Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.
Note: forcing pagination mode for this thread because of the high number of comments. (why?)

(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
    More: Obvious, George Will, assault weapons ban, gun laws, assault weapons, hyperbole, .info  
•       •       •

6333 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Dec 2012 at 3:35 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



865 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest

 
2012-12-16 02:44:42 PM  
This is the guy who said Romney would win 325 electoral votes.
 
2012-12-16 02:46:16 PM  
"George Will" and "learn something" are mutually exclusive.
 
2012-12-16 02:47:19 PM  
There's no "real world info" or "data" in there at all. He just says "didn't help," and shuts down the topic.
 
2012-12-16 02:55:24 PM  
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.
 
2012-12-16 02:56:10 PM  
Except that the examples he gives are actually examples of laws that work, making these kinds of mass shootings the exception not the rule. Shootings like this are incredibly RARE in those countries. In the USA, they are commonplace and occur several times a year.
 
2012-12-16 02:56:16 PM  
Check the source - Daily Caller? Was World Nut Daily busy with the really important news?
 
2012-12-16 03:14:52 PM  
Done in one and two.
 
2012-12-16 03:19:43 PM  
George Will also hates blue jeans.
 
2012-12-16 03:21:30 PM  
Tell that to the UK, a country that hasn't had a mass shooting since Dunblane, after which they enacted the 1997 Firearms act.
 
2012-12-16 03:25:11 PM  
Firstly, he doesn't use facts or statistics, he just names single data points of violent crime in higher gun control countries. As anyone who thinks can tell you, prevention != elimination, so his anecdotes mean nothing, statistically.

Secondly, trying to isolate a correlation between gun control and gun violence is so difficult, because there are so many complicating factors: homogeneity of the populace, poverty levels, education levels, heck, even latitude plays a factor (depression in the dark months is more extreme where the change in daylight is more extreme). There's no clean sample. Also, isolating by state gun laws doesn't necessarily help, because in the states inter-state mobility is so easy that you'd have to figure out if the guns were bought in the restrictive state, if the culprit was born and raised in the state in which the crime occurred, etc. I just don't think there has been a convincing enough study done to persuade anybody of anything, either way.
 
2012-12-16 03:37:28 PM  
20 dead 6-and-7-year-olds say George Will is full of shiat.
 
2012-12-16 03:39:09 PM  
Oh subby, one day critical thinking and reading the information will come to you.
 
2012-12-16 03:40:11 PM  

Kimothy: Except that the examples he gives are actually examples of laws that work, making these kinds of mass shootings the exception not the rule. Shootings like this are incredibly RARE in those countries. In the USA, they are commonplace and occur several times a year.


Gosh, I guess it's crazy to suggest that mass shootings in countries with strict gun laws are rare for a reason.
 
2012-12-16 03:40:20 PM  
All these headlines read as if they were submitted by Tucker Carlson.

In other words, they sound whiny and douchy.
 
2012-12-16 03:43:24 PM  

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?
 
2012-12-16 03:44:14 PM  
Since all guns were bought legally, no assault weapons were used, and this was an issue of bad parenting and poor mental health treatment using the murder of children to gain an assault weapons ban would be politicizing their deaths. If the goal is to end these types of acts then taking guns away from people nor giving guns to people will solve the problem.
 
2012-12-16 03:44:15 PM  
I already learned that George Will is a dipshiat who's decades past his usefulness in a national debate.
 
2012-12-16 03:45:12 PM  
Chris Wallace seriously took Joe Lieberman to task this morning for Democrats not getting tougher gun control legislation passed in the last 20 years. It was bizarro world, to be sure.
 
2012-12-16 03:45:15 PM  
I'm surprised he didn't use a baseball analogy.
 
2012-12-16 03:45:28 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-16 03:45:34 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?


Yes, sweetie, everyone having lots of guns is good. We can't do aaaannnnyyyything about it.

I'm convainced, the Tree of Liberty needed those 20 children sacrificed so you can feel like a big man and protect yourself against King George III.
 
2012-12-16 03:48:09 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: 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?


Outrageous Muff: If the goal is to end these types of acts then taking guns away from people nor giving guns to people will solve the problem.

 
2012-12-16 03:48:10 PM  
FTFA: "Remember, we did have a ban on assault weapons," Will said. "When we put the ban in place, these incidents did not really decline in a measurable way, and when we took it off, they did not increase in a measurable way."

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-12-16 03:48:35 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-16 03:48:46 PM  
OK, so they might not stop this random act of violence by a disturbed person but will it put a dent in the other 30,000+ gun related deaths every year?
 
2012-12-16 03:48:54 PM  
If guns were a direct cause of mass shootings, anyone that picked up a gun would have to fight the urge to kill people.
 
2012-12-16 03:48:59 PM  

ghare: 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?

Yes, sweetie, everyone having lots of guns is good. We can't do aaaannnnyyyything about it.

I'm convainced, the Tree of Liberty needed those 20 children sacrificed so you can feel like a big man and protect yourself against King George III.


You know what? They won. This is the reality they wanted. It's up to them to find a way to fix it.

So, there we are. The NRA needs to return to it's roots in the 70's when they thought keeping weapons away from people wasn't the most evil thing possible. The rest of us will just hit the dirt while you guys sort it out amongst yourselves.
 
2012-12-16 03:49:20 PM  

CarnySaur: I'm surprised he didn't use a baseball analogy.


George Will and baseball? Also hilarious.

Home runs increase dramatically.

Lots of people say it's due to a 'lively' ball.

George says all those fools are falling prey to the tendancy of Americans to credit sudden changes to technological causes.

George's explanation? Aluminum bats. I couldn't make up derp like that.
 
2012-12-16 03:50:42 PM  
People are still listening to George Will?

It must be flat-out wonderful being a Republlican. You can spend your entire career being wrong about everything, and people still think what you have to say is worth listening to.
 
2012-12-16 03:51:10 PM  

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


What kind of stupid strawman bullshiat is that?
 
2012-12-16 03:51:27 PM  

Outrageous Muff: Since all guns were bought legally, no assault weapons were used, and this was an issue of bad parenting and poor mental health treatment using the murder of children to gain an assault weapons ban would be politicizing their deaths. If the goal is to end these types of acts then taking guns away from people nor giving guns to people will solve the problem.


"As new details emerge, the scope of the horror expands. Lanza apparently sprayed two classrooms at the school with relentless fire from a semi-automatic assault rifle.

It was a massacre, and most of the victims were first-graders. Autopsies on the bodies of the children reveal that many, if not all, had been shot multiple times.

"I only did seven of the autopsies," medical examiner Wayne Carver said. "The victims I had ranged from three to 11 wounds a piece, and I only saw two of them with close-range shooting.""

Bushmaster AR15 .223, BTW which is what... civilian, semi-auto version of the M16?
 
2012-12-16 03:51:46 PM  
If you agree with Will at al that the plural of anecdote is data, then this makes perfect sense. However, when it comes to cherrypicking anecdotes, gun opponents have a recent one ready at hand:

Chinese stabbing spree

Here's a guy who did not have access to guns, who went for the next best thing available, and the result was... zero deaths. Nada. Not a one. Did he send twenty-off kids to the hospital? Absolutely. But if you want to put twenty-odd kids in the morgue, you really need a gun.
 
2012-12-16 03:52:34 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?


I am having a Poe's Law moment here, but on the off chance you're serious: that would be laws that kept her from having the Goddamn guns in the first place.
 
2012-12-16 03:52:35 PM  
If guns don't kill people load one and put it in your mouth and pull the trigger because guns won't kill you.

/gun owner
//support assault weapons ban
///will not stop everything
////we need to stop the guns don't kill people arguement

It seems when someone with guns and lives in a rural area like I did before moving to Tulsa, people don't know how to deal with it that i don't toe the guns don't kill people line.

I've been called so many names these last few days, because people can't process someone who is familiar with guns being honest about my familiarity with guns.
 
2012-12-16 03:52:38 PM  
Got a real link? I'll read George Will. I won't read anything posted on the Daily Caller. I made the mistake of saying to myself the other day "you know what, maybe I should click again, maybe the last time was a fluke" only to find an article that used a 100% objectively false statement as its very first sentence and then based the rest of the article's arguments on that lie.

Also, I'll give a shiat about this argument that stricter controls won't have an effect on gun crime when somebody can explain why the UK has such a lower rate of gun crime since enacting stricter controls. AND explain away the school massacre that led to it since the "clever" resposne is always "IT'S CULTURE!".

Yea, it is. Specifically it's the culture of a bunch of uncultured gun fetishists who think their "right" to shoot small animals and targets with on hand while dipping into a cooler of beer with the other all weekend is so important that they can't even be assed to have a few simple checks and balances placed on them to help keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of deranged lunatics who kill dozens of kids before the cops can even get to the scene.
 
2012-12-16 03:53:24 PM  

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


Let's get rid of all guns and see how many mass killings take place in the next 20 years.

I'm willing to be a lot of money there would be a lot fewer
 
2012-12-16 03:53:27 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 UK didn't have hundreds of millions of firearms to contend with.

Neither did Australia.

As a matter of fact, there isn't a single country on earth that had even a tenth of that to contend with when they adopted strict gun control.

But yeah, it would totally work here!

/Riiiiiiiight
 
2012-12-16 03:54:04 PM  

ghall3: Pokey.Clyde: 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?

Outrageous Muff: If the goal is to end these types of acts then taking guns away from people nor giving guns to people will solve the problem.


Oh well, your logic is perfect! People break laws, so no laws are needed! It's...MAGNIFICENT! YAY! No Laws!
 
2012-12-16 03:55:02 PM  
Remember, any hypothetical gun control legislation must completely eliminate all gun violence to be valid. If it does not, then there's no point in even having any gun control, and we'll just have to live with 30,000 dead and several shooting sprees every year. Even if gun control could significantly reduce that death toll, the fact that there will still be some gun violence means means that it's not worth pursuing.

Since there will always be some criminals who break laws, that means that laws are completely useless, and therefore, we shouldn't even bother having any laws at all.
 
2012-12-16 03:55:12 PM  

Jonnadiah: FTFA: "Remember, we did have a ban on assault weapons," Will said. "When we put the ban in place, these incidents did not really decline in a measurable way, and when we took it off, they did not increase in a measurable way."

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]


Columbine.
 
2012-12-16 03:55:17 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.


Actually, they did have one a few years ago which occurred after their gun control law was enacted. Cumbria Shootings, 12 dead, 11 wounded, gunman suicide.
 
2012-12-16 03:55:33 PM  
So he doesn't know what to do, but he wants to poo poo any effort to do anything. Gotcha. Sounds pretty Republican to me.
 
2012-12-16 03:55:33 PM  

LasersHurt: What kind of stupid strawman bullshiat is that?


It's a simple question, are you trying to solve the issue of mass shootings or are you trying to push an agenda? If you agree that you're trying to stop these kinds of acts from happening again then how will banning a weapons or giving out more weapons stop it?
 
2012-12-16 03:55:42 PM  
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7488829/81320859#c81320859" target="_blank">Jonnadiah</a>:</b> <i>FTFA: "Remember, we did have a ban on assault weapons," Will said. "When we put the ban in place, these incidents did not really decline in a measurable way, and when we took it off, they did not increase in a measurable way."

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]</i>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but handguns weren't classified as assault weapons were they?

The ban in question was enacted in 1994:


<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Ushomici desbyweapon.svg/800px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png">
 
2012-12-16 03:55:47 PM  
"Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.
"


Prohibiting civilian ownership of a subset of rifles -- which themselves are the least commonly criminally misused class of firearm, being used to commit murder less frequently than unarmed attacks -- is unlikely to impact rates of violent crime.
 
2012-12-16 03:55:56 PM  
So because these tragedies occur very rarely in other countries, whose overall homicide rate is a fraction of America's, where mass shootings have become a thing you can expect a few times a year, at least, gun control laws do not work?

Regardless of how you feel about guns, America's homicide rate is an embarrassment. Something needs to be done, most likely at the cultural level. That will take decades. In the meantime, we can have tough, meaningful regulations on gun ownership.
 
2012-12-16 03:56:20 PM  
Tucker Carlson publishing George Will? Is there a sale on bow ties?
 
2012-12-16 03:56:23 PM  
Isn't this the guy who thought Romney would win with 300+ EVs?

Because if so I'm not listening to a damn word he says. In fact, I'm going to do the OPPOSITE of what he says.
 
2012-12-16 03:56:37 PM  
Thanks George. The NRA and gun nuts everywhere appreciate your fellatio. Don''t forget to smile after you swallow.
 
2012-12-16 03:57:26 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.


Exactly. The laws were tightened.

And it did annoy a lot of gun enthusiasts.
 
2012-12-16 03:57:32 PM  

Outrageous Muff: LasersHurt: What kind of stupid strawman bullshiat is that?

It's a simple question, are you trying to solve the issue of mass shootings or are you trying to push an agenda? If you agree that you're trying to stop these kinds of acts from happening again then how will banning a weapons or giving out more weapons stop it?


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

That is not a question of any sort.
 
2012-12-16 03:57:37 PM  

swahnhennessy: So because these tragedies occur very rarely in other countries, whose overall homicide rate is a fraction of America's, where mass shootings have become a thing you can expect a few times a year, at least, gun control laws do not work?

Regardless of how you feel about guns, America's homicide rate is an embarrassment. Something needs to be done, most likely at the cultural level. That will take decades. In the meantime, we can have tough, meaningful regulations on gun ownership.


What regulations do you propose?
 
2012-12-16 03:57:54 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, just on the face of it, I'd say a law that prevented her from having all those guns would have prevented him from stealing them.
 
2012-12-16 03:58:08 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?


A complete ban on all gun sales of all types, most likely would've done it. Unless you are implying that the mom was involved with illegal gun trafficing.

Maybe electronic fingerprint locks? Unless you think that the killer is going to strip his mom of her skin and wear her hands?
 
2012-12-16 03:58:33 PM  
Guns are only one of the giant pile of leading to this. But to understand and to help amend the other issues requires time, money and lots of cooperation. And people are willing to give up in a day if nothing immediately changes.
 
2012-12-16 03:59:35 PM  

ghall3: Let's get rid of all guns and see how many mass killings take place in the next 20 years.

I'm willing to be a lot of money there would be a lot fewer


Or you could properly fund mental health program in America to threat those at risk for these kinds of things. I know it's all hippie and stuff, but when you treat the mentally ill properly you run an extremely higher chance of keeping them from harming themselves or others.
 
2012-12-16 03:59:36 PM  

iq_in_binary: 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 UK didn't have hundreds of millions of firearms to contend with.

Neither did Australia.

As a matter of fact, there isn't a single country on earth that had even a tenth of that to contend with when they adopted strict gun control.

But yeah, it would totally work here!

/Riiiiiiiight


Well, nothing else we've tried has seemed to help. So unless you have an actual alternative solution to provide, instead of just shooting down ones that at least have some basis (even if only mildly) in effectiveness when used throughout the rest of the world, maybe shut up and let the grown ups - regardless of their opinions - do the talking? If all you're going to do is play the contrarian without providing anything resembling an alternative to be brought into the discussion, all you're doing is wasting everyone's time who actually wants to solve the problem the United States has with crime. Want to participate, then pony up some ideas. Otherwise, shhhhhh.
 
2012-12-16 04:00:00 PM  

Outrageous Muff: LasersHurt: What kind of stupid strawman bullshiat is that?

It's a simple question, are you trying to solve the issue of mass shootings or are you trying to push an agenda? If you agree that you're trying to stop these kinds of acts from happening again then how will banning a weapons or giving out more weapons stop it?


I think people would be satisfied if they stopped being a weekly occurrence and went back to being a couple of times a year or once every 2 or 3 year type of deal.
 
2012-12-16 04:00:06 PM  

propasaurus: 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, just on the face of it, I'd say a law that prevented her from having all those guns would have prevented him from stealing them.


Are you suggesting prohibiting all civilian firearm ownership? By what means will you attain sufficient support to amend the United States Constitution?
 
2012-12-16 04:01:14 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.


THIS. You could include Australia, where we haven't had such a tragedy since we banned these sorts of weapons as a response to the Port Arthur massacre.

Banning these types of guns works.
 
2012-12-16 04:01:33 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: 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?


But we're always told that the problem isn't that there aren't enough gun control laws on the books but rather that we don't enforce the gun control laws we already have. But in this case, all of the relevant gun control laws were enforced. The only crime that occurred was the actual murders themselves. So what's your solution when the gun control laws we have are clearly insufficient?

And no, arming kindergartners is not a viable option.
 
2012-12-16 04:01:52 PM  

RKTeuthis: Outrageous Muff: Since all guns were bought legally, no assault weapons were used, and this was an issue of bad parenting and poor mental health treatment using the murder of children to gain an assault weapons ban would be politicizing their deaths. If the goal is to end these types of acts then taking guns away from people nor giving guns to people will solve the problem.

"As new details emerge, the scope of the horror expands. Lanza apparently sprayed two classrooms at the school with relentless fire from a semi-automatic assault rifle.

It was a massacre, and most of the victims were first-graders. Autopsies on the bodies of the children reveal that many, if not all, had been shot multiple times.

"I only did seven of the autopsies," medical examiner Wayne Carver said. "The victims I had ranged from three to 11 wounds a piece, and I only saw two of them with close-range shooting.""

Bushmaster AR15 .223, BTW which is what... civilian, semi-auto version of the M16?


And thus, NOT an assault rifle.

If it isn't select fire, it is literally NOT an assault rifle. All assault rifles have 3 important characteristics, just like the original, the StG 44 (Sturmgewehr, Assault). Select Fire, lighter caliber ammunition (.223 Remington/5.56 NATO vs. 7.62x51/.308 Winchester), and lighter materials to make the weapon lighter (8-10 lbs for a modern day combat rifle vs 12-14 for guns like the M1 Garand and Mauser 98).

If it's missing one of those three, it is not classified as an Assault Rifle. It's just a Rifle.
 
2012-12-16 04:02:05 PM  

clambam: If you agree with Will at al that the plural of anecdote is data, then this makes perfect sense. However, when it comes to cherrypicking anecdotes, gun opponents have a recent one ready at hand:

Chinese stabbing spree

Here's a guy who did not have access to guns, who went for the next best thing available, and the result was... zero deaths. Nada. Not a one. Did he send twenty-off kids to the hospital? Absolutely. But if you want to put twenty-odd kids in the morgue, you really need a gun.


Or a car bomb/explosives. Not as common and a little more difficult to manufacture or use, but that is also a way to inflict mass casualties without the use of firearms that has been used many times in the world as well as the US.
 
2012-12-16 04:02:45 PM  

Kome: iq_in_binary: 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 UK didn't have hundreds of millions of firearms to contend with.

Neither did Australia.

As a matter of fact, there isn't a single country on earth that had even a tenth of that to contend with when they adopted strict gun control.

But yeah, it would totally work here!

/Riiiiiiiight

Well, nothing else we've tried has seemed to help. So unless you have an actual alternative solution to provide, instead of just shooting down ones that at least have some basis (even if only mildly) in effectiveness when used throughout the rest of the world, maybe shut up and let the grown ups - regardless of their opinions - do the talking? If all you're going to do is play the contrarian without providing anything resembling an alternative to be brought into the discussion, all you're doing is wasting everyone's time who actually wants to solve the problem the United States has with crime. Want to participate, then pony up some ideas. Otherwise, shhhhhh.


I have suggested the following:

End the "war on drugs".
Reform the current prison system in the United States of America; attempt to rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated, reduce sentences for nonviolent offenses, increase mandatory sentences for violent offenses.
Improve access to mental health care and treatment, such as through health care reform.
Mandate secure storage of firearms when not under control of the owner; the implementation within the District of Colombia was too restrictive, but a less unreasonable standard would likely pass Constitutional scrutiny.
 
2012-12-16 04:02:47 PM  

Pincy: OK, so they might not stop this random act of violence by a disturbed person but will it put a dent in the other 30,000+ gun related deaths every year?


Since most of the gun deaths are suicide, likely not. Don't forget that many of the other shootings are within larger cities where gun rules are already pretty tight.

I am not saying that any additional laws are useless, but when most of your gun deaths take place in circumstances when the gun owner has already broken one or more law, it makes it tough for additional laws to really be deterrents.
 
2012-12-16 04:03:37 PM  

Dimensio: propasaurus: 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, just on the face of it, I'd say a law that prevented her from having all those guns would have prevented him from stealing them.

Are you suggesting prohibiting all civilian firearm ownership? By what means will you attain sufficient support to amend the United States Constitution?


No, I'm just saying that if mom didn't have guns in the first place, sonny wouldn't have been able to steal them from her.
Which was in direct response to the question asked.
 
Xai
2012-12-16 04:03:39 PM  
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.
 
2012-12-16 04:03:41 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-16 04:04:33 PM  
1. Assault weapons ban. I really don't care what excuses people have. There is zero reason for the average American to own weapons that can be converted to fully automatic or have massive magazines/clips.

2. High-volume magazine ban. I realize that it's horribly inconvenient for some people to have to reload occasionally while they're target shooting...but it's entirely possible that not having these magazines around would lessen the chance that some insane idiot could spray a crowd with gunfire.

3. Highly regulated and taxed ammo sales. Make purchasing ammo be much more expensive than it is now (with an exception for ammo sold and used at target ranges) to discourage the accumulation of mass-murder levels of bullets. Make ammo available in fewer places, and especially not via the internet.

4. Require a rigorous yearly psychiatric evaluation as a condition of gun ownership. Deny gun licenses to individuals (and families) with history of certain mental disorders. Severe manic depressive? Sorry, you don't get a gun. You can't yell FIRE in a theater, either. It's about public safety.

5. License one handgun per person at a time, with only very rare exceptions. Discourage the building of home arsenals. You want a gun for protection? Fine. You can generally only shoot one at a time anyway.

6. Eliminate any and all gun show loopholes. I mean, come on.

7. Require the purchase of gun insurance for every gun purchase. The premium can be based on risk factors and funds the payout of damages to anyone injured or killed by that particular firearm.
 
2012-12-16 04:05:21 PM  

Outrageous Muff: Since all guns were bought legally, no assault weapons were used, and this was an issue of bad parenting and poor mental health treatment using the murder of children to gain an assault weapons ban would be politicizing their deaths. If the goal is to end these types of acts then taking guns away from people nor giving guns to people will solve the problem.


Right. An assault weapons ban wouldn't have stopped this particular shooting so there's no reason at all to ban them. It couldn't possibly prevent another shooting.

/sarcasm was on, in case anyone missed it.

There's no reason for a private citizen to have an assault weapon. None. You don't use it for hunting and you don't need it for self defense.

"Whaaaas, I'm a collector" is not a valid reason. "I might need to help overthrow the government" is not a valid reason. And no, the 2nd amendment is not a valid reason. The 2nd amendment starts with the phrase "a well regulated militia." Members of the militia, aka the army, the National Guard, etc. can have assault rifles to use in the line of duty. Private citizens are not going to have to jump out of bed in the middle of the night to defend our free state from King George's troops.
 
2012-12-16 04:05:28 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?


A law that made mental health facilities more affordable/accessible than an assault rifle?
 
2012-12-16 04:05:33 PM  

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.


This is beautiful, if you're into that kinda stuff.
 
2012-12-16 04:05:35 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 19091989 was 1983 incidents. In 2010 it was 3105. Yup, that turned the tide right there.


FTFM
 
2012-12-16 04:05:59 PM  

iq_in_binary: RKTeuthis: Outrageous Muff: Since all guns were bought legally, no assault weapons were used, and this was an issue of bad parenting and poor mental health treatment using the murder of children to gain an assault weapons ban would be politicizing their deaths. If the goal is to end these types of acts then taking guns away from people nor giving guns to people will solve the problem.

"As new details emerge, the scope of the horror expands. Lanza apparently sprayed two classrooms at the school with relentless fire from a semi-automatic assault rifle.

It was a massacre, and most of the victims were first-graders. Autopsies on the bodies of the children reveal that many, if not all, had been shot multiple times.

"I only did seven of the autopsies," medical examiner Wayne Carver said. "The victims I had ranged from three to 11 wounds a piece, and I only saw two of them with close-range shooting.""

Bushmaster AR15 .223, BTW which is what... civilian, semi-auto version of the M16?

And thus, NOT an assault rifle.

If it isn't select fire, it is literally NOT an assault rifle. All assault rifles have 3 important characteristics, just like the original, the StG 44 (Sturmgewehr, Assault). Select Fire, lighter caliber ammunition (.223 Remington/5.56 NATO vs. 7.62x51/.308 Winchester), and lighter materials to make the weapon lighter (8-10 lbs for a modern day combat rifle vs 12-14 for guns like the M1 Garand and Mauser 98).

If it's missing one of those three, it is not classified as an Assault Rifle. It's just a Rifle.


Plus I have not heard for certain if the .223 was used in the school. From all the reports I have seen, the .223 was found in the car. Does anyone know for certain if the the Bushmaster was actually used?
 
2012-12-16 04:06:29 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.


"Handgun offenses" may include possession of a firearm following the total prohibition upon civilian ownership of them. Whether this influences rates, I cannot say. Population increases may also account for some of the increase.

When I am informed that prohibiting civilian handgun ownership in the United Kingdom reduced rates of crime, I request data regarding homicide and violent crime rates before and after the implementation of the prohibition.

The claim may be accurate, but thus far no data has been presented.
 
GBB
2012-12-16 04:06:50 PM  

James F. Campbell: Kimothy: Except that the examples he gives are actually examples of laws that work, making these kinds of mass shootings the exception not the rule. Shootings like this are incredibly RARE in those countries. In the USA, they are commonplace and occur several times a year.

Gosh, I guess it's crazy to suggest that mass shootings in countries with strict gun laws are rare for a reason.


They are rare, but still happen. I have no useful ideas myself, so don't think that what I say actually helps anything, but if I may... would it be best to work on, and put great effort into a solution that is known to be less than 100% effective, or work toward finding a solution that is more effective than that??

Many of the Opponants to gun bans point out that they don't work and crazy people will find a way. Could it be because they would rather work toward a more effective solution?

If it were easy to enact gun controls to mimic the levels of control in other countries, then lets do than AND continue to work toward greater safety. But the fact is that people really do cling to their guns and it will be all but impossible to easily ban them. Therefore, it would seem more prudant to work toward another goal and not waste energy toward a deadend.
 
2012-12-16 04:06:51 PM  
You people are sooo tiresome.

Guns are a straw man. If you had a once of integrity you would be in the streets trying to end the sale of cigarettes (400,000 deaths a year) vehicles (30,000 deaths a year) and alcohol (40,000 deaths a year)

The real obscenity with this tragic event is not guns, but mental illness.
Think of what might have been prevented if that 500 Billion dollars swirling down the Solindra sewer drain had been invested in Mental facilities and the people to staff them.

Gabby Giffords, Denver movie goers, the list of victims is long, but the source of all this pain is ignored for political reasons.
 
2012-12-16 04:07:32 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?


mandatory gun locks that are welded on. don't you know anything?

this is both a horrible act involving senseless deaths and a real object lesson that banning "assault rifles" and HCM is meaningless.
 
2012-12-16 04:08:05 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?"


Target shooting, defense, hunting are all uses.
 
2012-12-16 04:08:05 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.


There are very few legal fully automatic rifles out there and they haven't been used in any crimes since prohibition if I remember correctly so there is no reason to target those for further regulations. As far as your Semi-Automatic rfiles, those are the bulk of the hunting and target shooting weapons out there which are two uses that are utilized millions of times a year without any harm.
 
2012-12-16 04:08:24 PM  
Hey Georgie, according to Wikipedia, Norway had 1.78 firearms deaths in 2010. The UK had 0.25. The US? 9. That's right, 36 times that of the UK. Are you being deliberately disingenuous, or do you actually believe the shiat you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea t h_rate
 
2012-12-16 04:09:08 PM  

Phins: There's no reason for a private citizen to have an assault weapon. None. You don't use it for hunting and you don't need it for self defense.


Please define "assault weapon" meaningfully.
 
2012-12-16 04:09:10 PM  
I shut a window for a few minutes yesterday but it's still cold in here.
I guess nothing can be done.
 
2012-12-16 04:09:22 PM  

LasersHurt: That is not a question of any sort.


Okay I'll type slower.

CT: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, murders his mother and uses her legally purchased guns to kill lots of people.

China: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, picks up a knife and stabs a lot of people.

Auroa: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, legally obtains weapons that he would not have been able to get if he received the proper care kills lots of people.

VTech: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, legally obtains weapons that he would not have been able to get if he received the proper care kills lots of people.

I could keep doing this, but I' m sure you see the common thread. If the goal of society, any society, is stop these kinds of acts then dealing with the common thread of mental health would be far more effective then banning guns.

So I ask again. Do you want to solve the problem or further an agenda?
 
2012-12-16 04:09:28 PM  

HeadLever: Pincy: OK, so they might not stop this random act of violence by a disturbed person but will it put a dent in the other 30,000+ gun related deaths every year?

Since most of the gun deaths are suicide, likely not.


So, suicides don't count?

Studies show that suicide attempts with a firearm are far more likely to be successful than suicides attempted by other means. And people living in a household with a firearm are far more likely to commit suicide than those living in households without one.

In short, restricting firearm ownership will bring down the number of suicides as well.
 
2012-12-16 04:10:36 PM  

MFAWG: Outrageous Muff: LasersHurt: What kind of stupid strawman bullshiat is that?

It's a simple question, are you trying to solve the issue of mass shootings or are you trying to push an agenda? If you agree that you're trying to stop these kinds of acts from happening again then how will banning a weapons or giving out more weapons stop it?

I think people would be satisfied if they stopped being a weekly occurrence and went back to being a couple of times a year or once every 2 or 3 year type of deal.


So you're saying that mass murders are okay, it's just that it happens a lot is bad?
 
2012-12-16 04:11:21 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.


1909? I see you learned debate from the Mitt Romney School of Horses and Bayonets.
 
2012-12-16 04:11:32 PM  

iq_in_binary: 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 UK didn't have hundreds of millions of firearms to contend with.

Neither did Australia.

As a matter of fact, there isn't a single country on earth that had even a tenth of that to contend with when they adopted strict gun control.

But yeah, it would totally work here!

/Riiiiiiiight


So the "it's too hard" argument. They did that in Australia after the conservative Prime Minister announced plans for the ban. It's the same sort of thing as the "It's too soon to talk about this" argument. It's the tired old stuff that gun lovers pull out after every massacre you have and it's just wrong.
 
2012-12-16 04:11:48 PM  

Outrageous Muff: China: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, picks up a knife and stabs a lot of people.


How many dead?
 
2012-12-16 04:12:22 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?


A law that says she can't have weapons in her home, locked or not, if she has mentally ill relatives who can get access to said guns. Or a law that says all weapons must be stored at a municipal run armory, and can only be personally checked out and checked back in by the actual person who owns the guns.
 
2012-12-16 04:12:27 PM  

kyrg: Guns are a straw man. If you had a once of integrity you would be in the streets trying to end the sale of cigarettes (400,000 deaths a year) vehicles (30,000 deaths a year) and alcohol (40,000 deaths a year)


Sorry, stopped reading after this strawman burst into flames.
 
2012-12-16 04:12:41 PM  

Kome: iq_in_binary: 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 UK didn't have hundreds of millions of firearms to contend with.

Neither did Australia.

As a matter of fact, there isn't a single country on earth that had even a tenth of that to contend with when they adopted strict gun control.

But yeah, it would totally work here!

/Riiiiiiiight

Well, nothing else we've tried has seemed to help. So unless you have an actual alternative solution to provide, instead of just shooting down ones that at least have some basis (even if only mildly) in effectiveness when used throughout the rest of the world, maybe shut up and let the grown ups - regardless of their opinions - do the talking? If all you're going to do is play the contrarian without providing anything resembling an alternative to be brought into the discussion, all you're doing is wasting everyone's time who actually wants to solve the problem the United States has with crime. Want to participate, then pony up some ideas. Otherwise, shhhhhh.


Apply NFA to all new semi-autos and all existing semi-autos above a threshold caliber (.380ACP for Pistols, .30 Carbine for Rifles, 4-10 for shotguns). Repeal the '86 ban and treat Suppressors and safety equipment like ear plugs or safety glasses. Change the Tax Stamp schedule from $200/$20 to just $20. Use the Tax Stamp proceeds to fund ATF offices in every county just like we have DMVs in each county. Streamline the Tax Stamp process at the ATF office so that it can be completed same day.

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 should have control over every single one of the 250 MILLION+ firearms in this country is naive, and never going to happen. This way, we get pretty damn close, and the ones that aren't controlled are going to be difficult to kill people with anyway. You don't hear of many massacres committed with .22LR 10/22s.
 
2012-12-16 04:12:57 PM  

kyrg: Guns are a straw man. If you had a once of integrity you would be in the streets trying to end the sale of cigarettes (400,000 deaths a year) vehicles (30,000 deaths a year) and alcohol (40,000 deaths a year)


oh PUHLease.

people kill themselves -- that is a concern, but a different issue. you can be concerned about deaths that occur in different ways but also understand that a person's choice to kill them-self is a separate issue than a mass murder.

what we are talking about is not reducing any death (or even the most number of deaths) -- but the violent kind, the murder kind, the multi-person kind, and it seems that guns are so intertwined with this case it is worth talking about them when discussing prevention.
 
2012-12-16 04:13:32 PM  
George Will can't even count to tater tot. Don't waste your time.
 
2012-12-16 04:14:00 PM  

clambam: Here's a guy who did not have access to guns, who went for the next best thing available, and the result was... zero deaths. Nada. Not a one. Did he send twenty-off kids to the hospital? Absolutely. But if you want to put twenty-odd kids in the morgue, you really need a gun.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-16 04:14:06 PM  

mab1823: 1. Assault weapons ban. I really don't care what excuses people have. There is zero reason for the average American to own weapons that can be converted to fully automatic or have massive magazines/clips.

2. High-volume magazine ban. I realize that it's horribly inconvenient for some people to have to reload occasionally while they're target shooting...but it's entirely possible that not having these magazines around would lessen the chance that some insane idiot could spray a crowd with gunfire.

3. Highly regulated and taxed ammo sales. Make purchasing ammo be much more expensive than it is now (with an exception for ammo sold and used at target ranges) to discourage the accumulation of mass-murder levels of bullets. Make ammo available in fewer places, and especially not via the internet.

4. Require a rigorous yearly psychiatric evaluation as a condition of gun ownership. Deny gun licenses to individuals (and families) with history of certain mental disorders. Severe manic depressive? Sorry, you don't get a gun. You can't yell FIRE in a theater, either. It's about public safety.

5. License one handgun per person at a time, with only very rare exceptions. Discourage the building of home arsenals. You want a gun for protection? Fine. You can generally only shoot one at a time anyway.

6. Eliminate any and all gun show loopholes. I mean, come on.

7. Require the purchase of gun insurance for every gun purchase. The premium can be based on risk factors and funds the payout of damages to anyone injured or killed by that particular firearm.


Naive, punitive, and quite frankly never going to happen. Be realistic.
 
2012-12-16 04:14:24 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: How many dead?


So you're saying it's not as big of deal if(or not enough) people didn't die?
 
2012-12-16 04:14:37 PM  

kyrg: You people are sooo tiresome.

Guns are a straw man. If you had a once of integrity you would be in the streets trying to end the sale of cigarettes (400,000 deaths a year) vehicles (30,000 deaths a year) and alcohol (40,000 deaths a year)

The real obscenity with this tragic event is not guns, but mental illness.
Think of what might have been prevented if that 500 Billion dollars swirling down the Solindra sewer drain had been invested in Mental facilities and the people to staff them.

Gabby Giffords, Denver movie goers, the list of victims is long, but the source of all this pain is ignored for political reasons.


When someone kills 20 kindergartners with a pack of Virginia Slims, then we can have that discussion. And given that it was Reagan who slashed social services for the mentally ill, I don't think your Solyndra line is going to gain you much traction.
 
2012-12-16 04:14:42 PM  
How come two days after a tragedy, the idiots saying it's "too soon/STOP POLITICIZING" on the day OF the tragedy are the ones politicizing/cheapening the tragedy the hardest?
 
2012-12-16 04:15:29 PM  

Phins: Outrageous Muff: Since all guns were bought legally, no assault weapons were used, and this was an issue of bad parenting and poor mental health treatment using the murder of children to gain an assault weapons ban would be politicizing their deaths. If the goal is to end these types of acts then taking guns away from people nor giving guns to people will solve the problem.

Right. An assault weapons ban wouldn't have stopped this particular shooting so there's no reason at all to ban them. It couldn't possibly prevent another shooting.

/sarcasm was on, in case anyone missed it.

There's no reason for a private citizen to have an assault weapon. None. You don't use it for hunting and you don't need it for self defense.

"Whaaaas, I'm a collector" is not a valid reason. "I might need to help overthrow the government" is not a valid reason. And no, the 2nd amendment is not a valid reason. The 2nd amendment starts with the phrase "a well regulated militia." Members of the militia, aka the army, the National Guard, etc. can have assault rifles to use in the line of duty. Private citizens are not going to have to jump out of bed in the middle of the night to defend our free state from King George's troops.


Private citizens already can't have assault weapons. Select fire weapons are already illegal except for a VERY small pool of them, that have never been used in crimes.
 
2012-12-16 04:15:30 PM  

mab1823: 1. Assault weapons ban. I really don't care what excuses people have. There is zero reason for the average American to own weapons that can be converted to fully automatic or have massive magazines/clips.


Any firearm that is easily converted to fully automatic operation is already regulated federally as though it is a fully automatic firearm. Such firearms are already restricted and are not readily available to civilians.

Any detachable-magazine fed semi-automatic firearm will be able to accept a "large" magazine. You are advocating prohibiting the substantial majority of civilian firearms.


2. High-volume magazine ban. I realize that it's horribly inconvenient for some people to have to reload occasionally while they're target shooting...but it's entirely possible that not having these magazines around would lessen the chance that some insane idiot could spray a crowd with gunfire.

Please define "high-volume".


3. Highly regulated and taxed ammo sales. Make purchasing ammo be much more expensive than it is now (with an exception for ammo sold and used at target ranges) to discourage the accumulation of mass-murder levels of bullets. Make ammo available in fewer places, and especially not via the internet.

Such taxation would substantially increase the popularity of reloading amongst shooting enthusiasts. Individuals intent upon committing high-profile mass murder would likely be undeterred by the additional cost.


4. Require a rigorous yearly psychiatric evaluation as a condition of gun ownership. Deny gun licenses to individuals (and families) with history of certain mental disorders. Severe manic depressive? Sorry, you don't get a gun. You can't yell FIRE in a theater, either. It's about public safety.

I am able to accept such a proposal only if the standards applied use objective disqualifying criteria, so that an "anti-gun" psychiatrist cannot arbitrarily deny firearm access and that a "pro-gun" psychiatrist may not overlook (intentionally or not) potentially disqualifying criteria.


5. License one handgun per person at a time, with only very rare exceptions. Discourage the building of home arsenals. You want a gun for protection? Fine. You can generally only shoot one at a time anyway.

This proposal is not reasonable. Legitimate reason exists to own multiple handguns.


6. Eliminate any and all gun show loopholes. I mean, come on.

Please describe a "gun show loophole".


7. Require the purchase of gun insurance for every gun purchase. The premium can be based on risk factors and funds the payout of damages to anyone injured or killed by that particular firearm.

I may be able to support such a proposal for firearms carried in public (but not for those stored in private) only if the insurance is affordable to all income groups.
 
2012-12-16 04:15:45 PM  
republicans can't do math
 
2012-12-16 04:16:03 PM  
Sorry gun nuts, we've tried it your way for 223 years. You're going to have to accept that common sense gun regulation is coming. If you're smart you'll propose your own gun control legislation so you can try to limit the "damage" to your "rights."
 
2012-12-16 04:16:22 PM  

kyrg: You people are sooo tiresome.

Guns are a straw man. If you had a once of integrity you would be in the streets trying to end the sale of cigarettes (400,000 deaths a year) vehicles (30,000 deaths a year) and alcohol (40,000 deaths a year)

The real obscenity with this tragic event is not guns, but mental illness.
Think of what might have been prevented if that 500 Billion dollars swirling down the Solindra sewer drain had been invested in Mental facilities and the people to staff them.

Gabby Giffords, Denver movie goers, the list of victims is long, but the source of all this pain is ignored for political reasons.


The perfect is the enemy of the good. Guns are another public health crisis and there is at least the political will to take action on them. If there's motivation to work on cars, cigarettes and alcohol then that would be great too. But give up on the idea that nothing should be done because we can't do everything else.
 
2012-12-16 04:17:18 PM  

HeadLever: Plus I have not heard for certain if the .223 was used in the school. From all the reports I have seen, the .223 was found in the car. Does anyone know for certain if the the Bushmaster was actually used?


Link

The Bushmaster was the primary weapon in the attack and they found a shotgun in the car.
 
2012-12-16 04:17:20 PM  

Empty Matchbook: A law that made mental health facilities more affordable/accessible than an assault rifle?


He DID NOT HAVE AN ASSAULT RIFLE. The Bushmaster rifle he had is not an assault rifle.

You know what? Fark it, I'm out. This thread is too full of stupid. People who don't know what they are talking about, trying to pass off their uninformed opinions as fact.
 
2012-12-16 04:17:30 PM  

iq_in_binary: mab1823: 1. Assault weapons ban. I really don't care what excuses people have. There is zero reason for the average American to own weapons that can be converted to fully automatic or have massive magazines/clips.

2. High-volume magazine ban. I realize that it's horribly inconvenient for some people to have to reload occasionally while they're target shooting...but it's entirely possible that not having these magazines around would lessen the chance that some insane idiot could spray a crowd with gunfire.

3. Highly regulated and taxed ammo sales. Make purchasing ammo be much more expensive than it is now (with an exception for ammo sold and used at target ranges) to discourage the accumulation of mass-murder levels of bullets. Make ammo available in fewer places, and especially not via the internet.

4. Require a rigorous yearly psychiatric evaluation as a condition of gun ownership. Deny gun licenses to individuals (and families) with history of certain mental disorders. Severe manic depressive? Sorry, you don't get a gun. You can't yell FIRE in a theater, either. It's about public safety.

5. License one handgun per person at a time, with only very rare exceptions. Discourage the building of home arsenals. You want a gun for protection? Fine. You can generally only shoot one at a time anyway.

6. Eliminate any and all gun show loopholes. I mean, come on.

7. Require the purchase of gun insurance for every gun purchase. The premium can be based on risk factors and funds the payout of damages to anyone injured or killed by that particular firearm.

Naive, punitive, and quite frankly never going to happen. Be realistic.


The point was to make it punitive. Guns should be expensive and difficult to own due to the fact that they get used all too often for, you know, killing people.
 
2012-12-16 04:17:47 PM  

Milo Minderbinder: Hey Georgie, according to Wikipedia, Norway had 1.78 firearms deaths in 2010. The UK had 0.25. The US? 9. That's right, 36 times that of the UK. Are you being deliberately disingenuous, or do you actually believe the shiat you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea t h_rate


You know how many sailors drown each year compared to other occupations? Like 20X more! That's a JOKE! Water control is the only solution.
 
2012-12-16 04:17:51 PM  

Outrageous Muff: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: How many dead?

So you're saying it's not as big of deal if(or not enough) people didn't die?


Potato?
 
2012-12-16 04:17:57 PM  

Outrageous Muff: LasersHurt: That is not a question of any sort.

Okay I'll type slower.

CT: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, murders his mother and uses her legally purchased guns to kill lots of people.

China: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, picks up a knife and stabs a lot of people.

Auroa: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, legally obtains weapons that he would not have been able to get if he received the proper care kills lots of people.

VTech: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, legally obtains weapons that he would not have been able to get if he received the proper care kills lots of people.

I could keep doing this, but I' m sure you see the common thread. If the goal of society, any society, is stop these kinds of acts then dealing with the common thread of mental health would be far more effective then banning guns.

So I ask again. Do you want to solve the problem or further an agenda?


No doubt that mental health should be well funded.

But of the four cases you cite, the China case yielded no deaths (other than the suspect, I believe). It's also the easy access to guns that allowed the mentally unbalanced to go on a rampage. You need to do both.

And don't forget, there's still plenty of people who are NOT mentally unstable who use guns to kill people for no apparent reason: Zimmerman vs Trayvon, father who accidentally killed his son at a gun range, police shooting people at random, suicides, and many other cases.
 
2012-12-16 04:18:07 PM  

RKTeuthis: Outrageous Muff: Since all guns were bought legally, no assault weapons were used, and this was an issue of bad parenting and poor mental health treatment using the murder of children to gain an assault weapons ban would be politicizing their deaths. If the goal is to end these types of acts then taking guns away from people nor giving guns to people will solve the problem.

"As new details emerge, the scope of the horror expands. Lanza apparently sprayed two classrooms at the school with relentless fire from a semi-automatic assault rifle.

It was a massacre, and most of the victims were first-graders. Autopsies on the bodies of the children reveal that many, if not all, had been shot multiple times.

"I only did seven of the autopsies," medical examiner Wayne Carver said. "The victims I had ranged from three to 11 wounds a piece, and I only saw two of them with close-range shooting.""

Bushmaster AR15 .223, BTW which is what... civilian, semi-auto version of the M16?


I read an earlier version of the story that two pistols were recovered in the school while the rifle had been left in the vehicle. Which is it, now?

I'm not sure rifle vs. pistol is as relevant as the fact he could keep shooting: how much ammo he had, how many guns he had. All he needed was to avoid any pause that would get him tackled.
 
2012-12-16 04:18:22 PM  

Doc Daneeka: In short, restricting firearm ownership will bring down the number of suicides as well.


Not sure about that. Guns are the 1st choice of those trying suicide since it is the easiest and fastest method. It makes sense that guns increase the 'sucessfullness' because they are the most efficient.

Basically, while guns are not the culprit in this case, they do the job better than other methods. All said, there is is merit in keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and depressed.
 
2012-12-16 04:18:24 PM  

Outrageous Muff: Since all guns were bought legally, no assault weapons were used, and this was an issue of bad parenting and poor mental health treatment using the murder of children to gain an assault weapons ban would be politicizing their deaths. If the goal is to end these types of acts then taking guns away from people nor giving guns to people will solve the problem.


There are times when people are the product of bad parenting, but a mass-murderer is not one of them. They're just crazy. You can't parent crazy, and people will very often blame parents for the bad behavior of a legitimately mentally-ill child. That's wrong. The parents are usually doing everything in their power to control the child, but their brains basically do not work. There is nothing those parents can do besides turning the children over to a mental health professional, and those services point-blank don't exist in many areas.

There's a lovely article on the front page dealing with this. It's a good read.
 
2012-12-16 04:18:32 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Outrageous Muff: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: How many dead?

So you're saying it's not as big of deal if(or not enough) people didn't die?

Potato?


Yeah that was seriously pants-on-head.
 
2012-12-16 04:19:01 PM  
Per 100,000, doy

/stupid people

Milo Minderbinder: Hey Georgie, according to Wikipedia, Norway had 1.78 firearms deaths in 2010. The UK had 0.25. The US? 9. That's right, 36 times that of the UK. Are you being deliberately disingenuous, or do you actually believe the shiat you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea t h_rate


Per 100,000, doy

/Stupid people make me stupid
 
2012-12-16 04:19:15 PM  

Pincy: OK, so they might not stop this random act of violence by a disturbed person but will it put a dent in the other 30,000+ gun related deaths every year?


get rid of the "war on drugs" and the over the top militarization of the police. call it the "commitment to reduce drug usage" and for every cop you get rid of hire a social worker. dump the uparmoured humvees and APCs and get vans to take folks to outreach or other social gatherings.

fund mental health at levels equal to what it was before Reagan went nuts. stop the "every snowflake is special" and make actions have consequences. pump some serious money into inner cities.

for starters.
 
2012-12-16 04:19:24 PM  
What's the shelf life of ammo, anyway? If you make it illegal to manufacture ammunition for these guns, the guns themselves will become rather harmless.

Personally, I'm ready to have a conversation about repealing the second amendment altogether. Somehow, I think it would still be 'merca even if we didn't have gun ownership enshrined in the constitution.
 
2012-12-16 04:19:43 PM  

Halli: The Bushmaster was the primary weapon in the attack and they found a shotgun in the car.


Thanks.
 
2012-12-16 04:19:48 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: Empty Matchbook: A law that made mental health facilities more affordable/accessible than an assault rifle?

He DID NOT HAVE AN ASSAULT RIFLE. The Bushmaster rifle he had is not an assault rifle.

You know what? Fark it, I'm out. This thread is too full of stupid. People who don't know what they are talking about, trying to pass off their uninformed opinions as fact.


When you leave all that will leave with you.
 
2012-12-16 04:20:05 PM  
"Remember, we did have a ban on assault weapons," Will said. "When we put the ban in place, these incidents did not really decline in a measurable way, and when we took it off, they did not increase in a measurable way."


That's because the country had already been flooded with weapons. If new bans were enacted, it would take several generations for them to be effective. The currently available private inventory is just too high to see any kind of change in under a decade. The US has more guns per citizen than the rest of the world -- nearly 1 to 1. In the western countries, none of them break the ration of 1 gun per 2 people.
 
2012-12-16 04:20:36 PM  
Mandatory suicide vests for everyone, with dead-man detonators. Someone dies suddenly, everything in a 50-ffoot radius gets taken out with 'em. No mass shootings for fear of a chain reaction that'll wipe out half the town.

People would also drive more carefully when pedestrians might be in the area, perhaps be more willing to pay for universal healthcare (wouldn't want to be near a guy who dies of a heart attack!) and crime in general should decrease. Also saves on funeral costs...

M.A.D. got us through the Cold War, and it'll serve keep society civil.
=Smidge=
 
2012-12-16 04:20:42 PM  

Outrageous Muff: LasersHurt: That is not a question of any sort.

Okay I'll type slower.

CT: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, murders his mother and uses her legally purchased guns to kill lots of people.

China: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, picks up a knife and stabs a lot of people.

Auroa: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, legally obtains weapons that he would not have been able to get if he received the proper care kills lots of people.

VTech: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, legally obtains weapons that he would not have been able to get if he received the proper care kills lots of people.

I could keep doing this, but I' m sure you see the common thread. If the goal of society, any society, is stop these kinds of acts then dealing with the common thread of mental health would be far more effective then banning guns.

So I ask again. Do you want to solve the problem or further an agenda?


Who has the agenda here? We have on the one hand, the people who want to take more lethal machines away from the general public to make the murderously mentally ill less dangerous to society; and on the other, the people who bend over backwards to continue to allow people to legally get their hands on lethal machines designed solely for the purpose of slaughtering other humans.

Where does this sh*t stop? I'm surprised you aren't arguing in favour of mental health care while simultaneously defending everyone's right to own their own rocket-propelled grenade launchers or drive tanks.

And while we're at it, arguments in favour of increased national spending on health care seem to be mostly originating from the same people who are equally in favour of restricting widespread access to lethal weaponry.

But the right has the "culture of life", right?
 
2012-12-16 04:20:45 PM  
"Oh my god, this thing is so terrible beyond words."
"To make sure this never happens again we need to ban assault weapons!"
"But no assault weapons were used? How would that have stopped this horrible thing from happening?"
"Because guns are bad."
"But hundreds of millions of North Americans own guns and there aren't mass shooting every day. Isn't this really more of a mental health issue?"
"No, because guns are bad."
 
2012-12-16 04:20:49 PM  

acefox1: Sorry gun nuts, we've tried it your way for 223 years. You're going to have to accept that common sense gun regulation is coming. If you're smart you'll propose your own gun control legislation so you can try to limit the "damage" to your "rights."


Please describe "common sense gun regulation". Frequently the claim "common sense" is used in an attempt to stifle criticism by implying objectors to lack "common sense" regardless of the viability of a claim.
 
2012-12-16 04:21:24 PM  

Doc Daneeka: 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.

1909? I see you learned debate from the Mitt Romney School of Horses and Bayonets.


I'd have to agree. That's one of the most bizarre switches I've seen pulled.

It's like:

"Boiling 1 pint of water takes 2 minutes. Boiling 2 pints of water takes 4 minutes. YOUR MOVE, biatch."

le wtf?
 
2012-12-16 04:21:54 PM  

acefox1: Sorry gun nuts, we've tried it your way for 223 years. You're going to have to accept that common sense gun regulation is coming. If you're smart you'll propose your own gun control legislation so you can try to limit the "damage" to your "rights."


I think you are right on here. The NRA would be smart to start making some concessions now which would, as you say, help "limit the the damage" and also might help bolster their image with the general public. But as these sort of tragedies become more uncommon, if they continue to stand their hard line in the sand, then they are going to become even less influential and then they won't have any control over the "damage".
 
GBB
2012-12-16 04:22:39 PM  

Phins: Outrageous Muff: Since all guns were bought legally, no assault weapons were used, and this was an issue of bad parenting and poor mental health treatment using the murder of children to gain an assault weapons ban would be politicizing their deaths. If the goal is to end these types of acts then taking guns away from people nor giving guns to people will solve the problem.

Right. An assault weapons ban wouldn't have stopped this particular shooting so there's no reason at all to ban them. It couldn't possibly prevent another shooting.

/sarcasm was on, in case anyone missed it.

There's no reason for a private citizen to have an assault weapon. None. You don't use it for hunting and you don't need it for self defense.

"Whaaaas, I'm a collector" is not a valid reason. "I might need to help overthrow the government" is not a valid reason. And no, the 2nd amendment is not a valid reason. The 2nd amendment starts with the phrase "a well regulated militia." Members of the militia, aka the army, the National Guard, etc. can have assault rifles to use in the line of duty. Private citizens are not going to have to jump out of bed in the middle of the night to defend our free state from King George's troops.


Exactly. The reason we have the proliferation of weapons is because of the late-20th Century application of grammar to a late-18th Century document. There is a reason that lawyers prefer to use archaic language like 'thereforto'; it's specific to their needs and usage. This was not considered when they drafted the Consitiution. They used the language of the day and tried their best. Link
 
2012-12-16 04:22:46 PM  

mab1823: iq_in_binary: mab1823: 1. Assault weapons ban. I really don't care what excuses people have. There is zero reason for the average American to own weapons that can be converted to fully automatic or have massive magazines/clips.

2. High-volume magazine ban. I realize that it's horribly inconvenient for some people to have to reload occasionally while they're target shooting...but it's entirely possible that not having these magazines around would lessen the chance that some insane idiot could spray a crowd with gunfire.

3. Highly regulated and taxed ammo sales. Make purchasing ammo be much more expensive than it is now (with an exception for ammo sold and used at target ranges) to discourage the accumulation of mass-murder levels of bullets. Make ammo available in fewer places, and especially not via the internet.

4. Require a rigorous yearly psychiatric evaluation as a condition of gun ownership. Deny gun licenses to individuals (and families) with history of certain mental disorders. Severe manic depressive? Sorry, you don't get a gun. You can't yell FIRE in a theater, either. It's about public safety.

5. License one handgun per person at a time, with only very rare exceptions. Discourage the building of home arsenals. You want a gun for protection? Fine. You can generally only shoot one at a time anyway.

6. Eliminate any and all gun show loopholes. I mean, come on.

7. Require the purchase of gun insurance for every gun purchase. The premium can be based on risk factors and funds the payout of damages to anyone injured or killed by that particular firearm.

Naive, punitive, and quite frankly never going to happen. Be realistic.

The point was to make it punitive. Guns should be expensive and difficult to own due to the fact that they get used all too often for, you know, killing people.


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?
 
2012-12-16 04:22:52 PM  

iq_in_binary: RKTeuthis: Outrageous Muff: Since all guns were bought legally, no assault weapons were used, and this was an issue of bad parenting and poor mental health treatment using the murder of children to gain an assault weapons ban would be politicizing their deaths. If the goal is to end these types of acts then taking guns away from people nor giving guns to people will solve the problem.

"As new details emerge, the scope of the horror expands. Lanza apparently sprayed two classrooms at the school with relentless fire from a semi-automatic assault rifle.

It was a massacre, and most of the victims were first-graders. Autopsies on the bodies of the children reveal that many, if not all, had been shot multiple times.

"I only did seven of the autopsies," medical examiner Wayne Carver said. "The victims I had ranged from three to 11 wounds a piece, and I only saw two of them with close-range shooting.""

Bushmaster AR15 .223, BTW which is what... civilian, semi-auto version of the M16?

And thus, NOT an assault rifle.

If it isn't select fire, it is literally NOT an assault rifle. All assault rifles have 3 important characteristics, just like the original, the StG 44 (Sturmgewehr, Assault). Select Fire, lighter caliber ammunition (.223 Remington/5.56 NATO vs. 7.62x51/.308 Winchester), and lighter materials to make the weapon lighter (8-10 lbs for a modern day combat rifle vs 12-14 for guns like the M1 Garand and Mauser 98).

If it's missing one of those three, it is not classified as an Assault Rifle. It's just a Rifle.


It's just this kind of picayune bs that is going to hopefully carry the day for the sane folks wanting reasonable controls. An "assault rifle" for the vast majority of folks is a light weight, collapsible stock type weapon with an extended magazine and capable of a high rate of fire. Just like when this type gets all huffy when "clip" and "magazine are transposed, somehow creating a definition for assault rifle and then loudly griping when it isn't met met is a distinction without a difference to most folks. 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 can get 60 or 100 rounders too, if the deer you are after are especially tough.

/gun owner
//totally would accept more rigorous licensing and capability controls
 
2012-12-16 04:23:02 PM  
For those who are unaware what exactly a Bushmaster Model .223 is:

static2.businessinsider.com

Clearly banning the ownership of guns like this will result in the US becoming a dictatorship.
 
2012-12-16 04:23:14 PM  

Outrageous Muff: poor mental health treatment


cdn.ticketfly.com

Thank you Ronald Reagan, your legacy is intact!"
 
2012-12-16 04:23:34 PM  

b0rscht: What's the shelf life of ammo, anyway?


Many decades if stored properly.

if you make it illegal to manufacture ammunition for these guns, the guns themselves will become rather harmless.

that would be a violation of the 2nd as these handguns (9mm) and the bushmaster rifle (.223) are some of the most common calibers. Also, many folks can reload and that would mean a continuing supply of ammo (albeit on the black market).
 
2012-12-16 04:24:03 PM  
BAN CRAZY PEOPLE, not guns.

We need the guns to defend ourselves against all the psychotic kids plotting mass murder!
 
2012-12-16 04:24:07 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-16 04:25:31 PM  

iq_in_binary: mab1823: iq_in_binary: mab1823: 1. Assault weapons ban. I really don't care what excuses people have. There is zero reason for the average American to own weapons that can be converted to fully automatic or have massive magazines/clips.

2. High-volume magazine ban. I realize that it's horribly inconvenient for some people to have to reload occasionally while they're target shooting...but it's entirely possible that not having these magazines around would lessen the chance that some insane idiot could spray a crowd with gunfire.

3. Highly regulated and taxed ammo sales. Make purchasing ammo be much more expensive than it is now (with an exception for ammo sold and used at target ranges) to discourage the accumulation of mass-murder levels of bullets. Make ammo available in fewer places, and especially not via the internet.

4. Require a rigorous yearly psychiatric evaluation as a condition of gun ownership. Deny gun licenses to individuals (and families) with history of certain mental disorders. Severe manic depressive? Sorry, you don't get a gun. You can't yell FIRE in a theater, either. It's about public safety.

5. License one handgun per person at a time, with only very rare exceptions. Discourage the building of home arsenals. You want a gun for protection? Fine. You can generally only shoot one at a time anyway.

6. Eliminate any and all gun show loopholes. I mean, come on.

7. Require the purchase of gun insurance for every gun purchase. The premium can be based on risk factors and funds the payout of damages to anyone injured or killed by that particular firearm.

Naive, punitive, and quite frankly never going to happen. Be realistic.

The point was to make it punitive. Guns should be expensive and difficult to own due to the fact that they get used all too often for, you know, killing people.

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 ...


I think "punishing" is a strong word for "prove you're not batshiat insane before you get a gun."
 
2012-12-16 04:26:39 PM  

Outrageous Muff: "But hundreds of millions of North Americans own guns and there aren't mass shooting every day.


Well, about that latter point...
 
2012-12-16 04:27:05 PM  

thornhill: For those who are unaware what exactly a Bushmaster Model .223 is:

[static2.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

Clearly banning the ownership of guns like this will result in the US becoming a dictatorship.


As the owner of a gun exactly like that I have never once picked it up and thought to myself "Now I have to kill a bunch of people." If you do think that when you pick up a gun means there is something mentally wrong with you and you should seek help.

The kind of help mass murderers never got because mental health budgets have been cut.
 
2012-12-16 04:27:15 PM  

thornhill: For those who are unaware what exactly a Bushmaster Model .223 is:

[static2.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

Clearly banning the ownership of guns like this will result in the US becoming a dictatorship.


Some additional perspective:

Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with any model of rifle: 2.55%.
Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with knives: 13.4%
Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with unarmed attacks: 5.75%.

Clearly, prohibiting civilian access to AR-15 style rifles will substantially reduce rates of violent crime. Additionally, criminals and mentally unstable individuals would not select a different, legally available, model of firearm were their first choice of rifle not legally available.
 
2012-12-16 04:28:04 PM  
George Will can F himself.
 
2012-12-16 04:28:22 PM  

Theaetetus: Well, about that latter point...


So you're saying that owning a gun is a mental health issue?
 
2012-12-16 04:28:25 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.


And clearly the only design capable of stopping these menaces to society. Their restriction would cause a tableau that would make Night Of The Lepus look pale in comparison,
 
2012-12-16 04:28:50 PM  
If I don't have my rifle, how will I defend myself against Oburmacare?
 
2012-12-16 04:29:18 PM  

Paul Baumer: iq_in_binary: RKTeuthis: Outrageous Muff: Since all guns were bought legally, no assault weapons were used, and this was an issue of bad parenting and poor mental health treatment using the murder of children to gain an assault weapons ban would be politicizing their deaths. If the goal is to end these types of acts then taking guns away from people nor giving guns to people will solve the problem.

"As new details emerge, the scope of the horror expands. Lanza apparently sprayed two classrooms at the school with relentless fire from a semi-automatic assault rifle.

It was a massacre, and most of the victims were first-graders. Autopsies on the bodies of the children reveal that many, if not all, had been shot multiple times.

"I only did seven of the autopsies," medical examiner Wayne Carver said. "The victims I had ranged from three to 11 wounds a piece, and I only saw two of them with close-range shooting.""

Bushmaster AR15 .223, BTW which is what... civilian, semi-auto version of the M16?

And thus, NOT an assault rifle.

If it isn't select fire, it is literally NOT an assault rifle. All assault rifles have 3 important characteristics, just like the original, the StG 44 (Sturmgewehr, Assault). Select Fire, lighter caliber ammunition (.223 Remington/5.56 NATO vs. 7.62x51/.308 Winchester), and lighter materials to make the weapon lighter (8-10 lbs for a modern day combat rifle vs 12-14 for guns like the M1 Garand and Mauser 98).

If it's missing one of those three, it is not classified as an Assault Rifle. It's just a Rifle.

It's just this kind of picayune bs that is going to hopefully carry the day for the sane folks wanting reasonable controls. An "assault rifle" for the vast majority of folks is a light weight, collapsible stock type weapon with an extended magazine and capable of a high rate of fire. Just like when this type gets all huffy when "clip" and "magazine are transposed, somehow creating a definition for assault rifle and then loudly griping when ...


Look up thread. I've made a perfectly acceptable solution apparent that is modeled after the most successful piece of gun control legislation in the world. Yet no one wants to hear it because it doesn't include banning anything.
 
2012-12-16 04:29:37 PM  

HeadLever: Pincy: OK, so they might not stop this random act of violence by a disturbed person but will it put a dent in the other 30,000+ gun related deaths every year?

Since most of the gun deaths are suicide, likely not. Don't forget that many of the other shootings are within larger cities where gun rules are already pretty tight.

I am not saying that any additional laws are useless, but when most of your gun deaths take place in circumstances when the gun owner has already broken one or more law, it makes it tough for additional laws to really be deterrents.


The problem is that lax gun laws have allowed the country to become flooded with weapons, making whatever laws we have worthless. That is, there are so many guns out there that it is incredibly easy to buy a gun outside of officially channels. For example, in Philadelphia, something like 50% of murders are committed with guns purchased from a straw purchaser -- an individually who legally buys a ton of guns, then resells them to people who cannot buy them legally. If we had a cap on the number of guns you can buy a month, that would pretty much put straw purchasers out of business.
 
2012-12-16 04:30:14 PM  

Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: . A 30 round mag equipped AR-15 that can pop off 2-3 rounds per second ain't for shootin' deeer, no matter how hard Louie stomps his feet and says "nooo that's just a rifle".

You are correct; an AR-15 is better suited for wild hogs or for coyotes, as the round is too underpowered for deer hunting.

And clearly the only design capable of stopping these menaces to society. Their restriction would cause a tableau that would make Night Of The Lepus look pale in comparison,


On the contrary: prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles would likely have absolutely no measurable effect upon any meaningful statistic, including statistics of violent crime given the rarity of criminal misuse of any rifle model.
 
2012-12-16 04:30:14 PM  

Outrageous Muff: As the owner of a gun exactly like that I have never once picked it up and thought to myself "Now I have to kill a bunch of people." If you do think that when you pick up a gun means there is something mentally wrong with you and you should seek help.


I think that anyone who thinks they need to own a gun because they may have to potentially protect themselves from or overthrow the government someday should not be allowed to own a gun.
 
2012-12-16 04:30:37 PM  
What is it? a third of a million gun deaths since 2000?
 
2012-12-16 04:30:38 PM  

Tahs4Evar: 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.

THIS. You could include Australia, where we haven't had such a tragedy since we banned these sorts of weapons as a response to the Port Arthur massacre.

Banning these types of guns works.


Huh. Cause gun control has had pretty much no effect in Australia. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html
 
2012-12-16 04:30:48 PM  

mab1823: iq_in_binary: mab1823: iq_in_binary: mab1823: 1. Assault weapons ban. I really don't care what excuses people have. There is zero reason for the average American to own weapons that can be converted to fully automatic or have massive magazines/clips.

2. High-volume magazine ban. I realize that it's horribly inconvenient for some people to have to reload occasionally while they're target shooting...but it's entirely possible that not having these magazines around would lessen the chance that some insane idiot could spray a crowd with gunfire.

3. Highly regulated and taxed ammo sales. Make purchasing ammo be much more expensive than it is now (with an exception for ammo sold and used at target ranges) to discourage the accumulation of mass-murder levels of bullets. Make ammo available in fewer places, and especially not via the internet.

4. Require a rigorous yearly psychiatric evaluation as a condition of gun ownership. Deny gun licenses to individuals (and families) with history of certain mental disorders. Severe manic depressive? Sorry, you don't get a gun. You can't yell FIRE in a theater, either. It's about public safety.

5. License one handgun per person at a time, with only very rare exceptions. Discourage the building of home arsenals. You want a gun for protection? Fine. You can generally only shoot one at a time anyway.

6. Eliminate any and all gun show loopholes. I mean, come on.

7. Require the purchase of gun insurance for every gun purchase. The premium can be based on risk factors and funds the payout of damages to anyone injured or killed by that particular firearm.

Naive, punitive, and quite frankly never going to happen. Be realistic.

The point was to make it punitive. Guns should be expensive and difficult to own due to the fact that they get used all too often for, you know, killing people.

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 ...


Except the first two steps in his plan included taking away guns from people that did nothing wrong with them.
 
2012-12-16 04:31:00 PM  

Dimensio: thornhill: For those who are unaware what exactly a Bushmaster Model .223 is:

[static2.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

Clearly banning the ownership of guns like this will result in the US becoming a dictatorship.

Some additional perspective:

Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with any model of rifle: 2.55%.
Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with knives: 13.4%
Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with unarmed attacks: 5.75%.

Clearly, prohibiting civilian access to AR-15 style rifles will substantially reduce rates of violent crime. Additionally, criminals and mentally unstable individuals would not select a different, legally available, model of firearm were their first choice of rifle not legally available.


Say, what were the number of murders with handguns? Seem to be missing from your list. Must have been an oversight. And in your view, any solution that doesn't 100% make everything better isn't worth doing apparently, I presume?
 
2012-12-16 04:31:10 PM  

GBB: Exactly. The reason we have the proliferation of weapons is because of the late-20th Century application of grammar to a late-18th Century document.


I am pretty sure that the supreme court would (and have) disagreed with you here. One of the main findings of Heller was that the prefatory clause does not limit the operative clause. It only states a reasoning.
 
2012-12-16 04:31:30 PM  

Outrageous Muff: So you're saying it's not as big of deal if(or not enough) people didn't die?


yes -- that is exactly what is being said.

if we want to talk about mass murders we should actually talk about ... well ... mass murders.

the incident in china is interesting because the person had no access to a gun and couldn't actually realize his desire to kill a large number of children.

but people seem to want to fix this specific issue, not (say...) mass suicides ... or overall violence.

those are all interesting issues and probably worth a discussion but it should done as a separate discussion so we can concentrate on the a narrow set of issues involved mass murders.
 
2012-12-16 04:31:43 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?


The law that would have made the rifle illegal.

And before you bash me as a liberal nut - I'm ex-military, grew up hunting, and I don't want to take all of your guns away. What I do want if for people to remember why the second amendment exists - and hint, it's not so you can own as many of whatever kind of weapon you want.

You think you need protection from your government? Fine. Own a gun - but if and only if you meet certain conditions - including mental stability (and again, I'm not bashing people with mental illness, but if you have an untreated mentally ill person in your house, who has access to the weapons no gun for you).

And I'm sorry - but a semi-automatic rifle has but one purpose - killing people. Large magazines have one purpose - killing more people before reloading. Neither should be legal to own without some very, very rigorous hoops. I'd rather they weren't legal at all, but I rather have a reasonable discussion that has movement from both sides than get nothing done because people want to draw a line in the sand.

It should be harder to get a gun that it is to get a driver's license. And the basic rules of ownership should meet a national standard - so that moving from state to state doesn't circumvent rules. A state can tighten the base rules, but they cannot loosen them.

Treat gun ownership as a privilege, not as a right.
 
2012-12-16 04:32:00 PM  

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


Total population in the UK in 1909 was ~40 million. In 2010 it was 62 million. WHAT DOES IT MEAN??
 
2012-12-16 04:32:24 PM  

Dimensio: Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: . A 30 round mag equipped AR-15 that can pop off 2-3 rounds per second ain't for shootin' deeer, no matter how hard Louie stomps his feet and says "nooo that's just a rifle".

You are correct; an AR-15 is better suited for wild hogs or for coyotes, as the round is too underpowered for deer hunting.

And clearly the only design capable of stopping these menaces to society. Their restriction would cause a tableau that would make Night Of The Lepus look pale in comparison,

On the contrary: prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles would likely have absolutely no measurable effect upon any meaningful statistic, including statistics of violent crime given the rarity of criminal misuse of any rifle model.


And you know this how?
 
2012-12-16 04:32:58 PM  

Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: . A 30 round mag equipped AR-15 that can pop off 2-3 rounds per second ain't for shootin' deeer, no matter how hard Louie stomps his feet and says "nooo that's just a rifle".

You are correct; an AR-15 is better suited for wild hogs or for coyotes, as the round is too underpowered for deer hunting.

And clearly the only design capable of stopping these menaces to society. Their restriction would cause a tableau that would make Night Of The Lepus look pale in comparison,

On the contrary: prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles would likely have absolutely no measurable effect upon any meaningful statistic, including statistics of violent crime given the rarity of criminal misuse of any rifle model.

And you know this how?


NRA pamphlet.
 
2012-12-16 04:33:25 PM  

Dimensio: 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.

"Handgun offenses" may include possession of a firearm following the total prohibition upon civilian ownership of them. Whether this influences rates, I cannot say. Population increases may also account for some of the increase.

When I am informed that prohibiting civilian handgun ownership in the United Kingdom reduced rates of crime, I request data regarding homicide and violent crime rates before and after the implementation of the prohibition.

The claim may be accurate, but thus far no data has been presented.


I would generally agree, but there's a couple of problems with getting anything statistaclly correct on this subject.

First, the UK changed their reporting methodology at the same time the law was enacted. Metrics before != metrics after. Moreover, their total offences includes airsoft guns and realistic inoperative toy guns so that throws it off dramatically. Here's total.

4.bp.blogspot.com

Now, if anyone could come up with real gun crime statistics over that period of time, I'd appreciate it no end. Without that though, any argument of the affect of the passage of this law is purely speculation.
 
2012-12-16 04:33:28 PM  
In my research, I've found:

There are countries with low gun ownership and low violent crime.
There are countries with low gun ownership and high violent crime.
There are countries with high gun ownership and low violent crime.
There are NO countries with high gun ownership and high violent crime.
 
2012-12-16 04:33:32 PM  

Paul Baumer: Dimensio: thornhill: For those who are unaware what exactly a Bushmaster Model .223 is:

[static2.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

Clearly banning the ownership of guns like this will result in the US becoming a dictatorship.

Some additional perspective:

Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with any model of rifle: 2.55%.
Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with knives: 13.4%
Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with unarmed attacks: 5.75%.

Clearly, prohibiting civilian access to AR-15 style rifles will substantially reduce rates of violent crime. Additionally, criminals and mentally unstable individuals would not select a different, legally available, model of firearm were their first choice of rifle not legally available.

Say, what were the number of murders with handguns? Seem to be missing from your list. Must have been an oversight. And in your view, any solution that doesn't 100% make everything better isn't worth doing apparently, I presume?


I made no claim regarding murders with handguns. I am aware that handguns are the most common tool for murder, being used in 49.1% of them in 2011.

I am not stating only that prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles will not "100% make everything better"; I am stating that no evidence suggests that such a prohibition would serve any benefit at all. Criminally inclined individuals and mentally unstable individuals would select a different rifle model if the AR-15 were not legally available.
 
2012-12-16 04:34:27 PM  
1. Require all prospective gun owners to pass a class about gun safety. Require x amount of hours of practice in the shooting range for the type of weapon being purchased (it can be categorized broadly, but if you want to buy a handgun, you need to learn how to use a handgun). Everyone wanting any gun needs to pass a background check. You can only buy one gun at a time, and background checks are only good for one year.

2. Require all guns be registered every year at the gun owner's expense, just like a car or boat.

3. Require gun insurance in case your gun is used in a crime. The insurance will go to the victims of crimes committed with your gun. It would be paid when you register your gun so there's no way to get out of paying for it.

4. Require the gun owner to keep current registration and insurance information with the gun at all times. If you are unable to present the paperwork to the authorities on demand, all your weapons are seized, even the ones you DO have paperwork for. You have 14 days to present to the authorities the proper paperwork, and after paying a fine, you can get your guns back. A second offense results in you losing your guns permanently. You are banned for life from owning guns, because clearly you are not responsible enough to own them.

5. If your gun is lost or stolen, you have 24 hours from the time of discovery to report it missing. If you fail to report the weapon missing, you will be fined $1000 for EACH crime committed with the gun.

6. It is a felony to own a gun not registered to you. (This is different than having expired registration; this is never having registered the gun in your name at all.)

7. If your gun is involved in an accidental shooting (like the dad who shot his son outside the gun shop a couple weeks ago) your guns are seized and you are banned from owning guns permanently. Clearly you are not responsible enough to keep guns safe.

Our nation is all about personal responsibility. You want to own guns? Go for it. But if you fail to own them responsibly, you will lose your guns. End of story. If you are not a responsible citizen, you do not get to own guns.
 
2012-12-16 04:35:11 PM  

Teufelaffe: rohar: Total handgun offenses in the UK in 19091989 was 1983 incidents. In 2010 it was 3105. Yup, that turned the tide right there.

Total population in the UK in 1909 was ~40 million. In 2010 it was 62 million. WHAT DOES IT MEAN??


Sorry, that was a typo I corrected moments after. Here, I'll do it for you again just because you're special.
 
2012-12-16 04:35:59 PM  

thornhill: he problem is that lax gun laws have allowed the country to become flooded with weapons,


Which is the right of the 'people' under the second amendment.
 
2012-12-16 04:36:10 PM  

Outrageous Muff: "But hundreds of millions of North Americans own guns and there aren't mass shooting every day. Isn't this really more of a mental health issue?"


Do not make this about "North America". This is a United States of America issue. Canada has had forms of gun control for almost all of its history.

Also, when you add up all the crime in America on a daily basis, the number of people killed daily is about the same as Sandy Hook. 8,583 homicides with guns in America in 2011. 23.5 per day.
 
2012-12-16 04:36:15 PM  

Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: . A 30 round mag equipped AR-15 that can pop off 2-3 rounds per second ain't for shootin' deeer, no matter how hard Louie stomps his feet and says "nooo that's just a rifle".

You are correct; an AR-15 is better suited for wild hogs or for coyotes, as the round is too underpowered for deer hunting.

And clearly the only design capable of stopping these menaces to society. Their restriction would cause a tableau that would make Night Of The Lepus look pale in comparison,

On the contrary: prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles would likely have absolutely no measurable effect upon any meaningful statistic, including statistics of violent crime given the rarity of criminal misuse of any rifle model.

And you know this how?


Because deaths caused by ANY rifles in a given year are far and away outstripped by people who get beaten to death. They account for less than 2% of all murders.
 
2012-12-16 04:36:25 PM  

Dimensio: Paul Baumer: Dimensio: thornhill: For those who are unaware what exactly a Bushmaster Model .223 is:

[static2.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

Clearly banning the ownership of guns like this will result in the US becoming a dictatorship.

Some additional perspective:

Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with any model of rifle: 2.55%.
Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with knives: 13.4%
Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with unarmed attacks: 5.75%.

Clearly, prohibiting civilian access to AR-15 style rifles will substantially reduce rates of violent crime. Additionally, criminals and mentally unstable individuals would not select a different, legally available, model of firearm were their first choice of rifle not legally available.

Say, what were the number of murders with handguns? Seem to be missing from your list. Must have been an oversight. And in your view, any solution that doesn't 100% make everything better isn't worth doing apparently, I presume?

I made no claim regarding murders with handguns. I am aware that handguns are the most common tool for murder, being used in 49.1% of them in 2011.

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


Here's some evidence - no other country allows the amount of these weapons to be privately held that we do, both per capita and in total, and we have more incidents with them than any other country in the world.
 
2012-12-16 04:36:52 PM  

kyrg: You people are sooo tiresome.

Guns are a straw man. If you had a once of integrity you would be in the streets trying to end the sale of cigarettes (400,000 deaths a year) vehicles (30,000 deaths a year) and alcohol (40,000 deaths a year)


Your arguments are bad.
Vehicles: Not designed to kill people. Most deaths are accidental in some form.
Alcohol: Not designed to kill people. Helps people make bad decisions. Much like with vehicles, I would imagine most deaths are accidental.
Cigarettes: This affects one person, who chooses to slowly kill themselves. Notice that the government is cracking down on public cigarette usage? This is because cigarettes have the propensity to hurt multiple people.

I'm not saying mental health is not a factor. It most definitely is. The United States needs to get completely serious about mental health care. Not just reactive, but proactive. I also feel that too much emphasis is placed on prescription drugs for dealing with mental health issues.

Also, about the UK: 1989- 1983 incidents. This is 0.004% of the population at that time.
2010 - 3105. This is 0.005% of the 2010 pop.
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_ p op_totl&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=uk%20population

Of course, my assumption is that each incident involves a unique perp, and that there was no international contamination.

Stop telling me that gun control does absolutely nothing. Both mental health care AND gun control are needed.
 
2012-12-16 04:36:52 PM  
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?
 
2012-12-16 04:37:08 PM  

keithgabryelski: if we want to talk about mass murders we should actually talk about ... well ... mass murders.


38 kids killed. Zero guns used.
 
2012-12-16 04:37:08 PM  

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?
 
2012-12-16 04:37:17 PM  

thornhill: For those who are unaware what exactly a Bushmaster Model .223 is:

[static2.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

Clearly banning the ownership of guns like this will result in the US becoming a dictatorship.


OH GOD NO, IT'S SCARY AND BLACK!

Nevermind the fact that its .223 ammunition is substantially less deadly to humans than a common deer rifle (it was chosen for military service partly because merely wounding an enemy is more effective than killing him, since you also tie up a medic to treat his wounds), or that it's only capable of single-shot fire. No, it's a black, "military-style" (scary-looking) gun and must therefore be SUPER-DUPER DEADLY!

Just look at that scope! It's obviously there so a mad gunman can use it to gaze dispassionately into your children's eyes as he kills them from miles away.
 
2012-12-16 04:37:56 PM  

Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: . A 30 round mag equipped AR-15 that can pop off 2-3 rounds per second ain't for shootin' deeer, no matter how hard Louie stomps his feet and says "nooo that's just a rifle".

You are correct; an AR-15 is better suited for wild hogs or for coyotes, as the round is too underpowered for deer hunting.

And clearly the only design capable of stopping these menaces to society. Their restriction would cause a tableau that would make Night Of The Lepus look pale in comparison,

On the contrary: prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles would likely have absolutely no measurable effect upon any meaningful statistic, including statistics of violent crime given the rarity of criminal misuse of any rifle model.

And you know this how?


Rifles in general are rarely criminally misused. AR-15 pattern rifles are a smaller subset of rifles.
 
2012-12-16 04:38:02 PM  

HeadLever: thornhill: he problem is that lax gun laws have allowed the country to become flooded with weapons,

Which is the right of the 'people' under the second amendment.


This is why America cannot have nice things.
 
2012-12-16 04:38:13 PM  
Repeal the 2nd Amendment.
 
2012-12-16 04:38:25 PM  

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


That's the argument against gun control: "Yer just scared of guns ya pussy"
 
2012-12-16 04:38:30 PM  

Outrageous Muff: LasersHurt: That is not a question of any sort.

Okay I'll type slower.

CT: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, murders his mother and uses her legally purchased guns to kill lots of people.

China: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, picks up a knife and stabs a lot of people.

Auroa: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, legally obtains weapons that he would not have been able to get if he received the proper care kills lots of people.

VTech: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, legally obtains weapons that he would not have been able to get if he received the proper care kills lots of people.

I could keep doing this, but I' m sure you see the common thread. If the goal of society, any society, is stop these kinds of acts then dealing with the common thread of mental health would be far more effective then banning guns.

So I ask again. Do you want to solve the problem or further an agenda?


Did you notice that "obtains weapon" was also a common thread?
 
2012-12-16 04:39:40 PM  

Dimensio:

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


20 more living first graders in Connecticut wiould be a very tangible benefit.
 
2012-12-16 04:39:49 PM  

Paul Baumer: Here's some evidence - no other country allows the amount of these weapons to be privately held that we do, both per capita and in total, and we have more incidents with them than any other country in the world.


Are you saying that incidents with a different model of rifle are acceptable? Are you attempting to reduce rates of violent crime, or are you attempting to reduce rates of violent crime committed with one specific type of rifle?
 
2012-12-16 04:39:57 PM  

efgeise: Your arguments are bad.


Here you'll find every bad argument against gun control and someone shooting them down with patience and consistency. Link
 
2012-12-16 04:40:06 PM  
IT WON'T STOP ALL VIOLENCE SO DO NOTHING AT ALL!

The GOP and NRA can keep shouting this all they want, but it doesn't make it farking true.
 
2012-12-16 04:40:40 PM  

d2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net

 
2012-12-16 04:40:43 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-16 04:41:04 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

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

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


Please set aside your irrational hatred of all firearm owners for a moment and demonstrate that they would have been alive had the shooter used a different model of rifle or a different class of firearm.
 
2012-12-16 04:42:00 PM  

thornhill: For those who are unaware what exactly a Bushmaster Model .223 is:

[static2.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

Clearly banning the ownership of guns like this will result in the US becoming a dictatorship.


It looks scary, doesn't it.
What you don't realize is there is no functional difference between that rifle and this one.

dl.dropbox.com

/This was the style of rifle used in the 2011 Norway massacre.
/This argument is like the government nitpicking first amendment rights by banning the kind of PC you use to browse the internet.
/I believe you'll find the application of arbitrary, controlling, or unjust laws under the definition of tyranny.
 
2012-12-16 04:42:15 PM  

iq_in_binary: Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: . A 30 round mag equipped AR-15 that can pop off 2-3 rounds per second ain't for shootin' deeer, no matter how hard Louie stomps his feet and says "nooo that's just a rifle".

You are correct; an AR-15 is better suited for wild hogs or for coyotes, as the round is too underpowered for deer hunting.

And clearly the only design capable of stopping these menaces to society. Their restriction would cause a tableau that would make Night Of The Lepus look pale in comparison,

On the contrary: prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles would likely have absolutely no measurable effect upon any meaningful statistic, including statistics of violent crime given the rarity of criminal misuse of any rifle model.

And you know this how?

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


one, successful reduction of 2% of murders would mean a lot more people walking around. Two, that fella could physically not have beaten that many people to death - his choice greatly improved his efficiency, three, frequency does not a equal a reason to make something legal - there probably aren't that many spitting cobra deaths, and yet we are ok with them being regulated. Reductio ad absurdem arguments are all there are for these weapons - but I grant you they seem to work just fine on the 25% or so of voters you need to keep it in place. Lok I have owned and operated several of these things - I still have a Saiga 12. I'd be perfectly willing to accept annual license renewal, 5 shot magazine limitation, 5 year mental health checks, and required home safety features that must be produced on demand - like they do in other countries that allow civilian ownership but don't seem to have the massacre problem.
 
2012-12-16 04:43:14 PM  

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

 
2012-12-16 04:43:52 PM  
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.
 
2012-12-16 04:44:38 PM  

Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

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

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

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


Let's just ignore that part...

Apparently three of the adults killed confronted the Adam Lanza. It's very possible if he'd been forced to reload one of them could have taken him down. In fact, it's happened before (see: Jared Loughner).
 
2012-12-16 04:44:52 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-16 04:45:04 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.


And yet, both are gun laws and rate of killings are unique in the industrialized world.
 
2012-12-16 04:45:23 PM  

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


That's not the point. Crack down on all of them.

Why are you people so comfortable with the idea that any idiot can walk into a store and buy a firearm? At the very least, you should ban all handguns. Let people who want to go kill a deer kill a deer, but get rid of the idiots waving handguns around. Handguns are the weapon involved in the majority of homicides in the United States, and there is no credible use for them besides killing people.
 
2012-12-16 04:45:24 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: 1. Require all prospective gun owners to pass a class about gun safety. Require x amount of hours of practice in the shooting range for the type of weapon being purchased (it can be categorized broadly, but if you want to buy a handgun, you need to learn how to use a handgun). Everyone wanting any gun needs to pass a background check. You can only buy one gun at a time, and background checks are only good for one year.

2. Require all guns be registered every year at the gun owner's expense, just like a car or boat.

3. Require gun insurance in case your gun is used in a crime. The insurance will go to the victims of crimes committed with your gun. It would be paid when you register your gun so there's no way to get out of paying for it.

4. Require the gun owner to keep current registration and insurance information with the gun at all times. If you are unable to present the paperwork to the authorities on demand, all your weapons are seized, even the ones you DO have paperwork for. You have 14 days to present to the authorities the proper paperwork, and after paying a fine, you can get your guns back. A second offense results in you losing your guns permanently. You are banned for life from owning guns, because clearly you are not responsible enough to own them.

5. If your gun is lost or stolen, you have 24 hours from the time of discovery to report it missing. If you fail to report the weapon missing, you will be fined $1000 for EACH crime committed with the gun.

6. It is a felony to own a gun not registered to you. (This is different than having expired registration; this is never having registered the gun in your name at all.)

7. If your gun is involved in an accidental shooting (like the dad who shot his son outside the gun shop a couple weeks ago) your guns are seized and you are banned from owning guns permanently. Clearly you are not responsible enough to keep guns safe.

Our nation is all about personal responsibility. You want to own guns? Go for it. B ...


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

Look at my proposal. It's up thread.
 
2012-12-16 04:45:29 PM  

Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

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

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

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


If even one of those children were still alive because Lanza was unable to access a weapon with the same rate of fire, would you consider that a benefit?
 
2012-12-16 04:45:29 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.


How about we do both? Because guns kill lots of people every day, and the murderers are usually NOT mentally unstable.
 
2012-12-16 04:45:44 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.


100% solutions required, as always, form folks desperate to maintain the status quo.
 
2012-12-16 04:45:55 PM  

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

38 kids killed. Zero guns used.

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


The mentally unstable find a way. Example of that is OKC bombing.
 
2012-12-16 04:45:55 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: efgeise: Your arguments are bad.

Here you'll find every bad argument against gun control and someone shooting them down with patience and consistency. Link


This is awesome. Thank you.
 
2012-12-16 04:46:27 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

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

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

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

Let's just ignore that part...

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


An individual who claims all firearm owners to be "cowardly" and "barbaric" suffers from irrational hatred.

The AR-15 is not the only firearm from which multiple rounds may be fired without reloading. In fact, a substantial percentage of civilian-marketed firearms feature such an ability.
 
2012-12-16 04:47:09 PM  

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

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


those are firearm offenses right? not homicides?
 
2012-12-16 04:47:12 PM  

thornhill: This is why America cannot have nice things.


Because they have freedom? Ok, if that is not a nice thing, I am not sure what is.
 
2012-12-16 04:47:31 PM  

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

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

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

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

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


Yes. When you can demonstrate that prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 style rifles would have accomplished exactly that goal, your argument will be meaningful.
 
2012-12-16 04:47:58 PM  

Daedalus27: cameroncrazy1984: Tell that to the UK, a country that hasn't had a mass shooting since Dunblane, after which they enacted the 1997 Firearms act.

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


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

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

38 kids killed. Zero guns used.

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

acefox1: Sorry gun nuts, we've tried it your way for 223 years. You're going to have to accept that common sense gun regulation is coming. If you're smart you'll propose your own gun control legislation so you can try to limit the "damage" to your "rights."


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

efgeise: Most deaths are accidental in some form.


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

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


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

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

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


assets.nydailynews.com

It's deadly enough.

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

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

Look at my proposal. It's up thread.


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

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

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

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

those are firearm offenses right? not homicides?


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

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

Mike Chewbacca: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

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

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

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

Let's just ignore that part...

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Right HERE:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

And, for safety's sake:

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

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


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

Mike Chewbacca: How is gun registration unconstitutional?


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

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

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


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

Paul Baumer: iq_in_binary: Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: . A 30 round mag equipped AR-15 that can pop off 2-3 rounds per second ain't for shootin' deeer, no matter how hard Louie stomps his feet and says "nooo that's just a rifle".

You are correct; an AR-15 is better suited for wild hogs or for coyotes, as the round is too underpowered for deer hunting.

And clearly the only design capable of stopping these menaces to society. Their restriction would cause a tableau that would make Night Of The Lepus look pale in comparison,

On the contrary: prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles would likely have absolutely no measurable effect upon any meaningful statistic, including statistics of violent crime given the rarity of criminal misuse of any rifle model.

And you know this how?

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

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


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

mab1823: 1. Assault weapons ban. I really don't care what excuses people have. There is zero reason for the average American to own weapons that can be converted to fully automatic or have massive magazines/clips.

2. High-volume magazine ban. I realize that it's horribly inconvenient for some people to have to reload occasionally while they're target shooting...but it's entirely possible that not having these magazines around would lessen the chance that some insane idiot could spray a crowd with gunfire.

3. Highly regulated and taxed ammo sales. Make purchasing ammo be much more expensive than it is now (with an exception for ammo sold and used at target ranges) to discourage the accumulation of mass-murder levels of bullets. Make ammo available in fewer places, and especially not via the internet.

4. Require a rigorous yearly psychiatric evaluation as a condition of gun ownership. Deny gun licenses to individuals (and families) with history of certain mental disorders. Severe manic depressive? Sorry, you don't get a gun. You can't yell FIRE in a theater, either. It's about public safety.

5. License one handgun per person at a time, with only very rare exceptions. Discourage the building of home arsenals. You want a gun for protection? Fine. You can generally only shoot one at a time anyway.

6. Eliminate any and all gun show loopholes. I mean, come on.

7. Require the purchase of gun insurance for every gun purchase. The premium can be based on risk factors and funds the payout of damages to anyone injured or killed by that particular firearm.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

those are firearm offenses right? not homicides?

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

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


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

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

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

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


No.


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


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

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


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

Skyd1v: mab1823: 1. Assault weapons ban. I really don't care what excuses people have. There is zero reason for the average American to own weapons that can be converted to fully automatic or have massive magazines/clips.

2. High-volume magazine ban. I realize that it's horribly inconvenient for some people to have to reload occasionally while they're target shooting...but it's entirely possible that not having these magazines around would lessen the chance that some insane idiot could spray a crowd with gunfire.

3. Highly regulated and taxed ammo sales. Make purchasing ammo be much more expensive than it is now (with an exception for ammo sold and used at target ranges) to discourage the accumulation of mass-murder levels of bullets. Make ammo available in fewer places, and especially not via the internet.

4. Require a rigorous yearly psychiatric evaluation as a condition of gun ownership. Deny gun licenses to individuals (and families) with history of certain mental disorders. Severe manic depressive? Sorry, you don't get a gun. You can't yell FIRE in a theater, either. It's about public safety.

5. License one handgun per person at a time, with only very rare exceptions. Discourage the building of home arsenals. You want a gun for protection? Fine. You can generally only shoot one at a time anyway.

6. Eliminate any and all gun show loopholes. I mean, come on.

7. Require the purchase of gun insurance for every gun purchase. The premium can be based on risk factors and funds the payout of damages to anyone injured or killed by that particular firearm.

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

Please stop talking.


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

38 kids killed. Zero guns used.

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

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

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


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

iq_in_binary: Paul Baumer: iq_in_binary: Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: . A 30 round mag equipped AR-15 that can pop off 2-3 rounds per second ain't for shootin' deeer, no matter how hard Louie stomps his feet and says "nooo that's just a rifle".

You are correct; an AR-15 is better suited for wild hogs or for coyotes, as the round is too underpowered for deer hunting.

And clearly the only design capable of stopping these menaces to society. Their restriction would cause a tableau that would make Night Of The Lepus look pale in comparison,

On the contrary: prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles would likely have absolutely no measurable effect upon any meaningful statistic, including statistics of violent crime given the rarity of criminal misuse of any rifle model.

And you know this how?

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

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

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


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

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

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

What would firearm owners receive in return?


their firearms.

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

Mike Chewbacca: How is gun registration unconstitutional?


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

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

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

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

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

Let's just ignore that part...

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

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


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

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

38 kids killed. Zero guns used.

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


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

PartTimeBuddha: Dual keys.

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

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

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

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

And, for safety's sake:

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


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

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

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

What would firearm owners receive in return?


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

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

thornhill: For those who are unaware what exactly a Bushmaster Model .223 is:

[static2.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

Clearly banning the ownership of guns like this will result in the US becoming a dictatorship.


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

www.woodburyoutfitters.com
 
2012-12-16 05:01:03 PM  

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

Look at my proposal. It's up thread.

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

How is gun registration unconstitutional? (And don't even get me on the ridiculousness of that bolded party.)


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

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

No.


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

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


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

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

[assets.nydailynews.com image 850x280]

It's deadly enough.

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


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

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

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

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

What would firearm owners receive in return?

their firearms.

considering a lack of compromise would be absolute gun grabbing, i'm kinda lost on this whole 'what do we need to give gun owners' aspect of the compromise tangent.


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

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

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

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

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

Ironically, the forms you have to fill out to buy a meaningful amount of fertilizer are far more rigorous than to buy a handgun or rifle, which I can do without even an ID at a gunshow.


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

HeadLever: Mike Chewbacca: How is gun registration unconstitutional?

It is not not unconstitutional. Most folks are not going to go for it since it is always step #1 in the confiscation process. There will be millions of folks that will not go along with the process because they are wary of the slippery slope.


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

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

No.


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

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

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


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

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

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

What would firearm owners receive in return?

their firearms.

considering a lack of compromise would be absolute gun grabbing, i'm kinda lost on this whole 'what do we need to give gun owners' aspect of the compromise tangent.


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

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

Look at my proposal. It's up thread.

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

How is gun registration unconstitutional? (And don't even get me on the ridiculousness of that bolded party.)

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


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

Dimensio: You cannot offer what an individual already possesses

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


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

HeadLever: GBB: Exactly. The reason we have the proliferation of weapons is because of the late-20th Century application of grammar to a late-18th Century document.

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


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

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

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

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

What would firearm owners receive in return?

The continuing right to own one. What do we give folks in exchange for not being able to get a flamethrower or fast attack sub? What did we give submachine gun owners in this country when we figured out it was a good idea to ban them - a ban that has greatly reduced the number of machine gun killings in this country I might add.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

No.


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

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

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


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

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

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

Empty Matchbook: Pokey.Clyde: ghare: 20 dead 6-and-7-year-olds say George Will is full of shiat.

And I say you are full of shiat. Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?

A law that made mental health facilities more affordable/accessible than an assault rifle?


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

heap: i'm actually kind of flabberbaffled here.

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

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

wtf-on-a-stick.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

those are firearm offenses right? not homicides?

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

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

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

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

It certainly seems that "gun control in the UK lead to twice the number of gun offenses" -- that is a reasonable statement and make sense.


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

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

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

Look at my proposal. It's up thread.

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

How is gun registration unconstitutional? (And don't even get me on the ridiculousness of that bolded party.)

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


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

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

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

What would firearm owners receive in return?

The continuing right to own one. What do we give folks in exchange for not being able to get a flamethrower or fast attack sub? What did we give submachine gun owners in this country when we figured out it was a good idea to ban them - a ban that has greatly reduced the number of machine gun killings in this country I might add.

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

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


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

Mike Chewbacca: How is gun registration unconstitutional?


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

Philip Francis Queeg: I don't agree to that. Can you prove that Adam Lanza exhibited signs of mental illness wothy of interventiion prior to the shooting? Why are you using dead children to push you agenda?


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

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


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

In fact, trying to cause change and prevent these sorts of things is the best way to honor their memory. Far better than having "moments of silence" and "praying for the families," which changes nothng.
 
2012-12-16 05:08:45 PM  
Every single bullet point you listed - every one - shows you do not understand guns or gun ownership enough to have an intelligent opinion on the matter.

Please stop talking.

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

The FIRST amendment covers freedom of speech.

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

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

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

What would firearm owners receive in return?


Twenty first-graders?

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

iq_in_binary: Kome:

Boom, now the problem guns that everybody is worried about are now NFA controlled, the most successful Gun Control legislation in the world. Good luck finding examples of NFA arms being used in crimes, I won't hold my breath while you go look. Oh, and by removing the '86 Ban and letting us buy suppressors, you'll even gut us gun folk to vote for it!

The notion that we shoul ...


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

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

38 kids killed. Zero guns used.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

cchris_39: Mike Chewbacca: How is gun registration unconstitutional?

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


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

cchris_39: Mike Chewbacca: How is gun registration unconstitutional?

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


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

cchris_39: Mike Chewbacca: How is gun registration unconstitutional?

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


there are limits to rights.

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

there are limits to rights.

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


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

mab1823: So which one of you is this?

[blogs.laweekly.com image 550x412]


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

Pokey.Clyde: ghare: 20 dead 6-and-7-year-olds say George Will is full of shiat.

And I say you are full of shiat. Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?


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

Mentat: George Will also hates blue jeans.


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

llachlan: iq_in_binary: Kome:

Boom, now the problem guns that everybody is worried about are now NFA controlled, the most successful Gun Control legislation in the world. Good luck finding examples of NFA arms being used in crimes, I won't hold my breath while you go look. Oh, and by removing the '86 Ban and letting us buy suppressors, you'll even gut us gun folk to vote for it!

The notion that we shoul ...

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


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

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

/Unless you want people to post crime stats from places like Puerto Rico and Jamaica that prove your claim to be untrue.


i'd like to keep this to rampage killings.

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

The Jami Turman Fan Club: iq_in_binary: Mike Chewbacca: Outrageous Muff: Mike Chewbacca: Outrageous Muff: keithgabryelski: if we want to talk about mass murders we should actually talk about ... well ... mass murders.

38 kids killed. Zero guns used.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Here you go:

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

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

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

llachlan: Daedalus27: cameroncrazy1984: Tell that to the UK, a country that hasn't had a mass shooting since Dunblane, after which they enacted the 1997 Firearms act.

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

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


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

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

mab1823:
4. Require a rigorous yearly psychiatric evaluation as a condition of gun ownership. Deny gun licenses to individuals (and families) with history of certain mental disorders. Severe manic depressive? Sorry, you don't get a gun. You can't yell FIRE in a theater, either. It's about public safety.


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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