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.

(NPR)   Gun-ban proponent Senator Leahy (D-VT) admits that assault rifles may be needed by the general public in the event of zombie apocalypse   (npr.org) divider line 460
    More: Obvious, Weekend Edition, assault rifles, zombie apocalypse, Richard Blumenthal, shoestring catch  
•       •       •

1798 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Mar 2013 at 2:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-16 05:30:44 PM

Silly Jesus: If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries. Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.


Stop posting HateFacts. Everyone knows that the real danger to America is the suburban or rural white NRA member with a .270 in his closet, not the inner-city gangster with a fondness for spraying bullets from his handgun. Anyway, the gangster is a victim of telepathic racism from the NRA member, so he can hardly be blamed for (say) Chicago's massive death toll. White privilege is to blame for that.

Ultimately the problem of gun violence can all be solved with more laws -- which means more policemen, more bureaucrats, and more prisons, all of which can be easily paid for by increasing the taxes of the middle-class (who well afford it, since they're pretty flush at the moment thanks to Obama). Once a few gun owners with no previous criminal record find themselves being beaten and sodomized in prison for holding on to their formerly- legal high- capacity magazines, the compassionate nature of gun control will be made evident.
 
2013-03-16 05:31:24 PM

carpbrain: Lenny_da_Hog: carpbrain: Lenny_da_Hog: carpbrain: I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.

You see media reports of these things, more than likely. The media only reports bad things. They don't report that millions of shots were fired by hobbyists without incident.

The only time I see news about alcohol, it's because it's killing people. That's because I don't drink and don't go to bars. Therefore, there can be no upside to alcohol, right?

Not getting your point.  AR-15s should be freely available because . . . hobbyists like using them?  Rocket propelled grenades would probably be a hoot for hobbyists as well.  Pretty sure we don't allow them.

Yes. Because hobbyists like using them. The same as alcohol and tobacco, which both kill far, far more people than firearms.

That's actually one of the best arguments I've heard.  But still something that doesn't seem like going to the mat for, especially in light of the shootings in Aurora and Newtown.  There are a ton of other fine weapons for hobbyists to enjoy.  I've plinked a few soda cans with a .22 rifle myself.

The discussion is about moving the line a tiny amount in one direction.  No, it won't end violent crime.  No, it won't end mass shootings.  But yes, to me, it seems like a sensible, small change.


From above:  The AR-15 has been available to the general public for some 50 years, and in that time, 8 of the top-11 mass shootings in the US had nothing that resembled an assault rifle involved. Including the top-two, which were solely handguns with magazine capacities of no more than 15 bullets.
 
2013-03-16 05:31:39 PM

udhq: I don't care how it looks or what it's made out of. What I don't like is the capability to fire more than 1 round per trigger pull.


With the exception of a small number of very strictly-regulated privately owned machine guns (which haven't been used in crimes since the 1980s), all guns owned in the US (and all guns currently legal for sale from shops) can only fire one shot per trigger pull. A gun may look like a military rifle that's full-auto, but the civilian-legal gun can only fire one shot per trigger pull. It's a common misconception that so-called "assault weapons" refer to machine guns, rather than "scary looking" semi-auto guns.

carpbrain: AR-15s should be freely available because . . . hobbyists like using them? Rocket propelled grenades would probably be a hoot for hobbyists as well. Pretty sure we don't allow them.


Basically, yes: It's the most popular rifle in the country and is used almost exclusively for lawful purposes like sport and competition. There's no functional difference between the AR-15 and any of gobs of other semi-auto rifles that would not be affected by such a ban: they fire the same ammo at the same velocity from detachable magazines. People focus on the AR because it looks like an M16, even though it fires only one shot per pull of the trigger. The bill proposed by Senator Feinstein would ban certain guns like the AR, but specifically exempt other functionally identical guns like the Mini-14 even though there's no real difference in terms of lethality. Indeed, the "ranch rifle" (wood stock, looks like something your grandfather would have) variant of the Mini-14 would be specifically exempt from the ban while the "tactical" version (which is the exact same gun, but has a black plastic stock) would be banned.
 
2013-03-16 05:33:38 PM
I watched a man buying a rapid fire rifle while I was buying some running shoes at a big box sporting goods store in Utah. It took a lot of time for the store clerk to do his checks. The buyer really wanted his new penis, really attached to it. Very creepy.

I think most gun nuts have serious sexual issues. They will never give up.
 
2013-03-16 05:34:13 PM

carpbrain: Lenny_da_Hog: carpbrain: Lenny_da_Hog: carpbrain: I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.

You see media reports of these things, more than likely. The media only reports bad things. They don't report that millions of shots were fired by hobbyists without incident.

The only time I see news about alcohol, it's because it's killing people. That's because I don't drink and don't go to bars. Therefore, there can be no upside to alcohol, right?

Not getting your point.  AR-15s should be freely available because . . . hobbyists like using them?  Rocket propelled grenades would probably be a hoot for hobbyists as well.  Pretty sure we don't allow them.

Yes. Because hobbyists like using them. The same as alcohol and tobacco, which both kill far, far more people than firearms.

That's actually one of the best arguments I've heard.  But still something that doesn't seem like going to the mat for, especially in light of the shootings in Aurora and Newtown.  There are a ton of other fine weapons for hobbyists to enjoy.  I've plinked a few soda cans with a .22 rifle myself.

The discussion is about moving the line a tiny amount in one direction.  No, it won't end violent crime.  No, it won't end mass shootings.  But yes, to me, it seems like a sensible, small change.


"A tiny amount in one direction" that to be effective would require confiscation of the single most popular rifle in the US and the single most popular/common magazine used to feed it.

How is this "a tiny amount" of change?
 
2013-03-16 05:34:53 PM

Delay: I watched a man buying a rapid fire rifle while I was buying some running shoes at a big box sporting goods store in Utah. It took a lot of time for the store clerk to do his checks. The buyer really wanted his new penis, really attached to it. Very creepy.

I think most gun nuts have serious sexual issues. They will never give up.


So you're saying there are gun nuts without penis issues.
 
2013-03-16 05:35:19 PM

Amos Quito: Do you really believe that the Founding Fathers were so naive that they believed the government they intended to craft - on the behalf of themselves AND THEIR POSTERITY would somehow be magically immune to the dark, corrupting nature that is everpresent in humanity? That their government would somehow always serve the interests of THE PEOPLE?

If so, you are sorely mistaken. The FF's were revolutionaries - "treasonous criminals" who had just fought bloody hard to rid themselves of the yoke of tyranny, and, with THAT perspective fresh in their minds, can guarantee that the suffered no such delusions.

THAT is why they carefully crafted the Constitution - not to grant power to the central government, but to PREVENT any central government from becoming too powerful.



The founding fathers were rebelling against a government that did not allow for the peaceful transfer of power through elections.  Yes, they feared tyranny.  Their solution to that was to mandate a regular demonstration of democracy through elections, not violent overthrow.

The constitution is a charter of negative liberties, meaning it's more a list of what government is NOT allowed to do more than a list of rights conferred upon individuals, but at the same time, it is a 2nd draft that provides for a strong, centralized federal government after the failure of the libertarian Articles of Confederation.
 
2013-03-16 05:35:33 PM

Delay: I watched a man buying a rapid fire rifle while I was buying some running shoes at a big box sporting goods store in Utah. It took a lot of time for the store clerk to do his checks. The buyer really wanted his new penis, really attached to it. Very creepy.

I think most gun nuts have serious sexual issues. They will never give up.


Maybe you shouldn't be watching other men and their penises from the shoe section.  Sounds kind of creepy.
 
2013-03-16 05:36:30 PM

vygramul: You see shotguns and handguns used to shoot up theaters and schools, and the handguns have been more effective in doing so - even the ones without 20- and 30-round magazines. This focus on assault weapons will get us nowhere, may actually make things worse, and only serves to reinforce the reputation of those who are interested in reducing gun violence look ignorant and stubborn. Society and enjoyment will continue, but so will mass shootings, and those shootings will be every bit as bad, if not worse. The AR-15 has been available to the general public for some 50 years, and in that time, 8 of the top-11 mass shootings in the US had nothing that resembled an assault rifle involved. Including the top-two, which were solely handguns with magazine capacities of no more than 15 bullets. Placebos work with medical treatments, not murder.


I sympathize with your argument that firearms of all types should be banned to have a more desired effect. But it has been decided that access to some types of weapons is constitutionally protected. So we do what we can as a society to protect ourselves. These measures include regulating the capacity of magazines and banning weapons optimized for combat.
 
2013-03-16 05:36:44 PM

carpbrain: There are a ton of other fine weapons for hobbyists to enjoy.  I've plinked a few soda cans with a .22 rifle myself.


The .22, being such a cheap and common round, is responsible for more gun deaths than any other caliber... which means your "plinking" (such a deceptively gentle term for such an anti- social activity!) is directly responsible for the deaths of little children. Sir, I ask you sir, have you no shame, sir? Sir?
 
2013-03-16 05:36:45 PM

Fart_Machine: way south: There are things you can do that might make you think you are safer, but don't help enough to justify the trouble.
Like covering your car in reflectors...

Motor vehicle lighting is also regulated on vehicles.




Likewise we do have meaningful gun laws on the books already.
It doesn't mean all proposed laws are going to be useful for the purposes described. Some of them are clearly scams or driven by ulterior motives.

Taking a style ban (once abandoned for being useless) into a new era (where it will resume being useless) comes with a higher political cost than can be justified.

Maybe, possibly, hopefully saving one life by the Rube Goldberg like magic of an AWB is inefficient when we know ways to assuredly save many lives from violence.

Why isn't anyone as interested in doing what works?
 
2013-03-16 05:37:10 PM

carpbrain: The discussion is about moving the line a tiny amount in one direction. No, it won't end violent crime. No, it won't end mass shootings. But yes, to me, it seems like a sensible, small change.


In addition to restricting the AR-15, the most popular gun in the country, Senator Feinstein's proposed ban would also restrict many other commonly used firearms that are rarely used in crime. That's hardly a "small" change. Being that such a ban and limitations on magazine sizes have been tried before at both the state and federal level and there's no evidence that the ban has had any effect at all on mass shootings or violent crime rates in general, it doesn't really seem "sensible" either.

People are "going to the mat" to oppose this because it's a substantial change in gun laws, restricts some of the most popular guns in the country, has been tried before without any benefits, and because they don't think it's a good idea.
 
2013-03-16 05:38:35 PM

vygramul: carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: Not sure where going with this.  So . . . everyone should have one?  We have a bunch of other devices even better at killing people and blowing stuff up, maybe everyone should have those as well.

The discussion is about re-drawing the line.  We don't currently allow folks to own machine guns.  Maybe the NRA isn't OK with that (probably not).  But it seems sensible to me.

The problem is that people seem to be unclear on the capabilities of given weapons and so reduce their perceived objections to the point of stupidity. I've said it before and I'll say it again: one side will never admit that there is one thing that would work, the other side is too afraid to admit that anything less will be ineffective.

Well, then, maybe a weapons-expert like yourself should contribute to the discussion, and identify those weapons that are likely to do more harm than good.  I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.  I'm quite certain that society will continue, and gun advocates will manage to enjoy themselves, if we banned that weapon.  I don't think it will happen, though.  What seems nuttier is the opposition to universal background checks and high capacity magazines.

You see shotguns and handguns used to shoot up theaters and schools, and the handguns have been more effective in doing so - even the ones without 20- and 30-round magazines. This focus on assault weapons will get us nowhere, may actually make things worse, and only serves to reinforce the reputation of those who are interested in reducing gun violence look ignorant and stubborn. Society and enjoyment will continue, but so will mass shootings, and those shootings will be every bit as bad, if not worse. The AR-15 has been available to the general public for some 50 years, and in that time, 8 of the top-11 mass shootings in the US had nothing that resembled an assault rifle involved. Including ...


Agreed with most of your words.  So why would you oppose an assault weapon ban, again?  What harm would it cause?  And, why would you oppose a high-capacity magazine ban?  And, assuming you do (maybe you don't), why would you oppose universal background checks on weapons sales?

I really have no beef against people who like firing guns.  I just don't understand the resistance to the tiny tweaks that have been proposed in the wake of a horrific, incomprehensible disaster in Newtown.  They are tiny and sensible (in my view) changes.  The people who lose their breath jumping up and down shouting in opposition seem . . . well I've said it already in this thread.  In context, it seems like a poor choice.
 
2013-03-16 05:39:26 PM

Ablejack: vygramul: You see shotguns and handguns used to shoot up theaters and schools, and the handguns have been more effective in doing so - even the ones without 20- and 30-round magazines. This focus on assault weapons will get us nowhere, may actually make things worse, and only serves to reinforce the reputation of those who are interested in reducing gun violence look ignorant and stubborn. Society and enjoyment will continue, but so will mass shootings, and those shootings will be every bit as bad, if not worse. The AR-15 has been available to the general public for some 50 years, and in that time, 8 of the top-11 mass shootings in the US had nothing that resembled an assault rifle involved. Including the top-two, which were solely handguns with magazine capacities of no more than 15 bullets. Placebos work with medical treatments, not murder.

I sympathize with your argument that firearms of all types should be banned to have a more desired effect. But it has been decided that access to some types of weapons is constitutionally protected. So we do what we can as a society to protect ourselves. These measures include regulating the capacity of magazines and banning weapons optimized for combat.


What does optimized for combat even mean?  Many guns that aren't included in the ban shoot the same piece of metal at the same speed and at the same fire rate.  How are you differentiating from the evil ones and good ones?
 
2013-03-16 05:40:13 PM

Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: You said SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE and put it in all caps. I thought it was pretty clear that there was no legitimate purpose for these weapons in your opinion. Do you have a different interpretation of the word SOLE?

I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.

Ah, you're one of those under the impression that the big, scary, black plastic guns are lethally different from the more tame looking ones.

I don't care how it looks or what it's made out of.  What I don't like is the capability to fire more than 1 round per trigger pull.

Ah, you don't know what semi-automatic means either.  Wow.


Ah, you don't know the difference between an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon".  I'm not the one arguing that I should be trusted with these weapons, what's you're excuse?
 
2013-03-16 05:40:23 PM

Delay: I think most gun nuts have serious sexual issues. They will never give up.


Freudianism: turning people's brains into pudding since 1880.
 
2013-03-16 05:40:56 PM

carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: Not sure where going with this.  So . . . everyone should have one?  We have a bunch of other devices even better at killing people and blowing stuff up, maybe everyone should have those as well.

The discussion is about re-drawing the line.  We don't currently allow folks to own machine guns.  Maybe the NRA isn't OK with that (probably not).  But it seems sensible to me.

The problem is that people seem to be unclear on the capabilities of given weapons and so reduce their perceived objections to the point of stupidity. I've said it before and I'll say it again: one side will never admit that there is one thing that would work, the other side is too afraid to admit that anything less will be ineffective.

Well, then, maybe a weapons-expert like yourself should contribute to the discussion, and identify those weapons that are likely to do more harm than good.  I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.  I'm quite certain that society will continue, and gun advocates will manage to enjoy themselves, if we banned that weapon.  I don't think it will happen, though.  What seems nuttier is the opposition to universal background checks and high capacity magazines.

You see shotguns and handguns used to shoot up theaters and schools, and the handguns have been more effective in doing so - even the ones without 20- and 30-round magazines. This focus on assault weapons will get us nowhere, may actually make things worse, and only serves to reinforce the reputation of those who are interested in reducing gun violence look ignorant and stubborn. Society and enjoyment will continue, but so will mass shootings, and those shootings will be every bit as bad, if not worse. The AR-15 has been available to the general public for some 50 years, and in that time, 8 of the top-11 mass shootings in the US had nothing that resembled an assault rifle involved. Inc ...


Your "tiny tweaks" would involve the confiscation of millions of weapons and magazines to be at all effective.  It's asinine to call that a "tiny tweak."
 
2013-03-16 05:43:34 PM

udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: You said SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE and put it in all caps. I thought it was pretty clear that there was no legitimate purpose for these weapons in your opinion. Do you have a different interpretation of the word SOLE?

I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.

Ah, you're one of those under the impression that the big, scary, black plastic guns are lethally different from the more tame looking ones.

I don't care how it looks or what it's made out of.  What I don't like is the capability to fire more than 1 round per trigger pull.

Ah, you don't know what semi-automatic means either.  Wow.

Ah, you don't know the difference between an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon".  I'm not the one arguing that I should be trusted with these weapons, what's you're excuse?


Huh?  Assault rifles are a subset of Assault weapons.  You clearly thought that some sort of weapon that fired more than one round per trigger pull was a part of this conversation.  Only a few of those are owned privately and they are heavily restricted.  That has never been a part of these conversations.  You were caught with your pants down, man up.
 
2013-03-16 05:44:08 PM

Silly Jesus:
There are numerous links to our ban here doing nothing.

Causation vs. correlation.

Also, you can't discount the amount that are already in circulation and you can't discount our very different cultures.  It's not as simple as banning the scary gun.


Izicata: Previous AWBs haven't done much because they've been completely toothless, banning mostly cosmetic features. What makes an assault weapon is a semi-automatic gun with a long barrel that is able to accept a detachable high capacity magazine. Those are the weapons Australia banned, and they haven't had a mass shooting for over a decade.


Izicata:Australia and America are not exactly the same, but are similar enough that comparisons can be made and useful data is available. I'm comparing two first world, western, industrialized, democratic countries; not America and Saudi Arabia.

Look, why don't you just read all the comments I've made in this thread? You haven't brought up any arguments I haven't already responded to.
 
2013-03-16 05:44:13 PM

Ablejack: vygramul: You see shotguns and handguns used to shoot up theaters and schools, and the handguns have been more effective in doing so - even the ones without 20- and 30-round magazines. This focus on assault weapons will get us nowhere, may actually make things worse, and only serves to reinforce the reputation of those who are interested in reducing gun violence look ignorant and stubborn. Society and enjoyment will continue, but so will mass shootings, and those shootings will be every bit as bad, if not worse. The AR-15 has been available to the general public for some 50 years, and in that time, 8 of the top-11 mass shootings in the US had nothing that resembled an assault rifle involved. Including the top-two, which were solely handguns with magazine capacities of no more than 15 bullets. Placebos work with medical treatments, not murder.

I sympathize with your argument that firearms of all types should be banned to have a more desired effect. But it has been decided that access to some types of weapons is constitutionally protected. So we do what we can as a society to protect ourselves. These measures include regulating the capacity of magazines and banning weapons optimized for combat.


Except that this is being done without first studying the issue to make sure this isn't going to make things worse. The Aurora shooter's AR-15 jammed, probably because the idiot wanted to look like Rambo with a bad-ass 100-round mag. The army doesn't use 100-round mags despite issuing hundreds of rounds to each soldier. That's because they jam. So by limiting mag sizes, you are reducing jams. In addition, if you look at something like the VA Tech shooter, who was using two handguns, he reloaded something like 15 times and killed more people. It's possible that, not being able to have an AR-15, shooting every time he pulled the trigger, the Aurora theater shooter would have selected instead to go with two handguns, meaning TWO bullets because he now had TWO trigger fingers.

That's not to say that an assault weapons ban will make things worse. That's saying WE DON'T KNOW what the effect will be.
 
2013-03-16 05:44:33 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Amos Quito: Do you really believe that the Founding Fathers were so naive that they believed the government they intended to craft - on the behalf of themselves AND THEIR POSTERITY would somehow be magically immune to the dark, corrupting nature that is everpresent in humanity? That their government would somehow always serve the interests of THE PEOPLE?

I think what you fail to understand is that it was only acceptable to express scepticism about the scope and power of the US government prior to the presidential election of 2008... whereas dissent was once the highest form of patriotism, now it is a thinly veiled form of racism and/or a sign of right-wing extremism. The Founders could not possibly have been expected to foresee that in our day, for the first time in US history, the government would be led by people who were utterly noble and altruistic; that is why, as the New York Times has so sagely asserted, it is time to scrap the Constitution, since there is no need for checks and balances on a totally benevolent administration.



I think you've made some powerful points here.

Indeed, many of the farkers that are PRESENTLY so willing to hand unlimited power to the current administration would be shiatting bricks at the idea of such powers being in the hands of some Right Wing Conservative asshat - A Romney, McCain, Bush, or even a remake of David Duke.

But apparently foresight is not their strong suit - because IF they should manage to "win" in their efforts to disarm the American public - and IF, following such an action the illusion of Democracy should survive between our shores, they should be VERY prepared for these same unbridled powers to be handed to those whom they hate, fear, and despise, because the backlash will be overwhelming.

But in any case, none of us should expect that any subsequent administration would DREAM of restoring any of the rights we foolishly squander.

Authoritarian asshats are interested in power, and they will take it any way they can get it. Party and politics are just games - a means to an end.

Once Liberty is gone, it's gone.
 
2013-03-16 05:46:20 PM

udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: You said SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE and put it in all caps. I thought it was pretty clear that there was no legitimate purpose for these weapons in your opinion. Do you have a different interpretation of the word SOLE?

I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.

Ah, you're one of those under the impression that the big, scary, black plastic guns are lethally different from the more tame looking ones.

I don't care how it looks or what it's made out of.  What I don't like is the capability to fire more than 1 round per trigger pull.

Ah, you don't know what semi-automatic means either.  Wow.

Ah, you don't know the difference between an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon".  I'm not the one arguing that I should be trusted with these weapons, what's you're excuse?


That seems to be a common thread.  I can't be trusted with these weapons (because I'm violent, hot tempered, clumsy, irresponsible, etc.), so no one can.
 
2013-03-16 05:46:25 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Delay: I think most gun nuts have serious sexual issues. They will never give up.

Freudianism: turning people's brains into pudding since 1880.


Dunno. If I needed a gun I would go into Dick's sporting goods here in Utah and buy that gun. I wouldn't look so creepy about the size of my dick as most of the buyers do.
 
2013-03-16 05:47:27 PM

Farker Soze: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: You said SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE and put it in all caps. I thought it was pretty clear that there was no legitimate purpose for these weapons in your opinion. Do you have a different interpretation of the word SOLE?

I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.

Ah, you're one of those under the impression that the big, scary, black plastic guns are lethally different from the more tame looking ones.

I don't care how it looks or what it's made out of.  What I don't like is the capability to fire more than 1 round per trigger pull.

Ah, you don't know what semi-automatic means either.  Wow.

Ah, you don't know the difference between an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon".  I'm not the one arguing that I should be trusted with these weapons, what's you're excuse?

That seems to be a common thread.  I can't be trusted with these weapons (because I'm violent, hot tempered, clumsy, irresponsible, etc.), so no one can.


Projection 101.
 
2013-03-16 05:48:15 PM

carpbrain: So why would you oppose an assault weapon ban, again?


Because they're the most popular types of guns in the country and are used very rarely in crime.

Put simply, because a ban would have essentially no benefit and infringe on the rights of law-abiding people.

And, why would you oppose a high-capacity magazine ban?

There's no evidence that such a ban would have any effect on mass shootings or violent crime in general. It's been tried before and it didn't work.

Such magazines are standard for the majority of firearms purchased today, and are very popular for both sport and self-defense purposes.

Mass shooters can (and do) carry lots of spare magazines and can reload quickly and without any meaningful resistance. Having limited-capacity magazines would not be a huge downside. People in a self-defense situation often only have a single magazine, so limiting magazine capacity would limit their ability to defend themselves. Considering how frequently even trained police officers miss in a shooting situation, having a few more shots available could be the difference between life and death for someone defending themselves.
 

And, assuming you do (maybe you don't), why would you oppose universal background checks on weapons sales?

Two reasons:
1. I like the idea of being able to transfer private property to a family member or close friend who I know is not a criminal without needing to ask permission.
2. It's completely unenforceable without a national registry of firearms and their owners, and I think that's a bad idea.
 
2013-03-16 05:52:42 PM

cman: You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.


lolno.
 
2013-03-16 05:53:36 PM

Silly Jesus: Ablejack: vygramul: You see shotguns and handguns used to shoot up theaters and schools, and the handguns have been more effective in doing so - even the ones without 20- and 30-round magazines. This focus on assault weapons will get us nowhere, may actually make things worse, and only serves to reinforce the reputation of those who are interested in reducing gun violence look ignorant and stubborn. Society and enjoyment will continue, but so will mass shootings, and those shootings will be every bit as bad, if not worse. The AR-15 has been available to the general public for some 50 years, and in that time, 8 of the top-11 mass shootings in the US had nothing that resembled an assault rifle involved. Including the top-two, which were solely handguns with magazine capacities of no more than 15 bullets. Placebos work with medical treatments, not murder.

I sympathize with your argument that firearms of all types should be banned to have a more desired effect. But it has been decided that access to some types of weapons is constitutionally protected. So we do what we can as a society to protect ourselves. These measures include regulating the capacity of magazines and banning weapons optimized for combat.

What does optimized for combat even mean?  Many guns that aren't included in the ban shoot the same piece of metal at the same speed and at the same fire rate.  How are you differentiating from the evil ones and good ones?


The legal definitions proposed usually start with the weapon being semi- or fully- automatic. Any other action is not included in any proposal I know of. On top of the action, other features (often cosmetic) are included in an effort to allow as many configurations of hunting rifles as possible while trying to enact an effective law. But you are right, banning any auto-loader from future sales would be much cleaner and more effective legislation.
 
2013-03-16 05:53:56 PM

Delay: Dunno. If I needed a gun I would go into Dick's sporting goods here in Utah and buy that gun. I wouldn't look so creepy about the size of my dick as most of the buyers do.


You see a complete stranger in a store and the first thing you think about is his penis... and yet gun owners are the ones with the problem?

/"I sure wish gun owners would stop shoving their right to own phallic substitutes down my throat!"
 
2013-03-16 05:54:24 PM

carpbrain: Agreed with most of your words.  So why would you oppose an assault weapon ban, again?  What harm would it cause?  And, why would you oppose a high-capacity magazine ban?  And, assuming you do (maybe you don't), why would you oppose universal background checks on weapons sales?

I really have no beef against people who like firing guns.  I just don't understand the resistance to the tiny tweaks that have been proposed in the wake of a horrific, incomprehensible disaster in Newtown.  They are tiny and sensible (in my view) changes.  The people who lose their breath jumping up and down shouting in opposition seem . . . well I've said it already in this thread.  In context, it seems like a poor choice.


First, my own personal feeling is that I cannot justify my hobby if it means it enables so many deaths elsewhere. As much as I would hate to lose being able to shoot, morally, I find we'd be better off with an outright ban, similar to Australia's (which is pretty much an outright ban on all guns - lots of exceptions, but no longer casual ownership, even for bolt-actions). So I am a gun owner who wants a ban. I don't keep a loaded gun in my dresser - I keep guns unloaded and in a gun safe. I will continue to own them because the risk of having one used against me (or anyone else) is minimal. I just recognize few gun owners mirror my caution.

I believe an assault weapons ban will likely have zero impact on mass shootings. It is possible such a ban will make them worse, although there is a non-zero chance it will make them better. If so, it will not be measurably so. If I am going to give up weapons and magazines, I would prefer it not be for pointless exercises.
 
2013-03-16 05:57:06 PM

way south: Fart_Machine: way south: There are things you can do that might make you think you are safer, but don't help enough to justify the trouble.
Like covering your car in reflectors...

Motor vehicle lighting is also regulated on vehicles.

Likewise we do have meaningful gun laws on the books already.
It doesn't mean all proposed laws are going to be useful for the purposes described. Some of them are clearly scams or driven by ulterior motives.

Taking a style ban (once abandoned for being useless) into a new era (where it will resume being useless) comes with a higher political cost than can be justified.

Maybe, possibly, hopefully saving one life by the Rube Goldberg like magic of an AWB is inefficient when we know ways to assuredly save many lives from violence.

Why isn't anyone as interested in doing what works?


Why are you opposed to it?  What harm would it cause?  Similar law was on the books for years, somehow the planet kept spinning around.  Are you against the high capacity magazine ban too?  Why?  How about universal background checks?

Really hard to understand where some folks are coming from on these issues.
 
2013-03-16 05:58:35 PM

carpbrain: way south: Fart_Machine: way south: There are things you can do that might make you think you are safer, but don't help enough to justify the trouble.
Like covering your car in reflectors...

Motor vehicle lighting is also regulated on vehicles.

Likewise we do have meaningful gun laws on the books already.
It doesn't mean all proposed laws are going to be useful for the purposes described. Some of them are clearly scams or driven by ulterior motives.

Taking a style ban (once abandoned for being useless) into a new era (where it will resume being useless) comes with a higher political cost than can be justified.

Maybe, possibly, hopefully saving one life by the Rube Goldberg like magic of an AWB is inefficient when we know ways to assuredly save many lives from violence.

Why isn't anyone as interested in doing what works?

Why are you opposed to it?  What harm would it cause?  Similar law was on the books for years, somehow the planet kept spinning around.  Are you against the high capacity magazine ban too?  Why?  How about universal background checks?

Really hard to understand where some folks are coming from on these issues.


Do you have something showing that your proposed ideas would work?  Or should everyone just add red tape to everything on your unicorn farts perfect world whim?
 
2013-03-16 05:59:23 PM

Silly Jesus: If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries.  Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.


"If you remove some of the gun violence statistics we don't really look that bad" is your argument and you're explaining "reality" to me?

Only on Fark, people.
 
2013-03-16 06:02:26 PM

vygramul: carpbrain: Agreed with most of your words.  So why would you oppose an assault weapon ban, again?  What harm would it cause?  And, why would you oppose a high-capacity magazine ban?  And, assuming you do (maybe you don't), why would you oppose universal background checks on weapons sales?

I really have no beef against people who like firing guns.  I just don't understand the resistance to the tiny tweaks that have been proposed in the wake of a horrific, incomprehensible disaster in Newtown.  They are tiny and sensible (in my view) changes.  The people who lose their breath jumping up and down shouting in opposition seem . . . well I've said it already in this thread.  In context, it seems like a poor choice.

First, my own personal feeling is that I cannot justify my hobby if it means it enables so many deaths elsewhere. As much as I would hate to lose being able to shoot, morally, I find we'd be better off with an outright ban, similar to Australia's (which is pretty much an outright ban on all guns - lots of exceptions, but no longer casual ownership, even for bolt-actions). So I am a gun owner who wants a ban. I don't keep a loaded gun in my dresser - I keep guns unloaded and in a gun safe. I will continue to own them because the risk of having one used against me (or anyone else) is minimal. I just recognize few gun owners mirror my caution.

I believe an assault weapons ban will likely have zero impact on mass shootings. It is possible such a ban will make them worse, although there is a non-zero chance it will make them better. If so, it will not be measurably so. If I am going to give up weapons and magazines, I would prefer it not be for pointless exercises.


Maybe it won't help so much (although it seems like things would have been different in Newtown and Aurora).  Maybe it will.  Why oppose it?

And why oppose every damn common sense proposal put forward?  It just seems nutty.
 
2013-03-16 06:04:05 PM

vygramul: First, my own personal feeling is that I cannot justify my hobby if it means it enables so many deaths elsewhere.


Your hobby doesn't enable jack sh*t, unless your firearms are in the habit of leaving your house at night without your knowledge, shooting people, and then returning home before you wake up in the morning. It's like saying I shouldn't own a hammer or a swimming pool because hammers have been used in murders and little kids drown in pools (far more often than they get shot, by the way). Take this logic to its conclusion and we'd end up banning practically everything that makes our lives enjoyable -- cars, booze, violent movies -- because WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE, PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

As much as I would hate to lose being able to shoot, morally, I find we'd be better off with an outright ban, similar to Australia's (which is pretty much an outright ban on all guns - lots of exceptions, but no longer casual ownership, even for bolt-actions).

Shame that Australia's gun ban hasn't stopped its crime rate from increasing... that goes to show you how useful moral hysteria and magic thinking are in shaping public policy.

It is possible such a ban will make them worse, although there is a non-zero chance it will make them better.

I'm amazed you have the courage to leave your house in the morning. Don't you know that there's a non-zero chance you could be struck and killed by a falling piano?
 
2013-03-16 06:05:18 PM

cman: This is not like 1994.

This is a much different time.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.


Let it come. We will beat the ignorant idiots again.

If they didn't learn their lesson the first time it's about time it farking gets repeated. Only hopefully this time when reconstruction comes around we ban those involved from voting permanently.  And we ban their views from Public like Germany did with the Nazis.
 
2013-03-16 06:06:10 PM

quatchi: Silly Jesus: If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries.  Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.

"If you remove some of the gun violence statistics we don't really look that bad" is your argument and you're explaining "reality" to me?

Only on Fark, people.


Wow...missed the point completely.  I'll use smaller words if I can.

When comparing the violence in different countries, factors aside from number of guns are relevant.  In this case, as one example, I brought up culture.  Remove a certain culture from our society and the gun violence drops off drastically without even changing the number of guns...hence, the guns aren't the problem.  That easier to understand?
 
2013-03-16 06:07:26 PM

Silly Jesus: Huh? Assault rifles are a subset of Assault weapons. You clearly thought that some sort of weapon that fired more than one round per trigger pull was a part of this conversation. Only a few of those are owned privately and they are heavily restricted. That has never been a part of these conversations. You were caught with your pants down, man up.


Yeah, I don't think this is true.  Just last summer I received permission from the FBI to sell a burst-fire rifle to a private gun dealer.

CSB, it wasn't mine, cleaning out my grandpa's house after he died we found he had quite the armory, including a collection of "personal explosive devices", i.e. different types and styles of grenades.  Those, as well as the tripod-mounted, chain-fed machine gun, we had to surrender to the FBI.

What was scary was the legal stuff though.  He was mentally gone, and no one knew he had any of them, it could have easily turned real ugly.
 
2013-03-16 06:07:32 PM

electronicmaji: cman:
Let it come. We will beat the ignorant idiots again.



You fought in the first Civil War?
 
2013-03-16 06:08:07 PM

carpbrain: And why oppose every damn common sense proposal put forward?  It just seems nutty.


I missed answering your other question: I'm for universal background checks.
 
2013-03-16 06:08:15 PM

quatchi: Silly Jesus: If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries.  Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.

"If you remove some of the gun violence statistics we don't really look that bad" is your argument and you're explaining "reality" to me?


There's a superstition that America has a "gun violence" problem. It doesn't. It has a black (and increasingly Hispanic) crime problem, which the government and the mainstream media manage to avoid discussing by pretending that the white rural hunter with the NRA sticker on his truck is the real threat to the country.
 
2013-03-16 06:09:07 PM

vygramul: That's not to say that an assault weapons ban will make things worse. That's saying WE DON'T KNOW what the effect will be.


We have already had such a federal ban. It was allowed to expire so it is difficult to comment on it's success. Even then it is hard to effectively calculate the number of people 'not shot' because of regulations. But certainly there is less violence committed and accidents that happen with outright banned weapons than with readily available weapons. Another issue is that these measures are enacted for long term results and have no planned immediate effect on the number of these weapons "on the streets." Even with NY's new restrictions, if you already have what qualifies as an assault weapon, you may keep it - unmodified. You must simply register it and you cannot sell it in state unless you make changes to bring it in accordance with the new laws.
 
2013-03-16 06:09:09 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: vygramul: First, my own personal feeling is that I cannot justify my hobby if it means it enables so many deaths elsewhere.

Your hobby doesn't enable jack sh*t, unless your firearms are in the habit of leaving your house at night without your knowledge, shooting people, and then returning home before you wake up in the morning. It's like saying I shouldn't own a hammer or a swimming pool because hammers have been used in murders and little kids drown in pools (far more often than they get shot, by the way). Take this logic to its conclusion and we'd end up banning practically everything that makes our lives enjoyable -- cars, booze, violent movies -- because WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE, PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

As much as I would hate to lose being able to shoot, morally, I find we'd be better off with an outright ban, similar to Australia's (which is pretty much an outright ban on all guns - lots of exceptions, but no longer casual ownership, even for bolt-actions).

Shame that Australia's gun ban hasn't stopped its crime rate from increasing... that goes to show you how useful moral hysteria and magic thinking are in shaping public policy.

It is possible such a ban will make them worse, although there is a non-zero chance it will make them better.

I'm amazed you have the courage to leave your house in the morning. Don't you know that there's a non-zero chance you could be struck and killed by a falling piano?


This brings up another interesting point.  How many parents do you know who would never let their child go to a house with a gun in it yet wouldn't think twice about letting them go to a home with a swimming pool?  Pools are responsible for MANY more deaths of children than guns each year, but guns are scary and cause more of an emotional response.  This is a pretty good study for how liberals often think.  Emotionally rather than logically.  It shows up repeatedly in this debate.
 
2013-03-16 06:09:57 PM
SHUT UP ABOUT ZOMBIES ALREADY!


/get a new fad monster
 
2013-03-16 06:10:40 PM

vygramul: carpbrain: And why oppose every damn common sense proposal put forward?  It just seems nutty.

I missed answering your other question: I'm for universal background checks.


Nice.  It makes it feel like an adult discussion!  Thanks for adding that.
 
2013-03-16 06:11:03 PM

cman: electronicmaji: cman:
Let it come. We will beat the ignorant idiots again.


You fought in the Civil War?


Fixt. Only one war so far.
 
2013-03-16 06:11:03 PM

cman: electronicmaji: cman:
Let it come. We will beat the ignorant idiots again.


You fought in the first Civil War?


No the North did.

The Civil ones will beat the uncivil ones in this Civil War.
 
2013-03-16 06:11:16 PM

Ennuipoet: Silverstaff: Think of the Children" is an appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy.

Except, you know, for the ACTUAL DEAD CHILDREN!

I have no illusions that we can fix the violence problem with a few half hearted laws, but don't try and spin your way out of the brutal reality that children were murdered.

You can take that logic for what you want, but let's not pretend that it didn't happen.  Zombies, on the other hand, have yet to materialize.


"Actual dead children" is completely irrelevant.  Were you calling for stricter gun laws after Columbine?  A 6 year old was among the victims at Aurora, were you calling for this then?  What calculus of age and quantity do you believe is appropriate for a one-time incident to warrant a permanent reduction in freedom for America?

The violent crime rate in the US is the lowest it's been since 1963: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate-at-lowes t -point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now

You're safer now on the streets of America than you have been in the last 50 years.  The crime rate peaked in 1991, before the old AWB, and kept falling constantly after that, including falling after the AWB expired.

Newtown was a statistical outlier in the larger picture of violent crime in the US.

Columbine happened in the middle of the old AWB, which did nothing to stop it.

Also, I have yet to hear one rational argument why I should willingly surrender my basic civil right to bear arms so that other people can have a false illusion of security.  Why should I trade in my freedom so you can have the impression you are safer for it, even though statistically it shows otherwise?
 
2013-03-16 06:12:10 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: quatchi: Silly Jesus: If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries.  Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.

"If you remove some of the gun violence statistics we don't really look that bad" is your argument and you're explaining "reality" to me?

There's a superstition that America has a "gun violence" problem. It doesn't. It has a black (and increasingly Hispanic) crime problem, which the government and the mainstream media manage to avoid discussing by pretending that the white rural hunter with the NRA sticker on his truck is the real threat to the country.

 
2013-03-16 06:12:35 PM

Farker Soze: That seems to be a common thread. I can't be trusted with these weapons (because I'm violent, hot tempered, clumsy, irresponsible, etc.), so no one can.


It's more the fact that the calm, measured argument in favor of gun rights is the exception to the histrionic, bulging-neck-veined ITG rule.  It's so rarely the people that can be trusted with weapons arguing they should be allowed to own them.
 
2013-03-16 06:13:21 PM

Ablejack: vygramul: That's not to say that an assault weapons ban will make things worse. That's saying WE DON'T KNOW what the effect will be.

We have already had such a federal ban. It was allowed to expire so it is difficult to comment on it's success. Even then it is hard to effectively calculate the number of people 'not shot' because of regulations. But certainly there is less violence committed and accidents that happen with outright banned weapons than with readily available weapons. Another issue is that these measures are enacted for long term results and have no planned immediate effect on the number of these weapons "on the streets." Even with NY's new restrictions, if you already have what qualifies as an assault weapon, you may keep it - unmodified. You must simply register it and you cannot sell it in state unless you make changes to bring it in accordance with the new laws.


On that one, I am certain it did nothing. Because it banned nothing of note. You might sleep better knowing that a school shooter doesn't have a bayonet, but I'm fairly certain it makes no difference. To say that such a pretend-ban did anything is like saying you're banning spoilers and undercarriage lights and that will have an impact on street racing.
 
Displayed 50 of 460 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 »






Report