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  
•       •       •

6302 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 05:37:21 PM

HeadLever: 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


I think possibly 20 little dead kids would be more free right now, yes.
 
2012-12-16 05:37:58 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?


It doesn't come from Bloomberg/Brady/VPC et al.
 
2012-12-16 05:38:01 PM

moviemeister76: 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.


And we'd be pissed as hell if gun crime increased by 50% as well.

You see, you can't compare England to the U.S. based on laws alone. You're dealing with a completely different demographic. Applying their laws to our society would be insane.

If we look within a given demographic and compare statistics pre and post gun control law you can get a decent idea of their effectiveness. If you do that here in the U.S. or even in Britain, you'll find they generally have no affect positive or negative.
 
2012-12-16 05:38:16 PM

I Like Bread: There are NO countries with high gun ownership and high violent crime.


Um, what about the USA?
 
2012-12-16 05:38:27 PM

davidphogan: 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.


That's why I proposed the gun registration requirement. Get caught with an unregistered gun, go to jail for 5 years, end of story. No ifs ands or buts.
 
2012-12-16 05:38:43 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?


I said ALL semi-autos. That applies to pistols, because they're semi-automatic. Doesn't apply to revolvers though.
 
2012-12-16 05:40:23 PM

Dimensio: 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.


got it -- so the NFA applies to the bushmaster rifle used in Newtown, CT? if not can you tell me why?
 
2012-12-16 05:40:33 PM

Mike Chewbacca: davidphogan: 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.

That's why I proposed the gun registration requirement. Get caught with an unregistered gun, go to jail for 5 years, end of story. No ifs ands or buts.


If a registration system could be demonstrated to be effective and be demonstrated to be safeguarded, with a guarantee, that the registry could never be utilized to effect widespread confiscation, it may attain sufficient support to be enacted.
 
2012-12-16 05:40:36 PM

Mike Chewbacca: I think possibly 20 little dead kids would be more free right now, yes.


Except they might have still been killed by a bomb, or he could have barricaded some doors and lit the place on fire, or he could have mixed bleach and amonia and poisoned kids.

Wow, hypothetical situations can be crazy!
 
2012-12-16 05:40:51 PM
There's what, close to 270 million guns in the US right now?

No way you can control or manage all those guns in any way. Crazy people are always going to have access to guns to cause mayhem with. That's a product of having so many guns floating around in society.
 
2012-12-16 05:41:25 PM

Mike Chewbacca: 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)?


Because mine already accomplishes half of what you wanted. But the requiring insurance thing? No insurance company would want to touch it. Yearly Taxes? You'd have to repeal the 2nd amendment. Good luck with that.
 
2012-12-16 05:41:37 PM
Banning all civilians from owning guns right around the time the fed reaches full monetization of the deficit? Priceless.

Enjoy serfdom dumbfarks.

/falseflag on
 
2012-12-16 05:42:20 PM

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

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


1) A legitimate government can only exist with the consent of the people governed.
2) The people must always have the option to express their ultimate lack of consent to be governed by revolution.
3) That potential to revolt must scare those doing the governing enough that they will not be unduly oppressive.
4) The government will always arm those it will use to put down a revolt--so the people must have the ability to acquire equally dangerous weapons.

A healthy fear of an armed uprising by the people keeps the government stable. When that fear is removed, any significant disturbance will result in a positive feedback loop of instability that will be manifest in great harm to the people AND the government.

The gun nuts keep thinking that it's for hunting and self-defense. None of those is in the Constitution because the Constitution did not establish the relationship among the citizens, it established the relationship between the people and the government.
They also used the more generic term of "arms" because they knew that to artificially restrict it to just "guns" wouldn't cover the huge diversity of weapons available in the 18th century, or allow for new types of weapons to be covered.
Yes, that does mean that flame-throwers, ball muskets, tanks and fighter planes are "covered" by the second amendment, if you can make it or get someone to make one for you. Even your laptop computer can be considered a weapons system and protected as such if you have the means to weaponize it. You have every right in the world to keep any weapon you can legally acquire. But we also have every right as society to know if you have it and watch you very intently to see if you have any interest in using it unlawfully.
I think an Anti-Lunatic Weapon Possession Act would do quite well, pass constitutional muster, and protect a LOT of people, if you prevent people to have both known criminals or nutcases in the same home as a firearm. Allow the police to inspect homes where criminals and lunatics reside for weapons. If you're not a criminal or a lunatic, you notice nothing. If you choose to let one live in your home, you voluntarily give up your right to any weapons--including the aforementioned weaponized laptop computer.
 
2012-12-16 05:42:42 PM
The Federalists and Anti-federalists believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the best check on tyranny was an armed population. The second amendment right would provide the same public purpose as advocated by, at the time, modern day theory. A check on all government, not just the federal government. The armed population, the militia would serve as purpose. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. The framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

The original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect each individual's right to keep and bear arms, and to guarantee that individuals acting collectively could take down of any oppressive government which might arise. The right envisioned was not only the right to be armed, but to be armed at a level equal to the government.

George Washington ""Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained"
 
2012-12-16 05:43:14 PM

Mike Chewbacca: I think possibly 20 little dead kids would be more free right now, yes.


Those that equate freedom with safety are not thinking correctly. Freedom is a double edged sword and always has been.

Folks would agree that we need to limit freedoms of those that would use it against their fellow man. However, arbitrarily limiting freedom is not the way to do things. As Franklin wrote, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
 
2012-12-16 05:43:43 PM

Pokey.Clyde: steal


Whew! So glad all those guns she had prevented her from being killed! It's obvious everyone needs to carry a gun including teachers!
 
2012-12-16 05:44:00 PM

Dimensio: If a registration system could be demonstrated to be effective and be demonstrated to be safeguarded, with a guarantee, that the registry could never be utilized to effect widespread confiscation, it may attain sufficient support to be enacted.


I don't mean to be rude, but you sound a little disingenuous here. How do propose that there could be a guarantee that it could never be utilized for widespread confiscation? Or at least one that the NRA would believe in? You have to know that that would never happen.
 
2012-12-16 05:44:08 PM

iq_in_binary: 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?


They seem to do just fine in the rest of the world.
 
2012-12-16 05:44:22 PM

Outrageous Muff: Theaetetus: Well, about that latter point...

So you're saying that owning a gun is a mental health issue?


I'm saying there was another shooting today.
 
2012-12-16 05:44:23 PM

iq_in_binary: I said ALL semi-autos. That applies to pistols, because they're semi-automatic. Doesn't apply to revolvers though.


Why wouldn't it apply to most revolvers? Wouldn't it apply to anything and everything that isn't single-action, bolt-action, or a muzzle-loader?

/I could be mistaken, but I though "semi-automatic" just meant that no manual cocking, reloading, etc was required between shots.
 
2012-12-16 05:45:01 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iq_in_binary: FARKING NFA

Would this cover the Bushmaster used in Newtown?

And I doubt many people here know what "NFA" is.


Yes. As well as pistols. About the only things that wouldn't be touched is pump action shotguns (not semi-auto), revolvers (not semi-auto), bolt action rifles and break open shotguns, as well as current semi-autos that are of such weak caliber as to be practically impossible to "easily" kill someone with. Stuff like .22LR rifles like 10/22s used for plinking at cans.
 
2012-12-16 05:45:14 PM

Spanky_McFarksalot: 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


I agree. Also we should ban lead bullets because they are a nasty pollutant.
 
2012-12-16 05:45:32 PM

Dimensio: llachlan: And I'm sorry - but a semi-automatic rifle has but one purpose - killing people.

Is that the reason that a chartered program of the federal government of the United States of America, created by Congress, sells a semi-automatic rifle model to civilians as part of the "Civilian Marksmanship Program"? Is that the reason that rifles are less commonly utilized to commit murder than are unarmed attacks?


And why do you practice marksmanship? To improve your ability to kill things. Look, I didn't say ban them, I said it's time to talk about what the ultimate purpose of the weapon is, how we train people to use them, and what kind of background checks we do. It's ridiculous to say that because more people are beat to death we shouldn't take a serious look at why certain weapons appear to be the gun of choice in mass or spree killings.

Any controls that affect how frequently those weapons are used (mag size, availability, ammo access and so on) are also likely to have positive effects on gun-related deaths.

Serious question: are you so in love with (if you own one) your AR-15 or any other weapon, that you are unwilling to say, okay - what reasonable restrictions can we introduce so that maybe those 20 kids and 6 adults would still be alive? Just like we can't reduce deaths by beatings to 0, we can't reduce gun deaths to 0, but I hope that there are enough reasonable people on both sides of the debate, that we can put a dent in it. A dent that not only reduced the number of mass shooting deaths, but also the ones where the 8 year old shoots his 2 year old sister...
 
2012-12-16 05:46:15 PM
To the person earlier who said it's not like we have these massacres every day I have to say, really? Because it's getting close to a weekly event and just how much more common does it have to be before you'll admit it's a problem?

The righties are frantically closing ranks on this one because the responsibility for all those dead children comes down right in their laps. They don't really want ot blame Lanza's mental illness (an issue that could have come up after the Giffords shooting but got lost in the whole "Palin incited violence" brouhaha) because the obvious response to that is "OK then, psychiatric tests for gun buyers." They can't use the "if only they'd been armed" argument they used after Aurora because, well, six-year-olds, seriously? You can't even say that about the teachers because it's almost as ridiculous an idea; if only the teacher had been heavily armed and awaiting an attack, with the safety off and ready to fire. Yeah, that'll work. "Ms. Smith can I go to the" BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! "Oh sorry Timmy, what were you saying? Timmy? Timmy?"

So given that someone has to be to blame but it can't be gun owners, the NRA or crazy people, I believe the rigthies will settle on Lanza's mother as the villain. If she'd only kept him chained to the wall in the basement like she should have! Why didn't she recognize her son was a homicidal maniac? Bonus: she can't fight back, wht ith being dead and all. Yup, it's completely and totally her fault. No reason to consider stricter gun control, nope, none at all.
 
2012-12-16 05:47:05 PM

iq_in_binary: 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?


i didn't say there was anything wrong with it -- it seems like the least we could do (the very least if you understand my tone).

my question was to whether NFA actually helped. You claimed (i believe somewhere) that NFA guns were never used in crimes.
I'm asking if that is because NFA guns are not easy to use in crimes or is NFA just really that good.

The issues with silencers are interesting (i've heard similar complaints from friends that are pro gun) -- i don't understand why people want them (so they don't have to wear earplugs?) and it isn't obvious to me there is a compelling reason to let people hide the fact a gun is going off.

maybe silencers and large clips can be held at shooting ranges so that the use of them can be regulated to said range alone and not on the street.
 
2012-12-16 05:47:40 PM
The California Condor is struggling from lead poisoning. This is an excellent reason to ban lead in munitions
 
2012-12-16 05:49:08 PM
The EU is going to ban lead fishing weights as well.
 
2012-12-16 05:49:44 PM

llachlan: Dimensio: llachlan: And I'm sorry - but a semi-automatic rifle has but one purpose - killing people.

Is that the reason that a chartered program of the federal government of the United States of America, created by Congress, sells a semi-automatic rifle model to civilians as part of the "Civilian Marksmanship Program"? Is that the reason that rifles are less commonly utilized to commit murder than are unarmed attacks?

And why do you practice marksmanship? To improve your ability to kill things. Look, I didn't say ban them, I said it's time to talk about what the ultimate purpose of the weapon is, how we train people to use them, and what kind of background checks we do. It's ridiculous to say that because more people are beat to death we shouldn't take a serious look at why certain weapons appear to be the gun of choice in mass or spree killings.

For me, yup. I practice so I can kill coyotes and mountain lions that get near my livestock. You'd rather I lose a walking mooing steak? Over my dead body!

Any controls that affect how frequently those weapons are used (mag size, availability, ammo access and so on) are also likely to have positive effects on gun-related deaths.

You can show me, any time in American history where similar laws were enacted (there's quite a few points here) and any variance in gun related violent crime occurred? If not, why would they in the future?
 
2012-12-16 05:49:59 PM

Pincy: Dimensio: If a registration system could be demonstrated to be effective and be demonstrated to be safeguarded, with a guarantee, that the registry could never be utilized to effect widespread confiscation, it may attain sufficient support to be enacted.

I don't mean to be rude, but you sound a little disingenuous here. How do propose that there could be a guarantee that it could never be utilized for widespread confiscation? Or at least one that the NRA would believe in? You have to know that that would never happen.


I have actually proposed such a method: the legislation that creates the registry (and that repeals the section of the Firearm Owners Protection Act that currently forbids such a registry) includes a clause that states that the registration requirement is null and void and that the registry must be destroyed in the event that any legislator submits to a vote a proposal to enact widespread confiscation of a class of firearm. Attempting to repeal the nullification clause would also itself trigger the nullification clause; as such, any attempt to ban a currently legal firearm model would result in the registry being destroyed and no civilian being liable for possessing an unregistered firearm. Legislators would have to choose between retaining the registry and banning firearms.

Upon further reflection, I realise that such a measure would be open to abuse, as any legislator opposed to the registry could effectively destroy it by submitting (without intention to pass) a confiscation bill. I would therefore amend my suggestion to require that such a confiscation bill would need to be passed by at least one house of Congress, or both.
 
2012-12-16 05:50:59 PM
 
2012-12-16 05:51:15 PM

Outrageous Muff: Let's be honest here. No gun law on the books or one proposed aside from physically collecting every gun in the nation would have kept this guy from killing those kids. It's as simple as that.

However a fully-funded, well run national mental health program that begins and continues treatment for people like the shooter would have.

One of these things fixes the problem of not only mass murders, but fixes a lot of violence done by the mental unstable. The other furthers a political agenda.


You mean other than the proposed law to keep someone with a family member suffering from a severe mental illness from keeping weapons in the home?

I do agree though that the solution isn't going to come from one place - there needs to be a combined application of control, and mental health services. But saying we can't do one, because the other one hasn't been done is stupid. And a little childish.
 
2012-12-16 05:52:18 PM

ilambiquated: Also we should ban lead bullets because they are a nasty pollutant.


For the most part, they have no real impact. In most hunting applications the lead slug ends up in the soil and is very inert compared to the lead based chemicals used in paints and the like. Also, this ban would be very hard to implement as many re loaders can make their own. It is very easy.
 
2012-12-16 05:52:21 PM

keithgabryelski: Dimensio: 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.

got it -- so the NFA applies to the bushmaster rifle used in Newtown, CT? if not can you tell me why?


Because it is not select fire. It is semi-auto only. I'm saying open the NFA up to include ALL NEW semi-autos and ALL EXISTING above a threshold caliber. The reason for that is because it would be a far bigger undertaking than anybody could ever imagine to track down every single little semi-auto plinking rifle or pistol made, it would be practically impossible, the current numbers that we use for TOTAL GUNS in the country don't take those into account because there were so many of them and tracking them is impossible given how many of their manufacturers are out of business, you have to realize that places like Sears and big department stores used to make and sell these things. They're mostly in .22 caliber (Short, Long, Rifle, Long Rifle, WMR, etc), and could hardly be used to go on a killing spree.
 
2012-12-16 05:52:37 PM

rohar: llachlan: Dimensio: llachlan: And I'm sorry - but a semi-automatic rifle has but one purpose - killing people.

Is that the reason that a chartered program of the federal government of the United States of America, created by Congress, sells a semi-automatic rifle model to civilians as part of the "Civilian Marksmanship Program"? Is that the reason that rifles are less commonly utilized to commit murder than are unarmed attacks?

And why do you practice marksmanship? To improve your ability to kill things. Look, I didn't say ban them, I said it's time to talk about what the ultimate purpose of the weapon is, how we train people to use them, and what kind of background checks we do. It's ridiculous to say that because more people are beat to death we shouldn't take a serious look at why certain weapons appear to be the gun of choice in mass or spree killings.

For me, yup. I practice so I can kill coyotes and mountain lions that get near my livestock. You'd rather I lose a walking mooing steak? Over my dead body!

Any controls that affect how frequently those weapons are used (mag size, availability, ammo access and so on) are also likely to have positive effects on gun-related deaths.

You can show me, any time in American history where similar laws were enacted (there's quite a few points here) and any variance in gun related violent crime occurred? If not, why would they in the future?


How 'bout we make that "world history"? Because bans do work.
 
2012-12-16 05:52:52 PM
Bowtie Milquetoast speaks in defence of the sacred inviolable sacred rights of sacred gun owners (inviolable) sacred to sanctify sacred inviolable sanctity. Strict founding constructionist father. Shoot me daddy.

Bowtie Milquetoast.

If you're not a criminal you don't need so-called imaginary constitutional so-called rights, why do you hate America and worship terrorists? So-called imaginary constitution. Wiretap me daddy.

BLAM BLAM.
 
2012-12-16 05:53:19 PM

Dimensio: Mike Chewbacca: davidphogan: 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.

That's why I proposed the gun registration requirement. Get caught with an unregistered gun, go to jail for 5 years, end of story. No ifs ands or buts.

If a registration system could be demonstrated to be effective and be demonstrated to be safeguarded, with a guarantee, that the registry could never be utilized to effect widespread confiscation, it may attain sufficient support to be enacted.


My proposal would already do that.
 
2012-12-16 05:53:30 PM

clambam: So given that someone has to be to blame but it can't be gun owners, the NRA or crazy people, I believe the rigthies will settle on Lanza's mother as the villain.


lol, you are not even trying very hard, are you?

1/10
 
2012-12-16 05:54:12 PM

llachlan: Serious question: are you so in love with (if you own one) your AR-15 or any other weapon, that you are unwilling to say, okay - what reasonable restrictions can we introduce so that maybe those 20 kids and 6 adults would still be alive?


I have proposed some ideas already.

I would add to that list enforcement of the current prohibition upon attempted possession of a firearm by prohibited persons. Currently, fewer than 10% of prohibited individuals who attempt to purchase a firearm are prosecuted.

I am also open to the suggestion of firearm registration, provided that such registration show a demonstrable benefit (the "long gun" registry of Canada failed to serve any purpose for its expense) and provided that a guarantee is established that the registry could never be utilised to effect widespread firearm confiscation (I have proposed a means for establishing such a guarantee previously).
 
2012-12-16 05:55:08 PM

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


Which side is that? The all guns should be confiscated side, or the no guns that fire more than 6 rounds should be legal side, or the regular manditory training side or some other side? There isn't a side. There's a grand diversity of opinion. Ask a more intelligent question.
 
2012-12-16 05:56:40 PM

iq_in_binary: 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?


Well, for one thing, your idea doesn't cover M-16s, because they're too small a caliber.

There's a lot of derp in your idea, and the fact that you feel the need to spam it indicates to me what you're really doing here.

No clips, no magazines, except for (heavily regulated) shooting ranges. What will you lose by doing this?

I have no wish to go door-to-door. Just ban the sale of the weapons, clips/magazines, and ammo, and have a buyback program. It'll take care of itself.
 
2012-12-16 05:56:58 PM

HeadLever: clambam: So given that someone has to be to blame but it can't be gun owners, the NRA or crazy people, I believe the rigthies will settle on Lanza's mother as the villain.

lol, you are not even trying very hard, are you?

1/10


Hey head, check the settings on your sarcasm meter. Or maybe you're just stupid.

Actually the "blame the mom" movement has already started.

Link
 
2012-12-16 05:57:09 PM

Paul Baumer: iq_in_binary: 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?

They seem to do just fine in the rest of the world.


And there isn't a single country in the rest of the world that had even 10% of the firearms we have here when they implemented the bans. The cat's already out of the bag here. It's literally impossible to effect a 100% ban on weapons in a way that guarantees that criminals will not still have them and prey on the legally disarmed populace. Literally impossible. Sorry, hate to burst that bubble, but it's not reasonable to try and leave millions of people open to that kind of situation without a recourse to defend themselves.

I'm proposing something that would actually work, and is based on a solution that has worked PERFECTLY since the 1930s. Which do you want? A reduction in gun crime and massacres? Or to ban all guns? You can have one, but not the other.
 
2012-12-16 05:57:10 PM

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.


No he doesn't. It's perfectly reasonable to infer that if he couldn't have gotten to those ones, that the events of the day likely would not have unfolded in that way. I'd venture to say, the need to reload the handguns would have changed things. Or maybe he would have gotten caught trying to steal some one else's.

And again, it's not all about banning - it's about improving controls. It really isn't a zero sum game, and I wish people would stop treating it that way. It's an optimization problem - let's find a good balance point for both sides - which is hard to do when one side resists any call for changes.
 
2012-12-16 05:57:33 PM

bobbette: own their own rocket-propelled grenade launchers or drive tanks


That would be awesome...
 
2012-12-16 05:57:37 PM

ilambiquated: This is an excellent reason to ban lead in munitions


California already has.

Lead is a problem in certain circumstances (waterfowl and scavengers, mostly). However, for most applications, it is not a big problem as your generalized statement alludes to.
 
2012-12-16 05:58:07 PM

Paul Baumer: rohar: llachlan: Dimensio: llachlan: And I'm sorry - but a semi-automatic rifle has but one purpose - killing people.

Is that the reason that a chartered program of the federal government of the United States of America, created by Congress, sells a semi-automatic rifle model to civilians as part of the "Civilian Marksmanship Program"? Is that the reason that rifles are less commonly utilized to commit murder than are unarmed attacks?

And why do you practice marksmanship? To improve your ability to kill things. Look, I didn't say ban them, I said it's time to talk about what the ultimate purpose of the weapon is, how we train people to use them, and what kind of background checks we do. It's ridiculous to say that because more people are beat to death we shouldn't take a serious look at why certain weapons appear to be the gun of choice in mass or spree killings.

For me, yup. I practice so I can kill coyotes and mountain lions that get near my livestock. You'd rather I lose a walking mooing steak? Over my dead body!

Any controls that affect how frequently those weapons are used (mag size, availability, ammo access and so on) are also likely to have positive effects on gun-related deaths.

You can show me, any time in American history where similar laws were enacted (there's quite a few points here) and any variance in gun related violent crime occurred? If not, why would they in the future?

How 'bout we make that "world history"? Because bans do work.


Tell you what, find me one that didn't involve the overthrow of the existing government and we'll talk.
 
2012-12-16 05:58:13 PM

Dimensio: Pincy: Dimensio: If a registration system could be demonstrated to be effective and be demonstrated to be safeguarded, with a guarantee, that the registry could never be utilized to effect widespread confiscation, it may attain sufficient support to be enacted.

I don't mean to be rude, but you sound a little disingenuous here. How do propose that there could be a guarantee that it could never be utilized for widespread confiscation? Or at least one that the NRA would believe in? You have to know that that would never happen.

I have actually proposed such a method: the legislation that creates the registry (and that repeals the section of the Firearm Owners Protection Act that currently forbids such a registry) includes a clause that states that the registration requirement is null and void and that the registry must be destroyed in the event that any legislator submits to a vote a proposal to enact widespread confiscation of a class of firearm. Attempting to repeal the nullification clause would also itself trigger the nullification clause; as such, any attempt to ban a currently legal firearm model would result in the registry being destroyed and no civilian being liable for possessing an unregistered firearm. Legislators would have to choose between retaining the registry and banning firearms.

Upon further reflection, I realise that such a measure would be open to abuse, as any legislator opposed to the registry could effectively destroy it by submitting (without intention to pass) a confiscation bill. I would therefore amend my suggestion to require that such a confiscation bill would need to be passed by at least one house of Congress, or both.


It's a nice try but I really doubt the NRA types would go for it. Information is cheap to store and easy to duplicate. There is probably no way you are going to convince them that the government wouldn't claim to have deleted the registry but really have it stored somewhere else. Government mistrust with those people is just way too high. And in some ways I can actually understand that, since we have learned over the years that we have been lied to before.
 
2012-12-16 05:58:46 PM

keithgabryelski: iq_in_binary: 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?

i didn't say there was anything wrong with it -- it seems like the least we could do (the very least if you understand my tone).

my question was to whether NFA actually helped. You claimed (i believe somewhere) that NFA guns were never used in crimes.
I'm asking if that is because NFA guns are not easy to use in crimes or is NFA just really that good.


The National Firearms Act was implemented specifically because of criminal acts committed with use of the affected firearms.


The issues with silencers are interesting (i've heard similar complaints from friends that are pro gun) -- i don't understand why people want them (so they don't have to wear earplugs?) and it isn't obvious to me there is a compelling reason to let people hide the fact a gun is going off.

"Silencers" are better termed "sound suppressors". They do not render a firearm silent; in fact, a firearm equipped with such a device will still produce a substantial amount of noise. They merely reduce the risk of long-term hearing loss and reduce noise pollution. Some European nations have no restrictions upon such devices due to their utility in that regard.


maybe silencers and large clips can be held at shooting ranges so that the use of them can be regulated to said range alone and not on the street.

Sound suppressors are already not represented in violent crime (I am unaware of any report of a firearm equipped with a suppressor being used in a crime); restricting their location seems unnecessary.
 
2012-12-16 05:58:50 PM

clambam: Hey head, check the settings on your sarcasm meter


Crap. Time to change batteries I guess.
 
2012-12-16 05:59:41 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: 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.


Considering that in the next 20-30 years, insurance companies will need to find a way to offset the revenue lost from automobiles becoming autonomous (and thus less need for property/casualty insurance) you may have stumbled upon the solution to their problem.

I wish the gun industry would have gotten its act together and designed a responsible owner/purchaser system. One such system would have the NRA license, track and check on the gun owners with its own resources, shops wouldn't sell to people who couldn't pass the requirements. It would keep the government out of the business and keep untrustworthy gun owners from their weapons, partly by providing a union-style "tattle" system through its own channels when folks break the rules.

But they were far more interested in making sure that as many guns got into the hands of as many people as possible without doing anything to see if those people SHOULD be allowed a gun.

Since they wouldn't sell guns responsibly, the government is going to step in and slap them senseless. They deserve the proverbial beat-down but we need to be careful about how we go about 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