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.

(CNN)   CNN Editorial: Average Americans don't need an AK-47. James Homes Editorial: I did ok without one. Fark Comments Editorial: You can't stop lunatics regardless of legislation   (cnn.com) divider line 315
    More: Stupid, Un-American, assault weapons, gun culture, Urban League, ordinary Americans, syndicated columnist  
•       •       •

1542 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Aug 2012 at 12:03 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-08-01 07:59:34 AM
Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

The spring system on the Beta C-Mag allows for indefinite storage while loaded, vs. conventional magazines whose spring tension decays over time due to metal fatigue. Even with only a few rounds stored in a Beta C-Mag, it's a better magazine for home defense than a stock one. Also, you might want to look up all the words in the Second Amendment you claim to support.
 
2012-08-01 09:02:57 AM
Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

Law enforcement doesn't either.
 
2012-08-01 09:26:04 AM

syrynxx: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

The spring system on the Beta C-Mag allows for indefinite storage while loaded, vs. conventional magazines whose spring tension decays over time due to metal fatigue. Even with only a few rounds stored in a Beta C-Mag, it's a better magazine for home defense than a stock one. Also, you might want to look up all the words in the Second Amendment you claim to support.


That doesn't really explain why you need 100 rounds.
 
2012-08-01 09:34:50 AM

syrynxx: The spring system on the Beta C-Mag allows for indefinite storage while loaded, vs. conventional magazines whose spring tension decays over time due to metal fatigue. Even with only a few rounds stored in a Beta C-Mag, it's a better magazine for home defense than a stock one.


Idea: put that feature in a normal magazine NOT invented for the sole purpose of killing as many human targets as possible without stopping. (No, wait, that's all of them)
 
2012-08-01 09:39:15 AM
It's reached the point where I cringe any time a non-gun-enthusiast says "AK 47," because 99% of the time they're REFERRING TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GUN.
 
2012-08-01 09:55:40 AM

Bloody William: It's reached the point where I cringe any time a non-gun-enthusiast says "AK 47," because 99% of the time they're REFERRING TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GUN.


Yeah, the editorial would have been a lot more effective if it said AR-15 instead of AK-47.
 
2012-08-01 11:42:58 AM

hillbillypharmacist: Bloody William: It's reached the point where I cringe any time a non-gun-enthusiast says "AK 47," because 99% of the time they're REFERRING TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GUN.

Yeah, the editorial would have been a lot more effective if it said AR-15 instead of AK-47.


I think that what Bloody Bill from Bunker Hill is referring to is the fact that the AK-47 is a milled receiver, fully automatic assault rifle. The typical "AK-47" you hear about in the gun debate in the United States is actually a semi-automatic only clone of the AKM, the stamped-receiver descendant of the original AK-47.

Yes, it's a tad pedantic, but we're talking about two different things, a semi-automatic rifle that *LOOKS* like a machine gun, and an actual machine gun.
 
2012-08-01 11:43:40 AM
i like guns. I hunt, i own many of them, i have all my licenses.

But i do not understand why a civilian needs a semi-automatic rifle and extended magazines. The US military managed to win WW2 with the average soldier armed with an 8 round semi-auto rifle. Why does some rando person need more firepower than that? what sort of insane deer/20 person home invader assault team do people think are going to come after them?
 
2012-08-01 11:50:14 AM

Happy Hours: syrynxx: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

The spring system on the Beta C-Mag allows for indefinite storage while loaded, vs. conventional magazines whose spring tension decays over time due to metal fatigue. Even with only a few rounds stored in a Beta C-Mag, it's a better magazine for home defense than a stock one. Also, you might want to look up all the words in the Second Amendment you claim to support.

That doesn't really explain why you need 100 rounds.


This does:

i49.tinypic.com

Korean shop owners defending their property during the LA Riots.
 
2012-08-01 11:50:49 AM

hillbillypharmacist: Bloody William: It's reached the point where I cringe any time a non-gun-enthusiast says "AK 47," because 99% of the time they're REFERRING TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GUN.

Yeah, the editorial would have been a lot more effective if it said AR-15 instead of AK-47.


That's what I was thinking. He couldn't even go to the trouble of figuring out which gun Holmes actually used?
 
2012-08-01 11:51:57 AM

Happy Hours: That doesn't really explain why you need 100 rounds.


Have you ever tried to fire an AK? They're not the most accurate rifle out there.
 
2012-08-01 11:56:39 AM

tlchwi02: i like guns. I hunt, i own many of them, i have all my licenses.

But i do not understand why a civilian needs a semi-automatic rifle and extended magazines. The US military managed to win WW2 with the average soldier armed with an 8 round semi-auto rifle. Why does some rando person need more firepower than that? what sort of insane deer/20 person home invader assault team do people think are going to come after them?


Yes, because riots never happen. Looting in the aftermath of a major disaster never happens. Multiple criminal home invasions never happen.

I'd also point out that the average US soldier in WWII also had a guy with a for-real machine gun in his squad (Usually a BAR), he also carried a varying number of grenades, and he typically was facing an opponent carrying a 5 shot bolt action rifle (so having an 8 shot semi-auto gave him a significant advantage).

Don't get stuck on stupid.
 
2012-08-01 12:01:40 PM
i286.photobucket.com

/obligatory
 
2012-08-01 12:03:35 PM

Pokey.Clyde: [i286.photobucket.com image 850x708]

/obligatory


I'll be honest, I used to be a kneejerk gun control-supporting liberal. However, I'm a tech journalist, and eventually I realized the same bullshiat general media pulls with any technology coverage is exactly the same as the bullshiat they pull with gun coverage, and that there's a lot of ignorance out there. I researched the subject a bit and learned to appreciate guns, even if I don't have any non-Nerf ones myself.

Basically, I'm anti-gun control now because Gibsons have been hacked and GUIs were written in Visual Basic to track criminals.
 
2012-08-01 12:06:13 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Bloody William: It's reached the point where I cringe any time a non-gun-enthusiast says "AK 47," because 99% of the time they're REFERRING TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GUN.

Yeah, the editorial would have been a lot more effective if it said AR-15 instead of AK-47.


He was referring to Obama's comments which referred to AK-47's.
 
2012-08-01 12:06:18 PM

dittybopper: I'd also point out that the average US soldier in WWII also had a guy with a for-real machine gun in his squad (Usually a BAR), he also carried a varying number of grenades, and he typically was facing an opponent carrying a 5 shot bolt action rifle (so having an 8 shot semi-auto gave him a significant advantage).

Don't get stuck on stupid.


Are you seriously comparing the armament of US infantrymen on the front line in WWII with private citizens in their own homes in the United States?
 
2012-08-01 12:06:23 PM

dittybopper: Happy Hours: syrynxx: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

The spring system on the Beta C-Mag allows for indefinite storage while loaded, vs. conventional magazines whose spring tension decays over time due to metal fatigue. Even with only a few rounds stored in a Beta C-Mag, it's a better magazine for home defense than a stock one. Also, you might want to look up all the words in the Second Amendment you claim to support.

That doesn't really explain why you need 100 rounds.

This does:



Korean shop owners defending their property during the LA Riots.


So you're stocking up for the upcoming race war?
 
2012-08-01 12:07:22 PM
Average Americans don't need or want an AK-47, unless you consider 3 inches average.
 
2012-08-01 12:09:14 PM
You see, CNN, in a free society things are not banned based on the perceived "need" of the item/material in question. If you want it banned, it's your job to come up with a compelling farking reason for that thing to be banned. The fact that so-called "assault weapons" are used in about 2% of violent gun crimes isn't compelling enough.

/I'll kill time before work monitoring this thread
//Watching the anti-gun nuts get schooled as usual
 
2012-08-01 12:09:59 PM

neritz: Happy Hours: That doesn't really explain why you need 100 rounds.

Have you ever tried to fire an AK? They're not the most accurate rifle out there.


They are accurate enough that they've been gradually replacing the venerable lever action .30-30 carbine as the deep woods/swamp deer rifle, along with the SKS. The 7.62x39mm cartridge is ballistically similar to the .30-30, the guns are light, handy, and allow for a quick follow-up, and accurate enough out to hit the vital area on a deer at 100 yards, which is probably twice as far as you can see in the deep woods.

The only twist is that you have to use limited capacity magazines to conform with game laws.

Which brings up an interesting point: Why should we extend game laws that were intended to limit the capabilities of hunters in order to foster a mentality of "fair chase", and to assure that game species thrive so that future hunters would be able to hunt, to guns, magazines, and/or accessories not generally intended to be used for hunting?

That's like saying you can't have a race car because it's not street-legal, ignoring the fact that race cars have a perfectly legal use on a track. Would you require that a race car be capable of no more than twice the local speed limit? Wouldn't that be a stupid law? Same thing with guns.
 
2012-08-01 12:11:12 PM

Aarontology: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

Law enforcement doesn't either.


I've always thought that the most reasonable standard for determining what firearms people could own would be "anything that police use." The police, after all, are civilians. They are far more like the traditional militia than any of those backwood yokel groups.

It would also be a good reason to restrain the militarization of police forces.
 
2012-08-01 12:12:01 PM

Cletus C.: Average Americans don't need or want an AK-47, unless you consider 3 inches average.


I'm calling "Markley's Law".

You just lost the argument by default.
 
2012-08-01 12:12:40 PM

odinsposse: Aarontology: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

Law enforcement doesn't either.

I've always thought that the most reasonable standard for determining what firearms people could own would be "anything that police use." The police, after all, are civilians. They are far more like the traditional militia than any of those backwood yokel groups.

It would also be a good reason to restrain the militarization of police forces.


But police are expected to deal with criminals who may acquire their firearms illegally. We've learned shootouts turnout very bad when the police are out gunned.
 
2012-08-01 12:13:02 PM
Oh look another one of these threads

Repeal the second amendment

Gun ownership should be legal but it shouldn't be a right
 
2012-08-01 12:13:48 PM
Wild dogs/coyotes run in packs.

Until the government can prevent that from happening I need at least 30 round mags.


The number of crimes committed with assault weapons with hi cap mags is less then the amount of voter fraud committed....so using logic provided by the anti voter ID crowd assault weapons and hi cap magazines should not be legislated.
 
2012-08-01 12:14:06 PM

Bloody William: I'll be honest, I used to be a kneejerk gun control-supporting liberal. However, I'm a tech journalist, and eventually I realized the same bullshiat general media pulls with any technology coverage is exactly the same as the bullshiat they pull with gun coverage, and that there's a lot of ignorance out there. I researched the subject a bit and learned to appreciate guns, even if I don't have any non-Nerf ones myself.

Basically, I'm anti-gun control now because Gibsons have been hacked and GUIs were written in Visual Basic to track criminals.


I'm glad you brought this up. I've stated in other threads that it kills me when the same farkers that rail on journalist/law makers misunderstanding of technology, yet freely buy into misunderstanding/ignorance of firearms.

And again, as I've said in other threads...

When you rant against "assault rifles" you sound just as retarded as Senator Stevens when he talked about the internet being a "series of tubes" and ranting against net neutrality
 
2012-08-01 12:14:10 PM

Fart_Machine: So you're stocking up for the upcoming race war?


What upcoming race war? Do you know something we don't? What have your buddies on Stormfront been talking about?
 
2012-08-01 12:14:12 PM

dittybopper: Cletus C.: Average Americans don't need or want an AK-47, unless you consider 3 inches average.

I'm calling "Markley's Law".

You just lost the argument by default.


You sound small penised.
 
2012-08-01 12:14:48 PM
I've fired off the semi-automatic version of the AK-47 a few times, it's fun, but I don't know if I would purchase one.

I can't see a time I'd realistically need it, nor would I go to the range with it much. Frankly, ammo for it isn't cheap and I'd rather practice with something I carry with me then something that's more for show and fun.
 
2012-08-01 12:15:24 PM
Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

We know the faster you go the more likley you are to get killed or kill some one else with a motor vehicle. So Seriously, plese offer mea reasonable and rational explanantion as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer or rescue personel need to go faster then 30 MPH? All motor vehicles should be forced by law to go no faster then 30 MPH.

Yeah that is the argument you are making, do you see how stupid it is?

How about this one? We know that swimming pools are more dangerous to children then guns. Swimming pools kill more children each year then guns do. Seriously, offer me a reasonable explanantion as to why someone who is not an adult is allowed to swim?
 
2012-08-01 12:15:37 PM
Considering that even if automatic guns such as the AK were made illegal people who wanted to use them to kill people would still be able to get their hands on them I don't really see a need to make them illegal, controlled yes, illegal no.
 
2012-08-01 12:15:49 PM

Giltric: Wild dogs/coyotes run in packs.

Until the government can prevent that from happening I need at least 30 round mags.


The number of crimes committed with assault weapons with hi cap mags is less then the amount of voter fraud committed....so using logic provided by the anti voter ID crowd assault weapons and hi cap magazines should not be legislated.


Your point will be valid when voter fraud starts killing people
 
2012-08-01 12:16:34 PM
I like the idea of cities being able to limit gun rights and not on the state level. In NY for instance you can live in an area where your nearest neighbor is 10 miles away or you can live in the some of the most densely populated real estate on the planet and in those places protecting yourself with a gun is endangering orders of magnitude more people than you, it ain't just about you...
 
2012-08-01 12:17:47 PM

Slaves2Darkness: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

We know the faster you go the more likley you are to get killed or kill some one else with a motor vehicle. So Seriously, plese offer mea reasonable and rational explanantion as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer or rescue personel need to go faster then 30 MPH? All motor vehicles should be forced by law to go no faster then 30 MPH.

Yeah that is the argument you are making, do you see how stupid it is?

How about this one? We know that swimming pools are more dangerous to children then guns. Swimming pools kill more children each year then guns do. Seriously, offer me a reasonable explanantion as to why someone who is not an adult is allowed to swim?


Because swimming pools and cars have primary functions that aren't killing people/causing physical damage. This argument was just as stupid when people started bringing it up two weeks ago.
 
2012-08-01 12:17:57 PM

Cletus C.: dittybopper: Cletus C.: Average Americans don't need or want an AK-47, unless you consider 3 inches average.

I'm calling "Markley's Law".

You just lost the argument by default.

You sound small penised.


I noticed no EIP.....would you like to do some research?
 
2012-08-01 12:18:34 PM
Need? There are loads of things I don't really "need". My AR-15 makes my life more enjoyable. And I have a right to own it according to the constitution. I never shot anyone. Fark off libs.
 
2012-08-01 12:18:50 PM

dittybopper: Fart_Machine: So you're stocking up for the upcoming race war?

What upcoming race war? Do you know something we don't? What have your buddies on Stormfront been talking about?


I don't know anyone on Stormfront. I figured you would have the insight since you keep bringing up an incident that happened 20 years ago and are a RON PAUL supporter.
 
2012-08-01 12:19:36 PM

CPennypacker: Your point will be valid when voter fraud starts killing people


Do Iraqis not count anymore?
 
2012-08-01 12:19:54 PM

Fart_Machine: So you're stocking up for the upcoming race war?


Its not like we will ever have another riot right?

Ok your trolling, i know I get that i understand believe me, your just doing your job and you are doing well. But outlaw ALL assault weapons, outlaw them and ban anything associated with them and what have you stopped with the top two most recent mass shootings? Nothing. Cho used a couple pistols with impossible to ban hi cap mags, hell ban 10+ round mags, and you just end up carrying more mags. How does it affect sideshow bob? more shotgun use? yea thats so much less lethal. So what would you need to do to stop mass shootings, or hell even slow it down so its not as effective? Ban all guns that cary more than a couple rounds in the chamber? hell revolvers too for that matter. And then go and get ALL those weapons that fall under that catagory out of civillian hands, what are you going to ask nicely?

So pro-nogunz advocates want door to door swat actions on american citizens to remove those weapons from circulation? No, no they dont, because it would lead to daily "gun nut vs. swat rundown" with growing tally of dead that would put todays shooting to absolute shame. But hey they would most ly be conservative gun owners getting killed and conservative cops getting shot doing their job, so maybe thats the goal. Politics by attrition, whatever works amiright?

But no this is a stupid issue, with no solution other than bloodshed. But we all know that right? thats why this is a troll thread with all of us throwing feces at each other like snowballs.
 
2012-08-01 12:19:56 PM

CPennypacker: Giltric: Wild dogs/coyotes run in packs.

Until the government can prevent that from happening I need at least 30 round mags.


The number of crimes committed with assault weapons with hi cap mags is less then the amount of voter fraud committed....so using logic provided by the anti voter ID crowd assault weapons and hi cap magazines should not be legislated.

Your point will be valid when voter fraud starts killing people


If your goal is to save lives through regulation there are far better ways to do it than gun laws. Food safety legislation, subsidized exercise programs, mental health care clinics and forced HPV vaccination would all save more people per dollar spent than trying to legislate "assault weapons".
 
2012-08-01 12:20:09 PM
A real AK-47 has been basically outlawed since 1986's full auto ban and closing of the registry. What yous ee as an AK-47 now is a semi-auto rifle with several US built parts that uses an AK style mechanism.

A real, full auto AK would be outside most peoples acceptable price range.
 
2012-08-01 12:20:42 PM

qorkfiend: Are you seriously comparing the armament of US infantrymen on the front line in WWII with private citizens in their own homes in the United States?


Well... I *DO* own two 8mm Mausers, a Lee-Enflield, and a Garand so I'm getting a kick out of your example.
(that's actually every rifle I own, use one of the Mausers for deer hunting)
 
2012-08-01 12:20:56 PM
dittybopper:
Which brings up an interesting point: Why should we extend game laws that were intended to limit the capabilities of hunters in order to foster a mentality of "fair chase", and to assure that game species thrive so that future hunters would be able to hunt, to guns, magazines, and/or accessories not generally intended to be used for hunting?

Well there is the small matter that perhaps magazines intended to make it less convenient for a hunter to massacre every deer in his wood lot ALSO make it less convenient for some loony toon to massacre every human being in a crowded cinema.

1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?
2. if you need a gun for hunting... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?
3. if you need a gun to protect yourself from tyrannical government... lol good luck, maybe you shouldn't have spent your adult life voting for the biggest ass buckets on the ballot.

Then again I'm not American, so perhaps I simply don't understand some obvious reason citizens should not be restricted from stockpiling small arms with few if any restrictions to protect the public from violent nutters.
 
2012-08-01 12:20:59 PM
No, Subby, that's not an editorial.
 
2012-08-01 12:21:03 PM
Submitard:Fark Comments Editorial: You can't stop lunatics regardless of legislation

Good point! With rape laws and murder laws on the books rape and murders still happen. So let's get rid of those laws too right? Or does this stupid thinking only magically work for gun laws?
 
2012-08-01 12:21:03 PM

Anenu: Considering that even if automatic guns such as the AK were made illegal people who wanted to use them to kill people would still be able to get their hands on them I don't really see a need to make them illegal, controlled yes, illegal no.


Come on.
 
2012-08-01 12:21:19 PM

CPennypacker: Giltric: Wild dogs/coyotes run in packs.

Until the government can prevent that from happening I need at least 30 round mags.


The number of crimes committed with assault weapons with hi cap mags is less then the amount of voter fraud committed....so using logic provided by the anti voter ID crowd assault weapons and hi cap magazines should not be legislated.

Your point will be valid when voter fraud starts killing people


Is this a day where Bush was a legitimatly elected president?


/be consistant
 
2012-08-01 12:21:36 PM
Is this the thread where people argue that CCW holders will inevitably shoot at each other because they lack the training and cannot identify the original aggressor in a mass shoot out amongst chaos and panic from the general population?

Then the Fark CCW holders try to justify their firearm expertise then try to rationally explain what they would have done in a a mass shooting situation to incapacitate the original shooter.

My favorite type of thread.
 
2012-08-01 12:22:52 PM

Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: Wild dogs/coyotes run in packs.

Until the government can prevent that from happening I need at least 30 round mags.


The number of crimes committed with assault weapons with hi cap mags is less then the amount of voter fraud committed....so using logic provided by the anti voter ID crowd assault weapons and hi cap magazines should not be legislated.

Your point will be valid when voter fraud starts killing people

Is this a day where Bush was a legitimatly elected president?


/be consistant


Bush didn't win by voter fraud. The Supreme Court isn't elected.
 
2012-08-01 12:23:01 PM

Carth: odinsposse: Aarontology: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

Law enforcement doesn't either.

I've always thought that the most reasonable standard for determining what firearms people could own would be "anything that police use." The police, after all, are civilians. They are far more like the traditional militia than any of those backwood yokel groups.

It would also be a good reason to restrain the militarization of police forces.

But police are expected to deal with criminals who may acquire their firearms illegally. We've learned shootouts turnout very bad when the police are out gunned.


Talking about the bank robbers that led to the creation of SWAT, are you?

Cause that event led directly to the creation of just what you're talking about... better equipped and better trained SPECIAL units of police. A SPECIAL unit that has access to SPECIAL weapons and is trained in SPECIAL tactics.

Or we could just give every cop in the country an M4A1 and a handful of grenades and flashbangs, full body armor, tanks and a LAW and watch crime drop to zero in just a few years!

/we're so farking weird about law in this country.
//Even weirder when we synthesize law and order with the second amendment.
 
2012-08-01 12:23:11 PM
1. Basing law on the Aurora shoots is a bad idea. He had explosives, was very smart, and was going to kill people regardless of whether he had an assault weapon or not. As a matter of fact, I would have been more scared of the shotgun at that range than an AK.

2. There is no merit to limiting magazine size. If it can easily be removed, it isn't going to put that much of a dent in rounds per minute of someone firing semi-auto.

3. If you want to put a dent in gun crime, you need to be looking at handguns. No one knocks over a quicky mart or car jacks someone carrying an assault rifle. Might as well have a sign over your head saying "I'm up to no good, please call the cops." Handguns, being easily concealable, are the weapon of choice.
 
2012-08-01 12:23:26 PM

orclover: Fart_Machine: So you're stocking up for the upcoming race war?

Its not like we will ever have another riot right?

Ok your trolling, i know I get that i understand believe me, your just doing your job and you are doing well. But outlaw ALL assault weapons, outlaw them and ban anything associated with them and what have you stopped with the top two most recent mass shootings? Nothing. Cho used a couple pistols with impossible to ban hi cap mags, hell ban 10+ round mags, and you just end up carrying more mags. How does it affect sideshow bob? more shotgun use? yea thats so much less lethal. So what would you need to do to stop mass shootings, or hell even slow it down so its not as effective? Ban all guns that cary more than a couple rounds in the chamber? hell revolvers too for that matter. And then go and get ALL those weapons that fall under that catagory out of civillian hands, what are you going to ask nicely?

So pro-nogunz advocates want door to door swat actions on american citizens to remove those weapons from circulation? No, no they dont, because it would lead to daily "gun nut vs. swat rundown" with growing tally of dead that would put todays shooting to absolute shame. But hey they would most ly be conservative gun owners getting killed and conservative cops getting shot doing their job, so maybe thats the goal. Politics by attrition, whatever works amiright?

But no this is a stupid issue, with no solution other than bloodshed. But we all know that right? thats why this is a troll thread with all of us throwing feces at each other like snowballs.


Its funny how you took my simple snark at a stupid analogy to mean outlawing all assault weapons. Lighten up Francis.
 
2012-08-01 12:23:35 PM
Better to have guns and somewhat more dangerous crime than no guns and no crime.
 
2012-08-01 12:23:51 PM

Carth: CPennypacker: Giltric: Wild dogs/coyotes run in packs.

Until the government can prevent that from happening I need at least 30 round mags.


The number of crimes committed with assault weapons with hi cap mags is less then the amount of voter fraud committed....so using logic provided by the anti voter ID crowd assault weapons and hi cap magazines should not be legislated.

Your point will be valid when voter fraud starts killing people

If your goal is to save lives through regulation there are far better ways to do it than gun laws. Food safety legislation, subsidized exercise programs, mental health care clinics and forced HPV vaccination would all save more people per dollar spent than trying to legislate "assault weapons".


Hey lets do those too!
 
2012-08-01 12:24:17 PM

No Such Agency: 1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?


As many as it takes to hit the attacker. Your going to miss a few times in a panic situation, at night, while scared. It's better to have the capacity then to not have it.
 
2012-08-01 12:25:28 PM

tlchwi02: i like guns. I hunt, i own many of them, i have all my licenses.

But i do not understand why a civilian needs a semi-automatic rifle and extended magazines. The US military managed to win WW2 with the average soldier armed with an 8 round semi-auto rifle.


Plus tanks, fighter planes, battleships, bombers, and oh yeah, a pair of atomic bombs.

Silly example is silly.
 
2012-08-01 12:25:37 PM

Frank N Stein: Anenu: Considering that even if automatic guns such as the AK were made illegal people who wanted to use them to kill people would still be able to get their hands on them I don't really see a need to make them illegal, controlled yes, illegal no.

Come on.


Alright, fully automatic assault rifles, does it really matter? People will get their hands on any gun that is illegal if they want to go and shoot people and with that intention in mind they aren't exactly going to be scarred about breaking the law to get them now are they?
 
2012-08-01 12:25:45 PM

Corvus: Submitard:Fark Comments Editorial: You can't stop lunatics regardless of legislation

Good point! With rape laws and murder laws on the books rape and murders still happen. So let's get rid of those laws too right? Or does this stupid thinking only magically work for gun laws?


Are you claiming more laws dealing with rape and murder will eliminate those crimes?

Noone is asking for a relaxation of firearms laws....people with common sense don't believe more laws will stop anything.

The way you start losing your shiat in posts and start bolding things and using big fonts leads me to believe you are mentally unstable....why should "mentally unstable" only come into play with firearms....how do we know you're not gonna lose your shiat and plow into a sidewalk full of pedestrians.
 
2012-08-01 12:26:53 PM

Antimatter: No Such Agency: 1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?

As many as it takes to hit the attacker. Your going to miss a few times in a panic situation, at night, while scared. It's better to have the capacity then to not have it.


I hope you don't live in an apartment complex.. heh!
 
2012-08-01 12:27:01 PM

Anenu: Frank N Stein: Anenu: Considering that even if automatic guns such as the AK were made illegal people who wanted to use them to kill people would still be able to get their hands on them I don't really see a need to make them illegal, controlled yes, illegal no.

Come on.

Alright, fully automatic assault rifles, does it really matter? People will get their hands on any gun that is illegal if they want to go and shoot people and with that intention in mind they aren't exactly going to be scarred about breaking the law to get them now are they?


lol
 
2012-08-01 12:27:29 PM
Slaves2Darkness:
We know the faster you go the more likley you are to get killed or kill some one else with a motor vehicle. So Seriously, plese offer mea reasonable and rational explanantion as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer or rescue personel need to go faster then 30 MPH? All motor vehicles should be forced by law to go no faster then 30 MPH.

30 mph might be a bit slow on the highway, given how big the continent is. But that IS the approximate limit in cities, because going faster in those areas is unnecessary and unsafe. So it's actually a pretty good argument.
 
2012-08-01 12:27:32 PM

dittybopper: Yes, because riots never happen. Looting in the aftermath of a major disaster never happens. Multiple criminal home invasions never happen.


Your basic argument seems to be that theoretically a situation could arise where some sort of riot occurs where a business owner would need to be able to fire hundreds of rounds into a massive crowd without having time to reload. I don't think that hypothetical situations are a worthy justification for real life policy.
 
2012-08-01 12:28:20 PM

Headso: Antimatter: No Such Agency: 1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?

As many as it takes to hit the attacker. Your going to miss a few times in a panic situation, at night, while scared. It's better to have the capacity then to not have it.

I hope you don't live in an apartment complex.. heh!


Glasers.....if they are good enough for the inisde of an airplane they should be good enough for inside apartment buildings.
 
2012-08-01 12:28:23 PM

neritz: Happy Hours: That doesn't really explain why you need 100 rounds.

Have you ever tried to fire an AK? They're not the most accurate rifle out there.


Fired an Uzi once. About shot my face off. Those things should come with warning labels.
 
2012-08-01 12:28:36 PM
You can't stop lunatics regardless of legislation

Actually, some good, public mental health legislation (like setting up a public mental health system) would go a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG way towards preventing these tragedies from happening.

So you're wrong, subby.
 
2012-08-01 12:29:06 PM

Carth: odinsposse: Aarontology: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

Law enforcement doesn't either.

I've always thought that the most reasonable standard for determining what firearms people could own would be "anything that police use." The police, after all, are civilians. They are far more like the traditional militia than any of those backwood yokel groups.

It would also be a good reason to restrain the militarization of police forces.

But police are expected to deal with criminals who may acquire their firearms illegally. We've learned shootouts turnout very bad when the police are out gunned.


That doesn't explain the tanks, or every podunk police force getting Homeland Security money to fight terrorism.
 
2012-08-01 12:29:16 PM
If terrorists hate us because of our freedoms, then?
 
2012-08-01 12:29:53 PM

Anenu: Alright, fully automatic assault rifles, does it really matter? People will get their hands on any gun that is illegal if they want to go and shoot people and with that intention in mind they aren't exactly going to be scarred about breaking the law to get them now are they?


Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. But full auto weapons are already heavily controlled due to the 1934 National Firearms act and the Hughes amendment in the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection act. I kinda sounded like a douchebag with my reply, so I apologize.
 
2012-08-01 12:29:59 PM

tlchwi02: dittybopper: Yes, because riots never happen. Looting in the aftermath of a major disaster never happens. Multiple criminal home invasions never happen.

Your basic argument seems to be that theoretically a situation could arise where some sort of riot occurs where a business owner would need to be able to fire hundreds of rounds into a massive crowd without having time to reload. I don't think that hypothetical situations are a worthy justification for real life policy.


Hypothetical? We have had riots every time a wall street banker gets a bonus, every time a sports team wins something, and every time a gang banger gets shot by police.
 
2012-08-01 12:30:40 PM

Giltric: Headso: Antimatter: No Such Agency: 1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?

As many as it takes to hit the attacker. Your going to miss a few times in a panic situation, at night, while scared. It's better to have the capacity then to not have it.

I hope you don't live in an apartment complex.. heh!

Glasers.....if they are good enough for the inisde of an airplane they should be good enough for inside apartment buildings.


Two layers of drywall and you are in the next apartment...
 
2012-08-01 12:31:02 PM
America needs to pass the strict gun laws of Norway. That's the only way to prevent these horrific massacres.
 
2012-08-01 12:31:07 PM

CPennypacker: Oh look another one of these threads

Repeal the second amendment

Gun ownership should be legal but it shouldn't be a right


I still have a hard time believing that it is a right:

The Second Amendment
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.

We, as a people, need to stop ignoring the first half. We are long overdue in this country on having a discussion on what the first half actually means (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,). Let's have this talk before we decide that you have the legal right to shoot and kill the door-to-door salesman that came on your property. Allowing anyone to buy a gun does not sound like a well regulated militia to me......
 
2012-08-01 12:31:19 PM

CPennypacker: Carth: CPennypacker: Giltric: Wild dogs/coyotes run in packs.

Until the government can prevent that from happening I need at least 30 round mags.


The number of crimes committed with assault weapons with hi cap mags is less then the amount of voter fraud committed....so using logic provided by the anti voter ID crowd assault weapons and hi cap magazines should not be legislated.

Your point will be valid when voter fraud starts killing people

If your goal is to save lives through regulation there are far better ways to do it than gun laws. Food safety legislation, subsidized exercise programs, mental health care clinics and forced HPV vaccination would all save more people per dollar spent than trying to legislate "assault weapons".

Hey lets do those too!


Great idea! the problem as i see it is the government is limited in time, will and resources. I think we should take care of all the low hanging fruit that will save hundreds of thousands (or millions) of lives before fighting a long protracted war against gun ownership.

Yes, the government can do more than one thing at a time (in theory) but they can't do it all at once. If people are clamoring for new gun laws ( best number I could find was rifles killed 358 people in 2010) than they aren't writing their representatives and pushing for things like the HPV vaccination (expected to pass smoking as one of the leading causes of cancer) or mental health (30k-35k suicides a year). Without people complaining about it it will never get done.
 
2012-08-01 12:32:06 PM

tlchwi02: dittybopper: Yes, because riots never happen. Looting in the aftermath of a major disaster never happens. Multiple criminal home invasions never happen.

Your basic argument seems to be that theoretically a situation could arise where some sort of riot occurs where a business owner would need to be able to fire hundreds of rounds into a massive crowd without having time to reload. I don't think that hypothetical situations are a worthy justification for real life policy.


That situation never happened during the LA Riots either. Looters didn't care about the capacity of ammo. They didn't want to get shot. It wasn't like they were holding off zombie hordes.
 
2012-08-01 12:32:09 PM

dittybopper:
This does:

[i49.tinypic.com image 600x400]

Korean shop owners defending their property during the LA Riots.


Except not one of them is using an assault rifle. I see a likely semi-automatic rifle, 2 shotguns and one handgun in that picture. None are set up to fire more than one round at a time. If you're protecting your house/store wouldn't it make more sense to go for accuracy than to just shoot up your entire neighborhood?
 
2012-08-01 12:32:42 PM

Pokey.Clyde: [i286.photobucket.com image 850x708]

/obligatory


The flint pistol always cracks me up.
 
2012-08-01 12:32:51 PM
Legalize drugs and watch gun violence drop.
 
2012-08-01 12:33:00 PM

odinsposse: Carth: odinsposse: Aarontology: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

Law enforcement doesn't either.

I've always thought that the most reasonable standard for determining what firearms people could own would be "anything that police use." The police, after all, are civilians. They are far more like the traditional militia than any of those backwood yokel groups.

It would also be a good reason to restrain the militarization of police forces.

But police are expected to deal with criminals who may acquire their firearms illegally. We've learned shootouts turnout very bad when the police are out gunned.

That doesn't explain the tanks, or every podunk police force getting Homeland Security money to fight terrorism.


Yea, I don't think they need tanks, drones, or APCs but I have no problem letting them have reasonable access too special weapons to combat likely threats in the area. Even if it is regulated to a specific department like another farker said.
 
2012-08-01 12:33:17 PM
Every time I look into one of these threads I get the impression many of the anti gun control people are actually living in Somalia and not in the US. Are you really in serious danger of being attacked by a small army in your home so you need a huge gun with plenty of ammunition for self-defense?

(Don't really understand where the Second Amendment says you have the right to own any gun you want, it just says you have the right to bear arms...)
 
2012-08-01 12:33:24 PM
Anyone who says you need a hi-cap magazine for hunting is an unsportsmanlike cock. Better men than us hunted bigger game armed with an inaccurate single-shot rifles - and they didn't have a Safeway nearby with a deli case if they missed.

How sporting is it to hunt a deer - maybe armed with antlers (which are only good from close range) and speed - using an automatic weapon, a laser sight and a 100-round drum mag? I'd say, if in that situation you come up empty, you lose all rights to shoot at anything not made of paper.
 
2012-08-01 12:33:47 PM

No Such Agency: Then again I'm not American, so perhaps I simply don't understand some obvious reason citizens should not be restricted from stockpiling small arms with few if any restrictions to protect the public from violent nutters.


We like to fantasize about Wyatt Erp and the Hatfields and McCoys and we are really defeatist about gun violence to the point of considering it the acceptable cost of living in today's crazy world. And then we refuse to recognize that there might be a problem with sending people to war for 5 - 10 years and then having em be totally cool when they're done. And we also refuse to recognize that mental healthcare is inadequate and overpriced in this country.

And we're only capable of thinking about one thing at a time. So it's Guns OR mental health, never both.

Hope that helps.
 
2012-08-01 12:33:57 PM

Jacko8x: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,).


We've had this discussion. The Supreme court has had this discussion. Look up Heller v DC, then get back into the conversation.
 
2012-08-01 12:34:25 PM

Carth: CPennypacker: Carth: CPennypacker: Giltric: Wild dogs/coyotes run in packs.

Until the government can prevent that from happening I need at least 30 round mags.


The number of crimes committed with assault weapons with hi cap mags is less then the amount of voter fraud committed....so using logic provided by the anti voter ID crowd assault weapons and hi cap magazines should not be legislated.

Your point will be valid when voter fraud starts killing people

If your goal is to save lives through regulation there are far better ways to do it than gun laws. Food safety legislation, subsidized exercise programs, mental health care clinics and forced HPV vaccination would all save more people per dollar spent than trying to legislate "assault weapons".

Hey lets do those too!

Great idea! the problem as i see it is the government is limited in time, will and resources. I think we should take care of all the low hanging fruit that will save hundreds of thousands (or millions) of lives before fighting a long protracted war against gun ownership.

Yes, the government can do more than one thing at a time (in theory) but they can't do it all at once. If people are clamoring for new gun laws ( best number I could find was rifles killed 358 people in 2010) than they aren't writing their representatives and pushing for things like the HPV vaccination (expected to pass smoking as one of the leading causes of cancer) or mental health (30k-35k suicides a year). Without people complaining about it it will never get done.


Maybe if we weren't voting on repealing healthcare or limiting abortions every day we'd HAVE SOME FKING TIME FOR IT ALL
 
2012-08-01 12:34:30 PM

Slaves2Darkness: We know the faster you go the more likley you are to get killed or kill some one else with a motor vehicle. So Seriously, plese offer mea reasonable and rational explanantion as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer or rescue personel need to go faster then 30 MPH? All motor vehicles should be forced by law to go no faster then 30 MPH.


Except it's more like, let's put governing devices to limit speeds to no faster than 30MPH in all the NEW cars, but all the old ones will stay legal. You can still have the old cars, and drive them as fast as you like, but you can't buy a new one that'll go over the limit.
 
2012-08-01 12:34:42 PM

Carth: But police are expected to deal with criminals who may acquire their firearms illegally. We've learned shootouts turnout very bad when the police are out gunned.


Like what? North Hollywood? The one where the only two people killed were the asshole bank robbers? The one where if the police had deer rifles in .308 Winchester or .30'06 Springfield in their cars like they used to have back in the 1950's, they could have stopped them cold?

Actually the typical 1950's patrol rifle would have been a Winchester or Marlin lever action in .30-30 Winchester, with pump and bolt action rifles a distant second, but even those probably would have been effective against the bank robbers in North Hollywood.
 
2012-08-01 12:35:54 PM

Klopfer: Every time I look into one of these threads I get the impression many of the anti gun control people are actually living in Somalia and not in the US. Are you really in serious danger of being attacked by a small army in your home so you need a huge gun with plenty of ammunition for self-defense?

(Don't really understand where the Second Amendment says you have the right to own any gun you want, it just says you have the right to bear arms...)


Heh. People still hunt deer with automatic weapons? How cute.

What do you think land mines are for?
 
2012-08-01 12:36:20 PM

Happy Hours: syrynxx: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

The spring system on the Beta C-Mag allows for indefinite storage while loaded, vs. conventional magazines whose spring tension decays over time due to metal fatigue. Even with only a few rounds stored in a Beta C-Mag, it's a better magazine for home defense than a stock one. Also, you might want to look up all the words in the Second Amendment you claim to support.

That doesn't really explain why you need 100 rounds.


Need is irrelevant.

The primary rationale in the 2nd amendment indicates everyone gets to have a gun so a militia can be raised when needed, but folks get their guns even when not in the militia. The folks writing it still remembered a nasty war where they rebelled against their country, and were able to do so because everyone was armed before they started assembling, not after. And they were armed with the same stuff the government soldiers had.

The 2nd Amendment protects the ability to respond to both an external threat and an internal one from an oppressive regime.

Yes, it's unlikely we'll ever need it. Yes, it makes our day-to-day world a little more dangerous all around. Freedoms are like that--we have rights, but there's an unspoken (unfortunately so) responsibility to use them carefully, and there will always be people who abuse the right and ignore the responsibility. Just because someone does so, however, should never cause the rest of us to lose the right.

If we tried, we could probably round up all the guns, or most of them. It would probably make life safer for people. But we need to remember that life in general isn't safe, and accept a little more risk in our lives in order to maintain our rights.
 
2012-08-01 12:36:21 PM

Dr Dreidel: How sporting is it to hunt a deer - maybe armed with antlers (which are only good from close range) and speed - using an automatic weapon, a laser sight and a 100-round drum mag?


That's why I move to ban throws in Street Fighter. It's total bullshiat! I blocked that shiat!
 
2012-08-01 12:36:30 PM

CPennypacker: Slaves2Darkness: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

We know the faster you go the more likley you are to get killed or kill some one else with a motor vehicle. So Seriously, plese offer mea reasonable and rational explanantion as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer or rescue personel need to go faster then 30 MPH? All motor vehicles should be forced by law to go no faster then 30 MPH.

Yeah that is the argument you are making, do you see how stupid it is?

How about this one? We know that swimming pools are more dangerous to children then guns. Swimming pools kill more children each year then guns do. Seriously, offer me a reasonable explanantion as to why someone who is not an adult is allowed to swim?

Because swimming pools and cars have primary functions that aren't killing people/causing physical damage. This argument was just as stupid when people started bringing it up two weeks ago.


Yet they are every bit as lethal when improperly used...

Are their more guns in the u s of a or swimming pools? Which has got a higher fatality rate?

While unorthodox, his comparison is valid.

Or if you prefer, the internet was designed to make sure the military could nuke the world into a burnt cinder. The internet has a lethal purpose. Ban it.
 
2012-08-01 12:36:31 PM

Headso: Antimatter: No Such Agency: 1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?

As many as it takes to hit the attacker. Your going to miss a few times in a panic situation, at night, while scared. It's better to have the capacity then to not have it.

I hope you don't live in an apartment complex.. heh!


I do actually, which is why I use a .40 165gr JHP rather then say, a 180 gr FMJ round.

It should stop at the walls quite nicely.
 
2012-08-01 12:36:52 PM

TheBitterest: dittybopper:
This does:

[i49.tinypic.com image 600x400]

Korean shop owners defending their property during the LA Riots.

Except not one of them is using an assault rifle. I see a likely semi-automatic rifle, 2 shotguns and one handgun in that picture. None are set up to fire more than one round at a time. If you're protecting your house/store wouldn't it make more sense to go for accuracy than to just shoot up your entire neighborhood?



Seen many assault rilfes have ya?
 
2012-08-01 12:37:29 PM

No Such Agency: dittybopper:
Then again I'm not American, so perhaps I simply don't understand some obvious reason citizens should not be restricted from stockpiling small arms with few if any restrictions to protect the public from violent nutters.


i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-08-01 12:37:38 PM
Antimatter:
No Such Agency: 1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?

As many as it takes to hit the attacker. Your going to miss a few times in a panic situation, at night, while scared. It's better to have the capacity then to not have it.


The average # of shots fired in self-defense seems to be less than three*. You think you might need 17-30?

* source: I Googled "average number of shots fired in self-defense"
 
2012-08-01 12:38:24 PM

Dr Dreidel: Anyone who says you need a hi-cap magazine for hunting is an unsportsmanlike cock. Better men than us hunted bigger game armed with an inaccurate single-shot rifles - and they didn't have a Safeway nearby with a deli case if they missed.

How sporting is it to hunt a deer - maybe armed with antlers (which are only good from close range) and speed - using an automatic weapon, a laser sight and a 100-round drum mag? I'd say, if in that situation you come up empty, you lose all rights to shoot at anything not made of paper.


Protip: 2nd amendment isn't about hunting.

PS, many states already regulate the amount of ammunition you can have in a magazine while hunting.

PPS, laser sights don't work the way you think they work apparently

PPPS, considering that most many states already limit the amount of ammo in a magazine on a hunt, what difference does it make if the gun automatically expels the spend round and rechambers another round and a gun that uses a lever mechanism that can have a followup shot almost as quick?
 
2012-08-01 12:38:26 PM

Cletus C.: dittybopper: Cletus C.: Average Americans don't need or want an AK-47, unless you consider 3 inches average.

I'm calling "Markley's Law".

You just lost the argument by default.

You sound small penised.


I'd say my cock is average sized:

img134.imageshack.us

My cock can hold 1" flints in it's jaws. If you look very carefully, you can see my touch-hole liner.

But, again, since you invoked a variant of "Godwin's Law", you lost. Sucks to be you, I guess.
 
2012-08-01 12:38:31 PM

Anenu: Alright, fully automatic assault rifles, does it really matter? People will get their hands on any gun that is illegal if they want to go and shoot people and with that intention in mind they aren't exactly going to be scarred about breaking the law to get them now are they?


It doesn't matter if a criminal can get ahold of any particular weapon. A truly determined individual can do damn near anything.

This doesn't mean that damn near anything should be legal.

Laws reduce the likelihood. And that's all it needs to do to be valuable.
 
2012-08-01 12:38:57 PM

Jacko8x: CPennypacker: Oh look another one of these threads

Repeal the second amendment

Gun ownership should be legal but it shouldn't be a right

I still have a hard time believing that it is a right:

The Second Amendment
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.

We, as a people, need to stop ignoring the first half. We are long overdue in this country on having a discussion on what the first half actually means (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,). Let's have this talk before we decide that you have the legal right to shoot and kill the door-to-door salesman that came on your property. Allowing anyone to buy a gun does not sound like a well regulated militia to me......


Because the state must maintain a militia to perform its function, and because that is fundamentally dangerous to freedom, the right of the people, as an entity separate from the militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
2012-08-01 12:39:26 PM

beta_plus: America needs to pass the strict gun laws of Norway. That's the only way to prevent these horrific massacres.


Norway doesn't have particularly strict gun laws. They have far more guns per capita than most populations on the planet.
 
2012-08-01 12:40:12 PM

Dr Dreidel: How sporting is it to hunt a deer - maybe armed with antlers (which are only good from close range) and speed - using an automatic weapon, a laser sight and a 100-round drum mag? I'd say, if in that situation you come up empty, you lose all rights to shoot at anything not made of paper.


Okay so the other day I was walking through the forest and I came upon a clearing filled with 100 deer...
 
2012-08-01 12:40:30 PM

Corvus: Submitard:Fark Comments Editorial: You can't stop lunatics regardless of legislation

Good point! With rape laws and murder laws on the books rape and murders still happen. So let's get rid of those laws too right? Or does this stupid thinking only magically work for gun laws?


I am pro gun, in general, but I have to side with you on this point CORVUS.

I have no real issue with sensible regulation. Flat out knee jerk bans, I do have issue.
 
2012-08-01 12:40:58 PM
You see this image?

www.airsoftretreat.com

That is a safety. It has three settings: No firing (top), semi-auto (middle), and full auto (bottom).

There is NO legitimate reason that ANY NON-MILITARY PERSON should have that set on full auto, nor is there one for 50-round mags, unless fighting a tyrranical government, and even then, you really should be focusing more on aiming then spraying (aim for the face, you noobs). So here's my solution:

Guns should have GPS built in that triggers any time the safety is set to full auto. That way the cops can find your ass before you reload after shooting up the park/theater/wherever.
 
2012-08-01 12:41:58 PM

evoke: Need? There are loads of things I don't really "need". My AR-15 makes my life more enjoyable. And I have a right to own it according to the constitution. I never shot anyone. Fark off libs.


Hey, not all libs are gun-grabbing loonies. I am an atheist libby lib libtard, and I pack heat. I love guns, love taking them to the range to poke holes in targets, and I keep one loaded and locked just in case.

/Glock 20, 10mm
//Ruger LCP, .380
///Ruger .22 revolver
 
2012-08-01 12:41:58 PM

odinsposse: Aarontology: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

Law enforcement doesn't either.

I've always thought that the most reasonable standard for determining what firearms people could own would be "anything that police use." The police, after all, are civilians. They are far more like the traditional militia than any of those backwood yokel groups.

It would also be a good reason to restrain the militarization of police forces.


Exactly. They're more like military units than police forces. SWAT teams and the like exist for a reason, we don't need your average cop to be armed like a soldier.
 
2012-08-01 12:42:17 PM

dittybopper: tlchwi02: i like guns. I hunt, i own many of them, i have all my licenses.

But i do not understand why a civilian needs a semi-automatic rifle and extended magazines. The US military managed to win WW2 with the average soldier armed with an 8 round semi-auto rifle. Why does some rando person need more firepower than that? what sort of insane deer/20 person home invader assault team do people think are going to come after them?

Yes, because riots never happen. Looting in the aftermath of a major disaster never happens. Multiple criminal home invasions never happen.

I'd also point out that the average US soldier in WWII also had a guy with a for-real machine gun in his squad (Usually a BAR), he also carried a varying number of grenades, and he typically was facing an opponent carrying a 5 shot bolt action rifle (so having an 8 shot semi-auto gave him a significant advantage).

Don't get stuck on stupid.


Dont get stuck on crazy. How many riots have you been in psycho boy? Lots of looting and dark skinned people invading your home? And how the fark is a rifle, shotgun or revolver not enough protection in that situation?

But hey don't let logic interrupt your paranoia...perhaps just to be safe you should stock up in case of a zombie apocalypse. I'm sure if it does you'll come out of your weapons bunker with guns blazing and save us all.
 
2012-08-01 12:42:20 PM

Dansker: beta_plus: America needs to pass the strict gun laws of Norway. That's the only way to prevent these horrific massacres.

Norway doesn't have particularly strict gun laws. They have far more guns per capita than most populations on the planet.


Damnit, McBain!
 
2012-08-01 12:43:21 PM

Antimatter: Headso: Antimatter: No Such Agency: 1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?

As many as it takes to hit the attacker. Your going to miss a few times in a panic situation, at night, while scared. It's better to have the capacity then to not have it.

I hope you don't live in an apartment complex.. heh!

I do actually, which is why I use a .40 165gr JHP rather then say, a 180 gr FMJ round.

It should stop at the walls quite nicely.


I have fired a .22 hollow point into a 50 gallon tupperware thing full of water and some of them went through to the other side, I can't see a couple sheets of drywall stopping it... But hey, I'm not yer neighbor so lock and load dude...
 
2012-08-01 12:43:24 PM

DORMAMU: CPennypacker: Slaves2Darkness: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

We know the faster you go the more likley you are to get killed or kill some one else with a motor vehicle. So Seriously, plese offer mea reasonable and rational explanantion as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer or rescue personel need to go faster then 30 MPH? All motor vehicles should be forced by law to go no faster then 30 MPH.

Yeah that is the argument you are making, do you see how stupid it is?

How about this one? We know that swimming pools are more dangerous to children then guns. Swimming pools kill more children each year then guns do. Seriously, offer me a reasonable explanantion as to why someone who is not an adult is allowed to swim?

Because swimming pools and cars have primary functions that aren't killing people/causing physical damage. This argument was just as stupid when people started bringing it up two weeks ago.

Yet they are every bit as lethal when improperly used...

Are their more guns in the u s of a or swimming pools? Which has got a higher fatality rate?

While unorthodox, his comparison is valid.

Or if you prefer, the internet was designed to make sure the military could nuke the world into a burnt cinder. The internet has a lethal purpose. Ban it.


No, he doesn't have a valid point, but its cute that you are able to twist logic until it supports your worldview.
 
2012-08-01 12:44:01 PM

CPennypacker: Giltric: Wild dogs/coyotes run in packs.

Until the government can prevent that from happening I need at least 30 round mags.


The number of crimes committed with assault weapons with hi cap mags is less then the amount of voter fraud committed....so using logic provided by the anti voter ID crowd assault weapons and hi cap magazines should not be legislated.

Your point will be valid when voter fraud starts killing people


Lyndon Johnson won his 1948 election to the Senate based on voter fraud. If he had lost, he most likely would have ended his political career, and he wouldn't have been VP when Kennedy (who's presidential election is often considered tainted by voter fraud) got shot, thus becoming President. If that hadn't happened, he wouldn't have been in the position to escalate our involvement in Vietnam, which killed at least 58,000 Americans, and dog knows how many Vietnamese. The guns I currently own have killed 0 people, so they are less dangerous than voter fraud.
 
2012-08-01 12:45:16 PM

Jacko8x: CPennypacker: Oh look another one of these threads

Repeal the second amendment

Gun ownership should be legal but it shouldn't be a right

I still have a hard time believing that it is a right:

The Second Amendment
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.

We, as a people, need to stop ignoring the first half. We are long overdue in this country on having a discussion on what the first half actually means (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,). Let's have this talk before we decide that you have the legal right to shoot and kill the door-to-door salesman that came on your property. Allowing anyone to buy a gun does not sound like a well regulated militia to me......


Go read 10 U.S.C. sec. 311. If you are between that ages of 17 and 45, are an able-bodied US citizen (or a legal resident in the process of becoming naturalized), then you are in the militia.
 
2012-08-01 12:46:02 PM
Nope. Don't need one.

Why? Because I've already got one.

No Such Agency:
1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?
2. if you need a gun for hunting... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?
3. if you need a gun to protect yourself from tyrannical government... lol good luck, maybe you shouldn't have spent your adult life voting for the biggest ass buckets on the ballot.

Then again I'm not American, so perhaps I simply don't understand some obvious reason citizens should not be restricted from stockpiling small arms with few if any restrictions to protect the public from violent nutters.


I'm expecting to fire anywhere between zero to twenty-eight shots on my way to my rifles, then a number between zero and 120 when I reach my AK. Depends on the situation. Sure, there will be a few realods in there, but I'm quick enough that the time won't be significant.

I don't hunt, so zero.

My gun protects me from tyrannical government by existing. Consider this: there are almost 89 firearms in the USA for every 100 people. If any government should wish to exercise tyranny on the American population, think about the expense. That's the function the guns serve: to make any foreign or domestic jackboot crew think twice about trying to crush the American people, because we'd cost too damn much in blood to put down.

As for why we should have them: because we're free. We toyed with the idea of being subjects, said "No thank you, George," and rose up and freed ourselves. We paid for that freedom with our own blood, twice if you're on the "Civil War was about slavery" side. Three times if you're crazy enough to think England cared about the War of 1812. Freedom is the reason I am armed, for I will have no man, be he drugged up mugger, home invader, or homeland invader, encroach upon my freedom.

And if that's not a good enough reason for you, I say screw you and your little queen too.
 
2012-08-01 12:46:10 PM

devildog123: Lyndon Johnson won his 1948 election to the Senate based on voter fraud. If he had lost, he most likely would have ended his political career, and he wouldn't have been VP when Kennedy (who's presidential election is often considered tainted by voter fraud) got shot, thus becoming President. If that hadn't happened, he wouldn't have been in the position to escalate our involvement in Vietnam, which killed at least 58,000 Americans, and dog knows how many Vietnamese. The guns I currently own have killed 0 people, so they are less dangerous than voter fraud.


Did you call in John Yoo to torture that logic? I can hear it screaming from here.
 
2012-08-01 12:46:52 PM

syrynxx: The spring system on the Beta C-Mag allows for indefinite storage while loaded, vs. conventional magazines whose spring tension decays over time due to metal fatigue. Even with only a few rounds stored in a Beta C-Mag, it's a better magazine for home defense than a stock one. Also, you might want to look up all the words in the Second Amendment you claim to support.


Beta magazines are abysmal hunks of crap. Holmes had to reload (downing his AR15) because his Beta mag failed. This mirrors every instance of high rate of fire that I've seen with a Beta mag (or most comparable versions AR drum mags). There seems to be two versions that work, the old pre-94 Norinco's based on the AK drum design and the new XS 50rd drum.

Having said that, magazine springs fail from metal fatigue from use (being loaded then emptied via firing or manual emptying). I've seen mags stored loaded full for months to years that function fine. Metallurgy and magazine design have greatly improved in the 45+ years since the introduction of Stoners AR platform.

The more you know.
 
2012-08-01 12:47:21 PM

devildog123: CPennypacker: Giltric: Wild dogs/coyotes run in packs.

Until the government can prevent that from happening I need at least 30 round mags.


The number of crimes committed with assault weapons with hi cap mags is less then the amount of voter fraud committed....so using logic provided by the anti voter ID crowd assault weapons and hi cap magazines should not be legislated.

Your point will be valid when voter fraud starts killing people

Lyndon Johnson won his 1948 election to the Senate based on voter fraud. If he had lost, he most likely would have ended his political career, and he wouldn't have been VP when Kennedy (who's presidential election is often considered tainted by voter fraud) got shot, thus becoming President. If that hadn't happened, he wouldn't have been in the position to escalate our involvement in Vietnam, which killed at least 58,000 Americans, and dog knows how many Vietnamese. The guns I currently own have killed 0 people, so they are less dangerous than voter fraud.


If you're going to go back that many degrees then you need to count all of the deaths caused by the same kinds of guns you own since you wouldn't have them if the manufacturer wasn't making them and selling them.
 
2012-08-01 12:47:28 PM

No Such Agency: dittybopper:
Which brings up an interesting point: Why should we extend game laws that were intended to limit the capabilities of hunters in order to foster a mentality of "fair chase", and to assure that game species thrive so that future hunters would be able to hunt, to guns, magazines, and/or accessories not generally intended to be used for hunting?

Well there is the small matter that perhaps magazines intended to make it less convenient for a hunter to massacre every deer in his wood lot ALSO make it less convenient for some loony toon to massacre every human being in a crowded cinema.

1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?


I don't know. I'm not psychic.

2. if you need a gun for hunting... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?


For me? Precisely one. This is what I hunt with:

img236.imageshack.us

I do that because I found it to be too easy to hunt with a modern rifle. No "sport" in it anymore. But if I were shooting for survival reasons, either defensively or for food*, I'd use every farkin' way to cheat possible.


3. if you need a gun to protect yourself from tyrannical government... lol good luck, maybe you shouldn't have spent your adult life voting for the biggest ass buckets on the ballot.


So if I don't vote for the biggest ass buckets, and neither does anyone else, that guarantees that my son, or his son, or my great grandson won't have to fight? How about my great-great-grandson? You can guarantee that?

Then again I'm not American, so perhaps I simply don't understand some obvious reason citizens should not be restricted from stockpiling small arms with few if any restrictions to protect the public from violent nutters.


Because this country was forged when the government tried to keep people from stockpiling arms. Back then, they were considered the violent nutters, and the crown thought it had a duty to protect it's subjects from those violent nutters.

*I'd actually probably set up snares and other traps. Less effort, and you don't have to worry about wasting precious ammo.
 
2012-08-01 12:47:48 PM

friday13: You see this image?

[www.airsoftretreat.com image 640x480]

That is a safety. It has three settings: No firing (top), semi-auto (middle), and full auto (bottom).

There is NO legitimate reason that ANY NON-MILITARY PERSON should have that set on full auto, nor is there one for 50-round mags, unless fighting a tyrranical government, and even then, you really should be focusing more on aiming then spraying (aim for the face, you noobs). So here's my solution:

Guns should have GPS built in that triggers any time the safety is set to full auto. That way the cops can find your ass before you reload after shooting up the park/theater/wherever.


Jeez.....people who know nothing about whats higly restricted/regulated under current law should not be asking for further legislation.

Its like men deciding on womens issues.
 
2012-08-01 12:48:23 PM
To all of you gun lovers, feel free to go buy your Glock, shotgun, hunting rifle, .22 pistol, .357 Magnum or any of the other guns at your disposal.
But you do not need an AK-47.


The funny thing?

Most "hunting rifles" are more powerful than the AK, and many have multi-round magazines, and you can usually buy bigger ones. This is just one more person stuck on how a gun "looks", who decided that it's time to chime in... I can buy 100 7mm Magnum elephant guns, with a bulllet almoist as big as thr friggin' AK itself, and this dude is fine with that because it's a "hunting" rifle...
 
2012-08-01 12:48:23 PM
In the wake of Aurora it is clear that the best thing we can do as a society is nothing.

Laws aren't meant to protect us directly. Rather, they're meant to protect our guns, which in turn will do the actual protecting. And, as of now, the laws protect our guns just fine.

If we need to find someone at fault here, it would be those that went to see the movie. They knew that they were going out in public, and they also knew that sometimes out in public there are bad guys. They should have been prepared for the OK Corrall, but instead they acted as though they were going out for a stroll on Sesame Street. That's what happens when you don't excercise your Second Amendment rights.

/needs another shower now
 
2012-08-01 12:48:54 PM

Headso: I have fired a .22 hollow point into a 50 gallon tupperware thing full of water and some of them went through to the other side, I can't see a couple sheets of drywall stopping it... But hey, I'm not yer neighbor so lock and load dude...


It may seem counter intuitive but smaller caliber bullets penetrate further through water. TMYK.
 
2012-08-01 12:49:16 PM

Jacko8x: CPennypacker: Oh look another one of these threads

Repeal the second amendment

Gun ownership should be legal but it shouldn't be a right

I still have a hard time believing that it is a right:

The Second Amendment
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.

We, as a people, need to stop ignoring the first half. We are long overdue in this country on having a discussion on what the first half actually means (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,). Let's have this talk before we decide that you have the legal right to shoot and kill the door-to-door salesman that came on your property. Allowing anyone to buy a gun does not sound like a well regulated militia to me......


OK, fine, we'll go with the government's definition of the militia then. I pull this out every damn time someone makes the argument.

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.

I'm an able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, and a citizen of the United States. I'm in "the militia of the United States". Does this mean I can own whatever the fark I want?
 
2012-08-01 12:50:58 PM

devildog123: I'm an able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, and a citizen of the United States. I'm in "the militia of the United States".


I think you skipped the 'National Guard' part.
 
2012-08-01 12:51:05 PM

friday13: Guns should have GPS built in that triggers any time the safety is set to full auto. That way the cops can find your ass before you reload after shooting up the park/theater/wherever.


Fair enough. Now, where did I put that roll of aluminum foil....

in case you aren't smart enough to get it, I can completely nullify that by surrounding the GPS antenna with foil, preventing it from receiving a signal or from transmitting it's location.
 
2012-08-01 12:52:43 PM

hillbillypharmacist: devildog123: I'm an able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, and a citizen of the United States. I'm in "the militia of the United States".

I think you skipped the 'National Guard' part.


The NG did not exist during the drafting on the Constitution.

The poster missed the part about the organized militia (NG/military) and unorganized militia.(everyone else)
 
2012-08-01 12:53:15 PM

the_geek: Headso: I have fired a .22 hollow point into a 50 gallon tupperware thing full of water and some of them went through to the other side, I can't see a couple sheets of drywall stopping it... But hey, I'm not yer neighbor so lock and load dude...

It may seem counter intuitive but smaller caliber bullets penetrate further through water. TMYK.


There's also a video of some guy shooting though a bunch of water and denim with the .40 the other poster was referring to. We're talking about some drywall here, if your gun can't shoot through that you can't shoot through a heavy winter coat and a sweater and then what's the point of even using it. What are these magical rounds that kill people but don't go through thin apartment walls.
 
2012-08-01 12:53:31 PM

hillbillypharmacist: devildog123: I'm an able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, and a citizen of the United States. I'm in "the militia of the United States".

I think you skipped the 'National Guard' part.


That only applies to females. Females who are in the National Guard are part of the militia.
 
2012-08-01 12:53:31 PM

hillbillypharmacist: devildog123: I'm an able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, and a citizen of the United States. I'm in "the militia of the United States".

I think you skipped the 'National Guard' part.


The part only about females?
 
2012-08-01 12:53:38 PM

hillbillypharmacist: devildog123: I'm an able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, and a citizen of the United States. I'm in "the militia of the United States".

I think you skipped the 'National Guard' part.


No, I didn't. I think you misread. The 'National Guard' applies to FEMALE citizens. Women aren't considered part of 'the militia' unless they're in the National Guard. By your way of thinking girls who aren't in the National Guard can't own guns, but it's almost my patriotic duty to own weapons.
 
2012-08-01 12:53:46 PM

Slaves2Darkness: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

We know the faster you go the more likley you are to get killed or kill some one else with a motor vehicle. So Seriously, plese offer mea reasonable and rational explanantion as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer or rescue personel need to go faster then 30 MPH? All motor vehicles should be forced by law to go no faster then 30 MPH.

Yeah that is the argument you are making, do you see how stupid it is?

How about this one? We know that swimming pools are more dangerous to children then guns. Swimming pools kill more children each year then guns do. Seriously, offer me a reasonable explanantion as to why someone who is not an adult is allowed to swim?


encrypted-tbn2.google.com
 
2012-08-01 12:55:30 PM

devildog123: No, I didn't. I think you misread. The 'National Guard' applies to FEMALE citizens. Women aren't considered part of 'the militia' unless they're in the National Guard. By your way of thinking girls who aren't in the National Guard can't own guns, but it's almost my patriotic duty to own weapons.


Oh, you're right. That's funny.
 
2012-08-01 12:55:54 PM

Dansker: beta_plus: America needs to pass the strict gun laws of Norway. That's the only way to prevent these horrific massacres.

Norway doesn't have particularly strict gun laws. They have far more guns per capita than most populations on the planet.


They're stricter than America's. Sorry, try harder.
 
2012-08-01 12:57:20 PM

devildog123: Jacko8x: CPennypacker: Oh look another one of these threads

Repeal the second amendment

Gun ownership should be legal but it shouldn't be a right

I still have a hard time believing that it is a right:

The Second Amendment
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.

We, as a people, need to stop ignoring the first half. We are long overdue in this country on having a discussion on what the first half actually means (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,). Let's have this talk before we decide that you have the legal right to shoot and kill the door-to-door salesman that came on your property. Allowing anyone to buy a gun does not sound like a well regulated militia to me......

OK, fine, we'll go with the government's definition of the militia then. I pull this out every damn time someone makes the argument.

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.

I'm an able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, and a citizen of the United States. I'm in "the militia of the United States". Does this mean I can own whatever the fark I want?


Yup, so long as it is part of a "well regulated" militia! Also, does this mean that alone over the age of 45 does not have the right "to keep and bear arms"?
 
2012-08-01 12:57:55 PM

Headso: Antimatter: Headso: Antimatter: No Such Agency: 1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?

As many as it takes to hit the attacker. Your going to miss a few times in a panic situation, at night, while scared. It's better to have the capacity then to not have it.

I hope you don't live in an apartment complex.. heh!

I do actually, which is why I use a .40 165gr JHP rather then say, a 180 gr FMJ round.

It should stop at the walls quite nicely.

I have fired a .22 hollow point into a 50 gallon tupperware thing full of water and some of them went through to the other side, I can't see a couple sheets of drywall stopping it... But hey, I'm not yer neighbor so lock and load dude...


Good point. Might have to switch to some air-safety rounds or something.

Although honestly, I hope never to ever have to use it against a person.
 
2012-08-01 01:01:36 PM

Jacko8x: alone


Jacko8x: Yup, so long as it is part of a "well regulated" militia! Also, does this mean that alone over the age of 45 does not have the right "to keep and bear arms"?


Sorry, I meant - Does this mean that anyone over the age of 45 does not have the right "to keep and bear arms"?
 
2012-08-01 01:02:35 PM
Why would someone need a 100 round magazine?

naturalunseenhazards.files.wordpress.com

They're an invasive species and hostile.
 
2012-08-01 01:04:52 PM

No Such Agency: Antimatter:
No Such Agency: 1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?

As many as it takes to hit the attacker. Your going to miss a few times in a panic situation, at night, while scared. It's better to have the capacity then to not have it.

The average # of shots fired in self-defense seems to be less than three*. You think you might need 17-30?

* source: I Googled "average number of shots fired in self-defense"


A higher capacity mag does allow you to spend more time isolating the actual discharge of the firearm when practicing (ie target shooting). You spend less time disrupting your form when reloading. This can* help isolate any aim issues you are having.

However, I agree 100 round drum is a tiny bit excessive. 99 should be good (ducks)

*less reloading helped my pistol firm alot - went to standard high capacity pistol mag (+5 rounds over standard.

As far as avg number of shots fired in self defense, I wont dispute that. However look at avg number of shots fired per person in police shootings. I would wager a vast majority of the self defense shooters shoot far more rounds in practice snd are thusly much better shots. Could be viewed they can be trusted more with rhe higher capacity as a result.
 
2012-08-01 01:05:49 PM

syrynxx: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?


Because I want to and I can.....eabod.

/has a scary looking rifle in gun safe. Thanks Mikhail!
 
2012-08-01 01:06:59 PM

beta_plus: Dansker: beta_plus: America needs to pass the strict gun laws of Norway. That's the only way to prevent these horrific massacres.

Norway doesn't have particularly strict gun laws. They have far more guns per capita than most populations on the planet.

They're stricter than America's.


Yes, captain obvious.

Sorry, try harder.

Try what?
 
2012-08-01 01:07:46 PM
I know some farmers who use a number of tools to maintain their property and business. Some of these tools are guns. Quite nice people.

I'm also acquainted with a bunch of gun culture douchebags. I don't think they're douchebags because of the guns so much as the guns represent a power the douchebags want to be a part of.

I just assume that anybody who owns a gun and doesn't have a business case for it is a piece of human garbage unless I've got strong reason to believe otherwise. Saves a lot of time.

/don't like the respect your conduct has earned you? conduct yourself differently
 
2012-08-01 01:09:04 PM

Headso: There's also a video of some guy shooting though a bunch of water and denim with the .40 the other poster was referring to. We're talking about some drywall here, if your gun can't shoot through that you can't shoot through a heavy winter coat and a sweater and then what's the point of even using it. What are these magical rounds that kill people but don't go through thin apartment walls.


Sorry, I wasn't disagreeing with you.. just posting some trivia.
 
2012-08-01 01:09:07 PM

Anenu: Considering that even if automatic guns such as the AK were made illegal people who wanted to use them to kill people would still be able to get their hands on them I don't really see a need to make them illegal, controlled yes, illegal no.


I assume you mean semi-automatic. Which media outlet do you work for?

You cannot legally own an "automatic" (select fire) AK unless you have a class C firearms license.
 
2012-08-01 01:09:45 PM

jesdynf: /don't like the respect your conduct has earned you? conduct yourself differently


Owning a legal item is now a "conduct"

Cool story bro.
 
2012-08-01 01:13:52 PM
Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

Single loading extended plinking sessions.
 
2012-08-01 01:14:59 PM

friday13: You see this image?
There is NO legitimate reason that ANY NON-MILITARY PERSON should have that set on full auto, nor is there one for 50-round mags, unless fighting a tyrranical government, and even then, you really should be focusing more on aiming then spraying (aim for the face, you noobs). So here's my solution:


You do realize full auto weapons are not the subject here, right? Last I heard there have been a total of 2 (two) homicides with legally owned fully automatic weapons in the United States since 1934, and in both cases, the murderers were police officers. There is no crime problem at all with legally owned fully automatic firearms.

But you do make an interesting point (but not intentionally), the authors of these bills count on people not knowing the difference between a real machine gun, for example an M-16 or AK 47, and guns that look like machine guns, like the AR15 series and any of a thousand AK Pattern semi auto rifles.

In reality, there is no crime problem with rifles at all, and even less with military pattern semi-autos. FBI reports rifles are used in less that 3% of crimes involving firearms, that is ALL rifles, not just scary looking ones.
 
2012-08-01 01:15:00 PM

dittybopper: in case you aren't smart enough to get it, I can completely nullify that by surrounding the GPS antenna with foil, preventing it from receiving a signal or from transmitting it's location.


But if you wrap the safety in foil, how will you change it?
 
2012-08-01 01:16:16 PM

Death_Poot: Anenu: Considering that even if automatic guns such as the AK were made illegal people who wanted to use them to kill people would still be able to get their hands on them I don't really see a need to make them illegal, controlled yes, illegal no.

I assume you mean semi-automatic. Which media outlet do you work for?

You cannot legally own an "automatic" (select fire) AK unless you have a class C firearms license.


El Wrongo.

Any American who can own a firearm can own a select-fire AK. All you need is someone willing to sell their rare, exceedingly valuable asset; a dealer - or pair of dealers if the gun in question crosses state lines - licensed to deal said firearms; about $25,000 to buy the gun; about $600 for tax stamp, dealer commissions, and shipping; a sheriff or chief of police willing to give you a signature; passport photo; fingerprints; and about six to nine months to wait for the ATF to get their shiat together...

See? No license needed!
 
2012-08-01 01:19:19 PM
Again, gun owners are fine with massacres carried out by their brethren. This isn't an issue for them.
 
2012-08-01 01:21:31 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Again, gun owners are fine with massacres carried out by their brethren. This isn't an issue for them.


Fascinating analysis, chap.
 
2012-08-01 01:21:32 PM

DeArmondVI: In the wake of Aurora it is clear that the best thing we can do as a society is nothing.

Laws aren't meant to protect us directly. Rather, they're meant to protect our guns, which in turn will do the actual protecting. And, as of now, the laws protect our guns just fine.

If we need to find someone at fault here, it would be those that went to see the movie. They knew that they were going out in public, and they also knew that sometimes out in public there are bad guys. They should have been prepared for the OK Corrall, but instead they acted as though they were going out for a stroll on Sesame Street. That's what happens when you don't excercise your Second Amendment rights.

/needs another shower now


That's because like so many people, you are focusing on the tools, and not the twisted mind that wielded them. Better psychological/psychiatric diagnosis and treatment and social support systems will prevent rampages like Aurora and Virginia Tech far better than trying to ban or eliminate the weapons they happened to use.
 
2012-08-01 01:22:16 PM

hillbillypharmacist: I'm doing my part!


Do you eat them? I've heard from some that they are full of germs.
 
2012-08-01 01:22:38 PM

CPennypacker: DORMAMU: CPennypacker: Slaves2Darkness: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

We know the faster you go the more likley you are to get killed or kill some one else with a motor vehicle. So Seriously, plese offer mea reasonable and rational explanantion as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer or rescue personel need to go faster then 30 MPH? All motor vehicles should be forced by law to go no faster then 30 MPH.

Yeah that is the argument you are making, do you see how stupid it is?

How about this one? We know that swimming pools are more dangerous to children then guns. Swimming pools kill more children each year then guns do. Seriously, offer me a reasonable explanantion as to why someone who is not an adult is allowed to swim?

Because swimming pools and cars have primary functions that aren't killing people/causing physical damage. This argument was just as stupid when people started bringing it up two weeks ago.

Yet they are every bit as lethal when improperly used...

Are their more guns in the u s of a or swimming pools? Which has got a higher fatality rate?

While unorthodox, his comparison is valid.

Or if you prefer, the internet was designed to make sure the military could nuke the world into a burnt cinder. The internet has a lethal purpose. Ban it.

No, he doesn't have a valid point, but its cute that you are able to twist logic until it supports your worldview.


And it is nice you can dismiss anything that threatens yours.

the results are what matters. Firearms have legitimate intended and designed uses other than homicide. This is fact. Target shooting is an olympic sport is you need proof.

I even provided an example of something that was designed to be integral in the most lethal (potentially) weapon system of all time, the nuclear strike to satisfy your original intent facet of your argument. The internet.

Show me where fireaems result in more injuries than cars annually. (remember, accidents must be included cause there are accifental shootings)

Show me where firearms kill more children than swimming pools.

The onus is on you to refute my statements. Or do you prefer to say, to illustrate, 100firearms caused childrens deaths are more important that 200 drownings of said children?
 
2012-08-01 01:23:00 PM
You should not be prohibited from buying an assault rifle w/a 100 round magazine to use for hunting.

You should, however, be made vicious fun of for being such a lousy shot and incredibly unsporting.

/very pro-gun
//but seriously, you need to give the deer a chance if you want to claim that what you're doing is a sport
 
2012-08-01 01:23:39 PM

friday13: dittybopper: in case you aren't smart enough to get it, I can completely nullify that by surrounding the GPS antenna with foil, preventing it from receiving a signal or from transmitting it's location.

But if you wrap the safety in foil, how will you change it?


That's a pretty ignorant statement.

By that, I mean that you have no idea how a mechanical safety/selector switch* that is integrated with an electronic radio transceiver would possibly work, nor do you understand how a GPS unit determines its location, nor do you understand how it would report that location to the police.

*Not every full-auto gun has the safety and selector switch integrated: Some have separate controls, though the modern trend has been to integrate them.
 
2012-08-01 01:23:58 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Again, gun owners are fine with massacres carried out by their brethren. This isn't an issue for them.


Again, Muslims are fine with massacres carried out by their brethren. This isn't an issue for them.

//your 'logic' at work.
 
2012-08-01 01:24:06 PM
I'm just gonna leave this here:
Link - Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
 
2012-08-01 01:24:40 PM

Magnanimous_J: hillbillypharmacist: I'm doing my part!

Do you eat them? I've heard from some that they are full of germs.


All meat is full of germs. That's what fire is for.
 
2012-08-01 01:24:44 PM

friday13: You see this image?

[www.airsoftretreat.com image 640x480]

That is a safety. It has three settings: No firing (top), semi-auto (middle), and full auto (bottom).

There is NO legitimate reason that ANY NON-MILITARY PERSON should have that set on full auto, nor is there one for 50-round mags, unless fighting a tyrranical government, and even then, you really should be focusing more on aiming then spraying (aim for the face, you noobs). So here's my solution:

Guns should have GPS built in that triggers any time the safety is set to full auto. That way the cops can find your ass before you reload after shooting up the park/theater/wherever.


You do know that since 1936, you can't just walk in to a gun store and buy one of those, right? You do know that since 1936 only TWO legally-owned fully automatic weapons have been used in crimes, right? And that one of those was owned by a police officer who blasted an informant with it? And that it happened in 1988, and that was the last time? Right? You do know that in order for a civilian to own a full-auto anything that they undergo a rigorous background check and that those firearms are registered, right? No, of course you don't know any of that because you're a farking idiot just like everyone else calling for a ban on "assault weapons" without actually knowing a damn thing about guns of any kind.
 
2012-08-01 01:25:42 PM

Magnanimous_J: Do you eat them? I've heard from some that they are full of germs.


I wouldn't kill them if I couldn't eat them. But I won't be making any pork tartare out of them, no.

These guys became twenty pounds of bratwurst.
 
2012-08-01 01:26:08 PM

hillbillypharmacist: devildog123: I'm an able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, and a citizen of the United States. I'm in "the militia of the United States".

I think you skipped the 'National Guard' part.


No, he didn't.
 
2012-08-01 01:26:39 PM

Magnanimous_J: hillbillypharmacist: I'm doing my part!

Do you eat them? I've heard from some that they are full of germs.


My friends in Arizona tell me the meat is fine.
 
2012-08-01 01:26:47 PM

dittybopper: Magnanimous_J: hillbillypharmacist: I'm doing my part!

Do you eat them? I've heard from some that they are full of germs.

All meat is full of germs. That's what fire is for.


Yeah, but there is a difference between a majestic mountain elk and a Baltimore sewer rat.
 
2012-08-01 01:30:07 PM

DORMAMU: CPennypacker: DORMAMU: CPennypacker: Slaves2Darkness: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

We know the faster you go the more likley you are to get killed or kill some one else with a motor vehicle. So Seriously, plese offer mea reasonable and rational explanantion as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer or rescue personel need to go faster then 30 MPH? All motor vehicles should be forced by law to go no faster then 30 MPH.

Yeah that is the argument you are making, do you see how stupid it is?

How about this one? We know that swimming pools are more dangerous to children then guns. Swimming pools kill more children each year then guns do. Seriously, offer me a reasonable explanantion as to why someone who is not an adult is allowed to swim?

Because swimming pools and cars have primary functions that aren't killing people/causing physical damage. This argument was just as stupid when people started bringing it up two weeks ago.

Yet they are every bit as lethal when improperly used...

Are their more guns in the u s of a or swimming pools? Which has got a higher fatality rate?

While unorthodox, his comparison is valid.

Or if you prefer, the internet was designed to make sure the military could nuke the world into a burnt cinder. The internet has a lethal purpose. Ban it.

No, he doesn't have a valid point, but its cute that you are able to twist logic until it supports your worldview.

And it is nice you can dismiss anything that threatens yours.

the results are what matters. Firearms have legitimate intended and designed uses other than homicide. This is fact. Target shooting is an olympic sport is you need proof.

I even provided an example of something that was designed to be integral in the most lethal (potentially) weapon system of all time, the nuclear strike to satisfy your original intent facet of your argument. T ...


Its not about intent. Its about function. Its clear you don't understand that, and I'm sorry for you.

And they can have Olympic shooting events without everyone being able to buy semi-automatic rifles with 100 round magazines. "Massacre" is not an olympic shooting event.
 
2012-08-01 01:32:00 PM

friday13: dittybopper: in case you aren't smart enough to get it, I can completely nullify that by surrounding the GPS antenna with foil, preventing it from receiving a signal or from transmitting it's location.

But if you wrap the safety in foil, how will you change it?


Foil is flexible....
 
2012-08-01 01:36:49 PM

Magnanimous_J: dittybopper: Magnanimous_J: hillbillypharmacist: I'm doing my part!

Do you eat them? I've heard from some that they are full of germs.

All meat is full of germs. That's what fire is for.

Yeah, but there is a difference between a majestic mountain elk and a Baltimore sewer rat.


The rat is probably cleaner and has fewer parasites. Fastidious creature, the rat.
I'm still not gonna eat the filthy thing, though.

Broil me up some of that jumbo Bambi.
 
2012-08-01 01:38:08 PM

devildog123: OK, fine, we'll go with the government's definition of the militia then. I pull this out every damn time someone makes the argument.

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.

I'm an able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, and a citizen of the United States. I'm in "the militia of the United States". Does this mean I can own whatever the fark I want?


As long as I've been in the military, I'm still waiting for all these 17-45 years olds to show up and take part in excercises. I've worked with a plenty of members of the National Guard, but have never met a single person from unorganized militia laid out in part (b)(2). Most curiously, none of the National Guard have managed to bring their arms from home as specified in the ammendment.
 
2012-08-01 01:38:38 PM

BongSire TurgidGoebbels: evoke: Need? There are loads of things I don't really "need". My AR-15 makes my life more enjoyable. And I have a right to own it according to the constitution. I never shot anyone. Fark off libs.

Hey, not all libs are gun-grabbing loonies. I am an atheist libby lib libtard, and I pack heat. I love guns, love taking them to the range to poke holes in targets, and I keep one loaded and locked just in case.

/Glock 20, 10mm
//Ruger LCP, .380
///Ruger .22 revolver


The problem arises when you vote for uncle sunshine and unicorns based on his social views and then he goes all gun grabby because thats also one of his stances. (using you as in libby lib libtard not you as an individual) My problem with seeing eye to eye with uncle sunshine on most of the other stuff is that he is trying to constantly make ALL my competition guns illegal with some back door amendment to a cybersecurity bill. Let me enjoy my STI, M&P15 (well M&P recievers), and my Siaga 12 in peace FFS.
 
2012-08-01 01:38:38 PM

give me doughnuts: DeArmondVI: In the wake of Aurora it is clear that the best thing we can do as a society is nothing.

Laws aren't meant to protect us directly. Rather, they're meant to protect our guns, which in turn will do the actual protecting. And, as of now, the laws protect our guns just fine.

If we need to find someone at fault here, it would be those that went to see the movie. They knew that they were going out in public, and they also knew that sometimes out in public there are bad guys. They should have been prepared for the OK Corrall, but instead they acted as though they were going out for a stroll on Sesame Street. That's what happens when you don't excercise your Second Amendment rights.

/needs another shower now

That's because like so many people, you are focusing on the tools, and not the twisted mind that wielded them. Better psychological/psychiatric diagnosis and treatment and social support systems will prevent rampages like Aurora and Virginia Tech far better than trying to ban or eliminate the weapons they happened to use.


I'll meet with you halfway. I do think that the government does need to spend more time and money in addressing mental illness in the country. It's just a shame that most gun advocates that I know are also conservatives that don't believe the government has any business in creating programs for social betterment. Out of curiosity, has the NRA come out in support of new taxes to help create a better mental health infrastructure? Or is LaPierre still spending his time claiming that Obama not taking guns away in his first term is proof that he plans to do so during his second?
 
2012-08-01 01:39:21 PM

Frank N Stein: You see, CNN, in a free society things are not banned based on the perceived "need" of the item/material in question. If you want it banned, it's your job to come up with a compelling farking reason for that thing to be banned. The fact that so-called "assault weapons" are used in about 2% of violent gun crimes isn't compelling enough.

/I'll kill time before work monitoring this thread
//Watching the anti-gun nuts get schooled as usual


I'm gun owner pointing out every technical mistake that non gun owners make is small minded, especially since the normenclature can be varied and still be correct. When they say ak 47 they almost always mean a semiauto short barreled rifle with the ability to take a high capacity magazine. Picking everyone apart when you understand the meaning is pointless unless you just need to feel smart, a trait not usually found in people who actually are.
 
2012-08-01 01:39:54 PM

CPennypacker: DORMAMU: CPennypacker: DORMAMU: CPennypacker: Slaves2Darkness: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

We know the faster you go the more likley you are to get killed or kill some one else with a motor vehicle. So Seriously, plese offer mea reasonable and rational explanantion as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer or rescue personel need to go faster then 30 MPH? All motor vehicles should be forced by law to go no faster then 30 MPH.

Yeah that is the argument you are making, do you see how stupid it is?

How about this one? We know that swimming pools are more dangerous to children then guns. Swimming pools kill more children each year then guns do. Seriously, offer me a reasonable explanantion as to why someone who is not an adult is allowed to swim?

Because swimming pools and cars have primary functions that aren't killing people/causing physical damage. This argument was just as stupid when people started bringing it up two weeks ago.

Yet they are every bit as lethal when improperly used...

Are their more guns in the u s of a or swimming pools? Which has got a higher fatality rate?

While unorthodox, his comparison is valid.

Or if you prefer, the internet was designed to make sure the military could nuke the world into a burnt cinder. The internet has a lethal purpose. Ban it.

No, he doesn't have a valid point, but its cute that you are able to twist logic until it supports your worldview.

And it is nice you can dismiss anything that threatens yours.

the results are what matters. Firearms have legitimate intended and designed uses other than homicide. This is fact. Target shooting is an olympic sport is you need proof.

I even provided an example of something that was designed to be integral in the most lethal (potentially) weapon system of all time, the nuclear strike to satisfy your original intent facet of your argument. T ...

Its not about intent. Its about function. Its clear you don't understand that, and I'm sorry for you.

And they can have Olympic shooting events without everyone being able to buy semi-automatic rifles with 100 round magazines. "Massacre" is not an olympic shooting event.


So a person decides to use something in a function that kills several it should be banned? Regardless if it has other legitimate functions? That is your argument. I garuntee you if an olympic shooter decided to, they could take their sport rifle and go sniping ala dc sniper quite well.

Cars are gone, cleaning chemicals, diesel fuel as well.

I noticed you did not answer my question about which deaths are more atrocious.
 
2012-08-01 01:41:19 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: HotWingConspiracy: Again, gun owners are fine with massacres carried out by their brethren. This isn't an issue for them.

Again, Muslims are fine with massacres carried out by their brethren. This isn't an issue for them.

//your 'logic' at work.


There's certainly some truth to the underlying sentiment that people are less troubled by evil committed by those who are more like them. It's because the more like us someone is, when someone like us does something f*cked up we can easily think of thousands of examples of other people like us not doing that. We can then rationalize to ourselves "Well, they're not really (insert trait here - responsible gun-owner / Christian / Muslim / Republican / Pro-lifer / etc.)" and comfort ourselves in the No True Scotsman fallacy. But even then, we are aware that "he" or "she" or "they" are actually like us in enough ways that we get defensive about it. So you have people trying to defend the indefensible under the illusion that trying to put in protective measures, like regulations, are going to encroach on us more than they really are.

In the United States, gun-owners are largely in support of reasonable gun regulations. The slight majority of them even favor much stricter policies for obtaining assault weapons. But here we have a situation where the "conversation" each side is having at the other (because we've long since past the possibility of talking with each other, sadly) is about "gun ownership" in the broad sense, even if neither side truly intended for the discussion to be that broad. And that makes any real discussion, any real conversation, any real attempt at consensus on how to address a potential problem a massive issue in and of itself. Because "No True Scotsman..." does what folks like Homes, Loughner, etc. did, some people are reluctant to even admit there is a problem to be solved that has anything to do with keeping firearms out of the hands of people intent to do harm to innocents.
 
2012-08-01 01:42:15 PM

Disposable Rob: I've worked with a plenty of members of the National Guard, but have never met a single person from unorganized militia laid out in part (b)(2).


Hi, nice to meet you. Unfortunately, I'm a terrible shot, so the country will have to be in some pretty deep shiat if they're to the point that they come calling for me.
 
2012-08-01 01:43:01 PM

CPennypacker: DORMAMU: CPennypacker: DORMAMU: CPennypacker: Slaves2Darkness: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

We know the faster you go the more likley you are to get killed or kill some one else with a motor vehicle. So Seriously, plese offer mea reasonable and rational explanantion as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer or rescue personel need to go faster then 30 MPH? All motor vehicles should be forced by law to go no faster then 30 MPH.

Yeah that is the argument you are making, do you see how stupid it is?

How about this one? We know that swimming pools are more dangerous to children then guns. Swimming pools kill more children each year then guns do. Seriously, offer me a reasonable explanantion as to why someone who is not an adult is allowed to swim?

Because swimming pools and cars have primary functions that aren't killing people/causing physical damage. This argument was just as stupid when people started bringing it up two weeks ago.

Yet they are every bit as lethal when improperly used...

Are their more guns in the u s of a or swimming pools? Which has got a higher fatality rate?

While unorthodox, his comparison is valid.

Or if you prefer, the internet was designed to make sure the military could nuke the world into a burnt cinder. The internet has a lethal purpose. Ban it.

No, he doesn't have a valid point, but its cute that you are able to twist logic until it supports your worldview.

And it is nice you can dismiss anything that threatens yours.

the results are what matters. Firearms have legitimate intended and designed uses other than homicide. This is fact. Target shooting is an olympic sport is you need proof.

I even provided an example of something that was designed to be integral in the most lethal (potentially) weapon system of all time, the nuclear strike to satisfy your original intent facet of your argument. T ...

Its not about intent. Its about function. Its clear you don't understand that, and I'm sorry for you.

And they can have Olympic shooting events without everyone being able to buy semi-automatic rifles with 100 round magazines. "Massacre" is not an olympic shooting event.


Almost forgot, I have never stated hundred round drums are essentisl. I have stated several times on fark I feel it is excessive. I support reasonable gun regulation, not knee jerk bans.
 
2012-08-01 01:43:20 PM

DeArmondVI:
I'll meet with you halfway. I do think that the government does need to spend more time and money in addressing mental illness in the country. It's just a shame that most gun advocates that I know are also conservatives that don't believe the government has any business in creating programs for social betterment. Out of curiosity, has the NRA come out in support of new taxes to help create a better mental health infrastructure? Or is LaPierre still spending his time claiming that Obama not taking guns away in his first term is proof that he plans to do so during his second?


IDK. I'm not in the NRA, so I don't get their newsletters.
 
2012-08-01 01:43:47 PM

hillbillypharmacist: wildcardjack: They're an invasive species and hostile.

I'm doing my part!
[desmond.imageshack.us image 640x426]
I just use a shotgun, though. There's no need for an assault rifle. Once you fire the first shot, they all run.


So what you're saying is we need to improve access to suppressors.
 
2012-08-01 01:44:13 PM
It's very simple why the NRA opposes bans of any sort on guns. Look how the government works. For the sake of this argument, let's refer to a any type thing a citizen can have to be called "power". Powers are an abstraction and are not required to be things but can also be rights or ideas. Once the government takes a power away from the citizenry, it very VERY rarely returns it. Look at how 9/11 was used to take many powers from us. We'll never get them back short of a revolution.
So, the government says, "You don't need this one little power do you? We can take it and you'll still be just fine." Many reasonable people think that giving up that one power forever is okay and it happens. Some years down the road the government asks, "Look at this power. It's not THAT much different from the one you already gave up. How about you give up this one too." There are more dissenters this time, but it still gets done and that power is forever taken from the people. Yes, it's the slippery slope argument. It does happen.

There are a large number of people who say that guns should not be owned by anyone, and anecdotal evidence is that that crowd is growing because there are more and more people growing up in urban environments where safe gun usage and exposure is less common than in rural areas. There are fewer hunters and than there used to be, and those numbers continue to decline. It's not inconceivable that there will come a time in the next 100 years in the US when gun ownership is under a very real attack. If it weren't for the second amendment, and the difficulty of changing the constitution, there'd already be plenty of places where gun ownership would likely be outlawed.

I'd wager that many people who sit around and think about gun policy and politics a great deal have thought of this argument. It's much harder to get the government to give back a power than it is to prevent them from taking it at all. In light of what the future may hold, it may be that they're just holding off the inevitable as long as they can. I know I'll never support anyone that advocates taking away gun rights, but that doesn't mean that I won't be outnumbered eventually.

CLOSE THE FREAKING GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE!
 
2012-08-01 01:44:45 PM

devildog123: Jacko8x: CPennypacker: Oh look another one of these threads

Repeal the second amendment

Gun ownership should be legal but it shouldn't be a right

I still have a hard time believing that it is a right:

The Second Amendment
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.

We, as a people, need to stop ignoring the first half. We are long overdue in this country on having a discussion on what the first half actually means (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,). Let's have this talk before we decide that you have the legal right to shoot and kill the door-to-door salesman that came on your property. Allowing anyone to buy a gun does not sound like a well regulated militia to me......

OK, fine, we'll go with the government's definition of the militia then. I pull this out every damn time someone makes the argument.

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.

I'm an able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, and a citizen of the United States. I'm in "the militia of the United States". Does this mean I can own whatever the fark I want?


That regulation discriminates against women. Men aged between 17 and 45 are assumed to be in a militia and are therefore the government can't abridge their right to keep and bear arms, but women? Gotta join the National Guard, but we all think it's cute that you wanna own a gun and "protect yourself" *pats head*.

Why are you a misogynist about the second amendment?

/purpose clauses in the bill of rights aren't what we apparently think they are in this thread
//The only legal statement made in the second amendment is that the right "of the people" to "keep and bear" "arms" shall not be abridged (except as specified in the 200 or so years of case law surrounding the amendment.)
///Said it before and I'll say it again: Anyone who makes the debate seem like it's based on more than just opinion is full of it. There's NO right answer hidden somewhere in the constitution.
 
2012-08-01 01:47:27 PM

incendi: Disposable Rob: I've worked with a plenty of members of the National Guard, but have never met a single person from unorganized militia laid out in part (b)(2).

Hi, nice to meet you. Unfortunately, I'm a terrible shot, so the country will have to be in some pretty deep shiat if they're to the point that they come calling for me.


I find it hard to believe he's never met a male civilian citizen between 17 and 45.
 
2012-08-01 01:49:42 PM
Since when does CNN get to decide what free people need or don't need?
 
2012-08-01 01:50:27 PM

Disposable Rob:
As long as I've been in the military, I'm still waiting for all these 17-45 years olds to show up and take part in excercises. I've worked with a plenty of members of the National Guard, but have never met a single person from unorganized militia laid out in part (b)(2). Most curiously, none of the National Guard have managed to bring their arms from home as specified in the ammendment.


I'd come, but the military would turn me away at the gate at best. If they noticed I had brought a gun, I'd be arrested.

When the military decides they want something to do with the militia instead of looking down their noses at us, I'll be there.
 
2012-08-01 01:52:11 PM
dittybopper:
So if I don't vote for the biggest ass buckets, and neither does anyone else, that guarantees that my son, or his son, or my great grandson won't have to fight? How about my great-great-grandson? You can guarantee that?

Of course not, but if it comes to that then a lot of people, probably many of them gun owners, have allowed it to happen. America spends a LOT of time discussing the right to bear arms, while allowing so many other rights to be constantly eroded by power-hungry politicians and their corporate cronies.

izit.org
(etc.)
 
2012-08-01 01:55:31 PM

CPennypacker: Oh look another one of these threads

Repeal the second amendment

Gun ownership should be legal but it shouldn't be a right



How about no? Does no work for you?
 
2012-08-01 01:57:06 PM

give me doughnuts: DeArmondVI:
I'll meet with you halfway. I do think that the government does need to spend more time and money in addressing mental illness in the country. It's just a shame that most gun advocates that I know are also conservatives that don't believe the government has any business in creating programs for social betterment. Out of curiosity, has the NRA come out in support of new taxes to help create a better mental health infrastructure? Or is LaPierre still spending his time claiming that Obama not taking guns away in his first term is proof that he plans to do so during his second?

IDK. I'm not in the NRA, so I don't get their newsletters.


Well, I certainly can't fault you for that : )

Getting back on point, Holmes was seeing a psychiatrist What more could have been done? Or, could nothing have been done and we just happen to live in a society where random acts of senseless violence that kill multiple individuals happen at periodic intervals?
 
2012-08-01 01:59:29 PM

DORMAMU: So a person decides to use something in a function that kills several it should be banned? Regardless if it has other legitimate functions? That is your argument. I garuntee you if an olympic shooter decided to, they could take their sport rifle and go sniping ala dc sniper quite well.

Cars are gone, cleaning chemicals, diesel fuel as well.

I noticed you did not answer my question about which deaths are more atrocious.


Its not about the function you "use it for" its about functionality in general. The primary function of a car isn't to run people over.

DORMAMU: Almost forgot, I have never stated hundred round drums are essentisl. I have stated several times on fark I feel it is excessive. I support reasonable gun regulation, not knee jerk bans.


Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.
 
2012-08-01 02:00:17 PM

The_Sponge: CPennypacker: Oh look another one of these threads

Repeal the second amendment

Gun ownership should be legal but it shouldn't be a right


How about no? Does no work for you?


Que?
 
2012-08-01 02:00:50 PM

CPennypacker: DORMAMU: So a person decides to use something in a function that kills several it should be banned? Regardless if it has other legitimate functions? That is your argument. I garuntee you if an olympic shooter decided to, they could take their sport rifle and go sniping ala dc sniper quite well.

Cars are gone, cleaning chemicals, diesel fuel as well.

I noticed you did not answer my question about which deaths are more atrocious.

Its not about the function you "use it for" its about functionality in general. The primary function of a car isn't to run people over.

DORMAMU: Almost forgot, I have never stated hundred round drums are essentisl. I have stated several times on fark I feel it is excessive. I support reasonable gun regulation, not knee jerk bans.

Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.


If it were not a right then there would already be places in the US that would have made it illegal. Look at DC and Chicago and their gun laws that the Supreme Court had to shoot down.
 
2012-08-01 02:01:47 PM

CPennypacker: DORMAMU: So a person decides to use something in a function that kills several it should be banned? Regardless if it has other legitimate functions? That is your argument. I garuntee you if an olympic shooter decided to, they could take their sport rifle and go sniping ala dc sniper quite well.

Cars are gone, cleaning chemicals, diesel fuel as well.

I noticed you did not answer my question about which deaths are more atrocious.

Its not about the function you "use it for" its about functionality in general. The primary function of a car isn't to run people over.

DORMAMU: Almost forgot, I have never stated hundred round drums are essentisl. I have stated several times on fark I feel it is excessive. I support reasonable gun regulation, not knee jerk bans.

Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.


If it were not a right then there would already be places in the US that would have made gun ownership illegal.
 
2012-08-01 02:02:01 PM

Explodo: CPennypacker: DORMAMU: So a person decides to use something in a function that kills several it should be banned? Regardless if it has other legitimate functions? That is your argument. I garuntee you if an olympic shooter decided to, they could take their sport rifle and go sniping ala dc sniper quite well.

Cars are gone, cleaning chemicals, diesel fuel as well.

I noticed you did not answer my question about which deaths are more atrocious.

Its not about the function you "use it for" its about functionality in general. The primary function of a car isn't to run people over.

DORMAMU: Almost forgot, I have never stated hundred round drums are essentisl. I have stated several times on fark I feel it is excessive. I support reasonable gun regulation, not knee jerk bans.

Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.

If it were not a right then there would already be places in the US that would have made it illegal. Look at DC and Chicago and their gun laws that the Supreme Court had to shoot down.


i1.ytimg.com
 
2012-08-01 02:05:52 PM
I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.
 
2012-08-01 02:09:12 PM

Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.


CPennypacker: Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.

 
2012-08-01 02:09:23 PM

CPennypacker: The_Sponge: CPennypacker: Oh look another one of these threads

Repeal the second amendment

Gun ownership should be legal but it shouldn't be a right


How about no? Does no work for you?

Que?



Instead of playing games, you should just be honest and admit that you're a gun-grabber.
 
2012-08-01 02:09:54 PM
CPennypacker

First, I need to appologize for my wall o texts. On mobile, not easy to snip.

Second, I do have to commend you 4 remaining quite civil.

I suspect our current loop/circle of discussion is, in part, due to a divergance in definition.

To illustrate, you see firearms as weapons and only weapons (correct me if I am wrong). I view them as tools, just like cars, the net, an axe, even pools. Yes firearms are weapons, but weapons are tools to me.

Tools can be grossly misused or negligently used causing grave damage/destruction. But tools can also aid an individual to achieve their desired effect. Tools make tha desired effect easier, faster, or simpler to obtain.

Yes, there tools that are ridiculous and I question their practicality or general usefullness (file 100 round drum here.

A large part of my view of firearms as tools is my parents never kept them secret and started teaching me at a relatively young age how dangerous they were. When they felt I had matured enough, I was allowed to use them under very strict circumstances.

I am curious as to your experiences with firearms. Would you care to eloborate? This is no way meant as an ttack on your upbringing or your life experiences. It is merely an attempt to better understand you so I can work on understanding your position and argument better and stop the chinese fire drill we appear to be stuck in.

/strong military family history
//usmc vet
///mother owns a piece of american history: .32 cal model 1869 winchester lever action, perfectly functioning
 
2012-08-01 02:10:10 PM

Kome: The slight majority of them even favor much stricter policies for obtaining assault weapons.


OK, what do this slight majority want to ban?

Is this one OK?
www.shedracing.net

What about this one?
www.shedracing.net

Or?
www.shedracing.net

This one?
www.shedracing.net

In your educated opinion, which of these are acceptable?

Just to be clear, those four rifles are functionally identical. They are semi-automatic centerfire rifles with detachable magazines. The top is a Remington 7400, the second is a Ruger Mini 14. The Ruger is nearly identical to the AR below it, as it fires the same cartridge, and high capacity (30 round) magazines are readily available.

What anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together has been saying all along is that semi-auto "Assault Weapons" bans are idiotic, because there is no such thing. A semi-auto rifle is a semi auto rifle, and one with a pistol grip is no more "deadly" than one without. You and others want to ban guns that look scary, and that is irrational.

Like it or not, in a post Heller and McDonald United States, gun ownership is an enumerated, fundamental constitutional right, and semiautomatic firearms are in common use, and have been since World War 2. Hundreds of thousands of semi-automatic rifles have been sold to US Citizens directly from the government under the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The 4th and 7th Circuit Courts have both ruled that even laws regarding gun ownership by criminals are subject to intermediate scrutiny, implying strict scrutiny for the law abiding.

Assault weapons bans would fail either test, and wouldn't even get past rational basis (Which SCOTUS rejected outright in Heller). Aside from the "common use" (specified in Heller) There is no crime problem with rifles in general, let alone so called "Assault Weapons" There never has been, and there never will be.
 
2012-08-01 02:10:43 PM

CPennypacker: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

CPennypacker: Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.


Yet you're okay with areas outlawing gun ownership. You're not being honest.
 
2012-08-01 02:10:49 PM

Corvus: Submitard:Fark Comments Editorial: You can't stop lunatics regardless of legislation

Good point! With rape laws and murder laws on the books rape and murders still happen. So let's get rid of those laws too right? Or does this stupid thinking only magically work for gun laws?


We already have laws for misuse of, and crimes committed with a firearms: Discharging a firearms within city limits, armed robbery, murder, etc. Your argument makes no sense what-so-ever.

I hope you're simply being willfully obtuse.
 
2012-08-01 02:11:12 PM
"Assault weapon" politics:

1.) Find perfectly legitimate and practical firearms that have a scary/military appearance.
2.) Use confusing terminology to convince the public that such firearms are actually fully-automatic death-sprayers and that "no one needs those"
3.) Sign a gun ban, pass it of as "common sense legislation" in the name of public safety, make a name for you as a politician taking a hard line against your own manufactured threat.
4.) Rinse, repeat.

Works great for the "War on Terror" too!
 
2012-08-01 02:12:12 PM

Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.


I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?
 
2012-08-01 02:13:25 PM

Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

CPennypacker: Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.

Yet you're okay with areas outlawing gun ownership. You're not being honest.


Laws and Democracy, how do they work?

Also, gun ownership in a crowded city is different from gun ownership in a small town is different from gun ownership on a farm and should be treated differently legally. A misfire on a farm could put a hole in your barn. A misfire on a NYC subway could kill 7 people.
 
2012-08-01 02:17:01 PM

CPennypacker: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

CPennypacker: Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.


In many respects it is already regulated. Nevada restricts magazine capacity. Another state might not. That is their choice of regulation, or lack there of. I would rather the states handle that.

I do wish it was a little more consistant in regards to licensed concealed carry tho. More for transporting, it is easier if you got a concealed carry permit.

Making it a right ensures its legality.

Course then we get into the semantics of law nuances and that is a headache neither of us need at this point.
 
2012-08-01 02:17:26 PM

DORMAMU: CPennypacker

First, I need to appologize for my wall o texts. On mobile, not easy to snip.

Second, I do have to commend you 4 remaining quite civil.

I suspect our current loop/circle of discussion is, in part, due to a divergance in definition.

To illustrate, you see firearms as weapons and only weapons (correct me if I am wrong). I view them as tools, just like cars, the net, an axe, even pools. Yes firearms are weapons, but weapons are tools to me.

Tools can be grossly misused or negligently used causing grave damage/destruction. But tools can also aid an individual to achieve their desired effect. Tools make tha desired effect easier, faster, or simpler to obtain.

Yes, there tools that are ridiculous and I question their practicality or general usefullness (file 100 round drum here.

A large part of my view of firearms as tools is my parents never kept them secret and started teaching me at a relatively young age how dangerous they were. When they felt I had matured enough, I was allowed to use them under very strict circumstances.

I am curious as to your experiences with firearms. Would you care to eloborate? This is no way meant as an ttack on your upbringing or your life experiences. It is merely an attempt to better understand you so I can work on understanding your position and argument better and stop the chinese fire drill we appear to be stuck in.

/strong military family history
//usmc vet
///mother owns a piece of american history: .32 cal model 1869 winchester lever action, perfectly functioning


I have a lot of hunters in my family and I have a lot of experience shooting at ranges. A lot of my family members own pistols and rifles. I live in NYC and do not own a gun. I enjoy guns. I see why people own them. But I also see that they are dangerous. I think that the "right to bear arms" is antiquated and comes from a different time and is no longer relevant.

Guns are tools, but they are dangerous tools and should be reglated as such. Thats my view. Cars are dangerous tools too. You need to pass a driving test and carry insurance. You need to pass inspections. We need similar implementations for gun ownership in my opinion.
 
2012-08-01 02:20:09 PM

CPennypacker: Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

CPennypacker: Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.

Yet you're okay with areas outlawing gun ownership. You're not being honest.

Laws and Democracy, how do they work?

Also, gun ownership in a crowded city is different from gun ownership in a small town is different from gun ownership on a farm and should be treated differently legally. A misfire on a farm could put a hole in your barn. A misfire on a NYC subway could kill 7 people.


Your statement implies that you either enjoy hyperbole or know nothing of guns. I'll assume mainly hyperbole with a side order of lack of experience.

Do you have no room in your view for someone who lives in a city yet enjoys shooting in a controlled environment or who travels to the countryside to shoot?
 
2012-08-01 02:23:08 PM

Disposable Rob: As long as I've been in the military, I'm still waiting for all these 17-45 years olds to show up and take part in excercises.


Been there, done that, have the DD214 to prove it, and it's almost certain if you are active duty that I did it before you (I'd be close to 30 year retirement right now).

I've worked with a plenty of members of the National Guard, but have never met a single person from unorganized militia laid out in part (b)(2).


Yes you have. Every single able-bodied male you've met aged 18 to 44 is part of the unorganized militia. Sadly, I've fallen out of that age category, but would show up if called.

Most curiously, none of the National Guard have managed to bring their arms from home as specified in the ammendment.


The Second Amendment doesn't specify that. Read it again. I think you are confusing the Second Amendment with the Second Militia Act of 1792, which did *REQUIRE* that militia members arm themselves. It was superseded in 1903. The Second Amendment only *PROTECTS* the right of individuals to arm themselves. Congress still has the power to call for and arm the militia.
 
2012-08-01 02:24:15 PM

blunttrauma: Kome: The slight majority of them even favor much stricter policies for obtaining assault weapons.

OK, what do this slight majority want to ban?

Gun pic
Gun pic
Gun pic
Gun pic


I vote 1,.2, 3 and 4.

Do I win, do I win?
 
2012-08-01 02:25:21 PM

Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

CPennypacker: Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.

Yet you're okay with areas outlawing gun ownership. You're not being honest.

Laws and Democracy, how do they work?

Also, gun ownership in a crowded city is different from gun ownership in a small town is different from gun ownership on a farm and should be treated differently legally. A misfire on a farm could put a hole in your barn. A misfire on a NYC subway could kill 7 people.

Your statement implies that you either enjoy hyperbole or know nothing of guns. I'll assume mainly hyperbole with a side order of lack of experience.

Do you have no room in your view for someone who lives in a city yet enjoys shooting in a controlled environment or who travels to the countryside to shoot?


Your statement implies that you can't read. I didn't say specifically what the laws should be in a city vs in the country, I said they should be treated differently because the situations are different. I can tell you what I think they should be, but that's not what I did there.
 
2012-08-01 02:26:07 PM

kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?


media.skateboard.com.au
 
2012-08-01 02:27:39 PM

CPennypacker: I think that the "right to bear arms" is antiquated and comes from a different time and is no longer relevant.


Until, of course, they are relevant again, and at that point if you don't have them, you are screwed.

I love this line of thinking "Hey, we don't need them, because we're all like, civilized now". So were the Romans. And the Greeks. And Yugoslavians and Rwandans in 1985.
 
2012-08-01 02:27:57 PM

CPennypacker: DORMAMU: CPennypacker

First, I need to appologize for my wall o texts. On mobile, not easy to snip.

Second, I do have to commend you 4 remaining quite civil.

I suspect our current loop/circle of discussion is, in part, due to a divergance in definition.

To illustrate, you see firearms as weapons and only weapons (correct me if I am wrong). I view them as tools, just like cars, the net, an axe, even pools. Yes firearms are weapons, but weapons are tools to me.

Tools can be grossly misused or negligently used causing grave damage/destruction. But tools can also aid an individual to achieve their desired effect. Tools make tha desired effect easier, faster, or simpler to obtain.

Yes, there tools that are ridiculous and I question their practicality or general usefullness (file 100 round drum here.

A large part of my view of firearms as tools is my parents never kept them secret and started teaching me at a relatively young age how dangerous they were. When they felt I had matured enough, I was allowed to use them under very strict circumstances.

I am curious as to your experiences with firearms. Would you care to eloborate? This is no way meant as an ttack on your upbringing or your life experiences. It is merely an attempt to better understand you so I can work on understanding your position and argument better and stop the chinese fire drill we appear to be stuck in.

/strong military family history
//usmc vet
///mother owns a piece of american history: .32 cal model 1869 winchester lever action, perfectly functioning

I have a lot of hunters in my family and I have a lot of experience shooting at ranges. A lot of my family members own pistols and rifles. I live in NYC and do not own a gun. I enjoy guns. I see why people own them. But I also see that they are dangerous. I think that the "right to bear arms" is antiquated and comes from a different time and is no longer relevant.

Guns are tools, but they are dangerous tools and should be reglated as such. Thats my view. Cars are dangerous tools too. You need to pass a driving test and carry insurance. You need to pass inspections. We need similar implementations for gun ownership in my opinion.


Noted.

Now we get into the merky areas what is reasonable implmentations.
For the record, I am in favor of conceald carry permits & requiring a certification to get one.

I like the idea you but forth but have mixef feelings about implementation. An example would be repriprocity(cant spell) between areas. More to avoid nasty over complication and confusing boundries.

Ie drive to the range and clip the neighboring town and you are illegally posessing cause your training class was 30 mins shorter.
 
2012-08-01 02:28:52 PM
Gun nuts are insane and it's no use trying to discuss this issue with them. They are mostly cowards and will do anything to grow their arsenal for their fantasies.
 
2012-08-01 02:30:02 PM

CPennypacker: Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

CPennypacker: Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.

Yet you're okay with areas outlawing gun ownership. You're not being honest.

Laws and Democracy, how do they work?

Also, gun ownership in a crowded city is different from gun ownership in a small town is different from gun ownership on a farm and should be treated differently legally. A misfire on a farm could put a hole in your barn. A misfire on a NYC subway could kill 7 people.

Your statement implies that you either enjoy hyperbole or know nothing of guns. I'll assume mainly hyperbole with a side order of lack of experience.

Do you have no room in your view for someone who lives in a city yet enjoys shooting in a controlled environment or who travels to the countryside to shoot?

Your statement implies that you can't read. I didn't say specifically what the laws should be in a city vs in the country, I said they should be treated differently because the situations are different. I can tell you what I think they should be, but that's not what I did there.


You've already endorsed outlawing gun possession and indicated support for the laws of DC and Chicago that the supreme court said were unconstitutional due to the second amendment in this thread. Since you have advocated taking away gun ownership rights, why would I think that you don't see that as a good goal?
 
2012-08-01 02:30:58 PM

dittybopper: CPennypacker: I think that the "right to bear arms" is antiquated and comes from a different time and is no longer relevant.

Until, of course, they are relevant again, and at that point if you don't have them, you are screwed.

I love this line of thinking "Hey, we don't need them, because we're all like, civilized now". So were the Romans. And the Greeks. And Yugoslavians and Rwandans in 1985.


Anyone else ever notice that the "We need our guns to protect us from the government" people are always the ones projecting the crazy so hard they are the reason you want there to be gun control in the first place?
 
2012-08-01 02:31:09 PM

kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?


I'm having trouble locating it, but I've seen a study linked here several times in which armed forces members were interviewed about that possibility. Most of them were extremely conflicted. A good number said they'd refuse the order, and some even said they'd desert and fight it.

/it wouldn't be clean either way
 
2012-08-01 02:31:26 PM

kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?


I have several guns I've bought from individuals. No background checks, no registration. Bought or traded them at the range. I'm certainly not the only person to do this. Good luck getting all the guns, or even a large percentage of them.
 
2012-08-01 02:31:40 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

[media.skateboard.com.au image 560x432]


I have come to doubt the actual bravery of a group that likes bravado so much. I could be wrong, maybe they will band together and put up the good fight, then the government would call in the military and it would be over in about two seconds.
 
2012-08-01 02:33:32 PM

Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

CPennypacker: Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.

Yet you're okay with areas outlawing gun ownership. You're not being honest.

Laws and Democracy, how do they work?

Also, gun ownership in a crowded city is different from gun ownership in a small town is different from gun ownership on a farm and should be treated differently legally. A misfire on a farm could put a hole in your barn. A misfire on a NYC subway could kill 7 people.

Your statement implies that you either enjoy hyperbole or know nothing of guns. I'll assume mainly hyperbole with a side order of lack of experience.

Do you have no room in your view for someone who lives in a city yet enjoys shooting in a controlled environment or who travels to the countryside to shoot?

Your statement implies that you can't read. I didn't say specifically what the laws should be in a city vs in the country, I said they should be treated differently because the situations are different. I can tell you what I think they should be, but that's not what I did there.

You've already endorsed outlawing gun possession and indicated support for the laws of DC and Chicago that the supreme court said were unconstitutional due to the second amendment in this thread. Since you have advocated taking away gun ownership rights, why would I think that you don't see that as a good goal?


Uh, no I never endorsed outlawing gun possession. I indicated that I support localities deciding on the legality of guns for themselves. I advocate taking away gun ownership rights but not necessarily taking away gun ownership. Noted that you cannot tell the difference.
 
2012-08-01 02:34:36 PM
A drone is no match for overweight white trash men with AR-15s.
 
2012-08-01 02:34:56 PM

CynicalLA: Gun nuts are insane and it's no use trying to discuss this issue with them. They are mostly cowards and will do anything to grow their arsenal for their fantasies.


I wouldnt mind owning a small variety of firearms. mostly to learn the nuances of each and broaden my knowledge.

Also different firearms have different uses. You might have use for more than one, like multiple tools in your tool box to work around the house or on your car.

Guess I am a flipping gun nut
 
2012-08-01 02:35:00 PM

kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

[media.skateboard.com.au image 560x432]

I have come to doubt the actual bravery of a group that likes bravado so much. I could be wrong, maybe they will band together and put up the good fight, then the government would call in the military and it would be over in about two seconds.


Many of the members of the military respect and enjoy guns. As another poster said, this would conflict them greatly and could lead to a fracturing of the military to the point of civil war.
 
2012-08-01 02:37:03 PM

CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: I think that the "right to bear arms" is antiquated and comes from a different time and is no longer relevant.

Until, of course, they are relevant again, and at that point if you don't have them, you are screwed.

I love this line of thinking "Hey, we don't need them, because we're all like, civilized now". So were the Romans. And the Greeks. And Yugoslavians and Rwandans in 1985.

Anyone else ever notice that the "We need our guns to protect us from the government" people are always the ones projecting the crazy so hard they are the reason you want there to be gun control in the first place?


Good point...
 
2012-08-01 02:37:26 PM

DORMAMU: CynicalLA: Gun nuts are insane and it's no use trying to discuss this issue with them. They are mostly cowards and will do anything to grow their arsenal for their fantasies.

I wouldnt mind owning a small variety of firearms. mostly to learn the nuances of each and broaden my knowledge.

Also different firearms have different uses. You might have use for more than one, like multiple tools in your tool box to work around the house or on your car.

Guess I am a flipping gun nut


Don't get me wrong, I love weapons and own a few myself. It's the fanatics that ruin it for everyone else.
 
2012-08-01 02:38:05 PM

kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

[media.skateboard.com.au image 560x432]

I have come to doubt the actual bravery of a group that likes bravado so much. I could be wrong, maybe they will band together and put up the good fight, then the government would call in the military and it would be over in about two seconds.


In my extended family alone, I have 4 Iraq War vets and 2 Afghan vets, but I'm sure the local SWAT would take us out in two seconds. Guess what? The military is full of gunnuts and they will not follow orders to kill their own friends and family.
 
2012-08-01 02:39:17 PM

devildog123: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

I have several guns I've bought from individuals. No background checks, no registration. Bought or traded them at the range. I'm certainly not the only person to do this. Good luck getting all the guns, or even a large percentage of them.


That was my point in asking the question, a gun grab in my opinion would be pointless. But if they wanted to they could surely could go round up the ones they know about, nobody is stopping the military with an AK 47 or glock.

As far as whether the soldiers would obey or not, they will do as their told. Or do you think Kent State was some kind of fluke?
 
2012-08-01 02:41:51 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

[media.skateboard.com.au image 560x432]

I have come to doubt the actual bravery of a group that likes bravado so much. I could be wrong, maybe they will band together and put up the good fight, then the government would call in the military and it would be over in about two seconds.

In my extended family alone, I have 4 Iraq War vets and 2 Afghan vets, but I'm sure the local SWAT would take us out in two seconds. Guess what? The military is full of gunnuts and they will not follow orders to kill their own friends and family.


Guess what, they ship the soldiers to other parts of the country for this type of thing. Couldn't figure that out on your own?
 
2012-08-01 02:41:54 PM

kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

[media.skateboard.com.au image 560x432]

I have come to doubt the actual bravery of a group that likes bravado so much. I could be wrong, maybe they will band together and put up the good fight, then the government would call in the military and it would be over in about two seconds.


You do realize that a lot of these guys that own guns are military and ex-military right? I know anti-gun people think that everyone is some redneck toothless hillbilly Stormfront member, but they really aren't. Do you really think the military would just go after most gun owners? They make up a lot of the private gun owners, and their fellow vets make up a big chunk of the rest of them. I don't think the military will do what you think they will. I sure as shait wouldn't have.
 
2012-08-01 02:44:22 PM

CPennypacker: Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

CPennypacker: Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.

Yet you're okay with areas outlawing gun ownership. You're not being honest.

Laws and Democracy, how do they work?

Also, gun ownership in a crowded city is different from gun ownership in a small town is different from gun ownership on a farm and should be treated differently legally. A misfire on a farm could put a hole in your barn. A misfire on a NYC subway could kill 7 people.

Your statement implies that you either enjoy hyperbole or know nothing of guns. I'll assume mainly hyperbole with a side order of lack of experience.

Do you have no room in your view for someone who lives in a city yet enjoys shooting in a controlled environment or who travels to the countryside to shoot?

Your statement implies that you can't read. I didn't say specifically what the laws should be in a city vs in the country, I said they should be treated differently because the situations are different. I can tell you what I think they should be, but that's not what I did there.

You've already endorsed outlawing gun possession and indicated support for the laws of DC and Chicago that the supreme court said were unconstitutional due to the second amendment in this thread. Since you have advocated taking away gun ownership rights, why would I think that you don't see that as a good goal?

Uh, no I never endorsed outlawing gun possession. I indicated that I support localities deciding on the legality of guns for themselves. I advocate taking away gun ownership ...


Your slide into personal insults has been noted as well. Rarely are personal attacks the hallmark of a sound position of argument.

We're just not going to see eye-to-eye. I'll never accept removal of second amendment rights, and you'd like to see a country where gun ownership can be made illegal legislatively by locality.

To this point, your main argument is effectively "In a city, guns are too dangerous because of all the people around." Almost everything is more dangerous when there are lots of people around.
 
2012-08-01 02:46:38 PM

devildog123: kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

[media.skateboard.com.au image 560x432]

I have come to doubt the actual bravery of a group that likes bravado so much. I could be wrong, maybe they will band together and put up the good fight, then the government would call in the military and it would be over in about two seconds.

You do realize that a lot of these guys that own guns are military and ex-military right? I know anti-gun people think that everyone is some redneck toothless hillbilly Stormfront member, but they really aren't. Do you really think the military would just go after most gun owners? They make up a lot of the private gun owners, and their fellow vets make up a big chunk of the rest of them. I don't think the military will do what you think they will. I sure as shait wouldn't have.


It would really depend on whether the ones who don't comply could be painted as traitors or enemies of the state. The military had no problem opening up on unarmed college students, I doubt little has changed.

You think I'm antigun because why?
 
2012-08-01 02:47:57 PM

CynicalLA: DORMAMU: CynicalLA: Gun nuts are insane and it's no use trying to discuss this issue with them. They are mostly cowards and will do anything to grow their arsenal for their fantasies.

I wouldnt mind owning a small variety of firearms. mostly to learn the nuances of each and broaden my knowledge.

Also different firearms have different uses. You might have use for more than one, like multiple tools in your tool box to work around the house or on your car.

Guess I am a flipping gun nut

Don't get me wrong, I love weapons and own a few myself. It's the fanatics that ruin it for everyone else.


Snark withdrawn...
 
2012-08-01 02:48:33 PM

kapaso: devildog123: kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

[media.skateboard.com.au image 560x432]

I have come to doubt the actual bravery of a group that likes bravado so much. I could be wrong, maybe they will band together and put up the good fight, then the government would call in the military and it would be over in about two seconds.

You do realize that a lot of these guys that own guns are military and ex-military right? I know anti-gun people think that everyone is some redneck toothless hillbilly Stormfront member, but they really aren't. Do you really think the military would just go after most gun owners? They make up a lot of the private gun owners, and their fellow vets make up a big chunk of the rest of them. I don't think the military will do what you think they will. I sure as shait wouldn't have.

It would really depend on whether the ones who don't comply could be painted as traitors or enemies of the state. The military had no problem opening up on unarmed college students, I doubt little has changed.

You think I'm antigun because why?


Do you not remember what happened as a result of the Kent State shootings? There were widespread riots. Now imagine if the people rioting had access to a fairly large cache of weapons.

/Does that seem smart?
 
2012-08-01 02:49:45 PM

Explodo: Your slide into personal insults has been noted as well. Rarely are personal attacks the hallmark of a sound position of argument.

We're just not going to see eye-to-eye. I'll never accept removal of second amendment rights, and you'd like to see a country where gun ownership can be made illegal legislatively by locality.

To this point, your main argument is effectively "In a city, guns are too dangerous because of all the people around." Almost everything is more dangerous when there are lots of people around.


No, thats not my main argument
 
2012-08-01 02:50:53 PM

kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

[media.skateboard.com.au image 560x432]

I have come to doubt the actual bravery of a group that likes bravado so much. I could be wrong, maybe they will band together and put up the good fight, then the government would call in the military and it would be over in about two seconds.

In my extended family alone, I have 4 Iraq War vets and 2 Afghan vets, but I'm sure the local SWAT would take us out in two seconds. Guess what? The military is full of gunnuts and they will not follow orders to kill their own friends and family.

Guess what, they ship the soldiers to other parts of the country for this type of thing. Couldn't figure that out on your own?


So, the military would segregate units via state-by-state or regionally or would they just use say New York guardsmen to send to Colorado to kill me and my family? You don't see where such a plan would end up? Civil War is the correct answer.

//doesn't matter, your scenario is fantasy.
 
2012-08-01 02:54:18 PM

redmid17: kapaso: devildog123: kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

[media.skateboard.com.au image 560x432]

I have come to doubt the actual bravery of a group that likes bravado so much. I could be wrong, maybe they will band together and put up the good fight, then the government would call in the military and it would be over in about two seconds.

You do realize that a lot of these guys that own guns are military and ex-military right? I know anti-gun people think that everyone is some redneck toothless hillbilly Stormfront member, but they really aren't. Do you really think the military would just go after most gun owners? They make up a lot of the private gun owners, and their fellow vets make up a big chunk of the rest of them. I don't think the military will do what you think they will. I sure as shait wouldn't have.

It would really depend on whether the ones who don't comply could be painted as traitors or enemies of the state. The military had no problem opening up on unarmed college students, I doubt little has changed.

You think I'm antigun because why?

Do you not remember what happened as a result of the Kent State shootings? There were widespread riots. Now imagine if the people rioting had access to a fairly large cache of weapons.

/Does that seem smart?


I never said smart. I believe it is more than possible. The only thing a gun would do for you if the government decided to get them is ensure your quick death. You'll have to excuse my less than stellar opinion of what our military will and won't do, but if history is any guide they will do as they are told.
 
2012-08-01 02:56:44 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

[media.skateboard.com.au image 560x432]

I have come to doubt the actual bravery of a group that likes bravado so much. I could be wrong, maybe they will band together and put up the good fight, then the government would call in the military and it would be over in about two seconds.

In my extended family alone, I have 4 Iraq War vets and 2 Afghan vets, but I'm sure the local SWAT would take us out in two seconds. Guess what? The military is full of gunnuts and they will not follow orders to kill their own friends and family.

Guess what, they ship the soldiers to other parts of the country for this type of thing. Couldn't figure that out on your own?

So, the military would segregate units via state-by-state or regionally or would they just use say New York guardsmen to send to Colorado to kill me and my family? You don't see where such a plan would end up? Civil War is the correct answer.

//doesn't matter, your scenario is fantasy.


It's not my fantasy, I don't believe it will ever happen. Gun fanatics on the other hand talk about holding off the government with every other breath. They sound like fools to me.
 
2012-08-01 03:03:13 PM

BeesNuts: Carth: odinsposse: Aarontology: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

Law enforcement doesn't either.

I've always thought that the most reasonable standard for determining what firearms people could own would be "anything that police use." The police, after all, are civilians. They are far more like the traditional militia than any of those backwood yokel groups.

It would also be a good reason to restrain the militarization of police forces.

But police are expected to deal with criminals who may acquire their firearms illegally. We've learned shootouts turnout very bad when the police are out gunned.

Talking about the bank robbers that led to the creation of SWAT, are you?

Cause that event led directly to the creation of just what you're talking about... better equipped and better trained SPECIAL units of police. A SPECIAL unit that has access to SPECIAL weapons and is trained in SPECIAL tactics.

Or we could just give every cop in the country an M4A1 and a handful of grenades and flashbangs, full body armor, tanks and a LAW and watch crime drop to zero in just a few years!

/we're so farking weird about law in this country.
//Even weirder when we synthesize law and order with the second amendment.


Just an FYI, the cops in florence, KY each have a AR15 or M4 in their squad cars. I'll wait while you look at the wiki entry for florence.

If you give them money and means, PDs will buy bigger guns because they think it deters crime or makes up for small dicks, or they are brothers with the dealer or whatever.
 
2012-08-01 03:04:54 PM

Kome: I'm just gonna leave this here:
Link - Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed


The "study" does not differentiate between armed thugs/criminals and people licensed to carry.

Odds are if there is a gang shooting...both parties are armed.
 
2012-08-01 03:08:31 PM

Antimatter: Headso: Antimatter: Headso: Antimatter: No Such Agency: 1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?

As many as it takes to hit the attacker. Your going to miss a few times in a panic situation, at night, while scared. It's better to have the capacity then to not have it.

I hope you don't live in an apartment complex.. heh!

I do actually, which is why I use a .40 165gr JHP rather then say, a 180 gr FMJ round.

It should stop at the walls quite nicely.

I have fired a .22 hollow point into a 50 gallon tupperware thing full of water and some of them went through to the other side, I can't see a couple sheets of drywall stopping it... But hey, I'm not yer neighbor so lock and load dude...

Good point. Might have to switch to some air-safety rounds or something.

Although honestly, I hope never to ever have to use it against a person.


We all like to make fun of each other on here for being stupid but the reality is most farkers are smarter and more mature and more responsible than the average person so at the end of the day it isn't even you guys people should be worried about being unsafe with your gun regardless of the rounds being used. I was just making a point about the dangers of people having and using guns to protect themselves in densely populated areas.
 
2012-08-01 03:25:18 PM

CPennypacker: Giltric: Wild dogs/coyotes run in packs.

Until the government can prevent that from happening I need at least 30 round mags.


The number of crimes committed with assault weapons with hi cap mags is less then the amount of voter fraud committed....so using logic provided by the anti voter ID crowd assault weapons and hi cap magazines should not be legislated.

Your point will be valid when voter fraud starts killing people


www.apfn.org
 
2012-08-01 03:41:44 PM
Nobody is interested in thinking rationally or solving problems anymore. Let's look at the guns vs. swimming pools are more deadly to kids debate.

Here's some hard data:

Pools -
Approximately 10% of households have a pool, though this can be as high as 40% in some areas

Pools - how many injuries?
83% of pool drownings occur at privately owned pools
Approx 300 kids aged four and under drown every year
Extrapolating -> means that approx 250 children die in private pools every year
Number of near-drownings in pools is not reported (number of near-drownings overall is 2700)

Pools - how do injuries occur?
Children can drown in two minutes
Most children who are drowned in private pools were last seen in the house, were out of sight for less than five minutes, and were under the supervision of one to two adults
Most drownings occur in pools that do not have complete isolation-fences

Guns -
Approximately 40% of households own at least one gun
Approximately 33% of households with children own at least one gun

Guns - how many injuries?
Unintentional shootings compose 20% of firearm-related fatalities for kids under 14
72 kids per year die as a result of unintentional shootings
800 kids per year treated at hospital as a result of an unintentional shooting
85% of victims are male

Guns - how do injuries occur?
Nearly all shootings occur in or around the home
50% occur at the victim's house, 40% occur at a friend's house
Most shootings occur when a gun is left loaded and accessible to children
More than half of gun-owning parents admit to leaving their guns loaded or unlocked
More than 70% of shootings involve handguns
A recent study showed that 50% of children who found a handgun were unsure whether it was real or a toy
A recent study showed that 90% of children who found a gun would pick it up and/or pull the trigger

Sources: drowning fact sheet and unintentional firearm injury factsheet

Some derived statistics:
300 drownings / 10% of households with a pool = 30 drownings per 1% of households having a pool

72 unintentional shooting fatalities / 40% of households with a gun = 1.8 unintentional shooting fatalities per 1% of households having a gun
800 unintentional shooting injuries / 40% of households with a gun = 20 unintentional shooting injuries per 1% of households having a gun
extrapolated 360 fatal shootings total / 40% of households with a gun = 9 fatal shootings total per 1% of households having a gun

72 unintentional shooting fatalities / 33% of parental households with a gun = 2.2 unintentional shooting fatalities per 1% of parental households with a gun


Anyway, time for a reasonable discussion on this. There are three ways you can assess gun ownership in the US - total number of guns sold, total number of gun owners, and total number of households with guns. I chose the third as being most relevant because it seems reasonable to assume that access to guns will vary on a house-by-house basis. Additionally, pool ownership is universally reported by number of households, rather than by individual ownership, and this allows us to have a common measuring stick.

The most important message is this: both types of injury described above are easily preventable. In the case of pools, the majority of drownings occur in less than 5 minutes, so presumably they could be mostly prevented by better adult supervision and a locking pool enclosure. In the case of guns, the majority of shootings occur when children are unsupervised at home with a loaded gun they can access, so presumably most of these shootings could be prevented by mandatory safe-storage laws.

As it just so happens, there are widely different state and local laws governing pool enclosures and gun safe-storage laws. We can effectively determine whether such measures can make pools and guns safe for children. In the case of pools, total-isolation pool fencing has been found to reduce fatalities by as much as 80%. Importantly, total isolation fencing must be employed; three-sided fencing allows access through the house, and does very little to influence drownings. In the case of guns, mandatory safe-storage laws cut child shooting fatalities by 23%.

Reducing the above quantities by the previously mentioned safety factors, we get:
60 reduced drownings / 10% of households with a pool = 6 drownings per 1% of households having a pool
55 reduced shooting fatalities / 33% of parental households with a gun = 1.7 shooting fatalities per 1% of parental households having a gun

Therefore, if you just look at accidental fatalities vs percentage of households owning, you get that pools are 15 times more dangerous than guns without regulations, or three times more dangerous than guns with regulation.

Relative danger is not the only measure of whether we should regulate something as a society. Both pools and guns have their own unique advantages and drawbacks for a community. One major issue is that I have only addressed accidental fatalities arising from the usage of guns, and the prevalence of intentional criminal misuse plays a critical role in the gun control debate. Also important is the fact that Americans are granted a right to own weapons in the Constitution. Both of these are separate issues from how relatively dangerous guns are, but they are two issues, among many, that must be addressed when engaging in a gun control debate.

I firmly believe that different groups of people hold the sovereign right to control what happens within their communities, and I fully support the right of a community to decide on unfettered, restricted, or no access to guns. However, lawmakers and advocates must hold themselves to a higher standard than they currently do- our politics shouldn't be driven by personal agendas and our advocates should have the integrity to accept the unbiased facts, and to not deny those facts even when it doesn't necessarily help their cause.

Gun advocates should have the integrity to accept that unintentional child fatalities can be reduced by 23% by the use of mandatory gun locks, while gun control advocates should have the integrity to admit that pools are significantly more dangerous to children than guns are. Both things are true, but neither fact is the end of the debate. Gun advocates should accept that just because pools are more dangerous than guns doesn't mean we shouldn't regulate guns, and gun control advocates should accept that there are valid reasons why someone wouldn't want to keep their self-defense gun locked up.

But until we can all fully understand what's going on, and honestly visit these questions, we're just going to make each other angry. I'm not going to give you my opinion, because that's not my goal here. What I have done for you is to demonstrate what a calm and rational assessment looks like, without trying to push an agenda. This little piece took me two hours to research and write up- really understanding an issue takes a lot of time and effort- so I understand that at some level we all have to rely on expert advocates to do our research for us. The critical thing is that we HAVE to be willing to consider all the pieces of evidence, and you HAVE to be sure that your expert advisers are going to give you the honest, whole truth.
 
2012-08-01 03:49:55 PM

CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: I think that the "right to bear arms" is antiquated and comes from a different time and is no longer relevant.

Until, of course, they are relevant again, and at that point if you don't have them, you are screwed.

I love this line of thinking "Hey, we don't need them, because we're all like, civilized now". So were the Romans. And the Greeks. And Yugoslavians and Rwandans in 1985.

Anyone else ever notice that the "We need our guns to protect us from the government" people are always the ones projecting the crazy so hard they are the reason you want there to be gun control in the first place?


A government that doesn't fear an armed populace has nothing to fear from an armed populace.

A government that *DOES* fear the people being armed probably should fear them.

In other words, a truly democratic and representative government has nothing to fear from an armed populace. No possible insurrection could gain even the tiniest foothold, as even the militia cases we've seen show. There just isn't any widespread support for overthrowing the government, nor should there be, because by and large the system works as intended. There is no reason for the government to fear an armed insurrection, because even if the flicker of an ember starts, the rest of us will piss on it before you can say "Abe Kabibble".

But assume for the sake of argument that the institutions of representative government have broken down. In that case, the government, which is no longer responsive to the people as a whole (or indeed even a significant segment of the people), does indeed have to fear an armed populace, because in that case it would rightfully worry that the people might rise up against it. That is why totalitarian governments tend to restrict the possession of arms to those it considers to be reliable supporters of the government.

Now, the US government has a pretty good (though by no means perfect) record of responding to the wishes of the people of the United States. I can see no reason to attempt to change it by violent means, because the institutions that allow for peaceful change are functioning as well as they ever have. But I'm not clairvoyant, and I can't tell you what is going to happen 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, or 200 years from now, and neither can you. All governments, no matter how well formed initially, eventually fall. It might not be tomorrow, but it will happen eventually. I just happen to take a longer view on it than most.

Think of an armed populace as the ultimate in checks and balances.
 
2012-08-01 03:52:08 PM

dittybopper: CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: I think that the "right to bear arms" is antiquated and comes from a different time and is no longer relevant.

Until, of course, they are relevant again, and at that point if you don't have them, you are screwed.

I love this line of thinking "Hey, we don't need them, because we're all like, civilized now". So were the Romans. And the Greeks. And Yugoslavians and Rwandans in 1985.

Anyone else ever notice that the "We need our guns to protect us from the government" people are always the ones projecting the crazy so hard they are the reason you want there to be gun control in the first place?

A government that doesn't fear an armed populace has nothing to fear from an armed populace.

A government that *DOES* fear the people being armed probably should fear them.

In other words, a truly democratic and representative government has nothing to fear from an armed populace. No possible insurrection could gain even the tiniest foothold, as even the militia cases we've seen show. There just isn't any widespread support for overthrowing the government, nor should there be, because by and large the system works as intended. There is no reason for the government to fear an armed insurrection, because even if the flicker of an ember starts, the rest of us will piss on it before you can say "Abe Kabibble".

But assume for the sake of argument that the institutions of representative government have broken down. In that case, the government, which is no longer responsive to the people as a whole (or indeed even a significant segment of the people), does indeed have to fear an armed populace, because in that case it would rightfully worry that the people might rise up against it. That is why totalitarian governments tend to restrict the possession of arms to those it considers to be reliable supporters of the government.

Now, the US government has a pretty good (though by no means perfect) record of responding to the wishes of ...


I fear an armed populace.
 
2012-08-01 03:55:05 PM

blunttrauma: Kome: The slight majority of them even favor much stricter policies for obtaining assault weapons.

OK, what do this slight majority want to ban?


I don't know since I did not say "ban". Regulating is not the same as banning. Failing to make that distinction makes the entire rest of your post irrelevant... although interestingly enough your failure to make that important distinction is a pretty solid example of what exactly I was talking about in that post. So, thanks for that, but you haven't presented anything to me that gives us any room for an actual discussion so I hope you'll understand if I don't engage you in anything you mentioned.

Giltric: Kome: I'm just gonna leave this here:
Link - Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed

The "study" does not differentiate between armed thugs/criminals and people licensed to carry.

Odds are if there is a gang shooting...both parties are armed.


From the published article and not simply the link I provided, they controlled for quite a number of potential confounds not listed in the story I linked to. If you'd like a full copy of the article (available from the American Journal of Public Health) I can e-mail it to you. With a fuller understanding of their methodology and analysis, I think you could give a more informed critique.
 
2012-08-01 03:57:07 PM
James Holmes killed a lot of people with a shotgun. In that particular situation, the shotgun was more lethal.
 
2012-08-01 04:00:08 PM

CPennypacker: I fear an armed populace.


You've got no reason to. Unless, of course, you are planning a coup to overthrow the government.
 
2012-08-01 04:00:37 PM

Kome: Giltric: Kome: I'm just gonna leave this here:
Link - Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed

The "study" does not differentiate between armed thugs/criminals and people licensed to carry.

Odds are if there is a gang shooting...both parties are armed.

From the published article and not simply the link I provided, they controlled for quite a number of potential confounds not listed in the story I linked to. If you'd like a full copy of the article (available from the American Journal of Public Health) I can e-mail it to you. With a fuller understanding of their methodology and analysis, I think you could give a more informed critique.


Read the full article. The only thing it remotely controls for is victims under 21 as they cannot legally possess guns. Didn't control for felon status or whether or not the crime was drug/gang related.

/whoops
 
2012-08-01 04:01:40 PM

dittybopper: CPennypacker: I fear an armed populace.

You've got no reason to. Unless, of course, you are planning a coup to overthrow the government.


Is that what the people in the theater were doing that night? Planning a coup?
 
2012-08-01 04:02:00 PM

Fubini:

....I firmly believe that different groups of people hold the sovereign right to control what happens within their communities, and I fully support the right of a community to decide on unfettered, restricted, or no access to guns. However, lawmakers and advocates must hold themselves to a higher standard than they currently do- our politics shouldn't be driven by personal agendas and our advocates should have the integrity to accept the unbiased facts, and to not deny those facts even when it doesn't necessarily help their cause....


So, you believe that local jurisidiction should have the power to deny individual rights to their citizens? SCOTUS just reaffirmed that "no access to guns" violates the 2nd amendment.
 
2012-08-01 04:02:57 PM

badhatharry: James Holmes killed a lot of people with a shotgun. In that particular situation, the shotgun was more lethal.


Most people don't realize that when used within its range limitations, the shotgun is the deadliest small arm you can own. Ironically, they tend to be the last things banned/least regulated.
 
2012-08-01 04:04:13 PM

CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: I fear an armed populace.

You've got no reason to. Unless, of course, you are planning a coup to overthrow the government.

Is that what the people in the theater were doing that night? Planning a coup?


The armed populace of the United States attacked them? Or was it a single deranged individual? I'm always getting the two confused.
 
2012-08-01 04:04:44 PM

redmid17: Kome: Giltric: Kome: I'm just gonna leave this here:
Link - Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed

The "study" does not differentiate between armed thugs/criminals and people licensed to carry.

Odds are if there is a gang shooting...both parties are armed.

From the published article and not simply the link I provided, they controlled for quite a number of potential confounds not listed in the story I linked to. If you'd like a full copy of the article (available from the American Journal of Public Health) I can e-mail it to you. With a fuller understanding of their methodology and analysis, I think you could give a more informed critique.

Read the full article. The only thing it remotely controls for is victims under 21 as they cannot legally possess guns. Didn't control for felon status or whether or not the crime was drug/gang related.

/whoops


I should say relevant factor. They did control for plenty of other stuff. Here's this gem:

"However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations1,2, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking (Table 1)."

Those factors pretty much fly in the face of any composition study of people legally carrying a gun, so I'm glad to see that you brought it up.
 
2012-08-01 04:05:05 PM

dittybopper: CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: I fear an armed populace.

You've got no reason to. Unless, of course, you are planning a coup to overthrow the government.

Is that what the people in the theater were doing that night? Planning a coup?

The armed populace of the United States attacked them? Or was it a single deranged individual? I'm always getting the two confused.


Was he not a member of the populace? Was he not armed? Or do you only get to count the people who don't go crazy and kill a bunch of people?
 
2012-08-01 04:05:18 PM
Even in countries with strict gun laws, such as Germany, you can't completely eliminate crazy shooters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting

I'm a social liberal, vet, and gun owner. I support reasonable gun controls - * which we already have* for the most part. The private sale thing can be fixed by opening up the 4473 process to normal folks - when you buy a gun from a dealer, there is a form that collects your information, and he calls that in to a hotline (or enters it into a computer system). There is no reason the non-firearms dealer citizen should not be able to access a website, input someone's name, DOB, etc and get a yes - sale or no-do not proceed with sale. This would be easy enough to do on a smartphone, in the walmart parking lot, or wherever you are trying to conduct the sale. Would eliminate the gun show loophole too.

As for high-cap magazines, well, personally I think they're fun and cool and all that, but it wouldn't bother me if you had to have a CWP or FFL to buy them. That way they are sold only to folks who have had a background check done. Wouldn't eliminate the problem, but it *would* help.

Also - I fear the media, who seems to be mostly liberal, will never give up their "semi-automatic rifle that looks scary = assault rifle" conflation.

Last, I really, really fear that they WILL get a ban on selling ammunition online. This will vastly increase the cost of shooting sports and hunting for legitimate, legal firearms owners. For example, I shoot a particular caliber. Locally it is available in only one store, for over $45/box of 20. On the internet (with a scanned/emailed or faxed copy of my ID) I can get the exact same thing (same manufacturer, etc) for $17/box of 20, plus shipping. Any restrictions on sales of ammo (other than requiring ID) will just turn into an oligarchy of a few retailers dictating what ammo you can buy and for what price.
 
2012-08-01 04:07:34 PM

Headso: Antimatter: Headso: Antimatter: Headso: Antimatter: No Such Agency: 1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?

As many as it takes to hit the attacker. Your going to miss a few times in a panic situation, at night, while scared. It's better to have the capacity then to not have it.

I hope you don't live in an apartment complex.. heh!

I do actually, which is why I use a .40 165gr JHP rather then say, a 180 gr FMJ round.

It should stop at the walls quite nicely.

I have fired a .22 hollow point into a 50 gallon tupperware thing full of water and some of them went through to the other side, I can't see a couple sheets of drywall stopping it... But hey, I'm not yer neighbor so lock and load dude...

Good point. Might have to switch to some air-safety rounds or something.

Although honestly, I hope never to ever have to use it against a person.

We all like to make fun of each other on here for being stupid but the reality is most farkers are smarter and more mature and more responsible than the average person so at the end of the day it isn't even you guys people should be worried about being unsafe with your gun regardless of the rounds being used. I was just making a point about the dangers of people having and using guns to protect themselves in densely populated areas.


Over penetration is actually a concern of mine. Not so much when I lived in the country, but living in the city, it's to be kept in mind.

Honestly, i'm terribly out of practive with my .40. Need to get some range time in, and refresh myself on how it points/shoots/etc.
 
2012-08-01 04:08:47 PM

rotarymike: Even in countries with strict gun laws, such as Germany, you can't completely eliminate crazy shooters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting

I'm a social liberal, vet, and gun owner. I support reasonable gun controls - * which we already have* for the most part. The private sale thing can be fixed by opening up the 4473 process to normal folks - when you buy a gun from a dealer, there is a form that collects your information, and he calls that in to a hotline (or enters it into a computer system). There is no reason the non-firearms dealer citizen should not be able to access a website, input someone's name, DOB, etc and get a yes - sale or no-do not proceed with sale. This would be easy enough to do on a smartphone, in the walmart parking lot, or wherever you are trying to conduct the sale. Would eliminate the gun show loophole too.


The biggest issue with that approach is the liability. How are you going to handle someone with fake identification? Most people cannot distinguish between an average fake ID and a real one. Hell ever the police have issues with the new ones from China.
 
2012-08-01 04:10:04 PM

redmid17: Read the full article. The only thing it remotely controls for is victims under 21 as they cannot legally possess guns. Didn't control for felon status or whether or not the crime was drug/gang related.

/whoops


Um, that was an exclusionary criteria and not a controlled for variable. I'd suggest you may wish to re-read the full article. You may want to pay particular attention to the methods section and the limitations section if you'd like to actually critique it. They base their conclusions on the findings within the parameters they set up, and were careful to spell out serious methodological limitations that would make generalizing their conclusions problematic.
 
2012-08-01 04:10:34 PM

CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: I fear an armed populace.

You've got no reason to. Unless, of course, you are planning a coup to overthrow the government.

Is that what the people in the theater were doing that night? Planning a coup?

The armed populace of the United States attacked them? Or was it a single deranged individual? I'm always getting the two confused.

Was he not a member of the populace? Was he not armed? Or do you only get to count the people who don't go crazy and kill a bunch of people?


You said, and I quote, "I fear an armed populace". You used the collective term. You fear everyone being armed, not just those who would do harm from criminal or insane motives.

We have regulations to handle those who criminally misuse them, or who are too mentally unstable to own them. Those laws aren't perfect, but they strike a balance between the right of the people to be armed, and the sad necessity of disarming those who are are truly a danger to those around them.
 
2012-08-01 04:14:30 PM

redmid17: rotarymike: Even in countries with strict gun laws, such as Germany, you can't completely eliminate crazy shooters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting

I'm a social liberal, vet, and gun owner. I support reasonable gun controls - * which we already have* for the most part. The private sale thing can be fixed by opening up the 4473 process to normal folks - when you buy a gun from a dealer, there is a form that collects your information, and he calls that in to a hotline (or enters it into a computer system). There is no reason the non-firearms dealer citizen should not be able to access a website, input someone's name, DOB, etc and get a yes - sale or no-do not proceed with sale. This would be easy enough to do on a smartphone, in the walmart parking lot, or wherever you are trying to conduct the sale. Would eliminate the gun show loophole too.


The biggest issue with that approach is the liability. How are you going to handle someone with fake identification? Most people cannot distinguish between an average fake ID and a real one. Hell ever the police have issues with the new ones from China.


The biggest issue with that approach is not liability. The biggest issue is that it then makes every farking transfer a matter of record that the government has access to.

No thank you. No *farkING* thank you.
 
2012-08-01 04:15:43 PM

redmid17: The biggest issue with that approach is the liability. How are you going to handle someone with fake identification? Most people cannot distinguish between an average fake ID and a real one. Hell ever the police have issues with the new ones from China.


Even real firearms dealers can't do anything about that, unless when they enter the info into the system it comes back "deny", which would happen in this case too.
 
2012-08-01 04:17:04 PM

dittybopper: CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: I fear an armed populace.

You've got no reason to. Unless, of course, you are planning a coup to overthrow the government.

Is that what the people in the theater were doing that night? Planning a coup?

The armed populace of the United States attacked them? Or was it a single deranged individual? I'm always getting the two confused.

Was he not a member of the populace? Was he not armed? Or do you only get to count the people who don't go crazy and kill a bunch of people?

You said, and I quote, "I fear an armed populace". You used the collective term. You fear everyone being armed, not just those who would do harm from criminal or insane motives.

We have regulations to handle those who criminally misuse them, or who are too mentally unstable to own them. Those laws aren't perfect, but they strike a balance between the right of the people to be armed, and the sad necessity of disarming those who are are truly a danger to those around them.


I fear everyone being armed because crazy people are part of everyone

We have regulations. We need better ones. The NRA is not helping. We do not need RPGs for duck hunting.
 
2012-08-01 04:17:38 PM

Kome: redmid17: Read the full article. The only thing it remotely controls for is victims under 21 as they cannot legally possess guns. Didn't control for felon status or whether or not the crime was drug/gang related.

/whoops

Um, that was an exclusionary criteria and not a controlled for variable. I'd suggest you may wish to re-read the full article. You may want to pay particular attention to the methods section and the limitations section if you'd like to actually critique it. They base their conclusions on the findings within the parameters they set up, and were careful to spell out serious methodological limitations that would make generalizing their conclusions problematic.


Assuming this is the full text of the study you're talking about (same date and publication), I fail to see where this was addressed.

We excluded self-inflicted, unintentional, and police-related shootings (an officer shooting someone or being shot), and gun injuries of undetermined intent. We excluded individuals younger than 21 years because it was not legal for them to possess a firearm in Philadelphia and, as such, the relationship we sought to investigate was functionally different enough to prompt separate study of this age group. We excluded individuals who were not residents of Philadelphia as they were outside our target population and individuals not described as Black or White as they were involved in a very small percentage of shootings (
 
2012-08-01 04:18:05 PM
You know, the 2nd amendment isn't just about overthrowing the government. That's just the most dramatic example. In the case of invasion or a wide spread world war, a populace with rifling skills will be invaluable for assisting the nation. Don't get me wrong, we're all impressed with your iPad and all your effete qualities associated with being an upstanding up down urban gentleman, but they won't be of much use if the country needs you.
 
2012-08-01 04:18:34 PM

Kome: blunttrauma: OK, what do this slight majority want to ban?

I don't know since I did not say "ban". Regulating is not the same as banning. Failing to make that distinction makes the entire rest of your post irrelevant...


Rephrasing for Captain Pedantic:

Kome: The slight majority of them even favor much stricter policies for obtaining assault weapons.


OK, what do this slight majority want to regulate?

Is this one OK?
www.shedracing.net

What about this one?
www.shedracing.net

Or?
www.shedracing.net

This one?
www.shedracing.net

In your educated opinion, which of these are acceptable?

Just to be clear, those four rifles are functionally identical. They are semi-automatic centerfire rifles with detachable magazines. The top is a Remington 7400, the second is a Ruger Mini 14. The Ruger is nearly identical to the AR below it, as it fires the same cartridge, and high capacity (30 round) magazines are readily available.

What anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together has been saying all along is that semi-auto "Assault Weapons" bans are idiotic, because there is no such thing. A semi-auto rifle is a semi auto rifle, and one with a pistol grip is no more "deadly" than one without. You and others want to ban guns that look scary, and that is irrational.

Like it or not, in a post Heller and McDonald United States, gun ownership is an enumerated, fundamental constitutional right, and semiautomatic firearms are in common use, and have been since World War 2. Hundreds of thousands of semi-automatic rifles have been sold to US Citizens directly from the government under the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The 4th and 7th Circuit Courts have both ruled that even laws regarding gun ownership by criminals are subject to intermediate scrutiny, implying strict scrutiny for the law abiding.

Assault weapons bans would fail either test, and wouldn't even get past rational basis (Which SCOTUS rejected outright in Heller). Aside from the "common use" (specified in Heller) There is no crime problem with rifles in general, let alone so called "Assault Weapons" There never has been, and there never will be.
 
2012-08-01 04:18:51 PM

CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: I fear an armed populace.

You've got no reason to. Unless, of course, you are planning a coup to overthrow the government.

Is that what the people in the theater were doing that night? Planning a coup?

The armed populace of the United States attacked them? Or was it a single deranged individual? I'm always getting the two confused.

Was he not a member of the populace? Was he not armed? Or do you only get to count the people who don't go crazy and kill a bunch of people?

You said, and I quote, "I fear an armed populace". You used the collective term. You fear everyone being armed, not just those who would do harm from criminal or insane motives.

We have regulations to handle those who criminally misuse them, or who are too mentally unstable to own them. Those laws aren't perfect, but they strike a balance between the right of the people to be armed, and the sad necessity of disarming those who are are truly a danger to those around them.

I fear everyone being armed because crazy people are part of everyone

We have regulations. We need better ones. The NRA is not helping. We do not need RPGs for duck hunting.


It's probably less stringent for someone to join the army to get access to an RPG like weapon than it is to go through all the licensing and background check hoops to own one as a civilian.
 
2012-08-01 04:20:57 PM

dittybopper: redmid17: rotarymike: Even in countries with strict gun laws, such as Germany, you can't completely eliminate crazy shooters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting

I'm a social liberal, vet, and gun owner. I support reasonable gun controls - * which we already have* for the most part. The private sale thing can be fixed by opening up the 4473 process to normal folks - when you buy a gun from a dealer, there is a form that collects your information, and he calls that in to a hotline (or enters it into a computer system). There is no reason the non-firearms dealer citizen should not be able to access a website, input someone's name, DOB, etc and get a yes - sale or no-do not proceed with sale. This would be easy enough to do on a smartphone, in the walmart parking lot, or wherever you are trying to conduct the sale. Would eliminate the gun show loophole too.


The biggest issue with that approach is the liability. How are you going to handle someone with fake identification? Most people cannot distinguish between an average fake ID and a real one. Hell ever the police have issues with the new ones from China.

The biggest issue with that approach is not liability. The biggest issue is that it then makes every farking transfer a matter of record that the government has access to.

No thank you. No *farkING* thank you.


Nothing in my post suggested that you needed to enter the particulars of the gun, such as is done on a 4473. It shouldn't matter what the gun itself is. The important bit is a simple Allow/Deny sale.
 
2012-08-01 04:21:22 PM

Frank N Stein: You know, the 2nd amendment isn't just about overthrowing the government. That's just the most dramatic example. In the case of invasion or a wide spread world war, a populace with rifling skills will be invaluable for assisting the nation. Don't get me wrong, we're all impressed with your iPad and all your effete qualities associated with being an upstanding up down urban gentleman, but they won't be of much use if the country needs you.


In the 99.9% of the time that the country isn't in some fantasy apocalyptic wartime, we're decidedly not impressed with your macho gun stroking skills. They're not of much use and you would be invaluable to society if you had useful skills. At least the "upstanding up down urban gentleman" can make a business deal without someone setting off the silent alarm because he's carrying an AR15 to the meeting.
 
2012-08-01 04:23:39 PM

CPennypacker: Frank N Stein: You know, the 2nd amendment isn't just about overthrowing the government. That's just the most dramatic example. In the case of invasion or a wide spread world war, a populace with rifling skills will be invaluable for assisting the nation. Don't get me wrong, we're all impressed with your iPad and all your effete qualities associated with being an upstanding up down urban gentleman, but they won't be of much use if the country needs you.

In the 99.9% of the time that the country isn't in some fantasy apocalyptic wartime, we're decidedly not impressed with your macho gun stroking skills. They're not of much use and you would be invaluable to society if you had useful skills. At least the "upstanding up down urban gentleman" can make a business deal without someone setting off the silent alarm because he's carrying an AR15 to the meeting.


I lost count of all the logical fallacies in your argument n
 
2012-08-01 04:24:45 PM

Frank N Stein: CPennypacker: Frank N Stein: You know, the 2nd amendment isn't just about overthrowing the government. That's just the most dramatic example. In the case of invasion or a wide spread world war, a populace with rifling skills will be invaluable for assisting the nation. Don't get me wrong, we're all impressed with your iPad and all your effete qualities associated with being an upstanding up down urban gentleman, but they won't be of much use if the country needs you.

In the 99.9% of the time that the country isn't in some fantasy apocalyptic wartime, we're decidedly not impressed with your macho gun stroking skills. They're not of much use and you would be invaluable to society if you had useful skills. At least the "upstanding up down urban gentleman" can make a business deal without someone setting off the silent alarm because he's carrying an AR15 to the meeting.

I lost count of all the logical fallacies in your argument n


Its amusing to me that you're picking logical fallacies out of a post I made to mock yours.
 
2012-08-01 04:26:47 PM

CPennypacker:
We have regulations. We need better ones. The NRA is not helping. We do not need RPGs for duck hunting.


Right. Because the NRA advocates that exact thing.

You ever roll your eyes so far is actually hurts?
 
2012-08-01 04:31:46 PM
So? Most Americans don't need most of what they own.
 
2012-08-01 04:33:25 PM

blunttrauma: CPennypacker:
We have regulations. We need better ones. The NRA is not helping. We do not need RPGs for duck hunting.

Right. Because the NRA advocates that exact thing.

You ever roll your eyes so far is actually hurts?


Why is duck hunting legal? Because many Americans enjoy it? Well, I would enjoy shooting an RPG. Not at ducks though. That would just be stupid.
 
2012-08-01 04:38:08 PM

CPennypacker: We do not need RPGs for duck hunting.


1. The Second Amendment isn't about duck hunting.

2. Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs) are destructive devices and as such are very heavily regulated by the Federal Government. Apparently there are less than a dozen in the NFA registry. That would make them more expensive than my house. If you can afford that, it's likely you aren't going to use it for nefarious purposes.

Also, if you do own one, I'll be your best friend if you let me shoot it.
 
2012-08-01 04:42:47 PM

rotarymike: Nothing in my post suggested that you needed to enter the particulars of the gun, such as is done on a 4473. It shouldn't matter what the gun itself is. The important bit is a simple Allow/Deny sale.


It's a paper trail that says you own X. And doing it for *ALL* transfers means there is a record of every gun you own.

Fark you very much.
 
2012-08-01 04:44:51 PM
I'd love to live in a world without guns.

I'd also love to live in a world without rapes, murders, cancer, neoCons, fascist police departments, Snookie and Apple fanboys.

No laws will make any of those things go away. Just like prohibiting anything, it doesn't make it go away, it just makes it all go underground.

/black market Snookie could be thousands of times more dangerous than legal Snookie
 
2012-08-01 04:45:46 PM

dittybopper: In other words, a truly democratic and representative government has nothing to fear from an armed populace. No possible insurrection could gain even the tiniest foothold, as even the militia cases we've seen show. There just isn't any widespread support for overthrowing the government, nor should there be, because by and large the system works as intended. There is no reason for the government to fear an armed insurrection, because even if the flicker of an ember starts, the rest of us will piss on it before you can say "Abe Kabibble".


Please explain the US Civil War in this case? Or are you just concerned in a democracy instead of our representative republic which allows for cases where it is possible for a localized majority to take steps that offend a sizable localized minority. Not defending the south but an armed insurrection has occurred in our system.
 
2012-08-01 04:48:20 PM

dittybopper: tlchwi02: i like guns. I hunt, i own many of them, i have all my licenses.

But i do not understand why a civilian needs a semi-automatic rifle and extended magazines. The US military managed to win WW2 with the average soldier armed with an 8 round semi-auto rifle. Why does some rando person need more firepower than that? what sort of insane deer/20 person home invader assault team do people think are going to come after them?

Yes, because riots never happen. Looting in the aftermath of a major disaster never happens. Multiple criminal home invasions never happen.

I'd also point out that the average US soldier in WWII also had a guy with a for-real machine gun in his squad (Usually a BAR), he also carried a varying number of grenades, and he typically was facing an opponent carrying a 5 shot bolt action rifle (so having an 8 shot semi-auto gave him a significant advantage).

Don't get stuck on stupid.


Um, what he said was correct. Did the average soldier always have the guy with the BAR around? Was the "BAR" guy invincible? Was the "BAR" guy omnipresent? Did the average soldier ALWAYS square off with a guy with a 5-bolt rifle? He never faced any other type of enemy or weapon?

I mean you had a good point there, but calling the guy stupid when your point doesn't really negate anything he said... I don't get it.
 
2012-08-01 04:49:28 PM

rotarymike: Even in countries with strict gun laws, such as Germany, you can't completely eliminate crazy shooters.

 

Germany doesn't have particularly strict gun laws. They are ranked around 15th in the world for gun ownership.
 
2012-08-01 04:49:33 PM

redmid17: Assuming this is the full text of the study you're talking about (same date and publication), I fail to see where this was addressed.


That is the correct article. But they did, as you said, control for victims under age 21 since that was an exclusionary criteria. In research, a control variable and inclusion/exclusion criteria are radically different constructs. I'm not even sure how you managed to confuse the two. With all due respect, may I ask what kind of background you have in research?

blunttrauma: Rephrasing for Captain Pedantic:


You think the difference between "ban" and "regulate" is pedantic?
 
2012-08-01 04:56:10 PM

Giltric: tlchwi02: dittybopper: Yes, because riots never happen. Looting in the aftermath of a major disaster never happens. Multiple criminal home invasions never happen.

Your basic argument seems to be that theoretically a situation could arise where some sort of riot occurs where a business owner would need to be able to fire hundreds of rounds into a massive crowd without having time to reload. I don't think that hypothetical situations are a worthy justification for real life policy.

Hypothetical? We have had riots every time a wall street banker gets a bonus, every time a sports team wins something, and every time a gang banger gets shot by police.


In which of those cases would you need to fire hundreds of rounds of ammunition?
 
2012-08-01 04:56:56 PM

saddlesablazin: dittybopper: tlchwi02: i like guns. I hunt, i own many of them, i have all my licenses.

But i do not understand why a civilian needs a semi-automatic rifle and extended magazines. The US military managed to win WW2 with the average soldier armed with an 8 round semi-auto rifle. Why does some rando person need more firepower than that? what sort of insane deer/20 person home invader assault team do people think are going to come after them?

Yes, because riots never happen. Looting in the aftermath of a major disaster never happens. Multiple criminal home invasions never happen.

I'd also point out that the average US soldier in WWII also had a guy with a for-real machine gun in his squad (Usually a BAR), he also carried a varying number of grenades, and he typically was facing an opponent carrying a 5 shot bolt action rifle (so having an 8 shot semi-auto gave him a significant advantage).

Don't get stuck on stupid.

Um, what he said was correct. Did the average soldier always have the guy with the BAR around? Was the "BAR" guy invincible? Was the "BAR" guy omnipresent? Did the average soldier ALWAYS square off with a guy with a 5-bolt rifle? He never faced any other type of enemy or weapon?

I mean you had a good point there, but calling the guy stupid when your point doesn't really negate anything he said... I don't get it.


Typically speaking, squad leader (of 12) had a tommy gun, one guy had a BAR, and one guy had a bazooka (army) . Marines had one tommy gun, 3 BARs, and a bazooka.
Germans had 1 MG42 per squad as well as an MP40 for the squad leader. The rest of the squad had the bolt action rifles. Either way, dittybopper's point still stands.
 
2012-08-01 05:03:08 PM
You know I think the Assault Weapons Ban makes a lot of sense, but I also believe the pro-gun argument that criminals will find a way to kill if they really want to. So either way I don't feel too strongly since there isn't enough data to support either view. I can't stand pro-gun people though. This thread only serves to reinforce that.
 
2012-08-01 05:04:17 PM

Kome: redmid17: Assuming this is the full text of the study you're talking about (same date and publication), I fail to see where this was addressed.

That is the correct article. But they did, as you said, control for victims under age 21 since that was an exclusionary criteria. In research, a control variable and inclusion/exclusion criteria are radically different constructs. I'm not even sure how you managed to confuse the two. With all due respect, may I ask what kind of background you have in research?


I didn't confuse the two. I know the difference. Exclusions are kept entirely out of the study (no shiat). Control variables are the baseline they measure the results of the study off of. My point is the study doesn't address whether the people in their are carrying legally or engaged in illegal activity. CCW or CHL holders are overwhelmingly white, middle age, and tend to be more affluent. The patterns of their study are almost the exact opposite which leads me to believe they did not. Most gun homicides (I know this is assaults) are gang related, and those murders are overwhelmingly committed and suffered by minorities. I think this study is pretty useless because it doesn't appear to differentiate between legally carrying and criminals.

bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov
 
2012-08-01 05:07:05 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Fubini:

....I firmly believe that different groups of people hold the sovereign right to control what happens within their communities, and I fully support the right of a community to decide on unfettered, restricted, or no access to guns. However, lawmakers and advocates must hold themselves to a higher standard than they currently do- our politics shouldn't be driven by personal agendas and our advocates should have the integrity to accept the unbiased facts, and to not deny those facts even when it doesn't necessarily help their cause....

So, you believe that local jurisidiction should have the power to deny individual rights to their citizens? SCOTUS just reaffirmed that "no access to guns" violates the 2nd amendment.


It depends on the size of the jurisdiction and the circumstances. For sure, SCOTUS has struck down things like the DC handgun ban. However, courts have upheld things like the amended Gun Free School Zones Act.

Additionally, I think that it would be reasonable for a condo board or a HOA to enact a no-guns rule within their own community. Of course, they could not prohibit guns retroactively for existing members. I would presume that, as a private entity, they are free to enact whatever bylaws they want, as living there is entirely voluntary on the part of the residents. I'm not a lawyer. People are free to contractually agree not to exercise their rights.

In general, the 2nd Amendment does not grant someone an absolute right to carry a gun all the time.
 
2012-08-01 05:22:52 PM

redmid17: I didn't confuse the two. I know the difference. Exclusions are kept entirely out of the study (no shiat). Control variables are the baseline they measure the results of the study off of.


Then why did you say that "The only thing it remotely controls for is victims under 21 as they cannot legally possess guns."?

My point is the study doesn't address whether the people in their are carrying legally or engaged in illegal activity. CCW or CHL holders are overwhelmingly white, middle age, and tend to be more affluent. The patterns of their study are almost the exact opposite which leads me to believe they did not. Most gun homicides (I know this is assaults) are gang related, and those murders are overwhelmingly committed and suffered by minorities. I think this study is pretty useless because it doesn't appear to differentiate between legally carrying and criminals.

Considering that wasn't the objective of their study, I fail to see how that invalidates the study considering they kept their conclusions within the bounds of the question they did ask. If anything, that limitation in the context of the conclusions they did present just increases the importance of conducting that kind of study, as is the case with every limitation for every study.
 
2012-08-01 05:24:41 PM

Kome: redmid17: I didn't confuse the two. I know the difference. Exclusions are kept entirely out of the study (no shiat). Control variables are the baseline they measure the results of the study off of.

Then why did you say that "The only thing it remotely controls for is victims under 21 as they cannot legally possess guns."?

My point is the study doesn't address whether the people in their are carrying legally or engaged in illegal activity. CCW or CHL holders are overwhelmingly white, middle age, and tend to be more affluent. The patterns of their study are almost the exact opposite which leads me to believe they did not. Most gun homicides (I know this is assaults) are gang related, and those murders are overwhelmingly committed and suffered by minorities. I think this study is pretty useless because it doesn't appear to differentiate between legally carrying and criminals.

Considering that wasn't the objective of their study, I fail to see how that invalidates the study considering they kept their conclusions within the bounds of the question they did ask. If anything, that limitation in the context of the conclusions they did present just increases the importance of conducting that kind of study, as is the case with every limitation for every study.


So the study isn't wrong, it's just completely useless?
 
2012-08-01 05:28:43 PM

Headso: I like the idea of cities being able to limit gun rights and not on the state level. In NY for instance you can live in an area where your nearest neighbor is 10 miles away or you can live in the some of the most densely populated real estate on the planet and in those places protecting yourself with a gun is endangering orders of magnitude more people than you, it ain't just about you...


If one argument against gun control is personal safety then wouldn't areas of higher crime in urban areas actually make guns more necessary?
 
2012-08-01 05:35:01 PM

redmid17: So the study isn't wrong, it's just completely useless?


Exploratory studies are sometimes done to examine a question that either (a) hasn't been researched before or (b) are for questions where the evidence is pretty ambiguous and going into it with a priori hypotheses unnecessarily biases the way the data can be interpreted. This helps either lead the way for future research (in the case of "a") or helps to provide clarity in ambiguous lines of research (in the case of "b"). But, more importantly, if you have to ask that question, especially phrased the way you did, I really am curious about your background in research.

And since you didn't answer my earlier question, I'll ask it again: if you know the difference between control variables and exclusionary criteria, why did you say the only thing that the study controlled for was something that was an exclusion factor?
 
2012-08-01 05:40:47 PM

Kome: redmid17: So the study isn't wrong, it's just completely useless?

Exploratory studies are sometimes done to examine a question that either (a) hasn't been researched before or (b) are for questions where the evidence is pretty ambiguous and going into it with a priori hypotheses unnecessarily biases the way the data can be interpreted. This helps either lead the way for future research (in the case of "a") or helps to provide clarity in ambiguous lines of research (in the case of "b"). But, more importantly, if you have to ask that question, especially phrased the way you did, I really am curious about your background in research.

And since you didn't answer my earlier question, I'll ask it again: if you know the difference between control variables and exclusionary criteria, why did you say the only thing that the study controlled for was something that was an exclusion factor?


Typo. I don't have a heavy background in research. I'll also feel free why you think that an extremely flawed, exploratory study is even worth presenting in this argument.

Here's what the abstract should say: Carrying a gun makes you 4x more likely do be wounded or die from a firearm-related attack if you're in a gang, constantly involved in or are around illegal activity, run drugs, run weapons, or carry a gun illegally. People in this study are most likely not licensed to carry a gun legally
 
2012-08-01 05:41:28 PM

saddlesablazin: Um, what he said was correct. Did the average soldier always have the guy with the BAR around? Was the "BAR" guy invincible? Was the "BAR" guy omnipresent? Did the average soldier ALWAYS square off with a guy with a 5-bolt rifle? He never faced any other type of enemy or weapon?

I mean you had a good point there, but calling the guy stupid when your point doesn't really negate anything he said... I don't get it.


I didn't call him stupid. I said "Don't get stuck on stupid", ie., don't latch on to a stupid idea ("Average WWII soldier had a Garand, so that's all you'll ever need").

Sorry I didn't make that clear.
 
2012-08-01 05:45:47 PM

Fubini: In general, the 2nd Amendment does not grant someone an absolute right to carry a gun all the time.


Yes, it does, subject to minimal exceptions.

Your sentence would be equally senseless if you said "In general, the 1st Amendment does not grant someone an absolute right to say what they want all the time".

The First Amendment does grant you that right, with only very few limits, like falsely yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, or threatening someone with physical harm ("I'll kill you!").
 
2012-08-01 05:52:26 PM

redmid17: Typo. I don't have a heavy background in research. I'll also feel free why you think that an extremely flawed, exploratory study is even worth presenting in this argument.


Limited does not mean it's flawed. It just means it's limited. If they had written the abstract as you suggest, however, it would go from being simply limited in examining an interesting research question to incredibly flawed because it was not examining those issues.

As to why I linked to it, mostly for funsies. I wanted to see what kind of response it would get. Sometimes it's a good way to spark an interesting conversation. In this case, however, all it's done is make me think a continuing discussion would involve trying to teach intro to research methods over the internet. I can do that, if you'd like, but it'd be boring.
 
2012-08-01 05:54:51 PM

Kome: redmid17: Typo. I don't have a heavy background in research. I'll also feel free why you think that an extremely flawed, exploratory study is even worth presenting in this argument.

Limited does not mean it's flawed. It just means it's limited. If they had written the abstract as you suggest, however, it would go from being simply limited in examining an interesting research question to incredibly flawed because it was not examining those issues.

As to why I linked to it, mostly for funsies. I wanted to see what kind of response it would get. Sometimes it's a good way to spark an interesting conversation. In this case, however, all it's done is make me think a continuing discussion would involve trying to teach intro to research methods over the internet. I can do that, if you'd like, but it'd be boring.


So you were trolling with a study completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand because of its limitations/flaws? Way to go buddy.
 
2012-08-01 05:54:53 PM

dittybopper: Fubini: In general, the 2nd Amendment does not grant someone an absolute right to carry a gun all the time.

Yes, it does, subject to minimal exceptions.

Your sentence would be equally senseless if you said "In general, the 1st Amendment does not grant someone an absolute right to say what they want all the time".

The First Amendment does grant you that right, with only very few limits, like falsely yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, or threatening someone with physical harm ("I'll kill you!").


And slander, and libel, and testifying in court. Not exactly minimal exceptions considering the scope of the consequences for slander, libel, and lying under oath.
 
2012-08-01 05:56:50 PM

dittybopper: Yes, it does, subject to minimal exceptions.


You just disagreed with yourself.

Absolute means any time, any place, for any reason. You do not have an absolute right to carry a gun, e.g. in a school. You do not have an absolute right to free speech, such as, as you point out, yelling "FIRE!" in a theater.

If even one tiny exception exists, it is no longer absolute.

Moreover, with respect to my original post, anybody can voluntarily agree not to exercise a right. Such as waiving your right to a jury trial (agreeing instead to binding arbitration), as is common in many contracts.
 
2012-08-01 06:04:15 PM

redmid17: Kome: redmid17: Typo. I don't have a heavy background in research. I'll also feel free why you think that an extremely flawed, exploratory study is even worth presenting in this argument.

Limited does not mean it's flawed. It just means it's limited. If they had written the abstract as you suggest, however, it would go from being simply limited in examining an interesting research question to incredibly flawed because it was not examining those issues.

As to why I linked to it, mostly for funsies. I wanted to see what kind of response it would get. Sometimes it's a good way to spark an interesting conversation. In this case, however, all it's done is make me think a continuing discussion would involve trying to teach intro to research methods over the internet. I can do that, if you'd like, but it'd be boring.

So you were trolling with a study completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand because of its limitations/flaws? Way to go buddy.


Not trolling since I was not trying to invoke any inflammatory response. I was hoping for a real discussion. The study is not completely irrelevant because it is, as far as I'm aware, the only study that examines the question of whether carrying a firearm is linked to being a shooting victim. That question does bear significant weight on the issues at hand, especially since in light of every mass shooting - which occurs at least once a year in the United States, a frequency that is nowhere near matched by any other industrialized country in the world, by the way - there are folks who put forward the argument that a way to prevent these kinds of tragedies is that more people should be allowed to carry guns more often.

Pointing out the limitations of a study is a great (and easy) way to design a future study. And that's an important part of doing scientific research. If you find the methodology employed by those researchers to be flawed or irrelevant to the discussion, you are invited to participate in the scientific process and conduct your own study on the question with different methods. In my own fields of research, that has certainly been something most everyone I know does at least sometimes. It's a valid and important way to contribute to our collective understanding of an issue.
 
2012-08-01 06:04:51 PM

blunttrauma: CPennypacker:
We have regulations. We need better ones. The NRA is not helping. We do not need RPGs for duck hunting.

Right. Because the NRA advocates that exact thing.

You ever roll your eyes so far is actually hurts?


Yeah. I do it all the time when gun nuts come into these threads and talk about how they need guns to keep the government in check.
 
2012-08-01 06:04:51 PM

redmid17: Kome: redmid17: Typo. I don't have a heavy background in research. I'll also feel free why you think that an extremely flawed, exploratory study is even worth presenting in this argument.

Limited does not mean it's flawed. It just means it's limited. If they had written the abstract as you suggest, however, it would go from being simply limited in examining an interesting research question to incredibly flawed because it was not examining those issues.

As to why I linked to it, mostly for funsies. I wanted to see what kind of response it would get. Sometimes it's a good way to spark an interesting conversation. In this case, however, all it's done is make me think a continuing discussion would involve trying to teach intro to research methods over the internet. I can do that, if you'd like, but it'd be boring.

So you were trolling with a study completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand because of its limitations/flaws? Way to go buddy.


Not trolling since I was not trying to invoke any inflammatory response. I was hoping for a real discussion. The study is not completely irrelevant because, to date, it is, as far as I'm aware, the only study that examines the question of whether carrying a firearm is linked to being a shooting victim. That question does bear significant weight on the issues at hand, especially since in light of every mass shooting - which occurs at least once a year in the United States, a frequency that is nowhere near matched by any other industrialized country in the world, by the way - there are folks who put forward the argument that a way to prevent these kinds of tragedies is that more people should be allowed to carry guns more often.

Pointing out the limitations of a study is a great (and easy) way to design a future study. And that's an important part of doing scientific research. If you find the methodology employed by those researchers to be flawed or irrelevant to the discussion, you are invited to participate in the scientific process and conduct your own study on the question with different methods. In my own fields of research, that has certainly been something most everyone I know does at least sometimes. It's a valid and important way to contribute to our collective understanding of an issue.
 
2012-08-01 06:06:32 PM
Gr... I thought I had stopped it from posting before fully editing that comment for clarity (third sentence in the first paragraph was clunky). Apologies for essentially double-posting.
 
2012-08-01 06:08:27 PM

SuperT: BeesNuts: Carth: odinsposse: Aarontology: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

Law enforcement doesn't either.

I've always thought that the most reasonable standard for determining what firearms people could own would be "anything that police use." The police, after all, are civilians. They are far more like the traditional militia than any of those backwood yokel groups.

It would also be a good reason to restrain the militarization of police forces.

But police are expected to deal with criminals who may acquire their firearms illegally. We've learned shootouts turnout very bad when the police are out gunned.

Talking about the bank robbers that led to the creation of SWAT, are you?

Cause that event led directly to the creation of just what you're talking about... better equipped and better trained SPECIAL units of police. A SPECIAL unit that has access to SPECIAL weapons and is trained in SPECIAL tactics.

Or we could just give every cop in the country an M4A1 and a handful of grenades and flashbangs, full body armor, tanks and a LAW and watch crime drop to zero in just a few years!

/we're so farking weird about law in this country.
//Even weirder when we synthesize law and order with the second amendment.

Just an FYI, the cops in florence, KY each have a AR15 or M4 in their squad cars. I'll wait while you look at the wiki entry for florence.

If you give them money and means, PDs will buy bigger guns because they think it deters crime or makes up for small dicks, or they are brothers with the dealer or whatever.


No shiat. I wasn't saying it was reality that we don't arm our cops to the teeth if they have the budget. It is reality that the event I think he was talking about actually spawned, specifically SWAT. Which is the type of force he's implying we need to keep so the police are never outgunned.

It is also reality that every time a cop dies anywhere in the country, there is a push to arm them better, give them better weapons tools and armor protection. As you say, if there's money, and they think they can get away with it, a PD will HAPPILY buy itself a tank.
 
2012-08-01 06:11:12 PM

Kome:
You think the difference between "ban" and "regulate" is pedantic?


Yes, because I live in California and have been at the receiving end of plenty of "Reasonable regulation". In reality, Regulate and Ban end up meaning the same thing. Possessing a firearm with a specific name stamped on it can be a felony, (unless properly registered/regulated) but an otherwise identical firearm with a different name can be purchased at your local sporting goods store. If you happen to own one of those properly registered evil named firearms, (owned before the "Regulation" took effect) you can't sell it, except to a specially licensed dealer, (which there are very few) or even pass it down to your children when you die. You want to shoot it, you need to transport it in a locked container, and can only drive directly to and from the range.

Yet a functionally identical firearm with different words stamped on it is perfectly OK to do whatever you want with.

I also see you dodged the question again about which of those functionally identical rifles were "good" and which were "bad".

By the way, what is your source for "slight majority" of gun owners? I suppose is is possible, but according to the NSSF almost 1 in 5 firearms sold last year were AR15 pattern rifles. Not all military pattern rifles, just AR15s. That is a lot of guns being sold to a minority of gun owners. Oh and 4 in 10 firearms sold were Semi Automatic pistols, many of which can fall under so called "Assault Weapons" bans, sorry "Regulations", depending on the wording and features.
 
2012-08-01 06:30:07 PM

Fubini: dittybopper: Yes, it does, subject to minimal exceptions.

You just disagreed with yourself.

Absolute means any time, any place, for any reason. You do not have an absolute right to carry a gun, e.g. in a school. You do not have an absolute right to free speech, such as, as you point out, yelling "FIRE!" in a theater.

If even one tiny exception exists, it is no longer absolute.

Moreover, with respect to my original post, anybody can voluntarily agree not to exercise a right. Such as waiving your right to a jury trial (agreeing instead to binding arbitration), as is common in many contracts.


You absolutely do have the right to yell "FIRE!" in a theater, if there is indeed a fire in the theater. And while you may not have a right to do it falsely, we don't require you to wear a muzzle when you enter.

There is *NO* right that is completely absolute, but that's not what we were discussing. That was a strawman you introduced.
 
2012-08-01 06:32:00 PM

blunttrauma: Kome:
You think the difference between "ban" and "regulate" is pedantic?

Yes, because I live in California and have been at the receiving end of plenty of "Reasonable regulation". In reality, Regulate and Ban end up meaning the same thing. Possessing a firearm with a specific name stamped on it can be a felony, (unless properly registered/regulated) but an otherwise identical firearm with a different name can be purchased at your local sporting goods store. If you happen to own one of those properly registered evil named firearms, (owned before the "Regulation" took effect) you can't sell it, except to a specially licensed dealer, (which there are very few) or even pass it down to your children when you die. You want to shoot it, you need to transport it in a locked container, and can only drive directly to and from the range.

Yet a functionally identical firearm with different words stamped on it is perfectly OK to do whatever you want with.


If the classification of nearly identical guns is that arbitrary, then that would seem to indicate the regulations are not, in fact, reasonable. Let's replace it with something that is less arbitrary and is reasonable. Also, based on the description you gave there, it seems nothing is actually banned. There are just stricter policies and laws in place regarding the sale, transportation, and use of certain firearms that are already owned. How is that banning anything?

I also see you dodged the question again about which of those functionally identical rifles were "good" and which were "bad".

Because it is not germane to the discussion. If they are functionally identical, than they are all equally "good" or "bad" and should be classified as such together. Reasonable regulation would treat them so. Unreasonable regulation would not. Asking me what I would classify as what is pretty irrelevant.

By the way, what is your source for "slight majority" of gun owners? I suppose is is possible, but according to the NSSF almost 1 in 5 firearms sold last year were AR15 pattern rifles. Not all military pattern rifles, just AR15s. That is a lot of guns being sold to a minority of gun owners. Oh and 4 in 10 firearms sold were Semi Automatic pistols, many of which can fall under so called "Assault Weapons" bans, sorry "Regulations", depending on the wording and features.

Polling data. You can use the googles to find them, if you're inclined. But more importantly than that, your post suggests something that is manifestly untrue. People in favor of certain different gun regulations does not equate to them not owning those types of guns themselves. If you consider a reasonable regulation on guns preventing the legal purchase of a firearm by someone with a felony conviction, that does not consequently mean you will not purchase a gun yourself. And considering not every state in the country has a gun control policy like that, or hell even the fact that not every legal purchase of a firearm involves a background check, the two are completely different questions. Hypothetically, just because I'm in favor of a mandatory background check for every purchase of a firearm, and anyone whose background check comes back positive for a convicted felony or a history of psychiatric illness to be denied the sale of whatever classification system you use to denote an "assault weapon" (let's just extend the hypothetical to only consider semi-automatic rifles and all automatic firearms to be "assault weapons") does not mean I am also for preventing everyone from owning one of them.

Also, linguistically, since both "1 in 5" and "4 in 10" in still a minority, and I only said a "slight majority", what you said doesn't contradict what I said. Hell, what you said may in fact coincide nicely with what I said.
 
2012-08-01 06:42:20 PM

Fubini: Moreover, with respect to my original post, anybody can voluntarily agree not to exercise a right. Such as waiving your right to a jury trial (agreeing instead to binding arbitration), as is common in many contracts.


Rights are not requirements. The First Amendment doesn't require you to speak your mind, it just protects you when you do (aside from the limited and narrowly tailored exceptions).

The Second Amendment doesn't require that you own or carry a firearm, it just protects you when you do (aside from the limited and narrowly tailored exceptions). Granted, we're still in the infancy of probing the limits of the Second Amendment, but I'm confident that it will be protected as well as the other enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights.

BTW, Congress *DOES* have the power to require you to purchase a gun, under the Militia clause:

Article I, Section 8:

Congress shall have power...
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


However, that would only apply if you were a male 18-44 years old (and presumably didn't have anything that prevents you from owning one, like a felony conviction).
 
2012-08-01 07:16:43 PM

saddlesablazin: Giltric: tlchwi02: dittybopper: Yes, because riots never happen. Looting in the aftermath of a major disaster never happens. Multiple criminal home invasions never happen.

Your basic argument seems to be that theoretically a situation could arise where some sort of riot occurs where a business owner would need to be able to fire hundreds of rounds into a massive crowd without having time to reload. I don't think that hypothetical situations are a worthy justification for real life policy.

Hypothetical? We have had riots every time a wall street banker gets a bonus, every time a sports team wins something, and every time a gang banger gets shot by police.

In which of those cases would you need to fire hundreds of rounds of ammunition?


April 29th Florence and Normandy.

Rather have it and never need it than need it and not have it....just like health insurance
 
2012-08-01 10:22:03 PM
All this debate and arguing about "assault rifles" cracks me up.

The utterlly misinformed MYTH that AK-47s and or AR-15s are these instruments of terror and destruction is totally laughable. Regardless of 30 rd mags,75 or 100 rd drums ....assault rifles,BY DEFINITION---fire an intermediate cartridge. They are seriously underpowered.

THE SINGLE MOST DEADLY SHOULDER FIRED SMALL ARM IS THE 12 GAUGE SHOTGUN


Period.

Loaded with 2 3/4" or 3" 00 or 000 Magnum buckshot,no other shoulder fired weapon possesses the high hit probability and single shot lethality of the 12 gauge.

One single round of Winchester 12 gauge 3" Magnum has 10x 70 grain .36 caliber copper jacketed pellets.
That means one pull of the trigger sends ten 9mm sized projectiles downrange at 1225 fps.

Basically,a man weilding a shotgun is a one man firing squad.
An old police training manual I once read stated: "a single officer armed with a 12 gauge has MORE firepower than five officers with their service revolvers.

I went to the range with a FABARM FP6 tactical 12 gauge recently. At a range of 25 meters,ALL 10 pellets struck the upper mid torso of a human silohoutte target.

One pull of the trigger inside 30 meters is instant death. Zero possibility of survival. At ranges beyond 30 meters,multiple targets can be killed or severely injured.

How about your targets wearing body armour?

answer: Brenneke Hard Alloy Armour Piercing Slugs. They out penetrate 5.56mm "green tip" Penetrator. Video on youtube shows 12 gauge slugs plowing through an engine block.

summary:
the power and lethality of the assault rifle is a myth.
the truest instrument of death in the commercial civilian market is the scattergun.

//btw...I used to own a Ruger M77 .243 ("light deer rifle") and that rifle was FAR more powerful and accurate than ANY 5.56 or 7.62x39 I have ever fired.
 
2012-08-01 11:54:30 PM
Kome:Because it is not germane to the discussion. If they are functionally identical, than they are all equally "good" or "bad" and should be classified as such together. Reasonable regulation would treat them so. Unreasonable regulation would not. Asking me what I would classify as what is pretty irrelevant.

Well, all of the "Reasonable regulation" proposed or passed so far, nationwide, treats them completely different. Based on the regulations so far, the top 2 are good, the third is "good" everywhere (even under the now expired Federal ban) but California, (but can be modified to be CA compliant fairly easily/cheaply). The bottom one is probably OK everywhere but CA as well, as the muzzle device is a brake and not a flash hider.

Polling data. You can use the googles to find them, if you're inclined.

I looked, and found a number of polls of respondents favoring "assault weapons" bans by a slight majority, but I can find no polls of "gun owners" who think so.

Frankly a lot of the polls don't look all that useful anyway, as we have already established in this thread. Most people do not know what existing gun laws are (Examples, the guy who wants GPS in all machine guns, and you, as seen below). If you do not know what existing laws are, how can you have an educated opinion of whether gun laws need to be stricter?

But more importantly than that, your post suggests something that is manifestly untrue. People in favor of certain different gun regulations does not equate to them not owning those types of guns themselves. If you consider a reasonable regulation on guns preventing the legal purchase of a firearm by someone with a felony conviction, that does not consequently mean you will not purchase a gun yourself.

I have never seen a poll anywhere that shows anyone favors convicted felons owning firearms. I am OK with a non-violent felon attempting to have their rights restored by due process of law, but that is completely different than what you are claiming.

And considering not every state in the country has a gun control policy like that, or hell even the fact that not every legal purchase of a firearm involves a background check, the two are completely different questions.

A prohibited person attempting to purchase a firearm is a federal felony, anywhere in the country.

Hypothetically, just because I'm in favor of a mandatory background check for every purchase of a firearm, and anyone whose background check comes back positive for a convicted felony or a history of psychiatric illness to be denied the sale of whatever classification system you use to denote an "assault weapon" (let's just extend the hypothetical to only consider semi-automatic rifles and all automatic firearms to be "assault weapons") does not mean I am also for preventing everyone from owning one of them.

Those people are already prohibited federally from purchasing a firearm, background check or not, regardless if it is a so-called "Assault Weapon" or state laws. A felon with a gun is committing a felony. Period. The fact that most states do not require background checks for person to person transfers if neither is an 01 FFL is irrelevant. If you knowing sell a gun to a known prohibited person, you both are committing a federal crime.

Funny thing about background checks, sometimes crazy people pass them. Also, funny thing about background checks, is they are often wrong. I saw a numbnut crowing about how background checks have prevented 1,925,000 criminals and mentally deranged people from buying guns. Makes me wonder how many of those people were convicted? Lying an a Form 4473 is a slam dunk perjury conviction at minimum (it even says so on the form). If these people were not charged, why the hell not?

I haven't heard a recent number on that point, but I do recall President Clinton claiming after the Brady Law was enacted that the background checks have prevented 60,000 people from acquiring firearms. Of those, there were 6 convictions.
 
A7
2012-08-02 12:38:25 AM
CNN Editorial: Average Americans don't need an AK-47.
Constitutional Editorial:You can't stop The Federal Tyranny, regardless of legislation without one.
 
2012-08-02 12:44:53 AM

blunttrauma: Well, all of the "Reasonable regulation" proposed or passed so far, nationwide, treats them completely different.


Then that's unreasonable. I again don't see how any of that is particularly relevant to the point I was trying to make earlier.

I have never seen a poll anywhere that shows anyone favors convicted felons owning firearms.

And yet proposed changes to gun control laws that attempt to better prevent convicted felons from obtaining firearms is consistently met with absolute resistance from gun lobbying groups. Just look at the response folks like the NRA had when president Obama said a week ago that more must be done to keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and the mentally unstable. They went batsh*t crazy and accused him of trying to take their guns away - which sends an even more comically disturbing message that they consider themselves criminals and/or mentally unstable, although I don't think they intended for that message. And then last year after the Tuscon shooting, again when Obama came out and said essentially a dialogue needs to be had, other gun lobbying groups accused him of having the worst record on the 2nd amendment rights ever, in spite of the fact that he's done absolutely nothing regarding the second amendment policy wise. The worst he's ever done is to say that we need to have a real dialogue to keep guns away from those who seek to do harm to innocents.

Reasonable people can have the discussion on what we can do to change a system that is broken, but some groups simply won't even hear that it's broken. Considering the myriad of causes that come into play that leads to a shooting of the caliber like Tuscon or Aurora, there are a lot of conversations that need to be had. One is clearly about mental health. Maybe we need to de-stigmatize seeking mental health and make it more accessible to people who can benefit from it. I don't know if that's the answer, but it's an answer and it's a potential starting point for discussion. But another is clearly about the ease with which these people get firearms. Things need to change so that responsible gun owners can continue to own guns if they choose to, and to keep them out of the hands of those intent to do harm. Maybe that means stricter policies regarding the sale of firearms, and like the above suggestion about mental health I really don't know if that's the answer, but it's an answer and why not use that as a starting point for a calm and rational dialogue?

You don't seem to be ignorant of the law, or ignorant of the current situation, and you seem pretty well-informed on some relevant data. All that in spite of your initial mistake on equating gun regulation with gun banning in my earlier post, but hey this isn't exactly a topic of conversation that doesn't spark emotional reactions so we can overlook that. But overall that's fantastic, and I think you can add a much-needed voice to the discussion and I appreciate you engaging me in this. The country needs more of that, on both ends (because the gun-control side certainly has its share of nutters, too). But based on public reactions from groups like the NRA and Gun Owners of America in the aftermath of these mass shootings - which, once again, happen at least once a year in the United States (which is insanely more frequently than in any other industrialized country in the world) - you are not very representative of people who typically speak out against gun-control or gun-regulation discussions. Which is a damn shame. You bring a better attitude and a willingness to engage into the conversation, instead of a lot of irrelevant and inaccurate hyperbole and insults.
 
2012-08-02 12:45:04 AM

Happy Hours: syrynxx: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

The spring system on the Beta C-Mag allows for indefinite storage while loaded, vs. conventional magazines whose spring tension decays over time due to metal fatigue. Even with only a few rounds stored in a Beta C-Mag, it's a better magazine for home defense than a stock one. Also, you might want to look up all the words in the Second Amendment you claim to support.

That doesn't really explain why you need 100 rounds.


We've had some Jehovah Witnesses in the neighborhood. I just want to be sure. And a bunch of goddamn Colombians are all pissed of at me for some reason.
 
2012-08-02 01:13:23 AM
We already regulate guns and other arms in America and for good reason. I doubt anyone here would argue that we should allow the open carry of tactical nuclear weapons, even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states that we have a right to "bear arms" and tactical nukes are arms that a single person can bear. Few would argue that chemical or biological weapons are included in the 2nd Amendment's protections. I suspect few people would suggest that hand grenades should be sold at Wal-Mart and legally carried into whatever public space one wishes. Few would favor the sale of grenade launchers or hand held stinger missiles to the general public. We already outlaw or highly regulate fully automatic machine guns and large caliber machine guns now.

We're not going to be a whole lot safer by eliminating the sale of "assault rifles" or 100 round drums, but it's also not going to really inconvenience hunters or people that are trying to protect their homes or businesses either.

But clearly the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean you get the right to own whatever farking armament that you can possibly bear, even if that was the Founder's original intent, the very idea is ridiculous given the immense growth in firepower since the days of the barrel loaded muskets.
 
2012-08-02 01:15:02 AM

simkatu: We already regulate guns and other arms in America and for good reason. I doubt anyone here would argue that we should allow the open carry of tactical nuclear weapons, even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states that we have a right to "bear arms" and tactical nukes are arms that a single person can bear. Few would argue that chemical or biological weapons are included in the 2nd Amendment's protections. I suspect few people would suggest that hand grenades should be sold at Wal-Mart and legally carried into whatever public space one wishes. Few would favor the sale of grenade launchers or hand held stinger missiles to the general public. We already outlaw or highly regulate fully automatic machine guns and large caliber machine guns now.

We're not going to be a whole lot safer by eliminating the sale of "assault rifles" or 100 round drums, but it's also not going to really inconvenience hunters or people that are trying to protect their homes or businesses either.

But clearly the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean you get the right to own whatever farking armament that you can possibly bear, even if that was the Founder's original intent, the very idea is ridiculous given the immense growth in firepower since the days of the barrel loaded muskets.


Arms =/= ordnance
 
2012-08-02 01:29:03 AM
The more guns the better. It's like an accelerated broken window fallacy for the healthcare industry collapse.
 
2012-08-02 03:51:40 AM
I am generally as liberal and far left leaning as they come. I also really enjoy shooting my SGL-21 with friends when we want to blow off steam and kill pumpkins. (an sgl-21 is what everyone would refer to as an ak-47, the receivers are made in the ak plant in russia)
 
2012-08-02 07:19:26 AM

simkatu: I doubt anyone here would argue that we should allow the open carry of tactical nuclear weapons, even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states that we have a right to "bear arms" and tactical nukes are arms that a single person can bear.


*TWEEET*. Oblique use of "Nuclear Strawman" argument, 5 yard penalty.
 
2012-08-02 09:52:05 AM
Saying that people don't need a gun above a certain level of power is like saying that people don't need a car or motorcycle above a certain level of power.
 
2012-08-02 11:17:45 AM

dittybopper: simkatu: I doubt anyone here would argue that we should allow the open carry of tactical nuclear weapons, even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states that we have a right to "bear arms" and tactical nukes are arms that a single person can bear.

*TWEEET*. Oblique use of "Nuclear Strawman" argument, 5 yard penalty.


Considering Justice Scalia recently said handheld rocket launchers might be constitutional for people to own, I don't think a tactical nuke is necessarily a strawman argument. It's, at worst, a slight exaggeration of something a Supreme Court Justice said.
 
2012-08-02 11:31:22 AM

Kome: dittybopper: simkatu: I doubt anyone here would argue that we should allow the open carry of tactical nuclear weapons, even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states that we have a right to "bear arms" and tactical nukes are arms that a single person can bear.

*TWEEET*. Oblique use of "Nuclear Strawman" argument, 5 yard penalty.

Considering Justice Scalia recently said handheld rocket launchers might be constitutional for people to own, I don't think a tactical nuke is necessarily a strawman argument. It's, at worst, a slight exaggeration of something a Supreme Court Justice said.


RPGs are legal for civilians to own, provided you have the proper FFL. Nukes are ordnance. Anything that cannot be handled by a single person or small crew is not an "arm."
 
2012-08-02 12:03:11 PM

redmid17: Kome: dittybopper: simkatu: I doubt anyone here would argue that we should allow the open carry of tactical nuclear weapons, even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states that we have a right to "bear arms" and tactical nukes are arms that a single person can bear.

*TWEEET*. Oblique use of "Nuclear Strawman" argument, 5 yard penalty.

Considering Justice Scalia recently said handheld rocket launchers might be constitutional for people to own, I don't think a tactical nuke is necessarily a strawman argument. It's, at worst, a slight exaggeration of something a Supreme Court Justice said.

RPGs are legal for civilians to own, provided you have the proper FFL. Nukes are ordnance. Anything that cannot be handled by a single person or small crew is not an "arm."


And twirling, always twirling into the future!

I love the ordnance argument! How are we using the word today?

/Sorry kids, the suitcase nuke argument is just as legit as the "what if the world goes crazy and I need to shoot 500 rioters before they rape my family and burn my house down?" argument.
 
2012-08-02 12:12:02 PM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Saying that people don't need a gun above a certain level of power is like saying that people don't need a car or motorcycle above a certain level of power.


no
 
2012-08-02 12:34:41 PM

redmid17: Anything that cannot be handled by a single person or small crew is not an "arm."


Can't be handled by a single person or small crew?
 
2012-08-02 12:34:42 PM

redmid17: Kome: dittybopper: simkatu: I doubt anyone here would argue that we should allow the open carry of tactical nuclear weapons, even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states that we have a right to "bear arms" and tactical nukes are arms that a single person can bear.

*TWEEET*. Oblique use of "Nuclear Strawman" argument, 5 yard penalty.

Considering Justice Scalia recently said handheld rocket launchers might be constitutional for people to own, I don't think a tactical nuke is necessarily a strawman argument. It's, at worst, a slight exaggeration of something a Supreme Court Justice said.

RPGs are legal for civilians to own, provided you have the proper FFL. Nukes are ordnance. Anything that cannot be handled by a single person or small crew is not an "arm."


How far into the future do you think we have to go before we have a handheld nuke launcher? The pace of technological advances in weapons/ordnance is no less impressive than the advances in robotics, computers, surveillance, etc. We are really good at developing efficient ways of destroying things, just as we are really good at developing ways of saving and constructing things.
 
2012-08-02 01:27:45 PM

Kome: Then that's unreasonable. I again don't see how any of that is particularly relevant to the point I was trying to make earlier.


The problem with trying to ban so-called "Assault Weapons" is that there is no such thing. It is a completely made up term to play on the emotions of the uneducated. During the debates for the Federal AW Ban It was determined that what made guns "Bad" were specific "Evil Features", for example a folding/collapsible stock, or a flash hider, or a bayonet lug. Those opposed said that was ridiculous, that those things make no difference. Sen Dianne Feinstein insisted that those were the problem, so guess what, gun makers took them off. After the federal ban, you could still go buy an AR15, just it would have a fixed stock, a normal crowned barrel (or a muzzle brake) and the gas block wouldn't have a lug for a bayonet. Again, the Ruger Mini-14, which operates the same way (Gas-operated semi-auto) fires the same round as the AR family, but has a more traditional wood stock was never even threatened with a ban. They are even legal in CA, where guns with any evil features are prohibited. (Without getting in to the "Bullet Button" making magazines non-detachable) The law in CA is so convoluted, even the police have a hard time figuring out what is and is not legal. (Google Calguns AW Flowchart to see just how ridiculous it is)

Semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines have been around since 1885, and functionally there is no difference between a Mannlicher 1885 Automatic rifle and an AR15, and trying to differentiate between a so-called "Assault Weapon" and any other semi-automatic rifle is ridiculous. The folks who want to ban/regulate Assault Weapons don't like them because they are scary looking, and that is irrational. If it looks like a machine gun, it must be a machine gun, and is bad. Folks on the gun control side, play to this ignorance, and intentionally mislead the public, (see the NBC Chicago piece on the need for an AW ban, where ATF Agent Andrew Traver takes a reporter to the range to shoot a full auto AK47 to show how a ban on semi-auto firearms is needed. By the way, Traver is President Obama's nominee for head of ATF. Based on that news report, he is either stupid (doesn't know full auto firearms are not generally available) or dishonest (Intentionally demonstrating a machine gun to influence a ban on non machine guns). Now why do you think people have a problem with that clown being in charge of ATF? When you add nitwits like Rep Carolyn McCarthy, writing legislation about things she knows nothing about (search youtube for Carolyn McCarthy barrel shroud), law abiding gun owners tend to get nervous.

And like it or not, Semi Auto rifles are in common use, (~18% of guns sold last year are ARs, and you can buy them at Wal-Mart, hard to argue against common use) and are used for legal purposes all over the country, target shooting, hunting, and self defense.

And yet proposed changes to gun control laws that attempt to better prevent convicted felons from obtaining firearms is consistently met with absolute resistance from gun lobbying groups. Just look at the response folks like the NRA had when president Obama said a week ago that more must be done to keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and the mentally unstable. They went batsh*t crazy and accused him of trying to take their guns away - which sends an even more comically disturbing message that they consider themselves criminals and/or mentally unstable, although I don't think they intended for that message. And then last year after the Tuscon shooting, again when Obama came out and said essentially a dialogue needs to be had, other gun lobbying groups accused him of having the worst record on the 2nd amendment rights ever, in spite of the fact that he's done absolutely nothing regarding the second amendment policy wise. The worst he's ever done is to say that we need to have a real dialogue to keep guns away from those who seek to do harm to innocents.

Ask yourself this question, "Who is more effected by gun control laws, criminals, or the law abiding?" The only people who are effected by new gun laws are the people who don't break laws in the first place. Even if the so-called "Gun Show loophole" is closed, and all firearms transfers must go through an FFL, do people really believe Billy Burglar won't trade the pistol he stole to Marty Mugger for a couple rocks because it is illegal? But wait, we have examples of places that don't have the "Gun show loophole" California banned transfers between individuals back in 1990,(except for long guns over 50 years old). CA must be nearly crime free. According to Census.gov, CA is 14th in violent crime rate. So either criminals don't follow gun laws, or maybe all those crimes were done with WW2 era bolt-action Mausers. CA evidently thinks the latter, because they are closing that "Loophole" Jan 1 2014, and creating a long gun registry, even though there is no evidence at all the existing handgun registry stopped any crimes. In fact Canada did away with their gun registry, because it was ridiculously expensive ( $1B+), and had no measurable effect on crime.

Reasonable people can have the discussion on what we can do to change a system that is broken, but some groups simply won't even hear that it's broken. Considering the myriad of causes that come into play that leads to a shooting of the caliber like Tuscon or Aurora, there are a lot of conversations that need to be had. One is clearly about mental health. Maybe we need to de-stigmatize seeking mental health and make it more accessible to people who can benefit from it. I don't know if that's the answer, but it's an answer and it's a potential starting point for discussion. But another is clearly about the ease with which these people get firearms. Things need to change so that responsible gun owners can continue to own guns if they choose to, and to keep them out of the hands of those intent to do harm. Maybe that means stricter policies regarding the sale of firearms, and like the above suggestion about mental health I really don't know if that's the answer, but it's an answer and why not use that as a starting point for a calm and rational dialogue?

You are making the assumption that the system is broken. I would make the argument that evil crazy people or criminals will be able to get guns regardless of laws,

Sideshow Bob was seeing a shrink. The problem is, not everyone who sees a shrink is dangerous and needs to have their rights removed. Frankly I think anything done will have a worse effect on the problem. People will be less likely to seek help if they fear the the doctor will report them being under care to ATF, and lose their rights. The other factor is Sideshow Bob was a very smart, very evil guy, who rigged his house with bombs. People assume if evil people couldn't get guns, then mass murders wouldn't happen, but forget the worst mass murders in US history did not involve guns (Bath School and OKC Bombings).

You don't seem to be ignorant of the law, or ignorant of the current situation, and you seem pretty well-informed on some relevant data. All that in spite of your initial mistake on equating gun regulation with gun banning in my earlier post, but hey this isn't exactly a topic of conversation that doesn't spark emotional reactions so we can overlook that.

As I mentioned, past experience has shown there is no appreciable difference between the two.

But overall that's fantastic, and I think you can add a much-needed voice to the discussion and I appreciate you engaging me in this. The country needs more of that, on both ends (because the gun-control side certainly has its share of nutters, too). But based on public reactions from groups like the NRA and Gun Owners of America in the aftermath of these mass shootings - which, once again, happen at least once a year in the United States (which is insanely more frequently than in any other industrialized country in the world) - you are not very representative of people who typically speak out against gun-control or gun-regulation discussions. Which is a damn shame. You bring a better attitude and a willingness to engage into the conversation, instead of a lot of irrelevant and inaccurate hyperbole and insults.

I would say the reverse is also true. Based on reactions of the various anti-gun groups, screaming for more gun bans before the smoke even cleared.

Frankly, people claiming President Obama is not anti gun because he hasn't passed any legislation is meaningless. He is a very sharp politician, and remembers what happened the last time. He is also aware Congress remembers last time. His record before he took office is completely anti-gun, (as expected from a product of the Chicago Democratic machine), and there was also the bit about telling Sara Brady he was working on things "Under the radar" and the fact his Justice Department testified to congress with misleading statistics on the prevalence of US made firearms in Mexico, while running a retarded operation to actually supply Mexican drug dealers with firearms. Read up on Fast and Furious. Watch the whistle blower's testimony before Congress, and ask yourself what possibly would be the goal of this? It is pretty sad that an operation is so stupid that the only reason to make sense is the conspiracy theory.

I suppose it is possible he completely changed his stance upon swearing in, but I doubt it.
 
Displayed 315 of 315 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report