FARK.com: (7528664) "The gun lobby also says people need to be able to protect their property. But every mass shooting is done by guys who live with their mother. So I believe you should need to have a mortgage to buy a gun"

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.

		"The gun lobby also says people need to be able to protect their property. But every mass shooting is done by guys who live with their mother. So I believe you should need to have a mortgage to buy a gun" (politico.com)		18
		More: Amusing, gun rights, mass shooting, gun controls, mortgages, Television Critics Association

• • •

1769 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jan 2013 at 3:41 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7528664

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

Voting Results (Smartest)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh voting results (Smartest or Funniest) or Return to comments

Carn		2013-01-10 04:15:52 PM

3 votes:

Prank Call of Cthulhu		2013-01-10 04:00:32 PM

3 votes:

Based on the comments to TFA, and in this thread, there's a rather interesting correlation between lacking a sense of humor and fetishizing guns.

A Dark Evil Omen		2013-01-10 04:08:00 PM

2 votes:

paygun: Carn: So my idea is ok then because the violent maniacs were already violent maniacs and it doesn't matter if they're violent maniacs with guns or not. I'm sticking to it and I'm adding rocket launchers, nerve toxin, and anti-personnel mines.

Well, I take a pro-choice approach to gun ownership. I know there are lots of abstinence-only people out there but what can you do.

Once again, the worst enemy of vocal gun advocates is vocal gun advocates.

TwistedFark		2013-01-11 02:04:30 AM

1 votes:

I always thought that the best thing to do was to have a strict literalist interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

You see, the 2nd amendment doesn't guarentee the right to keep multiple arms, does it? Since we know that most guns crimes are comitted with stolen weapons, it seems that the solution here is simple -

1) You can own 1 gun of any make/model/type. Go crazy. It's your right.
2) If you want another one, or a different one, you have to turn the old one in.
3) If you lose your gun, that's it - you can't have any more. You should keep better watch on them.
4) If a gun is used in the comission of a crime, it's confiscated and destroyed. If it's stolen, then the owner doesn't get it back and is not given a waiver to purchase a new gun. He lost his. Too bad.

I can guarentee you that this will curb gun violence significantly.

netweavr		2013-01-10 07:11:51 PM

1 votes:

DoctorCal: netweavr: If they ban guns someone's just going to invent a better weapon. Maybe a phasor or sonic screwdriver...

Maybe we SHOULD ban cars. Only then will we get our flying car!

That or kickass public transportation.

Personally, I'd go for the flying cars.

paygun		2013-01-10 04:51:15 PM

1 votes:

omgbears: Also can we charge firearms owners whose guns are used in mass shootings with manslaughter?

We should do the same thing if you sell a computer and then it turns out to be used for downloading child porn.

netweavr		2013-01-10 04:46:31 PM

1 votes:

If they ban guns someone's just going to invent a better weapon. Maybe a phasor or sonic screwdriver...

mrshowrules		2013-01-10 04:25:42 PM

1 votes:

paygun: mrshowrules: A gun retailer accepts no risk but profits from selling a gun to what looks like Charles Manson who doesn't even tell you what he will use it for. As long as he follows the lame background check process, he is completely protected from liability.

I would change the law so a gun retailer has to exercise due diligence in selling a weapon (over and above required processes) to ensure that a weapon sold to a customer will be used safely and in a lawful way.

Let the civil courts determine what "due diligence" when they are sued for selling a gun used in a shooting spree. Let the retailer sell based on this risk and buy liability insurance to cover their ass. Let the liability insurance tell retailers what they need to do to keep their premiums low as a operational expenses. I lot less nut-jobs will be getting firearms. That is the law I would pass if I could.

But let's not do the same for a car lot that sells a car to someone who drives drunk. Right? What about the liquor store?

I'm OK with a State performing a thorough background check and accepting liability as certifying someone as sane and part of a well regulated militia and issue a militia card etc... That would be fine in my books. If you could show the State did not exercise due diligence and should have know this citizen was a danger, they can be sued. Put the responsibility on someone to at least take reasonable steps to ensure insane people don't get guns.

Saying, if he isn't in the crazy book, you can sell him a gun is ridiculous. That's like letting a man adopt a child for no other reason than he isn't already a registered sex offender.

the_geek		2013-01-10 04:25:08 PM

1 votes:

Carn: So my idea is ok then because the violent maniacs were already violent maniacs and it doesn't matter if they're violent maniacs with guns or not. I'm sticking to it and I'm adding rocket launchers, nerve toxin, and anti-personnel mines.

I'm not seriously suggesting it but I do occasionally imagine a world in which all adults without a criminal history were issued some equivalent of a Smith and Wesson J frame .38 and 5 rounds of +P hollowpoint upon reaching the age of 30. That age is chosen because it gets you just beyond the curve of where most of the violence and crime occurs, greatly reduces hot-headedness, etc. No safety courses, no training, just issue one to everyone. Maybe there's a youtube video on basic maintenance and operation. I think the social impacts would be interesting to study. I'm sure it would have both positive and negative impacts. It's a shame this isn't like a game where you can do this stuff and then erase and start over. It's real people's lives.

mrshowrules		2013-01-10 04:10:54 PM

1 votes:

CPennypacker: ok that stupid

I think it is very smart. The analogy is satire but the point is simple in brilliant.

Require a true background check (like a mortgage) versus checking a mental health database that no one uses before giving a gun. It is what I've been saying all along in may threads.

Let's say a bank had to give you a mortgage unless you were in database where another had decided to go on record as you being a deadbeat. That would be stupid.

A real mortgage requires the banker to take exercise due diligence (background check and verify what the mortgage is for) and accept a certain amount of risk before giving you a mortgage.

A gun retailer accepts no risk but profits from selling a gun to what looks like Charles Manson who doesn't even tell you what he will use it for. As long as he follows the lame background check process, he is completely protected from liability.

I would change the law so a gun retailer has to exercise due diligence in selling a weapon (over and above required processes) to ensure that a weapon sold to a customer will be used safely and in a lawful way.

Let the civil courts determine what "due diligence" when they are sued for selling a gun used in a shooting spree. Let the retailer sell based on this risk and buy liability insurance to cover their ass. Let the liability insurance tell retailers what they need to do to keep their premiums low as a operational expenses. I lot less nut-jobs will be getting firearms. That is the law I would pass if I could.

give me doughnuts		2013-01-10 04:09:12 PM

1 votes:

Sounds reasonable.
How about we change the voting standards to something just as reasonable: Male, white, property-owner, and over 25.

It's what the Founders wanted.

[cryingeagle.jpg]

please		2013-01-10 04:05:24 PM

1 votes:

Frozboz: And how exactly would this have stopped the Sandy Hook shootings?

None of the solutions that will eventually be implemented will prevent another tragedy, but they'll have gotten their stab at gun owners in, which is all they want. In that respect, Sandy Hook was a good thing for them.

Carn		2013-01-10 03:59:39 PM

1 votes:

The solution is more guns so actually we should make the government hand out guns and grenades to everyone. We should also encourage everyone to hate and distrust each other and shoot first and ask questions later. Your neighbor is your enemy; you must fear him.

tricycleracer		2013-01-10 03:54:56 PM

1 votes:

for good or for awesome: How about if it's only for white males as well?

Can you buy 3/5ths of a gun? Would that just be like a revolver with a couple chambers blanked out?

for good or for awesome		2013-01-10 03:52:49 PM

1 votes:

How about if it's only for white males as well?

jigger		2013-01-10 03:47:47 PM

1 votes:

fark you, renter.

Jim_Callahan		2013-01-10 03:47:14 PM

1 votes:

When you're down to writing about the not-even-slightly-serious filler bits of a stand-up comedian, maybe it's time to accept that everything that's been said about an issue has been said, thrice, and wait until something new actually happens relevant to the issue?

Like, say, how about we don't hear about this anymore until another bill is proposed, and by proposed I mean actually put up for consideration by a national house of congress, not mentioned offhand as a potential issue over a congressman's third lunch martini.