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.

(ABC)   "The NRA couldn't be reached for comment regarding whether the deactivation of its facebook page was connected to Friday's mass shooting"   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 451
    More: Obvious, NRA, school shootings, semi-automatic rifle, gun laws, assault weapons  
•       •       •

7704 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Dec 2012 at 1:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-17 11:10:50 PM

mizchief: irreverend mother: I think the NRA had to take the Facebook page down so the guy who runs it could be assigned to write new fund raising bile.


Something to the tune of "Pay no attention to the dead childruns, we still need a gazillion guns each before Obummer makes them illegul."

Pity you can't fix crazy. I think no one should own more than 10 guns but you'd never get anyone at the NRA to take that as a compromise.

No good to outlaw them when they can be made out of ball point pens.

Hows this for a marketing campaign. I'm donating a dollar to the NRA for every comment I read form uniqune posters calling for an all out ban on guns.

Anyone else want to join me?


Crickets.
 
2012-12-17 11:30:04 PM
I'm not surprised that the Nutty Raving Assholes are cowards.
 
2012-12-17 11:44:08 PM

The Southern Dandy: Forget banning assault rifles. We need to ban hands, fists and feet. They're the real killers. They kill twice as many people as rifles do.

[i.imgur.com image 850x776]


ok someone pls edumacate me here.. other than handguns, rifles and shotguns what 'other' type of guns are there which contribute to these hundred or so murders every year?
are they saying that every year about 100 American are killed by miniguns, machine guns or chain guns?
I don't recall reading in the news about a bunch of folks mowed down by an M-60 or a 12.5 mm 6 barrel minigun.
 
2012-12-17 11:48:41 PM

The Southern Dandy: Forget banning assault rifles. We need to ban hands, fists and feet. They're the real killers. They kill twice as many people as rifles do.

[i.imgur.com image 850x776]


also TSD is a dumbass with severe critical thinking skills. It's not the total aggregate amount of murders based on annual statistics. It's about the ability to inflict mass casualties per incident of violence.

Unless you can provide examples where someone using only their fists and legs can easily kill 30 people in 10 minutes your thinking is totally flawed and assinine.
 
2012-12-18 12:12:44 AM
I'm 54 years old, graduated high school in 1976, growing up every pickup truck in the high school parking lot had a gun in it. Every house had a gun near the front door. We didn't have the violence back then as we do now. So how's it the guns fault?
 
2012-12-18 12:15:25 AM

Insatiable Jesus: Acting like the guilty enablers of child murder that they are.

No?

Then why act guilty?


I'm sorry were you refering to the more than 3000 abortions completed every day?
 
2012-12-18 12:26:33 AM

The Southern Dandy: Forget banning assault rifles. We need to ban hands, fists and feet. They're the real killers. They kill twice as many people as rifles do.

[i.imgur.com image 850x776]


From the same data ... over half of all murders in the US are committed with hand guns, devices whose primary design function is to kill human beings. More than any other method, including all other types of guns and weapons.

Here's a reality check:

1. The second amendment, as envisaged by its authors, has no relevance today. In no way, shape or form could gun enthusiasts overthrow the government and the US military.

2. US society would be safer if there were far fewer guns and less types of guns. Yes, it will take a long time to put the djinn back in the bottle, but it was done successfully in the UK and Australia anfd can be done here.

3. All criminally owned guns start out as legally owned guns. Restricting the ultimate source of supply does eventually have an impact on downstream availability.

4. Strict gun controls are not inconsistent with a thriving recreational firearms and shooting industry (c.f. Scotland)

5. While incidents like school shootings grab the headlines, the real opportunity to save lives is making sure the average person who has a bad day doesn't have a lethal weapon in their possession to facilitate doing something regrettable and tragic. The father of two in Phildelphia who complains to his neighbor about dog turds shouldn't be at risk of being shot.

6. Pistols as "home defence" are a statistically proven crock of shiat. See 5. above.

7. It's time to start with a clean sheet of paper and consider new gun laws ... here's what I am thinking:

- no guns designed for killing humans allowed in private hands
- limited number of types of guns, to facilitate legitimate sports uses
- .22 rifles for target shooting, single shot load only
- 12 gauge shotguns for bambis, bunnies, etc.
- locked gun cabinet, inspected periodically by police
- all guns tracked, accounted for, shown to police annually
- forensic test fires from all guns taken by manufacturer and kept on file
- limits on quantities of guns and ammo held by each person
- collectable guns not covered by the above have to be permanently disabled

7. Yes, someone can make their own gun. Yes, they can strangle a kid with a shoelace or make a bomb. But as the philosopher Izzard observes: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people. But I think you'll find the gun helps". We don't have to make it easy for them.

8. Implementing an Australian-like reduction in guns will save thousands of lives a year within a couple of decades. The data doesn't lie. Yes it can work in America, you are not special. 200 years ago everyone thought their life would be over if they couldn't own black people, and the south is still here.
 
2012-12-18 12:26:34 AM

The Muthaship: It's funny how much overlap there is between people that want vastly more stringent gun ownership restrictions, and people that want more government control of everything.

And yet, the gun owners are the cowards.


===========================================

WAIT JUST A MINUTE... YOU HAVE IT ALLL WRONG

Republicans want smaller Governmen and less taxest; Democrats want larger Government with more laws every day. Democrats want to govern what you eat, what you drive, how to get your electricity, Democrats want to increase taxes and increase rules on businesses. When you see all these new laws like watering you yard on off days or your school gets fined because a kid gave someone a cookie or you get a ticket in the mail from a traffic camera that is all Democrats...
 
2012-12-18 12:28:03 AM

Mrbogey: His easy access was he KILLED someone and took their guns. How's Norway with their gun culture and mental health laws? The place must such because they lost 4 times as many youths in their last attack.


How many mass shootings did Norway have before that attack? How many after? We've had 7 this year, 50 over the last 20 years, 62 over the last 30.
 
2012-12-18 12:33:08 AM

Mentat: Mrbogey: His easy access was he KILLED someone and took their guns. How's Norway with their gun culture and mental health laws? The place must such because they lost 4 times as many youths in their last attack.

How many mass shootings did Norway have before that attack? How many after? We've had 7 this year, 50 over the last 20 years, 62 over the last 30.


Gun nuts have strongly held opinions not hampered by data. You're wasting your breath.
 
2012-12-18 01:35:26 AM

ParaHandy: --numbered item of total bullshiat--


#1-you'd be surprised what armed civilians could do. Though it most likely will never get to a place where the government would be overthrown simply because a lot of tyrannical things that have been done in other countries won't be considered due to the armed populace. If it's irrelevant, the COTUS should be amended as you understand was done with slavery and the 13th amendment.

#2-Aside from murder, the UK and Australia both have higher violent crime rates. The UK has also seen sharp increases in gun crime while the US has seen a sharp decrease. Fewer people killed, far more beaten, raped, and robbed isn't necessarily a good trade.
#3 All criminal cars start out as legal cars, should we heavily restrict law abiding person's access to cars too?
#4 would be relevant if the only use for guns was recreation. Going with #7 would pretty much destroy our firearm industry in this country.
#5 is which is opinion and anecdote
#6 claims handguns are not useful for home defense, references #5; double down on opinion on anecdote.
I'm on the fence if #7 regarding the firearms you will 'allow' people to own is serious or parody.
#8 means we have to tolerate several hundred years of increasing victimization, and open the door for good old fashioned tyranny that all the other disarmed nations have had at one time. I'm sure a US holocaust will make Germany's look like child's play.
 
2012-12-18 02:06:16 AM
I think we've got a fundamentally flawed premise that sufficiently detailed laws can remove all "bad things" from society. They won't, because we've stopped agreeing on the definitions of words, and because the complexity of human interactions is far more diverse than can be regulated by laws written by the most contemptible people in our society (lawyers and politicians).

The problems we need to solve involve difficult discussions, the gradual adoption of new norms of behavior, and yet they must include the acceptance of outlying thoughts and words. The outliers are where we find both genius and madness. It's a fantasy that enough words in legislation can protect society from danger while still encouraging free will.

So, don't farking make new laws. Instead, have a block party with your neighbors! Have someone talk to that strange kid down the block who talks to his elbows and form an opinion: normal weird kid or head case? Does he talk to his elbow because he is making novel connections and the elbow is a convenient abstraction? Or are his farking elbows talking back to him? If so, your neighborhood has a slight issue that everyone else in the neighborhood needs to address, basically by friending the hell out of him. Also, farking give up on the home-schooling bullshiat and, for that matter, get rid of private schools. Fark you if you don't agree, but ALL OF THE KIDS ARE ALL OF OUR KIDS.

Want to protect all of our kids? Not gonna happen with that free will thing in the mix. Neither will demonizing the oddball-du-jour. We just need to try to kill fewer kids without adding one more wedge issue that convinces us that the other side is irrational and filled with hate. We need to work with the other side, even if they're obviously assholes.
 
2012-12-18 02:38:29 AM

p4p3rm4t3: .....

[img255.imageshack.us image 243x182]


Fark you spiderman...you don't get to just invent powers for yourself, you're not superman you know...
 
2012-12-18 07:54:06 AM

TheMega: #1 reason for these "sprees" is for the attention and rise to stardom... far past that of ANY star of the big screen, music or television gets in a year. Coverage on every channel, sometimes even taking scheduled programs off to report more on it (and nothing new, just the same stuff, over and over), the nutbag's photos plastered on the screen, time and time again... instant fame for a year, programs and documentaries made for 30 years and a whacko's name remembered for a long, long time..


If 'spectacle suicide' got these people no more attention than they would get if they quietly offed themselves at home with no witnesses, there would be no spectacle suicides/

durbnpoisn: I've made no bones about this. I think it is a fine and reasonable right to own guns. Hunting, recreation, or self defense. But, there is no need for some person in the suburbs to own a milary grade assult rifle. (I guess those deer won't kill themselves after all).


Military grade assault rifles have been heavily regulated since the GCA of 1934. The 1986 Hughes Amendment closed the federal registry for them, limiting the supply to those that were already registered at that point. To buy an actual assault rifle through legal channels in the United States is a very expensive and lengthy process.

What you're talking about is the so-called 'assault weapon', which is nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle that looks scary and was largely demonized based upon cosmetic features that have no effect whatsoever on the ballistics of the firearm itself.

There are also many states where it is legal to hunt with carbines like the AR-15, and in fact they are quite useful for prairie dogs.

These two rifles:

www.gunslot.com
blogs.suntimes.com

are functionally identical. They are both semi-automatic rifles. They both fire .223 caliber ammunition.

One of them is demonized as an evil assault weapon and one of them is not, yet every difference between them is purely cosmetic.
 
2012-12-18 08:09:48 AM

ParaHandy: The Southern Dandy: Forget banning assault rifles. We need to ban hands, fists and feet. They're the real killers. They kill twice as many people as rifles do.

[i.imgur.com image 850x776]

From the same data ... over half of all murders in the US are committed with hand guns, devices whose primary design function is to kill human beings. More than any other method, including all other types of guns and weapons.

Here's a reality check:

1. The second amendment, as envisaged by its authors, has no relevance today. In no way, shape or form could gun enthusiasts overthrow the government and the US military.

2. US society would be safer if there were far fewer guns and less types of guns. Yes, it will take a long time to put the djinn back in the bottle, but it was done successfully in the UK and Australia anfd can be done here.

3. All criminally owned guns start out as legally owned guns. Restricting the ultimate source of supply does eventually have an impact on downstream availability.

4. Strict gun controls are not inconsistent with a thriving recreational firearms and shooting industry (c.f. Scotland)

5. While incidents like school shootings grab the headlines, the real opportunity to save lives is making sure the average person who has a bad day doesn't have a lethal weapon in their possession to facilitate doing something regrettable and tragic. The father of two in Phildelphia who complains to his neighbor about dog turds shouldn't be at risk of being shot.

6. Pistols as "home defence" are a statistically proven crock of shiat. See 5. above.

7. It's time to start with a clean sheet of paper and consider new gun laws ... here's what I am thinking:

- no guns designed for killing humans allowed in private hands
- limited number of types of guns, to facilitate legitimate sports uses
- .22 rifles for target shooting, single shot load only
- 12 gauge shotguns for bambis, bunnies, etc.
- locked gun cabinet, inspected periodically by police
- all guns tracked ...


How about no? Does no work for you? Why do you insist on blaming the BEHAVIOR on an inanimate object?

I mean, let's pause for a second. AR-15s and similar weaponry were fairly popular long before spree killing became "a thing", and yet only NOW are they being used and abused. What changed there? Where were the spree killers back when Full Auto firearms were not only available, but fairly common and inexpensive?

But yes, let's keep using mental illness and farked up behavior to justify pushing a personal view of how things should be.

Am I against some more stiff laws? No. But outright bans? What would they accomplish? They're provably ineffective, provably unlikely to deter criminals from acquiring firearms, and provably unlikely to deter a determined criminal.

Hell, back in your referenced country of Scotland, in 1996, a man with legally owned firearms walked into a school and did nearly exactly the same thing as our shooter on Friday.

So, what, in the great state of Scotland with its gun laws as they are, stopped that from happening?
 
2012-12-18 08:49:57 AM

brnt00: TypoFlyspray: brnt00: Well funded, national healthcare (including comprehensive mental health care), as well as the removal of the stigmas associated with those who seek out mental health care when they need it, could have likely prevented this tragedy. But let's keep derping about gun control.

You're never going to get all the guns away from the people who have no business having the power to kill at a distance, and you're never going to identify all the violently crazy early enough to keep them from acting on it. SO, given that it is relatively easy to get a gun and given that it is relatively had to get someone institutionalized for violent insanity (until they actually kill someone) perhaps it's not a matter off either well funded national healthcare (including comprehensive mental healthcare) and Removing the stigma associated with using mental healthcare services, OR some common sense gun control, but rather both? Particularly if the latter is informed by the former?

Characterizing what's being seriously discussed regarding gun control right now as Derpery across the board is failing to consider that a lot of the suggestions out there are reasonable by any sense, and itself verges on Derp.

Can anyone really say now that the Gun Show loophole should remain open?

I would tend to agree. But I feel like with the political climate the way it is, there's no chance in hell that any new gun control laws are going to get passed, just look at the resistance in the Fark threads. Looking at this particular situation, the guns were legally purchased by the mother. Apart from an all out ban on semi automatic weapons, I don't know what kind of new gun laws could have prevented this. A law that says she has to turn in the guns since a person that lives with her has been diagnosed with a board line personality disorder? I just don't know the answer. What I do know, is that had the parents or someone else encouraged and assisted him to get the help he needed, and tha ...


I think we'll see the Gunshow Loophole closed, and I think we'll see a ban on high cap'y clips and magazines. Manchin and Scarborough coming around will give cover to conservatives who want to be grown ups.
 
2012-12-18 08:52:03 AM

Joe Blowme: LOL now dem senators are crying about assault weapons bans, which still would have done nothing in this case as the killer used pistols. Never let a crisis go to waste.


Never let reality get in the way of a good story. Guy used an AR-15
 
2012-12-18 08:52:51 AM

dittybopper: Now all of a sudden you don't have to worry about a handful of manufacturers each turning out tens of thousands of guns, but tens of thousands of manufacturers, each turning out a handful of guns. Much harder thing to keep track of.


Much easier to jail.
 
2012-12-18 09:05:04 AM

TypoFlyspray: dittybopper: Now all of a sudden you don't have to worry about a handful of manufacturers each turning out tens of thousands of guns, but tens of thousands of manufacturers, each turning out a handful of guns. Much harder thing to keep track of.

Much easier to jail.


Really?
 
2012-12-18 09:11:48 AM

TypoFlyspray: I think we'll see the Gunshow Loophole closed, and I think we'll see a ban on high cap'y clips and magazines. Manchin and Scarborough coming around will give cover to conservatives who want to be grown ups.


The so-called 'gun show loophole' is a bullshiat meaningless term anyway.

What you're really talking about is all private transfers that currently do not require the involvement of an FFL, and that means private sales, gifts and bequests in a will regardless of where they take place.

Gun shows have absolutely fark-all to do with it. All the FFL holding dealers at the gun show or anywhere else have to do the BATFE 4473 and the NICS (or state point of service, for those states that have implemented one which includes NICS) and all the other paperwork (i.e. the PA SP-134) regardless of whether they sell a firearm at their shop, at a gun show, or at your mother's kitchen table.

The so-called gun show loophole is a fabrication.
 
2012-12-18 09:54:48 AM

heili skrimsli: TheMega: #1 reason for these "sprees" is for the attention and rise to stardom... far past that of ANY star of the big screen, music or television gets in a year. Coverage on every channel, sometimes even taking scheduled programs off to report more on it (and nothing new, just the same stuff, over and over), the nutbag's photos plastered on the screen, time and time again... instant fame for a year, programs and documentaries made for 30 years and a whacko's name remembered for a long, long time..

If 'spectacle suicide' got these people no more attention than they would get if they quietly offed themselves at home with no witnesses, there would be no spectacle suicides/

durbnpoisn: I've made no bones about this. I think it is a fine and reasonable right to own guns. Hunting, recreation, or self defense. But, there is no need for some person in the suburbs to own a milary grade assult rifle. (I guess those deer won't kill themselves after all).

Military grade assault rifles have been heavily regulated since the GCA of 1934. The 1986 Hughes Amendment closed the federal registry for them, limiting the supply to those that were already registered at that point. To buy an actual assault rifle through legal channels in the United States is a very expensive and lengthy process.

What you're talking about is the so-called 'assault weapon', which is nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle that looks scary and was largely demonized based upon cosmetic features that have no effect whatsoever on the ballistics of the firearm itself.

There are also many states where it is legal to hunt with carbines like the AR-15, and in fact they are quite useful for prairie dogs.

These two rifles:

[www.gunslot.com image 700x515]
[blogs.suntimes.com image 850x250]

are functionally identical. They are both semi-automatic rifles. They both fire .223 caliber ammunition.

One of them is demonized as an evil assault weapon and one of them is not, yet every difference between them is purely ...


And cosmetics are what you run a good propaganda campaign upon.
 
2012-12-18 09:55:59 AM
Think about "any fool can see".

Strong Stuff when applied right after Divide and Conquer.
 
2012-12-18 10:09:10 AM

Kit Fister: rufus-t-firefly: onyxruby: IlGreven: onyxruby: This issue has nothing to do with guns, they are the red herring.

People can keep saying this. It doesn't make it true. Even if a majority of people believe it, it doesn't make it true.

Just curious, do you try to get cars banned because of the very large number of people killed by them every year? This is a people issue, just like drunk driving.

Really, keep using the "CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO!" argument. It definitely makes a good point - for more regulations on firearms. 

[i48.photobucket.com image 500x675]

See, a drunk driver can be caught before he kills anyone, because the mere act of driving drunk is illegal. However, we usually find out that some whackjob had an arsenal only AFTER he kills a couple dozen people because we don't track ammo purchases or require registration of all firearms across the board.

And at what point do you differentiate between the guy who legally owns lots of guns and ammo, and someone who's a whackjob?


At what point does hording qualify as mental illness?
 
2012-12-18 10:16:11 AM

nobodyUwannaknow: Kit Fister: rufus-t-firefly: onyxruby: IlGreven: onyxruby: This issue has nothing to do with guns, they are the red herring.

People can keep saying this. It doesn't make it true. Even if a majority of people believe it, it doesn't make it true.

Just curious, do you try to get cars banned because of the very large number of people killed by them every year? This is a people issue, just like drunk driving.

Really, keep using the "CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO!" argument. It definitely makes a good point - for more regulations on firearms. 

[i48.photobucket.com image 500x675]

See, a drunk driver can be caught before he kills anyone, because the mere act of driving drunk is illegal. However, we usually find out that some whackjob had an arsenal only AFTER he kills a couple dozen people because we don't track ammo purchases or require registration of all firearms across the board.

And at what point do you differentiate between the guy who legally owns lots of guns and ammo, and someone who's a whackjob?

At what point does hording qualify as mental illness?


And at what point does collecting qualify as hording? Who gets to set arbitrary rules? Why is it people that jump to conclusions about crap think theirs is the only reasonable solution and answer, then complain that they can't have the conversation? People who don't agree with you aren't worth listening to, right?
 
2012-12-18 10:37:00 AM

Giltric: rufus-t-firefly: Tax, title and registration need some kind of identification.

Umm no....you do not need to do any of those things to own a car.......you do need to do that in case you are driving on public roads and get pulled over though.

Ever watch COPS?


A car has a serial number and a title. These records establish legal responsibility . While a car can be purchased for cash, the seller will assign the title , and the responsibility, to the buyer. A buyer who wants more "liberty" than that is limited to stolen cars.
 
2012-12-18 11:38:08 AM

snocone: And cosmetics are what you run a good propaganda campaign upon.


Their propaganda campaign boils down to:

Hate this because it's black,and black things are scary.

Pretty farked up, IMO.
 
2012-12-18 12:35:04 PM
And America's children will continue to bleed so that insecure white people can pretend they hold their own destinies in their hands.
 
2012-12-18 12:57:49 PM

Insatiable Jesus: And America's children will continue to bleed so that insecure white people can pretend they hold their own destinies in their hands.


Because white people are the only ones who own or carry guns...
 
2012-12-18 01:41:27 PM

Insatiable Jesus: And America's children will continue to bleed so that insecure white people can pretend they hold their own destinies in their hands.


far more would bleed or have been bled without an armed populace.
 
2012-12-18 02:51:25 PM

pedrop357: Insatiable Jesus: And America's children will continue to bleed so that insecure white people can pretend they hold their own destinies in their hands.

far more would bleed or have been bled without an armed populace.


Nobody ever seems to go on one of these rampages at a firing range. It's always somewhere that they know the victims are defenseless.
 
2012-12-18 02:52:00 PM
i466.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-18 03:04:35 PM

Kit Fister: rufus-t-firefly: onyxruby: IlGreven: onyxruby: This issue has nothing to do with guns, they are the red herring.

People can keep saying this. It doesn't make it true. Even if a majority of people believe it, it doesn't make it true.

Just curious, do you try to get cars banned because of the very large number of people killed by them every year? This is a people issue, just like drunk driving.

Really, keep using the "CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO!" argument. It definitely makes a good point - for more regulations on firearms. 

[i48.photobucket.com image 500x675]

See, a drunk driver can be caught before he kills anyone, because the mere act of driving drunk is illegal. However, we usually find out that some whackjob had an arsenal only AFTER he kills a couple dozen people because we don't track ammo purchases or require registration of all firearms across the board.

And at what point do you differentiate between the guy who legally owns lots of guns and ammo, and someone who's a whackjob?


At their annual mental health reevaluation that we will require in order for that person to own firearms. It can go along with a physical and vision checkup to make sure that gramps can still see well enough to be trusted with weapons that can kill at a mile or more.
 
2012-12-18 03:16:28 PM

heili skrimsli: Nobody ever seems to go on one of these rampages at a firing range. It's always somewhere that they know the victims are defenseless.


Well, not rampages but I remember hearing, not so long ago, about a woman who shot her son and then herself (telegraph.co.uk). However your point about "gun-free zones" stands.
 
2012-12-18 03:28:26 PM

stevarooni: heili skrimsli: Nobody ever seems to go on one of these rampages at a firing range. It's always somewhere that they know the victims are defenseless.

Well, not rampages but I remember hearing, not so long ago, about a woman who shot her son and then herself (telegraph.co.uk). However your point about "gun-free zones" stands.


People who want a high number of victims always go for where the victims will be defenseless. It would take an idiot to deliberately attack a bunch of people who have a really good chance of being able to mount a serious defense.
 
2012-12-18 04:18:06 PM

heili skrimsli: One of them is demonized as an evil assault weapon and one of them is not, yet every difference between them is purely cosmetic.


Not purely cosmetic. The weight difference between the two would make a small but practical difference in terms of how quickly and well you could swing it around to shoot another person, then another, then another. Other little differences between the "normal" weapon and the "assault" weapon not pictured in your example make small but consequential differences too. If you're going to be shooting a bunch of people from some hiding place in the bushes somewhere (for home defense, naturally), you'll want a flash suppressor. And so forth.

But overall, you're right--for most purposes, they're the same weapon. Which is to say, for most purposes, they're both 2,000% the weapon you need.

A gun ban that meant anything would have to take into account the fact that if you need more than two shots to kill a deer, you have no farking business hunting, and if you haven't subdued or scared away the burglars with your willingness to fire six missed shots inside your home, you probably won't with sixty, either. (Not that a carbine or rifle is exactly an ideal home defense weapon in the first place, but never mind.)

We won't get that, because actual hunters who come home one deer richer and one shell poorer every November don't really get involved in the debate, even though (and God I hope I'm right about this) they're the majority of gun owners. Instead, at best, we'll get a resurrection of the old assault weapons ban, meaning really purely cosmetic alterations to the same old models, and the NRA howling about the end of civilization as though an Uzi with an aftermarket-mounted "tactical" bayonet had just been shoved up its ass.
 
2012-12-18 04:52:19 PM

semiotix: heili skrimsli: One of them is demonized as an evil assault weapon and one of them is not, yet every difference between them is purely cosmetic.

Not purely cosmetic. The weight difference between the two would make a small but practical difference in terms of how quickly and well you could swing it around to shoot another person, then another, then another. Other little differences between the "normal" weapon and the "assault" weapon not pictured in your example make small but consequential differences too. If you're going to be shooting a bunch of people from some hiding place in the bushes somewhere (for home defense, naturally), you'll want a flash suppressor. And so forth.

But overall, you're right--for most purposes, they're the same weapon. Which is to say, for most purposes, they're both 2,000% the weapon you need.

A gun ban that meant anything would have to take into account the fact that if you need more than two shots to kill a deer, you have no farking business hunting, and if you haven't subdued or scared away the burglars with your willingness to fire six missed shots inside your home, you probably won't with sixty, either. (Not that a carbine or rifle is exactly an ideal home defense weapon in the first place, but never mind.)

We won't get that, because actual hunters who come home one deer richer and one shell poorer every November don't really get involved in the debate, even though (and God I hope I'm right about this) they're the majority of gun owners. Instead, at best, we'll get a resurrection of the old assault weapons ban, meaning really purely cosmetic alterations to the same old models, and the NRA howling about the end of civilization as though an Uzi with an aftermarket-mounted "tactical" bayonet had just been shoved up its ass.


Umm, deer don't shoot back.
I know it is a small detail, but,,,

/most guns are not for deer IRL, they are for killing other people with guns.
Get the Fark over it.
 
2012-12-18 04:53:32 PM

heili skrimsli: Nobody ever seems to go on one of these rampages at a firing range. It's always somewhere that they know the victims are defenseless.


Indeed. We're told that guns are "unregulated" or face less regulation then cars, are designed only to kill, etc. YET places swarming with guns like gun shows, gun ranges, gun stores, police stations, etc. are never the target of mass killers. I think one guy tried a shootout at a police station, and occasionally someone tries robbing a gun store, but no one ever goes on a rampage there. I wonder why. It might be worth pointing out that no one ever opens fire at military base checkpoints or on their firing ranges either. In fact, the only real mass killing I remember was in an areas where the average soldier is disarmed.
 
2012-12-18 04:55:45 PM
I just counted.
I own over 300 wrenches. Not counting duplicates, because sometimes you do need two.
Some qualify as antiques.
Each and every one serves a different specific purpose, like a good tool should.

Intervention?
 
2012-12-18 04:57:16 PM

pedrop357: heili skrimsli: Nobody ever seems to go on one of these rampages at a firing range. It's always somewhere that they know the victims are defenseless.

Indeed. We're told that guns are "unregulated" or face less regulation then cars, are designed only to kill, etc. YET places swarming with guns like gun shows, gun ranges, gun stores, police stations, etc. are never the target of mass killers. I think one guy tried a shootout at a police station, and occasionally someone tries robbing a gun store, but no one ever goes on a rampage there. I wonder why. It might be worth pointing out that no one ever opens fire at military base checkpoints or on their firing ranges either. In fact, the only real mass killing I remember was in an areas where the average soldier is disarmed.


Exception to the rule???

The Fort Hood shooting was a shooting that took place on November 5, 2009, at Fort Hood, the most populous U.S. military installation in the world, located just outside Killeen, Texas.[1] In the course of the shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and wounded 29 others.[1] It is the worst shooting ever to take place on an American military base.[2]
 
2012-12-18 04:58:37 PM

snocone: Exception to the rule???

The Fort Hood shooting was a shooting that took place on November 5, 2009, at Fort Hood, the most populous U.S. military installation in the world, located just outside Killeen, Texas.[1] In the course of the shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and wounded 29 others.[1] It is the worst shooting ever to take place on an American military base.[2]



That's the ONE. The soldiers were required to be disarmed and he was only stopped if I remember right by a visiting local cop.
 
2012-12-18 05:05:00 PM

pedrop357: snocone: Exception to the rule???

The Fort Hood shooting was a shooting that took place on November 5, 2009, at Fort Hood, the most populous U.S. military installation in the world, located just outside Killeen, Texas.[1] In the course of the shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and wounded 29 others.[1] It is the worst shooting ever to take place on an American military base.[2]


That's the ONE. The soldiers were required to be disarmed and he was only stopped if I remember right by a visiting local cop.


You need to get out more.
Evar hear of "friendly fire"? Well, this one timeonce upon a time in DaNang, it wasn't so friendly.
But it was weekly.
Or, just ask Spc.Tillman., when you see him.
 
2012-12-18 05:44:58 PM

snocone: Umm, deer don't shoot back.
I know it is a small detail, but,,,

/most guns are not for deer IRL, they are for killing other people with guns.
Get the Fark over it.


Couldn't agree more, except for the getting over it part. I'm a-comin' for a few of your more ridiculously useless guns. You get over it.

I'll say it again. If you genuinely, legitimately need to shoot some evil-doer, or scare him away, and you can't do it with a revolver (say), you can't do it at all. Your (ahem) "tactical" weapon will change nothing.

The burglar you surprised is not going to size up your handgun and think, "hmm, what's he going to do, shoot me only six times? No biggie." And if he charges you and you put a regular old bullet in his shoulder (in which case good for you, because you're a hell of a good shot given the amount of adrenaline in your system), he's not going to laugh and say, "oh, please, I can tell that didn't even fragment into six artery-shredding pieces." Your (ahem) "tactical" weapon won't subdue him any more effectively; it will just enhance your chances of "subduing" the flat-screen he was stealing and the kid sleeping on the other side of the drywall.

The mass shooter armed with weapons just like the ones you cherish, whom you catch mid-rampage in a crowded movie theater, is not going to be any easier to hit with twenty bullets in ten seconds than one well-aimed bullet. (Let's say for sake of argument that you're cooler in a firefight than Shaft, just to get past the question of whether you should even have one bullet in this situation.) The people running around screaming on either side of him are, though. That's all your (ahem) "tactical" weapon is good for. He chose those weapons because he needs to kill everybody, immediately, and they're good for that. You're carrying around a carbine because... wait, why are you taking a carbine into a movie theater?

If you want to shoot guns like the mass shooters use, join the Army. They'll let you shoot some truly badass guns, under close supervision, watched very carefully by men who are better shots than you. And they'll let you hold one of those badass guns while you're standing watch. But unless you're in an actual war zone, they probably won't be giving you any bullets for it unless and until there's a reason for you to have bullets. The Army's not entirely stupid. 

But I'm glad we agree that this has fark all to do with protecting hunters' ability to do their thing.
 
2012-12-18 06:46:01 PM

snocone: Exception to the rule???

The Fort Hood shooting was a shooting that took place on November 5, 2009, at Fort Hood, the most populous U.S. military installation in the world, located just outside Killeen, Texas.[1] In the course of the shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and wounded 29 others.[1] It is the worst shooting ever to take place on an American military base.[2]


This is actually not an exception to the rule.

Except for military police and within the designated firing range, the carrying of firearms on a military base in the United States is prohibited. Hell, you can't even drive onto the base with the firearm unloaded, cased and locked up in your trunk to do some hunting after work, it's so tightly controlled.

So given that he killed his victims away from the firing range, it's pretty much like any other non-military defenseless-victim zone.

semiotix: But overall, you're right--for most purposes, they're the same weapon. Which is to say, for most purposes, they're both 2,000% the weapon you need.


And you might be on to something if it weren't for the idea that you seem to believe firearm owners have some obligation to demonstrate need.

The only reason I own most of the firearms I own is that I like them and could afford to buy them. Need and usefulness were about as relevant to me as they were to the dozen sets of Buckyballs I bought, and I am under no more obligation to prove such need for firearms than for any other item.
 
2012-12-19 12:37:53 AM

heili skrimsli: And you might be on to something if it weren't for the idea that you seem to believe firearm owners have some obligation to demonstrate need.


That's exactly right. I do think that. And if I had the faith in the political courage and attention span of my elected representatives that one might put in, say, the throwing arm of Garo Yepremian, that obligation would manifest itself in the form of a law.

I have all kinds of opinions on what you should and shouldn't be allowed to possess. Roofies, cesium-137, child pornography, endangered pandas, 60-round magazines, dimethylmercury, chattel slaves, and that's just off the top of my head. Behold, the terrible face of the jackbooted thug. Tremble before me, the fascist harbinger of the dread nanny state. Feel free to throw in any other names I forgot to call myself there.

For what it's worth, I could care less about you keeping your Buckyballs and your stock .30-30. But neither do I have a problem with one or more levels of government banning the sale of the former and tightly regulating your use and possession of the latter. (Oh noes, tyranny.)
 
2012-12-19 12:42:16 AM
I'll just leave this here.
 
2012-12-19 07:47:37 AM

semiotix: For what it's worth, I could care less about you keeping your Buckyballs and your stock .30-30. But neither do I have a problem with one or more levels of government banning the sale of the former and tightly regulating your use and possession of the latter. (Oh noes, tyranny.)


Aww, that's cute that you think firearm ownership only applies to benign looking wooden stock hunting rifles.

I'm not a prohibited person under federal or state law, so I guess it's just too bad for you about the 60 round magazines, the hollow point ammunition and the scary black rifles I own. My 'use and possession' of firearms is already under quite enough government control, regardless of your apparent fear of the dreaded 60 round magazine.

Oh freaking noes! A 60 round magazine so that I don't have to reload as often at the range. How horrible and terrifying. Perhaps they should be banned because you're afraid of them for no logical or legitimate reason. My possession and use of 60 round magazines in my 'scary black rifles' do absolutely nothing to harm you, so I could give a shiat what you think about them.
 
2012-12-19 09:10:15 AM

heili skrimsli: TypoFlyspray: I think we'll see the Gunshow Loophole closed, and I think we'll see a ban on high cap'y clips and magazines. Manchin and Scarborough coming around will give cover to conservatives who want to be grown ups.

 
The so-called 'gun show loophole' is a bullshiat meaningless term anyway.
 
What you're really talking about is all private transfers that currently do not require the involvement of an FFL, and that means private sales, gifts and bequests in a will regardless of where they take place.
 
Gun shows have absolutely fark-all to do with it. All the FFL holding dealers at the gun show or anywhere else have to do the BATFE 4473 and the NICS (or state point of service, for those states that have implemented one which includes NICS) and all the other paperwork (i.e. the PA SP-134) regardless of whether they sell a firearm at their shop, at a gun show, or at your mother's kitchen table.
 
The so-called gun show loophole is a fabrication.
 
What I'd really like to see is Shooter Licensing, as with Driver licensing.  You're shooter license would say which classes of Gun you were qualified to own and operate. Now I'm sure that some guntards are going to get all "Mark of the Beast! Gonna use it to take my guns and put me in a camp", which is, I suppose, fair, as that's the kind of person who should not under any circumstances be allowed the option of killing from a distance, but that would solve the whole background check neatly.  You could give or transfer a gun to anyone who's licensed to own that gun, n the same way you could give a car to someone who's licensed to drive it. (Wouldn't make any sense to give a Porsche to a Blind Man, would it?  Same for giving a gun to a crazy man.)
 
Perfect Solution?  Don't be silly.  There ain't no such thing.  Progress, though.
 
2012-12-19 09:14:10 AM

Kit Fister: TypoFlyspray: dittybopper: Now all of a sudden you don't have to worry about a handful of manufacturers each turning out tens of thousands of guns, but tens of thousands of manufacturers, each turning out a handful of guns. Much harder thing to keep track of.

Much easier to jail.

Really?


Yup. 1) Smaller companies means less capital means less expensive lawyers.  Less expensive lawyers tend to address the facts in the case rather than stalling until the Statute of limitations goes away. 2) Smaller companies can be shut down without creating an uproar over loss of jobs, particularly if they are shut down for running a criminal enterprise and end up with a significant number of their employees (and all their management) in jail.  3) Much easier to jail actual people than artificial ones (Corporations).
 
2012-12-19 12:26:00 PM
I just read it again, and I just cannot see where the Constitution was referring to hunting rifles no matter how much spin is applied.
They are addressing the up to date anti personnel shooting iron weapon of the day.
 
"Oh My Hunting" is simply a strawman.
 
2012-12-19 01:57:40 PM

snocone: I just read it again, and I just cannot see where the Constitution was referring to hunting rifles no matter how much spin is applied.
They are addressing the up to date anti personnel shooting iron weapon of the day.
 
"Oh My Hunting" is simply a strawman.


The government admitted that the 2nd amendment applied to military firearms in US v Miller. They were contesting the idea that a short barrel shotgun was a military firearm. Had Miller not died and his lawyer actually showed up to trial, the defense might have been able to provide the court some evidence that an SBS does have military use.
 
Displayed 50 of 451 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report