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.

(PJ Media)   Why gun microstamping won't work. But who cares about expensive regulations that lose jobs, jail innocent people, and can be thwarted with a $12 part, if we can look like we DID something   (pjmedia.com) divider line 322
    More: Obvious, semiautomatic firearms, PJM, shell casings, Remington Arms  
•       •       •

1964 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Oct 2012 at 11:35 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-09 08:42:39 AM
A well regulated militia would not mind if their guns had laser markings.

An angry gun wielding mob, or a gang of thugs just might though.
 
2012-10-09 08:51:56 AM
Ah, security theater.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-09 09:04:25 AM
So in other words, we need to make micro stamping mandatory nationwide and then the problem is solved? Another example of why sensible regulations are a good idea.

It isn't surprising that "Pajamas Media" would give it the pro-gang-banger spin though.
 
2012-10-09 09:07:30 AM
My Lawgiver already stamps every round with my DNA code.
 
2012-10-09 09:16:51 AM

Generation_D: A well regulated militia would not mind if their guns had laser markings.


Well regulated in what sense? Do you mean regulated in the sense of subject to a multitude of regulations, or do you mean regulated in the sense of working properly?

Because I can see your point for case 1, but not case 2.
 
2012-10-09 09:17:20 AM
"But who cares about expensive regulations that lose jobs, jail innocent people, and can be thwarted [ridiculously easily], if we can look like we DID something "

Hey look, it's the war on drugs.
 
2012-10-09 09:17:26 AM

Sybarite: My Lawgiver already stamps every round chick with my DNA code.


FTFY.
 
2012-10-09 09:18:47 AM
OK, I need someone to make me smart on this subject. I'm not a hunter myself, because as Ron white says "it's too cold, it's too early, and I don't wanna f'ing go", but I do enjoy fresh game. And, while I don't at this time own a firearm for home defense, I definitely understand the value there. What I'm getting at is that I'm pro-gun. I like shooting. It's fun to put holes in things.

So why on Earth doesn't the NRA or a similar group (really, I think it would have to be Heston's Kids) propose a legislative framework for a law or two that would not harm sportsmen, collectors, or enthusiasts, but that would have some real teeth in going after criminals and gangbangers? It seems to me- and maybe I'm just nuts- that this would be better for their constituents than letting a panicked legislature write scared law in the wake of Aurora or similar.
 
2012-10-09 09:20:18 AM
Since when are conservatives worried about sending the wrong people to jail?

I mean, take a look at how Texas reacts to the notion of new DNA testing for evidence from old convictions. Prosecutors resist like mad, and the local citizenry hardly blink, despite more than half the cases where testing is done showing the wrong person was convicted.
 
2012-10-09 09:25:38 AM
FTFA:
Cops will enter the microstamping code into a computer, which will check it against a database, and the police will know who the shooter is within minutes.

I'm surprised that the author didn't explicitly mention the problem with this theory: Even setting aside the spoofing that he does mention, just entering the code will tell you who the last person who bought it from a licensed firearms dealer is, not who the current owner is.

New York State actually tried a form of this with their CoBIS database, which instead of using actual numbers stamped or engraved just used the unique marks that each firearm makes on the cartridge cases. In 10 years, for the price of over $33 million dollars, they solved precisely 0 crimes with it. It was actually shut down last year by governor Andrew Cuomo because it was a big waste of money.
 
2012-10-09 09:36:49 AM
All guns should have a function that automatically takes a picture of the shooter, the target and calls 911 every time the trigger is pulled. Why would any law abiding citizen object to this?
 
2012-10-09 09:46:15 AM

Gonz: So why on Earth doesn't the NRA or a similar group (really, I think it would have to be Heston's Kids) propose a legislative framework for a law or two that would not harm sportsmen, collectors, or enthusiasts, but that would have some real teeth in going after criminals and gangbangers? It seems to me- and maybe I'm just nuts- that this would be better for their constituents than letting a panicked legislature write scared law in the wake of Aurora or similar.


Because it will increase costs, and it *WON'T* have any real effect. Let me lay out why.

First, for guns that don't automatically eject casings when fired, this would be useless as a tool for law enforcement. That means that guns like revolvers that are manually reloaded, like revolvers, bolt actions, pump actions, lever actions, single shots (including break-open, rolling block, falling block, etc.) and even guns like multiple barrel derringers wouldn't necessarily leave any evidence at the scene.

Obviously, the police can't check a cartridge casing that isn't left at the scene. The only guns this would likely work consistently with are semi-auto guns.

Secondly, because the markings will of necessity be shallow, you can either abrade them off intentionally, or eventually normal wear-and-tear will do it. Remember that a gun is probably one of the few things you can buy with the full expectation that it will outlive you. Most of the guns I've owned in my life are older than I am. Which is another problem: With an installed user base of around 300 million guns, it would take, at current sales levels, something like 30 years to replace those guns with microstamped ones*, and you'll never come close to that number.

Not to mention the fact that you can just replace the damned part for a pittance.

Then too, any federal system might actually violate federal law, which forbids a centralized gun registry. A central registry be necessary for something like this to work, and it would have to encompass all guns stamped. Ergo, it would be a blanket registration, something prohibited at the federal level. Doing it only at the state level would be pointless, as New York State found out with their miserably failed CoBIS system.

*That's assuming the 10.8 million guns sold in 2011 were all new, which I find hard to believe. That number is based on NICS checks, which are done for all new guns sold, and for all used guns sold by an FFL. The real number is probably more like 6 million new guns
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-09 09:48:58 AM

dittybopper: Generation_D: A well regulated militia would not mind if their guns had laser markings.

Well regulated in what sense? Do you mean regulated in the sense of subject to a multitude of regulations, or do you mean regulated in the sense of working properly?

Because I can see your point for case 1, but not case 2.


I think he means "not criminal".
 
2012-10-09 09:59:55 AM
That was actually a pretty good article. No "er freedoms" ranting, just explaining the facts, very convincingly.

I'm as anti-right-wing as they come and think the NRA has become an arm of the GOP, but the hand-wringing anti-gun types come up with some pretty stupid stuff sometimes.
 
2012-10-09 10:00:05 AM
Dittybopper, I don't mean "tell me why this law WON'T work." I mean "what WILL work?", and how do we implement it?
 
2012-10-09 10:14:53 AM

vpb: So in other words, we need to make micro stamping mandatory nationwide and then the problem is solved?


Uh, yeah.
 
2012-10-09 10:19:56 AM

Gonz: Dittybopper, I don't mean "tell me why this law WON'T work." I mean "what WILL work?", and how do we implement it?


Almost nothing. Remember that laws only apply to the law-abiding. There will always be end runs around gun laws because they don't encompass the entire world. Moving guns from one state or country to another is extremely profitable for a reason.
 
2012-10-09 10:26:45 AM

Gonz: Dittybopper, I don't mean "tell me why this law WON'T work." I mean "what WILL work?", and how do we implement it?


I'm going to turn your assumption around that we need to do something, and ask why do we need something more? Gun violence isn't a significant problem for the vast majority of people in the United States. Currently, homicides are the lowest they've been since the mid 1960's:

bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov

That chart only goes to 2005, but the last number the BJS has is for 2010, a homicide rate of 4.8 per 100,000. That's 1950's homicide levels, and we don't consider the 1950's to be a particularly violent decade. Homicide is now lower than it has ever been in my lifetime, and I'm 45 years old.

What is the urgency? Why do we *NEED* to do something?
 
2012-10-09 10:27:37 AM
Supporters of the technology say it will be a "game changer," allowing authorities to quickly identify the registered guns used in crimes.

Problem 1

Removal of firing pin

Problem 2 (it takes seconds and can be thwarted with a nail-file)

This will be useless for revolvers.

Problem 3

This will be useless for rimfire.

Problem 4

Actual law-abiding gun owners will have to police their brass whenever they go to the range, as they could unwittingly become implicated in crimes by leaving their personally identifiable cartridge casings behind for criminals to plant at crime scenes.

Problem 5
 
2012-10-09 10:32:06 AM

ArkAngel: Gonz: Dittybopper, I don't mean "tell me why this law WON'T work." I mean "what WILL work?", and how do we implement it?

Almost nothing. Remember that laws only apply to the law-abiding. There will always be end runs around gun laws because they don't encompass the entire world. Moving guns from one state or country to another is extremely profitable for a reason.


Or just making them. Guns are a 600 year old technology that can be made using the tools and materials you can find at your local Home Depot.
 
2012-10-09 10:34:28 AM

Gonz: Dittybopper, I don't mean "tell me why this law WON'T work." I mean "what WILL work?", and how do we implement it?


Outlaw murder.
 
2012-10-09 10:47:29 AM

Gonz: Dittybopper, I don't mean "tell me why this law WON'T work." I mean "what WILL work?", and how do we implement it?


End the drug war. Improve NICS reporting.
 
2012-10-09 10:53:55 AM

Fark It: Supporters of the technology say it will be a "game changer," allowing authorities to quickly identify the registered guns used in crimes.

Problem 1

Removal of firing pin

Problem 2 (it takes seconds and can be thwarted with a nail-file)

This will be useless for revolvers.

Problem 3

This will be useless for rimfire.

Problem 4

Actual law-abiding gun owners will have to police their brass whenever they go to the range, as they could unwittingly become implicated in crimes by leaving their personally identifiable cartridge casings behind for criminals to plant at crime scenes.

Problem 5


I like how one currently existing gun where removing the firing pin is easy proves that engraving the firing pin on all FUTURE guns wouldn't work. That's some fantastic logic there. And your flat refusal to even consider other options for guns like revolvers really proves that you do in fact care about fixing an issue that your beloved NRA has told you should be killed at all costs. And why exactly shouldn't you police your brass? Do people actually just leave shell casing everywhere when you go to a gun range?
 
2012-10-09 10:55:53 AM

GAT_00: Do people actually just leave shell casing everywhere when you go to a gun range?


Uh, yes?
 
2012-10-09 10:59:44 AM
Nice to see *anyone* on PJM finally get something correct.
 
2012-10-09 11:03:33 AM

GAT_00: I like how one currently existing gun where removing the firing pin is easy proves that engraving the firing pin on all FUTURE guns wouldn't work.


So, you think future guns will have non-user accessible firing pins? Who would make such a thing? Apple?

And your flat refusal to even consider other options for guns like revolvers really proves that you do in fact care about fixing an issue that your beloved NRA has told you should be killed at all costs.

Never been a member of the NRA, they're a chickenshiat Republican shill-organization that rolled over for gun confiscation victims in New Orleans and didn't support Heller or McDonald, instead they rode the coattails of the defendants. Your complete failure to realize my point (that it would not work on revolvers because they don't eject spent casings) demonstrates your complete ignorance on the subject yet again.

And why exactly shouldn't you police your brass? Do people actually just leave shell casing everywhere when you go to a gun range?

If you're at an indoor range you'd get kicked out in a hurry if you started crawling around on your hands and knees looking for your spent brass. A lot of it will eject/ricochet forward beyond the firing line too. If you've ever handled a gun or know somebody who has a gun you'd know this.

Not that I expect you to be ashamed of your ignorance and educate yourself, but still, that was derpy, even by your standards.....
 
2012-10-09 11:03:48 AM

GAT_00: I like how one currently existing gun where removing the firing pin is easy proves that engraving the firing pin on all FUTURE guns wouldn't work.


It's not one gun. The firing pin is a serviceable part.
 
2012-10-09 11:04:51 AM

dittybopper: Gonz: Dittybopper, I don't mean "tell me why this law WON'T work." I mean "what WILL work?", and how do we implement it?

I'm going to turn your assumption around that we need to do something, and ask why do we need something more? Gun violence isn't a significant problem for the vast majority of people in the United States. Currently, homicides are the lowest they've been since the mid 1960's:

[bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov image 270x218]

That chart only goes to 2005, but the last number the BJS has is for 2010, a homicide rate of 4.8 per 100,000. That's 1950's homicide levels, and we don't consider the 1950's to be a particularly violent decade. Homicide is now lower than it has ever been in my lifetime, and I'm 45 years old.

What is the urgency? Why do we *NEED* to do something?


In Canada is 1.9 per 100,000.

From Wiki:

Gun-related death rates in the United States are eight times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it. Higher rates are found in developing countries and those with political instability.


It is one thing to argue the solution but to propose their is no problem is not cool.
 
2012-10-09 11:05:42 AM
Seriously, there are practical reasons why firing pin microstamping won't work, and they have nothing to do with the NRA..
 
2012-10-09 11:06:40 AM

itsdan: GAT_00: I like how one currently existing gun where removing the firing pin is easy proves that engraving the firing pin on all FUTURE guns wouldn't work.

It's not one gun. The firing pin is a serviceable part.


This. *ALL* guns that I know of have a removable firing pin*, and generally, for most, removing that firing pin is part of normal cleaning procedure.


*Not including open-bolt submachine guns with a fixed firing pin, but none has been legally manufactured for sale to civilians in the US since 1986.
 
2012-10-09 11:07:45 AM

Jackson Herring: practical


"Practical" isn't in the Brady Campaign's vocabulary.....
 
2012-10-09 11:17:36 AM

dittybopper: itsdan: GAT_00: I like how one currently existing gun where removing the firing pin is easy proves that engraving the firing pin on all FUTURE guns wouldn't work.

It's not one gun. The firing pin is a serviceable part.

This. *ALL* guns that I know of have a removable firing pin*, and generally, for most, removing that firing pin is part of normal cleaning procedure.


*Not including open-bolt submachine guns with a fixed firing pin, but none has been legally manufactured for sale to civilians in the US since 1986.


And I'm aware of that, and that they do need replaced as they can wear down. The fact that in one gun they can be removed by a ballpoint pen doesn't come close to proving why microstamping is bad.

Jackson Herring: GAT_00: Do people actually just leave shell casing everywhere when you go to a gun range?

Uh, yes?


That seems incredibly impolite. I mean, walking downrange is obviously out, but why would you not pick up shells at your feet?
 
2012-10-09 11:22:16 AM

mrshowrules: It is one thing to argue the solution but to propose their is no problem is not cool.


Was there a problem with gun violence in the 1950s? We look back on those days as halcyon days of peace and prosperity in the US. And we have the same exact homicide rate they had back then.

Why do we feel the need to do something?

That's precisely the sort of feeling that makes "Slippery Slopes" a reality. Even though they are logical fallacy, we don't live on the Planet Vulcan, and the "irresistible urge to legislate" is a very real problem.

So, you are saying it's not cool to propose that homicide rates are low enough that more gun control would be silly. Fine. Why don't you show me how you could lower it even further with some further form of gun control. Bonus points if it doesn't add any cost in time or money to acquiring and owning a gun.

In other words, show me what you got. I will warn you though: Whatever you come up with has likely been tried, and it likely failed, because gun control doesn't address the underlying causes of violence. It's attempting to treat the symptom, not the condition itself. It's the ice pack on the forehead of someone with a flu-induced fever.
 
2012-10-09 11:24:32 AM

GAT_00: That seems incredibly impolite. I mean, walking downrange is obviously out, but why would you not pick up shells at your feet?


Every range has different rules I guess.
 
2012-10-09 11:24:54 AM

GAT_00: And I'm aware of that, and that they do need replaced as they can wear down. The fact that in one gun they can be removed by a ballpoint pen doesn't come close to proving why microstamping is bad.


In *ALL* guns they can be replaced quickly and cheaply. Stop saying "one gun", because it's making you look like an idiot.
 
2012-10-09 11:30:15 AM
American jails are FULL of innocent people.
 
2012-10-09 11:32:50 AM

dittybopper: mrshowrules: It is one thing to argue the solution but to propose their is no problem is not cool.

Was there a problem with gun violence in the 1950s? We look back on those days as halcyon days of peace and prosperity in the US. And we have the same exact homicide rate they had back then.

Why do we feel the need to do something?

That's precisely the sort of feeling that makes "Slippery Slopes" a reality. Even though they are logical fallacy, we don't live on the Planet Vulcan, and the "irresistible urge to legislate" is a very real problem.

So, you are saying it's not cool to propose that homicide rates are low enough that more gun control would be silly. Fine. Why don't you show me how you could lower it even further with some further form of gun control. Bonus points if it doesn't add any cost in time or money to acquiring and owning a gun.

In other words, show me what you got. I will warn you though: Whatever you come up with has likely been tried, and it likely failed, because gun control doesn't address the underlying causes of violence. It's attempting to treat the symptom, not the condition itself. It's the ice pack on the forehead of someone with a flu-induced fever.


It is all relative. If the person killed is someone you know, it is significant.

If homicide or gun related deaths (even at the 1950's rates) is not a big problem than terrorism is a non-existent problem. If you think deaths equivalent to 9/11 happening every month is not a big deal that you must consider 9/11 itself to be meaningless.
 
2012-10-09 11:35:36 AM

dittybopper: GAT_00: And I'm aware of that, and that they do need replaced as they can wear down. The fact that in one gun they can be removed by a ballpoint pen doesn't come close to proving why microstamping is bad.

In *ALL* guns they can be replaced quickly and cheaply. Stop saying "one gun", because it's making you look like an idiot.


And what I'm saying is his argument makes no sense. It's a standard NRA argument: "Well, this solution won't fix every single problem right away, so let's not do it! We are fundamentally opposed to it!" or "Hey, this doesn't work exactly the same for all of the vast assortment of guns. Let's not even consider doing it!" It's a childish argument.

Things like microstamping are incremental solutions. Nobody who is trying to reduce gun violence thinks there is a single solution to fix everything. Nobody is that stupid, and if someone is that stupid, nobody listens to them. But the NRA and their lackeys are opposed to any kind of solution. They can't grasp the concept of incrementalism, because all they can do is think of everything or nothing solutions, and nothing in the world works like that.
 
2012-10-09 11:39:54 AM
PJ media? Smells like bullshait.
 
2012-10-09 11:40:54 AM

GAT_00: dittybopper: itsdan: GAT_00: I like how one currently existing gun where removing the firing pin is easy proves that engraving the firing pin on all FUTURE guns wouldn't work.

It's not one gun. The firing pin is a serviceable part.

This. *ALL* guns that I know of have a removable firing pin*, and generally, for most, removing that firing pin is part of normal cleaning procedure.


*Not including open-bolt submachine guns with a fixed firing pin, but none has been legally manufactured for sale to civilians in the US since 1986.

And I'm aware of that, and that they do need replaced as they can wear down. The fact that in one gun they can be removed by a ballpoint pen doesn't come close to proving why microstamping is bad.

Jackson Herring: GAT_00: Do people actually just leave shell casing everywhere when you go to a gun range?

Uh, yes?

That seems incredibly impolite. I mean, walking downrange is obviously out, but why would you not pick up shells at your feet?


why should your ideas on the issue be considered when you have a fundamental lack of gun knowledge?
 
2012-10-09 11:42:42 AM
Hey, can someone tell me how a program that would require developing a completely new technology, deploying that in new machines in every firearm factory, staffing each of those machines, and maintaining them when they fail would lose jobs?
 
2012-10-09 11:42:53 AM
Until someone, ANYONE from the pro-gun side (meaning those in power, not the everyman) suggests solutions to help reduce gun crime that is sensible and isn't "give everyone else guns," I kind of don't want to hear it.
 
2012-10-09 11:42:55 AM

GAT_00: It's a standard NRA argument: "Well, this solution won't fix every single problem right away, so let's not do it is incredibly easy to circumvent, and therefore an expensive waste of time! We are fundamentally opposed to it!"


FTFY
 
2012-10-09 11:44:30 AM

Mrbogey: why should your ideas on the issue be considered when you have a fundamental lack of gun knowledge?


I like you and respect you as an opponent, GAT, but this far from one of your strongest subjects.
 
2012-10-09 11:44:41 AM

GoldSpider: GAT_00: It's a standard NRA argument: "Well, this solution won't fix every single problem right away, so let's not do it is incredibly easy to circumvent, and therefore an expensive waste of time! We are fundamentally opposed to it!"

FTFY


Case in point.
 
2012-10-09 11:44:49 AM
Consider guns as an elephant at a children's birthday party. Potentially dangerous but properly managed it will make one of the best birthday parties ever.

Now who has a greater obligation to come up with a strategy and steps to keep the children safe, the parent who didn't want the elephant there to begin with or the one who pushed for the idea of the elephant in fact made it a precondition of the party?
 
2012-10-09 11:45:56 AM
Of course. You expected different from the government?

Opponents claim the process is costly, unreliable, and may ultimately impact the local economies that heavily depend on the gun industry, including Ilion, N.Y., where Remington Arms maintains a factory, and Hartford, Conn., where Colt's manufacturing is headquartered.

On the other hand, we could shut down the entire gun industry tomorrow and there would still be enough guns in the world to kill everyone several times over, so boo-hoo-hoo.
 
2012-10-09 11:45:58 AM
I'm on a mobile, so I'm not going to quote you, but here's why we- and by "we", I mean "people whose idea of gun control is a dime-sized group at 25 meters"- *need* to do something.

It's because perception IS reality, period. And right now, there's a growing perception that American gun owners really don't care if mentally unstable individuals can amass arsenals, as long as they got theirs. Yes, statistically, they're isolated incidents, but every time there's another mass shooting- be it Cho at VT, the dude in Aurora, or others, it seems the common narrative afterward becomes "why was this individual allowed to stock up like this"?

And the biggest problem is that the current gun culture finds it amusing to thumb its collective nose at any proposed fixes. When background checks started coming into vogue, I saw more than one dealer at a gun show accept the name "John Doe", with no ID check, because the buyer "looked like an all right guy".

We need to do something now, and give it teeth, because doing nothing is going to result in absolutely Draconian action being taken when a majority of the country finally loses their patience for the final time.
 
2012-10-09 11:46:22 AM

andrewagill: Hey, can someone tell me how a program that would require developing a completely new technology, deploying that in new machines in every firearm factory, staffing each of those machines, and maintaining them when they fail would lose jobs?


That's what I was wondering.
 
2012-10-09 11:46:37 AM

GAT_00: Things like microstamping are incremental solutions.


So, a slippery slope? Microstamping doesn't work, so let's try this too. And when that fails, try this. And this. And then you end up like the United Kingdom, where modern handgun ownership is banned, and even shotgun ownership is highly regulated.

Let's look at the panalopy of failed gun laws:

Waiting periods: Enacted in 1993, ended in 1999, FAILED.
Assault Weapons Ban: Enacted in 1994, sunset in 2004, FAILED.
Handgun bans in DC and Chicago: FAILED.
CoBIS (a NYS program similar in many ways to microstamping): FAILED.

I mean, if actual *BANS* failed to work, why would you expect this work? Waiting periods did nothing. Bans on scary looking guns did nothing. Programs similar to microstamping, but using the unique toolmarks left from manufacturing did nothing.

At some point, you have to say "You know, we gave it an honest try. We tried increasing gun control for 30 years, and it wasn't until laws started relaxing that the homicide rate dropped".
 
2012-10-09 11:48:28 AM
What legislation actually proposes this? Or is this yet another contrived problem from the imagination of Republicans?
 
2012-10-09 11:48:34 AM
Maybe the person thinking of possible pitfalls with microstamping should be working with the people implementing microstamping to overcome those pitfalls.
 
2012-10-09 11:49:14 AM
I just read the bill.
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?sh=printbill&bn=A01157&term=

It doesn't require manufacture of micro-printed guns. It requires sellers to only sell guns (made after X date), that are micro-printed. So no matter where you are located or where you are manufacturing, if you want to sell new guns to people in NY you've got to micro-print them.

This just means guns will be more expensive in NY and manufacturers will if they want to sell to NY create guns for NY.
 
2012-10-09 11:49:56 AM
But who cares about expensive regulations that lose jobs...

Won't someone think of those poor, poor gun manufacturers? They face too many pesky regulations, the poor dears.
 
2012-10-09 11:51:33 AM

Gonz: I'm on a mobile, so I'm not going to quote you, but here's why we- and by "we", I mean "people whose idea of gun control is a dime-sized group at 25 meters"- *need* to do something.

It's because perception IS reality, period. And right now, there's a growing perception that American gun owners really don't care if mentally unstable individuals can amass arsenals, as long as they got theirs. Yes, statistically, they're isolated incidents, but every time there's another mass shooting- be it Cho at VT, the dude in Aurora, or others, it seems the common narrative afterward becomes "why was this individual allowed to stock up like this"?

And the biggest problem is that the current gun culture finds it amusing to thumb its collective nose at any proposed fixes. When background checks started coming into vogue, I saw more than one dealer at a gun show accept the name "John Doe", with no ID check, because the buyer "looked like an all right guy".

We need to do something now, and give it teeth, because doing nothing is going to result in absolutely Draconian action being taken when a majority of the country finally loses their patience for the final time.


If a dealer sold a gun without running a background check then they broke the law and need to lose their FFL. If it wasn't a dealer then the person left themselves open to civil culpability as well as possibly criminal charges if the gun is used in a crime. Selling a gun to someone you suspect is ineligible to buy a gun (using an alias to buy is suspicious) is a federal crime.
 
2012-10-09 11:52:33 AM

andrewagill: Hey, can someone tell me how a program that would require developing a completely new technology, deploying that in new machines in every firearm factory, staffing each of those machines, and maintaining them when they fail would lose jobs?


The jobs would be leaving New York State and Connecticut, and going to North Carolina.

Also, firearms manufacturers that are required to do that might not sell their guns in New York State anymore, especially handgun manufacturers. Because of New York State's onerous Sullivan Law, it's a major pain in the ass to own a handgun in NYS, so the number of handguns sold per 100,000 people is lower than most states. Handgun manufacturers could essentially stop selling here and it would have little effect on their bottom lines.

Of course, that's the intended effect, isn't it? To make it increasingly harder to buy a handgun in New York State, thus accomplishing a de facto ban, something that has been off the table since McDonald in 2010.
 
2012-10-09 11:52:39 AM
Microstamping is a stupid idea done purely to and simply to hurt companies who make guns. That's the only reason.

Microstamping could easily be spoofed and waste police time - or worse, send the wrong people to jail.

This is a stupid argument however.

They're going to find your shell casing, then find you, and then they're going to test fire your gun for a ballistics match. I will grant you that it's going to cause some terrible inconvenience for somebody but nobody is going to jail...

Then again, knowing police...
 
2012-10-09 11:52:50 AM

MindStalker: This just means guns will be more expensive in NY and manufacturers will if they want to sell to NY create guns for NY.


Or they won't sell guns in NY, and just market more in other states.
 
2012-10-09 11:52:52 AM

GAT_00: And what I'm saying is his argument makes no sense. It's a standard NRA argument: "Well, this solution won't fix every single problem right away, so let's not do it! We are fundamentally opposed to it!" or "Hey, this doesn't work exactly the same for all of the vast assortment of guns. Let's not even consider doing it!" It's a childish argument.


The "solution" to an overblown problem won't fix anything. It's a punitive measure, designed to increase the barrier for all gun ownership, through increased costs, more mandatory registration, and the market reacting to a hostile environment in the state of New York.

But the NRA and their lackeys are opposed to any kind of solution.

You mistakenly (and repeatedly) insist that the NRA is representative of all gun owners, when they are representative of at most 5% of gun owners.

They can't grasp the concept of incrementalism

Oh wow. OF course we do. That's why we fight tooth and nail against AWBs, mandatory registration, and pie-in-the-sky science fiction ideas like microstamping.

We know you're not after our "hunting rifles." Yet. But sooner or later, because of incremental-ism, you'll come after our deadly, armor-piercing sniper's weapons.
 
2012-10-09 11:53:59 AM

Gonz: I saw more than one dealer at a gun show accept the name "John Doe", with no ID check, because the buyer "looked like an all right guy".


So you witnessed a crime, but didn't call the police?
 
2012-10-09 11:54:50 AM

Mrbogey: GAT_00: dittybopper: itsdan: GAT_00: I like how one currently existing gun where removing the firing pin is easy proves that engraving the firing pin on all FUTURE guns wouldn't work.

It's not one gun. The firing pin is a serviceable part.

This. *ALL* guns that I know of have a removable firing pin*, and generally, for most, removing that firing pin is part of normal cleaning procedure.


*Not including open-bolt submachine guns with a fixed firing pin, but none has been legally manufactured for sale to civilians in the US since 1986.

And I'm aware of that, and that they do need replaced as they can wear down. The fact that in one gun they can be removed by a ballpoint pen doesn't come close to proving why microstamping is bad.

Jackson Herring: GAT_00: Do people actually just leave shell casing everywhere when you go to a gun range?

Uh, yes?

That seems incredibly impolite. I mean, walking downrange is obviously out, but why would you not pick up shells at your feet?

why should your ideas on the issue be considered when you have a fundamental lack of gun knowledge?


He's right. Every range I've ever been to has a "police your brass" rule. Yes, many rifles discharge the casing quite a ways, but they'll generally all end up in the same area. Keep count and pick them up after you're done. I mean, this idea is really dumb, but not cleaning up after yourself is a dick move.

/no one really follows it
//we pick up what we fired +10, but the ground is still covered
///annoys the hell out of me
 
2012-10-09 11:56:28 AM

Mr_Fabulous: But who cares about expensive regulations that lose jobs...

Won't someone think of those poor, poor gun manufacturers? They face too many pesky regulations, the poor dears.


Do you realize that guns are the only common retail goods that you specifically need prior government approval to purchase a new one, or a used one from a dealer?

You don't need that for a car, or a house, or gasoline, or clothing, or teddy bears, or anything else that you might commonly purchase.
 
2012-10-09 11:56:42 AM

Mr_Fabulous: But who cares about expensive regulations that lose jobs...

Won't someone think of those poor, poor gun manufacturers? They face too many pesky regulations, the poor dears.


Yes, why should liberals give a shiat about blue-collar manufacturing....

dittybopper: Of course, that's the intended effect, isn't it? To make it increasingly harder to buy a handgun in New York State, thus accomplishing a de facto ban, something that has been off the table since McDonald in 2010.


GoldSpider: Or they won't sell guns in NY, and just market more in other states.


DINGDINGDING.

It's like anti abortion laws that Republicans keep trying to pass. Sure, they can't outlaw abortion, but they can establish so many legal and regulatory barriers as to make it impossible for someone to get one.
 
2012-10-09 11:58:50 AM

Coolfusis: He's right. Every range I've ever been to has a "police your brass" rule. Yes, many rifles discharge the casing quite a ways, but they'll generally all end up in the same area. Keep count and pick them up after you're done. I mean, this idea is really dumb, but not cleaning up after yourself is a dick move.

/no one really follows it
//we pick up what we fired +10, but the ground is still covered
///annoys the hell out of me



You don't sound like a reloader.
 
2012-10-09 11:59:53 AM

randomjsa: Microstamping is a stupid idea done purely to and simply to hurt companies who make guns. That's the only reason.

Microstamping could easily be spoofed and waste police time - or worse, send the wrong people to jail.

This is a stupid argument however.

They're going to find your shell casing, then find you, and then they're going to test fire your gun for a ballistics match. I will grant you that it's going to cause some terrible inconvenience for somebody but nobody is going to jail...

Then again, knowing police...


This makes absolutely no sense? If they find the shell casing, it was because a crime was committed. They trace it back to the gun owner and do the ballistics test? That means the gun owner still has the gun? If the ballistics match that means they probably committed the crime. Obviously they are in big trouble. What was your point?
 
2012-10-09 12:00:07 PM

mrshowrules: If you think deaths equivalent to 9/11 happening every month is not a big deal that you must consider 9/11 itself to be meaningless.


Not so much the first half, but I certainly agree with the second half.

/ 9/11 is the new Godwin
 
2012-10-09 12:00:22 PM

dittybopper: Mr_Fabulous: But who cares about expensive regulations that lose jobs...

Won't someone think of those poor, poor gun manufacturers? They face too many pesky regulations, the poor dears.

Do you realize that guns are the only common retail goods that you specifically need prior government approval to purchase a new one, or a used one from a dealer?

You don't need that for a car, or a house, or gasoline, or clothing, or teddy bears, or anything else that you might commonly purchase.


I'm waiting for maniacs to realize kerosene is cheaper than a gun and can be even deadlier if misused. If that nutnob used Molotov cocktails, almost everyone in that theatre would be a memory.
 
2012-10-09 12:00:28 PM
This thread doesn't have enough small penis jokes.
 
2012-10-09 12:01:01 PM

dittybopper: Do you realize that guns are the only common retail goods that you specifically need prior government approval to purchase a new one, or a used one from a dealer?


Oh please. You really think you can buy a new car without showing someone your driver's license?
 
2012-10-09 12:01:07 PM
So to sell a firearm in NY state it needs to be fitted with a microstamp.

Why are all the rugged individualists rushing to their fainting couches again?
 
2012-10-09 12:02:26 PM

GoldSpider: Gonz: I saw more than one dealer at a gun show accept the name "John Doe", with no ID check, because the buyer "looked like an all right guy".

So you witnessed a crime, but didn't call the police?


To be fair, he did say he looked like an all right guy.
 
2012-10-09 12:02:31 PM

vpb: So in other words, we need to make micro stamping mandatory nationwide and then the problem is solved? Another example of why sensible regulations are a good idea.


Only if we do so retroactively since 2000 or so. Old guns will never have it and will always be on the market.
 
2012-10-09 12:03:20 PM

ignacio: vpb: So in other words, we need to make micro stamping mandatory nationwide and then the problem is solved? Another example of why sensible regulations are a good idea.

Only if we do so retroactively since 2000 or so. Old guns will never have it and will always be on the market.


Can't catch all murderers, so why implement something to catch some murderers? Derp!
 
2012-10-09 12:03:33 PM

Coolfusis: Mrbogey: GAT_00: dittybopper: itsdan: GAT_00: I like how one currently existing gun where removing the firing pin is easy proves that engraving the firing pin on all FUTURE guns wouldn't work.

It's not one gun. The firing pin is a serviceable part.

This. *ALL* guns that I know of have a removable firing pin*, and generally, for most, removing that firing pin is part of normal cleaning procedure.


*Not including open-bolt submachine guns with a fixed firing pin, but none has been legally manufactured for sale to civilians in the US since 1986.

And I'm aware of that, and that they do need replaced as they can wear down. The fact that in one gun they can be removed by a ballpoint pen doesn't come close to proving why microstamping is bad.

Jackson Herring: GAT_00: Do people actually just leave shell casing everywhere when you go to a gun range?

Uh, yes?

That seems incredibly impolite. I mean, walking downrange is obviously out, but why would you not pick up shells at your feet?

why should your ideas on the issue be considered when you have a fundamental lack of gun knowledge?

He's right. Every range I've ever been to has a "police your brass" rule. Yes, many rifles discharge the casing quite a ways, but they'll generally all end up in the same area. Keep count and pick them up after you're done. I mean, this idea is really dumb, but not cleaning up after yourself is a dick move.

/no one really follows it
//we pick up what we fired +10, but the ground is still covered
///annoys the hell out of me


I just quoted the most recent post I saw from him. The specific post wasn't the issue but the overall back and forth.
 
2012-10-09 12:03:44 PM

Coolfusis: Mrbogey: GAT_00: dittybopper: itsdan: GAT_00: I like how one currently existing gun where removing the firing pin is easy proves that engraving the firing pin on all FUTURE guns wouldn't work.

It's not one gun. The firing pin is a serviceable part.

This. *ALL* guns that I know of have a removable firing pin*, and generally, for most, removing that firing pin is part of normal cleaning procedure.


*Not including open-bolt submachine guns with a fixed firing pin, but none has been legally manufactured for sale to civilians in the US since 1986.

And I'm aware of that, and that they do need replaced as they can wear down. The fact that in one gun they can be removed by a ballpoint pen doesn't come close to proving why microstamping is bad.

Jackson Herring: GAT_00: Do people actually just leave shell casing everywhere when you go to a gun range?

Uh, yes?

That seems incredibly impolite. I mean, walking downrange is obviously out, but why would you not pick up shells at your feet?

why should your ideas on the issue be considered when you have a fundamental lack of gun knowledge?

He's right. Every range I've ever been to has a "police your brass" rule. Yes, many rifles discharge the casing quite a ways, but they'll generally all end up in the same area. Keep count and pick them up after you're done. I mean, this idea is really dumb, but not cleaning up after yourself is a dick move.

/no one really follows it
//we pick up what we fired +10, but the ground is still covered
///annoys the hell out of me


Indoor ranges generally prohibit any collection of casings that are in front of the firing line. The casings behind the line are generally picked up and put in a provided trash/"recycling" receptacle or something similar. I'm not a reloader, so I don't keep my used shotgun shells or rifle bullets. Either way, clean up or not, there is still going to be a pile of shells or casings that anyone can grab if they are so inclined.
 
2012-10-09 12:05:14 PM

mrshowrules: This makes absolutely no sense? If they find the shell casing, it was because a crime was committed. They trace it back to the gun owner and do the ballistics test? That means the gun owner still has the gun? If the ballistics match that means they probably committed the crime. Obviously they are in big trouble. What was your point?


All you'd have to do if you wanted to commit a crime and get away with it or implicate somebody else would be to leave someone else's spent brass at the scene of the crime. This microstamping won't prove anything other then the origin of spent casings at crime scenes. It will not prove that the owner of the microstamped guns was at the scene of the crime, or even that they were the ones who fired the brass that was found at the scene.

This is purely a punitive measure, a ban that seeks to avoid the constitutional pitfalls of Heller and McDonald.
 
2012-10-09 12:05:58 PM

CPennypacker: ignacio: vpb: So in other words, we need to make micro stamping mandatory nationwide and then the problem is solved? Another example of why sensible regulations are a good idea.

Only if we do so retroactively since 2000 or so. Old guns will never have it and will always be on the market.

Can't catch all murderers, so why implement something to catch some murderers? Derp!


It wont catch any murders but why not spend scads of money? Herp!
 
2012-10-09 12:07:50 PM

Fark It: mrshowrules: This makes absolutely no sense? If they find the shell casing, it was because a crime was committed. They trace it back to the gun owner and do the ballistics test? That means the gun owner still has the gun? If the ballistics match that means they probably committed the crime. Obviously they are in big trouble. What was your point?

All you'd have to do if you wanted to commit a crime and get away with it or implicate somebody else would be to leave someone else's spent brass at the scene of the crime. This microstamping won't prove anything other then the origin of spent casings at crime scenes. It will not prove that the owner of the microstamped guns was at the scene of the crime, or even that they were the ones who fired the brass that was found at the scene.

This is purely a punitive measure, a ban that seeks to avoid the constitutional pitfalls of Heller and McDonald.


There's no possible way that knowing the owner of the gun could lead them to the person who used it? Because that's where I see that still being useful. "Oh god, my gun was used for "X"? Maybe "x" took it!"

To assume that there's NO VALUE AT ALL to this is silly, as is assuming they would surely convict the owner with no other evidence.
 
2012-10-09 12:08:10 PM
Dear Citizens,

Guns are big business. They make a shiat-ton of money(metric) for a lot of people in the sales of guns and ammo, and all the cottage industry BS that goes with them. Guns are also a wonderful way to be politically divisive, and spread fear amongst parties to keep people partisan for no real reason. There is also a lot of money to be made from lobbyists from both sides of the issue to be milked. But please, let's keep having irrational debates about how politicians from either side are stupid enough to interupt the steady flow of money that guns brings to them.
 
2012-10-09 12:09:06 PM

Fark It: mrshowrules: This makes absolutely no sense? If they find the shell casing, it was because a crime was committed. They trace it back to the gun owner and do the ballistics test? That means the gun owner still has the gun? If the ballistics match that means they probably committed the crime. Obviously they are in big trouble. What was your point?

All you'd have to do if you wanted to commit a crime and get away with it or implicate somebody else would be to leave someone else's spent brass at the scene of the crime. This microstamping won't prove anything other then the origin of spent casings at crime scenes. It will not prove that the owner of the microstamped guns was at the scene of the crime, or even that they were the ones who fired the brass that was found at the scene.

This is purely a punitive measure, a ban that seeks to avoid the constitutional pitfalls of Heller and McDonald.


If you are going to go to the trouble of getting someones spent casings, why not steal their gun. Who things that far ahead honestly? We aren't all dealing with Bond super villains here.

Anyways, I don't have a specific opinion on microstamping. My position is that Conservatives should be proposing solutions to gun violence instead of Liberals. Their the ones that have a hard-on for guns.
 
2012-10-09 12:10:49 PM

GoldSpider: Gonz: I saw more than one dealer at a gun show accept the name "John Doe", with no ID check, because the buyer "looked like an all right guy".

So you witnessed a crime, but didn't call the police?


Yep. In 1997(?), it's not like phones were the easiest things to find in a municipal auditorium.

And if I had a phone, who was I going to call? The local sheriff? In Tennessee? I'd be putting my own neck on the line. The ATF? "Hey, drop everything and come to this gun show- there's a Southern dude buying a gun. The dealer's the redneck dude next to the guy selling racist targets."
 
2012-10-09 12:11:04 PM

LasersHurt: To assume that there's NO VALUE AT ALL to this is silly, as is assuming they would surely convict the owner with no other evidence.


What value does this fantasy idea have? How many gun crimes in the state of New York are committed with registered guns? Do you know how easy it is to alter a firing pin, to replace one? Do you know how long the stamp will last (how many rounds)?

Do you know anything?
 
2012-10-09 12:11:38 PM

dittybopper: So, a slippery slope? Microstamping doesn't work, so let's try this too. And when that fails, try this. And this. And then you end up like the United Kingdom, where modern handgun ownership is banned, and even shotgun ownership is highly regulated.


Yes, you did use a slippery slope argument there. Good job discrediting yourself.
 
2012-10-09 12:12:05 PM

Coolfusis: Mrbogey: GAT_00: dittybopper: itsdan: GAT_00: I like how one currently existing gun where removing the firing pin is easy proves that engraving the firing pin on all FUTURE guns wouldn't work.

It's not one gun. The firing pin is a serviceable part.

This. *ALL* guns that I know of have a removable firing pin*, and generally, for most, removing that firing pin is part of normal cleaning procedure.


*Not including open-bolt submachine guns with a fixed firing pin, but none has been legally manufactured for sale to civilians in the US since 1986.

And I'm aware of that, and that they do need replaced as they can wear down. The fact that in one gun they can be removed by a ballpoint pen doesn't come close to proving why microstamping is bad.

Jackson Herring: GAT_00: Do people actually just leave shell casing everywhere when you go to a gun range?

Uh, yes?

That seems incredibly impolite. I mean, walking downrange is obviously out, but why would you not pick up shells at your feet?

why should your ideas on the issue be considered when you have a fundamental lack of gun knowledge?

He's right. Every range I've ever been to has a "police your brass" rule. Yes, many rifles discharge the casing quite a ways, but they'll generally all end up in the same area. Keep count and pick them up after you're done. I mean, this idea is really dumb, but not cleaning up after yourself is a dick move.

/no one really follows it
//we pick up what we fired +10, but the ground is still covered
///annoys the hell out of me


Rules at my range are that it isn't required whatsoever. Once in a while someone sweeps them up for metals recycling. Though if it's anything but rimfire or ComBloc steel someone like me will pick them up because I handload lots of calibers and I'm cheap.

/scored ~40 once-fired 300 Win cases a month or so back
//street value of about $20
 
2012-10-09 12:12:19 PM

ignacio: vpb: So in other words, we need to make micro stamping mandatory nationwide and then the problem is solved? Another example of why sensible regulations are a good idea.

Only if we do so retroactively since 2000 or so. Old guns will never have it and will always be on the market.


2000? More like ca. 1890, when the first guns built to handle smokeless powders became widely available. A high percentage of them still work perfectly well today. There are millions of guns made before even 2000. The stamps seem like they also could be pretty readily defeated by changing out parts, or removing a very small amount of material with a scrap of crocus cloth.
 
2012-10-09 12:13:20 PM

Fark It: All you'd have to do if you wanted to commit a crime and get away with it or implicate somebody else would be to leave someone else's spent brass at the scene of the crime.


Provided you have taken the time and effort to recover spent brass that is both stamped and matches the firearm that you're using.

No security measures can stop someone who is committed to their goal and has the time and resources to plan well. Fortunately for the police, most crimes are not well planned and most murders are committed in the heat of the moment.
 
2012-10-09 12:13:22 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: CPennypacker: ignacio: vpb: So in other words, we need to make micro stamping mandatory nationwide and then the problem is solved? Another example of why sensible regulations are a good idea.

Only if we do so retroactively since 2000 or so. Old guns will never have it and will always be on the market.

Can't catch all murderers, so why implement something to catch some murderers? Derp!

It wont catch any murders but why not spend scads of money? Herp!


Sure it will
 
2012-10-09 12:13:24 PM

mrshowrules: f you are going to go to the trouble of getting someones spent casings, why not steal their gun. Who things that far ahead honestly? We aren't all dealing with Bond super villains here.


Well, it's easier to report a gun stolen than it is to report spent brass stolen, for one. Number two, people don't discard their weapons at gun ranges and leave them there to be processed for scrap.

My position is that Conservatives should be proposing solutions to gun violence instead of Liberals. Their the ones that have a hard-on for guns.

Good thing I'm a liberal then.
 
2012-10-09 12:15:49 PM

Coolfusis: He's right. Every range I've ever been to has a "police your brass" rule. Yes, many rifles discharge the casing quite a ways, but they'll generally all end up in the same area. Keep count and pick them up after you're done. I mean, this idea is really dumb, but not cleaning up after yourself is a dick move.

/no one really follows it
//we pick up what we fired +10, but the ground is still covered
///annoys the hell out of me


Last range I went to would charge you extra if you didn't pick up your casings.
 
2012-10-09 12:15:51 PM

MindStalker: This just means guns will be more expensive in NY and manufacturers will if they want to sell to NY create guns for NY.


For handguns, NY is a small market, because the onerous laws keep most people from buying them unless they *REALLY* want one (legally).

For example, if I wanted to get my pistol permit, I'd have to take a 3 hour class (cost: $20), get fingerprinted ($90 fee), fill out a bunch of paperwork including getting 3 personal references who live in the same county, Pay a $25 fee to the county sheriff, pay $14 for 4 photos, and $10 to the county clerk.

Then I get to wait 6 to 8 *MONTHS* for it to get approved.

Once it is approved, I have to notify the local clerk each and every time I buy or sell a handgun, so they can amend my permit.

That's why the market for handguns in New York State is actually relatively small.
 
2012-10-09 12:16:12 PM

Fark It: You mistakenly (and repeatedly) insist that the NRA is representative of all gun owners, when they are representative of at most 5% of gun owners.

So you're saying that the NRA is a fringe organization?

 
2012-10-09 12:16:18 PM

Fark It: mrshowrules: f you are going to go to the trouble of getting someones spent casings, why not steal their gun. Who things that far ahead honestly? We aren't all dealing with Bond super villains here.

Well, it's easier to report a gun stolen than it is to report spent brass stolen, for one. Number two, people don't discard their weapons at gun ranges and leave them there to be processed for scrap.

My position is that Conservatives should be proposing solutions to gun violence instead of Liberals. Their the ones that have a hard-on for guns.

Good thing I'm a liberal then.


More accurately then, people who are pro-gun, should come up with the strategy/rules to reduce gun violence.
 
2012-10-09 12:16:52 PM

mrshowrules: Fark It: mrshowrules: This makes absolutely no sense? If they find the shell casing, it was because a crime was committed. They trace it back to the gun owner and do the ballistics test? That means the gun owner still has the gun? If the ballistics match that means they probably committed the crime. Obviously they are in big trouble. What was your point?

All you'd have to do if you wanted to commit a crime and get away with it or implicate somebody else would be to leave someone else's spent brass at the scene of the crime. This microstamping won't prove anything other then the origin of spent casings at crime scenes. It will not prove that the owner of the microstamped guns was at the scene of the crime, or even that they were the ones who fired the brass that was found at the scene.

This is purely a punitive measure, a ban that seeks to avoid the constitutional pitfalls of Heller and McDonald.

If you are going to go to the trouble of getting someones spent casings, why not steal their gun. Who things that far ahead honestly? We aren't all dealing with Bond super villains here.

Anyways, I don't have a specific opinion on microstamping. My position is that Conservatives should be proposing solutions to gun violence instead of Liberals. Their the ones that have a hard-on for guns.


that was one scenario. Another is use a revolver. Another is police your brass at the crime. Another is modify your pin. The scenarios are multitude.

You may catch the odd killer but you'll spend billions and harass a lot of innocent people.

Btw... What do you think about the TSA?
 
2012-10-09 12:18:08 PM
There are effective ways to regulate guns, and then there's this.

I once saw an image that read, "People who can, teach. People who can't, pass laws about teaching." Well, the same certainly holds true for guns. "People who know guns go to the range. People who don't know guns pass laws regulating them."
 
2012-10-09 12:19:21 PM

Ricardo Klement: "People who know guns go to the range. People who don't know guns pass laws regulating them."


mrshowrules: More accurately then, people who are pro-gun, should come up with the strategy/rules to reduce gun violence.


Apt.
 
2012-10-09 12:19:51 PM

GAT_00: Fark It: Supporters of the technology say it will be a "game changer," allowing authorities to quickly identify the registered guns used in crimes.

Problem 1

Removal of firing pin

Problem 2 (it takes seconds and can be thwarted with a nail-file)

This will be useless for revolvers.

Problem 3

This will be useless for rimfire.

Problem 4

Actual law-abiding gun owners will have to police their brass whenever they go to the range, as they could unwittingly become implicated in crimes by leaving their personally identifiable cartridge casings behind for criminals to plant at crime scenes.

Problem 5

I like how one currently existing gun where removing the firing pin is easy proves that engraving the firing pin on all FUTURE guns wouldn't work. That's some fantastic logic there. And your flat refusal to even consider other options for guns like revolvers really proves that you do in fact care about fixing an issue that your beloved NRA has told you should be killed at all costs. And why exactly shouldn't you police your brass? Do people actually just leave shell casing everywhere when you go to a gun range?


You've never been to a range, have you?
 
2012-10-09 12:20:17 PM

Mr_Fabulous: dittybopper: Do you realize that guns are the only common retail goods that you specifically need prior government approval to purchase a new one, or a used one from a dealer?

Oh please. You really think you can buy a new car without showing someone your driver's license?


Showing a driver's license = criminal background check?

There is no law that requires you to have a valid driver's license in order to purchase a car, certainly not at the federal level, and I doubt most states have such a requirement.

To buy a gun from a dealer, though, either new or used, that dealer has to contact the National Instant Check System (NICS) and get an approval before they can sell you that gun.
 
2012-10-09 12:20:35 PM

Mrbogey: mrshowrules: Fark It: mrshowrules: This makes absolutely no sense? If they find the shell casing, it was because a crime was committed. They trace it back to the gun owner and do the ballistics test? That means the gun owner still has the gun? If the ballistics match that means they probably committed the crime. Obviously they are in big trouble. What was your point?

All you'd have to do if you wanted to commit a crime and get away with it or implicate somebody else would be to leave someone else's spent brass at the scene of the crime. This microstamping won't prove anything other then the origin of spent casings at crime scenes. It will not prove that the owner of the microstamped guns was at the scene of the crime, or even that they were the ones who fired the brass that was found at the scene.

This is purely a punitive measure, a ban that seeks to avoid the constitutional pitfalls of Heller and McDonald.

If you are going to go to the trouble of getting someones spent casings, why not steal their gun. Who things that far ahead honestly? We aren't all dealing with Bond super villains here.

Anyways, I don't have a specific opinion on microstamping. My position is that Conservatives should be proposing solutions to gun violence instead of Liberals. Their the ones that have a hard-on for guns.

that was one scenario. Another is use a revolver. Another is police your brass at the crime. Another is modify your pin. The scenarios are multitude.

You may catch the odd killer but you'll spend billions and harass a lot of innocent people.

Btw... What do you think about the TSA?


$Billions? Really? A real figure and a determination by law enforcement on its effective would be more meaningful.
 
2012-10-09 12:20:50 PM
Oh yeah, microstamping, the rape wand of gun control.
 
2012-10-09 12:21:01 PM

mrshowrules: Fark It: mrshowrules: f you are going to go to the trouble of getting someones spent casings, why not steal their gun. Who things that far ahead honestly? We aren't all dealing with Bond super villains here.

Well, it's easier to report a gun stolen than it is to report spent brass stolen, for one. Number two, people don't discard their weapons at gun ranges and leave them there to be processed for scrap.

My position is that Conservatives should be proposing solutions to gun violence instead of Liberals. Their the ones that have a hard-on for guns.

Good thing I'm a liberal then.

More accurately then, people who are pro-gun, should come up with the strategy/rules to reduce gun violence.


Howzabout addressing poverty, bringing jobs back to the US and calling it quits on the drug war?
 
2012-10-09 12:22:21 PM

Fark It: LasersHurt: To assume that there's NO VALUE AT ALL to this is silly, as is assuming they would surely convict the owner with no other evidence.

What value does this fantasy idea have? How many gun crimes in the state of New York are committed with registered guns? Do you know how easy it is to alter a firing pin, to replace one? Do you know how long the stamp will last (how many rounds)?

Do you know anything?


Yes. That's why I am not wholesale denying the idea because there are a few issues with it. It might be feasible with a little tinkering, maybe not. Unlike you, I don't pretend to know all and live in absolutes.
 
2012-10-09 12:22:38 PM

Teufelaffe: Last range I went to would charge you extra if you didn't pick up your casings.


I don't know why: That could be a significant revenue stream for them. They could police up the brass after hours and either sell it to reloaders, or for scrap. Either way, they make money off it.
 
2012-10-09 12:22:52 PM
Gun Microstamping: Democrat Politicians' Ignorance Threatens Manufacturing Jobs 

There had to fix the article's headline.
 
2012-10-09 12:23:06 PM

redmid17: Coolfusis: Mrbogey: GAT_00: dittybopper: itsdan: GAT_00: I like how one currently existing gun where removing the firing pin is easy proves that engraving the firing pin on all FUTURE guns wouldn't work.

It's not one gun. The firing pin is a serviceable part.

This. *ALL* guns that I know of have a removable firing pin*, and generally, for most, removing that firing pin is part of normal cleaning procedure.


*Not including open-bolt submachine guns with a fixed firing pin, but none has been legally manufactured for sale to civilians in the US since 1986.

And I'm aware of that, and that they do need replaced as they can wear down. The fact that in one gun they can be removed by a ballpoint pen doesn't come close to proving why microstamping is bad.

Jackson Herring: GAT_00: Do people actually just leave shell casing everywhere when you go to a gun range?

Uh, yes?

That seems incredibly impolite. I mean, walking downrange is obviously out, but why would you not pick up shells at your feet?

why should your ideas on the issue be considered when you have a fundamental lack of gun knowledge?

He's right. Every range I've ever been to has a "police your brass" rule. Yes, many rifles discharge the casing quite a ways, but they'll generally all end up in the same area. Keep count and pick them up after you're done. I mean, this idea is really dumb, but not cleaning up after yourself is a dick move.

/no one really follows it
//we pick up what we fired +10, but the ground is still covered
///annoys the hell out of me

Indoor ranges generally prohibit any collection of casings that are in front of the firing line. The casings behind the line are generally picked up and put in a provided trash/"recycling" receptacle or something similar. I'm not a reloader, so I don't keep my used shotgun shells or rifle bullets. Either way, clean up or not, there is still going to be a pile of shells or casings that anyone can grab if they are so inclined.


I didn't think of that - never even been to an indoor range. Our local ranges have 55 gallon drums for people to throw casings in, but, as I mentioned earlier, no one does.

I get rather annoyed at it due to the outdoor ranges being great, low-hassle places. The few rules they have are either for safety or keeping the area clean, but people can't even follow those.
 
2012-10-09 12:24:53 PM
Also, if this were to pass, the values of pre-microstamp arms would increase. So if I were only concerned with money and cashing out my collection, I could be for this.

/follow the money
 
2012-10-09 12:25:04 PM
Which is why I will be committing all my gun violence with musketoons. Tremble in fear, all parties in a 150 degree field of view within 12 feet of me.
 
2012-10-09 12:25:08 PM

mrshowrules: More accurately then, people who are pro-gun, should come up with the strategy/rules to reduce gun violence.


This is my favorite version of "why don't the good Muslims stop the terrorists?"
 
2012-10-09 12:25:14 PM

MorePeasPlease: Coolfusis: He's right. Every range I've ever been to has a "police your brass" rule. Yes, many rifles discharge the casing quite a ways, but they'll generally all end up in the same area. Keep count and pick them up after you're done. I mean, this idea is really dumb, but not cleaning up after yourself is a dick move.

/no one really follows it
//we pick up what we fired +10, but the ground is still covered
///annoys the hell out of me


You don't sound like a reloader.


When I was a kid (1980s), I would go with my grandfather to a local range that was used a lot by the local FBI office, and the local PD. Those We always went home with a ton of .40 and .45 ACP brass, it made grandpa happy. I always had the job of removing the spent primers and running the tumbler.
 
2012-10-09 12:26:12 PM

LasersHurt: Yes. That's why I am not wholesale denying the idea because there are a few issues with it. It might be feasible with a little tinkering, maybe not. Unlike you, I don't pretend to know all and live in absolutes.


How would you tinker with it to make it work? I'm pretty damn familiar with guns, and outside of mandating that all new guns be made not user-serviceable (which would be a non-starter), I can't see how you could make this work. It would require quite a bit more than "tinkering".

Then too, it might just spur the development of caseless ammo, which would then have to be banned, of course.
 
2012-10-09 12:27:07 PM

mrshowrules: Consider guns as an elephant at a children's birthday party. Potentially dangerous but properly managed it will make one of the best birthday parties ever.

Now who has a greater obligation to come up with a strategy and steps to keep the children safe, the parent who didn't want the elephant there to begin with or the one who pushed for the idea of the elephant in fact made it a precondition of the party?


If you squeeze me, I make bad people go away!!

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-10-09 12:29:07 PM
Seriously gun nuts? Now you want to be able to unrestrictedly mail each other guns too?
 
2012-10-09 12:29:14 PM

dittybopper: Teufelaffe: Last range I went to would charge you extra if you didn't pick up your casings.

I don't know why: That could be a significant revenue stream for them. They could police up the brass after hours and either sell it to reloaders, or for scrap. Either way, they make money off it.


Honestly I think it was because the guys who ran the place were some of the laziest humans I've ever met. Overheard one of them refuse to show someone a specific handgun because, "The key to that case is in the back and I don't feel like goin ta get it. Look at somethin else."
 
2012-10-09 12:32:01 PM

paygun: mrshowrules: More accurately then, people who are pro-gun, should come up with the strategy/rules to reduce gun violence.

This is my favorite version of "why don't the good Muslims stop the terrorists?"


Except that it's a sound strategy for firearm enthusiasts who want to ensure that poorly considered legislation negatively impacts their legal exercise of their rights. Unfortunately, the most well known and politically connected firearm association has taken the position that any regulation is to be opposed rather than working with law enforcement and government to craft regulations are are both effective and not burdensome to law abiding citizens.
 
2012-10-09 12:32:32 PM
outlaw murder?
does that do anything to stop murder?
outlaw theft?
does that prevent theft?
outlaw speeding?
does that keep the speeds down?
we can put gps trackers in all cars, and if the car exceeds the speed limit, the owner gets a ticket.
do that first, then I will microstamp my firearms...
 
2012-10-09 12:33:55 PM

mrshowrules: More accurately then, people who are pro-gun, should come up with the strategy/rules to reduce gun violence.


No.

You are still thinking from the wrong direction. What violence there is (and it's less than it's been for 45+ years) isn't a *GUN* problem, it's a *VIOLENCE* problem. Pro-gun people can't effectively address a problem that is outside of their expertise.

I can tell you why various gun control measures can't work, based upon the physical realities and characteristics of the firearms in question. What I can't do is effectively address the underlying causes of the violence that way, because the firearm is merely a tool being used to commit the violence, it doesn't cause the violence itself, and even if you were to magically make all guns disappear, you'd still have the violence problem.

*THAT* is why gun control, in all it's forms, is pretty much a fools game.

Even worse, it distracts us from looking at the real root causes of violence, so it's actually counter-productive, instead of just having zero effect.
 
2012-10-09 12:34:29 PM

LasersHurt: There's no possible way that knowing the owner of the gun could lead them to the person who used it? Because that's where I see that still being useful. "Oh god, my gun was used for "X"? Maybe "x" took it!"


Or "Random person Y picked up shell casings from the trash at a firing range."

The point people are making is that you actually don't even have any proof *that gun was used at all* to commit the crime.
 
2012-10-09 12:34:40 PM

Rashnu: Seriously gun nuts? Now you want to be able to unrestrictedly mail each other guns too?


If I chose to get my Curio and Relic FFL, I could sorta do that (some restrictions do apply: must be a weapon on the ATF list, must be between FFL's of some type, personal recording requirements)
 
2012-10-09 12:35:30 PM

Teufelaffe: Last range I went to would charge you extra if you didn't pick up your casings.


HUh. Last range I went to charged you extra if you DID pick up your casings (they want the scrap/reload money). Don't go there often.
 
2012-10-09 12:35:41 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Except that it's a sound strategy for firearm enthusiasts who want to ensure that poorly considered legislation negatively impacts their legal exercise of their rights.


oh you're serious, let me laugh harder, etc.

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Unfortunately, the most well known and politically connected firearm association has taken the position that any regulation is to be opposed rather than working with law enforcement and government to craft regulations are are both effective and not burdensome to law abiding citizens.


They've taken the position that gun crimes are already illegal. Making them double dog top-secret illegal isn't going to accomplish anything *but* restricting rights of law abiding people.
 
2012-10-09 12:35:42 PM

GAT_00: And I'm aware of that, and that they do need replaced as they can wear down. The fact that in one gun they can be removed by a ballpoint pen doesn't come close to proving why microstamping is bad


By itself, no.

With the knowledge that it is a consumable part on every gun I know of, yes it does.
 
2012-10-09 12:36:05 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Unfortunately, the most well known and politically connected firearm association has taken the position that any regulation is to be opposed rather than working with law enforcement and government to craft regulations are are both effective and not burdensome to law abiding citizens.


GOA has replaced the NRA? 'Cause that's what GOA does.
 
2012-10-09 12:36:19 PM

bullsballs: outlaw murder?
does that do anything to stop murder?
outlaw theft?
does that prevent theft?
outlaw speeding?
does that keep the speeds down?
we can put gps trackers in all cars, and if the car exceeds the speed limit, the owner gets a ticket.
do that first, then I will microstamp my firearms...


Who is telling you to do anything? They are required to come microstamped when you buy them. Why would you care about that unless you were going to murder dudes?
 
2012-10-09 12:36:44 PM

Rashnu: Seriously gun nuts? Now you want to be able to unrestrictedly mail each other guns too?


Already can. Called C&R FFL (curio and relic). Some restrictions on it, but perfectly doable.
 
2012-10-09 12:37:19 PM

Rashnu: Seriously gun nuts? Now you want to be able to unrestrictedly mail each other guns too?


Back in the 1950's, when homicide rates were under 5 per 100,000, just like they are today, you could do just that, and we didn't seem to be any the worse for wear.
 
2012-10-09 12:40:32 PM

CPennypacker: Who is telling you to do anything? They are required to come microstamped when you buy them. Why would you care about that unless you were going to murder dudes


Because it would make the guns cost more, because when you had to replace the firing pin it will cost more, becasue unless they then keep a database fo those serial numbers it is worthless, even if they dot hey expensive system can be defeated by switching firing pins before a murder, etc.
 
2012-10-09 12:40:53 PM
You'd think the military would be favoring something like microstamping. It would allow for quick post-incident scene reconstruction.

As far as crime goes, first you need to find the causes of criminality and work to reduce those. Controlling the tools of crime will, at best, change the prefered tools of crime.
 
2012-10-09 12:41:33 PM

liam76: Because it would make the guns cost more, because when you had to replace the firing pin it will cost more, becasue unless they then keep a database fo those serial numbers it is worthless, even if they dot hey expensive system can be defeated by switching firing pins before a murder, etc.


Making the exercise of a civil right expensive is no big deal. Just like voter ID!
 
2012-10-09 12:42:56 PM

paygun: liam76: Because it would make the guns cost more, because when you had to replace the firing pin it will cost more, becasue unless they then keep a database fo those serial numbers it is worthless, even if they dot hey expensive system can be defeated by switching firing pins before a murder, etc.

Making the exercise of a civil right expensive is no big deal. Just like voter ID!


You think gun ownership is a civil right?
 
2012-10-09 12:44:30 PM

wildcardjack: You'd think the military would be favoring something like microstamping. It would allow for quick post-incident scene reconstruction.


I fully support its use for police guns. It's a limited dataset, and it would make sorting out who fired what and where easier.
 
2012-10-09 12:46:05 PM

CPennypacker: paygun: liam76: Because it would make the guns cost more, because when you had to replace the firing pin it will cost more, becasue unless they then keep a database fo those serial numbers it is worthless, even if they dot hey expensive system can be defeated by switching firing pins before a murder, etc.

Making the exercise of a civil right expensive is no big deal. Just like voter ID!

You think gun ownership is a civil right?


It is. See: DC v. Heller (holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own and use firearms for lawful purposes), and McDonald v. Chicago (incorporating that right against the states).
 
2012-10-09 12:46:23 PM

GAT_00: Fark It: Supporters of the technology say it will be a "game changer," allowing authorities to quickly identify the registered guns used in crimes.

I like how one currently existing gun where removing the firing pin is easy proves that engraving the firing pin on all FUTURE guns wouldn't work. That's some fantastic logic there.


psst, you can remove the firing pin on future guns too. You'd see the logic if you knew anything about firearms.
 
2012-10-09 12:46:50 PM

dittybopper: LasersHurt: Yes. That's why I am not wholesale denying the idea because there are a few issues with it. It might be feasible with a little tinkering, maybe not. Unlike you, I don't pretend to know all and live in absolutes.

How would you tinker with it to make it work? I'm pretty damn familiar with guns, and outside of mandating that all new guns be made not user-serviceable (which would be a non-starter), I can't see how you could make this work. It would require quite a bit more than "tinkering".

Then too, it might just spur the development of caseless ammo, which would then have to be banned, of course.


Caseless ammo isn't happening. It can be done, it has been done. The problem is that the extracted brass is also removing heat from the weapon. If you want your auto pistol to either need a radiator and coolant, or become too hot to touch at the end of your trip to the range, then caseless is the way to go. I suppose why this isn't such an issue with muzzleloaders is because of the very low rate of fire.
 
2012-10-09 12:47:29 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: mrshowrules: Fark It: mrshowrules: f you are going to go to the trouble of getting someones spent casings, why not steal their gun. Who things that far ahead honestly? We aren't all dealing with Bond super villains here.

Well, it's easier to report a gun stolen than it is to report spent brass stolen, for one. Number two, people don't discard their weapons at gun ranges and leave them there to be processed for scrap.

My position is that Conservatives should be proposing solutions to gun violence instead of Liberals. Their the ones that have a hard-on for guns.

Good thing I'm a liberal then.

More accurately then, people who are pro-gun, should come up with the strategy/rules to reduce gun violence.

Howzabout addressing poverty, bringing jobs back to the US and calling it quits on the drug war?


Slow down. Poverty bad and jobs good?
 
2012-10-09 12:47:57 PM

dittybopper: Generation_D: A well regulated militia would not mind if their guns had laser markings.

Well regulated in what sense? Do you mean regulated in the sense of subject to a multitude of regulations, or do you mean regulated in the sense of working properly?

Because I can see your point for case 1, but not case 2.


I can see it in case 2 (the case I happen to think is THE case, fwiw). Why would our military, or for that matter, a group of poorly connected farmers and landowners, care if their guns were marked with a laser? Or a stamp? Or a manufacturer, model and date of manufacture? Technically, as long as their equipment worked properly, and remained accessible, the markings would have no bearing whatsoever on their ability to muster.

The only question for me is a pragmatic one. Does it help solve crime and keep firearms out of the hands of crazy people and criminals? If so, does it do so at a cost that is lower than the current situation? If not, is this increase in cost worth the subsequent increase in crime prevention?

That's a lot of ifs, and the answer is probably not good for most of them, but I don't see this as a second amendment issue. Really, the only way I can imagine this being spun that way is if one were worried that these microstamp IDs would be used to track or retrieve your guns. Which would be nuts. IF they want your guns, an invisible stamp isn't going to help them at all. The tanks will probably come in a bit handier, really.
 
2012-10-09 12:49:02 PM

mrshowrules: More accurately then, people who are pro-gun, should come up with the strategy/rules to reduce gun violence.


Gun rights advocates have been arguing for better enforcement of existing laws for years.

Gun opponents like the guy up-thread who claims to have witnessed an illegal gun sale but did not report it are a big part of the problem.
 
2012-10-09 12:50:00 PM

CPennypacker: You think gun ownership is a civil right?


Me and those nuts on the supreme court, yes.
 
2012-10-09 12:50:07 PM

dittybopper: LasersHurt: Yes. That's why I am not wholesale denying the idea because there are a few issues with it. It might be feasible with a little tinkering, maybe not. Unlike you, I don't pretend to know all and live in absolutes.

How would you tinker with it to make it work? I'm pretty damn familiar with guns, and outside of mandating that all new guns be made not user-serviceable (which would be a non-starter), I can't see how you could make this work. It would require quite a bit more than "tinkering".

Then too, it might just spur the development of caseless ammo, which would then have to be banned, of course.


Felgraf: LasersHurt: There's no possible way that knowing the owner of the gun could lead them to the person who used it? Because that's where I see that still being useful. "Oh god, my gun was used for "X"? Maybe "x" took it!"

Or "Random person Y picked up shell casings from the trash at a firing range."

The point people are making is that you actually don't even have any proof *that gun was used at all* to commit the crime.


We know how to stop and spot forged coins, and cash, I don't see why we couldn't accomplish something similar here. I dunno - get all of the manufacturers of guns together and say "come up with a creative solution, boys." Get the people most knowledgable to do something about it.

I absolutely know there is a way you can start to make the problem better. I just wish the pro-gun lobby, gun manufacturers, etc. were actively seeking it. I think they throw some token gestures instead and sit on their laurels.

Again, as should be obvious by now, I am not claiming to be either a gun or stamping expert. What I do know, however, is that we can solve the problem if EVERYONE ACTUALLY TRIES. We can solve any problem. We're humans, we're good that way.
 
2012-10-09 12:51:40 PM

dittybopper: mrshowrules: More accurately then, people who are pro-gun, should come up with the strategy/rules to reduce gun violence.

No.

You are still thinking from the wrong direction. What violence there is (and it's less than it's been for 45+ years) isn't a *GUN* problem, it's a *VIOLENCE* problem. Pro-gun people can't effectively address a problem that is outside of their expertise.

I can tell you why various gun control measures can't work, based upon the physical realities and characteristics of the firearms in question. What I can't do is effectively address the underlying causes of the violence that way, because the firearm is merely a tool being used to commit the violence, it doesn't cause the violence itself, and even if you were to magically make all guns disappear, you'd still have the violence problem.

*THAT* is why gun control, in all it's forms, is pretty much a fools game.

Even worse, it distracts us from looking at the real root causes of violence, so it's actually counter-productive, instead of just having zero effect.


Without guns people would be running into public places and beating a dozen people to death? Listen, you don't even think guns in the hands of criminals and nut jobs is necessarily a problem that needs to be dealt with so you are inviting gun control laws. Nature abhors a vacuum. If you don't deal with it, it may be dealt with in a manner you don't like (e.g., microstamping).
 
2012-10-09 12:53:01 PM

GoldSpider: mrshowrules: More accurately then, people who are pro-gun, should come up with the strategy/rules to reduce gun violence.

Gun rights advocates have been arguing for better enforcement of existing laws for years.

Gun opponents like the guy up-thread who claims to have witnessed an illegal gun sale but did not report it are a big part of the problem.


Wanting better enforcement is one thing but you have to put money against it. Why not raise that revenue against the guns themselves.
 
2012-10-09 12:55:15 PM

paygun: mrshowrules: More accurately then, people who are pro-gun, should come up with the strategy/rules to reduce gun violence.

This is my favorite version of "why don't the good Muslims stop the terrorists?"


That is one of the dumbest things I've heard.

Side A: loves gun and hates gun controls
Side B: wants to reduce gun violence via gun controls

It is only logical that Side A should propose and advocate solutions other than gun controls.
 
2012-10-09 12:56:53 PM

paygun: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Unfortunately, the most well known and politically connected firearm association has taken the position that any regulation is to be opposed rather than working with law enforcement and government to craft regulations are are both effective and not burdensome to law abiding citizens.

They've taken the position that gun crimes are already illegal. Making them double dog top-secret illegal isn't going to accomplish anything *but* restricting rights of law abiding people.


I'm talking about regulation that will assist law enforcement in identifying criminals. The point is to identify methods that assist law enforcement while having a minimal impact on lawful exercise of your rights. At no point did I make the claim that regulation prevents crime, that's your straw man. I'm used to the idea that people are going to shoot each other and have no illusion that it can be prevented. I simply think it might be nice if we made it a little easier for law enforcement to identify those people. Firearm owners being part of that conversation would help ensure that your free exercise is minimally impacted.

Or you can stamp your foot like a child and say people are going to shoot each other so we may as well do nothing to assist law enforcement in identifying them.
 
2012-10-09 12:56:54 PM

mrshowrules: Wanting better enforcement is one thing but you have to put money against it. Why not raise that revenue against the guns themselves.


How much money would you need to make people report gun crime?
 
2012-10-09 12:57:54 PM

LasersHurt: dittybopper: LasersHurt: Yes. That's why I am not wholesale denying the idea because there are a few issues with it. It might be feasible with a little tinkering, maybe not. Unlike you, I don't pretend to know all and live in absolutes.

How would you tinker with it to make it work? I'm pretty damn familiar with guns, and outside of mandating that all new guns be made not user-serviceable (which would be a non-starter), I can't see how you could make this work. It would require quite a bit more than "tinkering".

Then too, it might just spur the development of caseless ammo, which would then have to be banned, of course.

Felgraf: LasersHurt: There's no possible way that knowing the owner of the gun could lead them to the person who used it? Because that's where I see that still being useful. "Oh god, my gun was used for "X"? Maybe "x" took it!"

Or "Random person Y picked up shell casings from the trash at a firing range."

The point people are making is that you actually don't even have any proof *that gun was used at all* to commit the crime.

We know how to stop and spot forged coins, and cash, I don't see why we couldn't accomplish something similar here. I dunno - get all of the manufacturers of guns together and say "come up with a creative solution, boys." Get the people most knowledgable to do something about it.

I absolutely know there is a way you can start to make the problem better. I just wish the pro-gun lobby, gun manufacturers, etc. were actively seeking it. I think they throw some token gestures instead and sit on their laurels.

Again, as should be obvious by now, I am not claiming to be either a gun or stamping expert. What I do know, however, is that we can solve the problem if EVERYONE ACTUALLY TRIES. We can solve any problem. We're humans, we're good that way.


Oh, come on. This isn't a forgery we're discussing, it's an actual, authentic item left as a red herring. Some things really can't be entirely solved in a manner that's satisfactory to enough people. You could make your computer entirely secure by replacing it with a brick. Short of that, there's always going to be some way for somebody to get into it and mess about.
 
2012-10-09 12:58:15 PM

CPennypacker: paygun: liam76: Because it would make the guns cost more, because when you had to replace the firing pin it will cost more, becasue unless they then keep a database fo those serial numbers it is worthless, even if they dot hey expensive system can be defeated by switching firing pins before a murder, etc.

Making the exercise of a civil right expensive is no big deal. Just like voter ID!

You think gun ownership is a civil right?


Jefferson and Mason thought so. I'd say that's relevant here.
 
2012-10-09 12:58:44 PM

Ricardo Klement: CPennypacker: paygun: liam76: Because it would make the guns cost more, because when you had to replace the firing pin it will cost more, becasue unless they then keep a database fo those serial numbers it is worthless, even if they dot hey expensive system can be defeated by switching firing pins before a murder, etc.

Making the exercise of a civil right expensive is no big deal. Just like voter ID!

You think gun ownership is a civil right?

Jefferson and Mason thought so. I'd say that's relevant here.


yawn
 
2012-10-09 12:58:49 PM

mrshowrules: It is only logical that Side A should propose and advocate solutions other than gun controls.


Law abiding gun owners aren't responsible for gun crime. Just like you're not responsible for someone driving drunk even if you own a car.
 
2012-10-09 12:58:49 PM

NowhereMon: All guns should have a function that automatically takes a picture of the shooter, the target and calls 911 every time the trigger is pulled. Why would any law abiding citizen object to this?


1. Money.
2. You don't know what sheriff will get elected next time.
3. You might not want to be blinded by the camera's flashes when you're in a situation which requires gunfire. (Of course such a camera would require lighting.)
4. You don't want to keep your gun in the cell phone charger, and paying another cell phone bill.
 
2012-10-09 12:59:04 PM

Ricardo Klement: There are effective ways to regulate guns, and then there's this.

I once saw an image that read, "People who can, teach. People who can't, pass laws about teaching." Well, the same certainly holds true for guns. "People who know guns go to the range. People who don't know guns pass laws regulating them."


So the solution (thank you Dusk You and Me) is that the people who under gun ownership and stewardship should be advocating solutions to reduce gun violence? Right?
 
2012-10-09 12:59:57 PM

paygun: mrshowrules: It is only logical that Side A should propose and advocate solutions other than gun controls.

Law abiding gun owners aren't responsible for gun crime. Just like you're not responsible for someone driving drunk even if you own a car.


cars have a primary purpose other than running people over
 
2012-10-09 01:00:23 PM

mrshowrules: Side B: wants to reduce gun violence via gun controls


Part of me believes that gun control isn't the means to an end, but rather the end in and of itself. If reducing gun violence was their goal, they would have abandoned gun control long ago.
 
2012-10-09 01:01:10 PM
How about we spend government effort on fixing the conditions that make people want to kill each other, rather than make suspects slightly easier to find?

Oh wait, that's difficult...
 
2012-10-09 01:01:34 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Or you can stamp your foot like a child and say people are going to shoot each other so we may as well do nothing to assist law enforcement in identifying them.


I'm all for assisting law enforcement. I'm not for using that as an excuse for more regulation against people who aren't breaking the law.

This microstamping business is an attempt to make it so that the gun makers just won't be able to sell guns in areas that pass it. It's a pathetic attempt to circumvent the supreme court, and nothing more.
 
2012-10-09 01:01:49 PM

CPennypacker: Ricardo Klement: CPennypacker: paygun: liam76: Because it would make the guns cost more, because when you had to replace the firing pin it will cost more, becasue unless they then keep a database fo those serial numbers it is worthless, even if they dot hey expensive system can be defeated by switching firing pins before a murder, etc.

Making the exercise of a civil right expensive is no big deal. Just like voter ID!

You think gun ownership is a civil right?

Jefferson and Mason thought so. I'd say that's relevant here.

yawn


ie Got Nuthin'
 
2012-10-09 01:01:58 PM

Dave Lister: Rashnu: Seriously gun nuts? Now you want to be able to unrestrictedly mail each other guns too?

If I chose to get my Curio and Relic FFL, I could sorta do that (some restrictions do apply: must be a weapon on the ATF list, must be between FFL's of some type, personal recording requirements)


Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Already can. Called C&R FFL (curio and relic). Some restrictions on it, but perfectly doable.


dittybopper: Back in the 1950's, when homicide rates were under 5 per 100,000, just like they are today, you could do just that, and we didn't seem to be any the worse for wear.


Well in that case I'll be mail-ordering a blunderbuss and flintlock pistol forthwith.

/still not sure why the size of the postage is important
 
2012-10-09 01:02:46 PM

LasersHurt: We know how to stop and spot forged coins, and cash, I don't see why we couldn't accomplish something similar here. I dunno - get all of the manufacturers of guns together and say "come up with a creative solution, boys." Get the people most knowledgable to do something about it.


Exactly, have law enforcement lay out a number of features that would assist them in identifying criminals and then let industry and organizations like the NRA and GOA come up with proposals they find acceptable with the understanding that if they dig their heels in a propose nothing that they'll be left out of the process.
 
2012-10-09 01:03:01 PM

CPennypacker: cars have a primary purpose other than running people over


Even guns made expressly for the purpose of killing people have a valid legal use. Yes, even when used to kill people.

Feel free to make either a legal or moral case against self defense, those are always fun.
 
2012-10-09 01:03:10 PM

paygun: Law abiding gun owners aren't responsible for gun crime. Just like you're not responsible for someone driving drunk even if you own a car drink alcohol.

 
2012-10-09 01:03:35 PM

Ricardo Klement: CPennypacker: Ricardo Klement: CPennypacker: paygun: liam76: Because it would make the guns cost more, because when you had to replace the firing pin it will cost more, becasue unless they then keep a database fo those serial numbers it is worthless, even if they dot hey expensive system can be defeated by switching firing pins before a murder, etc.

Making the exercise of a civil right expensive is no big deal. Just like voter ID!

You think gun ownership is a civil right?

Jefferson and Mason thought so. I'd say that's relevant here.

yawn

ie Got Nuthin'


As opposed to you, who 'got the opinions of two guys from the 18th century. Really pertinent information. Lets ask them what they thought about internet privacy laws too.
 
2012-10-09 01:03:56 PM

Myria: How about we spend government effort on fixing the conditions that make people want to kill each other, rather than make suspects slightly easier to find?

Oh wait, that's difficult...


we have a winner
 
2012-10-09 01:04:16 PM

paygun: CPennypacker: cars have a primary purpose other than running people over

Even guns made expressly for the purpose of killing people have a valid legal use. Yes, even when used to kill people.

Feel free to make either a legal or moral case against self defense, those are always fun.


They take more lives than they save?
 
2012-10-09 01:05:49 PM

CPennypacker: As opposed to you, who 'got the opinions of two guys from the 18th century. Really pertinent information. Lets ask them what they thought about internet privacy laws too.


This might be news to you, but firearms existed in the 18th century.
 
2012-10-09 01:06:28 PM

CPennypacker: They take more lives than they save?


Let's see the data.
 
2012-10-09 01:07:01 PM

CPennypacker: Ricardo Klement: CPennypacker: Ricardo Klement: CPennypacker: paygun: liam76: Because it would make the guns cost more, because when you had to replace the firing pin it will cost more, becasue unless they then keep a database fo those serial numbers it is worthless, even if they dot hey expensive system can be defeated by switching firing pins before a murder, etc.

Making the exercise of a civil right expensive is no big deal. Just like voter ID!

You think gun ownership is a civil right?

Jefferson and Mason thought so. I'd say that's relevant here.

yawn

ie Got Nuthin'

As opposed to you, who 'got the opinions of two guys from the 18th century. Really pertinent information. Lets ask them what they thought about internet privacy laws too.


He's also got the opinions of the seated supreme court justices.
 
2012-10-09 01:07:24 PM

LasersHurt: I absolutely know there is a way you can start to make the problem better. I


And I'm saying it's not a *GUN* problem, it's a *VIOLENCE* problem. Enacting new regulations is the equivalent of putting an icepack on the forehead of someone with a high fever: You are merely treating a symptom, not the underlying cause of the problem.

Then too, how do you know when you've "won", assuming you do manage to make some dent in the homicide rate? What if you lower it by 25% over where it is now, so that it's the lowest homicide rate in the history of the United States. Is that good enough? Or will we need something more to try and get it even lower? Do we ever stop?

But let's say that microstamping is something worth trying (which numerous people, including the author of TFA have pointed out is very likely to fail badly). My next question is, in order for me to support something like that, we have to roll back some other onerous regulations. How about repealing the Hughes Amendment? Registered machine guns have never been a significant source of crime guns, so there is no reason why the ban on newly manufactured ones should exist, plus the Hughes Amendment was likely passed in violation of Congressional rules.

How about removing suppressors from the NFA? They were never a significant problem either, despite Hollywood's portrayal of them.

What about a federal law mandating concealed carry reciprocity if there is a certain minimum standard met, tied to federal law enforcement grants. If your state doesn't participate, fine, they don't get the federal dollars, just like they did with the drinking age. Would you support that?

How about a law specifically authorizing non-violent felons to have their right to own a firearm restored, subject to a background check. Does it really serve a public purpose that Martha Stewart can't own a gun? Does a tax cheat lose their right to self-defense for the rest of their life?

Tell me, in return for microstamping, what would you give *US*?
 
2012-10-09 01:07:41 PM

Rashnu: Dave Lister: Rashnu: Seriously gun nuts? Now you want to be able to unrestrictedly mail each other guns too?

If I chose to get my Curio and Relic FFL, I could sorta do that (some restrictions do apply: must be a weapon on the ATF list, must be between FFL's of some type, personal recording requirements)

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Already can. Called C&R FFL (curio and relic). Some restrictions on it, but perfectly doable.

dittybopper: Back in the 1950's, when homicide rates were under 5 per 100,000, just like they are today, you could do just that, and we didn't seem to be any the worse for wear.

Well in that case I'll be mail-ordering a blunderbuss and flintlock pistol forthwith.

/still not sure why the size of the postage is important


You wouldn't need anything (license, background, etc) whatsoever to mail a pre-1899 "antique" firearm, to include old .45 Colt SAA or 1873 Springfield 45-70 or Winchester 1894 30-30 which is totally modern. Link
 
2012-10-09 01:09:12 PM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: As opposed to you, who 'got the opinions of two guys from the 18th century. Really pertinent information. Lets ask them what they thought about internet privacy laws too.

This might be news to you, but firearms existed in the 18th century.


www.green-wood.com

Yup totally relevant

Holocaust Agnostic: CPennypacker: Ricardo Klement: CPennypacker: Ricardo Klement: CPennypacker: paygun: liam76: Because it would make the guns cost more, because when you had to replace the firing pin it will cost more, becasue unless they then keep a database fo those serial numbers it is worthless, even if they dot hey expensive system can be defeated by switching firing pins before a murder, etc.

Making the exercise of a civil right expensive is no big deal. Just like voter ID!

You think gun ownership is a civil right?

Jefferson and Mason thought so. I'd say that's relevant here.

yawn

ie Got Nuthin'

As opposed to you, who 'got the opinions of two guys from the 18th century. Really pertinent information. Lets ask them what they thought about internet privacy laws too.

He's also got the opinions of the seated supreme court justices.


Yeah, strict constitutionalist Scalia who created a right that didn't exist before.
 
2012-10-09 01:11:50 PM

dittybopper: What if you lower it by 25% over where it is now, so that it's the lowest homicide rate in the history of the United States. Is that good enough? Or will we need something more to try and get it even lower? Do we ever stop?


We stop when all guns are banned, of course. I still haven't heard anything convincing that the goal of gun control isn't gun bans.
 
2012-10-09 01:13:20 PM

NowhereMon: All guns should have a function that automatically takes a picture of the shooter, the target and calls 911 every time the trigger is pulled. Why would any law abiding citizen object to this?


I swear to God, Officer, that deer was coming right for me!!!
 
2012-10-09 01:14:07 PM

CPennypacker: Yeah, strict constitutionalist Scalia who created a right that didn't exist before.


I understand that it's a civil right you don't like, but it's awful hard to say that it didn't exist before.

Feel free to go down the road of "the bill of rights protects the rights of the people, except for the 2nd, which of course means that the government has the right to have guns" because that one is hilarious.

I'm saying this because it will save both of us a lot of time.
 
2012-10-09 01:14:14 PM

CPennypacker: Yup totally relevant


If people like you had your way back then, America would still be part of the British Empire.

Now grace us with your predictable retort about the British invading us today, and show us how proud you are of deliberately missing the point.
 
2012-10-09 01:14:31 PM

dittybopper:
First, for guns that don't automatically eject casings when fired, this would be useless as a tool for law enforcement. That means that guns like revolvers that are manually reloaded, like revolvers, bolt actions, pump actions, lever actions, single shots (including break-open, rolling block, falling block, etc.) and even guns like multiple barrel derringers wouldn't necessarily leave any evidence at the scene.

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it be better to be in a gunfight with someone limited to revolvers and single or double barrel shotguns, or someone with everything from automatic handguns, semi-auto .30-06s, pump-action shotguns (or better yet, semi-auto)? I'm pretty sure I would take something for the later group, and it would still be a no-brainer for home protection.

dittybopper:
Or just making them. Guns are a 600 year old technology that can be made using the tools and materials you can find at your local Home Depot.


Very funny. So you are telling me I can still have a pump-action 12 gauge and a home invader no longer brings the .45 auto (the eebul assault rifle was just too bulky) but is stuck with a zip gun? And this is a problem?

Other issues:
Defective offspring of defective gun owners will continue to darwinate themselves even though defective gun owner is in even more legal danger after his gun collection is stolen. Self darwinating types just don't learn.

While I wouldn't expect the typical convicted criminal to bother with the $12 part (is there any indication that criminals spend any time at the range? You think they would try that first...), there might be an increase in the value of fenced firearms (regardless of what anti-gun regulation is passed). Burglaries increase, casual buyers buy guns but not safes. Burglaries are more successful, burglaries increase, more idiot buyers... more autodarwination of kids (and unfortunately, the kid's otherwise perfectly good friend).

And finally, if the so-called "gun grabbers" couldn't grab your guns after 9/11 "terrorists everywhere! And all they gotta answer is 'cash or charge' for a .50 sniper rifle", they are never going to get your guns.
 
2012-10-09 01:15:42 PM

Fark It: Mr_Fabulous: But who cares about expensive regulations that lose jobs...

It's like anti abortion laws that Republicans keep trying to pass. Sure, they can't outlaw abortion, but they can establish so many legal and regulatory barriers as to make it impossible for someone to get one.


Except that while all the histrionic anti-gun people are celebrating a "Clear victory that will reduce violence and keep out CHILDREN safe"; entrepreneurs will be quietly buying guns in surrounding areas driving/shipping them to NYC and simply selling them at a profit. Total availability of guns on the street will remain the same of course.

GoldSpider: Gonz: I saw more than one dealer at a gun show accept the name "John Doe", with no ID check, because the buyer "looked like an all right guy".

So you witnessed a crime, but didn't call the police?


Better to say nothing, go home and post online about how superior they are to the 'evil' gun people than actually do the right thing.


mrshowrules: randomjsa: Microstamping is a stupid idea done purely to and simply to hurt companies who make guns. That's the only reason.

This makes absolutely no sense? If they find the shell casing, it was because a crime was committed. They trace it back to the gun owner and do the ballistics test? That means the gun owner still has the gun? If the ballistics match that means they probably committed the crime. Obviously they are in big trouble. What was your point?


That your the type of person that fully trusts the police to be interested in the truth and not just closing a case.


mrshowrules: dittybopper: mrshowrules: More accurately then, people who are pro-gun, should come up with the strategy/rules to reduce gun violence.

Without guns people would be running into public places and beating a dozen people to death? Listen, you don't even think guns in the hands of criminals and nut jobs is necessarily a problem that needs to be dealt with so you are inviting gun control laws. Nature abhors a vacuum. If you don't deal with it, it may be dealt with in a manner you don't like (e.g., microstamping).


Yes. As I posted in the last gun thread:

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4


It's as if outside factors cause people to kill others and guns aren't the problem.


/Not even going to waste time mentioning the UK and it's issues with stabbings.
 
2012-10-09 01:16:04 PM

paygun: CPennypacker: Yeah, strict constitutionalist Scalia who created a right that didn't exist before.

I understand that it's a civil right you don't like, but it's awful hard to say that it didn't exist before.

Feel free to go down the road of "the bill of rights protects the rights of the people, except for the 2nd, which of course means that the government has the right to have guns" because that one is hilarious.

I'm saying this because it will save both of us a lot of time.


The second amendment doesn't expressly give individuals the right to bear arms. Heller interprets it to. I don't think its very funny.

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Yup totally relevant

If people like you had your way back then, America would still be part of the British Empire.

Now grace us with your predictable retort about the British invading us today, and show us how proud you are of deliberately missing the point.


People like me?
 
2012-10-09 01:16:56 PM

paygun: mrshowrules: It is only logical that Side A should propose and advocate solutions other than gun controls.

Law abiding gun owners aren't responsible for gun crime. Just like you're not responsible for someone driving drunk even if you own a car.


I'm not advocating drive-through cocktail bars.
 
2012-10-09 01:17:31 PM

yet_another_wumpus: Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it be better to be in a gunfight with someone limited to revolvers and single or double barrel shotguns, or someone with everything from automatic handguns, semi-auto .30-06s, pump-action shotguns (or better yet, semi-auto)?


In what fictional world does gun control accomplish this?

yet_another_wumpus: Defective offspring of defective gun owners will continue to darwinate themselves even though defective gun owner is in even more legal danger after his gun collection is stolen. Self darwinating types just don't learn.


That's kind of a self-correcting problem, isn't it?
 
2012-10-09 01:17:48 PM

CPennypacker: The second amendment doesn't expressly give individuals the right to bear arms. Heller interprets it to. I don't think its very funny.


So you do believe that the original meaning of the 2nd amendment was that it allows the military to have guns. Otherwise they'd have to use sharp sticks.

I think we're done.
 
2012-10-09 01:18:04 PM

paygun: I'm all for assisting law enforcement. I'm not for using that as an excuse for more regulation against people who aren't breaking the law.


And yet you act as if I'm a naive fool for pointing out that the best way to avoid onerous regulation while meeting the needs of law enforcement is to be part of the process.

It's a moot point to me, I don't care one way or another since I don't own firearms. I just think that you're ensuring a suboptimal outcome by acting like a child rather than engaging in a rational, proactive strategy.
 
2012-10-09 01:20:50 PM

CPennypacker: People like me?


"Gun stupid" people, yeah.
 
2012-10-09 01:21:12 PM

paygun: CPennypacker: The second amendment doesn't expressly give individuals the right to bear arms. Heller interprets it to. I don't think its very funny.

So you do believe that the original meaning of the 2nd amendment was that it allows the military to have guns. Otherwise they'd have to use sharp sticks.

I think we're done.


The second amendment was drafted in the late 18th sentury to give the country a way to protect itself in spite of the publics opposition to having a standing army.
 
2012-10-09 01:22:55 PM
Nice blog, bro!
 
2012-10-09 01:23:09 PM

mrshowrules: Ricardo Klement: There are effective ways to regulate guns, and then there's this.

I once saw an image that read, "People who can, teach. People who can't, pass laws about teaching." Well, the same certainly holds true for guns. "People who know guns go to the range. People who don't know guns pass laws regulating them."

So the solution (thank you Dusk You and Me) is that the people who under gun ownership and stewardship should be advocating solutions to reduce gun violence? Right?


Actually, yes. The people who don't like proffered solutions should come up with some themselves. (Like those against Yucca Mountain should tell us where to put nuclear waste rather than reject every site ever proposed to store the already-produced spent fuel.)

So the question is what to do? The background check thing has been of limited usefulness, partly because of the NRA's insistence that the government not maintain information. (For some people, background checks take 30 minutes. For me it takes hours, but wouldn't if the government could maintain records. So really, the NRA didn't do me any favors with that one.)

I would close the gun show loophole, for one. I know that individuals selling or giving each other firearms is a fine tradition going back hundreds of years. Heck, I have a rifle I got from someone in exchange for lunch at a fancy restaurant. I understand that people will find ways around it, too. But I would propose that it would be illegal for any FFL holder (except C&R) to sell a firearm without a background check.

Anyone selling a used firearm on consignment or to a pawnbroker would have to have a background check, not to keep them from selling it, but to catch firearms being disposed of.

I am open to ballistic fingerprinting, including barrels sold as spare parts - even for replacements for older guns (exceptions for guns over 50 years old or on the C&R list - it's already nigh impossible to get a replacement barrel for an 1888 Mauser). It's not trivially defeated like microstamping, and while it has its problems, I think the benefits outweigh the costs. Yes, it makes a difference in cost and therefore costs jobs, but so does just about everything done for any reason to regulate any industry. That's not an a priori excuse.

I support stiffer sentences for those who used guns in the commission of a crime.

Parents/Guardians should be at least partly liable for guns their children use in a crime. After all, if you have a troubled child, you shouldn't keep guns where they can get them to begin with. But leaving guns unlocked when you have kids is plain irresponsible.
 
2012-10-09 01:23:09 PM

mrshowrules: Without guns people would be running into public places and beating a dozen people to death?


That actually happens in places where guns are largely banned. Here are a few highlights:

Obwara, Lazaro, 55 July 28 1950 Kampala Uganda 12 killed, melee weapon
Caceres, Gregorio, 50 Feb. 18 1942 Trujillo Venezuela 11 killed, 4 wounded, melee weapon
Shi Yuejun, 35 Sep. 24-29 2006 Liuhe & Tonghua county China 12 killed, 5 wounded, melee weapon
Duong Van Mon, 35 Aug. 8 1998 Đắk Lắk Province Vietnam 12 killed, 2-6 wounded, melee weapon
Qiu Xinghua, 47 July 14/31 2006 Ankang & Suizhou China 11 killed, 2 wounded, melee weapon/arson
Guo Zhongmin, 36 Feb. 18 2003 Yangxiaoxiang China 13 killed, melee weapon
Wu Huanming, 47 May 12 2010 Linchang China 9 killed, 11 wounded, melee weapon
Bai Ningyang, 18 May 8 2006 Shiguan China 12 killed, 5 wounded, melee weapon/arson
Pusok Anak Ngaik, 28 May 29 1965 Kampong Bukit Merah Malaysia 14 killed, 4 wounded, melee weapon.
Wirjo, 42 April 15 1987 Banjarsari Indonesia 20 killed, 12 injured, melee weapon.

Melee weapon = club, knife, sword, spear, hammer, fists, etc.
 
2012-10-09 01:23:10 PM
Holy shiat did I really just spell century with an S
 
2012-10-09 01:23:15 PM

GranoblasticMan: mrshowrules: If you think deaths equivalent to 9/11 happening every month is not a big deal that you must consider 9/11 itself to be meaningless.

Not so much the first half, but I certainly agree with the second half.

/ 9/11 is the new Godwin


People are now even using 9/11 as a marketing tool for phone service. I was setting up a Verizon account for my new house and the idiot seller kept trying to push the stupid phone service on me. I kept telling him I didn't want it because...land lines are freaking useless other than for telemarketers to spam you 24/7. His response, "sometimes your cell phone won't work. Like during 9/11, you couldn't use your cell phone."

I dropped my freaking phone in shock. If they didn't have a monopoly on my neighborhood (cause im not getting Dish Network) I would have ended the phone call right there.

Paying farking more than my current comcast setup...and getting a shiat load less.

fark Verizon and fark this monopoly bullshiat.
 
2012-10-09 01:23:16 PM
Regardless of the constitution, the right of free people to be armed without being an employee of the government is a fundamental one.
 
2012-10-09 01:24:40 PM

CPennypacker: Holy shiat did I really just spell century with an S


That's the least of your argument's flaws.
 
2012-10-09 01:24:50 PM

CPennypacker: As opposed to you, who 'got the opinions of two guys from the 18th century. Really pertinent information. Lets ask them what they thought about internet privacy laws too.


We have a couple of guys who helped write the laws you're interpreting. Shall we ask them their opinion about your right to free speech on the Internet, or can we arbitrarily decide the Internet is a way more powerful mechanism for disseminating your ideas and therefore subject to regulations?
 
2012-10-09 01:25:35 PM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Holy shiat did I really just spell century with an S

That's the least of your argument's flaws.


And Eric the Red and Pythagoras agree with you too! I wonder what Pliny the Elder has to say?
 
2012-10-09 01:25:35 PM
The reason homicide rates have dipped to 1950's levels is incarceration rates and sentence lengths have gone up. And that's a good thing to have happen.

If we were serious about reducing them further local prosecutors wouldn't throw out gun charges during plea bargaining. Right now they're usually the first charges thrown in the trash, ergo we as a society aren't serious about punishing criminals violating gun laws.
 
2012-10-09 01:26:08 PM

CPennypacker:

Yeah, strict constitutionalist Scalia who created a right that didn't exist before.


The guys from the 18th century you cavalierly dismissed just a few posts earlier were "before" were they not?
 
2012-10-09 01:28:37 PM

CPennypacker: The second amendment was drafted in the late 18th sentury to give the country a way to protect itself in spite of the publics opposition to having a standing army.


So you would say arming citizens was an alternative to a standing army, but it didn't preserve the right of citizens being armed. Okay.
 
2012-10-09 01:29:44 PM

paygun: CPennypacker: The second amendment was drafted in the late 18th sentury to give the country a way to protect itself in spite of the publics opposition to having a standing army.

So you would say arming citizens was an alternative to a standing army, but it didn't preserve the right of citizens being armed. Okay.


I would say context is important
 
2012-10-09 01:29:46 PM

Ricardo Klement: But I would propose that it would be illegal for any FFL holder (except C&R) to sell a firearm without a background check.


I support that too. We're in luck, that's been in place since 1968.
 
2012-10-09 01:30:07 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Exactly, have law enforcement lay out a number of features that would assist them in identifying criminals


Why? That's absurd. Should car manufacturers have to make it easier to identify cars? The can be used to commit crimes or be the getaway vehicle after a crime. Should ski masks have to have an identifier system built in so that they can be identified if they are used in a stick up?

The whole concept is stupid.
 
2012-10-09 01:30:58 PM

CPennypacker: I would say context is important


The context is private ownership of firearms. I don't know how you can spin that into meaning the 2nd protects the right of the government to have guns but give it a shot.
 
2012-10-09 01:32:29 PM

paygun: CPennypacker: I would say context is important

The context is private ownership of firearms. I don't know how you can spin that into meaning the 2nd protects the right of the government to have guns but give it a shot.


The context is an organized militia taking the place of a standing army to defend a fledgling nation and not a bunch of rednecks shooting cans on their back fence.
 
2012-10-09 01:33:08 PM

paygun: The context is private ownership of firearms. I don't know how you can spin that into meaning the 2nd protects the right of the government to have guns but give it a shot.


I can't wait to see where this line of discussion leads us.
 
2012-10-09 01:33:12 PM

mrshowrules: My position is that Conservatives should be proposing solutions to gun violence instead of Liberals. Their the ones that have a hard-on for guns.


I'm not a conservative, but this seems pretty simple.

Problem: don't want to get killed by a gun or a victim of gun violence

1. Don't commit crime
2. Don't join a gang.
3. Don't go to the bad neighborhood
4. Don't be in relationships with crazy gun owners

That probably accounts for 99% of all gun crime.
 
2012-10-09 01:34:04 PM

CPennypacker: a bunch of rednecks shooting cans on their back fence


Maybe we need to form a militia for the culture war.

So this organized militia, was that to be an army with a different name, or did that mean plain old private ownership of guns?
 
2012-10-09 01:34:19 PM

yet_another_wumpus: dittybopper:
Or just making them. Guns are a 600 year old technology that can be made using the tools and materials you can find at your local Home Depot.

Very funny. So you are telling me I can still have a pump-action 12 gauge and a home invader no longer brings the .45 auto (the eebul assault rifle was just too bulky) but is stuck with a zip gun? And this is a problem?


These guns were both homemade:

i54.tinypic.com

A gun doesn't have to be crude. But even a crude zip gun can be effective if all legal guns are banned. If I were a criminal, and I *KNEW* that my victims were unarmed, I might be perfectly happy to have a zip gun, because it's good enough.

Other issues:
Defective offspring of defective gun owners will continue to darwinate themselves even though defective gun owner is in even more legal danger after his gun collection is stolen. Self darwinating types just don't learn.


By your philosophy, I should have been darwinated a long time ago:

img144.imageshack.us

Seriously, though, there are only about 600 accidental gun deaths every year, in a country with 300 million guns. It's statistical noise. More people die on bicycles every year.
 
2012-10-09 01:35:18 PM

paygun: CPennypacker: a bunch of rednecks shooting cans on their back fence

Maybe we need to form a militia for the culture war.

So this organized militia, was that to be an army with a different name, or did that mean plain old private ownership of guns?


You know theres more to a militia than just "people that have guns" right?
 
2012-10-09 01:35:32 PM

Ricardo Klement: The people who don't like proffered solutions should come up with some themselves.


What, you mean like some sort of final solution?
 
2012-10-09 01:35:46 PM

paygun: Ricardo Klement: But I would propose that it would be illegal for any FFL holder (except C&R) to sell a firearm without a background check.

I support that too. We're in luck, that's been in place since 1968.


Even at gun shows?
 
2012-10-09 01:37:04 PM

CPennypacker: paygun: CPennypacker: a bunch of rednecks shooting cans on their back fence

Maybe we need to form a militia for the culture war.

So this organized militia, was that to be an army with a different name, or did that mean plain old private ownership of guns?

You know theres more to a militia than just "people that have guns" right?


Yes I believe it is technically men between the ages of 17 and 45.
 
2012-10-09 01:37:31 PM

Ricardo Klement: Even at gun shows?


Yep. If I'm an FFL, there's no special show or building that I can enter that just makes federal laws go away.
 
2012-10-09 01:37:41 PM

CPennypacker: The context is an organized militia taking the place of a standing army


Organized by whom? And what happens to the guns after the need for the militia expires?
 
2012-10-09 01:38:06 PM

CPennypacker: You know theres more to a militia than just "people that have guns" right?


No I don't. Explain that for me.
 
2012-10-09 01:38:39 PM

Ricardo Klement: paygun: Ricardo Klement: But I would propose that it would be illegal for any FFL holder (except C&R) to sell a firearm without a background check.

I support that too. We're in luck, that's been in place since 1968.

Even at gun shows?


Only private citizens can sell guns from their personal collection without a background check. I don't know where the dividing line on a dealer selling his personal stock would fall, but I would imagine the ATF would like to have a chat with him if he's selling sans background checks at a gun show.
 
2012-10-09 01:38:40 PM

CPennypacker: paygun: CPennypacker: I would say context is important

The context is private ownership of firearms. I don't know how you can spin that into meaning the 2nd protects the right of the government to have guns but give it a shot.

The context is an organized militia taking the place of a standing army to defend a fledgling nation and not a bunch of rednecks shooting cans on their back fence.


No, an organized militia was called a "select militia" back then, and that's something the founding fathers were guarding against.

It was indeed a bunch of rednecks shooting stuff on their back fence (cans not having been invented yet), who would be called or even spontaneously assemble when required.
 
2012-10-09 01:39:35 PM

dittybopper: Melee weapon = club, knife, sword, spear, hammer, fists, etc.


Have any stats for developed, western nations?

manimal2878: Why? That's absurd. Should car manufacturers have to make it easier to identify cars?


You mean other than stamping each car with a VIN, putting visible identification on them in the form of a license place and tagging the paint with trace elements that identify the make and model via spectroscopy?
 
2012-10-09 01:39:45 PM

redmid17: CPennypacker: paygun: CPennypacker: a bunch of rednecks shooting cans on their back fence

Maybe we need to form a militia for the culture war.

So this organized militia, was that to be an army with a different name, or did that mean plain old private ownership of guns?

You know theres more to a militia than just "people that have guns" right?

Yes I believe it is technically men between the ages of 17 and 45.


And a purpose for existing

The "militia" no longer has a purpose because we have a standing army.

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: The context is an organized militia taking the place of a standing army

Organized by whom? And what happens to the guns after the need for the militia expires?


The point isn't who is organizing it. The point is that it is organized.
 
2012-10-09 01:40:29 PM

paygun: Ricardo Klement: Even at gun shows?

Yep. If I'm an FFL, there's no special show or building that I can enter that just makes federal laws go away.


Huh. Well, pardon my ignorance. I guess I misunderstood "gun show loophole". I used to have a C&R that required record-keeping, but didn't realize you still had to do the background checks.
 
2012-10-09 01:40:39 PM

CPennypacker: paygun: CPennypacker: I would say context is important

The context is private ownership of firearms. I don't know how you can spin that into meaning the 2nd protects the right of the government to have guns but give it a shot.

The context is an organized militia taking the place of a standing army to defend a fledgling nation and not a bunch of rednecks shooting cans on their back fence.


the purpose of the first amendment was to allow people to express their grievances with their govt. Not have a bunch of liberals trashtalk America.

See how that works?
 
2012-10-09 01:41:29 PM

redmid17: Only private citizens can sell guns from their personal collection without a background check. I don't know where the dividing line on a dealer selling his personal stock would fall, but I would imagine the ATF would like to have a chat with him if he's selling sans background checks at a gun show.


The problem you run into with doing that is that they'll get you for acting as a dealer without a license, and the penalty is a huge fine and an extended stay in federal prison. And they get to make the usual arbitrary call themselves as to what constitutes you acting as a dealer.
 
2012-10-09 01:42:01 PM

MorePeasPlease: Coolfusis: He's right. Every range I've ever been to has a "police your brass" rule. Yes, many rifles discharge the casing quite a ways, but they'll generally all end up in the same area. Keep count and pick them up after you're done. I mean, this idea is really dumb, but not cleaning up after yourself is a dick move.

/no one really follows it
//we pick up what we fired +10, but the ground is still covered
///annoys the hell out of me


You don't sound like a reloader.


and here, almost, is the answer to the cleanup argument.

Every range I have been to has a claeanup rule, as does range-culture. But cleaning up does not mean taking back home. The ranges I go to keep sparate buckets for brass. They sell it to recyclers as they accumulate enough. Reloaders will keep brass for reuse, for most of us though, it is disposable
 
2012-10-09 01:43:21 PM

CPennypacker: The point isn't who is organizing it. The point is that it is organized.


If you're arguing that the guns and the people who posses them need to be "well-regulated", then the "who" is most certainly relevant.

And what happens to the guns after the militia is no longer needed? You didn't answer that one at all.
 
2012-10-09 01:43:21 PM

dittybopper: Then too, any federal system might actually violate federal law, which forbids a centralized gun registry.


Well, obviously to do this at the Federal level, a new law would need to be passed by Congress, which would override the older law. There isn't a constitutional prohibition preventing the Feds from doing this.

This strikes me as a mildly useful idea (at the Federal level). It would not solve ever crime since it would be easily defeated by intelligent criminals (or by using certain types of gun), but most crimes are commited by stupid criminals, so it help would solve some. The most worrysome problem with the concept is the whole "picking up used brass at a gun range and reloading it into an older gun" problem.
 
2012-10-09 01:44:09 PM

Mrbogey: CPennypacker: paygun: CPennypacker: I would say context is important

The context is private ownership of firearms. I don't know how you can spin that into meaning the 2nd protects the right of the government to have guns but give it a shot.

The context is an organized militia taking the place of a standing army to defend a fledgling nation and not a bunch of rednecks shooting cans on their back fence.

the purpose of the first amendment was to allow people to express their grievances with their govt. Not have a bunch of liberals trashtalk America.

See how that works?


What making stuff up? Yeah I see it work here a lot. The first amendment was drafted because a lot of the opposition to the initial ratification of the constitution was from people who didn't like how the constitution lacked express guarantees of civil liberties.
 
2012-10-09 01:44:40 PM

Ricardo Klement: paygun: Ricardo Klement: But I would propose that it would be illegal for any FFL holder (except C&R) to sell a firearm without a background check.

I support that too. We're in luck, that's been in place since 1968.

Even at gun shows?


absolutely. Its one of the things the ATF makes clear. You also have to keep records of every gun you buy and sell for years after. Theres no such thing as off the record with an FFL.
 
2012-10-09 01:45:05 PM

manimal2878: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Exactly, have law enforcement lay out a number of features that would assist them in identifying criminals

Why? That's absurd. Should car manufacturers have to make it easier to identify cars? The can be used to commit crimes or be the getaway vehicle after a crime. Should ski masks have to have an identifier system built in so that they can be identified if they are used in a stick up?

The whole concept is stupid.


VIN numbers (and a place to hang a license plate) are required for all cars sold in the United States. That is, yeah, car manfacturers do have to make it easier to identify cars.
 
2012-10-09 01:45:34 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: dittybopper: Melee weapon = club, knife, sword, spear, hammer, fists, etc.

Have any stats for developed, western nations?

manimal2878: Why? That's absurd. Should car manufacturers have to make it easier to identify cars?

You mean other than stamping each car with a VIN, putting visible identification on them in the form of a license place and tagging the paint with trace elements that identify the make and model via spectroscopy?


Each gun already has a unique serial number assigned to it. It's what goes on the 4473 when you buy it. IDK how far back you have to look, but I know my dad's 1907 Winchester has a unique serial # on it too. The visible identification (aka license plate) is only required for transit on public roads. Nothing is required of them if they are just sitting in your garage or being towed around the city. The bullets fire from guns can generally help determine the caliber of the gun, if not the exact make and model. However if I know a red honda civic ran over a person, it does me limited good if I have nothing to match it to -- same concept with a gun and bullet.
 
2012-10-09 01:46:18 PM

CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Holy shiat did I really just spell century with an S

That's the least of your argument's flaws.

And Eric the Red and Pythagoras agree with you too! I wonder what Pliny the Elder has to say?


mwbeercollective.files.wordpress.com 

/hot
 
2012-10-09 01:46:44 PM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: The point isn't who is organizing it. The point is that it is organized.

If you're arguing that the guns and the people who posses them need to be "well-regulated", then the "who" is most certainly relevant.

And what happens to the guns after the militia is no longer needed? You didn't answer that one at all.


No, I'm arguing about the original intent and context of the second amendment and why I disagree with the Heller decision. As for the second part, guns need to be legal and regulated in a way that doesn't twist a constitutional amendment to shoehorn in individual rights. All it does is make regulating them a pain in the ass and give derpers argument fuel that they shouldn't have. Guns should be legal, but they shouldn't be a right.
 
2012-10-09 01:46:50 PM

CPennypacker: The first amendment was drafted because a lot of the opposition to the initial ratification of the constitution was from people who didn't like how the constitution lacked express guarantees of civil liberties.


Yet here you arguing against one such expressly guaranteed civil liberty.
 
2012-10-09 01:46:54 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: You mean other than stamping each car with a VIN, putting visible identification on them in the form of a license place and tagging the paint with trace elements that identify the make and model via spectroscopy?


Good point, but it actually proves my point. Guns already have serial numbers.
 
2012-10-09 01:48:28 PM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: The first amendment was drafted because a lot of the opposition to the initial ratification of the constitution was from people who didn't like how the constitution lacked express guarantees of civil liberties.

Yet here you arguing against one such expressly guaranteed civil liberty.


No, my point is that it isn't expressly guaranteed and the justification for calling it a civil liberty is something I disagree with.
 
2012-10-09 01:48:53 PM

CPennypacker: Guns should be legal, but they shouldn't be a right.


That's a valid point of view, I suppose. Good luck with the constitutional amendment it would take to get your way.
 
2012-10-09 01:50:03 PM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Guns should be legal, but they shouldn't be a right.

That's a valid point of view, I suppose. Good luck with the constitutional amendment it would take to get your way.


I wouldn't need one. They would just have to overturn Heller.
 
2012-10-09 01:52:14 PM

Ricardo Klement: Huh. Well, pardon my ignorance. I guess I misunderstood "gun show loophole". I used to have a C&R that required record-keeping, but didn't realize you still had to do the background checks.


A C&R is a special case, almost like a dealer's license for non-dealers. The ATF says:

A dealer's license must be obtained to engage in the business of dealing in any firearms, including curios or relics.

I think it's ambiguous for a reason, they don't want to spell it out so they can call it like they see it, case by case. In a strict sense, that means to me you can't sell at all.
 
2012-10-09 01:53:24 PM

CPennypacker: I wouldn't need one. They would just have to overturn Heller.


Once upon a time, it took a constitutional amendment to ban private sale/possession of alcohol, and "the right to bear alcohol" wasn't even in the Bill of Rights.

Just a little historical context for your crusade. You might want to expend your considerable passion on a more realistic cause.
 
2012-10-09 01:53:35 PM

CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: The first amendment was drafted because a lot of the opposition to the initial ratification of the constitution was from people who didn't like how the constitution lacked express guarantees of civil liberties.

Yet here you arguing against one such expressly guaranteed civil liberty.

No, my point is that it isn't expressly guaranteed and the justification for calling it a civil liberty is something I disagree with.


You're wrong. The authors of the document disagree with you, the people in the present day who's job it is to interpret the constitution disagree with you, and a majority of the citizens bound by the governing document in question disagree with you.
 
2012-10-09 01:54:49 PM

Mrbogey: Ricardo Klement: paygun: Ricardo Klement: But I would propose that it would be illegal for any FFL holder (except C&R) to sell a firearm without a background check.

I support that too. We're in luck, that's been in place since 1968.

Even at gun shows?

absolutely. Its one of the things the ATF makes clear. You also have to keep records of every gun you buy and sell for years after. Theres no such thing as off the record with an FFL.


Record-keeping and background checks are not the same thing.
 
2012-10-09 01:55:12 PM

CPennypacker: They would just have to overturn Heller.


Have fun storming the castle!
 
2012-10-09 01:55:25 PM
While I applaud the intent of this idea, i think the method isn't feasible. No method of the kind is unless you force a trade in all existing guns for the new one with the tracking method.

would make more sense for it to be incorporated into the ammo rather than the gun, likely easier to do and will become widely in use much sooner than it would in a gun based marking set up.

At any rate it is easy for anyone with the know how to reload spent cartridges or fill their own and to stock said supplies.

In the end this is doomed to fail as too many guns are already out there so no matter what you implement to try to mark rounds at a crime scene criminals will use older weapons to avoid being ided.
 
2012-10-09 01:55:50 PM

paygun: Have fun storming the castle!


Think it'll work?
 
2012-10-09 01:56:00 PM

Ricardo Klement: Record-keeping and background checks are not the same thing.


Yep. "Record keeping" to a C&R means logging transfers in your bound book.
 
2012-10-09 01:56:36 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: The first amendment was drafted because a lot of the opposition to the initial ratification of the constitution was from people who didn't like how the constitution lacked express guarantees of civil liberties.

Yet here you arguing against one such expressly guaranteed civil liberty.

No, my point is that it isn't expressly guaranteed and the justification for calling it a civil liberty is something I disagree with.

You're wrong. The authors of the document disagree with you, the people in the present day who's job it is to interpret the constitution disagree with you, and a majority of the citizens bound by the governing document in question disagree with you.


Actually its just "the people in the present day who's job it is to interpret the constitution" who disagree with me. Which is what I've been saying the whole time. Citizens may as well, but what the citizens think is of little consequence to me.
 
2012-10-09 01:56:55 PM

manimal2878: mrshowrules: My position is that Conservatives should be proposing solutions to gun violence instead of Liberals. Their the ones that have a hard-on for guns.

I'm not a conservative, but this seems pretty simple.

Problem: don't want to get killed by a gun or a victim of gun violence

1. Don't commit crime
Also, don't be near crime, criminals or in your home during a home invasion

2. Don't join a gang.
Unless the gang is threatening to shoot you if you don't join

3. Don't go to the bad neighborhood
If you are poor and in a bad neighbourhood, stop being poor and move

4. Don't be in relationships with crazy gun owners
Also avoid movie theaters, schools, parks etc... etc...

That probably accounts for 99% of all gun crime.

 
2012-10-09 01:57:23 PM

GoldSpider: Think it'll work?


If by work, you mean "vote for me and we'll get X overturned" then yes. If the goal is votes.

This works for multiple values of X, like DC vs. Heller or Roe vs. Wade.
 
2012-10-09 01:57:32 PM

paygun: CPennypacker: They would just have to overturn Heller.

Have fun storming the castle!


Nah I'll just wait for people to die/retire maybe we can undo some of the damage that Roberts/Scalia/Thomas and crew have done.
 
2012-10-09 01:57:50 PM

paygun: Ricardo Klement: Record-keeping and background checks are not the same thing.

Yep. "Record keeping" to a C&R means logging transfers in your bound book.


Yes. I just wanted to be clear I was talking about background checks at gun shows, not record-keeping.
 
2012-10-09 01:58:21 PM

mrshowrules: stop being poor


To be fair, that has a multitude of benefits beyond any discussion of gun crime.
 
2012-10-09 01:59:18 PM

manimal2878: Monkeyhouse Zendo: You mean other than stamping each car with a VIN, putting visible identification on them in the form of a license place and tagging the paint with trace elements that identify the make and model via spectroscopy?

Good point, but it actually proves my point. Guns already have serial numbers.


Your point was that it was absurd to expect firearm manufacturers to work with law enforcement to identify ways in which they might assist law enforcement in investigating criminal use of their products and then chose a very poorly considered counterexample.

If you want good legislation, ensure that experts have feedback into the process. Government is going to attempt to make it easier for law enforcement to identify criminals meaning that legislation like that discussed here is going to come up. Wouldn't you rather have an open discussion in which all interests, including your own, are represented rather than government attempting policy in a vacuum?
 
2012-10-09 01:59:33 PM

paygun: If by work, you mean "vote for me and we'll get X overturned" then yes. If the goal is votes.

This works for multiple values of X, like DC vs. Heller or Roe vs. Wade.
It would take a miracle.


FTFY.
 
2012-10-09 02:01:04 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: manimal2878: Monkeyhouse Zendo: You mean other than stamping each car with a VIN, putting visible identification on them in the form of a license place and tagging the paint with trace elements that identify the make and model via spectroscopy?

Good point, but it actually proves my point. Guns already have serial numbers.

Your point was that it was absurd to expect firearm manufacturers to work with law enforcement to identify ways in which they might assist law enforcement in investigating criminal use of their products and then chose a very poorly considered counterexample.

If you want good legislation, ensure that experts have feedback into the process. Government is going to attempt to make it easier for law enforcement to identify criminals meaning that legislation like that discussed here is going to come up. Wouldn't you rather have an open discussion in which all interests, including your own, are represented rather than government attempting policy in a vacuum?


If you fall on the slippery slope the gun might misfire and put a hole in your forehead.
 
2012-10-09 02:03:49 PM

mrshowrules: manimal2878: mrshowrules: My position is that Conservatives should be proposing solutions to gun violence instead of Liberals. Their the ones that have a hard-on for guns.

I'm not a conservative, but this seems pretty simple.

Problem: don't want to get killed by a gun or a victim of gun violence

1. Don't commit crime
Also, don't be near crime, criminals or in your home during a home invasion

2. Don't join a gang.
Unless the gang is threatening to shoot you if you don't join

3. Don't go to the bad neighborhood
If you are poor and in a bad neighbourhood, stop being poor and move

4. Don't be in relationships with crazy gun owners
Also avoid movie theaters, schools, parks etc... etc...

That probably accounts for 99% of all gun crime.


What is your point? I said those factors probably account for 99% of gun crime, good for you, you pointed out the 1% that aren't addressed by those solutions.
 
2012-10-09 02:04:28 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Your point was that it was absurd to expect firearm manufacturers to work with law enforcement to identify ways in which they might assist law enforcement in investigating criminal use of their products and then chose a very poorly considered counterexample.


Fine, address the ski mask then.
 
2012-10-09 02:04:55 PM

redmid17: Nothing is required of them if they are just sitting in your garage or being towed around the city.


Manufacturers are required to include visible license plate mount points in their design.

We're discussing a dialog between manufacturers, interest groups and government to solve a perceived problem in as close to an ideal way as possible for all parties. This is how rational adults do things. If you insist that nobody should have to do anything and so everyone should do nothing you will simply be left out of the decision.
 
2012-10-09 02:06:44 PM

GoldSpider: yet_another_wumpus: Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it be better to be in a gunfight with someone limited to revolvers and single or double barrel shotguns, or someone with everything from automatic handguns, semi-auto .30-06s, pump-action shotguns (or better yet, semi-auto)?

In what fictional world does gun control accomplish this?


Dittybopper made what I thought was a reasonable point that there were plenty of weapons this wouldn't affect (with the assumption that criminals would flock to them). I pointed out this wouldn't be a problem.

I'm much less sure about the means of increasing the amount of firearms on the black market.
 
2012-10-09 02:07:05 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: redmid17: Nothing is required of them if they are just sitting in your garage or being towed around the city.

Manufacturers are required to include visible license plate mount points in their design.

We're discussing a dialog between manufacturers, interest groups and government to solve a perceived problem in as close to an ideal way as possible for all parties. This is how rational adults do things. If you insist that nobody should have to do anything and so everyone should do nothing you will simply be left out of the decision.


Okay assuming that particular option is valid for guns, how are you going to get around the federal law prohibiting any kind of centralized database for gun ownership
 
2012-10-09 02:07:20 PM

forgotmydamnusername: dittybopper: LasersHurt: Yes. That's why I am not wholesale denying the idea because there are a few issues with it. It might be feasible with a little tinkering, maybe not. Unlike you, I don't pretend to know all and live in absolutes.

How would you tinker with it to make it work? I'm pretty damn familiar with guns, and outside of mandating that all new guns be made not user-serviceable (which would be a non-starter), I can't see how you could make this work. It would require quite a bit more than "tinkering".

Then too, it might just spur the development of caseless ammo, which would then have to be banned, of course.

Caseless ammo isn't happening. It can be done, it has been done. The problem is that the extracted brass is also removing heat from the weapon. If you want your auto pistol to either need a radiator and coolant, or become too hot to touch at the end of your trip to the range, then caseless is the way to go. I suppose why this isn't such an issue with muzzleloaders is because of the very low rate of fire.


Astartes Tested. Astartes Approved.
 
2012-10-09 02:10:05 PM
 
2012-10-09 02:10:51 PM

Heliodorus: It's as if outside factors cause people to kill others and guns aren't the problem.


/Not even going to waste time mentioning the UK and it's issues with stabbings.


Ah, yes. The ol' "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." line of crap.

You keep forgetting that there's a logical corollary for this age of repeating firearms and their offspring:
"Crazy farks with firearms kill LOTS* of people at a time."

/*Why California attempts to limit magazine capacity.
 
2012-10-09 02:11:20 PM

manimal2878: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Your point was that it was absurd to expect firearm manufacturers to work with law enforcement to identify ways in which they might assist law enforcement in investigating criminal use of their products and then chose a very poorly considered counterexample.

Fine, address the ski mask then.


Is ski mask related crime a problem in your area?
 
2012-10-09 02:13:37 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Heliodorus: It's as if outside factors cause people to kill others and guns aren't the problem.


/Not even going to waste time mentioning the UK and it's issues with stabbings.

Ah, yes. The ol' "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." line of crap.

You keep forgetting that there's a logical corollary for this age of repeating firearms and their offspring:
"Crazy farks with firearms kill LOTS* of people at a time."

/*Why California attempts to limit magazine capacity.


Magazine capacity is a canard. There's a reason the US military doesn't issue 100-round mags.
 
2012-10-09 02:13:41 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: redmid17: Nothing is required of them if they are just sitting in your garage or being towed around the city.

Manufacturers are required to include visible license plate mount points in their design.

We're discussing a dialog between manufacturers, interest groups and government to solve a perceived problem in as close to an ideal way as possible for all parties. This is how rational adults do things. If you insist that nobody should have to do anything and so everyone should do nothing you will simply be left out of the decision.


That's a pretty creepy and authoritarian theory of government you have there.
 
2012-10-09 02:17:41 PM

redmid17: Okay assuming that particular option is valid for guns, how are you going to get around the federal law prohibiting any kind of centralized database for gun ownership


Have each state maintain their own database and provide access to the federal government in the event of interstate investigation by agencies such as the FBI.

I'd suggest overturning the legislation to save money on administration costs but I know how paranoid firearm aficionados are.
 
2012-10-09 02:20:35 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: That's a pretty creepy and authoritarian theory of government you have there.


One where government works with business and the citizenry to craft effective legislation to address problems? Yeah, I know, it's pretty dystopian.
 
2012-10-09 02:22:24 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: redmid17: Okay assuming that particular option is valid for guns, how are you going to get around the federal law prohibiting any kind of centralized database for gun ownership

Have each state maintain their own database and provide access to the federal government in the event of interstate investigation by agencies such as the FBI.

I'd suggest overturning the legislation to save money on administration costs but I know how paranoid firearm aficionados are.


If the FBI can access at will I would call it "centralized" regardless of who actually owns the data.
 
2012-10-09 02:25:20 PM

liam76: If the FBI can access at will I would call it "centralized" regardless of who actually owns the data.


You might want to read "in the event of interstate investigations by agencies such as the FBI" again and explain how that translates as "at will".
 
2012-10-09 02:26:19 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Holocaust Agnostic: That's a pretty creepy and authoritarian theory of government you have there.

One where government works with business and the citizenry to craft effective legislation to address problems? Yeah, I know, it's pretty dystopian.


One where the government decides that it needs more power to "address" something and that anyone who objects should be "left out of the process".
 
2012-10-09 02:27:57 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Holocaust Agnostic: That's a pretty creepy and authoritarian theory of government you have there.

One where government works with business and the citizenry to craft effective legislation to address problems? Yeah, I know, it's pretty dystopian.

One where the government decides that it needs more power to "address" something and that anyone who objects should be "left out of the process".


That's pretty much how things work now. What is your point?
 
2012-10-09 02:31:35 PM

mrshowrules: manimal2878: mrshowrules: My position is that Conservatives should be proposing solutions to gun violence instead of Liberals. Their the ones that have a hard-on for guns.

I'm not a conservative, but this seems pretty simple.

Problem: don't want to get killed by a gun or a victim of gun violence

1. Don't commit crime
Also, don't be near crime, criminals or in your home during a home invasion

2. Don't join a gang.
Unless the gang is threatening to shoot you if you don't join

3. Don't go to the bad neighborhood
If you are poor and in a bad neighbourhood, stop being poor and move

4. Don't be in relationships with crazy gun owners
Also avoid movie theaters, schools, parks etc... etc...

That probably accounts for 99% of all gun crime.


Suicide. Most firearm deaths in the US are suicides.
Urban poverty and gangs are the major contributors to firearm violence.
So we need to bring manufacturing back home, bolster unions, fix education and healthcare, and institute programs that support and sustain families.
In other words, we need to prioritize and fix the social safety net and establish economic justice (which items were planks in the Republican Party platform until the reign of St. Ron (R-IP*). [ya_rlly.jpg]

/*Roasting - In Perdition
 
2012-10-09 02:37:36 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Holocaust Agnostic: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Holocaust Agnostic: That's a pretty creepy and authoritarian theory of government you have there.

One where government works with business and the citizenry to craft effective legislation to address problems? Yeah, I know, it's pretty dystopian.

One where the government decides that it needs more power to "address" something and that anyone who objects should be "left out of the process".

That's pretty much how things work now. What is your point?


That its a really stupid way for things to work. Ain't that difficult to grasp.
 
2012-10-09 02:39:54 PM

Ricardo Klement: demaL-demaL-yeH: Heliodorus: It's as if outside factors cause people to kill others and guns aren't the problem.


/Not even going to waste time mentioning the UK and it's issues with stabbings.

Ah, yes. The ol' "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." line of crap.

You keep forgetting that there's a logical corollary for this age of repeating firearms and their offspring:
"Crazy farks with firearms kill LOTS* of people at a time."

/*Why California attempts to limit magazine capacity.

Magazine capacity is a canard. There's a reason the US military doesn't issue 100-round mags.*


Off the top of my head, there are at least three. Tow are mechanical - they're farking heavy and they tend to misfeed. The other reason is that breaking ammunition into smaller chunks tends to help the troops remember to not waste bullets.

/Feel free to contribute, dittyhawg.

// *What is "Crap You Shouldn't Pull Out of Your Fourth Point of Contact to Contradict a Veteran?", Alex.
 
2012-10-09 02:42:26 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: That its a really stupid way for things to work. Ain't that difficult to grasp.


Which is why I am pointing out that a more collaborative relationship between government, industry and citizens might provide a better outcome.

You started drinking bleach earlier than usual today, didn't you? It's okay, you can be honest, we're all friends here.
 
2012-10-09 02:49:56 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Ricardo Klement: demaL-demaL-yeH: Heliodorus: It's as if outside factors cause people to kill others and guns aren't the problem.


/Not even going to waste time mentioning the UK and it's issues with stabbings.

Ah, yes. The ol' "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." line of crap.

You keep forgetting that there's a logical corollary for this age of repeating firearms and their offspring:
"Crazy farks with firearms kill LOTS* of people at a time."

/*Why California attempts to limit magazine capacity.

Magazine capacity is a canard. There's a reason the US military doesn't issue 100-round mags.*

Off the top of my head, there are at least three. Tow are mechanical - they're farking heavy and they tend to misfeed. The other reason is that breaking ammunition into smaller chunks tends to help the troops remember to not waste bullets.

/Feel free to contribute, dittyhawg.

// *What is "Crap You Shouldn't Pull Out of Your Fourth Point of Contact to Contradict a Veteran?", Alex.


The misfeed is a big issue. As a reminder not to waste ammo, yes, but it doesn't ACTUALLY prevent wasting ammo. With practice, you can swap mags in two seconds. I can do it. As far as weight goes, you're either carrying 100 rounds or you're not. And they carry plenty of ammo. So weight-wise, it only makes a slight difference in leverage, less than the SAW's box.

Ultimately, none of that has significant bearing on how much some gun nut expends. In Aurora, he might have been deadlier with smaller mags. (Still waiting on a reconstruction - I'm genuinely interested in when he jammed.) Frankly, I prefer the 20-round mags. They're just right for swapping quickly, and it's easy to keep track of rounds so that I can swap when there's still a round in the receiver.

So, really, except for that tool who shot-up the White House (and didn't kill even one person), the magazine cap issue is pretty irrelevant to gun crime.
 
2012-10-09 02:51:24 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: liam76: If the FBI can access at will I would call it "centralized" regardless of who actually owns the data.

You might want to read "in the event of interstate investigations by agencies such as the FBI" again and explain how that translates as "at will".


You don't need a court order signed by a Judge to start an investigation.
 
2012-10-09 02:58:37 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Holocaust Agnostic: That its a really stupid way for things to work. Ain't that difficult to grasp.

Which is why I am pointing out that a more collaborative relationship between government, industry and citizens might provide a better outcome.

You started drinking bleach earlier than usual today, didn't you? It's okay, you can be honest, we're all friends here.


"Yes its a stupid way for thing to function, that's why I like it functioning that way"

Right, I'm the bleach drinker here.
 
2012-10-09 03:10:58 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Magazine capacity is a canard. There's a reason the US military doesn't issue 100-round mags.*

Off the top of my head, there are at least three. Tow are mechanical - they're farking heavy and they tend to misfeed. The other reason is that breaking ammunition into smaller chunks tends to help the troops remember to not waste bullets.

/Feel free to contribute, dittyhawg.


Generally, they don't even issue 30 rounders. I remember getting only 20 round magazines issued to me.

And yes, a full 100 round magazine does turn a gun that would weigh about 8 lbs with a full 20 round mag into one weighing at least 11 or 12 lbs. Makes it harder to swing and slower on target.

The real killer is reliability, though. All else being equal, the bigger the magazine, the less reliable it tends to be. This is especially true of magazines that just have stamped feed lips, like the kind used in Stoner-designed firearms. The Soviets overcame that somewhat by using feed lips machined out of solid steel instead of just stamped.
 
2012-10-09 03:11:54 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: /Feel free to contribute, dittyhawg.


BTW, it makes my leg tingle when someone calls me a hawg.
 
2012-10-09 03:14:28 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Heliodorus: It's as if outside factors cause people to kill others and guns aren't the problem.


/Not even going to waste time mentioning the UK and it's issues with stabbings.

Ah, yes. The ol' "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." line of crap.

You keep forgetting that there's a logical corollary for this age of repeating firearms and their offspring:
"Crazy farks with firearms kill LOTS* of people at a time."




Guns are not efficient methods for killing loads of people, magazine capacity notwithstanding. In the absence of a gun, for whatever reason, a nutball murderer will still kill people. They will kill a lot of people.

When it comes to a single nutjob perpetrator, the best bets for racking up massive kill counts are: A crash, a fire, a bomb.

These three methods are the most effective ways a lone nut can kill lots of people, all at once. You can rack up the triple digits pretty easily this way. For example:

The Our Lady of the Angels School fire, which killed 95. The suspected arsonist was never tried.

Or maybe the the work of Jin Ruchao, who killed 108 people in Shijiazhuan with his ill-synced bomb attack? (4 bombs that went off at once)

Or Zhang Pilin, who killed 112 by downing China Northern Airlines Flight 6136 all by himself? (Passenger, not a pilot)

Or good old American Robert Dale Segee, who killed nearly 200 in a fire in Hartford? The circus grounds were so burnt the authorities still aren't sure how many he murdered.

We could talk about Kim Dae-han, a 56 year old half-paralyzed man that killed 198 Koreans in the Daegu subway fire? He didn't need a gun.

Gameel Al-Batouti went a little crazy and killed 217 when he crashed EgyptAir Flight 990 into the ocean. Not a gun in sight - though he was the pilot.

Adilson Marcelino Alves killed over 300 in, you guessed it - another act of circus related arson. What is it about circuses and fire?

Hell, a drunk chinaman by the name of Li Xianliang managed to kill 17 people with a tractor! More than our boy in Arizona with his scary gun.

William Unek managed to whack 21 folks to death with an axe in an orgy of violence, which goes to show a dedicated killer will succeed even without machinery.

(I'd have included McVeigh, but he had accomplices)

Guns aren't the problem. Nutball murderers are. 'Gun Control' won't keep them from killing people, the best case is that it will change their method - at great cost, financially, socially, and to liberty.

I might even argue that the presence of firearms lowers the bodycounts of nutball murderers. A gun is very psychologically attractive, as its direct approach favors their narcissistic empowerment. Thus the gun is selected over other, indirect methods like arson. These indirect methods are more effective at racking up bodycounts, but generally less desirable to the non-rational nutball.

Thus the presence of arms causes the nutball to self-select a method that is sub-optimal for mass killings, resulting in lower bodycounts.
 
2012-10-09 03:16:05 PM

manimal2878: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Exactly, have law enforcement lay out a number of features that would assist them in identifying criminals

Why? That's absurd. Should car manufacturers have to make it easier to identify cars? The can be used to commit crimes or be the getaway vehicle after a crime. Should ski masks have to have an identifier system built in so that they can be identified if they are used in a stick up?

The whole concept is stupid.


Carmakers do have features to make it easier to identify cars, specifically for law enforcement purposes. They have apparatus to attach license plates, and lighting to make sure the license plates are illuminated at night. They also have VIN numbers stamped in numerous places so even if license plates are removed the vehicle can still be tracked.

Guns have serial numbers for similar reasons.

There are too many other things that substitute for ski masks to make it worthwhile to have such a system.
 
2012-10-09 03:16:53 PM

Fark It: Gonz: Dittybopper, I don't mean "tell me why this law WON'T work." I mean "what WILL work?", and how do we implement it?

End the drug war. Improve NICS reporting.


I would be okay with this.
 
2012-10-09 03:19:56 PM

redmid17: Each gun already has a unique serial number assigned to it.


Not every gun. It wasn't required before 1968.

For example, prior to 1967 Remington Nylon 66 rifles were produced without serial numbers

Also, if you make your own gun (for example, you buy a frame casting and finish it yourself), it doesn't have to be serial numbered until you decide to sell it. I know a guy who has built up several nice 1911s from crude castings, none of which has a serial number on it, and it's perfectly legal.
 
2012-10-09 03:22:12 PM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Yup totally relevant

If people like you had your way back then, America would still be part of the British Empire.

Now grace us with your predictable retort about the British invading us today, and show us how proud you are of deliberately missing the point.


What a CPennypacker might look like...
a1.ec-videos.myspacecdn.com 


And you are just trolling the shiat out of this thread, CPennypacker. Well done.
 
2012-10-09 03:23:25 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Holocaust Agnostic: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Holocaust Agnostic: That's a pretty creepy and authoritarian theory of government you have there.

One where government works with business and the citizenry to craft effective legislation to address problems? Yeah, I know, it's pretty dystopian.

One where the government decides that it needs more power to "address" something and that anyone who objects should be "left out of the process".

That's pretty much how things work now. What is your point?


That its wrong and gets you no traction when your stated goal is considered to be harmful at worst and simply wasteful at best.
Lets frame it for you:
Monkeyhouse: I posit that guns are evil and cause crime. Therefore we need gun control!
Gun Owner: Um, I disagree. I don't believe you have evidence to support your initial statement and thus the conclusion is..
Monkeyhouse: If you won't voluntarily restrict yourselves to prevent a problem I can't prove you cause then you'll just have no say in how I restrict you!

Or, in a simpler way:
Monkeyhouse: The drought is caused by you, Neighbor. Only your blood spilled on the ground will make the crops grow! Choose the method of your sacrifice!
Neighbor: Please, Monkey, maybe its the weather killing our crops! You don't need to kill me!
Monkeyhouse: If you won't choose, I'll select the gruesome sacrifice method! If you won't advance your own idea you can't complain if I choose the most painful torture imaginable! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
 
2012-10-09 03:43:12 PM

Ricardo Klement:
Ah, yes. The ol' "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." line of crap.

You keep forgetting that there's a logical corollary for this age of repeating firearms and their offspring:
"Crazy farks with firearms kill LOTS* of people at a time."
/*Why California attempts to limit magazine capacity.

Magazine capacity is a canard. There's a reason the US military doesn't issue 100-round mags.*

Off the top of my head, there are at least three. Tow are mechanical - they're farking heavy and they tend to misfeed. The other reason is that breaking ammunition into smaller chunks tends to help the troops remember to not waste bullets.
/Feel free to contribute, dittyhawg.
// *What is "Crap You Shouldn't Pull Out of Your Fourth Point of Contact to Contradict a Veteran?", Alex.

The misfeed is a big issue. As a reminder not to waste ammo, yes, but it doesn't ACTUALLY prevent wasting ammo. With practice, you can swap mags in two seconds. I can do it. As far as weight goes, you're either carrying 100 rounds or you're not. And they carry plenty of ammo. So weight-wise, it only makes a slight difference in leverage, less than the SAW's box.
Ultimately, none of that has significant bearing on how much some gun nut expends. In Aurora, he might have been deadlier with smaller mags. (Still waiting on a reconstruction - I'm genuinely interested in when he jammed.) Frankly, I prefer the 20-round mags. They're just right for swapping quickly, and it's easy to keep track of rounds so that I can swap when there's still a round in the receiver.
So, really, except for that tool who shot-up the White House (and didn't kill even one person), the magazine cap issue is pretty irrelevant to gun crime.


SAW is belt-fed, but can use standard magazines in a pinch.
The magazine wells are not designed for the mass of the ammunition/magazines, not to mention that monstro magazines get in the way of fire-and-maneuver (why I didn't accept issue of thirty-round magazines). And don't try to tell us that there is no practical difference between carrying the weight in ammo pouches on your FLC vest and carrying more than a kilo extra mass on the weapon.

Keeping firearms out of the hands of crazy farks and attempting to reduce the damage that can be done per reload seem to me to be good goals. What's your suggestion for a better approach?
 
2012-10-09 03:46:49 PM
You know who stands to gain, if this is made a law? The guy who designed this
 
2012-10-09 03:48:35 PM

dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: /Feel free to contribute, dittyhawg.

BTW, it makes my leg tingle when someone calls me a hawg.


If you don't pee on the electric fence, the tingling stops.

/BTW, I'm not mean. Otherwise, 'something something what you eat.'
//We both remember the original 'face'book.
 
2012-10-09 03:49:53 PM

BayouOtter: That its wrong and gets you no traction when your stated goal is considered to be harmful at worst and simply wasteful at best.
Lets frame it for you:
Monkeyhouse: I posit that guns are evil and cause crime. Therefore we need gun control!
Gun Owner: Um, I disagree. I don't believe you have evidence to support your initial statement and thus the conclusion is..
Monkeyhouse: If you won't voluntarily restrict yourselves to prevent a problem I can't prove you cause then you'll just have no say in how I restrict you!


LOLWUT? I never claimed that guns cause crime or any such nonsense.

I honestly don't give a fark about gun control anymore. Statistically, owning a firearm vastly increases the chance that you or a family member will die by firearm but that's not my problem. People with guns shoot each other and themselves and I'm okay with that. I similarly accept that the second amendment means that we have a bloodbath somewhere in the nation every few months or so over and above the baseline rates of people getting shot by other people.

Having said that, there are some people who do think that gun violence is something that we can curb in the US and will attempt to pass legislation to either directly curb it or to provide law enforcement with additional tools to identify criminals who use guns. Now, you can pretend that this isn't the case, dig your heels in and say 'no new laws' but that's not very effective. A better strategy is to get out in front of an issue and help craft legislation that avoids the more egregious attempts to limit gun violence.

Firearm legislation doesn't affect me since I don't own, nor do I plan on owning, firearms. For those of you with a vested interest in the issue, however, you might want to be a little more proactive and address the common perception that you're more interested in your guns than the people who are killed each year in gun violence.
 
2012-10-09 03:51:37 PM

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: You know who stands to gain, if this is made a law? The guy who designed this


Expired five years ago.
 
2012-10-09 03:53:56 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: BayouOtter: That its wrong and gets you no traction when your stated goal is considered to be harmful at worst and simply wasteful at best.
Lets frame it for you:
Monkeyhouse: I posit that guns are evil and cause crime. Therefore we need gun control!
Gun Owner: Um, I disagree. I don't believe you have evidence to support your initial statement and thus the conclusion is..
Monkeyhouse: If you won't voluntarily restrict yourselves to prevent a problem I can't prove you cause then you'll just have no say in how I restrict you!

LOLWUT? I never claimed that guns cause crime or any such nonsense.

I honestly don't give a fark about gun control anymore. Statistically, owning a firearm vastly increases the chance that you or a family member will die by firearm but that's not my problem. People with guns shoot each other and themselves and I'm okay with that. I similarly accept that the second amendment means that we have a bloodbath somewhere in the nation every few months or so over and above the baseline rates of people getting shot by other people.

Having said that, there are some people who do think that gun violence is something that we can curb in the US and will attempt to pass legislation to either directly curb it or to provide law enforcement with additional tools to identify criminals who use guns. Now, you can pretend that this isn't the case, dig your heels in and say 'no new laws' but that's not very effective. A better strategy is to get out in front of an issue and help craft legislation that avoids the more egregious attempts to limit gun violence.

Firearm legislation doesn't affect me since I don't own, nor do I plan on owning, firearms. For those of you with a vested interest in the issue, however, you might want to be a little more proactive and address the common perception that you're more interested in your guns than the people who are killed each year in gun violence.


That statistic you're quoting has been shat upon many times, for so many reasons I don't even want to begin listing them here.
 
2012-10-09 03:54:06 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: /Feel free to contribute, dittyhawg.

BTW, it makes my leg tingle when someone calls me a hawg.

If you don't pee on the electric fence, the tingling stops.

/BTW, I'm not mean. Otherwise, 'something something what you eat.'
//We both remember the original 'face'book.


Heh.
 
2012-10-09 04:02:19 PM
Will this apply to drone ordinance?
 
2012-10-09 04:05:00 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: You know who stands to gain, if this is made a law? The guy who designed this

Expired five years ago.


Actually, his patent is still in force, at least as of 4 months ago, so he would make money on it. Because of a quirk in the California law that requires the technique be unencumbered by a patent before it can be required for guns sold in California, the California gun rights group CalGuns paid the $555 fee to renew the patent because it was cheaper than fighting it in the courts.
 
2012-10-09 04:14:27 PM

BayouOtter: demaL-demaL-yeH: Heliodorus: It's as if outside factors cause people to kill others and guns aren't the problem.


/Not even going to waste time mentioning the UK and it's issues with stabbings.

Ah, yes. The ol' "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." line of crap.

You keep forgetting that there's a logical corollary for this age of repeating firearms and their offspring:
"Crazy farks with firearms kill LOTS* of people at a time."


Guns are not efficient methods for killing loads of people, magazine capacity notwithstanding. In the absence of a gun, for whatever reason, a nutball murderer will still kill people. They will kill a lot of people.

When it comes to a single nutjob perpetrator, the best bets for racking up massive kill counts are: A crash, a fire, a bomb.

These three methods are the most effective ways a lone nut can kill lots of people, all at once. You can rack up the triple digits pretty easily this way. For example:
/---LIST OF EXAMPLES ---/ ...


A radio is the single most effective weapon with which I have proficiency. I can use it to direct air strikes and artillery, blind and pin the enemy in place, and even severely impair or eliminate their ability to use indirect fire. That said, I guaran-damn-tee that firearms are extremely effective weapons for killing large numbers of people up close and personal.

Crazy farks are, by definition, not the most rational of planners. For your future reference: Please don't facilitate the effectiveness of potential mayhem wreaked by fark sociopaths by doing their homework for them.

I'll leave stepping into the minds of murderers to you. However, I'd observe that the crazy farks seem to want to wreak mayhem in person. Firearms are preferred weapons because pretty much any idiot can use them. They're loud, scary, and tend to get the victims to bunch up at bottlenecks.
Keeping shiat-simple-to-use flight-inducing close-to-medium range personal weapons out of their crazy fark hands is a VERY GOOD IDEA (TM).
Getting crazy farks the medical treatment they need is an EXTREMELY GOOD IDEA(TM).
 
2012-10-09 04:33:16 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: And don't try to tell us that there is no practical difference between carrying the weight in ammo pouches on your FLC vest and carrying more than a kilo extra mass on the weapon.


Yet another reason why it's a canard for the public, too. So far, there's really nothing about a high-cap mag that makes it anything but worse: reliability, "wastes" ammo (ie, inaccuracy), weight on the gun... just why does a shooter actually WANT the damn thing? Because it looks cool and scary and that's it. No one who knows what they're doing would prefer a 100-round mag on a semi-auto firearm.

Keeping firearms out of the hands of crazy farks and attempting to reduce the damage that can be done per reload seem to me to be good goals. What's your suggestion for a better approach?

Reload time is insignificant, or people whose job it is to be in a firefight would make it a higher priority.

And even if I didn't have a better plan (see earlier posts for alternative gun controls I endorse), that doesn't justify a worse one.
 
2012-10-09 04:33:49 PM

redmid17: That statistic you're quoting has been shat upon many times, for so many reasons I don't even want to begin listing them here.


Fine, whatever, gun ownership doesn't increase the chances that a firearm will be used in a suicide attempt or domestic dispute. I'll just take your expert opinion over Harvard's work on the subject.
 
2012-10-09 04:44:35 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: redmid17: That statistic you're quoting has been shat upon many times, for so many reasons I don't even want to begin listing them here.

Fine, whatever, gun ownership doesn't increase the chances that a firearm will be used in a suicide attempt or domestic dispute. I'll just take your expert opinion over Harvard's work on the subject.


Link us, please.
 
2012-10-09 04:48:37 PM

BayouOtter: Monkeyhouse Zendo: redmid17: That statistic you're quoting has been shat upon many times, for so many reasons I don't even want to begin listing them here.

Fine, whatever, gun ownership doesn't increase the chances that a firearm will be used in a suicide attempt or domestic dispute. I'll just take your expert opinion over Harvard's work on the subject.

Link us, please.


lmgtfy.com
 
2012-10-09 05:00:51 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: BayouOtter: Monkeyhouse Zendo: redmid17: That statistic you're quoting has been shat upon many times, for so many reasons I don't even want to begin listing them here.

Fine, whatever, gun ownership doesn't increase the chances that a firearm will be used in a suicide attempt or domestic dispute. I'll just take your expert opinion over Harvard's work on the subject.

Link us, please.

lmgtfy.com


Right. I'm not doing your research for you. Link to your citation.
 
2012-10-09 05:02:54 PM

Ricardo Klement: demaL-demaL-yeH: And don't try to tell us that there is no practical difference between carrying the weight in ammo pouches on your FLC vest and carrying more than a kilo extra mass on the weapon.

Yet another reason why it's a canard for the public, too. So far, there's really nothing about a high-cap mag that makes it anything but worse: reliability, "wastes" ammo (ie, inaccuracy), weight on the gun... just why does a shooter actually WANT the damn thing? Because it looks cool and scary and that's it. No one who knows what they're doing would prefer a 100-round mag on a semi-auto firearm.

Keeping firearms out of the hands of crazy farks and attempting to reduce the damage that can be done per reload seem to me to be good goals. What's your suggestion for a better approach?

Reload time is insignificant, or people whose job it is to be in a firefight would make it a higher priority.

And even if I didn't have a better plan (see earlier posts for alternative gun controls I endorse), that doesn't justify a worse one.


Hmm. You seem to be basing your argument against limiting rounds per magazine on sustained rate of fire, while I'm addressing cyclic rate of fire. Crazy farks seem to go for maximum cyclic rate of fire: Their window of engagement is limited to the time it takes the crowd to clear the bottlenecks and get away.
An honest observer would readily concede that three-to-five round maximum magazine capacity would make a huge dent in their capacity for mayhem and have no effect on your game hunting.

/Now you can tell me why you're arguing that large-capacity magazines are even remotely necessary. (If you're a lousy shot, what you need is more range time, not a greater number of cartridges per reload.)
 
2012-10-09 05:04:20 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: manimal2878: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Your point was that it was absurd to expect firearm manufacturers to work with law enforcement to identify ways in which they might assist law enforcement in investigating criminal use of their products and then chose a very poorly considered counterexample.

Fine, address the ski mask then.

Is ski mask related crime a problem in your area?


Yeah, they are always worn to stick up places.
 
2012-10-09 05:05:45 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: redmid17: That statistic you're quoting has been shat upon many times, for so many reasons I don't even want to begin listing them here.

Fine, whatever, gun ownership doesn't increase the chances that a firearm will be used in a suicide attempt or domestic dispute. I'll just take your expert opinion over Harvard's work on the subject.


Link

Link

If the democratic underground is ragging on it, you can be sure it's not exactly great stuff. The top link does a much better job of picking out the massive list of individual problems. Guy never even released his full data set so other could independently verify his work.
 
2012-10-09 05:09:12 PM

Zasteva: There are too many other things that substitute for ski masks to make it worthwhile to have such a system.


I would argue the same of guns.
 
2012-10-09 05:09:38 PM

BayouOtter: Right. I'm not doing your research for you. Link to your citation.


You seem to be under the misapprehension that I give a shiat whether you believe me or not. Let me assure you, that is not the case.
 
2012-10-09 05:12:24 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Ricardo Klement: demaL-demaL-yeH: And don't try to tell us that there is no practical difference between carrying the weight in ammo pouches on your FLC vest and carrying more than a kilo extra mass on the weapon.

Yet another reason why it's a canard for the public, too. So far, there's really nothing about a high-cap mag that makes it anything but worse: reliability, "wastes" ammo (ie, inaccuracy), weight on the gun... just why does a shooter actually WANT the damn thing? Because it looks cool and scary and that's it. No one who knows what they're doing would prefer a 100-round mag on a semi-auto firearm.

Keeping firearms out of the hands of crazy farks and attempting to reduce the damage that can be done per reload seem to me to be good goals. What's your suggestion for a better approach?

Reload time is insignificant, or people whose job it is to be in a firefight would make it a higher priority.

And even if I didn't have a better plan (see earlier posts for alternative gun controls I endorse), that doesn't justify a worse one.

Hmm. You seem to be basing your argument against limiting rounds per magazine on sustained rate of fire, while I'm addressing cyclic rate of fire. Crazy farks seem to go for maximum cyclic rate of fire: Their window of engagement is limited to the time it takes the crowd to clear the bottlenecks and get away.
An honest observer would readily concede that three-to-five round maximum magazine capacity would make a huge dent in their capacity for mayhem and have no effect on your game hunting.

/Now you can tell me why you're arguing that large-capacity magazines are even remotely necessary. (If you're a lousy shot, what you need is more range time, not a greater number of cartridges per reload.)


First off, you have a lot more time than people seem to envision to cause as much damage as possible. Klebold and Harris did not run out of time or ammo or even targets. Just look at what happens in theater fires. Some people never even get out. Having to swap out magazines will make a
I've never been hunting, but when I go to the range, I'd rather have a 20-round mag than a 10. Maybe it's just the way ranges work, but I don't want to have to purchase multiple 10-round mags just because someone who doesn't know any better can sleep better at night thinking they did anything useful. The only difference between my assault rifle and that of a friend who bought his during the Clinton assault rifle ban is that mine has a bayonet lug. That's it, that's the difference. Yet gun control advocates are under the impression that the placebo legislation known as the AWB was the bee's knees.

So why bother allowing 100-round mags? i>"I'm the enemy because I like to think. I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy that could sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs or the side order of gravy fries? I want high cholesterol. I would eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese. Okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigars the size of Cincinnati in the nonsmoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I might suddenly feel the need to. Okay, pal?"
 
2012-10-09 05:15:31 PM

Ricardo Klement: Having to swap out magazines will make a
I've never been hunting, but when I go to the range, I'd rather have a 20-round mag than a 10.


Dammit, the left angle-bracket screwed the post. I was saying having to swap out mags will save <1 life per mass shooting incident, and probably the number of jams from a guy using a 100-round mag will save more lives than the people who are saved in the 2 seconds someone took to swap out mags.
 
2012-10-09 05:17:45 PM

redmid17: If the democratic underground is ragging on it, you can be sure it's not exactly great stuff. The top link does a much better job of picking out the massive list of individual problems. Guy never even released his full data set so other could independently verify his work.


You limited the field to homicide. My statement wasn't limited to specifically homicide but included suicide and accidental death.

Now if you want to argue that people who don't own firearms are using firearms to off themselves or are dying in firearm related accidents at the same rate as those who do own firearms, I'd love to see the stats on that since it is pretty damned counterintuitive.
 
2012-10-09 05:21:59 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: redmid17: If the democratic underground is ragging on it, you can be sure it's not exactly great stuff. The top link does a much better job of picking out the massive list of individual problems. Guy never even released his full data set so other could independently verify his work.

You limited the field to homicide. My statement wasn't limited to specifically homicide but included suicide and accidental death.

Now if you want to argue that people who don't own firearms are using firearms to off themselves or are dying in firearm related accidents at the same rate as those who do own firearms, I'd love to see the stats on that since it is pretty damned counterintuitive.


Per the CDC guns are about 95% effective when used for suicide, but account for less than 5% of attempts. Pills and drugs are only 2-3% effective, but account for more than 3/4 of suicide attempts. It's not the tool I'm worried about. It's the people who think they need to kill themselves that are the problem that needs solving, not gun ownership. Japan has almost zero firearm ownership and they are sitting about 3x the suicide rate, so clearly it's not just guns that we need to worry about.
 
2012-10-09 05:39:02 PM

redmid17: Per the CDC guns are about 95% effective when used for suicide, but account for less than 5% of attempts. Pills and drugs are only 2-3% effective, but account for more than 3/4 of suicide attempts. It's not the tool I'm worried about. It's the people who think they need to kill themselves that are the problem that needs solving, not gun ownership. Japan has almost zero firearm ownership and they are sitting about 3x the suicide rate, so clearly it's not just guns that we need to worry about.


What do suicide rates and the need to address mental health issues such that fewer people are trying to off themselves have to do with the relative rates of successful suicide by firearm for firearm owners vs those who do not own firearms? I was simply pointing out that the chances of dying by firearm is significantly greater for households who own firearms than for those that don't.

Japan has a well documented cultural issue with suicide that their government is attempting to address which is completely independent of their firearm ownership. But I'm certain you weren't attempting to muddy the waters by referencing cultures which are significantly different than the US.
 
2012-10-09 05:44:27 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: redmid17: Per the CDC guns are about 95% effective when used for suicide, but account for less than 5% of attempts. Pills and drugs are only 2-3% effective, but account for more than 3/4 of suicide attempts. It's not the tool I'm worried about. It's the people who think they need to kill themselves that are the problem that needs solving, not gun ownership. Japan has almost zero firearm ownership and they are sitting about 3x the suicide rate, so clearly it's not just guns that we need to worry about.

What do suicide rates and the need to address mental health issues such that fewer people are trying to off themselves have to do with the relative rates of successful suicide by firearm for firearm owners vs those who do not own firearms? I was simply pointing out that the chances of dying by firearm is significantly greater for households who own firearms than for those that don't.

Japan has a well documented cultural issue with suicide that their government is attempting to address which is completely independent of their firearm ownership. But I'm certain you weren't attempting to muddy the waters by referencing cultures which are significantly different than the US.


Okay then you can take issue with Canada's nearly identical suicide rate with a fraction of the guns. People are going to try to kill themselves. Trying to limit an enumerated right in the least effective way possible is irresponsible and idiotic.
 
2012-10-09 05:45:49 PM

Ricardo Klement: First off, you have a lot more time than people seem to envision to cause as much damage as possible. Klebold and Harris did not run out of time or ammo or even targets. Just look at what happens in theater fires. Some people never even get out. Having to swap out magazines will make a
I've never been hunting, but when I go to the range, I'd rather have a 20-round mag than a 10. Maybe it's just the way ranges work, but I don't want to have to purchase multiple 10-round mags just because someone who doesn't know any better can sleep better at night thinking they did anything useful. The only difference between my assault rifle and that of a friend who bought his during the Clinton assault rifle ban is that mine has a bayonet lug. That's it, that's the difference. Yet gun control advocates are under the impression that the placebo legislation known as the AWB was the bee's knees.

So why bother allowing 100-round mags? i>"I'm the enemy because I like to think. I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy that could sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs or the side order of gravy fries? I want high cholesterol. I would eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese. Okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigars the size of Cincinnati in the nonsmoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I might suddenly feel the need to. Okay, pal?"


"Argentina" has very restrictive gun laws.
1. I most emphatically do not imagine, visualize, or daydream any scenarios where I would inflict mayhem on innocent civilians.
2. Don't bring Cuban cigars to the United States.
3. Lime Jell-O? In "Buenos Aires"? That is a dozen flavors of wrong.
4. Playboy?
5. Deliberately self-destructive behavior is a sign of mental illness. Seek help.
6. Convenience? Seriously? Seatbelts, speed limits, taxes, and traffic signals are inconvenient, yet we have them.
7. I shoot straight. And you have an "assault rifle"? Does ATF know?
8. Given 1 and 5 above, I suggest you spend your ammunition money elsewhere.

/Don't call me "pal", buddy.
 
2012-10-09 05:47:00 PM

redmid17: Okay then you can take issue with Canada's nearly identical suicide rate with a fraction of the guns. People are going to try to kill themselves. Trying to limit an enumerated right in the least effective way possible is irresponsible and idiotic.


fark, are you categorically unable to acknowledge that ownership of firearms increases the probability that a member of the household will die by firearm?
 
2012-10-09 05:52:09 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: redmid17: Okay then you can take issue with Canada's nearly identical suicide rate with a fraction of the guns. People are going to try to kill themselves. Trying to limit an enumerated right in the least effective way possible is irresponsible and idiotic.

fark, are you categorically unable to acknowledge that ownership of firearms increases the probability that a member of the household will die by firearm?


No I am telling you that you're asperger's is fixating on the wrong farking issue. Mental health care is the issue at hand here, not guns, especially since it's clearly drawn out that people can and will attempt and commit suicide via other methods. People freaking out about the gun homicide rate and the gun suicide rate aren't even thinking about why most of those deaths are happening. Gun homicides are overwhelmingly connected with gangs and drugs. Gun suicides are high because we have a deficient health care system.

What I'm getting out of this is that you care less about ensuring people don't want to commit suicide and more about making sure everyone knows that it's more dangerous to live with guns (if you're suicidal or a criminal).
 
2012-10-09 05:52:44 PM

redmid17: Monkeyhouse Zendo: redmid17: Okay then you can take issue with Canada's nearly identical suicide rate with a fraction of the guns. People are going to try to kill themselves. Trying to limit an enumerated right in the least effective way possible is irresponsible and idiotic.

fark, are you categorically unable to acknowledge that ownership of firearms increases the probability that a member of the household will die by firearm?

No I am telling you that you're asperger's is fixating on the wrong farking issue. Mental health care is the issue at hand here, not guns, especially since it's clearly drawn out that people can and will attempt and commit suicide via other methods. People freaking out about the gun homicide rate and the gun suicide rate aren't even thinking about why most of those deaths are happening. Gun homicides are overwhelmingly connected with gangs and drugs. Gun suicides are high because we have a deficient health care system.

What I'm getting out of this is that you care less about ensuring people don't want to commit suicide and more about making sure everyone knows that it's more dangerous to live with guns (if you're suicidal or a criminal).


your*

/god i hate typos
 
2012-10-09 05:57:34 PM

redmid17: No I am telling you that you're asperger's is fixating on the wrong farking issue. Mental health care is the issue at hand here, not guns, especially since it's clearly drawn out that people can and will attempt and commit suicide via other methods. People freaking out about the gun homicide rate and the gun suicide rate aren't even thinking about why most of those deaths are happening. Gun homicides are overwhelmingly connected with gangs and drugs. Gun suicides are high because we have a deficient health care system.


I'm the one with aspergers...

I simply pointed out that owning a firearm increases the probability that someone in your home will die via firearm and you motherfarker start spinning like top. I would think that it's a fairly common sense statement and something that is easily acknowledged but for some reason there are people who cannot acknowledge that owning a firearm can increase the chances of any negative outcome.

Why can you not agree that purely from an actuarial perspective, firearm ownership correlates with a higher probability of death by firearm?
 
2012-10-09 05:58:34 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: redmid17: No I am telling you that you're asperger's is fixating on the wrong farking issue. Mental health care is the issue at hand here, not guns, especially since it's clearly drawn out that people can and will attempt and commit suicide via other methods. People freaking out about the gun homicide rate and the gun suicide rate aren't even thinking about why most of those deaths are happening. Gun homicides are overwhelmingly connected with gangs and drugs. Gun suicides are high because we have a deficient health care system.

I'm the one with aspergers...

I simply pointed out that owning a firearm increases the probability that someone in your home will die via firearm and you motherfarker start spinning like top. I would think that it's a fairly common sense statement and something that is easily acknowledged but for some reason there are people who cannot acknowledge that owning a firearm can increase the chances of any negative outcome.

Why can you not agree that purely from an actuarial perspective, firearm ownership correlates with a higher probability of death by firearm?


Yes, if one is a criminal or has mental health issues. When you control for those, no one does not.
 
2012-10-09 05:58:54 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: you motherfarker


you motherfarkers

redmid17: /god i hate typos


same here
 
2012-10-09 06:00:31 PM

redmid17: Yes, if one is a criminal or has mental health issues. When you control for those, no one does not.


So the answer is yes. Thank you. I think we've made a great breakthrough today regarding your ability to recognize objective reality. Tomorrow we can work on your equivocation.
 
2012-10-09 06:14:41 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: redmid17: Yes, if one is a criminal or has mental health issues. When you control for those, no one does not.

So the answer is yes. Thank you. I think we've made a great breakthrough today regarding your ability to recognize objective reality. Tomorrow we can work on your equivocation.


Tomorrow we actually have to start with defining qualifiers. This seems to be lost on you. Then we can move onto how to properly address public health issues without trying to strip rights from the American public.
 
2012-10-09 06:52:09 PM

Gonz: Dittybopper, I don't mean "tell me why this law WON'T work." I mean "what WILL work?", and how do we implement it?


Easy, outlaw people.
If you read the bill it does NOT require micro-stamping. It outlaws the SALE of a new gun that is not equipped to micro-stamp it's fired cartridge cases. The purpose of the bill is to put every LEGAL gun store in New York out of business. When a manufacturer can sell every gun they can produce and have backlogs of months on orders who in their right minds would spend millions on retooling their entire production line to sell to a niche market? If no micro-stamped guns are available how long can a LEGAL dealer stay in business? Of course this will in no way inconvience the ILLEGAL dealers importing guns to sell on the largest black market in the country. These politicians have no desire to interfere with that. They want the ILLEGAL guns to give them a reason to whine for Federal infringments on law abiding citizens. If you don't have a crisis to exploit, just create one.
 
2012-10-09 07:55:37 PM

dittybopper: Gonz: Dittybopper, I don't mean "tell me why this law WON'T work." I mean "what WILL work?", and how do we implement it?

I'm going to turn your assumption around that we need to do something, and ask why do we need something more? Gun violence isn't a significant problem for WHITE PEOPLE in the United States.

What is the urgency? Why do we *NEED* to do something?

 

FTFY
 
2012-10-09 08:28:30 PM

CPennypacker: Sure it will


COBIS solved exactly zero crimes, i have no expectation that microstamping will do any better.
 
2012-10-09 09:00:02 PM

Lehk: CPennypacker: Sure it will

COBIS solved exactly zero crimes, i have no expectation that microstamping will do any better.


This. THEY ALREADY TRIED IT AND IT DIDN"T WORK. That really should be the end of it right there.
 
2012-10-09 10:21:45 PM
Let's do nothing. That always works.
 
2012-10-09 11:31:53 PM

Bucky Katt: Let's do nothing. That always works.


Or let's just try the exact same thing that just cost the taxpayers something like $30,000,000 and was finally cancelled after 10 years because it was an abject failure which didn't result in a SINGLE criminal conviction. Unless you think a ten year test run isn't long enough?
 
2012-10-09 11:33:47 PM

Bucky Katt: Let's do nothing. That always works.


When the choice is between doing nothing and doing something that we already know doesn't work, doing nothing becomes the smarter decision.
 
2012-10-10 12:58:39 AM

Bucky Katt: Let's do nothing. That always works.


Unless someone rolls technology back 500 years or comes up with a way to make humans bulletproof, firearms are here to stay. There's a reason the Colt SAA was called "The Equalizer" after all. Of course we could all go back to the rule of the strongest and most ruthless, because that's worked out so well in the past. But feel free to count on the benevolence and kindness of governments and your fellow man.
 
2012-10-10 01:19:20 PM

BayouOtter: Guns are not efficient methods for killing loads of people, magazine capacity notwithstanding. In the absence of a gun, for whatever reason, a nutball murderer will still kill people. They will kill a lot of people.


I'd be completely satisfied with our firearm regulations if we would stop selling guns to people who are farking crazy. A crazy person just yaps at people on the street and occasionally mistakes you for their cousin and comes at you with a sharp object they found on the side of the road. Why? They are too crazy to plan. A crazy person who is also focused and angry will try to buy guns with the express purpose of shooting people with the bullets that come out. Or they will buy knives, or fertilizer. But guns are the Great Equalizer. A very small percentage of people are crazy enough to go on a murder spree. A small percentage of THAT group STAYS crazy enough for long enough to actually do it. And an even smaller percentage of THAT group has their shiat together enough to make a bomb. A crazy person, with guns, in a moment of anger, is an IMMEDIATE threat to the safety of those around them. A crazy person in a moment of anger is ... well, go hang out in Philadelphia for a while and you'll meet them. They are a bit scary, but mostly harmless.

I'm not saying ban a certain class of guns because that particular type of gun is more likely to be used in the commission of a crime or killing spree. I'm saying ban SALES of ALL FIREARMS to crazy people. I'm *saying* that the "problem" of gun violence in America isn't solved by gun legislation, but adequate support for the mentally ill.

/who do I vote for?
 
2012-10-10 11:08:45 PM

BeesNuts: BayouOtter: Guns are not efficient methods for killing loads of people, magazine capacity notwithstanding. In the absence of a gun, for whatever reason, a nutball murderer will still kill people. They will kill a lot of people.

I'd be completely satisfied with our firearm regulations if we would stop selling guns to people who are farking crazy. A crazy person just yaps at people on the street and occasionally mistakes you for their cousin and comes at you with a sharp object they found on the side of the road. Why? They are too crazy to plan. A crazy person who is also focused and angry will try to buy guns with the express purpose of shooting people with the bullets that come out. Or they will buy knives, or fertilizer. But guns are the Great Equalizer. A very small percentage of people are crazy enough to go on a murder spree. A small percentage of THAT group STAYS crazy enough for long enough to actually do it. And an even smaller percentage of THAT group has their shiat together enough to make a bomb. A crazy person, with guns, in a moment of anger, is an IMMEDIATE threat to the safety of those around them. A crazy person in a moment of anger is ... well, go hang out in Philadelphia for a while and you'll meet them. They are a bit scary, but mostly harmless.

I'm not saying ban a certain class of guns because that particular type of gun is more likely to be used in the commission of a crime or killing spree. I'm saying ban SALES of ALL FIREARMS to crazy people. I'm *saying* that the "problem" of gun violence in America isn't solved by gun legislation, but adequate support for the mentally ill.

/who do I vote for?


Form 4473- Question 11F-
"Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?"

The law apparently thought of this already.
 
Displayed 322 of 322 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report