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 12:01:08 PM  

Cletus C.: Dimensio: 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?

I'm not into guns so I'll just throw up a few examples of fine ban-worthy weapons.

[www.vashtie.com image 635x390]


looool.... that is so full of shiat and has already been debunked in several threads.
 
2012-12-18 12:01:14 PM  

bulldg4life: If the requirements are very weak, why aren't more fully automatic weapons used in crimes?


Because there simply aren't very many of them in circulation. There are millions of semi-auto weapons. Hundreds of millions, even. Kept in individuals' homes, in dresser drawers and leaning up against the back of the bedroom closet. Guns are absolutely everywhere, like a plague.

Gun control is just a finger in the dyke. If there were no more guns produced for private sale in the US, it would take decades for them all to slowly break, get lost or destroyed in buy-back programs. Reducing gun ownership by 5% would be a massive undertaking, and would violate the 2nd amendment (and probably the 4th too, if we took the effort seriously). It would result in no perceptible difference in gun violence.

The sad, sober fact is that this is what our lives are always going to be like forever: sporadic gun violence against innocent people reported on the news. You can't produce half a billion guns and get away without a scratch. May as well stop fighting about it and learn to live in danger.
 
2012-12-18 12:01:32 PM  

Bendal: Fail in Human Form: Ardilla: Fail in Human Form: ...
If this tragedy is a reason to restrict my rights then why wouldn't they be further restricted after the next shooting or do you think passing an AW ban means no more shootings?

Do you think your "rights" to engage in a leisure activity are more important than the rights of those 20 children and 6 adults.

Or are you one of those paranoids who thinks he needs his guns to protect himself from the government?

Not paranoid, but yep it's far more than "a leisure activity"

Apparently it's worth the lives of 20 children and 6 adults to you, though. Right?


Yes, however you seem more than happy to take the opportunity to scratch out the 2nd amendment in their blood.

/I'm sure the Brady Bunch were giving each other high fives when the news reported the shooting
 
2012-12-18 12:01:38 PM  

chuckufarlie: Unemployedingreenland: Cradle to grave strict liability on guns used in a crime (including suicides and accidental discharges by children). Absolute strict no excuses liability for actual damages, plus an immediate five or six figure fine, secured by filed evidence of financial means or a bond/insurance policy, with immediate payment required (at least of the fine) through the bond/insurance/security. The manufacturer has this liability for each new gun they make until it is sold to a reseller/dealer who must affirmatively relieve the manufacturer of the liability and take it on themselves (to the satisfaction of the new bondsman/insurer). This is repeated down to the current owner. Gun stolen? Tough - you remain liable forever. You want an insurer or bondsman to underwrite you, better reduce your risk of any kind of downstream issues (gun safes, training, etc.). Fines can vary based on any number of factors (type of weapon, size of magazine, use of gun safe, trigger locks, etc.). Granted this is forward looking only, so there isn't much you can do with existing guns in private hands (although that's not necessarily the case, and you can certainly impose this on dealers with all sales going forward), but the incentives change in a hurry - everyone involved would want to sell to responsible dealers and owners only, and the private marketplace of insurers and bondsmen would quickly develop and implement a best practices solution for minimizing the risk of mis-used guns.

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.


WRONG!!! WRONG!!!! WRONG!!!!

The trouble here (among other things) was easy access to high-powered, high capacity weaponry. The fine is imposed on mom (also dead, so that's not going anywhere), but paid by a heartless insurer or bonding company who cares only about $$$. Assuming they want to reduce their exposure to payouts, they will take steps to ensure that their risks are mitigated when mom applies for a policy or bond - they'll check the mom out a bit, maybe spot something amiss (maybe not), maybe impose use of gun safes or other measures, etc. Sure this doesn't stop the lone nutjob, but it does (over time) greatly reduce the access to weapons by those who don't pass muster by the insurer who makes money only by selling policies, and loses money only by paying claims - in other words, they are well incentivized to maximize gun sales while minimizing associated risks.

You need to think a bit before responding. This proposal is not without its issues, but what you wrote is so far off the mark, it's close to coming back around from the other side of the planet.
 
2012-12-18 12:02:06 PM  

InmanRoshi: Benjamin Orr: InmanRoshi: Benjamin Orr: Do you even know what semi-auto means? Lets start there first.

The kind that lets you blow away 20 children in under 2 minutes. There's a start.

First off it wasn't 2 minutes....but since you said that... basically any gun made in the last 100 years including revolvers and lever action rifles?

Sure, I have no problem outlawing a 20 round revolver.


That's got to be the hugest revolver ever, I can only imagine how big the cylinder would be in that...
 
2012-12-18 12:02:34 PM  
Under current Supreme Court rulings, it is unconstitutional to ban any weapon currently in common civilian use. The weapons used in the massacre were common civlian weapons.
 
2012-12-18 12:02:57 PM  

dittybopper: Ardilla: Do you think your "rights" to engage in a leisure activity are more important than the rights of those 20 children and 6 adults.

I think all constitutional rights, including the rights enumerated in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and perhaps Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments all have an ongoing cost in human lives. For example, we have decided as a society that requiring the police to get a warrant before searching a home for evidence of a crime is a protection worth having, despite the fact that untold numbers of people have died because the police couldn't gather the evidence they needed to arrest a criminal, or if they did, that evidence was tossed out of court.

Does the Second Amendment have a cost? Absolutely it does, and at times like this, that cost is especially painful. But there is a reason why it's written into the founding document of this nation, and it has nothing to do with recreation. If you think it no longer applies, feel free to try and get it repealed through the proper mechanism.

I will not fault you for that.

Don't try to side-step it, however, with the excuse "it's for the children!".


The 2nd Amendment is out of date. It serves no purpose.

Do you have children? Would you be happy to have them shot down as part of the cost for having an outdated Amendment? Yea, I didn't think so.

It is not side stepping it
 
2012-12-18 12:03:05 PM  

qorkfiend: 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 ...


Up to and including: a simple fine, loss of licensing, confiscation of firearms without compensation, prohibition for licensing for a specific period of time or for life, jail time. It all depends on what the situation is. If I forget to lock my gun case when I go to practice, I might get just a fine since the handgun itself must have a breach or trigger lock. If I left my gun safe unlocked and all my guns were stolen, I would probably lose my license and be prohibited from regaining it. If those guns were left unlocked and they were then used in a mass shooting, I could face charges like: depraved indifference to human life, conspiracy to commit murder, first-degree murder after the fact, criminal negligence causing death, manslaughter, as well as charges under the Firearms Act for not complying. It's unlikely that I would be convicted of the murder raps, but I could certainly be charged and there would definitely be a chance of jail time.

Now this sounds pretty harsh, but that's punishment for stupidity combined with lethal weapons. If my guns were legitimately stolen, that is the safe or case was opened by force, and it can be proven that I had complied with storage regulation, I am just out the worth of the guns. I might get a bit more scrutiny from the CFO for a while, but I wouldn't be charged with anything. "But it better not happen again, son."
 
2012-12-18 12:03:58 PM  

gilgigamesh: Amos Quito: I'm not alleging that Sandy Hook was any kind of conspiracy - government or otherwise.


Nooooo. You just compared it to a known conspiracy the Nazis engineered to seize power. Silly of me to think otherwise.



Are you saying that the German people KNEW that the Reichstag Fire was a conspiracy AT THE TIME?

And even if it hadn't been a "false flag", would that have made any difference as far as Hitler's power grab was concerned?

You need to defuddle your befuddlements and THINK for a moment.
 
2012-12-18 12:04:44 PM  

chuckufarlie: KellyX: InmanRoshi: Benjamin Orr: Do you even know what semi-auto means? Lets start there first.

The kind that lets you blow away 20 children in under 2 minutes. There's a start.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

seriously? You do not know enough about semi-autos that you are asking for a citation? Look at the rate of fire. The other component is the shooters accuracy and you will not see any citation for that. A sustained rate of aimed fire of ten rounds a minute is well within the parameter of most, if not all, semi-auto rifles.


Heh, my objection is that it wasn't done in 2 minutes flat, that's just exaggeration.

Frankly, I still haven't heard what weapon was ACTUALLY used in the shootings and I've heard he had a rifle on him, or a rifle was in the car, or both...
 
2012-12-18 12:04:48 PM  
a.abcnews.com

Sandy Hook Shootings

i194.photobucket.com

Obese dachshund

Move along citizens... nothing to see here...
 
2012-12-18 12:04:54 PM  

sprawl15: And I'm saying that's a stupid way to address the analogy because there's plenty of things out there whose primary purpose is destructive that aren't regulated. A captive bolt pistol's sole purpose is killing living things. I'd consider its 'sole purpose' irrelevant for purposes of regulation, though. Wouldn't you?


I'm not talking about sole purpose, I'm talking about primary purpose, and I think its entirely relevant because we do more to regulate the negative effects of things whose primary purpose isn't destructive (cars, for example) than we do for those things whose primary purpose is destructive. I would absolutely assert that the purpose of an object is relevant to a discussion about its regulation.

sprawl15: Of course you did - because you're entering into the conversation with intellectually dishonest assumptions. You assume that I cannot possibly argue that claiming a gun's primary purpose being killing things is irrelevant even if we assume it's true without being a pro-gun nut. You've poisoned your own well before even starting to post.


Its not intellectually dishonest to make that assumption. I never said the guns primary purpopose is killing things, I said it was destructive.

sprawl15: Except that's a totally different argument than the 'purpose' of an object. You're talking about the risk to society, not the destructive power of an item, and weighing that risk against the reward of allowing said items. And that's reliant entirely on intent. If people all ran out and bought powder actuated nailguns and started shooting up schools with them, the risk to society would be considered much higher and would warrant reexamination of powder actuated nailguns' commercial availability...despite the destructive power or purpose of the item not changing one bit.


At which point we would have to re-evaluate the regulations designed to ensure the safe ownership and operation of such a device.

sprawl15: I'm simply asking you to be honest in your logic because the gun debate is absolutely hurt by massive amounts of dishonesty - intentional and unintentional - on both sides.


I'm being entirely honest in my logic. I don't see how playing devils advocate or twisting my intentions lends any credibility to your points, but whatever.
 
2012-12-18 12:04:59 PM  
I love how the people who want to ban/restrict guns know almost nothing about guns or the laws currently on the books. You guys are just like Nancy Reagan and Tipper Gore.
 
2012-12-18 12:05:32 PM  

Geotpf: Under current Supreme Court rulings, it is unconstitutional to ban any weapon currently in common civilian use. The weapons used in the massacre were common civlian weapons.


So we change that. The idea that it cannot be banned just because it is common use is ignorant. There needs to be a more intelligent guideline than that.
 
2012-12-18 12:05:54 PM  

KellyX: InmanRoshi: Benjamin Orr: InmanRoshi: Benjamin Orr: Do you even know what semi-auto means? Lets start there first.

The kind that lets you blow away 20 children in under 2 minutes. There's a start.

First off it wasn't 2 minutes....but since you said that... basically any gun made in the last 100 years including revolvers and lever action rifles?

Sure, I have no problem outlawing a 20 round revolver.

That's got to be the hugest revolver ever, I can only imagine how big the cylinder would be in that...


Actually, back in the day there were such things as 20-round revolvers. Eugene Lefaucheux manufactured double-barreled high-capacity revolvers in I think the late 19th century.
 
2012-12-18 12:06:08 PM  

InmanRoshi:
So spell out for me how "boosting mental health" more was going to prevent this specific situation?


Because all of the warning signs in the world don't mean shiat if you can't actually make them get help. As it's coming out now, his mother felt that she could "cure" him, and thus didn't need the services of the psychiatrists or drugs that she could very easily afford. And that was completely and totally legal. If those same psychiatrists had been able to say "No, your son is getting help for this, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it", who knows how it would have turned out, but I guarantee it would have been better than what had happened.

In short, being able to deny your child medical help when they can hurt others in addition to themselves shouldn't be legal. And that's a loophole we need to close immediately.
 
2012-12-18 12:06:47 PM  

Benjamin Orr: I love how the people who want to ban/restrict guns know almost nothing about guns or the laws currently on the books. You guys are just like Nancy Reagan and Tipper Gore.


The guns that are currently on the books can be changed. Maybe you are not aware of that simple fact.
 
2012-12-18 12:07:31 PM  

Benjamin Orr: I love how the people who want to ban/restrict guns know almost nothing about guns or the laws currently on the books. You guys are just like Nancy Reagan and Tipper Gore.


Deep knowledge of the banal minutia of firearms probably should be required for creating gun bans/restrictions, but it is not required to want them.
 
2012-12-18 12:07:45 PM  
I like this:
If we could do it all over again, and if no private citizen had any guns, would we prohibit ourselves/private citizens from having anything other than hunting rifles or shotguns? Weapons which fire no more than six rounds without reloading?

If we wanted this result we could get it.
 
2012-12-18 12:07:55 PM  

Fail in Human Form: Ardilla: Fail in Human Form: Ardilla: Fail in Human Form: ...
If this tragedy is a reason to restrict my rights then why wouldn't they be further restricted after the next shooting or do you think passing an AW ban means no more shootings?

Do you think your "rights" to engage in a leisure activity are more important than the rights of those 20 children and 6 adults.

Or are you one of those paranoids who thinks he needs his guns to protect himself from the government?

Not paranoid, but yep it's far more than "a leisure activity"

Please explain.

I think an armed populace helps prevent against tyranny, but I do not believe the government is currently tyrannical.


An armed populace would not stand a chance against the U.S. Military, and I posit to you that if the United States were ever to succumb to "tyranny", an armed citizenry would be a bug on the proverbial windshield.

If you're so worried about "tyrrany", why are you arming yourself instead of working for a just society and a strong democracy?
 
2012-12-18 12:08:07 PM  
and for the record... if you want to ban all guns I can understand you (not agree with you... but understand you at least). People that want to ban certain types of guns are just functionally retarded.

When I hear you go "ooga booga semi auto" its like hearing people wanting to ban vodka but not tequila to prevent DUIs.
 
2012-12-18 12:08:23 PM  

Amos Quito:
Did the German people know that it was a FALSE FLAG ATTACK at the time?


What? What difference does that make?

Again, I'm not alleging that Sandy Hook was ANYTHING other than an unimaginably dastardly attack on innocents perpetrated by a lone evil madman.

But again, the cause if the incident is IRRELEVANT to those who would use it for political gain. 

An Authoritarian's wet dream.


OK, OK, OK, I really don't have time for this.

Let's just say that if you were seeking a historical comparison for an authoritarian power grab that was opportunistic and not an orchestrated false flag attack.... well, you probably couldn't have used a worse analogy. The 9-11 attack was used opportunistically. The Reichstag fire was set by the Nazis as a planned power grab.

Still farkying you as "tinfoil hat gun nutter" because I don't believe you.
 
2012-12-18 12:08:36 PM  

InmanRoshi: NEDM: Dusk-You-n-Me: NEDM: Only in this most recent attack, however. Per the list dittybopper posted earlier, these Chinese school stabbings (that we know about, China is quite good at censorship) aren't always totally non-fatal.

So we shouldn't even bother trying to reduce gun violence! America is uniquely powerless in this situation!

No. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying that massively boosting mental health care would do more good towards stopping these attacks (in addition to helping the country as a whole as a very beneficial side effect) than just reactionary hollow bans.

This kid had been diagnosed with mental illness at a very young age and was probably on a laundry list of psych medications. He came from a very wealthy family who could afford him the best psychiatrists and drugs money had to offer.

So spell out for me how "boosting mental health" more was going to prevent this specific situation?


More power needs to be given to the psychiatrist in these situations. If a psychiatrist deems you to be likely dangerous then you should not be able to refuse treatment.

Heres the biggie: Most of all we need a huge propaganda campaign to change the mental bunkering this countries families do once they realize they have a dangerous family member on their hands. Even today it becomes a source of shame and instead of seeking help and treatment they try to treat it quietly and hide the problem away out fear of being shunned by society. Thats a huge farking problem. This kids mental problems weren't just a source of shame, he was a huge farking bomb that affected more than just his mother. It should not be a taboo to publicly identify our own family (or friends, or co-workers) as needing treatment, or even ourselves (the biggest issue is self diagnosis). This farking mother was a shut in survivalist, im amazed her kids were not completely home schooled to get the family even further away from society. One of her kids had a huge problem and she was completely unable to handle it herself and unwilling to seek help, 20 dead toddlers. The kind of action it takes to fix a social mentality like this is a hellova lot bigger than fixing "gun culture" mentality. It has to be done at the federal level, the state level, the schools and the farking churches HAVE to get involved. And they have to not stop until people farking learn that their goofy uncle might just need more than a minor med change if hes talking about running over people on the sidewalk, Or putting a gun in his mouth. We are not paying attention to each other, even in our own homes. We should be not only be able to identify our issues but be willing to share that information with the professionals who can provide the help needed to address the problem.

This is honestly too big. Its too much work. Its more work than any proposed gun legislation that may or may not make a damn bit of difference. But if you really wanted to save people from people, this is exactly what needs to happen. Sounds a bit too much like "my brothers keeper" doesn it? Never happen.
 
2012-12-18 12:09:40 PM  

sweetmelissa31: dittybopper: What fantasy? Automatic fire is inaccurate. It's useful for pretty much one thing: Suppressive fire in a military context.

You sound like you spend a lot of time thinking about how to murder a large group of people.


You sound like you spend a lot of time thinking up ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with you. I would expect that a person of your august credentials would know better, but I guess that's just too much to ask.

To answer your statement in a serious manner, though, I was in the U.S. Army. I've fired fully-automatic weapons. I know what they are capable of, and what they aren't capable of. I have what you lack on this subject: Experience, and context.

Having said that, this is my preferred method of applying a rapidly expanding gas generated by rapid oxidation processes to a mass of Pb constrained in an open-ended cylinder:

img236.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-18 12:09:43 PM  

Benjamin Orr: Cletus C.: Dimensio: 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?

I'm not into guns so I'll just throw up a few examples of fine ban-worthy weapons.

[www.vashtie.com image 635x390]

looool.... that is so full of shiat and has already been debunked in several threads.


Sorry I missed the debunking. But I have personally volunteered to pry guns from cold, dead fingers so I will probably be seeing you soon.
 
2012-12-18 12:09:53 PM  

CPennypacker: sprawl15: And I'm saying that's a stupid way to address the analogy because there's plenty of things out there whose primary purpose is destructive that aren't regulated. A captive bolt pistol's sole purpose is killing living things. I'd consider its 'sole purpose' irrelevant for purposes of regulation, though. Wouldn't you?

I'm not talking about sole purpose, I'm talking about primary purpose, and I think its entirely relevant because we do more to regulate the negative effects of things whose primary purpose isn't destructive (cars, for example) than we do for those things whose primary purpose is destructive. I would absolutely assert that the purpose of an object is relevant to a discussion about its regulation.

sprawl15: Of course you did - because you're entering into the conversation with intellectually dishonest assumptions. You assume that I cannot possibly argue that claiming a gun's primary purpose being killing things is irrelevant even if we assume it's true without being a pro-gun nut. You've poisoned your own well before even starting to post.

Its not intellectually dishonest to make that assumption. I never said the guns primary purpopose is killing things, I said it was destructive.

sprawl15: Except that's a totally different argument than the 'purpose' of an object. You're talking about the risk to society, not the destructive power of an item, and weighing that risk against the reward of allowing said items. And that's reliant entirely on intent. If people all ran out and bought powder actuated nailguns and started shooting up schools with them, the risk to society would be considered much higher and would warrant reexamination of powder actuated nailguns' commercial availability...despite the destructive power or purpose of the item not changing one bit.

At which point we would have to re-evaluate the regulations designed to ensure the safe ownership and operation of such a device.

sprawl15: I'm simply asking you to be honest in your logi ...


Sorry to jump in on your guys personal conversation here, but at the office this morning we had a conversation on this too... A few of us are gun collectors and go to the range, some not, but one of the collectors tried to bring up the car thing too, how it kills more people than guns; now I'm a gun collector as well (and a liberal), but even I said that's a retarded argument cause cars weren't designed to with the intent to kill people.

So anyone that uses that as a argument is being dishonest and should drop it, it's a retarded analogy.
 
2012-12-18 12:10:03 PM  

chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: I love how the people who want to ban/restrict guns know almost nothing about guns or the laws currently on the books. You guys are just like Nancy Reagan and Tipper Gore.

The guns that are currently on the books can be changed. Maybe you are not aware of that simple fact.


Yes they can... but all you have to do is look around these threads and see people advocating for laws that already exist. Sometimes advocating for laws weaker than the ones that currently exist.

You should probably work on reading the posts you respond to before responding.
 
2012-12-18 12:10:33 PM  

qorkfiend: Mouldy Squid: ...

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.


Well, it's situational, but can range from minor fines to losing my firearms license to confiscation of the firearms without compensation to prohibition of ownership of firearms for life to hard time. IANAL, but if this had happened in Canada and it can be shown that the mother did not store the firearms correctly, at the very least she would be banned from ever owning a firearm again and could possibly be charged with accessory to murder, manslaughter, depraved indifference to human life, criminal negligence causing death. It would be unlikely that murder charges would be filed by the Crown, but it could happen.
 
2012-12-18 12:10:39 PM  

dittybopper: ...because these are very rare events, even in the United States.


They're rare if you only count ones where multiple people are killed.

If you start to look at all incidents where some idiot pulls out a gun in a public place and starts shooting indiscriminantly, they're actually very common in the US. Other places, not so much.

I can't find the link at the moment, there's a news site (Christian Science Monitor I think) that has a database of all news reports on such shootings since 2005, searchable by location and distance. I live in a place where its easy to get a concealed carry permit, and many people have guns. I did a search within 25 miles of my home.

Came up with 40 incidents. Most of them were at or outside a nightclub, or on a residential street. In only one case did an armed civilian use a gun to try and stop the shooter (a private security guard at a nightclub; he and the shooter killed each other).
 
2012-12-18 12:10:42 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: They have made a clear moral choice: that the comfort and emotional reassurance they take from the possession of guns, placed in the balance even against the routine murder of innocent children, is of supreme value. Whatever satisfaction gun owners take from their guns-we know for certain that there is no prudential value in them-is more important than children's lives. Give them credit: life is making moral choices, and that's a moral choice, clearly made. Link


I was raised around guns in Texas. My grandfather was a cattle rancher, and carried a gun around with him to fend off predators from his livestock. I remember going through his NRA magazines as a kid, and the guns displayed and described were usually bolt action. The subject matter was mostly in concerns to hunting. The beauty was in a craftsmanship, and the descriptions and admiration of detail were in things like how beautiful the inlay was in the stock.

Now the gun fetishists have taken over. Obsessive intellectual masturbating over "tactical" specifications, rounds per minute and ballistic statistcs. Paranoid delusional fantasies of doomsday scenarios where gun users are defending their homes from marauding hordes (often hypothetically defined as "urbanites" *cough* *cough*). Gun Fetishists -- not all mentally ill, but popular among the mentally ill.
 
2012-12-18 12:10:58 PM  

KellyX: chuckufarlie: KellyX: InmanRoshi: Benjamin Orr: Do you even know what semi-auto means? Lets start there first.

The kind that lets you blow away 20 children in under 2 minutes. There's a start.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

seriously? You do not know enough about semi-autos that you are asking for a citation? Look at the rate of fire. The other component is the shooters accuracy and you will not see any citation for that. A sustained rate of aimed fire of ten rounds a minute is well within the parameter of most, if not all, semi-auto rifles.

Heh, my objection is that it wasn't done in 2 minutes flat, that's just exaggeration.

Frankly, I still haven't heard what weapon was ACTUALLY used in the shootings and I've heard he had a rifle on him, or a rifle was in the car, or both...


You have access to the internet. You can go to any news site on the web to find out. He used a semi-automatic 223-caliber Bushmaster rifle with 30 round mags.

We will probably never know how long it took this kid to shoot all of those people but the fact remains that it could very easily have been done at 20 people in two minutes.
 
2012-12-18 12:11:07 PM  

chuckufarlie: dittybopper: Ardilla: Do you think your "rights" to engage in a leisure activity are more important than the rights of those 20 children and 6 adults.

I think all constitutional rights, including the rights enumerated in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and perhaps Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments all have an ongoing cost in human lives. For example, we have decided as a society that requiring the police to get a warrant before searching a home for evidence of a crime is a protection worth having, despite the fact that untold numbers of people have died because the police couldn't gather the evidence they needed to arrest a criminal, or if they did, that evidence was tossed out of court.

Does the Second Amendment have a cost? Absolutely it does, and at times like this, that cost is especially painful. But there is a reason why it's written into the founding document of this nation, and it has nothing to do with recreation. If you think it no longer applies, feel free to try and get it repealed through the proper mechanism.

I will not fault you for that.

Don't try to side-step it, however, with the excuse "it's for the children!".

The 2nd Amendment is out of date. It serves no purpose.

Do you have children? Would you be happy to have them shot down as part of the cost for having an outdated Amendment? Yea, I didn't think so.

It is not side stepping it


The third amendment is completely obsolete, yet it is still law of the land. To ban guns at this point, you need to amend the constitution, which, IMHO, is politically impossible. If you try to do it without amending the constitution, you will be doing it illegally (and probably trigger a civil war).
 
2012-12-18 12:11:32 PM  

CPennypacker: Benjamin Orr: I love how the people who want to ban/restrict guns know almost nothing about guns or the laws currently on the books. You guys are just like Nancy Reagan and Tipper Gore.

Deep knowledge of the banal minutia of firearms probably should be required for creating gun bans/restrictions, but it is not required to want them.


Semantics. If somebody is going to advocate a new restriction they should probably have some kind of idea of what they are talking about.
 
2012-12-18 12:11:42 PM  

dittybopper: Ardilla: Do you think your "rights" to engage in a leisure activity are more important than the rights of those 20 children and 6 adults.

I think all constitutional rights, including the rights enumerated in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and perhaps Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments all have an ongoing cost in human lives. For example, we have decided as a society that requiring the police to get a warrant before searching a home for evidence of a crime is a protection worth having, despite the fact that untold numbers of people have died because the police couldn't gather the evidence they needed to arrest a criminal, or if they did, that evidence was tossed out of court.

Does the Second Amendment have a cost? Absolutely it does, and at times like this, that cost is especially painful. But there is a reason why it's written into the founding document of this nation, and it has nothing to do with recreation. If you think it no longer applies, feel free to try and get it repealed through the proper mechanism.

I will not fault you for that.

Don't try to side-step it, however, with the excuse "it's for the children!".


Nice spin. But you're overlooking the fact that these rights were established with bloodshed in the past. Freedom of speech, of religion, against self-incrimination, and so on were (and are) worth fighting and, yes dyying, for. But no one is dying because of those rights. Except for those Second Amendment rights, which is clearly causing a lot of senseless deaths.
 
2012-12-18 12:12:30 PM  

dittybopper: You sound like you spend a lot of time thinking up ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with you. I would expect that a person of your august credentials would know better, but I guess that's just too much to ask.


I'm not making an ad hominem attack, because the only "argument" I'm trying to make is that you seem really creepy.
 
2012-12-18 12:13:05 PM  

Geotpf: The third amendment is completely obsolete, yet it is still law of the land. To ban guns at this point, you need to amend the constitution, which, IMHO, is politically impossible. If you try to do it without amending the constitution, you will be doing it illegally (and probably trigger a civil war).


In which case it will be a good thing our militia is so well regulated.
 
2012-12-18 12:13:58 PM  

Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: I love how the people who want to ban/restrict guns know almost nothing about guns or the laws currently on the books. You guys are just like Nancy Reagan and Tipper Gore.

The guns that are currently on the books can be changed. Maybe you are not aware of that simple fact.

Yes they can... but all you have to do is look around these threads and see people advocating for laws that already exist. Sometimes advocating for laws weaker than the ones that currently exist.

You should probably work on reading the posts you respond to before responding.


Gee, dumbass, I did read the post before I responded. I responded to your post. Now, if you had quoted some of the posts that you were "thinking" about, you would have been better served. All you did do was make a blanket statement. Or are you under the impression that we can read you mind? It would be a short read, at best, but none of us have that ability.
 
2012-12-18 12:14:12 PM  

Cletus C.: Benjamin Orr: Cletus C.: Dimensio: 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?

I'm not into guns so I'll just throw up a few examples of fine ban-worthy weapons.

[www.vashtie.com image 635x390]

looool.... that is so full of shiat and has already been debunked in several threads.

Sorry I missed the debunking. But I have personally volunteered to pry guns from cold, dead fingers so I will probably be seeing you soon.


Try doing a little research before posting insane crap. Neither of those handguns can achieve that rate of fire since. All three of them require that you pull the trigger to fire a round. One trigger pull per shot.

Yes they are dangerous, but lets not make them into plasma rifles in the 40 watt range.
 
2012-12-18 12:14:23 PM  

Amos Quito: Are you saying that the German people KNEW that the Reichstag Fire was a conspiracy AT THE TIME?

And even if it hadn't been a "false flag", would that have made any difference as far as Hitler's power grab was concerned?

You need to defuddle your befuddlements and THINK for a moment.


I really don't get this. Are you saying it shouldn't matter whether or not this (Sandy Hook) was a planned false flag attack because its going to be used opportunistically? Is that what you're saying?

Because I think there are some parents of soem dead kids who would be interested to know if their kids were deliberately murdered by the US government as a part of an authoritarian gun grab.

Yes, I think that would be a piece of information they would consider highly relevant.
 
2012-12-18 12:15:08 PM  

KellyX: chuckufarlie: KellyX: InmanRoshi: Benjamin Orr: Do you even know what semi-auto means? Lets start there first.

The kind that lets you blow away 20 children in under 2 minutes. There's a start.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

seriously? You do not know enough about semi-autos that you are asking for a citation? Look at the rate of fire. The other component is the shooters accuracy and you will not see any citation for that. A sustained rate of aimed fire of ten rounds a minute is well within the parameter of most, if not all, semi-auto rifles.

Heh, my objection is that it wasn't done in 2 minutes flat, that's just exaggeration.

Frankly, I still haven't heard what weapon was ACTUALLY used in the shootings and I've heard he had a rifle on him, or a rifle was in the car, or both...


Then you're deliberately avoiding the facts. The gunman used the Bushmaster to kill everyone but himself. This was reported at least as early as Monday, about the same time that one of the coroners stated that the children he examined had all been shot 5-11 times.
 
2012-12-18 12:15:29 PM  

CPennypacker: I'm not talking about sole purpose, I'm talking about primary purpose


Irrelevant to the example I gave - a captive bolt pistol's sole purpose is killing living things. Killing things is also its primary purpose. Stop sidestepping and address it.

CPennypacker: Its not intellectually dishonest to make that assumption.


It absolutely is. It's like assuming you're a pot smoking hippy because you're against guns and dismissing your arguments because potheads have drug addled brains and aren't worth listening to.

CPennypacker: I never said the guns primary purpopose is killing things, I said it was destructive.


I used killing things in the example of the captive bolt pistol because it's a far narrower classification. A chainsaw's purpose is destructive, but not in the sense of killing living creatures, and neither of us would say that its destructive purpose requires it to be regulated as a firearm. So I went out of my way to actually couch your argument in terms that actually make sense. Are you really taking offense that I'm using narrower criteria that favors your argument? If you want, I can assume you're arguing that a pickaxe should be regulated like a gun. I'd rather not, though.

CPennypacker: At which point we would have to re-evaluate the regulations designed to ensure the safe ownership and operation of such a device.


Exactly. Because you're not ultimately talking about the purpose of manufacture or capability of the device like you think you are. You're actually talking about societal risk which is independent of either of those. Were you talking about the purpose or capability of a device being the determining factor of regulation, captive bolt pistols would need to be regulated just like a firearm. But you recognize that - fundamentally - as an idiotic thing to do. Which is fine, it means you're learning.

Your actual argument is about risk to society. And when you honestly admit that, your perspective shifts to one that says "Hey, how can we reduce the risk to society of the existence of firearms?" Rather than "Damn, firearms, you scary!"

CPennypacker: I'm being entirely honest in my logic.


See above.
 
2012-12-18 12:15:33 PM  

orclover: More power needs to be given to the psychiatrist in these situations. If a psychiatrist deems you to be likely dangerous then you should not be able to refuse treatment.

Heres the biggie: Most of all we need a huge propaganda campaign to change the mental bunkering this countries families do once they realize they have a dangerous family member on their hands. Even today it becomes a source of shame and instead of seeking help and treatment they try to treat it quietly and hide the problem away out fear of being shunned by society. Thats a huge farking problem. This kids mental problems weren't just a source of shame, he was a huge farking bomb that affected more than just his mother. It should not be a taboo to publicly identify our own family (or friends, or co-workers) as needing treatment, or even ourselves (the biggest issue is self diagnosis). This farking mother was a shut in survivalist, im amazed her kids were not completely home schooled to get the family even further away from society. One of her kids had a huge problem and she was completely unable to handle it herself and unwilling to seek help, 20 dead toddlers. The kind of action it takes to fix a social mentality like this is a hellova lot bigger than fixing "gun culture" mentality. It has to be done at the federal level, the state level, the schools and the farking churches HAVE to get involved. And they have to not stop until people farking learn that their goofy uncle might just need more than a minor med change if hes talking about running over people on the sidewalk, Or putting a gun in his mouth. We are not paying attention to each other, even in our own homes. We should be not only be able to identify our issues but be willing to share that information with the professionals who can provide the help needed to address the problem.

This is honestly too big. Its too much work. Its more work than any proposed gun legislation that may or may not make a damn bit of difference. But if you reall ...



So we don't need big government to impose more gun regulations, but we need big government giving licensed health officials more ability to lock up citizens against their (and their family and caregivers') will.

Yeah, I can just see how gun fetishists are going to love being locked in a padded cell because their doomsday, fall-of-society daydreams flags them on a Paranoid Personality Disorder screening.
 
2012-12-18 12:16:17 PM  

InmanRoshi: I was raised around guns in Texas. My grandfather was a cattle rancher, and carried a gun around with him to fend off predators from his livestock. I remember going through his NRA magazines as a kid, and the guns displayed and described were usually bolt action. The subject matter was mostly in concerns to hunting. The beauty was in a craftsmanship, and the descriptions and admiration of detail were in things like how beautiful the inlay was in the stock.

Now the gun fetishists have taken over. Obsessive intellectual masturbating over "tactical" specifications, rounds per minute and ballistic statistcs. Paranoid delusional fantasies of doomsday scenarios where gun users are defending their homes from marauding hordes (often hypothetically defined as "urbanites" *cough* *cough*). Gun Fetishists -- not all mentally ill, but popular among the mentally ill.


Well said.
 
2012-12-18 12:16:42 PM  

Geotpf: chuckufarlie: dittybopper: Ardilla: Do you think your "rights" to engage in a leisure activity are more important than the rights of those 20 children and 6 adults.

I think all constitutional rights, including the rights enumerated in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and perhaps Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments all have an ongoing cost in human lives. For example, we have decided as a society that requiring the police to get a warrant before searching a home for evidence of a crime is a protection worth having, despite the fact that untold numbers of people have died because the police couldn't gather the evidence they needed to arrest a criminal, or if they did, that evidence was tossed out of court.

Does the Second Amendment have a cost? Absolutely it does, and at times like this, that cost is especially painful. But there is a reason why it's written into the founding document of this nation, and it has nothing to do with recreation. If you think it no longer applies, feel free to try and get it repealed through the proper mechanism.

I will not fault you for that.

Don't try to side-step it, however, with the excuse "it's for the children!".

The 2nd Amendment is out of date. It serves no purpose.

Do you have children? Would you be happy to have them shot down as part of the cost for having an outdated Amendment? Yea, I didn't think so.

It is not side stepping it

The third amendment is completely obsolete, yet it is still law of the land. To ban guns at this point, you need to amend the constitution, which, IMHO, is politically impossible. If you try to do it without amending the constitution, you will be doing it illegally (and probably trigger a civil war).


A civil war? Are you out of your tiny little mind.

You did not answer my question - would you be okay with the idea if your children were part of the price we pay for the 2nd Amendment.

The fact that you wrote third when you meant second is very telling.
 
2012-12-18 12:17:13 PM  

chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: I love how the people who want to ban/restrict guns know almost nothing about guns or the laws currently on the books. You guys are just like Nancy Reagan and Tipper Gore.

The guns that are currently on the books can be changed. Maybe you are not aware of that simple fact.

Yes they can... but all you have to do is look around these threads and see people advocating for laws that already exist. Sometimes advocating for laws weaker than the ones that currently exist.

You should probably work on reading the posts you respond to before responding.

Gee, dumbass, I did read the post before I responded. I responded to your post. Now, if you had quoted some of the posts that you were "thinking" about, you would have been better served. All you did do was make a blanket statement. Or are you under the impression that we can read you mind? It would be a short read, at best, but none of us have that ability.


Then maybe you should work on your reading comprehension then.

Shouldn't you be off practicing your trigger finger? Must be hard work to be able to shoot a semi-automatic as fast a fully-automatic like you can.
 
2012-12-18 12:17:47 PM  

Ardilla: dittybopper: Ardilla: Do you think your "rights" to engage in a leisure activity are more important than the rights of those 20 children and 6 adults.

I think all constitutional rights, including the rights enumerated in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and perhaps Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments all have an ongoing cost in human lives. For example, we have decided as a society that requiring the police to get a warrant before searching a home for evidence of a crime is a protection worth having, despite the fact that untold numbers of people have died because the police couldn't gather the evidence they needed to arrest a criminal, or if they did, that evidence was tossed out of court.

Does the Second Amendment have a cost? Absolutely it does, and at times like this, that cost is especially painful. But there is a reason why it's written into the founding document of this nation, and it has nothing to do with recreation. If you think it no longer applies, feel free to try and get it repealed through the proper mechanism.

I will not fault you for that.

Don't try to side-step it, however, with the excuse "it's for the children!".

Nice spin. But you're overlooking the fact that these rights were established with bloodshed in the past. Freedom of speech, of religion, against self-incrimination, and so on were (and are) worth fighting and, yes dyying, for. But no one is dying because of those rights. Except for those Second Amendment rights, which is are clearly causing a lot of senseless deaths.


Jeez, preview is my friend.
 
2012-12-18 12:18:12 PM  

guestguy:
That doesn't exactly matter if you're firing into a group of people trying to take out as many as possible now does it?


Yeah, it does. When guns recoil, they jump upwards. If you try and shoot full auto, you'll very quickly be simply shooting thin air. Which goes back to what dittybopper said: It's only military use is to keep people pinned down to avoid it. And even then, you have to shoot it from a gun that can handle the recoil with proper bracing, and still fire bursts. Even from a machine gun.

Blind rapid fire will always be inferior to aimed shots when you're trying to hit a target. That's a simple physical fact, no need for fear mongering.

/this is just discussing the act of it, not touching any laws relating to said guns
 
2012-12-18 12:18:15 PM  
Apparently, it is not proper form to say gun owners are compensating, and often over-compensating, for tiny weenies with their weapons.

I learned that is another thread months ago.

So don't go there.
 
2012-12-18 12:18:33 PM  

orclover: InmanRoshi: NEDM: Dusk-You-n-Me: NEDM: Only in this most recent attack, however. Per the list dittybopper posted earlier, these Chinese school stabbings (that we know about, China is quite good at censorship) aren't always totally non-fatal.

So we shouldn't even bother trying to reduce gun violence! America is uniquely powerless in this situation!

No. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying that massively boosting mental health care would do more good towards stopping these attacks (in addition to helping the country as a whole as a very beneficial side effect) than just reactionary hollow bans.

This kid had been diagnosed with mental illness at a very young age and was probably on a laundry list of psych medications. He came from a very wealthy family who could afford him the best psychiatrists and drugs money had to offer.

So spell out for me how "boosting mental health" more was going to prevent this specific situation?

More power needs to be given to the psychiatrist in these situations. If a psychiatrist deems you to be likely dangerous then you should not be able to refuse treatment.

Heres the biggie: Most of all we need a huge propaganda campaign to change the mental bunkering this countries families do once they realize they have a dangerous family member on their hands. Even today it becomes a source of shame and instead of seeking help and treatment they try to treat it quietly and hide the problem away out fear of being shunned by society. Thats a huge farking problem. This kids mental problems weren't just a source of shame, he was a huge farking bomb that affected more than just his mother. It should not be a taboo to publicly identify our own family (or friends, or co-workers) as needing treatment, or even ourselves (the biggest issue is self diagnosis). This farking mother was a shut in survivalist, im amazed her kids were not completely home schooled to get the family even further away from society. One of her kids had a h ...


www.digiday.com
 
2012-12-18 12:19:37 PM  

gilgigamesh: Amos Quito: Are you saying that the German people KNEW that the Reichstag Fire was a conspiracy AT THE TIME?

And even if it hadn't been a "false flag", would that have made any difference as far as Hitler's power grab was concerned?

You need to defuddle your befuddlements and THINK for a moment.

I really don't get this. Are you saying it shouldn't matter whether or not this (Sandy Hook) was a planned false flag attack because its going to be used opportunistically? Is that what you're saying?

Because I think there are some parents of soem dead kids who would be interested to know if their kids were deliberately murdered by the US government as a part of an authoritarian gun grab.

Yes, I think that would be a piece of information they would consider highly relevant.


NO, THIS WAY NOT A FALSE FLAG ATTACK.


Is that plain enough for anybody stupid enough to even consider the idea?
 
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