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 426
    More: Fail, mass shootings, Ruby Ridge, Miss Manners, Action News, human events, The Daily Beast, journalists, gun laws  
•       •       •

14264 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jul 2012 at 11:28 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



426 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 01:58:19 PM

HeadLever: Try using that 'criminals will get guns anyway' in a defense where your provided a known criminal a gun and then he shot someone. Let me know how well that works out for you.

Being a straw buyer is a crime for a reason.


This has gotten way off topic, but just for the record, is the following statement ridiculous: "A gun from Fast and Furious killed a border agent."
 
2012-07-23 01:58:22 PM

Chummer45: Fark It: pacified: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 500x675]

If gun ownership was a privilege....

/it's not

Tell that to convicted felons.


Most felons can petition for reinstatement of their rights. Some of them even go on to win the Heller and McDonald cases. There's nothing wrong with people having their rights revoked after due process. The overwhelming majority of gun owners would agree with that. People declared mentally defective shouldn't have guns. Violent felons shouldn't, unless they are no longer deemed dangerous.
 
2012-07-23 01:58:41 PM

cirby: mgshamster:
I'm also really curious why one gunman would have too much visual noise to be able to shoot someone, while another gunman wouldn't have too much visual noise in the exact same situation.

Aside from "one of them is standing at the front of the theater while firing a lot of bullets while the other is hiding behind a seat in the audience full of running people?" Muzzle flash is a GREAT way to target people in low-light environments.

Not to mention that one was wearing the aforementioned gas mask, which is NOT, in any way, good for vision?

I've been exposed to tear gas and CS gas and Mace - and yes, it's nasty, but it's better (once again) than dying without fighting back. The people in the front rows were affected by whatever he used, but (from some of the reports of TV) most of it didn't make it past the front couple of rows.

At least three men in that theater managed to perform enough target acquisition to find the shooter and run directly at him. He killed them. And you're trying to claim that those guys wouldn't have made a difference if they'd been carrying weapons?


One problem: the gunman didn't stand still, and likely wasn't silhouetted by the movie screen once he started moving about to go after people. Evidence: Link

Do you have a link saying that people went after the gunman and were killed? I haven't read or heard that yet. There's also a HUGE difference between going in the general direction of someone in order to tackle them, and actually firing an accurate shot.

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.
 
2012-07-23 01:59:29 PM

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.
 
2012-07-23 02:01:26 PM
Stupid link didn't work. Damnit. Link
 
2012-07-23 02:02:47 PM
Heard on PBS this morning...(paraphrasing)...

Gun advocate: Politicians like Dianne Feinstein are trying to call guns like the AR-15 assault weapons, even though they are only semi-automatic, meaning they only fire one bullet for one pull of the trigger.
Radio host: Yes, but when you use a high capacity magazine, those guns effectively become machine guns.

Derp!
 
2012-07-23 02:03:22 PM

pacified: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 500x675]


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.


In fact, to follow up... Not only do all those regulations exist on automobiles, but people, even well-meaning nice people, still end up killing other people with their car. In California we have a lot of people who are too old to drive, still driving. We've actually had mass car rampages in Southern California with multiple deaths because old people who have managed to skirt the health requirements are allowed to drive.

Imagine how easily a criminal who blatantly intends to mis-use the gun will get past those proposed regulations.
 
2012-07-23 02:04:32 PM

Fark It: Chummer45: I don't understand how saying "previous gun laws had tons of loopholes" supports your position that better, more effective laws shouldn't be passed.

What loopholes? How do you proposed closing them?

/the people who wrote these laws knowing fark-all about guns doesn't count as a loophole



well, for one, there was a ban on the sale of high-cap magazines that didn't apply to the secondary market. Incidentally, that's the same type of loophole that lets you buy a shotgun or rifle at a gun show without a background check. The last gun I bought at a show I handed the guy $300 cash, and he handed me the gun and shook my hand. That was it.

Now go ahead and tell me that the gun show loophole isn't part of the assault weapons ban, or some other stupid technical argument. My overall point was that the fact that the law was stupidly drafted is an argument for revising the law to accomplish what it set out to do, and prevent people from circumventing it. It's not a reason to just throw up your hands and repeal it.

Your argument appears to be, since congress has enacted stupid laws in the past, it shouldn't enact any laws or try to fix them.

Pointing out how ineffective the assault weapons ban was doesn't support your argument that therefore, there should be no ban. It's an argument for passing a stronger law.
 
2012-07-23 02:05:09 PM

Wendy's Chili: Death_Poot: Uh, no........during the ban, I was able to purchase them at a gun show with no problem, there were more expensive though. They were also available at pawn shops, and at the local firearms shop I frequented.

Get your facts straight.

I must have missed the part where I said they completely vanished from existence.


You did say they were a lot harder to obtain, I was telling you that they were quite easy to get hold of. I say again, get your facts straight. I had no trouble getting them NEW in packaging for both my AK and my Beretta.
 
2012-07-23 02:07:43 PM

Fark It: Chummer45: Fark It: pacified: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 500x675]

If gun ownership was a privilege....

/it's not

Tell that to convicted felons.

Most felons can petition for reinstatement of their rights. Some of them even go on to win the Heller and McDonald cases. There's nothing wrong with people having their rights revoked after due process. The overwhelming majority of gun owners would agree with that. People declared mentally defective shouldn't have guns. Violent felons shouldn't, unless they are no longer deemed dangerous.


Tell that to the felons when the death squads round them up and send them to the concentration camps.
 
2012-07-23 02:07:52 PM

Wendy's Chili: give me doughnuts: Wendy's Chili: Chummer45: Seriously. gun nuts will defend indefinite detention before acknowledging that maybe, just maybe, some gun accessories shouldn't be available to the general public.

Open question to the gun lovers...

Where should the line be drawn (if anywhere)? Machine guns? Rotary cannons? Rocket launchers? Guided missiles? Nukes?

When does one cross over from being a patriot to a bed-wetting liberal?

Where is stands now is pretty good. Without a Federal collector's/dealer's license, civilians can't get automatic weapons. Civilians can't get artilery, crew-served weapons, anti-armor rockets, or grenades.

They can get semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

I was hoping to get a response from someone who interprets the Second Amendment to mean they're entitled to any and all killing tools. You haven't mentioned it in this thread, but I'll ask anyway: How is a handgun different from a .50 cal machine gun with regards to the Constitution?


No difference.

Fully automatic weapons were legal for civilians to buy up until the 1930s. Al Capone and the other gangsters didn't break any laws when they purchased their "Chicago typewriters."

If you apply for the proper Federal permit, and pass the background checks, you can legally purchase machine guns, up to and including the M-2 .50 calibre machine gun. If you can find one on the market. The collecters who own them aren't that eager to give them up.
 
2012-07-23 02:08:26 PM

Chummer45: Fark It: Chummer45: I don't understand how saying "previous gun laws had tons of loopholes" supports your position that better, more effective laws shouldn't be passed.

What loopholes? How do you proposed closing them?

/the people who wrote these laws knowing fark-all about guns doesn't count as a loophole


well, for one, there was a ban on the sale of high-cap magazines that didn't apply to the secondary market. Incidentally, that's the same type of loophole that lets you buy a shotgun or rifle at a gun show without a background check. The last gun I bought at a show I handed the guy $300 cash, and he handed me the gun and shook my hand. That was it.

Now go ahead and tell me that the gun show loophole isn't part of the assault weapons ban, or some other stupid technical argument. My overall point was that the fact that the law was stupidly drafted is an argument for revising the law to accomplish what it set out to do, and prevent people from circumventing it. It's not a reason to just throw up your hands and repeal it.

Your argument appears to be, since congress has enacted stupid laws in the past, it shouldn't enact any laws or try to fix them.

Pointing out how ineffective the assault weapons ban was doesn't support your argument that therefore, there should be no ban. It's an argument for passing a stronger law.


So, you want to ban the transfer of all high capacity magazines. How, exactly, would you prove somebody illegally transferred a high capacity magazine, barring an admission or video evidence?

gun show loophole

What loophole? On what basis does the federal government have to regulate instrastate business between two people who are not in the business of dealing weapons? How do you plan on enforcing this? How do you plan on forcing people to get permission from the federal government to buy a gun for a relative as a gift, or trade/sell to your neighbor?
 
2012-07-23 02:09:17 PM

Kit Fister:

a bomb or weaponized anthrax do, too. Why bother with all the work to load magazines, reload guns, carry all that shiat around, actually shoot at people when you can simply make a bomb or a virus, drop it into a crowd, and walk away.


Thinking with that level of hyperbole strikes me as really, really immature. It's like when you tell a kid they can't play with a toy and they get mad and say, "LET'S NEVER PLAY WITH IT EVER." I mean yeah, you're technically correct. But when you apply any kind of critical thinking to that you can easily see why that was ridiculous. One such consideration: the ease of acquiring/making those weapons as opposed to acquiring a gun. Or that those things hurt many at once, guns have to be aimed. You took a simple concept I made a simple comment on, and blew it way out of proportion for what end? To make a Straw Man?

TL;DR calm down and grow up.
 
2012-07-23 02:09:43 PM

Chummer45: Tell that to the felons when the death squads round them up and send them to the concentration camps.


Reducto ad absurdum.

You antis are really playing the whole board, aren't you?
 
2012-07-23 02:10:38 PM

Sensei Can You See: I simply pointed out that this massacre could very well have been much worse if Holmes had not had access to high-cap mags.

 
2012-07-23 02:11:39 PM

Zulu_as_Kono: but just for the record, is the following statement ridiculous: "A gun from Fast and Furious killed a border agent."


Yes it is. The bullet killed Brian, not the gun.

The gun is the mehanism in which the bullet was fired.

The criminal was the one that manipulated the gun to make it fire.

The US Government is the one that allowed the criminal to obtain the gun.

Reducing this to a single at-fault is a little more difficult than you may like.
 
2012-07-23 02:11:55 PM

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

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.

In fact, to follow up... Not only do all those regulations exist on automobiles, but people, even well-meaning nice people, still end up killing other people with their car. In California we have a lot of people who are too old to drive, still driving. We've actually had mass car rampages in Southern California with multiple deaths because old people who have managed to skirt the health requirements are allowed to drive.

Imagine how easily a criminal who blatantly intends to mis-use the gun will get past those proposed regulations.



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.
 
2012-07-23 02:13:20 PM

Sultan Of Herf: 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.

Why single out the AR-15? All things being equal its a relatively low powered rifle. The 5.56x39 cartridge is fairly small. High velocity and quite accurate, but not nearly as nasty as 7.62x39, .308, or 30.06 rounds...all of which can be found in semi-automatic rifles. However the.308 and 30.06 (FAR more powerful than the other 2 rounds I mentioned) are found in "hunting" style rifles (but still semi-automatic) that dont look all scary and military like the AR (5.56x39) and AK (7.62x39) so people who are looking for something to outrage over tend to over look them.

Although I will give you credit for attempting to make a "gotcha" question...your lack of knowledge shows that you are simply an anti-gun person attempting to start an argument. If you really want to try and catch someone you need to be properly educated first. Go do some reading, maybe actually use a firearm sometime, then get back to us.


AR's ammo is 5.56 x 45mm, not 39. (or .223 Rem, but it's actually a very tiny bit different, and the NATO round is hotter). The Soviet AK-74 (not 47) uses the 5.45 x 39mm.

The primary reason for adopting Stoner's AR design was the 7.62 NATO (.308 Win) rounds that the M-14 uses weigh so much, and more ammo could be carried for the 5.56. Also, there was some thought about how the tumbling action of the smaller round made it more likely that the enemy would be wounded as opposed to killed outright, and conventional wisdom at the time pointed to 1 wounded person takes out 3 total enemy, due to others caring/transporting the wounded off the main resistance line.

/Of course, if the enemy are total dicks, that doesn't work out so well.
 
2012-07-23 02:13:33 PM

Fark It: Chummer45: Tell that to the felons when the death squads round them up and send them to the concentration camps.

Reducto ad absurdum.

You antis are really playing the whole board, aren't you?


I can't remember if it was you or another moron who said that you need your guns to protect you from roaming police death squads.

I don't feel like looking back through the thread to confirm it was you, so I'll just assume it was.
 
2012-07-23 02:14:49 PM
 
2012-07-23 02:15:21 PM

Zumaki: Kit Fister:

a bomb or weaponized anthrax do, too. Why bother with all the work to load magazines, reload guns, carry all that shiat around, actually shoot at people when you can simply make a bomb or a virus, drop it into a crowd, and walk away.

Thinking with that level of hyperbole strikes me as really, really immature. It's like when you tell a kid they can't play with a toy and they get mad and say, "LET'S NEVER PLAY WITH IT EVER." I mean yeah, you're technically correct. But when you apply any kind of critical thinking to that you can easily see why that was ridiculous. One such consideration: the ease of acquiring/making those weapons as opposed to acquiring a gun. Or that those things hurt many at once, guns have to be aimed. You took a simple concept I made a simple comment on, and blew it way out of proportion for what end? To make a Straw Man?

TL;DR calm down and grow up.


i8.photobucket.com
I don't go anywhere without my mutated anthrax... for duck hunting.
 
2012-07-23 02:15:27 PM

Chummer45: It's an argument for passing a stronger law.


Perhaps.

I'd rather the legislature focus its energies on efforts that may be more beneficial, considering that crimes involving rifles/shotguns make up a small minority of firearm-related crime (and those frequently described as "assault weapons" make up even less).

If the goal is to reduce rare-but-high-profile mass shootings, it'd probably be better to focus on more practical ideas like a better mental health care system rather than trying to restrict certain types of extremely common firearms or their accessories. Such improvements could benefit the lives of millions without needing to place restrictions on Constitutionally-protected rights. More practically speaking, it'd probably be more politically acceptable to lobby for improved mental health care rather than increased gun control.
 
2012-07-23 02:16:36 PM

Chummer45: I can't remember if it was you or another moron who said that you need your guns to protect you from roaming police death squads.

I don't feel like looking back through the thread to confirm it was you, so I'll just assume it was.


So, now we're just making things up? That's not even a logical fallacy, that's lying.
 
2012-07-23 02:18:06 PM

Chummer45: Death_Poot: Wendy's Chili: dittybopper: Wendy's Chili: dittybopper: And yet, homicides continued to drop post ban, to this very day. Obviously, standard capacity magazines aren't the issue.

Mass homicides are up.

So what? The *TOTAL* number of people killed continues to drop.

"So what?" Seriously?

70+ people were just shot in the blink of an eye. That's what.

If some tough from my home town of Camden wants to kill the kid from around the way, taking away his ability to buy a gun isn't going to change that. He'll use a knife, a bat, or his Timberland boots. But for a variety of reasons, those types of crime have gone down in the last decade or so.

But if some deranged shiat just wants to kill as many people as possible, the weapons at his disposal make the difference between 5 bodies and 20 bodies. My link above shows that the availability of extended magazines drops considerably after they're banned.

Uh, no........during the ban, I was able to purchase them at a gun show with no problem, there were more expensive though. They were also available at pawn shops, and at the local firearms shop I frequented.

Get your facts straight. btw - if you're just trolling, you're doing pretty well

I don't understand how saying "previous gun laws had tons of loopholes" supports your position that better, more effective laws shouldn't be passed.


I never made that contention, though I'll make it now. Why should I give up my right to have what I have because some idiot halfway across the country does something stupid with an inanimate object?

Over the weekend, a pickup truck filled with illegal aliens crashed and 13 died here in South Texas. Your logic dictates that we ban pickup trucks when there are already laws against 1) illegal immigration, 2) overloading your vehicle, 3) speeding, 4) not maintaining control of said vehicle, etc, etc, etc.

I also find it ghoulish for you people who are using this for political gain and to push your agenda when they havent even buried those poor folks in Colorado yet.
 
2012-07-23 02:18:36 PM

heypete: Chummer45: It's an argument for passing a stronger law.

Perhaps.

I'd rather the legislature focus its energies on efforts that may be more beneficial, considering that crimes involving rifles/shotguns make up a small minority of firearm-related crime (and those frequently described as "assault weapons" make up even less).

If the goal is to reduce rare-but-high-profile mass shootings, it'd probably be better to focus on more practical ideas like a better mental health care system rather than trying to restrict certain types of extremely common firearms or their accessories. Such improvements could benefit the lives of millions without needing to place restrictions on Constitutionally-protected rights. More practically speaking, it'd probably be more politically acceptable to lobby for improved mental health care rather than increased gun control.


I'll give this a THIS.
 
2012-07-23 02:21:10 PM

ZeroPly: Mr. Coffee Nerves: Not to make the story even darker, but...an AK-47 wouldn't have jammed.

If you went full 'tard and used an aftermarket 100 round magazine in it, it most likely would too.

Sooner or later someone will put together a one-stop "how to do a mass shooting" page, with important tips such as:

1. How to change magazines fast.
2. How to practice fast clearing of a weapon jam
3. Proper transition fire techniques

After that we're screwed.



I think the BSA has a merit badge for that.
 
2012-07-23 02:21:48 PM

heypete: give me doughnuts: Without a Federal collector's/dealer's license, civilians can't get automatic weapons. Civilians can't get artilery, crew-served weapons, anti-armor rockets, or grenades.

At the risk of being somewhat pedantic, that's not precisely true. A Federal tax stamp is required (usually on an ATF Form 4) for the ownership of automatic weapons, silencers, short-barreled rifles or shotguns, destructive devices (artillery, grenades, etc.). A specific class of dealer license is required to buy and sell such firearms as a dealer, but is not required for ownership. One could argue that the requirement for a tax stamp is effectively a "license" and I'd agree, but it helps to be correct.

It's a common misconception, but not an unreasonable one. I hope you don't mind my correction.

The machine gun registry has been closed to new, public-transferrable items since 1986. All machine guns manufactured after that date are only authorized for police/military use or for use as dealer samples (ostensibly to demonstrate the item to police/military customers). Private citizens cannot own post-1986 machine guns. This restriction does not apply to silencers, SBRs, SBSs, or DDs.

/jumped through the hoops for a tax stamp for a silencer for my .22 LR rifle. Really great for informal shooting with subsonic ammo as earmuffs are not required. Also handy for teaching new shooters, as .22 has essentially no recoil and the silencer helps lessen their nervousness with the loud sounds of shooting.
//has a friend who is a Class III dealer. I got to go out to the range with him and his other Class III dealer buddy a few years back and shoot suppressed M16s and an suppressed Uzi. Fun times.


Not at all, correct away. I know just enough about such things to really make myself look like an idiot.
I always enjoy going to machine gun shoots (Knob Creek Range in Louisville, I'm up for any event that advertises "Flame-Thrower Rental!"), and firing full-auto (in the military) was a rush. 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.
 
2012-07-23 02:22:23 PM

TXEric: Sultan Of Herf: 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.

Why single out the AR-15? All things being equal its a relatively low powered rifle. The 5.56x39 cartridge is fairly small. High velocity and quite accurate, but not nearly as nasty as 7.62x39, .308, or 30.06 rounds...all of which can be found in semi-automatic rifles. However the.308 and 30.06 (FAR more powerful than the other 2 rounds I mentioned) are found in "hunting" style rifles (but still semi-automatic) that dont look all scary and military like the AR (5.56x39) and AK (7.62x39) so people who are looking for something to outrage over tend to over look them.

Although I will give you credit for attempting to make a "gotcha" question...your lack of knowledge shows that you are simply an anti-gun person attempting to start an argument. If you really want to try and catch someone you need to be properly educated first. Go do some reading, maybe actually use a firearm sometime, then get back to us.

AR's ammo is 5.56 x 45mm, not 39. (or .223 Rem, but it's actually a very tiny bit different, and the NATO round is hotter). The Soviet AK-74 (not 47) uses the 5.45 x 39mm.

The primary reason for adopting Stoner's AR design was the 7.62 NATO (.308 Win) rounds that the M-14 uses weigh so much, and more ammo could be carried for the 5.56. Also, there was some thought about how the tumbling action of the smaller round made it more likely that the enemy would be wounded as opposed to killed outright, and conventional wisdom at the time pointed to 1 wounded person takes out 3 total enemy, due to others caring/transporting the wounded off the main resistance line.

/Of course, if the enemy are total dicks, that doesn't work out so well.



True. I don't know what kind of ammo he used, but if it was FMJ, that may explain the large number of wounded.

I like how originally the person posting got flamed for asking why someone would need an AR-15. The flame was great - don't you realize that there are .50 caliber sniper rifles, and stuff like that, that are way more powerful than a puny 5.56!!?!??

It's completely different applications. Sure, I could shoot out an engine block with a .50, but it would have been pretty cumbersome for that crazy fuk to carry into the theater (not to mention the recoil!)

The point is that an AR-15 has the power of a rifle with light recoil, accuracy, rapid semi-auto fire, and high magazine capacity. The combination makes it much more dangerous in these types of mass shooting situations than, say, a .300 winchester magnum, which is a much more powerful round.

I love when gun nuts try to make anti-gun folks look stupid for their lack of gun knowledge by using crappy, technical arguments.
 
2012-07-23 02:22:34 PM

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

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.

In fact, to follow up... Not only do all those regulations exist on automobiles, but people, even well-meaning nice people, still end up killing other people with their car. In California we have a lot of people who are too old to drive, still driving. We've actually had mass car rampages in Southern California with multiple deaths because old people who have managed to skirt the health requirements are allowed to drive.

Imagine how easily a criminal who blatantly intends to mis-use the gun will get past those proposed regulations.


Perhaps the reason driving is regulated more heavily than gun ownership is that cars are far more dangerous than guns.
 
2012-07-23 02:23:26 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.


Hippies.
 
2012-07-23 02:24:07 PM

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: know how to address jamming (SPORTS!)


Psssh, not SPORTS anymore. It is Tap-Rack-Bang.

;-)
 
2012-07-23 02:25:18 PM

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.
 
2012-07-23 02:25:38 PM

Chummer45: washington-babylon: 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 right to bear arms" didn't have anything to do with hunting. It was in place to allow the people to overthrow a corrupt, wildly out of control tyrannical government. A government that arbitrarily decided that a group of colonies could be taxed excessively without representation "because we can". Our founding fathers realized that as the final check and balance to the government they were creating, the people themselves needed to have a chance at being able to overthrow a potential (eventual) tyranny. They knew from previous history that we would eventually ruin what they bled to create, so they made provisions in the founding documentation to give us a chance to correct the problem. Not to "hunt". Not to "defend property and self" (that is a right that falls under the inalienable list). The purpose is to make would-be tyrants afraid of reprisal.

I ask you, would a tyrant be afraid of inferior weapons today? Absolutely not! An AR-15 semi-automatic rifle is on par with the current military issue weaponry, with the exception of select-fire capability that is useless for anything other than suppressive fire or large crowds. Because of the equivalence to mil-spec, the AR-15 is a good choice for a Second Amendment weapon. If the AR-15/M-16 platform gets replaced by newer tech, a suitable civilian (non-select fire) version should be available.

It is this balance that keeps your freedoms from being infringed. Not 18 year old kids sent to die in a faraway country for causes they barely understand. Not lobby groups in Washington, screaming about the latest media outrage. It is the fact that at any time, our elected representatives (who too often forget that the ...


Heh. Nice try. Unfortunately you don't seem to be familiar with what you can or can't actually own here in the U.S. of A. And I never said the system was perfect, or that we actually had a chance. I was stating the reason for the second amendment. And that reason was NEVER hunting.
 
2012-07-23 02:27:17 PM

heypete: Chummer45: It's an argument for passing a stronger law.

Perhaps.

I'd rather the legislature focus its energies on efforts that may be more beneficial, considering that crimes involving rifles/shotguns make up a small minority of firearm-related crime (and those frequently described as "assault weapons" make up even less).

If the goal is to reduce rare-but-high-profile mass shootings, it'd probably be better to focus on more practical ideas like a better mental health care system rather than trying to restrict certain types of extremely common firearms or their accessories. Such improvements could benefit the lives of millions without needing to place restrictions on Constitutionally-protected rights. More practically speaking, it'd probably be more politically acceptable to lobby for improved mental health care rather than increased gun control.



This really cuts to our core differences here. I 100% agree with your entire post, except for one part -- the constitutionally-protected right part. Frankly, I think the supreme court got it wrong in heller, and the case illustrates the problem - where do you draw the line? Ok, so you can have a pistol in your home. What about a shotgun on your lawn? What about an assault rifle? machine gun? aircraft carrier? nerve gas? Courts are not great at doing that sort of line-drawing.

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.
 
2012-07-23 02:27:55 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 intent of the 2nd was to make the government fearful of an armed populace (besides being a ready militia against foreign aggressors). Following that to the logical conclusion, we should have ready access to military grade arms. Note, there is a very clear difference between arms and armaments, so that wouldn't mean we would have access to artillary.
 
2012-07-23 02:28:33 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Sensei Can You See: I simply pointed out that this massacre could very well have been much worse if Holmes had not had access to high-cap mags.


Way to bowdlerize what I said.

Look, if you don't want a firearm or don't think you need any specific one, don't get it. But the fact remains that the 2nd Amendment is not based on need; it's a right. Furthermore, it's a fact that banning high-capacity magazines did not affect crime rates at all.

If you don't like the current state of affairs, start lobbying for a Constitutional amendment.
 
2012-07-23 02:28:36 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.



They're only different in degree. Both are equally horrific and terrifying.
 
2012-07-23 02:30:02 PM

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.
 
2012-07-23 02:31:38 PM

OgreMagi: 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 intent of the 2nd was to make the government fearful of an armed populace (besides being a ready militia against foreign aggressors). Following that to the logical conclusion, we should have ready access to military grade arms. Note, there is a very clear difference between arms and armaments, so that wouldn't mean we would have access to artillary.


Aw. That means I can't go back to the good ol' days of firing my old M270.
 
2012-07-23 02:33:59 PM

Wendy's Chili: kombat_unit: 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.

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or defending your hovel. It's about overthrowing tyranny, per the Framers.

It's about protecting the country from British and native Americans, not fantasies about going to war with the ATF.


Know how I can tell you haven't read the Federalist Papers?
 
2012-07-23 02:33:59 PM

Chummer45: The point is that an AR-15 has the power of a rifle with light recoil, accuracy, rapid semi-auto fire, and high magazine capacity. The combination makes it much more dangerous in these types of mass shooting situations than, say, a .300 winchester magnum, which is a much more powerful round.

I love when gun nuts try to make anti-gun folks look stupid for their lack of gun knowledge by using crappy, technical arguments.


How fat were the people in that theater? If they were fairly skinny your .300 magnum would have done more damage before the first reload was needed than his pitiful numbers, firing into a thick crowd like that.
 
2012-07-23 02:33:59 PM

Chummer45: 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.


Absolutely. We should take gasoline off the civilian market also.
 
2012-07-23 02:34:15 PM
It's been my observation that journalism students took journalism because they sucked at math and science.
 
2012-07-23 02:35:28 PM

Farker Soze: Chummer45: The point is that an AR-15 has the power of a rifle with light recoil, accuracy, rapid semi-auto fire, and high magazine capacity. The combination makes it much more dangerous in these types of mass shooting situations than, say, a .300 winchester magnum, which is a much more powerful round.

I love when gun nuts try to make anti-gun folks look stupid for their lack of gun knowledge by using crappy, technical arguments.

How fat were the people in that theater? If they were fairly skinny your .300 magnum would have done more damage before the first reload was needed than his pitiful numbers, firing into a thick crowd like that.


Well, this was in America.
 
2012-07-23 02:36:54 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.


Fun and recreation.
 
2012-07-23 02:39:28 PM

Incog_Neeto: 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.

Fun and recreation.


Because I want one......
 
2012-07-23 02:39:32 PM

Incog_Neeto: 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.

Fun and recreation.


And shooting hipsters. (wait, that is fun and recreation)
 
2012-07-23 02:40:53 PM

pacified: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 500x675]


Near universal license acceptance state-to-state, 16 age limit for licensing, no age limit for use/possession on private property, no police discretion on licensing, few limits on where you can bring it.
 
2012-07-23 02:41:43 PM

dittybopper: Chummer45: 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.

Absolutely. We should take gasoline off the civilian market also.


Many people in the environmental movement would love to.
 
2012-07-23 02:47:35 PM
The part of this I find sadly funny is that people are focusing on the gun, even to the point of blaming the weapon and not the person using it.

Heres a good example of how silly you types sound:

Lets take this incident here: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/pickup-truck-crash-texas-photo-144 056003.html

14 dead and 9 injured in pick-up truck crash. More dead (less injured) than in CO shooting.

Now, the clear problem here is high capacity trucks, one might even call them industrial equipment. Perhaps if civilians werent allowed to have such high capacity industrial equipment a tragedy like this never would have happened. Trucks like that should be reserved for government industrial use only.

/see what I did there?
 
Displayed 50 of 426 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 »






Report