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.

(Huffington Post)   "We reached out to all 31 pro-gun rights senators in the new Congress to invite them on the program to share their views on the subject this morning," ... "We had no takers"   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Sad, congresses, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Louie Gohmert, assault weapons, Michael Bloomberg, senate democrats, Mayor of New York City, Fox News Sunday  
•       •       •

4965 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Dec 2012 at 5:17 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1000 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-12-17 01:19:17 PM  
@Pincy, it hasn't worked out too well, because not enough of us are able to be armed.

A society that has allowed guns for their entire existence can't just go try to ban them and expect the country to be safer. That is a fallacy of epic proportions.

We need to think about how to be protect ourselves, having well trained individuals willing to put themselves in harms way is the way to go, and before you say the police are those people, while I love police they are again only a reactionary force and were unable to stop this massacre from happening.

While, as a teacher, I may die trying to stop a madman from killing my students, I would rather try then just try to hide in my classroom and pray the cops get there and get him before he gets us. The only way to meet this type of threat is head on.
 
2012-12-17 01:19:28 PM  

lennavan: manimal2878: lennavan: manimal2878: Any situation in which you would use a handgun the rifle is better, for the reasons I mentioned above.

So there is no need for handguns at all and it would be perfectly fine if we got rid of them entirely because in any situation the rifle is better? You know, it goes further than what I wanted but hey, I can agree to that.

You sure like to put words in people mouths huh?

You can't possibly disagree. You just posed the strongest argument I have ever seen to ban handguns entirely. I wasn't actually proposing we ban handguns but your argument actually swayed me. I wasn't okay with it before but I am now.

This is actually a big kudos to you. Not often I significantly change my point of view from an internet post.

manimal2878: It is extremely hard to shoot a handgun accurately. ( I can hit the bullseye at 50 yards with my rifle, but can't hit it near as well at 10 yards with a handgun). A lot of it is the simple physics of holding it, then there is the issue of sight radius. And finally, depending on the rifle, your handgun caliber will penetrate more layers of wall sheathing than a .223 fired from a rifle and endanger your neighbors should you ever have to shoot it. An ar-15 style rifle is safer to your neighbors, because you can fire it more accurately and it penetrates less.

Fair enough, stop rubbing it in. I already said I was okay with banning handguns. Your argument swayed me.


You are a dick and I hate you.

But seriously, If you ever wanted I would take you shooting and you could see handguns and rifles are not scary and that it is much harder to shoot a handgun, but much harder to carry around a rifle all day.
 
2012-12-17 01:21:44 PM  

puckheaven: @Pincy, it hasn't worked out too well, because not enough of us are able to be armed.

A society that has allowed guns for their entire existence can't just go try to ban them and expect the country to be safer. That is a fallacy of epic proportions.

We need to think about how to be protect ourselves, having well trained individuals willing to put themselves in harms way is the way to go, and before you say the police are those people, while I love police they are again only a reactionary force and were unable to stop this massacre from happening.

While, as a teacher, I may die trying to stop a madman from killing my students, I would rather try then just try to hide in my classroom and pray the cops get there and get him before he gets us. The only way to meet this type of threat is head on.


Do schools not have resource officers anymore? At my high school we had a cop that was their full time. I went to a rural highschool so I thought it was common since we had no drugs or crime at the school that I knew of
 
2012-12-17 01:23:18 PM  

manimal2878: An ar-15 style rifle is safer to your neighbors, because you can fire it more accurately and it penetrates less.


Um, a 5.56mm (223) M855 military ball round delivers as much energy to a target at 300 yards as a .357 magnum handgun does at the muzzle. I don't know where you're getting "Handguns penetrate less" from.
 
2012-12-17 01:29:55 PM  

manimal2878: I think this starts to look like the same failings as the 90s AWB ban; Restricting things that seem scary.


Exactly. It's just another gun grabber wet dream, incrementally stripping people of the right to keep and bear arms, with no basis in reality or any objective or scientific rationale behind their proposal.

ZOMG scary guns. Make them go away, daddy. They frighten me.
 
2012-12-17 01:37:21 PM  

manimal2878: Pincy: OK, I can understand that. But at the same time, a lot of the general public doesn't necessarily care about the difference. They just don't want people, or at least certain people, to have access to guns that can kill that many people that quickly, regardless of the type of gun it is. So you have to understand that it doesn't really matter what type of gun he had, he was able to put multiple bullets into a lot of people in a very short period of time and that's all a lot of people really care about.

If they want to talk about adding more regulation certain types of guns that they see as contributing to this sort of crime they should damn well know the difference. It would be like if I went in to a car dealership and started talking about how high horsepower engines should be banned but didn't know the difference between a 4 cylinder and a V8. Nobody would take what I had to say seriously about car engines after that.


I don't want people that would kill a bunch of people to have access to guns either by the way. But I've never done anything wrong with my guns and don't ever plan to, so why should I have to give up my legal right to the things I enjoy for what this asshat did?


I'm not saying you can't own guns, but I'm certainly willing to consider not allowing you to have certain types of guns. If you want to use the car analogy, we do the same thing with cars, they have to be "street legal" before you can drive them on the roads. Of course the general public isn't going to write these laws, the politicians and lobbying groups are. That's why the NRA should sit down and be willing to compromise now or they will find themselves left out of the discussion altogether.
 
2012-12-17 01:39:54 PM  

manimal2878: But seriously, If you ever wanted I would take you shooting and you could see handguns and rifles are not scary and that it is much harder to shoot a handgun, but much harder to carry around a rifle all day.


I would hope you would show me appropriate gun safety measures because actually, they are a little scary since they can actually severely hurt or kill you. Thus this whole discussion, right? I imagine there are 26 people who were scared of a rifle on Friday and I cannot imagine you would tell them they shouldn't have been.

A point I made and I forget if it was to you or not was guns serve a purpose. Each purpose should be appropriately regulated. Hunting rifles do not need to be semi-automatic. If a turdy point buck comes running at you, you're just gonna have to hit your first shot. You don't need a combination AK 57 Uzi radar laser triple-barrel double-scoped heat-seekin shotgun. Think of it like a sport. But I don't care how many you own, it's not like you're going to go on a rampage killing 27 people if you have to reload after every shot and it's not like you can carry 27 around on your back.

I also am okay with self defense. A semi-automatic gun is necessary for this one because a single shot might not be enough to stop a single attacker, let alone a pair of attackers. But the minimum you need is one gun, maybe two and a 12 bullet clip for each. You're not Rambo. If you needed more than 12 bullets you're a goner anyway. You don't need a rifle, this is for defense. I'm sure you're great at hitting a target 50 yards away with a rifle. If the dude is 50 yards away, that's not defense. Your house doesn't have rooms 50 yards long and if you do, I apologize, you'll get over it.
 
2012-12-17 01:42:33 PM  

clyph: manimal2878: I think this starts to look like the same failings as the 90s AWB ban; Restricting things that seem scary.

Exactly. It's just another gun grabber wet dream, incrementally stripping people of the right to keep and bear arms, with no basis in reality or any objective or scientific rationale behind their proposal.


If you knew anything about the AWB ban, you wouldn't be arguing it stripped people of the right to anything since all the gun manufacturers needed to do was make a teenie change and rename the gun and poof it was legal again.

If you knew anything about the second amendment and the supreme court, you would know it does not cover the right to bear any type of armament ever created. Try building your own home version nuke and see how far you get.

But you're right, everyone else needs a reality check.
 
2012-12-17 01:43:49 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: manimal2878: An ar-15 style rifle is safer to your neighbors, because you can fire it more accurately and it penetrates less.

Um, a 5.56mm (223) M855 military ball round delivers as much energy to a target at 300 yards as a .357 magnum handgun does at the muzzle. I don't know where you're getting "Handguns penetrate less" from.


Actually, manimal is correct.

Here's one source: http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm.

Penetration of 9mm ball in ballistics gel is 70". Penetration of .223 ball is 24". While the .223 does have a lot more energy, the combination of high velocity and low mass means the projectile fragments on impact.

Terminal ballistics is complex. You can't just look at kinetic energy.
 
2012-12-17 01:48:46 PM  

manimal2878: But seriously, If you ever wanted I would take you shooting and you could see handguns and rifles are not scary


Christ, can we stop with the "inanimate objects are not scary" BS. Sorry, I don't mean to be a dick, but this is just a ridiculous argument. Of course if some object just sits there forever and is never used by a person then it is not "scary". But then what would be the point of making that object if it is never going to be used? When people say they have a "fear" or are "scared" of guns they mean guns when used by someone.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a healthy fear of something. Fear is not always a weakness if kept in check. It can actually be advantageous. I'm sure you know that people have accidentally killed themselves or others because they thought their gun wasn't loaded. Well, maybe a little more fear would have caused them to double check that gun?
 
2012-12-17 01:49:10 PM  

clyph: Penetration of 9mm ball in ballistics gel is 70". Penetration of .223 ball is 24".


Correction, that's cm not inches, and .223 fmj penetrated 34cm, not 24cm.
 
2012-12-17 01:50:24 PM  

Pincy: When people say they have a "fear" or are "scared" of guns they mean guns when used by someone.


Then why do you focus on attempting to ban the object rather than address the behavior of humans?
 
2012-12-17 01:51:16 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: manimal2878: An ar-15 style rifle is safer to your neighbors, because you can fire it more accurately and it penetrates less.

Um, a 5.56mm (223) M855 military ball round delivers as much energy to a target at 300 yards as a .357 magnum handgun does at the muzzle. I don't know where you're getting "Handguns penetrate less" from.


Muzzle energy isn't the whole story. Here is a study: http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&It emid=26

What I stated is now common knowledge in gun circles, but below are some websites that did some real world testing on simulated walls.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot14.htm

http://230grain.com/showthread.php?65428-Ammunition-Drywall-Penetrati o n-Analysis-Test-%28Adpat%29
 
2012-12-17 01:52:59 PM  

Pincy: manimal2878: But seriously, If you ever wanted I would take you shooting and you could see handguns and rifles are not scary

Christ, can we stop with the "inanimate objects are not scary" BS. Sorry, I don't mean to be a dick, but this is just a ridiculous argument. Of course if some object just sits there forever and is never used by a person then it is not "scary". But then what would be the point of making that object if it is never going to be used? When people say they have a "fear" or are "scared" of guns they mean guns when used by someone.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a healthy fear of something. Fear is not always a weakness if kept in check. It can actually be advantageous. I'm sure you know that people have accidentally killed themselves or others because they thought their gun wasn't loaded. Well, maybe a little more fear would have caused them to double check that gun?


Word it however you want then. The point is the same.
 
2012-12-17 01:54:12 PM  

manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: But seriously, If you ever wanted I would take you shooting and you could see handguns and rifles are not scary

Christ, can we stop with the "inanimate objects are not scary" BS. Sorry, I don't mean to be a dick, but this is just a ridiculous argument. Of course if some object just sits there forever and is never used by a person then it is not "scary". But then what would be the point of making that object if it is never going to be used? When people say they have a "fear" or are "scared" of guns they mean guns when used by someone.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a healthy fear of something. Fear is not always a weakness if kept in check. It can actually be advantageous. I'm sure you know that people have accidentally killed themselves or others because they thought their gun wasn't loaded. Well, maybe a little more fear would have caused them to double check that gun?

Word it however you want then. The point is the same.


Actually, I take that back. In the context of the posts I was responding to, the point I was making had more to do with the gun as objects and not the people using them.
 
2012-12-17 02:00:31 PM  

Pincy: If you want to use the car analogy, we do the same thing with cars, they have to be "street legal" before you can drive them on the roads. Of course the general public isn't going to write these laws, the politicians and lobbying groups are. That's why the NRA should sit down and be willing to compromise now or they will find themselves left out of the discussion altogether.


Ok, but your car only has to be "street legal" if you want to drive it on the street i.e. public roads. You can have whatever features on your car you want if you use it to race on the track or just want a museum piece to sit in your garage.

Again, why should those not committing a crime have to compromise because of what this guy did?

If you want to restrict and regulate what guns can be carried in public, like those with a CCW permit I'm totally fine with that, and that would be analogous to the car being "street legal."
 
2012-12-17 02:03:32 PM  

manimal2878: manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: But seriously, If you ever wanted I would take you shooting and you could see handguns and rifles are not scary

Christ, can we stop with the "inanimate objects are not scary" BS. Sorry, I don't mean to be a dick, but this is just a ridiculous argument. Of course if some object just sits there forever and is never used by a person then it is not "scary". But then what would be the point of making that object if it is never going to be used? When people say they have a "fear" or are "scared" of guns they mean guns when used by someone.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a healthy fear of something. Fear is not always a weakness if kept in check. It can actually be advantageous. I'm sure you know that people have accidentally killed themselves or others because they thought their gun wasn't loaded. Well, maybe a little more fear would have caused them to double check that gun?

Word it however you want then. The point is the same.

Actually, I take that back. In the context of the posts I was responding to, the point I was making had more to do with the gun as objects and not the people using them.


And that's what I'm trying to tell you, there is no difference. You are trying to turn people who say they have a "fear" of guns into irrational people by implying they are scared of a harmless inanimate object. I'm telling you that that is a ridiculous argument. Guns and people go together. You are trying to separate them in order to make people look silly. It's the same thing when people pull out the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" nonsense.
 
2012-12-17 02:04:37 PM  

clyph: toomuchwhargarbl:
Actually, manimal is correct.

Here's one source: http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm.

Penetration of 9mm ball in ballistics gel is 70". Penetration of .223 ball is 24". While the .223 does have a lot more energy, the combination of high velocity and low mass means the projectile fragments on impact.

Terminal ballistics is complex. You can't just look at kinetic energy.


Well that's interesting. I didn't know that.
 
2012-12-17 02:04:40 PM  

lennavan: But the minimum you need is one gun, maybe two and a 12 bullet clip for each.


Dear god! Why don't you just stab every gun person in this thread right in the ear hole with an icepick?

That said, if you follow all the gun rules, there are only 4, the only way you can get hurt or hurt somebody else is if you break one of the rules.

DId you not read anything I said about rifles vs handguns? I thought you did, but then you repeat the same thing about not needing a rifle.
 
2012-12-17 02:07:03 PM  

Pincy: manimal2878: manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: But seriously, If you ever wanted I would take you shooting and you could see handguns and rifles are not scary

Christ, can we stop with the "inanimate objects are not scary" BS. Sorry, I don't mean to be a dick, but this is just a ridiculous argument. Of course if some object just sits there forever and is never used by a person then it is not "scary". But then what would be the point of making that object if it is never going to be used? When people say they have a "fear" or are "scared" of guns they mean guns when used by someone.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a healthy fear of something. Fear is not always a weakness if kept in check. It can actually be advantageous. I'm sure you know that people have accidentally killed themselves or others because they thought their gun wasn't loaded. Well, maybe a little more fear would have caused them to double check that gun?

Word it however you want then. The point is the same.

Actually, I take that back. In the context of the posts I was responding to, the point I was making had more to do with the gun as objects and not the people using them.

And that's what I'm trying to tell you, there is no difference. You are trying to turn people who say they have a "fear" of guns into irrational people by implying they are scared of a harmless inanimate object. I'm telling you that that is a ridiculous argument. Guns and people go together. You are trying to separate them in order to make people look silly. It's the same thing when people pull out the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" nonsense.


When the person directly states they are afraid of a harmless inanimate objects, like defensive rifles, but not hunting rifles, or handguns, even though they all do the same thing, then yes, their argument is one of irrational fear. There is no way around that.
 
2012-12-17 02:15:04 PM  

manimal2878: DId you not read anything I said about rifles vs handguns? I thought you did, but then you repeat the same thing about not needing a rifle.


I did read what you said. You said rifles are more accurate at a distance. I replied and reminded you of the distances in your home not requiring a rifle. The argument is for "self defense." You don't need to hit a bullseye at 50 yards for anything you might possibly be defending.

Did you completely miss that part? I thought you could not possibly miss it but you replied without providing a single situation where you would need a rifle's accuracy for self defense and without actually addressing that post.

manimal2878: Actually, I take that back. In the context of the posts I was responding to, the point I was making had more to do with the gun as objects and not the people using them.


So what you're saying is guns can be scary. I agree. I imagine the guns the shooter had were pretty farking scary to 27 people on Friday.
 
2012-12-17 02:16:53 PM  

manimal2878: Pincy: If you want to use the car analogy, we do the same thing with cars, they have to be "street legal" before you can drive them on the roads. Of course the general public isn't going to write these laws, the politicians and lobbying groups are. That's why the NRA should sit down and be willing to compromise now or they will find themselves left out of the discussion altogether.

Ok, but your car only has to be "street legal" if you want to drive it on the street i.e. public roads. You can have whatever features on your car you want if you use it to race on the track or just want a museum piece to sit in your garage.

Again, why should those not committing a crime have to compromise because of what this guy did?


Because the car analogy isn't a perfect analogy. I only threw it in there because you brought it up. I don't worry about someone taking your car and going on a killing spree. I don't worry about your car ending up in the wrong hands someday. As far as I'm concerned, this is the main problem with our gun culture, that people want to treat guns just like a car or any other tool. They are not. They have one purpose, to kill something. If we all could stop pretending that guns are not dangerous and you'd be silly to be "scared" of them that would be a big step in the right direction. Again, I'm not looking to abolish the second amendment or take away your right to own a gun (or at least a certain classes of guns). But I think it is perfectly acceptable to put limits on what guns people can own if it would help reduce gun violence.
 
2012-12-17 02:18:44 PM  

clyph: IlGreven:

Did it stop the burglar from breaking into your house? (And the smart ones would know when you're not home and break in then...and probably steal your guns.)

Does it stop a purse snatcher from snatching purses? (Sure, it could stop him afterwards, but that's not deterrence at that point. Plus, collateral damage.)

I have personally foiled both an attempted residential break-in and a purse snatching. Without any collateral damage, firing a shot, and in the latter case without even drawing my weapon (while effecting a citizen's arrest on the perp). Oh, I also scared off a robber armed with a zip-gun by pulling a knife on him.


...so you did it all without the deterrent of a gun? Or, you could have completely left your gun at home and the situations would have turned out exactly the same?
 
2012-12-17 03:44:19 PM  

vygramul: Farker Soze: vygramul: Farker Soze: vygramul: On a related issue, yeah - the .223 has a problem with "stopping power". Right.

It depends on barrel length and range. Up close a carbine or rifle are equally effective, but at combat ranges soldiers have been complaining about their 14.5" M4's stopping power. The original M16 was designed around a 20" barrel.

Data is not the plural of anecdote. No study I'm aware of has been able to corroborate the perception that "stopping power" has been a problem.

/Worked for the Department of the Navy as an analyst
//That includes the Marines

There are plenty of complaints, founded or not. Stopping power is a misnomer anyway, I should have said bullet fragmentation and yaw does decrease with the speed of the .223. First page of a google search links to pages such as this.

The question isn't whether there's a difference, but whether the .223 is sufficient. Tell me, based on that part of the video where it shows the cop's leg after he shot himself, that the .223 is insufficient. Take that damage and move it to anywhere in the torso, and tell me that's not going to stop someone.


Anywhere in the torso? Mogadishus had a number of through and through torso shots that hardly slowed them down.

Hey, I'm not complaining. .308 would put people down a lot faster at range, but our troops are already overburdened, we're not going to add another 10 pounds of ammo anytime soon until we get the cool exoskeletons.
 
2012-12-17 04:38:16 PM  

lennavan: manimal2878: DId you not read anything I said about rifles vs handguns? I thought you did, but then you repeat the same thing about not needing a rifle.

I did read what you said. You said rifles are more accurate at a distance. No, at any distance. A rifle is always more accurate than a handgun. I replied and reminded you of the distances in your home not requiring a rifle. The argument is for "self defense." You don't need to hit a bullseye at 50 yards for anything you might possibly be defending.

Did you completely miss that part? I thought you could not possibly miss it but you replied without providing a single situation where you would need a rifle's accuracy for self defense and without actually addressing that post.

manimal2878: Actually, I take that back. In the context of the posts I was responding to, the point I was making had more to do with the gun as objects and not the people using them.

So what you're saying is guns can be scary. I agree. I imagine the guns the shooter had were pretty farking scary to 27 people on Friday.

 
2012-12-17 04:45:03 PM  

Pincy: manimal2878: Pincy: If you want to use the car analogy, we do the same thing with cars, they have to be "street legal" before you can drive them on the roads. Of course the general public isn't going to write these laws, the politicians and lobbying groups are. That's why the NRA should sit down and be willing to compromise now or they will find themselves left out of the discussion altogether.

Ok, but your car only has to be "street legal" if you want to drive it on the street i.e. public roads. You can have whatever features on your car you want if you use it to race on the track or just want a museum piece to sit in your garage.

Again, why should those not committing a crime have to compromise because of what this guy did?

Because the car analogy isn't a perfect analogy. I only threw it in there because you brought it up. I don't worry about someone taking your car and going on a killing spree. I don't worry about your car ending up in the wrong hands someday. As far as I'm concerned, this is the main problem with our gun culture, that people want to treat guns just like a car or any other tool. They are not. They have one purpose, to kill something. If we all could stop pretending that guns are not dangerous and you'd be silly to be "scared" of them that would be a big step in the right direction. Again, I'm not looking to abolish the second amendment or take away your right to own a gun (or at least a certain classes of guns). But I think it is perfectly acceptable to put limits on what guns people can own if it would help reduce gun violence.


I own guns and a car, I worry more about getting hit by a drunk driver than ever being killed by a gun. Statistics bear this out as rational. Driving in my car is more dangerous than my owning a gun. I have been in several wrecks in my life, I have never been shot. Even if the sole purpose of guns was to kill, which it is not, don't you think it is pretty sad they are less dangerous than the object that is not designed to kill? Lots of things are inherently dangerous, guns and cars included. That in itself shouldn't preclude me from having it if I am safe with it.

"...If it would help reduce gun violence." Ok, but statistics, again, things like the 90s AWB indicate that it won't impact crime.
 
2012-12-17 04:51:36 PM  

Pincy: manimal2878: Pincy: If you want to use the car analogy, we do the same thing with cars, they have to be "street legal" before you can drive them on the roads. Of course the general public isn't going to write these laws, the politicians and lobbying groups are. That's why the NRA should sit down and be willing to compromise now or they will find themselves left out of the discussion altogether.

Ok, but your car only has to be "street legal" if you want to drive it on the street i.e. public roads. You can have whatever features on your car you want if you use it to race on the track or just want a museum piece to sit in your garage.

Again, why should those not committing a crime have to compromise because of what this guy did?

Because the car analogy isn't a perfect analogy. I only threw it in there because you brought it up. I don't worry about someone taking your car and going on a killing spree. I don't worry about your car ending up in the wrong hands someday. As far as I'm concerned, this is the main problem with our gun culture, that people want to treat guns just like a car or any other tool. They are not. They have one purpose, to kill something. If we all could stop pretending that guns are not dangerous and you'd be silly to be "scared" of them that would be a big step in the right direction. Again, I'm not looking to abolish the second amendment or take away your right to own a gun (or at least a certain classes of guns). But I think it is perfectly acceptable to put limits on what guns people can own if it would help reduce gun violence.


Continuing on with my thinking, I know 4 people that have been killed by drunk drivers. None that have died in gun violence or any other violence. If there was no access to alcohol they surely would be alive today. It would be easy to want to ban all alcohol, or all cars and say everyone has to ride a bus driven by a driver that just blew into a breathalyzer, but I don't blame alcohol or cars, I blame those that choose to be irresponsible with alcohol and driving.
 
2012-12-17 05:10:24 PM  

manimal2878: lennavan: manimal2878: DId you not read anything I said about rifles vs handguns? I thought you did, but then you repeat the same thing about not needing a rifle.

I did read what you said. You said rifles are more accurate at a distance. No, at any distance. A rifle is always more accurate than a handgun.


I contend you do not need the increased accuracy a rifle gives you over a handgun at a distance of 5 feet. What's more, I contend you'll never need to defend your home at any distance significantly larger than 5 feet. I cannot possibly imagine that went over your head. You're actively trying to not understand, right?
 
2012-12-17 05:13:59 PM  

manimal2878: I own guns and a car, I worry more about getting hit by a drunk driver than ever being killed by a gun.


Drinking and driving is illegal. So what the fark is your point?

Are you afraid of cars killing you without drinking and driving? No? Now recall driving a car has more regulations and restrictions than owning a gun. I can take my 10 year old kid bear hunting in Michigan. He can't drive for another 6 years though. Link
 
2012-12-17 05:18:50 PM  

manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: Pincy: If you want to use the car analogy, we do the same thing with cars, they have to be "street legal" before you can drive them on the roads. Of course the general public isn't going to write these laws, the politicians and lobbying groups are. That's why the NRA should sit down and be willing to compromise now or they will find themselves left out of the discussion altogether.

Ok, but your car only has to be "street legal" if you want to drive it on the street i.e. public roads. You can have whatever features on your car you want if you use it to race on the track or just want a museum piece to sit in your garage.

Again, why should those not committing a crime have to compromise because of what this guy did?

Because the car analogy isn't a perfect analogy. I only threw it in there because you brought it up. I don't worry about someone taking your car and going on a killing spree. I don't worry about your car ending up in the wrong hands someday. As far as I'm concerned, this is the main problem with our gun culture, that people want to treat guns just like a car or any other tool. They are not. They have one purpose, to kill something. If we all could stop pretending that guns are not dangerous and you'd be silly to be "scared" of them that would be a big step in the right direction. Again, I'm not looking to abolish the second amendment or take away your right to own a gun (or at least a certain classes of guns). But I think it is perfectly acceptable to put limits on what guns people can own if it would help reduce gun violence.

Continuing on with my thinking, I know 4 people that have been killed by drunk drivers. None that have died in gun violence or any other violence. If there was no access to alcohol they surely would be alive today. It would be easy to want to ban all alcohol, or all cars and say everyone has to ride a bus driven by a driver that just blew into a breathalyzer, but I don't blame alcohol or cars, I ...


Again, you can't compare guns and cars. People use their cars way more than they shoot guns. The primary use of a car is to get from point A to B, not kill someone. And yes, the primary purpose of a gun is to kill something. Are you telling me that they were invented for some other purpose? Notice, I'm not saying that there isn't a legitimate purpose for having a gun to kill something? But pretending that that's not what they are for makes you look like you are trying to hide something or not taking the discussion seriously.

As far as your car and alcohol analogy goes, again, I've never said I wanted to ban all guns. I don't. I accept the fact that guns will always be a part of our society. But we also put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink and still drive and if you violate those rules you are punished. That's what I, and a whole bunch of other people, are asking for with guns, that we put some limits on them in order to protect society as a whole.

And this whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing is not working any more. It's a ridiculous argument. Of course an inanimate object that is never used by a person won't generally kill anyone. You can make that same argument about anything. But guns are special. There is a reason there is a whole amendment just for them. So please stop pretending that guns are just another tool in the trade of various things that can be used to kill things, because they are not.
 
2012-12-17 05:21:53 PM  

lennavan: manimal2878: lennavan: manimal2878: DId you not read anything I said about rifles vs handguns? I thought you did, but then you repeat the same thing about not needing a rifle.

I did read what you said. You said rifles are more accurate at a distance. No, at any distance. A rifle is always more accurate than a handgun.

I contend you do not need the increased accuracy a rifle gives you over a handgun at a distance of 5 feet. What's more, I contend you'll never need to defend your home at any distance significantly larger than 5 feet. I cannot possibly imagine that went over your head. You're actively trying to not understand, right?


I contend, that since you have never shot a handgun or rifle, as far as I can tell, that your opinion of what you think I need or should be able to justify means less than nothing. The Tueller excercise is held at 21 feet I'm sure you have no idea what that is though.
 
2012-12-17 05:24:26 PM  

lennavan: manimal2878: I own guns and a car, I worry more about getting hit by a drunk driver than ever being killed by a gun.

Drinking and driving is illegal. So what the fark is your point? So is mass murdering people. So what the fark is your point?

Are you afraid of cars killing you without drinking and driving? Not really, but more than guns, since it is more likely. No? Now recall driving a car has more regulations and restrictions than owning a gun. It doesn't, we have gone over this. I can take my 10 year old kid bear hunting in Michigan. He can't drive for another 6 years though. Link

 
2012-12-17 05:28:16 PM  

manimal2878: lennavan: manimal2878: lennavan: manimal2878: DId you not read anything I said about rifles vs handguns? I thought you did, but then you repeat the same thing about not needing a rifle.

I did read what you said. You said rifles are more accurate at a distance. No, at any distance. A rifle is always more accurate than a handgun.

I contend you do not need the increased accuracy a rifle gives you over a handgun at a distance of 5 feet. What's more, I contend you'll never need to defend your home at any distance significantly larger than 5 feet. I cannot possibly imagine that went over your head. You're actively trying to not understand, right?

I contend, that since you have never shot a handgun or rifle


I have! It was a rifle, we were shooting it for fun. I was actually pretty decent at it from about 30 yards away.

manimal2878: as far as I can tell, that your opinion of what you think I need or should be able to justify means less than nothing.


That's a really stupid opinion of yours. If you have never done it you have zero say in the matter? I've never exterminated jews but I'm pretty sure what Hitler did was bad.

OH YEAH WE WENT THERE
 
2012-12-17 05:29:16 PM  

Pincy: But we also put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink and still drive and if you violate those rules you are punished. That's what I, and a whole bunch of other people, are asking for with guns, that we put some limits on them in order to protect society as a whole.


Look carefully at what you wrote. We put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink while driving, that's regulating action of driving under impairment. With guns though that is not what is happening at all, people are just talking about restricting gun access or certain types of gun accessories, where is the corresponding action that is regulated?

By banning some guns or their accessories that would be like banning vodka and not whiskey, and 2 oz shot glasses but not 1oz. Neither really address the fact that you can still get loaded and drive your car.
 
2012-12-17 05:29:48 PM  

manimal2878: No? Now recall driving a car has more regulations and restrictions than owning a gun. It doesn't, we have gone over this. I can take my 10 year old kid bear hunting in Michigan. He can't drive for another 6 years though. Link


Read the next sentence. I can take my 10 year old bear hunting. You think that's more or equally restrictive as driving a car?
 
2012-12-17 05:32:35 PM  

lennavan: I have! It was a rifle, we were shooting it for fun. I was actually pretty decent at it from about 30 yards away.


No you weren't.

lennavan: That's a really stupid opinion of yours. If you have never done it you have zero say in the matter? I've never exterminated jews but I'm pretty sure what Hitler did was bad.

OH YEAH WE WENT THERE



We? Maybe you are the crazy one. You don't understand the diff between a rifle and a handgun in the context of defense because you have not shot both. What that has to do with killing jews and how you think it is an apt anology escapes me.
 
2012-12-17 05:33:32 PM  

manimal2878: Look carefully at what you wrote. We put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink while driving, that's regulating action of driving under impairment. With guns though that is not what is happening at all, people are just talking about restricting gun access or certain types of gun accessories, where is the corresponding action that is regulated?


One more time, the analogy between guns and cars/alcohol is not a perfect analogy. You keep bringing it up and so I am just trying to put things in your terms, but I have said plenty of times that it is not a perfect analogy and there are differences.
 
2012-12-17 05:34:35 PM  

lennavan: manimal2878: No? Now recall driving a car has more regulations and restrictions than owning a gun. It doesn't, we have gone over this. I can take my 10 year old kid bear hunting in Michigan. He can't drive for another 6 years though. Link

Read the next sentence. I can take my 10 year old bear hunting. You think that's more or equally restrictive as driving a car?


That you don't care about your child's life is very telling.
 
2012-12-17 05:37:55 PM  

Pincy: manimal2878: Look carefully at what you wrote. We put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink while driving, that's regulating action of driving under impairment. With guns though that is not what is happening at all, people are just talking about restricting gun access or certain types of gun accessories, where is the corresponding action that is regulated?

One more time, the analogy between guns and cars/alcohol is not a perfect analogy. You keep bringing it up and so I am just trying to put things in your terms, but I have said plenty of times that it is not a perfect analogy and there are differences.


No the analogy is sound, you just don't like that it shows the flaws in your argument. Guns, like cars are dangerous, and should used responsibly. When the user of that gun or car acts criminally or irresponsibility it is logical to blame the user not the object he used.
 
2012-12-17 05:40:50 PM  

manimal2878: lennavan: I have! It was a rifle, we were shooting it for fun. I was actually pretty decent at it from about 30 yards away.

No you weren't.


Yeah, that's actually probably true. My Father in Law was an entire world better than me. I hit the targets every now and then, he never missed. I was pretty happy though.

manimal2878: We? Maybe you are the crazy one. You don't understand the diff between a rifle and a handgun in the context of defense because you have not shot both. What that has to do with killing jews and how you think it is an apt anology escapes me.


Have you ever been attacked which required you to pull a handgun in defense? What about having to pull a rifle in defense? No? Oh, awkward, then you don't understand it either.

The point was you can understand without having been in the situation before. However being in it I'm sure helps. But as we established, you weren't in it either, teehee.
 
2012-12-17 05:51:29 PM  

manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: Look carefully at what you wrote. We put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink while driving, that's regulating action of driving under impairment. With guns though that is not what is happening at all, people are just talking about restricting gun access or certain types of gun accessories, where is the corresponding action that is regulated?

One more time, the analogy between guns and cars/alcohol is not a perfect analogy. You keep bringing it up and so I am just trying to put things in your terms, but I have said plenty of times that it is not a perfect analogy and there are differences.

No the analogy is sound, you just don't like that it shows the flaws in your argument. Guns, like cars are dangerous, and should used responsibly. When the user of that gun or car acts criminally or irresponsibility it is logical to blame the user not the object he used.


Great, then you have no problem with placing further restrictions on guns, just like we do with cars and alcohol. I'm going to start with no one under 21 can fire a gun unless they are in the military. All guns must be registered and you must have proof of gun insurance. There will of course be a myriad of regulations on the capabilities your gun may have. This is great. It's practically what we've been asking for all along.
 
2012-12-17 05:53:58 PM  

Pincy: manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: Look carefully at what you wrote. We put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink while driving, that's regulating action of driving under impairment. With guns though that is not what is happening at all, people are just talking about restricting gun access or certain types of gun accessories, where is the corresponding action that is regulated?

One more time, the analogy between guns and cars/alcohol is not a perfect analogy. You keep bringing it up and so I am just trying to put things in your terms, but I have said plenty of times that it is not a perfect analogy and there are differences.

No the analogy is sound, you just don't like that it shows the flaws in your argument. Guns, like cars are dangerous, and should used responsibly. When the user of that gun or car acts criminally or irresponsibility it is logical to blame the user not the object he used.

Great, then you have no problem with placing further restrictions on guns, just like we do with cars and alcohol. I'm going to start with no one under 21 can fire a gun unless they are in the military. All guns must be registered and you must have proof of gun insurance. There will of course be a myriad of regulations on the capabilities your gun may have. This is great. It's practically what we've been asking for all along.


OH, I forgot, you may not have a loaded gun in the car, but if you are over 21 you can have it in your car if it is not loaded.
 
2012-12-17 05:56:15 PM  

Pincy: Pincy: manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: Look carefully at what you wrote. We put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink while driving, that's regulating action of driving under impairment. With guns though that is not what is happening at all, people are just talking about restricting gun access or certain types of gun accessories, where is the corresponding action that is regulated?

One more time, the analogy between guns and cars/alcohol is not a perfect analogy. You keep bringing it up and so I am just trying to put things in your terms, but I have said plenty of times that it is not a perfect analogy and there are differences.

No the analogy is sound, you just don't like that it shows the flaws in your argument. Guns, like cars are dangerous, and should used responsibly. When the user of that gun or car acts criminally or irresponsibility it is logical to blame the user not the object he used.

Great, then you have no problem with placing further restrictions on guns, just like we do with cars and alcohol. I'm going to start with no one under 21 can fire a gun unless they are in the military. All guns must be registered and you must have proof of gun insurance. There will of course be a myriad of regulations on the capabilities your gun may have. This is great. It's practically what we've been asking for all along.

OH, I forgot, you may not have a loaded gun in the car, but if you are over 21 you can have it in your car if it is not loaded.


Man, the ideas just keep coming. You may not give a gun to a minor. You can be held criminally responsible if you give a gun to a minor and he later shoots someone with it.
 
2012-12-17 06:04:32 PM  

Pincy: manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: Look carefully at what you wrote. We put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink while driving, that's regulating action of driving under impairment. With guns though that is not what is happening at all, people are just talking about restricting gun access or certain types of gun accessories, where is the corresponding action that is regulated?

One more time, the analogy between guns and cars/alcohol is not a perfect analogy. You keep bringing it up and so I am just trying to put things in your terms, but I have said plenty of times that it is not a perfect analogy and there are differences.

No the analogy is sound, you just don't like that it shows the flaws in your argument. Guns, like cars are dangerous, and should used responsibly. When the user of that gun or car acts criminally or irresponsibility it is logical to blame the user not the object he used.

Great, then you have no problem with placing further restrictions on guns, just like we do with cars and alcohol. I'm going to start with no one under 21 can fire a gun unless they are in the military. All guns must be registered and you must have proof of gun insurance. There will of course be a myriad of regulations on the capabilities your gun may have. This is great. It's practically what we've been asking for all along.


For guns used for CCW, analogous to driving on the public road, I'll agree with you.
 
2012-12-17 06:05:48 PM  

Pincy: Pincy: Pincy: manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: Look carefully at what you wrote. We put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink while driving, that's regulating action of driving under impairment. With guns though that is not what is happening at all, people are just talking about restricting gun access or certain types of gun accessories, where is the corresponding action that is regulated?

One more time, the analogy between guns and cars/alcohol is not a perfect analogy. You keep bringing it up and so I am just trying to put things in your terms, but I have said plenty of times that it is not a perfect analogy and there are differences.

No the analogy is sound, you just don't like that it shows the flaws in your argument. Guns, like cars are dangerous, and should used responsibly. When the user of that gun or car acts criminally or irresponsibility it is logical to blame the user not the object he used.

Great, then you have no problem with placing further restrictions on guns, just like we do with cars and alcohol. I'm going to start with no one under 21 can fire a gun unless they are in the military. All guns must be registered and you must have proof of gun insurance. There will of course be a myriad of regulations on the capabilities your gun may have. This is great. It's practically what we've been asking for all along.

OH, I forgot, you may not have a loaded gun in the car, but if you are over 21 you can have it in your car if it is not loaded.

Man, the ideas just keep coming. You may not give a gun to a minor. You can be held criminally responsible if you give a gun to a minor and he later shoots someone with it.


That's already a law.
 
2012-12-17 06:15:48 PM  

lennavan: I contend you do not need the increased accuracy a rifle gives you over a handgun at a distance of 5 feet


You are an ill-informed poltroon.

It takes a lot more training and effort to be accurate with a handgun under stress than it does a rifle or carbine. This is the entire reason why the US military adopted the M1 carbine in WWII: it was primarily intended for rear-area troops to use to defend themselves, because REAL WORLD DATA showed that in a combat situation it's hard for most people to hit the broad side of a barn with a handgun.

The same rationale is behind the modern Personal Defense Weapon (EG the P90) - it's just an updated implementation of the same concept, with the same rationale behind it - a small, light shoulder arm that more accurate and easier to use than a handgun.

Whether you care to admit it or not, there is a plethora of data that shows that the real world it's a lot easier to hit your target with a long gun than a handgun. In the words of Jeff Cooper - the world's foremost authority on handgun combat - a handgun should only be considered a stop-gap measure intended to give you time to get a rifle.
 
2012-12-17 06:20:46 PM  

lennavan: I have! It was a rifle, we were shooting it for fun. I was actually pretty decent at it from about 30 yards away


That obviously makes you an expert in combat arms and self defense.
 
2012-12-17 08:10:50 PM  

manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: Look carefully at what you wrote. We put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink while driving, that's regulating action of driving under impairment. With guns though that is not what is happening at all, people are just talking about restricting gun access or certain types of gun accessories, where is the corresponding action that is regulated?

One more time, the analogy between guns and cars/alcohol is not a perfect analogy. You keep bringing it up and so I am just trying to put things in your terms, but I have said plenty of times that it is not a perfect analogy and there are differences.

No the analogy is sound, you just don't like that it shows the flaws in your argument. Guns, like cars are dangerous, and should used responsibly. When the user of that gun or car acts criminally or irresponsibility it is logical to blame the user not the object he used.

Great, then you have no problem with placing further restrictions on guns, just like we do with cars and alcohol. I'm going to start with no one under 21 can fire a gun unless they are in the military. All guns must be registered and you must have proof of gun insurance. There will of course be a myriad of regulations on the capabilities your gun may have. This is great. It's practically what we've been asking for all along.

For guns used for CCW, analogous to driving on the public road, I'll agree with you.


Sorry, these restrictions are placed on the gun manufacturers, just like they are on car manufacturers, so you won't be able to buy a gun (at least legally) that doesn't fall under the legal restrictions. And the age limit is analogous to the alcohol age limit, so it doesn't matter where the gun is, anyone under 21 cannot fire a gun.
 
2012-12-17 10:43:21 PM  

Pincy: manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: Look carefully at what you wrote. We put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink while driving, that's regulating action of driving under impairment. With guns though that is not what is happening at all, people are just talking about restricting gun access or certain types of gun accessories, where is the corresponding action that is regulated?

One more time, the analogy between guns and cars/alcohol is not a perfect analogy. You keep bringing it up and so I am just trying to put things in your terms, but I have said plenty of times that it is not a perfect analogy and there are differences.

No the analogy is sound, you just don't like that it shows the flaws in your argument. Guns, like cars are dangerous, and should used responsibly. When the user of that gun or car acts criminally or irresponsibility it is logical to blame the user not the object he used.

Great, then you have no problem with placing further restrictions on guns, just like we do with cars and alcohol. I'm going to start with no one under 21 can fire a gun unless they are in the military. All guns must be registered and you must have proof of gun insurance. There will of course be a myriad of regulations on the capabilities your gun may have. This is great. It's practically what we've been asking for all along.

For guns used for CCW, analogous to driving on the public road, I'll agree with you.

Sorry, these restrictions are placed on the gun manufacturers, just like they are on car manufacturers, so you won't be able to buy a gun (at least legally) that doesn't fall under the legal restrictions. And the age limit is analogous to the alcohol age limit, so it doesn't matter where the gun is, anyone under 21 cannot fire a gun.


They are only placed on manufacturers that wan't their guns to be "street legal." Plenty of people manufacture their own vehicles.
 
2012-12-18 09:28:27 AM  
 
Displayed 50 of 1000 comments


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