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  
•       •       •

6305 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 05:18:52 PM

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


Marriage is not an enumerated right like gun ownership. It is mostly considered as an unemumerated right.
 
2012-12-16 05:18:57 PM
Actually there is some evidence that it did help.

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/14/did-the-federal-ban-on-assau l t-weapons-matter/

Since the expiration of the gun ban in 2004, the number of shootings per year has doubled, and the number of victims per year has nearly tripled. Three of the bloodiest four years shown here occurred since the expiration.
 
2012-12-16 05:19:59 PM
Please STFU about mental health for a minute.

James Holmes was from an upper middle class family, and also could get health care through his Uni.

Adam Lanza's dad is a VP at GE. Plenty of $ and access to health care.

The problem is, simply, too many guns, too easy to get. Lanza killed 20 children with hundreds of rounds. Some were hit 8, 11 times. Why did Nancy Lanza have an AR-15, 30-round magazines, thousands of bullets?

A great start is re-enacting the AWB.
 
2012-12-16 05:21:05 PM

Primum: The problem is, simply, too many guns, too easy to get.


Only simple people think complex problems have simple solutions.
 
2012-12-16 05:21:19 PM

Dimensio: 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.


It wouldn't prohibit ownership to individuals who live alone, so you're happy on that score.
 
2012-12-16 05:21:20 PM

I created this alt just for this thread: 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.


HERE:

Applying the FARKING NFA to all new semi-autos and most existing ones that are high enough caliber to actually kill people. That's not enough for you? You just want to ban shiat and take things away from people and you won't be satisfied unless you get to do it. Sorry, but that approach is GOING to get people killed. Try to think rationally.
 
2012-12-16 05:22:13 PM

Primum: Please STFU about mental health for a minute.

James Holmes was from an upper middle class family, and also could get health care through his Uni.

Adam Lanza's dad is a VP at GE. Plenty of $ and access to health care.

The problem is, simply, too many guns, too easy to get. Lanza killed 20 children with hundreds of rounds. Some were hit 8, 11 times. Why did Nancy Lanza have an AR-15, 30-round magazines, thousands of bullets?

A great start is re-enacting the AWB.


What good would the AWB would have done considering an AR-15 wasn't used?
 
2012-12-16 05:22:21 PM

iq_in_binary: Bans don't, that's been proven time and time again.


That's why I didn't propose a ban, I proposed making gun owners actually responsible for their guns.
 
2012-12-16 05:22:35 PM

ilambiquated: Actually there is some evidence that it did help.

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/14/did-the-federal-ban-on-assau l t-weapons-matter/

Since the expiration of the gun ban in 2004, the number of shootings per year has doubled, and the number of victims per year has nearly tripled. Three of the bloodiest four years shown here occurred since the expiration.


Without analysis of firearms used, the conclusion is post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Limiting magazine capacity may reduce casualties in "mass shootings" (however, I believe "ten" to be arbitrarily too small; fifteen is a more reasonable limitation). Arbitrarily restricting rifles based upon attachments that do not affect function will not.
 
2012-12-16 05:22:38 PM

I created this alt just for this thread: 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.


this, with that sauce.

for chrissakes, i can't help but see the 'but what do i get, i want a machine gun in trade for any regulation' people as being more of a threat to my ability to own a gun in the long term than anybody else.

with advocates like this, it becomes even harder to make a sane case for gun ownership.

if that isn't clear, YOU ARE INSANE if you think the answer to 20 dead kids in any way involves relaxing access to machine guns. flat. out. insane.

the fact you likely share some of the same outcome goals i'd want makes it even more insufferable. i'm surrounded by topical insanity and gun wankers, and these are the people ostensibly on the same side as me.
 
2012-12-16 05:22:41 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:

I proposed some pretty heavy regulation already. What more do you want.
 
2012-12-16 05:23:13 PM

llachlan: 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.


You really think every vehicle in the US is registered to its current owner or even has an active registration?
 
2012-12-16 05:23:30 PM

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

Marriage is not an enumerated right like gun ownership. It is mostly considered as an unemumerated right.


It's a human right, so it trumps our Constitution anyway, so I see your point. I think other people already mentioned that you have to register to vote and you have to apply for permits to have parades. The point is that exercising your rights often involves some sort of notification and/or restrictions imposed by government and so the argument that gun registration is a unconstitutional is just dumb.
 
2012-12-16 05:24:09 PM

dustman81: Primum: Please STFU about mental health for a minute.

James Holmes was from an upper middle class family, and also could get health care through his Uni.

Adam Lanza's dad is a VP at GE. Plenty of $ and access to health care.

The problem is, simply, too many guns, too easy to get. Lanza killed 20 children with hundreds of rounds. Some were hit 8, 11 times. Why did Nancy Lanza have an AR-15, 30-round magazines, thousands of bullets?

A great start is re-enacting the AWB.

What good would the AWB would have done considering an AR-15 wasn't used?


What model rifle was used? I thought the Bushmaster rifle to have been found to have been an AR-15 pattern rifle.
 
2012-12-16 05:24:14 PM

Primum: Please STFU about mental health for a minute.

James Holmes was from an upper middle class family, and also could get health care through his Uni.

Adam Lanza's dad is a VP at GE. Plenty of $ and access to health care.

The problem is, simply, too many guns, too easy to get. Lanza killed 20 children with hundreds of rounds. Some were hit 8, 11 times. Why did Nancy Lanza have an AR-15, 30-round magazines, thousands of bullets?

A great start is re-enacting the AWB.


It's not always about the money. The stigma involved (especially for some who is at the same time intelligent and suffering mentally) will prevent some people from going to get care they can afford. Plus, coming from a 'good' family is all the more reason they might try to downplay it or deny the very real problem that a child has until it is too late (by the time someone is hitting puberty or past it, it is often MUCH more difficult to treat certain mental or personality disorders even if the person finally admits for themself that there is a problem).
 
2012-12-16 05:24:41 PM

iq_in_binary: You just want to ban shiat and take things away from people and you won't be satisfied unless you get to do it.


You may have a valid argument in there somewhere, but you're coming across as a totally insane gun nut who thinks the government and other Americans want to take away your guns AND SO NO ONE IS TAKING YOU SERIOUSLY. Tone it down and maybe you'll actually get people to listen to you.
 
2012-12-16 05:24:43 PM

iq_in_binary: 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?



This is the kind of bullshiat rhetoric that has to stop. Yeah, fine 25% ish of Americans don't kill people with their guns. Bully for them. However, they don't live in a vacuum, and laws need to be made that balance everyone's needs. I would also venture that most of them wouldn't have problems with access to them becoming tightened, since as you say they are law abiding and the changes wouldn't affect them anyway, beyond maybe being more inconvenient. Heaven forbid that a little inconvenience for them saves lives for others.

Can we stop looking at this as a zero sum game?

And honestly, I'm too stunned by you saying it, to even know how to address your ridiculous Godwinning of the thread.
 
2012-12-16 05:25:01 PM

ilambiquated: Actually there is some evidence that it did help.

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/14/did-the-federal-ban-on-assau l t-weapons-matter/

Since the expiration of the gun ban in 2004, the number of shootings per year has doubled, and the number of victims per year has nearly tripled. Three of the bloodiest four years shown here occurred since the expiration.


That's interesting, but hardly adequate to come to any reasonable conclusion. First, the number of killings isn't broken down by assault weapon/non assault weapon. We would also expect a rise in gun related crime after 2007/2008 as it seems to be a function of economic depressions/big recessions. If you look back to the statistics during the 1930s, it's very chilling.

So yes, there's some data there but we need much more grain before it's meaningful.
 
2012-12-16 05:25:32 PM

ilambiquated: Actually there is some evidence that it did help.

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/14/did-the-federal-ban-on-assau l t-weapons-matter/

Since the expiration of the gun ban in 2004, the number of shootings per year has doubled, and the number of victims per year has nearly tripled. Three of the bloodiest four years shown here occurred since the expiration.


How many of those were with guns that were banned previously? Hope that they considered that correlation is not causation as is apparently evident from that single sentence.
 
2012-12-16 05:26:10 PM

I created this alt just for this thread: 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.


As a heathen atheist progressive gun owner who voted for Obama, get fuct, you intellectually dishonest liar.
 
2012-12-16 05:26:21 PM

Mike Chewbacca: iq_in_binary: Bans don't, that's been proven time and time again.

That's why I didn't propose a ban, I proposed making gun owners actually responsible for their guns.


Here:

Applying the NFA rules like I suggested does exactly that. What is wrong with that proposal?
 
2012-12-16 05:26:31 PM
Every time there's a shooting in this country, we have the exact same conversation. Every time.

Over this last year, we've had nearly half a dozen widely reported mass shootings committed by people with histories of violence and/or mental illness that acquired their weapons legally. What makes it frustrating is that the conversation is dominated by people who believe that nothing can be done about it, so obviously there's no point in even trying.
 
2012-12-16 05:26:32 PM

rnld: George Will can F himself.


Nice and succinct. That twit doesn't deserve any more keystrokes.
 
2012-12-16 05:26:32 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.


But apparently not too underpowered for hunting 6 and 7 year olds.
 
2012-12-16 05:27:16 PM

Primum: James Holmes was from an upper middle class family, and also could get health care through his Uni.


Yet they decided he wasn't their problem anymore once he withdrew, even though he saw three psychiatrists and one even alerted the police he was a risk to others.

Yeah, mental health care in this country is perfect and we shouldn't touch that.

Primum: Adam Lanza's dad is a VP at GE. Plenty of $ and access to health care.

The problem is, simply, too many guns, too easy to get. Lanza killed 20 children with hundreds of rounds. Some were hit 8, 11 times. Why did Nancy Lanza have an AR-15, 30-round magazines, thousands of bullets?

A great start is re-enacting the AWB.


Yep, let's re-enact the AWB, and... Oh, his mom still would have had the gun for him to steal. What good would that have done?
 
2012-12-16 05:27:37 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.


The states issue the marriage licenses. The constitution is silent on that subject.
 
2012-12-16 05:29:47 PM

Primum: Please STFU about mental health for a minute.


No.

James Holmes was from an upper middle class family, and also could get health care through his Uni.

Adam Lanza's dad is a VP at GE. Plenty of $ and access to health care.


The problem here is you're assuming that dangerously unstable people would seek treatment of their own volition. The way you can tell crazy people are crazy, is they don't know they're farking crazy.

We need a system in place that can better identify and recommend/deliver mental health treatment for unstable youth as they emerge in society, and put unstable adults in a place that's safer for them and the rest of society, without treating them like criminals. And I say that as someone who would have benefited from such a system when I was young.

Restricting gun rights because of crazy people is like making us all wear helmets because of retarded people.
 
2012-12-16 05:30:30 PM

heap: I created this alt just for this thread: 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.

this, with that sauce.

for chrissakes, i can't help but see the 'but what do i get, i want a machine gun in trade for any regulation' people as being more of a threat to my ability to own a gun in the long term than anybody else.

with advocates like this, it becomes even harder to make a sane case for gun ownership.

if that isn't clear, YOU ARE INSANE if you think the answer to 20 dead kids in any way involves relaxing access to machine guns. flat. out. insane.

the fact you likely share some of the same outcome goals i'd want makes it even more insufferable. i'm surrounded by topical insanity and gun wankers, and these are the people ostensibly on the same side as me.


Look up how many crimes have been committed with NFA firearms. Good luck, I couldn't find any examples. The Hughes amendment was a purely punitive law that solved absolutely nothing. Like I said, find an NFA weapon used in a crime. They aren't used in crimes, because you have to go through the NFA process to get them. That means a letter from the Sheriff, proving you have safe storage, BATFE gets to search whenever they want. Do you know anything about the NFA? I'm basically handing over a gun control wet dream and you're pissed because I want a ban that literally did nothing lifted and for suppressors to be treated like safety equipment because they should be? You're going to go the Boehner "I get 98% of what I want or nothing" route?
 
2012-12-16 05:30:43 PM
I just want to point out that any reasonably intelligent person can figure out how to use a cnc mill/lathe and operate a brake press.. Guns are extremely easy to manufacture...
 
2012-12-16 05:30:57 PM

Dimensio: dustman81: Primum: Please STFU about mental health for a minute.

James Holmes was from an upper middle class family, and also could get health care through his Uni.

Adam Lanza's dad is a VP at GE. Plenty of $ and access to health care.

The problem is, simply, too many guns, too easy to get. Lanza killed 20 children with hundreds of rounds. Some were hit 8, 11 times. Why did Nancy Lanza have an AR-15, 30-round magazines, thousands of bullets?

A great start is re-enacting the AWB.

What good would the AWB would have done considering an AR-15 wasn't used?

What model rifle was used? I thought the Bushmaster rifle to have been found to have been an AR-15 pattern rifle.


The rifle was found in the car. It wasn't used in the shooting.
 
2012-12-16 05:30:58 PM
Coming: Firearms ownership licenses, which will require insurance purchase to be valid.
Requirements will include a comprehensive background investigation on a par with a security clearance and concealed carry permit combined.
The insurance companies will eat that up and get it pushed through.
You watch.
 
2012-12-16 05:30:59 PM

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

Exactly. The laws were tightened.

And it did annoy a lot of gun enthusiasts.


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


This has got to be one of the most disingenuous attempts at deflection I've ever seen. You do realize that Americans would be freaking thrilled with this stat considering the fact that the number of people murdered by guns in the UK in 2010 was about 60 people? I mean, there would be freaking dancing in the streets if we had those kinds of numbers.
 
2012-12-16 05:31:01 PM

iq_in_binary:

I proposed some pretty heavy regulation already. What more do you want.


basically you want registration and transfer of ownership notifications (as well as transfer across state lines notifications) for all guns

that is reasonable.

but isn't this act (NFA) only used for machine guns? aren't machine guns terribly difficult to transport and really only efficient at killing people that are running toward you (or maybe lined up on a wall)?

so your claim that this law is the reason the covered guns are used less in crime really doesn't hold water. they aren't used in crime because they just aren't easy to commit crimes with.
 
2012-12-16 05:31:06 PM

cchris_39: 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.

The states issue the marriage licenses. The constitution is silent on that subject.


Not for long. Seems like the Supreme Court has finally decided to say something about it. But like I said, the right to marriage is a human right and thus you are correct, it was a bad example. Other people gave better examples. The point was that our Constitutional rights have restrictions on them and some of those restrictions actually require some sort of notification and thus your argument that gun registration is unconstitutional is wrong.
 
2012-12-16 05:32:33 PM

iq_in_binary: Mike Chewbacca: iq_in_binary: Bans don't, that's been proven time and time again.

That's why I didn't propose a ban, I proposed making gun owners actually responsible for their guns.

Here:

Applying the NFA rules like I suggested does exactly that. What is wrong with that proposal?


It doesn't address handguns. Unless you think handgun violence isn't a problem in the US?
 
2012-12-16 05:32:52 PM

dustman81: Dimensio: dustman81: Primum: Please STFU about mental health for a minute.

James Holmes was from an upper middle class family, and also could get health care through his Uni.

Adam Lanza's dad is a VP at GE. Plenty of $ and access to health care.

The problem is, simply, too many guns, too easy to get. Lanza killed 20 children with hundreds of rounds. Some were hit 8, 11 times. Why did Nancy Lanza have an AR-15, 30-round magazines, thousands of bullets?

A great start is re-enacting the AWB.

What good would the AWB would have done considering an AR-15 wasn't used?

What model rifle was used? I thought the Bushmaster rifle to have been found to have been an AR-15 pattern rifle.

The rifle was found in the car. It wasn't used in the shooting.


That report has been contradicted, though as the shooter was also armed with two handguns I suspect that the absence of the rifle would not have altered the outcome of events.
 
2012-12-16 05:33:04 PM

Dimensio: Without analysis of firearms used, the conclusion is post hoc ergo propter hoc


Well his conclusion contains the phrase "this kind of incident.." Not sure what that means.
 
2012-12-16 05:33:44 PM

Mike Chewbacca: iq_in_binary: Mike Chewbacca: iq_in_binary: Bans don't, that's been proven time and time again.

That's why I didn't propose a ban, I proposed making gun owners actually responsible for their guns.

Here:

Applying the NFA rules like I suggested does exactly that. What is wrong with that proposal?

It doesn't address handguns. Unless you think handgun violence isn't a problem in the US?


His proposal called for applying the rules to "all semi-autos", which would include a substantial percentage of handgun models.
 
2012-12-16 05:33:54 PM
we have taxes on tabacco because of the damage they cause to society as a whole, put a tax on guns to pay for all the damage they do
 
2012-12-16 05:33:55 PM

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


The Cumbria shootings a couple years ago are perfectly representative of why it wouldn't work here. To make matters more difficult, we'd have millions and millions and millions more firearms to contend with than the UK or Australia ever had to find and confiscate, millions of which are legally unregistered. And then there's always the pesky constitution in the way.

There is no achievable gun control that will make a bit of difference.
 
2012-12-16 05:34:07 PM

llachlan: iq_in_binary: 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?


This is the kind of bullshiat rhetoric that has to stop. Yeah, fine 25% ish of Americans don't kill people with their guns. Bully for them. However, they don't live in a vacuum, and laws need to be made that balance everyone's needs. I would also venture that most of them wouldn't have problems with access to them becoming tightened, since as you say they are law abiding and the changes wouldn't affect them anyway, beyond maybe being more inconvenient. Heaven forbid that a little inconvenience for them saves lives for others.

Can we stop looking at this as a zero sum game?

And honestly, I'm too stunned by you saying it, to even know how to address your ridiculous Godwinning of the thread.


Here

What is wrong with that proposal?
 
2012-12-16 05:35:18 PM

keithgabryelski: iq_in_binary:

I proposed some pretty heavy regulation already. What more do you want.

basically you want registration and transfer of ownership notifications (as well as transfer across state lines notifications) for all guns

that is reasonable.

but isn't this act (NFA) only used for machine guns? aren't machine guns terribly difficult to transport and really only efficient at killing people that are running toward you (or maybe lined up on a wall)?

so your claim that this law is the reason the covered guns are used less in crime really doesn't hold water. they aren't used in crime because they just aren't easy to commit crimes with.


The National Firearms Act also applies to rifles and shotguns of an overall length of less than twenty-six inches, rifles of a barrel length less than sixteen inches or shotguns of a barrel length less than eighteen inches.
 
2012-12-16 05:35:29 PM

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

The Cumbria shootings a couple years ago are perfectly representative of why it wouldn't work here. To make matters more difficult, we'd have millions and millions and millions more firearms to contend with than the UK or Australia ever had to find and confiscate, millions of which are legally unregistered. And then there's always the pesky constitution in the way.

There is no achievable gun control that will make a bit of difference.


Only because half our country is retarded and equates guns with freedom.
 
2012-12-16 05:35:53 PM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: We need a system in place that can better identify and recommend/deliver mental health treatment for unstable youth as they emerge in society, and put unstable adults in a place that's safer for them and the rest of society, without treating them like criminals. And I say that as someone who would have benefited from such a system when I was young.

Restricting gun rights because of crazy people is like making us all wear helmets because of retarded people.


No gun rights will be violated by requiring background investigations similar to the concealed carry permit, already in use in what, 46 states.
The only effect will be the local sheriff will get the application and say, "Well over my dead body!" and deny it when Johnny 20-year-old budding schizo freak applies.
Crazy people will be MORE PREVENTED from access to weapons, and given that all the recent shooters have been "troubled" and lots of people close to them knew it, maybe it's a good idea to do a little asking around before they get to buy Bushmasters.
Just a thought.
 
2012-12-16 05:36:22 PM

iq_in_binary: llachlan: iq_in_binary: 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?


This is the kind of bullshiat rhetoric that has to stop. Yeah, fine 25% ish of Americans don't kill people with their guns. Bully for them. However, they don't live in a vacuum, and laws need to be made that balance everyone's needs. I would also venture that most of them wouldn't have problems with access to them becoming tightened, since as you say they are law abiding and the changes wouldn't affect them anyway, beyond maybe being more inconvenient. Heaven forbid that a little inconvenience for them saves lives for others.

Can we stop looking at this as a zero sum game?

And honestly, I'm too stunned by you saying it, to even know how to address your ridiculous Godwinning of the thread.

Here

What is wrong with that proposal?


What is wrong with MY proposal, the one you so quickly dismissed (and then asked if I was farking retarded)?
 
2012-12-16 05:36:32 PM

keithgabryelski: iq_in_binary:

I proposed some pretty heavy regulation already. What more do you want.

basically you want registration and transfer of ownership notifications (as well as transfer across state lines notifications) for all guns

that is reasonable.

but isn't this act (NFA) only used for machine guns? aren't machine guns terribly difficult to transport and really only efficient at killing people that are running toward you (or maybe lined up on a wall)?

so your claim that this law is the reason the covered guns are used less in crime really doesn't hold water. they aren't used in crime because they just aren't easy to commit crimes with.


NFA applies to all assault rifles like M16s, SMG's like MP5's and destructive devices as well, not just big clunking machine guns. I'm saying open it up to everything new and all existing above a threshold caliber (because trying to get every single gun in this country is just silly, there's simply too many of them). Knowing that, what is wrong with that proposal?
 
2012-12-16 05:36:32 PM

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

The Cumbria shootings a couple years ago are perfectly representative of why it wouldn't work here. To make matters more difficult, we'd have millions and millions and millions more firearms to contend with than the UK or Australia ever had to find and confiscate, millions of which are legally unregistered. And then there's always the pesky constitution in the way.

There is no achievable gun control that will make a bit of difference.

Only because half our country is retarded and equates guns with freedom.


There's that.
 
2012-12-16 05:36:42 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Only because half our country is retarded and equates guns with freedom.


So if we had less guns and more restrictions on them, we would be more free?

Lol
 
2012-12-16 05:36:44 PM

iq_in_binary: FARKING NFA


Would this cover the Bushmaster used in Newtown?

And I doubt many people here know what "NFA" is.
 
2012-12-16 05:37:21 PM

violentsalvation: The Cumbria shootings a couple years ago are perfectly representative of why it wouldn't work here. To make matters more difficult, we'd have millions and millions and millions more firearms to contend with than the UK or Australia ever had to find and confiscate, millions of which are legally unregistered. And then there's always the pesky constitution in the way.

There is no achievable gun control that will make a bit of difference.


That and if you want an illegal gun from everything I've been told by LEO types, it's really easy thanks to the war on drugs to get one pretty much anywhere in the US that basically comes in from Mexico, which has much stricter gun control than here but so much corruption that the laws there don't really matter.
 
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