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.

(SFGate)   Days since last mass shooting: 0   (sfgate.com) divider line 417
    More: Scary, mass shooting  
•       •       •

20085 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 8:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-14 12:45:56 PM  

Kolonel Matt: 4) Streamline the process for getting people declared mentally incompetent for those that need to be.
5) Allow a system that can be accessed by any individual, without fee, to perform a NICS check. Make it a felony for someone to use this system for anything other than firearms background checking to prevent abuse of the system. If anyone can do a check when transferring a firearm with any additional cost or effort, they will likely do it. Likewise, this stops employers from cheaping out and trying to get a free background check.
6) Investigate those that were turned down in NICS checks. This rarely happens now. Part of it is due to the fact that the BATFE got their hands slapped after using most of their time to entrap folks that didn't intend to commit a crime or pushing to prosecute people for minor, unintentional mistakes.


Do you REALLY want the government to be able to make a judgement about who is sane and who isn't and be able to act on that? As well as providing a free mechanism for everyone to see who is "sane" and who isn't? Do you think that "banning' people from misusing the system will work? Do you realize how your rights are lost if you are declared "mentally incompetent"?  You will need a pretty low threshold to take in the mental states of a lot of the recent shooters. You really will need those FEMA camps then to hold all the "incompetents" that are no longer allowed to handle their own finances and will be unhireable "mentally incompetent", for example.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-03-14 12:54:05 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain: Godscrack:
[img560.imageshack.us image 577x578]

Reminds me of:

[www.imfdb.org image 600x274]

What noise is this? Give me my long sword, ho!

A crutch, a crutch! why call you for a sword?

My sword, I say! Old Montague is come, And flourishes his blade in spite of me.


Shakespeare in FARK? You're gonna give someone a brain clot from exposure to culture LOL.
 
2013-03-14 12:58:22 PM  

Surool: Giltric: Surool: EvilRacistNaziFascist: Surool: This is when the NRA runs out and proves they are but sad shills for the gun industry instead of about freedom.

This makes no sense. The NRA only advocates the "freedom" to bear arms, a freedom that is utterly dependent upon the gun manufacturers producing those arms to begin with. That being the case, why in the hell wouldn't the NRA support the gun industry? Or is this one of those cases where we're supposed to believe that private enterprise is inherently evil because it is making a product we don't happen to believe in, unlike IPads and frappuccinos?

Curious how the "interests" of the NRA happen to be the bread and butter of the entire gun industry... must be a complete coincidence. Just making sure you have the right to line their best buddy's pockets in the interest of 'freedom'.

Does that mean the ACLU helps to line the pockets of International Paper and DIC/Sun Chemical when they defend the 1st amendment?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 850x641]
"Deflectors at maximum, Captain!"


Let me guess, others "deflect". When you posted a mocking photo or sarcastic ridicule that doesn't address the point, it's not deflection.

Only other people deflect.
 
2013-03-14 01:22:47 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Do you REALLY want the government to be able to make a judgement about who is sane and who isn't and be able to act on that?


Awww... poor baby worried Tea Partiers would be sent back to the mental institutions!
 
2013-03-14 01:37:26 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Do you REALLY want the government to be able to make a judgement about who is sane and who isn't and be able to act on that?


As long as it qualifies as "due process", sure.  Who do you suppose should make that determination?
 
2013-03-14 03:45:13 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Kolonel Matt: 4) Streamline the process for getting people declared mentally incompetent for those that need to be.
5) Allow a system that can be accessed by any individual, without fee, to perform a NICS check. Make it a felony for someone to use this system for anything other than firearms background checking to prevent abuse of the system. If anyone can do a check when transferring a firearm with any additional cost or effort, they will likely do it. Likewise, this stops employers from cheaping out and trying to get a free background check.
6) Investigate those that were turned down in NICS checks. This rarely happens now. Part of it is due to the fact that the BATFE got their hands slapped after using most of their time to entrap folks that didn't intend to commit a crime or pushing to prosecute people for minor, unintentional mistakes.

Do you REALLY want the government to be able to make a judgement about who is sane and who isn't and be able to act on that? As well as providing a free mechanism for everyone to see who is "sane" and who isn't? Do you think that "banning' people from misusing the system will work? Do you realize how your rights are lost if you are declared "mentally incompetent"?  You will need a pretty low threshold to take in the mental states of a lot of the recent shooters. You really will need those FEMA camps then to hold all the "incompetents" that are no longer allowed to handle their own finances and will be unhireable "mentally incompetent", for example.


That is how it works RIGHT NOW, only its EASIER than you think. The only thing a judge has to do is order you confined for observation against your will and your rights are now gone. Most court systems have ruled that once you need to be committed for observation against your will you are no longer competent. We are talking a removal of rights and having it done through a legal process and it needs to be changed to done right. It needs to be relatively easy for a judge to ask for a short period of observation without a removal of rights, and relatively hard for them to rule someone insane. Maybe the whole involuntary confinement thing is unique to my state, but I doubt it.

As far as the "banning" people from abusing the NICS access system, notice the word felony. If it is found that someone is abusing the system instead of running their own checks for non firearm use then you arrest them, send them to court, then send them to prison. This is one of those glorious situations where you can't accidentally commit the crime. Either information was entered for checking, or it wasn't. A NICS check needs to be simple, free, and able to be done anywhere if you are going to want people to actually want to use it. One of the big complaints is how to do it now someone has to go out of their way to go to a gun shop that will charge a fee for a 3 minute call at a rate of at least double the average employees hourly salary.
 
2013-03-14 04:37:57 PM  
The media must have been getting pretty worried. They hadn't blown up one of these stories in a while.
 
2013-03-14 08:07:39 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: KarmicDisaster: Do you REALLY want the government to be able to make a judgement about who is sane and who isn't and be able to act on that?

Awww... poor baby worried Tea Partiers would be sent back to the mental institutions!


Can you try harder to be funny? Thanks.
 
2013-03-14 10:13:04 PM  

Giltric: Shakin_Haitian: SirEattonHogg: I call BS. New York State has the strictest gun laws in the state.

Maybe they need to reduce the magazine size limit even further.

Loughner was taken down as he was changing magazines.

Odds are he was probably doing more than just changing magazines. Probably trying to clear a jam as well since they found his firearm jammed when they arrested him and did their secure site exploitation.


Loughner dropped his magazine, which is only possible if he's changing magazines.

Interestingly enough, a man took Loughner's weapon and another man with a concealed weapon almost unloaded on the weapon taker, but thankfully, realized he wasn't totally sure who the gunman was and held back. He showed amazing restraint in a time of heightened emotion.
 
2013-03-14 10:27:21 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: Giltric: Shakin_Haitian: SirEattonHogg: I call BS. New York State has the strictest gun laws in the state.

Maybe they need to reduce the magazine size limit even further.

Loughner was taken down as he was changing magazines.

Odds are he was probably doing more than just changing magazines. Probably trying to clear a jam as well since they found his firearm jammed when they arrested him and did their secure site exploitation.

Loughner dropped his magazine, which is only possible if he's changing magazines.

Interestingly enough, a man took Loughner's weapon and another man with a concealed weapon almost unloaded on the weapon taker, but thankfully, realized he wasn't totally sure who the gunman was and held back. He showed amazing restraint in a time of heightened emotion.


You know what you do when your firearm jams? You drop your magazine and rack the slide and try to clear the jam. His pistol was found jammed and inoperational.

Was he chaning magazines or did his weapon jam and he had to drop the magazine and attempt to clear the jam?

Evidence points to him dropping the magazine and Laughner not firing another round.......evidence also shows his weapon was jammed.

If his weapon did not jam and he was just changing magazines he probably would have been able to shoot the people who were trying to subdue him.

How much distance can you cover in the 1 second, and under, time that it takes to change a magazine and attempt to subdue someone?
 
2013-03-14 11:52:05 PM  

Giltric: Shakin_Haitian: Giltric: Shakin_Haitian: SirEattonHogg: I call BS. New York State has the strictest gun laws in the state.

Maybe they need to reduce the magazine size limit even further.

Loughner was taken down as he was changing magazines.

Odds are he was probably doing more than just changing magazines. Probably trying to clear a jam as well since they found his firearm jammed when they arrested him and did their secure site exploitation.

Loughner dropped his magazine, which is only possible if he's changing magazines.

Interestingly enough, a man took Loughner's weapon and another man with a concealed weapon almost unloaded on the weapon taker, but thankfully, realized he wasn't totally sure who the gunman was and held back. He showed amazing restraint in a time of heightened emotion.

You know what you do when your firearm jams? You drop your magazine and rack the slide and try to clear the jam. His pistol was found jammed and inoperational.

Was he chaning magazines or did his weapon jam and he had to drop the magazine and attempt to clear the jam?

Evidence points to him dropping the magazine and Laughner not firing another round.......evidence also shows his weapon was jammed.

If his weapon did not jam and he was just changing magazines he probably would have been able to shoot the people who were trying to subdue him.

How much distance can you cover in the 1 second, and under, time that it takes to change a magazine and attempt to subdue someone?


It's takes 6-8 seconds to change a magazine. Count that: that's a long time for someone probably jacked on adrenaline to cover distance.
 
2013-03-15 12:05:36 AM  

Mrbogey: Let me guess, others "deflect". When you posted a mocking photo or sarcastic ridicule that doesn't address the point, it's not deflection.

Only other people deflect.


Calling other people out for deflection is deflection?

www.blindfiveyearold.com

"Truly you have a dizzying intellect."
 
2013-03-15 12:59:03 AM  

LoneWolf343: It's takes 6-8 seconds to change a magazine. Count that: that's a long time for someone probably jacked on adrenaline to cover distance.


Lol? In what universe would this be the case?  Hellen Keller could change a magazine in that time.
 
2013-03-15 01:47:58 AM  

LoneWolf343: It's takes 6-8 seconds to change a magazine. Count that: that's a long time for someone probably jacked on adrenaline to cover distance


You go ahead and charge the shooter with that bad information.

You push a button with the index finger of your trigger hand as you use your off hand to grab a new magazine. The empty mag in the well drops free and you slam home the new fresh mag that you grabbed with your off hand.

2 seconds tops.

The thing is, is that I've seen an article posted here with that god awful information of a 6 second magazine change. And it seems that they added the time it took to change 5-6 magazines and posted the total time as the amount of time that it takes to change one magazine.

It might have been from Mother Jones News IIRC...go figure. The same "journalists"  that refer to a study done the year after mandatory background checks were implemented back in 95 or so that asked people who purchased their guns before the mandatory background checks if they had to go through a background check to purchase their weapon.

Please tell me you are trolling....or at least lie and say you were trolling even if you were being honest about it taking 6 seconds to change a magazine.
 
2013-03-15 01:48:46 AM  

Yogimus: Hellen Keller could change a magazine in that time


She could probably read a magazine in that time.
 
2013-03-15 01:59:32 AM  
Well, I could SEE a mag change taking 6 -8 seconds.  1-2 sec to realize you are out.  another to realize the implications of this development... 4 seconds to unzip fanny pack, and dig past the wad of singles, the roll of Tums and the various change to find magazine, and another 3 seconds to align it correctly and insert it into magazine well.... 4 more seconds to remember to send the slide forward.

Of course this would most likely be the case in someone who carries a gun for defense, since killers tend to have immaculate plans and prepare at length, fantasize about, and generally take a great deal of care in execution...

Gosh... these would be a dangerous set of steps for someone who fears for their life... Might be best for them to have a larger capacity magazine in the first place.
 
2013-03-15 07:26:48 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: Loughner dropped his magazine, which is only possible if he's changing magazines.


How would things have turned out if he had a smaller lighter magazine? One that he could handle easier? One that had a shorter spring travel and be less prone to jamming?

LoneWolf343: It's takes 6-8 seconds to change a magazine. Count that: that's a long time for someone probably jacked on adrenaline to cover distance.


If you take 6-8 seconds to change a magazine, you're just not trying.

Surool: Calling other people out for deflection is deflection?


You never answered his/her question. Good deflection.

Yogimus: Of course this would most likely be the case in someone who carries a gun for defense, since killers tend to have immaculate plans and prepare at length, fantasize about, and generally take a great deal of care in execution...


I posted a while back about how defensive use and aggressive use have different priorities for gun operation and ability. People don't seem to realize that there's different concerns. Magazine size isn't a major issue if you're planning an assault as you can compensate for it with good planning (as Cho did). However, if you're using a gun defensively, you generally have minimal prior planning and are completely at a loss for controlling events.
 
Displayed 17 of 417 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report