Breaking- Church shooting in TX

[Svnla]

As I said in that thread, the last time I check, dress and act like a fool = legal in the US.
Punch, kick, use a baseball bat as weapon, beat up people that dress and act like fools = not legal in the US.

Can anyone dispute that?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Okay, there is no loophole in existing law, but a discrepancy written into the law that allows many sales to not be subject to background checks.

Isn't this working under the assumption that all gun sales should require a background check? It's not a discrepancy if the intent doesn't exist.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

As I said in that thread, the last time I check, dress and act like a fool = legal in the US.
Punch, kick, use a baseball bat as weapon, beat up people that dress and act like fools = not legal in the US.

Can anyone dispute that?

how could they? your logic is impenetrable. a wall of logic if you will.
so now dressing like a fool is equal to dressing like a nazi.
goddamn son, that's irrefutable. you're a genius.

 

[mikeymikec]

Not trying to wade in too deeply here, but there's actually many places in the US where people rely on a) hunting and b) donations from hunters/deer processing facilities to feed them. Like no-shit, cannot afford stuff from the store, grow their tomatoes and hunt their protein kinds of people.

Which is why I followed on with "if I needed to...".

 

[brycejones]

Still nothing to support your accusation like I asked before? Of course not. Nothing but more empty insults. 😀

Your sig speaks on its own as has been pointed out to you repeatedly....

Deny all you want but no one is fooled but maybe you.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Which is why I followed on with "if I needed to...".

I'd have no issue with this if the licensing/registration cost was free of charge, or subsidized above a certain income level, or something.

 

[Svnla]

how could they? your logic is impenetrable. a wall of logic if you will.
so now dressing like a fool is equal to dressing like a nazi.
goddamn son, that's irrefutable. you're a genius.

Let me spell it out for you.

Joe dresses up as a Nazi with a Nazi flag and yells "White Power".
Bob knocks Joe out cold with a baseball bat.

Take a guess who will be in jail per current US law. Go ahead.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Let me spell it out for you.

Joe dresses up as a Nazi with a Nazi flag and yells "White Power".
Bob knocks Joe out cold with a baseball bat.

Take a while guess who will be in jail per current US law. Go ahead.

The one who took a video of the police officer shooting both of them because he felt threatened?

 

[Svnla]

Your sig speaks on its own as has been pointed out to you repeatedly....

Deny all you want but no one is fooled but maybe you.

Did my sig say anything about "violence" as you claimed I support? I am still waiting for any posts or threads that I support violence as you claimed in the other thread. Spin baby spin, Dig deeper. Desperation indeed.

 

[ivwshane]

I'd have no issue with this if the licensing/registration cost was free of charge, or subsidized above a certain income level, or something.

Why?

 

[mikeymikec]

I'd have no issue with this if the licensing/registration cost was free of charge, or subsidized above a certain income level, or something.

I agree, though I'd have to wonder what makes more sense: subsidizing a firearms licence for hunting or paying for the applicant to buy the food thereby ensuring (short of buying the food for them) that someone who evidently is in need of a monetary safety net actually gets fed. A lot of factors come in to play with that line of thinking such as distances to places that sell food, cultural questions possibly, the state of wildlife in that area, etc. Having said that, even if I considered myself to be a proficient hunter with a family, I think I'd prefer the guarantee of food (through welfare) on the table rather than relying on chance out in the wild; what if I'm out hunting for my livelihood and a group of bell-ends who are out for sport make as much noise as they possibly could while trashing the area.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Why?

Why would I have no issue? Why would I want the cost to be free? Why would I want the cost subsidized above a certain income level? Be specific.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I agree, though I'd have to wonder what makes more sense: subsidizing a firearms licence for hunting or paying for the applicant to buy the food thereby ensuring (short of buying the food for them) that someone who evidently is in need of a monetary safety net actually gets fed. A lot of factors come in to play with that line of thinking such as distances to places that sell food, cultural questions possibly, the state of wildlife in that area, etc. Having said that, even if I considered myself to be a proficient hunter with a family, I think I'd prefer the guarantee of food (through welfare) on the table rather than relying on chance out in the wild; what if I'm out hunting for my livelihood and a group of bell-ends who are out for sport make as much noise as they possibly could while trashing the area.

Well, paying for the applicant to buy the food would inevitably mean they get whatever's available, aka chicken, beef, pork, or fish. No specific issue with that, however presently our deer population is pretty much maintained by hunters. If you remove them, you need to find a new way to cull wild populations which will probably end up being either costlier than letting people do it for sport/food, or more wasteful.

Some people simply don't hunt, and utilize normal means such as food stamps or what-have-you, but plenty utilize hunting and/or donations to supplement their diets in areas where it's relevant. This extends beyond deer as well, wild hog's pretty popular in places where they're considered a pest (and thus open game).

Most douchebags don't end up sitting in a tree for hours like hunters do, and in addition most hunters (as far as I know) get agreements with land owners to hunt a region, and those land owners are probably disinclined to let 'bell-ends' onto their property, if only so legitimate hunters don't get shot by accident.

EDIT: Supplemental info, specifically related to hunting, focusing on white-tailed deer and wild hog, since those are the most pervasive/hunted:
Deer:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/rooney.html
Estimated 30m white-tailed deer in US, population can double every 2 years under optimal conditions. Densities can reach 100 deer/sqkm. ~10m hunters yearly, pull in ~6m deer in the season, comes out to ~132k metric tons of meat.

Hog:
https://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/nuisance/feral_hogs/
Couldn't find a solid number US-wide, but in TX alone I'm seeing numbers up to and over 2m feral hogs. They're breeding at 6mo, litter size of 4-12, up to twice a year. They're phenomenally pervasive and pretty much nothing in the US except people and maybe the occasional cougar hunt them. Harder to find solid numbers on number hunted, but I can state that it's A Lot. I grew up in TX and in my HS metal shop, we used to make hog traps, for almost the entire year. Very solid steel traps, 10' diameter, would sell them for like $400 each to cover materials, and guys would come back with photos of a dozen hog inside them. All would be killed, meat donated/frozen.

 

[ivwshane]

Why would I have no issue? Why would I want the cost to be free? Why would I want the cost subsidized above a certain income level? Be specific.

We'll start with that one.

 

[soundforbjt]

When Trump was asked by a reporter whether "extreme vetting" should be applied to purchasing firearms Trump said it wouldn't have made any difference, so is he admitting that extreme vetting is bullshit?

 

[bradly1101]

Isn't this working under the assumption that all gun sales should require a background check? It's not a discrepancy if the intent doesn't exist.

Why are FFL dealers required to do background checks and not so many others? Is it solely because they have easier access to the database? Shouldn't that be available to all? We have the technology.

 

[zinfamous]

Still waiting for your accusation of me as a Trump supporter and other bullshit you said about me. How long I have been demanding some evidences from you? Playing fast and loose with facts you said? 😀

How is my engrish? How is my sig? Suck on them. Must. Stop. Laughing. So. Hard.

Here from another thread - https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...un-what-happened.2525955/page-6#post-39160454

Running away like a lowlife bitch, again, as usual. Entire posting history, indeed.

Fast and loose with facts, eh?

lol, I ran away from something? sorry if I forgot to check up on zaap in that one thread--there are around 2 or 3 threads with the same fucking conversation going on and I can't keep herding you goats everywhere you shit, all of the time.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

We'll start with that one.

'Cuz a lot of people can't afford it. Resident hunting license in my home state for instance is $25/yr, that plus ammunition might consist of their yearly food budget, you can realistically price some people out, depending on how poor they truly are. The subsidy level might be extremely low though, like 'below minimum wage' low.

Why are FFL dealers required to do background checks and not so many others? Is it solely because they have easier access to the database? Shouldn't that be available to all? We have the technology.

Cuz FFL dealers might be selling things like BMG50 sniper rifles, M60's, or tanks. FFL background checks aren't really required for .22 rabbit rifles, which is why it takes about 4 minutes on the phone to complete a 'check'.

Note, I'm not entirely opposed to that changing/establishing a system in which it is used, just saying that's what it is currently.

 

[zinfamous]

Nope you are wrong because per some of the posters here, I am:

1) old white fart living in a broken down trailer
2) young white skin head
3) Japanese
4) Korean
5) Vietnamese
6) Fillipino
7) Blah, and more blah...

.....<fill in the blank, too many to list>

well everyone knows you speak Engrish, so stop pretending, and it's not like there is anything wrong with that. Your typical pluralizations of singular forms are a dead giveaway, but the thing is: the only person that cares is you. You are so fucking self-consious about your identity that it bleeds through. You try so so so so hard to pretend that you don't care, but your hypocrisy comes bursting out every single time you respond to the must mundane, perceived threat against your person. It makes you weak, and plenty on here continue to exploit you for it.

 

[ivwshane]

'Cuz a lot of people can't afford it. Resident hunting license in my home state for instance is $25/yr, that plus ammunition might consist of their yearly food budget, you can realistically price some people out, depending on how poor they truly are. The subsidy level might be extremely low though, like 'below minimum wage' low.


Cuz FFL dealers might be selling things like BMG50 sniper rifles, M60's, or tanks. FFL background checks aren't really required for .22 rabbit rifles, which is why it takes about 4 minutes on the phone to complete a 'check'.

Note, I'm not entirely opposed to that changing/establishing a system in which it is used, just saying that's what it is currently.

So they can't afford it, so what?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

So they can't afford it, so what?

Well.. the implication being that if they can't afford a license, they won't be able to hunt, which means they may not get to eat, or at least not nearly as much, without some drastic changes in standard of living (which they may not be able to change) or a drastic change in the availability of social programs in the area (which may not exist, see: red states).

I'm not talking about jimmy the middle-manager guy who likes to golf and hunt one week out of the year, I'm referencing the people that do it to eat food, because they can't afford 'real people food' from Walmart.

 

[ivwshane]

Well.. the implication being that if they can't afford a license, they won't be able to hunt, which means they may not get to eat, or at least not nearly as much, without some drastic changes in standard of living (which they may not be able to change) or a drastic change in the availability of social programs in the area (which may not exist, see: red states).

I'm not talking about jimmy the middle-manager guy who likes to golf and hunt one week out of the year, I'm referencing the people that do it to eat food, because they can't afford 'real people food' from Walmart.

Then it seems more appropriate to give those people subsidies to purchase food rather than to give them subsidies that indirectly provide them with food while also taking time away from being able to work or be away from their family.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Then it seems more appropriate to give those people subsidies to purchase food rather than to give them subsidies that indirectly provide them with food while also taking time away from being able to work or be away from their family.

Fair enough, but be sure to take into account that you need to then build a program for wildlife control beyond hunters, the increase in govt subsidies to cover the now-not-hunting families, and increase in environmental impact for more food generation for those people (even if those things are all minor).

EDIT: And potentially figure out a way to get those people to wherever they get that food, many don't own vehicles.

 

[ivwshane]

Fair enough, but be sure to take into account that you need to then build a program for wildlife control beyond hunters, the increase in govt subsidies to cover the now-not-hunting families, and increase in environmental impact for more food generation for those people (even if those things are all minor).

Sure why not.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Sure why not.

Fine, if you can find a way to get all of that accomplished, as well as convince those people to accept it/accept that you'll be enforcing it, likely by force, then the 'hunting' portion of the debate can be considered resolved.