Welcome to Texas you all ( gun new laws)

[cashto]

QUOTE (Wasp @ Dec 8 2016, 02:41 PM) ROFL...

You are completely retarded if you believe that a CCW law is any deterrent to a criminal robbing a convenient store or anyone who uses a gun for non-defensive reasons. As if that training law and regulation on gun ownership would change their mind? LOL That line of thinking shows just how little thinking you do.

You didn't listen to a thing I said.

QUOTE Did it occur to you that ordinary citizens might actually train and consider "how and 'WHEN'" to use a firearm without mandatory laws in place?[/quote]

Yes it did.

Did it occur to you that the flip side of "might" is "might not"?

I'm done here. You're not someone who can be reasoned with.

[Dome]

QUOTE (cashto @ Dec 8 2016, 04:02 PM) I'm done here. You're not someone who can be reasoned with.

You fought the good fight.

Wasp thinks mandatory firearm training wouldn't provide a benefit to anyone, so...

[Duckwarrior]

You are so awesome.

You should also consider introducing a federal ban on researching gun violence. That way the bad guys won't be able to access that research and use it in a bad way. The only thing that stops a bad guy with access to research into gun violence, is not having any research into gun violence.

[Wasp]

QUOTE (Dome @ Dec 9 2016, 02:24 AM) Wasp thinks mandatory firearm training wouldn't provide a benefit to anyone, so...

If someone wants training, they can easily acquire it. Making it mandatory is just an overreaction to your own paranoia...as if the lack of mandatory training will produce a wave of gun related accidents.

[zombywoof]

QUOTE (cashto @ Dec 8 2016, 11:11 AM) Legally, I believe states should be allowed to have as much gun control as they want -- or, as in Texas's case, as little as they want. I disagree with the ruling in DC v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia" (although Heller did also find that "the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"). I also disagree with McDonald v. Chicago which incorporated (this interpretation of) the 2nd amendment against the states.

I mean, I'd have to look up McDonald v Chicago but wouldn't that interpretation automagically carry over to the states as the result of our current understanding of the 14th amendment? I'm no lawologist (more of a hobbyist at best) but... I thought that's how incorporation works. If that is how incorporation works then while I'm not happy with the result of that decision (being pro gun control and thinking the 2nd amendment woefully dated), I certainly agree that if we assume DC v Heller is correct then McDonald v Chicago is necessarily correct, and would be somewhat bothered by justices trying to continue an already decided case within a decade of that case being decided.

QUOTE (cashto @ Dec 8 2016, 01:26 PM) But sometimes it's because they're not a very careful thinker -- or perhaps they're even being willfully obtuse. This is one of those arguments that lets me know a person might belong in that last category, and that I shouldn't even bother to try having a serious conversation with them.

At the risk of being in a glass house:

Amen brother.

QUOTE (Duckwarrior @ Dec 9 2016, 02:47 AM) You are so awesome.

You should also consider introducing a federal ban on researching gun violence. That way the bad guys won't be able to access that research and use it in a bad way. The only thing that stops a bad guy with access to research into gun violence, is not having any research into gun violence.

Generally we should just introduce a federal ban on research in general, because a bad guy could simply research why there is no research into gun violence and we'd end up with this researchception thing.

Plus it'd definitely help with the Republican opposition to such evil, soulless, immoral, and social-fabric-destroying concepts as evolution and global warming.

[zombywoof]

(P.S. fyi there is no ban on gun violence research, there is simply a ban on federal funding of gun violence research. While practically they add up to similar things, I personally feel the distinction is worth noting. Solve the problem you have not the problem you want to have, and all.)

[cashto]

QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Dec 9 2016, 12:14 PM) I mean, I'd have to look up McDonald v Chicago but wouldn't that interpretation automagically carry over to the states as the result of our current understanding of the 14th amendment? I'm no lawologist (more of a hobbyist at best) but... I thought that's how incorporation works. If that is how incorporation works then while I'm not happy with the result of that decision (being pro gun control and thinking the 2nd amendment woefully dated), I certainly agree that if we assume DC v Heller is correct then McDonald v Chicago is necessarily correct, and would be somewhat bothered by justices trying to continue an already decided case within a decade of that case being decided.

Well, I graduated magna cum laude from the University of Wikipedia, and based on my extensive experience in Constitutional law, I can tell you that although the doctrine of incorporation is based on the 14th amendment, it is not applied automatically for the entire Bill of Rights, but on a case-by-case basis only. See Adamson v. California for an example of the legal reasoning behind this doctrine of "selective" incorporation. Currently things like the 5th amendment right to a grand jury and the 7th amendment right to a jury trial have not been incorporated by the states.

[zombywoof]

Where the hell is spideyclese when you need him, eh?

[Vipur24]

GLOBE!!!!!

[Papsmear]

Statistics 2014:

Canada had a 0.39 gun related homicides rate per 100,000 people
United States had a 3.43 gun related homicides rate per 100,000 people.

Canada has stricter gun laws, proof of fire arms training is required before an individual can purchase a gun and it is almost impossible to get a concealed weapons
permit.

United States has relaxed gun laws, fire arms training is not required for an individual to purchase a gun and a concealed weapons permit can be acquired fairly
easily.

We share a border and interact with each other.
Are Americans more violent than Canadian? Perhaps but probably not.
In Canada if you want to own a gun you just do the safety course, it's no big deal.
But I do not believe training or lack there of is the reason the gun related homicide rate is so much higher in the US.
I would guess it is the ease at which someone can get a gun and a conceal permit, leaving out the criminal element of course

Just my 2 cents