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  
•       •       •

6309 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 | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-16 05:59:52 PM

keithgabryelski: 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.


They are just a sampling of hellholes this planet has to offer.
It doesn't take a massive number of weapons to cause an incredible amount of harm. The issue is who has the weapons and what are they used for.
One drug gang can kill well over a thousand people in a year, as in the case of Mexico. They don't need crates of ammunition or weaponry to accomplish that.

What drives violence are things like social or wealth inequality, policies like those behind the drug wars, corruption in government and cultural issues. The symptom is gun violence, but the cure is not gun control. That is just a rule for people who care to obey it (and people in a violent nation are not in a mood to obey laws).

America has a high level of gun ownership but relatively low levels of violence.
If you want to target rampage killers, you have to disassociate firearm ownership from murder and figure out why we've got a number of head cases that are inclined to go off in unusual ways.

If we don't do that, we're going to fail at solving the problem and risk evolving it into something worse.
Humans aren't the kind to be stopped from an objective just because you've removed one kind of tool.

/just as Israel found out when it tried to disarm the Palestinians.
/in their case, they got rocket attacks and suicide bombers.
/the US has had it's own run in with mad bombers, so we can't claim people don't have the skill.
 
2012-12-16 06:00:26 PM

Teufelaffe: 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.


The definitions set in the NFA itself. Revolvers are not semi-autos. Neither are break open or pump action shotguns. But considering their prevalence in crime and gun deaths (which is practically none), it wouldn't really matter. In order to fix it you'd pretty much have to repeal the NFA, good luck, would do far more damage than good and the Democrats would never go along with it.
 
2012-12-16 06:00:35 PM

HeadLever: 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.


Big enough for the EU to ban lead bullets.
 
2012-12-16 06:01:05 PM

iq_in_binary: 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.


Sounds worth considering, anyway.

I suspect you may get more flak from NRA members than us gun-grabbers.
 
2012-12-16 06:01:05 PM
I have more respect for those who want to ban all semi auto weapons than I do for those who want to ban "assault weapons". I don't agree with a ban on semi autos, but it could conceivably make some sort of difference, where AWBs have not. We still have an "AWB" (in quotes because, as something something bianry posted up there a ways, an actual assault weapon is select fire), and the result is this:

'Bullet Button' Used To Get Around California Gun Laws

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS 5) - California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. But one wouldn't know that going to the firing range these days. AR-15s and AK-47s are the must-have guns of choice. How can that be?

Every time California tightens up the assault weapons ban, the gun industry finds a way around it. The latest example involves a tiny device.

John Largaespada loves his AR-15 and goes to the range every week to fire it. And he's got plenty of company. "There is usually like a 30 minute to an hour wait for rifle lanes," he said. That's because the most popular guns at the range these days are semi-automatic rifles. In a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, how is it these military-style guns are legal?

Brian Normandy is an instructor at Jackson Arms. "As long as we don't have a detachable magazine in it, it's actually a legal firearm," Normandy said.

Other states allow people to use their finger to pop out the magazine and quickly reload. It's called a detachable magazine, and in California, its use in combination with other features such as a telescoping stock or pistol grip is illegal.

The intent is to slow down the process of reloading the weapon. But many target shooters don't like the reloading hassle. "For me to use this on the range, I would have to open up the receiver and top load it," said Normandy.

To get around this, gun manufacturers are selling firearms to Californians with what is called a "bullet button."

The user uses the tip of a bullet to release the empty magazine and pop in a new one. The button doesn't work with one's finger, so the magazine is considered "fixed."


About the only benefit of California's AWB, were someone to target a school now, is that he would have to swap magazines much more often. Unless he was to go out of state, and get some large capacity ones somewhere else first. Actually, who am I kidding - he could buy them on the black market that undoubtedly exists for such here in the golden state.

Any legislation that might actually lessen the chance of something like this happening again will have to be carefully crafted, and will have to acknowledge existing federal and state laws. Outrage doesn't make prior legislation disappear. Millions and millions of people in this country are responsible gun owners (I'm one of them) who have never abused that right.
 
2012-12-16 06:01:09 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?


ffindo.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-16 06:01:45 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 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.


If you own a handgun for home defense (a constitutional right), and you ever have to use it, you shouldn't have to sacrifice your hearing. Suppressors can also reduce muzzle-flip and can be used for purest control in areas where residents may be disturbed bythe sound of gunfire.
 
2012-12-16 06:02:41 PM

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


It's hard to offer a compromise when the other side holds all the cards.
 
2012-12-16 06:02:58 PM
Let's send Bowtie Milquetoast into the nearest Johnny Reb Trailer Park and see how he does.

Let's send a rifle-totin' Real Murican into the lobby of Bowtie Milquetoast's highrise luxury condo and see how he dies. "Ah'm here tuh pruhtect mah rights."

Amen, right, Bowtie Milquetoast emerging from your limo? Amen? Reach out and shake the hand of fellow patriot Johnny Sixpack. Welcome him and his constitutional rights and his rifle. Invite him up for a Manhatttan.

Bowtie? Hello?
 
2012-12-16 06:03:05 PM

Repo Man: Millions and millions of people in this country are responsible gun owners (I'm one of them) who have never abused that right.


Intent is always concealed and could change in a heartbeat.
 
2012-12-16 06:03:24 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: 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.


So you are saying that you advocate prohibiting all civilian firearm ownership?
 
2012-12-16 06:04:55 PM

HeadLever: correlation is not causation


That's what the Republicans were saying in the runup to the election. Hey these statistics guys are just crunching numbers, I know they're wrong because I understand the causes of these things.
 
2012-12-16 06:05:45 PM

ilambiquated: Big enough for the EU to ban lead bullets.


Did they? Can I see a source on that?

/generally curious
 
2012-12-16 06:06:09 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 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.


The NFA is really that good. You have to realize that it's been perfectly legal to buy M16s (fully auto at that), Mac-10s, Uzis, etc. all the way up until the 1986 Ban. We're talking FULLY automatic weapons, spray and pray, that kind of thing. Just go to Gunbroker and look for "NFA Weapons." You can get MP5s, G3s, CETMEs, you name it. There's thousands upon thousand of them. Hundreds of thousands. And since the introduction of the NFA in the 1930s, none of these guns have been used in crimes. You can get Micro-UZIs still, you could hide that thing in the POCKET of a leather jacket.

Yes, the NFA works. It's the only successful implementation of gun control this country has passed, ever. Why not use it as the model going forward, instead of trying the same old thing that never works?
 
2012-12-16 06:07:25 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: 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.


It covers everything more powerful than .30 Carbine. Anything higher powered than that is included. That includes .223 Remington/5.56 NATO.
 
2012-12-16 06:07:33 PM

rohar: 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.


I have no idea what this means - there are near total bans, or bans with extremely few exceptions on guns in many if not most countries. Are you saying all of these bans were imposed as a result of violent overthrow? Because that's as we say, bullshiate. Unless there was a violent overthrow in Singapore I missed.
 
2012-12-16 06:07:45 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?


Well I guess we better do nothing at all, then.
 
2012-12-16 06:09:58 PM

DamnYankees: Sock Ruh Tease: dickfreckle: Believe it or not, George Will is still among the saner of the right's pundits, despite him often publishing turds.

Seriously, folks - when guys like George Will and Pat Buchanan are your intellectual titans, maybe it's time for a little reflection on exactly where everything went horribly wrong. Probably that moment you all decided that pandering to retards was your best shot at success.

The difference between George Will and other right-wing pundits is that George Will's pieces are like long, thick, coiling turds. They come out exactly the way they're supposed to. His fellow pundits shoot out diarrhea and greenish-blue pebbles and the readers eat that up.

That's...that's beautiful.


So. If conservative bloggers were painters of poop, Will would be Kincaid and everybody else would be Pollock?
 
2012-12-16 06:10:21 PM

ilambiquated: Hey these statistics guys are just crunching numbers,


Statisticians also know that . correlation is not causation. Most of their job is trying to discern correlation and causation via regressions. Don't see any of that there.
 
2012-12-16 06:11:49 PM

Repo Man: 'Bullet Button' Used To Get Around California Gun Laws


Countdown to someone 3D-printing a snap-on "button" that works like a bullet point for releasing the clip in 3...2...1...
 
2012-12-16 06:12:39 PM
I think one of the problems iq_in_binary with your proposed extension of NFA to a larger subset of firearms as a solution is whether or not it is the quantity and quality of guns affected that has rendered it effective. What I mean is that the NFA is applied to a rather small quantity of firearms with certain characteristics so that the sample size makes it easier to point to the fact that they are not utilized in crimes. If the NFA applied to more weapons, then certainly we would see the rates in crime use jump up due to the fact that a law covering only a handful of weapons (relatively speaking) is being extended to a larger percentage of firearms in circulation. Would the NFA maintain it's effectiveness, or simply show that very expensive and hard to acquire weapons are rarely if ever used in crimes compared to more common and cheaper weapons? I appreciate the proposal, but I don't know if it would work.

What I suspect is this would serve as yet another hoop for responsible gun owners to jump through, whom we generally don't have to worry about, while the criminal element will simply ignore the regulation and use weapons it doesn't apply to (preregulation or excluded weapons), or violate another law by illegally acquiring the weapon from a legitimate owner.  That's not to say there aren't proposals out there that may work eventually, but given the quantity of weapons out there, any potential solution will take a long time to have an impact.
 
2012-12-16 06:13:16 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 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.


Oh and the suppressor thing is truly just Hollywood inspired paranoia. In reality, suppressors barely get the sound of a gunshot to hearing safe. Barely. It's still going to be LOUD. You can hear suppressed 9mm from over a mile away. The notion that suppressors turn guns into something that you wouldn't hear in the next room is pure Hollywood. It doesn't happen unless you're willing to use .22 Colibri, which would have a hard time killing a squirrel. 9mm? .45 ACP? Yup people are going to be hearing that sucker all the way down the block. The reason a lot of us are pissed about it is because people use Muzzle Brakes instead to dampen recoil (Suppressors also dampen recoil), which create massive back pressure and can cause hearing damage even if you're using hearing protection. If we had cans back the asshole next to me at the range would use that instead of the muzzle brake on his .300 Win Mag and wouldn't damn near blow my muffs off trying to zero in for the hunting season. They truly are pieces of safety equipment, for hearing.
 
2012-12-16 06:13:24 PM

keithgabryelski: 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.


The military almost never uses silencers (except possibly in the "black" world). There is a very practical reason--in combat, a gun's report shouldn't be an issue, and it slows down the bullet, reducing its accuracy and effectiveness. It also can cause problems with the gun itself. As "cool" as it would be to try a few silenced weapons, the hazard that it poses to the general population is too great and it provides no benefit to warfare. Their only purpose is to allow you to kill from a short range without someone else nearby thinking that a gun was necessarily fired. They are nothing but a tool to allow someone to get away with murder.
For home defense, or any other use, I'll use my 12-gauge. Mossberg makes a fine weapon right here in the USA and with the right ammunition, you can protect yourself and pose absolutely zero risk to the neighbors. I use #6 lead shot with game loads. It might take multiple shots to kill an intruder, but it won't go through two walls, either.
 
2012-12-16 06:14:40 PM
I've been reading both sides of this argument for two days now, and I can't get past one thing...
Is there a chance in hell any of these proposed new regulations would ever get through the House? If not, it's really a moot discussion. By the time the next elections roll around, given the short attention span this nation seems to have, I don't even see it as a campaign issue by then.
 
2012-12-16 06:16:49 PM
Is there a reason why a single-shot hunting rifle, a revolver and/or a shotgun isn't enough to satisfy a person's hunting/self-defense needs?
 
2012-12-16 06:17:56 PM

rohar: 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.


I actually agree that looking at other countries for suggestions tends to lead to bad suggestions because we are unique in the world in this situation. We are the gun and ammo manufacturing company of the world. People keep bringing up countries like Japan and Australia without acknowledging that Japan never had a private gun ownership culture, and Australia (and Japan) mostly imported their weapons for private consumption. It's much easier to reduce the number of guns if you don't make them by the buttload in your own country.

However, I still disagree with the way you presented your information. In the vast majority of gun incidents in the UK, particularly handgun incidents, the gun is never even fired. I absolutely believe Americans would be fine with that tradeoff. Plus, you failed to acknowledge that though the numbers in 2010 were much higher than 1989, they are actually on the decline. The numbers hit a peak about a decade ago and have been on the decline since.
 
2012-12-16 06:18:17 PM

Fark It: As a heathen atheist progressive gun owner who voted for Obama, get fuct, you intellectually dishonest liar.


For the class, please point out where I lied.
 
2012-12-16 06:18:17 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iq_in_binary: 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.

Sounds worth considering, anyway.

I suspect you may get more flak from NRA members than us gun-grabbers.


I shredded my NRA membership last year. They no longer represent gun owners, stopped being about protecting gun rights the instant they sponsored Romney and not Obama. Fark 'em in the ass.
 
2012-12-16 06:19:38 PM

iq_in_binary: 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?


No, but I've buried a tank. Your point?
 
2012-12-16 06:20:02 PM

Paul Baumer: rohar: 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.

I have no idea what this means - there are near total bans, or bans with extremely few exceptions on guns in many if not most countries. Are you saying all of these bans were imposed as a result of violent overthrow? Because that's as we say, bullshiate. Unless there was a violent overthrow in Singapore I missed.


So you found one! Good for you.

The current gun legislation in Singapore was passed in 2003. The murders per 100,000 population since then:

2009: 0.57
2008: 0.4
2007: 0.4
2006: 0.398
2005: 0.49
2004: 0.509
2003: 0.57
2002: 0.57

Look at that, the rate is the same before and after. So the law worked by achieving virtually no change?

Oh, and you'll notice that if you completely remove all gun related homicides from the U.S. murder rates, our murder rates are still double theirs. We kill more people with blunt objects than they kill overall.

This is not a function of gun policy, this is a function of a completely different society.
 
2012-12-16 06:21:09 PM

buzzcut73: I've been reading both sides of this argument for two days now, and I can't get past one thing...
Is there a chance in hell any of these proposed new regulations would ever get through the House? If not, it's really a moot discussion. By the time the next elections roll around, given the short attention span this nation seems to have, I don't even see it as a campaign issue by then.


No, there is no chance that any regulations will get enacted unless it is the most token an ineffective proposal. There will be bills proposed for political purposes, but they will never pass.
 
2012-12-16 06:21:32 PM

iq_in_binary: The notion that suppressors turn guns into something that you wouldn't hear in the next room is pure Hollywood.


I'm sorry, but I've been repeatedly assured by Tom Clancy that an MP5 with a suppressor eliminates so much of the report that all you hear is the clicking of the firing mechanism. And, as we all know, Tom Clancy would never lie or embellish.
 
2012-12-16 06:21:45 PM

Teufelaffe: Repo Man: 'Bullet Button' Used To Get Around California Gun Laws

Countdown to someone 3D-printing a snap-on "button" that works like a bullet point for releasing the clip in 3...2...1...


Mag magnets are already being sold, but their legality is very questionable. Mag magnets. Some are saying it changes the rifle into an illegal "assault weapon". You wouldn't catch me with one. But I don't have enough interest to buy a semi auto rifle in the first place.
 
2012-12-16 06:21:57 PM

buzzcut73: I've been reading both sides of this argument for two days now, and I can't get past one thing...
Is there a chance in hell any of these proposed new regulations would ever get through the House? If not, it's really a moot discussion. By the time the next elections roll around, given the short attention span this nation seems to have, I don't even see it as a campaign issue by then.


You're probably right, nothing will change as far as the law goes, at least for now. But when the next election cycle comes up voters will know who supported the proposed legislation and who didn't. If these incidents become more common over time, then politicians who vote against sensible gun regulation are going to start losing as it will become a bigger issue. So introducing gun control legislation now, even though it probably won't go anywhere, might help in upcoming elections.
 
2012-12-16 06:23:42 PM

moviemeister76: I actually agree that looking at other countries for suggestions tends to lead to bad suggestions because we are unique in the world in this situation. We are the gun and ammo manufacturing company of the world. People keep bringing up countries like Japan and Australia without acknowledging that Japan never had a private gun ownership culture, and Australia (and Japan) mostly imported their weapons for private consumption. It's much easier to reduce the number of guns if you don't make them by the buttload in your own country.


We mine tons of uranium but don't have a nuclear weapon ownership culture.
 
2012-12-16 06:24:50 PM

TalenLee: We mine tons of uranium but don't have a nuclear weapon ownership culture.


Maybe we should, then Richard Branson could nuke us from orbit and solve a few problems.
 
2012-12-16 06:26:13 PM

Daedalus27: I think one of the problems iq_in_binary with your proposed extension of NFA to a larger subset of firearms as a solution is whether or not it is the quantity and quality of guns affected that has rendered it effective. What I mean is that the NFA is applied to a rather small quantity of firearms with certain characteristics so that the sample size makes it easier to point to the fact that they are not utilized in crimes. If the NFA applied to more weapons, then certainly we would see the rates in crime use jump up due to the fact that a law covering only a handful of weapons (relatively speaking) is being extended to a larger percentage of firearms in circulation. Would the NFA maintain it's effectiveness, or simply show that very expensive and hard to acquire weapons are rarely if ever used in crimes compared to more common and cheaper weapons? I appreciate the proposal, but I don't know if it would work.

What I suspect is this would serve as yet another hoop for responsible gun owners to jump through, whom we generally don't have to worry about, while the criminal element will simply ignore the regulation and use weapons it doesn't apply to (preregulation or excluded weapons), or violate another law by illegally acquiring the weapon from a legitimate owner.  That's not to say there aren't proposals out there that may work eventually, but given the quantity of weapons out there, any potential solution will take a long time to have an impact.


Which is why I propose it applies to all existing semi-autos above threshold calibers. No grandfathering. And actually, I can point at the period of time between the passing of the NFA (1934) and the '86 ban. Before '86, it was perfectly legal to get whatever the hell you wanted. UZIs, Mac-10s, M16s, MP5s, all fully automatic, all legal. It's STILL legal to buy them, so long as they're in the original pool of guns established between 1934 and 1986. That's pretty god damned successful considering what people were buying. Pretty much the very weapons everybody is so scared of the civilian version of today. Success is success, now what is actually wrong with the proposal aside from some strawman argument about the efficacy of the NFA?
 
2012-12-16 06:28:06 PM

TalenLee: moviemeister76: I actually agree that looking at other countries for suggestions tends to lead to bad suggestions because we are unique in the world in this situation. We are the gun and ammo manufacturing company of the world. People keep bringing up countries like Japan and Australia without acknowledging that Japan never had a private gun ownership culture, and Australia (and Japan) mostly imported their weapons for private consumption. It's much easier to reduce the number of guns if you don't make them by the buttload in your own country.

We mine tons of uranium but don't have a nuclear weapon ownership culture.


Not really a fair comparison as mined Uranium requires extensive expensive and restrictive processing to become weapon grade and production of a weapon takes significant expertise and resources. Manufacturing firearms is very simple and even a person at home with some minor equipment could create a firearm that could work.
 
2012-12-16 06:28:57 PM

moviemeister76: However, I still disagree with the way you presented your information. In the vast majority of gun incidents in the UK, particularly handgun incidents, the gun is never even fired. I absolutely believe Americans would be fine with that tradeoff. Plus, you failed to acknowledge that though the numbers in 2010 were much higher than 1989, they are actually on the decline. The numbers hit a peak about a decade ago and have been on the decline since.


Agreed. But the majority of gun related crime didn't involve firing the weapon before the gun control law either so that's not a variable at play. What gun legislation was passed about a decade ago that caused the decline?
 
2012-12-16 06:29:53 PM

Pincy: buzzcut73: I've been reading both sides of this argument for two days now, and I can't get past one thing...
Is there a chance in hell any of these proposed new regulations would ever get through the House? If not, it's really a moot discussion. By the time the next elections roll around, given the short attention span this nation seems to have, I don't even see it as a campaign issue by then.

You're probably right, nothing will change as far as the law goes, at least for now. But when the next election cycle comes up voters will know who supported the proposed legislation and who didn't. If these incidents become more common over time, then politicians who vote against sensible gun regulation are going to start losing as it will become a bigger issue. So introducing gun control legislation now, even though it probably won't go anywhere, might help in upcoming elections.


Problem being that gun control legislation is unpopular with gun owners, many of which are wealthy older white males.
Obama got into office by remaining neutral on the issue and convincing many gun owners that he wouldn't target them. To go back on that would make his party look like they were simply lieing the whole time.

/not to mention that accusing close to seventy mullion gun owners of being baby killers will probably affect your poll numbers.
/the democrats want to milk this situation for temporary points, but they don't want it to become an election issue.
 
2012-12-16 06:30:09 PM
Liberals have murdered far more children with their ridiculous abortions than guns ever have. Keep your sickening abortion laws, and we'll keep our guns. See you on Judgment Day.
 
2012-12-16 06:30:28 PM

davidphogan: 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?


No, but what I am saying is there is a system in place that tracks, registers, and regulates and equivalent number of items, so why is saying that we have 250 million guns and that is too many to think about tracking. I'm saying if you can regulate and track cars as well as drivers, you can regulate and track guns and owners.

Citing the large number in existence is not an argument against regulation.
 
2012-12-16 06:31:10 PM

rolladuck: keithgabryelski: 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.

The military almost never uses silencers (except possibly in the "black" world). There is a very practical reason--in combat, a gun's report shouldn't be an issue, and it slows down the bullet, reducing its accuracy and effectiveness. It also can cause problems with the gun itself. As "cool" as it would be to try a few silenced weapons, the hazard that it poses to the general population is too great and it provides no benefit to warfare. Their only purpose is to allow you to kill from a short range without someone else nearby thinking that a gun was necessarily fired. They are nothing but a tool to allow someone to get away with murder.
For home defense, or any other use, I'll use my 12-gauge. Mossberg makes a fine weapon right here in the USA and with the right ammunition, you can protect yourself and pose absolutely zero risk to the neighbors. I use #6 lead shot with game loads. It might take multiple shots to kill an intruder, but it won't go through two walls, either.


You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2012-12-16 06:31:34 PM

Friction8r: Liberals have murdered far more children with their ridiculous abortions than guns ever have. Keep your sickening abortion laws, and we'll keep our guns. See you on Judgment Day.


Aren't you just adorable.
 
2012-12-16 06:34:01 PM

llachlan: davidphogan: 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?

No, but what I am saying is there is a system in place that tracks, registers, and regulates and equivalent number of items, so why is saying that we have 250 million guns and that is too many to think about tracking. I'm saying if you can regulate and track cars as well as drivers, you can regulate and track guns and owners.

Citing the large number in existence is not an argument against regulation.


Because there is literally no way to implement it aside from forcibly searching every home, digging up every inch of ground, and taking X-Ray scanners to every inch of concrete in this country. That is LITERALLY what it would take to track down every single firearm in this country. Sorry, it's not reasonable.
 
2012-12-16 06:34:25 PM

Friction8r: Liberals have murdered far more children with their ridiculous abortions than guns ever have. Keep your sickening abortion laws, and we'll keep our guns murderng 6-year-olds in school rooms. See you on Judgment Day.


FTFY
 
2012-12-16 06:34:36 PM

Friction8r: Liberals have murdered far more children with their ridiculous abortions than guns ever have. Keep your sickening abortion laws, and we'll keep our guns. See you on Judgment Day.


Never bring a fetus to a gun fight.
 
2012-12-16 06:34:48 PM

Dimensio: The Jami Turman Fan Club: 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.

So you are saying that you advocate prohibiting all civilian firearm ownership?


No, just weapons with clips and magazines. Weapons where the ammo was held in the body of the gun would be legal, as would revolvers.
 
2012-12-16 06:35:18 PM

knowless: 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...


and now we can print them...
 
2012-12-16 06:36:08 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.


wrong. the rifle was used in the killings. the shotgun was found in the car.
 
Displayed 50 of 865 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report