Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(LA Times)   If you have to screw up the facts in a debate, try not to screw up on gun control. Especially if you're the leader of the God, Guns and More Guns party   (latimes.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, automatic weapon, semiautomatic firearms, federal assault weapons ban, arms industries, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives  
•       •       •

4325 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Oct 2012 at 10:38 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-17 02:47:37 PM  
Crimes aren't committed with legally owned F/A guns. Ergo, there's no reason to further make them illegal or harder to get than they already are. That's the point, which you're missing yet again.

They're already buried behind many months wait time, but, most importantly, thousands of dollars to buy even the cheapest ones (i.e. MACs.)

Why am I arguing guns with some tard living in Canada, anyway?
 
2012-10-17 02:52:51 PM  

topcon: Crimes aren't committed with legally owned F/A guns. Ergo, there's no reason to further make them illegal or harder to get than they already are. That's the point, which you're missing yet again.

They're already buried behind many months wait time, but, most importantly, thousands of dollars to buy even the cheapest ones (i.e. MACs.)

Why am I arguing guns with some tard living in Canada, anyway?


Ironic as Canadians own more guns per capita than the US but commits 1/10th the gun related crimes. Seems like the tards may live here
 
2012-10-17 02:54:34 PM  

monoski: topcon: Crimes aren't committed with legally owned F/A guns. Ergo, there's no reason to further make them illegal or harder to get than they already are. That's the point, which you're missing yet again.

They're already buried behind many months wait time, but, most importantly, thousands of dollars to buy even the cheapest ones (i.e. MACs.)

Why am I arguing guns with some tard living in Canada, anyway?

Ironic as Canadians own more guns per capita than the US but commits 1/10th the gun related crimes. Seems like the tards may live here


Uh, no they don't. Where did you get that from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Link
 
2012-10-17 02:57:52 PM  
And at least purely from a death standpoint it isn't 1/10th less, either. Crimes, I don't know. Canada is 19th in the world for gun deaths, the U.S. is 10th, with over twice the rate of Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea t h_rate

Link
 
2012-10-17 03:06:52 PM  

topcon: Crimes aren't committed with legally owned F/A guns.


Even this extremely pro-automatic-weapon site mentions documented crimes which prove your statement wrong.

topcon: Why am I arguing guns with some tard living in Canada, anyway?


That just happens to be where I've been living for the last three years. Gonna keep changing the subject to distract us from you being proven wrong over and over, huh?
 
2012-10-17 03:12:20 PM  

THX 1138: topcon: Crimes aren't committed with legally owned F/A guns.

Even this extremely pro-automatic-weapon site mentions documented crimes which prove your statement wrong.

topcon: Why am I arguing guns with some tard living in Canada, anyway?

That just happens to be where I've been living for the last three years. Gonna keep changing the subject to distract us from you being proven wrong over and over, huh?



From your own article, which you apparently didn't read before you posted, and spent a half hour looking for:

"Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons."

What I said earlier: "Virtually no crimes."

WHOA, A WHOLE TWO MURDERS SINCE 1934! AN EPIDEMIC! BAN ALL LEGALLY OWNED FULLY AUTOMATIC GUNS!
 
2012-10-17 03:21:36 PM  

topcon: monoski: topcon: Crimes aren't committed with legally owned F/A guns. Ergo, there's no reason to further make them illegal or harder to get than they already are. That's the point, which you're missing yet again.

They're already buried behind many months wait time, but, most importantly, thousands of dollars to buy even the cheapest ones (i.e. MACs.)

Why am I arguing guns with some tard living in Canada, anyway?

Ironic as Canadians own more guns per capita than the US but commits 1/10th the gun related crimes. Seems like the tards may live here

Uh, no they don't. Where did you get that from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Link


My bad, stats I read were limited to shotguns and long rifles (excluded handguns)
 
2012-10-17 03:26:19 PM  

topcon: What I said earlier: "Virtually no crimes."


You do realize you're just digging yourself deeper, right? Chimperror02 said "no crimes are committed by automatic weapons". You changed the argument to "legally owned" automatic weapons. Now you're making up statements about "an epidemic" and "banning legally owned fully-automatics", when I've said neither such thing.

As a matter of fact, the only stance I've taken on weapons in this thread is to point out that Obama increased gun rights and Romney has enacted legislation to reduce rights. The lovely caps-lock typing you did was just something that you fabricated and attributed to me, to have something to argue against. In essence, you're arguing against your own words.

And we're all here to see it.
 
2012-10-17 03:50:56 PM  

THX 1138: topcon: What I said earlier: "Virtually no crimes."

You do realize you're just digging yourself deeper, right? Chimperror02 said "no crimes are committed by automatic weapons". You changed the argument to "legally owned" automatic weapons. Now you're making up statements about "an epidemic" and "banning legally owned fully-automatics", when I've said neither such thing.

As a matter of fact, the only stance I've taken on weapons in this thread is to point out that Obama increased gun rights and Romney has enacted legislation to reduce rights. The lovely caps-lock typing you did was just something that you fabricated and attributed to me, to have something to argue against. In essence, you're arguing against your own words.

And we're all here to see it.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-17 04:29:50 PM  

DORMAMU: topcon: THX 1138: Chimperror2: Oh, and fully-automatic weapons aren't used in crimes.


[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x164]

Lolwut?

"Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic"

Key phrase: Illegally modified.

Call me when actual, legal, NFA F/A guns are used in crimes.

I believe there was one in the thirties. It was committed by a police officer.

/(double checking)



Back in the early '30s, you could order Thompson sub-machine guns through the mail. But you haven't been able to order pistols through the mail since 1927.
 
2012-10-17 10:05:25 PM  

PanicMan: Obama: But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets


This is what bothers me. I've got three firearms designed for soldiers: 1941 Mosin-Nagant, 1960's Ishapor 2A-1, and an 1886 11mm MAS revolver from France. I'll someday have a beautiful 1918 Mosin-Nagant made by Remington when I buy it from my grandfather. Can anyone with a straight face tell me that those are "assault weapons" despite having the military specifically in mind with their design?

This is a silly topic, the way it's talked about. There are definitely firearms you don't want bad people to have, but stuff of the full auto variety is ludicrisly expensive. There are plenty of common sense ordinances we could instate to mitigate seriously mentally ill people geting their hands on firearms, but few want to act reasonable about it. Gun-grabbing libs want to grab guns because they won't face backlash from their constituents, and Republicans are fearful of doing anything reasonable or responsible on the topic of any sort.

As well, the debate is always framed by making "assault weapons," which can technically only include machine guns, scarier than they actually are. I've tried to find statistics on the topic of someone stabbing someone with a bayonet on their gun and all I've come up with is a zed. As an aside, the last statistic I recall about how many murders have taken place with a legally-owned machine gun in America says that %50 of them occured by a police officer... that is, one person murder by a cop, and one by some other guy. That's right, only two murders have taken place with them since the records started. Muzzle brakes and flash hiders? Magazine size limits? For one, anyone with moderate skill is going to be able to quickly change a mag, and secondly criminals will STILL have illegally large magazines. I just don't see any reasonable ground anyone has to stand on calling for restriction of harmless features on a firearm that isn't even a type of weapon of the ban's namesake.

But there is zero chance of Obama getting an AWB on his desk anyway, and I highly doubt that he truely cares about getting one.
 
2012-10-17 10:38:11 PM  

Stibium: This is what bothers me. I've got three firearms designed for soldiers: 1941 Mosin-Nagant, 1960's Ishapor 2A-1, and an 1886 11mm MAS revolver from France. I'll someday have a beautiful 1918 Mosin-Nagant made by Remington when I buy it from my grandfather. Can anyone with a straight face tell me that those are "assault weapons" despite having the military specifically in mind with their design?


Of course she can...

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-18 12:05:43 AM  

THX 1138: DORMAMU: I believe there was one in the thirties. It was committed by a police officer.

1988. He killed a police informant with a fully auto.


but still it was a cop...

interesting
 
2012-10-20 01:08:33 PM  

THX 1138: topcon: "Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic"

Key phrase: Illegally modified.

Call me when actual, legal, NFA F/A guns are used in crimes

And you can call me when you figure out where you moved the goalpoasts from the statement I was quoting.


Okay, Baseball bats kill more people than fully-automatic weapons. How's that? Legal fully-automatic weapons are simply not an issue for crime. Modified guns are illegal anyway so did you just want to make modified guns more illegal? It is already illegal to own a disk shaped piece of metal called a 'sear' because it's labeled a machine gun.

Fully automatic weapons are not an issue.
 
2012-10-20 01:13:00 PM  

THX 1138: CokeBear: Since being elected, Obama hasn't lifted a finger to change any gun laws

Actually, that's not correct.

He's enacted legislation increasing gun rights. But don't tell the derpers if you don't find people holding their hands over their ears to be a pretty sight.


And he's enacted executive orders to restrict them. Talk to gun dealers on the border if they think their rights were expanded or curtailed.
 
2012-10-20 01:16:53 PM  

THX 1138: Chimperror2: Oh, and fully-automatic weapons aren't used in crimes.


[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x164]

Lolwut?


They also failed to kill anybody with those guns.
 
2012-10-20 01:25:21 PM  

Chimperror2: THX 1138: Chimperror2: Oh, and fully-automatic weapons aren't used in crimes.


[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x164]

Lolwut?

They also failed to kill anybody with those guns.


Your assertion was that automatic weapons aren't used in crimes. If you want to move the goalposts now and say that a killing had to occur, go ahead. But be aware that all of us know that that's not what you first stated.
 
2012-10-20 06:10:35 PM  

THX 1138: Chimperror2: THX 1138: Chimperror2: Oh, and fully-automatic weapons aren't used in crimes.


[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x164]

Lolwut?

They also failed to kill anybody with those guns.

Your assertion was that automatic weapons aren't used in crimes. If you want to move the goalposts now and say that a killing had to occur, go ahead. But be aware that all of us know that that's not what you first stated.


Apparently you are retarded if you think fully-automatic weapons are a crime problem that needs to be addressed. If you want to cite one unsuccessful criminal act from nearly 20 years ago as proof that automatic weapons are a crime problem, knock yourself out.
 
Displayed 18 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report