PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Mass. Police: Bomb Suspects Didn't Have Gun Permit


R8RFAN
04-22-2013, 09:38 AM
Mass. Police: Bomb Suspects Didn't Have Gun Permit

A Massachusetts police official say the brothers suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon before having shootouts with authorities didn't have gun permits.

Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas tells The Associated Press in an interview Sunday that neither Tamerlan Tsarnaev (tsahr-NEYE'-ehv) nor his brother Dzhokhar had permission to carry firearms.

He says it's unclear whether either ever applied and the applications aren't considered public records.

But he says the 19-year-old Dzhokhar (joh-KHAR') would have been denied a permit because of his age. Only people 21 or older are allowed gun licenses in Massachusetts.

The suspects were also accused of hijacking a Mercedes on Thursday night.

Haas says the pair didn't release the driver, but he escaped when he was left alone while the two men entered a convenience store.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mass-police-bomb-suspects-gun-permit-19011300#.UXVLIbXFWSo

loochy
04-22-2013, 09:40 AM
Mass. Police: Bomb Suspects Didn't Have Gun Permit

A Massachusetts police official say the brothers suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon before having shootouts with authorities didn't have gun permits.

Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas tells The Associated Press in an interview Sunday that neither Tamerlan Tsarnaev (tsahr-NEYE'-ehv) nor his brother Dzhokhar had permission to carry firearms.

He says it's unclear whether either ever applied and the applications aren't considered public records.

But he says the 19-year-old Dzhokhar (joh-KHAR') would have been denied a permit because of his age. Only people 21 or older are allowed gun licenses in Massachusetts.

The suspects were also accused of hijacking a Mercedes on Thursday night.

Haas says the pair didn't release the driver, but he escaped when he was left alone while the two men entered a convenience store.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mass-police-bomb-suspects-gun-permit-19011300#.UXVLIbXFWSo

Well that proves that more background checks and limiting magazine capacities can limit tragedies like this, right?

R8RFAN
04-22-2013, 10:10 AM
Well that proves that more background checks and limiting magazine capacities can limit tragedies like this, right?

According to the Libturds you are correct... Oh More Rape whistles will help too:D

seaofred
04-22-2013, 10:14 AM
Well that proves that more background checks and limiting magazine capacities can limit tragedies like this, right?

If it proves anything, it proves that no matter what laws you pass, criminals are still going to break them and get the guns and magazine's they want.

loochy
04-22-2013, 10:15 AM
If it proves anything, it proves that no matter what laws you pass, criminals are still going to break them and get the guns and magazine's they want.

That's kind of what I was getting at, but I wasn't sure how to say it sarcastically enough.

seaofred
04-22-2013, 10:18 AM
That's kind of what I was getting at, but I wasn't sure how to say it sarcastically enough.

I thought that's what you were trying to say. Maybe you should have put a #sarcasm at the end.. o:-)

Brainiac
04-22-2013, 10:25 AM
Now just hold on there for minute, Buster. I thought that if you make certain things illegal, the criminals won't be able to get them, and all of our problems would be solved.

You mean that isn't right????

loochy
04-22-2013, 10:27 AM
I thought that if you make certain things illegal, the criminals won't be able to get them, and all of our problems would be solved.

That is correct sir. Take drugs for example. They are illegal so nobody uses them anymore.

R8RFAN
04-22-2013, 10:35 AM
That is correct sir. Take drugs for example. They are illegal so nobody uses them anymore.


You stole my thunder :D

Prison Bitch
04-22-2013, 10:37 AM
Did the older bro have a permit to beat his wife?

loochy
04-22-2013, 10:38 AM
Did the older bro have a permit to beat his wife?

Yeah, he had the "she wouldn't STFU and make a sandwich" permit

notorious
04-22-2013, 10:39 AM
LMAO

Gold!

notorious
04-22-2013, 10:40 AM
"But if it's a FEDERAL ban, they wouldn't have had access to these weapons!"



Gun grabbers, go fuck yourself.

R8RFAN
04-22-2013, 10:41 AM
Now here is the question...

Of all the gun control measures that have been brought up since Newtown... Which one would have prevented the killing of the MIT cop by these people?

mr. tegu
04-22-2013, 10:43 AM
Now here is the question...

Of all the gun control measures that have been brought up since Newtown... Which one would have prevented the killing of the MIT cop by these people?

All weapons should be converted to nerf. That would have helped.

FD
04-22-2013, 01:24 PM
If it proves anything, it proves that no matter what laws you pass, criminals are still going to break them and get the guns and magazine's they want.

I'm opposed to the recent gun control proposals, but come on, this is a really stupid argument. You want to apply it to other situations?

No matter what law you pass, determined people will still be able to enter our country or stay past their visa expiration. Do you think we shouldn't have immigration laws or restrictions?

R8RFAN
04-22-2013, 01:28 PM
I'm opposed to the recent gun control proposals, but come on, this is a really stupid argument. You want to apply it to other situations?

No matter what law you pass, determined people will still be able to enter our country or stay past their visa expiration. Do you think we shouldn't have immigration laws or restrictions?

No one is saying no laws, we already have laws. this is about the Constitution of the United States which is NOT open for debate. We have a process to amend the Constitution... If it needs to be changed then meet the requirements of the change.

FD
04-22-2013, 01:32 PM
No one is saying no laws, we already have laws. this is about the Constitution of the United States which is NOT open for debate. We have a process to amend the Constitution... If it needs to be changed then meet the requirements of the change.

I'm with you on the Constitutional argument, but thats a separate argument.

For some reason some people like to argue that because criminals will just find ways around a law, then we shouldn't have the law. You see how that is extremely stupid, right?

R8RFAN
04-22-2013, 01:37 PM
I'm with you on the Constitutional argument, but thats a separate argument.

For some reason some people like to argue that because criminals will just find ways around a law, then we shouldn't have the law. You see how that is extremely stupid, right?

There are people who feel like we shouldn't be able to quarantine someone for tuberculosis as well.

I have no problems with laws that do not infringe on the Constitution, We already have enough gun laws & background checks, instead of more laws the laws that are on the books need to be enforced and quit letting these people who use a gun in the commission of a felony off with a slap on the wrist... Should be federal time with no good time credits allowed.

Iowanian
04-22-2013, 01:41 PM
I'm just glad high capacity magazines were outlawed so this crime was contained.

KChiefer
04-22-2013, 01:46 PM
Are any of you curious how they got their guns then? Yes, they got them illegally but how?

Hopefully this info comes out in the interrogation.

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 01:48 PM
Are any of you curious how they got their guns then? Yes, they got them illegally but how?

Hopefully this info comes out in the interrogation.

Please don't use the progressive malarky that they can get them in other states. Guns can also be stolen including from military and police, or gotten on the black market.

loochy
04-22-2013, 01:50 PM
Are any of you curious how they got their guns then? Yes, they got them illegally but how?

Hopefully this info comes out in the interrogation.

they printed them on a 3d printer

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 01:50 PM
they printed them on a 3d printer

LMAO

R8RFAN
04-22-2013, 01:59 PM
Are any of you curious how they got their guns then? Yes, they got them illegally but how?

Hopefully this info comes out in the interrogation.

Mass. has some pretty strict gun control in place... Why did it fail King Libturd?

R8RFAN
04-22-2013, 02:02 PM
Wonder if the Mass. Strict Gun Control policies is the reason people sat behind their doors all day , looking out the peep hole waiting for the cops to tell them it's safe to come out and play again...
Hell there is a pic circulating around facebook of a cop delivering milk to a home during the standoff because their kids was out.... How touching..

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BIYVRtGCYAMYBje.png:large

KChiefer
04-22-2013, 02:04 PM
Mass. has some pretty strict gun control in place... Why did it fail King Libturd?

That's what we'd like an answer to, yes?

Or is it that you don't care about that answer and just want to beat your chest and bluster?

R8RFAN
04-22-2013, 02:06 PM
That's what we'd like an answer to, yes?

Or is it that you don't care about that answer and just want to beat your chest and bluster?

No, you LIBTURDS have all the answers... How the **** did he get a gun if it was illegal for him to own one and do you think he gave a **** if it was illegal or not.

R8RFAN
04-22-2013, 02:09 PM
19 year olds can't own a pistol in ANY fucking state that I know of and especially nowhere within 1000 miles of there... So tell me, which fucking state did he get it from?

KChiefer
04-22-2013, 02:14 PM
No, you LIBTURDS have all the answers... How the **** did he get a gun if it was illegal for him to own one and do you think he gave a **** if it was illegal or not.

No I don't think he cared. We care though. And I care about who the person was that gave them to him, how they gave them to him, and whether or not we will be able to bring that person to justice.

R8RFAN
04-22-2013, 02:17 PM
No I don't think he cared. We care though. And I care about who the person was that gave them to him, how they gave them to him, and whether or not we will be able to bring that person to justice.

Ever thought maybe he stole it? Hell he can make bombs out of pressure cookers.. Don't think he could pick up a brick and break a window and steal a gun?

I bet you want to prosecute the person who had the gun stolen now huh?

R8RFAN
04-22-2013, 02:19 PM
Adam Lanza stole his Moms guns... Do you think he cared that was illegal?

loochy
04-22-2013, 02:24 PM
Adam Lanza stole his Moms guns... Do you think he cared that was illegal?

IF NOBODY HAD GUNS THERE WOULD BE NO GUNS TO STEAL

KChiefer
04-22-2013, 02:30 PM
Ever thought maybe he stole it? Hell he can make bombs out of pressure cookers.. Don't think he could pick up a brick and break a window and steal a gun?

I bet you want to prosecute the person who had the gun stolen now huh?

Yes, it's possible they were stolen. In that case I'd hope that the lawful owner reported it, otherwise how would we know whether or not that person willfully gave them to him?

R8RFAN
04-22-2013, 02:35 PM
Yes, it's possible they were stolen. In that case I'd hope that the lawful owner reported it, otherwise how would we know whether or not that person willfully gave them to him?
What if he didn't realize it had been stolen yet? How bout a regulation to require gun owners to check if their guns are there every hour?

KChiefer
04-22-2013, 02:43 PM
What if he didn't realize it had been stolen yet? How bout a regulation to require gun owners to check if their guns are there every hour?

An hour is a bit much. Once a month would be reasonable IMO. You seem to love your gun so much I'd assume you make sure to give it a call frequently like a good father would.

R8RFAN
04-22-2013, 03:04 PM
An hour is a bit much. Once a month would be reasonable IMO. You seem to love your gun so much I'd assume you make sure to give it a call frequently like a good father would.

How would this have saved the cop ?

RaiderH8r
04-22-2013, 03:32 PM
STRAW BUYER!!!!

RaiderH8r
04-22-2013, 03:33 PM
GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE!!!

RaiderH8r
04-22-2013, 03:33 PM
INTERNET SALES PURCHASE!!!!

KChiefer
04-22-2013, 03:34 PM
How would this have saved the cop ?

It wouldn't have. However, it would help shed light on whether or not these guns were given to them willfully.

Do you agree that if someone willfully gave them guns, that person should be held accountable?

RaiderH8r
04-22-2013, 03:34 PM
MAIL ORDER WITH PROOF OF PURCHASE FROM COCOA PUFFS!!!!

GUNS ARE EVERYWHERE!!!

HIDE YOUR KIDS, THE GUNS ARE COMING!!!

RaiderH8r
04-22-2013, 03:35 PM
It wouldn't have. However, it would help shed light on whether or not these guns were given to them willfully.

Do you agree that if someone willfully gave them guns, that person should be held accountable?

They would be under existing law. If history is any guide, this Administration will continue to NOT enforce the laws on the books and instead use this to gin up fear in an effort to pass new laws that may or may not be enforced.

FEAR THE GUNZORZ!!!

theelusiveeightrop
04-22-2013, 06:26 PM
Did they have pressure cooker permits?

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 06:33 PM
Did they have pressure cooker permits?

Why would they need those? /Donger]


LMAO LMAO

theelusiveeightrop
04-22-2013, 06:38 PM
Why would they need those? /Donger]


LMAO LMAO

ROFLROFLROFLROFL

Garcia Bronco
04-22-2013, 09:59 PM
All weapons should be converted to nerf. That would have helped.

NONA?

The Nerf or Nothing Act is still in commitee.

Garcia Bronco
04-22-2013, 10:02 PM
I'm with you on the Constitutional argument, but thats a separate argument.

For some reason some people like to argue that because criminals will just find ways around a law, then we shouldn't have the law. You see how that is extremely stupid, right?

This situation applies to protection and the RTKBA. When we have restirctions of common use items like this, we limit the law abiding from protection that dubious people would use to commit crime.

Raiderhader
04-22-2013, 10:08 PM
I'm opposed to the recent gun control proposals, but come on, this is a really stupid argument. You want to apply it to other situations?

No matter what law you pass, determined people will still be able to enter our country or stay past their visa expiration. Do you think we shouldn't have immigration laws or restrictions?

I guess I missed where our Constitution gives foreign people the right to enter our country...

Raiderhader
04-22-2013, 10:09 PM
MAIL ORDER WITH PROOF OF PURCHASE FROM COCOA PUFFS!!!!

GUNS ARE EVERYWHERE!!!

HIDE YOUR KIDS, THE GUNS ARE COMING!!!

LMAO LMAO

HolyHandgernade
04-22-2013, 10:32 PM
If it proves anything, it proves that no matter what laws you pass, criminals are still going to break them and get the guns and magazine's they want.

We should only make laws criminals will obey! :banghead:

Saul Good
04-22-2013, 10:35 PM
I'm opposed to the recent gun control proposals, but come on, this is a really stupid argument. You want to apply it to other situations?

No matter what law you pass, determined people will still be able to enter our country or stay past their visa expiration. Do you think we shouldn't have immigration laws or restrictions?

Gun control restricts the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves. The law puts criminals at an advantage. What other law does this?

Saul Good
04-22-2013, 10:36 PM
We should only make laws criminals will obey! :banghead:

We should only make laws that don't leave law abiding citizens at the mercy of those who choose to disobey the laws.

notorious
04-22-2013, 10:46 PM
Gun control restricts the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves. The law puts criminals at an advantage. What other law does this?

We should only make laws that don't leave law abiding citizens at the mercy of those who choose to disobey the laws.



These.

HolyHandgernade
04-23-2013, 09:37 AM
We should only make laws that don't leave law abiding citizens at the mercy of those who choose to disobey the laws.

What do you mean, like drunk driving laws?

Like traffic laws?

Like felony laws?

Certainly, none of us are at the "mercy" of people who choose to disregard these laws either, or are you advocating the removal of them as well?

BucEyedPea
04-23-2013, 09:42 AM
People who get drunk and drive are merely stupid....or sick or both. Not malevolent. They don't steal guns from police or the military or head to black markets for something to kill intentionally. Obviously, that's not what's being talked about. Logic eludes you HH. You have your categories mixed up.

FD
04-23-2013, 09:44 AM
Gun control restricts the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves. The law. puts criminals at an advantage. What other law does this?

What do you mean? All laws put the law abiding at a disadvantage in some way or another. Try again.

BucEyedPea
04-23-2013, 09:46 AM
What do you mean? All laws put the law abiding at a disadvantage in some way or another. Try again.

Okay so what? The right to arms is a fundamental right...and that is the key difference. The actions one chooses with it are what is criminal.

Chief Faithful
04-23-2013, 12:04 PM
Do you agree that if someone willfully gave them guns, that person should be held accountable?

No, I do not agree. Hold the criminal accountable for how they use the gun. Guns are given as gifts among the law abiding every day. You are still wanting to punish the law abiding because of the act of a terrorist.

King_Chief_Fan
04-23-2013, 12:10 PM
That's what we'd like an answer to, yes?

Or is it that you don't care about that answer and just want to beat your chest and bluster?

there is no way to control criminals from getting whatever they want whenever they want. pretty good chance they will tell you to go fly a kite when you ask them where they got them.

HolyHandgernade
04-23-2013, 01:41 PM
No, I do not agree. Hold the criminal accountable for how they use the gun. Guns are given as gifts among the law abiding every day. You are still wanting to punish the law abiding because of the act of a terrorist.

No, I want to reduce the deadly gun culture IN America.

Garcia Bronco
04-23-2013, 01:49 PM
No, I want to reduce the deadly gun culture IN America.

We don't have a "deadly" gun culture. The amount of deaths to to gun violence every year is so small compared to things like lung cancer, drinking and so on. So if you want to take the utilitarian approach to save the most lives. Start there.


Either way I think we'd be pissing in the wind.

RaiderH8r
04-23-2013, 01:55 PM
No, I want to reduce the deadly gun culture IN America.

Then start by banning all black males under the age of 25 from owning a handgun.

We know where the crime is happening. We know who is committing the crime. Go tackle it slick.

HolyHandgernade
04-23-2013, 04:45 PM
We don't have a "deadly" gun culture. The amount of deaths to to gun violence every year is so small compared to things like lung cancer, drinking and so on. So if you want to take the utilitarian approach to save the most lives. Start there.


Either way I think we'd be pissing in the wind.

When comparing gun violence to other first world countries, yes we do.

HolyHandgernade
04-23-2013, 04:45 PM
Then start by banning all black males under the age of 25 from owning a handgun.

We know where the crime is happening. We know who is committing the crime. Go tackle it slick.

Tell you what, slick, why don't we just target all criminal gun activity?

mnchiefsguy
04-23-2013, 04:49 PM
Tell you what, slick, why don't we just target all criminal gun activity?

Why don't we then? Instead of trying to ban "Assault Weapons", and take away guns from law abiding citizens, why doesn't the government use the existing laws we have to prosecute those that obtain and use guns illegally?

HolyHandgernade
04-23-2013, 04:53 PM
Why don't we then? Instead of trying to ban "Assault Weapons", and take away guns from law abiding citizens, why doesn't the government use the existing laws we have to prosecute those that obtain and use guns illegally?

Because the NRA has effectively hamstrung the enforcement of "these rules". Everybody likes to talk about "enforcing the rules on the books", but nobody talks about the lobbyist effort to make departments like the ATF toothless in pursuing them.

Dayze
04-23-2013, 04:53 PM
Tell you what, slick, why don't we just target all criminal gun activity?

does that mean we can no impose further restrictions on people from legally owning them?

HolyHandgernade
04-23-2013, 04:54 PM
does that mean we can no impose further restrictions on people from legally owning them?

I don't know what the solution is, but you sound like you have the makings of good NRA lobbyist.

R8RFAN
04-23-2013, 04:57 PM
I don't know what the solution is, but you sound like you have the makings of good NRA lobbyist.


:thumb: Yes he does... Where do I send my check

Dayze
04-23-2013, 04:58 PM
I'll be happy to target all criminal gun activity. but leave my shit alone. I'm legal.

I'm all for a minimum, no parole, sentence for anyone caught with an illegal weapon, or comits a crime with one. Not sure what that sentence would be....15, 25?...but something that would eventually deter all but the complete morons from using one without considering the heavy penalties.

HolyHandgernade
04-23-2013, 04:58 PM
:thumb: Yes he does... Where do I send my check

Make it out to "Killing U.S. Citizens Is Our Job!"

stevieray
04-23-2013, 05:00 PM
No, I do not agree. Hold the criminal accountable for how they use the gun. Guns are given as gifts among the law abiding every day. You are still wanting to punish the law abiding because of the act of a terrorist.
when someone drives drunk, lets blame the car!!

jjjayb
04-23-2013, 05:01 PM
Make it out to "Killing U.S. Citizens Is Our Job!"

Make it out to "that is complete utter bullshit"

HolyHandgernade
04-23-2013, 05:01 PM
I'll be happy to target all criminal gun activity. but leave my shit alone. I'm legal.

I'm all for a minimum, no parole, sentence for anyone caught with an illegal weapon, or comits a crime with one. Not sure what that sentence would be....15, 25?...but something that would eventually deter all but the complete morons from using one without considering the heavy penalties.

I don't think most people are opposed to legal private small arms ownership. Arsenal stockpiling, a lot of people have a problem with, however.

A deadly gun culture isn't limited to criminal activity. Suicide is also part of that, and by a large margin, rural white males are the ones who make up that demographic.

HolyHandgernade
04-23-2013, 05:02 PM
when someone drives drunk, lets blame the car!!

We effectively regulate automobiles in this country, so, I'm with you on that.

jjjayb
04-23-2013, 05:02 PM
I would love to see a stat compiled on gun homicides. How many were committed by NRA members vs. how many were committed by non NRA members. It would also be fun to see the Republican vs. Democrat gun murder rate.

stevieray
04-23-2013, 05:03 PM
We effectively regulate automobiles in this country, so, I'm with you on that.
:drool:

Dayze
04-23-2013, 05:03 PM
my brother made a funny comment at our CCH class for those who are so dead-set against guns. I mean, like the EXTREME folks (not necessarily at you HHG).

put a sign in your yard that reads something to the effect of "I 'm Against the 2nd Ammendment & Don't Believe In, nor do I own any guns".

that should work out well eventually

HolyHandgernade
04-23-2013, 05:04 PM
I would love to see a stat compiled on gun homicides. How many were committed by NRA members vs. how many were committed by non NRA members. It would also be fun to see the Republican vs. Democrat gun murder rate.

Hey, we would all LOVE to see stats like that and others compiled, but the NRA has lobbied against such statistic compiling. Have no idea why...

HolyHandgernade
04-23-2013, 05:18 PM
Title: Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home

Publication Date: October 1993

What does it say?

This is a case-control study that looks at the relationship between keeping a gun in the home and risk of homicide. A strong and independent association between gun-ownership in homes and an increased risk of homicide was found. The majority of homicide victims were killed by a family member or someone known to them.

It was found that people who keep guns in homes are almost 3 times more likely to be murdered.

Guns in the home were associated with a 8-fold increase in risk of homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance, but the study found no significant increase in the risk of being murdered by a stranger or intruder.

The study concludes that “Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.” In light of this “people should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes.”

Citation

Kellermann, Arthur L. MD, MPH, et al., “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home,” New England Journal of Medicine, 329(15) (1993): 1084-1091

If you add that to the increased propensity for suicide...

I'm sure there are lots of responsible gun owners, but I think the self-protection angle is a bit overplayed and doesn't really hold up to increased scrutiny.

If you frequent a lot of people where gun ownership is common, I think its much more likely when a heated dispute breaks out, contemplating a show of force by brandishing a gun becomes more likely. If you frequent people who don't own firearms, the likelihood goes down dramatically. In that sense, the "how are we going to protect ourselves" argument is usually only supported by infrequent cases that get continuous recycling.

R8RFAN
04-23-2013, 05:21 PM
Make it out to "Killing U.S. Citizens Is Our Job!"

Ok, you send one to your Abortion Doctor and I will consider it.

mnchiefsguy
04-23-2013, 05:22 PM
Because the NRA has effectively hamstrung the enforcement of "these rules". Everybody likes to talk about "enforcing the rules on the books", but nobody talks about the lobbyist effort to make departments like the ATF toothless in pursuing them.

Sorry, but that sounds like a bunch of liberal NRA hating bullshit to me. The NRA would love for there to be no illegal use of handguns...violent crime would go down, and there would be less calling and proposals to ban handguns. You make it sound like the NRA supports gun violence, and that is not the case at all.

The NRA focuses its lobbying on preserving the right of citizens to own guns. Lobbying to prevent the enforcement of laws against criminals who use guns does not advance their agenda in any way.

HolyHandgernade
04-23-2013, 05:25 PM
Ok, you send one to your Abortion Doctor and I will consider it.

I didn't know a fetus was a U.S. Citizen?

HolyHandgernade
04-23-2013, 05:26 PM
Sorry, but that sounds like a bunch of liberal NRA hating bullshit to me. The NRA would love for there to be no illegal use of handguns...violent crime would go down, and there would be less calling and proposals to ban handguns. You make it sound like the NRA supports gun violence, and that is not the case at all.

The NRA focuses its lobbying on preserving the right of citizens to own guns. Lobbying to prevent the enforcement of laws against criminals who use guns does not advance their agenda in any way.

Well, fine, you can believe that, I'm sure no end of newspaper and TV clips will dissuade you from your belief, so, you win, I guess.

Saul Good
04-23-2013, 06:22 PM
What do you mean, like drunk driving laws?

Like traffic laws?

Like felony laws?

Certainly, none of us are at the "mercy" of people who choose to disregard these laws either, or are you advocating the removal of them as well?

How does forcing me to drive sober put me at a disadvantage in terms of being able to defend myself?

Aries Walker
04-23-2013, 06:34 PM
First of all, it's pointless to argue any of this until we find out where they got their guns. I haven't seen anything saying they weren't allowed to own guns, only that they didn't have the licenses (correct me if I missed something there). I will be very interested to see if any recently-proposed laws would have prevented him from getting the guns he did.

If you add that to the increased propensity for suicide...

I'm sure there are lots of responsible gun owners, but I think the self-protection angle is a bit overplayed and doesn't really hold up to increased scrutiny.

If you frequent a lot of people where gun ownership is common, I think its much more likely when a heated dispute breaks out, contemplating a show of force by brandishing a gun becomes more likely. If you frequent people who don't own firearms, the likelihood goes down dramatically. In that sense, the "how are we going to protect ourselves" argument is usually only supported by infrequent cases that get continuous recycling.
This study (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506#t=articleDiscussion), and this other older one (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198606123142406), are together known pretty well as the most damning scientific evidence against gun ownership in the home. The NEJM is as impartial as you can get, and so for them to so roundly denounce the practice is pretty hard to ignore.

However, we do have a Second Amendment, so we do have to honor its inclusion in the Constitution as much as we do any other element. We do not, however, have to honor it absolutely; it does have limits already, now we just quibble about where to draw the line.

R8RFAN
04-23-2013, 06:38 PM
First of all, it's pointless to argue any of this until we find out where they got their guns. I haven't seen anything saying they weren't allowed to own guns, only that they didn't have the licenses (correct me if I missed something there). I will be very interested to see if any recently-proposed laws would have prevented him from getting the guns he did.


This study (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506#t=articleDiscussion), and this other older one (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198606123142406), are together known pretty well as the most damning scientific evidence against gun ownership in the home. The NEJM is as impartial as you can get, and so for them to so roundly denounce the practice is pretty hard to ignore.

However, we do have a Second Amendment, so we do have to honor its inclusion in the Constitution as much as we do any other element. We do not, however, have to honor it absolutely; it does have limits already, now we just quibble about where to draw the line.

19 year olds are not allowed to own a pistol in any state I know of

RaiderH8r
04-23-2013, 06:38 PM
We effectively regulate automobiles in this country, so, I'm with you on that.

We have a number of existing gun laws and regulations in place. Start with enforcing what is already on the books.

RaiderH8r
04-23-2013, 06:40 PM
19 year olds are not allowed to own a pistol in any state I know of

Certainly not in MA.

R8RFAN
04-23-2013, 06:41 PM
We effectively regulate automobiles in this country, so, I'm with you on that.

Automobiles are not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment

RaiderH8r
04-23-2013, 06:42 PM
Automobiles are not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment

And considered a privilege and not a right.

R8RFAN
04-23-2013, 06:44 PM
And considered a privilege and not a right.

That is correct:thumb:

RaiderH8r
04-23-2013, 06:52 PM
One could argue that the Internet wasn't something the framers envisioned. That the spoken word traveled more slowly and deliberately in their time. The advent of rapid, global communication has yielded dangerous results. The words that were carried to Tamerlan were carried to him over a medium that was never a possibility when the framers developed the first amendment. Therefor speech, particularly over the Internet, and its content should be regulated and closely monitored with punishments put in place for speech deemed subversive, dangerous, and deemed a threat to engender extremism that could result in a threat to American lives.

One could argue that. And one would be a fucking idiot yet that is essentially the logical box gun grabbers have jumped into.

HolyHandgernade
04-23-2013, 08:09 PM
Automobiles are not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment

"well regulated militias" are.

I didn't bring the automobile false equivalency into the debate.

HolyHandgernade
04-23-2013, 08:11 PM
We have a number of existing gun laws and regulations in place. Start with enforcing what is already on the books.

Once again, speak to the NRA lobbyists, they're not interested in seeing them enforced.

HolyHandgernade
04-23-2013, 08:12 PM
How does forcing me to drive sober put me at a disadvantage in terms of being able to defend myself?

Never heard of defensive driving?

And by the way, I don't really understand this tangent at all.

Aries Walker
04-23-2013, 08:14 PM
19 year olds are not allowed to own a pistol in any state I know of
True, and certainly not in Massachusetts. I concede that, so I imagine that it was Tamerlan who did all the acquisition.

HolyHandgernade
04-23-2013, 08:15 PM
In 2010:

19,392 gun deaths were attributed to suicide
8,275 gun deaths were attributed to criminal gun homicides
606 gun deaths were attributed to unintentional/accidental consequences
230 gun deaths were ruled "justifiable homicides"

Clearly, the need for all of you to "protect" yourselves is overwhelming.

RaiderH8r
04-23-2013, 08:19 PM
Once again, speak to the NRA lobbyists, they're not interested in seeing them enforced.

Really? You expect me to believe the NRA has Holder and the Justice dept. FBI state and local cops, attorneys general, all cowering from enforcing the laws that are on the books? Really? If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

RaiderH8r
04-23-2013, 08:23 PM
In 2010:

19,392 gun deaths were attributed to suicide
8,275 gun deaths were attributed to criminal gun homicides
606 gun deaths were attributed to unintentional/accidental consequences
230 gun deaths were ruled "justifiable homicides"

Clearly, the need for all of you to "protect" yourselves is overwhelming.

In a nation of over 350 million.

Suicides? Really? You're asserting that an individual in the darkest deepest depressive state would conclude they want to off themselves and say, "Well fuck this if I don't have a gun"

Yeah, those folks don't have anything going on that would lend itself to their death. The gun was the problem.

rockymtnchief
04-23-2013, 08:45 PM
Once again, speak to the NRA lobbyists, they're not interested in seeing them enforced.

Don't blame the NRA.

National Rifle Association chief Wayne LaPierre first pointed to the report on Meet the Press Sunday, when he demanded to know why the national press corps wasn't asking the White House or U.S. attorneys general to explain lax federal enforcement of gun laws.

The districts that contain Chicago, Los Angeles and New York City ranked last in terms of federal gun law enforcement in 2012, according to a new report from Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which tracks federal data.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/03/28/chicago-los-angeles-new-york-prosecuted-fewest-federal-gun-crimes

Montana, Wyoming, Alaska have the most guns per capita and aren't afraid to prosecute. And they're pro-gun states. Blame the state, not the NRA.

mlyonsd
04-23-2013, 08:48 PM
Once again, speak to the NRA lobbyists, they're not interested in seeing them enforced.
What motive would they have for that?

rockymtnchief
04-23-2013, 08:50 PM
http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/39959/FE_DA130328stateguns.jpg

stonedstooge
04-23-2013, 08:54 PM
O'Bama made the NRA the "boogeyman"

Aries Walker
04-23-2013, 08:56 PM
One could argue that the Internet wasn't something the framers envisioned. That the spoken word traveled more slowly and deliberately in their time. The advent of rapid, global communication has yielded dangerous results. The words that were carried to Tamerlan were carried to him over a medium that was never a possibility when the framers developed the first amendment. Therefor speech, particularly over the Internet, and its content should be regulated and closely monitored with punishments put in place for speech deemed subversive, dangerous, and deemed a threat to engender extremism that could result in a threat to American lives.

One could argue that. And one would be a ****ing idiot yet that is essentially the logical box gun grabbers have jumped into.
The gun control debate as a whole has a tendency to get mired down in false equivalences. The most popular seems to be the ol' "But what about cars, cars kill more people than guns, why don't we outlaw cars?", but this qualifies, too. A prime example of non-equivalency in the quoted text is that the hypothetical dangerous speech itself existed in 1787 as much as it exists now; regardless of the speed and method of delivery, it's still the same potentially dangerous item. In order for your comparison to work more accurately - not accurately, mind you, just closer to accurately - you would have to imagine that the speech they had in the 18th century was upgraded now to X-Men-style mind control, because that's the kind of jump that there has been in firearms technology between then and now.

Remember that when the authors of the Constitution wrote "to keep and bear arms", there were no weapons capable of more than one shot at a time, and the pinnacle of military technology at the time was rifling. Therefore - according to the Supreme Court's reigning originalist, Antonin Scalia - the idea is to draw the line ourselves at where the equivalent line would have been in 1787, given their technology and culture at the time. Only the farthest of extremists suggest with any level of seriousness that we should either allow or disallow absolutely all firearms, but our argument lies in the spectrum between. There are plenty of arguments and mountains of evidence for each stance on each nuance without muddying the waters, again, with yet another logical fallacy that sends us spinning off into some tempest in a teacup that has very little to do with the issue we're actually trying to work through.

TL:DR, False equivalencies are false. Stay focused.

HonestChieffan
04-23-2013, 08:58 PM
Once again, speak to the NRA lobbyists, they're not interested in seeing them enforced.

Truly stupid.

VAChief
04-23-2013, 09:04 PM
If it proves anything, it proves that no matter what laws you pass, criminals are still going to break them and get the guns and magazine's they want.

Using tragedies as examples either way seems the wrong approach. Personally, if there are going to continue to be places where it is legal to sell to terrorists or criminals you might as well have no laws. Will criminals and terrorists still be able to find weapons illegally? Absolutely, but why give them legal avenues?

mnchiefsguy
04-23-2013, 09:12 PM
http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/39959/FE_DA130328stateguns.jpg

This, and your previous post, basically blow a huge hole in the "The NRA does now want current gun laws enforced argument."

stonedstooge
04-23-2013, 09:15 PM
Seems strange to me that our government will give money and weapons, unavailable to US citizens, to peoples of other lands to overthrow governments while at the same time wanting to eliminate weapons choices in its own county. Perhaps they should take the first step in gun control themselves. $250 million to Syrian rebels approved just last week.

Aries Walker
04-23-2013, 09:15 PM
In a nation of over 350 million.

Suicides? Really? You're asserting that an individual in the darkest deepest depressive state would conclude they want to off themselves and say, "Well **** this if I don't have a gun"

Yeah, those folks don't have anything going on that would lend itself to their death. The gun was the problem.
It actually is. Availability of a firearm drastically increases the chance that someone who is depressed will kill themselves, because they only take an instant.

El Jefe
04-23-2013, 09:17 PM
If it proves anything, it proves that no matter what laws you pass, criminals are still going to break them and get the guns and magazine's they want.

This

rockymtnchief
04-23-2013, 09:20 PM
Remember that when the authors of the Constitution wrote "to keep and bear arms", there were no weapons capable of more than one shot at a time, and the pinnacle of military technology at the time was rifling.



And I've heard that argument before. It still doesn't hold water with me, personally. It's hard to prevent tyranny when your government has full auto weapons and we're stuck with lead and powder weapons. What's to keep them from taking EVERY right from us?

Also...

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/399579_378806525568836_430344584_n.png

rockymtnchief
04-23-2013, 09:23 PM
It actually is. Availability of a firearm drastically increases the chance that someone who is depressed will kill themselves, because they only take an instant.

I don't know if it "increases" it. Other countries have higher suicide rates than us while having far less firearms. I will agree that it makes it easier though.

Raiderhader
04-23-2013, 09:32 PM
Because the NRA has effectively hamstrung the enforcement of "these rules". Everybody likes to talk about "enforcing the rules on the books", but nobody talks about the lobbyist effort to make departments like the ATF toothless in pursuing them.

Obama is owned and ran by the NRA?


http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/1/middle-gun-control-push-obama-pardons-man-weapon-c/

Raiderhader
04-23-2013, 09:35 PM
Make it out to "Killing U.S. Citizens Is Our Job!"


And just as I was wallowing in depression from not being able to continue my crusade against Frankie.......



Link?

R8RFAN
04-24-2013, 01:36 AM
"well regulated militias" are.

I didn't bring the automobile false equivalency into the debate.

Did you notice the commas and the part that said "shall not be infringed"? How bout that pesky "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"

Radar Chief
04-24-2013, 10:02 AM
The gun control debate as a whole has a tendency to get mired down in false equivalences. The most popular seems to be the ol' "But what about cars, cars kill more people than guns, why don't we outlaw cars?", but this qualifies, too. A prime example of non-equivalency in the quoted text is that the hypothetical dangerous speech itself existed in 1787 as much as it exists now; regardless of the speed and method of delivery, it's still the same potentially dangerous item. In order for your comparison to work more accurately - not accurately, mind you, just closer to accurately - you would have to imagine that the speech they had in the 18th century was upgraded now to X-Men-style mind control, because that's the kind of jump that there has been in firearms technology between then and now.

Remember that when the authors of the Constitution wrote "to keep and bear arms", there were no weapons capable of more than one shot at a time, and the pinnacle of military technology at the time was rifling. Therefore - according to the Supreme Court's reigning originalist, Antonin Scalia - the idea is to draw the line ourselves at where the equivalent line would have been in 1787, given their technology and culture at the time. Only the farthest of extremists suggest with any level of seriousness that we should either allow or disallow absolutely all firearms, but our argument lies in the spectrum between. There are plenty of arguments and mountains of evidence for each stance on each nuance without muddying the waters, again, with yet another logical fallacy that sends us spinning off into some tempest in a teacup that has very little to do with the issue we're actually trying to work through.

TL:DR, False equivalencies are false. Stay focused.

It should also be remembered that when the 2nd Amendment was written the founders were less than 20 years removed from the invention of the primer fired brass cartridge, which lead to the first repeating rifle. Being men of modern science and technology it’s not hard to assume they knew where weapon technology was headed and the implications of it.

Edit: pardon me I misspoke, was drawing from memory.
The precussion cap, a.k.a. primer, was patented in 1807 and the first pin fired cartridge quickly followed in 1808. The inventor, Jean Samuel Pauly, made some improvements and patented his invention in 1812 but his pin fired cartridge was made of paper with a copper base. The brass cartridge didn’t follow until 1836.
But I think the point still remains.

Radar Chief
04-24-2013, 10:12 AM
First of all, it's pointless to argue any of this until we find out where they got their guns. I haven't seen anything saying they weren't allowed to own guns, only that they didn't have the licenses (correct me if I missed something there). I will be very interested to see if any recently-proposed laws would have prevented him from getting the guns he did.


This study (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506#t=articleDiscussion), and this other older one (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198606123142406), are together known pretty well as the most damning scientific evidence against gun ownership in the home. The NEJM is as impartial as you can get, and so for them to so roundly denounce the practice is pretty hard to ignore.

However, we do have a Second Amendment, so we do have to honor its inclusion in the Constitution as much as we do any other element. We do not, however, have to honor it absolutely; it does have limits already, now we just quibble about where to draw the line.

The Kellerman report, brought to you by the same people that pushed the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban with the idea that a gun in the house means there is a higher chance that someone will be killed in that house and that gun ownership wasn’t a deterrent to crime.
Some of the problems with the Kellerman report include only counted self-defense with a gun when it resulted in a death and underreporting gun ownership. They didn’t use national reported averages for the time and instead used “proxies”, a.k.a. neighbors and family, to determine whether there was a gun in the house. Had they used the national averages for the time they would’ve found that a home is less likely to have a homicide committed in it but that wouldn’t fit the “not a deterrent” talking point.

CrazyPhuD
04-24-2013, 01:43 PM
Back to the original topic....this story has been showing up since yesterday...

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/04/23/miller-tsarnaev-brothers-killed-mit-officer-because-they-needed-a-gun/

“The original question is they walked up to that car and appeared they shot the officer in the head unprovoked, that it was an assassination. But why? How did that fit into their plan? The operating theory now in the investigation is they were short one gun. The older brother had a gun. They wanted to get a gun for the younger brother and the fastest and most efficient way they could think of doing it was a surprise attack on a cop, to take his weapon and go. Officer Collier had a locking holster, it’s like a three-way lock. If you don’t know how to remove the gun, you’re not going to get it out. There was apparently an attempt to yank it and they couldn’t get it and left. “

Now what strikes me as weird about this is...if the brothers only had one gun(and a BB gun)...who fired the 200+ rounds during the shoot out?

ForeverChiefs58
04-24-2013, 03:11 PM
I don't think most people are opposed to legal private small arms ownership. Arsenal stockpiling, a lot of people have a problem with, however.

A deadly gun culture isn't limited to criminal activity. Suicide is also part of that, and by a large margin, rural white males are the ones who make up that demographic.

Do you think more gun violence comes from hand guns, rifles, or automatic weapons? Do you think more gun violence comes from legal gun owners or from illegal criminals?

Dayze
04-24-2013, 03:59 PM
that, and what determines a 'stockpile'?

R8RFAN
04-24-2013, 04:01 PM
that, and what determines a 'stockpile'?

Anything over enough to load a double barrel

R8RFAN
04-24-2013, 04:26 PM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/923425_637532332924024_751560244_n.jpg

Sorter
04-24-2013, 05:52 PM
https://i.minus.com/ibpvMdBDbbblS1.gif

stonedstooge
04-24-2013, 05:55 PM
Back to the original topic....this story has been showing up since yesterday...

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/04/23/miller-tsarnaev-brothers-killed-mit-officer-because-they-needed-a-gun/



Now what strikes me as weird about this is...if the brothers only had one gun(and a BB gun)...who fired the 200+ rounds during the shoot out?

Lots of things don't add up right now. They haven't come up with what story they are going to stick with yet. That's what I hate about a media that follows the government line.

LiveSteam
04-24-2013, 06:04 PM
So no AR-15?

Dayze
04-24-2013, 06:17 PM
Probably used a Glock

LiveSteam
04-24-2013, 06:28 PM
Probably used a Glock

probably only had 7 bullets to

CrazyPhuD
04-24-2013, 09:29 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/single-gun-recovered-accused-boston-bombers/story?id=19028841

Law enforcement sources told ABC News the gun recovered from the scene of the Tsarnaev brothers' shoot out with police was a Ruger 9 mm semi-automatic handgun. Sources said the gun is in the custody of the Massachusetts State Police lab and that the serial number on the firearm was obliterated.

Gun control works?? I wonder how many people will be disappointed that no assault weapons were used and only a single pistol was used....

petegz28
04-24-2013, 09:39 PM
Oh noes!!! A criminal with a gun without a permit!?!?!?!?

Who'd a thunk?

ForeverChiefs58
04-24-2013, 10:52 PM
Oh noes!!! A criminal with a gun without a permit!?!?!?!?

Who'd a thunk?

Liberal retards

stonedstooge
04-25-2013, 05:38 AM
This mornings reports on AOL, we're now down to only 1 gun used by the brothers in the "shootout" with the police and the kid was unarmed in the boat. And the spin/misinformation goes on

R8RFAN
04-25-2013, 07:00 AM
This mornings reports on AOL, we're now down to only 1 gun used by the brothers in the "shootout" with the police and the kid was unarmed in the boat. And the spin/misinformation goes on

That's what happens when the left owns the media

notorious
04-25-2013, 08:12 AM
So no AR-15?

This?


I read an article saying they had an M4, but if it was true then the media would have jerked off all over the cameras by now.

HolyHandgernade
04-27-2013, 11:51 AM
Do you think more gun violence comes from hand guns, rifles, or automatic weapons? Do you think more gun violence comes from legal gun owners or from illegal criminals?

I think gun violence comes from anyone who is prone to act on extreme emotional circumstances. If you have a gun, or guns, no matter what kind they are, its too easy for such situations to escalate beyond original intentions. Guns are immediate, though unearned, power. People who would normally walk away from an escalated situation are now more likely to "show" their gun if it happens to be within reach. This escalates the probability that a situation that wouldn't have been deadly into a very deadly one.

I don't think most people who buy guns ever intend to shoot someone. I don't think most people who buy guns intend to commit a crime. But most of these people buy guns when there are not huge stressors in their lives. When these stressors are applied, be they emotional or economic, people resort to desperate measures, and guns are an immediate power surge. They make people who would normally tell you "no", say "yes" with little more skill than the ability to retract your index finger a bit.

So, I don't see much of a difference, frankly. Any "innocent" gun owner is a potential criminal given the right set of circumstances. And your query doesn't even broach the confidence it gives people with suicidal tendencies to go through with it who might have thought twice at a more prolonged and painful option.

I don't know if you watch Game of Thrones, but there's a great quote in it:

"There's a beast in every man that stirs when you put a sword in his hand."

At least a sword is highly visible, takes a fair amount of skill to wield properly, and has to be used at close range. Why people think an easily concealed, low skill, long range weapon gives us a clear distinction between legal gun owners and criminal gun possessors is beyond me. Every man has that beast, and you're fooling yourself into your own ego driven grandiosity if you think it will always be easily controlled.

HolyHandgernade
04-27-2013, 11:57 AM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/923425_637532332924024_751560244_n.jpg

I'll thank the well organized and regulated military, thanks anyway.

2bikemike
04-27-2013, 03:12 PM
I'll thank the well organized and regulated military, thanks anyway.

I think they are persons with guns!

HolyHandgernade
04-27-2013, 04:21 PM
I think they are persons with guns!

Yes, but not just ANY person.

Aries Walker
04-27-2013, 04:34 PM
Also, if you are free to be a conservative, thank a person with an education.

See how dumb that sounds?

beach tribe
04-28-2013, 07:04 PM
:drool:

I would imagine black males Under 25 are not republican Or NRA members.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-30-2013, 11:16 PM
http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/0SD9tyCFTnpBqzzDi26usQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTMxMA--/http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/600x3512.jpg

Dayze
05-01-2013, 02:56 AM
That's crazy talk. The Indians didn't "need " those guns.

LiveSteam
05-01-2013, 07:43 AM
I shot the sheriff
But I didnt have a gun permit

Radar Chief
05-01-2013, 08:10 AM
That's crazy talk. The Indians didn't "need " those guns.

Agreed. /7th Cavalry Regiment