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.

(Slate)   Slate is crowdsourcing all the gun deaths in the US since December 14   (slate.com) divider line 461
    More: Sad, GunDeaths, gun deaths, New York Times Magazine  
•       •       •

13879 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Dec 2012 at 10:52 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-21 11:42:26 AM  

Carn: tukatz: Suicides, which are estimated to make up as much as 60 percent of gun deaths, typically go unreported.

AND most suicides are reported by family, friends, medical examiners, etc. as accidental due to the stigma of suicide.  So the numbers of suicides by gun should be a lot more.  Add in the ones who don't want it to be labeled suicide so their family can get life insurance benefits.

Honestly, if someone really, truly wants to kill themself, I rather they use a gun and do it properly than those stupid movie-promoted methods like drowning, hanging, pills, cutting, etc.  They are slow, painful ways to die and don't always go as planned.  People who are contemplating suicide should definitely seek help with their problems.  But if they truly want to do it, that's their decision.  At least they can do it quickly and effectively.

Exactly how long do we have to endure the "GUNZ R EVIL" crap before the media moves on to some other ridiculous topic?  Guns don't kill people.  Stupid people with guns kill people.

FTFY



With guns, knives, baseball bats, cars, shards of glass, etc.  They'll always find a method if they're going to kill.  Guns don't whisper in their ear... telling them to kill.
 
2012-12-21 11:42:44 AM  
beatingadeadhorse.jpg
 
2012-12-21 11:42:49 AM  

Chummer45: here's a good question - are you a member of the NRA? Because if so, you support an organization that opposes everything you just listed.


Do they? Everything? Citation needed.
 
2012-12-21 11:42:50 AM  

DeathByGeekSquad: Vegan Meat Popsicle: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys. I mean, it's not like any other rights come with limitations on their use based on the impact it can have on other people or anything.

The REAL tragedy here, after all, is that somebody might have to wait an extra day or two to get a gun or reload slightly more often at the local range. Truly a historical atrocity with no equal.

The real tragedy is that people are falling for emotional appeals. Great, restrictions on law-abiding citizens, that wouldn't have changed what happened at Newtown, and it won't change the majority of gun-related deaths stemming from criminal activities. The US has a high gun death rate due in part to our proximity to the epicenter of the drug trade, and the routes it takes from that location to its various destinations.

Adding a few days wait time won't change that, and in the end, it won't change much other than causing a few people to wait an extra few days.


Holy crap you're stupid!!!
 
2012-12-21 11:43:01 AM  
Schoroedingers Glory Hole -Cars kill more people every day and it's not like we're moving to make those things autonomous so they're taken out of human hands amirite?

Not for long! Thanks to all you panty-wetting gun nuts!

Deaths from firearms are set to outstrip car fatalities for the first time
 
2012-12-21 11:43:38 AM  
i.chzbgr.com
 
2012-12-21 11:44:51 AM  

kombat_unit: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

0/10.


It's not a troll..it's the right to bare the arms of the oppressor

It use to be muskets, Now it's not
 
2012-12-21 11:45:00 AM  

tukatz: With guns, knives, baseball bats, cars, shards of glass, etc.  They'll always find a method if they're going to kill.  Guns don't whisper in their ear... telling them to kill.


Yeah, but shards of glass don't make you feel manly enough to shoot up a classroom full of helpless, innocent children.
 
2012-12-21 11:45:17 AM  

tukatz: Semi-Sane: The problem is all of the victims were unarmed. If more people carried guns these type of violent crimes would cease to exist. Children need to be given guns and trained how to properly use them.


Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but....

If kids were shown how to use guns in a safe, controlled environment, it would take away the mystery of the gun and teach them to be responsible with weapons.  It would also promote generations who understand that a gun is just a tool and can only cause chaos when used by a moron with bad intentions.


I agree with teaching kids gun safety as I and my brother took a class on it when we were kids. However, the first thing we learned in gun safety was to never ever point it at anyone or anything we didn't want to shoot because a gun is a weapon that kills. A hammer is a tool. I don't have to worry about whether or not it's loaded or if the safety is on or if I locked it up. A gun is a weapon designed to kill. You should not be afraid of it but you sure as damn well better respect that fact.
 
2012-12-21 11:45:30 AM  

Carn: Carn: manimal2878: Carn: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I don't think he is. Answer one question: Does the amount of carnage one can inflict depend on the type of weapon one is using to commit said act of carnage?

Take all the time you need. There is only one correct answer. After you get it right we can have a meaningful conversation about gun control.

What does you question have to do with the anything? There is a difference between arms, small arms, ordinance, and destructive devices. After you understand that you can join the meaningful discussion.

It has everything to do with this particular issue. Answer the question and then I'll explain since you truly don't understand the connection or are just being obtuse.

Since manimal doesn't want to answer the question, I'll do so for him and complete the logic puzzle for those who have difficulty with that sort of thing. The correct answer is yes, the type of weapon used in an act of carnage matters, in some cases a great deal, in the amount of carnage they are able to inflict. If the correct answer is no, then that means all weapons should be legal to all people, but this is obviously false, as handing out nuclear weapons to all citizenry would most certainly have a very bad outcome. Thus, by logical deduction, again, the correct answer is yes. Therefore, the debate should be centered around where to draw the line, and which weapons should be considered over that line and therefore not allowed. High capacity magazines and guns that use them are on the chopping block in this debate. In addition, stiffer regulations and checks and balances on legally purchasing all weapons are in order and should be up for consideration.


The debate on where to draw the line between bombs and guns was settled hundreds of years ago with classifying certain things as destructive devices. People who pretend otherwise are the ones that are failing to grasp logic or purposely throwing out a red herring.
 
2012-12-21 11:45:58 AM  
I HAVE HAD IT WITH THESE MADAFAKIN WILD PIGS ON THIS PLANE
 
2012-12-21 11:46:17 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: The REAL tragedy here, after all, is that somebody might have to wait an extra day or two to get a gun or reload slightly more often at the local range. Truly a historical atrocity with no equal.


I agree.

I also despise media hype. This is turning into another shark summer, only its winter, and the sharks are guns.
 
2012-12-21 11:46:47 AM  

Carn: Carn: manimal2878: Carn: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I don't think he is. Answer one question: Does the amount of carnage one can inflict depend on the type of weapon one is using to commit said act of carnage?

Take all the time you need. There is only one correct answer. After you get it right we can have a meaningful conversation about gun control.

What does you question have to do with the anything? There is a difference between arms, small arms, ordinance, and destructive devices. After you understand that you can join the meaningful discussion.

It has everything to do with this particular issue. Answer the question and then I'll explain since you truly don't understand the connection or are just being obtuse.

Since manimal doesn't want to answer the question, I'll do so for him and complete the logic puzzle for those who have difficulty with that sort of thing. The correct answer is yes, the type of weapon used in an act of carnage matters, in some cases a great deal, in the amount of carnage they are able to inflict. If the correct answer is no, then that means all weapons should be legal to all people, but this is obviously false, as handing out nuclear weapons to all citizenry would most certainly have a very bad outcome. Thus, by logical deduction, again, the correct answer is yes. Therefore, the debate should be centered around where to draw the line, and which weapons should be considered over that line and therefore not allowed. High capacity magazines and guns that use them are on the chopping block in this debate. In addition, stiffer regulations and checks and balances on legally purchasing all weapons are in order and should be up for consideration.


To me, high-capacity magazines means less reloading at the range.  And there aren't just certain "vicious" guns that use them.  You can get bigger magazines for just about anything.

"Assault Gun"?  So my .380 can't "assault" someone?
 
2012-12-21 11:47:11 AM  
You guys (Americans) just have to realize how strange it seems to the rest of the world. You are comfortable with so many people getting shot around you, we can't imagine living near so much violence.

Canadians have things that you can't comprehend also, like fries with gravy, health care, and really cold winters.
 
2012-12-21 11:47:34 AM  

manimal2878: The debate on where to draw the line between bombs and guns was settled hundreds of years ago with classifying certain things as destructive devices. People who pretend otherwise are the ones that are failing to grasp logic or purposely throwing out a red herring.


Perhaps we need to look at revising hundred year old standards and definitions.
 
2012-12-21 11:48:25 AM  

manimal2878: The debate on where to draw the line between bombs and guns was settled hundreds of years ago with classifying certain things as destructive devices. People who pretend otherwise are the ones that are failing to grasp logic or purposely throwing out a red herring.


So I can own a howitzer?

I would love to get a hold of a WWII 88mm.
 
2012-12-21 11:48:45 AM  
Everyone wetting their panties over "GUN control"...

The legalization of SMOKING weed in CO and WA...

I hereby dub 2013 the year of

www.tvshowsondvd.com
 
2012-12-21 11:48:56 AM  

Thisbymaster: The one afraid of an inanimate object.


In every gun thread, someone says something similar to that. And it's just plain stupid.

us.123rf.com
www.newslincolncounty.com

Both of the above items are inanimate objects. Yet, I'm guessing, there's one you would not want kids to play with. One you would not want a kid pointing at your head.
 
2012-12-21 11:49:00 AM  
God damn it, are we still talking about this?

Gun ownership is a right. It is necessary for a people to be armed to stay free. Freedom is always going to come with a price, and a miniscule chance of being killed with a gun (in a life that still holds a mortality rate of roughly 100%) is a price we have to pay for our freedom. I'm sorry, but it was set up like that from the beginning.

Don't get me wrong, I like Europe. It's very pleasant there. The food is good and the women are exquisite. But just because no one is pulling on your chains currently doesn't mean they aren't still shackled to your wrists. The Europeans have no power over their government, no costly trump card to play. If their government decided a certain population needed to be killed, they would be powerless to stop it.

That's what it's all about. It's not about hunting, it's barely about self defense. It's about being a population that can only be pushed so far. It's about the fear of violent uprising in the back of every political leader's mind. It's what the Founding Fathers wanted for their country, and it's arguable more valid today than ever.

/Bleeding Heart Liberal
 
2012-12-21 11:49:04 AM  

Vance Uppercut: You guys (Americans) just have to realize how strange it seems to the rest of the world. You are comfortable with so many people getting shot around you, we can't imagine living near so much violence.

Canadians have things that you can't comprehend also, like fries with gravy, health care, and really cold winters.


You can legally own a tar-21 in canada, the same gun the israili army uses, bet we can't own that in the US. And Poutine is gross.
 
2012-12-21 11:49:54 AM  

WhippingBoy: manimal2878: The debate on where to draw the line between bombs and guns was settled hundreds of years ago with classifying certain things as destructive devices. People who pretend otherwise are the ones that are failing to grasp logic or purposely throwing out a red herring.

Perhaps we need to look at revising hundred year old standards and definitions.


why? so your statements are immediately illogical?
 
2012-12-21 11:50:08 AM  

manimal2878: Carn: Carn: manimal2878: Carn: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I don't think he is. Answer one question: Does the amount of carnage one can inflict depend on the type of weapon one is using to commit said act of carnage?

Take all the time you need. There is only one correct answer. After you get it right we can have a meaningful conversation about gun control.

What does you question have to do with the anything? There is a difference between arms, small arms, ordinance, and destructive devices. After you understand that you can join the meaningful discussion.

It has everything to do with this particular issue. Answer the question and then I'll explain since you truly don't understand the connection or are just being obtuse.

Since manimal doesn't want to answer the question, I'll do so for him and complete the logic puzzle for those who have difficulty with that sort of thing. The correct answer is yes, the type of weapon used in an act of carnage matters, in some cases a great deal, in the amount of carnage they are able to inflict. If the correct answer is no, then that means all weapons should be legal to all people, but this is obviously false, as handing out nuclear weapons to all citizenry would most certainly have a very bad outcome. Thus, by logical deduction, again, the correct answer is yes. Therefore, the debate should be centered around where to draw the line, and which weapons should be considered over that line and therefore not allowed. High capacity magazines and guns that use them are on the chopping block in this debate. In addition, stiffer regulations and checks and balances on legally purchasing all weapons are in order and should be up for consideration.

The debate on where to draw the line between bombs and guns was settled hundreds of years ago with classifying certain things as destructive devices. People who pretend otherwise are the ones ...


There is a difference between a bomb and a gun. There is also a difference between a 30 round .223 Bushmaster and a four round lever/pump action shotgun. Since you obviously agree with the logic that is the basis for this discussion, now you can argue that the two aforementioned weapons can inflict the same amount of carnage in the same amount of time, because that seems to be your point of view.
 
2012-12-21 11:50:13 AM  

impaler: I also despise media hype.


Yea, hype. Can't imagine what might have happened recently that put blood in the water to attract all the "sharks". Nope... nothing at all springs to mind. It doesn't spring to mind seven times, in fact.
 
2012-12-21 11:50:54 AM  

impaler: So I can own a howitzer?


I don't know, are they considered destructive devices? They may not be, but I bet the shell is.
 
2012-12-21 11:51:16 AM  

WhippingBoy: tukatz: With guns, knives, baseball bats, cars, shards of glass, etc.  They'll always find a method if they're going to kill.  Guns don't whisper in their ear... telling them to kill.

Yeah, but shards of glass don't make you feel manly enough to shoot up a classroom full of helpless, innocent children.


The guns made him do it?!?!  Wow, imagine that!  It wasn't his psychological problems or inability to function properly in society.  Those damn guns!!!  Always telling people to kill.  They should gag those things so they quit saying such things.
 
2012-12-21 11:52:09 AM  

Magnanimous_J: God damn it, are we still talking about this?

Gun ownership is a right. It is necessary for a people to be armed to stay free. Freedom is always going to come with a price, and a miniscule chance of being killed with a gun (in a life that still holds a mortality rate of roughly 100%) is a price we have to pay for our freedom. I'm sorry, but it was set up like that from the beginning.

Don't get me wrong, I like Europe. It's very pleasant there. The food is good and the women are exquisite. But just because no one is pulling on your chains currently doesn't mean they aren't still shackled to your wrists. The Europeans have no power over their government, no costly trump card to play. If their government decided a certain population needed to be killed, they would be powerless to stop it.

That's what it's all about. It's not about hunting, it's barely about self defense. It's about being a population that can only be pushed so far. It's about the fear of violent uprising in the back of every political leader's mind. It's what the Founding Fathers wanted for their country, and it's arguable more valid today than ever.

/Bleeding Heart Liberal


Yes I'm sure the founding fathers wanted a schoolroom full of little kids to get massacred. Total worth the price of admission.
 
2012-12-21 11:52:25 AM  

gittlebass: people say guns have no use in society, yet, it has more uses than alcohol. alcohol has zero benefit to society, it doesnt help in anyway and banning it would stop 1,000's of needless alcohol related deaths, and make america healthier. Drinkers have just as much responsibility as gun owners,kill just as many innocent people and we allow them to drive to bars full well knowing they will be drinking something that will impair their ability to get home



Actually this isn't true. It stops uprisings. Your people may be poor and underserved by their society. They may have nothing to lose. It is unlikely that they will rebel on a wide scale if there is booze available. Throughout history this has shown to be true.


/why yes, I am sourcing this from Firefly.
//Simon is a very smart man.
 
2012-12-21 11:53:51 AM  

WhippingBoy: I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?


Sure you can, when you use the Ar-15 to disrupt the supply lines to the Nimitz class aircraft carrier so it becomes nothing more then a giant, vacated, drifting hunk of metal that no longer has the fuel, ammunition and food to function properly.

The US military relies on a large population to support it's army. Its not a 1 to 1 civilian to soldier support ratio. It might be something like it takes 10 civilians to support a single soldier (wild ass guess, couldn't find a hard number on this). Without civilians to gather the resource and produce the goods, they will be nothing more then a well trained group of humans with empty guns and empty stomachs. Also, just how many of those aircraft carries will fight their own internal revolutions between those loyal to the government and those loyal to the constitution.

Never underestimate your enemy, and never overestimate your own forces.
 
2012-12-21 11:53:59 AM  

tukatz: Carn: Carn: manimal2878: Carn: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I don't think he is. Answer one question: Does the amount of carnage one can inflict depend on the type of weapon one is using to commit said act of carnage?

Take all the time you need. There is only one correct answer. After you get it right we can have a meaningful conversation about gun control.

What does you question have to do with the anything? There is a difference between arms, small arms, ordinance, and destructive devices. After you understand that you can join the meaningful discussion.

It has everything to do with this particular issue. Answer the question and then I'll explain since you truly don't understand the connection or are just being obtuse.

Since manimal doesn't want to answer the question, I'll do so for him and complete the logic puzzle for those who have difficulty with that sort of thing. The correct answer is yes, the type of weapon used in an act of carnage matters, in some cases a great deal, in the amount of carnage they are able to inflict. If the correct answer is no, then that means all weapons should be legal to all people, but this is obviously false, as handing out nuclear weapons to all citizenry would most certainly have a very bad outcome. Thus, by logical deduction, again, the correct answer is yes. Therefore, the debate should be centered around where to draw the line, and which weapons should be considered over that line and therefore not allowed. High capacity magazines and guns that use them are on the chopping block in this debate. In addition, stiffer regulations and checks and balances on legally purchasing all weapons are in order and should be up for consideration.

To me, high-capacity magazines means less reloading at the range.  And there aren't just certain "vicious" guns that use them.  You can get bigger magazines for just about anything.

"Assault Gun"?  So my ...


Ah, so we can't get rid of high capacity magazines or highly restrict the guns that use them because you'd be inconvenienced at the range. Pretty rock solid argument there.
 
2012-12-21 11:54:07 AM  

HarveyBrooks: Schoroedingers Glory Hole -Cars kill more people every day and it's not like we're moving to make those things autonomous so they're taken out of human hands amirite?

Not for long! Thanks to all you panty-wetting gun nuts!

Deaths from firearms are set to outstrip car fatalities for the first time



From you link:

Every day, 85 Americans are shot dead, about 53 of them in suicides.

So, you want these people who are currently killing themselves with guns to start killing themselves with cars?
 
2012-12-21 11:54:51 AM  

manimal2878: impaler: So I can own a howitzer?

I don't know, are they considered destructive devices? They may not be, but I bet the shell is.


Both the howitzer and each round of ammunition would be considered destructive devices. Each round needs to be registered and the tax paid ($200 each).
 
2012-12-21 11:54:55 AM  

NightOwl2255: Yet, I'm guessing, there's one you would not want kids to play with


I wouldn't make that assumption about some of these people...

In fact, I'd wager some number of people in this thread have actively introduced firearms to small children and, intentionally or not, taught them that "guns are fun" with or without some additional context about the risks and responsibilities that (should) come with them.
 
2012-12-21 11:55:03 AM  

Carn: There is also a difference between a 30 round .223 Bushmaster and a four round lever/pump action shotgun.


Yeah, my levergun in .45/70 can kill an elephant with a single shot.
 
2012-12-21 11:55:06 AM  

Carn: now you can argue that the two aforementioned weapons can inflict the same amount of carnage in the same amount of time, because that seems to be your point of view.


I have said in other threads I would compromise on high cap magazines.

Handguns: whatever will fit in a flushfit magazine, +2 or 10, whichever is greater.
Longguns: 30 rounds. (note this would ban drum mags and the surefire 100 round mag.)

That is where I am willing to draw the arbitrary line.
 
2012-12-21 11:55:21 AM  

willfullyobscure: I HAVE HAD IT WITH THESE MADAFAKIN WILD PIGS ON THIS PLANE


Wrong thread, I guess, but I still like that you posted it here.
 
2012-12-21 11:55:36 AM  

Magnanimous_J: God damn it, are we still talking about this?

Gun ownership is a right. It is necessary for a people to be armed to stay free. Freedom is always going to come with a price, and a miniscule chance of being killed with a gun (in a life that still holds a mortality rate of roughly 100%) is a price we have to pay for our freedom. I'm sorry, but it was set up like that from the beginning.

Don't get me wrong, I like Europe. It's very pleasant there. The food is good and the women are exquisite. But just because no one is pulling on your chains currently doesn't mean they aren't still shackled to your wrists. The Europeans have no power over their government, no costly trump card to play. If their government decided a certain population needed to be killed, they would be powerless to stop it.

That's what it's all about. It's not about hunting, it's barely about self defense. It's about being a population that can only be pushed so far. It's about the fear of violent uprising in the back of every political leader's mind. It's what the Founding Fathers wanted for their country, and it's arguable more valid today than ever.

/Bleeding Heart Liberal


Given that the US government has a military that uses stealth bombers, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, drones, bunker-buster bombs, etc, etc, etc, would you agree that it makes sense for civilians to be allowed to own these same types of weapons in case the government decides to "push us too far"? After all, you don't being an AR-15 to an aircraft carrier fight.
 
2012-12-21 11:55:59 AM  

Amos Quito: So, you want these people who are currently killing themselves with guns to start killing themselves with cars?


Do you know why you have to keep speaking in idioms and hypotheticals instead of hard facts to try and support your opinions?

Because your opinions are wrong.
 
2012-12-21 11:56:14 AM  
I love simple solutions to complex issues.
Dont want people to have guns, make it so they dont feel they need them.
 
2012-12-21 11:57:04 AM  

duffblue: tricycleracer: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Guess you're the type of person who pisses himself at the idea of drawing attention to the ugly side of your hobby.

Or maybe I saw how well the PATRIOT Act worked. You know who else was cool with warrantless wiretapping of citizens?


[secretcomedy.com image 568x803]


Feel free to give up your rights, but don't go trying to retroactively criminalize those that manage to keep their heads out of their own asses.


Yeah, I didn't really hear much from the right wing about this until a year or so before the 2008 elections. Then when O was elected it was his fault. Kinda transparent, don't you think?

So are you doing anything about the new bill that strips the 5th amendment? Of course, because OBAMA!!!
 
2012-12-21 11:57:34 AM  

Magnanimous_J: God damn it, are we still talking about this?

Gun ownership is a right. It is necessary for a people to be armed to stay free. Freedom is always going to come with a price, and a miniscule chance of being killed with a gun (in a life that still holds a mortality rate of roughly 100%) is a price we have to pay for our freedom. I'm sorry, but it was set up like that from the beginning.

Don't get me wrong, I like Europe. It's very pleasant there. The food is good and the women are exquisite. But just because no one is pulling on your chains currently doesn't mean they aren't still shackled to your wrists. The Europeans have no power over their government, no costly trump card to play. If their government decided a certain population needed to be killed, they would be powerless to stop it.

That's what it's all about. It's not about hunting, it's barely about self defense. It's about being a population that can only be pushed so far. It's about the fear of violent uprising in the back of every political leader's mind. It's what the Founding Fathers wanted for their country, and it's arguable more valid today than ever.

/Bleeding Heart Liberal


The list of things you are scared of must be long and detailed.
 
2012-12-21 11:58:28 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys. I mean, it's not like any other rights come with limitations on their use based on the impact it can have on other people or anything.

The REAL tragedy here, after all, is that somebody might have to wait an extra day or two to get a gun or reload slightly more often at the local range. Truly a historical atrocity with no equal.


The REAL tragedy here is that you don't seem to be aware that the CT shooter tried to buy a gun, was told he had to wait three days, and so he killed someone and stole their guns.The laws worked, but the laws can't stop someone who has murder in their heart. Literally NOTHING can. All we can hope is to limit it through GOOD laws and sensible thinking.

As to smaller magazines. They would have made no difference in this situation. If his mother had been limited to 10 round magazines she would have just bought 20 of those instead of Twelve 17 round magazines, or something similar. In other words, the kid would have brought just as much ammo with him, and would have taken him an extra 30 seconds or so to shoot those people.. And the fact that he would have to reload so much wouldn't matter in relation to it making it easier to stop him because......

The really real tragedy is that people like you don't accept that the real problem is that we legislated our schools into being completely defenseless. Right now today, despite all the "heightened security" at schools, this incident could be exactly repeated in 90% of our elementary schools. And I don't mean today in a general sense, I literally mean this VERY DAY. Under existing federal and state laws unless a police officer is stationed at a school there is NOBODY on our school campuses who has even the slightest chance to stop a school shooting. How idiotic is that? We have almost 100,000 public schools in the US. Can we afford to hire 100,000 more police officers? Doubtful. The proper response is to get rid of these stupid laws that disallow CPL holders from bringing firearms on school campuses and also to provide training to school staff who are interested in being armed and prepared to defend our children. Just HAVING such a program and such laws would cut back on school shootings considerably... Far more than banning "assault weapons" would since "assault weapons" are used in less than 0.2% of all murders, and I don't believe they have ever been used in a school shooting.

"Assault weapons" is in quotes btw, because it is a made up term that the uninformed use to describe a gun that "looks scary". Guess what, EVERY gun should look scary to you, and a responsible gun owner treats them as such because they freaking are. It is kind of the point, and why they are so effective at self defense, where they don't need to be fired over 80% of the time to stop a crime.
 
2012-12-21 11:59:15 AM  

Burr: WhippingBoy: I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?

Sure you can, when you use the Ar-15 to disrupt the supply lines to the Nimitz class aircraft carrier so it becomes nothing more then a giant, vacated, drifting hunk of metal that no longer has the fuel, ammunition and food to function properly.

The US military relies on a large population to support it's army. Its not a 1 to 1 civilian to soldier support ratio. It might be something like it takes 10 civilians to support a single soldier (wild ass guess, couldn't find a hard number on this). Without civilians to gather the resource and produce the goods, they will be nothing more then a well trained group of humans with empty guns and empty stomachs. Also, just how many of those aircraft carries will fight their own internal revolutions between those loyal to the government and those loyal to the constitution.

Never underestimate your enemy, and never overestimate your own forces.


You're making an assumption that in this situation the US military wouldn't have support from foreign nations (anythings possible in a hypothetical situation). If, say, Great Britain fully supported the US military during a civil war, wouldn't you need to be able to take out those capital ships somehow?
 
2012-12-21 11:59:43 AM  

WhippingBoy: Given that the US government has a military that uses stealth bombers, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, drones, bunker-buster bombs, etc, etc, etc, would you agree that it makes sense for civilians to be allowed to own these same types of weapons in case the government decides to "push us too far"? After all, you don't being an AR-15 to an aircraft carrier fight.


Why do you keep bringing this up? Guns are not on the same scale as any kind of bomb or missile. They are not part of the second amendment discussion, laws regarding destructive devices have already taken care of this. Nobody is questioning that destructive devices should be regulated.
 
2012-12-21 11:59:54 AM  
Every time gun rights is a national talking point, gun sales go up, NRA membership goes up, and no laws change. So... good job?
 
2012-12-21 12:01:52 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-21 12:01:59 PM  

manimal2878: impaler: So I can own a howitzer?

I don't know, are they considered destructive devices? They may not be, but I bet the shell is.


The HEAT explodes, the AP is just a really big bullet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_KwK_36
Pzgr. 40 (APCR)
 
2012-12-21 12:04:28 PM  

WhippingBoy: wouldn't you need to be able to take out those capital ships somehow?


Has al queda needed to take out our ships to stop us from putting a democracy in Iraq?
 
2012-12-21 12:04:35 PM  

WhippingBoy: Given that the US government has a military that uses stealth bombers, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, drones, bunker-buster bombs, etc, etc, etc, would you agree that it makes sense for civilians to be allowed to own these same types of weapons in case the government decides to "push us too far"? After all, you don't being an AR-15 to an aircraft carrier fight.


No. But I do think the citizenry should have access to small arms on par with the best weapons available.
 
2012-12-21 12:04:39 PM  

WhippingBoy: Given that the US government has a military that uses stealth bombers, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, drones, bunker-buster bombs, etc, etc, etc, would you agree that it makes sense for civilians to be allowed to own these same types of weapons in case the government decides to "push us too far"? After all, you don't being an AR-15 to an aircraft carrier fight.


No, but you do bring one to a Guerrilla war.
 
2012-12-21 12:05:17 PM  

manimal2878: Carn: now you can argue that the two aforementioned weapons can inflict the same amount of carnage in the same amount of time, because that seems to be your point of view.

I have said in other threads I would compromise on high cap magazines.

Handguns: whatever will fit in a flushfit magazine, +2 or 10, whichever is greater.
Longguns: 30 rounds. (note this would ban drum mags and the surefire 100 round mag.)

That is where I am willing to draw the arbitrary line.


Ok, now we are talking the same language. Could I talk you down to something less for longguns. Somewhere in the 10-15 range. It would (slightly) slow down a shooter in a situation like this and wouldn't really do anything but be a minor inconvenience to you at a shooting range.

From there we talk about extra control measures as someone said up thread, mental health and so on.
 
Displayed 50 of 461 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report