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.

(Talking Points Memo)   The history of the AR-15, the gun used at Sandy Hook. Since the media doing this, I'm impressed we're not looking at a picture of the AK-47. I mean, they're both assault rifles and both have "A" in their name   (tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 667
    More: Interesting, Sandy Hook, assault rifles, Kalashnikov, Palm City, semi-automatic rifle, John Allen Muhammad, Cerberus Capital Management LP, assault weapons ban  
•       •       •

13566 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Dec 2012 at 10:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-21 10:08:33 AM  

I mean, they're both assault rifles


*groinpunch*
*groinpunch*
*groinpunch*
*groinpunch*
*groinpunch*
*groinpunch*
*groinpunch*
*groinpunch*

yourenothelping.jpg
 
2012-12-21 10:09:18 AM  
Nic Cage was unavailable to explain the difference between the two?
 
2012-12-21 10:10:09 AM  
Ah, yes. The automatic rifle 15. It uses extended clips to carry more bullets.
 
2012-12-21 10:10:20 AM  
talkingpointsmemo.com

As opposed to, you know.... the other type of gun.
 
2012-12-21 10:10:35 AM  
So the media can get it right and gun nuts will still whine?

Seriously, is there a whinier group of crybabies than gun owners? I certainly haven't encountered one.
 
2012-12-21 10:12:22 AM  
I thought the killer at Sandy Hook only used two pistols (but had the rifle with him).
 
2012-12-21 10:12:25 AM  

Honest Bender: [talkingpointsmemo.com image 652x360]

As opposed to, you know.... the other type of gun.


This gun?

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-21 10:12:35 AM  
They forgot the part where Obama subsidized it's development by Hilter-corp LLC using taxpayer dollars.
 
2012-12-21 10:13:07 AM  

thurstonxhowell: So the media can get it right and gun nuts will still whine?

Seriously, is there a whinier group of crybabies than gun owners? I certainly haven't encountered one.



Pit bull owners, whenever a story runs on a pit bull attacking a kid. Of course, there's a lot of overlap between pit bull owners and gun owners.
 
2012-12-21 10:13:30 AM  

thurstonxhowell: So the media can get it right and gun nuts will still whine?

Seriously, is there a whinier group of crybabies than gun owners? I certainly haven't encountered one.


The blunderbuss was cool, but then it got all popular and stuff and then it sold out and I had to move on to the hwacha.
 
2012-12-21 10:14:50 AM  

Molavian: Ah, yes. The automatic rifle 15. It uses extended clips to carry more bullets exploding armor piercing shells.


FTFY
 
2012-12-21 10:15:09 AM  
Go fark yourself, subby.
 
2012-12-21 10:16:09 AM  
Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread. Gun thread. Gun thread Gun thread.
 
2012-12-21 10:16:18 AM  
What a great pic. Scaremongering at its best.
 
2012-12-21 10:17:08 AM  
"Assault Rifle" is up there with "politically correct". Two terms that were stupid to coin in the first place and today are only used by those that feel oppressed by them.
 
2012-12-21 10:17:12 AM  
Waaaah, get the name of my toys right. Don't want me to snap and start using them. Waaaah
 
2012-12-21 10:18:18 AM  

stoli n coke: thurstonxhowell: So the media can get it right and gun nuts will still whine?

Seriously, is there a whinier group of crybabies than gun owners? I certainly haven't encountered one.


Pit bull owners, whenever a story runs on a pit bull attacking a kid. Of course, there's a lot of overlap between pit bull owners and gun owners.


Lots of missed sales opportunities for extenze and Viagra also.
 
2012-12-21 10:18:56 AM  
You and I all know that there is no term which would be found generally acceptable for semi-auto civilian versions of military weapons.
 
2012-12-21 10:19:24 AM  

Rufus Lee King: Oh, God. Not again.


And this. I'd "smart" you, but I refuse to use the farkies and other thread conditioning tools. I like my shiat raw.
 
2012-12-21 10:19:24 AM  

T.M.S.: "Assault Rifle" is up there with "politically correct". Two terms that were stupid to coin in the first place and today are only used by those that feel oppressed by them.


"Assault rifle" is a technical term with an established definition.

"Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.
 
2012-12-21 10:19:59 AM  
Death by bullet, death by abortion.. what's the difference. Merry Christmas!
 
2012-12-21 10:20:07 AM  
Wait, this guy invented a sentient gun capable of killing people on it's own?
 
2012-12-21 10:20:19 AM  

Champion of the Sun: Waaaah, get the name of my toys right. Don't want me to snap and start using them. Waaaah


But if I chide them on the proper pronunciation of "Boba Fett", I'm a nerd.
 
2012-12-21 10:20:33 AM  
Well that was a terrible article. Almost no history at all.
 
2012-12-21 10:20:36 AM  

Honest Bender: [talkingpointsmemo.com image 652x360]

As opposed to, you know.... the other type of gun.


Turned away instantly at that image.

I'll listen to facts and figures. Start with the appeal to emotion and I say you can go fark yourself.
 
2012-12-21 10:20:46 AM  
Carrying lots of bullets is the real problem here, so we should outlaw pockets.

/my spoon made me fat
 
2012-12-21 10:21:26 AM  
That article really didnt go anywhere. It ended when it felt 50% done. Did the author hit a deadline or something?
 
2012-12-21 10:21:37 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-21 10:21:55 AM  
Heck, that isn't even Stoner's best invention

world.guns.ru
 
2012-12-21 10:22:10 AM  

Dimensio: "Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.


"Civilian sporting rifle", when used to describe an AR-15, is one of the most ham-fisted attempts at political correctness I've ever seen.
 
2012-12-21 10:22:18 AM  

T.M.S.: "Assault Rifle" is up there with "politically correct". Two terms that were stupid to coin in the first place and today are only used by those that feel oppressed by them.

exactly. anything that can harm someone can be used in an "assault"

"1a : a violent physical or verbal attack b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)
2a : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact"

ban fists!
 
2012-12-21 10:23:21 AM  

thurstonxhowell: So the media can get it right and gun nuts will still whine?

Seriously, is there a whinier group of crybabies than gun owners? I certainly haven't encountered one.


Bikers. The motorcyle type.
 
2012-12-21 10:23:27 AM  

CygnusDarius: Honest Bender: [talkingpointsmemo.com image 652x360]

As opposed to, you know.... the other type of gun.

This gun?

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 192x290]


I came here to say something similar. Perhaps this kind of gun? (pnsfw)
 
2012-12-21 10:23:42 AM  
I'm a 'Bushmaster'.
 
2012-12-21 10:23:43 AM  
A lot of American servicemen died in Vietnam because the North Vietnamese soldiers' AK-47s kept jamming? Is that the difference?
 
2012-12-21 10:24:10 AM  

thurstonxhowell: the media can get it right and gun nuts will still whine?

Seriously, is there a whinier group of crybabies than gun owners? I certainly haven't encountered one.


Feminists, vegans, gay rights activists, PETA.

/Just because they're on your side doesn't mean it's not true
 
2012-12-21 10:24:33 AM  

bungle_jr: T.M.S.: "Assault Rifle" is up there with "politically correct". Two terms that were stupid to coin in the first place and today are only used by those that feel oppressed by them.
exactly. anything that can harm someone can be used in an "assault"

"1a : a violent physical or verbal attack b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)
2a : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact"

ban fists!


If criminals are going to break laws anyways, why bother having laws, right?
 
2012-12-21 10:24:49 AM  

LasersHurt: You and I all know that there is no term which would be found generally acceptable for semi-auto civilian versions of military weapons.


That would work for me. It won't be used though because it is not as easily associated with a harmful intent as all of these rifles must. We need to have 'assault', 'killing' 'attack', or 'accost' in its name.

*rolleseyes*
 
2012-12-21 10:25:47 AM  

HeadLever: LasersHurt: You and I all know that there is no term which would be found generally acceptable for semi-auto civilian versions of military weapons.

That would work for me. It won't be used though because it is not as easily associated with a harmful intent as all of these rifles must. We need to have 'assault', 'killing' 'attack', or 'accost' in its name.

*rolleseyes*


I'm down, then. If the poor nomenclature is such a sticking point, let's change it and get to work.
 
2012-12-21 10:25:47 AM  
So he used an assault rifle to kill people. Ok, that follows. What is with the constant media coverage here? This sensationalises the murders and basically gives a highscore and a come on to try better to every other nutter with a gun out there.

Besides which, even someone like myself who lives in the UK can easily understand that the weapon is ambivalent here; it didn't aim itself then pull it's own trigger. Someone had to do that to make it fire. Guns don't kill people, people use guns to kill people.

I don't get the whole gun ownership thing (not American after all) but even I understand that you can't legislate for the random fruitloop going crazy... because they're random fruitloops. But the media could do a lot more to make such occurrences well 'boring' ya know?

AR-15? Isn't that the civilian version of the M-16 the rifle issued to most of America's armed forces? I'd have thought they'd of been pretty easy to get.... in America.
 
2012-12-21 10:26:14 AM  
I prefer the AK-47 because it's better than the AR-15 by 32.
 
2012-12-21 10:26:15 AM  
Alright, fine, for those complaining about it being called an "Assault Rifle", how about we call "A civillian version of a military weapon"? I'm sure that will make it MUCH more popular.
 
2012-12-21 10:26:22 AM  

LasersHurt: You and I all know that there is no term which would be found generally acceptable for semi-auto civilian versions of military weapons.


i always thought "gun" was a perfect word. succinct, correct, poignant, with undertones of oak and berries
 
2012-12-21 10:26:32 AM  
It's funny when gun nuts act like knowing things about guns suffices for intelligence.
 
2012-12-21 10:27:00 AM  

jcmjx: Feminists, vegans, gay rights activists, PETA.

/Just because they're on your side doesn't mean it's not true



Just because you're an idiot doesn't mean they're on my side.
 
2012-12-21 10:28:31 AM  
Guns for some, tiny American flags for others!
 
2012-12-21 10:28:59 AM  

thurstonxhowell: Dimensio: "Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

"Civilian sporting rifle", when used to describe an AR-15, is one of the most ham-fisted attempts at political correctness I've ever seen.


How about this? Is this a legitimate civilian sporting rifle?

i1.wp.com

That firearm is a Mini-14, a rifle that can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger.


The scary man's firearm is an AR-15. It can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger; Betamags can hold approx 100 rounds but have horrific jam rates). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger. It is covered in black plastic, which makes it lighter and theoretically more impact-resistant. These facts are scary, yes? It looks like this:

blogs.suntimes.com

They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN. They shoot the same bullet, from magazines of the same size, at the same velocity. But one looks dammed scary, while one looks a lot like a hunting rifle you see on the wall.

There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns. And while the latter may be a desirable goal to some minds, there is simply no actual, practical way to make it happen, without setting the military loose on the civilian population in a house-to-house and turning our country into another Afghanistan-style military quagmire.
 
2012-12-21 10:29:19 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-21 10:29:30 AM  
I think 'semi-automatic .223 caliber rifle' covers what it is pretty well.

It covers the action, what it fires and whether it is a handgun or a long gun.

Nothing else about it really matters.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-21 10:29:51 AM  
"Assault rifle" is a technical term with an established definition.

"Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.


Assault weapon is a a term established by law.  It's a good term for military type weapons that includes assault weapons and things like sub-machineguns and combat shotguns that wouldn't normally be considered assault rifles.
 
2012-12-21 10:30:09 AM  
www.enemyplanet.com
 
2012-12-21 10:30:11 AM  

thurstonxhowell: So the media can get it right and gun nuts will still whine?

Seriously, is there a whinier group of crybabies than gun owners? I certainly haven't encountered one.


Where do you live that there are no catholics, jews, or islamists?
 
2012-12-21 10:30:27 AM  

RussianPooper: It's funny when gun nuts grabbers act pretend like knowing things about guns suffices for intelligence.


Works just as well
 
2012-12-21 10:30:31 AM  
I like me some firepower (learned to shoot using the FN FAL), but I'm at a loss to explain how someone could justify owning an AR-15. They exist to put a lot of firepower in a lot of targets very quickly while only just giving a nod to existing gun laws. I would add that had Adam Lanza been carrying a full auto assault rifle, he'd have sprayed, wounding more, but killing less kids. The AR-15 makes you pick your shots.
 
2012-12-21 10:30:36 AM  

bungle_jr: LasersHurt: You and I all know that there is no term which would be found generally acceptable for semi-auto civilian versions of military weapons.

i always thought "gun" was a perfect word. succinct, correct, poignant, with undertones of oak and berries


You're right. I should only call my car a "car". If someone asks me to describe the car, I should not say "sedan". I should absolutely not mention that it has a "V6". No, "car" will do. I will vigorously object to any attempts to separate my car from other cars. Car will describe a Mack truck just as well it describes my car.

In fact, why even go that far? "Vehicle" should cover it. Why have different words to describe my car and a dune buggy? Aren't they both just vehicles?

Hell, why do we need the word "vehicle", for that matter? I drove my "object" to "place" today. That should be just fine.
 
2012-12-21 10:30:42 AM  

FightDirector: thurstonxhowell: Dimensio: "Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

"Civilian sporting rifle", when used to describe an AR-15, is one of the most ham-fisted attempts at political correctness I've ever seen.

How about this? Is this a legitimate civilian sporting rifle?

[i1.wp.com image 850x209]

That firearm is a Mini-14, a rifle that can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger.


The scary man's firearm is an AR-15. It can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger; Betamags can hold approx 100 rounds but have horrific jam rates). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger. It is covered in black plastic, which makes it lighter and theoretically more impact-resistant. These facts are scary, yes? It looks like this:

[blogs.suntimes.com image 850x250]

They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN. They shoot the same bullet, from magazines of the same size, at the same velocity. But one looks dammed scary, while one looks a lot like a hunting rifle you see on the wall.

There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns. And while the latter may be a desirable goal to some minds, there is simply no actual, practical way to make it happen, without setting the military loose on the civilian population in a house-to-house and turning our country into another Afghanistan-style military quagmire.


To be fair, the Mini-14 looks like the rifle from the A-Team and that thing never shot anyone.
 
2012-12-21 10:31:02 AM  
About that mistaken identity...
img.tapatalk.com
/hot
 
2012-12-21 10:31:14 AM  

tetsoushima: bungle_jr: T.M.S.: "Assault Rifle" is up there with "politically correct". Two terms that were stupid to coin in the first place and today are only used by those that feel oppressed by them.
exactly. anything that can harm someone can be used in an "assault"

"1a : a violent physical or verbal attack b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)
2a : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact"

ban fists!

If criminals are going to break laws anyways, why bother having laws, right?


not at all the point i was making or attempting to make.
 
2012-12-21 10:31:29 AM  

r1niceboy: I like me some firepower (learned to shoot using the FN FAL), but I'm at a loss to explain how someone could justify owning an AR-15. They exist to put a lot of firepower in a lot of targets very quickly while only just giving a nod to existing gun laws. I would add that had Adam Lanza been carrying a full auto assault rifle, he'd have sprayed, wounding more, but killing less kids. The AR-15 makes you pick your shots.


AR-15 ownership is justified in the same way that Mini-14 ownership is justified.
 
2012-12-21 10:31:35 AM  

Vaneshi: So he used an assault rifle to kill people. Ok, that follows. What is with the constant media coverage here? This sensationalises the murders and basically gives a highscore and a come on to try better to every other nutter with a gun out there.

Besides which, even someone like myself who lives in the UK can easily understand that the weapon is ambivalent here; it didn't aim itself then pull it's own trigger. Someone had to do that to make it fire. Guns don't kill people, people use guns to kill people.

I don't get the whole gun ownership thing (not American after all) but even I understand that you can't legislate for the random fruitloop going crazy... because they're random fruitloops. But the media could do a lot more to make such occurrences well 'boring' ya know?

AR-15? Isn't that the civilian version of the M-16 the rifle issued to most of America's armed forces? I'd have thought they'd of been pretty easy to get.... in America.


they are easy to get, and just as the sales figures in the article said, they will continue to be easy to get.  someone is paying for all this "freedom" marketing in the media.  there are very few political opinions without financial backing.  although, i'm not trying to by some conspiratorial cynic, making money is what makes a country work and have nice things.  so, whatever.
 
2012-12-21 10:32:06 AM  

Molavian: Ah, yes. The automatic rifle 15. It uses extended clips to carry more bullets.


Older versions like the one the guy used in Oregon jam most of the time with a 30 round clip, just like his did
 
2012-12-21 10:33:06 AM  
i51.tinypic.com
I still shake my head that during the height of the coverage of Sandy Hook, Megyn Kelly at Fox reported that the shooter is suspected to have a 9mm handgun and a Glock.
 
2012-12-21 10:33:45 AM  

xaks: thurstonxhowell: So the media can get it right and gun nuts will still whine?

Seriously, is there a whinier group of crybabies than gun owners? I certainly haven't encountered one.

Where do you live that there are no catholics, jews, or islamists?


I live in a place with plenty of all of those (assuming you replace "islamists" with "Muslims"). Hell, I'm engaged to a Catholic. I've heard less whining from them in a decade than I hear every time a gun is mentioned in any news story.
 
2012-12-21 10:33:45 AM  

FightDirector: There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns. And while the latter may be a desirable goal to some minds, there is simply no actual, practical way to make it happen, without setting the military loose on the civilian population in a house-to-house and turning our country into another Afghanistan-style military quagmire.


...dammit. "Preview", not "post"...

Append to all that this last point: if Adam Lanza had been equipped with a Mini-14 instead of an AR-15, how would what happened have been measurably different, given that the firearms are effectively identical, performance-wise?

Save for people not being able to complain about "military-style assault guns", of course.
 
2012-12-21 10:33:53 AM  

thurstonxhowell: So the media can get it right and gun nuts will still whine?

Seriously, is there a whinier group of crybabies than gun owners? I certainly haven't encountered one.


Fark progressive are far whinier. But then you probably are one so it's not X when you do it.
 
2012-12-21 10:34:17 AM  

bungle_jr: LasersHurt: You and I all know that there is no term which would be found generally acceptable for semi-auto civilian versions of military weapons.

i always thought "gun" was a perfect word. succinct, correct, poignant, with undertones of oak and berries


That's just silly. The greatest power of our language is to describe different things. I'm sure we can figure it out.
 
2012-12-21 10:34:33 AM  
As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip.

We were at the range the other day with some friends, shooting some old .22 and a pistol. At the end of the range were two guys firing off an AR-15. (One of them was an instructor, methinks.) I have to admit, I gave it more than a good look. It was a nice firearm, and in the hands of an idiot he was making groupings that embarrassed we who were shooting Boy scout grade rifles with iron sights.

Still, in a range setting, that puppy was WAY out of place. Somebody buying that thing is not in the same league with recreational shooters, hunters, and the like. That gun is really only good for mowing down human beings at a lot of them. It doesn't have the stopping power for big game. It is overkill for small game. There are even rules for bird hunting that limit shotguns to a 3 round magazine. 30 rounds is military load out, and has no place outside of war.
 
2012-12-21 10:34:36 AM  

FightDirector: There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns. And while the latter may be a desirable goal to some minds, there is simply no actual, practical way to make it happen, without setting the military loose on the civilian population in a house-to-house and turning our country into another Afghanistan-style military quagmire.


So therefore let's give up and give everyone more guns, right?

I am not buying the notion that you can't ban a Bushmaster without also effectively banning a .22 handgun. You're not getting out of this one without at least some type of legislation being introduced. You might as well TRY and help because if you just sit there whining 'but it's too haaaaaaaard', we're just going to do it without you and you're not going to like what we come up with.
 
2012-12-21 10:35:10 AM  
Once owned a Bushmaster CAR-15, never fired a shot in anger, never owned a PitBull either.

Do we get a description of the history of the car used to run over people at a farmers market?
 
2012-12-21 10:35:15 AM  

Bongo Blue: thurstonxhowell: So the media can get it right and gun nuts will still whine?

Seriously, is there a whinier group of crybabies than gun owners? I certainly haven't encountered one.

Bikers. The motorcyle type.


Oh, I'd say the pedal type bikers are a pretty whiny bunch too.

And red light runners - they seem to whine alot when we try to ticket them.

And don't forget how much the non-smokers whine about the smokers.
 
2012-12-21 10:35:49 AM  

r1niceboy: I would add that had Adam Lanza been carrying a full auto assault rifle, he'd have sprayed, wounding more, but killing less kids.


This is an excellent point.  The worst thing you can do to the opposing military is wound.  If you kill, you reduced the force by 1.  If you wound, there's an entire logistics team that now has to mobilize to keep that soldier alive.
 
2012-12-21 10:35:53 AM  

Endive Wombat: [i51.tinypic.com image 640x533]
I still shake my head that during the height of the coverage of Sandy Hook, Megyn Kelly at Fox reported that the shooter is suspected to have a 9mm handgun and a Glock.


Lets ban extended clips .
 
2012-12-21 10:36:15 AM  

Endive Wombat: [i51.tinypic.com image 640x533]
I still shake my head that during the height of the coverage of Sandy Hook, Megyn Kelly at Fox reported that the shooter is suspected to have a 9mm handgun and a Glock.


Well, to be fair, her statement was accurate. He indeed had a 9mm Sig and a 10mm Glock. Since the Glock wasn't also a 9mm, nor was it a Sig Sauer, it does belong to a different set than "9mm handgun", and the Sig does not belong to the discrete set "Glock", thus her statement was factually correct.
 
2012-12-21 10:36:28 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: Still, in a range setting, that puppy was WAY out of place. Somebody buying that thing is not in the same league with recreational shooters, hunters, and the like. That gun is really only good for mowing down human beings at a lot of them. It doesn't have the stopping power for big game. It is overkill for small game.


The .223 Remington round is suitable for coyotes, wild hogs and similar-sized animals.

Companies have recently developed AR-15 style rifles chambered in larger calibers suitable for deer hunting.

My AR-15 is currently configured to fire .22LR ammunition. The conversion kit included a 26 round magazine.
 
2012-12-21 10:36:38 AM  

FightDirector: There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban [...] in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns.


What the fark is this shiat?
 
2012-12-21 10:36:47 AM  
Too bad we are not putting nearly as much energy in taking care of what is very likely a mental health situation. I'd rather cure/control crazy than harp on anything else right now.
 
2012-12-21 10:36:59 AM  
CSB: Around this time 3 years ago, someone in a neighboring town shot up a Chinese food restaurant with an AK-47 because they refused to serve him any more alcohol. He started screaming it was because he was white, went out to his truck to get the gun, and sprayed a bunch of bullets in the place hitting no one. Another patron grabbed him and pulled him outside where the guy sprayed another burst of bullets hitting nothing but a few parked cars and the window of a jewelry store.
 
2012-12-21 10:37:14 AM  
Remus, you want a Gandhi quote?

"I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life."
 
2012-12-21 10:37:34 AM  

RussianPooper: It's funny when gun nuts act like knowing things about guns suffices for intelligence.


It's funnier when the ignorant revel in their ignorance of a subject as if knowing factual things is somehow unclean or uncouth.

Well... it's not so funny when they're in congress. Or in the media.

I don't care if you have thirteen doctorates and have an IQ of 240. If your level of knowledge is "what I saw on TV", for that topic, you're an idiot. If I want to know about the fine details of the inner workings of a BMW, what to do and what not to do, I'll go to the high school dropout that makes his livelihood fixing BMWs, not the multiply degreed lawyer that doesn't know to change the oil.
 
2012-12-21 10:37:50 AM  

the.swartz: Too bad we are not putting nearly as much energy in taking care of what is very likely a mental health situation. I'd rather cure/control crazy than harp on anything else right now.


Are you just ignoring the calls for mental health access? The president himself calling for increased access to care?
 
2012-12-21 10:37:56 AM  

WTF Indeed: FightDirector: thurstonxhowell: Dimensio: "Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

"Civilian sporting rifle", when used to describe an AR-15, is one of the most ham-fisted attempts at political correctness I've ever seen.

How about this? Is this a legitimate civilian sporting rifle?

[i1.wp.com image 850x209]

That firearm is a Mini-14, a rifle that can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger.


The scary man's firearm is an AR-15. It can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger; Betamags can hold approx 100 rounds but have horrific jam rates). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger. It is covered in black plastic, which makes it lighter and theoretically more impact-resistant. These facts are scary, yes? It looks like this:

[blogs.suntimes.com image 850x250]

They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN. They shoot the same bullet, from magazines of the same size, at the same velocity. But one looks dammed scary, while one looks a lot like a hunting rifle you see on the wall.

There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns. And while the latter may be a desirable goal to some minds, there is simply no actual, practical way to make it happen, without setting the military loose on the civilian population in a house-to-house and turning our country into another Afghanistan-style military quagmire.

To be fair, the Mini-14 looks like the rifle from the A-Team and that thing never shot anyone.


It was the weapon used in the deadliest shootout in FBI history. So there's that.
 
2012-12-21 10:38:12 AM  

thurstonxhowell: bungle_jr: LasersHurt: You and I all know that there is no term which would be found generally acceptable for semi-auto civilian versions of military weapons.

i always thought "gun" was a perfect word. succinct, correct, poignant, with undertones of oak and berries

You're right. I should only call my car a "car". If someone asks me to describe the car, I should not say "sedan". I should absolutely not mention that it has a "V6". No, "car" will do. I will vigorously object to any attempts to separate my car from other cars. Car will describe a Mack truck just as well it describes my car.

In fact, why even go that far? "Vehicle" should cover it. Why have different words to describe my car and a dune buggy? Aren't they both just vehicles?

Hell, why do we need the word "vehicle", for that matter? I drove my "object" to "place" today. That should be just fine.


semi-automatic assault vehicle works for many of today's modern mid-range, luxery, and sports cars, what with their clutchless manual-shift options and such

no, i suppose if you have a need to further expand on which type of gun you have, most definitely have another more specific term. "assault-__________" is simply oxymoronic, though, considering, as i and many others have said, ANYTHING that can hurt someone is capable of assault

/not at all a "gun-person"
 
2012-12-21 10:38:24 AM  

Gosling: FightDirector: There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns. And while the latter may be a desirable goal to some minds, there is simply no actual, practical way to make it happen, without setting the military loose on the civilian population in a house-to-house and turning our country into another Afghanistan-style military quagmire.

So therefore let's give up and give everyone more guns, right?

I am not buying the notion that you can't ban a Bushmaster without also effectively banning a .22 handgun. You're not getting out of this one without at least some type of legislation being introduced. You might as well TRY and help because if you just sit there whining 'but it's too haaaaaaaard', we're just going to do it without you and you're not going to like what we come up with.


Opposing an unreasonable prohibition is not logically equivalent to opposing any new regulation.

No evidence has been prevented that banning "Bushmaster" rifles would have prevented the incident at Newtown.
 
2012-12-21 10:38:29 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip.


For me, they were a great thing to have when hunting varmints during winter. Didn't want to have to reload that thing up ever 3 mintes, especially when the fingers were not working all that well due to the cold.

Is it a need? No. Pretty handy though.
 
2012-12-21 10:38:31 AM  
Fark it, I'll make my own guns.

englishrussia.com

englishrussia.com

englishrussia.com

englishrussia.com

englishrussia.com

/From link
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-21 10:39:18 AM  

HeadLever: LasersHurt: You and I all know that there is no term which would be found generally acceptable for semi-auto civilian versions of military weapons.

That would work for me. It won't be used though because it is not as easily associated with a harmful intent as all of these rifles must. We need to have 'assault', 'killing' 'attack', or 'accost' in its name.



Assault Rifle is the literal translation from German of the actual military designation of the StG 44.  It's hilarious that people who mock the media for not knowing about guns think it is some term made up by activists.  Or maybe the NRA is out to revise history again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44
 
2012-12-21 10:39:32 AM  

BolshyGreatYarblocks: A lot of American servicemen died in Vietnam because the North Vietnamese soldiers' AK-47s kept jamming? Is that the difference?


I worked with a Vietnam vet, and once we got into a semi-serious discussion at the end of a staff meeting
of what weapon we'd use if we ever decided to gun down our coworkers.

I was firmly in the AK-47 camp since it is very reliable.  My coworker was a staunch defender of the M-16,
saying that the only reason it got a bad reputation was that it was given to Marines who didn't know how
to clean them properly.

In the end, we mutually decided that since really loved and respected our officemates as people we'd use
a machete.

Meanwhile, our then-new supervisor was sitting in the corner, shaking his head and saying "Guys, you
know I'm supposed to report this, right?"  Thankfully, it later turned out he was just as much a weirdo
reprobate as anyone on our team, and he was a great boss for 2 years.

/Nowadays, though, there probably would have been a SWAT team waiting in our cubicles.
 
2012-12-21 10:40:01 AM  

FightDirector:
There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns. And while the latter may be a desirable goal to some minds, there is simply no actual, practical way to make it happen, without setting the military loose on the civilian population in a house-to-house and turning our country into another Afghanistan-style military quagmire.

----

Not to mention that once you start barging into peoples houses with the military you've violated the Posse Comitatus Act.
And the 4th amendment.

Not only would you have an all out civil war. You'd have that civil war rightfully so, meaning people of the military and government would also revolt, making it even more chaotic.
 
2012-12-21 10:40:29 AM  

Dimensio: No evidence has been prevented that banning "Bushmaster" rifles would have prevented the incident at Newtown.


The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?
 
2012-12-21 10:41:01 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip.

We were at the range the other day with some friends, shooting some old .22 and a pistol. At the end of the range were two guys firing off an AR-15. (One of them was an instructor, methinks.) I have to admit, I gave it more than a good look. It was a nice firearm, and in the hands of an idiot he was making groupings that embarrassed we who were shooting Boy scout grade rifles with iron sights.

Still, in a range setting, that puppy was WAY out of place. Somebody buying that thing is not in the same league with recreational shooters, hunters, and the like. That gun is really only good for mowing down human beings at a lot of them. It doesn't have the stopping power for big game. It is overkill for small game. There are even rules for bird hunting that limit shotguns to a 3 round magazine. 30 rounds is military load out, and has no place outside of war.


You claim to have been "at the range" and you actually ask why a civilian would need a 30 round magazine? Seriously? How many times do you have to stop to refill your magazines with fresh ammo? It takes a bit of time doesn't it? Hurts the fingers too if you don't have a loader, right? Why does a civilian need a 30 round mag? Because it makes shooting at the range far more enjoyable; you can shoot longer without refilling mags and, thus, save time, which many ranges charge you by the hour.  I'd rather load up 10 thirty round mags to go to the range than 30 ten round mags. Saves space in my range bag. Also, it's a lot faster to fill with my loader device.
 
2012-12-21 10:41:03 AM  
M1A owner, with bipod and 20 round magazines here. ARs are pussy guns.

Bidding on a 1942 K98 with scope, awesome gun.
 
2012-12-21 10:41:16 AM  

Gosling: Dimensio: No evidence has been prevented that banning "Bushmaster" rifles would have prevented the incident at Newtown.

The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?


Are you saying that she would not have purchased a functionally equivalent firearm had "Bushmaster" brand rifles been prohibited?
 
2012-12-21 10:41:21 AM  

Gosling: FightDirector: There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns. And while the latter may be a desirable goal to some minds, there is simply no actual, practical way to make it happen, without setting the military loose on the civilian population in a house-to-house and turning our country into another Afghanistan-style military quagmire.

So therefore let's give up and give everyone more guns, right?

I am not buying the notion that you can't ban a Bushmaster without also effectively banning a .22 handgun. You're not getting out of this one without at least some type of legislation being introduced. You might as well TRY and help because if you just sit there whining 'but it's too haaaaaaaard', we're just going to do it without you and you're not going to like what we come up with.


An unenforcable law is one that should not be written. How are you going to get rid of the millions (and face it, there ARE millions) of AR-15s already out there? There's no registry. There's no way to track them. As far as the government is concerned, every person in the country has between zero and a billion firearms in their home. You can't just "wait for them to wear out"...the weapons will last 50+ years, easily, with proper care. So how do you get rid of what's already out there?

The only answer is house-to-house searches. Good farking luck with that. That'll end up killing more people than a decade of gun violence. Moreover, it will absolutely require the military to be deployed offensively against the civilian population. THERE'S a precedent we want set, right?

Your turn: what's the solution to between 70 million and 120 million gun owners who you'd have to take guns from?
 
2012-12-21 10:41:32 AM  

r1niceboy: I like me some firepower (learned to shoot using the FN FAL), but I'm at a loss to explain how someone could justify owning an AR-15. They exist to put a lot of firepower in a lot of targets very quickly while only just giving a nod to existing gun laws. I would add that had Adam Lanza been carrying a full auto assault rifle, he'd have sprayed, wounding more, but killing less kids. The AR-15 makes you pick your shots.


Read United States v. Miller 1939 and you will then be able to explain why we should own AR-15s.
 
2012-12-21 10:42:09 AM  
One paragraph about the history of the AR-16 and the rest about dead boy murderer. FAIL
 
2012-12-21 10:42:15 AM  
The AR-15 was designed for the Army's primary mission post-WW2, i.e. urban crowd control. The B-52s were for fighting the Russians.

Why you would drop an army equipped and trained for the Watts riots into a jungle insurgency I have no idea.
 
2012-12-21 10:42:42 AM  

Gosling: The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?


Someone steals my car and hits a pedestrian. Ban the Honda Civic.
 
2012-12-21 10:42:54 AM  
Don't the reports say that he only killed his mother with the .223? The other 26 people were shot by handguns, right?
 
2012-12-21 10:43:14 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: It is overkill for small game.


It is perfect size for varmints. It is probably the most popular caliber for the intermediate-range varmint hunting since the bullet selection and cost are very good compared to most other calibers.
 
2012-12-21 10:44:12 AM  

Dimensio: Gosling: Dimensio: No evidence has been prevented that banning "Bushmaster" rifles would have prevented the incident at Newtown.

The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?

Are you saying that she would not have purchased a functionally equivalent firearm had "Bushmaster" brand rifles been prohibited?


Are you saying that ANYONE has suggested to ban Bushmaster brand rifles?
 
2012-12-21 10:45:14 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy:
Still, in a range setting, that puppy was WAY out of place. Somebody buying that thing is not in the same league with recreational shooters, hunters, and the like. That gun is really only good for mowing down human beings at a lot of them. It doesn't have the stopping power for big game. It is overkill for small game. There are even rules for bird hunting that limit shotguns to a 3 round magazine. 30 rounds is military load out, and has no place outside of war.



So apparently you're of the opinion that war could never come to our shores? Or of the opinion that our government could never become corrupt and evil and revolution could not be needed? The 2nd Amendment is there to protect our citizens from a tyrannical government, OUR government, if it becomes that way. The 2A is there to keep our government in check, not the other way around. Otherwise you end up with a runaway government like the UK or Australia where even porn is censored out of games, and you have to ask your social betters pretty please to buy a butter knife.

The second amendment isn't there just for hunting, or even sport shooting. It has a very real and important reason for existing. Freedom comes with a price, and unfortunately sometimes that price is paid in blood.
 
2012-12-21 10:45:17 AM  
This might be dated but


For ALL you gun control nuts
 
2012-12-21 10:45:28 AM  

LasersHurt: Dimensio: Gosling: Dimensio: No evidence has been prevented that banning "Bushmaster" rifles would have prevented the incident at Newtown.

The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?

Are you saying that she would not have purchased a functionally equivalent firearm had "Bushmaster" brand rifles been prohibited?

Are you saying that ANYONE has suggested to ban Bushmaster brand rifles?


" am not buying the notion that you can't ban a Bushmaster without also effectively banning a .22 handgun."
 
2012-12-21 10:46:07 AM  

HeadLever: Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip.

For me, they were a great thing to have when hunting varmints during winter. Didn't want to have to reload that thing up ever 3 mintes, especially when the fingers were not working all that well due to the cold.

Is it a need? No. Pretty handy though.


Point taken. Though, to be fair, the guy mowing down a row of unarmed people probably has the same complaint.
 
2012-12-21 10:47:22 AM  

WinoRhino: Gosling: The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?

Someone steals my car and hits a pedestrian. Ban the Honda Civic.


No, it's covered by the 2nd Amendment. Being in a militia is a Civic duty.
 
2012-12-21 10:47:22 AM  

Dimensio: Are you saying that she would not have purchased a functionally equivalent firearm had "Bushmaster" brand rifles been prohibited?


She was a doomsday prepper. She would probably have bought ALL the guns if she had the chance, and all the other weapons up to and including Kung Lao's razor hat.

Personally, part of the legislation I'd push for would include a limit on how many guns a specific person can own. There's no reason I can see why someone needs to have dozens and dozens of guns in the house. And a lot of these shootings involve the shooter amassing half an arsenal.
 
2012-12-21 10:49:02 AM  

remus: Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip...

You claim to have been "at the range" and you actually ask why a civilian would need a 30 round magazine? Seriously? How many times do you have to stop to refill your magazines with fresh ammo? It takes a bit of time doesn't it? Hurts the fingers too if you don't have a loader, right? Why does a civilian need a 30 round mag? Because it makes shooting at the range far more enjoyable; you can shoot longer without refilling mags and, thus, save time, which many ranges charge you by the hour.  I'd rather load up 10 thirty round mags to go to the range than 30 ten round mags. Saves space in my range bag. Also, it's a lot faster to fill with my loader device.


Well shooting at the range, for me, includes evaluating my groupings, improving my aim, and taking time to take my shot. Any idiot can put lead down range. If the time it takes you to fill your clip is the problem, why not just take a belt fed machine gun with you?

(Besides, feeding a 10 round magazine doesn't take nearly as much time as a 30 rounder. And I don't need an special tools.)
 
2012-12-21 10:49:33 AM  

Gosling: Dimensio: Are you saying that she would not have purchased a functionally equivalent firearm had "Bushmaster" brand rifles been prohibited?

She was a doomsday prepper. She would probably have bought ALL the guns if she had the chance, and all the other weapons up to and including Kung Lao's razor hat.

Personally, part of the legislation I'd push for would include a limit on how many guns a specific person can own. There's no reason I can see why someone needs to have dozens and dozens of guns in the house. And a lot of these shootings involve the shooter amassing half an arsenal.


What limit would you recommend, and what demonstrable benefit would result?
 
2012-12-21 10:49:39 AM  
This is quite a unique case anyway. I am all for freedom to own guns. But she had a batshiat crazy kid, with a history of violence. Keeping guns around him was criminal. If she was alive, I would want her to pay dearly for stupidity.

If someone breaks in to your house, steals a gun, then commits a crime, that is different in my eyes.
 
2012-12-21 10:50:40 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: BolshyGreatYarblocks: A lot of American servicemen died in Vietnam because the North Vietnamese soldiers' AK-47s kept jamming? Is that the difference?

I worked with a Vietnam vet, and once we got into a semi-serious discussion at the end of a staff meeting
of what weapon we'd use if we ever decided to gun down our coworkers.

I was firmly in the AK-47 camp since it is very reliable.  My coworker was a staunch defender of the M-16,
saying that the only reason it got a bad reputation was that it was given to Marines who didn't know how
to clean them properly.

In the end, we mutually decided that since really loved and respected our officemates as people we'd use
a machete.

Meanwhile, our then-new supervisor was sitting in the corner, shaking his head and saying "Guys, you
know I'm supposed to report this, right?"  Thankfully, it later turned out he was just as much a weirdo
reprobate as anyone on our team, and he was a great boss for 2 years.

/Nowadays, though, there probably would have been a SWAT team waiting in our cubicles.


No love for the Thompson? Converted for full auto, of course, and with the 50 round drum. There's just something about that .45 round, especially at the close quarters you'd encounter.
 
2012-12-21 10:50:43 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: Well shooting at the range, for me, includes evaluating my groupings, improving my aim, and taking time to take my shot. Any idiot can put lead down range. If the time it takes you to fill your clip is the problem, why not just take a belt fed machine gun with you?

(Besides, feeding a 10 round magazine doesn't take nearly as much time as a 30 rounder. And I don't need an special tools.)


The Aurora shooter didn't have a clip. He had a goddamn drum.
 
2012-12-21 10:50:44 AM  

Dimensio: LasersHurt: Dimensio: Gosling: Dimensio: No evidence has been prevented that banning "Bushmaster" rifles would have prevented the incident at Newtown.

The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?

Are you saying that she would not have purchased a functionally equivalent firearm had "Bushmaster" brand rifles been prohibited?

Are you saying that ANYONE has suggested to ban Bushmaster brand rifles?

" am not buying the notion that you can't ban a Bushmaster without also effectively banning a .22 handgun."


"I take things wildly out of context and reductio ad absurdum, because I am scared."
 
2012-12-21 10:51:00 AM  
Loader device?

We have gotten so bad people are too lazy to manually load a magazine?
 
2012-12-21 10:51:26 AM  

thurstonxhowell: Dimensio: "Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

"Civilian sporting rifle", when used to describe an AR-15, is one of the most ham-fisted attempts at political correctness I've ever seen.


Actually, it's "Modern Sporting Rifle", and it's based on prior precedent: Military-style firearms of today become the commonly accepted civilian sporting arms of tomorrow. It happened with caplock muzzleloaders, revolvers, cartridge guns, bolt actions, the Colt 1911, and semi-automatic rifles of all stripes.

Of course, it goes the other way too: Civilians actually adopted semi-auto rifles before the military did. The Remington Model 8 semi-auto rifle was a pricey, but common enough sporting rifle that was introduced in 1906. The first military to adopt a semi-auto rifle for widespread military use was the US Army in 1936, a full 30 years after US hunters started using them. BTW, Mikhail Kalashnikov cribbed large portions of his design for the AK-47 from the John Browning-designed Model 8.

Anyway, military guns end up being popular with civilians, and civilian guns end up being popular with the military. Both find ways to adapt the others guns to their own use. Sniper rifles and target rifles have pretty much the same exact uses, only the target differs. So-called "assault weapons" can and are used for hunting: AK's and SKS's are starting to replace the venerable lever-action .30-30 as the swamp/deep woods deer carbine of choice, and the AR platform has numerous deer cartridges available for it, along with "varmint" cartridges like the ubiquitous .223 Remington, the standard 'AR' caliber.

In other words, there really is no good way to distinguish between so-called "assault weapons" and common semi-automatic sporting rifles as they share a very intermixed lineage. Either you ban guns based solely on cosmetic features (like the previous AWB), or you also ban a very large number of commonly used sporting guns.
 
2012-12-21 10:51:42 AM  

tetsoushima: bungle_jr: T.M.S.: "Assault Rifle" is up there with "politically correct". Two terms that were stupid to coin in the first place and today are only used by those that feel oppressed by them.
exactly. anything that can harm someone can be used in an "assault"

"1a : a violent physical or verbal attack b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)
2a : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact"

ban fists!

If criminals are going to break laws anyways, why bother having laws, right?


No, we should have laws against punching people, so that even though people will still be punched, we have the legal tools to punish them for harming another when they do, and showing by example what happens to people who punch others.

Even better though, if people didn't have fists no one would get punched. Its only logical. So, do we chop your hands off? People might build evil dead type gauntlets and still punch others. Chop your arm off at the elbow? There's still going to be some people swinging their flippers about causing mayhem. Best to remove your arm at the shoulder.

So what then? I see an escalation in kicking occurring soon after. Were going to need to be doing some serious foot chopping pretty soon.
 
2012-12-21 10:52:07 AM  

Gosling: Evil Twin Skippy: Well shooting at the range, for me, includes evaluating my groupings, improving my aim, and taking time to take my shot. Any idiot can put lead down range. If the time it takes you to fill your clip is the problem, why not just take a belt fed machine gun with you?

(Besides, feeding a 10 round magazine doesn't take nearly as much time as a 30 rounder. And I don't need an special tools.)

The Aurora shooter didn't have a clip. He had a goddamn drum.


His drum jammed relatively quickly, and he damaged his rifle in attempting to clear it.
 
2012-12-21 10:52:47 AM  

FightDirector: Gosling: FightDirector: There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns. And while the latter may be a desirable goal to some minds, there is simply no actual, practical way to make it happen, without setting the military loose on the civilian population in a house-to-house and turning our country into another Afghanistan-style military quagmire.

So therefore let's give up and give everyone more guns, right?

I am not buying the notion that you can't ban a Bushmaster without also effectively banning a .22 handgun. You're not getting out of this one without at least some type of legislation being introduced. You might as well TRY and help because if you just sit there whining 'but it's too haaaaaaaard', we're just going to do it without you and you're not going to like what we come up with.

An unenforcable law is one that should not be written. How are you going to get rid of the millions (and face it, there ARE millions) of AR-15s already out there? There's no registry. There's no way to track them. As far as the government is concerned, every person in the country has between zero and a billion firearms in their home. You can't just "wait for them to wear out"...the weapons will last 50+ years, easily, with proper care. So how do you get rid of what's already out there?

The only answer is house-to-house searches. Good farking luck with that. That'll end up killing more people than a decade of gun violence. Moreover, it will absolutely require the military to be deployed offensively against the civilian population. THERE'S a precedent we want set, right?

Your turn: what's the solution to between 70 million and 120 million gun owners who you'd have to take guns from?


It worked just fine in New Orleans after Katrina. Gun owners handed them over wholesale with little more than a whimper.
 
2012-12-21 10:52:56 AM  

born_yesterday: DjangoStonereaver: BolshyGreatYarblocks: A lot of American servicemen died in Vietnam because the North Vietnamese soldiers' AK-47s kept jamming? Is that the difference?

I worked with a Vietnam vet, and once we got into a semi-serious discussion at the end of a staff meeting
of what weapon we'd use if we ever decided to gun down our coworkers.

I was firmly in the AK-47 camp since it is very reliable.  My coworker was a staunch defender of the M-16,
saying that the only reason it got a bad reputation was that it was given to Marines who didn't know how
to clean them properly.

In the end, we mutually decided that since really loved and respected our officemates as people we'd use
a machete.

Meanwhile, our then-new supervisor was sitting in the corner, shaking his head and saying "Guys, you
know I'm supposed to report this, right?"  Thankfully, it later turned out he was just as much a weirdo
reprobate as anyone on our team, and he was a great boss for 2 years.

/Nowadays, though, there probably would have been a SWAT team waiting in our cubicles.

No love for the Thompson? Converted for full auto, of course, and with the 50 round drum. There's just something about that .45 round, especially at the close quarters you'd encounter.


We were tacitly keeping ourselves to the more commonly available weapons.

Besides:  even with a Cutts compensator the Tommy Gun tends to rise with prolonged fire.
 
2012-12-21 10:53:17 AM  

Gosling: Dimensio: Are you saying that she would not have purchased a functionally equivalent firearm had "Bushmaster" brand rifles been prohibited?

She was a doomsday prepper. She would probably have bought ALL the guns if she had the chance, and all the other weapons up to and including Kung Lao's razor hat.

Personally, part of the legislation I'd push for would include a limit on how many guns a specific person can own. There's no reason I can see why someone needs to have dozens and dozens of guns in the house. And a lot of these shootings involve the shooter amassing half an arsenal.


I disagree. To me, guns aren't the problem at all. If somebody wants to own a tommy gun, and M-2, and a barret sniper rifle, bully for them.

Ammo. Ammo is where we have to draw the line. If I have to show my driver's license to get cold medicine, somebody trying to stockpile thousands of rounds of ammunition should get the same scrutiny. Shoot all the ammo you want at the range, if you buy it at the range. Come up with some sensible level that would get a hunter through a season in the bush. But anything more than that should a) be considered extremely distasteful by all gun owners, and b) should be controlled as a public hazard.
 
2012-12-21 10:53:22 AM  

CygnusDarius: Fark it, I'll make my own guns.

[englishrussia.com image 520x390]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

/From link


Neat. :-)

But all you really need these days is a computer and a 3-D Printer. Presto - instant gun.
 
2012-12-21 10:53:48 AM  

remus: Endive Wombat: [i51.tinypic.com image 640x533]
I still shake my head that during the height of the coverage of Sandy Hook, Megyn Kelly at Fox reported that the shooter is suspected to have a 9mm handgun and a Glock.

Well, to be fair, her statement was accurate. He indeed had a 9mm Sig and a 10mm Glock. Since the Glock wasn't also a 9mm, nor was it a Sig Sauer, it does belong to a different set than "9mm handgun", and the Sig does not belong to the discrete set "Glock", thus her statement was factually correct.


Fair enough.  But she did not know that at the time of the broadcast.  More importantly, why does the caliber of the gun even matter?  You have got close to 30 people dead, 20 of them kids.  The caliber of the gun(s) used does not change anything.

The problem is when the media and politicians start using terminology that they do not fully understand...them being on TV = to most, an authority figure and or expert...so their ignorance is spread to the masses.

Hell, look at all the derp that is coming from the far left/ignorant on the issue of gun control.  I cannot wait to see what Carolyn MccArthy attempts to legislate against next.  Shes already going after The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up and Heat Seeking Bullets.
 
2012-12-21 10:54:23 AM  
Additional perspective is helpful:

2011 murder statistics, weapon used:

Rifle (any rifle, not just "assault weapons): 323
Knife or other cutting tool: 1,694
Unarmed attacks (hands, fists, feet, etc): 728
 
2012-12-21 10:54:43 AM  

Gosling: Dimensio: Are you saying that she would not have purchased a functionally equivalent firearm had "Bushmaster" brand rifles been prohibited?

She was a doomsday prepper. She would probably have bought ALL the guns if she had the chance, and all the other weapons up to and including Kung Lao's razor hat.

Personally, part of the legislation I'd push for would include a limit on how many guns a specific person can own. There's no reason I can see why someone needs to have dozens and dozens of guns in the house. And a lot of these shootings involve the shooter amassing half an arsenal.


I'm more worried about the person who wants only one gun, tbh.
 
2012-12-21 10:56:30 AM  

LasersHurt: FightDirector: There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban [...] in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns.

What the fark is this shiat?


There's two points being made there, so the reduction you've made is intellectually dishonest.

The first point:
There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package)

This is the point being made by the Mini-14 comparison earlier. Everyone's up in arms about "assault weapons". Well, the Mini-14, which is not an assault weapon by even California's standards, does EVERYTHING the AR-15 does. It just looks different. Any wording you can come up with that would ban an AR-15 based on anything but performance would make a pointless law, because it wouldn't affect the Mini.

Which brings us to the second point:
or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns.

So say we ban guns based on performance. The important parts of performance *tend* to be 1) Rate of Fire, 2) bullet size, 3) magazine capacity.

1) Rate of Fire. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic firearm that fires 1 shot per pull of the trigger (4-5 rounds per second if you don't care about hitting anything, more realistically 2 rounds per second to 1 round per 2 seconds if you do care). EVERY modern firearm in the world matches or exceeds this rate of fire, save for bolt-action firearms; which aren't an option for self-defense purposes, which SCOTUS has already said is a legit and protected reason to own firearms.. A double-action revolver can equal this rate of fire. So if you ban based on RoF, you've essentially enacted a *de facto* ban on all firearms that can be rationally used for self-defense. Not acceptable.

2) Bullet size. Without getting too deeply into technical jargon, the .223 used in the AR-15 is a tiny, TINY bullet. It's not big enough for deer, really. You'd have to ban every rifle cartridge out there in any quantity if you got rid of the ".223 and bigger". Again, this is not acceptable. Moreover, if you just ban based on bullet diameter, well, the smallest rational self-defense pistol round is the .380 ACP...a round that's bigger than the .223. So you've also banned every pistol out there that isn't a .22.

3) Magazine Capacity. Reloading takes under 2 seconds. This is not a solution. Moreover, what are you going to do about the millions of 30-round magazine that already exist? We're back to door-to-door searches on this one. Again, this is not a solution.

Therefore, I think my point stands. You cannot legislate a solution to this that will not unduly infringe on firearm owners by *either* being an unenforceable and pointless law (because it only legislates based on appearance), or by being a *de facto* general gun ban due to the fact that the AR-15's performance characteristics are superceded in one fashion or another by a huge variety of pre-existing firearms which would also be caught up in such legislation.
 
2012-12-21 10:57:07 AM  

Dimensio: Additional perspective is helpful:

2011 murder statistics, weapon used:

Rifle (any rifle, not just "assault weapons): 323
Knife or other cutting tool: 1,694
Unarmed attacks (hands, fists, feet, etc): 728


And handguns?
 
2012-12-21 10:57:11 AM  
Ah, another Provda thread.
 
2012-12-21 10:57:22 AM  

Gosling: The Aurora shooter didn't have a clip. He had a goddamn drum.


Yeah, and that jammed on him.  Those things are a joke and cheaply made.  Anything beyond 30 rounds, and the possibility of the mag not feeding correctly increases.
 
2012-12-21 10:57:50 AM  

LasersHurt: "I take things wildly out of context and reductio ad absurdum, because I am scared."


Well, accepting it is the first step towards a long recovery. You're off to a good start!
 
KIA
2012-12-21 10:57:58 AM  
In terms of whether it is a "military" weapon, it might bear mention that full-auto and burst-capable AR and AK weapons were used by the military in the Vietnam era --about 40 years ago.

Full auto and burst capable weapons are still illegal without extensive testing and licensing. They are incredibly expensive and are almost never used for crime.
 
2012-12-21 10:58:21 AM  
Apparently We are going to have twenty gun threads a week until we get to the conclusion we want.

/the Armalite 15: soldiers say its too weak, boot lickers say its too strong.
/I say the media is full of shiat.
 
2012-12-21 10:58:24 AM  

Gosling: Evil Twin Skippy: Well shooting at the range, for me, includes evaluating my groupings, improving my aim, and taking time to take my shot. Any idiot can put lead down range. If the time it takes you to fill your clip is the problem, why not just take a belt fed machine gun with you?

(Besides, feeding a 10 round magazine doesn't take nearly as much time as a 30 rounder. And I don't need an special tools.)

The Aurora shooter didn't have a clip. He had a goddamn drum.


Any knowledgeable shooter would never use an ammo drum like that. Those things are extremely prone to jamming. This is exactly what happened to the Aurora shooter, requiring him to switch to his shotgun. There's a big difference between standard capacity and high capacity magazines.
 
2012-12-21 10:58:36 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip.

We were at the range the other day with some friends, shooting some old .22 and a pistol. At the end of the range were two guys firing off an AR-15. (One of them was an instructor, methinks.) I have to admit, I gave it more than a good look. It was a nice firearm, and in the hands of an idiot he was making groupings that embarrassed we who were shooting Boy scout grade rifles with iron sights.

Still, in a range setting, that puppy was WAY out of place. Somebody buying that thing is not in the same league with recreational shooters, hunters, and the like. That gun is really only good for mowing down human beings at a lot of them. It doesn't have the stopping power for big game. It is overkill for small game. There are even rules for bird hunting that limit shotguns to a 3 round magazine. 30 rounds is military load out, and has no place outside of war.


You are what is known as a "Fudd".
 
2012-12-21 10:59:20 AM  

Thunderpipes: Loader device?

We have gotten so bad people are too lazy to manually load a magazine?


You'd be surprised at how much ammo a person goes through for a defensive handgun class. Heck, even a practice trip at the range, I go through about 100-200 rounds. Magazines have pretty stiff springs in them, so you do have to use a little elbow grease to put cartridges in them, especially the last one or two. Repeat that times a couple hundred and you'll have a pretty sore thumb.
 
2012-12-21 10:59:40 AM  

Dimensio: What limit would you recommend, and what demonstrable benefit would result?


Let's say five guns, total, per registered gun owner. I think that's a reasonable limit. So if you have three registered gun owners in the house, you can have 15 guns in the house.

It wouldn't do anything to the people who really do just want the one gun for hunting or protection. In fact, they can do both that way. Multiple types of game, even. But with a five-gun limit, you'd have to start thinking about what kind of gun you really need to have. The small-penis guns would probably drop off in sales as a result because people would (I hope to God) pick smaller, more pragmatic guns over AR-15's.

And that results in fewer guns floating around, and fewer that can be used in mass shootings, which will help result in fewer Newtowns, fewer Virginia Techs, fewer Auroras, fewer yada yada yada.

And maybe we can have some sort of buyback program for the pre-existing overage.
 
2012-12-21 10:59:44 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: Dimensio: Additional perspective is helpful:

2011 murder statistics, weapon used:

Rifle (any rifle, not just "assault weapons): 323
Knife or other cutting tool: 1,694
Unarmed attacks (hands, fists, feet, etc): 728

And handguns?


6,220
 
2012-12-21 10:59:55 AM  

BokChoy: It worked just fine in New Orleans after Katrina. Gun owners handed them over wholesale with little more than a whimper.


That was prior to the Heller and McDonald decisions.
 
2012-12-21 11:00:09 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip.

We were at the range the other day with some friends, shooting some old .22 and a pistol. At the end of the range were two guys firing off an AR-15. (One of them was an instructor, methinks.) I have to admit, I gave it more than a good look. It was a nice firearm, and in the hands of an idiot he was making groupings that embarrassed we who were shooting Boy scout grade rifles with iron sights.

Still, in a range setting, that puppy was WAY out of place. Somebody buying that thing is not in the same league with recreational shooters, hunters, and the like. That gun is really only good for mowing down human beings at a lot of them. It doesn't have the stopping power for big game. It is overkill for small game. There are even rules for bird hunting that limit shotguns to a 3 round magazine. 30 rounds is military load out, and has no place outside of war.


Tell that to the tens of thousands of people that use it for small game hunting. Not every magazine is a 30rnd magazine.
 
2012-12-21 11:00:09 AM  

vpb: HeadLever: LasersHurt: You and I all know that there is no term which would be found generally acceptable for semi-auto civilian versions of military weapons.

That would work for me. It won't be used though because it is not as easily associated with a harmful intent as all of these rifles must. We need to have 'assault', 'killing' 'attack', or 'accost' in its name.


Assault Rifle is the literal translation from German of the actual military designation of the StG 44.  It's hilarious that people who mock the media for not knowing about guns think it is some term made up by activists.  Or maybe the NRA is out to revise history again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44


It's not that they've made up the term 'assault rifle' it's that they're applying it incorrectly. These rifles don't not fire in full automatic or burst mode. They didn't make up the word 'bazooka' either, but to call this rifle one would also be incorrect.
 
2012-12-21 11:00:21 AM  

Gosling: Dimensio: No evidence has been prevented that banning "Bushmaster" rifles would have prevented the incident at Newtown.

The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?


Sorry, I still have a hard time believing that. Every reporter on the scene during the first few hours reported that the bushmaster was in the car, and that he had not carried it in with him. He didn't start shooting till he was inside, so what'd he do, teleport it out there? And then later in the afternoon everyone was saying yes, he DID use the bushmaster.

I just don't buy it. I think that's what they were TOLD to report.

Irregardless though, I believe this idiot would have done the same thing even if he had or didn't have the rifle.
 
2012-12-21 11:00:28 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip.

We were at the range the other day with some friends, shooting some old .22 and a pistol. At the end of the range were two guys firing off an AR-15. (One of them was an instructor, methinks.) I have to admit, I gave it more than a good look. It was a nice firearm, and in the hands of an idiot he was making groupings that embarrassed we who were shooting Boy scout grade rifles with iron sights.

Still, in a range setting, that puppy was WAY out of place. Somebody buying that thing is not in the same league with recreational shooters, hunters, and the like. That gun is really only good for mowing down human beings at a lot of them. It doesn't have the stopping power for big game. It is overkill for small game. There are even rules for bird hunting that limit shotguns to a 3 round magazine. 30 rounds is military load out, and has no place outside of war.


If you are rifle hunting, a .223 from an AR-15 or any other rifle is only considered functional for coyote or smaller. In most states, you can't hunt deer with anything smaller than .270. It is decidedly less lethal than the .308 and .30-06 it replaced, but it was lighter so you could carry more of them. The theory being, that even if you are shooting a less lethal bullet at me, I prefer to stay in cover than to pop my head up to see if I can shoot back.

So is the argument going to be that we can't use .223 because it is a people bullet, but deer and moose bullets are OK?
As for magazine limits, they are more functional for internal magazine weapons. As long as it is an external magazine, all you need is a bit of sheet metal and a bigger spring to increase the size of a standard magazine.

Besides, what do we mean with the 2nd amendment? What is a militia? If the point is to make people capable of organizing into a fighting unit to oppose government lead military enforcement, then the argument that something is a people killer or military-style is moot; because that is the point.

If we as a country feel that it is no longer possible for the government to use the military to oppress us internally, then we need to discuss what we want the 2nd amendment to mean and pass something saying so.

What do we want, how do we get there, and what are we willing to give up?

Say we limit magazines and rifle bullet sizes. It is still going to make the news when 1 person kills 5 with a .45 acp pistol. On a human level, that 5 is still too many; each life is precious in its own way. How do we stop that 1 person from thinking that killing others is a good idea? If you don't want to kill someone, then a fully automatic weapon with 1,000 bullets is harmless in your hands.

Funky, weird, maze-like laws just makes government grow bigger to hire people to do the paperwork. How do we educate and change minds and hearts? How do we help those who are a danger to themselves and/or others?

Why are we fighting about things instead of people? 1 year from now, everyone will remember the killer, and the victims will be lumped up into a number. There will be a disturbed person who feels alone that will think that at least Adam Lanza found a way to be remembered. Maybe I can be remembered too.
 
2012-12-21 11:02:00 AM  

hundreddollarman: Thunderpipes: Loader device?

We have gotten so bad people are too lazy to manually load a magazine?

You'd be surprised at how much ammo a person goes through for a defensive handgun class. Heck, even a practice trip at the range, I go through about 100-200 rounds. Magazines have pretty stiff springs in them, so you do have to use a little elbow grease to put cartridges in them, especially the last one or two. Repeat that times a couple hundred and you'll have a pretty sore thumb.


I consider it part of the fun. Shot about 300 rounds last time at the range, .308 and some .223 a buddy let me use.

Like Arnold says about working out and wusses who use straps. Man up and let your forearms get strong, you won't need help.
 
2012-12-21 11:02:06 AM  
If you have a child with a mental illness, put your guns in one of these, and keep the combination to yourself.
padens.com
 
2012-12-21 11:02:26 AM  

Gosling: Dimensio: What limit would you recommend, and what demonstrable benefit would result?

Let's say five guns, total, per registered gun owner. I think that's a reasonable limit. So if you have three registered gun owners in the house, you can have 15 guns in the house.

It wouldn't do anything to the people who really do just want the one gun for hunting or protection. In fact, they can do both that way. Multiple types of game, even. But with a five-gun limit, you'd have to start thinking about what kind of gun you really need to have. The small-penis guns would probably drop off in sales as a result because people would (I hope to God) pick smaller, more pragmatic guns over AR-15's.

And that results in fewer guns floating around, and fewer that can be used in mass shootings, which will help result in fewer Newtowns, fewer Virginia Techs, fewer Auroras, fewer yada yada yada.

And maybe we can have some sort of buyback program for the pre-existing overage.


Of what relevance are penises -- of any size -- to the current discussion? For what reason did you introduce the subject of male genitalia?
 
2012-12-21 11:02:51 AM  

Gosling: Dimensio: What limit would you recommend, and what demonstrable benefit would result?

Let's say five guns, total, per registered gun owner. I think that's a reasonable limit. So if you have three registered gun owners in the house, you can have 15 guns in the house.

It wouldn't do anything to the people who really do just want the one gun for hunting or protection. In fact, they can do both that way. Multiple types of game, even. But with a five-gun limit, you'd have to start thinking about what kind of gun you really need to have. The small-penis guns would probably drop off in sales as a result because people would (I hope to God) pick smaller, more pragmatic guns over AR-15's.

And that results in fewer guns floating around, and fewer that can be used in mass shootings, which will help result in fewer Newtowns, fewer Virginia Techs, fewer Auroras, fewer yada yada yada.

And maybe we can have some sort of buyback program for the pre-existing overage.


Why 5? What's magic about that number? It's pretty easy to come up with uses for more than 5.

The fact is that limiting the number of firearms a person may own would do absolutely nothing to reduce homicide rates nor is it an enforceable law.
 
2012-12-21 11:03:20 AM  

GanjSmokr: LasersHurt: "I take things wildly out of context and reductio ad absurdum, because I am scared."

Well, accepting it is the first step towards a long recovery. You're off to a good start!


You know perfectly well that I was referring to the article author who thinks banning any guns that fire something in .22x means all .22s will be illegal, because that's totally the only characteristic difference between a Bushmaster and a pistol.
 
2012-12-21 11:03:52 AM  

Dimensio: Of what relevance are penises -- of any size -- to the current discussion? For what reason did you introduce the subject of male genitalia?


'Consider Your Man Card Reissued'. That's why. Guns that exist to compensate for small penises.
 
2012-12-21 11:03:53 AM  

WinoRhino: Gosling: The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?

Someone steals my car and hits a pedestrian. Ban the Honda Civic.


An average of 10,000 people (including thousands of children) are killed every year by drunk drivers. Ban alcohol.
 
2012-12-21 11:04:24 AM  

Dimensio: Of what relevance are penises -- of any size -- to the current discussion? For what reason did you introduce the subject of male genitalia?


I know we disagree on other stuff, but yeesh the Penis thing really is annoying.
 
2012-12-21 11:04:36 AM  
Are sword-canes legal for self-defense?.
 
2012-12-21 11:04:49 AM  

TheVeryDeadIanMartin: If you have a child with a mental illness, put your guns in one of these, and keep the combination to yourself.
[padens.com image 612x600]


How dare you encourage that! Personal responsibility has zero place gun ownership, so says my NRA mailer.
 
2012-12-21 11:04:51 AM  

Dimensio: Evil Twin Skippy: Dimensio: Additional perspective is helpful:

2011 murder statistics, weapon used:

Rifle (any rifle, not just "assault weapons): 323
Knife or other cutting tool: 1,694
Unarmed attacks (hands, fists, feet, etc): 728

And handguns?

6,220


Sort of makes the point you were trying to make about knives and bare hands killing more people than guns smell like Bullshiat, doesn't it?
 
2012-12-21 11:05:05 AM  

Gosling: Dimensio: Of what relevance are penises -- of any size -- to the current discussion? For what reason did you introduce the subject of male genitalia?

'Consider Your Man Card Reissued'. That's why. Guns that exist to compensate for small penises.


Which firearms compensate for "small penises"? How, exactly, does any firearm compensate for a deficiency in genital size?
 
2012-12-21 11:05:10 AM  

Endive Wombat: remus: Endive Wombat: [i51.tinypic.com image 640x533]
I still shake my head that during the height of the coverage of Sandy Hook, Megyn Kelly at Fox reported that the shooter is suspected to have a 9mm handgun and a Glock.

Well, to be fair, her statement was accurate. He indeed had a 9mm Sig and a 10mm Glock. Since the Glock wasn't also a 9mm, nor was it a Sig Sauer, it does belong to a different set than "9mm handgun", and the Sig does not belong to the discrete set "Glock", thus her statement was factually correct.

Fair enough.  But she did not know that at the time of the broadcast.  More importantly, why does the caliber of the gun even matter?  You have got close to 30 people dead, 20 of them kids.  The caliber of the gun(s) used does not change anything.

The problem is when the media and politicians start using terminology that they do not fully understand...them being on TV = to most, an authority figure and or expert...so their ignorance is spread to the masses.

Hell, look at all the derp that is coming from the far left/ignorant on the issue of gun control.  I cannot wait to see what Carolyn MccArthy attempts to legislate against next.  Shes already going after The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up and Heat Seeking Bullets.


Hey, I TOTALLY agree with you. I was just pointing out the semantics and set theory of her statement.
 
2012-12-21 11:05:12 AM  

ronaprhys: Why 5? What's magic about that number? It's pretty easy to come up with uses for more than 5.

The fact is that limiting the number of firearms a person may own would do absolutely nothing to reduce homicide rates nor is it an enforceable law.


Why 5? Because you just have to pick a number and 5 sounds about right.
 
2012-12-21 11:05:23 AM  

Southern100: WinoRhino: Gosling: The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?

Someone steals my car and hits a pedestrian. Ban the Honda Civic.

An average of 10,000 people (including thousands of children) are killed every year by drunk drivers. Ban alcohol.


By 2015 it's estimated that Cars will kill less people per year than guns. That's because we keep passing safety measures, and technology keeps increasing the safety of the product.
 
2012-12-21 11:05:35 AM  

FightDirector: 3) Magazine Capacity. Reloading takes under 2 seconds. This is not a solution. Moreover, what are you going to do about the millions of 30-round magazine that already exist? We're back to door-to-door searches on this one. Again, this is not a solution.


I think that this point does not get discussed enough.  My firearms instructor could unload 50+ rounds in extremely tight groupings, going through 3-4 large magazines - unloading the mag, slapping a new one in and recocking, faster than I could get one 17 round magazine unloaded matching his groupings.




Fine, make all mags 5 rounds or less, for those who are trained, this is not a problem.




As to the current stockpile in the US of all those millions of high capacity mags, the only way I see the Feds doing anything about it is having a no questions asked drop off at your local police station...and if you are caught using one in a crime, self defense or hunting, they will toss your ass in jail and fine the shiat out of you...oh and destroy your guns too

 
2012-12-21 11:06:18 AM  
Back soon. Gotta help dig the driveway out of the snow dump Wisconsin got last night.
 
2012-12-21 11:06:33 AM  

Gosling: Dimensio: Of what relevance are penises -- of any size -- to the current discussion? For what reason did you introduce the subject of male genitalia?

'Consider Your Man Card Reissued'. That's why. Guns that exist to compensate for small penises.


Seriously - that's about as lame as you can get. If you're going to use that in a debate, you're as useless as tits on a boarhog.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-21 11:07:15 AM  

FightDirector: thurstonxhowell: Dimensio: "Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

"Civilian sporting rifle", when used to describe an AR-15, is one of the most ham-fisted attempts at political correctness I've ever seen.

How about this? Is this a legitimate civilian sporting rifle?

[i1.wp.com image 850x209]

That firearm is a Mini-14, a rifle that can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger.


The scary man's firearm is an AR-15. It can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger; Betamags can hold approx 100 rounds but have horrific jam rates). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger. It is covered in black plastic, which makes it lighter and theoretically more impact-resistant. These facts are scary, yes? It looks like this:

[blogs.suntimes.com image 850x250]

They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN. They shoot the same bullet, from magazines of the same size, at the same velocity. But one looks dammed scary, while one looks a lot like a hunting rifle you see on the wall.

There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns. And while the latter may be a desirable goal to some minds, there is simply no actual, practical way to make it happen, without setting the military loose on the civilian population in a house-to-house and turning our country into another Afghanistan-style military quagmire.


But you'll fight to the death and commit treason against your own country for fashion.

The idea that people just want gun control because the guns "look scary" is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard on Fark or anywhere. Mini-14s were covered under the assault weapon ban the same as the AR-15, which isn't surprising because the Mini-14 is a scaled down M-14 just as the AR-15 is a scaled down AR-10.

That's why AR-15s are legal in the UK in single shot straight pull form, but the Mini-14 above would be illegal. So much for the "looks scary" theory.

It's even funnier that you think you nuts could take on the police, much less the army. Most gun owners aren't crazy, and even if they were your little toys aren't going to do much against actual soldiers.

Even the idea that a bunch of deluded rednecks who think they are tough because they have a toy can compare to Afghan tribesmen who have been fighting their whole lives is comical.
 
2012-12-21 11:07:29 AM  

BokChoy:
It worked just fine in New Orleans ...


Of course it did. Most law abiding citizens do whatever the law requires them to do. How many CRIMINALS do you think turned in their firearms?
 
2012-12-21 11:07:31 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: Dimensio: Evil Twin Skippy: Dimensio: Additional perspective is helpful:

2011 murder statistics, weapon used:

Rifle (any rifle, not just "assault weapons): 323
Knife or other cutting tool: 1,694
Unarmed attacks (hands, fists, feet, etc): 728

And handguns?

6,220

Sort of makes the point you were trying to make about knives and bare hands killing more people than guns smell like Bullshiat, doesn't it?


My comparison was specifically to rifles, due to recent calls for restricting civilian access to certain popular rifle models.
 
2012-12-21 11:07:49 AM  

Dimensio: Gosling: Dimensio: What limit would you recommend, and what demonstrable benefit would result?

Let's say five guns, total, per registered gun owner. I think that's a reasonable limit. So if you have three registered gun owners in the house, you can have 15 guns in the house.

It wouldn't do anything to the people who really do just want the one gun for hunting or protection. In fact, they can do both that way. Multiple types of game, even. But with a five-gun limit, you'd have to start thinking about what kind of gun you really need to have. The small-penis guns would probably drop off in sales as a result because people would (I hope to God) pick smaller, more pragmatic guns over AR-15's.

And that results in fewer guns floating around, and fewer that can be used in mass shootings, which will help result in fewer Newtowns, fewer Virginia Techs, fewer Auroras, fewer yada yada yada.

And maybe we can have some sort of buyback program for the pre-existing overage.

Of what relevance are penises -- of any size -- to the current discussion? For what reason did you introduce the subject of male genitalia?


Some people just really like to think about penises. NTTAWWT.
 
2012-12-21 11:07:52 AM  

Endive Wombat: FightDirector: 3) Magazine Capacity. Reloading takes under 2 seconds. This is not a solution. Moreover, what are you going to do about the millions of 30-round magazine that already exist? We're back to door-to-door searches on this one. Again, this is not a solution.

I think that this point does not get discussed enough.  My firearms instructor could unload 50+ rounds in extremely tight groupings, going through 3-4 large magazines - unloading the mag, slapping a new one in and recocking, faster than I could get one 17 round magazine unloaded matching his groupings.


Fine, make all mags 5 rounds or less, for those who are trained, this is not a problem.


As to the current stockpile in the US of all those millions of high capacity mags, the only way I see the Feds doing anything about it is having a no questions asked drop off at your local police station...and if you are caught using one in a crime, self defense or hunting, they will toss your ass in jail and fine the shiat out of you...oh and destroy your guns too


I like the cut of your jib, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter, if you have one.
 
2012-12-21 11:07:56 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip.

We were at the range the other day with some friends, shooting some old .22 and a pistol. At the end of the range were two guys firing off an AR-15. (One of them was an instructor, methinks.) I have to admit, I gave it more than a good look. It was a nice firearm, and in the hands of an idiot he was making groupings that embarrassed we who were shooting Boy scout grade rifles with iron sights.

Still, in a range setting, that puppy was WAY out of place. Somebody buying that thing is not in the same league with recreational shooters, hunters, and the like. That gun is really only good for mowing down human beings at a lot of them. It doesn't have the stopping power for big game. It is overkill for small game. There are even rules for bird hunting that limit shotguns to a 3 round magazine. 30 rounds is military load out, and has no place outside of war.


The right to bear arms is provided to us by our founding fathers not to protect us from bad guys, or to hunt. It was to protect us from a tyrannical government, like the one they were up against.
 
2012-12-21 11:08:06 AM  

Endive Wombat: FightDirector: 3) Magazine Capacity. Reloading takes under 2 seconds. This is not a solution. Moreover, what are you going to do about the millions of 30-round magazine that already exist? We're back to door-to-door searches on this one. Again, this is not a solution.

I think that this point does not get discussed enough.  My firearms instructor could unload 50+ rounds in extremely tight groupings, going through 3-4 large magazines - unloading the mag, slapping a new one in and recocking, faster than I could get one 17 round magazine unloaded matching his groupings.


Fine, make all mags 5 rounds or less, for those who are trained, this is not a problem.


As to the current stockpile in the US of all those millions of high capacity mags, the only way I see the Feds doing anything about it is having a no questions asked drop off at your local police station...and if you are caught using one in a crime, self defense or hunting, they will toss your ass in jail and fine the shiat out of you...oh and destroy your guns too


How will owners be compensated for the loss of their property?
 
2012-12-21 11:08:14 AM  

Thunderpipes: hundreddollarman: Thunderpipes: Loader device?

We have gotten so bad people are too lazy to manually load a magazine?

You'd be surprised at how much ammo a person goes through for a defensive handgun class. Heck, even a practice trip at the range, I go through about 100-200 rounds. Magazines have pretty stiff springs in them, so you do have to use a little elbow grease to put cartridges in them, especially the last one or two. Repeat that times a couple hundred and you'll have a pretty sore thumb.

I consider it part of the fun. Shot about 300 rounds last time at the range, .308 and some .223 a buddy let me use.

Like Arnold says about working out and wusses who use straps. Man up and let your forearms get strong, you won't need help.


So, you are against women using guns? We wouldn't want them to actually be able to enjoy the range by loading their magazines? I know a few that literally couldn't load a stiff magazine without a loading device to assist.

What about older shooters with arthritis? I also know a few that can't load magazines without a load device. You don't want them enjoying the shooting sports either? Even though they can shoot amazing once they are loaded up?

Get off the "man up' baloney. Not all people are as strong as you and this isn't, I hope, survival of the fittest quite yet?
 
2012-12-21 11:08:15 AM  
lh3.ggpht.com
 
2012-12-21 11:08:25 AM  

Southern100: CygnusDarius: Fark it, I'll make my own guns.

[englishrussia.com image 520x390]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

/From link

Neat. :-)

But all you really need these days is a computer and a 3-D Printer. Presto - instant gun.


NO. NO. NO.

A 3d printer cant print in the tight tolerances needed to make a properly functioning gun. Also, the materials wont hold up to the stresses of firing a bullet.

But by all means keep believing everything you see on CSI and CNN.
 
2012-12-21 11:09:13 AM  

Southern100: Irregardless


fark you. Learn English.
 
2012-12-21 11:09:14 AM  

Gosling: ronaprhys: Why 5? What's magic about that number? It's pretty easy to come up with uses for more than 5.

The fact is that limiting the number of firearms a person may own would do absolutely nothing to reduce homicide rates nor is it an enforceable law.

Why 5? Because you just have to pick a number and 5 sounds about right.


Which is a wonderful statement from someone who doesn't know much of anything about firearms.

Another fun fact - you do not need to pick a number. In fact, setting a "limit" seems like it'd be infringing upon someone's rights, which is a Constitutional no-no. Now, within the framework of the Constitution, set about devising a method to reduce the homicide rate. Said method has to be practical and enforceable, so that it's likely to be obeyed. It also has to show a clear and measurable reduction in the homicide rate.

Go.
 
2012-12-21 11:09:53 AM  

OHDUDENESS: Don't the reports say that he only killed his mother with the .223? The other 26 people were shot by handguns, right?


Every report I have read on this said that he killed everybody in the school with close range shots from the Bushmaster. The only time I have heard anything different were people in threads or comment sections from articles, who made claims that reports said he used a handgun.
 
2012-12-21 11:10:56 AM  

vpb: The idea that people just want gun control because the guns "look scary" is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard on Fark or anywhere. Mini-14s were covered under the assault weapon ban the same as the AR-15, which isn't surprising because the Mini-14 is a scaled down M-14 just as the AR-15 is a scaled down AR-10.


The now-expired federal "assault weapons ban" did not prohibit manufacture of the Ruger Mini-14. Manufacturing a Mini-14 with two or more of the "banned" features was prohibited, but the Mini-14 rifle model itself was not.

The "Colt AR-15" was identified by name in the previous federal "assault weapons ban".
 
2012-12-21 11:12:33 AM  

Gosling: Dimensio: What limit would you recommend, and what demonstrable benefit would result?

Let's say five guns, total, per registered gun owner. I think that's a reasonable limit.


Not a reasonable limit, because someone who enjoys varied shooting sports would run up against that limit quickly:

1. Open field deer rifle: Probably a scoped bolt action, you need accuracy.
2. Swamp/deep woods deer rifle: Probably open-sighted semi-auto or lever action carbine.
3. Varmint rifle: Probably similar to 1, but in a smaller caliber because the varmints are smaller.
4. Small game rifle: Probably a .22 LR for things like squirrels and rabbits.
5. Shotgun: Could be used for geese, ducks, turkeys.

But you've just covered the majority (but not all) hunting situations, and you've got nothing left for things like a CCW handgun, specialized target rifles, specialized shotgun event shotguns, or even "spares" to use when your main gun breaks and you don't have time to get it fixed before your big hunting trip.

I haven't even delved into competition guns like IPSC, biathlon (both modern and my personal favorite, primitive), trap and skeet, etc.

I like to point out to people that guns are like golf clubs: You wouldn't play golf with just a 9 iron in your bag, would you? Of course not, you'd have clubs for all sorts of situations, woods, irons, at least one putter, a sand wedge, etc. Guns are the same way: They are all optimized for different situations. You wouldn't try to hunt pronghorns out west with an SKS, just like you wouldn't hunt swamp deer with a bolt action with a 10-power scope on it. You wouldn't use a .22 LR to hunt Elk or Moose, and you wouldn't use a .338 to hunt squirrels.
 
2012-12-21 11:13:04 AM  

ongbok: OHDUDENESS: Don't the reports say that he only killed his mother with the .223? The other 26 people were shot by handguns, right?

Every report I have read on this said that he killed everybody in the school with close range shots from the Bushmaster. The only time I have heard anything different were people in threads or comment sections from articles, who made claims that reports said he used a handgun.


Initial news reports claimed the rifle to have been found in the car. Later reports contradicted that claim. Regardless, the rifle itself provided no tactical advantage given his actions; he could have accomplished the same criminal results using only any number of firearm types.
 
2012-12-21 11:14:17 AM  

Gosling: Dimensio: Are you saying that she would not have purchased a functionally equivalent firearm had "Bushmaster" brand rifles been prohibited?

She was a doomsday prepper. She would probably have bought ALL the guns if she had the chance, and all the other weapons up to and including Kung Lao's razor hat.

Personally, part of the legislation I'd push for would include a limit on how many guns a specific person can own. There's no reason I can see why someone needs to have dozens and dozens of guns in the house. And a lot of these shootings involve the shooter amassing half an arsenal.


You still can only shoot them one at a time (well, two if you are using pistols and don't plan on hitting anything)

This is stupid
 
2012-12-21 11:15:23 AM  

dittybopper: Gosling: Dimensio: What limit would you recommend, and what demonstrable benefit would result?

Let's say five guns, total, per registered gun owner. I think that's a reasonable limit.

Not a reasonable limit, because someone who enjoys varied shooting sports would run up against that limit quickly:

1. Open field deer rifle: Probably a scoped bolt action, you need accuracy.
2. Swamp/deep woods deer rifle: Probably open-sighted semi-auto or lever action carbine.
3. Varmint rifle: Probably similar to 1, but in a smaller caliber because the varmints are smaller.
4. Small game rifle: Probably a .22 LR for things like squirrels and rabbits.
5. Shotgun: Could be used for geese, ducks, turkeys.

But you've just covered the majority (but not all) hunting situations, and you've got nothing left for things like a CCW handgun, specialized target rifles, specialized shotgun event shotguns, or even "spares" to use when your main gun breaks and you don't have time to get it fixed before your big hunting trip.

I haven't even delved into competition guns like IPSC, biathlon (both modern and my personal favorite, primitive), trap and skeet, etc.

I like to point out to people that guns are like golf clubs: You wouldn't play golf with just a 9 iron in your bag, would you? Of course not, you'd have clubs for all sorts of situations, woods, irons, at least one putter, a sand wedge, etc. Guns are the same way: They are all optimized for different situations. You wouldn't try to hunt pronghorns out west with an SKS, just like you wouldn't hunt swamp deer with a bolt action with a 10-power scope on it. You wouldn't use a .22 LR to hunt Elk or Moose, and you wouldn't use a .338 to hunt squirrels.


You do realize that it's highly likely that Gosling will respond with nothing more than a "well, then you need to pick", don't you. I applaud trying to educate folks who want to be educated on a subject (and rather enjoy being educated myself - you and others have given me lots of information I didn't have), but he isn't one of them.
 
2012-12-21 11:15:52 AM  

TheVeryDeadIanMartin: If you have a child with a mental illness, put your guns

and knives and hammers and most other heavy blunt or sharp objects in one of these, and keep the combination to yourself for as long as you can hold out.
[padens.com image 612x600]


Where do you stop putting things under lock and key?  Do you stop at hand guns or the living room lamps? legitimate question.
 
2012-12-21 11:15:54 AM  

FightDirector: They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN.


ok then we'll ban them both. The day of you gun loving jackasses running shiat is over.
 
2012-12-21 11:16:23 AM  

Dimensio: Endive Wombat: FightDirector: 3) Magazine Capacity. Reloading takes under 2 seconds. This is not a solution. Moreover, what are you going to do about the millions of 30-round magazine that already exist? We're back to door-to-door searches on this one. Again, this is not a solution.

I think that this point does not get discussed enough.  My firearms instructor could unload 50+ rounds in extremely tight groupings, going through 3-4 large magazines - unloading the mag, slapping a new one in and recocking, faster than I could get one 17 round magazine unloaded matching his groupings.


Fine, make all mags 5 rounds or less, for those who are trained, this is not a problem.


As to the current stockpile in the US of all those millions of high capacity mags, the only way I see the Feds doing anything about it is having a no questions asked drop off at your local police station...and if you are caught using one in a crime, self defense or hunting, they will toss your ass in jail and fine the shiat out of you...oh and destroy your guns too

How will owners be compensated for the loss of their property?


Because it is now illegal, so fark you, that's why!

This just simply will not happen.  They can ban the manufacture of high capacity mags like they did before, but it will be just as ineffective.  With the previous ban, retailers and those with a bit extra cash simply bought up what they could and continued to sell them during the ban.
 
2012-12-21 11:17:15 AM  

Southern100: BokChoy:
It worked just fine in New Orleans ...

Of course it did. Most law abiding citizens do whatever the law requires them to do. How many CRIMINALS do you think turned in their firearms?


Yes, but criminals at least have a sense of perspective. They know if they just mow down people willy nilly, their ass is going to be on a wanted poster, assuming they don't go down in a hail of bullets in a police shootout.

What we need are laws to handle the cases where a seemingly "normal" person flips on their homicide bit. And it's not going to stop every homicidal maniac. But it would at least slow them down. Most of these mass shooting are people who have gone over the edge, and use readily available means that their disposal to create mass casualties.

Making guns and buckets of ammo a little harder to get than cough medicine could potentially save some lives. Nutters, when they have to explain what they want out loud, forget that they are nutters.

Just try ordering a few tons of fertilizer. Odds are, you'll get some scrutiny, if not a visit from the local constabulary to sort out what you want to use it for. It should be the same for buying pallets of ammunition.
 
2012-12-21 11:17:24 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: Dimensio: Evil Twin Skippy: Dimensio: Additional perspective is helpful:

2011 murder statistics, weapon used:

Rifle (any rifle, not just "assault weapons): 323
Knife or other cutting tool: 1,694
Unarmed attacks (hands, fists, feet, etc): 728

And handguns?

6,220

Sort of makes the point you were trying to make about knives and bare hands killing more people than guns smell like Bullshiat, doesn't it?


Depends on how you analyze those numbers.
Handguns are popular among drug dealers and gang members because they are easily concealed, and drug related murders are a chunk of those six thousand. Thy also represent a user base that WILL NOT heed any politicians call for disarmament or magazine bans.

These kinds of dangerous people drive law abiding citizens to buy guns (60% of the sales are for self defense).
Self defense sometimes calls for a higher capacity, depending on your views about the subject.
Most shootings end in less than five shots, but saying you'll only need five is gambling that the incident you face stays inside the curve.
It's like saying you only need 72 hours worth of supplies because most disasters are shorter than three days of inconvenience.
Some people want more.

The point is that when politicians ask for magazine bans, they aren't talking to the crazies or the violent.
They are only talking to you.

That being the case, if you don't want a gun with more than five or ten rounds then limit yourself to that.
It's about as effective as any AWB has been.
 
2012-12-21 11:17:30 AM  

Red_Fox: FightDirector: They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN.

ok then we'll ban them both. The day of you gun loving jackasses running shiat is over.


Your proposal is unreasonable and irrational.
 
2012-12-21 11:18:23 AM  

Endive Wombat: Dimensio: Endive Wombat: FightDirector: 3) Magazine Capacity. Reloading takes under 2 seconds. This is not a solution. Moreover, what are you going to do about the millions of 30-round magazine that already exist? We're back to door-to-door searches on this one. Again, this is not a solution.

I think that this point does not get discussed enough.  My firearms instructor could unload 50+ rounds in extremely tight groupings, going through 3-4 large magazines - unloading the mag, slapping a new one in and recocking, faster than I could get one 17 round magazine unloaded matching his groupings.


Fine, make all mags 5 rounds or less, for those who are trained, this is not a problem.


As to the current stockpile in the US of all those millions of high capacity mags, the only way I see the Feds doing anything about it is having a no questions asked drop off at your local police station...and if you are caught using one in a crime, self defense or hunting, they will toss your ass in jail and fine the shiat out of you...oh and destroy your guns too

How will owners be compensated for the loss of their property?

Because it is now illegal, so fark you, that's why!

This just simply will not happen.  They can ban the manufacture of high capacity mags like they did before, but it will be just as ineffective.  With the previous ban, retailers and those with a bit extra cash simply bought up what they could and continued to sell them during the ban.


You did not address my question: how will owners be compensated for the loss of their property.
 
2012-12-21 11:18:25 AM  

dittybopper: I like to point out to people that guns are like golf clubs: You wouldn't play golf with just a 9 iron in your bag, would you? Of course not, you'd have clubs for all sorts of situations, woods, irons, at least one putter, a sand wedge, etc. Guns are the same way: They are all optimized for different situations. You wouldn't try to hunt pronghorns out west with an SKS, just like you wouldn't hunt swamp deer with a bolt action with a 10-power scope on it. You wouldn't use a .22 LR to hunt Elk or Moose, and you wouldn't use a .338 to hunt squirrels.


You can kill someone with a golf club too. Maybe we should look into banning them
 
2012-12-21 11:18:26 AM  

Red_Fox: FightDirector: They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN.

ok then we'll ban them both. The day of you gun loving jackasses running shiat is over.


Tough talk from a Canadian. Keep flapping the top of your head, buddy.

/ok, feel better
//any other rational people want to discuss the issue?
 
2012-12-21 11:18:49 AM  

FightDirector: They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN.


Ummm...excuse me, one has the shoulder thing that goes up and the other does not!!!
 
2012-12-21 11:18:54 AM  

Duelist: How do we stop that 1 person from thinking that killing others is a good idea?


This is really the heart of the matter. Modern society is extremely farked up. And I don't mean just getting mental health care to those who are already in trouble. I mean changing society so that we're not so divided, alienated and dehumanized.

It's a hell of a world that makes people want to kill other people for no reason at all.
 
2012-12-21 11:19:17 AM  
Man, the NRA's press conference is going to make it worse on themselves.
 
2012-12-21 11:20:23 AM  

Endive Wombat: remus: Endive Wombat: [i51.tinypic.com image 640x533]
I still shake my head that during the height of the coverage of Sandy Hook, Megyn Kelly at Fox reported that the shooter is suspected to have a 9mm handgun and a Glock.

Well, to be fair, her statement was accurate. He indeed had a 9mm Sig and a 10mm Glock. Since the Glock wasn't also a 9mm, nor was it a Sig Sauer, it does belong to a different set than "9mm handgun", and the Sig does not belong to the discrete set "Glock", thus her statement was factually correct.

Fair enough.  But she did not know that at the time of the broadcast.  More importantly, why does the caliber of the gun even matter?  You have got close to 30 people dead, 20 of them kids.  The caliber of the gun(s) used does not change anything.

The problem is when the media and politicians start using terminology that they do not fully understand...them being on TV = to most, an authority figure and or expert...so their ignorance is spread to the masses.

Hell, look at all the derp that is coming from the far left/ignorant on the issue of gun control.  I cannot wait to see what Carolyn MccArthy attempts to legislate against next.  Shes already going after The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up and Heat Seeking Bullets.


Because people want details? The same reason they specify "late model Buick", "2001 Chrysler minivan", etc, etc when describing what the old man was driving when he drove into the Farmers Market, when they could have just said "vehicle".
 
2012-12-21 11:20:45 AM  

Red_Fox: FightDirector: They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN.

ok then we'll ban them both. The day of you gun loving jackasses running shiat is over.


How many guns protect the Messiah daily?

Weird how they are good enough for him, but us peasants cannot own them.
 
2012-12-21 11:21:02 AM  

MrBallou: Duelist: How do we stop that 1 person from thinking that killing others is a good idea?

This is really the heart of the matter. Modern society is extremely farked up. And I don't mean just getting mental health care to those who are already in trouble. I mean changing society so that we're not so divided, alienated and dehumanized.

It's a hell of a world that makes people want to kill other people for no reason at all.


Murder rates in "modern society" are substantially lower than they were in previous eras.
 
2012-12-21 11:21:07 AM  

Sultan Of Herf: A 3d printer cant print in the tight tolerances needed to make a properly functioning gun. Also, the materials wont hold up to the stresses of firing a bullet.

But by all means keep believing everything you see on CSI and CNN.



Gotta admit, when I heard of a 3D printer printin' out something with "tight tolerances", firearms weren't the first thing to come to mind.
 
2012-12-21 11:22:40 AM  

kombat_unit: r1niceboy: I like me some firepower (learned to shoot using the FN FAL), but I'm at a loss to explain how someone could justify owning an AR-15. They exist to put a lot of firepower in a lot of targets very quickly while only just giving a nod to existing gun laws. I would add that had Adam Lanza been carrying a full auto assault rifle, he'd have sprayed, wounding more, but killing less kids. The AR-15 makes you pick your shots.

Read United States v. Miller 1939 and you will then be able to explain why we should own AR-15s.


There's the right to own guns, but then there's the reason for owning them. Every time someone tries to justify their owning one, I feel like I'm driving through Derpville and can't get gas because the town's armed to make sure Duane doesn't leave his sister at the altar.
 
2012-12-21 11:23:03 AM  

dittybopper: Gosling: Dimensio: What limit would you recommend, and what demonstrable benefit would result?

Let's say five guns, total, per registered gun owner. I think that's a reasonable limit.

Not a reasonable limit, because someone who enjoys varied shooting sports would run up against that limit quickly:

1. Open field deer rifle: Probably a scoped bolt action, you need accuracy.
2. Swamp/deep woods deer rifle: Probably open-sighted semi-auto or lever action carbine.
3. Varmint rifle: Probably similar to 1, but in a smaller caliber because the varmints are smaller.
4. Small game rifle: Probably a .22 LR for things like squirrels and rabbits.
5. Shotgun: Could be used for geese, ducks, turkeys.

But you've just covered the majority (but not all) hunting situations, and you've got nothing left for things like a CCW handgun, specialized target rifles, specialized shotgun event shotguns, or even "spares" to use when your main gun breaks and you don't have time to get it fixed before your big hunting trip.

I haven't even delved into competition guns like IPSC, biathlon (both modern and my personal favorite, primitive), trap and skeet, etc.

I like to point out to people that guns are like golf clubs: You wouldn't play golf with just a 9 iron in your bag, would you? Of course not, you'd have clubs for all sorts of situations, woods, irons, at least one putter, a sand wedge, etc. Guns are the same way: They are all optimized for different situations. You wouldn't try to hunt pronghorns out west with an SKS, just like you wouldn't hunt swamp deer with a bolt action with a 10-power scope on it. You wouldn't use a .22 LR to hunt Elk or Moose, and you wouldn't use a .338 to hunt squirrels.


This is why I would focus on the Ammo, not the gun. People also collect guns for their intrinsic beauty. You have the issue of museums and private collections, which can have hundred or thousands. I don't think limiting GUN ownership is a good idea, or even a desirable one.

I just want a common sense rule in place to limit the damage that one person can do when they go off the deep end. And I think we can all agree, there are plenty of ways to do that and not infringe on the other uses of a gun in any way.
 
2012-12-21 11:24:36 AM  

TheVeryDeadIanMartin: If you have a child with a mental illness, put your guns in one of these, and keep the combination to yourself.
[padens.com image 612x600]


Thanks for this. Proper safety would have at the very least kept the household weapons out of that kids hands. I'm not saying that he could not have found them somewhere else, but at least he would have been delayed more which could have led to a change of hear/getting caught. I'm a firm believer that if you can't securely lock your weapons in a safe then you should not have them in the first place. Honestly, If I had a child with mental illness I would seriously consider selling off my collection. Thank god I'm not currently in that situation.
 
2012-12-21 11:25:02 AM  

Green Scorpio: dittybopper: I like to point out to people that guns are like golf clubs: You wouldn't play golf with just a 9 iron in your bag, would you? Of course not, you'd have clubs for all sorts of situations, woods, irons, at least one putter, a sand wedge, etc. Guns are the same way: They are all optimized for different situations. You wouldn't try to hunt pronghorns out west with an SKS, just like you wouldn't hunt swamp deer with a bolt action with a 10-power scope on it. You wouldn't use a .22 LR to hunt Elk or Moose, and you wouldn't use a .338 to hunt squirrels.

You can kill someone with a golf club too. Maybe we should look into banning them


If you saw me attempt to play golf, you would.
 
2012-12-21 11:26:09 AM  

WTF Indeed: TheVeryDeadIanMartin: If you have a child with a mental illness, put your guns in one of these, and keep the combination to yourself.
[padens.com image 612x600]

How dare you encourage that! Personal responsibility has zero place gun ownership, so says my NRA mailer.


Encouraging it is fine. Hell, I have a gun safe, albeit not as fancy as that one.

Requiring it is unconstitutional: 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.
 
2012-12-21 11:26:56 AM  

Sultan Of Herf: Southern100: CygnusDarius: Fark it, I'll make my own guns.

[englishrussia.com image 520x390]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

/From link

Neat. :-)

But all you really need these days is a computer and a 3-D Printer. Presto - instant gun.

NO. NO. NO.

A 3d printer cant print in the tight tolerances needed to make a properly functioning gun. Also, the materials wont hold up to the stresses of firing a bullet.

But by all means keep believing everything you see on CSI and CNN.


Please be informed.

http://defensedistributed.com/
 
2012-12-21 11:27:02 AM  

Endive Wombat: FightDirector: They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN.

Ummm...excuse me, one has the shoulder thing that goes up and the other does not!!!


someone posted this the other day. it's worth the watch.
 
2012-12-21 11:27:08 AM  
Of all the irraitating thing gunnuts do, none is more annoying or ridiculous than thier constant butt-hurt about Gun nomeclature and identification.  They use it like a secret handshake to indentify other obsesssives like themselves and marginalize the opinions of everyone else  "Ah-ha the article said the gun was an Ar-15  but CLEARLY it was an Ar-15 L limited edition with the collapsible stock and the chome sights-stupid Lib reporter who doesn;t know anything about guns.."

SO. THE FARK. WHAT?

I can't identify a Holley carburetor from a stock one, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion on speed limits, particularly when someone just killed a bunch of people drag-racing in a souped up car.

Just like evangelical Christians who have somehow convinced themselves they are a persecuted minority in a country that self-indentifies as 90% Christian; you folks have convinced yourselves that you are a special, enlightened elite from an obscure subculture facing ignorant masses who know nothing about guns.  The truth is that there are 270 MILLION firearms in private hands or 9 for every ten people in the US.  Add in those who have handled or fired one without owning one, and those who have a military or police issued on and guess what?  90+% of the population knows about guns, have fired a gun in thier lifetime, are more than familiar with their basic operation.   They just don't CARE about them the way you do.

You remind me nohing so much as Star-wars geeks who work themselves into paroxsyms of nerd-rage because a movie reviewer never checked the Wiki to find out that the 4th storm trooper to the left in scene 116 has actually been assigned a name and rich backstory by the fan-fic community,

and BTW yes, there is technically a difference btween a "clip" and a "magazine" but they've become interchangeable words in the vernacular and so either is correct when talking about the thing that goes into the gun and holds bullets, and your pedantic corrections serve no purpose but to call you out as a douchebag
 
2012-12-21 11:27:47 AM  

Dimensio: You did not address my question: how will owners be compensated for the loss of their property.


The probably would not.  It's stupid, ineffective and will never work.  Let's keep numbers simple here...

Assuming that there are 25M "high capacity" mags out there (I am sure it is a lot more) at a mean value of $20 each.  The total value is $500,000,000.

If the government were to put this incredibly stupid ban forward AND (unlikely) compensate the owners for the loss of property...I would argue that a half of a billion dollars could be better spend on gun safety education and or mental health services here in the US.
 
2012-12-21 11:28:48 AM  

Magorn: SO. THE FARK. WHAT?

I can't identify a Holley carburetor from a stock one, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion on speed limits, particularly when someone just killed a bunch of people drag-racing in a souped up car.


A lack of understanding of automotive technology does not disqualify an opinion regarding speed limits. A lack of understanding of automotive technology does disqualify an opinion that the Honda Civic model automobile should be prohibited to civilians due to its inherent racing ability.
 
2012-12-21 11:29:10 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: dittybopper: Gosling: Dimensio: What limit would you recommend, and what demonstrable benefit would result?

Let's say five guns, total, per registered gun owner. I think that's a reasonable limit.

Not a reasonable limit, because someone who enjoys varied shooting sports would run up against that limit quickly:

1. Open field deer rifle: Probably a scoped bolt action, you need accuracy.
2. Swamp/deep woods deer rifle: Probably open-sighted semi-auto or lever action carbine.
3. Varmint rifle: Probably similar to 1, but in a smaller caliber because the varmints are smaller.
4. Small game rifle: Probably a .22 LR for things like squirrels and rabbits.
5. Shotgun: Could be used for geese, ducks, turkeys.

But you've just covered the majority (but not all) hunting situations, and you've got nothing left for things like a CCW handgun, specialized target rifles, specialized shotgun event shotguns, or even "spares" to use when your main gun breaks and you don't have time to get it fixed before your big hunting trip.

I haven't even delved into competition guns like IPSC, biathlon (both modern and my personal favorite, primitive), trap and skeet, etc.

I like to point out to people that guns are like golf clubs: You wouldn't play golf with just a 9 iron in your bag, would you? Of course not, you'd have clubs for all sorts of situations, woods, irons, at least one putter, a sand wedge, etc. Guns are the same way: They are all optimized for different situations. You wouldn't try to hunt pronghorns out west with an SKS, just like you wouldn't hunt swamp deer with a bolt action with a 10-power scope on it. You wouldn't use a .22 LR to hunt Elk or Moose, and you wouldn't use a .338 to hunt squirrels.

This is why I would focus on the Ammo, not the gun. People also collect guns for their intrinsic beauty. You have the issue of museums and private collections, which can have hundred or thousands. I don't think limiting GUN ownership is a good idea, or even a desirable on ...


You realize, ammo is way easier to make than guns. People can do it at home. You really think that would work, at all, when we can't stop people from buying drugs?

The war on ammo?
 
2012-12-21 11:29:14 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: Yes, but criminals at least have a sense of perspective. They know if they just mow down people willy nilly, their ass is going to be on a wanted poster, assuming they don't go down in a hail of bullets in a police shootout.


And, for the most part, it seems that criminals tend to kill criminals or those involved in the drug trade in one way, shape, or form. Yes, they do murder normal people and sometimes normal people get into arguments or situations where things get out of hand, but it does seem that something like 60-75% of the homicides out there are gang or drug related. Someone else can correct me on the latest numbers, but that's rough range.

What we need are laws to handle the cases where a seemingly "normal" person flips on their homicide bit. And it's not going to stop every homicidal maniac. But it would at least slow them down. Most of these mass shooting are people who have gone over the edge, and use readily available means that their disposal to create mass casualties.

I think preventing the flip outs, or reducing the rate, is a very good thing. I disagree with your approach for a few reasons.
1 - These are the vast minority of incidents. Anything you do here will greatly inconvenience law-abiding people.
2 - The restrictions you're talking about are incredibly easy to circumvent and practically impossible to enforce.
3 - Considering that in all of these situations, the shooters are stealing the weapons (either with or without killing the owners), it seems that trying an impossible task seems to be the wrong direction.

Making guns and buckets of ammo a little harder to get than cough medicine could potentially save some lives. Nutters, when they have to explain what they want out loud, forget that they are nutters.

Cough medicine is exceedingly easy to get. Specific types of cough medicine are slightly more difficult - especially if you want to create a meth lab.

Just try ordering a few tons of fertilizer. Odds are, you'll get some scrutiny, if not a visit from the local constabulary to sort out what you want to use it for. It should be the same for buying pallets of ammunition.

What you're proposing would just involve folks buying it in smaller and smaller quantities to get around the reporting requirements. Over time, stockpiling would become the norm (hell, it's becoming the norm now mostly because people are afraid).

Honestly, what might be more effective than anything you've suggested here is to never release the shooters name - but remember the victims and memorialize them. Then the shooters will lose that HISCORE credit. I think that'd tie in well with their mentality. Chances are they feel powerless and helpless to change that, so they look at this as a way to regain the power. Knowing that most people remember the names of the shooters at Columbine, VA Tech, the Oregon Mall, Newton school, etc., they feel they'll gain lasting notoriety. Take that away and see if we cut the number of shootings.

Of course, this would need to have the voluntary participation from the media as I'd be unwilling to limit the 1A, either.
 
2012-12-21 11:29:24 AM  

Gosling:
Let's say five guns, total, per registered gun owner. I think that's a reasonable limit.


And what would you suggest for those of use who are firearms instructors and per course requirements must have 30 firearms to teach a ten person class?
 
2012-12-21 11:29:27 AM  
As much as I hate that the AR15 has become the generic 'taticool' fashion statement to too many gun owners, it could have been a mini-14, sks or AK too.

Let's not get hung up on one form factor when discussing the problem.

/Anyone ever seen the ar-15 in wood furniture, it looks rather good.
 
2012-12-21 11:29:34 AM  

Magorn: Of all the irraitating thing gunnuts do, none is more annoying or ridiculous than thier constant butt-hurt about Gun nomeclature and identification.  They use it like a secret handshake to indentify other obsesssives like themselves and marginalize the opinions of everyone else  "Ah-ha the article said the gun was an Ar-15  but CLEARLY it was an Ar-15 L limited edition with the collapsible stock and the chome sights-stupid Lib reporter who doesn;t know anything about guns.."

SO. THE FARK. WHAT?


I often misname weapons just to get them to wring their cap in their hands and gnash their tooth.
 
2012-12-21 11:30:03 AM  
So I've been "assaulting" coyotes all these years? Huh.
 
2012-12-21 11:30:17 AM  

Dimensio: MrBallou: Duelist: How do we stop that 1 person from thinking that killing others is a good idea?

This is really the heart of the matter. Modern society is extremely farked up. And I don't mean just getting mental health care to those who are already in trouble. I mean changing society so that we're not so divided, alienated and dehumanized.

It's a hell of a world that makes people want to kill other people for no reason at all.

Murder rates in "modern society" are substantially lower than they were in previous eras.


That's murder with a motive (war, robbery, sexual rivalry, power struggles, etc.). I mean going apeshiat and killing strangers.
 
2012-12-21 11:30:20 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: Southern100: BokChoy:
Just try ordering a few tons of fertilizer. Odds are, you'll get some scrutiny, if not a visit from the local constabulary to sort out what you want to use it for. It should be the same for buying pallets of ammunition.


Order pallets of instant cold packs instead. No scrutiny. Order pallets of etch-a-sketches. No scrutiny. Look up whats inside those...
 
2012-12-21 11:30:29 AM  

LasersHurt: You and I all know that there is no term which would be found generally acceptable for semi-auto civilian versions of military weapons.


Tickle rifle?
 
2012-12-21 11:31:03 AM  

Enemabag Jones: As much as I hate that the AR15 has become the generic 'taticool' fashion statement to too many gun owners, it could have been a mini-14, sks or AK too.

Let's not get hung up on one form factor when discussing the problem.

/Anyone ever seen the ar-15 in wood furniture, it looks rather good.


Yes! Ironwood Designs makes some gorgeous wooden furniture for ARs, very snazzy.
 
2012-12-21 11:31:16 AM  

Thunderpipes: Red_Fox: FightDirector: They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN.

ok then we'll ban them both. The day of you gun loving jackasses running shiat is over.

How many guns protect the Messiah daily?

Weird how they are good enough for him, but us peasants cannot own them.


i50.tinypic.com

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy.
 
2012-12-21 11:31:17 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: I thought the killer at Sandy Hook only used two pistols (but had the rifle with him).


I guess that story didn't create enough hysteria. I would also would really like to know how the facts became so screwed up in this case as info was flowing out. Media making shiat up? Bad intel from wittiness? Authorities making statements without actually going to the crime scene? WTF?

Weren't they also reporting a second shooter they were chasing though the woods at one point?

How did we go from being found dead with two pistols and the gun being in the car, to cops reporting .223 casings all over the place and finding the AR on him?

Not saying the is a conspiracy or anything like that, but I do want to know the sources of the bad information and a real timeline of events.
 
2012-12-21 11:31:37 AM  

Dimensio: T.M.S.: "Assault Rifle" is up there with "politically correct". Two terms that were stupid to coin in the first place and today are only used by those that feel oppressed by them.

"Assault rifle" is a technical term with an established definition.

"Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.


How about we call it "Diet assault rifle" and call it a day?  Would you be happy then.   For one of of three positions on its selector switch the M-16 is functionally identical to the AR-15
 
2012-12-21 11:32:16 AM  

Enemabag Jones: As much as I hate that the AR15 has become the generic 'taticool' fashion statement to too many gun owners, it could have been a mini-14, sks or AK too.

Let's not get hung up on one form factor when discussing the problem.

/Anyone ever seen the ar-15 in wood furniture, it looks rather good.


If he'd used an AK, we'd be lamenting the fact that Sandy Hook lost 26 panes of glass. It's more of a spray monster than a five year old boy at a urinal. If he'd killed anyone, it would have been by chance.
 
2012-12-21 11:32:37 AM  

r1niceboy: Magorn: Of all the irraitating thing gunnuts do, none is more annoying or ridiculous than thier constant butt-hurt about Gun nomeclature and identification.  They use it like a secret handshake to indentify other obsesssives like themselves and marginalize the opinions of everyone else  "Ah-ha the article said the gun was an Ar-15  but CLEARLY it was an Ar-15 L limited edition with the collapsible stock and the chome sights-stupid Lib reporter who doesn;t know anything about guns.."

SO. THE FARK. WHAT?

I often misname weapons just to get them to wring their cap in their hands and gnash their tooth.


Oh come on, any hobby with a technical aspect has people like that. Ever wander into a muscle-car forum? Yikes!
 
2012-12-21 11:33:37 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: This is why I would focus on the Ammo, not the gun. People also collect guns for their intrinsic beauty. You have the issue of museums and private collections, which can have hundred or thousands. I don't think limiting GUN ownership is a good idea, or even a desirable one.

I just want a common sense rule in place to limit the damage that one person can do when they go off the deep end. And I think we can all agree, there are plenty of ways to do that and not infringe on the other uses of a gun in any way.


Focus on the ammo, how? Limit the number of rounds a person can buy at one time? Jack the price up?

OK, we'll just make our own.
 
2012-12-21 11:34:05 AM  

jcmjx: thurstonxhowell: the media can get it right and gun nuts will still whine?

Seriously, is there a whinier group of crybabies than gun owners? I certainly haven't encountered one.

Feminists, vegans, gay rights activists, PETA.

/Just because they're on your side doesn't mean it's not true


Nobody's on PETA's side
 
2012-12-21 11:34:12 AM  

r1niceboy: Enemabag Jones: As much as I hate that the AR15 has become the generic 'taticool' fashion statement to too many gun owners, it could have been a mini-14, sks or AK too.

Let's not get hung up on one form factor when discussing the problem.

/Anyone ever seen the ar-15 in wood furniture, it looks rather good.

If he'd used an AK, we'd be lamenting the fact that Sandy Hook lost 26 panes of glass. It's more of a spray monster than a five year old boy at a urinal. If he'd killed anyone, it would have been by chance.


Perfectly accurate rifle out to 100 yards. At 10 feet, no less accurate than an AR, or anything else for that matter.

Besides, he did use an AK, at least three of them from what I read.
 
2012-12-21 11:34:20 AM  

Magorn: 90+% of the population knows about guns, have fired a gun in thier lifetime, are more than familiar with their basic operation.


I'd love to see the citation on that if you have it....


r1niceboy: I often misname weapons just to get them to wring their cap in their hands and gnash their tooth.


This kind of behavior really helps out the discussion. Trying to bait the other "side" has always made things go smoother when trying to find solutions to any problem we face.
 
2012-12-21 11:34:24 AM  

Magorn: Dimensio: T.M.S.: "Assault Rifle" is up there with "politically correct". Two terms that were stupid to coin in the first place and today are only used by those that feel oppressed by them.

"Assault rifle" is a technical term with an established definition.

"Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

How about we call it "Diet assault rifle" and call it a day?  Would you be happy then.   For one of of three positions on its selector switch the M-16 is functionally identical to the AR-15


Actually, for two of the three: Safe, and semi-auto.
 
2012-12-21 11:34:48 AM  

Magorn: Dimensio: T.M.S.: "Assault Rifle" is up there with "politically correct". Two terms that were stupid to coin in the first place and today are only used by those that feel oppressed by them.

"Assault rifle" is a technical term with an established definition.

"Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

How about we call it "Diet assault rifle" and call it a day?  Would you be happy then.   For one of of three positions on its selector switch the M-16 is functionally identical to the AR-15


Is a Mini-14 functionally dissimilar to an M-16?
 
2012-12-21 11:34:55 AM  

r1niceboy:
If he'd used an AK, we'd be lamenting the fact that Sandy Hook lost 26 panes of glass. It's more of a spray monster than a five year old boy at a urinal. If he'd killed anyone, it would have been by chance.



Contrary to unpopular belief, the AK is pretty darn accurate in the right hands.
 
2012-12-21 11:35:38 AM  
Why is a flash suppressor so bad? Always been curious about that. My M1A is not legal in CA because of that. Has there ever, even once, in this country, been a shooting that not having a flash suppressor would have been better?
 
2012-12-21 11:36:02 AM  
Here's the deal. Everybody needs AT LEAST 5 guns, and the case can be made for 6. High and low caliber rifle (308 and 223), high and low caliber pistol (9mm and .22 lr), 12 gauge and 20 gauge shotguns. The only non need weapon there is the 22 pistol, which is pretty much just there for fun.
 
2012-12-21 11:36:15 AM  

trappedspirit: LasersHurt: You and I all know that there is no term which would be found generally acceptable for semi-auto civilian versions of military weapons.

Tickle rifle?


closest I could find:

i100.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-21 11:36:31 AM  

Thunderpipes: Why is a flash suppressor so bad? Always been curious about that. My M1A is not legal in CA because of that. Has there ever, even once, in this country, been a shooting that not having a flash suppressor would have been better?


A flash suppressor eliminates muzzle flash, rendering a shooter invisible in the dark.

/This is what assault weapons ban advocates actually believe.
 
2012-12-21 11:37:18 AM  
dittybopper
Magorn: Dimensio: T.M.S.: "Assault Rifle" is up there with "politically correct". Two terms that were stupid to coin in the first place and today are only used by those that feel oppressed by them.
"Assault rifle" is a technical term with an established definition.
"Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.
How about we call it "Diet assault rifle" and call it a day? Would you be happy then. For one of of three positions on its selector switch the M-16 is functionally identical to the AR-15
Actually, for two of the three: Safe, and semi-auto.


I want to throw out an idea. Can the linage of the design be traced back to the mp44? In function, not just form.
 
2012-12-21 11:39:02 AM  
Magorn:

Speaking of butthurt, let's review this post.

Of all the irraitating thing gunnuts do, none is more annoying or ridiculous than thier constant butt-hurt about Gun nomeclature and identification. They use it like a secret handshake to indentify other obsesssives like themselves and marginalize the opinions of everyone else "Ah-ha the article said the gun was an Ar-15 but CLEARLY it was an Ar-15 L limited edition with the collapsible stock and the chome sights-stupid Lib reporter who doesn;t know anything about guns.."

Well, since no one is doing that, you have no point. Using assault weapon or assault rifle when referring to semi-automatic rifle is blatantly incorrect. It's not really that much different than confusing Congressman and Senator. Both are elected officials, but both have different capacities. There are only two reasons to not use the proper terms: Ignorance or willful obfuscation to make an emotional appeal. Ignorance, in the media and legislature, is unacceptable. The emotional appeal that comes from deliberately using the incorrect terms is lying and should be called out and mocked as such.

SO. THE FARK. WHAT?

If one was using incorrect terminology to try and limit the freedoms called out in the 1A, you'd likely be all over that. Get over your butthurt and use the correct terms.

I can't identify a Holley carburetor from a stock one, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion on speed limits, particularly when someone just killed a bunch of people drag-racing in a souped up car.

As noted by others, it could make a difference depending on the argument at hand. If you're not going to bother with actually educating yourself on the proper terminology when discussing infringing upon a right spelled out in the Constitution, then yes, you can have an opinion. But yes, everyone else gets to mock you for your ignorance or deliberately lame emotional appeals.

Just like evangelical Christians who have somehow convinced themselves they are a persecuted minority in a country that self-indentifies as 90% Christian; you folks have convinced yourselves that you are a special, enlightened elite from an obscure subculture facing ignorant masses who know nothing about guns. The truth is that there are 270 MILLION firearms in private hands or 9 for every ten people in the US. Add in those who have handled or fired one without owning one, and those who have a military or police issued on and guess what? 90+% of the population knows about guns, have fired a gun in thier lifetime, are more than familiar with their basic operation. They just don't CARE about them the way you do.

Actually, you can't make that statement. According the latest round of polls, something like 60% of the country doesn't favor additional restrictions. So, oops. Facts ain't on your side.

You remind me nohing so much as Star-wars geeks who work themselves into paroxsyms of nerd-rage because a movie reviewer never checked the Wiki to find out that the 4th storm trooper to the left in scene 116 has actually been assigned a name and rich backstory by the fan-fic community,

and BTW yes, there is technically a difference btween a "clip" and a "magazine" but they've become interchangeable words in the vernacular and so either is correct when talking about the thing that goes into the gun and holds bullets, and your pedantic corrections serve no purpose but to call you out as a douchebag


Wow. Did you wipe the spittle off your mouth when you finished the rant?
 
2012-12-21 11:39:10 AM  

FightDirector: thurstonxhowell: Dimensio: "Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

"Civilian sporting rifle", when used to describe an AR-15, is one of the most ham-fisted attempts at political correctness I've ever seen.

How about this? Is this a legitimate civilian sporting rifle?

[i1.wp.com image 850x209]

That firearm is a Mini-14, a rifle that can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger.


The scary man's firearm is an AR-15. It can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger; Betamags can hold approx 100 rounds but have horrific jam rates). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger. It is covered in black plastic, which makes it lighter and theoretically more impact-resistant. These facts are scary, yes? It looks like this:

[blogs.suntimes.com image 850x250]

They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN. They shoot the same bullet, from magazines of the same size, at the same velocity. But one looks dammed scary, while one looks a lot like a hunting rifle you see on the wall.

There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns. And while the latter may be a desirable goal to some minds, there is simply no actual, practical way to make it happen, without setting the military loose on the civilian population in a house-to-house and turning our country into another Afghanistan-style military quagmire.


This. Problem is, there are no intellectually honest politicians; so let's not expect any meaningful, well thought out action from our parliament of whores - the meaner looking gun should be banned b/c... well, it looks meaner. You can put a Lamborghini body on a Volkswagon, and it'd look alot faster too.
But I'm glad the task's been delegated to Biden -- who knows, with court jester Joe at the helm, fully automatic weapons may end up being legal.
 
2012-12-21 11:39:13 AM  

Thunderpipes: Why is a flash suppressor so bad? Always been curious about that. My M1A is not legal in CA because of that. Has there ever, even once, in this country, been a shooting that not having a flash suppressor would have been better?


Nope. Perfect example of people who have no idea what they are talking about making regs about guns.
 
2012-12-21 11:39:35 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: dittybopper: Gosling: Dimensio: What limit would you recommend, and what demonstrable benefit would result?
...

This is why I would focus on the Ammo, not the gun. People also collect guns for their intrinsic beauty. You have the issue of museums and private collections, which can have hundred or thousands. I don't think limiting GUN ownership is a good idea, or even a desirable on ...


Almost all ammo is used by legit gun owners for practice. Criminals only need a few rounds.

I'm sure raising the price will deter some criminal from using a gun in a crime.

"I was gonna rob that convenience store but it's gonna cost me $20 to load my gun so I think I'll go get a legit job"
 
2012-12-21 11:40:13 AM  

Felgraf: Alright, fine, for those complaining about it being called an "Assault Rifle", how about we call "A civillian version of a military weapon"? I'm sure that will make it MUCH more popular.


I'm happy with semi-automatic assault rifle. or single-fire assault rifle.
 
2012-12-21 11:40:49 AM  

CujoQuarrel: Evil Twin Skippy: dittybopper: Gosling: Dimensio: What limit would you recommend, and what demonstrable benefit would result?
...

This is why I would focus on the Ammo, not the gun. People also collect guns for their intrinsic beauty. You have the issue of museums and private collections, which can have hundred or thousands. I don't think limiting GUN ownership is a good idea, or even a desirable on ...

Almost all ammo is used by legit gun owners for practice. Criminals only need a few rounds.

I'm sure raising the price will deter some criminal from using a gun in a crime.

"I was gonna rob that convenience store but it's gonna cost me $20 to load my gun so I think I'll go get a legit job"


The purpose is to deter mass shooters, who would refrain from committing mass homicide if their expenditure were increased by $100.
 
2012-12-21 11:42:57 AM  

please: Thunderpipes: Why is a flash suppressor so bad? Always been curious about that. My M1A is not legal in CA because of that. Has there ever, even once, in this country, been a shooting that not having a flash suppressor would have been better?

Nope. Perfect example of people who have no idea what they are talking about making regs about guns.


My favorite was using the 'bayonet lug' as one of the criteria for designating a weapon as an 'assault weapon'.

Because of all the drive by bayonetings we were getting
 
2012-12-21 11:43:52 AM  

Click Click D'oh: Gosling:
Let's say five guns, total, per registered gun owner. I think that's a reasonable limit.

And what would you suggest for those of use who are firearms instructors and per course requirements must have 30 firearms to teach a ten person class?


Even if I have a 100 guns. How many can I carry/use at a time anyway? If you want to mow down a lot of people you want 1 gun with a lot of reloads. Then a spare in case of fouling. It is better if it takes the same ammo, but that may be impractical.
 
2012-12-21 11:44:27 AM  

Enemabag Jones: dittybopper
Magorn: Dimensio: T.M.S.: "Assault Rifle" is up there with "politically correct". Two terms that were stupid to coin in the first place and today are only used by those that feel oppressed by them.
"Assault rifle" is a technical term with an established definition.
"Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.
How about we call it "Diet assault rifle" and call it a day? Would you be happy then. For one of of three positions on its selector switch the M-16 is functionally identical to the AR-15
Actually, for two of the three: Safe, and semi-auto.

I want to throw out an idea. Can the linage of the design be traced back to the mp44? In function, not just form.


The lineage of *ALL* of them can be traced back to before 1900 and the designs of John Moses Browning.
 
2012-12-21 11:46:32 AM  

Duelist: Even if I have a 100 guns. How many can I carry/use at a time anyway? If you want to mow down a lot of people you want 1 gun with a lot of reloads. Then a spare in case of fouling. It is better if it takes the same ammo, but that may be impractical.


Well, with a bit of work, effort, welding, machining, and some assembly, you probably could fire them all at once. It wouldn't be particularly practical, but it's doable.
 
2012-12-21 11:47:25 AM  

thurstonxhowell: xaks: thurstonxhowell: So the media can get it right and gun nuts will still whine?

Seriously, is there a whinier group of crybabies than gun owners? I certainly haven't encountered one.

Where do you live that there are no catholics, jews, or islamists?

I live in a place with plenty of all of those (assuming you replace "islamists" with "Muslims"). Hell, I'm engaged to a Catholic. I've heard less whining from them in a decade than I hear every time a gun is mentioned in any news story.


No one is trying to stop your protected right to enjoy your religion. Maybe that's the difference.
 
2012-12-21 11:47:35 AM  

CujoQuarrel: please: Thunderpipes: Why is a flash suppressor so bad? Always been curious about that. My M1A is not legal in CA because of that. Has there ever, even once, in this country, been a shooting that not having a flash suppressor would have been better?

Nope. Perfect example of people who have no idea what they are talking about making regs about guns.

My favorite was using the 'bayonet lug' as one of the criteria for designating a weapon as an 'assault weapon'.

Because of all the drive by bayonetings we were getting


Means almost all military classic rifles are assault weapons, even the bolt action ones, correct?
 
2012-12-21 11:47:44 AM  

WinoRhino: Gosling: The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?

Someone steals my car and hits a pedestrian. Ban the Honda Civic.


You'll have you take my civic out of my cold dead hands!

/ I love my all stock civic.
// death to ricers.
 
2012-12-21 11:48:01 AM  

Enemabag Jones: As much as I hate that the AR15 has become the generic 'taticool' fashion statement to too many gun owners, it could have been a mini-14, sks or AK too.

Let's not get hung up on one form factor when discussing the problem.

/Anyone ever seen the ar-15 in wood furniture, it looks rather good.


It has rather an AK-47 vibe, I think.  It must be the mix of the natural wood grain texture and the black
steel:

www.everydaynodaysoff.com

Somehow, though, its not as intimidating.
 
2012-12-21 11:48:21 AM  
Who agrees with me that a militia SHOULD have Assault Rifles? I mean, if you're going to be fighting a war against an Army of a major world power, wouldn't you want an Assault Rifle?

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it mention hunting, or home defense? It doesn't. It does mention a militia being necessary for a free state. Who will the militia be fighting to defend the free state? Deer? Turkeys?

And before somebody pipes up about "we already have a well regulated militia in the form of the National Guard". Sorry. No. After the comma, the 2nd amendment says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms...not the right of the government.
 
2012-12-21 11:48:45 AM  
Question for the gun enthusiasts here. TFA mentions that the AR-15 is popular for home defense. Why is this?

Personally I'd rather have a lightweight 20 gauge-- more chance of hitting the target, and less likely to penetrate my neighbors' houses.

Just wondering.


/not a nut, either pro- or anti- guns
 
2012-12-21 11:52:01 AM  

dittybopper: WTF Indeed: TheVeryDeadIanMartin: If you have a child with a mental illness, put your guns in one of these, and keep the combination to yourself.
[padens.com image 612x600]

How dare you encourage that! Personal responsibility has zero place gun ownership, so says my NRA mailer.

Encouraging it is fine. Hell, I have a gun safe, albeit not as fancy as that one.

Requiring it is unconstitutional: 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.


I used to have a 9mm to shoot for fun, but eventually got rid of it after I got bored with throwing money away at ranges.

What was pretty clear to me was that it was pointless for home defense. I kept it locked up in a padlocked steel box, and it just didn't seem feasible to:

1) Wake up upon hearing a noise
2) Listen for a while to decide it was someone in the house
3) Get out of bed, get the key
4) Go get the gun out of the closet
5) Load a few rounds into a mag

Seemed to me like that would take waaaay to long, especially if it was a home invasion style deal, which they have plenty of out here in Cali. I realize I'm just baiting the crazies with a hypothetical situation they can argue with, but that's how it seemed to me. I wasn't about to stash an unsecured gun and ammo in a drawer next to the bed when I actually let other people into my house sometimes.

Also, seems like half the time the home invasion robberies happen because somebody knows the guy who lives there has a lot of nice guns, and they are after the guns. Maybe if you guys wouldn't lovingly arrange them on your beds like a doll collection and post pictures it wouldn't happen so much.
 
2012-12-21 11:53:07 AM  

hobnail: Question for the gun enthusiasts here. TFA mentions that the AR-15 is popular for home defense. Why is this?

Personally I'd rather have a lightweight 20 gauge-- more chance of hitting the target, and less likely to penetrate my neighbors' houses.

Just wondering.


Agreed. Shotgun or revolver, s revolvers don't typically jam, or if you get a misfire, you don't have to take time to clear it, you just pull the trigger again.
 
2012-12-21 11:53:13 AM  

hobnail: Question for the gun enthusiasts here. TFA mentions that the AR-15 is popular for home defense. Why is this?

Personally I'd rather have a lightweight 20 gauge-- more chance of hitting the target, and less likely to penetrate my neighbors' houses.

Just wondering.


/not a nut, either pro- or anti- guns


I go with a short double barrel 12 guage here. Thought about going for a 20 for a bit.
 
2012-12-21 11:54:18 AM  

Dimensio: Magorn: Dimensio: T.M.S.: "Assault Rifle" is up there with "politically correct". Two terms that were stupid to coin in the first place and today are only used by those that feel oppressed by them.

"Assault rifle" is a technical term with an established definition.

"Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

How about we call it "Diet assault rifle" and call it a day?  Would you be happy then.   For one of of three positions on its selector switch the M-16 is functionally identical to the AR-15

Is a Mini-14 functionally dissimilar to an M-16?


Insofar as a Mini-14 doesn't have a 3-round burst setting (or full-auto switch, depending on the M-16 variant model), yes, it's functionally dissimilar.
 
2012-12-21 11:54:42 AM  

hobnail: Question for the gun enthusiasts here. TFA mentions that the AR-15 is popular for home defense. Why is this?

Personally I'd rather have a lightweight 20 gauge-- more chance of hitting the target, and less likely to penetrate my neighbors' houses.

Just wondering.


/not a nut, either pro- or anti- guns


The question of what to use to defend your home is an interesting one. A shotgun, while potentially easier to aim, has a lower capacity and can be unwieldy. They tend to be relatively long and unless you're across the room from someone, it could be difficult to get it up and aimed at someone. Rifle's may be slightly better as some are shorter (or functionally shorter, based on how you hold them) and may have more capacity. However, your aim has to be better. Pistols are much more maneuverable, but they take a bit of practice to become proficient with aiming and quicker shots.

Personally, I'd rather use a .45 with higher capacity (yes, I've read the Gospel According to John Moses Browning and I realize that I should need no more than 7 rounds) and a few extra magazines. Plenty of stopping power, works in close quarters, and I can put lots of bullets at the assailant.
 
2012-12-21 11:56:44 AM  

The Southern Dandy: Who agrees with me that a militia SHOULD have Assault Rifles? I mean, if you're going to be fighting a war against an Army of a major world power, wouldn't you want an Assault Rifle?

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it mention hunting, or home defense? It doesn't. It does mention a militia being necessary for a free state. Who will the militia be fighting to defend the free state? Deer? Turkeys?

And before somebody pipes up about "we already have a well regulated militia in the form of the National Guard". Sorry. No. After the comma, the 2nd amendment says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms...not the right of the government.


I'm with you buddy. If the government can have it, I should be able to have it. No holds barred. The intent of the 2nd amendment is to be able to overthrow the government, which makes some people very nervous, as it is supposed to do. That way, the government doesn't get too big for its britches and start oppressing people.
 
2012-12-21 11:58:54 AM  

Gosling: Dimensio: No evidence has been prevented that banning "Bushmaster" rifles would have prevented the incident at Newtown.

The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?


Good point, lets just ban the Bushmaster AR-15 and call it a day. Gun grabbers won't be happy, gun owners won't be happy, but the over hyped mainstream idiot will see something got done and go back to watching reality TV.
 
2012-12-21 11:59:10 AM  

FightDirector: thurstonxhowell: Dimensio: "Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

"Civilian sporting rifle", when used to describe an AR-15, is one of the most ham-fisted attempts at political correctness I've ever seen.

How about this? Is this a legitimate civilian sporting rifle?

[i1.wp.com image 850x209]

That firearm is a Mini-14, a rifle that can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger.


The scary man's firearm is an AR-15. It can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger; Betamags can hold approx 100 rounds but have horrific jam rates). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger. It is covered in black plastic, which makes it lighter and theoretically more impact-resistant. These facts are scary, yes? It looks like this:

[blogs.suntimes.com image 850x250]

They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN. They shoot the same bullet, from magazines of the same size, at the same velocity. But one looks dammed scary, while one looks a lot like a hunting rifle you see on the wall.

There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns. And while the latter may be a desirable goal to some minds, there is simply no actual, practical way to make it happen, without setting the military loose on the civilian population in a house-to-house and turning our country into another Afghanistan-style military quagmire.


I pointed this same thing out yesterday in a thread, but let me ask you this:
When someone is trying to look "badass" on a FB picture, or otherwise wants to indulge their rambo fantasies  which version of the gun do they choose?

The nice normal looking one with a blued barrel and a walnut stock, or the "tactical" one witht he folding stock and the plastic and sheet metal bits all over it?

Why?


because it looks more dangerous,  it looks more like a military weapon (and what do soldiers shoot?  Other people, of course) so it's more attractive to those that want to do harm to their fellow man, true?

One of the reasons the Aurora shooting wasn't dealier than it was is because the shooter bought himself one of those ridiculous, highly phallic 100-round double drum magazines, without realizing they are utterly unreliable pieces of crap.   I have no doubt what attracted him t it, rather than the more reliable 30-round mags was how "cool" and "deadly " it looked.

Now, being rational, can you give me a good reason we should allow 100 round magazines to be purchased by civilians?
 
2012-12-21 11:59:23 AM  

FightDirector: Dimensio: Magorn: Dimensio: T.M.S.: "Assault Rifle" is up there with "politically correct". Two terms that were stupid to coin in the first place and today are only used by those that feel oppressed by them.

"Assault rifle" is a technical term with an established definition.

"Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

How about we call it "Diet assault rifle" and call it a day?  Would you be happy then.   For one of of three positions on its selector switch the M-16 is functionally identical to the AR-15

Is a Mini-14 functionally dissimilar to an M-16?

Insofar as a Mini-14 doesn't have a 3-round burst setting (or full-auto switch, depending on the M-16 variant model), yes, it's functionally dissimilar.


AC-556.
 
2012-12-21 11:59:32 AM  

Thunderpipes: r1niceboy: Enemabag Jones: As much as I hate that the AR15 has become the generic 'taticool' fashion statement to too many gun owners, it could have been a mini-14, sks or AK too.

Let's not get hung up on one form factor when discussing the problem.

/Anyone ever seen the ar-15 in wood furniture, it looks rather good.

If he'd used an AK, we'd be lamenting the fact that Sandy Hook lost 26 panes of glass. It's more of a spray monster than a five year old boy at a urinal. If he'd killed anyone, it would have been by chance.

Perfectly accurate rifle out to 100 yards. At 10 feet, no less accurate than an AR, or anything else for that matter.

Besides, he did use an AK, at least three of them from what I read.


He used an AR-15, which is single shot. He had to aim for every shot, and as a result, his bullets counted more than they would have done if he'd sprayed a AK-47 clip. It pulls up hard, and he'd have done more damage to the ceiling.
 
2012-12-21 12:00:06 PM  

Bull Moose 76: The Southern Dandy: Who agrees with me that a militia SHOULD have Assault Rifles? I mean, if you're going to be fighting a war against an Army of a major world power, wouldn't you want an Assault Rifle?

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it mention hunting, or home defense? It doesn't. It does mention a militia being necessary for a free state. Who will the militia be fighting to defend the free state? Deer? Turkeys?

And before somebody pipes up about "we already have a well regulated militia in the form of the National Guard". Sorry. No. After the comma, the 2nd amendment says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms...not the right of the government.

I'm with you buddy. If the government can have it, I should be able to have it. No holds barred. The intent of the 2nd amendment is to be able to overthrow the government, which makes some people very nervous, as it is supposed to do. That way, the government doesn't get too big for its britches and start oppressing people.


Which is exactly what is starting to happen, bit by bit. Guns under assault, free speech has already been under assault (call a kid a name at school? That is now a crime in many places). People are now forced to pay for whatever Obama wants them to or the IRS comes for you. People don't see it, at least liberals don't, because they want us all to be government controlled morons. Even our tax dollars are forcibly used to support Democrats, and even challenging that makes liberals scream bloody murder (right to NOT join a union anyone?).
 
2012-12-21 12:00:34 PM  

mizchief: Gosling: Dimensio: No evidence has been prevented that banning "Bushmaster" rifles would have prevented the incident at Newtown.

The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?

Good point, lets just ban the Bushmaster AR-15 and call it a day. Gun grabbers won't be happy, gun owners won't be happy, but the over hyped mainstream idiot will see something got done and go back to watching reality TV.


And you'll set a wonderful precedent the next time one is used in something like this? ERHMAGERD THE BANZ DIDNT WORK!!! Now we need to go house by house to find them all.

Alternatively, a different rifle is used. So, the first ban worked because a Bushmaster wasn't used. Let's ban this new firearm!!!
 
2012-12-21 12:01:25 PM  

Magorn: Of all the irraitating thing gunnuts do, none is more annoying or ridiculous than thier constant butt-hurt about Gun nomeclature and identification. They use it like a secret handshake to indentify other obsesssives like themselves and marginalize the opinions of everyone else "Ah-ha the article said the gun was an Ar-15 but CLEARLY it was an Ar-15 L limited edition with the collapsible stock and the chome sights-stupid Lib reporter who doesn;t know anything about guns.."


Ah thank you. Came here to say something like that. I think it's nice how so many people are experts on things that are made to kill people. If I was an expert on herbs and chemicals that would kill people, how they would do it, what it would feel like, and how which ones could be made to look like an accident, it might be interesting, but you probably wouldn't come to my house for dinner, would you? And if I started posting all about it a Fark thread, I'd probably get a lot of comments about how farking weird I was.

I'm not interested in your expertise in killing weapons, either.

/have a son that LOVES guns
//he says we need changes. This is a 19-year-old kid, guys. Willing to give up a lifetime of high-powered weaponry for the good of all.
 
2012-12-21 12:01:40 PM  
interesting that an ar-15 was used, but the alleged shooter was only found with two pistols, and the ar-15 was in the trunk of his car. somehow he brought the rifle in, shot everybody, ran out to his car, deposited it in the trunk, ran back in to the school and killed himself. there musta been some magic, in that mask and vest he wore.
 
2012-12-21 12:02:01 PM  

Thunderpipes: Bull Moose 76: The Southern Dandy: Who agrees with me that a militia SHOULD have Assault Rifles? I mean, if you're going to be fighting a war against an Army of a major world power, wouldn't you want an Assault Rifle?

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it mention hunting, or home defense? It doesn't. It does mention a militia being necessary for a free state. Who will the militia be fighting to defend the free state? Deer? Turkeys?

And before somebody pipes up about "we already have a well regulated militia in the form of the National Guard". Sorry. No. After the comma, the 2nd amendment says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms...not the right of the government.

I'm with you buddy. If the government can have it, I should be able to have it. No holds barred. The intent of the 2nd amendment is to be able to overthrow the government, which makes some people very nervous, as it is supposed to do. That way, the government doesn't get too big for its britches and start oppressing people.

Which is exactly what is starting to happen, bit by bit. Guns under assault, free speech has already been under assault (call a kid a name at school? That is now a crime in many places). People are now forced to pay for whatever Obama wants them to or the IRS comes for you. People don't see it, at least liberals don't, because they want us all to be government controlled morons. Even our tax dollars are forcibly used to support Democrats, and even challenging that makes liberals scream bloody murder (right to NOT join a union anyone?).


I'm a liberal.
 
2012-12-21 12:02:07 PM  

CygnusDarius: Fark it, I'll make my own guns.

[englishrussia.com image 520x390]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

/From link


Jesus christ, I forgot that Chechnya was the real life fallout 3. Cool stuff.
 
2012-12-21 12:02:29 PM  

r1niceboy: Thunderpipes: r1niceboy: Enemabag Jones: As much as I hate that the AR15 has become the generic 'taticool' fashion statement to too many gun owners, it could have been a mini-14, sks or AK too.

Let's not get hung up on one form factor when discussing the problem.

/Anyone ever seen the ar-15 in wood furniture, it looks rather good.

If he'd used an AK, we'd be lamenting the fact that Sandy Hook lost 26 panes of glass. It's more of a spray monster than a five year old boy at a urinal. If he'd killed anyone, it would have been by chance.

Perfectly accurate rifle out to 100 yards. At 10 feet, no less accurate than an AR, or anything else for that matter.

Besides, he did use an AK, at least three of them from what I read.

He used an AR-15, which is single shot. He had to aim for every shot, and as a result, his bullets counted more than they would have done if he'd sprayed a AK-47 clip. It pulls up hard, and he'd have done more damage to the ceiling.


I was joking. And since you are saying a fully automatic AK, same would happen with an M-16. Ak-47 is perfectly accurate in single shot mode at short ranges, even a little longer. Ever shot one?
 
2012-12-21 12:02:50 PM  

brax33: r1niceboy:
If he'd used an AK, we'd be lamenting the fact that Sandy Hook lost 26 panes of glass. It's more of a spray monster than a five year old boy at a urinal. If he'd killed anyone, it would have been by chance.


Contrary to unpopular belief, the AK is pretty darn accurate in the right hands.


I've fired one, and unless you have the discipline to limit yourself to the softest of squeezes, it's going to get away from you. I doubt Lanza had that much self-control.
 
2012-12-21 12:03:22 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip.


I don't know why women need boobs bigger than a B cup, but we still waste resources on implants. They offer no functional difference, but look better and are more fun to play with. Even if we ban implants, there are still lots of big tits out there, it' just that small chested women won't be able to compete with those that already have them or that can still obtain (naturally) despite of the ban.
 
2012-12-21 12:05:10 PM  

Bull Moose 76: The Southern Dandy: Who agrees with me that a militia SHOULD have Assault Rifles? I mean, if you're going to be fighting a war against an Army of a major world power, wouldn't you want an Assault Rifle?

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it mention hunting, or home defense? It doesn't. It does mention a militia being necessary for a free state. Who will the militia be fighting to defend the free state? Deer? Turkeys?

And before somebody pipes up about "we already have a well regulated militia in the form of the National Guard". Sorry. No. After the comma, the 2nd amendment says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms...not the right of the government.

I'm with you buddy. If the government can have it, I should be able to have it. No holds barred. The intent of the 2nd amendment is to be able to overthrow the government, which makes some people very nervous, as it is supposed to do. That way, the government doesn't get too big for its britches and start oppressing people.


Yeah, call me a pants-wetting, gun-grabbing  liberal but I really dont think these should be legal in civilian hands.  Sorry I just don't trust my fellow man that much:
farm1.staticflickr.com
 
2012-12-21 12:05:38 PM  

Bull Moose 76: That way, the government doesn't get too big for its britches and start oppressing people.


That right there, is the whole intent of the 2nd amendment, not hunting, or personal/home defense.
 
2012-12-21 12:06:20 PM  

The Southern Dandy: Thunderpipes: Bull Moose 76: The Southern Dandy: Who agrees with me that a militia SHOULD have Assault Rifles? I mean, if you're going to be fighting a war against an Army of a major world power, wouldn't you want an Assault Rifle?

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it mention hunting, or home defense? It doesn't. It does mention a militia being necessary for a free state. Who will the militia be fighting to defend the free state? Deer? Turkeys?

And before somebody pipes up about "we already have a well regulated militia in the form of the National Guard". Sorry. No. After the comma, the 2nd amendment says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms...not the right of the government.

I'm with you buddy. If the government can have it, I should be able to have it. No holds barred. The intent of the 2nd amendment is to be able to overthrow the government, which makes some people very nervous, as it is supposed to do. That way, the government doesn't get too big for its britches and start oppressing people.

Which is exactly what is starting to happen, bit by bit. Guns under assault, free speech has already been under assault (call a kid a name at school? That is now a crime in many places). People are now forced to pay for whatever Obama wants them to or the IRS comes for you. People don't see it, at least liberals don't, because they want us all to be government controlled morons. Even our tax dollars are forcibly used to support Democrats, and even challenging that makes liberals scream bloody murder (right to NOT join a union anyone?).

I'm a liberal.


I'm a libertarian.
 
2012-12-21 12:06:21 PM  

ronaprhys: hobnail: Question for the gun enthusiasts here. TFA mentions that the AR-15 is popular for home defense. Why is this?

Personally I'd rather have a lightweight 20 gauge-- more chance of hitting the target, and less likely to penetrate my neighbors' houses.

Just wondering.


/not a nut, either pro- or anti- guns

The question of what to use to defend your home is an interesting one. A shotgun, while potentially easier to aim, has a lower capacity and can be unwieldy. They tend to be relatively long and unless you're across the room from someone, it could be difficult to get it up and aimed at someone. Rifle's may be slightly better as some are shorter (or functionally shorter, based on how you hold them) and may have more capacity. However, your aim has to be better. Pistols are much more maneuverable, but they take a bit of practice to become proficient with aiming and quicker shots.

Personally, I'd rather use a .45 with higher capacity (yes, I've read the Gospel According to John Moses Browning and I realize that I should need no more than 7 rounds) and a few extra magazines. Plenty of stopping power, works in close quarters, and I can put lots of bullets at the assailant.


What's the risk of collateral damage with a .45?

/knows practically nothing about handguns
 
2012-12-21 12:07:56 PM  

Thunderpipes: r1niceboy: Thunderpipes: r1niceboy: Enemabag Jones: As much as I hate that the AR15 has become the generic 'taticool' fashion statement to too many gun owners, it could have been a mini-14, sks or AK too.

Let's not get hung up on one form factor when discussing the problem.

/Anyone ever seen the ar-15 in wood furniture, it looks rather good.

If he'd used an AK, we'd be lamenting the fact that Sandy Hook lost 26 panes of glass. It's more of a spray monster than a five year old boy at a urinal. If he'd killed anyone, it would have been by chance.

Perfectly accurate rifle out to 100 yards. At 10 feet, no less accurate than an AR, or anything else for that matter.

Besides, he did use an AK, at least three of them from what I read.

He used an AR-15, which is single shot. He had to aim for every shot, and as a result, his bullets counted more than they would have done if he'd sprayed a AK-47 clip. It pulls up hard, and he'd have done more damage to the ceiling.

I was joking. And since you are saying a fully automatic AK, same would happen with an M-16. Ak-47 is perfectly accurate in single shot mode at short ranges, even a little longer. Ever shot one?


Yep, a 47 without selector and a 74 with. It's not a bad weapon, but you need to understand it. The true bucking bronco on full auto is the FN FAL. That's a madman.
 
2012-12-21 12:08:45 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-21 12:09:49 PM  

Magorn: I pointed this same thing out yesterday in a thread, but let me ask you this:
When someone is trying to look "badass" on a FB picture, or otherwise wants to indulge their rambo fantasies which version of the gun do they choose?

The nice normal looking one with a blued barrel and a walnut stock, or the "tactical" one witht he folding stock and the plastic and sheet metal bits all over it?


Depends on the situation. Many times they simply use what they've got - that could be a pistol, a rifle covered with mainly useless stuff, or even some sort of Klingon weapon.

Why?


because it looks more dangerous, it looks more like a military weapon (and what do soldiers shoot? Other people, of course) so it's more attractive to those that want to do harm to their fellow man, true?


Wait - now you've gone off the deep end. You've made some huge ass-leap from wanting to look cool to wanting to hurt people. That's a leap completely unsupported by anything you've said nor anything in, well, reality.

One of the reasons the Aurora shooting wasn't dealier than it was is because the shooter bought himself one of those ridiculous, highly phallic 100-round double drum magazines, without realizing they are utterly unreliable pieces of crap. I have no doubt what attracted him t it, rather than the more reliable 30-round mags was how "cool" and "deadly " it looked.

Glad you can ascertain motive from someone who was mentally unbalanced.

Now, being rational, can you give me a good reason we should allow 100 round magazines to be purchased by civilians?

Shall not be infringed. Can you show me how many 100 round magazines have been purchased and how many have been actually used in a crime? If you want to infringe, you need to prove overwhelming need based on actual facts and statistics. Those facts and statistics cannot be outliers or isolated events.
 
2012-12-21 12:10:00 PM  

mizchief: Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip.

I don't know why women need boobs bigger than a B cup, but we still waste resources on implants. They offer no functional difference, but look better and are more fun to play with. Even if we ban implants, there are still lots of big tits out there, it' just that small chested women won't be able to compete with those that already have them or that can still obtain (naturally) despite of the ban.


But bigger tits won't kill people, although they may put out an eye or cause suffocation.
 
2012-12-21 12:10:01 PM  

Thunderpipes: This is quite a unique case anyway. I am all for freedom to own guns. But she had a batshiat crazy kid, with a history of violence. Keeping guns around him was criminal. If she was alive, I would want her to pay dearly for stupidity.

If someone breaks in to your house, steals a gun, then commits a crime, that is different in my eyes.


I'm in favor of holding the owner responsible in civil court, and slapping on criminal negligence which should prevent getting a permit to carry for 5 years, if the owner didn't take reasonable steps to secure the weapons. A large locked gun safe would cover you, but could also be a closet with a dead bolt, installing gun locks, etc.
 
2012-12-21 12:10:02 PM  

lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]


or photoshopped jpegs.
 
2012-12-21 12:12:41 PM  

The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.



True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.
 
2012-12-21 12:12:48 PM  

dittybopper: FightDirector: Dimensio: Magorn: Dimensio: T.M.S.: "Assault Rifle" is up there with "politically correct". Two terms that were stupid to coin in the first place and today are only used by those that feel oppressed by them.

"Assault rifle" is a technical term with an established definition.

"Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

How about we call it "Diet assault rifle" and call it a day?  Would you be happy then.   For one of of three positions on its selector switch the M-16 is functionally identical to the AR-15

Is a Mini-14 functionally dissimilar to an M-16?

Insofar as a Mini-14 doesn't have a 3-round burst setting (or full-auto switch, depending on the M-16 variant model), yes, it's functionally dissimilar.

AC-556.


Not legal for civilian use, though, as it postdates the 1986 registration cutoff. So for practical purposes when putting it into this discussion, it doesn't really "exist".

(Also, if we're being pedantic, it's not really a "Mini-14" in the same way an AR-15 isn't really an M16 or M4. There's performance differences, and they matter.)
 
2012-12-21 12:12:52 PM  

r1niceboy: Thunderpipes: r1niceboy: Thunderpipes: r1niceboy: Enemabag Jones: As much as I hate that the AR15 has become the generic 'taticool' fashion statement to too many gun owners, it could have been a mini-14, sks or AK too.

Let's not get hung up on one form factor when discussing the problem.

/Anyone ever seen the ar-15 in wood furniture, it looks rather good.

If he'd used an AK, we'd be lamenting the fact that Sandy Hook lost 26 panes of glass. It's more of a spray monster than a five year old boy at a urinal. If he'd killed anyone, it would have been by chance.

Perfectly accurate rifle out to 100 yards. At 10 feet, no less accurate than an AR, or anything else for that matter.

Besides, he did use an AK, at least three of them from what I read.

He used an AR-15, which is single shot. He had to aim for every shot, and as a result, his bullets counted more than they would have done if he'd sprayed a AK-47 clip. It pulls up hard, and he'd have done more damage to the ceiling.

I was joking. And since you are saying a fully automatic AK, same would happen with an M-16. Ak-47 is perfectly accurate in single shot mode at short ranges, even a little longer. Ever shot one?

Yep, a 47 without selector and a 74 with. It's not a bad weapon, but you need to understand it. The true bucking bronco on full auto is the FN FAL. That's a madman.


Would love to try a fully auto M-14 or BAR.

All of this gun control talk is just stupid any way. It is just political to get more votes, and drive more people left, using a terrible event to do it.

What is really scary, is that the left is poised to take all power and stay there. Anything they want, they get. More people reliant on government, more votes, they breed faster. Unlimited spending, unlimited taxing. You get whatever rights politicians say you need, and they will dominate the Supreme Court as well. How any left wing person really believes that will lead to prosperity is beyond me.
 
2012-12-21 12:12:53 PM  

hobnail: ronaprhys: hobnail: Question for the gun enthusiasts here. TFA mentions that the AR-15 is popular for home defense. Why is this?

Personally I'd rather have a lightweight 20 gauge-- more chance of hitting the target, and less likely to penetrate my neighbors' houses.

Just wondering.


/not a nut, either pro- or anti- guns

The question of what to use to defend your home is an interesting one. A shotgun, while potentially easier to aim, has a lower capacity and can be unwieldy. They tend to be relatively long and unless you're across the room from someone, it could be difficult to get it up and aimed at someone. Rifle's may be slightly better as some are shorter (or functionally shorter, based on how you hold them) and may have more capacity. However, your aim has to be better. Pistols are much more maneuverable, but they take a bit of practice to become proficient with aiming and quicker shots.

Personally, I'd rather use a .45 with higher capacity (yes, I've read the Gospel According to John Moses Browning and I realize that I should need no more than 7 rounds) and a few extra magazines. Plenty of stopping power, works in close quarters, and I can put lots of bullets at the assailant.

What's the risk of collateral damage with a .45?

/knows practically nothing about handguns


A 45 is a big bullet, so if you miss your target, that bullet is definitely going through at least 1 wall. Collateral damage potential is high. Always check your lines when you own a firearm intended for home defense. Where will you fire from, and where should you NOT fire to, for instance, because someone is behind that wall, or a gas line is in that wall.
 
2012-12-21 12:13:14 PM  
Why don't we make laws that specifically target those that are committing gun crimes?

i.e. Violent Criminals can never own guns
Using a gun to commit a crime, 15 years, no parole, strike 2 life, no parole.

Instead we target law abiding citizens... I fail to see the logic.
 
2012-12-21 12:15:22 PM  

lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.


Then come up with a practical and enforceable suggestion that doesn't violate the Second Amendment (or any other rights/amendments) AND will prevent shootings like these that have just happened as well as lower the overall homicide rate.

Detail it out and show how it'd solve the problems.
 
2012-12-21 12:16:28 PM  

lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]


Why do you only care about those children? What about ALL the people that were killed this year? Why can't we make societal changes that get rid of the reasons people want to kill each other instead of banning the tools and simultaneously infringing on the rights of 70 million people who don't kill people every year?

Really, it's you who's the monster, since you don't care about all those other people.

/see, we can engage in reductio ad absurdum too!
//wait...actually, this is a valid point. Why DON'T you care about all those other people? Why DON'T you want to fix out culture in general, instead of a kneejerk reaction that makes you feel better in the short term?
 
2012-12-21 12:16:31 PM  

mizchief: Thunderpipes: This is quite a unique case anyway. I am all for freedom to own guns. But she had a batshiat crazy kid, with a history of violence. Keeping guns around him was criminal. If she was alive, I would want her to pay dearly for stupidity.

If someone breaks in to your house, steals a gun, then commits a crime, that is different in my eyes.

I'm in favor of holding the owner responsible in civil court, and slapping on criminal negligence which should prevent getting a permit to carry for 5 years, if the owner didn't take reasonable steps to secure the weapons. A large locked gun safe would cover you, but could also be a closet with a dead bolt, installing gun locks, etc.


A large locked gun safe does not protect you though. If someone breaks in to my house, I don't have time to screw around with a safe. If someone steals your car, and commits a crime, should you be held accountable? Has to be some common sense. But if there is obvious reasons to secure firearms, like a crazy son living with you, then maybe.
 
2012-12-21 12:16:37 PM  
 
2012-12-21 12:16:57 PM  
You know who all these anti-gunners remind me of? M.A.D.D.
 
2012-12-21 12:18:04 PM  
Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

www.comentakeit.com
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?


Thanks!!!
 
2012-12-21 12:18:26 PM  
Driveway clear.

My neighbor has had to resort to a goddamn Bobcat to get his driveway cleared.
 
2012-12-21 12:18:44 PM  

Bull Moose 76: hobnail: ronaprhys: hobnail: Question for the gun enthusiasts here. TFA mentions that the AR-15 is popular for home defense. Why is this?

Personally I'd rather have a lightweight 20 gauge-- more chance of hitting the target, and less likely to penetrate my neighbors' houses.

Just wondering.


/not a nut, either pro- or anti- guns

The question of what to use to defend your home is an interesting one. A shotgun, while potentially easier to aim, has a lower capacity and can be unwieldy. They tend to be relatively long and unless you're across the room from someone, it could be difficult to get it up and aimed at someone. Rifle's may be slightly better as some are shorter (or functionally shorter, based on how you hold them) and may have more capacity. However, your aim has to be better. Pistols are much more maneuverable, but they take a bit of practice to become proficient with aiming and quicker shots.

Personally, I'd rather use a .45 with higher capacity (yes, I've read the Gospel According to John Moses Browning and I realize that I should need no more than 7 rounds) and a few extra magazines. Plenty of stopping power, works in close quarters, and I can put lots of bullets at the assailant.

What's the risk of collateral damage with a .45?

/knows practically nothing about handguns

A 45 is a big bullet, so if you miss your target, that bullet is definitely going through at least 1 wall. Collateral damage potential is high. Always check your lines when you own a firearm intended for home defense. Where will you fire from, and where should you NOT fire to, for instance, because someone is behind that wall, or a gas line is in that wall.


Generally pretty low penetration with a .45 though. Being smaller and faster, a 9mm penetrates better (but transfers less energy into its target). This is also what makes the AR-15 an ever poorer choice for home defense.
 
2012-12-21 12:19:43 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!


This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.
 
2012-12-21 12:19:59 PM  

Magorn: Bull Moose 76: The Southern Dandy: Who agrees with me that a militia SHOULD have Assault Rifles? I mean, if you're going to be fighting a war against an Army of a major world power, wouldn't you want an Assault Rifle?

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it mention hunting, or home defense? It doesn't. It does mention a militia being necessary for a free state. Who will the militia be fighting to defend the free state? Deer? Turkeys?

And before somebody pipes up about "we already have a well regulated militia in the form of the National Guard". Sorry. No. After the comma, the 2nd amendment says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms...not the right of the government.

I'm with you buddy. If the government can have it, I should be able to have it. No holds barred. The intent of the 2nd amendment is to be able to overthrow the government, which makes some people very nervous, as it is supposed to do. That way, the government doesn't get too big for its britches and start oppressing people.

Yeah, call me a pants-wetting, gun-grabbing  liberal but I really dont think these should be legal in civilian hands.  Sorry I just don't trust my fellow man that much:


Cool pic. Naaaa, I'm not gonna call you names, just making my point, that to adequately defend against the strongest military in history, I will need more than just a pistol or a rifle, most likely. I hope it never comes to that, I don't think it WILL ever come to that. I do know the intent of amendment 2 is to defend against the government, and the definition of arms at the time it was written was intended to include all armament, as it should today.

Funny thing, the constitution. The stuff that is in it, lots of people want out of it, and the stuff they want covered by it, is no where to be found.
 
2012-12-21 12:20:25 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip.

We were at the range the other day with some friends, shooting some old .22 and a pistol. At the end of the range were two guys firing off an AR-15. (One of them was an instructor, methinks.) I have to admit, I gave it more than a good look. It was a nice firearm, and in the hands of an idiot he was making groupings that embarrassed we who were shooting Boy scout grade rifles with iron sights.

Still, in a range setting, that puppy was WAY out of place. Somebody buying that thing is not in the same league with recreational shooters, hunters, and the like. That gun is really only good for mowing down human beings at a lot of them. It doesn't have the stopping power for big game. It is overkill for small game. There are even rules for bird hunting that limit shotguns to a 3 round magazine. 30 rounds is military load out, and has no place outside of war.


As a "fan of guns", shut the hell up; you aren't helping. You are just another twit that doesn't understand why we even have the 2nd amendment, so zip it, ok?

The 2nd amendment wasn't written to protect your right to go deer or duck hunting. It was written to affirm your ability to own the meanest military small arms of the time to protect your liberties from tyrants. Period. End of story. Back then it was a smooth-bore musket. Now it's an M-16. This "sporting use" nonsense was created by gun grabbers to justify the divide and conquer method of gun control, finally leading to complete prohibition (which the true goal of all of them, regardless of what they may or may not say publicly).
 
2012-12-21 12:20:28 PM  

ronaprhys: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

Then come up with a practical and enforceable suggestion that doesn't violate the Second Amendment (or any other rights/amendments) AND will prevent shootings like these that have just happened as well as lower the overall homicide rate.

Detail it out and show how it'd solve the problems.



That's not my job.  I have a better suggestion...stop trying to derail discussions of how to fix the problems with bullshiat slogans and demands for perfect solutions or implementations of none at all.  That's a start.

Are you a christian?  Do you believe in teaching god in the schools?  If you are, let's see the proof your religion is right.  Or whatever you believe, do you have proof?  If not, then your standards of proof shift depending on the topic.
 
2012-12-21 12:20:50 PM  

lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.


The answer is a reasoned approach, using facts, not emotion.
The facts are that rifles are used in murders less than half the amount that hands, fists and feet are.
The fact is, the worst school shooting in US history didn't involve rifles at all.
The fact is, the worst school massacre in US history didn't involve guns at all.
The fact is, banning "assault rifles" won't stop this kind of thing, but it will infringe on rights given to us by the constitution.

Opinion: Frankly, I'm sick of our leaders throwing away our rights out of fear, in order to gain a FALSE sense of security.

These children, and the future's children, deserve our thoughtful approach at a solution to the plague of mass killings. Not knee jerk, emotional responses.
 
2012-12-21 12:20:54 PM  

Gosling: Dimensio: What limit would you recommend, and what demonstrable benefit would result?

Let's say five guns, total, per registered gun owner. I think that's a reasonable limit. So if you have three registered gun owners in the house, you can have 15 guns in the house.

It wouldn't do anything to the people who really do just want the one gun for hunting or protection. In fact, they can do both that way. Multiple types of game, even. But with a five-gun limit, you'd have to start thinking about what kind of gun you really need to have. The small-penis guns would probably drop off in sales as a result because people would (I hope to God) pick smaller, more pragmatic guns over AR-15's.

And that results in fewer guns floating around, and fewer that can be used in mass shootings, which will help result in fewer Newtowns, fewer Virginia Techs, fewer Auroras, fewer yada yada yada.

And maybe we can have some sort of buyback program for the pre-existing overage.


Limiting the number of guns is the most pointless of the control ideas. You can only shoot one at a time! Don't bother exposing your igonrance and by saying something about duel wielding, RL isn't like COD.
 
2012-12-21 12:21:07 PM  

LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.


It's not firearm owners who disagree with the term. As a general rule, we know what the term actually means. It's those who wish to infringe upon human rights that confuse the term, willfully, to make emotional appeals.
 
2012-12-21 12:21:31 PM  

FightDirector: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

Why do you only care about those children? What about ALL the people that were killed this year? Why can't we make societal changes that get rid of the reasons people want to kill each other instead of banning the tools and simultaneously infringing on the rights of 70 million people who don't kill people every year?

Really, it's you who's the monster, since you don't care about all those other people.

/see, we can engage in reductio ad absurdum too!
//wait...actually, this is a valid point. Why DON'T you care about all those other people? Why DON'T you want to fix out culture in general, instead of a kneejerk reaction that makes you feel better in the short term?


This is a troll post, right?  Thought so.  Enjoy your complete absence of logic either way.
 
2012-12-21 12:23:19 PM  
If we have to lock our school's doors, we have already lost.

Guns are not the problem. Terrible parenting is. None of this crap happened a few generations ago and we had much more access to weapons.
 
2012-12-21 12:23:24 PM  

The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

The answer is a reasoned approach, using facts, not emotion.
The facts are that rifles are used in murders less than half the amount that hands, fists and feet are.
The fact is, the worst school shooting in US history didn't involve rifles at all.
The fact is, the worst school massacre in US history didn't involve guns at all.
The fact is, banning "assault rifles" won't stop this kind of thing, but it will infringe on rights given to us by the constitution.

Opinion: Frankly, I'm sick of our leaders throwing away our rights out of fear, in order to gain a FALSE sense of security.

These children, and the future's children, deserve our thoughtful approach at a solution to the plague of mass killings. Not knee jerk, emotional responses.



Translation:  this is a powerful image and I have to make sure nobody is affected by it on an emotional level because that might work against me.

You completely  miss the point of the image, which is that "facts" can be manipulated and abused to distract from the real issue, and the real impact.  Thank you for validating the image and the message.
 
2012-12-21 12:24:46 PM  

lordjupiter: That's not my job.  I have a better suggestion...stop trying to derail discussions of how to fix the problems with bullshiat slogans and demands for perfect solutions or implementations of none at all.  That's a start.


That's a lame answer. Those lame slogans are not materially different than the lame ass-slogan you just posted. That would put you into the realm of hypocrisy if you're not willing to suggest a solution.

Are you a christian?  Do you believe in teaching god in the schools?  If you are, let's see the proof your religion is right.  Or whatever you believe, do you have proof?  If not, then your standards of proof shift depending on the topic.

This has nothing to do with the debate at hand. It's an interesting attempt at a red herring, though. Maybe even a red herring that's being used to set up an ad hominem.

So, if you don't have anything useful to add to the debate, run along.
 
2012-12-21 12:25:54 PM  

lordjupiter: Translation:  this is a powerful image and I have to make sure nobody is affected by it on an emotional level because that might work against me.

You completely  miss the point of the image, which is that "facts" can be manipulated and abused to distract from the real issue, and the real impact.  Thank you for validating the image and the message.


Are you uneducated as to why we live in a republic vs a straight democracy?
 
2012-12-21 12:25:55 PM  

ronaprhys: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

It's not firearm owners who disagree with the term. As a general rule, we know what the term actually means. It's those who wish to infringe upon human rights that confuse the term, willfully, to make emotional appeals.



You do not have a "human right" to own any weapon you choose, in any quantity.
 
2012-12-21 12:25:58 PM  

ronaprhys: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

It's not firearm owners who disagree with the term. As a general rule, we know what the term actually means. It's those who wish to infringe upon human rights that confuse the term, willfully, to make emotional appeals.


Take it down a notch, henrietta, and suggest some improvements. You probably know what the INTENT is, so help more accurately fulfill that intent.

I've never met a group less willing to use their knowledge to improve things than firearm owners.
 
2012-12-21 12:26:23 PM  

lordjupiter: FightDirector: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

Why do you only care about those children? What about ALL the people that were killed this year? Why can't we make societal changes that get rid of the reasons people want to kill each other instead of banning the tools and simultaneously infringing on the rights of 70 million people who don't kill people every year?

Really, it's you who's the monster, since you don't care about all those other people.

/see, we can engage in reductio ad absurdum too!
//wait...actually, this is a valid point. Why DON'T you care about all those other people? Why DON'T you want to fix out culture in general, instead of a kneejerk reaction that makes you feel better in the short term?

This is a troll post, right?  Thought so.  Enjoy your complete absence of logic either way.


Yeah, pretty much. Sorry, I'm not really practiced at throwing logic out the window and making it seam natural like Red_Fox or Nina_Hartleys_Ass. But since this is a gun thread on Fark, it seemed like the thing to do. There's some logical posts I made back on page 1.
 
2012-12-21 12:27:17 PM  

please:
Generally pretty low penetration with a .45 though. Being smaller and faster, a 9mm penetrates better (but transfers less energy into its target). This is also what makes the AR-15 an ever poorer choice for home defense.


This was my impression, especially regarding the .223. Thanks.

I guess I need a .410 pistol (yeah, I know...)
 
2012-12-21 12:27:25 PM  

ronaprhys: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

It's not firearm owners who disagree with the term. As a general rule, we know what the term actually means. It's those who wish to infringe upon human rights that confuse the term, willfully, to make emotional appeals.


Don't forget about them getting angry and saying it's just "semantics" when you explain to them the correct terminology...
 
2012-12-21 12:27:45 PM  
There was a time when I could buy a B.A.R. from the Sears catalog - literally one of the most powerful single-man weapons of WW2. Fully automatic, but they called it The Monitor since it was for civilians (no bipod). Why weren't schools getting shot up then?
 
2012-12-21 12:27:57 PM  

ronaprhys: mizchief: Gosling: Dimensio: No evidence has been prevented that banning "Bushmaster" rifles would have prevented the incident at Newtown.

The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?

Good point, lets just ban the Bushmaster AR-15 and call it a day. Gun grabbers won't be happy, gun owners won't be happy, but the over hyped mainstream idiot will see something got done and go back to watching reality TV.

And you'll set a wonderful precedent the next time one is used in something like this? ERHMAGERD THE BANZ DIDNT WORK!!! Now we need to go house by house to find them all.

Alternatively, a different rifle is used. So, the first ban worked because a Bushmaster wasn't used. Let's ban this new firearm!!!


Not a bad idea. We ban the 'Bushmaster' rifle.
Then we create a new rifle just like the 'Bushmaster' with a different name.
Like 'Fluffy Bunny'
Rinse . Repeat.
 
2012-12-21 12:28:04 PM  

lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

The answer is a reasoned approach, using facts, not emotion.
The facts are that rifles are used in murders less than half the amount that hands, fists and feet are.
The fact is, the worst school shooting in US history didn't involve rifles at all.
The fact is, the worst school massacre in US history didn't involve guns at all.
The fact is, banning "assault rifles" won't stop this kind of thing, but it will infringe on rights given to us by the constitution.

Opinion: Frankly, I'm sick of our leaders throwing away our rights out of fear, in order to gain a FALSE sense of security.

These children, and the future's children, deserve our thoughtful approach at a solution to the plague of mass killings. Not knee jerk, emotional responses.


Translation:  this is a powerful image and I have to make sure nobody is affected by it on an emotional level because that might work against me.

You completely  miss the point of the image, which is that "facts" can be manipulated and abused to distract from the real issue, and the real impact.  Thank you for validating the image and the message.


So for you, the "real" issue is the short term, emotionally charged issue of children being killed by a whacko with a gun, and for me the "real" issue is the long term, reasonable approach to secure children's, and all Americans', safety and liberties.

Got it.
 
2012-12-21 12:29:06 PM  

hobnail: please:
Generally pretty low penetration with a .45 though. Being smaller and faster, a 9mm penetrates better (but transfers less energy into its target). This is also what makes the AR-15 an ever poorer choice for home defense.

This was my impression, especially regarding the .223. Thanks.

I guess I need a .410 pistol (yeah, I know...)


You're talking about a Taurus Judge! Nice choice.
 
2012-12-21 12:29:42 PM  

lordjupiter: ronaprhys: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

It's not firearm owners who disagree with the term. As a general rule, we know what the term actually means. It's those who wish to infringe upon human rights that confuse the term, willfully, to make emotional appeals.


You do not have a "human right" to own any weapon you choose, in any quantity.


Not a human right...a constitutional right.
 
2012-12-21 12:30:02 PM  

lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

The answer is a reasoned approach, using facts, not emotion.
The facts are that rifles are used in murders less than half the amount that hands, fists and feet are.
The fact is, the worst school shooting in US history didn't involve rifles at all.
The fact is, the worst school massacre in US history didn't involve guns at all.
The fact is, banning "assault rifles" won't stop this kind of thing, but it will infringe on rights given to us by the constitution.

Opinion: Frankly, I'm sick of our leaders throwing away our rights out of fear, in order to gain a FALSE sense of security.

These children, and the future's children, deserve our thoughtful approach at a solution to the plague of mass killings. Not knee jerk, emotional responses.


Translation:  this is a powerful image and I have to make sure nobody is affected by it on an emotional level because that might work against me.

You completely  miss the point of the image, which is that "facts" can be manipulated and abused to distract from the real issue, and the real impact.  Thank you for validating the image and the message.


You're using emotions to advocate a non-solution and remove rights from a swath of society that did nothing wrong. In essence, you won't affect any positive change and instead invite a whole swath of unintended consequences.
 
2012-12-21 12:30:26 PM  

WTF Indeed: TheVeryDeadIanMartin: If you have a child with a mental illness, put your guns in one of these, and keep the combination to yourself.
[padens.com image 612x600]

How dare you encourage that! Personal responsibility has zero place gun ownership, so says my NRA mailer.


Not sure if sarcastic or what, but one thing the NRA does if anything is teach gun safety.
 
2012-12-21 12:31:03 PM  
It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.
 
2012-12-21 12:31:19 PM  

hobnail: please:
Generally pretty low penetration with a .45 though. Being smaller and faster, a 9mm penetrates better (but transfers less energy into its target). This is also what makes the AR-15 an ever poorer choice for home defense.

This was my impression, especially regarding the .223. Thanks.

I guess I need a .410 pistol (yeah, I know...)


Are you being facetious because of the whole Taurus Judge pistol thing? I don't think it would be a bad choice, but I think The Judge itself is a piece of junk like other Taurus guns. But if you're going to use .410, just use a 12 gauge.
 
2012-12-21 12:32:22 PM  

The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

The answer is a reasoned approach, using facts, not emotion.
The facts are that rifles are used in murders less than half the amount that hands, fists and feet are.
The fact is, the worst school shooting in US history didn't involve rifles at all.
The fact is, the worst school massacre in US history didn't involve guns at all.
The fact is, banning "assault rifles" won't stop this kind of thing, but it will infringe on rights given to us by the constitution.

Opinion: Frankly, I'm sick of our leaders throwing away our rights out of fear, in order to gain a FALSE sense of security.

These children, and the future's children, deserve our thoughtful approach at a solution to the plague of mass killings. Not knee jerk, emotional responses.


Translation:  this is a powerful image and I have to make sure nobody is affected by it on an emotional level because that might work against me.

You completely  miss the point of the image, which is that "facts" can be manipulated and abused to distract from the real issue, and the real impact.  Thank you for validating the image and the message.

So for you, the "real" issue is the short term, emotionally charged issue of children being killed by a whacko with a gun, and for me the "real" issue is the long term, reasonable approach to secure children's, and all Americans', safety and liberties.

Got it.


No the issue is your completely derpy arsenal of slogany bullshiat at the expense of real logic and solutions.  Which you proved right, again.
 
2012-12-21 12:32:28 PM  
Didn't read the whole thing, but the NRA speech today was perfectly, perfectly right on.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
 
2012-12-21 12:32:53 PM  

ronaprhys: Magorn: I pointed this same thing out yesterday in a thread, but let me ask you this:
When someone is trying to look "badass" on a FB picture, or otherwise wants to indulge their rambo fantasies which version of the gun do they choose?

The nice normal looking one with a blued barrel and a walnut stock, or the "tactical" one witht he folding stock and the plastic and sheet metal bits all over it?

Depends on the situation. Many times they simply use what they've got - that could be a pistol, a rifle covered with mainly useless stuff, or even some sort of Klingon weapon.

Why?


because it looks more dangerous, it looks more like a military weapon (and what do soldiers shoot? Other people, of course) so it's more attractive to those that want to do harm to their fellow man, true?

Wait - now you've gone off the deep end. You've made some huge ass-leap from wanting to look cool to wanting to hurt people. That's a leap completely unsupported by anything you've said nor anything in, well, reality.

One of the reasons the Aurora shooting wasn't dealier than it was is because the shooter bought himself one of those ridiculous, highly phallic 100-round double drum magazines, without realizing they are utterly unreliable pieces of crap. I have no doubt what attracted him t it, rather than the more reliable 30-round mags was how "cool" and "deadly " it looked.

Glad you can ascertain motive from someone who was mentally unbalanced.

Now, being rational, can you give me a good reason we should allow 100 round magazines to be purchased by civilians?

Shall not be infringed. Can you show me how many 100 round magazines have been purchased and how many have been actually used in a crime? If you want to infringe, you need to prove overwhelming need based on actual facts and statistics. Those facts and statistics cannot be outliers or isolated events.


"shall Not be Infringed"  Sits side by side with "Subject to reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner when necessary to achieve a compelling government "  which is what the Supreme court has said all the freedoms in the bill of rights are subject to.

Keeping people from being murdered is clearly a compelling government interest  so the question is, what restrictions are both "reasonable" and "least restrictive"?  I don't pretend to know myself, but i can see some valid arguments for some retrictions on the things that offer the greatest capacity for harm (much Like I'm okay with the fact that I'd never be allowed to have a street-legal car that can go 500 mph) and those that seem to be "attractive nuisances"  Ie stuff that people wanting to hurt other people seem to be drawn to.

As tasers and other non-lethal weapons come of age, I could also see a decent argument for restricting lethal forms of self defense in favor of the non-lethal variety (not yet though, because honestly tasers aren't as effective as cops like to thing), but that would be trickier because, in my best legal analysis, the 2nd  Amendment actually is a right to carry weapons to resist government over-reaching (its proximity to the 3rd reinforces the notion it is meant as a check on the potential tyrannies that can come with keeping a standing army)
 
2012-12-21 12:33:20 PM  

born_yesterday: DjangoStonereaver: BolshyGreatYarblocks: A lot of American servicemen died in Vietnam because the North Vietnamese soldiers' AK-47s kept jamming? Is that the difference?

I worked with a Vietnam vet, and once we got into a semi-serious discussion at the end of a staff meeting
of what weapon we'd use if we ever decided to gun down our coworkers.

I was firmly in the AK-47 camp since it is very reliable.  My coworker was a staunch defender of the M-16,
saying that the only reason it got a bad reputation was that it was given to Marines who didn't know how
to clean them properly.

In the end, we mutually decided that since really loved and respected our officemates as people we'd use
a machete.

Meanwhile, our then-new supervisor was sitting in the corner, shaking his head and saying "Guys, you
know I'm supposed to report this, right?"  Thankfully, it later turned out he was just as much a weirdo
reprobate as anyone on our team, and he was a great boss for 2 years.

/Nowadays, though, there probably would have been a SWAT team waiting in our cubicles.

No love for the Thompson? Converted for full auto, of course, and with the 50 round drum. There's just something about that .45 round, especially at the close quarters you'd encounter.


How about a 12 gauge pump? Not even semi-auto but still capable of firing 3 to 5 rounds of 9 pellets of 00 buckshot in nothing flat. If we're seeking to create indiscriminate bloody carnage in a small space, that would seem to be the ticket.
 
2012-12-21 12:34:09 PM  

Bull Moose 76: lordjupiter: ronaprhys: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

It's not firearm owners who disagree with the term. As a general rule, we know what the term actually means. It's those who wish to infringe upon human rights that confuse the term, willfully, to make emotional appeals.


You do not have a "human right" to own any weapon you choose, in any quantity.

Not a human right...a constitutional right.



Correct in that it is not a "human right".  But...You have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as defined by the SCOTUS, which evolves with time and probably needs to be revised and updated past the era of muskets and oil lamps.  You do not have a right to any weapon or however many you like....the constitution does not specify those things.
 
2012-12-21 12:34:09 PM  

lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.


Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.
 
2012-12-21 12:34:11 PM  

lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.


Largely unregulated? What planet are you living on?

Keep counting your chickens before they hatch though, let me know how that works out for you.

You're going to need some buy-in from gun owners this time around. People like you aren't helping. You'd almost think we aren't starting from a position where this is a fully legal right that exists today.
 
2012-12-21 12:35:03 PM  

mizchief: Limiting the number of guns is the most pointless of the control ideas. You can only shoot one at a time! Don't bother exposing your igonrance and by saying something about duel wielding, RL isn't like COD.


You can only SHOOT one at a time.

You can CARRY more than one at a time. I think we've had shooters with as many as, what, four? And Lanza had his pick of whatever was the most destructive of his mom's supply, and while nobody's been clear on how many guns exactly she had on hand, we can be pretty safe in assuming it's a hell of a lot more than five.
 
2012-12-21 12:35:07 PM  
i45.tinypic.com

When the government decides to ban alcohol, let me know and I'll happily give up my guns.
 
2012-12-21 12:35:09 PM  

lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.


Well, to start, places in this country with strict gun laws see more people shot, so there is that. If the left had any evidence whatsoever, that gun control worked, and that they can even reduce gun violence, sure. They do not. They refuse to tackle the real problem, which is the complete erosion of values, and lack of respect and discipline within society. Once again, none of this was a problem when I was growing up, and we had guns all over the place. Why is that?

It is not a gun problem, it is a people problem.
 
2012-12-21 12:35:37 PM  

CptnSpldng: born_yesterday: DjangoStonereaver: BolshyGreatYarblocks: A lot of American servicemen died in Vietnam because the North Vietnamese soldiers' AK-47s kept jamming? Is that the difference?

I worked with a Vietnam vet, and once we got into a semi-serious discussion at the end of a staff meeting
of what weapon we'd use if we ever decided to gun down our coworkers.

I was firmly in the AK-47 camp since it is very reliable.  My coworker was a staunch defender of the M-16,
saying that the only reason it got a bad reputation was that it was given to Marines who didn't know how
to clean them properly.

In the end, we mutually decided that since really loved and respected our officemates as people we'd use
a machete.

Meanwhile, our then-new supervisor was sitting in the corner, shaking his head and saying "Guys, you
know I'm supposed to report this, right?"  Thankfully, it later turned out he was just as much a weirdo
reprobate as anyone on our team, and he was a great boss for 2 years.

/Nowadays, though, there probably would have been a SWAT team waiting in our cubicles.

No love for the Thompson? Converted for full auto, of course, and with the 50 round drum. There's just something about that .45 round, especially at the close quarters you'd encounter.

How about a 12 gauge pump? Not even semi-auto but still capable of firing 3 to 5 rounds of 9 pellets of 00 buckshot in nothing flat. If we're seeking to create indiscriminate bloody carnage in a small space, that would seem to be the ticket.


This latest nut would have been killing 4-5 kids with each shot if he had a 12 gauge with 3 1/2" mags and buckshot.
 
2012-12-21 12:36:08 PM  

Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.



You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.
 
2012-12-21 12:37:02 PM  

Bull Moose 76: hobnail: please:
Generally pretty low penetration with a .45 though. Being smaller and faster, a 9mm penetrates better (but transfers less energy into its target). This is also what makes the AR-15 an ever poorer choice for home defense.

This was my impression, especially regarding the .223. Thanks.

I guess I need a .410 pistol (yeah, I know...)

You're talking about a Taurus Judge! Nice choice.


NOW it's on in this thread!
 
2012-12-21 12:37:05 PM  

please:
Generally pretty low penetration with a .45 though. Being smaller and faster, a 9mm penetrates better (but transfers less energy into its target). This is also what makes the AR-15 an ever poorer choice for home defense.


Please don't discuss terminal ballistics and penetration unless you know what you are talking about, which you don't. Study after study has demonstrated that the 5.56/.223 round penetrates building material less than most common handgun calibers, making it better for home defense than a pistol when concerned with wall penetration. That's one of the key reasons why police have switch from pistol caliber subguns to AR platforms almost everywhere.
 
2012-12-21 12:38:00 PM  

lordjupiter: Bull Moose 76: lordjupiter: ronaprhys: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

It's not firearm owners who disagree with the term. As a general rule, we know what the term actually means. It's those who wish to infringe upon human rights that confuse the term, willfully, to make emotional appeals.


You do not have a "human right" to own any weapon you choose, in any quantity.

Not a human right...a constitutional right.


Correct in that it is not a "human right".  But...You have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as defined by the SCOTUS, which evolves with time and probably needs to be revised and updated past the era of muskets and oil lamps.  You do not have a right to any weapon or however many you like....the constitution does not specify those things.


The Constitution does not tell you what rights you have. It tells you what rights the government cannot take away. There is a reason for that. This is why liberal thinking sucks. You think the government exists to provide us with rights as they see fit. The Constitution exists to protect us from government.
 
2012-12-21 12:38:59 PM  

Southern100: When the government decides to ban alcohol, let me know and I'll happily give up my guns.


Al Capone would like a word with you.
 
2012-12-21 12:39:00 PM  
It's interesting to see people taking issue with law abiding citizens owning guns whose primary design purpose may not be specifically for hunting and then using this line of thinking as a justification for banning civilian ownership of those weapons. The Civilian Marksmanship Program has been the law of the land for over 100 years, and it's explicit purpose is to provide military surplus weapons and training programs to civilians, particularly youth.

True, it doesn't currently sell AR-15/M4's, but that's because those are primary service weapons right now. However, the M1 Garand is a popular semi-automatic weapon sold via this program, and gun manufacturers have been making M1 clones for civilian use for a long time. It' is true that just because something has always been a certain way is not necessarily a reason for it to stay that way, but the law and history are not on the side of the "That's not a good hunting rifle thus there's no reason for you to own it" argument. This argument is often factually incorrect as well.
 
2012-12-21 12:39:10 PM  

Gosling: Remus, you want a Gandhi quote?

"I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life."



It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.
--Mahatma Gandhi
 
2012-12-21 12:39:29 PM  
I bought my kid Assault Bows and Arrows for Christmas.

Now I need to get a couple bales of straw for target backdrops.
 
2012-12-21 12:40:00 PM  

hobnail: Question for the gun enthusiasts here. TFA mentions that the AR-15 is popular for home defense. Why is this?

Personally I'd rather have a lightweight 20 gauge-- more chance of hitting the target, and less likely to penetrate my neighbors' houses.

Just wondering.


/not a nut, either pro- or anti- guns


Would depend on your house. My parents have a really long hall way (about 20 yards) the leads from the front and back doors to where the bed rooms are. Best way to defend against an intruder would be to post up behind a door frame where you have a stack of 2'x4's that could help stop bullets the intruder fires back, and then take him out at range, vs. getting up close and personal where the bad guy is most likely carrying a pistol and has a better chance of hitting you.
 
2012-12-21 12:40:02 PM  

lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.


All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.
 
2012-12-21 12:40:14 PM  

Thunderpipes: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Well, to start, places in this country with strict gun laws see more people shot, so there is that. If the left had any evidence whatsoever, that gun control worked, and that they can even reduce gun violence, sure. They do not. They refuse to tackle the real problem, which is the complete erosion of values, and lack of respect and discipline within society. Once again, none of this was a problem when I was growing up, and we had guns all over the place. Why is that?

It is not a gun problem, it is a people problem.


One of the reasons places with strict gun laws put them in place is because the problem with shooting already exists.  It's not a function of the laws.  So why even mention this?  On one hand you have people saying there was always violence, and on the other you have them saying things were different before values were lost.  Which is it?

And if we're going to be "realistic" about the issue, and say that guns will never go away, then why not be "realistic" about our ability to control every single thought and impulse of every person out there?  Which is more in our control?

All of these canned retorts from the gun lobby are just sabotage the discussion of improving the laws, so fearful people who don't want to give up their guns don't have to do anything and can blame something other than weapons proliferation for what happens as a result of weapons proliferation.  Period.  That's the only reason.
 
2012-12-21 12:41:33 PM  
It never ceases to amaze me that so many of you farkers will point out (correctly) that prohibition doesn't work. Didn't for alcohol, doesn't for drugs - then you immediately come to a thread like this and scream for firearm prohibition.

The next time one of you decide to deride a teabagger for stupid extremist political views, make sure you smile in the mirror to see what an extremist moron looks like.
 
2012-12-21 12:41:54 PM  

lordjupiter: You do not have a "human right" to own any weapon you choose, in any quantity.


Sure I do. Says so right there in the Constitution. Shall not be infringed and all.

And yes, I know the Consitution doesn't grant me any rights - it simply enumerates specific rights and then points out that I've got many, many more.

LasersHurt: Take it down a notch, henrietta, and suggest some improvements. You probably know what the INTENT is, so help more accurately fulfill that intent.

I've never met a group less willing to use their knowledge to improve things than firearm owners.


Partially, that's because assault rifle and assault weapon are clearly defined terms that get changed to do nothing more than provide emotional responses. If you want a suggestion, that's easy and clearly implied - use the terms properly. An AR15 is NOT an assault weapon or assault rifle. It's a semi-automatic. Call it a semi-automatic. Very simple. Be accurate and precise in the terminology. Don't make vague emotional appeals - use actual facts and statistics to prove a point.

Bull Moose 76: Not a human right...a constitutional right.


I'd argue that the Constitution enumerated specific human rights that we all posses.

lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.


If you can't see the difference between an individual taking appropriate precautions to safeguard their lives and possessions and using an emotional appeal to drive highly restrictive laws that violate specifically-enumerated rights, then you're either a fool or a troll.

I'm guessing a mix of both.
 
2012-12-21 12:42:19 PM  

Thunderpipes: lordjupiter: Bull Moose 76: lordjupiter: ronaprhys: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

It's not firearm owners who disagree with the term. As a general rule, we know what the term actually means. It's those who wish to infringe upon human rights that confuse the term, willfully, to make emotional appeals.


You do not have a "human right" to own any weapon you choose, in any quantity.

Not a human right...a constitutional right.


Correct in that it is not a "human right".  But...You have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as defined by the SCOTUS, which evolves with time and probably needs to be revised and updated past the era of muskets and oil lamps.  You do not have a right to any weapon or however many you like....the constitution does not specify those things.

The Constitution does not tell you what rights you have. It tells you what rights the government cannot take away. There is a reason for that. This is why liberal thinking sucks. You think the government exists to provide us with rights as they see fit. The Constitution exists to protect us from government.



Well this is demonstrably wrong to anyone who has read the Constitution.   And regardless, your incorrect opinion doesn't change what I said.  Another misdirection, of course...
 
2012-12-21 12:42:38 PM  

Click Click D'oh: please:
Generally pretty low penetration with a .45 though. Being smaller and faster, a 9mm penetrates better (but transfers less energy into its target). This is also what makes the AR-15 an ever poorer choice for home defense.

Please don't discuss terminal ballistics and penetration unless you know what you are talking about, which you don't. Study after study has demonstrated that the 5.56/.223 round penetrates building material less than most common handgun calibers, making it better for home defense than a pistol when concerned with wall penetration. That's one of the key reasons why police have switch from pistol caliber subguns to AR platforms almost everywhere.


Love the cliche first line of your reply. Go internet!
Anyway, depends on ammo. XM855 will ABSOLUTELY go through ANYTHING, and then keep going, and the market was swimming in it for mega-cheap up until just lately. Most other rounds will shatter on impact. Also, most police are using a SBR versions when they use the AR platform. Most home owners have 16" or 20" bbl models, much higher velocity.
 
2012-12-21 12:43:23 PM  

Bull Moose 76: The Southern Dandy:

I'm a liberal.

I'm a libertarian.


This fall on FOX:  Dandy & Moose.

They're room mates!
 
2012-12-21 12:43:53 PM  

Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.



Strawman.  Next.
 
2012-12-21 12:44:09 PM  

lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.


If your tired of the catch phrases, show solid stats to prove them wrong.
 
2012-12-21 12:46:10 PM  

r1niceboy: mizchief: Evil Twin Skippy: As a fan of guns, I still can't understand why any civilian needs a 30 round clip.

I don't know why women need boobs bigger than a B cup, but we still waste resources on implants. They offer no functional difference, but look better and are more fun to play with. Even if we ban implants, there are still lots of big tits out there, it' just that small chested women won't be able to compete with those that already have them or that can still obtain (naturally) despite of the ban.

But bigger tits won't kill people, although they may put out an eye or cause suffocation.


Unless the woman dies on the operating table, or is raped and killed by one of her new admirers because she couldn't defend her self. K, think we are getting a little off topic now......
 
2012-12-21 12:46:14 PM  

ronaprhys: lordjupiter: You do not have a "human right" to own any weapon you choose, in any quantity.

Sure I do. Says so right there in the Constitution. Shall not be infringed and all.

And yes, I know the Consitution doesn't grant me any rights - it simply enumerates specific rights and then points out that I've got many, many more.

LasersHurt: Take it down a notch, henrietta, and suggest some improvements. You probably know what the INTENT is, so help more accurately fulfill that intent.

I've never met a group less willing to use their knowledge to improve things than firearm owners.

Partially, that's because assault rifle and assault weapon are clearly defined terms that get changed to do nothing more than provide emotional responses. If you want a suggestion, that's easy and clearly implied - use the terms properly. An AR15 is NOT an assault weapon or assault rifle. It's a semi-automatic. Call it a semi-automatic. Very simple. Be accurate and precise in the terminology. Don't make vague emotional appeals - use actual facts and statistics to prove a point.

Bull Moose 76: Not a human right...a constitutional right.

I'd argue that the Constitution enumerated specific human rights that we all posses.

lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

If you can't see the difference between an individual taking appropriate preca ...



Not a fool or a troll.  Just someone who's pointing out realities you don't like and/or can't comprehend.  I know it's painful for you and these others to look at that girl's picture with your bullshiat slogans plastered on top of her smiling face, but that's the reality of what you and they are doing, sitting at your keyboards regurgitating the NRA talking points you've been fed for years, and that have become "fact" in your minds no matter how twisted or distorted they are.
 
2012-12-21 12:47:10 PM  

mizchief: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

If your tired of the catch phrases, show solid stats to prove them wrong.



Why?  So you and your pals can just ignore them?  This isn't my first rodeo, Tex.

That girl is staring at you....
 
2012-12-21 12:47:15 PM  

lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.


What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?
 
2012-12-21 12:48:11 PM  

Carousel Beast: It never ceases to amaze me that so many of you farkers will point out (correctly) that prohibition doesn't work. Didn't for alcohol, doesn't for drugs - then you immediately come to a thread like this and scream for firearm prohibition.


Except this time we have in hand the stat sheet, and can use it to point to examples of countries where gun prohibition DOES work. Japan. South Korea. Romania.

You will note how the United States, on that graph, comes in on the 'gun homicides per 100,000 population' list, as slightly worse than Palestine.
 
2012-12-21 12:48:24 PM  
I'm against automobile deaths

Therefore I am sending a bill to the state legislature to ban all red cars.

You can argue all you want but there statistics that red cars get more speeding tickets than any other color and if this law prevents just 1, - JUST 1 - death then it's worth it.

right?

/ask me about my plan to ban Gin to prevent alcholism.
 
2012-12-21 12:49:17 PM  

please: hobnail: please:
Generally pretty low penetration with a .45 though. Being smaller and faster, a 9mm penetrates better (but transfers less energy into its target). This is also what makes the AR-15 an ever poorer choice for home defense.

This was my impression, especially regarding the .223. Thanks.

I guess I need a .410 pistol (yeah, I know...)

Are you being facetious because of the whole Taurus Judge pistol thing? I don't think it would be a bad choice, but I think The Judge itself is a piece of junk like other Taurus guns. But if you're going to use .410, just use a 12 gauge.


Actually, no. My grandfather had single shot .410 that had (from memory) about a 10" barrel. I'm not sure the chamber would stand up to modern loads (aside from the fact that it's a smoothbore and clearly illegal).

I always thought that a 4 chamber revolver version would be great for close quarters.
 
2012-12-21 12:50:01 PM  

lordjupiter: mizchief: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

If your tired of the catch phrases, show solid stats to prove them wrong.


Why?  So you and your pals can just ignore them?  This isn't my first rodeo, Tex.

That girl is staring at you....


Right out of the M.A.D.D. playbook.
 
2012-12-21 12:50:03 PM  

please: There was a time when I could buy a B.A.R. from the Sears catalog - literally one of the most powerful single-man weapons of WW2. Fully automatic, but they called it The Monitor since it was for civilians (no bipod). Why weren't schools getting shot up then?


And a Thompson from the local hardware store.

Fun fact
Just after WWI (may have been right before but in that time frame) it was easier to get a Thompson than a Colt 45 Automatic pistol since the pistol was used by the military

Thompson had a hilarious ad showing a cowboy with the SMG fighting off rustlers at the ranch.

Link
 
2012-12-21 12:51:00 PM  

Magorn: "shall Not be Infringed" Sits side by side with "Subject to reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner when necessary to achieve a compelling government " which is what the Supreme court has said all the freedoms in the bill of rights are subject to.


True - which means that any restriction you put in place on those rights needs to actually be either a) clearly shown to provide significant benefit such that it outweighs the restriction or b) it has a clearly identified metric to hit and if it doesn't hit that, the restriction is removed.

Keeping people from being murdered is clearly a compelling government interest so the question is, what restrictions are both "reasonable" and "least restrictive"? I don't pretend to know myself, but i can see some valid arguments for some retrictions on the things that offer the greatest capacity for harm (much Like I'm okay with the fact that I'd never be allowed to have a street-legal car that can go 500 mph) and those that seem to be "attractive nuisances" Ie stuff that people wanting to hurt other people seem to be drawn to.

Actually, if you could have a street legal car that could go 500mph, no one would stop you. We already have street legal cars that will top 200mph. There is not mph restriction. What you've just used is an engineering limitation, not a legal limitation. While I don't disagree that, conceptually, limiting the most capacity for harm could be a good thing I think it's upon those asking for the limitations to provide clear proof that they'd actually do "something". I define that as a measurable reduction in the homicide rate, when discussing firearms and restrictions on them. Anything short of that is nothing more than meaningless restrictions (kind of like the AWB - it failed so miserably it'd be humorous if it wasn't a direct attack on the 2A).

As tasers and other non-lethal weapons come of age, I could also see a decent argument for restricting lethal forms of self defense in favor of the non-lethal variety (not yet though, because honestly tasers aren't as effective as cops like to thing), but that would be trickier because, in my best legal analysis, the 2nd Amendment actually is a right to carry weapons to resist government over-reaching (its proximity to the 3rd reinforces the notion it is meant as a check on the potential tyrannies that can come with keeping a standing army)

I can't see that happening, mostly due to the second part of the paragraph.

I'm not against discussing solutions. But those solutions must have a meaningful impact on the homicide rate or they must either not be implemented or they need to be removed.
 
2012-12-21 12:51:04 PM  

Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.

What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?


Step 1 is for you and the other people obstructing the process and the discussion to stop doing so.  What part of that wasn't clear?

After that, the details will depend on how the lawyers and lawmakers work it out.  Or do you have an emotional fear that they're coming to take your guns from you if you don't sabotage every discussion of how to stop these weapons from ending up pointed at innocent children?
 
2012-12-21 12:51:58 PM  

hobnail: please: hobnail: please:
Generally pretty low penetration with a .45 though. Being smaller and faster, a 9mm penetrates better (but transfers less energy into its target). This is also what makes the AR-15 an ever poorer choice for home defense.

This was my impression, especially regarding the .223. Thanks.

I guess I need a .410 pistol (yeah, I know...)

Are you being facetious because of the whole Taurus Judge pistol thing? I don't think it would be a bad choice, but I think The Judge itself is a piece of junk like other Taurus guns. But if you're going to use .410, just use a 12 gauge.

Actually, no. My grandfather had single shot .410 that had (from memory) about a 10" barrel. I'm not sure the chamber would stand up to modern loads (aside from the fact that it's a smoothbore and clearly illegal).

I always thought that a 4 chamber revolver version would be great for close quarters.


Ah. Actually you can get a similar pistol to that now, just no stock, the Thompson Contender. Those are sweet, and you can shoot .45LC out of them too.
 
2012-12-21 12:52:22 PM  

Southern100: [i45.tinypic.com image 629x403]

When the government decides to ban alcohol, let me know and I'll happily give up my guns.


By 2015 according to the CDC gun fatalities will outnumber car deaths.  Cars are used every day, guns are not.  Cars serve necessary purposes instead of  recreation or killing something
 
2012-12-21 12:52:48 PM  

please: lordjupiter: mizchief: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

If your tired of the catch phrases, show solid stats to prove them wrong.


Why?  So you and your pals can just ignore them?  This isn't my first rodeo, Tex.

That girl is staring at you....

Right out of the M.A.D.D. playbook.


So drunk driving is OK with you?

Look at her.
 
2012-12-21 12:52:48 PM  

GanjSmokr: LasersHurt: "I take things wildly out of context and reductio ad absurdum, because I am scared."

Well, accepting it is the first step towards a long recovery. You're off to a good start!


Ding! Ding! Ding!

Here, to me, is the real root of so much of the problems. We aren't suffering so much from a Culture of Violence as we are a Culture of Fear.
We're afraid that the government is going to take from us and give to "them." We're afraid of swarthy peoples who speak in strange tongues and breed and get to vote just like white folks. We're afraid of organized groups that believe in different things than we do and they're armed! They won't stop believing differently than we do even when we repeatedly tell them not to! We even tried to see to it that their votes wouldn't count as much as our votes and the danged government wouldn't let us do it!!
 
2012-12-21 12:53:02 PM  

lordjupiter: Thunderpipes: lordjupiter: Bull Moose 76: lordjupiter: ronaprhys: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

It's not firearm owners who disagree with the term. As a general rule, we know what the term actually means. It's those who wish to infringe upon human rights that confuse the term, willfully, to make emotional appeals.


You do not have a "human right" to own any weapon you choose, in any quantity.

Not a human right...a constitutional right.


Correct in that it is not a "human right".  But...You have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as defined by the SCOTUS, which evolves with time and probably needs to be revised and updated past the era of muskets and oil lamps.  You do not have a right to any weapon or however many you like....the constitution does not specify those things.

The Constitution does not tell you what rights you have. It tells you what rights the government cannot take away. There is a reason for that. This is why liberal thinking sucks. You think the government exists to provide us with rights as they see fit. The Constitution exists to protect us from government.


Well this is demonstrably wrong to anyone who has read the Constitution.   And regardless, your incorrect opinion doesn't change what I said.  Another misdirection, of course...


At last read the damn thing then, dumbass.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That is the second amendment. It states the government cannot take away your right to bear arms. I am right, you are wrong, troll.
 
2012-12-21 12:53:08 PM  

Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.

What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?


Just stop responding to him. He's shown that he's got no desire to actually engage in a debate. As such, he's nothing more than a poor troll.

I miss the days when we had quality trolls like Czar and Bongo.
 
2012-12-21 12:53:55 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?


Thanks!!!


If it's select-fire, it's an assault rifle because

a: The shooter can select between semiautomatic and fully automatic or automatic burst fire.
b: It has a detachable magazine of 20 rounds or more.
c: It fires a smaller round with less recoil than a traditional infantry or battle rifle, such as the 5.56 NATO or 7.62X39 Russian.
d: Its barrel is in line, or close to in line, with the center of recoil at the buttplate, reducing muzzle climb
e: In order to accommodate this straight buttstock in line with the barrel, it uses a pistol grip and an elevated sight plane.

If it's not select-fire, it's an "assault weapon" because of all the above, minus full- or burst-auto capability.

There are also "assault weapons" that are pistols that resemble submachine guns, with cosmetic features like ventilated barrel shrouds and magazines in front of the pistol grip. This is pretty much a bullshiat definition, in that a Tec-9 is no more deadly than a Glock 17 with a 30-round clip (less so, because it's less accurate and more likely to jam or break). But the semiauto version of an AR-15 IS functionally different from a .30-06 Remington Model 750 in terms of nutjob spree potential, although both are semi-auto rifles.
 
2012-12-21 12:54:27 PM  
Jesus, STFU with this "It's not an assault rifle" crap.

Pepsi ain't a coke either, but that's how cola got branded. Kleenex. Band-Aid. Those words are used to refer to non-Kleenex and non-Band-Aid products.

Sorry that the entire world chooses this term for your precious toy, but get over it. You sound like a child who gets mad because somebody confused the names of two Pokemons.
 
2012-12-21 12:54:41 PM  

lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.

What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?

Step 1 is for you and the other people obstructing the process and the discussion to stop doing so.  What part of that wasn't clear?

After that, the details will depend on how the lawyers and lawmakers work it out.  Or do you have an emotional fear that they're coming to take your guns from you if you don't sabotage every discussion of how to stop these weapons from ending up pointed at innocent children?


You mean sit back with our mouths closed while you discuss ineffective and contradictory ways to restrict our rights? No thanks. Maybe when you're remedies sound remotely informed they won't be pilloried for what they are.
 
2012-12-21 12:55:03 PM  
My suggestions (having gone from the non-gun owning side to the dark side - one 9 mm glock style S&W with a scary laser on it so I don't miss) are directed at stopping these teenage boy mass shootings:

1. If you are on an SSRI and male and under 30, you can't have a gun, and guns in your dwelling owned by others must be locked up. The others are under criminal liability to keep the guns away from you. Goth kid grabs your gun, you are liable for what he does with it. Had mom kept the guns locked up, Lanza would have at least had to get guns elsewhere (which he apparently tried and failed to do). Gun grabbers push background checks - fine, lets make the background checks useful. You get a prozac prescription, you give up your gun until you're off the sauce and over 30.

2. Biometric locks on gun handles. Interesting area of research, like automobile safety. I certainly wouldn't mind a biometric lock that limited my gun to only my use, assuming it actually worked (palm pressure pattern is the latest, but reliability is a problem). Have the gummint spend money on that research, much the way the NHTSA does on vehicle safety. Subsidize the sale of biometric locks once they become reliable (we subsidize electric cars), hell, give them away, AND provide a liability benefit to those gun owners who get them - i.e., a biometric lock satisfies the no crazies rule in para 1 above. Of course, Mama Lanza would have to not key in her crazy kid into the gun for this to work, and since there are reports she took him to the gun range (although reports in the press, so who knows), the biometric lock thing probably wouldn't have worked here. I bet moma lanza would like a do over. Biometric handle locks are the ultimate safety tool for law abiding owners, and except for reliability in the heat of the moment, and cost, I can't think of a single reason not to use them (those are two very big reasons).

3. Allow teachers and administrators in schools to pack heat if they want to and get training, much like airline pilots.

My proposals (a) are directed at the columbine aurora newtown crazies, not gun owners in general and (b) could generally increase safety. But the gun grabbers don't like them because increased safety is not the point, grabbing guns is.
 
2012-12-21 12:55:35 PM  

Dimensio:
"Assault rifle" is a technical term with an established definition.
.


The why is it that libs have such difficulty using the term based on it's "established definition"? Are they stupid, intentionally lying, or is the definition not so "established"?
 
2012-12-21 12:55:42 PM  

Gosling: Carousel Beast: It never ceases to amaze me that so many of you farkers will point out (correctly) that prohibition doesn't work. Didn't for alcohol, doesn't for drugs - then you immediately come to a thread like this and scream for firearm prohibition.

Except this time we have in hand the stat sheet, and can use it to point to examples of countries where gun prohibition DOES work. Japan. South Korea. Romania.

You will note how the United States, on that graph, comes in on the 'gun homicides per 100,000 population' list, as slightly worse than Palestine.


There is so much fail there it's not even funny. I don't know where to start - countries where drug prohibition works better than the US (Japan, for instance), or nations where there's less opportunity for smuggling (islands), where the cultures are vastly different, or the studies where violent crime was completely reclassified to avoid showing how big a fail gun prohibition was (Britain) - all of these were Fark linked, btw.

Guns as a primary means of violent crime is still fairly new in the States - in the 60s/70s it was still knives, bricks, and chains. The proliferation of firearms had the twin effects of shifting weapons to something more lethal (guns) and making violent crime slightly more deadly; guns are not why there is violent crime. But then, it's also more exciting to see "2 shot by gun!: than "Two knifed by attacker."

Not to mention the gun crime is highest in American cities with...gun prohibition.
 
2012-12-21 12:55:58 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Jesus, STFU with this "It's not an assault rifle" crap.

Pepsi ain't a coke either, but that's how cola got branded. Kleenex. Band-Aid. Those words are used to refer to non-Kleenex and non-Band-Aid products.

Sorry that the entire world chooses this term for your precious toy, but get over it. You sound like a child who gets mad because somebody confused the names of two Pokemons.


It's being used in a legal definitions of what can or cannot be owned or sold in the future. Sorry if people want some specificity around the rights they are going to lose.
 
2012-12-21 12:56:37 PM  

lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.

What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?

Step 1 is for you and the other people obstructing the process and the discussion to stop doing so.  What part of that wasn't clear?

After that, the details will depend on how the lawyers and lawmakers work it out.  Or do you have an emotional fear that they're coming to take your guns from you if you don't sabotage every discussion of how to stop these weapons from ending up pointed at innocent children?


You're being willfully obtuse. What precise problem are you advocating requires legislation? What legislation do you suggest would fix this problem? Why can't you answer these simple questions without pointing fingers at the "other side"? How can you expect them to even give an adequate reply when you can't even frame your complaint? Drop the hysterics and give a reasoned response.
 
2012-12-21 12:56:37 PM  

Thunderpipes: lordjupiter: Thunderpipes: lordjupiter: Bull Moose 76: lordjupiter: ronaprhys: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

It's not firearm owners who disagree with the term. As a general rule, we know what the term actually means. It's those who wish to infringe upon human rights that confuse the term, willfully, to make emotional appeals.


You do not have a "human right" to own any weapon you choose, in any quantity.

Not a human right...a constitutional right.


Correct in that it is not a "human right".  But...You have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as defined by the SCOTUS, which evolves with time and probably needs to be revised and updated past the era of muskets and oil lamps.  You do not have a right to any weapon or however many you like....the constitution does not specify those things.

The Constitution does not tell you what rights you have. It tells you what rights the government cannot take away. There is a reason for that. This is why liberal thinking sucks. You think the government exists to provide us with rights as they see fit. The Constitution exists to protect us from government.


Well this is demonstrably wrong to anyone who has read the Constitution.   And regardless, your incorrect opinion doesn't change what I said.  Another misdirection, of course...

At last read the damn thing then, dumbass.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That is the second amendment. It states the government cannot take away your right to bear arms. I ...



Yes, because your literal interpretation of one part while ignoring the possible literal intepretations of the other parts is the REAL meaning.

Who's the troll?  You are!
 
2012-12-21 12:56:53 PM  

Thunderpipes: If we have to lock our school's doors, we have already lost.

Guns are not the problem. Terrible parenting is. None of this crap happened a few generations ago and we had much more access to weapons.


Wrong. There have been school shootings/violence ever since there have been schools.

http://www.k12academics.com/school-shootings/history-school-shootings - united-states

I recommend not reading the link unless you really have to. It's very depressing. especially the guy who used dynamite to blow up 38 kids because he was upset his tax money was paying for their education
 
2012-12-21 12:56:59 PM  
Matt Seaton @mattseaton

This NRA presser is not train wreck. It's an asteroid impact. Media profs will be teaching it for years as epic 'how not to' do crisis comms


Basically they called for armed security guards in every school in America and most of the media went LOLWUT.
 
2012-12-21 12:57:13 PM  
Ever notice every single thing that Obama and the Democrats are pushing into law, diminishes people's rights? Every single thing. I thought liberals were supposed to want people to be free and have rights? Every single piece of legislation you guys favor, takes away the rights of someone, often yourselves. You cheer.
 
2012-12-21 12:57:31 PM  

Thunderpipes: mizchief: Thunderpipes: This is quite a unique case anyway. I am all for freedom to own guns. But she had a batshiat crazy kid, with a history of violence. Keeping guns around him was criminal. If she was alive, I would want her to pay dearly for stupidity.

If someone breaks in to your house, steals a gun, then commits a crime, that is different in my eyes.

I'm in favor of holding the owner responsible in civil court, and slapping on criminal negligence which should prevent getting a permit to carry for 5 years, if the owner didn't take reasonable steps to secure the weapons. A large locked gun safe would cover you, but could also be a closet with a dead bolt, installing gun locks, etc.

A large locked gun safe does not protect you though. If someone breaks in to my house, I don't have time to screw around with a safe. If someone steals your car, and commits a crime, should you be held accountable? Has to be some common sense. But if there is obvious reasons to secure firearms, like a crazy son living with you, then maybe.


I mean if your not home use the safe. By all means keep them loaded and as available as possible depending on who is in the home (small kids, psychopaths, etc.) I do this anyway, if not for trying to keep guns out of the hands of thieves, but not wanting to come home to someone who broke in and get shot with my own damned gun.
 
2012-12-21 12:57:50 PM  
And not to mention that the so called "new gun laws" being bandied about, ie: a waiting perioid, no more gun shows, background checks, and even the "evil Assualt rifle" ban would not have made a single difference in the Newtown Sandhook killings.

but hell, let's not have the stop us!
 
2012-12-21 12:58:27 PM  

ronaprhys: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.

What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?

Just stop responding to him. He's shown that he's got no desire to actually engage in a debate. As such, he's nothing more than a poor troll.

I miss the days when we had quality trolls like Czar and Bongo.


No, I'm totally serious, but I've been in enough of these "debates" to know what's coming next and I'm not wasting my time crafting useless fantasy legislation just so you and the other derpers can just blow it off with more slogans and fudged statistics.


You don't like having your bullshiat called out with that girl staring at you.  And that's exactly what needs to happen.
 
2012-12-21 12:58:32 PM  

lordjupiter: please: lordjupiter: mizchief: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

If your tired of the catch phrases, show solid stats to prove them wrong.


Why?  So you and your pals can just ignore them?  This isn't my first rodeo, Tex.

That girl is staring at you....

Right out of the M.A.D.D. playbook.

So drunk driving is OK with you?

Look at her.


Again, right out the MADD playbook. "Unless you support 0% BAC drunk driving is OK with you." As well as the cheap appeal to emotion. If that's your approach, you've literally got nothin'.
 
2012-12-21 12:59:00 PM  

Magorn: Southern100: [i45.tinypic.com image 629x403]

When the government decides to ban alcohol, let me know and I'll happily give up my guns.

By 2015 according to the CDC gun fatalities will outnumber car deaths.  Cars are used every day, guns are not.  Cars serve necessary purposes instead of  recreation or killing something


Cars aren't the problem - the problem is the 112 million people a year who think they can drive after having "a few drinks".

Besides, what does gun deaths outnumbering car deaths have to do with it? *1* death is too many, isn't it? No? Is it 2? 10? 20? Is there a cut off?

Also keep in mind that not everyone hit by a drunk driver dies - but many of them wish they had.
 
2012-12-21 12:59:28 PM  

mbillips: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?


Thanks!!!

If it's select-fire, it's an assault rifle because

a: The shooter can select between semiautomatic and fully automatic or automatic burst fire.
b: It has a detachable magazine of 20 rounds or more.
c: It fires a smaller round with less recoil than a traditional infantry or battle rifle, such as the 5.56 NATO or 7.62X39 Russian.
d: Its barrel is in line, or close to in line, with the center of recoil at the buttplate, reducing muzzle climb
e: In order to accommodate this straight buttstock in line with the barrel, it uses a pistol grip and an elevated sight plane.

If it's not select-fire, it's an "assault weapon" because of all the above, minus full- or burst-auto capability.

There are also "assault weapons" that are pistols that resemble submachine guns, with cosmetic features like ventilated barrel shrouds and magazines in front of the pistol grip. This is pretty much a bullshiat definition, in that a Tec-9 is no more deadly than a Glock 17 with a 30-round clip (less so, because it's less accurate and more likely to jam or break). But the semiauto version of an AR-15 IS functionally different from a .30-06 Remington Model 750 in terms of nutjob spree potential, although both are semi-auto rifles.


I disagree - no full auto or burst, not an assault rifle.
 
2012-12-21 01:00:01 PM  

please: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.

What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?

Step 1 is for you and the other people obstructing the process and the discussion to stop doing so.  What part of that wasn't clear?

After that, the details will depend on how the lawyers and lawmakers work it out.  Or do you have an emotional fear that they're coming to take your guns from you if you don't sabotage every discussion of how to stop these weapons from ending up pointed at innocent children?

You mean sit back with our mouths closed while you discuss ineffective and contradictory ways to restrict our rights? No thanks. Maybe when you're remedies sound remotely informed they won't be pilloried for what they are.


How do you know what my remedies are?  See, this is why I don't play "proof/plan" game you farkers resort to.  Because they'll be dismissed no matter what, even when I haven't even offered them.

Meanwhile, that girl is still dead, and there's nobody breaking down your front door...no british soldiers marching on your lawn....
 
2012-12-21 01:00:26 PM  

lordjupiter: ronaprhys: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.

What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?

Just stop responding to him. He's shown that he's got no desire to actually engage in a debate. As such, he's nothing more than a poor troll.

I miss the days when we had quality trolls like Czar and Bongo.

No, I'm totally serious, but I've been in enough of these "debates" to know what's coming next and I'm not wasting my time crafting useless fantasy legislation just so you and the other derpers can just blow it off with more slogans and fudged statistics.


You don't like having your bullshiat called out with that girl staring at you.  And that's exactly what needs to happen.


You really do sound very silly with your "LOOK AT HER" and "SHE'S STARING AT YOU." I guess that hasn't stopped your other arguments though...
 
2012-12-21 01:01:04 PM  

2 grams: but hell, let's not have the stop us!


No. Let's not. How many people have said now that it's not about stopping every single gun homicide but rather about making sure there are fewer of them. The 'that won't work, that won't work, that won't work, nothing will work except more guns' line of attack isn't going to work this time. SOMETHING is going to get done. The only question is what.
 
2012-12-21 01:01:11 PM  

lordjupiter: The Constitution does not tell you what rights you have. It tells you what rights the government cannot take away. There is a reason for that. This is why liberal thinking sucks. You think the government exists to provide us with rights as they see fit. The Constitution exists to protect us from government.


Well this is demonstrably wrong to anyone who has read the Constitution. And regardless, your incorrect opinion doesn't change what I said. Another misdirection, of course...



Now you've gone full retard....
 
2012-12-21 01:01:28 PM  

please: lordjupiter: please: lordjupiter: mizchief: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

If your tired of the catch phrases, show solid stats to prove them wrong.


Why?  So you and your pals can just ignore them?  This isn't my first rodeo, Tex.

That girl is staring at you....

Right out of the M.A.D.D. playbook.

So drunk driving is OK with you?

Look at her.

Again, right out the MADD playbook. "Unless you support 0% BAC drunk driving is OK with you." As well as the cheap appeal to emotion. If that's your approach, you've literally got nothin'.


If you ignore the troll, they actually go away. Maybe the die, maybe the disappear. No one actually knows. However, it doesn't matter. Just ignore them.
 
2012-12-21 01:01:38 PM  

Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.

What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?

Step 1 is for you and the other people obstructing the process and the discussion to stop doing so.  What part of that wasn't clear?

After that, the details will depend on how the lawyers and lawmakers work it out.  Or do you have an emotional fear that they're coming to take your guns from you if you don't sabotage every discussion of how to stop these weapons from ending up pointed at innocent children?

You're being willfully obtuse. What precise problem are you advocating requires legislation? What legislation do you suggest would fix this problem? Why can't you answer these simple questions without pointing fingers at the "other side"? How can you expect them to even give an adequate reply when you can't even frame your complaint? Drop the hysterics and give a rea ...


If you could read, you'd have an answer.  Which is one reason I'm not wasting my time.
 
2012-12-21 01:03:07 PM  

lordjupiter: please: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.

What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?

Step 1 is for you and the other people obstructing the process and the discussion to stop doing so.  What part of that wasn't clear?

After that, the details will depend on how the lawyers and lawmakers work it out.  Or do you have an emotional fear that they're coming to take your guns from you if you don't sabotage every discussion of how to stop these weapons from ending up pointed at innocent children?

You mean sit back with our mouths closed while you discuss ineffective and contradictory ways to restrict our rights? No thanks. Maybe when you're remedies sound remotely informed they won't be pilloried for what they are.

How do you know what my remedies are?  See, this is why I don't play "proof/plan" game you farkers resort to.  Because they'll be dismiss ...


You're almost adorable, shrilly man.
 
2012-12-21 01:03:26 PM  

900RR: he 2nd amendment wasn't written to protect your right to go deer or duck hunting. It was written to affirm your ability to own the meanest military small arms of the time to protect your liberties from tyrants. Period. End of story. Back then it was a smooth-bore musket. Now it's an M-16. This "sporting use" nonsense was created by gun grabbers to justify the divide and conquer method of gun control, finally leading to complete prohibition (which the true goal of all of them, regardless of what they may or may not say publicly).


I don't think they included hunting just because it was just the way people lived. Saying that you couldn't hunt with a gun then, would be about the same as saying you can't use a car to go to the grocery store today. I think self defense pretty much falls into this category as well and both are covered under the whole concept of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
 
2012-12-21 01:04:04 PM  
Guns always protect you. Just ask Nancy Lanza.
 
2012-12-21 01:04:31 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: I thought the killer at Sandy Hook only used two pistols (but had the rifle with him).


This.

By "used" I guess they mean, "sat in the car without being used".

/or something.
//stupid fear mongering press
 
2012-12-21 01:04:43 PM  

ronaprhys: please: lordjupiter: please: lordjupiter: mizchief: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

If your tired of the catch phrases, show solid stats to prove them wrong.


Why?  So you and your pals can just ignore them?  This isn't my first rodeo, Tex.

That girl is staring at you....

Right out of the M.A.D.D. playbook.

So drunk driving is OK with you?

Look at her.

Again, right out the MADD playbook. "Unless you support 0% BAC drunk driving is OK with you." As well as the cheap appeal to emotion. If that's your approach, you've literally got nothin'.

If you ignore the troll, they actually go away. Maybe the die, maybe the disappear. No one actually knows. However, it doesn't matter. Just ignore them.



Yes, ignore what makes you uncomfortable.  Like reality.
 
2012-12-21 01:04:57 PM  
Do all you cowards realize that an assault rifle will kill you just as fast as a hunting rifle? Just because a gun looks scary doesn't make it more deadly.

images2.wikia.nocookie.netwww.badstockart.com
 
2012-12-21 01:05:31 PM  

Gosling: Personally, part of the legislation I'd push for would include a limit on how many guns a specific person can own. There's no reason I can see why someone needs to have dozens and dozens of guns in the house. And a lot of these shootings involve the shooter amassing half an arsenal.


I hope you're trolling...but if not, why don't we limit the number of video game consoles someone can own? How many hours they can play FPS games?

Or using the same logic, we can limit how many cars people can own to combat Global Warming....I mean I can see no reason why some needs to have dozens of cars or motorcycles....And alot of global warming involve polluters amassing half a car lot (ala Jay Leno).
 
2012-12-21 01:05:36 PM  

FightDirector: thurstonxhowell: Dimensio: "Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

"Civilian sporting rifle", when used to describe an AR-15, is one of the most ham-fisted attempts at political correctness I've ever seen.

How about this? Is this a legitimate civilian sporting rifle?

[i1.wp.com image 850x209]

That firearm is a Mini-14, a rifle that can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger.


The scary man's firearm is an AR-15. It can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger; Betamags can hold approx 100 rounds but have horrific jam rates). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger. It is covered in black plastic, which makes it lighter and theoretically more impact-resistant. These facts are scary, yes? It looks like this:

[blogs.suntimes.com image 850x250]

They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN. They shoot the same bullet, from magazines of the same size, at the same velocity. But one looks dammed scary, while one looks a lot like a hunting rifle you see on the wall.

There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns. And while the latter may be a desirable goal to some minds, there is simply no actual, practical way to make it happen, without setting the military loose on the civilian population in a house-to-house and turning our country into another Afghanistan-style military quagmire.


what's frustrating about folks like yourself, is demeaning the counter argument as: 'sorry you are afraid of scary looking guns"

that is pretty farking stupid

if folks like yourself could grasp the concept that (and i'll use the big letters) LIMITING THE CAPACITY OF SEMI AUTO RIFLES TO 10 OR LESS MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

it really is that simple

/i do appreciate the argument that the 'genie is already out of the bottle' and any ban would result only in law abiding people doing without, since there is so much in the market place and has been for decades.
 
2012-12-21 01:05:48 PM  

FightDirector: thurstonxhowell: Dimensio: "Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

"Civilian sporting rifle", when used to describe an AR-15, is one of the most ham-fisted attempts at political correctness I've ever seen.

How about this? Is this a legitimate civilian sporting rifle?



That firearm is a Mini-14, a rifle that can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger.


The scary man's firearm is an AR-15. It can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger; Betamags can hold approx 100 rounds but have horrific jam rates). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger. It is covered in black plastic, which makes it lighter and theoretically more impact-resistant. These facts are scary, yes? It looks like this:



They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN. They shoot the same bullet, from magazines of the same size, at the same velocity. But one looks dammed scary, while one looks a lot like a hunting rifle you see on the wall.

There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns. And while the latter may be a desirable goal to some minds, there is simply no actual, practical way to make it happen, without setting the military loose on the civilian population in a house-to-house and turning our country into another Afghanistan-style military quagmire.


"Intellectual Honesty" is not a concept with which they (the gun-ban crowd) are familiar... But then, you knew that.
 
2012-12-21 01:06:17 PM  

Gosling: 2 grams: but hell, let's not have the stop us!

No. Let's not. How many people have said now that it's not about stopping every single gun homicide but rather about making sure there are fewer of them. The 'that won't work, that won't work, that won't work, nothing will work except more guns' line of attack isn't going to work this time. SOMETHING is going to get done. The only question is what.


What is your actual suggestion? Please make sure to detail it out. Also, make sure it doesn't violate the 2A or any other portion of the Constitution, that it's effective (i.e., that it'll provide a measurable and significant reduction in the homicide rate), and show clear proof that it'll work.
 
2012-12-21 01:06:21 PM  
"I'm not the troll, you are!" and this thread meets it's logical conclusion.

I'm off to ar15.com to clean up on selling all the AK mags I've stockpiled (I'm into M1As now). Have fun!
 
2012-12-21 01:06:31 PM  

RussianPooper: It's funny when gun nuts act like knowing things about guns suffices for intelligence.



It's funny when gun grabbers can't get their facts right, but still act like their ignorance on the subject doesn't matter.
 
2012-12-21 01:06:53 PM  

CujoQuarrel: please: There was a time when I could buy a B.A.R. from the Sears catalog - literally one of the most powerful single-man weapons of WW2. Fully automatic, but they called it The Monitor since it was for civilians (no bipod). Why weren't schools getting shot up then?

And a Thompson from the local hardware store.

Fun fact
Just after WWI (may have been right before but in that time frame) it was easier to get a Thompson than a Colt 45 Automatic pistol since the pistol was used by the military

Thompson had a hilarious ad showing a cowboy with the SMG fighting off rustlers at the ranch.

Link


True. It was a federal offense to own a Colt stamped U.S. Property, and there were far more military than commercial models out there in the teens and '20s. The government didn't make Thompsons a military weapon until the 1940s, except for a few 1928 models used by the Marines.
 
2012-12-21 01:07:50 PM  

ronaprhys: mbillips: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?


Thanks!!!

If it's select-fire, it's an assault rifle because

a: The shooter can select between semiautomatic and fully automatic or automatic burst fire.
b: It has a detachable magazine of 20 rounds or more.
c: It fires a smaller round with less recoil than a traditional infantry or battle rifle, such as the 5.56 NATO or 7.62X39 Russian.
d: Its barrel is in line, or close to in line, with the center of recoil at the buttplate, reducing muzzle climb
e: In order to accommodate this straight buttstock in line with the barrel, it uses a pistol grip and an elevated sight plane.

If it's not select-fire, it's an "assault weapon" because of all the above, minus full- or burst-auto capability.

There are also "assault weapons" that are pistols that resemble submachine guns, with cosmetic features like ventilated barrel shrouds and magazines in front of the pistol grip. This is pretty much a bullshiat definition, in that a Tec-9 is no more deadly than a Glock 17 with a 30-round clip (less so, because it's less accurate and more likely to jam or break). But the semiauto version of an AR-15 IS functionally different from a .30-06 Remington Model 750 in terms of nutjob spree potential, although both are semi-auto rifles.

I disagree - no full auto or burst, not an assault rifle.


Read what I wrote. "Assault weapon" is used to describe a semi-auto version of an assault rifle.
 
2012-12-21 01:08:23 PM  

please: lordjupiter: please: lordjupiter: mizchief: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

If your tired of the catch phrases, show solid stats to prove them wrong.


Why?  So you and your pals can just ignore them?  This isn't my first rodeo, Tex.

That girl is staring at you....

Right out of the M.A.D.D. playbook.

So drunk driving is OK with you?

Look at her.

Again, right out the MADD playbook. "Unless you support 0% BAC drunk driving is OK with you." As well as the cheap appeal to emotion. If that's your approach, you've literally got nothin'.



Strawman and ducking the question.  Well done.

What's with the objection to emotion?  Are you arrogant enough to think that you really only make decisions in life based on pure logic.  You're not Spock.  You just don't like OTHER peoples' emotions that conflict with your own.

And this is not just about emotional blathering, either.  This is about taking a reasoned approach without letting the bumper sticker slogan people shot down alternative with the "too soon, knee jerk" talk.  And that's exactly what you assclowns resort to when cornered, every time.  All it took was a picture of one of the victims to strike the nerve and put you on the defensive because DEEP DOWN YOU KNOW YOU'RE WRONG.

In case you hadn't noticed, I've been giving you farkers exactly what you bring to the table in these discussions.  If you dislike it, you dislike your own arguments and tactics.
 
2012-12-21 01:08:41 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?


Thanks!!!


Absolutely it is an assault rifle....it is scary looking. Just one glance at something so dangerous would cause Barney Frank to break out in menstrual cramps.
 
2012-12-21 01:09:27 PM  

please: Insatiable Jesus: Jesus, STFU with this "It's not an assault rifle" crap.

Pepsi ain't a coke either, but that's how cola got branded. Kleenex. Band-Aid. Those words are used to refer to non-Kleenex and non-Band-Aid products.

Sorry that the entire world chooses this term for your precious toy, but get over it. You sound like a child who gets mad because somebody confused the names of two Pokemons.

It's being used in a legal definitions of what can or cannot be owned or sold in the future. Sorry if people want some specificity around the rights they are going to lose.



Well, my suggestion would be that you stop playing the semantic games. I don't think the public much cares right now. They certainly won't care at all after the next one.
 
2012-12-21 01:12:00 PM  

clane: Do all you cowards realize that an assault rifle will kill you just as fast as a hunting rifle? Just because a gun looks scary doesn't make it more deadly.

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 500x326][www.badstockart.com image 337x508]


Which kills 20 people faster?
 
2012-12-21 01:12:24 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: please: Insatiable Jesus: Jesus, STFU with this "It's not an assault rifle" crap.

Pepsi ain't a coke either, but that's how cola got branded. Kleenex. Band-Aid. Those words are used to refer to non-Kleenex and non-Band-Aid products.

Sorry that the entire world chooses this term for your precious toy, but get over it. You sound like a child who gets mad because somebody confused the names of two Pokemons.

It's being used in a legal definitions of what can or cannot be owned or sold in the future. Sorry if people want some specificity around the rights they are going to lose.


Well, my suggestion would be that you stop playing the semantic games. I don't think the public much cares right now. They certainly won't care at all after the next one.


Are you going to come up with an effective, practical, enforceable, and Constitutional suggestion for stopping things like this or are you just going to take random pot shots?
 
2012-12-21 01:13:04 PM  

Eponymous: Absolutely it is an assault rifle....it is scary looking. Just one glance at something so dangerous would cause Barney Frank to break out in menstrual cramps.


Why are people pretending that this is the issue? So they can just ignore it rather than address it on a mature level?
 
2012-12-21 01:13:05 PM  

amindtat: WinoRhino: Gosling: The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?

Someone steals my car and hits a pedestrian. Ban the Honda Civic.

No, it's covered by the 2nd Amendment. Being in a militia is a Civic duty.


Holy shiat that's funny!
 
2012-12-21 01:13:33 PM  

Gosling: mizchief: Limiting the number of guns is the most pointless of the control ideas. You can only shoot one at a time! Don't bother exposing your igonrance and by saying something about duel wielding, RL isn't like COD.

You can only SHOOT one at a time.

You can CARRY more than one at a time. I think we've had shooters with as many as, what, four? And Lanza had his pick of whatever was the most destructive of his mom's supply, and while nobody's been clear on how many guns exactly she had on hand, we can be pretty safe in assuming it's a hell of a lot more than five.


Ok, lets say you can only carry one gun at a time, of course the psycho killer would have just picked one of the guns he stole from his mother whom he just murdered since he is so concerned with the law. Without banning all guns, limiting the number of how many you can own makes no sense.
 
2012-12-21 01:16:26 PM  

mbillips:
Read what I wrote. "Assault weapon" is used to describe a semi-auto version of an assault rifle.


Fair point on the distinction, which I missed. However, that doesn't mean I agree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Yes, I realize wiki isn't perfect, but they make a very valid point. There is no clear and consistent definition. As such, I limit the discussion to keeping the same definition as assault rifle. They're too close and can be easily confused - which is what politicians want to do.
 
2012-12-21 01:17:01 PM  

LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.


Really? He is insincere when the gunfappers insist on their efforts at unteaching a term that the entire world already means. The vast majority of people don't give shiats about whether or not it is select fire.

And your whole scheme of trying to divert attention away by pointing out, over and again, that this technically isn't an assault rifle really doesn't mean shiat as nobody is shooting up schools or malls with full autos. You just make yourselves look like the petulant, insecure little whiners that most gun rights advocates are.
 
2012-12-21 01:17:13 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Jesus, STFU with this "It's not an assault rifle" crap.

Pepsi ain't a coke either, but that's how cola got branded. Kleenex. Band-Aid. Those words are used to refer to non-Kleenex and non-Band-Aid products.

Sorry that the entire world chooses this term for your precious toy, but get over it. You sound like a child who gets mad because somebody confused the names of two Pokemons.


You, personally, have already been shown several times that this statement is completely false yet you still choose to try to make people believe it.

Words have meanings. Those meanings don't change just because you are too stupid or willfully ignorant to understand those meanings.

Keep shouting about how "everyone in the world" agrees with you... reality will continue to prove you wrong.
 
2012-12-21 01:17:47 PM  

Sgt.Zim: FightDirector: thurstonxhowell: Dimensio: "Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.


There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns. And while the latter may be a desirable goal to some minds, there is simply no actual, practical way to make it happen, without setting the military loose on the civilian population in a house-to-house and turning our country into another Afghanistan-style military quagmire.



That's not true. You could ban all semi-automatic weapons, or make an exception for fixed-magazine semi-autos that chamber 10 or fewer rounds (including most semi-auto deer rifles, a Mauser C96 Broomhandle, plus all revolvers, pumps, bolt-actions, double-barrels, derringers and single-shots). That would probably even withstand Supreme Court muster, in the same way they've upheld the 1937 restrictions on sawed-off shotguns and full-auto guns. This would allow guns to be available for home defense and hunting, but with less firepower.

I'm not saying it's a practicable solution, because of the aforementioned confiscation issue. I'd personally have to turn in the favorite parts of my collection (Nooooooo, not the Luger!). But it would actually fundamentally change the sort of firepower available to deranged nut jobs if it WERE practicable. You'd play hell to kill 26 people with a pump shotgun and a couple revolvers.

If anything actually passes, it'll be a useless sop like the 1994 "assault weapons" "ban," that created the aesthetic idiocy of the thumbhole stock, and protected us all from all from being bayoneted. Even that "ban," if it had been kept in place for long enough, would have had an effect once all the grandfathered 30-round mags and 50-round drums wore out.
 
2012-12-21 01:19:20 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

Really? He is insincere when the gunfappers insist on their efforts at unteaching a term that the entire world already means. The vast majority of people don't give shiats about whether or not it is select fire.

And your whole scheme of trying to divert attention away by pointing out, over and again, that this technically isn't an assault rifle really doesn't mean shiat as nobody is shooting up schools or malls with full autos. You just make yourselves look like the petulant, insecure little whiners that most gun rights advocates are.


Do you seriously not understand that anyone who is considering a restriction or limitation of a Constitutional right should be highly-educated on the subject and actually use proper terminology. Do you also not understand the psychology of using terminology designed to evoke emotional responses in order to drive action?
 
2012-12-21 01:19:51 PM  
Ok. Looking at the posts can we agree on the following terms

Assault Rifle
An Assault Rifle is a military weapon that has either a burst mode or a full automatic mode. Currently in the US it is illegal to own one with out special permits and other restrictions

Assault Weapon
An Assault Weapon is a cosmetically enhanced semi-automatic rifle. Semi-Automatic firearms are legal for citizens of the US to own with limited paperwork.
 
2012-12-21 01:21:51 PM  
Gun control, my arse!

cdn.ientry.com
blog.objet.com
 
2012-12-21 01:21:57 PM  

MagicPlasticTreeFrog: CygnusDarius: Fark it, I'll make my own guns.

[englishrussia.com image 520x390]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

/From link

Jesus christ, I forgot that Chechnya was the real life fallout 3. Cool stuff.


I'm guessing these weapons would be very illegal in the US, since they've been constructed from the ground up, and well-likely not registered.
 
2012-12-21 01:22:36 PM  

FightDirector: LasersHurt: FightDirector: There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban [...] in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns.

What the fark is this shiat?

There's two points being made there, so the reduction you've made is intellectually dishonest.

The first point:
There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package)

This is the point being made by the Mini-14 comparison earlier. Everyone's up in arms about "assault weapons". Well, the Mini-14, which is not an assault weapon by even California's standards, does EVERYTHING the AR-15 does. It just looks different. Any wording you can come up with that would ban an AR-15 based on anything but performance would make a pointless law, because it wouldn't affect the Mini.

Which brings us to the second point:
or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns.

So say we ban guns based on performance. The important parts of performance *tend* to be 1) Rate of Fire, 2) bullet size, 3) magazine capacity.

1) Rate of Fire. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic firearm that fires 1 shot per pull of the trigger (4-5 rounds per second if you don't care about hitting anything, more realistically 2 rounds per second to 1 round per 2 seconds if you do care). EVERY modern firearm in the world matches or exceeds this rate of fire, save for bolt-action firearms; which aren't an option for self-defense purposes, which SCOTUS has already said is a legit and protected reason to own firearms.. A double-action revolver can equal this rate of fire. So if you ban based on RoF, you've essentially enacted a *de facto* ban on all firearms that can be rationally used for self-defense. Not acceptable.

2) Bullet size. Without getting too deeply into technical jargon, the .223 used in the AR-15 is a tiny, TINY bullet. It's not big enou ...


It isn't bullet size, it is ballistic performance, a combination of bullet mass and velocity, that we should use to measure a bullets power and therefore potential danger to human life. I 1" diameter bullet travelling at 1 foot per hour isn't very dangerous but a .223" bullet travelling at 3100 feet per second is.
 
2012-12-21 01:22:53 PM  

Gosling: Dimensio: Are you saying that she would not have purchased a functionally equivalent firearm had "Bushmaster" brand rifles been prohibited?

She was a doomsday prepper. She would probably have bought ALL the guns if she had the chance, and all the other weapons up to and including Kung Lao's razor hat.

Personally, part of the legislation I'd push for would include a limit on how many guns a specific person can own. There's no reason I can see why someone needs to have dozens and dozens of guns in the house. And a lot of these shootings involve the shooter amassing half an arsenal.


I have never read of a shooting that involved dozens of guns. I think the reason is that people only have 2 arms/hands and so carrying "dozens" of guns is somewhat impractical.

Most people collect guns the same reason people collect other items. They're interesting, each is a bit different (different to shoot ect..), each has a unique history.
 
2012-12-21 01:23:41 PM  

CujoQuarrel: Ok. Looking at the posts can we agree on the following terms

Assault Rifle
An Assault Rifle is a military weapon that has either a burst mode or a full automatic mode. Currently in the US it is illegal to own one with out special permits and other restrictions

Assault Weapon
An Assault Weapon is a cosmetically enhanced semi-automatic rifle. Semi-Automatic firearms are legal for citizens of the US to own with limited paperwork.


No. I cannot agree to those definitions. Too easy to confuse the two as one would naturally expect the assault weapon and assault rifle terms to be interchangeable.

I would agree that we should use clear definitions such as:

Assault rifle (or assault weapon): A firearm capable of selective fire (safe, single shot, burst/full auto), generally having a detachable magazine.
Semi-automatic rifle: A firearm incapable of selective fire. It may or may not have a detachable magazine, scope, or resemble a military weapon.
 
2012-12-21 01:23:53 PM  

FightDirector: thurstonxhowell: Dimensio: "Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.


Oh, look. It's this whiny biatch again.
 
2012-12-21 01:23:53 PM  
Oh, and another way to reduce gun violence in general is legalize pot, and at least think about legalizing coke, as Portugal has.
 
2012-12-21 01:26:50 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

Really? He is insincere when the gunfappers insist on their efforts at unteaching a term that the entire world already means. The vast majority of people don't give shiats about whether or not it is select fire.

And your whole scheme of trying to divert attention away by pointing out, over and again, that this technically isn't an assault rifle really doesn't mean shiat as nobody is shooting up schools or malls with full autos. You just make yourselves look like the petulant, insecure little whiners that most gun rights advocates are.


You've got it backwards, friend.
 
2012-12-21 01:27:33 PM  

ronaprhys: Do you also not understand the psychology of using terminology designed to evoke emotional responses in order to drive action?



Yes, I learned that from watching Fox News. Enjoy.

If we applied the proper term to semi-auto assault rifles, they would be called Masculinity Enhancements.
 
2012-12-21 01:29:21 PM  
bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-21 01:30:58 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: ronaprhys: Do you also not understand the psychology of using terminology designed to evoke emotional responses in order to drive action?


Yes, I learned that from watching Fox News. Enjoy.

If we applied the proper term to semi-auto assault rifles, they would be called Masculinity Enhancements.


And you've now just removed any doubt that you're a troll unwilling to engage in a meaningful discussion.

Like I said earlier, bring back the days of quality trolls - Czar, Bongo, and the like. As infuriating as those twits were, they were at least amusing when you got them wound up.
 
2012-12-21 01:33:44 PM  

ronaprhys: CujoQuarrel: Ok. Looking at the posts can we agree on the following terms

Assault Rifle
An Assault Rifle is a military weapon that has either a burst mode or a full automatic mode. Currently in the US it is illegal to own one with out special permits and other restrictions

Assault Weapon
An Assault Weapon is a cosmetically enhanced semi-automatic rifle. Semi-Automatic firearms are legal for citizens of the US to own with limited paperwork.

No. I cannot agree to those definitions. Too easy to confuse the two as one would naturally expect the assault weapon and assault rifle terms to be interchangeable.

I would agree that we should use clear definitions such as:

Assault rifle (or assault weapon): A firearm capable of selective fire (safe, single shot, burst/full auto), generally having a detachable magazine.
Semi-automatic rifle: A firearm incapable of selective fire. It may or may not have a detachable magazine, scope, or resemble a military weapon.



So here it stands, we cannot remove the unsafe guns from the streets because the NRA has started a pissing contest about what is or is not an assault rifle or is it an assault weapon or a boom boom fire stick.


Instead of arguing about what is or is not an assault thingee, just ban all guns that have a magazine or a clip. Then confiscate the ones already out there.

And the pissing contest would be over.
 
2012-12-21 01:34:17 PM  

ronaprhys: CujoQuarrel: Ok. Looking at the posts can we agree on the following terms

Assault Rifle
An Assault Rifle is a military weapon that has either a burst mode or a full automatic mode. Currently in the US it is illegal to own one with out special permits and other restrictions

Assault Weapon
An Assault Weapon is a cosmetically enhanced semi-automatic rifle. Semi-Automatic firearms are legal for citizens of the US to own with limited paperwork.

No. I cannot agree to those definitions. Too easy to confuse the two as one would naturally expect the assault weapon and assault rifle terms to be interchangeable.

I would agree that we should use clear definitions such as:

Assault rifle (or assault weapon): A firearm capable of selective fire (safe, single shot, burst/full auto), generally having a detachable magazine.
Semi-automatic rifle: A firearm incapable of selective fire. It may or may not have a detachable magazine, scope, or resemble a military weapon.


ronaprhys: CujoQuarrel: Ok. Looking at the posts can we agree on the following terms

Assault Rifle
An Assault Rifle is a military weapon that has either a burst mode or a full automatic mode. Currently in the US it is illegal to own one with out special permits and other restrictions

Assault Weapon
An Assault Weapon is a cosmetically enhanced semi-automatic rifle. Semi-Automatic firearms are legal for citizens of the US to own with limited paperwork.

No. I cannot agree to those definitions. Too easy to confuse the two as one would naturally expect the assault weapon and assault rifle terms to be interchangeable.

I would agree that we should use clear definitions such as:

Assault rifle (or assault weapon): A firearm capable of selective fire (safe, single shot, burst/full auto), generally having a detachable magazine.
Semi-automatic rifle: A firearm incapable of selective fire. It may or may not have a detachable magazine, scope, or resemble a military weapon.


I was trying to clarify the terms as they were being used in the above arguments.

Personally I think that only the terms 'Assault Rifle' and 'Semi-Automatic Rifle' should be used.

The 'Assault Weapon' term was created to label 'Semi-Automatic Rifles' in such a way that the common public would confuse them with full auto military rifles.
The words 'Assault Weapon' really doesn't mean anything.
 
2012-12-21 01:34:18 PM  

mbillips: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?


Thanks!!!

If it's select-fire, it's an assault rifle because

a: The shooter can select between semiautomatic and fully automatic or automatic burst fire.
b: It has a detachable magazine of 20 rounds or more.
c: It fires a smaller round with less recoil than a traditional infantry or battle rifle, such as the 5.56 NATO or 7.62X39 Russian.
d: Its barrel is in line, or close to in line, with the center of recoil at the buttplate, reducing muzzle climb
e: In order to accommodate this straight buttstock in line with the barrel, it uses a pistol grip and an elevated sight plane.

If it's not select-fire, it's an "assault weapon" because of all the above, minus full- or burst-auto capability.

There are also "assault weapons" that are pistols that resemble submachine guns, with cosmetic features like ventilated barrel shrouds and magazines in front of the pistol grip. This is pretty much a bullshiat definition, in that a Tec-9 is no more deadly than a Glock 17 with a 30-round clip (less so, because it's less accurate and more likely to jam or break). But the semiauto version of an AR-15 IS functionally different from a .30-06 Remington Model 750 in terms of nutjob spree potential, although both are semi-auto rifles.



So why is this rifle more dangerous than my ruger 10/22?
 
2012-12-21 01:35:35 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

Really? He is insincere when the gunfappers insist on their efforts at unteaching a term that the entire world already means. The vast majority of people don't give shiats about whether or not it is select fire.

And your whole scheme of trying to divert attention away by pointing out, over and again, that this technically isn't an assault rifle really doesn't mean shiat as nobody is shooting up schools or malls with full autos. You just make yourselves look like the petulant, insecure little whiners that most gun rights advocates are.


The rifle I pictured is a .22
 
2012-12-21 01:38:43 PM  

chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]


Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.
 
2012-12-21 01:39:47 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.


Having children molested and groped is "getting somewhere"?
 
2012-12-21 01:41:19 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: Insatiable Jesus: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

Really? He is insincere when the gunfappers insist on their efforts at unteaching a term that the entire world already means. The vast majority of people don't give shiats about whether or not it is select fire.

And your whole scheme of trying to divert attention away by pointing out, over and again, that this technically isn't an assault rifle really doesn't mean shiat as nobody is shooting up schools or malls with full autos. You just make yourselves look like the petulant, insecure little whiners that most gun rights advocates are.

The rifle I pictured is a .22


the idea that we should ban guns based upon some made up term and a hazy definition is just what the gun nutz want. They can twist and turn that definition to satisfy their own needs.

Instead of addressing the mechanism that sends the bullets down the barrel, we should address the rate of fire possible with those guns. About two a minute should be enough for anybody.

Anybody that does not want to shoot a lot of people in a hurry.
 
2012-12-21 01:42:50 PM  

chuckufarlie:
So here it stands, we cannot remove the unsafe guns from the streets because the NRA has started a pissing contest about what is or is not an assault rifle or is it an assault weapon or a boom boom fire stick.


Instead of arguing about what is or is not an assault thingee, just ban all guns that have a magazine or a clip. Then confiscate the ones already out there.

And the pissing contest would be over.


That is a wonderful strawman and a complete failure. Agreeing to common and easily understood terms is the starting point for any rational debate.

By the way, I think you mean detachable magazine as all firearms that aren't single fire have a magazine, pistols included.
 
2012-12-21 01:42:57 PM  

clane: Do all you cowards realize that an assault rifle will kill you just as fast as a hunting rifle? Just because a gun looks scary doesn't make it more deadly.

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 500x326][www.badstockart.com image 337x508]


But which one do mall ninjas and mass shooters always seem to use?

and who are you calling a coward?  I'm willing to disarm my self and rely solely on the abilities of my body to defend myself should the need arise, to further a societal good-even though that decision could one day cost me my life.  You are the one hiding under the bed with a loaded Glock waiting for the boogeyman
 
2012-12-21 01:44:57 PM  

chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]


Security Theater != Gun Control.

Besides, they didn't use guns to take over the planes - they used BOX CUTTERS. Ban box cutters!

And it was easy for them to say "Hey, see, we're doing something!". Even if that "something" doesn't do one damn bit of good except cause millions of people an inconvenience. People are STILL getting guns and knives and even SWORDS on planes (you know, those swords that are designed to look like walking canes that you can buy for $20 at any flea market).
 
2012-12-21 01:46:58 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.


Then what? Do we assign them to malls as well? Then maybe we could assign them to cinemas. Maybe churches would be a good idea. Eventually we would end up with the TSA checking on people entering any room or building that can hold more than 30 people.

We can ban all rifles that use a magazine or a clip. We can also make it illegal to own one and have all law abiding citizens turn them in. After all, the members of the NRA are all law abiding citizens, aren't they?

Anybody who makes his own gun would have to register it and if it is illegal, he could not own it.

Or are you telling me that gun owners would disobey the law of the land? That would be cause for the FBI to go visit them.
 
2012-12-21 01:47:01 PM  

GanjSmokr: Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.

Having children molested and groped is "getting somewhere"?


It would cause a boom in Home Schooling, that's for sure.
 
2012-12-21 01:49:10 PM  

Magorn: clane: Do all you cowards realize that an assault rifle will kill you just as fast as a hunting rifle? Just because a gun looks scary doesn't make it more deadly.

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 500x326][www.badstockart.com image 337x508]

But which one do mall ninjas and mass shooters always seem to use?

and who are you calling a coward?  I'm willing to disarm my self and rely solely on the abilities of my body to defend myself should the need arise, to further a societal good-even though that decision could one day cost me my life.  You are the one hiding under the bed with a loaded Glock waiting for the boogeyman


The question isn't what you posted - the question should properly be, "if we were to infringe upon the rights of the people, how would we go about doing it in a way that meaningfully reduces the homicide rate" and not "let's look at statistical outliers".

By the way, I'm glad that you're willing to subject yourself to that restriction on your abilities. Are you willing to make my wife an easier target for a rapist by your restrictions? Or anyone else who might be at a significant physical disadvantage to the common criminals? Like the elderly? Like women? Children? The fact is that firearms are a way to balance that disparity in force and banning them wholesale does nothing more than bring back the rule of physical power - one that young men are the most likely to win.
 
2012-12-21 01:49:13 PM  

chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]


Cause comparing apples and oranges is fun. weeee.
 
2012-12-21 01:49:19 PM  
Since gun advocates are so concerned with the definition of assault rifle, we should make it simple. Ban any auto-loading weapon.
 
2012-12-21 01:49:31 PM  

chuckufarlie: Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.

Then what? Do we assign them to malls as well? Then maybe we could assign them to cinemas. Maybe churches would be a good idea. Eventually we would end up with the TSA checking on people entering any room or building that can hold more than 30 people.

We can ban all rifles that use a magazine or a clip. We can also make it illegal to own one and have all law abiding citizens turn them in. After all, the members of the NRA are all law abiding citizens, aren't they?

Anybody who makes his own gun would have to register it and if it is illegal, he could not own it.

Or are you telling me that gun owners would disobey the law of the land? That would be cause for the FBI to go visit them.


Yeah, because *law abiding citizens* are the problem here.
 
2012-12-21 01:49:55 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.


I federal officer molesting our kids every day no, a full time local sheriff's deputy or a trained teacher, principal, etc. would work out much better.

If we don't want guns, then at least give them a tazer, or pepper spray or something. I've yet to see a full timeline of events, but would have to think that if any one of the 6 adults killed had a way to incapacitate the shooter we could have saved some lives.
 
2012-12-21 01:50:40 PM  

Southern100: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Security Theater != Gun Control.

Besides, they didn't use guns to take over the planes - they used BOX CUTTERS. Ban box cutters!

And it was easy for them to say "Hey, see, we're doing something!". Even if that "something" doesn't do one damn bit of good except cause millions of people an inconvenience. People are STILL getting guns and knives and even SWORDS on planes (you know, those swords that are designed to look like walking canes that you can buy for $20 at any flea market).


But we are doing nothing at all about the people who are killing our children. NOT ONE DAMNED THING. Why? Because a bunch of poorly educated, juvenile people will not turn over their toys.

Now we have morons suggesting that we put the TSA at our schools. You have decided that it is better to live in fear of the people who own the guns than to do something to get the guns off the streets.

Do you really want to live in fear? That is what is being suggested.
 
2012-12-21 01:50:40 PM  

chuckufarlie: Mr.BobDobalita: Insatiable Jesus: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

Really? He is insincere when the gunfappers insist on their efforts at unteaching a term that the entire world already means. The vast majority of people don't give shiats about whether or not it is select fire.

And your whole scheme of trying to divert attention away by pointing out, over and again, that this technically isn't an assault rifle really doesn't mean shiat as nobody is shooting up schools or malls with full autos. You just make yourselves look like the petulant, insecure little whiners that most gun rights advocates are.

The rifle I pictured is a .22

the idea that we should ban guns based upon some made up term and a hazy definition is just what the gun nutz want. They can twist and turn that definition to satisfy their own needs.

Instead of addressing the mechanism that sends the bullets down the barrel, we should address the rate of fire possible with those guns. About two a minute should be enough for anybody.

Anybody that does not want to shoot a lot of people in a hurry.


a .22 is the calibar of choice amongst gangsters for assinations.

As far as rate of fire, semi automatics are very popular in hunting as it allows the hunter to get an additional shot off if the first misses.

I'm not so sure bear hunters would appreciate the 2 shot per minute rule either (then again we could ban bear hunting too).

And lastly, guns are not just for hunting. They exisit to protect myself, ny home and familly and per the Us Constituion be able to support a milita.
 
2012-12-21 01:50:44 PM  

chuckufarlie: Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.

Then what? Do we assign them to malls as well? Then maybe we could assign them to cinemas. Maybe churches would be a good idea. Eventually we would end up with the TSA checking on people entering any room or building that can hold more than 30 people.

We can ban all rifles that use a magazine or a clip. We can also make it illegal to own one and have all law abiding citizens turn them in. After all, the members of the NRA are all law abiding citizens, aren't they?

Anybody who makes his own gun would have to register it and if it is illegal, he could not own it.

Or are you telling me that gun owners would disobey the law of the land? That would be cause for the FBI to go visit them.


No one is under any obligation to obey an unconstitutional law. There may be penalties and a long and drawn out battle to get that law overturned, but it happens with consistency. See Heller, McDonald, etc.
 
2012-12-21 01:51:53 PM  

Southern100: chuckufarlie: Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.

Then what? Do we assign them to malls as well? Then maybe we could assign them to cinemas. Maybe churches would be a good idea. Eventually we would end up with the TSA checking on people entering any room or building that can hold more than 30 people.

We can ban all rifles that use a magazine or a clip. We can also make it illegal to own one and have all law abiding citizens turn them in. After all, the members of the NRA are all law abiding citizens, aren't they?

Anybody who makes his own gun would have to register it and if it is illegal, he could not own it.

Or are you telling me that gun owners would disobey the law of the land? That would be cause for the FBI to go visit them.

Yeah, because *law abiding citizens* are the problem here.


No, law abiding citizens have not been the problem here. Maybe you should pay attention.
 
2012-12-21 01:52:31 PM  

Gosling: You're not getting out of this one without at least some type of legislation being introduced. .


lol wut? Are you his mom? Did he do something (other than being a gun owner) to deserve punishment? Who is trying to get out of what?

Jeezus farking christ.
 
2012-12-21 01:52:31 PM  

GanjSmokr: Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.

Having children molested and groped is "getting somewhere"?


LoL... no, not the children... but you bring up a point... the kids DO need to be searched as well.... if you're after air tight security.
 
2012-12-21 01:53:31 PM  

DoctorOfLove: Oh, and another way to reduce gun violence in general is legalize pot, and at least think about legalizing coke, as Portugal has.


The only legitimate schizophrenic I have intimately known actually got crazier on pot. Last I checked there was no definitive study on whether marijauna reduced major mental health problem or exacerbated them. I agree that more pot would slow the normals, but the topic du jour seems more aimed at the crazies.
 
2012-12-21 01:54:56 PM  

Ablejack: Since gun advocates are so concerned with the definition of assault rifle, we should make it simple. Ban any auto-loading weapon.


Hear, Hear!
 
2012-12-21 01:56:22 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Ablejack: Since gun advocates are so concerned with the definition of assault rifle, we should make it simple. Ban any auto-loading weapon.

Hear, Hear!



Why? What is your rationale? Are there not law abiding people that defend their own lives? Do you think 1 bullet kills home invaders instantly? Me thinks you watch too many movies.
 
2012-12-21 01:56:23 PM  

ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.

Then what? Do we assign them to malls as well? Then maybe we could assign them to cinemas. Maybe churches would be a good idea. Eventually we would end up with the TSA checking on people entering any room or building that can hold more than 30 people.

We can ban all rifles that use a magazine or a clip. We can also make it illegal to own one and have all law abiding citizens turn them in. After all, the members of the NRA are all law abiding citizens, aren't they?

Anybody who makes his own gun would have to register it and if it is illegal, he could not own it.

Or are you telling me that gun owners would disobey the law of the land? That would be cause for the FBI to go visit them.

No one is under any obligation to obey an unconstitutional law. There may be penalties and a long and drawn out battle to get that law overturned, but it happens with consistency. See Heller, McDonald, etc.


The idea that a well regulated militia means that any idiot who wants to can own any gun that he wants is completely wrong. The Constitution says nothing about the type of gun that you can own. The SCOTUS has made that decision and the court changes. So do the rulings coming out of the SCOTUS.

Problem solved, you can still own a gun, just not ones designed to do nothing but kill people. The Constitution has not defied and more of our children will have a chance to grow to be adults.
 
2012-12-21 01:56:49 PM  

chuckufarlie: Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.

Then what? Do we assign them to malls as well? Then maybe we could assign them to cinemas. Maybe churches would be a good idea. Eventually we would end up with the TSA checking on people entering any room or building that can hold more than 30 people.

We can ban all rifles that use a magazine or a clip. We can also make it illegal to own one and have all law abiding citizens turn them in. After all, the members of the NRA are all law abiding citizens, aren't they?

Anybody who makes his own gun would have to register it and if it is illegal, he could not own it.

Or are you telling me that gun owners would disobey the law of the land? That would be cause for the FBI to go visit them.


The Constitution is the law of the land which all military personnel are sworn to protect against enemies foreign and domestic. If you don't like what is in the Constitution the change it, there is a well established procedure for doing so, and we've done it many times.

Using an executive order or some other means to circumvent the constitution would be an act of tyranny that would trigger military action against the tyrant.
 
2012-12-21 02:00:40 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: Insatiable Jesus: Ablejack: Since gun advocates are so concerned with the definition of assault rifle, we should make it simple. Ban any auto-loading weapon.

Hear, Hear!


Why? What is your rationale? Are there not law abiding people that defend their own lives? Do you think 1 bullet kills home invaders instantly? Me thinks you watch too many movies.


Not all people are killed by one bullet, but it sure as hell slows them down and make them think twice about continuing their actions.

I don't know if you have heard of these things, but it seems that somebody recently invented a pistol that can shoot six shots without the need to reload. They are relatively new, so I understand why you may not have heard of them.
 
2012-12-21 02:02:09 PM  

chuckufarlie: ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.

Then what? Do we assign them to malls as well? Then maybe we could assign them to cinemas. Maybe churches would be a good idea. Eventually we would end up with the TSA checking on people entering any room or building that can hold more than 30 people.

We can ban all rifles that use a magazine or a clip. We can also make it illegal to own one and have all law abiding citizens turn them in. After all, the members of the NRA are all law abiding citizens, aren't they?

Anybody who makes his own gun would have to register it and if it is illegal, he could not own it.

Or are you telling me that gun owners would disobey the law of the land? That would be cause for the FBI to go visit them.

No one is under any obligation to obey an unconstitutional law. There may be penalties and a long and drawn out battle to get that law overturned, but it happens with consistency. See Heller, McDonald, etc.

The idea that a well regulated militia means that any idiot who wants to can own any gun that he wants is completely wrong. The Constitution says nothing about the type of gun that you can own. The SCOTUS has made that decision and the court changes. So do the rulings coming out of the SCOTUS.

Problem solved, you can still own a gun, just not ones designed to do nothing but kill people. The Constitution has not defied and more of our children will have a chance to grow to be adults.



You are aware that people can own machine guns legally, correct? If they have enough coin anyway... the guns are 10k plus.... the federal tax stamp is only a few hundy.
 
2012-12-21 02:02:58 PM  

chuckufarlie: Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

....

Or are you telling me that gun owners would disobey the law of the land? That would be cause for the FBI to go visit them.


I'm pretty law abiding but I would disobey unless you amended the constitution and removed the 2nd amendment.

You don't have enough FBI. And everyone they would try to 'visit' would be by definition armed.
 
2012-12-21 02:03:28 PM  

Champion of the Sun: Waaaah, get the name of my toys right. Don't want me to snap and start using them. Waaaah


Of for fark's sake...as gun owner I could care less that you have next to zero knowledge of gun nomenclature. In fact, I'd prefer that you keep getting the name of my toys wrong. Correcting you would be like interrupting your opponent in the middle of making a huge mistake.

If for a second, you stopped calling names and took a look at how attempts to ban specific weapons in the past have been worded, you'll see that this left enormous loopholes. "Colt AR-15" was specifically named. Colt still makes the rifle, but it's not called the "AR-15", and there are many, many other manufacturers that make essentially the same rifle under different brand names. The names do matter, because today, there are no specific rifles sold under the name "AR-15", that's just a generic catch-all. If you want them all gone, which clearly you do, maybe figure out how to actually do that in such a way that there aren't gigantic loopholes left behind.
 
2012-12-21 02:03:44 PM  

chuckufarlie: Mr.BobDobalita: Insatiable Jesus: Ablejack: Since gun advocates are so concerned with the definition of assault rifle, we should make it simple. Ban any auto-loading weapon.

Hear, Hear!


Why? What is your rationale? Are there not law abiding people that defend their own lives? Do you think 1 bullet kills home invaders instantly? Me thinks you watch too many movies.

Not all people are killed by one bullet, but it sure as hell slows them down and make them think twice about continuing their actions.

I don't know if you have heard of these things, but it seems that somebody recently invented a pistol that can shoot six shots without the need to reload. They are relatively new, so I understand why you may not have heard of them.


I thought you were the one who was pushing the 2 bullets per minute.. maybe I quoted the wrong person....


2 bullets per min means to the person you just shot, they have 30 seconds to off you before you can fire again...
 
2012-12-21 02:03:59 PM  

mizchief: chuckufarlie: Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.

Then what? Do we assign them to malls as well? Then maybe we could assign them to cinemas. Maybe churches would be a good idea. Eventually we would end up with the TSA checking on people entering any room or building that can hold more than 30 people.

We can ban all rifles that use a magazine or a clip. We can also make it illegal to own one and have all law abiding citizens turn them in. After all, the members of the NRA are all law abiding citizens, aren't they?

Anybody who makes his own gun would have to register it and if it is illegal, he could not own it.

Or are you telling me that gun owners would disobey the law of the land? That would be cause for the FBI to go visit them.

The Constitution is the law of the land which all military personnel are sworn to protect against enemies foreign and domestic. If you don't like what is in the Constitution the change it, there is a well established procedure for doing so, and we've done it many times.

Using an executive order or some other means to circumvent the constitution would be an act of tyranny that would trigger military action against the tyrant.


slow down, scooter. I never said anything about an executive order. I am talking about Congress creating a new gun control law that has some teeth in it. The last one was pointless.

I hope that you are intelligent enough to realize that neither you nor the military can decide on your own what is, or is not, Constitutional.
 
2012-12-21 02:04:53 PM  

chuckufarlie: Southern100: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Security Theater != Gun Control.

Besides, they didn't use guns to take over the planes - they used BOX CUTTERS. Ban box cutters!

And it was easy for them to say "Hey, see, we're doing something!". Even if that "something" doesn't do one damn bit of good except cause millions of people an inconvenience. People are STILL getting guns and knives and even SWORDS on planes (you know, those swords that are designed to look like walking canes that you can buy for $20 at any flea market).

But we are doing nothing at all about the people who are killing our children. NOT ONE DAMNED THING. Why? Because a bunch of poorly educated, juvenile people will not turn over their toys.

Now we have morons suggesting that we put the TSA at our schools. You have decided that it is better to live in fear of the people who own the guns than to do something to get the guns off the streets.

Do you really want to live in fear? That is what is being suggested.


I don't live in fear of the people that legally own the guns. I live in fear of the people that want to harm me or my family, or steal my car or personal belongings. Taking away my gun is NOT going to take away that fear, because those people will still be out there.

Do soldiers carry guns because their opponents are coming after them with pillows? Of course not. They carry weapons because people are trying to kill them. And if you don't think that there are people out there who would break into your house and kill you for the $5 in your pocket, think again.

Are you against capital punishment too? Just curious.
 
2012-12-21 02:05:28 PM  
To Teach and Protect!

img.wonkette.com
 
2012-12-21 02:05:44 PM  
You know who else wanted to Ben the citizenry from gun ownership?

/that's right.
//I went there.
///Charlie Chaplin. That's who.
 
2012-12-21 02:06:57 PM  

Bull Moose 76: You know who else wanted to Ben the citizenry from gun ownership?

/that's right.
//I went there.
///Charlie Chaplin. That's who.


BAN!!! Not Ben BAN!
 
2012-12-21 02:07:57 PM  

mizchief: Using an executive order or some other means to circumvent the constitution would be an act of tyranny that would trigger military action against the tyrant.


LOL, keep telling yourself that Sparky. The military isn't going to desert if even if Obama declares a state of emergency and goes door to door for the guns - Govt employees got their retirement set and ain't farking with it, lol. And it's not like there is any well regulated militia around to take on that military, just fanboys and wannabes who hoard scary looking assault rifles.
 
2012-12-21 02:08:48 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: Mr.BobDobalita: Insatiable Jesus: Ablejack: Since gun advocates are so concerned with the definition of assault rifle, we should make it simple. Ban any auto-loading weapon.

Hear, Hear!


Why? What is your rationale? Are there not law abiding people that defend their own lives? Do you think 1 bullet kills home invaders instantly? Me thinks you watch too many movies.

Not all people are killed by one bullet, but it sure as hell slows them down and make them think twice about continuing their actions.

I don't know if you have heard of these things, but it seems that somebody recently invented a pistol that can shoot six shots without the need to reload. They are relatively new, so I understand why you may not have heard of them.

I thought you were the one who was pushing the 2 bullets per minute.. maybe I quoted the wrong person....


2 bullets per min means to the person you just shot, they have 30 seconds to off you before you can fire again...


What happened that turned you into a whimpering coward? Why do you live in constant fear for your life while at the same time, you do not give a rat's ass about the lives of school children? It takes a real man to hide behind a bunch of children because you think somebody is out to kill you.
 
2012-12-21 02:08:50 PM