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.

(The Daily Caller)   George Will: Tougher gun laws, assault weapons ban won't help. But shhh, he uses real world info, data and ignores media hyperbole. So warning; you might learn something   (dailycaller.com) divider line 865
    More: Obvious, George Will, assault weapons ban, gun laws, assault weapons, hyperbole, .info  
•       •       •

6307 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Dec 2012 at 3:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-16 03:57:32 PM

Outrageous Muff: LasersHurt: What kind of stupid strawman bullshiat is that?

It's a simple question, are you trying to solve the issue of mass shootings or are you trying to push an agenda? If you agree that you're trying to stop these kinds of acts from happening again then how will banning a weapons or giving out more weapons stop it?


"If guns were a direct cause of mass shootings, anyone that picked up a gun would have to fight the urge to kill people."

That is not a question of any sort.
 
2012-12-16 03:57:37 PM

swahnhennessy: So because these tragedies occur very rarely in other countries, whose overall homicide rate is a fraction of America's, where mass shootings have become a thing you can expect a few times a year, at least, gun control laws do not work?

Regardless of how you feel about guns, America's homicide rate is an embarrassment. Something needs to be done, most likely at the cultural level. That will take decades. In the meantime, we can have tough, meaningful regulations on gun ownership.


What regulations do you propose?
 
2012-12-16 03:57:54 PM

Pokey.Clyde: ghare: 20 dead 6-and-7-year-olds say George Will is full of shiat.

And I say you are full of shiat. Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?


Well, just on the face of it, I'd say a law that prevented her from having all those guns would have prevented him from stealing them.
 
2012-12-16 03:58:08 PM

Pokey.Clyde: ghare: 20 dead 6-and-7-year-olds say George Will is full of shiat.

And I say you are full of shiat. Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?


A complete ban on all gun sales of all types, most likely would've done it. Unless you are implying that the mom was involved with illegal gun trafficing.

Maybe electronic fingerprint locks? Unless you think that the killer is going to strip his mom of her skin and wear her hands?
 
2012-12-16 03:58:33 PM
Guns are only one of the giant pile of leading to this. But to understand and to help amend the other issues requires time, money and lots of cooperation. And people are willing to give up in a day if nothing immediately changes.
 
2012-12-16 03:59:35 PM

ghall3: Let's get rid of all guns and see how many mass killings take place in the next 20 years.

I'm willing to be a lot of money there would be a lot fewer


Or you could properly fund mental health program in America to threat those at risk for these kinds of things. I know it's all hippie and stuff, but when you treat the mentally ill properly you run an extremely higher chance of keeping them from harming themselves or others.
 
2012-12-16 03:59:36 PM

iq_in_binary: cameroncrazy1984: Tell that to the UK, a country that hasn't had a mass shooting since Dunblane, after which they enacted the 1997 Firearms act.

The UK didn't have hundreds of millions of firearms to contend with.

Neither did Australia.

As a matter of fact, there isn't a single country on earth that had even a tenth of that to contend with when they adopted strict gun control.

But yeah, it would totally work here!

/Riiiiiiiight


Well, nothing else we've tried has seemed to help. So unless you have an actual alternative solution to provide, instead of just shooting down ones that at least have some basis (even if only mildly) in effectiveness when used throughout the rest of the world, maybe shut up and let the grown ups - regardless of their opinions - do the talking? If all you're going to do is play the contrarian without providing anything resembling an alternative to be brought into the discussion, all you're doing is wasting everyone's time who actually wants to solve the problem the United States has with crime. Want to participate, then pony up some ideas. Otherwise, shhhhhh.
 
2012-12-16 04:00:00 PM

Outrageous Muff: LasersHurt: What kind of stupid strawman bullshiat is that?

It's a simple question, are you trying to solve the issue of mass shootings or are you trying to push an agenda? If you agree that you're trying to stop these kinds of acts from happening again then how will banning a weapons or giving out more weapons stop it?


I think people would be satisfied if they stopped being a weekly occurrence and went back to being a couple of times a year or once every 2 or 3 year type of deal.
 
2012-12-16 04:00:06 PM

propasaurus: Pokey.Clyde: ghare: 20 dead 6-and-7-year-olds say George Will is full of shiat.

And I say you are full of shiat. Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?

Well, just on the face of it, I'd say a law that prevented her from having all those guns would have prevented him from stealing them.


Are you suggesting prohibiting all civilian firearm ownership? By what means will you attain sufficient support to amend the United States Constitution?
 
2012-12-16 04:01:14 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Tell that to the UK, a country that hasn't had a mass shooting since Dunblane, after which they enacted the 1997 Firearms act.


THIS. You could include Australia, where we haven't had such a tragedy since we banned these sorts of weapons as a response to the Port Arthur massacre.

Banning these types of guns works.
 
2012-12-16 04:01:33 PM

Pokey.Clyde: And I say you are full of shiat. Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?


But we're always told that the problem isn't that there aren't enough gun control laws on the books but rather that we don't enforce the gun control laws we already have. But in this case, all of the relevant gun control laws were enforced. The only crime that occurred was the actual murders themselves. So what's your solution when the gun control laws we have are clearly insufficient?

And no, arming kindergartners is not a viable option.
 
2012-12-16 04:01:52 PM

RKTeuthis: Outrageous Muff: Since all guns were bought legally, no assault weapons were used, and this was an issue of bad parenting and poor mental health treatment using the murder of children to gain an assault weapons ban would be politicizing their deaths. If the goal is to end these types of acts then taking guns away from people nor giving guns to people will solve the problem.

"As new details emerge, the scope of the horror expands. Lanza apparently sprayed two classrooms at the school with relentless fire from a semi-automatic assault rifle.

It was a massacre, and most of the victims were first-graders. Autopsies on the bodies of the children reveal that many, if not all, had been shot multiple times.

"I only did seven of the autopsies," medical examiner Wayne Carver said. "The victims I had ranged from three to 11 wounds a piece, and I only saw two of them with close-range shooting.""

Bushmaster AR15 .223, BTW which is what... civilian, semi-auto version of the M16?


And thus, NOT an assault rifle.

If it isn't select fire, it is literally NOT an assault rifle. All assault rifles have 3 important characteristics, just like the original, the StG 44 (Sturmgewehr, Assault). Select Fire, lighter caliber ammunition (.223 Remington/5.56 NATO vs. 7.62x51/.308 Winchester), and lighter materials to make the weapon lighter (8-10 lbs for a modern day combat rifle vs 12-14 for guns like the M1 Garand and Mauser 98).

If it's missing one of those three, it is not classified as an Assault Rifle. It's just a Rifle.
 
2012-12-16 04:02:05 PM

clambam: If you agree with Will at al that the plural of anecdote is data, then this makes perfect sense. However, when it comes to cherrypicking anecdotes, gun opponents have a recent one ready at hand:

Chinese stabbing spree

Here's a guy who did not have access to guns, who went for the next best thing available, and the result was... zero deaths. Nada. Not a one. Did he send twenty-off kids to the hospital? Absolutely. But if you want to put twenty-odd kids in the morgue, you really need a gun.


Or a car bomb/explosives. Not as common and a little more difficult to manufacture or use, but that is also a way to inflict mass casualties without the use of firearms that has been used many times in the world as well as the US.
 
2012-12-16 04:02:45 PM

Kome: iq_in_binary: cameroncrazy1984: Tell that to the UK, a country that hasn't had a mass shooting since Dunblane, after which they enacted the 1997 Firearms act.

The UK didn't have hundreds of millions of firearms to contend with.

Neither did Australia.

As a matter of fact, there isn't a single country on earth that had even a tenth of that to contend with when they adopted strict gun control.

But yeah, it would totally work here!

/Riiiiiiiight

Well, nothing else we've tried has seemed to help. So unless you have an actual alternative solution to provide, instead of just shooting down ones that at least have some basis (even if only mildly) in effectiveness when used throughout the rest of the world, maybe shut up and let the grown ups - regardless of their opinions - do the talking? If all you're going to do is play the contrarian without providing anything resembling an alternative to be brought into the discussion, all you're doing is wasting everyone's time who actually wants to solve the problem the United States has with crime. Want to participate, then pony up some ideas. Otherwise, shhhhhh.


I have suggested the following:

End the "war on drugs".
Reform the current prison system in the United States of America; attempt to rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated, reduce sentences for nonviolent offenses, increase mandatory sentences for violent offenses.
Improve access to mental health care and treatment, such as through health care reform.
Mandate secure storage of firearms when not under control of the owner; the implementation within the District of Colombia was too restrictive, but a less unreasonable standard would likely pass Constitutional scrutiny.
 
2012-12-16 04:02:47 PM

Pincy: OK, so they might not stop this random act of violence by a disturbed person but will it put a dent in the other 30,000+ gun related deaths every year?


Since most of the gun deaths are suicide, likely not. Don't forget that many of the other shootings are within larger cities where gun rules are already pretty tight.

I am not saying that any additional laws are useless, but when most of your gun deaths take place in circumstances when the gun owner has already broken one or more law, it makes it tough for additional laws to really be deterrents.
 
2012-12-16 04:03:37 PM

Dimensio: propasaurus: Pokey.Clyde: ghare: 20 dead 6-and-7-year-olds say George Will is full of shiat.

And I say you are full of shiat. Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?

Well, just on the face of it, I'd say a law that prevented her from having all those guns would have prevented him from stealing them.

Are you suggesting prohibiting all civilian firearm ownership? By what means will you attain sufficient support to amend the United States Constitution?


No, I'm just saying that if mom didn't have guns in the first place, sonny wouldn't have been able to steal them from her.
Which was in direct response to the question asked.
 
Xai
2012-12-16 04:03:39 PM
I think the question is - "Aside from massacring large numbers of people, what other use would you have for automatic/semi-automatic rifles?"

and if the answer is 'none' or 'frog gigging' then I think they should be banned all-together.
 
2012-12-16 04:03:41 PM

PartTimeBuddha: cameroncrazy1984: Tell that to the UK, a country that hasn't had a mass shooting since Dunblane, after which they enacted the 1997 Firearms act.

Exactly. The laws were tightened.

And it did annoy a lot of gun enthusiasts.



Total handgun offenses in the UK in 1909 was 1983 incidents. In 2010 it was 3105. Yup, that turned the tide right there.
 
2012-12-16 04:04:33 PM
1. Assault weapons ban. I really don't care what excuses people have. There is zero reason for the average American to own weapons that can be converted to fully automatic or have massive magazines/clips.

2. High-volume magazine ban. I realize that it's horribly inconvenient for some people to have to reload occasionally while they're target shooting...but it's entirely possible that not having these magazines around would lessen the chance that some insane idiot could spray a crowd with gunfire.

3. Highly regulated and taxed ammo sales. Make purchasing ammo be much more expensive than it is now (with an exception for ammo sold and used at target ranges) to discourage the accumulation of mass-murder levels of bullets. Make ammo available in fewer places, and especially not via the internet.

4. Require a rigorous yearly psychiatric evaluation as a condition of gun ownership. Deny gun licenses to individuals (and families) with history of certain mental disorders. Severe manic depressive? Sorry, you don't get a gun. You can't yell FIRE in a theater, either. It's about public safety.

5. License one handgun per person at a time, with only very rare exceptions. Discourage the building of home arsenals. You want a gun for protection? Fine. You can generally only shoot one at a time anyway.

6. Eliminate any and all gun show loopholes. I mean, come on.

7. Require the purchase of gun insurance for every gun purchase. The premium can be based on risk factors and funds the payout of damages to anyone injured or killed by that particular firearm.
 
2012-12-16 04:05:21 PM

Outrageous Muff: Since all guns were bought legally, no assault weapons were used, and this was an issue of bad parenting and poor mental health treatment using the murder of children to gain an assault weapons ban would be politicizing their deaths. If the goal is to end these types of acts then taking guns away from people nor giving guns to people will solve the problem.


Right. An assault weapons ban wouldn't have stopped this particular shooting so there's no reason at all to ban them. It couldn't possibly prevent another shooting.

/sarcasm was on, in case anyone missed it.

There's no reason for a private citizen to have an assault weapon. None. You don't use it for hunting and you don't need it for self defense.

"Whaaaas, I'm a collector" is not a valid reason. "I might need to help overthrow the government" is not a valid reason. And no, the 2nd amendment is not a valid reason. The 2nd amendment starts with the phrase "a well regulated militia." Members of the militia, aka the army, the National Guard, etc. can have assault rifles to use in the line of duty. Private citizens are not going to have to jump out of bed in the middle of the night to defend our free state from King George's troops.
 
2012-12-16 04:05:28 PM

Pokey.Clyde: ghare: 20 dead 6-and-7-year-olds say George Will is full of shiat.

And I say you are full of shiat. Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?


A law that made mental health facilities more affordable/accessible than an assault rifle?
 
2012-12-16 04:05:33 PM

Sock Ruh Tease: dickfreckle: Believe it or not, George Will is still among the saner of the right's pundits, despite him often publishing turds.

Seriously, folks - when guys like George Will and Pat Buchanan are your intellectual titans, maybe it's time for a little reflection on exactly where everything went horribly wrong. Probably that moment you all decided that pandering to retards was your best shot at success.

The difference between George Will and other right-wing pundits is that George Will's pieces are like long, thick, coiling turds. They come out exactly the way they're supposed to. His fellow pundits shoot out diarrhea and greenish-blue pebbles and the readers eat that up.


This is beautiful, if you're into that kinda stuff.
 
2012-12-16 04:05:35 PM

rohar: PartTimeBuddha: cameroncrazy1984: Tell that to the UK, a country that hasn't had a mass shooting since Dunblane, after which they enacted the 1997 Firearms act.

Exactly. The laws were tightened.

And it did annoy a lot of gun enthusiasts.


Total handgun offenses in the UK in 19091989 was 1983 incidents. In 2010 it was 3105. Yup, that turned the tide right there.


FTFM
 
2012-12-16 04:05:59 PM

iq_in_binary: RKTeuthis: Outrageous Muff: Since all guns were bought legally, no assault weapons were used, and this was an issue of bad parenting and poor mental health treatment using the murder of children to gain an assault weapons ban would be politicizing their deaths. If the goal is to end these types of acts then taking guns away from people nor giving guns to people will solve the problem.

"As new details emerge, the scope of the horror expands. Lanza apparently sprayed two classrooms at the school with relentless fire from a semi-automatic assault rifle.

It was a massacre, and most of the victims were first-graders. Autopsies on the bodies of the children reveal that many, if not all, had been shot multiple times.

"I only did seven of the autopsies," medical examiner Wayne Carver said. "The victims I had ranged from three to 11 wounds a piece, and I only saw two of them with close-range shooting.""

Bushmaster AR15 .223, BTW which is what... civilian, semi-auto version of the M16?

And thus, NOT an assault rifle.

If it isn't select fire, it is literally NOT an assault rifle. All assault rifles have 3 important characteristics, just like the original, the StG 44 (Sturmgewehr, Assault). Select Fire, lighter caliber ammunition (.223 Remington/5.56 NATO vs. 7.62x51/.308 Winchester), and lighter materials to make the weapon lighter (8-10 lbs for a modern day combat rifle vs 12-14 for guns like the M1 Garand and Mauser 98).

If it's missing one of those three, it is not classified as an Assault Rifle. It's just a Rifle.


Plus I have not heard for certain if the .223 was used in the school. From all the reports I have seen, the .223 was found in the car. Does anyone know for certain if the the Bushmaster was actually used?
 
2012-12-16 04:06:29 PM

rohar: PartTimeBuddha: cameroncrazy1984: Tell that to the UK, a country that hasn't had a mass shooting since Dunblane, after which they enacted the 1997 Firearms act.

Exactly. The laws were tightened.

And it did annoy a lot of gun enthusiasts.


Total handgun offenses in the UK in 1909 was 1983 incidents. In 2010 it was 3105. Yup, that turned the tide right there.


"Handgun offenses" may include possession of a firearm following the total prohibition upon civilian ownership of them. Whether this influences rates, I cannot say. Population increases may also account for some of the increase.

When I am informed that prohibiting civilian handgun ownership in the United Kingdom reduced rates of crime, I request data regarding homicide and violent crime rates before and after the implementation of the prohibition.

The claim may be accurate, but thus far no data has been presented.
 
GBB
2012-12-16 04:06:50 PM

James F. Campbell: Kimothy: Except that the examples he gives are actually examples of laws that work, making these kinds of mass shootings the exception not the rule. Shootings like this are incredibly RARE in those countries. In the USA, they are commonplace and occur several times a year.

Gosh, I guess it's crazy to suggest that mass shootings in countries with strict gun laws are rare for a reason.


They are rare, but still happen. I have no useful ideas myself, so don't think that what I say actually helps anything, but if I may... would it be best to work on, and put great effort into a solution that is known to be less than 100% effective, or work toward finding a solution that is more effective than that??

Many of the Opponants to gun bans point out that they don't work and crazy people will find a way. Could it be because they would rather work toward a more effective solution?

If it were easy to enact gun controls to mimic the levels of control in other countries, then lets do than AND continue to work toward greater safety. But the fact is that people really do cling to their guns and it will be all but impossible to easily ban them. Therefore, it would seem more prudant to work toward another goal and not waste energy toward a deadend.
 
2012-12-16 04:06:51 PM
You people are sooo tiresome.

Guns are a straw man. If you had a once of integrity you would be in the streets trying to end the sale of cigarettes (400,000 deaths a year) vehicles (30,000 deaths a year) and alcohol (40,000 deaths a year)

The real obscenity with this tragic event is not guns, but mental illness.
Think of what might have been prevented if that 500 Billion dollars swirling down the Solindra sewer drain had been invested in Mental facilities and the people to staff them.

Gabby Giffords, Denver movie goers, the list of victims is long, but the source of all this pain is ignored for political reasons.
 
2012-12-16 04:07:32 PM

Pokey.Clyde: ghare: 20 dead 6-and-7-year-olds say George Will is full of shiat.

And I say you are full of shiat. Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?


mandatory gun locks that are welded on. don't you know anything?

this is both a horrible act involving senseless deaths and a real object lesson that banning "assault rifles" and HCM is meaningless.
 
2012-12-16 04:08:05 PM

Xai: I think the question is - "Aside from massacring large numbers of people, what other use would you have for automatic/semi-automatic rifles?"


Target shooting, defense, hunting are all uses.
 
2012-12-16 04:08:05 PM

Xai: I think the question is - "Aside from massacring large numbers of people, what other use would you have for automatic/semi-automatic rifles?"

and if the answer is 'none' or 'frog gigging' then I think they should be banned all-together.


There are very few legal fully automatic rifles out there and they haven't been used in any crimes since prohibition if I remember correctly so there is no reason to target those for further regulations. As far as your Semi-Automatic rfiles, those are the bulk of the hunting and target shooting weapons out there which are two uses that are utilized millions of times a year without any harm.
 
2012-12-16 04:08:24 PM
Hey Georgie, according to Wikipedia, Norway had 1.78 firearms deaths in 2010. The UK had 0.25. The US? 9. That's right, 36 times that of the UK. Are you being deliberately disingenuous, or do you actually believe the shiat you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea t h_rate
 
2012-12-16 04:09:08 PM

Phins: There's no reason for a private citizen to have an assault weapon. None. You don't use it for hunting and you don't need it for self defense.


Please define "assault weapon" meaningfully.
 
2012-12-16 04:09:10 PM
I shut a window for a few minutes yesterday but it's still cold in here.
I guess nothing can be done.
 
2012-12-16 04:09:22 PM

LasersHurt: That is not a question of any sort.


Okay I'll type slower.

CT: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, murders his mother and uses her legally purchased guns to kill lots of people.

China: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, picks up a knife and stabs a lot of people.

Auroa: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, legally obtains weapons that he would not have been able to get if he received the proper care kills lots of people.

VTech: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, legally obtains weapons that he would not have been able to get if he received the proper care kills lots of people.

I could keep doing this, but I' m sure you see the common thread. If the goal of society, any society, is stop these kinds of acts then dealing with the common thread of mental health would be far more effective then banning guns.

So I ask again. Do you want to solve the problem or further an agenda?
 
2012-12-16 04:09:28 PM

HeadLever: Pincy: OK, so they might not stop this random act of violence by a disturbed person but will it put a dent in the other 30,000+ gun related deaths every year?

Since most of the gun deaths are suicide, likely not.


So, suicides don't count?

Studies show that suicide attempts with a firearm are far more likely to be successful than suicides attempted by other means. And people living in a household with a firearm are far more likely to commit suicide than those living in households without one.

In short, restricting firearm ownership will bring down the number of suicides as well.
 
2012-12-16 04:10:36 PM

MFAWG: Outrageous Muff: LasersHurt: What kind of stupid strawman bullshiat is that?

It's a simple question, are you trying to solve the issue of mass shootings or are you trying to push an agenda? If you agree that you're trying to stop these kinds of acts from happening again then how will banning a weapons or giving out more weapons stop it?

I think people would be satisfied if they stopped being a weekly occurrence and went back to being a couple of times a year or once every 2 or 3 year type of deal.


So you're saying that mass murders are okay, it's just that it happens a lot is bad?
 
2012-12-16 04:11:21 PM

rohar: PartTimeBuddha: cameroncrazy1984: Tell that to the UK, a country that hasn't had a mass shooting since Dunblane, after which they enacted the 1997 Firearms act.

Exactly. The laws were tightened.

And it did annoy a lot of gun enthusiasts.


Total handgun offenses in the UK in 1909 was 1983 incidents. In 2010 it was 3105. Yup, that turned the tide right there.


1909? I see you learned debate from the Mitt Romney School of Horses and Bayonets.
 
2012-12-16 04:11:32 PM

iq_in_binary: cameroncrazy1984: Tell that to the UK, a country that hasn't had a mass shooting since Dunblane, after which they enacted the 1997 Firearms act.

The UK didn't have hundreds of millions of firearms to contend with.

Neither did Australia.

As a matter of fact, there isn't a single country on earth that had even a tenth of that to contend with when they adopted strict gun control.

But yeah, it would totally work here!

/Riiiiiiiight


So the "it's too hard" argument. They did that in Australia after the conservative Prime Minister announced plans for the ban. It's the same sort of thing as the "It's too soon to talk about this" argument. It's the tired old stuff that gun lovers pull out after every massacre you have and it's just wrong.
 
2012-12-16 04:11:48 PM

Outrageous Muff: China: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, picks up a knife and stabs a lot of people.


How many dead?
 
2012-12-16 04:12:22 PM

Pokey.Clyde: ghare: 20 dead 6-and-7-year-olds say George Will is full of shiat.

And I say you are full of shiat. Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?


A law that says she can't have weapons in her home, locked or not, if she has mentally ill relatives who can get access to said guns. Or a law that says all weapons must be stored at a municipal run armory, and can only be personally checked out and checked back in by the actual person who owns the guns.
 
2012-12-16 04:12:27 PM

kyrg: Guns are a straw man. If you had a once of integrity you would be in the streets trying to end the sale of cigarettes (400,000 deaths a year) vehicles (30,000 deaths a year) and alcohol (40,000 deaths a year)


Sorry, stopped reading after this strawman burst into flames.
 
2012-12-16 04:12:41 PM

Kome: iq_in_binary: cameroncrazy1984: Tell that to the UK, a country that hasn't had a mass shooting since Dunblane, after which they enacted the 1997 Firearms act.

The UK didn't have hundreds of millions of firearms to contend with.

Neither did Australia.

As a matter of fact, there isn't a single country on earth that had even a tenth of that to contend with when they adopted strict gun control.

But yeah, it would totally work here!

/Riiiiiiiight

Well, nothing else we've tried has seemed to help. So unless you have an actual alternative solution to provide, instead of just shooting down ones that at least have some basis (even if only mildly) in effectiveness when used throughout the rest of the world, maybe shut up and let the grown ups - regardless of their opinions - do the talking? If all you're going to do is play the contrarian without providing anything resembling an alternative to be brought into the discussion, all you're doing is wasting everyone's time who actually wants to solve the problem the United States has with crime. Want to participate, then pony up some ideas. Otherwise, shhhhhh.


Apply NFA to all new semi-autos and all existing semi-autos above a threshold caliber (.380ACP for Pistols, .30 Carbine for Rifles, 4-10 for shotguns). Repeal the '86 ban and treat Suppressors and safety equipment like ear plugs or safety glasses. Change the Tax Stamp schedule from $200/$20 to just $20. Use the Tax Stamp proceeds to fund ATF offices in every county just like we have DMVs in each county. Streamline the Tax Stamp process at the ATF office so that it can be completed same day.

Boom, now the problem guns that everybody is worried about are now NFA controlled, the most successful Gun Control legislation in the world. Good luck finding examples of NFA arms being used in crimes, I won't hold my breath while you go look. Oh, and by removing the '86 Ban and letting us buy suppressors, you'll even gut us gun folk to vote for it!

The notion that we should have control over every single one of the 250 MILLION+ firearms in this country is naive, and never going to happen. This way, we get pretty damn close, and the ones that aren't controlled are going to be difficult to kill people with anyway. You don't hear of many massacres committed with .22LR 10/22s.
 
2012-12-16 04:12:57 PM

kyrg: Guns are a straw man. If you had a once of integrity you would be in the streets trying to end the sale of cigarettes (400,000 deaths a year) vehicles (30,000 deaths a year) and alcohol (40,000 deaths a year)


oh PUHLease.

people kill themselves -- that is a concern, but a different issue. you can be concerned about deaths that occur in different ways but also understand that a person's choice to kill them-self is a separate issue than a mass murder.

what we are talking about is not reducing any death (or even the most number of deaths) -- but the violent kind, the murder kind, the multi-person kind, and it seems that guns are so intertwined with this case it is worth talking about them when discussing prevention.
 
2012-12-16 04:13:32 PM
George Will can't even count to tater tot. Don't waste your time.
 
2012-12-16 04:14:00 PM

clambam: Here's a guy who did not have access to guns, who went for the next best thing available, and the result was... zero deaths. Nada. Not a one. Did he send twenty-off kids to the hospital? Absolutely. But if you want to put twenty-odd kids in the morgue, you really need a gun.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-16 04:14:06 PM

mab1823: 1. Assault weapons ban. I really don't care what excuses people have. There is zero reason for the average American to own weapons that can be converted to fully automatic or have massive magazines/clips.

2. High-volume magazine ban. I realize that it's horribly inconvenient for some people to have to reload occasionally while they're target shooting...but it's entirely possible that not having these magazines around would lessen the chance that some insane idiot could spray a crowd with gunfire.

3. Highly regulated and taxed ammo sales. Make purchasing ammo be much more expensive than it is now (with an exception for ammo sold and used at target ranges) to discourage the accumulation of mass-murder levels of bullets. Make ammo available in fewer places, and especially not via the internet.

4. Require a rigorous yearly psychiatric evaluation as a condition of gun ownership. Deny gun licenses to individuals (and families) with history of certain mental disorders. Severe manic depressive? Sorry, you don't get a gun. You can't yell FIRE in a theater, either. It's about public safety.

5. License one handgun per person at a time, with only very rare exceptions. Discourage the building of home arsenals. You want a gun for protection? Fine. You can generally only shoot one at a time anyway.

6. Eliminate any and all gun show loopholes. I mean, come on.

7. Require the purchase of gun insurance for every gun purchase. The premium can be based on risk factors and funds the payout of damages to anyone injured or killed by that particular firearm.


Naive, punitive, and quite frankly never going to happen. Be realistic.
 
2012-12-16 04:14:24 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: How many dead?


So you're saying it's not as big of deal if(or not enough) people didn't die?
 
2012-12-16 04:14:37 PM

kyrg: You people are sooo tiresome.

Guns are a straw man. If you had a once of integrity you would be in the streets trying to end the sale of cigarettes (400,000 deaths a year) vehicles (30,000 deaths a year) and alcohol (40,000 deaths a year)

The real obscenity with this tragic event is not guns, but mental illness.
Think of what might have been prevented if that 500 Billion dollars swirling down the Solindra sewer drain had been invested in Mental facilities and the people to staff them.

Gabby Giffords, Denver movie goers, the list of victims is long, but the source of all this pain is ignored for political reasons.


When someone kills 20 kindergartners with a pack of Virginia Slims, then we can have that discussion. And given that it was Reagan who slashed social services for the mentally ill, I don't think your Solyndra line is going to gain you much traction.
 
2012-12-16 04:14:42 PM
How come two days after a tragedy, the idiots saying it's "too soon/STOP POLITICIZING" on the day OF the tragedy are the ones politicizing/cheapening the tragedy the hardest?
 
2012-12-16 04:15:29 PM

Phins: Outrageous Muff: Since all guns were bought legally, no assault weapons were used, and this was an issue of bad parenting and poor mental health treatment using the murder of children to gain an assault weapons ban would be politicizing their deaths. If the goal is to end these types of acts then taking guns away from people nor giving guns to people will solve the problem.

Right. An assault weapons ban wouldn't have stopped this particular shooting so there's no reason at all to ban them. It couldn't possibly prevent another shooting.

/sarcasm was on, in case anyone missed it.

There's no reason for a private citizen to have an assault weapon. None. You don't use it for hunting and you don't need it for self defense.

"Whaaaas, I'm a collector" is not a valid reason. "I might need to help overthrow the government" is not a valid reason. And no, the 2nd amendment is not a valid reason. The 2nd amendment starts with the phrase "a well regulated militia." Members of the militia, aka the army, the National Guard, etc. can have assault rifles to use in the line of duty. Private citizens are not going to have to jump out of bed in the middle of the night to defend our free state from King George's troops.


Private citizens already can't have assault weapons. Select fire weapons are already illegal except for a VERY small pool of them, that have never been used in crimes.
 
Displayed 50 of 865 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report