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.

(New York Daily News)   There is a reason why you haven't heard a single word from the NRA and why they have taken down their Facebook page with 1.7million fans   (nydailynews.com) divider line 644
    More: Dumbass, NRA, Facebook, Jared Loughner, assault weapons, Newtown, Joe Manchin, gun controls  
•       •       •

7195 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Dec 2012 at 10:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-18 10:48:02 AM  

NEDM: Is it somehow better that all he did was "merely" wound them?


Why don't you ask the parents of the 20 kids in Newtown if they would rather have had their child wounded or dead, you pathetic person.
 
2012-12-18 10:48:27 AM  

bulldg4life: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/gunman-kills-20-children-a t -school-in-connecticut-28-dead-in-all.html


neither link pulled up. I guess I'll have to wait until the official report is released. Right now there are to many differing accounts to know for certain what happened. Thanks for the links.
 
2012-12-18 10:48:30 AM  

star_topology: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 600x600]


He was so deep in the internet he didn't have a Facebook page. Fap fap fap fap fap fap O'REILLY fap fap fap.... spooge!

The cream of truth rises to the top again.
 
2012-12-18 10:48:33 AM  

star_topology: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 600x600]


ORLY has it right. I blame bronies for this tragedy. It's unnatural and not in the bible anywhere.
 
2012-12-18 10:48:34 AM  

NEDM: urbangirl: Specifically which of these ideas is bad:

Reinstate the assault weapons ban

Prohibit the sale of high-capacity magazines

Fix the gun show loophole

Make gun trafficking a felony

Ensure that names of convicted drug abusers, domestic abusers and hospitalized or adjucated mentally ill are added to the federal database against which gun sellers must check prospective buyers

Prosecute people with criminal records who lie on background check forms when they try to buy guns

The first two. They don't do anything save for being punitive measures against legal gun owners, and won't stop or even slow down a mass shooting when it happens. The weapon choice in this shooting was an aberration, almost all mass shootings are done with pistols. That's all Cho used.

If you want to really stop these things from happening, strengthen the fark out of mental health treatment, and limit sales of all weapons so that people who have untreated mental illnesses. Make it possible to force the dangerous cases to get help instead of just watching them go back untreated into society in futility. Don't punish non-crazy people for the acts of a madman, make it so the madman never commits his acts.


I agree with your points about the mental illness issues.

Please get off your cross about "punitive measures against gun owners". Assault weapons and high-cap mags can't be used for hunting and are a poor choice for self-protection. THEY ARE GOOD FOR NOTHING BUT KILLING A LOT OF PEOPLE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

Cho is the only recent perpetrator who used handguns. All the rest used the same exact gun this guy did.
 
2012-12-18 10:49:10 AM  

urbangirl: Assault weapons and high-cap mags can't be used for hunting and are a poor choice for self-protection.


What, in your words, is an 'assault weapon'? Be specific.
 
2012-12-18 10:49:17 AM  

Cletus C.: coeyagi: Sandusky Knows Best: chuckufarlie: Sandusky Knows Best: Dinki: I'm a gun owner and former hunter. But we have to change. Here is a radical idea- Ban all guns

Sorry that won't happen. There's this weird thing called the Constitution.

There are also these weird things called Amendments. It turns out that you can create one of these Amendments to change the Constitution or another Amendment.

Now what do you have to say?

Yes that's good and fine. Feel free to propose one. However, most people on Fark who post "just ban all gunz!!1!". Probably make the uneducated assumption that laws can just be written to do so. Realistically, considering how polarized the gun debate is, do you really think that an amendment like that would pass through? I am by no means a gun nut, but I'm realistic about expectations.

These people are few. But if you want to focus on them rather than moderates who are the majority, enjoy your futility.

I'd be good with banning all guns. Fark guns. But realistically, that's not going to happen so let's just work toward some gun control laws that will get rid of rapid-fire weapons with no real purpose other than to kill a lot of people in a short time.


If the only purpose of these weapons is to kill a lot of people in a short time then why do all of these proposals to ban them carve out exemptions for law enforcement. Surely, if there is a legitimate use to have them in each squad car, why doesn't a private citizen deserve that legitimate use?
 
2012-12-18 10:49:31 AM  

Cletus C.: I'd be good with banning all guns. Fark guns. But realistically, that's not going to happen so let's just work toward some gun control laws that will get rid of rapid-fire weapons with no real purpose other than to kill a lot of people in a short time.


To which specific firearm models do you refer?
 
2012-12-18 10:49:38 AM  

NEDM: Is it somehow better that all he did was "merely" wound them? If we had a mass stabbing problem would that be less of an issue? If you were a parent of one of the kids attacked in China, would you be going "Golly Gee, I'm sure glad my baby was only attacked with a knife!"


Well, it sure as f*ck is easier to recover from a knife wound than 6-11 critical gunshot wounds.

Did you really just ask if it was better to be wounded than to have been shot and killed?
 
2012-12-18 10:49:40 AM  
And ensure that names of convicted drug abusers, domestic abusers and hospitalized or adjucated mentally ill - like Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-hui, declared a danger to himself and others by a Virginia judge in 2005 - are added to the federal database against which gun sellers must check prospective buyers.



Ya see, now here's where the slope gets slippery.
 
2012-12-18 10:49:45 AM  

coeyagi: No, you're playing a game called futility. And you just proved it.


Yikes! I didn't know I couldn't respond to any post I want on here. Whether the guy was trolling or not. I'm not looking to argue on the merits of futility. I was looking to post on the gun control debate. My point still stands that I don't think an amendment on banning all guns will pass.
 
2012-12-18 10:49:46 AM  

star_topology: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 600x600]


I wait for O'Reilly to be deeply involved in dirt, but another will just take his place.
 
2012-12-18 10:50:09 AM  

Karac: urbangirl: Karac: Two Democratic senators with top National Rifle Association ratings

You should never start an article off with a baldfaced lie.

Please, tell me exactly how that is a lie.

Democrats, by definition, are incapable of holding top rating from the NRA. It will always endorse a republican with an F rating over a democrat with an A+.


So what he's saying is . . . derp.
 
2012-12-18 10:50:30 AM  

skipjack: neither link pulled up. I guess I'll have to wait until the official report is released. Right now there are to many differing accounts to know for certain what happened. Thanks for the links.


Fark adds in spaces when you copy and paste a url. Remove the spaces and view the parts where officials said the rifle was used.

Here
 
2012-12-18 10:50:37 AM  

Sandusky Knows Best: coeyagi: No, you're playing a game called futility. And you just proved it.

Yikes! I didn't know I couldn't respond to any post I want on here. Whether the guy was trolling or not. I'm not looking to argue on the merits of futility. I was looking to post on the gun control debate. My point still stands that I don't think an amendment on banning all guns will pass.


I don't think an amendment banning any firearms at all will pass.
 
2012-12-18 10:50:40 AM  

urbangirl: Cho is the only recent perpetrator who used handguns. All the rest used the same exact gun this guy did.


Mr. Jared Lee Loughner used a Glock 19 handgun.

Mr. James Holmes used a handgun to commit most of the murders that he committed; his rifle jammed due to his use of an unreliable magazine and was not used for the majority of his crime.
 
2012-12-18 10:51:00 AM  

coeyagi: star_topology: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 600x600]

He was so deep in the internet he didn't have a Facebook page. Fap fap fap fap fap fap O'REILLY fap fap fap.... spooge!

The cream of truth rises to the top again.


I merely posted that picture with "LOLWUT" as my comment, and got greeted with this reply:

"While it may seem like a silly choice of words, I'm pretty sure you know exactly what he meant."

Oh so now THAT'S how it's gonna be?
 
2012-12-18 10:51:16 AM  

Sandusky Knows Best: coeyagi: Sandusky Knows Best: chuckufarlie: Sandusky Knows Best: Dinki: I'm a gun owner and former hunter. But we have to change. Here is a radical idea- Ban all guns

Sorry that won't happen. There's this weird thing called the Constitution.

There are also these weird things called Amendments. It turns out that you can create one of these Amendments to change the Constitution or another Amendment.

Now what do you have to say?

Yes that's good and fine. Feel free to propose one. However, most people on Fark who post "just ban all gunz!!1!". Probably make the uneducated assumption that laws can just be written to do so. Realistically, considering how polarized the gun debate is, do you really think that an amendment like that would pass through? I am by no means a gun nut, but I'm realistic about expectations.

These people are few. But if you want to focus on them rather than moderates who are the majority, enjoy your futility.

In the beginning of this thread it was pointed out to ban all guns. I pointed out that there was a constitution. Someone else pointed out that you can amend the constitution. And I agreed, but pointed out that my "there's a Constitution" comment was to point out to those who aren't moderate that there is something that just blocks any random law written. I continued to point out that it's unlikely for an amendment to pass.


people, including politicians are finally starting to realize that something must be done, It is time that we stop shooting up schools and the children inside them.
 
2012-12-18 10:51:37 AM  
Huh, I went looking for those cowards on Facebook, too. And Penn Jillette -- he was quoted as saying something along the lines of "When some bad thing happens, government wants to take away YOUR FREEDOM!zz!!"

Losing your keys is a "bad thing". Missing a flight is a "bad thing". Falling and breaking your leg is a "bad thing".

The MURDER OF TWENTY INNOCENT LITTLE KIDS WITH A LETHAL WEAPON is not a "bad thing". If you can only call it a bad thing you are a pathetic, soulless, sociopathic, unsympathetic, empathyless, indecenct and you lack humanity.

You provide no value to this Earth or anyone on it. You are a sick, depraved individual. I consider you gone from this Earth, you cease to exist. Should you die today, your death should not be mourned, it should be celebrated. And then you should be forgotten forever.
 
2012-12-18 10:52:37 AM  
gregd3.files.wordpress.com

yeeeehaaawww
 
2012-12-18 10:53:01 AM  

StopLurkListen: The MURDER OF TWENTY INNOCENT LITTLE KIDS WITH A LETHAL WEAPON is not a "bad thing"


phrasing
 
2012-12-18 10:53:05 AM  

Thank You Black Jesus!: THE GUNS ARE NOT GOING AWAY. THEY ARE HERE AND THEY ALWAYS WILL BE. The solution to the problem is about getting over our obsession with violence and retribution and approaching mental health as a public health issue. Nothing is going to solve the problem instantly and permanently.

But its easier to just shoot people so it isnt going to happen.


A better mental health system would not have stopped this massacre (even though it's a real good idea which costs lots of government money that the Republicans won't be willing to spend). The shooter's mother was perfectly sane, even if she was a "doomsday prepper", and the son might have been "mildly autistic", but that's not "insane", legally (there is no indication anybody had worries about him). Now, obviously, he was insane, but having the government know that ahead of time is not always going to happen-plus he wasn't even the owner of the fire arms in question-his mother was.
 
2012-12-18 10:53:15 AM  

chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: please: I'm a pretty reasonable gun owner who is willing to make some compromises, but I won't even approach it with the hateful rhetoric right now. I feel like some people need to be reminded that this is a right that exists today, and you are going to need some buy-in to reduce those rights.

If you propose a solution, please step back and ask "would this have made a difference?" There are quite a few people who have always hated guns that are seeing this as an opportunity to grind an axe. We should not lightly approach taking away rights, and we should ensure that steps we take would be meaningful.

I generally oppose more gun control laws. Why? because in the past they have been written by clueless politicians who no idea what they are legislating, and the laws often make no sense, are contradictory to other laws, and leave huge loopholes.

I'd support making gun owner legally responsible for their guns. Lock em up. Secure them. Pay the piper if you don't. It's an access issue. Mag and "assault rifle" are largely ineffective and miss the point.

The problem is that the people who end up paying the piper are the people shot down by these morons, you moron. Gun owners are already responsible for their guns and yet people are still getting shot and killed.

All that is needed is a law that bans all rifles that use a magazine or a clip. That is not difficult to understand and it eliminates the problem of automatic weapons in the hands of civilians.

As rifles of any type are less commonly utilized to commit murder than are unarmed attacks, your proposal does not solve a pertinent problem. Your suggestion is entirely unreasonable.

And yet just about every mass shooting events have been perpetrated with a rifle. It will not eliminate EVERY murder but it will stop people from killing a bunch of kids in a short period of time.


Mr. Sueng Hui-Cho and Mr. Jared Loughner did not use rifles. Mr. James Holmes used a handgun for the majority of his crime, after his rifle jammed due to the unreliable nature of its magazine.

Alternatively, after enacting the prohibition that you recommend, mass shooters will choose different firearms. As rifles are poor firearms for close-quarters attacks, mass shooters may in fact become more efficient due to the imposition of the restrictions that you request.
 
2012-12-18 10:53:36 AM  

bulldg4life:
Did you really just ask if it was better to be wounded than to have been shot and killed?


Dinki:
Why don't you ask the parents of the 20 kids in Newtown if they would rather have had their child wounded or dead, you pathetic person.


No, I'm saying that it isn't any better or preferable at all.. A violent attack by a maniac is still a freaking violent attack by a maniac, and that saying "But he didn't kill anyone!" misses the point entirely that a madman still randomly attacked a group of schoolchildren.
 
2012-12-18 10:53:37 AM  

InmanRoshi: I think you'll find that mentally ill and the gun fetishists are probably one in the same. I grew up around a lot of gun fetishists and post-apocalyptic scenerio daydreamers, and I doubt many of them could pass a paranoid personality disorder screening. So when I hear all these gun fetishists screaming we don't need government involved in gun restrictions, but rather more government involvement in mental health screenings and profiling .... well, they better be careful in what they wish for.


Pretty much this. If you hated Obamacare, you'll love your government required mental screening. We're not coming to take your guns, it's just a mental screening. Even though we say we give this screening to everyone, in reality we only give the mental screening to those who have bought a gun, or ever done any kind of internet search for guns. And if you fail this screening, you lose your guns and/or go to the pre-Reagan loony hospital. Is this what people really want?

Seems easier to skip the middle man and take Canada's gun laws and apply it to the US for any new weapon starting now. In 50 years, we'll be somewhere.
 
2012-12-18 10:53:38 AM  

MindStalker: sprawl15: Dinki: Our military can easily take on any armed force in the world. They have fully automatic weapons, grenades, armored vehicles, armed helicopters, armed jets, real time satellite surveillance, and a host of other weapons. Anyone that thinks a bunch of untrained unorganized civilians with hunting rifles is going to last 1 week against that force is a delusional fool.

You should tell all the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans that the wars were over almost a decade ago.

We took out the Iraq military in a number of days. One by one identifying individuals who are trying to kill you versus the individuals who simply want to protect their homes on a house by house level through an entire country is another matter entirely. If they decided to F it and kill everyone or round everyone up it would go faster but obviously that isn't acceptable was of conducting one-selves as a modern country.


Would it be more acceptable if tried in this country?

We won in Iraq against the insurgency not by force of arms, but by co-opting them, cultivating their tribal leadership, and showing them that the people they were fighting for (Al Qaeda in Iraq) were actually also killing Iraqis. Once we took that tack, the war in Iraq wound down quite quickly. The former insurgents helped get rid of the Al Qaeda elements that had flocked to Iraq to fight against the US Military.
 
2012-12-18 10:54:19 AM  

chuckufarlie: All that is needed is a law that bans all rifles that use a magazine or a clip. That is not difficult to understand and it eliminates the problem of automatic weapons in the hands of civilians.


Good luck with that. They are technically semi-automatic. If he had used a automatic rifle then he likely would have killed off the entire school. However the permits required to get a automatic legally are likely what you are really shooting for in a semi-auto, but honestly nobody in this thread cares. Banning the future sale of semi-auto's may seem to make a difference until you take into account how many semi-auto's are actually currently in circulation. Even with inflated prices due to a ban on new weapons a family such as the one involved in this incident could easily afford a legal pre-ban rifle. You could keep it out of the hands of a poverty stuck gun nut like sideshow bob, but he didnt use a assault rifle did he?
I'm a monster you see, I dont care. Ban them, dont ban them, scream and holler and do your best to fight the great satan of the week/month, whatever. Its amusing to watch. Dance you monkeys dance! In a decade you will not have changed a damned thing.
 
2012-12-18 10:54:21 AM  

Sandusky Knows Best: coeyagi: No, you're playing a game called futility. And you just proved it.

Yikes! I didn't know I couldn't respond to any post I want on here. Whether the guy was trolling or not. I'm not looking to argue on the merits of futility. I was looking to post on the gun control debate. My point still stands that I don't think an amendment on banning all guns will pass.


Nor do I. Nor does any sane person. So why not just argue with the specific measures that would actually have a chance of a) passing, if they were legislation-based or b) actually making a dent in the problem? I am pretty lib and not a fan of guns in general (though, ironically, I was one an NRA-certified instructor, but hey, I needed a job), but I am also a realist. Here, why not respond to my trademarked "4 pillars of Diminishing Mass Shootings":

1) The Drug Trade
2) Mental Health Care and Reducing Mental Illness
3) Sensationalization of These Crimes in the Media
4) The Glorification of Gun Culture

You tackle those 4 very difficult problems, you've got a real decrease in gun violence. And the gun nuts can keep flexing their cock extenders.
 
2012-12-18 10:54:29 AM  

Dimensio: urbangirl: What exactly is "the gun show loophole"?

The way I understand it is that sellers at these events are waived from normal requirements regarding background checks, waiting periods, etc.

You are mistaken. Federal law requires that federally licensed sellers conduct a NICS-based background check on any prospective firearm purchaser regardless of where the firearm is transferred. A majority of firearm sellers at gun shows are licensed sellers.

Federal law also prohibits the transfer of firearms between residents of different states, regardless of where the transfer may occur.

Federal law cannot regulate the private transfer of firearms between residents of a single state within that state, as such a transfer is intrastate commerce. Only individual states may regulate such transfers; some do, though some do not.


OK, you're obviously better informed than I am. So what is the "gun show loophole"? Please don't tell me it doesn't exist because I've heard the term from numerous sources. Everybody can't be making it up.
 
2012-12-18 10:54:43 AM  

Dimensio: As rifles of any type are less commonly utilized to commit murder than are unarmed attacks, your proposal does not solve a pertinent problem. Your suggestion is entirely unreasonable.


So that's the second time you've said that in this thread...are you really this farking dense? What is the ratio of rifle owners to people who own HANDS?

You know what is damn near impossible for an unarmed nutbag to do? Walk into a school and slaughter nearly 30 people.
 
2012-12-18 10:54:55 AM  

chuckufarlie: dittybopper: please: I'd support making gun owner legally responsible for their guns. Lock em up. Secure them. Pay the piper if you don't. It's an access issue.

Actually, that's unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court:
Held:
...
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 

Any storage requirement that puts the guns out of immediate use within the home is unconstitutional.

change the Constitution.


Fair enough. There is a process for that. What do you think the odds of success are?
 
2012-12-18 10:55:08 AM  

urbangirl: please: I'm a pretty reasonable gun owner who is willing to make some compromises, but I won't even approach it with the hateful rhetoric right now. I feel like some people need to be reminded that this is a right that exists today, and you are going to need some buy-in to reduce those rights.

If you propose a solution, please step back and ask "would this have made a difference?" There are quite a few people who have always hated guns that are seeing this as an opportunity to grind an axe. We should not lightly approach taking away rights, and we should ensure that steps we take would be meaningful.

I generally oppose more gun control laws. Why? because in the past they have been written by clueless politicians who no idea what they are legislating, and the laws often make no sense, are contradictory to other laws, and leave huge loopholes.

I'd support making gun owner legally responsible for their guns. Lock em up. Secure them. Pay the piper if you don't. It's an access issue. Mag and "assault rifle" are largely ineffective and miss the point.

If this is truly your problem, the answer is to write better legislation, not to give up on regulation altogether.


This is a legitimate problem. For instance, the Assault Weapons Ban was a mess of a law, obviously written by people who don't understand guns (and watered down to the point of meaninglessness to be able to be passed).
 
2012-12-18 10:55:11 AM  

NEDM: No, I'm saying that it isn't any better or preferable at all.. A violent attack by a maniac is still a freaking violent attack by a maniac, and that saying "But he didn't kill anyone!" misses the point entirely that a madman still randomly attacked a group of schoolchildren.


If Adam Lanza had violently attacked 30 people with a knife, do you think he would've killed 26 people?
 
2012-12-18 10:55:23 AM  

StopLurkListen: Huh, I went looking for those cowards on Facebook, too. And Penn Jillette -- he was quoted as saying something along the lines of "When some bad thing happens, government wants to take away YOUR FREEDOM!zz!!"

Losing your keys is a "bad thing". Missing a flight is a "bad thing". Falling and breaking your leg is a "bad thing".

The MURDER OF TWENTY INNOCENT LITTLE KIDS WITH A LETHAL WEAPON is not a "bad thing". If you can only call it a bad thing you are a pathetic, soulless, sociopathic, unsympathetic, empathyless, indecenct and you lack humanity.

You provide no value to this Earth or anyone on it. You are a sick, depraved individual. I consider you gone from this Earth, you cease to exist. Should you die today, your death should not be mourned, it should be celebrated. And then you should be forgotten forever.


I take it you're not one of those people who were outraged at the celebrations over bin Laden's death? :)
 
2012-12-18 10:55:36 AM  

Epicedion: To play devil's advocate


Oh puleeze. The only people who need to worry about rogue LE are people of color and protesters. White women in suburban CT who get their panties in a bunch are just nuts. Plain and simple.
 
2012-12-18 10:55:40 AM  

coeyagi: Sandusky Knows Best: coeyagi: No, you're playing a game called futility. And you just proved it.

Yikes! I didn't know I couldn't respond to any post I want on here. Whether the guy was trolling or not. I'm not looking to argue on the merits of futility. I was looking to post on the gun control debate. My point still stands that I don't think an amendment on banning all guns will pass.

Nor do I. Nor does any sane person. So why not just argue with the specific measures that would actually have a chance of a) passing, if they were legislation-based or b) actually making a dent in the problem? I am pretty lib and not a fan of guns in general (though, ironically, I was one an NRA-certified instructor, but hey, I needed a job), but I am also a realist. Here, why not respond to my trademarked "4 pillars of Diminishing Mass Shootings":

1) The Drug Trade
2) Mental Health Care and Reducing Mental Illness
3) Sensationalization of These Crimes in the Media
4) The Glorification of Gun Culture

You tackle those 4 very difficult problems, you've got a real decrease in gun violence. And the gun nuts can keep flexing their cock extenders.


Imagine if we moved all the money spent on #1 into #2?
 
2012-12-18 10:55:41 AM  
Macular Degenerate

Of the top countries with gun related homocides, the US is the only developed nation on the list. Other westernized countries with developed economies have the same rate of mental illness and all the other "people" factors, but the only difference is the guns. When the hell are people going to wake up and realize that nothing positive comes from owning a gun?


I've posted this link before, and though it's about another matter, it explains a lot: Violence Is The American Way
 
2012-12-18 10:55:57 AM  

orclover: If he had used a automatic rifle then he likely would have killed off the entire school.


Actually, he probably would have missed more.
 
2012-12-18 10:56:34 AM  

qorkfiend: bartink: That leaves you with high capacity magazines, which means the same nut will just have to reload a few more times between slayings.

So they're less efficient killers and would probably end up killing less people? Why is this considered a bad thing?


meh, handgun and rifle magazines are mostly sheet metal and a spring. a decent high school metal shop can make them by the dozens
 
2012-12-18 10:56:45 AM  

orclover: If he had used a automatic rifle then he likely would have killed off the entire school.


Considering he would've gone through his ammo in the span of less than 10 seconds...I'm guessing that's a no
 
2012-12-18 10:56:53 AM  

urbangirl: Dimensio: urbangirl: What exactly is "the gun show loophole"?

The way I understand it is that sellers at these events are waived from normal requirements regarding background checks, waiting periods, etc.

You are mistaken. Federal law requires that federally licensed sellers conduct a NICS-based background check on any prospective firearm purchaser regardless of where the firearm is transferred. A majority of firearm sellers at gun shows are licensed sellers.

Federal law also prohibits the transfer of firearms between residents of different states, regardless of where the transfer may occur.

Federal law cannot regulate the private transfer of firearms between residents of a single state within that state, as such a transfer is intrastate commerce. Only individual states may regulate such transfers; some do, though some do not.

OK, you're obviously better informed than I am. So what is the "gun show loophole"? Please don't tell me it doesn't exist because I've heard the term from numerous sources. Everybody can't be making it up.


Typically, the claim of a "gun show loophole" is a reference to the fact that federal law does not (and, Constitutionally, cannot) regulate the transfer of firearms between two non-seller citizens within a single state. This condition is claimed to be a "gun show" loophole in part because sometimes private sellers sell firearms at such venues (though the majority of sellers at such venues are not private sellers) and as a means to imply that "gun shows" are a serious problem meriting legislative attention when in fact no data shows that they are a common source of firearms for criminals.
 
2012-12-18 10:57:20 AM  

bulldg4life: NEDM: No, I'm saying that it isn't any better or preferable at all.. A violent attack by a maniac is still a freaking violent attack by a maniac, and that saying "But he didn't kill anyone!" misses the point entirely that a madman still randomly attacked a group of schoolchildren.

If Adam LanzaSteven Seagal had violently attacked 30 people with a knife, do you think he would've killed 26 people?


Yes. And they'd have a lot of broken limbs too, but he'd put a cool Navajo blanket over their sliced-up broken bodies.

//Lanza, not so much.
 
2012-12-18 10:57:59 AM  

NEDM: sprawl15: bulldg4life: What was done with automatic weapons to remove them from society in such a way and why can't that be done with other types?

They're expensive.

People who have automatic weapons are generally significantly invested in their firearms financially and emotionally. Just like how some people own tanks but those aren't used in crimes. If tanks were $150 from a pawn store, though, they'd be used left and right.

Don't forget all the ATF hoops you have to jump through to get them. It's hard to use a weapon in a crime if you've told the federal government you have it and allow them to search you at any time. It's simply not worth the effort or risk.


This is more or less Canada's path. I can own just about any kind of firearm I want (and several which are illegal in some of your States), but I must submit to background checks, waiting periods, training courses (2 if you want handguns and "assault" rifles), licensing and my firearms must be stored in a specific manner and transported in a specific manner with all the relevant paperwork and licenses accompanying the firearm. Oh, and the RCMP can inspect my home at any time to ensure that I am storing them correctly.

Despite who invasive or complicated this sounds, it's actually not all that onerous. The Firearms Act uses a lot of language like "reasonably difficult to open" or "by a reasonable route" etc so there is quite a bit of lee-way in storage and transportation. Since I compete in IPSC, IDPA and 3 Gun, I can appreciate the "slack" in the law which does not make a legal gun-owner's life a giant hassle.

As for what I can't buy, well, I am a special case since I have a particular license that allows me to purchase and sell prohibited firearms. Such firearms would include: handguns with a barrel shorter than 4.1 inches and specific makes of rifles (like AK-47s). Normally these are verboten, but since there are limited numbers and they are difficult to find, you don't see many around. Fully automatic firearms are completely out.

We also don't really make a distinction between "assault" rifles and regular long-arms. The Firearms Act uses barrel and overall length to decide if any long-arm is non-restricted, restricted or prohibited. It is entirely possible for me to wander around in the woods with a P-90 so long as it's barrel is so and so long. I might get some hassle and probably have to show some paperwork because of it's looks, but it would be considered no more dangerous than my grandpappy's squirrel rifle or my dad's shotgun. It's the carbines and the easily concealable handguns that the RCMP care about, not wether or not something looks "dangerous".

TLDR: some of Canada's firearms regulations are not only reasonable, but more permissive than those in certain parts of the US.
 
2012-12-18 10:58:01 AM  

dittybopper: orclover: If he had used a automatic rifle then he likely would have killed off the entire school.

Actually, he probably would have missed more.


But enough about your fantasies.
 
2012-12-18 10:58:03 AM  

guestguy: Dimensio: As rifles of any type are less commonly utilized to commit murder than are unarmed attacks, your proposal does not solve a pertinent problem. Your suggestion is entirely unreasonable.

So that's the second time you've said that in this thread...are you really this farking dense? What is the ratio of rifle owners to people who own HANDS?

You know what is damn near impossible for an unarmed nutbag to do? Walk into a school and slaughter nearly 30 people.


Roughly 3,000 firearms murders a year are from rifles. I don't think 3,000 people are beaten/choked to death a year. Unless you count people in police custody...
 
2012-12-18 10:58:08 AM  

dittybopper: chuckufarlie: dittybopper: please: I'd support making gun owner legally responsible for their guns. Lock em up. Secure them. Pay the piper if you don't. It's an access issue.

Actually, that's unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court:
Held:
...
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 

Any storage requirement that puts the guns out of immediate use within the home is unconstitutional.

change the Constitution.

Fair enough. There is a process for that. What do you think the odds of success are?


pretty good unless you want to support the idea that we should allow people to keep killing our children.
 
2012-12-18 10:58:18 AM  
At one time, the NRA was about responsible gun ownership and heartily endorsed reasonable gun control measures such as the National Firearms Act of 1934. It was only in the 1970s that the NRA took on its current absolutist approach to the Second Amendment. It was this turn of events that led conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger to say that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud - I repeat the word 'fraud' - on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
 
2012-12-18 10:58:30 AM  

skipjack: chuckufarlie:
automatic weapons are either semi-automatic or fully automatic. Every innocent person that the idiot shot last Friday was shot with a semi-automatic rifle.

Citation needed. I've only seen where a hand gun was used.



Connecticut school shooter used assault rifle, had many bullets

LA Times December 16, 2012|By Tina Susman and Richard A. Serrano

NEWTOWN, Conn. - School shooter Adam Lanza carried hundreds of bullets when he shot his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School and used an assault rifle to do most of the killing, authorities confirmed Sunday.

Lanza, 20, fired a Bushmaster .223 semiautomatic rifle to kill many of the 20 children and six adults at the school Friday, Connecticut State Police Lt. J. Paul Vance said. He used a Glock 10-millimeter handgun to shoot himself in the head. He also carried at Sig Sauer pistol. A shotgun, the type of which was not identified, was found in the trunk of Lanza's car outside the school.

"The Bushmaster was used in the school, in its entirety, and [a] handgun was used to take his own life," Vance said.
 
2012-12-18 10:58:46 AM  

LandOfChocolate: SuperT: an M1 was good enough to take down the nazis,M it's good enough to defend my home and shoot pumpkins.

Let me preface this by saying I don't own guns, I don't hunt and I don't have any plans or fantasies about stopping home invaders. That said, an M1 or any long gun is terrible for home defense unless you live in a castle with turrets. The barrel is too long to be effective around tight corners and hallways.

I don't need a 30 round magazine. I'm also ok with having a license to own a firearm/ammo above certain lethality.

Who is to say that this kids mom wouldn't have been able to obtain the required license?

AND I'm ok with mental screens, and universal health care to get the crazies the help they need.

Again, it was the kids mother who owned the firearms. Will you extend the screens to anyone who lives in the residence or who has regular access to it?


I wouldn't be conducting MOUT, I'd be pointing a weapon of serious destructive power at an intruder, offering them the chance to leave before I removed that option from them.

plus, the pumpkins.

as for your other points, they are good points. and would need to be brought up in an honest debate about the issues.

any debate on this issue that starts with "guns are bad, we need to remove all guns everywhere" is not honest, and is ignoring reality.
 
2012-12-18 10:58:54 AM  

urbangirl: OK, you're obviously better informed than I am. So what is the "gun show loophole"? Please don't tell me it doesn't exist because I've heard the term from numerous sources. Everybody can't be making it up.


Basically, private sales between non-licensed dealers aren't subject to the paperwork requirements. The only real restriction is that you can't sell to anyone that you have reason to believe isn't allowed to own a gun (convicted felon, etc). There are general limitations to prevent someone from, say, opening a gun store and simply calling it private sales, but the reason it's termed a 'gun show loophole' is that if you are legally disallowed from owning a gun it's probably the easiest way to get one since the sale isn't illegal, just the purchase.

You also haven't answered my question about 'assault weapons'.
 
Displayed 50 of 644 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report