If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Let's talk about who really buys the AR-15   (slate.com) divider line 1354
    More: Interesting, semi-automatic rifle, semiautomatic pistols, federal assault weapons ban, Freedom Group, target shooting, Ayn Rand, car fire, long guns  
•       •       •

34424 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 12:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1354 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-03 01:20:56 PM  

andersoncouncil42: The batshiat insane stuff is coming from the 2nd amendment kooks. Most people, and most NRA members support registration, backround checks, closing private sale loopholes, and banning high capacity magazines, and maybe "assault rifles" themselves. If you label that as batshiat insane, maybe you should look in the mirror, adjust meds.


I doubt that. Any proof that NRA members support all that garbage? If the ACLU comes out against offensive speech, does that mean that free speech nuts are wrong to oppose offensive speech laws?
 
2013-01-03 01:21:08 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: jshine: ...so owning weapons (the right guaranteed by the Constitution) should be legal, while using them to shoot people should be illegal.

And only criminals shoot people - not law-abiding gun owners.

Of course, when someone who legally owns a (or has easy access to a legally owned) gun kills a few people, then he's a criminal and we can still say "Law-abiding gun owners don't commit gun crimes."

[www.brainygamer.com image 351x343]
And keep pretending that the threat of legal punishment has a deterrent effect on someone who plans to die at the end of his rampage.


Are you the Farker who repeatedly posted a dishonest report from the Violence Policy Center even after being given data showing the report to be dishonest?
 
2013-01-03 01:21:19 PM  

cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun.


The article specifically refers people who are "not hunters but weekend warriors".
 
2013-01-03 01:21:23 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: H31N0US: david_gaithersburg: Perhaps the first amendment should be tightly regulated too. He way not apply the mental evaluation to it and put Fark our of business.

The first amendment makes no mention of regulation. The second amendment does.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: If "the people" can own guns, how do you justify denying them to me? Am I not a person?

See above.
Not every moron in this country gets to own a gun, and nor should every kind of gun be available to the general public. There really isn't an argument here.

There isn't an argument here, because you didn't even bother to look up what "well regulated" meant when the 2nd amendment was written. Here, let me show you yet another reason why you're wrong.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.



images.christianpost.com


And yet, it doesn't seem to be in very good working order, now does it?
 
2013-01-03 01:21:24 PM  

Bomb Head Mohammed: Here are my views on gun control:

Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.

I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.

This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.

I think maybe there could be some restrictions that there had to be a certain amount of training taken.

With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases.

Pleased to meet you, won't you guess my name?


6200 handgun deaths in 2011, down from 7400 in 2007. And has been steadily declining for 20 years.

Rifle murders count in the 300's, and are also declining every year.

But we're going batshiat insane over one particular type of rifle that has made up a few dozen deaths in the past several years.
 
2013-01-03 01:21:37 PM  

Cymbal: AR-15 and guns like it should only be available to rent at shooting ranges, period.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!
 
2013-01-03 01:21:41 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Outrageous Muff: In before the whiny anti-gun nuts who think the mere act of holding a gun makes one a psychopathic killer.

Don't forget the pro-gun whackjobs who think psychopathic killers would be just as effective with a pointy stick as with a few 30-round magazines and a Bushmaster.

"New regulations won't stop all mass murders, so why bother?"


The Constitution of the United States.... How does it work?
 
2013-01-03 01:21:49 PM  
This thread seems to say a lot about who really buys the AR-15.
And a lot about them, too.
 
2013-01-03 01:21:54 PM  

andersoncouncil42: The batshiat insane stuff is coming from the 2nd amendment kooks. Most people, and most NRA members support registration, backround checks, closing private sale loopholes, and banning high capacity magazines, and maybe "assault rifles" themselves. If you label that as batshiat insane, maybe you should look in the mirror, adjust meds.


Less than half of Americans support an assault weapons ban.
 
2013-01-03 01:22:47 PM  

andersoncouncil42: topcon: I own an AR-15.

I support gay rights, healthcare reform, I'm not religious, I'm pro-abortion, I think "preppers" (I hate even typing the word) and people who say "SHTF" are usually weird if not idiots.

But DURR, they're only owned by rednecks and criminals.

Around TWENTY TIMES more people die to handguns than rifles. Rifle deaths a year amount in the low hundreds. Handgun deaths amount to 6000 odd. Both numbers are dropping.

But let's go batshiat insane over one particular type of rifle.

The batshiat insane stuff is coming from the 2nd amendment kooks. Most people, and most NRA members support registration, backround checks, closing private sale loopholes, and banning high capacity magazines, and maybe "assault rifles" themselves. If you label that as batshiat insane, maybe you should look in the mirror, adjust meds.


Uh, I can assure you most NRA members, and gun owners, do not support registration, banning high cap magazines, or banning so-called "assault weapons."

What crack are you smoking?
 
2013-01-03 01:22:51 PM  

ElBarto79: You have a right as long as doesn't infringe upon someone else in some way. You have a right to free speech but you do not have a right to slander someone or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. See the difference? In the same way if your idea of fun requires a tool which was specifically designed to kill lots of people, has few or zero practical uses that there are not better tools for and which is incredibly deadly in the wrong hands then you may be out of luck with regards to that particular kind of "fun".


So there should be reasonable, sensible restrictions on voting, right?
 
2013-01-03 01:22:58 PM  

Cymbal: Pretty small sacrifice to make on your part actually. You still get off on shooting your favorite guns, just in a regulated environment, in exchange for thousands of senseless deaths year. Seems pretty rational to me. But I have a feeling rational thoughts escape you all the time now.


ALL rifles put together are not even attributed to 400 murders in any given year. That's miles away from thousands.
 
2013-01-03 01:23:17 PM  

you have pee hands: Mostly because people keep piling up make believe quotes and laws and don't bother to fact check their own bullshiat, but partly because people aren't generally willing to shoot back at a fascist when they know they'll get a couple potshots off before their entire family is killed in retribution.  You know what all these dictatorships actually do have in common?  Whoever controls the military wins.  When the military starts to defect en masse, that's when the gig's up.  Regardless of weaponry there's an enormous difference between trained soldiers and disorganized rabble and militias replacing authoritarian dictatorships with anything but other authoritarian dictatorships in an armed revolution almost never happens.


Soldiers make up a minuscule percentage of the population. In general, assume only say 20% of the population fights back. Each soldier might realistically be outnumbered 10 to 1. Do you really think they can fight an insurgency of that magnitude effectively? Do you think a dictator is going to roll those dice? No, and that's why they disarm the public first.
 
2013-01-03 01:23:29 PM  

jshine: Of course "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." (incorrectly attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, but still a good quote).

...so owning weapons (the right guaranteed by the Constitution) should be legal, while using them to shoot people should be illegal.


Owning weapons should be legal, owning certain weapons that were designed specifically to kill people and have few practical uses that there are not already better and safer tools for should be illegal.
 
2013-01-03 01:23:36 PM  

Cymbal: Pretty small sacrifice to make on your part actually. You still get off on shooting your favorite guns, just in a regulated environment, in exchange for thousands of senseless deaths year. Seems pretty rational to me.


I own about 20acres of isolated land and shoot into the side of a hill.
So now I should drive with my firearms into the city to go to a gun range to prevent senseless deaths when I'm shooting up old computers?
 
2013-01-03 01:23:41 PM  

Cymbal: Pretty small sacrifice to make on your part actually. You still get off on shooting your favorite guns, just in a regulated environment, in exchange for thousands of senseless deaths year.


Please explain how prohibiting private possession of a single type of rifle would prevent "thousands of senseless deaths year" when all rifles combined are used in fewer than 400 homicides annually.
 
2013-01-03 01:23:41 PM  

Cymbal: Dimensio: Cymbal: Dimensio: Cymbal: Wow, don't think I've ever seen so many NRA schills in one thread before.

Really wish you gun nuts could just all have fun with paintball instead. Would be a lot less senseless deaths. But that will never happen because you slack-jawed troglodytes have to be the most selfish and degenerate subhuman wasted of life assholes to ever live.

Do you have any rational commentary to offer, or are you relying upon ad hominem attacks due to an awareness that you advocate a position devoid of any intellectual merit?

See my comments up thread. AR-15 and guns like it should only be available to rent at shooting ranges, period.

So your answer is "no", you have no rational commentary to offer. Thank you for your honest admission.

Pretty small sacrifice to make on your part actually. You still get off on shooting your favorite guns, just in a regulated environment, in exchange for thousands of senseless deaths year. Seems pretty rational to me. But I have a feeling rational thoughts escape you all the time now.


Show me where AR-15s or semiautomatic rifles or rifles in general cause "thousands of senseless deaths [a] year" in the United States.
 
2013-01-03 01:23:45 PM  

plausdeny: Well, once you've put the 'automatic' vs 'semi-automatic' difference aside


So much for automatic vs semi-auto.

Link

Video (fun starts at 3:55)
 
2013-01-03 01:23:54 PM  

Joe Blowme: Yet another tard who thinks the 2nd is for hunting.... so sad.
Dont like guns? Dont buy guns. Dont let your gunaphobia affect my right to buy a gun.


Don't let your guns affect my right to live.

Either because you have a bad day and decide to become a killer, or becasue you get burgled and the theif then uses or sells the gun to someone who does.

It makes me sick that I have to worry about my wife and/or daugther being randomly gunned down in the street by some lunatic stranger who is just having a bad day, or doesn't give a shiat about the world.
 
2013-01-03 01:24:14 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: This thread seems to say a lot about who really buys the AR-15.
And a lot about them, too.


Not as much as the morons who think they should be banned.
 
2013-01-03 01:24:14 PM  

FlashHarry: is the .223/.556 the same NATO round that the current western militaries use? it's essentially a high-powered .22, right?


I didn't see where anyone else answered this, so I'll take a shot. The .223 and .22lr have roughly the same diameter of bullet (caliber), but that is were the similarities end. The .223 usually weighs more and is a tougher bullet, plus it leaves the gun going 2-3x faster than the .22 and carries almost 10x the energy.  So other than the fact that they both use relatively small bullets, not too much in common. Depends on how you look at it I guess.
 
2013-01-03 01:24:24 PM  

Rich Cream: Not any good for defense? Then why do the police have them? Offensive purposes?


Police forces aren't really known for their defense.
 
2013-01-03 01:24:41 PM  

moanerific: Explain what's been going on in Syria then?


Well, the tide is turning now that there's been mass defections from the military, but it seems most likely to me that it's going to be a case of "out with the old boss, in with the new" because the most organized and militarily successful group of rebels, the ones who gained experience fighting in Iraq, are a bunch of authoritarian dickwads.  We'll see if time proves me wrong.
 
2013-01-03 01:24:45 PM  

Cymbal: Dimensio: Cymbal: Dimensio: Cymbal: Wow, don't think I've ever seen so many NRA schills in one thread before.

Really wish you gun nuts could just all have fun with paintball instead. Would be a lot less senseless deaths. But that will never happen because you slack-jawed troglodytes have to be the most selfish and degenerate subhuman wasted of life assholes to ever live.

Do you have any rational commentary to offer, or are you relying upon ad hominem attacks due to an awareness that you advocate a position devoid of any intellectual merit?

See my comments up thread. AR-15 and guns like it should only be available to rent at shooting ranges, period.

So your answer is "no", you have no rational commentary to offer. Thank you for your honest admission.

Pretty small sacrifice to make on your part actually. You still get off on shooting your favorite guns, just in a regulated environment, in exchange for thousands of senseless deaths year. Seems pretty rational to me. But I have a feeling rational thoughts escape you all the time now.


Thousands of people are not murdered by AR-15s every year in the U.S.
 
2013-01-03 01:25:26 PM  

ElBarto79: jshine: Of course "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." (incorrectly attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, but still a good quote).

...so owning weapons (the right guaranteed by the Constitution) should be legal, while using them to shoot people should be illegal.

Owning weapons should be legal, owning certain weapons that were designed specifically to kill people and have few practical uses that there are not already better and safer tools for should be illegal.


All weapons are designed to kill

That's why they are weapons.

If some ass hole comes after my wife while she's jogging I don't want her carrying something that's "safer". I want it to be specifically designed to be as dangerous as possible.
 
2013-01-03 01:25:28 PM  

The_Sponge: Cymbal: AR-15 and guns like it should only be available to rent at shooting ranges, period.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!


b.vimeocdn.com
Reminded me of living in Indiana and seeing this guy'sawesome commercials on late-night.  Look them up on youtube.  They're amazing.
 
2013-01-03 01:25:36 PM  

BgJonson79: technicolor-misfit: BgJonson79: technicolor-misfit: Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from too chickenshiat to join the military?


Let's be honest, we're talking about the most terrified people on the planet... people who like to fantasize about carrying around big bad-ass looking weapons to strike an imposing figure precisely because the reality of themselves is so very different.

Practically every gun nut I know is either a doughy nerd who's still nursing grudges about being a bullied outcast in school or a paranoid who obsesses about unrealistic threats they imagine lurking around every corner.

These are NOT Steve Rogers-types eager to rush into the fray of battle to test their mettle and unfortunately held back by physical misfortune. These are LARPers who want to play dress up as far away from the field of actual battle as possible.

And doesn't the Second Amendment guarantee their right to do just that?


Subject to regulation? Yes.

Where do you get subject to regulation?



Are you suggesting guns aren't subject to regulation?

I suppose a felon can walk into his local Circle K and buy a full-auto Tommy-gun right off the rack, cash on the barrel-head, no questions asked and and stroll around town big as you please and the po-po better not say shiat to him?
 
2013-01-03 01:26:06 PM  

Onkel Buck: Rather own my AR-15 than my neighbors goofy looking Prius. Then again I'm not trying to take away his car because is scares me and I dont like it


If you're scared of a Prius, you need help.
 
2013-01-03 01:26:14 PM  

BgJonson79: technicolor-misfit: BgJonson79: technicolor-misfit: Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from too chickenshiat to join the military?


Let's be honest, we're talking about the most terrified people on the planet... people who like to fantasize about carrying around big bad-ass looking weapons to strike an imposing figure precisely because the reality of themselves is so very different.

Practically every gun nut I know is either a doughy nerd who's still nursing grudges about being a bullied outcast in school or a paranoid who obsesses about unrealistic threats they imagine lurking around every corner.

These are NOT Steve Rogers-types eager to rush into the fray of battle to test their mettle and unfortunately held back by physical misfortune. These are LARPers who want to play dress up as far away from the field of actual battle as possible.

And doesn't the Second Amendment guarantee their right to do just that?

Subject to regulation? Yes.

Where do you get subject to regulation?


The words "well-regulated."

Sure, you can argue about the meaning of "well-regulated" at the time the amendment was written...but then you might have to address the meaning of "arms" at that time. And the fact that they don't say what KIND of arms - perhaps halberds? And the fact that it doesn't say "any and all arms," just "arms." I don't see anyone demanding to end the ban on civilian-owned machine guns and rocket launchers. Why not? WHY DO YOU HATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT?!?!

Let's just stick with the Founders' intention and say everyone has a right to own blunderbusses and muskets - let's throw in flintlock pistols as well.
 
2013-01-03 01:26:50 PM  

Spade: If some ass hole comes after my wife while she's jogging I don't want her carrying something that's "safer". I want it to be specifically designed to be as dangerous as possible.


You married to Rick Perry?
 
2013-01-03 01:27:06 PM  
I'm an Aussie who has known just one person in my entire life who owned anything more powerful than a .22 rifle. He used to shoot wild pigs with it, and apparently he enjoyed that. Good for him.

But I seriously don't get why not having access to high-powered semi-automatic weapons would be a big deal for any sane person. That goes doubly for anyone who thinks that they need one to defend themselves from their own government.

Seems to me that if the "Freedom" of your country requires citizens to arm themselves against the government then you weren't ever very "Free" in the first place.

/maybe I'm just naive about the Black Helicopters and the UN
 
2013-01-03 01:27:14 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: H31N0US: david_gaithersburg: Perhaps the first amendment should be tightly regulated too. He way not apply the mental evaluation to it and put Fark our of business.

The first amendment makes no mention of regulation. The second amendment does.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: If "the people" can own guns, how do you justify denying them to me? Am I not a person?


The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.


OK, that's some good research leading to a ridiculous conclusion. The adjective "well-regulated" means a properly functioning militia in the case of the Second Amendment. I'll stipulate that. Where you go from "properly functioning" to "immune from federal oversight," I have no idea.

Anyway, the Second Amendment's original intent was bulldozed by the reality that militias SUCK at protecting "the security of a free state." The War of 1812 settled once and for all that we needed a standing army, which the Founder expressly were scared of, and the Militia Act of 1903 did away with the last vestige of state/The People's control over the militia.
 
2013-01-03 01:27:23 PM  

lostcat: It makes me sick that I have to worry about my wife and/or daugther being randomly gunned down in the street by some lunatic stranger who is just having a bad day, or doesn't give a shiat about the world.


This happens so rarely and you worry about it all the time?

Are you in a constant panic because the odds are a lot higher that they might get hit by a drunk driver too?

Seriously, simmer down and stop being so paranoid.
 
2013-01-03 01:27:31 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Let's just stick with the Founders' intention and say everyone has a right to own blunderbusses and muskets - let's throw in flintlock pistols as well.


I will agree with such regulation only if you agree that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not apply to speech transmitted through any electronic format and that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not prohibit warrantless searches of automobiles.
 
2013-01-03 01:27:36 PM  

o5iiawah: So there should be reasonable, sensible restrictions on voting, right?


"One gun, one bullet."
 
2013-01-03 01:27:40 PM  

Mirrorz: Mimic_Octopus: going out to buy my first 2 AR-15's this weekend and 10,000 rounds too.

No you won't. Ammo is just about sold out nation wide and the firearm manufacturers can't keep up with the demand.


LOL I went to Walmart the other day to buy ammo. Even here in the libbier-than-lib San Francisco Bay area, this one's usually stocked to the gills with must common varieties of shotgun and rifle ammo. The shelves were completely empty. People were fighting over the last couple of boxes of 20 gauge shot. It was surreal.
 
2013-01-03 01:27:50 PM  

topcon: 6200 handgun deaths in 2011, down from 7400 in 2007. And has been steadily declining for 20 years.

Rifle murders count in the 300's, and are also declining every year.

But we're going batshiat insane over one particular type of rifle that has made up a few dozen deaths in the past several years.


Not to mention that those reductions took place after the Clinton ban went away in 2004.
 
2013-01-03 01:27:53 PM  
So the argument here is that AR-15's give people the capacity to kill others with too much ease. However there's no good argument that they are a legitimate home defense weapon because they aren't good at killing people in your home? What happened to the fact that they give people the capacity to kill others with too much ease?

I'm not saying there shouldn't be gun control just don't make an argument that you later refute in your own article. You could have said there are still strong options for home defense that don't require you to have a semiautomatic rifle with a high magazine capacity and this article would have been fine.

/seriously though if you want to defend yourself in your home buy a short barrel pistol grip shotgun
 
2013-01-03 01:27:57 PM  
bluefoxicy

....The flaws here are glaring. AR-15 sucks for hunting. ....

Everybody in this argument is stupid.
I wouldn't say "everybody" but you certainly proved you fall under said label. Even the writer conceded it is a very popular rifle with hunters.
 
2013-01-03 01:28:06 PM  

The_Sponge: TheOther: The_Sponge: TheOther: then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).

How about no?

Why not?


1) Because I want to keep it, and I'm never giving it up.

2) Do you think the government would give me an equivalent rifle or shotgun that is at the same market value as my rifle?


1) Okay

2) I thought that was implicit in the trade, but Okay...though I don't think you could reasonably expect 'black market/after restrictions enacted' value.

but I'm really wasting my time, aren't I? Nevahmind.
 
2013-01-03 01:28:14 PM  

QueenMamaBee: Onkel Buck: Rather own my AR-15 than my neighbors goofy looking Prius. Then again I'm not trying to take away his car because is scares me and I dont like it

If you're scared of a Prius, you need help.


What if you're a firefighter who has to worry about hitting something that carries significant current while cutting someone out of the car?
 
2013-01-03 01:29:21 PM  

lostcat: Joe Blowme: Yet another tard who thinks the 2nd is for hunting.... so sad.
Dont like guns? Dont buy guns. Dont let your gunaphobia affect my right to buy a gun.

Don't let your guns affect my right to live.

Either because you have a bad day and decide to become a killer, or becasue you get burgled and the theif then uses or sells the gun to someone who does.

It makes me sick that I have to worry about my wife and/or daugther being randomly gunned down in the street by some lunatic stranger who is just having a bad day, or doesn't give a shiat about the world.


maybe you should move to a country that bans guns and was not founded by people using guns to gain freedom. Your same argument can be made about you getting drunk and killing my family when you are stupid and drive because you are mad at your job or lack thereof.
 
2013-01-03 01:29:39 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: jshine: ...so owning weapons (the right guaranteed by the Constitution) should be legal, while using them to shoot people should be illegal.

And only criminals shoot people - not law-abiding gun owners.

Of course, when someone who legally owns a (or has easy access to a legally owned) gun kills a few people, then he's a criminal and we can still say "Law-abiding gun owners don't commit gun crimes."

[www.brainygamer.com image 351x343]
And keep pretending that the threat of legal punishment has a deterrent effect on someone who plans to die at the end of his rampage.



In a country of 300,000,000 people, there are always going to be some undiagnosed nuts who wig out and kill people. Its inevitable. One can make a value judgement: is it worth restricting the rights of everyone in society in the hope that it might make it somewhat more difficult for a few of those nuts to kill as many people as they might otherwise?

In my opinion, no, its not worth it. I value my rights more than the very tiny increase in safety that one might hope to achieve. These murders -- famous as they are due to the 24-hour news cycle -- are *incredibly* rare as an actual safety concern. You're much more likely to die being hit by lightning (so maybe a better crusade would be for mandatory lightning rods?).
 
2013-01-03 01:30:14 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: TheOther: a hunting rifle

What is a "hunting rifle"?


A rifle used for hunting?...something other than humans?...sporting rifle?... wasting more of my time?
 
2013-01-03 01:30:19 PM  

angry bunny: seriously though if you want to defend yourself in your home buy a short barrel pistol grip shotgun


Short barrel shotguns require a class 3 license to purchase/own. (as do short barrel rifles.)
 
2013-01-03 01:30:23 PM  

o5iiawah: ElBarto79: You have a right as long as doesn't infringe upon someone else in some way. You have a right to free speech but you do not have a right to slander someone or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. See the difference? In the same way if your idea of fun requires a tool which was specifically designed to kill lots of people, has few or zero practical uses that there are not better tools for and which is incredibly deadly in the wrong hands then you may be out of luck with regards to that particular kind of "fun".

So there should be reasonable, sensible restrictions on voting, right?


We have restrictions on voting; convicted felons cannot vote, for example. But the act of voting will not directly result in someones death so it's hardly a fair comparison.
 
2013-01-03 01:31:14 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: We already have laws in place keeping guns out of the hands of people like Adam Lanza, but surprise surprise.. a criminal didn't obey the law. How is it that your mind is so defective that the "obvious solution" is to make more restrictive laws.


If we had a thorough vetting process, nobody would have sold a gun to a woman with an emotionally unstable socially inert kid in the house.

I am not anti gun. I am anti "psycho with gun". I am sure you would agree. However, without a "well regulated" means of stacking the odds against the probability of a psycho walking out of a shop with the ability to fire 40 rounds a minute on very short notice, we find ourselves watching the news in disbelief while looking at our 2 year old and wondering about her future.
 
2013-01-03 01:31:35 PM  

Mirrorz: angry bunny: seriously though if you want to defend yourself in your home buy a short barrel pistol grip shotgun

Short barrel shotguns require a class 3 license to purchase/own. (as do short barrel rifles.)


Still no permit for a metal saw.

/not that I would ever encourage that kind of modification for both safety and legal reasons
 
2013-01-03 01:31:37 PM  

Cymbal: Pretty small sacrifice to make on your part actually.


You're over 1,500 miles from me, and I can still smell your bullshiat.
 
2013-01-03 01:32:02 PM  

ElBarto79: jshine: Of course "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." (incorrectly attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, but still a good quote).

...so owning weapons (the right guaranteed by the Constitution) should be legal, while using them to shoot people should be illegal.

Owning weapons should be legal, owning certain weapons that were designed specifically to kill people and have few practical uses that there are not already better and safer tools for should be illegal.


That conclusion doesn't really follow from your original premise of "You have a right as long as doesn't infringe upon someone else in some way. You have a right to free speech but you do not have a right to slander someone or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. See the difference?".
 
Displayed 50 of 1354 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report