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 05:01:03 PM

Mike Chewbacca: 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.)


Are you farking retarded? Wait no, you just want a law like that instituted specifically so police officers can do just what I described. Because you want to punish those 70 million EEEEVIL gun owners. It's not about personal responsibility, you just want to make people suffer.
 
2012-12-16 05:01:04 PM

Dimensio: 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.


So if you have no proof that those weapons have any benefit or value to society, your vehement defense of them is entirely irrational.
 
2012-12-16 05:01:49 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: 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 image 850x280]

It's deadly enough.

/"waah, don't put pix on our stats!"


Pictures of dead children, though tragic, do not constitute an argument as to why this is an "assault weapon"...
upload.wikimedia.org
...and this is not.
cdn2.armslist.com

Emotional appeal is such a good way to legislate, after all.
 
2012-12-16 05:01:55 PM

heap: 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.


Firearm owners already have their firearms. You cannot offer what an individual already possesses What you propose is not "compromise".

I would request re-opening of the National Firearms Act "machine gun" registry, in exchange for possibly multiple new regulations on firearm ownership. What is your opinion of that request?
 
2012-12-16 05:02:11 PM

Paul Baumer: 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.


No you can't. If you're going to participate in a rational discussion, quit pulling shiat out of your ass.
 
2012-12-16 05:02:12 PM

HeadLever: 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.


New boogieman - "the confiscation process".
 
2012-12-16 05:03:13 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: 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.

So if you have no proof that those weapons have any benefit or value to society, your vehement defense of them is entirely irrational.


In free, non-authoritarian societies, rights of ownership and action are allowed by default, and are restricted only when restriction is justified. If you cannot demonstrate that the murders committed on Friday could not have been committed with any firearm pattern other than an AR-15, then prohibiting such a rifle type is not reasonable in a free society.
 
2012-12-16 05:03:50 PM

heap: 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.


It's simple. The gun owners want to hold first grader's lives hostage. They want to be be compensated for any attempt to stop their fellow gun owners from committing mass murder.
 
2012-12-16 05:04:05 PM

iq_in_binary: Mike Chewbacca: 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.)

Are you farking retarded? Wait no, you just want a law like that instituted specifically so police officers can do just what I described. Because you want to punish those 70 million EEEEVIL gun owners. It's not about personal responsibility, you just want to make people suffer.


Regulatory controls are punishment - that's the thinnest of fig leaves. We are subject to regulatory controls in just about every facet of our lives - how fast you can drive, where you can dump your garbage, etc. This is a joke argument.
 
2012-12-16 05:04:06 PM

Dimensio: You cannot offer what an individual already possesses

would request re-opening of the National Firearms Act "machine gun" registry, in exchange for possibly multiple new regulations on firearm ownership. What is your opinion of that request?


my opinion is that trying to get easier access to machine guns on the back of 20 dead kids is going to fail horribly, and you will look very foolish in that effort if it were seriously pursued.
 
GBB
2012-12-16 05:04:36 PM

HeadLever: GBB: 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.

I am pretty sure that the supreme court would (and have) disagreed with you here. One of the main findings of Heller was that the prefatory clause does not limit the operative clause. It only states a reasoning.


But, doesn't that illustrate my point that the SCOTUS applied their interpretation of grammar on a late-18th Century document? Even in the late 1800s the SCOTS was interpreting it as "collective rights"; that the militia, not individuals, had the right to bear arms. It also goes to my point that "They used the language of the day and tried their best." There is now no way to know what they originally meant by this because there was no documented discussion for us to rely on. Therefore, SCOTUS has the duty to interpret and no matter their decision, there will always be dissenting views.

And, in any event, the point is effectivly moot. Pandora's box is open; guns are out there. There will never be a way to ban them. Even if they did enact laws, or hold the 2nd amendment to the collective rights viewpoint, there will be no way to rid the country of registered guns, not to mention the unregistered ones.
 
2012-12-16 05:04:49 PM

Paul Baumer: 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.


We already have the right to own firearms, and thus that would not be a measure received in return.

Flamethrowers are not federally restricted. Were you unaware of that fact?
 
2012-12-16 05:05:29 PM
i'm actually kind of flabberbaffled here.

'what do i get?' really, actually makes sense to some people here.

"ok, you can regulate this, but i get a machine gun in trade!'

wtf-on-a-stick.
 
2012-12-16 05:05:58 PM

Mike Chewbacca: That's already strictly limited and monitored.


Limited? Really. I have never had to sign on anything when picking up my 20 lb bag of ammonia nitrate. Somewhat limited and monitored if you are buying farm/ranch scale quantities.
 
2012-12-16 05:06:12 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: 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.

So if you have no proof that those weapons have any benefit or value to society, your vehement defense of them is entirely irrational.


If it's black, it's evil to you. That's your entire approach to gun control. BAN THE EVIL BLACK SCARY THINGS! And yet, when anybody points out that it would have accomplished exactly nothing, they're automatically baby killers out to murder everybody's innocent little anything. Pull your head out of your ass.

Here is about the closest to a workable situation that can be made that would actually accomplish what you want:

If you can take a look at that and come back without attacking me for having a small penis, then we might be able to get something accomplished.
 
2012-12-16 05:06:16 PM

Empty Matchbook: 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?


Congratulations...you're my very first favorited Farker.
 
2012-12-16 05:06:34 PM

heap: i'm actually kind of flabberbaffled here.

'what do i get?' really, actually makes sense to some people here.

"ok, you can regulate this, but i get a machine gun in trade!'

wtf-on-a-stick.


I was addressing the subject of "compromise". I am not necessarily opposed to new restrictions upon firearm ownership without removing existing controls, but many of the proposed restrictions are unreasonable and would serve no demonstrable benefit.
 
2012-12-16 05:06:35 PM
So which one of you is this?

blogs.laweekly.com
 
2012-12-16 05:07:05 PM

Dimensio: We already have the right to own firearms, and thus that would not be a measure received in return.


here's a thought, you aren't entitled to a good goddamned thing in return.

what did gun control advocates get in return for years of relaxed gun laws? what was their payoff - and why the holy hell do you actually think you're deserving of one?

for frigs sake, going by the tally of weapons in my house, i'm a certifiable gun nut, and i can't make any sense of this thought process.
 
2012-12-16 05:07:10 PM

keithgabryelski: 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.


Sorry, that wasn't my argument at all. My argument is that there is no statistical support for the idea that the 1987 law had any affect on gun crime whatsoever with the exception of inoperable toy guns and air powered guns.

For that matter, there's little to no statistical support that shows the success or failure of any of the gun control laws in the U.S. either.
 
2012-12-16 05:07:21 PM

iq_in_binary: Mike Chewbacca: 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.)

Are you farking retarded? Wait no, you just want a law like that instituted specifically so police officers can do just what I described. Because you want to punish those 70 million EEEEVIL gun owners. It's not about personal responsibility, you just want to make people suffer.


Just an FYI, I got a 24-hour time out for calling a troll a retard. So maybe you ought to tone it down. And you have yet to address anything I've actually said. You're just attacking me personally because I want gun owners to actually be responsible. Nothing I've proposed is against our constitution, or should offend any responsible gun owners. I don't want to punish responsible gun owners like my dad, or my father-in-law, or my brother, or my uncles, or my cousin, or my nephew. I want to punish gun owners who aren't responsible and fail to treat their guns with the care that they deserve.
 
2012-12-16 05:07:26 PM

Dimensio: Paul Baumer: 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.

We already have the right to own firearms, and thus that would not be a measure received in return.

Flamethrowers are not federally restricted. Were you unaware of that fact?


Picayune distraction again. Changes in regulatory control happen all the time - speed limits, voting id requirements (see what I did there?) etc. - you get no special consideration for firearms.
 
2012-12-16 05:07:36 PM

Mike Chewbacca: How is gun registration unconstitutional?


Because you don't have to notify the government of your intent to exercise your rights.
 
2012-12-16 05:08:17 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: 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?


Would a mentally stable person have done this? If the answer is no, then your next question is would having a stronger mental heath program that starts in schools had a better chance of picking up on the signs of the mentally unstable person before they reached the point where they believe killing people is what needs to be done? If the answer to this is yes, then your next question is why are people pushing for or against gun laws if they know it wouldn't solve the issue?
 
2012-12-16 05:08:44 PM

RevMercutio: HEY! LET'S USE DEAD CHILDREN TO PUSH OUT POLITICAL AGENDA!


When the "agenda" consists of preventing future massacres of children (or students, or shoppers, or worshippers), I'd say that's perfectly appropriate.

In fact, trying to cause change and prevent these sorts of things is the best way to honor their memory. Far better than having "moments of silence" and "praying for the families," which changes nothng.
 
2012-12-16 05:08:45 PM
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.

Let's see, you pro-gun people talk about how important that the right to carry is because it's in the second amendment.

The FIRST amendment covers freedom of speech.

I have fired guns (the first one when I was six lying down in the arms of my father). I don't think all of the bullet points that mab1823 were off the mark nor showing any ignorance in guns or gun ownership. So feel free to talk, it's your right to talk..and even to be snotty and an ass.
 
2012-12-16 05:09:16 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?


Twenty first-graders?

/not worth it?
 
2012-12-16 05:09:33 PM

iq_in_binary: Kome:



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 shoul ...


Yet, according to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics for 2009 there are 254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles in the US and you seem to be able to track all of those.
 
2012-12-16 05:10:02 PM

iq_in_binary: 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.


Wait. You're arguing that since, in theory, if he got really lucky, he could have killed kids with explosives, that therefore we shouldn't do anything to prevent this?

Do you...you know what, never mind. If that's what people favoring no gun control believe, that's what they believe.

What is it that gun enthusiasts will lose if we ban private ownership of clip and magazine fed weapons? You'll no longer be able to hunt? No longer able to defend youselves? What?
 
2012-12-16 05:11:06 PM

cchris_39: Mike Chewbacca: How is gun registration unconstitutional?

Because you don't have to notify the government of your intent to exercise your rights.


Didn't SCOTUS recently rule that we have to tell cops, "I am now invoking my right to remain silent?" That kind of shoots a hole in your theory. And let's not forget that we need to REGISTER TO VOTE.
 
2012-12-16 05:11:19 PM

cchris_39: Mike Chewbacca: How is gun registration unconstitutional?

Because you don't have to notify the government of your intent to exercise your rights.


Ever get married? Guess what, you have to notify the government if you want to.
 
2012-12-16 05:11:38 PM

cchris_39: Mike Chewbacca: How is gun registration unconstitutional?

Because you don't have to notify the government of your intent to exercise your rights.


there are limits to rights.

for instance, a city can control parades (free speech) -- you have to have a permit and must schedule your parade with the city
within a reasonable amount of time.
 
2012-12-16 05:12:06 PM

Paul Baumer: New boogieman - "the confiscation process".


Boogieman maybe, however, nothing new about it. This issue is steeped in history.
 
2012-12-16 05:12:09 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: What is it that gun enthusiasts will lose if we ban private ownership of clip and magazine fed weapons? You'll no longer be able to hunt? No longer able to defend youselves? What?


they would lose a political fight, and instill the fear that they would lose the entire political fight.

it really is an all or nothing lobby. 'sensible' looks very different when you see it as an ideological battle rather than the issue at hand.
 
2012-12-16 05:12:15 PM

Pincy: cchris_39: Mike Chewbacca: How is gun registration unconstitutional?

Because you don't have to notify the government of your intent to exercise your rights.

Ever get married? Guess what, you have to notify the government if you want to.


I forgot about that one!
 
2012-12-16 05:12:24 PM

Marcus Aurelius: "George Will" and "learn something" are mutually exclusive.


Well he sure offered a lot of alternative ideas on how to stop these nutjobs, didn't he? I can guess why.

I mean those were just five and six year olds. They don't vote and kids are notoriously liberal.
 
2012-12-16 05:12:59 PM

keithgabryelski: cchris_39: Mike Chewbacca: How is gun registration unconstitutional?

Because you don't have to notify the government of your intent to exercise your rights.

there are limits to rights.

for instance, a city can control parades (free speech) -- you have to have a permit and must schedule your parade with the city
within a reasonable amount of time.


Similarly, I was required to obtain a state-issue permit before I was permitted to carry concealed firearms in public.
 
2012-12-16 05:13:09 PM

mab1823: So which one of you is this?

[blogs.laweekly.com image 550x412]


Nothing says "tough guy" like a Guitar Hero controller.
 
2012-12-16 05:14:03 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?


Laws prohibiting her from having the guns. Maybe he'd kill her anyway, but stealing non-existant guns is hard.
 
2012-12-16 05:14:42 PM

Mentat: George Will also hates blue jeans.


And football. He won't shut up about how much he hates football.
 
2012-12-16 05:15:12 PM

llachlan: iq_in_binary: Kome:



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 shoul ...

Yet, according to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics for 2009 there are 254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles in the US and you seem to be able to track all of those.


Ever tried to bury a car?
 
2012-12-16 05:15:21 PM

way south:
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.


i'd like to keep this to rampage killings.

but the stats on # of guns in a country with respect to # of homicides is well in the favor of "more guns = more homicides".
You can find outliers (and I am not sure if either of those countries are outliers) but the correlation is pretty high.
 
2012-12-16 05:15:29 PM

GBB: There will never be a way to ban them.


Outside of repealing the second amendment, that is.
 
2012-12-16 05:16:18 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So if you have no proof that those weapons have any benefit or value to society, your vehement defense of them is entirely irrational.


If you don't have a concrete, universally agreed upon and quantifiable definition for "benefit or value to society" your calling for one is ridiculous.

I am not a gun guy but "Some of us like firing them at the gun range as entertainment" is a benefit.
 
2012-12-16 05:16:44 PM

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


Or, it could be that guns in this country are so common place that when a person does become this kind of evil it makes it very easy for them to follow through on their vile intentions. But hey, nobody you know was killed right? S'all good.
 
2012-12-16 05:17:38 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: iq_in_binary: 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.

Wait. You're arguing that since, in theory, if he got really lucky, he could have killed kids with explosives, that therefore we shouldn't do anything to prevent this?

Do you...you know what, never mind. If that's what people favoring no gun control believe, that's what they believe.

What is it that gun enthusiasts will lose if we ban private ownership of clip and magazine fed weapons? You'll no longer be able to hunt? No longer able to defend youselves? What?


Here you go:

That's my offer to fix the problem. Read it, then read up on the NFA. I'm all for gun control that actually works, and NFA works. Bans don't, that's been proven time and time again. So why is that proposal not acceptable?
 
2012-12-16 05:17:41 PM
So, to summarize, one guy suggested that we get discounted NFA registration for most semi-auto weapons with repeal of the Hughes Amendment and relaxation of restrictions on suppressors and SBRs. An actual compromise.

The rest of you basically have offered 'you get to keep (some) guns'

If that is your idea of compromise then you will get absolutely nothing, and most gun owners will be happy to give it to you.
 
2012-12-16 05:18:14 PM

llachlan: 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.


Spree vs Mass shooting isn't really a relevant distinction. Both are a mass casualty event, merely the location is different with one having all the casualties in a single location vs multiple locations. The outcome is largely the same whether you have events like Cumbria or the DC sniper or the VT shooting and this most recent one. People are still dead, one is just a bit more work for law enforcement with multiple crime scenes.

A .22 can more deadly in many cases due to the fact that it often remains in the body causing more damage compared with a higher powered round which will go in and out. It usually comes down more to the location being shot on the body than the round being utilized (certainly there are more deadly rounds that can be used, but if your shot with a .22 vs a .40 its a bad day no matter what). Also more people were killed than survived in the Cumbria Shooting event even with those weapons utilized.
 
2012-12-16 05:18:19 PM

mab1823:
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.


In general, I'm not against considering more regulation or even banning specific types of weapons/ammo/what-have-you, but I think your item #4 would be a mistake. Mental health issues are already highly stigmatized already in our society, which I think is part of the problem. This just makes it worse and also opens up severe privacy issues. Not only that, the very people who could benefit most from treatment might actively avoid it, and also some of the people who turn out to be some of the most violent are actually quite able to fool a psychiatrist/psychologist during a single evaluation.

If people want to make gun/ammo regulations part of the prevention for future incidents, that's a battle for others; I care not one way or the other as I'm not convinced that it will help past a certain point of regulation and the backlash/politics involved might make is so nothing actually gets done. I think less stigmatized, and more accessible, mental health care should be a bigger part of the solution, though.
 
2012-12-16 05:18:32 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?


Not banning all civilian ownership of firearms outright. Sometimes "compromise" simply means we don't come down on you like a f*cking ten-ton hammer.

Gun-control advocates like to use the term "compromise" because most of the NRA tea party conservatives that dominate the national discourse on the topic piss themselves in mindless fear whenever they hear the phrase "gun control." If they weren't such a bunch of mewling cowards incapable of understanding that there's actually a middle ground between "no one gets guns" and "everyone gets any kind of gun they want" we might actually be able to toss out the compromise word and call it what it really is: rational discussion of limiting general public access to tools designed solely for killing. 

/Yes, yes, "2n amendment", "founding fathers", "protecting us from tyranny", etc. If you think we're still free of tyranny after 230+ years as a country because people have easier access to guns than they do prescription medication, then you're a f*cking retard.
//That's the general "you", by the way, not you specifically, Fark It.
 
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