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  
•       •       •

6308 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 04:15:30 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.


Any firearm that is easily converted to fully automatic operation is already regulated federally as though it is a fully automatic firearm. Such firearms are already restricted and are not readily available to civilians.

Any detachable-magazine fed semi-automatic firearm will be able to accept a "large" magazine. You are advocating prohibiting the substantial majority of civilian firearms.


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.

Please define "high-volume".


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.

Such taxation would substantially increase the popularity of reloading amongst shooting enthusiasts. Individuals intent upon committing high-profile mass murder would likely be undeterred by the additional cost.


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.

I am able to accept such a proposal only if the standards applied use objective disqualifying criteria, so that an "anti-gun" psychiatrist cannot arbitrarily deny firearm access and that a "pro-gun" psychiatrist may not overlook (intentionally or not) potentially disqualifying criteria.


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.

This proposal is not reasonable. Legitimate reason exists to own multiple handguns.


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

Please describe a "gun show loophole".


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.

I may be able to support such a proposal for firearms carried in public (but not for those stored in private) only if the insurance is affordable to all income groups.
 
2012-12-16 04:15:45 PM
republicans can't do math
 
2012-12-16 04:16:03 PM
Sorry gun nuts, we've tried it your way for 223 years. You're going to have to accept that common sense gun regulation is coming. If you're smart you'll propose your own gun control legislation so you can try to limit the "damage" to your "rights."
 
2012-12-16 04:16:22 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.


The perfect is the enemy of the good. Guns are another public health crisis and there is at least the political will to take action on them. If there's motivation to work on cars, cigarettes and alcohol then that would be great too. But give up on the idea that nothing should be done because we can't do everything else.
 
2012-12-16 04:17:18 PM

HeadLever: 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?


Link

The Bushmaster was the primary weapon in the attack and they found a shotgun in the car.
 
2012-12-16 04:17:20 PM

Empty Matchbook: A law that made mental health facilities more affordable/accessible than an assault rifle?


He DID NOT HAVE AN ASSAULT RIFLE. The Bushmaster rifle he had is not an assault rifle.

You know what? Fark it, I'm out. This thread is too full of stupid. People who don't know what they are talking about, trying to pass off their uninformed opinions as fact.
 
2012-12-16 04:17:30 PM

iq_in_binary: 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.


The point was to make it punitive. Guns should be expensive and difficult to own due to the fact that they get used all too often for, you know, killing people.
 
2012-12-16 04:17:47 PM

Milo Minderbinder: 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


You know how many sailors drown each year compared to other occupations? Like 20X more! That's a JOKE! Water control is the only solution.
 
2012-12-16 04:17:51 PM

Outrageous Muff: 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?


Potato?
 
2012-12-16 04:17:57 PM

Outrageous Muff: 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?


No doubt that mental health should be well funded.

But of the four cases you cite, the China case yielded no deaths (other than the suspect, I believe). It's also the easy access to guns that allowed the mentally unbalanced to go on a rampage. You need to do both.

And don't forget, there's still plenty of people who are NOT mentally unstable who use guns to kill people for no apparent reason: Zimmerman vs Trayvon, father who accidentally killed his son at a gun range, police shooting people at random, suicides, and many other cases.
 
2012-12-16 04:18:07 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?


I read an earlier version of the story that two pistols were recovered in the school while the rifle had been left in the vehicle. Which is it, now?

I'm not sure rifle vs. pistol is as relevant as the fact he could keep shooting: how much ammo he had, how many guns he had. All he needed was to avoid any pause that would get him tackled.
 
2012-12-16 04:18:22 PM

Doc Daneeka: In short, restricting firearm ownership will bring down the number of suicides as well.


Not sure about that. Guns are the 1st choice of those trying suicide since it is the easiest and fastest method. It makes sense that guns increase the 'sucessfullness' because they are the most efficient.

Basically, while guns are not the culprit in this case, they do the job better than other methods. All said, there is is merit in keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and depressed.
 
2012-12-16 04:18:24 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.


There are times when people are the product of bad parenting, but a mass-murderer is not one of them. They're just crazy. You can't parent crazy, and people will very often blame parents for the bad behavior of a legitimately mentally-ill child. That's wrong. The parents are usually doing everything in their power to control the child, but their brains basically do not work. There is nothing those parents can do besides turning the children over to a mental health professional, and those services point-blank don't exist in many areas.

There's a lovely article on the front page dealing with this. It's a good read.
 
2012-12-16 04:18:32 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Outrageous Muff: 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?

Potato?


Yeah that was seriously pants-on-head.
 
2012-12-16 04:19:01 PM
Per 100,000, doy

/stupid people

Milo Minderbinder: 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


Per 100,000, doy

/Stupid people make me stupid
 
2012-12-16 04:19:15 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?


get rid of the "war on drugs" and the over the top militarization of the police. call it the "commitment to reduce drug usage" and for every cop you get rid of hire a social worker. dump the uparmoured humvees and APCs and get vans to take folks to outreach or other social gatherings.

fund mental health at levels equal to what it was before Reagan went nuts. stop the "every snowflake is special" and make actions have consequences. pump some serious money into inner cities.

for starters.
 
2012-12-16 04:19:24 PM
What's the shelf life of ammo, anyway? If you make it illegal to manufacture ammunition for these guns, the guns themselves will become rather harmless.

Personally, I'm ready to have a conversation about repealing the second amendment altogether. Somehow, I think it would still be 'merca even if we didn't have gun ownership enshrined in the constitution.
 
2012-12-16 04:19:43 PM

Halli: The Bushmaster was the primary weapon in the attack and they found a shotgun in the car.


Thanks.
 
2012-12-16 04:19:48 PM

Pokey.Clyde: Empty Matchbook: A law that made mental health facilities more affordable/accessible than an assault rifle?

He DID NOT HAVE AN ASSAULT RIFLE. The Bushmaster rifle he had is not an assault rifle.

You know what? Fark it, I'm out. This thread is too full of stupid. People who don't know what they are talking about, trying to pass off their uninformed opinions as fact.


When you leave all that will leave with you.
 
2012-12-16 04:20:05 PM
"Remember, we did have a ban on assault weapons," Will said. "When we put the ban in place, these incidents did not really decline in a measurable way, and when we took it off, they did not increase in a measurable way."


That's because the country had already been flooded with weapons. If new bans were enacted, it would take several generations for them to be effective. The currently available private inventory is just too high to see any kind of change in under a decade. The US has more guns per citizen than the rest of the world -- nearly 1 to 1. In the western countries, none of them break the ration of 1 gun per 2 people.
 
2012-12-16 04:20:36 PM
Mandatory suicide vests for everyone, with dead-man detonators. Someone dies suddenly, everything in a 50-ffoot radius gets taken out with 'em. No mass shootings for fear of a chain reaction that'll wipe out half the town.

People would also drive more carefully when pedestrians might be in the area, perhaps be more willing to pay for universal healthcare (wouldn't want to be near a guy who dies of a heart attack!) and crime in general should decrease. Also saves on funeral costs...

M.A.D. got us through the Cold War, and it'll serve keep society civil.
=Smidge=
 
2012-12-16 04:20:42 PM

Outrageous Muff: 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?


Who has the agenda here? We have on the one hand, the people who want to take more lethal machines away from the general public to make the murderously mentally ill less dangerous to society; and on the other, the people who bend over backwards to continue to allow people to legally get their hands on lethal machines designed solely for the purpose of slaughtering other humans.

Where does this sh*t stop? I'm surprised you aren't arguing in favour of mental health care while simultaneously defending everyone's right to own their own rocket-propelled grenade launchers or drive tanks.

And while we're at it, arguments in favour of increased national spending on health care seem to be mostly originating from the same people who are equally in favour of restricting widespread access to lethal weaponry.

But the right has the "culture of life", right?
 
2012-12-16 04:20:45 PM
"Oh my god, this thing is so terrible beyond words."
"To make sure this never happens again we need to ban assault weapons!"
"But no assault weapons were used? How would that have stopped this horrible thing from happening?"
"Because guns are bad."
"But hundreds of millions of North Americans own guns and there aren't mass shooting every day. Isn't this really more of a mental health issue?"
"No, because guns are bad."
 
2012-12-16 04:20:49 PM

acefox1: Sorry gun nuts, we've tried it your way for 223 years. You're going to have to accept that common sense gun regulation is coming. If you're smart you'll propose your own gun control legislation so you can try to limit the "damage" to your "rights."


Please describe "common sense gun regulation". Frequently the claim "common sense" is used in an attempt to stifle criticism by implying objectors to lack "common sense" regardless of the viability of a claim.
 
2012-12-16 04:21:24 PM

Doc Daneeka: 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.


I'd have to agree. That's one of the most bizarre switches I've seen pulled.

It's like:

"Boiling 1 pint of water takes 2 minutes. Boiling 2 pints of water takes 4 minutes. YOUR MOVE, biatch."

le wtf?
 
2012-12-16 04:21:54 PM

acefox1: Sorry gun nuts, we've tried it your way for 223 years. You're going to have to accept that common sense gun regulation is coming. If you're smart you'll propose your own gun control legislation so you can try to limit the "damage" to your "rights."


I think you are right on here. The NRA would be smart to start making some concessions now which would, as you say, help "limit the the damage" and also might help bolster their image with the general public. But as these sort of tragedies become more uncommon, if they continue to stand their hard line in the sand, then they are going to become even less influential and then they won't have any control over the "damage".
 
GBB
2012-12-16 04:22:39 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.


Exactly. The reason we have the proliferation of weapons is because of the late-20th Century application of grammar to a late-18th Century document. There is a reason that lawyers prefer to use archaic language like 'thereforto'; it's specific to their needs and usage. This was not considered when they drafted the Consitiution. They used the language of the day and tried their best. Link
 
2012-12-16 04:22:46 PM

mab1823: iq_in_binary: 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.

The point was to make it punitive. Guns should be expensive and difficult to own due to the fact that they get used all too often for, you know, killing people.


70 Million Americans fail to break the law with their guns every day. Punishing them for things they didn't do is totally OK, because they're evil gun owners. Gonna start suggesting we implement a "Final Solution," too?
 
2012-12-16 04:22:52 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.


It's just this kind of picayune bs that is going to hopefully carry the day for the sane folks wanting reasonable controls. An "assault rifle" for the vast majority of folks is a light weight, collapsible stock type weapon with an extended magazine and capable of a high rate of fire. Just like when this type gets all huffy when "clip" and "magazine are transposed, somehow creating a definition for assault rifle and then loudly griping when it isn't met met is a distinction without a difference to most folks. A 30 round mag equipped AR-15 that can pop off 2-3 rounds per second ain't for shootin' deeer, no matter how hard Louie stomps his feet and says "nooo that's just a rifle". You can get 60 or 100 rounders too, if the deer you are after are especially tough.

/gun owner
//totally would accept more rigorous licensing and capability controls
 
2012-12-16 04:23:02 PM
For those who are unaware what exactly a Bushmaster Model .223 is:

static2.businessinsider.com

Clearly banning the ownership of guns like this will result in the US becoming a dictatorship.
 
2012-12-16 04:23:14 PM

Outrageous Muff: poor mental health treatment


cdn.ticketfly.com

Thank you Ronald Reagan, your legacy is intact!"
 
2012-12-16 04:23:34 PM

b0rscht: What's the shelf life of ammo, anyway?


Many decades if stored properly.

if you make it illegal to manufacture ammunition for these guns, the guns themselves will become rather harmless.

that would be a violation of the 2nd as these handguns (9mm) and the bushmaster rifle (.223) are some of the most common calibers. Also, many folks can reload and that would mean a continuing supply of ammo (albeit on the black market).
 
2012-12-16 04:24:03 PM
BAN CRAZY PEOPLE, not guns.

We need the guns to defend ourselves against all the psychotic kids plotting mass murder!
 
2012-12-16 04:24:07 PM

Paul Baumer: . A 30 round mag equipped AR-15 that can pop off 2-3 rounds per second ain't for shootin' deeer, no matter how hard Louie stomps his feet and says "nooo that's just a rifle".


You are correct; an AR-15 is better suited for wild hogs or for coyotes, as the round is too underpowered for deer hunting.
 
2012-12-16 04:25:31 PM

iq_in_binary: mab1823: iq_in_binary: 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.

The point was to make it punitive. Guns should be expensive and difficult to own due to the fact that they get used all too often for, you know, killing people.

70 Million Americans fail to break the law with their guns every day. Punishing them for things they didn't do is totally OK, because they're evil gun owners. Gonna ...


I think "punishing" is a strong word for "prove you're not batshiat insane before you get a gun."
 
2012-12-16 04:26:39 PM

Outrageous Muff: "But hundreds of millions of North Americans own guns and there aren't mass shooting every day.


Well, about that latter point...
 
2012-12-16 04:27:05 PM

thornhill: For those who are unaware what exactly a Bushmaster Model .223 is:

[static2.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

Clearly banning the ownership of guns like this will result in the US becoming a dictatorship.


As the owner of a gun exactly like that I have never once picked it up and thought to myself "Now I have to kill a bunch of people." If you do think that when you pick up a gun means there is something mentally wrong with you and you should seek help.

The kind of help mass murderers never got because mental health budgets have been cut.
 
2012-12-16 04:27:15 PM

thornhill: For those who are unaware what exactly a Bushmaster Model .223 is:

[static2.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

Clearly banning the ownership of guns like this will result in the US becoming a dictatorship.


Some additional perspective:

Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with any model of rifle: 2.55%.
Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with knives: 13.4%
Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with unarmed attacks: 5.75%.

Clearly, prohibiting civilian access to AR-15 style rifles will substantially reduce rates of violent crime. Additionally, criminals and mentally unstable individuals would not select a different, legally available, model of firearm were their first choice of rifle not legally available.
 
2012-12-16 04:28:04 PM
George Will can F himself.
 
2012-12-16 04:28:22 PM

Theaetetus: Well, about that latter point...


So you're saying that owning a gun is a mental health issue?
 
2012-12-16 04:28:25 PM

Dimensio: Paul Baumer: . A 30 round mag equipped AR-15 that can pop off 2-3 rounds per second ain't for shootin' deeer, no matter how hard Louie stomps his feet and says "nooo that's just a rifle".

You are correct; an AR-15 is better suited for wild hogs or for coyotes, as the round is too underpowered for deer hunting.


And clearly the only design capable of stopping these menaces to society. Their restriction would cause a tableau that would make Night Of The Lepus look pale in comparison,
 
2012-12-16 04:28:50 PM
If I don't have my rifle, how will I defend myself against Oburmacare?
 
2012-12-16 04:29:18 PM

Paul Baumer: 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.

It's just this kind of picayune bs that is going to hopefully carry the day for the sane folks wanting reasonable controls. An "assault rifle" for the vast majority of folks is a light weight, collapsible stock type weapon with an extended magazine and capable of a high rate of fire. Just like when this type gets all huffy when "clip" and "magazine are transposed, somehow creating a definition for assault rifle and then loudly griping when ...


Look up thread. I've made a perfectly acceptable solution apparent that is modeled after the most successful piece of gun control legislation in the world. Yet no one wants to hear it because it doesn't include banning anything.
 
2012-12-16 04:29:37 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. 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.


The problem is that lax gun laws have allowed the country to become flooded with weapons, making whatever laws we have worthless. That is, there are so many guns out there that it is incredibly easy to buy a gun outside of officially channels. For example, in Philadelphia, something like 50% of murders are committed with guns purchased from a straw purchaser -- an individually who legally buys a ton of guns, then resells them to people who cannot buy them legally. If we had a cap on the number of guns you can buy a month, that would pretty much put straw purchasers out of business.
 
2012-12-16 04:30:14 PM

Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: . A 30 round mag equipped AR-15 that can pop off 2-3 rounds per second ain't for shootin' deeer, no matter how hard Louie stomps his feet and says "nooo that's just a rifle".

You are correct; an AR-15 is better suited for wild hogs or for coyotes, as the round is too underpowered for deer hunting.

And clearly the only design capable of stopping these menaces to society. Their restriction would cause a tableau that would make Night Of The Lepus look pale in comparison,


On the contrary: prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles would likely have absolutely no measurable effect upon any meaningful statistic, including statistics of violent crime given the rarity of criminal misuse of any rifle model.
 
2012-12-16 04:30:14 PM

Outrageous Muff: As the owner of a gun exactly like that I have never once picked it up and thought to myself "Now I have to kill a bunch of people." If you do think that when you pick up a gun means there is something mentally wrong with you and you should seek help.


I think that anyone who thinks they need to own a gun because they may have to potentially protect themselves from or overthrow the government someday should not be allowed to own a gun.
 
2012-12-16 04:30:37 PM
What is it? a third of a million gun deaths since 2000?
 
2012-12-16 04:30:38 PM

Tahs4Evar: 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.


Huh. Cause gun control has had pretty much no effect in Australia. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html
 
2012-12-16 04:30:48 PM

mab1823: iq_in_binary: mab1823: iq_in_binary: 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.

The point was to make it punitive. Guns should be expensive and difficult to own due to the fact that they get used all too often for, you know, killing people.

70 Million Americans fail to break the law with their guns every day. Punishing them for things they didn't do is totally OK, because they're evil gun ...


Except the first two steps in his plan included taking away guns from people that did nothing wrong with them.
 
2012-12-16 04:31:00 PM

Dimensio: thornhill: For those who are unaware what exactly a Bushmaster Model .223 is:

[static2.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

Clearly banning the ownership of guns like this will result in the US becoming a dictatorship.

Some additional perspective:

Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with any model of rifle: 2.55%.
Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with knives: 13.4%
Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with unarmed attacks: 5.75%.

Clearly, prohibiting civilian access to AR-15 style rifles will substantially reduce rates of violent crime. Additionally, criminals and mentally unstable individuals would not select a different, legally available, model of firearm were their first choice of rifle not legally available.


Say, what were the number of murders with handguns? Seem to be missing from your list. Must have been an oversight. And in your view, any solution that doesn't 100% make everything better isn't worth doing apparently, I presume?
 
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