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 123
    More: Obvious, George Will, assault weapons ban, gun laws, assault weapons, hyperbole, .info  
•       •       •

6309 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Dec 2012 at 3:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-16 02:44:42 PM
13 votes:
This is the guy who said Romney would win 325 electoral votes.
2012-12-16 03:25:11 PM
10 votes:
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 02:55:24 PM
9 votes:
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 03:55:02 PM
8 votes:
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 02:56:10 PM
6 votes:
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 02:46:16 PM
6 votes:
"George Will" and "learn something" are mutually exclusive.
2012-12-16 03:52:35 PM
5 votes:
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 03:51:46 PM
5 votes:
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 03:37:28 PM
5 votes:
20 dead 6-and-7-year-olds say George Will is full of shiat.
2012-12-16 03:44:14 PM
4 votes:
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 02:47:19 PM
4 votes:
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 04:31:43 PM
3 votes:

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 04:04:33 PM
3 votes:
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 03:50:42 PM
3 votes:
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 03:45:34 PM
3 votes:

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 03:21:30 PM
3 votes:
Tell that to the UK, a country that hasn't had a mass shooting since Dunblane, after which they enacted the 1997 Firearms act.
2012-12-17 09:07:00 AM
2 votes:

Leeds: We are faced with three options:

1) Change gun laws
2) Change how we deal with mentally unstable people
3) Force kids to live in cages, behind bullet proof glass with metal detectors at every corner.

I choose option 2 because I believe that it is the only option that will help in any way is the easiest way for things to change without my actually doing anything.


/ftfy
2012-12-16 10:47:52 PM
2 votes:

manimal2878: lordjupiter: manimal2878: poot_rootbeer: Pokey.Clyde: Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?

Let me preface this by saying that changes to our cultural love affair with The Gun cannot be imposed by force of government. It will take generations, but the only way we're going to get our firearm death rate down to the rest of the civilized world's is if the population voluntarily chooses disarmament.

That being said, "laws that would have prevented his mother from legally obtaining those guns in the first place" is a simple and valid answer to your question.

Would a law that would prevent somebody from purchasing alcohol be a valid way to stop drunk driving accidents that result in death? I think it is, but most people don't drive drunk, they enjoy alcohol legally and don't hurt anybody. To me, same thing with guns. Banning things will prevent it being used for evil, but it also stops people from enjoying the use of whatever is banned for whatever legal purposes as well. It also creates a black market for that item.

Do those that wish to ban guns also see banning alcohol as acceptable? And if not, how is it different that guns, it is used really only for fun, like guns used for target shooting or whatever, and doesn't even have the self defense angle that can be applied to guns. Statistically I bet far more people are killed by alcohol than guns, but I'm just guessing.



What part of "guns are guns and not something else" don't you understand?

I asked reasonable questions, if you don't want to address them then fark off.


We're discussing guns, not alcohol or cars or black-tipped reef sharks. Stop trying to deflect and use the "Why aren't people also talking about this thing?!" smokescreen.
2012-12-16 05:18:32 PM
2 votes:

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 04:37:17 PM
2 votes:

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 04:20:45 PM
2 votes:
"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 04:16:03 PM
2 votes:
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 04:14:37 PM
2 votes:

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 04:09:10 PM
2 votes:
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 04:01:14 PM
2 votes:

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 03:55:33 PM
2 votes:
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 03:40:20 PM
2 votes:
All these headlines read as if they were submitted by Tucker Carlson.

In other words, they sound whiny and douchy.
2012-12-16 03:40:11 PM
2 votes:

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 03:19:43 PM
2 votes:
George Will also hates blue jeans.
2012-12-17 10:35:52 AM
1 votes:

Leeds: manimal2878: How about we give the psychopath the hammer, and you get no gun and I get a gun? Whoever survives owes the other guy a diet coke?

What's shockingly absent from Tomahawk513's glib remarks is that the psychopath from last week's spree was intent on killing himself as part of his plan.

It's amazing how destructive people can be when they have no sense or desire to exhibit self-preservation in any way.

I'm convinced that that's what the anti-gun people fail to understand.


a) You don't know what his plans were. Reports so far have said that he killed himself as first responders closed in, so he may have planned on more killing or even escaping.

b) It doesn't matter because the suggestion that self-destructive people would somehow be less of a threat to others WITH guns as opposed to without them is absurd.
2012-12-17 10:33:53 AM
1 votes:

Leeds: It's amazing how destructive people can be when they have no sense or desire to exhibit self-preservation in any way.

I'm convinced that that's what the anti-gun people fail to understand.


It's just as easy to kill yourself without a gun as it is with one, if you are so inclined. Other people, on the other hand...
2012-12-17 09:33:42 AM
1 votes:

please: I voted for Obama, but I'll never ever vote Democrat again if new gun laws come down. I can't believe they haven't learned.
Shame on people here and shame on the media for exploiting this tragedy for your pet causes and ratings.


I can't believe that the pro-gun people haven't learned from the example of many other countries. By-and-large, gun control works. It's a proven fact.

Shame on you for obstructing legislation proven to reduce the frequency of gun violence, and being content to accept the massacres of innocents that now occur several times a year.

Our "pet cause" is the desire to take effective action to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. That's not exploitation. In fact, there is no better way to honor the victims than to back up our words of sorrow with action.
2012-12-17 09:20:08 AM
1 votes:
I voted for Obama, but I'll never ever vote Democrat again if new gun laws come down. I can't believe they haven't learned.
Shame on people here and shame on the media for exploiting this tragedy for your pet causes and ratings.
2012-12-17 02:59:46 AM
1 votes:

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.


*** President Perry and the Republican House/Senate will repeal it.

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.


*** President Perry and the Republican House/Senate will repeal it.

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.


*** President Perry and the Republican House/Senate will repeal it.

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.


*** President Perry and the Republican House/Senate will repeal it.

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.


*** President Perry and the Republican House/Senate will repeal it.

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


*** President Perry and the Republican House/Senate will repeal it.

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.


*** President Perry and the Republican House/Senate will repeal it.
2012-12-16 11:22:39 PM
1 votes:

manimal2878: lordjupiter: manimal2878: http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803

Libertarian propaganda?

That explains it. From the same people who think history shows that unregulated business monitors and polices itself.

Jesus farking christ.

DId you read the article or even look at it? That the wild west was a crazy violent era is a myth. This is accepted fact everywhere except in western movies and tv shows.

Here, a less libertarian source: http://www.cracked.com/article_18487_6-ridiculous-history-myths-you-pr obably-think-are-true.html


The article is bullshiat, pal. It cites alleged studies from the 70s and then launches into the predictable "smaller, localized government" claptrap found in every single piece of libertarian propaganda.

and CRACKED!?

The single listed source for that article is a dead link. And searching the site just for the word "murders" returns nothing. However, the cracked article you listed is the first returned item when you google "murders wild west".

Try this instead:

Link

In recent years it has become fashionable for historians (such as Robert Dykstra and Michael Bellesiles) to claim that it was a myth that the Old West was particularly violent. Notheless, other historians, such as Clare McKanna and David Peterson Del Mar, have reported very high rates of homicide in the West in the late 19th century (compared to current rates in the US).

Who is right?

Roth carefully reviews the data and confirms the work of McKanna and Peterson Del Mar, showing it to be consistent with recent work by Kevin Mullen, John Boessenecker, and (the late, great) Eric Monkkonen, .

Roth concludes:

Because the counties in McKanna's study reflect the diversity of rural southern and central California as a whole, there is reason to believe that the homicide rate in the southern two-thirds of the state (excluding San Francisco) was between 66 and 80 per 100,000 adults per year-the 99% confidence interval for McKanna's seven counties combined. If we include San Francisco and Los Angeles counties, the interval for all of southern and central California was between 60 and 70 per 100,000 adults per year-seven times the homicide rate in the United States today (and 28.7 standard deviations away). An adult exposed to that rate for sixteen years stood a 1 in 96 chance of being murdered, and an adult exposed to that rate for 45 years would have stood a 1 in 34 chance of being murdered. We cannot make assumptions about the homicide rate in northern California, which has yet to be studied. But with McKanna's study alone, we have 29 percent of the population of southern and central California (38 percent outside San Francisco); and with the addition of Mullen's study of San Francisco and Monkkonen's of Los Angeles, we have 57 percent of the population. The claim that the area was not unusually homicidal is statistically and arithmetically impossible.

The data of Peterson Del Mar and McKanna show that there is no such thing as a "fallacy of small numbers." The laws of probability make it possible to predict the character of a large population from a sample of surprisingly modest size, as long as that sample is representative of the population as a whole. That is why national opinion polls of 1,500 or 3,000 potential voters can be so accurate, even for subgroups of the population. That is the genius of statistics.

Indeed!

How homicidal was the Old West? According to the best historical evidence today, the answer is: Extremely Homicidal. Thus, another bit of academic folklore bites the dust.




Aaaaand I'm done with you.
2012-12-16 11:16:59 PM
1 votes:

iq_in_binary: The entire reason the Gun Control conversation is so impossible is because the only things anti-gun people are interested in are purely punitive measures.


yes, i am not at all concerned with you getting a budget automatic weapon.

it is not at all on the landscape of concerns, desires, or things i think need corrected.

the fact you think of this as a bargaining chip or a path to getting what you want, that you deserve something in trade for regulations is the whole crux of the biscuit, but...again, i can neither explain to you the abject selfishness of it, nor disabuse you of it.

but it seems like you expect me to ignore it, too. somewhere in this, i've been trying to repeal the 2nd amendment, i've been the cause of spree shootings, and i just want to punish gun owners (which would be self punishment, and an entirely different thread) - in none of this are you actually representing what i have said.

i'll say it again.

i don't give a shiat about your desire for a sub 50g auto. i just don't.

that you feel you need recompense for gun regulations is even further down the slope of my own personal Mount Giveashiat.
2012-12-16 11:03:16 PM
1 votes:
The right wing arguments on gun control are as compelling as "its cold outside, global warming is a hoax." Isolated data points are not interesting.
2012-12-16 10:47:47 PM
1 votes:

DoctorCal: Have you looked into the country that we live in?

Gun ownership: the US has the highest # of guns per resident (2007)

Gun violence: the US has the 8th highest firearm homicide rate


Who's "we"? Not all Farkers live in the US. I don't, and although practically everyone where I live owns guns, violent crime is almost non- existent. Culture determines the propensity of any given people to violence, not the availability of weaponry or lack thereof.
2012-12-16 10:12:16 PM
1 votes:
You gun advocates are getting tiresome. You "no one single thing will work 100% so do nothing" argument is particularly tiresome. Vaccines aren't 100% effective, but we still use them. Airbags and seatbelts don't prevent all deaths in accidents, but we still use them because they're highly effective. It's called harm reduction and reasonable, civilized people are in favor of it.

Since you're all such perfect gun owners, well-versed in every type of firearm and expert marksmen, what is your big objection to setting a high bar for firearm (and ammunition) purchase? The purpose of a gun is to kill; is it really so unreasonable to ask that there are restrictions on purchasing one? Before you can get a driver's license, you have to prove that you know traffic laws and can operate a motor vehicle. If you develop an illness that prohibits you from being a safe driver, the doctor contacts the DMV and your license is suspended. Why shouldn't there be requirements for guns? Or do you object to driver's licenses and vehicle registration because the government is keeping a list and knows where you live and what kind of car you drive so they could come and take away your car?

I would think that your fear of a gun ban would make you in favor of doing everything possible to keep guns out of irresponsible hands. That's why people object to guns. It's not because you use them for hunting or protecting livestock; it's because criminal use them to kill human beings. The more we can do to reduce the killing, the less call for a gun ban.

I don't want a gun but I don't think they should be banned either. People like to hunt, ranchers and farmers need them to protect livestock, people have jobs that take them into unsafe areas, etc. There are legitimate uses for guns. Why do you object so strongly to measures designed to restrict them to legitimate owners and keep them away from people who want to use them to kill human beings? Are you also opposed to building and electrical codes that make buildings safer, safety equipment on cars, certain medications being available only by prescription?
2012-12-16 09:34:04 PM
1 votes:
RFID chips and tokens required for all civilian gun purchases...or biometrics. Eliminate the 'point and shoot' aspect of guns and for manufacturers into the 21st century. no corresponding RFID token, no firey. This exists and would prevent any unauthorized use of a gun. Eventually all guns without this tech would become rarer and rarer and more expensive and more suspicious too. We could enact that tomorrow and not run afoul of any 2nd amendment fight. no one would be facing any undue burden in getting a gun.

There are other solutions than banning or confiscation...gun supporters like to pretend these do not exist.
2012-12-16 09:22:08 PM
1 votes:
You will always have crazy people is what they say, when it's convenient to their argument to do nothing. When they want to distract from the gun issues themselves to "mental health", does the same "always have crazy people" argument apply? If it does, then why make incredibly deadly mass-killing machines so easily available in a society that will always have crazy people?

And why is it limited to "crazy people"? How do you define that for purposes of gun ownership, or being around guns? Doesn't someone going on a shooting spree make them APPEAR "crazy" no matter how rational they were up until that point? If someone has ever been depressed, are they suddenly unable to be around anyone who owns a gun?

Or are we talking about magically making everyone in the world suddenly non-violent and peaceful? How is that likely, since one of the pro-gun arguments is that criminals will always exist, which means we need protection? Or are you ONLY concerned with arming YOURSELF, and fark everyone else, including when the gun nut BECOMES the criminal and we all suffer for it?

The "mental health" angle is a bullshiat deflection, like all the others. The FACT of the matter is we have highly efficient and extremely deadly weapons out there that are too easily abused, and that needs to be addressed.
2012-12-16 07:37:40 PM
1 votes:
Lets see. Pass gun grabbing and banning measures that do nothing but make half the country feel better. Or enact civil rights restricting laws that test and treat the populace for its epidemic mental health problems that are causing mass homicides?
1-media-cdn.foolz.us

That way everybody is pissed off! Lets do both. If nobody is happy then we must have done something right.
2012-12-16 07:26:19 PM
1 votes:
But most of all, this Man has the answer to all our Problems.

SFW


Link
2012-12-16 07:21:04 PM
1 votes:
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 06:34:25 PM
1 votes:

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


FTFY
2012-12-16 06:16:49 PM
1 votes:
Is there a reason why a single-shot hunting rifle, a revolver and/or a shotgun isn't enough to satisfy a person's hunting/self-defense needs?
2012-12-16 06:06:09 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


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

Yes, the NFA works. It's the only successful implementation of gun control this country has passed, ever. Why not use it as the model going forward, instead of trying the same old thing that never works?
2012-12-16 05:55:08 PM
1 votes:

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 05:43:43 PM
1 votes:

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 05:42:42 PM
1 votes:
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 05:37:58 PM
1 votes:

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 05:30:30 PM
1 votes:

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 05:24:43 PM
1 votes:

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 05:21:20 PM
1 votes:

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 05:19:59 PM
1 votes:
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 05:17:41 PM
1 votes:
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 05:11:38 PM
1 votes:

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 05:11:19 PM
1 votes:

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 05:11:06 PM
1 votes:

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 05:07:05 PM
1 votes:

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 05:05:29 PM
1 votes:
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.
GBB
2012-12-16 05:04:36 PM
1 votes:

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 04:57:34 PM
1 votes:

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 04:56:09 PM
1 votes:

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 04:55:48 PM
1 votes:

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 04:55:18 PM
1 votes:

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 04:54:24 PM
1 votes:

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 04:53:37 PM
1 votes:

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 04:49:28 PM
1 votes:
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 04:49:06 PM
1 votes:

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 04:48:53 PM
1 votes:

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 04:43:14 PM
1 votes:
HEY! LET'S USE DEAD CHILDREN TO PUSH OUT POLITICAL AGENDA!
2012-12-16 04:42:00 PM
1 votes:

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 04:38:30 PM
1 votes:

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 04:37:08 PM
1 votes:

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 04:36:52 PM
1 votes:
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 04:36:15 PM
1 votes:

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 04:35:11 PM
1 votes:

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 04:34:27 PM
1 votes:
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 04:33:32 PM
1 votes:

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 04:33:25 PM
1 votes:

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 04:30:37 PM
1 votes:
What is it? a third of a million gun deaths since 2000?
2012-12-16 04:30:14 PM
1 votes:

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 04:27:15 PM
1 votes:

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 04:26:39 PM
1 votes:

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 04:23:02 PM
1 votes:
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 04:19:48 PM
1 votes:

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 04:19:15 PM
1 votes:

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 04:16:22 PM
1 votes:

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 04:12:41 PM
1 votes:

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 04:12:22 PM
1 votes:

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 04:11:48 PM
1 votes:

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 04:09:22 PM
1 votes:

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 04:06:51 PM
1 votes:
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 04:06:29 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-16 04:03:41 PM
1 votes:

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 04:02:45 PM
1 votes:

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 04:01:33 PM
1 votes:

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 03:59:36 PM
1 votes:

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 03:59:35 PM
1 votes:

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 03:58:33 PM
1 votes:
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 03:57:54 PM
1 votes:

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 03:57:37 PM
1 votes:

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 03:57:32 PM
1 votes:

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 03:57:26 PM
1 votes:

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 03:56:37 PM
1 votes:
Thanks George. The NRA and gun nuts everywhere appreciate your fellatio. Don''t forget to smile after you swallow.
2012-12-16 03:56:23 PM
1 votes:
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 03:55:56 PM
1 votes:
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 03:55:47 PM
1 votes:
"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 03:55:17 PM
1 votes:

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 03:55:12 PM
1 votes:

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 03:53:24 PM
1 votes:

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 03:52:38 PM
1 votes:
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 03:52:34 PM
1 votes:

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 03:51:27 PM
1 votes:

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 03:49:20 PM
1 votes:

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 03:48:59 PM
1 votes:

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 03:48:46 PM
1 votes:
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 03:45:15 PM
1 votes:
I'm surprised he didn't use a baseball analogy.
2012-12-16 03:44:15 PM
1 votes:
I already learned that George Will is a dipshiat who's decades past his usefulness in a national debate.
2012-12-16 03:43:24 PM
1 votes:

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 03:39:09 PM
1 votes:
Oh subby, one day critical thinking and reading the information will come to you.
2012-12-16 02:56:16 PM
1 votes:
Check the source - Daily Caller? Was World Nut Daily busy with the really important news?
 
Displayed 123 of 123 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report