Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
63 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Spock on Gun Logic (Original Post) DWC Apr 2012 OP
Spock never said that...you're just being silly... rfranklin Apr 2012 #1
Spock knows baser toters gunners guns kill people. ileus Apr 2012 #2
Is that another Pro Gunner threat? Walk away Apr 2012 #3
True. Hoyt Apr 2012 #4
maybe we shouldn't have assumed spock was a D all these years. ileus Apr 2012 #6
It's the Romulan in him. jeepnstein Apr 2012 #7
I thought he was Vulcan and Human? rl6214 Apr 2012 #55
Geek mode on. jeepnstein Apr 2012 #57
Romulans ARE Vulcans MicaelS Apr 2012 #63
Interesting interpretation. AtheistCrusader Apr 2012 #9
There are other images of Spock GreydeeThos Apr 2012 #48
Huh? PavePusher Apr 2012 #13
why do you want to take stuff away from people? You want to take away the right for gays to marry Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #49
Looks more like common sense to me rl6214 Apr 2012 #54
If you think about it, it is really the opposite of a threat. aikoaiko Apr 2012 #61
Way too funny!!! RegieRocker Apr 2012 #5
SPOCK FOR PRESIDENT! Remmah2 Apr 2012 #8
SYG laws will allow this bongbong Apr 2012 #10
Please show me where I can fill out a 4473 for a machine gun. Remmah2 Apr 2012 #12
Sure you can conceal a .50 BMG: Johnny Rico Apr 2012 #14
asdf bongbong Apr 2012 #16
Well, I'm actually toying with the idea of buying a .50 GI conversion kit for my Glock. Johnny Rico Apr 2012 #18
If ya need it bongbong Apr 2012 #21
It's perfectly legal, and I don't need it to "feel safe". Johnny Rico Apr 2012 #23
Yeah, sure bongbong Apr 2012 #29
You would be doing direct harm to someone who doesn't deserve it. Johnny Rico Apr 2012 #30
Sure, if you're a Chicago alderman you can do whatever you want! DonP Apr 2012 #47
And there are people who feel unsafe at the thought of a firearm. Remmah2 Apr 2012 #44
pretzel logic is twisted. Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #50
Mini .50. Callisto32 Apr 2012 #31
asdf bongbong Apr 2012 #15
So if a person owns 352 guns. Or say only 2.......... Remmah2 Apr 2012 #17
Yawn bongbong Apr 2012 #19
Some good answers. Remmah2 Apr 2012 #24
OK bongbong Apr 2012 #28
Please continue... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #32
As opposed to cut and paste answers? Remmah2 Apr 2012 #37
OK bongbong Apr 2012 #41
Debate? Remmah2 Apr 2012 #45
because Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #51
Princess Leia would not have approved of a 3 day waiting period. Remmah2 Apr 2012 #43
NRA talking points? rl6214 Apr 2012 #56
"Criminals are exempt from the law." DWC Apr 2012 #58
I got more results Glassunion Apr 2012 #34
asdf bongbong Apr 2012 #38
The question was "What good does a 3 day waiting period make?" Glassunion Apr 2012 #46
Um... Did you actually read any of those articles? sarisataka Apr 2012 #52
so Florida and California should have lower murder rates gejohnston Apr 2012 #53
Waiting periods make gun controllers feel good about themselves. Johnny Rico Apr 2012 #20
asdf bongbong Apr 2012 #22
The issue has been researched. Remmah2 Apr 2012 #25
You bet! bongbong Apr 2012 #27
So name them. beevul Apr 2012 #33
asdf bongbong Apr 2012 #35
I read post 19. beevul Apr 2012 #42
I can answer a question. Remmah2 Apr 2012 #36
Yep bongbong Apr 2012 #39
The unanswered question. Remmah2 Apr 2012 #40
Oh my Glaug-Eldare Apr 2012 #11
welcome to DU Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #59
Since we're on the subject of Star Trek and guns... Johnny Rico Apr 2012 #26
~ Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #60
how does this fit the SoP? what am I missing here? has this one NOT been alerted? Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #62

Walk away

(9,494 posts)
3. Is that another Pro Gunner threat?
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:05 AM
Apr 2012

Typical. Even the biggest "I am really a Democrat" Pro Gunner eventually lets you know exactly what will happen if the government tries to "take their guns away".

jeepnstein

(2,631 posts)
57. Geek mode on.
Tue Apr 10, 2012, 08:11 AM
Apr 2012

Romulans and Vulcans share common DNA. Or some such silly notion. I'm more into Frank Herbert and Carl Sagan than Star Trek.

MicaelS

(8,747 posts)
63. Romulans ARE Vulcans
Thu Apr 12, 2012, 01:10 PM
Apr 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulans

The Romulans began as a revolutionary group of Vulcans, who were referenced as "those who march beneath the Raptor's wings" and refused to accept the Vulcan philosopher Surak's teachings of complete suppression of emotions. Around 400 AD, the dissident group split off from Vulcan society and began the long journey to the planets Romulus and Remus.

The Romulans are of the Vulcan species. One of three theories regarding how the Romulans arrived at the stellar system that includes the planets Romulus and Remus involves Sargon's people, referred to in conjecture as the "Arretians", as mentioned in the Star Trek: The Original Series episode "Return to Tomorrow". Sargon claimed that his people had seeded their species throughout the galaxy, and Spock said that could explain some enigmas of Vulcan pre-history. Hanoch, one of Sargon's people and a rival, further claimed that Spock's hybrid Human-Vulcan body was a "good fit" for his alien physiology. If these claims are true, then the Arretians may have been the antecedents for the Romulans — and indeed, they may have also been the species known as the Preservers. The inhabitants of Mintaka III ("Who Watches The Watchers?&quot seem to support this theory.

Another theory says that Vulcan colonization efforts led to a split, or schism, between factions favoring the school of logic espoused by the philosopher Surak and opposition groups, led by S'task, which ended up leaving Vulcan. However, there is no explicit canon evidence that the group which left Vulcan was in rebellion against Surak. The "Vulcan Soul" Trilogy, written by Josepha Sherman and Susan Shwartz, told the story that it was Surak's idea that some of the Vulcan population should leave their homeworld to find a new home so that the Vulcan race could be preserved due to the endless wars then raging on the homeworld. (Conversely, the Star Trek: Enterprise episode "Awakening" includes a line from the long-deceased Surak referring to the enemies of logic in his time as "those who marched beneath the raptor's wing": this would appear to be a reference to the symbol of the Romulan Empire.) These Vulcans arrived on Romulus and founded what would become the Romulan Star Empire. This theory is supported by a reference within the Star Trek: Enterprise episode "United": Senator Vrax refers to Vulcans as "our distant brothers" during the first part of the episode.

Information from "Balance Of Terror" suggests yet a different theory. While Spock makes it clear that the events during the period of Surak are well documented ("The Savage Curtain&quot , he is completely uncertain in regard to the origin of the Romulans: "If the Romulans are an offshoot of my Vulcan blood--and I think this likely--then attack becomes even more imperative. Vulcan, like Earth, had its aggressive, colonizing period, and if they have retained that martial philosophy... then weakness is something we dare not show."

Tuesday Afternoon

(56,912 posts)
49. why do you want to take stuff away from people? You want to take away the right for gays to marry
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 06:50 PM
Apr 2012

while you are at it?

Are you going to put food on my table since you want to take away my gun?

aikoaiko

(34,163 posts)
61. If you think about it, it is really the opposite of a threat.
Tue Apr 10, 2012, 09:49 PM
Apr 2012

But I now better understand why the great mental lengths anti-rkba advocates will go to create drama.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
10. SYG laws will allow this
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 12:49 PM
Apr 2012

"I felt threatened! That guy wants me to wait 3 days & go thru a background check to buy my 200-round 50 caliber machine gun! I've only got 352 other guns to protect myself, and I NEED THAT GUN!"

 

Remmah2

(3,291 posts)
12. Please show me where I can fill out a 4473 for a machine gun.
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 01:07 PM
Apr 2012

Exaggerations shouldn't be so obvious.

Besides, a .50 BMG doesen't exactly qualify as a concealed firearm.

 

Johnny Rico

(1,438 posts)
14. Sure you can conceal a .50 BMG:
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 01:26 PM
Apr 2012


I'm not asserting you can shoot it without breaking your wrist, mind you.
 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
16. asdf
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 01:34 PM
Apr 2012

> I'm not asserting you can shoot it without breaking your wrist, mind you.

Don't worry. Gun-lovers will be clamoring for a recoilless mini 50 caliber as soon as they think of it. And they will suddenly realize that they NEED THAT GUN NOW for their safety! Their other 352 guns just didn't quite make them feel safe!

 

Johnny Rico

(1,438 posts)
18. Well, I'm actually toying with the idea of buying a .50 GI conversion kit for my Glock.
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 01:46 PM
Apr 2012

It lets you shoot the .50 GI cartridge:



Certainly not recoilless, but quite mild! 300 grain bullet at 860 fps...more of a big "push" than sharp recoil.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
21. If ya need it
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 01:49 PM
Apr 2012

If you need it to feel safe, and it's legal, go right ahead.

Millions of people live without guns & feel as safe as being in their mother's womb, but I know that others need help.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
29. Yeah, sure
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 02:08 PM
Apr 2012

Let's say I want a toxic waste dump put next door to someone I hate. And let's say I have enough political power to get an pollution-law exemption passed (like "I'm a job creator!&quot , and enuf money to buy the land next to the guy I want to poison. And if pressed on why I want it, I'll just say "I do want it...and that's enough, yes?"

Just a hypothetical.

 

Johnny Rico

(1,438 posts)
30. You would be doing direct harm to someone who doesn't deserve it.
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 02:17 PM
Apr 2012

Whereas if I purchase this conversion kit (that means all it does is let me shoot a different cartridge, mind you) I would be harming what innocent people?

Please be specific in your answer, otherwise your analogy falls apart.

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
47. Sure, if you're a Chicago alderman you can do whatever you want!
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 04:09 PM
Apr 2012

That's exactly what alderman Richard Mel (D) did a few years back. Bought some property in a neighboring community (Joliet area) under a corporate shell and put in a waste dump. Of course he greased it with his Son in Law, Blago, but he got what he wanted along with a big waste hauling contract.

That's the same Alderman that ignored the gun laws and "forgot" to register his collection and was given a pass by the Chicago police for it.

But that's OK with some folks here, because he has that "D" after his name.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
15. asdf
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 01:32 PM
Apr 2012

Oh, one of those TECHNICAL objections to my obviously satirical post.

OK, respond to this slightly-altered version of my post #10:

""I felt threatened! That guy wants me to wait 3 days & go thru a background check to buy my XX-round YY caliber gun! I've only got 352 other guns to protect myself, and I NEED THAT GUN!"

I'll wait for your reply.

 

Remmah2

(3,291 posts)
17. So if a person owns 352 guns. Or say only 2..........
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 01:43 PM
Apr 2012

..What good does a 3 day waiting period make???

 

Remmah2

(3,291 posts)
24. Some good answers.
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 01:58 PM
Apr 2012

Three day waiting periods do not apply to restraining orders.

Two trips to the gun store is environmentally unfriendly.

Criminals are exempt from the law.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
41. OK
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 02:56 PM
Apr 2012

I see you aren't interested in a real debate, since your "answers" like "avoid too many trips" are obvious stupidity.

This is where gun-lovers' "rebuttals" usually end up, so you're no different. Ho-hum.

 

Remmah2

(3,291 posts)
45. Debate?
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 03:12 PM
Apr 2012

How can it be called a debate when one side lacks experience on the topic but bases the argument on hearsay and second hand information?

 

Remmah2

(3,291 posts)
43. Princess Leia would not have approved of a 3 day waiting period.
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 03:06 PM
Apr 2012

Nor was she an NRA member!


[img] [/img]

 

rl6214

(8,142 posts)
56. NRA talking points?
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 09:19 PM
Apr 2012

The only one that might be a talking point is the one about criminals not having to comply, the other two were pretty original

 

DWC

(911 posts)
58. "Criminals are exempt from the law."
Tue Apr 10, 2012, 05:06 PM
Apr 2012

Best response to why law abiding citizens fight gun control laws. That quot is now saved to favorites.

Semper Fi,

Glassunion

(10,201 posts)
34. I got more results
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 02:41 PM
Apr 2012
http://www.google.com/search?q=3+day+waiting+period+guns+does+not+prevent+lots+of+murders

Google Search does not = evidence. In the search you provided, several of the links do not conclude that waiting periods prevent "lots of murders".

There must have been a terrible outbreak during the winter of 2010 if we are to believe google. http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=blue%20waffles&cmpt=date
 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
38. asdf
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 02:52 PM
Apr 2012

> In the search you provided, several of the links do not conclude that waiting periods prevent "lots of murders".

Then pick the ones out that do - and you did acknowledge that fact by saying "several" vs. "all". There's your answer.

Since I answered your question, you have to answer one of mine. Why do gun-lovers hate 3 day waiting periods so much?

Glassunion

(10,201 posts)
46. The question was "What good does a 3 day waiting period make?"
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 03:18 PM
Apr 2012

You posted evidence both supporting and contradicting the effect that 3 day waiting periods have a positive effect on preventing murder.

None of the results that I found on the first 5 pages linked to any criminology study showing the effectiveness of such a policy.

"Why do gun-lovers hate 3 day waiting periods so much?" There is a difference between hating and questioning. If someone questions something it does not mean they hate it.

sarisataka

(18,501 posts)
52. Um... Did you actually read any of those articles?
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:01 PM
Apr 2012

Here is the conclusion of the top article:

There are a number of possibilities that might explain the astonishingly high 0.91 correlation between handgun waiting periods and murder rates in California:

1. Waiting periods may be completely useless for reducing murder rates. This doesn't mean that a waiting period doesn't *occasionally* prevent a murder from happening; there are probably cases where delay may cause reflection, and the passions of the moment may subside. So what are the circumstances that would cancel out the murders prevented by a waiting period?

+ For every murder thus prevented, a victim was similarly prevented from buying a handgun for self-defense.

+ That so-called "crimes of passion" are not readily deterred by waiting periods because of substitution of other weapons.

+ That murderers are already armed, and thus waiting periods do not delay them.

+ That murderers don't bother buying handguns legally.

2. Waiting periods may be of some limited utility for reducing murder rates, but were overwhelmed by other factors.

3. Waiting periods may *increase* murder rates, but the effect that we see may have been caused by other factors, and the waiting period made only a minor contribution.

4. Waiting periods may increase murder rates, and the effect was dramatic enough to explain what we see.

5. Waiting periods may be ineffective, and the political energy devoted to them (both in support and in opposition), meant that more effective strategies for reducing murder simply fell by the wayside, and the murder rate was unaffected.

Unfortunately, it is impossible, based on the available data, to determine which of these five possibilities is correct. In a sense, though, it doesn't really much matter which of these propositions is the answer to the question. If possibility #2 above (the most positive interpretation of the data for advocates of handgun waiting periods) is true, the effectiveness of handgun waiting periods as *crime control* is so slight that it doesn't jump out at us from the data. The political energy devoted to waiting periods thus makes no sense -- especially since opposition to the Brady Bill centers on the waiting period aspect of the law. (Contrary to popular perceptions, the National Rifle Association has supported, and continues to reluctantly support an instant background check law as an alternative to a national waiting period. Their support for such laws is reluctant, partly because of skepticism that *any* background check law is going to solve the fundamental causes of violence in our society.)


California's Handgun Waiting Period Law, 1952-1990: Did It Work?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firearmsandliberty.com%2Fcramer.waiting.html&ei=4naDT6OKBZSs8QT0_rHhBw&usg=AFQjCNFzXOo2h2Gje1Cv-An2WkuMNQHUvA&sig2=oj2SSiL-ErSsFPUIaACe4Q

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
53. so Florida and California should have lower murder rates
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:11 PM
Apr 2012

than Vermont and Wyoming.....
Oh wait, never mind.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
33. So name them.
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 02:36 PM
Apr 2012

That and you could actually answer the question that was asked.

I'll make it a little easier for you and rephrase it:

What purpose does a 3 day waiting period serve, when applied to those that already own one or more guns.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
35. asdf
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 02:46 PM
Apr 2012

> So name them.

Read my post #19.

Since I answered your question, now you get to answer my question.

Why do gun-lovers hate 3 day waiting periods so much?

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
42. I read post 19.
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 03:03 PM
Apr 2012

"Since I answered your question, now you get to answer my question."

No, you DID NOT answer MY question.

This is MY question:

What purpose does a 3 day waiting period serve, when applied to those that already own one or more guns?

Neither post 19, nor anything it contains, is an answer to that question.


Answer it, and I'll be happy to answer yours.


Edited to add the forgotten question mark.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
39. Yep
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 02:54 PM
Apr 2012

I can answer a question too. Now answer mine, what are your sources? I answered your question.

 

Johnny Rico

(1,438 posts)
26. Since we're on the subject of Star Trek and guns...
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 02:02 PM
Apr 2012




(this one doesn't have anything to do with guns...I just like it)

Tuesday Afternoon

(56,912 posts)
62. how does this fit the SoP? what am I missing here? has this one NOT been alerted?
Tue Apr 10, 2012, 11:31 PM
Apr 2012

please enlighten me people.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Spock on Gun Logic