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.

(Foreign Policy)   The NRA is too busy trying to export its agenda to other countries to address the real-life outcomes of that same agenda at home   (foreignpolicy.com) divider line 308
    More: Obvious, political agenda, no compromise, gun ownership, gun registry, small arms, end runs, overly broad, exports  
•       •       •

1313 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jul 2012 at 8:47 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-07-24 08:52:19 AM  
BS headline there, stubby.
 
2012-07-24 08:57:23 AM  
How'd that protectionist fantasy of banning guns work out subby?

Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.
 
2012-07-24 08:57:39 AM  
I thought the NRA was pro-Fast&Furious. After all, they are for putting guns into the hands of every person without any restrictions.
 
2012-07-24 08:58:00 AM  
Any surprise that the journal of the Rockefellers and the Trilateral Commission is anti-gun?
 
2012-07-24 08:58:55 AM  

the_foo: Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.


Everyone knows Joe Six Pack can see in the dark, through tear gas, through all the people panicking, and be able to line up a shot that would have hit a weak spot in his armor without accidentally hitting an innocent.
 
2012-07-24 08:58:59 AM  

the_foo: How'd that protectionist fantasy of banning guns work out subby?

Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.


Honest question, not snark. How many documented cases are there in the US of private citizens stopping a crazed gunman that is shooting at people? Or committing a robbery?
 
2012-07-24 08:59:45 AM  
I Like the NRA
 
2012-07-24 08:59:50 AM  
The NRA can kiss my grits. I've had more than one dinner-time phone call telling me that unless I send money to the NRA, the UN is going to come take away my guns.

/Collects and shoots historical rifles
//Figuring out to recreate historically accurate ammo is an interesting puzzle
 
2012-07-24 09:02:29 AM  

the_foo: How'd that protectionist fantasy of banning guns work out subby?

Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.


I agree. The only thing that could have saved those people is panicked crossfire through a smokey, packed theatre.
 
2012-07-24 09:03:38 AM  

What are you talking about, silly Foreign Policy dork? They've got this guy handling their stateside PR and he's doing a bang-up job.

i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-24 09:03:41 AM  
After the past week, I wish that theater HAD been full of Internet Tough Guy commandos packing heat. Either way, the story has a happier ending.
 
2012-07-24 09:04:25 AM  
I would like the NRA to address the issue of gun violence. Where is their support for mental health access? Where are their studies on how to identify potential perpetrators and prevent such tragedies. If they want a well-armed society, then they must step-up and also address the horrific toll on human lives.
 
2012-07-24 09:04:32 AM  
The National Rifle Association issued only one response to the shootings at an Aurora, Colorado, multiplex. On Friday, the flag at the firearms rights group's northern Virginia headquarters was lowered to half mast. And that was that -- no more on the story until "more information" was available.

It was classy and clipped-


Not so much. More like aware that spewing pro-gun talking points before bodies were even in the ground was a political loser. They learned at least that much from Columbine. Also worth consideration is the fact that the NRA bobbleheads in the GOP hit the ground running covering those same talking points the same day the shooting happened making any additional statements by the NRA proper redundant.

That all noted, the fact that the NRA talking points are now, apparently, showing up verbatim in places like Brazil in order to dissuade people from supporting gun control laws *is* rather disheartening.

The fact that the NRA = GOP = FOX is evident in the piece as well.
 
2012-07-24 09:04:59 AM  
I don't have any problem with guns.
I do have a problem with the NRA.
 
2012-07-24 09:05:12 AM  

moistD: Honest question, not snark. How many documented cases are there in the US of private citizens stopping a crazed gunman that is shooting at people? Or committing a robbery?


Stories like that are printed every month in American Rifleman. Yes, it's the magazine of the NRA, but they are gleaned and collated from other news sources.

Lost Thought 00: I thought the NRA was pro-Fast&Furious. After all, they are for putting guns into the hands of every person without any restrictions.


2/10. Not even a decent attempt.
 
2012-07-24 09:05:33 AM  

moistD: the_foo: How'd that protectionist fantasy of banning guns work out subby?

Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.

Honest question, not snark. How many documented cases are there in the US of private citizens stopping a crazed gunman that is shooting at people? Or committing a robbery?


There was an instance recently with that old man chasing those robbers. However, if you look at how many shots he fired, one 1 hit someone. ONLY 1. The rest of those bullets had the possibility of harming many others and everyone's very lucky they weren't hit. When people are in a panic, they fire wildly and their accuracy is terrible.
 
2012-07-24 09:08:28 AM  

StrikitRich: Any surprise that the journal of the Rockefellers and the Trilateral Commission is anti-gun?


You forgot the Queen, the Vatican, the Gettys and Colonel Sanders.
 
2012-07-24 09:09:08 AM  

HellRaisingHoosier: I don't have any problem with guns.
I do have a problem with the NRA.

 
2012-07-24 09:09:47 AM  
moistD: Honest question, not snark. How many documented cases are there in the US of private citizens stopping a crazed gunman that is shooting at people? Or committing a robbery?

http://thearmedcitizen.com/ has links to lots of news stories. Compiled statistics are pretty hard to come by
 
2012-07-24 09:09:54 AM  

the_foo: How'd that protectionist fantasy of banning guns work out subby?

Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.


There, there. Let it all out. What was it that scarred you? Did a threatening non-white take something of yours? Has your girlfriend/wife stopped faking like she can feel anything when it's in? Did your girlfriend/wife leave you for a well hung non-white?
 
2012-07-24 09:09:55 AM  

StrikitRich: moistD: Honest question, not snark. How many documented cases are there in the US of private citizens stopping a crazed gunman that is shooting at people? Or committing a robbery?

Stories like that are printed every month in American Rifleman. Yes, it's the magazine of the NRA, but they are gleaned and collated from other news sources.

Lost Thought 00: I thought the NRA was pro-Fast&Furious. After all, they are for putting guns into the hands of every person without any restrictions.

2/10. Not even a decent attempt.


I don't subscribe to that magazine, so I googled it and everything that came up was related to one crime stopped in Seattle. Care to link some more examples?
 
2012-07-24 09:10:43 AM  

TIKIMAN87: I Like the NRAightlife. I got to Boogey...


FTFLulz.
 
2012-07-24 09:10:46 AM  
Obama has done absolutely nothing to step up gun control. UN treaties, even if signed and ratified, are routinely ignored. Nobody is going to take your guns away. You're not being victimized. Put the poorly-spelled sign down, seek treatment for your persecution complex, and FFS stop getting all your news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh.
 
2012-07-24 09:11:42 AM  

cfletch13: moistD: the_foo: How'd that protectionist fantasy of banning guns work out subby?

Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.

Honest question, not snark. How many documented cases are there in the US of private citizens stopping a crazed gunman that is shooting at people? Or committing a robbery?

There was an instance recently with that old man chasing those robbers. However, if you look at how many shots he fired, one 1 hit someone. ONLY 1. The rest of those bullets had the possibility of harming many others and everyone's very lucky they weren't hit. When people are in a panic, they fire wildly and their accuracy is terrible.


This. There are very few people that are able to fire accurately under high stress situations. Going to the range and shooting at targets all day does not prepare you for shooting at a moving target in real life under a stress situation.
 
2012-07-24 09:12:46 AM  
What TFA doesn't really grasp is that the NRA is looking at the idea of restricting international transfers and seeing a possible way to slow down or mostly stop transfer of arms from overseas into the United States. Naturally, they'd have a problem with that. And it's not just the United States: Even if the US doesn't sign on to the treaty, if a bunch of other nations do they can essentially force the US into compliance by not allowing transfers to or from their respective nations that don't comply with the conditions of the treaty.

That might be good for domestic firearms manufacturers, as they could then increase production and diversify their products, but that would raise the cost of firearms overall, and the NRA is a *USERS* group, not a manufacturers group*. That would make it harder for NRA members to buy guns by raising the cost, so the NRA would be against it.

When you realize that the NRA is a single-issue users group, all of their actions make perfect sense. If you think they are a front for the gun industry, or for the Republican party, then you have a deep misunderstanding of their motivations.

Full disclosure: I was an NRA member for 2 or 3 years in the mid-to-late 1990's. Haven't been since then.

*The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is the lobbying group for firearms manufacturers, not the NRA. They usually agree on issues, but not always, and the NRA isn't afraid to take on the manufacturers when they do something perceived as bad for gun owners (see: Smith and Wesson agreement).
 
2012-07-24 09:13:09 AM  

the_foo: moistD: Honest question, not snark. How many documented cases are there in the US of private citizens stopping a crazed gunman that is shooting at people? Or committing a robbery?

http://thearmedcitizen.com/ has links to lots of news stories. Compiled statistics are pretty hard to come by


thanks
 
2012-07-24 09:13:24 AM  
1: Banning guns won't do shiat.

2: Despite some kneejerk responses, the American left has generally softened its stance on gun control in the last two decades.

3: No, the tragedy wouldn't have been averted if someone else in the theater had a gun, you stupid fark. It probably would have resulted in more people dying because of the dark, crowded location, the armored shooter, the use of tear gas, and the fact that most people in stressful situations aren't freaking Deadshot.
 
2012-07-24 09:13:43 AM  

cfletch13: There was an instance recently with that old man chasing those robbers. However, if you look at how many shots he fired, one 1 hit someone. ONLY 1. The rest of those bullets had the possibility of harming many others and everyone's very lucky they weren't hit. When people are in a panic, they fire wildly and their accuracy is terrible.


chasing the robbers out of the building, while firing wildly and stopping only to shoot at the one laying on the ground
 
2012-07-24 09:13:59 AM  
Over here in Australia we have the shooter and fishers party which is paid for by the NRA and they have just managed to get hunting made legal in national parks in NSW which nobody needed. I don't know why we need the lobby group for small arms manufacturers operating here in Australia, particularly when they so blatantly lied about the effects of the successful gun buyback scheme.
 
2012-07-24 09:14:14 AM  

imontheinternet: Obama has done absolutely nothing to step up gun control. UN treaties, even if signed and ratified, are routinely ignored. Nobody is going to take your guns away. You're not being victimized. Put the poorly-spelled sign down, seek treatment for your persecution complex, and FFS stop getting all your news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh.


Also this. I can't wait to see what gun & ammo prices are after President Obama is reelected. I am hoping that there isn't a run like last time since I want to pick up a nice new 1911 to do competitions with.
 
2012-07-24 09:14:14 AM  

Graffito: I would like the NRA to address the issue of gun violence. Where is their support for mental health access? Where are their studies on how to identify potential perpetrators and prevent such tragedies. If they want a well-armed society, then they must step-up and also address the horrific toll on human lives.


Psychos will find a way to kill no matter the law. Mcveigh killed quite a few without firing a bullet. The psycho in question had explosives in his apartment. Adding law after law to guns will not stop violence. You are asking for laws harping on the vast majority for the actions of very few. Are you going to ask to ban swimming next? Multiple deaths a day from that.
 
2012-07-24 09:14:38 AM  
The purpose of the NRA is to promote the sales of guns and ammunition through stoking fear in the population.
 
2012-07-24 09:15:01 AM  

Bloody William: 3: No, the tragedy wouldn't have been averted if someone else in the theater had a gun, you stupid fark. It probably would have resulted in more people dying because of the dark, crowded location, the armored shooter, the use of tear gas, and the fact that most people in stressful situations aren't freaking Deadshot


if only The Libs hadn't banned concealed NVG carry
 
2012-07-24 09:15:38 AM  

the_foo: How'd that protectionist fantasy of banning guns work out subby?

Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.


We all have fantasies. Some people like going "pew-pew" against bad guys, some people like wonky legislation.
 
2012-07-24 09:15:46 AM  

imontheinternet: Obama has done absolutely nothing to step up gun control. UN treaties, even if signed and ratified, are routinely ignored. Nobody is going to take your guns away. You're not being victimized. Put the poorly-spelled sign down, seek treatment for your persecution complex, and FFS stop getting all your news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh.



Romney might. As a Brady bill supporter and a governor who signed a permanent assault weapon ban, there is some risk he would continue that policy if he got elected.
 
2012-07-24 09:16:49 AM  

cfletch13: the_foo: How'd that protectionist fantasy of banning guns work out subby?

Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.

I agree. The only thing that could have saved those people is panicked crossfire through a smokey, packed theatre.


Yes, because all gun owners are knuckle-dragging morons who will start shooting blindly any time they're startled, regardless of whether or not they can see their target.

Better to cower in fear and let the madman slaughter as many people as he likes.

(You do realize teargas takes time to spread, right? And that since the gunman was in the front of the theater, there would be a giant light called a "projector" shining on him?)
 
2012-07-24 09:17:10 AM  

Bloody William: 2: Despite some kneejerk responses, the American left has generally softened its stance on gun control in the last two decades.


That's because the new left is somewhere to the right of Richard Nixon as evidenced by their poster boy president's governance.
The "hippie" boomers are the new fascists.
 
2012-07-24 09:17:26 AM  

the_foo: How'd that protectionist fantasy of banning guns work out subby?

Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.


Somebody's got a protectionist fantasy, but it isn't subby.
 
2012-07-24 09:17:33 AM  

HellRaisingHoosier: I don't have any problem with guns.
I do have a problem with the NRA.


I look forward to a day when the NRA finally recognizes that its greatest enemy isn't gun control supporters, it's people like James Holmes.

Sadly, I don't think that day will ever come.
 
2012-07-24 09:17:51 AM  

MyRandomName: Graffito: I would like the NRA to address the issue of gun violence. Where is their support for mental health access? Where are their studies on how to identify potential perpetrators and prevent such tragedies. If they want a well-armed society, then they must step-up and also address the horrific toll on human lives.

Psychos will find a way to kill no matter the law. Mcveigh killed quite a few without firing a bullet. The psycho in question had explosives in his apartment. Adding law after law to guns will not stop violence. You are asking for laws harping on the vast majority for the actions of very few. Are you going to ask to ban swimming next? Multiple deaths a day from that.


when a guy manages to mass drown people, I'll stop saying you're an idiot
 
2012-07-24 09:18:40 AM  

fracto73: imontheinternet: Obama has done absolutely nothing to step up gun control. UN treaties, even if signed and ratified, are routinely ignored. Nobody is going to take your guns away. You're not being victimized. Put the poorly-spelled sign down, seek treatment for your persecution complex, and FFS stop getting all your news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh.


Romney might. As a Brady bill supporter and a governor who signed a permanent assault weapon ban, there is some risk he would continue that policy if he got elected.


This is what kills me. Who does the NRA support? Yea, go ahead and try and tell me that they aren't another republican organization. And throwing money at Dems when they are in power doesn't mean they support Dems.
 
MFK
2012-07-24 09:18:51 AM  
who the fark are these people who see all of this violence and death and their only solution is MOAR GUNS!
 
2012-07-24 09:19:04 AM  

nigeman: MyRandomName: Graffito: I would like the NRA to address the issue of gun violence. Where is their support for mental health access? Where are their studies on how to identify potential perpetrators and prevent such tragedies. If they want a well-armed society, then they must step-up and also address the horrific toll on human lives.

Psychos will find a way to kill no matter the law. Mcveigh killed quite a few without firing a bullet. The psycho in question had explosives in his apartment. Adding law after law to guns will not stop violence. You are asking for laws harping on the vast majority for the actions of very few. Are you going to ask to ban swimming next? Multiple deaths a day from that.

when a guy manages to mass drown people, I'll stop saying you're an idiot


So you missed the whole mcveigh thing? When you develop even a modicum of intelligence we can talk.
 
2012-07-24 09:19:28 AM  

the_foo: (You do realize teargas takes time to spread, right? And that since the gunman was in the front of the theater, there would be a giant light called a "projector" shining on him?)


holy shiat, I wonder if this will be the dumbest thing I read on the internet all day?
 
2012-07-24 09:19:41 AM  

space_cowgirl: HellRaisingHoosier: I don't have any problem with guns.
I do have a problem with the NRA.

I look forward to a day when the NRA finally recognizes that its greatest enemy isn't gun control supporters, it's people like James Holmes.

Sadly, I don't think that day will ever come.


I look forward to the death of Wayne LaPierre from having his Thai ladyboy be a little too aggressive with the ball gag. Sadly, I think my scenario is more likely to happen than yours.
 
2012-07-24 09:20:09 AM  

moistD: I don't subscribe to that magazine, so I googled it and everything that came up was related to one crime stopped in Seattle. Care to link some more examples?


The Armed Citizen

It's not an NRA blog per se, but one that collects and links to news articles about armed citizens protecting themselves against criminals. It's been on hiatus for over a year now due to the (now defunct) copyright troll Righthaven, but you can look back and see previous entries.
 
2012-07-24 09:21:01 AM  

Jackson Herring: the_foo: (You do realize teargas takes time to spread, right? And that since the gunman was in the front of the theater, there would be a giant light called a "projector" shining on him?)

holy shiat, I wonder if this will be the dumbest thing I read on the internet all day?


I don't know if I missed that the first time, but yep, that is going to be the dumbest thing I will read today.
 
2012-07-24 09:21:55 AM  

MyRandomName: nigeman: MyRandomName: Graffito: I would like the NRA to address the issue of gun violence. Where is their support for mental health access? Where are their studies on how to identify potential perpetrators and prevent such tragedies. If they want a well-armed society, then they must step-up and also address the horrific toll on human lives.

Psychos will find a way to kill no matter the law. Mcveigh killed quite a few without firing a bullet. The psycho in question had explosives in his apartment. Adding law after law to guns will not stop violence. You are asking for laws harping on the vast majority for the actions of very few. Are you going to ask to ban swimming next? Multiple deaths a day from that.

when a guy manages to mass drown people, I'll stop saying you're an idiot

So you missed the whole mcveigh thing? When you develop even a modicum of intelligence we can talk.


So your argument is that because we can't prevent everything, we shouldn't try to prevent anything?
 
2012-07-24 09:23:18 AM  

dlp211: fracto73: imontheinternet: Obama has done absolutely nothing to step up gun control. UN treaties, even if signed and ratified, are routinely ignored. Nobody is going to take your guns away. You're not being victimized. Put the poorly-spelled sign down, seek treatment for your persecution complex, and FFS stop getting all your news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh.


Romney might. As a Brady bill supporter and a governor who signed a permanent assault weapon ban, there is some risk he would continue that policy if he got elected.

This is what kills me. Who does the NRA support? Yea, go ahead and try and tell me that they aren't another republican organization. And throwing money at Dems when they are in power doesn't mean they support Dems.


What, you mean like endorsing Democrats over Republicans when the Democrat has the better record on gun issues? Stuff like that? Because they most certainly do that.
 
2012-07-24 09:23:22 AM  

MyRandomName: Graffito: I would like the NRA to address the issue of gun violence. Where is their support for mental health access? Where are their studies on how to identify potential perpetrators and prevent such tragedies. If they want a well-armed society, then they must step-up and also address the horrific toll on human lives.

Psychos will find a way to kill no matter the law. Mcveigh killed quite a few without firing a bullet. The psycho in question had explosives in his apartment. Adding law after law to guns will not stop violence. You are asking for laws harping on the vast majority for the actions of very few. Are you going to ask to ban swimming next? Multiple deaths a day from that.


Reread my post. I make no mention of laws. I am asking for the NRA to step up and address the issue of mentally ill people committing mass murder with guns. Are you suggesting that events like those in Colorado are something that the rest of us just have to live with? What is the NRA doing to address this problem?
 
2012-07-24 09:23:33 AM  

the_foo: Yes, because all gun owners are knuckle-dragging morons who will start shooting blindly any time they're startled, regardless of whether or not they can see their target.

Better to cower in fear and let the madman slaughter as many people as he likes.

(You do realize teargas takes time to spread, right? And that since the gunman was in the front of the theater, there would be a giant light called a "projector" shining on him?)


You do realize that few people are accurate under stressful situations, and since the gunman was in front of the theater, unless you ere sitting in the front row there would be dozens of other people between you and him you could shoot if you're not Bullseye? And you do realize that such a thing would be the "crossfire" people keep saying would have happened?

Also, stand in front of a projector showing a moving picture. That's not a flat light clearly illuminating you. That's a moving, complex picture spread across the screen and the subject. That's basically visual camoflauge, It's not like there was a spotlight shining on him.
 
2012-07-24 09:24:37 AM  

quatchi: More like aware that spewing pro-gun talking points before bodies were even in the ground was a political loser. They learned at least that much from Columbine.


...what?

dittybopper: When you realize that the NRA is a single-issue users group, all of their actions make perfect sense. If you think they are a front for the gun industry, or for the Republican party, then you have a deep misunderstanding of their motivations.


Uh, were they a single-issue users group, they would try to advance that issue instead of the right wing political agenda.

nigeman: when a guy manages to mass drown people, I'll stop saying you're an idiot


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates
 
2012-07-24 09:25:01 AM  

Bloody William: You do realize that few people are accurate under stressful situations, and since the gunman was in front of the theater, unless you ere sitting in the front row there would be dozens of other people between you and him you could shoot if you're not Bullseye? And you do realize that such a thing would be the "crossfire" people keep saying would have happened?

Also, stand in front of a projector showing a moving picture. That's not a flat light clearly illuminating you. That's a moving, complex picture spread across the screen and the subject. That's basically visual camoflauge, It's not like there was a spotlight shining on him.


Most people can't even find their farkin SEAT in a dark movie theater for christ's sake
 
2012-07-24 09:25:11 AM  

Aarontology: Everyone knows Joe Six Pack can see in the dark, through tear gas, through all the people panicking, and be able to line up a shot that would have hit a weak spot in his armor without accidentally hitting an innocent.


Jeremy Lin could probably find the chink in the armor.
 
2012-07-24 09:25:37 AM  

MyRandomName: the whole mcveigh thing?


So your saying that because people can use other things to kill people that aren't guns there is no point to talking about reasonable gun control measures?

You're saying this while questioning other people's intelligence?

Well, bless your heart, you do try so.
 
2012-07-24 09:25:45 AM  

Lost Thought 00: So your argument is that because we can't prevent everything, we shouldn't try to prevent anything?


Isn't that pretty much the GOP's current platform? If it doesn't solve a problem completely, it's a horrific waste of time and tax dollars.
 
2012-07-24 09:27:20 AM  

dittybopper: dlp211: fracto73: imontheinternet: Obama has done absolutely nothing to step up gun control. UN treaties, even if signed and ratified, are routinely ignored. Nobody is going to take your guns away. You're not being victimized. Put the poorly-spelled sign down, seek treatment for your persecution complex, and FFS stop getting all your news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh.


Romney might. As a Brady bill supporter and a governor who signed a permanent assault weapon ban, there is some risk he would continue that policy if he got elected.

This is what kills me. Who does the NRA support? Yea, go ahead and try and tell me that they aren't another republican organization. And throwing money at Dems when they are in power doesn't mean they support Dems.

What, you mean like endorsing Democrats over Republicans when the Democrat has the better record on gun issues? Stuff like that? Because they most certainly do that.


Like automagically giving a Republican an A despite having no record on gun control and not filling out the self-survey.
 
2012-07-24 09:27:27 AM  

moistD: the_foo: How'd that protectionist fantasy of banning guns work out subby?

Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.

Honest question, not snark. How many documented cases are there in the US of private citizens stopping a crazed gunman that is shooting at people? Or committing a robbery?


There are a few. But how many cases of stopping a man covered in body armor who had darkness, CS grenades, and a farking riot on his hands? NONE.
 
2012-07-24 09:27:30 AM  

the_foo: How'd that protectionist fantasy of banning guns work out subby?

Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.


At what point in your life did you have your brain removed? Or was this just a traumatic injury to turn you stupid?
 
2012-07-24 09:28:28 AM  

dittybopper: If you think they are a front for the gun industry, or for the Republican party, then you have a deep misunderstanding of their motivations.


Explain then, if you could, their support for Republican Mitt Romney (who, as governor of Massachusetts, signed into law a bill that reduces gun rights) over Democrat Barack Obama (who as president signed into law a bill that increases gun rights)? They don't seem to base their support on what has actually been done by the candidates in terms of gun policy. What do they base it on? You'd think a candidate who signed into law an assault weapons ban would be anathema to the NRA, but apparently not.

If the NRA's support for Mitt Romney is not based on the fact that he is a Republican, what is it based on?
 
2012-07-24 09:29:30 AM  

the_foo: (You do realize teargas takes time to spread, right? And that since the gunman was in the front of the theater, there would be a giant light called a "projector" shining on him?)


The Aurora shooter is 20 feet tall? HOLY SHIAT! Would bullets even harm him?

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-24 09:30:04 AM  

qorkfiend: If the NRA's support for Mitt Romney is not based on the fact that he is a Republican, what is it based on?


To be fair, most cult members are usually armed.
 
2012-07-24 09:30:15 AM  

quatchi: MyRandomName: the whole mcveigh thing?

So your saying that because people can use other things to kill people that aren't guns there is no point to talking about reasonable gun control measures?

You're saying this while questioning other people's intelligence?

Well, bless your heart, you do try so.


This seems to be the talking point of the hour, yes. "Gasoline can be used to start a fire, therefore we must ban gasoline!" Except, of course, that gasoline has other uses. Can someone can point to an intended use for a gun that doesn't involve shooting it (or the threat of shooting it)?
 
2012-07-24 09:30:28 AM  

qorkfiend: Explain then, if you could, their support for Republican Mitt Romney (who, as governor of Massachusetts, signed into law a bill that reduces gun rights) over Democrat Barack Obama (who as president signed into law a bill that increases gun rights)?


You know I was listening to NPR yesterday, that bastion of The Lieberal Media, and I heard Brian Lehrer admit that he had not heard this fact until that very moment.
 
2012-07-24 09:30:33 AM  

dlp211: dittybopper: dlp211: fracto73: imontheinternet: Obama has done absolutely nothing to step up gun control. UN treaties, even if signed and ratified, are routinely ignored. Nobody is going to take your guns away. You're not being victimized. Put the poorly-spelled sign down, seek treatment for your persecution complex, and FFS stop getting all your news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh.


Romney might. As a Brady bill supporter and a governor who signed a permanent assault weapon ban, there is some risk he would continue that policy if he got elected.

This is what kills me. Who does the NRA support? Yea, go ahead and try and tell me that they aren't another republican organization. And throwing money at Dems when they are in power doesn't mean they support Dems.

What, you mean like endorsing Democrats over Republicans when the Democrat has the better record on gun issues? Stuff like that? Because they most certainly do that.

Like automagically giving a Republican an A despite having no record on gun control and not filling out the self-survey.


Or how LaPierre refused to sit down with the Obama administration to talk about gun control, saying "Why should I or the N.R.A. go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?"
 
2012-07-24 09:32:04 AM  
NRA is weak? Try JFPO.org instead. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
 
2012-07-24 09:32:32 AM  

space_cowgirl: "Gasoline can be used to start a fire, therefore we must ban gasoline!" Except, of course, that gasoline has other uses. Can someone can point to an intended use for a gun that doesn't involve shooting it (or the threat of shooting it)?


'Shooting' a gun isn't a bad use. Just like using gas to start a fire isn't a bad use - that's how combustion engines work. The 'bad' use is shooting a person (in an illegal way).

False equivalency is false.
 
2012-07-24 09:33:54 AM  
I don't care how you feel about guns, the politicized version of the NRA that rose in the late 70's is just using you.
 
2012-07-24 09:34:16 AM  

the_foo: cfletch13: the_foo: How'd that protectionist fantasy of banning guns work out subby?

Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.

I agree. The only thing that could have saved those people is panicked crossfire through a smokey, packed theatre.

Yes, because all gun owners are knuckle-dragging morons who will start shooting blindly any time they're startled, regardless of whether or not they can see their target.

Better to cower in fear and let the madman slaughter as many people as he likes.

(You do realize teargas takes time to spread, right? And that since the gunman was in the front of the theater, there would be a giant light called a "projector" shining on him?)


I never said they're knuckle draggers. They are human beings that are susceptible to panicked and irrational behaviour during periods of intense stress. They are not special and exempt from that and neither are you.
 
2012-07-24 09:34:40 AM  

sprawl15: space_cowgirl: "Gasoline can be used to start a fire, therefore we must ban gasoline!" Except, of course, that gasoline has other uses. Can someone can point to an intended use for a gun that doesn't involve shooting it (or the threat of shooting it)?

'Shooting' a gun isn't a bad use. Just like using gas to start a fire isn't a bad use - that's how combustion engines work. The 'bad' use is shooting a person (in an illegal way).

False equivalency is false.


Also I'm pretty sure that outside of the actual military, the incredibly overwhelmingly vast majority of ammunition is expended on murdering the crap out of paper.
 
2012-07-24 09:35:17 AM  

the_foo: Yes, because all gun owners are knuckle-dragging morons who will start shooting blindly any time they're startled, regardless of whether or not they can see their target.

Better to cower in fear and let the madman slaughter as many people as he likes.

(You do realize teargas takes time to spread, right? And that since the gunman was in the front of the theater, there would be a giant light called a "projector" shining on him?)


And these non-knuckle dragging morons would somehow be immune to tear gas and can somehow find a way past a full bullet proof suit to hurt the shooter, and do this all before being shot themselves? I don't care how good they were with their gun, the chance of hitting someone else in that situation would be greater than taking down the shooter.

If someone really wanted to stop the shooter their best shot would be to to physically wrestle the man down. It worked in Arizona and it would have had a chance to work in the Aurora theater, and if it doesn't you aren't putting anyone but yourself at risk.
 
2012-07-24 09:35:20 AM  
Oh look, it's this discussion again.
 
2012-07-24 09:35:45 AM  

Jackson Herring: sprawl15: space_cowgirl: "Gasoline can be used to start a fire, therefore we must ban gasoline!" Except, of course, that gasoline has other uses. Can someone can point to an intended use for a gun that doesn't involve shooting it (or the threat of shooting it)?

'Shooting' a gun isn't a bad use. Just like using gas to start a fire isn't a bad use - that's how combustion engines work. The 'bad' use is shooting a person (in an illegal way).

False equivalency is false.

Also I'm pretty sure that outside of the actual military, the incredibly overwhelmingly vast majority of ammunition is expended on murdering the crap out of paper.


FTFY
 
2012-07-24 09:36:54 AM  

Bloody William:
You do realize that few people are accurate under stressful situations, and since the gunman was in front of the theater, unless you ere sitting in the front row there would be dozens of other people between you and him you could shoot if you're not Bullseye? And you do realize that such a thing would be the "crossfire" people keep saying would have happened?

Also, stand in front of a projector showing a moving picture. That's not a flat light clearly illuminating you. That's a moving, complex picture spread across the screen and the subject. That's basically visual camoflauge, It's not like there was a spotlight shining on him.


Honestly, the left wing's gun phobia is every bit as irrational as the right wing's homophobia. They think of one way someone could do something bad and go "well, there you have it. There's never any use for guns."

Some people would be willing to put themselves at risk by moving towards the gunman to get a safe shot. I don't whether I would since I've never been in a situation like that, but those people are out there. And do you really think it's better to let him shoot 70 people than take the chance that someone could be hit by return fire?

And since some of you have already tried to dismiss people who would like to defend themselves as "fantasizing", no I hope nothing like this ever happens to me. Having a gun would be no guarantee. I also have fire extinguishers and don't fantasize about my house burning down, and wear my seatbelt but don't fantasize about getting in a car accident.

As for seeing someone standing in front of a movie screen...have you been to a movie? If you can see the movie, you can damn sure see someone blocking it.
 
2012-07-24 09:36:56 AM  

sprawl15: space_cowgirl: "Gasoline can be used to start a fire, therefore we must ban gasoline!" Except, of course, that gasoline has other uses. Can someone can point to an intended use for a gun that doesn't involve shooting it (or the threat of shooting it)?

'Shooting' a gun isn't a bad use. Just like using gas to start a fire isn't a bad use - that's how combustion engines work. The 'bad' use is shooting a person (in an illegal way).

False equivalency is false.


The thing is, a gun is intended for use as a weapon.
 
2012-07-24 09:37:13 AM  

Epoch_Zero: Oh look, it's this discussion again.


Is this the part where you declare every firearm was crafted from the soul of an aborted babe?
 
2012-07-24 09:38:22 AM  

the_foo: moistD: Honest question, not snark. How many documented cases are there in the US of private citizens stopping a crazed gunman that is shooting at people? Or committing a robbery?

http://thearmedcitizen.com/ has links to lots of news stories. Compiled statistics are pretty hard to come by



Why? Because anecdotal evidence and only linking to complimentary news stories paint a rosier picture than cold hard facts?
 
2012-07-24 09:39:20 AM  

Graffito: Where are their studies on how to identify potential perpetrators and prevent such tragedies


But I've been told that everyone who does this sort of thing is crazy, therefore no one can predict when they're going to strike, and therefore we should never ever do anything to try and figure that out, ever. And we especially should try and take a few guns off the streets to discourage that type of behavior. No, that would be communism.
 
2012-07-24 09:39:29 AM  

space_cowgirl: The thing is, a gun is intended for use as a weapon.


Intended by who? The manufacturers make and sell it to make money. That's their intent. The buyers buy it to have fun with it by shooting targets or helpless forest animals. The small subset of people who buy it for its capacity to kill humans generally have it for defensive purposes - they'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

It's like saying gas's only purpose is to burn people alive and the fact that 99.999% of people who buy gas don't use it responsibly is irrelevant.
 
2012-07-24 09:39:50 AM  
The rush to exploit a tragedy for personal political agendas continues. Not quite as bad as George Stephanopoulos I suppose, and certainly not as bad as Paul Krugman, but never let a crisis go to waste right?

And fark was one of the places whining quite loudly about the fact that somebody actually got on television and dared to say something other than a liberal talking point. Were you hoping to scream loudly enough about how everyone else should shut up and only pay attention your talking points?

Because that's what it looks like.
 
2012-07-24 09:40:05 AM  

sprawl15: Epoch_Zero: Oh look, it's this discussion again.

Is this the part where you declare every firearm was crafted from the soul of an aborted babe?


What? No.

You know as well as I do that every firearm is just a physical manifestation of american large penises. Anyone else is just admitting they have a small penis and don't love freedom.
 
2012-07-24 09:40:06 AM  

the_foo: Honestly, the left wing's gun phobia is every bit as irrational as the right wing's homophobia


You're a goddamn idiot if you think that is true, or even that there is any "gun-phobia." Guns are dangerous. Some people think they should be regulated more stringently than they are now. Trying to spin that into "phobia" is an attempt to distract from discussion about if there is any reasonable way to prevent events such as this.
 
2012-07-24 09:40:08 AM  

sprawl15: It's like saying gas's only purpose is to burn people alive and the fact that 99.999% of people who buy gas don't use it responsibly is irrelevant.


FTFM.
 
2012-07-24 09:40:39 AM  

Gwyrddu: Aarontology: Everyone knows Joe Six Pack can see in the dark, through tear gas, through all the people panicking, and be able to line up a shot that would have hit a weak spot in his armor without accidentally hitting an innocent.

Jeremy Lin could probably find the chink in the armor.


and you just made my morning
 
2012-07-24 09:40:53 AM  

Gwyrddu: the_foo: Yes, because all gun owners are knuckle-dragging morons who will start shooting blindly any time they're startled, regardless of whether or not they can see their target.

Better to cower in fear and let the madman slaughter as many people as he likes.

(You do realize teargas takes time to spread, right? And that since the gunman was in the front of the theater, there would be a giant light called a "projector" shining on him?)

And these non-knuckle dragging morons would somehow be immune to tear gas and can somehow find a way past a full bullet proof suit to hurt the shooter, and do this all before being shot themselves? I don't care how good they were with their gun, the chance of hitting someone else in that situation would be greater than taking down the shooter.

If someone really wanted to stop the shooter their best shot would be to to physically wrestle the man down. It worked in Arizona and it would have had a chance to work in the Aurora theater, and if it doesn't you aren't putting anyone but yourself at risk.


I'd argue that a great Mental Heath system is the best method of stopping a mass shooter, but that is a hard sell to the public.
 
2012-07-24 09:41:00 AM  

Gwyrddu: the_foo: Yes, because all gun owners are knuckle-dragging morons who will start shooting blindly any time they're startled, regardless of whether or not they can see their target.

Better to cower in fear and let the madman slaughter as many people as he likes.

(You do realize teargas takes time to spread, right? And that since the gunman was in the front of the theater, there would be a giant light called a "projector" shining on him?)

And these non-knuckle dragging morons would somehow be immune to tear gas and can somehow find a way past a full bullet proof suit to hurt the shooter, and do this all before being shot themselves? I don't care how good they were with their gun, the chance of hitting someone else in that situation would be greater than taking down the shooter.

If someone really wanted to stop the shooter their best shot would be to to physically wrestle the man down. It worked in Arizona and it would have had a chance to work in the Aurora theater, and if it doesn't you aren't putting anyone but yourself at risk.


Anyone that claims that they could have taken the shot if they were there with a gun, or some other person could have taken the shot if they had a gun is patently lying. For 7 years my job was shooting including CCB, and I will be the first to admit that even for me, that would have been a near impossible shot that would have required so much to go right for me that was not in my control that no person that shoots at paper targets could have taken that shot.

There are a handful of people in America that could have taken that shot, not only would they had to have been an amazing shooter, but they also would have had to be able to deal with the stress of the situation.
 
2012-07-24 09:41:12 AM  
Gun owner since I was 18... I have little use for the NRA. It's more like a powerful lobbying wing of the GOP these days.

They do have some great training programs, though. Too bad the morons, who think firearms are fashion accessories, don't take advantage of them...
 
2012-07-24 09:41:28 AM  
Disarm the debt slaves...austerity is coming in January!

How can the herd be forced to pay if they can shoot back?

Let's thank Jesus for Drones.
 
2012-07-24 09:41:49 AM  
Just asking the tough questions here....

1. If everyone carries, some will be too stupid to unload before the airport. DO YOU REALLY WANT LONGER TSA LINES?

2. If everyone carries, don't you think Country / Western music will become more popular? DO YOU REALLY WANT C & W MUSIC BECOMING MORE POPULAR?

3. If everyone carries, how many more babies will be left in cars because hicks will be too concerned with making sure they've got their gun rather than their spawn when they go in the supermarket? DO YOU REALLY WANT MORE BABY GUMBO IN THE BACKSEAT OF CARS?
 
2012-07-24 09:42:50 AM  

keylock71: Gun owner since I was 18... I have little use for the NRA. It's more like a powerful lobbying wing of the GOP these days.


I still haven't found a really good range in the area that doesn't require NRA membership :(
 
2012-07-24 09:43:16 AM  
Real ife outcomes?

Oh you mean safer cities and fewer gun violence and murders than in "progressive" heavy gun control states?

Yeah, when will they fix that.
 
2012-07-24 09:43:40 AM  

sprawl15: space_cowgirl: The thing is, a gun is intended for use as a weapon.

Intended by who? The manufacturers make and sell it to make money. That's their intent. The buyers buy it to have fun with it by shooting targets or helpless forest animals. The small subset of people who buy it for its capacity to kill humans generally have it for defensive purposes - they'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

It's like saying gas's only purpose is to burn people alive and the fact that 99.999% of people who buy gas don't use it responsibly is irrelevant.


This argument again?

A sword is designed and crafted to be a weapon.
A gun is designed and crafted to be a weapon.
The fact that some people do not use it as a weapon does not change the fact that it is originally designed and meant to be used as a weapon.

Before we get off on to a target shooting tangent, target shooting guns are like wooden swords - they are deliberate facsimiles of weapons for the express purpose of practice.

Asserting that a gun is not a weapon is ridiculous.
 
2012-07-24 09:43:57 AM  

PonceAlyosha: Guns are dangerous. Some people think they should be regulated more stringently than they are now. Trying to spin that into "phobia" is an attempt to distract from discussion about if there is any reasonable way to prevent events such as this.


The problem - on both sides - lies in overemphasizing the role of guns and underemphasizing things like the mentality that causes people to go shoot other people. Looking at why people do it, and addressing it.

The fastest way to reduce gun crime in the country, for example, would be legalizing drugs.
 
2012-07-24 09:45:17 AM  

sprawl15: PonceAlyosha: Guns are dangerous. Some people think they should be regulated more stringently than they are now. Trying to spin that into "phobia" is an attempt to distract from discussion about if there is any reasonable way to prevent events such as this.

The problem - on both sides - lies in overemphasizing the role of guns and underemphasizing things like the mentality that causes people to go shoot other people. Looking at why people do it, and addressing it.

The fastest way to reduce gun crime in the country, for example, would be legalizing drugs.


And actually have a national mental health system, but apparently that's socialism.
 
2012-07-24 09:45:18 AM  

keylock71: Gun owner since I was 18... I have little use for the NRA. It's more like a powerful lobbying wing of the GOP these days.

They do have some great training programs, though. Too bad the morons, who think firearms are fashion accessories, don't take advantage of them...


Too bad those with the most hate and the least education own guns and also procreate. Obviously not saying that's you, just saying that our society permits legally retarded hicks with violent tendencies to own firearms. If it was a Darwinian experiment, I'd say it failed.
 
2012-07-24 09:45:18 AM  

sprawl15: ...what?


When something like Columbine, Virginia Tech, the Gifford shooting or the most recent killing spree make the news the NRA sits back and takes no official position but lets its proxies like Gohmert spew their line of shiat.
 
2012-07-24 09:45:26 AM  

Eapoe6: Disarm the debt slaves...austerity is coming in January!

How can the herd be forced to pay if they can shoot back?

Let's thank Jesus for Drones.


Such fiery spirit of rebellion in the face of such oppression! You're like John Connor, if Sarah Connor's brother had come from the future to bang her.
 
2012-07-24 09:45:33 AM  

sprawl15: PonceAlyosha: Guns are dangerous. Some people think they should be regulated more stringently than they are now. Trying to spin that into "phobia" is an attempt to distract from discussion about if there is any reasonable way to prevent events such as this.

The problem - on both sides - lies in overemphasizing the role of guns and underemphasizing things like the mentality that causes people to go shoot other people. Looking at why people do it, and addressing it.

The fastest way to reduce gun crime in the country, for example, would be legalizing drugs.


Or......guns that fire drugs!!

FUND IT
 
2012-07-24 09:45:34 AM  

sprawl15: 'Shooting' a gun isn't a bad use. Just like using gas to start a fire isn't a bad use - that's how combustion engines work. The 'bad' use is shooting a person (in an illegal way).

False equivalency is false.


Handguns-
-Hobby shooting
-Self defense

Rifles-
-Hobby shooting
-Assassination
-Hunting
-Home defense (against slow-moving distant burglars, or zombies)

Semi-automatic assault rifles-
-Hobby shooting
-Murder
-Home defense

ONLY ONE OF THESE THINGS IS APPROPRIATE TO HAVE OUTSIDE OF A SHOOTING RANGE, A GUN SAFE, OR A FOREST
 
2012-07-24 09:46:00 AM  

quatchi: MyRandomName: the whole mcveigh thing?

So your saying that because people can use other things to kill people that aren't guns there is no point to talking about reasonable gun control measures?

You're saying this while questioning other people's intelligence?

Well, bless your heart, you do try so.


How do you define "reasonable gun control measures"?
 
2012-07-24 09:46:02 AM  

sprawl15: PonceAlyosha: Guns are dangerous. Some people think they should be regulated more stringently than they are now. Trying to spin that into "phobia" is an attempt to distract from discussion about if there is any reasonable way to prevent events such as this.

The problem - on both sides - lies in overemphasizing the role of guns and underemphasizing things like the mentality that causes people to go shoot other people. Looking at why people do it, and addressing it.

The fastest way to reduce gun crime in the country, for example, would be legalizing drugs.


I'm more concerned about the disturbing trend towards "stand your ground" and vigilantism.
 
2012-07-24 09:46:36 AM  
Knew an NRA "lifetime member" who stockpiled ammo after the Mooslum Socialist was elected. Was convinced that "they" were coming to take his guns away.

/did not attempt to argue the point with him

//bang-bang, shoot-shoot
 
2012-07-24 09:47:31 AM  

SoupJohnB: Knew an NRA "lifetime member" who stockpiled ammo after the Mooslum Socialist was elected. Was convinced that "they" were coming to take his guns away.

/did not attempt to argue the point with him

//bang-bang, shoot-shoot


I hope that dumb f*ck kept his receipts.
 
2012-07-24 09:47:44 AM  

qorkfiend: The fact that some people do not use it as a weapon does not change the fact that it is originally designed and meant to be used as a weapon.


Have you been reading Plato recently or something?

There's no innate property to a gun beyond what the user intends. That something is particularly good at killing people is totally irrelevant - a sword and a machete are equivalent in functionality, yet one of them is "intended" to be a weapon? If you label a sword a machete, does that change its purpose?

qorkfiend: Asserting that a gun is not a weapon is ridiculous.


Is a gun without a firing pin a weapon? Is it still a gun?
 
2012-07-24 09:48:26 AM  

qorkfiend: target shooting guns are like wooden swords - they are deliberate facsimiles of weapons for the express purpose of practice.


wat.
 
2012-07-24 09:50:24 AM  

qorkfiend: sprawl15: PonceAlyosha: Guns are dangerous. Some people think they should be regulated more stringently than they are now. Trying to spin that into "phobia" is an attempt to distract from discussion about if there is any reasonable way to prevent events such as this.

The problem - on both sides - lies in overemphasizing the role of guns and underemphasizing things like the mentality that causes people to go shoot other people. Looking at why people do it, and addressing it.

The fastest way to reduce gun crime in the country, for example, would be legalizing drugs.

I'm more concerned about the disturbing trend towards "stand your ground" and vigilantism.


I had a 50 post thread on Facebook with some dipshiat who thought that Stand Your Ground was a right because it is related to firearms and the 2nd Amendment.

We have no chance of survival if at least half of us are clinically retarded.
 
2012-07-24 09:51:03 AM  

Bloody William: the_foo: Yes, because all gun owners are knuckle-dragging morons who will start shooting blindly any time they're startled, regardless of whether or not they can see their target.

Better to cower in fear and let the madman slaughter as many people as he likes.

(You do realize teargas takes time to spread, right? And that since the gunman was in the front of the theater, there would be a giant light called a "projector" shining on him?)

You do realize that few people are accurate under stressful situations, and since the gunman was in front of the theater, unless you ere sitting in the front row there would be dozens of other people between you and him you could shoot if you're not Bullseye? And you do realize that such a thing would be the "crossfire" people keep saying would have happened?

Also, stand in front of a projector showing a moving picture. That's not a flat light clearly illuminating you. That's a moving, complex picture spread across the screen and the subject. That's basically visual camoflauge, It's not like there was a spotlight shining on him.


No, no, see, if an armed person in the theater pulled out their gun on the shooter, everything would stop immediately except for the new armed person. Then he could take his time to line up a perfect shot around the killer's armor to stop him in one hit. Or he could use that time to cast Protect and Haste on himself before attacking or just whip out a Firaga spell on the killer. Then after the killer was defeated, the citizen would do a badass victory pose, no one would be harmed at all except for the killer, AND the citizen would find 250 gil plus a Fire Ring!

Doesn't the foo's picture of reality sound grand?
 
2012-07-24 09:51:04 AM  

sprawl15: There's no innate property to a gun beyond what the user intends. That something is particularly good at killing people is totally irrelevant - a sword and a machete are equivalent in functionality, yet one of them is "intended" to be a weapon? If you label a sword a machete, does that change its purpose?


Considering that machetes are meant to be dual-purpose weapons and tools, that example doesn't really work.
 
2012-07-24 09:53:02 AM  
 
2012-07-24 09:53:11 AM  

Jackson Herring: I still haven't found a really good range in the area that doesn't require NRA membership :(


No f*cking sh*t. I just shoot with my friend's membership at the local club or use the state range at Great Swamp. It's just past URI in Louisiana, Rhode Island. Nothing but country music and pick-em-up trucks. It's really fun for a weekend day.
 
2012-07-24 09:54:11 AM  

kingoomieiii: Semi-automatic assault rifles-
-Defending Narnia
-Hunting flying monkeys
-Preventing the Wubbulous Wingles of Woo from stealing all your Fleen

ONLY ONE OF THESE THINGS IS APPROPRIATE TO HAVE OUTSIDE OF A SHOOTING RANGE, A GUN SAFE, OR A FOREST


FTFY.

There's no such thing as a 'semi-automatic assault rifle'.

qorkfiend: I'm more concerned about the disturbing trend towards "stand your ground" and vigilantism.


I'd file that in the 'mental health' bucket. Sadly, the NRA is pushing for gun control beyond the education that needs to go with it. I have no problem with stand your ground laws as intended, but people using them to do shiat like go to a neighbor's house and blow them away because they're annoying is farking ridiculous.

PonceAlyosha: And actually have a national mental health system, but apparently that's socialism.


Yup. That'd be #2 on the list. Then you're left largely with crimes of passion or things like people knocking over a gas station. The former are incredibly difficult to control, the latter would be helped significantly by enforcing current law rather than worrying about new laws. Reducing the number of illegal firearms floating around would probably be #3 on my priority list.
 
2012-07-24 09:54:29 AM  
The Aurora Asshole was armed with rifle, pistol, and shotgun. Does anyone have a breakdown of how many people where killed/injured by which weapon?
 
2012-07-24 09:54:31 AM  

sprawl15: qorkfiend: The fact that some people do not use it as a weapon does not change the fact that it is originally designed and meant to be used as a weapon.

Have you been reading Plato recently or something?

There's no innate property to a gun beyond what the user intends. That something is particularly good at killing people is totally irrelevant - a sword and a machete are equivalent in functionality, yet one of them is "intended" to be a weapon? If you label a sword a machete, does that change its purpose?


This is false. There are innate properties to a gun, including the expressly designed purpose of being able to expel a small projectile at high speeds in order to cause damage to a target.

It is particularly good at killing people because it was designed to be good at killing people.

Swords and machetes are both edged implements, and are both intended to be weapons. That we have found additional uses for them is irrelevant.

qorkfiend: Asserting that a gun is not a weapon is ridiculous.

Is a gun without a firing pin a weapon? Is it still a gun?


A gun without a firing pin is not the gun as designed, so no, it is temporarily not a gun or a weapon. Replace the firing pin and the gun returns to weapon status.

What were guns designed for, if it's not weapons? Don't say target shooting, and don't say manufacturers. You know that is not the question being asked.
 
2012-07-24 09:55:13 AM  

the_foo: Oh that's right. The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.


If they're anything like the concealed carriers I know (permitted and some that haven't bothered), most don't exactly pay attention to such signage. Figuring, if they need it, they need it and they'll sort it out later, otherwise no one will know. Churches, college campuses, whatever.

If an even distribution of Colorado's concealed-permit licensees were in the theater, there'd be maybe 10-12 permit-holders? Again, no way to know, but it seems unlikely, again based on the permit-holders I know, that there weren't at least 3-4 concealed guns in the room.

But, and this is a duh thing, your first instinct is to GTFO, as it should be.
 
2012-07-24 09:55:15 AM  

qorkfiend: Before we get off on to a target shooting tangent, target shooting guns are like wooden swords - they are deliberate facsimiles of weapons for the express purpose of practice.


An apt comparison, if you assume that the wooden sword has the same sharpness and cutting power as a regular sword.

Actually, let's just say it's a regular sword with caution tape on the pommel.
 
2012-07-24 09:55:26 AM  
 
2012-07-24 09:56:05 AM  

sprawl15: I'd file that in the 'mental health' bucket. Sadly, the NRA is pushing for gun control beyond the education that needs to go with it. I have no problem with stand your ground laws as intended, but people using them to do shiat like go to a neighbor's house and blow them away because they're annoying is farking ridiculous.


Oh, sure. I meant the trends towards them in terms of public policy, not individual rights.
 
2012-07-24 09:56:46 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Jackson Herring: I still haven't found a really good range in the area that doesn't require NRA membership :(

No f*cking sh*t. I just shoot with my friend's membership at the local club or use the state range at Great Swamp. It's just past URI in Louisiana, Rhode Island. Nothing but country music and pick-em-up trucks. It's really fun for a weekend day.


I actually pay money to use the shiatty range in Dartmouth, and sometimes I go to the local rod and gun clubs as a guest. Despite being a country bumpkin I somehow don't have a single friend with a back yard big enough to like shoot at toilets or whatever.
 
2012-07-24 09:57:09 AM  
I'd like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday's victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.

This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.

Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:

As passed by the Congress:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no.

Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?

I'm hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.

Then there are the tweets from the extreme right - these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn't see it should...
a. be labeled a moron
b. shut the fark up
c. be removed

And amazingly, I have some minor agreement with these folks. I believe there are evil forces at play in our government. But I call them corporatists. I call them absolutists. I call them the kind of ideologues from both sides, but mostly from the far right who swear allegiance to unelected officials that regardless of national need or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. That they are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. That are to obstruct every possible act of governance, even the ones they support or initiate. Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.

These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats - no problem. But if they try it with anyone else - it's going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a "militia". They don't. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That's why they have to "take our country back". From who? From anyone who doesn't think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn't believe that? Just asking.

Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning - I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.

Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources - sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. "Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar - plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out."

But that won't happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.

I have been reading on and off as advocates for these weapons make their excuses all day long. Guns don't kill - people do. Well if that's correct, I go with @BrooklynAvi, let them kill with tomatoes. Let them bring baseball bats, knives, even machetes --- a mob can deal with that.

There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.

These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don't agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?

We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.

I'll say it plainly - if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to "pry it from my cold, dead hand", then they are probably planning on using them on people.

So, sorry those of you who tell me I'm an actor, or a has-been or an idiot or a commie or a liberal and that I should shut up. You can not watch my stuff, you can unfollow and you can call me all the names you like. I may even share some of them with my global audience so everyone can get a little taste of who you are.

But this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.

In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless.

Jason Alexander
 
2012-07-24 09:57:44 AM  

sprawl15: There's no such thing as a 'semi-automatic assault rifle'.


Then how is the AR15 classified? It's not a long rifle.
 
2012-07-24 09:58:06 AM  

coeyagi: We have no chance of survival if at least half of us are clinically retarded.


Half of all Americans are below average, you know.
 
2012-07-24 09:59:40 AM  

dlp211: Anyone that claims that they could have taken the shot if they were there with a gun, or some other person could have taken the shot if they had a gun is patently lying. For 7 years my job was shooting including CCB, and I will be the first to admit that even for me, that would have been a near impossible shot that would have required so much to go right for me that was not in my control that no person that shoots at paper targets could have taken that shot.


Thank you. I don't shoot enough (or at all) to have insight beyond the academic, so I appreciate any input by people who actually use guns and know the issues with them. I'd love to hear Sgt_Otter's take on it, and not just because he's awesome.
 
2012-07-24 09:59:48 AM  
You can go to 33 states and legally purchase as many assault weapons and as many rounds of ammunition as you want, cash and carry, no ID or background check required - that is our federal gun policy as dictated by the NRA and condoned by Congress. Link
 
2012-07-24 09:59:49 AM  

Hobodeluxe: In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless.

Jason Alexander


Please stop spamming the thread with this kind of thing.
 
2012-07-24 10:00:20 AM  
I'm a bit curious of the mental gymnastics involved in having the US have the largest gun violence rate of any country (in fact many multiples of countries) on Earth - as well as a very high gun ownership rate - and telling people that the gun violence rate would go down if more people had guns.

Maybe gun violence operates on a sort of bell curve? And the US is stuck somewhere in the middle? Less guns it'd go down on one side, more guns, it'd go down on the other?
 
2012-07-24 10:01:36 AM  
Law abiding citizens should be able to carry concealed everywhere. To prove they are law abiding, they should take a drug test a couple times a year.
 
2012-07-24 10:02:05 AM  

Hobodeluxe: I'd like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday's victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.

This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.

Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:

As passed by the Congress:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requir ...


Tell Jason "Wall o' Text" Alexander to look up 10 U.S.C. sec. 311 if he is going to make any claims about what "militia" means.

Also, he has no idea what "semi-automatic" and "assault rifle/weapon" mean.
 
2012-07-24 10:02:17 AM  

give me doughnuts: How do you define "reasonable gun control measures"?


In the case of the Virginia Tech shooter I thought it prudent to look into ways to make it harder for obviously mentally ill people to acquire guns legally. This case may well prove to be more ammo in support of that argument but we don't really have any evidence that this guy had any kind of record of mental instability as Cho did.
 
2012-07-24 10:02:26 AM  

NeverDrunk23: No, no, see, if an armed person in the theater pulled out their gun on the shooter, everything would stop immediately except for the new armed person. Then he could take his time to line up a perfect shot around the killer's armor to stop him in one hit. Or he could use that time to cast Protect and Haste on himself before attacking or just whip out a Firaga spell on the killer. Then after the killer was defeated, the citizen would do a badass victory pose, no one would be harmed at all except for the killer, AND the citizen would find 250 gil plus a Fire Ring!

Doesn't the foo's picture of reality sound grand?


If he can cast Firaga already, why would he need a Fire Ring? And 250 gil is a shiatty reward.

/Everyone knows the most dangerous enemy isn't the armored gunman, but the little guy slowly walking up to you with a knife.
 
2012-07-24 10:03:57 AM  

LarryDan43: Law abiding citizens should be able to carry concealed everywhere. To prove they are law abiding, they should take a drug test a couple times a year.


And a credit check.*
And a literacy test.
Can gun ownership require a "poll tax?"

Hmmmm, what could you be getting at?



*I once heard a caller to some AM hate-wing show actually suggest this.
 
2012-07-24 10:04:16 AM  

moistD: StrikitRich: moistD: Honest question, not snark. How many documented cases are there in the US of private citizens stopping a crazed gunman that is shooting at people? Or committing a robbery?

Stories like that are printed every month in American Rifleman. Yes, it's the magazine of the NRA, but they are gleaned and collated from other news sources.

Lost Thought 00: I thought the NRA was pro-Fast&Furious. After all, they are for putting guns into the hands of every person without any restrictions.

2/10. Not even a decent attempt.

I don't subscribe to that magazine, so I googled it and everything that came up was related to one crime stopped in Seattle. Care to link some more examples?


Armed Citizen's blog pops right up in a Google search. Should be plenty of links there for you.
 
2012-07-24 10:04:19 AM  
US murder rate has been declining the last thirty years while the number of guns in private hands has been going up.

Booga booga.
 
2012-07-24 10:04:26 AM  

the_foo: The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.


this is a logical fallacy

We will always have crazy people. They will always manage to do crazy things regardless of if there is easy access to guns or not. The point is, less guns, less ability to kill lots of people with guns. Adding more of the thing that helps kill in order to stop the people from getting killed, does not make sense.

That being said, I like my guns. However, this is because I like shooting targets, not deer or people. I believe that the second amendment was intended so that we as a people could always have the power to rise up and overthrow our government if need be. It also helped us protect ourselves from "savages". Those times are over and we have simply no chance of overthrowing our government by force.

Also, a small rifle or shotgun to me is fine. My problem is with weapons that are built with the sole purpose of killing people (handguns and assault rifles). I think these weapons should be banned from the general public.

If you try to assault a crowded theater with only a couple simple shotguns, sure, some will probably die but I doubt you will be able to kill 12 people and wound 50 more. THAT is the point.
 
2012-07-24 10:05:42 AM  
Gun ownership should be legal

Gun ownership shouldn't be a right
 
2012-07-24 10:05:49 AM  

NeverDrunk23: Bloody William: the_foo: Yes, because all gun owners are knuckle-dragging morons who will start shooting blindly any time they're startled, regardless of whether or not they can see their target.

Better to cower in fear and let the madman slaughter as many people as he likes.

(You do realize teargas takes time to spread, right? And that since the gunman was in the front of the theater, there would be a giant light called a "projector" shining on him?)

You do realize that few people are accurate under stressful situations, and since the gunman was in front of the theater, unless you ere sitting in the front row there would be dozens of other people between you and him you could shoot if you're not Bullseye? And you do realize that such a thing would be the "crossfire" people keep saying would have happened?

Also, stand in front of a projector showing a moving picture. That's not a flat light clearly illuminating you. That's a moving, complex picture spread across the screen and the subject. That's basically visual camoflauge, It's not like there was a spotlight shining on him.

No, no, see, if an armed person in the theater pulled out their gun on the shooter, everything would stop immediately except for the new armed person. Then he could take his time to line up a perfect shot around the killer's armor to stop him in one hit. Or he could use that time to cast Protect and Haste on himself before attacking or just whip out a Firaga spell on the killer. Then after the killer was defeated, the citizen would do a badass victory pose, no one would be harmed at all except for the killer, AND the citizen would find 250 gil plus a Fire Ring!

Doesn't the foo's picture of reality sound grand?


Only if the hero is using a Gunblade.
 
2012-07-24 10:07:22 AM  

Jackson Herring: keylock71: Gun owner since I was 18... I have little use for the NRA. It's more like a powerful lobbying wing of the GOP these days.

I still haven't found a really good range in the area that doesn't require NRA membership :(


Tried the Fall River Rod and Gun Club?

I'm not a member but I'm pretty sure they don't require NRA membership and they hold regular events in Westport.
I'm probably the wrong person to ask since I haven't been a member anywhere for a good few years... I haven't done any skeet shooting this year thanks to the heavy work schedule, either, unfortunately.
 
2012-07-24 10:08:25 AM  

L82DPRT: US murder rate has been declining the last thirty years while the number of guns in private hands has been going up.

Booga booga.


That's because of the rise of abortions 16-19 years ago. Now that we are limiting those murder rates will rise again.
 
2012-07-24 10:08:47 AM  

qorkfiend: A gun without a firing pin is not the gun as designed, so no, it is temporarily not a gun or a weapon.


That's your definition? Then a shotgun with the barrel sawn off is not the gun as designed, therefore is not a gun or a weapon.

You're using arbitrary definitions as needed to meet the conclusion you want. That's your problem.
 
2012-07-24 10:09:58 AM  

LarryDan43: That's because of the rise of abortions 16-19 years ago. Now that we are limiting those murder rates will rise again.


naimalett.com
 
2012-07-24 10:11:03 AM  

sprawl15: qorkfiend: A gun without a firing pin is not the gun as designed, so no, it is temporarily not a gun or a weapon.

That's your definition? Then a shotgun with the barrel sawn off is not the gun as designed, therefore is not a gun or a weapon.

You're using arbitrary definitions as needed to meet the conclusion you want. That's your problem.


It is the gun as designed. What was it designed for? To expel projectiles at high speeds towards a target, or in the case of a shotgun, a cloud of projectiles. Is a sawed-off shotgun incapable of shooting? No, it remains fully capable of the functionality it was designed for.
 
2012-07-24 10:12:57 AM  

quatchi: give me doughnuts: How do you define "reasonable gun control measures"?

In the case of the Virginia Tech shooter I thought it prudent to look into ways to make it harder for obviously mentally ill people to acquire guns legally. This case may well prove to be more ammo in support of that argument but we don't really have any evidence that this guy had any kind of record of mental instability as Cho did.


I'm all for keeping guns away from crazy people. The problem is identifying the crazy people in such a way that gun dealers can know not to sell to them.

Mandatory forehead tattoos (like POOR IMPULSE CONTROL) are out of the question. But a national database with "CRAZY/NOT CRAZY" information may be a HIPPA violation.
 
2012-07-24 10:14:05 AM  

qorkfiend: It is the gun as designed. What was it designed for? To expel projectiles at high speeds towards a target, or in the case of a shotgun, a cloud of projectiles. Is a sawed-off shotgun incapable of shooting? No, it remains fully capable of the functionality it was designed for.


I hate to break it to you guys ...but your argument is silly.
 
2012-07-24 10:14:22 AM  

give me doughnuts: quatchi: give me doughnuts: How do you define "reasonable gun control measures"?

In the case of the Virginia Tech shooter I thought it prudent to look into ways to make it harder for obviously mentally ill people to acquire guns legally. This case may well prove to be more ammo in support of that argument but we don't really have any evidence that this guy had any kind of record of mental instability as Cho did.

I'm all for keeping guns away from crazy people. The problem is identifying the crazy people in such a way that gun dealers can know not to sell to them.

Mandatory forehead tattoos (like POOR IMPULSE CONTROL) are out of the question. But a national database with "CRAZY/NOT CRAZY" information may be a HIPPA violation.


The pro-gun lobby hates the idea of such controls or checks, and advocates strenuously against them.
 
2012-07-24 10:15:22 AM  
VaTech loser boy was more deadly w/ his pistols.
 
2012-07-24 10:16:46 AM  

kingoomieiii: sprawl15: There's no such thing as a 'semi-automatic assault rifle'.

Then how is the AR15 classified? It's not a long rifle.


As a semi-automatic rifle.

An assault rifle has selective fire. The AR

PonceAlyosha: Considering that machetes are meant to be dual-purpose weapons and tools, that example doesn't really work.


No, they're not. Their sole designed purpose is to be able to clear brush quickly, like the sole designed purpose of a meat cleaver is to be able to cut meat effectively. The machete just happens to be a very capable weapon, and tends to be a very popular tool in certain areas that have had uprisings - when every poor person in a third world shiathole has a machete, that's what they use. When it's a place like Afghanistan where they all have AK's, that's what they use.
 
2012-07-24 10:16:48 AM  

L82DPRT: US murder rate has been declining the last thirty years while the number of guns in private hands has been going up.

Booga booga.


That's the problem with both pro and anti gun arguments. There is very little evidence that correlates gun laws with crime. Looser gun laws have preceded lower crime rates in some places and high crime rates in others. So have tighter gun laws. So have places that haven't changed their gun laws at all. So the kneejerk reaction to the Aurora tragedy that there has to be some change in gun policy is based more on superstition than solid thinking.
 
2012-07-24 10:16:50 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Please stop spamming the thread with this kind of thing.


What kind of thing? Sense? Reasonable argumentation? Truth?
 
2012-07-24 10:18:43 AM  

qorkfiend: It is the gun as designed. What was it designed for? To expel projectiles at high speeds towards a target, or in the case of a shotgun, a cloud of projectiles. Is a sawed-off shotgun incapable of shooting? No, it remains fully capable of the functionality it was designed for.


You're begging the question. A gun is designed to shoot human beings which is provable because if you change it in a way so it doesn't shoot human beings it doesn't meet the design which is shooting human beings. Proof!

sprawl15: As a semi-automatic rifle.

An assault rifle has selective fire. The AR


Ahem.

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle.
 
2012-07-24 10:18:50 AM  

Perlin Noise: the_foo: The theater in Aurora bans guns, but for some reason the shooter didn't obey the sign. But all the normal people that were no threat to anyone did, so no one could do anything about it when the whack job opened fire.

this is a logical fallacy

We will always have crazy people. They will always manage to do crazy things regardless of if there is easy access to guns or not. The point is, less guns, less ability to kill lots of people with guns. Adding more of the thing that helps kill in order to stop the people from getting killed, does not make sense.

That being said, I like my guns. However, this is because I like shooting targets, not deer or people. I believe that the second amendment was intended so that we as a people could always have the power to rise up and overthrow our government if need be. It also helped us protect ourselves from "savages". Those times are over and we have simply no chance of overthrowing our government by force.

Also, a small rifle or shotgun to me is fine. My problem is with weapons that are built with the sole purpose of killing people (handguns and assault rifles). I think these weapons should be banned from the general public.

If you try to assault a crowded theater with only a couple simple shotguns, sure, some will probably die but I doubt you will be able to kill 12 people and wound 50 more. THAT is the point.


Are you familiar with how shotguns function?
Did you know that the Aurora Asshole used a shotgun?
 
2012-07-24 10:19:42 AM  

quatchi: give me doughnuts: How do you define "reasonable gun control measures"?

In the case of the Virginia Tech shooter I thought it prudent to look into ways to make it harder for obviously mentally ill people to acquire guns legally. This case may well prove to be more ammo in support of that argument but we don't really have any evidence that this guy had any kind of record of mental instability as Cho did.


According to a story on NPR Holmes tried to join a shooting range, and when the owner called him back the voice mail message left by Holmes was so rambling and incoherent that the owner told his staff to not let the guy join. I'm not blaming the owner at all. My point is that Holmes left signs of his derangement.

Just like child abuse can be reported to authorities, I think that signs of mental illness coupled with an obvious interest in guns or explosives should be investigated by trained social workers.
 
2012-07-24 10:22:11 AM  

sprawl15: qorkfiend: It is the gun as designed. What was it designed for? To expel projectiles at high speeds towards a target, or in the case of a shotgun, a cloud of projectiles. Is a sawed-off shotgun incapable of shooting? No, it remains fully capable of the functionality it was designed for.

You're begging the question. A gun is designed to shoot human beings which is provable because if you change it in a way so it doesn't shoot human beings it doesn't meet the design which is shooting human beings. Proof!


I didn't say anything about the nature of the target. I said a gun is designed to expel projectiles at high speed towards a target. Removing the firing pin also removes this capability. Sawing the barrel off a shotgun does not.
 
2012-07-24 10:22:59 AM  

Perlin Noise: LarryDan43: That's because of the rise of abortions 16-19 years ago. Now that we are limiting those murder rates will rise again.

[naimalett.com image 360x270]


It was well documented in Freakonomics that the legalization of abortion in the seventies led a a decrease in crime in the nineties. Fewer children growing up in poverty being raised by immature, stressed single moms was correlated with this decrease in crime.
 
2012-07-24 10:24:17 AM  

quatchi: HotIgneous Intruder: Please stop spamming the thread with this kind of thing.

What kind of thing? Sense? Reasonable argumentation? Truth?


Uninformed opinion.

Although, since that is what makes up roughly 99.93% of every Fark discussion thread, I think he would rather you post your own opinions rather than copy-pasta a "wall-o-text"from somebody who knows as much about guns as I do about 18th Century Chinese textile production.
 
2012-07-24 10:25:07 AM  

Perlin Noise: I hate to break it to you guys ...but your argument is silly.


Please show your work. Be more specific.
 
2012-07-24 10:25:39 AM  
Civilians have no need to own or possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines.

End of story.
 
2012-07-24 10:26:05 AM  

Graffito: It was well documented in Freakonomics that the legalization of abortion in the seventies led a a decrease in crime in the nineties. Fewer children growing up in poverty being raised by immature, stressed single moms was correlated with this decrease in crime.


Cool, just rather that when you drop a whopper like that, there is a little explanation. Makes sense to me ;)
 
2012-07-24 10:27:23 AM  
The individual right to bear arms has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court, just like nationalized health care with the Obamacare individual mandate. The issue is settled.
 
2012-07-24 10:27:36 AM  

qorkfiend: I said a gun is designed to expel projectiles at high speed towards a target. Removing the firing pin also removes this capability.


You're picking one design element and saying that it's the one fundamental thing to a gun because it's the one design element that's fundamental to a gun. Remove the firing pin? It's not a gun because you're altering the design. But altering the design isn't the justification for saying it's no longer a weapon, since that assertion doesn't hold true for the vast majority of design alterations.

Your problem is that you're arguing from emotion - you think that a gun's capacity for violence implies a fundamental purpose to it. It doesn't. High explosives have a high capacity for violence, and we certainly don't want them in the hands of a madman, but that's because the guy is crazy and violent, not because of some fundamental purpose of explosives to blow up daycare centers.
 
2012-07-24 10:28:39 AM  

cfletch13: There was an instance recently with that old man chasing those robbers. However, if you look at how many shots he fired, one 1 hit someone. ONLY 1.


Dawkins had a superficial wound in his left arm, but Henderson was shot in two places: his left buttock and his right hip.

Musta been a magic bullet.
 
2012-07-24 10:28:52 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Civilians have no need to own or possess assault weapons


You do realize the incredibly arbitrary definition of "assault weapon", right? You could theoretically make a gun not an assault weapon by simply removing a bayonet mount.
 
2012-07-24 10:29:06 AM  

LarryDan43: L82DPRT: US murder rate has been declining the last thirty years while the number of guns in private hands has been going up.

Booga booga.

That's because of the rise of abortions 16-19 years ago. Now that we are limiting those murder rates will rise again.


Which reenforces a personal belief: Own a firearm and know how to use it.
 
2012-07-24 10:29:59 AM  

sprawl15: HotIgneous Intruder: Civilians have no need to own or possess assault weapons

You do realize the incredibly arbitrary definition of "assault weapon", right? You could theoretically make a gun not an assault weapon by simply removing a bayonet mount.


I'm sure the definition cuts off somewhere before a gun with a hundred round clip
 
2012-07-24 10:30:21 AM  

L82DPRT: LarryDan43: L82DPRT: US murder rate has been declining the last thirty years while the number of guns in private hands has been going up.

Booga booga.

That's because of the rise of abortions 16-19 years ago. Now that we are limiting those murder rates will rise again.

Which reenforces a personal belief: Own a firearm and know how to use it.


For what reason should I do this?
 
2012-07-24 10:30:40 AM  

Graffito: I would like the NRA to address the issue of gun violence. Where is their support for mental health access? Where are their studies on how to identify potential perpetrators and prevent such tragedies. If they want a well-armed society, then they must step-up and also address the horrific toll on human lives.


When is the gun owning community going to do something to police themselves?

Prosecuting people for murder doesn't bring the victims back to life.
 
2012-07-24 10:31:13 AM  

Bloody William: 3: No, the tragedy wouldn't have been averted if someone else in the theater had a gun, you stupid fark. It probably would have resulted in more people dying because of the dark, crowded location, the armored shooter, the use of tear gas, and the fact that most people in stressful situations aren't freaking Deadshot.


There's hundreds of examples where legal shooters defended their lives or others without harming any additional innocents. Can anyone please provide an example of a legal shooter causing net negative results? The closest thing I've heard is "good guys" getting their weapons stripped and used against them. This happens mostly to cops (because they open carry and actively engage the bad guys).
 
2012-07-24 10:34:06 AM  

CPennypacker: sprawl15: HotIgneous Intruder: Civilians have no need to own or possess assault weapons

You do realize the incredibly arbitrary definition of "assault weapon", right? You could theoretically make a gun not an assault weapon by simply removing a bayonet mount.

I'm sure the definition cuts off somewhere before a gun with a hundred round clip


The size of the magazine is irrelevant in classifying something an 'assault weapon', since people can make magazines of huge sizes regardless of weapon. Which is why the assault weapon ban separately banned large capacity magazines. They're separate entities.
 
2012-07-24 10:34:46 AM  
Also interesting to note, the second amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be abridged.

It says nothing of the right of the people to produce arms.
 
2012-07-24 10:35:11 AM  

the_geek: Can anyone please provide an example of a legal shooter causing net negative results?


John Capano would be a pretty good example.
 
2012-07-24 10:35:18 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Civilians have no need to own or possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines.

End of story.


Civilians of Mexico living in Mexican border regions would disagree.
 
2012-07-24 10:35:51 AM  

sprawl15: HotIgneous Intruder: Civilians have no need to own or possess assault weapons

You do realize the incredibly arbitrary definition of "assault weapon", right? You could theoretically make a gun not an assault weapon by simply removing a bayonet mount.


Nope. The definition is easily codified into written law. ARs, AKs, FLNs, SKSs, submachine guns, and etc.
There is no ambiguity at all, and where there is, the law should lean toward confiscation.

There is no reason for civilians to own these rifles or high-cap mags.
 
2012-07-24 10:36:48 AM  

IlGreven: Also interesting to note, the second amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be abridged.

It says nothing of the right of the people to produce arms.


Luckily, that's not how the Constitution works. That's why the Constitution doesn't need to explicitly say that you have a right to not be raped.
 
2012-07-24 10:37:33 AM  

L82DPRT: HotIgneous Intruder: Civilians have no need to own or possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines.

End of story.

Civilians of Mexico living in Mexican border regions would disagree.


Lotsa good it's doing them, too, right?
Where are their police and military?
Bought off, no doubt.

Because the cartels, who happen to be civilians, have assault rifles.
Race to the bottom much?
 
2012-07-24 10:39:26 AM  

IlGreven: Also interesting to note, the second amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be abridged.

It says nothing of the right of the people to produce arms.


It also doesn't define 'arms' as any kind of firearm.
 
2012-07-24 10:40:56 AM  

CPennypacker: I'm sure the definition cuts off somewhere before a gun with a hundred round clip


Know how I know you don't know anything about guns? Hint: there's a difference between a clip and a magazine.

Also, my bb gun holds 100 rounds, does that make it an assault weapon?
 
2012-07-24 10:41:42 AM  

sprawl15: qorkfiend: I said a gun is designed to expel projectiles at high speed towards a target. Removing the firing pin also removes this capability.

You're picking one design element and saying that it's the one fundamental thing to a gun because it's the one design element that's fundamental to a gun. Remove the firing pin? It's not a gun because you're altering the design. But altering the design isn't the justification for saying it's no longer a weapon, since that assertion doesn't hold true for the vast majority of design alterations.

Your problem is that you're arguing from emotion - you think that a gun's capacity for violence implies a fundamental purpose to it. It doesn't. High explosives have a high capacity for violence, and we certainly don't want them in the hands of a madman, but that's because the guy is crazy and violent, not because of some fundamental purpose of explosives to blow up daycare centers.


Are you asserting that guns were not designed to expel projectiles at high speeds, and that a key component to that design is the firing pin?

The fundamental purpose of high explosives is not to blow up daycare centers. It's to blow up, period. Explosives were invented for something else, initially, and then repurposed. The same cannot be said for firearms.
 
2012-07-24 10:42:49 AM  

Epoch_Zero: IlGreven: Also interesting to note, the second amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be abridged.

It says nothing of the right of the people to produce arms.

It also doesn't define 'arms' as any kind of firearm.


And what it certainly has in mind are arms as defined at that time that document was written: Muskets, pistols, swords, cannon. NOT automatic and semi-automatic assault/military style weapons.

/I want my cannon. It's in the CONSTITUTION.
//Derp.
 
2012-07-24 10:43:25 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Nope. The definition is easily codified into written law. ARs, AKs, FLNs, SKSs, submachine guns, and etc.
There is no ambiguity at all, and where there is, the law should lean toward confiscation.


Then you're just ignorant of the laws. Not really surprising.

An "assault weapon" is a cosmetic definition. It has little to do with the capabilities of the weapon.

A basic semi-automatic rifle (of a non-scary variety, like an M-14) that has a bayonet mount and a telescopic stock is an assault weapon. An M&P15 with a grenade launcher is not an assault weapon as long as you remove the pistol grip, put on a solid stock, and make sure it doesn't have a bayonet mount/flash suppressor.
 
2012-07-24 10:43:49 AM  

Hobodeluxe: I'd like to preface this WALL OF TEXT


Now, from someone who has a GED in Constitutional Law:

The purpose of the second amendment, as it was created in its time, was to ensure that tyranny could be put down by the populace. First, tyrannical decisions made by the government would have to face an armed populace, so these decisions would have to be tempered and generally fair, not oppressive. Secondly, foreign invaders would have to face an armed populace if they landed on U.S. soil. In modern times, this also allows us to deal with domestic invaders (criminals) who would harm the freedom of law abiding citizens. I don't know that this last idea was intended by those that wrote the Bill of Rights, so I'll leave it aside.

Now, the most common argument is that police and the National Guard serve in the role of "militia" as intended in the second amendment. However, since these entities are armed by, paid by, and take their orders from the state, they don't qualify under the intended spirit of the second amendment. If fact, they are direct support to the government, and would be used to enforce oppressive policies.

For the record - I'm a very left leaning Democrat, who supports the idea of a strong federal government. I'm also very supportive of police and military personnel. But as long as this sits on the books, and is the foundation of our country, guns will be a part of our national identity. I don't see a way past that unless we want to go through the upheaval of rewriting the Bill of Rights.
 
2012-07-24 10:45:06 AM  

sprawl15: HotIgneous Intruder: Nope. The definition is easily codified into written law. ARs, AKs, FLNs, SKSs, submachine guns, and etc.
There is no ambiguity at all, and where there is, the law should lean toward confiscation.

Then you're just ignorant of the laws. Not really surprising.

An "assault weapon" is a cosmetic definition. It has little to do with the capabilities of the weapon.

A basic semi-automatic rifle (of a non-scary variety, like an M-14) that has a bayonet mount and a telescopic stock is an assault weapon. An M&P15 with a grenade launcher is not an assault weapon as long as you remove the pistol grip, put on a solid stock, and make sure it doesn't have a bayonet mount/flash suppressor.


You're confusing function with use and military nomenclature with appearance.
Go away now and let the grownups talk.
 
2012-07-24 10:45:08 AM  

sprawl15: John Capano would be a pretty good example.


That story is about two law enforcement officers intervening in a crime. I'm looking for a real shooting where a civilian shooter caused the situation to be worse than it would have been.
 
2012-07-24 10:45:10 AM  

the_geek: Also, my bb gun holds 100 rounds, does that make it an assault weapon?


the_geek: bb gun


the_geek: bb gun




No. It's a bb gun.
 
2012-07-24 10:46:02 AM  

the_geek: CPennypacker: I'm sure the definition cuts off somewhere before a gun with a hundred round clip

Know how I know you don't know anything about guns? Hint: there's a difference between a clip and a magazine.

Also, my bb gun holds 100 rounds, does that make it an assault weapon?


No, but judging by your clever nerd rage it should be the most powerful weapon you are allowed to have.
 
2012-07-24 10:46:44 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Epoch_Zero: IlGreven: Also interesting to note, the second amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be abridged.

It says nothing of the right of the people to produce arms.

It also doesn't define 'arms' as any kind of firearm.

And what it certainly has in mind are arms as defined at that time that document was written: Muskets, pistols, swords, cannon. NOT automatic and semi-automatic assault/military style weapons.

/I want my cannon. It's in the CONSTITUTION.
//Derp.


I'm pro-mortar, myself.
 
2012-07-24 10:47:19 AM  
Gun owners should have to register like sex offenders.
 
2012-07-24 10:48:45 AM  

L82DPRT: US murder rate has been declining the last thirty years while the number of guns in private hands has been going up.

Booga booga.


The number of tomatoes eaten per person in the U.S. has gone up in the last 30 years as well. Correlation does not equal causation. Or are you going to point to some right-wing blog to try to prove that wrong as well, as is your usual track?
 
2012-07-24 10:49:09 AM  

the_geek: CPennypacker: I'm sure the definition cuts off somewhere before a gun with a hundred round clip

Know how I know you don't know anything about guns? Hint: there's a difference between a clip and a magazine.

Also, my bb gun holds 100 rounds, does that make it an assault weapon?


I hate this line being trotted out time after time. I know plenty of people that are knowledgable about weapons that interchange clip with magazine, but never the other way around. A clip of ammo goes inside a magazine, saying that a gun accepts a 100 round clip is not as wrong as you make it out to be.
 
2012-07-24 10:50:28 AM  

the_geek: CPennypacker: I'm sure the definition cuts off somewhere before a gun with a hundred round clip

Know how I know you don't know anything about guns? Hint: there's a difference between a clip and a magazine.

Also, my bb gun holds 100 rounds, does that make it an assault weapon?


And does your bb gun use gun powder? Are the rounds self-primed. Stop being stupid.
 
2012-07-24 10:50:49 AM  

Epoch_Zero: L82DPRT: LarryDan43: L82DPRT: US murder rate has been declining the last thirty years while the number of guns in private hands has been going up.

Booga booga.

That's because of the rise of abortions 16-19 years ago. Now that we are limiting those murder rates will rise again.

Which reenforces a personal belief: Own a firearm and know how to use it.

For what reason should I do this?


Just my opinion man. Rely on others for your personal protection, I don't care.

If you're afraid someone may take your weapon and use it against you maybe you should empty your house of knives, blunt instruments and plastic bags as well.


HotIgneous Intruder: L82DPRT:HotIgneous Intruder: Civilians have no need to own or possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines.

End of story.

Civilians of Mexico living in Mexican border regions would disagree.

Lotsa good it's doing them, too, right?
Where are their police and military?
Bought off, no doubt.

Because the cartels, who happen to be civilians criminals, have assault rifles.
Race to the bottom much?


FTFY
 
2012-07-24 10:52:04 AM  

Khellendros: For the record - I'm a very left leaning Democrat, who supports the idea of a strong federal government. I'm also very supportive of police and military personnel. But as long as this sits on the books, and is the foundation of our country, guns will be a part of our national identity. I don't see a way past that unless we want to go through the upheaval of rewriting the Bill of Rights


Yes, because those were written in stone and never meant to be updated, or changed, or.....there's some other word I'm trying to recall... Anyway, the commandments of the Constitution are never to be altered, so that's the breaks I guess.
 
2012-07-24 10:53:14 AM  

qorkfiend: Are you asserting that guns were not designed to expel projectiles at high speeds, and that a key component to that design is the firing pin?


Mu. Guns are designed in many ways, to meet many different demands. A machine gun with a damaged action that only allows single shot fire can't satisfy its role. A display gun without a firing pin can meet its role. A home defense gun without a firing pin can't be used for home defense. A range gun's firing pin is irrelevant most of the time, as it only needs to function on the range.

qorkfiend: The fundamental purpose of high explosives is not to blow up daycare centers. It's to blow up, period. Explosives were invented for something else, initially, and then repurposed. The same cannot be said for firearms.


I really don't get the purpose of your argument. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that the sole purpose of a gun is to shoot things. Fine. So what? Your assertion that "The fact that some people do not use it as a weapon does not change the fact that it is originally designed and meant to be used as a weapon." is still bullshiat, since 'some people' make up 99.999% of the people. It's like asserting that bombs aren't a weapon since explosives were developed peacefully for mining operations and furthermore.

Some guns are designed specifically to kill people. Those are the ones normally provided to the military. Other guns are designed specifically to kill types of animals, others for target shooting, others to just be fun to shoot. An anti-material rifle isn't even really designed to kill people, it's designed to kill objects.
 
2012-07-24 10:53:21 AM  

Khellendros: L82DPRT: US murder rate has been declining the last thirty years while the number of guns in private hands has been going up.

Booga booga.

The number of tomatoes eaten per person in the U.S. has gone up in the last 30 years as well. Correlation does not equal causation. Or are you going to point to some right-wing blog to try to prove that wrong as well, as is your usual track?


They can never seem to explain why crime was plummeting prior to the loosening of gun laws.
 
2012-07-24 10:53:33 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: And what it certainly has in mind are arms as defined at that time that document was written: Muskets, pistols, swords, cannon. NOT automatic and semi-automatic assault/military style weapons.

/I want my cannon. It's in the CONSTITUTION.
//Derp.


At the time the constitution was written muskets, pistols, swords, and cannons *were* assault/military style weapons.

WRT your other post regarding codified definitions of assault weapons... how do you really define an "AR" for example (which stands for Armalite)? It's essentially a low powered semi-automatic rifle with a plastic stock. In most states you cannot hunt deer with an AR because the .223/5.56 round (the standard AR round) are not powerful enough to kill the deer in one shot and it's deemed inhumane. So, it should go without saying that most peoples' hunting rifles are more powerful than the typical AR. So what is it about an AR-15 that should make it illegal exactly?
 
2012-07-24 10:54:33 AM  

Epoch_Zero: No. It's a bb gun.


bb guns are considered firearms by most (every?) state laws.
 
2012-07-24 10:55:19 AM  
Assault weapons have been defined quite effectively.

/Maybe there has been to some of the halfwits in this thread, but legislatively, it's been done.
//Assault weapons and high capacity magazines need to be banned and mandatory federal felony prison time attached to their possession.
///Also: Assault weapon owners, who are you gonna fight and kill with your superguns? The government? Please let me know how that shiat turns out.
 
2012-07-24 10:55:32 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Khellendros: L82DPRT: US murder rate has been declining the last thirty years while the number of guns in private hands has been going up.

Booga booga.

The number of tomatoes eaten per person in the U.S. has gone up in the last 30 years as well. Correlation does not equal causation. Or are you going to point to some right-wing blog to try to prove that wrong as well, as is your usual track?

They can never seem to explain why crime was plummeting prior to the loosening of gun laws.


::cough:: abortion ::cough::
 
2012-07-24 10:55:37 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: You're confusing function with use and military nomenclature with appearance.


"Assault weapon" is a legal term. Go educate yourself. You do know how to read, right?

the_geek: I'm looking for a real shooting where a civilian shooter caused the situation to be worse than it would have been.


The civilian shooter shot the law enforcement officer because he couldn't figure out who was the bad guy.
 
2012-07-24 10:56:24 AM  

sprawl15: Some guns are designed specifically to kill people. Those are the ones normally provided to the military.


Or your average homeowner. The only thing a handgun and the ammo it uses is designed to do is kill people. They tout stopping power for a reason, and it has fark all to do with target practice.
 
2012-07-24 10:56:41 AM  

Khellendros: L82DPRT: US murder rate has been declining the last thirty years while the number of guns in private hands has been going up.

Booga booga.

The number of tomatoes eaten per person in the U.S. has gone up in the last 30 years as well. Correlation does not equal causation. Or are you going to point to some right-wing blog to try to prove that wrong as well, as is your usual track?


Ban tomatoes.
 
2012-07-24 10:58:00 AM  

EyeballKid: Khellendros: For the record - I'm a very left leaning Democrat, who supports the idea of a strong federal government. I'm also very supportive of police and military personnel. But as long as this sits on the books, and is the foundation of our country, guns will be a part of our national identity. I don't see a way past that unless we want to go through the upheaval of rewriting the Bill of Rights

Yes, because those were written in stone and never meant to be updated, or changed, or.....there's some other word I'm trying to recall... Anyway, the commandments of the Constitution are never to be altered, so that's the breaks I guess.


There are amendments that have been changed, but the Bill of Rights has been considered generally separate. Sacred, even. Sure, we could attempt to reinterpret them, or write something that alters it, but the spirit of its intent is quite clear. I don't see a practical way getting that legislation through. Not in the next 50 years.
 
2012-07-24 10:58:25 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Assault weapons have been defined quite effectively.


When the assault weapon ban was in effect between 1994 and 2004, there was 66% reduction in those 19 weapons showing up in crimes.
 
2012-07-24 10:59:10 AM  

qorkfiend: What were guns designed for, if it's not weapons? Don't say target shooting, and don't say manufacturers. You know that is not the question being asked.


I'm not sure that line of argument will go anywhere meaningful.
If you discount all the alternative uses of a thing and leave only law breaking applications, there are many things in this world that humans should probably not own. Like combat knives or fast cars.

Do you think we would we stop speeding by banning fast cars?
Do you think murder and madness end because of a weapons ban?

Its a pointless direction because the problem is we have dangerous people.
If you know there are dangerous people out there, you might want protection from them.
If you think that giving up your weapon and depriving everyone else of theirs will stop an attack, you are underestimating human creativity.

dl.dropbox.com

/Yes, maybe they wont have battlefield quality guns.
/Unless they import them, but how likely is a drug dealer to import an AK-47?
/Or Maybe crazy people will use a suicide bomb vest, like they do overseas.
/This direction still doesn't help us.
 
2012-07-24 10:59:29 AM  

dlp211: I hate this line being trotted out time after time. I know plenty of people that are knowledgable about weapons that interchange clip with magazine, but never the other way around. A clip of ammo goes inside a magazine, saying that a gun accepts a 100 round clip is not as wrong as you make it out to be.


A clip doesn't go inside a magazine. A weapon will accept ether a clip or a magazine or neither. Clips pretty much fell out of fashion after WW2.
 
2012-07-24 11:00:12 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: The only thing a handgun and the ammo it uses is designed to do is kill people.


hurrrr hurrrrhrurhrurhrurrrrrrrr

HotWingConspiracy: They tout stopping power for a reason, and it has fark all to do with target practice.


Wow, you discovered that guns designed for home defense are advertised for their capacity in that role. Up next, you'll discover that guns designed for competitive sport shooting aren't designed or advertised for their stopping power. Truly, an insightful comment.
 
2012-07-24 11:01:59 AM  

sprawl15: HotWingConspiracy: The only thing a handgun and the ammo it uses is designed to do is kill people.

hurrrr hurrrrhrurhrurhrurrrrrrrr

HotWingConspiracy: They tout stopping power for a reason, and it has fark all to do with target practice.

Wow, you discovered that guns designed for home defense are advertised for their capacity in that role. Up next, you'll discover that guns designed for competitive sport shooting aren't designed or advertised for their stopping power. Truly, an insightful comment.


I also shiat all over your assertion that it's a military thing. Sorry to ruin your narrative.

I hope you don't get angry and go on a spree killing.
 
2012-07-24 11:02:07 AM  

the_geek: So, it should go without saying that most peoples' hunting rifles are more powerful than the typical AR. So what is it about an AR-15 that should make it illegal exactly?


You need to know that most compound hunting bows are more powerful than ARs and even many hunting rifles. I can put an arrow clean through a sandbag that will stop a 30-06 bullet.

The key is sustained rate of fire.
Machines that spit bullets are, aptly named, machine guns.
Semi-auto weapons are simply slow machine guns and everyone who has ever fired one understands this in his brain stem.
High capacity magazines simply enable rate of fire, because without the ability to load the machine gun quickly, it can't fire quickly. A lower rate of fire is what would make any given gunman vulnerable to neutralization by civilians or police.

Ban assault weapons and high cap mags.

/And hell, I'm even a shooter and have been all my life. Never used a 100-round mag, even in the military, and never needed one.
//If you need 100-rounds to hit a target, you suck as a rifleman.
 
2012-07-24 11:03:09 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: HotIgneous Intruder: Assault weapons have been defined quite effectively.

When the assault weapon ban was in effect between 1994 and 2004, there was 66% reduction in those 19 weapons showing up in crimes.


A 66% decline in the fraction of one percent of crime in which assault weapons are used?
 
2012-07-24 11:04:19 AM  

Graffito: Please show your work. Be more specific.


What I mean is, the argument between you is a silly waste of time. Both sides are both right and wrong depending on how you want to look at it.

You still call it a car even if it has no engine. However, when you are sitting in it, you are not driving so it is not technically a vehicle.
 
2012-07-24 11:05:36 AM  

L82DPRT: A 66% decline in the fraction of one percent of crime in which assault weapons are used?


Yes, the ban was successful.
 
2012-07-24 11:06:58 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: //If you need 100-rounds to hit a target, you suck as a rifleman.


12/70
 
2012-07-24 11:07:37 AM  
Rate of fire is critical.
That's why you go to jail if someone catches you bump-firing a Glock or whatever on the range.
That's also why you go to jail if your AR malfunctions and goes off in a burst.

/Hints: Google "Olofson case;" Google "bump fire"
 
2012-07-24 11:07:56 AM  

Khellendros: There are amendments that have been changed, but the Bill of Rights has been considered generally separate. Sacred, even. Sure, we could attempt to reinterpret them, or write something that alters it, but the spirit of its intent is quite clear. I don't see a practical way getting that legislation through. Not in the next 50 years


We've allowed bribes to politicians to be called "free speech." I'd say the spirit of the Bill of Rights is just as open to interpretation as any other part of it. On a side note, does anybody ever worry about the spirit of the Third Amendment?
 
2012-07-24 11:08:21 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: /If you need 100-rounds to hit a target, you suck as a rifleman.


Not if your target is a movie audience
 
2012-07-24 11:09:05 AM  

L82DPRT: HotIgneous Intruder: //If you need 100-rounds to hit a target, you suck as a rifleman.

12/70


/More like 97/100.
//Competitive shooter.
///Do not suck with a rifle.
 
2012-07-24 11:13:11 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: L82DPRT: A 66% decline in the fraction of one percent of crime in which assault weapons are used?

Yes, the ban was successful.


If by success you mean the ban spurred domestic production of banned imports then yes otherwise it was a colossal failure.

The weapons were changed in a superficial cosmetic fashion ONLY.

Hi-cap mags became more expensive so if you're looking to take those out of the hands of the 99% but not the 1%...

Why do hate the 99%?
 
2012-07-24 11:13:33 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: HotIgneous Intruder: Assault weapons have been defined quite effectively.

When the assault weapon ban was in effect between 1994 and 2004, there was 66% reduction in those 19 weapons showing up in crimes.


From what, 4.8% of gun crime to 1.6%? Unamusingly enough, the general gun crime rate didn't drop accordingly - people just used other guns.

HotWingConspiracy: I also shiat all over your assertion that it's a military thing.


You're shiatting on the assertion that weapons marketed towards the military are tailored for killing people? Are you intentionally being stupid?

HotIgneous Intruder: Ban assault weapons


BAN BAYONET MOUNTS AND BARREL SHROUDS

THIS IS IMPORTANT

HotIgneous Intruder: Rate of fire is critical.
That's why you go to jail if someone catches you bump-firing a Glock or whatever on the range.
That's also why you go to jail if your AR malfunctions and goes off in a burst.


The reason that's critical is because anything higher than one shot per trigger pull is a class III destructive device.
 
2012-07-24 11:13:36 AM  
Clip is now interchangeable with magazine. At least according to Merriam Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clip
2 Clip (noun)
1 : any of various devices that grip, clasp, or hook
2: a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also : a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm
 
2012-07-24 11:14:50 AM  

L82DPRT: If by success you mean the ban spurred domestic production of banned imports then yes otherwise it was a colossal failure.

The weapons were changed in a superficial cosmetic fashion ONLY.

Hi-cap mags became more expensive so if you're looking to take those out of the hands of the 99% but not the 1%...

Why do hate the 99%?


Jesus dude. Ease back on the throttle a bit.
 
2012-07-24 11:14:59 AM  

sprawl15: You're shiatting on the assertion that weapons marketed towards the military are tailored for killing people?


That isn't what you said.
 
2012-07-24 11:15:52 AM  

L82DPRT: If by success you mean the ban spurred domestic production of banned imports then yes otherwise it was a colossal failure.

The weapons were changed in a superficial cosmetic fashion ONLY.


Yup. And then there were problems in that you had to use a similar definition, if a person owned a gun that was classified as an "assault weapon" because it had a pistol grip and collapsible stock replaced the stock with a solid one then knocked over a store, it's no longer an "assault weapon" and wouldn't have been classified as such for the police reports.

Same with models that were designed to get around the specific naming in the law.
 
2012-07-24 11:18:34 AM  

sprawl15: From what, 4.8% of gun crime to 1.6%?


I don't know. But I like that decline.
 
2012-07-24 11:19:30 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: L82DPRT: HotIgneous Intruder: //If you need 100-rounds to hit a target, you suck as a rifleman.

12/70

/More like 97/100.
//Competitive shooter.
///Do not suck with a rifle.


12/70 are Batboy's numbers. May he burn in Hell.
 
2012-07-24 11:20:48 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: sprawl15: You're shiatting on the assertion that weapons marketed towards the military are tailored for killing people?

That isn't what you said.


Lets review:

sprawl15: Some guns are designed specifically to kill people. Those are the ones normally provided to the military.

Are you shiatting on the part where the military are provided guns designed to kill people? Or are you shiatting on the part where some guns are ever designed specifically to kill people?
 
2012-07-24 11:23:50 AM  
No matter what anyone says, for me it always returns to the basic question "What are guns built to do?"

Guns do not exist to make friends, they exist to kill or cause extreme harm very easily.

I don't see how it is unreasonable to want less of them around no matter the situation.
 
2012-07-24 11:25:22 AM  

sprawl15: HotWingConspiracy: sprawl15: You're shiatting on the assertion that weapons marketed towards the military are tailored for killing people?

That isn't what you said.

Lets review:sprawl15: Some guns are designed specifically to kill people. Those are the ones normally provided to the military. Are you shiatting on the part where the military are provided guns designed to kill people? Or are you shiatting on the part where some guns are ever designed specifically to kill people?


Please try to keep your bullshiat straight. You also want to omit the word "normally" from your new whine, which is what I was addressing. It is perfectly normal for average Moe's to have guns designed to kill humans.

Also, remain calm, we don't need another shooting.
 
2012-07-24 11:26:06 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: From what, 4.8% of gun crime to 1.6%?

I don't know. But I like that decline.


It's a stupid number for a whole pile of reasons. The primary driving force of the assault weapons ban was a few high profile massacres, which didn't occur during those years. It would be like if Columbine made TEC-9's illegal immediately following the school shooting, then saying the rate of TEC-9 related crime plummeted because of the ban. It's not so much that the ban has that effect, but rather that the spike was an artificial high.

Kind of like how the GOP manipulates gas price numbers to attack Obama - at inauguration, gas prices were TOTALLY LOWER, BRO! Well, yeah, but that's a meaningless statistic.
 
2012-07-24 11:28:15 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Civilians have no need to own or possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines.

End of story.


He only had one of these things, and it wasn't the one that starts with "ass."
 
2012-07-24 11:28:41 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Hi-cap mags became more expensive so if you're looking to take those out of the hands of the 99% but not the 1%...

Why do hate the 99%?

Jesus dude. Ease back on the throttle a bit.


I think he's onto something.
How come the 1% are all armed up with security guards/mercs/paramilitaries and the like, and we serfs get to eat dirt?
High-capacity magazines FOR THE RICH, right?

It wouldn't surprise me to find some trolls out here defending the rights of the one percenters. Because really, what recourse do you have if the sheriff/national guard/state police/Army drive up in armored vehicles and demand your weapons?
None. Nada. Zero.
Scream about the 2nd Amendment all you want, but you cannot kill the government.
It will kill you like crushing a bug. Just stop paying your taxes to see how that works.
So who benefits from these loose weapons laws? The people with the most money and therefore the most to lose -- the one percenters. The rest of us are effectively powerless against them, but allowing us to argue about owning weapons most of us cannot even afford just gives them cover.
Having or not having assault weapons makes no difference in the context of defense against tyranny, since we're already full up.

But keeping deranged doofuses from killing people in theaters would be one of the initial advantages of banning THE SALE OF assault rifles and hig-cap mags.
Our theater shooter obtained his weapons through legal, legitimate purchasing.
Maybe he should not have been able to do that.
Just maybe.
 
2012-07-24 11:28:41 AM  

sprawl15: The primary driving force of the assault weapons ban was a few high profile massacres, which didn't occur during those years. It would be like if Columbine made TEC-9's illegal immediately following the school shooting, then saying the rate of TEC-9 related crime plummeted because of the ban. It's not so much that the ban has that effect, but rather that the spike was an artificial high.


I don't understand this. Bans don't work because the numbers before the bans were artificially high? Or maybe they weren't.
 
2012-07-24 11:30:38 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Please try to keep your bullshiat straight.


Scroll up. It's a direct quote. It's called 'reading'. Top to bottom, left to right, a group words together is called a sentence. Take Tylenol for any headaches and Midol for any cramps.

HotWingConspiracy: You also want to omit the word "normally" from your new whine, which is what I was addressing.


Ah, so it's abnormal for the military to be provided guns designed to kill people. Fascinating, tell me more.

HotWingConspiracy: Also, remain calm, we don't need another shooting.


You can tell when someone's losing an argument, because they have to act like the person they're arguing against is TOTALLY FURIOUS at their TOTALLY EFFECTIVE arguments.

"hurdururur"
"that's dumb"
"U MAD BRO U MAD U MAD BRO"
 
2012-07-24 11:30:54 AM  

give me doughnuts: HotIgneous Intruder: Civilians have no need to own or possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines.

End of story.

He only had one of these things, and it wasn't the one that starts with "ass."


According to the precedent of law, he had two, at least.
Read 'em and weep.
 
2012-07-24 11:30:55 AM  

sprawl15: L82DPRT: If by success you mean the ban spurred domestic production of banned imports then yes otherwise it was a colossal failure.

The weapons were changed in a superficial cosmetic fashion ONLY.

Yup. And then there were problems in that you had to use a similar definition, if a person owned a gun that was classified as an "assault weapon" because it had a pistol grip and collapsible stock replaced the stock with a solid one then knocked over a store, it's no longer an "assault weapon" and wouldn't have been classified as such for the police reports.

Same with models that were designed to get around the specific naming in the law.


I celebrated the sunsetting of the AWB by purchasing an assault weapon.

It's the only one I own marked LEO

Perlin Noise: Guns do not exist to make friends, they exist to kill or cause extreme harm very easily.


Yet the overwhelming number of firearms in private hands never do either.
 
2012-07-24 11:33:21 AM  

give me doughnuts: He only had one of these things, and it wasn't the one that starts with "ass."


Have you ever fired an AK? I promise you, no matter how slowly it fires, it is an assault weapon. Made for one sole purpose, to kill or severely injure many people quickly.

If you paint it purple and plant it in your yard for decoration, it is still an assault weapon. Man, I totally don't get these semantic arguments.
 
2012-07-24 11:34:48 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: sprawl15: Some guns are designed specifically to kill people. Those are the ones normally provided to the military.

Or your average homeowner. The only thing a handgun and the ammo it uses is designed to do is kill people. They tout stopping power for a reason, and it has fark all to do with target practice.


Most popular home defense firearm I thought was a 12 gauge pump shotgun....
 
2012-07-24 11:34:49 AM  
Here it is for the developmentally disabled readers here (if any):

If people (particulary pre- or post-diagnosis mentally ill people) can't buy high-rate-of-fire weapons and magazines, it will be harder for them to obtain and use them to kill us.

That is all.
 
2012-07-24 11:36:20 AM  

sprawl15: HotWingConspiracy: Please try to keep your bullshiat straight.

Scroll up. It's a direct quote. It's called 'reading'. Top to bottom, left to right, a group words together is called a sentence. Take Tylenol for any headaches and Midol for any cramps.


Yes, I saw where you're now trying to say that "marketing" and "providing" are the same thing. Does that make any sense to you?

HotWingConspiracy: You also want to omit the word "normally" from your new whine, which is what I was addressing.

Ah, so it's abnormal for the military to be provided guns designed to kill people. Fascinating, tell me more.


I never said that. You implied it was a normal situation for the military, so it's easy to see that you're implying it's abnormal outside of the military. Which is wrong, and I pointed it out.

HotWingConspiracy: Also, remain calm, we don't need another shooting.

You can tell when someone's losing an argument, because they have to act like the person they're arguing against is TOTALLY FURIOUS at their TOTALLY EFFECTIVE arguments.

"hurdururur"
"that's dumb"
"U MAD BRO U MAD U MAD BRO"


Take Tylenol for any headaches and Midol for any cramps.
 
2012-07-24 11:36:44 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Assault weapons have been defined quite effectively.

/Maybe there has been to some of the halfwits in this thread, but legislatively, it's been done.
//Assault weapons and high capacity magazines need to be banned and mandatory federal felony prison time attached to their possession.
///Also: Assault weapon owners, who are you gonna fight and kill with your superguns? The government? Please let me know how that shiat turns out.


Now I know you are trolling.
 
2012-07-24 11:37:41 AM  

L82DPRT: Yet the overwhelming number of firearms in private hands never do either.


That's an interesting observation, however, I don't understand how it is relevant. I'm not trying to be a jerk, could you elaborate your point? From my perspective, it sounds like you are saying there are a lot of totally unnecessary guns out there.
 
2012-07-24 11:37:55 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: The primary driving force of the assault weapons ban was a few high profile massacres, which didn't occur during those years. It would be like if Columbine made TEC-9's illegal immediately following the school shooting, then saying the rate of TEC-9 related crime plummeted because of the ban. It's not so much that the ban has that effect, but rather that the spike was an artificial high.

I don't understand this. Bans don't work because the numbers before the bans were artificially high? Or maybe they weren't.


Pretty much. If you live in a neighborhood and don't have crime for 10 years, then someone comes and breaks into your house one night, you can put a scarecrow in your front lawn and more likely than not you won't have crime at your house again for another decade. That doesn't mean the scarecrow is preventing crime.
 
2012-07-24 11:40:27 AM  

sprawl15: Pretty much. If you live in a neighborhood and don't have crime for 10 years, then someone comes and breaks into your house one night, you can put a scarecrow in your front lawn and more likely than not you won't have crime at your house again for another decade. That doesn't mean the scarecrow is preventing crime.


If someone breaks into your house with an assault weapon and then assault weapons are banned and that doesn't happen again I believe it's safe to say that ban had something to do with it.
 
2012-07-24 11:40:51 AM  

give me doughnuts: HotIgneous Intruder: Assault weapons have been defined quite effectively.

/Maybe there has been to some of the halfwits in this thread, but legislatively, it's been done.
//Assault weapons and high capacity magazines need to be banned and mandatory federal felony prison time attached to their possession.
///Also: Assault weapon owners, who are you gonna fight and kill with your superguns? The government? Please let me know how that shiat turns out.

Now I know you are trolling.


Oh no. Not at all.
Who are you going to fight with your assault weapon?
Imaginary al qaeda or tyrants?
You gonna shoot down a Hellfire missile you won't even hear coming?
You gonna shoot down an AC130 as it orbits your subdivision?
Really, tell me.
 
2012-07-24 11:40:59 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: You implied it was a normal situation for the military, so it's easy to see that you're implying it's abnormal outside of the military.


'Easy to see' = 'I made up this strawman'

DORMAMU: Most popular home defense firearm I thought was a 12 gauge pump shotgun....


Yup. Shot is particularly good since it's much less likely to penetrate walls.

HotIgneous Intruder: According to the precedent of law, he had two, at least.
Read 'em and weep.


"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,[1] but no bill has reached the floor for a vote."

So he owned...zero. Last I checked, zero was not more than two.
 
2012-07-24 11:41:25 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: sprawl15: Some guns are designed specifically to kill people. Those are the ones normally provided to the military.

Or your average homeowner. The only thing a handgun and the ammo it uses is designed to do is kill people. They tout stopping power for a reason, and it has fark all to do with target practice.


I forgot to add:

I use to hike alot in the mohave desert mountains. Carried my handgun with snake/bird shot as first round and hallow points for the rest.

Used the snake shot once on a snake that got too close while I was resting (rattler slid right next to me & I couldnt stand up without risking a bite.)

Ran into a cougar? (big freaking cat) and fired a warning shot, scared it off.
 
2012-07-24 11:42:07 AM  
So the law banning assault weapons expiring also expired the existence of the definition of an assault weapon?

Neat
 
2012-07-24 11:42:53 AM  

Epoch_Zero: You know as well as I do that every firearm is just a physical manifestation of american large penises. Anyone else is just admitting they have a small penis and don't love freedom.


While I don't share your obvious desire to fantasize about and discuss the penile properties of other people, I would still defend your right to do those things.
 
2012-07-24 11:42:58 AM  

sprawl15: HotWingConspiracy: You implied it was a normal situation for the military, so it's easy to see that you're implying it's abnormal outside of the military.

'Easy to see' = 'I made up this strawman'


You are the king of the strawfolk, you've yet to craft a reply without one.

You said something dumb and I pointed it out. Don't go all James Holmes over it, it's just Fark.
 
2012-07-24 11:44:01 AM  

sprawl15: So he owned...zero. Last I checked, zero was not more than two.


Jefferson owned slaves before slavery was banned, too.

Who you gonna fight with your semantically altered rapid fire weapon?
The gubmint?
Do tell, Mr. Rambo.
 
2012-07-24 11:44:28 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: Pretty much. If you live in a neighborhood and don't have crime for 10 years, then someone comes and breaks into your house one night, you can put a scarecrow in your front lawn and more likely than not you won't have crime at your house again for another decade. That doesn't mean the scarecrow is preventing crime.

If someone breaks into your house with an assault weapon and then assault weapons are banned and that doesn't happen again I believe it's safe to say that ban had something to do with it.


No, it wouldn't. Lies, damn lies, and statistics and all that. If someone breaking into your house is a statistically unlikely event, then specifics like what weapon was used to break into your house would have no statistical significance from comparing two events.
 
2012-07-24 11:44:34 AM  

DORMAMU: HotWingConspiracy: sprawl15: Some guns are designed specifically to kill people. Those are the ones normally provided to the military.

Or your average homeowner. The only thing a handgun and the ammo it uses is designed to do is kill people. They tout stopping power for a reason, and it has fark all to do with target practice.

I forgot to add:

I use to hike alot in the mohave desert mountains. Carried my handgun with snake/bird shot as first round and hallow points for the rest.

Used the snake shot once on a snake that got too close while I was resting (rattler slid right next to me & I couldnt stand up without risking a bite.)

Ran into a cougar? (big freaking cat) and fired a warning shot, scared it off.


Ok. I'm glad you survived your hike.
 
2012-07-24 11:47:35 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: sprawl15: So he owned...zero. Last I checked, zero was not more than two.

Jefferson owned slaves before slavery was banned, too.


holy shiat you're stupid

You really don't understand that 'assault weapon' is a arbitrary definition that only has meaning in a specific legal context that doesn't exist any more? Do you think state 'assault weapon' bans' definitions meet exactly the federal 'assault weapon' definition?

HotWingConspiracy: You are the king of the strawfolk, you've yet to craft a reply without one.


ITT: directly quoting myself and asking for clarification is a strawman argument.
 
2012-07-24 11:47:45 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: DORMAMU: HotWingConspiracy: sprawl15: Some guns are designed specifically to kill people. Those are the ones normally provided to the military.

Or your average homeowner. The only thing a handgun and the ammo it uses is designed to do is kill people. They tout stopping power for a reason, and it has fark all to do with target practice.

I forgot to add:

I use to hike alot in the mohave desert mountains. Carried my handgun with snake/bird shot as first round and hallow points for the rest.

Used the snake shot once on a snake that got too close while I was resting (rattler slid right next to me & I couldnt stand up without risking a bite.)

Ran into a cougar? (big freaking cat) and fired a warning shot, scared it off.

Ok. I'm glad you survived your hike.


Without weapons, it could have gone down much differently.

/No wildlife would have been killed.
//I've hiked thousands of miles in desert and non-desert environments and never carried a firearm nor needed to. Your brain is your most important weapon. Oh. Sorry.
 
2012-07-24 11:48:05 AM  

CPennypacker: So the law banning assault weapons expiring also expired the existence of the definition of an assault weapon?

Neat


Where did that "definition" of an assault weapon originally come from?
 
2012-07-24 11:50:23 AM  

GanjSmokr: Where did that "definition" of an assault weapon originally come from?


Lawyers. It has no functional definition outside of the specific law that defines a set of scary looking weapons to ban.
 
2012-07-24 11:52:11 AM  

CPennypacker: So the law banning assault weapons expiring also expired the existence of the definition of an assault weapon?

Neat


It's the new, semantically altered reality.
If it's not explicitly against the law, it's OK to do it, regardless of being morally right or wrong or of unintended consequences.

/It's a Texas thing.
//The Bush family was expert at exercising this doctrine.
 
2012-07-24 11:52:33 AM  

sprawl15: ITT: directly quoting myself and asking for clarification is a strawman argument.


LOL

No, this would be a better example: Ah, so it's abnormal for the military to be provided guns designed to kill people. Fascinating, tell me more.

Keep digging up I guess. Marketing is the same thing as providing. Whatever works.
 
2012-07-24 11:52:42 AM  

sprawl15: If someone breaking into your house is a statistically unlikely event, then specifics like what weapon was used to break into your house would have no statistical significance from comparing two events.


OK. But I'm still for the ban.
 
2012-07-24 11:52:51 AM  
This thread has been derailed into the dumbest circular semantic chess match I have ever seen.
 
2012-07-24 11:53:37 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: give me doughnuts: HotIgneous Intruder: Civilians have no need to own or possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines.

End of story.

He only had one of these things, and it wasn't the one that starts with "ass."

According to the precedent of law, he had two, at least.
Read 'em and weep.


From that article: Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetics of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic).

COSMETICS

COSMETICS


once more:

COSMETICS

Here's a hint: In that useage, it means that the guns have scary-looking features.

That's why people on both sides of the gun-control debate laughed at the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban. That's also why so many peopple in this thread are laughing at you.

Also, since the ban expired, it is no longer a valid precedent.
 
2012-07-24 11:54:27 AM  

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: So the law banning assault weapons expiring also expired the existence of the definition of an assault weapon?

Neat

Where did that "definition" of an assault weapon originally come from?


This one was the law of the land for a decade:

Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetics of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun, rather, only 1 round is fired with each trigger pull.

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
A semi-automatic Yugoslavian M70AB2 rifle.
An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an Assault Weapon under Federal Law.

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine

Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetics of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun, rather, only 1 round is fired with each trigger pull.

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
A semi-automatic Yugoslavian M70AB2 rifle.
An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an Assault Weapon under Federal Law.

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
 
2012-07-24 11:56:15 AM  

give me doughnuts: COSMETICS

COSMETICS

once more:

COSMETICS


It's not cosmetics.
It's RATE OF FIRE and CAPACITY TO MAINTAIN THAT RATE OF FIRE.
 
2012-07-24 11:57:28 AM  

give me doughnuts: Also, since the ban expired, it is no longer a valid precedent.


Until it gets copy and pasted into the next ban legislation.
Which it will.

Your argument is bankrupt.
 
2012-07-24 11:59:46 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: If someone breaking into your house is a statistically unlikely event, then specifics like what weapon was used to break into your house would have no statistical significance from comparing two events.

OK. But I'm still for the ban.


Why? The assault weapons ban is almost purely cosmetic. It has nothing to do whatsoever with actual function. A gun like an M-14 with a collapsible stock and bayonet mount is an assault weapon, while one with just a collapsible stock isn't. It's an utterly silly ban; the primary effect was to make gun manufacturers a shiatload of money and give the public a warm fuzzy about having accomplished something.

The potentially most effective part of the ban was on large capacity magazines, because those were much more widespread than assault weapons, but because of the grandfathering of them (and the post-ban expiration rush to make new ones), the number of them significantly increased post-ban. There's a ludicrous amount of them floating around.
 
2012-07-24 12:00:34 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: HotWingConspiracy: DORMAMU: HotWingConspiracy: sprawl15: Some guns are designed specifically to kill people. Those are the ones normally provided to the military.

Or your average homeowner. The only thing a handgun and the ammo it uses is designed to do is kill people. They tout stopping power for a reason, and it has fark all to do with target practice.

I forgot to add:

I use to hike alot in the mohave desert mountains. Carried my handgun with snake/bird shot as first round and hallow points for the rest.

Used the snake shot once on a snake that got too close while I was resting (rattler slid right next to me & I couldnt stand up without risking a bite.)

Ran into a cougar? (big freaking cat) and fired a warning shot, scared it off.

Ok. I'm glad you survived your hike.

Without weapons, it could have gone down much differently.

/No wildlife would have been killed.
//I've hiked thousands of miles in desert and non-desert environments and never carried a firearm nor needed to. Your brain is your most important weapon. Oh. Sorry.


Yes, my brain prompted me to take a tool with me in preperation for my hike.

Kind of like taking water and food while hiking in the desert along with a map, compass, signal mirror, first aid kit.

I too have hiked hundreds of times. Twice I chose to use a particular tool (a weapon is basically a tool) I brought with me.

/I was pointing out handguns have legitimate uses besides just shooting people.
//am pro gun
///also pro basic gun control
 
2012-07-24 12:01:32 PM  

sprawl15: Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: If someone breaking into your house is a statistically unlikely event, then specifics like what weapon was used to break into your house would have no statistical significance from comparing two events.

OK. But I'm still for the ban.

Why? The assault weapons ban is almost purely cosmetic. It has nothing to do whatsoever with actual function. A gun like an M-14 with a collapsible stock and bayonet mount is an assault weapon, while one with just a collapsible stock isn't. It's an utterly silly ban; the primary effect was to make gun manufacturers a shiatload of money and give the public a warm fuzzy about having accomplished something.

The potentially most effective part of the ban was on large capacity magazines, because those were much more widespread than assault weapons, but because of the grandfathering of them (and the post-ban expiration rush to make new ones), the number of them significantly increased post-ban. There's a ludicrous amount of them floating around.


So they should pass a better one
 
2012-07-24 12:02:30 PM  

sprawl15: Why? The assault weapons ban is almost purely cosmetic.


Except that it reduced those guns showing up in crimes by 66% over ten years.

sprawl15: The potentially most effective part of the ban was on large capacity magazines


That's fine, ban those too.
 
2012-07-24 12:06:59 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: give me doughnuts: Also, since the ban expired, it is no longer a valid precedent.

Until it gets copy and pasted into the next ban legislation.
Which it will.

Your argument is bankrupt.


And yourS is based on scary-looking features.

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! IT HAS A PISTOL GRIP AND A FOLDING STOCK!
 
Ehh
2012-07-24 12:07:56 PM  
dlp211: HellRaisingHoosier:

I don't have any problem with guns.
I do have a problem with the NRA.
 
2012-07-24 12:08:55 PM  

Perlin Noise: L82DPRT: Yet the overwhelming number of firearms in private hands never do either.

That's an interesting observation, however, I don't understand how it is relevant. I'm not trying to be a jerk, could you elaborate your point? From my perspective, it sounds like you are saying there are a lot of totally unnecessary guns out there.


The vast majority of firearms are legally owned and never used in crime.

The law abiding public is unjustly demonized as nutjobs or timebombs and would be penalized for the actions of criminals.

I'd say the vast number in private hands is relevant and are necessary as criminals are known to prey on the weak.
 
2012-07-24 12:10:13 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: Why? The assault weapons ban is almost purely cosmetic.

Except that it reduced those guns showing up in crimes by 66% over ten years.


I'm sure you have a report to back that up - could you check that report and see if it reduced crime in general or did it just reduce the number of those scary looking guns showing up in crimes?

And then maybe provide a link to said report.
 
2012-07-24 12:14:05 PM  

GanjSmokr: I'm sure you have a report to back that up - could you check that report and see if it reduced crime in general or did it just reduce the number of those scary looking guns showing up in crimes?

And then maybe provide a link to said report.


via John Rosenthal, founder of the advocacy group Stop Handgun Violence Link

Start your email engines.
 
2012-07-24 12:15:06 PM  

CPennypacker: So they should pass a better one


Ideally, yes. The AWB is a meaningless fluff law.

As I said upthread, I'd really, really like to see laws passed at addressing the causes of crime - ending the drug war, better general mental health care/availability, social programs, etc. Then simple laws like waiting periods would help weed out people who are on an emotional binge and need to kill someone RIGHT NOW. Banning specific gun models is idiotic at best.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Except that it reduced those guns showing up in crimes by 66% over ten years.


If you made 'painting guns blue' illegal, and then the number of blue guns showing up in crimes was reduced by 66%, is that a meaningful statistic?

If everyone who had blue guns painted them red, and continued to commit crimes at the same rate, the ban would seem 'successful', the number of blue guns in crime went down. But the goal of the law is to reduce overall crime, not just a specific meaningless subset. The 66% reduction gives absolutely no information as to how much crime was actually reduced.

Dusk-You-n-Me: That's fine, ban those too.


Did you not read how the ban was largely ineffective in actually stopping them from existing? Their availability didn't significantly decrease under the ban.
 
2012-07-24 12:17:32 PM  

sprawl15: If you made 'painting guns blue' illegal, and then the number of blue guns showing up in crimes was reduced by 66%, is that a meaningful statistic?

If everyone who had blue guns painted them red, and continued to commit crimes at the same rate, the ban would seem 'successful', the number of blue guns in crime went down. But the goal of the law is to reduce overall crime, not just a specific meaningless subset. The 66% reduction gives absolutely no information as to how much crime was actually reduced.


Dude. Enough with these.

sprawl15: Did you not read how the ban was largely ineffective in actually stopping them from existing? Their availability didn't significantly decrease under the ban.


Just a coincidence, then, that they stopped showing up in crimes.
 
2012-07-24 12:22:41 PM  

L82DPRT: I'd say the vast number in private hands is relevant and are necessary as criminals are known to prey on the weak.


if they are never used, they are unnecessary. However, I certainly understand what you are saying but prevention by threat of violence is the wrong way to run a society as far as I am concerned.
 
2012-07-24 12:25:32 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: GanjSmokr: I'm sure you have a report to back that up - could you check that report and see if it reduced crime in general or did it just reduce the number of those scary looking guns showing up in crimes?

And then maybe provide a link to said report.

via John Rosenthal, founder of the advocacy group Stop Handgun Violence Link

Start your email engines.


So... an interview with a pro-ban person is now a report to cite numbers from?? I'm POSITIVE you'll be able to find an ACTUAL REPORT to back up your claims instead of linking to a radio interview. Otherwise, some people might think you were just pulling shiat out of your ass and calling it fact. And I'm sure that's not the case, right?

And once you find that report, maybe you can answer my previous reply...

could you check that report and see if it reduced crime in general or did it just reduce the number of those scary looking guns showing up in crimes?
 
2012-07-24 12:28:41 PM  

Jackson Herring: keylock71: Gun owner since I was 18... I have little use for the NRA. It's more like a powerful lobbying wing of the GOP these days.

I still haven't found a really good range in the area that doesn't require NRA membership :(


That sucks. I have no problem with gun ownership, but f*ck the GOP's psychotic, lying, conspiracy theory/propaganda wing, and f*ck Wayne LaPierre.
 
2012-07-24 12:30:22 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Dude. Enough with these.


...enough with showing how you're asserting a fallacy?

Dusk-You-n-Me: Just a coincidence, then, that they stopped showing up in crimes.


"Despite a doubling of handgun LCM prices between 1993 and 1995 and a 40% increase in rifle LCM prices from 1993 to 1994, criminal use of LCMs was rising or steady through at least the latter 1990s, based on police recovery data from four jurisdictions studied in this chapter. These findings are also consistent with an earlier study finding no decline in seizures of LCM guns from juveniles in Washington, DC in the year after the ban (Koper, 2001). Post-2000 data, though more limited and inconsistent, suggest that LCM use may be dropping from peak levels of the late 1990s but provide no definitive evidence of a drop below pre-ban levels. These trends have been driven primarily by LCM handguns, which are used in crime roughly three times as often as LCM rifles. Nonetheless, there has been no consistent reduction in the use of LCM rifles either."
--Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003
 
2012-07-24 12:34:13 PM  

Perlin Noise: L82DPRT: I'd say the vast number in private hands is relevant and are necessary as criminals are known to prey on the weak.

if they are never used, they are unnecessary. However, I certainly understand what you are saying but prevention by threat of violence is the wrong way to run a society as far as I am concerned.


While the vast majority are never used, depending on who you believe, hundreds of thousands to maybe millions are used in self defense or to ward off crime.

Remember there are hundreds of millions of firearms lurking out there just waiting to point themselves at you.

Oh no wait, I've never had a firearm point itself at me. Have had a person point one at me. Not fun.
 
2012-07-24 12:35:14 PM  

GanjSmokr: So... an interview with a pro-ban person is now a report to cite numbers from?? I'm POSITIVE you'll be able to find an ACTUAL REPORT to back up your claims instead of linking to a radio interview. Otherwise, some people might think you were just pulling shiat out of your ass and calling it fact


Well first, I never said it was from a report. It's me quoting someone else who would know better, since I am not an expert (novel idea). I trust the guy's credentials as well as NPR's. If you're really interested you should contact him for clarification - I get the feeling he's the kind of guy who would gladly respond. I, however, will not. I take him at his word.
 
2012-07-24 12:35:53 PM  

sprawl15: "Despite a doubling of handgun LCM prices between 1993 and 1995 and a 40% increase in rifle LCM prices from 1993 to 1994, criminal use of LCMs was rising or steady through at least the latter 1990s, based on police recovery data from four jurisdictions studied in this chapter. These findings are also consistent with an earlier study finding no decline in seizures of LCM guns from juveniles in Washington, DC in the year after the ban (Koper, 2001). Post-2000 data, though more limited and inconsistent, suggest that LCM use may be dropping from peak levels of the late 1990s but provide no definitive evidence of a drop below pre-ban levels. These trends have been driven primarily by LCM handguns, which are used in crime roughly three times as often as LCM rifles. Nonetheless, there has been no consistent reduction in the use of LCM rifles either."
--Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003


So we need more effective bans.
 
2012-07-24 12:39:25 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: "Despite a doubling of handgun LCM prices between 1993 and 1995 and a 40% increase in rifle LCM prices from 1993 to 1994, criminal use of LCMs was rising or steady through at least the latter 1990s, based on police recovery data from four jurisdictions studied in this chapter. These findings are also consistent with an earlier study finding no decline in seizures of LCM guns from juveniles in Washington, DC in the year after the ban (Koper, 2001). Post-2000 data, though more limited and inconsistent, suggest that LCM use may be dropping from peak levels of the late 1990s but provide no definitive evidence of a drop below pre-ban levels. These trends have been driven primarily by LCM handguns, which are used in crime roughly three times as often as LCM rifles. Nonetheless, there has been no consistent reduction in the use of LCM rifles either."
--Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003

So we need more effective bans.


Like in Russia?
 
2012-07-24 12:40:50 PM  

DORMAMU: Like in Russia?


In Russia guns ban you!
 
2012-07-24 12:47:21 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: GanjSmokr: So... an interview with a pro-ban person is now a report to cite numbers from?? I'm POSITIVE you'll be able to find an ACTUAL REPORT to back up your claims instead of linking to a radio interview. Otherwise, some people might think you were just pulling shiat out of your ass and calling it fact

Well first, I never said it was from a report. It's me quoting someone else who would know better, since I am not an expert (novel idea). I trust the guy's credentials as well as NPR's. If you're really interested you should contact him for clarification - I get the feeling he's the kind of guy who would gladly respond. I, however, will not. I take him at his word.


Well, since you are too damned lazy to back up your statements, here's an actual report for you. There are others out there. You might try this new site called "Google" to try to find them if you want to actually back up your claims.

Of particular interest to you might be sections 3.3 and 6.4.
 
2012-07-24 12:50:11 PM  

GanjSmokr: here's an actual report for you. There are others out there.


What a coincidence you just happen to post the same report as sprawl, and not any of the others out there. But that's cool. And like I said to him, this calls for more effective bans.
 
2012-07-24 12:52:27 PM  

L82DPRT: Oh no wait, I've never had a firearm point itself at me. Have had a person point one at me. Not fun.


I can certainly see your perspective. I would just rather there were less guns to point at you so you would not have to have one yourself. That's really all it boils down to.

My real feeling is, a simple shotgun will do just fine for home defense. If you need to protect yourself from guns on the street, how does more guns on the street help?
 
2012-07-24 12:58:51 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: DORMAMU: Like in Russia?

In Russia guns ban you!


I didnt have the heart to do it. Glad you still got a sense of humor.

I believe in russia all hanguns are illegal unless you are military or police. Yet, they still have rampant handgun issues.

I am more worried about knee jerking back & forth of extremes. A balance needs to be struck. An all out ban will do little (see prohibition as a loose example)

/would post citation on russia, but on mobile at work
 
2012-07-24 01:08:09 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: GanjSmokr: here's an actual report for you. There are others out there.

What a coincidence you just happen to post the same report as sprawl, and not any of the others out there. But that's cool. And like I said to him, this calls for more effective bans.


Here's one from the Brady Center - I'm sure you'll find the numbers in it favorable to your position.

I know Google seems confusing and daunting when you first try to use it...

I typed in a convoluted regex expression to get my results (report assault weapon ban results). I don't know how Google's crazy search algorithm stuff works but that particular random string of words got me quite a few results.
 
2012-07-24 01:10:08 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: sprawl15: Some guns are designed specifically to kill people. Those are the ones normally provided to the military.

Or your average homeowner. The only thing a handgun and the ammo it uses is designed to do is kill people. They tout stopping power for a reason, and it has fark all to do with target practice.


Should I tell my home state of Indiana or my adopted state of Illinois that handguns shouldn't be allowed for hunting anymore?
 
2012-07-24 01:13:30 PM  

GanjSmokr: Here's one from the Brady Center - I'm sure you'll find the numbers in it favorable to your position.

I know Google seems confusing and daunting when you first try to use it...

I typed in a convoluted regex expression to get my results (report assault weapon ban results). I don't know how Google's crazy search algorithm stuff works but that particular random string of words got me quite a few results.


kay
 
2012-07-24 01:18:59 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: What a coincidence you just happen to post the same report as sprawl, and not any of the others out there.


Sure, 'any of the others' that you can't be bothered to find or ensure exist.

Dusk-You-n-Me: So we need more effective bans.


Or intelligent laws instead of laws driven by pants shiatting fear.
 
2012-07-24 01:26:03 PM  

sprawl15: Or intelligent laws instead of laws driven by pants shiatting fear.


Hey now, without pants shiatting fear the NRA wouldn't exist.
 
2012-07-24 01:26:13 PM  

sprawl15: IlGreven: Also interesting to note, the second amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be abridged.

It says nothing of the right of the people to produce arms.

Luckily, that's not how the Constitution works. That's why the Constitution doesn't need to explicitly say that you have a right to not be raped.


...Okay, okay...everyone has a right to produce arms, just like they have a right to do what they want as long as they don't infringe upon another person's right to do what they want.

HOWEVER...there can be pressure put on a gun maker that has several government contracts, to stop producing a certain firearm or lower their total production..."nice contract you got there. You'd prolly wanna keep it when it comes time to renew, right?" And that's how I'd like them to run, like a business would. "You wanna play with us? You play by our rules."
 
2012-07-24 01:27:42 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: Or intelligent laws instead of laws driven by pants shiatting fear.

Hey now, without pants shiatting fear the NRA wouldn't exist.


The NRA was a hunting organization for over 100 years before it went sharply right, so you're wrong like you have been all thread.
 
2012-07-24 01:30:22 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Hey now, without pants shiatting fear the NRA wouldn't exist.


Aside from the factual errors already covered by redmid17, so what? Why do you think insulting the NRA would somehow be a meaningful thing to say?

IlGreven: HOWEVER...there can be pressure put on a gun maker that has several government contracts, to stop producing a certain firearm or lower their total production..."nice contract you got there. You'd prolly wanna keep it when it comes time to renew, right?" And that's how I'd like them to run, like a business would.


That's pretty straightforwardly illegal.
 
2012-07-24 01:30:47 PM  

redmid17: Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: Or intelligent laws instead of laws driven by pants shiatting fear.

Hey now, without pants shiatting fear the NRA wouldn't exist.

The NRA was a hunting organization for over 100 years before it went sharply right, so you're wrong like you have been all thread.


I suppose I should add marksmanship too
 
2012-07-24 01:39:12 PM  

redmid17: The NRA was a hunting organization for over 100 years before it went sharply right


Exactly. I'm agreeing with you. It was something very different a long time ago. Now it preys on fear to gain membership and donations.

sprawl15: Why do you think insulting the NRA would somehow be a meaningful thing to say?


Um, because it's true?

"All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term," he said.

"We see the president's strategy crystal clear: Get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms' freedom, erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the U.S. Constitution." - NRA VP Wayne LaPierre

Despite Obama getting an F from the Brady Center, while actually loosening carry laws, the VP of the NRA rants about Obama gonna take your guns. The NRA is not what they used to be, and they are certainly not immune to criticism, no matter how much you love them.
 
2012-07-24 01:40:49 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: redmid17: The NRA was a hunting organization for over 100 years before it went sharply right

Exactly. I'm agreeing with you. It was something very different a long time ago. Now it preys on fear to gain membership and donations.


So your assertion they wouldn't exist without preying on fear is demonstrably false, like I said. Do I need to draw you a diagram?
 
2012-07-24 01:42:52 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: The NRA is not what they used to be, and they are certainly not immune to criticism, no matter how much you love them.


Do you actually have brain damage, or do you just play a brain damaged person on the internet?

Hit cntl+f and look at the first two things that I posted in the thread.
 
2012-07-24 01:46:35 PM  

redmid17: So your assertion they wouldn't exist without preying on fear is demonstrably false, like I said.


That's fair. They would still exist. But then why do they do it? Why does the VP of the NRA make a speech like that?

sprawl15: Do you actually have brain damage, or do you just play a brain damaged person on the internet?

Hit cntl+f and look at the first two things that I posted in the thread.


I missed that. You do not love the NRA. We can move on.
 
2012-07-24 01:49:07 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: redmid17: So your assertion they wouldn't exist without preying on fear is demonstrably false, like I said.

That's fair. They would still exist. But then why do they do it? Why does the VP of the NRA make a speech like that?


Do I really need to draw it out for you? I hate making process flow diagrams. I get my BAs to do it
 
2012-07-24 01:50:26 PM  

redmid17: Dusk-You-n-Me: redmid17: So your assertion they wouldn't exist without preying on fear is demonstrably false, like I said.

That's fair. They would still exist. But then why do they do it? Why does the VP of the NRA make a speech like that?

Do I really need to draw it out for you? I hate making process flow diagrams. I get my BAs to do it


With this particular person, I don't think even simple crayon drawings would help...
 
2012-07-24 01:53:39 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: I missed that. You do not love the NRA. We can move on.


Even if I had an NRA logo realdoll, it wouldn't make your horrible series of posts reflect a semblance of intelligence.
 
2012-07-24 01:54:32 PM  

redmid17: Do I really need to draw it out for you? I hate making process flow diagrams. I get my BAs to do it


GanjSmokr: With this particular person, I don't think even simple crayon drawings would help...


I get it. I'm a terrible person who is dumb. Terribly Dumb, that's what they used to call me. You guys are the big winners here. Hooray you guys.
 
2012-07-24 01:55:13 PM  

sprawl15: Even if I had an NRA logo realdoll, it wouldn't make your horrible series of posts reflect a semblance of intelligence.


I know! I'm so terribly dumb! You are the big winner!
 
2012-07-24 02:01:55 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me:
I get it. I'm a terrible person who is dumb. Terribly Dumb, that's what they used to call me. You guys are the big winners here. Hooray you guys.


Well that's one way to admit you are wrong I suppose.
 
2012-07-24 02:03:15 PM  

GanjSmokr: Well that's one way to admit you are wrong I suppose.


Dumb and terrible!
 
2012-07-24 02:20:29 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: GanjSmokr: Well that's one way to admit you are wrong I suppose.

Dumb and terrible!


To be fair, I never thought you were "terrible"...
 
2012-07-24 08:06:46 PM  
One thing that has occurred to me recently that seems a bit hypocritical is the fact that Colorado is a "Shall Issue" Concealed Carry State with compacts in Wyoming and Nebraska to respect and honor our permits, yet it seems no one returned fire. Maybe I'm wrong, but considering what a contentious issue that was here initially with the City and County of Denver that I'm surprised MORE of those who cried the hardest for their right to play OO7 didn't step up. Seems the only one armed in that theater of hundreds was "Sidedoor Sideshow Jim".
 
2012-07-24 09:44:35 PM  

karmazfool: One thing that has occurred to me recently that seems a bit hypocritical is the fact that Colorado is a "Shall Issue" Concealed Carry State with compacts in Wyoming and Nebraska to respect and honor our permits, yet it seems no one returned fire. Maybe I'm wrong, but considering what a contentious issue that was here initially with the City and County of Denver that I'm surprised MORE of those who cried the hardest for their right to play OO7 didn't step up. Seems the only one armed in that theater of hundreds was "Sidedoor Sideshow Jim".


It's almost like the people who had training and concealed carry permits knew that it would be a very dumb idea to return fire.
 
2012-07-25 09:04:38 AM  

Benni K Rok: karmazfool: One thing that has occurred to me recently that seems a bit hypocritical is the fact that Colorado is a "Shall Issue" Concealed Carry State with compacts in Wyoming and Nebraska to respect and honor our permits, yet it seems no one returned fire. Maybe I'm wrong, but considering what a contentious issue that was here initially with the City and County of Denver that I'm surprised MORE of those who cried the hardest for their right to play OO7 didn't step up. Seems the only one armed in that theater of hundreds was "Sidedoor Sideshow Jim".

It's almost like the people who had training and concealed carry permits knew that it would be a very dumb idea to return fire.



It's actually more like the theater was a "gun-free" zone and the law abiding citizens followed the law while the criminal did not. But other than that fact, yea - it's almost like what you said.
 
Displayed 308 of 308 comments

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