a fundamental principle in Western morality. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @slyadams said:

    Please explain what a gun permit is.
     

    Do your own research.

    It isn't a gun permit it is a federal ID.

     

    I'm not Sly, but i did the lookup, and from what i could find it IS a gun permit.

    The baby can't buy the gun, but he is allowed to own one. So if his father buys him a gun, the baby is allowed to have it. Also from what i can gather the father isn't responsible if the baby comits a felony with his gun. Although i'm going to assume there will be quite a few laws that will override that.

    http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm




  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Your hypothetical is pointless, though.  Some crimes turn violent because the person tries to defend themselves.  If nobody tried to defend themself then people would steal wantonly.  People have a right to kill in order to protect their property -- this is a fundamental principle in Western morality. 

    But, isn't that a non-sequitor?  I mean, does it not assume that the criminal is stealing just because he can get away with it?  Disregarding kleptomaniacs, don't most people steal because they want or 'need' something?  Just because a person doesn't fight back against a mugger doesn't mean that it is easier to mug them -- only that it is less risk to do so.  When dealing with people who are already on criminal paths, they don't consider risk as much they do 'ease' because they are already used to risky behavior.  I can still 'defend' myself in the sense of taking appropriate precautions to make it harder for someone to commit a crime against me.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @slyadams said:

    Such crimes are very rare in ths country. So therefore I don't feel the need to arm myself to the teeth to defend myself against something that is so incredibly unlikely to happen
     

    You are right. I am going home to throw my first aid kit out. After all, it is very unlikely I will cut myself in a way where I might bleed to death. I can just throw it away, and if anything happens, hey, the goverment  will be there for me. I will just curl up into a ball and hope that I don't bleed to death all over the floor.

    This is probably the single stupidest argument you could have ever made. 

     

    You know there are very poisonous snakes in the deserts of Australia. Following your reasoning, i.e. "prepare even for the most unlikely event", it might be a good idea for you, an US resident, to have the serum for that kind of snake bite handy, just in case one of your neighbor collects such exotic animals and one escapes and bites you. Of course you don't do that. You prepare for events you can reasonably expect. If you live in a country where the chance that an armed intruder attacks you at home is extremely low (assuming you are not rich enough to attract criminals of all kinds), a gun bought for home protection will most likely never be useful for that purpose. Of course the situation is completely different for a farmer in an area where predators will attack the cattle all the time.

    BTW, I don't say that laws should make gun ownership (almost) impossible for normal people. Let reasonable people buy and own the weapons they need. That said, I don't like the "gun=insurance" attitude that lets unarmed people feel insecure. Many people don't need a gun and they should not buy one just because "you never know". 



  • @stratos said:

    I'm not Sly, but i did the lookup, and from what i could find it IS a gun permit.

    The baby can't buy the gun, but he is allowed to own one. So if his father buys him a gun, the baby is allowed to have it. Also from what i can gather the father isn't responsible if the baby comits a felony with his gun. Although i'm going to assume there will be quite a few laws that will override that.

    http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm

    Sort of.  You'll have to forgive MPS because he did make a tiny factual error, but he is not from Illinois so he wouldn't be familiar with the gun laws there.

     

    A FOID card is really nothing more than a tax on gun owners, that's all.  You need a FOID card to purchase ammo, guns or to be in possession of a gun.  Anyone who goes hunting needs a FOID card and I believe it applies to shooting ranges where you rent guns as well.  To get one, all you need to do is pay $10 and submit an application. There's no background check, training or competency test required.  However, the permit itself isn't all that useful.  You still have to be 18 or older to purchase a long gun and 21 or older to purchase a handgun.  You have to be 18 or older to purchase ammunition.  All three require a FOID card as well, but as I said it's very easy to obtain and not meant to stop criminals from getting guns.  Illinois is one of only two states that does not allow anyone to carry concealed firearms, so a FOID card is useless for that.

     

    If you are found in possession of a gun at any point and do not have a valid FOID card, jail time will most likely result.  At the very least, hefty fines.  A few years ago IL tried to raise the application fee on the FOID card to $500 in an attempt to make some quick cash, but this failed horribly and it was only raised from $5 to $10.  There is no age restriction on FOID cards because they are really pretty useless -- underage individuals cannot buy guns with them.  Children as young as 14 may be in possession of a gun on their own so long as they have a FOID card and signed permission from their parents.  Children under 14 may only use a gun while their parents are present.  IL does not require long guns to be locked up -- I'm not sure about handguns as nobody I knew really had one.  Any crimes committed with a gun will be the responsibility of the gun owner, though, so it's a good idea to lock the guns up so they are not stolen.  Crimes committed by minors with their parents' guns can result in charges against the parent, including a child who accidently shoots themself because of an unlocked gun.

     

    Another point that should be made is that guns are illegal in most of IL, anyway.  Chicago and the surrounding area have complete handgun and almost-complete long gun bans.  Approximately 90% of the population lives there and the rest of the state is quite sparsely populated.  So really most of the people who own guns in IL are small town people anyway.  It should be noted that Chicago and Washington, DC have the strictest anti-gun laws of any US cities and also the highest murder rates in our country.  Many of the people I knew just kept a loaded 12-gauge behind every door of the house, but they lived half a mile or more from their nearest neighbor and were more likely to need to guns to shoot coyotes or rabid dogs than anything else.  I never heard of any kid shooting himself, but everyone I knew who lived in a house with a gun had been taught not to go near it and would be free to shoot it if the parents were around.  In fact, it was kind of used as a reward for good behavior and the like.  We'd spend a lot of time target shooting with 12-gauges and small rifles, in addition to pellet guns (which can be quite dangerous in the wrong hands).  I only ever fired a revolver once but I only knew one family that had a handgun at all.  I never saw a semi-auto handgun either.  Where I lived handguns were pretty impractical because of the distances involved.  Besides, if anyone tried to break into your house you'd have more than enough time to get the loaded shotgun from under the bed.

     

    So, anyway, my point with all that is that I grew up around guns, knew how to respect them and think whole anti-gun attitude here is ridiculous and uninformed.  A baby can legally get a FOID card in IL because it doesn't really confer any useful right until you are 14 anyway and the state will be more than happy to take your cash for it.  The whole thing is basically a gun tax cooked up by the state to raise some money.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Oh no! He got a state ID!

    Learn what you are talking about before stating it.

     

    Learn to do some reasearch. The kid's (10 months old, remember) grandpa bought the kid a 12-gauge. What the hell does a 10 month old kid need a shotgun for? The father did the right thing and applied for a gun ownership permit. The kid got it.

    So now the kid can't legally buy a gun, but can legally carry his brand new 12gauge *AND* the ammo for it, even though he's only 10 months old. 

    Of course, that begs the real WTF question of why the kid's father even allowed such a stupid thing to happen. It's one thing to pull a stunt like this to show how stupid a law(s) is, it's another to actually allow the kid to own the shotgun.



  • @ammoQ said:

    Of course you don't do that. You prepare for events you can reasonably expect. If you live in a country where the chance that an armed intruder attacks you at home is extremely low (assuming you are not rich enough to attract criminals of all kinds), a gun bought for home protection will most likely never be useful for that purpose. Of course the situation is completely different for a farmer in an area where predators will attack the cattle all the time.

    BTW, I don't say that laws should make gun ownership (almost) impossible for normal people. Let reasonable people buy and own the weapons they need. That said, I don't like the "gun=insurance" attitude that lets unarmed people feel insecure. Many people don't need a gun and they should not buy one just because "you never know". 

     

    Very good point, ammoQ (I figured this thread needs more positive re-inforcement).  I think the key issue at hand is individuals defining their own 'need'.  When one looks at gun control from that perspective, the government's role in gun control is to ensure that people are not making irrational definitions of 'need' (i.e. - we don't 'need' a bazooka, but I can be sure that there are people out there who would say that they would like to have one -- just for target practice, of course...)  Yes, this can still be abused by the government by putting such hard restrictions on the definition of 'need'.  But, in a democratic society, the government's definition of need should reflect what most of the people agree upon, most of the time, right?



  • @ammoQ said:

    You know there are very poisonous snakes in the deserts of Australia. Following your reasoning, i.e. "prepare even for the most unlikely event", it might be a good idea for you, an US resident, to have the serum for that kind of snake bite handy, just in case one of your neighbor collects such exotic animals and one escapes and bites you. Of course you don't do that.
    Speak for yourself! I'm so concerned about just this problem that I've imported all the poisonous snakes from Australia I could. I milk them to create antivenom. Although, come to think of it, I am missing one...



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    People have a right to kill in order to protect their property -- this is a fundamental principle in Western morality. 

     

    No. People do not have a right to kill in order to just protect their property. I'm pretty sure not even in the US. Let's assume someone is trying to steal your bicycle and you kill him from 500m with a sniper rifle. At least in my country, this would be considered first degree murder.



  • @MarcB said:

    So now the kid can't legally buy a gun, but can legally carry his brand new 12gauge *AND* the ammo for it, even though he's only 10 months old.

    The kid is 10 months old -- he's gonna have a hell of a time carrying a 12-gauge, not to mention trying to fire it.  By the time he is 4 or 5, his dad will probably set him on his lap and hold the gun so the kid can pull the trigger.  By the time he's 9 he will probably be strong enough to hold it himself without being hurt from the recoil.

     

    It's not like anyone expects a 10 month old to actually fire the fucking thing you shit-for-brains retard.  It's the same thing as when a grandparent buys an encyclopedia set for their newborn grandchild or sets up a college fund.  It is a gift passed on by loving grandparents for a child they may not live to see grow up.  It probably meant something to the grandfather to be able to buy the kid his first shotgun and he may have known his health was failing and he wouldn't be there when the kid reached an age to use it.  The only strange part of the whole thing is that the FOID card was unnecessary in this case (read above for more info) but perhaps the parents were just being very cautious.



  • @ammoQ said:

    Many people don't need a gun and they should not buy one just because "you never know". 
     

    No one is arguing this. The only argument from my side on this is that everyone should have the RIGHT.

    That is all. You have not heard me tell you or anyone else they should get a gun.The people here simply need to stop trying to mandate the freedoms other people in this world value.



  • @ammoQ said:

    No. People do not have a right to kill in order to just protect their property. I'm pretty sure not even in the US. Let's assume someone is trying to steal your bicycle and you kill him from 500m with a sniper rifle. At least in my country, this would be considered first degree murder.

    Well, it depends on the circumstances and the part of the country you are from, I suppose.  I say that a person does have a right to kill an intruder in their home for the purposes of protecting their property.  In most US states if someone enters your home you can kill them legally, end of story.  Outdoors it's a different story, of course.  Store-owners will also keep guns under the counter but I think they have to be threatened to use them.  However, most people who go to rob a store have a knife, gun or some other kind of weapon which in most states would allow the owner to fire at will. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    he may have known his health was failing and he wouldn't be there when the kid reached an age to use it. 
     

    Or he saw the kind of ridiculous statements being made around here and figured he better hurry and buy it before anti-gun people took his (and his grandson's) rights away.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Well, it depends on the circumstances and the part of the country you are from, I suppose.  I say that a person does have a right to kill an intruder in their home for the purposes of protecting their property.  In most US states if someone enters your home you can kill them legally, end of story.  Outdoors it's a different story, of course.  Store-owners will also keep guns under the counter but I think they have to be threatened to use them.  However, most people who go to rob a store have a knife, gun or some other kind of weapon which in most states would allow the owner to fire at will. 

     

    All those are cases where one doesn't only protect his property, but also his own (and his loved ones') life and health.  



  • @ammoQ said:

    All those are cases where one doesn't only protect his property, but also his own (and his loved ones') life and health.

    Yeah, I kind of fired my previous comment off without being too clear on it.  When I said property I didn't mean chasing someone down who stole your parked car and shooting him, I meant protecting your home and land against trespassers.  Not just people wandering through, mind you, but people there with the intent to rob or cause harm. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @ammoQ said:

    All those are cases where one doesn't only protect his property, but also his own (and his loved ones') life and health.

    Yeah, I kind of fired my previous comment off without being too clear on it.  When I said property I didn't mean chasing someone down who stole your parked car and shooting him, I meant protecting your home and land against trespassers.  Not just people wandering through, mind you, but people there with the intent to rob or cause harm. 

     

    Well you said it correctly really. Your wife is your property after all, right?



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @ammoQ said:

    All those are cases where one doesn't only protect his property, but also his own (and his loved ones') life and health.

    Yeah, I kind of fired my previous comment off without being too clear on it.  When I said property I didn't mean chasing someone down who stole your parked car and shooting him, I meant protecting your home and land against trespassers.  Not just people wandering through, mind you, but people there with the intent to rob or cause harm. 

     

    Well you said it correctly really. Your wife is your property after all, right?

    Yeah, my wife is my property, but the wives of MarcB and slyadams are my property as well.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

     

    Yeah, my wife is my property, but the wives of MarcB and slyadams are my property as well.

     

    Well naturally, since they have no way of defending them anyway...



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Well you said it correctly really. Your wife is your property after all, right?
    I live in Virginia, so yes. Did you know we didn't ratify the 19th Amendment until 1952?



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Yeah, my wife is my property, but the wives of MarcB and slyadams are my property as well.
     

    Well naturally, since they have no way of defending them anyway...

    They could get the UN to sanction me.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Yeah, my wife is my property
    Please. You can't afford basic condiments and you expect us believe you can afford a mail-order bride from some third-world country like the Netherlands?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    They could get the UN to sanction me.
     

    So you mean just roll up into a little ball under their kitchen tables?



  • @bstorer said:

    You can't afford basic condiments and you expect us believe you can afford a mail-order bride from some third-world country like the Netherlands?

    Afford? You had to pay for yours?



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @bstorer said:

    You can't afford basic condiments and you expect us believe you can afford a mail-order bride from some third-world country like the Netherlands?

    Afford? You had to pay for yours?

    Of course not. But I also don't spend my weekends getting drunk and sobbing to myself.



  • @bstorer said:

    Of course not. But I also don't spend my weekends getting drunk and sobbing to myself.
     

    Good point.



  • @WeatherGod said:

    There are crimes that are comitted where violence is merely a tool in the crime (i.e. - someone beating you to take your wallet) and then there are crimes that are comitted where violence is the goal (i.e. - rape, first-degree murder, etc.)  The argument presented applies best to the second kind of crime because if a person has comitted himself to violence against you, then the only defence is to stop that person (through lethal or non-lethal means).

    Actually, the line blurs a bit, though. I live in Mexico City, and some crimes comitted over here use violence as a tool, but in a sadistic sense. One person I knew was a victim of "secuestro express" (express kidnapping), which means they're held against their will while the muggers withdraw all available cash from his bankcards. During this process, his girlfriend was repeateadly beat in the knees with a heavy-duty wrench, and then they proceeeded to do the same to him ... in his face.

    It is because of this that if someone actually defends himself from muggers by shooting to kill, not only no-one will report the shooter, but the people will actually help him to evade the authorities/escape the scene. Even when a group of cops actually executed some muggers in the outskirts of the city, public opinion was cheering for them. Search "Zorros SSP", "Zorros Mexico City" or something like that and you'll find what I'm talking about. Of course, the cops ended up doing jail time.

    Note: There is (was?) a law allowing something like 2 guns to be had in home. This might have in fact deterred break-ins, even if civilian-owned firearms are restricted (anything over caliber 38-special is for military use only.)


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    It isn't a gun permit it is a federal ID.
    Would you mind explaining the following quote from the referenced article? Which isnt talking about 'federal ID.'

    Thing is Bubba is a baby. There are no age restrictions for a gun permit in Illinois, as the toothless baby picture on Bubba's Firearm Owners Identification Card shows.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6662213.stm would also indicate that the 10 (now probably 11) month old actually owns a gun (though his father is not intending on allowing him to use it until he's 14.)



  • @PJH said:

    the 10 (now probably 11) month old actually owns a gun
     

    And so what? You worried a 11 month old baby is going to start robbing liquor stores?

    You do realize that, like morbius has already explained, that the foid card he obtained means nothing right? The baby cannot buy a gun...

    Why do you not understand this?



  • @PJH said:

    Would you mind explaining the following quote from the referenced article? Which isnt talking about 'federal ID.'

    Thing is Bubba is a baby. There are no age restrictions for a gun permit in Illinois, as the toothless baby picture on Bubba's Firearm Owners Identification Card shows.

     

    Yes, your news source is obviously a bunch of idiots. It is not a gun permit. It is a foid, It gives the kid no real rights above anybody else. It simply means one less piece of paperwork he may have to go for when he gets old enough to buy a gun. This is not at all as uncommon as you might think. This is basically the [grand]parents reserving his right to a gun now, since the whole system is under attack from clueless anti-gun advocates.Whether it will actually mean anything later is yet to be seen, but at least they are trying.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    It simply means one less piece of paperwork he may have to go for when he gets old enough to buy a gun.

    Not likely.  It's only valid for 10 years so he would have to renew 2 times (at 10 and 20) to be able to purchase a handgun one day.  Additionally, the IL government keeps trying to raise the fee (the governor wanted to raise it to $500 a few years ago) so by the time he can buy a handgun -- assuming it's still legal, even -- he might be paying out the ass.

     

    In all honesty, the FOID card was kind of a WTF.  A FOID card doesn't become useful until you are 14 anyway (allowed to be in possession of a gun without parental supervision if the parents sign-off on it) so the card will expire before the kid will have a single additional right.  Perhaps the parents just wanted to start the kid off on the right foot, but more likely they were confused over the law.  They probably thought they had to have a FOID card for the kid and the laws in IL (as in most states) don't make things like this very clear.  And of course the government is more than happy to accept your cash in exchange for a worthless permit.  Still, obviously not the big deal these hysterical anti-gun nuts think it is.



  • @danixdefcon5 said:

    Even when a group of cops actually executed some muggers in the outskirts of the city, public opinion was cheering for them.

    Mexican cops: Making American cops look like pansy, European hippies since...  well, since that sentence was posted. 



  • @slyadams said:

    When you child gets gunned down in yet another school/college shooting, think to yourself "I'm an idiot".
     

    Actually, I don't have to wait for that to happen. I can think "Ok, you're an idiot." everytime I see something you post.

    @slyadams said:

     You are a troll, plain and simple really and I'm done with you.

    I do have to thank you for one thing, though. You are great proof that England needs to put more effort into urging its' citizens to use condoms and other forms of birth control.

    Who do I need to contact in Her Majesty's government to pass this proof along? 



  • @slyadams said:

    I actually have quite an [b]un[/b]important job and [b]really can't be bothered am not qualified enough educationally[/b] to proof read or preview my posts.
     

    FTFY. @slyadams said:

    I'm sorry, but every post you write seems to draw attention to the size of your genetalia.

    Why do you keep harping on this? Are you jealous of mobius?

    @slyadams said:

    And what EXACTLY makes your country the greatest in the world?

    Well, the fact that you don't live here is a major strength, as far as I'm concerned. Also, our education system is considerably better than the one you attended, based on your lack of logic and reasoning skills, your inability to comprehend basic English, and your inability to answer even the simplest questions.

    On the other hand, if being a pompous, know-nothing bag of stinky hot air ever is considered an asset, the UK will have an advantage immediately.

    Seriously, dude. Either get a brain or get lost. 

     

     



  • @KenW said:

    @slyadams said:

    When you child gets gunned down in yet another school/college shooting, think to yourself "I'm an idiot".
     

    Actually, I don't have to wait for that to happen. I can think "Ok, you're an idiot." everytime I see something you post.

    WINRAR!

     

    @KenW said:

    @slyadams said:

     You are a troll, plain and simple really and I'm done with you.

    I do have to thank you for one thing, though. You are great proof that England needs to put more effort into urging its' citizens to use condoms and other forms of birth control.

    Who do I need to contact in Her Majesty's government to pass this proof along?

    The BBC.  If I had to look at ugly Brits on TV all day long I would never be able to get it up. 



  • @slyadams said:

    Actually, the comic part of all this is that I actually like America, I would go so far to say that I love it there.
     

    As I suspected all along, you're just another one of those people who is so jealous of we Americans that you bash us because of your own feelings of inferiority. Thanks for admitting it and eliminating the suspicion.

    @slyadams said:

    See all my other posts for my arguments
     

    I'll gladly do so, as soon as you make a post that actually contains an argument instead of all of your posts so far which are nothing but nonsense repeatedly. 



  • @WeatherGod said:

    Yes, a gun can be used to save a person's life, but in order to do so, it must inflict (potentially) lethal damage to another person's life.   A car or a first aid kit doesn't.
     

    Wait. I can use a car to cause lethal damage to someone (running them over), and I can use a first aid kit to cause lethal damage (hit them hard enough in the head with the metal case or strangle them with the roll of gauze, or stab them with the scissors). A gun can be used in a fashion that isn't intended to cause lethal damage as well (target practice, warning shots). A maniac intent on harming someone can use the car, or the first aid kit, or the gun to accomplish that; however, for defending myself against a car or first aid kit, I'd like to have the gun. I wouldn't prefer to have the first aid kit if I was defending against a gun, though; I'd rather have the car or another gun.

    My point is that almost anything can be used for lethal purposes. Even a feather pillow (suffocation) or a bottle of water (drowning), if you try hard enough. Using the "designed to kill" argument is bull. A gun is designed to launch a projectile accurately at a high rate of speed. Period. The fact that it can cause death, while arguably the main reason for using a gun, has nothing to do with it. Just like a car, which is designed to transport people across distances quickly and easily, can be used for causing death.

    @WeatherGod said:

    At this point, I will declare my personal opinion: I personally believe it to be a choice and my choice is to not have such a weapon because I am fundamentally a pacifist.  However, I will not impose my beliefs upon others. 

    Very nice. I respect your right to the decision to both be a pacifist and to not own a weapon. 



  • @PJH said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    It isn't a gun permit it is a federal ID.
    Would you mind explaining the following quote from the referenced article? Which isnt talking about 'federal ID.'

    Thing is Bubba is a baby. There are no age restrictions for a gun permit in Illinois, as the toothless baby picture on Bubba's [b][i]Firearm Owners Identification Card[/i][/b] shows.

     

    Here. I helped your reading comprehension some by highlighting in [b][i]bold italic[/i][/b].

    Not our fault if the referenced article was written by a moron who didn't know the difference between a [b]gun permit[/b] and a [b]Firearm Owners Identification Card[/b]. 


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @KenW said:

    who didn't know the difference between a gun permit and a Firearm Owners Identification Card.

    Basically what I was asking MPS for. But instead he insisted on setting up straw men.

     


Log in to reply