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  
•       •       •

19279 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 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.
 
2013-01-10 03:48:10 PM

Theburner: I have seen deer just lift their head and look around when my buddy misses shots. Not often, but it happens.


A lot of animals seem to have difficulty understanding "action at a distance" (which isn't really surprising, I suppose, considering that until humans came around something that is far away poses no threat to them until it gets closer): when I was in the army we had deer walking around on the tank gunnery range during live fire exercises. They were completely unconcerned with 120mm projectiles zipping by them or impacting on the berms near them and didn't seem to care much about the loud, flashy, noisy things several hundred meters away.

Of course, range control eventually called a cease fire until they could be chased away. Still, it was really weird to see them not really react at all.
 
2013-01-10 03:48:18 PM

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


My luck, when they came to me all they would have left are Hi-Points and Rock Islands.

"Sorry, we are all out of H&K's and Ed Browns, how about some Hi-Points?"
 
2013-01-10 03:48:33 PM

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

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


Please explain how replacement of a wooden stock with a synthetic stock featuring a pistol grip on a Mini-14 rifle causes the firearm to become a different firearm with different function.
 
2013-01-10 03:48:33 PM

Dimensio: 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".


Again, I've already made my basic points. Your responses have not addressed them. You're just avoiding the question by insisting on semantic ground rules.
 
2013-01-10 03:49:20 PM

Aeon Rising: Free speech zones
Gun free zones
Implied consent to search when flying
Asset forfeiture abused
Prisoners forced to work below minimum wage by private corporations
9th amendment is practically all but ignored
The militarization of police following 9/11

And so many on Fark think leaving the only guns in the hands of the 1%, the military, those rich enough to get elected and the police that you respect so much.

So yea, you win. Be proud of your victory.


And yet another school shooting
http://www.tricities.com/news/article_35434f30-00d3-522f-98f1-58f372 59 1713.html
 
2013-01-10 03:50:08 PM
An armed society may well be a polite society, but it is also a very twitchy society.
 
2013-01-10 03:50:18 PM

whidbey: Dimensio: 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".

Again, I've already made my basic points. Your responses have not addressed them. You're just avoiding the question by insisting on semantic ground rules.


You have advocated an "assault weapons ban". Thus far, however, you have not only not presented a rational justification that such a "ban" is warranted, but you have in fact willfully refused to provide a rational justification that such a "ban" is warranted. You have also claimed that a previous "ban" was a deterrent, and then you later admitted that no data actually supported such a claim.

You have demonstrated, substantially, that you are intellectually dishonest, but you have demonstrated no other "point".
 
2013-01-10 03:50:29 PM

chuckufarlie: 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.

The Remington 1100 is my semi-auto of choice for that task.

I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but a Remington 1100 is not a rifle. I have been talking about rifles. Do I need to explain to you why a Remington 1100 is not a rifle?


No, I just saw it mentioned.

But there are legitimate uses for semi-auto rifles. Miss on the first shot, quick follow up kill shot if the first shot does not do the job, to name a few. Contrary to popular belief, large game animals do not always fall after the first shot, particularly if the placement ends up being poor. Rather than a slow painful death, a quick follow up shot ends up being more humane.

You even hunt (and lift), bro?
 
2013-01-10 03:50:37 PM

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

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

Please explain how replacement of a wooden stock with a synthetic stock featuring a pistol grip on a Mini-14 rifle causes the firearm to become a different firearm with different function.


You are right, both should be banned.
 
2013-01-10 03:51:20 PM

chuckufarlie: sugar_fetus: 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?

We already limit the type of speech that people can use. Slander, for instance. Inciting a riot, for instance.

Do I need to go on?


I wish you wouldn't. Your boring droning is getting in the way of other, more exciting posts.
 
2013-01-10 03:51:28 PM

heypete: Theburner: I have seen deer just lift their head and look around when my buddy misses shots. Not often, but it happens.

A lot of animals seem to have difficulty understanding "action at a distance" (which isn't really surprising, I suppose, considering that until humans came around something that is far away poses no threat to them until it gets closer): when I was in the army we had deer walking around on the tank gunnery range during live fire exercises. They were completely unconcerned with 120mm projectiles zipping by them or impacting on the berms near them and didn't seem to care much about the loud, flashy, noisy things several hundred meters away.

Of course, range control eventually called a cease fire until they could be chased away. Still, it was really weird to see them not really react at all.


LMAO... We had one wander onto the 150 yard range about 3 weeks before hunting season opened. Nobody wanted to shoot when the range went hot on the off chance they hit him. Finally one old hillbilly cranked off a .308. The doe looked up, and WALKED off the range. We figured she would be one of the first bagged when the season started.
 
2013-01-10 03:51:54 PM

chuckufarlie: Dimensio: 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?

You have yet to provide me with any real use for semi-automatic rifles. What you have proposed so far is less than convincing.


Hunting and recreational target shootings are "uses". Dismissing these "uses" does not validate your position; your dismissal demonstrates only that you are a liar.
 
2013-01-10 03:51:58 PM

Dimensio: Thus far, however, you have not only not presented a rational justification that such a "ban" is warranted, but you have in fact willfully refused to provide a rational justification that such a "ban" is warranted.


He went so far as to call the AWB a "huge deterrent", naturally without any data to support such a claim.
 
2013-01-10 03:51:58 PM

GoldSpider: 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.


So you're really going to deny that having less assault weapons available to the population isn't in itself a deterrent?
 
2013-01-10 03:52:25 PM

chuckufarlie: Dimensio: 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?

You have yet to provide me with any real use for semi-automatic rifles. What you have proposed so far is less than convincing.


So we ban anything that isn't "useful" in accomplishing a task that is somehow voted as "legitimate?" Recreational drugs, alcohol, tobacco? They don't have positive uses to them yet are legal, but restricted.
 
2013-01-10 03:52:33 PM

KarmicDisaster: Dimensio: Vegan Meat Popsicle: heypete: Indeed, they're both exactly the same gun and function identically.

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

Please explain how replacement of a wooden stock with a synthetic stock featuring a pistol grip on a Mini-14 rifle causes the firearm to become a different firearm with different function.

You are right, both should be banned.


Why?
 
2013-01-10 03:53:08 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: No, they don't. The pistol grip alone sees to that.


How does the pistol grip affect the function of the rifle? It's an ergonomic feature and doesn't have any effect on how lethal the gun is.

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?

I beg your pardon? I wasn't lying: the two rifles are essentially identical in function: both are semi-automatic, both fire the same cartridge at comparable velocities, and both accept detachable magazines. Yes, one has black plastic and a pistol grip but how would that affect the function of the rifle?
 
2013-01-10 03:53:33 PM

Dimensio: whidbey: Dimensio: 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".

Again, I've already made my basic points. Your responses have not addressed them. You're just avoiding the question by insisting on semantic ground rules.

You have advocated an "assault weapons ban". Thus far, however, you have not only not presented a rational justification that such a "ban" is warranted, but you have in fact willfully refused to provide a rational justification that such a "ban" is warranted. You have also claimed that a previous "ban" was a deterrent, and then you later admitted that no data actually supported such a claim.

You have demonstrated, substantially, that you are intellectually dishonest, but you have demonstrated no other "point".


Again, since you have chosen to avoid the discussion, I would not be calling others "intellectually dishonest."
 
2013-01-10 03:53:52 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: 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?


You sir, are a moron. The *are* the same gun and do function *identically*. Whether you wrap your little dickskinner around a pistol grip or the standard grip changes nothing, shiat for brains. Why don't you move along now and get back to staring out the window with an expression on your face like a farm animal?

/Holy smokes the stupid in this thread is epic.
 
2013-01-10 03:54:02 PM
I just get home from buying a new guns and now I read this. It puts a damper on my happy mood.
 
2013-01-10 03:54:13 PM

topcon: chuckufarlie: 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.

How many children have to die before you see that there is a problem? An estimate would be okay - just give us your number.

Less and less people every year are dying to guns. Fact. Far less people are getting killed right now on a yearly basis than when the AWB was in effect.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]


They really need to change that one line to read "Knives and Stabbing Weapons".
 
2013-01-10 03:54:55 PM

chuckufarlie:
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 ...


Alcohol?
 
2013-01-10 03:54:58 PM

whidbey: Dimensio: whidbey: Dimensio: 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".

Again, I've already made my basic points. Your responses have not addressed them. You're just avoiding the question by insisting on semantic ground rules.

You have advocated an "assault weapons ban". Thus far, however, you have not only not presented a rational justification that such a "ban" is warranted, but you have in fact willfully refused to provide a rational justification that such a "ban" is warranted. You have also claimed that a previous "ban" was a deterrent, and then you later admitted that no data actually supported such a claim.

You have demonstrated, substantially, that you are intellectually dishonest, but you have demonstrated no other "point".

Again, since you have chosen to avoid the discussion, I would not be calling others "intellectually dishonest."


Please justify your accusation that I have "avoided the discussion".
 
2013-01-10 03:55:15 PM

whidbey: GoldSpider: 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.

So you're really going to deny that having less assault weapons available to the population isn't in itself a deterrent?


If someone is mad or crazy enough to want to murder somebody or go on a spree, I am pretty sure that restricted access to "assault" weapons is not going to stop that. Another weapon will fill that niche. Running into a room with a shotgun or pistol will have probably the same outcome. I don't own any "assault" weapons or have the desire to.
 
2013-01-10 03:55:26 PM

whidbey: So you're really going to deny that having less assault weapons available to the population isn't in itself a deterrent?


I'm open to the possibility, but I won't be convinced without proof.
 
2013-01-10 03:56:01 PM

KarmicDisaster: Dimensio: Vegan Meat Popsicle: heypete: Indeed, they're both exactly the same gun and function identically.

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

Please explain how replacement of a wooden stock with a synthetic stock featuring a pistol grip on a Mini-14 rifle causes the firearm to become a different firearm with different function.

You are right, both should be banned.


Ya know, you hand wringers could step up and repeal 2A instead of violating every American's rights. But that would be work and you're lazy.
 
2013-01-10 03:57:18 PM

whidbey: 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.


Fair enough. Still, I think we can both agree that they're essentially the same gun and that the function isn't really affected by its appearance, right?

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.

Would you mind explaining what you mean?
 
2013-01-10 03:57:33 PM

vrax: topcon: chuckufarlie: 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.

How many children have to die before you see that there is a problem? An estimate would be okay - just give us your number.

Less and less people every year are dying to guns. Fact. Far less people are getting killed right now on a yearly basis than when the AWB was in effect.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]

They really need to change that one line to read "Knives and Stabbing Weapons".


That specific title was reserved for homicides committed by T-1000 units. Peaking in 1995, no such murders have occurred since.
 
2013-01-10 03:57:33 PM

whidbey: I am in favor of reinstating the AWB. Because the type of weapons described in the law are not necessary to be in the hands of a civilian population. As stated, the law does not infringe on the right to bear arms.


And here is the problem. People not knowing what the law actualy banned. People will say they are okay with people having a hunting rifle, but not 'assault weapons'.

Here is a hunting rifle
home.mchsi.com

And here is an assault rifle (according to the ban)
cdn2.armslist.com

According to the ban, one the top one is okay to have, but the bottom 'doesn't belong on the streets in the hands of civilians'
They are the SAME rifle
The only difference one is made with wood, the other plastic. They have different grips, and the bottom one has a stock that adjusts to the user to fit more body types.

Aside from that, they function EXACTLY the same and shoot the same bullet the same number of times.

But yet the bottom one was banned because of how you hold it and because you can adjust the stock to fit your shoulder. That is what you are in favor of banning. How people hold their guns. Did you even know this? Or does banning the scary name 'assault' make you feel better? True 'assault' weapons are already banned. They have been since the 1930's. But people call for a reinstatement of the AWB despite not having ANY idea of that they would be banning.
 
2013-01-10 03:59:00 PM
It's sort of funny that we're all gearing up to defend, as a militia, our shores from some ostensibly imminent insurrection with all of these milspec cannons and yet, not only do we only manage to shoot each other with them, but that very behavior is what might cause some foreign nation to come over here and start shutting off the stupid. It's like raaaaaiiiiiiiaaaaaaaaain. To the rest of the world, we're a surly redneck who can barely read his own name, seated uncomfortably at the end of the bar, three beers into it, and looking to see who wants to "start some sh*t".
 
2013-01-10 04:00:17 PM

MythDragon: Aside from that, they function EXACTLY the same and shoot the same bullet the same number of times.

But yet the bottom one was banned because of how you hold it and because you can adjust the stock to fit your shoulder. That is what you are in favor of banning. How people hold their guns. Did you even know this? Or does banning the scary name 'assault' make you feel better? True 'assault' weapons are already banned. They have been since the 1930's. But people call for a reinstatement of the AWB despite not having ANY idea of that they would be banning.


Obviously, they haven't all been banned, and no it's a bit more than just banning the way people hold their guns.
 
2013-01-10 04:00:38 PM

kombat_unit: Ya know, you hand wringers could step up and repeal 2A instead of violating every American's rights.


Repealing the 2A would merely legalize violating every American's right to keep and bare arms.
 
2013-01-10 04:01:12 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: toomuchmarisa: The My Little Pony Killer: The conversation for mental health care is still patiently waiting. Your call, America.

THIS. Spending 2 minutes on the internet is MORE than enough to hammer home the point that SO MANY people are farked up beyond belief. Seriously, we need to teach children how to deal with emotions... cause a lot of people have VERY serious emotional problems.

[img7.imageshack.us image 266x190]

/scares me to think how many of them also own guns

You know, there's more to the internet than just 4chan.


Actually, I was thinking about Fark when I wrote that :)
 
2013-01-10 04:01:22 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: 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?


This is the first time I've heard someone say that the shape of the grip changes the function of a weapon.

Heh. Dumb-ass troll.

10/10
 
2013-01-10 04:01:24 PM

whidbey: MythDragon: Aside from that, they function EXACTLY the same and shoot the same bullet the same number of times.

But yet the bottom one was banned because of how you hold it and because you can adjust the stock to fit your shoulder. That is what you are in favor of banning. How people hold their guns. Did you even know this? Or does banning the scary name 'assault' make you feel better? True 'assault' weapons are already banned. They have been since the 1930's. But people call for a reinstatement of the AWB despite not having ANY idea of that they would be banning.

Obviously, they haven't all been banned, and no it's a bit more than just banning the way people hold their guns.


Please explain, then, what prohibiting the stock shown in the second picture accomplishes.
 
2013-01-10 04:01:25 PM

whidbey: Why do you oppose the acknowledgment that some weapons are dangerous enough that they do not belong in the hands of civilians?


Why do you oppose the acknowledgement that 'assault weapons' are not more powerful (or dangerous) than other guns that are not on a ban list, and aren't used to kill as often as those other guns? Or are those just some more irrelevant facts?
 
2013-01-10 04:02:25 PM

heypete: whidbey: 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.

Fair enough. Still, I think we can both agree that they're essentially the same gun and that the function isn't really affected by its appearance, right?

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.

Would you mind explaining what you mean?


I'm saying that a hunting rifle should look and perform like your top example, and there should be a legal definition.

It should not be allowed to have the features of the second model, because it's obviously for military use.
 
2013-01-10 04:02:37 PM

chuckufarlie: yes, I do hunt. But you would not like my way of hunting. I doubt if you have the skill or the patience for it.

As for your explanations for using semi-automatic rifles for hunting, all you have done is tell me that lots of "hunters" are really bad at it.

Get yourself a muzzle loader and come hunting with me and my friends. We have never needed that second follow up shot as you describe. Either you have no idea what part of the animal you should aim at or you are not capable of actually hitting that spot.

Or you can go bow hunting with us.

You are not hunting when you spray and pray. And yes, you can spray and pray with a semi-automatic weapon.


ah, back to the "no true Scotsman" argument. We've come around full derp.
 
2013-01-10 04:03:14 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: Why do you oppose the acknowledgment that some weapons are dangerous enough that they do not belong in the hands of civilians?

Why do you oppose the acknowledgement that 'assault weapons' are not more powerful (or dangerous) than other guns that are not on a ban list, and aren't used to kill as often as those other guns? Or are those just some more irrelevant facts?


Answer the question first. Then I might answer yours.
 
2013-01-10 04:03:17 PM

MythDragon: [www.chicagonow.com image 400x392]
♫The boy JB was a friend of mine
Til I caught him in my car tryin to steal a Alpine
Took him up the street to call a truce
The silly motherfarker pull out a deuce-deuce
Little did he know I had a loaded 12 gauge
One student maimed, LA Times front page♪


Yes but did you cold-smoke his ass?

/As I could see...
 
2013-01-10 04:04:11 PM

chuckufarlie: sugar_fetus: 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?

We already limit the type of speech that people can use. Slander, for instance. Inciting a riot, for instance.

Do I need to go on?


Slander is false. Inciting a riot causes damage. We penalize actions that cause harm to others.

Mere ownership of a firearm causes no damage.

Do I need to go on?
 
2013-01-10 04:04:20 PM

whidbey: I'm saying that a hunting rifle should look and perform like your top example, and there should be a legal definition.

It should not be allowed to have the features of the second model, because it's obviously for military use.


You've got to be trolling...
 
2013-01-10 04:04:21 PM

whidbey: heypete: whidbey: 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.

Fair enough. Still, I think we can both agree that they're essentially the same gun and that the function isn't really affected by its appearance, right?

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.

Would you mind explaining what you mean?

I'm saying that a hunting rifle should look and perform like your top example, and there should be a legal definition.

It should not be allowed to have the features of the second model, because it's obviously for military use.


Please demonstrate that prohibiting the features of the rifle shown in the second picture would produce a demonstrable benefit. Explain how those features remaining legal causes harm.
 
2013-01-10 04:05:15 PM

GoldSpider: whidbey: I'm saying that a hunting rifle should look and perform like your top example, and there should be a legal definition.

It should not be allowed to have the features of the second model, because it's obviously for military use.

You've got to be trolling...


On the contrary: he may in fact be stupid.
 
2013-01-10 04:05:15 PM

MythDragon: whidbey: I am in favor of reinstating the AWB. Because the type of weapons described in the law are not necessary to be in the hands of a civilian population. As stated, the law does not infringe on the right to bear arms.

And here is the problem. People not knowing what the law actualy banned. People will say they are okay with people having a hunting rifle, but not 'assault weapons'.

Here is a hunting rifle
[home.mchsi.com image 640x429]

And here is an assault rifle (according to the ban)
[cdn2.armslist.com image 590x300]

According to the ban, one the top one is okay to have, but the bottom 'doesn't belong on the streets in the hands of civilians'
They are the SAME rifle
The only difference one is made with wood, the other plastic. They have different grips, and the bottom one has a stock that adjusts to the user to fit more body types.

Aside from that, they function EXACTLY the same and shoot the same bullet the same number of times.

But yet the bottom one was banned because of how you hold it and because you can adjust the stock to fit your shoulder. That is what you are in favor of banning. How people hold their guns. Did you even know this? Or does banning the scary name 'assault' make you feel better? True 'assault' weapons are already banned. They have been since the 1930's. But people call for a reinstatement of the AWB despite not having ANY idea of that they would be banning.


I do think that people trying to enact regulations against firearms should have some idea what the heck they are talking about. What I don't understand is how someone can say that there hasn't been any real violence done with fully automatic assault weapons in forever because they were banned in the 30's, yet still be against doing tight restrictions now because "the criminal will just find a way to get the guns." Can't we think in the long term?
 
2013-01-10 04:05:19 PM

the money is in the banana stand: whidbey: GoldSpider: 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.

So you're really going to deny that having less assault weapons available to the population isn't in itself a deterrent?

If someone is mad or crazy enough to want to murder somebody or go on a spree, I am pretty sure that restricted access to "assault" weapons is not going to stop that. Another weapon will fill that niche.


Or not. He might forget the whole thing.

Running into a room with a shotgun or pistol will have probably the same outcome. I don't own any "assault" weapons or have the desire to.

Speculation.
 
2013-01-10 04:05:47 PM

whidbey: It should not be allowed to have the features of the second model, because it's obviously for military use.


And supposing you're not trolling, how do you know gun #2 is used by the military? I'd wager you can't even identify the model.
 
2013-01-10 04:07:18 PM

whidbey: I'm saying that a hunting rifle should look and perform like your top example, and there should be a legal definition.

It should not be allowed to have the features of the second model, because it's obviously for military use.


Are the looks really relevant? They don't change the fact that the two guns are exactly the same model and function identically.
 
2013-01-10 04:08:03 PM

GoldSpider: whidbey: I'm saying that a hunting rifle should look and perform like your top example, and there should be a legal definition.

It should not be allowed to have the features of the second model, because it's obviously for military use.

You've got to be trolling...


Not trolling. I'm trying to provide some leeway here. If the top example could really be justified in the use of hunting, then that is a reasonable exception to the ban.
 
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