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 77
    More: Hero, United States, Las Vegas, National Shooting Sports Foundation, shooting sports, guns  
•       •       •

8886 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jan 2013 at 2:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
2013-01-16 02:45:20 AM
5 votes:
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?
2013-01-16 02:47:46 AM
3 votes:
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 02:38:28 AM
3 votes:
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 02:08:51 AM
3 votes:
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 12:13:27 AM
3 votes:
Gotta be careful with claims like that. You could get sued for false advertising.

m5.paperblog.com
2013-01-16 06:25:14 PM
2 votes:

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 03:20:20 PM
2 votes:

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 11:32:21 AM
2 votes:

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 11:24:19 AM
2 votes:

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


fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net
2013-01-16 09:23:04 AM
2 votes:
sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net
2013-01-16 08:59:24 AM
2 votes:

msupf: CCW's pretty much disappear.


Than you for admitting that you are unreasonable.
2013-01-16 08:29:13 AM
2 votes:

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 07:40:24 AM
2 votes:
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?
HBK
2013-01-16 05:30:14 AM
2 votes:

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 04:26:36 AM
2 votes:

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.
2013-01-16 03:56:04 AM
2 votes:

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 03:32:34 AM
2 votes:
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 03:13:50 AM
2 votes:

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


None you retard.
2013-01-16 03:09:18 AM
2 votes:
People who own guns should have to pay liability insurance on them
2013-01-16 12:35:06 AM
2 votes:
A gun show guy looks into the mirror of his mind:

www.frontaalnaakt.nl
2013-01-17 12:03:35 AM
1 votes:

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?
2013-01-16 11:54:05 PM
1 votes:

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...
2013-01-16 11:24:26 PM
1 votes:

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 10:36:10 PM
1 votes:

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 10:35:05 PM
1 votes:

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 07:29:08 PM
1 votes:

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 07:21:40 PM
1 votes:

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 07:11:18 PM
1 votes:

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 06:34:15 PM
1 votes:

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 06:11:03 PM
1 votes:

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 05:10:45 PM
1 votes:

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 03:30:48 PM
1 votes:

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 01:51:48 PM
1 votes:

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.
HBK
2013-01-16 01:07:36 PM
1 votes:

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 12:57:18 PM
1 votes:
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 12:50:53 PM
1 votes:
SMALL PENIS THREAD IS SUCCESSFUL THREAD!!!


i.imgur.com
2013-01-16 12:43:16 PM
1 votes:

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 12:25:57 PM
1 votes:

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 11:55:36 AM
1 votes:
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 11:38:44 AM
1 votes:

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 11:26:45 AM
1 votes:

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 11:16:33 AM
1 votes:
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
2013-01-16 11:01:00 AM
1 votes:

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 10:40:37 AM
1 votes:

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 10:28:56 AM
1 votes:

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 10:28:51 AM
1 votes:

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 10:22:04 AM
1 votes:

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 09:21:08 AM
1 votes:
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 08:59:13 AM
1 votes:

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 08:57:18 AM
1 votes:

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 08:40:40 AM
1 votes:

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 08:07:01 AM
1 votes:
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 07:53:53 AM
1 votes:

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 07:49:00 AM
1 votes:
Oh and per the original article.

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

Completely different.
2013-01-16 07:27:34 AM
1 votes:
kara.allthingsd.com
2013-01-16 05:58:28 AM
1 votes:

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 05:46:22 AM
1 votes:

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 05:36:26 AM
1 votes:

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 05:31:53 AM
1 votes:

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 05:26:46 AM
1 votes:

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 05:07:01 AM
1 votes:
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 05:04:42 AM
1 votes:

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 05:03:51 AM
1 votes:

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 05:00:15 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-16 04:19:41 AM
1 votes:

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 03:47:04 AM
1 votes:
Technically it is a gun trade show, not a gun show where you go and buy guns.
2013-01-16 03:23:12 AM
1 votes:

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 03:20:08 AM
1 votes:

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 03:12:16 AM
1 votes:

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 03:06:50 AM
1 votes:

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 03:05:03 AM
1 votes:

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


0
2013-01-16 03:04:13 AM
1 votes:

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 02:48:53 AM
1 votes:
Umm... You guys are farking nuts. Completely loony. Bongos.
2013-01-16 02:46:05 AM
1 votes:
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 01:52:54 AM
1 votes:

cretinbob: tiniest.penis.evar


You should see a doctor.
2013-01-16 01:38:02 AM
1 votes:
tiniest.penis.evar
2013-01-16 12:32:55 AM
1 votes:
 
Displayed 77 of 77 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report