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

(Chicago Trib)   Chicago, with the nation's strictest gun laws, would like to point out that 1 of the 7 homicides last night was a stabbing. No gun was used in that killing   (chicagotribune.com ) divider line
    More: Sad, Chicago, stabbing, homicides, gun laws, stab wound, Chicago Police Department, Englewood  
•       •       •

4593 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jan 2013 at 12:30 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-27 05:04:33 PM  
On 'gun violence' and 'gun culture'. I would be glad if the political speech writers would prefer 'irrational violence' and 'violent culture'. That would be better, but I imagine they are told to go with 'gun' as the descriptor.

I expect, if the studies that have been ordered are at all accurate, they will find at least two distinct violent mentalities that need to be addressed irrespective of guns.

The first is the inexplicably common outcome of unbalanced desperate thoughts. The mindset that after he can't get his frustrations or point across any other way, once desperation has removed all limitations, the gun shots or car rampage or truck bomb aimed at strangers ending in his death or permanent incarceration at least makes a statement that can't be ignored.

Have incidences of these really increased or been reduced by any laws or policies?

The second is, for lack of a better term, the thug mentality. The unmetered call for retaliation for any, and even seemingly small, offenses. She treated her bad in school, so she attacks her mercilessly.

Again, no laws or policies seem to be effective in reducing this kind of violence.

It is not surprising the cities and poor see more of these issues. I think the distinction between 'irrational violence' and 'violent culture' is an important one, and the word gun just misdirects the issue. And video games or bullies aren't the cause either, it doesn't matter that those would make the issue so easy to fix.
 
2013-01-27 05:04:43 PM  

Greylight: Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: Greylight: do you have a problem with special licensing requirements?

Yes, I have a problem with licensing

Can you come to a mutal agreed point that there are some weapons that should be resticted? I bet you can, then you can add value to the discussion by pointing out where to draw that line. Put your ass in the game instead of just critisizing choice of language. It's pendantic and appears to be designed to obfuscate the issue intentionally.

Some firearms require special licences to purchase and posses. That is not the same thing as a ban, or takeing awaty all guns from folks. If laws and regulations are proposed that require a special permit for some weapons designated as "assault weapons" would you contribute to the discussion your ideas on how that should be framed or are you going to simply belittle and critisize?


I am of the belief that the weapons that should be restricted, fully automatic weapons, are already heavily restricted. Have been for decades.

I do not believe that some guns should be banned just because they look scary to you. It will solve NOTHING.

I do not believe there should be a government controlled gun registry and licensing system.

Clear enough for you?

What weapons do you think should be restricted? And don't use the bullshiat term "assault weapon" It means nothing. Language is EXTREMELY important in this discussion. The founding fathers went to great lengths to specifically spell out citizen rights.
 
2013-01-27 05:05:01 PM  

earthworm2.0: berkley/bel ridge area now.... And I swear its all bad....


I work by UMSL...I know all about it.
 
2013-01-27 05:05:33 PM  

MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: This whole argument has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with exerting control. The government desires control, the libtards desire to lash out at a group of people that the media has told them are bad and so therefore have been molded to support the government in the process of a massive power grab.

We have been painted red or blue with one color fighting the other. There is no middle ground, there are no other opinions other than what the media tells you.

This is how a libtard thinks.

It must be fun to have a persecution complex like that.

must be fun being a whiny biatch

Oh snap. I just got told.

Sorry, I wont' ruin your strawman building then.

I think you just like to insult people and be passive aggressive and that you have nothing interesting to add to any conversation period.


As opposed to the logical and totally insult free quotes from MagicMissile:

People who want to take away others rights and firearms, are pathetic weaklings.

These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack and are willing to stand up for our Bill of Rights.

So I guess you can go buy a lobster and masturbate vigorously with it while you fantasize about Americans being brutalized by their own government. Idiot.

This is how a libtard thinks.

must be fun being a whiny biatch


/conservative logic...always amusing.
 
2013-01-27 05:05:49 PM  

dr-shotgun: Greylight: I care about your mental health too!
We're not out to grab you guns, we're trying to have a discussion about how to balance society safety with gun ownership. You can be a valuable part of the discussion, you would be amazed how well people will respond when you don't resort with partisan derp.

Some folks do want to take away all guns, it's true, get over it. It's not the will of all gun control advocates.

I have yet to hear a rational conversation from the other side of this argument.

Rational people would look at the numbers and conclude that banning assault weapons is both the most politically divisive and least effective proposition put on the table to curb gun violence.

Assault rifles are used in less than 2% of all homicides, roughly 120 people a year (out of 8600 firearm homicides). The entirety of this debate is centered around a number of crimes that, in comparison to the rest of the homicide data, is essentially statistical noise. To say nothing of the fact that the vast majority of those murders would still take place had an assault weapon not been used by the perpetrator.

I mean really - you think that some criminal is going to say "You know, I really wanna shoot that guy, but I can't use the particular kinda gun I want... so I'm just gonna go home and play xBox."?

As far as mass shootings, there is absolutely no correlation between the use of an assault rifle and the lethality of the event. The most horrific mass shooting in this nation's history was committed with two pistols (one of them a .22) and 10 round magazines (Virginia Tech). Only 1 out of the 10 most lethal mass shootings in the country involved the use of an assault rifle (Newton) and all the evidence suggests that the kind of weapon used made not one iota of difference in how many kids he shot. The deal is really simple - shooting unarmed, cowering people isn't that difficult a task that requires military hardware.

Having said all that, I would *love* to have a rational co ...


If you start off defining rational as agreemet with your position you are never going to have a "rational" discussion with someone with a differnet opinion.

If you look hard enought, and with an open mind, you will see rational discussion from not one, not two, but many different perspectives, it is just not easy to wade through all the derp to see it.

Forget the word "ban" and start focussing on regulations to track and resrict access to certain classes of firearms.

It is devisive becaue their is such a polorized partisan devide in the US. It is up to everyone to step up and outside of the partisan derp. Being difficult and politically devisive does not mean that it shouldn't be done. Useaully the isses that most need addressing and strong leadership are the ones that are politically divisive at some level.

We're doing just fine in Canada with our restrictions, they are not bans, but they work, and I can still own any gun I want, I just need to jump through a few more hoops.
 
2013-01-27 05:07:23 PM  

Greylight: Can you come to a mutal agreed point that there are some weapons that should be resticted? I bet you can, then you can add value to the discussion by pointing out where to draw that line. Put your ass in the game instead of just critisizing choice of language. It's pendantic and appears to be designed to obfuscate the issue intentionally.

Some firearms require special licences to purchase and posses. That is not the same thing as a ban, or takeing awaty all guns from folks. If laws and regulations are proposed that require a special permit for some weapons designated as "assault weapons" would you contribute to the discussion your ideas on how that should be framed or are you going to simply belittle and critisize?


I've always advocated that we implement firearms licensing at the federal level, with the states issuing the licenses against a set of federal guidelines (the same way we do driver's licenses). 49 states already have the infrastructure and basic template of the license requirements to do this by way of Concealed Weapons Permits.

A license such as this would solve a LOT of problems:

1- It would eliminate straw purchases. It is one thing to send your baby mamma with a clean record into the store to buy a guy. It is quite another to send her to the sheriff's office to pay a fee, be fingerprinted, go through a local records check, a federal background check, have her picture taken, spend a weekend in a basic firearms class and wait 6 weeks.

2- It gives law enforcement officers a definitive tool to know who can/cannot possess a firearm. Have a firearm on you or in your home and you don't have a license? Boom - instant felony. A fantastic tool to quickly crack down on gang violence. Put in some safety measures so good citizens don't get caught up (like allow people with a pristine record and no history with the police to retroactively get the license and pay a stiff fine).

3- Licensing serves to highlight the nexus between mental health and firearm access. During investigations with folks having a mental health crisis, cops can cross check their address against firearm licenses and find out if they live in a home with guns (even if they aren't the licensee). This would allow them to talk with the firearm license holder and insure the weapons are secured, or even allow them to voluntarily be taken into escrow until the mental health issues are cleared up.

4- It removes the background check and "Should I sell a gun to this guy?" questions out of the hands of gun stores. All they would do is run the license and make sure it is valid and there are no holds on it. Mandate the license be required for all firearm and ammo purchases and possession.

Implement the law by piggybacking on CCW permits, of which there are already 10 Million (so more than 10% of gun owners are already licensed).

I would have absolutely no problem with this, and it would cut down the flow of guns into the hands of felons pretty sharply. It would also provide a fantastic tool for cops to crack down on felons who they find in possession of firearms and let us link mental health issues with firearm ownership. It would also cut down on firearm sales pretty dramatically by turning the purchase of a gun from basically an impulse buy into a highly considered, somewhat time consuming event that will turn away the kind of folks who really shouldn't be owning a gun.
 
2013-01-27 05:07:32 PM  
Oh, and where did I simply belittle and criticize?
 
2013-01-27 05:08:59 PM  

SubBass49: MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: This whole argument has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with exerting control. The government desires control, the libtards desire to lash out at a group of people that the media has told them are bad and so therefore have been molded to support the government in the process of a massive power grab.

We have been painted red or blue with one color fighting the other. There is no middle ground, there are no other opinions other than what the media tells you.

This is how a libtard thinks.

It must be fun to have a persecution complex like that.

must be fun being a whiny biatch

Oh snap. I just got told.

Sorry, I wont' ruin your strawman building then.

I think you just like to insult people and be passive aggressive and that you have nothing interesting to add to any conversation period.

As opposed to the logical and totally insult free quotes from MagicMissile:

People who want to take away others rights and firearms, are pathetic weaklings.

These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack and are willing to stand up for our Bill of Rights.

So I guess you can go buy a lobster and masturbate vigorously with it while you fantasize about Americans being brutalized by their own government. Idiot.

This is how a libtard thinks.

must be fun being a whiny biatch


/conservative logic...always amusing.


Sounds like a terrible and poorly constructed Haiku.
 
2013-01-27 05:10:01 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: Hey...can anybody illuminate me as to the truth here...? I've heard 2 different versions of the Newtown massacre... one says he used an AR-15 assault rifle, and another says the rifle was left in the trunk and he used handguns to do the killing.
Personally, I think it was all done with the handguns, since a long gun is pretty crappy in close quarters... on the other hand, it might have been useable since there was no effective resistance.
Oh, and BTW, no guns were involved in the worst school massacre in US history.


He did use the ar15. They found an izhmash saiga 2 guage in the trunk, which looks a lot like the ar15 to the layman but it fires shot gun shells. The conspiracy theory is being circulated based on the blurry helicopter video of the search of the trunk, and initial news reports, when the press was pumping out information as fast as they could but didnt actually have anything accurate.
 
2013-01-27 05:13:45 PM  
OMG...
this whole thread has deteriorated into jingoism
would somebody please look up what has worked and what has failed over the years and start to apply a little logic?
 
2013-01-27 05:13:52 PM  

dr-shotgun: He fired less than 100 rounds and changed magazines multiple times. Most of the discarded magazines were found to contain a large number of remaining rounds.


Cite.

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: He used one and it jammed almost immediately. He abandoned it and switched to handguns with extra magazines he carried with him.


Completely wrong.

dr-shotgun: a CCW permit holder engaged the guy but did not fire. This is why he ran to the service corridors of the mall and shot himself


Obviously, impossible to verify. We don't even know he saw the CCW or his weapon.
 
2013-01-27 05:15:03 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Sounds like a terrible and poorly constructed Haiku.


A gun-nut haiku...

Tiny cock
balls the size of grapes
need my gun


THANK YOU!!!! THANK YOU!!! Will post more soon...
 
2013-01-27 05:17:10 PM  
Why don't they just make killing people illegal?

Then you don't have to worry about knives or guns... or pointed sticks... or bananas...
 
2013-01-27 05:17:14 PM  

dr-shotgun: A license such as this would solve a LOT of problems:


Amen.
But you'll never get it past the "first step to confiscation" crowd.
 
2013-01-27 05:17:37 PM  
vpb: The only real use for a gun in a city is as a weapon against people.
fair enough.
but, considering some of the people in large cities, I see that as a good reason to have one
 
2013-01-27 05:19:36 PM  

earthworm2.0: DogBoyTheCat: Hey...can anybody illuminate me as to the truth here...? I've heard 2 different versions of the Newtown massacre... one says he used an AR-15 assault rifle, and another says the rifle was left in the trunk and he used handguns to do the killing.
Personally, I think it was all done with the handguns, since a long gun is pretty crappy in close quarters... on the other hand, it might have been useable since there was no effective resistance.
Oh, and BTW, no guns were involved in the worst school massacre in US history.

He did use the ar15. They found an izhmash saiga 2 guage in the trunk, which looks a lot like the ar15 to the layman but it fires shot gun shells. The conspiracy theory is being circulated based on the blurry helicopter video of the search of the trunk, and initial news reports, when the press was pumping out information as fast as they could but didnt actually have anything accurate.


I'll just leave this right here...Link
 
2013-01-27 05:19:39 PM  
lostcat:

That certainly explains why soldiers are issued gas operated handguns instead of military versions of AR-15s.


...And you just demonstrated how little you know on the subject. Please do yourself a favor and learn about what you are arguing against. Here, I give you a bit of education:

Soldiers today ARE issued "gas operated" handguns in addition to their M-4. It is called the M9 or better yet as the Berreta 92. This handgun, like almost EVERY OTHER semi-automatic handgun operates on a principle called "direct-blowback" wherein the explosive gases generated by a round being fired not only drive the round out of the barrel, but also drive the slide to the rear, ejecting the spent cartridge and reloading a new one. The M-4/AR-15 operates on a similar principle but goes about it slightly differently. In addition to the direct power of the round pushing the bolt to the rear, there is a gas tube attached towards the front of the barrel which redirects a portion of the remaining gasses down the tube where it slams into the bolt. This action helps push the bolt completely to the rear, ejecting the spent cartridge and loading a new one. In fact, "gas-operated" is in the nomenclature for the M-4:

The M16/M4 Carbine rifle is a 5.56mm, magazine-fed, gas-operated, air-cooled, shoulder-fired weapon that can be fired either in automatic three-round bursts or semiautomatic single shots as determined by the position of the selector lever.
 
2013-01-27 05:20:40 PM  
More haikus for yous...

Fearful in my home
scary brown people - wet pants
better buy a gun

Great equalizer
tiny muscles hold me back
so I own a gun

Terrified of "them"
Live as a fearful rabbit
In my burrow, guns.
 
2013-01-27 05:21:06 PM  
Doh! There was a nested "b" somewhere at the beginning of that post. Didn't mean for all bold.
 
2013-01-27 05:22:58 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: Greylight: Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: Greylight: do you have a problem with special licensing requirements?

Yes, I have a problem with licensing

Can you come to a mutal agreed point that there are some weapons that should be resticted? I bet you can, then you can add value to the discussion by pointing out where to draw that line. Put your ass in the game instead of just critisizing choice of language. It's pendantic and appears to be designed to obfuscate the issue intentionally.

Some firearms require special licences to purchase and posses. That is not the same thing as a ban, or takeing awaty all guns from folks. If laws and regulations are proposed that require a special permit for some weapons designated as "assault weapons" would you contribute to the discussion your ideas on how that should be framed or are you going to simply belittle and critisize?

I am of the belief that the weapons that should be restricted, fully automatic weapons, are already heavily restricted. Have been for decades.

I do not believe that some guns should be banned just because they look scary to you. It will solve NOTHING.

I do not believe there should be a government controlled gun registry and licensing system.

Clear enough for you?

What weapons do you think should be restricted? And don't use the bullshiat term "assault weapon" It means nothing. Language is EXTREMELY important in this discussion. The founding fathers went to great lengths to specifically spell out citizen rights.


Do us both a favour and don't patronize me with the tired old rehtoric that everyone with a different opinion then yourself is uneducated about arms.

There are many different points of view. It may not occur to you that some people are advocates of gun rights and also advocates for increased gun control.

Since you make the claim to expertise, why don't you suggest if there is any specific weapons or accesories that should have any additional regulations/restrictions or laws passed to govern their use and possesion. Is their anything you would designate an "assault weapon", or what term would you prefer?

Do you think gun laws and regulations are just fine as they are?
 
2013-01-27 05:23:07 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: OMG...
this whole thread has deteriorated into jingoism
would somebody please look up what has worked and what has failed over the years and start to apply a little logic?


"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace."

Rod Serling; "The Obsolete Man"
 
2013-01-27 05:23:46 PM  

Sniper061: Doh! There was a nested "b" somewhere at the beginning of that post. Didn't mean for all bold.


MY EYES!!! MY EYESSSS!!!!

No worries, I'm still getting used to this new posting system.
 
2013-01-27 05:23:56 PM  
more haikus...

Government scares me
use their roads and schools and loans
But still think they're bad

Black helicopters
buzz my home while I'm sleeping
paranoid schizo
 
2013-01-27 05:27:29 PM  

3StratMan: I'll just leave this right here...Link


Check the disclaimer at the beginning of that video.

Or keep up the good work, either way...
 
2013-01-27 05:27:56 PM  

Sniper061: lostcat:

That certainly explains why soldiers are issued gas operated handguns instead of military versions of AR-15s.


...And you just demonstrated how little you know on the subject. Please do yourself a favor and learn about what you are arguing against. Here, I give you a bit of education:

Soldiers today ARE issued "gas operated" handguns in addition to their M-4. It is called the M9 or better yet as the Berreta 92. This handgun, like almost EVERY OTHER semi-automatic handgun operates on a principle called "direct-blowback" wherein the explosive gases generated by a round being fired not only drive the round out of the barrel, but also drive the slide to the rear, ejecting the spent cartridge and reloading a new one. The M-4/AR-15 operates on a similar principle but goes about it slightly differently. In addition to the direct power of the round pushing the bolt to the rear, there is a gas tube attached towards the front of the barrel which redirects a portion of the remaining gasses down the tube where it slams into the bolt. This action helps push the bolt completely to the rear, ejecting the spent cartridge and loading a new one. In fact, "gas-operated" is in the nomenclature for the M-4:

The M16/M4 Carbine rifle is a 5.56mm, magazine-fed, gas-operated, air-cooled, shoulder-fired weapon that can be fired either in automatic three-round bursts or semiautomatic single shots as determined by the position of the selector lever.


Blah blah bold...

Yes, I always see soldiers with their handguns drawn.

When I think of a soldier going into battle, I imagine a guy with a pistol in his hand and a rifle slung across his back.

Are people really so stupid that they don't follow the logical argument that a rifle and a pistol are not the same?
 
2013-01-27 05:28:59 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Amen.
But you'll never get it past the "first step to confiscation" crowd.


That's easy - individual weapons are not registered.

A firearm license would only provide one the ability to purchase and possess firearms and ammunition. If the day ever comes when the government wants to round up all the guns, you are just as free to tell them that you lost them all in a canoe accident as you are today.

It isn't like the precedent isn't already set. Lots of states require a state permit to purchase a firearm. Carrying once concealed requires a state permit (in all but Arizona and Vermont).

If we could be talking about firearms licensing instead of bans, this would be a far more productive discussion. Instead, the left has almost entirely turned this into a "conversation" about assault rifles and high capacity magazines. Again - little/no impact on crime, but an issue that gets most gun owners riled up for a fight.
 
2013-01-27 05:30:05 PM  

dr-shotgun: I've always advocated that we implement firearms licensing at the federal level, with the states issuing the licenses against a set of federal guidelines (the same way we do driver's licenses). 49 states already have the infrastructure and basic template of the license requirements to do this by way of Concealed Weapons Permits.


Wow. You are less of a gun clinger than you let on with the rest of your posts.

I'd want to add to your licensing ideas some benefits to the gun owners. For example, additional rights for those whose guns are paired with locks or safes. (i.e. you can license a safe and then have a few less requirements than average joe) And national clarification of laws for possessing and transporting personal weapons legally. (if you have CCW and have tried to plan a multi-state trip you know what I'm talking about)
 
2013-01-27 05:30:13 PM  

dr-shotgun: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Amen.
But you'll never get it past the "first step to confiscation" crowd.

That's easy - individual weapons are not registered.

A firearm license would only provide one the ability to purchase and possess firearms and ammunition. If the day ever comes when the government wants to round up all the guns, you are just as free to tell them that you lost them all in a canoe accident as you are today.

It isn't like the precedent isn't already set. Lots of states require a state permit to purchase a firearm. Carrying once concealed requires a state permit (in all but Arizona and Vermont).

If we could be talking about firearms licensing instead of bans, this would be a far more productive discussion. Instead, the left has almost entirely turned this into a "conversation" about assault rifles and high capacity magazines. Again - little/no impact on crime, but an issue that gets most gun owners riled up for a fight.


I like the license idea myself but I've had it shot down many times on here.
 
2013-01-27 05:33:43 PM  
I've seen that "black helicopter" thing a lot in today's posts...
Just so y'all know, there are various special divisions of many nations' "defense & intelligence forces" dedicated to the suppression of "forbidden science"
Look up "carbon-monoxide and cryogenics"
I was personally involved in suppressing such research and wrecking the careers of a few medical students
 
2013-01-27 05:34:16 PM  

Greylight: Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: Greylight: Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: Greylight: do you have a problem with special licensing requirements?

Yes, I have a problem with licensing

Can you come to a mutal agreed point that there are some weapons that should be resticted? I bet you can, then you can add value to the discussion by pointing out where to draw that line. Put your ass in the game instead of just critisizing choice of language. It's pendantic and appears to be designed to obfuscate the issue intentionally.

Some firearms require special licences to purchase and posses. That is not the same thing as a ban, or takeing awaty all guns from folks. If laws and regulations are proposed that require a special permit for some weapons designated as "assault weapons" would you contribute to the discussion your ideas on how that should be framed or are you going to simply belittle and critisize?

I am of the belief that the weapons that should be restricted, fully automatic weapons, are already heavily restricted. Have been for decades.

I do not believe that some guns should be banned just because they look scary to you. It will solve NOTHING.

I do not believe there should be a government controlled gun registry and licensing system.

Clear enough for you?

What weapons do you think should be restricted? And don't use the bullshiat term "assault weapon" It means nothing. Language is EXTREMELY important in this discussion. The founding fathers went to great lengths to specifically spell out citizen rights.

Do us both a favour and don't patronize me with the tired old rehtoric that everyone with a different opinion then yourself is uneducated about arms.

There are many different points of view. It may not occur to you that some people are advocates of gun rights and also advocates for increased gun control.

Since you make the claim to expertise, why don't you suggest if there is any specific weapons or accesories that should have any additional regulations/r ...


WTF is wrong with you? I am not patronizing you in any way. If anything it is the other way around. You said:

Put your ass in the game instead of just critisizing choice of language.

The language is critical here. It is how laws are used in this country and any other modern one.

I spelled out exactly what I think should and should not be banned. I DON'T think any other arms should be restricted to any law abiding citizen in this country. Period.

You are the one advocating restricting weapons and my question is simply which ones you think should be restricted and not to use a phrase that has absolutely no defining characteristics. It is simply a phrase used to evoke an emotional response. That's it. It did not exist until persons like yourself decided to come up with a phrase to use while pushing their agenda.
 
2013-01-27 05:36:26 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: Is anybody familiar with James Watson's (of Crick & Watson... the dudes who found the structure of DNA) work on racial intelligence?


Yes, and also familiar with how his non-science based racism is very popular among racists.
 
2013-01-27 05:36:53 PM  

Sniper061: Soldiers today ARE issued "gas operated" handguns in addition to their M-4. It is called the M9 or better yet as the Berreta 92. This handgun, like almost EVERY OTHER semi-automatic handgun operates on a principle called "direct-blowback" wherein the explosive gases generated by a round being fired not only drive the round out of the barrel, but also drive the slide to the rear, ejecting the spent cartridge and reloading a new one.


Jesus christ. For someone with the word "Sniper" in their bloody screen name, you could at least know WTF you are talking about.

"Gas operated" implies that gas is used directly in the operation of the firearm, in a way beyond the obvious effect of it's ignition causing recoil.

The Beretta (and pretty much every other modern semi-automatic handgun) is a recoil operated firearm. If you wanna get technical, they are almost all breach locked recoil operated guns that trace the lineage of their recoil operation delay mechanism to the original Colt 1911 design by John Browning.

The only actual gas operated pistol I can think of is the HK P7 series, where a piston operates in a gas cylinder that is ported to just in front of the breach. The gas charges the cylinder and keeps the piston from moving back and starting the cycle until the pressure drops to a certain point. The barrel itself is fixed. It is a quite unique system.
 
2013-01-27 05:37:15 PM  
RGA 184... Great Point!
even though I think you're on the other side of the argument than I... I welcome somebody who would bring some actual numbers to this arena... not just the usual right/left crap
 
2013-01-27 05:43:21 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: there are various special divisions of many nations' "defense & intelligence forces" dedicated to the suppression of "forbidden science"
Look up "carbon-monoxide and cryogenics"
I was personally involved in suppressing such research and wrecking the careers of a few medical students


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-27 05:44:38 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: The Larch: Steve was the guy who claimed that semiautomatic handguns used exactly the same gas operated mechanism as an AR-15. If he wants to bring technical terms into the debate to support his point, he shouldn't be a whiny biatch when someone points out that he's using the terms wrong.

No, I was comparing the fact that an AR-15 and any semi-auto handgun works in the exact same basic fashion. One trigger pull = 1 bullet fired.

The argument was initially that the term "assault weapon": is bullshiat.


Fair enough. I apologize for my criticism. But just for refence, the term you were looking for was "semi-automatic", not "gas operated.
 
2013-01-27 05:54:01 PM  

boomm: Wow. You are less of a gun clinger than you let on with the rest of your posts.


Frankly, I am just as farking sick of maniacs walking into gun free zones and killing innocent people.

I'm also sick of urban thugs turning our streets into outright warzones in some cities.

And I am *really* farking sick of irrisponsible, dumbfark gun owners who can't secure their weapons. Adam Lazana's mother, were she not dead, should be skinned alive. Really- this woman lives in a house with a boy who she knows is so mentally unstable, she was (apparently) talking about having him committed. What kind of a dumb fark allows him to have access to their extensive collection of high-grade hardware?

And I am especially sick of a government that has an extensive collection of gun laws on the books (many of them unintelligible when collected with all the others), that seems to not care one iota to enforce them. We have crooked gun dealers allowing weapons to flow into high-crime urban centers. We have people who judges have labeled as mentally ill able to buy firearms (Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter). And now we are being lectured by a man who's administration did, in fact, encourage American guns to be walked across the boarder to arm drug cartels.

I totally get where the anti-gun sentiment comes from. While it isn't really logical when faced with all the facts, it is the first place a mind will run to when dealing with the question of gun violence in this country.

I'm sitting here typing this with a freshly fired and cleaned SCAR 17S sitting here, so I'm obviously going to be on the pro-gun side of the debate. Having said that, I am proud to call myself a responsible, well trained and deeply thoughtful gun owner. I cherish having the ability to own these things and I have not a single problem jumping through a couple of hoops to prove my thoughtfulness and responsibility as long as my ownership rights are maintained.

Frankly, I think it is quite stupid that I walked into a gun store, plunked down $2200 and walked out 5 minutes later with this SCAR. I think that too many people own these things as toys, with little thought or consideration given to what it means to be an armed citizen. I've seen far too many stupid people at ranges, seen far too many people buying these things with almost no thought put into the purchase and seen far too much stupid asshattery and antics by my fellow gun owners at the range.

The 2nd Amendment is an important, unique and cherished right to me. Rights are only maintained when a certain set of responsibilities are met. I have no issue putting some legal teeth behind those responsibilities because I can see the sacred rights of the 2nd Amendment slipping away due to irresponsible assholes justifying their stupidity behind the Constitution.
 
2013-01-27 05:58:19 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: I've seen that "black helicopter" thing a lot in today's posts...
Just so y'all know, there are various special divisions of many nations' "defense & intelligence forces" dedicated to the suppression of "forbidden science"
Look up "carbon-monoxide and cryogenics"
I was personally involved in suppressing such research and wrecking the careers of a few medical students


*Checks url* Whew...still at Fark...thought i had clicked over to ATS for a second...
 
2013-01-27 06:15:06 PM  

jaytkay: MagicMissile: If you don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, then get out of the United States. Go move to Canada or Europe.

Fun test to ask conservatives.

1) What is the 2nd amendment about?

2) What are the other 9 about?


That's easy: All 10 are about telling the government what they may not do.
 
2013-01-27 06:22:06 PM  

Securitywyrm: So... if your car is stolen out of your garage and someone is killed with it... you'll accept civil responsibility?


Well, unless it's registered non-op, it should be insured and that insurance should apply, I would imagine. Not sure what the law is regarding this.
 
2013-01-27 06:33:13 PM  
>Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: WTF is wrong with you? I am not patronizing you in any way. If anything it is the other way around. You said:

Put your ass in the game instead of just critisizing choice of language.

The language is critical here. It is how laws are used in this country and any other modern one.

I spelled out exactly what I think should and should not be banned. I DON'T think any other arms should be restricted to any law abiding citizen in this country. Period.

You are the one advocating restricting weapons and my question is simply which ones you think should be restricted and not to use a phrase that has absolutely no defining characteristics. It is simply a phrase used to evoke an emotional response. That's it. It did not exist until persons like yourself decided to come up with a phrase to use while pushing their agenda.


OK, you advocate that the status quo is just fine. You also seem to have some mythalogical reverence for the founding fathers. Frankly, and with all due respect, your founding fathers were men like any others and they made some pretty stupid desicions, like Madison's attempt to invade Canada and that whole manifest destiny thing. That was a little creepy. But i digress.

I would suggest adopting something simmiler to the Canadian laws and regulations on firearms and accesories. It works for us.

You have a serious problem with gun crime in the United States, and you are so certain of your founding father's infalibility that you are paralyzed from any genuine change. Ya'll are chasing your tails trying to define intent and language and never addressing the issue. Like you said, you're fine with the status quo, it is someone elses or something elses fault, don't dare challenge the founding fathers. It's as rediculous as watching differnt brands of christianty arguning the meaning of the bible.
 
2013-01-27 06:39:53 PM  

Securitywyrm: So you're saying that we shouldn't have what we can afford, but rather what you deem 'the minimum required' to accomplish the task? So... go ahead and turn in your smartphone for a landline, turn in your fancy computer for a model from 10 years ago, and turn in your car for one that has 65 miles an hour as a maximum possible speed.
There's a word for the government declaring what people are and aren't allowed to have, based on what the government thinks they need: Communism.


Seriously, you are diving into stupidity here. Not everything is equal. A gun is not a computer is not a car, etc. Communism? Please stop using words that do nothing but equal FUD and are complete and utter bullshiat when discussing anything having to do with the US. As much fun as some people seem to have throwing the word around, it simply makes them look like idiots. The US is not and never will be a communist country and a vast array of firearms will always be legal, even here in California, where, BTW, we have a massive shiat ton of firearms, some of which I get to hear echoing in the distance every day.
 
2013-01-27 06:41:17 PM  

Greylight: You have a serious problem with gun crime in the United States, and you are so certain of your founding father's infalibility that you are paralyzed from any genuine change. Ya'll are chasing your tails trying to define intent and language and never addressing the issue. Like you said, you're fine with the status quo, it is someone elses or something elses fault, don't dare challenge the founding fathers. It's as rediculous as watching differnt brands of christianty arguning the meaning of the bible.


The vast VAST majority of our gun crime is the result of suppressed liberty in another facet of life through the War on Drugs.

Though not enumerated by the Founding Fathers, the idea that we would persecute a civil war upon citizens who choose to temporarily alter their state of mine is an absolute anathema to everything the founders of this nation intended. Partially for the moral reprehensibility of regulating victimless activity, but also because the Founders had a keen understanding/mistrust of the power of government against the citizenry and the unintended consequences of that power's mass application.

With the War on Drugs, we've created an entire criminal class of users along with a vicious and violent black market that's evolved to serve them.

In effect, we are seeing one liberty withheld have follow-on effects that are starting to encroach upon nearly every other liberty (the 2nd, 4th and 5th being heavily narrowed due to the effects of the War on Drugs).

Funny how rights are intertwined like that.
 
2013-01-27 06:50:44 PM  
Y'all laugh all you want...
try looking past wikipedia for those answers on CO/cryo... way past....
you might try looking on german, romanian or czech language sites
nuff said
 
2013-01-27 06:51:46 PM  

dr-shotgun: With the War on Drugs, we've created an entire criminal class of users along with a vicious and violent black market that's evolved to serve them.


Plus we've created a massive, powerful, and legal industry to support and execute this "war" with sometimes equally vicious and violent enforcement, who, unlike the street criminals, are accountable to no one.
 
2013-01-27 07:00:44 PM  

dr-shotgun: Greylight: You have a serious problem with gun crime in the United States, and you are so certain of your founding father's infalibility that you are paralyzed from any genuine change. Ya'll are chasing your tails trying to define intent and language and never addressing the issue. Like you said, you're fine with the status quo, it is someone elses or something elses fault, don't dare challenge the founding fathers. It's as rediculous as watching differnt brands of christianty arguning the meaning of the bible.

The vast VAST majority of our gun crime is the result of suppressed liberty in another facet of life through the War on Drugs.

Though not enumerated by the Founding Fathers, the idea that we would persecute a civil war upon citizens who choose to temporarily alter their state of mine is an absolute anathema to everything the founders of this nation intended. Partially for the moral reprehensibility of regulating victimless activity, but also because the Founders had a keen understanding/mistrust of the power of government against the citizenry and the unintended consequences of that power's mass application.

With the War on Drugs, we've created an entire criminal class of users along with a vicious and violent black market that's evolved to serve them.

In effect, we are seeing one liberty withheld have follow-on effects that are starting to encroach upon nearly every other liberty (the 2nd, 4th and 5th being heavily narrowed due to the effects of the War on Drugs).

Funny how rights are intertwined like that.


Your founding fathers didn't have as keen an understanding of government or human behaviour as you seem to think. They were motivated by greed, self intrest, and ego. You should really see it from an outsiders point of view sometims. It looks like idol whorship.

Frankly the idea drug crime is somehow special or different in the US is bull. Take that off the table if you really think that has something to do with why gun crime is so high. People in Vancouver have the same challenges as Seattle when it comes to drug use and the gang networks that suport the distribution of drugs. Very different gun crime stats.
 
2013-01-27 07:01:02 PM  
Jaytkay:
OK...I have no problem with saying I'm wrong, if the science isn't there....
here's the problem: what if the science IS there, but it's just not politically correct to say so?
Or if there are various folks(with the backing of their respective governments) who now want to get patents on 60 year old illegal research?
Think about it. No profit on old stuff... especially old stuff with a "Nazi research" label.
 
2013-01-27 07:04:14 PM  
Thanks stratman & earthworm...
I needed some facts
 
2013-01-27 07:09:59 PM  
vpb: The only real use for a gun in a city is as a weapon against people.
Again... I'm cool with that...
Some people need killing
 
2013-01-27 07:13:07 PM  
Oh... BTW...
for my old bosses...
Bienvenidos a Argentina
Or someplace
or maybe someplace else
 
2013-01-27 07:15:51 PM  

vrax: Securitywyrm: So... if your car is stolen out of your garage and someone is killed with it... you'll accept civil responsibility?

Well, unless it's registered non-op, it should be insured and that insurance should apply, I would imagine. Not sure what the law is regarding this.


The inadequacies of switching a car for a gun has been discussed at length here on Fark. A car vs gun is not really a good analog. Regulations on cars are particularly poor analogy when discussing guns.

[Abbreviated explanation]
Car on public road/land:
License to drive.
License for vehicle.
Usually requires insurance coverage.
The make/model/class of vehicle matters.

Car on private road/land:
Does not require a license to drive.
Does not require a vehicle license.
Does not require insurance.
The make/model/class of vehicle doesn't matter.


As for the question, I don't see auto insurance covering your liability, if there were any, for a homicide with your stolen vehicle. Maybe your home owner's insurance would get involved because it was in your garage. It might matter if you left the key in the lock.

Maybe a better one for this question would be a knife. Most people have knives for kitchen or utility, and others have some for protection or collecting.

What if someone stole your knife or razor blade and killed someone with it? Would civil liability rest at your feet? Should there then be more liability if it was a knife designed as a weapon, vs another kind of knife?
 
Displayed 50 of 451 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report