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 (3 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 308 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report