If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   California decrees that guns must stamp their serial numbers on shell casings as they fire, or they aren't safe. Dumbass tag calls for backup   (mensnewsdaily.com) divider line 760
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

16589 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Aug 2006 at 5:25 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



760 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-08-28 06:07:14 PM
ronaprhys


2006-08-28 05:56:59 PM uidzero

I'm just speaking my mind. They are reacting just as strongly as I am. If I'm a troll, so are they.

The difference is that you're not willing to have a reasonable discussion. You've already dismissed everyone of us who own a firearm(s) as a gun nut likely intent on murdering, or complicit with murdering. You've said there's no reason whatsoever to own a firearm - as if someone having any opinion different than yours is automatically an idiot.

Looks like a troll, smells like a troll...



Wait! I got this one!


IS A TROLL?!
 
2006-08-28 06:07:26 PM
Why not just let each gun barrel have slight variations from each other which affect the surface of the fired bullet and which, in the case of a violent crime, can be closely examined and identified by experts with the costs applied at THAT time by the much vaster resources of the powers that be.

Oh wait...
 
2006-08-28 06:07:38 PM
Gah!: Yes, and drunk driving causes accidents, but the laws don't stop people from actually getting in the car and driving drunk, therefore we should remove all those laws because they don't do any good...

I say let's do it. And let's then make it the law that if you are in a car accident or are driving unsafely while driving intoxicated, that is an automatic (attempted, if no one dies) first-degree murder charge, which (if you don't cause an actual accident) you might be allowed to plea-bargain to aggravated assault with a mandatory minimum sentence.

Watch the number of drunk drivers approach zero the day after the first guy goes to jail for life because he used bad judgement. The few remaining drunk drivers would be the most cautious and safe drivers on the road.

Don't criminalize possession or states of being. Criminalize bad acts if you want bad acts to stop.
 
2006-08-28 06:08:20 PM
uidzero
Right, and hammers can be used for flipping eggs. Guns are for killing people. That's what they are FOR. That's what they do.

Fixed that for ya'

Back to the hunting argument...
 
QYV
2006-08-28 06:08:34 PM
 
2006-08-28 06:08:38 PM
Beemer: Give me a break. We're talking California, not Baghdad.

Apparently you've never been to Compton.
 
2006-08-28 06:08:54 PM
HippieBikerScumFromMars: I contend that even the mere sight of a handgun on your hip will make you safer if there's a handgun on everyone's hip. If you're wearing thick glasses a criminal may think twice simply because there's no telling where that bullet's going to go. (grin)

You're right. The problem with gun-control advocates appears to be that they want to deny that for centuries peace between individuals was maintained by mutually assured destruction, just as peace of a sort was maintained between the USA and the USSR by the fact that the side that started the fight might not survive it, even if it defeated the other side.
 
2006-08-28 06:08:56 PM
Remember kids, gun owners who don't follow the rule of law are criminals. If you're unwilling to follow the law of the land, you have no business being armed.
 
2006-08-28 06:09:23 PM
Yeah, it's not like people could mess with the gun's internal workings to put someone else's serial number onto the shell casings. Or discard their (most likely) cheap, stolen gun after the commission of a crime.
 
2006-08-28 06:09:26 PM
uidzero: I haven't met a gun owner yet that could give me a cogent argument on why they need a gun.



because I like to eat.

/i win
 
2006-08-28 06:10:08 PM
uidzero

Nope, I've called you all idiots OR insecure

This is what makes you a troll...

and this:

people who can't think straight.

superflous gun use

Just horrible with probability.

Most people barely have the mental capacity to feed themselves + dependants
 
2006-08-28 06:10:11 PM
uselessgit

uidzero,

If we follow your line of logic out, we'd have to put warning signs on every sharp corner and pad the sidewalks. If you assume that every single person will do the worst thing possible, every single time, then I feel sorry for you. It must be scary for you to walk out of your house.

Slippery slope is a fallacy of logic for a reason. I'm not suggesting we follow that line out. I'm saying that giving the average moron the ability to kill another human being at whim (or mistake) from a large distance is one of the worst ideas I've ever come across.

If you ban guns, assholes will find something else to kill with. Me? I would rather carry a sword but they won't let me. As for the government being your friend? Good luck with that. I fail to see how you can exist in a world where you expect the common man to degenerate to cave man like thuggery, yet you somehow hold the government to some lofty esteem?

Not really sure where you were going with that last one. Our current administration is one of the worst in a long, long time, and a complete disgrace to Rebuplicans. Let assholes find something else to kill with... something MUCH much less effective.
 
2006-08-28 06:10:24 PM
elchip

"Why don't you dig up gun deaths in Switzerland, where there are an estimated 1.2 - 3 million firearms in private homes?"

And why don't you be intellectually honest and finish the switzerland story - virtually all of those are rifles, not handguns, and the owners were given extensive safety training via their mandatory military service.
 
2006-08-28 06:10:24 PM
It might surprise you to learn how small the intersection of "clever" and "criminal" is.

If they are able to brew meth in the back of a rusted out minivan I'm sure they can figure out how to make a simple alteration to a firearm.
 
2006-08-28 06:11:07 PM
I-Make_Jebus_Cry

Those of you that do not like firearms have the right to NOT own firearms.

Leave the rest of us that choose to own them alone.

I have my rights...you have yours. Who died and made YOUR rights more important?


Amen, bruddah!
 
2006-08-28 06:11:21 PM
BrotherTheodore

"Why not just let each gun barrel have slight variations from each other which affect the surface of the fired bullet and which, in the case of a violent crime, can be closely examined and identified by experts with the costs applied at THAT time by the much vaster resources of the powers that be.

Oh wait...
that wouldn't be able to have the bullet matched up to a gun without having the gun already in possession. Oh, I see my mistake now. God, what an idiot I've been."

That's what you were going to say, right?
 
2006-08-28 06:12:28 PM
Uncle Karl: I know what you were trying to prove, because this is a pretty popular argument. But it's disingenuous.

If you see my post at 2006-08-28 06:05:13 PM, you're ignoring question #2--would effective gun control be right--and yet trying to sidestep question #1 by pretending guns are no different than toasters and sharpened pencils.

I believe that, factually speaking, certain gun control measures (though not necessarily all of those currently legislated) would be effective at reducing the rate of gun violence. I don't believe that controlling the distribution of blenders would have a significant impact on the interpersonal violence rates simply because blenders are particularly clumsy and unwieldy weapons.

Or perhaps your point was that if we legislate against one dangerous object, we should legislate against all others, just to be fair. Yet this is sort of a stupid point, since the more critical point (in answering question #2) is not that there are other dangerous things that are legal, but that the Constitution actually encodes a right about weapons and bearing them! So if you want to discuss #2, we should discuss, directly, whether effective gun control should be constitutional.

Your original claim--the thing about blenders and pencils, which I contend to be bullshiat, however well intentioned--really has no good place in either of those two arguments, and thus you shouldn't bother with it.

And I'm really not trying to be a dick. But these discussions could use more direction and less rhetoric.
 
2006-08-28 06:13:08 PM
mike_d85

Fixed that for ya'

Back to the hunting argument...


Shoot a dart with sedative... Why do you hunt? This will get you your food, and if you like the actual hunting aspect so much, you still get to be smooth with your hunting skills. If you get off on injuring and scaring the animal, I can't empathize.

At any rate, still no need for guns.
 
2006-08-28 06:13:21 PM
JesseL: Well 'ballistic fingerprinting' does require that the police actually posses the gun they think was used for them to try to match the bullets to. That and the fact that it's so easy to change a gun's fingerprint makes the whole exercise almost worthless.

So all gun owners are guilty until proven innocent? Maybe we should register tires so the prints left after a hit and run could easily be tracked down? More people die in car accidents every year, then gun accidents.
 
2006-08-28 06:13:24 PM
the second amendment says that, because it's necessary to have a WELL-REGULATED militia to protect the security of the STATE (meaning nation in this use), THE PEOPLE (collectively, not individual dumbfark trailer park morons with 3 inch cocks) shouldn't be deprived of the right to bear arms.
 
2006-08-28 06:13:24 PM
Another anti gun idea from California. I think the point is to make the point of legal gun ownership in California next to impossible. One small detail seems to escape everyone. How do you stop the non ID compliant guns from coming across the California / Nevada border or Oregon / California border? ANYONE..ANYONE. Buller...Buller. Now we create a new law that creates new crime wave of cross border gun running. Or we have one of the stupidest and strictest border securities in human history. Also, impossible. I can see it now border guards waving illegal's across the border but you got to stop those evil guns.

How about enforcing the anti-gun crime laws that already exist? DUH!
 
2006-08-28 06:13:33 PM
The problem is the part in the law that makes any semi-automatic pistol that does not do this "unsafe". Under California law, IIRC, anything that is "unsafe" by statute is illeagal to own or possess.

Meaning, that thousands of leagally owned, registered handguns in the state are about to become illeagal, and subject to seizure (along with criminal charges being possible against the owner).

Scary stuff..


Not anywhere near as scary as what would happen if anyone actually ever tried to go door to door and confiscate weapons in America.

Can you say all out war?
 
2006-08-28 06:14:05 PM
http://www.gunshopfinder.com/legislativenews/california4_6_05.html

Requiring that all ammo casings be stamped with serial numbers at the factory seems more reasonable to me, as long as they provide exmeptions for handloaders and out-of-state ammo purchases. After all, they do it for guns, why not ammo.
 
2006-08-28 06:14:22 PM
 
2006-08-28 06:14:55 PM
Spoonfed'sBuddy

This is what makes you a troll...

and this:

people who can't think straight.

superflous gun use

Just horrible with probability.

Most people barely have the mental capacity to feed themselves + dependants


No, that's what makes me arrogant. Trolls say things purely to get a rise out of people... I believe everything I'm saying.
 
2006-08-28 06:15:40 PM
hillbillypharmacist: Thank you. And this is something we can have a discussion about.

I believe that a significant portion of violent crimes are committed with legally purchased or illegally but not difficultly purchased guns. I also believe that a significant portion of that portion are non-premeditated. Thus I believe that in that subset, the perpetrator would rarely have significant incentive to jump many hurdles to get a gun illegally if so doing was very difficult, since he doesn't intend to commit a crime to begin with. Thus in those cases, the crime, if committed at all, would not have guns involved and probably thus be less severe.

So you can see where I'm going with this. But it's all conjecture, of course. It's very hard to come up with conclusive data in such arguments, as I'm sure we're all well aware.
 
2006-08-28 06:15:58 PM
dbaggins: you should realize that most people are starting to tune you out.

You should realize that in this instance, we "gun nuts" (I, btw, do not own a gun, but am "pro-gun rights")have it right. Not because this is a stupid measure - though it is - but because of the innumerable ways in which it is redundant, costly, and invasive. The barrel of every gun leaves a distinct impression on every bullet, so you've already got an identifying mark. Now, those marks can be altered using a simple metal file, you say. By jove you're right, and this same logic taken a step farther shows us that the mechanism that you're supporting can be disabled in the same fashion, rendering your ridiculous legislation impotent.

Let's not forget the complication that Wenchmaster reveals as well. This actually makes it easier to fark with investigations. Plant a few extra casings that have been recently fired at a crime scene with different stamps on them, and you've succesfully jacked up the investigation.

TheWizard: If you don't think you can trust your fellow man with his own rights, then you don't deserve your own.

Bravo. Well said.

Wenchmaster: Now everyone who visits a pistol range has to collect his/her own brass? What does this person do with the expended casings? Can't throw 'em out: some enterprising bad guy could pick up a couple and drop 'em at the scene of a crime.

Thank you for thinking ahead. So few do it these days. Please move to California and run for public office. They appear to be needing you.
 
2006-08-28 06:16:00 PM
junkee

by your pathetic definition, the right of free speech isn't an individual right either.

What do you have to say about THAT?

/and really...you showing your penis envy again?
 
2006-08-28 06:16:16 PM
Casing catcher, complete with guido bling:

www.larrysguns.com
 
2006-08-28 06:16:31 PM
2006-08-28 06:07:08 PM uidzero


I'm sure what you meant is that I'm not willing to change my mind. You think the gun nuts are? :)

As one of those gun nuts you speak of, I'm perfectly willing to change my mind on subjects when confronted with appropriate evidence. The difference here is that no one has been able to do that. It's a difference of basic fundamental thought - I believe that people should be free to do damn near anything they want up until they actually hurt someone, or are in imminent danger of hurting someone. Until that, leave them alone.

Nope, I've called you all idiots OR insecure. There are really only two options there. Idiot because you're MORE likely to be hurt being a gun owner, or insecure beacuse you're so afraid of the world you actually think there will be a situation where you'll need it. (Hence the lottery reference...)

Wow - so it's absolutely not possible to intelligent and secure while owning a firearm? It's also not possible to own a firearm because I like to shoot, rather than from fear or insecurity? And that I fully recognize that people do try and break into people's houses and do bad things to them? Is that fear or responsibility. Would you equate having insurance to fear as well?

Most people are idiots, in this particular case, it's a gigantic red flag.

But you've yet to prove why they are idiots.

Yeah dismiss anyone with an opposing opion as a troll... hypocritical much?

It's the manner with which you did it. Had you said something to the effect of "I really see no reason for personal firearm ownership, even for hobbies, hunting, or other legitimate pursuits due to the inherent danger they present" or pushed for some sort of actual constructive comment, you wouldn't be treated as a troll. Until then, that's how you've managed to label yourself.
 
2006-08-28 06:16:44 PM
The idea wasn't that they had a hardon for guns like all the insecure gun-freaks of today. The idea was to be able to fight off a tyranical government. That's over now.

I would argue that it's an issue that has been growing steadily for about 6 years now.
 
2006-08-28 06:16:49 PM
uidzero

We're being run by a complete tool. Please read my whole post. No matter how opressive, a couple of yahoos with tv beerguts who love to hold a metal phallis in their hands aren't going to somehow stop the government and save America. The government has firepower so superior it's not even worth discussing.


That's why our vastly superior government was able to crush those illiterate Iraqis with their metal phalluses so quickly and thoroughly, right?
 
2006-08-28 06:17:07 PM

The only required "cleverness" would be keeping any of the fairly large numbers of completely functional firearms that already exist and do not happen to comply with this requirement.


A criminal would not need to be a mastermind to choose that decision. In fact, if you declare the existing guns 'unsafe', and therefore illegal to possess, it would not be inconceivable that a non-trivial number of those 'unsafe' guns now get dumped onto the market by those law-abiding owners who bother to comply. Just sell them to dealers who'd claim that they'd be selling them out of state.

 
2006-08-28 06:17:26 PM
I suddenly have this strong urge to never go near California.

// lives in DC
// more stupid legislators here
 
2006-08-28 06:17:27 PM
I live in a remote part of Alaska. There are bears (LOTS of them) and moose, both of which kill a handful of unarmed people every year in this state. If I want to safely enjoy the outdoors here, I have to do it armed.
I also hunt for about 75% of the meat that my family eats every year. Those moose, caribou, sheep and deer are tasty and all they cost me is my hunting license, a tag and some time and energy.
I have shotguns, rifles and pistols and even an AK for fun
There is your intellegent reason for gun ownership uidzero.
Oh, another reason is because I live in America and the Constitution says I can.

Of all the firearms I have, this is the one I carry the most. It's small yet huge and very easy to pack on my hip while hiking/fishing/camping etc.. Yet it will easily stop a charging brownie. .454
img150.imageshack.us

It makes my penis bigger too and in this state I don't even need a permit to carry it concealed. When I go to the city I load it with .45 colts and it becomes my carry gun. I love it!

/I am a liberal now days too.
//First imageshack post. Thanks Imageshack!
 
2006-08-28 06:17:34 PM
uidzeroSlippery slope is a fallacy of logic for a reason. I'm not suggesting we follow that line out. I'm saying that giving the average moron the ability to kill another human being at whim (or mistake) from a large distance is one of the worst ideas I've ever come across

I have a board with a nail in it that gives me the ability to kill another human being at whim, and a Bow and arrow or hatchet gives me the ability to kill at distance. And these have been around for ages. I must be a bad, bad person.
 
2006-08-28 06:18:03 PM
uidzero

Trolls say things purely to get a rise out of people... I believe everything I'm saying.



That is both the funniest, and most pathetic thing I think I've read on fark in MONTHS. Bravo.
 
2006-08-28 06:18:15 PM
uidzero

You can no more go back to "Something less dangerous" than you can go back to using vacuem tubes. If you would like to change the very concepts of individual liberty, self-determination, and personal accountability based simply off of the fact that someone, somewhere might abuse their rights, then you are the person that our guns were meant for. If people like you became the government, and wanted to implement their view of what they wanted, then you are the person that the 2nd amendment was meant to be used on. People have the freedom to chose. Just because some people can and will make wrong choices does not mean that you take those rights away from everyone.
 
2006-08-28 06:18:27 PM
Want to know what is letting you type right now? Want to know whats letting you breath the free air you are breathing right now? Want to know whats letting you go to work every day and make a living for your family? Want to know whats giving your family a place to stay or even be alive on this earth right now? Want to know what gave you your freedom? Whats letting you be an American?

Guns.
 
2006-08-28 06:19:20 PM
I've always appreciated the right to own a gun. The thing that always bothers me is how defensive gun owners become when challenged. Shouldn't Good hard working people who enjoy gun sports be doing everything they can to help law enforcement overcome the so obviously extensive abuse on an activity they hold so dear?

When a 12 year old kills a 6 year old with a gun; the NRA should be outraged!

When a police officer is shot, the NRA should be the first one on the spot trying to develop a working methodology to get guns OUT of the hands that shame them.

Just a thought
 
2006-08-28 06:20:01 PM
You know, I'm very anti-gun control. Very.

I wouldn't have a problem with this given a few things:

1) It can actually work.
2) It doesn't apply to existing firearms.
3) It can be done in such a way as to be extremely difficult (or impossible) to forge the serial.
4) It is used to control *supply* of the firearms, by being able to determine if, say, all of the firearms used by a gang (ferinstance) come through one particular dealer, or were purchased by one individual (that conveniently never reported them stolen. )

Now, I don't think that 1 and 3 can be done, I doubt that 2 would be done, and I have absolutely zero faith that 4 would be done.

So, I guess I'm against this entirely.
 
2006-08-28 06:20:35 PM
2006-08-28 06:13:24 PM junkee


the second amendment says that, because it's necessary to have a WELL-REGULATED militia to protect the security of the STATE (meaning nation in this use), THE PEOPLE (collectively, not individual dumbfark trailer park morons with 3 inch cocks) shouldn't be deprived of the right to bear arms.



Only a matter of time before someone trotted out this nonsensical interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Again, an attempt to eliminate a right by abridging it. The language is very clear in what it says and what it means, despite the attempts of the ACLU and others to pervert it. The people hold guns in their hands as individuals the same way they cast their votes as individuals. It's just silly!!

You may not amend the consitution by redefining words and sentences to mean what you want them to mean, you must get an amendment ratified to change the constitution.
 
2006-08-28 06:20:42 PM
I_Should_Be_Working_Right_Now: It takes more than gun ownership to secure individual freedoms.

As shown by the current state of affairs in this country. Are you as upset about warrantless wiretapping as I am?
 
2006-08-28 06:20:48 PM
I_Make_Jebus_Cry

That is both the funniest, and most pathetic thing I think I've read on fark in MONTHS. Bravo.

I think he was admitting defeat.
 
go3
2006-08-28 06:21:34 PM
There is no need for free speech, either.
 
2006-08-28 06:21:39 PM
BrotherTheodore: Why not just let each gun barrel have slight variations from each other which affect the surface of the fired bullet and which, in the case of a violent crime, can be closely examined and identified by experts with the costs applied at THAT time by the much vaster resources of the powers that be.

Oh wait...



The article is talking about marking the brass casings, not the bullet. To match a stamped brass casing, you wouldn't need the gun. To match barrel rifling marks you do.

RTFA.
 
2006-08-28 06:21:52 PM
2006-08-28 06:08:56 PM Torc

ember kids, gun owners who don't follow the rule of law are criminals. If you're unwilling to follow the law of the land, you have no business being armed.

Good thing this isn't law, then. Or that all crimes aren't treated equally (traffic fines v. felonies). Or that a civil disobedience to remedy an injustice is a bad thing.
 
2006-08-28 06:21:53 PM
The sad part is that most people who own firearms don't remember or understand what the 2nd ammendment was writtten for. Mainly for civil defense, yes, but an armed populace was supposed to keep the politicians reminded who put them in office, and who they are answerable to.

I'm just glad I live in a state where I can walk down the street carrying a concealed firearm leagally. People who would be apt to criminal activity are less likely to commit their crimes knowing that anyone within sight might be packing.
 
2006-08-28 06:22:02 PM
uidzero
Ok so after I shoot it with a sedative I break its neck or what? Becasue that seems like a lot of work, and if I do it wrong horribly painful for the animal. I would like to think that when I headshot a doe with the ought 6 that is fairly painless.

And what will be shooting that dart? Maybe a gun?

KrispyKringle
1. I believe it would not decrease violent crime/murder in a statistically significantway, as this is a cultural issue. I think Americans if limited to sticks and stones would still kill each other more frequently than most other first world nations. (For evidence of this theory look at DC where pistols are illegal)
2. I believe almost any gun control to be uncostitutional.
 
2006-08-28 06:22:32 PM
" uidzero


mike_d85

Fixed that for ya'

Back to the hunting argument...

Shoot a dart with sedative... Why do you hunt? This will get you your food, and if you like the actual hunting aspect so much, you still get to be smooth with your hunting skills. If you get off on injuring and scaring the animal, I can't empathize.

At any rate, still no need for guns.
"

AHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHA... YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING? HOW ABOUT WE THROW ROCKS?!
 
Displayed 50 of 760 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report