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 93
    More: Dumbass, NRA, Facebook, Jared Loughner, assault weapons, Newtown, Joe Manchin, gun controls  
•       •       •

7196 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-18 10:06:30 AM  
15 votes:
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 10:03:50 AM  
7 votes:
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 10:09:36 AM  
5 votes:
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 10:20:45 AM  
4 votes:

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 11:30:56 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:20:16 AM  
3 votes:
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 10:18:20 AM  
3 votes:
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 10:15:24 AM  
3 votes:
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 12:10:42 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:07:31 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:57:48 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:21:17 AM  
2 votes:
Man. I never thought I'd long for a Chick-Fil-A or Trayvon Martin thread.
2012-12-18 11:12:51 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:55:11 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:40:57 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:34:40 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:29:33 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:21:31 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:20:43 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:20:34 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:16:25 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:15:06 AM  
2 votes:
The NRA exists only to suck dues from it's gullible members without providing any discernible service in return.
2012-12-18 10:12:12 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:00:57 AM  
2 votes:
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 02:38:56 PM  
1 votes:

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.




Well I meant to copy the whole quote, but Bare Asser about covers it.
2012-12-18 01:58:17 PM  
1 votes:

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?


Yes. We can add up how many civilians died because they were the victims of gun violence and compare that to the number of civilians who protected themselves from death using a gun. Properly weighed for how many of them were farking 7 year olds.
2012-12-18 01:38:15 PM  
1 votes:

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?


I imagine that your argument makes a lot of sense when you say it to yourself. Maybe she and a lot of children wouldn't be dead if she had have taken more precautions in the storage of her firearms.

Your question is inane. I own firearms. Under the laws of my country I am required to store them in a particular manner. If I do not want to lose my firearms, I must store them that way. If she were a responsible gun owner who did not want to lose her firearms she would have stored them in a way that would have prevented her son from easily stealing them. The problem is, she was American so she can leave them lying around the house all willy nilly because there are no laws to deter her from doing just that.*

Can laws that require safe storage of firearms work in all cases? No, there is still the element of human stupidity. Can laws that require safe storage of firearms cut down on accidental, pre-meditated and mass shootings? Absolutely.

*I have no idea what the gun storage laws of her particular state are, so this is obviously hyperbole for rhetorical effect.
2012-12-18 01:22:45 PM  
1 votes:

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.


How'd that regulation work out for us 10 years ago?

Maybe the point got lost somewhere, but the original intent in the question asked was what would we do if someone decided to use a bus as a weapon to kill 20 kids.
2012-12-18 12:54:39 PM  
1 votes:

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.


I agree. I say 3 with the assumption that you are using the gun for protecting your property. Gives you the chance to miss a couple times, or fire a warning shot, or shoot two attackers without having to reload. If you're being attacked by more than two people per gun wielder then you're probably safer not firing at them anyway because you're going to get killed. If you need to be able to miss more than that you probably shouldn't have a gun until you can prove you're more accurate with it. I think ability should be a requirement of ownership.
2012-12-18 12:50:06 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Your right to use a semi-automatic to shoot up targets is outweighed by our right to live.

Only a person who believes that he is going to be attacked by a crowd of people needs a semi-auto. People who think like that are not qualified to own any weapon because they are crazy.

Have you ever noticed that whenever there is a big natural disaster, it draws the people together. There is no "I got mine" attitude exhibited by the people. They pull together to help each other. People from outside the area go in to offer help. The government offers assistance, the Red Cross does the same. Where in any of this is there the scenario that these doomsday preppers are worried about? Doomsday preppers are ALL crazy.
2012-12-18 12:36:07 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Wow. All the way down to a mere 26 massacres per decade. Why, that's only one every four and a half months. Time to celebrate!
2012-12-18 12:33:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 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 at ...


I did not suggest that we take all guns, just the ones who serve no purpose beyond killing people.

If you think something like that would start a civil war, you have been paying too much attention to your militia buddies. But that war would make it a lot faster to locate the rifles, the FBI could gather them up after they shoot you down.

But it is not going to happen.
2012-12-18 12:29:12 PM  
1 votes:
Different thread.... same arguments. OK, here goes.....

There are many different issues at play here. Trying to focus on a single one as a potential "fix" to the problem will not work. To name just a few, firearms, mental health, education, and public policy, are all in play. It is a complex issue with many moving parts. You address one issue, it affects another. So, when we talk about gun ownership, or the pros and cons of assault weapons, or the 2nd amendment, or arming teachers/administrators, we are missing the larger picture. Sure, each of these issues needs to be discussed, and as a nation we need to take a long hard look at where we have come and where we want to go. But, this cannot just be about guns. We have to discuss the way mental health is addressed in this nation. There has to be a discussion of how we can better identify and meet the needs of those who suffer from mental illnesses. And we cannot have that discussion unless we are willing to discuss tax rates and public health initiatives. And, of course, we can't do that unless we are are willing to set aside our knee-jerk political responses, stop thinking as Republicans and Democrats, and find some actual middle ground. Or, we could just continue with herp and derp.
2012-12-18 12:29:05 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Hypothetical, but that's meant to cause you to think... If that had happened, they'd start talking about some kind of enclosed drivers section with a kill switch instead of mental healthcare reform in this country, cause that's a problem affecting us not just in these gun killings, but in other aspects of our lives here in America.
2012-12-18 12:16:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:15:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:40:07 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:23:06 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:21:09 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:19:36 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:18:57 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:16:34 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:12:39 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:06:03 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:04:06 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:02:58 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:58:30 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:55:08 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:54:43 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:51:37 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:48:34 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:48:02 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:47:57 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:46:50 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:46:33 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:43:10 AM  
1 votes:
Oh, Boy, here we go.........

SFW


Link
2012-12-18 10:38:23 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:38:16 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:35:28 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:34:34 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:34:01 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:33:06 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:31:12 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:30:34 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:30:32 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:30:04 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:29:46 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:29:28 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:29:25 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:29:04 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:28:19 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:28:03 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:27:30 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:27:19 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:26:17 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:22:04 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:20:44 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:20:13 AM  
1 votes:
Two Democratic senators with top National Rifle Association ratings

You should never start an article off with a baldfaced lie.
2012-12-18 10:20:08 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:19:23 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:16:11 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:15:40 AM  
1 votes:
"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 10:14:35 AM  
1 votes:
"... Fast clips of ammunition"? Is that like the sequel to "the Internet is a series of tubes"?
2012-12-18 10:14:04 AM  
1 votes:
Odds of meaningful gun control legislation this year?

I'd say about 28 percent. Ballpark figure.

Cowardly congresspeople still cowardly congresspeople.
2012-12-18 10:13:47 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:13:09 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:12:41 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:12:11 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:10:41 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:09:14 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:08:11 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:07:56 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:06:16 AM  
1 votes:
I would have lost a lot of money if someone bet me a few days ago that the NRA would express shame.
 
Displayed 93 of 93 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report