Dinki: Protection from the government?
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.
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
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.
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.
Geotpf: They are fun to shoot at a gun range.
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.
qorkfiend: Plus, the ones who are being treated aren't the ones to worry about.
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.
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.
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.
Armored Vomit Doll: 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.
Epicedion: CPennypacker: Fine, again, take them away. If the only useful solution for protection is a 30 round clip because nobody can hit anything, i'd rather people not have them at all.So now you get into the territory of whether you prefer innocent people to die because they're not allowed to have guns, or for them to die because someone might use guns they have illegally. Do you have a criteria for which is better?
Bendal: 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?
gilgigamesh: KellyX: Neither are airplanes... but you know how that goes.That's an even worse analogy. I would have to think pretty hard to imagine anything that is more heavily regulated in this country than air traffic.
Benjamin Orr: CPennypacker: Benjamin Orr: CPennypacker: Benjamin Orr: For all the people who want to limit magazine capacity... what is the appropriate limit?I think 3 is reasonable:)That would make reloading a lot more of an issue I grant you that much. Does that mean that revolvers would have that same limit as well?(Not even going to get into the logistics of how we would get all of the existing guns/magazines melted down)Ideally.You could do a phaseout with a collection system. Say, for example, we decide to phase out any magazine with a capacity over 3 over the next five years. Give a tax credit for turning them in that goes down every year. In the 5th year owning one is a crime with a big penalty.Interesting proposal. Not sure it would ever get passed but interesting.if you are going to limit capacity then this would be the way to go. limiting them from 30 to 15 or 10 just wouldn't make that much of a difference in my opinion.
Geotpf: chuckufarlie: I did not suggest that we take all guns, just the ones who serve no purpose beyond killing people.Every gun can be used for target practice, so none would qualify under your rule.Lots of people buy semi-automatic rifles (like the Bushmaster in question) to fire them at a gun range.They also buy them for inflated self-protection reasons ("doomsday preppers", like the gunman's mother), and sometimes even to hunt with.
iron_city_ap: 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.
Geotpf: 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 itThe 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 at ...
gilgigamesh: 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.
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.
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...
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 :(
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.
NEDM: I'm just saying that exchanging one traumatic event for another is a really shiatty trade,
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 ...
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).
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.
Dimensio: when in fact no data shows that they are a common source of firearms for criminals.
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.
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.
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.
NEDM: urbangirl: Specifically which of these ideas is bad:Reinstate the assault weapons banProhibit the sale of high-capacity magazinesFix the gun show loopholeMake gun trafficking a felonyEnsure 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 buyersProsecute people with criminal records who lie on background check forms when they try to buy gunsThe 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.
NEDM: Is it somehow better that all he did was "merely" wound them?
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.
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.
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?
skipjack: Citation needed. I've only seen where a hand gun was used.
Sandusky Knows Best: Dinki: I'm a gun owner and former hunter. But we have to change. Here is a radical idea- Ban all gunsSorry that won't happen. There's this weird thing called the Constitution.
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?
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
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.
urbangirl: Karac: Two Democratic senators with top National Rifle Association ratingsYou should never start an article off with a baldfaced lie.Please, tell me exactly how that is a lie.
SuperT: an M1 was good enough to take down the nazis,M it's good enough to defend my home and shoot pumpkins.
randomjsa: The NRA has nothing to do with this.
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.
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
Summoner101: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.It's just guns allow those people to kill those people so much more efficiently.
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.
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)
oldernell: And in a few weeks everything will be back to the way it was. Nothing constructive will happen.
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).
Citrate1007: The GOP is realizing that those that cling to bibles and guns can no longer ensure their victory.
Dinki: Because if we don't And even if we do, we will be seeing more of these massacres. And everyone knows it.
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.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Apr 26 2017 17:53:45
Runtime: 0.755 sec (754 ms)