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  
•       •       •

7191 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 11:15:26 AM

BMulligan: Bullshiat. Since 1986, federal law has permitted licensed firearms dealers to make sales without background checks so long as the transaction occurs away from the dealer's principle place of business. This is under federal law, mind you - several states have more restrictive statutes (the vitality of which may be subject to debate pursuant to the Supreme Court's ridiculous decision in McDonald). That's part of the reason, along with private sales, why 40% of the legally purchased firearms in this country were sold with no background check.


The article that you have referenced cites a Congressional Research Service report, yet I can find no information corroborating the claim of the article within the report.

The report also includes the claim, from the Brady center, that forty percent of firearm transactions occur without a background check. Absolutely no data is cited in support of that claim.
 
2012-12-18 11:15:36 AM

Dimensio: LandOfChocolate: Dimensio: when in fact no data shows that they are a common source of firearms for criminals.

Actually, it appears that Virginia gun shows are one of the largest sources of illegally obtained weapons that are used in crimes.

The article that you have referenced relies upon speculation, rather than demonstration.


OK, here you go.

More
 
2012-12-18 11:16:02 AM

dittybopper: chuckufarlie: we can write a very precise law to eliminate automatic rifles.

What, like the NFA, combined with the 1986 Hughes Amendment to the FOPA, which means that no automatic rifles manufactured since 1986 may be privately owned?

Or do you mean SEMI-automatic rifles, like this:

[www.chuckhawks.com image 550x149] ?


Semi-Automatic is a subset of automatic
 
2012-12-18 11:16:06 AM

dittybopper: chuckufarlie: we can write a very precise law to eliminate automatic rifles.

What, like the NFA, combined with the 1986 Hughes Amendment to the FOPA, which means that no automatic rifles manufactured since 1986 may be privately owned?

Or do you mean SEMI-automatic rifles, like this:

[www.chuckhawks.com image 550x149] ?


He uses 'automatic' to refer to automatic action.
 
2012-12-18 11:16:11 AM

bulldg4life:
Then you should phrase your responses better.

Saying "is it really that much better" when 26 people were killed vs 20 people wounded is pretty silly.


I admit, it was a very crass thing to say, and I am sorry for the offense that it caused. I'm just saying that exchanging one traumatic event for another is a really shiatty trade, and that anyone trying to hold up one kind of attack as "better" is missing the point that someone is still randomly attacking children where they're supposed to be safe. THAT is the problem that needs to be solved. You get what I mean now, right?
 
2012-12-18 11:16:31 AM

NEDM: bulldg4life: If you feel the same tragedy would've occurred if he had a knife, you are either willfully ignorant or incredibly dense.

And you still missed my initial point that while it wouldn't have been the same tragedy, it would still have been one, and that school stabbings are in no way shape or form an acceptable alternative to school shootings, especially when an option is to try stop school attacks period. Kids are still getting hurt. Yes, I know that "only" getting stabbed is better than being shot and killed, but why the hell should anyone be forced to deal with either of them? It is still a traumatic experience, and we should be working to stop it from happening in the first place, not just making it so they only suffer a "lesser" traumatic experience.


You concede that a knife-wielding rampage is, while still a terrible situation, a better situation than a gun-wielding rampage.

I hope you'll concede that a knife-wielding rampage is a significantly better situation than a gun-wielding rampage.

In light of all this, why are you still suggesting that we shouldn't do anything to make these rampages (which I concede are still going to happen) less lethal?
 
2012-12-18 11:16:34 AM

Zeno-25: An Assault Weapons Ban would not have prevented this mass shooting or most others that have happened. Columbine, VA Tech, Tucson, Aurora, you name it was done with a semi-auto handgun, not an assault rifle.


I agree with Zeno! We must go FURTHER than an assault weapons ban!
 
2012-12-18 11:16:35 AM

wingnut396: Dinki: 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.

Remember that week we went spent at war in Afghanistan?


Remember how the US thought that Afghanistan was an existential threat to the US and sent 5 million troops in?
 
2012-12-18 11:16:36 AM

Dimensio: chuckufarlie is advocating prohibiting civilian ownership of a subclass of rifles. Noting the rare criminal misuse of rifles is relevant in addressing his suggestion. I am not suggesting that an individual may attempt mass murder while unarmed, I am noting only that prohibiting ownership of many common rifle models will not reduce rates of violent crime.



What you were suggesting is exactly this: "your proposal does not solve a pertinent problem. Your suggestion is entirely unreasonable." Which is just flat-out wrong...if you don't think mass murder is a pertinent problem, then excuse me but I don't give a flying fark about your opinion, and neither should anyone else.
 
2012-12-18 11:17:00 AM

vygramul: BMulligan: 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."

I would have been amenable to that before I became a historian. The NRA is wrong on the "bear" part, but completely right on the "keep" part.


As an historian, you're surely aware that gun control was a big part of 18th and 19th century America. For instance, concealed carry was once banned outright in 10 states, and the governor of Texas - Texas! - publicly opined in 1893 that "the mission of the concealed weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law abiding man."
 
2012-12-18 11:17:10 AM

chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: We need to ban all rifles that use clips/magazines and make owning them illegal. We need to get all of them removed from society.

Your proposal remains unreasonable and irrational.

Not at all. Those rifles serve no purpose beyond killing lots of people.


Your claim is a demonstrable lie. When your position requires lying for support, it is not credible.
 
2012-12-18 11:17:33 AM

dittybopper: chuckufarlie: we can write a very precise law to eliminate automatic rifles.

What, like the NFA, combined with the 1986 Hughes Amendment to the FOPA, which means that no automatic rifles manufactured since 1986 may be privately owned?

Or do you mean SEMI-automatic rifles, like this:

[www.chuckhawks.com image 550x149] ?


any rifle that uses a magazine or a clip.

Tossing up a photo to use as a point of discussion makes you pretty farking stupid.
 
2012-12-18 11:17:37 AM

NEDM: bulldg4life:
Then you should phrase your responses better.

Saying "is it really that much better" when 26 people were killed vs 20 people wounded is pretty silly.

I admit, it was a very crass thing to say, and I am sorry for the offense that it caused. I'm just saying that exchanging one traumatic event for another is a really shiatty trade, and that anyone trying to hold up one kind of attack as "better" is missing the point that someone is still randomly attacking children where they're supposed to be safe. THAT is the problem that needs to be solved. You get what I mean now, right?


Both problems need to be solved. We need less people going crazy and we need less people dying when they do.
 
2012-12-18 11:18:02 AM

qorkfiend: Geotpf: They are fun to shoot at a gun range.

Sorry, no. The rest of us don't want our children to pay the price because you think something is "fun".


That wasn't his point. He was merely rejecting the assertion that they're only good for killing. Demonstrably, they're good for something else.

/There is only one consumer good whose sole impact is to soothe the effects of withdrawal from becoming addicted to it to begin with, and it kills many of its users and some of the people who spend time with its users.
 
2012-12-18 11:18:26 AM
Those seem like resonable ideas to me.
 
2012-12-18 11:18:55 AM

chuckufarlie: NEDM: bulldg4life:
If Adam Lanza had violently attacked 30 people with a knife, do you think he would've killed 26 people?

If they were little kids trapped where they couldn't get away from him? Yes, he easily could. The man in China attacked students at the schoolyard gate, and I have no doubts he could have racked up a large bodycount if he had managed to trap a group of children in a room with him.

The guy in China WOUNDED 2o people, he did not kill them. The guy in Connecticut did not trap the students in a room. So, besides that, you got it right.

It is much easier to get away from an attacker with a knife than it is to get away from an attacker with a gun.


If you get an AW ban and subsequently someone walks into a school and guns down students/teachers with a handful of revolvers and a pump shotgun will you ask for additional gun control?
 
2012-12-18 11:18:57 AM

BMulligan: Dimensio: 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.

Bullshiat. Since 1986, federal law has permitted licensed firearms dealers to make sales without background checks so long as the transaction occurs away from the dealer's principle place of business. This is under federal law, mind you - several states have more restrictive statutes (the vitality of which may be subject to debate ...


The NPR article is wrong, the CRS article they cite does not support such a ridiculous claim.
 
2012-12-18 11:19:06 AM

LandOfChocolate: Dimensio: LandOfChocolate: Dimensio: when in fact no data shows that they are a common source of firearms for criminals.

Actually, it appears that Virginia gun shows are one of the largest sources of illegally obtained weapons that are used in crimes.

The article that you have referenced relies upon speculation, rather than demonstration.

OK, here you go.

More


From the Wikipedia page:

Between 2002 and 2005, more than 400 guns legally purchased at gun shows from licensed dealers in the city of Richmond, Virginia, were later recovered in connection with criminal activity.

That data indicates a problem with "straw purchasing", not with "gun shows". The "400 guns legally purchased at gun shows from licensed dealers" would have been sold with a background check of the purchaser. The purchaser then illegally resold the firearm to a criminal.
 
2012-12-18 11:19:11 AM

NEDM: You get what I mean now, right?


Not really because you seem to be implying the difference is meaningless, so gun control is pointless. If that is not the case, then by all means explain.

But, that's what people have stated in multiple threads over the past few days. Violence can happen with other weapons, so gun control is a worthless endeavor.

It is a shiatty trade. But, it is a trade that every single person in Newtown Connecticut would make
 
2012-12-18 11:19:23 AM

sprawl15: Geotpf: Geotpf's Law:

If your solution to a problem requires a Constitutional Amendment, you don't actually have a solution to said problem.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

seems like a solution to me


There have been no newly submitted amendments passed during my lifetime (I was born in 1974)*. In modern political society, it is impossible, on a practical level, to pass even a mildly controversial amendment. Banning handguns is such a controversial amendment, and almost certainly isn't even popular with a majority of citizens today (and today is probably the high popularity point of such an amendment in the last decade due to the massacre). With the internet and cable TV and whatnot, it's very easy, politically, to block an amendment from passing.

*An amendment, originally submitted in 1789, was finally ratified by enough states in 1992. It was non-controversial and minor (it just says any Congressional pay raise that is passed can't go into effect until after the next election), IMHO, and took over 200 years to ratify.
 
2012-12-18 11:19:27 AM

bulldg4life: dittybopper: I think a fit 20 year old could attack 30-some first graders with a knife and kill most of them, certainly.

That sort of thing happens in China and in Indonesia and other places where guns are largely unavailable.

The person was referencing an attack where no children were killed and said "was it really that much better". Obviously it was better since nobody was killed.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to accomplish with the "other violence happens too!" line


Because the statement was "it wouldn't happen if guns were banned", and I was pointing out that yes, it does happen where guns are banned. The United States isn't unique in this regard, and while it may be easy to blame the instrument, as I have shown when that particular instrument isn't available, the people who do this sort of thing find another way.
 
2012-12-18 11:19:36 AM

NEDM: I'm just saying that exchanging one traumatic event for another is a really shiatty trade,


Yeah, 20 more living children is really shiatty. I bet there are all sorts of people who, when asked, say "Yeah, I see no real difference between 20 dead children and 20 live children." There's no one who would make that trade, no one at all.
 
2012-12-18 11:20:03 AM

Dimensio: Bendal: Want my definition? If the military uses the weapon, and the company sells a "civilianized" version of it, and it has semi-auto capability, then it's an assault weapon and civilians have no need for them.

Your standard is arbitrary and unreasonable. Prohibiting firearms based solely upon cosmetic appearance serves no purpose.


You keep saying that when people make suggestions on reducing the number of these people-killing weapons. My standard has measurable guidelines (weapon used by the military, but sold with 'changes' to civilians, has semi-auto capability) that can be used to differentiate what can and cannot be sold.
 
2012-12-18 11:20:04 AM

Dimensio: chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: We need to ban all rifles that use clips/magazines and make owning them illegal. We need to get all of them removed from society.

Your proposal remains unreasonable and irrational.

Not at all. Those rifles serve no purpose beyond killing lots of people.

Your claim is a demonstrable lie. When your position requires lying for support, it is not credible.


Somebody said yesterday that he uses an automatic rifle to shoot feral hogs. That is the only reason beyond killing people that these guns serve.

Just saying that my claim is a lie without providing some proof is extremely childish. You are not credible.
 
2012-12-18 11:20:34 AM

guestguy: Dimensio: chuckufarlie is advocating prohibiting civilian ownership of a subclass of rifles. Noting the rare criminal misuse of rifles is relevant in addressing his suggestion. I am not suggesting that an individual may attempt mass murder while unarmed, I am noting only that prohibiting ownership of many common rifle models will not reduce rates of violent crime.

What you were suggesting is exactly this: "your proposal does not solve a pertinent problem. Your suggestion is entirely unreasonable." Which is just flat-out wrong...if you don't think mass murder is a pertinent problem, then excuse me but I don't give a flying fark about your opinion, and neither should anyone else.


Do you believe that mass murder will be any more difficult if all semi-automatic rifles are prohibited, or do you merely believe that mass murder is acceptable if committed with an implement other than a semi-automatic rifle?
 
2012-12-18 11:20:38 AM

Fail in Human Form: with a handful of revolvers and a pump shotgun will you ask for additional gun control?


Is this hypothetical being used as a reason to not institute certain gun control measures?
 
2012-12-18 11:20:43 AM

BMulligan: vygramul: BMulligan: 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."

I would have been amenable to that before I became a historian. The NRA is wrong on the "bear" part, but completely right on the "keep" part.

As an historian, you're surely aware that gun control was a big part of 18th and 19th century America. For instance, concealed carry was once banned outright in 10 states, and the governor of Texas - Texas! - publicly opined in 1893 that "the mission of the concealed weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law abiding man."


That's why I say the NRA is wrong about the "bear" part.
 
2012-12-18 11:21:07 AM

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.


Well, I think that argument has been successfullly put to bed.
 
2012-12-18 11:21:09 AM

bulldg4life: Mouldy Squid: 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.

Sounds like this is the legislation that the US needs.


It might sound onerous to some people in the US, but it's really not that bad. The Chief Firearms Officer's office (CFO) makes all of this paperwork and licensing very easy. Yes, the are some hoops to jump through, but they are large and low to the ground. As an example: my latest purchase was a second CZ SP-01 Tactical (handgun). Since I am already licensed, all I had to do was give the money to the gun store, wait for them to send the purchase agreement and firearm registration papers to the CFO. Two days later, the CFO faxed me a temporary permit to transport which allowed me to move the firearm from the store to my home. Once at my home it falls under my Authorization To Transport which allows me to take the gun to an approved range and back home "by a reasonably direct route". If I am competing out of town, my firearm must be stored in a locked, opaque case which is "reasonably difficult to open" (a basic requirement for transporting any handgun) and can either be locked the trunk of my car, or in the hotel room/tent/near my person or stored in such a way that it is "reasonably difficult" for anyone to abscond with it.

The upshot is that because I have already gone through all of the background checks when I was being licensed, the law recognizes that I am competent and not a danger, so it makes the whole process as simple and easy as it can. Put all the work upfront. Hell, I can do all the required paperwork over the phone, by fax or online. Very simple and easy. I can even take my guns across the borders without special paperwork so long as I abide by the particular shipping restrictions.

Canadians own more firearms per capita than Americans and yet we don't have anywhere as many mass shootings. What gun crime we do have is almost completely by illegal firearms either stolen or smuggled into the country. The restrictions aren't really all that bad and it really does cut down on gun crime. I am certain that a balance can be achieved in the US if they take a look at Canada's model. Personally, I would like to be able to carry my handgun if I am going into the wilderness since I am much faster to get on target with that than a shotgun if I spook a bear or a mountain lion. There are some parts of US firearms law that I would like to see enacted in Canada, but I am overall more than happy with the way we do things up here.
 
2012-12-18 11:21:17 AM
Man. I never thought I'd long for a Chick-Fil-A or Trayvon Martin thread.
 
2012-12-18 11:21:24 AM

vygramul: That wasn't his point. He was merely rejecting the assertion that they're only good for killing. Demonstrably, they're good for something else.


Saying they're "fun to use" contains no moral argument and does nothing to reject the assertion that a gun is a weapon designed to kill.
 
2012-12-18 11:21:29 AM

bulldg4life: Fail in Human Form: with a handful of revolvers and a pump shotgun will you ask for additional gun control?

Is this hypothetical being used as a reason to not institute certain gun control measures?


Just asking a question.
 
2012-12-18 11:22:02 AM

Geotpf: There have been no newly submitted amendments passed during my lifetime (I was born in 1974)*. In modern political society, it is impossible, on a practical level, to pass even a mildly controversial amendment.


cool story bro.
 
2012-12-18 11:22:07 AM

chuckufarlie: Not at all. Those rifles serve no purpose beyond killing lots of people. Sane, rational people understand this. The idea that we should allow people to own weapons capable of killing large groups of people in a hurry is just crazy.


abcnewsradioonline.com
www.jewishjournal.com
I refer to it as Planet Earth, 3rd mudball from the sun.

On a sidenote for those of you crying for a 2nd amendment revisiting, careful what you wish for. That could easily turn around to bite you in the ass harder than you can possibly imagine. A "well regulated militia" should be all the warning you need. But it wont be :(
 
2012-12-18 11:22:31 AM
You very specifically DID say "the majority". Does this look familiar?
However, most people on Fark who post "just ban all gunz!!1!".

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.

The period after the quote is a grammar mistake. It should be most people that post "just ban all gunz!!1!" probably make the uneducated assumption that laws can just be written to do so. So, no I was pointing at a group of people who I said that most in that specific group make uneducated assumptions.
 
2012-12-18 11:22:33 AM

dittybopper: Because the statement was "it wouldn't happen if guns were banned", and I was pointing out that yes, it does happen where guns are banned. The United States isn't unique in this regard, and while it may be easy to blame the instrument, as I have shown when that particular instrument isn't available, the people who do this sort of thing find another way.


Do you feel that the situations you linked to are comparable, in frequency and level of violence, to the several dozen mass shootings that have happened in just the recent 2 decades?
 
2012-12-18 11:23:01 AM

vygramul: chuckufarlie: what a wonderful idea! I am sure that nobody is going to go kill a lot of people if they know that they will face a stiff financial penalty. We should ask the latest shooter what he thinks about this and see...

Oh wait, he killed himself. So much for imposing a fine.

People who care so little for human life that they shoot children down in bunches are not going to be stopped by a fine.

I think the intent there is for the original gun owner to insure their arms are not accessible by others. A lot of school shootings were with stolen arms, like those two kids who stole their grandfather the park-ranger's rifles to shoot up their middle school.


This school shooting involved stolen weapons too; the shooter stole them from his mother and then shot her with them.
 
2012-12-18 11:23:04 AM

bulldg4life: Well, the person states that the RCMP can inspect the home to make sure the weapons are stored correctly.

I'm assuming this woman did not store her weapons properly.


So you're now going to be relying on a spot check by the government (who apparently has nothing better to do than visit the homes of people living in >$1 million estates in suburban Connecticut) as a solution?

I haven't read anything about whether the weapons were stored properly or improperly but I have read that she took both of her sons to the range with her and taught them how to shoot. Its not a stretch to imagine that the sons knew how to access the guns, even if they were locked up.
 
2012-12-18 11:23:06 AM

orclover: chuckufarlie: Not at all. Those rifles serve no purpose beyond killing lots of people. Sane, rational people understand this. The idea that we should allow people to own weapons capable of killing large groups of people in a hurry is just crazy.

[abcnewsradioonline.com image 630x354]
[www.jewishjournal.com image 300x200]
I refer to it as Planet Earth, 3rd mudball from the sun.

On a sidenote for those of you crying for a 2nd amendment revisiting, careful what you wish for. That could easily turn around to bite you in the ass harder than you can possibly imagine. A "well regulated militia" should be all the warning you need. But it wont be :(


As we all know, the primary purpose of the automobile is to flatten pedestrians.
 
2012-12-18 11:23:08 AM

Bendal: Dimensio: Bendal: Want my definition? If the military uses the weapon, and the company sells a "civilianized" version of it, and it has semi-auto capability, then it's an assault weapon and civilians have no need for them.

Your standard is arbitrary and unreasonable. Prohibiting firearms based solely upon cosmetic appearance serves no purpose.

You keep saying that when people make suggestions on reducing the number of these people-killing weapons. My standard has measurable guidelines (weapon used by the military, but sold with 'changes' to civilians, has semi-auto capability) that can be used to differentiate what can and cannot be sold.


The "standard" that you recommend would not in any way affect rates of violent crime. Claiming popular semi-automatic civilian rifles to be "people-killing weapons", when in fact all rifles are rarely used to commit murder, does not validate your position.
 
2012-12-18 11:23:13 AM

Mouldy Squid: bulldg4life: Mouldy Squid: 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.

Sounds like this is the legislation that the US needs.

It might sound onerous to some people in the US, but it's really not that bad. The Chief Firearms Officer's office (CFO) makes all of this paperwork and licensing very easy. Yes, the are some hoops to jump through, but they are large and low to the ground. As an example: my latest purchase was a second CZ SP-01 Tactical (handgun). Since I am already licensed, all I had to do was give the money to the gun store, wait for them to send the purchase agreement and firearm registration papers to the CFO. Two days later, the CFO faxed me a temporary permit to transport which allowed me to move the firearm from the store to my home. Once at my home it falls under my Authorization To Transport which allows me to take the gun to an approved range and back home "by a reasonably direct route". If I am competing out of town, my firearm must be stored in a locked, opaque case which is "reasonably difficult to open" (a basic requirement for transporting any handgun) and can either be locked the trunk of my car, or in the hotel room/tent/near my person or stored in such a way that it is "reasonably difficult" for anyone to abscond with it.

The upshot is that because I have already gone through all of the background checks when I was being licensed, the law recognizes that I am competent and not a danger, so it makes the whole process as simple and easy as it can. Put all the work upfr ...


What are the penalties for failure to comply? I think a large portion of the problems us Americans have stem from the lack of interest in enforcing laws already on the books.
 
2012-12-18 11:23:23 AM
i1121.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-18 11:23:50 AM

CPennypacker: dittybopper: chuckufarlie: we can write a very precise law to eliminate automatic rifles.

What, like the NFA, combined with the 1986 Hughes Amendment to the FOPA, which means that no automatic rifles manufactured since 1986 may be privately owned?

Or do you mean SEMI-automatic rifles, like this:

[www.chuckhawks.com image 550x149] ?

Semi-Automatic is a subset of automatic


No, it isn't. They have two distinct and precise meanings when applied to rifles, and in law, they have two distinct meanings to all firearms.

The only argument you could make is that a semi-automatic pistol is often called "automatic", but that distinction that doesn't apply to rifles. The other is the gun I posted a picture of, the "Browning Automatic Rifle", which is a marketing term, not a firearm definition.
 
2012-12-18 11:23:55 AM

orclover: chuckufarlie: Not at all. Those rifles serve no purpose beyond killing lots of people. Sane, rational people understand this. The idea that we should allow people to own weapons capable of killing large groups of people in a hurry is just crazy.

[abcnewsradioonline.com image 630x354]
[www.jewishjournal.com image 300x200]
I refer to it as Planet Earth, 3rd mudball from the sun.

On a sidenote for those of you crying for a 2nd amendment revisiting, careful what you wish for. That could easily turn around to bite you in the ass harder than you can possibly imagine. A "well regulated militia" should be all the warning you need. But it wont be :(


How many people died in that vehicular "rampage", and how often do similar rampages occur?
 
2012-12-18 11:24:41 AM

Dimensio: Do you believe that mass murder will be any more difficult if all semi-automatic rifles are prohibited, or do you merely believe that mass murder is acceptable if committed with an implement other than a semi-automatic rifle?



Yes, I believe mass murder is easier when you have a semi-automatic weapon that can fire a large number rounds without needing to reload or change weapons. Semi-auto handguns are also a problem but hold less rounds in general than rifles.
 
2012-12-18 11:24:43 AM

LandOfChocolate: So you're now going to be relying on a spot check by the government (who apparently has nothing better to do than visit the homes of people living in >$1 million estates in suburban Connecticut) as a solution?


Well, the line of debate was concerning steps taken by Canada. I'm fairly certain Canada has much less mass shooting violence than the US. What are they doing differently?

I haven't read anything about whether the weapons were stored properly or improperly but I have read that she took both of her sons to the range with her and taught them how to shoot. Its not a stretch to imagine that the sons knew how to access the guns, even if they were locked up.

So, the guns were not stored properly.

Well, the spot check may have helped.
 
2012-12-18 11:24:51 AM

chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: We need to ban all rifles that use clips/magazines and make owning them illegal. We need to get all of them removed from society.

Your proposal remains unreasonable and irrational.

Not at all. Those rifles serve no purpose beyond killing lots of people.

Your claim is a demonstrable lie. When your position requires lying for support, it is not credible.

Somebody said yesterday that he uses an automatic rifle to shoot feral hogs. That is the only reason beyond killing people that these guns serve.

Just saying that my claim is a lie without providing some proof is extremely childish. You are not credible.


Hunting and recreational target shootings are demonstrable uses, or "purposes", of semi-automatic rifles. They are, in fact, far more common "purposes" for such firearms than murder is. As such, your claim that "killing lots of people" is the only "purpose" of such rifles is a lie. Your argument is predicated upon a lie and, as such, it lacks credibility.
 
2012-12-18 11:25:17 AM

LandOfChocolate: bulldg4life: Mouldy Squid: 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.

Sounds like this is the legislation that the US needs.

Again, how would that have helped here? The mother owned the weapons and would have passed all of those checks (including the training, she apparently spent a lot of time at the range). Should those checks extend to everyone who could potentially have access to the household where the weapons are kept?


She could have been required to store them in a way that was "reasonably difficult" for her son to get at them, like say, trigger locks or a gun safe. She could be been required to store the ammunition separately so he didn't have immediate access to it.
 
2012-12-18 11:25:27 AM

Ardilla:

In light of all this, why are you still suggesting that we shouldn't do anything to make these rampages (which I concede are still going to happen) less lethal?


Because I feel that we should be focusing on trying to stop them in the first place. That a school attack period is not acceptable, regardless of the weapon. Trying to limit a maniacs weaponry in the hopes that he can "only" kill a few of his victims instead of a larger number is folly instead of trying to keep the maniac from going on the rampage in the first place. A man with a knife only killing 3 or 4 people out of 20 that he stabs instead of shooting them all is only better in the grand scheme of things. It doesn't make the victims he did kill any less dead.

Again, I apologize for sounding like an utter asshole earlier.
 
2012-12-18 11:25:52 AM

vygramul: chuckufarlie: what a wonderful idea! I am sure that nobody is going to go kill a lot of people if they know that they will face a stiff financial penalty. We should ask the latest shooter what he thinks about this and see...

Oh wait, he killed himself. So much for imposing a fine.

People who care so little for human life that they shoot children down in bunches are not going to be stopped by a fine.

I think the intent there is for the original gun owner to insure their arms are not accessible by others. A lot of school shootings were with stolen arms, like those two kids who stole their grandfather the park-ranger's rifles to shoot up their middle school.


The kid in Connecticut killed his mother. She owned the guns. What sort of a fine are you going to impose on her?

Bottom line - a fine or other punishment will do very little to stop people from using automatic rifles to kill lots of people. Do you think the families of the dead would be happy with that? How much do you fine a person for allowing somebody to use his rifle to kill a lot of people?
 
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