Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(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 39
    More: Asinine, Brady Campaign, gun safety, Biden  
•       •       •

2206 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jan 2013 at 3:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-11 02:08:17 PM  
4 votes:

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 01:54:10 PM  
4 votes:

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 01:53:35 PM  
4 votes:

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  
3 votes:

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 01:52:43 PM  
3 votes:

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 01:42:00 PM  
3 votes:
I don't care what they brand it as, as long as they get something meaningful done.
2013-01-11 02:41:55 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:06:07 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-01-12 10:14:28 PM  
1 votes:

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?
2013-01-12 03:52:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:53:19 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-11 05:57:02 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:44:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:35:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:04:42 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:00:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:50:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:49:59 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:49:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:41:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:37:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:32:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:25:55 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:21:48 PM  
1 votes:
"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 03:21:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:21:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:18:15 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:17:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:17:09 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:13:47 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:11:30 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:08:10 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:56:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:50:18 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:13:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:02:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:58:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:48:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:44:52 PM  
1 votes:
Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report