TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

2,986 Shooting Victims in Gun-Controlled Chicago During 2015

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

So we just give up? Shake our heads & wait for the next slaughter?

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Or, you could face the fact that Gun Control doesnt' work and could look for actual real solutions. Or, you could keep grandstanding.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Or, you could face the fact that Gun Control doesnt' work and could look for actual real solutions. Or, you could keep grandstanding.

And the fact that no one has actually found those yet means that it's MY fault?

"Gun control doesn't work" is a very broad statement. It works in other places quite well.

flan

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Solutions would be stop with the wrist slapping. Somebody uses a gun to commit a crime, give them a mandatory sentence.

And not one in which they sit and collect their three hots each day either.

Bring back the chain gangs. Put them to work.

Oh, it's degrading? Maybe they should have thought of that before they committed a crime.

Arm as many law abiding citizens as possible.

Do a duel drivers and carry license. And can the concealed carry. Carry where it can be seen.

Arm teachers in schools, cashiers in theaters and stores, the more chance of getting shot back, the better.

I'm tired of playing the games. It's time to win.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

You can't force people to carry guns.

flan

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Or, you could face the fact that Gun Control doesnt' work and could look for actual real solutions. Or, you could keep grandstanding.
And the fact that no one has actually found those yet means that it's MY fault?
"Gun control doesn't work" is a very broad statement. It works in other places quite well.
flan

No, it doesn't. They don't have the same conditions present in Chicago. It's not gun control--it's gangs, drugs, the inner city hip hop culture.

I GUARANTEE that there are WAY more guns per capita in podunkville Texas or wherever you want to look--but people there aren't using them to kill each other. Therefore, it is not a matter of whether you have guns, it's other factors.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 2nd of January 2016 01:41:42 PM

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Or, you could face the fact that Gun Control doesnt' work and could look for actual real solutions. Or, you could keep grandstanding.
And the fact that no one has actually found those yet means that it's MY fault?
"Gun control doesn't work" is a very broad statement. It works in other places quite well.
flan
No, it doesn't. They don't have the same conditions present in Chicago. It's not gun control--it's gangs, drugs, the inner city hip hop culture.
I GUARANTEE that there are WAY more guns per capita in podunkville Texas or wherever you want to look--but people there aren't using them to kill each other. Therefore, it is not a matter of whether you have guns, it's other factors.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 2nd of January 2016 01:41:42 PM

In Chicago, I agree that gangs play a major part in crime.

DS1 lives in Chicago & has no desire to own a gun.

flan

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Or, you could face the fact that Gun Control doesnt' work and could look for actual real solutions. Or, you could keep grandstanding.
And the fact that no one has actually found those yet means that it's MY fault?
"Gun control doesn't work" is a very broad statement. It works in other places quite well.
flan
No, it doesn't. They don't have the same conditions present in Chicago. It's not gun control--it's gangs, drugs, the inner city hip hop culture.
I GUARANTEE that there are WAY more guns per capita in podunkville Texas or wherever you want to look--but people there aren't using them to kill each other. Therefore, it is not a matter of whether you have guns, it's other factors.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 2nd of January 2016 01:41:42 PM
In Chicago, I agree that gangs play a major part in crime.
DS1 lives in Chicago & has no desire to own a gun.
flan

Who cares whether or not any one individual has the desire to own a gun? That's IRRELEVANT. The issue is whether people have that right (they do) and whether gun ownership in general is the cause of violence (it's not).

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Or, you could face the fact that Gun Control doesnt' work and could look for actual real solutions. Or, you could keep grandstanding.
And the fact that no one has actually found those yet means that it's MY fault?
"Gun control doesn't work" is a very broad statement. It works in other places quite well.
flan
No, it doesn't. They don't have the same conditions present in Chicago. It's not gun control--it's gangs, drugs, the inner city hip hop culture.
I GUARANTEE that there are WAY more guns per capita in podunkville Texas or wherever you want to look--but people there aren't using them to kill each other. Therefore, it is not a matter of whether you have guns, it's other factors.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 2nd of January 2016 01:41:42 PM
In Chicago, I agree that gangs play a major part in crime.
DS1 lives in Chicago & has no desire to own a gun.
flan
Who cares whether or not any one individual has the desire to own a gun? That's IRRELEVANT. The issue is whether people have that right (they do) and whether gun ownership in general is the cause of violence (it's not).

No, it's not the "cause," but it does contribute to needless deaths. What just happened in LA? FOUR people shot to death because of an argument over a washing machine?

flan

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Or, you could face the fact that Gun Control doesnt' work and could look for actual real solutions. Or, you could keep grandstanding.
And the fact that no one has actually found those yet means that it's MY fault?
"Gun control doesn't work" is a very broad statement. It works in other places quite well.
flan
No, it doesn't. They don't have the same conditions present in Chicago. It's not gun control--it's gangs, drugs, the inner city hip hop culture.
I GUARANTEE that there are WAY more guns per capita in podunkville Texas or wherever you want to look--but people there aren't using them to kill each other. Therefore, it is not a matter of whether you have guns, it's other factors.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 2nd of January 2016 01:41:42 PM
In Chicago, I agree that gangs play a major part in crime.
DS1 lives in Chicago & has no desire to own a gun.
flan
Who cares whether or not any one individual has the desire to own a gun? That's IRRELEVANT. The issue is whether people have that right (they do) and whether gun ownership in general is the cause of violence (it's not).
No, it's not the "cause," but it does contribute to needless deaths. What just happened in LA? FOUR people shot to death because of an argument over a washing machine?
flan

That's not an argument for gun control. Why should the fact that those losers can't behave themselves in any way affect my ability to own a gun? It's their behavior that's the issue, not their right to buy guns.

Plus, California is one of the strictest gun control states in the nation. It's HIGHLY likely that at least one or more of the guns used were obtained illegally since, you know, criminals don't really do things like follow laws and such.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 2nd of January 2016 03:50:47 PM

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

flan327 wrote:
You can't force people to carry guns.

flan

Who said anything about forcing people to carry guns? You really go off into bizarre tangents.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

The article proves the point - criminals will get guns.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

And depriving law abiding citizens the right to own weapons just makes them sitting ducks.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Criminals already have guns. They dont care about laws

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
You can't force people to carry guns.

flan
Who said anything about forcing people to carry guns? You really go off into bizarre tangents.

I was responding to LILY. Read what she posted, maybe?

flan

Fort Worth Mom · Mod/Penguin lover/Princess!

flan327 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
You can't force people to carry guns.

flan
Who said anything about forcing people to carry guns? You really go off into bizarre tangents.
I was responding to LILY. Read what she posted, maybe?
flan

I went back and read what Lily posted.

She suggested that we, "Arm as many law abiding citizens as possible."

That seems reasonable, to me.

I didn't see where she suggested that we force people to carry guns.

It's still a choice in this country. smile

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Fort Worth Mom wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
You can't force people to carry guns.

flan
Who said anything about forcing people to carry guns? You really go off into bizarre tangents.
I was responding to LILY. Read what she posted, maybe?
flan
I went back and read what Lily posted.
She suggested that we, "Arm as many law abiding citizens as possible."
That seems reasonable, to me.
I didn't see where she suggested that we force people to carry guns.
It's still a choice in this country.

Yes, and I hope it always WILL be a choice.

There have been other threads which included the suggestion that it be mandatory.

flan

Fort Worth Mom · Mod/Penguin lover/Princess!

flan327 wrote:
Fort Worth Mom wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
You can't force people to carry guns.

flan
Who said anything about forcing people to carry guns? You really go off into bizarre tangents.
I was responding to LILY. Read what she posted, maybe?
flan
I went back and read what Lily posted.
She suggested that we, "Arm as many law abiding citizens as possible."
That seems reasonable, to me.
I didn't see where she suggested that we force people to carry guns.
It's still a choice in this country.
Yes, and I hope it always WILL be a choice.
There have been other threads which included the suggestion that it be mandatory.
flan

I don't think gun ownership will ever become mandatory, flan.

I just hope we will always have the right to own a gun, should we choose to.

That's what we should be worried about, IMHO.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Except in Kennesaw, GA.

People are scared, and rightly so, but I don't think MORE guns is the answer.

flan

Fort Worth Mom · Mod/Penguin lover/Princess!

flan327 wrote:
Except in Kennesaw, GA.

People are scared, and rightly so, but I don't think MORE guns is the answer.

flan

That law in Kennesaw, GA applies to heads of households.

And there are plenty of ways to opt out, if you truly don't want to own a gun.

Here's a copy of the law:

Sec 34-21]^[23]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Oooh, an out on religious doctrine...I didn't know that. Thanks!

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Fort Worth Mom wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
You can't force people to carry guns.

flan
Who said anything about forcing people to carry guns? You really go off into bizarre tangents.
I was responding to LILY. Read what she posted, maybe?
flan
I went back and read what Lily posted.
She suggested that we, "Arm as many law abiding citizens as possible."
That seems reasonable, to me.
I didn't see where she suggested that we force people to carry guns.
It's still a choice in this country.
Yes, and I hope it always WILL be a choice.
There have been other threads which included the suggestion that it be mandatory.
flan

Except you want the choice to NOT own a gun while simultaneously taking that away from others. Uh huh.

weltschmerz · Guru

Fort Worth Mom wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Except in Kennesaw, GA.

People are scared, and rightly so, but I don't think MORE guns is the answer.

flan
That law in Kennesaw, GA applies to heads of households.
And there are plenty of ways to opt out, if you truly don't want to own a gun.
Here's a copy of the law:
Sec 34-21]^[23]
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

So, atheists will be forced to own guns. We don't subscribe to any religious doctrines.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Fort Worth Mom wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
You can't force people to carry guns.

flan
Who said anything about forcing people to carry guns? You really go off into bizarre tangents.
I was responding to LILY. Read what she posted, maybe?
flan
I went back and read what Lily posted.
She suggested that we, "Arm as many law abiding citizens as possible."
That seems reasonable, to me.
I didn't see where she suggested that we force people to carry guns.
It's still a choice in this country.
Yes, and I hope it always WILL be a choice.
There have been other threads which included the suggestion that it be mandatory.
flan
Except you want the choice to NOT own a gun while simultaneously taking that away from others. Uh huh.

Quote?

Y'all can stockpile guns & ammo if that's what you call living. I could NOT care less.

flan

burns07 · Guru

though hope it never happens might be educational for many posters here to be forced to fight a robber/rapist/thug to defend themselves or their loved ones--to actually have to fight for their own life against an adversary determined to take it from them and willing to do so by any means--would change said poster's perspectives considerably--they would also learn that a victim's particular affiliation(or non-affilliation) matters not in a fight to the death

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

weltschmerz wrote:
Fort Worth Mom wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Except in Kennesaw, GA.

People are scared, and rightly so, but I don't think MORE guns is the answer.

flan
That law in Kennesaw, GA applies to heads of households.
And there are plenty of ways to opt out, if you truly don't want to own a gun.
Here's a copy of the law:
Sec 34-21]^[23]
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
So, atheists will be forced to own guns. We don't subscribe to any religious doctrines.

Reading comprehension is not a strong suit of yours.

who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine,

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

In other words, you are not required to own one if you morally object.

weltschmerz · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Fort Worth Mom wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Except in Kennesaw, GA.

People are scared, and rightly so, but I don't think MORE guns is the answer.

flan
That law in Kennesaw, GA applies to heads of households.
And there are plenty of ways to opt out, if you truly don't want to own a gun.
Here's a copy of the law:
Sec 34-21]^[23]
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
So, atheists will be forced to own guns. We don't subscribe to any religious doctrines.
Reading comprehension is not a strong suit of yours.
who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine,

I DON'T conscientiously oppose having guns and I'm an atheist. Therefore, I'll be forced to get one.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

burns07 wrote:

though hope it never happens might be educational for many posters here to be forced to fight a robber/rapist/thug to defend themselves or their loved ones--to actually have to fight for their own life against an adversary determined to take it from them and willing to do so by any means--would change said poster's perspectives considerably--they would also learn that a victim's particular affiliation(or non-affilliation) matters not in a fight to the death

Or better yet, maybe require 2 years of service in the military.

I have 2 boys and it would scare me to death for them to have to fight in a war.

But I also think serving their country is honorable and I would expect them to follow through if it were required.

Too many people take our freedoms for granted.

But every single right was bought with blood.

It'd do people good to remember that.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

weltschmerz wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Fort Worth Mom wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Except in Kennesaw, GA.

People are scared, and rightly so, but I don't think MORE guns is the answer.

flan
That law in Kennesaw, GA applies to heads of households.
And there are plenty of ways to opt out, if you truly don't want to own a gun.
Here's a copy of the law:
Sec 34-21]^[23]
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
So, atheists will be forced to own guns. We don't subscribe to any religious doctrines.
Reading comprehension is not a strong suit of yours.
who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine,
I DON'T conscientiously oppose having guns and I'm an atheist. Therefore, I'll be forced to get one.

Then what's the big deal?

If you did, you would be exempt.

Easy peasy.

weltschmerz · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Fort Worth Mom wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Except in Kennesaw, GA.

People are scared, and rightly so, but I don't think MORE guns is the answer.

flan
That law in Kennesaw, GA applies to heads of households.
And there are plenty of ways to opt out, if you truly don't want to own a gun.
Here's a copy of the law:
Sec 34-21]^[23]
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
So, atheists will be forced to own guns. We don't subscribe to any religious doctrines.
Reading comprehension is not a strong suit of yours.
who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine,
I DON'T conscientiously oppose having guns and I'm an atheist. Therefore, I'll be forced to get one.
Then what's the big deal?
If you did, you would be exempt.
Easy peasy.

IF and a buck fifty will buy you a cup of coffee. I don't think people should be REQUIRED to own guns if they don't want to.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

And I think every person should have basic training in how to use firearms.

And the law has a built-in out clause.

So no one is forced to have one.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

And maybe all those so opposed to having a gun and want to make it so hard for law abiding citizens to get one, should have a sign or something on their lawn.

Gun free zone.

Wonder how that would go over....

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Fort Worth Mom wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
You can't force people to carry guns.

flan
Who said anything about forcing people to carry guns? You really go off into bizarre tangents.
I was responding to LILY. Read what she posted, maybe?
flan
I went back and read what Lily posted.
She suggested that we, "Arm as many law abiding citizens as possible."
That seems reasonable, to me.
I didn't see where she suggested that we force people to carry guns.
It's still a choice in this country.
Yes, and I hope it always WILL be a choice.
There have been other threads which included the suggestion that it be mandatory.
flan
Except you want the choice to NOT own a gun while simultaneously taking that away from others. Uh huh.
Quote?
Y'all can stockpile guns & ammo if that's what you call living. I could NOT care less.
flan

??? In your first post, you seemed to be in favor of gun control. Change your mind on that?

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
And maybe all those so opposed to having a gun and want to make it so hard for law abiding citizens to get one, should have a sign or something on their lawn.

Gun free zone.

Wonder how that would go over....

We'd all get slaughtered...And you can say, "SEE! I told you so."

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
And I think every person should have basic training in how to use firearms.

And the law has a built-in out clause.

So no one is forced to have one.

Why in the world would you need basic training if you do NOT plan to own a gun?

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
And maybe all those so opposed to having a gun and want to make it so hard for law abiding citizens to get one, should have a sign or something on their lawn.

Gun free zone.

Wonder how that would go over....
We'd all get slaughtered...And you can say, "SEE! I told you so."
flan

People are already getting slaughtered in Gun Free Zones. Children in fact. So, yeah, we told you but apparently that hasn't sunk in.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
And I think every person should have basic training in how to use firearms.

And the law has a built-in out clause.

So no one is forced to have one.

Why in the world would you need basic training if you do NOT plan to own a gun?
flan

Well, there's always the chance you might find yourself around someone else's guns and be in need of it.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
And maybe all those so opposed to having a gun and want to make it so hard for law abiding citizens to get one, should have a sign or something on their lawn.

Gun free zone.

Wonder how that would go over....
We'd all get slaughtered...And you can say, "SEE! I told you so."
flan
People are already getting slaughtered in Gun Free Zones. Children in fact. So, yeah, we told you but apparently that hasn't sunk in.

It's NEWS in Indy if someone DOESN'T get shot.

Every single day...

I still don't have a gun.

flan

ed11563 · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
And I think every person should have basic training in how to use firearms.

And the law has a built-in out clause.

So no one is forced to have one.

Why in the world would you need basic training if you do NOT plan to own a gun?
flan
Well, there's always the chance you might find yourself around someone else's guns and be in need of it.

That's like the argument I gave my kids when I wanted them to learn to drive a stick-shift with a clutch.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I think one should have some knowledge just in case you have friends or relatives with guns and you need to educate your kids.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

ed11563 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
And I think every person should have basic training in how to use firearms.

And the law has a built-in out clause.

So no one is forced to have one.

Why in the world would you need basic training if you do NOT plan to own a gun?
flan
Well, there's always the chance you might find yourself around someone else's guns and be in need of it.
That's like the argument I gave my kids when I wanted them to learn to drive a stick-shift with a clutch.

Same principle.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
And I think every person should have basic training in how to use firearms.

And the law has a built-in out clause.

So no one is forced to have one.

Why in the world would you need basic training if you do NOT plan to own a gun?
flan
Well, there's always the chance you might find yourself around someone else's guns and be in need of it.
That's like the argument I gave my kids when I wanted them to learn to drive a stick-shift with a clutch.

Same principle.

I see no need whatsoever to learn to drive a stick shift manual. But, firing a gun, yes.

Fort Worth Mom · Mod/Penguin lover/Princess!

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
And I think every person should have basic training in how to use firearms.

And the law has a built-in out clause.

So no one is forced to have one.

Why in the world would you need basic training if you do NOT plan to own a gun?
flan
Well, there's always the chance you might find yourself around someone else's guns and be in need of it.
That's like the argument I gave my kids when I wanted them to learn to drive a stick-shift with a clutch.

Same principle.
I see no need whatsoever to learn to drive a stick shift manual. But, firing a gun, yes.

Aw, you're missing out on all the fun, LGS!

You couldn't give me an automatic. Too boring! wink

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
And I think every person should have basic training in how to use firearms.

And the law has a built-in out clause.

So no one is forced to have one.

Why in the world would you need basic training if you do NOT plan to own a gun?
flan
Well, there's always the chance you might find yourself around someone else's guns and be in need of it.
That's like the argument I gave my kids when I wanted them to learn to drive a stick-shift with a clutch.

Same principle.
I see no need whatsoever to learn to drive a stick shift manual. But, firing a gun, yes.

Try this. You and your friend go skiing. Your friend drives you there in his manual transmission car. You friends hurts himself badly, tearing the ligaments in his knee and cannot drive the two of you home. You either learn to drive a stick shift on the way down a mountain or you don't go home.

Spoiler

I was the friend that got hurt. Had to teach a grown man how to drive a stick shift down a snowy mountain. NOT FUN.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Besides, you'd be surprised how much more control you have over the car.

Fort Worth Mom · Mod/Penguin lover/Princess!

Lawyerlady wrote:
Besides, you'd be surprised how much more control you have over the car.

That, and they're just a lot more fun to drive! wink

weltschmerz · Guru

Everyone should at least know the rudimentals of driving a stick.
You'd be surprised how often it comes in handy.

weltschmerz · Guru

I've had to borrow my son's car when mine was snowed in, had to drive someone home who was over the limit, etc.

TOTALLY GEEKED!

On January 1, the Chicago Tribune reported that the number of shooting victims in gun-controlled Chicago for 2015 was 2,986.