Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Yahoo)   One of Holmes' guns was "an AK-47-type weapon." And you thought that "Journalist's Guide to Firearms" poster was a joke   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 425
    More: Fail, mass shootings, Ruby Ridge, Miss Manners, Action News, human events, The Daily Beast, journalists, gun laws  
•       •       •

14279 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jul 2012 at 11:28 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



425 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-23 02:49:45 PM  

mjohnson71: Could someone please explain why a civilian would need to own a semi-automatic AR-15. I'm not looking for a "Because the 2nd Amendment says so." But an explanation as to what type of shooting that would be used for.


Its an effective weapons system that takes standardized stanag mags and standardized nato ammunition. So pretty much exactly suited to the 2nd amendment, seeing as how the intent of it was to have the people armed; to prevent power grabs, either from outside like a hostile occupation, or something internal like a coup or other derailment of representative government. Self-determination of a people is a right, one they don;t have if disarmed.
Whether its guerrilla warfare, insurrection, resistance, defense, or whatever, its arguably the best weapons system for the job. Its why all the adults in my family have one.
 
2012-07-23 02:57:22 PM  

Chummer45: And again, you're pointing to problems caused by lax regulations to justify no regulations.

In other words, since old people have been killing people with their cars, we should get rid of vision tests, because they obviously don't prevent that kind of thing from happening.

This is such a stupid argument that gets repeated over and over by the gun lobby: "oh, criminals will just get guns regardless." Yeah, and Timothy McVeigh can build a huge bomb out of fertilizer. That doesn't mean we should put 500 lb bombs on the civilian market and make it easier for him.


Well what is your intent with those regulations then? If the intent of the regulation is to prevent criminals from getting guns, it will be ineffective. If your intention is to prevent unnecessary deaths by gun misuse, it will be ineffective. So why have the regulation? Do we pass these laws just to feel like we're doing something? Why restrict freedoms in the name of safety?

The DMV requirements in California are flaunted, and people die. The intention of these rules is to prevent people who are incompetent from driving. Clearly that has not been effective. So what is intended by the regulation, if you know that you cannot prevent all gun deaths no matter how you regulate them?

The repeated progression since god knows when is that we experience a tragedy and then demand that some freedom be taken away. This is the path to slavery. Why not actually deal with the problem that caused this person to take this action? We so rarely try to face the hard truth that a significant amount of human beings in America are mentally ill. That there is the cure to mass gun deaths, but we ignore it in favor of quick-and-easy bashing of a sub-group/sub-culture that we just don't like. That's stupid. In America we all just look the other way because we don't want to face the fact that yeah, we've got mental issues too.

Cure mental illness in America, and you eliminate mass shootings AND you keep your freedoms. That's win-win, not win-lose as so many gun-control people espouse.
 
2012-07-23 03:00:12 PM  

stevarooni: IAMTHEINTARWEBS: What? You folks didn't know that you could still buy a perfectly legal ak-47 during the assault weapons ban?
You sure could. And AR-15's too etc etc.

Well, semi-auto versions of AK-47s.


With out a class 3 weapons permit civilians have not been legally allowed to own fully automatic firearms since the NFA in the early 1900's. However, if you have the appropriate licenses, permits and approval of your local Chief law enforcement officer (and it is not prohibited by your local and state laws) it is perfectly legal to own fully automatic firearms. And it was legal during the assault weapons ban too. That is one of the myriad reasons why the ban was such a farce.


But, yes, I was referring to the semi auto versions.
 
2012-07-23 03:00:33 PM  
I believe that I now understand the position of firearm regulation advocates: Had Mr. Holmes used an AR-15-based rifle labeled with a different model name and lacking all but one of the defined features of an "assault weapon" under the now-expired federal "assault weapons ban" and had he relied upon multiple ten-round magazines, reloading between every ten rounds fired, then his murder of twelve individuals would have been, to those regulation advocates, an acceptable action.
 
2012-07-23 03:00:37 PM  

HeadLever: Reducing this to a single at-fault is a little more difficult than you may like.


Tell that to all the moron Limbaugh listeners and Fox viewers.
 
2012-07-23 03:01:54 PM  
"So why have the regulation? Do we pass these laws just to feel like we're doing something?"

I believe this is the answer we are looking for in these ghouls calling for more gun control every time there's an incident like this.

Symbolism over substance......

Let's pick something they find important, apply the same logic, and watch them go:

fromcheaptherapy.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-23 03:02:36 PM  

CliChe Guevara: Its an effective weapons system that takes standardized stanag mags and standardized nato ammunition. So pretty much exactly suited to the 2nd amendment, seeing as how the intent of it was to have the people armed; to prevent power grabs, either from outside like a hostile occupation, or something internal like a coup or other derailment of representative government. Self-determination of a people is a right, one they don;t have if disarmed.
Whether its guerrilla warfare, insurrection, resistance, defense, or whatever, its arguably the best weapons system for the job. Its why all the adults in my family have one.


It's also a great weapon for home defense. You can buy ammo that fragments easily, leading to less collateral damage (meaning there is a low probability of stray shots penetrating multiple walls, even if just drywall).
 
2012-07-23 03:02:36 PM  

Chummer45: I simply don't agree that in this day and age, being able to own an assault rifle is a fundamental right necessary to protect us against a tyrannical government. It just doesn't jive with reality.

but yeah, well, thats just like, my opinion, man.


Was it, though, when the 2nd Amendment was written? Was that the intent, and the intent for protection of the right to keep and bear arms? If so...you're going to have to revoke that Amendment before you can change how the law works.
 
2012-07-23 03:03:12 PM  
"Mass shootings, no matter how tragic, don't lead to reforms of gun laws."

Depends what one means by "reform".
 
2012-07-23 03:12:10 PM  

heypete: give me doughnuts: I just never had the strong desire, nor the spare cash, to try and purchase anything fully automatic. Consequently, I don't know the color, size, and number of hoops that need to be jumped through.

Fair enough. Considering the price of transferable full-autos, I don't fault you in the slightest. Last I checked a few years ago, full-auto transferable Uzis were around $9,000+transfer tax. No doubt they've increased significantly since then (I recall reading -- and can not attest to its veracity -- that the only thing that's increased in value more than legally transferable machine guns since 1986 has been original Star Wars collectible figurines. They significantly beat pretty much any other investment.)

NFA-regulated items are a totally different world with a bunch of esoteric restrictions and paperwork (for example, you need to apply for federal approval to transport a legally-owned machine gun across state lines. Such approval is not required for silencers, SBSs, SBRs, etc.). My .22 LR silencer required the same paperwork and approvals as privately owned artillery or machine guns, but it feels like I'm just barely breaking the surface in regards to the amount of hassle required.


"Privately owned artillery"

My brain went straight to the "Young Ones" episode where Vivian "found" the Howitzer.
 
2012-07-23 03:15:53 PM  

give me doughnuts: "Privately owned artillery"


Yep, I got me some. See the picture upthread.
 
2012-07-23 03:16:04 PM  

farkmedown: "Mass shootings, no matter how tragic, don't lead to reforms of gun laws."

Depends what one means by "reform".


I was going to note what you have to do, historically, to prompt reforms, but I'd rather not get a visit from the Secret Service.
 
2012-07-23 03:24:16 PM  

mjohnson71: Could someone please explain why a civilian would need to own a semi-automatic AR-15. I'm not looking for a "Because the 2nd Amendment says so." But an explanation as to what type of shooting that would be used for.


Sure. How about this:

www.hurricanescience.org

Specifically, it would be used to intimidate (and failing that) and possibly shoot your "fellow man" when things drop into the crapper like they can do from time to time. When the folks bent on mayhem are coming your direction down your street, you'd be surprised how discretionary they can be when they see you sitting on your porch with your AR. In short, they're looking for easier pickings and will normally gladly pass you by (and probably your neighbors who live within sight of your position) in search of less obviously protected places.

Curiously enough, AFTER is not the time to go shopping for such equipment. In this case, foresight truly does pay off.
 
2012-07-23 03:26:13 PM  

mgshamster: I would believe a military vet with combat experience, or an experienced cop could pull off a shot like that, but I highly doubt your average CCW could.


Some military vets maybe but it's been my experience that your average LEO is only a moderately better shot than the general public and about even or inferior than a typical gun enthusiast. Most of the ones I know have to clean their guns from mustard stains more often than from firing. I think the average person has this idea that they go through some sort of rigorous training that gives them Jedi like abilities with firearms and that simply isn't the case.
 
2012-07-23 03:33:49 PM  

Okie_Gunslinger: mgshamster: I would believe a military vet with combat experience, or an experienced cop could pull off a shot like that, but I highly doubt your average CCW could.

Some military vets maybe but it's been my experience that your average LEO is only a moderately better shot than the general public and about even or inferior than a typical gun enthusiast. Most of the ones I know have to clean their guns from mustard stains more often than from firing. I think the average person has this idea that they go through some sort of rigorous training that gives them Jedi like abilities with firearms and that simply isn't the case.


I agree. It's why I used the qualifier "experienced." I believe a person who has experience firing a weapon in highly stressful situations (such as being shot at and having to return fire) might have been able to take out the gunman in Aurora, but I really don't think the average CCW has that kind of experience. I really don't think that if a CCW person was there, the situation would have been any different. It still would have been a massacre.
 
2012-07-23 03:41:28 PM  

NightOwl2255: [i939.photobucket.com image 761x528]


What did I notice first?

In order:

Hair
Boobies
Eyes
Funbags
Rifle
Tatas
Trigger finger
Lung-hammers

What do I win?
 
2012-07-23 04:02:15 PM  
The Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald focused solely on handgun bans as they related to self-defense, notably in the home. These decisions do not support a claim that governments cannot restrict sales or ownership of long guns or ammunition.
 
2012-07-23 04:07:23 PM  

mgshamster: I agree. It's why I used the qualifier "experienced." I believe a person who has experience firing a weapon in highly stressful situations (such as being shot at and having to return fire) might have been able to take out the gunman in Aurora, but I really don't think the average CCW has that kind of experience. I really don't think that if a CCW person was there, the situation would have been any different. It still would have been a massacre.


Depending on their skill level I think a CCW holder might fair better than you would think, but with that said barring some very good fortune on the CCW holders part their ability to stop the shooter would have been very limited. This is one of those instances where the odds are stacked against you and your best option is to retreat to cover before even considering returning fire
 
2012-07-23 04:08:02 PM  

mgshamster: Okie_Gunslinger: mgshamster: I would believe a military vet with combat experience, or an experienced cop could pull off a shot like that, but I highly doubt your average CCW could.

Some military vets maybe but it's been my experience that your average LEO is only a moderately better shot than the general public and about even or inferior than a typical gun enthusiast. Most of the ones I know have to clean their guns from mustard stains more often than from firing. I think the average person has this idea that they go through some sort of rigorous training that gives them Jedi like abilities with firearms and that simply isn't the case.

I agree. It's why I used the qualifier "experienced." I believe a person who has experience firing a weapon in highly stressful situations (such as being shot at and having to return fire) might have been able to take out the gunman in Aurora, but I really don't think the average CCW has that kind of experience. I really don't think that if a CCW person was there, the situation would have been any different. It still would have been a massacre.


A while back, ABC actually did a test where they had a shooter come in with a gun loaded with 'simunitions', and one of the students in the 'lecture' was also chosen to have a gun loaded with simunitions. Despite having the deck egregiously stacked against the 'CCW' person*, some of them actually managed to wound the "shooter".

*For those who won't bother checking the link, the "shooter" was a police firearms instructor, about as competent as you can get with a gun, and he *KNEW* which seat the "CCW" person was sitting in every single time, front and center, ready to get shot by a professional.
 
2012-07-23 04:23:12 PM  
msnbc just said "assault rifle."

Does FN make these errors?
 
2012-07-23 04:30:38 PM  

Death_Poot: "So why have the regulation? Do we pass these laws just to feel like we're doing something?"

I believe this is the answer we are looking for in these ghouls calling for more gun control every time there's an incident like this.

Symbolism over substance......

Let's pick something they find important, apply the same logic, and watch them go:


That already happens, believe it or not.

For instance, public nudity. America has tons and tons and tons of local ordinances that forbid nude sunbathing, exposure, etc... In fact it's so bad these days that men who are accidentally exposed to children have to sometimes fight to stay off of sex offender registries.

You see, children were abused. We find this horrible, naturally, and so we want to protect the children, naturally. So we pass laws forbidding these types of behavior.

Only problem is, kids still get abused. Kids are still sexually molested by adults, in some cases offenders are repeat offenders. So did these laws serve the purpose of preventing this? No, not really. The men(and women) who are sick enough to do this to kids just find ways of avoiding law enforcement.

What the laws ACTUALLY DO is they restrict your freedom to the point that women have to campaign for the rights to go topless in public. Nude beaches are almost non-existent in California the biggest blue state in the US. And most of Europe laughs at us because we're such ridiculous prudes that we don't shun and stigmatize a perfectly natural choice of behavior.

Can you people see how stupid reactionary legislation is now? Can all you people in this thread see how treating the symptom with a new law that restricts a freedom is an evil path to no freedoms? Can you dare to imagine that it is much preferable to treat the CAUSE of the real problem, rather than further isolate a segment of your own society?
 
2012-07-23 04:31:33 PM  

mjohnson71: Could someone please explain why a civilian would need to own a semi-automatic AR-15. I'm not looking for a "Because the 2nd Amendment says so." But an explanation as to what type of shooting that would be used for.


How about for fun? People go to gun ranges for fun. They like to collect weapons they find "cool". Nothing wrong with that.

You do realize that most guns out there have never been used to kill anything, ever?

I've known plenty of gun collectors. Some of them don't hunt. And none of them were of the paranoid "I need these for protection when the government turns into a dictatorship"

They always keep trying to get me to go to the range with them, but I'm scared shiatless of guns, and have never had- and never will- have my hands on one.
 
2012-07-23 04:35:45 PM  

dittybopper: Chummer45: So you're saying you didn't care one way or another after 9/11? I mean, millions of people die every year in America, and 3,000 is just a statistical blip in a country of 300 million people.

Random attacks by psychotics are different from planned attacks by determined terrorists.

Oh, and there is a difference: The 9/11 attacks constituted almost 20% of the homicides in the US that year. I'd say there is a material difference between a single attack which is 7/100ths of a percent, and one which is 18.75%.

Maybe I'm just weird, but those two things are not like each other.


actually the gun stat that I found most disconcerting was that of the 30K firearm related deaths in the US each year... more than half (17K or 18K) are suicides... most of the rest can be summed up as 'gang violence' against other gang members... the actual amount of 'crazed gun nut killing innocent bystanders' is almost statistically irrelevant (almost... probably more relevant to people actually killed by crazed by gun nuts)... but still... suicides!?
 
2012-07-23 04:36:07 PM  

Bob el-Hed: The Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald focused solely on handgun bans as they related to self-defense, notably in the home.


Bzzzzzzt! wrong.

Heller struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia's regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.

Emphasis mine

While the main focus was on handguns, the second amendment - and this decision - applies to long guns as codified in the term 'arms'. Of course that does not mean that they are exempted from any or all regulation.
 
2012-07-23 04:40:16 PM  

Okie_Gunslinger: Depending on their skill level I think a CCW holder might fair better than you would think, but with that said barring some very good fortune on the CCW holders part their ability to stop the shooter would have been very limited. This is one of those instances where the odds are stacked against you and your best option is to retreat to cover before even considering returning fire


dittybopper: A while back, ABC actually did a test where they had a shooter come in with a gun loaded with 'simunitions', and one of the students in the 'lecture' was also chosen to have a gun loaded with simunitions. Despite having the deck egregiously stacked against the 'CCW' person*, some of them actually managed to wound the "shooter".


Fair enough. I'm the type who can be swayed by evidence. There are some immediate flaws with that study, but I doubt ABC would be scientifically rigorous enough to care about them. Regardless, it does provide some support to the pro-CCW argument. To be consistent with my previous argument, I wonder how many people were wounded or killed before the CCW holder took out the shooter.
 
2012-07-23 04:48:36 PM  

downstairs: You do realize that most guns out there have never been used to kill anything, ever?


I will be honest here - my guns (well, a couple of them) have been used to kill things. Specifically tasty tasty deer.

/Cheaper than buying an equivalent amount of beef
//And healthier too, so says the wife
 
2012-07-23 04:56:37 PM  

Sofa King Smart: actually the gun stat that I found most disconcerting was that of the 30K firearm related deaths in the US each year... more than half (17K or 18K) are suicides... most of the rest can be summed up as 'gang violence' against other gang members... the actual amount of 'crazed gun nut killing innocent bystanders' is almost statistically irrelevant (almost... probably more relevant to people actually killed by crazed by gun nuts)... but still... suicides!?


Yeah, the CDC looked into that about a decade ago. They were particularly interested in the affects of waiting periods. People in the US tend to use a gun if it's available. The availability of a gun, however, doesn't seem to affect the overall rate. It seems that when a person is really determined to kill themselves they generally succeed, whatever it takes.
 
2012-07-23 04:57:59 PM  

someonelse: Big Man On Campus: mjohnson71: Could someone please explain why a civilian would need to own a semi-automatic AR-15. I'm not looking for a "Because the 2nd Amendment says so." But an explanation as to what type of shooting that would be used for.

Could someone please explain why any average person would need a monster truck and a turbine-propelled powerboat. I'm not looking for a "because it's a free country". I'm looking for an explanation of what on earth you could possibly need with that kind of extravagance.

/if you question a freedom, prepare to question all freedoms.

Of course, we do limit freedoms, and we always have. Freedom of speech is not without limits, either. But even remotely suggesting that some extremely powerful weapons maybe should be the tiniest bit limited, or that maybe background checks and tracking programs could be beefed up just a smidge results in the NRA collectively losing its sh*t, and its supporters buying bottled water and canned goods and heading for their armored bunkers to defend themselves from the massive weapons-stealing attack they are sure is imminent.


Only flintlock pistols, eh?
 
2012-07-23 05:04:26 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: They were particularly interested in the aeffects of waiting periods


*grumble*
 
2012-07-23 05:19:25 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: Sofa King Smart: actually the gun stat that I found most disconcerting was that of the 30K firearm related deaths in the US each year... more than half (17K or 18K) are suicides... most of the rest can be summed up as 'gang violence' against other gang members... the actual amount of 'crazed gun nut killing innocent bystanders' is almost statistically irrelevant (almost... probably more relevant to people actually killed by crazed by gun nuts)... but still... suicides!?

Yeah, the CDC looked into that about a decade ago. They were particularly interested in the affects of waiting periods. People in the US tend to use a gun if it's available. The availability of a gun, however, doesn't seem to affect the overall rate. It seems that when a person is really determined to kill themselves they generally succeed, whatever it takes.


Reminds me of that article that interviewed people who tried (and obviously failed) to commit suicide by jumping off the golden gate bridge. Every single one of them said that about half way down they realized that their problems could be fixed and they started getting ideas about how to fix them (if my memory is correct).
 
2012-07-23 05:30:58 PM  

ladyhawk: Don't quite get how "the right to bear arms" translates into "the right to bear the kind of arms that will allow you to injure/kill 60 people in 10 minutes". I get that people need to defend themselves or go hunting and so on, but you don't need assault rifles to do that.


Because the ability for private citizens to own military grade firearms WAS the intention of the Founding Fathers.

They had just fought a bloody revolution to overthrow a tyrannical government and saw fit to make sure that the people could rise up again if the government they founded also became so corrupt.
 
2012-07-23 06:21:24 PM  

someonelse: Of course, we do limit freedoms, and we always have. Freedom of speech is not without limits, either. But even remotely suggesting that some extremely powerful weapons maybe should be the tiniest bit limited, or that maybe background checks and tracking programs could be beefed up just a smidge results in the NRA collectively losing its sh*t, and its supporters buying bottled water and canned goods and heading for their armored bunkers to defend themselves from the massive weapons-stealing attack they are sure is imminent.


We only limit freedoms insofar as they infringe on other people's rights. The limits to freedom of speech are all clearly outlined cases where the freedom to speak is actually being abused to infringe on the rights others. OWNING a weapon does not infringe on your or anybody else's rights. USING a weapon to shoot at you is a clear violation of your right to exist.

Difference clear?
 
2012-07-23 06:26:35 PM  

Death_Poot: "So why have the regulation? Do we pass these laws just to feel like we're doing something?"

I believe this is the answer we are looking for in these ghouls calling for more gun control every time there's an incident like this.

Symbolism over substance......

Let's pick something they find important, apply the same logic, and watch them go:

[fromcheaptherapy.files.wordpress.com image 272x298]


Gimme your list of more important things that need fixing.
 
2012-07-23 06:34:15 PM  

Big Man On Campus: pacified: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 500x675]

I really sympathize with the viewpoint expressed by that graphic.

However, all those regulations obviously exist on automobile ownership, and people still die from Cars.

None of those proposed regulations on guns will reduce gun deaths in the US to zero, I guarantee it.


Actually, even that's false. Most of those regulations exist on using an automobile on public roads.

Other than title (not registration), in most places there are almost no restrictions on owning a vehicle for use solely on private land. I can buy almost anything I want and drive it around on my property without a registration, tags, or driver's license. I can do any modifications I want to the vehicle's mechanical systems, including changes that would prevent it from passing a state safety or emission's test. I can also generally transport it on the public roads as cargo not under its own power.

By that logic, buying a gun and keeping it in my house or using it on a private range (provided I have sufficient room to keep the expended bullets on the property) would involve practically no regulation at all. I could buy and own anything I wanted to. The only time regulation would come into play is if I carried it in public, in an operational condition.

I think even most gun owners don't really have a problem with requiring certification and testing for concealed carry, so long as it's legitimately available (not "technically on the books but no sherif in 30 years has granted a permit").
 
2012-07-23 06:34:44 PM  

Big Man On Campus: someonelse: Of course, we do limit freedoms, and we always have. Freedom of speech is not without limits, either. But even remotely suggesting that some extremely powerful weapons maybe should be the tiniest bit limited, or that maybe background checks and tracking programs could be beefed up just a smidge results in the NRA collectively losing its sh*t, and its supporters buying bottled water and canned goods and heading for their armored bunkers to defend themselves from the massive weapons-stealing attack they are sure is imminent.

We only limit freedoms insofar as they infringe on other people's rights. The limits to freedom of speech are all clearly outlined cases where the freedom to speak is actually being abused to infringe on the rights others. OWNING a weapon does not infringe on your or anybody else's rights. USING a weapon to shoot at you is a clear violation of your right to exist.

Difference clear?


Yup. Until Friday, James Holmes was a responsible gun owner.
 
2012-07-23 06:56:57 PM  

mjohnson71: Could someone please explain why a civilian would need to own a semi-automatic AR-15. I'm not looking for a "Because the 2nd Amendment says so." But an explanation as to what type of shooting that would be used for.


As I posted here a few weeks ago, I got mine because, in 8 years of Reserve duty, I got to a firing range with my unit exactly once. We had the old M16 A1s, but the AR15 is a close enough version to practice with.

I never deployed into combat, but I might have...and if I did, I might well have NEEDED to be able to hit something. Something man-sized, and shooting back at me. Possibly within a couple days of getting mobilization orders.

Shooting's a physical skill; you need to practice sometimes. You don't see tennis players, or golfers, try to win tournaments by practicing once every eight years...and their stakes are a lot lower.
 
2012-07-23 06:57:32 PM  

Fark In The Duck: AK-47

[i536.photobucket.com image 450x600]


Oddly, I've just shot my wad...
 
2012-07-23 06:59:49 PM  

ladyhawk: Don't quite get how "the right to bear arms" translates into "the right to bear the kind of arms that will allow you to injure/kill 60 people in 10 minutes". I get that people need to defend themselves or go hunting and so on, but you don't need assault rifles to do that.


Walk into a crowded theater with a big ol' kitchen knife, mid-movie when everyone's distracted.

I'll bet you can slash ten throats before they take you down. Ie, kill as many people as this loser did.
 
2012-07-23 07:03:59 PM  

PunGent: Walk into a crowded theater with a big ol' kitchen knife, mid-movie when everyone's distracted.

I'll bet you can slash ten throats before they take you down. Ie, kill as many people as this loser did.


Then we'll end up with the media calling every edged weapon a 'ninja sword'
 
2012-07-23 07:07:37 PM  

joe714: Actually, even that's false. Most of those regulations exist on using an automobile on public roads.

Other than title (not registration), in most places there are almost no restrictions on owning a vehicle for use solely on private land. I can buy almost anything I want and drive it around on my property without a registration, tags, or driver's license. I can do any modifications I want to the vehicle's mechanical systems, including changes that would prevent it from passing a state safety or emission's test. I can also generally transport it on the public roads as cargo not under its own power.

By that logic, buying a gun and keeping it in my house or using it on a private range (provided I have sufficient room to keep the expended bullets on the property) would involve practically no regulation at all. I could buy and own anything I wanted to. The only time regulation would come into play is if I carried it in public, in an operational condition.

I think even most gun owners don't really have a problem with requiring certification and testing for concealed carry, so long as it's legitimately available (not "technically on the books but no sherif in 30 years has granted a permit").


What is so wrong with that picture you describe there? That's not so different from the laws we have now.
 
2012-07-23 07:12:18 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Yup. Until Friday, James Holmes was a responsible gun owner.


Sure was, and until July 16th, 2003, George Weller was a responsible driver.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Russell_Weller

After that he was an irresponsible killer of innocent pedestrians.
 
2012-07-23 07:16:55 PM  

Big Man On Campus: What is so wrong with that picture you describe there? That's not so different from the laws we have now.


Absolutely nothing wrong with that picture, IMO.

I think he's baiting the gun control types into admitting they would never tolerate people building "assault" weapons, automatic firearms, 70 caliber rifles, etc. in their own homes, even if the item never left the property. Moreover, they would never support a registration law that didn't apply to firearms that never leave the home.

The whole "license guns like we do cars" is a smokescreen. They would fight it tooth and nail should it be fully applied.
 
2012-07-23 07:25:48 PM  

Big Man On Campus: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Yup. Until Friday, James Holmes was a responsible gun owner.

Sure was, and until July 16th, 2003, George Weller was a responsible driver.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Russell_Weller

After that he was an irresponsible killer of innocent pedestrians.


"On July 16, 2003 footage of a previous accident Weller had been in ten years earlier surfaced. While that accident was not fatal, he had driven his car off the road in much the same fashion as the Promenade accident and the footage was nearly identical in that it showed a confused Weller wandering around his crashed car in a heavily populated, public area. This further sparked debate surrounding what warning signs authorities should examine when dealing with driving privileges and the elderly."

I have no idea what your point is supposed to be here.
 
2012-07-23 07:29:59 PM  

The hilarious thing from that Weller incident

Since the tragedy resulted from a "misapplication" of the pedal, Weller had committed an accident, not a crime. "Pedal error cannot constitute negligence," stated Mark Overland, an attorney for Weller


Can you imagine a lawyer using the same argument for a gun owner who had shot someone? It would go something like this.

"This tragedy resulted from the misapplication of the cocking mechanism, the perp had committed an accident, not a crime. "Trigger error cannot constitute negligence," stated the perp's attorneys.


Thankfully no one bought the argument that lawyer was making. I only post this to illustrate the difference in mindset between cars (which are most certainly deadly weapons) and guns (which everyone immediately associates with cold blooded murder).
 
2012-07-23 07:30:17 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Yup. Until Friday, James Holmes was a responsible gun owner.


The guy was considered a responsible citizen, businessman, gun owner, etc. until he killed his wife.
That guy was a responsible father, provider, neighbor, etc. until he was arrested for molesting his kid.
That cop was one of the (elusive, IMO) "good cops" until the day he got caught beating a handcuffed guy with a nightstick.
That lady was a responsible bank teller, employee, etc. until they started stealing money from the bank.
 
2012-07-23 07:33:56 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I have no idea what your point is supposed to be here.


Oh you don't? How about the fact that despite that prior accident, he had neither removed himself from the driving pool, nor had the DMV cancelled his license. So, according to the world and in-spite of the fact that he was demonstrating terrible behavior behind the wheel, he was considered a responsible driver. Contrast this with any proposed weapon licensing system and you see my point quite clearly, which would be that licensing will do nothing to prevent gun deaths.

You kinda walked into that one.
 
2012-07-23 07:52:39 PM  

Big Man On Campus: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I have no idea what your point is supposed to be here.

Oh you don't? How about the fact that despite that prior accident, he had neither removed himself from the driving pool, nor had the DMV cancelled his license. So, according to the world and in-spite of the fact that he was demonstrating terrible behavior behind the wheel, he was considered a responsible driver. Contrast this with any proposed weapon licensing system and you see my point quite clearly, which would be that licensing will do nothing to prevent gun deaths.

You kinda walked into that one.


You think NO accidents have been prevented by revoking someone's license? or that I'm for licensing gun owners?
 
2012-07-23 08:24:27 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Every major news organization and every elected official AND EVERYONE IN FAVOR OF MORE GUN CONTROL owes it to themselves to learn what they are talking about and discipline their speech accordingly. Most of the talking heads I saw this weekend should have just limited themselves to "gun."


This is my rifle; this is my gun.
 
2012-07-23 08:35:37 PM  
S&W, no?

P.S. This isn't about guns.
 
2012-07-23 08:36:15 PM  

Indubitably: S&W, no?

P.S. This isn't about guns.


Or ammo.
 
Displayed 50 of 425 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report