• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

It's Not Paranoia If It's Happening

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
fskimospy said:
What’s the issue here? We need way, way stronger gun control laws than are mentioned in this gun nut article but this is at least a step in the right direction.

Whoever wrote the article doesn’t seem to even understand guns as they mentioned owning guns for personal safety when research strongly indicates owning a gun makes you less safe. What a bunch of dummies.
Click to expand...
the problem is, they legally purchased them. Just like global warming, your gun logic is completely wrong. Stop being an emotional thinker and use your brain........
 
BAMAVOO said:
the problem is, they legally purchased them. Just like global warming, your gun logic is completely wrong. Stop being an emotional thinker and use your brain........
Click to expand...

So what? You don’t get to keep other things if they are made illegal so why this? They should be compensated for the market value of their guns though.

As for why my logic is completely wrong, by all means explain! I imagine if you do by the end of our discussion you will regret accusing someone else of reasoning emotionally.
 
BAMAVOO said:
the problem is, they legally purchased them. Just like global warming, your gun logic is completely wrong. Stop being an emotional thinker and use your brain........
Click to expand...
Right, when you look at an issue from the point of least harm to society that's called emotional thinking but when you think of your own selfish interests like your own personal ownership of a gun, that's using your brain. You are just on a lower level of morality than he is, sort of like people who take shit baths see the world as shitty.
 
FIVR said:
This is great news. Not sure about the source but hopefully they take all the guns in Illinois. That state has been suffering from terrible gun violence.


It's been proven by science that less guns = less violence.
Click to expand...


Science has proven nothing. Statistics lend minor credibility to this opinion.
 
justoh said:
Unless you live alone and need that assault rifle for protection. Imagine you're a 19-year-old woman, having just left the nest, starting out in a dubious neighborhood. How will you feel as the baddies are kicking your door down, when you remember that you had to give your trusty machine gun to dad to comply with some reactionary legislation.
Click to expand...
This wouldn't be a worry if politicians would pass laws that required doors that couldn't be kicked down. It's a funny thing about laws that get passed. They are done on assumptions of cost and benefits. If they fix the doors the windows will become the target and so on. We call this for want of a nail the war was lost. If guns are banned some will die for lack of protection but more will not die from being shot.
 
thecoolnessrune said:
In Illinois, you need an F.O.I.D. card and be above 18 to purchase or take ownership of a rifle (21 for a handgun).
Click to expand...

I've had this discussion with several people over the last decade and no one has been able to point out where owning a handgun under the age of 21 is illegal in Illinois (or federally, for that matter). FFL's are not legally allowed to sell handguns to those under 21, federally, but those under 21 can still buy from private sales.
 
fskimospy said:
Yes, we shouldn’t have any illusions that these tiny half measures will have a meaningful effect. I’m some ways they are worse as they give the illusion of something being done.
Click to expand...
That's the entire point. The politicians involved can then stand in front of a camera, pat each other on the back, and proclaim that they've made their state a safer, better place. No longer will crazed teenagers be allowed to run wild through the streets shooting down helpless citizens. It's a joke.
 
boomerang said:
I'm curious what your reasoning is for that specific age. What results do you expect? If those results are not achieved, what do you see as being the next step?
Click to expand...

Evens it up with handguns. I didn't say it would or would not solve a specific problem but I think the age should be more or less consistent for sales.

A standard has to be chosen and I'm personally good with 21.
 
FIVR said:
Criminals will be allowed to keep their guns, because they use their guns properly. Guns are meant to assist people in committing crimes, not shooting animals or arousing ammosexuals like yourself.


If you want a gun, steal one or join the military. If you are too much of a pussy to do that then you don't deserve a gun.
Click to expand...
Best troll post in weeks! Your mastery of Americanisms is growing daily young Putin.
 
Challenger said:
So you "people" think the criminals are going to give up thier guns? This law only tramples the rights of the law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...
I don't care about law abiding citizens. That's a stupid argument. All laws punish specifically law abiding citizens. Every single one of them. Period. If everyone was law abiding, we'd need zero laws. Haven't you ever worked in a company or something where one person spilled coffee on a computer and now coffee is banned from work areas? This is how law works. All of them. You can take this coffee example and apply it to like pollution regulations or jay walking or banking regulations or whatever you want. The principle is the same.


There is always a small fraction of people who cannot or will not comply with good common practice, despite the overwhelming majority doing so. Cars are a good example. I can easily drive at 90 mph on a freeway and I'm sure 90% of "law abiding" people can do so as well without causing too much fuss. In fact in some states the speed limit is like 85 on some freeways. However, there is this tiny element of people who either cannot safely operate a vehicle at that speed or will go way above it (and drive at 130 mph). We all pay the price because of this small group but nonetheless that's the law and I'm generally fine with governments setting the speed limit at some reasonable number, as long as its a reasonable number.
 
shortylickens said:
the governor will cave to the NRA or some other group.

OR, it will pass but someone like the NRA will immediately sue, saying its unconstitutional and the bill will never actually go into effect.
Click to expand...

By "cave" do you mean he will be "weighed down by the money hitting his coffers that he won't be able to sign"?
 
K1052 said:
Evens it up with handguns. I didn't say it would or would not solve a specific problem but I think the age should be more or less consistent for sales.

A standard has to be chosen and I'm personally good with 21.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in federal law that limits handgun ownership to those over 21. The current law only prohibits federally licensed FFLs from selling handguns to those under 21. I'm not aware of any state laws (prior to those that were recently passed) that limited handgun ownership to those over 21, though I haven't researched every state so I might be wrong on the state level specifics.
 
ElMonoDelMar said:
There is nothing in federal law that limits handgun ownership to those over 21. The current law only prohibits federally licensed FFLs from selling handguns to those under 21. I'm not aware of any state laws (prior to those that were recently passed) that limited handgun ownership to those over 21, though I haven't researched every state so I might be wrong on the state level specifics.
Click to expand...

I never said such federal law existed, as this is a thread about state law.
 
K1052 said:
I never said such federal law existed, as this is a thread about state law.
Click to expand...

Were there states that had 21+ handgun ownership laws in place prior to this last sweep of legislation? I'm genuinely curious about this as I know it's not the case for Illinois, but haven't had time to research other state laws.
 
Personally I think that is stupid. At 18 you are an adult, and millions of 18 to 20 y/o own firearms with no problems. Come on, you can fight for you country but can't legally own a firearm?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top