If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Caller)   George Will: Tougher gun laws, assault weapons ban won't help. But shhh, he uses real world info, data and ignores media hyperbole. So warning; you might learn something   (dailycaller.com) divider line 865
    More: Obvious, George Will, assault weapons ban, gun laws, assault weapons, hyperbole, .info  
•       •       •

6308 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Dec 2012 at 3:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-16 06:37:42 PM

The Great Gazoo: Is there a reason why a single-shot hunting rifle, a revolver and/or a shotgun isn't enough to satisfy a person's hunting/self-defense needs?


CSB time. A co-worker came back from his deer hunt this year with an interesting (and somewhat scary) story. Hiking in the deep woods (far northern California) by himself, going up a steep hill, he noticed that the forest was strangely silent. As he began to get a creepy feeling, he turned around, and thought he saw something on the trail behind him. Bringing his rifle up, and looking through the scope, it took him a moment to realize that it was a mountain lion coming up the trail behind him, stalking him. For reasons I don't really understand, he deliberately shot a round over the lion's head. Bringing his rifle back down, he looked through his scope again to see the lion was still coming up the trail! Understandably a little panicked, he managed to lever another round in the chamber (bolt action deer hunting rifle, probably a .308), and this time he did his best to shoot the lion. On the second shot, he said the lion jumped up, then bounded off the trail and disappeared. He then ran back down the trail at full speed, not sticking around to see whether or not he had actually hit it.

If he'd had only one shot, he would have been in quite a fix. Of course, if he had only one shot, he probably would not have wasted one just trying to scare the cat off. He mentioned that he's thinking of bringing along a Colt .45 pistol next time.

That's a pretty unrealistic goal, so I wouldn't waste any time or effort trying to achieve it.
 
2012-12-16 06:39:32 PM

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

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

Which is why I propose it applies to all existing semi-autos above threshold calibers. No grandfathering. And actually, I can point at the period of time between the passing of the NFA (1934) and the '86 ban. Before '86, it was perfectly legal to get whatever the hell you wanted. UZIs, Mac-10s, M16s, MP5s, all fully automatic, all legal. It's STILL legal to buy them, so long as they're in the original pool of guns established between 1934 and 1986. That's pretty god damned successful considering what people we ...


Again you didn't address the potential criticism I raised. Why is the NFA effective in creating a class that isn't used in criminal activity. Is the effectiveness aspect due to the pool size of restricted firearms operating under the NFA being small compared to the total numbers of firearms in circulation? Is it the fact the weapons are restricted therefore largely not available to criminal elements. Is it the cost of the weapon?, Or is it some other factor that makes weapons under the NFA not utilized in criminal activity. It may not be the regulatory environment that creates the class of weapons not utilized in crimes but some other factor.

Furthermore, simply bringing almost all firearms (excluding your smaller caliber weapons) doesn't mean that people would follow the law. Again your creating yet another burden for legitimate gun owners while the criminals will simply ignore the regulations and continue utilizing what works. The sheer quantity of weapons available don't disappear because they are now regulated and will continue to cause significant damage for generations. I don't know that we would see any benefit for the regulatory costs for decades.
 
2012-12-16 06:39:50 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Dimensio: The Jami Turman Fan Club: I have no wish to go door-to-door. Just ban the sale of the weapons, clips/magazines, and ammo, and have a buyback program. It'll take care of itself.

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

No, just weapons with clips and magazines. Weapons where the ammo was held in the body of the gun would be legal, as would revolvers.


Right, but what you just said was NO GUNS AT ALL. Even bolt action rifles like the Mauser 98 is fed from a "clip."
 
2012-12-16 06:40:36 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?


Overall, it's a really good start - but then you descended into crazy. I didn't actually attack your original proposal, just some of your follow up rhetoric. Hint: you want to be taken seriously - then keep references to things like killing jews out of your arguments.
 
2012-12-16 06:40:41 PM

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

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

 

Weren't current NFA weapons at one time in common use?

Taking a long time is just more reason to get started now.
 
2012-12-16 06:40:56 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell you what, find me one that didn't involve the overthrow of the existing government and we'll talk.

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

So you found one! Good for you.

The current gun legisl ...


UK? Indonesia? Here's a mind bender for you - Tunisia manged to overthrow tyranny DESPITE having one of the lowest per capita gun ownership rates in the world. And for the record, so what if it came through violent overthrow or not? You think your pile of toys is going to "stop tyranny"? "When the law break in, how ya gonna go - shot down on the pavement or waiting in death row?" are the only two choices you're going to get, slim.
 
2012-12-16 06:43:41 PM

HeadLever: ilambiquated: Hey these statistics guys are just crunching numbers,

Statisticians also know that . correlation is not causation. Most of their job is trying to discern correlation and causation via regressions. Don't see any of that there.


The nice thing about statistics is that they aren't just in your head. They're data based.
 
2012-12-16 06:45:31 PM

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

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

Which is why I propose it applies to all existing semi-autos above threshold calibers. No grandfathering. And actually, I can point at the period of time between the passing of the NFA (1934) and the '86 ban. Before '86, it was perfectly legal to get whatever the hell you wanted. UZIs, Mac-10s, M16s, MP5s, all fully automatic, all legal. It's STILL legal to buy them, so long as they're in the original pool of guns established between 1934 and 1986. That's pretty god damned successful considering ...


It's better than the likely alternative, and the most comprehensive option that doesn't include "BAN ALL GUNS." And I did just address it. We're talking about weapons that are legal to purchase and would be a HUGE boon to criminals. They're weapons that were used pretty extensively by criminals before hand (Remember the roaring 20's? The NFA was a huge part in bringing them to an end), and weren't after.

What more do you want?
 
2012-12-16 06:46:48 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell you what, find me one that didn't involve the overthrow of the existing government and we'll talk.

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

So you found one! Good for you.

The current gun ...


Sure, the UK and Indonesia, why not. We've already gone through the metrics (as poorly collected as they are) and found their recent gun legislation had no affect. What was the murder rate in Indonesia pre and post gun ban?

Hey, you said gun bans work, you can back that up with numbers right?
 
2012-12-16 06:48:24 PM

iq_in_binary: You have no idea what you're talking about.


Care to elaborate?
 
2012-12-16 06:48:53 PM

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

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

Weren't current NFA weapons at one time in common use?

Taking a long time is just more reason to get started now.


Remember the Roaring 20's and the violence related to Prohibition and organized Rum Running? Guess how long it took after the NFA was passed before most that shiat stopped. The NFA worked incredibly well then, perfectly well over the next 80 years. That's good enough for me to want to use that as a model.
 
2012-12-16 06:49:31 PM

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

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

Weren't current NFA weapons at one time in common use?

Taking a long time is just more reason to get started now.


Common? Not really, these regulations were enacted due to Prohibition violence. It was a small subset of gangsters utilizing Tommy guns, BARs and other WW1 automatic weapons to protect their gang turf and dispose of rivals that led to the ban on those types weapons. They weren't exactly common.

On the long time aspect. There is a cost benefit analysis. Regulations could be expensive if applied nationally to nearly all weapons. This costs would occur from day one and potentially would cause little impact for decades. Millions of dollars spent without any noticiable impact could point to the money being spent in more productive methods such as mental health or education to attempt to stop problematic individuals bent on committing harm, rather than burdening users of the most likely tool that individuals commiting harm may use.
 
2012-12-16 06:53:33 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell you what, find me one that didn't involve the overthrow of the existing government and we'll talk.

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

So you found one! Good for you.

Th ...


Typical gun nut goalpost mover - "well the only bans were imposed by violent government overthrows" "oh." "Well I meant prove they made a difference regardless of whether there is a ban and low crime rate currently!"

There is only one country with the rate of gun ownership, laxness of purchase, and numbers of dead by gun violence, and it doesn't take goddamn Mat Hari to solve the mystery. I'm a gun owner who believes in gun ownership, tightly regulated and controlled to limit mayhem. It's that simple, and it's coming. You can take part in the debate and shape it, or you can go with "well, really not only is there nothing that could have been done, there is nothing that should be done" like Louie.
 
2012-12-16 06:56:03 PM

rolladuck: iq_in_binary: You have no idea what you're talking about.

Care to elaborate?


Except for extremely limited production run guns like the Hush Puppy, and guns like the MP5SD (INTEGRALLY SUPPRESSED, completely different from attaching a suppressor to the end of the barrel) using specially prepared ammo (subsonic), the vast majority of suppressors are barely capable of getting a gunshot report hearing safe. Barely. Even the highest rated suppressors for sound attenuation achieve at best 38dB of attenuation. Your average 9mm report is right at 140dB. That means we're going from 140dB (BANG! RIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNG) to 100dB (BANG!). You can still hear that over a mile away. To get better than that you have to go integrally suppressed, and even then you have to use subsonic ammo.
 
2012-12-16 06:56:04 PM

iq_in_binary: Remember the Roaring 20's and the violence related to Prohibition and organized Rum Running? Guess how long it took after the NFA was passed before most that shiat stopped. The NFA worked incredibly well then, perfectly well over the next 80 years. That's good enough for me to want to use that as a model.


And expansion of existing legislation shouldn't have Constitutional issues, correct?

Are there any legislators promoting this idea?
 
2012-12-16 06:56:35 PM

iq_in_binary: Look up how many crimes have been committed with NFA firearms.


look at how many people are going to respond to the death of 20 kids, and think the answer is relaxing access to automated weapons.

you know those people that are? they're insane.

iq_in_binary: You're going to go the Boehner "I get 98% of what I want or nothing" route?


have a bowl of dicks, with a light semen gravy. comparing doing anything at all with gun regulations - without the reacharound of relaxing gun controls as a gun control measure - to bohner is about as daft as it comes - again, advocacy like this is what will have gun grabbers win the ideological fight.

there was no 'compromise' or gimme for gun control advocates at any point when a gun regulation was relaxed or not renewed - why the holy bejesus would anyone look at the current situation and see 'well, what we need is more access to automated weapons' - you aren't looking to fix a good goddamn thing, you're looking at it like a bargaining position, or that you're 'due' something for the grace you'd show in allowing any gun control at all.

it's so selfish it's almost puke-worthy.
 
2012-12-16 06:57:36 PM

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

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

Weren't current NFA weapons at one time in common use?

Taking a long time is just more reason to get started now.

Common? Not really, these regulations were enacted due to Prohibition violence. It was a small subset of gangsters utilizing Tommy guns, BARs and other WW1 automatic weapons to protect their gang turf and dispose of rivals that led to the ban on those types weapons. They weren't exactly common.

On the long time aspect. There is a cost benefit analysis. Regulations could ...


Are you forgetting about the Tax Stamp part of the NFA?
 
2012-12-16 06:57:49 PM

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

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

Which is why I propose it applies to all existing semi-autos above threshold calibers. No grandfathering. And actually, I can point at the period of time between the passing of the NFA (1934) and the '86 ban. Before '86, it was perfectly legal to get whatever the hell you wanted. UZIs, Mac-10s, M16s, MP5s, all fully automatic, all legal. It's STILL legal to buy them, so long as they're in the original pool of guns established between 1934 and 1986. That's pretty god damned successful ...


Again, if it is another aspect that caused the lack of use, then perhaps a more targeted regulation would be more effecitve. If it is costs involved in the deterent, then a more direct taxation regulation may be the more effecitve route. If if is the background checks and regulations, then something like the NFA may be effective. If it is the low quantity of weapons tracked, then potentially the NFA is a mere red hearing and it may not have any effect if extended to a wider grouping of weapons. In any event, the massive numbers of weapons already in circulation may make any potential solution less than effecitve as the preexisting pool will will have to be depleted by criminals before there is a significant drop in violence. If the regulation is too onerous, people will tend to ignore it and you will make criminals of otherwise law abiding citizens who were not a threat of violence you are trying to prevent.
 
2012-12-16 06:58:14 PM

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

Did they? Can I see a source on that?

/generally curious


Can't find any good ones right now, but it's my bedtime.

This is Northrhine-Westphalia (In German) It's a done deal

http://oe1.orf.at/artikel/307796

Here'S The Austrians complaining that German tourists fire off 600 tons of lead into the Austrian woods every year...

There's a lot of talk in German about an ban on lead weights EU wide as well.
 
2012-12-16 06:59:50 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell you what, find me one that didn't involve the overthrow of the existing government and we'll talk.

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

So you found one! Good for y ...


No, I excluded government overthrows to ensure countries like Germany were excluded. Yes, their rate of homicide dropped. There was a U.S. soldier on every corner at the time.

And no, I'm not a gun nut by any means. I own one rifle to protect my livestock. That is all.

That said, I've gone through every piece of gun legislation in this country's history and found no correlation to a change in violent crime rates. Much the same is true globally. Since gun control laws historically have been ineffectual, maybe we should quit squabbling over them and do something that WILL affect violent crime rates. The economy, the massive wealth disparity, unemployment, the lack of available mental care. You know, the things that stress people out so much they start shooting up schools.

If I'm wrong, please feel free to cite something, anything. You said they work, back it up.
 
2012-12-16 07:00:14 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iq_in_binary: Remember the Roaring 20's and the violence related to Prohibition and organized Rum Running? Guess how long it took after the NFA was passed before most that shiat stopped. The NFA worked incredibly well then, perfectly well over the next 80 years. That's good enough for me to want to use that as a model.

And expansion of existing legislation shouldn't have Constitutional issues, correct?

Are there any legislators promoting this idea?


That's the beauty of it. no constitutional issues whatsoever. Well, unless you have the really whiny gun control advocates that aren't happy it doesn't cover revolvers or pump shotguns, but they'd have to repeal the NFA to change that, the definitions were set in the law itself. But yeah, expansion wouldn't have any issues given the SCOTUS rulings that already backed up the NFA in the first place.
 
2012-12-16 07:02:05 PM

rohar: You said they work, back it up.


The rest of the industrialized world has SIGNIFICANTLY more significant gun control up to and including bans. The rest of the industrialized world has DRASTICALLY lower rates of gun violence. Are you just thick, or wilfully obtuse?
 
2012-12-16 07:03:05 PM

heap: iq_in_binary: Look up how many crimes have been committed with NFA firearms.

look at how many people are going to respond to the death of 20 kids, and think the answer is relaxing access to automated weapons.

you know those people that are? they're insane.

iq_in_binary: You're going to go the Boehner "I get 98% of what I want or nothing" route?

have a bowl of dicks, with a light semen gravy. comparing doing anything at all with gun regulations - without the reacharound of relaxing gun controls as a gun control measure - to bohner is about as daft as it comes - again, advocacy like this is what will have gun grabbers win the ideological fight.

there was no 'compromise' or gimme for gun control advocates at any point when a gun regulation was relaxed or not renewed - why the holy bejesus would anyone look at the current situation and see 'well, what we need is more access to automated weapons' - you aren't looking to fix a good goddamn thing, you're looking at it like a bargaining position, or that you're 'due' something for the grace you'd show in allowing any gun control at all.

it's so selfish it's almost puke-worthy.


The Hughes amendment didn't restrict access to automated weapons. All weapons the NFA applies to previous to the ban are still legal to own and purchase re: machine guns. They're still here, hundreds of thousands of them, and they're not being used in crimes. You can still go buy a micro-UZI TO THIS DAY. Lighten up.
 
2012-12-16 07:03:12 PM

Daedalus27: the preexisting pool will will have to be depleted by criminals before there is a significant drop in violence.


Any stats on the average or median "age" of weapons used in crimes?
 
2012-12-16 07:03:14 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.


But, you see...banning cigarettes, cars, and alcohol would inconvenience the anti-gun crowd, as all of them use some or all of those items. The bottom line for the "ban guns now" crowd is, and has always been, getting rid of guns. There could be 0 gun deaths and they would still want to get rid of them. There are people ,from the minute they learn what one is, are anti gun. They cant be reasoned with, they dont want to hear it, they have one goal only, complete ban.

You want to ban guns, then it better include a government buy back, not just a round up...removing a private citizens legally purchased property without compensation is unacceptable. Also it better include the police. With no private owned guns, the police dont need them either. Then we can reduce the size of the ATF as well.
 
2012-12-16 07:03:51 PM

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

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

Weren't current NFA weapons at one time in common use?

Taking a long time is just more reason to get started now.

Common? Not really, these regulations were enacted due to Prohibition violence. It was a small subset of gangsters utilizing Tommy guns, BARs and other WW1 automatic weapons to protect their gang turf and dispose of rivals that led to the ban on those types weapons. They weren't exactly common.

On the long time aspect. There is a cost benefit analysis. Regula ...


Actually I did forget about the Tax Stamp. Isn't that the real reason the act is effective, because the tax stamps are never issued which effectively prohibits the manufacture and ownership of fully automatic weapons unless they are grandfathered in. There is a regulation allowing for the private ownership of weapons that cannot be utilized because the taxation is never issued. For the regulation to be functional, then the taxation portions would have to be utilized and therefore weapons would be acquired and used in criminal activity effectively reducing the benefit. If they are not issued, then you just made criminals of tens of millions of previously lawful gunowners.
 
2012-12-16 07:04:25 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.


The population of the US is equivalent to roughly that of the entire continent of Europe. They're pretty rare here, too.

Paul Baumer: I'm a gun owner who believes in gun ownership, tightly regulated and controlled to limit mayhem. It's that simple, and it's coming.


Sort of depends what measures you're talking about. Resale of guns is going to probably get clamped down on a bit to reduce illegal sales. The loopholes that allow you to get out of doing background checks, for instance, are probably going to get closed up pretty tight. This is a long-running trend that's been pretty consistent over the last couple decades, with things like Houston's big enforcement initiative to arrest people that buy guns for ineligible people. Essentially, more thorough enforcement of existing law and the removal of exceptions and loopholes is something that most of the US is willing to support or at least unlikely to oppose.

If you're talking about stupid shiat like "assault weapons bans" that the Democratic party fringe is apparently going for, or blatantly unconstitutional stuff like a guilty-until-proven-innocent version of licensing, it's been pretty thoroughly demonstrated that that's not going to happen. As I've noted in other threads, gun bans, registration and licensing are the "let's ban abortion" of the left. Basically never going to happen, and attempts to implement them indirectly just annoy everyone until they're struck down.
 
2012-12-16 07:04:53 PM

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

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

Which is why I propose it applies to all existing semi-autos above threshold calibers. No grandfathering. And actually, I can point at the period of time between the passing of the NFA (1934) and the '86 ban. Before '86, it was perfectly legal to get whatever the hell you wanted. UZIs, Mac-10s, M16s, MP5s, all fully automatic, all legal. It's STILL legal to buy them, so long as they're in the original pool of guns established between 1934 and 1986. That's pretty god damn ...


Now you're just concern trolling. You have nothing to contribute to the conversation.
 
2012-12-16 07:07:29 PM

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

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

Weren't current NFA weapons at one time in common use?

Taking a long time is just more reason to get started now.

Common? Not really, these regulations were enacted due to Prohibition violence. It was a small subset of gangsters utilizing Tommy guns, BARs and other WW1 automatic weapons to protect their gang turf and dispose of rivals that led to the ban on those types weapons. They weren't exactly common.

On the long time aspect. There is a cost benefit ana ...


No that's because of the Hughes amendment. But tax stamps are issued all the time. They're issued for SBRs, AOWs, Suppressors, and of course NFA weapons whenever they're transferred (i.e. someone buys it from the current owner).
 
2012-12-16 07:07:34 PM

Paul Baumer: rohar: You said they work, back it up.

The rest of the industrialized world has SIGNIFICANTLY more significant gun control up to and including bans. The rest of the industrialized world has DRASTICALLY lower rates of gun violence. Are you just thick, or wilfully obtuse?


Sure, but you're making a different comparison than I am. You're comparing one demographic group to another. Many variables could account for this. Even here in the U.S. we see significantly lower murder rates among affluent states as compared to less affluent states even with the same gun laws.

Can you cite a single instance where murder rates dropped significantly for a single demographic group after a ban?

If not, you cannot say with any amount of credibility that they work. At best you're just saying "I believe".
 
2012-12-16 07:08:31 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Daedalus27: the preexisting pool will will have to be depleted by criminals before there is a significant drop in violence.

Any stats on the average or median "age" of weapons used in crimes?


I am sure someone has it but given the extensive production, it is probably fairly young. My comment anticipated that a restriction would interrupt this supply of new weapons. It is only logical that if there is a regulation that restricts or reduces the production of firearms, there will be a draw down on existing weapons in circulation utilized in illegal activity which are siezed and destroyed by government. This will tend to slowly reduce the supply of weapons available to criminal elements and the age of weapons used would gradually go up.
 
2012-12-16 07:08:39 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell you what, find me one that didn't involve the overthrow of the existing government and we'll talk.

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

So you found one ...


You obviously didn't look very hard. The NFA worked wonderfully.
 
2012-12-16 07:11:28 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.


You mean like fertilizer and diesel fuel? A building in Oklahoma City would like to have a word with you.
 
2012-12-16 07:11:28 PM
Daedalus27: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Daedalus27: the preexisting pool will will have to be depleted by criminals before there is a significant drop in violence.

Any stats on the average or median "age" of weapons used in crimes?

I am sure someone has it but given the extensive production, it is probably fairly young. My comment anticipated that a restriction would interrupt this supply of new weapons. It is only logical that if there is a regulation that restricts or reduces the production of firearms, there will be a draw down on existing weapons in circulation utilized in illegal activity which are siezed and destroyed by government. This will tend to slowly reduce the supply of weapons available to criminal elements and the age of weapons used would gradually go up.


That's the beauty of my suggestion, non-registered firearms are destroyed. That's already how it works with guns governed by the NFA. They find one without a tax stamp? It goes directly to the forge for melt down.
 
2012-12-16 07:12:16 PM

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


all know a pitcher can throw a ball straight at a batter. They even do it on purpose to force the batter to walk. But when was the last time the pitcher ran to the practice dugout, grabbed the automatic ball launcher, and fired baseballs into the crowd, killing ten or twenty children? Never! Hell, throwing the ball at the batter is already against the law. What more do you need? We cannot go around banning baseballs and batting cages because of a few kooky liberals, and so should guns.
 
2012-12-16 07:13:21 PM

Jim_Callahan: 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.

The population of the US is equivalent to roughly that of the entire continent of Europe. They're pretty rare here, too.


Much as I agree with your second point, the difference between 10-12 in a decade, for Europe, and 10 - 12 just this year (depending on how you measure these things) is significant there's rare and there's rare.
 
2012-12-16 07:14:03 PM

rohar: Paul Baumer: rohar: You said they work, back it up.

The rest of the industrialized world has SIGNIFICANTLY more significant gun control up to and including bans. The rest of the industrialized world has DRASTICALLY lower rates of gun violence. Are you just thick, or wilfully obtuse?

Sure, but you're making a different comparison than I am. You're comparing one demographic group to another. Many variables could account for this. Even here in the U.S. we see significantly lower murder rates among affluent states as compared to less affluent states even with the same gun laws.

Can you cite a single instance where murder rates dropped significantly for a single demographic group after a ban?

If not, you cannot say with any amount of credibility that they work. At best you're just saying "I believe".


No true Scotsman. Adios, amigo.
 
2012-12-16 07:14:29 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell you what, find me one that didn't involve the overthrow of the existing government and we'll talk.

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

So you fo ...


Hard to say. Murder rates dropped significantly that year, but it was also when prohibition was repealed. I'm pretty sure we'd see murder rates drop today if we legalized pot and did nothing with gun control laws.
 
2012-12-16 07:15:51 PM

Paul Baumer: rohar: Paul Baumer: rohar: You said they work, back it up.

The rest of the industrialized world has SIGNIFICANTLY more significant gun control up to and including bans. The rest of the industrialized world has DRASTICALLY lower rates of gun violence. Are you just thick, or wilfully obtuse?

Sure, but you're making a different comparison than I am. You're comparing one demographic group to another. Many variables could account for this. Even here in the U.S. we see significantly lower murder rates among affluent states as compared to less affluent states even with the same gun laws.

Can you cite a single instance where murder rates dropped significantly for a single demographic group after a ban?

If not, you cannot say with any amount of credibility that they work. At best you're just saying "I believe".

No true Scotsman. Adios, amigo.


Uh, no. Statistical rigor. Logic. Reason. If that's too much for you and you're commonplace, I no wonder this country is such a mess.
 
2012-12-16 07:17:59 PM

iq_in_binary: The Jami Turman Fan Club: Dimensio: The Jami Turman Fan Club: I have no wish to go door-to-door. Just ban the sale of the weapons, clips/magazines, and ammo, and have a buyback program. It'll take care of itself.

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

No, just weapons with clips and magazines. Weapons where the ammo was held in the body of the gun would be legal, as would revolvers.

Right, but what you just said was NO GUNS AT ALL. Even bolt action rifles like the Mauser 98 is fed from a "clip."


And I'm sure a TRFI 155mm Howitzer is fed only one round into the chamber, by hand!
 
2012-12-16 07:19:12 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell you what, find me one that didn't involve the overthrow of the existing government and we'll talk.

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


Go find me an instance of an NFA stamped weapon being used in a crime. It'll take you awhile.
 
2012-12-16 07:20:42 PM

Daedalus27: Common? Not really, these regulations were enacted due to Prohibition violence. It was a small subset of gangsters utilizing Tommy guns, BARs and other WW1 automatic weapons to protect their gang turf and dispose of rivals that led to the ban on those types weapons. They weren't exactly common.


Okay, but you are arguing that these weapons are too common now, right?
 
2012-12-16 07:21:04 PM
Strict Gun laws didn't do much for Mexico.............


but strict gun laws in America would make politicians feel better about themselves and make it unnecessary for them to point out that our twisted value system and our sorry economy is the bigger culprit.

we're a Nation of Capital/Companies, not Citizens. and then everyone wonders where these Psychopaths are coming from. until we look into the mirror and see that, the Psychos will continue to show up, Guns or no guns.
 
2012-12-16 07:24:00 PM

iq_in_binary: Go find me an instance of an NFA stamped weapon being used in a crime. It'll take you awhile.


Agreed, and you may be on to something as there is indeed a correlation between that law and a drop in homicides. But correlation != causation. Don't get me wrong, causation cannot exist without correlation either.

That said, ending prohibition also had a HUGE impact on the murder rate. So, the only method we have to sort this out is to find some country that passed something similar to NFA without another massive variable at play.

You know of any?
 
2012-12-16 07:24:27 PM

rohar: Uh, no. Statistical rigor. Logic. Reason. If that's too much for you and you're commonplace, I no wonder this country is such a mess.


Me no wonder either! Society and common perception make NRA smash puny children with powerful strong laws! Me want context! Michael Moore almost prophet, go bowling, see Canadians still keep doors unlocked and ask home invader if lost instead of shoot. Qualitative research more better than wimpy quantitative nerds!
 
2012-12-16 07:25:48 PM

b0rscht: 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.


Congratulations. You're the only honest anti-gun voice in the thread.
 
2012-12-16 07:26:19 PM
But most of all, this Man has the answer to all our Problems.

SFW


Link
 
2012-12-16 07:34:52 PM

Zavulon: Congratulations. You're the only honest anti-gun voice in the thread.


Okay, how about this? many people around the world own guns, and their nations do not have the rates of violence, or the sorts of violence, the USA has.

So let's do this nice and honest. pick your reason for the violence and we'll change the thread:

1) gender? Is this all about American masculinity, where men are assumed to be violent and male heroes in American stories on tv, movies, and in print, solve problems with violence? the issue is probably partly, if not mostly, gender.

2) Militarism and capitalism? Mexico gets its guns from the US, right? the US is a militarist state that idolizes military service and military solutions to economic, social, and historical problems. The US prefers to fire social workers but hire security guards. Would you like to discuss how that will change?

3) Race?

4) American children are raised on violence. The non-violent tv shows like the Teletubbies or Elmo's World are full of characters who speak in gibberish and half sentences. The children's shows that are violent have characters who speak deliberately and clearly and are celebrated

uh oh. Come to think of it I see why we're not talking about these topics. This would be a weird, honest conversation because it would actually make Bronies look like the best peacekeepers in the USA, transcending violent media, gender, and militarism.
 
2012-12-16 07:37:09 PM
Fark George Will.

Of course some overconfident right-wing stalwart is going to insist the crumbling conservative's view of the world is the only valid one.
 
2012-12-16 07:37:11 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.


Oh, well THAT completely invalidates my point, or wait I could've been speaking broader, more general terms. But hey, keep using technicalities and nitpicks to win arguments, it's going GREAT so far.
 
Displayed 50 of 865 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report