A woman and her children are ran off the road by her husband. He shoots and kills her and their son. He then shoots his daughter while the other pleads for her life.
Story Here: http://www.wdsu.com/news/12432906/detail.html
If you watch the video on the page they show her CM Scion xB. They call her xB a "van".

 

If you want to run your mouth, go back to grade school. If you want to argue a point, then make a real one without the unintelligent comments. Apparently if you haven't "noticed" the gang issues in some of the CA cities in your life, you are the one under a rock. And with your unitelligent remarks I would have to say that is probably the case.

 

people think cali is that bad. and in some area's and parts of some cities it is but california on the whole is not some gangland war zone.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/com...ent/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/com...ate/index.html


My only comment to Mr. Plate is that neither he no I have in mind ANY way that ALL guns could be eliminated in the United States, and unless all of them could be eliminated, all he is suggesting is the total disarmament of law abiding citizens, while leaving the "bad guys" as free to have them as they are now.

That is NOT an improvement.

The guns are there in our society. Live with that fact and work with it. Pollyanna like pronouncements to "eliminate guns" or "make guns illegal" must be recognized as impractical wishful thinking. Work with the real world, work with what exists, do what is practical and possible.

(Yes, I legally carry a firearm, and have for decades.)

Tom

 

My point was already made….why should I make it again? Because you have poor reading comprehension? Ok...fine fine...here it is, again:



Nice backpedal by the way...first its:
now it has switched to:

You portray yourself as one who creates their world view through stereotypes. Just thought you might want to know how you come across, thats all.



And you are from where again? Minneapolis, right? Do you get your views on CA gangs from decades of firsthand experience, or are you simply parroting what you hear?

 

Wow. This has turned into more of a soap opera then a good debate... and the same things are being repeated over and over and over...

 

And your point is.....




Sounds like 80% of the topics on SL.

 

Heheheheheh...

Well, contrary to what California folks often think, the folks in the forty-nine other states don't care as much about California as they do.

It's been a few years since I traveled to or through California, and so long as I don't have to deal with that state's good and bad points directly, I'm reasonably happy.

Tom

 

Do folks favor gun liscensing? Like a driver's liscence? On what grounds do people oppose gun liscensing?

Certainly, you would need a safety course, maybe marksmanship course, a criminal background check, and DEFINITELY a psych evaluation. But how would you get a practical "road evaluation" test? Like a guy accompanies you on a simulation of your day and see how often you use your gun in your daily life?

Picture Homer Simpson
-BANG uses gun to shoot open a can of beer
-BANG uses gun to shoot out lightbulbs to turn off the light
-BANG shoots at the cat for peeing on the floor
-"3 days, AWWWWWW, but I'm angry NOW!"
Boy I sure hope they don't give a guy who would do that a gun liscense :D

Hmmm - in this imaginary system, would there be an appeals process?

I'm guessing the VA tech shooting will compel VA to implement a more thorough background check - not just a state criminal records check - or whatever, if anything, they do currently, but also a mental health check (hmmm, do they have a database for that sort of thing? Might be a privacy rights violation or something.)

 

Well, first, I have multiple friends relatives, etc who live/lived in CA. And on top of that I have read the news in the last 30 years.. so it is no real suprise to the rest of the world that gang activity is high in CA cities compared to many other places. The funny point is that someone would even argue that.

And no, there was no back-pedalling going on. When we were talking about the gang issues, I thought most could comprehend that by cali, we were talking of the of major cities, since most know that is where the concentration of gang activity is and always has been.

And heathen, I could really care less how I come off to you, especially after your mouthiness on the boards. Most that know me understand how I feel about stereotypes.

Hotbox,
I wasnt insinuating that all of cali is that bad. There are a lot of things I do like about the state from my visits. I was just pointing out that as far as gang activity goes, the major cities there have more than thier fair share of it. The proximity to the major entry point of some of the south american gangs doesnt help obviously. This makes them more of an issue there simply due to exposure. But I in no way meant to bash CA as a whole.

In any case, back to the original point, which is now in the distant past, it has become fairly obvious in the past 20 years that super strict gun control laws is not the answer.

 

i'm against gun licensing, because i believe it's the first step to making it illegal or so expensive, it might as well be.

i see "gun licensing" going down like this:
when/if gun licensing comes out, you only have to license yourself, for $15 a year.
then it's $30 a year
then you have to register each gun separately at a cost of $30 per gun.
then $50 a year per gun.
then $250 a year, and each citizen is only allowed to register 1 hangun per person.
then 1 gun person, regardless if it's a rifle or handgun.

ah, the bureacracy...

i think the rules need to be, american born, non-felon, over 18. shooting permited under 18 with parent. and that's it.

 

Your 'gun license like driver's license' idea is interesting and there are many arguments for and against. There would be better control of who has a gun, but ONLY for the law abiding citizens. The bad guys would still have theirs, and still be unlicensed. (Side Note: There are more people killed each year in the United States by licensed drivers in vehicles than there are with guns...)

That would mean the only change might be in the government knowing who to collect guns from if they decide that is the right thing to do. My state (and most states) do not require guns to be registered. There is no way for the government (or invaders or bad guys or whoever) to know how many guns I have, or what type, and quite honestly I prefer it that way.

Most states control the use of guns rather than the ownership of guns, though those states with the most violent crimes (and the most crimes committed with guns) do, interestingly enough, attempt to control ownership.

Mostly that simply tells the police who the gun used in a crime was stolen from (and won't be getting it back).

As to mental health record checks, there are problems with confidentiality unless the person was involuntarily committed. Involuntary commitment is public record, voluntary commitment is not. The VT shooter was determined to be mentally ill and a danger to himself, but chose to voluntarily go in for treatment, which makes it private.

Some (most?) states do more than just a "National Records Check" before allowing purchase of a firearm. Mine does a local check and a ... well let me quote the state law...
It is unsure if the VT shooter would have made it by this sort of check, but it is actually unlikely he would have.

Tom

 

Again, just so we are clear, you are saying your information comes second hand. I have lived here for over 30 years. I do know a bit about this state, and I know a lot about this county. If you look at the evolution of gangs, it really started in the East. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense because that is where the Europeans started in this country.

Does that make living back East more dangerous than living in the West? No.

I am sure that California has higher gang levels than Minneapolis. But what of New Orleans, Washington DC, Detroit, Baltimore, Atlanta, St. Louis, Birmingham and Newark NJ - ALL have higher gang activity levels than California. I could easily say that the East is where all the violent gang activity takes place because that is what is fed to the public. But I know that ALL cities, especially big cities, have gang activity. And as logic would dictate, the more populace you have in said city, the more likely you will have larger numbers of gangs.

Stereotyping is NOT just about race. Until we, as people, understand that people are individuals, not statistics, then we are going to continue being played against one another by the media (in this example, but there are plenty of others). Misunderstanding causes wars. Misunderstanding causes great kingdoms to fall. Misunderstanding cause entire races to be enslaved.

Admittedly, I dont know how you feel about stereotypes EXCEPT by what you say here on this board because I dont know you personally. But by using the words you did, you gave the impression that your judgments on California were based on stereotypes.

Anyway, Im done with this since the topic is about guns, not gangs. Sorry if you were offended by my words but I tend to be quite blunt most of the times.

 

That is the Catch-22 - you cant have proper registration w/o charging gun owners for it. Maybe the non-gun owners should have to pay registration fees as well. More times than not, it is they who call upon stricter regulations.

We must remember that there are up to 250 million guns in America. 250 million. Whats that, like one gun for every person. Looking at the bigger picture, how often do "good-guns-go-bad"?

Not often enough to ban them if you ask me.

 

No gun registration, but bullets should cost $1500 each and gun powder should be $300/gram ;-)

 

As usual, it is a people problem. If the bad guys are armed (and they always are), then the good guy should be able to defend himself in an efficient manner.

About ten years ago, a controversial "concealed- carry" law went into effect in the state of Florida. In a sharp break from the conventional wisdom of the time, that law allowed adult citizens to carry concealed firearms in public. Many people feared the law would quickly lead to disaster: blood would literally be running in the streets. Now it is safe to say that those dire predictions were completely unfounded. Indeed, the debate today over concealed-carry laws centers on the extent to which such laws can actually reduce the crime rate.

 

This is interesting story that shows trust instead of fear:

By News Sentinel staff
April 18, 2007


NASHVILLE — In a surprise move, a House panel voted today to repeal a state law that forbids the carrying of handguns on property and buildings owned by state, county and city governments — including parks and playgrounds.

"I think the recent Virginia disaster — or catastrophe or nightmare or whatever you want to call it — has woken up a lot of people to the need for having guns available to law-abiding citizens," said Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Strawberry Plains


http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/state/ar...491437,00.html

 

Same thing as a gun ban just with different words.

 

yeah, the little winky eye smiley should have given it away that I was only kidding.

 

i thought it was cuz you were borrowing chris rock's 'bullet control' theory.

"You don't need no gun control. You know what you need? We need some bullet control. Man, we need to control the bullets, that's right. I think all bullets should cost $5,000.

$5,000 for a bullet. You know why?

'Cause if a bullet costs $5000 there'd be no more innocent bystanders. That'd be it. Every time someone gets shot, people will be like... 'Shoot, they put $50,000 worth of bullets in his ___, he musta did something wrong' People would think before they killed somebody, if a bullet cost $5,000.
''Man, l would blow your f-ing head off... if l could afford it.’ …'You better hope l can't get no bullets on layaway.''