From my cold, dead. hands! Except in Detroit and Chicago - Page 14 - Politics and Economics

So we can treat it like a DL, perhaps? Instead of the usual 125+ dollar course, you can thumb thru a free manual, take a small written test, then every now and then prove you can hit targets marginally accurately and you're good for 5-10 years or so all for the cost of about twenty to thirty bucks?

11-27-2012 , 07:02 PM

#327

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

Quote:

Originally Posted by Low Key

See, if you leave out

I think you get a lot more people to take your post seriously and realize its pretty accurate

I hate to break it to you, but that statement is entirely accurate.

It may not be absolutely accurate with everyone who supports the idea of mandatory training, but it's entirely accurate when discussing those writing the legislation.

11-27-2012 , 07:05 PM

#328

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

I love how DBL invariably trots out the 'think of the poors' in every gun discussion.

11-27-2012 , 07:08 PM

#329

Low Key

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 33,327

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

This is the exact same fallacy that you've been arguing against all day. If everyone in the world had telepathy, we rarely have unarmed people who mean no physical harm get shot to death. Because the person they were "threatening" wouldn't really be threatened.

Likewise, it's silly to assume the motives of legislators.

There's no way to know what's in the mind of a politician, nor can one know what's in the mind of the person who breaks into your house at 2am with no visible weapons.

11-27-2012 , 07:08 PM

#330

Low Key

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 33,327

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjoefish

I love how DBL invariably trots out the 'think of the poors' in every gun discussion.

Where does the majority of violent crime occur?

Last edited by Low Key; 11-27-2012 at 07:09 PM. Reason: Honest question

11-27-2012 , 07:11 PM

#331

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjoefish

I love how DBL invariably trots out the 'think of the poors' in every gun discussion.

Purely from a statistical standpoint, who's more likely to be the victim of violent crime, a guy who earns $330k a year and lives in a neighborhood where the average home is ~$500k, or a guy earning $26k a year, renting a home in a neighborhood where the average home value is ~$80k?

11-27-2012 , 07:12 PM

#332

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

Quote:

Originally Posted by Low Key

Where does the majority of violent crime occur?

It's a smaller slice of 'they're taking our guns!', which again, no one is doing.

11-27-2012 , 07:17 PM

#333

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

Quote:

Originally Posted by Low Key

I think there's a distinction to be made for noting a difference in legislation that has been complained about countless times in countless town halls etc, essentially requesting what Trolly is describing, to be met with shrugged shoulders and "we're not going to change that legislation, training is a good thing!" Vs someone who literally expects telepathic perfection in split second decisions.

11-27-2012 , 07:18 PM

#334

Low Key

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 33,327

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjoefish

It's a smaller slice of 'they're taking our guns!', which again, no one is doing.

Or it's a legitimate note of unintended consequences

11-27-2012 , 07:29 PM

#335

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

Quote:

Originally Posted by Low Key

Or it's a legitimate note of unintended consequences

Meh, coming from the guy also talking about thousand dollar courses and whatever other outrageous stuff he was throwing out earlier it's hard to take it serious.

11-27-2012 , 07:33 PM

#336

Cotton Hill

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 12,307

If we just give the government a complete monopoly on power then nobody will be able do bad things anymore IMO.

11-27-2012 , 07:34 PM

#337

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjoefish

Meh, coming from the guy also talking about thousand dollar courses and whatever other outrageous stuff he was throwing out earlier it's hard to take it serious.

Yea, dismissing facts out of hand is a brilliant debate strategy I guess.

11-27-2012 , 07:36 PM

#338

elgreenhornet

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,773

we need hemp, i mean gun stamps

11-27-2012 , 07:37 PM

#339

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

I can get behind that.

What I can't get behind is forcing some poor schmuck who wants to get into skeet shooting to pay $1k for a class worth $150 due to a government monopoly artificially increasing the demand and controlling who can instruct the course for the "greater good" of making sure poor people are disarmed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

Yea, dismissing facts out of hand is a brilliant debate strategy I guess.

Link to wear the bold is a fact? Or is the other part of brilliant debate strategy just wild hyperbole?

ETA: It's really odd, because it's not that I even disagree with the notion. It's very similar to the whole voter ID thing. It's just that you trot it out no matter what the discussion is and make up these crazy scenarios and then claim it's because we don't want poor people to have guns, which no one is saying. It's not an 'unintended consequence' to you, you're saying outright that that's the goal.

11-27-2012 , 07:38 PM

#340

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjoefish

It's a smaller slice of 'they're taking our guns!', which again, no one is doing.

So if I start adding new, expensive and difficult to obtain training to the DL requirement and shrugged off the complainers who were like "my grandma can't get to her Dr's appointment because of you!" Then I'm not REALLY "taking anyone's ability to drive" away am I?

11-27-2012 , 07:40 PM

#341

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

See my last edit.

11-27-2012 , 07:45 PM

#342

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 36,724

Quote:

Originally Posted by Low Key

Seems reasonable to me. Show me that you can operate the safety and land a round somewhere near your target, take a 30-question quiz on basic gun safety and maintenance, etc.

Somehow we've managed to do this with car/bike/truck licenses without turning into an Orwellian statist dystopia or keeping the poors from driving cars.

11-27-2012 , 07:50 PM

#343

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

Are you against the drivers license system because there is a chance that a government in the future could use it to punish poor people and black people to stop them from being able to drive?

You know, like you claim for guns.

11-27-2012 , 07:52 PM

#344

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjoefish

It's really odd, because it's not that I even disagree with the notion. It's very similar to the whole voter ID thing. It's just that you trot it out no matter what the discussion is and make up these crazy scenarios and then claim it's because we don't want poor people to have guns, which no one is saying. It's not an 'unintended consequence' to you, you're saying outright that that's the goal.

Ok, so you didn't know this "unintended consequence" happened.

Now you do.

11-27-2012 , 07:52 PM

#345

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

How expensive are 'NRA certified training courses'? That's the only requirement in Iowa for concealed carry (permit to acquire doesn't require a training course).

11-27-2012 , 07:54 PM

#346

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

Ok, so you didn't know this "unintended consequence" happened.

Now you do.

Try rereading that.

You're not claiming it's an unintended consequence. You've repeatedly said, ITT and others, that 1) Dems want to take your guns 2) They want to take poor peoples guns by instituting every expensive training courses/fees. You're not saying it's an unintended consequence. You're outright claiming that it's the stated goal. They want to take your guns (but because it would cause a bloody civil war or something) they're content with just preventing any poor people from ever getting a gun.

Claiming you're saying it's an unintended consequence is very disingenuous, at best.

11-27-2012 , 07:55 PM

#347

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

Wake up.

This **** happens NOW. It's happened in the past. This isn't some "OMG the government can use these legislation to stop group x from having guns".

This **** happens now.

What the hell do you think "Shall issue" is used for?

11-27-2012 , 07:56 PM

#348

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

See, here you are doing it again. It's not an unintended consequence but THE WHOLE GOAL!

lol you

11-27-2012 , 07:59 PM

#349

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjoefish

How expensive are 'NRA certified training courses'? That's the only requirement in Iowa for concealed carry (permit to acquire doesn't require a training course).

The NRA pretty much certifies anyone with a pulse as an instructor.

It's relatively cheap. However it's a ****ing waste of money.

Ideally I'd like to find some happy medium between not subjecting people to courses which are a waste of time and also not raping people with huge classes.