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.

(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
    More: News, Kern County, Taft Union High School, gun controls, counters  
•       •       •

19310 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2013 at 2:04 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


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

 
2013-01-10 03:28:29 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: whidbey: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Case in point. Any concern brought up is disregarded as arguing "from emotion and ignorance."

Well, you refuse to listen to facts and stats, so what else is there?

You can spout all the facts you like. You continually miss the argument that is being made.

Again, I'm fine with reinstating the AWB. I see no issue in taking that step to acknowledging that we as a society condemn the use of such weaponry. It's called societal evolution.

Until your can demonstrate that an "assault weapons ban" is rationally justified, through demonstration based upon the actual characteristics of an "assault weapon", then your advocacy lacks any rational basis and your claims regarding "societal evolution" are intellectually dishonest.

Stop bullying, Dimensio. Address the point and stop with the personal attacks.


You have stated advocacy for an "assault weapons ban". I have requested rational justification for such a "ban", based upon the specific characteristics of an "assault weapon". If you can provide no such justification -- and you have not provided any thus far -- then my assessment of your advocacy as lacking rational justification is factual, and is not a "personal attack".
 
2013-01-10 03:28:42 PM  

chuckufarlie: You keep telling me that I am wrong but you have yet to provide anything that you can do with a semi-automatic rifle that you cannot do with a single shot rifle.


Moving the goalposts.

I never suggested that there was something that only semi-auto rifles can do that non-semi-auto rifles cannot. I'm simply saying that your claim that the only purpose for semi-auto rifles is for killing is false, because people use semi-auto rifles for plenty of non-killing-related uses every day.

There is nothing dishonorable in saying that a gun that was designed to kill people serves no other purpose.

I'm not saying your claim was dishonorable, I'm simply saying that it's wrong and demonstrably so: there are clearly uses of semi-automatic firearms that do not relate to killing.

You cannot use them for hunting unless you are a really bad hunter.

On the contrary, semi-automatic firearms are quite common in hunting and have been so for decades. The Browning BAR, for example, is quite commonly used by hunters, as is the Remington 7400 and 750. Semi-auto shotguns are quite common for hunting ducks and other fowl, as well as for clay pigeon shooting.
 
2013-01-10 03:29:02 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: So if the 2nd Amendment guarantees a person's right to own firearms, how is it legal to take away that right for a person with a criminal record?


Because, through due process, a criminal is as a punishment having several rights as citizens curtailed. They also lose the right to vote, have severely curtailed rights to free speech, and even reduced freedom of religion (not a lot of peyote smokers practicing their religion, legally, in prison).
 
2013-01-10 03:30:10 PM  

topcon: Gun murders have dropped for 20 years. But let's keep making bigger and bigger deals out of individual shootings to compensate for it, despite the fact violent crime is half of what it was in 1992.


Yeah, let's just tell those 26 families in Connecticut to shut the fark up and smile, because overall, gun murders have been dropping for 20 years, so they shouldn't be making a big deal out of it. That makes everything OK, right?

RIGHT?
 
2013-01-10 03:30:13 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: If the "ban" is justified, then you should be able to define "assault weapon" meaningfully and provide a rational demonstration that entirely prohibiting civilian access to firearms classified as "assault weapons" (as opposed to simply further regulating, but still allowing, ownership) through reference to the properties definitive of an "assault weapon". By refusing to do so, you are suggesting that your advocacy lacks any rational basis.

Whaargarbl much?

Tell me why you are against reinstating the AWB. That's all I need to hear.


Prohibiting civilian ownership of a subset of an already rarely criminally misused class of firearms based primarily upon characteristics irrelevant to the actual function of the firearms has never been demonstrated to reduce rates of violent crime. As such, an "assault weapon ban" is no more rationally justified than is a prohibition upon same-sex marriage.
 
2013-01-10 03:31:17 PM  

tricycleracer: Guy used a shotgun.  Probably bought in at Sears.

[media.kickstatic.com image 440x626]


Probably got it at S-Mart.
 
2013-01-10 03:31:22 PM  

super_grass: Reduce poverty and you'll see a decrease in gun crime, and everything else crime.


And, oddly, if you reduce crime in general, you reduce poverty because crime chases money away and the above ground economy heads out to the burbs with manicured lawns and lower incidences of getting your ass shot off while trying to buy a DVD player and a cheeseburger. I think it's safe to say that it is incumbent upon the people who want to decrease poverty in their neighborhoods to reduce crime as a gesture of good faith to state that they are interested in people coming to spend money there.
 
2013-01-10 03:31:58 PM  

stevarooni: Because, through due process, a criminal is as a punishment having several rights as citizens curtailed. They also lose the right to vote, have severely curtailed rights to free speech, and even reduced freedom of religion (not a lot of peyote smokers practicing their religion, legally, in prison).


Or, for another example, are you an atheist/agnostic? Did you break the law under the influence of alcohol? Too bad for your personal beliefs, you'll be forced by a court to accept a tired propaganda that you're powerless to that evil devil alcohol without a magical sky wizard to help you.
 
2013-01-10 03:32:12 PM  

whidbey: No. You fail to acknowledge that it was in fact a huge deterrent.


It was?
 
2013-01-10 03:32:18 PM  

Carolus99: 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.


Why not? School shootings tend to happen in suburbs and small towns.
 
2013-01-10 03:32:50 PM  

Maestro1701: topcon: Gun murders have dropped for 20 years. But let's keep making bigger and bigger deals out of individual shootings to compensate for it, despite the fact violent crime is half of what it was in 1992.

Yeah, let's just tell those 26 families in Connecticut to shut the fark up and smile, because overall, gun murders have been dropping for 20 years, so they shouldn't be making a big deal out of it. That makes everything OK, right?

RIGHT?


My my, those are very large crocodile tears.
 
2013-01-10 03:33:01 PM  

whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: Again, I'm fine with reinstating the AWB. I see no issue in taking that step to acknowledging that we as a society condemn the use of such weaponry. It's called societal evolution.

So you agree that the AWB was mostly a symbolic gesture?

No. You fail to acknowledge that it was in fact a huge deterrent.


Please explain, specifically, what prohibiting the manufacture for civilian ownership any semi-automatic rifle fed from a hand-removable detachable magazine that possessed two or more of a pistol grip, a bayonet lug, a folding or collapsing stock, a flash hider or a grenade launcher attachment (bearing in mind that grenade launchers themselves are already restricted and thus were not readily available before the ban) "deterred". Cite data to support a claim of such deterrence.
 
2013-01-10 03:33:11 PM  
They should make this asshole go on a gameshow where he is forced to duel to the death with some demented American Gladiator types for the amusement of all. Just like the last guy who was accused of shooting of innocent people in Bakersfield.
Hopefully with a different ending.

/Who loves you and who do you love?!
 
2013-01-10 03:33:15 PM  

Dimensio: whidbey: Dimensio: whidbey: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Case in point. Any concern brought up is disregarded as arguing "from emotion and ignorance."

Well, you refuse to listen to facts and stats, so what else is there?

You can spout all the facts you like. You continually miss the argument that is being made.

Again, I'm fine with reinstating the AWB. I see no issue in taking that step to acknowledging that we as a society condemn the use of such weaponry. It's called societal evolution.

Until your can demonstrate that an "assault weapons ban" is rationally justified, through demonstration based upon the actual characteristics of an "assault weapon", then your advocacy lacks any rational basis and your claims regarding "societal evolution" are intellectually dishonest.

Stop bullying, Dimensio. Address the point and stop with the personal attacks.

You have stated advocacy for an "assault weapons ban". I have requested rational justification for such a "ban", based upon the specific characteristics of an "assault weapon". If you can provide no such justification -- and you have not provided any thus far -- then my assessment of your advocacy as lacking rational justification is factual, and is not a "personal attack".


For someone accusing another of "intellectual dishonesty," you sure spend a lot of your posts avoiding what is put to you.

Here is a definition of an assault weapon:

In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms.

Now:

What is your objection to reinstating the AWB? Why do you oppose the acknowledgment that some weapons are dangerous enough that they do not belong in the hands of civilians?
 
2013-01-10 03:33:54 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: 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!


you're trying too hard.
potato/10
 
2013-01-10 03:34:39 PM  

KarmicDisaster: tricycleracer: Guy used a shotgun.  Probably bought in at Sears.

[media.kickstatic.com image 440x626]

Probably got it at S-Mart.


So, the victims are prolly primitive screwheads?
 
2013-01-10 03:34:52 PM  

chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: No, they only have one real purpose.

Your claim is a lie, and you are a liar for stating it.

It is not a lie. Semi and fully automatic weapons serve no purpose beyond killing lots of people in a short period of time or to do the same to feral hogs. That is what they were designed to do and that is all that they are good for.

The demonstrable civilian uses of semi-automatic firearms for target shooting and for hunting of animals other than feral hogs demonstrates your claim to be false. As such, your assertion is a lie, and you are a liar for stating it.

I am curious: do you suffer a psychological compulsion to lie, or are you lying due to an awareness that your position lacks any actual intellectual merit?

I am not lying. No real hunter would need a semi-automatic rifle for hunting. If you have to blast away at an animal in the hope that one of the slugs might hit the animal, you are not hunting.

Your use of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy does not retroactively validate your lying.


As for target shooting, that is no excuse to allow them on the streets. Target shooting is just an exercise to improve your aim when you decide to go kill people.

Your ignorance of the nature of recreational target shooting, which is only sometimes intended for practicing at shooting living targets and which is also often performed for competitive purposes or merely as a means of recreation with no other purpose, also does not retroactively validate your lying.

I am fully aware of the nature of recreational shooting. I have actually witnessed what you are describing and it has to be one of the stupidest things I have seen. It is a waste of time and powder.


You cannot justify the existence of something because you use it for recreation. While you are out having a good time, one of your ilk is out killing children. Do you believe that your right to have a good time supersedes the rights of those ...


Your appeal to emotion and you baseless accusation of motive for firearm ownership does not alter the fact of your dishonesty. You claimed that semi-automatic firearms serve no legitimate purpose. Your claim is demonstrably false. You therefore lied. You are a liar.
 
2013-01-10 03:36:44 PM  

The_Sponge: 2 - I trust them more with firepower than I do civilians; I'm comfortable being around a cop with a holstered gun. I'm sure as shiat not comfortable around a civilian with one.


Cops are not soldiers. They are civilians.
 
2013-01-10 03:37:19 PM  

Dimensio: whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: Again, I'm fine with reinstating the AWB. I see no issue in taking that step to acknowledging that we as a society condemn the use of such weaponry. It's called societal evolution.

So you agree that the AWB was mostly a symbolic gesture?

No. You fail to acknowledge that it was in fact a huge deterrent.

Please explain, specifically, what prohibiting the manufacture for civilian ownership any semi-automatic rifle fed from a hand-removable detachable magazine that possessed two or more of a pistol grip, a bayonet lug, a folding or collapsing stock, a flash hider or a grenade launcher attachment (bearing in mind that grenade launchers themselves are already restricted and thus were not readily available before the ban) "deterred". Cite data to support a claim of such deterrence.


The best data I found states that the ban was not in effect long enough to see enough of a notable impact.
 
2013-01-10 03:37:35 PM  

jigger: The_Sponge: 2 - I trust them more with firepower than I do civilians; I'm comfortable being around a cop with a holstered gun. I'm sure as shiat not comfortable around a civilian with one.

Cops are not soldiers. They are civilians.


Woops. I farked up the attribution to that quote.
 
2013-01-10 03:37:54 PM  

chuckufarlie: your tax rate is way too low, but I like where you are going.


I don't think it starts too low. I think the only way to move anything forward is to try to be moderate, yet without finicky loopholes. Shouting "200% tax on bullets!" is too easy to fight against. "Assault weapon limits" just lead to what is / isn't one. "Purchase background checks" just leads to some markets requiring them, some not. And "make bullets cost $5000" just gets laughed out of the room. Start with a modest tax -- guns are far from the only interest-specific tax.

But, the use of that revenue is more important than the tax itself.

jigger: [www.themovies.co.za image 600x336]


I missed the meme-o. Do I high-five you or give you the finger?

The_Sponge: Your ideas are bad and you should feel bad.
1) The only time I hear "f*ck you, I got mine"
2) You can take your tax proposal and shove it up your ass.  I already have to pay a 9.2% state sales tax on ammo, and that's enough.


(1) Where did I use FYIGM? While it is the standard MO of the conservative right, that's exactly -not- what I said. While I'm not sure I agree, I can concede the point that, "because fark you, I want one" is a valid reason to own anything. See that? That's a concession to the gun-interested folks. Notice how I didn't say, "you shouldn't have [x] because..."?

(2) And I had to pay ~9% sales tax on a car I *already*owned* when I moved to a new state. I have to pay 6% sales tax on a new gadget for my hobbies. Smokers and drinkers have to pay taxes to participate in their pastimes. Owning a gun is a choice, not a requirement, and gun ownership should require responsibility (isn't that what gun enthusiasts chant? "Responsible gun ownership"?). Sometimes that responsibility is financial, and 5% is a nice -- low -- starting point. A small price to pay to greatly benefit our entire population. You should feel -proud- to pay to support people getting the help they need and an effort to reduce the risk of mass killings.

Tell ya' what -- I'd even throw in rollbacks: For every year we go without two people being killed by guns in a single incident, 1% comes off the tax, with a minimum of 4%. How's that?

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


When mentally ill people are able to kill multiple innocent human beings who are just trying to go to [a movie | school | the mall] with a spork, I'll be the first to shout from the rooftops for a new Plastic Cutlery Tax. Fair?
 
2013-01-10 03:38:09 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: whidbey: Dimensio: whidbey: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Case in point. Any concern brought up is disregarded as arguing "from emotion and ignorance."

Well, you refuse to listen to facts and stats, so what else is there?

You can spout all the facts you like. You continually miss the argument that is being made.

Again, I'm fine with reinstating the AWB. I see no issue in taking that step to acknowledging that we as a society condemn the use of such weaponry. It's called societal evolution.

Until your can demonstrate that an "assault weapons ban" is rationally justified, through demonstration based upon the actual characteristics of an "assault weapon", then your advocacy lacks any rational basis and your claims regarding "societal evolution" are intellectually dishonest.

Stop bullying, Dimensio. Address the point and stop with the personal attacks.

You have stated advocacy for an "assault weapons ban". I have requested rational justification for such a "ban", based upon the specific characteristics of an "assault weapon". If you can provide no such justification -- and you have not provided any thus far -- then my assessment of your advocacy as lacking rational justification is factual, and is not a "personal attack".

For someone accusing another of "intellectual dishonesty," you sure spend a lot of your posts avoiding what is put to you.

Here is a definition of an assault weapon:

In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms.

Now:

What is your objection to reinstating the AWB? Why do you oppose the acknowledgment that some weapons are dangerous enough that they do not belong in the hands of civilians?


Military firearms possess many "features", including stocks, grips, barrels, triggers and sights. The definition that you have stated is so vague that it could hypothetically apply to all firearm models. A proper definition would identify the specific features common to actual military firearms and to civilian "assault weapons", and a rational justification for banning "assault weapons" would be a demonstration of benefit resulting from prohibiting civilian ownership of firearms that possess those features. Thus far, you have provided neither.

I have explained my opposition to a renewed "assault weapons ban" in a previous posting.
 
2013-01-10 03:38:46 PM  
That teacher was farking anazing
 
2013-01-10 03:39:10 PM  

jigger: Carolus99: 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.

Why not? School shootings tend to happen in suburbs and small towns.


I get that statistically you are correct, but it's just hard to imagine being able to gun down someone that, as the town joke goes, you're probably related to somewhere down the line.
 
2013-01-10 03:39:30 PM  

theurge14: djh0101010: Was it a "gun free zone"? Why didn't the signs stop the guy?

You're right! Let's get rid of all the speed limit signs on the roads because they're not stopping speeders either. Because criminals don't follow laws, right? Hurr hurr!


Cops patrol the roads and catch (some of the) people who break the law posted on the sign.

Would you like cops patrolling the schools?
 
2013-01-10 03:39:46 PM  

chuckufarlie: While you are out having a good time, one of your ilk is out killing children.


Pretty sweet trolling, my friend.
 
2013-01-10 03:39:52 PM  

chuckufarlie: You do not give a rat's ass about drunk drivers, you just want to change the subject so you can keep your child killers.


That's what we should do to fix this problem. Apply broad spectrum names to things we hate to make them sound more evil.
Henceforth I decree that
Hammers=Finger Bashers.
Legos=Midnight Foot Barbs
Condoms=Willy Desensitizers
Alarm Clocks=Sleep Ruiners
1 Ply Toilet Paper=Satan Wipes
Coffee Table Legs=Toe Crackers
Pill Safety Bottles=Medicine Deniers
 
2013-01-10 03:39:59 PM  

chuckufarlie: Dimensio: whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: Again, I'm fine with reinstating the AWB. I see no issue in taking that step to acknowledging that we as a society condemn the use of such weaponry. It's called societal evolution.

So you agree that the AWB was mostly a symbolic gesture?

No. You fail to acknowledge that it was in fact a huge deterrent.

Please explain, specifically, what prohibiting the manufacture for civilian ownership any semi-automatic rifle fed from a hand-removable detachable magazine that possessed two or more of a pistol grip, a bayonet lug, a folding or collapsing stock, a flash hider or a grenade launcher attachment (bearing in mind that grenade launchers themselves are already restricted and thus were not readily available before the ban) "deterred". Cite data to support a claim of such deterrence.

That is the loophole that your ilk put into the last legislation in an effort to make it worthless. It is because you did so that I now propose that all rifles that use magazines should be confiscated. If you and your ilk had been willing to bend a little the last time, maybe people would not be pushing for harsher conditions now.


Your proposal is unreasonable, irrational and Unconstitutional. Even attempting to implement it would result in substantial noncompliance, lawsuits, and a necessary expense for compensation to firearm owners who do comply.
 
2013-01-10 03:40:29 PM  

whidbey: What is your objection to reinstating the AWB? Why do you oppose the acknowledgment that some weapons are dangerous enough that they do not belong in the hands of civilians?


Nobody's arguing that there are certain weapons that are more dangerous than others, and that's why things like grenades, rocket launchers, and machine guns are heavily restricted.

My objection is that there's no real evidence that firearms possessing "certain features similar to those of military firearms" are somehow more dangerous than firearms not having those features. There's no functional difference between this Ruger Mini-14 "Ranch Rifle" (which was not banned under the 1994-2004 federal AWB):

www.ruger.com

and this, which would be banned:

www.ruger.com

Indeed, they're both exactly the same gun and function identically. The only difference is the outward physical appearance and some various bits like different-shaped grips and parts made of black plastic instead of wood. These features do not affect how lethal or dangerous the gun is.

You could be consistent by arguing that all semi-automatic firearms should be banned, rather than only ones with certain cosmetic features. Similarly, you could be logically consistent and argue that magazines with a capacity above a certain arbitrary value should not be permitted. I would disagree with such positions, but they're logically consistent. Saying "let's ban certain semi-auto firearms but not others" doesn't really make sense because they are functionally identical.
 
2013-01-10 03:40:59 PM  

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


No, Gunstoppable is their first album.
 
2013-01-10 03:41:15 PM  

chuckufarlie: You seem to be under the impression that just because you say something that it is automatically true. That is just plain wrong. It was designed to kill people and that is the only purpose that it serves, no matter what you "think".


Your continued insistence that the "only purpose" of semi-automatic firearms is "killing people" remains false, and you remain a liar for it.

I am curious: do you suffer a psychological compulsion to lie, or are you lying due to an awareness that your position lacks any actual intellectual merit?
 
2013-01-10 03:41:59 PM  
Thanks to the Anti-Gun rhetoric going on, I was able to sell my AR-15 for double what I paid for it and buy 3 more guns with no out of pocket expense.
YAY GUN LAWS!
 
2013-01-10 03:42:02 PM  

Dimensio: What is your objection to reinstating the AWB? Why do you oppose the acknowledgment that some weapons are dangerous enough that they do not belong in the hands of civilians?

Military firearms possess many "features", including stocks, grips, barrels, triggers and sights. The definition that you have stated is so vague that it could hypothetically apply to all firearm models. A proper definition would identify the specific features common to actual military firearms and to civilian "assault weapons", and a rational justification for banning "assault weapons" would be a demonstration of benefit resulting from prohibiting civilian ownership of firearms that possess those features. Thus far, you have provided neither.

I have explained my opposition to a renewed "assault weapons ban" in a previous posting.


Again, I object to your constant quibbling over semantics. I have the feeling I'm never going to get a "proper definition" out of you.

I really wouldn't be complaining about others' intellectual dishonesty in these threads.
 
2013-01-10 03:42:02 PM  

chuckufarlie: heypete: chuckufarlie: You keep telling me that I am wrong but you have yet to provide anything that you can do with a semi-automatic rifle that you cannot do with a single shot rifle.

Moving the goalposts.

I never suggested that there was something that only semi-auto rifles can do that non-semi-auto rifles cannot. I'm simply saying that your claim that the only purpose for semi-auto rifles is for killing is false, because people use semi-auto rifles for plenty of non-killing-related uses every day.

There is nothing dishonorable in saying that a gun that was designed to kill people serves no other purpose.

I'm not saying your claim was dishonorable, I'm simply saying that it's wrong and demonstrably so: there are clearly uses of semi-automatic firearms that do not relate to killing.

You cannot use them for hunting unless you are a really bad hunter.

On the contrary, semi-automatic firearms are quite common in hunting and have been so for decades. The Browning BAR, for example, is quite commonly used by hunters, as is the Remington 7400 and 750. Semi-auto shotguns are quite common for hunting ducks and other fowl, as well as for clay pigeon shooting.

Not by real hunters. The simple fact that people use them does not mean that they are legitimate weapons for the purpose. How often does any hunter get a chance to fire off a second shot right after the first? If you miss, the game will run off. If you hit it with the first shot, you are just messing up the animal.


Ever been goose or waterfowl hunting? Getting a second shot off quickly is very common.

The Remington 1100 is my semi-auto of choice for that task.
 
2013-01-10 03:43:00 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: Again, I'm fine with reinstating the AWB. I see no issue in taking that step to acknowledging that we as a society condemn the use of such weaponry. It's called societal evolution.

So you agree that the AWB was mostly a symbolic gesture?

No. You fail to acknowledge that it was in fact a huge deterrent.

Please explain, specifically, what prohibiting the manufacture for civilian ownership any semi-automatic rifle fed from a hand-removable detachable magazine that possessed two or more of a pistol grip, a bayonet lug, a folding or collapsing stock, a flash hider or a grenade launcher attachment (bearing in mind that grenade launchers themselves are already restricted and thus were not readily available before the ban) "deterred". Cite data to support a claim of such deterrence.

The best data I found states that the ban was not in effect long enough to see enough of a notable impact.


Are you saying, then, that your claim that the ban was a "deterrent" was in fact entirely baseless?
 
2013-01-10 03:43:19 PM  

SFSailor: jigger: [www.themovies.co.za image 600x336]

I missed the meme-o. Do I high-five you or give you the finger?


How bout a five finger death punch?
 
2013-01-10 03:43:51 PM  

joness0154: chuckufarlie: heypete: chuckufarlie: You keep telling me that I am wrong but you have yet to provide anything that you can do with a semi-automatic rifle that you cannot do with a single shot rifle.

Moving the goalposts.

I never suggested that there was something that only semi-auto rifles can do that non-semi-auto rifles cannot. I'm simply saying that your claim that the only purpose for semi-auto rifles is for killing is false, because people use semi-auto rifles for plenty of non-killing-related uses every day.

There is nothing dishonorable in saying that a gun that was designed to kill people serves no other purpose.

I'm not saying your claim was dishonorable, I'm simply saying that it's wrong and demonstrably so: there are clearly uses of semi-automatic firearms that do not relate to killing.

You cannot use them for hunting unless you are a really bad hunter.

On the contrary, semi-automatic firearms are quite common in hunting and have been so for decades. The Browning BAR, for example, is quite commonly used by hunters, as is the Remington 7400 and 750. Semi-auto shotguns are quite common for hunting ducks and other fowl, as well as for clay pigeon shooting.

Not by real hunters. The simple fact that people use them does not mean that they are legitimate weapons for the purpose. How often does any hunter get a chance to fire off a second shot right after the first? If you miss, the game will run off. If you hit it with the first shot, you are just messing up the animal.

Ever been goose or waterfowl hunting? Getting a second shot off quickly is very common.


I have seen deer just lift their head and look around when my buddy misses shots. Not often, but it happens. Usually followed with a "Shoot him again, Forrest"
 
2013-01-10 03:44:05 PM  
Sounds like a straight up revenge hit of some sort.

Apart from that, Taft? Man, I tell you if I lived there, getting shot to death might seem like sweet release.

/I blame the internet
//and cable TV
///24 hour coverage
////For you and ME!
 
2013-01-10 03:44:18 PM  

Dimensio: chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: You keep telling me that I am wrong but you have yet to provide anything that you can do with a semi-automatic rifle that you cannot do with a single shot rifle.

That an activity may be performed both with a semi-automatic rifle and with a "single-shot" rifle does not demonstrate that semi-automatic rifles serve no legitimate civilian purpose. Such a claim is in fact dishonest, and thus you are a liar for issuing it.

Semi-automatic weapons were designed in a time of war for the expressed purpose of killing a lot of people in a hurry. That was why they were designed and that is the only USEFUL purpose that they serve today.

The original design intent of semi-automatic firearms does not preclude their use for other legitimate uses today.

Attempting to retroactively amend your previous statement with the qualifier "USEFUL", which you did not utilize previously, and using entirely subjective criteria to determine "usefulness", is also intellectually dishonest.



Oh no! you cant target shoot. Cry more.

In before "home defense" is trotted out.
 
2013-01-10 03:44:35 PM  
let's just give everyone 10 guns and solve this once and for all.
 
2013-01-10 03:44:57 PM  

iheartscotch: 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?


The 22nd amendment is in the Bill of Rights.

Also, one non-Bill of Rights amendment has already been repealed, and did not apparently make the process any easier for any others.

Also, I'm not arguing for repeal of the 2nd.

Also, this headline still annoys me.
 
2013-01-10 03:45:19 PM  

whidbey: Dimensio: What is your objection to reinstating the AWB? Why do you oppose the acknowledgment that some weapons are dangerous enough that they do not belong in the hands of civilians?

Military firearms possess many "features", including stocks, grips, barrels, triggers and sights. The definition that you have stated is so vague that it could hypothetically apply to all firearm models. A proper definition would identify the specific features common to actual military firearms and to civilian "assault weapons", and a rational justification for banning "assault weapons" would be a demonstration of benefit resulting from prohibiting civilian ownership of firearms that possess those features. Thus far, you have provided neither.

I have explained my opposition to a renewed "assault weapons ban" in a previous posting.

Again, I object to your constant quibbling over semantics. I have the feeling I'm never going to get a "proper definition" out of you.

I really wouldn't be complaining about others' intellectual dishonesty in these threads.


You have never requested a "proper definition" of any term that I have used. Speculating that you would not receive one is baseless.

Requesting a demonstration that a proposed prohibition is rationally justified is not "quibbling over semantics".
 
2013-01-10 03:45:41 PM  

heypete: Indeed, they're both exactly the same gun and function identically.


No, they don't. The pistol grip alone sees to that.

So, out of curiosity, before I commence ignoring everything else you ever say on this particular subject because you've already proven beyond any doubt you have nothing of value to add to the discussion, were you lying just now or do you just not know what you're talking about?
 
2013-01-10 03:45:49 PM  

Relatively Obscure: iheartscotch: 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?

The 22nd amendment isisn't in the Bill of Rights.

Also, one non-Bill of Rights amendment has already been repealed, and did not apparently make the process any easier for any others.

Also, I'm not arguing for repeal of the 2nd.

Also, this headline still annoys me.


FTFM
 
2013-01-10 03:46:04 PM  

Slampig: let's just give everyone 10 guns and solve this once and for all.


You could use an individual mandate and enforce it through the IRS, then it would be constitutional.
 
2013-01-10 03:46:11 PM  

PDid: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: You keep telling me that I am wrong but you have yet to provide anything that you can do with a semi-automatic rifle that you cannot do with a single shot rifle.

That an activity may be performed both with a semi-automatic rifle and with a "single-shot" rifle does not demonstrate that semi-automatic rifles serve no legitimate civilian purpose. Such a claim is in fact dishonest, and thus you are a liar for issuing it.

Semi-automatic weapons were designed in a time of war for the expressed purpose of killing a lot of people in a hurry. That was why they were designed and that is the only USEFUL purpose that they serve today.

The original design intent of semi-automatic firearms does not preclude their use for other legitimate uses today.

Attempting to retroactively amend your previous statement with the qualifier "USEFUL", which you did not utilize previously, and using entirely subjective criteria to determine "usefulness", is also intellectually dishonest.


Oh no! you cant target shoot. Cry more.

In before "home defense" is trotted out.


Your statement does not justify chuckufarlie's demonstrable lying.
 
2013-01-10 03:46:38 PM  

chuckufarlie: iheartscotch: 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?

The right to own fire arms does not have to mean the right to own ANY fire arm. Limiting the type of weapons that people can own is not removing their rights.


The right to speech does not have to mean the right to express ANY opinion. Limiting the type of speech that people can say is not removing their rights.

Really? You're going down that road?
 
2013-01-10 03:46:49 PM  

MythDragon: chuckufarlie: You do not give a rat's ass about drunk drivers, you just want to change the subject so you can keep your child killers.

That's what we should do to fix this problem. Apply broad spectrum names to things we hate to make them sound more evil.
Henceforth I decree that
Hammers=Finger Bashers.
Legos=Midnight Foot Barbs
Condoms=Willy Desensitizers
Alarm Clocks=Sleep Ruiners
1 Ply Toilet Paper=Satan Wipes
Coffee Table Legs=Toe Crackers
Pill Safety Bottles=Medicine Deniers


All of which can be used to intentionally cause the immediate demise or injury of any given person when thrown at them. Yess.
 
2013-01-10 03:47:08 PM  

heypete: You could be consistent by arguing that all semi-automatic firearms should be banned, rather than only ones with certain cosmetic features. Similarly, you could be logically consistent and argue that magazines with a capacity above a certain arbitrary value should not be permitted. I would disagree with such positions, but they're logically consistent. Saying "let's ban certain semi-auto firearms but not others" doesn't really make sense because they are functionally identical.


I understand your point, but obviously the top rifle looks like something you would use to hunt elk or deer, and the bottom one looks like something gangbangers might use.

Seems that there should still be some kind of strict regulation detailing what a rifle like your top example should legally be able to do.
 
2013-01-10 03:48:03 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: You fail to acknowledge that it was in fact a huge deterrent.

And I'm sure you can quantify such a claim.


I'll wait.
 
Displayed 50 of 740 comments


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


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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