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.

(Fox News)   World's largest gun show features over 12 miles of guns. USA USA USA   (foxnews.com ) divider line
    More: Hero, United States, Las Vegas, National Shooting Sports Foundation, shooting sports, guns  
•       •       •

8903 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jan 2013 at 2:34 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-16 12:13:27 AM  
Gotta be careful with claims like that. You could get sued for false advertising.

m5.paperblog.com
 
2013-01-16 12:22:40 AM  
Ballet dancer turned defense specialist Allison Barrie has traveled around the world

?????????????????????
 
2013-01-16 12:32:55 AM  
 
2013-01-16 12:35:06 AM  
A gun show guy looks into the mirror of his mind:

www.frontaalnaakt.nl
 
2013-01-16 12:58:30 AM  
I always wanted to go to a SHOT show. Hey, you know what's weird? The promoters of the SHOT show, the NSSF are headquartered in Newtown.
 
2013-01-16 01:38:02 AM  
tiniest.penis.evar
 
2013-01-16 01:44:02 AM  
Anything truly great in the world can be measured for length.
 
2013-01-16 01:52:54 AM  

cretinbob: tiniest.penis.evar


You should see a doctor.
 
2013-01-16 02:08:51 AM  
ATTN: anti-gun pants wetters...the show is NOT open to the general public. It's a trade show where manufacturers and retailers meet.
 
2013-01-16 02:36:43 AM  
Pop a paper bag in there. I dare you. I double dare you, motherfarker.
 
2013-01-16 02:38:28 AM  
Somebody near there PLEASE put these posters up around the show.
25.media.tumblr.com
I don't care which side of the gun debate you're on, you've got to admit the sudden scream as everyone logs on with their smartphones and laptops would be glorious to behold.
 
2013-01-16 02:38:46 AM  
Ballet dancer turned defense specialist Allison Barrie

global.fncstatic.com
/ yes please
 
2013-01-16 02:42:45 AM  
At least one part of the economy is working....
 
2013-01-16 02:43:19 AM  
For the latest news from the SHOT show, www.shootingillustrated.com
 
2013-01-16 02:44:39 AM  
So about the same amount of dick subbie's mom took last night?
 
2013-01-16 02:44:54 AM  
"Attendance to the show is restricted to shooting, hunting and outdoor trade professionals and commercial buyers and sellers of military, law enforcement and tactical products and services"

Yes, lets all panic.
 
2013-01-16 02:44:57 AM  
"Similarly, they do not permit any personal firearms or ammunition. Only exhibitors' firearms on display that have had their firing pins are permitted."

Duck!!
 
2013-01-16 02:46:05 AM  
Ballet dancer turned defense specialist Allison Barrie has traveled around the world covering the military, terrorism, weapons advancements and life on the front line.


Fox News: News you can stick your dick in.
 
2013-01-16 02:47:46 AM  
I work for a hunting and fishing company as a web designer. My entire team is there and I have plenty of designs there on showcase. It's a trade show so only industry peeps are allowed in. Before you jump on it, these aren't all wing nuts of the tea party screaming for assault weapons. I know many of my team actually advocate stricter gun control (better background checks, smaller clips, etc). So please measure what you think you know of this convention. Allow me to break the stereotype of what you expect a gun enthusiast to be. I live in Manhattan, am gay, super liberal, early twenties and a mean shot with a shotgun and clays. Also this shows been going on for over 30 years, so it's not some new thing. Every year at this time of year.
 
2013-01-16 02:49:23 AM  

ParaHandy: Ballet dancer turned defense specialist Allison Barrie

[global.fncstatic.com image 156x195]
/ yes please


Well, she certainly looks like someone who has had to scrape by on nothing but street smarts and raw streetfighting skills on many occasions...
 
2013-01-16 02:52:15 AM  
www.trbimg.com

GIS for "World's Largest Gun Show"
 
2013-01-16 02:55:15 AM  
Markley's Law in full effect yet again.
 
2013-01-16 03:00:04 AM  
ParaHandy: Ballet dancer turned defense specialist Allison Barrie

[global.fncstatic.com image 156x195]
/ yes please

how_about_no.jpg
 
2013-01-16 03:00:17 AM  

ParaHandy: Ballet dancer turned defense specialist Allison Barrie

[global.fncstatic.com image 156x195]
/ yes please


You sure they didn't mean to type Barry Allison?

/it's a man, baby
 
2013-01-16 03:00:50 AM  

Rug Doctor: [www.trbimg.com image 600x400]

GIS for "World's Largest Gun Show"


How in all of Hades does he wipe his butt?
 
2013-01-16 03:01:18 AM  
Cpl.D:

victrin:

^^^^^THESE^^^^^
 
2013-01-16 03:02:35 AM  
So how many guns bought here will be used in mass shootings in the next few years?
 
2013-01-16 03:04:13 AM  

Cpl.D: Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this.


Evidence, please.
 
2013-01-16 03:05:03 AM  

ontariolightning: So how many guns bought here will be used in mass shootings in the next few years?


0
 
2013-01-16 03:06:50 AM  

Bomb Head Mohammed: ParaHandy: Ballet dancer turned defense specialist Allison Barrie

[global.fncstatic.com image 156x195]
/ yes please

how_about_no.jpg


FTFY

i.imgur.com

 
2013-01-16 03:09:18 AM  
People who own guns should have to pay liability insurance on them
 
2013-01-16 03:12:16 AM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Pop a paper bag in there. I dare you. I double dare you, motherfarker.


It's an industry show.  Nothing being shown has a firing pin.
 
2013-01-16 03:13:50 AM  

ontariolightning: So how many guns bought here will be used in mass shootings in the next few years?


None you retard.
 
2013-01-16 03:14:21 AM  

sleeps in trees: Umm... You guys are farking nuts. Completely loony. Bongos.

 
2013-01-16 03:15:20 AM  
While I rarely get to do target practice (usually too time consuming on the short times I spend visiting the inlaws), I'm pretty cheesed off that Cuomo just made my 10-shot capacity illegal on the .22 Ruger I bought last year. Supposedly we can still possess the magazine, but can't load it past seven or it's a misdemeanor if caught. What the fark prompted that number? All it takes is one bullet to kill or seriously maim a person, assuming you can shoot straight.

/not a gun nut
//just like to keep the BRM skills sharp
 
2013-01-16 03:18:11 AM  

violentsalvation: ontariolightning: So how many guns bought here will be used in mass shootings in the next few years?

None you retard.


Don't shoot your eye out kid
 
2013-01-16 03:20:08 AM  

ladyfortuna: While I rarely get to do target practice (usually too time consuming on the short times I spend visiting the inlaws), I'm pretty cheesed off that Cuomo just made my 10-shot capacity illegal on the .22 Ruger I bought last year. Supposedly we can still possess the magazine, but can't load it past seven or it's a misdemeanor if caught. What the fark prompted that number? All it takes is one bullet to kill or seriously maim a person, assuming you can shoot straight.

/not a gun nut
//just like to keep the BRM skills sharp


How exactly will Cuomo & Co. know you've got an illegal magazine? Are they just going to go door-to-door and ask? Unless your gun gets confiscated because it was used in a crime (which I highly doubt), there's no way you can tell if someone has a verboten magazine just by looking at it. Stupid law is stupid.
 
2013-01-16 03:21:24 AM  
Totally not gay.
 
2013-01-16 03:23:12 AM  

ontariolightning: So how many guns bought here will be used in mass shootings in the next few years?


This is pathetic, stop trying so hard.
 
2013-01-16 03:23:26 AM  
There are a lot of ways, especially in NY, to get your stuff 'inspected' and get caught. I'm pretty sure (without looking it up anyway) that you aren't supposed to transport them loaded, for example. Get pulled over, stupidly admit to the firearm in the vehicle, all of a sudden you're arrested for having too many bullets in the magazine when you were just on your way to a cornfield to shoot some paper targets... etc.
 
2013-01-16 03:32:34 AM  
There's an argument to be made that the consumer firearms market is a part of the economy and that restricting firearms in some new fashion would ruin tens of thousands of lives by shrinking the workforce.

Of course, that's something you learn if you study economics too long. No laws or regulations work in the way they're sold as. Want to reduce drug related violence by going after the gangs? Well, you're just raising the stakes instead of making the illicit market pointless. Want to reduce gun violence? Legalize pot and give away heroin to addicts.

kontradictions.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-16 03:35:57 AM  
ontariolightning

People who own guns should have to pay liability insurance on them


I have a substantial umbrella policy, can I own guns?
 
2013-01-16 03:36:52 AM  
Attendance to the show is restricted to shooting, hunting and outdoor trade professionals and commercial buyers and sellers of military, law enforcement and tactical products and services, however, meaning hunters, sports shooters and shooting clubs are not permitted entry.

That's good in theory and bogus in practice. If you're friends with a gun store owner, he'll get you in on a visitor or employee pass. Trade shows are like that. I'm going to the NAMM trade show with my friend who owns one of the local music stores in my area. Probably 1/3 of the attendees have no business being there.

/I have to work while I'm there. I look for new products while the owners attend keynote addresses, etc.
 
2013-01-16 03:38:09 AM  

ParaHandy: Ballet dancer turned defense specialist Allison Barrie

[global.fncstatic.com image 156x195]
/ yes please


Courtney Cox and Alanis Morrissette have a baby, and she's packing major heat? Well, isn't that ironic, friends?

memecrunch.com
 
2013-01-16 03:43:19 AM  
Can't wait til we invent laser pistols. "The Founding Fathers clearly intended me to be able to kill anyone within sight at light speed or else tyranny prevails!"
 
2013-01-16 03:47:04 AM  
Technically it is a gun trade show, not a gun show where you go and buy guns.
 
2013-01-16 03:49:39 AM  
In Canada, you need a permit for a Swingline stapler. And a child proof safety lock.
 
2013-01-16 03:52:33 AM  
But does it feature a twelve-mile gun? Because then I would be interested.
 
2013-01-16 03:56:04 AM  

Cpl.D: Mock26: Cpl.D: Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this.

Evidence, please.

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

Twice as many people have died in homicide by firearms than all other methods combined. Yes, I realize that even if guns were banned, there'd still be a black market for guns. On the other hand, you'd have to acknowledge that even if that extreme were the case, that there would still be far fewer guns on the street available for use by those with criminal intent. The black market isn't going to be able to keep up the firearms-per-person ratio that legal sales do.

I wish I could dig up graph after graph and flood you with it, but this debate has been so poisoned that I can dig up graphs showing completely opposite things. I could probably find one showing a link between leprechauns and clip size if I looked hard enough.

I'll just have to reference common sense; If there's less firearms on the street, or they're more strictly controlled, or if all guns were required to be registered and reported stolen if and when they are, then that's going to make a dent in how often they're used in crime.


Correlation does not prove causation. You are merely looking at the numbers and then completely making up an assumption that if there were stricter laws there would be fewer gun homicides. For example, what percentage of those were committed with legally owned firearms versus illegally owned firearms? Stricter control of guns would probably only have a major impact on those committed with a legally owned firearm. Take Chicago as an example, for all those years listed on that chart Chicago had a total ban on handguns (well, near total, as only police officers and some security personnel such as armored car drives could possess one), yet every year roughly 75% of its 400+ murders were committed with handguns. You cannot get more strict than what amounts to a total ban, right? The same is true of DC. And what about DC? For two of the years listed they had a total ban on all firearms, yet their intentional firearm homicide rate was pretty high. And, there is also that this is the total number. What is the break down by state? And did you compare those numbers to the level of gun control in each state? That is something that cannot be ignored. Yet you have done so. You have looked at some numbers and just made up an assumption with no really data to support it.

Finally, have you ever stopped to look at the numbers? 100+ million people legally owning 270+ million guns. And how many murders each year? Even if one were to make the assumption that all intentional firearm homicides were committed by the legal gun owner that is a pretty damn impressive safety record. Assuming an average of 14,200 for the five years, that would be only 0.000142% of all legal gun owners used a gun to commit homicide! And again, that is assuming that the all of those homicides were committed by the legal gun owners, and we certainly know that to not be true, so the percentage will be even lower than that. There is no need to assume anything here. The numbers speak for them themselves. The VAST majority of legal gun owners are responsible gun owners. Is there any need for stricter gun control when the vast majority of gun owners already control their guns?
 
2013-01-16 03:57:35 AM  

Gyrfalcon: But does it feature a twelve-mile gun? Because then I would be interested.


I want to see a gun that can shoot through schools!
 
2013-01-16 04:09:37 AM  

Cpl.D: I suppose I'm an oddity in the gun debate. I've got a cabinet full of guns (hunting) and I routinely do target shooting at the ol' gun club. I like hunting white-tail deer, and I eat what I take. But I also believe that concessions *have* to be made in the gun control debate.

In a perfect world, we could have all the guns we want and there would be no issue. But we don't live in a perfect world. Guns are absolutely not the sole problem, here, and the fix isn't going to come from gun control alone. We've also got to fix the mental health system in this country in a big way. But that's going to take far too long, and I doubt it'll ever be perfect. Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this. There's no gun I have in my cabinet worth the life of even one more kid.

The solution is going to have to have a broad spectrum, but throwing a hissy fit like the NRA has doesn't help any. I like how the NRA was invited to the talks on gun control going on, and the NRA stormed out, saying "They just intend on attacking the second amendment rights!" Ok, let's assume that's perfectly accurate. NRA, isn't your stated goal of protecting that right? If so, then isn't staying in that meeting the best place to be to protect that right? So why did your representatives leave? Why?


I agree with you for the most part. I had a long talk with my Father, a gunsmith (he's actually at the linked Vegas gun show right now) last week about the gun control issue and he completely agrees as well. I'm all for guns for hunting and self-defense. The average citizen has no need for an assault rifle. That said, I've been to many gun shows in my life, and they're more like a redneck saturday market than anything. There are some really cool antique items for sale. We do need to require that all firearm sales at gun shows are done by licensed dealers, though.
 
2013-01-16 04:19:41 AM  

ElQue: The average citizen has no need for an assault rifle.


Assuming that you are talking about a military style semi-automatic rifle, why not? What is different about this firearm that makes you say that the average citizen has no need for one? What makes it inappropriate for the average citizen?
 
2013-01-16 04:38:33 AM  

Cpl.D: I'll just have to reference common sense; If there's less firearms on the street, or they're more strictly controlled, or if all guns were required to be registered and reported stolen if and when they are, then that's going to make a dent in how often they're used in crime.


And I'll just have to assume you don't know the meaning of the word common sense as Wash DC had one of the most restrictive gun control systems and still has some of the highest murder rates in the country. You will see time and time and time again that highly restrictive gun control laws in an area do nothing to reduce the gun crime there.
 
2013-01-16 04:49:43 AM  

randomjsa: Cpl.D: I'll just have to reference common sense; If there's less firearms on the street, or they're more strictly controlled, or if all guns were required to be registered and reported stolen if and when they are, then that's going to make a dent in how often they're used in crime.

And I'll just have to assume you don't know the meaning of the word common sense as Wash DC had one of the most restrictive gun control systems and still has some of the highest murder rates in the country. You will see time and time and time again that highly restrictive gun control laws in an area do nothing to reduce the gun crime there.


They would need to be federal laws to make a major impact, since it's not like you have to stop at customs when you're driving down the highway across state lines. If, for example, Germany and France had few restrictions on gun ownership, and one decided to ban guns outright, you would most likely see a rapid decrease in gun violence in France, despite their ability to freely buy from the Germans.
 
2013-01-16 04:52:46 AM  
www.superfreegift.com
 
2013-01-16 05:03:51 AM  

Cpl.D: Mock26: Correlation does not prove causation. You are merely looking at the numbers and then completely making up an assumption that if there were stricter laws there would be fewer gun homicides. For example, what percentage of those were committed with legally owned firearms versus illegally owned firearms? Stricter control of guns would probably only have a major impact on those committed with a legally owned firearm. Take Chicago as an example, for all those years listed on that chart Chicago had a total ban on handguns (well, near total, as only police officers and some security personnel such as armored car drives could possess one), yet every year roughly 75% of its 400+ murders were committed with handguns. ...

Sure, and the places that have handgun bans and suffer from high crime rate with guns have criminals who traffic the guns from nearby states without the ban, either with legitimately bought or stolen firearms.

Look, I understand the desire to not give an inch in the issue. I understand the thinking that you shouldn't have to give up any portion of a right through no wrongdoing of your own. But for fark's sake, man. How many shootings is it going to take for you to want to try something? Twenty kids dead isn't enough to make you reexamine anything? What would it take? Thirty? Fifty? A hundred? I ask because this is going to happen again. And again, and again, and again. It's stupidly obvious where this same path leads. Something has to change. And as I said before, while I'd rather not have to resort to gun control, I'm willing to deal with it provided other factors are brought into account as well, such as mental health care restructuring. This isn't a single-cause problem, and the fix isn't going to be a single correction somewhere. But wanting to hang on to more guns than anyone legitimately needs for the sake of stupid pride at the cost of rampant public shootings is... well, stupid. And on a similar matter, spare me the "We're protecting ourselves from tyranny!" line. Not that you mentioned it, but that's a big argument on the gun-nut side of the house. Not once in all of recorded history was a tyrrany overthrown by an armed populace. It's always been the military, or noble families, things like that. And we've *already* got that base covered. When you join the military, you pledge not to the government, not the president, and not to the NRA. You pledge to support and defend the constitution. If they tried throwing that out, they'd have the military on their ass. And they know it.


And how will stricter gun control stop the theft of guns? it might stop people from buying a gun in one area and transporting it to another, but that is a pretty big assumption you are making there. Do you have any statistics to support your theory? Or is this just a gut feeling that you have? If you can prove that stricter gun control will reduce the amount of intentional firearms then I will gladly listen with an open mind. Until then, though, I will fight gun control.

In regards to the number of dead, who says that I am not reexamining this issue? As someone who grew up hunting, who used to be certified shooting instructor, and someone who owns firearms I am examining this issue every single time I hear of someone getting killed by a firearm. And every single time I come to the same conclusion, that the gun was just the tool. I have looked at the various laws around the country, including the Brady Bill, and there is no correlation between gun control and gun crime. Some areas with strict laws have high gun crime. Some with strict laws have low gun crime. Some with lax laws have high gun crime. Some with lax laws have low gun crime. Guns are just one part of the issue, and focusing on just that part will not solve the underlying problems. And while you are OK with making a concession, I am not, because most of those who are against guns only ever seem to talk about controlling the guns. They never seem to talk about tackling any of the other issues behind why someone would commit a murder. Once they want to try and tackle all of the issues, then I will listen. But so long as they only seem to care about a piece-meal approach (and one that always starts with guns) I will fight it tooth and nail.

As for mass shootings, of course this is going to happen again. People die, sometimes at the hands of others. I do not like it, but it is part of life. I just think that there are bigger "threats" to the lives of people out there than guns. Guns are extremely safe. As I already pointed out to you the numbers speak for themselves. At the moment people are merely lashing out in irrational and ignorant fear against "assault weapons." Now is NOT the time to be passing any laws. Look at New York. The Governor proposed a bill last night and signed it into law today. He rammed it through the state senate with pretty much no debate over it. That is not a good way to be running a government, especially on an issue that affects a Constitutionally protected right. And what about the will of the people? Governor Cuomo does not seem to care about what they think. I feel that any new laws need to be put into effect when people are more calm and rational.

I also feel that as long as so many people are completely and totally ignorant about "assault rifles" that there should be no law banning or controlling them. Except for some cosmetic differences and magazine capacity a military style semi-automatic rifle is no different than any other civilian semi-automatic rifle. Yet people see that it looks like a military rifle and suddenly it transforms into this monstrous weapon! That is completely and totally irrational. People are lashing out at this style of firearm simply because of cosmetic differences. Yes, I can accept a limit on magazine size, but even that will not serve any real good to prevent this type of shooting. Also, look at the numbers on these so-called "assault weapons." They have a better "safety record" than other firearms. They are used less often in crimes (including homicide) than regular rifles and handguns. More people are killed with non-military style rifles each year, yet there is no massive outcry against those? What about handguns? They kill more people than all types of rifles, yet for the most part no one is seeking to ban handguns. And that right there just proves that people are lashing out in fear and ignorance. What exactly is it about the military style semi-automatic rifle that makes them so much deadlier than other firearms? Can you explain that to me? If so then I might just get on board such a ban. But at the moment no one has proven that they are inherently deadlier than any other type of rifle. People are merely afraid of the way it looks, and that is certainly no reason to ban them.

And again, why ignore the numbers? Why "punish" the millions of responsible, legal gun owners because of a relative handful of people who are either irresponsible or have no regard for the law? Why should those people be punished?

Also, who threw out the "we are protecting ourselves from tyranny!" line? I certainly never made any such claim, nor did I even hint at it. Hell, I did not even mention that owning guns was even a right!
 
2013-01-16 05:04:42 AM  

victrin: I work for a hunting and fishing company as a web designer. My entire team is there and I have plenty of designs there on showcase. It's a trade show so only industry peeps are allowed in. Before you jump on it, these aren't all wing nuts of the tea party screaming for assault weapons. I know many of my team actually advocate stricter gun control (better background checks, smaller clips, etc). So please measure what you think you know of this convention. Allow me to break the stereotype of what you expect a gun enthusiast to be. I live in Manhattan, am gay, super liberal, early twenties and a mean shot with a shotgun and clays. Also this shows been going on for over 30 years, so it's not some new thing. Every year at this time of year.


Why would your sexual orientation and political leanings change my stereotype that gun nuts, or those that work on supplying gun nuts with their object of desire, are barbarians?
 
2013-01-16 05:07:01 AM  
I can get my head around the idea of a gun show. I can even be swayed by some of the gun-nut arguments.

but, 'Hero' tag?????????

/Really????????

//Really??????
 
2013-01-16 05:08:59 AM  

Cpl.D: But it's silly to think that reducing the number of guns available in the nation, or restricting which are available for sale, or requiring them to be both registered and reported when stolen, would have no effect on the shooting sprees going on in this country.


Merely stating something is true does not make it true. Back up your claim up with evidence. Quote studies that have examined gun control laws and gun crime rates. Quote number of guns compared to number of homicides. Tell us the number of guns that were stolen that were used in homicides. Provide some evidence that tracks where they came from. Give us some proof, any proof, not assumptions! Once you do that then more people will listen to you.
 
2013-01-16 05:09:43 AM  
Next time a guy saves a child from a burning house, and the article gets a 'hero' tag on Fark, I'm going to think back on this article and think 'whatever'
 
2013-01-16 05:20:22 AM  

Cpl.D: I suppose I'm an oddity in the gun debate. I've got a cabinet full of guns (hunting) and I routinely do target shooting at the ol' gun club. I like hunting white-tail deer, and I eat what I take. But I also believe that concessions *have* to be made in the gun control debate.

In a perfect world, we could have all the guns we want and there would be no issue. But we don't live in a perfect world. Guns are absolutely not the sole problem, here, and the fix isn't going to come from gun control alone. We've also got to fix the mental health system in this country in a big way. But that's going to take far too long, and I doubt it'll ever be perfect. Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this. There's no gun I have in my cabinet worth the life of even one more kid.

The solution is going to have to have a broad spectrum, but throwing a hissy fit like the NRA has doesn't help any. I like how the NRA was invited to the talks on gun control going on, and the NRA stormed out, saying "They just intend on attacking the second amendment rights!" Ok, let's assume that's perfectly accurate. NRA, isn't your stated goal of protecting that right? If so, then isn't staying in that meeting the best place to be to protect that right? So why did your representatives leave? Why?


That's why I favor some of the European models for gun control. Sweden is one I wouldn't mind taking some ideas from. You can own 8-9 guns no problem, you just need to not only undergo background checks, but pass tests for each weapon and its intended use, and/or be a member of a shooting range with passing marks for safety and so on.

Want a shotgun for skeet shooting? Cool, take and pass the tests and get your permit. You can use that shotgun all you want for skeet, but you can't use it anywhere else lawfully until you pass and get it licensed for other activities (duck hunting for example). If various types and uses of vehicles require different tests and licenses, why shouldn't guns?

CCW's pretty much disappear. Not a member of military or police? Can't demonstrate to a court a real need for the weapon for protection against some real threat? Ya don't get one.

Found with guns on your person or in your vehicle and cannot demonstrate you were on your way to/from the appropriate place for using the gun, gun gets impounded, just like a car.

Want to have more than the 8 or so guns, because you are a collector? Cool, just build suitable security display cases for the collection and have it inspected. To so far as to even have the collection guns made inoperable if it doesn't harm their value (depending on the gun, something as minor as removing firing pins or hammers will do).

I also enjoy target shooting, have inherited a rather nice weatherby rifle which may draw me out into hunting in the future, and have a good target pistol, but I don't see a need for much else.

Sure, it's a right to own a gun in this country, but you should still have to demonstrate that you deserve that right, and view it as a privilege.
 
2013-01-16 05:22:34 AM  
You can bet the drones won't be around when we need them.
 
2013-01-16 05:23:51 AM  

Cpl.D: Mock26: Correlation does not prove causation. You are merely looking at the numbers and then completely making up an assumption that if there were stricter laws there would be fewer gun homicides. For example, what percentage of those were committed with legally owned firearms versus illegally owned firearms? Stricter control of guns would probably only have a major impact on those committed with a legally owned firearm. Take Chicago as an example, for all those years listed on that chart Chicago had a total ban on handguns (well, near total, as only police officers and some security personnel such as armored car drives could possess one), yet every year roughly 75% of its 400+ murders were committed with handguns. ...

Sure, and the places that have handgun bans and suffer from high crime rate with guns have criminals who traffic the guns from nearby states without the ban, either with legitimately bought or stolen firearms.

Look, I understand the desire to not give an inch in the issue. I understand the thinking that you shouldn't have to give up any portion of a right through no wrongdoing of your own. But for fark's sake, man. How many shootings is it going to take for you to want to try something? Twenty kids dead isn't enough to make you reexamine anything? What would it take? Thirty? Fifty? A hundred? I ask because this is going to happen again. And again, and again, and again. It's stupidly obvious where this same path leads. Something has to change. And as I said before, while I'd rather not have to resort to gun control, I'm willing to deal with it provided other factors are brought into account as well, such as mental health care restructuring. This isn't a single-cause problem, and the fix isn't going to be a single correction somewhere. But wanting to hang on to more guns than anyone legitimately needs for the sake of stupid pride at the cost of rampant public shootings is... well, stupid. And on a similar matter, spare me the "We'r ...


What are you doing trying to be sensible on fark.
 
2013-01-16 05:24:38 AM  

Cpl.D: Mock26: Cpl.D: Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this.

Evidence, please.

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

Twice as many people have died in homicide by firearms than all other methods combined. Yes, I realize that even if guns were banned, there'd still be a black market for guns. On the other hand, you'd have to acknowledge that even if that extreme were the case, that there would still be far fewer guns on the street available for use by those with criminal intent. The black market isn't going to be able to keep up the firearms-per-person ratio that legal sales do.

I wish I could dig up graph after graph and flood you with it, but this debate has been so poisoned that I can dig up graphs showing completely opposite things. I could probably find one showing a link between leprechauns and clip size if I looked hard enough.

I'll just have to reference common sense; If there's less firearms on the street, or they're more strictly controlled, or if all guns were required to be registered and reported stolen if and when they are, then that's going to make a dent in how often they're used in crime.


Goddamn you and your basic logic
 
2013-01-16 05:26:33 AM  

Cpl.D: I suppose I'm an oddity in the gun debate. I've got a cabinet full of guns (hunting) and I routinely do target shooting at the ol' gun club. I like hunting white-tail deer, and I eat what I take. But I also believe that concessions *have* to be made in the gun control debate.

In a perfect world, we could have all the guns we want and there would be no issue. But we don't live in a perfect world. Guns are absolutely not the sole problem, here, and the fix isn't going to come from gun control alone. We've also got to fix the mental health system in this country in a big way. But that's going to take far too long, and I doubt it'll ever be perfect. Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this. There's no gun I have in my cabinet worth the life of even one more kid.

The solution is going to have to have a broad spectrum, but throwing a hissy fit like the NRA has doesn't help any. I like how the NRA was invited to the talks on gun control going on, and the NRA stormed out, saying "They just intend on attacking the second amendment rights!" Ok, let's assume that's perfectly accurate. NRA, isn't your stated goal of protecting that right? If so, then isn't staying in that meeting the best place to be to protect that right? So why did your representatives leave? Why?


Compare Switzerland to Chicago, then get back to me.
 
2013-01-16 05:26:46 AM  

Cpl.D: And yes, it's a "gut feeling" that better control of guns would have an effect on gun crime. I say that's common sense.


It's not a "gut feeling." It's an obvious farking truth.
 
2013-01-16 05:28:05 AM  

Cpl.D: Mock26: Cpl.D: Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this.

Evidence, please.

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

Twice as many people have died in homicide by firearms than all other methods combined. Yes, I realize that even if guns were banned, there'd still be a black market for guns. On the other hand, you'd have to acknowledge that even if that extreme were the case, that there would still be far fewer guns on the street available for use by those with criminal intent. The black market isn't going to be able to keep up the firearms-per-person ratio that legal sales do.

I wish I could dig up graph after graph and flood you with it, but this debate has been so poisoned that I can dig up graphs showing completely opposite things. I could probably find one showing a link between leprechauns and clip size if I looked hard enough.

I'll just have to reference common sense; If there's less firearms on the street, or they're more strictly controlled, or if all guns were required to be registered and reported stolen if and when they are, then that's going to make a dent in how often they're used in crime.


There are already 300,000,000 of them out there. Are they all suddenly going to vanish? Do you have any idea how many arms have been pushed into the hands of strangers thanks to all of this knee jerk reactionary BS bybwaybif private sale? Liberals have created what they feared most. A firearms fire sale.
 
2013-01-16 05:28:35 AM  

bmihura: Compare Switzerland to Chicago, then get back to me.


One has a rough surface with a rind you can't consume, the other is smooth and shiny with a seedy center.
 
HBK
2013-01-16 05:30:14 AM  

Cpl.D: Where do the guns come from when used in crime in DC? Neighboring states without strict gun laws. The failure isn't in D.C. (never thought I'd say that) but rather the inability or unwillingness of neighboring states to follow. Insanity is commonly defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. What has been done does not work.


Because we have a violent populace that we cannot police, you neighboring states must follow our lead to help us improve our situation?

That's a terrible argument.
 
2013-01-16 05:31:53 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Cpl.D: And yes, it's a "gut feeling" that better control of guns would have an effect on gun crime. I say that's common sense.

It's not a "gut feeling." It's an obvious farking truth.


Translation: "gut feeling"

/Truth is a philosophical standpoint, whereas fact is data.
 
2013-01-16 05:35:03 AM  

Cpl.D: randomjsa: And I'll just have to assume you don't know the meaning of the word common sense as Wash DC had one of the most restrictive gun control systems and still has some of the highest murder rates in the country. You will see time and time and time again that highly restrictive gun control laws in an area do nothing to reduce the gun crime there.

Where do the guns come from when used in crime in DC? Neighboring states without strict gun laws. The failure isn't in D.C. (never thought I'd say that) but rather the inability or unwillingness of neighboring states to follow. Insanity is commonly defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. What has been done does not work. Changes have to be made. Maybe when we've got everything resolved, and gun control is no longer necessary, the laws can be revoked. But it's silly to think that reducing the number of guns available in the nation, or restricting which are available for sale, or requiring them to be both registered and reported when stolen, would have no effect on the shooting sprees going on in this country.

Alternatively, if you think you've got a better idea, I'd be more than happy to hear it.


...So lets throw shiat at the wall and see what sticks, right?
 
2013-01-16 05:36:22 AM  

Cpl.D: Mock26: Correlation does not prove causation. You are merely looking at the numbers and then completely making up an assumption that if there were stricter laws there would be fewer gun homicides. For example, what percentage of those were committed with legally owned firearms versus illegally owned firearms? Stricter control of guns would probably only have a major impact on those committed with a legally owned firearm. Take Chicago as an example, for all those years listed on that chart Chicago had a total ban on handguns (well, near total, as only police officers and some security personnel such as armored car drives could possess one), yet every year roughly 75% of its 400+ murders were committed with handguns. ...

Sure, and the places that have handgun bans and suffer from high crime rate with guns have criminals who traffic the guns from nearby states without the ban, either with legitimately bought or stolen firearms.

Look, I understand the desire to not give an inch in the issue. I understand the thinking that you shouldn't have to give up any portion of a right through no wrongdoing of your own. But for fark's sake, man. How many shootings is it going to take for you to want to try something? Twenty kids dead isn't enough to make you reexamine anything? What would it take? Thirty? Fifty? A hundred? I ask because this is going to happen again. And again, and again, and again. It's stupidly obvious where this same path leads. Something has to change. And as I said before, while I'd rather not have to resort to gun control, I'm willing to deal with it provided other factors are brought into account as well, such as mental health care restructuring. This isn't a single-cause problem, and the fix isn't going to be a single correction somewhere. But wanting to hang on to more guns than anyone legitimately needs for the sake of stupid pride at the cost of rampant public shootings is... well, stupid. And on a similar matter, spare me the "We're protecting ourselves from tyranny!" line. Not that you mentioned it, but that's a big argument on the gun-nut side of the house. Not once in all of recorded history was a tyrrany overthrown by an armed populace. It's always been the military, or noble families, things like that. And we've *already* got that base covered. When you join the military, you pledge not to the government, not the president, and not to the NRA. You pledge to support and defend the constitution. If they tried throwing that out, they'd have the military on their ass. And they know it.


You should pick up a history book sometime....
 
2013-01-16 05:36:26 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Cpl.D: And yes, it's a "gut feeling" that better control of guns would have an effect on gun crime. I say that's common sense.

It's not a "gut feeling." It's an obvious farking truth.

Translation: "gut feeling"


Translation: no, the opposite of a "gut feeling".

go away.
 
2013-01-16 05:38:25 AM  
Because of the breakdown of education, the corruption of Government, and the militarising of law enforcement; We all should be on guard that what is done in OUR name is in OUR interests, not the interests of those who seek to subjugate, control and own you.
Do not be distracted by the shiny objects, the manufactured mass produced for mass consumption fear. Of your fellow Americans, of those of differing shades, of those of differing beliefs. As a whole every person wishes for the same; Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Our greatest strength is ourselves, our greatest weapon is our constitution.
Guard this document with your very life, with it we are citizens, without..subjects..
We are the people. We are America.
We never forget Treason, we do not forgive those who would be our betters.
Gun control is not the issue, but a distraction which furthers a agenda not to your advantage.
 
2013-01-16 05:44:00 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: HindiDiscoMonster: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Cpl.D: And yes, it's a "gut feeling" that better control of guns would have an effect on gun crime. I say that's common sense.

It's not a "gut feeling." It's an obvious farking truth.

Translation: "gut feeling"

Translation: no, the opposite of a "gut feeling".

go away.


retranslation: I like to change the meaning of words because it suits me, then get all butt hurt when someone calls me on it.

www.dba-oracle.com
 
2013-01-16 05:46:22 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: The All-Powerful Atheismo: HindiDiscoMonster: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Cpl.D: And yes, it's a "gut feeling" that better control of guns would have an effect on gun crime. I say that's common sense.

It's not a "gut feeling." It's an obvious farking truth.

Translation: "gut feeling"

Translation: no, the opposite of a "gut feeling".

go away.

retranslation: I like to change the meaning of words because it suits me, then get all butt hurt when someone calls me on it.

[www.dba-oracle.com image 429x406]


I said it wasn't a gut feeling, it's a truth. There is even evidence to back it up (Australia, UK). you're the dumbass who tried to change the meaning of what *I* said.

people like you are sick. seriously twisted.
 
2013-01-16 05:49:10 AM  
Not once in all of recorded history was a tyrrany overthrown by an armed populace. It's always been the military, or noble families, things like that. And we've *already* got that base covered. When you join the military, you pledge not to the government, not the president, and not to the NRA. You pledge to support and defend the constitution. If they tried throwing that out, they'd have the military on their ass. And they know it.

I have a few guns, but no assault rifles, and I'm not a member of the NRA, I voted for Obama (and have voted nearly all democrat since I was 18) and none of the people who know me would consider me a "gun nut", but I do want to argue this point.

First, yes, governments that have been perceived to be tyrannical by an armed populace have been overthrown, at least partially, by efforts by the populace itself. See Russia in 1917/1918, France in the 1700s, the US colonies in the 1700s (many of the smaller skirmishes, like Lexington and Concord, were fought by self-armed militia), etc. Nearly EVERY civil war in history has at least some faction made up primarily of armed citizens, even if they weren't successful. Perhaps they only fought delaying actions until a true military force could be raised or arrive, but they have contributed. In a hypothetical US situation, it's arguable that some portion of the military would join the populace to fight for the constitution, just as you said. However....

...some part of the military probably wouldn't join the populace, especially the leaders higher up. You say the military would have the government's ass if they disregarded the constitution. As I recall, the higher-ups in the military were a major driving force behind the escalation of the cuban missile crisis, the escalation of Vietnam, and nearly every other conflict that has been "shady". Did the military resist when Japanese-Americans were paraded into camps? No. Did they respect the rights of citizens at Kent State to protest? No- they shot them.

Bottom line is that our government (and our military) have a history of doing what is best/most profitable for themselves, not necessarily for the people or the constitution. I'm not going to say there's some vast conspiracy out there trying to turn us into slaves or anything Alex Jones-crazy like that, but Shakespeare was right- power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don't believe them evil, but I do trust them to act in their own self-interests, regardless of how it affects us. The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate check against the potential for abuse of power. Would it work? Maybe not, but 300 million guns in private hands is something to think about. At the very least, IF there was ever a "situation", it would give us enough time to organize whatever portion of the military wanted to break free and fight for the people.

As others have argued, these mass shootings are incredibly tragic, but they represent a miniscule fraction of the deaths caused by firearms. Handguns kill the vast majority of people in the US, and the vast majority of deaths are either homicides among young black males or suicides by young white males. If we're going to ban anything from the point of public health, it should be handguns. The only reason a handgun ban isn't being proposed is because it would alienate a much larger proportion of the population than does a ban on assault weapons. So, in summary, we're getting bans purely for political reasons- to make it look like something is being done when it really truly isn't. Even worse, it's doubtful the "ban" would truly be a BAN- most of the 10 million+ assault rifles out there will likely be grandfathered in. That means that they'll still be out there, still not really killing people, until the ban comes up for renewal again, at which point there's a good chance it won't be renewed, just as in 2004. And then we're back to square one.
 
2013-01-16 05:52:59 AM  

Cpl.D: randomjsa: And I'll just have to assume you don't know the meaning of the word common sense as Wash DC had one of the most restrictive gun control systems and still has some of the highest murder rates in the country. You will see time and time and time again that highly restrictive gun control laws in an area do nothing to reduce the gun crime there.

Where do the guns come from when used in crime in DC? Neighboring states without strict gun laws. The failure isn't in D.C. (never thought I'd say that) but rather the inability or unwillingness of neighboring states to follow. Insanity is commonly defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. What has been done does not work. Changes have to be made. Maybe when we've got everything resolved, and gun control is no longer necessary, the laws can be revoked. But it's silly to think that reducing the number of guns available in the nation, or restricting which are available for sale, or requiring them to be both registered and reported when stolen, would have no effect on the shooting sprees going on in this country.

Alternatively, if you think you've got a better idea, I'd be more than happy to hear it.


Follow me down this road to crazytown. Pretend for a second that you have gone crazy and decide to kill some kids in a school. You try to get an AR-15 but now find that you cant. so instead, what do you do? You buy some chains, 5 gallons of gas, a book of matches and chain the kids in then light the place on fire. you kill WAY more than 20 kids all because someone decided your original weapon of choice was the problem and not you

If you chose to kill with a sword, you could do it without alerting the next class to call the police or run.

Bottom line is the crazy man is the problem, and the gun, while full of flash, fear and sizzle, is NOT the most leathal option. If the crazy man wants to kill your kid, the crazy man will.

unless you want to ban everything that could concievably hurt a child.
 
2013-01-16 05:58:27 AM  

ParaHandy: Ballet dancer turned defense specialist Allison Barrie

[global.fncstatic.com image 156x195]
/ yes please


Fap, fap, fap
/multiple firearms owner
//not that it matters
 
2013-01-16 05:58:28 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: HindiDiscoMonster: The All-Powerful Atheismo: HindiDiscoMonster: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Cpl.D: And yes, it's a "gut feeling" that better control of guns would have an effect on gun crime. I say that's common sense.

It's not a "gut feeling." It's an obvious farking truth.

Translation: "gut feeling"

Translation: no, the opposite of a "gut feeling".

go away.

retranslation: I like to change the meaning of words because it suits me, then get all butt hurt when someone calls me on it.

[www.dba-oracle.com image 429x406]

I said it wasn't a gut feeling, it's a truth. There is even evidence to back it up (Australia, UK). you're the dumbass who tried to change the meaning of what *I* said.

people like you are sick. seriously twisted.


gut feeling ≠ truth or fact
gut feeling = opinion

/People like me have a sense of humor... people like you need to buy one.
//Twisted? yup... and enjoying every minute of it.
 
2013-01-16 05:59:49 AM  

I sound fat:
Follow me down this road to crazytown. Pretend for a second that you have gone crazy and decide to kill some kids in a school. You try to get an AR-15 but now find that you cant. so instead, what do you do? You buy some chains, 5 gallons of gas, a book of matches and chain the kids in then light the place on fire. you kill WAY more than 20 kids all because someone decided your original weapon of choice was the problem and not you


has this ever happened? no? okay then.

maybe it's because schools have you know... windows and other exits.

I imagine you wouldn't even injure a single child if you tried that. not to mention that at sandy hook they saw this guy coming in and would have stopped him.
 
2013-01-16 06:00:42 AM  

I sound fat: If you chose to kill with a sword, you could do it without alerting the next class to call the police or run.


because people who are stabbed don't scream.
 
2013-01-16 06:09:31 AM  
And not a single background check was given.
 
2013-01-16 06:10:25 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: I sound fat: If you chose to kill with a sword, you could do it without alerting the next class to call the police or run.

because people who are stabbed don't scream.


They should invent knife guns.
 
2013-01-16 06:11:39 AM  

The Iron duke: Because of the breakdown of education, the corruption of Government, and the militarising of law enforcement; We all should be on guard that what is done in OUR name is in OUR interests, not the interests of those who seek to subjugate, control and own you.
Do not be distracted by the shiny objects, the manufactured mass produced for mass consumption fear. Of your fellow Americans, of those of differing shades, of those of differing beliefs. As a whole every person wishes for the same; Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Our greatest strength is ourselves, our greatest weapon is our constitution.
Guard this document with your very life, with it we are citizens, without..subjects..
We are the people. We are America.
We never forget Treason, we do not forgive those who would be our betters.
Gun control is not the issue, but a distraction which furthers a agenda not to your advantage.


Just FYI, I'm pretty sure you would be on the NRA's "mentally ill" register,
 
2013-01-16 06:11:42 AM  
A close friend of mine is at this show so I'm getting a kick.
 
2013-01-16 06:11:48 AM  
The Shot Show isn't a gun show, it's a trade show. Sure there are a lot of gun manufacturers, but your going to see much more displays of hunting and fishing gear. For the biggest gun show, you need to go to Tulsa Oklahoma. That thing is like 4,000 8 foot tables of mostly guns.

The problem is that if you find something you like, you can't think about it and go back latter because you'll never find it again. Also the beef jerky... so many tables of beef jerky.

/its a gun show people, I don't want to suck on your salty meat!
 
2013-01-16 06:12:08 AM  

Deep Contact: The All-Powerful Atheismo: I sound fat: If you chose to kill with a sword, you could do it without alerting the next class to call the police or run.

because people who are stabbed don't scream.

They should invent knife guns.


Science is working on it.

media.giantbomb.com
 
2013-01-16 06:12:42 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: I sound fat: If you chose to kill with a sword, you could do it without alerting the next class to call the police or run.

because people who are stabbed don't scream.


If you were a badass ninja you could kill a million students without anyone even noticing they were gone!
 
2013-01-16 06:14:18 AM  
Why do mass shootings always happen in "Gun Free Zones". Want to stop mass shootings, BAN GUN FREE ZONES.

Take it two steps further...

...everyone over 18 must spend 2 years in the service, must learn proper gun safety and use.
...everyone who put in their 2 years is REQUIRED to carry a weapon.

Lets see how long these nut jobs last when they are SUROUNDED by people with firearms. (Hint: dude in Sandy Hook would not have gotten off more than 2 rounds before he had 20 in him).

Pass all the gun laws in the world, I am SURE the criminals are going to turn in all their weapons to the proper authorities the moment we pass the laws. I am also SURE that no government in the world has ever used weapons on its own population before, and even if had happened in the past...there is not one person in federal, state, or local government that could ever be considered corrupt or power hungry.
 
2013-01-16 06:15:37 AM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: The All-Powerful Atheismo: I sound fat: If you chose to kill with a sword, you could do it without alerting the next class to call the police or run.

because people who are stabbed don't scream.

If you were a badass ninja you could kill a million students without anyone even noticing they were gone!


We need a national Ninja Registry.

I'll start the list with the first hundred names:
 
2013-01-16 06:35:57 AM  

Divinegrace: Why do mass shootings always happen in "Gun Free Zones". Want to stop mass shootings, BAN GUN FREE ZONES.

Take it two steps further...

...everyone over 18 must spend 2 years in the service, must learn proper gun safety and use.
...everyone who put in their 2 years is REQUIRED to carry a weapon.

Lets see how long these nut jobs last when they are SUROUNDED by people with firearms. (Hint: dude in Sandy Hook would not have gotten off more than 2 rounds before he had 20 in him).

Pass all the gun laws in the world, I am SURE the criminals are going to turn in all their weapons to the proper authorities the moment we pass the laws. I am also SURE that no government in the world has ever used weapons on its own population before, and even if had happened in the past...there is not one person in federal, state, or local government that could ever be considered corrupt or power hungry.



This is not how anyone sane invisions these laws working.Oonce a law like this is passed it takes time for the restricted weapons pool to shrink to the point that there is an effect at all. Once the pool of legal weapons is smaller you also get less weapons passing into peoples hands due to theft and illegal sales from legal owners collections, In theory this reduces gun crime amongst the general populus.

Want less of one type of fire arm to end up in the wrong hands? stop letting people legaly own it, and now there are less sources for these guns to come from after they have been weeded out over a longer period of time. Only an idot thinks that passing a law will just make something disappear.

And I seriously doubt that much would have changed had there been armed people on site at Sandyhook. Just as easily as you could say he would be hit with 20 magic bullets he could have knowen that people would be armed and changed his tactics, worn armor even.
 
2013-01-16 06:36:38 AM  

Cpl.D: I suppose I'm an oddity in the gun debate. I've got a cabinet full of guns (hunting) and I routinely do target shooting at the ol' gun club. I like hunting white-tail deer, and I eat what I take. But I also believe that concessions *have* to be made in the gun control debate.

In a perfect world, we could have all the guns we want and there would be no issue. But we don't live in a perfect world. Guns are absolutely not the sole problem, here, and the fix isn't going to come from gun control alone. We've also got to fix the mental health system in this country in a big way. But that's going to take far too long, and I doubt it'll ever be perfect. Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this. There's no gun I have in my cabinet worth the life of even one more kid.

The solution is going to have to have a broad spectrum, but throwing a hissy fit like the NRA has doesn't help any. I like how the NRA was invited to the talks on gun control going on, and the NRA stormed out, saying "They just intend on attacking the second amendment rights!" Ok, let's assume that's perfectly accurate. NRA, isn't your stated goal of protecting that right? If so, then isn't staying in that meeting the best place to be to protect that right? So why did your representatives leave? Why?


It's great you enjoy owning & using firearms and that you're a responsible hunter. hearing you echo NJ Gov Chris Christie's televised words from yesterday makes me write, just as I am going to write to CC. I'm tired of wholesale blame for crime on the mentally ill.

Thanks to Hollywood movies & TV shows like Law& Order lots of people are under the impression that the mentally ill run amuck daily shooting up your town. It just ain't so. Yes, mental health care in America has suffered horribly since the days of Pres.Reagan. Yes, we need more help and funding for the mentally unwell. Good luck on getting a solid mental health program from a government that counts on and exploits differing levels of Not Well for use in the military, law enforcement and alphabet agencies.

Go talk to the teachers of America. They see the deterioration as the years pass by. The sooner we face some hard truths the sooner we can have a land full of people worth having as neighbors. We simply cannot continue to let any moran procreate, for they surely will as they always have. Education and testing to prove one is competent to be licensed to cut hair, sell real estate or operate a motor vehicle is in place for the welfare of all. America needs to return to the Eugenics program it pioneered years ago. Eugenics is sound logic and good science. Those about to bust a nut about ethnic cleansing and killing people are obvious idiots: go read a book, Skippy. We're not talking of Hitler or Amin.

School classes need desegregation but not along the lines of race, color or beliefs. Face the cold hard facts: most students are not high achieving geniuses with bright futures ahead of them. They are not worth sending to college. Get over yourself and your ego, Mom & Dad. Most kids are borderline idiots suffering from poor parenting, lack of discipline and a general case of "I don't give a damn, you can't make me, F you".

Either look forward to USA = Idiocracy or step up and take responsibility. Put the bright students and kids with potential in their own classes and let them excel. The rest of your mutts will never rise and shine above fast food employment and they don't care. You probably shouldn't have had children to being with, you morans.

The severely disabled requires a whole of level of people waking the hell up that I won't even get into.

Since most births are from traditional male/female couplings we are way overdue for parents to first be qualified to have children, then to be responsible for their children. I was so thrilled to see an upcoming Reality TV Show on some unknown rapper hip hop dooshbag who has fathered children with a neighborhood full of women. The only people who aren't tired of these dooshbags and their stupidity are those just like him, the other irresponsible morans. Both parents names on the birth certificate and you're going to pay for what you created, period.

So while some folks are quick to blame the mentally ill for gun crime in America there are other folks who are willing to look at the statistics and face the reality of what is taking place in the world around us. Keep pretending everything is kosher as you drive through crappy neighborhoods where the kids are decked out in the tightest threads complete with bling and matching shoes for the outfit while Mom is collecting off your hard earned tax dollars and both mom & dad are selling and living large off unreported income. Mentally ill my arse.
 
2013-01-16 06:39:18 AM  

Cpl.D: Note how I stressed mental health care overhaul.


That right there will do more to curb gun violence than any gun control laws that can be passed.

There are around 300 million firearms in private hands, in the US. They aren't going away. Just like illegal drugs didn't go away by passing a bunch of feel good, tough on crime laws.

As I told someone here last week, it's already illegal to sell firearms to the mentally incompetent, it's illegal to take firearms into elementary schools and it's illegal to murder people. How much more illegal can you make crime? Are we gonna make things double illegal, now?

And none of those laws stopped Adam Lanza(not that he bought the weapons he used). Laws are a lot like door locks...they stop honest, law abiding people.

If the NRA really wanted to curb violence, they'd use some of that massive pile of cash of theirs and put it towards mental health care and a database that identifies the mentally insane and prevents them from purchasing firearms. But, there's no money to be made in that, so it probably won't ever happen.
 
2013-01-16 06:43:11 AM  
There are probably some crazy parties this year. Sales are off the charts and product awareness couldn't get any higher if they tried. Sooo many high-fives and hookers.
 
2013-01-16 06:49:22 AM  
You know... i don't really worry about owning one of the big scary guns... I have no desire for one because let's face it: If things ever get to the point where i would NEED an AR-15/AK-47/SCAR/whatever, then we're screwed anyway...

It should be painfully obvious... either the US Army and its vast resources, firepower, technology, logistics, tactics, training, support, and financing will either defend us and i won't need one, or it won't and even a basement full of ammunition won't save me from whatever army was capable of steamrolling the US Army...

OR

the US Army and its vast resources, firepower, technology, logistics, tactics, training, support, and financing would be turned against us (in some bad action movie plot) and even a basement full of ammunition won't save me from the US Army and its vast resources, firepower, technology, logistics, tactics, training, support, and financing...

The government has drones and nukes... not much an AR-15 gonna do about that... so i don't really have a need for one... I would however like the state of ohio to open the hunting and trapping regulations... not being able to even use a rifle to hunt is stupid, as is not being able to use a trap with larger than a 5" opening... Stupid regulations
 
2013-01-16 06:55:17 AM  

PacManDreaming: it's already illegal to sell firearms to the mentally incompetent


Yea, and when you buy a gun at a gun store you say "NO" on the form your filling out. And if you buy a gun off Craig's list from a private individual you don't even have to do that. You hand over the cash, and they give you the gun.

Look, I'm pro second amendment, own guns and all that, but we have a serious issue with the mentally imbalanced being able to purchase firearms. We just need to find a way to stop the insane from buying guns with the least amount of disruption to legal purchasers.

And yes, I realize that some who want more gun control would make the law so broad that anyone who ever took an anti-depressant would be barred from gun ownership for life. We just need to recognize that we have an area of common ground, and that we have a real problem that needs to be solved.
 
2013-01-16 07:02:01 AM  

I sound fat: If you chose to kill with a sword, you could do it without alerting the next class to call the police or run.

Bottom line is the crazy man is the problem, and the gun, while full of flash, fear and sizzle, is NOT the most leathal option. If the crazy man wants to kill your kid, the crazy man will.


If guns are a less effective killing tool than swords then clearly the military should go back to using swords instead of guns.

Also, Mongol horse archers have killed more people than tanks. So taking away the basic human right to buy an M1 Abrams tank without an exhaustive background check is all like tyranny and shiat.

Damn you B'lack Obama. WTF is this guys problem?
 
2013-01-16 07:08:02 AM  

sleeps in trees: Umm... You guys are farking nuts. Completely loony. Bongos.


Who? The people pissing their panties over a 30 year running trade show?
 
2013-01-16 07:19:15 AM  

Mock26: Rug Doctor: [www.trbimg.com image 600x400]

GIS for "World's Largest Gun Show"

How in all of Hades does he wipe his butt?


Very gingerly so as not to tear....
 
2013-01-16 07:20:58 AM  
That's a lot of freedom crammed into one place
 
2013-01-16 07:26:24 AM  

sleeps in trees: Umm... You guys are farking nuts. Completely loony. Bongos.


i305.photobucket.com
i1199.photobucket.com
yah the folks that go to Burning Man do seem a little off
 
2013-01-16 07:26:47 AM  

Trapper439: I sound fat: If you chose to kill with a sword, you could do it without alerting the next class to call the police or run.

Bottom line is the crazy man is the problem, and the gun, while full of flash, fear and sizzle, is NOT the most leathal option. If the crazy man wants to kill your kid, the crazy man will.

If guns are a less effective killing tool than swords then clearly the military should go back to using swords instead of guns.

Also, Mongol horse archers have killed more people than tanks. So taking away the basic human right to buy an M1 Abrams tank without an exhaustive background check is all like tyranny and shiat.

Damn you B'lack Obama. WTF is this guys problem?


you understand that the two sentences are not related right? The most effective and efficient way of killing people is explosives... which he should've pointed out
 
2013-01-16 07:27:34 AM  
kara.allthingsd.com
 
2013-01-16 07:30:51 AM  

ParaHandy: Ballet dancer turned defense specialist Allison Barrie

[global.fncstatic.com image 156x195]
/ yes please


Brunette Ann Coulter? Meh, whatever floats your boat.
 
2013-01-16 07:38:11 AM  
It's called a magazine people, not a clip.*

*unless it's actually a clip
 
2013-01-16 07:40:24 AM  
I keep reading over and over that guns kill far more people in the US than any other "thing".
This is a complete fabrication.
Guns dont even break the top 20 in deaths in the US.

Almost every single top 10 is health related.

Number of deaths for leading causes of death in the US.
(fast stats)
•Heart disease: 597,689
•Cancer: 574,743
•Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
•Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
•Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
•Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
•Diabetes: 69,071
•Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
•Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
•Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

out of the suicides, roughly 6000 of those were gun inflicted.
That doesn't even put a dent in the number of suicides.

Where do you people come up with these "facts"?
If you really cared, if THEY really cared, they'd pick number one on that list and start there.

Numbers, how DO they work?
 
2013-01-16 07:40:40 AM  

BigBooper: Yea, and when you buy a gun at a gun store you say "NO" on the form your filling out. And if you buy a gun off Craig's list from a private individual you don't even have to do that. You hand over the cash, and they give you the gun.

Look, I'm pro second amendment, own guns and all that, but we have a serious issue with the mentally imbalanced being able to purchase firearms. We just need to find a way to stop the insane from buying guns with the least amount of disruption to legal purchasers.

And yes, I realize that some who want more gun control would make the law so broad that anyone who ever took an anti-depressant would be barred from gun ownership for life. We just need to recognize that we have an area of common ground, and that we have a real problem that needs to be solved.


And  now you understand why a lot of gun owners are pissed off at all the new gun laws that are being passed or that will soon be tabled. It doesn't really do anything but placate the pants-wetters.

I would love to see something that would actually work to stop nuts from shooting up everyone and everything. But passing panicked, feel good laws, like NY did, won't do any good. I mean, do you really think limiting people to a seven round magazine is gonna stop some lunatic at the next mass shooting? Most people can swap a magazine out in less than three seconds. Or, how about: "Hey, did you hear? Some nut just killed 14 people with a deer rifle!" "At least it wasn't an assault rifle, otherwise, they'd be extra-super-double-dead!".

I think the best thing that can be done is overhaul the mental health care system. I'm also pretty sure that the economy is causing a lot of stress for folks. Money problems are probably gonna be the next big thing to push people over the edge.

And in the meantime, the gun grabbers and the NRA are crapping their pants in rage at each other, while politicians pocket gobs of cash from lobbyists on both sides and nothing productive is going to get done. As usual.
 
2013-01-16 07:47:41 AM  

PacManDreaming: BigBooper: Yea, and when you buy a gun at a gun store you say "NO" on the form your filling out. And if you buy a gun off Craig's list from a private individual you don't even have to do that. You hand over the cash, and they give you the gun.

Look, I'm pro second amendment, own guns and all that, but we have a serious issue with the mentally imbalanced being able to purchase firearms. We just need to find a way to stop the insane from buying guns with the least amount of disruption to legal purchasers.

And yes, I realize that some who want more gun control would make the law so broad that anyone who ever took an anti-depressant would be barred from gun ownership for life. We just need to recognize that we have an area of common ground, and that we have a real problem that needs to be solved.

And  now you understand why a lot of gun owners are pissed off at all the new gun laws that are being passed or that will soon be tabled. It doesn't really do anything but placate the pants-wetters.

I would love to see something that would actually work to stop nuts from shooting up everyone and everything. But passing panicked, feel good laws, like NY did, won't do any good. I mean, do you really think limiting people to a seven round magazine is gonna stop some lunatic at the next mass shooting? Most people can swap a magazine out in less than three seconds. Or, how about: "Hey, did you hear? Some nut just killed 14 people with a deer rifle!" "At least it wasn't an assault rifle, otherwise, they'd be extra-super-double-dead!".

I think the best thing that can be done is overhaul the mental health care system. I'm also pretty sure that the economy is causing a lot of stress for folks. Money problems are probably gonna be the next big thing to push people over the edge.

And in the meantime, the gun grabbers and the NRA are crapping their pants in rage at each other, while politicians pocket gobs of cash from lobbyists on both sides and nothing productive is going to get do ...



Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.

The REAL truth of what's going on here.

They're playing both sides against the middle and laughing all the way to the bank.
 
2013-01-16 07:48:04 AM  
So?
 
2013-01-16 07:49:00 AM  
Oh and per the original article.

IT'S NOT A GUN SHOW, it's a freaking TRADE show.

Completely different.
 
2013-01-16 07:49:14 AM  

CeroX: Trapper439: I sound fat: If you chose to kill with a sword, you could do it without alerting the next class to call the police or run.

Bottom line is the crazy man is the problem, and the gun, while full of flash, fear and sizzle, is NOT the most leathal option. If the crazy man wants to kill your kid, the crazy man will.

If guns are a less effective killing tool than swords then clearly the military should go back to using swords instead of guns.

Also, Mongol horse archers have killed more people than tanks. So taking away the basic human right to buy an M1 Abrams tank without an exhaustive background check is all like tyranny and shiat.

Damn you B'lack Obama. WTF is this guys problem?

you understand that the two sentences are not related right? The most effective and efficient way of killing people is explosives... which he should've pointed out


Yes, explosives are the most effective and efficient way of killing people. That's why the Columbine shooters originally planned to set off home-made explosives inside the school and stay outside shooting people as they were fleeing the destruction.

Turns out, it's actually quite difficult to make explosives that work. The home-made bombs the Columbine shooters had planted in the school didn't work. That's why they resorted to their much easier option of just pointing a gun at people and pulling a trigger.
 
2013-01-16 07:53:53 AM  

Cpl.D: I suppose I'm an oddity in the gun debate. I've got a cabinet full of guns (hunting) and I routinely do target shooting at the ol' gun club. I like hunting white-tail deer, and I eat what I take. But I also believe that concessions *have* to be made in the gun control debate.

In a perfect world, we could have all the guns we want and there would be no issue. But we don't live in a perfect world. Guns are absolutely not the sole problem, here, and the fix isn't going to come from gun control alone. We've also got to fix the mental health system in this country in a big way. But that's going to take far too long, and I doubt it'll ever be perfect. Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this. There's no gun I have in my cabinet worth the life of even one more kid.

The solution is going to have to have a broad spectrum, but throwing a hissy fit like the NRA has doesn't help any. I like how the NRA was invited to the talks on gun control going on, and the NRA stormed out, saying "They just intend on attacking the second amendment rights!" Ok, let's assume that's perfectly accurate. NRA, isn't your stated goal of protecting that right? If so, then isn't staying in that meeting the best place to be to protect that right? So why did your representatives leave? Why?


No, you're not an oddity. The old "I'm a gun owner, but I support gun control" line has been a standard approach for gun banning groups for more than 50 years, now. They trotted it out for the 1968 act, and now, Gun Control Inc and the rest will pull its dusty bones from the closet for one last try. And on cue, the gun banners pop up, claiming to be on the side of freedom, but whispering about "reasonable regulation" and dead children.

The difference is that this time, that sorry approach has been used so many times it's unbelievable, and the only purpose your dishonesty serves is demonstrating to others how untrustworthy and dishonorable you are.
 
2013-01-16 07:54:49 AM  

Trapper439: CeroX: Trapper439: I sound fat: If you chose to kill with a sword, you could do it without alerting the next class to call the police or run.

Bottom line is the crazy man is the problem, and the gun, while full of flash, fear and sizzle, is NOT the most leathal option. If the crazy man wants to kill your kid, the crazy man will.

If guns are a less effective killing tool than swords then clearly the military should go back to using swords instead of guns.

Also, Mongol horse archers have killed more people than tanks. So taking away the basic human right to buy an M1 Abrams tank without an exhaustive background check is all like tyranny and shiat.

Damn you B'lack Obama. WTF is this guys problem?

you understand that the two sentences are not related right? The most effective and efficient way of killing people is explosives... which he should've pointed out

Yes, explosives are the most effective and efficient way of killing people. That's why the Columbine shooters originally planned to set off home-made explosives inside the school and stay outside shooting people as they were fleeing the destruction.

Turns out, it's actually quite difficult to make explosives that work. The home-made bombs the Columbine shooters had planted in the school didn't work. That's why they resorted to their much easier option of just pointing a gun at people and pulling a trigger.


Added bonus; there was an armed guard at that high school, that strategy did not work out so well.
 
2013-01-16 07:55:20 AM  
There was a Brit @ 2011 Shot show:

farm6.static.flickr.com

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-16 07:58:25 AM  

computerguyUT: Oh and per the original article.

IT'S NOT A GUN SHOW, it's a freaking TRADE show.

Completely different.


Your not going to get the internet boiling over with outrage if you talk like that.
 
2013-01-16 08:07:01 AM  
None of the laws being proposed here would have prevented the shooting in Newtown. "Assault weapon" ban? Nope. The AR was already legally owned and would have been grandfathered in. Also, there are rifles out there that would go around the ban. This...

i.imgur.com

Is not considered an "assault weapon" but shoots the same caliber in the same semi auto manner as the AR.


Standard capacity magazine ban? Nope. The shooter had plenty of time to change out three tens instead of one thirty. Increased mental screening or more intensive background checks? Nope and nope. The guns he used were purchased legally by another person who was also killed by him.

I'm not saying that increased mental screening or more intensive background checks are a bad idea I'm just saying that using the latest tragedy as a basis for legislation is a bad idea.

My solutions...

National database for anyone who has been adjudicated as mentally defective that is checked when attempting to purchase along with the national criminal database that is checked now.

No firearm transfers without a 4473 and the checks being done. Copy of the 4473 must be submitted to the BATFE and a copy maintained in your records. If you transfer a firearm without performing the checks or completing the forms 5 year sentence. No parole. Don't follow the rules and the gun is used in a crime you will be charged as an accessory. Don't want to do the paperwork and background checks? FFL dealers will do the transfer for no more than a legally mandated maximum of $10.

Failure to take reasonable measures (locked in a metal cabinet) to secure your guns makes you an accessory to any crime committed with them if they are stolen.

Make 10-20-Life a nationwide law.

Reverse the damage done by the ACLU that made it nearly impossible to have dangerously violent psychotics institutionalized.

Link

Link

None of these solutions would require law abiding gun owners to give up their guns or magazines or prevent them from buying all they want in the future.
 
2013-01-16 08:15:18 AM  
I'm not a gun nut, but DAMN that would be a sight to behold.
 
2013-01-16 08:18:21 AM  

Deep Contact: The All-Powerful Atheismo: I sound fat: If you chose to kill with a sword, you could do it without alerting the next class to call the police or run.

because people who are stabbed don't scream.

They should invent knife guns.


you mean like this, or something that shoots knife blades?
 
2013-01-16 08:23:18 AM  

Trapper439: CeroX: Trapper439: I sound fat: If you chose to kill with a sword, you could do it without alerting the next class to call the police or run.

Bottom line is the crazy man is the problem, and the gun, while full of flash, fear and sizzle, is NOT the most leathal option. If the crazy man wants to kill your kid, the crazy man will.

If guns are a less effective killing tool than swords then clearly the military should go back to using swords instead of guns.

Also, Mongol horse archers have killed more people than tanks. So taking away the basic human right to buy an M1 Abrams tank without an exhaustive background check is all like tyranny and shiat.

Damn you B'lack Obama. WTF is this guys problem?

you understand that the two sentences are not related right? The most effective and efficient way of killing people is explosives... which he should've pointed out

Yes, explosives are the most effective and efficient way of killing people. That's why the Columbine shooters originally planned to set off home-made explosives inside the school and stay outside shooting people as they were fleeing the destruction.

Turns out, it's actually quite difficult to make explosives that work. The home-made bombs the Columbine shooters had planted in the school didn't work. That's why they resorted to their much easier option of just pointing a gun at people and pulling a trigger.


however... there's a whole list of people who didn't have any trouble... mcviegh, kazinski, rudolph, just to name a couple... that's not counting the numerous bombings not on US soil by terrorists... If the pipe bombs in columbine didn't go off, it's because they had no idea what they were doing... it's not like you need semtex to make something go boom... they just sucked at it...
 
2013-01-16 08:29:13 AM  

Cpl.D: . . .But for fark's sake, man. How many shootings is it going to take for you to want to try something? Twenty kids dead isn't enough to make you reexamine anything? What would it take? Thirty? Fifty? A hundred? I ask because this is going to happen again. And again, and again, and again. It's stupidly obvious where this same path leads. Something has to change. . .


THIS is the problem.
What was the last "tragedy/emergency" that caused people to say "Hey! Let's give citizens MORE freedom?"

I don't own guns, and am not planning on getting one any time soon, but I can feel it when my rights are being slowly stripped away one by one.

Next asshole that suggests reducing our rights to access/use something, ought to provide a suggestion of something banned we've earned the right to access.

For some it's a "Don't take my guns" thing. For me it's all about rights. I want some back.
 
2013-01-16 08:35:09 AM  

illannoyin: My solutions...


It will never work... makes too much sense. We can't have cool heads now can we?
 
2013-01-16 08:40:40 AM  

msupf: Sure, it's a right to own a gun in this country, but you should still have to demonstrate that you deserve that right, and view it as a privilege.



I don't think you understand how 'rights' work.


Cpl.D: Look, I understand the desire to not give an inch in the issue. I understand the thinking that you shouldn't have to give up any portion of a right through no wrongdoing of your own. But for fark's sake, man. How many shootings is it going to take for you to want to try something?


Like the saying goes, "If you can't do something useful, do something"

I would be willing to try something useful, but so far no one has come up with anything that makes sense. And the current AWB that has been passed in NY and being proposed by DC doesn't do a Goddamn thing that would have any benefit.
 
2013-01-16 08:41:00 AM  

BigBooper: The Shot Show isn't a gun show, it's a trade show. Sure there are a lot of gun manufacturers, but your going to see much more displays of hunting and fishing gear. For the biggest gun show, you need to go to Tulsa Oklahoma. That thing is like 4,000 8 foot tables of mostly guns.


This. The one in Tulsa is scary big. Tulsa actually hosts 3 or 4 every year, but the big one in February is the actual "world's largest gun show", if by gun show you mean gun show and not "convention".
 
2013-01-16 08:41:29 AM  

Mock26: Rug Doctor: [www.trbimg.com image 600x400]

GIS for "World's Largest Gun Show"

How in all of Hades does he wipe his butt?


I dont know but I bet he brakes the sound barrier doing it.
 
2013-01-16 08:42:59 AM  
Freud sits on the corner stool, weeps quietly and signals for another beer and a bag of
NUTS TO GO WITH THE PENIS ENVY.
 
2013-01-16 08:45:10 AM  

Yugoboy: Cpl.D: . . .But for fark's sake, man. How many shootings is it going to take for you to want to try something? Twenty kids dead isn't enough to make you reexamine anything? What would it take? Thirty? Fifty? A hundred? I ask because this is going to happen again. And again, and again, and again. It's stupidly obvious where this same path leads. Something has to change. . .

THIS is the problem.
What was the last "tragedy/emergency" that caused people to say "Hey! Let's give citizens MORE freedom?"

I don't own guns, and am not planning on getting one any time soon, but I can feel it when my rights are being slowly stripped away one by one.

Next asshole that suggests reducing our rights to access/use something, ought to provide a suggestion of something banned we've earned the right to access.

For some it's a "Don't take my guns" thing. For me it's all about rights. I want some back.


well... i'm not advocating stripping guns by any means... but to answer your question: Freedom of Information Act was something that we were able to gain access to... so there's that, but otherwise i agree with you...
 
2013-01-16 08:55:31 AM  

computerguyUT: I keep reading over and over that guns kill far more people in the US than any other "thing".
This is a complete fabrication.
Guns dont even break the top 20 in deaths in the US.


No, guns cause far more homicides than any other "thing."  Homicides as in intentional deaths inflicted upon a human being by another human being.
 
2013-01-16 08:57:18 AM  

hinten: victrin: I work for a hunting and fishing company as a web designer. My entire team is there and I have plenty of designs there on showcase. It's a trade show so only industry peeps are allowed in. Before you jump on it, these aren't all wing nuts of the tea party screaming for assault weapons. I know many of my team actually advocate stricter gun control (better background checks, smaller clips, etc). So please measure what you think you know of this convention. Allow me to break the stereotype of what you expect a gun enthusiast to be. I live in Manhattan, am gay, super liberal, early twenties and a mean shot with a shotgun and clays. Also this shows been going on for over 30 years, so it's not some new thing. Every year at this time of year.

Why would your sexual orientation and political leanings change my stereotype that gun nuts, or those that work on supplying gun nuts with their object of desire, are barbarians?


As your position is entirely irrational, I suspect that absolutely no data will alter it.
 
2013-01-16 08:59:13 AM  

msupf: Sure, it's a right to own a gun in this country, but you should still have to demonstrate that you deserve that right, and view it as a privilege.


So a right now is something you feel that you have to demonstrate you deserve?
 
2013-01-16 08:59:24 AM  

msupf: CCW's pretty much disappear.


Than you for admitting that you are unreasonable.
 
2013-01-16 09:03:47 AM  

CeroX: If the pipe bombs in columbine didn't go off, it's because they had no idea what they were doing... it's not like you need semtex to make something go boom... they just sucked at it...


Yes, they sucked at making bombs. Ergo, the ridiculous argument that "they could have killed more people with weapons other than guns" is pure and unadulterated bullshiat. They took the easiest path because they sucked at making bombs.

And the easiest path is firearms. Point. Shoot. It's not difficult in any way.

Again, if firearms aren't the easiest option for killing people then why does the military even bother to use them?
 
2013-01-16 09:05:29 AM  

illannoyin: None of the laws being proposed here would have prevented the shooting in Newtown. "Assault weapon" ban? Nope. The AR was already legally owned and would have been grandfathered in. Also, there are rifles out there that would go around the ban. This...

[i.imgur.com image 800x154]

Is not considered an "assault weapon" but shoots the same caliber in the same semi auto manner as the AR.


Senator Feinstein's proposed bill bans the Mini-14 by name.
 
2013-01-16 09:07:48 AM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Can't wait til we invent laser pistols. "The Founding Fathers clearly intended me to be able to kill anyone within sight at light speed or else tyranny prevails!"


What do you think the founding fathers intended?
 
2013-01-16 09:12:57 AM  

Mock26: Cpl.D: Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this.

Evidence, please.


gladly.

Now answer me a question: how much evidence to you actually need to admit that you're wrong?
 
2013-01-16 09:21:08 AM  
As a firearm owner, it is fun having so much discussion on Fark.
as opposed to all the rape, sexy teachers, and HOT chicks from England...
 
2013-01-16 09:23:04 AM  
sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net
 
2013-01-16 09:24:33 AM  

cassanovascotian: Mock26: Cpl.D: Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this.

Evidence, please.

gladly.

Now answer me a question: how much evidence to you actually need to admit that you're wrong?


Please explain how a study correlating increased firearm ownership rates (and not gun control legislation) with homicide rates will demonstrate that the claim of non-specific "stricter gun control" will reduce "the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately". Perhaps you could incorporate your hypothesis that the trigger of an AR-15 rifle will "easily shoot 100 bullets per minute".
 
2013-01-16 09:26:11 AM  
With all those guns, it must have been a total bloodbath. Let us mourn the presumed thousands dead at the gun show.
 
2013-01-16 09:35:55 AM  

Trapper439: CeroX: If the pipe bombs in columbine didn't go off, it's because they had no idea what they were doing... it's not like you need semtex to make something go boom... they just sucked at it...

Yes, they sucked at making bombs. Ergo, the ridiculous argument that "they could have killed more people with weapons other than guns" is pure and unadulterated bullshiat. They took the easiest path because they sucked at making bombs.

And the easiest path is firearms. Point. Shoot. It's not difficult in any way.

Again, if firearms aren't the easiest option for killing people then why does the military even bother to use them?


That's a loaded question and you know it... the reason they still use firearms is for precision... BECAUSE bombs kill so easily, but they also kill indiscriminately... A person pulling a trigger generally knows what the intended target is...

Your argument is becoming an apples to oranges comparison...

Let me apple to apple and orange to orange this for you:

USAGE:
Firearm: 0-15 meters, point and shoot; 15-25 meters, aim and shoot; 25-50 meters, skilled aiming, breathing techniques, allowing for lead; and so on and so on...

Explosive Device: Place, Arm, Detonate

CONSTRUCTION:
Firearm: Specialized machining, milling, boring, tapping, rifling
Ammunition: Machining, casting, filling, loading

Explosive Device: Varies from device to device, but involves a container, explosive materials, and a detonator or fuse...

See you are arguing that columbine kids sucked at USING the explosive device, no, they didn't, they used them exactly the way they were intended

My argument is that they sucked at CONSTRUCTING the device, which can vary widely in complexity


Usage vs Construction is very different... the reason firearms were more effective for the columbine shooters is because someone else did all the hard work of constructing the arms and ammunition for them, while they decided to take it upon themselves to construct the ED... Which they sucked at...
 
2013-01-16 09:45:33 AM  

Dimensio: cassanovascotian: Mock26: Cpl.D: Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this.

Evidence, please.

gladly.

Now answer me a question: how much evidence to you actually need to admit that you're wrong?

Please explain how a study correlating increased firearm ownership rates (and not gun control legislation) with homicide rates will demonstrate that the claim of non-specific "stricter gun control" will reduce "the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately". Perhaps you could incorporate your hypothesis that the trigger of an AR-15 rifle will "easily shoot 100 bullets per minute".


"Stricter gun control" means it is more difficult for people to obtain and own a gun, meaning fewer people will own such guns. That's kinda built into the words. Evidence clearly shows that when fewer people own guns, fewer people get shot with guns. What, exactly, is the step in logic that you're missing here?
 
2013-01-16 09:51:54 AM  

cassanovascotian: Dimensio: cassanovascotian: Mock26: Cpl.D: Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this.

Evidence, please.

gladly.

Now answer me a question: how much evidence to you actually need to admit that you're wrong?

Please explain how a study correlating increased firearm ownership rates (and not gun control legislation) with homicide rates will demonstrate that the claim of non-specific "stricter gun control" will reduce "the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately". Perhaps you could incorporate your hypothesis that the trigger of an AR-15 rifle will "easily shoot 100 bullets per minute".

"Stricter gun control" means it is more difficult for people to obtain and own a gun, meaning fewer people will own such guns. That's kinda built into the words. Evidence clearly shows that when fewer people own guns, fewer people get shot with guns. What, exactly, is the step in logic that you're missing here?


I know where he's going with this... unless you are grabbing guns, gun control won't reduce the number of guns in the field, therefore not reducing the risk...


You could lower that number by regulating how many guns a manufacture is allowed to produce per year i suppose... but i doubt that would actually do anything to decrease guns, retailers would just buy from importers to make up the difference...
 
2013-01-16 09:59:06 AM  

CeroX: cassanovascotian: Dimensio: cassanovascotian: Mock26: Cpl.D: Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this.

Evidence, please.

gladly.

Now answer me a question: how much evidence to you actually need to admit that you're wrong?

Please explain how a study correlating increased firearm ownership rates (and not gun control legislation) with homicide rates will demonstrate that the claim of non-specific "stricter gun control" will reduce "the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately". Perhaps you could incorporate your hypothesis that the trigger of an AR-15 rifle will "easily shoot 100 bullets per minute".

"Stricter gun control" means it is more difficult for people to obtain and own a gun, meaning fewer people will own such guns. That's kinda built into the words. Evidence clearly shows that when fewer people own guns, fewer people get shot with guns. What, exactly, is the step in logic that you're missing here?

I know where he's going with this... (1) unless you are grabbing guns, (2) gun control won't reduce the number of guns in the field, therefore not reducing the risk...

(3) You could lower that number by regulating how many guns a manufacture is allowed to produce per year i suppose... but i doubt that would actually do anything to decrease guns, retailers would just buy from importers to make up the difference...


First of all, regarding (1): I'm all in favour of grabbing guns. regarding (2) "gun control" specifically means controlling the number of guns "in the field". We're not talking about sales, we're talking about ownership.
(3) Sure, let's do that too, but that's not really the point.

Gun control specifically means reducing the number of guns people can own, and evidence shows that reduced gun ownership results in fewer gun-related fatalities. It's really a very straight-forward logical deduction. I'm trying very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're actually saying things that you really believe and not just typing random argumentative nit-pickey semantics, but you're making it rather difficult.
 
2013-01-16 10:11:18 AM  

cassanovascotian: Mock26: Cpl.D: Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this.

Evidence, please.

gladly.

Now answer me a question: how much evidence to you actually need to admit that you're wrong?


Err: "Higher rates of gun ownership correlate with higher homicide rates"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

I bet it's the milk (http://orthomolecular.org/library/articles/webach.shtml) , that or lead paint (http://www.organicconsumers.org/school/lead081004.cfm). Perhaps population density (http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/harries.html).
 
2013-01-16 10:14:09 AM  

CeroX: Usage vs Construction is very different... the reason firearms were more effective for the columbine shooters is because someone else did all the hard work of constructing the arms and ammunition for them, while they decided to take it upon themselves to construct the ED... Which they sucked at ...


That was kind of my point, son. Do try to keep up.

Get back to me when the NEA (National Explosives Association) is biatching about Obama taking away their semtex.

Also, semtex doesn't kill people. People kill people. Semtex is just a tool. If people weren't killing each other with semtex they'd be killing each other with knives or cabbage patch dolls.
 
2013-01-16 10:21:23 AM  

illannoyin: Failure to take reasonable measures (locked in a metal cabinet) to secure your guns makes you an accessory to any crime committed with them if they are stolen.


So locked in my house isn't good enough? If you can break into my house you can get into a cabinet.
Now this sort of makes sense. I own a good number of firearms, and most of them go into a safe. But "in a safe" doesn't do you much good in a home invasion. That's why I keep a handgun in a drawer (w/ laser and highpower flashlight) and shotgun nearby. If someone does break into my house when I am not home, they'll have a hard time getting to most of my weapons. (They'll have a hard time keeping dog teeth out of their ass, but that's a different issue). But should I be expected to have everything locked up at all times?

Now if I leave a case of guns of the front porch, and some kids take them and play lead paint ball, I could see why I should be held accountable. But if some asshat physically forces his way into my house, searches through all my closets, drawers, and cabinets until he finds a firearm, and takes that firearm, I am to be held responsible? Why not hold me resonsible if he takes one of my display swords and brains someone with it (they arn't good for much else). What if he stabs someone with my kitchen knife? Hits someone with my tirejack? Steals my car and runs someone over while drunk? Do I get a DUI and a hit-and-run as well? What if he steals my TV and drops it on a toddler?

I agree firearms SHOULD be secure. And a gunsafe makes them MORE secure. Just like keeping my jewelry in a safe *helps* to keep it from being stolen, but the person ultimately responsible for theft is the person doing the thieving. I think Florida has a law that goes something to the effect of "If you leave a gun sitting where someone can see it, such as on your kitchen table or car seat, and a person steals it because it was in plain view, then you could be charged with {some sort of crime}" Now that makes sense. I have a gun sitting on the shelf in my bay window, some asshat comes along and says 'Free gun in the window!', and smashes it, and takes the gun, I should have some responsibility in that.

Now if that same guy breaks in, spends 20 minutes rooting around my belongings and finds a gun, I think that would be on him.

Also, if you have kids, you should be responsible for them getting ahold of your weapons. If I had kids, I wouldn't ever leave a shotgun laying about for them to find. If kids come over to my house, I put away what few guns I may have laying around. That's just common damn sense.
 
2013-01-16 10:22:04 AM  

msupf: Cpl.D: I suppose I'm an oddity in the gun debate. I've got a cabinet full of guns (hunting) and I routinely do target shooting at the ol' gun club. I like hunting white-tail deer, and I eat what I take. But I also believe that concessions *have* to be made in the gun control debate.

In a perfect world, we could have all the guns we want and there would be no issue. But we don't live in a perfect world. Guns are absolutely not the sole problem, here, and the fix isn't going to come from gun control alone. We've also got to fix the mental health system in this country in a big way. But that's going to take far too long, and I doubt it'll ever be perfect. Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this. There's no gun I have in my cabinet worth the life of even one more kid.

The solution is going to have to have a broad spectrum, but throwing a hissy fit like the NRA has doesn't help any. I like how the NRA was invited to the talks on gun control going on, and the NRA stormed out, saying "They just intend on attacking the second amendment rights!" Ok, let's assume that's perfectly accurate. NRA, isn't your stated goal of protecting that right? If so, then isn't staying in that meeting the best place to be to protect that right? So why did your representatives leave? Why?

That's why I favor some of the European models for gun control. Sweden is one I wouldn't mind taking some ideas from. You can own 8-9 guns no problem, you just need to not only undergo background checks, but pass tests for each weapon and its intended use, and/or be a member of a shooting range with passing marks for safety and so on.

Want a shotgun for skeet shooting? Cool, take and pass the tests and get your permit. You can use that shotgun all you want for skeet, but you can't use it anywhere else lawfully until you pass and get it licensed for other activities (duck hunting for example). If various types and uses of vehicles require different tests and licenses, why shouldn't guns?

CCW's pretty much disappear. Not a member of military or police? Can't demonstrate to a court a real need for the weapon for protection against some real threat? Ya don't get one.

Found with guns on your person or in your vehicle and cannot demonstrate you were on your way to/from the appropriate place for using the gun, gun gets impounded, just like a car.

Want to have more than the 8 or so guns, because you are a collector? Cool, just build suitable security display cases for the collection and have it inspected. To so far as to even have the collection guns made inoperable if it doesn't harm their value (depending on the gun, something as minor as removing firing pins or hammers will do).

I also enjoy target shooting, have inherited a rather nice weatherby rifle which may draw me out into hunting in the future, and have a good target pistol, but I don't see a need for much else.

Sure, it's a right to own a gun in this country, but you should still have to demonstrate that you deserve that right, and view it as a privilege.


Do you even understand the difference between rights and privileges? They aren't the same.
 
2013-01-16 10:24:56 AM  

farkingfun: cassanovascotian: Mock26: Cpl.D: Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this.

Evidence, please.

gladly.

Now answer me a question: how much evidence to you actually need to admit that you're wrong?

Err: "Higher rates of gun ownership correlate with higher homicide rates"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

I bet it's the milk (http://orthomolecular.org/library/articles/webach.shtml) , that or lead paint (http://www.organicconsumers.org/school/lead081004.cfm). Perhaps population density (http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/harries.html).


correlation without a logical explanation does not imply causation.
How the fark do you go about proving causation in general?
 
2013-01-16 10:28:51 AM  

Cpl.D: How many shootings is it going to take for you to want to try something?


Well, I would start by looking at the overall numbers instead of just the highly publicized (but rare) number of mass shootings. I would then see that those numbers are steadily dropping, have been for a while, and don't show any signs of going up. I would then wonder where the insistence that we DO SOMETHING, NOW! comes from, when it would appear that we already have, and it seems to be working.
 
2013-01-16 10:28:56 AM  

cassanovascotian: First of all, regarding (1): I'm all in favour of grabbing guns. regarding (2) "gun control" specifically means controlling the number of guns "in the field". We're not talking about sales, we're talking about ownership.
(3) Sure, let's do that too, but that's not really the point.


NOT AMERICAN, ARGUMENT INVALID
 
2013-01-16 10:36:36 AM  

Farce-Side: cassanovascotian: First of all, regarding (1): I'm all in favour of grabbing guns. regarding (2) "gun control" specifically means controlling the number of guns "in the field". We're not talking about sales, we're talking about ownership.
(3) Sure, let's do that too, but that's not really the point.

NOT AMERICAN, ARGUMENT INVALID


An interesting argument. Perhaps you could learn something from this website. You might also find it illuminating to study up on the rest of them, and then when you're ready to have a discussion at the adult table come back to me, ok? good luck!
 
2013-01-16 10:40:37 AM  

cassanovascotian: Dimensio: cassanovascotian: Mock26: Cpl.D: Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this.

Evidence, please.

gladly.

Now answer me a question: how much evidence to you actually need to admit that you're wrong?

Please explain how a study correlating increased firearm ownership rates (and not gun control legislation) with homicide rates will demonstrate that the claim of non-specific "stricter gun control" will reduce "the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately". Perhaps you could incorporate your hypothesis that the trigger of an AR-15 rifle will "easily shoot 100 bullets per minute".

"Stricter gun control" means it is more difficult for people to obtain and own a gun, meaning fewer people will own such guns. That's kinda built into the words. Evidence clearly shows that when fewer people own guns, fewer people get shot with guns. What, exactly, is the step in logic that you're missing here?


The part where its a constitutional right.
 
2013-01-16 10:42:46 AM  

cassanovascotian: CeroX: cassanovascotian: Dimensio: cassanovascotian: Mock26: Cpl.D: Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this.

Evidence, please.

gladly.

Now answer me a question: how much evidence to you actually need to admit that you're wrong?

Please explain how a study correlating increased firearm ownership rates (and not gun control legislation) with homicide rates will demonstrate that the claim of non-specific "stricter gun control" will reduce "the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately". Perhaps you could incorporate your hypothesis that the trigger of an AR-15 rifle will "easily shoot 100 bullets per minute".

"Stricter gun control" means it is more difficult for people to obtain and own a gun, meaning fewer people will own such guns. That's kinda built into the words. Evidence clearly shows that when fewer people own guns, fewer people get shot with guns. What, exactly, is the step in logic that you're missing here?

I know where he's going with this... (1) unless you are grabbing guns, (2) gun control won't reduce the number of guns in the field, therefore not reducing the risk...

(3) You could lower that number by regulating how many guns a manufacture is allowed to produce per year i suppose... but i doubt that would actually do anything to decrease guns, retailers would just buy from importers to make up the difference...

First of all, regarding (1): I'm all in favour of grabbing guns. regarding (2) "gun control" specifically means controlling the number of guns "in the field". We're not talking about sales, we're talking about ownership.
(3) Sure, let's do that too, but that's not really the point.

Gun control specifically means reducing the number of guns people can own, and evidence shows that reduced gun ownership results in fewer gun-related fatalities. It's really a very straight-forward logical deduction. I'm trying very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt and assum ...



responses:

1 - Grabbing guns is what causes the super paranoia that fuels crazy gun nuts... Not really the best idea... seriously, i was JUST at a gun show this past weekend and the line to get in wrapped around the building, and it was ALL crazy gun nuts hooting and hollering about the government grabbing guns... Needless to say i didn't find a single hunting rifle or shotgun there and all the dealers were selling used assault rifles above new retail prices... They were spreading outright lies in order to boost their own sales, people were just feeding off each others paranoia... I'm not in favor of grabbing guns... and buy back programs only wind up collecting a bunch of actual hunting tools and broken antiques rather than the any assault rifles...

2 - Your definition and my definition vary here... Gun control as i see it is the means of controlling the means of purchasing weapons, either by not allowing certain guns to be purchased, or limiting who can purchase certain types of weapons. Example, a Class C firearm is regulated to only those with a class c FFD license... That, is gun control, controlling the flow of guns. So in this our definitions differ, and where we disagree.

So i see the problem here, your gun control solution and my control solutions are vastly different, and it is those differing definitions that has people in general worried...

Gun control should be just that, the control of the flow of guns. Keeping guns out of criminal hands, out of the mentally unstabled hands, keeping guns safely where they belong and not flooding the market with copious amounts of them. There are plenty of ways to put guns into a controlled environment without the control being aggressive and confrontational. Smart control is still control... If you don't have guns, then there is nothing to control, therefore there is no gun control...

I'm sorry but grabbing guns is the worst thing you can do, it breeches the trust in the people and shows that we as a nation can't even follow the rules that helped establish us as a nation...
 
2013-01-16 10:43:23 AM  

sethen320: cassanovascotian: Dimensio: cassanovascotian: Mock26: Cpl.D: Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this.

Evidence, please.

gladly.

Now answer me a question: how much evidence to you actually need to admit that you're wrong?

Please explain how a study correlating increased firearm ownership rates (and not gun control legislation) with homicide rates will demonstrate that the claim of non-specific "stricter gun control" will reduce "the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately". Perhaps you could incorporate your hypothesis that the trigger of an AR-15 rifle will "easily shoot 100 bullets per minute".

"Stricter gun control" means it is more difficult for people to obtain and own a gun, meaning fewer people will own such guns. That's kinda built into the words. Evidence clearly shows that when fewer people own guns, fewer people get shot with guns. What, exactly, is the step in logic that you're missing here?

The part where its a constitutional right.


Then change the constitution. You're supposed to be arguing for why it's it's a good thing that things are the way they are, and why we should keep them that way. Do you really think that appealing to the fact that things are currently this way is a rational reason?
 
2013-01-16 10:52:39 AM  

cassanovascotian: sethen320: cassanovascotian: Dimensio: cassanovascotian: Mock26: Cpl.D: Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this.

Evidence, please.

gladly.

Now answer me a question: how much evidence to you actually need to admit that you're wrong?

Please explain how a study correlating increased firearm ownership rates (and not gun control legislation) with homicide rates will demonstrate that the claim of non-specific "stricter gun control" will reduce "the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately". Perhaps you could incorporate your hypothesis that the trigger of an AR-15 rifle will "easily shoot 100 bullets per minute".

"Stricter gun control" means it is more difficult for people to obtain and own a gun, meaning fewer people will own such guns. That's kinda built into the words. Evidence clearly shows that when fewer people own guns, fewer people get shot with guns. What, exactly, is the step in logic that you're missing here?

The part where its a constitutional right.

Then change the constitution. You're supposed to be arguing for why it's it's a good thing that things are the way they are, and why we should keep them that way. Do you really think that appealing to the fact that things are currently this way is a rational reason?


Really? Now you are proposing we dishonor everything we set up to be a nation? Seriously? It's a contract man, a contract between the people and it's government. You want to break contract because you think things are going bad? How about we keep the contract, and address WHY things are bad...
 
2013-01-16 10:57:46 AM  
The problem is that people kill people.
Been that way for quite a while.
Likely to continue for quite a while IMHO.

Hands up all those who think The Constitution has/will change that.
Keep 'em up iff'n you think any law will change that.

Now, as long as you got yer hands up, I'll take your wallet.
Thanks.
 
2013-01-16 10:58:53 AM  

ontariolightning: So how many guns bought here will be used in mass shootings in the next few years?


Pretty much NONE as guns are not for sale there only for display and advertising. How many of Cuomo's assault weapons in the hands of his tax paid brown shirts will be used next few years to kill formerly law abiding citizens who he plans to turn into felons? It worked in NY for "Big Tim" Sullivan, who says history doesn't repeat itself.
 
2013-01-16 11:00:17 AM  

Cpl.D: Mock26: Cpl.D: Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this.

Evidence, please.

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

Twice as many people have died in homicide by firearms than all other methods combined. Yes, I realize that even if guns were banned, there'd still be a black market for guns. On the other hand, you'd have to acknowledge that even if that extreme were the case, that there would still be far fewer guns on the street available for use by those with criminal intent. The black market isn't going to be able to keep up the firearms-per-person ratio that legal sales do.

I wish I could dig up graph after graph and flood you with it, but this debate has been so poisoned that I can dig up graphs showing completely opposite things. I could probably find one showing a link between leprechauns and clip size if I looked hard enough.

I'll just have to reference common sense; If there's less firearms on the street, or they're more strictly controlled, or if all guns were required to be registered and reported stolen if and when they are, then that's going to make a dent in how often they're used in crime.


I thought you were talking about the handful of high media covered events in the past year. But then you bring up stats for all firearm deaths. That's what I call a poisoned debated.
 
2013-01-16 11:01:00 AM  

cassanovascotian: Farce-Side: cassanovascotian: First of all, regarding (1): I'm all in favour of grabbing guns. regarding (2) "gun control" specifically means controlling the number of guns "in the field". We're not talking about sales, we're talking about ownership.
(3) Sure, let's do that too, but that's not really the point.

NOT AMERICAN, ARGUMENT INVALID

An interesting argument. Perhaps you could learn something from this website. You might also find it illuminating to study up on the rest of them, and then when you're ready to have a discussion at the adult table come back to me, ok? good luck!


That's a pretty clever website.

Just to clarify my comment started out in jest, although I am glad you don't have any real impact on this discussion, as you seem to be a condescending prick. When you're ready to aquiesce to the fact that you arguing for gun control in our country is akin to someone from People's Republic of China demanding that we ban free speech, maybe I'll join you at the adult's table. Basically, you have no vested interest in the outcome of this situation, yet you'll advocate the stripping of rights from others. To me, that makes any argument you come up with worth about nothing, whether your position was for or against any relevant change in the regulation of our lives.
 
2013-01-16 11:13:44 AM  
Am I the only one seeing the absurdity in a chickenchit loudmouth w/o a gun telling someone they cannot have a gun?
When they already have many guns?
And know how to use them.
Something loudmouth knows nothing about.

WTF?
 
2013-01-16 11:15:33 AM  

CeroX: cassanovascotian: sethen320: cassanovascotian: Dimensio: cassanovascotian: Mock26: Cpl.D: Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this.

Evidence, please.

gladly.

Now answer me a question: how much evidence to you actually need to admit that you're wrong?

Please explain how a study correlating increased firearm ownership rates (and not gun control legislation) with homicide rates will demonstrate that the claim of non-specific "stricter gun control" will reduce "the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately". Perhaps you could incorporate your hypothesis that the trigger of an AR-15 rifle will "easily shoot 100 bullets per minute".

"Stricter gun control" means it is more difficult for people to obtain and own a gun, meaning fewer people will own such guns. That's kinda built into the words. Evidence clearly shows that when fewer people own guns, fewer people get shot with guns. What, exactly, is the step in logic that you're missing here?

The part where its a constitutional right.

Then change the constitution. You're supposed to be arguing for why it's it's a good thing that things are the way they are, and why we should keep them that way. Do you really think that appealing to the fact that things are currently this way is a rational reason?

Really? Now you are proposing we dishonor everything we set up to be a nation? Seriously? It's a contract man, a contract between the people and it's government. You want to break contract because you think things are going bad? How about we keep the contract, and address WHY things are bad...


Thank you.
 
2013-01-16 11:16:33 AM  

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net

 
2013-01-16 11:20:33 AM  

CeroX: Really? Now you are proposing we dishonor everything we set up to be a nation? Seriously? It's a contract man, a contract between the people and it's government. You want to break contract because you think things are going bad? How about we keep the contract, and address WHY things are bad...


There have been how many constitutional amendments passed over the years?
Are you telling me that every one of those amendments is a "dishonour" to the fundamental principles of your nation?

cuz if so, that's kinda crazy, man.

Farce-Side: cassanovascotian:
Just to clarify my comment started out in jest, although I am glad you don't have any real impact on this discussion, as you seem to be a condescending prick.


Your intellectual short-comings and insecurities are not my problem. Nor is it my desire to dumb my discussion down to your level.

When you're ready to aquiesce to the fact that you arguing for gun control in our country is akin to someone from People's Republic of China demanding that we ban free speech, maybe I'll join you at the adult's table. Basically, you have no vested interest in the outcome of this situation,

See there's the thing. If it were really just American's getting killed because of your rediculous gun laws, then I'd be happy to say "ok, let those gun-nuts kill each other, not my problem." except the problem is that in my sane not-completely-bat-shiat-crazy country, people are still getting shot because of your stupidity. And by the way, the US is by far the world-leader in small-arms exports, a fact which contributes to countless unnecessary civil-wars all around the world. So yeah, I kinda do have a vested interest in this, fark you very much.


To me, that makes any argument you come up with worth about nothing, whether your position was for or against any relevant change in the regulation of our lives.

Again, I recommend you read up on the ad hominem fallacy and learn why it makes more sense to respond to the words that people use rather focus on the identity of the individual using them. Maybe someday you'll be able to participate in a rational discussion.
 
2013-01-16 11:24:19 AM  

The Iron duke: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 403x403]


fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-01-16 11:26:45 AM  

Check this out..What? Facts in this thread? NO

Link


This issue, 'gun control', is not about politicians thinking with their hearts, but fooling you with yours. Manufactured fear in the guise of action.
 
2013-01-16 11:32:21 AM  

cassanovascotian: The Iron duke: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 403x403]

[fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 850x694]


And soon after, legislation was not passed by this president with a knee jerk reaction to being shot by a Crazy person...
 
2013-01-16 11:36:32 AM  

The Iron duke: cassanovascotian: The Iron duke: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 403x403]

[fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 850x694]

And soon after, legislation was not passed by this president with a knee jerk reaction to being shot by a Crazy person...


Darwin aint battin' 100.
 
2013-01-16 11:38:44 AM  

cassanovascotian: Your intellectual short-comings and insecurities are not my problem. Nor is it my desire to dumb my discussion down to your level.


See there you go, being a condescending prick again. None of your words were too big for me, geen-yus.

cassanovascotian: See there's the thing. If it were really just American's getting killed because of your rediculous gun laws, then I'd be happy to say "ok, let those gun-nuts kill each other, not my problem." except the problem is that in my sane not-completely-bat-shiat-crazy country, people are still getting shot because of your stupidity. And by the way, the US is by far the world-leader in small-arms exports, a fact which contributes to countless unnecessary civil-wars all around the world. So yeah, I kinda do have a vested interest in this, fark you very much.


Sounds like your country needs to work on it's border protections. Sub-machine guns, as mentioned in the article, are illegal in the USA as well. As for the arms export business, do you honestly think taking away American citizen's rights to own guns will do anything to stem the flow of guns from our country to those that purchase them for use in internal conflicts? If anything, I would guess that reducing domestic consumption of a product would lead to increased exportation efforts in order to make up for revenue lost. Additionaly, most small arms sold to militaries both here and abroad are already illegal for your average American to own, with the exception of semi automatic pistols used mostly as side arms. I think maybe your problem is you're just too lazy to think of an actual solution, and you'd rather just arbitrarily take away our rights than actually have to come up with something that helps.
 
2013-01-16 11:42:51 AM  

PacManDreaming: I think the best thing that can be done is overhaul the mental health care system. I'm also pretty sure that the economy is causing a lot of stress for folks. Money problems are probably gonna be the next big thing to push people over the edge.

And in the meantime, the gun grabbers and the NRA are crapping their pants in rage at each other, while politicians pocket gobs of cash from lobbyists on both sides and nothing productive is going to get done. As usual.


Sadly, THIS.
 
2013-01-16 11:55:36 AM  
Ten years ago it was 250,000.000 guns (according to the Brady Bunch), then the FBI reported over 100,000,000 million sales (NICS checks), and it was still 250,000,000 (according to the Brady Bunch), then Obama was elected and the people have been buying in the millions/month, but gun ownership is decreasing (according to the Brady Bunch).
Chuck Schumer wants Walmart to suspend sales of "Scary Black Rifles" until he can get them banned, Walmart hasn't sold one in a couple of weeks. They can't because every one they had has already been sold.

So, given that every owner of a "Scary Black Rifle" is a potential homicidal lunatic, and we don't really even know how many "Scary Black Rifles" they have, or how many "Scary Black Rifle mass murdering assault clips", or how many hundred million "Cop Killing, armor piercing, hollow point high powered assault bullets with bayonet lugs, that shoot down airplanes" the potential homicidal lunatics have stored in their Militia Bunkers it makes perfect sense that we should declare all of them potential felons and shoot them on sight FOR THE CHILDREN...

Maybe I should run for office in New York.
 
2013-01-16 12:10:39 PM  

1.bp.blogspot.com

 
2013-01-16 12:13:07 PM  

Farce-Side: cassanovascotian: Your intellectual short-comings and insecurities are not my problem. Nor is it my desire to dumb my discussion down to your level.

See there you go, being a condescending prick again. None of your words were too big for me, geen-yus.


You seem to think that the disparity in intellectual substance of our two arguments is my problem. It aint.

Farce-Side: Sounds like your country needs to work on it's border protections. Sub-machine guns, as mentioned in the article, are illegal in the USA as well. As for the arms export business, do you honestly think taking away American citizen's rights to own guns will do anything to stem the flow of guns from our country to those that purchase them for use in internal conflicts? "

It removes the supply of money that's fueling the industry that's flooding the world with this shiat that serves no purpose other than to kill people. So yeah.

If anything, I would guess that reducing domestic consumption of a product would lead to increased exportation efforts in order to make up for revenue lost.

You think the pirates in Somalia are shelling out the same kinda dough as the god-fearin' 'Murrican's? No. They aren't. It's pretty clear where the big money is coming from.

Additionaly, most small arms sold to militaries both here and abroad are already illegal for your average American to own, with the exception of semi automatic pistols used mostly as side arms. I think maybe your problem is you're just too lazy to think of an actual solution, and you'd rather just arbitrarily take away our rights than actually have to come up with something that helps.

Unlike you, I am at least proposing a solution, and I'm convinced that removing the guns is the only sensible strategy available, and I've heard nothing by way of problem-solving efforts from you. But heck, I'm open to possibilities: why don't you take a crack at it Mr. problem solver: how are you gonna put a stop to mass-child-murder incidents?

 
2013-01-16 12:16:03 PM  
properly italicized.

cassanovascotian: Farce-Side: cassanovascotian: Your intellectual short-comings and insecurities are not my problem. Nor is it my desire to dumb my discussion down to your level.

See there you go, being a condescending prick again. None of your words were too big for me, geen-yus.


You seem to think that the disparity in intellectual substance of our two arguments is my problem. It aint.

Farce-Side: Sounds like your country needs to work on it's border protections. Sub-machine guns, as mentioned in the article, are illegal in the USA as well. As for the arms export business, do you honestly think taking away American citizen's rights to own guns will do anything to stem the flow of guns from our country to those that purchase them for use in internal conflicts? "

It removes the supply of money that's fueling the industry that's flooding the world with this shiat that serves no purpose other than to kill people. So yeah.

If anything, I would guess that reducing domestic consumption of a product would lead to increased exportation efforts in order to make up for revenue lost.

You think the pirates in Somalia are shelling out the same kinda dough as the god-fearin' 'Murrican's? No. They aren't. It's pretty clear where the big money is coming from.

Additionaly, most small arms sold to militaries both here and abroad are already illegal for your average American to own, with the exception of semi automatic pistols used mostly as side arms. I think maybe your problem is you're just too lazy to think of an actual solution, and you'd rather just arbitrarily take away our rights than actually have to come up with something that helps.

Unlike you, I am at least proposing a solution, and I'm convinced that removing the guns is the only sensible strategy available, and I've heard nothing by way of problem-solving efforts from you. But heck, I'm open to possibilities: why don't you take a crack at it Mr. problem solver: how are you gonna put a stop to mass-child-murder incidents?
 
2013-01-16 12:25:57 PM  

Franko: [sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net image 420x294]


I'm a firearm enthusiast and a hunter.
I need an AR-15 because it is the best form factor for what it does at the cost that it does it.

The same way a person gets to decide whether a SUV and a Hatchback suits their purpose.
One could argue that no one NEEDS an SUV, when they could get a pick-up or a hatchback.
But, due to popular demand for that form factor, they are one of the best sellers out there.
There are alternatives to an AR-15, but none that fit that niche in a way that meets the needs of the consumer in the same manner.

Also, AR-15 do shiat for home protection. Shotguns are WAY more effective than any other firearm for home defense.
 
2013-01-16 12:30:07 PM  

Rug Doctor: ParaHandy: Ballet dancer turned defense specialist Allison Barrie

[global.fncstatic.com image 156x195]
/ yes please

Well, she certainly looks like someone who has had to scrape by on nothing but street smarts and raw streetfighting skills on many occasions...


I think she looks like Demi Moore with Robert Zdar's jawline.

Ugh.
 
2013-01-16 12:43:16 PM  

cassanovascotian: You seem to think that the disparity in intellectual substance of our two arguments is my problem. It aint.


Seeing as how your argument is increasingly lacking in any intellectual substance, I would say it is.

cassanovascotian: It removes the supply of money that's fueling the industry that's flooding the world with this shiat that serves no purpose other than to kill people. So yeah.


Again, you fail to realize that rather than shutter their factories and lay off employees, most arms manufacturers in the US would simply switch focus from the civilian market to the military market, thus increasing the flow of military weapons from our country to others. Let's say for a moment, however, that they didn't. Let's say you effectively shut down the small arms manufacturing business in the US, thus eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs from our economy. That's totally what we need right now in our country is more unemployment.

cassanovascotian: You think the pirates in Somalia are shelling out the same kinda dough as the god-fearin' 'Murrican's? No. They aren't. It's pretty clear where the big money is coming from.


Actually, Somali pirates primarily utilize the AK-47 and it's variants, a rifle produced primarily by arms manufacturers in Russia and China, which, suprisingly, have stricter gun laws for their own citizens than the American government has for its. Of course American citizens can pay more for guns, but if you eliminate that source of income, companies will diversify their market focus in order to maintain profits. The theory that gun companies make the lion's share of their profit from citizens is, in this instance, a moot argument.

cassanovascotian: Unlike you, I am at least proposing a solution, and I'm convinced that removing the guns is the only sensible strategy available, and I've heard nothing by way of problem-solving efforts from you. But heck, I'm open to possibilities: why don't you take a crack at it Mr. problem solver: how are you gonna put a stop to mass-child-murder incidents?


The point remains, you're proposing a solution to a problem that isn't yours, although your proposal would affect the lives of millions of Americans. My argument was never that I had a better solution to the problem of "mass-child-murder incidents". My argument was that you, though infinitely wise and not at all biased, are neither qualified nor capable of making a convincing argument either way, as you have only a self-assumed "dog in the fight" so to speak.

It seems any attempt I would make at swaying you from taking away the rights of those in another country would be futile as you're already convinced (your words, not mine) that's the best solution to a problem that, again, isn't yours to solve.
 
2013-01-16 12:50:53 PM  

SMALL PENIS THREAD IS SUCCESSFUL THREAD!!!



i.imgur.com

 
2013-01-16 12:53:37 PM  

ParaHandy: Ballet dancer turned defense specialist Allison Barrie

global.fncstatic.com
/ yes please


i wouldn't crap on her chest if every rest stop in the world was closed for repairs.

she could stop a train with that face.

give your head a shake
 
2013-01-16 12:57:18 PM  
What will we do when the next mass shooting happens, and sadly it will happen everyone knows it, after all the new regs are in place? Will we finally spend a little more time on mental health issues after that one? The crazy biatch that pushed the guy onto the subway tracks was on meds and was just released from the nut house a few days before comitting her crime. Why was she on the streets
 
2013-01-16 01:01:49 PM  
A fool and his money...
 
HBK
2013-01-16 01:07:36 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: SMALL PENIS THREAD IS SUCCESSFUL THREAD!!!


Somebody likes something I don't like. So they must have a small penis.

Are you in second grade or just stupid?
 
2013-01-16 01:19:02 PM  

Dimensio: msupf: CCW's pretty much disappear.

Than you for admitting that you are unreasonable.


Yup, sure is unreasonable to do something that other countries with a higher percentage of gun ownership yet have little or no mass killings do. What was I thinking by basing a reasonable idea off of something already being done?

Limp_Bisquick: msupf: Sure, it's a right to own a gun in this country, but you should still have to demonstrate that you deserve that right, and view it as a privilege.

So a right now is something you feel that you have to demonstrate you deserve?


You have to demonstrate you are deserving of a higher education, even though education is a right. You must demonstrate your competence in any number of things that are, or are perceived as, rights before you can have them. Why are guns so different?
 
2013-01-16 01:28:44 PM  

computerguyUT: I keep reading over and over that guns kill far more people in the US than any other "thing".
This is a complete fabrication.
Guns dont even break the top 20 in deaths in the US.

Almost every single top 10 is health related.

Number of deaths for leading causes of death in the US.
(fast stats)
•Heart disease: 597,689
•Cancer: 574,743
•Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
•Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
•Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
•Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
•Diabetes: 69,071
•Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
•Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
•Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

out of the suicides, roughly 6000 of those were gun inflicted.
That doesn't even put a dent in the number of suicides.

Where do you people come up with these "facts"?
If you really cared, if THEY really cared, they'd pick number one on that list and start there.

Numbers, how DO they work?


Logical fallacies, how do they work?
You cannot compare deaths caused by guns to things like cancer or other diseases. Doesn't work like that. Even then, your suicide by gun numbers are off.

You want numbers, here's some: Link
It even discusses at the end how gun deaths have dropped in large part to hospitals and trauma centers being more widespread, and more specialists having better knowledge in how to treat them. More people are being shot, but more are surviving. Still doesn't excuse the original act.
 
2013-01-16 01:37:58 PM  

HBK: Haliburton Cummings: SMALL PENIS THREAD IS SUCCESSFUL THREAD!!!

Somebody likes something I don't like. So they must have a small penis.

Are you in second grade or just stupid?


yes..you are
 
2013-01-16 01:43:39 PM  

HBK: Haliburton Cummings: SMALL PENIS THREAD IS SUCCESSFUL THREAD!!!

Somebody likes something I don't like. So they must have a small penis.

Are you in second grade or just stupid?


i'm sorry...you have taken offence because you have a very tiny teeny penis...

i should be a little more considerate of those "less fortunate".

please feel free to rebut with fark memes and cliches though...

i have some tweezers and a microscope from an old science project..just drop your address in here and i will UPS them so you can have at yourself...

sadly, i don't own any protein welded copies of guns and ammo to send your way or i would send you a stack.

but hang out here long enough, someone might fill your wishlist.

just remember, you aren't disabled, you are enabled...

big winkie emoticon goes here...

sprinkles!
 
2013-01-16 01:49:30 PM  

Ghastly: Somebody near there PLEASE put these posters up around the show.
[25.media.tumblr.com image 488x750]
I don't care which side of the gun debate you're on, you've got to admit the sudden scream as everyone logs on with their smartphones and laptops would be glorious to behold.


Incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#The_1938_German_ W eapons_Act
 
2013-01-16 01:51:48 PM  

cassanovascotian: Mock26: Cpl.D: Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this.

Evidence, please.

gladly.

Now answer me a question: how much evidence to you actually need to admit that you're wrong?


I have read that report, and guess what? They did NOT track any connection between those legally owned firearms and whether or not they were used to commit homicide. The two data sets they used (gun ownership and homicide) were two completely SEPARATE data sets!

Also, from the very web page that you linked to, "The authors are careful as to what conclusions they can draw from this work. They stress that this work does not establish a "causal relationship between guns and homicide", stating that this could be a case of "reverse causation"-that there are a higher number of households with guns because of an already high homicide rate."

Because it bears repeating, "this work does not establish a "causal relationship between guns and homicide...""

How much more evidence do you need that you are wrong in your claim that more guns equates to more homicides?

Also, ever hear of Chicago and Washington, DC? Chicago had a total ban on handguns yet saw 300+ hand gun homicides every year. DC had a total ban on all firearms and also saw hundreds of homicides each year.
 
2013-01-16 01:55:41 PM  

cassanovascotian: Dimensio: cassanovascotian: Mock26: Cpl.D: Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this.

Evidence, please.

gladly.

Now answer me a question: how much evidence to you actually need to admit that you're wrong?

Please explain how a study correlating increased firearm ownership rates (and not gun control legislation) with homicide rates will demonstrate that the claim of non-specific "stricter gun control" will reduce "the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately". Perhaps you could incorporate your hypothesis that the trigger of an AR-15 rifle will "easily shoot 100 bullets per minute".

"Stricter gun control" means it is more difficult for people to obtain and own a gun, meaning fewer people will own such guns. That's kinda built into the words. Evidence clearly shows that when fewer people own guns, fewer people get shot with guns. What, exactly, is the step in logic that you're missing here?


Again, ever hear of Chicago and Washington, DC? The evidence shows that the fewer people own guns the more people get shot with guns! Also, the evidence that you provided clearly does not establish a "causal relationship between guns and homicide.
 
2013-01-16 01:58:46 PM  

cassanovascotian: Mock26: Cpl.D: Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this.

Evidence, please.

gladly.

Now answer me a question: how much evidence to you actually need to admit that you're wrong?


PS Next time you link to an article to prove your point you might want to actually read the article first, just on the off chance that the article does not say what you claim it says.
 
2013-01-16 02:19:49 PM  

cassanovascotian: The Iron duke: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 403x403]

[fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 850x694]


The gun involved was also a .22 caliber revolver, a gun which gets exempted from every single weapons ban because it's not dangerous.

How many presidents have been shot with AR-15s? M1As?
 
2013-01-16 02:31:46 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Cpl.D: And yes, it's a "gut feeling" that better control of guns would have an effect on gun crime. I say that's common sense.

It's not a "gut feeling." It's an obvious farking truth.


Truth is relative to ones perception.
 
2013-01-16 02:33:30 PM  

cassanovascotian: The Iron duke: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 403x403]

[fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 850x694]


Did anyone with a gun get shot?
bazinga
 
2013-01-16 02:54:51 PM  

Mock26: ElQue: The average citizen has no need for an assault rifle.

Assuming that you are talking about a military style semi-automatic rifle, why not? What is different about this firearm that makes you say that the average citizen has no need for one? What makes it inappropriate for the average citizen?


msnbcmedia.msn.com
has an opinion on this
 
2013-01-16 03:09:35 PM  

inner ted: Mock26: ElQue: The average citizen has no need for an assault rifle.

Assuming that you are talking about a military style semi-automatic rifle, why not? What is different about this firearm that makes you say that the average citizen has no need for one? What makes it inappropriate for the average citizen?

[msnbcmedia.msn.com image 620x362]
has an opinion on this


And what is that opinion?
 
2013-01-16 03:14:32 PM  

Farce-Side: Just to clarify my comment started out in jest, although I am glad you don't have any real impact on this discussion, as you seem to be a condescending prick. When you're ready to aquiesce to the fact that you arguing for gun control in our country is akin to someone from People's Republic of China demanding that we ban free speech, maybe I'll join you at the adult's table. Basically, you have no vested interest in the outcome of this situation, yet you'll advocate the stripping of rights from others. To me, that makes any argument you come up with worth about nothing, whether your position was for or against any relevant change in the regulation of our lives.



For Fark's sake, the same can even be said for the overwhelming majority of the American "gun control" crowd. "I don't own guns, so fark everyone who does. Take them all away. No skin off of my back."
 
2013-01-16 03:20:20 PM  

cassanovascotian: And by the way, the US is by far the world-leader in small-arms exports, a fact which contributes to countless unnecessary civil-wars all around the world.


Guns make wars, and other people's conflicts are "unnecessary." Spoken like a true sheltered First Worlder. You're a sad side-effect of Pax Americana.
 
2013-01-16 03:30:48 PM  

msupf: Dimensio: msupf: CCW's pretty much disappear.

Than you for admitting that you are unreasonable.

Yup, sure is unreasonable to do something that other countries with a higher percentage of gun ownership yet have little or no mass killings do. What was I thinking by basing a reasonable idea off of something already being done?

Limp_Bisquick: msupf: Sure, it's a right to own a gun in this country, but you should still have to demonstrate that you deserve that right, and view it as a privilege.

So a right now is something you feel that you have to demonstrate you deserve?

You have to demonstrate you are deserving of a higher education, even though education is a right. You must demonstrate your competence in any number of things that are, or are perceived as, rights before you can have them. Why are guns so different?


There's nothing in the constitution which guarantees higher education. Go make stuff up somewhere else.
 
2013-01-16 03:31:22 PM  

cassanovascotian: The Iron duke: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 403x403]

[fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 850x694]


Oswald was not there to kill as many people as he could. He was there to shoot just one person. I am not arguing for armed teachers (I think the idea is stupid), but as I see the idea of armed teachers they are not there to stop a shooting before it happens, nor are they there to prevent a single student from being shot. Instead, the idea is that they will reduce the number of dead, so instead of having 26 dead you might only have 3 or 4 dead.
 
2013-01-16 03:46:11 PM  

sethen320: msupf: Dimensio: msupf: CCW's pretty much disappear.

Than you for admitting that you are unreasonable.

Yup, sure is unreasonable to do something that other countries with a higher percentage of gun ownership yet have little or no mass killings do. What was I thinking by basing a reasonable idea off of something already being done?

Limp_Bisquick: msupf: Sure, it's a right to own a gun in this country, but you should still have to demonstrate that you deserve that right, and view it as a privilege.

So a right now is something you feel that you have to demonstrate you deserve?

You have to demonstrate you are deserving of a higher education, even though education is a right. You must demonstrate your competence in any number of things that are, or are perceived as, rights before you can have them. Why are guns so different?

There's nothing in the constitution which guarantees higher education. Go make stuff up somewhere else.


Notice how I differentiated the two, education and higher education. The right to an education is considered a universal human right, and many states have it written into their constitutions that a basic education (k-12) is a right. Higher education, however, which is a part of EDUCATION, requires you to demonstrate that you are capable and deserving of said higher education.

you are guaranteed the right to bear arms, but there is no distinction as to what kind or how many. Why not? Are guns more important than education? If so, that explains the south.
 
2013-01-16 04:12:26 PM  

Mock26: inner ted: Mock26: ElQue: The average citizen has no need for an assault rifle.

Assuming that you are talking about a military style semi-automatic rifle, why not? What is different about this firearm that makes you say that the average citizen has no need for one? What makes it inappropriate for the average citizen?

[msnbcmedia.msn.com image 620x362]
has an opinion on this

And what is that opinion?


he's not in favor of us civilians having them as - & i'm not quoting, but you can look up 'the daily show' from 5 or 6 days ago - they are designed exclusively for hunting PEOPLE & it is excess.

his opinion

i'm unsure how much i agree with it or not
 
2013-01-16 05:05:53 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-16 05:08:52 PM  

Trapper439: CeroX: If the pipe bombs in columbine didn't go off, it's because they had no idea what they were doing... it's not like you need semtex to make something go boom... they just sucked at it...

Yes, they sucked at making bombs. Ergo, the ridiculous argument that "they could have killed more people with weapons other than guns" is pure and unadulterated bullshiat. They took the easiest path because they sucked at making bombs.

And the easiest path is firearms. Point. Shoot. It's not difficult in any way.

Again, if firearms aren't the easiest option for killing people then why does the military even bother to use them?


Their ease of use is their greatest strength as well as their greatest weakness. The duality of existence. Go figure.
 
2013-01-16 05:10:45 PM  

inner ted: they are designed exclusively for hunting PEOPLE


Now, I won't deny that's the original intent for the platform (it did originate in the military after all), but you really can't say that's true for its modern decedents. You want to know why the AR platform is so damn popular? It's because it's so damn versatile. I keep saying 'platform' because that's what it is at this point, it's not just a single gun, it's a base to build all sorts of guns for all sorts of purposes. The features that makes it so good for the military are what makes it so attractive for civilians, and despite what you've been told on the news those features go way beyond just killing people. Also despite what you may have heard, the guns used by the military aren't the same guns available to civilians. They share many features, yes, but the civilian models are missing some major ones. It's like saying the HMMWV and the Hummer are the same vehicle. The share the same origin, they still look similar, but they aren't the same truck.
 
2013-01-16 05:33:58 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: inner ted: they are designed exclusively for hunting PEOPLE

Now, I won't deny that's the original intent for the platform (it did originate in the military after all), but you really can't say that's true for its modern decedents. You want to know why the AR platform is so damn popular? It's because it's so damn versatile. I keep saying 'platform' because that's what it is at this point, it's not just a single gun, it's a base to build all sorts of guns for all sorts of purposes. The features that makes it so good for the military are what makes it so attractive for civilians, and despite what you've been told on the news those features go way beyond just killing people. Also despite what you may have heard, the guns used by the military aren't the same guns available to civilians. They share many features, yes, but the civilian models are missing some major ones. It's like saying the HMMWV and the Hummer are the same vehicle. The share the same origin, they still look similar, but they aren't the same truck.


hmm

aside from the obvious difference of 3 round burst / full auto compared to the single shot for the public - i'm not aware of any difference - please elaborate.

and since you bring it up; what ARE the differences between the HMMWV & the first gen Hummers (not the h2 or h3) that were sold publicly ? engine size? bullet proof glass? diesel vs. gas?

i'm curious as to whether the retired general has heard your argument and what he thinks of it.
 
2013-01-16 05:39:26 PM  

Farce-Side: Again, you fail to realize that rather than shutter their factories and lay off employees, most arms manufacturers in the US would simply switch focus from the civilian market to the military market.


military markets are controlled, at least.

Farce-Side: Let's say you effectively shut down the small arms manufacturing business in the US, thus eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs from our economy. That's totally what we need right now in our country is more unemployment.


Wow dude.... translation: "Let's keep killing kids, because we don't want to risk damaging the economy." ... just. wow...

Farce-Side: Of course American citizens can pay more for guns, but if you eliminate that source of income, companies will diversify their market focus in order to maintain profits.


Jesus christ dude, take a farking economics class. the money they take in in the west gives them capital which they reinvest in development of other weapons. They're already selling the maximum number of guns that they can in the maximum number of places possible. They're not going to "shift over" to other markets that they just plumb forgot to exploit before. Their investment capital will shrink, and their companies will suffer, which is the only reason they spend so god-damn much money employing internet-trolls to schill the message boards with gun-nut bullshiat.

Farce-Side: My argument was never that I had a better solution to the problem of "mass-child-murder incidents".


soooooo.... you don't have any solution to offer, or are completely indifferent to watching 20 6-year-old children getting shot in the face. Good for you.

Farce-Side: The point remains, you're proposing a solution to a problem that isn't yours, although your proposal would affect the lives of millions of Americans

hmmmm.... the right to not-get-shot-and-die-a-violent-death on one side, and the right to shoot pieces of metal at high speed from otherwise useless machines. Yes, indeed, these are totally equally important needs, and I can completely see how you assign equal significance to each.

Farce-Side: My argument was that you, though infinitely wise and not at all biased, are neither qualified nor capable of making a convincing argument either way, as you have only a self-assumed "dog in the fight" so to speak.


and there we have it -your only branch to cling to.
Just for the moment, assuming that I don't have a "dog in the fight", tell me something: In North Korea right now there are concentration camps where hundreds of thousands of people are tortured and worked to death. This only affects North-Koreans though, so that means that you're not allowed to have any opinion whatsoever on the morality of this practice, right? since it's not your country and not your problem. You're obligated to maintain complete neutral indifference to this issue since it's not your country? bullshiat. It's abjectly immoral, and any place where human beings are being harmed by immoral practices, other human beings have not just a right, but an obligation to speak out against it. The fact that you're trying to hide behind the whole "this is an internal issue" track just shows how frail and baseless your whole rationalization for your current gun laws is.

But as it turns out, in fact, I do have a "dog in the fight". The overwhelming majority of gun crimes committed in my country are the result of your country's gun policies. So ditch the ad hominem track, that "dog" don't hunt.
 
2013-01-16 06:10:14 PM  

inner ted: aside from the obvious difference of 3 round burst / full auto compared to the single shot for the public - i'm not aware of any difference - please elaborate.


Those are the big ones, and they are not minor differences. The specs for the parts aren't the same, you can find parts that are well below millspec, and well above. You have a much difference range of stuff to hang on them, and again, even when the parts look the same, they probably aren't. Barrels are a big difference, in the military you won't find nearly the range of calibers you can get as a civilian. Again, that's mostly because civilians tend to not use them for killing people, and the myriad of other uses call for different parts.

inner ted: and since you bring it up; what ARE the differences between the HMMWV & the first gen Hummers (not the h2 or h3) that were sold publicly ? engine size? bullet proof glass? diesel vs. gas?


I don't remember the exact specs, I know the originals did differ. But that argument completely bypasses the point I was making, which was the modern incarnations only bear a striking resemblance to 1) the original and 2) the modern military version. They may have started out the same, but they definitely branched off and are no longer so.


I'll repeat my original point here: The modern incarnation of the civilian AR platform is NOT designed exclusively for killing people, and the biggest reason it still resembles it's military counterpart is that it happens to be a very versatile design that works well for many different applications.

I would go so far as to say that you really could make the platform its own sub-category of guns, splitting it off from rifles. I don't see that happening, but a guy could make a reasonable argument for doing so.
 
2013-01-16 06:11:03 PM  

cassanovascotian: soooooo.... you don't have any solution to offer, or are completely indifferent to watching 20 6-year-old children getting shot in the face.


Ah, the modern "Liberal."

"If you disagree with me, you're a troll / you're a paid shill / you're a Nazi / you're a racist / you enjoy children's deaths / etc."

Intellectually bankrupt and fueled by mind-numbing emotion.

I wonder if you're the type who shamelessly injects sentiment into politics in hopes of manipulating morons, or if you're one of the people who get sucked right in by those tactics.
 
2013-01-16 06:24:50 PM  

BigNumber12: cassanovascotian: soooooo.... you don't have any solution to offer, or are completely indifferent to watching 20 6-year-old children getting shot in the face.

Ah, the modern "Liberal."

"If you disagree with me are able to watch a news story about 20 six-year-old children getting murdered, and not feel any desire to change the available set of laws to prevent it from happening again, you're a troll / you're a paid shill / you're a Nazi / you're a racist / you enjoy children's deaths / etc callous POS."


FTFY.... but yeah, that's pretty much the gist of it. Want me to quote your argument?

"I work to maintain a woefully unethical status quo, and if you expose how horribly immoral my principles are, I'm going to feel insecure about it, and then accuse you of being self-righteous, because I don't like accepting the idea that I'm a farking awful human being."

/Just because I think I'm better than you doesn't mean that I'm all that great. I think I'm about average as far as human beings go. being better than you aint a very high bar.
 
2013-01-16 06:25:14 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: I said it wasn't a gut feeling, it's a truth. There is even evidence to back it up (Australia, UK). you're the dumbass who tried to change the meaning of what *I* said.


How is the UK evidence? Their gun homicide rate has doubled since their ban, and they have the highest rate of violent crime in Europe.
 
2013-01-16 06:28:41 PM  

Divinegrace: Why do mass shootings always happen in "Gun Free Zones". Want to stop mass shootings, BAN GUN FREE ZONES.


They don't. Columbine had an armed guard and Virginia Tech has its own police force.
 
2013-01-16 06:34:15 PM  

fusillade762: Divinegrace: Why do mass shootings always happen in "Gun Free Zones". Want to stop mass shootings, BAN GUN FREE ZONES.

They don't. Columbine had an armed guard and Virginia Tech has its own police force.


They were still 'gun free zones' by the common definition, which makes exceptions for authorized people.
 
2013-01-16 06:47:52 PM  

cassanovascotian: "If you disagree with me are able to watch a news story about 20 six-year-old children getting murdered, and not feel any desire to change the available set of laws to prevent it from happening again, you're a troll / you're a paid shill / you're a Nazi / you're a racist / you enjoy children's deaths / etc callous POS."

FTFY.... but yeah, that's pretty much the gist of it. Want me to quote your argument?

"I work to maintain a woefully unethical status quo, and if you expose how horribly immoral my principles are, I'm going to feel insecure about it, and then accuse you of being self-righteous, because I don't like accepting the idea that I'm a farking awful human being."

/Just because I think I'm better than you doesn't mean that I'm all that great. I think I'm about average as far as human beings go. being better than you aint a very high bar.



So, continuing to hose the discussion down with emotion and use "if you're against my arbitrary standards for gun control then you love dead babies" arguments, and feeling enlightened, righteous, and superior because you're outlawing something. I understand you pretty well now.
 
2013-01-16 07:11:18 PM  

cassanovascotian: "If you disagree with me are able to watch a news story about 20 six-year-old children getting murdered, and not feel any desire to change the available set of laws to prevent it from happening again, you're a troll / you're a paid shill / you're a Nazi / you're a racist / you enjoy children's deaths / etc callous POS."



People exactly like you, and probably you, used exactly this same logic to cheer on post-9/11 security legislation as well, because "Think of the victims!" and "Never again!" Thanks again for relying on your emotions when deciding whether or not to support legislation that removes our rights and liberties - we've all enjoyed the security theater.
 
2013-01-16 07:21:40 PM  

BigNumber12: So, continuing to hose the discussion down with emotion


If the murder of 6 year old children doesn't evoke any kind of emotional response from you, then you're a sad, hollow shell of a human being, and I feel sorry for your empty cynical existence, but I'm still going to do my best to prevent you from farking up the world for the rest of us who are capable of basic human emotions like empathy.
 
2013-01-16 07:22:11 PM  

BigNumber12: So, continuing to hose the discussion down with emotion and use "if you're against my arbitrary standards for gun control then you love dead babies" arguments, and feeling enlightened, righteous, and superior because you're outlawing something. I understand you pretty well now.


oh come on, who DOESN'T love dead babies?

"don't keep dead babies all on the shelf
no no no no
don't keep dead babies all to your self
spread the super flavour of deeeaaad babies!
spread the super flavour around!"

there sure are some wing nuts around here ...
 
2013-01-16 07:29:08 PM  

cassanovascotian: If the murder of 6 year old children doesn't evoke any kind of emotional response from you


Who said it didn't? The problem is letting those emotions override reason when it comes to crafting laws.
 
2013-01-16 08:08:03 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: cassanovascotian: If the murder of 6 year old children doesn't evoke any kind of emotional response from you

Who said it didn't? The problem is letting those emotions override reason when it comes to crafting laws.



Beat me to it. The frustrating thing is that he doesn't see why that's a problem. Tragedy warrants impulsive and sweeping response that's hard as hell to ever overturn. Never heard of the PATRIOT Act, I guess.
 
2013-01-16 09:36:40 PM  

ElQue: The average citizen has no need for an assault rifle.

average citizen needs an assault rifle to effectively kill marines.
 
2013-01-16 10:35:05 PM  

inner ted: Mock26: inner ted: Mock26: ElQue: The average citizen has no need for an assault rifle.

Assuming that you are talking about a military style semi-automatic rifle, why not? What is different about this firearm that makes you say that the average citizen has no need for one? What makes it inappropriate for the average citizen?

[msnbcmedia.msn.com image 620x362]
has an opinion on this

And what is that opinion?

he's not in favor of us civilians having them as - & i'm not quoting, but you can look up 'the daily show' from 5 or 6 days ago - they are designed exclusively for hunting PEOPLE & it is excess.

his opinion

i'm unsure how much i agree with it or not


But once again, what is different about this firearm that makes you say that the average citizen has no need for one? What makes it inappropriate for the average citizen? As for semi-automatic civilian models of military rifles, they are not designed exclusively for hunting people. Or rather, they are no more designed for hunting people than is any civilian rifle. Just because it looks like a military rifle does not make it one. That is like saying that anyone who wears camouflage is a soldier or a hunter.
 
2013-01-16 10:36:10 PM  

ElQue: The average citizen has no need for an assault rifle.


A military style semi-automatic rifle is NOT an assault rifle.
 
2013-01-16 11:24:26 PM  

cassanovascotian: Mock26: Cpl.D: Stricter control of guns would make a dent in the number of slaughters we've been seeing lately. I'm sure of this.

Evidence, please.

gladly.

Now answer me a question: how much evidence to you actually need to admit that you're wrong?



I have read that report, and guess what? They did NOT track any connection between those legally owned firearms and whether or not they were used to commit homicide. The two data sets they used (gun ownership and homicide) were two completely SEPARATE data sets!

Also, from the very web page that you linked to, "The authors are careful as to what conclusions they can draw from this work. They stress that this work does not establish a "causal relationship between guns and homicide", stating that this could be a case of "reverse causation"-that there are a higher number of households with guns because of an already high homicide rate."

Because it bears repeating, "this work does not establish a "causal relationship between guns and homicide...""

Care to comment on this?
 
2013-01-16 11:54:05 PM  

Mock26: ElQue: The average citizen has no need for an assault rifle.

A military style semi-automatic rifle is NOT an assault rifle.


ahhh the ol' "semantic" cliche fail is successful fail...

the "full auto, semi auto and single shot small penis argument"...right on...

it makes zero difference except to gun nuts and gun victims for obvious and different reasons...
 
2013-01-17 12:03:35 AM  

Haliburton Cummings: Mock26: ElQue: The average citizen has no need for an assault rifle.

A military style semi-automatic rifle is NOT an assault rifle.

ahhh the ol' "semantic" cliche fail is successful fail...

the "full auto, semi auto and single shot small penis argument"...right on...

it makes zero difference except to gun nuts and gun victims for obvious and different reasons...


Care to elaborate on how it makes zero difference? What makes a military style semi-automatic rifle deadlier and more dangerous than a civilian style semi-automatic rifle? You claim that there is a difference, so please enlighten us. How exactly is a civilian model AR-15 deadlier than a Winchester?
 
2013-01-17 07:47:09 AM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: cassanovascotian: If the murder of 6 year old children doesn't evoke any kind of emotional response from you

Who said it didn't?


The fact that you are making absolutely no effort to try to change the existing conditions to prevent it from happening again. Cuz I don't know about you, but personally, if I see something really horrible happen that disturbs me on an emotional level, and if I knew that the exact same thing could very well happen again, I would feel just a little bit motivated to try to do something to prevent said horrible incident from happening again.

You guys are not, which leads me to believe that you don't really give a shiat.
 
2013-01-17 07:57:33 AM  

Mock26: Because it bears repeating, "this work does not establish a "causal relationship between guns and homicide...""

Care to comment on this?


You've obviously not read many science papers. When the authors say "this work does not establish that X causes Y", they're not precluding "X causes Y", they're simply insulating themselves from any possible criticism that they're overreaching. They're presenting the objective indisputable facts in the paper, and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions.

if X=gun ownership and Y=gun violence, they've established unambiguous correlation between X and Y and have left it up to the reader to decide what's most plausible: either X causes Y, or Y causes X, or something else entirely is causing both X and Y simultaneously.

Notice how they refer to "Y causes X" as "reverse causation" -i.e. the opposite of what obviously makes the most farking sense?
 
2013-01-17 08:24:01 AM  

BigNumber12: Noticeably F.A.T.: cassanovascotian: If the murder of 6 year old children doesn't evoke any kind of emotional response from you

Who said it didn't? The problem is letting those emotions override reason when it comes to crafting laws.


Beat me to it. The frustrating thing is that he doesn't see why that's a problem. Tragedy warrants impulsive and sweeping response that's hard as hell to ever overturn. Never heard of the PATRIOT Act, I guess.


ok asshole, why don't you explain to me what reasoned, rational non-impulsive solution you've got in mind to try to prevent another Newton massacre from occuring. Don't have one do you? in fact, you aren't even interested in proposing a solution are you? well then I will return to my previously held opinion that you are a collosal douche who is completely callous and indifferent to watching 6 year-old-kids getting murdered.
 
2013-01-17 10:02:42 AM  

cassanovascotian: The fact that you are making absolutely no effort to try to change the existing conditions to prevent it from happening again.


Neither are you. Doing things that cannot possibly help, well, isn't helping. At best you're effectively doing nothing, at worst you're making things worse. So far, none of the proposed gun laws would have stopped a single kid from being killed at Sandy Hook. They look really good on paper and on TV, but kids would have still died. So tell me, O Empathetic One, how is putting unhelpful laws in place better than doing nothing at all?
 
2013-01-17 11:01:29 AM  

Mock26: inner ted: Mock26: inner ted: Mock26: ElQue: The average citizen has no need for an assault rifle.

Assuming that you are talking about a military style semi-automatic rifle, why not? What is different about this firearm that makes you say that the average citizen has no need for one? What makes it inappropriate for the average citizen?

[msnbcmedia.msn.com image 620x362]
has an opinion on this

And what is that opinion?

he's not in favor of us civilians having them as - & i'm not quoting, but you can look up 'the daily show' from 5 or 6 days ago - they are designed exclusively for hunting PEOPLE & it is excess.

his opinion

i'm unsure how much i agree with it or not

But once again, what is different about this firearm that makes you say that the average citizen has no need for one? What makes it inappropriate for the average citizen? As for semi-automatic civilian models of military rifles, they are not designed exclusively for hunting people. Or rather, they are no more designed for hunting people than is any civilian rifle. Just because it looks like a military rifle does not make it one. That is like saying that anyone who wears camouflage is a soldier or a hunter.


Noticeably F.A.T.: inner ted: aside from the obvious difference of 3 round burst / full auto compared to the single shot for the public - i'm not aware of any difference - please elaborate.

Those are the big ones, and they are not minor differences. The specs for the parts aren't the same, you can find parts that are well below millspec, and well above. You have a much difference range of stuff to hang on them, and again, even when the parts look the same, they probably aren't. Barrels are a big difference, in the military you won't find nearly the range of calibers you can get as a civilian. Again, that's mostly because civilians tend to not use them for killing people, and the myriad of other uses call for different parts.

inner ted: and since you bring it up; what ARE the differences between the HMMWV & the first gen Hummers (not the h2 or h3) that were sold publicly ? engine size? bullet proof glass? diesel vs. gas?

I don't remember the exact specs, I know the originals did differ. But that argument completely bypasses the point I was making, which was the modern incarnations only bear a striking resemblance to 1) the original and 2) the modern military version. They may have started out the same, but they definitely branched off and are no longer so.


I'll repeat my original point here: The modern incarnation of the civilian AR platform is NOT designed exclusively for killing people, and the biggest reason it still resembles it's military counterpart is that it happens to be a very versatile design that works well for many different applications.

I would go so far as to say that you really could make the platform its own sub-category of guns, splitting it off from rifles. I don't see that happening, but a guy could make a reasonable argument for doing so.


seeing the arguments presented here in favor of keeping things "as is" have done little to convince me that the retired general is wrong.

trying to convince me that a high powered, semi auto rifle with a high capacity magazine is anything other than a military weapon designed for warfare is frankly, pathetic.

"oh oh, but it's for plinking wild hogs" or some such manure - great! so are many other rifles or pistols or bows or spears if you try hard enough. but that's it isn't it? you don't want to be that great of an actual game hunter.

no... you want to get all dolled up in your camo and run about with the rifle with the "scary looking black plastic bits" with a 100 round drum canister while pretending that the pig is a terrorist.

so let's be genuine about this for a moment, shall we?

it's not the caliber - there are far larger caliber hunting rifles out there

it's not the "scary black plastic" - again, there are plenty of hunting rifles adorned in black plastic

rate of fire has already been regulated to single shot

you can still hang any manner of lasers and red dot sights with folding stocks and pistol grips

so what does that leave?????????

the capacity of the magazine.

pretty farking simple

this is of course where you will assure me that you can swap a magazine in the blink of an eye.

which is where i reiterate that you probably have trained for hours upon hours to be that proficient & even then, i doubt you would be that quick in a combat situation unless you are a combat vet.

let alone some dipshiat who happens to get his hands on one - making this person have to stop and reload as often as possible is a good thing.
 
2013-01-17 11:48:32 AM  
All you need do is GO TO A GUN SHOW.
Go rent a gud and do some range time.
Instead of spouting derp you heard somewhere that you decided to believe, go educate yourself.

Oh, I see, that is the LAST FARKIN' thing you will evar do.
 
2013-01-17 11:55:24 AM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: cassanovascotian: The fact that you are making absolutely no effort to try to change the existing conditions to prevent it from happening again.

Neither are you. Doing things that cannot possibly help, well, isn't helping. At best you're effectively doing nothing, at worst you're making things worse. So far, none of the proposed gun laws would have stopped a single kid from being killed at Sandy Hook. They look really good on paper and on TV, but kids would have still died. So tell me, O Empathetic One, how is putting unhelpful laws in place better than doing nothing at all?


You can dig yourself into denial if you want. You can try to pretend that gun-ownership rates aren't related to gun crimes, and you can try to pretend that American gun culture and the easy availability of guns isn't the cause of the relentless torrent of senseless murder and violence that you see on the news everyday, but I prefer to live in the world of empirical facts and evidence. The world in which easy availability of guns does, in fact, lead to greater gun violence. The world of reality.

There's really nothing more to be said between us. It would be nice if we could live in the same world and have an honest, candid conversation. It would be nice if we could have some faith in each-other's good intentions. But that just aint how things are, and so all we can do is divide things out into "my side" and "your side", and then fight it out and see who wins. But what are we fighting for? I'm fighting to try to prevent situations in which dozens of innocent people are senselessly murdered everyday, and you're fighting for the right to launch pieces of metal at high speeds out of useless machines. Just stop for a minute and ask yourself if it's really worth it.

/I know you're just going to dig further into the denial trench... go for it.
//Sad thing is, I'm aware that your side is probably gonna win this one.
 
2013-01-17 12:35:44 PM  

cassanovascotian: Mock26: Because it bears repeating, "this work does not establish a "causal relationship between guns and homicide...""

Care to comment on this?

You've obviously not read many science papers. When the authors say "this work does not establish that X causes Y", they're not precluding "X causes Y", they're simply insulating themselves from any possible criticism that they're overreaching. They're presenting the objective indisputable facts in the paper, and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions.

if X=gun ownership and Y=gun violence, they've established unambiguous correlation between X and Y and have left it up to the reader to decide what's most plausible: either X causes Y, or Y causes X, or something else entirely is causing both X and Y simultaneously.

Notice how they refer to "Y causes X" as "reverse causation" -i.e. the opposite of what obviously makes the most farking sense?


Then explain Chicago and Washington DC and all the other places that have very low numbers of guns and high firearm homicide rates.
 
2013-01-17 02:07:03 PM  

cassanovascotian: ok asshole


If you're getting upset, we can stop.

cassanovascotian: ok asshole, why don't you explain to me what reasoned, rational non-impulsive solution you've got in mind to try to prevent another Newton massacre from occuring. Don't have one do you? in fact, you aren't even interested in proposing a solution are you?


Better access to mental health care, better police funding to improve response times. Aside from that, and short of confiscating all American guns or creating prison-esque schools, there really isn't shiat you can do about someone killing a gun-owner, stealing some pistols, and shooting up a school.

cassanovascotian: well then I will return to my previously held opinion that you are a collosal douche who is completely callous and indifferent to watching 6 year-old-kids getting murdered.


And I'll assume that you're a teary-eyed, easily-manipulated, emotional wreck who thinks that the occasional tragedy justifies poorly-reasoned, feel-good, sweeping legislation that continues to erode American rights and liberties, things that are pretty farking tough to get back once given up. Stripping Constitutional Rights from 99.999% of law-abiding citizens for the crimes of 0.001%. Patriot Act. Thanks again.
And I'll bet that my assumption is a lot closer to the truth.
 
2013-01-17 02:17:43 PM  

BigNumber12: Better access to mental health care

,
riiiiight... cuz we all know how the same people who advocate gun-rights are HUGE supporters of socialized public health care.


BigNumber12: better police funding to improve response times.


and the only thing you gun nuts love even more than public-subsidized health care is more government spending.
You are so full of shiat it stinks from here.
 
2013-01-17 03:25:09 PM  

cassanovascotian: riiiiight... cuz we all know how the same people who advocate gun-rights are HUGE supporters of socialized public health care.


Do you want my opinion or not? It's a lot more likely than "take all the guns away!!!"

cassanovascotian: and the only thing you gun nuts love even more than public-subsidized health care is more government spending.
You are so full of shiat it stinks from here.


You don't seem to be interested in discussion. I'll let you get back to weeping over your basement shrine to The Victims.
 
2013-01-17 04:47:35 PM  

cassanovascotian: There's really nothing more to be said between us


I guess not. Have a good one.
 
2013-01-17 06:12:11 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: cassanovascotian: There's really nothing more to be said between us

I guess not. Have a good one.



yet we aren't quite done - i look forward to your response
 
2013-01-17 06:28:14 PM  

inner ted: yet we aren't quite done


I am.
 
2013-01-17 11:13:17 PM  

cassanovascotian: Mock26: Because it bears repeating, "this work does not establish a "causal relationship between guns and homicide...""

Care to comment on this?

You've obviously not read many science papers. When the authors say "this work does not establish that X causes Y", they're not precluding "X causes Y", they're simply insulating themselves from any possible criticism that they're overreaching. They're presenting the objective indisputable facts in the paper, and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions.

if X=gun ownership and Y=gun violence, they've established unambiguous correlation between X and Y and have left it up to the reader to decide what's most plausible: either X causes Y, or Y causes X, or something else entirely is causing both X and Y simultaneously.

Notice how they refer to "Y causes X" as "reverse causation" -i.e. the opposite of what obviously makes the most farking sense?


No. They have established no such correlation. They even say that they have made no such correlation. Not sure what part of that is so hard for you to understand.
 
2013-01-18 04:42:08 AM  

Mock26: cassanovascotian: Mock26: Because it bears repeating, "this work does not establish a "causal relationship between guns and homicide...""

Care to comment on this?

You've obviously not read many science papers. When the authors say "this work does not establish that X causes Y", they're not precluding "X causes Y", they're simply insulating themselves from any possible criticism that they're overreaching. They're presenting the objective indisputable facts in the paper, and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions.

if X=gun ownership and Y=gun violence, they've established unambiguous correlation between X and Y and have left it up to the reader to decide what's most plausible: either X causes Y, or Y causes X, or something else entirely is causing both X and Y simultaneously.

Notice how they refer to "Y causes X" as "reverse causation" -i.e. the opposite of what obviously makes the most farking sense?

No. They have established no such correlation. They even say that they have made no such correlation. Not sure what part of that is so hard for you to understand.


Mock26: You will never win with this person, he has the stench of 'subject' about him..
check this out.. Link  Pretty good video with some very salient points..
 
2013-01-18 07:35:36 AM  

The Iron duke: Mock26: You will never win with this person, he has the stench of 'subject' about him..


Unfortunately, it does seem as though there will never be enough common-ground between us to have any kind of conversation about this issue.
Sad really, but I guess it's back being enemies and hating each other. I'd really rather not, but if it comes down to having vitriolic animosity in public discourse and letting you guys continue to flood the street with guns, or having kids getting senselessly murdered by crazed-gunmen while we get along nicely with each other, I'll opt for the former.
 
2013-01-18 07:37:31 AM  

cassanovascotian: The Iron duke: Mock26: You will never win with this person, he has the stench of 'subject' about him..

Unfortunately, it does seem as though there will never be enough common-ground between us to have any kind of conversation about this issue.
Sad really, but I guess it's back being enemies and hating each other. I'd really rather not, but if it comes down to having vitriolic animosity in public discourse and letting preventing you guys from flooding the street with guns, or having kids getting senselessly murdered by crazed-gunmen while we get along nicely with each other, I'll opt for the former.


meshed two sentences while retyping mid-post. Fixed.
 
2013-01-18 10:23:46 AM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: inner ted: yet we aren't quite done

I am.


well it's good to know when to throw in the towel. i applaud that rather than continuing to hold onto a bad idea.
 
2013-01-18 02:01:20 PM  

BigNumber12: cassanovascotian: riiiiight... cuz we all know how the same people who advocate gun-rights are HUGE supporters of socialized public health care.

Do you want my opinion or not? It's a lot more likely than "take all the guns away!!!"

cassanovascotian: and the only thing you gun nuts love even more than public-subsidized health care is more government spending.
You are so full of shiat it stinks from here.

You don't seem to be interested in discussion. I'll let you get back to weeping over your basement shrine to The Victims.


This is the point where we show "victims" how to leave that all behind?
No, it is better to wallow in the remorse and demand our sociopath political shills do what cannot be done.
'Cause we are scared and refuse to learn to defend ourselves.
 
HBK
2013-01-19 04:00:08 AM  

Haliburton Cummings: HBK: Haliburton Cummings: SMALL PENIS THREAD IS SUCCESSFUL THREAD!!!

Somebody likes something I don't like. So they must have a small penis.

Are you in second grade or just stupid?

i'm sorry...you have taken offence because you have a very tiny teeny penis...

i should be a little more considerate of those "less fortunate".

please feel free to rebut with fark memes and cliches though...

i have some tweezers and a microscope from an old science project..just drop your address in here and i will UPS them so you can have at yourself...

sadly, i don't own any protein welded copies of guns and ammo to send your way or i would send you a stack.

but hang out here long enough, someone might fill your wishlist.

just remember, you aren't disabled, you are enabled...

big winkie emoticon goes here...

sprinkles!


So, both then.
 
Displayed 244 of 244 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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