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.

(Think Progress)   In one day, more people have signed a petition asking Obama to address gun control than Texans wanting to secede from the Union   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 1049
    More: Obvious, President Obama, unions, gun regulation, petitions  
•       •       •

3079 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Dec 2012 at 8:59 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1049 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-16 12:58:31 AM  
Remember everyone, it's just a coincidence that countries with strict gun control laws have a much lower murder rate due to guns. It's all those crazy people running around the USA that are the real problem.
 
2012-12-16 12:58:55 AM  

graggor: LOL the 50s...yeah when they didnt count it when you werent white and we had lost 2 generations of youth to two wars.

http://thepublicintellectual.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Homicides - 1900-2010-2.jpg

its lower today than it has ever been.

civil rights had more to do with it than anything.

and reagan abandoned the mentally ill in the 70s and into the 80s.

abortion and economy and social welfare had more to do with lower crime rates than gun ownership or gun control.


Your link isn't working and you have nothing but bald assertions here.. anything else you care to bring to the table? You just seem like yet another propagandist wannabe liar.
 
2012-12-16 12:59:31 AM  

Methadone Girls: Whatever kiddo. Keep burying your kids.


The funny thing is I'm older than you are. But thank you for the fallacy none the less. You're the reverse side of the coin to the gun nuts BTW.
 
2012-12-16 12:59:41 AM  
Goodnight all.
 
2012-12-16 01:00:55 AM  
also

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

That comma spells it out.

Because in a free state you need a militia to defend it the people should not be without the right to bear arms to defend themselves from the militia of a free state.

its what the founders were thinking. we all know it to be true. it took me a while as an anti gun guy to get that but the moment I did I realized it was a fruitless fight. obama realized it a while ago as well.

he doesnt speak on it often.
 
2012-12-16 01:01:54 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fart_Machine: While nobody wants certified mental patients from owning firearms, weren't the guns used by the perp in this case from the mother who wasn't mentally ill?

She also had no desire to lock up her weapons. Know what, I have no problem with the CCW questionnaire asking if someone with mental illness lives with you and rejecting you based on that unless you can provide proof that you have a gun safe. I think that's what a reasonable concession sounds like.



media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-16 01:03:01 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fart_Machine: While nobody wants certified mental patients from owning firearms, weren't the guns used by the perp in this case from the mother who wasn't mentally ill?

She also had no desire to lock up her weapons. Know what, I have no problem with the CCW questionnaire asking if someone with mental illness lives with you and rejecting you based on that unless you can provide proof that you have a gun safe. I think that's what a reasonable concession sounds like.


Connecticut concealed weapons permits are issued on a "may-issue" basis, and I suspect that the shooter's mother did not possess one.

I would be unopposed to safe storage requirements for all firearm owners, under certain conditions. The requirements of the District of Colombia were excessive in restricting the presence of a functional firearm under any circumstances for any reason, but I suspect that a less unreasonable restriction requiring that firearms be stored securely when not under the direct control of the owner (where the owner being present in the home may itself qualify as control, or a slightly more rigid standard may be applied) may pass Constitutional scrutiny and I am not personally opposed to such a measure. Such a statute (and obedience to it) likely would have prevented the events in Connecticut.

Unfortunately, the more vocal civilian firearm advocacy rights organizations would argue the proposal a "slippery slope" and thus would reject it, while those advocating new controls would reject it because it does not actually ban anything.
 
2012-12-16 01:03:04 AM  

scottymac: I keep all of them securely locked up.


No one wants to confiscate your weapons.
We would like to complicate their resale.
 
2012-12-16 01:03:27 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: http://thepublicintellectual.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Homicides - 1900-2010-2.jpg


Link

propagandist?

no your argument that we abandoned the mentally ill in the 1960s and that led to high levels of homicide completely ignores the complications and challenges faced during the civil rights era and the transition. (the riots and violence and drugs post 1950s USA)
 
2012-12-16 01:03:59 AM  

graggor: child worship annoys me. bill hicks had a brilliant expose on this. your children arent special.
Link


LOL Posting "your children aren't special" in a thread about 20 of them getting shot while at school. You're just all kinds of special, aren't ya. LOL
 
2012-12-16 01:04:32 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: Dimensio: Mr. Loughner may have been subdued after firing fewer shots. Alternatively, he may not have dropped a lighter and less cumbersome magazine, and he may not have been subdued as easily.

He was tackled when he stopped to reload. I wonder who'd be alive today had that been after 6 rounds instead of 31? Hmmmmmmmmmmm


Are you certain that Mr. Loughner would not have altered his tactics had he been restricted to a smaller magazine capacity?

Are you unwilling to address the fact that I am not entirely opposed to limiting handgun magazine capacity, and that I only object to the unnecessarily low limit of five rounds?
 
2012-12-16 01:05:23 AM  

zarberg: Methadone Girls:
But Australia did it. They managed to get 1/5th of the guns out of public hands with the buy back campaign. But then we get the "herp derp, they'll just grab a knife/axe/bomb/plane".

Some guy in China yesterday proved a knife attack is a teensy bit less deadly than a gun attack.


And some guy with a CCW in a Clakamas mall got a shooter so out of his comfort zone that the shooter immediately killed himself rather than be shot by the CCW holders drawn weapon....

"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."


Maybe the answer is more CCW.......Imagine the number of children who have to die before the pro gun control crowd realizes that.
 
2012-12-16 01:05:37 AM  
*ctrlf for keithgabryelski*

*kicks back enjoying the popcr0n*
 
2012-12-16 01:06:28 AM  

Fubini: Fart_Machine: Fubini: I could totally see a coalition of willing gun owners and control advocates coming together and pushing for stricter mental health testing for all gun purchases.

While nobody wants certified mental patients from owning firearms, weren't the guns used by the perp in this case from the mother who wasn't mentally ill?

Yes, but as my wall-o-text demonstrates above, the vast majority of gun crime is not spree killers. I don't think you'll ever be able to *stop* spree killers, to the point where legislation seems pointless. Case in point: the single most feared scenario by most law enforcement agencies isn't terrorism, it's a lone crazy guy that is on no-one's radar and just comes out of the woodwork and starts wreaking havoc.

Remember the gas-station snipers in the Washington area from a few years back? Anyone could go spend $500 on a weapon and ammo and essentially replicate that same thing. There are even a lot of people out there who are so far removed from friends and family that they couldn't even catch the warning signs if there were any.


I think we're in agreement here. I'm hardly a gun enthusiast but trying to craft legislation out of a horrific event which was sensational due to its rarity is a terrible way to go about it.
 
2012-12-16 01:06:43 AM  

Dimensio: Popcorn Johnny: Dimensio: Mr. Loughner may have been subdued after firing fewer shots. Alternatively, he may not have dropped a lighter and less cumbersome magazine, and he may not have been subdued as easily.

He was tackled when he stopped to reload. I wonder who'd be alive today had that been after 6 rounds instead of 31? Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Are you certain that Mr. Loughner would not have altered his tactics had he been restricted to a smaller magazine capacity?

Are you unwilling to address the fact that I am not entirely opposed to limiting handgun magazine capacity, and that I only object to the unnecessarily low limit of five rounds?


I agree. Five is too low, but I also don't think thirty is necessary. I wouldn't have a problem with restricting capacity to a size that is flush with the grip of the firearm (5-15 rounds for most firearms, for those unfamiliar)
 
2012-12-16 01:08:41 AM  

ha-ha-guy: Can we address mental health? On one hand you have dozens of kids dead in Connecticut. On the flip side you have 22 wounded, some in critical care, after a crazy dude did a knife attack at a school.

Gun control has the benefit of reducing lethality of the attacks, but it doesn't solve them. It just means the guy shows up with propane tanks rigged as bombs, a bow, a knife, a mail order sword, a rock, etc. I'd rather address mental health detection and treatment and allocation of our police force and how we fund it.

/for example with what we're spending in Afghanistan we could have fuzz in every school to give their DARE talks, enforce school zone speed limits, and be right there to respond to shootings


Sooooo, treat the problem? What kinda soshulizt talk is that? We treat the symptoms here in Murika. Why do you hate Murika????
 
2012-12-16 01:09:08 AM  

Giltric: zarberg: Methadone Girls:
But Australia did it. They managed to get 1/5th of the guns out of public hands with the buy back campaign. But then we get the "herp derp, they'll just grab a knife/axe/bomb/plane".

Some guy in China yesterday proved a knife attack is a teensy bit less deadly than a gun attack.

And some guy with a CCW in a Clakamas mall got a shooter so out of his comfort zone that the shooter immediately killed himself rather than be shot by the CCW holders drawn weapon....

"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."


Maybe the answer is more CCW.......Imagine the number of children who have to die before the pro gun control crowd realizes that.


The "answer" is never a single, simple measure. Concealed weapons permit systems exist to allow qualifying citizens a means of personal defense; they are not a viable solution for reducing rates of violent crime. A concealed weapons permit holder ending an act of public violence is laudable, but that is not the purpose of the permit system and appropriate measures should be directed to preventing the act of public violence before it occurs.
 
2012-12-16 01:09:51 AM  
Link
thepublicintellectual.org

anyway at times in the 50s the murder rate was higher than today.

it wasnt some golden time. also many murders of black people went unreported and uncounted for in the south.

it was actually even higher.
 
2012-12-16 01:11:04 AM  

Methadone Girls: graggor: child worship annoys me. bill hicks had a brilliant expose on this. your children arent special.
Link

LOL Posting "your children aren't special" in a thread about 20 of them getting shot while at school. You're just all kinds of special, aren't ya. LOL



this thread is about politicizing their deaths. I just posted something to show how people like you think of them. Something to use for an agenda.
 
2012-12-16 01:11:16 AM  

wademh: And the statistics bear out that handguns frequently get turned against family members within the home.

Turned against

family members in the home or used in the home.....

One could be viewed as killing a member of your houshold that is not you, the other could be viewed as suicide depending on how the actual stats are worded/calculated...especially since they like to cook gun violence stats with suicides, practically doubling or more the number of deaths,
 
2012-12-16 01:12:26 AM  

trackstr777: Dimensio: Popcorn Johnny: Dimensio: Mr. Loughner may have been subdued after firing fewer shots. Alternatively, he may not have dropped a lighter and less cumbersome magazine, and he may not have been subdued as easily.

He was tackled when he stopped to reload. I wonder who'd be alive today had that been after 6 rounds instead of 31? Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Are you certain that Mr. Loughner would not have altered his tactics had he been restricted to a smaller magazine capacity?

Are you unwilling to address the fact that I am not entirely opposed to limiting handgun magazine capacity, and that I only object to the unnecessarily low limit of five rounds?

I agree. Five is too low, but I also don't think thirty is necessary. I wouldn't have a problem with restricting capacity to a size that is flush with the grip of the firearm (5-15 rounds for most firearms, for those unfamiliar)


Some compact and subcompact firearm models offer (or even include) magazines that extend the grip of the firearm. I would prefer that a magazine capacity limitation accommodate such design; failing to do so would produce a meaningless limitation, because any individual could purchase the full-size variant of the same firearm and use a magazine of the same capacity.

Additionally, I am not open to limiting rifle magazine capacity, until evidence is provided that such a limitation would serve a benefit. Substantial data will be needed to convince me otherwise, due to the relative rarity of crime committed with any model of rifle.
 
2012-12-16 01:13:53 AM  

trackstr777: As I said in previous posts, if we wanted to cut down on lots of crime, and particularly child porn, we could just make an agency that has thousands of people to read and listen to every form of electronic communication ever sent over the wires and air in this country. We could cut all forms of crime down considerably overnight! Why don't we do it? Because the positive effect of less crime has to be weighed against the harm to our civil liberties, the general breaking of our Constitutional rights, and because it's not as simple as "we need to fight a problem...make ANY laws that might help!"


You might want to come up with a better example of things we WOULDN'T do.

NSA Utah Data Center

Room 641a

NSA call database

NSA warrantless surveillance

You should totally let them know the reasons we would never do anything like that. It's not difficult -- I'm sure if you reply to my post, someone there will see it.
 
2012-12-16 01:14:24 AM  

Fart_Machine: Methadone Girls: Whatever kiddo. Keep burying your kids.

The funny thing is I'm older than you are. But thank you for the fallacy none the less. You're the reverse side of the coin to the gun nuts BTW.


Probably. Best part is, my ex is a cop and avid hunter. We always had guns in the house. They're tools like anything else and I've never been afraid of them. I'm a terrible shot btw.

That said, a regular person buying them for personal protect smacks of paranoia. Who the fark are you protecting yourself from with 3 guns in the house? That's not protection. That's crazy. I've made it to my 40's without having to "protect" myself from anyone with a gun. But I live in Canada. We're sedated with maple syrup or something.
 
2012-12-16 01:15:03 AM  

Giltric: wademh: And the statistics bear out that handguns frequently get turned against family members within the home.

Turned against family members in the home or used in the home.....

One could be viewed as killing a member of your houshold that is not you, the other could be viewed as suicide depending on how the actual stats are worded/calculated...especially since they like to cook gun violence stats with suicides, practically doubling or more the number of deaths,


They are not going to band hand guns. it just isnt happening.

2nd amendment and all that.

I have been anti gun all my life and am smart enough to see it isnt happening in the USA>
 
2012-12-16 01:17:25 AM  

scottymac: I also like the subtle art of learning to shoot well; especially handguns...it's harder than almost anyone thinks to become a good shot, and I enjoy the challenge.


The first time I took one of my friends he literally had trouble hitting the berm backstop. I successfully discouraged him from getting a pistol for self defense, and convinced him he'd end up killing everyone but his target. His most telling comment for the night was: "That was a lot harder than it looks on TV."

*facepalm*

scottymac: Also, can someone please define what an "assault weapon" is as it's being used here?


There are two possible definitions. The first, "assault rifle" is a military term that describes a small, maneuverable rifle that can be toggled between semi-automatic fire and burst or fully automatic fire, and that fires an intermediate cartridge (bigger than a pistol cartridge but smaller than a full size rifle cartridge like .30-06). (Note that most such weapons are already illegal for civilians to own under US law as a result of the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. Assault rifles created before 1986 were grandfathered in as legal and are extremely expensive. Since records have been kept only two homicides have been committed with legally owned assault rifles under this definition).

The second is "assault weapon" which is a political term that describes a specific class of weapons in the now expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban. This is a rather convoluted category, it's main purpose is to capture semi-automatic weapons that are similar to the category described above, but are not true assault rifles. This category gets a lot of flak for including features that are mostly irrelevant for normal civilian users from a technical point of view, but could be considered scary to people not familiar with the subject. Examples of such features are barrel shrouds (used to keep your hands safe from a hot barrel), bayonet mounts (because so much violence is committed with rifle bayonets), and grenade launchers (because so much violence is committed with grenades.) The last two features I listed are commonly available on military surplus firearms, though nearly useless (grenades are regulated separately, and are similarly inaccessible as most military hardware is.)
 
2012-12-16 01:17:28 AM  

Methadone Girls: Fart_Machine: Methadone Girls: Whatever kiddo. Keep burying your kids.

The funny thing is I'm older than you are. But thank you for the fallacy none the less. You're the reverse side of the coin to the gun nuts BTW.

Probably. Best part is, my ex is a cop and avid hunter. We always had guns in the house. They're tools like anything else and I've never been afraid of them. I'm a terrible shot btw.

That said, a regular person buying them for personal protect smacks of paranoia. Who the fark are you protecting yourself from with 3 guns in the house? That's not protection. That's crazy. I've made it to my 40's without having to "protect" myself from anyone with a gun. But I live in Canada. We're sedated with maple syrup or something.


I dont own a gun and never have. But I know it is my 2nd amendment right to own one.

Doesnt bother me.
 
2012-12-16 01:20:02 AM  

Methadone Girls: Fart_Machine: Methadone Girls: Whatever kiddo. Keep burying your kids.

The funny thing is I'm older than you are. But thank you for the fallacy none the less. You're the reverse side of the coin to the gun nuts BTW.

Probably. Best part is, my ex is a cop and avid hunter. We always had guns in the house. They're tools like anything else and I've never been afraid of them. I'm a terrible shot btw.

That said, a regular person buying them for personal protect smacks of paranoia. Who the fark are you protecting yourself from with 3 guns in the house? That's not protection. That's crazy. I've made it to my 40's without having to "protect" myself from anyone with a gun. But I live in Canada. We're sedated with maple syrup or something.


Of the four firearms that I own, only one is intended for "protection" and I readily recognize that the probability that it will ever be used for that purpose is extremely low. The other three firearms are exclusively for recreational use.
 
2012-12-16 01:20:08 AM  

scottymac: I'm 39 years old. I have two kids. Wife and I both work full time at jobs we've been at for 11 and 14 years, respectively. We're college educated, we own a home, we pay taxes. Unremarkable and average, I suppose.

I own three nice semi-automatic handguns, a 12 ga. shotgun and an AR-15. I keep all of them securely locked up. I like to go with my buddies a few times a year to an outdoor shooting range to make some noise and generally hoon around. Every once in awhile I'll go to an indoor range to put some holes in paper. It's a fun hobby and I enjoy it. I also like the subtle art of learning to shoot well; especially handguns...it's harder than almost anyone thinks to become a good shot, and I enjoy the challenge.

So why exactly should I not be able to do this anymore? I guess that's the part I'm having most trouble with. This possibly mentally ill person commits this incredibly heinous crime, and yet I can't engage in a hobby? (Sorry, it doesn't matter if you think it's not a worthwhile past-time, that's not a reasonable or realistic counter.) Is the argument simply that "too bad, you can't do that anymore because banning your guns will serve the greater good, and don't whine because it's a stupid hobby to begin with."?

Also, can someone please define what an "assault weapon" is as it's being used here? I think that term is being most often used to describe a gun that can fire multiple rounds upon one squeeze and hold of the trigger...if that's the case, those are already regulated, meaning the average joe can't have them. Those that do have to go through the ATF. My AR-15 is just a semi-automatic which means that for every pull of the trigger, one shot is fired, which you'll find is a very commonplace mode of operation on many long guns, certainly not unique.

Ultimately, as a law-abiding citizen, I'll do whatever I have to to be compliant, even if I disagree...I'd just like to understand if there's any consideration in the "ban all teh guns!!!!" declarative for t ...


Do you oppose having to have yourself and your guns licensed? To have to undergo mandatory "refresher" courses and to document that you have appropriate secure storage for your firearms?

I have no problem with you owning your guns under those conditions.
 
2012-12-16 01:20:19 AM  
If your kid keeps playing with matches, you take the matches away.

Sure, you do other things. You teach the kid that fire is bad. You teach how much much fire hurts, how dangerous it can be. You expalin that burning down Mommy and Daddy's house is not a good idea.

But you also don't leave the matches lying around where the kid can get at them.
 
2012-12-16 01:20:44 AM  

JadedRaverLA: trackstr777: As I said in previous posts, if we wanted to cut down on lots of crime, and particularly child porn, we could just make an agency that has thousands of people to read and listen to every form of electronic communication ever sent over the wires and air in this country. We could cut all forms of crime down considerably overnight! Why don't we do it? Because the positive effect of less crime has to be weighed against the harm to our civil liberties, the general breaking of our Constitutional rights, and because it's not as simple as "we need to fight a problem...make ANY laws that might help!"

You might want to come up with a better example of things we WOULDN'T do.

NSA Utah Data Center

Room 641a

NSA call database

NSA warrantless surveillance

You should totally let them know the reasons we would never do anything like that. It's not difficult -- I'm sure if you reply to my post, someone there will see it.


Go back and read my posts, where I acknowledged this and took it a step further. The NSA wasn't kicking down peoples doors for snooping on drug crime communication, or child porn. Realistically, we could create an agency whose purpose was to snoop all communication and target ANY crime.

The NSA thing was reprehensible, and I made the point we COULD take it even further in the interest of fighting crime, but we don't and we shouldn't because of pesky things like civil liberties and the fact that the positive effects of tighter laws should be weighed against the negative effects to our populace at large.

Or you could just ignore all that to make your point that I already addressed. That works too...
 
2012-12-16 01:21:15 AM  

Giltric: Maybe the answer is more CCW.......Imagine the number of children who have to die before the pro gun control crowd realizes that


Giltric: Maybe the answer is more CCW.......Imagine the number of children who have to die before the pro gun control crowd realizes that.


Vigiliantism is an insult to the rule of law. You probably believe we should have a privatized police force, too.

.Imagine the number of children who have to die before the pro gun control crowd realizes that

Honestly, after posting something of such an incredibly weak trollsauce, no way do you ever get to accuse me of trolling ever again.
 
2012-12-16 01:22:02 AM  

derpy: If your kid keeps playing with matches, you take the matches away.

Sure, you do other things. You teach the kid that fire is bad. You teach how much much fire hurts, how dangerous it can be. You expalin that burning down Mommy and Daddy's house is not a good idea.

But you also don't leave the matches lying around where the kid can get at them.


ehh bad stuff happens. cant prevent everything. we can try to be diligent but sanitizing our world is insanity.

I guess we all missed the point of Alex and his droogs.

Everyone wants to be the scientist and fix peoples minds....sad.
 
2012-12-16 01:22:06 AM  

scottymac: I can't engage in a hobby?


Sure you can. Get some HO trains.
 
2012-12-16 01:22:17 AM  

Dimensio: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fart_Machine: While nobody wants certified mental patients from owning firearms, weren't the guns used by the perp in this case from the mother who wasn't mentally ill?

She also had no desire to lock up her weapons. Know what, I have no problem with the CCW questionnaire asking if someone with mental illness lives with you and rejecting you based on that unless you can provide proof that you have a gun safe. I think that's what a reasonable concession sounds like.

Connecticut concealed weapons permits are issued on a "may-issue" basis, and I suspect that the shooter's mother did not possess one.

I would be unopposed to safe storage requirements for all firearm owners, under certain conditions. The requirements of the District of Colombia were excessive in restricting the presence of a functional firearm under any circumstances for any reason, but I suspect that a less unreasonable restriction requiring that firearms be stored securely when not under the direct control of the owner (where the owner being present in the home may itself qualify as control, or a slightly more rigid standard may be applied) may pass Constitutional scrutiny and I am not personally opposed to such a measure. Such a statute (and obedience to it) likely would have prevented the events in Connecticut.

Unfortunately, the more vocal civilian firearm advocacy rights organizations would argue the proposal a "slippery slope" and thus would reject it, while those advocating new controls would reject it because it does not actually ban anything.


That's the problem with the whole discussion. We want to sit down to talk and see what we can do to keep our guns safe and locked up off the streets, or registered until transferred, and then registered again. And some of them would meet us there and we'd talk about the other societal issues that contribute to the problem and what could be done about it. And then the loudest most vocal groups among us start screaming shoulder things that go up on automatic assault pistols with high capacity clips or Obama is coming for our guns, and suddenly the whole conversation goes to an ugly stalemate until the next shooting where we start all over.
 
2012-12-16 01:22:38 AM  
Well, it's been swell guys. I'm sorry for the kids dying. I don't think anything is going to change to prevent it from happening again though. I'm heading to bed.

Sweet Dreams Fark Politics Tab.
 
2012-12-16 01:23:19 AM  

violentsalvation: Dimensio: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fart_Machine: While nobody wants certified mental patients from owning firearms, weren't the guns used by the perp in this case from the mother who wasn't mentally ill?

She also had no desire to lock up her weapons. Know what, I have no problem with the CCW questionnaire asking if someone with mental illness lives with you and rejecting you based on that unless you can provide proof that you have a gun safe. I think that's what a reasonable concession sounds like.

Connecticut concealed weapons permits are issued on a "may-issue" basis, and I suspect that the shooter's mother did not possess one.

I would be unopposed to safe storage requirements for all firearm owners, under certain conditions. The requirements of the District of Colombia were excessive in restricting the presence of a functional firearm under any circumstances for any reason, but I suspect that a less unreasonable restriction requiring that firearms be stored securely when not under the direct control of the owner (where the owner being present in the home may itself qualify as control, or a slightly more rigid standard may be applied) may pass Constitutional scrutiny and I am not personally opposed to such a measure. Such a statute (and obedience to it) likely would have prevented the events in Connecticut.

Unfortunately, the more vocal civilian firearm advocacy rights organizations would argue the proposal a "slippery slope" and thus would reject it, while those advocating new controls would reject it because it does not actually ban anything.

That's the problem with the whole discussion. We want to sit down to talk and see what we can do to keep our guns safe and locked up off the streets, or registered until transferred, and then registered again. And some of them would meet us there and we'd talk about the other societal issues that contribute to the problem and what could be done about it. And then the loudest most vocal groups among us start screamin ...


Obama being a constitutional scholar pretty much gets why its a waste of time to ban guns and he doesnt really even try.
 
2012-12-16 01:23:59 AM  

Methadone Girls: Fart_Machine: Methadone Girls: Whatever kiddo. Keep burying your kids.

The funny thing is I'm older than you are. But thank you for the fallacy none the less. You're the reverse side of the coin to the gun nuts BTW.

Probably. Best part is, my ex is a cop and avid hunter. We always had guns in the house. They're tools like anything else and I've never been afraid of them. I'm a terrible shot btw.

That said, a regular person buying them for personal protect smacks of paranoia. Who the fark are you protecting yourself from with 3 guns in the house? That's not protection. That's crazy. I've made it to my 40's without having to "protect" myself from anyone with a gun. But I live in Canada. We're sedated with maple syrup or something.


Don't know. I've used guns before but I'm hardly an enthusiast and think the NRA has become batshait crazy. I just don't see a logical way to remove them from our culture and crazy people will always fall through the cracks. This whole event just broke my heart since I have three kids and the youngest is of the age that he could have been in one of those classrooms. So while I understand the emotion I just find it a terrible way to create legislation around.
 
2012-12-16 01:24:38 AM  

violentsalvation: That's the problem with the whole discussion. We want to sit down to talk and see what we can do to keep our guns safe and locked up off the streets, or registered until transferred, and then registered again. And some of them would meet us there and we'd talk about the other societal issues that contribute to the problem and what could be done about it. And then the loudest most vocal groups among us start screaming shoulder things that go up on automatic assault pistols with high capacity clips or Obama is coming for our guns, and suddenly the whole conversation goes to an ugly stalemate until the next shooting where we start all over.


I disagree. Eventually one extreme -- I suspect that of civilian disarmament advocacy -- will gain a legislative advantage and impose legislation that will accomplish absolutely nothing beneficial though which might unreasonably restrict the rights of citizens.
 
2012-12-16 01:25:51 AM  

Methadone Girls: Well, it's been swell guys. I'm sorry for the kids dying. I don't think anything is going to change to prevent it from happening again though. I'm heading to bed.

Sweet Dreams Fark Politics Tab.


Agreed. nothing will prevent stuff like this happening. we can try and prepare but honestly bad stuff happens. its life.

The Dawson college shooting, the École Polytechnique Massacre or the Brampton Centennial Secondary School massacre.

stuff happens.
 
2012-12-16 01:26:43 AM  

Dimensio: violentsalvation: That's the problem with the whole discussion. We want to sit down to talk and see what we can do to keep our guns safe and locked up off the streets, or registered until transferred, and then registered again. And some of them would meet us there and we'd talk about the other societal issues that contribute to the problem and what could be done about it. And then the loudest most vocal groups among us start screaming shoulder things that go up on automatic assault pistols with high capacity clips or Obama is coming for our guns, and suddenly the whole conversation goes to an ugly stalemate until the next shooting where we start all over.

I disagree. Eventually one extreme -- I suspect that of civilian disarmament advocacy -- will gain a legislative advantage and impose legislation that will accomplish absolutely nothing beneficial though which might unreasonably restrict the rights of citizens.


It will be unconstitutional.
 
2012-12-16 01:27:03 AM  

derpy: If your kid keeps playing with matches, you take the matches away.

Sure, you do other things. You teach the kid that fire is bad. You teach how much much fire hurts, how dangerous it can be. You expalin that burning down Mommy and Daddy's house is not a good idea.

But you also don't leave the matches lying around where the kid can get at them.


Except before he set Mommy on fire, Mommy and kiddo played with matches together.
 
2012-12-16 01:28:49 AM  

MayoSlather: Banning the sale of all firearms both new and used that can fire more than 2 shots without reloading would be nice. Yeah it won't completely solve the problem, but it sure as hell won't hurt.


We should take Chris Rock's advice... make guns free, but bullets should be $1000 each.
Guaranteed there would be fewer shootings when a full clip will cost the same as a small car.
 
2012-12-16 01:29:38 AM  
Conservatives say criminals will steal guns. They are criminals. It's what they do.

But then how can you want them in the classroom? Criminals will know where to get them now. And students with problems will have easier access to them. You can lock them up really well, but then if something happens what are the chances you will be able to get to it in time? And let's not forget about teachers who should not be in the classroom at all, let alone in the room with a gun.

This argument also says that your home isn't that safe after all if you have a gun. How can you say being armed will stop robbers while at the same time say robbers will steal guns from you?

Saying somebody else being armed would stop him isn't accurate either. His mom had guns. It didn't stop him. And as much as you want more people to be armed, it's not going to happen. Law abiding people who want guns have them. People who don't want guns don't. They're not going to arm themselves if they don't like guns. It's just not going to happen. Wanting them to wont change that. We're just not going to have enough armed people everywhere in case a nut case shows up. We're forever going to be saying "If only somebody else had a gun." and ignore that many people just are not going to have them. Ever. So that really isn't a solution.

I'm not anti-gun. But I think saying the same things over and over hasn't helped us at all. We do needs to do something different and think differently. I don't think the answer is getting rid of guns. But something.
 
2012-12-16 01:30:26 AM  
How about in addition to mental health screening and the waiting period before purchases, how about making weapons purchases actually like driver's licensing? People who want to buy one have to go through and pass a state approved gun safety course, and a written test before they can purchase a gun and/or ammo.

What about adding a requirement upon purchasing a gun and/or ammo to show proof of ability to store weapons securely? (Somewhat like the requirement to register vehicles or an annual vehicle safey inspection). For small arms, bring in the container, for larger ones, bring an image of the container and a proof of purchase to a notary and sign an affidavit affirming your intent to store weapons appropriately in the container and bring the affidavit at the time of purchase of weapons or ammo. I suppose the notarized affidavit could also be used in all situations instead of bringing in the weapons containers. If you are found to not be storing guns appropriately, or it's found that someone else other than you accessed your weapons without use of force on your storage equipment you can be charged with a misdemeanor and say up to a $1,000 fine for the first offense. Continued offenses up to three, and you lose the ability to buy ammo or guns for three years and the fine goes up by $1,000 each offense capping at $3,000. We fine people for using cars inappropriately all the time, storing them the the wrong places and using them dangerously, why not do the same for something that everyone classifies as a weapon? Both are dangerous when used inappropriately. The Constitution says nothing about the right to a car, but freedom of travel is viewed as a Constitutional right, and yet we still regulate aspects of traveling.

If you can't show that you're responsible enough to keep your guns secure, you shouldn't have guns or ammo. I believe combination locks should be required, not keys that can be stolen or the lock picked. Gun ownership is fine, as long as you're being responsible about storing them. Keeping people out of your weapons that shouldn't be using them should be part of that. This also protects people from accidentally injuring themselves or their friends or family.

People really need to start paying better attention to the mental status of their friends and family. It almost always seems to get reported that either the perpetrator was known to be mentally ill or if mental illness wasn't yet diagnosed, there were fairly clear warning signs, things like being a loner, recently losing job particularly due to an altercation at work or having a fall out with someone in their family or friend group recently. People need to start being aware of signs of people that are coming unhinged.

Why aren't the schools locking all exterior doors and gates except for direct access only to the front entrance while school is in session and perhaps adding locked doors that don't let anyone into the hallways unless someone from the office unlocks it? Kids that need to go to school late or need to be withdrawn from class should be going through the office anyway. Kids would still be allowed to move freely within the school, and hopefully are well enough protected for recess, but no one can get in that shouldn't be in. This doesn't solve the issue of a student rampage, but when one's suspected, having the office announce a lock down and requiring all teachers to lock their doors hopefully would minimize the casualties as the attackers would be trapped.
 
2012-12-16 01:31:31 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: derpy: If your kid keeps playing with matches, you take the matches away.

Sure, you do other things. You teach the kid that fire is bad. You teach how much much fire hurts, how dangerous it can be. You expalin that burning down Mommy and Daddy's house is not a good idea.

But you also don't leave the matches lying around where the kid can get at them.

Except before he set Mommy on fire, Mommy and kiddo played with matches together.


That was a general analogy of guns and society, not one crazy family.
 
2012-12-16 01:31:33 AM  

AutumnWind: Conservatives say criminals will steal guns. They are criminals. It's what they do.

But then how can you want them in the classroom? Criminals will know where to get them now. And students with problems will have easier access to them. You can lock them up really well, but then if something happens what are the chances you will be able to get to it in time? And let's not forget about teachers who should not be in the classroom at all, let alone in the room with a gun.

This argument also says that your home isn't that safe after all if you have a gun. How can you say being armed will stop robbers while at the same time say robbers will steal guns from you?

Saying somebody else being armed would stop him isn't accurate either. His mom had guns. It didn't stop him. And as much as you want more people to be armed, it's not going to happen. Law abiding people who want guns have them. People who don't want guns don't. They're not going to arm themselves if they don't like guns. It's just not going to happen. Wanting them to wont change that. We're just not going to have enough armed people everywhere in case a nut case shows up. We're forever going to be saying "If only somebody else had a gun." and ignore that many people just are not going to have them. Ever. So that really isn't a solution.

I'm not anti-gun. But I think saying the same things over and over hasn't helped us at all. We do needs to do something different and think differently. I don't think the answer is getting rid of guns. But something.


conservatives are idiots.

its basically unconstitutional to ban guns federally.

it wont happen.

obama doesnt even bother talking about it. maybe he pays lip service just like the right wing does to roe v wade but they will never really overturn it.
 
2012-12-16 01:32:24 AM  

Dimensio: violentsalvation: That's the problem with the whole discussion. We want to sit down to talk and see what we can do to keep our guns safe and locked up off the streets, or registered until transferred, and then registered again. And some of them would meet us there and we'd talk about the other societal issues that contribute to the problem and what could be done about it. And then the loudest most vocal groups among us start screaming shoulder things that go up on automatic assault pistols with high capacity clips or Obama is coming for our guns, and suddenly the whole conversation goes to an ugly stalemate until the next shooting where we start all over.

I disagree. Eventually one extreme -- I suspect that of civilian disarmament advocacy -- will gain a legislative advantage and impose legislation that will accomplish absolutely nothing beneficial though which might unreasonably restrict the rights of citizens.


Well that does seem to be what they're after, you're right. Another unproductive scary-looking weapons ban. But a few months ago that was political suicide, and I think it would be again for the midterms.
 
2012-12-16 01:33:16 AM  
Authorized users could be added to the weapons in the idea above, but they'd have to be certified to handle weapons before they can be added.
 
2012-12-16 01:34:17 AM  

graggor: Dimensio: violentsalvation: That's the problem with the whole discussion. We want to sit down to talk and see what we can do to keep our guns safe and locked up off the streets, or registered until transferred, and then registered again. And some of them would meet us there and we'd talk about the other societal issues that contribute to the problem and what could be done about it. And then the loudest most vocal groups among us start screaming shoulder things that go up on automatic assault pistols with high capacity clips or Obama is coming for our guns, and suddenly the whole conversation goes to an ugly stalemate until the next shooting where we start all over.

I disagree. Eventually one extreme -- I suspect that of civilian disarmament advocacy -- will gain a legislative advantage and impose legislation that will accomplish absolutely nothing beneficial though which might unreasonably restrict the rights of citizens.

It will be unconstitutional.


Was the AWB unconstitutional?
 
2012-12-16 01:36:42 AM  

ohokyeah: How about in addition to mental health screening and the waiting period before purchases, how about making weapons purchases actually like driver's licensing? People who want to buy one have to go through and pass a state approved gun safety course, and a written test before they can purchase a gun and/or ammo.

What about adding a requirement upon purchasing a gun and/or ammo to show proof of ability to store weapons securely? (Somewhat like the requirement to register vehicles or an annual vehicle safey inspection). For small arms, bring in the container, for larger ones, bring an image of the container and a proof of purchase to a notary and sign an affidavit affirming your intent to store weapons appropriately in the container and bring the affidavit at the time of purchase of weapons or ammo. I suppose the notarized affidavit could also be used in all situations instead of bringing in the weapons containers. If you are found to not be storing guns appropriately, or it's found that someone else other than you accessed your weapons without use of force on your storage equipment you can be charged with a misdemeanor and say up to a $1,000 fine for the first offense. Continued offenses up to three, and you lose the ability to buy ammo or guns for three years and the fine goes up by $1,000 each offense capping at $3,000. We fine people for using cars inappropriately all the time, storing them the the wrong places and using them dangerously, why not do the same for something that everyone classifies as a weapon? Both are dangerous when used inappropriately. The Constitution says nothing about the right to a car, but freedom of travel is viewed as a Constitutional right, and yet we still regulate aspects of traveling.

If you can't show that you're responsible enough to keep your guns secure, you shouldn't have guns or ammo. I believe combination locks should be required, not keys that can be stolen or the lock picked. Gun ownership is fine, as long as you're being re ...



why stop there? we should have someone have to put everyone through a test of operating gas in their home. gas ovens water heaters ect.

you should have ot be liscenced and we need regulators to go door to door and ensure we dont have people not paying attention to CO leaks.

Since 400 americans die a year from that we need to make sure it doesnt happen....

We also need to make sure people are liscensed to swim. 9 people a day die drowning. Its ridiculous. We should force mandatory testing and if someone has a pool it should be under lock and key with a combination that can only be gotten through if you have your government swimming id.

I mean 3309 people died last year from drowning deaths....Majority are children too.

When will we act to stop all bad things from happening.
 
Displayed 50 of 1049 comments

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | 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