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.

(CBS4Denver - KCNC)   "Ban spoons, they make me fat"   (denver.cbslocal.com) divider line 372
    More: Obvious, spoons, fat  
•       •       •

9573 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Dec 2012 at 5:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-30 01:25:03 PM  
That's the only thing that needs to be said.
 
2012-12-30 01:59:19 PM  
i1079.photobucket.com
...save those big fat funky whales
we'll save all the whales,
but shoot the seals...
 
2012-12-30 02:02:01 PM  
Oh, I'm sure that guy is perfectly capable of getting fat just using his bare hands.
 
2012-12-30 02:43:28 PM  
I don't really hold feelings toward either side in this debate, but I do have to wonder, do gun enthusiasts offer any analogies that aren't completely off-base? "Lolz this innocuous elsewise-useful item might do some sort of harm maybe, obviously we need to ban it, ahyuck!" No, no zing points for you.
 
2012-12-30 03:30:01 PM  
It's sad to see two things here.
1) Gun were designed to destroy. You point it at something and it is destroyed.
Spoons were designed to aid in eating. What you eat makes you fat. Spoon has no effect on weight gain.

2) The beleif that anything manufactured is beyond regulation. When it's clear that anything sold can be abused, it needs to be regulated.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-30 03:30:11 PM  

wyltoknow: I don't really hold feelings toward either side in this debate, but I do have to wonder, do gun enthusiasts offer any analogies that aren't completely off-base? "Lolz this innocuous elsewise-useful item might do some sort of harm maybe, obviously we need to ban it, ahyuck!" No, no zing points for you.


No, not that I have seen.  But there is no anti gun lobby as far as I can tell, so they don't really have to have a message that makes sense.
 
2012-12-30 03:43:37 PM  

vpb: wyltoknow: I don't really hold feelings toward either side in this debate, but I do have to wonder, do gun enthusiasts offer any analogies that aren't completely off-base? "Lolz this innocuous elsewise-useful item might do some sort of harm maybe, obviously we need to ban it, ahyuck!" No, no zing points for you.

No, not that I have seen.  But there is no anti gun lobby as far as I can tell, so they don't really have to have a message that makes sense.




Democratic Party abandoned gun regulation as part of the fight they cannot win against Republicans. Most Americans firmly believe in their rights to own a too that was simply designed to destroy.
 
2012-12-30 03:54:32 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: It's sad to see two things here.
1) Gun were designed to destroy. You point it at something and it is destroyed.
Spoons were designed to aid in eating. What you eat makes you fat. Spoon has no effect on weight gain.

2) The beleif that anything manufactured is beyond regulation. When it's clear that anything sold can be abused, it needs to be regulated.


1. If guns destroyed anything they were pointed at there would be a ltd of holes in gun safes, walls, ceilings, and trunks. Inanimate objects are not capable of doing anything by themselves, it takes a human being to make a conscious decision to use and object. You missed the point of the headline.

2. Anything can be abused, everything should be regulated. Sadly, the belief that firearms are above regulation is correct. You can buy an 80% complete 1911 over the internet without an FFL or serial numbers because it isn't considered a gun. If you really think banning guns will get rid of guns, you probably voted for Reagan. Ask anyone below fifty about marijuana or cocaine. Ask any college kid below the age of 21 about drinking. You're ignorant of the way the world works.

How is the war on terror going? The war on drugs? The border war? Really anything the united states government is trying to put a stop to?
 
2012-12-30 04:32:12 PM  

duffblue: Darth_Lukecash: It's sad to see two things here.
1) Gun were designed to destroy. You point it at something and it is destroyed.
Spoons were designed to aid in eating. What you eat makes you fat. Spoon has no effect on weight gain.

2) The beleif that anything manufactured is beyond regulation. When it's clear that anything sold can be abused, it needs to be regulated.

1. If guns destroyed anything they were pointed at there would be a ltd of holes in gun safes, walls, ceilings, and trunks. Inanimate objects are not capable of doing anything by themselves, it takes a human being to make a conscious decision to use and object. You missed the point of the headline.

2. Anything can be abused, everything should be regulated. Sadly, the belief that firearms are above regulation is correct. You can buy an 80% complete 1911 over the internet without an FFL or serial numbers because it isn't considered a gun. If you really think banning guns will get rid of guns, you probably voted for Reagan. Ask anyone below fifty about marijuana or cocaine. Ask any college kid below the age of 21 about drinking. You're ignorant of the way the world works.

How is the war on terror going? The war on drugs? The border war? Really anything the united states government is trying to put a stop to?




My point remains that a gun is created to destroy.

I had a friend who died from a gun accident. He and his roommate were trained security guards who served in the military. Nothing intentional except a man who assumed his gun wasn't loaded and my dead friend had been in the way of a bullet.

Regulation is not banning. Obama has actually maid gains in deportation and immigration. The war on Al Quidea is pretty much done. The War on drugs are being fought on legislation. Things can change... But won't till you make the move
 
2012-12-30 04:37:41 PM  
We should regulate weapons further because you have stupid friends?
 
2012-12-30 04:49:23 PM  
People were filing in an out of the Tanner Gun Show proudly putting their First Amendment right to use. Some bought guns for hunting, others for protection.

Can't count? Career in TV journalism may be for you!
 
2012-12-30 04:51:42 PM  

duffblue: We should regulate weapons further because you have stupid friends?




No, I nearly refuted your point that a gun going off was always intentional.

Guns are just like any other intangible item-subject to the communities will.
 
2012-12-30 04:52:58 PM  

duffblue: Darth_Lukecash: It's sad to see two things here.
1) Gun were designed to destroy. You point it at something and it is destroyed.
Spoons were designed to aid in eating. What you eat makes you fat. Spoon has no effect on weight gain.

2) The beleif that anything manufactured is beyond regulation. When it's clear that anything sold can be abused, it needs to be regulated.

1. If guns destroyed anything they were pointed at there would be a ltd of holes in gun safes, walls, ceilings, and trunks. Inanimate objects are not capable of doing anything by themselves, it takes a human being to make a conscious decision to use and object. You missed the point of the headline.

2. Anything can be abused, everything should be regulated. Sadly, the belief that firearms are above regulation is correct. You can buy an 80% complete 1911 over the internet without an FFL or serial numbers because it isn't considered a gun. If you really think banning guns will get rid of guns, you probably voted for Reagan. Ask anyone below fifty about marijuana or cocaine. Ask any college kid below the age of 21 about drinking. You're ignorant of the way the world works.

How is the war on terror going? The war on drugs? The border war? Really anything the united states government is trying to put a stop to?


i306.photobucket.com

I don't think he mentioned banning guns, only regulating them.  Considering banning is unconstitutional as the second amendment is written today, and reasonable restriction on type and persons who do own firearms IS constitutional, I really don't see what you're trying to argue here except a creation of your own mind.

The argument about owning "80% complete" as well fails on the account that the cost of a metal lathe or three-dimension metal printer are beyond the ownership capabilities of almost every average citizen out there, and the fact that metalworking and shaping is a little harder than reading instructions on the internet on how to make something. The recipe to making meth is on the internet as well - funny how people who make it using that tend to blow themselves up.

duffblue: 1. If guns destroyed anything they were pointed at there would be a ltd of holes in gun safes, walls, ceilings, and trunks. Inanimate objects are not capable of doing anything by themselves, it takes a human being to make a conscious decision to use and object. You missed the point of the headline.


You missed the point yourself. The argument most rational people are making is not to outlaw guns, but to legitimately restrict who can own them (Maybe the mentally ill shouldn't own firearms?), and make regulations not only actually enforced, but more stringent than depending on the word alone of a buyer who's entire obstacle to purchase depends on them being honest.
 
2012-12-30 04:55:09 PM  

duffblue: We should regulate weapons further because you have stupid friends?


Wow. Classy.

The laws that currently restrict weapons sales aren't enforced well to begin with. You rarely ever hear about gun or pawn shops being persecuted for allowing straw buyers, or for blatantly telling people to lie on their background check forms about their mental health history. How about we start there?
 
2012-12-30 04:59:45 PM  
BronyMedic:

The argument about owning "80% complete" as well fails on the account that the cost of a metal lathe or three-dimension metal printer are beyond the ownership capabilities of almost every average citizen out there, and the fact that metalworking and shaping is a little harder than reading instructions on the internet on how to make so ...

I don't want to completely discount everything you have said, because you made a decent point at the end of your post, but please know what you're talking about before posting next time. We're not talking about some redneck designed potato gun that blows up in your hands on the first shot. You don't need a metal lathe or any sort of 3D printer. Just a dremel tool, a hammer and punch and $250. The stuff is out there, but for obvious reasons I'm not going to link it.
 
2012-12-30 05:23:12 PM  
Darth_Lukecash: Nothing intentional except a man who assumed his gun wasn't loaded and my dead friend had been in the way of a bullet.

I'm sorry about your friend but this is wholly irrelevant to the topic of gun regulation. Your friend hung out with idiots.
 
2012-12-30 05:35:23 PM  

ultraholland: Darth_Lukecash: Nothing intentional except a man who assumed his gun wasn't loaded and my dead friend had been in the way of a bullet.

I'm sorry about your friend but this is wholly irrelevant to the topic of gun regulation. Your friend hung out with idiots.



I pointed out that comparing the gun to a spoon was illogical because of the difference of use/design. Guns design was to destroy. That's all it's made for. A spoon can be used to eat healthy and unhealthy things.

He countered that it was the intent of the user.

I countered with the death of my friend, due to an accident-not intent.
 
2012-12-30 05:46:27 PM  
Subby is a dick.
 
2012-12-30 05:48:15 PM  
elleandtheautognome.files.wordpress.com

Seriously guys, you're slacking.
 
2012-12-30 05:48:31 PM  
It's not that gun control advocates are stupid. It's just all their ideas, thoughts, and opinions are just really stupid.
 
2012-12-30 05:49:15 PM  
Hardcore logic: That's the plain and simple truth, even if it's not true.
Just as stupid as the "legitimate rape" statement.
 
2012-12-30 05:49:54 PM  

BronyMedic:
The argument about owning "80% complete" as well fails on the account that the cost of a metal lathe or three-dimension metal printer are beyond the ownership capabilities of almost every average citizen out there, and the fact that metalworking and shaping is a little harder than reading instructions on the internet on how to make so ...


Has anyone made a Summon Space Bevets card yet?
 
2012-12-30 05:52:56 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: My point remains that a gun is created to destroy.


Incorrect. A gun is designed to fire a bullet when the trigger mechanism is, well, triggered.
 
2012-12-30 05:53:33 PM  
People were filing in an out of the Tanner Gun Show proudly putting their First Amendment right to use. Some bought guns for hunting, others for protection. They were met with opposition as one lone protester picketed out front in support of a ban on so called assault weapons.

/derp
 
2012-12-30 05:54:05 PM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-12-30 05:55:16 PM  
ajeeznotthisshiatagain..jpg
 
2012-12-30 05:55:54 PM  
Darth_Lukecash: I pointed out that comparing the gun to a spoon was illogical because of the difference of use/design. Guns design was to destroy. That's all it's made for. A spoon can be used to eat healthy and unhealthy things.

He countered that it was the intent of the user.

I countered with the death of my friend, due to an accident-not intent.


I know, I saw that. It's just that your friend's death was the result of an accident, regardless of what device lead to their death. I don't blame the car for taking my friend's life; I blame some negligence on the part of the driver and chalk it up to an overall accident.

I handled a Ruger 10/22 yesterday. The first thing I did was ensure that it was empty. I then put it back in its case. A short time later I again removed it from its case, and knowing full well that nobody had handled the weapon, I checked it yet again before further handling. Responsibility. Your friend's roommate didn't have it.
 
2012-12-30 05:56:01 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: ultraholland: Darth_Lukecash: Nothing intentional except a man who assumed his gun wasn't loaded and my dead friend had been in the way of a bullet.

I'm sorry about your friend but this is wholly irrelevant to the topic of gun regulation. Your friend hung out with idiots.


I pointed out that comparing the gun to a spoon was illogical because of the difference of use/design. Guns design was to destroy. That's all it's made for. A spoon can be used to eat healthy and unhealthy things.

He countered that it was the intent of the user.

I countered with the death of my friend, due to an accident-not intent.


Was the guy pointing his gun at your friend and pulled the trigger, assuming it was not loaded?
 
2012-12-30 05:56:19 PM  

foo monkey: People were filing in an out of the Tanner Gun Show proudly putting their First Amendment right to use. Some bought guns for hunting, others for protection. They were met with opposition as one lone protester picketed out front in support of a ban on so called assault weapons.

/derp


.
CBS liberal media reporter, cut them some slack.
 
2012-12-30 05:56:43 PM  

Mrbogey: It's not that gun control advocates are stupid. It's just all their ideas, thoughts, and opinions are just really stupid.


It's almost as if they know nothing about firearms.


hmmmmmm....

/and they wonder why nobody will debate with them.
 
2012-12-30 05:56:57 PM  
"Something snapped in me and I have to say something," the protester said.

Well at least he didn't have a gun.
 
2012-12-30 05:58:35 PM  
What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?
 
2012-12-30 05:59:13 PM  
I pointed out that comparing the gun to a spoon was illogical because of the difference of use/design. Guns design was to destroy.

No, a gun is designed to push little lead pellets at high velocity in the desired direction. The direction is up to the operator, not the gun. It can be used for good (defending yourself) or evil (attacking others).

Banning highly desired inanimate objects simply doesn't work. Didn't work for alcohol, not working for recreational drugs, WON'T work for guns. We need to do something that will work, not just feel good.
 
2012-12-30 05:59:41 PM  

kombat_unit: Hardcore logic: That's the plain and simple truth, even if it's not true.
Just as stupid as the "legitimate rape" statement.


FTA: That would explain why they're angry enough to buy a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

Sole purpose? Really? Every single person who buys an assault weapon intends only to use it to kill lots of people? Every single manufacturer builds them only so that buyers can kill lots of people?  Do people honestly think that such obscene exaggeration of a position to one side is going to convince those in the middle or those on the other side to change their minds?
 
2012-12-30 06:00:08 PM  
Spoons are a bad analogy. "Pure fat in a syringe injected right into my body that I carry around with me and sometimes 'accidentally' inject into other people" is a better one.
 
2012-12-30 06:00:33 PM  

fredklein: Darth_Lukecash: My point remains that a gun is created to destroy.

Incorrect. A gun is designed to fire a bullet when the trigger mechanism is, well, triggered.


So, for shiats sake, bullets are made to destroy! BAN BULLETS!!! You people will never agree on this you're like the big baby girls in congress regarding the fiscal cliff.
 
2012-12-30 06:01:21 PM  
Do spoons make you 4 times as likely to be involved in a homicide if you have them in your house? How about 10 times more likely to be used in a suicide if you have them in your house?

No? Then STFU, grow up, admit we as a country have an issue, and discuss it like an adult.
 
2012-12-30 06:01:28 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?


Just as soon as you uninvent the magazine and all the guns that use them.
 
2012-12-30 06:02:25 PM  
I try to stay out of these useless gun-debates most of the time. I'm a "dirty lib" who is also a gun owner. I grew up in a cop family, and was required to learn how to handle all manner of firearms safely. I was taught to shoot accurately, and I view a firearm as a tool.

That said, I believe that guns are much too easy to acquire in the US. I don't think that more people running around with concealed weapons will result in anything that is good for the whole of society. More guns in the hands of more people only benefits the manufacturers of weapons.
 
2012-12-30 06:04:18 PM  
Hey gun-advocates are too persecuted, this country is bristling with guns, You can be crazy and buy guns legally like Aurora shooter James Holmes did, but let's not treat guns with the same seriousness and regulation we treat vehicles.. let's act like children and make jokes about finding ways other than Wild West style shootouts and Orwellian police presences to limit the violence. Hey, a thug can still buy a weapon somehow, so lets keep it easy, no, let's make it easier to own weapons. A gun in every church, principals office, hospital, business. This country wont be safe from these heinous crimes until everyone, no matter who they are, gets a bullet-dispensing instrument of justice
 
2012-12-30 06:04:58 PM  

mark12A: I pointed out that comparing the gun to a spoon was illogical because of the difference of use/design. Guns design was to destroy.

No, a gun is designed to push little lead pellets at high velocity in the desired direction. The direction is up to the operator, not the gun. It can be used for good (defending yourself) or evil (attacking others).

Banning highly desired inanimate objects simply doesn't work. Didn't work for alcohol, not working for recreational drugs, WON'T work for guns. We need to do something that will work, not just feel good.


You do realize that "using them for good" and "using them for evil" are BOTH destructive actions, right? Even if you're destroying a "bad guy" you're still DESTROYING a bad guy. Guns were designed to destroy, and even if they destroy "for good" they are still destroying. Even if I don't bring up statistics or studies or anything else, you have to accept the fact that guns, fundamentally, are meant to destroy things. It's the only reason they are made.
 
2012-12-30 06:05:55 PM  

fredklein: Darth_Lukecash: My point remains that a gun is created to destroy.

Incorrect. A gun is designed to fire a bullet when the trigger mechanism is, well, triggered.


Yes, and humanity invented this thing originally for opening letters---the killing things part is a side effect that had nothing to do with its design.

There are some insightful arguments that one can make as an opponent of gun control. Denying the obvious reality that guns are essentially for killing things is not one of them. Pretending that a gun is just an abstract mechanical device that moves part A when one pushes part B, and that everything else is a user issue, that's just derpy.

As derpy as analogizing a gun to an arbitrary thing that doesn't kill things and isn't designed to kill things. Yes, we would ban spoons, if a bunch of lunatic "preppers" began filling their houses with special assault spoons designed primarily for killing people, so effectively that some idiot kid with voices in his head can go kill a few dozen kids by waving it around a playground while holding down the auto-scoop switch.
 
2012-12-30 06:05:56 PM  

lewismarktwo: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?

Just as soon as you uninvent the magazine and all the guns that use them.


We already uninvented Newsweek...it's a start
 
2012-12-30 06:06:10 PM  

ultraholland: Darth_Lukecash: I pointed out that comparing the gun to a spoon was illogical because of the difference of use/design. Guns design was to destroy. That's all it's made for. A spoon can be used to eat healthy and unhealthy things.

He countered that it was the intent of the user.

I countered with the death of my friend, due to an accident-not intent.

I know, I saw that. It's just that your friend's death was the result of an accident, regardless of what device lead to their death. I don't blame the car for taking my friend's life; I blame some negligence on the part of the driver and chalk it up to an overall accident.

I handled a Ruger 10/22 yesterday. The first thing I did was ensure that it was empty. I then put it back in its case. A short time later I again removed it from its case, and knowing full well that nobody had handled the weapon, I checked it yet again before further handling. Responsibility. Your friend's roommate didn't have it.


When I was 12 I was handed a pistol that was presumably unloaded. I was told as well that it was unloaded as I handled it.

It was loaded.

Luckily I was taught from the age of 7 to treat guns as if they were loaded and I checked the chamber before attempting to dry-fire it to get a feel for its trigger. As soon as I saw that cartridge I remarked, "yea, someone could have just been killed if I listened to you..." It was an adult that handed me the pistol also so they were a bit shocked.
 
2012-12-30 06:06:15 PM  

david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]


How'd that work out for him?
 
2012-12-30 06:07:08 PM  

GiddeonFox: mark12A: I pointed out that comparing the gun to a spoon was illogical because of the difference of use/design. Guns design was to destroy.

No, a gun is designed to push little lead pellets at high velocity in the desired direction. The direction is up to the operator, not the gun. It can be used for good (defending yourself) or evil (attacking others).

Banning highly desired inanimate objects simply doesn't work. Didn't work for alcohol, not working for recreational drugs, WON'T work for guns. We need to do something that will work, not just feel good.

You do realize that "using them for good" and "using them for evil" are BOTH destructive actions, right? Even if you're destroying a "bad guy" you're still DESTROYING a bad guy. Guns were designed to destroy, and even if they destroy "for good" they are still destroying. Even if I don't bring up statistics or studies or anything else, you have to accept the fact that guns, fundamentally, are meant to destroy things. It's the only reason they are made.


Actually, almost 100% of guns are made to make money off of their sale.  Some are used to destroy. Most are used for sport.
 
2012-12-30 06:07:31 PM  

david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]


I think JFK shot himself.
 
2012-12-30 06:07:53 PM  

GiddeonFox: Guns were designed to destroy



Nouns were designed to Verb.
 
2012-12-30 06:08:46 PM  

BronyMedic: The argument most rational people are making is not to outlaw guns, but to legitimately restrict who can own them (Maybe the mentally ill shouldn't own firearms?), and make regulations not only actually enforced, but more stringent than depending on the word alone of a buyer who's entire obstacle to purchase depends on them being honest.


Firstly, laws tend to be added to, not subtracted from. Government will increase its power, not give it away. A law that seems perfectly 'rational' today, will not be so rational in a few years when it's expanded in breadth and scope. And, since, as they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, It's easiest to stop laws from being passed, then to try to keep them from being mis/ab-used in the future.

Second, AFAIK, the mentally ill already cannot own guns legally. And, as I just said above, this leaves itself open for abuse- literally anyone can be declared 'mentally ill', and thus denied a gun. Afraid of heights? Mentally Ill. Saw a counselor when you were a rebellious teen? Mentally ill. Etc.
 
2012-12-30 06:09:14 PM  

duffblue: How is the war on terror going? The war on drugs? The border war? Really anything the united states government is trying to put a stop to?


The war on drugs isn't about drugs. It's about power. The war on terror isn't about terror. It's about funneling government spending to the likes of Halliburton, to the huzzahs of small government conservatives. It's also about power.
 
2012-12-30 06:09:49 PM  

Bisu: GiddeonFox: mark12A: I pointed out that comparing the gun to a spoon was illogical because of the difference of use/design. Guns design was to destroy.

No, a gun is designed to push little lead pellets at high velocity in the desired direction. The direction is up to the operator, not the gun. It can be used for good (defending yourself) or evil (attacking others).

Banning highly desired inanimate objects simply doesn't work. Didn't work for alcohol, not working for recreational drugs, WON'T work for guns. We need to do something that will work, not just feel good.

You do realize that "using them for good" and "using them for evil" are BOTH destructive actions, right? Even if you're destroying a "bad guy" you're still DESTROYING a bad guy. Guns were designed to destroy, and even if they destroy "for good" they are still destroying. Even if I don't bring up statistics or studies or anything else, you have to accept the fact that guns, fundamentally, are meant to destroy things. It's the only reason they are made.

Actually, almost 100% of guns are made to make money off of their sale.  Some are used to destroy. Most are used for sport.


Sport is destructive. You are destroying targets or game. This is like arguing that a jackhammer is not fundamentally a destructive tool because you don't necessarially have to be aiming it at concrete.
 
2012-12-30 06:10:23 PM  

wyltoknow: I don't really hold feelings toward either side in this debate, but I do have to wonder, do gun enthusiasts offer any analogies that aren't completely off-base? "Lolz this innocuous elsewise-useful item might do some sort of harm maybe, obviously we need to ban it, ahyuck!" No, no zing points for you.


I shiat you not, a Charleston talk-radio host said that all trees within 200 feet of the side of the road should be cut down because they cause fatalities when cars run off the road into them.

I know this, because I'm a masochist and I listen to her show occasionally. Hey, it gives me material to work with.
 
2012-12-30 06:11:25 PM  
more guns = more guns. You have a gun, so I need a gun.

if you extrapolate the gun nut's logic for a safe America, wherever more than one person is gathered, a firearm should be present.

This is farking out of control and there is no going back.

/thinking about getting a handgun.
//we're farked
 
2012-12-30 06:11:42 PM  

Xcott: There are some insightful arguments that one can make as an opponent of gun control. Denying the obvious reality that guns are essentially for killing things is not one of them. Pretending that a gun is just an abstract mechanical device that moves part A when one pushes part B, and that everything else is a user issue, that's just derpy.


A bolt-action rifle is designed to kill things. Assault rifles like the AR-15 are designed to wound things. The thinking is that a wounded soldier is better than a dead soldier outright because it takes 2-4 others to tend to an injured soldier while it takes 0-1 others to take care of a dead soldier. Also, smaller rounds are easier to transport and carry. Hence why the 9mm is also popular for some semi-automatics.

But yelling, "we need to ban weapons designed to wound people" doesn't have the same kick.
 
2012-12-30 06:12:21 PM  

BlousyBrown: So, for shiats sake, bullets are made to destroy!


Just like knives.
 
2012-12-30 06:12:49 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: It's sad to see two things here.
1) Gun were designed to destroy. You point it at something and it is destroyed.
Spoons were designed to aid in eating. What you eat makes you fat. Spoon has no effect on weight gain.

2) The beleif that anything manufactured is beyond regulation. When it's clear that anything sold can be abused, it needs to be regulated.


The belief that not actually addressing the issue fixes the issue is the issue.

I can come up with of ways of abusing several unregulated items and it be very clear that it can be regularly abused very easily. It's not difficult to utilize items not intended for their use.

Is it really that difficult to understand that guns or no guns doesn't actually solve the issue? Primary being mentally farked up individuals snapping.
 
2012-12-30 06:13:11 PM  
GiddeonFox: Sport is destructive. You are destroying targets or game. This is like arguing that a jackhammer is not fundamentally a destructive tool because you don't necessarially have to be aiming it at concrete.

Now that you've made that abundantly clear that high-velocity objects transfer a lot of energy when they strike something, just what point are you making here?
 
2012-12-30 06:13:37 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?


.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.
 
2012-12-30 06:13:56 PM  

Mrbogey: It's not that gun control advocates Mrbogey are is stupid. It's just all their his ideas, thoughts, and opinions are just really stupid.


FTFY, ya toolbag
 
2012-12-30 06:14:37 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?


Yes, but money. The whole point of the doomsday prepper craze is to convince lots of people to obsessively acquire high-end expensive things. The killer's mother in the Newtown shooting had a pointlessly large arsenal of pointlessly powerful weapons, and she wasn't alone: enough people in the town were mimicking her behavior that residents complained of constant and gratuitous ka-booms from unlicensed shooting ranges.

If guns became these simple pedestrian things, if collecting guns became about as fun as collecting brooms, then it wastes all the marketing effort spent on creating "gun enthusiast" as a hobby.
 
2012-12-30 06:14:54 PM  
People were filing in an out of the Tanner Gun Show proudly putting their First Amendment right to use. Some bought guns for hunting, others for protection.

What?

seriously? The fark?
 
2012-12-30 06:15:39 PM  

wyltoknow: I don't really hold feelings toward either side in this debate, but I do have to wonder, do gun enthusiasts offer any analogies that aren't completely off-base? "Lolz this innocuous elsewise-useful item might do some sort of harm maybe, obviously we need to ban it, ahyuck!" No, no zing points for you.


They also think banning rocks is analogous.
 
2012-12-30 06:15:41 PM  

mediablitz: Do spoons make you 4 times as likely to be involved in a homicide if you have them in your house? How about 10 times more likely to be used in a suicide if you have them in your house?


blog.sarcasmsociety.com
"Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?"
 
2012-12-30 06:15:46 PM  

Mrbogey: Xcott: There are some insightful arguments that one can make as an opponent of gun control. Denying the obvious reality that guns are essentially for killing things is not one of them. Pretending that a gun is just an abstract mechanical device that moves part A when one pushes part B, and that everything else is a user issue, that's just derpy.

A bolt-action rifle is designed to kill things. Assault rifles like the AR-15 are designed to wound things. The thinking is that a wounded soldier is better than a dead soldier outright because it takes 2-4 others to tend to an injured soldier while it takes 0-1 others to take care of a dead soldier. Also, smaller rounds are easier to transport and carry. Hence why the 9mm is also popular for some semi-automatics.

But yelling, "we need to ban weapons designed to wound people" doesn't have the same kick.


I see the assault rifle ban as more of a statement than anything else. Handguns statistically kill far more people than assault rifles each year, but assault rifles have the ability to kill more things much faster, and can't really do justifiably better than rifles and handguns in terms of "sport" or "protection" uses. Sure, conventional bombs kill more people each year but nuclear weapons are the ones that everyone's worried about.
 
2012-12-30 06:15:47 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: It's sad to see two things here.
1) Gun were designed to destroy. You point it at something and it is destroyed.
Spoons were designed to aid in eating. What you eat makes you fat. Spoon has no effect on weight gain.

2) The beleif that anything manufactured is beyond regulation. When it's clear that anything sold can be abused, it needs to be regulated.


let's break it down:

liberal view: Guns are responsible, not the person using the gun


Mocking the logic by blaming spoons for the fat person's behavior is supposed to be absurd
 
2012-12-30 06:16:36 PM  

BeSerious: david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]

How'd that work out for him?


.
Perfectly!
 
2012-12-30 06:16:47 PM  

El Brujo: more guns = more guns. You have a gun, so I need a gun.

if you extrapolate the gun nut's logic for a safe America, wherever more than one person is gathered, a firearm should be present.

This is farking out of control and there is no going back.

/thinking about getting a handgun.
//we're farked


When I hear about home invasions on the news I start to think that maybe I should buy a gun for protection. Then I start to think of all of the studies that say you are more likely to have your own gun used against you than successfully defend yourself against criminals, and the higher rates of gun violence among gun owners, as well as worrying that somebody might get drunk and start playing with it and cause a problem.

Therefore I think I should probably just buy a can of mace or pepper spray for protection.
 
2012-12-30 06:16:48 PM  
" If you really think banning guns will get rid of guns, you probably voted for Reagan. Ask anyone below fifty about marijuana or cocaine. Ask any college kid below the age of 21 about drinking. You're ignorant of the way the world works.

How is the war on terror going? The war on drugs? The border war? Really anything the united states government is trying to put a stop to?

People that voted for Raygun believe banning guns WONT get rid of guns. That's the exact opposite of what you said. Therefore you are stupid. and therefore probably didnt vote for Raygun,
 
2012-12-30 06:17:29 PM  

GiddeonFox: Guns were designed to destroy, and even if they destroy "for good" they are still destroying. Even if I don't bring up statistics or studies or anything else, you have to accept the fact that guns, fundamentally, are meant to destroy things. It's the only reason they are made.


Knives were designed to destroy, and even if they destroy "for good" they are still destroying. Even if I don't bring up statistics or studies or anything else, you have to accept the fact that knives, fundamentally, are meant to destroy things. It's the only reason they are made.
 
2012-12-30 06:18:14 PM  
I am somehow reminded of Mark Twain's "War Prayer" Found here... http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/twain1.html

The salient point of which is...
"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle - be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it - for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen."
 
2012-12-30 06:18:17 PM  
but you eat yogurt with a spoon. and you eat a mcrib with your hands
 
2012-12-30 06:18:37 PM  
Fatty didn't notice the calorie and fat content information printed on the side of his packet of mac and cheese?
 
2012-12-30 06:18:57 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?

.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.


Explain to us what the Second Amendment is about. Don't tell me the bill of rights gives you the power to overthrow the government. You're going to need more than an AR15 and a couple buddies mad about quartering troops.
 
2012-12-30 06:19:58 PM  
I weigh 300 pounds. (Seriously.) You know who I blame, don't you?

www.campusdish.com

On every corner? C'mon, let's unite and ban this societal oppressor!
 
2012-12-30 06:20:04 PM  

ultraholland: GiddeonFox: Sport is destructive. You are destroying targets or game. This is like arguing that a jackhammer is not fundamentally a destructive tool because you don't necessarially have to be aiming it at concrete.

Now that you've made that abundantly clear that high-velocity objects transfer a lot of energy when they strike something, just what point are you making here?


That you can't say that "a device which causes objects to attain concentrated high energies and then transfer this energy to something else which generally cannot withstand such energy" is not fundamentally destructive. Argue all you want on other grounds, but "guns aren't destructive things by their nature unless people abuse them" is just wrong.
 
2012-12-30 06:20:21 PM  

BronyMedic: You missed the point yourself. The argument most rational people are making is not to outlaw guns, but to legitimately restrict who can own them (Maybe the mentally ill shouldn't own firearms?), and make regulations not only actually enforced, but more stringent than depending on the word alone of a buyer who's entire obstacle to purchase depends on them being honest.


QFT...
 
2012-12-30 06:20:22 PM  
When a spoon is produced that can be used to instantly fatten unwilling victims from a distance, I'll consider banning it.
 
2012-12-30 06:20:46 PM  

stirfrybry: Darth_Lukecash: It's sad to see two things here.
1) Gun were designed to destroy. You point it at something and it is destroyed.
Spoons were designed to aid in eating. What you eat makes you fat. Spoon has no effect on weight gain.

2) The beleif that anything manufactured is beyond regulation. When it's clear that anything sold can be abused, it needs to be regulated.

let's break it down:

liberal view: Guns are responsible, not the person using the gun


Mocking the logic by blaming spoons for the fat person's behavior is supposed to be absurd


Spoons don't make people fat. Food makes people fat, when combined with sloth. Spoons aren't even necessary for most of the food that makes you fat.
 
2012-12-30 06:20:54 PM  
Despite their opposing views on gun control, the people do agree on one thing - something needs to be done in hopes of preventing another tragic school shooting.

Sighs..you're not going to prevent shiat. You can take all the measures you want, but some people are just bat shiat crazy. They will continue to kill if they have a gun, a knife, or a bomb. All you can do is do your best to protect everyone, and yourself. If that means a few folks in the schools that are armed, i have no issue with this as long as they are properly trained. But don't expect some miracle "prevention" because you're going to be disappointed.
 
2012-12-30 06:21:24 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: ultraholland: Darth_Lukecash: Nothing intentional except a man who assumed his gun wasn't loaded and my dead friend had been in the way of a bullet.

I'm sorry about your friend but this is wholly irrelevant to the topic of gun regulation. Your friend hung out with idiots.


I pointed out that comparing the gun to a spoon was illogical because of the difference of use/design. Guns design was to destroy. That's all it's made for. A spoon can be used to eat healthy and unhealthy things.

He countered that it was the intent of the user.

I countered with the death of my friend, due to an accident-not intent.


Both people involved in your friend's death broke Rule #1 (Every gun is ALWAYS loaded), Rule #2 (Never point a weapon at something you don't intend to destroy) and Rule #3 (Keep your finger off the trigger until you are prepared to fire). I'm sorry for the loss of your friend, but both people involved in that incident were being stupid.

Guns are inanimate tools that were designed to fire a steel, lead, brass or copper projectile at high rates of speed; that's it. The use a weapon is put to is defined by the person shooting it. Yes, people have used them to kill, and will continue to use them to kill, but those people who truly want to kill someone or something won't be stopped by any ban (note Britain's need to ban samurai swords a few years ago...). No, they'll just walk around the law and purchase a gun illegally, or they will pick up a baseball bat or a knife or a lead pipe or a crossbow or a pencil or an icicle or a ... Do you see? There are no shortage of lethal weapons lying around, and people being stupid can, and will, find a way to use the weapon which is easiest to procure.

Also: more people die every year from car accidents than from guns; should we write more driving laws? More people die every year from cigarette-related causes than from guns; should we write more laws against smoking? More people die from accidental drownings every year than from guns; should we ban swimming? More people die every year from alcohol-related causes than from guns; should we ban alcohol? No, actually, we've already tried that, and it didn't work. My point is that total bans don't work. I would love to see the mentally ill be able to get the treatment they need, so we could take care of the *actual* problem, but the Republicans won't allow that because it would require raising taxes. I would love to see "assault weapons" taken out of the hands of the civilian population, but, oh, wait -- they already are. An AR-15 is NOT an assault weapon, as it does not have a selector switch to swap between semi-automatic and fully-automatic. An M16, an AK-47, an M4... These, and weapons like them, are assault weapons, and you, as a civilian, cannot legally buy them without a special license for which you pay the federal government a freaking huge amount of money every year.

My suggestion is that we A) enforce the laws that are already on the books, and which are sufficient to prevent most illegal weapons-purchases, and B) we get Congress to get off their collective asses and determine a way to lower spending on the stupid stuff so we can afford the important stuff.
 
2012-12-30 06:21:44 PM  

david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]


img42.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-30 06:22:00 PM  

moothemagiccow: david_gaithersburg: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?

.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.

Explain to us what the Second Amendment is about. Don't tell me the bill of rights gives you the power to overthrow the government. You're going to need more than an AR15 and a couple buddies mad about quartering troops.


.
A - You have said that you do not want to hear the actual answer.
B - Tell it to the Algerians, the Libyans, the Syrians, etc., etc.
C - With all of the recent uprisings against dictatorships, your fear is understandable comrade.
 
2012-12-30 06:22:19 PM  

fredklein: GiddeonFox: Guns were designed to destroy, and even if they destroy "for good" they are still destroying. Even if I don't bring up statistics or studies or anything else, you have to accept the fact that guns, fundamentally, are meant to destroy things. It's the only reason they are made.

Knives were designed to destroy, and even if they destroy "for good" they are still destroying. Even if I don't bring up statistics or studies or anything else, you have to accept the fact that knives, fundamentally, are meant to destroy things. It's the only reason they are made.


Yes? It's not a valid argument to say knives weren't meant to destroy either. That's my point, that "Oh a gun is just a kind and loving inanimate object that has absolutely nothing to do with destroying things EXCEPT WHEN SOME MEANIE HUMANS MAKE IT DO THAT" is stupid and circular. There are plenty of OTHER arguments you can make, but not that one.
 
2012-12-30 06:22:56 PM  

DesktopHippie: Fatty didn't notice the calorie and fat content information printed on the side of his packet of mac and cheese?


Do they put warnings on guns? Like "do not point at people or animals?" I had a toy that said that. I'm thinking they don't, or all this could've been avoided. "Keep out of the reach of crazy vengeful people."
 
2012-12-30 06:23:08 PM  
Can't we just ban food?
 
2012-12-30 06:24:55 PM  

rvesco: I weigh 300 pounds. (Seriously.) You know who I blame, don't you?

[www.campusdish.com image 425x149]

On every corner? C'mon, let's unite and ban this societal oppressor!


i weigh 200 lbs

u know who i blame

the makers of this damned whey protein
i eat every morning

i used to be 160
 
2012-12-30 06:24:56 PM  

ultraholland: GiddeonFox: Sport is destructive. You are destroying targets or game. This is like arguing that a jackhammer is not fundamentally a destructive tool because you don't necessarially have to be aiming it at concrete.

Now that you've made that abundantly clear that high-velocity objects transfer a lot of energy when they strike something, just what point are you making here?


I think it's about the danger of bowling balls.
 
2012-12-30 06:25:11 PM  

Cuchulane: david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]

[img42.imageshack.us image 797x340]


And that prick also wasn't a big fan of private property rights. Is he one of your heroes?
 
2012-12-30 06:25:57 PM  

stirfrybry:
let's break it down:

liberal view: Guns are responsible, not the person using the gun


Congratulations on your total failure to understand your opponents.
 
2012-12-30 06:26:05 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Cuchulane: david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]

[img42.imageshack.us image 797x340]

And that prick also wasn't a big fan of private property rights. Is he one of your heroes?


B-b-but he's Republican Jesus!
 
2012-12-30 06:27:13 PM  

GiddeonFox: david_gaithersburg: Cuchulane: david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]

[img42.imageshack.us image 797x340]

And that prick also wasn't a big fan of private property rights. Is he one of your heroes?

B-b-but he's Republican Jesus!


.
And I'm an American. Your point is?
 
2012-12-30 06:28:19 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Spoons are a bad analogy. "Pure fat in a syringe injected right into my body that I carry around with me and sometimes 'accidentally' inject into other people" is a better one.


Or intentionally inject into a dozen innocent bystanders.

/People who think the spoon/gun analogy is a good one, must have done poorly on their SATs
//hard to have an actual debate when one side says "regulate" and the other side hears "ban"
 
2012-12-30 06:28:29 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: stirfrybry:
let's break it down:

liberal view: Guns are responsible, not the person using the gun

Congratulations on your total failure to understand your opponents.



yeah, right. Gun control? Ban guns? Totally not blaming guns at all! You win.
 
2012-12-30 06:28:34 PM  

david_gaithersburg: GiddeonFox: david_gaithersburg: Cuchulane: david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]

[img42.imageshack.us image 797x340]

And that prick also wasn't a big fan of private property rights. Is he one of your heroes?

B-b-but he's Republican Jesus!

.
And I'm an American. Your point is?


It was a joke, calm down
 
2012-12-30 06:28:40 PM  

david_gaithersburg: moothemagiccow: david_gaithersburg: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?

.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.

Explain to us what the Second Amendment is about. Don't tell me the bill of rights gives you the power to overthrow the government. You're going to need more than an AR15 and a couple buddies mad about quartering troops.

.
A - You have said that you do not want to hear the actual answer.
B - Tell it to the Algerians, the Libyans, the Syrians, etc., etc.
C - With all of the recent uprisings against dictatorships, your fear is understandable comrade.


If that's your answer, you've got to be kidding.

Those countries' militaries combined are a pale shadow of the United States military. You are not taking over this country. You will be stopped before you get the chance to start.

I'm not afraid of you. What gave you that indication? Owning a gun is an indicator of fear. It says to me, "if I didn't have this gun, you might hurt me."
 
2012-12-30 06:29:26 PM  

moothemagiccow: DesktopHippie: Fatty didn't notice the calorie and fat content information printed on the side of his packet of mac and cheese?

Do they put warnings on guns? Like "do not point at people or animals?" I had a toy that said that. I'm thinking they don't, or all this could've been avoided. "Keep out of the reach of crazy vengeful people."


Do you honestly think they don't include warnings? You've either not purchased a gun or never read a gun owner's manual.
 
2012-12-30 06:29:34 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: a man who assumed his gun wasn't loaded and my dead friend had been in the way of a bullet.


The gun is loaded.  Always.

If you think the gun is not loaded, you are not just wrong, you are an idiot.
 
2012-12-30 06:29:38 PM  

LordOfThePings: People were filing in an out of the Tanner Gun Show proudly putting their First Amendment right to use. Some bought guns for hunting, others for protection.

Can't count? Career in TV journalism may be for you!


Came here for this, thanks for covering it.

If you're a journalist and you don't know what the First Amendment says, then you're not a journalist.
 
2012-12-30 06:30:19 PM  

moothemagiccow: david_gaithersburg: moothemagiccow: david_gaithersburg: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?

.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.

Explain to us what the Second Amendment is about. Don't tell me the bill of rights gives you the power to overthrow the government. You're going to need more than an AR15 and a couple buddies mad about quartering troops.

.
A - You have said that you do not want to hear the actual answer.
B - Tell it to the Algerians, the Libyans, the Syrians, etc., etc.
C - With all of the recent uprisings against dictatorships, your fear is understandable comrade.

If that's your answer, you've got to be kidding.

Those countries' militaries combined are a pale shadow of the United States military. You are not taking over this country. You will be stopped before you get the chance to start.

I'm not afraid of you. What gave you that indication? Owning a gun is an indicator of fear. It says to me, "if I didn't have this gun, you might hurt me."


My AR-15 can totally take down an entire army of unfeeling murder sky drones dude, I don't know what kind of pussy ass guns you use.
 
2012-12-30 06:30:38 PM  

BronyMedic: You missed the point yourself. The argument most rational people are making is not to outlaw guns, but to legitimately restrict who can own them (Maybe the mentally ill shouldn't own firearms?), and make regulations not only actually enforced, but more stringent than depending on the word alone of a buyer who's entire obstacle to purchase depends on them being honest.


How would that have helped prevent the Newtown massacre? The mentally ill kid wasn't the one who bought or owned the guns---he simply took them from his mother, who passed all the requisite background checks.

I'm sure it's sound policy, but as long as anyone can acquire an arsenal, a felon or maniac can simply kill that person and take his/her guns.

But then, it's really a matter of the raw numbers, induced by this daffy wingnut trend of acquiring pointlessly large arsenals for no legitimate reason. Now that it's commonplace to have giant arms stashes with assault rifles and extended magazines, you just have a greater proportion of sickos who can get their hands on them.

In an alternate universe, stockpiling weapons is still the domain of militia types hiding out in Montana, this guy's mom would have gotten into kite flying or playing the bodhran, and this kid at the very worst would have gone on to stab Garrison Keillor. Instead, we have half the country convinced that the world is ending and they have to be ready to defend themselves with assault rifles, gold coins and cylinders of heirloom seeds.
 
2012-12-30 06:31:27 PM  

moothemagiccow: david_gaithersburg: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?

.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.

Explain to us what the Second Amendment is about. Don't tell me the bill of rights gives you the power to overthrow the government. You're going to need more than an AR15 and a couple buddies mad about quartering troops.


Well, I'm glad you asked: 2A explained
 
2012-12-30 06:32:18 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Cuchulane: david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]

[img42.imageshack.us image 797x340]

And that prick also wasn't a big fan of private property rights. Is he one of your heroes?


JFK is one of yours?
 
2012-12-30 06:32:36 PM  
I hate all the gun people's "you can't blame the gun!" "the gun didn't do anything wrong!" "guns don't kill anything, people do" "the real victim here is the poor gun!" "won't someone think of the gun" "guns are inanimate objects" drivel.

/not anti-gun
 
2012-12-30 06:33:06 PM  

moothemagiccow: david_gaithersburg: moothemagiccow: david_gaithersburg: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?

.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.

Explain to us what the Second Amendment is about. Don't tell me the bill of rights gives you the power to overthrow the government. You're going to need more than an AR15 and a couple buddies mad about quartering troops.

.
A - You have said that you do not want to hear the actual answer.
B - Tell it to the Algerians, the Libyans, the Syrians, etc., etc.
C - With all of the recent uprisings against dictatorships, your fear is understandable comrade.

If that's your answer, you've got to be kidding.

Those countries' militaries combined are a pale shadow of the United States military. You are not taking over this country. You will be stopped before you get the chance to start.

I'm not afraid of you. What gave you that indication? Owning a gun is an indicator of fear. It says to me, "if I didn't have this gun, you might hurt me."


.
Here are a few hundred more examples from the past 100 years. Link

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-30 06:33:49 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: El Brujo: more guns = more guns. You have a gun, so I need a gun.

if you extrapolate the gun nut's logic for a safe America, wherever more than one person is gathered, a firearm should be present.

This is farking out of control and there is no going back.

/thinking about getting a handgun.
//we're farked

When I hear about home invasions on the news I start to think that maybe I should buy a gun for protection. Then I start to think of all of the studies that say you are more likely to have your own gun used against you than successfully defend yourself against criminals, and the higher rates of gun violence among gun owners, as well as worrying that somebody might get drunk and start playing with it and cause a problem.

Therefore I think I should probably just buy a can of mace or pepper spray for protection.


Those studies that say the gun will be used against you aren't simply flawed, they are outright lies.  As for the higher rate of violence among gun owners, that's also a lie.  That particular study cherry picked the data to come up with the result they wanted.  For example, drug dealers and their customers are considered "friends" in that study.  Hard core gang-bangers were also included in the numbers.
 
2012-12-30 06:34:06 PM  
Subby cannot make me fat with his spoon. I cannot make subby fat with my spoon.

Subby can kill me with his gun. I can kill subby with my gun.

Damn, subby, you're right! Spoons and guns are exactly the same!

///I would prefer that subby shot himself with his own gun, if he feels the need to shoot anyone.
 
2012-12-30 06:34:50 PM  
GiddeonFox: That you can't say that "a device which causes objects to attain concentrated high energies and then transfer this energy to something else which generally cannot withstand such energy" is not fundamentally destructive. Argue all you want on other grounds, but "guns aren't destructive things by their nature unless people abuse them" is just wrong.

I'm sorry, you were simply following the progression of the thread. My question really should have been directed at Darth_Lukecash as he was the one who brought it up. Whether or not guns were meant to destroy is a stupid argument. Yes, the rounds generally destroy whatever they hit. Bringing that up is pointless.
 
2012-12-30 06:35:36 PM  

fredklein: Knives were designed to destroy, and even if they destroy "for good" they are still destroying. Even if I don't bring up statistics or studies or anything else, you have to accept the fact that knives, fundamentally, are meant to destroy things. It's the only reason they are made.


Yes, and many states outlaw knives that are either intended to harm people, or which are too suitable for that purpose, e.g. butterfly knives.

'm not seeing the point of this argument---if anything, it affirms that you can selectively ban a dangerous thing based on how geared it is towards hurting or killing people.
 
2012-12-30 06:36:45 PM  

Cuchulane: david_gaithersburg: Cuchulane: david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]

[img42.imageshack.us image 797x340]

And that prick also wasn't a big fan of private property rights. Is he one of your heroes?

JFK is one of yours?


.
He was also for zero corporate taxes. The so-call-progressives overthrew the Democratic Party years ago. It was sad to see their demise.
 
2012-12-30 06:36:53 PM  

stirfrybry: liberal view: Guns are responsible, not the person using the gun


The liberal view is actually: "The person is responsible. Therefore we need to ban guns so responsible people have no possible way of having them. We only want irresponsible lawbreakers having guns."
 
2012-12-30 06:37:35 PM  

beakerxf: //hard to have an actual debate when one side says "regulate" and the other side hears "ban"


It's hard to have a rational discussion where one side sees a tool and the other sees a "scary death machine of killing." Same way it's hard to have a rational discussion when one side sees a baby and the other side sees tissue. Just like it's hard to have a rational discussion when one side bases its concept of freedom on personal liberty and the other on subservience to a government. Also hard to have a rational discussion when one side talks about personal property ownership and the other side dismisses personal property ownership.

I suspect that you and I will never see eye to eye on this issue because we are both proceeding from fundamentally different assumptions.
 
2012-12-30 06:38:10 PM  

david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]


"Every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country?"

That's a lot more patriotic than the usual derp about needing guns to shoot cops and American soldiers---oops, I mean "defend myself from government tyrrany."
 
2012-12-30 06:38:36 PM  

wyltoknow: I don't really hold feelings toward either side in this debate, but I do have to wonder, do gun enthusiasts offer any analogies that aren't completely off-base? "Lolz this innocuous elsewise-useful item might do some sort of harm maybe, obviously we need to ban it, ahyuck!" No, no zing points for you.


Yes, they do. As you have said, most of the time what they counter with is to ban something that has a use that outweighs the cost that banning it would impose. For example, cars. Cars do in fact kill more people than guns but the good that they bring to society makes it impractical to ban them. Apparently there is an acceptable number of kids that should die to allow people to keep their cars.

There are however, some things which have almost no practical benefit at all to society and should be banned because they are used to kill people. But when gun enthusiasts call for their banning, the gun grabber nuts come back with the same lame questions like what you asked. Apparently only gun grabbers are allowed to increase safety in this country by proposing banning things. Everybody else can go suck it. Does that sound about right?
 
2012-12-30 06:38:37 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: moothemagiccow: DesktopHippie: Fatty didn't notice the calorie and fat content information printed on the side of his packet of mac and cheese?

Do they put warnings on guns? Like "do not point at people or animals?" I had a toy that said that. I'm thinking they don't, or all this could've been avoided. "Keep out of the reach of crazy vengeful people."

Do you honestly think they don't include warnings? You've either not purchased a gun or never read a gun owner's manual.


I asked, where's my answer
 
2012-12-30 06:39:03 PM  

treecologist: Subby cannot make me fat with his spoon. I cannot make subby fat with my spoon.

Subby can kill me with his gun. I can kill subby with my gun.

Damn, subby, you're right! Spoons and guns are exactly the same!

///I would prefer that subby shot himself with his own gun, if he feels the need to shoot anyone.


Both require a user to make it happen. How about you blame the person
 
2012-12-30 06:40:57 PM  
Flare guns were designed to save people.
Electron guns were used primarily to entertain people.
Potatoe guns were made for  Quayles.
 
2012-12-30 06:41:47 PM  

ultraholland: GiddeonFox: That you can't say that "a device which causes objects to attain concentrated high energies and then transfer this energy to something else which generally cannot withstand such energy" is not fundamentally destructive. Argue all you want on other grounds, but "guns aren't destructive things by their nature unless people abuse them" is just wrong.

I'm sorry, you were simply following the progression of the thread. My question really should have been directed at Darth_Lukecash as he was the one who brought it up. Whether or not guns were meant to destroy is a stupid argument. Yes, the rounds generally destroy whatever they hit. Bringing that up is pointless.


Yeah sorry I dragged it out too :) I'm really not against gun ownership, just think they should be better regulated, and I don't really see a reason to own an assault rifle or an entire armory. Maybe one or two guns, sure, they're fun to shoot and the bill of rights says we can have them. Collectors could even get like, a "collector's license" that lets them own even more, assuming they pass a rigorous screening process. But right now, I could walk down to the gun show that's in my town right now and take home literally 100+ guns without a waiting period (loophole for gun shows!) and that just seems both dangerous and unnecessary. I understand that they are tools that can be used for good or bad, but the "bad" is so overwhelmingly bad that they need to be controlled far better than they currently are.
 
2012-12-30 06:42:05 PM  
Whenever someone mentions "regulation" the pro gun side screams "confiscation". They are not remotely the same thing. Guns are tools. They can be used to provide food, self defense, target shooting and other legal activities.

In my view, regulation would not mean confiscation. It would mean mandatory training in safe handling practices, legal responsibilities of ownership, proof of proper storage equipment to prevent theft or unauthorized access to the guns and the ability to pass a test based on those topics. Once you have proven that you have the knowledge to not accidentally shoot your neighbor, you can have a gun.

Perhaps a psychiatric assessment should also be done prior to ownership of something that has the potential to cause massive amounts of harm. Assuming people pass the evaluation they can proceed with the purchase of a firearm. These should be done at a minimum of every five years while people continue to own a firearm.

Cars are also just things. They can be deadly things if misused. We require training and licensing to ensure that people know how to operate them safely without risking others lives. Some people disregard this training but it is mostly beneficial to all people. We also require insurance for cars in case they are misused. Perhaps a gun owner should have to purchase liability insurance for their firearm just like a car. That might be a bit much but it would certainly force people to take gun ownership seriously.

I see no reason why we can't let people have their guns (I am in the army and I like to shoot at ranges, both civilian and military.), and still make safety the priority. There are many many owners that treat their guns like toys. I know many who do and if you are a gun owner and spent time in the gun community you have likely witnessed acts of stupidity that could have been deadly. They are not toys. They are tools that can be deadly in careless hands.
 
2012-12-30 06:42:12 PM  
Recently some guy was cooking meth that caused an exposion that killed himself and the couple in the neighboring apartment.

I think they should ban meth labs.

/ what ?
// meth labs are already illegal ?
/// nevermind.
 
2012-12-30 06:42:41 PM  

Cuchulane: david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]

[img42.imageshack.us image 797x340]


Except for the part where those Reagan quotes are out of context and the Kennedy quote isn't.

Sure.
 
2012-12-30 06:42:48 PM  

david_gaithersburg: moothemagiccow: david_gaithersburg: moothemagiccow: david_gaithersburg: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?

.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.

Explain to us what the Second Amendment is about. Don't tell me the bill of rights gives you the power to overthrow the government. You're going to need more than an AR15 and a couple buddies mad about quartering troops.

.
A - You have said that you do not want to hear the actual answer.
B - Tell it to the Algerians, the Libyans, the Syrians, etc., etc.
C - With all of the recent uprisings against dictatorships, your fear is understandable comrade.

If that's your answer, you've got to be kidding.

Those countries' militaries combined are a pale shadow of the United States military. You are not taking over this country. You will be stopped before you get the chance to start.

I'm not afraid of you. What gave you that indication? Owning a gun is an indicator of fear. It says to me, "if I didn't have this gun, you might hurt me."

.
Here are a few hundred more examples from the past 100 years. Link

[24.media.tumblr.com image 850x468]


Were you planning to overthrow the United States government at some point? Or is it at the bottom of your to-do list?

If not, what would it take?
 
2012-12-30 06:43:08 PM  

moothemagiccow: Mr. Eugenides: moothemagiccow: DesktopHippie: Fatty didn't notice the calorie and fat content information printed on the side of his packet of mac and cheese?

Do they put warnings on guns? Like "do not point at people or animals?" I had a toy that said that. I'm thinking they don't, or all this could've been avoided. "Keep out of the reach of crazy vengeful people."

Do you honestly think they don't include warnings? You've either not purchased a gun or never read a gun owner's manual.

I asked, where's my answer

.
Well, that is the whole purpose of a gun. Duh.
 
2012-12-30 06:44:58 PM  

moothemagiccow: david_gaithersburg: moothemagiccow: david_gaithersburg: moothemagiccow: david_gaithersburg: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?

.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.

Explain to us what the Second Amendment is about. Don't tell me the bill of rights gives you the power to overthrow the government. You're going to need more than an AR15 and a couple buddies mad about quartering troops.

.
A - You have said that you do not want to hear the actual answer.
B - Tell it to the Algerians, the Libyans, the Syrians, etc., etc.
C - With all of the recent uprisings against dictatorships, your fear is understandable comrade.

If that's your answer, you've got to be kidding.

Those countries' militaries combined are a pale shadow of the United States military. You are not taking over this country. You will be stopped before you get the chance to start.

I'm not afraid of you. What gave you that indication? Owning a gun is an indicator of fear. It says to me, "if I didn't have this gun, you might hurt me."

.
Here are a few hundred more examples from the past 100 years. Link

[24.media.tumblr.com image 850x468]

Were you planning to overthrow the United States government at some point? Or is it at the bottom of your to-do list?

If not, what would it take?


.
The question is do YOU plan to overthrow the US government?
 
2012-12-30 06:45:30 PM  
Nothing can be done about this. It is totally out of our control and you all know it.

Gun use, ownership and culture is a virus.
 
2012-12-30 06:46:08 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?

.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.


It isn't about letting nutters shoot up schools or white trash have a loaded
Sat night special on there nightstand. It was about having an armed populace as a next best thing to a standing army.

Y'all may not have noticed, but in the subsequent 200+ years the US standing army has gone from non-existent to the most powerful in the world. The original purpose of the 2nd has been obsolete for over a century.

The total murder rate by all methods in the USA is 3x higher than gun-permissive (by civilized standards) France and 5x higher than the more strict UK. In the time it takes you to Fark today, another dozen Americans will be gunned down.

If you disagree with instituting gun control in the US, you need to be intellectually honest and say "I am cool with an extra 11,000 murders a year so I don't have the inconvenience of having to secure and register my guns"

If you think there will be some future opportunity to overthrow the US government with machine guns, you're seriously deluded and should receive mental health care urgently, and you may be underinformed about the kind of arms a modern military can bring to bear on domestic terrorists. George III is long dead, but now even we pacifist Brits pack nukes when playing for keepsies. Good luck with your NFA toys.
 
2012-12-30 06:46:37 PM  
Why won't anti-gunners and the media learn what assault weapons are?
 
2012-12-30 06:46:48 PM  
'cus they are so like miniature shovels!


/DNRTFA
//fark you and Happy New year
 
2012-12-30 06:47:10 PM  
GiddeonFox: I could walk down to the gun show that's in my town right now and take home literally 100+ guns without a waiting period (loophole for gun shows!)

You do realize that "loophole" has nothing to do with gun shows and everything to do with sales/transfers between private individuals, right? That said, it's not a bad idea to give people the ability to run a background check for private sales. That would protect the seller as well as help ensure that firearms weren't going to unqualified people.
 
2012-12-30 06:47:17 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?

.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.


1. Self Defense
2. National Defense
3. Defense against Tyranny

And in that order.
 
2012-12-30 06:47:23 PM  

duffblue: We should regulate weapons further because you have stupid friends?


That's what I was thinking. Should we ban the use of monitors because someone was stupid enough to touch the inside of one?
 
2012-12-30 06:47:45 PM  
Xcott: Yes, we would ban spoons, if a bunch of lunatic "preppers" began filling their houses with special assault spoons designed primarily for killing people, so effectively that some idiot kid with voices in his head can go kill a few dozen kids by waving it around a playground while holding down the auto-scoop switch.

Silly that's what a Titanium Spork is for!
 
2012-12-30 06:49:06 PM  

GonadtheBarbarian: Why won't anti-gunners and the media learn what assault weapons are?


Because the word "assault" makes them wet their pants. And they like it.
 
2012-12-30 06:49:25 PM  

USAF Retired: Recently some guy was cooking meth that caused an exposion that killed himself and the couple in the neighboring apartment.

I think they should ban meth labs.

/ what ?
// meth labs are already illegal ?
/// nevermind.


I think they should make meth labs legal, the meth lab is just an object, meth labs dont kill people, stupid meth manufacturers kill people. If more people cooked meth, they could have gotten some sound advice from a meth-cooking neighbor and maybe the explosion could have been prevented. The freedom to manufacture meth shouldnt be infringed just so you coward liberals can feel "safe"
 
2012-12-30 06:49:42 PM  

ParaHandy: david_gaithersburg: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?

.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.

It isn't about letting nutters shoot up schools or white trash have a loaded
Sat night special on there nightstand. It was about having an armed populace as a next best thing to a standing army.

Y'all may not have noticed, but in the subsequent 200+ years the US standing army has gone from non-existent to the most powerful in the world. The original purpose of the 2nd has been obsolete for over a century.

The total murder rate by all methods in the USA is 3x higher than gun-permissive (by civilized standards) France and 5x higher than the more strict UK. In the time it takes you to Fark today, another dozen Americans will be gunned down.

If you disagree with instituting gun control in the US, you need to be intellectually honest and say "I am cool with an extra 11,000 murders a year so I don't have the inconvenience of having to secure and register my guns"

If you think there will be some future opportunity to overthrow the US government with machine guns, you're seriously deluded and should receive mental health care urgently, and you may be underinformed about the kind of arms a modern military can bring to bear on domestic terrorists. George III is long dead, but now even we pacifist Brits pack nukes when playing for keepsies. Good luck with your NFA toys.


.
Did you attend the Royal Bun Toss last year? How embarrassing that you choose to live that way.
 
2012-12-30 06:49:46 PM  
El Brujo: Gun use, ownership and culture is a virus.

and the best way to protect yourself from that virus is to build up an immunity by introducing a small amount of the virus into the subject. You can immunize yourself by purchasing a .22 revolver.
 
2012-12-30 06:51:10 PM  

fluffy2097: stirfrybry: liberal view: Guns are responsible, not the person using the gun

The liberal view is actually: "The person is responsible. Therefore we need to ban guns so responsible people have no possible way of having them. We only want irresponsible lawbreakers having guns."


I understand it is easier to tell yourselves scary campfire stories about gun grabbers than to deal with the idea of realistic restrictions on gun use and ownership, in the same way it is easier to invent wackadoodle straw men who blame inanimate objects for human actions than to deal with the actual "liberal view." But the ban monster under your bed isn't real: a gun ban is insurmountably illegal and impracticable in the US. So you can stop crying about it.
 
2012-12-30 06:51:35 PM  

stirfrybry: treecologist: Subby cannot make me fat with his spoon. I cannot make subby fat with my spoon.

Subby can kill me with his gun. I can kill subby with my gun.

Damn, subby, you're right! Spoons and guns are exactly the same!

///I would prefer that subby shot himself with his own gun, if he feels the need to shoot anyone.

Both require a user to make it happen. How about you blame the person


No idea. Check a gun and tell me. I just found it amusing that the fatty equated spoons with guns and missed the fact that his ammo in that analogy is heavily regulated by the government.

Imagine how much stricter the FDA would be if you could choose to take out a bunch of other people every time you had a lard induced coronary.
 
2012-12-30 06:52:58 PM  

ParaHandy: david_gaithersburg: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?

.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.

It isn't about letting nutters shoot up schools or white trash have a loaded
Sat night special on there nightstand. It was about having an armed populace as a next best thing to a standing army.

Y'all may not have noticed, but in the subsequent 200+ years the US standing army has gone from non-existent to the most powerful in the world. The original purpose of the 2nd has been obsolete for over a century.

The total murder rate by all methods in the USA is 3x higher than gun-permissive (by civilized standards) France and 5x higher than the more strict UK. In the time it takes you to Fark today, another dozen Americans will be gunned down.

If you disagree with instituting gun control in the US, you need to be intellectually honest and say "I am cool with an extra 11,000 murders a year so I don't have the inconvenience of having to secure and register my guns"

If you think there will be some future opportunity to overthrow the US government with machine guns, you're seriously deluded and should receive mental health care urgently, and you may be underinformed about the kind of arms a modern military can bring to bear on domestic terrorists. George III is long dead, but now even we pacifist Brits pack nukes when playing for keepsies. Good luck with your NFA toys.


You can compare the US to all the other countries that you want. It is an apples to oranges comparison. Why don't you guys compare the US to the US instead or does that make you scared for what it would reveal?
 
2012-12-30 06:52:58 PM  

ultraholland: El Brujo: Gun use, ownership and culture is a virus.

and the best way to protect yourself from that virus is to build up an immunity by introducing a small amount of the virus into the subject. You can immunize yourself by purchasing a .22 revolver.


I was thinking something a little larger than a .22
 
2012-12-30 06:52:58 PM  

moothemagiccow: Mr. Eugenides: moothemagiccow: DesktopHippie: Fatty didn't notice the calorie and fat content information printed on the side of his packet of mac and cheese?

Do they put warnings on guns? Like "do not point at people or animals?" I had a toy that said that. I'm thinking they don't, or all this could've been avoided. "Keep out of the reach of crazy vengeful people."

Do you honestly think they don't include warnings? You've either not purchased a gun or never read a gun owner's manual.

I asked, where's my answer


Since your ass is too lazy to do any looking I shall spoon feed you. Here are links to the manuals pages from some gun manufacturers.

Smith & Wesson.

Bushmaster.

Winchester.

You will find that every manual for every gun has page upon page of gun safety instructions and every one will include warnings to treat all guns as loaded always, never point a gun, loaded or unloaded, at anything you don't want to shoot, always be certain what's behind your target, keep the gun the hell away from children and more and more and more.

Happy?
 
2012-12-30 06:53:34 PM  
Stop eating spoons?
 
2012-12-30 06:54:29 PM  

Point02GPA: Flare guns were designed to save people.
Electron guns were used primarily to entertain people.
Potatoe guns were made for  Quayles.


Don't forget trebuche's and compressed air cannons. How else would be able to do a pumpkin siege. Trust me, you do not want to be on the receiving end.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-30 06:55:02 PM  

david_gaithersburg: ParaHandy: david_gaithersburg: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?

.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.

It isn't about letting nutters shoot up schools or white trash have a loaded
Sat night special on there nightstand. It was about having an armed populace as a next best thing to a standing army.

Y'all may not have noticed, but in the subsequent 200+ years the US standing army has gone from non-existent to the most powerful in the world. The original purpose of the 2nd has been obsolete for over a century.

The total murder rate by all methods in the USA is 3x higher than gun-permissive (by civilized standards) France and 5x higher than the more strict UK. In the time it takes you to Fark today, another dozen Americans will be gunned down.

If you disagree with instituting gun control in the US, you need to be intellectually honest and say "I am cool with an extra 11,000 murders a year so I don't have the inconvenience of having to secure and register my guns"

If you think there will be some future opportunity to overthrow the US government with machine guns, you're seriously deluded and should receive mental health care urgently, and you may be underinformed about the kind of arms a modern military can bring to bear on domestic terrorists. George III is long dead, but now even we pacifist Brits pack nukes when playing for keepsies. Good luck with your NFA toys.

.
Did you attend the Royal Bun Toss last year? How embarrassing that you choose to live that way.


We put he right to life above the right to end it. It's a weird European thing. Ask someone who went to UCB.
 
2012-12-30 06:56:21 PM  

Spare Me: GonadtheBarbarian: Why won't anti-gunners and the media learn what assault weapons are?

Because the word "assault" makes them wet their pants. And they like it.


I love how gun nuts get hung up on this... yeah fully automatic assault rifles werent used in the recent shootings, but do you really need a legal right to purchase an AR-15 or a Bushmaster? No, absolutely not
 
2012-12-30 06:57:20 PM  

chumboobler: Cars are also just things. They can be deadly things if misused. We require training and licensing to ensure that people know how to operate them safely without risking others lives. Some people disregard this training but it is mostly beneficial to all people. We also require insurance for cars in case they are misused.


On top of that, we don't have an auto industry that is trying to sell us tanks, or after-market battering rams. Type "rifle" into walmart.com and look at the top three hits---this is an industry intentionally marketing combat weapons with military/law-enforcement applications. Try typing "spoon" into the same search engine and see how many tactical assault spoons show up.

/Yes, I know it would make a great name for a band.
 
2012-12-30 06:57:37 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Since your ass is too lazy to do any looking I shall spoon feed you.


Wait, what are you doing? Stop it! You're killing him!! YOU MONSTER!!!
 
2012-12-30 06:59:11 PM  
I really like the liability insurance angle ... since guns are very safe when used properly, as the NRA tells us, the insurance premiums should be negligible. It also puts gun regulation into the free market, and allows benevolent corporations instead of nasty Dems to decide what they will and won't insure. Very bootstrappy. And it's working super well for healthcare, I'm told.
 
2012-12-30 07:01:02 PM  
Subtard is hereby challenged. He gets a spoon, I get an AR15. His goal is to make me fat, mine is to make him dead. Someone please start a betting pool.
 
2012-12-30 07:01:38 PM  

enochianwolf: Spare Me: GonadtheBarbarian: Why won't anti-gunners and the media learn what assault weapons are?

Because the word "assault" makes them wet their pants. And they like it.

I love how gun nuts get hung up on this... yeah fully automatic assault rifles werent used in the recent shootings, but do you really need a legal right to purchase an AR-15 or a Bushmaster? No, absolutely not


I have two of them. I used to have 3 but I sold one a few years ago. Why do I have so many? Because I have two grown sons and I taught them appropriately growing up. Jeebus, it's just a tool. I have a 30.06 semi auto hunting rifle with 10 round mags. I could do FAR more damage with that "street howitzer" that with an AR.

/vet
 
2012-12-30 07:03:59 PM  

ParaHandy: I really like the liability insurance angle ... since guns are very safe when used properly, as the NRA tells us, the insurance premiums should be negligible. It also puts gun regulation into the free market, and allows benevolent corporations instead of nasty Dems to decide what they will and won't insure. Very bootstrappy. And it's working super well for healthcare, I'm told.


I think it's funny how people think "regulation" is some kind of punishment restriction. Regulation only means making a market "regular" for all the players. That's all "regulation" is.
 
2012-12-30 07:05:14 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: fluffy2097: stirfrybry: liberal view: Guns are responsible, not the person using the gun

The liberal view is actually: "The person is responsible. Therefore we need to ban guns so responsible people have no possible way of having them. We only want irresponsible lawbreakers having guns."

I understand it is easier to tell yourselves scary campfire stories about gun grabbers than to deal with the idea of realistic restrictions on gun use and ownership, in the same way it is easier to invent wackadoodle straw men who blame inanimate objects for human actions than to deal with the actual "liberal view." But the ban monster under your bed isn't real: a gun ban is insurmountably illegal and impracticable in the US. So you can stop crying about it.


You know what is really funny is that the same group of people that calls for "responsible restrictions" on gun ownership is almost exactly the same group that got their panties all bloodied up because Republicans wanted to put in place the voter ID requirements a short time ago. I seem to remember that all arguments against them were along the lines of "voting is a right, it says so in the Constitution, you can't tax a right, making people buy a free ID is a tax, yada yada yada." So how is it now OK to impose a poll tax like cost on owning a gun?
 
2012-12-30 07:06:00 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: fluffy2097: stirfrybry: liberal view: Guns are responsible, not the person using the gun

The liberal view is actually: "The person is responsible. Therefore we need to ban guns so responsible people have no possible way of having them. We only want irresponsible lawbreakers having guns."

I understand it is easier to tell yourselves scary campfire stories about gun grabbers than to deal with the idea of realistic restrictions on gun use and ownership, in the same way it is easier to invent wackadoodle straw men who blame inanimate objects for human actions than to deal with the actual "liberal view." But the ban monster under your bed isn't real: a gun ban is insurmountably illegal and impracticable in the US. So you can stop crying about it.


listen. Restricting guns won't stop violence and you assholes will be back for another bite of freedom.
 
2012-12-30 07:07:17 PM  

Spare Me: enochianwolf: Spare Me: GonadtheBarbarian: Why won't anti-gunners and the media learn what assault weapons are?

Because the word "assault" makes them wet their pants. And they like it.

I love how gun nuts get hung up on this... yeah fully automatic assault rifles werent used in the recent shootings, but do you really need a legal right to purchase an AR-15 or a Bushmaster? No, absolutely not

I have two of them. I used to have 3 but I sold one a few years ago. Why do I have so many? Because I have two grown sons and I taught them appropriately growing up. Jeebus, it's just a tool. I have a 30.06 semi auto hunting rifle with 10 round mags. I could do FAR more damage with that "street howitzer" that with an AR.

/vet


Well, at least M1 Garands aren't on the list. I have two of those coming from CMP. As we all know, those have never been used as assult weapons, 'cuz they don't have a detachable magazine and only hold 8 rounds. Completely harmless rifles that don't fire the babby-head seeking, evil .223 or 7.62.
 
2012-12-30 07:07:47 PM  

Spare Me: ParaHandy: I really like the liability insurance angle ... since guns are very safe when used properly, as the NRA tells us, the insurance premiums should be negligible. It also puts gun regulation into the free market, and allows benevolent corporations instead of nasty Dems to decide what they will and won't insure. Very bootstrappy. And it's working super well for healthcare, I'm told.

I think it's funny how people think "regulation" is some kind of punishment restriction. Regulation only means making a market "regular" for all the players. That's all "regulation" is.


anybody with an ounce of logic understands that regulations will be used to take rights
 
2012-12-30 07:10:53 PM  
cough cough, ahem, she needs a spoon guard
 
2012-12-30 07:11:24 PM  

MadAzza: LordOfThePings: People were filing in an out of the Tanner Gun Show proudly putting their First Amendment right to use. Some bought guns for hunting, others for protection.

Can't count? Career in TV journalism may be for you!

Came here for this, thanks for covering it.

If you're a journalist and you don't know what the First Amendment says, then you're not a journalist.


First, Second, 220, 221, whatever it takes.
 
2012-12-30 07:11:39 PM  

Benjimin_Dover: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: fluffy2097: stirfrybry: liberal view: Guns are responsible, not the person using the gun

The liberal view is actually: "The person is responsible. Therefore we need to ban guns so responsible people have no possible way of having them. We only want irresponsible lawbreakers having guns."

I understand it is easier to tell yourselves scary campfire stories about gun grabbers than to deal with the idea of realistic restrictions on gun use and ownership, in the same way it is easier to invent wackadoodle straw men who blame inanimate objects for human actions than to deal with the actual "liberal view." But the ban monster under your bed isn't real: a gun ban is insurmountably illegal and impracticable in the US. So you can stop crying about it.

You know what is really funny is that the same group of people that calls for "responsible restrictions" on gun ownership is almost exactly the same group that got their panties all bloodied up because Republicans wanted to put in place the voter ID requirements a short time ago. I seem to remember that all arguments against them were along the lines of "voting is a right, it says so in the Constitution, you can't tax a right, making people buy a free ID is a tax, yada yada yada." So how is it now OK to impose a poll tax like cost on owning a gun?


The poll tax is a restriction on the right to vote which is specifically and explicitly forbidden by the 24th Amendment to the Constitution.
 
2012-12-30 07:13:46 PM  

stirfrybry: Spare Me: ParaHandy: I really like the liability insurance angle ... since guns are very safe when used properly, as the NRA tells us, the insurance premiums should be negligible. It also puts gun regulation into the free market, and allows benevolent corporations instead of nasty Dems to decide what they will and won't insure. Very bootstrappy. And it's working super well for healthcare, I'm told.

I think it's funny how people think "regulation" is some kind of punishment restriction. Regulation only means making a market "regular" for all the players. That's all "regulation" is.

anybody with an ounce of logic understands that regulations will be used to take rights


Anybody who isn't afraid of common sense understands that regulation will likely just "regulate" the purchase, storage requirements and competency of those that wish to possess firearms. Why do people just go straight to the confiscation and loss of rights card? It is just regulation.
 
2012-12-30 07:15:13 PM  

stirfrybry: Spare Me: ParaHandy: I really like the liability insurance angle ... since guns are very safe when used properly, as the NRA tells us, the insurance premiums should be negligible. It also puts gun regulation into the free market, and allows benevolent corporations instead of nasty Dems to decide what they will and won't insure. Very bootstrappy. And it's working super well for healthcare, I'm told.

I think it's funny how people think "regulation" is some kind of punishment restriction. Regulation only means making a market "regular" for all the players. That's all "regulation" is.

anybody with an ounce of logic understands that regulations will be used to take rights


Yep, and that's the rub.
 
2012-12-30 07:16:47 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: beakerxf: //hard to have an actual debate when one side says "regulate" and the other side hears "ban"

It's hard to have a rational discussion where one side sees a tool and the other sees a "scary death machine of killing." Same way it's hard to have a rational discussion when one side sees a baby and the other side sees tissue. Just like it's hard to have a rational discussion when one side bases its concept of freedom on personal liberty and the other on subservience to a government. Also hard to have a rational discussion when one side talks about personal property ownership and the other side dismisses personal property ownership.

I suspect that you and I will never see eye to eye on this issue because we are both proceeding from fundamentally different assumptions.


Has there been a problem with spoons being used to force feed other people. There is a difference between a tool that is used on one self and a tool that is used against objects at a distance. A better analogy is the car/gun one, stick with that.

I didn't dismiss personal property. (see my point of regulate vs ban). I own a lot of stuff (including a handgun), but there are certain restrictions placed on some of my property that I accept as being for the common good. For example, I own a car, but I can't use it in anyway that endangers the public and if I misuse my car, I can be denied its use.

I didn't say anything about abortion. What the hell it's doing in your list, i have no idea.

But yes, I agree you and I will probably never be capable of finding middle ground.
 
2012-12-30 07:16:50 PM  

GonadtheBarbarian: Why won't anti-gunners and the media learn what assault weapons are?


The specifics of the NRA interpretation of the term are really irrelevant. The germane feature of the guns in question is that they are designed for soldiers to kill or maim as many of the enemy soldiers as quickly as possible. There is no legitimate civilian purpose for such a military weapon that cannot be equally served by something that is less lethal.

That said, the previous AWB was diluted to pointlessness by the NRA staff in Congress, and that is what will happen this time.

The measure which would be most effective while placing the least burden on law abiding gun owners would be mandatory licensing of gun owners and registration of guns, with annual safety checks and serial number verification, like we do with cars. This will stop at least half of the casual moron handgun murders within 10 years. Zimmerman. Philly dog poop guy. Thousands more you never heard of.

Yes, I know in theory people could make their own guns. I once built a custom kit car. But people are lazy. Nancy Lanza was no gunsmith.
 
2012-12-30 07:18:08 PM  
No, spoons do not make you fat. but they sure as shiat make it easier. Try to live without an utensils for eating or preparing food. Kinda makes having eggs and bacon difficult, right? Or trying to make pancakes. Imagine the mess trying to mix the batter. just as messy trying to get that batter into the pan. How you gonna flip them though... hmmm could be problematic. I mean, you're not gonna starve, but the utensils sure make it easier dont they?

The same day as Sandy Hook, a guy in Japan stabbed a bunch of school children. 20 or more IIRC. Unlike the kids at Sandy Hook, they all lived. Why? because its easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. Am I saying ban guns? Nope. In fact I support MOST gun rights. But this whole "spoons made me fat" idea is just stupid. GUNS MAKE IT EASY TO KILL PEOPLE. This isn't rocket surgery here. There isnt much need for a private citizen to own an automatic rifle with a 30 round clip. Unless you expect the deer to be firing back at you or wearing body armor, there just is no reasonable need for it.
 
2012-12-30 07:19:13 PM  
I suppose an automatic spoon might make you fat.
 
2012-12-30 07:19:24 PM  

stirfrybry: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: fluffy2097: stirfrybry: liberal view: Guns are responsible, not the person using the gun

The liberal view is actually: "The person is responsible. Therefore we need to ban guns so responsible people have no possible way of having them. We only want irresponsible lawbreakers having guns."

I understand it is easier to tell yourselves scary campfire stories about gun grabbers than to deal with the idea of realistic restrictions on gun use and ownership, in the same way it is easier to invent wackadoodle straw men who blame inanimate objects for human actions than to deal with the actual "liberal view." But the ban monster under your bed isn't real: a gun ban is insurmountably illegal and impracticable in the US. So you can stop crying about it.

listen. Restricting guns won't stop violence and you assholes will be back for another bite of freedom.


A gun ban is insurmountably illegal and impracticable in the US. It isn't going to happen. Crying about that, rather than dealing with what is actually at stake, won't achieve anything but to make you look paranoid and feed into the "gun nut" narrative.
 
2012-12-30 07:19:29 PM  

GonadtheBarbarian: Well, at least M1 Garands aren't on the list. I have two of those coming from CMP. As we all know, those have never been used as assult weapons, 'cuz they don't have a detachable magazine and only hold 8 rounds. Completely harmless rifles that don't fire the babby-head seeking, evil .223 or 7.62.


Yea..indeed..lol. The rifle that beat Hitler and Tojo. We get to keep those..lol.
 
2012-12-30 07:22:40 PM  
There is no deal to be made, no compromise. The answer is no, you will not take my rights away.
 
2012-12-30 07:23:41 PM  

ParaHandy: GonadtheBarbarian: Why won't anti-gunners and the media learn what assault weapons are?

The specifics of the NRA interpretation of the term are really irrelevant. The germane feature of the guns in question is that they are designed for soldiers to kill or maim as many of the enemy soldiers as quickly as possible. There is no legitimate civilian purpose for such a military weapon that cannot be equally served by something that is less lethal.

That said, the previous AWB was diluted to pointlessness by the NRA staff in Congress, and that is what will happen this time.

The measure which would be most effective while placing the least burden on law abiding gun owners would be mandatory licensing of gun owners and registration of guns, with annual safety checks and serial number verification, like we do with cars. This will stop at least half of the casual moron handgun murders within 10 years. Zimmerman. Philly dog poop guy. Thousands more you never heard of.

Yes, I know in theory people could make their own guns. I once built a custom kit car. But people are lazy. Nancy Lanza was no gunsmith.


All you have done here is puked up the same ridiculous talking points of the anti gun crowd. Why don't we check the demographics, racial and economical, of people that use guns in homicides. Oops...we don't want to bring that up now, do we?
 
2012-12-30 07:23:47 PM  

ParaHandy: GonadtheBarbarian: Why won't anti-gunners and the media learn what assault weapons are?

The specifics of the NRA interpretation of the term are really irrelevant. The germane feature of the guns in question is that they are designed for soldiers to kill or maim as many of the enemy soldiers as quickly as possible. There is no legitimate civilian purpose for such a military weapon that cannot be equally served by something that is less lethal.

That said, the previous AWB was diluted to pointlessness by the NRA staff in Congress, and that is what will happen this time.

The measure which would be most effective while placing the least burden on law abiding gun owners would be mandatory licensing of gun owners and registration of guns, with annual safety checks and serial number verification, like we do with cars. This will stop at least half of the casual moron handgun murders within 10 years. Zimmerman. Philly dog poop guy. Thousands more you never heard of.

Yes, I know in theory people could make their own guns. I once built a custom kit car. But people are lazy. Nancy Lanza was no gunsmith.


That's pure crap. How about we register chainsaws? Or nail guns?..how about swords?

The sword has NO use other than killing people. How about that?

I find your authoritarian BS ..well BS.
 
2012-12-30 07:24:03 PM  

chumboobler: stirfrybry: Spare Me: ParaHandy: I really like the liability insurance angle ... since guns are very safe when used properly, as the NRA tells us, the insurance premiums should be negligible. It also puts gun regulation into the free market, and allows benevolent corporations instead of nasty Dems to decide what they will and won't insure. Very bootstrappy. And it's working super well for healthcare, I'm told.

I think it's funny how people think "regulation" is some kind of punishment restriction. Regulation only means making a market "regular" for all the players. That's all "regulation" is.

anybody with an ounce of logic understands that regulations will be used to take rights

Anybody who isn't afraid of common sense understands that regulation will likely just "regulate" the purchase, storage requirements and competency of those that wish to possess firearms. Why do people just go straight to the confiscation and loss of rights card? It is just regulation.


it's called "learning from the past".
 
2012-12-30 07:28:07 PM  
This is a simple law of large numbers problem. Guns are far too easy to get, so lots of people who aren't responsible have them. There are rules against certain questionable people having guns, but because they aren't enforced for private sales, they are useless. It's as if TSA had a special no security check bypass line for people who bought their tickets used on StubHub - no fly list, no problem.

Every gang banger's gun was manufactured and sold originally as a legal firearm to a legal straw buyer. Limit the flow of legal guns to stupid people, and it also limits the flow of illegal guns to shady people.
 
2012-12-30 07:28:24 PM  

stirfrybry: I think it's funny how people think "regulation" is some kind of punishment restriction. Regulation only means making a market "regular" for all the players. That's all "regulation" is.

anybody with an ounce of logic understands that regulations will be used to take rights


So that's what the 2nd amendment means by a "well-regulated militia?"

If "regulated" is a codeword for taking away rights, then obviously we're just going with the Founders' original intentions, amirite?
 
2012-12-30 07:28:29 PM  

GiddeonFox: It's not a valid argument to say knives weren't meant to destroy either. That's my point,


SO, we need to ban knives then, right?
 
2012-12-30 07:29:17 PM  

chumboobler: Anybody who isn't afraid of common sense understands that regulation will likely just "regulate" the purchase, storage requirements and competency of those that wish to possess firearms. Why do people just go straight to the confiscation and loss of rights card? It is just regulation.


Citizen, papers please. Well...because it is a loss of Rights. Duhhhh.
 
2012-12-30 07:29:59 PM  

moothemagiccow:
Those countries' militaries combined are a pale shadow of the United States military. You are not taking over this country. You will be stopped before you get the chance to start...


True, armed peasants don't stand a chance against our military, that's why we won so quickly in Vietnam. Okay, bad example. But Lebanon. Wait. Somalia? Hang on, give me a minute. Iraq? Afghanistan? Let me get back to you on this.
 
2012-12-30 07:32:47 PM  

Xcott: Yes, and many states outlaw knives that are either intended to harm people, or which are too suitable for that purpose, e.g. butterfly knives.


"intended to harm people", according to who??
"too suitable"- ANY knife is 'suitable' to harming.

I'm not seeing the point of this argument

Of course you don't.
 
2012-12-30 07:32:57 PM  

Xcott:
... So that's what the 2nd amendment means by a "well-regulated militia?"...


According to the usage of the time, it meant something being in proper working order, calibrated correctly, functioning as expected, e.g. "a well-regulated clock".
 
2012-12-30 07:33:28 PM  

Spare Me: ParaHandy: GonadtheBarbarian: Why won't anti-gunners and the media learn what assault weapons are?

The specifics of the NRA interpretation of the term are really irrelevant. The germane feature of the guns in question is that they are designed for soldiers to kill or maim as many of the enemy soldiers as quickly as possible. There is no legitimate civilian purpose for such a military weapon that cannot be equally served by something that is less lethal.

That said, the previous AWB was diluted to pointlessness by the NRA staff in Congress, and that is what will happen this time.

The measure which would be most effective while placing the least burden on law abiding gun owners would be mandatory licensing of gun owners and registration of guns, with annual safety checks and serial number verification, like we do with cars. This will stop at least half of the casual moron handgun murders within 10 years. Zimmerman. Philly dog poop guy. Thousands more you never heard of.

Yes, I know in theory people could make their own guns. I once built a custom kit car. But people are lazy. Nancy Lanza was no gunsmith.

That's pure crap. How about we register chainsaws? Or nail guns?..how about swords?

The sword has NO use other than killing people. How about that?

I find your authoritarian BS ..well BS.


A sword would be far less useful in a mass killing. It does not have the same capacity to deal out massive amounts of death in a short period of time like a semi automatic rifle would. Registry and training and mandatory testing on safe use and storage would be the way to go IMHO.

I enjoy guns. I do so in a very safe manner. Pro gun ownership people have a chance to lead a change in a constructive way that protects rights and promotes safety. Instead we get Herp! Derp! From my cold dead hands!!!!! There is room for progress where we can satisfy the 2nd Amendment rights. Unless we as gun owners take the lead and start reasonable dialogue, we will be overwhelmed by angry public sentiment and that will deliver the political will to possibly remove those rights.
 
2012-12-30 07:34:33 PM  

Spare Me: ParaHandy: GonadtheBarbarian: Why won't anti-gunners and the media learn what assault weapons are?

The specifics of the NRA interpretation of the term are really irrelevant. The germane feature of the guns in question is that they are designed for soldiers to kill or maim as many of the enemy soldiers as quickly as possible. There is no legitimate civilian purpose for such a military weapon that cannot be equally served by something that is less lethal.

That said, the previous AWB was diluted to pointlessness by the NRA staff in Congress, and that is what will happen this time.

The measure which would be most effective while placing the least burden on law abiding gun owners would be mandatory licensing of gun owners and registration of guns, with annual safety checks and serial number verification, like we do with cars. This will stop at least half of the casual moron handgun murders within 10 years. Zimmerman. Philly dog poop guy. Thousands more you never heard of.

Yes, I know in theory people could make their own guns. I once built a custom kit car. But people are lazy. Nancy Lanza was no gunsmith.

That's pure crap. How about we register chainsaws? Or nail guns?..how about swords?

The sword has NO use other than killing people. How about that?

I find your authoritarian BS ..well BS.


I don't care for authoritarianism, that's a right wing thing. I am not BSing. I do value sensible rules that help us to coexist safely while enjoying our respective lives. Your right to safety on a public road supercedes my right to privacy from some mechanic poking at my cars each year.

I likewise believe that the right of those people in Newtown CT to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness supercedes your right to avoid a little paperwork.
 
2012-12-30 07:34:44 PM  

GonadtheBarbarian: ParaHandy: Yes, I know in theory people could make their own guns. I once built a custom kit car. But people are lazy. Nancy Lanza was no gunsmith.

All you have done here is puked up the same ridiculous talking points of the anti gun crowd. Why don't we check the demographics, racial and economical, of people that use guns in homicides. Oops...we don't want to bring that up now, do we?


Why not? Sure, pull out the demographics: I bet you a thousand dollars that the grand majority of people that use guns in homicides do not possess machine shop tools or skills necessary to build their own guns.

I'm surprised that you think this isn't true.
 
2012-12-30 07:35:26 PM  

ParaHandy: This is a simple law of large numbers problem. Guns are far too easy to get, so lots of people who aren't responsible have them. There are rules against certain questionable people having guns, but because they aren't enforced for private sales, they are useless. It's as if TSA had a special no security check bypass line for people who bought their tickets used on StubHub - no fly list, no problem.

Every gang bangers gun was manufactured and sold originally as a legal firearm to a legal straw buyer. Limit the flow of legal guns to stupid people, and it also limits the flow of illegal guns to shady people.


You do have a point there, but bangers gonna bang...they'll get guns from somewhere. Mexico comes to mind. "Upstanding citizens" who make legal purchases and then make a mint selling on the underground. Your average gun enthusiast, like myself, who I believe represents 99% of gun owners, don't cause these problems. I have bought and sold dozens of guns, and I'm pretty sure that none of them ever went on to be murder weapons. Why should we be punished for the 1% that cause these tragic incidents? To me, that is like forcing every motorist to install an ignition interlock on their vehicle, because they might drive drunk.
 
2012-12-30 07:35:38 PM  

Spare Me: chumboobler: Anybody who isn't afraid of common sense understands that regulation will likely just "regulate" the purchase, storage requirements and competency of those that wish to possess firearms. Why do people just go straight to the confiscation and loss of rights card? It is just regulation.

Citizen, papers please. Well...because it is a loss of Rights. Duhhhh.


How is it a loss of rights? If you still get to own the firearm then you have lost no rights.
 
2012-12-30 07:35:53 PM  

Xcott: stirfrybry: I think it's funny how people think "regulation" is some kind of punishment restriction. Regulation only means making a market "regular" for all the players. That's all "regulation" is.

anybody with an ounce of logic understands that regulations will be used to take rights

So that's what the 2nd amendment means by a "well-regulated militia?"

If "regulated" is a codeword for taking away rights, then obviously we're just going with the Founders' original intentions, amirite?


We already are "well regulated" and the "militia" is every US Citizen.

How left wingers can munge anything else from that is just people trying to limit our rights. How can you confiscate what you don't know about? Well, you register them all. (Hey! We're not coming fer yer gunz). Next step..now it's known where they all are.

How close to the abyss do you want to go and then act surprised when the jack boots come callin?
 
2012-12-30 07:38:07 PM  

chumboobler: A sword would be far less useful in a mass killing. It does not have the same capacity to deal out massive amounts of death in a short period of time like a semi automatic rifle would.


The Klingons disagree. qaStaHvIS wa' ram loSSaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh loD (Four thousand throats may be cut in one night by a running man.)
 
2012-12-30 07:38:58 PM  

Xcott: I bet you a thousand dollars that the grand majority of people that use guns in homicides do not possess machine shop tools or skills necessary to build their own guns.


Do they have the 'tools or skills' to BUY guns from others?
 
2012-12-30 07:39:08 PM  
To extend the analogy, I know more about cars than almost any ASE certified mechanic. I maintain my cars to a far higher standard than required by the laughable TX state inspection. I trust my life to my expertise every time I take them on a racing circuit. The annual state inspection is wasted on me, but I value it anyway as it keeps some OTHER people's unsafe cars off the road and saves lives.
 
2012-12-30 07:40:47 PM  

fredklein: Xcott: Yes, and many states outlaw knives that are either intended to harm people, or which are too suitable for that purpose, e.g. butterfly knives.

"intended to harm people", according to who??


The answer, of course, is that it varies by state, but standards are largely informed by law enforcement and their experiences dealing with gang violence etc.

In NY state, for example, you can buy bad-ass hunting knives, but it's illegal to own switchblades, butterfly knives, and generally any knife that is designed to open with one hand. This policy is based on the role of these knives in violent crime.
 
2012-12-30 07:42:07 PM  

GonadtheBarbarian: ParaHandy: This is a simple law of large numbers problem. Guns are far too easy to get, so lots of people who aren't responsible have them. There are rules against certain questionable people having guns, but because they aren't enforced for private sales, they are useless. It's as if TSA had a special no security check bypass line for people who bought their tickets used on StubHub - no fly list, no problem.

Every gang bangers gun was manufactured and sold originally as a legal firearm to a legal straw buyer. Limit the flow of legal guns to stupid people, and it also limits the flow of illegal guns to shady people.

You do have a point there, but bangers gonna bang...they'll get guns from somewhere. Mexico comes to mind. "Upstanding citizens" who make legal purchases and then make a mint selling on the underground. Your average gun enthusiast, like myself, who I believe represents 99% of gun owners, don't cause these problems. I have bought and sold dozens of guns, and I'm pretty sure that none of them ever went on to be murder weapons. Why should we be punished for the 1% that cause these tragic incidents? To me, that is like forcing every motorist to install an ignition interlock on their vehicle, because they might drive drunk.


No, it's more analagous to the mandatory annaul inspection of a motor vehicle. 99% of responsible car owners maintain their cars properly, why should they be troubled?
 
2012-12-30 07:42:33 PM  

Spare Me: Xcott: stirfrybry: I think it's funny how people think "regulation" is some kind of punishment restriction. Regulation only means making a market "regular" for all the players. That's all "regulation" is.

anybody with an ounce of logic understands that regulations will be used to take rights

So that's what the 2nd amendment means by a "well-regulated militia?"

If "regulated" is a codeword for taking away rights, then obviously we're just going with the Founders' original intentions, amirite?

We already are "well regulated" and the "militia" is every US Citizen.

How left wingers can munge anything else from that is just people trying to limit our rights. How can you confiscate what you don't know about? Well, you register them all. (Hey! We're not coming fer yer gunz). Next step..now it's known where they all are.

How close to the abyss do you want to go and then act surprised when the jack boots come callin?


Wow. You really think you need to be afraid of the Jack Boots? You are a man that is full of fear.
 
2012-12-30 07:43:47 PM  

fredklein: chumboobler: A sword would be far less useful in a mass killing. It does not have the same capacity to deal out massive amounts of death in a short period of time like a semi automatic rifle would.

The Klingons disagree. qaStaHvIS wa' ram loSSaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh loD (Four thousand throats may be cut in one night by a running man.)


Well.... I stand corrected. I don't want to be on the wrong side of the Klingons! They are Badass! ;)
 
2012-12-30 07:47:07 PM  

ParaHandy: GonadtheBarbarian: ParaHandy: This is a simple law of large numbers problem. Guns are far too easy to get, so lots of people who aren't responsible have them. There are rules against certain questionable people having guns, but because they aren't enforced for private sales, they are useless. It's as if TSA had a special no security check bypass line for people who bought their tickets used on StubHub - no fly list, no problem.

Every gang bangers gun was manufactured and sold originally as a legal firearm to a legal straw buyer. Limit the flow of legal guns to stupid people, and it also limits the flow of illegal guns to shady people.

You do have a point there, but bangers gonna bang...they'll get guns from somewhere. Mexico comes to mind. "Upstanding citizens" who make legal purchases and then make a mint selling on the underground. Your average gun enthusiast, like myself, who I believe represents 99% of gun owners, don't cause these problems. I have bought and sold dozens of guns, and I'm pretty sure that none of them ever went on to be murder weapons. Why should we be punished for the 1% that cause these tragic incidents? To me, that is like forcing every motorist to install an ignition interlock on their vehicle, because they might drive drunk.

No, it's more analagous to the mandatory annaul inspection of a motor vehicle. 99% of responsible car owners maintain their cars properly, why should they be troubled?


No way...there is no way that the "responsible owner" analogy fits. Most vehicle owners are complete idiots, which is why so many states have the mandatory safety inspection in place.
 
2012-12-30 07:48:30 PM  

Xcott: The answer, of course, is that it varies by state, but standards are largely informed by law enforcement and their experiences dealing with gang violence etc.


So, there is no standard, it's just whatever the police can make up.

Nice. That'll never get abused.

In NY state, for example, you can buy bad-ass hunting knives, but it's illegal to own switchblades, butterfly knives, and generally any knife that is designed to open with one hand. This policy is based on the role of these knives in violent crime.

Okay, so they make switchblades illegal. Now, (ignoring the fact that, you know, CRIMINALS DON"T OBEY THE LAW,) let's assume that no one has any more switchblades. Now, criminals carry butterfly knives. So now the government declare those to be illegal. SO, now no one has any butterfly knives. So, now criminals move on to another type of knife. Maybe 'bad-ass hunting knives'? And those are declared illegal, and so on.
What's the end result? ALL knifes are illegal. Criminals still dis-obey the law, but honest citizens get arrested for having a pocketknife.

And you want this for guns, too?
 
2012-12-30 07:48:39 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: beakerxf: //hard to have an actual debate when one side says "regulate" and the other side hears "ban"

It's hard to have a rational discussion where one side sees a tool and the other sees a "scary death machine of killing." Same way it's hard to have a rational discussion when one side sees a baby and the other side sees tissue. Just like it's hard to have a rational discussion when one side bases its concept of freedom on personal liberty and the other on subservience to a government. Also hard to have a rational discussion when one side talks about personal property ownership and the other side dismisses personal property ownership.

I suspect that you and I will never see eye to eye on this issue because we are both proceeding from fundamentally different assumptions.


Dogs three counties over heard those whistles, friend.
 
2012-12-30 07:49:34 PM  

GonadtheBarbarian: ParaHandy: GonadtheBarbarian: Why won't anti-gunners and the media learn what assault weapons are?

The specifics of the NRA interpretation of the term are really irrelevant. The germane feature of the guns in question is that they are designed for soldiers to kill or maim as many of the enemy soldiers as quickly as possible. There is no legitimate civilian purpose for such a military weapon that cannot be equally served by something that is less lethal.

That said, the previous AWB was diluted to pointlessness by the NRA staff in Congress, and that is what will happen this time.

The measure which would be most effective while placing the least burden on law abiding gun owners would be mandatory licensing of gun owners and registration of guns, with annual safety checks and serial number verification, like we do with cars. This will stop at least half of the casual moron handgun murders within 10 years. Zimmerman. Philly dog poop guy. Thousands more you never heard of.

Yes, I know in theory people could make their own guns. I once built a custom kit car. But people are lazy. Nancy Lanza was no gunsmith.

All you have done here is puked up the same ridiculous talking points of the anti gun crowd. Why don't we check the demographics, racial and economical, of people that use guns in homicides. Oops...we don't want to bring that up now, do we?


Fine. Instead of requiring licensing and training, we'll do it demographically and only allow people who earn over $200k pa to own guns.

/ I'll buy yours if you don't qualify
// if we used racial profiling to delicense demographically poor drivers, no-one in Austin could ever hire a maid or get a manicure
 
2012-12-30 07:51:14 PM  

chumboobler: fredklein: chumboobler: A sword would be far less useful in a mass killing. It does not have the same capacity to deal out massive amounts of death in a short period of time like a semi automatic rifle would.

The Klingons disagree. qaStaHvIS wa' ram loSSaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh loD (Four thousand throats may be cut in one night by a running man.)

Well.... I stand corrected. I don't want to be on the wrong side of the Klingons! They are Badass! ;)


Technically that only means a Klingon can kill four thousand people in a night with a bat'leth. Your average human, not so much.

The worst one (sword wielding) man massacre I came across was a school in China, where I think 9 or 10 kids died? Which is pretty awful. I know there was a knife attack in a school in China the very same day as the Newtown shootings, and 22 kids were stabbed. They all survived though.
 
2012-12-30 07:54:50 PM  
img84.imageshack.us
Come at me Bro.
 
2012-12-30 07:55:44 PM  

chumboobler:

Wow. You really think you need to be afraid of the Jack Boots? You are a man that is full of fear.


Yeah, we're still the Land of the Free except for warrantless wiretaps and searches, political correctness, naked scanners, social network monitoring, patriotic group-think, police militarization, strip-searches, drone surveillance, indefinite detention without due process, military tribunals, GPS monitoring, assassination of citizens, and secret courts using secret evidence, etc. Don't be so paranoid.
 
2012-12-30 07:56:53 PM  

GonadtheBarbarian: ParaHandy: GonadtheBarbarian: ParaHandy: This is a simple law of large numbers problem. Guns are far too easy to get, so lots of people who aren't responsible have them. There are rules against certain questionable people having guns, but because they aren't enforced for private sales, they are useless. It's as if TSA had a special no security check bypass line for people who bought their tickets used on StubHub - no fly list, no problem.

Every gang bangers gun was manufactured and sold originally as a legal firearm to a legal straw buyer. Limit the flow of legal guns to stupid people, and it also limits the flow of illegal guns to shady people.

You do have a point there, but bangers gonna bang...they'll get guns from somewhere. Mexico comes to mind. "Upstanding citizens" who make legal purchases and then make a mint selling on the underground. Your average gun enthusiast, like myself, who I believe represents 99% of gun owners, don't cause these problems. I have bought and sold dozens of guns, and I'm pretty sure that none of them ever went on to be murder weapons. Why should we be punished for the 1% that cause these tragic incidents? To me, that is like forcing every motorist to install an ignition interlock on their vehicle, because they might drive drunk.

No, it's more analagous to the mandatory annaul inspection of a motor vehicle. 99% of responsible car owners maintain their cars properly, why should they be troubled?

No way...there is no way that the "responsible owner" analogy fits. Most vehicle owners are complete idiots, which is why so many states have the mandatory safety inspection in place.


I would argue that anyone who thinks that manufactured products as dangerous as firearms should be completely unregulated is an idiot. 90% of Americans own cars, so byyowur own logic a good percentage of gun owners are idiots. But set that aside ... what societal harm will come from annual gun safety checks?
 
2012-12-30 07:59:03 PM  

ParaHandy: GonadtheBarbarian: ParaHandy: GonadtheBarbarian: Why won't anti-gunners and the media learn what assault weapons are?

The specifics of the NRA interpretation of the term are really irrelevant. The germane feature of the guns in question is that they are designed for soldiers to kill or maim as many of the enemy soldiers as quickly as possible. There is no legitimate civilian purpose for such a military weapon that cannot be equally served by something that is less lethal.

That said, the previous AWB was diluted to pointlessness by the NRA staff in Congress, and that is what will happen this time.

The measure which would be most effective while placing the least burden on law abiding gun owners would be mandatory licensing of gun owners and registration of guns, with annual safety checks and serial number verification, like we do with cars. This will stop at least half of the casual moron handgun murders within 10 years. Zimmerman. Philly dog poop guy. Thousands more you never heard of.

Yes, I know in theory people could make their own guns. I once built a custom kit car. But people are lazy. Nancy Lanza was no gunsmith.

All you have done here is puked up the same ridiculous talking points of the anti gun crowd. Why don't we check the demographics, racial and economical, of people that use guns in homicides. Oops...we don't want to bring that up now, do we?

Fine. Instead of requiring licensing and training, we'll do it demographically and only allow people who earn over $200k pa to own guns.

/ I'll buy yours if you don't qualify
// if we used racial profiling to delicense demographically poor drivers, no-one in Austin could ever hire a maid or get a manicure


Nope...fine on the income level there. Nice try.
 
2012-12-30 08:00:08 PM  

Oblio13: chumboobler:

Wow. You really think you need to be afraid of the Jack Boots? You are a man that is full of fear.

Yeah, we're still the Land of the Free except for warrantless wiretaps and searches, political correctness, naked scanners, social network monitoring, patriotic group-think, police militarization, strip-searches, drone surveillance, indefinite detention without due process, military tribunals, GPS monitoring, assassination of citizens, and secret courts using secret evidence, etc. Don't be so paranoid.


I thought being armed to the teeth was supposed to protect us from Orwellian crap like the disgustingly misnamed "patroit act". Where were all the 2nd amendment fans when that shait went down?
 
2012-12-30 08:00:46 PM  
This guy has some decent ideas. *podcast*
 
2012-12-30 08:01:42 PM  
When the price hits $2.500, I'm going to sell my Spike's Tactical AR-15. Nice return on investment!

PM me if you are interested.
 
2012-12-30 08:02:57 PM  
I like the argument that is based on "Spoons make me fat ban spoons."
You can counter with "Do spoons make you make other people fat?" because if all the gunshot fatalities were self-inflicted I might be cool with no more regulation on guns. On the mental health issue, if we know someone is apt to hurt themselves or others we take all weapons of opportunity away from them. Having more and more guns in society makes for more and more weapons of opportunity.
We can say "Well if someone wants to kill someone, they will find a way.", but why make that search process easier?
I can point out numerous ways not to drown in a pool, but the most obvious is getting rid of the pool. Then there are other degrees of rational thought, restricting access to the pool (government regulations), more lifeguards (government regulation) or requiring everyone that has access to the pool be a certified a "Good Swimmer" (government regulation). When more and more people are drowning in the pool, screaming that there should be no more government regulation or saying that the regulations don't work, is akin to saying the only solution is to get rid of the pool.
I am not for getting rid of the pool, but failing to make it safe for everyone will eventually make it so no one can enjoy the pool.
 
2012-12-30 08:04:10 PM  

Spare Me: How close to the abyss do you want to go and then act surprised when the jack boots come callin?


Ah yes, the jackboots again. There's a great way to win the public policy debate: cast your country as a jack-booted oppressor out of 1984. Regular people will totally see your logic instead of thinking, "this is a loon who wants guns so he can shoot cops and American soldiers."

The 2nd amendment is on the books so a well-armed populace can defend their country, not attack it in a paranoid fit after reading pamphlets about the admiralty flag and FEMA manacle boxcars.
 
2012-12-30 08:10:15 PM  

wyltoknow: I don't really hold feelings toward either side in this debate, but I do have to wonder, do gun enthusiasts offer any analogies that aren't completely off-base? "Lolz this innocuous elsewise-useful item might do some sort of harm maybe, obviously we need to ban it, ahyuck!" No, no zing points for you.


This sort of argument makes you really wonder if they should have guns at all. Bringing a twelve year old like argument to a debate really doesn't bolster your case that you should be allowed access to lethal weapons with no restrictions.

Whats next, a "I know you are but what am I" rebuttal?
 
2012-12-30 08:12:22 PM  

fredklein: Okay, so they make switchblades illegal. Now, (ignoring the fact that, you know, CRIMINALS DON"T OBEY THE LAW,) let's assume that no one has any more switchblades. Now, criminals carry butterfly knives. So now the government declare those to be illegal. SO, now no one has any butterfly knives. So, now criminals move on to another type of knife. Maybe 'bad-ass hunting knives'? And those are declared illegal, and so on.

What's the end result? ALL knifes are illegal.


But that's obviously not what happened. Hunting knives weren't banned, pocket knives weren't banned, and cutlery isn't banned.

You're essentially proving that your paranoid belief system is wrong. You're predicting things that didn't happen, and you're making declarations that are directly contradicted by observable facts.
 
2012-12-30 08:14:31 PM  

duffblue: I don't want to completely discount everything you have said, because you made a decent point at the end of your post, but please know what you're talking about before posting next time. We're not talking about some redneck designed potato gun that blows up in your hands on the first shot. You don't need a metal lathe or any sort of 3D printer.

Just a dremel tool, a hammer and punch and $250. The stuff is out there, but for obvious reasons I'm not going to link it.

Weapons Grade, Iraq Invasion-level BULLshiat.

Yes, by the description of the tools you just posted, we are talking about a "Zip Gun" type weapon, because if you're talking about making a complete 1911 from a non-restricted parts kit, you're talking about someone with expertise in gunsmithy, and the proper tools to do it. Not someone who read the instructions off the internet, and bought a Dremel Tool Starter Kit from Walmart. First off, the kind of metal used in fabricating that type of weapon is high-tensile strength steel stock which can't be purchased from home depot by the average person. It has to come from a specialized supplier. It's expensive, and requires specialized tools to work with - it's why modern, non-black powder gunsmiths spend thousands of dollars on their CNC and Lathe equipment. While I'm not an expert like  Kit Fister is, I do know it takes a certain measure of experience and equipment to do that is beyond the range of 95% of Gun Owners, otherwise the demand for their services would not be so high.

In addition, the tolerances to allow a modern semi-automatic, western firearm to function are insanely unforgiving.

Now stop insulting people's intelligence.

In addition, this has NOT happened in other first world countries which restrict Firearms to licensed buyers, like the UK, Netherlands, Switzerland, or Israel. You're basically arguing an absurd conclusion to an absurd argument I have not made.

The solution is not to ban guns. The solution is to actually enforce the laws we have now, and restrict the mentally ill in a way that doesn't depend on their honesty being the sole barrier to a legal purchase.

fredklein: Firstly, laws tend to be added to, not subtracted from. Government will increase its power, not give it away. A law that seems perfectly 'rational' today, will not be so rational in a few years when it's expanded in breadth and scope. And, since, as they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, It's easiest to stop laws from being passed, then to try to keep them from being mis/ab-used in the future.

Second, AFAIK, the mentally ill already cannot own guns legally. And, as I just said above, this leaves itself open for abuse- literally anyone can be declared 'mentally ill', and thus denied a gun. Afraid of heights? Mentally Ill. Saw a counselor when you were a rebellious teen? Mentally ill. Etc.


So what you're saying is that if we define "Mentally Ill" using a clinical diagnosis, then someone, somewhere, at some point and time with try to usurp that? Man, that's quite the slippery slope you're arguing.
 
2012-12-30 08:15:37 PM  
vpb:No, not that I have seen.  But there is no anti gun lobby as far as I can tell, so they don't really have to have a message that makes sense.

It would seem that the Democratic party is the anti-gun lobby... Woe is me for being an independent who agrees with both the democrats on some things (like abortion and gay marriage) and the republicans on other things (like gun rights).
 
2012-12-30 08:16:05 PM  

ParaHandy: To extend the analogy, I know more about cars than almost any ASE certified mechanic. I maintain my cars to a far higher standard than required by the laughable TX state inspection. I trust my life to my expertise every time I take them on a racing circuit. The annual state inspection is wasted on me, but I value it anyway as it keeps some OTHER people's unsafe cars off the road and saves lives.


Wtf is up in the states with annual car "safety" inspections? In CA we only have smogging, and that's not every year.... it always seemed like some kind of shakedown to me.

The smog testers are even private garages, not a gov't agency.

/totally ok with the ten-round mag and bullet button on my AR15. It makes me think, and I spend less on ammo.
 
2012-12-30 08:18:11 PM  

illbeinmybunk: No, spoons do not make you fat. but they sure as shiat make it easier. Try to live without an utensils for eating or preparing food. Kinda makes having eggs and bacon difficult, right? Or trying to make pancakes. Imagine the mess trying to mix the batter. just as messy trying to get that batter into the pan. How you gonna flip them though... hmmm could be problematic. I mean, you're not gonna starve, but the utensils sure make it easier dont they?

The same day as Sandy Hook, a guy in Japan stabbed a bunch of school children. 20 or more IIRC. Unlike the kids at Sandy Hook, they all lived. Why? because its easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. Am I saying ban guns? Nope. In fact I support MOST gun rights. But this whole "spoons made me fat" idea is just stupid. GUNS MAKE IT EASY TO KILL PEOPLE. This isn't rocket surgery here. There isnt much need for a private citizen to own an automatic rifle with a 30 round clip. Unless you expect the deer to be firing back at you or wearing body armor, there just is no reasonable need for it.


Restating the obvious is not going to make a gun nut pause think. They want their guns due to a fundamental emotional insecurity about the fact the world around them changes constantly and they can't control it. It's the same insecurity that causes them to invent omnipotent sky wizards, or to freeze the evolution of civilization at 1955 when the women and coloured folks new their place.

Everytime I talk to a sensible gun owner, and Fark notwithstanding there are a few even in Texas, they tellme they actively want the kind of controls I am suggesting implemented - they have guns for sports or hone defence use, and deduce that the less easy it is for nutters to get guns, the safer their homes will be. They see resale controls, gun safes and training as something any responsible gun owner would implement voluntarily, and are wholly in favour of these standards being mandatory for everyone. They want a big gap between themselves and rabid gun nuts like our fine friends above.
 
2012-12-30 08:21:46 PM  
Applies to TONS of other rights too:

Just because I don't personally use a constitutional right doesn't mean I'm willing to give it up.
And just because someone DOES give THEIRS up, does NOT mean it's okay for them to take it away from anyone else.
 
2012-12-30 08:23:02 PM  

randomjsa: Cuchulane: david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]

[img42.imageshack.us image 797x340]

Except for the part where those Reagan quotes are out of context and the Kennedy quote isn't.

Sure.


Well don't just sit there with your hand up your Derp, provide the proper context. Link the entire quote, show us libbiest of the libs how libby lib-lib we really are!

Unless you're full of shyt.

\unfolds the lawn chair
\\full bag o popcorn @ the ready
 
2012-12-30 08:23:11 PM  

2 Replies: Applies to TONS of other rights too:

Just because I don't personally use a constitutional right doesn't mean I'm willing to give it up.
And just because someone DOES give THEIRS up, does NOT mean it's okay for them to take it away from anyone else.


Well said---but what does that have to do with banning assault rifles?
 
2012-12-30 08:25:27 PM  

ParaHandy: They want their guns due to a fundamental emotional insecurity about the fact the world around them changes constantly and they can't control it.


And here I thought I wanted my guns so I could hunt deer, elk and other game. Thanks for telling me about my insecurity and clearing up what I think and feel.
 
2012-12-30 08:27:30 PM  

chumboobler: Spare Me: Xcott: stirfrybry: I think it's funny how people think "regulation" is some kind of punishment restriction. Regulation only means making a market "regular" for all the players. That's all "regulation" is.

anybody with an ounce of logic understands that regulations will be used to take rights

So that's what the 2nd amendment means by a "well-regulated militia?"

If "regulated" is a codeword for taking away rights, then obviously we're just going with the Founders' original intentions, amirite?

We already are "well regulated" and the "militia" is every US Citizen.

How left wingers can munge anything else from that is just people trying to limit our rights. How can you confiscate what you don't know about? Well, you register them all. (Hey! We're not coming fer yer gunz). Next step..now it's known where they all are.

How close to the abyss do you want to go and then act surprised when the jack boots come callin?

Wow. You really think you need to be afraid of the Jack Boots? You are a man that is full of fear.


That's just the kind of person that *needs desperately* to have as many weapons as he wants.

Hell, I feel safer already.

\if the NRA actually made an *attempt* to weed out it's nutjobs, people might trust them
\\and if they actually are, why to they have that raving loon as their Public face?
 
2012-12-30 08:32:09 PM  

Craptastic: I try to stay out of these useless gun-debates most of the time. I'm a "dirty lib" who is also a gun owner. I grew up in a cop family, and was required to learn how to handle all manner of firearms safely. I was taught to shoot accurately, and I view a firearm as a tool.

That said, I believe that guns are much too easy to acquire in the US. I don't think that more people running around with concealed weapons will result in anything that is good for the whole of society. More guns in the hands of more people only benefits the manufacturers of weapons.


You're me, except I just grew up in the country as a hunter, no cop family.
 
2012-12-30 08:32:14 PM  

chumboobler: Wow. You really think you need to be afraid of the Jack Boots? You are a man that is full of fear.


I'm not afraid, I just would such a possibility never has a chance.
 
2012-12-30 08:32:17 PM  

BronyMedic:
... you're talking about someone with expertise in gunsmithy, and the proper tools to do it. Not someone who read the instructions off the internet, and bought a Dremel Tool Starter Kit from Walmart. First off, the kind of metal used in fabricating that type of weapon is high-tensile strength steel stock which can't be purchased from home depot by the average person. It has to come from a specialized supplier. It's expensive, and requires specialized tools to work with - it's why modern, non-black powder gunsmiths spend thousands of dollars on their CNC and Lathe equipment. While I'm not an expert like  Kit Fister is, I do know it takes a certain measure of experience and equipment to do that is beyond the range of 95% of Gun Owners, otherwise the demand for their services would not be so high.

In addition, the tolerances to allow a modern semi-automatic, western firearm to function are insanely unforgiving...


If you have access to a milling machine and a drill press, you can make an AR15. The plans are on the internet. It's legal as long as you don't intend to sell it. I made one a few years ago. Still works fine. The plans for at least two submachine guns, including the British-designed STEN, are also easy to find on the internet. Those are illegal because they're fully automatic, but they're designed to be easy to make - all you need is a lathe and a welder. Home workshops in occupied Europe were turning them out. Your car mechanic could mass-produce them. There are Youtube videos about how to use soda bottles and oil filters as suppressors ("silencers"), and about how to blow things up with propane and acetylene. The recipe for ANFO explosive is in a book available on Amazon right now. There are two ingredients, fertilizer and fuel. When I was a kid, we got a copy of "The Anarchist's Cookbook", with plans for all kinds of bombs and Molotov cocktails. We made a bunch of them and set them off in the woods.

This stuff's not hard to come by.
 
2012-12-30 08:32:20 PM  

Oblio13: chumboobler:

Wow. You really think you need to be afraid of the Jack Boots? You are a man that is full of fear.

Yeah, we're still the Land of the Free except for warrantless wiretaps and searches, political correctness, naked scanners, social network monitoring, patriotic group-think, police militarization, strip-searches, drone surveillance, indefinite detention without due process, military tribunals, GPS monitoring, assassination of citizens, and secret courts using secret evidence, etc. Don't be so paranoid.


Hi Oblio13. Thanks for winning the thread. Welcome to my favorites list.

// Take it all, just not the guns!
 
2012-12-30 08:34:54 PM  

Oblio13: moothemagiccow:
Those countries' militaries combined are a pale shadow of the United States military. You are not taking over this country. You will be stopped before you get the chance to start...

True, armed peasants don't stand a chance against our military, that's why we won so quickly in Vietnam. Okay, bad example. But Lebanon. Wait. Somalia? Hang on, give me a minute. Iraq? Afghanistan? Let me get back to you on this.


All right, I'm overestimating the US Military, the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA. Plenty of awful, organized domestic terrorism goes down here. Maybe they're just good at stopping American muslims who haven't actually done any terrorism yet.
 
2012-12-30 08:35:39 PM  

Bonzo_1116: ParaHandy: To extend the analogy, I know more about cars than almost any ASE certified mechanic. I maintain my cars to a far higher standard than required by the laughable TX state inspection. I trust my life to my expertise every time I take them on a racing circuit. The annual state inspection is wasted on me, but I value it anyway as it keeps some OTHER people's unsafe cars off the road and saves lives.

Wtf is up in the states with annual car "safety" inspections? In CA we only have smogging, and that's not every year.... it always seemed like some kind of shakedown to me.

The smog testers are even private garages, not a gov't agency.

/totally ok with the ten-round mag and bullet button on my AR15. It makes me think, and I spend less on ammo.


California or Canuckistan? The annual DoT inspection of a car in the UK takes about 75min to do properly and catches a whole host of potential safety issues, and costs about US$100. I'd have to do some numbers, but it must save thousands of lives annually.

A safety check on a gun should take all of 3 minutes .. unload, quick visual inspection, test fire a few rounds, whatever makes sense .. paging Kit Fister ... The real value is reminding the average nightstand owner that they have a dangerous weapon, reminding them of safe handling, and making sure they didn't sell it to the corner crack runner.

I would expect this service to be available at any decent range or FFL for a few $ per gun, and for them to discount it for members. For gun enthusiasts it would be no inconvenience as they could get it done on some guns while they practice with others at regular range visits.
 
2012-12-30 08:39:37 PM  

j0e_average: When the price hits $2.500, I'm going to sell my Spike's Tactical AR-15. Nice return on investment!

PM me if you are interested.


No EIP. How much is shipping to Texas?
 
2012-12-30 08:41:10 PM  
Don't call 911. OMG those are ugly weaporns. Why do police have to nasty things?

www.lincoln.ne.gov
 
2012-12-30 08:41:58 PM  

BronyMedic: duffblue: I don't want to completely discount everything you have said, because you made a decent point at the end of your post, but please know what you're talking about before posting next time. We're not talking about some redneck designed potato gun that blows up in your hands on the first shot. You don't need a metal lathe or any sort of 3D printer. Just a dremel tool, a hammer and punch and $250. The stuff is out there, but for obvious reasons I'm not going to link it.

Weapons Grade, Iraq Invasion-level BULLshiat.

Yes, by the description of the tools you just posted, we are talking about a "Zip Gun" type weapon, because if you're talking about making a complete 1911 from a non-restricted parts kit, you're talking about someone with expertise in gunsmithy, and the proper tools to do it. Not someone who read the instructions off the internet, and bought a Dremel Tool Starter Kit from Walmart. First off, the kind of metal used in fabricating that type of weapon is high-tensile strength steel stock which can't be purchased from home depot by the average person. It has to come from a specialized supplier. It's expensive, and requires specialized tools to work with - it's why modern, non-black powder gunsmiths spend thousands of dollars on their CNC and Lathe equipment. While I'm not an expert like  Kit Fister is, I do know it takes a certain measure of experience and equipment to do that is beyond the range of 95% of Gun Owners, otherwise the demand for their services would not be so high.

In addition, the tolerances to allow a modern semi-automatic, western firearm to function are insanely unforgiving.

Now stop insulting people's intelligence.

In addition, this has NOT happened in other first world countries which restrict Firearms to licensed buyers, like the UK, Netherlands, Switzerland, or Israel. You're basically arguing an absurd conclusion to an absurd argument I have not made.

The solution is not to ban guns. The solution is to actually enforce the la ...


Stop making yourself look dumb.

Google: "80% lower AR15" and switch to images.

Then, imagine the template for the pin holes are also easy to get.

It's a simple drill press job and a parts kit along with an upper and it's done. No numbers, and the feds don't know about it.

You are a complete farking fool if you think that the letter of the law is going to prevent a dedicated owner from finishing one.

Change the rules, and the template gets a little more complicated that's all.

Unless you are talking about completely re-arranging the rules, no barrel sales, making the blueprints and instructions illegal, etc. you aren't going to stop it... for long anyway.

Plus, the Mexicans will probably sell back what the Kenyan's crew sold to them over the last couple of years. Along the way, we'll get full auto stuff from Guatemalan's army and whatever else as well. It's just as easy to smubble a semi-auto as it is an auto, and the auto will garner 10 times the price.
 
2012-12-30 08:44:46 PM  

Oblio13: BronyMedic:
... you're talking about someone with expertise in gunsmithy, and the proper tools to do it. Not someone who read the instructions off the internet, and bought a Dremel Tool Starter Kit from Walmart. First off, the kind of metal used in fabricating that type of weapon is high-tensile strength steel stock which can't be purchased from home depot by the average person. It has to come from a specialized supplier. It's expensive, and requires specialized tools to work with - it's why modern, non-black powder gunsmiths spend thousands of dollars on their CNC and Lathe equipment. While I'm not an expert like  Kit Fister is, I do know it takes a certain measure of experience and equipment to do that is beyond the range of 95% of Gun Owners, otherwise the demand for their services would not be so high.

In addition, the tolerances to allow a modern semi-automatic, western firearm to function are insanely unforgiving...

If you have access to a milling machine and a drill press, you can make an AR15. The plans are on the internet. It's legal as long as you don't intend to sell it. I made one a few years ago. Still works fine. The plans for at least two submachine guns, including the British-designed STEN, are also easy to find on the internet. Those are illegal because they're fully automatic, but they're designed to be easy to make - all you need is a lathe and a welder. Home workshops in occupied Europe were turning them out. Your car mechanic could mass-produce them. There are Youtube videos about how to use soda bottles and oil filters as suppressors ("silencers"), and about how to blow things up with propane and acetylene. The recipe for ANFO explosive is in a book available on Amazon right now. There are two ingredients, fertilizer and fuel. When I was a kid, we got a copy of "The Anarchist's Cookbook", with plans for all kinds of bombs and Molotov cocktails. We made a bunch of them and set them off in the woods.

This stuff's not hard to come by.


Nor is it in the UK, but aside from the PIRA I've never heard of anyone bothering.

It's easy to over-estimate the number of Dale Gribbles out there (Spare Me may be one ... maybe) but moreso it's easy for them to overestimate their enthusiasm and ability for DIY gunsmithing.
 
2012-12-30 08:46:13 PM  
I'm so glad only police own "assault" weapons

/snerk
 
2012-12-30 08:48:51 PM  

Spare Me: I'm so glad only police own "assault" weapons

/snerk


Not quite ... police are the only ones who can legally assault you. It has nothing to do with the weaopns.
 
2012-12-30 08:52:33 PM  

ParaHandy: Spare Me: I'm so glad only police own "assault" weapons

/snerk

Not quite ... police are the only ones who can legally assault you. It has nothing to do with the weaopns.


www.artskills.net
 
2012-12-30 08:53:02 PM  
I wish idiots would stop bringing up the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment and asking where all the militias are today. These people are idiots and need to get with the times. The 2nd Amendment does not currently mean what it meant in 1791. It has changed over time.
 
2012-12-30 08:53:11 PM  

ParaHandy: Bonzo_1116: ParaHandy: To extend the analogy, I know more about cars than almost any ASE certified mechanic. I maintain my cars to a far higher standard than required by the laughable TX state inspection. I trust my life to my expertise every time I take them on a racing circuit. The annual state inspection is wasted on me, but I value it anyway as it keeps some OTHER people's unsafe cars off the road and saves lives.

Wtf is up in the states with annual car "safety" inspections? In CA we only have smogging, and that's not every year.... it always seemed like some kind of shakedown to me.

The smog testers are even private garages, not a gov't agency.

/totally ok with the ten-round mag and bullet button on my AR15. It makes me think, and I spend less on ammo.

California or Canuckistan? The annual DoT inspection of a car in the UK takes about 75min to do properly and catches a whole host of potential safety issues, and costs about US$100. I'd have to do some numbers, but it must save thousands of lives annually.

A safety check on a gun should take all of 3 minutes .. unload, quick visual inspection, test fire a few rounds, whatever makes sense .. paging Kit Fister ... The real value is reminding the average nightstand owner that they have a dangerous weapon, reminding them of safe handling, and making sure they didn't sell it to the corner crack runner.

I would expect this service to be available at any decent range or FFL for a few $ per gun, and for them to discount it for members. For gun enthusiasts it would be no inconvenience as they could get it done on some guns while they practice with others at regular range visits.


California. I always laugh heartily when I read posts from folks in veritable bastions of freedom out East who buy booze from state stores and suffer through shiat like state automobile safety inspections and paying for access to the beach.

Enjoy your annual property tax increases, you freedom loving twats.

As for the idea if a safety check per gun, it'll have to be free or govt provided, as you'd be stomping on the rights of a poor man who inherits a family gun.
 
2012-12-30 08:57:25 PM  

duffblue:

I don't want to completely discount everything you have said, because you made a decent point at the end of your post, but please know what you're talking about before posting next time. We're not talking about some redneck designed potato gun that blows up in your hands on the first shot. You don't need a metal lathe or any sort of 3D printer. Just a dremel tool, a hammer and punch and $250. The stuff is out there, but for obvious reasons I'm not going to link it.


Bravo, good sir! Bravo! It is so nice to see that the classics are still being used by the current generation of intertards. And that one really is a classic! "I know how to do something but cannot tell you." I give you a 10/10 for using a classic troll. But I give you a 0/10 because you are such a farking retard.
 
2012-12-30 08:57:48 PM  

BronyMedic: You missed the point yourself. The argument most rational people are making is not to outlaw guns, but to legitimately restrict who can own them (Maybe the mentally ill shouldn't own firearms?), and make regulations not only actually enforced, but more stringent than depending on the word alone of a buyer who's entire obstacle to purchase depends on them being honest.


The mentally ill are already restricted from buying firearms under the 1968 Gun Control Act.

It already takes a background check for a firearm purchase. The main problems are the "gun show loophole" about private sales between individuals that allow sales without a background check, and that serious mental problems are not well reported to the NICS background check system.
 
2012-12-30 09:00:39 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?


Semi-automatic shot guns are used for sport shooting (skeet, trap) and for hunting. While semi-automatic is not often necessary when hunting with a rifle, it can be fairly common to take down more than one bird when duck hunting or hunting other birds.

But, with that being said, why are semi-automatics so horrible that they should be banned? And where would something like a lever action rifle in this proposed ban? Or what about a revolver?
 
2012-12-30 09:02:33 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?


Nerp. Lots of hunters use semi-auto firearms. Lots of sport shooters use semi-auto firearms.

Not gonna happen.
 
2012-12-30 09:04:14 PM  

Benjimin_Dover: You know what is really funny is that the same group of people that calls for "responsible restrictions" on gun ownership is almost exactly the same group that got their panties all bloodied up because Republicans wanted to put in place the voter ID requirements a short time ago. I seem to remember that all arguments against them were along the lines of "voting is a right, it says so in the Constitution, you can't tax a right, making people buy a free ID is a tax, yada yada yada." So how is it now OK to impose a poll tax like cost on owning a gun?


Let's cut through the derp on both sides:

Attention Republicans: You can't keep people from voting because they are black and scary.

Attention Democrats: You can't ban guns that are black and scary.
 
2012-12-30 09:05:59 PM  
Anyone that believes any coming gun control legislation isn't about confiscation is simple minded and ignorant.
 
2012-12-30 09:07:03 PM  

Mock26: I wish idiots would stop bringing up the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment and asking where all the militias are today. These people are idiots and need to get with the times. The 2nd Amendment does not currently mean what it meant in 1791. It has changed over time.


The US code currently defines the militia as "all able-bodied males". How do you think it has changed?
 
2012-12-30 09:10:21 PM  
lh3.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-12-30 09:15:49 PM  

Mock26: I wish idiots would stop bringing up the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment and asking where all the militias are today. These people are idiots and need to get with the times. The 2nd Amendment does not currently mean what it meant in 1791. It has changed over time.


Second Amendment

"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."

Compare to:

"A well educated House of Representatives, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Do you believe this sentence says that only government officials can own and read books?


People get strange when conversation turns to guns.
 
2012-12-30 09:19:26 PM  

BronyMedic: duffblue: We should regulate weapons further because you have stupid friends?

Wow. Classy.

The laws that currently restrict weapons sales aren't enforced well to begin with. You rarely ever hear about gun or pawn shops being persecuted for allowing straw buyers, or for blatantly telling people to lie on their background check forms about their mental health history. How about we start there?


This is an awesome place to start. Both the pro- and anti-gun freaks (as opposed to the rational people on both sides of the arguments) seem to think that laws magically prevent the action they were created to enforce, and therefore if they don't then a) we should get rid of them since they're not working (the pro-nuts) or b) we should make even more of them and stronger (the anti-nuts). Laws are just what they are: words that enable authorities to enforce penalties when they are broken. It's up to the rest of us to follow them, so that the authorities can penalize the CRIMINALS who BREAK THE LAW.

Otherwise, a law is just words on a paper. If the law says "Gun sellers shall not sell guns to known felons," and a sketchy looking guy with gang tats and a big wad of dirty $100s comes in and says "Yo, dude I need five Glocks and 12,000 rounds of ammo," just saying "Hey are you a gang member" and taking Sketchy's word for it might adhere to the LETTER of the law and get the shop owner off the legal hook when those five Glocks are used in next week's drive-by; but did he really think those guns weren't going to, or being paid for by "known felons"? (Cue everyone who's going to attack me for saying it's not a business owner's responsibility for merchandise once its left the premises and I'll refer you to class action suits against drug manufacturers)

The mental-health component is similarly flawed for one simple reason: It only covers people with KNOWN and INVOLUNTARY mental illness. Surprise! Anyone who hasn't been diagnosed, for instance, will never be caught by a background check, no matter how nuts they act; and anyone with a diagnosis who has never been 5150'd who opts not to check the little box on the form will likewise not show up on anybody's computer. That's because your private medical records are--shockingly--private, and can't be accessed by anybody for stuff even like gun checks. So even though I've had a diagnosis for 25 years, I could trot myself down to the gun shop right now, wait 5 days and get a handgun and nobody could stop me, because I've never been involuntarily hospitalized. And of course, I could by a shotgun right off the Walmart rack any day of the week.

It's not "the laws" that are the problem. It's the enforcement of them. You want to stop criminals and crazy people from having guns? Then people first have to stop selling them to them.
 
2012-12-30 09:25:08 PM  

ParaHandy: This stuff's not hard to come by.

Nor is it in the UK, but aside from the PIRA I've never heard of anyone bothering.


The UK was able to confiscate most firearms because a.) There weren't that many to start with, and b.) Pardon me for saying it, but they have an obedient serf tradition as opposed to a rebellious frontier tradition.

And when they were done, their gun crime rate did indeed go down. But their overall violent crime rate went UP.

America has tens of millions of firearms. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of military veterans armed with semi-automatic versions of rifles they are very familiar with. There is a strong sub-culture of Constitutionalists who believe the Republic should be what the founders intended it to be. They simply aren't going to give up their rifles.

And not to minimize the tragedy of the murders we're all horrified by, but in a world of limited resources, let's keep it in perspective: odds of a student being intentionally killed at school, 1:1,887,500. Odds of a student dying on a bicycle, 1:4,472.
 
2012-12-30 09:28:46 PM  
It is really REALLY telling that not one gun advocate was willing to challenge my homicide and suicide numbers. It's a stark, reality based FACT: If you live have a gun in your house, your chances of being involved in a homicide or suicide increase dramatically.

THAT is the cold, hard truth. Indisputable. And desperate to be ignored by those who want you to believe guns make you safer.
 
2012-12-30 09:29:26 PM  

Bonzo_1116: ParaHandy: Bonzo_1116: ParaHandy: To extend the analogy, I know more about cars than almost any ASE certified mechanic. I maintain my cars to a far higher standard than required by the laughable TX state inspection. I trust my life to my expertise every time I take them on a racing circuit. The annual state inspection is wasted on me, but I value it anyway as it keeps some OTHER people's unsafe cars off the road and saves lives.

Wtf is up in the states with annual car "safety" inspections? In CA we only have smogging, and that's not every year.... it always seemed like some kind of shakedown to me.

The smog testers are even private garages, not a gov't agency.

/totally ok with the ten-round mag and bullet button on my AR15. It makes me think, and I spend less on ammo.

California or Canuckistan? The annual DoT inspection of a car in the UK takes about 75min to do properly and catches a whole host of potential safety issues, and costs about US$100. I'd have to do some numbers, but it must save thousands of lives annually.

A safety check on a gun should take all of 3 minutes .. unload, quick visual inspection, test fire a few rounds, whatever makes sense .. paging Kit Fister ... The real value is reminding the average nightstand owner that they have a dangerous weapon, reminding them of safe handling, and making sure they didn't sell it to the corner crack runner.

I would expect this service to be available at any decent range or FFL for a few $ per gun, and for them to discount it for members. For gun enthusiasts it would be no inconvenience as they could get it done on some guns while they practice with others at regular range visits.

California. I always laugh heartily when I read posts from folks in veritable bastions of freedom out East who buy booze from state stores and suffer through shiat like state automobile safety inspections and paying for access to the beach.

Enjoy your annual property tax increases, you freedom loving twats.

As for the idea if a safety check per gun, it'll have to be free or govt provided, as you'd be stomping on the rights of a poor man who inherits a family gun.


I was one of a number of people who complained to the state of TX that the car inspection fee was too low ... when it was $12.50 no one would do them as they made no money. The brown people in the state legislature had an eppy about the cost, which must be an imposition when you're paying off rims for your Cutlass Supreme at $59 every cheque.
 
2012-12-30 09:30:29 PM  

chumboobler: In my view, regulation would not mean confiscation.


Unfortunately, the history of firearms regulation is working against you.

Instead of using hostile and aggressive terms, let's say people who support gun ownership recognize the strength of conviction among people who argue for tighter regulation, and know that the law is a process, not a single event.

Let's say the two sides get together and work out a middle ground that both can accept.. mandatory registration, ballistic fingerprinting, taggants in the propellant or projectile, whatever. The point is that it's a compromise where both sides agree to accept "less than everything I want" to reach an agreement. Let's further agree that both sides are sincere in their intent to cooperate.

So the compromise gets enacted as law. Then let's say someone comes along with a new piece of proposed legislation that will give the pro-regulation side more of what they want, at the cost of imposing restrictions the anti-regulation side doesn't want.

Put yourself in the position of someone who supports regulation. Will you vote against a law that does something you consider valuable in order to maintain the compromise you made previously, or will you vote for the law and renege on your side of the compromise?

The pro-regulation side has too long a history of making the second choice to be credible bargaining partners any more. Plenty of hardcore NRA members would be happy to live with stricter-but-still-moderate regulations, but will oppose those regulations because they've seen 'registration' turn into 'confiscation' too many times to think it won't happen again.
 
2012-12-30 09:39:05 PM  

Oblio13: And when they were done, their gun crime rate did indeed go down. But their overall violent crime rate went UP.


Bullshiat stat is bullshiat.

We still commit homicide in this country at THREE TIMES the rate of the UK. Guns taken completely out of the equation. We LIKE to kill people as the answer in this country, and guns make it easier.

Saying "violent crime went up in the UK!!!" is ignoring the basic fact that we STILL kill at 3 times the rate (per capita) than the UK.

Care to hand wave that away?
 
2012-12-30 09:39:22 PM  

mediablitz: It is really REALLY telling that not one gun advocate was willing to challenge my homicide and suicide numbers....


Would it make you feel better if they were pushed out a window or took some sleeping pills?
 
2012-12-30 09:41:52 PM  

Mock26: I wish idiots would stop bringing up the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment and asking where all the militias are today. These people are idiots and need to get with the times. The 2nd Amendment does not currently mean what it meant in 1791. It has changed over time.


So you're saying we are free to interpret it sensibly in the light of 21st century realities?

/ I am happy for any member of the National Guard to own as many muskets as they want
 
2012-12-30 09:43:54 PM  
the majority of large wholesale rampages (at schools, malls, places of former employment) were committed with guns that either the shooter owned legally or they were obtaiend legally by family and not secured properly by them. I am not talking about when guns were used to commit robbery and things went really bad, I mean when somebody says "I'm gonna leave the house and blow away //insert victims here//" or "I'm gonna make //insert person they think wronged them here// pay"

legally owned weapons. and the NRA says that these people are such a threat that we need cops in every school. to protect us from... you know... legally owned weapons.

I think the old cliche IS true. guns don't kill people, people kill people, so let's regulate who gets to own them. Thats why background checks, waiting periods are important. AFAIK mandatory training (gun safety) isnt required everywhere, but it should be. It's stuff like this that we need. Not an all out ban, theres nothing wrong w/owning a gun for hunting or for self defense. I fully support that. But come on let's be real, not everyone is of the right mind that they should be able to own a gun. And the vast majority of gun "accidents" were because someone did not practice basic gun safety. So make gun safety a requirement. you cant drive a car without showing you know how to drive, so why not show you know basic gun safety before you can buy one?
 
2012-12-30 09:44:55 PM  

Oblio13: mediablitz: It is really REALLY telling that not one gun advocate was willing to challenge my homicide and suicide numbers....

Would it make you feel better if they were pushed out a window or took some sleeping pills?


Lame attempt is LAME. We LOVE to kill with guns in this country. LOVE IT. Why can't you admit it? Suicide... Homicide of family/friends/loved ones.

We KILL. Even taking guns out of the equation, we kill at TRIPLE the rate of the UK.

Laugh, monkey... Laugh...
 
2012-12-30 09:46:26 PM  

illbeinmybunk: I think the old cliche IS true. guns don't kill people, people kill people, so let's regulate who gets to own them


Since the majority of our gun related deaths are people who know each other killing, or suicide by gun, what do you suggest?
 
2012-12-30 09:46:51 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: fluffy2097: stirfrybry: liberal view: Guns are responsible, not the person using the gun

The liberal view is actually: "The person is responsible. Therefore we need to ban guns so responsible people have no possible way of having them. We only want irresponsible lawbreakers having guns."

I understand it is easier to tell yourselves scary campfire stories about gun grabbers than to deal with the idea of realistic restrictions on gun use and ownership, in the same way it is easier to invent wackadoodle straw men who blame inanimate objects for human actions than to deal with the actual "liberal view." But the ban monster under your bed isn't real: a gun ban is insurmountably illegal and impracticable in the US. So you can stop crying about it.


Ill start listening to "reasonable restrictions" when I actually see some. Feinstein is basically proposing an enormous gun ban in her bill that will largely do nothing to help anyone.
 
2012-12-30 09:48:20 PM  

enochianwolf: Spare Me: GonadtheBarbarian: Why won't anti-gunners and the media learn what assault weapons are?

Because the word "assault" makes them wet their pants. And they like it.

I love how gun nuts get hung up on this... yeah fully automatic assault rifles werent used in the recent shootings, but do you really need a legal right to purchase an AR-15 or a Bushmaster? No, absolutely not


Why should I not have a legal right to own one?
 
2012-12-30 09:49:28 PM  
Fark, I am dssapoint.

www.bitterfilms.com
/Hot
 
2012-12-30 09:52:12 PM  

Doom MD: Why should I not have a legal right to own on


Why should you, consider a "well REGULATED militia"?

And why SHOULD you, considering we, as a country, kill people at triple the rate of the UK, ignoring guns?

Are you COMPLETELY unwilling to look at the totality of the 2nd amendment, and the violent culture we have cultivated in this country (2/3rds of the killing weapons in Mexico come from the Untied States)? Is is all about you buying whatever you want, morality be damned?
 
2012-12-30 09:55:32 PM  

Oblio13: ParaHandy: This stuff's not hard to come by.

Nor is it in the UK, but aside from the PIRA I've never heard of anyone bothering.

The UK was able to confiscate most firearms because a.) There weren't that many to start with, and b.) Pardon me for saying it, but they have an obedient serf tradition as opposed to a rebellious frontier tradition.

And when they were done, their gun crime rate did indeed go down. But their overall violent crime rate went UP.

America has tens of millions of firearms. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of military veterans armed with semi-automatic versions of rifles they are very familiar with. There is a strong sub-culture of Constitutionalists who believe the Republic should be what the founders intended it to be. They simply aren't going to give up their rifles.

And not to minimize the tragedy of the murders we're all horrified by, but in a world of limited resources, let's keep it in perspective: odds of a student being intentionally killed at school, 1:1,887,500. Odds of a student dying on a bicycle, 1:4,472.


Ah, this old chestnut again ... the violent crime rate in the UK did not go up, the scope of things considered as "violent crime" was widened considerably

Repeating your mis-statement loudly and often (c.f Rove, 9/11 and Iraq) won't get you anywhere here, as you'll get called on it.

Things change, and the "we won't give up our guns" line is not constructive. Instead, tell me how to keep your favourite toys away from the white trash, whackjobs and gnag bangers.

Your last point is the salient one ... these tragedies are horrifying, but they are a tiny tip of a huge iceberg. Humans over-react to low probability, high damage risks. The real opportunity to save lives is not in banning machine guns, it's in keeping handguns away from twats like George Zimmerman. There are more murders in the USA carried out using handguns than by every other method combined including AR15s through poisoned Zucchini.

Sensible gun controls would have prevented this particular tragedy as well ... Nancy Lanza would not have passed a UK background check, for example.
 
2012-12-30 09:56:32 PM  

mediablitz:

Bullshiat stat is bullshiat.

We still commit homicide in this country at THREE TIMES the rate of the UK. Guns taken completely out of the equation. We LIKE to kill people as the answer in this country, and guns make it easier.

Saying "violent crime went up in the UK!!!" is ignoring the basic fact that we STILL kill at 3 times the rate (per capita) than the UK.

Care to hand wave that away?


Google "countries by intentional homicide rate". The US rate is 4.2. The UK's is 1.2. Iceland is .3. Jamaica is 52.2. Then Google "United States cities by crime rate". New Orleans and Baltimore, where gun laws are very strict, are at the top of the list. None of the cities in Wyoming, New Hampshire, Alaska or Vermont, the states with the most gun-related freedoms, made the list at all. Whoa, there goes that correlation. It's almost like some cultures are more violent than others or something.
 
2012-12-30 10:02:29 PM  

mediablitz: Doom MD: Why should I not have a legal right to own on

Why should you, consider a "well REGULATED militia"?

And why SHOULD you, considering we, as a country, kill people at triple the rate of the UK, ignoring guns?

Are you COMPLETELY unwilling to look at the totality of the 2nd amendment, and the violent culture we have cultivated in this country (2/3rds of the killing weapons in Mexico come from the Untied States)? Is is all about you buying whatever you want, morality be damned?


And what does an ar15 have to do with any of this?
 
2012-12-30 10:02:30 PM  
What we need to ban is Florida.
 
2012-12-30 10:07:21 PM  

ParaHandy: ... the violent crime rate in the UK did not go up, the scope of things considered as "violent crime" was widened considerably ...


First hits on Google were two BBC news articles:

"Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%."

"A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% the first two years after the weapons were banned."
 
2012-12-30 10:09:51 PM  

jafiwam: Stop making yourself look dumb.

Google: "80% lower AR15" and switch to images.

Then, imagine the template for the pin holes are also easy to get.

It's a simple drill press job and a parts kit along with an upper and it's done. No numbers, and the feds don't know about it.

You are a complete farking fool if you think that the letter of the law is going to prevent a dedicated owner from finishing one.

Change the rules, and the template gets a little more complicated that's all.

Unless you are talking about completely re-arranging the rules, no barrel sales, making the blueprints and instructions illegal, etc. you aren't going to stop it... for long anyway.


 You really shouldn't lecture others on "sounding stupid" when the situation you suggest borders on the absurd, and creates specific, straw man situations which ignore the practicality and reality of society in the United States. Most people who own a gun, or rather - want to own a gun are not going to drop thousands of dollars on a good metal drill press and a lathe to mill their own barrels and forge their own receivers and bolt/trigger assemblies for a one time use. In addition to this, your argument that machining tolerances don't matter is a hilarious display of your lack of knowledge on the AR-15 platform. (That metal and machining tolerance mattered so much that it had to be completely reworked for the M16A1 series used by the military) As is your suggestion that the metals used don't matter either. Every first world country that has restricted gun sales in the last 30 years have never seen the problem like this that you suggest. Massive underground arms factories run by average citizens downloading plans off the internet have not surfaced.

 You're a complete farking idiot if you think those "dedicated owners", who already more than likely follow the letter of the law regarding sale and transfer of their weapons, and regarding the illegality of producing select fire or fully automatic weapons outside of the Law Enforcement or Government buyer community, are going to suddenly open up these factories over night if the laws regarding gun sales

In reality, the argument you are making applies to a very select few individuals with technical knowledge, equipment, and gunsmithing experience, as well as a large amount of disposable income. Somehow, I doubt Adam Lanza or Sideshow Bob would have done that. If it were so easy to manufacture untraceable, accurate military grade weapons, the Cartels and gangs in the United States wouldn't be depending on stolen and illicitly traded ones, they'd be making their own.

Of all the examples you could have used of weapons patterns meant for ease of mass production by small workshops - like the Sten gun, M3, or the AK-47, you pick the AR-15? A weapon historically known for failing due to it's exacting tolerances requiring CONSTANT maintenance to keep it functional?
 
2012-12-30 10:13:54 PM  
Uh, I don't want to mess with you guys because you seem pretty upset about this issue BUT...

I do have a tiny spoon and small cheap teacups that I use to eat ice cream when I get a hankering. I also have a tiny cookie scoop for making tiny cookies or scooping out little scoops of ice cream.
 
2012-12-30 10:15:46 PM  

Oblio13: mediablitz:

Bullshiat stat is bullshiat.

We still commit homicide in this country at THREE TIMES the rate of the UK. Guns taken completely out of the equation. We LIKE to kill people as the answer in this country, and guns make it easier.

Saying "violent crime went up in the UK!!!" is ignoring the basic fact that we STILL kill at 3 times the rate (per capita) than the UK.

Care to hand wave that away?

Google "countries by intentional homicide rate". The US rate is 4.2. The UK's is 1.2. Iceland is .3. Jamaica is 52.2. Then Google "United States cities by crime rate". New Orleans and Baltimore, where gun laws are very strict, are at the top of the list. None of the cities in Wyoming, New Hampshire, Alaska or Vermont, the states with the most gun-related freedoms, made the list at all. Whoa, there goes that correlation. It's almost like some cultures are more violent than others or something.


Oh look! Someone wants to play the "correlation" game. As a Montana resident, I laugh. Montana is top 3 for homicide by gun. Number 1 for suicide by gun. but if you play the game, barely top 10 for "gun violence". Montana has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country

Why are you so desperate to pretend that we don't have a gun issue in this country, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Why are you so afraid of even discussing the issue? As a long time gun owner, and a decades having CCW, I am willing to discuss. Why are you so unwilling to even admit there is an issue, despite the overwhelming evidence?
 
2012-12-30 10:16:33 PM  

mediablitz: ... 2/3rds of the killing weapons in Mexico come from the Untied States...


THIS is why I won't be turning in my rifles. Some of our highest officials pushed that outright lie to further their agenda, and Fast and Furious was designed to manufacture "evidence" for it.

Remember Hillary showing off the M60 machine guns, grenades and claymores supposedly "bought" in the US? Show me the gunstore.

Why would drug cartels buy expensive semi-automatic rifles one at a time north of their border, when they can get anything they want at a fraction of the price from their own army or south of their border?

Mexico's constitution gives citizens about the same right to keep and bear arms as ours does, in theory. But it's been so diluted that it's virtually impossible for them to actually do so. And yet the criminal elements are so well armed that they can take on military units and win.
 
2012-12-30 10:19:13 PM  

spidermilk: Uh, I don't want to mess with you guys because you seem pretty upset about this issue BUT...

I do have a tiny spoon and small cheap teacups that I use to eat ice cream when I get a hankering. I also have a tiny cookie scoop for making tiny cookies or scooping out little scoops of ice cream.


Don't use the word "tiny" around gun enthusiasts...
 
2012-12-30 10:20:08 PM  

Oblio13: Then Google "United States cities by crime rate". New Orleans and Baltimore, where gun laws are very strict, are at the top of the list.


Also, virtually every house hosed down by the fire department was coincidentally the site of a house fire. So don't tell me that the fire department actually prevents fires.

Cause and effect, how's it work?
 
2012-12-30 10:20:51 PM  

Oblio13: THIS is why I won't be turning in my rifles. Some of our highest officials pushed that outright lie to further their agenda, and Fast and Furious was designed to manufacture "evidence" for it.


Let me guess: you believe in Chemtrails, 9/11 was an inside job, the Aurora killer was a government plant, etc.

Cuz that's how farking stupid you sound, trying to willfully ignore the truth...
 
2012-12-30 10:25:47 PM  

Oblio13: Remember Hillary showing off the M60 machine guns, grenades and claymores supposedly "bought" in the US? Show me the gunstore.


Since every M60 in civilian hands was made before the 1984 cut-off date for full-auto weapons for general civilian ownership, chances are anyone who can pass a rather stringent background check, and pay 200 bucks for a tax stamp can own one if they're willing to pay retail, which can be as much as for a small car. If I work for a Law Enforcement agency or for a Private Military Contractor registered with the State Department, I can own one made yesterday. Same thing with grenades and Claymores. As long as you have a FFL Class III selling them, and have a tax stamp for them, they count as Destructive Devices. In addition, anyone with a demolitions or explosives license can own them as well.

As long as I had a tax stamp, and registered with the federal government my explosive destructive device, I could legally own a Javelin ATM, and there's not a thing you could do about it.

img.defencetalk.com
 
2012-12-30 10:27:10 PM  

BronyMedic: ... Of all the examples you could have used of weapons patterns meant for ease of mass production by small workshops - like the Sten gun, M3, or the AK-47, you pick the AR-15? A weapon historically known for failing due to it's exacting tolerances requiring CONSTANT maintenance to keep it functional?


The AR15/M16 got a bad reputation early on for a variety of reasons, but they were corrected decades ago. It's very reliable now. (20 years in the Marines, started with the M14, went through the M16A1 and ended with the M16A2).

I'd trust it way before a Sten or M3. I've seen AK's jam, too. They have a mystique they don't deserve.
 
2012-12-30 10:33:26 PM  

Oblio13: It's very reliable now. (20 years in the Marines, started with the M14, went through the M16A1 and ended with the M16A2).


Semper FI, Sir. My Family is Navy/Marine.

Oblio13: I'd trust it way before a Sten or M3. I've seen AK's jam, too. They have a mystique they don't deserve.


They may have an undeserved mystique about them, but there's a reason every crackpot dictator and warlord in a third world hellhole uses their own knock-offs of them. Because you can literally make them out of scrap metal, with no attention given to tolerances or alloy used. You can throw one in a river and pick it up a week later, let it dry, and shoot it at someone.
 
2012-12-30 10:35:49 PM  

Spirit Hammer: Mock26: I wish idiots would stop bringing up the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment and asking where all the militias are today. These people are idiots and need to get with the times. The 2nd Amendment does not currently mean what it meant in 1791. It has changed over time.

Second Amendment

"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."

Compare to:

"A well educated House of Representatives, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Do you believe this sentence says that only government officials can own and read books?


People get strange when conversation turns to guns.


The Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd Amendment over the years in such a way that the militia part really no longer has any validity. In today's America the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and the militia part is not required. This is not my opinion. This is for all intents and purposes fact of law.
 
2012-12-30 10:37:24 PM  

ParaHandy: Mock26: I wish idiots would stop bringing up the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment and asking where all the militias are today. These people are idiots and need to get with the times. The 2nd Amendment does not currently mean what it meant in 1791. It has changed over time.

So you're saying we are free to interpret it sensibly in the light of 21st century realities?

/ I am happy for any member of the National Guard to own as many muskets as they want


No. We the people are not free to interpret it. That is the job of the Supreme Court. And they have interpreted it so that today it is an individual right that is not limited to just muskets.
 
2012-12-30 10:37:51 PM  

BronyMedic: Oblio13: Remember Hillary showing off the M60 machine guns, grenades and claymores supposedly "bought" in the US? Show me the gunstore.

Since every M60 in civilian hands was made before the 1984 cut-off date for full-auto weapons for general civilian ownership, chances are anyone who can pass a rather stringent background check, and pay 200 bucks for a tax stamp can own one if they're willing to pay retail, which can be as much as for a small car. If I work for a Law Enforcement agency or for a Private Military Contractor registered with the State Department, I can own one made yesterday. Same thing with grenades and Claymores. As long as you have a FFL Class III selling them, and have a tax stamp for them, they count as Destructive Devices. In addition, anyone with a demolitions or explosives license can own them as well.

As long as I had a tax stamp, and registered with the federal government my explosive destructive device, I could legally own a Javelin ATM, and there's not a thing you could do about it.

[img.defencetalk.com image 524x393]


And what would happen to you if you sold your Javelin to someone in Mexico?
 
2012-12-30 10:39:22 PM  

mediablitz: Let me guess: you believe in Chemtrails, 9/11 was an inside job, the Aurora killer was a government plant, etc.

Cuz that's how farking stupid you sound, trying to willfully ignore the truth...


I'm an airline pilot, but had never heard of "chemtrails" until I Googled it just now. I used to fly #11 (the first one to hit the WTC) all the time, but didn't that day, although I knew the entire crew who did and was quite close to one of them. And the Aurora killer was a loner. Several of the theater survivors described being hit by his hot ejected brass, which means they could have reached out and touched the back of his head. I do think it's a pity none of them could have been legally armed.

How do I sound now?
 
2012-12-30 10:39:50 PM  

Mock26: Spirit Hammer: Mock26: I wish idiots would stop bringing up the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment and asking where all the militias are today. These people are idiots and need to get with the times. The 2nd Amendment does not currently mean what it meant in 1791. It has changed over time.

Second Amendment

"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."

Compare to:

"A well educated House of Representatives, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Do you believe this sentence says that only government officials can own and read books?


People get strange when conversation turns to guns.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd Amendment over the years in such a way that the militia part really no longer has any validity. In today's America the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and the militia part is not required. This is not my opinion. This is for all intents and purposes fact of law.


And it is farking TIME to recall the "well regulated" part. We have become a society that worships guns, worships killing. Time to revisit "well regulated" before it destroys us as a nation.

I fear it is too late....
 
2012-12-30 10:41:16 PM  

Oblio13: I'm an airline pilot, but had never heard of "chemtrails" until I Googled it just now.


Wow. Willfully ignorant, or just stupid?
 
2012-12-30 10:41:21 PM  

Oblio13: ParaHandy: ... the violent crime rate in the UK did not go up, the scope of things considered as "violent crime" was widened considerably ...

First hits on Google were two BBC news articles:

"Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%."

"A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% the first two years after the weapons were banned."


You were not specific, and so I assumed you were referring to the rise in non-gun related violent crime stats, which is often trotted out as "see, now they just chib each other" which isn't the case. 7 times in the previous thread alone. I know it's just people looking for data to support their desired conclusions but it's tiresome.

This was clearly from a very low baseline ... gun crime rates now that the dust has settled are running at one fortieth (2.5%) of what they are in the USA. The article talks about 4 gun murders in London, obviously drug related, getting the attention of the PM.

When gangland gun murders are rare enough in your country that 4 shootings in a week in NYC make the national news, and Obama says "we gotta do something" then you can critique our approach :)
 
2012-12-30 10:47:35 PM  

ParaHandy:

When gangland gun murders are rare enough in your country that 4 shootings in a week in NYC make the national news, and Obama says "we gotta do something" then you can critique our approach :)


Know what? It does make the news when there's four shootings in a week in NYC.

Because the murder rate is so low.
 
2012-12-30 10:49:55 PM  

mediablitz: Mock26: Spirit Hammer: Mock26: I wish idiots would stop bringing up the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment and asking where all the militias are today. These people are idiots and need to get with the times. The 2nd Amendment does not currently mean what it meant in 1791. It has changed over time.

Second Amendment

"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."

Compare to:

"A well educated House of Representatives, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Do you believe this sentence says that only government officials can own and read books?


People get strange when conversation turns to guns.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd Amendment over the years in such a way that the militia part really no longer has any validity. In today's America the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and the militia part is not required. This is not my opinion. This is for all intents and purposes fact of law.

And it is farking TIME to recall the "well regulated" part. We have become a society that worships guns, worships killing. Time to revisit "well regulated" before it destroys us as a nation.

I fear it is too late....


Over 100 MILLION legally gun owners in this country, and every single day the vast majority of them never use their guns in an illegal manner, let alone kill anyone. Most of the guns used to commit homicide are not used by their legal owner. They are either stolen or have been purchased illegally. Seems to me that nearly every single legal gun owner is also a responsible gun owner. How exactly will stricter and/or more regulations improve upon this situation? For the most part gun regulations are worthless, as the ones who need to be stopped by such regulations will simply ignore those regulations and obtain a firearm through some other, illegal manner.
 
2012-12-30 10:51:01 PM  

Doom MD: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: fluffy2097: stirfrybry: liberal view: Guns are responsible, not the person using the gun

The liberal view is actually: "The person is responsible. Therefore we need to ban guns so responsible people have no possible way of having them. We only want irresponsible lawbreakers having guns."

I understand it is easier to tell yourselves scary campfire stories about gun grabbers than to deal with the idea of realistic restrictions on gun use and ownership, in the same way it is easier to invent wackadoodle straw men who blame inanimate objects for human actions than to deal with the actual "liberal view." But the ban monster under your bed isn't real: a gun ban is insurmountably illegal and impracticable in the US. So you can stop crying about it.

Ill start listening to "reasonable restrictions" when I actually see some. Feinstein is basically proposing an enormous gun ban in her bill that will largely do nothing to help anyone.


Actually, I said "realistic," not "reasonable." Realistic as in things that could be done under the US Constitution and in light of the existing gun-ownership situation in the US.

I'm not saying that gun owners should necessarily agree with all these proposed restrictions. I'm saying that they should explain why they disagree with *those* proposals instead of going Derp Factor 10 and crying about some slippery slope "they comin fer all the guns" horseshiat that is farking never going to happen and isn't going to persuade anyone of anything.

(And yes, any anti-gun nuts who think the US can or will follow the example of the UK need to let go of those delusions and work on something more realistic, too.)

Better yet, how about gun-ownership advocates respond to proposals like Feinstein's with counterproposals that would address the problems that she is trying and failing to solve. "How about no" isn't always the wrong response, but it isn't always the right one either.
 
2012-12-30 10:57:15 PM  

ParaHandy: When gangland gun murders are rare enough in your country that 4 shootings in a week in NYC make the national news, and Obama says "we gotta do something" then you can critique our approach :)


Nothing personal, but I don't want America to be like England. I want to be a citizen, not a subject.

Our crime problems boil down to "inner cities" and "meth". The school shootings are very rare anomalies in a number of ways, and not representative of the vast majority of our crime.

I suspect that the Sandy Hook teachers were anti-Second Amendment types, just judging from their demographic. But I think that if we could magically bring them back from the dead for a "do-over", they might not want to go out on their knees in a puddle of urine again.
 
2012-12-30 10:58:18 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Doom MD: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: fluffy2097: stirfrybry: liberal view: Guns are responsible, not the person using the gun

The liberal view is actually: "The person is responsible. Therefore we need to ban guns so responsible people have no possible way of having them. We only want irresponsible lawbreakers having guns."

I understand it is easier to tell yourselves scary campfire stories about gun grabbers than to deal with the idea of realistic restrictions on gun use and ownership, in the same way it is easier to invent wackadoodle straw men who blame inanimate objects for human actions than to deal with the actual "liberal view." But the ban monster under your bed isn't real: a gun ban is insurmountably illegal and impracticable in the US. So you can stop crying about it.

Ill start listening to "reasonable restrictions" when I actually see some. Feinstein is basically proposing an enormous gun ban in her bill that will largely do nothing to help anyone.

Actually, I said "realistic," not "reasonable." Realistic as in things that could be done under the US Constitution and in light of the existing gun-ownership situation in the US.

I'm not saying that gun owners should necessarily agree with all these proposed restrictions. I'm saying that they should explain why they disagree with *those* proposals instead of going Derp Factor 10 and crying about some slippery slope "they comin fer all the guns" horseshiat that is farking never going to happen and isn't going to persuade anyone of anything.

(And yes, any anti-gun nuts who think the US can or will follow the example of the UK need to let go of those delusions and work on something more realistic, too.)

Better yet, how about gun-ownership advocates respond to proposals like Feinstein's with counterproposals that would address the problems that she is trying and failing to solve. "How about no" isn't always the wrong response, but it isn't always the right one either.


Counter proposals have been offered ad nauseum. Furthermore, the awb is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Rifles are used in a very small percentage of crime across the board. Address mental health, end the drug war, add mental health flags to nics, and allow private sellers to access nics would go extremely far in helping with no real inconvenience to legal gun owners. Win-win, imo.
 
2012-12-30 11:00:15 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: And what would happen to you if you sold your Javelin to someone in Mexico?


If it were a state department-registered legitimate transfer to a legitimate Mexican PMC or to the Mexican Government, nothing. Raytheon/Lockheed Martin already sell it for export.
 
2012-12-30 11:01:32 PM  

Oblio13: I suspect that the Sandy Hook teachers were anti-Second Amendment types, just judging from their demographic. But I think that if we could magically bring them back from the dead for a "do-over", they might not want to go out on their knees in a puddle of urine again.


Before you make horrifically shameful claims like that to further your cause upon the corpses of innocent men and women, it might do you well to know that every adult that died went out protecting their classroom, or trying to stop Lanza.
 
2012-12-30 11:02:20 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: ... how about gun-ownership advocates respond to proposals like Feinstein's with counterproposals that would address the problems that she is trying and failing to solve. "How about no" isn't always the wrong response, but it isn't always the right one either.


If I want to pull out ten of your teeth, and you say "no", and then I offer to only pull out five of your teeth, and you still say "no", are you unwilling to compromise?
 
2012-12-30 11:05:04 PM  

Oblio13: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: ... how about gun-ownership advocates respond to proposals like Feinstein's with counterproposals that would address the problems that she is trying and failing to solve. "How about no" isn't always the wrong response, but it isn't always the right one either.

If I want to pull out ten of your teeth, and you say "no", and then I offer to only pull out five of your teeth, and you still say "no", are you unwilling to compromise?


Restricting/limiting firearms ownership is, in your mind, akin to forcibly mutilating another human being?

How is that even close to a rational statement?
 
2012-12-30 11:11:29 PM  

BronyMedic: ... Before you make horrifically shameful claims like that to further your cause upon the corpses of innocent men and women, it might do you well to know that every adult that died went out protecting their classroom, or trying to stop Lanza.


All steely-eyed, fearless heroes laughing in the face of death or not, put your moral outrage aside long enough to ask yourself if they deserved a fighting chance instead of just waiting their turn to be executed.
 
2012-12-30 11:15:08 PM  

Oblio13: All steely-eyed, fearless heroes laughing in the face of death or not, put your moral outrage aside long enough to ask yourself if they deserved a fighting chance instead of just waiting their turn to be executed.


You're assuming it would end differently if they had a handgun somewhere.

I guess people fantasize that they'll somehow become Batman in that situation, somersaulting over the desk the moment a wacko kicks open the door. The probable reality is that, even if you taught grade school kids with a gun in a holster, you'd be out of commission at t=0 if someone suddenly barged in and shot you.
 
2012-12-30 11:15:37 PM  
There are people who refer to their guns as their "toys." Those people should clearly not have a gun.

/Pet peeve of mine.
//Gun owner
 
2012-12-30 11:19:08 PM  

Oblio13: All steely-eyed, fearless heroes laughing in the face of death or not, put your moral outrage aside long enough to ask yourself if they deserved a fighting chance instead of just waiting their turn to be executed.


Every one of them died fighting Lanza, or trying to lunge at him. I say they damn well fought over it.

The difference between yourself and I is not moral outrage, but rather not trying to make an insane proposal while the corpses of those killed are still warm, and then revising the events to make something sound like it happened in a different way than it did. Arming every teacher in America, something no other country on Earth does, and giving them training to use that weapon equivalent to that of a school resource officer, is not a viable solution. It's insane. And it's just as silly and ineffectual as claiming a blanket ban on specific types of guns, or on guns in general, will prevent mass killings.

For starters, you can't even get states to pay teachers what they are worth to begin with. You have Teaachers who are using their own money to buy equipment for their classrooms. How the hell do you even expect to fund it, let alone provide a firearm for 7.2 MILLION teachers in the United States who teach at the K-12 level? Are you going to force them to pay out of their pockets with the money they are already sparsely paid in the first place?

TL;DR: You're going to spend millions of dollars each year to prepare EVERY school in America to go head to head with an event that will, ostensibly, never happen to the average teacher in their life time?
 
2012-12-30 11:20:03 PM  

Xcott: You're assuming it would end differently if they had a handgun somewhere.


If they had a concealed handgun and knew how to use it, it might have ended better and it wouldn't have ended any worse.
 
2012-12-30 11:20:52 PM  

Doom MD: Counter proposals have been offered ad nauseum. Furthermore, the awb is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Rifles are used in a very small percentage of crime across the board.


But it's dumb to argue about percentages when a tragedy occurs. Every horrible tragedy is small in percentage terms. Do we need a secret service? A vanishingly small percentage of homicides are presidential assassinations. Did we need to do anything about 9/11? 3,000 is a tiny percentage of deaths.

Do we need do do anything about murder, of any kind? Even in Chicago you're far more likely to die from a car accident or influenza. Percentage-wise, the gang problem doesn't exist!
 
2012-12-30 11:24:18 PM  

Oblio13: ParaHandy: When gangland gun murders are rare enough in your country that 4 shootings in a week in NYC make the national news, and Obama says "we gotta do something" then you can critique our approach :)

Nothing personal, but I don't want America to be like England. I want to be a citizen, not a subject.

Our crime problems boil down to "inner cities" and "meth". The school shootings are very rare anomalies in a number of ways, and not representative of the vast majority of our crime.

I suspect that the Sandy Hook teachers were anti-Second Amendment types, just judging from their demographic. But I think that if we could magically bring them back from the dead for a "do-over", they might not want to go out on their knees in a puddle of urine again.


That's the funny part - we discussed it over dinner. Apart from the gun thing, which I guess is material if you're into that, there are actually more *de facto* freedoms here. I am a big fan of the 1st amendment, and would like to import it: curbs on free speech so far are few and largely fall into the "FIRE!" and harassment category, but I am watching cautiously.

I've never had my civil rights violated by a European cop, hell I've never had one be less than polite. They aren't allowed to lie or do entrapment - they're even required to put out warning signs for speed traps. They aren't allowed to commit crimes on duty. They would get fired for tazing black grandmas out of impatience. And they rarely shoot people.

I've got news for you - neither the UK nor the USA is perfect, and both have much to learn from the other. I am in your country, and I am going to improve it whether you like it or not.

/ and PS I'm most certainly not from England ;)
 
2012-12-30 11:26:44 PM  

Oblio13: Xcott: You're assuming it would end differently if they had a handgun somewhere.

If they had a concealed handgun and knew how to use it, it might have ended better and it wouldn't have ended any worse.


people.virginia.edu
 
2012-12-30 11:28:40 PM  

Xcott: Doom MD: Counter proposals have been offered ad nauseum. Furthermore, the awb is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Rifles are used in a very small percentage of crime across the board.

But it's dumb to argue about percentages when a tragedy occurs. Every horrible tragedy is small in percentage terms. Do we need a secret service? A vanishingly small percentage of homicides are presidential assassinations. Did we need to do anything about 9/11? 3,000 is a tiny percentage of deaths.

Do we need do do anything about murder, of any kind? Even in Chicago you're far more likely to die from a car accident or influenza. Percentage-wise, the gang problem doesn't exist!


Cool, so you won't strip away my rights
 
2012-12-30 11:31:48 PM  

BronyMedic: Mr. Eugenides: And what would happen to you if you sold your Javelin to someone in Mexico?

If it were a state department-registered legitimate transfer to a legitimate Mexican PMC or to the Mexican Government, nothing. Raytheon/Lockheed Martin already sell it for export.


Fair enough, but the implication was that these weapons were getting into the hands of Mexican criminals through non State Department sanctioned means. So let me rephrase that as "And what would happen to you as a holder of a FFL if you sold your Javelin to some guy in Mexico without the proper paperwork and that weapon turned up at a crime scene?"
 
2012-12-30 11:32:06 PM  

BronyMedic: .... Arming every teacher in America, something no other country on Earth does, and giving them training to use that weapon equivalent to that of a school resource officer, is not a viable solution. It's insane. And it's just as silly and ineffectual as claiming a blanket ban on specific types of guns, or on guns in general, will prevent mass killings.

For starters, you can't even get states to pay teachers what they are worth to begin with. You have Teaachers who are using their own money to buy equipment for their classrooms. How the hell do you even expect to fund it, let alone provide a firearm for 7.2 MILLION teachers in the United States who teach at the K-12 level? Are you going to force them to pay out of their pockets with the money they are already sparsely paid in the first place?

TL;DR: You're going to spend millions of dollars each year to prepare EVERY school in America to go head to head with an event that will, ostensibly, never happen to the average teacher in their life time?


No need to spend much. Simply restore the Second Amendment rights of teachers. Some of them will welcome the commitment and responsibility. Knowing that some teachers are armed, but not which ones, will be a deterrent. Mass murderers who violate our zero-tolerance gun-free zones to shoot elementary school kids are looking for helpless victims, not a gunfight.

Have you noticed how many airline hijackings we've had since we allowed pilots the option of being armed?
 
2012-12-30 11:34:13 PM  

mediablitz: Oblio13: I'm an airline pilot, but had never heard of "chemtrails" until I Googled it just now.

Wow. Willfully ignorant, or just stupid?


To be fair, I hadn't heard of "chemtrails" until just recently, and it was from right here on Fark. It's not a big woo-woo here in So Cal, at least not in the city, and I don't run around with that brand of nutjobs, so it hadn't really entered my sphere of attention. It's hard to keep track of ALL the conspiracy theories running around out there, there are so many.
 
2012-12-30 11:34:54 PM  

Oblio13: Xcott: You're assuming it would end differently if they had a handgun somewhere.

If they had a concealed handgun and knew how to use it, it might have ended better and it wouldn't have ended any worse.


Actually, this ended a lot, lot worse because someone had a stash of guns and knew how to use them. If the killer's mom didn't have a small arsenal---if it wasn't a derpy fad to stockpile weapons in case Mad Max happens---this kid would have just been like any other schizophrenic, and no children would have been massacred.

Newtown is a textbook example of a gun owner making things infinitely worse simply by having firearms in the vicinity of a wacko.
 
2012-12-30 11:35:35 PM  

BronyMedic: Oblio13: All steely-eyed, fearless heroes laughing in the face of death or not, put your moral outrage aside long enough to ask yourself if they deserved a fighting chance instead of just waiting their turn to be executed.

Every one of them died fighting Lanza, or trying to lunge at him. I say they damn well fought over it.

The difference between yourself and I is not moral outrage, but rather not trying to make an insane proposal while the corpses of those killed are still warm, and then revising the events to make something sound like it happened in a different way than it did. Arming every teacher in America, something no other country on Earth does, and giving them training to use that weapon equivalent to that of a school resource officer, is not a viable solution. It's insane. And it's just as silly and ineffectual as claiming a blanket ban on specific types of guns, or on guns in general, will prevent mass killings.

For starters, you can't even get states to pay teachers what they are worth to begin with. You have Teaachers who are using their own money to buy equipment for their classrooms. How the hell do you even expect to fund it, let alone provide a firearm for 7.2 MILLION teachers in the United States who teach at the K-12 level? Are you going to force them to pay out of their pockets with the money they are already sparsely paid in the first place?

TL;DR: You're going to spend millions of dollars each year to prepare EVERY school in America to go head to head with an event that will, ostensibly, never happen to the average teacher in their life time?


The gun nuts start with the premise that any effort at controlling the gun problem in the USA is a bad thing. Working from that assumption, the scenario of a disturbed individual having access to military-grade hardware is not only possible but commonplace, and so must be planned for.

/ and yes, they really do expect to win a shoot out
 
2012-12-30 11:35:40 PM  
The problem is not guns, but envy.

Nobody wants to pay for someone else to live a peaceful, care-free life in an institution with a spa and a bucolic park-like setting. So we let the crazies out onto the streets. Anything else would be socialism. We need to address mental illness as a societal problem (as was done in the past, albeit in a deplorable way). The issue is not cost, it's envy. If we had spent the 2 trillion dollars we recently spent on foreign wars here at home, we would be way better off. Incidentally, envy was supposedly the reason that Adam Lanza killed those children.

Proximity
I've noticed that ones attitude toward guns seems to be directly proportional to population density. I have absolutely no problem with private gun ownership in rural areas. Where I live, a one mile radius encloses about 10,000 people. I'd just as soon we were a gun-free zone.

The Constitution
You do not have a constitutional right to own a gun (or anything, for that matter). The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are a codification of our basic liberties. The issue of private ownership of particular items is way beyond the scope and intent of its authors. The Second Amendment is not an ownership guarantee; it confers the right to "keep" not "own" arms, and to bear those arms as part of a "well-regulated militia." The militia angle is not incidental, because if it were simply an issue of ownership it would not appear in the Bill of Rights.

Furthermore, even if the Constitution were to guarantee the right to own a firearm, it wouldn't really mean that much, The law routinely violates constitutional rights. Take free speech: Slander is against the law, despite the guarantee of freedom of expression. Furthermore, a strict construction of the 8th Amendment should protect us from "cruel" punishment, and most of us would consider a prison sentence to be cruel.

Laws Don't Work
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Murder happens routinely, as does robbery and rape. Even if the prohibition against murder didn't work as a deterrent, I'm pretty sure we would still keep the law on the books.

Guns Don't Kill
We regulate dangerous things all the time. The ownership and use of any object that is designed specifically only to cause lethal injury to another human being should be well regulated, period. You can't have a minefield in your backyard, and you can't make Sarin gas in your garage, either.

Everyone believes in some degree of gun control, even if it's just keeping guns out of the hands of emotionally disturbed children. It's all just a matter of where one draws the line.
 
2012-12-30 11:38:08 PM  

Xcott: fredklein: Okay, so they make switchblades illegal. Now, (ignoring the fact that, you know, CRIMINALS DON"T OBEY THE LAW,) let's assume that no one has any more switchblades. Now, criminals carry butterfly knives. So now the government declare those to be illegal. SO, now no one has any butterfly knives. So, now criminals move on to another type of knife. Maybe 'bad-ass hunting knives'? And those are declared illegal, and so on.

What's the end result? ALL knifes are illegal.

But that's obviously not what happened. Hunting knives weren't banned, pocket knives weren't banned, and cutlery isn't banned.


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110208012231AAkF7TJ
Is it legal to carry a large hunting knife in Texas?
It is illegal to carry an "illegal" knife. An illegal knife is a knife that is:
(6) "Illegal knife" means a:
(A) knife with a blade over five and one-half inches;
(B) hand instrument designed to cut or stab another by being thrown;
(C) dagger, including but not limited to a dirk, stiletto, and poniard;
(D) bowie knife;
(E) sword; or
(F) spear.


So, if that hunting knife has a 6" blade, YES, it is illegal. If it's a throwing knife, YES, it is illegal. If it's a bowie knife, YES, it is illegal.

But maybe it's different in other places?...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100113214451AAIhArZ
Hunting/ Survival/ Tactical knives in NYC?
You can own almost any knife you please...Carrying around is another matter... it is illegal to carry any knife at all openly and you have to keep them concealed. Yes, this is backwards from most places where a "concealed weapon" is a crime....
There is generally an exception for knives used for hunting/fish or a specific job (like a seafood chef), but you have to be going to or from that place where you do that activity....
It is generally illegal to carry any knife for self-defense. What that means to you is when a cop asks you why you have it, do not say that's your reason.


Hmm. Maybe the other coast?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080824155832AA8LUwM
Legal to carry hunting knives in CA?
As long as it is not concealed, and you don't carry it onto a school ground or into a public building or airport, you should be OK under State law.


-So, NOT concealed, as opposed to NYC, where it MUST be concealed. And there's a list of places you can't bring it.

As for "pocket knives":

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/06/12/knife-troub le -in-a-new-york-minute.html
Bible-college student's pocketknife spoils trip to New York City
In New York state, it's illegal to carry a "gravity knife" - a knife with a blade that is released from its handle by flicking a wrist and then locks into place....
The officer had seen the clip on Baltzer's pocket, which gave him cause to search him. He found the knife. In Baltzer's telling, the officer tried to flick it open and couldn't. He handed it to another officer, who did flick it open after several tries.

Baltzer was arrested...


http://www.knife-depot.com/blog/new-jersey-knife-laws-make-pocket-kn iv es-illegal/
New Jersey Knife Laws Make Pocket Knives Illegal
...the tale of a young man who was arrested at a random DUI checkpoint for possessing a pocket knife...
"he asked the judge to provide clarification of what law he'd violated, but received none".... "after asking a number of cops, judges and prosecutors, he failed to get a comprehensive answer."
"Because the state statutes are so vague, law enforcement can do just about whatever it wants, from taking the common-sense approach and letting the poor sod go, to incarceration, to astronomical fines, no matter how arbitrary and capricious their actions appear."

As for cutlery"

http://www.sierratradingpost.com/wusthof-scissor-set-5-piece~p~3102y /? filterString=flatware-and-cutlery~d~241%2F&colorFamily=99
Wusthof Scissor Set - 5-Piece
U.S. shipments only; cannot ship to New York state


http://www.giraffeboards.com/showthread.php?t=26624 provides an explanation:
It's probably because the total length is over 4"
In NYC, possession in public of a knife with a blade over 4" is illegal.


or this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8451369.stm
Myleene Klass has 'no regrets' over knife incident
"Hertfordshire Police officers told her that brandishing an "offensive weapon" was illegal."
"The 31-year-old was at her Potters Bar home on Friday with her daughter upstairs when she spotted the youths peering into the house. "

She had "grabbed a knife and banged the windows in an effort to get them to leave", and SHE was talked to by the police. Let's say that again, she has punks (chavs, yobbos, whatever) in her yard, looking in her windows, and SHE gets in trouble for grabbing a kitchen knife and scaring them off.

You're essentially proving that your paranoid belief system is wrong. You're predicting things that didn't happen, and you're making declarations that are directly contradicted by observable facts.

Um...
 
2012-12-30 11:38:23 PM  

ibsalamander: The problem is not guns, but envy.

Nobody wants to pay for someone else to live a peaceful, care-free life in an institution with a spa and a bucolic park-like setting. So we let the crazies out onto the streets. Anything else would be socialism. We need to address mental illness as a societal problem (as was done in the past, albeit in a deplorable way). The issue is not cost, it's envy. If we had spent the 2 trillion dollars we recently spent on foreign wars here at home, we would be way better off. Incidentally, envy was supposedly the reason that Adam Lanza killed those children.

Proximity
I've noticed that ones attitude toward guns seems to be directly proportional to population density. I have absolutely no problem with private gun ownership in rural areas. Where I live, a one mile radius encloses about 10,000 people. I'd just as soon we were a gun-free zone.

The Constitution
You do not have a constitutional right to own a gun (or anything, for that matter). The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are a codification of our basic liberties. The issue of private ownership of particular items is way beyond the scope and intent of its authors. The Second Amendment is not an ownership guarantee; it confers the right to "keep" not "own" arms, and to bear those arms as part of a "well-regulated militia." The militia angle is not incidental, because if it were simply an issue of ownership it would not appear in the Bill of Rights.

Furthermore, even if the Constitution were to guarantee the right to own a firearm, it wouldn't really mean that much, The law routinely violates constitutional rights. Take free speech: Slander is against the law, despite the guarantee of freedom of expression. Furthermore, a strict construction of the 8th Amendment should protect us from "cruel" punishment, and most of us would consider a prison sentence to be cruel.

Laws Don't Work
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Murder happens routinely, as does robbery and rape. Even ...


Ouch... biatch slap... Ouch... look in the face... Ouch... take it.. Ouch... pretend it doesn't matter... Ouch... Look the other way.... Ouch.

A gigantic piece of OWWW!!!
 
2012-12-30 11:41:22 PM  

Mock26: mediablitz: Mock26: Spirit Hammer: Mock26: I wish idiots would stop bringing up the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment and asking where all the militias are today. These people are idiots and need to get with the times. The 2nd Amendment does not currently mean what it meant in 1791. It has changed over time.

Second Amendment

"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."

Compare to:

"A well educated House of Representatives, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Do you believe this sentence says that only government officials can own and read books?


People get strange when conversation turns to guns.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd Amendment over the years in such a way that the militia part really no longer has any validity. In today's America the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and the militia part is not required. This is not my opinion. This is for all intents and purposes fact of law.

And it is farking TIME to recall the "well regulated" part. We have become a society that worships guns, worships killing. Time to revisit "well regulated" before it destroys us as a nation.

I fear it is too late....

Over 100 MILLION legally gun owners in this country, and every single day the vast majority of them never use their guns in an illegal manner, let alone kill anyone. Most of the guns used to commit homicide are not used by their legal owner. They are either stolen or have been purchased illegally. Seems to me that nearly every single legal gun owner is also a responsible gun owner. How exactly will stricter and/or more regulations improve upon this situation? For the most part gun regulations are worthless, as the ones who need to be stopped by such regulations will simply ignore those regulations and obtain a firearm through some other, illegal manner.


Something tells me you don't grok the private sale problem (aka "gun show loophole") and its consequences.
 
2012-12-30 11:42:29 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Fair enough, but the implication was that these weapons were getting into the hands of Mexican criminals through non State Department sanctioned means. So let me rephrase that as "And what would happen to you as a holder of a FFL if you sold your Javelin to some guy in Mexico without the proper paperwork and that weapon turned up at a crime scene?"


Your flawed assumption is that I, a person who was willing to spend a small fortune to even obtain a Class III FFL in the first place would sell to a foreign national without going through the proper paperwork and clearance from the State Department, which is a major federal crime.

In reality, the more likely scenario is that a private citizen acts as a straw buyer from these people, and then funnels the weapon into the hands of foreign nationals for an untraceable cash payment

Oblio13: No need to spend much. Simply restore the Second Amendment rights of teachers. Some of them will welcome the commitment and responsibility. Knowing that some teachers are armed, but not which ones, will be a deterrent. Mass murderers who violate our zero-tolerance gun-free zones to shoot elementary school kids are looking for helpless victims, not a gunfight.


Actually, no. Spree Killers, or Mass Murderers, as you call them tend not to care about their own lives. They want to rack up as high as possible a kill count to punish the people they perceive as having wronged them, or to - in their minds - save their victims from some evil conspiracy or plot. They will do one of two things when confronted - kill themselves, or try to take as many people possible down with them - i.e. Gunfight.

Again, there is  no "restoring" second amendment rights. They still have the right to own firearms. However, as the SCOTUS has upheld over the past 40 years, there are reasonable regulations and limits - including places of carry of firearms - that are constitutional.

Suggesting that arming individual teachers - ostensibly the majority of which are untrained civilians with NO Military or Law Enforcement background, with a weapon is NOT a viable solution. Try again. It becomes an absolutely INSANE solution when you suggest doing so without ANY formal vetting or licensing method.
 
2012-12-30 11:46:57 PM  

Oblio13: Knowing that some teachers are armed, but not which ones, will be a deterrent.


You seriously think the voices in this kid's head reasoned about the likelihood of a teacher being armed?

What about the deterrent of knowing that the school would be surrounded by cops, and that he'd die in a shootout if he didn't kill himself first? If that's not going to deter a schizo, why would the extra possibility of an armed civilian make the difference?
 
2012-12-30 11:47:13 PM  

BronyMedic: So what you're saying is that if we define "Mentally Ill" using a clinical diagnosis, then someone, somewhere, at some point and time with try to usurp that? Man, that's quite the slippery slope you're arguing.


Whose diagnosis? The cops doc? Gee, he's not going to be biased at all.... And even if it's your doc (not everyone has a mental health doc, will you force everyone to get one?), who says the cops can't pressure them to make the diagnosis?

When? A Diagnosis from last year? Last week?

Where and Under what conditions? ? A man detained/held illegally might get a bit...heated, and thus appear to have "anger issues" and "paranoia", when he's just pissed at being held unjustly.
 
2012-12-30 11:52:15 PM  

BronyMedic: ... Suggesting that arming individual teachers - ostensibly the majority of which are untrained civilians with NO Military or Law Enforcement background, with a weapon is NOT a viable solution. Try again. It becomes an absolutely INSANE solution when you suggest doing so without ANY formal vetting or licensing method.


If only there were some way for people to get training, some school they could go to or some course they could take...

Say, you know, training would be a good idea for pilots and surgeons, too. Maybe even teachers should get some training before they screw up our kids, we could call it an "education degree".

I don't know why nobody thought of this training thing before now. The concept seems like it has merit.
 
2012-12-30 11:52:42 PM  

BronyMedic: Mr. Eugenides: Fair enough, but the implication was that these weapons were getting into the hands of Mexican criminals through non State Department sanctioned means. So let me rephrase that as "And what would happen to you as a holder of a FFL if you sold your Javelin to some guy in Mexico without the proper paperwork and that weapon turned up at a crime scene?"

Your flawed assumption is that I, a person who was willing to spend a small fortune to even obtain a Class III FFL in the first place would sell to a foreign national without going through the proper paperwork and clearance from the State Department, which is a major federal crime.

In reality, the more likely scenario is that a private citizen acts as a straw buyer from these people, and then funnels the weapon into the hands of foreign nationals for an untraceable cash payment


It's not a flawed assumption. As the legal owner of something like an M-60 in the US you cannot transfer ownership to someone who isn't authorized by the US government. So in your scenario, the "straw buyer" would also have to be an FFL holder. My point still stands, someone who legally owns something like that and sells it to a Mexican gang is in really deep shiat.
 
2012-12-30 11:55:01 PM  

Oblio13: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: ... how about gun-ownership advocates respond to proposals like Feinstein's with counterproposals that would address the problems that she is trying and failing to solve. "How about no" isn't always the wrong response, but it isn't always the right one either.

If I want to pull out ten of your teeth, and you say "no", and then I offer to only pull out five of your teeth, and you still say "no", are you unwilling to compromise?


Thank you for demonstrating the kind of nutjob stereotype that does gun owners no favors.


Doom MD: Counter proposals have been offered ad nauseum. Furthermore, the awb is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Rifles are used in a very small percentage of crime across the board. Address mental health, end the drug war, add mental health flags to nics, and allow private sellers to access nics would go extremely far in helping with no real inconvenience to legal gun owners. Win-win, imo.


And the liberal gun-grabbing members of legislatures have blocked conservative gun-loving members' bills which would "address mental health, end the drug war, add mental health flags to nics, and allow private sellers to access nics," have they?
 
2012-12-30 11:55:25 PM  

wyltoknow: I don't really hold feelings toward either side in this debate, but I do have to wonder, do gun enthusiasts offer any analogies that aren't completely off-base? "Lolz this innocuous elsewise-useful item might do some sort of harm maybe, obviously we need to ban it, ahyuck!" No, no zing points for you.


You and your idiot liberal friends just don't get it do you?

Ok then what amendment is next?? The Thirteenth Amendment?

Sex kills people to do we ban that? Drugs kill people too is that on your list? How about alcohol that kills 100 times more people, do you apologize to the world every time you have a sip of wine? Walking down a sidewalk without a helmet can kill you what about that? Don't you get it? It's about freedom not guns FREEDOME!!
 
2012-12-30 11:57:21 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: It's sad to see two things here.
1) Gun were designed to destroy. You point it at something and it is destroyed.
Spoons were designed to aid in eating. What you eat makes you fat. Spoon has no effect on weight gain.

2) The beleif that anything manufactured is beyond regulation. When it's clear that anything sold can be abused, it needs to be regulated.



What about a knife used to cut your food... that is designed to destroy
 
2012-12-30 11:57:24 PM  

BronyMedic: Oblio13: Xcott: You're assuming it would end differently if they had a handgun somewhere.

If they had a concealed handgun and knew how to use it, it might have ended better and it wouldn't have ended any worse.

[people.virginia.edu image 500x75]


See, this is the problem right here, with all these arguments. Everyone dances around it and pretends and denies; but this is the real problem. Lots of people have guns and THINK they could use them in a bad situation but VERY VERY FEW PEOPLE ACTUALLY COULD. And even fewer are willing to admit that they couldn't.

In a thread yesterday, our very own resident combat vet Sgt. Otter gave his own experience of his first time under fire seeing another live person facing him and commented that it took another veteran soldier kicking him in the head and screaming at him to start shooting to make him start firing. This after years of practice and war games in the military, which is designed to turn men into killing machines AND being in a situation where it was kill or be killed and he knew it.

You can watch videos of people under fire from crazed killers on video clip shows and COPS and they all show the same thing: People scattering in panic and hiding under whatever is available. Even the people who have CCWs. The first thing anyone faced with a gun does is try to save his or her own life. Only a very few people know what ELSE to do when faced with a shooter, and that is what is needed. Just having a gun doesn't make you into some kind of hero. You have to know what to do NEXT, and going down to the range a few times a month isn't going to help any when the lead is falling. There were people who charged the Sandy Hook shooter. And died. There were people who tried to take down the Virginia Tech shooter, and died. But there were people with guns who took on the Texas Tower shooter who ALSO failed to kill him. Just having a gun did not help them. It still needed people with better tactics to come in behind him and take him out.

Five random people firing at a shooter without coordinated tactics might kill him--or they might only guarantee a few more victims caught in the crossfire. (probably both) Do you know for sure which of three people shooting is the bad guy and which is another good guy shooting at the bad guy? If not, you could be killing the wrong person. Can you be certain you'll hit the shooter and not the panicked mom dashing for her baby? Do you know where your backstop is? Do you know WHAT a backstop is? Because a lot of these weekend gun enthusiasts don't. And that's what has people like me worried. That too many gun freaks think shooting is like it is on TV, when extra rounds just vanish into the ether and don't continue through walls and into the kid hiding next door.
 
2012-12-30 11:58:30 PM  

Xcott: why would the extra possibility of an armed civilian make the difference?


Maybe nineteen kids would have been killed instead of twenty. Maybe five instead of twenty. Maybe it wouldn't have made any difference at all. Maybe helpless passivity is a good defensive strategy for some, but making it mandatory even for those willing to actively resist seems shameful.
 
2012-12-31 12:03:13 AM  

BronyMedic: They still have the right to own firearms. However, as the SCOTUS has upheld over the past 40 years, there are reasonable regulations and limits - including places of carry of firearms - that are constitutional.


Cool. So, you have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, you just can't keep that one, or that one... nope, not that one either. Nor those, nor that one. Certainly not that one, or these. That one? well..... okay, we'll let you keep that one. But we won't let you 'bear' it, except on alternate Tuesdays in Lent in odd-numbered years, and you can't 'bear' it within 100 miles of a church, school, courthouse, or bar.

What? You still have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms! Stop complaining!

(Free Clue: if it depends on the governments permission, it's not a "Right"!)
 
2012-12-31 12:05:03 AM  

fredklein: fredlkein: What's the end result? ALL knifes are illegal.

Xcott: But that's obviously not what happened. Hunting knives weren't banned, pocket knives weren't banned, and cutlery isn't banned.

[snip mass of irrelevant cites]


None of that stuff changes the fact that you're wrong: all knives (not "knifes") did not become illegal, and it is perfectly legal to have hunting knives, pocket knives, and cutlery in NY state. I live in NY state, and I can walk into a Wal-Mart or a Dick's and buy a hunting knife or pocket knife; I can go to Bed Bath and Beyond and buy a set of knives for my kitchen.

And no, kitchen knives don't have to be under 4 inches, even though you totally found an anonymous comment on the giraffeboards.com that guessed maybe that was true---I know that counts as an authoritative source in the republic of Derpistan, but seriously, think about it: have you ever even seen a bread knife with a blade shorter than 4 inches? Do you honestly believe that here in NY we have to have our own separate bread knife factories that crank out little 3" bread knives so we can cut little Portuguese rolls for our tiny sandwiches? Your anonymous source is a moron for thinking this, and you should be ashamed of yourself for uncritically believing something that profoundly stupid on the Internet.

Also, your story about a Bible college student's "pocket knife" is inaccurate: he was busted for having a gravity knive, which is a kind of flick-knife. As I told you earlier, NY bans knives that have mechanical assist so that they can be opened one-handed. Actual pocket-knives are legal.
 
2012-12-31 12:11:33 AM  
Since we're off on this tangent anyway, a couple years ago New Hampshire became the first and only state with no restrictions on knives. Nothing happened except that people stopped getting arrested for having the 'wrong' knife. And I bought a couple out-the-front assisted openers. Somehow I've managed not to stab anyone yet.
 
2012-12-31 12:18:45 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Do you know for sure which of three people shooting is the bad guy and which is another good guy shooting at the bad guy?


I never really understood this argument. The 'good guy' is the guy yelling at the bad guy to drop his weapon or else he'll shoot. The bad guy is the guy just walking around shooting people. As long as the good guy doesn't start randomly shooting bystanders, there's no way to think he's the bad guy.
 
2012-12-31 12:28:43 AM  

fredklein: Okay, so they make switchblades illegal. Now, (ignoring the fact that, you know, CRIMINALS DON"T OBEY THE LAW,) let's assume that no one has any more switchblades. Now, criminals carry butterfly knives. So now the government declare those to be illegal. SO, now no one has any butterfly knives. So, now criminals move on to another type of knife. Maybe 'bad-ass hunting knives'? And those are declared illegal, and so on.
What's the end result? ALL knifes are illegal. Criminals still dis-obey the law, but honest citizens get arrested for having a pocketknife.



Can you name a single instance where this type of a slippery-slope argument of yours actually happened here in America? If not then please stop using this is a "this could happen" argument.
 
2012-12-31 12:29:47 AM  

Oblio13: Xcott: why would the extra possibility of an armed civilian make the difference?

Maybe nineteen kids would have been killed instead of twenty. Maybe five instead of twenty. Maybe it wouldn't have made any difference at all. Maybe helpless passivity is a good defensive strategy for some, but making it mandatory even for those willing to actively resist seems shameful.


Now you're moving the goalposts: you claimed that some teacher with a gun would have served as a deterrent.

But again, this is ludicrous. This schizo kid wasn't deterred by the fact that he'd die in a shootout with cops if he didn't kill himself first. If that's not a deterrent, why would an extra armed civilian be a deterrent?
 
2012-12-31 12:31:20 AM  

Cuchulane: david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]

[img42.imageshack.us image 797x340]


fark Reagan, he hated the Constitution almost as much as he hated minorities and gays.
 
2012-12-31 12:43:11 AM  

Xcott: None of that stuff changes the fact that you're wrong: all knives (not "knifes")


Ooh, a typo. My entire argument falls apart because I made a typo. ::rolleyes::

did not become illegal, and it is perfectly legal to have hunting knives, pocket knives, and cutlery in NY state.

Sure, but ONLY if they meet the legality requirements.

And no, kitchen knives don't have to be under 4 inches, ...

http://newyorkcriminaldefenseblawg.com/tag/knife-violations-new-york- c ity-attorney-lawyer-blade-summons-ticket-arrest-court-switchblade/
NYC Administration Code § 10-133 prohibits the possession of the two main types of knives. First, subdivision (b) makes it illegal to carry a knife with a blade length of four inches or more. Obviously, the average chef's knife has a blade that long, as do many folding knives used for hunting or fishing. Fortunately, subdivision (b) does permit you to carry such a knife "to or from a place where it is used for hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, picnicking or any employment, trade or occupation customarily requiring the use of such knife."

So, buying a chefs knife at a store and bringing it home (presumably to your kitchen, a "a place where it is used") is okay.

However, "In our experience, though, police officers are frequently not persuaded by the explanation that the knife is used at work..., and will issue a ticket anyway."

Also, your story about a Bible college student's "pocket knife" is inaccurate: he was busted for having a gravity knive

::ahem:: "knife"

, which is a kind of flick-knife.

No, it was a pocket knife that one of the cops, after several tries, was able to hold (probably by the blade) and 'flick' open.

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120521/new-york-city/nypds-zero-tol e rance-policy-lands-ohio-seminary-student-cell
The cops took the one-inch knife and started flicking it to see if it would open from centrifugal force, which technically makes it a gravity knife and, therefore, illegal.
After several tries, that blade finally flipped open and locked in place.


in another case:

Copeland, who shows at the Nicholas Robinson Gallery in Chelsea and internationally, was arrested for carrying an illegal gravity knife in his pocket... Gravity knives are defined by state law as knives that open via centrifugal force and have a blade that locks automatically in place.... "Apparently, whether or not a knife is a gravity knife depends on the wrist size and dexterity of the arresting officer."..."They arrested me for basically carrying a tool I use for work that wasn't a gravity knife-it was a folding knife. I've been carrying a pocket knife since I was a kid." -http://gothamist.com/2011/01/27/is_nypds_knife_crackdown_just_a_tad.p hp

and another:
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-525930.html
"He said, "this is considered a gravity knife" while he tried to flick it open with one hand. It took him five tries. He must have used the thumb stud on the last try."

As I told you earlier, NY bans knives that have mechanical assist so that they can be opened one-handed. Actual pocket-knives are legal.

...unless the cop can wave it around hard enough to make it open, even if it takes a lot of tries.
 
2012-12-31 01:00:38 AM  

fredklein: Xcott: None of that stuff changes the fact that you're wrong: all knives (not "knifes")

Ooh, a typo. My entire argument falls apart because I made a typo. ::rolleyes::


It's not an "argument." You simply said something that was clearly and demonstrably wrong.

Look, let's just settle this with a bet. You come here to NY, and I will take you into the sporting goods store and buy a hunting knife and a pocket knife. Then I will go to the housewares store and buy a bunch of kitchen knives, including customarily long bread knives and chefs knives.

These are the things you said would be banned---they are not banned. I can buy them at the store. I will buy them and you will watch me buy them. If I can't do this, I'll pay you a thousand dollars. If I can buy them, then you pay me a thousand dollars. How does that sound?

As I told you originally, some kinds of knives are illegal, based on their role in violent crime. This has not resulted in a ban on all knives despite your doomsday prediction of a knifeless society. And honestly, I shouldn't have to bother telling you this: you could simply leave your basement and go verify for yourself that people get to have knives.

So, buying a chefs knife at a store and bringing it home (presumably to your kitchen, a "a place where it is used") is okay.

Yes, and so is buying a chef's knife and doing anything else with it that amounts to using it as a chef's knife. If you start using it as a ninja weapon, you're breaking the law---but that's also true for most things in most states. You can have a crowbar, for example, but if you use it to break into a neighbor's house then it becomes a burglarious tool in the eyes of the law.
 
2012-12-31 01:09:18 AM  

Mock26: Can you name a single instance where this type of a slippery-slope argument of yours actually happened here in America? If not then please stop using this is a "this could happen" argument.


I am not a smoker but I have watched how smoker's rights have gotten incredibly squeezed over the years in ways that were promised to never be an issue. Smoking sections in restaurants became no smoking in the whole restaurants to smoking bans in bars. It goes on and on. When these things were barely started some were screaming "They are going to ban smoking" and were made to sound like fools. It turns out, there are people that intend to ban smoking or something very close to it and they are doing an admirable job. The small footholds started the slippery slope.
-http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?s=89b7d4f72544754cf 3 8135b7beb1c7d3&p=8428615&postcount=3

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slippery.htm
"Sandra Starr, vice chairwoman of the Princeton Regional Health Commission . . ., said there is no 'slippery slope' toward a total ban on smoking in public places. 'The commission's overriding concern,' she said, 'is access to the machines by minors.'"
- New York Times, Sept. 5, 1993, § 1, at 52.

"Last month, the Princeton Regional Health Commission took a bold step to protect its citizens by enacting a ban on smoking in all public places of accommodation, including restaurants and taverns. . . . In doing so, Princeton has paved the way for other municipalities to institute similar bans . . . ."
- The Record (Bergen County), July 12, 2000, at L7.

And don't make me bring up the TSA. If, 15 years ago, you said that we'd need to be groped or looked at naked through a machine to board a plane, you'd have been thought mad. But the TSA went from letting you wear your shoes and carry a water bottle as you went through the metal detectors to making you strip half-naked, and throw away your water as you are seen nude in x-ray machines.
 
2012-12-31 01:12:29 AM  

Xcott: Look, let's just settle this with a bet. You come here to NY, and I will take you into the sporting goods store and buy a hunting knife and a pocket knife. Then I will go to the housewares store and buy a bunch of kitchen knives, including customarily long bread knives and chefs knives.

These are the things you said would be banned---they are not banned. I can buy them at the store. I will buy them and you will watch me buy them. If I can't do this, I'll pay you a thousand dollars. If I can buy them, then you pay me a thousand dollars. How does that sound?


Fine, IF, in addition, you carry the knife around, sticking out of your pocket, and walk past a bunch of cops.

You see, if it were perfectly legal, you could do that, and not be stopped, not be detained, not be arrested.
 
2012-12-31 01:16:43 AM  

Xcott: some kinds of knives are illegal, based on their role in violent crime. This has not resulted in a ban on all knives despite your doomsday prediction of a knifeless society.


Ah, the ol' "it hasn't happened yet, so it'll never happen" argument.

How can I argue against that?

Good night.
 
2012-12-31 01:34:42 AM  

mediablitz: Doom MD: Why should I not have a legal right to own on

Why should you, consider a "well REGULATED militia"?

And why SHOULD you, considering we, as a country, kill people at triple the rate of the UK, ignoring guns?

Are you COMPLETELY unwilling to look at the totality of the 2nd amendment, and the violent culture we have cultivated in this country (2/3rds of the killing weapons in Mexico come from the Untied States)? Is is all about you buying whatever you want, morality be damned?


Google 'direct commercial sales' from the state department to Mexico and you'll find out why that 2/3 number is bullshiat. I mean you can check factcheck.org as well if you want a non-partisan website. The large majority of those American weapons found south of the border were sold to the Mexican government for distribution to their soldiers or police officers under the auspices of the aforementioned sales program. Yes there are definitely straw purchases feeding gun violence south of the border, but it's easier for the cartels to get automatic weaponry from China/Vietnam/South & Central America than it is to purchase AR-15s and similar weapons and smuggle them over the border into Mexico. Also since roughly 150K soldiers have deserted the Mexican army, most taking their issued weapons with them, and a large chunk started working for the cartel, it's not hard to extrapolate where a lot of those guns came from.

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57337289/legal-u.s-gun-sales- to -mexico-arming-cartels/ 

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-11/world/mexico.desertions_1_deserti on s-drug-cartels-gulf-cartel?_s=PM:WORLD

BronyMedic: Mr. Eugenides: Fair enough, but the implication was that these weapons were getting into the hands of Mexican criminals through non State Department sanctioned means. So let me rephrase that as "And what would happen to you as a holder of a FFL if you sold your Javelin to some guy in Mexico without the proper paperwork and that weapon turned up at a crime scene?"

Your flawed assumption is that I, a person who was willing to spend a small fortune to even obtain a Class III FFL in the first place would sell to a foreign national without going through the proper paperwork and clearance from the State Department, which is a major federal crime.

In reality, the more likely scenario is that a private citizen acts as a straw buyer from these people, and then funnels the weapon into the hands of foreign nationals for an untraceable cash payment


Frankly I'm less worried about an FFL trying to do that and the cartel either taking or straight up buying those weapons from the Mexican military. The Mexican army has a yearly 12.5% desertion rate, and I also worry when I see State Department cables asking the Mexican government where a shipment of over 1,000 AR-15s went directly after asking why AR-15s sold to the Mexican government kept being found in possession of the cartels.
 
2012-12-31 02:54:04 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: I had a friend who died from a gun accident. He and his roommate were trained security guards who served in the military. Nothing intentional except a man who assumed his gun wasn't loaded and my dead friend had been in the way of a bullet.


Sorry to hear that but it's pretty clear whoever made the assumption that it wasn't loaded wasn't trained in gun safety. And if he was he didn't take the message seriously enough.

/always assume it is loaded
 
2012-12-31 03:07:10 AM  
But soup!?!

Butt soup?

/Soup.
 
2012-12-31 04:09:16 AM  

mediablitz: Oblio13: I'm an airline pilot, but had never heard of "chemtrails" until I Googled it just now.

Wow. Willfully ignorant, or just stupid?


Being unaware of something that doesn't exist doesn't make someone ignorant *or* stupid.
 
2012-12-31 05:15:29 AM  

fredklein: Gyrfalcon: Do you know for sure which of three people shooting is the bad guy and which is another good guy shooting at the bad guy?

I never really understood this argument. The 'good guy' is the guy yelling at the bad guy to drop his weapon or else he'll shoot. The bad guy is the guy just walking around shooting people. As long as the good guy doesn't start randomly shooting bystanders, there's no way to think he's the bad guy.


But you're assuming the "bad guy" wouldn't start yelling "Drop your gun!" back. Which has been known to happen in firefights; it's a cause of friendly fire incidents in combat. As I pointed out in another thread, one reason police don't like random civilians popping up and shooting at bad guys is that when THEY arrive at a scene, THEY have no way of knowing who is who. And more often than not--as you can observe, again, by watching video-clip programs--when the cops arrive, at least one of the so-called good guys will take the opportunity to argue with the cops that HE'S the one helping them out and why are they ordering HIM to drop his gun and hit the floor?!

It's a question of tactics vs. what you think is going to happen. The bad guy is usually not "walking around shooting people" unless he's really crazed. He's usually running around, probably acting more like a sniper, people are usually also running and screaming, and the scene is complete chaos. I can tell by your answer you have this idea that what's going on is a scene like a video game or a movie where nobody is in view except the shooter and the "good guys" shooting back with clear fields of fire so that it would be pretty obvious who was shooting which direction. But imagine if you will that one Good Guy shooter was behind the bad-guy shooter, one above and to his left, one below and to his right, and one opposite him but inside a store. The bad-guy is not "walking around", but crouching behind a planter and partially concealed between two rows of potted plants. Now you, the fourth "good guy" arrive and are to the left of Good Guy #4, but outside the store, and you got there after the shooting started. It's been 45 seconds since all this began, and people are still screaming and trampling for the exits.

NOW do you know which is the bad-guy shooter? Which are the Good Guys? Who started shooting first, and who you should be helping? And if bad-guy shooter yelled "Dude, help me out, these crazy fools are trying to kill me!" would you know if he was telling the truth?
 
2012-12-31 05:25:41 AM  
i44.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-31 05:33:42 AM  
As much as I disagree with her, she has a right to protest as long as she's not hassling the gun show attendees. Like one individual I know of who went to the Waukeshau gun show the day after the Sandy Hook shooting and saw protestors there who were outright hassling the attendees. When he himself was hassled, the exchange went like this.

Crazy woman: This one has a gun! He's a murderer too! A murderer! He'll kill children with that gun!

Gun owner: I suppose you are a prtostitute?

Crazy woman: A prostitute?! What?!

Gun owner: You have a vagina, do you not? That makes you a prostitute, does it not?

Crazy woman: unknown, Gun owner didn't elaborate other than to indicate she got really angry
 
2012-12-31 05:40:15 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: As much as I disagree with her, she has a right to protest as long as she's not hassling the gun show attendees. Like one individual I know of who went to the Waukeshau gun show the day after the Sandy Hook shooting and saw protestors there who were outright hassling the attendees. When he himself was hassled, the exchange went like this.

Crazy woman: This one has a gun! He's a murderer too! A murderer! He'll kill children with that gun!

Gun owner: I suppose you are a prtostitute?

Crazy woman: A prostitute?! What?!

Gun owner: You have a vagina, do you not? That makes you a prostitute, does it not?

Crazy woman: unknown, Gun owner didn't elaborate other than to indicate she got really angry


Gun owner didn't indicate, because his fantasy conversation doesn't have an ending.

/past and future firearm owner
 
2012-12-31 07:05:08 AM  

Gyrfalcon: fredklein: Gyrfalcon: Do you know for sure which of three people shooting is the bad guy and which is another good guy shooting at the bad guy?

I never really understood this argument. The 'good guy' is the guy yelling at the bad guy to drop his weapon or else he'll shoot. The bad guy is the guy just walking around shooting people. As long as the good guy doesn't start randomly shooting bystanders, there's no way to think he's the bad guy.

But you're assuming the "bad guy" wouldn't start yelling "Drop your gun!" back. Which has been known to happen in firefights; it's a cause of friendly fire incidents in combat. As I pointed out in another thread, one reason police don't like random civilians popping up and shooting at bad guys is that when THEY arrive at a scene, THEY have no way of knowing who is who. And more often than not--as you can observe, again, by watching video-clip programs--when the cops arrive, at least one of the so-called good guys will take the opportunity to argue with the cops that HE'S the one helping them out and why are they ordering HIM to drop his gun and hit the floor?!

It's a question of tactics vs. what you think is going to happen. The bad guy is usually not "walking around shooting people" unless he's really crazed. He's usually running around, probably acting more like a sniper, people are usually also running and screaming, and the scene is complete chaos. I can tell by your answer you have this idea that what's going on is a scene like a video game or a movie where nobody is in view except the shooter and the "good guys" shooting back with clear fields of fire so that it would be pretty obvious who was shooting which direction. But imagine if you will that one Good Guy shooter was behind the bad-guy shooter, one above and to his left, one below and to his right, and one opposite him but inside a store. The bad-guy is not "walking around", but crouching behind a planter and partially concealed between two rows of potted plants. Now ...


Regardless, if any one of them points the gun at the police.. they will be shot. If one of them shoots someone else.. they will be shot. If one of them doesn't comply with police orders.. they will be shot. If Good Guy CCW is that stupid then it's no real loss.
 
2012-12-31 07:35:10 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Do you know for sure which of three people shooting is the bad guy and which is another good guy shooting at the bad guy?


If you can't tell, don't shoot him.
 
2012-12-31 07:51:52 AM  

Oblio13: And not to minimize the tragedy of the murders we're all horrified by, but in a world of limited resources, let's keep it in perspective: odds of a student being intentionally killed at school, 1:1,887,500. Odds of a student dying on a bicycle, 1:4,472.


Who said anything about schools? In the past six weeks, malls have been shot up, hair salons, police stations and FIRES. There was a murder at a farking fire. Way to toss away your thread victory.
 
2012-12-31 08:30:32 AM  

chumboobler: Whenever someone mentions "regulation" the pro gun side screams "confiscation". They are not remotely the same thing. Guns are tools. They can be used to provide food, self defense, target shooting and other legal activities.

In my view, regulation would not mean confiscation. It would mean mandatory training in safe handling practices, legal responsibilities of ownership, proof of proper storage equipment to prevent theft or unauthorized access to the guns and the ability to pass a test based on those topics. Once you have proven that you have the knowledge to not accidentally shoot your neighbor, you can have a gun.

Perhaps a psychiatric assessment should also be done prior to ownership of something that has the potential to cause massive amounts of harm. Assuming people pass the evaluation they can proceed with the purchase of a firearm. These should be done at a minimum of every five years while people continue to own a firearm.

Cars are also just things. They can be deadly things if misused. We require training and licensing to ensure that people know how to operate them safely without risking others lives. Some people disregard this training but it is mostly beneficial to all people. We also require insurance for cars in case they are misused. Perhaps a gun owner should have to purchase liability insurance for their firearm just like a car. That might be a bit much but it would certainly force people to take gun ownership seriously.

I see no reason why we can't let people have their guns (I am in the army and I like to shoot at ranges, both civilian and military.), and still make safety the priority. There are many many owners that treat their guns like toys. I know many who do and if you are a gun owner and spent time in the gun community you have likely witnessed acts of stupidity that could have been deadly. They are not toys. They are tools that can be deadly in careless hands.


I don't think i've seen you post before, but this is the most well thought out idea for gun regulation i've seen yet.
 
2012-12-31 08:56:53 AM  

MadAzza: mediablitz: Oblio13: I'm an airline pilot, but had never heard of "chemtrails" until I Googled it just now.

Wow. Willfully ignorant, or just stupid?

Being unaware of something that doesn't exist doesn't make someone ignorant *or* stupid.


lol. Pretty damn good point. I bow to you, sir.
 
2012-12-31 09:00:42 AM  

Gyrfalcon: mediablitz: Oblio13: I'm an airline pilot, but had never heard of "chemtrails" until I Googled it just now.

Wow. Willfully ignorant, or just stupid?

To be fair, I hadn't heard of "chemtrails" until just recently, and it was from right here on Fark. It's not a big woo-woo here in So Cal, at least not in the city, and I don't run around with that brand of nutjobs, so it hadn't really entered my sphere of attention. It's hard to keep track of ALL the conspiracy theories running around out there, there are so many.


Once again, I apologize for thinking everyone has dealt with that stupidity for a decade. I've pointed and laughed for so long, I just assume it is "mainstream", like truthers.
 
2012-12-31 09:03:20 AM  

redmid17: mediablitz: Doom MD: Why should I not have a legal right to own on

Why should you, consider a "well REGULATED militia"?

And why SHOULD you, considering we, as a country, kill people at triple the rate of the UK, ignoring guns?

Are you COMPLETELY unwilling to look at the totality of the 2nd amendment, and the violent culture we have cultivated in this country (2/3rds of the killing weapons in Mexico come from the Untied States)? Is is all about you buying whatever you want, morality be damned?

Google 'direct commercial sales' from the state department to Mexico and you'll find out why that 2/3 number is bullshiat. I mean you can check factcheck.org as well if you want a non-partisan website. The large majority of those American weapons found south of the border were sold to the Mexican government for distribution to their soldiers or police officers under the auspices of the aforementioned sales program. Yes there are definitely straw purchases feeding gun violence south of the border, but it's easier for the cartels to get automatic weaponry from China/Vietnam/South & Central America than it is to purchase AR-15s and similar weapons and smuggle them over the border into Mexico. Also since roughly 150K soldiers have deserted the Mexican army, most taking their issued weapons with them, and a large chunk started working for the cartel, it's not hard to extrapolate where a lot of those guns came from.

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57337289/legal-u.s-gun-sales- to -mexico-arming-cartels/
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-11/world/mexico.desertions_1_deserti on s-drug-cartels-gulf-cartel?_s=PM:WORLD

BronyMedic: Mr. Eugenides: Fair enough, but the implication was that these weapons were getting into the hands of Mexican criminals through non State Department sanctioned means. So let me rephrase that as "And what would happen to you as a holder of a FFL if you sold your Javelin to some guy in Mexi ...


Uhhhhh. Good links? The United States government selling them to Mexico makes the issue moot? Really? That just cements my point: We are (literally) financing murder in Mexico.

You DO realize we are the government, right? It's not "them"?
 
2012-12-31 09:14:58 AM  

moothemagiccow: Oblio13: And not to minimize the tragedy of the murders we're all horrified by, but in a world of limited resources, let's keep it in perspective: odds of a student being intentionally killed at school, 1:1,887,500. Odds of a student dying on a bicycle, 1:4,472.

Who said anything about schools? In the past six weeks, malls have been shot up, hair salons, police stations and FIRES. There was a murder at a farking fire. Way to toss away your thread victory.


I'm going to go way out on a limb and guess that the odds of being murdered in a hair salon or at a fire are also slim. Heart disease, on the other hand, 1:3. In a rational world, which odds would we be alarmed by?
 
2012-12-31 10:03:03 AM  

Gyrfalcon: But you're assuming the "bad guy" wouldn't start yelling "Drop your gun!" back. Which has been known to happen in firefights


Which is why, when approaching such a situation, you need to stop and observe and actually THINK about the situaion, and not just go in guns blazing. Do you have a description of the 'bad guy'? Which person does it fit? Who is standing in the middle of a pile of bodies, and who isn't? Who is telling nearby un-armed people "Go, I'll cover you", or "Stay hidden, I won't let him get over here to hurt you"? Who is holding a pistol which could be concel-carried, and who is holding an uzi, a shotgun, and a rifle slung across their shoulder?

I mean, come on- there are plenty of clues to determine which person is the shooter. And, if for some reason you can't determine which is which, then... do nothing. Keep an eye on them, and see what happens.

But imagine if you will...

A completely made up scenario.

NOW do you know which is the bad-guy shooter? Which are the Good Guys? Who started shooting first, and who you should be helping? And if bad-guy shooter yelled "Dude, help me out, these crazy fools are trying to kill me!" would you know if he was telling the truth?

Well, the chances are if you're crazy enough to start shooting you aren't in the right frame of mind to be asking for help. So, he wouldn't. It's also unlikely that a group of 4 would be shooting, as opposed to one guy. So, right off the bat, the probability is he's the shooter. If the 4 are shouting "Drop your gun, throw it out, come out with your hands up", that's another clue. Etc. Etc.

Int he worse case, I'd keep my gun ready, but not pointed, and see what happens.
 
2012-12-31 10:04:58 AM  

fredklein: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8451369.stm
Myleene Klass has 'no regrets' over knife incident
"Hertfordshire Police officers told her that brandishing an "offensive weapon" was illegal."
"The 31-year-old was at her Potters Bar home on Friday with her daughter upstairs when she spotted the youths peering into the house. "

She had "grabbed a knife and banged the windows in an effort to get them to leave", and SHE was talked to by the police. Let's say that again, she has punks (chavs, yobbos, whatever) in her yard, looking in her windows, and SHE gets in trouble for grabbing a kitchen knife and scaring them off.


Crap like this is why so many of us in the US basically ignore any anti-weapons rhetoric from the UK, they've gone so far against self-defense and bearing arms that to us it's utterly ludicrous and nonsensical.

When British Farkers say we don't need guns, I remember stories like this to remind me that they have a completely different concept of when weapons are needed or not needed.

This isn't the Daily Fail, it's the freaking BBC saying that for scaring off intruders, a woman ended up in trouble with the police.

Then again, the UK also has watered down and neutered private property rights to the point they are all but meaningless, between squatters rights laws which basically mean that if you're gone for the night on a business trip, you might lose your house, to "right to roam" laws which mean you can't even keep trespassers off your own property because they have a right to roam around as they please, which is greater than the right of a property owner to keep intruders off their property.

So, while we have a common history, our ideas of individual rights are different enough after a few centuries of divergent development that we both look at each other as if they are crazy.
 
2012-12-31 10:12:42 AM  

fredklein: Xcott: Look, let's just settle this with a bet. You come here to NY, and I will take you into the sporting goods store and buy a hunting knife and a pocket knife. Then I will go to the housewares store and buy a bunch of kitchen knives, including customarily long bread knives and chefs knives.

These are the things you said would be banned---they are not banned. I can buy them at the store. I will buy them and you will watch me buy them. If I can't do this, I'll pay you a thousand dollars. If I can buy them, then you pay me a thousand dollars. How does that sound?

Fine, IF, in addition, you carry the knife around, sticking out of your pocket, and walk past a bunch of cops.


Nice try: that's not what you said. You said these things would be banned---which they aren't---and that's what we'll settle with a bet. Yes or no?


You see, if it were perfectly legal, you could do that, and not be stopped, not be detained, not be arrested.

That argument doesn't make sense. Cars are perfectly legal, but you can't take one into the subway or park it in the middle of a playground. Snowblowers are perfectly legal, but you can't ride one onto the interstate.

"Perfectly legal" doesn't mean that you can do any stupid douchebag thing with them to prove how free you are. I guess for some people, "freedom" means having a knife wagging out of my pants like a big ol' dick, and making sure it gets in everyone's face, but for people without this kind of Freudian complex it means no such thing.
 
2012-12-31 10:14:52 AM  

Oblio13: Gyrfalcon: Do you know for sure which of three people shooting is the bad guy and which is another good guy shooting at the bad guy?

If you can't tell, don't shoot him.


Exactly. It's like The Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (a version of Prisoners Dilemma in which the choice is repeated over and over again and in which the players can remember their previous moves, allowing them to evolve a cooperative strategy.

The best strategy is tit-for-tat, in which you start off 'nice', then mirror the previous move of the other person. When you roll up to a shooting situation, you start off NOT shooting people, and only shoot if they shoot at you first. If all the 'good guys' follow that strategy, there would be no confusion.

But Games Theory is too much for cops to handle, I guess....
 
2012-12-31 10:15:40 AM  
Here's another quote from the BBC. When I first read it, I thought it was a joke. From the land that once produced the likes of Winston Churchill and Horatio Nelson:

"The BBC offers this advice for anyone in Britain who is attacked on the street: You are permitted to protect yourself with a briefcase, a handbag, or keys. You should shout 'Call the Police' rather than 'Help.' Bystanders are not to help. They have been taught to leave such matters to the professionals. If you manage to knock your attacker down, you must not hit him again or you risk being charged with assault. British law bans carrying anything for the purpose of self-defense. With weapons of opportunity - your purse, a flower pot, dirt, gravel, a rock - you need to be careful, because if it is potentially deadly, like a bottle that can cause a percussive injury or break and be used to cut, it cannot be used against physical assault. That would make you the assailant."
 
2012-12-31 10:18:45 AM  

fredklein: Ah, the ol' "it hasn't happened yet, so it'll never happen" argument.

How can I argue against that?


Okay, fine: if you claim a ban on all knives will happen in the future, let's amend our bet.

Just tell me a number of years to wait---say 5 years---and then we'll see if I can buy a hunting knife in a store. Same terms: $1000 says I can buy a hunting knife, a pocket knife, and a nice long bread knife.

No irrelevant or creepy Teg Nugent crap about having to make it wag out of my pants or legally make a cop suck it or anything. I'm flattered but I don't swing that way.
 
2012-12-31 10:20:57 AM  

Xcott: fredklein

Fine, IF, in addition, you carry the knife around, sticking out of your pocket, and walk past a bunch of cops.

Nice try: that's not what you said. You said these things would be banned---which they aren't---and that's what we'll settle with a bet. Yes or no?


Well, of course the cops have to know you have it, or else they won't take any action. I mean drugs are illegal, but if I have a joint buried 10 feet deep in the backyard I'll never get busted- because the cops don't know I have it. If i walk past a cop smoking it, he'll see it, and I'll get arrested.

The authorities need to be aware of it to take action. Duh.

"Perfectly legal" doesn't mean that you can do any stupid douchebag thing with them

Like walking down the street, minding your business?
 
2012-12-31 10:22:43 AM  

Xcott: Okay, fine: if you claim a ban on all knives will happen in the future, let's amend our bet.

Just tell me a number of years to wait---say 5 years---and then we'll see if I can buy a hunting knife in a store. Same terms: $1000 says I can buy a hunting knife, a pocket knife, and a nice long bread knife.


Same terms- you leave it hanging out of your pocket and walk past some cops.
 
2012-12-31 10:34:41 AM  

duffblue: How is the war on terror going? The war on drugs? The border war? Really anything the united states government is trying to put a stop to?


Yeah, all those government guns seemed to have a palpable effect on those one word token issues. The causes of these problems are not singular and cannot be fought as a war is fought upon open ground.

The war on drugs was won by Portugal when they legalized everything and made it a public health issue. War on Terror can't be won until we fix our imperialist foreign policies. The border war goes against our nature as an immigrant nation.
 
2012-12-31 10:55:13 AM  

fredklein: Xcott: Okay, fine: if you claim a ban on all knives will happen in the future, let's amend our bet.

Just tell me a number of years to wait---say 5 years---and then we'll see if I can buy a hunting knife in a store. Same terms: $1000 says I can buy a hunting knife, a pocket knife, and a nice long bread knife.

Same terms- you leave it hanging out of your pocket and walk past some cops.


But this makes no sense: why the fark would a dude walk around with a bread knife hanging out of his pocket? Or for that matter, who walks around with a hunting knife hanging out of his pocket? Is there a rabbit carcass in your pants?

This bet is over your weird assertion that knives are banned---not whether I can accomplish some retarded creepy dare with them. To test if knives are banned, it's sufficient to buy one in a store.

If you insist that cops have to know I have them, we can do that without playing out some Freudian fantasy. I'll simply call the cops and let them know I'm buying a knife and ask if that's okay. Maybe I can convince a local cop to accompany me in the store---that's more than sufficient to inform the police that we have them.

I have to wonder how you live, though, if you think that cops don't know that you have a bread knife or chef's knife in your house. I assume that the cops know we all have those things, along with toilets and shoes and other trappings of western civilization.
 
2012-12-31 11:06:56 AM  

mediablitz: redmid17: mediablitz: Doom MD: Why should I not have a legal right to own on

Why should you, consider a "well REGULATED militia"?

And why SHOULD you, considering we, as a country, kill people at triple the rate of the UK, ignoring guns?

Are you COMPLETELY unwilling to look at the totality of the 2nd amendment, and the violent culture we have cultivated in this country (2/3rds of the killing weapons in Mexico come from the Untied States)? Is is all about you buying whatever you want, morality be damned?

Google 'direct commercial sales' from the state department to Mexico and you'll find out why that 2/3 number is bullshiat. I mean you can check factcheck.org as well if you want a non-partisan website. The large majority of those American weapons found south of the border were sold to the Mexican government for distribution to their soldiers or police officers under the auspices of the aforementioned sales program. Yes there are definitely straw purchases feeding gun violence south of the border, but it's easier for the cartels to get automatic weaponry from China/Vietnam/South & Central America than it is to purchase AR-15s and similar weapons and smuggle them over the border into Mexico. Also since roughly 150K soldiers have deserted the Mexican army, most taking their issued weapons with them, and a large chunk started working for the cartel, it's not hard to extrapolate where a lot of those guns came from.

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57337289/legal-u.s-gun-sales- to -mexico-arming-cartels/
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-11/world/mexico.desertions_1_deserti on s-drug-cartels-gulf-cartel?_s=PM:WORLD

BronyMedic: Mr. Eugenides: Fair enough, but the implication was that these weapons were getting into the hands of Mexican criminals through non State Department sanctioned means. So let me rephrase that as "And what would happen to you as a holder of a FFL if you sold your Javelin to some guy ...


Ok I will get on "it" and stop selling firearms to Mexico via direct commercial sales as soon as my hangover fades. Oh wait I can only vote for people who might stop it and it's been happening for over 30 years. The larger point is we shouldn't be punishing gun owners in the US for the governments' continued mistakes, but that is apparently too hard for some people to extrapolate.
 
2012-12-31 11:26:32 AM  

Xcott: But this makes no sense: why the fark would a dude walk around with a bread knife hanging out of his pocket? Or for that matter, who walks around with a hunting knife hanging out of his pocket?


The cases in question involved pocketknives, which were in peoples... pockets.

The people were arrested.

This bet is over your weird assertion that knives are banned

I never claimed they were banned. I simply said that there were becoming banned. Some are already banned, some are questionable.

You keep babbling on and on about bread knives and such- those are perfectly fine, as long as they are in a kitchen, or on the way home from the store you bought them from. In those circumstances, they are legal. But in other circumstances, they are not. Like pocketknives. They are fine, as long as you don't walk past a cop with one. Then you can get arrested fro your 'legal' knife.
 
2012-12-31 11:35:51 AM  

Oblio13: If only there were some way for people to get training, some school they could go to or some course they could take...

Say, you know, training would be a good idea for pilots and surgeons, too. Maybe even teachers should get some training before they screw up our kids, we could call it an "education degree".

I don't know why nobody thought of this training thing before now. The concept seems like it has merit.


Out of Pocket Costs for a complete POST training course in the State of Tennessee is around 5000 dollars, and that's without lodging in the area. The only college that offers it to non-LEO employed people also is in East Tennessee, which requires someone to quit their job and leave for six months.

Again. Who's going to pay for that training? It's not a viable solution.
 
2012-12-31 11:53:55 AM  

BronyMedic: Out of Pocket Costs for a complete POST training course in the State of Tennessee is around 5000 dollars, and that's without lodging in the area. The only college that offers it to non-LEO employed people also is in East Tennessee, which requires someone to quit their job and leave for six months.

Again. Who's going to pay for that training? It's not a viable solution.


Call me a filthy capitalist, but you pay for your training and I'll pay for mine. If you don't want training, no one is going to force you to get any.

I've taken weekend courses from the Sig Academy, New England Tactical, Lethal Force Institute, and some private lessons right here in New Hampshire. A few hundred bucks and some ammo. Then there's Front Sight, Thunder Ranch, etc. I just Googled "Defensive handgun training, Tennessee" and came up with a bunch of schools and instructors.

If you want it, it's available and it's a bargain. If you feel a need to demand that others buy it for you, then you probably aren't the type who should be armed anyway.
 
2012-12-31 12:03:53 PM  

Oblio13: I've taken weekend courses from the Sig Academy, New England Tactical, Lethal Force Institute, and some private lessons right here in New Hampshire. A few hundred bucks and some ammo. Then there's Front Sight, Thunder Ranch, etc. I just Googled "Defensive handgun training, Tennessee" and came up with a bunch of schools and instructors.

If you want it, it's available and it's a bargain. If you feel a need to demand that others buy it for you, then you probably aren't the type who should be armed anyway.


And this, is the heart of the matter. You want to tack on a whole bunch of additional responsibilities for teachers, many of whom live within the 30-40K a year pay range, and force THEM to pay for any training required to do it.  Giving "untrained people" - the majority of gun and CCW holders DO NOT shoot practical courses, or spend a large portion of their time at a range practicing to engage moving targets, or even active shooters - carte blanche permission to carry a gun in schools is NOT a viable solution to this problem. It's not even a rational solution. It's a knee-jerk panic response based on the fact that you don't want to confront the possibility that "Moar guns" may not be a solution to this complex problem.

"Defensive Handgun Training" and a Concealed Carry Permit are nothing similar to Police Officer Standards and Training courses, which are what School Resource Officers are given EARLYin their careers.  Sgt. Otter earlier described what combat is like for you the first time he was under fire.

 The fact of the matter is that 95% of people, when confronted in an emergency and are untrained, are going to freeze. The other 2.5% panic, and the last 2.5% are able to act with some rational thought behind their action.
 
2012-12-31 12:10:41 PM  
You've convinced me. Violent crime should be passively submitted to.
 
2012-12-31 12:45:59 PM  

Oblio13: You've convinced me. Violent crime should be passively submitted to.


And if you think that's what I said, you might want to have your CNA put a towel around your neck to catch the drool and keep your clothes dry.
 
2012-12-31 02:13:48 PM  

fredklein: Xcott: But this makes no sense: why the fark would a dude walk around with a bread knife hanging out of his pocket? Or for that matter, who walks around with a hunting knife hanging out of his pocket?

The cases in question involved pocketknives, which were in peoples... pockets.


Okay, so why the fark would a dude walk around with a pocketknife hanging out of his pocket? Wouldn't that just make you look like a retard that doesn't know how pockets work?

Anyone so desperate to show off that he has a boy scout knife that he'll somehow make it hang out of a pocket and wag it at cops probably should start with a plastic spork to see if he's going to harm himself or others.


I never claimed they were banned. I simply said that there were becoming banned.

And this is wrong. Kitchen knives and hunting knives are not "becoming" banned. There is no legislation before the state government to ban these things. I can buy a hunting knife today, and I can buy one in 5 years.

If you don't believe me, I offered you a bet: 5 years from now, I will successfully buy a knife in a store because they won't be banned. $1000 bet. If you don't want to take the bet, just make up some weird and loopy extra demand like I have to make a threatening gesture in front of a cop or stick it in my eye to prove that I could buy it. That's a great way to weasel out of having to put your money where your mouth is.


You keep babbling on and on about bread knives and such- those are perfectly fine, as long as they are in a kitchen, or on the way home from the store you bought them from.

Again, that's a lie. You can have a kitchen knife wherever you're going to use it, and you can carry them wherever you need to take them in order to use them. It says so explicitly in the law that you quoted. The law says nothing about having to keep them in a kitchen or only being allowed to transport them to your house.

Mince words all you want, but these things are legal.
 
2012-12-31 03:40:13 PM  

Xcott: Anyone so desperate to show off that he has a boy scout knife that he'll somehow make it hang out of a pocket and wag it at cops


Yeah, because that's exactly what they were doing.

::plonk::
 
2012-12-31 04:38:20 PM  

mediablitz: Mock26: Spirit Hammer: Mock26: I wish idiots would stop bringing up the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment and asking where all the militias are today. These people are idiots and need to get with the times. The 2nd Amendment does not currently mean what it meant in 1791. It has changed over time.

Second Amendment

"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."

Compare to:

"A well educated House of Representatives, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Do you believe this sentence says that only government officials can own and read books?


People get strange when conversation turns to guns.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd Amendment over the years in such a way that the militia part really no longer has any validity. In today's America the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and the militia part is not required. This is not my opinion. This is for all intents and purposes fact of law.

And it is farking TIME to recall the "well regulated" part. We have become a society that worships guns, worships killing. Time to revisit "well regulated" before it destroys us as a nation.

I fear it is too late....


Guns are destroying out country? How about things like pop culture, that celebrates being uneducated, beating women, spending all your money on material objects, and capping fools. This is ironically the backbone of the Democratic party. You have a farked up view of reality of you think guns are the problem
 
2012-12-31 05:20:03 PM  

Xcott: fredklein: Xcott: But this makes no sense: why the fark would a dude walk around with a bread knife hanging out of his pocket? Or for that matter, who walks around with a hunting knife hanging out of his pocket?

The cases in question involved pocketknives, which were in peoples... pockets.

Okay, so why the fark would a dude walk around with a pocketknife hanging out of his pocket? Wouldn't that just make you look like a retard that doesn't know how pockets work?

Anyone so desperate to show off that he has a boy scout knife that he'll somehow make it hang out of a pocket and wag it at cops probably should start with a plastic spork to see if he's going to harm himself or others.


I never claimed they were banned. I simply said that there were becoming banned.

And this is wrong. Kitchen knives and hunting knives are not "becoming" banned. There is no legislation before the state government to ban these things. I can buy a hunting knife today, and I can buy one in 5 years.

If you don't believe me, I offered you a bet: 5 years from now, I will successfully buy a knife in a store because they won't be banned. $1000 bet. If you don't want to take the bet, just make up some weird and loopy extra demand like I have to make a threatening gesture in front of a cop or stick it in my eye to prove that I could buy it. That's a great way to weasel out of having to put your money where your mouth is.


You keep babbling on and on about bread knives and such- those are perfectly fine, as long as they are in a kitchen, or on the way home from the store you bought them from.

Again, that's a lie. You can have a kitchen knife wherever you're going to use it, and you can carry them wherever you need to take them in order to use them. It says so explicitly in the law that you quoted. The law says nothing about having to keep them in a kitchen or only being allowed to transport them to your house.

Mince words all you want, but these things are legal.


The real question is why are things like pointy kitchen knives still legal when they serve no purpose other than to kill people? Talking about making deadly things illegal while at the same time bragging how you don't want to make other deadly things illegal sounds a little funny. How many people have to die in a domestic violence incident before you people get it? Nobody needs a pointy knife for anything in the house. There's no reason to allow people to have them.
 
2012-12-31 05:59:16 PM  

Gdalescrboz: This is ironically the backbone of the Democratic party. You have a farked up view of reality of you think guns are the problem


It's not about guns. It's about control. Socialist always want to control what you can and can't do.
 
2012-12-31 08:05:25 PM  

MonoChango: Gdalescrboz: This is ironically the backbone of the Democratic party. You have a farked up view of reality of you think guns are the problem

It's not about guns. It's about control. Socialist always want to control what you can and can't do.


Both parties want more control, it's just of different things.

Democrats want to regulate what guns you can buy and own, and say it's just about "reasonable regulations" and it's in the name of public safety.

Republicans want to regulate who you can marry and what your gynecologist can do, in the name of morality and family values.

My personal politics are to the left, but this whole gun control debate has been very disillusioning to me about many (but not all) of my fellow liberals, people who I thought respected civil rights and were in favor of freedom. . .but just wanted a different kind of control.
 
2012-12-31 08:12:50 PM  

fredklein: Xcott: Anyone so desperate to show off that he has a boy scout knife that he'll somehow make it hang out of a pocket and wag it at cops

Yeah, because that's exactly what they were doing.

::plonk::


This is also a great way to weasel out of a bet. Well done.
 
2012-12-31 11:01:07 PM  

Silverstaff: MonoChango: Gdalescrboz: This is ironically the backbone of the Democratic party. You have a farked up view of reality of you think guns are the problem

It's not about guns. It's about control. Socialist always want to control what you can and can't do.

Both parties want more control, it's just of different things.

Democrats want to regulate what guns you can buy and own, and say it's just about "reasonable regulations" and it's in the name of public safety.

Republicans want to regulate who you can marry and what your gynecologist can do, in the name of morality and family values.

My personal politics are to the left, but this whole gun control debate has been very disillusioning to me about many (but not all) of my fellow liberals, people who I thought respected civil rights and were in favor of freedom. . .but just wanted a different kind of control.


Exactly. It's not liberals or conservatives that are the problem. I know people of both persuasion who are upstanding people. Either philosophy isn't necessarily bad. It's the elites that are the problem. People inside the beltway that think they have the answers to everything and know how best YOU should live your life while at the same time not wanting to live that same way.
 
2013-01-01 04:07:25 PM  

BronyMedic: And this, is the heart of the matter. You want to tack on a whole bunch of additional responsibilities for teachers, many of whom live within the 30-40K a year pay range, and force THEM to pay for any training required to do it. Giving "untrained people" - the majority of gun and CCW holders DO NOT shoot practical courses, or spend a large portion of their time at a range practicing to engage moving targets, or even active shooters - carte blanche permission to carry a gun in schools is NOT a viable solution to this problem. It's not even a rational solution. It's a knee-jerk panic response based on the fact that you don't want to confront the possibility that "Moar guns" may not be a solution to this complex problem.


Well, compare "moar guns" to the left-wing response of "Ban Guns!"

It's hard to have a reasonable discussion when you've got Gov. Cuomo advocating forcible seizure of firearms, Sen. Feinstein proposing an impossibly broad and constitutionally un-viable gun ban, Farkers here trying to argue that the very idea of owning a gun is unnecessary or barbaric or some kind of penis-compensation thing.

Also, it's hard to talk about "reasonable restrictions", when we already have a lot of gun control laws, but the ideas being put forth for more laws wouldn't have stopped the last few shootings. Sandy Hook was committed by somebody who murdered their lawful owner and stole them. The AWB didn't stop Columbine. Assault rifles didn't factor in to the Virginia Tech shooting.

The problem isn't guns, it's criminals. It's just easier to blame the guns and regulate those than to deal with the people who are ill enough to want to do these atrocities.
 
2013-01-01 07:40:47 PM  

Silverstaff: Sandy Hook was committed by somebody who murdered their lawful owner and stole them. The AWB didn't stop Columbine. Assault rifles didn't factor in to the Virginia Tech shooting.


Yes, absolutely. Even the strictest gun ownership laws don't prevent a bad guy from simply taking guns from someone else who qualifies to own them. It's hard to think of any legal remedy that would have prevented Newtown.

The problem isn't guns, it's criminals.

No, absolutely not. The killer here wasn't a criminal, and no crackdown on criminals would have caught him before he did it. He was a schizo kid with zero prior history of violent or any other crime. He wasn't even diagnosed, which is pretty typical of mental illness.

I agree that the problem is people rather than guns, but it's a different group of people: teatards. Teatards are the reason this whole thing happened, and the best thing to do is to keep guns and get rid of the teatards.

I'm not joking, think about it: Newtown didn't happen because "guns are legal"---guns are legal all over the country, and the country is full of dangerous schizo kids, and most of them don't go shooting up schools. Likewise, Newtown didn't happen because assault weapons are legal or because extended magazines are legal. Nor did it happen because the killer was schizo---lots of people are schizo, to the point of being dangerous to themselves and others, and still they don't shoot up schools.

No, Newtown happend because this schizo kid actually had a goddamn arsenal right there in his house---not because he could theoretically buy a gun at a store, but because there was a stash of guns right there for him to grab as soon as the voices told him. And why did a schizo kid have a goddamn arsenal right there in his house? Because nowadays there's a goddamn arsenal on every block, there are gun "enthusiasts" all over the place, and one of them is bound to have a schizo kid.

And, big finish, why is there a goddamn arsenal on every block? Why has it become mainstream for people to stockpile assault rifles for some impending societal collapse? People used to do that when I was a kid, but they lived in goddamn Montana. I didn't have to worry about the psycho kid across the street living with a "doomsday prepper" stash of guns, because it wasn't a daffy fad for people do that. The difference between then and now is simply a matter of numbers. Where did that difference come from?

Teatards. The people who are stocking up on guns because their news channel tells them the world is ending, and buy gold. The people think guns are about to be illegal so they have to buy them quickly, and lots of them. The people for talk about jackboots and defending against government tyranny, and who turn purple when you tell them that "defending against government tyranny" means shooting cops and American troops. These are the people who, encouraged by a media empire that sold commercial time by feeding them paranoia, have turned wacky survivalism into a widespread phenomenon. They turned recreational gun ownership from a domain of hunters and hobbyists to an extreme sport for "enthusiasts." They made guns far more dangerous simply by raw numbers.

A ban on assault weapons may therefore have the opposite effect: it will just convince more people that the teatards are right about Black Helicopter Agenda 21, and more people will stock up on more guns. What we should do instead is allow unfettered access to firearms, except that anyone who is ever caught talking about FEMA manacle boxcars or having a stockpile of ammo ready for the economy collapsing, those people will be put on a list and all they ever get to own is a spork. Make guns as legal as crowbars and brooms and table saws, but only for people who see them as something like crowbars and brooms and table saws. People with a Rambo complex who fetishize guns as a defense against liberal conspiracies, those people are the problem; they are to guns as alcoholics are to vodka.

Ironically, teatards often say that a gun is an object, and that we should blame the people, not the tool. They obviously haven't thought that thought all the way through.
 
2013-01-01 08:13:22 PM  

Xcott: Silverstaff: Sandy Hook was committed by somebody who murdered their lawful owner and stole them. The AWB didn't stop Columbine. Assault rifles didn't factor in to the Virginia Tech shooting.


Yes, absolutely. Even the strictest gun ownership laws don't prevent a bad guy from simply taking guns from someone else who qualifies to own them. It's hard to think of any legal remedy that would have prevented Newtown.

The problem isn't guns, it's criminals.

No, absolutely not. The killer here wasn't a criminal, and no crackdown on criminals would have caught him before he did it. He was a schizo kid with zero prior history of violent or any other crime. He wasn't even diagnosed, which is pretty typical of mental illness.

I agree that the problem is people rather than guns, but it's a different group of people: teatards. Teatards are the reason this whole thing happened, and the best thing to do is to keep guns and get rid of the teatards.

I'm not joking, think about it: Newtown didn't happen because "guns are legal"---guns are legal all over the country, and the country is full of dangerous schizo kids, and most of them don't go shooting up schools. Likewise, Newtown didn't happen because assault weapons are legal or because extended magazines are legal. Nor did it happen because the killer was schizo---lots of people are schizo, to the point of being dangerous to themselves and others, and still they don't shoot up schools.

No, Newtown happend because this schizo kid actually had a goddamn arsenal right there in his house---not because he could theoretically buy a gun at a store, but because there was a stash of guns right there for him to grab as soon as the voices told him. And why did a schizo kid have a goddamn arsenal right there in his house? Because nowadays there's a goddamn arsenal on every block, there are gun "enthusiasts" all over the place, and one of them is bound to have a schizo kid.

And, big finish, why is there a goddamn arsenal on eve ...


Take some meds. People have owned and stockpiled guns pretty much since they were invented, at the very least long before Tea Party was around.


Also Lanza was a criminal. He killed his mom and wasn't old enough to legally possess handguns.
 
2013-01-01 08:49:02 PM  

redmid17: Take some meds. People have owned and stockpiled guns pretty much since they were invented, at the very least long before Tea Party was around.


You completely missed the point. I clearly said that people have always been stockpiling guns---the difference is that now it's a widespread mainstream phenomenon, which makes something like Newtown more likely and more frequent.

The same thing happened in the 1990s with the OK City bombing: after Clinton was elected, UN conspiracy theories and militia movements surged to mainstream levels. Radio hosts who wanted to be Rush Limbaugh realized that they could get a lot of listeners by talking about jack-booted thugs, and magazines like The New Americans painted a picture of ZOG black helicopter takeovers. We joke about black helicopters now, but back then it was a serious thing to these people.

The bigger the movement, the easier it was for people inside to believe that it was all really true, that it was all really happening, and a nutball blowing up a federal building was inevitable. What you may not know from that time is that the OK city bombing was just one of several domestic terror acts that some nutball was planning. There were others that were thwarted because the conspirators were too talkative or incompetent. An extreme and eschatologic political philosophy becomes mainstream enough and widespread enough, and something like this happens.

Also Lanza was a criminal. He killed his mom and wasn't old enough to legally possess handguns.

Sure he became a criminal the moment he started killing everyone, but until that point he had no criminal record. No crackdown on criminals would have caught him, because he was clean as a whistle until the day he killed dozens of people.
 
2013-01-02 01:07:09 AM  

Xcott: The killer here wasn't a criminal


So, killing is not a crime in your world??
 
2013-01-02 01:13:40 AM  

fredklein: Xcott: The killer here wasn't a criminal

So, killing is not a crime in your world??


Actually someone else mentioned that, and you were forced to admit: "Sure he became a criminal the moment he started killing everyone". So, nevermind.

And, the problem here isn't guns (they are just a tool), or people who have this particular tool (singularly, or in "arsenals"). It's PEOPLE. People who have no training with how to handle guns (because of anti-gun nuts who scream about 'training kids to kill' when a kids gun training program is suggested). People who are so dumb they think what they see in movies is real. People who refuse to take responsibility for themselves, and hate those who do. Those people- people like you- are the problem.
 
2013-01-02 09:41:25 AM  

fredklein: fredklein: And, the problem here isn't guns (they are just a tool), or people who have this particular tool (singularly, or in "arsenals"). It's PEOPLE.


That's exactly what I said, you illiterate rube.

People who have no training with how to handle guns (because of anti-gun nuts who scream about 'training kids to kill' when a kids gun training program is suggested).

Stop right there. The killer had lots of training. He went to the shooting range with his mom and learned all about how to handle these weapons.

Do you seriously believe that a schizo kid who wants to shoot up an elementary school will decide not to do it if only he's given some "training?"

That's about as dumb as --- well, as dumb as openly plonking someone and then replying to one of their posts a day later.
 
Displayed 372 of 372 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report