sooo he was breaking a law already (assuming the theater banned weapons) so a law was in place that wasn't enforced. Again what law would stop him?
California's gun laws are definitely byzantine.
You'd be surprised, actually. The homicide rate in California is 4.94 (1879 homicides, 38.04m population) and the homicide rate in Victoria is 3.13 (178 homicides, 5.68m population). Not only is it not 6x as much, it's not even twice as much.
In fact, 18 states boast a homicide rate lower than Victoria, Australia. While the proportion of gun homicides is definitely higher in the US, we tend to get an unfair reputation as being a nation of murderous thugs.
The process would probably have more traction if the "egregious" weapons in question were actually any more substantively dangerous than handguns, which they're not. But that's politics for you.
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
simple wading of a metal detector would work. (movie theater near me does it randomly).... If people want access to guns they must understanding some inconveniences will come with it. Then you wouldn't have had to arrest him per say simply turn him away or take the gun until after the movie. But again this law would not have prevented him from owning one. the only law i could think of that would, would be one that required a gun owner to get a license like a drivers license and then every X years must get re-qualified on the weapon and back ground checked again.
Since it came out a hundred pages (page 1082 for anyone looking) ago that Ruk is merely a hypocrite I've taken to regarding his posts like a yapping chihuahua, annoying but not something I'm overly concerned with.
What I can't tell is if he's profoundly forgetful, being purposefully obtuse about the topic at hand, or merely lacks the ability to comprehend what is being discussed.
You already know this doesn't exist, we've covered this in this thread. Currently the only way for an individual to register the transfer of ownership of a firearm is for both parties to journey to a Federal Firearms Licensed establishment, probably pay a fee, and have them call in the background check and draw up a bill of transfer. Whether or not this is required varies from state to state, some require it for all firearms, some for just handguns and in some not at all provided both parties are residents of the state and can legally possess a firearm. Granted even in the non-requiring states (like Minnesota) one can voluntarily make the trip and have it done.
However you already know all this, so we're back to forgetful, obtuse or noncomprehending.
“No Firearm” signs in Florida have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is specifically
mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry.(movie theatres aren't covered under state law)
Except you're inflicting that inconvenience on everyone.
- - - Updated - - -
Of course I do. He doesn't. That's the point.
Which I want required for all purchases. He says it already exists; it doesn't. Hence why I am asking him to link me something that doesn't exist.
Oh, look. Yet another thing that I never claimed existed. In fact, another thing that I stressed at every point would potentially allow the system to expand the trace. In fact, something that I also repeatedly said did not rely on a registry to accomplish.
I've made that very clear time and time again. You're just obfuscating, because you have no real point. I've explained the way the system works, and you said I was wrong.
Link me the quote of me saying that the current system can trace a firearm all the way to the end user, every time, without fail. I'll wait.
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
Why not all three? But seriously, I feel like he's the equivalent of a schoolyard bully, trying to "win" a debate through intimidation, name calling, and pathetically childish "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I"-style comebacks, without any real logic or data to back it up.
It's perhaps my flaw that I fail to let him get away with his false claims.
Once again, reading comprehension. Please post a quote of mine that supports the bolded statement.
On second thought, how about I not wait for you to obfuscate again, allow me to post some snippets showing that that's not what I said:
The bolded parts clearly show that I repeatedly stated that a UBC law would potentially expand the resulting trace data. Never once did I say that those transactions were already recorded or a part of the trace data. The part highlighted red is ironic, considering how many times I said the same thing, and yet you still managed to ignore that I said it.
The sad part is that I intentionally repeated that portion of it, specifically to stall some more small-minded bullies from trying to claim that I was ignoring the possible benefit of a UBC law.
But I guess small-minded bullies can always surprise you with their willful obtuseness.
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
Whether or not those numbers are inflated, and whether or not Tobacco use and alcohol use have higher societal costs, the fact remains that firearm violence costs this country $179 billion each year. That's a perfectly legitimate reason to increase regulation and restrict access.
Just because I want to restrict firearm access doesn't mean that I'm blaming them for specific crimes. It's obviously the fault of the individual.When a crime is involved, I'd basically always blame the agent instead of the tool, that's the distinction.
However, if we make it so ridiculously easy for these individuals to access firearms, then it's we who are to blame. Criminals will always exist. Ease of access to firearms doesn't have to exist.
Eat yo vegetables
I love it how you admit that a new law cannot stop someone from committing a crime.How is that law supposed to be enforced proactively? There's a reason you arrest people after they commit a crime.
Now tell us, which law currently on the books DOESN'T work to put people in prison for committing gun related crimes?
So it's okay to inflict inconvenience on gun owners, but not everyone else?Except you're inflicting that inconvenience on everyone.
Please explain the difference.
My Gaming Rig: Intel Core 2 quad q9650|ASUS P5G41-T M|2x4GB Supertalent DDR3 1333Mhz|Samsung 840 Evo 250GB|Fractal Design Integra R2 500w Bronze|ASUS Strix GTX 960 4GB|2x AOC e2770s 27" (one portrait, one landscape)|Bitfeenix Phenom Micro ATX
Don't hate my rig, there's nothing quite like the classics.
That 'freedom' took more lives then it saved, it takes childrens lives on a regular basis, but whatever, lets ignore that. We wouldn't want to feel 'unsafe' now wouldn't we?
Freedom, haha, you apparently don't understand the concept of 'freedom', the only freedom a US-citizen has more then a European is the right to own a metal penis extention. For the rest the US is inhabited by wage-slaves, not what I call freedom. At least we have decent workers unions that ensure the freedom of the working man.
You also don't understand the concept of overcrowded, Europe has more then twice as much inhabitants on a smaller surface-area.
Sure. But we're talking about firearms. Let's stick to the subject at hand.
Is that written in the Constitution somewhere? I mean really, that's just one mans opinion. I happen to disagree. Especially when that right is the right to own a piece of metal.Cost is NEVER a valid excuse for abridging rights.
Eat yo vegetables
Americans also enjoy the right to freedom of speech... TRUE freedom of speech where we can't be cited or even stopped from saying whatever we damn well please so long as it doesn't incite panic or crimes. Pretty sure things like Holocaust Denial are illegal in Germany... and various forms of hate speech will get you in trouble in various parts of Europe.
And how many times must it be said that gun violence is on the decline? Has been for a LONG time.
- - - Updated - - -
Then you must concede that there are other rights for which cost is a valid reason to abridge them, no?