Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?

Why? Because they hurt your feelings or something? Get over it, pussy.

dabbletech: I'm not surprised. Those people up there make the cheapest coats I've ever seen.

Came for a Coat Factory reference. Leaves satisfied.

The NRA won't be happy until you are allowed to have a nuclear warhead in your house. Because mutally assurred destruction is the only way to keep peace.

Antimatter: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

They are government employees, same as the military, honestly.

Does that mean the clerk at the DMV can buy an automatic rifle?

I was expecting the ban to be on 'liberals.' This surprised me.

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Two gun threads in a row now where the gun nut I was talking to just gave up and bugged out with his tail between his legs.

Huh.... one more and I think I have a trend.

I mean he was being completely sarcastic and patronizing the entire time. I believe he called himself a robot at one point. Pretty sure the answer is he's just trolling you given how pro-gun he has been in other threads.

Wayne 985: You mean like the civilian murder rate is only referencing reported instances, and not "general" murder by civilians?

Police are civilians. And no, like the fact that police aren't on-duty to commit excessive force violations all day every day. They only get those while at work, and so the excessive force firearms death rate only accounts for a fraction of illegal deaths committed by police officers.

PsiChick: No, a civilian in the typical sense of the word is not simply nonmilitary, it also applies to those who are not attached to  paramilitary organizations. In common usage, words occasionally have more than their dictionary definition. And I DO NOT BELIEVE THE POLICE NEED ASSAULT WEAPONS, AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED.

Yes, in the typical sense of the word, civilian = nonmilitary. CIVILIAN IS THE WORD FOR NONMILITARY.

Whoops I think I had the same capslock problem you had. Anyway, the definition of civilian is "nonmilitary." Anyone who is not in the military is a civilian. Rules and regulations regarding civilians cover everyone who's not in the military. International courts, when referring to nonmilitary targets call them "civilian." Suggesting that police are not civilians is so incredibly wrong there's really no way to respond to you other than to tell you you're wrong wrong wrong wrongity wrong, wrongy wrong-wrong wrongity wrong.

dittybopper: chairborne: It also kind of deconstructs all that idiotic talk about the 2nd amendment being outdated because of drones and tanks. First off, the military isn't full of robots with no free will. Second a drone or a tank is useless when the person behind it is removed from the equation. Third, veterans and other capable citizens *vastly* outnumber every cop, soldier and fed combined. That's always been kind of the point, any government bad enough to warrant the citizenry engaging in armed resistance is going to be farked.

There is something else that is rarely talked about: A significant portion of the military would join an insurgency, if the motivation was confiscation of guns.

That's because a very significant fraction of the military, especially combat arms specialties, come from people raised in the "Gun Culture". Why? Because they get to play with guns while getting paid to do so.

My brother went 0300 as a Marine, and became a marksmanship instructor, precisely because of that.

There was a survey done about 19 years ago where a group of Marines were asked about whether they would fire upon civilians who didn't turn in non-sporting firearms. The responses were predictable, to anyone familiar with the military and the gun culture.

I faintly remember that. Didn't a significant number of the Marines say they would shoot the officer giving the order?

craig328: In other words, you're not only ignorant but you seem to be proud of it.

Well, he *IS* Canadian. That's "America-Lite".

justtray: Now THIS is ironic coming from someone who has to rely on a 4 year old conservative activist, hypocritical, willfully ignorant, soon to be repealed supreme court decision to have any argument whatsoever.

I love fiction, are you a novelist? I doubt I'll read anything more disconnected from reality today than this right here.

justtray: Im sure youve heard this before, but thats how society works. The few ruin it for the rest. If you dont like what that leads to, Somalia doesnt have such restrictions. See if you like it there.


If you're going to go that route, since you love gun control so much, why don't you move to North Korea?

craig328: justtray: snowjack: Real assault weapons have been illegal since 1934.

All guns are deadly. So are cars. So is fire. So are many other things that people have a right to use.

Is America's higher gun violence statistics caused by video games? Doesn't look that way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/17/ten-cou nt ry-comparison-suggests-theres-little-or-no-link-between-video-games-an d-gun-murders/

People often quote "gun crime" statistics. But why focus on "gun violence" when what really matters is total violence? Maybe because one can use carefully chosen statistics to mislead? The reason "gun violence" is higher in America is there are more guns. Personally, if someone I love is made a victim of violent crime with any deadly threat, the exact type of threat matters little to me.

From here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-v io lent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
"...there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe. Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland. By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population. France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 - a 67 per cent increase in the past decade - at a rate of 504 per 100,000 population."

ALL GUNS are deadly.  Banning guns that "look scary" is supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Why focus on total violence when homicide is what really matters?

Uk has 4x the violent crime rate we do per capita. We have 4x the homicide rate they do.

Argument defeated.

How about asking yourself this: "why don't we have 4x as many violent crimes as the UK does?"

OR

"What condition exists in the UK that makes criminals more likely to commit a violent crime against another person than here in the United States?"

Believe it or not, a thug wants to continue being a thug even after he commits his crimes ...

Poor deflection.

Crime rate is statistically correlated to population density. 20 million people live n London. Thats why their crime rate is so high. The reason their homicide rate is so low, despite having 4x the violent crime rate is because they dont have simple weapons of homicide, aka guns. At least, that is a very logial and statistically supported representation to be taken from these facts.

Please do continue your cognitive dissonance though.

Dave Lister: justtray: Murder is illegal, and people still commit murder. So lets not have a law against murder.

Murder deprives others of their natural rights. Ownership of weapons or drugs or whatever else, by itself, does not. This is the distinction.

Wtf are you talking about? Is this the kind of cognitive dissonance required to keep believing in illogical arguments?