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  
•       •       •

6313 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 04:47:58 PM  

Daedalus27: 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.

Actually, they did have one a few years ago which occurred after their gun control law was enacted. Cumbria Shootings, 12 dead, 11 wounded, gunman suicide.


Cumbria wasn't really a mass shooting - it was a spree shooting. The victims in that case were spread out over 30 crime scenes, not crowed into the same location. Note also the weapons involved: a double-barrelled shotgun and a 22 rifle - which led to more people surviving being shot.
 
2012-12-16 04:48:07 PM  

Outrageous Muff: Mike Chewbacca: Outrageous Muff: keithgabryelski: if we want to talk about mass murders we should actually talk about ... well ... mass murders.

38 kids killed. Zero guns used.

And that likely wouldn't happen in this day and age because the FBI monitors the purchase of bomb-making supplies.

The mentally unstable find a way. Example of that is OKC bombing.


Actually, he was able to do that because the FBI wasn't already monitoring those types of sales. Why do you think they do now?
 
2012-12-16 04:48:49 PM  
Ok, that's settled. Don't change anything and hope the weekly mass shootings magically stop
 
2012-12-16 04:48:53 PM  

evil saltine: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: OH GOD NO, IT'S SCARY AND BLACK!

That's the argument against gun control: "Yer just scared of guns ya pussy"


It's an argument against banning things out of ignorance. The gun in the picture is not a machine gun, does not fire ultra-lethal "cop killer" bullets, and is in general substantially less deadly than a wide variety of guns with wooden furniture and no pistol grip.

But somehow having black plastic grips and a rail on top makes it a military weapon that no civilian should be able to own. I mean, just look at it. It looks just like an M16!

/The things also jam frequently and are prone to a number of mechanical headaches if not carefully maintained. If you want to massacre people reliably, use a Kalashnikov.
 
2012-12-16 04:49:06 PM  

Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: one, successful reduction of 2% of murders would mean a lot more people walking around.

You will first need to demonstrate that the murders would not have been committed with a different, non-banned, firearm.

100% solutions required, as always, form folks desperate to maintain the status quo.


I am not demanding a "100% solution". I am requesting evidence that currently proposed solutions, such as prohibiting one specific pattern type of a very rarely criminally misused class of firearm, are meaningful and productive.
 
2012-12-16 04:49:13 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: How about we do both? Because guns kill lots of people every day, and the murderers are usually NOT mentally unstable.


That's nice in the fantasy world you live in, but here in the real world taking everyone's guns isn't possible. However mental health programs are, and they solve a lot more things then mass murders.
 
2012-12-16 04:49:28 PM  
The sad thing is that the CT shooter's mother probably felt so much safer with all those guns in the house.

She was wrong.
 
2012-12-16 04:49:56 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."


Why do you have "right" in quotes? The 2nd Amendment and the United States Supreme Court has established that the people have the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. See District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. The United States Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, Northern District of Illinois, struck down Illinois' total ban on carrying of firearms as it was a 2nd Amendment violation of the right of self-defense.
 
2012-12-16 04:50:00 PM  

efgeise: Most deaths are accidental in some form.


I think the line between "accidental" and "intentional" is pretty blurry when we're talking someone who was obviously a complete wacko. A person who is wired to do this can't be dealt with rationally unless their brain is chemically or surgically modified. In their unmodified form, their mind is an uncontrolled force of nature. There's nothing to negotiate with. He doesn't care. There is less "why," than there would be in a car accident. Many kinds of accidents can be explained and learned from (early car accident: replace plate glass with safety glass and the person wouldn't have bled to death). This can't be explained any better than why did the tornado his this house and not that one. There's no motive that will make sense. So the question is, what investment will result in less death. You're just as dead if a psycho shoots you as if your car gas tank explodes when rear-ended.
 
2012-12-16 04:51:01 PM  

Paul Baumer: one, successful reduction of 2% of murders would mean a lot more people walking around.


Taking away this weapon many not result in said reduction. The perp could just choose another weapon. Maybe a bomb made of household chemicals.

/or are we now going to ban yard fertilizer too?
 
2012-12-16 04:51:40 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Nevermind the fact that its .223 ammunition is substantially less deadly to humans than a common deer rifle (it was chosen for military service partly because merely wounding an enemy is more effective than killing him, since you also tie up a medic to treat his wounds), or that it's only capable of single-shot fire.


assets.nydailynews.com

It's deadly enough.

/"waah, don't put pix on our stats!"
 
2012-12-16 04:51:48 PM  

iq_in_binary: Purely punitive, and quite frankly never going to happen. Be realistic. Half of what you put forward in 1 is already taken care of by the NICS. 2 is unconstitutional. 3 is something even the insurance companies would laugh you out of the room for. 4 is half taken care of by my proposal to apply NFA to all new semi-autos and all existing semi-autos over a caliber threshold (.380 ACP for Pistols, .30 Carbine for Rifles, 4-10 for Shotguns), basically everything but the "insurance." 5 has been tried and is laughably stupid for many reasons. 6 is already taken care of by my proposal. 7 has been tried, but can only be implemented if changed to reflect doing harm. Waaaay too much abuse to be had with that one otherwise, a cop could arrest everybody at an indoor shooting range citing "Accidental Discharges" by quietly calling a cease fire and then waiting for someone who didn't hear to keep firing, and if you don't think they'd try that one, you're naive.

Look at my proposal. It's up thread.


Yep, it's punitive. Because PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. If you can't be as responsible with your gun as you are with your car, then you are not responsible enough to own guns. End of story.

How is gun registration unconstitutional? (And don't even get me on the ridiculousness of that bolded party.)
 
2012-12-16 04:52:05 PM  

keithgabryelski: rohar:
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 626x404]

Now, if anyone could come up with real gun crime statistics over that period of time, I'd appreciate it no end. Without that though, any argument of the affect of the passage of this law is purely speculation.

those are firearm offenses right? not homicides?


Correct. But the way the UK collects data is absolutely mind numbing. Getting any data that could support a position on either side of the 1987 law is all but impossible.

For instance, the graph I posted shows a dip around '92 but other sources suggest that drop was mainly due to a reduction in air powered firearm and inoperable realistic toy crime. Who the hell lists an airsoft gun crime as a firearm crime?
 
2012-12-16 04:52:47 PM  
Still waiting for an example of compromise from the gun control side...
 
2012-12-16 04:52:50 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

I am not stating only that prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles will not "100% make everything better"; I am stating that no evidence suggests that such a prohibition would serve any benefit at all. Criminally inclined individuals and mentally unstable individuals would select a different rifle model if the AR-15 were not legally available.

20 more living first graders in Connecticut wiould be a very tangible benefit.

Please set aside your irrational hatred of all firearm owners for a moment and demonstrate that they would have been alive had the shooter used a different model of rifle or a different class of firearm.

Let's just ignore that part...

Apparently three of the adults killed confronted the Adam Lanza. It's very possible if he'd been forced to reload one of them could have taken him down. In fact, it's happened before (see: Jared Loughner).


Since random strangers are apparently capable of summoning the courage for stopping these attacks, I take it you are in favor of concealed carry weapons on school grounds?
...Or are you one of those that believes the people trying to stop a mad gunmen benefit from being unarmed?
 
2012-12-16 04:53:37 PM  

Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

I am not stating only that prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles will not "100% make everything better"; I am stating that no evidence suggests that such a prohibition would serve any benefit at all. Criminally inclined individuals and mentally unstable individuals would select a different rifle model if the AR-15 were not legally available.

20 more living first graders in Connecticut wiould be a very tangible benefit.

Please set aside your irrational hatred of all firearm owners for a moment and demonstrate that they would have been alive had the shooter used a different model of rifle or a different class of firearm.

If even one of those children were still alive because Lanza was unable to access a weapon with the same rate of fire, would you consider that a benefit?

Yes. When you can demonstrate that prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 style rifles would have accomplished exactly that goal, your argument will be meaningful.


Can demonstrate that civilian ownership of AR-15 style rifles are an overall benefit to society in any way? Can you prove that of they are banned that there would be any negative consequence at all?

I can give you 26 pieces of solid, inarguable evidence of the the damage they do. Please provide a definitive list of the provable benefits that make the sacrifice of those 26 lives worth it.
 
2012-12-16 04:53:50 PM  

HeadLever: Paul Baumer: one, successful reduction of 2% of murders would mean a lot more people walking around.

Taking away this weapon many not result in said reduction. The perp could just choose another weapon. Maybe a bomb made of household chemicals.

/or are we now going to ban yard fertilizer too?


That's already strictly limited and monitored.
 
2012-12-16 04:53:53 PM  

Fark It: I'll ask again, since no one has really given me an answer.

Gun control advocates consistently argue for compromise when they ask for discussion. For those of you who are asking for discussion and compromise, who aren't calling for pie-in-the-sky schemes and painting all gun owners with the same NRA tea party conservative brush, I ask this:

What are gun control advocates willing to put on the table when it comes to this compromise we hear all the time?


Right HERE:

But nobody wants to hear about it because it doesn't involve banning anything to punish those 70 Million evil gun owners.
 
2012-12-16 04:53:55 PM  
If everyone agrees that better mental health treatment would have solved this problem, then anyone who continues to push more gun laws or push removing more gun laws is using dead children to further their political agenda. it's just that simple.
 
2012-12-16 04:54:05 PM  

HeadLever: Paul Baumer: one, successful reduction of 2% of murders would mean a lot more people walking around.

Taking away this weapon many not result in said reduction. The perp could just choose another weapon. Maybe a bomb made of household chemicals.

/or are we now going to ban yard fertilizer too?


yes they could -- but generally they don't.

this is why the less guns a country has -- the less homicides the country has.
 
2012-12-16 04:54:24 PM  

HeadLever: Paul Baumer: one, successful reduction of 2% of murders would mean a lot more people walking around.

Taking away this weapon many not result in said reduction. The perp could just choose another weapon. Maybe a bomb made of household chemicals.

/or are we now going to ban yard fertilizer too?


Ironically, the forms you have to fill out to buy a meaningful amount of fertilizer are far more rigorous than to buy a handgun or rifle, which I can do without even an ID at a gunshow.
 
2012-12-16 04:54:46 PM  
Dual keys.

1. All guns must be kept in secure cabinets. (no responsible gun owner disagrees with this)

2. These secure cabinets can only be opened by two people acting simultaneously. (this is easy enough)

3. The gun owner (registered) has one key. The other key is held by a registered and approved keeper who must not keep his/her key on the premises.

This relatively simple adjustment would mean that you get to keep your guns, you get to use them safely, and a lone crackpot won't be able to take your AR-15 and gun down a crowd of folk.

And, for safety's sake:

4. The exception to the keep-in-cabinet rule is a single pistol, suitable for home or personal defence.
 
2012-12-16 04:55:10 PM  

Fark It: Still waiting for an example of compromise from the gun control side...


what is it exactly you're expecting - somebody to say 'ok, we'll regulate this kind of gun, but in trade you get rocket launchers' or something?
 
2012-12-16 04:55:18 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: How is gun registration unconstitutional?


Federal firearm registration is currently prohibited by the Firearm Owner's Protection Act. Firearm registration suggestions are currently resisted due to concerns regarding use of a registry for a confiscation effort in the future. Had such confiscation efforts not already occurred in the past, I would dismiss those concerns as irrational.

If a registry could be shown to provide a demonstrable benefit, and if a means of guaranteeing that the registry could never be utilized to effect confiscation (such as a prohibition in the registry law mandating destruction of the registry and nullification of the registry requirement should any politician so much as author legislation for firearm confiscation), then I would support such a measure.
 
2012-12-16 04:55:45 PM  

Fark It: Still waiting for an example of compromise from the gun control side...


What could we possibly give up? Allow the first murder to go unpuinished?
 
2012-12-16 04:55:48 PM  

Paul Baumer: iq_in_binary: Paul Baumer: Dimensio: 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.

And you know this how?

Because deaths caused by ANY rifles in a given year are far and away outstripped by people who get beaten to death. They account for less than 2% of all murders.

one, successful reduction of 2% of murders would mean a lot more people walking around. Two, that fella could physically not have beaten that many people to death - his choice greatly improved his efficiency, three, frequency does not a equal a reason to make something legal - there probably aren't that many spitting cobra deaths, and yet we are ok with them being regulated. Reductio ad absurdem arguments are all there are for these weapons - but I grant you they seem to work just fine on the 25% or so of voters you need to keep it in place. Lok I have owned and operated several of these things - I still have a Saiga 12. I'd be perfectly willing to accept annual license renewal, 5 shot magazine limitation, 5 year mental health checks, and required home safety features that must be produced on demand - like they do in other countries that allow civilian ownership but don't seem to have the massacre problem.


Right, because it's important to focus on the absolute least problematic of something in regards to violent crime because it's the most important to you, i.e. you get to ban a gun.
 
2012-12-16 04:56:04 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-16 04:56:09 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.


Every single bullet point you listed - every one - shows you do not understand guns or gun ownership enough to have an intelligent opinion on the matter.

Please stop talking.
 
2012-12-16 04:56:31 PM  
By that reasoning:
Let's eliminate seat belts. They don't stop all traffic fatalities.
Let's eliminate speed limits. They don't stop all traffic fatalities.
Let's eliminate drunk driving laws. They don't stop all traffic fatalities.
Let's eliminate GFDI outlets. They don't prevent all electrocutions.
Let's eliminate building codes. They don't prevent all building collapses/fire-traps.
Let's eliminate food safety laws. They don't prevent all deaths by food poisoning/mad-cow/trichinosis.
Let's eliminate aircraft safety requirements. They don't prevent all plane crashes.
Let's eliminate safety guidelines for children's toys. They don't prevent all child deaths by toys.

The assault weapon example is useless. Most gun crimes were not and still are not committed using assault weapons. Let's see what happens if we ban handguns and/or any gun less than 4' long. I think you'd see after a couple of years that gun deaths (and therefore deaths due to crime) would go down significantly as guns are removed from the streets. It wouldn't happen overnight but it would happen.
 
2012-12-16 04:56:35 PM  

keithgabryelski: HeadLever: Paul Baumer: one, successful reduction of 2% of murders would mean a lot more people walking around.

Taking away this weapon many not result in said reduction. The perp could just choose another weapon. Maybe a bomb made of household chemicals.

/or are we now going to ban yard fertilizer too?

yes they could -- but generally they don't.

this is why the less guns a country has -- the less homicides the country has.


We are not talking about homicides in general, we are talking about rampage killings.

/Unless you want people to post crime stats from places like Puerto Rico and Jamaica that prove your claim to be untrue.
 
2012-12-16 04:56:38 PM  

Fark It: Still waiting for an example of compromise from the gun control side...


Gave you one upthread. Magazine limitations, recurring licensing, mandatory recurring health checks, mandatory home safety measures, mandatory re-qualification and ongoing training, all licensed firearms must be produced for inspection on a recurring basis. Close gun show loophole.
 
2012-12-16 04:56:46 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Fark It: Still waiting for an example of compromise from the gun control side...

What could we possibly give up? Allow the first murder to go unpuinished?


and you don't have to pay for it if it's delivered in under half an hour.
 
2012-12-16 04:56:52 PM  
I agree with the calls for better mental health care. For example, the shooters mother purchased multiple firearms and was a survivalist of sorts. I'm thinking she should have be subjected to electroshock therapy and had her kids taken away and raised by the state. I'm sure that's what the NRA supporters are thinking.
 
2012-12-16 04:56:58 PM  

rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar:
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 626x404]

Now, if anyone could come up with real gun crime statistics over that period of time, I'd appreciate it no end. Without that though, any argument of the affect of the passage of this law is purely speculation.

those are firearm offenses right? not homicides?

Correct. But the way the UK collects data is absolutely mind numbing. Getting any data that could support a position on either side of the 1987 law is all but impossible.

For instance, the graph I posted shows a dip around '92 but other sources suggest that drop was mainly due to a reduction in air powered firearm and inoperable realistic toy crime. Who the hell lists an airsoft gun crime as a firearm crime?


ok, so don't try to use that data to support a position that "gun control in the UK lead to twice the number of homicides".

(or at least that is what I got from your message).

It certainly seems that "gun control in the UK lead to twice the number of gun offenses" -- that is a reasonable statement and make sense.
 
2012-12-16 04:57:04 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Can demonstrate that civilian ownership of AR-15 style rifles are an overall benefit to society in any way? Can you prove that of they are banned that there would be any negative consequence at all?


No.


I can give you 26 pieces of solid, inarguable evidence of the the damage they do. Please provide a definitive list of the provable benefits that make the sacrifice of those 26 lives worth it.


I await, then, your evidence that the murders, or at least some of the murders, committed on Friday would not have occurred had AR-15 pattern rifles been prohibited. Please present it.
 
2012-12-16 04:57:34 PM  

Outrageous Muff: If everyone agrees that better mental health treatment would have solved this problem, then anyone who continues to push more gun laws or push removing more gun laws is using dead children to further their political agenda. it's just that simple.


I don't agree to that. Can you prove that Adam Lanza exhibited signs of mental illness wothy of interventiion prior to the shooting? Why are you using dead children to push you agenda?
 
2012-12-16 04:57:42 PM  

Skyd1v: 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.

Every single bullet point you listed - every one - shows you do not understand guns or gun ownership enough to have an intelligent opinion on the matter.

Please stop talking.


I'm glad you're here to show me the light.
 
2012-12-16 04:57:44 PM  

Outrageous Muff: If everyone agrees that better mental health treatment would have solved this problem, then anyone who continues to push more gun laws or push removing more gun laws is using dead children to further their political agenda. it's just that simple.


Why do I have the feeling that a lot of the people who are playing the "we don't need more gun laws we need better mental health" card are also the same people who don't like Obamacare and don't think they should have to pay for other people's mental illness?
 
2012-12-16 04:58:07 PM  

Paul Baumer: Fark It: Still waiting for an example of compromise from the gun control side...

Gave you one upthread. Magazine limitations, recurring licensing, mandatory recurring health checks, mandatory home safety measures, mandatory re-qualification and ongoing training, all licensed firearms must be produced for inspection on a recurring basis. Close gun show loophole.


What would firearm owners receive in return?
 
2012-12-16 04:58:17 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Outrageous Muff: Mike Chewbacca: Outrageous Muff: keithgabryelski: if we want to talk about mass murders we should actually talk about ... well ... mass murders.

38 kids killed. Zero guns used.

And that likely wouldn't happen in this day and age because the FBI monitors the purchase of bomb-making supplies.

The mentally unstable find a way. Example of that is OKC bombing.

Actually, he was able to do that because the FBI wasn't already monitoring those types of sales. Why do you think they do now?


Ahem, they do not monitor sales of Toluene, products containing nitric or sulfuric acid, or a hell of a lot of materials that could just as easily be used to create a bomb. Hell, unless we start monitoring absolutely every square inch of soil in this land, it is impossible to prevent somebody from making any of the explosives found in the manual of improvised munitions.
 
2012-12-16 04:58:33 PM  

iq_in_binary: Paul Baumer: iq_in_binary: Paul Baumer: Dimensio: 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.

And you know this how?

Because deaths caused by ANY rifles in a given year are far and away outstripped by people who get beaten to death. They account for less than 2% of all murders.

one, successful reduction of 2% of murders would mean a lot more people walking around. Two, that fella could physically not have beaten that many people to death - his choice greatly improved his efficiency, three, frequency does not a equal a reason to make something legal - there probably aren't that many spitting cobra deaths, and yet we are ok with them being regulated. Reductio ad absurdem arguments are all there are for these weapons - but I grant you they seem to work just fine on the 25% or so of voters you need to keep it in place. Lok I have owned and operated several of these things - I still have a Saiga 12. I'd be perfectly willing to accept annual license renewal, 5 shot magazine limitation, 5 year mental health checks, and required home safety features that must be produced on demand - like they do in other countries that allow civilian ownership but don't seem to have the massacre problem.

Right, because it's important to focus on the absolute least problematic of ...


I say again, the rejection of any measure that doesn't offer 100% reduction out of hand exposes your actual goal of maintaining the status quo at all costs.
 
2012-12-16 04:59:13 PM  

Dimensio: Paul Baumer: Fark It: Still waiting for an example of compromise from the gun control side...

Gave you one upthread. Magazine limitations, recurring licensing, mandatory recurring health checks, mandatory home safety measures, mandatory re-qualification and ongoing training, all licensed firearms must be produced for inspection on a recurring basis. Close gun show loophole.

What would firearm owners receive in return?


their firearms.

considering a lack of compromise would be absolute gun grabbing, i'm kinda lost on this whole 'what do we need to give gun owners' aspect of the compromise tangent.
 
2012-12-16 04:59:28 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: How is gun registration unconstitutional?


It is not not unconstitutional. Most folks are not going to go for it since it is always step #1 in the confiscation process. There will be millions of folks that will not go along with the process because they are wary of the slippery slope.
 
2012-12-16 04:59:41 PM  

way south: Mike Chewbacca: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

I am not stating only that prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles will not "100% make everything better"; I am stating that no evidence suggests that such a prohibition would serve any benefit at all. Criminally inclined individuals and mentally unstable individuals would select a different rifle model if the AR-15 were not legally available.

20 more living first graders in Connecticut wiould be a very tangible benefit.

Please set aside your irrational hatred of all firearm owners for a moment and demonstrate that they would have been alive had the shooter used a different model of rifle or a different class of firearm.

Let's just ignore that part...

Apparently three of the adults killed confronted the Adam Lanza. It's very possible if he'd been forced to reload one of them could have taken him down. In fact, it's happened before (see: Jared Loughner).

Since random strangers are apparently capable of summoning the courage for stopping these attacks, I take it you are in favor of concealed carry weapons on school grounds?
...Or are you one of those that believes the people trying to stop a mad gunmen benefit from being unarmed?


I don't think concealed carry in schools is the answer. I'm not opposed to the idea, but I think it opens up the opportunity for a different kind of tragedy. If we're going to have guns on campus, I'd rather they be carried by police. For example, the kid who shot up the Granite Hills High was taken down by a cop that was working on campus. I trust a cop's abilities more than a kindergarten teacher.
 
2012-12-16 04:59:52 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Outrageous Muff: keithgabryelski: if we want to talk about mass murders we should actually talk about ... well ... mass murders.

38 kids killed. Zero guns used.

And that likely wouldn't happen in this day and age because the FBI monitors the purchase of bomb-making supplies.


Please explain the metrics of what is the difference between 'for landscaping' and 'for bomb-making'. In this country a determined individual could do ANYTHING evil given time thanks to our unregulated freedom of purchasing landscaping and cleaning products. Lets discuss issues to curb guns ending up in hands of people like this, but lets not pretend that a determined individual can commit mass murder with much more common materials (I.e OKC bombing)
 
2012-12-16 05:00:04 PM  

PartTimeBuddha: Dual keys.

1. All guns must be kept in secure cabinets. (no responsible gun owner disagrees with this)

2. These secure cabinets can only be opened by two people acting simultaneously. (this is easy enough)

3. The gun owner (registered) has one key. The other key is held by a registered and approved keeper who must not keep his/her key on the premises.

This relatively simple adjustment would mean that you get to keep your guns, you get to use them safely, and a lone crackpot won't be able to take your AR-15 and gun down a crowd of folk.

And, for safety's sake:

4. The exception to the keep-in-cabinet rule is a single pistol, suitable for home or personal defence.


Prohibiting firearm ownership to individuals who live alone is not reasonable.
 
2012-12-16 05:00:24 PM  
i know i'm really laser focused on what needs to be done to placate the gun lobby, at least. that's what's important.
 
2012-12-16 05:00:36 PM  

Dimensio: Paul Baumer: Fark It: Still waiting for an example of compromise from the gun control side...

Gave you one upthread. Magazine limitations, recurring licensing, mandatory recurring health checks, mandatory home safety measures, mandatory re-qualification and ongoing training, all licensed firearms must be produced for inspection on a recurring basis. Close gun show loophole.

What would firearm owners receive in return?


The continuing right to own one. What do we give folks in exchange for not being able to get a flamethrower or fast attack sub? What did we give submachine gun owners in this country when we figured out it was a good idea to ban them - a ban that has greatly reduced the number of machine gun killings in this country I might add.
 
2012-12-16 05:00:45 PM  
I'm actually a big supporter of gun rights, but I hate flawed logic. Pointing out a single instance of mass gun violence in a country with strict gun laws is hardly an argument that strict gun laws "don't help". The frequency with which these kinds of tragedies occur is the determining factor here. In other words, George Will is making a juvenile point.

I'm sure this point has been made dozens of times ITT already.
 
2012-12-16 05:00:48 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.


So do you think guns like this would be less evil?

www.woodburyoutfitters.com
 
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