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
    More: Interesting, assault weapons, Biden, presidential executive order, for sale by owner, force of law, semi-automatic rifle  
•       •       •

11869 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2013 at 4:52 PM (3 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 | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-09 07:39:03 PM  

DORMAMU: Insatiable Jesus: HeWhoHasNoName: Insatiable Jesus: HeWhoHasNoName: I've put 20 hits on 10 targets with three reloads in less than a 90 seconds.

[ih1.redbubble.net image 413x550]

All I'm pointing out is that the ability to put a lot of rounds on target quickly isn't unique to magazine-fed "assault weapons"... and in fact a 100+ year old bolt action rifle is easily capable of it. Which cleanly undermines the fallacious argument that "assault weapons" are somehow significantly more deadly in that regard. They're not, and it's a clear sign of ignorance about the subject matter to claim so.

Then again, I can tell you're not actually interested in rational, calm discourse.

If you're trying to make the argument that bolt action is as deadly as a semi-auto, you are something else. Ridiculous on its face.

I think he was.leaning towards the: "mag fed semi autos are more lethal then bolt action, but not as much as is claimed."

Another (sad) way to look at it is assume the latest shooting, the perp only had a bolt action. Would it be a mass (child) casuality event, given a similar time frame? Another minute worth of shooting before police arrived (i dont know the response time in this incident)?

The moses lake frontier jr high shooting in the mid 90's was done with a bolt action rifle if memory serves. on mobile or would post link.

/grew up in moses lake general area and in high school when it happenef.


Any kind of closed environment - like a school - that a lunatic enters with some kind of weapon is going to result in a mass casualty event. The weapon is irrelevant. The problem is two factors - having a sizable population of the the violently insane roaming free in our society because of the disgraceful state of our mental health system, and creating what are basically enclosed hunting preserves for such people by prohibiting legally armed citizens and then obliviously assuming a police officer 6 minutes away can get between your child and a psychopath before any harm occurs.

When we drive somewhere, the intelligent among us wear seatbelts - we don't ignore them, ban airbags (which can save you but occasionally do more harm than good), and then count on a futuristic trauma center to put us back together after we're turned to hamburger by a drunk driver.

When we live in a home, we take safety precautions. Even though they can burst or be used to bludgeon somebody, we don't ban fire extinguishers, remove all the smoke detectors from our home, and then count on the fire department four minutes away to find us and drag us out of a burning building.

Why is it perfectly acceptable - and expected - for responsible adults to prepare themselves, their homes, and their loved ones for unlikely but disastrous contingencies and accidents, but smeared as lunacy for them to prepare in any rational way for the unlikely yet disastrous event of being victimized by violent criminals or the violently insane?
 
2013-01-09 07:39:21 PM  

here to help: 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.


I gather, then, that you dispute the idea that a would-be murderer can easily obtain a gun outside of legal channels? If that's the case, you have no business participating in a "serious" discussion about gun violence.
 
2013-01-09 07:39:32 PM  

Dimensio: 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.


I don't know the reason for the distinction.

I do know that any semi-automatic could shoot up a school just as effectively as what happened in Sandy Hook. I question as to why we need them in our society.
 
2013-01-09 07:40:05 PM  

Theburner: Giltric: Theburner: Poor people buy AR's, rich people buy SCAR's.

Poor people buy Stags and DPMS....wealthy people buy Noveske and LaRue.

And crazies buy Bushmasters! ;)


Munchkins buy full-auto shotguns.
 
2013-01-09 07:40:05 PM  

here to help: 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.


Why does the number matter? Unless he's Vishnu, the number of guns he can fire at once is around one.

Who here has heard of limiting the number of cars a person can own in order to prevent speeding, or restricting the amount of beer someone can purchase in order to prevent alcohol poisoning?
 
2013-01-09 07:40:26 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Does it? I mean, yeah, it will in the short term.


I was humoring the premise, simplistic as it was. I made my point nonetheless.
 
2013-01-09 07:40:59 PM  

GoldSpider: here to help: 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.

I gather, then, that you dispute the idea that a would-be murderer can easily obtain a gun outside of legal channels? If that's the case, you have no business participating in a "serious" discussion about gun violence.


And you, I suppose, dispute that most of those crimes are ones of passion - easily avoidable if advanced weaponry has a legal, but entirely restrictive mode of acquisition. You are disingenuous.
 
2013-01-09 07:41:19 PM  

Dimensio: 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.


Yep, if she would have secured her guns, possibly gotten her kid some mental health (not like they were hurting for money and couldn't afford it). You know, things responsible people do...
 
2013-01-09 07:41:32 PM  

EatenTheSun: They are.


Excellent. See? No problems here. I don't want your damned guns. I just want to know they aren't gonna be used to hurt innocent people.
 
2013-01-09 07:41:53 PM  

Xcott: 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.


Alternatively, she may have purchased firearms that were not prohibited, and Mr. Lanza may have utilized those when committing murder.
 
2013-01-09 07:42:19 PM  

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


No one would pursue any type of legislation in the middle of campaign season. Remember, the Aurora shooting happened in July 2012. So... I guess I agree with your first point, disagree with your second.
 
2013-01-09 07:42:19 PM  

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


No, I don't care for the solution, but that's besides the fact that more than a few 'solutions' (Feinstien's being the most public at the moment) go well beyond 'military grade weaponry' (whatever the hell that is).

here to help: 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.


I can cause a hell of a lot of damage with all that. I have zero desire to do so, but by limiting me to those items you really haven't put much of a dent in my ability to hurt.

/What the hell is a 'hunting rifle' anyway? That's one term that's even more ambiguous than 'assault weapon'.
 
2013-01-09 07:43:38 PM  

whidbey: I don't know the reason for the distinction.


This right here is a huge part of the problem.
 
2013-01-09 07:43:43 PM  

EatenTheSun: 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."


I wasn't aware that anyone has proposed this. Because they have not. Someone just said it once.
 
2013-01-09 07:44:11 PM  

LookForTheArrow: And you, I suppose, dispute that most of those crimes are ones of passion - easily avoidable if advanced weaponry has a legal, but entirely restrictive mode of acquisition. You are disingenuous.


I dispute the idea that illegal acquisition of "advanced weaponry" (whatever the hell that is) would be affected by making legal acquisition more complex.
 
2013-01-09 07:44:47 PM  

LasersHurt: EatenTheSun: 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."

I wasn't aware that anyone has proposed this. Because they have not. Someone just said it once.


Senator Feinstein stated it, and in doing so she explicitly expressed a desire to "take" guns.
 
2013-01-09 07:45:05 PM  
www.freeimagehosting.net
 
2013-01-09 07:45:16 PM  

EatenTheSun: whidbey: I don't know the reason for the distinction.

This right here is a huge part of the problem.


How so? Why should I care about the specifics? And why couldn't they be hashed out when drafting a gun law?
 
2013-01-09 07:45:33 PM  

super_grass: Why does the number matter? Unless he's Vishnu, the number of guns he can fire at once is around one.

Who here has heard of limiting the number of cars a person can own in order to prevent speeding, or restricting the amount of beer someone can purchase in order to prevent alcohol poisoning?


*facepalm*

That's the point. He only needs what he needs. Anything above and beyond that is begging to end up in the wrong hands. And what if he has a psychotic break and decides to go all massacre-y? Well now he can't do quite as much damage.

God damn.
 
2013-01-09 07:45:46 PM  
Excellent fix for the problem. This'll quiet down the masses until they forget about it.

Now the pols can jump back into the pork barrel and fight over Important Issues.
 
2013-01-09 07:46:02 PM  

whidbey: 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.


define "Dangerous"

We're grownups. be specific about your arguments. And I didn't champion anything, rather I stated a reality.

whidbey: I question as to why we need them in our society


I could go through your house and find dozens of things that you dont "need"
Semi-automatic weapon technology is around 130 years old.
 
2013-01-09 07:46:17 PM  

GoldSpider: LookForTheArrow: And you, I suppose, dispute that most of those crimes are ones of passion - easily avoidable if advanced weaponry has a legal, but entirely restrictive mode of acquisition. You are disingenuous.

I dispute the idea that illegal acquisition of "advanced weaponry" (whatever the hell that is) would be affected by making legal acquisition more complex.


and that's why YOU have no business speaking about this. you're a selfish bastard whose arguments are made to back your DESIRE, not your LOGIC. you really aren't a mature participant in this discussion, your premise has a null value - nothing you've said clarifies or helps anything - you just have no idea what to do about violence, and it shows.

that's why you should leave it to people that do.
 
2013-01-09 07:46:19 PM  

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

No, I don't care for the solution, but that's besides the fact that more than a few 'solutions' (Feinstien's being the most public at the moment) go well beyond 'military grade weaponry' (whatever the hell that is).


Military-grade weaponry?

You really don't know what I mean by the term?
 
2013-01-09 07:46:21 PM  

GoldSpider: FlashHarry: no, but it curbs it.

Says you.


come on. you don't think that fewer kids drink because it's illegal compared to if it were perfectly legal for anyone to buy alcohol? give me a break.

sure, they'll still get it (god knows we did when i was in high school), but it's difficult. you have to find an adult to buy it for you or get a fake ID. it's not the same as just waltzing into the store an buying a 12-pack.
 
2013-01-09 07:46:21 PM  

tnpir: Jaws_Victim: tnpir: Jaws_Victim: Good. And when crazy pants people like that yelling dude on cnn decide to retaliate, we can put them away forever and make the world a better place.

So were you also waiting and hoping Piers Morgan would rear back and coldcock that motherfarker upside the head?

I would've liked him to call the man unhinged and ended with "Is this the kind of man you really want to own assault weapons?" but I draw the line at physical violence. I felt he held his own against a yelling maniac pretty well.

I used to draw such a line. I don't anymore. Some people simply need to have their face rearranged because reason fails.


It would've been so very sweet, but a liberal is intent on getting their point across in a dignified manner that is meant to respect all parties and Piers did that admirably. There was less Stiff upper lip than expected, and should have been given imo, but he presented a reasonable argument and the other man looked like a raving lunatic.
 
2013-01-09 07:46:56 PM  

here to help: That's the point. He only needs what he needs. Anything above and beyond that is begging to end up in the wrong hands.


It's as easy to leave one gun unsecured as it is ten. You aren't making any sense.
 
2013-01-09 07:47:03 PM  

o5iiawah: Semi-automatic weapon technology is around 130 years old.


Oh, well that makes it inherently less lethal.
 
2013-01-09 07:47:22 PM  

LookForTheArrow: 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.


One, it wasn't my question. Two, the question didn't posit that at all, it posited that a regulation that cannot stop a criminal from getting guns is bad. Any regulation that can't do what it's intended to do is bad.

super_grass: Unless he's Vishnu, the number of guns he can fire at once is around one.


Well, I just get excitable as to choice; like to have my options open.
 
2013-01-09 07:47:47 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: I question as to why we need them in our society

I could go through your house and find dozens of things that you dont "need"
Semi-automatic weapon technology is around 130 years old.


That same busted false analogy gets old, o5iiawah.

Why do we need automatic weapons in the hands of civilians?

Try to come up with a different response.
 
2013-01-09 07:47:51 PM  

Dimensio: 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.


You're a single mom living with a schizophrenic young adult. How do you "properly secure" your firearms?

Couldn't he just overpower you when you open the gun safe, or make you open it by physical force? And really, what are the odds that you're going to keep a teenager from spying the combination to anything?
 
2013-01-09 07:49:08 PM  

whidbey: Military-grade weaponry?

You really don't know what I mean by the term?


whidbey: How so? Why should I care about the specifics? And why couldn't they be hashed out when drafting a gun law?


Please go read a book about firearms. You're arguing for something you have absolutely no idea how to explain.
 
2013-01-09 07:49:22 PM  

LookForTheArrow: and that's why YOU have no business speaking about this. you're a selfish bastard whose arguments are made to back your DESIRE, not your LOGIC. you really aren't a mature participant in this discussion, your premise has a null value - nothing you've said clarifies or helps anything - you just have no idea what to do about violence, and it shows.

that's why you should leave it to people that do.


So you too believe it is difficult for a criminal to obtain a gun illegally. Disappointing but not surprising.
 
2013-01-09 07:50:06 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: I have zero desire to do so, but by limiting me to those items you really haven't put much of a dent in my ability to hurt.


Yes... yes I have. With a revolver you can't reload as quickly. With a regular shotgun or rifles you can't conceal them or again reload as quickly. You'd be taken down far more quickly and with less loss of life if you decide to go nuts with that stuff.

Also, if you can't take down an intruder in your home with that amount of firepower... well, you suck at guns and probably shouldn't have them in the first place.
 
2013-01-09 07:50:17 PM  

Xcott: Dimensio: 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.

You're a single mom living with a schizophrenic young adult. How do you "properly secure" your firearms?

Couldn't he just overpower you when you open the gun safe, or make you open it by physical force? And really, what are the odds that you're going to keep a teenager from spying the combination to anything?


It's also pretty challenging to stop somebody from breaking into a safe after they've murdered you. Neat trick if you can do it, though.

She was trying to have him committed. She knew he was beyond her capability to manage safely and was attempting to rectify that. If our mental health laws weren't a shameful shambles, she could have driven him straight to the nearest hospital and had him detained for observation and evaluation.
 
2013-01-09 07:50:25 PM  

whidbey: I don't know the reason for the distinction.


Lot's of people don't. The problem is, they are willing to to create regulations on something while staying ignorant on the subject. You don't understand something? Fine, I have no problem with that. You can't understand everything, nobody can. But don't turn around and say I'm being unreasonable when I try to explain why you are wrong.
 
2013-01-09 07:50:53 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: Military-grade weaponry?

You really don't know what I mean by the term?

whidbey: How so? Why should I care about the specifics? And why couldn't they be hashed out when drafting a gun law?

Please go read a book about firearms. You're arguing for something you have absolutely no idea how to explain.


This also is not a satisfactory response. I really do not care about splitting hairs.
 
2013-01-09 07:50:56 PM  

whidbey: EatenTheSun: whidbey: I don't know the reason for the distinction.

This right here is a huge part of the problem.

How so? Why should I care about the specifics?

If you lack an understanding of "specifics", then you cannot claim to know your proposals to be reasonable nor can you present any realistic expectation of effectiveness in accomplishing an intended goal.


And why couldn't they be hashed out when drafting a gun law?

Absolutely no lawmaker intent upon authoring legislation relating to firearm restriction is concerned with reality. Lawmakers opposed to "gun control" oppose any new regulation; lawmakers in support of of "gun control" desire total firearm class prohibitions (typically based upon arbitrary criteria entirely unrelated to the likelihood of a firearm's use or effectiveness in criminal acts) applicable to all citizens rather than measures intended to prevent potentially violent individuals from obtaining any firearm at all (including those not necessarily included in a class prohibition).

 
2013-01-09 07:51:31 PM  

whidbey: Why do we need automatic weapons in the hands of civilians?


What on God's green Earth are you blathering about now? Civilian ownership of automatic weapons is already all but illegal.
 
2013-01-09 07:51:31 PM  

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

No, I don't care for the solution, but that's besides the fact that more than a few 'solutions' (Feinstien's being the most public at the moment) go well beyond 'military grade weaponry' (whatever the hell that is).


GoldSpider:

(Feinstien's being the most public at the moment) go well beyond 'military grade weaponry' (whatever the hell that is).


OOPS looks like someone has an alt
 
2013-01-09 07:51:45 PM  

here to help: super_grass: Why does the number matter? Unless he's Vishnu, the number of guns he can fire at once is around one.

Who here has heard of limiting the number of cars a person can own in order to prevent speeding, or restricting the amount of beer someone can purchase in order to prevent alcohol poisoning?

*facepalm*

That's the point. He only needs what he needs. Anything above and beyond that is begging to end up in the wrong hands. And what if he has a psychotic break and decides to go all massacre-y? Well now he can't do quite as much damage.

God damn.


How does having more guns mean that it will end up in the wrong hands, do the extra guns grow legs and run into the homes of criminals? How would more than two or three guns make someone deadlier in a shooting? You do realize that real life isn't Call of Duty and guns shoot ammunition, not more guns, right?
 
2013-01-09 07:52:04 PM  

GoldSpider: here to help: That's the point. He only needs what he needs. Anything above and beyond that is begging to end up in the wrong hands.

It's as easy to leave one gun unsecured as it is ten. You aren't making any sense.


Well now you're just trolling. lol
 
2013-01-09 07:52:18 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: I don't know the reason for the distinction.

Lot's of people don't. The problem is, they are willing to to create regulations on something while staying ignorant on the subject. You don't understand something? Fine, I have no problem with that. You can't understand everything, nobody can. But don't turn around and say I'm being unreasonable when I try to explain why you are wrong.


How am I "wrong," exactly? We're still talking about a weapon that can cause a lot of destruction.
 
2013-01-09 07:52:24 PM  

Dimensio: Senator Feinstein stated it, and in doing so she explicitly expressed a desire to "take" guns.


And after saying it, was it ever put in writing and brought to any level of the Congress? No, it was not. She just said it.
 
2013-01-09 07:52:25 PM  

AbbeySomeone: I can understand rifles and pistols but why do people need the big weaponry ie, assault rifles, etc?


Because it's their god-given right as Americans, gosh darn it! It's the most important right, more important than the freedom of speech!

/IMO, there is no reason.
 
2013-01-09 07:52:54 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: o5iiawah: Semi-automatic weapon technology is around 130 years old.

Oh, well that makes it inherently less lethal.


My guess is that he's trying to say the technology has been here for a long time, so why is it just now becoming a problem that makes it something that needs to be banned?
 
2013-01-09 07:52:57 PM  

whidbey: Why do we need automatic weapons in the hands of civilians?


We dont have automatic weapons in the hands of civilians.
 
2013-01-09 07:53:32 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: Why do we need automatic weapons in the hands of civilians?

What on God's green Earth are you blathering about now? Civilian ownership of automatic weapons is already all but illegal.


Apparently not. Else we wouldn't be wasting huge amounts of posts on this bullshiat.
 
2013-01-09 07:54:27 PM  
Remember folks.

More guns /= more guns

More guns = MORE FUNS!
 
2013-01-09 07:54:28 PM  

Government Fromage: cameroncrazy1984: o5iiawah: Semi-automatic weapon technology is around 130 years old.

Oh, well that makes it inherently less lethal.

My guess is that he's trying to say the technology has been here for a long time, so why is it just now becoming a problem that makes it something that needs to be banned?


Changes in culture? Lowered tolerance for mass shootings?
 
2013-01-09 07:55:11 PM  

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

No, I don't care for the solution, but that's besides the fact that more than a few 'solutions' (Feinstien's being the most public at the moment) go well beyond 'military grade weaponry' (whatever the hell that is).

Military-grade weaponry?

You really don't know what I mean by the term?


The AR-15, the Mosin Nagant, the M1 Carbine, the M1 Garand, the M1911 handgun and the Colt Single Action Army firearm models are all potentially "military-grade weaponry", depending upon the way that the term is defined.
 
Displayed 50 of 1330 comments

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | 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