It looks like we need to outlaw trucks


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.nicematin.com/faits-divers/panique-et-confusion-sur-la-prom-apres-quun-camion-a-fonce-sur-la-foule-apres-le-feu-dartifice-64846

84 dead, over 200 wounded when a yet to be identified assailant deliberately shot drove over scores of people with an assault rifle a delivery truck.  If we just had smaller magazine sizes vehicles to deliver things and a semi-automatic limiting trigger mechanism slower maximum velocity mechanism on the engines, this sort of mass shooting driver-killing just wouldn't happen.  Or maybe we should just outlaw guns trucks altogether.  I mean there is no justifiable reason for a law abiding person to own a gun truck that size.

Mass shootings just don't happen in other countries.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what you did there.

However, both cars and guns can do lots of harm to people. The problem is that the object that wasn't designed to kill people is the one that you must take classes for, pass a test, pay insurance for, etc. My close family have been involved in one of the many mass shootings...It's easy to be against gun regulation until you're waiting for a phone call to see if your sister was shot at work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2016 at 2:56 PM, Carborendum said:

http://www.nicematin.com/faits-divers/panique-et-confusion-sur-la-prom-apres-quun-camion-a-fonce-sur-la-foule-apres-le-feu-dartifice-64846

84 dead, over 200 wounded when a yet to be identified assailant deliberately shot drove over scores of people with an assault rifle a delivery truck.  If we just had smaller magazine sizes vehicles to deliver things and a semi-automatic limiting trigger mechanism slower maximum velocity mechanism on the engines, this sort of mass shooting driver-killing just wouldn't happen.  Or maybe we should just outlaw guns trucks altogether.  I mean there is no justifiable reason for a law abiding person to own a gun truck that size.

Mass shootings just don't happen in other countries.

o we should have gun owners go through everything a truck owner has to do to be able to legally own and drive a truck on public land?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

o we should have gun owners go through everything a truck owner has to do to be able to legally own and drive a truck on public land?

We already do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, copic_crack said:

The problem is that the object that wasn't designed to kill people is the one that you must take classes for, pass a test, pay insurance for, etc.

Firearms are not "designed to kill people". They are designed to launch projectiles at whatever the users points them at. If the user points one at a person, it is the person who chooses to kill, not the firearm.

Further, while owning a firearm does not require taking classes and a test, having insurance, etc., neither does owning a car or truck. Even using a firearm or a truck does not require any of these, either, as witnessed by the inordinate number of people arrested for driving without a license or a revoked license (which, itself, indicates the criminal has demonstrated irresponsibility as a driver). So, we see that laws limiting the use of cars by the unlicensed do not stop unlicensed driving. Other laws do not stop speeding, failing to stop at stop signs/lights, or reckless driving of any sort.

How, then, would gun regulations stop evil people from misusing firearms?

12 hours ago, copic_crack said:

.It's easy to be against gun regulation until you're waiting for a phone call to see if your sister was shot at work. 

The problem with this point of view is that any proposed gun regulation would do nothing to stop the very thing you and I and anyone else here hate. Your sister would be at the same risk with or without the gun control you desire. The issue is evil, not firearms. Evil, like truth, will out.

How about this: instead of banning guns so that good people cannot access them for legitimate purposes, we require that a high school diploma require 90% pass on still targets, 100% pass on a written test on proper firearm usage, and 90% on a fire-no fire range? You seem to think that classes make us safer behind the wheel; why not with firearms?

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

really? which state(s)?

Almost all of them.

1) Except for a few states that offer TRUE open carry (Arizona, Alaska, Vermont & Montana) everyone is required to get a concealed carry license.  The training and testing required for that is parallel to the training and testing required for driving a car.

2) Other states "say" they allow open carry.  But every state except for the four above have MULTIPLE reports of people being arrested SPECIFICALLY for open carry of firearms when there was no crime being committed or even reported.  Even here in Texas, Open Carry Texas is constantly being arrested when they're activities are completely law abiding.

3) Several more states also have Constitutional Carry but they have the same problems as the open carry states.  Although, if you carry concealed in these states, then those would be the exception.

4) So, the effect is that only concealed weapons are allowed.  And that is only allowed with a permit which requires training and testing.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Almost all of them.

1) Except for a few states that offer TRUE open carry (Arizona, Alaska, Vermont & Montana) everyone is required to get a concealed carry license.  The training and testing required for that is parallel to the training and testing required for driving a car.

2) Other states "say" they allow open carry.  But every state except for the three above have MULTIPLE reports of people being arrested SPECIFICALLY for open carry of firearms when there was no crime being committed or even reported.  Even here in Texas, Open Carry Texas is constantly being arrested when they're activities are completely law abiding.

3) Several more states also have Constitutional Carry but they have the same problems as the open carry states.  Although, if you carry concealed in these states, then those would be the exception.

4) So, the effect is that only concealed weapons are allowed.  And that is only allowed with a permit which requires training and testing.

 

Carb, Texas Open Carry law just started this year from my understanding.  LEOs were trained for it but growing pains are expected.  Also, private places can override your open carry in Texas.  So, it can get a bit confusing for leos to determine whether an open carrier is allowed in what place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Carb, Texas Open Carry law just started this year from my understanding.

No.  The open carry law was changed this year.  We had open carry of a sort before.  And those who open carried within the law (which has been around for many years) were still arrested.

Many times, when all sorted out the guns are returned, but the ammunition is usually not.  And a few times the guns are not returned.  The point being that they are arrested for not breaking (nor even accused of breaking) any law.  They are accused of doing something completely legal and arrested for it.

And believe me when I say there was a BIG to do over this law all over Texas.  LEO knows what is going on.  This is not a growing pains issue.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No.  The open carry law was changed 4this year.  We had open carry of a sort before.

It's strange to me to think that Texas, one of the most gun friendly states in the union didn't have more accepting open carry laws till very recently! 
(Just a statement Carb, I LOVE Texas snd it's people!) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's strange to me to think that Texas, one of the most gun friendly states in the union didn't have more accepting open carry laws till very recently! 
(Just a statement Carb, I LOVE Texas snd it's people!) 

Not at all.  I thought the same thing when I first moved to Texas.  It is NOT very gun friendly at all.  But the recent change is at least a step in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Not at all.  I thought the same thing when I first moved to Texas.  It is NOT very gun friendly at all.  But the recent change is at least a step in the right direction.

The state might not be but it's inhabitants are. It's just like Florida in that way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2016 at 10:43 PM, Blackmarch said:

o we should have gun owners go through everything a truck owner has to do to be able to legally own and drive a truck on public land?

Driving a vehicle is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution; it is a privilege.  Owning and bearing arms is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, not a privilege.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jojo Bags said:

Driving a vehicle is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution; it is a privilege.  Owning and bearing arms is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, not a privilege.

While I agree with you in spirit, I'd disagree with the first sentence.  The Constitution is the promise that we have the right to own and control our own property.  Various points of the Bill of Rights addresses various aspects of property rights.  Indeed much of the Constitution was about various property rights.

A truck is a piece of property.  We have the right to own and control it.  That is not a privilege, but a right.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2016 at 9:09 PM, copic_crack said:

It's easy to be against gun regulation until you're waiting for a phone call to see if your sister was shot at work. 

It is even easy to be against gun regulation even when a friend or family member were shot at at work. The point is moot. I had a friend gunned down in gang related violence. I am still against gun regulation that seeks to infringe upon rights. This doesn't condone what happened to my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

It is even easy to be against gun regulation even when a friend or family member were shot at at work. The point is moot. I had a friend gunned down in gang related violence. I am still against gun regulation that seeks to infringe upon rights. This doesn't condone what happened to my friend.

Very sorry about your friend. Horrible, just horrible.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2016 at 10:09 PM, copic_crack said:

It's easy to be against gun regulation until you're waiting for a phone call to see if your sister was shot at work. 

You assume far too much.

If my entire family were killed in a mass shooting then not a single brain cell in my head would find any logic in blaming the gun for the shooting.  I'd blame the person, not a mass of metal, plastic, and wood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Carborendum said:

While I agree with you in spirit, I'd disagree with the first sentence.  The Constitution is the promise that we have the right to own and control our own property.  Various points of the Bill of Rights addresses various aspects of property rights.  Indeed much of the Constitution was about various property rights.

A truck is a piece of property.  We have the right to own and control it.  That is not a privilege, but a right.

So, you could theoretically drive it all over your property without repercussions. 

 

As as soon as you enter onto publicly maintained roads, however... 

 

I also believe there is a legal difference between real property and personal property. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2016 at 0:07 AM, Colirio said:

So, you could theoretically drive it all over your property without repercussions. 

 

As as soon as you enter onto publicly maintained roads, however... 

 

I also believe there is a legal difference between real property and personal property. 

Not a whole lot of difference.  And yes, you have a point about using one's personal property on public lands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share