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.

(Gizmodo)   Time machines are dangerous. Therefore, guns are too advanced for humans to be trusted with   (gizmodo.com) divider line 385
    More: Dumbass, 34th Street, death ray, exsanguination, accessibilities, The Time Machine  
•       •       •

10494 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Aug 2012 at 10:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-26 10:53:40 AM
This is by far the dumbest "gun" article ever written. Followed by the dumbest FARK-GUN-THREAD ever.


Guns are weapons. Weapons exist. Weapons have ALWAYS been around. Even before some evolved apes began making them,they existed naturally. Weapons are on plants and animals. (thorns,claws,horns and teeth etc)

Weapons will never go away. Strong preying on weak will always occur. Armed or unarmed.

Stop whining and grow a pair. Pussy.

There are so many serious and truly scary as HELL things going on in this world right now.
Some Americans who occasionally go koo-koo with a pistol is at the bottom of the list of things to worry about.
 
2012-08-26 10:58:44 AM

GAT_00: Farker Soze: GAT_00: Ok, one this is just being an ass for the point of being an ass and has no benefit to the conversation, and two, did someone distribute a memo about the authoritarian bit? I'd name names on that since I know who it started with, but some mod has a hard-on for banning me for things that everyone does, so I can't.

No, no memo. I just glommed that from a thread where you were adamant about keeping marijuana illegal because you don't like hippies.

Nobody would listen to a murderer tell them murder should be legal. Nobody would listen to a burglar tell them burglary should be legal. Why do we listen to potheads telling us pot should be legal?

And don't come back with Civil Rights. Drug use is not a fundamental right.


The freedom to do what you want to your own body isn't a fundamental right?
 
2012-08-26 11:04:09 AM

kosumi: ScottRiqui: And yet, the vast, overwhelmingly majority of us are able to own them responsibly. I know that when you're talking about numbers in the hundreds of millions, even the tail ends of the bell curve can start to look pretty thick. But why not concentrate on the crazies at the tail of the curve, rather than their tools? That way, you don't have to lump the other 100 million of us in with them, since we're not bothering anyone.

You are right, I agree. The overwhelming majority of gun owners I know are decent people who probably wouldn't kill unnecessarily, even if the target deserved it, and they could legally get away with it. But even if the "crazy proportion" is 0.0001%, it doesn't matter - it isn't the relevant metric. The question, for me, is what proportion of self-defense situations for American civilians require semi-automatic weapons with 100-round drum magazines. I would guess none.


Depends on who they're defending against. The dudes who wrote the Bill of Rights assumed an authoritarian government.
 
2012-08-26 11:05:37 AM

whatshisname: loonatic112358: and knives in the hands of an attacker, and a car with a loose nut behind the wheel

I keep reading about those mass stabbings and people mowing down dozens with vehicles.


When was the last time a "mass shooting" resulted in 24 people killed?
 
2012-08-26 11:17:18 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-26 11:19:50 AM

MayoSlather: Lsherm: That's quite possibly the stupidest argument against guns I've ever read.

Not really. He's intentionally being outlandish, but the central point is there must be a line drawn when determining what is the acceptable level of killing machine citizens can possess. Everyone can agree that your neighbor shouldn't have access to launch a nuclear weapon, but when it's only dozens they can kill instead of millions, people get more argumentative about their right to own these weapons.

The potential for dozens of deaths is still too much. Pretty much hunting rifles and shotguns that can hold no more than 2 rounds is the appropriate limit that should be available for sale. Everything else is simply unnecessary.


Except that he tried to draw his line by comparing it to time machines or death rays brought in by someone from another culture.

Of course it's not acceptable to give another culture stuff they don't have! You have no idea what the end effect will be, and if it's anything like times when historically we've tried to do that, it could wreck huge chunks of their culture!

And none of that, in any way, shape, or form, applies to a gun we designed, refined, and own a frickin' patent on.
 
2012-08-26 11:20:20 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: How about mandatory training in the use of the firearm you intend to buy along with classes about when, where, and why to use it? Along with better psych evaluations and better (for lack of a better word at the moment) tracking of guns sold to make sure they don't end up in the hands of undesireables.

Yeah, 2nd Amendment, standing militia, and rabid gun culture and all, but could we at least TRY to make it safer and more difficult for random people to ventilate churches, schools, and malls, as well as keep guns out of the hands of gangs, criminals, etc?

There has to be a middle ground, if both sides would stop screaming and hooting like chimpanzees and actually talk to each other.


So, you support pre-crime?
 
2012-08-26 11:26:23 AM

whatshisname: Great Janitor: And those times when I'm in a mall or a grocery store and I realize that no less than five people in that store are legally carrying a concealed hand gun, I actually feel pretty safe.

Which should scare you. The fact that it doesn't shows just how desensitized to guns the American public has become.


Why should that scare anyone? I don't understand the fear of an inanimate object.
 
2012-08-26 11:27:09 AM

whatshisname: Great Janitor: You still haven't answered my question, why is a guy minding his own business a threat because he carries a gun?

If he carries a gun, it's indicative of a society where guns are big business, where guns are promoted by politicians and easy for anyone to obtain, no matter how crazy they are. So you'll have the weekly/daily mass shootings that the US has been seeing this summer. These aren't mass stabbings, mass bombings, mass punchings. They're mass shootings - because free and easy access to guns makes it really easy for any crazy idiot to shoot whomever they like.


Public high schools teach chemistry, too...
 
2012-08-26 11:30:04 AM

nigeman: how come the terrorists don't have guns in that scenario?


BeSerious: Hey you managed to post something stupider than the article. Congrats.


Suicide of a Phoenix: If everyone on the plane was allowed to carry a gun, why wouldn't the terrorists have carried guns? They had box cutters because they could carry them. I'm sure they would have used a more deadly weapon such as a gun if they had been allowed to.


It's a cartoon. You know, the same reason Superman used to bounce bullets off his chest but ducked when the empty gun was thrown at him.

hamdinger: HERR DERR HAR'S WUT I WOODA DUN TO DEM DAR TERISTS! I'm all for gun rights, but shiat like that is farking pathetic.


Yet you have no problem with the article's concept of using a time-machine? Perhaps guns ARE too advanced for some humans to be trusted with.

gameshowhost: Yes, because people WHO WERE WILLING TO FLY THEMSELVES INTO BUILDINGS AND DIAF were going to smile and go peacefully.


What's the point in going straight to Allah as a failure? Might as well get "three hots and a cot" on our dime while awaiting rescue/armageddon/whatever.

GAT_00: The right to bear arms is a clause dependent on being in a militia. Militias have no value without organization, because they are unable to be effective. All you have with an unorganized militia is a lynch mob. And unorganized militia is a contradiction in terms, like compassionate conservatism.


Sorry, our constitution does not say it must be a "government" organized militia. Kinda defeats the purpose when you think about it.
 
2012-08-26 11:41:40 AM

loonatic112358: DrewCurtisJr: Yes, I think most people would agree that there is a limit on the destructive capability of weapon that an individual should be allowed to possess, the question is what it this limit.

exactly how do you plan to limit people from making something that exceeds your defined limit?


It's cute when they think that passing a law against (whatever) will stop criminals from doing it. Cute, until it infringes on MY rights. Apparently people really DO think that a possession charge will deter someone who has their mind set on evil.
 
2012-08-26 11:53:18 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: How about mandatory training in the use of the firearm you intend to buy along with classes about when, where, and why to use it? Along with better psych evaluations and better (for lack of a better word at the moment) tracking of guns sold to make sure they don't end up in the hands of undesireables


Question: Would any of that have prevented the shooting at the Empire State building? How about Columbine? Virginia Tech? If your proposed rules would not prevent any of those killings, what is the point of imposing the rule? In the absence of any articulated reasoning for imposition of these rules, I am forced to consider the possibility that the purpose of these rules is solely to make it inconvenient, expensive, and annoying for eighty million law-abiding gun owners to purchase, own, or carry firearms.

Question: Who defines "undesirables"? Felons, those convicted of domestic abuse, and those diagnosed with dangerous mental conditions are already prohibited by federal and state law from owning, possessing, or using firearms. What other "undesirables" do you wish to disarm?

Question: What psychological conditions would be legally disqualifying?

Question: Who pays for this "mandatory training"? Adding an additional expense to the already-expensive process of owning a firearm will only serve to effectively disarm those in the lower economic strata. Since the underlying problem is homicidal assholes, I fail to see any benefit in making homicidal assholes into better shooters.

There are roughly three hundred million legally-owned firearms in the US. owned by approximately eighty million law-abiding citizens. The overwhelming majority of those firearms are never used for anything more than punching holes in various targets at a distance. A vanishingly small percentage of those weapons are used to commit crimes. Making firearms ownership prohibitively expensive and bureaucratically onerous has had no useful effect on crime in cities like Washington DC, New York, and Chicago (note that crime in those cities has fallen over the last few decades, roughly at the same rate as the country's overall crime rate). Adding your additional regulatory hurdles to prevent the exercise of a Constitutionally-guaranteed right would not have prevented the news-worthy incidents which started this latest conversation.

Depending on your jurisdiction, here is what you must go through to purchase a firearm: You probably have to purchase it from a federally-licensed firearms dealer. Before you can get your firearm, you have to complete paperwork for the government and undergo a background check (this has been expedited to be little more than a phone call to BATF, for which I am grateful). In some jurisdictions, there is a waiting period after paying for the firearm before you are allowed to take possession. There are numerous restrictions on how and when you may transport your firearm and where and how it must be stored (again, depending on jurisdiction). You may or may not be permitted to carry the firearm on your person, concealed or otherwise. In some states, mere possession of a firearm on the property of any venue where alcohol of any sort is sold is a felony. Transporting a firearm- even disassembled in a locked container in the trunk of your car- across state (and sometimes county) lines is fraught with a byzantine tangle of competing laws, restrictions, and regulations. Those who wish to carry concealed must get another background check, frequently must also get permission from their local law enforcement agency, and have to pay a regular fee for the privilege- all despite the fact that citizens licensed for concealed carry are far less likely than the general population to commit crimes. It is already a royal pain in the blast-off tubes to own a firearm in this country. Why make it more difficult? It certainly wouldn't have prevented the recent shootings.
 
2012-08-26 12:06:11 PM

CygnusDarius: So, guns are weapons, so are swords.

And concealed carry is permitted in some states. So, as a sword-cane is a concealed weapon, is it legal to own a sword-cane, and to use said sword in self-defense?.


This question actually underscores a very important point. In many jurisdictions, it is legal to carry firearms, but illegal to carry a sword. Here in the Shallow South, I could walk down the street wearing a pistol openly (provided I didn't threaten anyone with it), and the cops would almost certainly ask me some questions, but they couldn't legally stop me from doing so. If I walked down the same streets wearing a sword, I could legally be arrested merely for the crime of carrying a "knife" with a blade length which exceeded state law. Note that the Shallow South only permits the carrying of concealed firearms- not knives or any other weapon. This is unbelievably stupid, IMO. If citizens can be trusted to carry firearms openly, why not swords or long-bladed knives? 

By the way, sword-canes are specifically unlawful in a great many jurisdictions- including mine.
 
2012-08-26 12:06:34 PM

MayoSlather: Lsherm: That's quite possibly the stupidest argument against guns I've ever read.

Not really. He's intentionally being outlandish, but the central point is there must be a line drawn when determining what is the acceptable level of killing machine citizens can possess. Everyone can agree that your neighbor shouldn't have access to launch a nuclear weapon, but when it's only dozens they can kill instead of millions, people get more argumentative about their right to own these weapons.

The potential for dozens of deaths is still too much. Pretty much hunting rifles and shotguns that can hold no more than 2 rounds is the appropriate limit that should be available for sale. Everything else is simply unnecessary.


Why? What possible difference can it make if you don't get shot with a gun that only has 2 rounds rather than not getting shot with a gun that has 30 rounds? Are you really gullible enough to think trying to restrict guns to 1 or 2 shots is even possible? There are not 270 million guns in the US any more, over 150,000,000 have been bought since the instant background check system was put in operation and they don't expire like a bag of oranges, there are way more guns in the US than there are people and very few people are going to peacefully give them up because some handful of Billionaires are worried that the peasants might wake up and turn on them.
Why do you think all our major politicians have squads of bodyguards with "assault weapons"? If some lunatic decided to try to shoot Bloomberg how many shots do you think his "private army" are going to fire into the crowd trying to stop him? That's OK according to you though, they are "trained military and police". They're the "only ones" who should be able to kill lots of people at random.

By the way, there are zero "Gun Control" laws that stop you from having a nuclear weapon. The only thing really stopping you is that your mom won't give you a allowance that would buy one and she wouldn't let you keep it in the basement anyway.
 
2012-08-26 01:00:19 PM

Wenchmaster: CygnusDarius: So, guns are weapons, so are swords.

And concealed carry is permitted in some states. So, as a sword-cane is a concealed weapon, is it legal to own a sword-cane, and to use said sword in self-defense?.

This question actually underscores a very important point. In many jurisdictions, it is legal to carry firearms, but illegal to carry a sword. Here in the Shallow South, I could walk down the street wearing a pistol openly (provided I didn't threaten anyone with it), and the cops would almost certainly ask me some questions, but they couldn't legally stop me from doing so. If I walked down the same streets wearing a sword, I could legally be arrested merely for the crime of carrying a "knife" with a blade length which exceeded state law. Note that the Shallow South only permits the carrying of concealed firearms- not knives or any other weapon. This is unbelievably stupid, IMO. If citizens can be trusted to carry firearms openly, why not swords or long-bladed knives? 

By the way, sword-canes are specifically unlawful in a great many jurisdictions- including mine.


Really? I always thought that sword-canes needed a permit, especially since I see a lot sites that sell 'functional' sword canes. I mean, they should be protected under the 2nd amendment, right (swords in general, I mean) ? Besides, it would make for more interesting headlines.
 
2012-08-26 01:11:24 PM

Alleyoop: Time travel? I would go back to 9/10/01 and arm some people.

[www.scottbieser.com image 540x540]


Yes, because definitely the one thing you want in a pressurized cabin five miles up in the air with hundreds of passengers packed like sardines are dozens of people with firearms who are predisposed to shoot at anything they find threatening.

Also, if those passengers all had guns as well, that means that the terrorists would have had them too.
 
2012-08-26 01:14:00 PM
I'd like to point out that whether we can be trusted with them or not is a moot point: Guns are a 600 year old technology that can be produced using tools and materials inferior to what you will find at your local Home Depot. We are even on the verge of having printable, disposable guns.

You can't stuff the toothpaste back into the tube, no matter how hard you try.
 
2012-08-26 01:25:39 PM
Handguns are not magical death rays.
 
2012-08-26 01:45:57 PM

BgJonson79: GAT_00: Farker Soze: GAT_00: Ok, one this is just being an ass for the point of being an ass and has no benefit to the conversation, and two, did someone distribute a memo about the authoritarian bit? I'd name names on that since I know who it started with, but some mod has a hard-on for banning me for things that everyone does, so I can't.

No, no memo. I just glommed that from a thread where you were adamant about keeping marijuana illegal because you don't like hippies.

Nobody would listen to a murderer tell them murder should be legal. Nobody would listen to a burglar tell them burglary should be legal. Why do we listen to potheads telling us pot should be legal?

And don't come back with Civil Rights. Drug use is not a fundamental right.

The freedom to do what you want to your own body isn't a fundamental right?


Crazy, isn't it? Abortion: That's a personal right, a privacy issue. It should be legal. Listen to the women. Gay marriage: All for it, civil rights, it's wrong for it to be illegal, listen to the gays in this case. Pot: OH HELL NO! fark those guys, keep it illegal because I don't like potheads.
 
2012-08-26 02:13:32 PM

CygnusDarius: Really? I always thought that sword-canes needed a permit, especially since I see a lot sites that sell 'functional' sword canes. I mean, they should be protected under the 2nd amendment, right (swords in general, I mean) ? Besides, it would make for more interesting headlines.


I agree completely- Swords should also be protected under the 2nd Amendment. I'm not sure it's actually been run through our court system yet. The rules regarding swords vary from state to state- and even by city or county. I've been to places where wearing a sword or even holding a machete off your own property would be an arrestable offense. OTOH, I've worn swords openly in many places on the Left Coast when I lived there.
 
2012-08-26 02:16:25 PM
How about we try an experiment.

We pass a federal law that anyone who can legally own a handgun can carry it concealed with no permit required.

After 10 years, we compare the crime statistics.

We had 10 years of the Clinton gun ban, seems fair to try 10 years the other way.
 
2012-08-26 02:28:31 PM

Neo Sharkey: How about we try an experiment.

We pass a federal law that anyone who can legally own a handgun can carry it concealed with no permit required.

After 10 years, we compare the crime statistics.

We had 10 years of the Clinton gun ban, seems fair to try 10 years the other way.


The neat thing is during the 10 year gun ban, absolutely no discernable difference in gun crime occurred. And that was reported from the ATF itself. And no, I'm not going to bother looking for the reference, but I found it ineresting. For some stupid reason, the Brady center and all the other gun grabbing retards still think it is critically important to bring back the ban to prevent crime even though IT DIDN'T WORK LAST TIME.
 
2012-08-26 02:58:03 PM

Farkage: The neat thing is during the 10 year gun ban, absolutely no discernable difference in gun crime occurred. And that was reported from the ATF itself. And no, I'm not going to bother looking for the reference, but I found it ineresting. For some stupid reason, the Brady center and all the other gun grabbing retards still think it is critically important to bring back the ban to prevent crime even though IT DIDN'T WORK LAST TIME.


Au contraire, drive-by bayonettings were at an all time low during the ban.
 
2012-08-26 03:27:10 PM
What I learned from this thread is that GAT_00 should never own a gun of any kind, nor be allowed to hold anything sharper than a butterknife.
 
2012-08-26 03:36:26 PM

Farkage: Neo Sharkey: How about we try an experiment.

We pass a federal law that anyone who can legally own a handgun can carry it concealed with no permit required.

After 10 years, we compare the crime statistics.

We had 10 years of the Clinton gun ban, seems fair to try 10 years the other way.

The neat thing is during the 10 year gun ban, absolutely no discernable difference in gun crime occurred. And that was reported from the ATF itself. And no, I'm not going to bother looking for the reference, but I found it ineresting. For some stupid reason, the Brady center and all the other gun grabbing retards still think it is critically important to bring back the ban to prevent crime even though IT DIDN'T WORK LAST TIME.


The AWB was like sneaking the camels nose into the NRA's tent. They wanted a firm launch pad for the next big ban and hoped to divide the gun owner base around the "you don't need that" argument. Its not dissimilar from the Machine gun registry ban.
It couldn't work because the people behind it didn't understand what they were banning. Rifles are involved in a very tiny minority of shootings. Banning all rifles, much less certain styles of rifle, would not have enough of an impact to show up in the statisticals.

But the ban crowd knows that most politicians won't stand up for machine guns or scary looking weapons (taking a note from the Hughes amendment. A ban to prevent incidents with the kind of gun that was responsible for only two murders in the preceding decade). These guys are tepid about weapons rights and the Brady bunch are good at emotional arguments.
The only reason the AWB expired is because someone snuck in the sunset clause at the last moment.
I'd wager good money that, if not for this, GWB would have ignored it and that law would still be on the books.

Because the AWB failed, and because it helped to cost a number of politicians their seats, getting it back into play is now more about looking for vindication than over any concern for preventing violence.
...But its also become a lightning rod that attracts the ire of the NRA and gun rights activists.

Myself, I think its a dead issue.
It had the opposite of the desired effect and now Obama is trying to dig himself out from under the Democrats legacy.

/If I was him, I'd reopen the MG registry and put the whole issue to bed.
/Its a big item on the pro-gun movements wish list and will have no effect on crime statistics.
 
2012-08-26 04:57:08 PM

BgJonson79: Keizer_Ghidorah: How about mandatory training in the use of the firearm you intend to buy along with classes about when, where, and why to use it? Along with better psych evaluations and better (for lack of a better word at the moment) tracking of guns sold to make sure they don't end up in the hands of undesireables.

Yeah, 2nd Amendment, standing militia, and rabid gun culture and all, but could we at least TRY to make it safer and more difficult for random people to ventilate churches, schools, and malls, as well as keep guns out of the hands of gangs, criminals, etc?

There has to be a middle ground, if both sides would stop screaming and hooting like chimpanzees and actually talk to each other.

So, you support pre-crime?


I support intelligence, but that's apparently a lost cause in this day and age and country.
 
2012-08-26 08:03:55 PM

TWX: MayoSlather: Lsherm: That's quite possibly the stupidest argument against guns I've ever read.

Not really. He's intentionally being outlandish, but the central point is there must be a line drawn when determining what is the acceptable level of killing machine citizens can possess. Everyone can agree that your neighbor shouldn't have access to launch a nuclear weapon, but when it's only dozens they can kill instead of millions, people get more argumentative about their right to own these weapons.

The potential for dozens of deaths is still too much. Pretty much hunting rifles and shotguns that can hold no more than 2 rounds is the appropriate limit that should be available for sale. Everything else is simply unnecessary.

I support the capacity restrictions that were in place in the nineties. Generally speaking, if you as John Q. Public can't get it done in ten rounds, you probably can't get done at all.

Mind you, I support mandatory training and proficiency to purchase or otherwise obtain, other than through inheritance, anything over a 20 gauge shotgun or a .22 rifle (long gun, .22 rifle-firing pistols do not count), but I know the odds of that coming to pass are very slim. Courses would include learning when it's not OK to introduce a weapon into circumstances, and guidelines for securing one's firearms against theft or other uses not overseen by the owner.


Those capacity restrictions did not actually exist. You couldn't buy a NEW gun with more than a 10-round magazine, but you could buy any number of used guns with 30-, 50- or 100-round magazines. And you could buy "pre-ban" magazines by the gross.

The horse has been stolen; locking the barn at this point will do no good. There are hundreds of millions of guns in private possession in this country, and there is no feasible or constitutional way to round them up and get rid of them. Just forget gun control; it's not going to make any difference whatsoever. Concentrate on deglamorizing mass shootings, and better mental health care. That might help. Or just ignore mass shootings; they kill fewer people than beestings.

According to a Scripps Howard study of FBI stats, there were 965 mass murders between 1980 and 2008, with 4,685 victims. That's fewer than 250 per year. More than 3,000 people drown accidentally every year, yet we don't ban swimming, which is an order of magnitude more dangerous than the threat from mass shootings.
 
2012-08-26 09:03:15 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: BgJonson79: Keizer_Ghidorah: How about mandatory training in the use of the firearm you intend to buy along with classes about when, where, and why to use it? Along with better psych evaluations and better (for lack of a better word at the moment) tracking of guns sold to make sure they don't end up in the hands of undesireables.

Yeah, 2nd Amendment, standing militia, and rabid gun culture and all, but could we at least TRY to make it safer and more difficult for random people to ventilate churches, schools, and malls, as well as keep guns out of the hands of gangs, criminals, etc?

There has to be a middle ground, if both sides would stop screaming and hooting like chimpanzees and actually talk to each other.

So, you support pre-crime?

I support intelligence, but that's apparently a lost cause in this day and age and country.


Isn't it intelligent to wait until people actually commit a crime before we arrest them, or limit their rights?
 
TWX
2012-08-26 09:32:34 PM

mbillips: TWX: MayoSlather: Lsherm: That's quite possibly the stupidest argument against guns I've ever read.

Not really. He's intentionally being outlandish, but the central point is there must be a line drawn when determining what is the acceptable level of killing machine citizens can possess. Everyone can agree that your neighbor shouldn't have access to launch a nuclear weapon, but when it's only dozens they can kill instead of millions, people get more argumentative about their right to own these weapons.

The potential for dozens of deaths is still too much. Pretty much hunting rifles and shotguns that can hold no more than 2 rounds is the appropriate limit that should be available for sale. Everything else is simply unnecessary.

I support the capacity restrictions that were in place in the nineties. Generally speaking, if you as John Q. Public can't get it done in ten rounds, you probably can't get done at all.

Mind you, I support mandatory training and proficiency to purchase or otherwise obtain, other than through inheritance, anything over a 20 gauge shotgun or a .22 rifle (long gun, .22 rifle-firing pistols do not count), but I know the odds of that coming to pass are very slim. Courses would include learning when it's not OK to introduce a weapon into circumstances, and guidelines for securing one's firearms against theft or other uses not overseen by the owner.

Those capacity restrictions did not actually exist. You couldn't buy a NEW gun with more than a 10-round magazine, but you could buy any number of used guns with 30-, 50- or 100-round magazines. And you could buy "pre-ban" magazines by the gross.

The horse has been stolen; locking the barn at this point will do no good. There are hundreds of millions of guns in private possession in this country, and there is no feasible or constitutional way to round them up and get rid of them. Just forget gun control; it's not going to make any difference whatsoever. Concentrate on deglamorizing mass shootin ...


Comparing individual drownings only to mass shootings is not valid. Comparing even individual drownings to individual shootings is still not valid. Comparing those drowned by intentional act, ie, murder, to those shot, is.

As for the concept of the cat being out of the bag, there lots of countries that have chosen to remove pistols and most rifles from their citizens, including many first-world nations. I have no doubt, that if laws allowed or mandated the removal of high capacity magazines, ranges and gun stores would find mandates upon them to prohibit use or service of such at their facilities, effectively leaving banned devices to not be used due to reduced places to use them, and less resources to repair them when they wear out, letting them go through attrition.

I don't think that they'd ever decide to retract the right to own small caliber handguns, but I do think that it's very possible to ban the high capacity magazines and to even begin to sunset their existence. Many more high profile shootings with high capacity magazines will probably ensure that.
 
2012-08-26 10:21:58 PM
Okay, for anyone that hasn't been paying attention until now:

1)a gun is a gun is a gun. A .22 will kill you just as dead as a .44 or a .50 or a howitzer. Anyone in America can have a 1851 Navy cap and ball revolver mailed to their door with everything needed to load it, and it's just as deadly as when Wild Bill carried a pair of them. It amazes me that there aren't more convience store robberies with them.

2)the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with either hunting or defense from crime. It is stritchly a provision that forces the government to recognize that the citizenery have the right to stockpile arms and ammunition to use against an unspecified tyranny, foreign or domestic.

3)Governments ban private arms for exactly one reason, control. They want to be the only one that can shoot anybody, which usually leads to lots of innocent people being shot, hence the second amendment providing some hope that the people can shoot back.

4)yes, the whole thing is a circle. It will never end.
 
2012-08-26 10:31:33 PM

TWX: I don't think that they'd ever decide to retract the right to own small caliber handguns, but I do think that it's very possible to ban the high capacity magazines and to even begin to sunset their existence. Many more high profile shootings with high capacity magazines will probably ensure that.


A magazine is a metal box with a spring in it. The parts are not rare, hard to find, or difficult to recreate. They are inexpensive and have a shelf life of centuries.
What will happen is the price will rise on the collectibles and the black market will keep the non compliant gun owners equipped. The crime and rampage killing issue will go unchanged, as it did the last time.

The one thing the AWB was very good at was in helping to turn the tide against the Democrats in the late 90's.
So after weighting the steep political cost VS what little will be achieved with this, its pretty certain that politicians will avoid the gun rights debate like a plague.
 
2012-08-26 11:15:29 PM

way south: TWX: I don't think that they'd ever decide to retract the right to own small caliber handguns, but I do think that it's very possible to ban the high capacity magazines and to even begin to sunset their existence. Many more high profile shootings with high capacity magazines will probably ensure that.

A magazine is a metal box with a spring in it. The parts are not rare, hard to find, or difficult to recreate. They are inexpensive and have a shelf life of centuries.
What will happen is the price will rise on the collectibles and the black market will keep the non compliant gun owners equipped. The crime and rampage killing issue will go unchanged, as it did the last time.

The one thing the AWB was very good at was in helping to turn the tide against the Democrats in the late 90's.
So after weighting the steep political cost VS what little will be achieved with this, its pretty certain that politicians will avoid the gun rights debate like a plague.


I wholeheartedly concur, as far as 2012 goes. There are too many senate seats up for grabs to go for an issue that hot-button, especially when the clear majority is against it. 2013 however, will see the return of the UN Small Arms treaty ratification and likely several other gun-ban laws. Whichever candidate wins the Oval Office in November will sign them.
 
2012-08-27 12:03:44 AM

Jarhead_h: way south: TWX: I don't think that they'd ever decide to retract the right to own small caliber handguns, but I do think that it's very possible to ban the high capacity magazines and to even begin to sunset their existence. Many more high profile shootings with high capacity magazines will probably ensure that.

A magazine is a metal box with a spring in it. The parts are not rare, hard to find, or difficult to recreate. They are inexpensive and have a shelf life of centuries.
What will happen is the price will rise on the collectibles and the black market will keep the non compliant gun owners equipped. The crime and rampage killing issue will go unchanged, as it did the last time.

The one thing the AWB was very good at was in helping to turn the tide against the Democrats in the late 90's.
So after weighting the steep political cost VS what little will be achieved with this, its pretty certain that politicians will avoid the gun rights debate like a plague.

I wholeheartedly concur, as far as 2012 goes. There are too many senate seats up for grabs to go for an issue that hot-button, especially when the clear majority is against it. 2013 however, will see the return of the UN Small Arms treaty ratification and likely several other gun-ban laws. Whichever candidate wins the Oval Office in November will sign them.


It may depend most on how the NRA crowd reacts, and they have no love for that UN arms treaty.
The UN itself doesn't affect much that Americans should care about, but the political association with it isn't good for either party.

If the president signs it (Be it Obama or Romney), I wager its going to be one of the most low key affairs ever.
Because the opposing side is sure to hold it up as proof of his party trying to do something nefarious.

Looking at a dead heat for 2012 and a mess for 2016, I don't see either of them wanting the trouble.
 
2012-08-27 12:33:20 AM
If the logic is that there are some technologies that are too dangerous period, then I'll be in favor of a gun ban as soon as we ban nuclear weapons.

If the logic is that there are some technologies that are too dangerous for some people to have, then the argument isn't about safety, it's about who gets to say who has the technology and who doesn't.

Plenty of people die in car accidents. The entire Earth is changing as a result of our use of petrochemicals. Millions of people have/will die because of this since the inception of automobiles, engines in general, refining, oil based materials, etc. We haven't banned those yet.

It's human nature to fear the close danger while ignoring the wider one, even if it is far more hazardous.

Let me know when oil companies stop running tankers aground or hiring drunken captains. Let me know when they get more than a slap on the wrist for saturating thousands of miles of coastline with thick crude or when the Gulf of Mexico isn't a toxic wasteland due to the proper use of the technology we have used in such a mature manner collectively, and I'll get right on turning my firearms in.

Why are guns any different from a time machine? A time machine can affect a gigantic swath of humanity. One man with a gun requires skill to kill as many people as he has ammunition.
Genocides have been carried out with less advanced technology. Genghis Khan slaughtered millions with just horse archers. In Rwanda, they used primarily machetes.
Guns are different from time machines because personal firearms are designed to resist those broad reaching social powers and make them cost more to prosecute. If people come looking for me because of my ethnicity, I can resist. If the police want to oppress me, I can resist. If the army wants to occupy my land, I can make it more expensive for them to do that. I can put fear into people trying to do me wrong or harm me or my family. The fear of the same violence they threaten to use against me. Not as much, not on as large a scale, but at least I can return it in kind.

And if some nut invents a time machine and threatens to go and kill his grandfather and rip a hole in the fabric of space time, at least I can shoot the bastard before he tries it.
 
2012-08-27 10:30:02 PM

mbillips: According to a Scripps Howard study of FBI stats, there were 965 mass murders between 1980 and 2008, with 4,685 victims. That's fewer than 250 per year. More than 3,000 people drown accidentally every year, yet we don't ban swimming,


Yes, people dying accidentally doing something they enjoy is quite comparable to having your life taken by a mass murderer.
 
Displayed 35 of 385 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report