Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Guardian)   Obama may issue executive order on gun control, which will immediately triple the price of assault weapons and popcorn   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 1330
    More: Interesting, assault weapons, Biden, presidential executive order, for sale by owner, force of law, semi-automatic rifle  
•       •       •

11860 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2013 at 4:52 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1330 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-09 07:19:34 PM  

Needsun: ThreadSinger: I might regret jumping into this without a suitable retard-fireant suit, but would some restrictions on the quantity of guns being purchased by a single individual be reasonable? Or munitions? I mean, there are certain non-projectile weapon materials out there that you can't buy in bulk without regulatory permission or a lot of raised eyebrows. It's not that I would want the aim to be to restrict the large majority of 'lawful good' folks who greatly enjoy their hobby (or practice regularly and thus need large amounts of ammo), but rather to limit instances where a violently minded individual or individuals might hoard a large amount of weaponry and ammo which could result in one of the more recent low-frequency, high-intensity tragedies?

(Full disclosure: Canadian, not a gun owner, I think I own one bullet, no problem with handguns, rifles, shotguns, but believes a line should be reasonably drawn at weaponry where its use, even in defense of self, would likely result in harm to others beyond the aggressor.)

/serious question
//please be gentle

I believe the point is that regulation does not, can not and will not work. Prohibition of Alcohol didn't work, the WAR on Drugs didn't work, Illegal immigration laws DON'T work, nor will this. This is an attempt to make law abiding, responsible gun owners criminals when in fact, they've broken no law. About hoarding... WHO'S reasonable judgement is going to be used to decide the quantity of a hoard? As you can see their is a decided lack of good judgement on both sides of this. The ANTI-Gun crowd are slapping at the waters surface in an attempt to force the sharks into a feeding frenzy. Any self respecting shark would wait until the water calms down and the swimmers return. Sit back, relax, pop some corn... enjoy the show.


In my mind I thought more about restrictions on purchasing ammonium nitrate and fertilizer for farms. Large purchases tend to alert someone on the principle that the material, in such quantities, is more than is reasonable for an individual to have in good faith, for the public good. I see this all the time, yet rarely do I read about someone protesting those limits as being an unnecessary restriction on the freedom to purchase otherwise benign materials, e.g., the assumption that everyone buying that much material anything but law abiding.

As for sitting back, relaxing, and popping some corn...

Well, yea. Our politics are dull. Yours are much more entertaining. Like watching a fireworks factory detonate. From a great, frozen, distance. :)
 
2013-01-09 07:20:10 PM  

whidbey: pmdgrwr: How are more gun laws going to be different.

Guns!=pot


Exactly. Prohibition will totally work this time. Black markets don't apply to things like guns, and stuff.
 
2013-01-09 07:20:13 PM  
I was watching a recent episode of The Simpsons where a bunch of "peppers" were chasing Homer in his car. One woman sat on a rolling chair and fired a machine gun behind her to power her way after him.

It made me think of all the anti-gun control analogies on here and the rest of the Internet that try to compare guns to cars.

/csb
//also, Fark, safari doesn't have adblockers, so leave me the hell alone
///if they aren't making bank off of all these gun threads, their business model is doomed anyways
 
2013-01-09 07:20:22 PM  

Bontesla: Dimensio: Bontesla: Dimensio: Bontesla: Dimensio: Bontesla: Mr.BobDobalita: duffblue: All things that I don't completely agree with are scary, and I wish to deprive 315 million other people of their 2nd amendment rights as a result of my own fear, ignorance and cowardice

YEp. This is what it boils down to. As I've said, all rifle murders in 2011 amounted to 400. "Assault rifles" were a subset of that already small number. What we're talking about with the anti-"assault" rifle people here is LITERALLY trampling the rights of tens of millions of people over 400 deaths.

The absurdity boggles the mind.

No one is taking away your right to be armed. You're framing the conversation in a dishonest light.

There's a proposal to reduce the type of guns. You don't have a constitutional right to every gun. Now, you're insisting on maintaining a certain privilege at the cost of, by your own numbers, 400 deaths a year.

duffblue has stated no such insistence. Your claim is a lie.

Please proceed.

My statement is concluded: you lied. No further commentary is necessary, unless you wish to challenge my accusation.

You made an assertion. I'm asking you to elaborate.

You claimed that duffblue was "insisting" upon maintaining a "privilege" at a supposed cost of four-hundred deaths per year. duffblue issued no such insistence. Your claim, therefore, is demonstrably contradicted by established reality. No reason exists for you to have derived such a conclusion in error. Your claim, therefore, was a lie.

If you believe that your claim is in fact logically derived from duffblue's statement, then please demonstrate such, and you will show my accusation to be erroneous.

No.

I asserted that he was framing the argument incorrectly and then reframed it for him.

I'm glad I could clarify your confusion.


The only thing i said was: All things that I don't completely agree with are scary, and I wish to deprive 315 million other people of their 2nd amendment rights as a result of my own fear, ignorance and cowardice.

Glad I could clarify your confusion.
 
2013-01-09 07:20:26 PM  
Is this what's coming for our guns?
usarmy.vo.llnwd.net
 
2013-01-09 07:20:28 PM  

GoldSpider: Hey, ya gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.


I seem to remember quite a few farkers who didn't like that line of reasoning when we were talking Patriot Act.
 
2013-01-09 07:20:28 PM  

whidbey: evoke: A little factoid:

Gun regulation!=prohibition


well, duh. refusing alcohol sales to minors = complete unavailability of alcohol in the united states!
 
2013-01-09 07:21:10 PM  
Settle down, guntards. Anything he does by way of executive action will just be tightening up the odd ATF reg, like ensuring more agencies feed info the the background database.
 
2013-01-09 07:21:24 PM  

ThreadSinger: It does not seem unreasonable to purchase several hundred rounds (or more) for a hobby, given the rate of fire. I played paintball once, probably ran through a 2500 box in no time


Well there you go. You're talking about high numbers here as well (perhaps not 2500, but still pretty high).

ThreadSinger: I'm not sure what "quantity" I had in mind to restrict, rather, just the concept that there might be a limit deemed suspicious that should be flagged by the seller...


The problem with that is, a number that most people would consider reasonable is still way higher than the number used in crimes. Let's say that any more than a box of pistol ammo a week gets you flagged. That's a pretty damn low number, but let's run with it anyway. In only a month I can purchase more rounds than were fired at VA Tech without raising any flags. However, I will get flagged several times over just for purchasing what I consider enough for a decent day at a range for a single gun. Between me and a buddy we can go through several thousand rounds (of varying calibers) in a single afternoon, easy. And we aren't really much above average (assuming we are above average at all).

TL;DR
By the time you get the number high enough to not give you a false positive for every single purchase, you've raised it to the point of being useless.

ThreadSinger: Thank you for the reply!


No problem.
 
2013-01-09 07:21:56 PM  

here to help: You want a gun? You NEED a gun? Go through the proper channels. That is that.


I already did. Now why do you want to take them away?
 
2013-01-09 07:22:01 PM  

here to help: My goodness... are we actually having a reasonable discussion on this topic... finally?

Okay, so you guys who own guns and are open to figuring out solutions PLEASE take the conversation out of the hands of the idiots. I know you make up the majority but we only hear from the lunatics. You HAVE to shout them down.

Most of the so called "gun grabbers" (the reasonable ones anyway) are not trying to outright outlaw firearms. They just want some accountability and make sure the things aren't going to be abused.

They are designed to kill. That seems like a good enough reason to warrant a bit of restrictions. Hell... I'm not allowed to drive a car. Why? Because I don't have a license and I could bloody well kill someone with the thing. Why should something equally dangerous, if not more so, not require the same type of respect and accountability?

Seriously... sane people, thank you. This is the first thread since the Conn. thing where I've seen gun owners stand up for the reasonable side of this debate. You are our only hope.


I'll repost what I said earlier:
What do we need to do? IMO, to start off, eliminate the gun show loopholes. Require background checks for all transfers. Impose mandatory waiting periods. Allow sellers to use the "eye test." If someone looks a bit iffy, don't sell to them and make them speak with law enforcement before processing their form 4473. Here in Illinois people biatch about having a firearms card that has to be renewed every 5 years (10, now I guess). I'm ok with something similar on the national level. Renew it every few years to ensure you haven't committed any felonies or been put in a nut house.

I'm fine with limiting magazine capacities to 10 rounds. I'm also good with requiring bullet buttons or something similar to make mag changes require a tool. I'm not ok with banning something just because of military style features like pistol grips, bayonet lugs, or flash hiders that do absolutely nothing to make the gun more dangerous.

I'm against banning internet sales of guns. I don't think people understand how that works. It's not like ordering a laptop and having it delivered to your front door. It's delivered from one federally licensed dealer to one in your local area, where you do paperwork just like if you'd found it there in the first place.

Ammunition is another can of worms. I could go either way on that. Perhaps if some sort of national gun card was issued, you could send a copy of that to get ammo shipped to your home. (Same thing that happens here in IL). I hate to see a limit on how much can be purchased at once though -- just because I'm a cheapskate and when I find a good price I'll buy quite a bit at once. Kind of like shopping at Costco.

It seems to me a few common sense things are a whole lot better than a kneejerk reaction of "ban everything I don't like or don't understand!"
 
2013-01-09 07:22:02 PM  

umad: whidbey: pmdgrwr: How are more gun laws going to be different.

Guns!=pot

Exactly. Prohibition will totally work this time. Black markets don't apply to things like guns, and stuff.


I , for one am more than happy to register my firearms so some newspaper can print my name, address, firearm owned and publish it online.
 
2013-01-09 07:22:05 PM  

MyRandomName: Lol. It is so farking hilarious our president is going to use an end around the legislative branch just to piss off some americans I hate lol. God damn bush was an asshole for it, but not obama. Lol.


Severe derangement detected

evoke: He was just biding his time until he could get away with it.


Are you suggesting that the President was waiting for a horrific school shooting to jumpstart his anti-gun agenda?
 
2013-01-09 07:22:23 PM  

o5iiawah: pmdgrwr: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: pmdgrwr: All this with laws against drug use. How are more gun laws going to be different.

Well for starters, it's hard to grow guns in your basement not really any body with the right tools and knowledge can make a gun just like anybody with the knowledge and tools can grow plants.

There's a science to everything. A hobbyist metal worker could easily make a firearm in his garage just as a basic chemist or someone who spent time dealing drugs can probably figure out a hydroponic or meth lab in his garage. Those intent on breaking the law will choose to do so.


It almost sounds like you're championing the gunsmith version of a meth lab.

Honestly, I would still rather have the rule of law where we as a society legally take a stand against dangerous weapons than your "honor system" which tends to pay off every now and then with a high-profile tragedy like Sandy Hook.
 
2013-01-09 07:24:07 PM  

here to help: You want a gun? You NEED a gun? Go through the proper channels. That is that.


And how does that deal with the fact that the people likely to commit a gun crime can easily obtain a gun without going through "the proper channels" and have every incentive to do exactly that?
 
2013-01-09 07:24:15 PM  

umad: here to help: Things cannot stay as they are. That is the only thing that is for sure.

Then have I got good news for you!

GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.
GUN CRIME HAS BEEN DECLINING FOR DECADES.

/wrote it multiple times so you just might get it through your thick skull


And why do you think that is? Regulations are more thoroughly enforced and the penalties for offenses are higher. Thick skull indeed.

Seriously, think more.
 
2013-01-09 07:24:49 PM  

here to help: You HAVE to shout them down.


Not on Fark I don't.
 
2013-01-09 07:25:37 PM  

FlashHarry: well, duh. refusing alcohol sales to minors = complete unavailability of alcohol in the united states!


And it's totally ended underage drinking too!
 
2013-01-09 07:25:48 PM  

EatenTheSun: here to help: You want a gun? You NEED a gun? Go through the proper channels. That is that.

I already did. Now why do you want to take them away?


Nobody wants to take your guns. Nobody of any merit or in any position of power, that is.
 
2013-01-09 07:25:53 PM  

TomD9938: Also, how many of those gun murders were gang bangers popping each other? Because no one gives a fark about them.


You are a horrible human being - thats psychotic! i would support a gun ban just to spite you, dude.
 
2013-01-09 07:25:57 PM  

EatenTheSun: here to help: You want a gun? You NEED a gun? Go through the proper channels. That is that.

I already did. Now why do you want to take them away?


I don't. Good for you. Now keep the f*ckers locked up when not in use.
 
2013-01-09 07:26:19 PM  

GoldSpider: here to help: You want a gun? You NEED a gun? Go through the proper channels. That is that.

And how does that deal with the fact that the people likely to commit a gun crime can easily obtain a gun without going through "the proper channels" and have every incentive to do exactly that?


Doesn't help that the US is the biggest manufacturer of guns on the planet.
 
2013-01-09 07:26:30 PM  

ThreadSinger: ThreadSinger: I might regret jumping into this without a suitable retard-fireant suit [...]

Dammit, fire-retardant. Dyslexics of the world, untie!.


It worked perfectly well the first time as well. Especially in these threads.
 
2013-01-09 07:27:00 PM  

GoldSpider: FlashHarry: well, duh. refusing alcohol sales to minors = complete unavailability of alcohol in the united states!

And it's totally ended underage drinking too!


no, but it curbs it.
 
2013-01-09 07:27:41 PM  

GoldSpider: FlashHarry: well, duh. refusing alcohol sales to minors = complete unavailability of alcohol in the united states!

And it's totally ended underage drinking too!


So you don't believe we should have a drinking age either?
 
2013-01-09 07:27:43 PM  

GoldSpider: here to help: You want a gun? You NEED a gun? Go through the proper channels. That is that.

And how does that deal with the fact that the people likely to commit a gun crime can easily obtain a gun without going through "the proper channels" and have every incentive to do exactly that?


*ahem*

derpderpderp
 
2013-01-09 07:27:45 PM  

DORMAMU: here to help: DORMAMU: To play devil's advocate here:

Replace alcohol in your statement with guns and it works the other way.

You may use alcohol safely in a way that affect you only that is legal. So can a firearm owner.

Firearm are used illegally/improperly and people are hurt. Same with alcohol. Family damage, people with multiple dui's and dui accidents on there records. Alcohol use affected many lives of those who had no say in the situation.

Safe(r), legal & responsible use is fine. There are INDIVIDUALS who choose to use them in other manners.

If you can use alcohol where it only affects you, why can't another do the same of firearms?

/end devil's advocate

And those who abuse alcohol in a way that physically impacts others should have that right stripped away and get locked up in rehab and if they cannot stop hurting others because of it be removed from society permanently.

Same sh*t. Having a ridiculous amount of firearms laying around is as irresponsible as driving drunk.

I got no problem with responsible gun ownership and reasonable weapons. The laws being suggested not only recently but for YEARS are not about that. It's about getting... sh*t... under... freaking... control.

Keep a revolver. Keep some hunting weapons. Get licensed. Register them. Take courses. It's not a big freaking deal.

Forgot this -

What do you consider a ridiculous amount of firearms? Genuinely curious.

I will be driving for about 45 minutes, but wil be back.


That's an interesting question.  I just counted, and (after inheriting my father's collection of antique and near-antique guns), I have 13 guns.  I have actually fired 7 of them (the others are 1800s percussion cap weapons or early 1900's shotguns, and I am not comfortable firing them at all for safety reasons).
So of the guns I own that I have actually fired:  Four of them are .22 caliber rifles.  A slide action, a bolt action, and two semiauto.  I also have three revolvers, two chambered in .38 and one in .357.  I have been shooting these caliber weapons since I was about 8 years old.  In high school I won several Police Explorer competitions. I have a concealed carry permit.  I have never pointed a gun at another human being.  I never want to.  I have never been arrested.  Keeping all that in mind:
Is that too many guns?  Which of them should I be forced to give up, and why?
I don't intend that to be a rhetorical question.  There are people in this thread who feel that people should be prevented, by law, from owning "too many" firearms.  So which of those should I permit the police to confiscate, and what is your rationale for that particular weapon or set of weapons being "too many" for me to own?
 
2013-01-09 07:28:42 PM  

here to help: You want a gun? You NEED a gun? Go through the proper channels. That is that.

 
I did. Now there is serious talk of regulation that would take a good portion of them away, even though I've done nothing wrong with them. Then when I raise questions about said regulations, the people advocating them throw their hands in the air and yell about how I'm unwilling to consider any solution.
 
2013-01-09 07:29:16 PM  

FlashHarry: no, but it curbs it.


Says you.

whidbey: Doesn't help that the US is the biggest manufacturer of guns on the planet.


So let's stop manufacturing guns. Supply drops, and both the price and incentive to illegally obtain one increases.
 
2013-01-09 07:29:49 PM  

nevirus: evoke: He was just biding his time until he could get away with it.

Are you suggesting that the President was waiting for a horrific school shooting to jumpstart his anti-gun agenda?


He was waiting for his second term. Either that, or a bunch of dead movie goers didn't sway him much.

/Feinstein has already stated she had been "looking at gun magazines" and readying her legislation for over a year.
 
2013-01-09 07:30:44 PM  

FlashHarry: GoldSpider: FlashHarry: well, duh. refusing alcohol sales to minors = complete unavailability of alcohol in the united states!

And it's totally ended underage drinking too!

no, but it curbs it.



There is also a theory that it leads to more teen alcohol abuse in the US. I remember hearing years ago that European nations with no restriction on youth drinking had less problems. That may be bullshiat, who knows?
 
2013-01-09 07:30:55 PM  

whidbey: So you don't believe we should have a drinking age either?


Europe seems to be doing fairly well without one.

here to help: *ahem*

derpderpderp


That must be what the "rational debate" you were looking for looks like.
 
2013-01-09 07:31:20 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: Doesn't help that the US is the biggest manufacturer of guns on the planet.

So let's stop manufacturing guns. Supply drops, and both the price and incentive to illegally obtain one increases.


Just saying it's a huge conflict of interest. Part of the reason we have trouble enforcing gun laws is because so many guns have flooded the market because some amoral gun company wants to make money.
 
2013-01-09 07:31:31 PM  

you have pee hands: IMO the best bet is to (1) stop making these guys the #1 story in America for weeks. Focus on the victims, not the criminals with a walkthrough of how they did it, to cut down on copycats. (2) Have a better means of tracing guns so you can penalize people who provide guns to criminals and (3) reform the prison system so we stop making so many career criminals with no other prospects out of marginally farked up 18 year olds.


I don't see how any of those policies would have prevented something like Newtown.

(3) The Newtown shooter didn't have a criminal record and wasn't a product of a criminal justice system; (2) the person who owned the guns wasn't providing them to criminals---and if the possibility of being killed by some psycho for your guns is not a deterrent, an extra penalty after you die probably won't make a difference; (1) this kid was some kind of schizo with a morbid obsession with that school, not an attention whore or a copycat.

The only thing that really would have stopped Newtown is if the killer's mom had gravitated to some other hobby. For whatever reason, collecting and shooting assault rifles is really in right now, so that's what she got into.
 
2013-01-09 07:32:13 PM  

here to help: GoldSpider: here to help: You want a gun? You NEED a gun? Go through the proper channels. That is that.

And how does that deal with the fact that the people likely to commit a gun crime can easily obtain a gun without going through "the proper channels" and have every incentive to do exactly that?

*ahem*

derpderpderp


See, this is why you can't have a reasonable discussion. When someone raises a reasonable issue with your suggestion, instead of replying with a reasonable reply you just respond with 'derpderpderp'. But yeah, it's the other side that is unwilling to have a calm, rational talk about the issues, not you. Have you considered that there are people out there willing to talk, just not to you?
 
2013-01-09 07:32:46 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: here to help: You want a gun? You NEED a gun? Go through the proper channels. That is that.

I did. Now there is serious talk of regulation that would take a good portion of them away, even though I've done nothing wrong with them. Then when I raise questions about said regulations, the people advocating them throw their hands in the air and yell about how I'm unwilling to consider any solution.


You mean you just don't care for the solution--that you would not be able to own or shoot military-grade weaponry.
 
2013-01-09 07:33:22 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: here to help: You want a gun? You NEED a gun? Go through the proper channels. That is that.

I did. Now there is serious talk of regulation that would take a good portion of them away, even though I've done nothing wrong with them. Then when I raise questions about said regulations, the people advocating them throw their hands in the air and yell about how I'm unwilling to consider any solution.


IMO you should be able to get by with one or two revolvers, a shotgun and couple hunting rifles. If you need more than that I have no sympathy... because you don't.
 
2013-01-09 07:34:41 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-09 07:35:44 PM  

Xcott: you have pee hands: IMO the best bet is to (1) stop making these guys the #1 story in America for weeks. Focus on the victims, not the criminals with a walkthrough of how they did it, to cut down on copycats. (2) Have a better means of tracing guns so you can penalize people who provide guns to criminals and (3) reform the prison system so we stop making so many career criminals with no other prospects out of marginally farked up 18 year olds.

I don't see how any of those policies would have prevented something like Newtown.

(3) The Newtown shooter didn't have a criminal record and wasn't a product of a criminal justice system; (2) the person who owned the guns wasn't providing them to criminals---and if the possibility of being killed by some psycho for your guns is not a deterrent, an extra penalty after you die probably won't make a difference; (1) this kid was some kind of schizo with a morbid obsession with that school, not an attention whore or a copycat.

The only thing that really would have stopped Newtown is if the killer's mom had gravitated to some other hobby. For whatever reason, collecting and shooting assault rifles is really in right now, so that's what she got into.


Had Ms. Lanza properly secured her firearms to prevent access by an individual whom she knew to be violent and mentally unstable, the incident may have been averted without any alteration in her hobbies.
 
2013-01-09 07:36:05 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: See, this is why you can't have a reasonable discussion. When someone raises a reasonable issue with your suggestion, instead of replying with a reasonable reply you just respond with 'derpderpderp'. But yeah, it's the other side that is unwilling to have a calm, rational talk about the issues, not you. Have you considered that there are people out there willing to talk, just not to you?


It was a hack attempt at justifying his ridiculous stance which I have addressed multiple times in this thread already. I will talk to you because as argumentative as you are you are intelligent. I do not respond to talking points ripped directly from NRA propaganda and Fox news headlines.
 
2013-01-09 07:36:41 PM  

whidbey: Noticeably F.A.T.: here to help: You want a gun? You NEED a gun? Go through the proper channels. That is that.

I did. Now there is serious talk of regulation that would take a good portion of them away, even though I've done nothing wrong with them. Then when I raise questions about said regulations, the people advocating them throw their hands in the air and yell about how I'm unwilling to consider any solution.

You mean you just don't care for the solution--that you would not be able to own or shoot military-grade weaponry.


Claiming a semi-automatic .223 caliber rifle to be "military-grade" due to the presence of a pistol grip is dishonest.
 
2013-01-09 07:36:43 PM  

GoldSpider: So let's stop manufacturing guns. Supply drops,


Does it? I mean, yeah, it will in the short term. But just as soon as manufacturing plants fire up in Mexico (possibly run by the guys you just ran out of business in the US) the supply is going to go right back up. Only now you've guaranteed that the guns are going into only the hands of criminals (either the criminals who want to hurt other people, or the folks you have turned into criminals by taking the stuff they want bad enough to obtain it illegally). Pretty neat trick.
 
2013-01-09 07:37:05 PM  

whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: Doesn't help that the US is the biggest manufacturer of guns on the planet.

So let's stop manufacturing guns. Supply drops, and both the price and incentive to illegally obtain one increases.

Just saying it's a huge conflict of interest. Part of the reason we have trouble enforcing gun laws is because so many guns have flooded the market because some amoral gun company wants to make money.


Let's legislate morality.


You sound like a birther.
 
2013-01-09 07:37:38 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: here to help: GoldSpider: here to help: You want a gun? You NEED a gun? Go through the proper channels. That is that.

And how does that deal with the fact that the people likely to commit a gun crime can easily obtain a gun without going through "the proper channels" and have every incentive to do exactly that?

*ahem*

derpderpderp

See, this is why you can't have a reasonable discussion. When someone raises a reasonable issue with your suggestion, instead of replying with a reasonable reply you just respond with 'derpderpderp'. But yeah, it's the other side that is unwilling to have a calm, rational talk about the issues, not you. Have you considered that there are people out there willing to talk, just not to you?


Reasonable replies don't get any attention, except the trolls who like to bring up genitalia size.
 
2013-01-09 07:37:51 PM  

MyRandomName: It is so farking hilarious our president is going to use an end around the legislative branch


I didn't realize an executive order to strictly enforce laws already on the books was an "end run" around the branch that passed those laws.

TMYK
~~~*
 
2013-01-09 07:38:06 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: here to help: GoldSpider: here to help: You want a gun? You NEED a gun? Go through the proper channels. That is that.

And how does that deal with the fact that the people likely to commit a gun crime can easily obtain a gun without going through "the proper channels" and have every incentive to do exactly that?

*ahem*

derpderpderp

See, this is why you can't have a reasonable discussion. When someone raises a reasonable issue with your suggestion, instead of replying with a reasonable reply you just respond with 'derpderpderp'. But yeah, it's the other side that is unwilling to have a calm, rational talk about the issues, not you. Have you considered that there are people out there willing to talk, just not to you?


your question

Noticeably F.A.T.: here to help: GoldSpider: here to help: You want a gun? You NEED a gun? Go through the proper channels. That is that.

And how does that deal with the fact that the people likely to commit a gun crime can easily obtain a gun without going through "the proper channels" and have every incentive to do exactly that?

*ahem*

derpderpderp

See, this is why you can't have a reasonable discussion. When someone raises a reasonable issue with your suggestion, instead of replying with a reasonable reply you just respond with 'derpderpderp'. But yeah, it's the other side that is unwilling to have a calm, rational talk about the issues, not you. Have you considered that there are people out there willing to talk, just not to you?


Dude your question was NOT reasonable! you are positing that its bad to regulate guns because it's still possible for a criminal to get them - that's like saying it's not worth putting out a house-fire cause half the house is already gone.. "might as well let it burn!"

your answer was derpy. and I expect you know that.
 
2013-01-09 07:38:08 PM  

duffblue: Let's legislate morality.


You mean pass laws?

Because that's what laws are.

Tell me you didn't know that already, and you were serious.
 
2013-01-09 07:38:09 PM  

here to help: Now keep the f*ckers locked up when not in use.


They are.

LasersHurt:

Nobody wants to take your guns. Nobody of any merit or in any position of power, that is.


"If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

But then again she also said "I believe the Patriot Act is vital to the protection of the American people."
 
2013-01-09 07:38:19 PM  

umad: Exactly. Prohibition will totally work this time. Black markets don't apply to things like guns, and stuff.


Do you honestly think the Newton shooter's mom would have bought guns on the black market?

I suspect instead that if it wasn't legal, she would have gotten into some other hobby.
 
2013-01-09 07:38:38 PM  

GoldSpider: Europe seems to be doing fairly well without one


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age#Europe

Come on, that took five seconds of googling.
 
Displayed 50 of 1330 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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