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.

(KOB4)   The Guns Keep Us Safe Tour 2013 keeps chugging along with a stop in New Mexico where five people, including three children, were shot dead by a 15 year old boy   (kob.com) divider line 1330
    More: Sad, New Mexico  
•       •       •

14496 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jan 2013 at 5:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1330 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-20 01:24:23 PM
If only those children had played more Black Ops and were armed, they would still be here today.
 
2013-01-20 01:44:02 PM
What's an "assault type rifle"?
 
2013-01-20 01:52:39 PM

queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?


From dictionary.com:

assault riflenoun1.a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomati c fire,utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.2.a nonmilitary weapo n modeled on the military assault rifle,usually modified to allow only  semiautomatic fire.Origin:
1970-75

Any other questions?
 
2013-01-20 02:13:11 PM

cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

From dictionary.com:

assault riflenoun1.a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomati c fire,utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.2.a nonmilitary weapo n modeled on the military assault rifle,usually modified to allow only  semiautomatic fire.Origin:
1970-75

Any other questions?


When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-20 02:30:27 PM

queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?


There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-20 02:51:15 PM
I'll bet they tried to make him eat vegetables.  Spinach is tyranny.
 
2013-01-20 02:54:53 PM
It seems we're overlooking the real problem here

/teenagers
 
2013-01-20 02:56:24 PM
Sort of like Pokemon... Except you have to kill them all.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-20 03:01:23 PM
I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.
 
2013-01-20 03:02:06 PM
I just watched the latest episode of W Kamau Bell's show. Good show if you're a liberal. I laugh at most of it, but one thing he did was go on a poetic type rant where he said we should just have no guns at all.

And I agree with him...but only if EVERYBODY throws all their guns in the ocean, and all gun manufacturers dismantle their assembly lines, and we don't even keep "collector's items" in the slightest.

Since that won't ever ever ever ever happen, I say we all get a gun. No restrictions. If you have a pulse, you get a gun. Yes, somebody will shoot one of your loved ones. You'll have plenty of people to share your grief with and you'll get over it.
 
2013-01-20 03:05:30 PM

queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?


FWIW, this is how it was defined in H.R.3355: Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This was a set of definitions for semiautomatic assault weapons. I believe this was the version that was signed into law. You might have to ask Gov. Mitt Romney about how he defined in his Massachusetts ban:
==
(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--
`       (A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--
`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
`(iv) Colt AR-15;
`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
`(vii) Steyr AUG;
`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
`          (B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;
          `(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
`        (D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.

===
Personally, I would say that a grenade launcher automatically counts. But they didn't think so.
 
2013-01-20 03:11:02 PM

vpb: I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.


Well...  In the wrong hands, AR-15s are quite lethal.  I'm just thankful this kid didn't get his hands on a hammer.  Can you even begin to imagine the bloodbath had he found a hammer, or god forbid, the car keys?

Chilling to consider...  Absolutely chilling.

As it stands, YAY!  FIVE more reminders of the importance of our 2nd Amendment freedoms!
 
2013-01-20 03:15:56 PM

Vodka Zombie: I'm just thankful this kid didn't get his hands on a hammer. Can you even begin to imagine the bloodbath had he found a hammer,


i.imgur.com

R.I.P. MAXWELL'S SILVER HAMMER

 
2013-01-20 03:26:02 PM

jaylectricity: I just watched the latest episode of W Kamau Bell's show. Good show if you're a liberal.


He's farther left than I am, but mostly I enjoy the show. A good bit is hit-or-miss though.
 
2013-01-20 03:29:57 PM

vpb: I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.


That goes in the category of "shiat no one has ever said".
 
2013-01-20 03:34:28 PM

Zarquon's Flat Tire: A good bit is hit-or-miss though.


True of most comedy shows. I laugh a lot, especially the racial stuff. The thing about the n word in Brooklyn was hilarious.
 
2013-01-20 03:35:58 PM

vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.


There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.
 
2013-01-20 03:36:31 PM

Somacandra: Personally, I would say that a grenade launcher automatically counts. But they didn't think so.


The kind they're referring to are about the size of your thumb.  It's like a muzzle brake or flash suppressor.  Pop the grenade on the end, load a blank, and fire the grenade.

They're not exactly dangerous.  Well, unless you have rifle grenades.  I'd say the grenades are the dangerous part, not the piece of metal about the size of my finger with some holes in it.
 
2013-01-20 03:38:30 PM
*point*

*laf*
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-20 03:39:30 PM

violentsalvation: vpb: I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.

That goes in the category of "shiat no one has ever said".


Nope.  I people here on Fark have claimed that they are "safe and fun".

Maybe they were using some new definition of the word safe.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-20 03:40:24 PM

jaylectricity: I just watched the latest episode of W Kamau Bell's show. Good show if you're a liberal. I laugh at most of it, but one thing he did was go on a poetic type rant where he said we should just have no guns at all.

And I agree with him...but only if EVERYBODY throws all their guns in the ocean, and all gun manufacturers dismantle their assembly lines, and we don't even keep "collector's items" in the slightest.

Since that won't ever ever ever ever happen, I say we all get a gun. No restrictions. If you have a pulse, you get a gun. Yes, somebody will shoot one of your loved ones. You'll have plenty of people to share your grief with and you'll get over it.


You can just shoot them back!
 
2013-01-20 03:40:58 PM
img.meetone.com

A picture of said murderer.    This should be interesting.
 
2013-01-20 03:49:19 PM
I'm sure glad this still isn't a time to talk about guns and try to prevent these sorts of incidents.  Wouldn't want to infringe on the right of people to keep living now would we?
 
2013-01-20 03:49:51 PM

dameron: [img.meetone.com image 450x600]

A picture of said murderer.    This should be interesting.


The American flag used as a curtain is pretty much a tell-tale sign of bugfark, teabagger nationalism, but, who knows?

Like I said, I'm just glad this lunatic didn't get his hands on a hammer.
 
2013-01-20 03:50:30 PM
i.imgur.com
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-20 03:51:54 PM

give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.


Wrong.

A semi-automatic assault rifle is an assault rifle.  Do you think a selective fire rifle stops being an assault rifle when it is set to semi-auto?  In fact they are not that difficult to convert to full auto.  Just add the missing parts and any missing machining.

The argument based on the NRA's definition of assault rifle is one of the silliest I have ever heard.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-20 03:56:34 PM
There have been semi-automatic assault rifles made for military use too, assault rifles that were designed from the start as semi-auto assault rifles.

It just shows how silly the idea that "there is no such thing as a semi automatic assault rifle" is.
 
2013-01-20 04:02:23 PM

jbuist: Pop the grenade on the end, load a blank, and fire the grenade. They're not exactly dangerous. Well, unless you have rifle grenades. I'd say the grenades are the dangerous part

...

But if you can't fire the grenade without the grenade launcher, and the grenade launcher has no use other than firing a grenade, the logical move would be to restrict the launcher. Grenades themselves aren't semiautomatic weapons appropriate to this legislation--I'm sure those are covered instead under the "No You Can't Have Some Goddamn Grenades Act" passed after WWII.
 
2013-01-20 04:06:24 PM
Has there been a gun incident in the last 3 months that wasn't initially reported as someone carrying an AR15?
 
2013-01-20 04:06:34 PM

dameron: A picture of said murderer. This should be interesting.


Really? I'd like some official link or citation if possible. That doesn't look too much like a 15-yr old boy to me.

/And no, I will NOT have a seat over there.
 
2013-01-20 04:09:31 PM

Somacandra: jbuist: Pop the grenade on the end, load a blank, and fire the grenade. They're not exactly dangerous. Well, unless you have rifle grenades. I'd say the grenades are the dangerous part...

But if you can't fire the grenade without the grenade launcher, and the grenade launcher has no use other than firing a grenade, the logical move would be to restrict the launcher. Grenades themselves aren't semiautomatic weapons appropriate to this legislation--I'm sure those are covered instead under the "No You Can't Have Some Goddamn Grenades Act" passed after WWII.


This. We need more Acts named for what they really are.
 
2013-01-20 04:15:15 PM

Somacandra: Really? I'd like some official link or citation if possible


Well someone claiming to be Nehemiah Griego from Albuquerque uploaded that picture three weeks ago.    It's not like his name is John Smith or anything.
 
2013-01-20 04:17:51 PM

dameron: Somacandra: Really? I'd like some official link or citation if possible

Well someone claiming to be Nehemiah Griego from Albuquerque uploaded that picture three weeks ago.    It's not like his name is John Smith or anything.


Little kids in the background...
 
2013-01-20 04:23:52 PM

dameron: Nehemiah Griego


So...  Funny name?

Terrahismist trying to steal our freedoms and kill Jesus.
 
2013-01-20 04:26:23 PM
Oh yes, just add any parts or machining and make your seni automatic weapon into a machine gun.

That's not several felonies or anything.
 
2013-01-20 04:27:15 PM
http://cncnws.com/blog/2013/01/20/exclusive-boy-15-shoots-his-pastor- f ather-and-family-dead-with-military-style-assault-rifle-in-bloody-shoo ting-rampage/

It was his own family he shot.  Multiple guns in the house, everyone was armed so it was ok.  They should have been able to prevent it, right?

/I mean this is the argument right?
 
2013-01-20 04:27:54 PM

Somacandra: jbuist: Pop the grenade on the end, load a blank, and fire the grenade. They're not exactly dangerous. Well, unless you have rifle grenades. I'd say the grenades are the dangerous part...

But if you can't fire the grenade without the grenade launcher, and the grenade launcher has no use other than firing a grenade, the logical move would be to restrict the launcher. Grenades themselves aren't semiautomatic weapons appropriate to this legislation--I'm sure those are covered instead under the "No You Can't Have Some Goddamn Grenades Act" passed after WWII.


You can legally purchase grenades. I'm pretty certain the types that would be used in conjunction with the grenade launcher haven't been around for a very long time though and probably would fetch a very high price from military historical collector types.

For normal grenades, you need a NFA-specific background check, local sheriff/chief of police approval and a $200 tax per grenade.
 
2013-01-20 04:34:01 PM

Makh: http://cncnws.com/blog/2013/01/20/exclusive-boy-15-shoots-his-pastor- f ather-and-family-dead-with-military-style-assault-rifle-in-bloody-shoo ting-rampage/

It was his own family he shot.  Multiple guns in the house, everyone was armed so it was ok.  They should have been able to prevent it, right?

/I mean this is the argument right?


Actually, the argument is crazy people like this kid, are the problem. Guns are just a detail.
 
2013-01-20 04:38:44 PM

doglover: Actually, the argument is crazy people like this kid, are the problem. Guns are just a detail.


No, that and the crazy gun culture are what I am trying to say.  (That, and the NRA trying to profit off misinformation.)

From what I have heard, someone else with a gun can come in a prevent the murders.  Have guns, equals more safe.

Here is an example.   http://www.keepbusy.net/pic.php?id=2755
 
2013-01-20 04:38:51 PM
I prefer to be armed when confronted by a monster than to rely on harsh words and stern looks. If you don't want a gun it's easy don't buy one, control your actions concerning guns and I will control mine. I guess the latest generation views every life as precious, which is why abortion is so rare nowadays.
 
2013-01-20 04:39:47 PM

queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?


There is nothing more annoying than a gun grammar Nazi. Obviously, what you are trying to do is say that someone who is not an absolute expert in these guns does not deserve a voice in this debate. Don't be that asshole.
 
2013-01-20 04:40:48 PM

ekdikeo4: Has there been a gun incident in the last 3 months that wasn't initially reported as someone carrying an AR15 pitbull?

 
2013-01-20 04:41:07 PM

vpb: It just shows how silly the idea that "there is no such thing as a semi automatic assault rifle" is.


"NRA DURR!" Like Feinstein's definition is any better.

The real definition is basically: Scary looking subset of rifles used in disproportionately small percentage of gun crimes.

Of course articulating what you would ban and why, is impossible with that tidbit acknowledged.
 
2013-01-20 04:41:11 PM
He may be a student from the school where I work
 
2013-01-20 04:42:20 PM
Makh: It was his own family he shot. Multiple guns in the house, everyone was armed so it was ok. They should have been able to prevent it, right?

/I mean this is the argument right?


yes, that is the argument, so it will be interesting what the guntards come up with now.
 
2013-01-20 04:54:40 PM

give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.


False, I just posted the definition right up thread for you.
 
2013-01-20 04:57:17 PM
AR-15, the new AK-47.
 
2013-01-20 05:00:01 PM

cameroncrazy1984: give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.

False, I just posted the definition right up thread for you.


From dictionary.com? Really?

( T_T)\(^-^ ) Good jorb.
 
2013-01-20 05:01:17 PM
I see maxalt does not consider his own life as "precious" as that's some kind of limp wristed librul Gen X or whatever thing now.

[smiles nastily]
 
2013-01-20 05:08:52 PM

doglover: cameroncrazy1984: give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.

False, I just posted the definition right up thread for you.

From dictionary.com? Really?

( T_T)\(^-^ ) Good jorb.


Would you prefer Merriam-Webster?

Definition of  ASSAULT RIFLE: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

Congratulations, you still lose.
 
2013-01-20 05:09:06 PM

doglover: AR-15, the new AK-47.


XM-15.

Hey, here's an idea. Let's divert the discussion towards a nomenclature argument and avoid the real issue!
 
2013-01-20 05:14:02 PM

doglover: From dictionary.com? Really?

( T_T)\(^-^ ) Good jorb.


That's right.  I forgot about the inherent bias and/or inaccuracies in dictionaries.
 
2013-01-20 05:14:55 PM

cameroncrazy1984: doglover: cameroncrazy1984: give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.

False, I just posted the definition right up thread for you.

From dictionary.com? Really?

( T_T)\(^-^ ) Good jorb.

Would you prefer Merriam-Webster?

Definition of  ASSAULT RIFLE: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

Congratulations, you still lose.


I'm not the one quoting dictionary.com like it was a source.

And the AR--5 is not designed for military use, so by the Meriam-Webster version it is not an assault rifle.
 
2013-01-20 05:17:52 PM

vpb: give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.

Wrong.

A semi-automatic assault rifle is an assault rifle.  Do you think a selective fire rifle stops being an assault rifle when it is set to semi-auto?  In fact they are not that difficult to convert to full auto.  Just add the missing parts and any missing machining.

The argument based on the NRA's definition of assault rifle is one of the silliest I have ever heard.


Trying to assert your definition of "assault rifle" because you don't agree with reality is even sillier.
 
2013-01-20 05:18:57 PM

doglover: I'm not the one quoting dictionary.com like it was a source.


Yeah, Cameron.  How DARE you use a dictionary as a source for the definition of words n shiat.
 
2013-01-20 05:21:11 PM

vpb: give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.

Wrong.

A semi-automatic assault rifle is an assault rifle.  Do you think a selective fire rifle stops being an assault rifle when it is set to semi-auto?  In fact they are not that difficult to convert to full auto.  Just add the missing parts and any missing machining.

The argument based on the NRA's definition of assault rifle is one of the silliest I have ever heard.




You are so ignorant of the subject it's not even funny. Seriously, shut the fark up. My roommate's dog is more qualified to speak about this subject than you.
 
2013-01-20 05:21:27 PM

vpb: There have been semi-automatic assault rifles made for military use too, assault rifles that were designed from the start as semi-auto assault rifles.

It just shows how silly the idea that "there is no such thing as a semi automatic assault rifle" is.



That is a carbine, not an assault rifle.
 
2013-01-20 05:22:17 PM

doglover: I'm not the one quoting dictionary.com like it was a source.


Welp...so much for holding you up on that pedestal. I didn't think you were this stupid.
 
2013-01-20 05:23:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: doglover: I'm not the one quoting dictionary.com like it was a source.


Can I interest you both in a conservative dictionary?   http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Dictionary_Project

/I'm kidding. :p
 
2013-01-20 05:25:03 PM

Vodka Zombie: doglover: I'm not the one quoting dictionary.com like it was a source.

Yeah, Cameron.  How DARE you use a dictionary as a source for the definition of words n shiat.


Merriam-Webster is a respected publication with standards and history.

Dictionary.com is... well, dictionary.com.
 
2013-01-20 05:25:51 PM

Makh: cameroncrazy1984: doglover: I'm not the one quoting dictionary.com like it was a source.

Can I interest you both in a conservative dictionary?   http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Dictionary_Project

/I'm kidding. :p


Bwa ha ha ha.
 
2013-01-20 05:30:23 PM

doglover: Oh yes, just add any parts or machining and make your seni automatic weapon into a machine gun.

That's not several felonies or anything.


10 years, automatic.

/Federal time
 
2013-01-20 05:33:21 PM

doglover: Dictionary.com is... well, dictionary.com.


Dictionary.com gets their information from external sources.  The two definitions mentioned in this thread from dictionary.doc are from the 2013 edition of the Random House Dictionary and the 2009 Collins dictionary form HarperCollins.

So yeah, using dictionaries to define words and shiat.  How DARE he?

Plus you're confusing jargon with a lay term.   An "assault rifle" might mean one thing in military jargon and another thing to a layman.   Not knowing the jargon (or caring) doesn't invalidate anyone's opinion but it does make those people who rely on it to be pedantic seem like douchebags.
 
2013-01-20 05:35:41 PM

doglover: And the AR--5 is not designed for military use, so by the Meriam-Webster version it is not an assault rifle.



about that
 
2013-01-20 05:38:34 PM
What the world needs now is guns, more guns
they're the only thing that there's just too little of
What the world needs now is guns, more guns,
No not just for some but for everyone.

media.mlive.com
 
2013-01-20 05:47:15 PM

Somacandra: Personally, I would say that a grenade launcher automatically counts. But they didn't think so.


The grenade launcher thing is great, because it's a pretty easy way to tell whether people know what they're talking about or not.

Spot the grenade launcher:
 
2013-01-20 05:49:11 PM
WOOHOO! GUN THREAD!

/drink!
 
2013-01-20 05:49:13 PM

Fubini: Somacandra: Personally, I would say that a grenade launcher automatically counts. But they didn't think so.

The grenade launcher thing is great, because it's a pretty easy way to tell whether people know what they're talking about or not.

Spot the grenade launcher:


Woops.

Spot the grenade launcher:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-20 05:49:27 PM
♫This is my rifle. This is my gun. This is for fighting, and this is for fun♫

Now let's do the Clip vs Magazine argument...
 
2013-01-20 05:49:34 PM

Vodka Zombie: vpb: I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.

Well...  In the wrong hands, AR-15s are quite lethal.  I'm just thankful this kid didn't get his hands on a hammer.  Can you even begin to imagine the bloodbath had he found a hammer, or god forbid, the car keys?

Chilling to consider...  Absolutely chilling.

As it stands, YAY!  FIVE more reminders of the importance of our 2nd Amendment freedoms!


In another year, he would have been able to drive. Imagine what he could have done with a REAL weapon!
 
2013-01-20 05:49:57 PM

doglover: Vodka Zombie: doglover: I'm not the one quoting dictionary.com like it was a source.

Yeah, Cameron.  How DARE you use a dictionary as a source for the definition of words n shiat.

Merriam-Webster is a respected publication with standards and history.

Dictionary.com is... well, dictionary.com.


Just use the OED.  I'm sure that doesn't have the sick liebral bias that Dictionary.com has.
 
2013-01-20 05:50:11 PM
Hey Subby, it' OK to cry. Just let it out, Princess. Rant on a website, complain that Obama won't confiscate the guns FOR THE CHILDREN. There, there, does it feel better?

As long as you don't think your wailing amounts to more than a flea fart in a hurricane to Obama.

Suckers.
 
2013-01-20 05:50:13 PM
If only there had been a good fifteen year old with a gun to save everyone.

In a related matter, it appears I have become desensitized to kids getting murdered. I blame society. And by society, I mean the NRA.
 
2013-01-20 05:50:36 PM
Not that is how you troll. Good job subby and admins
 
2013-01-20 05:51:09 PM
Why isn't the media reporting on all the guns that haven't killed someone yet?
 
2013-01-20 05:51:30 PM

doglover: cameroncrazy1984: doglover: cameroncrazy1984: give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.

False, I just posted the definition right up thread for you.

From dictionary.com? Really?

( T_T)\(^-^ ) Good jorb.

Would you prefer Merriam-Webster?

Definition of  ASSAULT RIFLE: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

Congratulations, you still lose.

I'm not the one quoting dictionary.com like it was a source.

And the AR--5 is not designed for military use, so by the Meriam-Webster version it is not an assault rifle.


WTF?! The AR-5 was designed as an aircrew survival rifle for the United States Miliary. However, it's bolt action, not an assault rifle.

Fubini: Spot the grenade launcher:


SKS uses a muzzle launched rifle grenade, much like the M-1 Garand and M-14. The grenade slipped onto that muzzle break, and used a special cartridge to launch it.
 
2013-01-20 05:51:52 PM

dameron: [img.meetone.com image 450x600]

A picture of said murderer.    This should be interesting.


Is that one of his little victims in the background?
 
2013-01-20 05:52:18 PM
Over 9 people died in the past hour!!! From alcohol.. This is getting ridiculous. Do people not realize that in a country of 310,000,000 people this happens pretty much every day? How math illiterate do you have to be to be shocked by this? Just because the news doesn't tell you, doesn't mean it's not happening. Christ, if you people knew what was going on in Africa right now, you'd shiat yourselves.
 
2013-01-20 05:52:36 PM
Is anyone else sick of the damned gun threads? Even the foobies threads have guns nowadays!
 
2013-01-20 05:53:13 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Over 9 people died in the past hour!!! From alcohol.. This is getting ridiculous. Do people not realize that in a country of 310,000,000 people this happens pretty much every day? How math illiterate do you have to be to be shocked by this? Just because the news doesn't tell you, doesn't mean it's not happening. Christ, if you people knew what was going on in Africa right now, you'd shiat yourselves.


Thirld World, Poverty Stricken and Warlord filled Africa is not the United States, a First World Superpower.

Nice try with fallacious comparisons, though.
 
2013-01-20 05:53:27 PM
Someone who owns an AR-15 also tends to:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

/serious suggestions only, please
 
2013-01-20 05:53:33 PM

edmo: doglover: AR-15, the new AK-47.

XM-15.

Hey, here's an idea. Let's divert the discussion towards a nomenclature argument and avoid the real issue!


Isn't that pretty much how every gun thread on Fark ends up?
 
2013-01-20 05:54:35 PM

BronyMedic: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Over 9 people died in the past hour!!! From alcohol.. This is getting ridiculous. Do people not realize that in a country of 310,000,000 people this happens pretty much every day? How math illiterate do you have to be to be shocked by this? Just because the news doesn't tell you, doesn't mean it's not happening. Christ, if you people knew what was going on in Africa right now, you'd shiat yourselves.

Thirld World, Poverty Stricken and Warlord filled Africa is not the United States, a First World Superpower.

Nice try with fallacious comparisons, though.


Just stop throwing that word around, you don't know what it means.
 
2013-01-20 05:54:39 PM

BronyMedic: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Over 9 people died in the past hour!!! From alcohol.. This is getting ridiculous. Do people not realize that in a country of 310,000,000 people this happens pretty much every day? How math illiterate do you have to be to be shocked by this? Just because the news doesn't tell you, doesn't mean it's not happening. Christ, if you people knew what was going on in Africa right now, you'd shiat yourselves.

Thirld World, Poverty Stricken and Warlord filled Africa is not the United States, a First World Superpower.

Nice try with fallacious comparisons, though.


It's kind of a specialty.
 
2013-01-20 05:54:40 PM
More dead children for Obama and his scumbag supporters to exploit. It's your lucky day liberals, more dead children!
 
2013-01-20 05:55:40 PM
Do we do this when people, including teens, kill their family with breakopen shotguns or baseball bats?
 
2013-01-20 05:55:48 PM

Somacandra: jbuist: Pop the grenade on the end, load a blank, and fire the grenade. They're not exactly dangerous. Well, unless you have rifle grenades. I'd say the grenades are the dangerous part...

But if you can't fire the grenade without the grenade launcher, and the grenade launcher has no use other than firing a grenade, the logical move would be to restrict the launcher. Grenades themselves aren't semiautomatic weapons appropriate to this legislation--I'm sure those are covered instead under the "No You Can't Have Some Goddamn Grenades Act" passed after WWII.


Thomas Jefferson would've wanted me to have grenades. Why no second amendment rights for grenades? They can't be that much more deadly than any other projectile weapon that's legal
 
2013-01-20 05:55:55 PM
Can we start report car accidents with such frequency? That way people may pay attention to something that will actually save more lives.
 
2013-01-20 05:55:57 PM

WhoopAssWayne: More dead children for Obama and his scumbag supporters to exploit. It's your lucky day liberals, more dead children!


And the best thing about it is that the supply will never dry up!
 
2013-01-20 05:56:32 PM
i have a suggestion. why dont we solve the reasons that give people the desire to kill, instead of just removing one of the tools by which the killing is carried out?
 
2013-01-20 05:56:34 PM

Dallymo: dameron: Somacandra: Really? I'd like some official link or citation if possible

Well someone claiming to be Nehemiah Griego from Albuquerque uploaded that picture three weeks ago.    It's not like his name is John Smith or anything.

Little kids in the background...


That's what I noticed. Odds are that the two adults and three children dead are all his family.
 
2013-01-20 05:56:43 PM
*shrug* shootings happen every single day. Nobody ever said they didnt.

Every type of crime happens every single day.
 
2013-01-20 05:57:10 PM

born_yesterday: Vodka Zombie: vpb: I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.

Well...  In the wrong hands, AR-15s are quite lethal.  I'm just thankful this kid didn't get his hands on a hammer.  Can you even begin to imagine the bloodbath had he found a hammer, or god forbid, the car keys?

Chilling to consider...  Absolutely chilling.

As it stands, YAY!  FIVE more reminders of the importance of our 2nd Amendment freedoms!

In another year, he would have been able to drive. Imagine what he could have done with a REAL weapon!


Ha!  The only flaw in your otherwise impeccable logic is that cars aren't used to fight tyranny.  You can only fight tyranny with a bunch of guns.

So, since this 15 year old used a gun, we have no choice but to believe that this family was tyranny, and it was his patriotic duty to water the tree of liberty (which can only be watered with a gun and not a car).  I expect the NRA will be giving him a freedom medal.
 
2013-01-20 05:57:41 PM

Aeon Rising: Can we start report car accidents with such frequency? That way people may pay attention to something that will actually save more lives.


Don't know about where you live, but any car accident around here that involves fatalities is plastered on all the local news stations with live reporters and interviews from witnesses. And I'm in a city with over a million people.
 
2013-01-20 05:57:59 PM
Apparently none of the children were husky.
 
2013-01-20 05:59:14 PM

ManofPeas: Hey Subby, it' OK to cry. Just let it out, Princess. Rant on a website, complain that Obama won't confiscate the guns FOR THE CHILDREN. There, there, does it feel better?

As long as you don't think your wailing amounts to more than a flea fart in a hurricane to Obama.

Suckers.


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-20 05:59:29 PM
If only the 2 adults and 3 kids were packing heat this would have never happened.
 
2013-01-20 05:59:35 PM
When are we finally going to deal with this issue in a sensible manner and issue guns to all American children?
 
2013-01-20 06:00:27 PM
Keep making a media circus about every single shooting that occurs and I guarantee you that more Sandy Hook/VATech/Aurora type events will occur. The mental cases that perpetrated those crimes want nothing more than to be infamous and share their "pain" with the world, and they know that they'll get what they want without fail.
 
2013-01-20 06:00:37 PM
In other news, about 80 kids under age 11 have died so far this month from child abuse, with just 1400 or so to go this year.

When that dad used fuel to kill his two sons and himself, I don't remember anyone talking about the fuel used
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/justice/washington-powell-case/index.ht m l
 
2013-01-20 06:00:37 PM
Well obviously we need armed guards on all the streets and watching all homes instead of just police patrols.

We can't restrict the right to have the weapons but need to station armed guards everywhere to ensure freedom and safety!
 
2013-01-20 06:01:08 PM

CrazyCracka420: If only the 2 adults and 3 kids were packing heat this would have never happened.


This is actually THEIR fault for ALLOWING themselves to be victims. If you don't have what it takes to protect yourself, you get what you deserve.
 
2013-01-20 06:01:29 PM

Vodka Zombie: Ha! The only flaw in your otherwise impeccable logic is that cars aren't used to fight tyranny. You can only fight tyranny with a bunch of guns.

So, since this 15 year old used a gun, we have no choice but to believe that this family was tyranny, and it was his patriotic duty to water the tree of liberty (which can only be watered with a gun and not a car). I expect the NRA will be giving him a freedom medal.


Know how I know you're a trolling scumbag?
 
2013-01-20 06:01:51 PM
And what did YOU do to celebrate Gun Appreciation Day?
 
2013-01-20 06:01:57 PM
Okay, so, like, the South Valley isn't really all that safe and just 'cause I confine myself to the NE Heights, that doesn't mean I'm hate'n either.


/ also, I abhore traveling across the river, keep it on the Texas side as much as possible.
 
2013-01-20 06:02:12 PM

desertfool: Is anyone else sick of the damned gun threads? Even the foobies threads have guns nowadays!


I'm with you.  Now is not the time to be talking about guns.  I think Subby should be forced to re-submit this thread and make no mention of the fact that a gun was used.  Maybe you can suggest a headline and help Subby out.  I'm sure he'd thank you.

/Honestly, I'm not sick of the gun threads.
//I'm sick of mass shootings that bring about the gun threads.
 
2013-01-20 06:02:17 PM

Aeon Rising: Can we start report car accidents with such frequency? That way people may pay attention to something that will actually save more lives.


Sigh. Maybe you missed the numerous times it has been pointed out that to operate a car you need a special license, must pass a proficiency test, are subject to many restrictions as to where, when, and how you can operate your vehicle, the vehicle itself must have certain safety features, be regularly inspected and registered with the state. You also are required to have insurance. None of those things are required to purchase and own or operate most guns.
 
2013-01-20 06:02:23 PM

vpb: give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.

Wrong.

A semi-automatic assault rifle is an assault rifle.  Do you think a selective fire rifle stops being an assault rifle when it is set to semi-auto?  In fact they are not that difficult to convert to full auto.  Just add the missing parts and any missing machining.

The argument based on the NRA's definition of assault rifle is one of the silliest I have ever heard.



No. Just f*cking stop already.

Selective fire is a necessary condition of an assault rifle. Period. No selective fire, no assault rifle. That's what the term means. It's what it's meant for a very long time, and we don't need jackasses like you redefining our terminology for political reasons. If you're against semiautomatic rifles, say you're against semiautomatic rifles. But quit trying to redefine words to suit your needs.

Now the journalists have been called out enough for misusing terminology that they say "assault type". Again, no. Quit being stupid and just call it a magazine fed semiauto.
 
2013-01-20 06:02:38 PM
Stop reporting on this stuff!

Look over there!
 
2013-01-20 06:02:41 PM
So how's that culture of crime, violence and badassery working out so far?
 
2013-01-20 06:03:19 PM

Pincy: Aeon Rising: Can we start report car accidents with such frequency? That way people may pay attention to something that will actually save more lives.

Don't know about where you live, but any car accident around here that involves fatalities is plastered on all the local news stations with live reporters and interviews from witnesses. And I'm in a city with over a million people.


Its almost like cars serve a purpose other than the deaths or injuries of people and accidents involving said vehicles are therefore accepted more easily* as a cost of their convenience and necessity to our way of life. False Equivalence is false.

/Also cars tend to kill people in ACCIDENTS not premeditated murderous rampages. I don't think there are tens of thousands of car based murders every year. I could be wrong though..

*not that people dying in car accidents is a good thing, dammit you know what i mean...
 
2013-01-20 06:03:36 PM

Tymast: Why isn't the media reporting on all the guns that haven't killed someone yet?


Because it's much more fun to use fear and logical fallacy to erode the rights of the populous.
 
2013-01-20 06:03:40 PM
How did I guess it'd be in the South Valley?
 
2013-01-20 06:05:15 PM

pedrop357: Do we do this when people, including teens, kill their family with breakopen shotguns or baseball bats?


Why would we?
There's no political points to score.

Besides, kids murdering their families has never happened before ar-15's.
 
2013-01-20 06:05:16 PM

pedrop357: Vodka Zombie: Ha! The only flaw in your otherwise impeccable logic is that cars aren't used to fight tyranny. You can only fight tyranny with a bunch of guns.

So, since this 15 year old used a gun, we have no choice but to believe that this family was tyranny, and it was his patriotic duty to water the tree of liberty (which can only be watered with a gun and not a car). I expect the NRA will be giving him a freedom medal.

Know how I know you're a trolling scumbag?


Really?

I think I was being pretty flippin' obvious about it.  But, you know, not really trolling.  Making a joke?  Sure.  Trolling?  I don't know.  I'll let you be the judge.
 
2013-01-20 06:05:24 PM

pedrop357: In other news, about 80 kids under age 11 have died so far this month from child abuse, with just 1400 or so to go this year.

When that dad used fuel to kill his two sons and himself, I don't remember anyone talking about the fuel used
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/justice/washington-powell-case/index.ht m l


I got nothing against responsible gun ownership, but all this false equivalency malarkey is making it's leading proponents come off like a pack of window lickers who smell of Doritos and their own flatulence.
 
2013-01-20 06:05:51 PM

Dinki: Sigh. Maybe you missed the numerous times it has been pointed out that to operate a car you need a special license, must pass a proficiency test, are subject to many restrictions as to where, when, and how you can operate your vehicle, the vehicle itself must have certain safety features, be regularly inspected and registered with the state. You also are required to have insurance. None of those things are required to purchase and own or operate most guns.


The 2nd amendment to the constitution doesn't talk about the right to operate motor vehicles, either.

Oddly enough, a car don't require a federal dealers license to sell, a background check to purchase, a special permit merely to possess in most states and a separate permit to operate that requires fingerprints and background check.. Drivers licenses are valid in every state, there no restrictions on automatic transmissions. No state requires you to show cause in order to get a drivers license, nor do drivers licenses cost $60-200 and require retesting, fingerprinting, and (only in some states) another interview to prove that you're worthy of being licensed.
 
2013-01-20 06:06:57 PM

pedrop357: Dinki: Sigh. Maybe you missed the numerous times it has been pointed out that to operate a car you need a special license, must pass a proficiency test, are subject to many restrictions as to where, when, and how you can operate your vehicle, the vehicle itself must have certain safety features, be regularly inspected and registered with the state. You also are required to have insurance. None of those things are required to purchase and own or operate most guns.

The 2nd amendment to the constitution doesn't talk about the right to operate motor vehicles, either.

Oddly enough, a car don't require a federal dealers license to sell, a background check to purchase, a special permit merely to possess in most states and a separate permit to operate that requires fingerprints and background check.. Drivers licenses are valid in every state, there no restrictions on automatic transmissions. No state requires you to show cause in order to get a drivers license, nor do drivers licenses cost $60-200 and require retesting, fingerprinting, and (only in some states) another interview to prove that you're worthy of being licensed.


See above post.
 
2013-01-20 06:07:08 PM

ZeroPly: Quit being stupid and just call it a magazine fed semiauto.


How about you gunnuts quit being asshats and stop trying to derail any meaningful limits on gun ownership with pathetic semantic BS?
 
2013-01-20 06:07:09 PM
Also on that same day approximately 311,591,860 people were NOT murdered with a firearm!
 
2013-01-20 06:07:19 PM
It's ironic that this multiple shooting will not be large enough to create a big national stir. It's like the NRA has this mass murder safety zone where things work out for them unless a threshold is reached.
 
2013-01-20 06:07:26 PM

Somacandra: Vodka Zombie: I'm just thankful this kid didn't get his hands on a hammer. Can you even begin to imagine the bloodbath had he found a hammer,

[i.imgur.com image 265x375]R.I.P. MAXWELL'S SILVER HAMMER


Actually l think this is the song that applies

Link
 
2013-01-20 06:07:26 PM

bunner: pedrop357: In other news, about 80 kids under age 11 have died so far this month from child abuse, with just 1400 or so to go this year.

When that dad used fuel to kill his two sons and himself, I don't remember anyone talking about the fuel used
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/justice/washington-powell-case/index.ht m l

I got nothing against responsible gun ownership, but all this false equivalency malarkey is making it's leading proponents come off like a pack of window lickers who smell of Doritos and their own flatulence.


Leave Doritos out of this, please.
 
2013-01-20 06:07:37 PM

bunner: I got nothing against responsible gun ownership, but all this false equivalency malarkey is making it's leading proponents come off like a pack of window lickers who smell of Doritos and their own flatulence.


No, it shows that the special treatment reserved for guns demonstrates an agenda and is not rooted in any concern for children or saving lives.
 
2013-01-20 06:07:48 PM

ekdikeo4: Has there been a gun incident in the last 3 months that wasn't initially reported as someone carrying an AR15?


That's the media's fault. They use a new definition now.

Handgun = IT WAS A GLOCK!!!
Long gun = IT WAS AN AR-15!!!!

Apparently someone pointed out to them that AK-47's are not common in the US, so they updated their boilerplate gun story.
 
2013-01-20 06:07:50 PM
FTA:

Albuquerque Fire Chief James Breen said the Albuquerque Fire Department is morning the senseless loss of one of our spiritual counselors, Greg Griego.

He said Griego was a dedicated professional that passionately served his fellow man and the firefighters of this community.

Breen said Griego's calming spirit and gentle nature will be missed.

Griego also volunteered at the Bernalillo County jail for 13 years, offering spiritual comfort and guidance to the incarcerated, according to Metropolitan Detention Center Chief Ramon Rustin.


If only he'd 1) spent some of that counseling time with one of his own goddamn children and 2) locked up his weapons, if he was unwilling to offer 'spiritual comfort' to one of his own goddamn children

\there ya go, gun fetishists - I went right to the real problem
\\of course, if he had a hammer...
\\\he'd hammer in the morning, he'd hammer in the evening
 
2013-01-20 06:08:26 PM

doglover: Actually, the argument is crazy people like this kid, are the problem. Guns are just a detail.


Before: Sane, lawful gun user.
After: He was obviously crazy! Why didn't anyone take his guns?
 
2013-01-20 06:08:35 PM
Ban assault hatchets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizzie_Borden
 
2013-01-20 06:08:45 PM

mjjt: Somacandra: Vodka Zombie: I'm just thankful this kid didn't get his hands on a hammer. Can you even begin to imagine the bloodbath had he found a hammer,

[i.imgur.com image 265x375]R.I.P. MAXWELL'S SILVER HAMMER

Actually l think this is the song that applies

Link


Although l wonder if either of these songs wd be released, or given air-time, today
 
2013-01-20 06:09:00 PM
I think AR is an acronym for "automatic rifle".
 
2013-01-20 06:09:04 PM

WhoopAssWayne: More dead children for Obama and his scumbag supporters to exploit. It's your lucky day liberals, more dead children!


like the NRA did with Mr. Obama's children.

You slug.
 
2013-01-20 06:09:13 PM

The Only Sane Man In Florida: Tymast: Why isn't the media reporting on all the guns that haven't killed someone yet?

Because it's much more fun to use fear and logical fallacy to erode the rights of the populous.


It would have been nice if all the gun rights advocates that are so concerned about our rights spoke up when the Supreme Court ruled that Miranda rights no longer have to be read. Or when OWS protesters were beaten to a pulp for exercising their right to peaceably assemble. Or when,the Bush administration set the precedent that torture is an acceptable mechanism to erradicate 5th amendment rights. Or when terrorism became a sufficient charge to detain indefinitely without charge or council. Or when warrant-less searches in the name of fighting terror became commonplace.

But yeah, that firearm will protect us all from tyranny.
 
2013-01-20 06:09:23 PM
Weapon of Peace ™
 
2013-01-20 06:09:33 PM

bunner: So how's that culture of crime, violence and badassery working out so far?


bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com

"I'll let you know after I'm released for defending myself against an unarmed kid who was running away from me."
 
2013-01-20 06:09:34 PM
Friends identified the man as Greg Griego, a pastor at Calvary Church in Albuquerque.

He must be a pastor of the Church Militant.
 
2013-01-20 06:10:18 PM

cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

From dictionary.com:

assault riflenoun1.a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomati c fire,utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.2.a nonmilitary weapo n modeled on the military assault rifle,usually modified to allow only  semiautomatic fire.Origin:
1970-75

Any other questions?


According to the brady bill, you are incorrect. The classifications for an assault weapon under the Brady bill are as follows.

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.


To further add to the stupidity, This is not the only definition of an assault rifle. Each state has their own definition.

/most gun crime is committed with pistols anyways. Shootings involving rifles just get more press because more people are involved. It's the same reason you never hear about the people who die daily in car crashes, because its only a couple people. The moment a plane crashes and 200 people die, it's a national tragedy and far worse then car accidents, simply because more people died at one time, even if it's still statistically safer.
 
2013-01-20 06:10:22 PM

IlGreven: Before: Sane, lawful gun user.
After: He was obviously crazy! Why didn't anyone take his guns?


He wasn't really old enough to buy that gun, so it likely belongs to someone else and was unlawfully obtained by him.

We only know he's crazy when he does something, THEN and usually ONLY THEN do people who knew him and were all around him basically tell us 'Yeah, he was crazy'
 
2013-01-20 06:10:25 PM

pedrop357: bunner: I got nothing against responsible gun ownership, but all this false equivalency malarkey is making it's leading proponents come off like a pack of window lickers who smell of Doritos and their own flatulence.

No, it shows that the special treatment reserved for guns demonstrates an agenda and is not rooted in any concern for children or saving lives.


Or that motor fuel, while not designed to be used as a weapon, CAN be. Most things can, I suppose. Although I'm pretty sure that the primary application for gasoline, as designed, isn't setting motherf*ckers on fire. Get it?
 
2013-01-20 06:10:26 PM

vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.


No it is not. Unless it has selectable rate of fire and is capable of firing more than one bullet with each pull of the trigger one at least one rate of fire then it is NOT an assault rifle.

Also, your analogy is flawed. If you put combat boots and BDUs on a person does it make them a soldier? No. It does not. So have a semi-automatic rifle that is dressed up like an assault rifle does not make it an assault rifle.
 
2013-01-20 06:10:28 PM

Anal Tobacco Furnace: I think AR is an acronym for "automatic rifle".


Armalite.
 
2013-01-20 06:10:36 PM
15-year-olds in possession of firearms is already illegal.

Which new gun law would have prevented this submittard?
 
2013-01-20 06:11:00 PM

dameron: [img.meetone.com image 450x600]

A picture of said murderer.    This should be interesting.


God bless you courageous, brave hero. I salute you good sir. Thank you for keeping us all safe.
 
2013-01-20 06:11:17 PM

ZeroPly: Selective fire is a necessary condition of an assault rifle. Period.


No. It isn't. Jesus Christ don't you guys ever read a dictionary? WTF do you think "Automatic or semi-automatic" means?

For f*ck's sake. Give up. You cannot argue against the freaking dictionary definition of the word.
 
2013-01-20 06:11:22 PM
Let's talk about the dozens of children beaten to death in the same timeframe.

No?
 
2013-01-20 06:11:46 PM

born_yesterday: It would have been nice if all the gun rights advocates that are so concerned about our rights spoke up when the Supreme Court ruled that Miranda rights no longer have to be read. Or when OWS protesters were beaten to a pulp for exercising their right to peaceably assemble. Or when,the Bush administration set the precedent that torture is an acceptable mechanism to erradicate 5th amendment rights. Or when terrorism became a sufficient charge to detain indefinitely without charge or council. Or when warrant-less searches in the name of fighting terror became commonplace.

But yeah, that firearm will protect us all from tyranny.


Too bad the left and all the anti-gun types were right to there to join most of that and ignored Obama when continued it.
 
2013-01-20 06:11:52 PM

fluffy2097: The classifications for an assault weapon


Classification does not equal definition.

Try again!
 
2013-01-20 06:11:59 PM

vpb: I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.


I prefer the term "Gun of Peace™." It does a bonus 2d20 troll damage against anyone who's ever used "Religion of Peace™," which tend to be the same people who are stockpiling AR-15s for when Fartbongo's intifadah... something something something.
 
2013-01-20 06:12:02 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Anal Tobacco Furnace: I think AR is an acronym for "automatic rifle".

Armalite.


*snerk*
 
2013-01-20 06:12:14 PM

Xanlexian: dameron: [img.meetone.com image 450x600]

A picture of said murderer.    This should be interesting.

God bless you courageous, brave hero. I salute you good sir. Thank you for keeping us all safe.


Not him.
 
2013-01-20 06:12:54 PM
Why don't you gun nuts take up a more challenging hobby. Shooting is so easy even a 15 year old autistic kid can do it.
 
2013-01-20 06:13:39 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Xanlexian: dameron: [img.meetone.com image 450x600]

A picture of said murderer.    This should be interesting.

God bless you courageous, brave hero. I salute you good sir. Thank you for keeping us all safe.

Not him.


Damn!
 
2013-01-20 06:13:50 PM

bunner: Or that motor fuel, while not designed to be used as a weapon, CAN be. Most things can, I suppose. Although I'm pretty sure that the primary application for gasoline, as designed, isn't setting motherf*ckers on fire. Get it?


Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.
THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.
 
2013-01-20 06:14:05 PM

AngryDragon: Which new gun law would have prevented this submittard?


The banning of possession, manufacturing, importation and selling of magazine fed guns.
 
2013-01-20 06:14:23 PM
When you use a hatchet or a brick or a bunch of gasoline to kill somebody, that is called - and this is the bane of the modern world, folks - "user application error."> Now, when yo SHOOT somebody with a GUN.. that's not user application error. Got that. They are designed to shoot people with. So can we cut the false equivalency banana oil and actually start dealing with the problem? You know, the culture we've built upon violent aggressive douchebags being "kewl"?
 
2013-01-20 06:14:27 PM
2nd amendment strikes again!
 
2013-01-20 06:14:45 PM

pedrop357: bunner: Or that motor fuel, while not designed to be used as a weapon, CAN be. Most things can, I suppose. Although I'm pretty sure that the primary application for gasoline, as designed, isn't setting motherf*ckers on fire. Get it?

Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.
THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.


Holy shiat this has to be the stupidest thing I have read on this site.
 
2013-01-20 06:14:55 PM

pedrop357: Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.
THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.


Comedy gold, Jerry.
 
2013-01-20 06:15:00 PM
Can't wait to hear Huckabee's explanation for this one.
 
2013-01-20 06:15:18 PM

Molavian: Let's talk about the dozens of children beaten to death in the same timeframe.

No?


Nothing for the anti-gun types to in up fear about. besides, invasive policies and dumb ideas are something they only want to inflict on gun rights supporters.
 
2013-01-20 06:15:19 PM

WhoopAssWayne: More dead children for Obama and his scumbag supporters to exploit. It's your lucky day liberals, more dead children!


I'm giving you a 9/10 for this.
 
2013-01-20 06:15:36 PM

PDid: Why don't you gun nuts take up a more challenging hobby. Shooting is so easy even a 15 year old autistic kid can do it.


Do you have a link to a better article? I can't find a damn thing about motive FTFA, which is annoying. Was this kid legitimately mentally ill, or just went off one day?

/The sort of questions I come up with.
 
2013-01-20 06:15:56 PM

Makh: http://cncnws.com/blog/2013/01/20/exclusive-boy-15-shoots-his-pastor- f ather-and-family-dead-with-military-style-assault-rifle-in-bloody-shoo ting-rampage/
It was his own family he shot. Multiple guns in the house, everyone was armed so it was ok. They should have been able to prevent it, right?
/I mean this is the argument right?


Crazy or abused? And named "Nehemiah." I wonder if his father was some nutty controlling preacher?
 
2013-01-20 06:16:54 PM

Dinki: AngryDragon: Which new gun law would have prevented this submittard?

The banning of possession, manufacturing, importation and selling of magazine fed guns.


Perhaps you missed the "15-year-olds in possession of firearms is already illegal" part. He already broke the farking law. Will breaking another make a difference?
 
2013-01-20 06:16:56 PM

pedrop357: THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.


They are DESIGNED to squirt lead at whatever the f*ck you point them at. Utilization is at the discretion of the of the cat with their finger on the trigger. But they are designed to be used against whatever you point them at. The false equivalency argument IS crap, sorry.
 
2013-01-20 06:17:04 PM

PsiChick: PDid: Why don't you gun nuts take up a more challenging hobby. Shooting is so easy even a 15 year old autistic kid can do it.

Do you have a link to a better article? I can't find a damn thing about motive FTFA, which is annoying. Was this kid legitimately mentally ill, or just went off one day?

/The sort of questions I come up with.


I'm just farking around. I don't know any details. Sorry.
 
2013-01-20 06:17:09 PM

cameroncrazy1984: doglover: cameroncrazy1984: give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.

False, I just posted the definition right up thread for you.

From dictionary.com? Really?

( T_T)\(^-^ ) Good jorb.

Would you prefer Merriam-Webster?

Definition of  ASSAULT RIFLE: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

Congratulations, you still lose.


Scroll further down the page at www.m-w.com and you will see this:

assault rifle
noun (Concise Encyclopedia)

Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Light and portable, yet able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000-1,600 ft (300-500 m), assault rifles have become the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the U.S. M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3.Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Light and portable, yet able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000-1,600 ft (300-500 m), assault rifles have become the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the U.S. M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3.


Or if you prefer, how about Encyclopaedia Britannica, assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.

Oh yeah, the United States Army lists being capable of selectable rate of fire as being a requirement to be classified as an assault rifle.

So congratulations to you, because you lose.
 
2013-01-20 06:17:26 PM

pedrop357: He wasn't really old enough to buy that gun, so it likely belongs to someone else and was unlawfully obtained by him.




freshbread.blogs.com
 
2013-01-20 06:17:31 PM

pedrop357: bunner: I got nothing against responsible gun ownership, but all this false equivalency malarkey is making it's leading proponents come off like a pack of window lickers who smell of Doritos and their own flatulence.

No, it shows that the special treatment reserved for guns demonstrates an agenda and is not rooted in any concern for children or saving lives.


The term 'responsible gun owners' in and itself is THE false equivalency because when you own guns especially multiple assault rifles there is an inherent risk to yourself and also society at large mainly for two primary reasons..

1st ... your guns CAN be used by someone other than yourself.

2nd. A responsible person of today or yesterday can potentially be irresponsible in the future.
 
2013-01-20 06:17:35 PM

pedrop357: born_yesterday: It would have been nice if all the gun rights advocates that are so concerned about our rights spoke up when the Supreme Court ruled that Miranda rights no longer have to be read. Or when OWS protesters were beaten to a pulp for exercising their right to peaceably assemble. Or when,the Bush administration set the precedent that torture is an acceptable mechanism to erradicate 5th amendment rights. Or when terrorism became a sufficient charge to detain indefinitely without charge or council. Or when warrant-less searches in the name of fighting terror became commonplace.

But yeah, that firearm will protect us all from tyranny.

Too bad the left and all the anti-gun types were right to there to join most of that and ignored Obama when continued it.


Yeah, that's exactly what I remember. Especially when Bush administration officials like Gonzalex were called were called to testify about torture before Congress. Especially when the reversal of Miranda came down directly on ideological lines. Or when the American "left" showed total and complete support for the methods used in the war against terror, branding anyone else a traitor to the country. Jesus, why even bother.
 
2013-01-20 06:17:43 PM

pedrop357: bunner: Or that motor fuel, while not designed to be used as a weapon, CAN be. Most things can, I suppose. Although I'm pretty sure that the primary application for gasoline, as designed, isn't setting motherf*ckers on fire. Get it?

Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.
THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.


Soo....how do the bullets know who is innocent and who is a tyrant?
 
2013-01-20 06:17:51 PM

PDid: pedrop357: bunner: Or that motor fuel, while not designed to be used as a weapon, CAN be. Most things can, I suppose. Although I'm pretty sure that the primary application for gasoline, as designed, isn't setting motherf*ckers on fire. Get it?

Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.
THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.

Holy shiat this has to be the stupidest thing I have read on this site.


Show me where guns were designed to harm innocent people.
 
2013-01-20 06:17:54 PM
Dictionaries have a known liberal bias.

I mean... it's filled with freaking words and their meanings and sh*t!

How much more libtarded can you GET?!

Don't even get me started on encyclopedias.
 
2013-01-20 06:18:27 PM

bunner: They are DESIGNED to squirt lead at whatever the f*ck you point them at. Utilization is at the discretion of the of the cat with their finger on the trigger. But they are designed to be used against whatever you point them at. The false equivalency argument IS crap, sorry.


In other words, they have other uses just like fuel, cars, etc.
 
2013-01-20 06:18:33 PM
If only God was allowed in this home. This wouldn't have happened.
 
2013-01-20 06:18:41 PM

here to help: Dictionaries have a known liberal bias.

I mean... it's filled with freaking words and their meanings and sh*t!

How much more libtarded can you GET?!

Don't even get me started on encyclopedias.


Careful, son. Iraq was invaded on the suspicion of possession of less WMD-grade stupid than that.
 
2013-01-20 06:19:02 PM

AngryDragon: Dinki: AngryDragon: Which new gun law would have prevented this submittard?

The banning of possession, manufacturing, importation and selling of magazine fed guns.

Perhaps you missed the "15-year-olds in possession of firearms is already illegal" part. He already broke the farking law. Will breaking another make a difference?


Any weapon in your house is over 40x more likely to be used against someone who lives there than an intruder. What happened here wasn't a surprise, it was so statistically likely it was expected.
 
2013-01-20 06:19:15 PM

PsiChick: PDid: Why don't you gun nuts take up a more challenging hobby. Shooting is so easy even a 15 year old autistic kid can do it.

Do you have a link to a better article? I can't find a damn thing about motive FTFA, which is annoying. Was this kid legitimately mentally ill, or just went off one day?

/The sort of questions I come up with.


I wonder if the lesson here will turn out to be: Lock up your guns before you try to lock up your kid.
 
2013-01-20 06:19:15 PM
But are the guns okay?

Please, won't somebody think of the guns?
 
2013-01-20 06:19:17 PM

pedrop357: Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.


And YOU had the nerve to call ME a troll?!?

Dude.  Just...  walk away.
 
2013-01-20 06:19:18 PM

pedrop357: Show me where guns were designed to harm innocent people.


Show me the blueprints that outline the module in the weapon that causes it to have a conscience.
 
2013-01-20 06:19:37 PM

born_yesterday: The Only Sane Man In Florida: Tymast: Why isn't the media reporting on all the guns that haven't killed someone yet?

Because it's much more fun to use fear and logical fallacy to erode the rights of the populous.

It would have been nice if all the gun rights advocates that are so concerned about our rights spoke up when the Supreme Court ruled that Miranda rights no longer have to be read. Or when OWS protesters were beaten to a pulp for exercising their right to peaceably assemble. Or when,the Bush administration set the precedent that torture is an acceptable mechanism to erradicate 5th amendment rights. Or when terrorism became a sufficient charge to detain indefinitely without charge or council. Or when warrant-less searches in the name of fighting terror became commonplace.

But yeah, that firearm will protect us all from tyranny.


So you're implying that there wasn't outrage about any of those things, huh?

See guys, what did I just say about logical fallacies? And look! There they are!
 
2013-01-20 06:19:41 PM

born_yesterday: pedrop357: born_yesterday: It would have been nice if all the gun rights advocates that are so concerned about our rights spoke up when the Supreme Court ruled that Miranda rights no longer have to be read. Or when OWS protesters were beaten to a pulp for exercising their right to peaceably assemble. Or when,the Bush administration set the precedent that torture is an acceptable mechanism to erradicate 5th amendment rights. Or when terrorism became a sufficient charge to detain indefinitely without charge or council. Or when warrant-less searches in the name of fighting terror became commonplace.

But yeah, that firearm will protect us all from tyranny.

Too bad the left and all the anti-gun types were right to there to join most of that and ignored Obama when continued it.

Yeah, that's exactly what I remember. Especially when Bush administration officials like Gonzalex were called were called to testify about torture before Congress. Especially when the reversal of Miranda came down directly on ideological lines. Or when the American "left" showed total and complete support for the methods used in the war against terror, branding anyone else a traitor to the country. Jesus, why even bother.


What?!?!?!?!? I thought that Obama is the leftest guy evar!

//I'll keep saying it...Fox News's biggest success has been to move the spectrum sharply to the right.
 
2013-01-20 06:19:42 PM

gimmegimme: Soo....how do the bullets know who is innocent and who is a tyrant?


They don't, anymore than the fuel knows its not going into a car but is instead being used to set people on fire. Cars don't know they're being driven by a drunk driver, nor do they know they're being used to transport murdered people to be dumped.
 
2013-01-20 06:19:49 PM

Vodka Zombie: pedrop357: Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.

And YOU had the nerve to call ME a troll?!?

Dude.  Just...  walk away.


I seriously hope he's a poe. Seriously hope.
 
2013-01-20 06:19:53 PM

gimmegimme: "I'll let you know after I'm released for defending myself against an unarmed kid who was running away from me."


Amazing that an overweight guy caught a 17 year old athlete that was running away, especially when the athlete had a head start and lived a few hundred feet away.
 
2013-01-20 06:19:54 PM

Contribution Corsair: Well obviously we need armed guards on all the streets and watching all homes instead of just police patrols.

We can't restrict the right to have the weapons but need to station armed guards everywhere to ensure freedom and safety!


Even tho I know you don't want that kind of world, its exactly the kind you'd inadvertently create to back up your ideals.

dl.dropbox.com
 
2013-01-20 06:20:19 PM

bunner: Show me the blueprints that outline the module in the weapon that causes it to have a conscience.


Do the same with fuel, cars, etc.
 
2013-01-20 06:20:27 PM

vpb: I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.


They jam often, so not good for home defense. They are good for small varmits, but so are a lot of guns, including those of the pellet variety. But if you need to clear out some children, there is no gun better. Good luck finding one though, they are selling out quickly. Children must be big problems in some areas.
 
2013-01-20 06:20:30 PM

AngryDragon: Perhaps you missed the "15-year-olds in possession of firearms is already illegal" part. He already broke the farking law. Will breaking another make a difference?


Ah the old "Criminals ignore laws so why have them" argument. I guess we should just throw out the entire legal code in this country, since the bad guys will just ignore it anyway.

The purpose of a law banning magazine fed guns is eventually there would be few of them available. Fewer guns= less stories like this one.
 
2013-01-20 06:20:38 PM

pedrop357: In other words, they have other uses just like fuel, cars, etc.


No, they have primary uses and applications by design. So, what is the primary usage by design of a gun, again? F*cking engineering, how does it work?
 
2013-01-20 06:20:54 PM

gimmegimme: Soo....how do the bullets know who is innocent and who is a tyrant?


They don't need to. An innocent's body will reject the bullets.
 
2013-01-20 06:21:14 PM

rohar: AngryDragon: Dinki: AngryDragon: Which new gun law would have prevented this submittard?

The banning of possession, manufacturing, importation and selling of magazine fed guns.

Perhaps you missed the "15-year-olds in possession of firearms is already illegal" part. He already broke the farking law. Will breaking another make a difference?

Any weapon in your house is over 40x more likely to be used against someone who lives there than an intruder. What happened here wasn't a surprise, it was so statistically likely it was expected.


I can play this game to. You are also more likely, statistically speaking, to be shot by a police officer than by a concealed weapons licensee. Should we ban police then?
 
2013-01-20 06:21:17 PM
15? Obviously into video games and Hollywood movies. Non-story, problem's already been identified
 
2013-01-20 06:21:24 PM

pedrop357: self defense


I think I found the flaw in your "not designed to murder people" theory.
 
2013-01-20 06:21:58 PM
I like how 5 people are dead and some of the fun nuts think the most important thing is the terminology use about the weapons.
 
2013-01-20 06:22:03 PM

Invisible Pedestrian: gimmegimme: Soo....how do the bullets know who is innocent and who is a tyrant?

They don't need to. An innocent's body will reject the bullets.


Those kids might have grown up to be tyrants...or Democrats.
 
2013-01-20 06:22:12 PM
ZeroPly:
No. Just f*cking stop already.

Selective fire is a necessary condition of an assault rifle. Period. No selective fire, no assault rifle. That's what the term means. It's what it's meant for a very long time, and we don't need jackasses like you redefining our terminology for political reasons. If you're against semiautomatic rifles, say you're against semiautomatic rifles. But quit trying to redefine words to suit your needs.

Now the journalists have been called out enough for misusing terminology that they say "assault type". Again, no. Quit being stupid and just call it a magazine fed semiauto.


You want to know who redefined the term? Gun manufacturers. There was a clear marketing approach to improving sagging guns sales, and that was to design guns with an appearance specifically designed to elicit John Wayne/Rambo/Wolverine fantasies. While they may function no differently than a standard hunting rifle, that is certainly not how they are marketed. They are marketed as "assault rifles" to the beer belly militia members, survivalists, and childish men that want to play army in their minds. It's no surprise that they are the weapon of choice for the mentally unstable that wish to live out their fantasies.

img201.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-20 06:22:24 PM

born_yesterday: Yeah, that's exactly what I remember. Especially when Bush administration officials like Gonzalex were called were called to testify about torture before Congress. Especially when the reversal of Miranda came down directly on ideological lines. Or when the American "left" showed total and complete support for the methods used in the war against terror, branding anyone else a traitor to the country. Jesus, why even bother.


I remember the left joining in the support for the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act and its renewals, anything that expands or enhances the war on drugs. I also remember a lot less complaints when Obama was elected and continued these things or turned them up to 11.
 
2013-01-20 06:22:44 PM
I meant GUN NUTS no fun nuts.

Damn autocorrect
 
2013-01-20 06:22:55 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: PsiChick: PDid: Why don't you gun nuts take up a more challenging hobby. Shooting is so easy even a 15 year old autistic kid can do it.

Do you have a link to a better article? I can't find a damn thing about motive FTFA, which is annoying. Was this kid legitimately mentally ill, or just went off one day?

/The sort of questions I come up with.

I wonder if the lesson here will turn out to be: Lock up your guns before you try to lock up your kid.


Probably: Never underestimate the power of puberty-induced brain damage (and a healthy dose of undiagnosed mental illness on the side).

/You'd be amazed.
 
2013-01-20 06:23:02 PM

pedrop357: bunner: Or that motor fuel, while not designed to be used as a weapon, CAN be. Most things can, I suppose. Although I'm pretty sure that the primary application for gasoline, as designed, isn't setting motherf*ckers on fire. Get it?

Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.
THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.


Actually military ballistics like the 5.56mm NATO round are designed solely for the human anatomy, not deer, bear or gamefowl. Whether it's meant to be fired at 'bad guys' or 'innocent children' is irrelevant; its design intention is human-lethal and its primary operating environment is a battlefield.
 
2013-01-20 06:23:04 PM

Dinki: How about you gunnuts quit being asshats and stop trying to derail any meaningful limits on gun ownership with pathetic semantic BS?



It's no different than when the Democrats used semantics to derail any meaningful discussion after the Republicans attempted to redefine birth control pills as "abortion", or rape that results in pregnancy as "consensual sex".

/Former Democrat, now too ashamed of those in office to associate with any party
 
2013-01-20 06:23:06 PM

pedrop357: bunner: They are DESIGNED to squirt lead at whatever the f*ck you point them at. Utilization is at the discretion of the of the cat with their finger on the trigger. But they are designed to be used against whatever you point them at. The false equivalency argument IS crap, sorry.

In other words, they have other uses just like fuel, cars, etc.


You know, you might be the single stupidest person ever. I've never met anyone so determined to defend guns as non-killing devices in my life. The only use of a gun is to shoot a bullet, okay, you win. Happy?
 
2013-01-20 06:23:13 PM

Dog Welder: But are the guns okay?

Please, won't somebody think of the guns?


That's really the important question here
 
2013-01-20 06:23:19 PM

cameroncrazy1984: pedrop357: self defense

I think I found the flaw in your "not designed to murder people" theory.


Did self-defense become murder and no one said anything?
 
2013-01-20 06:23:30 PM

LarryDan43: vpb: I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.

They jam often, so not good for home defense. They are good for small varmits, but so are a lot of guns, including those of the pellet variety. But if you need to clear out some children, there is no gun better. Good luck finding one though, they are selling out quickly. Children must be big problems in some areas.


You say "children" and "varmints" as if you classify them differently?
 
2013-01-20 06:23:33 PM

Dinki: AngryDragon: Which new gun law would have prevented this submittard?

The banning of possession, manufacturing, importation and selling of magazine fed guns.


Keep on talking.....never gonna happen......got it?
 
2013-01-20 06:23:35 PM
Weighing in on the AR-15 discussion. Some have said that it is not a weapon used by the military. But from my own personal experience it certainly is; we used it to qualify in marksmanship during basic training in the Air Force.
 
2013-01-20 06:24:02 PM
The father was a preacher, FFS

We must jump to the conclusion that he was a sanctimonious and dictatorial father and quite probably exhibited other characteristics of catholic priesthood as well

/otherwise why wd the kid have shot him?
 
2013-01-20 06:24:03 PM

pedrop357: Did self-defense become murder and no one said anything?


How many murderers use the affirmative defense claim of "Self Defense" again? Because i'm pretty sure it's a common tactic.
 
2013-01-20 06:24:09 PM

pedrop357: I remember the left joining in the support for the war in Iraq


So what color is the sky in your world?
 
2013-01-20 06:24:29 PM

AngryDragon: rohar: AngryDragon: Dinki: AngryDragon: Which new gun law would have prevented this submittard?

The banning of possession, manufacturing, importation and selling of magazine fed guns.

Perhaps you missed the "15-year-olds in possession of firearms is already illegal" part. He already broke the farking law. Will breaking another make a difference?

Any weapon in your house is over 40x more likely to be used against someone who lives there than an intruder. What happened here wasn't a surprise, it was so statistically likely it was expected.

I can play this game to. You are also more likely, statistically speaking, to be shot by a police officer than by a concealed weapons licensee. Should we ban police then?


Noit so much, I'm over 20 miles from the nearest law enforcement official. He's gonna have to be a damned good shot.
 
2013-01-20 06:24:30 PM

Darth Macho: Actually military ballistics like the 5.56mm NATO round are designed solely for the human anatomy, not deer, bear or gamefowl. Whether it's meant to be fired at 'bad guys' or 'innocent children' is irrelevant; its design intention is human-lethal and its primary operating environment is a battlefield.


So you'll agree that the police and federal law enforcement officials should be denied possession of that round and the guns that fire it, right?
 
2013-01-20 06:25:11 PM
THE FALSE EQUIVALENCY ARGUMENT OG "Z0MG, EVERTYTHING CAN BE A WEAPON!1!" sort of overlooks the fact that guns are, be DESIGN, a weapon. Take your jerry cans of 96 octane, your hatchets and butter knives and meet me at the gun fight. I'll have a gun. Oh, you're busy that day? Stop saying stupid things. America already looks like a surly redneck, seated in a beer joint, scratching his nuts and trying to pick a fight - to the rest of the world. We don't want him to seem to be illiterate, too.
 
2013-01-20 06:25:17 PM

Gyrfalcon: You know, you might be the single stupidest person ever. I've never met anyone so determined to defend guns as non-killing devices in my life. The only use of a gun is to shoot a bullet, okay, you win. Happy?


Yep, it's a designed to shoot a bullet. A car is designed to transport people.

It's all about the person operating it.
 
2013-01-20 06:25:19 PM

bunner: pedrop357: In other words, they have other uses just like fuel, cars, etc.

No, they have primary uses and applications by design. So, what is the primary usage by design of a gun, again? F*cking engineering, how does it work?


I know!  I know!  Let me take a stab at it.

Like the trebuchet and the long bow, guns were created to send messages very quickly and reliably in the days before radios and telephones existed.

It's their off-label use that keeps them from becoming obsolete.
 
2013-01-20 06:25:20 PM

pedrop357: cameroncrazy1984: pedrop357: self defense

I think I found the flaw in your "not designed to murder people" theory.

Did self-defense become murder and no one said anything?


It's called "Stand Your Ground." Try to keep up.
 
2013-01-20 06:25:24 PM

pedrop357: Darth Macho: Actually military ballistics like the 5.56mm NATO round are designed solely for the human anatomy, not deer, bear or gamefowl. Whether it's meant to be fired at 'bad guys' or 'innocent children' is irrelevant; its design intention is human-lethal and its primary operating environment is a battlefield.

So you'll agree that the police and federal law enforcement officials should be denied possession of that round and the guns that fire it, right?


That is the dumbest thing I've read on fark today.

Unless the cops start having to arrest violent deer....
 
2013-01-20 06:26:04 PM

Shae123: Dinki: AngryDragon: Which new gun law would have prevented this submittard?

The banning of possession, manufacturing, importation and selling of magazine fed guns.

Keep on talking.....never gonna happen......got it?


Yeah, let's just get used to the monthly/weekly/daily news article about more dead kids killed by magazine fed guns. Got it.
 
2013-01-20 06:26:06 PM

Dinki: pedrop357: I remember the left joining in the support for the war in Iraq

So what color is the sky in your world?


John "I was for it before I was against it" Kerry and Hilary Clinton both agree that it's blue.
 
2013-01-20 06:26:11 PM

Dinki: AngryDragon: Perhaps you missed the "15-year-olds in possession of firearms is already illegal" part. He already broke the farking law. Will breaking another make a difference?

Ah the old "Criminals ignore laws so why have them" argument. I guess we should just throw out the entire legal code in this country, since the bad guys will just ignore it anyway.

The purpose of a law banning magazine fed guns is eventually there would be few of them available. Fewer guns= less stories like this one.


Unlikely. It would just drive them underground as all bans do. The people who are really determined to get them still will. The government decreeing an item contraband does not magically make it disappear. Only law abiding citizens will be denied. See alcohol (during prohibition), marijuana, and any number of other things the government has tried to make go away.
 
2013-01-20 06:27:12 PM

BronyMedic: Careful, son. Iraq was invaded on the suspicion of possession of less WMD-grade stupid than that.


You're seriously gonna defend that side of the little back and forth that happened there?

Dude... you like play with people insides and crap. Now THAT is frightening.

BAN ALL MEDICS WHO HAPPEN TO BE BRONIES!
 
2013-01-20 06:28:30 PM

pedrop357: Gyrfalcon: You know, you might be the single stupidest person ever. I've never met anyone so determined to defend guns as non-killing devices in my life. The only use of a gun is to shoot a bullet, okay, you win. Happy?

Yep, it's a designed to shoot a bullet. A car is designed to transport people.

It's all about the person operating it.


I bet they had a car. Don't know why the kid didn't use that.
 
2013-01-20 06:28:32 PM

pedrop357: Dinki: pedrop357: I remember the left joining in the support for the war in Iraq

So what color is the sky in your world?

John "I was for it before I was against it" Kerry and Hilary Clinton both agree that it's blue.


So now the centrists are leftists? I think I figured out where this conversation went a bit wrong...
 
2013-01-20 06:28:42 PM

pedrop357: John "I was for it before I was against it" Kerry and Hilary Clinton both agree that it's blue.


Ah, see you seem to think that John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are part of the 'left'. You would be wrong in that assumption.
 
2013-01-20 06:28:53 PM

here to help: You're seriously gonna defend that side of the little back and forth that happened there?

Dude... you like play with people insides and crap. Now THAT is frightening.

BAN ALL MEDICS WHO HAPPEN TO BE BRONIES!


Don't worry. I'll be seeing you tonight.

static2.fjcdn.com
 
2013-01-20 06:29:15 PM

Dinki: Yeah, let's just get used to the monthly/weekly/daily news article about more dead kids killed by magazine fed guns. Got it.


it didn't seem to matter as much before even though it happened more often. It's only when it's used to drive a currently hot political agenda do the concern trolls come out against 'gun violence' while ignoring that gun violence has gone down pretty well in an era of loosened regulations.
 
2013-01-20 06:29:42 PM

AngryDragon: Dinki: AngryDragon: Perhaps you missed the "15-year-olds in possession of firearms is already illegal" part. He already broke the farking law. Will breaking another make a difference?

Ah the old "Criminals ignore laws so why have them" argument. I guess we should just throw out the entire legal code in this country, since the bad guys will just ignore it anyway.

The purpose of a law banning magazine fed guns is eventually there would be few of them available. Fewer guns= less stories like this one.

Unlikely. It would just drive them underground as all bans do. The people who are really determined to get them still will. The government decreeing an item contraband does not magically make it disappear. Only law abiding citizens will be denied. See alcohol (during prohibition), marijuana, and any number of other things the government has tried to make go away.


Okay...okay...and what did the bootleggers use to protect their business?

inventionsandstuff.wikispaces.com

It's almost as if extremely powerful guns are really only good for wiping lots of people out. Perhaps Chief Wiggum would use them as a backscratcher, but that's probably not a good idea.
 
2013-01-20 06:30:28 PM

iq_in_binary: vpb: give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.

Wrong.

A semi-automatic assault rifle is an assault rifle.  Do you think a selective fire rifle stops being an assault rifle when it is set to semi-auto?  In fact they are not that difficult to convert to full auto.  Just add the missing parts and any missing machining.

The argument based on the NRA's definition of assault rifle is one of the silliest I have ever heard.

You are so ignorant of the subject it's not even funny. Seriously, shut the fark up. My roommate's dog is more qualified to speak about this subject than you.


Just, you know, understand that if your roommate's dog is talking to you, you probably are the very type of person who shouldn't be allowed access to any firearms.
 
2013-01-20 06:30:49 PM

gimmegimme: pedrop357: cameroncrazy1984: pedrop357: self defense

I think I found the flaw in your "not designed to murder people" theory.

Did self-defense become murder and no one said anything?

It's called "Stand Your Ground." Try to keep up.


You mean the law that says you don't have to try and outrun a knife wielding rapist before defending yourself?
 
2013-01-20 06:31:37 PM

gimmegimme: Okay...okay...and what did the bootleggers use to protect their business?

It's almost as if extremely powerful guns are really only good for wiping lots of people out. Perhaps Chief Wiggum would use them as a backscratcher, but that's probably not a good idea.


It's ironic that you mention the Thompson Sub Machine Gun. That weapon, along with the BAR Military Variant, are the reason we have gun laws in the United States today.
 
2013-01-20 06:31:51 PM
There is no left, no right, politically. There are no "libby lib libs", there are no "Neo CONservative". There's just money changing hands and people willing to empty a gun into somebody to get it into their hands, and the culture of douchey behavior that has arisen around the notion of life as a FPS video game. And if you think that's normal, please sell your gun.
 
2013-01-20 06:31:56 PM

cretinbob: Makh: It was his own family he shot. Multiple guns in the house, everyone was armed so it was ok. They should have been able to prevent it, right?

/I mean this is the argument right?

yes, that is the argument, so it will be interesting what the guntards come up with now.


Yep, but it sounds like a family that should not have been allowed to have guns since they clearly failed to secure them. I'm all for gun ownership, of any kind, but the owner needs to be responsible and should demonstrate that responsibility before acquiring the firearm.
 
2013-01-20 06:32:04 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Over 9 people died in the past hour!!! From alcohol.. This is getting ridiculous. Do people not realize that in a country of 310,000,000 people this happens pretty much every day? How math illiterate do you have to be to be shocked by this? Just because the news doesn't tell you, doesn't mean it's not happening. Christ, if you people knew what was going on in Africa right now, you'd shiat yourselves.


Citation needed. Meanwhile, gun shootings in the PAST MONTH are nearing 1000.
 
2013-01-20 06:32:23 PM

pedrop357: Darth Macho: Actually military ballistics like the 5.56mm NATO round are designed solely for the human anatomy, not deer, bear or gamefowl. Whether it's meant to be fired at 'bad guys' or 'innocent children' is irrelevant; its design intention is human-lethal and its primary operating environment is a battlefield.

So you'll agree that the police and federal law enforcement officials should be denied possession of that round and the guns that fire it, right?


No. But it's a lethal weapon, which is why cops are restricted in its storage and handling. They have to account for every bullet they're issued and any time they discharge their gun there's a serious deciscion cycle involved. Even if they're shooting at practice targets they're still using a human-lethal weapon.

Why do you not expect the public to have similar safety standards?
 
2013-01-20 06:32:55 PM

BronyMedic: WOOHOO! GUN THREAD!

/drink!


You gone die if you take a shot for every gun thread.
 
2013-01-20 06:33:08 PM

gimmegimme: Okay...okay...and what did the bootleggers use to protect their business?

inventionsandstuff.wikispaces.com

It's almost as if extremely powerful guns are really only good for wiping lots of people out. Perhaps Chief Wiggum would use them as a backscratcher, but that's probably not a good idea.


Without prohibition would those kinds of guns ever found such a large market?

Along those lines, without the disaster that was prohibition, what might this country look like? I doubt that there would be still reasonably powerful organized crime operations that can trace their founding to running contraband in the 20s and 30s.
 
2013-01-20 06:33:14 PM

AngryDragon: The people who are really determined to get them still will.


You make an unsupportable assumption- that the nut cases that do these mass shootings are part of the criminal underworld and could get a banned gun if they needed it. If that was true, why don't more of them use fully automatic weapons? A determined criminal could certainly get one of those. But all these mass murderers use guns you can legally purchase. So the logical assumption is that these sick loners would not be able to acquire a gun that was banned.
 
2013-01-20 06:33:34 PM

Alonjar: *shrug* shootings happen every single day. Nobody ever said they didnt.

Every type of crime happens every single day.


"Lots of things are bad, so nothing is bad."
 
2013-01-20 06:33:52 PM

Dinki: ZeroPly: Quit being stupid and just call it a magazine fed semiauto.

How about you gunnuts quit being asshats and stop trying to derail any meaningful limits on gun ownership with pathetic semantic BS?


Because many, many people think these weapons are full auto, or full auto capable, and when asked, are all in favor of banning full auto weapons. Being in favor of banning something that is already so difficult to legally obtain that it effectively is banned makes people look ignorant. When the representative for the Violence Policy Center was interviewed on Fresh Air recently, Terri Gross had to stop him and have him explain to her quite clearly that Adam Lanza had to pull the trigger each time he fired a shot. She clearly thought that he had a full auto weapon.

It's no joke that assault weapons bans are mostly based on cosmetic features. California has such a ban, but the ranges are still full of AR-15s. Now, if you want to ban all semi auto weapons, you at least don't sound like an idiot. I'm not sure that I agree with that idea, and I really don't think it's politically possible (certainly not at a federal level at this time) but it least if it were ever achieved, it might make a meaningful difference.
 
2013-01-20 06:34:04 PM
Yay guns!
 
2013-01-20 06:34:31 PM

AngryDragon: 15-year-olds in possession of firearms is already illegal.

Which new gun law would have prevented this submittard?


...and therefore, there should be no gun laws.

/If you're not saying it, don't imply it.
 
2013-01-20 06:35:18 PM

pedrop357: gimmegimme: pedrop357: cameroncrazy1984: pedrop357: self defense

I think I found the flaw in your "not designed to murder people" theory.

Did self-defense become murder and no one said anything?

It's called "Stand Your Ground." Try to keep up.

You mean the law that says you don't have to try and outrun a knife wielding rapist before defending yourself?


No, it's the law that says you can track and hunt people and shoot them in cold blood because you claim to be "frightened."
 
2013-01-20 06:35:29 PM

BronyMedic: Don't worry. I'll be seeing you tonight.


Dude... do you KNOW where I've been?

Might wanna triple bag it.
 
2013-01-20 06:35:29 PM

sigdiamond2000: Alonjar: *shrug* shootings happen every single day. Nobody ever said they didnt.

Every type of crime happens every single day.

"Lots of things are bad, so nothing is bad."


*mind blown*
 
2013-01-20 06:35:33 PM

Darth Macho: No. But it's a lethal weapon, which is why cops are restricted in its storage and handling. They have to account for every bullet they're issued and any time they discharge their gun there's a serious deciscion cycle involved. Even if they're shooting at practice targets they're still using a human-lethal weapon.

Why do you not expect the public to have similar safety standards?


This is hilarious. Police shoot and found innocent people when they discharge firearms and the only entity that pays is the insurance company for the department or county/city.

Their accountability for each round stops at 'Well, I fired this many rounds and some went into those bystanders there, the car over there, Sergeant Johnson right there, and few probably injured the suspect."
 
2013-01-20 06:36:19 PM

Dinki: So the logical assumption is that these sick loners would not be able to acquire a gun that was banned.


No, they would just use another type. Would it make anyone feel better if he'd used a pump action shotgun to murder his family?
 
2013-01-20 06:36:20 PM

here to help: BronyMedic: Careful, son. Iraq was invaded on the suspicion of possession of less WMD-grade stupid than that.

You're seriously gonna defend that side of the little back and forth that happened there?

Dude... you like play with people insides and crap. Now THAT is frightening.

BAN ALL MEDICS WHO HAPPEN TO BE BRONIES!


Hmmmm, I took Brony to stand for Brooklyn, New York. Of course, I'm too lazy to click the username
 
2013-01-20 06:36:30 PM

IlGreven: AngryDragon: 15-year-olds in possession of firearms is already illegal.

Which new gun law would have prevented this submittard?

...and therefore, there should be no gun laws.

/If you're not saying it, don't imply it.


Uh, he shot his family in the family home with weapons that his 'Responsible Gun Owner' parents legally owned and probably taught him to use.

The circle of derp is closed in this case.
 
2013-01-20 06:36:47 PM

Corvus: I meant GUN NUTS no fun nuts.

Damn autocorrect


I liked fun nuts more.
 
2013-01-20 06:37:01 PM

here to help: Dude... do you KNOW where I've been?

Might wanna triple bag it.


Don't worry, I play safe.

jama.jamanetwork.com

Just bite the pillow, cause it's going in dry.
 
2013-01-20 06:37:14 PM

gimmegimme: No, it's the law that says you can track and hunt people and shoot them in cold blood because you claim to be "frightened."


I've not read that particular text or intention in any law. Citiation?
 
2013-01-20 06:38:01 PM

PsiChick: PDid: Why don't you gun nuts take up a more challenging hobby. Shooting is so easy even a 15 year old autistic kid can do it.

Do you have a link to a better article? I can't find a damn thing about motive FTFA, which is annoying. Was this kid legitimately mentally ill, or just went off one day?

/The sort of questions I come up with.


...autistic is yet another "he's just crazy" dodge from the gun nuts that want to protect their 2nd amendment rights, but wants everyone they don't want to have them lumped in with the "crazies". Morbo sez "THE 2ND AMENDMENT (not to mention the 14th) DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT!"
 
2013-01-20 06:38:17 PM

pedrop357: Darth Macho: No. But it's a lethal weapon, which is why cops are restricted in its storage and handling. They have to account for every bullet they're issued and any time they discharge their gun there's a serious deciscion cycle involved. Even if they're shooting at practice targets they're still using a human-lethal weapon.

Why do you not expect the public to have similar safety standards?

This is hilarious. Police shoot and found innocent people when they discharge firearms and the only entity that pays is the insurance company for the department or county/city.

Their accountability for each round stops at 'Well, I fired this many rounds and some went into those bystanders there, the car over there, Sergeant Johnson right there, and few probably injured the suspect."


My brother works for the LAPD. Personal experience disagrees with your unsupported opinion.
 
2013-01-20 06:38:26 PM
If you took my guns, how would I keep my slaves in line?
 
2013-01-20 06:39:34 PM

pedrop357: gimmegimme: No, it's the law that says you can track and hunt people and shoot them in cold blood because you claim to be "frightened."

I've not read that particular text or intention in any law. Citiation?


Check this out and try to defend Stand Your Ground or to deny we have a problem with the culture of violence.

Link
 
2013-01-20 06:40:27 PM

Darth Macho: My brother works for the LAPD. Personal experience disagrees with your unsupported opinion.


So those NYPD officers who everyone else more than they did the suspect were charged with reckless endangerment, and are able to be sued in court?

Repeat for every police shooting where they fire hundreds of rounds and hit each other, innocent peopl, and uninvolved property more often than they do the suspect.
 
2013-01-20 06:40:36 PM
i129.photobucket.com

So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday. Everyday we hear about a new law coming out; does anyone really think a day will come where politicians won't do knee-jerk reactions and try to score political points after a shooting or any public unfortunate happening? Using this line of thinking, how can you not logically see where we are heading?

So, given the long view, we are clearly moving to a more overbearing government, and I know looking beyond the next 5 years is nearly impossible for people, but considering all this, unless we can somehow magically prevent this slide into a dictatorship or oligarchy, we will eventually, logically, have to assert ourselves forcefully one way or another. How do you propose we do this? Clearly the powers that be would laugh in your face at the minimum, or just send you to jail or just kill you.

On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is ever brought out when the topic of the success of gun control is broached. I think this invisible pillar will quickly disappear, and the bankrupt idea of keeping weapons out of the hands of the people will be shown as a farce once again.
 
2013-01-20 06:40:47 PM
Laws we're designed to codify a set or rules that are beneficial to the greater good. The fact that we have an endless sh*tstream of people who see them as malleable suggestions that one need only find a way to circumvent, gerrymander or find workarounds for is a testament to their necessity. It's not that complicated, really.
 
2013-01-20 06:41:49 PM
The copy cats will continue. The body count still doesn't justify anything more than improved background checks and obligatory gun safes when you have a male 12-25 in the house.
 
2013-01-20 06:42:17 PM

kriegfusion: [i129.photobucket.com image 822x1024]

So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday. Everyday we hear about a new law coming out; does anyone really think a day will come where politicians won't do knee-jerk reactions and try to score political points after a shooting or any public unfortunate happening? Using this line of thinking, how can you not logically see where we are heading?

So, given the long view, we are clearly moving to a more overbearing government, and I know looking beyond the next 5 years is nearly impossible for people, but considering all this, unless we can somehow magically prevent this slide into a dictatorship or oligarchy, we will eventually, logically, have to assert ourselves forcefully one way or another. How do you propose we do this? Clearly the powers that be would laugh in your face at the minimum, or just send you to jail or just kill you.

On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is ever brought out when the to ...


A little constructive criticism: if you want people to take you seriously, you might want to refrain from beginning your post with...pink Hitler.
 
2013-01-20 06:42:30 PM

Dinki: A determined criminal could certainly get one of those. But all these mass murderers use guns you can legally purchase. So the logical assumption is that these sick loners would not be able to acquire a gun that was banned.


And what do you propose would happen to existing guns that would fall under such a ban? Send armed thugs to every home in the nation? Arrest those who attempt to buy compatible ammunition? Use Obama's time machine to shut down the gun factories?

I'm not saying that a free-for-all gun culture is a great idea, and I do believe that something should be done sooner rather than later, but a simple ban is probably going to be about as successful as the ban against illegal drugs.
 
2013-01-20 06:42:47 PM

BronyMedic: pedrop357: Did self-defense become murder and no one said anything?

How many murderers use the affirmative defense claim of "Self Defense" again? Because i'm pretty sure it's a common tactic.


"OH MY GOD, HE'S COMIN' RIGHT FOR US!"
 
2013-01-20 06:42:56 PM
Interest and obsession with guns is a sign of a sociopath. If every gun-porn show turned into a giant gas oven the world would be a better place.
 
2013-01-20 06:43:21 PM
A pastor? I thought God was supposed to stop this sort of thing from happening in places where he's welcome... All those people on FB that apparently posted those pics about how God didn't stop Sandy Hook because he wasn't welcome in our schools... Someone should post a pic asking where he was this time. "I was...ummm...busy washing My hair. Problem?"
 
2013-01-20 06:43:24 PM

kriegfusion: It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free;


That's a pretty big leap there Sparky.
 
2013-01-20 06:43:52 PM

pedrop357: Darth Macho: My brother works for the LAPD. Personal experience disagrees with your unsupported opinion.

So those NYPD officers who everyone else more than they did the suspect were charged with reckless endangerment, and are able to be sued in court?

Repeat for every police shooting where they fire hundreds of rounds and hit each other, innocent peopl, and uninvolved property more often than they do the suspect.


Could you try that again in English and use all the necessary words? I have absolutely no idea what you were trying to type.
 
2013-01-20 06:44:23 PM

gimmegimme: kriegfusion: [i129.photobucket.com image 822x1024]

So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday. Everyday we hear about a new law coming out; does anyone really think a day will come where politicians won't do knee-jerk reactions and try to score political points after a shooting or any public unfortunate happening? Using this line of thinking, how can you not logically see where we are heading?

So, given the long view, we are clearly moving to a more overbearing government, and I know looking beyond the next 5 years is nearly impossible for people, but considering all this, unless we can somehow magically prevent this slide into a dictatorship or oligarchy, we will eventually, logically, have to assert ourselves forcefully one way or another. How do you propose we do this? Clearly the powers that be would laugh in your face at the minimum, or just send you to jail or just kill you.

On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is ever brought ou ...


Didn't even read the text. Because why bother, really.
 
2013-01-20 06:44:39 PM

gimmegimme: Check this out and try to defend Stand Your Ground or to deny we have a problem with the culture of violence.

Link


I like that they use trayvon martin even though zimmerman isn't using 'stand your ground'.

It's worth pointing out that gang members and thugs have regularly claimed self-defense and now just tyr to claim 'stand your ground'. Many of them had the claim tossed out and it's a stretch to say they would not have shot had the law not been there, unless you really want to claim the drug dealers shooting it out with each other would have reconsidered if they couldn't try the "I stood my ground" defense.
 
2013-01-20 06:45:07 PM

Darth Macho: Actually military ballistics like the 5.56mm NATO round are designed solely for the human anatomy, not deer, bear or gamefowl. Whether it's meant to be fired at 'bad guys' or 'innocent children' is irrelevant; its design intention is human-lethal and its primary operating environment is a battlefield.


pretty sure the 556 round was designed primarily to be lightweight and also accurate, not the most lethal bullet possible, so soldiers could carry a lot more of it, because studies after ww2 showed or soldiers missed a whole f*cking lot. that's why snipers aren't firing a 556 very often. lethality was not the primary goal.
 
2013-01-20 06:45:14 PM

duckpoopy: Interest and obsession with guns is a sign of a sociopath. If every gun-porn show turned into a giant gas oven the world would be a better place.


I would also add "irrational fear of the government" to the list of signs of psychosis.
 
2013-01-20 06:45:15 PM
FTFA: Police believe the teenager used an AR-15 semi automatic rifle in the shooting. Multiple weapons were retrieved from the house.

i935.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-20 06:45:26 PM
GUN THREAD!!!!!
Just so you all know, I'm taking a shot of whiskey for every post in this thread.

/currently dictating to wife
//viewings will be during happy hours tomorrow and Wednesday.
///wife like typing detected.
 
2013-01-20 06:45:40 PM

rohar: pedrop357: Darth Macho: My brother works for the LAPD. Personal experience disagrees with your unsupported opinion.

So those NYPD officers who shoot everyone else more than they did the suspect were charged with reckless endangerment, and are able to be sued in court?

Repeat for every police shooting where they fire hundreds of rounds and hit each other, innocent peopl, and uninvolved property more often than they do the suspect.

Could you try that again in English and use all the necessary words? I have absolutely no idea what you were trying to type.

 
2013-01-20 06:46:16 PM
not that lethality wasn't a huge consideration. eh, you know what I mean.
 
2013-01-20 06:46:39 PM
1. The mother of the 15 year old should've used her abortion rights, 15 years ago.
2. Now, let's trample the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the 99.99999999999998798 of gun owners THAT DIDN"T COMMIT A CRIME!
 
2013-01-20 06:46:40 PM

PsiChick: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: PsiChick: PDid: Why don't you gun nuts take up a more challenging hobby. Shooting is so easy even a 15 year old autistic kid can do it.

Do you have a link to a better article? I can't find a damn thing about motive FTFA, which is annoying. Was this kid legitimately mentally ill, or just went off one day?

/The sort of questions I come up with.

I wonder if the lesson here will turn out to be: Lock up your guns before you try to lock up your kid.

Probably: Never underestimate the power of puberty-induced brain damage (and a healthy dose of undiagnosed mental illness on the side).

/You'd be amazed.


Perhaps some religious Protestant/Fundamentalist derp was involved in this too....( granted, I know nothing about the "Calvary Albuquerque Church" )
 
2013-01-20 06:47:51 PM

BronyMedic: here to help: Dude... do you KNOW where I've been?

Might wanna triple bag it.

Don't worry, I play safe.

[jama.jamanetwork.com image 400x554]

Just bite the pillow, cause it's going in dry.


lol... your puny bio suit won't even stop my ultra herp!

*flicks herpes boogers at the Bronester*
 
2013-01-20 06:48:03 PM
And y'all need to slow down. I gotta DRIVE now to get more whiskey.

/ran out of cooking rum an hour ago.
 
2013-01-20 06:48:18 PM

MFAWG: gimmegimme: kriegfusion: [i129.photobucket.com image 822x1024]

So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday. Everyday we hear about a new law coming out; does anyone really think a day will come where politicians won't do knee-jerk reactions and try to score political points after a shooting or any public unfortunate happening? Using this line of thinking, how can you not logically see where we are heading?

So, given the long view, we are clearly moving to a more overbearing government, and I know looking beyond the next 5 years is nearly impossible for people, but considering all this, unless we can somehow magically prevent this slide into a dictatorship or oligarchy, we will eventually, logically, have to assert ourselves forcefully one way or another. How do you propose we do this? Clearly the powers that be would laugh in your face at the minimum, or just send you to jail or just kill you.

On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is eve ...



Basically he said the holocaust would have never happened if the Jews had hammers.
 
2013-01-20 06:48:23 PM

the ha ha guy: Dinki: How about you gunnuts quit being asshats and stop trying to derail any meaningful limits on gun ownership with pathetic semantic BS?


It's no different than when the Democrats used semantics to derail any meaningful discussion after the Republicans attempted to redefine birth control pills as "abortion", or rape that results in pregnancy as "consensual sex".

/Former Democrat, now too ashamed of those in office to associate with any party


What are you trying to say here? Somehow rape:consensual sex as semi auto rifle:assault rifle is a valid equivalence?
 
2013-01-20 06:48:30 PM

pedrop357: rohar: pedrop357: Darth Macho: My brother works for the LAPD. Personal experience disagrees with your unsupported opinion.

So those NYPD officers who shoot everyone else more than they did the suspect were charged with reckless endangerment, and are able to be sued in court?

Repeat for every police shooting where they fire hundreds of rounds and hit each other, innocent peopl, and uninvolved property more often than they do the suspect.

Could you try that again in English and use all the necessary words? I have absolutely no idea what you were trying to type.


Oh, I get what you're after. It's bullshiat, but I see where you're going. We had an officer who improperly deployed a tazer a couple of years ago. He's in PMITA prison now. But I'm sure you're right. The laws regarding improper discharge of a handgun are probably so much more lax than tazers.
 
2013-01-20 06:48:30 PM

relcec: Darth Macho: Actually military ballistics like the 5.56mm NATO round are designed solely for the human anatomy, not deer, bear or gamefowl. Whether it's meant to be fired at 'bad guys' or 'innocent children' is irrelevant; its design intention is human-lethal and its primary operating environment is a battlefield.

pretty sure the 556 round was designed primarily to be lightweight and also accurate, not the most lethal bullet possible, so soldiers could carry a lot more of it, because studies after ww2 showed or soldiers missed a whole f*cking lot. that's why snipers aren't firing a 556 very often. lethality was not the primary goal.


I've heard rumours that the round was designed to be not-quite-so-lethal so resources would be tied up tending to injured soldiers rather than just dropping them dead in a war of attrition.
 
2013-01-20 06:48:50 PM

pedrop357: Dinki: So the logical assumption is that these sick loners would not be able to acquire a gun that was banned.

No, they would just use another type. Would it make anyone feel better if he'd used a pump action shotgun to murder his family?


And this is the point in which I add you to the ignore list. You make no arguments and are just threadshiatting. Your agenda is old and stale. Please... just stop.

Do not bother responding to this post as you are on ignore.
 
2013-01-20 06:49:22 PM

MFAWG: IlGreven: AngryDragon: 15-year-olds in possession of firearms is already illegal.

Which new gun law would have prevented this submittard?

...and therefore, there should be no gun laws.

/If you're not saying it, don't imply it.

Uh, he shot his family in the family home with weapons that his 'Responsible Gun Owner' parents legally owned and probably taught him to use.

The circle of derp is closed in this case.


Again, therefore, there should be no gun laws.

Or is this another "he's clearly crazy, why didn't anyone take his right to keep and bear arms sooner" dodge?

See, you're throwing out "problems" with no solution that won't trample on someone's rights, or that no current law that does will ever fix, and was never designed to fix. If you can't be constructive and try and think of reasonable, sane, legal, and Constitutional ways to fix these problems, then don't bring them up, or don't imply that there should be no gun laws just because they didn't stop the latest shooting, which, every time you bring up "they used legally-obtained weapons" or "no law would've stopped them", you are implying. But neither statement is an argument against gun laws, anymore than "People will still drive drunk" is an argument against DUI laws. Again, cue Morbo: LAWS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT!
 
2013-01-20 06:49:51 PM

kriegfusion: What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government?


So...  We're going to lose our right to vote now because...  you imagine it will happen?

By the way, how are King Friday and Prince Tuesday and X The Owl doing in the Neighborhood of Make Believe? 

You do know that the train that takes you back to reality is, in fact, free, right?
 
2013-01-20 06:50:14 PM

pedrop357: gimmegimme: Check this out and try to defend Stand Your Ground or to deny we have a problem with the culture of violence.

Link

I like that they use trayvon martin even though zimmerman isn't using 'stand your ground'.

It's worth pointing out that gang members and thugs have regularly claimed self-defense and now just tyr to claim 'stand your ground'. Many of them had the claim tossed out and it's a stretch to say they would not have shot had the law not been there, unless you really want to claim the drug dealers shooting it out with each other would have reconsidered if they couldn't try the "I stood my ground" defense.


Huh...that's strange. Why would you look at the list and immediately think about "gang members and thugs" instead of...I dunno...

watchlite.s3.amazonaws.com

Richard Fortner, who shot an unarmed 68-year-old guest in the head because the guy was helping another guest with his poker hand?

Weird.
 
2013-01-20 06:52:11 PM

Propain_az: 2. Now, let's trample the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the 99.99999999999998798 of gun owners THAT DIDN"T COMMIT A CRIME!


Your alternative is to trample on the rights of the 0.9% of gun owners who also don't commit a crime, but fail at some arbitrary measurement. 80 years ago, in another country, this arbitrary measurement was your religion.
 
2013-01-20 06:52:40 PM

pedrop357: Gyrfalcon: You know, you might be the single stupidest person ever. I've never met anyone so determined to defend guns as non-killing devices in my life. The only use of a gun is to shoot a bullet, okay, you win. Happy?

Yep, it's a designed to shoot a bullet. A car is designed to transport people.

It's all about the person operating it.


And a bullet is designed to penetrate flesh, but it's useless without a gun. Why, it's almost as if bullets and guns are designed with each other in mind. Together, they perform a specific function.

Furthermore, confusing function and intent is the root of every stupid pro-gun argument. The INTENT of the person holding the gun does not affect the FUNCTION of a gun. Case in point: a gun in the hands of a four-year-old child.
 
2013-01-20 06:53:06 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Over 9 people died in the past hour!!! From alcohol.. This is getting ridiculous. Do people not realize that in a country of 310,000,000 people this happens pretty much every day? How math illiterate do you have to be to be shocked by this? Just because the news doesn't tell you, doesn't mean it's not happening. Christ, if you people knew what was going on in Africa right now, you'd shiat yourselves.

Citation needed. Meanwhile, gun shootings in the PAST MONTH are nearing 1000.


Citation needed? You're kidding right? 80,000 per year/365/24. But since you think 1000 is a lot, and you suck at basic math that's 6666 per month from alcohol related death.
 
2013-01-20 06:53:28 PM

Into the blue again: And this is the point in which I add you to the ignore list. You make no arguments and are just threadshiatting. Your agenda is old and stale. Please... just stop.

Do not bother responding to this post as you are on ignore.



Not the ignore list, no!
 
2013-01-20 06:53:46 PM
I am personally all in favor of drug dealers, gangstah boyees and every other tattooed tough monkey wanker - who sees the human race as a disposable commodity in their quest for super badasshood - to shoot it out with each other. I say we rope off 10,000 acres of WY, air drop bottled water, full auto rifles and enough ammo to erase an entire species and let Darwin put his feet up. There has always been the obvious fact that, should a given portion of the earth's population get greased and turned into mulch, it would be a nicer place to live for the remaining denizens. We have, however, as a species also realized that no one person is allowed to make that call as to who gets greased. Many have tried and they always turn out to be the bad guys. For better or worse, it's becoming painfully easier to precisely delineate who should end up in the lime pit, and on nothing more than the cursory review of their own behavior. The fact that this sort of behavior is becoming more common, and held as intractable in the view of our society, speaks to the problem far more than the toolkit they use. But I think the toolkit helps.
 
2013-01-20 06:53:50 PM

duckpoopy: Interest and obsession with guns is a sign of a sociopath. If every gun-porn show turned into a giant gas oven the world would be a better place.


Well, at least your first concern is saving lives, right?
 
2013-01-20 06:54:07 PM

DarthBart: FTFA: Police believe the teenager used an AR-15 semi automatic rifle in the shooting. Multiple weapons were retrieved from the house.

[i935.photobucket.com image 416x621]


WHAR GLOCK WHAR
 
2013-01-20 06:54:22 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Princess Ryans Knickers: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Over 9 people died in the past hour!!! From alcohol.. This is getting ridiculous. Do people not realize that in a country of 310,000,000 people this happens pretty much every day? How math illiterate do you have to be to be shocked by this? Just because the news doesn't tell you, doesn't mean it's not happening. Christ, if you people knew what was going on in Africa right now, you'd shiat yourselves.

Citation needed. Meanwhile, gun shootings in the PAST MONTH are nearing 1000.

Citation needed? You're kidding right? 80,000 per year/365/24. But since you think 1000 is a lot, and you suck at basic math that's 6666 per month from alcohol related death.


Lie.

http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities- n ational-statistics

Also, gun deaths exceed that last year.
 
2013-01-20 06:54:36 PM

kriegfusion: [i129.photobucket.com image 822x1024]

So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday. Everyday we hear about a new law coming out; does anyone really think a day will come where politicians won't do knee-jerk reactions and try to score political points after a shooting or any public unfortunate happening? Using this line of thinking, how can you not logically see where we are heading?

So, given the long view, we are clearly moving to a more overbearing government, and I know looking beyond the next 5 years is nearly impossible for people, but considering all this, unless we can somehow magically prevent this slide into a dictatorship or oligarchy, we will eventually, logically, have to assert ourselves forcefully one way or another. How do you propose we do this? Clearly the powers that be would laugh in your face at the minimum, or just send you to jail or just kill you.

On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is ever brought out when the to ...


That may be the best way to get the thread's attention I've ever seen.
 
2013-01-20 06:55:28 PM

bunner: Laws we're designed to codify a set or rules that are beneficial to the greater good. The fact that we have an endless sh*tstream of people who see them as malleable suggestions that one need only find a way to circumvent, gerrymander or find workarounds for is a testament to their necessity. It's not that complicated, really.


Laws are just words on parchment.

Schindler was a smuggler. George Washington was a traitor. Rosa Parks was ne'er do well who caused public disturbances.

The list goes on, but the point is mistaking laws which a written by mere politicians for anything other than a complex gambling game we're all forced to play is a bit dangerous. Ideally laws should reflect a good, moral system to maximize the good in the world. Actually, it's more like Monopoly but the money's real and you can't quit just because don't like how the board's looking.

A better aproach to life is to be a moral person. Do the right thing and 90% of the time you'll be legal and the other 10% it's civil disobedience, a treatise you may want to read again if it's been awhile.
 
2013-01-20 06:55:57 PM

dr_blasto: the ha ha guy: Dinki: How about you gunnuts quit being asshats and stop trying to derail any meaningful limits on gun ownership with pathetic semantic BS?


It's no different than when the Democrats used semantics to derail any meaningful discussion after the Republicans attempted to redefine birth control pills as "abortion", or rape that results in pregnancy as "consensual sex".

/Former Democrat, now too ashamed of those in office to associate with any party

What are you trying to say here? Somehow rape:consensual sex as semi auto rifle:assault rifle is a valid equivalence?



I mean that if you want people to take you seriously, stick to the legal definitions. When you use "it looks scary" as a defining factor of whether something should be banned, it's no different than the Republicans saying "it stops pregnancy so it's abortion" to argue that insurance companies shouldn't pay for birth control.

If you want to cut down on gun violence, find and respond to the real problem, don't just make a knee-jerk ban of a type of gun that accounts for less than .04% of firearm-related murders in the US.
 
2013-01-20 06:56:54 PM

kriegfusion: [i129.photobucket.com image 822x1024]

So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday. Everyday we hear about a new law coming out; does anyone really think a day will come where politicians won't do knee-jerk reactions and try to score political points after a shooting or any public unfortunate happening? Using this line of thinking, how can you not logically see where we are heading?

So, given the long view, we are clearly moving to a more overbearing government, and I know looking beyond the next 5 years is nearly impossible for people, but considering all this, unless we can somehow magically prevent this slide into a dictatorship or oligarchy, we will eventually, logically, have to assert ourselves forcefully one way or another. How do you propose we do this? Clearly the powers that be would laugh in your face at the minimum, or just send you to jail or just kill you.

On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is ever brought out when the to ...

 
2013-01-20 06:57:00 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Princess Ryans Knickers: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Over 9 people died in the past hour!!! From alcohol.. This is getting ridiculous. Do people not realize that in a country of 310,000,000 people this happens pretty much every day? How math illiterate do you have to be to be shocked by this? Just because the news doesn't tell you, doesn't mean it's not happening. Christ, if you people knew what was going on in Africa right now, you'd shiat yourselves.

Citation needed. Meanwhile, gun shootings in the PAST MONTH are nearing 1000.

Citation needed? You're kidding right? 80,000 per year/365/24. But since you think 1000 is a lot, and you suck at basic math that's 6666 per month from alcohol related death.

Lie.

http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities- n ational-statistics

Also, gun deaths exceed that last year.


You'll notice he used all alcohol deaths and not just those involving vehicles. The only way to make gun deaths=alcohol related crash death is to include suicides. Japan, South Korea, Australia, just to name 3 all have very strict gun control and a suicide rate that is close to, or far exceeds, ours.
 
2013-01-20 06:57:06 PM

NowhereMon: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

There is nothing more annoying than a gun grammar Nazi. Obviously, what you are trying to do is say that someone who is not an absolute expert in these guns does not deserve a voice in this debate. Don't be that asshole.


Why are we allowing idiots spoil the conversation with misinformation?
 
2013-01-20 06:58:01 PM
In the aftermath of this tragedy the government must quickly take advantage of the emotional situation and restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. Even though the odds of the same thing happening to you are incredibly low and the new laws will do little or nothing to make us safer or prevent the tragedy from happening again.

Fark after 9/11...

images.sodahead.com

Fark after shootings...

i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-20 06:58:27 PM

kriegfusion: [i129.photobucket.com image 822x1024]

So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday. Everyday we hear about a new law coming out; does anyone really think a day will come where politicians won't do knee-jerk reactions and try to score political points after a shooting or any public unfortunate happening? Using this line of thinking, how can you not logically see where we are heading?

So, given the long view, we are clearly moving to a more overbearing government, and I know looking beyond the next 5 years is nearly impossible for people, but considering all this, unless we can somehow magically prevent this slide into a dictatorship or oligarchy, we will eventually, logically, have to assert ourselves forcefully one way or another. How do you propose we do this? Clearly the powers that be would laugh in your face at the minimum, or just send you to jail or just kill you.

On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is ever brought out when the to ...


Alright... I'll bite a little here. First, there are few who are actually on the full weapon ban side. Most of us just want to add new rules and regulations. Banning all guns is not our agenda, the constitution is important to us as well. When you paint the issue as an all or nothing rule... then you have lost the discussion already. The world isn't black and white and no one will take you seriously. You will continue to be brushed off as a crazy... probably rightly so based on your argument that we are on this path to some sort of dictatorship. The government is NOT oppressing you, take some meds.
 
2013-01-20 06:58:32 PM

DarthBart: FTFA: Police believe the teenager used an AR-15 semi automatic rifle in the shooting. Multiple weapons were retrieved from the house.

[i935.photobucket.com image 416x621]


the rule is that one of those has to say Glock.
 
2013-01-20 06:58:35 PM

kriegfusion: [i129.photobucket.com image 822x1024]

So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday. Everyday we hear about a new law coming out; does anyone really think a day will come where politicians won't do knee-jerk reactions and try to score political points after a shooting or any public unfortunate happening? Using this line of thinking, how can you not logically see where we are heading?

So, given the long view, we are clearly moving to a more overbearing government, and I know looking beyond the next 5 years is nearly impossible for people, but considering all this, unless we can somehow magically prevent this slide into a dictatorship or oligarchy, we will eventually, logically, have to assert ourselves forcefully one way or another. How do you propose we do this? Clearly the powers that be would laugh in your face at the minimum, or just send you to jail or just kill you.

On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is ever brought out when the to ...


AHEM.

i306.photobucket.com

Your flawed assumption is that the majority of those "armed patriots" wouldn't be on the side of a despondent  totalitarian Government. Historically, this is almost always the rule, never the exception. Since you want to use Hitler as an example, the Nazi Regime never had a fear of an armed society, because it was that society which put them into power.
 
2013-01-20 06:59:02 PM

doglover: Laws are just words on parchment.


You mean like the constitution? George, is that you?

doglover: Schindler was a smuggler. George Washington was a traitor. Rosa Parks was ne'er do well who caused public disturbances.


Um, not so much.

doglover: A better aproach to life is to be a moral person.


You mean be decent? You mean there's a black letter AND spirit of the law? Yeah, I think the laws being written down sort of helps. You know, founding an entire civilization on the fact that linear print allows ideas to be held forth for the ages, unaltered by the telephone game of oral tradition, and all that, eh wot?
 
2013-01-20 06:59:45 PM
We should ban 15 year olds from owning assault weapons.
 
2013-01-20 06:59:51 PM

the ha ha guy: I'm not saying that a free-for-all gun culture is a great idea, and I do believe that something should be done sooner rather than later, but a simple ban is probably going to be about as successful as the ban against illegal drugs.


Guns aren't drugs- drugs can be grown or manufactured by just about anybody. The average person cannot make a functioning magazine fed gun. I have no doubts that a real ban on mag fed guns would take many years to fully take affect. But the simple fact is the alternative is going to be more mass murders.
 
2013-01-20 06:59:59 PM

illannoyin: In the aftermath of this tragedy the government must quickly take advantage of the emotional situation and restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. Even though the odds of the same thing happening to you are incredibly low and the new laws will do little or nothing to make us safer or prevent the tragedy from happening again.

Fark after 9/11...

[images.sodahead.com image 350x273]

Fark after shootings...

[i.imgur.com image 307x354]


I'm sorry that your idea to arm all airline pilots, stewards and passengers never gained any traction.
 
2013-01-20 07:00:08 PM
MOAR LAWS! MOAR LAWS!

that will solve everything.
 
2013-01-20 07:01:41 PM
Nobody's even shocked anymore...

Nice country you've got there, America!
 
2013-01-20 07:01:57 PM

GF named my left testicle thundercles: i have a suggestion. why dont we solve the reasons that give people the desire to kill, instead of just removing one of the tools by which the killing is carried out?


I have a better idea; why not do both? If your goal is to reduce deaths as much as possible wouldn't that be the logical approach?
 
2013-01-20 07:02:12 PM

Gyrfalcon: pedrop357: bunner: They are DESIGNED to squirt lead at whatever the f*ck you point them at. Utilization is at the discretion of the of the cat with their finger on the trigger. But they are designed to be used against whatever you point them at. The false equivalency argument IS crap, sorry.

In other words, they have other uses just like fuel, cars, etc.

You know, you might be the single stupidest person ever. I've never met anyone so determined to defend guns as non-killing devices in my life. The only use of a gun is to shoot a bullet, okay, you win. Happy?


But a gun isn't a weapon, it's a tool.

Like a butcher knife or a harpoon or... um... an alligator.
 
2013-01-20 07:02:55 PM

Dinki: Guns aren't drugs- drugs can be grown or manufactured by just about anybody. The average person cannot make a functioning magazine fed gun. I have no doubts that a real ban on mag fed guns would take many years to fully take affect. But the simple fact is the alternative is going to be more mass murders.


that's a joke, right? Anyone who can make mufflers can make a gun, even a magazine fed gun.
Guns don't have a shelf life like most drugs so they outlast anything grown or manufactured.

To air analyzers, making guns doesn't smell any different than making other metal objects. The same is not true for drugs. The grown have unique scents, and the manufactured ones all release not so common byproducts.
 
2013-01-20 07:03:12 PM

Makh: http://cncnws.com/blog/2013/01/20/exclusive-boy-15-shoots-his-pastor- f ather-and-family-dead-with-military-style-assault-rifle-in-bloody-shoo ting-rampage/

It was his own family he shot.  Multiple guns in the house, everyone was armed so it was ok.  They should have been able to prevent it, right?

/I mean this is the argument right?


You know, given the current political climate (and the fact that they own so many weapons) you have to think that the family must have talked about gun control and mental health around the dinner table some time in the last month or so. I doubt Dad and Mom ever thought that they and three of their youngest children would be killed by their own weapons before any legislation had been written. And yet, here we are.
 
2013-01-20 07:03:34 PM

WhippingBoy: Nobody's even shocked anymore...

Nice country you've got there, America!


It was like that when I got here.
 
2013-01-20 07:03:36 PM

pedrop357: Princess Ryans Knickers: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Princess Ryans Knickers: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Over 9 people died in the past hour!!! From alcohol.. This is getting ridiculous. Do people not realize that in a country of 310,000,000 people this happens pretty much every day? How math illiterate do you have to be to be shocked by this? Just because the news doesn't tell you, doesn't mean it's not happening. Christ, if you people knew what was going on in Africa right now, you'd shiat yourselves.

Citation needed. Meanwhile, gun shootings in the PAST MONTH are nearing 1000.

Citation needed? You're kidding right? 80,000 per year/365/24. But since you think 1000 is a lot, and you suck at basic math that's 6666 per month from alcohol related death.

Lie.

http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities- n ational-statistics

Also, gun deaths exceed that last year.

You'll notice he used all alcohol deaths and not just those involving vehicles. The only way to make gun deaths=alcohol related crash death is to include suicides. Japan, South Korea, Australia, just to name 3 all have very strict gun control and a suicide rate that is close to, or far exceeds, ours.


Did you even look at the site? Want to know how I know you didn't?
 
2013-01-20 07:04:02 PM

pedrop357: that's a joke, right? Anyone who can make mufflers can make a gun, even a magazine fed gun.


Bullshiat.

Unless someone has access to expensive milling equipment, quality materials, and metal-shaping and working tools, the best they're going to be able to make is a Zip Gun that is going to be as dangerous to them as to anyone else.
 
2013-01-20 07:04:26 PM
The United States Constitution is widely regarded by the balance of the world to be one of the most functional, useful and well written documents as a basis for governance in history. The balance of the world has also, though, long ago grown weary of watching Americans use it as a pry bar, toilet paper, mommy's skirt and a hall pass for every form of bad behavior imaginable. Frankly, I am, too.
 
2013-01-20 07:04:27 PM

pedrop357: bunner: Or that motor fuel, while not designed to be used as a weapon, CAN be. Most things can, I suppose. Although I'm pretty sure that the primary application for gasoline, as designed, isn't setting motherf*ckers on fire. Get it?

Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.
THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.


photos1.blogger.com
 
2013-01-20 07:04:28 PM

ElBarto79: I have a better idea; why not do both? If your goal is to reduce deaths as much as possible wouldn't that be the logical approach?


Banning tools is wholly ineffective in solving anything, that's why we don't want to do it. It's a waste of time, resources, and brings a false sense of security, all of which are counter to the goal of saving lives.
 
2013-01-20 07:04:52 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Anal Tobacco Furnace: I think AR is an acronym for "automatic rifle".

Armalite.


Neato! Thanks for the knowledge.
 
2013-01-20 07:04:58 PM

pedrop357: Princess Ryans Knickers: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Princess Ryans Knickers: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Over 9 people died in the past hour!!! From alcohol.. This is getting ridiculous. Do people not realize that in a country of 310,000,000 people this happens pretty much every day? How math illiterate do you have to be to be shocked by this? Just because the news doesn't tell you, doesn't mean it's not happening. Christ, if you people knew what was going on in Africa right now, you'd shiat yourselves.

Citation needed. Meanwhile, gun shootings in the PAST MONTH are nearing 1000.

Citation needed? You're kidding right? 80,000 per year/365/24. But since you think 1000 is a lot, and you suck at basic math that's 6666 per month from alcohol related death.

Lie.

http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities- n ational-statistics

Also, gun deaths exceed that last year.

You'll notice he used all alcohol deaths and not just those involving vehicles. The only way to make gun deaths=alcohol related crash death is to include suicides. Japan, South Korea, Australia, just to name 3 all have very strict gun control and a suicide rate that is close to, or far exceeds, ours.


Roughly half of all gun related deaths are suicides. Are you suggesting these aren't tragedies as well?
 
2013-01-20 07:05:02 PM

gimmegimme: kriegfusion: [i129.photobucket.com image 822x1024]

So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday. Everyday we hear about a new law coming out; does anyone really think a day will come where politicians won't do knee-jerk reactions and try to score political points after a shooting or any public unfortunate happening? Using this line of thinking, how can you not logically see where we are heading?

So, given the long view, we are clearly moving to a more overbearing government, and I know looking beyond the next 5 years is nearly impossible for people, but considering all this, unless we can somehow magically prevent this slide into a dictatorship or oligarchy, we will eventually, logically, have to assert ourselves forcefully one way or another. How do you propose we do this? Clearly the powers that be would laugh in your face at the minimum, or just send you to jail or just kill you.

On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is ever brought ou ...


I made the mistake of reading the text of his post.

You didn't miss much.
 
2013-01-20 07:05:44 PM

rohar: pedrop357: Princess Ryans Knickers: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Princess Ryans Knickers: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Over 9 people died in the past hour!!! From alcohol.. This is getting ridiculous. Do people not realize that in a country of 310,000,000 people this happens pretty much every day? How math illiterate do you have to be to be shocked by this? Just because the news doesn't tell you, doesn't mean it's not happening. Christ, if you people knew what was going on in Africa right now, you'd shiat yourselves.

Citation needed. Meanwhile, gun shootings in the PAST MONTH are nearing 1000.

Citation needed? You're kidding right? 80,000 per year/365/24. But since you think 1000 is a lot, and you suck at basic math that's 6666 per month from alcohol related death.

Lie.

http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities- n ational-statistics

Also, gun deaths exceed that last year.

You'll notice he used all alcohol deaths and not just those involving vehicles. The only way to make gun deaths=alcohol related crash death is to include suicides. Japan, South Korea, Australia, just to name 3 all have very strict gun control and a suicide rate that is close to, or far exceeds, ours.

Roughly half of all gun related deaths are suicides. Are you suggesting these aren't tragedies as well?


Not only that but idiots like him count murder-suicide as ... wait for it... suicide.
 
2013-01-20 07:05:52 PM
I find it moderately entertaining how every time a shooting occurrs, the Anti D-Bags have to go crazy with the same inane rhetoric, but the constant stream of people dying through other means which dwarfs the shooting numbers by orders of magnitude are somehow okay.

Oh, that's right, we're only paying attention to dead people that help you push your agenda.

So it's just fine and freaking dandy for litte sally to get wiped out in a car wreck, or beat to death by an abusive family member, but shot!
OUTRAGE!! THIS MUST NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN!! DERP WHARGARRBLLE.

Silly me.
 
2013-01-20 07:05:53 PM

kriegfusion: What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government?


Let's look at all the other rights we've lost while we had the immediate means to enforce our will upon the government:

1st Amendment right to free assembly (See Occupy Protests)
4th Amendment right to unreasonable search and seizure (TSA, Warrantless Wiretapping, Terrorist Watch Lists)
5th Amendment right to be detained without charge ("enemy combatants", Gitmo)
6th Amendment right to fair and speedy trial to know what you're being charged with and to face your accusers (again, "enemy combatants", Gitmo)
8th Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment (waterboarding, other torture)
14th Amendment right to due process and equal protection (once again, "enemy combatants", Gitmo)

But, thankfully, you still have your 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. As well as your 3rd amendment right to refuse to quarter soldiers in your home during peacetime.
 
2013-01-20 07:05:54 PM

pedrop357: Dinki: Guns aren't drugs- drugs can be grown or manufactured by just about anybody. The average person cannot make a functioning magazine fed gun. I have no doubts that a real ban on mag fed guns would take many years to fully take affect. But the simple fact is the alternative is going to be more mass murders.

that's a joke, right? Anyone who can make mufflers can make a gun, even a magazine fed gun.
Guns don't have a shelf life like most drugs so they outlast anything grown or manufactured.

To air analyzers, making guns doesn't smell any different than making other metal objects. The same is not true for drugs. The grown have unique scents, and the manufactured ones all release not so common byproducts.


Soo....you're saying that thousands of people are killing each other with guns made from mufflers? Do you have any proof?

There are, on the other hand, thousands of Americans being killed by guns.
 
2013-01-20 07:05:59 PM
They died for the necessary pursuit of profit...err...freedom.
 
2013-01-20 07:06:10 PM

SuperNinjaToad: photos1.blogger.com


Can you show any proof that the makers of guns, the inventors of different actions, the sellers of guns, or that anything more then .00001% of their owners believe that guns are meant to kill innocent people?
 
2013-01-20 07:06:41 PM

pedrop357: Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.
THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.


I thought they were a tool with no special inherent properties of their own? How are they specially designed to not shoot innocent people? Where's the innocence detector on them that locks the trigger?

They are a tool to put holes in what you want to put holes in, be that a paper target, an animal, a burglar, an enemy soldier, a government agent or a small child. You decide what to put the hole in, the tool makes the hole. It makes a different type and shape of hole than other hole-making tools like a knife or sword, and it can do it at a greater distance and at a faster rate. The holes it makes are also bigger. This makes this particular tool very efficient in making a large number of holes very quickly at a distance that keeps you relatively safer from retaliation.
 
2013-01-20 07:07:07 PM

gimmegimme: Soo....you're saying that thousands of people are killing each other with guns made from mufflers? Do you have any proof?


To be fair, I've got a guide on my laptop that tells you how to build all kinds of nasty killing equipment, like zip guns and explosives, from the US Military.

Also, to be fair, a zip gun made from the hardware store is about as dangerous to the user as it is to anyone it's pointed at.
 
2013-01-20 07:07:13 PM

computerguyUT: MOAR LAWS! MOAR LAWS!

that will solve everything.


You're probably right. How 'bout we repeal a couple. Like the Dick act. Tell me how your gun rights feel after that?
 
2013-01-20 07:07:34 PM
How many days till the next one? Will we ever get to double figures again?
 
2013-01-20 07:07:40 PM

gimmegimme: Soo....you're saying that thousands of people are killing each other with guns made from mufflers? Do you have any proof?

There are, on the other hand, thousands of Americans being killed by guns.


No, moron. That the process to make a gun is about as difficult as making a muffler.
 
2013-01-20 07:07:52 PM

Into the blue again: The government is NOT oppressing you, take some meds.


But it can! We have to be ready.

/sarcasm
 
2013-01-20 07:08:09 PM

the ha ha guy: dr_blasto: the ha ha guy: Dinki: How about you gunnuts quit being asshats and stop trying to derail any meaningful limits on gun ownership with pathetic semantic BS?


It's no different than when the Democrats used semantics to derail any meaningful discussion after the Republicans attempted to redefine birth control pills as "abortion", or rape that results in pregnancy as "consensual sex".

/Former Democrat, now too ashamed of those in office to associate with any party

What are you trying to say here? Somehow rape:consensual sex as semi auto rifle:assault rifle is a valid equivalence?


I mean that if you want people to take you seriously, stick to the legal definitions. When you use "it looks scary" as a defining factor of whether something should be banned, it's no different than the Republicans saying "it stops pregnancy so it's abortion" to argue that insurance companies shouldn't pay for birth control.

If you want to cut down on gun violence, find and respond to the real problem, don't just make a knee-jerk ban of a type of gun that accounts for less than .04% of firearm-related murders in the US.


People keep saying assault rifle because they're really not aware of the specific differences. They simply do not know; what they really want to say is that they'd prefer to limit access to magazine-fed semi automatic rifles. That's too many words for some and doesn't have the same ring as "assault rifle" so maybe I can see the relevance.

The difference, though, is the anti-abortion types want to ban birth control and are afraid to say that out loud. The anti-gun types are largely just ignorant of the definitions. At least, that's how it looks to me.
 
2013-01-20 07:08:44 PM

bunner: I am personally all in favor of drug dealers, gangstah boyees and every other tattooed tough monkey wanker - who sees the human race as a disposable commodity in their quest for super badasshood - to shoot it out with each other. I say we rope off 10,000 acres of WY, air drop bottled water, full auto rifles and enough ammo to erase an entire species and let Darwin put his feet up. There has always been the obvious fact that, should a given portion of the earth's population get greased and turned into mulch, it would be a nicer place to live for the remaining denizens. We have, however, as a species also realized that no one person is allowed to make that call as to who gets greased. Many have tried and they always turn out to be the bad guys. For better or worse, it's becoming painfully easier to precisely delineate who should end up in the lime pit, and on nothing more than the cursory review of their own behavior. The fact that this sort of behavior is becoming more common, and held as intractable in the view of our society, speaks to the problem far more than the toolkit they use. But I think the toolkit helps.


I would pay $49.99 pay-per-view for this!

/stimulate the economy!!!
 
2013-01-20 07:08:50 PM

the ha ha guy: Dinki: A determined criminal could certainly get one of those. But all these mass murderers use guns you can legally purchase. So the logical assumption is that these sick loners would not be able to acquire a gun that was banned.

And what do you propose would happen to existing guns that would fall under such a ban? Send armed thugs to every home in the nation? Arrest those who attempt to buy compatible ammunition? Use Obama's time machine to shut down the gun factories?

I'm not saying that a free-for-all gun culture is a great idea, and I do believe that something should be done sooner rather than later, but a simple ban is probably going to be about as successful as the ban against illegal drugs.


Law enforcement officers are "armed thugs"?

Would you like to whup out the Ouija board and have a little chat with my stepfather about that?

Would you also call my brother a "baby killer" because he spent ten years in the Marines?
 
2013-01-20 07:08:53 PM

pippi longstocking: They died for the necessary pursuit of profit...err...freedom.


Thank you for remembering the real victims here.

lh5.googleusercontent.com

NEVER FORGET.
 
2013-01-20 07:09:07 PM

Darth Macho: pedrop357: bunner: Or that motor fuel, while not designed to be used as a weapon, CAN be. Most things can, I suppose. Although I'm pretty sure that the primary application for gasoline, as designed, isn't setting motherf*ckers on fire. Get it?

Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.
THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.

Actually military ballistics like the 5.56mm NATO round are designed solely for the human anatomy, not deer, bear or gamefowl. Whether it's meant to be fired at 'bad guys' or 'innocent children' is irrelevant; its design intention is human-lethal and its primary operating environment is a battlefield.




That you think 5.56 NATO is designed to be human lethal proves your ignorance of the subject.

You do realize they still issue .308 rifles to people whose shots have to be lethal, right? I mean seriously, are you that stupid?
 
2013-01-20 07:09:28 PM

DustBunny: thought they were a tool with no special inherent properties of their own? How are they specially designed to not shoot innocent people? Where's the innocence detector on them that locks the trigger?

They are a tool to put holes in what you want to put holes in, be that a paper target, an animal, a burglar, an enemy soldier, a government agent or a small child. You decide what to put the hole in, the tool makes the hole. It makes a different type and shape of hole than other hole-making tools like a knife or sword, and it can do it at a greater distance and at a faster rate. The holes it makes are also bigger. This makes this particular tool very efficient in making a large number of holes very quickly at a distance that keeps you relatively safer from retaliation.



This was a reply to those who always claim that cars aren't designed to kill, etc. and that guns are designed for one purpose-to kill. if they wish to endow objects with qualities like they do, then I suppose it's fair to reply on their level.
 
2013-01-20 07:09:56 PM

computerguyUT: I find it moderately entertaining how every time a shooting occurrs, the Anti D-Bags have to go crazy with the same inane rhetoric, but the constant stream of people dying through other means which dwarfs the shooting numbers by orders of magnitude are somehow okay.


Yeah. People get killed by guns all the time, it's no big deal.
 
2013-01-20 07:09:58 PM

badhatharry: We should ban 15 year olds from owning assault weapons.


Are you suggesting that we take assault weapons away from all families that have 15 year old children living in the house?
 
2013-01-20 07:10:10 PM

IlGreven: kriegfusion: What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government?

Let's look at all the other rights we've lost while we had the immediate means to enforce our will upon the government:

1st Amendment right to free assembly (See Occupy Protests)
4th Amendment right to unreasonable search and seizure (TSA, Warrantless Wiretapping, Terrorist Watch Lists)
5th Amendment right to be detained without charge ("enemy combatants", Gitmo)
6th Amendment right to fair and speedy trial to know what you're being charged with and to face your accusers (again, "enemy combatants", Gitmo)
8th Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment (waterboarding, other torture)
14th Amendment right to due process and equal protection (once again, "enemy combatants", Gitmo)

But, thankfully, you still have your 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. As well as your 3rd amendment right to refuse to quarter soldiers in your home during peacetime.


Thank you for saying it better than I could.
 
2013-01-20 07:10:30 PM

pedrop357: SuperNinjaToad: photos1.blogger.com

Can you show any proof that the makers of guns, the inventors of different actions, the sellers of guns, or that anything more then .00001% of their owners believe that guns are meant to kill innocent people?


If someone knew the history of guns, which I would expect if they are a true, responsible gun owner and not one of the Rambos in this thread, they would know that guns were created for one purpose and one purpose only: war. They were simply too inaccurate to use for hunting and weren't in any real quantities until the 1700s when accuracy improved and the cost to maintain one went down.
 
2013-01-20 07:10:50 PM

computerguyUT: I find it moderately entertaining how every time a shooting occurrs, the Anti D-Bags have to go crazy with the same inane rhetoric, but the constant stream of people dying through other means which dwarfs the shooting numbers by orders of magnitude are somehow okay.

Oh, that's right, we're only paying attention to dead people that help you push your agenda.

So it's just fine and freaking dandy for litte sally to get wiped out in a car wreck, or beat to death by an abusive family member, but shot!
OUTRAGE!! THIS MUST NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN!! DERP WHARGARRBLLE.

Silly me.


Baby's First Argument...I love this story!
 
2013-01-20 07:11:01 PM

Mrtraveler01: computerguyUT: I find it moderately entertaining how every time a shooting occurrs, the Anti D-Bags have to go crazy with the same inane rhetoric, but the constant stream of people dying through other means which dwarfs the shooting numbers by orders of magnitude are somehow okay.

Yeah. People get killed by guns all the time, it's no big deal.


Why are their deaths worth so much more attention? Why those deaths justify trampling all over the rights of everyone else?
 
2013-01-20 07:11:05 PM

computerguyUT: MOAR LAWS! MOAR LAWS!

that will solve everything.


That is the concept behind the ongoing refinement and improvement of a society that's based on the rule of law.
 
2013-01-20 07:11:11 PM
griego m (plural griegos, feminine singular griega, feminine plural griegas)
1.a Greek
2.(colloquial, masculine) An unintelligible language.
3.anal sex; anal No hago griego. I don't do anal.

Probable case of self defense?
 
2013-01-20 07:11:12 PM

BronyMedic: gimmegimme: Soo....you're saying that thousands of people are killing each other with guns made from mufflers? Do you have any proof?

To be fair, I've got a guide on my laptop that tells you how to build all kinds of nasty killing equipment, like zip guns and explosives, from the US Military.

Also, to be fair, a zip gun made from the hardware store is about as dangerous to the user as it is to anyone it's pointed at.


To be completely fair, there are plans for the Starship Enterprise online, too, but no one is building their own fully functional warp core.

pedrop357: gimmegimme: Soo....you're saying that thousands of people are killing each other with guns made from mufflers? Do you have any proof?

There are, on the other hand, thousands of Americans being killed by guns.

No, moron. That the process to make a gun is about as difficult as making a muffler.


See above, genius.
 
2013-01-20 07:11:13 PM

Mrtraveler01: Into the blue again: The government is NOT oppressing you, take some meds.

But it can! We have to be ready.

/sarcasm


HA!
 
2013-01-20 07:11:46 PM

Dinki: the ha ha guy: I'm not saying that a free-for-all gun culture is a great idea, and I do believe that something should be done sooner rather than later, but a simple ban is probably going to be about as successful as the ban against illegal drugs.

Guns aren't drugs- drugs can be grown or manufactured by just about anybody. The average person cannot make a functioning magazine fed gun. I have no doubts that a real ban on mag fed guns would take many years to fully take affect. But the simple fact is the alternative is going to be more mass murders.



Rifles of any type (of which magazine-fed semi-automatics are a sub category) are used in ~300-400 murders per year. Handguns, which do not count under any definition of "assault weapon", are used in ~6000-7000 murders per year.

I'm in favor of an all-around weapon reform, as long as every otherwise legal firearm gets equal treatment under the law. But putting a laser focus on assault rifles and ignoring everything else isn't going to save many lives, short or long term.
 
2013-01-20 07:12:11 PM

pedrop357: gimmegimme: Soo....you're saying that thousands of people are killing each other with guns made from mufflers? Do you have any proof?

There are, on the other hand, thousands of Americans being killed by guns.

No, moron. That the process to make a gun is about as difficult as making a muffler.


You know how I know you're not a machinist? It takes years of experience and expensive machinery to produce an effective and trustworthy firearm. It takes about 20 minutes, some sheet metal, a mig welder, 20 minutes of training and a pile of perlite to make a muffler.

/part time fabricator
//20 years machining experience
///go fark yourself
 
2013-01-20 07:12:35 PM

kriegfusion: So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday.


Firstly, more laws does not always result in less liberty. Hell, the Founding Fathers broke with Great Britain because they needed *more* laws to handle an expanding population, and the colonial model required months to get laws approved back in England. Don't be afraid of your own democracy.

Second, every two years our government is mutated by an election. The First Amendment and popular passion is a far better safeguard against tyranny than the Second Amendment.

Third, the Second Amendment was meant to protect the government from foreign invasion by having a pool of armed citizenry at hand. Utilizing gun ownership as a veiled threat against the elected government itself is a non-starter and will only guarantee the freedom to know precisely how you will die.

Last, to satisfy your hypothetical, if the government was an absolute tyranny and there were no elections or protest options and I needed to resist the government, the Iraq insurgency has shown a clear example that personal firearms are only useful for bullying and terrorizing civilian collaborators. Guns don't work against Bradley Fighting Vehicles. I imagine learning to make explosives would be more useful for fighting American Hitler... that and learning countersurveillance tradecraft.
 
2013-01-20 07:13:01 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: If someone knew the history of guns, which I would expect if they are a true, responsible gun owner and not one of the Rambos in this thread, they would know that guns were created for one purpose and one purpose only: war. They were simply too inaccurate to use for hunting and weren't in any real quantities until the 1700s when accuracy improved and the cost to maintain one went down.


Designed to kill the enemy in war is not the same as designed to kill innocent people. If they can talk about how cars, alcohol, swimming pools,etc. aren't designed to kill, I'm going to point out that guns were not designed to kill innocent people. Either we're both wrong and those things are objects requiring a person and their choices to decide outcomes, or we're both right and their designers' intentions somehow matter.
 
2013-01-20 07:13:46 PM

pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: computerguyUT: I find it moderately entertaining how every time a shooting occurrs, the Anti D-Bags have to go crazy with the same inane rhetoric, but the constant stream of people dying through other means which dwarfs the shooting numbers by orders of magnitude are somehow okay.

Yeah. People get killed by guns all the time, it's no big deal.

Why are their deaths worth so much more attention? Why those deaths justify trampling all over the rights of everyone else?


I don't think bans are the answer either. I just don't think the status quo is the answer either.
 
2013-01-20 07:13:57 PM

pedrop357: Princess Ryans Knickers: If someone knew the history of guns, which I would expect if they are a true, responsible gun owner and not one of the Rambos in this thread, they would know that guns were created for one purpose and one purpose only: war. They were simply too inaccurate to use for hunting and weren't in any real quantities until the 1700s when accuracy improved and the cost to maintain one went down.

Designed to kill the enemy in war is not the same as designed to kill innocent people. If they can talk about how cars, alcohol, swimming pools,etc. aren't designed to kill, I'm going to point out that guns were not designed to kill innocent people. Either we're both wrong and those things are objects requiring a person and their choices to decide outcomes, or we're both right and their designers' intentions somehow matter.


Was it designed to kill people or not? You aren't shooting trees in war.
 
2013-01-20 07:14:35 PM

gimmegimme: BronyMedic: gimmegimme: Soo....you're saying that thousands of people are killing each other with guns made from mufflers? Do you have any proof?

To be fair, I've got a guide on my laptop that tells you how to build all kinds of nasty killing equipment, like zip guns and explosives, from the US Military.

Also, to be fair, a zip gun made from the hardware store is about as dangerous to the user as it is to anyone it's pointed at.

To be completely fair, there are plans for the Starship Enterprise online, too, but no one is building their own fully functional warp core.

pedrop357: gimmegimme: Soo....you're saying that thousands of people are killing each other with guns made from mufflers? Do you have any proof?

There are, on the other hand, thousands of Americans being killed by guns.

No, moron. That the process to make a gun is about as difficult as making a muffler.

See above, genius.


Zip guns aren't the only kind gun one can make. A person with a decent metal shop can fabricate a low quality AR receiver or pistol frame.
 
2013-01-20 07:15:29 PM

Kittypie070: Law enforcement officers are "armed thugs"?



When they're violating the fourth amendment and searching everyone's home to support some feel-good political agenda, absolutely.
 
2013-01-20 07:15:44 PM

gimmegimme: To be completely fair, there are plans for the Starship Enterprise online, too, but no one is building their own fully functional warp core.


Fallicious comparison. One is a complete work of fiction with pseudo-science language used to make it seem more realistic and entertaining. The other is a real, tangible and accomplishable procedure with about fifty bucks and a few basic hand tools.

Again, I'm not trying to defend pederp357's in the least. But it is quite possible to make simple, one-shot firearms.
 
2013-01-20 07:17:31 PM

Mrtraveler01: I don't think bans are the answer either. I just don't think the status quo is the answer either.


I agree, we need to continue loosening laws as we've done for the last 15 years. We've seen significant steady drops in violence with firearms in that time. The last 10 or so states should go shall issue, the states with bans on scary looking guns should give it up as it solves nothing; redirect the enforcement efforts to other more successful things.

States should allow concealed carry permit holders to carry in schools like they already do without problem everywhere else.

So no, the status quo isn't acceptable.
 
2013-01-20 07:17:36 PM

pedrop357: I'm going to point out that guns were not designed to kill innocent people.


They're designed to kill in general. Whether that be an animal, a guilty person, or an innocent person.

Guns can't tell the difference between the three.
 
2013-01-20 07:18:28 PM

bunner: I am personally all in favor of drug dealers, gangstah boyees and every other tattooed tough monkey wanker - who sees the human race as a disposable commodity in their quest for super badasshood - to shoot it out with each other. I say we rope off 10,000 acres of WY, air drop bottled water, full auto rifles and enough ammo to erase an entire species and let Darwin put his feet up. There has always been the obvious fact that, should a given portion of the earth's population get greased and turned into mulch, it would be a nicer place to live for the remaining denizens. We have, however, as a species also realized that no one person is allowed to make that call as to who gets greased. Many have tried and they always turn out to be the bad guys. For better or worse, it's becoming painfully easier to precisely delineate who should end up in the lime pit, and on nothing more than the cursory review of their own behavior. The fact that this sort of behavior is becoming more common, and held as intractable in the view of our society, speaks to the problem far more than the toolkit they use. But I think the toolkit helps.


The NRA: the titties on the fish of the Second Amendment.

/I should be drinking but I'm not, I'm perfectly sober
//I'm not one of the bad guys
 
2013-01-20 07:19:20 PM

pedrop357: Zip guns aren't the only kind gun one can make. A person with a decent metal shop can fabricate a low quality AR receiver or pistol frame.


How many "decent" metal shops have the ability to custom harden steel? How many have the machinery to cut consistent rifles? You see, once you go down this road, you quickly realize the number of freelancers capable of doing this work is virtually 0.

It's a great argument, but in practice it's worthless. When was the last time you fired up a foundry?
 
2013-01-20 07:19:21 PM

pedrop357: Zip guns aren't the only kind gun one can make. A person with a decent metal shop can fabricate a low quality AR receiver or pistol frame.


What you forget to mention is that a "decent metal shop" is out of the price range of every "patriot" buying his guns at walmart or the local gunshop.

You could buy 8 glocks at current market value, or 12 Mini-14s from Walmart, for the price of ONE entry level CNC Machine alone. Ignore the fact you need a metal lathe for making a barrel, or that you need high quality steel bar and stock for materials to keep it from blowing up in your face.

The complexity of an AR bolt alone would require specialized molds and CNC machine patterns, as well.
 
2013-01-20 07:19:22 PM

desertfool: Is anyone else sick of the damned gun threads? Even the foobies threads have guns nowadays!


Obviously, the solution is to add tits to all the other threads. We cannot allow our FarkNation to become subject to a strategic boobies-gap.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-20 07:19:33 PM

pedrop357: I agree, we need to continue loosening laws as we've done for the last 15 years. We've seen significant steady drops in violence with firearms in that time.


You can prove a relation between the two?

pedrop357: States should allow concealed carry permit holders to carry in schools like they already do without problem everywhere else.


Why?
 
2013-01-20 07:19:33 PM

Mrtraveler01: They're designed to kill in general. Whether that be an animal, a guilty person, or an innocent person.

Guns can't tell the difference between the three.



Just like cars, fire, fuel, etc.

Fuel is designed to burn, it can't tell whether it's burning in an engine, inside a trailer with children in it, etc.

Cars just drive. They don't know that the person in it is going to run over a cheating spouse, or that the driver is drunk, or that there is abody in the back or $20,000 in stolen goods
 
2013-01-20 07:19:59 PM

pedrop357: gimmegimme: BronyMedic: gimmegimme: Soo....you're saying that thousands of people are killing each other with guns made from mufflers? Do you have any proof?

To be fair, I've got a guide on my laptop that tells you how to build all kinds of nasty killing equipment, like zip guns and explosives, from the US Military.

Also, to be fair, a zip gun made from the hardware store is about as dangerous to the user as it is to anyone it's pointed at.

To be completely fair, there are plans for the Starship Enterprise online, too, but no one is building their own fully functional warp core.

pedrop357: gimmegimme: Soo....you're saying that thousands of people are killing each other with guns made from mufflers? Do you have any proof?

There are, on the other hand, thousands of Americans being killed by guns.

No, moron. That the process to make a gun is about as difficult as making a muffler.

See above, genius.

Zip guns aren't the only kind gun one can make. A person with a decent metal shop can fabricate a low quality AR receiver or pistol frame.


Yes...and the same folks can make a trebuchet capable of flattening their neighbor's car.

Why are you making so much of an irrelevant point? No one is wheeling a trebuchet into an elementary school and no one is bringing homemade muffler guns into Wal-Mart.

On the other hand, thousands of Americans are being killed by guns and our gun culture.

Who is a bigger threat to society?

This guy, who still has a bunch of guns and brags about having a formidable army he'll use against the government?

cdn.crooksandliars.com

Or this woman who has a great facility with homemade explosives?

img003.lazygirls.info
 
2013-01-20 07:20:13 PM

Makh: It was his own family he shot.  Multiple guns in the house, everyone was armed so it was ok.  They should have been able to prevent it, right?


I agree that's a stupid argument, but this isn't a shooting that would have been prevented by gun control either.

The adult man killed apparently worked in public safety and corrections, so no law that's been proposed would have kept the weapon out of his house.
 
2013-01-20 07:20:43 PM

pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: They're designed to kill in general. Whether that be an animal, a guilty person, or an innocent person.

Guns can't tell the difference between the three.


Just like cars, fire, fuel, etc.

Fuel is designed to burn, it can't tell whether it's burning in an engine, inside a trailer with children in it, etc.

Cars just drive. They don't know that the person in it is going to run over a cheating spouse, or that the driver is drunk, or that there is abody in the back or $20,000 in stolen goods


Right.

So you agree that when you said "guns aren't designed to kill innocent people" was a stupid thing to say.

Guns are designed to kill, end of story. It's silly to pretend they don't.
 
2013-01-20 07:21:09 PM
.... a well REGULATED militia...
 
2013-01-20 07:21:36 PM

pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: They're designed to kill in general. Whether that be an animal, a guilty person, or an innocent person.

Guns can't tell the difference between the three.


Just like cars, fire, fuel, etc.

Fuel is designed to burn, it can't tell whether it's burning in an engine, inside a trailer with children in it, etc.

Cars just drive. They don't know that the person in it is going to run over a cheating spouse, or that the driver is drunk, or that there is abody in the back or $20,000 in stolen goods


The fuel is comparable to the bullet; not the gun. Bad comparison is bad.
 
2013-01-20 07:22:20 PM

Mrtraveler01: pedrop357: I agree, we need to continue loosening laws as we've done for the last 15 years. We've seen significant steady drops in violence with firearms in that time.

You can prove a relation between the two?


Gun sales, gun ownership, shall-issue states UP; crime down. It's about as scholarly a connection as half the crap on here involving laws and success rates. besides, shouldn't we try to keep loosening laws just on the chance it'll save a single life?

pedrop357: States should allow concealed carry permit holders to carry in schools like they already do without problem everywhere else.

Why?


To stop the rare school killer as soon as possible.
 
2013-01-20 07:22:29 PM

Disappearing Hitchhiker: .... a well REGULATED militia...


Any form of regulation is TYRANNY and is an infringement on my GODGIVEN RIGHTS!
 
2013-01-20 07:22:35 PM

Mrtraveler01: pedrop357: I agree, we need to continue loosening laws as we've done for the last 15 years. We've seen significant steady drops in violence with firearms in that time.

You can prove a relation between the two?

pedrop357: States should allow concealed carry permit holders to carry in schools like they already do without problem everywhere else.

Why?


Because it keeps his trolling bullshiat going. No one is this farking stupid.
 
2013-01-20 07:23:02 PM

BronyMedic: What you forget to mention is that a "decent metal shop" is out of the price range of every "patriot" buying his guns at walmart or the local gunshop.



It may be out of the range of an individual, but certainly not out of the range of an hobbyist metalworker who wants to make some extra money on the side.
 
2013-01-20 07:23:04 PM

fnordfocus: The adult man killed apparently worked in public safety and corrections, so no law that's been proposed would have kept the weapon out of his house.


Corrections officers do not USUALLY carry sidearms unless they are escorting a prisoner off prison grounds, like to a hospital or courthouse. In prison, the only people who are armed with any consistency are people who man the walls or towers. Those weapons have to be checked in and out of a centralized armory that's probably more secure than most bank vaults are after hours. They don't get to take them home. Even in the event of a major riot, the weapons have to be issued out, the only weapons you'll see issued to people able to be attacked directly by prisoners are usually things like batons, mace, and gas grenade launchers.
 
2013-01-20 07:23:12 PM
15yo boy in question.

images2.makefive.com


/ he's a proud NRA member, too
 
2013-01-20 07:23:22 PM
But the NRA told me that if only we had guns in every school and everyone had a gun there would be no more violence!!
 
2013-01-20 07:23:42 PM

pedrop357: Dinki: So the logical assumption is that these sick loners would not be able to acquire a gun that was banned.

No, they would just use another type. Would it make anyone feel better if he'd used a pump action shotgun to murder his family?


I'm not a gun expert, but I'm pretty certain a pump-action shotgun does not have a rate of fire anywhere near as fast as an AR-15.
 
2013-01-20 07:23:46 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: The fuel is comparable to the bullet; not the gun. Bad comparison is bad.


Bullets don't know what they're being fired at, anymore than fuel knows what it's burning.
 
2013-01-20 07:23:54 PM

pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: pedrop357: I agree, we need to continue loosening laws as we've done for the last 15 years. We've seen significant steady drops in violence with firearms in that time.

You can prove a relation between the two?

Gun sales, gun ownership, shall-issue states UP; crime down. It's about as scholarly a connection as half the crap on here involving laws and success rates. besides, shouldn't we try to keep loosening laws just on the chance it'll save a single life?


Except that the reduction trend in gun violence started years before anything you just mentioned and has been consistent. This suggests another cause and that the causes you named are not causations.
 
2013-01-20 07:24:01 PM

HotWingAgenda: desertfool: Is anyone else sick of the damned gun threads? Even the foobies threads have guns nowadays!

Obviously, the solution is to add tits to all the other threads. We cannot allow our FarkNation to become subject to a strategic boobies-gap.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 425x250]


Seconded
 
2013-01-20 07:24:09 PM

pedrop357: To stop the rare school killer as soon as possible.


Can't you do the same thing with a police officer without the liability?

Sorry, but arming teachers sounds incredibly stupid and screwed up to me.

If I was living in a settlement in the West Bank, that would be one thing. But I don't.
 
2013-01-20 07:24:29 PM
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We need to ban cars because people crashing to each other.

We need to ban pencils because you might poke your eye out.

How about we start making people responsible for their actions.
 
2013-01-20 07:24:53 PM

the ha ha guy: It may be out of the range of an individual, but certainly not out of the range of an hobbyist metalworker who wants to make some extra money on the side.


And how many of those are there that have machines capable of working high-tensile strength steel and alloys like are used in modern weapons? Or capable of fabricating complex receiver and bolt components? Or, for that matter, doing it on a large scale able to make a difference in the event the Gubament finally did decide it had enough of all that bullshiat, and decided to bring the pain?
 
2013-01-20 07:25:02 PM

Mrtraveler01: Right.

So you agree that when you said "guns aren't designed to kill innocent people" was a stupid thing to say.

Guns are designed to kill, end of story. It's silly to pretend they don't.


Guns are designed to shoot bullets. It's end user who decides where those bullets go.

All of my guns are being miused as they've yet to kill anyone.
 
2013-01-20 07:25:22 PM

queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?


It's actually a misquote. They are referred to as "ass-hat type rifle", as only ass-hat types purchase and carry them.
 
2013-01-20 07:25:38 PM

Wayne 985: I'm not a gun expert, but I'm pretty certain a pump-action shotgun does not have a rate of fire anywhere near as fast as an AR-15.


Do we know that rate of fire was significant in this shooting, or in other shootings?
 
2013-01-20 07:26:00 PM
If only murder were illegal.
 
2013-01-20 07:26:45 PM

Cuchulane: computerguyUT: MOAR LAWS! MOAR LAWS!

that will solve everything.

That is the concept behind the ongoing refinement and improvement of a society that's based on the rule of law.


Why not- worked out well in the middle ages.
 
2013-01-20 07:26:46 PM

david_gaithersburg: If only murder were illegal.


Ah, glad to see that David settled this argument in such a concise manner. Looks like it's just that simple folks. Last one out, turn off the lights and lock the door!
 
2013-01-20 07:26:58 PM

pedrop357: ElBarto79: I have a better idea; why not do both? If your goal is to reduce deaths as much as possible wouldn't that be the logical approach?

Banning tools is wholly ineffective in solving anything, that's why we don't want to do it. It's a waste of time, resources, and brings a false sense of security, all of which are counter to the goal of saving lives.


Then why did we ban machine guns? grenades? rocket launchers? artillery guns? Wouldn't we all be a lot safer if we just legalized all military weapons for civilian use?
 
2013-01-20 07:27:22 PM

bunner: You mean be decent? You mean there's a black letter AND spirit of the law? Yeah, I think the laws being written down sort of helps. You know, founding an entire civilization on the fact that linear print allows ideas to be held forth for the ages, unaltered by the telephone game of oral tradition, and all that, eh wot?


Don't bother. He's a farking moron.
 
2013-01-20 07:27:47 PM

Mrtraveler01: Can't you do the same thing with a police officer without the liability?

Sorry, but arming teachers sounds incredibly stupid and screwed up to me.

If I was living in a settlement in the West Bank, that would be one thing. But I don't.


It's not been a problem in Utah, Oregon, New Hampshire, or Alabama.

It's not about arming teachers in the generic sense. It's about allowing those already carry without issue everywhere else to do at schools. A principal, custodian, or teacher who has a permit and wishes to carry could. Those who don't want shouldn't be forced to.
 
2013-01-20 07:28:19 PM

maxalt: I prefer to be armed when confronted by a monster than to rely on harsh words and stern looks. If you don't want a gun it's easy don't buy one, control your actions concerning guns and I will control mine. I guess the latest generation views every life as precious, which is why abortion is so rare nowadays.


4/10. Good effort, needs more subtlety and a dash of assholist pizazz.
 
2013-01-20 07:28:41 PM

gimmegimme: kriegfusion: [i129.photobucket.com image 822x1024]

So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday. Everyday we hear about a new law coming out; does anyone really think a day will come where politicians won't do knee-jerk reactions and try to score political points after a shooting or any public unfortunate happening? Using this line of thinking, how can you not logically see where we are heading?

So, given the long view, we are clearly moving to a more overbearing government, and I know looking beyond the next 5 years is nearly impossible for people, but considering all this, unless we can somehow magically prevent this slide into a dictatorship or oligarchy, we will eventually, logically, have to assert ourselves forcefully one way or another. How do you propose we do this? Clearly the powers that be would laugh in your face at the minimum, or just send you to jail or just kill you.

On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is ever brought ou ...


I think that it fits nicely in actually. Hitler as a lover not a fighter. in essence, showing that a dictator isn't all about love and helping people. Which is I think what people who are pro gun control think the government is, and that they imagine falsely that they will remain relevant to said government. :)
 
2013-01-20 07:28:44 PM

ElBarto79: Then why did we ban machine guns? grenades? rocket launchers? artillery guns? Wouldn't we all be a lot safer if we just legalized all military weapons for civilian use?


I'd vote for that. Grenades, rocket launchers, artillery guns are not banned, and we're not even restricted until 1968.
 
2013-01-20 07:29:17 PM

ElBarto79: pedrop357: ElBarto79: I have a better idea; why not do both? If your goal is to reduce deaths as much as possible wouldn't that be the logical approach?

Banning tools is wholly ineffective in solving anything, that's why we don't want to do it. It's a waste of time, resources, and brings a false sense of security, all of which are counter to the goal of saving lives.

Then why did we ban machine guns? grenades? rocket launchers? artillery guns? Wouldn't we all be a lot safer if we just legalized all military weapons for civilian use?


Technically we didn't ban any of the things you listed, we just made them really farkin' hard to get for anyone who isn't either rich, or vetted by the State Department and DOJ as an authorized end user of military equipment, such as a PMC.

Anyone can own a rocket launcher as long as they register it, and each individual piece of ammunition, as a Destructive Device. There are people who spend their hobby time manufacturing reproduction Bazookas and Panzerschrecks, and reloading old LAW and AT-4 tubes they find at the surplus with home made ammunition so they can enjoy a day of blowing things up.  Grenades are legal too, if you pay 300 bucks for each one and register them with the Feds.
 
2013-01-20 07:29:22 PM

the ha ha guy: BronyMedic: What you forget to mention is that a "decent metal shop" is out of the price range of every "patriot" buying his guns at walmart or the local gunshop.


It may be out of the range of an individual, but certainly not out of the range of an hobbyist metalworker who wants to make some extra money on the side.


You know how I know you have absolutely no history working with metal?
 
2013-01-20 07:29:55 PM

BronyMedic: pedrop357: Zip guns aren't the only kind gun one can make. A person with a decent metal shop can fabricate a low quality AR receiver or pistol frame.

What you forget to mention is that a "decent metal shop" is out of the price range of every "patriot" buying his guns at walmart or the local gunshop.

You could buy 8 glocks at current market value, or 12 Mini-14s from Walmart, for the price of ONE entry level CNC Machine alone. Ignore the fact you need a metal lathe for making a barrel, or that you need high quality steel bar and stock for materials to keep it from blowing up in your face.

The complexity of an AR bolt alone would require specialized molds and CNC machine patterns, as well.


You don't need a CNC for anything ever. It just helps.
 
2013-01-20 07:30:17 PM

iq_in_binary: Darth Macho: pedrop357: bunner: Or that motor fuel, while not designed to be used as a weapon, CAN be. Most things can, I suppose. Although I'm pretty sure that the primary application for gasoline, as designed, isn't setting motherf*ckers on fire. Get it?

Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.
THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.

Actually military ballistics like the 5.56mm NATO round are designed solely for the human anatomy, not deer, bear or gamefowl. Whether it's meant to be fired at 'bad guys' or 'innocent children' is irrelevant; its design intention is human-lethal and its primary operating environment is a battlefield.

That you think 5.56 NATO is designed to be human lethal proves your ignorance of the subject.

You do realize they still issue .308 rifles to people whose shots have to be lethal, right? I mean seriously, are you that stupid?


They were designed to tear humans to shreds in warfare.

The 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge with the standard 62 gr. steel core bullets (NATO: SS109; U.S.: M855) will penetrate approximately 15 to 20 in (38 to 51 cm) into soft tissue in ideal circumstances. As with all spitzer shaped projectiles it is prone to yaw in soft tissue. However, at impact velocities above roughly 2,500 ft/s (760 m/s), it may yaw and then fragment at the cannelure (the crimping groove around the cylinder of the bullet).[18] These fragments can disperse through flesh and bone, inflicting additional internal injuries.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#Performance

The fragmentation didn't always go as planned, but they were absolutely designed to kill or excruciatingly wound a human opponent.
 
2013-01-20 07:30:29 PM

rohar: pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: pedrop357: I agree, we need to continue loosening laws as we've done for the last 15 years. We've seen significant steady drops in violence with firearms in that time.

You can prove a relation between the two?

Gun sales, gun ownership, shall-issue states UP; crime down. It's about as scholarly a connection as half the crap on here involving laws and success rates. besides, shouldn't we try to keep loosening laws just on the chance it'll save a single life?

Except that the reduction trend in gun violence started years before anything you just mentioned and has been consistent. This suggests another cause and that the causes you named are not causations.


That and as you see in the 1970's and 80's, gun crimes still went up even as gun ownership still went up. It's an idiotic talking point to use and I have to call it out anytime I see it being used.

geekpolitics.com
 
2013-01-20 07:30:39 PM

doglover: You don't need a CNC for anything ever. It just helps.


Then you're cutting the list down even more of people who have the knowledge and skill to fashion anything but a single shot zip gun.
 
2013-01-20 07:30:42 PM

BronyMedic: david_gaithersburg: If only murder were illegal.

Ah, glad to see that David settled this argument in such a concise manner. Looks like it's just that simple folks. Last one out, turn off the lights and lock the door!


This is the kind of simplistic garbage we get from the anti-gun types.

Oh, he used an Ar-15? Time to ban those. Done? Our work here is done, looks like we can pack it up and head home.
 
2013-01-20 07:31:02 PM

Pincy: kriegfusion: It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free;

That's a pretty big leap there Sparky.


A bigger leap than expecting government benevolence toward those who can exert no power upon it, dimples?
 
2013-01-20 07:31:54 PM

MFAWG: gimmegimme: kriegfusion: [i129.photobucket.com image 822x1024]

So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday. Everyday we hear about a new law coming out; does anyone really think a day will come where politicians won't do knee-jerk reactions and try to score political points after a shooting or any public unfortunate happening? Using this line of thinking, how can you not logically see where we are heading?

So, given the long view, we are clearly moving to a more overbearing government, and I know looking beyond the next 5 years is nearly impossible for people, but considering all this, unless we can somehow magically prevent this slide into a dictatorship or oligarchy, we will eventually, logically, have to assert ourselves forcefully one way or another. How do you propose we do this? Clearly the powers that be would laugh in your face at the minimum, or just send you to jail or just kill you.

On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is eve ...


You didn't read, or you cant read? lol
 
2013-01-20 07:32:11 PM

Mrtraveler01: That and as you see in the 1970's and 80's, gun crimes still went up even as gun ownership still went up. It's an idiotic talking point to use and I have to call it out anytime I see it being used.

geekpolitics.com


It does prove that more guns hasn't meant more crime in about 20 years.
 
2013-01-20 07:32:24 PM

BronyMedic: doglover: You don't need a CNC for anything ever. It just helps.

Then you're cutting the list down even more of people who have the knowledge and skill to fashion anything but a single shot zip gun.


Huh, one guy in the thread that has some understanding of metalwork. Anyone else?
 
2013-01-20 07:32:44 PM

Wayne 985: They were designed to tear humans to shreds in warfare.

The 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge with the standard 62 gr. steel core bullets (NATO: SS109; U.S.: M855) will penetrate approximately 15 to 20 in (38 to 51 cm) into soft tissue in ideal circumstances. As with all spitzer shaped projectiles it is prone to yaw in soft tissue. However, at impact velocities above roughly 2,500 ft/s (760 m/s), it may yaw and then fragment at the cannelure (the crimping groove around the cylinder of the bullet).[18] These fragments can disperse through flesh and bone, inflicting additional internal injuries.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#Performance

The fragmentation didn't always go as planned, but they were absolutely designed to kill or excruciatingly wound a human opponent.


Your argument is flawed in the fact that you're basically accusing the United States of intentionally violating the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, which explicitly prohibits the use of fragmenting or mushrooming ammunition against human targets.
 
2013-01-20 07:32:55 PM

BronyMedic: On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is ever brought out when the to ...

AHEM.

Your flawed assumption is that the majority of those "armed patriots" wouldn't be on the side of a despondent  totalitarian Government. Historically, this is almost always the rule, never the exception. Since you want to use Hitler as an example, the Nazi Regime never had a fear of an armed society, because it was that society which put them into power.


The Hitler gun control lie

Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong
 
2013-01-20 07:33:04 PM
3 kids to a gun today, how many to abortion? Dead kids are dead kids..
 
2013-01-20 07:34:09 PM

pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: That and as you see in the 1970's and 80's, gun crimes still went up even as gun ownership still went up. It's an idiotic talking point to use and I have to call it out anytime I see it being used.

geekpolitics.com

It does prove that more guns hasn't meant more crime in about 20 years.


The nonresistance of a thing cannot be proven. Because of that, your statement resolves to false.
 
2013-01-20 07:34:25 PM

James F. Campbell: bunner: You mean be decent? You mean there's a black letter AND spirit of the law? Yeah, I think the laws being written down sort of helps. You know, founding an entire civilization on the fact that linear print allows ideas to be held forth for the ages, unaltered by the telephone game of oral tradition, and all that, eh wot?

Don't bother. He's a farking moron.


POT!

I heard what you said about my color and I'm very, very upset with you.

-Kettle
 
2013-01-20 07:35:08 PM

fusillade762: The Hitler gun control lie

Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong


Yeah, he expanded gun rights for everyone except the group he wanted to eliminate from the planet.

What a coincidence. It's almost as if it's hard to engage in mass murder or genocide when your target is armed and can fight back.
 
2013-01-20 07:35:11 PM

theflinx: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We need to ban cars because people crashing to each other.

We need to ban pencils because you might poke your eye out.

How about we start making people responsible for their actions.


We require drivers to be licensed, every car to be registered, and mandatory insurance for driving on the road. There are also mandatory safety and competency requirements. Different types of vehicles also require different types of licenses.

With guns, we're looking to have more background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, and a possible restriction on certain varieties of semi-automatic rifles. Consider that.
 
2013-01-20 07:35:26 PM

fusillade762: BronyMedic: On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is ever brought out when the to ...

AHEM.

Your flawed assumption is that the majority of those "armed patriots" wouldn't be on the side of a despondent  totalitarian Government. Historically, this is almost always the rule, never the exception. Since you want to use Hitler as an example, the Nazi Regime never had a fear of an armed society, because it was that society which put them into power.

The Hitler gun control lie

Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong


THANK YOU!

Hitler did not take steps to ban private firearms ownership until November of 1938, after the Reichskristallnacht, and the only people he restricted from having it were Jews and criminals. Prior to that, Germany was a heavily armed society in general, a key reason for it being to snub their noses at the Allies and the Treaty of Versilles, which made private gun ownership effectively illegal in the former Wiemar Republic as a means of restricting their ability to wage war.
 
2013-01-20 07:35:40 PM

Vodka Zombie: ?


Vodka Zombie: kriegfusion: What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government?

So... We're going to lose our right to vote now because... you imagine it will happen?

By the way, how are King Friday and Prince Tuesday and X The Owl doing in the Neighborhood of Make Believe?

You do know that the train that takes you back to reality is, in fact, free, right?


Imagine? How many times do we have to drag examples of unarmed nations being dragged into the fire because of what their leaders have done to their people, either directly or indirectly? We are living in reality, there is no train to return to it, except trains to concentration camps. perhaps you are looking for a ticket to one of those camps, because those trains are frequent visitors to this planet ;)
 
2013-01-20 07:35:40 PM

Gentoolive: 3 kids to a gun today, how many to abortion? Dead kids are dead kids..


...and strangely, 18 years almost to the day after Roe V. Wade, gun related violence starts to drop like a lead balloon in America. Coincidence?
 
2013-01-20 07:35:53 PM

rohar: The nonresistance of a thing cannot be proven. Because of that, your statement resolves to false.


sort of. it does refute the more idiotic talking point from the anti-gun side that more guns=more crime.
 
2013-01-20 07:36:04 PM

theflinx: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We need to ban cars because people crashing to each other.

We need to ban pencils because you might poke your eye out.

How about we start making people responsible for their actions.


Okay. So gun sellers are responsible for negligently selling weapons to lunatics, gun makers are responsible for manufacturing easily modifiable products and gun owners must pay to license and register the Class-Whatever explosives (aka ammunition) they use with their firearms.

Sounds like a decent 21st century solution that doesn't infringe on gun-owners' rights.
 
2013-01-20 07:36:31 PM

pedrop357: Princess Ryans Knickers: The fuel is comparable to the bullet; not the gun. Bad comparison is bad.

Bullets don't know what they're being fired at, anymore than fuel knows what it's burning.


So you are OK with giving a 5 year old a loaded gun with safety off right? It's perfectly safe?
 
2013-01-20 07:36:45 PM

rohar: pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: pedrop357: I agree, we need to continue loosening laws as we've done for the last 15 years. We've seen significant steady drops in violence with firearms in that time.

You can prove a relation between the two?

Gun sales, gun ownership, shall-issue states UP; crime down. It's about as scholarly a connection as half the crap on here involving laws and success rates. besides, shouldn't we try to keep loosening laws just on the chance it'll save a single life?

Except that the reduction trend in gun violence started years before anything you just mentioned and has been consistent. This suggests another cause and that the causes you named are not causations.


looks like you are dead wrong again. and what does having a foundry have to do with creating a zip gun?
www.bloomberg.com
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exce ed -traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html
 
2013-01-20 07:37:38 PM

BronyMedic: the ha ha guy: It may be out of the range of an individual, but certainly not out of the range of an hobbyist metalworker who wants to make some extra money on the side.

And how many of those are there that have machines capable of working high-tensile strength steel and alloys like are used in modern weapons? Or capable of fabricating complex receiver and bolt components? Or, for that matter, doing it on a large scale able to make a difference in the event the Gubament finally did decide it had enough of all that bullshiat, and decided to bring the pain?



It only takes one gun to make a difference.

And as for scale, I expect organized crime rings would set up their own large-scale gun shops to replace those that were lost, just as they did in response to the bans on drugs and alcohol. Since both the machines and materials cannot be regulated, and the machines are small enough to de-centralize their operation, they would be just as resilient as those in the drug trade.
 
2013-01-20 07:37:43 PM

way south: Contribution Corsair: Well obviously we need armed guards on all the streets and watching all homes instead of just police patrols.

We can't restrict the right to have the weapons but need to station armed guards everywhere to ensure freedom and safety!

Even tho I know you don't want that kind of world, its exactly the kind you'd inadvertently create to back up your ideals.


Eh more I would prefer people to be aware of the fact that either answer is a change to the "freedoms" in the name of safety. My comment was more poking the proverbial bear.

There is no good answer only the one we choose to live with. Freedom and danger or less freedom but less danger.

You can't really have total freedom and no danger especially in regards to anything design for or not designed for but able to cause harm. At least not as long as people in the world are able to be burdened with mental problems or are willing to harm others for any reason.

It comes down to which pill people want to swallow. Control the weapons, control the people, both, none, or something still between. For the foreseeable future the first two in combination are the most immediate methods to approach...unless the choice comes to "accept the cost of doing nothing" but I highly doubt that would be chosen by many.
 
2013-01-20 07:37:50 PM

fnordfocus: The adult man killed apparently worked in public safety and corrections, so no law that's been proposed would have kept the weapon out of his house.


True, no more gun laws are needed.  The existing ones need to be overhauled and modified.  As all of our laws need to be done over the years.  You wouldn't expect the same environmental or telecom laws to exist unchanged for too long.

More mental health regulations need to be looked at.  Also the stigma needs to be taken out of mental health problems.  Next the crazy gun culture needs to be addressed.  Having a gun doesn't make you a man and the UN isn't going to invade and take our guns in a puppet dictatorship under Obama.
 
2013-01-20 07:37:52 PM

pedrop357: fusillade762: The Hitler gun control lie

Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong

Yeah, he expanded gun rights for everyone except the group he wanted to eliminate from the planet.

What a coincidence. It's almost as if it's hard to engage in mass murder or genocide when your target is armed and can fight back.


Supporting the belief that an armed population is one that's not going to be kicked around by its government.
 
2013-01-20 07:38:10 PM

Wayne 985: We require drivers to be licensed, every car to be registered, and mandatory insurance for driving on the road. There are also mandatory safety and competency requirements. Different types of vehicles also require different types of licenses.

With guns, we're looking to have more background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, and a possible restriction on certain varieties of semi-automatic rifles. Consider that.


Gun control like proposed by the president has been done before and not shown to have any effect whatsoever in stopping crime.
 
2013-01-20 07:38:31 PM
doh
and wtf happened in 2000?
 
2013-01-20 07:38:38 PM

pedrop357: rohar: The nonresistance of a thing cannot be proven. Because of that, your statement resolves to false.

sort of. it does refute the more idiotic talking point from the anti-gun side that more guns=more crime.


That's possible, however the increased guns could have been an existing contributing factor and the factor that was reducing crime was retarded by that negative factor.

Truth is, it's impossible to define. Your position on this subject is blatantly false. I gotta admit, I'm surprised as hell about that, what with all the accuracy you've had in this thread up until this point.
 
2013-01-20 07:38:47 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: So you are OK with giving a 5 year old a loaded gun with safety off right? It's perfectly safe?


Oh not all. I also wouldn't hand them cans of fuel, keys to the car, etc.
 
2013-01-20 07:38:49 PM

pedrop357: Yeah, he expanded gun rights for everyone except the group he wanted to eliminate from the planet.

What a coincidence. It's almost as if it's hard to engage in mass murder or genocide when your target is armed and can fight back.


AHAHAHAH. No.

What you are doing is engaging in a shameful type of revisionist history that borders on absolute denial of events that occurred. In reality, even if the Jews had fought back, they would have played directly into the hands of the Nazi Regime. Remember, this is a group who was not above murdering their own supporters and destroying their own buildings to gain popular support.
 
2013-01-20 07:39:05 PM

Wayne 985: iq_in_binary: Darth Macho: pedrop357: bunner: Or that motor fuel, while not designed to be used as a weapon, CAN be. Most things can, I suppose. Although I'm pretty sure that the primary application for gasoline, as designed, isn't setting motherf*ckers on fire. Get it?

Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.
THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.

Actually military ballistics like the 5.56mm NATO round are designed solely for the human anatomy, not deer, bear or gamefowl. Whether it's meant to be fired at 'bad guys' or 'innocent children' is irrelevant; its design intention is human-lethal and its primary operating environment is a battlefield.

That you think 5.56 NATO is designed to be human lethal proves your ignorance of the subject.

You do realize they still issue .308 rifles to people whose shots have to be lethal, right? I mean seriously, are you that stupid?

They were designed to tear humans to shreds in warfare.

The 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge with the standard 62 gr. steel core bullets (NATO: SS109; U.S.: M855) will penetrate approximately 15 to 20 in (38 to 51 cm) into soft tissue in ideal circumstances. As with all spitzer shaped projectiles it is prone to yaw in soft tissue. However, at impact velocities above roughly 2,500 ft/s (760 m/s), it may yaw and then fragment at the cannelure (the crimping groove around the cylinder of the bullet).[18] These fragments can disperse through flesh and bone, inflicting additional internal injuries.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#Performance

The fragmentation didn't always go as planned, but they were absolutely designed to kill or excruciatingly wound a human opponent.




And yet you don't see DMs or snipers using rifles chambered in 5.56. You see them using rifles chambered in .308.

5.56 was picked up because it wounds far more than it kills, using up more enemy resources to treat the wounded.

If our military wanted soldier carrying killing machines they'd still be issuing M1As, period.
 
2013-01-20 07:39:28 PM

BronyMedic: Wayne 985: They were designed to tear humans to shreds in warfare.

The 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge with the standard 62 gr. steel core bullets (NATO: SS109; U.S.: M855) will penetrate approximately 15 to 20 in (38 to 51 cm) into soft tissue in ideal circumstances. As with all spitzer shaped projectiles it is prone to yaw in soft tissue. However, at impact velocities above roughly 2,500 ft/s (760 m/s), it may yaw and then fragment at the cannelure (the crimping groove around the cylinder of the bullet).[18] These fragments can disperse through flesh and bone, inflicting additional internal injuries.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#Performance

The fragmentation didn't always go as planned, but they were absolutely designed to kill or excruciatingly wound a human opponent.

Your argument is flawed in the fact that you're basically accusing the United States of intentionally violating the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, which explicitly prohibits the use of fragmenting or mushrooming ammunition against human targets.


And?

pedrop357: fusillade762: The Hitler gun control lie

Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong

Yeah, he expanded gun rights for everyone except the group he wanted to eliminate from the planet.

What a coincidence. It's almost as if it's hard to engage in mass murder or genocide when your target is armed and can fight back.


The day Obama totally bans gun ownership for a specific class of people is the day the Hitler argument will be remotely accurate.
 
2013-01-20 07:39:39 PM
According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Source: Bureau of Justice.

That means less than 6% are illegally obtained.
 
2013-01-20 07:40:03 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Princess Ryans Knickers: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Over 9 people died in the past hour!!! From alcohol.. This is getting ridiculous. Do people not realize that in a country of 310,000,000 people this happens pretty much every day? How math illiterate do you have to be to be shocked by this? Just because the news doesn't tell you, doesn't mean it's not happening. Christ, if you people knew what was going on in Africa right now, you'd shiat yourselves.

Citation needed. Meanwhile, gun shootings in the PAST MONTH are nearing 1000.

Citation needed? You're kidding right? 80,000 per year/365/24. But since you think 1000 is a lot, and you suck at basic math that's 6666 per month from alcohol related death.

Lie.

http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities- n ational-statistics

Also, gun deaths exceed that last year.


Did I say driving? No, I did not, liar This dwarfed gun deaths.
 
2013-01-20 07:40:14 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-20 07:40:19 PM

BronyMedic: doglover: You don't need a CNC for anything ever. It just helps.

Then you're cutting the list down even more of people who have the knowledge and skill to fashion anything but a single shot zip gun.


Pretty much. I had a custom gun made for me when I was a kid (muzzle loader) The guy who built it was my dads friend. Even he bought the barrel for it because he said it's easier and cheaper to buy the barrel and make everything else than to do it himself. Also I grew up taking shop classes and we made plenty of crude weapons in it (clubs, spikes, things with screw caps...). But anything approaching a functional gun was just not realistic. It would take too long and cost too much money.
 
2013-01-20 07:40:21 PM
"Albuquerque Fire Chief James Breen said the Albuquerque Fire Department is mourning the senseless loss of one of our spiritual counselors, Greg Griego.

He said Griego was a dedicated professional that passionately served his fellow man and the firefighters of this community."

Yeah, I can pretty much guarantee that Greg Griego got exactly what he deserved. This kind of shiat doesn't generally happen out of the farking blue. Too bad about the rest of them though.
 
2013-01-20 07:40:42 PM

BronyMedic: doglover: You don't need a CNC for anything ever. It just helps.

Then you're cutting the list down even more of people who have the knowledge and skill to fashion anything but a single shot zip gun.


Yeah. But if you make like the Pakistan "underground" (it's actually on a mountain) firearms black market you get a couppla a few of the GOOD metal workers together with everything they want along with your least retarded henchmen as aprentices and pretty soon you have your own gun factory. Hide it somewhere where the locals are sympathetic and also customers and viola, homemade guns.

But we don't need to do that in the US because guns are already legal.
 
2013-01-20 07:40:48 PM

BronyMedic: ElBarto79: pedrop357: ElBarto79: I have a better idea; why not do both? If your goal is to reduce deaths as much as possible wouldn't that be the logical approach?

Banning tools is wholly ineffective in solving anything, that's why we don't want to do it. It's a waste of time, resources, and brings a false sense of security, all of which are counter to the goal of saving lives.

Then why did we ban machine guns? grenades? rocket launchers? artillery guns? Wouldn't we all be a lot safer if we just legalized all military weapons for civilian use?

Technically we didn't ban any of the things you listed, we just made them really farkin' hard to get for anyone who isn't either rich, or vetted by the State Department and DOJ as an authorized end user of military equipment, such as a PMC.

Anyone can own a rocket launcher as long as they register it, and each individual piece of ammunition, as a Destructive Device. There are people who spend their hobby time manufacturing reproduction Bazookas and Panzerschrecks, and reloading old LAW and AT-4 tubes they find at the surplus with home made ammunition so they can enjoy a day of blowing things up.  Grenades are legal too, if you pay 300 bucks for each one and register them with the Feds.


Right, so lets do the same thing with assault weapons. We're not banning them, we're just going to make it extremely difficult and expensive for anyone to acquire them.
 
2013-01-20 07:40:55 PM

theflinx: We need to ban cars because people crashing to each other.


What if there was some sort of test that people could do, at a department dedicated to issues regarding vehicles that have some sort of motor, where they needed to demonstrate they possessed at least an absolute minimum preparation and ability to drive a motor vehicle in public, and if they passed then a document could be issued as a certificate that this person was licensed to drive driving one in those conditions?

We can only dream.
 
2013-01-20 07:41:03 PM

pedrop357: fusillade762: The Hitler gun control lie

Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong

Yeah, he expanded gun rights for everyone except the group he wanted to eliminate from the planet.

What a coincidence. It's almost as if it's hard to engage in mass murder or genocide when your target is armed and can fight back.


Did you even read the article?

Proponents of the theory sometimes point to the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising as evidence that, as Fox News' Judge Andrew Napolitano put it, "those able to hold onto their arms and their basic right to self-defense were much more successful in resisting the Nazi genocide." But as the Tablet's Michael Moynihan points out, Napolitano's history (curiously based on a citation of work by French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson) is a bit off. In reality, only about 20 Germans were killed, while some 13,000 Jews were massacred. The remaining 50,000 who survived were promptly sent off to concentration camps.

And if the French and Russian ARMIES couldn't stop them what makes you think a few Jews with guns could?
 
2013-01-20 07:41:04 PM

GF named my left testicle thundercles: i have a suggestion. why dont we solve the reasons that give people the desire to kill, instead of just removing one of the tools by which the killing is carried out?


Madness.
 
2013-01-20 07:41:08 PM

pedrop357: Wayne 985: We require drivers to be licensed, every car to be registered, and mandatory insurance for driving on the road. There are also mandatory safety and competency requirements. Different types of vehicles also require different types of licenses.

With guns, we're looking to have more background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, and a possible restriction on certain varieties of semi-automatic rifles. Consider that.

Gun control like proposed by the president has been done before and not shown to have any effect whatsoever in stopping crime.


Something to do with law abiding people adhering to the law but criminals ignoring it?
 
2013-01-20 07:41:14 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Princess Ryans Knickers: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Princess Ryans Knickers: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Over 9 people died in the past hour!!! From alcohol.. This is getting ridiculous. Do people not realize that in a country of 310,000,000 people this happens pretty much every day? How math illiterate do you have to be to be shocked by this? Just because the news doesn't tell you, doesn't mean it's not happening. Christ, if you people knew what was going on in Africa right now, you'd shiat yourselves.

Citation needed. Meanwhile, gun shootings in the PAST MONTH are nearing 1000.

Citation needed? You're kidding right? 80,000 per year/365/24. But since you think 1000 is a lot, and you suck at basic math that's 6666 per month from alcohol related death.

Lie.

http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities- n ational-statistics

Also, gun deaths exceed that last year.

Did I say driving? No, I did not, liar This dwarfed gun deaths.


Odd since we were specifically referencing drunk driving.. .as had your posts. Jesus doesn't like liers and hypocrits.
 
2013-01-20 07:41:36 PM

the ha ha guy: Kittypie070: Law enforcement officers are "armed thugs"?


When they're violating the fourth amendment and searching everyone's home to support some feel-good political agenda, absolutely.


There aren't any cops in my house.

There are well over 300 million people in this country.

How do you think the oinkers are gonna raid every single household in the United States?

Are there cops in your house right now tossing the place? Are they ransacking the dog's bed, pillaging the kids' crayon-boxes and pawing over the wife's undie drawer looking for your sacred Murkin shootin' irons?

Are there Blue Meanies anywhere near your place? Within a mile? Within TWO miles? Within FIVE miles??

Why are you not monitoring them constantly on a RatShakk po-po scanner and marking them on a city map with push pins & string even during dinnertime? You should be, judging by your attitude.

Is anyone else getting raided by the pigs around here??

If so, sound off.
 
2013-01-20 07:41:45 PM

MFAWG: badhatharry: We should ban 15 year olds from owning assault weapons.

Are you suggesting that we take assault weapons away from all families that have 15 year old children living in the house?


No. Just pointing out that bans do not work.

The problem we are having is new. People don't want to acknowledge the obvious cause for kids choosing these kinds of weapons. It is because of games like Call of Duty. The reason for them going on killing sprees is more complex and I'm certain that the government cannot provide the solution.
 
2013-01-20 07:42:38 PM

clowncar on fire: Supporting the belief that an armed population is one that's not going to be kicked around by its government.


You might want to study the history of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China's "Revolutions", etc. It was the armed populace that was HELPING the Government kick everyone around. Your assumption is that masses of armed patriots are going to be the majority fighting against the United States when it becomes a tyranny. History has shown the exact opposite to occur.

the ha ha guy: It only takes one gun to make a difference.

And as for scale, I expect organized crime rings would set up their own large-scale gun shops to replace those that were lost, just as they did in response to the bans on drugs and alcohol. Since both the machines and materials cannot be regulated, and the machines are small enough to de-centralize their operation, they would be just as resilient as those in the drug trade.


To the first part, no it doesn't. Even if you assassinate the President of the United States with that one gun, another man would step into his place, and largely bring the fury of the only remaining superpower down upon the group that engineered it. One gun and one man is historically irrelevant for the large part when it comes to dealing with a tyrannical, occupying force.

To the second part, the more likely scenario is that guns are smuggled in from overseas. Even in areas where guns are illegal for private ownership, this does not mean the cartels have taken to manufacturing their own.
 
2013-01-20 07:42:59 PM

Tellingthem: BronyMedic: doglover: You don't need a CNC for anything ever. It just helps.

Then you're cutting the list down even more of people who have the knowledge and skill to fashion anything but a single shot zip gun.

Pretty much. I had a custom gun made for me when I was a kid (muzzle loader) The guy who built it was my dads friend. Even he bought the barrel for it because he said it's easier and cheaper to buy the barrel and make everything else than to do it himself. Also I grew up taking shop classes and we made plenty of crude weapons in it (clubs, spikes, things with screw caps...). But anything approaching a functional gun was just not realistic. It would take too long and cost too much money.


to clarify: He had made his own barrels before...but they were extremely expensive and not much better than anything you could buy premade.

\I think he bought the lock as well...
\\damn that was 25 years ago, god i'm getting old
 
2013-01-20 07:43:31 PM

badhatharry: MFAWG: badhatharry: We should ban 15 year olds from owning assault weapons.

Are you suggesting that we take assault weapons away from all families that have 15 year old children living in the house?

No. Just pointing out that bans do not work.

The problem we are having is new. People don't want to acknowledge the obvious cause for kids choosing these kinds of weapons. It is because of games like Call of Duty. The reason for them going on killing sprees is more complex and I'm certain that the government cannot provide the solution.


can'ttellifseriousortrolling.jpeg.

Seriously? Video games? Really? That's the best you have?
 
2013-01-20 07:43:41 PM

BronyMedic: pedrop357: Yeah, he expanded gun rights for everyone except the group he wanted to eliminate from the planet.

What a coincidence. It's almost as if it's hard to engage in mass murder or genocide when your target is armed and can fight back.

AHAHAHAH. No.

What you are doing is engaging in a shameful type of revisionist history that borders on absolute denial of events that occurred. In reality, even if the Jews had fought back, they would have played directly into the hands of the Nazi Regime. Remember, this is a group who was not above murdering their own supporters and destroying their own buildings to gain popular support.


Yes, it would have been bad if the Jews had played into the Nazi's hands. Thankfully, they went along quietly and nothing really terrible happened.

The fact is that they were kept disarmed, and subsequently massacred. Had they been armed, things may have turned out very differently as we've seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam.
 
2013-01-20 07:44:06 PM

badhatharry: It is because of games like Call of Duty


These games are sold in other countries too. How come no one else seems to be having this problem to the extent that we do.

/Lame cop-out is lame.
 
2013-01-20 07:44:08 PM
Tomorrow they'll be saying on FOX "This kind of catastrophe would have been avoided if all of his other 15yo friends had guns to stop him"
 
2013-01-20 07:44:24 PM

pedrop357: Wayne 985: We require drivers to be licensed, every car to be registered, and mandatory insurance for driving on the road. There are also mandatory safety and competency requirements. Different types of vehicles also require different types of licenses.

With guns, we're looking to have more background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, and a possible restriction on certain varieties of semi-automatic rifles. Consider that.

Gun control like proposed by the president has been done before and not shown to have any effect whatsoever in stopping crime.


We've never had universal background checks, which is the only thing I'm personally promoting.
 
2013-01-20 07:45:20 PM

iq_in_binary: And yet you don't see DMs or snipers using rifles chambered in 5.56. You see them using rifles chambered in .308.

5.56 was picked up because it wounds far more than it kills, using up more enemy resources to treat the wounded.

If our military wanted soldier carrying killing machines they'd still be issuing M1As, period.


What? the SAM-R and the SDM-R are both DM rifles chambered in 5.56 NATO being used by the US Military.
 
2013-01-20 07:45:27 PM
Let's take a look at the crime vs gun ownership. First of all, I couldn't find that graph someone else posted anywhere on the government sites. So I have to assume it's fake.

Now, Gallup, a Republican owned and Republican leaning polling company has the self-reported numbers for gun ownership over two decades. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest- 1993.aspx If you'll notice, it was dropping until recently.. and yet, so was crime. So that argument went out the window. Moreso, the government confirms it Link.

But what has changed and hit the news recently? Oh, that's right. Lead usage and it's connection to crime. Odd that.
 
2013-01-20 07:45:29 PM

Into the blue again: kriegfusion: [i129.photobucket.com image 822x1024]

So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday. Everyday we hear about a new law coming out; does anyone really think a day will come where politicians won't do knee-jerk reactions and try to score political points after a shooting or any public unfortunate happening? Using this line of thinking, how can you not logically see where we are heading?

So, given the long view, we are clearly moving to a more overbearing government, and I know looking beyond the next 5 years is nearly impossible for people, but considering all this, unless we can somehow magically prevent this slide into a dictatorship or oligarchy, we will eventually, logically, have to assert ourselves forcefully one way or another. How do you propose we do this? Clearly the powers that be would laugh in your face at the minimum, or just send you to jail or just kill you.

On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is ever brought ou ...


there was no 'bite' necessary, as this was not a troll attempt, and ty for the input. I see from your viewpoint how using firearms solely for self defense would make limits on weaponry and magazine capacity completely logical; generally you dont get a home invasion scenario with many people, just one, therefore, why have large capacity magazines (large being an ill defined line in the sand).

I feel that the weapons being used for self defense in criminal matters is simply a side benefit to being armed. for me the main reason to have firearms is for violent revolution, as distasteful a topic and thought as that is. Back in the day, we didn't have a standing army, as they were thought dangerous to liberty, a viewpoint I am quite sympathetic to. Would you rather take on the government, i.e. the ATF and the military in guerrilla style warfare with a rifle that shoots 5 rounds or 30? I know where my preference lies.

And yes I know the idea of revolution is bat shiat insane, I agree.
 
2013-01-20 07:45:53 PM

iq_in_binary: Wayne 985: iq_in_binary: Darth Macho: pedrop357: bunner: Or that motor fuel, while not designed to be used as a weapon, CAN be. Most things can, I suppose. Although I'm pretty sure that the primary application for gasoline, as designed, isn't setting motherf*ckers on fire. Get it?

Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.
THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.

Actually military ballistics like the 5.56mm NATO round are designed solely for the human anatomy, not deer, bear or gamefowl. Whether it's meant to be fired at 'bad guys' or 'innocent children' is irrelevant; its design intention is human-lethal and its primary operating environment is a battlefield.

That you think 5.56 NATO is designed to be human lethal proves your ignorance of the subject.

You do realize they still issue .308 rifles to people whose shots have to be lethal, right? I mean seriously, are you that stupid?

They were designed to tear humans to shreds in warfare.

The 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge with the standard 62 gr. steel core bullets (NATO: SS109; U.S.: M855) will penetrate approximately 15 to 20 in (38 to 51 cm) into soft tissue in ideal circumstances. As with all spitzer shaped projectiles it is prone to yaw in soft tissue. However, at impact velocities above roughly 2,500 ft/s (760 m/s), it may yaw and then fragment at the cannelure (the crimping groove around the cylinder of the bullet).[18] These fragments can disperse through flesh and bone, inflicting additional internal injuries.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#Performance

The fragmentation didn't always go as planned, but they were absolutely designed to kill or excruciatingly wound a human opponent.

And yet you don't see DMs or snipers using rifles chambered in 5.56. You see them using rifles chambered ...


As I mentioned, the 5.56 is flawed. I'm not surprised it isn't be used so often.
 
2013-01-20 07:46:27 PM

ElBarto79: Right, so lets do the same thing with assault weapons. We're not banning them, we're just going to make it extremely difficult and expensive for anyone to acquire them.


Won't solve much of anything, so-called 'assault weapons' aren't used in crime very often, and the types of crime they're sensationally known for (mass killings) aren't spur of the moment and are perpetrated by people who have no problem altering plans a little. They'll switch from scary looking semi-auto guns to non-scary looking guns and continue one.

The purpose it save lives, not simply cause a minor substitution in what they use.
 
2013-01-20 07:46:43 PM

pedrop357: The fact is that they were kept disarmed, and subsequently massacred. Had they been armed, things may have turned out very differently as we've seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam.


Wow...this is pretty stupid even for Fark. It's almost up there with that "if the black people in Africa had guns, they wouldn't have been slaves".

So a bunch of Jews would've been able to take on the massive Nazi Army?
 
2013-01-20 07:46:53 PM

relcec: rohar: pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: pedrop357: I agree, we need to continue loosening laws as we've done for the last 15 years. We've seen significant steady drops in violence with firearms in that time.

You can prove a relation between the two?

Gun sales, gun ownership, shall-issue states UP; crime down. It's about as scholarly a connection as half the crap on here involving laws and success rates. besides, shouldn't we try to keep loosening laws just on the chance it'll save a single life?

Except that the reduction trend in gun violence started years before anything you just mentioned and has been consistent. This suggests another cause and that the causes you named are not causations.

looks like you are dead wrong again. and what does having a foundry have to do with creating a zip gun?
[www.bloomberg.com image 620x413]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exce ed -traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html


As a percentage of population, gun related deaths have been dropping steadily since the late 80s/early90s. Absolute numbers prove wrong results. Besides, only a Sith deals in absolutes.

You missed the part of the discussion where we were talking about something more serious than a zip gun. To do that, you must be able to temper the metal. A simple forge isn't going to work, as you need much more predictable heat. You must use a foundry well. I own a foundry, and use it quite often for fabricating cast parts. I have no idea how to use it to temper steel.
 
2013-01-20 07:47:56 PM

BronyMedic: kriegfusion: [i129.photobucket.com image 822x1024]

So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday. Everyday we hear about a new law coming out; does anyone really think a day will come where politicians won't do knee-jerk reactions and try to score political points after a shooting or any public unfortunate happening? Using this line of thinking, how can you not logically see where we are heading?

So, given the long view, we are clearly moving to a more overbearing government, and I know looking beyond the next 5 years is nearly impossible for people, but considering all this, unless we can somehow magically prevent this slide into a dictatorship or oligarchy, we will eventually, logically, have to assert ourselves forcefully one way or another. How do you propose we do this? Clearly the powers that be would laugh in your face at the minimum, or just send you to jail or just kill you.

On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is ever brought out w ...


Never had a fear of an armed society? Have you heard of the Gestapo? Do you know what they did to people who disagreed with them? Do you know what Germany is? Do you know what world war two is? That derp-o-meter is yours, keep it. you need it more than I do. maybe you should spend more time hitting the books, then you can turn in your medic badge and become a real doctor.
 
2013-01-20 07:48:01 PM

Wayne 985: We've never had universal background checks, which is the only thing I'm personally promoting.


Multiple states do and have had them for quite some time.

Very few guns recovered from crime scenes or believed to be 'crime guns' come from private sales.
 
2013-01-20 07:48:06 PM
Sigh. Okay, here's how reality works. Guns have been invented. They exist now. We can't uninvent them. Even if we could, the killing wouldn't stop. See, before we invented guns people killed each other with sharp sticks, sharp bits of metal, heavy rocks, fire, rope, pretty much anything they could get their hands on including their hands.

Trying to control guns to control violent crime solves exactly nothing. People will still die. And the guns? They are already out there in homes, in black markets, in controlled armories. Someone who wants one bad enough is going to get their hands on one, one way or another. And even if they don't, if they want someone dead bad enough, they'll find a way to make it happen. They'll find a suitable tool for the task.

The problem isn't the tool. It's the people.

You can have all or as little of the gun control as you want and people will still kill each other. The only thing that really changes about that is the efficiency with which they do so.
 
2013-01-20 07:49:03 PM

pedrop357: Yes, it would have been bad if the Jews had played into the Nazi's hands. Thankfully, they went along quietly and nothing really terrible happened.

The fact is that they were kept disarmed, and subsequently massacred. Had they been armed, things may have turned out very differently as we've seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam.


a.asset.soup.io

What the hell are you talking about? The holocaust was WELL underway by November 1938, the first time Jews were prohibited from the purchase of firearms and ammunition. Poland, France, and other countries with high jewish populations occupied by the Nazis had HIGH rates of private gun ownership.

The Jews did fight back. It made absolutely no difference.

Vietnam was a military victory for the United States. However, the Government the US left behind was corrupt, lacked the will of it's people to fight to maintain it, and was just as bad - if not worse - than the North Vietnamese.

Iraq and Afganistan were both military victories, Iraq now has a functional government and Afghanistan is in the status of a US Troop Drawdown and turn-over to allow them to function the same way.
 
2013-01-20 07:49:09 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%

family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Source: Bureau of Justice.

That means less than 6% are illegally obtained.


Those can be legal depending on the state.

pedrop357: The fact is that they were kept disarmed, and subsequently massacred. Had they been armed, things may have turned out very differently as we've seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam


I have seen some stupid posts out of you but to compare Germans going after Jews to those situations is so dumb I have to call it out.

The places you mentioned involved a foreign force trying to stop people who largely had the cooperation of the locals. Not so for the German govt going after German jews.
 
2013-01-20 07:49:18 PM

Kittypie070: the ha ha guy: Kittypie070: Law enforcement officers are "armed thugs"?


When they're violating the fourth amendment and searching everyone's home to support some feel-good political agenda, absolutely.

There aren't any cops in my house.

There are well over 300 million people in this country.

How do you think the oinkers are gonna raid every single household in the United States?

Are there cops in your house right now tossing the place? Are they ransacking the dog's bed, pillaging the kids' crayon-boxes and pawing over the wife's undie drawer looking for your sacred Murkin shootin' irons?

Are there Blue Meanies anywhere near your place? Within a mile? Within TWO miles? Within FIVE miles??

Why are you not monitoring them constantly on a RatShakk po-po scanner and marking them on a city map with push pins & string even during dinnertime? You should be, judging by your attitude.

Is anyone else getting raided by the pigs around here??

If so, sound off.



So what do you propose will happen to the newly-illegal guns? Will they disintegrate into thin air? Will the police search the house of anyone suspected of having an illegal gun? Or will the enforcement be practically nonexistent, defeating the purpose of the ban entirely?
 
2013-01-20 07:49:28 PM

PsiChick: kriegfusion: [i129.photobucket.com image 822x1024]

So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday. Everyday we hear about a new law coming out; does anyone really think a day will come where politicians won't do knee-jerk reactions and try to score political points after a shooting or any public unfortunate happening? Using this line of thinking, how can you not logically see where we are heading?

So, given the long view, we are clearly moving to a more overbearing government, and I know looking beyond the next 5 years is nearly impossible for people, but considering all this, unless we can somehow magically prevent this slide into a dictatorship or oligarchy, we will eventually, logically, have to assert ourselves forcefully one way or another. How do you propose we do this? Clearly the powers that be would laugh in your face at the minimum, or just send you to jail or just kill you.

On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is ever brought out w ...


Thanks but I wish the picture was smaller, its too ....noisy....that large :)
 
2013-01-20 07:49:39 PM
The second amendment was drafted and designed as a reaction to a very recent set of very troubling circumstances for a nation that barely had a standing army. That's not a problem anymore. The threat and it's source has changed. Or did a bunch of admittedly bright statesmen, farmers, political hacks, writers, inventors and bidnitmen actually just nail every damn thing imaginable for the ages in one swell foop? Because if they did, we need to get back on the gold standard, eradicate child labor laws, overturn Roe v. Wade and get back to the business of being constitutional Americans, lest we have troops quartered in our houses, err summer cometh.
 
2013-01-20 07:49:44 PM

Mrtraveler01: Wow...this is pretty stupid even for Fark. It's almost up there with that "if the black people in Africa had guns, they wouldn't have been slaves".

So a bunch of Jews would've been able to take on the massive Nazi Army?


What you just said is even dumber.

I guarantee there would have been far fewer Nazis to go door-to-door rounding up
'undesirables' if just 10% of the Jews had been disarmed.

Have you ignored the happenings in Iraq and Afghanistan?
 
2013-01-20 07:50:19 PM

malaktaus: "Albuquerque Fire Chief James Breen said the Albuquerque Fire Department is mourning the senseless loss of one of our spiritual counselors, Greg Griego.

He said Griego was a dedicated professional that passionately served his fellow man and the firefighters of this community."

Yeah, I can pretty much guarantee that Greg Griego got exactly what he deserved. This kind of shiat doesn't generally happen out of the farking blue. Too bad about the rest of them though.


His son was named Nehemiah. That kid can probably draw the exact outline of the veins on his father's penis from memory.
 
2013-01-20 07:50:28 PM

dameron: Somacandra: Really? I'd like some official link or citation if possible

Well someone claiming to be Nehemiah Griego from Albuquerque uploaded that picture three weeks ago.    It's not like his name is John Smith or anything.


Scudder is late, but maybe we'll still get a theocracy...one day.
 
2013-01-20 07:50:36 PM

Wayne 985: pedrop357: Wayne 985: We require drivers to be licensed, every car to be registered, and mandatory insurance for driving on the road. There are also mandatory safety and competency requirements. Different types of vehicles also require different types of licenses.

With guns, we're looking to have more background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, and a possible restriction on certain varieties of semi-automatic rifles. Consider that.

Gun control like proposed by the president has been done before and not shown to have any effect whatsoever in stopping crime.

We've never had universal background checks, which is the only thing I'm personally promoting.


For the record, however, I find it difficult to believe that a mass shooter would kill just as many people with 5 10-round magazines as he would with a single 50-round magazine.
 
2013-01-20 07:51:01 PM

pedrop357: Wayne 985: We've never had universal background checks, which is the only thing I'm personally promoting.

Multiple states do and have had them for quite some time.

Very few guns recovered from crime scenes or believed to be 'crime guns' come from private sales.


False.
 
2013-01-20 07:51:29 PM

kriegfusion: Never had a fear of an armed society? Have you heard of the Gestapo? Do you know what they did to people who disagreed with them? Do you know what Germany is? Do you know what world war two is? That derp-o-meter is yours, keep it. you need it more than I do. maybe you should spend more time hitting the books, then you can turn in your medic badge and become a real doctor.


You know nothing about history, and you should feel bad.

FTL:
 The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist. Further, supposing the existance of an armed resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany. Why then did the Nazis introduce this program? As with most of their actions (including the formation of the Third Reich itself), they desired to effect a facade of legalism around the exercise of naked power. It is unreasonable to treat this as a normal part of lawful governance, as the rule of law had been entirely demolished in the Third Reich. Any direct quotations, of which there are several, that pronounce some beneficence to the Weapons Law should be considered in the same manner as all other Nazi pronouncements - absolute lies.

bks2.books.google.com

Go educate yourself, idiot.
 
2013-01-20 07:52:41 PM

pedrop357: ElBarto79: Right, so lets do the same thing with assault weapons. We're not banning them, we're just going to make it extremely difficult and expensive for anyone to acquire them.

Won't solve much of anything, so-called 'assault weapons' aren't used in crime very often, and the types of crime they're sensationally known for (mass killings) aren't spur of the moment and are perpetrated by people who have no problem altering plans a little. They'll switch from scary looking semi-auto guns to non-scary looking guns and continue one.

The purpose it save lives, not simply cause a minor substitution in what they use.


Well I'd be in favor of including all semi-autos in the "extremely difficult and expensive" category as well. Semi-autos are used in gun crimes quite a bit and I'd wager that effectively banning them would affect crime rates.
 
2013-01-20 07:53:13 PM

pedrop357: What you just said is even dumber.

I guarantee there would have been far fewer Nazis to go door-to-door rounding up
'undesirables' if just 10% of the Jews had been disarmed.


You don't say?

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

Awaiting your rebuttal.
 
2013-01-20 07:53:30 PM

IlGreven: kriegfusion: What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government?

Let's look at all the other rights we've lost while we had the immediate means to enforce our will upon the government:

1st Amendment right to free assembly (See Occupy Protests)
4th Amendment right to unreasonable search and seizure (TSA, Warrantless Wiretapping, Terrorist Watch Lists)
5th Amendment right to be detained without charge ("enemy combatants", Gitmo)
6th Amendment right to fair and speedy trial to know what you're being charged with and to face your accusers (again, "enemy combatants", Gitmo)
8th Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment (waterboarding, other torture)
14th Amendment right to due process and equal protection (once again, "enemy combatants", Gitmo)

But, thankfully, you still have your 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. As well as your 3rd amendment right to refuse to quarter soldiers in your home during peacetime.


I directly blame the pace of modern life combined with the gluttony of entertainment available to the masses for people not doing something. On top of that, when the majority have food, shelter, and enterainment, there will be no rise from them. All of those things you spoke of affect only isolated individuals most of the time, even if they number quite a bit. So the majority haven't had to worry about anything, not yet. But once you get rid of the 2nd completely, trampling on the others is a small offense, no?
 
2013-01-20 07:53:59 PM

Somacandra: jbuist: Pop the grenade on the end, load a blank, and fire the grenade. They're not exactly dangerous. Well, unless you have rifle grenades. I'd say the grenades are the dangerous part...

But if you can't fire the grenade without the grenade launcher, and the grenade launcher has no use other than firing a grenade, the logical move would be to restrict the launcher. Grenades themselves aren't semiautomatic weapons appropriate to this legislation--I'm sure those are covered instead under the "No You Can't Have Some Goddamn Grenades Act" passed after WWII.


This might have covered by somebody else in the thread, but I haven't read it all yet since I bounced out.  But I think it warrants a reply.

A rifle launched grenade only needs a muzzle that ends in certain dimensions to match whatever military grenade you're trying to launch.  They're just a specification, not something that actually does anything special.

EVERY muzzle is a grenade launcher when matted up against a rifle grenade built to that barrel's muzzle.  It's just some were designed with a slightly fancy attachments to make it easy if you had a grenade built by your country for the end of it.  But, in reality, every rifle can be used to launch a grenade.  If you can build a grenade you can launch it off a rifle.

After WWII countries moved away from rifle launched grenades and now most use a dedicated 'gun' or an under slung attachment to infantry weapons. These projectiles have their own propellant which is the main difference from rifle launched grenades.

A modern grenade launcher is essentially the same as a flare gun.  They are not very special devices.  They simply strike the primer on the grenade (or flare, or chalk round) and send it off.  If you can build a modern grenade round you can launch it out of a flare gun.  Which, incidentally don't require any background checks and they're a totally unregulated item.

So, if you're wondering why I think nobody would worry about 60 year old rifles with antiquated grenade launchers for grenades that are no longer in product there's your answer.  You can buy a modern "grenade launcher" from a boating supply store.  It's just not labeled that.
 
2013-01-20 07:54:16 PM

Wayne 985: For the record, however, I find it difficult to believe that a mass shooter would kill just as many people with 5 10-round magazines as he would with a single 50-round magazine.


Most magazines over 30 rounds I've seen have been surprisingly unreliable.

Reloading has yet to be a factor in any mass shooting except Tucson where the shooter dropped his magazine. The rest had shooters who had as much as 30 minutes to murder.

The VT shooter brought 19 magazines with him and apparently swapped as often as he wanted. The CT shooter had 14 minutes to kill those kids and shot most multiple times. Restrict him to 10 round magazines and he just brings more, or is more conservative with his ammo.
 
2013-01-20 07:54:28 PM

AngryDragon: 15-year-olds in possession of firearms is already illegal.

Which new gun law would have prevented this submittard?


One that said "If someone uses your gun to commit an illegal act, and you did not take active measures to protect said gun from their posession (gun safe, on your body, etc...) then you are complicit in the crime and will go to jail, too.

That kind of law would allow you to own whatever you want, and places 100% of the responsibility for controlling the gun on the gun owner.

If this kid got his guns because his buddy's dad left them laying around the house, his buddy's dad should be up for accessory to murder.
 
2013-01-20 07:54:31 PM
"Although training programs usually in-
clude suggestions on how to store guns
safely, it does not appear that trainees
are paying attention."

Ya think? Consider Sandy Hook and this incident as just one of thousands... whatever gave you that idea that the weapons were legal and not properly secured? The problem are the gun owners.
 
2013-01-20 07:54:35 PM
Guns keep us safe in a similar way that meth helps us clean.
 
2013-01-20 07:54:45 PM

pedrop357: Wayne 985: We've never had universal background checks, which is the only thing I'm personally promoting.

Multiple states do and have had them for quite some time.

Very few guns recovered from crime scenes or believed to be 'crime guns' come from private sales.


I'd like to see hard numbers, but you're already making my point. There are murderers who use private sales to avoid background checks. Even if it's rare, it's enough for me.

If the price of saving a handful of lives is that you have to undergo an instant background check, then tough titty.
 
2013-01-20 07:55:18 PM

bunner: The second amendment was drafted and designed as a reaction to a very recent set of very troubling circumstances for a nation that barely had a standing army. That's not a problem anymore. The threat and it's source has changed. Or did a bunch of admittedly bright statesmen, farmers, political hacks, writers, inventors and bidnitmen actually just nail every damn thing imaginable for the ages in one swell foop? Because if they did, we need to get back on the gold standard, eradicate child labor laws, overturn Roe v. Wade and get back to the business of being constitutional Americans, lest we have troops quartered in our houses, err summer cometh.


If only there was a process to amend the constitution...
 
2013-01-20 07:55:20 PM

Mrtraveler01: pedrop357: What you just said is even dumber.

I guarantee there would have been far fewer Nazis to go door-to-door rounding up
'undesirables' if just 10% of the Jews had been disarmed.

You don't say?

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

Awaiting your rebuttal.


To be fair, 17 Nazis did die from that so I guess there were fewer Nazis going door to door rounding up undesirables.

But they still got rounded up regardless.
 
2013-01-20 07:55:27 PM

BronyMedic: iq_in_binary: And yet you don't see DMs or snipers using rifles chambered in 5.56. You see them using rifles chambered in .308.

5.56 was picked up because it wounds far more than it kills, using up more enemy resources to treat the wounded.

If our military wanted soldier carrying killing machines they'd still be issuing M1As, period.

What? the SAM-R and the SDM-R are both DM rifles chambered in 5.56 NATO being used by the US Military.




Both of which about 100 exist, as opposed to the tens of thousands of M14 variants currently issued. Right.
 
2013-01-20 07:55:29 PM

way south: pedrop357: Do we do this when people, including teens, kill their family with breakopen shotguns or baseball bats?

Why would we?
There's no political points to score.

Besides, kids murdering their families has never happened before ar-15's.


www.biography.com
pussies
 
2013-01-20 07:55:38 PM
THis kid could have done this with a Winchester '94 or a $300 Wal*Mart shotgun. Hell, he could have done it with a .22 revolver. But look at his pictures, he's dressed in military-style fatigues and he used a military-style weapon. These guns are dangerous toys, noting more, nothing less. If hicks and lunatics can't play safely with these toys, they will lose them, and that's OK.

Ersatz military gear has no rational place in our civil society. We don't let idiots dress up like cops or firefighters or EMTs, either; you get arrested for that shiat. It should be the same if you want to dress up like a soldier. We can make an exception for re-enactors, since at least they seem to know that they're playing dress-up.

Otherwise, yes, you should lose your military toys at the drop of a hat and they should be regulated to whatever necessary level to keep them away from thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shiat-kickers and Methodists.

It's only common sense.
 
2013-01-20 07:55:58 PM

Mrtraveler01: You don't say?

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

Awaiting your rebuttal.


They needed to be better armed.
 
2013-01-20 07:55:58 PM

pedrop357: BronyMedic: pedrop357: Yeah, he expanded gun rights for everyone except the group he wanted to eliminate from the planet.

What a coincidence. It's almost as if it's hard to engage in mass murder or genocide when your target is armed and can fight back.

AHAHAHAH. No.

What you are doing is engaging in a shameful type of revisionist history that borders on absolute denial of events that occurred. In reality, even if the Jews had fought back, they would have played directly into the hands of the Nazi Regime. Remember, this is a group who was not above murdering their own supporters and destroying their own buildings to gain popular support.

Yes, it would have been bad if the Jews had played into the Nazi's hands. Thankfully, they went along quietly and nothing really terrible happened.

The fact is that they were kept disarmed, and subsequently massacred. Had they been armed, things may have turned out very differently as we've seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam.


That a load of derp. Hilter was voted in. The armed civilian supported his party, just like the tea party would support a fascist leader if he was voted in today.
 
2013-01-20 07:55:59 PM

Fubini: Fubini: Somacandra: Personally, I would say that a grenade launcher automatically counts. But they didn't think so.

The grenade launcher thing is great, because it's a pretty easy way to tell whether people know what they're talking about or not.

Spot the grenade launcher:

Woops.

Spot the grenade launcher:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x307]


Good luck finding grenades you can launch from it!  (I can't)
 
2013-01-20 07:56:01 PM

the ha ha guy: So what do you propose will happen to the newly-illegal guns? Will they disintegrate into thin air? Will the police search the house of anyone suspected of having an illegal gun? Or will the enforcement be practically nonexistent, defeating the purpose of the ban entirely?


You obviously misunderstand the Constitution. It's not that big a deal, a LOT of people did when the Brady bill came in to function. No existing property will become "illegal". You see, the federal government doesn't have that power. That said, it'll become very difficult to sell said property. The power to enforce these things comes from the commerce clause. Because of that, you can still buy a General Electric M134 Minigun. It's an amazing piece of equipment, works like a chainsaw with a bit of range. Funny thing, you could still buy one while the Brady bill was in effect.

I gotta know, if under the most stringent gun laws in a generation, you can still buy a weapon that will discharge 4000 rounds per minute, how have we lost any rights?
 
2013-01-20 07:56:08 PM
Oh, I get it.

Lord ha-ha can't read, comprehend, or answer a set of very simple LOLwhoops! Pigs raiding you!? questions.
 
2013-01-20 07:57:18 PM

Rent Party: AngryDragon: 15-year-olds in possession of firearms is already illegal.

Which new gun law would have prevented this submittard?

One that said "If someone uses your gun to commit an illegal act, and you did not take active measures to protect said gun from their posession (gun safe, on your body, etc...) then you are complicit in the crime and will go to jail, too.

That kind of law would allow you to own whatever you want, and places 100% of the responsibility for controlling the gun on the gun owner.

If this kid got his guns because his buddy's dad left them laying around the house, his buddy's dad should be up for accessory to murder.


I agree with this. If they want to keep claiming to be "responsible gun owners" then they would have ZERO disagreement with this law. Otherwise they are NRA and gun company paid shills.
 
2013-01-20 07:57:23 PM
Obviously this 15-year-old's plan was to make people fight over holocaust factoids, and you're all falling into his little trap.
 
2013-01-20 07:57:36 PM

pedrop357: Restrict [a school shooter] to 10 round magazines and he just brings more, or is more conservative with his ammo.


GOOD.
 
2013-01-20 07:58:42 PM

badhatharry: MFAWG: badhatharry: We should ban 15 year olds from owning assault weapons.

Are you suggesting that we take assault weapons away from all families that have 15 year old children living in the house?

No. Just pointing out that bans do not work.

The problem we are having is new. People don't want to acknowledge the obvious cause for kids choosing these kinds of weapons. It is because of games like Call of Duty. The reason for them going on killing sprees is more complex and I'm certain that the government cannot provide the solution.


Call of duty is big globally. No spree killers though hmmmm.
 
2013-01-20 07:58:50 PM

rohar: I gotta know, if under the most stringent gun laws in a generation, you can still buy a weapon that will discharge 4000 rounds per minute, how have we lost any rights?


Yes, the right to buy new ones.
 
2013-01-20 07:59:09 PM

pedrop357: They needed to be better armed.


Not only are you historically ignorant, you're going the most offensive route you can to demonstrate it.

BravadoGT: Good luck finding grenades you can launch from it!  (I can't)


You used to be able to find the training grenades all the time at surplus stores.
 
2013-01-20 07:59:49 PM

badhatharry: MFAWG: badhatharry: We should ban 15 year olds from owning assault weapons.

Are you suggesting that we take assault weapons away from all families that have 15 year old children living in the house?

No. Just pointing out that bans do not work.

The problem we are having is new. People don't want to acknowledge the obvious cause for kids choosing these kinds of weapons. It is because of games like Call of Duty. The reason for them going on killing sprees is more complex and I'm certain that the government cannot provide the solution.


What an odd patriot you are. Sacrificing the first amendment to preserve the second
 
2013-01-20 08:00:06 PM

Wayne 985: pedrop357: Restrict [a school shooter] to 10 round magazines and he just brings more, or is more conservative with his ammo.

GOOD.


So, he shoots and kills the same number with fewer rounds and this is good how? If he had chosen two shotguns, he could have done what he did with 27 or fewer rounds.
 
2013-01-20 08:00:29 PM

pedrop357: rohar: I gotta know, if under the most stringent gun laws in a generation, you can still buy a weapon that will discharge 4000 rounds per minute, how have we lost any rights?

Yes, the right to buy new ones.


Really? Your argument for your position on gun control is the same as my wife's argument about purses? It's Friday and everyone's seen my last on I need a new one?
 
2013-01-20 08:00:35 PM
Gun control in the 20th century

Very long and very disturbing. There are a lot of very naive people here who need to watch this and learn some history.
 
2013-01-20 08:00:39 PM

rohar: the ha ha guy: So what do you propose will happen to the newly-illegal guns? Will they disintegrate into thin air? Will the police search the house of anyone suspected of having an illegal gun? Or will the enforcement be practically nonexistent, defeating the purpose of the ban entirely?

You obviously misunderstand the Constitution. It's not that big a deal, a LOT of people did when the Brady bill came in to function. No existing property will become "illegal". You see, the federal government doesn't have that power. That said, it'll become very difficult to sell said property. The power to enforce these things comes from the commerce clause. Because of that, you can still buy a General Electric M134 Minigun. It's an amazing piece of equipment, works like a chainsaw with a bit of range. Funny thing, you could still buy one while the Brady bill was in effect.

I gotta know, if under the most stringent gun laws in a generation, you can still buy a weapon that will discharge 4000 rounds per minute, how have we lost any rights?


And not only that... many seem to forget that we can amend the Constitution and that's constitutional. So if the over 80% of Americans and 70% of Republicans and 60% of NRA members decide tomorrow to replace the 2nd Amendment with one that is more clear and not vague, that is not only Democratic and a function of Democracy, but it's Constitutional.
 
2013-01-20 08:00:56 PM

BronyMedic: pedrop357: They needed to be better armed.

Not only are you historically ignorant, you're going the most offensive route you can to demonstrate it.


How's that?
 
2013-01-20 08:01:05 PM

BronyMedic: fnordfocus: The adult man killed apparently worked in public safety and corrections, so no law that's been proposed would have kept the weapon out of his house.

Corrections officers do not USUALLY carry sidearms unless they are escorting a prisoner off prison grounds, like to a hospital or courthouse.


Agreed, but I'm sure this was a personal weapon.  My point is that current and former Police, COs, and sometimes their family members, are generally exempted from gun control restrictions.  So, even with all of the proposed assault weapons restrictions, Mr. Griego would still have been able to keep the weapon he was killed with.
 
2013-01-20 08:01:06 PM

pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: You don't say?

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

Awaiting your rebuttal.

They needed to be better armed.


pedrop357: Condemning the victim to justify his gun-lust, regardless of the era.
 
2013-01-20 08:01:36 PM

loaba: Okay, so, like, the South Valley isn't really all that safe and just 'cause I confine myself to the NE Heights, that doesn't mean I'm hate'n either.


/ also, I abhore traveling across the river, keep it on the Texas side as much as possible.


I got stuck with a house in RR (my coworkers call it Arizona) and I despise the commute to Mesa del Sol where I work.

I'd love to live in the NE Heights. My sis just got an apartment over on Academy and Tramway-ish. She loves it.
 
2013-01-20 08:01:47 PM

Dinki: Aeon Rising: Can we start report car accidents with such frequency? That way people may pay attention to something that will actually save more lives.

Sigh. Maybe you missed the numerous times it has been pointed out that to operate a car you need a special license, must pass a proficiency test, are subject to many restrictions as to where, when, and how you can operate your vehicle, the vehicle itself must have certain safety features, be regularly inspected and registered with the state. You also are required to have insurance. None of those things are required to purchase and own or operate most guns.


And they STILL kill more than guns, but people call guns more dangerous.
 
2013-01-20 08:01:55 PM

rohar: Really? Your argument for your position on gun control is the same as my wife's argument about purses? It's Friday and everyone's seen my last on I need a new one?


I wasn't aware that the government restricted the manufacture of new purses.
 
2013-01-20 08:02:01 PM
Everyone should be happy. There in heaven now.
 
2013-01-20 08:03:17 PM

pedrop357: This was a reply to those who always claim that cars aren't designed to kill, etc. and that guns are designed for one purpose-to kill


To be fair, only one of your numerous examples didn't involve killing....if you come up with five uses and only one doesn't involve killing or the intent of killing or the risk of killing, you might need to come to a conclusion that the main purpose of this tool is to kill people or animals, with a secondary use of practising to kill people or animals...
 
2013-01-20 08:03:37 PM

maxalt: I prefer to be armed when confronted by a monster than to rely on harsh words and stern looks. If you don't want a gun it's easy don't buy one, control your actions concerning guns and I will control mine. I guess the latest generation views every life as precious, which is why abortion is so rare nowadays.


abortions have been performed well before your date of birth, you condescending shiat for brains. also take note people have been killing each other well before you were hatched. mankind is a cruel vicious bloodthirsty beast with little empathy or sympathy. but you probably couldn't see that, way up there on your high horse.
 
2013-01-20 08:03:38 PM

Darth Macho: pedrop357: Condemning the victim to justify his gun-lust, regardless of the era.


Not condemning them, pointing out they weren't as well armed as they could have been if they weren't the targets of gun control. Also indirectly pointing out it underscores the need for the individual people to be as well armed as the military personnel who may be coming to concentrate them into camps.
 
2013-01-20 08:04:01 PM

pedrop357: How's that?


Attempting to trivialize one of the most valiant acts of World War II, despite having no possibility of having a  tangible tactical or strategic outcome in either uprising as "They should have fought harder"

In reality, they fought to the point the Nazis were going house to hosue with flamethrowers, roasting every man, woman, and child they could find, and bringing in water trucks to drown people in home-made bunkers. You cannot fight that kind of barbarism with any measure of resistance. The fact of the matter is that unlike most occupying forces, the Nazi SS actually believed that they were humanly superior in every way to the filth they guarded, and had no problem with disregarding any shread of humanity to demonstrate it.
 
2013-01-20 08:04:43 PM

iserlohn: pedrop357: BronyMedic: pedrop357: Yeah, he expanded gun rights for everyone except the group he wanted to eliminate from the planet.

What a coincidence. It's almost as if it's hard to engage in mass murder or genocide when your target is armed and can fight back.

AHAHAHAH. No.

What you are doing is engaging in a shameful type of revisionist history that borders on absolute denial of events that occurred. In reality, even if the Jews had fought back, they would have played directly into the hands of the Nazi Regime. Remember, this is a group who was not above murdering their own supporters and destroying their own buildings to gain popular support.

Yes, it would have been bad if the Jews had played into the Nazi's hands. Thankfully, they went along quietly and nothing really terrible happened.

The fact is that they were kept disarmed, and subsequently massacred. Had they been armed, things may have turned out very differently as we've seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam.

That a load of derp. Hilter was voted in. The armed civilian supported his party, just like the tea party would support a fascist leader if he was voted in today.


Germany already had total gun control--no civilian ownership for anyone-- since the end of WWI. Hitler's gun laws relaxed gun control, not the other way around.
 
2013-01-20 08:04:59 PM

Deep Contact: Everyone should be happy. There in heaven now.


So are aborted kids, numb-ass.

Fark off and DIAF.
 
2013-01-20 08:05:05 PM

pedrop357: rohar: Really? Your argument for your position on gun control is the same as my wife's argument about purses? It's Friday and everyone's seen my last on I need a new one?

I wasn't aware that the government restricted the manufacture of new purses.


fark they should. I've got only so much income and the wife likes fashion almost as much as you like gun powder powered penis replacements.

That said, I can get you a 90% new 7.62 minigun tomorrow. 4k-5k rounds per minute. New barrels, new mechanisms, the works. Just as I could during the brady bill. You're gonna have to put up some cash, fill out a bunch of paperwork and wat on the fed for a bit, but it can happen. How is this infringing on your rights?
 
2013-01-20 08:05:41 PM

pedrop357: The fact is that they were kept disarmed, and subsequently massacred. Had they been armed, things may have turned out very differently as we've seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam.


You really don't know what you're talking about. Guns were barely a factor in Iraq. In two deployments my company had exactly three gunshot wounds, and one was self-inflicted. None were fatal. I have no idea how many people were hit by IEDs. A lot. If you try to attack a modern army directly, you will die. If you select firearms as your main weapon, you have already lost.
 
2013-01-20 08:05:51 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: And what did YOU do to celebrate Gun Appreciation Day?


Played 40k and blasted the fark out of some IG and Grey Knights w/ railguns. Good times.
 
2013-01-20 08:05:53 PM
Same old dumb arse fark liberals trying to blame the tool instead of the person.

Anybody want to guess what medication he was on?
 
2013-01-20 08:06:14 PM

rohar: No existing property will become "illegal".


In other words, it would make things more difficult for legal gun buyers, but have virtually no effect on those who use their existing guns to commit mass murder.
 
2013-01-20 08:06:16 PM

Frantic Freddie: How did I guess it'd be in the South Valley?


Wasn this a national tragedy when the Mendez brothers pulled something like this a couple of decades ago?

Also, I've never had any trouble in the south valley. I know it has a reputation as a bad part of town, but I've had no issues there.
 
2013-01-20 08:06:48 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Pincy: Aeon Rising: Can we start report car accidents with such frequency? That way people may pay attention to something that will actually save more lives.

Don't know about where you live, but any car accident around here that involves fatalities is plastered on all the local news stations with live reporters and interviews from witnesses. And I'm in a city with over a million people.

Its almost like cars serve a purpose other than the deaths or injuries of people and accidents involving said vehicles are therefore accepted more easily* as a cost of their convenience and necessity to our way of life. False Equivalence is false.

/Also cars tend to kill people in ACCIDENTS not premeditated murderous rampages. I don't think there are tens of thousands of car based murders every year. I could be wrong though..

*not that people dying in car accidents is a good thing, dammit you know what i mean...


Scrunch your eyes really hard and ball your fists up and keep chanting 'guns kill', otherwise a real thought of your very own just might slip in and you will be forced to wonder how so many people use guns daily without, and exclusivly in an activities that don't involve killing people.

Heaven forbid you stop repeating what others tell you and accept that the mark of a free man is the ability to arm himself.
 
2013-01-20 08:06:50 PM

Deep Contact: Everyone should be happy. There in heaven now.


Hey hey! An actual post considering the fate of the people who were murdered, rather than an argument about what defines an "assault weapon" or whose rights are being infringed upon.
 
2013-01-20 08:07:06 PM

kriegfusion: So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government?


There's probably four people here who are actually anti-all guns. But nice picture. It goes with your overly-dramatic post.
 
2013-01-20 08:07:43 PM

BronyMedic: Attempting to trivialize one of the most valiant acts of World War II, despite having no possibility of having a tangible tactical or strategic outcome in either uprising as "They should have fought harder"

In reality, they fought to the point the Nazis were going house to hosue with flamethrowers, roasting every man, woman, and child they could find, and bringing in water trucks to drown people in home-made bunkers. You cannot fight that kind of barbarism with any measure of resistance. The fact of the matter is that unlike most occupying forces, the Nazi SS actually believed that they were humanly superior in every way to the filth they guarded, and had no problem with disregarding any shread of humanity to demonstrate it.


Not trivializing, not condemning them. Saying that they should have been better armed can be taken multiple ways-I would have wanted them to be subject to at least the same laws as everyone else, and then would have wanted EVERYONE to have the same firepower as those that were coming for them.

The fact that they lost so badly shows just how effective gun control was in enabling them to be steamrolled over.
 
HBK
2013-01-20 08:08:09 PM

jaylectricity: I just watched the latest episode of W Kamau Bell's show. Good show if you're a liberal. I laugh at most of it, but one thing he did was go on a poetic type rant where he said we should just have no guns at all.

And I agree with him...but only if EVERYBODY throws all their guns in the ocean, and all gun manufacturers dismantle their assembly lines, and we don't even keep "collector's items" in the slightest.

Since that won't ever ever ever ever happen, I say we all get a gun. No restrictions. If you have a pulse, you get a gun. Yes, somebody will shoot one of your loved ones. You'll have plenty of people to share your grief with and you'll get over it.


The show where he went to the gun range was hilarious because he looked like a total moron. He was expecting a bunch of rednecks, but it was a bunch of normal city folks, blacks, and jews. His amazement that normal people would own guns and the stupid questions he asked pretty much sums up for me why many people are anti-gun- because they're ignorant and scared of guns.

His show is totally terrible.
 
2013-01-20 08:09:02 PM

BGates: Same old dumb arse fark liberals trying to blame the tool instead of the person.

Anybody want to guess what medication he was on?


Oxy-10?
 
2013-01-20 08:09:36 PM

pedrop357: fusillade762: The Hitler gun control lie

Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong

Yeah, he expanded gun rights for everyone except the group he wanted to eliminate from the planet.

What a coincidence. It's almost as if it's hard to engage in mass murder or genocide when your target is armed and can fight back.


I love the part where he says "Gun control doesn't cause holocausts, oppressive regimes cause holocausts"....

Kinda hard to oppress those who can fight back....

He also states "Hitler forced the Jews into ghettos, should we ban ghettos?" (May be paraphrasing). Again, kinda hard to force someone to go where they don't want of they're disarmed....
 
2013-01-20 08:09:38 PM

rohar: That said, I can get you a 90% new 7.62 minigun tomorrow. 4k-5k rounds per minute. New barrels, new mechanisms, the works. Just as I could during the brady bill. You're gonna have to put up some cash, fill out a bunch of paperwork and wat on the fed for a bit, but it can happen. How is this infringing on your rights?


I'm going to have to put up a lot of cash because the government is restricting the supply of new ones. That's the violation-the inability of anyone to make new ones.

We can't claim that a person's rights aren't being violated because they can have all the used books they want, just no new ones.
 
2013-01-20 08:10:24 PM

Aeon Rising: Dinki: Aeon Rising: Can we start report car accidents with such frequency? That way people may pay attention to something that will actually save more lives.

Sigh. Maybe you missed the numerous times it has been pointed out that to operate a car you need a special license, must pass a proficiency test, are subject to many restrictions as to where, when, and how you can operate your vehicle, the vehicle itself must have certain safety features, be regularly inspected and registered with the state. You also are required to have insurance. None of those things are required to purchase and own or operate most guns.

And they STILL kill more than guns, but people call guns more dangerous.


Penny wise, DEATH foolish.
 
2013-01-20 08:11:15 PM

pedrop357: Not trivializing, not condemning them. Saying that they should have been better armed can be taken multiple ways-I would have wanted them to be subject to at least the same laws as everyone else, and then would have wanted EVERYONE to have the same firepower as those that were coming for them.

The fact that they lost so badly shows just how effective gun control was in enabling them to be steamrolled over.


No, the fact they LOST so badly is a tribute to how a nation trying to defend itself with static fortifications, trench warfare, and weapons technology that was obsolete 10 years before the invasion of the SS and Wehrmacht. The fact of the matter is that the Germans used technology and tactics that had never before been seen on the battlefield before - namely the concept of fast moving motorized divisions, armored warfare which bypassed static fortifications, and the use of combined arms air support and paratroopers to drop behind enemy lines. It also helped that they didn't give one red shiat about civilian deaths during this time, and all it took was the mere assumption someone had a weapon and the entire platoon would open up on them.

Your suggestion would only make sense if the Poles were giving out MG42s and Panzerfausts in the years before to every man, woman, and child.
 
2013-01-20 08:11:26 PM

malaktaus: pedrop357: The fact is that they were kept disarmed, and subsequently massacred. Had they been armed, things may have turned out very differently as we've seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam.

You really don't know what you're talking about. Guns were barely a factor in Iraq. In two deployments my company had exactly three gunshot wounds, and one was self-inflicted. None were fatal. I have no idea how many people were hit by IEDs. A lot. If you try to attack a modern army directly, you will die. If you select firearms as your main weapon, you have already lost.


Said it before and I'll say it again: The only freedom the Second Amendment guarantees is the freedom to know precisely how you will die.
 
2013-01-20 08:11:39 PM

cryinoutloud: There's probably four people here who are actually anti-all guns. But nice picture. It goes with your overly-dramatic post.


Some of the rest simply want to ban guns that look scary and/or because a couple people used them in mass killings. Some 'just' want to ban all semi-autos or subject them to excessive restrictions to the point they may as well be banned.
 
2013-01-20 08:11:45 PM

pedrop357: rohar: That said, I can get you a 90% new 7.62 minigun tomorrow. 4k-5k rounds per minute. New barrels, new mechanisms, the works. Just as I could during the brady bill. You're gonna have to put up some cash, fill out a bunch of paperwork and wat on the fed for a bit, but it can happen. How is this infringing on your rights?

I'm going to have to put up a lot of cash because the government is restricting the supply of new ones. That's the violation-the inability of anyone to make new ones.

We can't claim that a person's rights aren't being violated because they can have all the used books they want, just no new ones.


So what, you think you're entitled to a spanky new minigun? Just because you have the right to a thing doesn't mean the rest of us should supply it for you or make it easy to procure.
 
2013-01-20 08:11:52 PM

pedrop357: Wayne 985: pedrop357: Restrict [a school shooter] to 10 round magazines and he just brings more, or is more conservative with his ammo.

GOOD.
So, he shoots and kills the same number with fewer rounds and this is good how? If he had chosen two shotguns, he could have done what he did with 27 or fewer rounds.


I don't buy that premise. If a spree killer fires a smaller fraction of rounds into a classroom, he's likely to (A) hit fewer people and (B) leave wounded victims alive. While he's reloading, people can run away or attack the bastard, as happened in Oregon.

Link

When Kinkel's rifle ran out of ammunition and he began to reload, wounded student Jacob Ryker tackled him, assisted by several other students. Kinkel drew the Glock and fired one shot before he was disarmed, injuring Ryker again as well as another student. The students restrained Kinkel until the police arrived and arrested him.[5] A total of seven students were involved in subduing and disarming Kinkel.[6]
 
2013-01-20 08:12:42 PM

pedrop357: I'm going to have to put up a lot of cash because the government is restricting the supply of new ones. That's the violation-the inability of anyone to make new ones.


Boo farking hoo. Stuff costs money.

Deal with it.

i4.ytimg.com

/Yeah motherfarker.
 
2013-01-20 08:13:35 PM

Wayne 985: pedrop357: Restrict [a school shooter] to 10 round magazines and he just brings more, or is more conservative with his ammo.

GOOD.


Beware removing 11+ round magazines in a ban, much like last time. These:
mogunparts.com
are not covered since they are not technically magazines. The "gun grab" and magazine restriction is a bluff to get more concessions on other things, hopefully to include mental health care expansions. Otherwise we will be wasting time as usual and end up with further embarrassing examples law abuses that make legislation against one of the most powerful lobbying groups pointless.

Same reason why federally legal weed will never be a possibility.  Or telling israel to fix its own damn problems.