jfields

Or Funk Buddies, for people that really like disco.

That program does sound good. I'm all for things that help with the problem, rather than contribute to it. Mike and I just disagree on where the NRA falls on their overall score. I think negative, he thinks positive. Such is life. People don't always agree.

FlyingFerret, Thanks for the rational response and willingness to discuss a middleground on some of the issues. I know that there are technical issues with some safety precautions in some circumstances. I'm not saying it is a one size fits all solution. I agree with you that there are plenty of laws on the books. In another thread awhile ago, I stated that I wasn't out to add lots of laws limiting gun rights, or complicating things. There should be fewer laws, but better ones. I also agree that the penalties for violating the laws should be strictly enforced. In my opinion, they should also be more severe. Like you said, that will act as a deterrant. Well said, and agreed. It is just tough to find people on the pro-gun side that are willing to discuss compromises that would help public safety, no matter how small the inconvenience or how big the benefit, if it in any way changes the free and convenient access to firearms.

To a large degree, I stand by my comment, and reiterate the one on the brainwashing. Sorry, but that is how I feel, and there are plenty of facts to support it.

You haven't pissed me off, because I agree. I'd be fine with raising the driving age. I'd also be fine with lowering the limit for DUI. I'd also be good with a mandatory jail term for anyone caught DUI. Say, a year on a first offense? That would do a lot to make the streets safer. You think I'm harsh on guns? Don't get me started on drunk driving.

Dave, You're right. I did miss it. I reread and got it about backwards. Sorry.

I don't care if your kid gets killed by your gun. I care if MY kid gets killed by YOUR gun. While sad, I tend to agree with you that it is the parents responsibility to deal with things in their own home. My problem is when it leaves the home, or someone in my family visits, not knowing about someone else's potentially irresponsible gun ownership.

I understand that firearms are just tools. Really. But the problem is that many people aren't capable of responsibly handling them. I'm not talking about criminals. I'm talking about people that buy them legally for home protection, or for concealed carry, or whatever. I'm not trying to squash your ability to do those things. My problem is that it is too easy to get the weapons, the training requirements are too low, and there is little accountability for the responsible handling of the weapons. If people were more responsible, it wouldn't be so easy for me to pull up tons of examples about people with CHLs accidently shooting people, or getting pissed off and deciding their "self defense weapon" could just as easily solve their argument. From 1997 to 2001, there were 880 cases of justifiable homicide by private citizens using firearms. During the same period, 45,846 were murdered by firearms. (Source: FBI) So it isn't so surprising why people question the role of firearms in private hands, and the ease of access to them. Basically, I don't want you, your kid, your neighbor, or the guy that just stole your gun to shoot me, or anyone in my family. How do you propose we do better at making sure irresponsible people don't get guns? That isn't a flame, or a rhetorical question. I'm open to suggestions. Many of the suggestions I've seen that seem sensible get squashed by the gun owners as bad things. Trigger locks, gun safes, exhaustive background checks and waiting periods come to mind. What do you think will work, to preserve MY right not to get shot?

Dave, You'd serve your own arguement better if you just dropped that one. It is BS, and you know it. From 1997 to 2001, the number of people murdered by firearm was 45,846. The number of people murdered by everything else COMBINED was 24,260. The number killed by handguns alone was 36,097, which is also more than everything else combined. For comparison, rifles were "only" used to kill 2,386 people. Edit: In the same time period, 128 people were murdered by drowning. So you are 358 times as likely to be murdered by firearm than drowning. Source: FBI http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-10.xls We are talking about murder and crime. The arguement about kids getting killed by bucket-wielding criminals is a joke. Guns are used to kill more people than everything else. And despite the assertions, however true, about how people go boar hunting with handguns, the fact remains that handguns are the weapon of choice for murder. Handguns are under more scrutiny than rifles and other weapons for a valid reason.

I know that the stated goal of educating people about the proper use of firearms has basically become a cover for a pro-gun lobbying group that is trying to defend every aspect of gun culture. Right. Blame the media. Blame everyone but those at fault. All I have to look at is the public statements of the NRA itself. They make a mockery of safety and civility. The NRA has objected to proposal after proposal that would reduce child deaths and the deaths of bystanders, while still allowing individual gun ownership. What are "my" anti-gun groups? My military experience excluded, I never join anything where I am forced to behave and act according to guidelines I don't like. You are being presumptuous, and you are wrong. I am not a card-carrying member of some anti-gun group. I'm just an individual that has retained my ability to reason and rejected the brainwashing of the military and the NRA. It doesn't matter whether it is 4 people, 4 million, or 4 billion. I'll slam them if they are wrong, or if their policies are a detriment to society. Unlike some members of our government, I am not bought by the NRA lobbyists.

or worse, the NRA.

I couldn't have expressed it any better myself. We agree on that.

I don't see it as any kind of conservative/liberal division. I see lots of very frustrating dodging of responsibility in the whole gun ownership discussion. There is a lot of very oily, sleazy evasion of personal responsibility. I also see a lot of blame put on innocent people that got murdered, which I find to be a pathetic evasion of personal responsibility. To me, it isn't along political lines. Some people on the opposite side of this issue from me are very cognizant of their responsibilities. So are many people on the moderate and liberal sides. There are just particular people throughout the spectrum that try to evade the consequences of their actions. As for the sign issue, I'm nitpicking adjectives, not saying the wrong sign (got that, Dave?) should be binding. Since Dave won't agree with me anyway, I'm just using it as a method of driving up my postwhoring numbers.

Are you actually saying you believe the conversatives are responsible for their actions? And out of curiosity, how did that observation come from our current discussion?

So have I, but can you, in this particular incident, PROVE it was intentional? Clearly, it is the store owner's fault for listening, and not checking to make sure the advice was correct. I'm not saying it was in any way your fault. From the sounds of it, you were trying to do the guy a service. I'm just nitpicking on how you knew he was doing it on purpose. You have yet to answer that one. How did we get so off topic, other than the fact that we both seem to enjoy arguing with each other?

Dave, Don't make me skool you! So, before you walked into the store and educated the owner, was the sign fake? Maybe his buddy in the store next door told him it was the right one. Therefore, he had no intention to deceive you. It was the incorrect sign. Once you told him, did the sign instantly become fake? It is the same sign, and has not changed. Where is the miraculous transformation? When you walked in, did you know that he knew it was the wrong sign. If so, your psychic powers are amazing. You are attributing deception and malice to the storekeeper. You would probably be more accurate in calling him stubborn and foolish. But there is a difference. I'm not saying the wrong sign should be legally binding, just that calling it "fake" may be a stretch.

Jessica, I agree that it would be the courteous thing. But some people are more intent on flaunting their "rights" than the general respect of other people's wishes, however articulate they may or may not be. (And no, I'm not poking fun at anyone particular on the boards.)

Dave, They would be frustrated with you because they are ignorant and ineffective. I'm not saying they shouldn't have listened. Just that there are a variety of reasons people would want to ban guns in their shops, and a variety of ways in which people would express it. Both effectively (correctly) and ineffectively (wrong sign). As a side note, when you emphasize "fake" over incorrect, you are implying a deliberate intention to deceive, when it is probably just incorrect, due to their ignorance. Zenister, I'm not saying you'd have to obey the sign if they put up the wrong sign. That's their fault. Tough shit on them.

That's fine. It works a lot, but nowhere near all of the time. Why should my life, or the life of my wife or daughter, be relying on the responsibility of a minor that isn't even old enough to enter the shop to buy a gun themselves? All the "legally buy a weapon... blah blah... second amendment... blah blah... only criminals do bad things..." are totally beside the issue when you are talking about making guns accessible to minors. If an elementary school kid brought a gun to school and shot my daughter, I wouldn't blame the kid. I'd want to watch the parent(s) fry. But even more than that, I'd love it if the kids couldn't get the guns in the first place.

They aren't conflicting, Dave, since they could be the opinions of different people. I'm just showing why some people might ban guns in their establishments. Some people just post the incorrect (not fake) sign out of ignorance. Others may take the effort to learn enough to send a very specific message. In either case, they just don't want guns in their shop.

No. I don't think that is accurate at all. It can be more like, "I find your dependency on firearms and willingness to use them to be reprehensible, so I choose to forfeit your business to send you a message." CHL holders can send messages, as can the other side. I wouldn't harbor the illusion that banning the weapons would make me much safer (a little, yes, but not significantly), but I'd do it just to make the point. And you'd boycott my business anyway, so we'd both be happy.

I can see your point, and they would have listened if they'd been smart, but take a moment to look at the other side. If the proprietor doesn't want to partake in the culture of guns and violence, the last the they probably want is to be lectured by a gun owner on how the sign they have up isn't precisely right. In any case, they probably don't want your business any more than you you'd want to give it to them.

The laws about how businesses can prevent concealed carry weapons from their establishments vary by state, I believe. So what applies in Texas may not elsewhere. But I think that in all states, businesses maintain the right to ban the weapons.

It is vitally important, Bill! How else can we make sure the mortality figures end up in the right columns?

If I had a firearm, I would certainly take that approach. Most are, but plenty of firearms used in crimes are obtained legally. Some are even people that bought them legally and got legal permits to carry them concealed. Sadly, it happens. I'd like that too, even though I also feel that the laws should be tougher.