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  
•       •       •

2206 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 16 of 266 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report