New Yorkers... Give up your guns.

[hikenbike]

Couldn't be further away from you on this one. In your world, where do erosions stop --- when there's nothing left to take? Why do you perceive the right to dictate erosion of my rights? And why should the majority suffer because of the inability of a certain minority to behave as expected?

It was a quick (and perhaps a bit late night lazy) response to a person who likened a drivers license to a conceal carry permit. No compromise here.

 

[JBecker]

It was a quick (and perhaps a bit late night lazy) response to a person who likened a drivers license to a conceal carry permit. No compromise here.

Again, how is that an unreasonable comparison?

 

[hikenbike]

I agree with you here. I believe in background checks and I wish there was a competency exam.



I agree here too. This is a good example of arbitrary partial degradation of our rights.



And then back to the liberal commentary.

See, I don't think you are actually that liberal but maybe you don't fully grasp how silly it is that two 15 round mags are no more dangerous, than a 30 rounder that a 14.5" rifle is not really more concealable than a 16", or than an import semi-auto rifle is no more dangerous than a domestic.

Fine with this. Reacted to the conceal carry part.

 

[JBecker]

Fine with this. Reacted to the conceal carry part.

Why is concealed carry an issue for you? You realize these individuals have passed a background check and taken a safety course to receive their state issued permits right? Well in most states anyway.

Ideally, I'd love to see nationwide constitutional carry, but that would really get your panties in a wad.

 

[RunninInGA]

Why is concealed carry an issue for you? You realize these individuals have passed a background check and taken a safety course to receive their state issued permits right? Well in most states anyway.

Ideally, I'd love to see nationwide constitutional carry, but that would really get your panties in a wad.

And submit a full set of finger prints. All of this gets updated every 4 years.

 

[eddiebx]

It's true - stats can be made to tell any story you'd like.

There is this though:

You know I am sure there's probably some truth to that, but I am also sure that it has a lot to do with the racial concentration of certain areas in the city. Though NYC is very diverse and essentially a melting pot of different races, there's always segregation to some extend; certain areas have predominately one race, because that's just how it is.

ie. a bad part of town happens to have say...95% black and 5% white, 75% of all shootings happen there. Clearly the chances of a black person being shot are astronomically higher than a white person, but from a practical stand point, everyone just has a higher chance of being shot there.

Now let's pretend in a good part of town there's 95% white and 5% blacks, and the other 25% of the shootings happen there. Collectively these two parts of town together would show that "blacks are way more likely to be shot", but really it's just due to the racial concentration and nothing more. Which is exactly your point, you can present the same exact stats 5 different ways to tell 5 different stories.

I cannot really comment on the credibility of the daily news, but if you're real curious, NYPD has their crime stats posted and divided by precincts: NYPD - Office of the Chief of Department

If you're click through them you'll see that while crime happens all over the city, the concentration of crimes are not equally distributed between each precinct. Certain areas experience way higher crime then others. If you're more familiar with the demographics of each area, you'll see a pattern too, but I'll leave that up to you to draw your own conclusions.

 

[hikenbike]

And submit a full set of finger prints. All of this gets updated every 4 years.

I don't support it. Wouldn't even consider it unless it was managed as would a professional certification like a doctor or nurse. Needs to be very comprehensive and regularly maintained/tested.

 

[JBecker]

I don't support it. Wouldn't even consider it unless it was managed as would a professional certification like a doctor or nurse. Needs to be very comprehensive and regularly maintained/tested.

Because law abiding citizens are clearly a problem and can't be trusted to carry a gun. Right?

You do realize you have a much higher chance of being killed by a doctor who makes a mistake than a civilian carrying a gun legally? You also realize you have a much higher chance of being shot on accident by a law enforcement officer when you weren't the intended target?

Your fears are unfounded.

 

[hikenbike]

Because law abiding citizens are clearly a problem and can't be trusted to carry a gun. Right?

You do realize you have a much higher chance of being killed by a doctor who makes a mistake than a civilian carrying a gun legally? You also realize you have a much higher chance of being shot on accident by a law enforcement officer when you weren't the intended target?

Your fears are unfounded.

Wrong. I'm saying what you're suggesting is not reasonable without stringent controls.

Putting words in my mouth does nothing. Comparing gun ownership to automobiles and now medical procedures is ridiculous IMO.

 

[JBecker]

Wrong. I'm saying what you're suggesting is not reasonable without stringent controls.

Putting words in my mouth does nothing. Comparing gun ownership to automobiles and now medical procedures is ridiculous IMO.

No, it's not. Automobile deaths and medical malpractice kill more per year than people with guns kill other people. Getting in your car everyday and driving to work puts you at a significantly greater risk of death than someone carrying a gun does. It is perfectly acceptable to compare rates of mortality to one another.

As a matter of fact, you are more likely to be killed by striking a deer on the road, than you are a person carrying a concealed weapon legally.

See, here is where reason and logic come into play, and not emotions and feelings. Look at the numbers, they don't lie. But I'd venture to guess you still think gun free zones are a good idea.

 

[ndcent]

The extent to which my posts have been selectively edited out of this thread by SV Dude with his clear and massive bias is absolutely ridiculous.

SV Dude isn't even listed as a moderator in Off Topic. How can this be?

I expect more from this site. Seems the moderators have gone clique and aren't following the rules they're expected to uphold.

Sad.

 

[ndcent]

Fact is I'm perfectly agreeable to 30 round magazines, but when you add a bump stock and a 100 round drum, it gets to be pretty ridiculous. I'm also a proud gun owner within the last three years (own several now) and I've taken good amateur interest in shooting as a hobby.

Anyways, it's not my answer to your question you're interested in, is it? You simply want to box me into some illogical narrative about "give an inch" blah blah bumper sticker slogan that we've seen in the last couple pages.

I'm not anti-2a or anti-gun because I don't find it unreasonable that in 2013, some 230 years since it's ratification, that encouraging a meaningful and rational dialog on the proper role of guns in our society can lead to positive change.

I'd rather not hide behind a Constitutional amendment; I'd rather let my arguments succeed or fail at the ballot box. I'd rather see people take an honest look at the data, face the societal toll that comes with individual choices like gun ownership, and own up to it.

I'm pro-responsibility.

Is this trolling?

 

[ndcent]

my guess is this

or maybe this

Is this trolling?

 

[ndcent]

Congratulations! You've completed Indoctrination 101. Please sign here so we can mail your certificate of completion.

Is this trolling?

I see SV Dude liked this comment bc it aligns with his beliefs though somehow it's magically not considered trolling?

What an absolute joke.

 

[bofa]

If you come in trolling, don't be surprised if it gets dished back out to you. Unfortunately members don't have the option to ban you or edit your ridiculous posts.

Oh and..

Rules for Toyota-4Runner.org
1. No Whining
This includes, but is not limited to, whining about other members, whining about the mods, whining about the admins, whining about the forum in general, whining about other forums, etc. Determinations on the issue of whining shall be in the sole and absolute discretion of the admins / mods.

 

[ndcent]

Define trolling please.

Because here the definition is apparently, opposing viewpoints being discussed in off topic threads is trolling?

Seems everyone simply wants some echo chamber?

Is that was T4R.org Off Topic is?

 

[LINY4Runner]

Dude's gone off the deep end over an internet forum.

#occupyT4R

 

[RunninInGA]

I don't support it. Wouldn't even consider it unless it was managed as would a professional certification like a doctor or nurse. Needs to be very comprehensive and regularly maintained/tested.

I think you're living in a dream world. Remind me again how criminals are gonna give a damn about this and how they're gonna participate in all your licensing tests? And please describe how this will positively affect change in the areas of gun violence - your plan only adds hassle for the people already following the words of the law.

It isn't the law abiders you have to worry with - guys like me would follow your rules and the thugs and miscreants currently committing crime will still be doing it just as illegally as before your stringent licensing practices took place.

This wouldn't be any more effective than money management and education/training classes being held in the middle of the ghetto.

 

[ndcent]

Dude's gone off the deep end over an internet forum.

#occupyT4R

Says the guy who was ready to "unsubscribe" to this thread bc you didn't like what some other guy on the internet said.

 

[bofa]

Define trolling please.

Because here the definition is apparently, opposing viewpoints being discussed in off topic threads is trolling?

Seems everyone simply wants some echo chamber?

Is that was T4R.org Off Topic is?

When you post about topics with which you clearly disagree and fail to engage in thoughtful conversation and just post stuff to solicit a reaction, that is trolling in my book. You post drivel and rarely are able to support it. You also fail to respond to those that try to engage you in conversation. All you do is post nonsense, let people reply, and then either deflect or change the subject.

If that's how you roll, then fine. But don't get butthurt when people have had enough with it and start trolling back or messing with you.

If you don't like the way things are run around here, click the small x at the top of your browser. I've left plenty of forums I didn't agree with.. but I didn't waste time complaining and trolling their posts.