Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

7197 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Dec 2012 at 10:04 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-18 09:56:57 AM  
Because they're gagged and tied up in the back room of Maynard's pawn shop with Zed and the Gimp?
 
2012-12-18 10:00:57 AM  
And in a few weeks everything will be back to the way it was. Nothing constructive will happen. There are millions of assault weapons and high capacity magazines out there and even if a ban passes, there will be sufficient time for manufacturers to get rid of the inventory, so fear not, they won't go away and will be available for mass murderers for the next 100 years.
 
2012-12-18 10:03:50 AM  
Because they're cowards who've always known that their hollow platitudes and mindless slogans cannot stand up to true scrutiny?

I'm just guessing, mind you.
 
2012-12-18 10:06:16 AM  
I would have lost a lot of money if someone bet me a few days ago that the NRA would express shame.
 
2012-12-18 10:06:30 AM  
I'm a gun owner and former hunter. But we have to change. Here is a radical idea- Ban all guns. They serve no necessary purpose- Hunting? Humans hunted successfully for 10 thousand years using Bows and Arrows. You want to hunt? Learn to use a bow or crossbow. Home security / personal defense ? We have mace, pepper spray, and tazers, all non-lethal means of defense. And I'm sure our gun manufacturers could come up with a dozen other kinds of non-lethal means of incapacitating any bad guy. Protection from the government? Give me a break. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year insuring our military is the strongest in the world. 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.

The problem we face has two factors- insane people and guns. We will never be able to contain the threat from insane people- there is no way to detect and isolate every crazy person- because we don't have the tools to do it. Simply put, you can't catch all the crazies. But guns are a physical object, easily identified. So ban them, offer a buy back program- 200% of the cost of the gun, plus a certificate for a bow or crossbow for hunters, and a certificate for a tazer or mace for those that want something for defense. And make the penalty for possession or use of a firearm steep. 

Because if we don't, we will be seeing more of these massacres. And everyone knows it.
 
2012-12-18 10:06:52 AM  
The GOP is realizing that those that cling to bibles and guns can no longer ensure their victory.

/Anti-Christian Right
/Pro-Gun Rights
 
2012-12-18 10:07:56 AM  
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

It's just guns allow those people to kill those people so much more efficiently.
 
2012-12-18 10:08:11 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-18 10:08:13 AM  

oldernell: they won't go away and will be available for mass murderers for the next 100 years.


The journey of a thousand kills begins with a single bullet.
 
2012-12-18 10:09:14 AM  
I think you could stack the bodies of gun violence victims like cordwood on the front steps of the NRA and they still wouldn't get the message.
 
2012-12-18 10:09:36 AM  
If the NRA were smart, they'd be out ahead of everyone else in writing a new assault weapons ban. It's going to happen, so they might as well be part of the process and not look uncaring about a lot of dead kids.
 
2012-12-18 10:10:10 AM  
The reason? So that they can control their message. It's that simple, really. With an open Facebook page, anyone can post on it, and there will be idiots who post there (much like on Fark). They have to be very careful so that the blatherings of someone aren't mistaken for their position during an extremely sensitive time like this.
 
2012-12-18 10:10:41 AM  

Dinki: Because if we don't And even if we do, we will be seeing more of these massacres. And everyone knows it.


FTFY
 
2012-12-18 10:12:11 AM  

Citrate1007: The GOP is realizing that those that cling to bibles and guns can no longer ensure their victory.

What about those who cling to Beecher's Bibles?
 
2012-12-18 10:12:12 AM  
People always bring up how automatic weapons are hardly ever used in crimes or massacres like this. What was done with automatic weapons to remove them from society in such a way and why can't that be done with other types?
 
2012-12-18 10:12:41 AM  
We are seeing now what's actually possible when guns are this readily accessible--we'd never had to see that before. Being witness to the most extreme possibility of making guns so easily available to anyone who wants them will likely change anyone's mind.
 
2012-12-18 10:13:09 AM  

dittybopper: The reason? So that they can control their message. It's that simple, really. With an open Facebook page, anyone can post on it, and there will be idiots who post there (much like on Fark).


They also stopped posting on twitter, where they don't risk that problem.
 
2012-12-18 10:13:38 AM  
cause them gunz is killin' peoples!!!


watch out for dem gunz. they hard ta' predict.
 
2012-12-18 10:13:47 AM  
entertaining the possibility of limiting virtually unfettered access to assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

There's got to be a way to put reasonable restrictions, particularly as we look at assault weapons, as we look at these fast clips of ammunition


So, we're not going to address the problem of why people go on rampages, we're just going to make sure they have a slightly slower rate of fire. Got it.
 
2012-12-18 10:14:04 AM  
Odds of meaningful gun control legislation this year?

I'd say about 28 percent. Ballpark figure.

Cowardly congresspeople still cowardly congresspeople.
 
2012-12-18 10:14:35 AM  
"... Fast clips of ammunition"? Is that like the sequel to "the Internet is a series of tubes"?
 
2012-12-18 10:15:06 AM  
The NRA exists only to suck dues from it's gullible members without providing any discernible service in return.
 
2012-12-18 10:15:24 AM  
I just want to know when people are going to get away from the "guns don't kill people" argument when asking for Holder to get thrown in prison and Obama to be impeached over Fast and Furious
 
2012-12-18 10:15:40 AM  
"Tyranny derives from the oligarchy's mistrust of the people; hence they deprive them of arms, ill-treat the lower class, and keep them from residing in the capital. These are common to oligarchy and tyranny."
Aristotle in Politics (J. Sinclair translation, pg. 218, 1962)
 
2012-12-18 10:16:11 AM  

oldernell: And in a few weeks everything will be back to the way it was. ...


Details here, courtesy of The Dish.
 
2012-12-18 10:16:11 AM  
I wonder how many more dead grade schoolers we get to see before the country finally decides

oldernell: And in a few weeks everything will be back to the way it was. Nothing constructive will happen.


I wonder how many more dead grade schoolers we get to see before the disinterested voter finally realizes that we don't need to set policy according to the delusions, paranoia, and fantasies of the NRA.

The immediate problem is lawmakers are terrified of crossing the gun-nut vote which, just like the general right wing vote, is actually a minority. If that grip breaks, you will see progress.
 
2012-12-18 10:16:25 AM  
Because they're calculating cowards.

And because, unfortunately, much of the call for gun-control legislation will be coming from the Republican side simply to set up incumbents to be primaried by NRA-backed candidates in the next election.

Cynical? No. Not me. When the leading Republican campaign manager sits on live national TV waiting for his fix in Ohio to kick in, nothing surprises me anymore about the Republican party. That's why I left the Republican party.
 
2012-12-18 10:17:05 AM  
Because, despite all the "herr derp FREEDOMZ" rhetoric, the NRA is now nothing more than a public relations front for gun manufacturers. When something like this happens the best move is to shut up and wait for the storm to pass.
 
2012-12-18 10:17:30 AM  

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


They're expensive.

People who have automatic weapons are generally significantly invested in their firearms financially and emotionally. Just like how some people own tanks but those aren't used in crimes. If tanks were $150 from a pawn store, though, they'd be used left and right.
 
2012-12-18 10:18:20 AM  
Specifically which of these ideas is bad:

Reinstate the assault weapons ban

Prohibit the sale of high-capacity magazines

Fix the gun show loophole

Make gun trafficking a felony

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

Prosecute people with criminal records who lie on background check forms when they try to buy guns
 
2012-12-18 10:18:48 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: Because they're calculating cowards.

And because, unfortunately, much of the call for gun-control legislation will be coming from the Republican side simply to set up incumbents to be primaried by NRA-backed candidates in the next election.

Cynical? No. Not me. When the leading Republican campaign manager sits on live national TV waiting for his fix in Ohio to kick in, nothing surprises me anymore about the Republican party. That's why I left the Republican party.


There's no shortage of Democrats who have been polishing that NRA knob.
 
2012-12-18 10:18:52 AM  

LandOfChocolate: Dinki: Because if we don't And even if we do, we will be seeing more of these massacres. And everyone knows it.

FTFY


SOMEONE has to be the first [black dude] to die via crossbow.

images.pictureshunt.com

// I'm willing to risk being at the mercy of a baseball bat-wielding psychopath if it means I have less chance of meeting a psychopath with a handgun 
// especially if us non-psychos are still allowed to carry
 
2012-12-18 10:19:23 AM  

Linux_Yes: "Tyranny derives from the oligarchy's mistrust of the people; hence they deprive them of arms, ill-treat the lower class, and keep them from residing in the capital. These are common to oligarchy and tyranny."
Aristotle in Politics (J. Sinclair translation, pg. 218, 1962)


The only disagreement I have with that statement is the oligarchy trusts the people. It knows exactly how to manipulate them with depressed wages, lousy schools and even allowing them to shoot each other in record numbers.

When rich people start getting shot, then we'll have serious gun control in this country.
 
2012-12-18 10:20:08 AM  

bulldg4life: I just want to know when people are going to get away from the "guns don't kill people" argument when asking for Holder to get thrown in prison and Obama to be impeached over Fast and Furious


Great point.
 
2012-12-18 10:20:13 AM  

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

They're expensive.

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


Don't forget all the ATF hoops you have to jump through to get them. It's hard to use a weapon in a crime if you've told the federal government you have it and allow them to search you at any time. It's simply not worth the effort or risk.
 
2012-12-18 10:20:13 AM  
Two Democratic senators with top National Rifle Association ratings

You should never start an article off with a baldfaced lie.
 
2012-12-18 10:20:16 AM  
If the NRA is responsible for gun violence then the ACLU must be responsible for hate speech.

...or we could blame the people who actually did the crime.
 
2012-12-18 10:20:34 AM  
There were an estimated 42 mass shootings in the 90's and 26 in the 00's. A BIG part is the perception they are on the rise thanks to the media's non stop barrage of coverage.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/associated-press-story-believe-it-or- n ot-mass-killings-are-not-on-the-rise-they-are-on-the-decline/

IIRC, in the latest 5 (Tucson, Aurora, Milwaukee, Seattle, and CT), they all occurred in areas where its illegal to carry. Could be wrong but I thought I remember seeing that somewhere.
 
2012-12-18 10:20:43 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.


I figured somebody would bring those up. If you think we have put any where near the full might of the US military into those fights you are a fool. Hell at the peak deployment we had barely 160,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. In 1968 we had over 500,000 in Vietnam. Iraq and Afghanistan were always just sideshows.
 
2012-12-18 10:20:44 AM  

AntiNerd: The immediate problem is lawmakers are terrified of crossing the gun-nut vote which, just like the general right wing vote, is actually a minority. If that grip breaks, you will see progress.


The bigger problem, to me, is that both sides generally hump the fear vote so much that any real rational examination of gun laws is out of the question regardless of what party is in power.
 
2012-12-18 10:20:45 AM  

Dinki: Protection from the government?


Exactly. What a farking waste of breath. We have a government that has never fallen to a military coup, we have one of the most stable democracies in the world, and furthermore, our government has weapons no gun could combat. I don't have an agenda here against guns per se. My mother grew up in a community where everyone owned one and very few people were hurt by them. But this is different. We've crossed some line. We're no longer talking about hunters and ranchers. We're talking about paranoid shiats who are convinced the darkies are coming to get them. They hoard guns and food for the coming apocalypse and we are supposed to be okay with that. I'm not.
 
2012-12-18 10:21:08 AM  
Connecticut already had an assault weapon ban in place before this horrible event occurred. The issue continues to be the inability of this country to have a serious talk about mental health
 
2012-12-18 10:21:31 AM  
an M1 was good enough to take down the nazis, it's good enough to defend my home and shoot pumpkins. I don't need a 30 round magazine. I'm also ok with having a license to own a firearm/ammo above certain lethality. And I'm ok with a system whereby if you want those arms, you agree to be apart of a regulated defense force in the event of an invasion. (ie, a militia).

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

Having m16s and m4s won't win you a revolution against the US gov anyway, wide spread civilian support and guerrilla tactics will.

/super libby lib libtard, who also enjoys the shooting sports.crazy I know.
 
2012-12-18 10:21:33 AM  

Linux_Yes: "Tyranny derives from the oligarchy's mistrust of the people; hence they deprive them of arms, ill-treat the lower class, and keep them from residing in the capital. These are common to oligarchy and tyranny."
Aristotle in Politics (J. Sinclair translation, pg. 218, 1962)


Except we have a plutocratic oligarchy, which means that there are those in power that need to continue to sell weapons to the poor to maintain their power. In fact, the more armed and afraid the populous is the better they fare.
 
2012-12-18 10:21:37 AM  

bulldg4life: People always bring up how automatic weapons are hardly ever used in crimes or massacres like this. What was done with automatic weapons to remove them from society in such a way and why can't that be done with other types?


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

If you meet certain and very weak requirements, you too can own a fully automatic weapon.
 
2012-12-18 10:21:46 AM  

Karac: Two Democratic senators with top National Rifle Association ratings

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


Please, tell me exactly how that is a lie.
 
2012-12-18 10:22:00 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: And because, unfortunately, much of the call for gun-control legislation will be coming from the Republican side simply to set up incumbents to be primaried by NRA-backed candidates in the next election.


Meh, gun control was pretty much still a 50/50 split topic. The difference is the gun fetishist 50% was previously way more motivated on the issue. That might have changed since 20 first grade children were gunned down in under 2 minutes.
 
2012-12-18 10:22:04 AM  

Summoner101: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

It's just guns allow those people to kill those people so much more efficiently.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-18 10:22:11 AM  

urbangirl: Specifically which of these ideas is bad:

Reinstate the assault weapons ban

Prohibit the sale of high-capacity magazines

Fix the gun show loophole

Make gun trafficking a felony

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

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


What exactly is "the gun show loophole"?
 
2012-12-18 10:22:29 AM  

Dinki: Because if we don't, we will be seeing more of these massacres. And everyone knows it.


No way.
If all the teachers were armed, this wouldn't have happened and also they have guns in Switzerland and also a guy in China attacked schoolkids with a knife and also McVeigh made a bomb with fertilizer so why don't we ban fertilizer and also if guns are bad why does the president have armed guards?

All those things are true. People posted pictures of Willy Wonka saying so on Facebook, and that's all the proof I need.
 
2012-12-18 10:23:00 AM  

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

If you meet certain and very weak requirements, you too can own a fully automatic weapon.


If the requirements are very weak, why aren't more fully automatic weapons used in crimes?
 
2012-12-18 10:23:22 AM  
Dumbass tag? Not spouting off on social media is possibly the smartest thing anybody has done in the wake of this tragedy. And they're going to get pilloried anyway, this way they can wait until the emotions and hysterical overreaching die down.

Am I the only one who has a problem with the media in this country, about how narcissistic and fame-obsessed we are? About how the ability to vomit up an opinion on anything that the entire world can see has seemingly eradicated the expectation or responsibility to be informed and thoughtful?
 
2012-12-18 10:23:32 AM  
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.
 
2012-12-18 10:23:55 AM  
Making any kind of change to gun law enforcement (we need stronger enforcement of the current laws, not new ones IMO) is going to be seen in our government in the same light as legalization of marijuana.

There is too much money in the way things work right now to make any kind of meaningful change. It's about money, not about peace.
 
2012-12-18 10:23:55 AM  
A guy walking into an elementary school with a pair of handguns and murdering 20 kids and 8 adults doesn't strike me as an indictment of our failure to pass a comprehensive assault weapons ban. It's an indictment of our healthcare system. If you want to make it easy for people to buy guns, then you have to make it even easier for people to seek medical help for mental disorders. Otherwise the nutcases will deal with their problems using the former rather than the latter. It seems pretty straight-forward.
 
2012-12-18 10:24:58 AM  
"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 "

Yeah, they're cowards. How's that news?

I say if we're going to ban all guns then Washington DC should lead by example - what you DO is what you really believe. First the whole city including the entirety of federal law enforcement, secret service, capital police, then the military. If banning guns is automatically a good thing than we should taken away from those that rack up the highest body counts first, that would be government. If that's the way to be safe then the capital building and the white house should be made into an instant gun-free zone protected only with billy clubs.

Oh, but they're our glorious leaders that need special protection that us mere plebes don't require because we're simply not as important.
 
2012-12-18 10:24:59 AM  

urbangirl: Specifically which of these ideas is bad:

Reinstate the assault weapons ban

Prohibit the sale of high-capacity magazines

Fix the gun show loophole

Make gun trafficking a felony

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

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


That would be the true nature of the laws talked about now, yes. But if you ask the NRA, the laws are intended to make it so no one can buy, hold, or even look at a gun without committing a felony. It's that farked up. As long as "assault weapons" doesn't become some bureaucratic loophole to get everything, of course.

\pro-gun rights
\\but you'd have to be retarded to think that your list is anti-gun rights
 
2012-12-18 10:25:04 AM  

Dinki: If you think we have put any where near the full might of the US military into those fights you are a fool.


You really don't know that people were deployed far longer and far more often than we were ever supposed to allow because of how thin our military was stretched? Or are you seriously arguing that because we used to have more people in the military decades ago we didn't actually spend most of a decade in those hellholes?

The point is that asymmetric warfare is asymmetric. It doesn't respond to larger force (up to the point of genocide, at least) like conventional warfare does - that's why we could kick the piss out of the Iraqi military twice in a row, but be bogged down for nearly a decade by assholes taping bombs to bicycles and hiding as civilians.

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


Indeed.
 
2012-12-18 10:25:37 AM  
THE GUNS ARE NOT GOING AWAY. THEY ARE HERE AND THEY ALWAYS WILL BE. The solution to the problem is about getting over our obsession with violence and retribution and approaching mental health as a public health issue. Nothing is going to solve the problem instantly and permanently.

But its easier to just shoot people so it isnt going to happen.
 
2012-12-18 10:26:09 AM  

Jarhead_h: If banning guns is automatically a good thing


"If defeating a strawman automatically meant something..."
 
2012-12-18 10:26:17 AM  

LandOfChocolate: Dinki: Because if we don't And even if we do, we will be seeing more of these massacres. And everyone knows it.

FTFY


Sigh. Yes, because we all know those crazy people are actually master criminals that would have access to the black market of guns. Or are you saying that if they didn't have guns they would find some other way to kill many people quickly? Maybe we should ask the 22 students that were attacked in china by a crazy person the same day as the Newtown massacre. And we can ask them, because they are all still alive. And why is that? because the crazy person had to use a knife and not a gun.
 
2012-12-18 10:26:18 AM  

urbangirl: Specifically which of these ideas is bad:

Reinstate the assault weapons ban


What demonstrable benefit results from prohibiting a subclass of an already rarely criminally misused class of firearm (all rifles of any type are less commonly used to commit murder than are unarmed attacks) based upon characteristics that do not affect firearm function?


Prohibit the sale of high-capacity magazines

What is a "high-capacity" magazine? Frequently, "high-capacity" is dishonestly defined as capacities greater than capacities smaller than the standard magazines of many popular handguns and rifles.


Fix the gun show loophole

Please describe the "gun show loophole". Explain how it is derived from existing law and how it relates specifically to "gun shows".


Make gun trafficking a felony

Firearm trafficking is already a felony offense. It is unfortunately not enforced frequently.


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

Currently, federal law already requires this.


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

This, unfortunately, is not done frequently. When I last investigated the matter, fewer than 10% of prohibited persons who attempted to obtain a firearm from a licensed seller were prosecuted after denial.
 
2012-12-18 10:26:25 AM  

pudding7: What exactly is "the gun show loophole"?


I have heard it is a misnomer, but the basic gist is that if you are a 'private seller' conducting a 'private transaction' then you don't have to perform background checks. (If I recall correctly)

I think it's called the 'gun show loophole' due to people arguing that there will, amazingly, be a LOT of these 'private sellers' at gunshows, so they don't have to pay to do background checks (and/or can sell without having to do them). Whether or not that is true, I don't know.
 
2012-12-18 10:26:26 AM  

pudding7: urbangirl: Specifically which of these ideas is bad:

Reinstate the assault weapons ban

Prohibit the sale of high-capacity magazines

Fix the gun show loophole

Make gun trafficking a felony

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

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

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.
 
2012-12-18 10:26:55 AM  
The awb never worked. Why do people insist in bringing it back when there's a mountain of evidence that indicates it did jacksquat? CT has a state version of the awb in place already, btw.

And please, let's be very clear, a 30 cartridge magazine in an ar15 is standard capacity, not high capacity. If a 20 round 9 mm handgun is illegal, they'll just buy a 7 round 45 1911 which is much more powerful round.
 
2012-12-18 10:27:19 AM  
I'm a pretty reasonable gun owner who is willing to make some compromises, but I won't even approach it with the hateful rhetoric right now. I feel like some people need to be reminded that this is a right that exists today, and you are going to need some buy-in to reduce those rights.

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

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

I'd support making gun owner legally responsible for their guns. Lock em up. Secure them. Pay the piper if you don't. It's an access issue. Mag and "assault rifle" are largely ineffective and miss the point.
 
2012-12-18 10:27:21 AM  

LandOfChocolate: entertaining the possibility of limiting virtually unfettered access to assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

There's got to be a way to put reasonable restrictions, particularly as we look at assault weapons, as we look at these fast clips of ammunition


So, we're not going to address the problem of why people go on rampages, we're just going to make sure they have a slightly slower rate of fire. Got it.


No, we totally need to, but that's not an overnight process. Right now we could do something meaningful to restrict the most dangerous weapons. A slower rate of fire could definitely save some lives.
 
2012-12-18 10:27:30 AM  
In the last two days 3 cops have been killed around here. 2 in Topeka and 1 in central Missouri.

Yesterday 3 bodies were found in an apparent murder suicide in Smithville Missouri.

Saturday night a 4 year old boy and his father were shot while sitting in their car in Kansas City, Dad is expected to survive, the 4 year old is not.

And these are just the stories around here, since Saturday. That's only 3 days worth.
 
2012-12-18 10:28:03 AM  
Because freedom.
And because guns are uncivilized and anyone owning guns has problems doing what civilized individuals would do. Hence, no word from the NRA which is made up of uncivilized individuals.
 
2012-12-18 10:28:12 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: A guy walking into an elementary school with a pair of handguns and murdering 20 kids and 8 adults doesn't strike me as an indictment of our failure to pass a comprehensive assault weapons ban. It's an indictment of our healthcare system. If you want to make it easy for people to buy guns, then you have to make it even easier for people to seek medical help for mental disorders. Otherwise the nutcases will deal with their problems using the former rather than the latter. It seems pretty straight-forward.


The United States spends 5.6 percent of its health care budget on mental health treatment, which is on par with other developed nations.

Meanwhile, 15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States.
 
2012-12-18 10:28:19 AM  
The NRA has nothing to do with this. Remember, exploitation of a tragedy for political reasons is wrong and sick until they're your political reasons.

To put it more bluntly, the Obama administration whom you have been defending to the hilt over Benghazi and howling in rage when anyone tries to hold the administration in any way responsible for it... Is FAR more connected to the deaths of those four Americans than the NRA is to these mass shootings. You're the same bunch of tools who ran around waving your arms and yelling "Islamophobia!" when people started talking about what led up to the Ft. Hood shooting

You know all those religious people whom you keep crying about because they took this chance to run their mouths about what they believe is the problem? Quit acting like them. If you're running around raging at the NRA then take a seat over there with those religious arsehats if you're going to behave like them. Most of all don't fly in to fits of indignant outrage when people "exploit" tragedies for "political" reasons unless you are prepared to stop doing it yourselves.

And you're not going to stop, I know it, and you know it.
 
2012-12-18 10:29:04 AM  
Posted this before, I'll post again:

I've had many days to think about the shooting in CT... I realize at this point that a assault weapons ban will probably happen; the Congress Critters can't exactly fight this type of thing when you have 20 dead kids under age of 7 or so.

However, I think this won't solve the problem. All the weapons that exist currently still will exist, all the "scary" high capacity magazines already out there will exist, making laws banning additional sales of new semi-automatic rifles won't change that.

What we need in this country isn't new gun laws; what we need is in increased healthcare system, specifically more MENTAL HEALTHCARE. There are too many sick people out there that aren't getting the treatment they need, it's easier for them to get access to guns than it is to get access to the medicine they need.

Support curing the sickness, not ignoring the sick people; They don't need guns to hurt people, they'll find another way!
 
2012-12-18 10:29:25 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: A guy walking into an elementary school with a pair of handguns and murdering 20 kids and 8 adults doesn't strike me as an indictment of our failure to pass a comprehensive assault weapons ban. It's an indictment of our healthcare system.


Why not both?
 
2012-12-18 10:29:28 AM  
In 10 years nothing will have changed and you will still be able to buy a rifle that exactly resembles a bushmaster in everything but name that can carry as many bullets as you want. Forget it jake, its merica.
 
2012-12-18 10:29:33 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.


A 223 Bushmaster is a semi-auto handgun?
 
2012-12-18 10:29:46 AM  

randomjsa: The NRA has nothing to do with this.


Sure they do.


Since 2009, the NRA and its allies in state capitols have pushed through 99 laws making guns easier to own, easier to carry in public-eight states now even allow them in bars-and harder for the government to track. More than two-thirds of the laws were passed by Republican-controlled legislatures, though often with bipartisan support. Link
 
2012-12-18 10:30:04 AM  

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


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

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

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

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

Again, it was the kids mother who owned the firearms. Will you extend the screens to anyone who lives in the residence or who has regular access to it?
 
2012-12-18 10:30:12 AM  
Just do what I've done -- accept that these episodes are tragic but inevitable despite our efforts in any direction. Short of burning the Constitution that Jesus brought down from Mt. Sinai, there will always be a contingent afraid that ANY legislation is somewhere on the level of being marched off to the gas chambers or gulags.
 
2012-12-18 10:30:18 AM  

urbangirl: Specifically which of these ideas is bad:

Reinstate the assault weapons ban

Prohibit the sale of high-capacity magazines

Fix the gun show loophole

Make gun trafficking a felony

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

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


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

If you want to really stop these things from happening, strengthen the fark out of mental health treatment, and limit sales of all weapons so that people who have untreated mental illnesses. Make it possible to force the dangerous cases to get help instead of just watching them go back untreated into society in futility. Don't punish non-crazy people for the acts of a madman, make it so the madman never commits his acts.
 
2012-12-18 10:30:26 AM  

FriarReb98: urbangirl: Specifically which of these ideas is bad:

Reinstate the assault weapons ban

Prohibit the sale of high-capacity magazines

Fix the gun show loophole

Make gun trafficking a felony

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

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

That would be the true nature of the laws talked about now, yes. But if you ask the NRA, the laws are intended to make it so no one can buy, hold, or even look at a gun without committing a felony. It's that farked up. As long as "assault weapons" doesn't become some bureaucratic loophole to get everything, of course.

\pro-gun rights
\\but you'd have to be retarded to think that your list is anti-gun rights


That's my point -- these are all perfectly reasonable things that could and should be done. I'm glad to see that you agree.
 
2012-12-18 10:30:26 AM  

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


Citation needed. I've only seen where a hand gun was used.
 
2012-12-18 10:30:28 AM  

ginandbacon: Dinki: Protection from the government?

Exactly. What a farking waste of breath. We have a government that has never fallen to a military coup, we have one of the most stable democracies in the world, and furthermore, our government has weapons no gun could combat. I don't have an agenda here against guns per se. My mother grew up in a community where everyone owned one and very few people were hurt by them. But this is different. We've crossed some line. We're no longer talking about hunters and ranchers. We're talking about paranoid shiats who are convinced the darkies are coming to get them. They hoard guns and food for the coming apocalypse and we are supposed to be okay with that. I'm not.


To play devil's advocate:

There's protection against the government, and then there's protection against THE GOVERNMENT. Expecting to do anything against the combined weight of the US military is simply stupid, but there's always the possibility that corrupt local authorities could abuse their ability to carry arms.

I think that portraying the "protection against the government" crowd solely as being paranoid against a US military incursion is setting up a little straw man. Sure there are nutter compound-dwellers out there that think the army's going to come knock on their door, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that a local sheriff will grab a few friends and his supply of rifles to oust someone he doesn't like from the community. Not all of the country is full of enlightened local authorities who are out for everyone's best interest. Given a situation where they have guns and no one else does, it's possible some trouble could start.
 
2012-12-18 10:30:32 AM  

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

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

Please, tell me exactly how that is a lie.


Democrats, by definition, are incapable of holding top rating from the NRA. It will always endorse a republican with an F rating over a democrat with an A+.
 
2012-12-18 10:30:34 AM  

SuperT: an M1 was good enough to take down the nazis, it's good enough to defend my home and shoot pumpkins. I don't need a 30 round magazine. I'm also ok with having a license to own a firearm/ammo above certain lethality. And I'm ok with a system whereby if you want those arms, you agree to be apart of a regulated defense force in the event of an invasion. (ie, a militia).

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

Having m16s and m4s won't win you a revolution against the US gov anyway, wide spread civilian support and guerrilla tactics will.

/super libby lib libtard, who also enjoys the shooting sports.crazy I know.


The Atlanta Olympics bomber is an example of insurgency in this country. Eric stayed out years, killing and wounding hundreds of people. But he evidently was taken care of by small numbers of people.

Ted Kaczynski received money from his family.
 
2012-12-18 10:30:43 AM  

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


Sorry that won't happen. There's this weird thing called the Constitution.
 
2012-12-18 10:31:03 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-18 10:31:12 AM  

bulldg4life: I just want to know when people are going to get away from the "guns don't kill people" argument when asking for Holder to get thrown in prison and Obama to be impeached over Fast and Furious


Exactly what criminal charge would you put Holder in prison for? Difficulty: No proof he even knew about the gun walking

That's before we get to the part where there's no proof Obama knew about it either. Are you going to go full tard and say that a President should be impeached if a criminal act is committed by anyone in the vast federal bureaucracy, even if he has no knowledge of it at the time?
 
2012-12-18 10:31:12 AM  

InmanRoshi: LouDobbsAwaaaay: A guy walking into an elementary school with a pair of handguns and murdering 20 kids and 8 adults doesn't strike me as an indictment of our failure to pass a comprehensive assault weapons ban. It's an indictment of our healthcare system. If you want to make it easy for people to buy guns, then you have to make it even easier for people to seek medical help for mental disorders. Otherwise the nutcases will deal with their problems using the former rather than the latter. It seems pretty straight-forward.

The United States spends 5.6 percent of its health care budget on mental health treatment, which is on par with other developed nations.

Meanwhile, 15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States.


The problem probably isn't the sheer amount of spending, but who and what it's being spent on. "Mental health treatment" covers a lot of ground, and I imagine most of that is psychologists or psychotherapists or psychiatrists and prescription drugs.

Plus, the ones who are being treated aren't the ones to worry about.
 
2012-12-18 10:31:22 AM  

roddack: Connecticut already had an assault weapon ban in place before this horrible event occurred. The issue continues to be the inability of this country to have a serious talk about mental health


And yet the rifle that was used to kill all of those people is perfectly legal in the state of Connecticut. The law is Connecticut is one of those pathetic examples of loop holes around loop holes. What is the point in banning one assault type weapon and not banning another? All the law does is penalize certain manufacturers while it gives people access to automatic weapons, just not fully automatic.

Mental health is not the issue. What is the good of a mental health program is the people doing all of this shooting have never even been seen by a mental health care professional? How is that going to solve anything?

The issue is that anybody has access to weapons like this.
 
2012-12-18 10:31:38 AM  

sprawl15: You really don't know that people were deployed far longer and far more often than we were ever supposed to allow because of how thin our military was stretched?


the reason it was stretched is because we made the conscious decision to not invest the resources necessary. Do you really think that if we thought that Iraq or Afghanistan was a serious threat we wouldn't institute a draft and send not 160,000 troops but 2,000,000?
 
2012-12-18 10:32:04 AM  

KellyX: They don't need guns to hurt people, they'll find another way!


A far less effective way that ensures more people survive, yes. This is a good thing, you know.
 
2012-12-18 10:32:28 AM  
politicalmemes.com
 
2012-12-18 10:32:58 AM  

illegal.tender: LouDobbsAwaaaay: A guy walking into an elementary school with a pair of handguns and murdering 20 kids and 8 adults doesn't strike me as an indictment of our failure to pass a comprehensive assault weapons ban. It's an indictment of our healthcare system.

Why not both?


Prohibiting civilian ownership of a subset of rifles (all rifles are less commonly used to commit murder than are unarmed attacks) based upon characteristics that do not affect function is not likely to affect rates of violent crime at all.
 
2012-12-18 10:33:06 AM  

bulldg4life: People always bring up how automatic weapons are hardly ever used in crimes or massacres like this. What was done with automatic weapons to remove them from society in such a way and why can't that be done with other types?


The National Firearms Act of 1934, in reaction to the perceived menace of machine guns in the hands of criminals, was passed that required an (at the time prohibitive) $200 tax stamp to purchase or transfer a machine gun. This allowed legal ownership of them, along with silencers and short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and some other minor categories. Over time, people registered their legally owned machine guns. At one point the $200 transfer tax wasn't that big a deal anymore: A Thompson submachine gun was $200 when the tax was originally passed, effectively doubling the price of an already very expensive gun (That's the equivalent of $3,300 today just for the gun, the tax bringing the price up past the equivalent of $6,600+). By the 1980's, though, inflation in the price of a full-auto Thompson, and just guns in general, made the $200 tax not that much of an obstacle anymore.

In 1986, the supply was cut-off: The Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owner Protection Act (inserted almost certainly in violation of House rules) cut off the supply permanently: You can't register a machine gun made after 1986, and hence they can't be legally owned. Machine guns in the registry prior to the cut-off can be transferred, but because the supply is fixed, the prices are insanely high.

In the end, you couldn't do this because of Heller. The Heller decision allows that prohibitions on the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons" may be constitutional, but that those "in common use at the time" are protected. Semiautomatic rifles and pistols are in common use at this time, and are commonly used for core Second Amendment purposes.
 
2012-12-18 10:33:26 AM  
While I can't stand the NRA and their mindless slippery slope defenses that get in the way of common sense ideas, I don't know how to make much progress on gun control.

Banning assault weapons is mostly a cosmetic ban, unless you are willing to ban semi-auto rifles altogether. You can't ban hand guns because of Heller. That leaves you with high capacity magazines, which means the same nut will just have to reload a few more times between slayings.

I think the truth is that barring a constitutional change and an abandonment of gun culture, we aren't going to change anything. Maybe it will look different if the nuts keep killing white children in bunches.
 
2012-12-18 10:33:40 AM  

urbangirl: Reinstate the assault weapons ban


The Assault Weapons Ban didn't ban any assault weapons.
 
2012-12-18 10:33:43 AM  
So, basically, if you're a DBA, you should be set for a job under this unified reporting system that the NRA will probably fight.
 
2012-12-18 10:33:44 AM  
Because they are literally pro-murder instead of just pro-gun. Why else would they fight for the "stand your ground" laws?
 
2012-12-18 10:33:48 AM  

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

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

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

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


If this is truly your problem, the answer is to write better legislation, not to give up on regulation altogether.
 
2012-12-18 10:33:52 AM  

randomjsa: The NRA has nothing to do with this. Remember, exploitation of a tragedy for political reasons is wrong and sick until they're your political reasons.

To put it more bluntly, the Obama administration whom you have been defending to the hilt over Benghazi and howling in rage when anyone tries to hold the administration in any way responsible for it... Is FAR more connected to the deaths of those four Americans than the NRA is to these mass shootings. You're the same bunch of tools who ran around waving your arms and yelling "Islamophobia!" when people started talking about what led up to the Ft. Hood shooting

You know all those religious people whom you keep crying about because they took this chance to run their mouths about what they believe is the problem? Quit acting like them. If you're running around raging at the NRA then take a seat over there with those religious arsehats if you're going to behave like them. Most of all don't fly in to fits of indignant outrage when people "exploit" tragedies for "political" reasons unless you are prepared to stop doing it yourselves.

And you're not going to stop, I know it, and you know it.


The NRA is second to none when it comes to exploiting things for political purposes. Because mass murder doesn't aid their cause or make their message easier to sell, they ignore it.

But the NRA has fought diligently and purchased politicians by the dozens to ultimately defend the right for deranged people to have easy access to weapons that make killing sprees so much easier.

Own it, NRA.
 
2012-12-18 10:34:01 AM  

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

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


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

Now what do you have to say?
 
2012-12-18 10:34:34 AM  

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


For whatever reason, the lines about the rifle not being used was trumpeted on that Friday and Saturday. Before any reasonable analysis of the scene could've possibly been done. There were countless posts here on Fark about how the rifle was found in his car.

All three weapons were found next to his body.

And, officials stated that the kids were shot 6-11 times with a rifle.
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/newtown-sandy-hook-school-sho o ting/hc-newtown-assault-weapons-20121217,0,7818253.story
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/gunman-kills-20-children-a t -school-in-connecticut-28-dead-in-all.html
 
2012-12-18 10:34:40 AM  

KellyX: What we need in this country isn't new gun laws; what we need is in increased healthcare system, specifically more MENTAL HEALTHCARE. There are too many sick people out there that aren't getting the treatment they need, it's easier for them to get access to guns than it is to get access to the medicine they need.


America spends more in healthcare per GDP than any other industrialized country, and spends as much of a percentage of their healthcare costs on treating mental illness as any other country. Yet, America is where the mass gun violence largely occurs.

This isn't an either/or mutually exclusive scenerio. We need to identify crazies and we need to mitigate the amount of damage crazies can do by restricting their access to weapons that serve no other functional purpose than to wipe out high numbers of human beings in an incredibly short period of time.

I think you'll find that mentally ill and the gun fetishists are probably one in the same. I grew up around a lot of gun fetishists and post-apocalyptic scenerio daydreamers, and I doubt many of them could pass a paranoid personality disorder screening. So when I hear all these gun fetishists screaming we don't need government involved in gun restrictions, but rather more government involvement in mental health screenings and profiling .... well, they better be careful in what they wish for.
 
2012-12-18 10:35:15 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: Linux_Yes: "Tyranny derives from the oligarchy's mistrust of the people; hence they deprive them of arms, ill-treat the lower class, and keep them from residing in the capital. These are common to oligarchy and tyranny."
Aristotle in Politics (J. Sinclair translation, pg. 218, 1962)

The only disagreement I have with that statement is the oligarchy trusts the people. It knows exactly how to manipulate them with depressed wages, lousy schools and even allowing them to shoot each other in record numbers.

When rich people start getting shot, then we'll have serious gun control in this country.


you got that right. control laws would change overnight.
 
2012-12-18 10:35:28 AM  

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

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


I'm surprised you haven't seen it. It started out an assault weapon, then it was the two guns, then the medical examiner said the kids were all shot with .223. The handguns have not been described as the exotic ones capable of firing the .223.
 
2012-12-18 10:35:33 AM  

Dinki: sprawl15: You really don't know that people were deployed far longer and far more often than we were ever supposed to allow because of how thin our military was stretched?

the reason it was stretched is because we made the conscious decision to not invest the resources necessary. Do you really think that if we thought that Iraq or Afghanistan was a serious threat we wouldn't institute a draft and send not 160,000 troops but 2,000,000?


We have 2 million combat troops? Neat, tell me more about the magical world that exists only inside your head.
 
2012-12-18 10:35:37 AM  
InmanRoshi

The United States spends 5.6 percent of its health care budget on mental health treatment, which is on par with other developed nations.

Why didn't you link to the articel, which includes items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7?
 
2012-12-18 10:35:41 AM  

sprawl15: dittybopper: The reason? So that they can control their message. It's that simple, really. With an open Facebook page, anyone can post on it, and there will be idiots who post there (much like on Fark).

They also stopped posting on twitter, where they don't risk that problem.


Gee, an organization that is under a microscope, taking time to consider its response to a senseless tragedy?

How *INHUMAN* of them.
 
2012-12-18 10:35:46 AM  

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


So they're less efficient killers and would probably end up killing less people? Why is this considered a bad thing?
 
2012-12-18 10:35:57 AM  

sweetmelissa31: Because they are literally pro-murder instead of just pro-gun. Why else would they fight for the "stand your ground" laws?


Trayvon could have used that bag of skittles to trip George Zimmerman like the gunball machine that fell over in the beginning of Superman III. Pretty tough to Stand Your Ground if you're slip sliding on delicious balls.
 
2012-12-18 10:36:06 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.


We took out the Iraq military in a number of days. One by one identifying individuals who are trying to kill you versus the individuals who simply want to protect their homes on a house by house level through an entire country is another matter entirely. If they decided to F it and kill everyone or round everyone up it would go faster but obviously that isn't acceptable was of conducting one-selves as a modern country.
 
2012-12-18 10:36:42 AM  

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

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

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

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

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

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


Yes. Absolutely. Everyone in the house must pass the screen on a regular and recurring basis.
 
2012-12-18 10:36:52 AM  

vygramul: The handguns have not been described as the exotic ones capable of firing the .223.


i.imgur.com ?
 
2012-12-18 10:36:57 AM  

FriarReb98: Because they're gagged and tied up in the back room of Maynard's pawn shop with Zed and the Gimp?



What about the American people?
the American people are sleeping.
well, i guess you'd better wake them up, then.
 
2012-12-18 10:37:24 AM  

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

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


Exactly. So many of the things people are proposing wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference in this tragedy

Rushing Congress to action gives us things like the TSA, PATRIOT ACT, DMCA etc. Be careful what you wish for
 
2012-12-18 10:37:32 AM  

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

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


From a Darwinian perspective, the jury is definitely out on this.

From a compassionate human being who gives a f*ck about his community and nation perspective, it would be tough to see a downside.
 
2012-12-18 10:37:50 AM  

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

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

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

Now what do you have to say?


Yes that's good and fine. Feel free to propose one. However, most people on Fark who post "just ban all gunz!!1!". Probably make the uneducated assumption that laws can just be written to do so. Realistically, considering how polarized the gun debate is, do you really think that an amendment like that would pass through? I am by no means a gun nut, but I'm realistic about expectations.
 
2012-12-18 10:38:16 AM  

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

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


Because people would still be killed, therefore there is no need to do anything.

For other arguments, please see "taxing every millionaire at 100% would not eliminate the debt. we need to cut spending" from the fiscal cliff debate.
 
2012-12-18 10:38:23 AM  
Federally-licensed gun dealers have to perform background checks on everybody, period, wherever they sell guns. pepper who don't derive a significant portion of their income from gun sales (private citizens) can legally sell to anybody who is a resident of the same state and not otherwise barred from owning guns.

Private sellers are legally barred from accessing the NICS, so right now they couldn't submit a background check even if they wanted to.

This is kind of why gun rights supporters dismiss anti-gun people outright, you constantly use 'I think' and 'I'm not sure,' yet you continue to expound on the issue,...
 
2012-12-18 10:39:25 AM  

Sandusky Knows Best: However, most people on Fark who post "just ban all gunz!!1!".


In the past four days, I have seen people throw this around as a strawman far more than I have seen people actually make that argument.

The ratio has to be four or five to 1
 
2012-12-18 10:39:29 AM  

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

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

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

Now what do you have to say?

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


These people are few. But if you want to focus on them rather than moderates who are the majority, enjoy your futility.
 
2012-12-18 10:39:31 AM  

dittybopper: sprawl15: dittybopper: The reason? So that they can control their message. It's that simple, really. With an open Facebook page, anyone can post on it, and there will be idiots who post there (much like on Fark).

They also stopped posting on twitter, where they don't risk that problem.

Gee, an organization that is under a microscope, taking time to consider its response to a senseless tragedy?

How *INHUMAN* of them.


Amusing to see you so quickly move the goalposts.

MindStalker: We took out the Iraq military in a number of days. One by one identifying individuals who are trying to kill you versus the individuals who simply want to protect their homes on a house by house level through an entire country is another matter entirely.


Congratulations, you got the farking point of my post.
 
2012-12-18 10:39:48 AM  

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

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

Please, tell me exactly how that is a lie.

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


The article says they have top ratings, not that they were endorsed.
Senator Mark Warner-VA and Senator Joe Manchin-W VA. They've both stated they have A ratings and I'm pretty sure if they didn't, someone would have called them out on it by now.
 
2012-12-18 10:40:16 AM  

bartink: While I can't stand the NRA and their mindless slippery slope defenses that get in the way of common sense ideas, I don't know how to make much progress on gun control.

Banning assault weapons is mostly a cosmetic ban, unless you are willing to ban semi-auto rifles altogether. You can't ban hand guns because of Heller. That leaves you with high capacity magazines, which means the same nut will just have to reload a few more times between slayings.

I think the truth is that barring a constitutional change and an abandonment of gun culture, we aren't going to change anything. Maybe it will look different if the nuts keep killing white children in bunches.


I am a very process-oriented guy. I don't like clever circumventions of rights, like all the Republican rape-wands and medical requirements that are making abortion more and more difficult to obtain. I also don't like modernity being used as a justification for why we can ban something, because, well, the Founders couldn't have possibly conceived of a communications medium as powerful as the Internet, so we can censor it, right?

I'm convinced, based on what the Founders wrote before and after the Bill of Rights, as well as the content of the constitution, that the NRA's interpretation of the second amendment is a lot closer to the truth than people who want to ban them. There's a process for changing that, and if we don't use it, realize that any alternative process can be applied to any other amendment.

And that's a worse threat than the hypothetical tyrannical government that the guns are supposed to protect us from.
 
2012-12-18 10:40:16 AM  

SuperT: an M1 was good enough to take down the nazis, it's good enough to defend my home and shoot pumpkins. I don't need a 30 round magazine.


http://www.keepshooting.com/m1-carbine-30rd-magazine.html

Since 1944.
 
2012-12-18 10:40:35 AM  

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

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

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

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


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

All that is needed is a law that bans all rifles that use a magazine or a clip. That is not difficult to understand and it eliminates the problem of automatic weapons in the hands of civilians.
 
2012-12-18 10:40:57 AM  

qorkfiend: Plus, the ones who are being treated aren't the ones to worry about.


The ones who are being treated aren't the ones to worry about.

Thank you.  the ones we need to worry about do not go get treatment on their own. People of a mindset to kill a bunch of innocent strangers are not the same people who wake up one day and think, "Gosh, things are getting out control. I admit it--I need some outside help."
 
2012-12-18 10:40:59 AM  

bulldg4life: Sandusky Knows Best: However, most people on Fark who post "just ban all gunz!!1!".

In the past four days, I have seen people throw this around as a strawman far more than I have seen people actually make that argument.

The ratio has to be four or five to 1


This This and by the way This. All the Facebook infographics from the right-wing derp brigade would have you believe there are citizens with pitchforks and lanterns at their doorstop, ready to confiscate their guns.

Paranoid pussies.
 
2012-12-18 10:41:16 AM  

sprawl15: Dinki: sprawl15: You really don't know that people were deployed far longer and far more often than we were ever supposed to allow because of how thin our military was stretched?

the reason it was stretched is because we made the conscious decision to not invest the resources necessary. Do you really think that if we thought that Iraq or Afghanistan was a serious threat we wouldn't institute a draft and send not 160,000 troops but 2,000,000?

We have 2 million combat troops? Neat, tell me more about the magical world that exists only inside your head.


What part of 'institute a draft' did you not understand? Reading is Fundamental!
 
2012-12-18 10:41:19 AM  

urbangirl: pudding7: 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.


Varies by state, most are trying to strengthen their checks. Some aren't, probably never will.
 
2012-12-18 10:41:57 AM  

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

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

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

Now what do you have to say?


We should stop looking at ways to be clever about it and just pass an amendment.
 
2012-12-18 10:42:11 AM  

Dinki: LandOfChocolate: Dinki: Because if we don't And even if we do, we will be seeing more of these massacres. And everyone knows it.

FTFY

Sigh. Yes, because we all know those crazy people are actually master criminals that would have access to the black market of guns. Or are you saying that if they didn't have guns they would find some other way to kill many people quickly? Maybe we should ask the 22 students that were attacked in china by a crazy person the same day as the Newtown massacre. And we can ask them, because they are all still alive. And why is that? because the crazy person had to use a knife and not a gun.


And?

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

No. You'd be farking hysteric because somebody went to town on your kid with a farking knife, and terrified if there's another maniac hiding behind every corner waiting to do it again. It's just as traumatic for the kids, parents, and everyone else involved for it to be a stabbing instead of a shooting. Because they survived it "only" being wounded doesn't make it any less bad. Would a school shooting be any less horrifying if the perpetrator just used a .22 and thus failed to kill anyone either?

The issue is not the weapons the maniacs use, it's the maniacs themselves. Until we rebuild our mental health care system, we will always be waiting on pins and needles for the next insane person to snap. We need to make it so they get found before they do.
 
2012-12-18 10:42:19 AM  
Everyone should be armed starting at age 5.If those little kids had guns they could have blasted the shiat out of that guy. With all their training in first person shooter games I bet they would be damn good.

Praise the lord and pass the ammunition.
 
2012-12-18 10:42:27 AM  
Of the top countries with gun related homocides, the US is the only developed nation on the list. Other westernized countries with developed economies have the same rate of mental illness and all the other "people" factors, but the only difference is the guns. When the hell are people going to wake up and realize that nothing positive comes from owning a gun?
 
2012-12-18 10:42:37 AM  

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

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

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

Now what do you have to say?

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

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


In the beginning of this thread it was pointed out to ban all guns. I pointed out that there was a constitution. Someone else pointed out that you can amend the constitution. And I agreed, but pointed out that my "there's a Constitution" comment was to point out to those who aren't moderate that there is something that just blocks any random law written. I continued to point out that it's unlikely for an amendment to pass.
 
2012-12-18 10:42:43 AM  

sprawl15: vygramul: The handguns have not been described as the exotic ones capable of firing the .223.

[i.imgur.com image 93x71] ?


I didn't say they didn't exist. I said that the Newtown shooter's handguns were not said to be .223, which would warrant comment.
 
2012-12-18 10:42:46 AM  

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

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

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

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

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

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


As rifles of any type are less commonly utilized to commit murder than are unarmed attacks, your proposal does not solve a pertinent problem. Your suggestion is entirely unreasonable.
 
2012-12-18 10:43:09 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: randomjsa: The NRA has nothing to do with this.

Sure they do.


Since 2009, the NRA and its allies in state capitols have pushed through 99 laws making guns easier to own, easier to carry in public-eight states now even allow them in bars-and harder for the government to track. More than two-thirds of the laws were passed by Republican-controlled legislatures, though often with bipartisan support. Link


Bars? Guns and alcohol! America! Fark yeah!
 
2012-12-18 10:43:10 AM  
Oh, Boy, here we go.........

SFW


Link
 
2012-12-18 10:43:44 AM  

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

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

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

Now what do you have to say?

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

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

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


I fail to see how 2 posters constitute a majority. But thanks for playing.
 
2012-12-18 10:44:11 AM  

vygramul: bartink: While I can't stand the NRA and their mindless slippery slope defenses that get in the way of common sense ideas, I don't know how to make much progress on gun control.

Banning assault weapons is mostly a cosmetic ban, unless you are willing to ban semi-auto rifles altogether. You can't ban hand guns because of Heller. That leaves you with high capacity magazines, which means the same nut will just have to reload a few more times between slayings.

I think the truth is that barring a constitutional change and an abandonment of gun culture, we aren't going to change anything. Maybe it will look different if the nuts keep killing white children in bunches.

I am a very process-oriented guy. I don't like clever circumventions of rights, like all the Republican rape-wands and medical requirements that are making abortion more and more difficult to obtain. I also don't like modernity being used as a justification for why we can ban something, because, well, the Founders couldn't have possibly conceived of a communications medium as powerful as the Internet, so we can censor it, right?

I'm convinced, based on what the Founders wrote before and after the Bill of Rights, as well as the content of the constitution, that the NRA's interpretation of the second amendment is a lot closer to the truth than people who want to ban them. There's a process for changing that, and if we don't use it, realize that any alternative process can be applied to any other amendment.

And that's a worse threat than the hypothetical tyrannical government that the guns are supposed to protect us from.


The 2nd Amendment is completely out of date and needs to be revoked or revised to eliminate rifles that use clips or magazines.
 
2012-12-18 10:45:25 AM  

coeyagi: I fail to see how 2 posters constitute a majority. But thanks for playing.


I never mentioned they are the majority. But I was responding to them. That is all. But thanks for including me in a game that I wasn't actually playing.
 
2012-12-18 10:45:40 AM  

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

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

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

Now what do you have to say?

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

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


I'd be good with banning all guns. Fark guns. But realistically, that's not going to happen so let's just work toward some gun control laws that will get rid of rapid-fire weapons with no real purpose other than to kill a lot of people in a short time.
 
2012-12-18 10:46:15 AM  

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


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

Any storage requirement that puts the guns out of immediate use within the home is unconstitutional.
 
2012-12-18 10:46:22 AM  

Dinki: What part of 'institute a draft' did you not understand?


The part where "we could have had a bigger military" means "we had a bigger military but didn't use it".

Because that's what you're arguing - that the strongest military in the world was only bogged down by insurgents because we didn't draft millions more people, therefore it's stupid to say that insurgencies of low-tech defenders can hold off military forces far better than actual military forces.
 
2012-12-18 10:46:33 AM  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


And yet just about every mass shooting events have been perpetrated with a rifle. It will not eliminate EVERY murder but it will stop people from killing a bunch of kids in a short period of time.
 
2012-12-18 10:46:47 AM  

Sandusky Knows Best: coeyagi: I fail to see how 2 posters constitute a majority. But thanks for playing.

I never mentioned they are the majority. But I was responding to them. That is all. But thanks for including me in a game that I wasn't actually playing.


No, you're playing a game called futility. And you just proved it.
 
2012-12-18 10:46:50 AM  
I hear a lot of gun fetishists calling for increased mental health screenings and profiling, rather than gun restrictions.

According to the WHO Paranoid Personality Disorder is defined by having at least three of the following traits ....

a) Excessive sensitivity to setbacks and rebuffs;

b) Tendency to bear grudges persistently, i.e. refusal to forgive insults and injuries or slights;

c) Suspiciousness and a pervasive tendency to distort experience by misconstruing the neutral or friendly ac
ttions of others as hostile or contemptuous;

d) A combative and tenacious sense of personal rights out of keeping with the actual situation;

e) Recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding sexual fidelity of spouse or sexual partner;

f) Tendency to experience excessive self-importance, manifest in a persistent self-referential attitude;

g) Preoccupation with unsubstantiated "conspiratorial" explanations of events both immediate to the patient and in the world at large.


If gun fetishists want the government screening out people who meet this description, I'm fine with that ... as that probably covers about 98% of gun fetishists.
 
2012-12-18 10:46:55 AM  
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-12-18 10:47:57 AM  

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

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

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


change the Constitution.
 
2012-12-18 10:48:02 AM  

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Reinstate the assault weapons ban

Prohibit the sale of high-capacity magazines

Fix the gun show loophole

Make gun trafficking a felony

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

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

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

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


I agree with your points about the mental illness issues.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Now what do you have to say?

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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



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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Please, tell me exactly how that is a lie.

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


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

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


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

Here
 
2012-12-18 10:50:37 AM  

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

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


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

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


Mr. Jared Lee Loughner used a Glock 19 handgun.

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

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

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

The cream of truth rises to the top again.


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

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

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

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

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

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

Now what do you have to say?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


phrasing
 
2012-12-18 10:53:05 AM  

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Would it be more acceptable if tried in this country?

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

change the Constitution.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

Epicedion: To play devil's advocate


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

They're expensive.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, he probably would have missed more.


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

change the Constitution.

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


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

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

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



Connecticut school shooter used assault rifle, had many bullets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

plus, the pumpkins.

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

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

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


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

You also haven't answered my question about 'assault weapons'.
 
2012-12-18 10:58:59 AM  

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

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

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


Yes, and I agree with these "4 pillars of Diminishing Mass Shootings". I am in general in agreement with most of the viewpoints regarding this. I think you and I got tangled up in me addressing the minority. While I am fairly liberal, I do like my option to have a firearm. I normally don't bite on stupid posts like the one mentioned in the beginning of this thread, however, since it was liberal leaning maybe I didn't realize it was a troll since the trolls on this site are usually so far right.
 
2012-12-18 10:59:15 AM  

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

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

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


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.
 
2012-12-18 10:59:27 AM  

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

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

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

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

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

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


You're right, clearly it's something that exists and is a problem. It's on the internet, after all....
 
2012-12-18 10:59:41 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-18 11:00:30 AM  

vygramul: urbangirl: Reinstate the assault weapons ban

The Assault Weapons Ban didn't ban any assault weapons.


Well then create one that does.
 
2012-12-18 11:00:30 AM  

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

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

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

change the Constitution.


Geotpf's Law:

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


The Second Amendment is not going to be repealed. In fact, amending the Constitution is so politically difficult at this point in time I predict it will not happen again during my lifetime.
 
2012-12-18 11:00:47 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-18 11:02:10 AM  

bulldg4life: 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.

A 223 Bushmaster is a semi-auto handgun?


Lanza had three semi-auto handguns on him as well as the AR. He would have killed just as many people without an assault rifle, as many other mass shooters already have.

But don't let facts get in the way of the big anti-assault rifle circle jerk going on lately.
 
2012-12-18 11:02:10 AM  

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
 
2012-12-18 11:02:20 AM  

vygramul: Roughly 3,000 firearms murders a year are from rifles. I don't think 3,000 people are beaten/choked to death a year. Unless you count people in police custody...


Yeah, I did doubt that claim, but I didn't feel like looking up the numbers...so I just challenged the conclusion that he was trying to draw.
 
2012-12-18 11:02:25 AM  

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

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


Well, if you spend all of your time and energy on Fark, you may be correct, I would suggest that you contact all of your political leaders.

BTW, he did not kill all of the students at the school because the teachers were able to hide many of them.

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.
 
2012-12-18 11:02:32 AM  

NEDM: 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.


They weren't just little kids trapped in a room. There were 6 adults involved.

If you feel the same tragedy would've occurred if he had a knife, you are either willfully ignorant or incredibly dense.
 
2012-12-18 11:02:38 AM  

InmanRoshi: LouDobbsAwaaaay: A guy walking into an elementary school with a pair of handguns and murdering 20 kids and 8 adults doesn't strike me as an indictment of our failure to pass a comprehensive assault weapons ban. It's an indictment of our healthcare system. If you want to make it easy for people to buy guns, then you have to make it even easier for people to seek medical help for mental disorders. Otherwise the nutcases will deal with their problems using the former rather than the latter. It seems pretty straight-forward.

The United States spends 5.6 percent of its health care budget on mental health treatment, which is on par with other developed nations.

Meanwhile, 15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States.


Other developed nations have comprehensive, universal care. The US is unique in the fact that it provides the least amount of care for the highest possible cost.
 
2012-12-18 11:02:51 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-18 11:02:52 AM  

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 hardly call the NFA reasonable in how it treats safety equipment and SBRs....
 
2012-12-18 11:02:58 AM  
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.
 
2012-12-18 11:03:42 AM  

Zeno-25: Lanza had three semi-auto handguns on him as well as the AR. He would have killed just as many people without an assault rifle, as many other mass shooters already have.

But don't let facts get in the way of the big anti-assault rifle circle jerk going on lately.


You said that the attack was done with a semi-auto handgun. That is demonstrably false.

And, when confronted with that, you now say "it doesn't matter anyway, he would've killed them all with a handgun"
 
2012-12-18 11:04:06 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-18 11:04:21 AM  

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

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

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


So some sellers are not licensed, and are not required to conduct background checks.

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

But since private sales have no background checks, its pretty easy to fool the seller on that one.

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.

Lolwut? The interstate commerce clause has more reach than you think
 
2012-12-18 11:04:51 AM  

urbangirl: Assault weapons and high-cap mags can't be used for hunting and are a poor choice for self-protection. THEY ARE GOOD FOR NOTHING BUT KILLING A LOT OF PEOPLE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.


[Citation Needed]

They are fun to shoot at a gun range. Plus, the term "assault weapon" is completely meaningless. The Bushmaster used in the massacre is not legally an "assault weapon", although weapons with identical stopping power (but cosmetically different) are.
 
2012-12-18 11:04:52 AM  
Any organization that says it will represent your interests for a fee should not be trusted. It's your money they are interested in, not your cause. That is all....
 
2012-12-18 11:05:01 AM  

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

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


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.

Also, other school killings have been done with bombs (Bath school disaster) and gasoline (Shiguan kindergarten attack).
 
2012-12-18 11:05:30 AM  

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

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

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

change the Constitution.

Geotpf's Law:

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

The Second Amendment is not going to be repealed. In fact, amending the Constitution is so politically difficult at this point in time I predict it will not happen again during my lifetime.


all I can say is that you are obviously an idiot. We can change the Constitution or we can write a very precise law to eliminate automatic rifles.

But to say that it cannot be done so we should do nothing is just condemning a lot more people to be killed by a spree killer. I am not willing to sit by and do nothing.
 
2012-12-18 11:05:54 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-18 11:06:00 AM  

sprawl15: ORLY has it right. I blame bronies for this tragedy. It's unnatural and not in the bible anywhere.


See now were talking about a ban I would throw my considerable weight behind!



Geotpf: Thank You Black Jesus!:

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


Tactically, politically you could use this and the threat of, well, annoying the NRA to the advantage of healthcare and force the GoP to put their money where their rhetoric is. Cut back on the gun banning legislation (down to the old "ban" for 10 years fer instance) in exchange for votes to pass huge increases in mental health spending to bring back the psychiatric care we had pre-Reagan funded with increased BamaCare amendments and funding. They could do this and probably get what they want, in a just world.

However the GoP WANT ban's pushed forward, it serves their agenda much more than the democrats. It gives them something to fight, something to fundraise against. Hell the NRA must be creaming their jeans over the thought of how many new members they will be getting in the next few years.
 
2012-12-18 11:06:03 AM  

sprawl15: urbangirl: Assault weapons and high-cap mags can't be used for hunting and are a poor choice for self-protection.

What, in your words, is an 'assault weapon'? Be specific.


See, that's a standard NRA tactic; get people to specifically define "assault weapon" and then go all strawman on them by pointing out "oh, pull the trigger, fire a round, you just banned revolvers", or "barrel length? Your son's BB gun is now an assault weapon", or "carries more than 10 rounds? Some pistols do that."

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. Don't give me that "well that means old M1's are assault weapons" or "your daddy's deer rifle is an assault rifle" crap either. We're talking about the guns companies sell "to get your man card back", as the Bushmaster ad indicates. The ones that kill lots of people quickly and are nearly useless for any other reason (and no, I don't consider wasting money at a firing range with one a good reason either).

You want to shoot a semi-auto civilianized version of a military weapon? Write the law so shooting ranges are the ONLY place that can own them, and legislate the hell out of them as well. Then go have your fun.
 
2012-12-18 11:06:41 AM  

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

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

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

Yes, and I agree with these "4 pillars of Diminishing Mass Shootings". I am in general in agreement with most of the viewpoints regarding this. I think you and I got tangled up in me addressing the minority. While I am fairly liberal, I do like my option to have a firearm. I normally don't bite on stupid posts like the one mentioned in the beginning of this thread, however, since it was liberal leaning maybe I didn't realize it was a troll since the trolls on this site are usually so far right.


Fair enough. I am just trying (probably also with equal futility) to steer discourse to something meaningful. Anyone who posts "ZOMG Guns Don't Kill People!" Facebook Infographics or those advocating for the repeal of the 2nd amendment need to return to a place I like to call 2012. No one is going to repeal shiat, people.

Just watched Lincoln. Thaddeus Stevens, a fervent abolitionist played by Tommy Lee Jones, is getting goaded by the Democrats to go all frothy on the House floor to say that all slaves are in fact created equal rather than say that they should be treated equal under the law. He eventually caved and said they were equal under the law despite having an African-American mistress and not believing they were only just equal under the law.

He saw the reality of the times and said what he had to make the necessary baby steps towards universal racial equality.

In a complex issue without any sort of moral rectitude behind it, what makes anyone think there will be unilateral movement in either direction? Let's do what we can, folks, not what we think should be done but can't in the place called 2012.
 
2012-12-18 11:06:46 AM  

MisterRonbo: So some sellers are not licensed, and are not required to conduct background checks.


Yup. The idea being that if you buy a gun, then later decide to sell it, you don't need to go out and get Federally licensed for the sale.
 
2012-12-18 11:07:19 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-18 11:08:01 AM  

urbangirl: vygramul: urbangirl: Reinstate the assault weapons ban

The Assault Weapons Ban didn't ban any assault weapons.

Well then create one that does.


The only ban that would ban something that is functionally the same, and not just scary-looking, is an absolute ban on semi-automatic weapons of any kind, including semi-automatic handguns and revolvers. Because you have to ban not just what exists, but possible innovations as well.

Another threat is from 3-D printing. Creating your own magazines is only $1000 away. Creating your own gun is not much farther.
 
2012-12-18 11:08:11 AM  

sweetmelissa31: dittybopper: orclover: If he had used a automatic rifle then he likely would have killed off the entire school.

Actually, he probably would have missed more.

But enough about your fantasies.


What fantasy? Automatic fire is inaccurate. It's useful for pretty much one thing: Suppressive fire in a military context.
 
2012-12-18 11:08:26 AM  

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.


Stop. Just stop. You're only making yourself look worse.
 
2012-12-18 11:08:41 AM  

Sandusky Knows Best: coeyagi: I fail to see how 2 posters constitute a majority. But thanks for playing.

I never mentioned they are the majority. But I was responding to them. That is all. But thanks for including me in a game that I wasn't actually playing.


You very specifically DID say "the majority". Does this look familiar?
However, most people on Fark who post "just ban all gunz!!1!".
 
2012-12-18 11:08:56 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-18 11:09:15 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-18 11:09:25 AM  

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
 
2012-12-18 11:09:43 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-18 11:09:45 AM  

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 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.
 
2012-12-18 11:10:45 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.


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?
 
2012-12-18 11:10:53 AM  

NEDM: 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.


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.
 
2012-12-18 11:11:37 AM  

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?
 
2012-12-18 11:11:51 AM  

LandOfChocolate: 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?


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.
 
2012-12-18 11:12:11 AM  

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. 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.
 
2012-12-18 11:12:33 AM  

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.


I think it's worth a go. Make it clear to everyone where all the states stand. It's hard to imagine getting 37 states to ratify the amendment, but so long as one doesn't make the same mistake the ERA made, it might happen eventually. But it surely won't if you never start.
 
2012-12-18 11:12:39 AM  

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

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

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.

Also, other school killings have been done with bombs (Bath school disaster) and gasoline (Shiguan kindergarten attack).


I literally cannot believe people keep trying to make this point. It boggles my mind.
 
2012-12-18 11:12:51 AM  

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".
 
2012-12-18 11:13:35 AM  

Bendal: See, that's a standard NRA tactic; get people to specifically define "assault weapon" and then go all strawman on them by pointing out "oh, pull the trigger, fire a round, you just banned revolvers", or "barrel length? Your son's BB gun is now an assault weapon", or "carries more than 10 rounds? Some pistols do that."


Asking someone to define their terms is a horrible partisan tactic?

Bendal: 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.


That's so ludicrously meaningless a definition that it kind of proves my point for me. You're basically defining 'assault weapons' as 'whatever is scary'. Take your definition - the semi-auto AR-15 is based off a military weapon, sure. But the M&P15 is based off the semi-auto AR-15 and isn't a civilianized version of anything, despite being practically identical. Semi-auto AR-15's chambered in .22 rimfire wouldn't be used by a military on the planet, yet would be banned.

That's why it's important to actually know what the fark you're talking about. An 'assault weapon' is pretty much by definition a cosmetic thing. And people advocating 'assault weapons' bans are simply advocating 'scary looking guns' bans. Might as well ban any guns with a matte black finish because militaries use matte black a lot.
 
2012-12-18 11:14:29 AM  

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 ?
 
2012-12-18 11:15:00 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-18 11:15:24 AM  

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.
 
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?
 
2012-12-18 11:25:57 AM  

dittybopper: 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.


Are you thinking of maybe "fully automatic?"
 
2012-12-18 11:26:10 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-18 11:26:32 AM  

CPennypacker: 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.


"Flattening pedestrians" is as much the "primary purpose" of an automobile as "killing people" is the "primary purpose" of semi-automatic civilian rifles.
 
2012-12-18 11:26:47 AM  

NEDM: 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.


Good is not the enemy of perfect, especially when good results in 20 children not being slaughtered.
 
2012-12-18 11:26:58 AM  

qorkfiend: 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.


Every gun was designed to kill. The original statement implied that assault weapons were somehow morally different in its ability to kill by excluding any other possible use, suggesting that other weapons are morally superior. That's not a great argument.
 
2012-12-18 11:27:21 AM  

Dimensio: 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.


I'm running in to the limit of my knowledge here but it seems that they're linked. Everything I've read seems to indicate that the majority of straw purchases happen at gun shows. Is that accurate? If so, why is that?
 
2012-12-18 11:27:58 AM  

Dimensio: CPennypacker: 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.

"Flattening pedestrians" is as much the "primary purpose" of an automobile as "killing people" is the "primary purpose" of semi-automatic civilian rifles.


The purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile to damage a target. I'm sorry if that concept is confusing for you. You may not be aiming it at a person but its primary function is still destructive.
 
2012-12-18 11:28:06 AM  

Jackpot777: [i.imgur.com image 720x672]


It's amazing how exceptional America is except when it comes to gun control, where we are uniquely powerless to do anything whatsoever to reduce gun violence.
 
2012-12-18 11:28:11 AM  

CPennypacker: Semi-Automatic is a subset of automatic


False. The two terms are completely different. Automatic weapons means you pull the trigger and bullets fly out until you release the trigger or run out of ammo; semi-automatic weapons mean you have to pull the trigger once for each shot. Most pistols (all non-revolvers) are semi-automatic.
 
2012-12-18 11:28:46 AM  

Geotpf: This school shooting involved stolen weapons too; the shooter stole them from his mother and then shot her with them.


I'm aware of that, but it's unlikely the proposed legislation would have changed the outcome of Newtown, since the adult child killed his mother and could have taken the key to a hypothetical gun lock or gun safe off of her. The two kids who stole their grandfather's arsenal could have been stopped with more responsible storage.
 
2012-12-18 11:28:49 AM  

chuckufarlie: 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?


You still haven't answered my question, wonder why.
 
2012-12-18 11:29:21 AM  

Geotpf: CPennypacker: Semi-Automatic is a subset of automatic

False. The two terms are completely different. Automatic weapons means you pull the trigger and bullets fly out until you release the trigger or run out of ammo; semi-automatic weapons mean you have to pull the trigger once for each shot. Most pistols (all non-revolvers) are semi-automatic.


Fully automatic
 
2012-12-18 11:29:46 AM  

LandOfChocolate: Dimensio: 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.

I'm running in to the limit of my knowledge here but it seems that they're linked. Everything I've read seems to indicate that the majority of straw purchases happen at gun shows. Is that accurate? If so, why is that?


I am unable to locate data on where a majority of "straw purchases" occur.
 
2012-12-18 11:29:51 AM  

CPennypacker: The purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile to damage a target.


The purpose of a nailgun is to fire a projectile to damage a target. The purpose of a pickaxe is to shatter whatever you swing it at. The purpose of a meat cleaver is specifically to rend flesh and bone. Their primary purposes are destructive. This argument is stupid.
 
2012-12-18 11:30:56 AM  

sprawl15: CPennypacker: The purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile to damage a target.

The purpose of a nailgun is to fire a projectile to damage a target. The purpose of a pickaxe is to shatter whatever you swing it at. The purpose of a meat cleaver is specifically to rend flesh and bone. Their primary purposes are destructive. This argument is stupid.


Now you're just being intellectually dishonest. Its fine if you want to keep your toys but please join us in an adult conversation.
 
2012-12-18 11:31:14 AM  

LandOfChocolate: 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.


Besides, the penalty here would be to fine or jail the mother. Which is difficult, considering her son shot her.
 
2012-12-18 11:31:16 AM  

chuckufarlie: 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?


You need to calm the fark down already. Are you a false-flag TRYING to make gun control advocates look like raving ignorant lunatics?
 
2012-12-18 11:31:20 AM  

Geotpf:

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


i.e. the 'bayonet mount'
 
2012-12-18 11:31:20 AM  
Talking about Facebook. This is the particular nasty piece of shiat coming across my feed today.

fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net

/hot hot hot like the painter of this going to hell
 
2012-12-18 11:31:43 AM  

Dimensio: 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.


Where do you get this nutty idea that federal law cannot regulate a piece of commerce that occurs entirely within one state, between residents of that state?

The interstate commerce clause covers anything that might affect interstate commerce. That means directly or indirectly. Go look up Wickard v Filburn. Not only was that within one state, there wasn't even any selling going on.
 
2012-12-18 11:32:16 AM  

Dimensio: 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.


No hunter needs an automatic rifle for hunting. If you miss with the first shot, the target animal is going to be leaving the area too fast to allow you to hit it with a second shot. I have rarely used more than two rounds in one day of deer hunting. So rare, that it might be never.

There is only one prey animal that is not fast enough to get away if that first shot misses. That would be humans.

You may want to take an automatic rifle hunting, but you do not NEED it.

Target shooting? You mean practicing so you can better shoot people when the time comes.

Sorry, skooter, but you are wrong. They serve no practical purpose beyond killing people.
 
2012-12-18 11:32:25 AM  

bulldg4life: 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


I am by no means saying it's a worthless endeavor. I'm saying that it should be a secondary priority to increasing mental health care on a massive scale. However, making it harder to get guns is also something that should be implemented. Making it as hard to get a gun as it is to get a car (as an example) is definitely something that should be on the table.
 
2012-12-18 11:32:48 AM  

Geotpf: CPennypacker: Semi-Automatic is a subset of automatic

False. The two terms are completely different. Automatic weapons means you pull the trigger and bullets fly out until you release the trigger or run out of ammo; semi-automatic weapons mean you have to pull the trigger once for each shot. Most pistols (all non-revolvers) are semi-automatic.


Again, he's using the term 'automatic' to refer to the action. That's why pistols are often referred to as 'automatics', its to distinguish them from revolvers which are not automatic action. The majority of rifles are automatic action, so the colloquial terminology is to reference non-automatic action (bolt action rifles, etc).

Semi-automatic means that the automatic action is...semi. You pull the trigger, it does all the stuff for you to shoot the bullet, but it only does it once. That's why a full auto weapon is 'full auto'.  It's not distinguishing from burst fire, it's simply saying that the automatic action continues as long as the trigger is held down.
 
2012-12-18 11:33:00 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.


So all of the other semi-auto rifles not used by the military with the same rate of fire and magazine capacity would be ok?
 
2012-12-18 11:33:27 AM  

Dinki: 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?


So the reason we have been there for a decade is because we have not sent in enough troops and equipment? Or is it because they have some IEDs and a few RPGs mixed in with their antiquated weapons that they are using against the worlds most sophisticated armed forces?

The point is that yes, any insurrection that would theoretically happen in the US would be vastly outgunned. But you also assume that the military would fight against its own citizens, that none of the military would 'defect' and that the side with smaller arms would not use guerrilla/terrorists/asymmetrical tactics. The Iraqis didn't last long in a 'stand up' war against the US. The insurgency however.

Small arms can make more a difference that you think. It all depends on the environment of the conflict.
 
2012-12-18 11:34:03 AM  

CPennypacker: Now you're just being intellectually dishonest. Its fine if you want to keep your toys but please join us in an adult conversation.


I don't own - nor do I want to own - a gun. But congratulations on the hilarious, hilarious irony of this post.
 
2012-12-18 11:34:06 AM  

LandOfChocolate: Dimensio: 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.

I'm running in to the limit of my knowledge here but it seems that they're linked. Everything I've read seems to indicate that the majority of straw purchases happen at gun shows. Is that accurate? If so, why is that?


I am unable to locate data on where a majority of "straw purchases" occur.

chuckufarlie: Dimensio: 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.

No hunter needs an automatic rifle for hunting. If you miss with the first shot, the target animal is going to be leaving the area too fast to allow you to hit it with a second shot. I have rarely used more than two rounds in one day of deer hunting. So rare, that it might be never.

There is only one prey animal that is not fast enough to get away if that first shot misses. That would be humans.

You may want to take an automatic rifle hunting, but you do not NEED it.

Target shooting? You mean practicing so you can better shoot people when the time comes.

Sorry, skooter, but you are wrong. They serve no practical purpose beyond killing people.


"Need" is not relevant. That the rifles are used for purposes other than killing people is sufficient to demonstrate your claim that they serve only to kill people to be a lie.
 
2012-12-18 11:34:23 AM  

oldernell: And in a few weeks everything will be back to the way it was. Nothing constructive will happen. There are millions of assault weapons and high capacity magazines out there and even if a ban passes, there will be sufficient time for manufacturers to get rid of the inventory, so fear not, they won't go away and will be available for mass murderers for the next 100 years.


So don't do anything!

You've got what psychologists call learned helplessness.
 
2012-12-18 11:34:29 AM  

Fail in Human Form: 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?


So because you can come up with another method of killing people, we shouldn't try to do anything at all? I'm sure the families in Newtown would agree with your reasoning.
 
2012-12-18 11:34:48 AM  

NEDM: I'm saying that it should be a secondary priority to increasing mental health care on a massive scale. However, making it harder to get guns is also something that should be implemented


I don't view it as secondary since I think we are smart enough as a nation to work towards two goals. But, I agree with your point.
 
2012-12-18 11:35:05 AM  

sprawl15: CPennypacker: Now you're just being intellectually dishonest. Its fine if you want to keep your toys but please join us in an adult conversation.

I don't own - nor do I want to own - a gun. But congratulations on the hilarious, hilarious irony of this post.


So you're just being intellectually dishonest for fun?
 
2012-12-18 11:35:11 AM  
a.abcnews.com

Sandy Hook Shootings


www.schillerinstitute.org

Reichstag Fire


Move along citizens... Nothing to see here...
 
2012-12-18 11:35:59 AM  

bulldg4life: LandOfChocolate: 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?

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.


Yep. And while it hasn't happened to me, it does happen. It's like the drug testing at work; they can test me anytime they want, but the only time they will is if I drive a forklift over someone's foot. If the RCMP has any reason to suspect that I might be a danger (complaint from neighbours, responding to a domestic dispute, that sort of thing), they most certainly will come down on me like a ton of bricks. My shiat had better be in the regulated pile or I could lose my licensing and firearms, without compensation. If there was any kind of history of violent disputes at that address, the RCMP would have insured that all firearms were properly licensed and stored, and they would have reenforced that only the licensed owner have access to the keys.

Our system isn't perfect, but it does work reasonably well.
 
2012-12-18 11:36:12 AM  

Mouldy Squid: Canadians own more firearms per capita than Americans


No they don't, not by a long shot.

US per capita civilian firearms ownership: 88.8 per 100 people.
Canada per capita civilian firearms ownership: 23.8 per 100 people.

Source: Armed Violence and Guns in North America at GunPolicy.org

You can't even claim a similar percentage of households owning guns: Approximately 26% of Canadian households own a gun according to the Canadian government, whereas in the United States the best estimates are that something like 40% of households own a gun, based on polls. I tend to think that's low, though: Many gun owners, having been bitten by poorly conceived laws and moral panics like this latest one lie about it.
 
2012-12-18 11:36:32 AM  

qorkfiend: 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?


10 in that screenshot died. Daily. Crazy comes in many many forms. Despite what some are saying in these threads, that kid killing dumbass was not sane. He wasnt sane last week, he wasnt sane last year probably. Sanity, you know, having a firm grasp on reality, know what you are doing at that moment is right or wrong and having the mental fibre to take a breath and say "woah, maybe slamming on the gas pedal in front of the farmers market doesnt make alot of sense". Its not just a description of dementia or bi-polar, its the whole concept of not completely farking over yer fellow human beings in a bloodbath. You might or might not be able to ban enough guns to make a diference, doubtfull. Hell even if you get lucky and you can pat yerself on the back next massacre when some nutjob only kills 6 kids instead of 20. Thats what were shooting for? How about you go ahead with that, but lets also make some larger changes in how we identify and treat our mentally ill, not just young bi-polar psychitics but ALL mentally ill, like the old grandpa who shouldnt be allowed anywhere near a farking drivers seat. Lets treat mental illness with more gusto than we have treated anything else in history. fark saving just 14 kids from a massacre at the hands of some farked up mental 20 year old with possible severe mommy issues, why not shoot for saving all of them? Even the farking nutjobs could be saved from themselves.
Or is that too much work?
 
2012-12-18 11:37:02 AM  

Bendal: Fail in Human Form: 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?

So because you can come up with another method of killing people, we shouldn't try to do anything at all? I'm sure the families in Newtown would agree with your reasoning.


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?
 
2012-12-18 11:37:10 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Good is not the enemy of perfect, especially when good results in 20 children not being slaughtered.


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.
 
2012-12-18 11:37:12 AM  

Amos Quito: [a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

Sandy Hook Shootings

[www.schillerinstitute.org image 425x545]

Reichstag Fire


Move along citizens... Nothing to see here...


Just out of curiosity, is ANY tragedy or disaster NOT part of some retarded conspiracy?
 
2012-12-18 11:37:28 AM  

CPennypacker: sprawl15: CPennypacker: Now you're just being intellectually dishonest. Its fine if you want to keep your toys but please join us in an adult conversation.

I don't own - nor do I want to own - a gun. But congratulations on the hilarious, hilarious irony of this post.

So you're just being intellectually dishonest for fun?


Let me get this straight - you're asserting that the only use of a firearm is to destroy things, thus it should be banned, and my examples of other objects that are sold with a primary purpose of destruction is somehow dishonest?

Your arguments are shiatty. Jumping into BUT YOU JUST WANT TO KEEP YOUR TOYS is intellectually dishonest, and doubling down on it is kind of the opposite of "an adult conversation". Unless you believe an adult conversation is just replying "I concur".
 
2012-12-18 11:38:16 AM  

vygramul: chuckufarlie: 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?

You need to calm the fark down already. Are you a false-flag TRYING to make gun control advocates look like raving ignorant lunatics?


No, I am trying to make people who believe that imposing a fine on people is going to be a deterrent look like raving ignorant lunatics. A stupid "solution" is worse than no solution at all.

Think about it, Chumley, current law makes it illegal to kill people. You end up going to jail or you might get the death sentence for killing a person. Do you think that imposing a fine is going to be a bigger deterrent? People who foolishly allow others access to their weapons are also liable for a prison sentence.
 
2012-12-18 11:38:45 AM  

Geotpf: CPennypacker: Semi-Automatic is a subset of automatic

False. The two terms are completely different. Automatic weapons means you pull the trigger and bullets fly out until you release the trigger or run out of ammo; semi-automatic weapons mean you have to pull the trigger once for each shot. Most pistols (all non-revolvers) are semi-automatic.


Time to post the automatic / semi-automatic video.

You're all welcome.
 
2012-12-18 11:39:27 AM  

Dimensio: 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.


Upon further research, it appears that you are correct on this point and the NPR piece I cited was wrong.
 
2012-12-18 11:39:51 AM  

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!
 
2012-12-18 11:40:05 AM  

Jackpot777: Geotpf: CPennypacker: Semi-Automatic is a subset of automatic

False. The two terms are completely different. Automatic weapons means you pull the trigger and bullets fly out until you release the trigger or run out of ammo; semi-automatic weapons mean you have to pull the trigger once for each shot. Most pistols (all non-revolvers) are semi-automatic.

Time to post the automatic / semi-automatic video.

You're all welcome.


At this point, the difference does not matter.
 
2012-12-18 11:40:07 AM  
How to argue like Dimensio:

1) Never provide citations to back up your claims. Dimensio has probably made 150+ posts on the topic of gun laws since Friday. He has never provided a citation to back up his claims.
2) Misrepresent and cherry-pick statistics. Dimensio occasionally provides "statistics" to back up his claims. But, as noted above, never provides cites for them. If you go searching for the data you find that he has picked a state/country or year that is an outlier and presented that as the only data point.
3) Dismiss any proposed solution as not solving "enough" of the problem. Proposed solutions are dismissed out of hand by DImensio by stating they won't go far enough in addressing the problem. Because, obviously, solutions that solve only part of the problem aren't worth it. Strangely, Dimensio has never provided a value for how "efficient" a solution must be for him to accept it.
4) Callously disregard any statistic about lives lost due to guns. On the weekend someone presented, with citation, the number of gun-related deaths in America over the years. DImensio just dismissed the stat as if it was meaningless.

I never post on Fark, I created this account to vote in Photoshop threads. But I decided to post this because I'm amazed that people are still responding to . It's obvious that he isn't interested in honest debate. He just wants to fill threads with cherry-picked statistics and bare assertions.
 
2012-12-18 11:40:07 AM  

NEDM: 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.


I agree with you; we should be trying to stop these rampages in the first place. No argument. But I think we both agree that you're never going to stop every maniac. So we're back to the question of whether we want our maniacs to have guns or knives.
 
2012-12-18 11:40:32 AM  

vygramul: Geotpf: This school shooting involved stolen weapons too; the shooter stole them from his mother and then shot her with them.

I'm aware of that, but it's unlikely the proposed legislation would have changed the outcome of Newtown, since the adult child killed his mother and could have taken the key to a hypothetical gun lock or gun safe off of her. The two kids who stole their grandfather's arsenal could have been stopped with more responsible storage.


Actually, from the reports of where they found his mother, and the condition she was in, it appears that he got the guns prior to killing her. She was found in her bed with four rounds in her head, so either he knew where she kept the key/combination or they weren't locked up in the first place.
 
2012-12-18 11:41:13 AM  

Amos Quito: [a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

Sandy Hook Shootings

[www.schillerinstitute.org image 425x545]

Reichstag Fire


Move along citizens... Nothing to see here...


Wow. Dude.

You are seriously, seriously crazy.

Step away from the internet, and seek help.
 
2012-12-18 11:41:29 AM  
Nobody (sane) really thinks that the US citizens could go toe to toe with the US Armed Forces and win. The point is making the Armed Forces fight with the general population. That is pretty much a guarantee for civil war and mass defections.

Having unarmed citizens makes it easier to use the Armed Forces to clamp down on domestic dissent... especially when it is being done "for their own good". Making soldiers shoot their own people is a bit harder.
 
2012-12-18 11:42:40 AM  

vygramul: Amos Quito: [a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

Sandy Hook Shootings

[www.schillerinstitute.org image 425x545]

Reichstag Fire


Move along citizens... Nothing to see here...

Just out of curiosity, is ANY tragedy or disaster NOT part of some retarded conspiracy?



Conspiracy? No.

Opportunism? Fark yeah!
 
2012-12-18 11:43:10 AM  

sprawl15: CPennypacker: sprawl15: CPennypacker: Now you're just being intellectually dishonest. Its fine if you want to keep your toys but please join us in an adult conversation.

I don't own - nor do I want to own - a gun. But congratulations on the hilarious, hilarious irony of this post.

So you're just being intellectually dishonest for fun?

Let me get this straight - you're asserting that the only use of a firearm is to destroy things, thus it should be banned, and my examples of other objects that are sold with a primary purpose of destruction is somehow dishonest?

Your arguments are shiatty. Jumping into BUT YOU JUST WANT TO KEEP YOUR TOYS is intellectually dishonest, and doubling down on it is kind of the opposite of "an adult conversation". Unless you believe an adult conversation is just replying "I concur".


No, I am asserting that comparing a firearm to a car is a BS analogy because the primary purpose of a car isn't destructive while the primary purpose of a firearm is. I assumed you just wanted to "keep your toys" because then you compared them to nail guns, meat cleavers, etc.

We have to look at the pros of the positive applications of that destructive power (defense in the case of a gun, deboning and portioning meat in the case of a meat cleaver, for example) vs the negative applications of that destructive power (gunning down a bunch of kids, chopping people up, etc) to determine what, if any, restrictions will be placed on th eownership and use of them.

I assert that the negative applications of firearms in the hands of civilians are starting to outweigh the positive and we need to address ownership of guns to acknowledge that.
 
2012-12-18 11:44:07 AM  

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.

Inner-city gun crime is a completely different issue with a completely different set of causes and potential solutions (Solution Number One: Stop the "war on drugs".)
 
2012-12-18 11:44:23 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-18 11:44:37 AM  

bulldg4life: 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?


They don't, not really.

École Polytechnique massacre - 1989
Dawson College Shooting - 2006

When you consider that Canada has about 1/10th the amount of people as the United States, it should have about 1/10th the number of mass shootings, and low and behold, they do, +/- a fairly large margin of error, because these are very rare events, even in the United States.
 
2012-12-18 11:44:57 AM  

sprawl15: MisterRonbo: So some sellers are not licensed, and are not required to conduct background checks.

Yup. The idea being that if you buy a gun, then later decide to sell it, you don't need to go out and get Federally licensed for the sale.


Because it would be such a huge burden to make you go through a licensed dealer to sell it. You know, a small fee to have the dealer handle the background check. And a big fat jail sentence for bypassing this.

Bonus: the old "criminals will ignore gun control laws" argument won't work here, because you're placing the burden on law abiding citizens to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
 
2012-12-18 11:45:39 AM  

Benjamin Orr: 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.

So all of the other semi-auto rifles not used by the military with the same rate of fire and magazine capacity would be ok?


I'd be perfectly happy with simply banning semi-auto rifles, period. Drop the military/civilianized wording if it makes you uncomfortable. Civilians don't need semi-auto rifles to hunt game, they don't need them for self defense. So, what do they need semi-auto rifles for? Because they look cool? Because they "give you your man card back"? Because they keep the tyrannical government at bay?

Come on, let's see the arguments for keeping semi-auto rifles in civilian hands.
 
2012-12-18 11:46:07 AM  

Amos Quito: [a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

Sandy Hook Shootings

[www.schillerinstitute.org image 425x545]

Reichstag Fire


Move along citizens... Nothing to see here...


i159.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-18 11:46:13 AM  

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?
 
2012-12-18 11:47:35 AM  

Amos Quito: Conspiracy? No.

Opportunism? Fark yeah!


Oh come on.

If you're going to compare the Sandy Hook shootings to a well known historical conspiracy by the Nazis to seize power, don't back off from it at the first hint of a straight jacket.

Own that shiat, my under-medicated, tin foil hat wearing brutha.
 
2012-12-18 11:48:03 AM  

BMulligan: Dimensio: 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.

Upon further research, it appears that you are correct on this point and the NPR piece I cited was wrong.


Wait: background checks weren't required federally for *ANY* guns prior to the 1993 Brady Law, and they weren't required for long guns prior to 1998, so how could a 1986 law prevent that? Who wrote that law, Dr. Who?
 
2012-12-18 11:48:08 AM  

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"
 
2012-12-18 11:48:09 AM  

gilgigamesh: Amos Quito: [a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

Sandy Hook Shootings

[www.schillerinstitute.org image 425x545]

Reichstag Fire


Move along citizens... Nothing to see here...

Wow. Dude.

You are seriously, seriously crazy.

Step away from the internet, and seek help.



Now why would you say that?

The Reichstag Fire was a horrible disaster - yet golden opportunity that allowed authoritarians to do what no one would have dreamed possible.

The aftermath wasn't pretty, if you recall.
 
2012-12-18 11:48:09 AM  

coeyagi: star_topology: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 600x600]
He was so deep in the internet he didn't have a Facebook page. Fap fap fap fap fap fap O'REILLY fap fap fap.... spooge!
The cream of truth rises to the top again.


Nope. A couple of accounts I read said that the police were kind of shocked that they could find almost nothing from him on the internet, just a couple of emails here and there.

This guy was totally isolated.
 
2012-12-18 11:48:13 AM  

NEDM: 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.

Inner-city gun crime is a completely different issue with a completely different set of causes and potential solutions (Solution Number One: Stop the "war on drugs".)


We can improve mental health care and issue stricter gun control laws. They are not mutually exclusive. You bringing up stabbings does nothing to help your argument, and is exactly the kind of "if we do X, we'll then the bad guys will just do Y" defeatist attitude that does us no good. Also, I completely agree with ending the war on drugs.
 
2012-12-18 11:48:45 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-18 11:49:25 AM  

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.


No, that's common sense. Guns don't work like they do in the movies, if you shoot them full-auto, the recoil is going to make them spray their bullets all over the place accomplishing nothing but wasting ammo. Ask any military veteran and they'll tell you the same thing: trying to keep a weapon on full auto aimed at a specific point is extremely hard to the point of uselessness in attempting it versus aimed fire. There's a reason the Army's standard-issue assault rifles only have a 3-round burst function nowadays.
 
2012-12-18 11:49:32 AM  

Bendal: Benjamin Orr: 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.

So all of the other semi-auto rifles not used by the military with the same rate of fire and magazine capacity would be ok?

I'd be perfectly happy with simply banning semi-auto rifles, period. Drop the military/civilianized wording if it makes you uncomfortable. Civilians don't need semi-auto rifles to hunt game, they don't need them for self defense. So, what do they need semi-auto rifles for? Because they look cool? Because they "give you your man card back"? Because they keep the tyrannical government at bay?

Come on, let's see the arguments for keeping semi-auto rifles in civilian hands.


Do you even know what semi-auto means? Lets start there first.
 
2012-12-18 11:50:57 AM  

cryinoutloud: coeyagi: star_topology: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 600x600]
He was so deep in the internet he didn't have a Facebook page. Fap fap fap fap fap fap O'REILLY fap fap fap.... spooge!
The cream of truth rises to the top again.

Nope. A couple of accounts I read said that the police were kind of shocked that they could find almost nothing from him on the internet, just a couple of emails here and there.

This guy was totally isolated.


i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-12-18 11:51:09 AM  

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?
 
2012-12-18 11:52:01 AM  

Benjamin Orr: Nobody (sane) really thinks that the US citizens could go toe to toe with the US Armed Forces and win. The point is making the Armed Forces fight with the general population. That is pretty much a guarantee for civil war and mass defections.

Having unarmed citizens makes it easier to use the Armed Forces to clamp down on domestic dissent... especially when it is being done "for their own good". Making soldiers shoot their own people is a bit harder.


Here is the hole in your argument - if a group of citizens rises up in revolt against the government, they are going to be considered criminals. They are going to be facing the FBI or other agency, not the military. The FBI has no problem shooting criminals.

The idea that a large part of the population is going to rise up against the government is just pure fiction and not very good fiction at that. We are a nation of laws. We elect out officials on a regular schedule. IF people do not like the current government, vote them out in the next election.

Now, if you belong to a political party that is so out of touch with the mainstream that your candidates do not get elected, a revolution is still not the solution. You should probably try to appeal to a broader section of the population.

It seems that lots of people in the minority opinion operate under the mistaken impression that they represent the majority opinion. Those people might decide to start a revolution but they would be wrong to do so. We call people like that traitors.

I am afraid that your idea of some sort of future revolution in the USA is just plain stupidity. It is not going to happen.
 
2012-12-18 11:52:14 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-18 11:52:17 AM  

Amos Quito: Now why would you say that?

The Reichstag Fire was a horrible disaster - yet golden opportunity that allowed authoritarians to do what no one would have dreamed possible.

The aftermath wasn't pretty, if you recall.


Yes, it was a golden opportunity the Nazis created as a false flag attack. As I am sure you know.

Anyway, like I said, own that shiat. Don't hold back, let's hear it. I could use a good dose of crazytalk this morning.
 
2012-12-18 11:53:07 AM  

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

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

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

Now what do you have to say?

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

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

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

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


Why would law enforcement be allowed to have such weapons. The answer is so expansive I'm surprised you ask the question.

Why not private citizens? See the growing pile of dead bodies for your answer.
 
2012-12-18 11:53:10 AM  

Benjamin Orr: Bendal: Benjamin Orr: 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.

So all of the other semi-auto rifles not used by the military with the same rate of fire and magazine capacity would be ok?

I'd be perfectly happy with simply banning semi-auto rifles, period. Drop the military/civilianized wording if it makes you uncomfortable. Civilians don't need semi-auto rifles to hunt game, they don't need them for self defense. So, what do they need semi-auto rifles for? Because they look cool? Because they "give you your man card back"? Because they keep the tyrannical government at bay?

Come on, let's see the arguments for keeping semi-auto rifles in civilian hands.

Do you even know what semi-auto means? Lets start there first.


Heard on NPR this morning a politician (forget who) saying "Hunters don't need machine guns..." I just love when people who have no farking idea what they're talking about get to decide policy...
 
2012-12-18 11:53:44 AM  
They looked through their files and saw where Nancy Lanza was nominated for 'NRA Mother of the Year'?
 
2012-12-18 11:53:58 AM  

gilgigamesh: Amos Quito: Conspiracy? No.

Opportunism? Fark yeah!

Oh come on.

If you're going to compare the Sandy Hook shootings to a well known historical conspiracy by the Nazis to seize power, don't back off from it at the first hint of a straight jacket.

Own that shiat, my under-medicated, tin foil hat wearing brutha.



I'm not alleging that Sandy Hook was any kind of conspiracy - government or otherwise. The cause of an event is irrelevant to those who would use it for their political gain.

I am comparing the INFLUENCE that each incident had on the MINDSET of the respective PEOPLES, and the POWER GRAB that followed.

It's easy to see that with the Reichstag Fire - in retrospect, but America is too caught up in its shiatstorm of emotion to see what is happening now.
 
2012-12-18 11:54:14 AM  

KellyX: Benjamin Orr: Bendal: Benjamin Orr: 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.

So all of the other semi-auto rifles not used by the military with the same rate of fire and magazine capacity would be ok?

I'd be perfectly happy with simply banning semi-auto rifles, period. Drop the military/civilianized wording if it makes you uncomfortable. Civilians don't need semi-auto rifles to hunt game, they don't need them for self defense. So, what do they need semi-auto rifles for? Because they look cool? Because they "give you your man card back"? Because they keep the tyrannical government at bay?

Come on, let's see the arguments for keeping semi-auto rifles in civilian hands.

Do you even know what semi-auto means? Lets start there first.

Heard on NPR this morning a politician (forget who) saying "Hunters don't need machine guns..." I just love when people who have no farking idea what they're talking about get to decide policy...


hunters do not need machine guns. They do not need semi-automatic weapons. They are not practical.
 
2012-12-18 11:54:15 AM  

CPennypacker: No, I am asserting that comparing a firearm to a car is a BS analogy because the primary purpose of a car isn't destructive while the primary purpose of a firearm is.


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?

CPennypacker: I assumed you just wanted to "keep your toys" because then you compared them to nail guns, meat cleavers, etc.


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.

CPennypacker: We have to look at the pros of the positive applications of that destructive power (defense in the case of a gun, deboning and portioning meat in the case of a meat cleaver, for example) vs the negative applications of that destructive power (gunning down a bunch of kids, chopping people up, etc) to determine what, if any, restrictions will be placed on th eownership and use of them.


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.

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.
 
2012-12-18 11:54:48 AM  

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
 
2012-12-18 11:54:52 AM  

NEDM: 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.

No, that's common sense. Guns don't work like they do in the movies, if you shoot them full-auto, the recoil is going to make them spray their bullets all over the place accomplishing nothing but wasting ammo. Ask any military veteran and they'll tell you the same thing: trying to keep a weapon on full auto aimed at a specific point is extremely hard to the point of uselessness in attempting it versus aimed fire. There's a reason the Army's standard-issue assault rifles only have a 3-round burst function nowadays.



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?
 
2012-12-18 11:55:11 AM  

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.


Except at Sandy Hook, better mental health options wouldn't have changed a thing. The gunman's mother was well off enough to get him any amount of help, but she didn't, or didn't get enough. Plus, getting someone committed to a mental hospital once they're an adult takes a court order, and while he was 'creepy' and a 'loner' as a teenager, is that enough to commit someone involuntarily? If someone refuses to see a psychiatrist, no one can force them to do so until the courts decide they are a threat and mandate it.
 
2012-12-18 11:55:53 AM  

chuckufarlie: KellyX: Benjamin Orr: Bendal: Benjamin Orr: 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.

So all of the other semi-auto rifles not used by the military with the same rate of fire and magazine capacity would be ok?

I'd be perfectly happy with simply banning semi-auto rifles, period. Drop the military/civilianized wording if it makes you uncomfortable. Civilians don't need semi-auto rifles to hunt game, they don't need them for self defense. So, what do they need semi-auto rifles for? Because they look cool? Because they "give you your man card back"? Because they keep the tyrannical government at bay?

Come on, let's see the arguments for keeping semi-auto rifles in civilian hands.

Do you even know what semi-auto means? Lets start there first.

Heard on NPR this morning a politician (forget who) saying "Hunters don't need machine guns..." I just love when people who have no farking idea what they're talking about get to decide policy...

hunters do not need machine guns. They do not need semi-automatic weapons. They are not practical.


Completely missed the point... Carry on.
 
2012-12-18 11:56:02 AM  

chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: Nobody (sane) really thinks that the US citizens could go toe to toe with the US Armed Forces and win. The point is making the Armed Forces fight with the general population. That is pretty much a guarantee for civil war and mass defections.

Having unarmed citizens makes it easier to use the Armed Forces to clamp down on domestic dissent... especially when it is being done "for their own good". Making soldiers shoot their own people is a bit harder.

Here is the hole in your argument - if a group of citizens rises up in revolt against the government, they are going to be considered criminals. They are going to be facing the FBI or other agency, not the military. The FBI has no problem shooting criminals.

The idea that a large part of the population is going to rise up against the government is just pure fiction and not very good fiction at that. We are a nation of laws. We elect out officials on a regular schedule. IF people do not like the current government, vote them out in the next election.

Now, if you belong to a political party that is so out of touch with the mainstream that your candidates do not get elected, a revolution is still not the solution. You should probably try to appeal to a broader section of the population.

It seems that lots of people in the minority opinion operate under the mistaken impression that they represent the majority opinion. Those people might decide to start a revolution but they would be wrong to do so. We call people like that traitors.

I am afraid that your idea of some sort of future revolution in the USA is just plain stupidity. It is not going to happen.


Note that I never said anything about the population "rising up". Nor did I advocate a revolution. Keep farking that chicken though.
 
2012-12-18 11:56:16 AM  

KellyX: The kind that lets you blow away 20 children in under 2 minutes


It was about 10 minutes. Link 

Is that good err
 
2012-12-18 11:56:22 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-18 11:57:13 AM  

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?
 
2012-12-18 11:57:32 AM  

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?
 
2012-12-18 11:57:36 AM  

oldernell: And in a few weeks everything will be back to the way it was. Nothing constructive will happen. There are millions of assault weapons and high capacity magazines out there and even if a ban passes, there will be sufficient time for manufacturers to get rid of the inventory, so fear not, they won't go away and will be available for mass murderers for the next 100 years.


Basically this.

A basic mental health question list would solve at least half of this, and we'd need only a few tweakings for the other half. But that would involve actually paying attention to expert theories and knowing what the fark you're doing.
 
2012-12-18 11:57:48 AM  

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!".
 
2012-12-18 11:58:40 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-18 11:58:53 AM  

cryinoutloud: coeyagi: star_topology: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 600x600]
He was so deep in the internet he didn't have a Facebook page. Fap fap fap fap fap fap O'REILLY fap fap fap.... spooge!
The cream of truth rises to the top again.

Nope. A couple of accounts I read said that the police were kind of shocked that they could find almost nothing from him on the internet, just a couple of emails here and there.

This guy was totally isolated.


Makes you wonder why he broke the computer's hard drive into pieces then, doesn't it?
 
2012-12-18 11:59:08 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-18 11:59:25 AM  

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.


I spent 10 years thinking about how to murder a large group of people.

/There are scenarios I am surprised terrorists have not tried
 
2012-12-18 11:59:45 AM  

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
 
2012-12-18 12:00:06 PM  

gilgigamesh: Amos Quito: Now why would you say that?

The Reichstag Fire was a horrible disaster - yet golden opportunity that allowed authoritarians to do what no one would have dreamed possible.

The aftermath wasn't pretty, if you recall.

Yes, it was a golden opportunity the Nazis created as a false flag attack. As I am sure you know.

Anyway, like I said, own that shiat. Don't hold back, let's hear it. I could use a good dose of crazytalk this morning.



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

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.
 
2012-12-18 12:00:11 PM  

dittybopper: Does the Second Amendment have a cost? Absolutely it does, and at times like this, that cost is especially painful.


A moral choice, clearly made.

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
 
2012-12-18 12:00:13 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-18 12:00:28 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.


So you are just retarded and have no idea how guns work... carry on then
 
2012-12-18 12:00:36 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: KellyX: The kind that lets you blow away 20 children in under 2 minutes

It was about 10 minutes. Link 

Is that good err


Yes, that's better, it's more accurate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for certain kinds of gun control, although trying to ban them won't help solve the underlining problems this country has. Just don't exaggerate to that degree, there's enough uninformed people that will take it for gospel and start posting on their Facebook wall saying he fired off 100 rounds in 2 minutes, all the while fending off 2-3 adult women that charged him trying to take him down.
 
2012-12-18 12:00:46 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: We can improve mental health care and issue stricter gun control laws. They are not mutually exclusive. You bringing up stabbings does nothing to help your argument, and is exactly the kind of "if we do X, we'll then the bad guys will just do Y" defeatist attitude that does us no good. Also, I completely agree with ending the war on drugs.


That's the difference, though. A lot of people are trying to use the school stabbings as a "If we ban guns, they'll just move to knives, so we shouldn't do anything!" cloak. I'm saying "No, that means we need to do more."

A massive point of argument is simply what "gun control" means. A hollow ban won't do anything of measure against this or crime in general, and would thus be a waste of time. HOWEVER, actual gun "control"? Limiting the sale of guns to people who have proven that they are responsible enough to own one? Hell yes, I'm all for it! And I'd like to think all responsible gun owners would be too. It would be doing the country a service, keeping guns out of the hands of irresponsible idiots as well as other people who have no business owning a gun. Make anyone who wants to buy a gun has to get a license for it, and in order to get that license you have to pass an in-depth gun safety course as well as a thorough background check.
 
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?
 
2012-12-18 12:20:18 PM  

chuckufarlie: 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 WAYS NOT A FALSE FLAG ATTACK.

Is that plain enough for anybody stupid enough to even consider the idea?
 
2012-12-18 12:20:29 PM  

Mouldy Squid: 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.


Except the mother is dead, so how would those laws have been a deterrent from what happened?
 
2012-12-18 12:20:31 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.


and it almost seems as though some of them are here on Fark.
 
2012-12-18 12:20:37 PM  

NEDM: 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


This is interesting.

But what if you are randomly firing into a crowd? Seems aim is less important if everything in front of you is a target.
 
2012-12-18 12:20:43 PM  

chuckufarlie: 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.


I don't think the Supreme Court could be classified as "ignorant". They made the rule, not me, and they get to decide these things.
 
2012-12-18 12:20:44 PM  

Cletus C.: 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.


Haven't you heard? That clause is nothing more than lexical ornamentation. The Founders got paid by the word, so they had to "pad it out" so that they could afford the price of tea. "A well regulated militia" was 1789's version of "YOLO" - it adds no meaning or deeper understanding to the words around it, and the individual words that comprise the phrase, when combined, cease to hold any meaning whatever.

// what SCOTUS actually believes
 
2012-12-18 12:20:47 PM  

chuckufarlie: 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.



Question to all:

If this crazy asshole had hijacked a school bus and slammed it into a concrete barrier at high speed, killing all of the children on board, would you be calling for a ban on buses?

Why or why not?
 
2012-12-18 12:23:02 PM  

chuckufarlie: NO, THIS WAY NOT A FALSE FLAG ATTACK.


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


I know that. You need to read the whole conversation. He first compared Sandy Hook to the Reichstag fire, which was a false flag attack, then moved the goalposts back to imply that whether it was a false flag attack is not relevant because it will be used in the same manner.

I was responding to that.
 
2012-12-18 12:23:06 PM  
Could have sworn buses don't shoot bullets. 2013 models, perhaps.
 
2012-12-18 12:23:48 PM  

Bendal: 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.


Not in the least bit, if there's been additional details, then I'm ignorant of them as of this morning.

Cause last I had read was the AR-15, Sig (dunno caliber) and Glock (dunno caliber) were involved, I did not know which was used as the primary weapon and I kept reading conflicting reports that a rifle was found on him, rifle was found in the car, etc. but still am not aware of WHICH was the primary weapon used in the shootings.

So sorry after 3 days of this being beamed into my head that I didn't read the farking coroners report yesterday morning to get the latest farking details
 
2012-12-18 12:24:16 PM  

InmanRoshi: 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.


Ted Kaczynski's family knew something was wrong with him but honestly didnt know what to do. If they were empowered with the ability to have him checked out by a professional with a full mental eval paid for by the governement with no consent needed by Ted, do you think it might have saved a few lives? Maybe?

Theres no gun control in the world that would have slowed crazy ol Ted down. As for gun fetishist it will be a good news bad news situation. Good news is you can keep your arsenal. Bad news is, sit down on this couch and tell me how yer feeling, no, really.

/as a bonus the scientologist will ABSOLUTELY freak the fark out.
 
2012-12-18 12:24:21 PM  

chuckufarlie: 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.


If you attempt to take the guns of every gun owner in the country, you will trigger a civil war. Guaranteed.
 
2012-12-18 12:24:36 PM  

Bendal: Except the mother is dead, so how would those laws have been a deterrent from what happened?


The idea would be that she might have stored the guns in, say, a gun safe away from her son.

You do know what 'deterrent' means, right? And that it's different than 'punishment'?
 
2012-12-18 12:24:48 PM  

Amos Quito: If this crazy asshole had hijacked a school bus and slammed it into a concrete barrier at high speed, killing all of the children on board, would you be calling for a ban on buses?

Why or why not?


ANSWER:

That didn't happen, he shot a bunch of kids to death, and your hypothetical is stupid.
 
2012-12-18 12:25:02 PM  

sprawl15: 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.


I really don't see the point. I'm not sidestepping anything. When people start using captive bolt pistols to attack other people we can talk about it.

sprawl15: 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.


I don't understand why you're trying to tie two arguments together. This whole back and forth started because I called out the crap "cars kill more people" argument. Its different from the regulation/effects on society discussion.

sprawl15: 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.


Again, the "purpose" argument pertained to the BS car argument I was calling out. I'm not trying to mix "purpose" into the regulation discussion at all. I appreciate your pedantry, though.


sprawl15: 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!"


I never said "Damn, firearms, you scary!" I'm not scared of them at all; I enjoy going to the range and I actually think guns are interesting. I just have the mental capacity to realize that "because they are fun" is kind of a weak ass counterweight to everything that's been going on. I fully admit that my position is to deal with firearms in a way that addresses their risk to society vs their utility. That's the point.
 
2012-12-18 12:25:09 PM  

Benjamin Orr: 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.


so, you are sticking to your stupidity. Good for you. Why not go full retard, you seem the type.

This was your post that I responded to: "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."

So tell me Einstein, how do you propose that I have a reading comprehension problem based on your small post with no references? What is there in that statement that would tell anybody which posts you were referring to? Want to try another stupid excuse? I have a feeling that stupid is all you have to offer.