Are we safe in airports, shopping malls or at marathons?

[emmitt01]

People speeding on the highway where 35,000 to 50,000 people die each year.... and recently, a week after three more air disasters occurred,.. air tubulance on an 8 hour flight back from Oahu makes me nervious.

Rick

So let's do something to correct/control all of the issues that we can. If you want to start a petition to increase funding for highway patrol I'll be the first to sign. I can't help you on the turbulence thing. But it's asinine to ignore the dangers of one issue simply because other dangers exis as well.

[Army of Dad]

-

--- The law is about teaching first graders ...... The article at top shows a small kid with a gun... The Eddie Eagle comment is not bad about leaving the area or leaving one alone ... but that is not what the main purpose of the law apparently. No YOU did not say it was a membership drive... but why use NRA ... just tell young kids to leave guns alone ..period. Telling them to leave them alone is not considered a gun safety COURSE and no law is needed to tell them.. .... The picture creates a totally different image. Do you think we need AAA or Nascar in the schools to teach kids to not start or drive cars.

--ok you lived in the country.. I don't lease my land to city-types because so many are fools with guns just shoot everything in sight including what they think are worthless structures. My cousin did one time and said never again ... said he didn't need the money that bad. Uninformed ... don't think so... some in town are ok but unless you know them and have watched them ... nope... one almost shot me .. shot at anything that moved and never considered what was in the distance (cows, barn, pickup etc.) . .You are a bit unusual if you use an assault weapon to hunt with... they don't have the "knock down power" of a 30-30 or 30-06 and often injures an animal that then escapes.. then suffers and dies elsewhere.. Few hunters want that or use guns like that.

You are aware that so called assault weapons come in many different calibers. In traditional hunting calibers and new ones that are also very effective. Also, 7.62x39 (typical AK pattern rifle caliber) is ballistically very similar to a .30-30. If a .30-30 is good enough to take a deer then it's Russian cousin will do just fine.

Even a .223 is used in hunting, especially varmint hunting. Want to slow down the coyotes from taking your calves? An AR-15 is just the thing...

[FirefightnRick]

Even a .223 is used in hunting, especially varmint hunting. Want to slow down the coyotes from taking your calves? An AR-15 is just the thing...

And recently...it's become a very popular tool in culling the hog infestation as well.

Rick

[FirefightnRick]

So let's do something to correct/control all of the issues that we can. If you want to start a petition to increase funding for highway patrol I'll be the first to sign. I can't help you on the turbulence thing. But it's asinine to ignore the dangers of one issue simply because other dangers exis as well.

I'm all for keeping the guns and other weapons out of the hands of those with mental illness etc, but we already know, due to the PC and overly litigated world leftism has left us in today, that the doctors, specialists, cops, teachers, administrators and concerned citizens hands are mostly tied behind their backs trying to head off trouble before it happens, and there has been countless examples cited of this. Maybe states should expand the definition of mental illness, I don't know? I'll agree though that it's a difficult nut to crack in seeking out and shutting down the Loughners, Hassans and Holmes before they attack.

According to your previous link Illinois hasnt ignored the problem and is one of the five states with the strictest guns laws,...closing that "Gun Show Loophole". But it doesn't seem to be helping the gun crime in Chicago?

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/17/chicago-erupts-weekend-gun-violence-7-dead-36-inju/

Chicago Murder Rate Climbs

http://guardianlv.com/2013/07/chicago-murder-rate-climbs-four-more-killed-and-ten-wounded-since-friday/

As for where I live, I wasn't aware we had a "gun show loophole" problem? In fact, the gun shows around Tarrant and Parker counties are becoming less popular with me and those who I know( which is damn near everyone I know...Liberals AND Conservatives included),.. now due to a LACK of good deals anymore. There's really no more reasons to go until prices fall. If I want an AR I know countless sources with much better prices, regardless if I have to acquire them through required background checks or not.

Rick

Edited July 16, 2013 by FirefightnRick

[oldguystudent]

I won't be happy until Texas allows me to carry my fixed blade hunting knife around on my person in public. At least I can use that thing for many purposes that don't involved killing, maiming, or injuring another person. I could totally have helped Trayvon Martin open his bag of skittles.

[FirefightnRick]

I won't be happy until Texas allows me to carry my fixed blade hunting knife around on my person in public.

(6) Illegal Knife means a:

(A) knife with a blade over five and one half inches;

Rainer v. State, 763 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. App.-Eastland 1989, pet. refd) To determine

length, measure entire length of blade past handle, not just the sharpened portion of the

blade. Same result in McMurrough v. State, 995 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. App.-Ft. Worth 1999).

(B. hand instrument designed to cut or stab another by being thrown;

Albert v. State, 659 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. App.-Houston [14

th

Dist.] 1983, pet. refd) Martial

arts throwing star qualifies as a hand instrument designed to cut or stab another by being

thrown.

(C.dagger including but not limited to a dirk, stiletto, and poniard;

Armendariz v. State, 396 S.W.2d 132 (Tex. Crim. App. 1965) A knife slightly over seven

inches in length when open, equipped with a double guard, blade that locks open and is

sharpened on both sides of blade for over an inch meets the definition of a dagger.

(D. bowie knife; Mireles v. State, 192 S.W. 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 1917) A knife in a scabbard with a blade

nine inches long and a handle four or five inches long described as a butcher knife was

embraced in the term bowie knife as defined by the Penal Code.

(E.sword; or

(F. spear.

(7) Knife means any bladed hand instrument that is capable of inflicting serious

bodily injury or death by cutting or stabbing a person with the instrument.

Rick

Edited July 16, 2013 by FirefightnRick

[oldguystudent]

Yeah, I'm familiar with the statute. My knife is that big. It's really handy too. No. Seriously. One of my most used tools at home.

[FirefightnRick]

Yeah, I'm familiar with the statute. My knife is that big. It's really handy too. No. Seriously. One of my most used tools at home.

Cool, I think your good to go then.

Rick

Edited July 17, 2013 by FirefightnRick

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

You are aware that so called assault weapons come in many different calibers. In traditional hunting calibers and new ones that are also very effective. Also, 7.62x39 (typical AK pattern rifle caliber) is ballistically very similar to a .30-30. If a .30-30 is good enough to take a deer then it's Russian cousin will do just fine.

Even a .223 is used in hunting, especially varmint hunting. Want to slow down the coyotes from taking your calves? An AR-15 is just the thing...

..

If you need 12-20 quick shots to kill a coyote or feral hog... you are a terrible shot.... I am not opposed to guns... why the need for one that can shoot a dozen plus in a hurry.??? You are trying to picture me as something I am not.... anti-gun.

[Army of Dad]

..

If you need 12-20 quick shots to kill a coyote or feral hog... you are a terrible shot.... I am not opposed to guns... why the need for one that can shoot a dozen plus in a hurry.??? You are trying to picture me as something I am not.... anti-gun.

It's your self portrait, I'm just calling it like I see it.

[emmitt01]

" There's really no more reasons to go until prices fall. If I want an AR I know countless sources with much better prices, regardless if I have to acquire them through required background checks or not."

Unless you're a convicted felon or want the gun to commit a killing. Those people's primary concern isn't price of the weapon or where they can find the best deal. And why is the price of the weapon even relevant? If the idea is to keep the weapons out of the hands of the wrong people what they're being asked to pay for them shouldn't be our strongest deterrent. Besides, you ever seen the bankroll of your average mid-level dope dealer? $2,000 (or even $3,000) for an AR-15 isn't a real high hurdle to clear.

I'm sure someone will be along soon to say that all the guns used in street killings are bought off of the streets. And they may be right, even 99% of the time (we'll assume just to tilt the argument in favor of the pro-gun crowd). But that 1% to me is still too high. If that AK-47 that killed the Killeen officer was purchased "legally" at a gun show then that is one too many. If I told you that 99% of the heroin, crack and pcp used by addicts was purchased on the streets but that 1% of the time we'd fill our convention centers and market halls with "Drug Shows" where you could buy all you wanted there would be a national uproar amongst both Republicans and Democrats.

And let me save a soap box or two the weight of someone's inevitable filibuster. I am not suggesting we outlaw "assault weapons". I'm not arguing for magazine capacity restrictions. I don't give a rats ass about the political implications of banning/not banning a bunch of guns. I don't work for the Obama administration so save your histrionics concerning the current administration. Save your links to Fox News articles, your Chicago death toll numbers and the whole range of NRA talking points. I just think it's tragic that anyone (you, me, the local Klansman, the Black Mafia, or the local street punk) can buy an AR-15 or an AK-47 from a table in a gun show without a background check.

[Army of Dad]

" There's really no more reasons to go until prices fall. If I want an AR I know countless sources with much better prices, regardless if I have to acquire them through required background checks or not."

Unless you're a convicted felon or want the gun to commit a killing. Those people's primary concern isn't price of the weapon or where they can find the best deal. And why is the price of the weapon even relevant? If the idea is to keep the weapons out of the hands of the wrong people what they're being asked to pay for them shouldn't be our strongest deterrent. Besides, you ever seen the bankroll of your average mid-level dope dealer? $2,000 (or even $3,000) for an AR-15 isn't a real high hurdle to clear.

I'm sure someone will be along soon to say that all the guns used in street killings are bought off of the streets. And they may be right, even 99% of the time (we'll assume just to tilt the argument in favor of the pro-gun crowd). But that 1% to me is still too high. If that AK-47 that killed the Killeen officer was purchased "legally" at a gun show then that is one too many. If I told you that 99% of the heroin, crack and pcp used by addicts was purchased on the streets but that 1% of the time we'd fill our convention centers and market halls with "Drug Shows" where you could buy all you wanted there would be a national uproar amongst both Republicans and Democrats.

And let me save a soap box or two the weight of someone's inevitable filibuster. I am not suggesting we outlaw "assault weapons". I'm not arguing for magazine capacity restrictions. I don't give a rats ass about the political implications of banning/not banning a bunch of guns. I don't work for the Obama administration so save your histrionics concerning the current administration. Save your links to Fox News articles, your Chicago death toll numbers and the whole range of NRA talking points. I just think it's tragic that anyone (you, me, the local Klansman, the Black Mafia, or the local street punk) can buy an AR-15 or an AK-47 from a table in a gun show without a background check.

So the next time a cop kills an unarmed individual, especially if they are not posing a threat are you going to say that 1% of bad cop shootings justifies disarming police of the weapons they choose to carry? (I mean why not just go back to revolvers, how many rounds do you really need!?) we both know police have pretty extensive background checks performed on them and that doesn't stop all of the bad apples from getting through so if we follow your logic...

[emmitt01]

So the next time a cop kills an unarmed individual, especially if they are not posing a threat are you going to say that 1% of bad cop shootings justifies disarming police of the weapons they choose to carry? (I mean why not just go back to revolvers, how many rounds do you really need!?) we both know police have pretty extensive background checks performed on them and that doesn't stop all of the bad apples from getting through so if we follow your logic...

Who said ANYTHING about disarming anyone? There should be a background check required to buy a firearm, regardless of where you purchase it,. That's not hard logic to follow. Do you even read posts or just scan waiting for the chance to retort?

[FirefightnRick]

"I just think it's tragic that anyone (you, me, the local Klansman, the Black Mafia, or the local street punk) can buy an AR-15 or an AK-47 from a table in a gun show without a background check."

...or an undercover agent from the Justice Department due to Fast And Furious, too, right?

"Fast And Furious Claims Another Victim."

http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/07/08/operation-fast-and-furious-claims-another-victim-n1635978

While the remaining details of Operation Fast and Furious continue to be locked up in a court battle, the real world consequences of the lethal operation continue to emerge. Over the weekend, the Los Angeles Times reported a Mexican police chief has been killed with a gun trafficked into Mexico through Fast and Furious

Edited July 18, 2013 by FirefightnRick

[Army of Dad]

Who said ANYTHING about disarming anyone? There should be a background check required to buy a firearm, regardless of where you purchase it,. That's not hard logic to follow. Do you even read posts or just scan waiting for the chance to retort?

There is a pretty extensive background check to become a police officer. It doesn't stop the bad apples from using guns illegally. So if background checks on cops don't work 100% why would it be any better for a private transaction between two citizens?

[Censored by Laurie]

There is a pretty extensive background check to become a police officer. It doesn't stop the bad apples from using guns illegally. So if background checks on cops don't work 100% why would it be any better for a private transaction between two citizens?

If something doesn't work 100% of the time you should just scrap it?

[UNTFan23]

If something doesn't work 100% of the time you should just scrap it?

I don't think he is saying that just pointing out that it will not be 100% effective for transactions being done between law abiding citizens.

[emmitt01]

There is a pretty extensive background check to become a police officer. It doesn't stop the bad apples from using guns illegally. So if background checks on cops don't work 100% why would it be any better for a private transaction between two citizens?

Thank you! Thank you so very much!! Finally, you've spelled out the weakest, most tired, argument put forth by those who reject any/all restrictions on firearms. It's also the easiest refuted.

Does anyone honestly think that 100% deterence is the objective standard that we should be striving for? How ridiculously comical.

Do some "bad apples" slip through to become police officers despite background checks? Yes. And how many people with theft convictions, family violence convictions or a history of aggression are rejected BECAUSE of them? I'll play those percentages any day.

Do people still default on loans despite extemsive credit checks by lenders and banks? All the time, otherwise collections departments wouldn't exist. Yet, somehow, the powers that be in the banking industry still swear by them. By your logic they must be pretty silly.

Do kids still manage to drink and smoke below the ages of 21 and 18? Of course they do, every single day. We must be stupid to restrict their access to alcohol and tobacco because we aren't 100% successful in prevention.

And yes, whether it be handguns or rifles or Uzi's, I'll place more faith in us getting it right if we perform background checks on those wishing to purchase firearms.

[FirefightnRick]

And yes, whether it be handguns or rifles or Uzi's, I'll place more faith in us getting it right if we perform background checks on those wishing to purchase firearms.

So your answer is "No", there really is not a gun show loophole problem in Texas?

Rick

[Army of Dad]

Thank you! Thank you so very much!! Finally, you've spelled out the weakest, most tired, argument put forth by those who reject any/all restrictions on firearms. It's also the easiest refuted.

Does anyone honestly think that 100% deterence is the objective standard that we should be striving for? How ridiculously comical.

Do some "bad apples" slip through to become police officers despite background checks? Yes. And how many people with theft convictions, family violence convictions or a history of aggression are rejected BECAUSE of them? I'll play those percentages any day.

Do people still default on loans despite extemsive credit checks by lenders and banks? All the time, otherwise collections departments wouldn't exist. Yet, somehow, the powers that be in the banking industry still swear by them. By your logic they must be pretty silly.

Do kids still manage to drink and smoke below the ages of 21 and 18? Of course they do, every single day. We must be stupid to restrict their access to alcohol and tobacco because we aren't 100% successful in prevention.

And yes, whether it be handguns or rifles or Uzi's, I'll place more faith in us getting it right if we perform background checks on those wishing to purchase firearms.

You said that a 1% chance a gun used in a crime was bought at a gun show (and not subject to a background check) was too high. I used your standard and applied it to the background checks on cops.

I don't think private transactions between law abiding citizens should require governmental approval, especially when the transaction covers something that is specifically protected by the Constitution.

You do. You and I will probably never agree on this point.

[MeanGreenTexan]

You said that a 1% chance a gun used in a crime was bought at a gun show (and not subject to a background check) was too high. I used your standard and applied it to the background checks on cops.

I don't think private transactions between law abiding citizens should require governmental approval, especially when the transaction covers something that is specifically protected by the Constitution.

You do. You and I will probably never agree on this point.

I think a simple gun check would keep it this way. If no check, how do you know the transaction is between law abiding citizens? I don't know that any sane person would think that a simple background check is going to keep a criminal from doing criminal things, but it's a nod in the right direction.

[emmitt01]

So your answer is "No", there really is not a gun show loophole problem in Texas?

Rick

No, my answer is that if one firearm is bought at a gun show and that person goes on to commit a murder then that is one too many. Is it possible for a person who passes a background check to go on to commit a murder? Of course, but I think we've adequately covered how asinine asking for 100% deterrence is. By your logic the TSA is needlessly harassing me at the airport because we don't have a terror "problem" in Texas. Nevermind that they're addressing an issue that was localized to New York in the name if deterrence, let's wait until it happens in Texas.

The "transaction between law abiding citizens" line of reasoning is faulty on face...it's only by performing a background check that we can ensure that they are both law abiding. Otherwise we have to just assume.

Edited July 18, 2013 by emmitt01

[emmitt01]

To be fair, the data is arguable on both sides.

http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-gun-show-loophole-arms-criminals/

http://m.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/new-data-gun-crimes-demonstrates-why-senate-limbo/64998/

Edited July 18, 2013 by emmitt01

[FirefightnRick]

No, my answer is that if one firearm is bought at a gun show and that person goes on to commit a murder then that is one too many. Is it possible for a person who passes a background check to go on to commit a murder? Of course, but I think we've adequately covered how asinine asking for 100% deterrence is. By your logic the TSA is needlessly harassing me at the airport because we don't have a terror "problem" in Texas. Nevermind that they're addressing an issue that was localized to New York in the name if deterrence, let's wait until it happens in Texas.

The "transaction between law abiding citizens" line of reasoning is faulty on face...it's only by performing a background check that we can ensure that they are both law abiding. Otherwise we have to just assume.

If there's one more crime committed with a fist is too many. That doesn't mean it's off with everyone's hands.

And federal anti terrorist procedures differ greatly from state gun laws.

Rick

[emmitt01]

If there's one more crime committed with a fist is too many. That doesn't mean it's off with everyone's hands.

And federal anti terrorist procedures differ greatly from state gun laws.

Rick

Your reasoning is flawed. Nobody is suggesting taking away everyone's guns. For your analogy to hold water we'd have to chop off the hands of only the mentally ill, felons and those with family violence convictions. Edited July 18, 2013 by emmitt01