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.

(Talking Points Memo)   It looks like nobody is buying the 'gun control' they're selling, so they're re-branding it as 'gun safety'   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 266
    More: Asinine, Brady Campaign, gun safety, Biden  
•       •       •

2204 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jan 2013 at 3:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-11 01:42:00 PM
I don't care what they brand it as, as long as they get something meaningful done.
 
2013-01-11 01:44:52 PM
Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.
 
2013-01-11 01:45:34 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: I don't care what they brand it as, as long as they get something meaningful done.


What do you consider meaningful? Because an assault rifle ban isn't gonna do much to change the homicide rate.
 
2013-01-11 01:48:56 PM

make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.


Gun safety is pretty simple. Treat every gun like it is loaded. Don' t point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the tringer until you are ready to fire. Done.
 
2013-01-11 01:52:43 PM

EatenTheSun: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Gun safety is pretty simple. Treat every gun like it is loaded. Don' t point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the tringer until you are ready to fire. Done.


Don't give guns to crazy people.
Don't give guns to people with criminal records.
Don't let kids handle guns without strict supervision and proper guidance.
Squeeze slowly, the kick should surprise you.
 
2013-01-11 01:53:35 PM

EatenTheSun: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I don't care what they brand it as, as long as they get something meaningful done.

What do you consider meaningful? Because an assault rifle ban isn't gonna do much to change the homicide rate.


I think it would.  It will lower the number of casualties at these farking mass shootings, anyway.

I think guns should be as regulated as cars and driver's licenses.  Tests, background checks, classes, check-ups, renewals for classes and licenses...the whole thing.

I would prefer guns be outlawed completely and every single one of them melted down, but my idealistic bent takes a back seat to practicality and feasibility.
 
2013-01-11 01:53:43 PM

make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.


Exactly.

One thing I'd like to know though.  The people who says that the 2nd Amendment is needed because they need the right to have guns to thwart a "take over" of America by a supposed "dictator" getting control within the government.   If somehow that did happen, do they really think their "Michigan Militia" and the like are going to take down this dictator?  It isn't like rebels trying to fight the government of Rwanda.... our government (and whomever is in charge of it) can squash you like a bug if they really thought they needed to...  I mean, the government can pull out weapons you'd never even think about.

I mean, ok, yeah, if everyone is fully "unarmed" , then, the "dictatorship" happens much easier, I won't deny that.  But, even if you are supposedly "armed to the teeth".... compared to a fully stocked US Armed Forces (assuming for the most part that the rank & file of the armed forces are on the side of the government)... you are nothing.

Of course, the people who believe this most likely think we are basically under a dictator right now, which is 90% of the problem.
 
2013-01-11 01:54:10 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: I don't care what they brand it as, as long as they get something meaningful done.


When one party equates the 2nd Amendment as religion and any attempt to change that as throwing them to the lions, don't expect anything meaningful to get done.
 
2013-01-11 01:56:42 PM
Cold. Dead. Fingers.

Proper gun control is using two hands.
 
2013-01-11 01:58:26 PM

EatenTheSun: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Gun safety is pretty simple. Treat every gun like it is loaded. Don' t point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the tringer until you are ready to fire. Done.


Ironic that those with absolutely no concept of these fundamental safety rules are painting themselves as 'experts' because they looked at a bunch of pictures of guns. Magazine in gun, finger on trigger.  If someone in the audience were carrying concealed, they might have shot her.


i831.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-11 02:01:37 PM

make me some tea: Don't give guns to crazy people.

This is the hard part.  Identifying crazy people, and also what right does the government have to deem one 'crazy'?  I mean under the current law?

Don't give guns to people with criminal records.
We already do this, don't we?  Of course anyone can buy a gun out of someone's trunk, even those crazy folks, even if we could identify them.

Don't let kids handle guns without strict supervision and proper guidance.
Common sense, but this falls on the parent.  No government agency is capable of enforcing this.

Squeeze slowly, the kick should surprise you.
Maybe the first time, but you will quickly get a feel for where the trigger's fire threshold is.
 
2013-01-11 02:02:09 PM

dletter: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Exactly.

One thing I'd like to know though.  The people who says that the 2nd Amendment is needed because they need the right to have guns to thwart a "take over" of America by a supposed "dictator" getting control within the government.   If somehow that did happen, do they really think their "Michigan Militia" and the like are going to take down this dictator?  It isn't like rebels trying to fight the government of Rwanda.... our government (and whomever is in charge of it) can squash you like a bug if they really thought they needed to...  I mean, the government can pull out weapons you'd never even think about.

I mean, ok, yeah, if everyone is fully "unarmed" , then, the "dictatorship" happens much easier, I won't deny that.  But, even if you are supposedly "armed to the teeth".... compared to a fully stocked US Armed Forces (assuming for the most part that the rank & file of the armed forces are on the side of the government)... you are nothing.

Of course, the people who believe this most likely think we are basically under a dictator right now, which is 90% of the problem.


Civilian gun ownership does not protect a populace from an authoritarian government, nor does it guarantee rule of law. Iraq under Saddam Hussein's rule had an armed populace, for example.
 
2013-01-11 02:06:07 PM

dletter: One thing I'd like to know though. The people who says that the 2nd Amendment is needed because they need the right to have guns to thwart a "take over" of America by a supposed "dictator" getting control within the government.


Actually the 2nd amendment empowers the government to use the militia to fight off insurrections and threats.  Kind of the opposite of what these yahoos think it means.
 
2013-01-11 02:06:53 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Cold. Dead. Fingers.

Proper gun control is using two hands.


So, if the Newtown shooter had used two hands, this all could have been avoided then?
 
2013-01-11 02:08:17 PM

nekom: We already do this, don't we?  Of course anyone can buy a gun out of someone's trunk, even those crazy folks, even if we could identify them.


There needs to be some sort of accountability in place to hold the gun owner responsible for its misuse.

Using the car analogy (a car can be used as a deadly weapon): When you buy a car, it has a title. You have to register it to drive it. When you sell the car, you transfer the title to the new owner, and the new owner has to register it again. If you let someone borrow your car and they hit a pedestrian with it, the pedestrian can sues the driver, you, and your insurance.

Why can't this type of responsibility be applied to firearms?
 
2013-01-11 02:08:20 PM
Considering that this is a push to make the country safer, that makes perfect sense.
 
2013-01-11 02:11:06 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Cold. Dead. Fingers.

Proper gun control is using two hands.

So, if the Newtown shooter had used two hands, this all could have been avoided then?


I laughed way too hard at that. I'll show myself the door to Hell now.
 
2013-01-11 02:11:19 PM
Might as well re-brand it "gun appearance control".
 
2013-01-11 02:12:53 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Cold. Dead. Fingers.

Proper gun control is using two hands.


The Rambo fantasy from old fat white guy. Scary.
 
2013-01-11 02:13:51 PM

EatenTheSun: Treat every gun like it is loaded. Don' t point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.


I'm pretty sure most of the recent mass murders or attempted mass murders were working off of this ethos. That didn't seem to help the rest of us. I'm ready to call it inadequate.
 
2013-01-11 02:15:03 PM

make me some tea: There needs to be some sort of accountability in place to hold the gun owner responsible for its misuse.

Using the car analogy (a car can be used as a deadly weapon): When you buy a car, it has a title. You have to register it to drive it. When you sell the car, you transfer the title to the new owner, and the new owner has to register it again. If you let someone borrow your car and they hit a pedestrian with it, the pedestrian can sues the driver, you, and your insurance.

Why can't this type of responsibility be applied to firearms?


Well, the key difference is that you will obviously be pulled over if your car doesn't have proper plates and tags, which you would have a hell of a time getting (though probably not impossible) for a car you "found" or wound up with somehow.  A gun, on the other hand, well unless you get pulled over and searched or use it in a crime, an unlicensed gun can exist and be useful without a single bit of paperwork. 
It's a tough nut to crack.
 
2013-01-11 02:17:48 PM

nekom: Identifying crazy people, and also what right does the government have to deem one 'crazy'? I mean under the current law?


I'm pretty sure officials make determinations about people's mental health all the time. The problem is that they often don't do it well enough.
 
2013-01-11 02:18:47 PM

violentsalvation: Might as well re-brand it "gun appearance control".


We should put Sheriff Joe in charge. He is great at this sort of thing.
 
2013-01-11 02:25:00 PM

nekom: make me some tea: There needs to be some sort of accountability in place to hold the gun owner responsible for its misuse.

Using the car analogy (a car can be used as a deadly weapon): When you buy a car, it has a title. You have to register it to drive it. When you sell the car, you transfer the title to the new owner, and the new owner has to register it again. If you let someone borrow your car and they hit a pedestrian with it, the pedestrian can sues the driver, you, and your insurance.

Why can't this type of responsibility be applied to firearms?

Well, the key difference is that you will obviously be pulled over if your car doesn't have proper plates and tags, which you would have a hell of a time getting (though probably not impossible) for a car you "found" or wound up with somehow.  A gun, on the other hand, well unless you get pulled over and searched or use it in a crime, an unlicensed gun can exist and be useful without a single bit of paperwork. 
It's a tough nut to crack.


Sure, there are obviously practical differences there, but just because it's tough doesn't mean we throw our hands up in the air and say it's unsolvable and give up. I'm not saying I have any answers myself either, just saying there has to be an answer for this.
 
2013-01-11 02:26:34 PM

make me some tea: Sure, there are obviously practical differences there, but just because it's tough doesn't mean we throw our hands up in the air and say it's unsolvable and give up. I'm not saying I have any answers myself either, just saying there has to be an answer for this.


There is, but we'll never find it here.  The answer is to ban assault weapons and handguns.  It won't hurt hunters or those who want a weapon for home defense, but it will make it awfully hard to kill dozens of people.  Fat chance of that ever happening in the states though.
 
2013-01-11 02:26:36 PM

nekom: make me some tea: Don't give guns to crazy people.
This is the hard part.  Identifying crazy people, and also what right does the government have to deem one 'crazy'?  I mean under the current law?


It's not hard.  In my state, part of the background check asks if, within the past five years, you've been committed voluntarily or involuntarily for six months or longer to a facility whose primary purpose is the treatment of mental health.

There's also a form I've filled out at a local gun store that asks the purpose of the purchase (straw buying is illegal).  I'm pretty sure that if anyone put "going on a mass killing spree next month" they would not be allowed to purchase the weapon.

So now we're down to subjective assessments of who's 'crazy'.  I think Diane Feinstein, an elected representative who has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution and yet seems bound and determined to trample on it (she also approves of warrantless wiretaps, a violation of the Fouth Amendment) is bat-shiat crazy.  And yet, there's a picture of Diane, holding an AK-47s with a 75-round magazine, possibly loaded, possibly with a round in the chamber, pointing it at people with her hand on the trigger.  Lock that crazy biatch up!  If you don't start with her, then you can't make judgments against anyone else.
 
2013-01-11 02:26:46 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Cold. Dead. Fingers.Cuts

Proper gun sub control is using two hands.

www.fredericksburgparent.net
Correct!

s3-media4.ak.yelpcdn.com
NO!
 
2013-01-11 02:28:54 PM

make me some tea: dletter: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Exactly.

One thing I'd like to know though.  The people who says that the 2nd Amendment is needed because they need the right to have guns to thwart a "take over" of America by a supposed "dictator" getting control within the government.   If somehow that did happen, do they really think their "Michigan Militia" and the like are going to take down this dictator?  It isn't like rebels trying to fight the government of Rwanda.... our government (and whomever is in charge of it) can squash you like a bug if they really thought they needed to...  I mean, the government can pull out weapons you'd never even think about.

I mean, ok, yeah, if everyone is fully "unarmed" , then, the "dictatorship" happens much easier, I won't deny that.  But, even if you are supposedly "armed to the teeth".... compared to a fully stocked US Armed Forces (assuming for the most part that the rank & file of the armed forces are on the side of the government)... you are nothing.

Of course, the people who believe this most likely think we are basically under a dictator right now, which is 90% of the problem.

Civilian gun ownership does not protect a populace from an authoritarian government, nor does it guarantee rule of law. Iraq under Saddam Hussein's rule had an armed populace, for example.


I dunno. I'm told everyone in the military are God fearing patriots that will rise up en masse with the civilian population to depose the Obamatator.
 
2013-01-11 02:34:24 PM

djkutch: I dunno. I'm told everyone in the military are God fearing patriots that will rise up en masse with the civilian population to depose the Obamatator.


lulz
 
2013-01-11 02:34:27 PM
syrynxx: If you don't start with her, then you can't make judgments against anyone else.

Well Ted Nugent is crazy too.  And Wayne LaPierre isn't helping his case.
 
2013-01-11 02:39:48 PM

Nadie_AZ: violentsalvation: Might as well re-brand it "gun appearance control".

We should put Sheriff Joe in charge. He is great at this sort of thing.


Reactionary responses based in unfounded fear and prejudice? Yeah that does sound a lot like Sheriff Joe.
 
2013-01-11 02:40:54 PM

dletter: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Exactly.

One thing I'd like to know though.  The people who says that the 2nd Amendment is needed because they need the right to have guns to thwart a "take over" of America by a supposed "dictator" getting control within the government.   If somehow that did happen, do they really think their "Michigan Militia" and the like are going to take down this dictator?  It isn't like rebels trying to fight the government of Rwanda.... our government (and whomever is in charge of it) can squash you like a bug if they really thought they needed to...  I mean, the government can pull out weapons you'd never even think about.

I mean, ok, yeah, if everyone is fully "unarmed" , then, the "dictatorship" happens much easier, I won't deny that.  But, even if you are supposedly "armed to the teeth".... compared to a fully stocked US Armed Forces (assuming for the most part that the rank & file of the armed forces are on the side of the government)... you are nothing.

Of course, the people who believe this most likely think we are basically under a dictator right now, which is 90% of the problem.


When you're done with that strawman, I have a garden we could put him in.
 
2013-01-11 02:41:55 PM
No matter how you brand it, either side of the gun control debate is bait and switch.

We need to have a discussion in this country about crime. Causes. Prevention. Why folks turn to violent crime. How we can reduce the factors and conditions that make it an option.

That means having a meaningful discussion on education, mental health, and economic opportunity as well as drug policy.

But we won't. Instead folks are going to conflate the tools themselves as both cause and solution to crime. And very little will be done to address the real issue of crime in this country, and a lot of lobbyists will pocket cash on both sides of this uselessly vitriolic debate...
 
2013-01-11 02:44:15 PM
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

Hi! I was shot by a psycho in my classroom.

It would be nice if someone did something about crazy people with guns going on
killing sprees. I really don't care whether you call it "gun control" or "gun safety".

Thank you.

/I purposely did not use a photo of one of the actual victims. This is a stock photo.
 
2013-01-11 02:45:19 PM

violentsalvation: Nadie_AZ: violentsalvation: Might as well re-brand it "gun appearance control".

We should put Sheriff Joe in charge. He is great at this sort of thing.

Reactionary responses based in unfounded fear and prejudice? Yeah that does sound a lot like Sheriff Joe.


Well, his plan is to send a zealot group of his into schools so they can shoot anyone who is threatening.
 
2013-01-11 02:50:18 PM
As long as they don't use the word "ban" or any of its synonyms I'm perfectly willing to have a conversation with them, I don't care what they call it.
 
2013-01-11 02:51:22 PM

vernonFL: It would be nice if someone did something about crazy people with guns going on
killing sprees.


Crazy people with other weapons is still okay.
 
2013-01-11 02:51:32 PM
hubiestubert:
We need to have a discussion in this country about crime. Causes. Prevention. Why folks turn to violent crime. How we can reduce the factors and conditions that make it an option.

That means having a meaningful discussion on education, mental health, and economic opportunity as well as drug policy.


That's like having a meaningful discussion on Crips vs. Bloods.  Are we really going to try to rearchitect black society so that males marry the mothers of their children and have them grow up with honest, job-holding role models so the youths don't succumb to peer pressure to join a gang?  That's dumber than suggesting 10-round magazines are going to change anything.
 
2013-01-11 02:53:46 PM

doglover: dletter: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Exactly.

One thing I'd like to know though.  The people who says that the 2nd Amendment is needed because they need the right to have guns to thwart a "take over" of America by a supposed "dictator" getting control within the government.   If somehow that did happen, do they really think their "Michigan Militia" and the like are going to take down this dictator?  It isn't like rebels trying to fight the government of Rwanda.... our government (and whomever is in charge of it) can squash you like a bug if they really thought they needed to...  I mean, the government can pull out weapons you'd never even think about.

I mean, ok, yeah, if everyone is fully "unarmed" , then, the "dictatorship" happens much easier, I won't deny that.  But, even if you are supposedly "armed to the teeth".... compared to a fully stocked US Armed Forces (assuming for the most part that the rank & file of the armed forces are on the side of the government)... you are nothing.

Of course, the people who believe this most likely think we are basically under a dictator right now, which is 90% of the problem.

When you're done with that strawman, I have a garden we could put him in.


Who has the strawman?   I didn't say there is or isn't a GOOD reason for unlimited gun rights... I was just pointing out one of the arguments for it (the people who make the claim because of.....) , and making statements about that.   People make the claim for a variety of reasons, and I wasn't commenting on any of those.
 
2013-01-11 02:55:21 PM

syrynxx: hubiestubert:
We need to have a discussion in this country about crime. Causes. Prevention. Why folks turn to violent crime. How we can reduce the factors and conditions that make it an option.

That means having a meaningful discussion on education, mental health, and economic opportunity as well as drug policy.

That's like having a meaningful discussion on Crips vs. Bloods.  Are we really going to try to rearchitect black society so that males marry the mothers of their children and have them grow up with honest, job-holding role models so the youths don't succumb to peer pressure to join a gang?  That's dumber than suggesting 10-round magazines are going to change anything.


upload.wikimedia.org
No kidding man, I tried that.. doesn't work dude.
 
2013-01-11 02:56:36 PM

violentsalvation: Might as well re-brand it "gun appearance control".


Either these features matter, serve a purpose etc and you should care

Or they're all cosmetic, and you shouldn't care


IT CANNOT BE BOTH, STOP THIS DISHONEST TALKING POINT
 
2013-01-11 02:59:38 PM

hubiestubert: No matter how you brand it, either side of the gun control debate is bait and switch.

We need to have a discussion in this country about crime. Causes. Prevention. Why folks turn to violent crime. How we can reduce the factors and conditions that make it an option.

That means having a meaningful discussion on education, mental health, and economic opportunity as well as drug policy.

But we won't. Instead folks are going to conflate the tools themselves as both cause and solution to crime. And very little will be done to address the real issue of crime in this country, and a lot of lobbyists will pocket cash on both sides of this uselessly vitriolic debate...


very much this.


i think both sides are largely being stupid about guns - i lean slightly in favor of better regulation of the militia (*twists the constitutional knife*) - but will call out dumb things on my own side (criminals will ignore laws. so make it harder for them to have guns in the first place - close the gun show loopholes that still exist). However the right is always, completely, totally and utterly pants-on-head retarded when any discussion of guns comes up.
 
2013-01-11 03:06:24 PM

vernonFL: Hi! I was shot by a psycho in my classroom.

It would be nice if someone did something about crazy people with guns going on
killing sprees. I really don't care whether you call it "gun control" or "gun safety".

Thank you.

/I purposely did not use a photo of one of the actual victims. This is a stock photo.


Key word: psycho

Let's do something about all those psychos and leave all the law abiding sane people alone!

Lets count the laws/rules that were broken:
1) theft - he stole the guns
2) carrying a gun into a gun free zone
3) murder (30 counts)

So what new law or rule would have stopped him?!
 
2013-01-11 03:08:10 PM
I would agree that gun safety is the proper term. We are far past gun control at this point, as far too many gun owners didn't control their guns and now we have plenty of criminals who have gotten them through various means.


They had their chance to control their guns, now we are in need of regulations to make our society safer from them.
 
2013-01-11 03:10:05 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: vernonFL: Hi! I was shot by a psycho in my classroom.

It would be nice if someone did something about crazy people with guns going on
killing sprees. I really don't care whether you call it "gun control" or "gun safety".

Thank you.

/I purposely did not use a photo of one of the actual victims. This is a stock photo.

Key word: psycho

Let's do something about all those psychos and leave all the law abiding sane people alone!

Lets count the laws/rules that were broken:
1) theft - he stole the guns
2) carrying a gun into a gun free zone
3) murder (30 counts)

So what new law or rule would have stopped him?!


Background check including mental health?
He stole the guns from his mother. So, perhaps background checks including mental health for all house hold members?

I say you can have a bazooka if you want, if we could agree to something like that.  It's a start.
 
2013-01-11 03:10:58 PM

syrynxx: If someone in the audience were carrying concealed, they might have shot her.


wouldn't THAT get your little dick hard
 
2013-01-11 03:11:30 PM
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
 
2013-01-11 03:11:35 PM
www.supplementinnercircle.com
 
2013-01-11 03:12:01 PM

Publikwerks: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Cold. Dead. Fingers.Cuts

Proper gun sub control is using two hands.
[www.fredericksburgparent.net image 400x266]
Correct!

[s3-media4.ak.yelpcdn.com image 600x399]
NO!


I think that kid's sandwich just gave me an erection.
 
2013-01-11 03:12:26 PM

make me some tea: nekom: We already do this, don't we?  Of course anyone can buy a gun out of someone's trunk, even those crazy folks, even if we could identify them.

There needs to be some sort of accountability in place to hold the gun owner responsible for its misuse.

Using the car analogy (a car can be used as a deadly weapon): When you buy a car, it has a title. You have to register it to drive it. When you sell the car, you transfer the title to the new owner, and the new owner has to register it again. If you let someone borrow your car and they hit a pedestrian with it, the pedestrian can sues the driver, you, and your insurance.

Why can't this type of responsibility be applied to firearms?


We can and we should. Bans aren't going to help nearly as much as this type of control, and economic disincentives to owning them (tax, insurance, etc).
 
2013-01-11 03:12:55 PM

syrynxx: hubiestubert:
We need to have a discussion in this country about crime. Causes. Prevention. Why folks turn to violent crime. How we can reduce the factors and conditions that make it an option.

That means having a meaningful discussion on education, mental health, and economic opportunity as well as drug policy.

That's like having a meaningful discussion on Crips vs. Bloods.  Are we really going to try to rearchitect black society so that males marry the mothers of their children and have them grow up with honest, job-holding role models so the youths don't succumb to peer pressure to join a gang?  That's dumber than suggesting 10-round magazines are going to change anything.


If drugs and prostitution are legalized, taking the power away from the undercurrents of society so desperate to improve their lot that the 'easy' route of illegal activity is the primary driver of action, the currently gang-ridden societies will change themselves.
 
2013-01-11 03:13:47 PM
I think calling it 'gun safety' is a great idea.

We need to drug test everyone who buys a gun or ammunition. We don't want drug dealers and druggies from getting guns do we?
 
2013-01-11 03:14:05 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: I don't care what they brand it as, as long as they get something meaningful done.


They won't because they can't.

Any attempt at banning certain models of firearms will only create a robust black market for them. Whatever weapon they try to restrict will be bought em mass before any restriction becomes law, and those weapons will circulate in a robust black market.

Any attempt at mental health reform is going to stall the second someone is involuntarily treated and retaliates with a lawsuit.

Sick people will continue to target innocent victims, people will still have their guns, and crazies will still be crazy.


America won't stop being a crazy and violent country as long as a place that thinks it's more socially acceptable to show horrific killing on prime-time t.v. than it is to show a woman's sweet milk mounds.
 
2013-01-11 03:15:13 PM
Well, it worked for "Death Tax".
 
2013-01-11 03:15:48 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: vernonFL: Hi! I was shot by a psycho in my classroom.

It would be nice if someone did something about crazy people with guns going on
killing sprees. I really don't care whether you call it "gun control" or "gun safety".

Thank you.

/I purposely did not use a photo of one of the actual victims. This is a stock photo.

Key word: psycho

Let's do something about all those psychos and leave all the law abiding sane people alone!

Lets count the laws/rules that were broken:
1) theft - he stole the guns
2) carrying a gun into a gun free zone
3) murder (30 counts)

So what new law or rule would have stopped him?!


You're not allowed to keep arguing after someone hijacks the souls of dead children to further a political argument.
 
2013-01-11 03:16:56 PM
But what will happen to the manufacturer of those clever "'gun control' means using both hands" bumper stickers? Another job lost in 0bummer's America.
 
2013-01-11 03:17:02 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: EatenTheSun: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I don't care what they brand it as, as long as they get something meaningful done.

What do you consider meaningful? Because an assault rifle ban isn't gonna do much to change the homicide rate.

I think it would. It will lower the number of casualties at these farking mass shootings, anyway.


It's unclear whether it would or would not. An assault weapon ban has never been tried. A handgun ban has been tried and does reduce the homicide rate.
 
2013-01-11 03:17:09 PM
Remember Gunfappers, your position grows weaker with every massacre and you've ensured there are plenty of guns around for them to continue.

Enjoy.
 
2013-01-11 03:17:44 PM

Muta: We need to drug test everyone who buys a gun or ammunition. We don't want drug dealers and druggies from getting guns do we?


Actually, that is one major reason why I *don't* own a gun. Who knows if I may or may not have illegal drugs in my home, and in my state, if I were to be caught with illegal drugs AND a gun (even if the gun was legal) I would go to jail for twice as long as if I just had the illegal drugs only. Hypothetical situation.
 
2013-01-11 03:18:15 PM
I think it would. It will lower the number of casualties at these farking mass shootings, anyway.

Out of America's 10 worst mass shootings, only 1 involved an assault rifle (Newton). Furthermore, the Newton shooter was in the building for 10 minutes and fired less than 100 rounds; the same damage could easily have been inflicted with the handguns or shotgun he carried, neither of which are being addressed by any of the proposed bans. The worst mass shooting in US history was committed with two handguns.

So no, an assault rifle ban won't have any meaningful impact on the number of people killed, either in mass shootings or in more traditional gun murders.

Nobody who is pro-gun control has ever addressed these facts (all of which are readily available with a bit of Google), and articulated a reason why Democratic politicians always seem to race to assault rifle bans as their first answer to solving gun crime. It is the least effective proposal with the most pushback from the gun community that could possibly be implemented.
 
2013-01-11 03:18:24 PM

another cultural observer: The Stealth Hippopotamus: vernonFL: Hi! I was shot by a psycho in my classroom.

It would be nice if someone did something about crazy people with guns going on
killing sprees. I really don't care whether you call it "gun control" or "gun safety".

Thank you.

/I purposely did not use a photo of one of the actual victims. This is a stock photo.

Key word: psycho

Let's do something about all those psychos and leave all the law abiding sane people alone!

Lets count the laws/rules that were broken:
1) theft - he stole the guns
2) carrying a gun into a gun free zone
3) murder (30 counts)

So what new law or rule would have stopped him?!

You're not allowed to keep arguing after someone hijacks the souls of dead children to further a political argument.


Now I'm hungry.
 
2013-01-11 03:18:25 PM
This is just sad, all of it.
 
2013-01-11 03:18:32 PM

Pincy: Well, it worked for "Death Tax".


And "Job Creators."
 
2013-01-11 03:18:50 PM

Pincy: Well, it worked for "Death Tax".


"Job creator"
 
2013-01-11 03:18:50 PM

Muta: We don't want drug dealers and druggies from getting guns do we?


The NRA freak on my Facebook page would agree with that statement. He's said so a few times. Incidentally, I'm don't think I've ever seen him not stoned.

I'd point out the hypocrisy, but I'd rather just unfriend him.
 
2013-01-11 03:19:03 PM
Firearms enthusiasts, as a group, seem like the most pedantic people on the planet.
 
2013-01-11 03:20:42 PM

justtray: We can and we should. Bans aren't going to help nearly as much as this type of control, and economic disincentives to owning them (tax, insurance, etc).


I don't agree with banning weapons anymore than I agree with banning marijuana. People are gonna get their hands on stuff they want one way or another.
 
2013-01-11 03:21:08 PM

dr-shotgun: I think it would. It will lower the number of casualties at these farking mass shootings, anyway.

Out of America's 10 worst mass shootings, only 1 involved an assault rifle (Newton). Furthermore, the Newton shooter was in the building for 10 minutes and fired less than 100 rounds; the same damage could easily have been inflicted with the handguns or shotgun he carried, neither of which are being addressed by any of the proposed bans. The worst mass shooting in US history was committed with two handguns.

So no, an assault rifle ban won't have any meaningful impact on the number of people killed, either in mass shootings or in more traditional gun murders.

Nobody who is pro-gun control has ever addressed these facts (all of which are readily available with a bit of Google), and articulated a reason why Democratic politicians always seem to race to assault rifle bans as their first answer to solving gun crime. It is the least effective proposal with the most pushback from the gun community that could possibly be implemented.


assets.motherjones.com
 
2013-01-11 03:21:39 PM
Want to cut back on gun violence? Increase access to birth control and abortions. Because unwanted, poorly raised children are more likely to grow up to be criminals.
 
2013-01-11 03:21:48 PM

Nadie_AZ: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I don't care what they brand it as, as long as they get something meaningful done.

When one party equates the 2nd Amendment as religion and any attempt to change that as throwing them to the lions, don't expect anything meaningful to get done.


And when that party has distaste bordering on psychosis for the other party and it's leader, expect even less to be done. They would rather make the situation worse than give fartbongo a victory.
 
2013-01-11 03:21:48 PM
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so". - Thomas Jefferson
 
2013-01-11 03:22:23 PM

Muta: I think calling it 'gun safety' is a great idea.

We need to drug test everyone who buys a gun or ammunition. We don't want drug dealers and druggies from getting guns do we?


I assume we'd be testing for all legally prescribed drugs in that scenario as well?
 
2013-01-11 03:22:57 PM
All future gun purchases can only be made by registered members of official state or national militias, who are required to get cleared for duty every two years.

All weapons seized in the process of police work are to be destroyed if conviction of violent crime is the result of the case.

Magazine sizes are maxed at 6.

Silencers, body armor, and ammunition require the same level of clearance to purchase as a gun itself.

Easy solutions, and completely constitutional. Don't even have to go "gun-grabbing" as the wingnuts fear.
 
2013-01-11 03:23:00 PM

make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.


Not for me. I'd sign on for "gun banning", "gun abolitionism", "gun outlawing", whatever. Do it Obama. You totally farked us over on the "fiscal cliff" opportunity, but maybe you can salvage yourself here.

Also, can we stop calling people who own guns but aren't in the military or law enforcement, and don't hunt, "gun owners"? It is a half ass PC euphamism for the these crazy farks. The appropriate term is "gun nut".
 
2013-01-11 03:23:08 PM

Fail in Human Form: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so". - Thomas Jefferson


"Which one of my slaves am I gonna bang today?" - Thomas Jefferson
 
2013-01-11 03:23:31 PM
Wecome to modern politics. Sort of a combination of 1984 and idiocracy.

Like the "affordable" care act. You know, the one currently projected to cost $2.6 trillion, plus make everybody buy insurance, plus charge us each a $63 a month surcharge. You know, affordable!

Carry on, citizen.
 
2013-01-11 03:23:33 PM
Why not "pro-life"?

I'm going to stick with "gun regulation" as it suggests being in line with the Constitution and "gun safety" already has a meaning.
 
2013-01-11 03:23:51 PM
Unless you're a collector of historically significant firearms (in which case owning is an end in itself), a gun is just a tool. A means to an end.

A tool to accomplish evil, or a tool to accomplish something neutral (or a tool to accomplish something good, if you're target practicing).

That's all I've got for now.
 
2013-01-11 03:24:04 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Firearms enthusiasts, as a group, seem like the most pedantic people on the planet.


t3.gstatic.com

They would rather kill their own mother than not have a gun.
 
2013-01-11 03:24:08 PM
Kazan:  i lean slightly in favor of better regulation of the militia (*twists the constitutional knife*)

'Regulation' was not a synonym for 'restriction'.  A 'well-restricted militia' makes no sense in a Bill of Rights. Regardless, the RKBA has been upheld by the Supreme Court as an individual right not dependent on membership in a formal militia.  Try reading the ruling; you'll save a lot of blather.

 - but will call out dumb things on my own side (criminals will ignore laws. so make it harder for them to have guns in the first place - close the gun show loopholes that still exist).
This is what is dumb - trying to exploit a recent tragedy by creating laws completely irrelevant to what happened.  Did the Newtown gun guy purchase his weapons at a gun show?  No.  Did anyone else recently in the news?  No.  Do gangbangers?  No.  So shut your yap with your tired, rehashed talking points.  FFLs at gun shows do background checks just like in a store.


 However the right is always, completely, totally and utterly pants-on-head retarded when any discussion of guns comes up.
Gun ownership isn't a left-vs-right issue. Plenty of Democrats own firearms.  Proposing rules in the wake of a tragedy that would've had no tangible impact on what happened is completely, totally, and utterly pants-on-head retarded.
 
2013-01-11 03:24:51 PM
We should ban all semi-automatic weapons. Or tax the living shait out of them so very few people own one.
 
2013-01-11 03:25:14 PM

another cultural observer: You're not allowed to keep arguing after someone hijacks the souls of dead children to further a political argument.


Dr. Venture: [defensive] Might be, kind of - I mean I didn't use the whole thing!
 
2013-01-11 03:25:33 PM

Lsherm: I think that kid's sandwich just gave me an erection.


THIS. I will share your sandwich-erection.

/Wait, did that sound as bad as it sounds?
 
2013-01-11 03:25:49 PM

LarryDan43: Want to cut back on gun violence? Increase access to birth control and abortions. Because unwanted, poorly raised children are more likely to grow up to be criminals.


Criminals as in gang thugs or bank robbers?  Perhaps.  But so many of these spree shooters come from fairly well off suburban families.  Shooting 20 children dead at a school and shooting someone in an alley because he stole your crack show two VERY different demographics.
 
2013-01-11 03:25:50 PM

EyeballKid: Fail in Human Form: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so". - Thomas Jefferson

"Which one of my slaves am I gonna bang today?" - Thomas Jefferson


TJ was the Joe Biden of colonial America. I bet he used spend his saturdays washing his carriage, shirtless, in front of the mansion.
 
2013-01-11 03:25:55 PM
What these morons want isn't going to (and wouldn't have) change/d much.

1. They want to limit the guns that are used in less than 3% of murders.
2. They want to limit magazine capacity which wasn't a factor. Also, you can change the magazine in 2 seconds. Whoop-dee-doo.
3. They want to outlaw the private sales of guns (gun show "loophole").

This won't do anything to stop 99% of gun violence and it wouldn't have stopped the massacres.

Good jerb libs.

Obama Administration: "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
 
2013-01-11 03:26:00 PM

Jackson Herring: syrynxx: If someone in the audience were carrying concealed, they might have shot her.

wouldn't THAT get your little dick hard


Have you had the 'talk' with your parents about your obsession with other mens' penises?
 
2013-01-11 03:26:00 PM

Captain_Ballbeard: Remember Gunfappers, your position grows weaker with every massacre and you've ensured there are plenty of guns around for them to continue.

Enjoy.


Ooh, wait, "gunfappers" is more accurate. Let's go with that.
 
2013-01-11 03:26:27 PM

Fail in Human Form: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so". - Thomas Jefferson


"Sometimes people on the internet make shiat up and then pretend someone famous said it." - George Jefferson
 
2013-01-11 03:26:45 PM
Why can't this type of responsibility be applied to firearms?

Well, to the gun lunatics, this is the first step in allowing the "Gummint" to take their guns away. Never mind that the US Supreme Court has already ruled that a citizen has a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. ANY attempt at regulation or registration is seen as infringing on 2nd ammendnent rights.

I find it funny that the NRA supports registering the mentally ill, but not gun owners ...
 
2013-01-11 03:26:59 PM

dr-shotgun: Out of America's 10 worst mass shootings, only 1 involved an assault rifle (Newton).


Still, it's a popular item.

img2.timeinc.nettimenewsfeed.files.wordpress.comstatic.guim.co.ukwww.gannett-cdn.com

/and of course you meant "assault weapon"
 
2013-01-11 03:27:30 PM
Poor babies. Isn't the "anti-gun" moniker catching on as fast as they wanted? Maybe because most people aren't actually "anti-gun," ya think?

But if that "anti-gun" makes gun owners even more paranoid and angry, that's what counts, right? That's exactly the kind of people we want stockpiling ammo.
 
2013-01-11 03:27:50 PM

Emrick: We should ban all semi-automatic weapons. Or tax the living shait out of them so very few people own one.


One bullet per trigger pull is scary to you?
 
2013-01-11 03:27:53 PM

Emrick: We should ban all semi-automatic weapons. Or tax the living shait out of them so very few people own one.


Or you could move to Europe, which is better suited to people who like totalitarian government control over people's individual lives.
 
2013-01-11 03:28:21 PM

cchris_39: Wecome to modern politics. Sort of a combination of 1984 and idiocracy.

Like the "affordable" care act. You know, the one currently projected to cost $2.6 trillion, plus make everybody buy insurance, plus charge us each a $63 a month surcharge. You know, affordable!

Carry on, citizen.


God forbid we actually pay for healthcare for millions of people. Did you think that would be free?

If you don't like the ACA then tell us something that will accomplish the same thing but cost nothing? Or do you not give a shait if your fellow countrymen die for no reason?
 
2013-01-11 03:28:56 PM

1derful: Emrick: We should ban all semi-automatic weapons. Or tax the living shait out of them so very few people own one.

Or you could move to Europe, which is better suited to people who like totalitarian government control over people's individual lives.


Yeah Europe totally blows
 
2013-01-11 03:29:35 PM
Hey, gun nuts - you're gonna get Luntzed!
 
2013-01-11 03:29:41 PM

CPennypacker: Posts Chart Showing Assault Rifles Used in Mass Shootings


You are missing the point.

The contention is that assault rifles are somehow exponentially MORE lethal than other guns when used in mass shootings. Yet, of the 10 most lethal mass shootings, only one involved the use of an assault rifle. And when we pick apart that shooting, it is obvious that the use of an AR likely has little/no effect on the overall lethality of the event.

So if they really are these "Weapons of mass murder" designed expressly to "Kill everybody in a room" as "quickly as possible," than why is it that mass shootings with assault rifles are not the entirety of the most lethal mass shooting list?

Also, the Mother Jones data on weapons is quite poor, as they categorize every long gun that isn't a shotgun as an assault rifle.
 
2013-01-11 03:30:36 PM
If they are changing the name in order to get more people behind the idea why not call it "free shiat for everyone"?
 
2013-01-11 03:30:59 PM
Call it whatever you want the bag of assholes that are going to resist any inkling of any sort of further restrictions on guns are the same bag of assholes they were yesterday.
 
2013-01-11 03:31:00 PM

dr-shotgun: CPennypacker: Posts Chart Showing Assault Rifles Used in Mass Shootings

You are missing the point.

The contention is that assault rifles are somehow exponentially MORE lethal than other guns when used in mass shootings. Yet, of the 10 most lethal mass shootings, only one involved the use of an assault rifle. And when we pick apart that shooting, it is obvious that the use of an AR likely has little/no effect on the overall lethality of the event.

So if they really are these "Weapons of mass murder" designed expressly to "Kill everybody in a room" as "quickly as possible," than why is it that mass shootings with assault rifles are not the entirety of the most lethal mass shooting list?

Also, the Mother Jones data on weapons is quite poor, as they categorize every long gun that isn't a shotgun as an assault rifle.


So what you're saying is, ban them all? Why do you hate the second amendment, commie?
 
2013-01-11 03:31:14 PM

thurstonxhowell: Fail in Human Form: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so". - Thomas Jefferson

"Sometimes people on the internet make shiat up and then pretend someone famous said it." - George Jefferson


"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Is that better?
 
2013-01-11 03:31:41 PM

1derful: Emrick: We should ban all semi-automatic weapons. Or tax the living shait out of them so very few people own one.

Or you could move to Europe, which is better suited to people who like totalitarian government control over people's individual lives.


Boo hoo we are going to take your guns away. Remember me when you turn in your last one.
 
2013-01-11 03:31:51 PM

hubiestubert: No matter how you brand it, either side of the gun control debate is bait and switch.

We need to have a discussion in this country about crime. Causes. Prevention. Why folks turn to violent crime. How we can reduce the factors and conditions that make it an option.

That means having a meaningful discussion on education, mental health, and economic opportunity as well as drug policy.

But we won't. Instead folks are going to conflate the tools themselves as both cause and solution to crime. And very little will be done to address the real issue of crime in this country, and a lot of lobbyists will pocket cash on both sides of this uselessly vitriolic debate...


Bravo


{insert picture of hipster sci fi show cast clapping here}
 
2013-01-11 03:32:06 PM

Emrick: We should ban all semi-automatic weapons. Or tax the living shait out of them so very few people own one.


And then all semi-automatic weapons will just magically cease to exist and all crazy people will just sit in their houses wishing that they had something to kill people with instead of actually killing people.
 
2013-01-11 03:32:13 PM

CPennypacker: 1derful: Emrick: We should ban all semi-automatic weapons. Or tax the living shait out of them so very few people own one.

Or you could move to Europe, which is better suited to people who like totalitarian government control over people's individual lives.

Yeah Europe totally blows


Yeah, I hear they lock up a huge portion of their population. Oh wait, that's us.
Well, they still try to run your life by telling who you can love. Damn, still us.
At least we can't be locked up with no trial! ... Oh for farks sake, just forget it!
 
2013-01-11 03:32:21 PM

djkutch: Background check including mental health?
He stole the guns from his mother. So, perhaps background checks including mental health for all house hold members?

I say you can have a bazooka if you want, if we could agree to something like that. It's a start.



Mental health should be a part of the back ground check. However you can't check everyone who could come into contact with the gun.

another cultural observer: You're not allowed to keep arguing after someone hijacks the souls of dead children to further a political argument.


That's basically what I've run into. Me: So someone who is willing to kill children is going to obey a law that says he can't use such-n-such weapon to do it? Them: you're a bad person and you should feel bad, these laws help the children. Think of the childreeeeeeennnnnnn!!!
 
2013-01-11 03:33:49 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Firearms enthusiasts, as a group, seem like the most pedantic people on the planet.


We pride ourselves on accuracy.

/If politicians were trying to regulate booze by first calling it poison, you'd be just as pedantic.
/I mean, its all got alcohol in it. How is Isopropyl not the same thing as Vodka?
 
2013-01-11 03:33:57 PM

GanjSmokr: thurstonxhowell: Fail in Human Form: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so". - Thomas Jefferson

"Sometimes people on the internet make shiat up and then pretend someone famous said it." - George Jefferson

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Is that better?


"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." Abraham Lincoln
 
2013-01-11 03:35:36 PM

Muta: I think calling it 'gun safety' is a great idea.

We need to drug test everyone who buys a gun or ammunition. We don't want drug dealers and druggies from getting guns do we?


Good idea...we should also tie that in to owning and driving vehicles since cars and the regulation of is brought up by the anti RKBAers so much.

Everyone should be happy with this.
 
2013-01-11 03:35:40 PM

GanjSmokr: thurstonxhowell: Fail in Human Form: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so". - Thomas Jefferson

"Sometimes people on the internet make shiat up and then pretend someone famous said it." - George Jefferson

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Is that better?


"Fart hahahaha" - Martin Luther
 
2013-01-11 03:36:02 PM
 
2013-01-11 03:37:37 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: What do you consider meaningful? Because an assault rifle ban isn't gonna do much to change the homicide rate.

I think it would.


This is the problem with the debate. The disconnect between needless action driven by emotion and effective action driven by facts and numbers.
 
2013-01-11 03:37:49 PM

way south: Uranus Is Huge!: Firearms enthusiasts, as a group, seem like the most pedantic people on the planet.

We pride ourselves on accuracy.

/If politicians were trying to regulate booze by first calling it poison, you'd be just as pedantic.
/I mean, its all got alcohol in it. How is Isopropyl not the same thing as Vodka?


Mostly they call it Alcohol Regulation and nobody really freaks out.
 
2013-01-11 03:38:34 PM
So what you're saying is, ban them all? Why do you hate the second amendment, commie?

If you want to have a discussion about banning guns, I'm happy to have it. Nobody on the "gun safety" side of the debate has the huevos to actually try to have that conversation though (even though it is what most of the vehement activists on that side really want).

The point is, an assault weapon ban is the biggest red herring in this entire discussion about what to do. Once the gun control side started talking about it, you put the gun nuts like my self into full up fight mode, and we have a pretty good record of winning, mostly because we play dirty and actually spend our own money to see our political viewpoint hammered into Congress. Most of the gun control support will revert to people not giving a flip in about 8 weeks time.
 
2013-01-11 03:38:39 PM
Do any of you gun grabbers actually have a reasonable solution to this? Other than stepping up the mental illness business, nothing reasonable / logical / worthwhile has been proposed.
 
2013-01-11 03:39:14 PM

CPennypacker: dr-shotgun: I think it would. It will lower the number of casualties at these farking mass shootings, anyway.

Out of America's 10 worst mass shootings, only 1 involved an assault rifle (Newton). Furthermore, the Newton shooter was in the building for 10 minutes and fired less than 100 rounds; the same damage could easily have been inflicted with the handguns or shotgun he carried, neither of which are being addressed by any of the proposed bans. The worst mass shooting in US history was committed with two handguns.

So no, an assault rifle ban won't have any meaningful impact on the number of people killed, either in mass shootings or in more traditional gun murders.

Nobody who is pro-gun control has ever addressed these facts (all of which are readily available with a bit of Google), and articulated a reason why Democratic politicians always seem to race to assault rifle bans as their first answer to solving gun crime. It is the least effective proposal with the most pushback from the gun community that could possibly be implemented.

[assets.motherjones.com image 630x400]


That chart is wrong.....normal hunting rifles have been used in mass shootings in this country in that time frame. They probably lumped them in with assault rifles. in order to inflate the stats....just like they lumped the newark school yard shooting in with mass shootings in their last chart...the victims were hacked and slashed with machetes....the gun was used to shoot the victims in the head after they were hacked and slashed and partially decapitated.
 
2013-01-11 03:39:20 PM

EatenTheSun: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I don't care what they brand it as, as long as they get something meaningful done.

What do you consider meaningful? Because an assault rifle ban isn't gonna do much to change the homicide rate.


Well, since it's the only ban that anyone is willing to talk about, then it's the only thing on the table.
 
2013-01-11 03:40:39 PM
"Every man has to believe in something. I believe I'll have a drink" - Winston Churchill.
 
2013-01-11 03:41:09 PM

dr-shotgun: So what you're saying is, ban them all? Why do you hate the second amendment, commie?

If you want to have a discussion about banning guns, I'm happy to have it. Nobody on the "gun safety" side of the debate has the huevos to actually try to have that conversation though (even though it is what most of the vehement activists on that side really want).

The point is, an assault weapon ban is the biggest red herring in this entire discussion about what to do. Once the gun control side started talking about it, you put the gun nuts like my self into full up fight mode, and we have a pretty good record of winning, mostly because we play dirty and actually spend our own money to see our political viewpoint hammered into Congress. Most of the gun control support will revert to people not giving a flip in about 8 weeks time.


I'll have that conversation. Let's ban them!

Now you go.
 
2013-01-11 03:41:41 PM

syrynxx: Gun ownership isn't a left-vs-right issue. Plenty of Democrats own firearms


and none of the democrats i know that own guns are sniveling little butthurt whiners who freak out at the slightest discussion of proper regulation of firearm ownership. the 2nd amendment doesn't say "any arms they want, with no conditions".
 
2013-01-11 03:41:55 PM

GanjSmokr: thurstonxhowell: Fail in Human Form: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so". - Thomas Jefferson

"Sometimes people on the internet make shiat up and then pretend someone famous said it." - George Jefferson

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Is that better?


Yes. I would have also accepted the thing that TJ actually said that that "quote" was paraphrased from.

I've got some quibbles with the idea, too, but the misuse of quotation marks to make famous people say whatever you wish they would have said bothers me.
 
2013-01-11 03:42:00 PM

syrynxx: hubiestubert:
We need to have a discussion in this country about crime. Causes. Prevention. Why folks turn to violent crime. How we can reduce the factors and conditions that make it an option.

That means having a meaningful discussion on education, mental health, and economic opportunity as well as drug policy.

That's like having a meaningful discussion on Crips vs. Bloods.  Are we really going to try to rearchitect black society so that males marry the mothers of their children and have them grow up with honest, job-holding role models so the youths don't succumb to peer pressure to join a gang?  That's dumber than suggesting 10-round magazines are going to change anything.


1. It seems white dudes are the ones shooting up the schools

2. My lily white father wasn't much of a dad, irresponsibility is not limited to one race

3. Why the fark do you NEED a clip with more than 10 rounds? You may WANT it, but you don't NEED it. I WANT a tiger..... I have a housecat.

/I'm about to start the National Tiger Association and buy me some lobbyists. Damnit, I should be able to have any thing I want!!!! *wahhhhh*
 
2013-01-11 03:43:20 PM

Giltric: ...the victims were hacked and slashed with machetes....the gun was used to shoot the victims in the head after they were hacked and slashed and partially decapitated.


Oh, well that's definitely not gun-related violence then.
 
2013-01-11 03:44:00 PM
From your cold, dead hands? Acceptable.

If you would die for a piece of metal, that should be enough of a flag to disallow ownership of firearms.
 
2013-01-11 03:44:26 PM

Nadie_AZ: violentsalvation: Might as well re-brand it "gun appearance control".

We should put Sheriff Joe in charge. He is great at this sort of thing.


...He's already putting 3,000 volunteers with guns in his schools, starting Monday.

I wonder if the kids feel safer with some random stranger with a gun patrolling their halls.
 
2013-01-11 03:44:47 PM
Well, since it's the only ban that anyone is willing to talk about, then it's the only thing on the table.

Perhaps the point is that banning things is a historically stupid strategy for dealing with social issues?

Since it worked so well for alcohol when we tried it.
Since it worked for abortions before Row v. Wade.
Since it works so well for drugs now.
Since gun bans have worked so well where they have been implemented in Europe.

How is a ban gonna work with 320 million firearms already in private hands, all of which will be grandfathered in? Or how will it work when 3D printing technology will make it easy for anyone to print a huge capacity magazine at home in a couple of years?

Bans never actually produce the results those calling for them intend. This issue is no different.
 
2013-01-11 03:45:18 PM
Actually, how about an amendment sort of like the 21st? Turn over firearms regulation to state and local governments. Then we'll see what works and what doesn't.

Enthusiasts, please note that the words 'ban' and 'confiscate' appear nowhere in my post.

This should jibe well with the libertarian leanings of many of you.

/rubs hands together, waits for cognitive dissonance posts, hopes lib gun owners stay quiet.
 
2013-01-11 03:45:26 PM

Kazan: syrynxx: Gun ownership isn't a left-vs-right issue. Plenty of Democrats own firearms

and none of the democrats i know that own guns are sniveling little butthurt whiners who freak out at the slightest discussion of proper regulation of firearm ownership. the 2nd amendment doesn't say "any arms they want, with no conditions".


Why dont you invite them to fark so we can discuss it with them instead of you discussing it for them?
 
2013-01-11 03:45:59 PM

IlGreven: EatenTheSun: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I don't care what they brand it as, as long as they get something meaningful done.

What do you consider meaningful? Because an assault rifle ban isn't gonna do much to change the homicide rate.

Well, since it's the only ban that anyone is willing to talk about, then it's the only thing on the table.


Which is pretty much what this debate comes down to. It may be stupid and ineffective but we have to do something! For the children!
 
2013-01-11 03:48:25 PM
I'll have that conversation. Let's ban them!

Now you go.


Go for it. I invite you to try. Start a PAC, collect donations and make your single issue a one line amendment to the constitution that repeals the 2nd Amendment.

Buy a really nice Arc'teryx jacket. They are super warm and durable. Your gonna need it for how far out in the wild your going to be.
 
2013-01-11 03:48:53 PM

QueenMamaBee: I WANT a tiger..... I have a housecat.


Have a tiger then. I support your right to keep and bear tigers if you choose. But be responsible. If it were to hurt someone you are liable of course.

I don't believe firearms owners wish to divest themselves of that level of responsibility. But who am I to say you can't have one? Likewise for us.

/In all seriousness, it sounds like you don't really want one...you like the idea of having one for an afternoon or a week or whatever.
 
2013-01-11 03:48:56 PM

QueenMamaBee: syrynxx: hubiestubert:
We need to have a discussion in this country about crime. Causes. Prevention. Why folks turn to violent crime. How we can reduce the factors and conditions that make it an option.

That means having a meaningful discussion on education, mental health, and economic opportunity as well as drug policy.

That's like having a meaningful discussion on Crips vs. Bloods.  Are we really going to try to rearchitect black society so that males marry the mothers of their children and have them grow up with honest, job-holding role models so the youths don't succumb to peer pressure to join a gang?  That's dumber than suggesting 10-round magazines are going to change anything.

1. It seems white dudes are the ones shooting up the schools

2. My lily white father wasn't much of a dad, irresponsibility is not limited to one race

3. Why the fark do you NEED a clip with more than 10 rounds? You may WANT it, but you don't NEED it. I WANT a tiger..... I have a housecat.

/I'm about to start the National Tiger Association and buy me some lobbyists. Damnit, I should be able to have any thing I want!!!! *wahhhhh*


In Atlanta last week a thug broke into a woman's home while she was there with her children. She ended up shooting him 5 times in the face at close range (she ran out of bullets) and he was still able to exit the house and drive a short distance away. Imagine if there were two or three people that broke in or if she had missed. Still think 10 is reasonable?
 
2013-01-11 03:49:03 PM

IlGreven: Nadie_AZ: violentsalvation: Might as well re-brand it "gun appearance control".

We should put Sheriff Joe in charge. He is great at this sort of thing.

...He's already putting 3,000 volunteers with guns in his schools, starting Monday.

I wonder if the kids feel safer with some random stranger with a gun patrolling their halls.


Joe said they would deploy after they go through deputy training.

Do you know differently?
 
2013-01-11 03:49:15 PM

Witty_Retort: From your cold, dead hands? Acceptable.

If you would die for a piece of metal, that should be enough of a flag to disallow ownership of firearms.


I thought it was the black plastic that scared you guys.
 
2013-01-11 03:49:34 PM

QueenMamaBee: I WANT a tiger..... I have a housecat.

/I'm about to start the National Tiger Association and buy me some lobbyists. Damnit, I should be able to have any thing I want!!!! *wahhhhh*


Looks like you can have a tiger in Alabama...

Alabama

Category: N

Summary of Law: No person, firm, corporation, partnership or association may possess, sell, offer for sale, import or cause to be brought or imported into the state the following fish or animals: fish from the genus Clarias; fish from the genus Serrasalmus; Black carp; any species of mongoose, any member of the family Cervidae (deer, elk, moose, caribou), species of coyote, fox, raccoon, skunk, wild rodents or wild turkey. However, there are no requirements for a person possessing exotic animals, such as lions, tigers, monkeys, etc.


Link


There are probably other states as well but I didn't go past the first one. I don't want a tiger.
 
2013-01-11 03:49:44 PM

dr-shotgun: Well, since it's the only ban that anyone is willing to talk about, then it's the only thing on the table.

Perhaps the point is that banning things is a historically stupid strategy for dealing with social issues?

Since it worked so well for alcohol when we tried it.
Since it worked for abortions before Row v. Wade.
Since it works so well for drugs now.
Since gun bans have worked so well where they have been implemented in Europe.

How is a ban gonna work with 320 million firearms already in private hands, all of which will be grandfathered in? Or how will it work when 3D printing technology will make it easy for anyone to print a huge capacity magazine at home in a couple of years?

Bans never actually produce the results those calling for them intend. This issue is no different.


Alcohol is very heavily taxed and regulated.
Abortion access is at an all time low. It is also very heavily regulated.
Prescription drugs are heavily regulated and access is limited. Where I live, weed will soon be regulated by the state.

There are only a few people arguing for bans. How about joining the grownups who want to talk about solution that WILL work?
 
2013-01-11 03:49:59 PM
I've read perhaps 5,000 gun-comments on Fark in the last month or so. Not one person has proposed an action that would have prevented people from randomly killing other people. Perhaps the only actionable item that might deminish school shootings is to seek out an stop bullying in schools, though I do not know how.

Twenty killers a year would be about .00000007% of the population. Ferreting them out is, in my judgment, impossible.

Guns will always be accessible as long as there people with street-drug habits. I had two brothers-in-law who were druggies who regularly offered to sell me stolen guns; I wouldn't even let them know where their sister and I lived.
 
2013-01-11 03:50:00 PM

Publikwerks: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Cold. Dead. Fingers.Cuts

Proper gun sub control is using two hands.
[www.fredericksburgparent.net image 400x266]
Correct!

[s3-media4.ak.yelpcdn.com image 600x399]
NO!


Sandwich thread?
i.imgur.com

Will be as productive as yet another gun control thread.
 
2013-01-11 03:50:55 PM

dr-shotgun: I'll have that conversation. Let's ban them!

Now you go.

Go for it. I invite you to try. Start a PAC, collect donations and make your single issue a one line amendment to the constitution that repeals the 2nd Amendment.

Buy a really nice Arc'teryx jacket. They are super warm and durable. Your gonna need it for how far out in the wild your going to be.


Wait I thought you wanted to have a discussion? I thought I had the huevosTM to discuss a ban that you complained none of us libby libs had.

And we don't need to repeal the second amendment, we just need the court to overturn Heller.
 
2013-01-11 03:52:22 PM
Not to mention that the control control crowd keeps tossing out that "common sense" bullshiat.
 
2013-01-11 03:53:22 PM
Glancing Blow: Twenty killers a year would be about .00000007% of the population. Ferreting them out is, in my judgment, impossible.
 
2013-01-11 03:53:31 PM
In Portland we just had a couple of knuckleheads walk around a neighborhood with semi auto rifles strung over their shoulders in hopes of "starting a discussion" about guns. This was fairly close to the mall that was shot up a couple of weeks ago.

So you can understand that this led instead to lots of concerned citizens calling the cops. A nearby school went into lockdown.

Gun rights advocates are the biggest threat to gun rights there is.
 
2013-01-11 03:53:42 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: dr-shotgun: Well, since it's the only ban that anyone is willing to talk about, then it's the only thing on the table.

Perhaps the point is that banning things is a historically stupid strategy for dealing with social issues?

Since it worked so well for alcohol when we tried it.
Since it worked for abortions before Row v. Wade.
Since it works so well for drugs now.
Since gun bans have worked so well where they have been implemented in Europe.

How is a ban gonna work with 320 million firearms already in private hands, all of which will be grandfathered in? Or how will it work when 3D printing technology will make it easy for anyone to print a huge capacity magazine at home in a couple of years?

Bans never actually produce the results those calling for them intend. This issue is no different.

Alcohol is very heavily taxed and regulated.
Abortion access is at an all time low. It is also very heavily regulated.
Prescription drugs are heavily regulated and access is limited. Where I live, weed will soon be regulated by the state.

There are only a few people arguing for bans. How about joining the grownups who want to talk about solution that WILL work?


Alchohol has a body count upwards of 100k a year...including children standing on the sidewalk that happen to be run over by a heavily regulated and licensed driver under the influence of of heavuly taxed and redulated alchohol
Prescription drug abuse has surpassed all other drugs to the point where bloomberg is thinking about restricting their use in hospitals.
A 13 year old girl can get an abortion no questions asked
 
2013-01-11 03:54:38 PM

GanjSmokr: QueenMamaBee: I WANT a tiger..... I have a housecat.

/I'm about to start the National Tiger Association and buy me some lobbyists. Damnit, I should be able to have any thing I want!!!! *wahhhhh*

Looks like you can have a tiger in Alabama...

Alabama

Category: N

Summary of Law: No person, firm, corporation, partnership or association may possess, sell, offer for sale, import or cause to be brought or imported into the state the following fish or animals: fish from the genus Clarias; fish from the genus Serrasalmus; Black carp; any species of mongoose, any member of the family Cervidae (deer, elk, moose, caribou), species of coyote, fox, raccoon, skunk, wild rodents or wild turkey. However, there are no requirements for a person possessing exotic animals, such as lions, tigers, monkeys, etc.

Link


There are probably other states as well but I didn't go past the first one. I don't want a tiger.


But I'd have to live in Alabama. The derp in Kentucky is bad enough, I don't want to go further south.
 
2013-01-11 03:54:52 PM

CPennypacker: dr-shotgun: I'll have that conversation. Let's ban them!

Now you go.

Go for it. I invite you to try. Start a PAC, collect donations and make your single issue a one line amendment to the constitution that repeals the 2nd Amendment.

Buy a really nice Arc'teryx jacket. They are super warm and durable. Your gonna need it for how far out in the wild your going to be.

Wait I thought you wanted to have a discussion? I thought I had the huevosTM to discuss a ban that you complained none of us libby libs had.

And we don't need to repeal the second amendment, we just need the court to overturn Heller roe v wade.


you sound like a fundie
 
2013-01-11 03:55:03 PM

Silly Jesus: In Atlanta last week a thug broke into a woman's home while she was there with her children. She ended up shooting him 5 times in the face at close range (she ran out of bullets) and he was still able to exit the house and drive a short distance away. Imagine if there were two or three people that broke in or if she had missed. Still think 10 is reasonable?


I think that if there had been multiple people breaking in, she would not have gotten off the 5. She couldn't kill him with 5 so I am happy she ran out before she accidentally shot one of her kids.
 
2013-01-11 03:55:09 PM
There are only a few people arguing for bans. How about joining the grownups who want to talk about solution that WILL work?

Funny. The President called for an "Assault Weapons Ban." Bills to ban "high capacity" magazines have been introduced in Congress. Biden has talked about an "Assault Weapons Ban." DiFi is waiting to introduce her "Assault Weapons Ban." CO, NY, IL and CT legislators have all introduced sweeping Bans of everything from assault rifles and magazines to every semi-automatic weapon. Some are even pushing for confiscation (Cuomo in NY).
 
2013-01-11 03:56:05 PM
Gun Porn time?

img526.imageshack.us
img829.imageshack.us

bonus violent video game tie in
img19.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-11 03:56:12 PM

Blathering Idjut: In Portland we just had a couple of knuckleheads walk around a neighborhood with semi auto rifles strung over their shoulders in hopes of "starting a discussion" about guns. This was fairly close to the mall that was shot up a couple of weeks ago.

So you can understand that this led instead to lots of concerned citizens calling the cops. A nearby school went into lockdown.

Gun rights advocates are the biggest threat to gun rights there is.


While you may feel it's in poor taste, it's a way of being "in your face" with the issue and refusing to be demonized because of the actions of a murderer.
 
2013-01-11 03:56:31 PM

Giltric: CPennypacker: dr-shotgun: I'll have that conversation. Let's ban them!

Now you go.

Go for it. I invite you to try. Start a PAC, collect donations and make your single issue a one line amendment to the constitution that repeals the 2nd Amendment.

Buy a really nice Arc'teryx jacket. They are super warm and durable. Your gonna need it for how far out in the wild your going to be.

Wait I thought you wanted to have a discussion? I thought I had the huevosTM to discuss a ban that you complained none of us libby libs had.

And we don't need to repeal the second amendment, we just need the court to overturn Heller roe v wade.

you sound like a fundie


Hey I don't think we should ban guns. I think we need more gun restrictions. I'm just trying to have the conversation that he wanted to have.
 
2013-01-11 03:56:37 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Actually, how about an amendment sort of like the 21st? Turn over firearms regulation to state and local governments. Then we'll see what works and what doesn't.

Enthusiasts, please note that the words 'ban' and 'confiscate' appear nowhere in my post.

This should jibe well with the libertarian leanings of many of you.

/rubs hands together, waits for cognitive dissonance posts, hopes lib gun owners stay quiet.


I'd actually be ok with this, since its not much different to what is happening now.
Catch is you've got to abide by your own states decisions and not blame the guys next door if it doesn't work out.

/looking at you, New York.
 
2013-01-11 03:57:27 PM

Blathering Idjut: In Portland we just had a couple of knuckleheads walk around a neighborhood with semi auto rifles strung over their shoulders in hopes of "starting a discussion" about guns. This was fairly close to the mall that was shot up a couple of weeks ago.

So you can understand that this led instead to lots of concerned citizens calling the cops. A nearby school went into lockdown.

Gun rights advocates are the biggest threat to gun rights there is.


Yea, I saw that in the paper this morning. One of the important statements in the article was that an Oregon concealed carry permit trumps any/all local gun-restrictive ordinances, including restricting open-carry.
 
2013-01-11 03:58:47 PM

dr-shotgun: I think it would. It will lower the number of casualties at these farking mass shootings, anyway.

Out of America's 10 worst mass shootings, only 1 involved an assault rifle (Newton). Furthermore, the Newton shooter was in the building for 10 minutes and fired less than 100 rounds; the same damage could easily have been inflicted with the handguns or shotgun he carried, neither of which are being addressed by any of the proposed bans. The worst mass shooting in US history was committed with two handguns.

So no, an assault rifle ban won't have any meaningful impact on the number of people killed, either in mass shootings or in more traditional gun murders.


People keep using the perfect solution fallacy to excuse a lack of action and it's farking ridiculous.

How many machine-gun massacres have there been in the past 80 years or so?

Oh, that's right - machine gun ownership was heavily regulated in 1934.

Imagine if the "Hey, people will kill each other anyway, so there's no point in banning fully automatic weapons" was the winning argument in 1934. How many full-auto firearms would be on the streets today?
It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.


Let's just do something similar for all firearms - require fingerprints, registration, licensing, etc.

Just having a few flags for a paranoid like Adam Lanza's mother could have kept those weapons out of her son's hands. But our ATF isn't allowed to do anything really useful because of ridiculous legislation.

Link

When law enforcement officers recover a gun and serial number, workers at the bureau's National Tracing Center here - a windowless warehouse-style building on a narrow road outside town - begin making their way through a series of phone calls, asking first the manufacturer, then the wholesaler and finally the dealer to search their files to identify the buyer of the firearm.

About a third of the time, the process involves digging through records sent in by companies that have closed, in many cases searching by hand through cardboard boxes filled with computer printouts, hand-scrawled index cards or even water-stained sheets of paper.

In an age when data is often available with a few keystrokes, the A.T.F. is forced to follow this manual routine because the idea of establishing a central database of gun transactions has been rejected by lawmakers in Congress, who have sided with the National Rifle Association, which argues that such a database poses a threat to the Second Amendment. In other countries, gun rights groups argue, governments have used gun registries to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens.


So, while this bullshiat slows investigation to a crawl, a spree killer is free to go on his merry way.
 
2013-01-11 03:58:55 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: vernonFL: Hi! I was shot by a psycho in my classroom.

It would be nice if someone did something about crazy people with guns going on
killing sprees. I really don't care whether you call it "gun control" or "gun safety".

Thank you.

/I purposely did not use a photo of one of the actual victims. This is a stock photo.

Key word: psycho

Let's do something about all those psychos and leave all the law abiding sane people alone!

Lets count the laws/rules that were broken:
1) theft - he stole the guns
2) carrying a gun into a gun free zone
3) murder (30 counts)

So what new law or rule would have stopped him?!


If guns were illegal, his otherwise completely normal and law abiding mother wouldn't have had the guns that he stole, and those 26 people (including 20 first graders) would still be alive.

So a law against gun ownership would have stopped him.

/the more you know.
 
2013-01-11 03:59:00 PM

way south: Uranus Is Huge!: Actually, how about an amendment sort of like the 21st? Turn over firearms regulation to state and local governments. Then we'll see what works and what doesn't.

Enthusiasts, please note that the words 'ban' and 'confiscate' appear nowhere in my post.

This should jibe well with the libertarian leanings of many of you.

/rubs hands together, waits for cognitive dissonance posts, hopes lib gun owners stay quiet.

I'd actually be ok with this, since its not much different to what is happening now.
Catch is you've got to abide by your own states decisions and not blame the guys next door if it doesn't work out.

/looking at you, New York.


No buying guns on Sunday before noon in the south?
 
2013-01-11 03:59:11 PM

GameSprocket: Silly Jesus: In Atlanta last week a thug broke into a woman's home while she was there with her children. She ended up shooting him 5 times in the face at close range (she ran out of bullets) and he was still able to exit the house and drive a short distance away. Imagine if there were two or three people that broke in or if she had missed. Still think 10 is reasonable?

I think that if there had been multiple people breaking in, she would not have gotten off the 5. She couldn't kill him with 5 so I am happy she ran out before she accidentally shot one of her kids.


2/10
 
2013-01-11 03:59:53 PM

Silly Jesus: QueenMamaBee: syrynxx: hubiestubert:
We need to have a discussion in this country about crime. Causes. Prevention. Why folks turn to violent crime. How we can reduce the factors and conditions that make it an option.

That means having a meaningful discussion on education, mental health, and economic opportunity as well as drug policy.

That's like having a meaningful discussion on Crips vs. Bloods.  Are we really going to try to rearchitect black society so that males marry the mothers of their children and have them grow up with honest, job-holding role models so the youths don't succumb to peer pressure to join a gang?  That's dumber than suggesting 10-round magazines are going to change anything.

1. It seems white dudes are the ones shooting up the schools

2. My lily white father wasn't much of a dad, irresponsibility is not limited to one race

3. Why the fark do you NEED a clip with more than 10 rounds? You may WANT it, but you don't NEED it. I WANT a tiger..... I have a housecat.

/I'm about to start the National Tiger Association and buy me some lobbyists. Damnit, I should be able to have any thing I want!!!! *wahhhhh*

In Atlanta last week a thug broke into a woman's home while she was there with her children. She ended up shooting him 5 times in the face at close range (she ran out of bullets) and he was still able to exit the house and drive a short distance away. Imagine if there were two or three people that broke in or if she had missed. Still think 10 is reasonable?


Yup. I believe if one guy is getting shot in the face, the other two wouldn't stick around to see the ending.

Besides, as the gun enthusiasts like to point out... "but, but.... more people are killed with hammers, baseball bats, etc". I have a hammer, I have a baseball bat, I have a big-ass can of Raid, and I have pepper spray and mace. I'd also like to get a stun gun.
 
2013-01-11 04:00:14 PM

CPennypacker: Hey I don't think we should ban guns


CPennypacker: Let's ban them!


So are you bipolar, schizo, or logged in with wrong alt?
 
2013-01-11 04:00:52 PM
I don't know of any way to really enforce it, but i'm of the mind that all guns should be locked in a combination or combo/key safe. That is one of those things that might have actually prevented newtown. This assumes that lanza didn't know the combo (if they were locked up). judging by how his mom felt about him, i don't believe she would have told him. That is conjecture of course, and we dont' know how he got his hands on the guns.
 
2013-01-11 04:01:01 PM

Giltric: CPennypacker: Hey I don't think we should ban guns

CPennypacker: Let's ban them!

So are you bipolar, schizo, or logged in with wrong alt?


No, you just have reading comprehension problems
 
2013-01-11 04:01:21 PM

CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: dr-shotgun: I'll have that conversation. Let's ban them!

Now you go.

Go for it. I invite you to try. Start a PAC, collect donations and make your single issue a one line amendment to the constitution that repeals the 2nd Amendment.

Buy a really nice Arc'teryx jacket. They are super warm and durable. Your gonna need it for how far out in the wild your going to be.

Wait I thought you wanted to have a discussion? I thought I had the huevosTM to discuss a ban that you complained none of us libby libs had.

And we don't need to repeal the second amendment, we just need the court to overturn Heller roe v wade.

you sound like a fundie

Hey I don't think we should ban guns. I think we need more gun restrictions. I'm just trying to have the conversation that he wanted to have.


I'll bite. What restrictions do you feel would be productive?
 
2013-01-11 04:01:58 PM

Kazan: hubiestubert: No matter how you brand it, either side of the gun control debate is bait and switch.

We need to have a discussion in this country about crime. Causes. Prevention. Why folks turn to violent crime. How we can reduce the factors and conditions that make it an option.

That means having a meaningful discussion on education, mental health, and economic opportunity as well as drug policy.

But we won't. Instead folks are going to conflate the tools themselves as both cause and solution to crime. And very little will be done to address the real issue of crime in this country, and a lot of lobbyists will pocket cash on both sides of this uselessly vitriolic debate...

very much this.


i think both sides are largely being stupid about guns - i lean slightly in favor of better regulation of the militia (*twists the constitutional knife*) - but will call out dumb things on my own side (criminals will ignore laws. so make it harder for them to have guns in the first place - close the gun show loopholes that still exist). However the right is always, completely, totally and utterly pants-on-head retarded when any discussion of guns comes up.


Pretty much my thoughts as well. Also, FTFY...
 
2013-01-11 04:02:52 PM

Giltric: CPennypacker: Hey I don't think we should ban guns

CPennypacker: Let's ban them!

So are you bipolar, schizo, or logged in with wrong alt?


Are you stupid, drunk, or on drugs?
 
2013-01-11 04:03:01 PM

Captain_Ballbeard: Remember Gunfappers, your position grows weaker with every massacre and you've ensured there are plenty of guns around for them to continue.

Enjoy.


This massacre happened in a state with some of the strongest gun control measures in the nation. If anything, it weakens the gun control proponents.
 
2013-01-11 04:03:10 PM

Kazan: the 2nd amendment doesn't say "any arms they want, with no conditions".


Nor does it say that citizens are allowed to only bear certain arms, depending on what the government feels would be appropriate for them to have.
 
2013-01-11 04:03:40 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Let's just do something similar for all firearms - require fingerprints, registration, licensing, etc.


Nope....something something poor people and minorities .....whatever excuse was used against voter id...they cant afford it.


next!
 
2013-01-11 04:04:25 PM

make me some tea: Don't give guns to people with criminal records.


Create penalties for straw purchasers. That's people without criminal records who buy guns for the express purpose of reselling them to people who do. It's like buying beer for minors, and we don't have a law to address that.
 
2013-01-11 04:04:42 PM
YEA DO AWAY WITH THE 2nd amendment
People have been killed because of what they wrote, have been crushed to death at rock concerts and murdered for criticizing the government so away with the 1st amendment,
People have no need to feel safe in their home from the government seizing anything they desire so away with the 4th amendment
People have no need to be safe from torture and beating to get a confession so away with the 5th amendment
People have no need for a trial just jail, convict and punish so away with the 6th amendment
People don't need the 7th or 8th because doing away with the others eliminates the need for them, Hell why do we need a constitution at all, just let the government do ANYTHING they feel necessary to 'GET THE JOB DONE" Having no limits on government would never cause a problem, it has ALWAYS worked in the past.
 
2013-01-11 04:04:45 PM
www.bitrebels.com


Now they've gone too far.
 
2013-01-11 04:05:12 PM

thurstonxhowell: Giltric: CPennypacker: Hey I don't think we should ban guns

CPennypacker: Let's ban them!

So are you bipolar, schizo, or logged in with wrong alt?

Are you stupid, drunk, or on drugs?


on your mom.

why?
 
2013-01-11 04:05:12 PM

Giltric: rufus-t-firefly: Let's just do something similar for all firearms - require fingerprints, registration, licensing, etc.

Nope....something something poor people and minorities .....whatever excuse was used against voter id...they cant afford it.


next!


you're starting to sound satirical. dial it down a little bit. if you can afford a gun, you can afford a license
 
2013-01-11 04:06:03 PM

QueenMamaBee: GanjSmokr: QueenMamaBee: I WANT a tiger..... I have a housecat.

/I'm about to start the National Tiger Association and buy me some lobbyists. Damnit, I should be able to have any thing I want!!!! *wahhhhh*

Looks like you can have a tiger in Alabama...

Alabama

Category: N

Summary of Law: No person, firm, corporation, partnership or association may possess, sell, offer for sale, import or cause to be brought or imported into the state the following fish or animals: fish from the genus Clarias; fish from the genus Serrasalmus; Black carp; any species of mongoose, any member of the family Cervidae (deer, elk, moose, caribou), species of coyote, fox, raccoon, skunk, wild rodents or wild turkey. However, there are no requirements for a person possessing exotic animals, such as lions, tigers, monkeys, etc.

Link


There are probably other states as well but I didn't go past the first one. I don't want a tiger.

But I'd have to live in Alabama. The derp in Kentucky is bad enough, I don't want to go further south.



It appears you don't want to own a tiger as badly as you originally said you did then.  Fair enough.

Just don't complain that you "can't" own one when it's your reluctance to move that prevents you from owning one.
 
2013-01-11 04:07:20 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: If guns were illegal, his otherwise completely normal and law abiding mother wouldn't have had the guns that he stole, and those 26 people (including 20 first graders) would still be alive.


Yes. That guy would have never broken the law and would have bought a black market gun. Nor would he have made a bunch of molotov cocktails and sent them flying through windows instead. I mean, crazy people have standards, for crying out loud.
 
2013-01-11 04:08:12 PM

Lando Lincoln: Kazan: the 2nd amendment doesn't say "any arms they want, with no conditions".

Nor does it say that citizens are allowed to only bear certain arms, depending on what the government feels would be appropriate for them to have.


That's good to hear, because an acquaintance of mine, Abdul-rahul al Salha, a nationalized US citizen and devout Muslim who lives in the approach path to JFK airport, wants to buy a few dozen rocket launchers. The gun grabbing feds wont let him! WTF?
 
2013-01-11 04:10:23 PM

Kazan: violentsalvation: Might as well re-brand it "gun appearance control".

Either these features matter, serve a purpose etc and you should care

Or they're all cosmetic, and you shouldn't care


IT CANNOT BE BOTH, STOP THIS DISHONEST TALKING POINT


So your argument is that if a proposed law doesn't do anything useful, we're not allowed to oppose it? I think you have things backwards.
 
2013-01-11 04:21:26 PM

Silly Jesus: GameSprocket: Silly Jesus: In Atlanta last week a thug broke into a woman's home while she was there with her children. She ended up shooting him 5 times in the face at close range (she ran out of bullets) and he was still able to exit the house and drive a short distance away. Imagine if there were two or three people that broke in or if she had missed. Still think 10 is reasonable?

I think that if there had been multiple people breaking in, she would not have gotten off the 5. She couldn't kill him with 5 so I am happy she ran out before she accidentally shot one of her kids.

2/10


Hey, I can only work with what you give me. A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.
 
2013-01-11 04:23:37 PM

EyeballKid: Fail in Human Form: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so". - Thomas Jefferson

"Which one of my slaves am I gonna bang today?" - Thomas Jefferson


If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. Great strategy.
 
2013-01-11 04:23:47 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: I don't care what they brand it as, as long as they get something meaningful done.


Even a ban on high capacity magazines accomplishes very little, and even an outright ban on firearms of every sort will just mean that our homicidal/suicidal maniacs will just build bombs, like they do in other places.

A bomb is an extremely easy thing for a person with an IQ of over 90 to make.
 
2013-01-11 04:27:27 PM

GameSprocket: Silly Jesus: GameSprocket: Silly Jesus: In Atlanta last week a thug broke into a woman's home while she was there with her children. She ended up shooting him 5 times in the face at close range (she ran out of bullets) and he was still able to exit the house and drive a short distance away. Imagine if there were two or three people that broke in or if she had missed. Still think 10 is reasonable?

I think that if there had been multiple people breaking in, she would not have gotten off the 5. She couldn't kill him with 5 so I am happy she ran out before she accidentally shot one of her kids.

2/10

Hey, I can only work with what you give me. A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.


She hit him in the face with all five. She was hiding in a crawl space with her kids and he found her. I think that's pretty good.

Hell, there are many other stories of aggressors being shot multiple times and it not stopping them. You picking a random number (10) and telling me that I have that many tries to defend myself and after that I just get what's coming to me is asinine and you can't possibly be serious.
 
2013-01-11 04:29:59 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: If guns were illegal, his otherwise completely normal and law abiding mother wouldn't have had the guns that he stole, and those 26 people (including 20 first graders) would still be alive.

So a law against gun ownership would have stopped him.

/the more you know.


Yeah 'cause you couldn't find a drink during Prohibition and you can't find illegal drugs now.
 
2013-01-11 04:30:22 PM
i3.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-11 04:35:59 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Debeo Summa Credo: If guns were illegal, his otherwise completely normal and law abiding mother wouldn't have had the guns that he stole, and those 26 people (including 20 first graders) would still be alive.

So a law against gun ownership would have stopped him.

/the more you know.

Yeah 'cause you couldn't find a drink during Prohibition and you can't find illegal drugs now.


You think everyone who drank before prohibition continued to afterwards?
 
2013-01-11 04:37:40 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: That's good to hear, because an acquaintance of mine, Abdul-rahul al Salha, a nationalized US citizen and devout Muslim who lives in the approach path to JFK airport, wants to buy a few dozen rocket launchers. The gun grabbing feds wont let him! WTF?


Why did your fictitious friend have to be a Muslim?
 
2013-01-11 04:44:27 PM

Fail in Human Form: While you may feel it's in poor taste, it's a way of being "in your face" with the issue and refusing to be demonized because of the actions of a murderer.


No, it's a way of being a farkin' moron and setting back their cause. You don't get to be "in your face" with a firearm and not have it be an issue. People seeing guys walking through the neighborhood with guns have every right to be concerned and call the cops. The waste of time with regards to the police and the school lockdown falls squarely on the shoulders of these two mental midgets.

Glancing Blow: Yea, I saw that in the paper this morning. One of the important statements in the article was that an Oregon concealed carry permit trumps any/all local gun-restrictive ordinances, including restricting open-carry.

Yes, it's a loophole that I'm sure the legislature will address pretty quickly. They're "concealed" weapons permits for a reason. That's what happens when folks don't show common sense. They mess it up for everybody.
 
2013-01-11 04:45:01 PM

dletter: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Exactly.

One thing I'd like to know though.  The people who says that the 2nd Amendment is needed because they need the right to have guns to thwart a "take over" of America by a supposed "dictator" getting control within the government.   If somehow that did happen, do they really think their "Michigan Militia" and the like are going to take down this dictator?  It isn't like rebels trying to fight the government of Rwanda.... our government (and whomever is in charge of it) can squash you like a bug if they really thought they needed to...  I mean, the government can pull out weapons you'd never even think about.

I mean, ok, yeah, if everyone is fully "unarmed" , then, the "dictatorship" happens much easier, I won't deny that.  But, even if you are supposedly "armed to the teeth".... compared to a fully stocked US Armed Forces (assuming for the most part that the rank & file of the armed forces are on the side of the government)... you are nothing.

Of course, the people who believe this most likely think we are basically under a dictator right now, which is 90% of the problem.


It doesn't matter that the stated reason is complete and total bullshiat.

It's an excuse for emotionally underdeveloped teenage man-children to have access to something they shouldn't.
 
2013-01-11 04:47:38 PM

lennavan: You think everyone who drank before prohibition continued to afterwards?


yep, and then some.
 
2013-01-11 04:53:24 PM
I like John Stewarts take on the subject;

"Do we ban automobiles because of deaths from drunk driving? No.

But we do enact stricter blood alcohol limits, raise the drinking age, ramp up enforcement penalties, charge bartenders that serve drunks, and launch huge public awareness campaigns that stigmatize the dangerous behaviors in question . and we do those things because it might just help bring drunk driving death rates down, I dont know, by two thirds, in a few decades."

and

"Change magazine sizes so that crazy people have to stop and reload more often"

Link
 
2013-01-11 05:05:20 PM

make me some tea: nekom: We already do this, don't we?  Of course anyone can buy a gun out of someone's trunk, even those crazy folks, even if we could identify them.

There needs to be some sort of accountability in place to hold the gun owner responsible for its misuse.

Using the car analogy (a car can be used as a deadly weapon): When you buy a car, it has a title. You have to register it to drive it. When you sell the car, you transfer the title to the new owner, and the new owner has to register it again. If you let someone borrow your car and they hit a pedestrian with it, the pedestrian can sues the driver, you, and your insurance.

Why can't this type of responsibility be applied to firearms?


Because these only apply to vehicles that are bing used on govt owned roads. No registration, insurance, license needed to operate a vehicle on private property. The closest analogy is CC and open cary in public spaces and transportation laws over general gun ownership.
 
2013-01-11 05:08:47 PM

Saiga410: make me some tea: nekom: We already do this, don't we?  Of course anyone can buy a gun out of someone's trunk, even those crazy folks, even if we could identify them.

There needs to be some sort of accountability in place to hold the gun owner responsible for its misuse.

Using the car analogy (a car can be used as a deadly weapon): When you buy a car, it has a title. You have to register it to drive it. When you sell the car, you transfer the title to the new owner, and the new owner has to register it again. If you let someone borrow your car and they hit a pedestrian with it, the pedestrian can sues the driver, you, and your insurance.

Why can't this type of responsibility be applied to firearms?

Because these only apply to vehicles that are bing used on govt owned roads. No registration, insurance, license needed to operate a vehicle on private property. The closest analogy is CC and open cary in public spaces and transportation laws over general gun ownership.


In most states you cannot drink and drive on your own property.
 
2013-01-11 05:10:37 PM

Heraclitus: "Change magazine sizes so that crazy people have to stop and reload more often"


Let me explain something to you and Jon Stewart. Gun magazines are very simple devices. They are a box with a spring in it, and a base for the spring to push against. To change a 5-round magazine into a 30-round magazine would require one to make the box longer and to replace the spring with a bigger spring.

So if the laws were changed to restrict 30-round magazines...only law-abiding citizens would be affected by this law. Crazy people that were intent on shooting up malls or schools would be mildly inconvenienced by this new law, but they wouldn't be stopped at all. That's assuming that they wouldn't have access to magazines that were around before the new law went into effect.
 
2013-01-11 05:11:23 PM

Heraclitus: I like John Stewarts take on the subject;

"Do we ban automobiles because of deaths from drunk driving? No.

But we do enact stricter blood alcohol limits, raise the drinking age, ramp up enforcement penalties, charge bartenders that serve drunks, and launch huge public awareness campaigns that stigmatize the dangerous behaviors in question . and we do those things because it might just help bring drunk driving death rates down, I dont know, by two thirds, in a few decades."

and

"Change magazine sizes so that crazy people have to stop and reload more often"

Link


"Hey, crazy people. This is the government. We know who you are, and we know what you're planning. Stay away from guns, or we'll hunt you down. We're watching you, and so are the bug men. You touch a gun, and we'll feed you to our lizard overlords. Brought to you by The Brady Campaign, the Ad Council, and This Station. JFK says take your pills."
 
2013-01-11 05:14:53 PM

Lando Lincoln: Heraclitus: "Change magazine sizes so that crazy people have to stop and reload more often"

Let me explain something to you and Jon Stewart. Gun magazines are very simple devices. They are a box with a spring in it, and a base for the spring to push against. To change a 5-round magazine into a 30-round magazine would require one to make the box longer and to replace the spring with a bigger spring.

So if the laws were changed to restrict 30-round magazines...only law-abiding citizens would be affected by this law. Crazy people that were intent on shooting up malls or schools would be mildly inconvenienced by this new law, but they wouldn't be stopped at all. That's assuming that they wouldn't have access to magazines that were around before the new law went into effect.


That's why we also need to introduce the National Children's Family Safety Act for the Elimination of Small Springs.
 
2013-01-11 05:17:04 PM

Kludge:
In most states you cannot drink and drive on your own property.


Citation, please?
 
2013-01-11 05:17:26 PM

Kazan: violentsalvation: Might as well re-brand it "gun appearance control".

Either these features matter, serve a purpose etc and you should care

Or they're all cosmetic, and you shouldn't care


IT CANNOT BE BOTH, STOP THIS DISHONEST TALKING POINT


The politically defined characteristics of an assault weapon are not characteristics that make the firearm any more murderous.
 
2013-01-11 05:17:43 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: dr-shotgun: Well, since it's the only ban that anyone is willing to talk about, then it's the only thing on the table.

Perhaps the point is that banning things is a historically stupid strategy for dealing with social issues?

Since it worked so well for alcohol when we tried it.
Since it worked for abortions before Row v. Wade.
Since it works so well for drugs now.
Since gun bans have worked so well where they have been implemented in Europe.

How is a ban gonna work with 320 million firearms already in private hands, all of which will be grandfathered in? Or how will it work when 3D printing technology will make it easy for anyone to print a huge capacity magazine at home in a couple of years?

Bans never actually produce the results those calling for them intend. This issue is no different.

Alcohol is very heavily taxed and regulated.
Abortion access is at an all time low. It is also very heavily regulated.
Prescription drugs are heavily regulated and access is limited. Where I live, weed will soon be regulated by the state.

There are only a few people arguing for bans. How about joining the grownups who want to talk about solution that WILL work?


Because none of them are talking.
 
2013-01-11 05:20:37 PM

violentsalvation: Kazan: violentsalvation: Might as well re-brand it "gun appearance control".

Either these features matter, serve a purpose etc and you should care

Or they're all cosmetic, and you shouldn't care


IT CANNOT BE BOTH, STOP THIS DISHONEST TALKING POINT

The politically defined characteristics of an assault weapon are not characteristics that make the firearm any more murderous.


...and the characteristics that do make the firearm "more murderous" is very heavily regulated.
 
2013-01-11 05:21:42 PM

odinsposse: IlGreven: EatenTheSun: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I don't care what they brand it as, as long as they get something meaningful done.

What do you consider meaningful? Because an assault rifle ban isn't gonna do much to change the homicide rate.

Well, since it's the only ban that anyone is willing to talk about, then it's the only thing on the table.

Which is pretty much what this debate comes down to. It may be stupid and ineffective but we have to do something! For the children!


...I just realized I misspoke. I should have said "Since it's the only "regulation" that anyone is willing to talk about, then it's the only thing on the table."
 
2013-01-11 05:22:58 PM

Lando Lincoln: Kazan: the 2nd amendment doesn't say "any arms they want, with no conditions".

Nor does it say that citizens are allowed to only bear certain arms, depending on what the government feels would be appropriate for them to have.


it's almost as if it left that up to the legislature or something.
 
2013-01-11 05:23:42 PM
Would some code genius please write a filter for fark threads that replaces the word "gun" with "penis?"

TIA
 
2013-01-11 05:24:04 PM
Just slow the firing rate so that no gun fires faster than a muzzle-loader.

That would take a lot of the frivolity out of guns.  Hunters would improve their marksmanship.  Target shooters would learn patience.  Fewer people shot, and fewer fatalities.

You could still have all the bells & whistle you wish, i. e., 90-round mags, full-auto, silencers.

There would be no need to regulate parts and types of guns.
 
2013-01-11 05:25:04 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: I think guns should be as regulated as cars and driver's licenses. Tests, background checks, classes, check-ups, renewals for classes and licenses...the whole thing.


You had to get a background check to get a driver's license? And have check-ups? Wow.
 
2013-01-11 05:25:47 PM

Kazan: Lando Lincoln: Kazan: the 2nd amendment doesn't say "any arms they want, with no conditions".

Nor does it say that citizens are allowed to only bear certain arms, depending on what the government feels would be appropriate for them to have.

it's almost as if it left that up to the legislature or something.


Up until some limits on govt power were provided in Miller and Heller.
 
2013-01-11 05:26:18 PM

Lando Lincoln: So if the laws were changed to restrict 30-round magazines...only law-abiding citizens would be affected by this law. Crazy people that were intent on shooting up malls or schools would be mildly inconvenienced by this new law, but they wouldn't be stopped at all. That's assuming that they wouldn't have access to magazines that were around before the new law went into effect.


So you are saying this law would have a negligible effect on law-abiding citizens? Why are you so against it then?
 
2013-01-11 05:26:30 PM

Glancing Blow: I've read perhaps 5,000 gun-comments on Fark in the last month or so. Not one person has proposed an action that would have prevented people from randomly killing other people. Perhaps the only actionable item that might deminish school shootings is to seek out an stop bullying in schools, though I do not know how.

Twenty killers a year would be about .00000007% of the population. Ferreting them out is, in my judgment, impossible.

Guns will always be accessible as long as there people with street-drug habits. I had two brothers-in-law who were druggies who regularly offered to sell me stolen guns; I wouldn't even let them know where their sister and I lived.


And you can add yourself to the list of proposing actions that would have prevented people from randomly killing other people. Because not only didn't you even try, but you're using "there will always be guns" and "there will always be crazies" as reasons not to. It probably would've been better had you not said anything at all.

/"There will always be someone with a gun" is not an argument against gun legislation any more than "there will always be drunks behind the wheel" is an argument against DUI laws.
 
2013-01-11 05:26:53 PM

make me some tea: EatenTheSun: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Penis control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Penis safety is pretty simple. Treat every penis like it is loaded. Don' t point a penis at anything you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the tringer until you are ready to fire. Done.

Don't give penises to crazy people.
Don't give penises to people with criminal records.
Squeeze slowly, the kick should surprise you.


See what I mean? Now its a much more entertaining thread.
 
2013-01-11 05:27:17 PM
Can we all agree to dial back the wild hysteria a notch until there's a plan on the table from the administration?
 
2013-01-11 05:27:57 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Just slow the firing rate so that no gun fires faster than a muzzle-loader.

That would take a lot of the frivolity out of guns.  Hunters would improve their marksmanship.  Target shooters would learn patience.  Fewer people shot, and fewer fatalities.

You could still have all the bells & whistle you wish, i. e., 90-round mags, full-auto, silencers.


...yes, I'm sure those fully-automatic muskets will fly off store shelves.
 
2013-01-11 05:28:13 PM

quickdraw: make me some tea: EatenTheSun: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Penis control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Penis safety is pretty simple. Treat every penis like it is loaded. Don' t point a penis at anything you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the tringer until you are ready to fire. Done.

Don't give penises to crazy people.
Don't give penises to people with criminal records.
Squeeze slowly, the kick should surprise you.

See what I mean? Now its a much more entertaining thread.


WHAT HAVE YOU BEPENIS?
 
2013-01-11 05:29:19 PM

give me doughnuts: Uranus Is Huge!: dr-shotgun: Well, since it's the only ban that anyone is willing to talk about, then it's the only thing on the table.

Perhaps the point is that banning things is a historically stupid strategy for dealing with social issues?

Since it worked so well for alcohol when we tried it.
Since it worked for abortions before Row v. Wade.
Since it works so well for drugs now.
Since gun bans have worked so well where they have been implemented in Europe.

How is a ban gonna work with 320 million firearms already in private hands, all of which will be grandfathered in? Or how will it work when 3D printing technology will make it easy for anyone to print a huge capacity magazine at home in a couple of years?

Bans never actually produce the results those calling for them intend. This issue is no different.

Alcohol is very heavily taxed and regulated.
Abortion access is at an all time low. It is also very heavily regulated.
Prescription drugs are heavily regulated and access is limited. Where I live, weed will soon be regulated by the state.

There are only a few people arguing for bans. How about joining the grownups who want to talk about solution that WILL work?

Because none of them are talking.


Thanks for contributing... and with such biting snark.
 
2013-01-11 05:29:34 PM

LasersHurt: Can we all agree to dial back the wild hysteria a notch until there's a plan on the table from the administration?


...Know how I know you don't know why the gun nuts are hysterical?

/Hint: They don't care what plan is on the table, it means Obammer's gun take are gunz.
 
2013-01-11 05:31:31 PM

lennavan:
WHAT HAVE YOU BEPENIS?


Frakin keyboard kill! +1 intarwebs to you!
 
2013-01-11 05:34:07 PM

IlGreven: LasersHurt: Can we all agree to dial back the wild hysteria a notch until there's a plan on the table from the administration?

...Know how I know you don't know why the gun nuts are hysterical?

/Hint: They don't care what plan is on the table, it means Obammer's gun take are gunz.


I know what plan Fienstien proposes.
 
2013-01-11 05:36:08 PM

Lando Lincoln: Heraclitus: "Change magazine sizes so that crazy people have to stop and reload more often"

Let me explain something to you and Jon Stewart. Gun magazines are very simple devices. They are a box with a spring in it, and a base for the spring to push against. To change a 5-round magazine into a 30-round magazine would require one to make the box longer and to replace the spring with a bigger spring.

So if the laws were changed to restrict 30-round magazines...only law-abiding citizens would be affected by this law. Crazy people that were intent on shooting up malls or schools would be mildly inconvenienced by this new law, but they wouldn't be stopped at all. That's assuming that they wouldn't have access to magazines that were around before the new law went into effect.


So force them to make the illegal modification. like the $300 modification to turn an AR-15 into an M-16. It would still prove intent.

If some one is sick and just picks up what evers lying around its one thing. Modifying all of your weapons to increase killing capacity is another.
 
2013-01-11 05:40:26 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: way south: Uranus Is Huge!: Actually, how about an amendment sort of like the 21st? Turn over firearms regulation to state and local governments. Then we'll see what works and what doesn't.

Enthusiasts, please note that the words 'ban' and 'confiscate' appear nowhere in my post.

This should jibe well with the libertarian leanings of many of you.

/rubs hands together, waits for cognitive dissonance posts, hopes lib gun owners stay quiet.

I'd actually be ok with this, since its not much different to what is happening now.
Catch is you've got to abide by your own states decisions and not blame the guys next door if it doesn't work out.

/looking at you, New York.

No buying guns on Sunday before noon in the south?


If they so desire, isn't that your proposal?
Every state makes their own rules.
My suggestion is that every state abide by the decisions of their neighbors.
No passing the buck if these rule changes don't pan out. No pulling a Bloomberg, blaming the guys next door, and asking for more federal laws.

Thing is, I know how this goes. I grew up in the Virgin Islands. We kept adding gun laws to deal our violence problem and the result so far has been violence and lots of gun laws.
The list of hoops we jump through would make Feinstein blush and the results would make the rest of America cringe. We average about fifty murders for a population of less than two hundred thousand, with no gun culture or NRA to blame.

There is more to the crime problem than a weapons ban can control and, if your proposal were put in place, I'd expect most folks to understand that when they see it happen.

...but I also know how prohibitionists think.
When their big idea doesn't pan out its time to find a scapegoat. It's never the idea that is wrong.

So I'm perfectly fine with a states rights solution and putting my own beliefs on the line, but only so long as we both respect that line later on.
 
2013-01-11 05:43:10 PM

LasersHurt: Can we all agree to dial back the wild hysteria a notch until there's a plan on the table from the administration?


That would be fine by me but when both gun and control activists are trying to win a messaging war before any proposed law is even put forth neither side will unilaterally disarm.
 
2013-01-11 05:43:49 PM

Heraclitus: Lando Lincoln: Heraclitus: "Change magazine sizes so that crazy people have to stop and reload more often"

Let me explain something to you and Jon Stewart. Gun magazines are very simple devices. They are a box with a spring in it, and a base for the spring to push against. To change a 5-round magazine into a 30-round magazine would require one to make the box longer and to replace the spring with a bigger spring.

So if the laws were changed to restrict 30-round magazines...only law-abiding citizens would be affected by this law. Crazy people that were intent on shooting up malls or schools would be mildly inconvenienced by this new law, but they wouldn't be stopped at all. That's assuming that they wouldn't have access to magazines that were around before the new law went into effect.

So force them to make the illegal modification. like the $300 modification to turn an AR-15 into an M-16. It would still prove intent.

If some one is sick and just picks up what evers lying around its one thing. Modifying all of your weapons to increase killing capacity is another.


two 10-round magazines + $8.00 roll of duct tape = 20 round mag, Vietnam Edition.
 
2013-01-11 05:44:06 PM
We don't want to take your guns, we just want to keep you from having them!
 
2013-01-11 05:45:47 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: dletter: One thing I'd like to know though. The people who says that the 2nd Amendment is needed because they need the right to have guns to thwart a "take over" of America by a supposed "dictator" getting control within the government.

Actually the 2nd amendment empowers the government to use the militia to fight off insurrections and threats.  Kind of the opposite of what these yahoos think it means.


This new attack from the left that the 2nd amendment was to quell citizen protests is utterly hilarious. Shay Rebellion, Shay Rebellion! The 2nd amendment was in direct response to the Shay Rebellion! Don't listen to any actual documents at the time, it was put in the constitution to allow the Federal Government to attack citizens!

Utterly hilarious. Stupid. but hilarious.
 
2013-01-11 05:46:17 PM

lennavan: quickdraw: make me some tea: EatenTheSun: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Penis control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Penis safety is pretty simple. Treat every penis like it is loaded. Don' t point a penis at anything you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the tringer until you are ready to fire. Done.

Don't give penises to crazy people.
Don't give penises to people with criminal records.
Squeeze slowly, the kick should surprise you.

See what I mean? Now its a much more entertaining thread.

WHAT HAVE YOU BEPENIS?


I have only bepenis to fight
 
2013-01-11 05:46:56 PM

GAT_00: Considering that this is a push to make the country safer, that makes perfect sense.


Pool kill more children than guns. It is a time to ban all pools to make this country safer.

Obesity is a leading killer, time to ban McDonalds, it is time to make this country safer.

People don't die in low speed accidents, time to make the national speed limit 15 mph, to make this country safer.
 
2013-01-11 05:47:07 PM

Saiga410: LasersHurt: Can we all agree to dial back the wild hysteria a notch until there's a plan on the table from the administration?

That would be fine by me but when both gun and control activists are trying to win a messaging war before any proposed law is even put forth neither side will unilaterally disarm.


Well, shiat, right?
 
2013-01-11 05:50:53 PM

quickdraw: lennavan: quickdraw: make me some tea: EatenTheSun: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Penis control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Penis safety is pretty simple. Treat every penis like it is loaded. Don' t point a penis at anything you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the tringer until you are ready to fire. Done.

Don't give penises to crazy people.
Don't give penises to people with criminal records.
Squeeze slowly, the kick should surprise you.

See what I mean? Now its a much more entertaining thread.

WHAT HAVE YOU BEPENIS?

I have only bepenis to fight


userserve-ak.last.fm

Penis it
 
2013-01-11 05:51:03 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Just slow the firing rate so that no gun fires faster than a muzzle-loader.


How? Wouldn't any mechanical solution be trivially modifiable, either by removing the limiting part or simply grinding some key part away so it doesn't have any effect? Same thing with an electronic solution. How would this work with the ~300 million guns currently on the private market? I'm not being snarky or anything.

Assuming it could work, applied to all guns, and couldn't be bypassed, wouldn't that really limit potential defensive uses of firearms? I mean, a criminal could show up with a friend or two or more than one gun, but someone defending themselves would have to fire and wait, say, 20 seconds before the gun would let them shoot back. A lot could happen in that time.

I'm actually impressed that a new idea has been proposed in a Fark gun thread, even though I'm not really sure if it'd be such a good idea.
 
2013-01-11 05:56:23 PM

Giltric: CPennypacker: dr-shotgun: I'll have that conversation. Let's ban them!

Now you go.

Go for it. I invite you to try. Start a PAC, collect donations and make your single issue a one line amendment to the constitution that repeals the 2nd Amendment.

Buy a really nice Arc'teryx jacket. They are super warm and durable. Your gonna need it for how far out in the wild your going to be.

Wait I thought you wanted to have a discussion? I thought I had the huevosTM to discuss a ban that you complained none of us libby libs had.

And we don't need to repeal the second amendment, we just need the court to overturn Heller roe v wade.

you sound like a fundie


I...wow, you just Kerrigan'd me. I am rethinking my rhetorical stance on how I approach Heller. Thank you, CPennypacker, for bringing this to light so I didn't have to fall on the grenade. I'm with you, but I think this was a good point.
 
2013-01-11 05:57:02 PM
Government, wonderful government. Is there any problem they can't fix?

Just give them a little more of our money, a little more of our freedom, and they will (promise to) solve all our problems.

And if that doesn't work, give them a little more.
 
2013-01-11 06:04:22 PM

another cultural observer: Heraclitus: Lando Lincoln: Heraclitus: "Change magazine sizes so that crazy people have to stop and reload more often"

Let me explain something to you and Jon Stewart. Gun magazines are very simple devices. They are a box with a spring in it, and a base for the spring to push against. To change a 5-round magazine into a 30-round magazine would require one to make the box longer and to replace the spring with a bigger spring.

So if the laws were changed to restrict 30-round magazines...only law-abiding citizens would be affected by this law. Crazy people that were intent on shooting up malls or schools would be mildly inconvenienced by this new law, but they wouldn't be stopped at all. That's assuming that they wouldn't have access to magazines that were around before the new law went into effect.

So force them to make the illegal modification. like the $300 modification to turn an AR-15 into an M-16. It would still prove intent.

If some one is sick and just picks up what evers lying around its one thing. Modifying all of your weapons to increase killing capacity is another.

two 10-round magazines + $8.00 roll of duct tape = 20 round mag, Vietnam Edition.


Yup, and a 10 round mag is about 8 rounds more than you need if you know what your doing.
 
2013-01-11 06:07:22 PM

GameSprocket: A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.


Well, certainly anyone who isn't a highly trained stone cold killer doesn't deserve the right of self preservation.
 
2013-01-11 06:11:17 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: GameSprocket: A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.

Well, certainly anyone who isn't a highly trained stone cold killer doesn't deserve the right of self preservation.


Too much gun is not an answer for a lack of training. If she knows she's a bad shot she should be packing Buckshot.
 
2013-01-11 06:12:51 PM

IlGreven: Glancing Blow: I've read perhaps 5,000 gun-comments on Fark
And you can add yourself to the list of proposing actions that would have prevented people from randomly killing other people. Because not only didn't you even try, but you're using "there will always be guns" and "there will always be crazies" as reasons not to. It probably would've been better had you not said anything at all.
/"There will always be someone with a gun" is not an argument against gun legislation any more than "there will always be drunks behind the wheel" is an argument against DUI laws.


I try very hard not to respond to silly people, or to people who mangle what I state to advance their own beliefs. You can parse my comments any way you wish. Let me try to present my point more simply:

I have no idea what legislation would be effective in preventing this random gun violence. I would support any that could.

I think the numbers of people who perpetrate these crimes are so small and so unpredictable that I can't image what actions could detect and prevent them for acting. I would support any that would.

I think that there are factors, such as readily available stolen weapons, that make the task of coming up with a solution secondary to the solution causing the large number of gun thefts (no, I see no need for a citation here) to be controlled or minimized. If there were solution I would support them.

You'll note that I repeatedly say that I cannot see or imagine, not that there aren't any solutions.

Lastly, your bigoted position that "It probably would've been better had you not said anything at all" is without merit, and frankly reduces my ability to take you seriously.
 
2013-01-11 06:13:38 PM

Saiga410: Kazan: Lando Lincoln: Kazan: the 2nd amendment doesn't say "any arms they want, with no conditions".

Nor does it say that citizens are allowed to only bear certain arms, depending on what the government feels would be appropriate for them to have.

it's almost as if it left that up to the legislature or something.

Up until some limits on govt power were provided in Miller and Heller.


a real example of judicial activism
 
2013-01-11 06:14:26 PM

quickdraw: make me some tea: EatenTheSun: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Penis control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Penis safety is pretty simple. Treat every penis like it is loaded. Don' t point a penis at anything you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the tringer until you are ready to fire. Done.

Don't give penises to crazy people.
Don't give penises to people with criminal records.
Squeeze slowly, the kick should surprise you.

See what I mean? Now its a much more entertaining thread.


Lulz
 
2013-01-11 06:21:14 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: GameSprocket: A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.

Well, certainly anyone who isn't a highly trained stone cold killer doesn't deserve the right of self preservation.


I guess you're right. We should give her a tactical nuke. After all, she needs unlimited firepower.
 
2013-01-11 06:23:56 PM

GameSprocket: BraveNewCheneyWorld: GameSprocket: A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.

Well, certainly anyone who isn't a highly trained stone cold killer doesn't deserve the right of self preservation.

I guess you're right. We should give her a tactical nuke. After all, she needs unlimited firepower.


Chainsaw vaginas. It's the only way they'll ever be safe.
 
2013-01-11 06:23:59 PM

EatenTheSun: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Gun safety is pretty simple. Treat every gun like it is loaded. Don' t point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the tringer until you are ready to fire. Done.


Don't forget the part about locking up your guns so that other people, like, say, an unstable child, cannot use your guns against you and others.
 
2013-01-11 06:43:26 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: GameSprocket: BraveNewCheneyWorld: GameSprocket: A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.

Well, certainly anyone who isn't a highly trained stone cold killer doesn't deserve the right of self preservation.

I guess you're right. We should give her a tactical nuke. After all, she needs unlimited firepower.

Chainsaw vaginas. It's the only way they'll ever be safe.


And, they could get work as pencil sharpeners.
 
2013-01-11 07:18:03 PM

GameSprocket: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: GameSprocket: BraveNewCheneyWorld: GameSprocket: A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.

Well, certainly anyone who isn't a highly trained stone cold killer doesn't deserve the right of self preservation.

I guess you're right. We should give her a tactical nuke. After all, she needs unlimited firepower.

Chainsaw vaginas. It's the only way they'll ever be safe.

And, they could get work as pencil sharpeners.


Chainsaw Vaginas would be a great name for a band!
 
2013-01-11 07:20:40 PM

hubiestubert: No matter how you brand it, either side of the gun control debate is bait and switch.

We need to have a discussion in this country about crime. Causes. Prevention. Why folks turn to violent crime. How we can reduce the factors and conditions that make it an option.

That means having a meaningful discussion on education, mental health, and economic opportunity as well as drug policy.

But we won't. Instead folks are going to conflate the tools themselves as both cause and solution to crime. And very little will be done to address the real issue of crime in this country, and a lot of lobbyists will pocket cash on both sides of this uselessly vitriolic debate...


That is pretty much how America handles everything. Bandaid the problem and never resolve the root cause. Way to much money in Bandaids for it ever to change.
 
2013-01-11 07:24:21 PM

Heraclitus: GameSprocket: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: GameSprocket: BraveNewCheneyWorld: GameSprocket: A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.

Well, certainly anyone who isn't a highly trained stone cold killer doesn't deserve the right of self preservation.

I guess you're right. We should give her a tactical nuke. After all, she needs unlimited firepower.

Chainsaw vaginas. It's the only way they'll ever be safe.

And, they could get work as pencil sharpeners.

Chainsaw Vaginas would be a great name for a band!


They would wind up in a Russian jail.
 
2013-01-11 07:28:47 PM

Heraclitus: BraveNewCheneyWorld: GameSprocket: A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.

Well, certainly anyone who isn't a highly trained stone cold killer doesn't deserve the right of self preservation.

Too much gun is not an answer for a lack of training. If she knows she's a bad shot she should be packing Buckshot.


I did't think this was hard to understand. People don't know how panicky they'll get when they actually have to shoot someone. It's not something the average person is going to train for, hell, even cops with all their training, and those in the military who are deliberately conditioned to learn to kill often falter or shake uncontrollably when it comes time to shoot someone. THAT AFFECTS YOUR ACCURACY. So go ahead and pretend that everyone should be steady as a surgeon when confronted for their life, at least we all know for certain how little you know about reality.
 
2013-01-11 07:40:52 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Heraclitus: BraveNewCheneyWorld: GameSprocket: A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.

Well, certainly anyone who isn't a highly trained stone cold killer doesn't deserve the right of self preservation.

Too much gun is not an answer for a lack of training. If she knows she's a bad shot she should be packing Buckshot.

I did't think this was hard to understand. People don't know how panicky they'll get when they actually have to shoot someone. It's not something the average person is going to train for, hell, even cops with all their training, and those in the military who are deliberately conditioned to learn to kill often falter or shake uncontrollably when it comes time to shoot someone. THAT AFFECTS YOUR ACCURACY. So go ahead and pretend that everyone should be steady as a surgeon when confronted for their life, at least we all know for certain how little you know about reality.


Or how good of a shot I actually am.

dumbass

So your argument is that everyone should have a tactical nuke to protect themselves because they dont know how they would react under pressure?

You know how I know you have no firearms training?
 
2013-01-11 07:45:45 PM
Gun safety? Treat all guns as if they are loaded, never point you gun where you don't want to shoot. ta da
 
2013-01-11 07:58:41 PM
Gun control will NEVER work!
But I'm sure if we give the War on Drugs just a LIIIIIITTLE more time, it'll start working any minute now.....
Any minute now....
Aaaaaaany minute.... NOW?
 
2013-01-11 08:11:31 PM

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Gun control will NEVER work!
But I'm sure if we give the War on Drugs just a LIIIIIITTLE more time, it'll start working any minute now.....
Any minute now....
Aaaaaaany minute.... NOW?


But you've got it all wrong. Marijuana isn't habit forming like guns are.
 
2013-01-11 08:23:33 PM

Heraclitus: Or how good of a shot I actually am.

dumbass


I'm the dumbass? We're talking about a woman who shot a guy 5 times, not you. Can you not follow a conversation?

Heraclitus: So your argument is that everyone should have a tactical nuke to protect themselves because they dont know how they would react under pressure?


Yes, that's exactly what my argument is. NUKES FOR EVERYONE!!!! That exactly the same thing as allowing everyone to have standard magazines found in guns today. When you have to resort to such hyperbole, you've surely lost.

Heraclitus: You know how I know you have no firearms training?


lol, you don't.
 
2013-01-11 08:54:47 PM
You know the gun control advocates are losing when they have to start lying and straining their arguments.

Two weeks ago they were boasting of how they're going to get bans on semi-autos. Then they started saying they're not going to ban them per se but make it harder for some to get. Now they're claiming no one ever talked about banning or restricting them... but gee golly we need some regulations to stop the crazies.

Gun control supporters are the biggest group of liars alive.
 
2013-01-11 09:03:00 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I did't think this was hard to understand. People don't know how panicky they'll get when they actually have to shoot someone. It's not something the average person is going to train for, hell, even cops with all their training, and those in the military who are deliberately conditioned to learn to kill often falter or shake uncontrollably when it comes time to shoot someone. THAT AFFECTS YOUR ACCURACY. So go ahead and pretend that everyone should be steady as a surgeon when confronted for their life, at least we all know for certain how little you know about reality.


Cops on average have an awful accuracy in police shootings. Amadou Diallo was shot at 41 times at intemediate range and only 19 bullets hit him.

I don't know why people think bullets and criminals have a 1:1 ratio for lethality. It's not like the movies where 1 hit equals a sudden lethal drop.
 
2013-01-11 09:12:02 PM
So which is more dangerous?

A 16 Y/O cheerleader with an M-20 or a 28 Y/O Marine Corps Sgt. with a 9.mm Glock?

Take your time...
 
2013-01-11 09:27:28 PM

Heraclitus: So which is more dangerous?

A 16 Y/O cheerleader with an M-20 or a 28 Y/O Marine Corps Sgt. with a 9.mm Glock?

Take your time...


Help me out here a little. The only M-20 I am familiar with is a WWII era recoiless rifle...
 
2013-01-11 09:29:43 PM

Heraclitus: So which is more dangerous?

A 16 Y/O cheerleader with an M-20 or a 28 Y/O Marine Corps Sgt. with a 9.mm Glock?

Take your time...


Who's stronger? Thor or the Hulk?
 
2013-01-11 09:47:50 PM

Kazan: violentsalvation: Might as well re-brand it "gun appearance control".

Either these features matter, serve a purpose etc and you should care

Or they're all cosmetic, and you shouldn't care


IT CANNOT BE BOTH, STOP THIS DISHONEST TALKING POINT


Why can't they be cosmetic and I care? Don't you want to collect all of the different outfits for your Barbie dolls?
 
2013-01-11 09:58:47 PM

Silly Jesus: GameSprocket: Silly Jesus: GameSprocket: Silly Jesus: In Atlanta last week a thug broke into a woman's home while she was there with her children. She ended up shooting him 5 times in the face at close range (she ran out of bullets) and he was still able to exit the house and drive a short distance away. Imagine if there were two or three people that broke in or if she had missed. Still think 10 is reasonable?

I think that if there had been multiple people breaking in, she would not have gotten off the 5. She couldn't kill him with 5 so I am happy she ran out before she accidentally shot one of her kids.

2/10

Hey, I can only work with what you give me. A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.

She hit him in the face with all five. She was hiding in a crawl space with her kids and he found her. I think that's pretty good.

Hell, there are many other stories of aggressors being shot multiple times and it not stopping them. You picking a random number (10) and telling me that I have that many tries to defend myself and after that I just get what's coming to me is asinine and you can't possibly be serious.


Lethality with pistol calibers can be iffy. You can die from a single shot of a .22LR in a matter of seconds, or take a half dozen rounds of .45 and still continue to move and fight. Most people learned what they know about guns from TV where people will nearly always die instantly with one or two shots (as long as it's convenient to the plot that is).
 
2013-01-11 10:08:45 PM

EatenTheSun: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Gun safety is pretty simple. Treat every gun like it is loaded. Don' t point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the tringer until you are ready to fire. Done.


This. Gun safety and gun control are two different things.
 
2013-01-11 10:08:57 PM

Silly Jesus: QueenMamaBee: syrynxx: hubiestubert:
We need to have a discussion in this country about crime. Causes. Prevention. Why folks turn to violent crime. How we can reduce the factors and conditions that make it an option.

That means having a meaningful discussion on education, mental health, and economic opportunity as well as drug policy.

That's like having a meaningful discussion on Crips vs. Bloods.  Are we really going to try to rearchitect black society so that males marry the mothers of their children and have them grow up with honest, job-holding role models so the youths don't succumb to peer pressure to join a gang?  That's dumber than suggesting 10-round magazines are going to change anything.

1. It seems white dudes are the ones shooting up the schools

2. My lily white father wasn't much of a dad, irresponsibility is not limited to one race

3. Why the fark do you NEED a clip with more than 10 rounds? You may WANT it, but you don't NEED it. I WANT a tiger..... I have a housecat.

/I'm about to start the National Tiger Association and buy me some lobbyists. Damnit, I should be able to have any thing I want!!!! *wahhhhh*

In Atlanta last week a thug broke into a woman's home while she was there with her children. She ended up shooting him 5 times in the face at close range (she ran out of bullets) and he was still able to exit the house and drive a short distance away. Imagine if there were two or three people that broke in or if she had missed. Still think 10 is reasonable?


I would assume that if there were multiple thugs, all of the thugs would be out the door the minute shots are heard. Thugs aren't stupidly programmed video game guards.

All those magazines didn't prevent the Sandy Hook killer's mom from getting killed. Still think that countless magazines are reasonable?

I've been told that by just having a gun in my home, that scares criminals away from entering homes illegally. I mean, that's the conceal carry argument, isn't it? Maybe the better prevention would've been spent on ensure the home was secured better in the first place. That's the "it's not the gun's fault, it's the mental health" issue excuse. Plus, she doesn't sound like a responsible gun owner to me. Responsible gun owners keep their guns in a gun safe at all time when kids around, right? Did she just have her gun laying around, or did the thug give her time to go and unlock her safe?

And as a side note, if she had a kitana instead of a gun, she could've sliced his head off, and not given him a chance to escape.
 
2013-01-11 10:13:45 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Heraclitus: BraveNewCheneyWorld: GameSprocket: A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.

Well, certainly anyone who isn't a highly trained stone cold killer doesn't deserve the right of self preservation.

Too much gun is not an answer for a lack of training. If she knows she's a bad shot she should be packing Buckshot.

I did't think this was hard to understand. People don't know how panicky they'll get when they actually have to shoot someone. It's not something the average person is going to train for, hell, even cops with all their training, and those in the military who are deliberately conditioned to learn to kill often falter or shake uncontrollably when it comes time to shoot someone. THAT AFFECTS YOUR ACCURACY. So go ahead and pretend that everyone should be steady as a surgeon when confronted for their life, at least we all know for certain how little you know about reality.


If I'm not mistaken she reportedly hit him in the face and/or chest, so it's not as if she winged him five times. Buckshot is another movie myth too, it doesn't spread out into a 6 foot wide arc and hit everything when you're firing at close range. The pattern is actually rather tight (it varies with different chokes but often just a few inches at close range), and you're supposed to shoulder and sight it in just like you would with any other gun.
 
2013-01-12 05:08:07 AM

Kazan: Or they're all cosmetic, and you shouldn't care


If they're cosmetic, you _should_ care, because it means this law is about harassing perfectly legitimate citizens that aren't doing anything particularly dangerous with their firearms over what amounts to matters of aesthetic taste, i.e. you're using the law to randomly harass a demographic you don't like.

If you don't understand why this is a problem, maybe you need to be reminded that the last time a set of laws making "meaningless aesthetic distinctions that don't matter" was directed at a demographic group were called "Jim Crow Laws". I mean, the schools are equal and you get the same education either way, so you shouldn't care, right? The fact that they're still equal and the differences are purely aesthetic is written right there in the law, nothing underhanded going on here!
 
2013-01-12 05:53:19 AM

Kazan: violentsalvation: Might as well re-brand it "gun appearance control".

Either these features matter, serve a purpose etc and you should care

Or they're all cosmetic, and you shouldn't care


IT CANNOT BE BOTH, STOP THIS DISHONEST TALKING POINT


Orrr, just bear with me for a second....

...what if, WHAT IF, people wanted the laws that got passed in this country to actually do something? What if they were worried that by banning guns based on cosmetic properties not only would the actual problem guns "slip through the cracks", but the law would wind up inadvertently banning several other types of weapons which are not what the law was targeted it at?

WHAT IF there was a very real possibility that a ban on cosmetic characteristics might turn the law into something which criminalized possession of antique single-load rifles, for example? Or BB guns with certain visual stylings? What if the law was so badly, atrociously written that you could get arrested and charged with a felony for not just purchasing those things, but even possessing them at all?

Maybe... now just bear with me here, but MAYBE people are sort of worried about the kind of havoc that could cause.
 
2013-01-12 07:47:07 AM
We have to put up with terms like "right to life" "defense of marriage" and "family values"...all of which hide regressive ideals. Suck on the euphemism a while. You'll learn to like it.
 
2013-01-12 07:47:43 AM
Oh and my face: fair tax
 
2013-01-12 07:48:47 AM
Sigh ... face = fave ... stupid auto correct
 
2013-01-12 11:26:37 AM

hubiestubert: No matter how you brand it, either side of the gun control debate is bait and switch.

We need to have a discussion in this country about crime. Causes. Prevention. Why folks turn to violent crime. How we can reduce the factors and conditions that make it an option.

That means having a meaningful discussion on education, mental health, and economic opportunity as well as drug policy.

But we won't. Instead folks are going to conflate the tools themselves as both cause and solution to crime. And very little will be done to address the real issue of crime in this country, and a lot of lobbyists will pocket cash on both sides of this uselessly vitriolic debate...


Same goes with a lot of societal problems. I travel to Appalachia for work a couple times every year. They've got a lot of dry counties in KY, and they seem to think it helps fight alcohol abuse. Those counties are notorious for dui because people have to go all the way to the next county to get it, and from what I've seen they drink so much make UW-Madison students look sober. From what I've been able to gather there isn't any discussion on mental health, or the fact that their backwards policies lead to economic problems and other factors that cause depression. They somehow think that everything will be okay if they just have moar jaysus.

Same thing with places that have abstinence-only education. You can't fight young people's urges, so instead they somehow think choosing not to teach children about sex properly will stop them from having it. It's been seen time and time again that abstinence-only sex-ed leads to more teen pregnancies and std rates. Maybe educating kids properly and giving them something to do after school other than sit around drinking and farking would be a good thing, but that's teh soashulizm and big gubmint spending.
 
2013-01-12 12:05:39 PM

Gosling: make me some tea: Don't give guns to people with criminal records.

Create penalties for straw purchasers. That's people without criminal records who buy guns for the express purpose of reselling them to people who do. It's like buying beer for minors, and we don't have a law to address that.


Making a straw purchase for someone who is not supposed to have a gun is a felony, at least in my state.

Next!
 
2013-01-12 03:47:11 PM

lennavan: So you are saying this law would have a negligible effect on law-abiding citizens? Why are you so against it then?


Quite the contrary. What's so hard to understand about this?

1) Government declares that they're thinking about banning 30-round magazines
2) Prices for 30-round magazines triple in price
3) Ban goes into effect
4) 30-round magazines can no longer legally be sold from citizen to citizen, or if they can, then prices will be quintiple what they were before.
5) Crazy people make their own 30-round magazines and continue to kill people because they don't give a fark about the law

So yeah, if you're rich then it doesn't affect you too much, I suppose.
 
2013-01-12 03:52:04 PM

Heraclitus: So force them to make the illegal modification. like the $300 modification to turn an AR-15 into an M-16. It would still prove intent.


Yes, we could slap their corpses with additional charges after they got done killing a bunch of people and then killing themselves. That would really make some crazy people change their minds about doing such things.

You're all dancing around the problem. It's not the guns. It's the crazy people. They are the root of the problem.
 
2013-01-12 10:14:28 PM

Kazan: violentsalvation: Might as well re-brand it "gun appearance control".

Either these features matter, serve a purpose etc and you should care

Or they're all cosmetic, and you shouldn't care


IT CANNOT BE BOTH, STOP THIS DISHONEST TALKING POINT


If someone was proposing that you can no longer criticize the government, but in all other ways you have freedom of speech, would you be even a little upset? I mean, it's not like you criticize the government every day, so why would you care, right?
 
2013-01-14 05:13:33 PM

Lando Lincoln: lennavan: So you are saying this law would have a negligible effect on law-abiding citizens? Why are you so against it then?

Quite the contrary. What's so hard to understand about this?

1) Government declares that they're thinking about banning 30-round magazines
2) Prices for 30-round magazines triple in price
3) Ban goes into effect
4) 30-round magazines can no longer legally be sold from citizen to citizen, or if they can, then prices will be quintiple what they were before.
5) Crazy people make their own 30-round magazines and continue to kill people because they don't give a fark about the law

So yeah, if you're rich then it doesn't affect you too much, I suppose.


Usually you're pretty sane but you went off the deep end here my friend. Any regular law abiding citizen will just have to reload a little more often. What's the big farking whoop? Don't want to pay triple the price? Just reload.

Crazy people you totally imagine will make 30 round magazines? What's so magical about that number? Why don't they make 100 round magazines? These crazy teenaged kids aren't as crafty as you imagine. They take what is legally available and go at it. You don't hear a lot of gun deaths from automatic weapons these days. That completely destroys your "criminals will do it anyway" argument. They don't do it anyway. They don't create their own automatics. They don't illegally import them. They just use handguns.
 
Displayed 266 of 266 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report