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.

(LA Times)   Well, it's time to reset the "days until we can talk about gun control" counter back to zero again   (latimesblogs.latimes.com) divider line 741
    More: News, Kern County, Taft Union High School, gun controls, counters  
•       •       •

19278 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2013 at 2:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



741 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
 
2013-01-10 02:53:06 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: lordjupiter: So you really, really think that people just looking for a gun for home defense would be totally unable to get a gun, and the streets would be controlled by gun-toting criminals who are the only ones able to get guns, and nobody would ever think to buy or sell them to anyone but drug dealers and burglers?

Or is this an abuse of the word "criminal" in the "only criminals will have guns" chiasmus, meaning that people looking to defend themselves TECHNICALLY become "criminals" when they have guns in a gun-ban area, even though the clear meaning of "criminal" is different from those who they're seeking defense from?

Little of A, little of B.

My point was the guns you want to ban on a nationwide level (I'm making the assumption that since you mentioned personal defense you aren't out for everything) will still be available, but only to people willing to commit a crime to get them. That criminal is either someone who is otherwise law abiding (who you don't have to worry about having that gun), or someone who wants to use it to commit a crime. You haven't stopped the people you wanted to stop, you've only affected otherwise peaceful people. That sounds like a failure to me.


Your making an assumption, and it is flawed. That assumption is that the success rate of people trying to get guns for "bad reasons" will be too high (if not 100%) and the success rate of people trying to get guns for "good reasons" will be too low (close to 0%?).

Either way, it's a hypothetical that has no bearing on whether or not we should regulate weaponry at all. We already do. It's just a question of degrees.
 
2013-01-10 02:53:34 PM

Lexx: jigger: Lexx: How about a law that enforces biometric (ie grip) gun locks? Only YOU can shoot your gun

If the battery is good and the mechanism is reliable. Would you trust it during a home invasion?

Responsible gun ownership involves regular maintenance of your piece. Same principles apply.


Heavy steel mechanical mechanisms are able to be maintained and much less finicky than tiny electronic components. I wouldn't want to have to rely on any gun that wouldn't fire if the battery ran out or I had some shiat on my hands at the time.
 
2013-01-10 02:53:39 PM

Dimensio: Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: How about a law that enforces biometric (ie grip) gun locks? Only YOU can shoot your gun, and thus YOU may be held responsible if someone gets shot with your gun.

How would the three-hundred million firearms already owned by the public be addressed? How would "rental" firearms available at firearm ranges be addressed? Would law enforcement be required to use such firearms? Does such technology actually exist and, if so, is it reliable?

Existing guns: put a law requiring the bio-trigger lock, and registration of the buyer's print to sell/transfer ownership. Firearm ranges: are already legally responsible for their pieces, so that's not an issue. Law enforcement: not really an issue, cops already get in a world of hurt if they ever lose their gun anyway. Yes the technology exists, and yes it is reliable.

Benefits: protects your kids from being able to use the gun. Prevents thieves from being able to use the gun.

How would a firearm owning parent be able to instruct their children to use firearms?

Why would you exempt law enforcement from such a requirement? Even if a law enforcement agent is "in a world of hurt" following the loss of a firearm, the fact remains that a thief would have an unlocked firearm.

Please provide reference to demonstration of the technology's reliability.


Fingerprint scanners have been around for decades, do I really have to prove they're reliable?
 
2013-01-10 02:53:51 PM

Haliburton Cummings: GoldSpider: Haliburton Cummings: gunstoppable

Now that's a $100 band name right there.

gee thanks. I always thought if i had a band i would call it " Jimmy Gunnut and the ventilated fartknockers" but Gunstoppable is waaay better..

now if i could just find some imaginary musicians to go with my imaginary band....


Your imaginary band will go great with the imaginary supervillain that a bunch of guns would stop.
 
2013-01-10 02:54:19 PM

CynicalLA: cameroncrazy1984: The_Sponge: amquelbettamin: Just renewed.....ahhhhhh

"Thank you for joining the NRA. We appreciate your interest in protecting and preserving our Second Amendment rights and promoting safe, responsible gun ownership.

Your credit card will be billed for $35.00* for a 1 Year Membership in the National Rifle Association with "America's First Freedom" as your magazine choice."

I need to renew my membership....I let it slip a few months ago.

/Also going to join The Second Amendment Foundation.

Enjoy throwing your money away. As 2012 showed, the NRA is not viable as a political action committee anymore.

He's whines about taxes and throws money at organizations that spread misinformation. Typical.


Oh please, without the NRA you wouldn't even be able to buy any gun legally. (I'm assuming you have at least one gun in your house). You should thank the NRA for fighting for your rights
 
2013-01-10 02:54:20 PM

cameroncrazy1984: JonnyBGoode: Two people. I was hoping to hear one shot came from the gunman, the other from a citizen that returned fire.

Sorry, your fantasy will never come true.


poor robber
 
2013-01-10 02:54:21 PM

magic_patch: Clearly time to ban schools.


I think it's time to ban America.
 
2013-01-10 02:54:40 PM

kombat_unit: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: You mean it's time to try discussing the need for a decent revised set of gun regulation laws while being bullied by gun enthusiasts spouting a bunch of specs to muddy the discussion.

Yeah I believe I summed that one up correctly.

Yes, those evil gun owners with their 'facts' and 'statistics'. Why can't they argue from emotion and ignorance like reasonable people?

Spot on, Noticeably F.A.T. Wrecked that fool. Here is another piece of shiat that doesn't have time for facts we must not allow a timely and empathetic response to be sidetracked yet again by studies or reports.


First things first, we need to reinstate the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. In 1994, Congress first passed this law, banning high-capacity magazines and certain assault weapons. The ban did not take away the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, or prevent hunters and sportsman from continuing their traditions,



Yeah, one of history's greatest monsters.
 
2013-01-10 02:54:45 PM

Dynascape: Thats actually a pretty good idea.

Why dont all cars have a breath interlock device anyway? That shiat would cut drunk driving down

, spur innovation around systems that circumvent the interlock devices and create jobs in China for manufacturing those devices.

Fixed, but it still might be worth a shot.
 
2013-01-10 02:54:51 PM
American society just kind of sucks across the board.
 
2013-01-10 02:54:51 PM

whidbey: Which have nothing to do with this argument.


True, this is FARK after all.
 
2013-01-10 02:54:53 PM
GUNBELIEVABLE!
GUNHEARD OF!
GUNCANNY VALLEY!
GUNFORGETTABLE!


or more appropriately:
GUNACCOUNTABLE
 
2013-01-10 02:55:27 PM

CynicalLA: JonnyBGoode: Two people. I was hoping to hear one shot came from the gunman, the other from a citizen that returned fire.

Do you guys stroke your guns when you are having these fantasies?


It's not a fantasy. A totally legitimate and not at all suspect study from the 90s estimated that defensive gun use incidents happen almost 6850 time every day in the U.S.!

And it's not at all weird that that number ultimately winds up meaning that crime victims defend themselves with a gun more than 100% of the time!

Totally legit!
 
2013-01-10 02:55:51 PM

Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: How about a law that enforces biometric (ie grip) gun locks? Only YOU can shoot your gun, and thus YOU may be held responsible if someone gets shot with your gun.

How would the three-hundred million firearms already owned by the public be addressed? How would "rental" firearms available at firearm ranges be addressed? Would law enforcement be required to use such firearms? Does such technology actually exist and, if so, is it reliable?

Existing guns: put a law requiring the bio-trigger lock, and registration of the buyer's print to sell/transfer ownership. Firearm ranges: are already legally responsible for their pieces, so that's not an issue. Law enforcement: not really an issue, cops already get in a world of hurt if they ever lose their gun anyway. Yes the technology exists, and yes it is reliable.

Benefits: protects your kids from being able to use the gun. Prevents thieves from being able to use the gun.

How would a firearm owning parent be able to instruct their children to use firearms?

Why would you exempt law enforcement from such a requirement? Even if a law enforcement agent is "in a world of hurt" following the loss of a firearm, the fact remains that a thief would have an unlocked firearm.

Please provide reference to demonstration of the technology's reliability.

Fingerprint scanners have been around for decades, do I really have to prove they're reliable?


When attached to a firearm, which typically experiences mechanical stress substantially greater than many electronic devices, yes. Fingerprint scanners with which I have worked were often unreliable, sometimes failing to read an authorized user upon an initial scan and sometimes recognizing "false positive" scans which, under the system that you would propose, would result in a firearm owner being criminally liable even if they secured their firearm and it was subsequently stolen and misused.
 
2013-01-10 02:56:18 PM
Americans might as well just get used to mass shootings and attacks on schools, because sure as shiat no one down there will actually be able to agree on what to do, and so nothing will be done. I have absolute faith that in the another 20 years we'll still be reading about regular mass shooting events in the United States.
 
2013-01-10 02:56:40 PM

Haliburton Cummings: GUNBELIEVABLE!
GUNHEARD OF!
GUNCANNY VALLEY!
GUNFORGETTABLE!


or more appropriately:
GUNACCOUNTABLE


Yeah, that kid got off scott free.
 
2013-01-10 02:57:06 PM

whidbey: First things first, we need to reinstate the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. In 1994, Congress first passed this law, banning high-capacity magazines and certain assault weapons. The ban did not take away the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, or prevent hunters and sportsman from continuing their traditions,

Yeah, one of history's greatest monsters.


1) It was a shiatty law.  How come firearm deaths have gone down after the ban went away in 2004?

2) The Second Amendment has nothing to do with sportsmen or hunting.
 
2013-01-10 02:57:10 PM

Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: How about a law that enforces biometric (ie grip) gun locks? Only YOU can shoot your gun, and thus YOU may be held responsible if someone gets shot with your gun.

How would the three-hundred million firearms already owned by the public be addressed? How would "rental" firearms available at firearm ranges be addressed? Would law enforcement be required to use such firearms? Does such technology actually exist and, if so, is it reliable?

Existing guns: put a law requiring the bio-trigger lock, and registration of the buyer's print to sell/transfer ownership. Firearm ranges: are already legally responsible for their pieces, so that's not an issue. Law enforcement: not really an issue, cops already get in a world of hurt if they ever lose their gun anyway. Yes the technology exists, and yes it is reliable.

Benefits: protects your kids from being able to use the gun. Prevents thieves from being able to use the gun.

How would a firearm owning parent be able to instruct their children to use firearms?

Why would you exempt law enforcement from such a requirement? Even if a law enforcement agent is "in a world of hurt" following the loss of a firearm, the fact remains that a thief would have an unlocked firearm.

Please provide reference to demonstration of the technology's reliability.

Fingerprint scanners have been around for decades, do I really have to prove they're reliable?


When attached to a firearm, which typically experiences mechanical stress substantially greater than many electronic devices, yes. Fingerprint scanners with which I have worked were often unreliable, sometimes failing to read an authorized user upon an initial scan and sometimes recognizing "false positive" scans which, under the system that you would propose, would result in a firearm owner being criminally liable even if they secured their firearm and it was subsequently stolen and misused.

whidbey: kombat_unit: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: You mean it's time to try discussing the need for a decent revised set of gun regulation laws while being bullied by gun enthusiasts spouting a bunch of specs to muddy the discussion.

Yeah I believe I summed that one up correctly.

Yes, those evil gun owners with their 'facts' and 'statistics'. Why can't they argue from emotion and ignorance like reasonable people?

Spot on, Noticeably F.A.T. Wrecked that fool. Here is another piece of shiat that doesn't have time for facts we must not allow a timely and empathetic response to be sidetracked yet again by studies or reports.

First things first, we need to reinstate the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. In 1994, Congress first passed this law, banning high-capacity magazines and certain assault weapons. The ban did not take away the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, or prevent hunters and sportsman from continuing their traditions,

Yeah, one of history's greatest monsters.


Please describe the characteristics of an "assault weapon". Explain, rationally, why civilian access to such firearms should be prohibited entirely, and not merely further regulated.
 
2013-01-10 02:57:16 PM

Dimensio: Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: How about a law that enforces biometric (ie grip) gun locks? Only YOU can shoot your gun, and thus YOU may be held responsible if someone gets shot with your gun.

How would the three-hundred million firearms already owned by the public be addressed? How would "rental" firearms available at firearm ranges be addressed? Would law enforcement be required to use such firearms? Does such technology actually exist and, if so, is it reliable?

Existing guns: put a law requiring the bio-trigger lock, and registration of the buyer's print to sell/transfer ownership. Firearm ranges: are already legally responsible for their pieces, so that's not an issue. Law enforcement: not really an issue, cops already get in a world of hurt if they ever lose their gun anyway. Yes the technology exists, and yes it is reliable.

Benefits: protects your kids from being able to use the gun. Prevents thieves from being able to use the gun.

How would a firearm owning parent be able to instruct their children to use firearms?

Why would you exempt law enforcement from such a requirement? Even if a law enforcement agent is "in a world of hurt" following the loss of a firearm, the fact remains that a thief would have an unlocked firearm.

Please provide reference to demonstration of the technology's reliability.

Fingerprint scanners have been around for decades, do I really have to prove they're reliable?

When attached to a firearm, which typically experiences mechanical stress substantially greater than many electronic devices, yes. Fingerprint scanners with which I have worked were often unreliable, sometimes failing to read an authorized user upon an initial scan and sometimes recognizing "false positive" scans which, under the system that you would propose, would result in a firearm owner being criminally liable even if they secured their firearm and it was subsequently stolen and misused.


Oh, so the gun companies would have a little bit of a challenge engineering a weapon to be reliable? Boo Hoo. It's doable.
 
2013-01-10 02:57:24 PM

EyeballKid: Haliburton Cummings: GoldSpider: Haliburton Cummings: gunstoppable

Now that's a $100 band name right there.

gee thanks. I always thought if i had a band i would call it " Jimmy Gunnut and the ventilated fartknockers" but Gunstoppable is waaay better..

now if i could just find some imaginary musicians to go with my imaginary band....

Your imaginary band will go great with the imaginary supervillain that a bunch of guns would stop.


they could be a crime fighting band of gun toting nutbars singing ted nugent songs about sweet home Guntucky!

i have the first song title!

"get your greasy bullet ridden child off my gun collection you commie!"

nugent..always sounded like what's left after you clean up horseshiat
 
2013-01-10 02:58:13 PM

jigger: Haliburton Cummings: GUNBELIEVABLE!
GUNHEARD OF!
GUNCANNY VALLEY!
GUNFORGETTABLE!


or more appropriately:
GUNACCOUNTABLE

Yeah, that kid got off scott free.


Scott Free sure gets a lot of sex...
 
2013-01-10 02:58:33 PM
There's too many people already. Go guns!
 
2013-01-10 02:58:36 PM

whidbey: First things first, we need to reinstate the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. In 1994, Congress first passed this law, banning high-capacity magazines and certain assault weapons. The ban did not take away the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, or prevent hunters and sportsman from continuing their traditions,

Yeah, one of history's greatest monsters.


There's another thing the AWB didn't do.

Anything.
 
2013-01-10 02:58:43 PM

Cuyose: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Cuyose: Uh, that's exactly how prioritization works.

Only if you're stupid.

Give me your definition of priority then, genius.


pri·or·i·ty
/prīˈôrətē/
Noun

A thing that is regarded as more important than another.
The fact or condition of being regarded or treated as more important.

Synonyms
precedence - preference - precedency - primacy


Or did you mean to ask me to explain to you the process by which competent people choose their priorities, which is what we were talking about before you suddenly decided you also don't know how to use Google?
 
2013-01-10 02:58:58 PM

WhippingBoy: magic_patch: Clearly time to ban schools.

I think it's time to ban America.


THIS
 
2013-01-10 02:59:01 PM
Dammit so much. I went to TUHS, class of 2010. I have a friend that was on his way to tutor this morning when he got the news. I know everyone says it, but you really do never expect it to happen to your town. Especially these really small towns where everyone knows each other. Talk to your Congressmen: if you want more guards everywhere (even though TUHS has an on site PO), make him issue a bill. If you want more restrictions on handguns, get on the phones. The worst thing we can do is keep things as is, unless we think this is an acceptable amount of shootings.
 
2013-01-10 02:59:06 PM

Lexx: Oh, so the gun companies would have a little bit of a challenge engineering a weapon to be reliable? Boo Hoo. It's doable.


Then you should be able to demonstrate that such a mandate is "doable". Please do so. Additionally, please explain why law enforcement agencies should be exempted from the restriction that you recommend.
 
2013-01-10 02:59:17 PM

chuckufarlie: Some fire arms have other purposes, but semi and fully automatic rifles do not. They have one purpose and that is to a lot of kill people in a hurry.


That's demonstrably false. Semi-automatic firearms have plenty of non-murdery uses and are frequently used all over the country for perfectly legitimate reasons including recreational target shooting, sport shooting, competitions, and hunting to name but a few. Semi-automatic firearms are the single most popular type of firearm sold in the country and sales continue to increase year-over-year, yet gun-related homicides has been decreasing year-over-year for a while now and is at or near all-time lows. If they could only be used for killing and nothing else those stats would probably look a wee bit different, don't you think?

There's a few hundred thousand perfectly legal full-auto firearms in civilian hands right now and they haven't been used to commit a single crime in decades.

Alcohol has other purposes beyond getting inebriated. In moderation, it can be harmless. People enjoy talking over a drink or two.

Semi-auto firearms has other purposes beyond killing people. Most commonly, they're used for harmless pastimes though, like alcohol, they are occasionally abused by people who violate the law.
 
2013-01-10 03:00:06 PM
Shooting in California? Homo with a Shotgun.
 
2013-01-10 03:00:12 PM

SFSailor: Let's put a nationwide tax on all gun-, ammunition- and gun-related items (hearing protection... targets... cases... stupid stickers for your truck... etc). Starts at 5%.


when guns are the actual cause of mental illness, then I might have more sympathy for you.
 
2013-01-10 03:00:48 PM

Lexx: Oh, so the gun companies would have a little bit of a challenge engineering a weapon to be reliable? Boo Hoo. It's doable.


Then you should be able to demonstrate that such a mandate is "doable". Please do so. Additionally, please explain why law enforcement agencies should be exempted from the restriction that you recommend.

heypete: chuckufarlie: Some fire arms have other purposes, but semi and fully automatic rifles do not. They have one purpose and that is to a lot of kill people in a hurry.

That's demonstrably false. Semi-automatic firearms have plenty of non-murdery uses and are frequently used all over the country for perfectly legitimate reasons including recreational target shooting, sport shooting, competitions, and hunting to name but a few. Semi-automatic firearms are the single most popular type of firearm sold in the country and sales continue to increase year-over-year, yet gun-related homicides has been decreasing year-over-year for a while now and is at or near all-time lows. If they could only be used for killing and nothing else those stats would probably look a wee bit different, don't you think?

There's a few hundred thousand perfectly legal full-auto firearms in civilian hands right now and they haven't been used to commit a single crime in decades.

Alcohol has other purposes beyond getting inebriated. In moderation, it can be harmless. People enjoy talking over a drink or two.

Semi-auto firearms has other purposes beyond killing people. Most commonly, they're used for harmless pastimes though, like alcohol, they are occasionally abused by people who violate the law.


chuckufarlie has been informed previously that his assertion regarding semi-automatic firearms is false. As such, his continued repetition of the claim is a willful lie.
 
2013-01-10 03:01:14 PM

chuckufarlie: Some fire arms have other purposes, but semi and fully automatic rifles do not. They have one purpose and that is to a lot of kill people in a hurry. Why do you need to own a gun when its only purpose is to kill a lot of people in a short period of time?

Alcohol has other purposes beyond getting inebriated. In moderation, it can be harmless. People enjoy talking over a drink or two


Some people enjoy shooting a semi or fully automatic weapon. At a shooting range or private property, it is harmless. I thought already that the general public can not own a fully automatic rifle? You can modify an AR-15 sure, but there are already existing bans on certain weapons. I really don't see the harm nor the benefit of enacting a ban on these said weapons.
 
2013-01-10 03:01:17 PM
I wonder why these people never shoot up hospitals? Scores of helpless, immobile victims ripe for making national news. Couldn't have anything to do with the armed security there...
 
2013-01-10 03:01:38 PM

CthulhuCalling: SFSailor: Let's put a nationwide tax on all gun-, ammunition- and gun-related items (hearing protection... targets... cases... stupid stickers for your truck... etc). Starts at 5%.

when guns are the actual cause of mental illness, then I might have more sympathy for you.


weakest argument all thread.

100/100 princess internet dumbass award!
 
2013-01-10 03:02:00 PM
Also, fark the people in comments on the news links: http://i.imgur.com/NKUxk.jpg
 
2013-01-10 03:03:32 PM

Dimensio: Lexx: Oh, so the gun companies would have a little bit of a challenge engineering a weapon to be reliable? Boo Hoo. It's doable.

Then you should be able to demonstrate that such a mandate is "doable". Please do so. Additionally, please explain why law enforcement agencies should be exempted from the restriction that you recommend.


Because I have no problem with cops & military possessing more reliable weapons than civilians.
 
2013-01-10 03:03:56 PM
"Innocent people are being shot up because gun nuts have little weeners."

"Innocent people are being killed because too many guns are in the hands of criminals and not law abiding citizens.

No.

People are being blown to smithereens by the same thing that has brought misery, mayhem, poverty, death and destruction to mankind my means of every single technology, useful idea or tin god we've managed to cobble together. User application error. We keep using useful things to do terrible things with.
 
2013-01-10 03:04:01 PM

GoldSpider: whidbey: First things first, we need to reinstate the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. In 1994, Congress first passed this law, banning high-capacity magazines and certain assault weapons. The ban did not take away the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, or prevent hunters and sportsman from continuing their traditions,

Yeah, one of history's greatest monsters.

There's another thing the AWB didn't do.

Anything.


Actually, no, the AWB is a means of acknowledging that certain types of weapons do not belong in this society. And you're fooling yourself if you don't consider that it is a deterrent, that it has kept God knows how many potentially violent people from legally purchasing assault weapons.
 
2013-01-10 03:04:17 PM

Lexx: Aiyah. Following the news is getting to be emotionally damaging.


Thats why I stopped watching local news, where this shiat used to be seen. Not it goes global instantly.
 
2013-01-10 03:04:49 PM
upload.wikimedia.org
I'd say not. :(
 
2013-01-10 03:05:22 PM

Lexx: Dimensio: Lexx: Oh, so the gun companies would have a little bit of a challenge engineering a weapon to be reliable? Boo Hoo. It's doable.

Then you should be able to demonstrate that such a mandate is "doable". Please do so. Additionally, please explain why law enforcement agencies should be exempted from the restriction that you recommend.

Because I have no problem with cops & military possessing more reliable weapons than civilians.


I made no mention of military.

For what reason do you advocate allowing police officers access to firearms more reliable than those owned by civilians?
 
2013-01-10 03:05:26 PM
A fat, armed pedophile in a rent-a-cop uniform could have prevented this so easily too.

Unless he was on his smoke break, of course.
 
2013-01-10 03:05:35 PM
Was it a military style assault shotgun?
24.media.tumblr.com

With a high capacity ammo clip?
img.allzip.org
 
2013-01-10 03:06:09 PM

whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: First things first, we need to reinstate the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. In 1994, Congress first passed this law, banning high-capacity magazines and certain assault weapons. The ban did not take away the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, or prevent hunters and sportsman from continuing their traditions,

Yeah, one of history's greatest monsters.

There's another thing the AWB didn't do.

Anything.

Actually, no, the AWB is a means of acknowledging that certain types of weapons do not belong in this society. And you're fooling yourself if you don't consider that it is a deterrent, that it has kept God knows how many potentially violent people from legally purchasing assault weapons.


Please define an "assault weapon". Explain why firearms of such a nature "do not belong in this society", based upon the definition of "assault weapon".
 
2013-01-10 03:06:12 PM

the money is in the banana stand: I thought already that the general public can not own a fully automatic rifle?


The requirements for owning full-auto guns is pretty strict. The Wikipedia has a pretty decent overview of the requirements.

You can modify an AR-15 sure, but there are already existing bans on certain weapons.

While it's physically possible to modify an AR-15 (or pretty much any other common firearm) to fire full-auto, it's a non-trivial task and exceptionally illegal except in certain, rare situations (e.g. you're a licensed manufacturer producing machine guns for police/military sale). Modifying any gun to fire full-auto is a violation of a whole host of laws and carries, at minimum, a penalty of a $250,000 fine and 10 years in jail.
 
2013-01-10 03:06:31 PM

vpb: Private_Citizen: If all it takes to reset the counter is a new shooting, we'll never have a conversation on gun control.

I think that's the idea.

jigger: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Because he used a shotgun.

Maybe that's why he got two instead of 28.


See, here's where the capacity of a magazine is irrelevant. Whether a murderer goes into a building with 3- 30 rounds mags, or 10- 10 round mags because anything higher in capacity is illegal, he still can squeeze off as many rounds as he wants if there is nobody there to stop him. By the time the trusty police finally arrive to stop him, the same amount of damage has been done regardless of mag size. Magazine capacity doesn't matter if the shooter can fire at will unimpeded.

So yes, by all means focus on magazine capacity, since having armed guards already on the scene and monitoring who goes in and out would surely be no help at all.
 
2013-01-10 03:07:42 PM

whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: First things first, we need to reinstate the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. In 1994, Congress first passed this law, banning high-capacity magazines and certain assault weapons. The ban did not take away the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, or prevent hunters and sportsman from continuing their traditions,

Yeah, one of history's greatest monsters.

There's another thing the AWB didn't do.

Anything.

Actually, no, the AWB is a means of acknowledging that certain types of weapons do not belong in this society. And you're fooling yourself if you don't consider that it is a deterrent, that it has kept God knows how many potentially violent people from legally purchasing assault weapons.


Yeah...the Clinton ban did wonders for Columbine.

And on a lesser note, the fact that 25 round mags for Ruger 10/22s (used) were selling for $90 under that ban just show how stupid it was.
 
2013-01-10 03:07:44 PM

3StratMan: By the time the trusty police finally arrive to stop him, the same amount of damage has been done regardless of mag size


Well, except in this case where 2 died instead of 26 because he DIDN'T have an assault rifle with a high-capacity mag.
 
2013-01-10 03:08:17 PM

chuckufarlie: No, they only have one real purpose.


Your claim is a lie, and you are a liar for stating it.
 
2013-01-10 03:08:39 PM
Can we stop howling and poo flinging long enough to agree that the removal of ANY right from the bill of rights makes it easier for OTHER rights to be removed?

/ oh wait; the 4th amendment isn't worth the paper it is written on; it looks like the 2nd is next. What right after that? Maybe the 1st or 22nd?
 
Displayed 50 of 741 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 »






Report