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  
•       •       •

1535 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Aug 2012 at 12:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 315 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report