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.

(NBC New York)   If you picked New Jersey as the location of the next mass shooting, come up and claim your prize. Several dead, including the shooter, after a "shootout" in a supermarket   (nbcnewyork.com) divider line 410
    More: News, New Jersey, armed police, NBC 4 New York, Pathmark, mass shooting, NJ Transit  
•       •       •

12662 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Aug 2012 at 9:09 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-31 09:49:47 AM  

Trivia Jockey: This text is now purple: Fortunately for us, both are Constitutionally protected.

Well, we can have a debate about exactly what is Constitutionally protected. But for the sake of argument, let's assume it's ownership of any gun by any U.S. citizen...

Does that mean we should let the status quo remain, unchecked? Or maybe is it time to start disucssing an amendment that makes the Second Amendment more reasonable in light of modern society? You may recall the original one was written when a "mass shooting" would have taken over an hour because of reload time.


Mass shootings are exceedingly rare, but good for ratings and pushing an agenda so they get disproportionate coverage. Should we start repealing all the amendments due to a few egregious offenders?

/The only way you would have stopped this shooting is to go back in time and kept human beings from inventing gunpowder
//Or allowed the victims to be armed and have a chance at defending themselves, but that's just crazy talk right?
 
2012-08-31 09:50:58 AM  
SEMPER FI! GOOD WORK SOLDIER!

/farkin A I hate military.
 
2012-08-31 09:50:59 AM  

calm like a bomb: Dimensio: calm like a bomb: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

It isn't going to change. That war is over, we lost, and the price we will pay for the right of self-righteous honkeys to own military grade weaponry and armor piercing bullets is that sometimes one of them will get all shooty.

Military-grade weaponry is restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Handgun ammunition capable of penetrating body armour (legally determined by composition of the bullet core) is prohibited to civilians by federal law..

I can buy an AR-15 from a dozen places right now. I can find AK-47s by the crateload. I can legally buy a .50 cal sniper rifle. And for the former two, provided they are not labeled as such, I can buy bullets that will pierce armor. Those laws are written on tissue paper.


Does it take a lot of effort to be that ignorant? Or are you just trolling?
 
2012-08-31 09:52:07 AM  
If only everyone had guns. No one would ever get shot.
 
2012-08-31 09:52:11 AM  
A state that the Brady Campaign gave an A- for gun control. Veddy Interesting.
 
2012-08-31 09:52:44 AM  

Dimensio: How would "a new amendment" address the problem of civilian disarmament advocates being demonstrably ignorant of firearms technology...



Because they are making their arguments about what and how to ban certain guns within the framework of the Second Amendment, which severely limits what kinds of laws they can pass. In other words, the fact the Second Amendment exists as it does currently means the only real gun control debates we can have is whether to ban certain types of guns. And it's this parsing out of gun types that leads to the arguments going astray because a lot of people don't know what they're talking about (as you've pointed out).
 
2012-08-31 09:53:51 AM  

JerseyTim


I tell ya, that graveyard shift really does things to your head.


Like putting holes in it.
 
2012-08-31 09:54:12 AM  

R.A.Danny: A state that the Brady Campaign gave an A- for gun control. Veddy Interesting.


The grade is based on how many restrictive laws they have on the books. It doesn't matter if they work.
 
2012-08-31 09:54:22 AM  

calm like a bomb: Dimensio: calm like a bomb: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

It isn't going to change. That war is over, we lost, and the price we will pay for the right of self-righteous honkeys to own military grade weaponry and armor piercing bullets is that sometimes one of them will get all shooty.

Military-grade weaponry is restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Handgun ammunition capable of penetrating body armour (legally determined by composition of the bullet core) is prohibited to civilians by federal law..

I can buy an AR-15 from a dozen places right now.


AR-15 rifles commonly available to civilians in the United States of America are semi-automatic with a minimum barrel length of sixteen inches and thus are not "military grade" weaponry. Such rifles are typically used for recreational target shooting and for hunting, not for military purposes.


I can find AK-47s by the crateload.

Actual AK-47 rifles are assault rifles and, as such, are classified as "machine guns" by the 1934 National firearms Act of 1934.


I can legally buy a .50 cal sniper rifle.

This is the only firearm that you have identified that is used by military forces, however civilian use of it differs from military use. Criminal misuse of such firearms is rare, and thus restricting civilian ownership of such firearms (beyond those restrictions already applied to general firearm ownership) is unwarranted.


And for the former two, provided they are not labeled as such, I can buy bullets that will pierce armor. Those laws are written on tissue paper.

Any common rifle caliber above .22LR will pierce police-issue body armour. Prohibiting civilian ownership of rifle ammunition capable of penetrating police body armour will result in a complete ban on all hunting rifle ammunition except for ammunition suitable for hunting rabbits and squirrels.
 
2012-08-31 09:54:26 AM  
Tenatra
2012-08-31 09:24:26 AM

I particularly liked this part...

A law enforcement source familiar with the investigation said the suspect got into an argument with co-workers at the store Friday morning, then went out to his car and returned a short time later, dressed in camouflage and carrying weapons.

Employees saw what he was doing and locked the door, the source said, but the gunman shot out the windows and went inside, killing two people. He then killed himself.


Nice. These people were so lucky N.J. law protects their right to cower on the floor praying for their lives with no means to actually defend themselves.
 
2012-08-31 09:54:28 AM  

MichiganFTL: So, roughly the same amount/percentage of death is caused by each when they're used irresponsibly. While this is not advocating that any murder is ok, it does put in perspective that hundreds of millions of people responsibly use their firearms per year, but the crazies get the news.


Having the use of automobiles adds a lot more utility to our society than gun ownership does. If you took away both, we'd suffer a hell of a lot more from not having cars than we would from guns.

So false equivalency.
 
2012-08-31 09:54:37 AM  

Quigs: SEMPER FI! GOOD WORK SOLDIER!

/farkin A I hate military.


Then pickup a rifle and defend the country yourself, coward.
 
2012-08-31 09:56:06 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Mass shootings are exceedingly rare, but good for ratings and pushing an agenda so they get disproportionate coverage


OK, fine, let's not use mass shootings as the barometer. Let's look at overall gun violence, of any kind, per capita. And that's where gun advocates lose, at least on the "banning guns has no effect" argument.

Sadly, though, gun advocates usually win on the legal argument.
 
2012-08-31 09:57:35 AM  

Trivia Jockey: Dimensio: How would "a new amendment" address the problem of civilian disarmament advocates being demonstrably ignorant of firearms technology...


Because they are making their arguments about what and how to ban certain guns within the framework of the Second Amendment, which severely limits what kinds of laws they can pass. In other words, the fact the Second Amendment exists as it does currently means the only real gun control debates we can have is whether to ban certain types of guns. And it's this parsing out of gun types that leads to the arguments going astray because a lot of people don't know what they're talking about (as you've pointed out).


I do not understand how altering the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution will eliminate the ignorance of civilian disarmament advocates, nor alter the inherent irrationality and unreasonableness of their proposals.
 
2012-08-31 09:57:47 AM  

qsblues: Hate to break it to you, but no amount of legislation will cure crazy. Guns are just plain outlawed in Japan for private citizens to own, but guess what? People still get shot.

It's the collective mental state of this country to get a quick fix to any problem perceived, real or imagined. Take a pill instead of seeking counseling, get liposuction instead of diet and exercise, shoot everyone instead of dealing with your inner demons. As long as guns are being made, this will continue to happen.


Care to do a comparison of the number of gun killings per capita in Japan versus the US?

Yeah, I didn't think so. So I'll do it for you. I'm sure there's more recent data out there; I just used the first I could find. And it's such a night-and-day difference that frankly, there's no need for more up to date data. If either country had changed enough to make a difference in the comparison, people would be screaming about it.

United States: 10.27 firearm-related deaths (4.14 firearm-related homicides) per 100,000 population, per year (2004-2006 CDC figures)
Japan: 0.07 firearm-related deaths (0.02 firearm-related homicides) per 100,000 population, per year (1994 figures from Krug 1998)

Yes, you are 207 times more likely to be murdered by firearm in the US, than in Japan.

But then we all knew that already. The whole "guns don't kill people, we need guns to stop people being killed, etc" argument is totally bogus and always has been. The US has the most guns per capita in the developed world, the highest rate of gun deaths in the western world, and the highest gun homicide rate in the western world. It's also the country that you can't go more than a couple of weeks without hearing about the latest mass-murder from some gun-toting lunatic.

Easy access to guns equals increased likelihood of gun homicide. It *is* that simple.

You're right that changing the law won't (quickly) solve the problem here, but that's not because gun control doesn't work. It's because you can't control what's already out there and in many cases with no paper trail whatsoever. Regulating gun ownership only affects new purchases; the gun nuts aren't going to voluntarily hand their weapons in, by and large. The US has made its bed, and will continue to be shot dead in it for the foreseeable future.
 
2012-08-31 09:57:51 AM  
Damn, last week's NYC shooting was right outside of the pub I watch football at every weekend. This one is in the town next over from where I live.

Getting a little too close to home...farking stop you coonts.
 
2012-08-31 09:57:52 AM  

tallguywithglasseson: So if you shoot at yourself, it's considered a "shootout"?


Depends on if you hit yourself the first time...and if you shoot back.
 
2012-08-31 09:57:57 AM  

Trivia Jockey: MichiganFTL: So, roughly the same amount/percentage of death is caused by each when they're used irresponsibly. While this is not advocating that any murder is ok, it does put in perspective that hundreds of millions of people responsibly use their firearms per year, but the crazies get the news.

Having the use of automobiles adds a lot more utility to our society than gun ownership does. If you took away both, we'd suffer a hell of a lot more from not having cars than we would from guns.

So false equivalency.


Only if you believe gins have no utility in our society. Which ignores everything from self defense to defense of the country should the worst happen.
 
2012-08-31 09:58:37 AM  

vpb: BeesNuts: GAT_00: Glorious freedom everywhere.

Hey guys, let's turn this into a gun thread! It's totally not about inadequate mental health care and support for the kids we sent to the desert to shoot at people for 15-20% of their lives! It's about access to firearms!
.
Well, now that you have, it's kind of idiotic to pretend that access to guns isn't a factor or that mental health care eliminates this sort of thing.

Anyone with any sense at all is going to realize that there is a problem, even if their main concern is to keep the problem from being solved because they own a gun shop or can't feel like a man without dressing up in camo and holding an assault rifle.


I believe BeesNuts makes a valid point. Stable people don't usually go directly to "kill them" for conflict resolution. The reporting indicates he was depressed or suffered from mental illness (though the source may be suspect), how clear cut can it be? Just spitballing, but perhaps the underlying issue wasn't his access to firearms, but the kink in his thinking that "shoot my coworkers and then myself" seemed like a reasonable path. Sure, it's reasonable to say that folks who are unstable or a risk to themselves and others shouldn't have access to firearms, but they'll still be crazy and they would still be a risk to society. Remove the immediate threat (the individual's access to firearms), find them help, and help them develop skills that help them to realize that "shooting people is bad." Take away the crazy thinking and we'll see less of these kinds of events, and we'll help to build more complete people. Win/win.
 
2012-08-31 09:58:59 AM  

JerseyTim: I know that Fark isn't the news, but greenlighting this headline as a "mass shooting" plays into the sensationalist media that Drew's book railed against. This is the "summer of the shark" all over again.


"What can YOU do to protect yourself from supermarket-based rampages? Our investigative journalism reveals that people who buy cat food AND oranges are 12% less likely to commit firearm based public homicides. Ted Woodward has the story at 11"
 
2012-08-31 09:59:18 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Quigs: SEMPER FI! GOOD WORK SOLDIER!

/farkin A I hate military.

Then pickup a rifle and defend the country yourself, coward.


Next time I'm given the chance to protect the country from backwards military farks who kill 18 year olds stuck working graveyard shifts? I will.
 
2012-08-31 09:59:22 AM  
woke up this morning, got myself a gun.
 
2012-08-31 09:59:31 AM  
From TFA:


An ex-Marine
...
The gunman was a former Marine


Which is it?

("Ex-Marine" = dishonorable discharge or similar; "former Marine" = honorable discharge.)
 
2012-08-31 09:59:38 AM  

calm like a bomb: Dimensio: calm like a bomb: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

It isn't going to change. That war is over, we lost, and the price we will pay for the right of self-righteous honkeys to own military grade weaponry and armor piercing bullets is that sometimes one of them will get all shooty.

Military-grade weaponry is restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Handgun ammunition capable of penetrating body armour (legally determined by composition of the bullet core) is prohibited to civilians by federal law..

I can buy an AR-15 from a dozen places right now. I can find AK-47s by the crateload. I can legally buy a .50 cal sniper rifle. And for the former two, provided they are not labeled as such, I can buy bullets that will pierce armor. Those laws are written on tissue paper.


You didn't try to cram in as many polysyllabic words as you possibly could to express your point, so your argument is invalid.
 
2012-08-31 10:00:14 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Only if you believe gins have no utility in our society. Which ignores everything from self defense to defense of the country should the worst happen.


So if you had to choose between your car and your guns, you'd choose your guns because there's about a one in one hundred million chance you're going to have to stop the Viet Cong from taking over the US.

Seems legit.
 
2012-08-31 10:00:25 AM  

MichiganFTL: 254.4 million registered vehicles in the US
~10,000 deaths per year caused by drunk drivers

270 million guns in the US
~11,500 murders per year through use of firearm


So, roughly the same amount/percentage of death is caused by each when they're used irresponsibly. While this is not advocating that any murder is ok, it does put in perspective that hundreds of millions of people responsibly use their firearms per year, but the crazies get the news.


You're only counting murders. In the 2006-2007 statistical year, only 4.14 deaths/100K were homicides. 5.71/100K were suicides and 0.23/100K were unintentional, for a total of 10.27/100K. (according to the UN). That puts the US in sixth place in the number of firearm deaths. In the same year, according to the US Census, the automobile death rate was 104/100K population. Clearly, we need car control.
 
2012-08-31 10:00:53 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Only if you believe gins have no utility in our society.


I prefer vodka.
 
2012-08-31 10:01:03 AM  
He went coo-coo for coco puffs..
 
2012-08-31 10:01:15 AM  
Sounds like subby works for CNN.
 
2012-08-31 10:01:18 AM  
If Jersey Shore hadn't been cancelled this NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED!!!
 
2012-08-31 10:01:20 AM  

calm like a bomb: I can buy an AR-15 from a dozen places right now. I can find AK-47s by the crateload. I can legally buy a .50 cal sniper rifle. And for the former two, provided they are not labeled as such, I can buy bullets that will pierce armor. Those laws are written on tissue paper.


The problem is, terms like "military grade" and "armor piercing" are meaningless without proper definitions. The "AR-15"s and "AK-47"s that you can buy as a civilian without going through the NFA paperwork and fees are simply small- and medium-caliber semi-automatic rifles, respectively. That's why the "assault rifle" ban had to go through such absurd contortions in determining which rifles were "okay" and which rifles were "evil". 'Oh, it's got a bayonet lug? That's one more check in the 'evil' category!"

Likewise, there are lots of bullets that will pierce the type of body armor that most police officers wear, even without being designed to do so. This is because those vests are intended almost exclusively to stop handgun bullets. Grandad's 30-06 will blast through a Level III police vest as if it were stuffed with cotton balls. That doesn't mean that a typical lead core, copper-jacketed .30 cal bullet is "armor piercing" ammunition.
 
2012-08-31 10:02:26 AM  
Go ahead ban all guns. I'll get myself an easily equipped machine shop in the garage and start turning out fully automatic sten submachine guns.

I'll be rich!!

/Brits did just that in the 1940's
// guns ain't hi-tech. They're mechanical
 
2012-08-31 10:03:40 AM  

jso2897: dittybopper: marius2: Only three dead? Damn, if only he shot a few more then we could have another media panic on our hands.

As it is, it seems like incidents that would normally only be regional stories are getting national exposure, thus making the debate on gun control more prominent this election. Is there some sort of nefarious purpose behind it? Probably not: The news organizations are sheep that tend to follow what the others are doing, hence we get crap like the "Summer of the Shark", and the like.

Especially since any debate about "gun control" is a joke right now. There is no real debate. The Second Amendment allows only the most minimal and non-intrusive of firearms legislation, and the courts have so ruled. It's a dead issue, unless you are looking to stimulate gun and ammo sales with fear tactics.


Or unless you are looking at re-igniting the moribund debate on gun control before an election.

Trying to stimulate gun and ammo sales with fear tactics? It's not the NRA reporting on these stories, and traditionally the national Mainstream MSM Media outside of FoxNews has been either actively hostile to the idea of individual gun ownership, or at best benignly neglectful.

The whole idea that the media are reporting on this in order to boost sales of guns is patently ridiculous to anyone who has even a passing familiarity with the history of reporting on gun issues outside of the specialty gun media outlets.
 
2012-08-31 10:03:51 AM  

Dimensio: I do not understand how altering the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution will eliminate the ignorance of civilian disarmament advocates, nor alter the inherent irrationality and unreasonableness of their proposals.


I don't know how to make this much clearer...if we amended the 2nd Amendment, for example, to say that "firearms may only be owned by members of the military, national guard and law enforcement", then people's lack of knowledge of what is or is not an assault rifle becomes irrelevant. And, accordingly, silly proposals for banning assault rifles based on said lack of knowledge becomes irrelevant.

(I'm not necessarily advocating this type of amendment, just making the point that under the current framework we're left with quibbling over the type and quantity of guns to ban.)
 
2012-08-31 10:03:52 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Only if you believe gins have no utility in our society. Which ignores everything from self defense to defense of the country should the worst happen.


Defense of the country isn't really possible any more. In the 1700s it was organized guys with muskets vs. disorganized guys with muskets. Now it'd be organized guys with artillery, tanks, apcs, body armor, helicopters, and jets vs disorganized guys with rifles and Molotov cocktails. If it came down to it, the US citizenry would be totally incapable of defending itself against the US Armed Forces.
 
2012-08-31 10:04:42 AM  
Not a mass shooting. Just another Friday morning in New Jersey.
 
2012-08-31 10:05:01 AM  

gweilo8888: Easy access to guns equals increased likelihood of gun homicide. It *is* that simple.

You're right that changing the law won't (quickly) solve the problem here, but that's not because gun control doesn't work. It's because you can't control what's already out there and in many cases with no paper trail whatsoever. Regulating gun ownership only affects new purchases; the gun nuts aren't going to voluntarily hand their weapons in, by and large. The US has made its bed, and will continue to be shot dead in it for the foreseeable future.


Yup, this.
 
2012-08-31 10:05:26 AM  

Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.


Does New Jersey have strict gun laws?
 
2012-08-31 10:05:51 AM  

jso2897: The Second Amendment allows only the most minimal and non-intrusive of firearms legislation, and the courts have so ruled


Depends on how you define "minimal and non-intrusive", I suppose.
Heller doesn't invalidate bans on concealed weapons, firearms licensing (such as in D.C.), bans on certain kinds of weapons or ammunition, etc., and doesn't contain the words "intrusive" or "minimal".

The actual debate, however, is clearly being won by the more permissive side, shall-issue conceal/carry is becoming the norm, NTTAWRT.

These things ebb and flow over time, however, there may be some overreach/push back at some point, if not on something like "stand your ground", then maybe something else.
 
2012-08-31 10:05:53 AM  

you have pee hands: Fail in Human Form: Only if you believe gins have no utility in our society. Which ignores everything from self defense to defense of the country should the worst happen.

Defense of the country isn't really possible any more. In the 1700s it was organized guys with muskets vs. disorganized guys with muskets. Now it'd be organized guys with artillery, tanks, apcs, body armor, helicopters, and jets vs disorganized guys with rifles and Molotov cocktails. If it came down to it, the US citizenry would be totally incapable of defending itself against the US Armed Forces.


The actual war? Yeah. The insurgency? Not so much.
 
2012-08-31 10:06:04 AM  

pippi longstocking: You get all these former military men going crazy because:
1. They don't evaluate nor treat them adequately


I'm not sure how it works for troops returning from the desert if they are screened or not but after you are out of the military you can file a claim with the VA for issues that you acquired while you were on duty. The VA will send you to a psych for an evaluation if you claim any mental problems. Not only that but after you are in the VA system, you can talk with your primary care doctor and ask to see a psych and he/she will set you up with one.

I see a psychologist and psychiatrist monthly for free. Meds are taken care of too and on top of that I get money for disability too. If he had mental health issues and they were acknowledged by the VA, depending on his disability percentage he may have been able to get as much if not more than he was making at the grocery store - Tax Free from disability payments.
 
2012-08-31 10:06:07 AM  

JackieRabbit: You're only counting murders. In the 2006-2007 statistical year, only 4.14 deaths/100K were homicides. 5.71/100K were suicides and 0.23/100K were unintentional, for a total of 10.27/100K. (according to the UN). That puts the US in sixth place in the number of firearm deaths. In the same year, according to the US Census, the automobile death rate was 104/100K population. Clearly, we need car control.


Do you mean 10.4/100k? There are certainly not upwards of a quarter million automobile deaths in the US every year.
 
2012-08-31 10:06:10 AM  

Rev.K: Fail in Human Form: Only if you believe gins have no utility in our society. Which ignores everything from self defense to defense of the country should the worst happen.

So if you had to choose between your car and your guns, you'd choose your guns because there's about a one in one hundred million chance you're going to have to stop the Viet Cong from taking over the US.

Seems legit.


Different tools for different purposes. For example in about an hour I'm going to use my car to go pickup my new pistol from the local gun shop.

/he called yesterday because he finally tracked down the new Glock I wanted
//got a hell of a deal :-)
 
2012-08-31 10:06:18 AM  

Dimensio: Military-grade weaponry is restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Handgun ammunition capable of penetrating body armour (legally determined by composition of the bullet core) is prohibited to civilians by federal law.

Civilian disarmament advocates "lose" because they consistently demonstrate themselves fundamentally ignorant of firearms terminology and even of existing regulations when proposing new restrictions. Their ignorance results in their proposals being entirely unreasonable and irrational infringements upon liberty. An unfortunate consequence of this ignorance is that even reasonable and rational proposals are adamantly opposed by firearm ownership rights advocacy organizations due to a conditioned response from numerous previous proposals that were not reasonable.


The 1934 NFA doesn't prohibit military style weapons from being owned, but does classify fully-automatic weapons as machine guns, which are then subject to registration and a $200 tax when being sold or transferred. There is no federal law that prohibits citizens from owning machine guns (though some states do), but the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act imposes a de-facto ban by prohibiting civilian ownership of machine guns registered after 1986, restricting the supply of civilian-ownable fully automatic weapons.

It's the combination of the NFA registration requirement coupled with the Hughes ownership restriction that creates an effective ban on fully-automatic weapons, people have tried (and failed) to impose a true ban on civilian ownership of fully-automatic weapons. One reason is the likelihood of being found unconstitutional in the US supreme court, the other is a lack of rationale.

The 1934 NFA was enacted in response to the use of fully-automatic weapons by prohibition-era gangs. The registration requirement ensured that straw-purchases were not a viable way for gangs to acquire weapons, and the $200 tax stamp ensured that fully-automatic weapons were far too costly to be used in crime (after which the "dirty" gun would loose it's value). This proved to be a remarkably effective deterrent, between 1934 and 1986 there were a total of two homicides committed with legally owned fully-automatic weapons, and one of those was committed with a service weapon issued to a police officer.

It's my opinion that the 1986 Hughes amendment is a solution in search of a problem- driven by fears of rising gang violence and an incorrect perception that fully-automatic weapons were being sought and acquired by the drug gangs of the day. I would fully favor a repeal of the Hughes amendment (hence allowing civilian ownership of fully-automatic weapons in those states that have not banned civilian ownership) so long as there was an appropriate barrier to entry, such as increasing the 1934 $200 machine gun tax to $1000.
 
2012-08-31 10:06:24 AM  

Trivia Jockey: I don't know how to make this much clearer...if we amended the 2nd Amendment, for example, to say that "firearms may only be owned by members of the military, national guard and law enforcement", then people's lack of knowledge of what is or is not an assault rifle becomes irrelevant.


While such an amendment would render numerous proposals Constitutionally viable, those proposals would remain unreasonable and irrational.

Prohibiting legal recognition of same-sex unions would be unquestionably Constitutionally viable should opponents of such recognition succeed in adding a "federal marriage amendment", but such a prohibition would remain unreasonable and irrational even under such an amendment.
 
2012-08-31 10:06:37 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Only if you believe gins have no utility in our society. Which ignores everything from self defense to defense of the country should the worst happen.


No, but I believe (and I think it's pretty obvious) that automobiles add a lot MORE utility to society at large. The average American can have a full, productive week without ever touching his gun, but try and do that without a car.
 
2012-08-31 10:07:22 AM  

MichiganFTL: 254.4 million registered vehicles in the US
~10,000 deaths per year caused by drunk drivers

270 million guns in the US
~11,500 murders per year through use of firearm


So, roughly the same amount/percentage of death is caused by each when they're used irresponsibly. While this is not advocating that any murder is ok, it does put in perspective that hundreds of millions of people responsibly use their firearms per year, but the crazies get the news.


Don't drink and shoot.

I actually like this comparison in a weird way. it has logical flaws considering terms and amount of use though, but the idea that it should be more difficult to be eligible for gun ownership could help the numbers. My basis for that is that this article said he had a history of depression/mental problems.
 
2012-08-31 10:08:33 AM  

Dimensio: While such an amendment would render numerous proposals Constitutionally viable, those proposals would remain unreasonable and irrational.


Why is that, exactly?
 
2012-08-31 10:09:05 AM  

Trivia Jockey: Fail in Human Form: Only if you believe gins have no utility in our society. Which ignores everything from self defense to defense of the country should the worst happen.

No, but I believe (and I think it's pretty obvious) that automobiles add a lot MORE utility to society at large. The average American can have a full, productive week without ever touching his gun, but try and do that without a car.


Increased access to mass transit will eliminate most need for automobiles. As many firearms control advocates state: "it is worth the effort if it saves one life".
 
2012-08-31 10:09:17 AM  

Buttbone McGillicutty: FTA - "He was armed with an AK-47 assault rifle and an automatic pistol."

[img831.imageshack.us image 640x533]


i18.photobucket.com

Sorry - obligatory.
 
Displayed 50 of 410 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report