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.

(Denver Post)   Gun sales in Colorado have jumped more than 41 percent since Friday   (denverpost.com) divider line 619
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

5851 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jul 2012 at 12:19 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-24 05:00:00 PM

DORMAMU: Csb

I was put on a mood stabilizer because, for a period when I was going days with out sleep and my physical health was suffering. I was exhausted, but couldnt sleep, and sleep aids did little other than make me groggier.

Some co workers found out and filed a union grievance to have me removed from duty (nevada casino security) for mental instability. They then complained to the state gaming board to try to get my gaming license suspended.


www.nbc.com

Was it the affable black friend or the grizzled former CIA agent who filed the grievance?
 
2012-07-24 05:00:16 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: snocone: Buffalo77: I going today. I am going to get a 9MM with 15 round mags and with buy couple extra mags. I was thinking Ruger or Berretta.

Get a revolver. Not an expensive one, no larger than .38.
Practice, practice, practice.
Automatics are secondary pistols.
15 rounds are heavy.

I was thinking about getting a revolver as a Boobiesol due to the simplicity and reliability, but several friends have said that semi-automatics (specifically a Glock 17 or 19) are very reliable and easy to maintain. (Also that 9mm ammo is cheaper and easier to get.) What say the reasonable Fark Gun Owners?


9mil is a pretty good jolt to the arm.Light loads jam and are dirty.
If you are asking, you need to send a LOT of rounds downrange.
Start with reliable, clean w/o disassembly, small caliber.
This is a training tool, not an ego party.
 
2012-07-24 05:02:01 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: What say the reasonable Fark Gun Owners?


Find someone who will let you shoot their guns, or go to a range that will rent them to you. Try as many as you can, and decide what you like.

/Or just do what I did and get one of everything.
 
2012-07-24 05:02:38 PM

IQof20: So despite the evidence of me asking simply to start w/ a position of asking if there is any situation at all when a "pro-gun" individual would recognize that a right to carry would/could be restricted you've decided I'm the boogeyman. I'm not a member of any group against guns and any position I hold is primarily that people are not "out to get your guns" at least not in the way that you think.


Perhaps that's because you're arguing from a false premise to start with. There are already restrictions, there are quite a few. I'm not sure but I think it also qualifies as reductio ad absurdum.

I'm not "pro-gun" so much as I am pro-freedom. Having said that, I also open-carry and have a CCW though I see no reason to hide it in Maine. I enjoy the sport, I also enjoy hunting (which I don't view as a sport). Why do I carry one? I often have large sums of cash on me but that's not really the reason - I actually enjoy rabbit and other small game. It is very tasty.

Having said that, there are reasonable restrictions in place now. Those saying that mentally ill people shouldn't be able to get firearms are likely intentionally ignoring that those who are recognized by the State as being mentally ill are prohibited persons (as are felons) already. Prohibition doesn't work or you'd not be able to smoke your pot, do your coke, etc... I see no reason to take my freedom away because of the acts of another. Should we take away your right to free speech because of the jackasses that caused harm while OWS was more active? Of course not.

Additional regulation isn't the answer. Healing, moving on, accepting the consequences, learning, and being alert are far better choices than reacting to a statistical outlier. I have yet to see any new legislation being enacted to ban lightening or going out in a storm. We live in a free society, one of the consequences of that choice is that people are free to do harm to others (they aren't at liberty to do so, however), and I have no desire to change that and, deep down, I suspect you don't either.

Fear is a good motivator. It isn't so good for logic though. It doesn't usually result in a good response. When has prohibition worked and what restrictions would you propose? Why do you think those restrictions would help? What education or expertise do you bring to the table?

As I've mentioned, the people here tend to complain about the technologically illiterate making laws about how we use technology. It is funny that the people who are scared of inanimate objects feel that they're capable of determining the freedoms that other people enjoy. Cowardice is not a valid starting point for legislation and every law is a restriction on someones freedoms for better or for worse.

So, yeah, I'm quite willing to have a discussion about firearm legislation and I'll maintain my objectivity and honesty. Where would you like to begin?
 
2012-07-24 05:02:53 PM

Giltric: slarti0001: MythDragon: Bendal: I call utter bullshiat on your claim. "Two or three citizens" firing their handguns at an armored gunman in a dark



Why do people keep saying he was wearing body armor?
The reciept:
[bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com image 620x461]
Shows he bought a tactical vest. NOT body armor. All a tactical vest is, is a vest with pouches for mags and straps to hang equipment from.
Looks just like this:
[www.blackhawk.com image 450x450]
They don't stop bullets. (unless you catch one in a full magazine....but then you might have other problems).

Maybe they said he was wearing body armor because that's what the police say he was wearing. And I'll take their word on this over your word any day. They say he was wearing a ballistic vest and ballistic helmet and ballistic limb protection.

You provide a receipt that proves nothing other than he bought one item and then argue he wasn't wearing a ballistic vest because it's not on that one receipt. This is specious reasoning at best, but more likely you're intentionally being deceptive and defensive.

Maybe they were made of ballistic nylon.....like a watch band or a back pack.


A breakdown of his equipment via the Denver Post
(I'm sure that the actual equipment differs from what's shown, but you get the idea):
i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-24 05:04:47 PM

IQof20: ronaprhys: What you're asking for, though, already exists. See USP .45's earlier response. It outlines the background check requirements and restrictions.

What I was proposing was the start of a discussion on mental capacity which is only about guns in an ancillary term but has been restricted along the same lines as the "gun rights" argument. That individual rights are tantamount and as long as "no crime is committed" you get everything the Constitution grants you and a side of fries. You repeated that in your response in following the "as long as I don't do anything wrong" side of the discussion.

While I'm 100% in agreement on this for people of normal capacity, I am *NOT* for this when folks are having mental/drug/reduced capacity issues. What we just kind of gloss over time and again is that the reason this guy (and many others) are out interacting with society when they should be getting some form of treatment is that their family/loved ones/physicians have very restricted paths to "take away their rights" to select non-treatment. And when people choose that path there is no marker that exists in any national database for a person in such a mid-grade state.

For example, I report that my son needs mental evaluation. He puts on a show for X days at the facility and then hits the street. I can't just keep doing that and sending him back over and over. Regardless, the minute he gets out he can go buy a gun (and likely turn it on the person who signed him up for treatment perhaps against his will).

There are people who need mental health assistance here and the individuals who are closely involved in this have a very difficult path toward "taking away the rights" of someone while they have a very easy path toward retribution.

The assumed fear is that I'll just decide not only that my ex- is crazy, but that she should be locked up. If I abuse it then there are paths for resolution by her that are legal including my own incarceration. But gun rights make ...


Again - this already exists. If someone is declared as mentally defective, then the background check would prevent them from legally obtaining a firearm. In certain instances, I believe it would also mean that their firearms would be taken from them (though that may take a court order).

Not sure how what you're proposing differs from what exists.
 
2012-07-24 05:11:14 PM
Hmm, went into Jax in Loveland to look for a chunk of camping equipment and ended up buying a gun yesterday.

/Another Mosan Nagant, hardly suitable for CCW purposes though.
//Now I need to find some Hello Kitty furniture for it, so it will be ready when my daughter is 2.
 
2012-07-24 05:12:39 PM

redmid17: DORMAMU: Csb

I was put on a mood stabilizer because, for a period when I was going days with out sleep and my physical health was suffering. I was exhausted, but couldnt sleep, and sleep aids did little other than make me groggier.

Some co workers found out and filed a union grievance to have me removed from duty (nevada casino security) for mental instability. They then complained to the state gaming board to try to get my gaming license suspended.



Was it the affable black friend or the grizzled former CIA agent who filed the grievance?


God damn I hated that show.

Caused so many problems with people. They couldnt fathom real life wasnt like that show in the casino.

At least I aint the only one who still has a sense of humor.
 
2012-07-24 05:17:15 PM
Nice reaction, Colorado. You idiots.
 
2012-07-24 05:21:38 PM

snocone: All you recommend is expense and inconvience for citizens.
Enforcement? Who pays?
Any reasonably motivated killer laughs at your feeble "laws".
You do understand that a murderous human really does not exist within the rules of polite society.
No, I guess you don't.

"Gun Control" is simply a political agenda that many well meaning concientious people are sucked into.
The seductive story and play on emotions is classic and very successful.


So your solution is to do nothing? That any person who may not be mentally stable should be able to purchase a lethal weapon with no oversight?

To the dismay of gun lovers, this is one tragedy which could have been prevented with reasonable gun control. This person bought these weapons legally, he did not get them from some thug on the street or any other form of black market. While we cannot prevent all forms of gun crime with weapons obtained legally, we can certainly minimize these instances. Licensing, registration, proper training and assessment before allowing access and purchase to a lethal weapon is not some kind of pinko conspiracy, it is common sense!
 
2012-07-24 05:24:20 PM

gothelder: //Now I need to find some Hello Kitty furniture for it, so it will be ready when my daughter is 2.


And now I'm giggling at my desk at the thought of a 2yo kid pinned under a hot pink M91/30.
 
2012-07-24 05:28:40 PM

DORMAMU: ...I was put on a mood stabilizer because, for a period when I was going days with out sleep and my physical health was suffering. I was exhausted, but couldnt sleep, and sleep aids did little other than make me groggier...


I have an employee going through that now. She's normally aces but has been so off her game that I had to have a long talk w/ her on what med's she's on, if she feel capable, and have told her to back off the hours until she's back "on".

You're dead-on w/ the stigma. Particularly w/ med-induced capacity. Having seen it w/ others close to me and felt it on my own for short-stint, reality is a very amorphous thing in that state.
 
2012-07-24 05:32:27 PM

mjohnson71: [horrornews.net image 400x423]

The Penis is evil! The Penis shoots Seeds, and makes new Life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was. But the Gun shoots Death and purifies the Earth of the filth of Brutals. Go forth, and kill! Zardoz has spoken.


God I miss the 70's when movies showed awesome tits, biatches liked rape, cars were cool and guns were 6 shooters.
 
2012-07-24 05:34:47 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Fark It: andersoncouncil42: Common sense measures like AWB (who the fark needs an automatic weapon to shoot targets and game?)

I wasn't aware that the AWB had anything to do with automatic weapons.

andersoncouncil42: Common sense measures like AWB (who the fark needs an automatic weapon to shoot targets and game?) and jumbo sized magazines are common sense. I'm sorry, but there is no rational argument against those two things. None

No.

None.

Stop it. Take your meds.

No.

Precisely.
No. Rational. Reason. To have them.


Let me be clearer, AWB = assault weapons ban
I didn't include the word ban for the magazine.
Summary: There is no rational objection to an assault weapons ban or a ban on high capacity magazines.

None.
 
2012-07-24 05:37:36 PM

UnspokenVoice: Perhaps that's because you're arguing from a false premise to start with.


Hardly. See my next comment where I'm coming back to my original statement. And see my last followup specific to Schizophrenia which is applicable in this exact case. Nothing else here has been quoted has more directly relevance than the concept of degradation of rights based upon capacity and the relevance of the path to "diagnosis" for capacity specifically regarding this "disease".

I'm not "pro-gun" so much as I am pro-freedom...

And I own a shotgun although I haven't hunted with in 20 years and used to teach riflery and stopped my membership in the ACLU based upon their misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment and me losing faith in issues-only organization and their effect on voting/politics. Moving on...

Having said that, there are reasonable restrictions in place now...

As I said a couple of posts back, this isn't so much a gun-rights issue as a mental health one. And the issue isn't that reasonable restrictions aren't in place, but that there are a few holes in those restrictions w/ regard to mental health which are actually there because there are problem in the mental health diagnosis/rights laws vs. gun laws per se.

So, yeah, I'm quite willing to have a discussion about firearm legislation and I'll maintain my objectivity and honesty. Where would you like to begin?

Read through what I started with and feel free to respond. Again, I only argue the point on guns as a derivative argument per mental health.
 
2012-07-24 05:40:58 PM

snocone: "Gun Control" is simply a political agenda that many well meaning concientious people are sucked into.
The seductive story and play on emotions is classic and very successful.



The irony is overflowing here.

This article shows the seductive story and play on emotions where idiots go out and buy guns to "feel" protected.

And other idiots in this topic go on and on about how if "they" were armed then the shooter would have been taken down.

You people are mentally unstable and delusional. None of you should be 50 feet from a weapon for the sake of society.
 
2012-07-24 05:43:00 PM

ronaprhys: Again - this already exists.


No. It doesn't. At least not in the degree you think it does.

The issue is a medical one and the rights of people specifically in Schizophrenia likely in this case, but arguably in other medical situations. The ability for caregivers to restrict rights, particularly gun ownership, with a medical diagnosis is very restrictive. Particularly in this case.

The ability to get a medical diagnosis is very difficult and there is no "half way".

One last time, I don't think this really is a gun rights issue as much as it is a mental capacity issue and recognition that there are some sizable holes in this definition that yield toward gun ownership vs. away from.
 
2012-07-24 05:43:42 PM

soup: How about a mental health assessment for anyone looking to buy a firearm?


I might go for that if anyone who had ever claimed that God spoke to them were classified as mentally ill. Not going to happen though.
 
2012-07-24 05:44:40 PM

redmid17: Lenny_da_Hog: redmid17: Lenny_da_Hog: redmid17: Lenny_da_Hog: redmid17: Right to free speech doesn't mean I can speak whatever I want but cannot write it down.
Right to bear arms doesn't mean I can own a rifle but never shoot it.

And yet there are unchallenged laws all over telling you where and when you can't shoot a firearm.

As well as laws regarding exercising of the first amendment

Usually those are challenged right away. See the ACLU.

So are gun laws. See the NRA. But for some reason, the NRA has never taken the stance that there should be no laws defining illegal use of firearms.

You know that the NRA has helped write all the significant gun legislation passed by congress in the last 80 years right? They've challenged plenty of bans for possession and bans of gun ranges. Chicago is a good example of that.

Possession -- "Keep and bear."

They do not say, "The constitutional right to fire weapons is sacrosanct, and we must be able to fire those weapons at any time."

Nobody says we have a right to fire firearms, only that we have a right to keep and bear them. It would not be possible to make a complete ban on shooting, because the SCOTUS would say it goes to far, but there's nothing that says the use of firearms can't be regulated.

Actually Chicago's ban on gun ranges was struck down with exactly "the right to fire firearms" in mind. You can legally own handguns and other firearms in Chicago but you can't legally fire them in city limits because of a lack of ranges open to the public.

"The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use; the core right wouldn't mean much without the training and practice that make it effective. The Ezell court pointed to the Supreme Court having "quoted at length from the 'massively popular 1868 Treatise on Constitutional Limitations' by judge and professor Thomas Cooley: '[T]o bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the l ...


Which is precisely what I stated in my last sentence of that post. It would not be possible to make a complete ban on shooting, because the SCOTUS would say it goes to far, but there's nothing that says the use of firearms can't be regulated.
 
2012-07-24 05:46:51 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: redmid17: Lenny_da_Hog: redmid17: Lenny_da_Hog: redmid17: Lenny_da_Hog: redmid17: Right to free speech doesn't mean I can speak whatever I want but cannot write it down.
Right to bear arms doesn't mean I can own a rifle but never shoot it.

And yet there are unchallenged laws all over telling you where and when you can't shoot a firearm.

As well as laws regarding exercising of the first amendment

Usually those are challenged right away. See the ACLU.

So are gun laws. See the NRA. But for some reason, the NRA has never taken the stance that there should be no laws defining illegal use of firearms.

You know that the NRA has helped write all the significant gun legislation passed by congress in the last 80 years right? They've challenged plenty of bans for possession and bans of gun ranges. Chicago is a good example of that.

Possession -- "Keep and bear."

They do not say, "The constitutional right to fire weapons is sacrosanct, and we must be able to fire those weapons at any time."

Nobody says we have a right to fire firearms, only that we have a right to keep and bear them. It would not be possible to make a complete ban on shooting, because the SCOTUS would say it goes to far, but there's nothing that says the use of firearms can't be regulated.

Actually Chicago's ban on gun ranges was struck down with exactly "the right to fire firearms" in mind. You can legally own handguns and other firearms in Chicago but you can't legally fire them in city limits because of a lack of ranges open to the public.

"The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use; the core right wouldn't mean much without the training and practice that make it effective. The Ezell court pointed to the Supreme Court having "quoted at length from the 'massively popular 1868 Treatise on Constitutional Limitations' by judge and professor Thomas Cooley: '[T]o bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it imp ...


So what's your point comparing the NRA to the ACLU?
 
2012-07-24 05:47:29 PM
Police chief shoots his own son.

/Because more guns are the solution.
//Punishers MC, whoa, tough guys.
 
2012-07-24 05:48:52 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Police chief shoots his own son.

/Because more guns are the solution.
//Punishers MC, whoa, tough guys.


What the fark does that have to do with anything?
 
2012-07-24 05:50:53 PM

IQof20: but that there are a few holes in those restrictions w/ regard to mental health which are actually there because there are problem in the mental health diagnosis/rights laws vs. gun laws per se.


My biggest problem with enacting new laws concerning firearms and mental health is that from what I've seen, there is no good definition of 'mental health'. How do you say "This person is good to go when it comes to guns"? Are you going to define a rigid set of rules? Or are you going to leave it up to the individual psychiatrist? The first way seems damn near impossible, but the second seems too damn open to abuse. What happens if you get someone who believes that simply wanting to own a deadly weapon is a sign of mental illness? I'm not at all convinced that that's an unlikely situation, when there are already states that issue carry permits based on what amounts to the local sheriff's whims.

I'm all for not letting whack-jobs have deadly weapons. Always have been, always will be. But so far I haven't been shown a method of sorting the whack-jobs from sane people that won't harm more people than it helps.
 
2012-07-24 05:54:07 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: snocone: Buffalo77: I going today. I am going to get a 9MM with 15 round mags and with buy couple extra mags. I was thinking Ruger or Berretta.

Get a revolver. Not an expensive one, no larger than .38.
Practice, practice, practice.
Automatics are secondary pistols.
15 rounds are heavy.

I was thinking about getting a revolver as a Boobiesol due to the simplicity and reliability, but several friends have said that semi-automatics (specifically a Glock 17 or 19) are very reliable and easy to maintain. (Also that 9mm ammo is cheaper and easier to get.) What say the reasonable Fark Gun Owners?


This is my CC weapon.
Bear protection.
 
2012-07-24 05:57:35 PM

HotIgneous Intruder

Smartest

Funniest
2012-07-24 03:50:08 PM


thetubameister: doubled99: Too bad someone didn't tell those lunatics in Afghanistan only an idiot would think to "fight" the government with inferior weapons.
Bunch of psychos...

Does anyone have any references/citations contemporary with the document's drafting defending this notion of the "2nd Amendment designed to shoot the government" idea? You have my interest... though I'm a little creeped out.




Well, you see, we had just finished violently overthrowing the current government, so individuals' defense against armed government troops was sort of top of mind then.


read any book about Jefferson, Adams or Paine.
 
2012-07-24 06:02:58 PM
Great, now Colorado has 41% more idiots running around with guns. I know I'd feel safer.
 
2012-07-24 06:11:02 PM

IQof20: ronaprhys: Again - this already exists.

No. It doesn't. At least not in the degree you think it does.

The issue is a medical one and the rights of people specifically in Schizophrenia likely in this case, but arguably in other medical situations. The ability for caregivers to restrict rights, particularly gun ownership, with a medical diagnosis is very restrictive. Particularly in this case.

The ability to get a medical diagnosis is very difficult and there is no "half way".

One last time, I don't think this really is a gun rights issue as much as it is a mental capacity issue and recognition that there are some sizable holes in this definition that yield toward gun ownership vs. away from.


And I'm very leery of expanding it. Caregivers should necessarily have to go through a very rigorous process to declare some mentally defective enough to start restricting rights. Very rigorous. Maybe I could understand a 10 day insta-ban, but the caregiver would then need to pony up with comprehensive proof and enough to convince a judge a trial is needed. Depending on the quality of said evidence, the defendant could be released.

However, even that is something that worries me. Too many people would struggle to afford a legal defense in this sort of a case. As such, a doctor could give an "expert opinion" and win the case easily while affording one's own expert to dispute the opinion could be very pricey. Almost the equivalent of a poll tax.
 
2012-07-24 06:20:51 PM
Also, gun control can work. In 2008 11,000 were killed in U.S. by guns, in Japan, 11.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-many-americans-killed-with-guns-20 1 2-7
 
2012-07-24 06:24:03 PM

dk47: Also, gun control can work. In 2008 11,000 were killed in U.S. by guns, in Japan, 11.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-many-americans-killed-with-guns-20 1 2-7


So we are going to go back to the 1700s and give the US government control of all the firearm manufacturing plants and companies?
 
2012-07-24 06:34:16 PM

dk47: Also, gun control can work. In 2008 11,000 were killed in U.S. by guns, in Japan, 11.


The problem with making comparisons like that is that the US isn't a (relatively) tiny island nation with a culture that has historically been fairly submissive to its government. Those are some big farking differences.
 
2012-07-24 06:36:57 PM

snocone: spacelord321: snocone: cuzsis: chandler_vt: uttertosh: Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not surprised. I wish someone if not someones in that theater were carrying that night. The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too. Better chance having a gun you can use than just cowering back in fear and waiting to get shot like a dog.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

This. And Bit'O'Gristle: What if you are first one to get shot? So you will have no time to react. But wishful thinking is fun and you are a hero in your mind.

Then you were shot first and can't do anything.

But the odds of you getting shot first are 1/100 (Or whatever the seating capacity of the theater was).

Nobody is saying that you're guaranteed to live if you attack this guy back, death is still very likely. Only that it's generally preferable than sitting around waiting to be shot, where death is almost certain.

/also if someone had shot back he might have come to his senses in a hurry and left mid-attack. (Happens frequently enough with violent criminals)

W/o training and experience, some panic and run. Most just collapse.
Still, he would have most likely gone thru his ordinance before being engaged.

You're basing this statement on what exactly?

training sir!
what kind of training?
HOAARRRMMYY TRAINING SIR!


Well played sir.
 
2012-07-24 06:39:06 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: a culture that has historically been fairly submissive to its government.



As opposed to America who passes the Patriot Act with flying colors. Not once, not twice, but three times.
 
2012-07-24 06:46:45 PM

The Face Of Oblivion: Shorter uttertosh: I'm a gigantic baby who can't defend himself, therefore nobody should be able to engage in self-defense and we should keep wagging our fingers at murderers in the hope they see the error of their ways.


yeeas.... totally got me nailed. Jävla pucko.

toraque: uttertosh: toraque: Screw that. I'd have shiat on someone else' panties. Because you know the gunman will stop, think to himself, 'what the fark is that sick pervert doing to that girl?' and then I'd escape in the confusion.

Now that¨s super funny.... and quite smrt. :-D

I'm a firm believer in not letting tragedy stop you from doing what you'd be doing normally anyway.


Heh. *favourited for honesty in the face of ITG's*
 
2012-07-24 06:52:59 PM

intelligent comment below: Noticeably F.A.T.: a culture that has historically been fairly submissive to its government.


As opposed to America who passes the Patriot Act with flying colors. Not once, not twice, but three times.


While a blot on our society, Patriot Act is like 1/4 as intrusive as the Japanese government. Not even joking

"'Home visit is one of the most important duties of officers assigned to police...' explains the Japanese National Police Agency. In twice-a-year visit, officers fill out Residence Information Cards about who lives where and which family member to contact in case of emergency, what relation people in the house have to each other, what kind of work they do, if they work late, and what kind of cars they own.[37] The police also check on all gun licensees, to make sure that no gun has been stolen or misused, that the gun is securely stored, and that the licensees are emotionally stable.[38]

The close surveillance of gun owners and householders comports with the police tradition of keeping close tabs on many private activities.[39] For example, the nation's official year-end police report includes statistics like 'Background and Motives for Girls' Sexual Misconduct'. The police recorded 9,402 such incidents in 1985, and determined that 37.4 per cent of the girls had been seduced, and the rest had sex 'voluntarily'. The two leading reasons for having sex voluntarily were 'out of curiosity' for 19.6 per cent, and 'liked particular boy', for 18.1 per cent.[40] The fact that police keep records on sex is simply a reflection of their keeping an eye on everything, including guns. Every person is the subject of a police dossier.[41]

Link
 
2012-07-24 06:57:08 PM
scout48: Gee Whiz mister, didn't know you could read my mind like that. I always thought the NRA encouraged people to own guns AND learn how to use them safely. I always thought that they provided the template many states use for required CCW training. I always thought they helped fund programs to educate young shooters so they could become responsible gun owners. So glad someone who knows so much about it could educate me.

/I have a CCW permit. I have completed a few training courses educating me on laws and refreshing me on safe firearms practices. I have donated to and attended NRA sponsored training and shooting events and attended others that used their templates for course work. I not only believe in gun ownership, but in responsible gun ownership. Not all members of the NRA may feel that way, but the organization sure does. It feels that ignorant gun owners provide ammo for anti-gun groups and legislation.


So why the big screaming objections (from the organization) to anything that would lead to more responsible gun ownership? A certain number of training hours required, written testing, proficiency testing, liscensing, period retesting/background check to renew the license. It's a deadly weapon, you should have to prove that you know how to use it properly. Registration of the gun, transfer of registration. Every gun fired once before being sold and the striation pattern on file.

The NRA says it wants to promote responsible ownership, but objects to anything that assure responsible ownership. I don't object so much to people owning guns, it's that anyone can buy an arsenal without having to show the slightest knowledge about the gun. And no one needs a semi-automatic weapon. Some categories of firearms should be off-limits to private ownership.

Yes, I know criminals obtain guns illegally. But it would be a lot more difficult for them if ownership were more regulated.

You have to prove you know how to drive a car and know the driving laws before you get a driver's license. If you want to own a car, you have to register it, make & model. Why can't we do the same for guns? People would have fewer objections to gun ownership if they knew it was truly responsible ownership.
 
2012-07-24 07:01:04 PM

Phins: scout48: Gee Whiz mister, didn't know you could read my mind like that. I always thought the NRA encouraged people to own guns AND learn how to use them safely. I always thought that they provided the template many states use for required CCW training. I always thought they helped fund programs to educate young shooters so they could become responsible gun owners. So glad someone who knows so much about it could educate me.

/I have a CCW permit. I have completed a few training courses educating me on laws and refreshing me on safe firearms practices. I have donated to and attended NRA sponsored training and shooting events and attended others that used their templates for course work. I not only believe in gun ownership, but in responsible gun ownership. Not all members of the NRA may feel that way, but the organization sure does. It feels that ignorant gun owners provide ammo for anti-gun groups and legislation.

So why the big screaming objections (from the organization) to anything that would lead to more responsible gun ownership? A certain number of training hours required, written testing, proficiency testing, liscensing, period retesting/background check to renew the license. It's a deadly weapon, you should have to prove that you know how to use it properly. Registration of the gun, transfer of registration. Every gun fired once before being sold and the striation pattern on file.

The NRA says it wants to promote responsible ownership, but objects to anything that assure responsible ownership. I don't object so much to people owning guns, it's that anyone can buy an arsenal without having to show the slightest knowledge about the gun. And no one needs a semi-automatic weapon. Some categories of firearms should be off-limits to private ownership.

Yes, I know criminals obtain guns illegally. But it would be a lot more difficult for them if ownership were more regulated.

You have to prove you know how to drive a car and know the driving laws before you get ...


Driving a car isn't an enumerated right. You don't have to register a car if you don't plan on using it on public roadways. You don't need an exhaustive knowledge of cars to purchase one and leave it in your garage.
 
2012-07-24 07:11:54 PM

Phins: And no one needs a semi-automatic weapon. Some categories of firearms should be off-limits to private ownership.


You realize that the bulk of weapons in the United States are "semi-automatic" correct? And that if you exclude them you're left with bolt-action rifles, revolvers, and some shotguns?

And that gun ownership is a right, where driving a car is a privilege?
 
2012-07-24 07:18:53 PM

intelligent comment below: As opposed to America who passes the Patriot Act with flying colors. Not once, not twice, but three times.


1: The Patriot Act has less support among the people than it does in the government (which is supposed to represent the people, but lately hasn't been doing a particularly awesome job).

2: The Patriot Act isn't even close to being as overbearing as the Japanese government.

3: The Japanese people have been submitting almost completely to their government(s) for longer than the USA has existed as a nation.

Trying to say that the American culture is even close to being as submissive as the Japanese culture by bringing up a single law is just as asinine as saying that gun control at Japan's level is possible in the USA, because it works in Japan. It's an absolutely ridiculous comparison.
 
2012-07-24 07:24:54 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not surprised. I wish someone if not someones in that theater were carrying that night. The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too. Better chance having a gun you can use than just cowering back in fear and waiting to get shot like a dog.


Not to mention had they wasted the perp, it would have saved a ton of money keeping this buttwipe alive until they can fry him.
 
2012-07-24 07:36:26 PM

redmid17: The fact that police keep records on sex is simply a reflection of their keeping an eye on everything, including guns. Every person is the subject of a police dossier.[41]


Just like in the US, if you get arrested they keep stats on you. If they don't pull you in for illegal sexual activities, then no one cares about with whom or why you have any sexxx. Keep to yourself, and they too often won't notice when you beat your kids to death either - yeah, you register your household when you move to a neighborhood but that's about it.

If you want guns, you get them imported from North Korea along with your meth and counterfeit bills. Being an island has surely helped stem the flow of guns, but gun crime is certainly not unheard of and people worry that it's increasing.

Of course in the meantime people have chosen to run people down in the street with trucks and then jump out and get stabby on those left.

Meanwhile people make fun of the Patriot Act while at the same time portraying Americans as gun happy crazy people who like to shoot up random places for hell of it. News of mass shootings in the US usually gets met with comments of "what, another one? LOL"
 
2012-07-24 07:40:11 PM

martid4: Not to mention had they wasted the perp, it would have saved a ton of money keeping this buttwipe alive until they can fry him.


Yeah but it might have meant his apartment blowing up and killing more people. I'm sure the neighbors (not to mention the police department) are happy that didn't happen.

I doubt this guy will ever walk free again. The only real question is exactly where he'll be living out his days.
 
2012-07-24 08:29:35 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: Mitch Taylor's Bro: What say the reasonable Fark Gun Owners?

Find someone who will let you shoot their guns, or go to a range that will rent them to you. Try as many as you can, and decide what you like.


I actually did. I went to a range with two friends, one of whom told me to get the 9mm because cheap, available ammo. I shot .380 and 9mm pistols, 20 and 12 gauge shotguns, and two AR-15s chambered for different rounds. I felt comfortable with the 9mm, but the .380 did have less recoil. But this guy said the rounds for the .380 were a lot more expensive.

I guess I could rent a .38 revolver as snocone suggested and give that a try, too.

/Or just do what I did and get one of everything.

Not on my budget. :-) I think a shotgun is better for home defense, but didn't enjoy shooting it as much as a pistol. I liked shooting the rifle, too (reminded me of the BB and pellet guns I owned as a kid), but that's probably not a good option for home defense. Maybe someday, I'll get into more kinds of shooting and get a rifle, but first I need to get trained and proficient with one kind of gun.
 
2012-07-24 08:35:00 PM

Phins: an arsenal


he didn't have an arsenal dumbbell.
 
2012-07-24 08:35:05 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Mitch Taylor's Bro: snocone: Buffalo77: I going today. I am going to get a 9MM with 15 round mags and with buy couple extra mags. I was thinking Ruger or Berretta.

Get a revolver. Not an expensive one, no larger than .38.
Practice, practice, practice.
Automatics are secondary pistols.
15 rounds are heavy.

I was thinking about getting a revolver as a Boobiesol due to the simplicity and reliability, but several friends have said that semi-automatics (specifically a Glock 17 or 19) are very reliable and easy to maintain. (Also that 9mm ammo is cheaper and easier to get.) What say the reasonable Fark Gun Owners?

This is my CC weapon.
Bear protection.


Saw R. Lee Ermey fire one of those on "Lock and Load." Sent shock waves up his arm that were cool in super-slow-mo, but probably hurt like a biatch in real life. No, thanks. I'm pretty sure I won't encounter a brown bear in the woods where I hang out, just black bears that are more interested in my ice chest than in me.
 
2012-07-24 08:42:25 PM
Remember that "assault weapons" account for only 4% of firearm caused murders.
 
2012-07-24 08:42:30 PM

Kit Fister: redlegrick: uttertosh: Bit'O'Gristle: uttertosh: Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not surprised. I wish someone if not someones in that theater were carrying that night. The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too. Better chance having a gun you can use than just cowering back in fear and waiting to get shot like a dog.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

/yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.


except, IRL: you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

I agree with that last one. I carry, and I've experienced tear gas. If I were in the theatre, the LAST thing I would've done would be to draw and fire. It's dark, there's confusing light sources (the screen), confusion, people darting this way and that. Add to this mix an incapacitating agent, and all someone'd do is add to the body count. Maybe if the dude were within spitting distance, I may have attempted, but other than that, I'd have been @ssh0les and elbows getting out of there too.

And yes, I consider myself well-trained, I have taken the FBI equivalent course and am an alternate on my club's PPC league, so I am not spewing ITG nonsense here.

amen, although one FBI equivalent course does not make one "Well-trained"...I've taken several dozen law enforcement training courses, and shoot competition regularly, that still doesn't make me "well trained", just someone interested in being good with the tools he chooses to carry, since i have a lot of textbook experience, little actual street experience in shooting at things or ...


Well, I'm probably a little better trained than most ITGs. I tend to shoot 2-3 times a month (my club's very affordable), and I shoot at least 50 a month out of my carry piece. Scored B-27/B-29 targets, informal, but we follow general PPC rules on it. Yeah, not a really high paced exercise, but I reiterate, more than many people do.
 
2012-07-24 08:46:17 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: I actually did. I went to a range with two friends, one of whom told me to get the 9mm because cheap, available ammo. I shot .380 and 9mm pistols, 20 and 12 gauge shotguns, and two AR-15s chambered for different rounds. I felt comfortable with the 9mm, but the .380 did have less recoil. But this guy said the rounds for the .380 were a lot more expensive.


I'm not saying to ignore your buddys' advice, I'm just saying that convenience shouldn't be a higher priority than being able to comfortably shoot. It's not going to matter how cheap the ammo is if you can't hit anything with it. that's why I was recommending shooting as many different guns as possible. And not just basic types (though that may be all that is really feasible for you to do), I mean different makes and models. For instance, I can shoot a GLOCK 30 if I need to, but the SA XD45 fits my hand like it grew there. You won't be able to tell the difference without shooting them.

Though it's going to work out better to do as much research as possible up front, don't be afraid of having to get it absolutely right the first time. Guns hold their value very well, so if you end up changing your mind you can always sell it and get something else.

Mitch Taylor's Bro: I guess I could rent a .38 revolver as snocone suggested and give that a try, too.


If you're going to do that, also try a .357. It'll shoot .38 and .375, so you have some more options, but it will be a larger and heavier gun.

Mitch Taylor's Bro: I think a shotgun is better for home defense


Not necessarily. I wouldn't turn one down, but I'd take a good pistol over a shotgun any day of the week. Movies and games have given shotguns an undeserved reputation for being unstoppable.
 
2012-07-24 08:49:56 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: Mitch Taylor's Bro: I think a shotgun is better for home defense

Not necessarily. I wouldn't turn one down, but I'd take a good pistol over a shotgun any day of the week. Movies and games have given shotguns an undeserved reputation for being unstoppable.


Plus I imagine that pistol whipping someone is much more satisfying that hitting them with the butt of a shotgun.

/shotgun owner
 
2012-07-24 08:51:58 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Saw R. Lee Ermey fire one of those on "Lock and Load." Sent shock waves up his arm that were cool in super-slow-mo, but probably hurt like a biatch in real life. No, thanks. I'm pretty sure I won't encounter a brown bear in the woods where I hang out, just black bears that are more interested in my ice chest than in me.


I got to shoot one once, and wasn't completely impressed. Don't get me wrong, it was fun, it just didn't strike as particularly useful. For a handgun it's heavy and unwieldy, and it doesn't have the range or accuracy of a rifle. I just can't stop thinking that I have better guns for that level of oomph.
 
2012-07-24 08:52:24 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: If you're going to do that, also try a .357. It'll shoot .38 and .375, so you have some more options, but it will be a larger and heavier gun.


It will also shoot 9mm in certain firearms. My blackhawk with the conversion cylinder is an example.

If you are looking for a fun gun to shoot and also a gun for self defense, the Judge is fun. Also Taurus makes a nice 22-mag that is good.
 
Displayed 50 of 619 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report