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.

(The Hill)   Obama uses his executive power to take your guns. No, not really. Yet   (thehill.com) divider line 500
    More: Scary, President Obama, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, law enforcement officials, scientific methods, semiautomatic firearms, Richard Feldman, NRA  
•       •       •

3831 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Mar 2013 at 11:06 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-29 10:17:18 AM  
Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.

These gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they just admitted that they like to play with their toys and would drop the pretense that the second amendment is still about keeping the government from getting out of control with the threat of armed insurrection.
 
2013-03-29 10:20:30 AM  
For fark's sake, not this shiat again. Expand background checks = they be coming fer mys guns! Increase funding for research on gun violence = Obama's taking my guns! The sun is out today = the guberment wants to disarm me so they can enslave me!
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-29 10:30:36 AM  
i wonder what exactly is going on in someone's head to make them so obsessed with a weapons (or sporting goods if you listen to some gun nuts).

I remember when three wheel ATVs were banned.  there were people who were upset, but no one was threatening to start killing people.
 
2013-03-29 10:33:50 AM  
It's scary that they get so afraid.
 
2013-03-29 10:33:51 AM  
Good luck with all of that.
Take the 30+ round magazines, full auto weapons, and the really scary "military" style weapons.
Then enforce the laws on the books.

And finally leave my shiat alone.
 
2013-03-29 10:51:12 AM  
What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC. My wife collects sewing machines. She has about 20 of them, but all but one are antiques.  I can understand having a collection of antique firearms, but many of these nuts have collections of modern guns. Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing? If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.
 
2013-03-29 11:02:25 AM  

Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns?


Because they all have wet dreams about facing an oppressive government if they someday have to, which would have happened already if they actually had the balls. They would be beaten down like the red headed step child of a rented mule but at least they would have put their money where their mouth is.
 
2013-03-29 11:04:10 AM  

Mugato: Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns?

Because they all have wet dreams about facing an oppressive government if they someday have to, which would have happened already if they actually had the balls. They would be beaten down like the red headed step child of a rented mule but at least they would have put their money where their mouth is.


To wit

mediamatters.org


Give us a farking break.
 
2013-03-29 11:08:55 AM  
Every time I hear someone say "executive power," I imagine Obama dressed as Dracula from Castlevania SOTN unleashing the two fireballs that you couldn't extinguish with your whip.
 
2013-03-29 11:09:46 AM  

Mugato: Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns?

Because they all have wet dreams about facing an oppressive government if they someday have to, which would have happened already if they actually had the balls. They would be beaten down like the red headed step child of a rented mule but at least they would have put their money where their mouth is.


Do these fark tards realize that the CIA, not the military mind you, has in its possession a weapon which can find you through walls at distances up to 5 miles and then kill you with a missile at that range?
 
2013-03-29 11:09:49 AM  

Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC. My wife collects sewing machines. She has about 20 of them, but all but one are antiques. I can understand having a collection of antique firearms, but many of these nuts have collections of modern guns. Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing? If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.


Alamo fetish.
 
2013-03-29 11:09:54 AM  

NightOwl2255: For fark's sake, not this shiat again.


From now until 2014.  If it gets the GOP seats, it's going to get even worse.
 
2013-03-29 11:12:11 AM  

Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.


...which the NRA wing of the Republican party is trying to remove from the books.  Colorado Republicans don't think that a law-abiding domestic abuser should be stripped of his 2nd amendment God-given right to own a gun, nor do Louisiana justices think that a law-abiding convicted felon be unduly burdened with the confiscation of their firearms (though, to be fair, that would mean that you can get your guns taken away for pot possession, but still...)
 
2013-03-29 11:13:23 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Do these fark tards realize that the CIA, not the military mind you, has in its possession a weapon which can find you through walls at distances up to 5 miles and then kill you with a missile at that range?


No, they just watch Red Dawn in a continual loop. And it's kick ass.
 
2013-03-29 11:15:09 AM  

Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.

These gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they just admitted that they like to play with their toys and would drop the pretense that the second amendment is still about keeping the government from getting out of control with the threat of armed insurrection.


Which, as far as I can tell, is all an executive order really does: recommend where we need to be using our resources, and what numbers the president wants to see changed. Get your tin foil hats off, you psychotic lunatics, it's going to be okay.
 
2013-03-29 11:15:35 AM  

Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC. My wife collects sewing machines. She has about 20 of them, but all but one are antiques.  I can understand having a collection of antique firearms, but many of these nuts have collections of modern guns. Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing? If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.


Handgun for CCW, Shotgun for duck and geese, 45-70 lever action for nosy bears while huniting moose and elk with my .308. .22 for targets and gophers and rabbits, .223 for coyotes and prarie dogs....

A .22 won't work against a moose, and a 45-70 won't leave much of a rabbit left to cook for dinner.

A more important question is why can't they standardize screw heads? Why do I need a standard, a philips, a torx, an allen head etc....just to work on my truck?
 
2013-03-29 11:16:18 AM  
"No Donnie, these men are cowards." -Walter Sobchak, Did Not Watch His Buddies Die Face Down in the Muck to Live in an America Replete With An Inordinate Amount of Pussies Whose Dicks Have Been Purchased at Wal-mart in the Sporting Goods Section.
 
2013-03-29 11:17:07 AM  
I dunno.  Stories like these always make me smile.

Granted, it's not the stories that are the actual source of joy.  It's the fact that some deluded gun nut will read it and off himself and his innocent family rather than live under what he has been told to believe is Obama's oppressive iron boot that brings the biggest smile to my face.
 
2013-03-29 11:17:31 AM  
 
2013-03-29 11:17:44 AM  

NightOwl2255: For fark's sake, not this shiat again. Expand background checks = they be coming fer mys guns! Increase funding for research on gun violence = Obama's taking my guns! The sun is out today = the guberment wants to disarm me so they can enslave me!


Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns? Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down. If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?
 
2013-03-29 11:17:48 AM  

Mugato: No, they just watch Red Dawn in a continual loop. And it's kick ass.


This comment is extra funny for me today since I just watched the remake last night.

I tell you what, Thor better be glad that movie was delayed. That movie was so shiatty it could have easily stalled his career.
 
2013-03-29 11:18:00 AM  

Giltric: Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC. My wife collects sewing machines. She has about 20 of them, but all but one are antiques.  I can understand having a collection of antique firearms, but many of these nuts have collections of modern guns. Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing? If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.

Handgun for CCW, Shotgun for duck and geese, 45-70 lever action for nosy bears while huniting moose and elk with my .308. .22 for targets and gophers and rabbits, .223 for coyotes and prarie dogs....

A .22 won't work against a moose, and a 45-70 won't leave much of a rabbit left to cook for dinner.

A more important question is why can't they standardize screw heads? Why do I need a standard, a philips, a torx, an allen head etc....just to work on my truck?


No idea why we still have standard (to open paint cans I guess) but I think we have the torx type ones as they are used by machines putting stuff together.  Probably the screws hold on better.
 
2013-03-29 11:18:24 AM  
You want to pass background checks for law abiding Americans?  Pass an executive order that recognizes a Muslim-American's right to bear arms.  Yes, I know they already can, but much like Republicans pointless laws, it would scare the shiat out of the right bad enough that they'd be willing to submit to background checks solely based upon forcing Muslims to be subject to further scrutiny.
 
2013-03-29 11:18:34 AM  
Comments thread on TFA are eye-popping, considering how milquetoast the article was.  And I thought that the Fark gun threads drew a surprising number of freaks.
 
2013-03-29 11:18:56 AM  
Where did the money for this come from?

I thought we were under strict across the board sequestor.
 
2013-03-29 11:19:33 AM  
So, let me get this straight:  On March 29, 2013 this author finally picked up on what those 23 Executive Directives, Memorandum, and Policy Statements (NOT TO BE CONFUSED with an Exec. Order, which has the force of law) issued by Obama back on January 16, 2013 actually meant?

No NEW Exec. Orders have been issued in the interim and nothing in the announced policy of the administration has changed.

Other than to continue to rouse the rabble, I really don't get the point of this article.
 
2013-03-29 11:19:53 AM  

Vodka Zombie: I dunno.  Stories like these always make me smile.

Granted, it's not the stories that are the actual source of joy.  It's the fact that some deluded gun nut will read it and off himself and his innocent family rather than live under what he has been told to believe is Obama's oppressive iron boot that brings the biggest smile to my face.


That's farked up, dude.
 
2013-03-29 11:22:04 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Mugato: Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns?

Because they all have wet dreams about facing an oppressive government if they someday have to, which would have happened already if they actually had the balls. They would be beaten down like the red headed step child of a rented mule but at least they would have put their money where their mouth is.

Do these fark tards realize that the CIA, not the military mind you, has in its possession a weapon which can find you through walls at distances up to 5 miles and then kill you with a missile at that range?



Maybe people should move in next door to you and use your proximity to them as a human shield ....actually I don't think the government would care if you die when they target some guy who is on their list.

They don't seem to care about collateral damage in Afghanistan or Iraq......why start now when it comes to America?

Were you in favor of or opposed to collateral damage when Bush/Obama was targetting terrorists?
 
2013-03-29 11:22:13 AM  

Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC. My wife collects sewing machines. She has about 20 of them, but all but one are antiques.  I can understand having a collection of antique firearms, but many of these nuts have collections of modern guns. Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing? If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.


I know right. It's like people who have different sized wrenches. Whats up with that? Can't get the job done with a 3/8th? You shouldn't be putting stuff together.
 
2013-03-29 11:22:23 AM  

Car_Ramrod: Vodka Zombie: I dunno.  Stories like these always make me smile.

Granted, it's not the stories that are the actual source of joy.  It's the fact that some deluded gun nut will read it and off himself and his innocent family rather than live under what he has been told to believe is Obama's oppressive iron boot that brings the biggest smile to my face.

That's farked up, dude.


I know.

Not much I can do about it, sadly.
 
2013-03-29 11:23:40 AM  

Car_Ramrod: NightOwl2255: For fark's sake, not this shiat again. Expand background checks = they be coming fer mys guns! Increase funding for research on gun violence = Obama's taking my guns! The sun is out today = the guberment wants to disarm me so they can enslave me!

Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns? Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down. If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?


Get rid of the part in proposed legislation where the AG sets the fee for the proposed UBCs.

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.
 
2013-03-29 11:23:56 AM  

Giltric: Maybe people should move in next door to you and use your proximity to them as a human shield ....actually I don't think the government would care if you die when they target some guy who is on their list.

They don't seem to care about collateral damage in Afghanistan or Iraq......why start now when it comes to America?

Were you in favor of or opposed to collateral damage when Bush/Obama was targetting terrorists?


image.guardian.co.uk
 
2013-03-29 11:24:10 AM  

Vodka Zombie: Car_Ramrod: Vodka Zombie: I dunno.  Stories like these always make me smile.

Granted, it's not the stories that are the actual source of joy.  It's the fact that some deluded gun nut will read it and off himself and his innocent family rather than live under what he has been told to believe is Obama's oppressive iron boot that brings the biggest smile to my face.

That's farked up, dude.

I know.

Not much I can do about it, sadly.


Um, off hand? Stop taking joy in people dying. Especially innocent people. That'd be a start.
 
2013-03-29 11:25:23 AM  

Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC. My wife collects sewing machines. She has about 20 of them, but all but one are antiques.  I can understand having a collection of antique firearms, but many of these nuts have collections of modern guns. Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing? If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.


Because it's in and amendment the Constitution, and they love the Constitution. Well, not the amendment about income taxes, or in some cases some of the other ones about who can vote and all that. But you JUST TRY TO QUARTER TROOPS IN THEIR HOMES and you'll see what all those guns are for.
 
2013-03-29 11:26:33 AM  
I'm still waiting for Ted Nugent to go to prison.
 
2013-03-29 11:26:45 AM  

Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.

These gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they just admitted that they like to play with their toys and would drop the pretense that the second amendment is still about keeping the government from getting out of control with the threat of armed insurrection.


Nobody is prosecuting background check failures now.

Its a 'paper prosecution' which they don't care about.

Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC.


Your PC is a highly general and adaptable machine. It can run spreadsheets, do video editing, all in the same box. I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing?

Most of them don't do the 'same thing'. Even in the same caliber - I have two .22 caliber pistols. One is revolver, my grandad's, and it takes some different .22 cartridges. My semiautomatic .22 pistol only takes .22lr. Then again, I don't like to do anything but target shoot with my grandad's revolver, because its got a nice inlay and is much nicer than my newer hunting pistol.

If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.

Wildlife conservation and sportsmanship?
 
2013-03-29 11:27:02 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Giltric: Maybe people should move in next door to you and use your proximity to them as a human shield ....actually I don't think the government would care if you die when they target some guy who is on their list.

They don't seem to care about collateral damage in Afghanistan or Iraq......why start now when it comes to America?

Were you in favor of or opposed to collateral damage when Bush/Obama was targetting terrorists?

[image.guardian.co.uk image 460x276]


So you're not going to go on record with an answer to the question regarding collateral damage?

Farkied you as a weasel.

/just sayin
 
2013-03-29 11:29:16 AM  

Giltric: Car_Ramrod: NightOwl2255: For fark's sake, not this shiat again. Expand background checks = they be coming fer mys guns! Increase funding for research on gun violence = Obama's taking my guns! The sun is out today = the guberment wants to disarm me so they can enslave me!

Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns? Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down. If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?

Get rid of the part in proposed legislation where the AG sets the fee for the proposed UBCs.

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.


Why?
 
2013-03-29 11:29:29 AM  
As a gun owner and strong opponent of bans...I'm OKAY with background checks and processes that vet people who buy guns.

I don't care if i have to go through some checks and training in exchange for the right to carry a weapon in public, and while many of my brethren believe that I'm a 2ASINO because I believe that with the right to go armed and own weaponry comes the responsibility to use it responsibly.

I don't give keys to drunk guys, and I support barkeepers requiring people who order stiff drinks taking keys from people.

I don't let kids play around on heavy equipment like tractors and trucks and other such things where they might do something stupid.

I don't let kids play with knives, and supervise kids with sharp objects or guns.

It's just farking responsibility.

Were that the media were half as responsible about what they posted and the aftereffects of same. Were that people were responsible enough to realize that every action has a cause.

Anyway, that's not germane. What is germane is that maybe we can get to a point where gun owners and gun grabbers can agree on ways that enforce the responsibility of firearms and their proper use without equally forcing their view of what is and isn't appropriate on us.
 
2013-03-29 11:29:36 AM  
Car_Ramrod: Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns? Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down. If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?

I have quite a collection, and I think guns should be treated exactly like automobiles.  Users licensed, guns registered, and insured against accidental harm or theft.

That would not violate the Second Amendment in any way.
 
2013-03-29 11:29:51 AM  
inspirably.com
 
2013-03-29 11:31:58 AM  
Car_Ramrod:
Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns?

The background check system of prohibited persons that we have right now is pretty good, and part of the issue is that almost anything further proposed is so far over-reaching that it simply cannot be accepted. Schumer's 'Universal background check' bill includes language that'd make me and my hunting buddy a felon if he brought my deer rifle from the truck to the cabin, for example.

Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down.

They do. Its kind of like the KKK giving white guys a bad name, but its their Constitutional right to say stupid shiat. Cost of a free society and all that.

If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?

No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.
 
2013-03-29 11:32:47 AM  

ilambiquated: [inspirably.com image 380x333]


oh look, it's you again.  Here to spout meaningless platitudes instead of engaging in meaningful conversation? I noticed you didn't bother to show up to the last thread where we had an actual reasonable conversation on the topic.
 
2013-03-29 11:33:30 AM  

BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:
Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns?

The background check system of prohibited persons that we have right now is pretty good, and part of the issue is that almost anything further proposed is so far over-reaching that it simply cannot be accepted. Schumer's 'Universal background check' bill includes language that'd make me and my hunting buddy a felon if he brought my deer rifle from the truck to the cabin, for example.

Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down.

They do. Its kind of like the KKK giving white guys a bad name, but its their Constitutional right to say stupid shiat. Cost of a free society and all that.

If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?

No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.


This.
 
2013-03-29 11:34:07 AM  

Giltric: So you're not going to go on record with an answer to the question regarding collateral damage?


You'll have to accept my apology, I keep forgetting that I switched usernames since coming back here.

Yes I think the collateral damage is bad, I also don't approve of the double tap tactic which often kills first responders and people coming to assist. I also think the delivery package creates horrific wounds and is a terrible way to die. But that wasn't my point in bringing that up, hence the eye stare because you missed it.

And for the record, I resent the name weasel. I think I'm more like a door mouse.
 
2013-03-29 11:34:18 AM  
Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?


Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?
 
2013-03-29 11:35:10 AM  

BayouOtter: No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.


I see someone didn't get the memo that the Dems marginalized our moonbats years ago.
 
2013-03-29 11:35:22 AM  

ilambiquated: [inspirably.com image 380x333]


>quoting anonymous
>>>/b/
 
2013-03-29 11:36:26 AM  

Car_Ramrod: Giltric: Car_Ramrod: NightOwl2255: For fark's sake, not this shiat again. Expand background checks = they be coming fer mys guns! Increase funding for research on gun violence = Obama's taking my guns! The sun is out today = the guberment wants to disarm me so they can enslave me!

Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns? Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down. If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?

Get rid of the part in proposed legislation where the AG sets the fee for the proposed UBCs.

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?


Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.
 
2013-03-29 11:37:18 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: BayouOtter: No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.

I see someone didn't get the memo that the Dems marginalized our moonbats years ago.


Sadly, one of them is still introducing bills banning various firearms whenever she can. You missed one.
 
2013-03-29 11:39:14 AM  

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.


Look another person in favor of socialized medicine.
 
2013-03-29 11:39:27 AM  

Bravo Two: MyKingdomForYourHorse: BayouOtter: No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.

I see someone didn't get the memo that the Dems marginalized our moonbats years ago.

Sadly, one of them is still introducing bills banning various firearms whenever she can. You missed one.


Those bills then garner how much support? None? I'd say that's the definition of "marginalized".
 
2013-03-29 11:39:37 AM  

Bravo Two: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:
Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns?

The background check system of prohibited persons that we have right now is pretty good, and part of the issue is that almost anything further proposed is so far over-reaching that it simply cannot be accepted. Schumer's 'Universal background check' bill includes language that'd make me and my hunting buddy a felon if he brought my deer rifle from the truck to the cabin, for example.

Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down.

They do. Its kind of like the KKK giving white guys a bad name, but its their Constitutional right to say stupid shiat. Cost of a free society and all that.

If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?

No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.

This.


I was at a gun show last fall, and if I had a spare $2500 on me, could have walked out with a fully automatic, belt fed 7.62x39 machine gun, complete with bipod and ammo cans.  There were wall to wall AR-15s of any caliber you like, and sniper rifles up to 50 caliber.

The gun control lobby doesn't stand a chance against a multi-billion dollar industry.  And they never will.
 
2013-03-29 11:40:38 AM  

Bravo Two: Sadly, one of them is still introducing bills banning various firearms whenever she can. You missed one.


No no, we take care of that. We pat them on the head nicely in committee, tell them to take their juice and cookie to the table in the corner so the adults can talk.

God bless em, they like to think they are making an effort.
 
2013-03-29 11:40:46 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.

Look another person in favor of socialized medicine.


When it is done the right way, yes.

Problem?
 
2013-03-29 11:41:25 AM  

BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.


So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.
 
2013-03-29 11:42:43 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: I was at a gun show last fall, and if I had a spare $2500 on me, could have walked out with a fully automatic, belt fed 7.62x39 machine gun, complete with bipod and ammo cans.


That is a ridiculously low price for an item with a finite and dwindling supply.

Are you sure it was an NFA item and not just a belt fed semi auto?
 
2013-03-29 11:43:06 AM  

Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.


Who are you to decide how many weapons an individual needs?
 
2013-03-29 11:43:13 AM  

Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.


Saying, "You don't need all that stuff, it's weird!" is not a basis for good legislation. Logic like that is what got DOMA passed.
 
2013-03-29 11:43:15 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Bravo Two: Sadly, one of them is still introducing bills banning various firearms whenever she can. You missed one.

No no, we take care of that. We pat them on the head nicely in committee, tell them to take their juice and cookie to the table in the corner so the adults can talk.

God bless em, they like to think they are making an effort.


^ This.
 
2013-03-29 11:45:01 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Bravo Two: Sadly, one of them is still introducing bills banning various firearms whenever she can. You missed one.

No no, we take care of that. We pat them on the head nicely in committee, tell them to take their juice and cookie to the table in the corner so the adults can talk.

God bless em, they like to think they are making an effort.

^ This.


QFT
 
2013-03-29 11:45:23 AM  

Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.


Look kid, feral pigs come in a variety of sizes and lethality.
 
2013-03-29 11:46:00 AM  

Giltric: Marcus Aurelius: I was at a gun show last fall, and if I had a spare $2500 on me, could have walked out with a fully automatic, belt fed 7.62x39 machine gun, complete with bipod and ammo cans.

That is a ridiculously low price for an item with a finite and dwindling supply.

Are you sure it was an NFA item and not just a belt fed semi auto?


It was vintage 1972 and not in great shape.  It would have needed a new barrel after who knows how many more rounds.  And you have to add on the $200 device permit and sales tax plus ammo, and you're over three grand.
 
2013-03-29 11:46:48 AM  

Car_Ramrod: Vodka Zombie: Car_Ramrod: Vodka Zombie: I dunno.  Stories like these always make me smile.

Granted, it's not the stories that are the actual source of joy.  It's the fact that some deluded gun nut will read it and off himself and his innocent family rather than live under what he has been told to believe is Obama's oppressive iron boot that brings the biggest smile to my face.

That's farked up, dude.

I know.

Not much I can do about it, sadly.

Um, off hand? Stop taking joy in people dying. Especially innocent people. That'd be a start.


Does that include the brown ones?

A biased right-wing media outlet wants people to believe this lie, and since no amount of reality can penetrate the delusion, I find that encouraging it to its inevitable end is the best way of dealing with it. You have to stop and wonder sometimes about just why it is that republicans so readily want to believe things about Obama that no one in their right mind and living in reality would ever believe. And then it should disturb you that they do.

No. I don't honestly delight in the deaths of anyone --be it over a lie or not. It's the death of honesty and honest debate that pisses me off the most.
 
2013-03-29 11:47:05 AM  

BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:
Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns?

The background check system of prohibited persons that we have right now is pretty good, and part of the issue is that almost anything further proposed is so far over-reaching that it simply cannot be accepted. Schumer's 'Universal background check' bill includes language that'd make me and my hunting buddy a felon if he brought my deer rifle from the truck to the cabin, for example.


I guess my point is, are there no ways to improve the background check system? Is it perfect as is? Are there no loopholes? Whenever improvements are brought up, the response is almost invariably a flat "no", saying it's infringing on their rights too much, but there's no counteroffer. There's no discussion. There's no, "Well, I think that's a bit much, but this this and this would make more sense. How about we work on that?"

Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down.

They do. Its kind of like the KKK giving white guys a bad name, but its their Constitutional right to say stupid shiat. Cost of a free society and all that.


The KKK having parades in Skokie isn't going to get people killed. I'm talking about people with guns that aren't abiding by regulations, not responsible owners that LOOOOOOVE their guns.

If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?

No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.


That's never going to happen. Ever. We have more guns than people in this country. You think that's in danger of going away? I personally think our country would be much better overall with no guns, but I know that's realistically (and Constitutionally) not possible. There have been no actual attempts to make that happen. People can talk about it all the time, but where's the legislation? There are CONSTANT legislative attempts to ban abortion all over the country, at the state and federal level. It's not an apt comparison.
 
2013-03-29 11:47:11 AM  
God forbid the nation's chief executive actually, you know, ensures that laws are executed. That would be a crazy step outside of his authority.
 
2013-03-29 11:47:16 AM  

Propain_az: Who are you to decide how many weapons an individual needs?


I like to carry an M-60 for hunting rabbits because rabbits are farking scary ass predators.

cf067b.medialib.glogster.com
 
2013-03-29 11:49:00 AM  

BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?

Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?


That is a fair point. I can concede to that.

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.


But not this. You having a gun doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby.
 
2013-03-29 11:49:13 AM  

Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.


You're posting way too much.  Your obsession with the first amendment has slipped into obsession.
 
2013-03-29 11:49:54 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: It was vintage 1972 and not in great shape.  It would have needed a new barrel after who knows how many more rounds.  And you have to add on the $200 device permit and sales tax plus ammo, and you're over three grand.


The hilarious thing is that the $200 NFA tax stamp has not changed since the act passed in 1934. That is equivalent to like $3500 in today's dollars.
 
2013-03-29 11:51:57 AM  

Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.


Smaller framed handguns for better concealment, larger frames for open carry, modified handguns for competition. Handguns in .22 for plinking, handgun in .454 or .500 as a sidearm while hunting in case of bears. AR platform in .300blk for home defense. AR platform in .223 for prarie dogs, AR platform in .308 for moose and elk.

Also not every firearm fits every person. So what might be good for me and is ergonomic and fits might not be good for somebody else. Women have smaller hands so a double stacked magazine might not be the best choice since the grip tends to be larger because of the magazine.

Having options and exercising them is not obsession. Why are you obsessed with forcing a one size fits all and you will like it policy on gun owners?
 
2013-03-29 11:53:30 AM  

Mugato: Propain_az: Who are you to decide how many weapons an individual needs?

I like to carry an M-60 for hunting rabbits because rabbits are farking scary ass predators.

[cf067b.medialib.glogster.com image 403x402]


I usually just hunt them with a pellet rifle.  But Hey, do what you got to do.
 
2013-03-29 11:54:14 AM  
This is not a repeat from every day starting in 2008.

Bravo Two: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:
Here's what I don't get. Wouldn't law-abiding, responsible gun owners WANT better regulations on who can own guns?

The background check system of prohibited persons that we have right now is pretty good, and part of the issue is that almost anything further proposed is so far over-reaching that it simply cannot be accepted. Schumer's 'Universal background check' bill includes language that'd make me and my hunting buddy a felon if he brought my deer rifle from the truck to the cabin, for example.

Aren't these wackos giving them a bad name? It's like when I'm at a party, and someone's being a dick, I want that dude to get kicked out ASAP so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves instead of being lumped together and having the whole thing shut down.

They do. Its kind of like the KKK giving white guys a bad name, but its their Constitutional right to say stupid shiat. Cost of a free society and all that.

If you truly are a responsible, safe, law-abiding gun owner, you should welcome this. Why are you so worried about YOUR guns being taken away? Are you worried that it might be discovered you're not so responsible after all?

No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.

This.


[citation needed]
 
2013-03-29 11:54:42 AM  

Car_Ramrod: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?

Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?

That is a fair point. I can concede to that.

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.

But not this. You having a gun doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby.



The background check keeps you safer, thats why you should chip in and pay for it.
 
2013-03-29 11:58:51 AM  

Giltric: Car_Ramrod: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?

Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?

That is a fair point. I can concede to that.

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.

But not this. You having a gun doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby.


The background check keeps you safer, thats why you should chip in and pay for it.


Automobile registration also keeps us safer, but it's up to the driver to pay for that.
 
2013-03-29 11:59:29 AM  
3/5ths of gun deaths are caused by suicide.  This will do what?  Nothing.

Had a friend that shot himself last spring.  He'd tried it once before with antifreeze, survived and then after getting help and going to Texas to his sister's house with intention of hanging himself, found his nephew's shotgun and did the trick.  They even found the rope that he had bought hanging from his sister's tree in the back yard.  He was damaged goods and didn't feel like he was worth anything.  Would I have left him alone around guns? Hell no but he was bound and determined to do this to himself, he just ended up using a gun as the vehicle.
 
2013-03-29 12:00:47 PM  

Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.


WHO YOU CALLIN' A PSYCHO?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4u5dttxQv8
 
2013-03-29 12:01:11 PM  

Giltric: Car_Ramrod: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?

Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?

That is a fair point. I can concede to that.

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.

But not this. You having a gun doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby.


The background check keeps you safer, thats why you should chip in and pay for it.


Ah, still no. If you really want a gun, pay for the check yourself.
 
2013-03-29 12:03:19 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Giltric: Car_Ramrod: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?

Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?

That is a fair point. I can concede to that.

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.

But not this. You having a gun doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby.


The background check keeps you safer, thats why you should chip in and pay for it.

Ah, still no. If you really want a gun, pay for the check yourself.


The background check typically costs less than a box of ammo.  I'm already spending a thousand dollars, I can cover the check.
 
2013-03-29 12:03:20 PM  

Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.


5 cars in a 2 person family is beyond need too.  I have a friend that has exactly that.  He just sold one pickup.   He earned the money and could afford it, so your argument can go toward a lot of things, but people will scream "apples and oranges".
 
2013-03-29 12:03:44 PM  

Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.


No it isn't. I mean, it can be, there are actual nuts out there armed to the teeth, but for the most part it is just a collection like the sewing machines. I never really understood the concern about how many guns I own as long as I am owning them and not turning them right out on the street as a straw buyer. It's not like I'm going to grow 20 more arms to bear arms with and become some death murder massacre machine, I can still only use one at a time.
 
2013-03-29 12:03:59 PM  
And to be fair, I think that if we are going to increase regulation, there should be more regulations on gun manufacturers rather than owners to ensure that their products are being responsibly sold and tracked.
 
2013-03-29 12:04:53 PM  
Marcus Aurelius:
I was at a gun show last fall, and if I had a spare $2500 on me, could have walked out with a fully automatic, belt fed 7.62x39 machine gun, complete with bipod and ammo cans.  There were wall to wall AR-15s of any caliber you like, and sniper rifles up to 50 caliber.


You can buy fully automatic weapons with cash and no questions asked! WOW!

Oh wait, you're lying.
 Q: What are the required transfer procedures for an individual who is not qualified as a manufacturer, importer, or dealer of NFA(Fully automatic, like an assault rifle) firearms?

ATF Form 4 (5320.4)  must be completed, in duplicate. The transferor first completes the face of the form. The transferee completes the transferee's certification on the reverse of the form and must have the "Law Enforcement Certification" completed by the chief law enforcement officer. The transferee is to place, on each copy of the form, a 2-inch by 2-inch photograph of the transferee taken within the past year (proofs, group photographs or photocopies are unacceptable). The transferee's address must be a street address, not a post office box. If there is no street address, specific directions to the residence must be included.

If State or local law requires a permit or license to purchase, possess, or receive NFA firearms, a copy of the transferee's permit or license must accompany the application. A check or money order for $200 ($5 for transfer of "any other weapon") shall be made payable to ATF by the transferor. All signatures on both copies must be in ink.
Fingerprints also must be submitted on FBI Form FD-258, in duplicate. Fingerprints must be taken by a person qualified to do so, and must be clear and classifiable. If wear or damage to the fingertips do not allow clear prints, and if the prints are taken by a law enforcement official, a statement on his or her official letterhead giving the reason why good prints are unobtainable should accompany the fingerprints.
Forward the completed application and appropriate tax payment to the Bureau of ATF, National Firearms Act Branch, P.O. Box 530298, Atlanta, GA 30353-0298.
Transfer of the NFA firearm may be made only upon approval of the ATF Form 4 by the NFA Branch. If the application is approved, the original of the form with the cancelled stamp affixed showing approval will be returned to the applicant. If the tax application is denied, the tax will be refunded.
Upon approval of the ATF Form 4, the transferor should transfer the firearm as soon as possible, since the firearm is now registered to the transferee.
[26 U.S.C. 5812, 27 CFR 479.84-86]


Car_Ramrod:

But not this. You having a gun kid doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby child.

So you're against taxes for schools if your kid doesn't go there, or roads you don't drive on, etc?

And actually, my having a gun does keep you safe (in the home or CC), because the criminals do not know who is armed, and are less likely to engage in a violent confrontation. When Flordia passed their concealed carry laws, they becan to notice a trend - a spike in crime against tourists. The criminals shifted away from Florida residents, partly because they now had no way to know if they would meet the end of a gun.
 
2013-03-29 12:04:59 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Giltric: Car_Ramrod: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?

Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?

That is a fair point. I can concede to that.

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.

But not this. You having a gun doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby.


The background check keeps you safer, thats why you should chip in and pay for it.

Automobile registration also keeps us safer, but it's up to the driver to pay for that.


My registration on a vehicle with almost no safety equipment or crumple zones is less than the vehicle with front and side airbags, abs, seat belts, crumple zones etc.... The vehicle is also grandfathered to 1950s smog standards of like 40000ppm of co2 where as my new car has to adhere to strict standards of like 90ppm co2.

Vehicle registration is just another revenue stream that's not called a tax. How does it keep us safer?
 
2013-03-29 12:06:49 PM  
Giltric:
Vehicle registration is just another revenue stream that's not called a tax. How does it keep us safer?

So you're against the idea of firearm registration. Excellent, thank you.
 
2013-03-29 12:07:13 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Giltric: Car_Ramrod: BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

Make them free to anyone who wants to use an FFL to transfer a firearm to someone else.

Why?

Forcing all kinds of additional hardships onto people in exercise of a Constitutional right discriminates against the poor, for example. If the only FFL that will do transfers lives 100 miles away and charges $200 for the background check, its pretty tough for non-wealthy people to do transfers, you know?

That is a fair point. I can concede to that.

Giltric: Why not is a better question. When it comes to safety issues since everyone is being kept safe than the costs should be subsidized and paid for through everyones taxes and not levied upon the person seeking the transfer.

But not this. You having a gun doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby.


The background check keeps you safer, thats why you should chip in and pay for it.

Ah, still no. If you really want a gun, pay for the check yourself.


If you want to stay safe by making sure dangerous people do not get a hold of a firearm than chip in....just like the costs of police are cocialized, just like fire departments, just like social safety nets that keep the poors from robbing you.

/im rubber youre glue
//infinity +1
 
2013-03-29 12:07:39 PM  

Car_Ramrod: And to be fair, I think that if we are going to increase regulation, there should be more regulations on gun manufacturers rather than owners to ensure that their products are being responsibly sold and tracked.


The NRA would never stand for any regulation which would slow the flow of guns to criminals. That would negatively impact gun manufacturers profits. Maximizing demand and sales of guns is their primary goal. Whether the end use is legal or illegal is immaterial as long as that goal is met.
 
2013-03-29 12:08:19 PM  

Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC. My wife collects sewing machines. She has about 20 of them, but all but one are antiques.  I can understand having a collection of antique firearms, but many of these nuts have collections of modern guns. Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing? If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.


I have the following in my household.

12 gauge pump shotgun with multiple choke tubes and barrels: General hunting from small game to deer. It's a good all around firearm.
Model 336 lever action 30-30: Actually I have two. One is for my son. Both used for deer season.
.50 cal black powder muzzle loader: Deer season again but this time black powder.
Ruger 10-22: Small game ie rabbits and squirrels.
Glock 21: Home defense.
Ruger 22/45 handgun: General plinking and practice. It's cheaper to shoot than the glock is.Cheap entertainment.
Ruger Judge 45LC/.410:I inherited it from my now deceased father. It's still NIB. Never going to sell it.

Gee, I have eight firearms. Am I really a gun nut? Do these firearms really all do the same thing?
 
2013-03-29 12:08:42 PM  

BayouOtter: Marcus Aurelius:
I was at a gun show last fall, and if I had a spare $2500 on me, could have walked out with a fully automatic, belt fed 7.62x39 machine gun, complete with bipod and ammo cans.  There were wall to wall AR-15s of any caliber you like, and sniper rifles up to 50 caliber.


You can buy fully automatic weapons with cash and no questions asked! WOW!

Oh wait, you're lying.
 Q: What are the required transfer procedures for an individual who is not qualified as a manufacturer, importer, or dealer of NFA(Fully automatic, like an assault rifle) firearms?

ATF Form 4 (5320.4)  must be completed, in duplicate. The transferor first completes the face of the form. The transferee completes the transferee's certification on the reverse of the form and must have the "Law Enforcement Certification" completed by the chief law enforcement officer. The transferee is to place, on each copy of the form, a 2-inch by 2-inch photograph of the transferee taken within the past year (proofs, group photographs or photocopies are unacceptable). The transferee's address must be a street address, not a post office box. If there is no street address, specific directions to the residence must be included.

If State or local law requires a permit or license to purchase, possess, or receive NFA firearms, a copy of the transferee's permit or license must accompany the application. A check or money order for $200 ($5 for transfer of "any other weapon") shall be made payable to ATF by the transferor. All signatures on both copies must be in ink.
Fingerprints also must be submitted on FBI Form FD-258, in duplicate. Fingerprints must be taken by a person qualified to do so, and must be clear and classifiable. If wear or damage to the fingertips do not allow clear prints, and if the prints are taken by a law enforcement official, a statement on his or her official letterhead giving the reason why good prints are unobtainable should accompany the fingerprints.
Forward the completed applicatio ...


You need a dangerous device permit.  A $200 item.  My form and fingerprints are already on file with the ATF.
 
2013-03-29 12:10:18 PM  
WHEN ARE WE GONNA FROGMARCH THIS BASTARD OUT OF THE WHITEHOUSE AND INTO PMITA PRISON WHERE HE BELONGS

/bleh
 
2013-03-29 12:12:15 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: The background check typically costs less than a box of ammo. I'm already spending a thousand dollars, I can cover the check


The new legislation regarding proposed background checks places the determination of fees on the AG. Many proponents of gun control who hold elected office want this to be as sky high as possible in order to deter people from buying firearms. Do you think a pro gun control AG would set the fee at 40$ or 400$?

I think they should put an amendment on the bill that couples the fee for firearms with the fee for voter registration. If you are going to start charging people to exercise a right why not use it as a revenue stream and apply it to the excersising of as many rights as possible?
 
2013-03-29 12:13:57 PM  

Giltric: I think they should put an amendment on the bill that couples the fee for firearms with the fee for voter registration. If you are going to start charging people to exercise a right why not use it as a revenue stream and apply it to the excersising of as many rights as possible?


Pass a gun ownership version of the 24th Amendment and you might have a point.
 
2013-03-29 12:14:10 PM  

violentsalvation: Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.

No it isn't. I mean, it can be, there are actual nuts out there armed to the teeth, but for the most part it is just a collection like the sewing machines. I never really understood the concern about how many guns I own as long as I am owning them and not turning them right out on the street as a straw buyer. It's not like I'm going to grow 20 more arms to bear arms with and become some death murder massacre machine, I can still only use one at a time.


img95.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-29 12:14:17 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Car_Ramrod: And to be fair, I think that if we are going to increase regulation, there should be more regulations on gun manufacturers rather than owners to ensure that their products are being responsibly sold and tracked.

The NRA would never stand for any regulation which would slow the flow of guns to criminals. That would negatively impact gun manufacturers profits.


Right, because the manufacturers make all their money from stolen guns, obviously. Just like how Ford makes money from stolen car chop-shops!

Marcus Aurelius:
You need a dangerous device permit.  A $200 item.  My form and fingerprints are already on file with the ATF.

Oh wait, you're lying.

Again.
Destructive Device26 U.S.C. § 5845(F)
For the purposes of the National Firearms Act, the term "Destructive Device" means:
A missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than 1/4 oz.Any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may readily be converted to expel a projectile, by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore greater than one-half inch in diameter.A combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a device into a destructive device and from which a destructive device can be readily assembled.
That fully-automatic machine gun falls under the rules I posted previously.
 
2013-03-29 12:16:15 PM  

BayouOtter: Giltric:
Vehicle registration is just another revenue stream that's not called a tax. How does it keep us safer?

So you're against the idea of firearm registration. Excellent, thank you.



Yes most definately. Firearm registries have been used in the past to go door to door to seize firearms and force people to turn them in under penalty of law.

I don't think LGS should keep a list of names of who own what weapons either. Thats like how FB and Google and the telecoms cooperate with government by turning over information on people voluntarily and circumventing the 4th amendment.
 
2013-03-29 12:16:39 PM  
NRA argues we need to enforce the laws we already have first and foremost, learn more about gun violence, and educate the public.

Obama signs executive orders to enforce the laws we already have first and foremost, learn more about gun violence, and educate the public.

RIGHT WING SHIATSTORM YALL!
 
2013-03-29 12:16:44 PM  

Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.


Indeed. Unfortunately, the proposed "universal background check" bill proposed by Sen. Schumer (S.374) goes well beyond that into the realm of criminalizing common stuff by criminalizing a lot of "temporary transfer of possession" rather than "transfer of ownership": if my wife and I are shooting on private property or on BLM land (this is really common in Arizona, as you can shoot out in the desert) and I hand her one of my guns to shoot, that's a federal crime. If I go over to a buddy's house and he wants to see one of my guns and I hand it to him, that's a federal crime (I could own hand it to him in my own house, not his). If someone is traveling on business for more than a week and leaves their gun with their roommate, that's a federal crime. This lawyer discusses some of the issues with the law, as does this site.

People aren't necessarily opposed to requiring background checks on private transfers, they're opposed to flawed, overreaching bills like S.374.

chiett: Good luck with all of that.
Take the 30+ round magazines, full auto weapons, and the really scary "military" style weapons.
Then enforce the laws on the books.

And finally leave my shiat alone.


Considering that 30+ round mags are overwhelmingly used for lawful purposes and have only been used in a handful of crimes (where they often fail, as they're not terribly reliable, as seen in Aurora), why should they be restricted?

When was the last time a legal full-auto weapon was used in a crime? Are the few that exist in private hands and are owned responsibly by collectors really a problem? Do you really think that someone's going to take their $10,000+ legal machine gun and go hold up a 7-Eleven? Why is that even an issue?

The 'really scary "military" style weapons', like the AR-15, are the most commonly-owned guns in the country and widely used for perfectly lawful purposes, including recreational shooting, sport, hunting (they're growing in popularity among hunters as they fire the same ammo, are lightweight, accurate, and modular), and competition (including the "world series" of competitive shooting, the National Matches). They're also some of the least-used in crime (using numbers provided by Sen. Feinstein, a proponent of banning such guns, and the FBI, "assault weapons" are used on ~0.6% of all firearm-related homicide). Banning them would do essentially nothing to reduce violent crime and overwhelmingly affect the law-abiding owners of such guns.

Many of the gun-control groups have indicated that their focus on so-called "assault weapons" is just a starting point to further restrictions. I'm not saying they're going for total bans/confiscations, but it's unlikely they'd stop with just scary-looking semi-autos.
 
2013-03-29 12:17:26 PM  

BayouOtter: Philip Francis Queeg: Car_Ramrod: And to be fair, I think that if we are going to increase regulation, there should be more regulations on gun manufacturers rather than owners to ensure that their products are being responsibly sold and tracked.

The NRA would never stand for any regulation which would slow the flow of guns to criminals. That would negatively impact gun manufacturers profits.

Right, because the manufacturers make all their money from stolen guns, obviously. Just like how Ford makes money from stolen car chop-shops!


They profited from the original sale of every gun. If criminals were entirely cut off from access to guns tomorrow demand, sales and profits would plummet for gun manufacturers.
 
2013-03-29 12:17:51 PM  
He needs to start taking guns away from his Chicago voter base.  That will lower the death numbers really quickly.
 
2013-03-29 12:20:05 PM  
Philip Francis Queeg:
They profited from the original sale of every gun. If criminals were entirely cut off from access to guns tomorrow demand, sales and profits would plummet for gun manufacturers.

I'm not following your logic. Spell it out for me.
 
2013-03-29 12:20:19 PM  

heypete: Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.

Indeed. Unfortunately, the proposed "universal background check" bill proposed by Sen. Schumer (S.374) goes well beyond that into the realm of criminalizing common stuff by criminalizing a lot of "temporary transfer of possession" rather than "transfer of ownership": if my wife and I are shooting on private property or on BLM land (this is really common in Arizona, as you can shoot out in the desert) and I hand her one of my guns to shoot, that's a federal crime. If I go over to a buddy's house and he wants to see one of my guns and I hand it to him, that's a federal crime (I could own hand it to him in my own house, not his). If someone is traveling on business for more than a week and leaves their gun with their roommate, that's a federal crime. This lawyer discusses some of the issues with the law, as does this site.

People aren't necessarily opposed to requiring background checks on private transfers, they're opposed to flawed, overreaching bills like S.374.

chiett: Good luck with all of that.
Take the 30+ round magazines, full auto weapons, and the really scary "military" style weapons.
Then enforce the laws on the books.

And finally leave my shiat alone.

Considering that 30+ round mags are overwhelmingly used for lawful purposes and have only been used in a handful of crimes (where they often fail, as they're not terribly reliable, as seen in Aurora), why should they be restricted?

When was the last time a legal full-auto weapon was used in a crime? Are the few that exist in private hands and are owned responsibly by collectors really a problem? Do you really think that someone's going to take their $10,000+ legal machine gun and go hold up a 7-Eleven? Why is that even an issue?

The 'really scary "military" style weapons', like the AR-15, are the most commonly-owned guns in the country an ...


THIS
 
2013-03-29 12:21:01 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: If criminals were entirely cut off from access to guns tomorrow demand, sales and profits would plummet for gun manufacturers.


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-29 12:21:20 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: You need a dangerous device permit. A $200 item. My form and fingerprints are already on file with the ATF.


Not exactly. You do need a tax stamp for the transfer, yes, and it does cost $200.

Each NFA item requires a separate Form 4, payment of the tax, background check, fingerprints, local law enforcement approval, etc. If you own 5 NFA items you need to go through the process 5 times -- they don't just skip certain parts because you're already in the system.

/NFA owner
 
2013-03-29 12:22:26 PM  

BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:

But not this. You having a gun kid doesn't keep me safe in any way, shape, or form. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your hobby child.

So you're against taxes for schools if your kid doesn't go there, or roads you don't drive on, etc?

And actually, my having a gun does keep you safe (in the home or CC), because the criminals do not know who is armed, and are less likely to engage in a violent confrontation. When Flordia passed their concealed carry laws, they becan to notice a trend - a spike in crime against tourists. The criminals shifted away from Florida residents, partly because they now had no way to know if they would meet the end of a gun.


Schools create smart kids which improves society in general. Study after study has shown that the more schooling a kid has, the less likely they are to become a criminal. So yes, schools do keep society safer. As far as roads, I need roads across the country to transport products and services so they are accessible to me. Whether that makes me safer... well it measurably makes this country better by increasing economic activity, which does tend to decrease crime everywhere.

I'd like to read about that concealed carry - tourism connection if you happen to have a link handy. I tried a quick google but didn't see anything and I'm lazy. But I will ask how a criminal necessarily knows the difference between a resident and a tourist. I personally credit my safety to police presence in my neighborhood and being in a generally middle class area. But that's me.
 
2013-03-29 12:22:33 PM  

heypete: Marcus Aurelius: You need a dangerous device permit. A $200 item. My form and fingerprints are already on file with the ATF.

Not exactly. You do need a tax stamp for the transfer, yes, and it does cost $200.

Each NFA item requires a separate Form 4, payment of the tax, background check, fingerprints, local law enforcement approval, etc. If you own 5 NFA items you need to go through the process 5 times -- they don't just skip certain parts because you're already in the system.

/NFA owner


Its pretty clear this guy knows nothing about the NFA and is just making stuff up.
 
2013-03-29 12:23:48 PM  
Checks are fine; government should just stop trying to ban them.
 
2013-03-29 12:23:50 PM  

BayouOtter: Right, because the manufacturers make all their money from stolen guns, obviously. Just like how Ford makes money from stolen car chop-shops!


Most of it comes from scared white men who have been conditioned to have a gut response to seeing a news piece about a violent crime, or gun control legislation, of  A)BUY MOARS GUNZ!, and  B) vote and protest to expand police powers.

You think gun manufacturers  don't profit from heightened social unrest?
 
2013-03-29 12:24:42 PM  
Besides....didn't the AGs office put out a paper that claimed the same thing that firearm owners are claiming?  That criminals will not seek out legal transfers and that UBC might even force more guns to be transfered without background checks?

Obama also mentioned that 40% stat the other day. A talking point taken from a study done the year after background checks were mandated with all firearms purchases. The study is flawed and so is the talking point because if the person survyed bought their firearm before implementation of background cheks odds are they could answer that they never had gone through a background check.

Maybe the gun control crowd would get more cooperation if they didn't resort to flawed studies (just like with the medical bankruptcies study during the health care debate. If you owed 1000 bucks or more in medical costs they considered that a medical bankruptcy while ignoring the 90k in credit card debt that actually put you in bankruptcy).

But the gun control corwd will never be honest. If they were honest they would not have any legs to stand on since the data does not help their cause.
 
2013-03-29 12:25:53 PM  
Oh good the whack a doodles are going to drive the farking price of ammunition up again. I really hate those right wing scared retards. The worst part about them is they buy huge amounts of ammo, but rarely go to the range, which screws the rest of us who enjoy shooting sports, like to spend time at the range, and rarely keep more then a box on hand.
 
2013-03-29 12:26:12 PM  
Car_Ramrod:
Schools create smart kids which improves society in general. Study after study has shown that the more schooling a kid has, the less likely they are to become a criminal. So yes, schools do keep society safer. As far as roads, I need roads across the country to transport products and services so they are accessible to me. Whether that makes me safer... well it measurably makes this country better by increasing economic activity, which does tend to decrease crime everywhere.

So yeah, socialism works, thank you.

I'd like to read about that concealed carry - tourism connection if you happen to have a link handy. I tried a quick google but didn't see anything and I'm lazy. But I will ask how a criminal necessarily knows the difference between a resident and a tourist.

They look for rental cars, mostly. I'll dig around a bit.

I personally credit my safety to police presence in my neighborhood and being in a generally middle class area. But that's me.


Batesian mimicry is also your friend. The criminal doesn't know if you've a gun or not, so he's less likely to get in a direct confrontation.
 
2013-03-29 12:26:15 PM  
The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence

I give you modern republicans - a people so in love with the literal definition of 'conservative' that they are against learning new things.
 
2013-03-29 12:27:11 PM  
that bosnian sniper:
You think gun manufacturers  don't profit from heightened social unrest?

That wasn't the claim. Leave those goalposts alone.
 
2013-03-29 12:27:35 PM  

Giltric: If you want to stay safe by making sure dangerous people do not get a hold of a firearm than chip in....just like the costs of police are cocialized, just like fire departments, just like social safety nets that keep the poors from robbing you.

/im rubber youre glue
//infinity +1


Police and fire departments are a community expenditure, because you never know when you're going to need it. It's like insurance.

But a background check is a very specific cost from a very specific, pre-planned activity (gun purchasing). If I own a car, I buy extra insurance because I know if can be dangerous. If I go skydiving or bungee jumping, those are specific actions that require specific regulations, waivers, and fees to ensure safety.

What I'm saying is police presence and fire coverage are passive and communal, whereas buying a gun is active and personal. You don't need to own a gun. If you want one, pay for it and everything that comes with it.
 
2013-03-29 12:28:35 PM  

heypete: 30+ round mags are overwhelmingly used for lawful purposes


heypete: they often fail, as they're not terribly reliable


hahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
 
2013-03-29 12:28:42 PM  

johnryan51: It's scary that they get so afraid.


Almost childlike, isn't it?
 
2013-03-29 12:28:52 PM  

BayouOtter: Philip Francis Queeg:
They profited from the original sale of every gun. If criminals were entirely cut off from access to guns tomorrow demand, sales and profits would plummet for gun manufacturers.

I'm not following your logic. Spell it out for me.


There are an estimated 200,000,000 guns in the US. Some gun manufacturer profited from the original sale of each and every one of those guns. a portion of those guns, and a portion of the overall demand for those guns is from criminals. If not for the demand from criminals, there would be fewer gun sales. Fewer gun sales mean lower profits for the gun manufacturers.

Let's take two examples.

1.  Your stolen gun example: One of your guns is stolen. Do you do without that weapon or do you buy a new one? Probably you replace it with a new one. The gun manufacturer profits.
2. The more important example, straw purchases. A convicted felon wants a gun. He/she pays someone without a record to purchase the gun for them. The gun manufacturer profits.

Regulations which would effectively limit straw purchases are directly detrimental to gun manufacturers since they would limit demand and sales of their product. They, and their representatives in the NRA, will oppose any regulation which threatens to do so.
 
2013-03-29 12:29:46 PM  

violentsalvation: Dinki: BayouOtter: I can't hunt rabbits and deer with the same gun.

So you need a high caliber rifle for big game, a small caliber for small game, a shotgun for birding. and one pistol for self defense. Maybe another for plinking/target shooting. That makes 5. Still doesn't explain those people that have 2 or 3 versions of ar-15s, 6-7-8 different semi-auto pistols, and assorted other guns. It's beyond need, beyond simple hobby, and into obsession.

No it isn't. I mean, it can be, there are actual nuts out there armed to the teeth, but for the most part it is just a collection like the sewing machines. I never really understood the concern about how many guns I own as long as I am owning them and not turning them right out on the street as a straw buyer. It's not like I'm going to grow 20 more arms to bear arms with and become some death murder massacre machine, I can still only use one at a time.


Exactly and if you like shooting sports you tend to acquire the gear, like any other sport, and in this case it is guns. Sometimes you purchase guns that you barely ever use, just because it was fun, sometimes you inherit your fathers or grandfathers guns and suddenly you have "too many".
 
2013-03-29 12:30:07 PM  
Virginia Tech: 32, Handguns (Nineteen 10- and 15- round magazines)
Newtown: 26, AR-15 (used handgun to kill self)
Killeen: 23, Handguns
San Ysidro: 21, Handgun, Shotgun, Uzi Carbine
Austin: 17, shotguns, rifles, handguns
Edmond: 14, handguns
Columbine: 13, handguns, shotguns, carbine (Thirteen 10-round magazines)
Binghamton: 13, handguns
Ft. Hood: 13, handguns
Camden: 13, handgun
Dishonorable mention: Aurora: 12, AR-15 (100-round magazine), shotgun, handguns (58 wounded)

The most popular long-arm in America, the "military-style" "assault weapon" AR-15, despite being available for civilian purchase for 50 years, has managed to make the top-11 US mass shootings list twice, and only once as the primary creator of casualties. And not even #1. And in BOTH cases, the "high-capacity" magazine jammed.

On the other hand, there is one consistent thing throughout that list... maybe an AR-15 isn't the best weapon to use against unarmed civilians and forcing people to use another weapon only makes things worse.
 
2013-03-29 12:32:32 PM  

vygramul: Virginia Tech: 32, Handguns (Nineteen 10- and 15- round magazines)
Newtown: 26, AR-15 (used handgun to kill self)
Killeen: 23, Handguns
San Ysidro: 21, Handgun, Shotgun, Uzi Carbine
Austin: 17, shotguns, rifles, handguns
Edmond: 14, handguns
Columbine: 13, handguns, shotguns, carbine (Thirteen 10-round magazines)
Binghamton: 13, handguns
Ft. Hood: 13, handguns
Camden: 13, handgun
Dishonorable mention: Aurora: 12, AR-15 (100-round magazine), shotgun, handguns (58 wounded)

The most popular long-arm in America, the "military-style" "assault weapon" AR-15, despite being available for civilian purchase for 50 years, has managed to make the top-11 US mass shootings list twice, and only once as the primary creator of casualties. And not even #1. And in BOTH cases, the "high-capacity" magazine jammed.

On the other hand, there is one consistent thing throughout that list... maybe an AR-15 isn't the best weapon to use against unarmed civilians and forcing people to use another weapon only makes things worse.


Oh, can I guess?

The crazy nutball mass killer? Is that the common thread?

Like in these incidents:
Unknown : 95 : Our Lady of the Angels School fire
Jin Ruchao : 108 :  Shijiazhuan with an ill-synced bomb attack (4 bombs that went off at once)
Zhang Pilin : 112 : crashed China Northern Airlines Flight 6136 with a cabin fire
Robert Dale Segee : 200+ : Arson
Kim Dae-han, a 56 year old half-paralyzed man: 198 : Daegu subway fire
Gameel Al-Batouti : 217 : Cause a plane crash.
Adilson Marcelino Alves : 300+ : Arson
 Li Xianliang managed : 17 people : A Tractor (While Drunk)
William Unek :  21 people, axe

That's like two minutes on google. In the absence of a gun, for whatever reason, a nutball murderer will still kill people. They will kill a lot of people.

Guns aren't the problem. Nutball murderers are. 'Gun Control' won't keep them from killing people, the best case is that it will change their method - at great cost, financially, socially, and to liberty.

I might even argue that the presence of firearms lowers the bodycounts of nutball murderers. A gun is very psychologically attractive, as its direct approach favors their narcissistic empowerment. Thus the gun is selected over other, indirect methods like arson. These indirect methods are more effective at racking up bodycounts, but generally less desirable to the non-rational nutball.

Thus the presence of arms causes the nutball to self-select a method that is sub-optimal for mass killings, resulting in lower bodycounts.
 
2013-03-29 12:32:40 PM  

Karac: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence

I give you modern republicans - a people so in love with the literal definition of 'conservative' that they are against learning new things.


I thought it was children of single moms (NSFW Language) that caused gun violence.
 
2013-03-29 12:34:19 PM  

Jackson Herring: heypete: 30+ round mags are overwhelmingly used for lawful purposes

heypete: they often fail, as they're not terribly reliable

hahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


Yes? Have I said something that's incorrect?

While 30+ round mags (like the 100 round Beta-C mag) aren't nearly as common as their more standard-capacity counterparts, the vast majority of those in private hands are used for lawful purposes, mostly recreational shooting. Very few are used in crime.

They're not nearly as reliable as more traditional box magazines, as they have more moving parts, complex geometry, etc.
 
2013-03-29 12:34:25 PM  

BayouOtter: vygramul: Virginia Tech: 32, Handguns (Nineteen 10- and 15- round magazines)
Newtown: 26, AR-15 (used handgun to kill self)
Killeen: 23, Handguns
San Ysidro: 21, Handgun, Shotgun, Uzi Carbine
Austin: 17, shotguns, rifles, handguns
Edmond: 14, handguns
Columbine: 13, handguns, shotguns, carbine (Thirteen 10-round magazines)
Binghamton: 13, handguns
Ft. Hood: 13, handguns
Camden: 13, handgun
Dishonorable mention: Aurora: 12, AR-15 (100-round magazine), shotgun, handguns (58 wounded)

The most popular long-arm in America, the "military-style" "assault weapon" AR-15, despite being available for civilian purchase for 50 years, has managed to make the top-11 US mass shootings list twice, and only once as the primary creator of casualties. And not even #1. And in BOTH cases, the "high-capacity" magazine jammed.

On the other hand, there is one consistent thing throughout that list... maybe an AR-15 isn't the best weapon to use against unarmed civilians and forcing people to use another weapon only makes things worse.

Oh, can I guess?

The crazy nutball mass killer? Is that the common thread?

Like in these incidents:
Unknown : 95 : Our Lady of the Angels School fire
Jin Ruchao : 108 :  Shijiazhuan with an ill-synced bomb attack (4 bombs that went off at once)
Zhang Pilin : 112 : crashed China Northern Airlines Flight 6136 with a cabin fire
Robert Dale Segee : 200+ : Arson
Kim Dae-han, a 56 year old half-paralyzed man: 198 : Daegu subway fire
Gameel Al-Batouti : 217 : Cause a plane crash.
Adilson Marcelino Alves : 300+ : Arson
 Li Xianliang managed : 17 people : A Tractor (While Drunk)
William Unek :  21 people, axe

That's like two minutes on google. In the absence of a gun, for whatever reason, a nutball murderer will still kill people. They will kill a lot of people.

Guns aren't the problem. Nutball murderers are. 'Gun Control' won't keep them from killing people, the best case is that it will change their method - at great cost, financially, socially, and to liberty.
...


Seems like you know a lot about being a nutball murderer.
 
2013-03-29 12:36:19 PM  
Philip Francis Queeg:
Regulations which would effectively limit straw purchases are directly detrimental to gun manufacturers since they would limit demand and sales of their product.

Yeah, because they care so much about background checks and straw purchases.

They, and their representatives in the NRA, will oppose any regulation which threatens to do so.

The NRA doesn't represent the industry.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 7,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and publishers.
 
2013-03-29 12:36:19 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: Seems like you know a lot about being a nutball murderer.


I bet you know more about pedophilia than he does about nutball murdering.
 
2013-03-29 12:37:17 PM  

BayouOtter: Car_Ramrod:
Schools create smart kids which improves society in general. Study after study has shown that the more schooling a kid has, the less likely they are to become a criminal. So yes, schools do keep society safer. As far as roads, I need roads across the country to transport products and services so they are accessible to me. Whether that makes me safer... well it measurably makes this country better by increasing economic activity, which does tend to decrease crime everywhere.

So yeah, socialism works, thank you.


Well, that's not exactly socialism. But living in a communal society works, yes. But I strongly regret the notion that paying for private citizens to have a gun equates to a communal function.

I'd like to read about that concealed carry - tourism connection if you happen to have a link handy. I tried a quick google but didn't see anything and I'm lazy. But I will ask how a criminal necessarily knows the difference between a resident and a tourist.

They look for rental cars, mostly. I'll dig around a bit.

I personally credit my safety to police presence in my neighborhood and being in a generally middle class area. But that's me.

Batesian mimicry is also your friend. The criminal doesn't know if you've a gun or not, so he's less likely to get in a direct confrontation.


Well here on the North Side of Chicago, there's no conceal carry, and people aren't getting attacked left and right. I should be getting confronted all the time, right?

/South Side is its own ball of wax, they have a lot of problems down there
 
2013-03-29 12:37:19 PM  

BayouOtter: that bosnian sniper:
You think gun manufacturers  don't profit from heightened social unrest?

That wasn't the claim. Leave those goalposts alone.


No, it is. You're just too ideologically-driven, or stupid, not that the two are exclusive, to see it.
 
2013-03-29 12:37:43 PM  
Heypete

First I am a Gun (multiple) owner.

There is NO reason a person (other than Military or Police) NEEDS a 30 round or more magazine for ANY firearm unless you suck at shooting, and are to lazy to reload. What the NRA is scared of (and in a lot of cases justly so) is that once they take that then they take 10 round Mags, then 6 and so on. Domino principle.
 
2013-03-29 12:42:58 PM  

chiett: Heypete

First I am a Gun (multiple) owner.

There is NO reason a person (other than Military or Police) NEEDS a 30 round or more magazine for ANY firearm unless you suck at shooting, and are to lazy to reload.


Nobody needs to have alcohol. It's at best a device of recreational indulgence, and at worst it leads to fatal alcohol-related diseases, DUI fatalities, and untold numbers of beaten spouses and children (and probably drunken crimes in general). The first two account for far more deaths in the country than guns do every year (80K+ vs. 20K+), so why wouldn't you support banning alcohol? Maybe enforcing maximum ounce purchases to ensure nobody gets drunk? Okay, we'll let you get a slight buzz, but nobody needs to down an entire six pack and crash their car into a van with a family in it.

I will say, though, that I don't understand why in one breath you can say a cop needs to have a standard 17 round magazine in his pistol when he has a belt of extra magazines, body armor, and backup, but when Joe American in in his boxers at 2am trying to protect his family a 10 round magazine will do.
 
2013-03-29 12:46:37 PM  

chiett: First I am a Gun (multiple) owner.


Me too.

There is NO reason a person (other than Military or Police) NEEDS a 30 round or more magazine for ANY firearm unless you suck at shooting, and are to lazy to reload. What the NRA is scared of (and in a lot of cases justly so) is that once they take that then they take 10 round Mags, then 6 and so on. Domino principle.

Need really doesn't have anything to do with it. There's a lot of things that people have or do that they don't need. There's no evidence that restricting magazine capacity would have any meaningful effect on crime (mass shooters would just carry more magazines, as they do, and ordinary criminals average less than 5 shots, so they wouldn't really be affected) and it'd only affect law-abiding people. I don't like arbitrary limits, particularly when they're ineffective.
 That said, you're right about the domino effect. New York State is a good example: they recently passed a law that said people can keep the 10 round mags they were allowed to have under a previous restriction but were only legally allowed to load 7 rounds into those 10 round mags. All new magazines need to be a maximum of 7 rounds.
 
2013-03-29 12:46:39 PM  

Dinki: I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC.


i'm not a gamer. nor am i particularly nerdy. but i have 4 desktop computers in here and a laptop.

which one of us represents gamers/computer geeks best? and why does the number of toys we have matter.
 
2013-03-29 12:47:24 PM  
Because cops have to do it everyday. Joe American doesn't.

And don't even THINK about touching my beer!
 
2013-03-29 12:48:18 PM  

Alphakronik: You want to pass background checks for law abiding Americans?  Pass an executive order that recognizes a Muslim-American's right to bear arms.  Yes, I know they already can, but much like Republicans pointless laws, it would scare the shiat out of the right bad enough that they'd be willing to submit to background checks solely based upon forcing Muslims to be subject to further scrutiny.


...We should do this. Now. Yesterday, if possible.
 
2013-03-29 12:51:52 PM  
The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Yeah that's all about "taking your guns."

Fail as usual, subby. inb4 b-b-but satire
 
2013-03-29 12:54:30 PM  

Silly Jesus: He needs to start taking guns away from his Chicago voter base.  That will lower the death numbers really quickly.


B b but I'm a chicago gun owner :(
 
2013-03-29 12:54:50 PM  
Too many of you trust politicians too much.
 
2013-03-29 12:59:04 PM  

scarmig: Too many of you trust politicians too much.


Because the private sector gun lobbies have really come through on this.  All we have to do is grit our teeth through another school massacre every few years.
 
2013-03-29 01:00:37 PM  

whidbey: scarmig: Too many of you trust politicians too much.

Because the private sector gun lobbies have really come through on this.  All we have to do is grit our teeth through another school massacre every few years.


And the government plans would have stopped any of the massacres how exactly?
 
2013-03-29 01:02:26 PM  

Bravo Two: As a gun owner and strong opponent of bans...I'm OKAY with background checks and processes that vet people who buy guns.

I don't care if i have to go through some checks and training in exchange for the right to carry a weapon in public, and while many of my brethren believe that I'm a 2ASINO because I believe that with the right to go armed and own weaponry comes the responsibility to use it responsibly.

I don't give keys to drunk guys, and I support barkeepers requiring people who order stiff drinks taking keys from people.

I don't let kids play around on heavy equipment like tractors and trucks and other such things where they might do something stupid.

I don't let kids play with knives, and supervise kids with sharp objects or guns.

It's just farking responsibility.

Were that the media were half as responsible about what they posted and the aftereffects of same. Were that people were responsible enough to realize that every action has a cause.

Anyway, that's not germane. What is germane is that maybe we can get to a point where gun owners and gun grabbers can agree on ways that enforce the responsibility of firearms and their proper use without equally forcing their view of what is and isn't appropriate on us.


Ah, the ol' gun owners should compromise.  Of course, by compromise you mean give up what we haven't yet let them "compromise" away and people like you feel safer at night.  Some of the laws they're putting forth would mean you couldn't leave your gun home with a roommate if you were on vacation for more than 7 or 10 days, how is that germane?

Also, for all the idiots who think the .gov statistics system would be a good thing, consider that it would be run by the .gov and would never have a chance of putting out legitimate statistics.  They just need new ones that further their agenda; we already have plenty of stats and they say this is all retarded and will do nothing for crime.  Then again, you probably have to have serious cognitive dissonance to not have read those stats and know that already.

We supported you for SOPA/PIPA, but when it comes to an amendment you don't care about, you couldn't care less.  Good luck with that.  A lot of us are starting to turn our backs on being equitable about our views.  Gay marriage?  Go fark yourself.  Free speech?  What do you need it for?

http://www.westernjournalism.com/biden-no-ordinary-american-cares-ab ou t-their-constitutional-rights/

Enjoy thinking they'll stop with the 2nd.
 
2013-03-29 01:05:01 PM  

Freeballin: Enjoy thinking they'll stop with the 2nd.


Because regulation=eliminating Constitutional Amendments

Sit down. Shut up.
 
2013-03-29 01:06:34 PM  
Don't worry guys, it can't happen here.  Dictatorships and authoritarians are a thing of the past.  Society can never collapse.  Let's just turn in all the guns except for hunting rifles.   That's the only reason people could ever need them ever.  Everyone in the red states are just dumb rednecks anyways.  I'm surprised they haven't all accidentally shot themselves in the face by now.

/God you people are smarmy as fark.
 
2013-03-29 01:07:25 PM  

whidbey: scarmig: Too many of you trust politicians too much.

Because the private sector gun lobbies have really come through on this.  All we have to do is grit our teeth through another school massacre every few years.


You're like a real life soccer mom.
 
2013-03-29 01:09:16 PM  

Frank N Stein: whidbey: scarmig: Too many of you trust politicians too much.

Because the private sector gun lobbies have really come through on this.  All we have to do is grit our teeth through another school massacre every few years.

You're like a real life soccer mom.


No, but you've proven that you're incapable of contributing honest discussion to this topic.  Yeah that goes past "unwilling."
 
2013-03-29 01:10:25 PM  

dehehn: Don't worry guys, it can't happen here.  Dictatorships and authoritarians are a thing of the past.  Society can never collapse.  Let's just turn in all the guns except for hunting rifles.   That's the only reason people could ever need them ever.  Everyone in the red states are just dumb rednecks anyways.  I'm surprised they haven't all accidentally shot themselves in the face by now.

/God you people are smarmy as fark.


Fantasy talk does not equate to honest discussion either.
 
2013-03-29 01:15:03 PM  

Bravo Two: ilambiquated: [inspirably.com image 380x333]

oh look, it's you again.  Here to spout meaningless platitudes instead of engaging in meaningful conversation? I noticed you didn't bother to show up to the last thread where we had an actual reasonable conversation on the topic.


Let me guess, Jeremy?
 
2013-03-29 01:15:10 PM  
The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.
 
2013-03-29 01:15:27 PM  
excellent "journalism" in this totally non-misleading article:


Obama uses executive power to move gun control agenda forwardBy Jordy Yager -  03/29/13 06:00 AM ETPresident Obama is quietly moving forward on gun control.


The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.
 
2013-03-29 01:15:40 PM  

Freeballin: We supported you for SOPA/PIPA, but when it comes to an amendment you don't care about, you couldn't care less.  Good luck with that.  A lot of us are starting to turn our backs on being equitable about our views.  Gay marriage?  Go fark yourself.  Free speech?  What do you need it for?

http://www.westernjournalism.com/biden-no-ordinary-american-cares-ab ou t-their-constitutional-rights/

Enjoy thinking they'll stop with the 2nd.


Honest question: What are you talking about?
 
2013-03-29 01:15:53 PM  

heypete: They're not nearly as reliable as more traditional box magazines, as they have more moving parts, complex geometry, etc.


So then you should want to get rid of these unsafe magazines, right? You don't want that sh*t to fail in a key moment, right?
 
2013-03-29 01:17:20 PM  

Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.


"Interesting" how you've decided "the Left" isn't for the same kinds of solutions, like enforceable background checks and a national registry.
 
2013-03-29 01:17:27 PM  

Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.



That is the craziest thing about it.  Does anyone seriously contend that those three items are bad things?

Oh wait, I forgot.  We're dealing with the gun-crazy right, who view any attempt to "discriminate against guns" (a.k.a., inanimate objects designed to kill things) as a full-frontal assault on liberty and the constitution itself.
 
2013-03-29 01:17:43 PM  

Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.

These gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they just admitted that they like to play with their toys and would drop the pretense that the second amendment is still about keeping the government from getting out of control with the threat of armed insurrection.


These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns, so they probably shouldn't be mucking about trying to make laws and influence legislators.
 
2013-03-29 01:18:28 PM  

Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.


Are you kidding? We're pushing for that sh*t too! Have you seen the polls? Rachel Maddow was on last night talking about the need for this stuff.
 
2013-03-29 01:19:29 PM  

Mikey1969: These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns


No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.
 
2013-03-29 01:19:34 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: heypete: They're not nearly as reliable as more traditional box magazines, as they have more moving parts, complex geometry, etc.

So then you should want to get rid of these unsafe magazines, right? You don't want that sh*t to fail in a key moment, right?


No. You want those mags to fail at key moments....like when someone is shooting up a theatre. If he used 20 round mags the chance of failure would be 0.
 
2013-03-29 01:21:19 PM  
www.mississippiautoarms.com
These stupid things fail so often that making them mandatory would actually slow down mass shooters.
 
2013-03-29 01:21:25 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: So then you should want to get rid of these unsafe magazines, right? You don't want that sh*t to fail in a key moment, right?


Nice strawman.

I never said they were unsafe, only relatively unreliable compared to more traditional box magazines. They're great if a high degree of reliability isn't necessary, like having fun at the range while shooting targets.

I wouldn't recommend them for any sort of serious purpose, but that hardly suggests that I think they should be banned outright.
 
2013-03-29 01:23:57 PM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: heypete: They're not nearly as reliable as more traditional box magazines, as they have more moving parts, complex geometry, etc.

So then you should want to get rid of these unsafe magazines, right? You don't want that sh*t to fail in a key moment, right?

No. You want those mags to fail at key moments....like when someone is shooting up a theatre. If he used 20 round mags the chance of failure would be 0.


Really? A 20-round magazine never, ever fails? Zero times?

Okay, You're totally right. We should give him the capacity to make 10 extra people dead on the off-chance that it fails.
 
2013-03-29 01:24:05 PM  
ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.


What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?
 
2013-03-29 01:24:48 PM  

heypete: cameroncrazy1984: So then you should want to get rid of these unsafe magazines, right? You don't want that sh*t to fail in a key moment, right?

Nice strawman.

I never said they were unsafe, only relatively unreliable compared to more traditional box magazines. They're great if a high degree of reliability isn't necessary, like having fun at the range while shooting targets.

I wouldn't recommend them for any sort of serious purpose, but that hardly suggests that I think they should be banned outright.


Why not? We ban other things for a lot less.
 
2013-03-29 01:25:23 PM  

Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?


Why don't you ask Adam Lanza, who picked up an AR-15 and left a hunting rifle at home.
 
2013-03-29 01:26:08 PM  

Mikey1969: Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.

These gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they just admitted that they like to play with their toys and would drop the pretense that the second amendment is still about keeping the government from getting out of control with the threat of armed insurrection.

These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns, so they probably shouldn't be mucking about trying to make laws and influence legislators.


Then teach us. Tell us what would be regulations that would make things safer for everyone. Don't look down your noses at us and yell "YOU SAID CLIP WHEN YOU MEANT MAGAZINE! GOD YOU'RE STUPID!" That doesn't build a good conversation. Have a counter proposal. It seems anytime anyone even makes an attempt to fix the gun problem in our country, NRA/gun owners claim any action would be oppressing their freedom, and that everything is just fine how it is. That's obviously not true, so give us some ideas. Help us out here. Otherwise, you'll end up with the flat out bans and/or useless/harmful regulation you don't want.
 
2013-03-29 01:26:37 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?

Why don't you ask Adam Lanza, who picked up an AR-15 and left a hunting rifle at home.



So you have no answers and would like to change the subject?

I thought you knew about guns?
 
2013-03-29 01:28:29 PM  

Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?


This is exactly the shiat I was talking about in my last post. We get it, you know a shiat ton about guns. Us that to help the national conversation that needs to occur instead of trying to belittle people.
 
2013-03-29 01:28:34 PM  

Giltric: So you have no answers and would like to change the subject?

I thought you knew about guns?


I do know about guns. Why do you think Lanza picked up an AR-15 and not the hunting rifle? It's a legitimate question. if one is no more lethal than the other, why did he pick it? Why does no army in the world use a Ruger Mini-14?
 
2013-03-29 01:28:42 PM  

whidbey: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.

"Interesting" how you've decided "the Left" isn't for the same kinds of solutions, like enforceable background checks and a national registry.


Sorry, the Left is for bans and incorrectly classifying guns, then more bans.
 
2013-03-29 01:29:03 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Why not? We ban other things for a lot less.


So, just because ItemA is relatively unreliable compared to ItemB, even though it doesn't pose a danger to the user, we should impose a federal ban on ItemA?

If that particular type of magazine had a tendency to explode or otherwise fail in some catastrophic way that's harmful, ok, you'd have a point. But simply because it's slightly less reliable? That doesn't make much sense.
 
2013-03-29 01:29:25 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?

Why don't you ask Adam Lanza, who picked up an AR-15 and left a hunting rifle at home.


Yeah, but he was a trained shooter.

static2.businessinsider.com
 
2013-03-29 01:29:54 PM  

heypete: it doesn't pose a danger to the user,


But it DOES pose a danger to others, does it not?
 
2013-03-29 01:30:37 PM  

Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.

"Interesting" how you've decided "the Left" isn't for the same kinds of solutions, like enforceable background checks and a national registry.

Sorry, the Left is for bans and incorrectly classifying guns, then more bans.


Delusional much?
 
2013-03-29 01:30:39 PM  

Chummer45: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.


That is the craziest thing about it.  Does anyone seriously contend that those three items are bad things?

Oh wait, I forgot.  We're dealing with the gun-crazy right, who view any attempt to "discriminate against guns" (a.k.a., inanimate objects designed to kill things) as a full-frontal assault on liberty and the constitution itself.


I think a large portion of the "gun-crazy right" are like me(Not a Rightie or a Leftie), and just tired of people with no idea what they are talking about trying to dictate laws. I know that's my problem. People who wouldn't know a "barrel shroud" from a sling trying to make the things illegal.
 
2013-03-29 01:30:49 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Mikey1969: Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.

These gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they just admitted that they like to play with their toys and would drop the pretense that the second amendment is still about keeping the government from getting out of control with the threat of armed insurrection.

These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns, so they probably shouldn't be mucking about trying to make laws and influence legislators.

Then teach us. Tell us what would be regulations that would make things safer for everyone. Don't look down your noses at us and yell "YOU SAID CLIP WHEN YOU MEANT MAGAZINE! GOD YOU'RE STUPID!" That doesn't build a good conversation. Have a counter proposal. It seems anytime anyone even makes an attempt to fix the gun problem in our country, NRA/gun owners claim any action would be oppressing their freedom, and that everything is just fine how it is. That's obviously not true, so give us some ideas. Help us out here. Otherwise, you'll end up with the flat out bans and/or useless/harmful regulation you don't want.


How about everything doesn't have a solution.  There are 300 million people in the U.S.  If one of those people really wants to kill someone, they are going to.  Trying to craft laws to prevent these mass shootings is asinine.
 
2013-03-29 01:31:40 PM  

Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.

"Interesting" how you've decided "the Left" isn't for the same kinds of solutions, like enforceable background checks and a national registry.

Sorry, the Left is for bans and incorrectly classifying guns, then more bans.


Who are these people?
 
2013-03-29 01:32:50 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.


No, you don't know shiat. You sit around in your circle-jerk sessions and convince each other that you're well educated on the subject, but I have seen few situations where someone is more ignorant of something that they are pushing for laws on than guns. Liquor in Utah comes to mind, but that's about the only time the people with the regulation gleam in their eyes have been anywhere near as clueless.
 
2013-03-29 01:33:20 PM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?

Why don't you ask Adam Lanza, who picked up an AR-15 and left a hunting rifle at home.


So you have no answers and would like to change the subject?

I thought you knew about guns?


I'm a little sick of the gun lecture myself.

National registry:  yes or no?  Why or why not?
Background checks: Yes or no, why or why not?

Do you agree with the President's actions?
 
2013-03-29 01:33:32 PM  

Silly Jesus: [www.mississippiautoarms.com image 330x310]
These stupid things fail so often that making them mandatory would actually slow down mass shooters.


Yeah, I wouldn't trust something like that.
 
2013-03-29 01:33:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: heypete: They're not nearly as reliable as more traditional box magazines, as they have more moving parts, complex geometry, etc.

So then you should want to get rid of these unsafe magazines, right? You don't want that sh*t to fail in a key moment, right?

No. You want those mags to fail at key moments....like when someone is shooting up a theatre. If he used 20 round mags the chance of failure would be 0.

Really? A 20-round magazine never, ever fails? Zero times?

Okay, You're totally right. We should give him the capacity to make 10 extra people dead on the off-chance that it fails.


No they do not fail. It is a rarity that a 10, 20 or 30 round magazine fails. The rate of failure is so insignificant that the odd failure can be thrown out like a low olympic score when tallying the average.

If you limit citizens to a 10 round magazine with the theory that a victim (those not shot and laying on the ground mortally wounded) will rush their spree killing attacker when the attacker changes magazines would that theory not apply to a pair of criminals who is breaking into someones home? Do you also think criminals will get rid of their 20 or 30 round magazines because the law states they can only use a 10 round magazine?

Odds are the criminal has broken into numerous houses before, where as the victim will be defending their life and home for the first time. (this has to do with stress and adrenaline and experience...courage under fire so to speak)
 
2013-03-29 01:34:14 PM  

PDid: http://www.guns.com/2013/03/16/guns-com-talks-gun-control-and-politic s -with-ucla-professor-mark-kleiman-video/

I agree with Kleiman.


"If you're Wayne LaPierre and you want to stand up for the rights of law-abiding gun-owners, you make a deal that sacrifices the non-law-abiding: universal background checks, better record-keeping and data analysis, stronger gun-tracing, tough penalties for scofflaw gun dealers and straw purchasers who knowingly arm criminals. But if you're Wayne LaPierre and your job is making sure the dollars keep flowing from customers to your gun-manufacturer sponsors and from those sponsors to the NRA's bank account (and your own), then you mount a national scare campaign to stimulate gun sales. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which Wayne LaPierre is actually running the NRA. "

Indeed.
 
2013-03-29 01:34:45 PM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: heypete: They're not nearly as reliable as more traditional box magazines, as they have more moving parts, complex geometry, etc.

So then you should want to get rid of these unsafe magazines, right? You don't want that sh*t to fail in a key moment, right?

No. You want those mags to fail at key moments....like when someone is shooting up a theatre.


Maybe. If they failed before he got off SIXTY-FIVE ROUNDS.
 
2013-03-29 01:34:54 PM  

Silly Jesus: If one of those people really wants to kill someone, they are going to.  Trying to craft laws to prevent these mass shootings is asinine.


Making it more difficult for someone to kill a lot of people is asinine? Sure you can kill one person if you're really bent on it. But 20? That's a lot harder without a gun.
 
2013-03-29 01:35:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?

Why don't you ask Adam Lanza, who picked up an AR-15 and left a hunting rifle at home.


Ahhh, the "no answer" route. We know it well around here.

Oh, but you sure do "understand" about guns.
 
2013-03-29 01:35:37 PM  
How about we start by telling the Republicans to stop gobbling the NRA knob and pass an ATF nominee so we can get back to enforcing the laws already on the books?
 
2013-03-29 01:35:42 PM  

Mikey1969: Chummer45: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.


That is the craziest thing about it.  Does anyone seriously contend that those three items are bad things?

Oh wait, I forgot.  We're dealing with the gun-crazy right, who view any attempt to "discriminate against guns" (a.k.a., inanimate objects designed to kill things) as a full-frontal assault on liberty and the constitution itself.

I think a large portion of the "gun-crazy right" are like me(Not a Rightie or a Leftie), and just tired of people with no idea what they are talking about trying to dictate laws. I know that's my problem. People who wouldn't know a "barrel shroud" from a sling trying to make the things illegal.


This is a common tactic: bully anyone who calls for regulation by stating that "you don't know about Part XC359BR so you're unqualified to discuss the subject. The end."

Bullshiat, dude.
 
2013-03-29 01:35:44 PM  

Mikey1969: cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

No, you don't know shiat. You sit around in your circle-jerk sessions and convince each other that you're well educated on the subject, but I have seen few situations where someone is more ignorant of something that they are pushing for laws on than guns. Liquor in Utah comes to mind, but that's about the only time the people with the regulation gleam in their eyes have been anywhere near as clueless.


Who is this "you?"
 
2013-03-29 01:35:50 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?

This is exactly the shiat I was talking about in my last post. We get it, you know a shiat ton about guns. Us that to help the national conversation that needs to occur instead of trying to belittle people.



Why should I help you restrict my rights? Why should I compromise with those who wish for nothing other than total disarmament? After I compromise on this piece of legislation what will you want me to compromise with when they seek to further restrict firearms and their ownership?
 
2013-03-29 01:36:30 PM  

Mikey1969: Ahhh, the "no answer" route. We know it well around here.

Oh, but you sure do "understand" about gun


No, it's inconvenient to your position, that Lanza and other mass shooters choose assault rifles over Ruger Mini-14s. Why do you think they do that?
 
2013-03-29 01:37:10 PM  

whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.

"Interesting" how you've decided "the Left" isn't for the same kinds of solutions, like enforceable background checks and a national registry.

Sorry, the Left is for bans and incorrectly classifying guns, then more bans.

Delusional much?


You're right, NOBODY calls for gun bans. Sorry, all that stuff on the news, as well as the past gun bans were all delusions.

Jesus, at least stand up for your Party and admit their actions.
 
2013-03-29 01:38:52 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: So you have no answers and would like to change the subject?

I thought you knew about guns?

I do know about guns. Why do you think Lanza picked up an AR-15 and not the hunting rifle? It's a legitimate question. if one is no more lethal than the other, why did he pick it? Why does no army in the world use a Ruger Mini-14?


Cause Call of Duty does not feature hunting rifles. And because Ruger salesmen suck more than FNH or KAC or DD or Colt.
 
2013-03-29 01:40:03 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: No, it's inconvenient to your position, that Lanza and other mass shooters choose assault rifles over Ruger Mini-14s


Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?

A majority choose handguns accoridng to the list compiled by mayors against guns.
 
2013-03-29 01:40:35 PM  

Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.

"Interesting" how you've decided "the Left" isn't for the same kinds of solutions, like enforceable background checks and a national registry.

Sorry, the Left is for bans and incorrectly classifying guns, then more bans.

Delusional much?

You're right, NOBODY calls for gun bans. Sorry, all that stuff on the news, as well as the past gun bans were all delusions.

Jesus, at least stand up for your Party and admit their actions.


More like "Jesus stop constructing strawman arguments and learn how to debate the actual topic."

Well not Jesus. You.
 
2013-03-29 01:40:38 PM  

Giltric: Why should I compromise with those who wish for nothing other than total disarmament?


Most NRA members wish for total disarmament?
 
2013-03-29 01:41:20 PM  

Car_Ramrod: It seems anytime anyone even makes an attempt to fix the gun problem in our country, NRA/gun owners claim any action would be oppressing their freedom, and that everything is just fine how it is. That's obviously not true, so give us some ideas.


Well, what if one thinks that insofar as gun regulations are concerned, the status quo is fairly reasonable? Dealers are required to make background checks on purchasers (and such checks are enforceable, unlike requiring checks on private sales), machine guns and other things like explosives are heavily regulated, and guns that fire a single shot per pull of the trigger (regardless of what they look like) are legal. That seems pretty reasonable. Sure, there could be some improvements, like getting the states to send more comprehensive, uniform data to the background check system, but there's no real evidence that the proposals currently pending in Congress would have any effect on crime.

The people committing the overwhelming majority of gun-related crimes are criminals with records that prohibit them from possessing guns. Anyone transferring guns to them is also violating the law. More laws making their already-illegal actions slightly more illegal aren't really going to help.

Even with gun laws being as they are, gun sales at or near all-time highs, and the amount of guns-per-capita being at an all-time high,, gun-related homicide is at its lowest point since 1964 and has been declining since it peaked in 1980.
 
There have been a fair number of proposals from gun owners (including myself), both on Fark and elsewhere. The overall trend is "crack down on traffickers and straw purchasers of guns, end the War on (some) Drugs, provide meaningful assistance/opportunities to people in communities plagued by poverty, drug trafficking, and gangs". Healthy, stable, prosperous people are statistically very unlikely to commit crimes.

I'm of the opinion that violent crime is a symptom of a deeper problem (like poverty, drugs, gangs, etc.) and that until society addresses those problems, the symptom will continue regardless of what band-aids are applied.
 
2013-03-29 01:42:22 PM  

Giltric: Why should I help you restrict my rights? Why should I compromise with those who wish for nothing other than total disarmament? After I compromise on this piece of legislation what will you want me to compromise with when they seek to further restrict firearms and their ownership?


You're welcome to show how anything in TFA or the President's plan calls for "total disarmament."

I've given you a lot of chances, Giltic. Why am I still doing this?
 
2013-03-29 01:42:31 PM  
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
"If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in -- I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

This might be why some people are reluctant to go along with these first steps...
 
2013-03-29 01:42:42 PM  

Heraclitus: How about we start by telling the Republicans to stop gobbling the NRA knob and pass an ATF nominee so we can get back to enforcing the laws already on the books?


Considering that most of the nominees have been ultra leftist gun control opponents maybe Obama should nominate a moderate.
 
2013-03-29 01:43:27 PM  

Giltric: Heraclitus: How about we start by telling the Republicans to stop gobbling the NRA knob and pass an ATF nominee so we can get back to enforcing the laws already on the books?

Considering that most of the nominees have been ultra leftist gun control proponents maybe Obama should nominate a moderate.


FTFM
 
2013-03-29 01:45:03 PM  

whidbey: Giltric: Why should I help you restrict my rights? Why should I compromise with those who wish for nothing other than total disarmament? After I compromise on this piece of legislation what will you want me to compromise with when they seek to further restrict firearms and their ownership?

You're welcome to show how anything in TFA or the President's plan calls for "total disarmament."

I've given you a lot of chances, Giltic. Why am I still doing this?



Sorry Whidbey there are a few of us in this thread who are having a conversation. If you would like to report us for discussing something other than the specifities of the article go right ahead. I already have you pegged as someone willing to "name names" anyway.
 
2013-03-29 01:45:59 PM  

whidbey: Giltric: Why should I help you restrict my rights? Why should I compromise with those who wish for nothing other than total disarmament? After I compromise on this piece of legislation what will you want me to compromise with when they seek to further restrict firearms and their ownership?

You're welcome to show how anything in TFA or the President's plan calls for "total disarmament."

I've given you a lot of chances, Giltic. Why am I still doing this?


See post directly below yours.
 
2013-03-29 01:46:00 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Mikey1969: Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.

These gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they just admitted that they like to play with their toys and would drop the pretense that the second amendment is still about keeping the government from getting out of control with the threat of armed insurrection.

These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns, so they probably shouldn't be mucking about trying to make laws and influence legislators.

Then teach us. Tell us what would be regulations that would make things safer for everyone. Don't look down your noses at us and yell "YOU SAID CLIP WHEN YOU MEANT MAGAZINE! GOD YOU'RE STUPID!" That doesn't build a good conversation. Have a counter proposal. It seems anytime anyone even makes an attempt to fix the gun problem in our country, NRA/gun owners claim any action would be oppressing their freedom, and that everything is just fine how it is. That's obviously not true, so give us some ideas. Help us out here. Otherwise, you'll end up with the flat out bans and/or useless/harmful regulation you don't want.


The problem is with labeling the guns in the first place. The labels are flawed, and the shiat falls apart as a result. "Let's ban high-powered assault rifles like the AR-15!!" is a great example. First, it's not very "high powered", second, there are weapons, such as the Ruger Mini-14 that are virtually identical to the AR-15, but since they have a wood stock, suddenly they are considered "hunting rifles", and are therefore "OK". It really does all boil down to looks, everyone freaks out at the AR-15, because it "looks" scary. They might make other claims, but when presented with something like the Mini-14, suddenly they say "Sure, that gun looks fine.". This is the problem most of us have, the loudest ban voices won't listen to what they've farked up, they won't pay attention to why something like a bayonet lug is a stupid thing to base a ban on, and a huge percentage of the time, they don't even know what the parts do that they're trying to get banned, but they either sound scary, or someone told them they should be banned. A great example of this is the "barrel shroud" interview.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

Add to this the fact that they knowingly spread misinformation, bad statistics, and pure fabrications regarding numbers, gun parts, and other shiat, and it's kind of hard to trust these people to craft a law based on reality.
 
2013-03-29 01:47:05 PM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: So you have no answers and would like to change the subject?

I thought you knew about guns?

I do know about guns. Why do you think Lanza picked up an AR-15 and not the hunting rifle? It's a legitimate question. if one is no more lethal than the other, why did he pick it? Why does no army in the world use a Ruger Mini-14?

Cause Call of Duty does not feature hunting rifles. And because Ruger salesmen suck more than FNH or KAC or DD or Colt.


Yeah, that's it. The AR-15 is the most popular assault weapon of choice because Ruger salesmen are terrible at their job.

Are you serious right now, Clark?
 
2013-03-29 01:48:02 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: But it DOES pose a danger to others, does it not?


Not really. I mean, I wouldn't want someone to drop one on my foot as they're fairly heavy and awkward, but they're not really dangerous...well, they do have some coiled springs inside that might poke you with a fair bit of force.

They're basically a variant on the "box-with-a-spring" type magazine, only with more complex geometry that poses reliability issues.

It's the user who has the potential to pose a danger to others. By far, the vast majority of users of such magazines do not pose a danger to others.
 
2013-03-29 01:48:33 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: So you have no answers and would like to change the subject?

I thought you knew about guns?

I do know about guns. Why do you think Lanza picked up an AR-15 and not the hunting rifle? It's a legitimate question. if one is no more lethal than the other, why did he pick it? Why does no army in the world use a Ruger Mini-14?

Cause Call of Duty does not feature hunting rifles. And because Ruger salesmen suck more than FNH or KAC or DD or Colt.

Yeah, that's it. The AR-15 is the most popular assault weapon of choice because Ruger salesmen are terrible at their job.

Are you serious right now, Clark?


You done with that list of assault weapon armed spree killers yet? I have to be at the range in 26 minutes.
 
2013-03-29 01:48:53 PM  

whidbey: This is a common tactic: bully anyone who calls for regulation by stating that "you don't know about Part XC359BR so you're unqualified to discuss the subject. The end."

Bullshiat, dude.


Look, if you don't know about  Part XC359BR, what makes you THINK that you're qualified to discuss making a law to ban it? I don't understand why people can't grasp this part of the equation. WHy make laws and call for laws on something that you don't even understand the function of?
 
2013-03-29 01:49:06 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: No, it's inconvenient to your position, that Lanza and other mass shooters choose assault rifles over Ruger Mini-14s. Why do you think they do that?


Maybe he wanted something black and scary since the mini-14 and AR-15 are almost exactly the same weapon, shoot the same cartridge and have the same action.
 
2013-03-29 01:49:36 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: These anti gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they'd admit that they ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

No, you don't know shiat. You sit around in your circle-jerk sessions and convince each other that you're well educated on the subject, but I have seen few situations where someone is more ignorant of something that they are pushing for laws on than guns. Liquor in Utah comes to mind, but that's about the only time the people with the regulation gleam in their eyes have been anywhere near as clueless.

Who is this "you?"


Well, it would be... You.
 
2013-03-29 01:49:51 PM  

Giltric: Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?


These guys liked them pretty well.

img2.timeinc.nettimenewsfeed.files.wordpress.comstatic.guim.co.ukwww.gannett-cdn.com
 
2013-03-29 01:51:12 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?

These guys liked them pretty well.

[img2.timeinc.net image 220x300][timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com image 200x300][static.guim.co.uk image 200x300][www.gannett-cdn.com image 215x300]


Add those guys together and you get an average month in Chicago....
Sensationalism works.
 
2013-03-29 01:51:32 PM  

Mikey1969: Well, it would be... You.


And why would you say that?
 
2013-03-29 01:51:53 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: Ahhh, the "no answer" route. We know it well around here.

Oh, but you sure do "understand" about gun

No, it's inconvenient to your position, that Lanza and other mass shooters choose assault rifles over Ruger Mini-14s. Why do you think they do that?


No reason not to. They both accept the same magazine and fire the same ammo. There is nothing special about the AR-15 that the Mini-14 doesn't have. Fun fact: The A-Team used Mini-14's in their show, not AR-15s, all you do is put in the bigger mag, which the gun will come with.
 
2013-03-29 01:51:54 PM  
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-29 01:52:24 PM  

o5iiawah: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?

These guys liked them pretty well.

[img2.timeinc.net image 220x300][timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com image 200x300][static.guim.co.uk image 200x300][www.gannett-cdn.com image 215x300]

Add those guys together and you get an average month in Chicago....
Sensationalism works.


So what I'm getting from this thread is that there should be tighter regulations on handguns and universal background checks?

Sold.
 
2013-03-29 01:52:34 PM  

Giltric: Marcus Aurelius: The background check typically costs less than a box of ammo. I'm already spending a thousand dollars, I can cover the check

The new legislation regarding proposed background checks places the determination of fees on the AG. Many proponents of gun control who hold elected office want this to be as sky high as possible in order to deter people from buying firearms. Do you think a pro gun control AG would set the fee at 40$ or 400$?

I think they should put an amendment on the bill that couples the fee for firearms with the fee for voter registration. If you are going to start charging people to exercise a right why not use it as a revenue stream and apply it to the excersising of as many rights as possible?


I was not aware of that.  I'm in PA, so the fee will either be low or the AG will be gone.
 
2013-03-29 01:53:06 PM  

Mikey1969: cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: Ahhh, the "no answer" route. We know it well around here.

Oh, but you sure do "understand" about gun

No, it's inconvenient to your position, that Lanza and other mass shooters choose assault rifles over Ruger Mini-14s. Why do you think they do that?

No reason not to. They both accept the same magazine and fire the same ammo. There is nothing special about the AR-15 that the Mini-14 doesn't have. Fun fact: The A-Team used Mini-14's in their show, not AR-15s, all you do is put in the bigger mag, which the gun will come with.


Can you explain to me why the Ruger Mini-14 isn't used by any military in the world? I mean, it's not any more lethal, right?
 
2013-03-29 01:54:16 PM  

o5iiawah: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?

These guys liked them pretty well.

[img2.timeinc.net image 220x300][timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com image 200x300][static.guim.co.uk image 200x300][www.gannett-cdn.com image 215x300]

Add those guys together and you get an average month in Chicago....
Sensationalism works.


Is the topic about handguns now? You don't see many people walking around the streets of any city with an AR-15...
 
2013-03-29 01:55:44 PM  
politix.topix.com
Murder Weapons

Well, obviously, we should start banning AR-15's, which are a small subset of Rifles.  Durr.
 
2013-03-29 01:56:28 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: o5iiawah: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?

These guys liked them pretty well.

[img2.timeinc.net image 220x300][timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com image 200x300][static.guim.co.uk image 200x300][www.gannett-cdn.com image 215x300]

Add those guys together and you get an average month in Chicago....
Sensationalism works.

So what I'm getting from this thread is that there should be tighter regulations on handguns and universal background checks?

Sold.


Or you could enforce the laws you already have, enact harsher sentences for peopele who use guns in crimes, prosecute people who are unable to obtain a firearm and try to do so anyway.  or you know...what the NRA has been crowing for for decades.

Gangbangers buy guns out of car trunks.  That is already illegal
Making straw purchases for someone who is unable to legally obtain a firearm is already illegal

Making it double-plus illegal doesn't solve the problem.
 
2013-03-29 01:56:45 PM  

Giltric: No they do not fail. It is a rarity that a 10, 20 or 30 round magazine fails. The rate of failure is so insignificant that the odd failure can be thrown out like a low olympic score when tallying the average.

If you limit citizens to a 10 round magazine with the theory that a victim (those not shot and laying on the ground mortally wounded) will rush their spree killing attacker when the attacker changes magazines would that theory not apply to a pair of criminals who is breaking into someones home? Do you also think criminals will get rid of their 20 or 30 round magazines because the law states they can only use a 10 round magazine?

Odds are the criminal has broken into numerous houses before, where as the victim will be defending their life and home for the first time. (this has to do with stress and adrenaline and experience...courage under fire so to speak)


One of the Columbine guys used a 10-round magazine. Didn't seem to help the victims that he had to keep reloading, and I don't think that limiting him to 10 rounds produced less victims.
 
2013-03-29 01:57:30 PM  

Mikey1969: Chummer45: Mikey1969: The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

Interesting how the stuff he does is far more level headed than the Left pushes for. He really is trying to be a bipartisan President, it would seem. None of these are a bad thing, as I see it.


That is the craziest thing about it.  Does anyone seriously contend that those three items are bad things?

Oh wait, I forgot.  We're dealing with the gun-crazy right, who view any attempt to "discriminate against guns" (a.k.a., inanimate objects designed to kill things) as a full-frontal assault on liberty and the constitution itself.

I think a large portion of the "gun-crazy right" are like me(Not a Rightie or a Leftie), and just tired of people with no idea what they are talking about trying to dictate laws. I know that's my problem. People who wouldn't know a "barrel shroud" from a sling trying to make the things illegal.



I don't think the problem is that lawmakers don't understand how guns work.  I think that fundamentally, the gun rights crowd believes that any attempt to regulate/ban certain types of weapons or accessories is inherently arbitrary and will not do anything to stop gun violence.

Primarily, I see the "OMG YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT GUNS" line of argument as an utterly disingenuous way to divert attention away from constructive conversation.  The way it plays out is this:

person A: we should regulate/ban (something relating to guns)

person B: OMG! That is such a bad idea because because XYZ. You have no idea about how guns work.  Did you know that a semiautomatic AR-15 is the exact same thing in every way as a mini-14, because they use the same caliber round?  You  didn't?  Well, you shouldn't be talking about passing laws on subjects that you know nothing about.

person A: Yeah, except an AR-15 is significantly different from a mini-14 in shouldering, maneuverability, weight, accessories, etc.  But in any event, we should probably ban them both, or at least limit magazine sizes, because gun violence (and horrific mass shootings in particular) are a big problem in America.

Person B:  You just want to ban all guns and empower criminals, and you don't even understand anything about guns.  This is just tyranny by overly emotional, ignorant people like you who want to rob me of my essential liberty based on arbitrary things!  *Person B runs down to the gun store, buys a new AR and ammo, and the gun/ammo manufacturers (patrons of the NRA) say "CHA-CHING!!!!"*
   
Really, Person A's response should have been "ok first, what you are saying is disingenuous.  But assuming that it is true for the sake of argument, please enlighten me - whatgun regulations do you think ARE reasonable, if any?"

At the end of the day you will find that either (1) the gun rights person supports many reasonable gun restrictions, or (2) the guns rights person absolutely opposes any gun regulation whatsoever, so it is pointless to even try to have a reasonable discussion with them.

These tactics are largely how the NRA is so successful.  It has convinced its members that anyone that supports any new/tighter gun regulations are ignorant "gun control activists," who know nothing about guns, have irrational fears about them, and at the end of the day anything they propose is to further their ultimate goal of banning guns altogether.   That's why these threads always devolve into a trolling/shouting match instead of a discussion about how we can have reasonable gun regulation in this country.
 
2013-03-29 01:58:10 PM  

Silly Jesus: [politix.topix.com image 514x385]
Murder Weapons

Well, obviously, we should start banning AR-15's, which are a small subset of Rifles.  Durr.


Ok - lets enact much stricter handgun regulations, then.  Are you open to that?
 
2013-03-29 01:59:38 PM  

o5iiawah: Or you could enforce the laws you already have,


Okay, what laws that we already have prevent someone from buying a gun from a friend without a background check?

I'll wait while you look it up.
 
2013-03-29 01:59:40 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Can you explain to me why the Ruger Mini-14 isn't used by any military in the world? I mean, it's not any more lethal, right?


Well, the Mini-14 is based somewhat on the M14 design, which was in turn based on the M1 design. The M1 and M14 were extremely popular military rifles in the US and elsewhere for many years. There's no particular reason why it wouldn't be suitable for military use, if they decided to use it. The AR-type rifles tend to be somewhat more rugged, though, which probably makes a bit of a difference.

That said, Mini-14s are fairly common among police departments and prison officers in the US -- Ruger tends to offer really good pricing for such groups. They're also used by the military of Honduras and Bermuda, as well as various international police and tactical units..
 
2013-03-29 02:01:10 PM  

Mikey1969: whidbey: This is a common tactic: bully anyone who calls for regulation by stating that "you don't know about Part XC359BR so you're unqualified to discuss the subject. The end."

Bullshiat, dude.

Look, if you don't know about  Part XC359BR, what makes you THINK that you're qualified to discuss making a law to ban it? I don't understand why people can't grasp this part of the equation. WHy make laws and call for laws on something that you don't even understand the function of?


We understand what firearms do.  If we are in doubt, we solicit expert advice.  Continuing the inane head game of "you liberals don't even know the most intimate detail of what a gun does" is total bullshiat.

And rather than address that, your tactic is to make me repeat the obvious.
 
2013-03-29 02:01:50 PM  
libertyendanger.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-29 02:01:56 PM  

heypete: cameroncrazy1984: Can you explain to me why the Ruger Mini-14 isn't used by any military in the world? I mean, it's not any more lethal, right?

Well, the Mini-14 is based somewhat on the M14 design, which was in turn based on the M1 design. The M1 and M14 were extremely popular military rifles in the US and elsewhere for many years. There's no particular reason why it wouldn't be suitable for military use, if they decided to use it. The AR-type rifles tend to be somewhat more rugged, though, which probably makes a bit of a difference.

That said, Mini-14s are fairly common among police departments and prison officers in the US -- Ruger tends to offer really good pricing for such groups. They're also used by the military of Honduras and Bermuda, as well as various international police and tactical units..


Anyway, the point is that the AR-15 is far more durable, reliable, expandable, upgradeable and accurate than the Ruger Mini-14. That's the point.
 
2013-03-29 02:02:44 PM  

Giltric: whidbey: Giltric: Why should I help you restrict my rights? Why should I compromise with those who wish for nothing other than total disarmament? After I compromise on this piece of legislation what will you want me to compromise with when they seek to further restrict firearms and their ownership?

You're welcome to show how anything in TFA or the President's plan calls for "total disarmament."

I've given you a lot of chances, Giltic. Why am I still doing this?


Sorry Whidbey there are a few of us in this thread who are having a conversation. If you would like to report us for discussing something other than the specifities of the article go right ahead. I already have you pegged as someone willing to "name names" anyway.


This isn't a private forum.  Address the part in bold as you were asked to do.
 
2013-03-29 02:02:54 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Can you explain to me why the Ruger Mini-14 isn't used by any military in the world? I mean, it's not any more lethal, right?


Its used by police departments and patrol forces the world over.  From a tactical perspective, the AR-15 is more customisable which makes it preferable to the Mini if you're looking for using it for a specific/niche application.  Thats not to say you cant sporterize a mini-14 or do it up tactically as well.

Why do people choose a ford F-150 over a toyota tundra?  Brand recognition? cosmetic features? appearance?
 
2013-03-29 02:03:01 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: Ahhh, the "no answer" route. We know it well around here.

Oh, but you sure do "understand" about gun

No, it's inconvenient to your position, that Lanza and other mass shooters choose assault rifles over Ruger Mini-14s. Why do you think they do that?

No reason not to. They both accept the same magazine and fire the same ammo. There is nothing special about the AR-15 that the Mini-14 doesn't have. Fun fact: The A-Team used Mini-14's in their show, not AR-15s, all you do is put in the bigger mag, which the gun will come with.

Can you explain to me why the Ruger Mini-14 isn't used by any military in the world? I mean, it's not any more lethal, right?


For the same reasons that they don't use an AR-15. BECAUSE THEY AREN'T MILITARY WEAPONS.

See what I mean about you not knowing what you're talking about?
 
2013-03-29 02:03:56 PM  

Chummer45: Silly Jesus: [politix.topix.com image 514x385]
Murder Weapons

Well, obviously, we should start banning AR-15's, which are a small subset of Rifles.  Durr.

Ok - lets enact much stricter handgun regulations, then.  Are you open to that?


I'm open to enforcing the laws we already have.  Lock up all the felons in Chicago caught with a gun for 30 years and we'll be well on our way to a better society.
 
2013-03-29 02:05:08 PM  

heypete: cameroncrazy1984: Can you explain to me why the Ruger Mini-14 isn't used by any military in the world? I mean, it's not any more lethal, right?

Well, the Mini-14 is based somewhat on the M14 design, which was in turn based on the M1 design. The M1 and M14 were extremely popular military rifles in the US and elsewhere for many years. There's no particular reason why it wouldn't be suitable for military use, if they decided to use it. The AR-type rifles tend to be somewhat more rugged, though, which probably makes a bit of a difference.

That said, Mini-14s are fairly common among police departments and prison officers in the US -- Ruger tends to offer really good pricing for such groups. They're also used by the military of Honduras and Bermuda, as well as various international police and tactical units..



What is the point of this conversation?  They're similar, but different rifles.  And generally speaking, modern militaries prefer the AR-15 variant for a number of reasons.

What's the point of this discussion?  Oh yeah - "if two rifles are semiautomatic with detachable box magazines and in the same caliber, they are EXACTLY THE SAME IN EVERY WAY.  therefore, any attempt to regulate or restrict assault weapons is completely pointless."

You guys are just having a back and forth where one guy just keeps falling back on a false premise.
 
2013-03-29 02:05:31 PM  

o5iiawah: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?

These guys liked them pretty well.

[img2.timeinc.net image 220x300][timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com image 200x300][static.guim.co.uk image 200x300][www.gannett-cdn.com image 215x300]

Add those guys together and you get an average month in Chicago....
Sensationalism works.


No, but desensitization apparently worked on you a long time ago if you're really that willing to dismiss gun violence as a numbers game.
 
2013-03-29 02:06:13 PM  

Mikey1969: One of the Columbine guys used a 10-round magazine. Didn't seem to help the victims that he had to keep reloading, and I don't think that limiting him to 10 rounds produced less victims.


Eight.
 
2013-03-29 02:07:10 PM  

mpirooz: o5iiawah: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?

These guys liked them pretty well.

[img2.timeinc.net image 220x300][timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com image 200x300][static.guim.co.uk image 200x300][www.gannett-cdn.com image 215x300]

Add those guys together and you get an average month in Chicago....
Sensationalism works.

Is the topic about handguns now? You don't see many people walking around the streets of any city with an AR-15...


Oh........ *snap*
 
2013-03-29 02:07:45 PM  

Silly Jesus: Chummer45: Silly Jesus: [politix.topix.com image 514x385]
Murder Weapons

Well, obviously, we should start banning AR-15's, which are a small subset of Rifles.  Durr.

Ok - lets enact much stricter handgun regulations, then.  Are you open to that?

I'm open to enforcing the laws we already have.  Lock up all the felons in Chicago caught with a gun for 30 years and we'll be well on our way to a better society.



That may be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
 
2013-03-29 02:08:32 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Anyway, the point is that the AR-15 is far more durable, reliable, expandable, upgradeable and accurate than the Ruger Mini-14. That's the point.


They're actually fairly comparable in regards to durability and reliability, though the AR does have the dust cover that can be snapped shut over the ejection port to prevent dirt and stuff from getting into the action. ARs tend to be somewhat easier to maintain, which is an advantage.

In terms of accuracy, the AR does have a bit of an edge: in general they have heavier barrels that are a bit less flexible when warm (though one can buy "pencil" barrels which are thinner and lighter).

The AR definitely has the advantage when it comes to expandability and upgradeability. That's one of the big reasons why AR-pattern rifles are so popular. Sure, there's some accessories and options for the Mini, and you can get certain models or aftermarket stocks that have standard mounting rails for stuff like scopes and lights, but a lot of the major customizations (like swapping calibers) are much easier on the AR.

Most of the M16/M4s in the military are pretty bog-standard. When I was in the army we had red-dot sights and a laser designator, both of which could easily be affixed to a Mini-14.
 
2013-03-29 02:08:54 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Okay, what laws that we already have prevent someone from buying a gun from a friend without a background check?

I'll wait while you look it up.


http://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/psn/documents/guncard.pdf

Like I said, it is already illegal to give, sell or make a straw purchase for a felon.
 
2013-03-29 02:09:15 PM  

Silly Jesus: [libertyendanger.files.wordpress.com image 850x479]


so, basically like putting a spoiler and body kit on a honda civic.
 
2013-03-29 02:11:05 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mikey1969: One of the Columbine guys used a 10-round magazine. Didn't seem to help the victims that he had to keep reloading, and I don't think that limiting him to 10 rounds produced less victims.

Eight.


I would be fine with strict registration requirements for all semiautomatic firearms, with stricter, universal background checks, waiting periods, and storage requirements.  And I own about a dozen guns.

Seriously, what's so bad about my suggestions?  Why shouldn't gun owners have to be accountable for the dangerous weapons that they own?  Why should it be so damn easy to own and transfer a gun, with so little oversight?
 
2013-03-29 02:11:26 PM  

whidbey: No, but desensitization apparently worked on you a long time ago if you're really that willing to dismiss gun violence as a numbers game.


If you genuinely thought gun violence was a problem, your first priority would be the half a dozen counties that account for 70% of the gun murders in this country with 70% of those firearms being handguns.
 
2013-03-29 02:11:53 PM  

Chummer45: Silly Jesus: Chummer45: Silly Jesus: [politix.topix.com image 514x385]
Murder Weapons

Well, obviously, we should start banning AR-15's, which are a small subset of Rifles.  Durr.

Ok - lets enact much stricter handgun regulations, then.  Are you open to that?

I'm open to enforcing the laws we already have.  Lock up all the felons in Chicago caught with a gun for 30 years and we'll be well on our way to a better society.


That may be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.


Which part?  Enforcing existing laws or removing repeat felons from society?
 
2013-03-29 02:14:03 PM  

Chummer45: What's the point of this discussion? Oh yeah - "if two rifles are semiautomatic with detachable box magazines and in the same caliber, they are EXACTLY THE SAME IN EVERY WAY. therefore, any attempt to regulate or restrict assault weapons is completely pointless."


Basically, yeah.

Do the two rifles differ in certain ways? Sure, but these differences don't have any bearing on how deadly or dangerous one is compared to the other -- if they were put behind a screen and fired there would be essentially no way to differentiate between the two based on what effect they caused.

Trying to define one as a "normal rifle" and one as an "assault weapon" doesn't really make sense.

Considering that ARs are the most common rifle in the country and are used in only the tiniest fraction of crimes, restricting such guns likely would have the slightest effect. Focusing on "assault weapons" is a red herring and distracts from more meaningful action.
 
2013-03-29 02:14:07 PM  

Chummer45: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mikey1969: One of the Columbine guys used a 10-round magazine. Didn't seem to help the victims that he had to keep reloading, and I don't think that limiting him to 10 rounds produced less victims.

Eight.

I would be fine with strict registration requirements for all semiautomatic firearms, with stricter, universal background checks, waiting periods, and storage requirements.  And I own about a dozen guns.

Seriously, what's so bad about my suggestions?  Why shouldn't gun owners have to be accountable for the dangerous weapons that they own?  Why should it be so damn easy to own and transfer a gun, with so little oversight?


Because criminals won't follow those rules.  You're just making it more difficult for law abiding gun owners to give a gift to their son / father etc. while felons are still buying guns out of the trunks of cars on the streets in Chicago.
 
2013-03-29 02:14:46 PM  

Chummer45: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mikey1969: One of the Columbine guys used a 10-round magazine. Didn't seem to help the victims that he had to keep reloading, and I don't think that limiting him to 10 rounds produced less victims.

Eight.

I would be fine with strict registration requirements for all semiautomatic firearms, with stricter, universal background checks, waiting periods, and storage requirements.  And I own about a dozen guns.

Seriously, what's so bad about my suggestions?  Why shouldn't gun owners have to be accountable for the dangerous weapons that they own?  Why should it be so damn easy to own and transfer a gun, with so little oversight?


Most gun owners have similar opinions. It's the manufacturers' shills and their dupes making all the fuss.
 
2013-03-29 02:15:10 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: No, but desensitization apparently worked on you a long time ago if you're really that willing to dismiss gun violence as a numbers game.

If you genuinely thought gun violence was a problem, your first priority would be the half a dozen counties that account for 70% of the gun murders in this country with 70% of those firearms being handguns.


But those are just blah people.  These mass shootings kill mostly whites.  Wait, is the left racist?  OMG NAZIS!!!!
 
2013-03-29 02:15:14 PM  

heypete: Considering that ARs are the most common rifle in the country and are used in only the tiniest fraction of crimes, restricting such guns likely would have the slightest effect. Focusing on "assault weapons" is a red herring and distracts from more meaningful action.


whidbey would say you are desensitized and treating gun violence like a "Numbers game"
 
2013-03-29 02:16:29 PM  

Silly Jesus: But those are just blah people.  These mass shootings kill mostly whites.  Wait, is the left racist?  OMG NAZIS!!!!


If I had a son, He would look like some of the kids killed at Sandy Hook.
 
2013-03-29 02:17:14 PM  

Silly Jesus: Chummer45: Silly Jesus: Chummer45: Silly Jesus: [politix.topix.com image 514x385]
Murder Weapons

Well, obviously, we should start banning AR-15's, which are a small subset of Rifles.  Durr.

Ok - lets enact much stricter handgun regulations, then.  Are you open to that?

I'm open to enforcing the laws we already have.  Lock up all the felons in Chicago caught with a gun for 30 years and we'll be well on our way to a better society.


That may be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Which part?  Enforcing existing laws or removing repeat felons from society?



It's dumb because it does nothing to address the problem.   Felons are already locked up for possession of firearms.  Putting them in jail, except now forever, just further increases the burden on our prison system.    And "enforcing existing laws" is just a meaningless copout to make it sound like (1) our current laws are sufficient, and (2) you actually support some form of regulation.

I guess I would take the "lets enforce existing laws" argument more seriously if it wasn't the primary argument made by the NRA while, at the same time, it actively lobbies to weaken/eliminate existing regulations.
 
2013-03-29 02:18:11 PM  

Chummer45: At the end of the day you will find that either (1) the gun rights person supports many reasonable gun restrictions, or (2) the guns rights person absolutely opposes any gun regulation whatsoever, so it is pointless to even try to have a reasonable discussion with them.

These tactics are largely how the NRA is so successful.  It has convinced its members that anyone that supports any new/tighter gun regulations are ignorant "gun control activists," who know nothing about guns, have irrational fears about them, and at the end of the day anything they propose is to further their ultimate goal of banning guns altogether.   That's why these threads always devolve into a trolling/shouting match instead of a discussion about how we can have reasonable gun regulation in this country.


Like I said, my problem is with the people who don't know the functuional reasons for things wanting to enact bans because the item sounds scary, or because someone told them it was. What happens in the long run, is that things that have no business being on the list are banned because of some similarity, while things that are far more dangerous are considered fine, usually because of a wooden stock. Seriously, when people hold up a "I will allow this, but I won't allow this" picture, they will quite often pick items that are almost identical(Such as the AR-15/Mini 14 comparison), except for all of the scary looking black things on the "banned" gun. I keep trying to use this as an example, but living in Utah, I have first hand knowledge of what happens when people who abstain from something decide that they are qualified to write laws regarding it. Seriously, people run for liquor board positions here based solely on the fact that they DON'T drink. As a result, we have laws here that say that restaurants have to pour drinks in a separate room from the rest of the restaurant, because kids might "see the colorful drinks being mixed and become alcoholics".
 
2013-03-29 02:18:53 PM  

heypete: Chummer45: What's the point of this discussion? Oh yeah - "if two rifles are semiautomatic with detachable box magazines and in the same caliber, they are EXACTLY THE SAME IN EVERY WAY. therefore, any attempt to regulate or restrict assault weapons is completely pointless."

Basically, yeah.

Do the two rifles differ in certain ways? Sure, but these differences don't have any bearing on how deadly or dangerous one is compared to the other -- if they were put behind a screen and fired there would be essentially no way to differentiate between the two based on what effect they caused.

Trying to define one as a "normal rifle" and one as an "assault weapon" doesn't really make sense.

Considering that ARs are the most common rifle in the country and are used in only the tiniest fraction of crimes, restricting such guns likely would have the slightest effect. Focusing on "assault weapons" is a red herring and distracts from more meaningful action.


So what's the harm in restricting assault weapons?  Oh that's right, hobbyists and those guys who insist that they love hunting with ARs will be upset.   Well, I guess we'll just have to keep enduring mass shootings because some guys don't want their hobby interfered with.
 
2013-03-29 02:20:42 PM  

Chummer45: So what's the harm in restricting assault weapons


The civilian-variant AR-15 is not an assault weapon.  You dont even know what you're trying to ban.  Just point to the scary picture of the gun and tell us which part scares you the most.
 
2013-03-29 02:21:42 PM  

Mikey1969: Chummer45: At the end of the day you will find that either (1) the gun rights person supports many reasonable gun restrictions, or (2) the guns rights person absolutely opposes any gun regulation whatsoever, so it is pointless to even try to have a reasonable discussion with them.

These tactics are largely how the NRA is so successful.  It has convinced its members that anyone that supports any new/tighter gun regulations are ignorant "gun control activists," who know nothing about guns, have irrational fears about them, and at the end of the day anything they propose is to further their ultimate goal of banning guns altogether.   That's why these threads always devolve into a trolling/shouting match instead of a discussion about how we can have reasonable gun regulation in this country.

Like I said, my problem is with the people who don't know the functuional reasons for things wanting to enact bans because the item sounds scary, or because someone told them it was. What happens in the long run, is that things that have no business being on the list are banned because of some similarity, while things that are far more dangerous are considered fine, usually because of a wooden stock. Seriously, when people hold up a "I will allow this, but I won't allow this" picture, they will quite often pick items that are almost identical(Such as the AR-15/Mini 14 comparison), except for all of the scary looking black things on the "banned" gun. I keep trying to use this as an example, but living in Utah, I have first hand knowledge of what happens when people who abstain from something decide that they are qualified to write laws regarding it. Seriously, people run for liquor board positions here based solely on the fact that they DON'T drink. As a result, we have laws here that say that restaurants have to pour drinks in a separate room from the rest of the restaurant, because kids might "see the colorful drinks being mixed and become alcoholics".



It sounds like you just don't like the idea of banning assault rifles.  I disagree, but that's ok.  How about registration requirements?  The thing that drives me nuts is the knee jerk reaction from fellow gun owners  that any regulation is "gun control," and is therefore bad/nefarious/tyrannical.  I think that owning firearms is a great responsibility, and that it's pretty absurd how loosely regulated gun ownership is in this country.
 
2013-03-29 02:22:20 PM  

o5iiawah: Chummer45: So what's the harm in restricting assault weapons

The civilian-variant AR-15 is not an assault weapon.  You dont even know what you're trying to ban.  Just point to the scary picture of the gun and tell us which part scares you the most.



Thank you for proving my point.
 
2013-03-29 02:22:31 PM  

whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: This is a common tactic: bully anyone who calls for regulation by stating that "you don't know about Part XC359BR so you're unqualified to discuss the subject. The end."

Bullshiat, dude.

Look, if you don't know about  Part XC359BR, what makes you THINK that you're qualified to discuss making a law to ban it? I don't understand why people can't grasp this part of the equation. WHy make laws and call for laws on something that you don't even understand the function of?

We understand what firearms do.  If we are in doubt, we solicit expert advice.  Continuing the inane head game of "you liberals don't even know the most intimate detail of what a gun does" is total bullshiat.

And rather than address that, your tactic is to make me repeat the obvious.



You don't understand how they work, though.

And your "expert advice" is apparently pretty weak.

We don't want "intimate details". We want people to quit trying to ban shiat that they don't understand, because you get it wrong. Every. Farking. Time.
 
2013-03-29 02:23:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: So you have no answers and would like to change the subject?

I thought you knew about guns?

I do know about guns. Why do you think Lanza picked up an AR-15 and not the hunting rifle? It's a legitimate question. if one is no more lethal than the other, why did he pick it? Why does no army in the world use a Ruger Mini-14?


i.imgur.com

So does the The Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité , and in Honduras, and some south american military units.
 
2013-03-29 02:23:38 PM  

Chummer45: heypete: Chummer45: What's the point of this discussion? Oh yeah - "if two rifles are semiautomatic with detachable box magazines and in the same caliber, they are EXACTLY THE SAME IN EVERY WAY. therefore, any attempt to regulate or restrict assault weapons is completely pointless."

Basically, yeah.

Do the two rifles differ in certain ways? Sure, but these differences don't have any bearing on how deadly or dangerous one is compared to the other -- if they were put behind a screen and fired there would be essentially no way to differentiate between the two based on what effect they caused.

Trying to define one as a "normal rifle" and one as an "assault weapon" doesn't really make sense.

Considering that ARs are the most common rifle in the country and are used in only the tiniest fraction of crimes, restricting such guns likely would have the slightest effect. Focusing on "assault weapons" is a red herring and distracts from more meaningful action.

So what's the harm in restricting assault weapons?  Oh that's right, hobbyists and those guys who insist that they love hunting with ARs will be upset.   Well, I guess we'll just have to keep enduring mass shootings because some guys don't want their hobby interfered with.


Which mass shootings would the proposed restrictions have prevented?
 
2013-03-29 02:24:39 PM  

Chummer45: I would be fine with strict registration requirements for all semiautomatic firearms, with stricter, universal background checks, waiting periods, and storage requirements. And I own about a dozen guns.

Seriously, what's so bad about my suggestions?


There's nothing really "bad" about them, except from the part that there's no evidence to show that they're effective at reducing violent outcomes.

The federal AWB lasted from 1994-2004. It had no meaningful effect on violent crime, and there are fewer crimes committed with "assault weapons" today than during the ban even though the number of such guns owned by the public have increased dramatically.

Most people don't have a problem with background checks, but the devil's in the details. Sen. Schumer's proposed "universal background check" bill (S.374) has serious flaws which I mentioned above and criminalizes people for common, harmless actions unrelated to transferring ownership of a gun to someone else. A responsible gun owner should oppose such a flawed bill. The existing background check system needs improvements, like having states report more standardized data. Of course, the background checks are fairly useless when criminals can and will sell guns illegally (just like they currently do).

There's no evidence to show that waiting periods have any meaningful effect on violent outcomes -- several states have waiting periods and such waiting periods didn't have any significant effect on violent outcomes. Same thing with storage requirements: I agree that safe storage is important, but there's no evidence showing that laws mandating safe storage have any real effect.

In the end, though, it's projects like Defense Distributed that make such policies fairly useless in the long run: the tech is already here to easily and anonymously make AR lower receivers and magazines and the tech is only going to get better and cheaper with time. Anyone who wants such a thing can make one in the privacy of their own home. Traditional gun control is based on the assumption that guns and parts like magazines are built in factories which can be regulated and sold through channels which can be regulated. If you can make a gun in your own home without anyone knowing, such laws aren't really meaningful anymore.
 
2013-03-29 02:24:50 PM  

Giltric: Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC. My wife collects sewing machines. She has about 20 of them, but all but one are antiques.  I can understand having a collection of antique firearms, but many of these nuts have collections of modern guns. Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing? If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.

Handgun for CCW, Shotgun for duck and geese, 45-70 lever action for nosy bears while huniting moose and elk with my .308. .22 for targets and gophers and rabbits, .223 for coyotes and prarie dogs....

A .22 won't work against a moose, and a 45-70 won't leave much of a rabbit left to cook for dinner.

A more important question is why can't they standardize screw heads? Why do I need a standard, a philips, a torx, an allen head etc....just to work on my truck?


I would tell you, but it requires a specialized tool....
 
2013-03-29 02:25:08 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?

These guys liked them pretty well.

[img2.timeinc.net image 220x300][timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com image 200x300][static.guim.co.uk image 200x300][www.gannett-cdn.com image 215x300]


Who are #2 and #4?
 
2013-03-29 02:25:29 PM  

Chummer45: How about registration requirements?


Would registration requirements have prevented any of the aforementioned spree shootings? hampered?  stopped? slowed?  anything?  Bueller??
 
2013-03-29 02:26:25 PM  

Chummer45: o5iiawah: Chummer45: So what's the harm in restricting assault weapons

The civilian-variant AR-15 is not an assault weapon.  You dont even know what you're trying to ban.  Just point to the scary picture of the gun and tell us which part scares you the most.


Thank you for proving my point.


What point? Was your point that you don't know what you're talking about? Because if it was, then you're right, he totally proved that.
 
2013-03-29 02:30:03 PM  

Chummer45: So what's the harm in restricting assault weapons? Oh that's right, hobbyists and those guys who insist that they love hunting with ARs will be upset. Well, I guess we'll just have to keep enduring mass shootings because some guys don't want their hobby interfered with.


Your point might have some merit if so-called "assault weapons" were used in a meaningful percentage of gun crime. They're not. They're used in about 0.6% of all gun-related homicides. The vast majority of violent crime and mass shootings have involved handguns, not rifles. Restricting such guns would have essentially no effect at all on mass shootings, let alone violent crime as a whole.

So, basically, you'd be infringing on the rights of millions of law-abiding owners of such guns (the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country) for no real benefit. That seems fairly harmful to me.
 
2013-03-29 02:34:06 PM  

o5iiawah: cameroncrazy1984: Okay, what laws that we already have prevent someone from buying a gun from a friend without a background check?

I'll wait while you look it up.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/psn/documents/guncard.pdf

Like I said, it is already illegal to give, sell or make a straw purchase for a felon.


But not illegal to do so without a background check. How do you prevent someone from doing that without a background check?
 
2013-03-29 02:34:41 PM  

o5iiawah: Chummer45: So what's the harm in restricting assault weapons

The civilian-variant AR-15 is not an assault weapon.  You dont even know what you're trying to ban.  Just point to the scary picture of the gun and tell us which part scares you the most.


Yes it is. It is by definition an assault weapon. Don't believe me? Go find a dictionary.
 
2013-03-29 02:35:10 PM  
Jesus Christ.  There's a derp brigade in here ready to pounce, screaming:

1) assault weapons bans are stupid and do nothing to stop the frequency or severity of gun violence!
2) gun regulations in general do nothing to stop the frequency or severity of gun violence!
3) you don't spend all day researching guns like me, so don't even try to talk about defining what an "assault weapon" is -- it defies definition!  Trust me, I'm an expert!

Ok guys, settle the fuk down.  Part of my problem with the left is that they are focusing on assault weapons way too much.  Instead of focusing on one type of guns, they should be proposing a comprehensive, universal registration/background check system.  The U.S. has insanely high numbers of guns in private ownership.  And insanely loose gun regulations.  And much higher levels of gun violence than other developed countries that have much more restrictive gun regulations.

You guys can go on all day with your "more guns = less violence" crap.  But it's simply not true.  Go live your life, instead of sitting around prattling on about your "fundamental right" to keep a deadly weapon in your house, and the "freedom" to be irresponsible with it.

You guys like statistics, and the stats are that a gun in the home is much more likely to injure or kill a family member than a "bad guy."  Maybe it's not such a bad idea to AT LEAST regulate guns more than we regulate cars.
 
2013-03-29 02:35:22 PM  

heypete: Chummer45:

So, basically, you'd be infringing on the rights of millions of law-abiding owners of such guns (the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country) for no real benefit. That seems fairly harmful to me.


Because it's a start.

Ban the scariest ones first, then start working their way down the list.  Eventually they will get all the way down to Mosin-Nagant's and Trapdoor Springfields...
 
2013-03-29 02:36:11 PM  

Chummer45: So what's the harm in restricting assault weapons?


What's the benefit? Did you miss the part about how FEW murders int his country are even done with rifles, let alone ARs? Something like 323 murders out of 12,664 with all kinds of rifles. Did you know more people got beaten to death than killed with rifles? Beaten to death, as in hands and feet.

(2011 stats)
Knives or cutting instruments  1,694
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)  496
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)1  728

Knives, clubs and hands EACH killed more people in 2011 than all types of rifles COMBINED. More than twice as many people beaten to death than shot with a rifle. THink of that next time you think that banning so-called "assault weapons" is going to make a significant difference.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in- th e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
 
2013-03-29 02:36:18 PM  

heypete: Car_Ramrod: It seems anytime anyone even makes an attempt to fix the gun problem in our country, NRA/gun owners claim any action would be oppressing their freedom, and that everything is just fine how it is. That's obviously not true, so give us some ideas.

Well, what if one thinks that insofar as gun regulations are concerned, the status quo is fairly reasonable? Dealers are required to make background checks on purchasers (and such checks are enforceable, unlike requiring checks on private sales), machine guns and other things like explosives are heavily regulated, and guns that fire a single shot per pull of the trigger (regardless of what they look like) are legal. That seems pretty reasonable. Sure, there could be some improvements, like getting the states to send more comprehensive, uniform data to the background check system, but there's no real evidence that the proposals currently pending in Congress would have any effect on crime.

The people committing the overwhelming majority of gun-related crimes are criminals with records that prohibit them from possessing guns. Anyone transferring guns to them is also violating the law. More laws making their already-illegal actions slightly more illegal aren't really going to help.

Even with gun laws being as they are, gun sales at or near all-time highs, and the amount of guns-per-capita being at an all-time high,, gun-related homicide is at its lowest point since 1964 and has been declining since it peaked in 1980.
 
There have been a fair number of proposals from gun owners (including myself), both on Fark and elsewhere. The overall trend is "crack down on traffickers and straw purchasers of guns, end the War on (some) Drugs, provide meaningful assistance/opportunities to people in communities plagued by poverty, drug trafficking, and gangs". Healthy, stable, prosperous people are statistically very unlikely to commit crimes.

I'm of the opinion that violent crime is a symptom of a deeper problem (like poverty, ...


I just want to say, while I disagree with a few points you made, thank you for presenting it in a logical, reasonable manner. It is appreciated.
 
2013-03-29 02:36:44 PM  

Chummer45: How about registration requirements?


And what would that accomplish?

From a purely practical perspective, not much: there's ~300 million guns in the country, most of which are not registered. Even if all new guns had to be registered, it's not like the old ones would disappear. Canada abandoned their rifle/shotgun registry because it was expensive, ineffective at reducing violent outcomes, and there was only an estimated 30% compliance rate -- is there any reason to suspect that American gun owners would be more inclined to register than their Canadian counterparts?

Even if one could register all the guns in the country, what would that accomplish? Straw purchasers could certainly make few purchases over a period of time and then report them as stolen -- assuming they're not total idiots there's nothing that would implicate them as being a "high risk" buyer worthy of further investigation. Criminals could still acquire their guns through theft.

Some states require the registration of all guns or a subset (e.g. handguns). There's no real evidence that such laws have any effect on violent outcomes, as the ones who commit violence with them simply ignore the law and acquire their guns through illegal means.

Put simply, registration simply doesn't have any real positive benefit.
 
2013-03-29 02:36:59 PM  

Giltric: Car_Ramrod: Giltric: ave no idea what they're talking about in regards to guns

No, your problem is that we do understand about guns.

What makes a Mini-14 with a 30 round mag less lethal than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

What makes 4 inches of travel on a "collapsable" stock more lethal than a fixed stock firearm?

What makes a frearm more lethal in a shooting when it has a bayonet lug compared to a firearm without one?

This is exactly the shiat I was talking about in my last post. We get it, you know a shiat ton about guns. Us that to help the national conversation that needs to occur instead of trying to belittle people.


Why should I help you restrict my rights? Why should I compromise with those who wish for nothing other than total disarmament? After I compromise on this piece of legislation what will you want me to compromise with when they seek to further restrict firearms and their ownership?


So you're for no regulations at all. Cool beans.
 
2013-03-29 02:38:36 PM  

heypete: Chummer45: So what's the harm in restricting assault weapons? Oh that's right, hobbyists and those guys who insist that they love hunting with ARs will be upset. Well, I guess we'll just have to keep enduring mass shootings because some guys don't want their hobby interfered with.

Your point might have some merit if so-called "assault weapons" were used in a meaningful percentage of gun crime. They're not. They're used in about 0.6% of all gun-related homicides. The vast majority of violent crime and mass shootings have involved handguns, not rifles. Restricting such guns would have essentially no effect at all on mass shootings, let alone violent crime as a whole.

So, basically, you'd be infringing on the rights of millions of law-abiding owners of such guns (the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country) for no real benefit. That seems fairly harmful to me.



You're the one who thinks that there is "no real benefit."  Sorry I don't consider "second amendment rights" to be an incredibly sacred, fundamental right like you do.  Tough shiat.  Hey guess what?  right now a lobbyist is getting congress to pass a law by essentially bribing them with campaign contributions.  But keep focusing on guns and the possibility that you may have to endure some inconveniences in practicing your hobby.  That's a much more pressing issue.
 
2013-03-29 02:40:47 PM  

Silly Jesus: [encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 284x177]
"If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in -- I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

This might be why some people are reluctant to go along with these first steps...


Man, I hope you right wingers vigorously donate to her campaigns. Without her, where would you get all your "THEY BE TAKIN OUR GUNS!" boogeymen from? I never realized this one woman represented and controlled the government, the Democrats, or gun control advocates.

One person wants all guns to be gone, so you refuse to participate in a conversation with anyone about possible regulations. How enlightened.
 
2013-03-29 02:42:25 PM  

Chummer45: heypete: Chummer45: So what's the harm in restricting assault weapons? Oh that's right, hobbyists and those guys who insist that they love hunting with ARs will be upset. Well, I guess we'll just have to keep enduring mass shootings because some guys don't want their hobby interfered with.

Your point might have some merit if so-called "assault weapons" were used in a meaningful percentage of gun crime. They're not. They're used in about 0.6% of all gun-related homicides. The vast majority of violent crime and mass shootings have involved handguns, not rifles. Restricting such guns would have essentially no effect at all on mass shootings, let alone violent crime as a whole.

So, basically, you'd be infringing on the rights of millions of law-abiding owners of such guns (the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country) for no real benefit. That seems fairly harmful to me.


You're the one who thinks that there is "no real benefit."


Nice how you ignore the entire point.

Sorry I don't consider "second amendment rights" to be an incredibly sacred, fundamental right like you do.

Weird, they are right there next to the other amendments. Do you want to repeal the second amendment?

But keep focusing on guns and the possibility that you may have to endure some inconveniences in practicing your hobby protecting your family.  That's a much more pressing issue.
 
Yeah, my family getting killed or starving is a pretty important issue to me.
 
2013-03-29 02:44:34 PM  

Chummer45: It sounds like you just don't like the idea of banning assault rifles.  I disagree, but that's ok.  How about registration requirements?  The thing that drives me nuts is the knee jerk reaction from fellow gun owners  that any regulation is "gun control," and is therefore bad/nefarious/tyrannical.  I think that owning firearms is a great responsibility, and that it's pretty absurd how loosely regulated gun ownership is in this country.


I don't like the idea of banning things based on faulty reasoning.

Registration? Not a huge problem until they start using those lists to track people, or assholes that work at newspapers decide to publish them. It's one of the two reasons that I won't join the NRA. Not only do I not want to be on a 'list', I also think the NRA is a bunch of moronic douchebags, and I resent that they try to "represent" me. Otherwise, I just don't want recurring fees, it's not like driving where I'm basically paying for putting wear and tear on the roads. If I thought that I could trust what was done with information gathered by registering, I wouldn't really have a problem with it.
 
2013-03-29 02:45:46 PM  

Chummer45: Sorry I don't consider "second amendment rights" to be an incredibly sacred, fundamental right like you do.  Tough shiat.


Thankfully, someone considers your first-amendment rights to be incredibly sacred and fundamental, ergo you are free to post your moronic opinions
 
2013-03-29 02:45:53 PM  

Mikey1969: Not a huge problem until they start using those lists to track people, or assholes that work at newspapers decide to publish them. It's one of the two reasons that I won't join the NRA. Not only do I not want to be on a 'list


I hope you don't own a car, either. Or a bank account. Or a million other things that you're on lists with.
 
2013-03-29 02:46:08 PM  

Chummer45: And much higher levels of gun violence than other developed countries that have much more restrictive gun regulations.


Indeed, though the national statistics are skewed somewhat by outliers. There's a fair number of "hotspots" that disproportionately contribute to national statistics: Washington DC, Detroit, New Orleans, Baltimore, etc. all have dramatically higher violent crime rates than the national average. Outside of these hotspots, gun-related violent crime is often considerably lower.

Take a look here and sort by "gun murders per 100,000" population and note the Brady Campaign score in the rightmost column. (There's slightly more up-to-date data here as well.) You'll find no correlation between the amount of gun control in a particular state and the rate of gun-related homicide. States like Vermont and New Hampshire, which have nearly no gun control at all and lots of armed people, have gun-related murder rates below several other developed countries.

Statistically, the gun-related homicide rate has dropped over the last 30 years and is at its lowest rate since 1964, even though the number of guns-per-capita is at an all-time high. There appears to be very little correlation between gun ownership by law-abiding people and violent crime rates.
 
2013-03-29 02:46:11 PM  
Obama's steps began the same day he unveiled his 23 gun control proposals in January, when he issued a memorandum requiring all nine federal law enforcement agencies to submit guns they confiscate to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing.

As someone who is pretty pro-gun, let me just say:

"Oh, no, not better enforcement of existing law.  How dare he do pretty much what the pro-gun lobby has asked the government to focus on over new regulation for the past 30 years?  How dare he?"

//Seriously, though, I'm not feeling the outrage over the introduction of basic competence into a couple federal agencies, or exploratory research to see if other measures would be helpful.
//Also the phrase "more information about gun owners" is sort of misleading, as he's providing the database with more information about _illegal_ gun owners, via sharing mental health records where applicable state laws apply and actually tracing recovered crime guns.  The database isn't getting any extra info about, say, me.
 
2013-03-29 02:47:10 PM  

Car_Ramrod: One person wants all guns to be gone, so you refuse to participate in a conversation with anyone about possible regulations. How enlightened.


Because nobody can demonstrate how any potential new rule or regulation would have prevented previous crimes or how they might curtail future crimes.
 
2013-03-29 02:47:44 PM  

Car_Ramrod: I just want to say, while I disagree with a few points you made, thank you for presenting it in a logical, reasonable manner. It is appreciated.


Thanks. :)

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I do enjoy civil discussion.
 
2013-03-29 02:48:03 PM  

Giltric: A more important question is why can't they standardize screw heads? Why do I need a standard, a philips, a torx, an allen head etc....just to work on my truck?


Because auto manufacturers are scared of the superior Torx screws... What's truly more annoying than that is when you have a vehicle from a transition period and there is a mix of SAE and metric bolts and nuts on it. I can deal with the different screw heads(Although whoever puts a product out with slotted heads on it should be shot), it's the mix and match between standards that frustrates me.
 
2013-03-29 02:50:07 PM  

o5iiawah: Car_Ramrod: One person wants all guns to be gone, so you refuse to participate in a conversation with anyone about possible regulations. How enlightened.

Because nobody can demonstrate how any potential new rule or regulation would have prevented previous crimes or how they might curtail future crimes.


So rules and regulations right now are perfect? They eliminate gun-related crime as much as humanly possibly? There's nothing else that can be done?
 
2013-03-29 02:50:07 PM  

heypete: Chummer45: So what's the harm in restricting assault weapons? Oh that's right, hobbyists and those guys who insist that they love hunting with ARs will be upset. Well, I guess we'll just have to keep enduring mass shootings because some guys don't want their hobby interfered with.

Your point might have some merit if so-called "assault weapons" were used in a meaningful percentage of gun crime. They're not. They're used in about 0.6% of all gun-related homicides. The vast majority of violent crime and mass shootings have involved handguns, not rifles. Restricting such guns would have essentially no effect at all on mass shootings, let alone violent crime as a whole.

So, basically, you'd be infringing on the rights of millions of law-abiding owners of such guns (the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country) for no real benefit. That seems fairly harmful to me.


More people are stabbed, beaten and clubbed to death than are shot with rifles. Amazing that this keeps getting ignored.
 
2013-03-29 02:50:41 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Silly Jesus: [encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 284x177]
"If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in -- I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

This might be why some people are reluctant to go along with these first steps...

Man, I hope you right wingers vigorously donate to her campaigns. Without her, where would you get all your "THEY BE TAKIN OUR GUNS!" boogeymen from? I never realized this one woman represented and controlled the government, the Democrats, or gun control advocates.

One person wants all guns to be gone, so you refuse to participate in a conversation with anyone about possible regulations. How enlightened.



That's the product of the ridiculous NRA propaganda.  To them, anyone suggesting "gun control" means that the government is on the precipice of banning and confiscating everyone's guns.  The less gun regulations, the better, no matter how common-sense they are.

Why can't you have a reasonable discussion with an NRA-style "gun rights" person?  Because it's "us versus them," and there's no middle ground.  That's why NRA members tend to ignore the fact that the NRA actively lobbies to undermine existing regulations, no matter how common sense.  At the end of the day, the NRA is an industry lobbying group.  Think of it like you would the Koch brothers.  Less regulations = more gun sales/higher profits for the gun industry, in the same way that less environmental regulations = higher profits for the oil and gas industry.

And the NRA's strategy works beautifully.  It gets to use its huge membership to pressure lawmakers to loosen gun regulations for the benefit of the industry, while scaring the bejeezus out of its members so they run out and buy guns anytime a politician introduces a gun control bill.

I went to the range a couple weeks ago, and they were sold out of 9mm ammo.  Effing sold out of one of the most common calibers, because people who have read one too many "they're coming for our guns!" articles rushed out after newton and bought it all up.

You guys are pawns in the NRA's game.
 
2013-03-29 02:51:37 PM  

Chummer45: Hey guess what?  right now a lobbyist is getting congress to pass a law by essentially bribing them with campaign contributions.


That's been going on since lobbying became a 'thing', do you have a point?
 
2013-03-29 02:52:47 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: Not a huge problem until they start using those lists to track people, or assholes that work at newspapers decide to publish them. It's one of the two reasons that I won't join the NRA. Not only do I not want to be on a 'list

I hope you don't own a car, either. Or a bank account. Or a million other things that you're on lists with.


Yeah, because newspapers like to publish lists of every car owner or bank account holder in their city.

Thanks though, I didn't think you'd get the point, and you just won me $20.
 
2013-03-29 02:54:28 PM  

Mikey1969: cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: Not a huge problem until they start using those lists to track people, or assholes that work at newspapers decide to publish them. It's one of the two reasons that I won't join the NRA. Not only do I not want to be on a 'list

I hope you don't own a car, either. Or a bank account. Or a million other things that you're on lists with.

Yeah, because newspapers like to publish lists of every car owner or bank account holder in their city.

Thanks though, I didn't think you'd get the point, and you just won me $20.


img844.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-29 02:57:14 PM  

Chummer45: You're the one who thinks that there is "no real benefit."


Yes, because no benefit has been shown. There's plenty of evidence, both within the US and without, that registration has no real effect on crime. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

Sorry I don't consider "second amendment rights" to be an incredibly sacred, fundamental right like you do. Tough shiat.

Congratulations?

Hey guess what? right now a lobbyist is getting congress to pass a law by essentially bribing them with campaign contributions. But keep focusing on guns and the possibility that you may have to endure some inconveniences in practicing your hobby. That's a much more pressing issue.

You assume, incorrectly in this case, that I'm a single-issue guy and focus solely on gun rights. While there's little I can do in a practical sense to prevent the lobbyists from doing what they do, I've written several letters to my Congressmen over the last few years expressing my displeasure with such a situation and urging them to reform policies related to lobbying. It's not much, but what else can I do?

I'm a big fan of all rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. Some of my major focuses are on free speech, communications privacy, and religious freedom (mostly the "freedom from religion" aspect, as I'm not religious and dislike seeing religions having such influence over government) -- I'm a long-time member of the ACLU and EFF and contribute regularly to other organizations that advocate for similar positions. I also value my right to keep and bear arms, and like all rights, am quite interested in protecting it from being restricted.
 
2013-03-29 03:02:28 PM  

Mugato: Yeah, God forbid we have actual background checks to enforce the laws we already have about people trying to buy guns who are actual felons and actual psychos.

These gun nuts wouldn't be so obnoxious if they just admitted that they like to play with their toys and would drop the pretense that the second amendment is still about keeping the government from getting out of control with the threat of armed insurrection.



Just let me handcuff you to the bed, already.

I'm not going to rape you, I promise.

Sheesh!
 
2013-03-29 03:03:57 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: No, but desensitization apparently worked on you a long time ago if you're really that willing to dismiss gun violence as a numbers game.

If you genuinely thought gun violence was a problem, your first priority would be the half a dozen counties that account for 70% of the gun murders in this country with 70% of those firearms being handguns.


Still unwilling incapable of addressing the actual issue.

It's not x, it's y. Or z to you.    Anything but what's being discussed.
 
2013-03-29 03:07:12 PM  

Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: This is a common tactic: bully anyone who calls for regulation by stating that "you don't know about Part XC359BR so you're unqualified to discuss the subject. The end."

Bullshiat, dude.

Look, if you don't know about  Part XC359BR, what makes you THINK that you're qualified to discuss making a law to ban it? I don't understand why people can't grasp this part of the equation. WHy make laws and call for laws on something that you don't even understand the function of?

We understand what firearms do.  If we are in doubt, we solicit expert advice.  Continuing the inane head game of "you liberals don't even know the most intimate detail of what a gun does" is total bullshiat.

And rather than address that, your tactic is to make me repeat the obvious.


You don't understand how they work, though.

And your "expert advice" is apparently pretty weak.


I haven't cited any, so again, you're just making stereotypical statements which are inadmissible to these discussions.

Nice to know that according to you, any expert opinion by someone advocating gun regulation is pretty "weak."

We don't want "intimate details". We want people to quit trying to ban shiat that they don't understand, because you get it wrong. Every. Farking. Time.

Again we understand how dangerous a firearm is. Quit bullying and patronizing by making baseless assumptions.  But I think it's a little too late for that, seeing as how it's your chief mode of operation.
 
2013-03-29 03:08:34 PM  

Mikey1969: cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: Not a huge problem until they start using those lists to track people, or assholes that work at newspapers decide to publish them. It's one of the two reasons that I won't join the NRA. Not only do I not want to be on a 'list

I hope you don't own a car, either. Or a bank account. Or a million other things that you're on lists with.

Yeah, because newspapers like to publish lists of every car owner or bank account holder in their city.

Thanks though, I didn't think you'd get the point, and you just won me $20.


They don't need to, you can get the information on car owners quite easily, it's public information.
 
2013-03-29 03:08:45 PM  

o5iiawah: heypete: Considering that ARs are the most common rifle in the country and are used in only the tiniest fraction of crimes, restricting such guns likely would have the slightest effect. Focusing on "assault weapons" is a red herring and distracts from more meaningful action.

whidbey would say you are desensitized and treating gun violence like a "Numbers game"


Desensitized? Hardly. Unlike you, I fully feel the impact of the tragedy by realizing that the current system doesn't work.

To you, it's just another day in Chicago.  You're just projecting your own inadequacies into this discussion. Again.
 
2013-03-29 03:08:56 PM  

Car_Ramrod: So rules and regulations right now are perfect? They eliminate gun-related crime as much as humanly possibly? There's nothing else that can be done?


No, not really, but where do you draw the line?

Extreme, banning all guns and confiscating all guns in the country would likely reduce gun-related crime (until the criminals start importing or making new guns -- if there's a demand, someone will fill it), though that'd be (a) rather extreme and (b) unconstitutional. From a practical standpoint, it'd never work.

Current laws are a fairly good compromise between "no guns" and "total free for all". Pretty much anything harmful that you could do with a gun is already illegal. It's illegal for criminals to possess firearms or for people to supply them with guns. Dealers, who are regulated by the federal government, must conduct background checks on buyers and maintain records of sale that document this. These laws are enforceable, as dealers have their business at stake, have a traceable supply chain from manufacturers and distributors, undergo periodic ATF audits (though perhaps the frequency of audits could be increased, if needed), and are accountable to the federal government. Certain particularly dangerous guns, like machine guns, are heavily restricted and what few are transferable are only available to wealthy collectors.

Keeping in mind that the right to keep and bear arms is Constitutionally-protected (and in turn based on the fundamental right of self-defense), what more could one do that would be effective? Background checks on all transfers sounds good, except that criminals and their suppliers will simply ignore the requirement (they're already committing a crime, what's one more minor offense if they get caught?). Registration doesn't really do anything and wouldn't account for the bulk of the ~300 million guns (most of which are unregistered) already out there.

Additional gun laws aren't really likely to have any real effect, as the problem lies elsewhere.
 
2013-03-29 03:10:18 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Mikey1969: cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: Not a huge problem until they start using those lists to track people, or assholes that work at newspapers decide to publish them. It's one of the two reasons that I won't join the NRA. Not only do I not want to be on a 'list

I hope you don't own a car, either. Or a bank account. Or a million other things that you're on lists with.

Yeah, because newspapers like to publish lists of every car owner or bank account holder in their city.

Thanks though, I didn't think you'd get the point, and you just won me $20.

[img844.imageshack.us image 750x600]


All right, that's pretty good...
 
2013-03-29 03:12:39 PM  
Libs

But we HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, FOR THE CHILDREN!

I have these feelings, and they are sad feelings, and they make me want to take action, and change the world.  Won't you accept these meaningless laws that will make your life full of red tape and do nothing to stop another tragedy so that I can feel better about myself!?!?!

Feeeeeeeeelings!
 
2013-03-29 03:14:23 PM  

whidbey: If we are in doubt, we solicit expert advice.


I called you out on this "expert advice", and now you claimed you didn't use any expert advice, so what exactly was your point? Mine was that the "expert advice" that your "we" relies on is faulty and weak. Nothing "stereotypical" about it. Yuo made a claim, I countered that claim, you threatened to take your ball and go home.

whidbey: Again we understand how dangerous a firearm is. Quit bullying and patronizing by making baseless assumptions.  But I think it's a little too late for that, seeing as how it's your chief mode of operation.


We just ask that before you follow your fellow lemmings off the 'gun ban' cliff, you familiarize yourself with what you're wanting to regulate. 'Guns, BAD!' isn't actually a solution.
 
2013-03-29 03:16:38 PM  

heypete: Background checks on all transfers sounds good, except that criminals and their suppliers will simply ignore the requirement


The problem with this particular objection is that it fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of a law.  A law doesn't make a crime physically impossible, it makes it more difficult to successfully commit and get away with.

Background checks force criminals to resort to a black market, which makes the issue substantially easier to control, since tracking missing shipments and repeated illegal transactions and cutting them off is a matter of good detective work, but trying to trace a single illegal transaction after the fact in the sum total of all transactions, most of which are legal, without prior checks or documentation is essentially impossible.

We've settled on prior checks over documentation because of privacy concerns related to civil rights, but we have to do one or the other or the law against selling a criminal a gun is impossible to enforce.  It's as simple as that.
 
2013-03-29 03:20:05 PM  

Jim_Callahan: heypete: Background checks on all transfers sounds good, except that criminals and their suppliers will simply ignore the requirement

The problem with this particular objection is that it fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of a law.  A law doesn't make a crime physically impossible, it makes it more difficult to successfully commit and get away with.

Background checks force criminals to resort to a black market, which makes the issue substantially easier to control, since tracking missing shipments and repeated illegal transactions and cutting them off is a matter of good detective work, but trying to trace a single illegal transaction after the fact in the sum total of all transactions, most of which are legal, without prior checks or documentation is essentially impossible.

We've settled on prior checks over documentation because of privacy concerns related to civil rights, but we have to do one or the other or the law against selling a criminal a gun is impossible to enforce.  It's as simple as that.


I bet you think that war on drugs works too.
 
2013-03-29 03:23:19 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: They don't need to, you can get the information on car owners quite easily, it's public information.


And so is the list published by the newspaper this spring. It doesn't mean that it was right to do it.
 
2013-03-29 03:30:25 PM  

heypete: Statistically, the gun-related homicide rate has dropped over the last 30 years and is at its lowest rate since 1964, even though the number of guns-per-capita is at an all-time high. There appears to be very little correlation between gun ownership by law-abiding people and violent crime rates.


It actually looks like after a big surge in the early 90s, gun-related homicide rates have stayed steady over the past 30 years. Link. Most recent data I could find.

img16.imageshack.us

Also, compared to other countries around the world, we're not doing too hot. Counting only among those countries where guns rights are guaranteed by law, we're  15th out of 19 for firearmhomicide rate, and 16th out of 19 for % of homicides with firearms. Not great. There's something that needs to be fixed.

I'm not saying it's all due to gun regulations; there's definitely some societal implications in that as well. But it's at least part of the problem.
 
2013-03-29 03:32:49 PM  

Mikey1969: whidbey: If we are in doubt, we solicit expert advice.

I called you out on this "expert advice", and now you claimed you didn't use any expert advice, so what exactly was your point? Mine was that the "expert advice" that your "we" relies on is faulty and weak. Nothing "stereotypical" about it. Yuo made a claim, I countered that claim, you threatened to take your ball and go home.

I said that I understand that a firearm is a dangerous weapon, and if we needed to discuss its inner workings we would ask expert opinion.


You're still stuck on this, rather than addressing the actual point, that bullying those who propose regulation by using the tactic of "nuh uh you don't know what Part X is" is a bullshiat argument, and to please stop using it, and assigning it as an anti-gun regulation tactic, as it is completely dishonest.  What's more, you're still doing it in this discussion.

whidbey: Again we understand how dangerous a firearm is. Quit bullying and patronizing by making baseless assumptions.  But I think it's a little too late for that, seeing as how it's your chief mode of operation.

We just ask that before you follow your fellow lemmings off the 'gun ban' cliff, you familiarize yourself with what you're wanting to regulate. 'Guns, BAD!' isn't actually a solution.

I'm in favor of a better background check system, a national registry and funding research to understand why we have gun violence.  You're full of crap, dude.  And proving to be a non-reliable source of opposition.
 
2013-03-29 03:34:00 PM  

Mikey1969: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?

These guys liked them pretty well.

[img2.timeinc.net image 220x300][timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com image 200x300][static.guim.co.uk image 200x300][www.gannett-cdn.com image 215x300]

Who are #2 and #4?


Roberts and Spengler.
 
2013-03-29 03:34:05 PM  
i1121.photobucket.com


Stay tuned for more Inconvenient Truths about firearms and Violence in the USA
 
2013-03-29 03:34:18 PM  
God I hate the new formatting buttons. Jeez.
 
2013-03-29 03:37:11 PM  
 
2013-03-29 03:40:01 PM  

Car_Ramrod: It actually looks like after a big surge in the early 90s, gun-related homicide rates have stayed steady over the past 30 years. Link. Most recent data I could find.


Interesting. Thanks.

It turns out we're both right. :)

According to FBI crime stats, there was indeed an increase in the raw number of firearm-related homicides in the early 1990s, just as your chart points out, but the rate-per-100,000 had declined since 1980, which was the high point. I normally look at normalized rates rather than raw numbers as the raw numbers can sometimes be deceiving.

Also, compared to other countries around the world, we're not doing too hot. Counting only among those countries where guns rights are guaranteed by law, we're 15th out of 19 for firearmhomicide rate, and 16th out of 19 for % of homicides with firearms. Not great. There's something that needs to be fixed.

I'm not saying it's all due to gun regulations; there's definitely some societal implications in that as well. But it's at least part of the problem.


True, but look at the state-by-state breakdown: certain states (cities, in particular) contribute disproportionately to the national gun-related homicide stats. Outside of these localized areas, gun-related crime is comparable to many other developed countries. I won't deny that guns play a role in crime -- they clearly do -- but it's not clear that additional restrictions on law-abiding people will have a meaningful effect on reducing violent crime rates.
 
2013-03-29 03:43:50 PM  

whidbey: And proving to be a non-reliable source of opposition.


Meaning what? That I don't reliably oppose you?
 
2013-03-29 03:46:43 PM  

whidbey: God I hate the new formatting buttons. Jeez.


Uncheck wysiwyg in preferences.
 
2013-03-29 03:51:40 PM  

heypete: Car_Ramrod: So rules and regulations right now are perfect? They eliminate gun-related crime as much as humanly possibly? There's nothing else that can be done?

No, not really, but where do you draw the line?

Extreme, banning all guns and confiscating all guns in the country would likely reduce gun-related crime (until the criminals start importing or making new guns -- if there's a demand, someone will fill it), though that'd be (a) rather extreme and (b) unconstitutional. From a practical standpoint, it'd never work.


I admitted upthread that would probably be my ideal situation, but I acknowledged it's not realistic, nor is it Constitutional.

Current laws are a fairly good compromise between "no guns" and "total free for all".

But that's assuming those are two equal standings to begin negotiations. Obviously people will disagree with my standing on this, but if I believe a total free for all is way more detrimental to society than no guns, being a good compromise between the two is not a great place to settle.

Pretty much anything harmful that you could do with a gun is already illegal. It's illegal for criminals to possess firearms or for people to supply them with guns. Dealers, who are regulated by the federal government, must conduct background checks on buyers and maintain records of sale that document this. These laws are enforceable, as dealers have their business at stake, have a traceable supply chain from manufacturers and distributors, undergo periodic ATF audits (though perhaps the frequency of audits could be increased, if needed), and are accountable to the federal government. Certain particularly dangerous guns, like machine guns, are heavily restricted and what few are transferable are only available to wealthy collectors.

There's got to be some better way to trace back the ownership of weapons used in crimes to fix cracks in the system and make things safer for everyone. Stronger regulation of manufacturers, more strict registration/tracking, stiffer penalties for infractions. The Daily Show (an admittedly biased source) did a piece a bit ago about how ineffective the ATF was in being watchdogs over gun manufacturers.

Keeping in mind that the right to keep and bear arms is Constitutionally-protected (and in turn based on the fundamental right of self-defense), what more could one do that would be effective?

You can have self-defense without a gun. Look, I understand it's in the Constitution, and, barring some new (probably impossible) amendment, it's going to stay there and responsible, law-abiding gun owners will always have a right to bear arms, but that doesn't prevent us from keeping the situation well regulated.

Background checks on all transfers sounds good, except that criminals and their suppliers will simply ignore the requirement (they're already committing a crime, what's one more minor offense if they get caught?). Registration doesn't really do anything and wouldn't account for the bulk of the ~300 million guns (most of which are unregistered) already out there.

It's a start. It would limit the flow of new guns out onto the market. You always have to start somewhere in getting these kinds of things under control. Making upgrading possession of an unregistered gun to a major offense would be helpful. Hell, we criminalized the hell out of just having some drugs on you, we can't make people a bit worried about being caught with a deadly weapon?

Additional gun laws aren't really likely to have any real effect, as the problem lies elsewhere.

So that brings me back to my main point of anti-gun control people basically saying we can't do anything else to control the flow of weapons to criminals and that we've done all we can. I find that idea fundamentally wrong. While yes, there are external variables that increase gun-related crimes, we cannot ignore that the primary reason they happen is because guns are so easy to attain.
 
2013-03-29 03:53:44 PM  

Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 850x790]


Stay tuned for more Inconvenient Truths about firearms and Violence in the USA


...are you insinuating we outlaw hands and feet?
 
2013-03-29 03:55:06 PM  

Jim_Callahan: The problem with this particular objection is that it fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of a law. A law doesn't make a crime physically impossible, it makes it more difficult to successfully commit and get away with.

Background checks force criminals to resort to a black market, which makes the issue substantially easier to control, since tracking missing shipments and repeated illegal transactions and cutting them off is a matter of good detective work, but trying to trace a single illegal transaction after the fact in the sum total of all transactions, most of which are legal, without prior checks or documentation is essentially impossible.

We've settled on prior checks over documentation because of privacy concerns related to civil rights, but we have to do one or the other or the law against selling a criminal a gun is impossible to enforce. It's as simple as that.


I'm not really seeing how it changes things. Right now, a straw purchaser can go to a gun shop, pass the background check, and buy a gun. At this point, things are perfectly legal. Next, they can sell the gun to a criminal without a background check. This is illegal, but nothing physically prevents the straw purchaser from doing this. If I wanted to sell a gun to my good friend who I know isn't a criminal (as I've been there in person with him when he's passed background checks in a gun shop, in addition to my knowing him all my life), I could do so in a private sale without needing a dealer to mediate. This is legal in most states.

With universal background checks, the straw purchaser could still go into the gun shop, pass the background check, and buy a gun. Still legal. Next, they sell the gun to a criminal without a background check. They're supposed to do a background check (e.g. taking it to a dealer to do the check) but nothing forces them to. You've made an already-illegal transfer slightly more illegal. If they really wanted to cover their bases, they could say the gun was stolen (how would anyone know otherwise?). So long as they only do this a small number of times, it's exceedingly unlikely that they'll be caught. If I wanted to sell a gun to my good friend, I'd have to go to a dealer and pay a fee to do the check and paperwork as private sales would no longer be permitted. For people in many areas, this is a hassle: Chicago, for example, doesn't have any dealers in city limits. For two people in the city wanting to legally transfer a gun, that'd require that they both coordinate schedules, transportation, etc. to meet at a dealer outside the city to do the transfer. If someone less inclined to obey the law wanted to do a previously-legal-but-now-prohibited private transfer, nothing stops them and, if asked, they could simply say they performed the transfer before the law came into effect -- there'd be no way to tell otherwise.

Put simply, universal background checks are unenforceable and only affect the law-abiding.

The black market for guns already exists, in the form of straw purchasers and thieves who steal guns. I agree that more effort should be taken to crack down on straw purchasers but, from a practical perspective, universal background checks aren't really going to do anything as there's no way to enforce them. It's a reasonable idea in theory, but it doesn't really do anything in practice.

The current mandate for background checks from dealers is enforceable, as dealers are required by law to maintain up-to-date records of their inventory and deal mostly in new guns coming in from regulated manufacturers and distributors. After that point, though, there's no way to effectively prevent private sales (illegal or not) even if universal background checks were required.
 
2013-03-29 03:56:09 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mikey1969: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?

These guys liked them pretty well.

[img2.timeinc.net image 220x300][timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com image 200x300][static.guim.co.uk image 200x300][www.gannett-cdn.com image 215x300]

Who are #2 and #4?

Roberts and Spengler.


Ahhh, still don't place Roberts, but I recognize the Spengler dude now.
 
2013-03-29 03:58:11 PM  

Alphakronik: You want to pass background checks for law abiding Americans?  Pass an executive order that recognizes a Muslim-American's right to bear arms.  Yes, I know they already can, but much like Republicans pointless laws, it would scare the shiat out of the right bad enough that they'd be willing to submit to background checks solely based upon forcing Muslims to be subject to further scrutiny.


Because gun owners are all republicans. And all republicans hate Muslims.
 
2013-03-29 03:59:22 PM  

Mikey1969: whidbey: And proving to be a non-reliable source of opposition.

Meaning what? That I don't reliably oppose you?


Well, if you're going to keep bringing up disinformation, then yeah, you're losing credibility.

A better background check system, a national registry and funding research to understand why we have gun violence.
 Actually, never mind. You oppose ^this^?
 
2013-03-29 03:59:25 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 850x790]


Stay tuned for more Inconvenient Truths about firearms and Violence in the USA

...are you insinuating we outlaw hands and feet?



Are you saying that we SHOULDN'T???

Think of the children!
 
2013-03-29 03:59:39 PM  

Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC. My wife collects sewing machines. She has about 20 of them, but all but one are antiques.  I can understand having a collection of antique firearms, but many of these nuts have collections of modern guns. Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing? If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.


If you were a truly hardcore gamer you'd know why not all guns are the same. Do you snipe with a shotgun in battlefield?
 
2013-03-29 04:03:10 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: whidbey: God I hate the new formatting buttons. Jeez.

Uncheck wysiwyg in preferences.


Why thank you. Looks like I still need the training wheels. :)
 
2013-03-29 04:03:53 PM  
It's hilarious that the dems will ultimately lose several seats over this gun control fiasco and have accomplished virtually nothing in the process. Way to give a 2nd wind to your dying political adversary dems. Even Clinton warned you this was a bad idea.
 
2013-03-29 04:06:20 PM  

heypete: I won't deny that guns play a role in crime -- they clearly do -- but it's not clear that additional restrictions on law-abiding people will have a meaningful effect on reducing violent crime rates.


I've tried to establish a few of my beliefs in many of these threads I've foolishly participated in. Amongst them:

1) I don't want to punish responsible, law-abiding gun-owners. They have as much to gain from better regulation as anyone else. Guns being accessible for use by criminals gives all gun owners a bad name, and they should be joining us in trying to prevent such things from happening without seeming so defensive.

2) (I'll just quote myself from earlier) "And to be fair, I think that if we are going to increase regulation, there should be more regulations on gun manufacturers rather than owners to ensure that their products are being responsibly sold and tracked."

Living in Chicago, I know all too well the horrors of gun violence that inflict my neighbors on the South Side. Hell, our local paper has a homicide tracker. I understand people get riled up from these headline-grabbing mass shootings, but after a couple months, no one thinks about it anymore. Meanwhile, last year, 441 people in Chicago were shot to death.

I don't want flashy, do-nothing regulations that make people feel better. I want people to use the anger that comes from these incidents to actually do something useful to stop my fellow Chicagoans from being murdered on a daily basis.
 
2013-03-29 04:08:39 PM  

whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: And proving to be a non-reliable source of opposition.

Meaning what? That I don't reliably oppose you?

Well, if you're going to keep bringing up disinformation, then yeah, you're losing credibility.

A better background check system, a national registry and funding research to understand why we have gun violence.
 Actually, never mind. You oppose ^this^?


Not at all, you really SHOULD pay better attention. I stated that from the very beginning.
 
2013-03-29 04:09:51 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: Ahhh, the "no answer" route. We know it well around here.

Oh, but you sure do "understand" about gun

No, it's inconvenient to your position, that Lanza and other mass shooters choose assault rifles over Ruger Mini-14s. Why do you think they do that?


Take a second and Wikipedia what gun was used in the Norway shooting in 2011. Feel free to march out of this thread now.
 
2013-03-29 04:11:00 PM  

Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: And proving to be a non-reliable source of opposition.

Meaning what? That I don't reliably oppose you?

Well, if you're going to keep bringing up disinformation, then yeah, you're losing credibility.

A better background check system, a national registry and funding research to understand why we have gun violence.
 Actually, never mind. You oppose ^this^?

Not at all, you really SHOULD pay better attention. I stated that from the very beginning.


Well then you need to stop putting the other crap in your posts about what "the Left" supposedly believes. Because that came off a lot louder.
 
2013-03-29 04:11:55 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Also, compared to other countries around the world, we're not doing too hot. Counting only among those countries where guns rights are guaranteed by law, we're  15th out of 19 for firearmhomicide rate, and 16th out of 19 for % of homicides with firearms. Not great. There's something that needs to be fixed.



Doesn't that mean that we're at the bottom of that group?
 
2013-03-29 04:13:33 PM  

Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC. My wife collects sewing machines. She has about 20 of them, but all but one are antiques.  I can understand having a collection of antique firearms, but many of these nuts have collections of modern guns. Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing? If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.


Your problem is that you are trying to dictate what other people can and can't do based on no knowledge of what you're talking about. In other words, you're the kind of person gun owners don't want touching ANY laws.

It's like Republicans trying to get involved in women's health.
 
2013-03-29 04:13:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: Ahhh, the "no answer" route. We know it well around here.

Oh, but you sure do "understand" about gun

No, it's inconvenient to your position, that Lanza and other mass shooters choose assault rifles over Ruger Mini-14s. Why do you think they do that?

No reason not to. They both accept the same magazine and fire the same ammo. There is nothing special about the AR-15 that the Mini-14 doesn't have. Fun fact: The A-Team used Mini-14's in their show, not AR-15s, all you do is put in the bigger mag, which the gun will come with.

Can you explain to me why the Ruger Mini-14 isn't used by any military in the world? I mean, it's not any more lethal, right?


That mini14 has been used by police and the military. Your assertion is factually wrong.
 
2013-03-29 04:13:45 PM  

spickus: Car_Ramrod: Also, compared to other countries around the world, we're not doing too hot. Counting only among those countries where guns rights are guaranteed by law, we're  15th out of 19 for firearmhomicide rate, and 16th out of 19 for % of homicides with firearms. Not great. There's something that needs to be fixed.


Doesn't that mean that we're at the bottom of that group?


Well I stated it as the smallest rate and % would be 1st. So being at the bottom means we suck at both.
 
2013-03-29 04:13:56 PM  

whidbey: A better background check system, a national registry and funding research to understand why we have gun violence.
 Actually, never mind. You oppose ^this^?


That national gun registry worked great in New York.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2013/0103/N.Y.-newspaper-s-map- of -local-gun-owners-A-cheat-sheet-for-burglars-video

Hey, background check.  Absolutely, definitely, every time.  Funding research?  YOU BET.  That research might even prove the need for MORE restrictions.

But a national gun registry is a very dumb idea.  It gives away the location of valuable weapons.  It gives criminals easier access to potential weapons for use in larger crimes. And do you really think the registry will be safe?  I mean, really?  You think that the government can secure anything?  Hackers will have the data within a week.  It'll be on Google Maps in a month.  Then police officers will be knocking on yoru door every time a crime is committed with your model of gun.  Heck, might even be enough for a warrant.
 
2013-03-29 04:14:21 PM  

chiett: Good luck with all of that.
Take the 30+ round magazines, full auto weapons, and the really scary "military" style weapons.
Then enforce the laws on the books.

And finally leave my shiat alone.


Which "full auto weapons" are you talking about?
 
2013-03-29 04:16:18 PM  

seniorgato: whidbey: A better background check system, a national registry and funding research to understand why we have gun violence.
 Actually, never mind. You oppose ^this^?

That national gun registry worked great in New York.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2013/0103/N.Y.-newspaper-s-map- of -local-gun-owners-A-cheat-sheet-for-burglars-video

Hey, background check.  Absolutely, definitely, every time.  Funding research?  YOU BET.  That research might even prove the need for MORE restrictions.

But a national gun registry is a very dumb idea.  It gives away the location of valuable weapons.  It gives criminals easier access to potential weapons for use in larger crimes. And do you really think the registry will be safe?  I mean, really?  You think that the government can secure anything?  Hackers will have the data within a week.  It'll be on Google Maps in a month.  Then police officers will be knocking on yoru door every time a crime is committed with your model of gun.  Heck, might even be enough for a warrant.


So the idea of tracking weapons is a bad idea because hackers? Because bugs in the system?

Not really convinced. Glad you at least agree with the other two.
 
2013-03-29 04:18:15 PM  

Car_Ramrod: heypete: I won't deny that guns play a role in crime -- they clearly do -- but it's not clear that additional restrictions on law-abiding people will have a meaningful effect on reducing violent crime rates.

I've tried to establish a few of my beliefs in many of these threads I've foolishly participated in. Amongst them:

1) I don't want to punish responsible, law-abiding gun-owners. They have as much to gain from better regulation as anyone else. Guns being accessible for use by criminals gives all gun owners a bad name, and they should be joining us in trying to prevent such things from happening without seeming so defensive.

2) (I'll just quote myself from earlier) "And to be fair, I think that if we are going to increase regulation, there should be more regulations on gun manufacturers rather than owners to ensure that their products are being responsibly sold and tracked."

Living in Chicago, I know all too well the horrors of gun violence that inflict my neighbors on the South Side. Hell, our local paper has a homicide tracker. I understand people get riled up from these headline-grabbing mass shootings, but after a couple months, no one thinks about it anymore. Meanwhile, last year, 441 people in Chicago were shot to death.

I don't want flashy, do-nothing regulations that make people feel better. I want people to use the anger that comes from these incidents to actually do something useful to stop my fellow Chicagoans from being murdered on a daily basis.


As a gun owner, I totally agree on point one and I'm baffled by point two. Overwhelmingly, criminals get their guns in the secondary market. You are very much missing the point on that and going after manufacturers hints at other motivations.... Maybe bad dealers are really what you meant?

I fully support tougher penalties on straw purchasers, probably the only federal gun regulation that is going to pass since Dems are trying to use background checks as a Trojan Horse for firearms registration.
 
2013-03-29 04:22:17 PM  

whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: And proving to be a non-reliable source of opposition.

Meaning what? That I don't reliably oppose you?

Well, if you're going to keep bringing up disinformation, then yeah, you're losing credibility.

A better background check system, a national registry and funding research to understand why we have gun violence.
 Actually, never mind. You oppose ^this^?

Not at all, you really SHOULD pay better attention. I stated that from the very beginning.

Well then you need to stop putting the other crap in your posts about what "the Left" supposedly believes. Because that came off a lot louder.


Sometimes, it's almost like people see what they want to see and ignore what they don't want to see when reading things around here...
 
2013-03-29 04:22:38 PM  

Car_Ramrod: heypete: Current laws are a fairly good compromise between "no guns" and "total free for all".

But that's assuming those are two equal standings to begin negotiations. Obviously people will disagree with my standing on this, but if I believe a total free for all is way more detrimental to society than no guns, being a good compromise between the two is not a great place to settle.


*shrugs* Either way, the genie's out of the bottle and it's not going back in.

There's got to be some better way to trace back the ownership of weapons used in crimes to fix cracks in the system and make things safer for everyone. Stronger regulation of manufacturers, more strict registration/tracking, stiffer penalties for infractions

The manufacturers already only sell to licensed distributors or dealers. They have to keep records forever as to what guns they make to which distributors/dealers they ship them. What more would you ask of them?

Registration and tracking wouldn't really be effective for reasons I've pointed out before. People already supplying criminals know they're committing a crime. Committing one extra crime isn't really going to deter people who are already breaking the law. All the registration in the world isn't going to stop a criminal for saying "Hey buddy, I'll give you $100 if you go to that shop, buy a gun, sell it to me for 20% more than it cost you, and you report it as stolen to the cops in a month or two." Even though it's against the law, there'll likely be people willing to do that and, since it's just a one-off thing it's unlikely they'll get caught. That, and criminals will continue to steal guns from law-abiding people and sell them on the black market.

You can have self-defense without a gun. Look, I understand it's in the Constitution, and, barring some new (probably impossible) amendment, it's going to stay there and responsible, law-abiding gun owners will always have a right to bear arms, but that doesn't prevent us from keeping the situation well regulated.

Sure, but guns are an effective means of self-defense. A frail 90-year-old with a gun is equally matched with a muscular 20-something bad guy. Sure, we could have swords, or learn martial arts, etc., but guns really level the playing field.

It's a start. It would limit the flow of new guns out onto the market. You always have to start somewhere in getting these kinds of things under control. Making upgrading possession of an unregistered gun to a major offense would be helpful. Hell, we criminalized the hell out of just having some drugs on you, we can't make people a bit worried about being caught with a deadly weapon?

Similar restrictions didn't really work in Canada or California, even with penalties for non-compliance. Are the cops going to do random stings at the range and check registration on everyone's guns? What if someone forgot about an old gun in the attic?

Also, I'm opposed to the current drug laws and I think that it's one of the major contributing factors to violent crime.

Even if you did get everyone to register their guns, you just end up with a list of people who follow the law. That doesn't really help much when it comes to crime.

So that brings me back to my main point of anti-gun control people basically saying we can't do anything else to control the flow of weapons to criminals and that we've done all we can. I find that idea fundamentally wrong. While yes, there are external variables that increase gun-related crimes, we cannot ignore that the primary reason they happen is because guns are so easy to attain.

Yes, guns are relatively easy to attain...but I think that the idea that one can restrict guns going to bad guys while still allowing good guys to get them is fundamentally wrong. It's sort of like DRM: you can't tell people "here's a movie, but only you can watch it, and only for a period of time. You're not allowed to make copies." -- if they're able to view the movie, they'll be able to make a copy of it. Sure, guns are physical objects and not as easy to duplicate as a digital file, but they're basically turning into software that can be easily shared: you can 3D-print the regulated part of a gun now, with today's technology and no skill greater than knowing how to click "print". The tech will only improve. Soon, people will be able to manufacture entire guns in their own home (once 3D-printed metal is possible, which they're working on).

While gun control might have some short-term effect (I doubt it, as there's no historical evidence for this in the US), in the long run it's going to be irrelevant: controls that depend on restricting access to something that can be easily made or duplicated cannot be effective.
 
2013-03-29 04:25:00 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: As a gun owner, I totally agree on point one and I'm baffled by point two. Overwhelmingly, criminals get their guns in the secondary market. You are very much missing the point on that and going after manufacturers hints at other motivations.... Maybe bad dealers are really what you meant?

I fully support tougher penalties on straw purchasers, probably the only federal gun regulation that is going to pass since Dems are trying to use background checks as a Trojan Horse for firearms registration.


I still mean manufacturers, and I don't know what other motivations I'm hinting at, but good point. Any distributor of firearms at any level should be strongly regulated and face strict penalties if they fark up.
 
2013-03-29 04:27:54 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Any distributor of firearms at any level should be strongly regulated and face strict penalties if they fark up.


They are and they do.
 
2013-03-29 04:30:10 PM  

GanjSmokr: whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: And proving to be a non-reliable source of opposition.

Meaning what? That I don't reliably oppose you?

Well, if you're going to keep bringing up disinformation, then yeah, you're losing credibility.

A better background check system, a national registry and funding research to understand why we have gun violence.
 Actually, never mind. You oppose ^this^?

Not at all, you really SHOULD pay better attention. I stated that from the very beginning.

Well then you need to stop putting the other crap in your posts about what "the Left" supposedly believes. Because that came off a lot louder.

Sometimes, it's almost like people see what they want to see and ignore what they don't want to see when reading things around here...


Because we should just ignore the kind of disinformation that's being challenged in these threads.

How subtle of you.
 
2013-03-29 04:34:49 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Ow! That was my feelings!: As a gun owner, I totally agree on point one and I'm baffled by point two. Overwhelmingly, criminals get their guns in the secondary market. You are very much missing the point on that and going after manufacturers hints at other motivations.... Maybe bad dealers are really what you meant?

I fully support tougher penalties on straw purchasers, probably the only federal gun regulation that is going to pass since Dems are trying to use background checks as a Trojan Horse for firearms registration.

I still mean manufacturers, and I don't know what other motivations I'm hinting at, but good point. Any distributor of firearms at any level should be strongly regulated and face strict penalties if they fark up.


Manufacturers of firearms in the US are overwhelmingly wholesale distributors. Meaning, they sell directly to FFL holders almost exclusively. It is actually why easier and legally safer for them to do so. It's not Colt that is selling a handgun out of a trunk. You targeting manufacturers doesn't make sense and they are not the problem. It is a small number of bad dealers and a large number of straw purchasers. Harsh prosecution and sentencing of bad dealers and straw purchasers is the best tool now available to reduce street gun violence.
 
2013-03-29 04:35:33 PM  

heypete: Car_Ramrod: Any distributor of firearms at any level should be strongly regulated and face strict penalties if they fark up.

They are and they do.


Well it's obviously not farking working. Where the hell are all these guns coming from that all the criminals have? In your previous post that I'm not quoting because it's getting cumbersome, you say "the idea that one can restrict guns going to bad guys while still allowing good guys to get them is fundamentally wrong". That's it? Just give up? There's no way to find out where all these guns are coming from, who's buying them, who's supplying them? They come from somewhere. They don't have 3D printers down in Altgeld Gardens, I'll tell you that much.

I'm sorry, but it's getting frustrating. There seems to be a whole lot of "*shrug* yea, but whatcha gonna do" going on, and I don't find that an acceptable place to settle.
 
2013-03-29 04:37:46 PM  
Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?
 
2013-03-29 04:39:19 PM  

Amos Quito: Stay tuned for more Inconvenient Truths about firearms and Violence in the USA


You mean truths like we have a hell of a lot of people killed with firearms each year?

And I noticed they ignored the other guns or type not stated category in their comparisons. Just saying.
 
2013-03-29 04:41:41 PM  

Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?


We're willing to give up people being shot all the time.
 
2013-03-29 04:42:29 PM  

Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?


Geez, how many first-graders do you want?
 
2013-03-29 04:44:52 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?

We're willing to give up people being shot all the time.


So are we.

However, we're a little more concerned with the cause of violence. Not the tool of choice. Most of us, anyway.
 
2013-03-29 04:49:11 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?

We're willing to give up people being shot all the time.


This is why your cause is failing, and rightfully so.
 
2013-03-29 04:50:40 PM  

Doom MD: Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?

We're willing to give up people being shot all the time.

This is why your cause is failing, and rightfully so.


Yea, it's right for people to be dying all the time. Fark those people.

What did you think was an appropriate answer to your stupid question?
 
2013-03-29 04:55:24 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?

We're willing to give up people being shot all the time.

This is why your cause is failing, and rightfully so.

Yea, it's right for people to be dying all the time. Fark those people.

What did you think was an appropriate answer to your stupid question?


Taking guns away from law abiding people like me, doesn't stop a criminal from shooting you.  Right before they shoot you, do you think your little lecture about how they shouldn't have their illegal weapon will save you?  You're delusional if you think anyone who intends to murder someone will respect the law on gun bans.
 
2013-03-29 04:57:06 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?

We're willing to give up people being shot all the time.

This is why your cause is failing, and rightfully so.

Yea, it's right for people to be dying all the time. Fark those people.

What did you think was an appropriate answer to your stupid question?


My question isn't stupid but rather highlights the pathos behind the entire gun control movement. Gun control advocates wave the bloody flag over a tragedy and make emotional arguments. You urge people to "compromise" which in truth is you trying to talk me into giving up my rights. Compromise implies a give and take. The gun control movement has been nothing but a gradual erosion of civil liberties. The awb was a total failure. What's one of the first things gun control advocates push for? A new assault weapons ban. Any ground anti-2a folks get is just the latest beachhead to move the goalposts from.

Compromise to a gun control advocate means something very different than to the rest of the world.

If you really think these acts will be so efficacious in saving lives, then compromise and give me something that will help me exercise my rights and maybe, just maybe ill be more willing to play along. You get more bees with honey.
 
2013-03-29 04:58:18 PM  
What an "inconvenient truth" might look like

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-29 04:59:14 PM  

Car_Ramrod: heypete: Car_Ramrod: Any distributor of firearms at any level should be strongly regulated and face strict penalties if they fark up.

They are and they do.

Well it's obviously not farking working. Where the hell are all these guns coming from that all the criminals have? In your previous post that I'm not quoting because it's getting cumbersome, you say "the idea that one can restrict guns going to bad guys while still allowing good guys to get them is fundamentally wrong". That's it? Just give up? There's no way to find out where all these guns are coming from, who's buying them, who's supplying them? They come from somewhere. They don't have 3D printers down in Altgeld Gardens, I'll tell you that much.

I'm sorry, but it's getting frustrating. There seems to be a whole lot of "*shrug* yea, but whatcha gonna do" going on, and I don't find that an acceptable place to settle.


If your so frustrated Chicago resident, maybe you should be demanding your local reps enforce and prosecute gun crimes. Cause, there was just a thread a couple days ago about how Chicago does damn little about prosecuting gun crimes. Clean up your own house before trying to shiat in mine.
 
2013-03-29 04:59:29 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Taking guns away from law abiding people like me.


Delusional.
 
2013-03-29 05:00:34 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Car_Ramrod: heypete: Car_Ramrod: Any distributor of firearms at any level should be strongly regulated and face strict penalties if they fark up.

They are and they do.

Well it's obviously not farking working. Where the hell are all these guns coming from that all the criminals have? In your previous post that I'm not quoting because it's getting cumbersome, you say "the idea that one can restrict guns going to bad guys while still allowing good guys to get them is fundamentally wrong". That's it? Just give up? There's no way to find out where all these guns are coming from, who's buying them, who's supplying them? They come from somewhere. They don't have 3D printers down in Altgeld Gardens, I'll tell you that much.

I'm sorry, but it's getting frustrating. There seems to be a whole lot of "*shrug* yea, but whatcha gonna do" going on, and I don't find that an acceptable place to settle.

If your so frustrated Chicago resident, maybe you should be demanding your local reps enforce and prosecute gun crimes. Cause, there was just a thread a couple days ago about how Chicago does damn little about prosecuting gun crimes. Clean up your own house before trying to shiat in mine.


I like how Chicago blames the lax gun laws around their city for causing all the gun violence, even though those places have less crime.
 
2013-03-29 05:01:25 PM  

whidbey: What an "inconvenient truth" might look like

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x360]


If only you cared this much about all the children who die each year due to alcohol related fatalities.  Oh, right, you probably drink so the 80,000 people who die each year from alcohol aren't as important as the 12,000 who die to firearms.  Makes perfect sense.. if you're a hypocrite.
 
2013-03-29 05:01:47 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?

We're willing to give up people being shot all the time.

This is why your cause is failing, and rightfully so.

Yea, it's right for people to be dying all the time. Fark those people.

What did you think was an appropriate answer to your stupid question?

Taking guns away from law abiding people like me, doesn't stop a criminal from shooting you.  Right before they shoot you, do you think your little lecture about how they shouldn't have their illegal weapon will save you?  You're delusional if you think anyone who intends to murder someone will respect the law on gun bans.


I'm not trying to take your guns away, you dumbass. Have you read any of my comments at all? I don't want gun bans, either. I want stronger regulations so criminals don't have guns. What's so controversial about that? I've said dozens of times that I don't want to punish responsible, law-abiding gun owners.

Jesus Christ. Being pro-gun control doesn't mean I want the feds to knock your door down and raid your gun locker. There's too much goddamn gun violence in this country. I want there to be less. Why is that a problem? Or are you just looking to be angry at someone for no reason?
 
2013-03-29 05:03:10 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Taking guns away from law abiding people like me.

Delusional.


Are you pretending that's not the ultimate goal? There's plenty of statements from politicians that disarmament is exactly what they intend.
 
2013-03-29 05:03:15 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Well it's obviously not farking working. Where the hell are all these guns coming from that all the criminals have?


Almost exclusively from a large number of straw purchasers, theft, and a small amount of shady dealers. All of which are already against the law.

With almost no exceptions, manufacturers do not sell to the public. They sell to regulated, licensed distributors who then sell to regulated, licensed dealers.

There is strict accountability at all levels, though there are occasionally some shady dealers who end up doing illicit transfers -- those dealers and the illegal buyers should get nailed to the farking wall.
 

In your previous post that I'm not quoting because it's getting cumbersome, you say "the idea that one can restrict guns going to bad guys while still allowing good guys to get them is fundamentally wrong". That's it? Just give up? There's no way to find out where all these guns are coming from, who's buying them, who's supplying them? They come from somewhere.

I'm not saying give up entirely, but trying to artificially limit the availability of an in-demand item that is becoming increasing more easy to make or duplicate on your own isn't really feasible.

Yes, there are ways to trace guns, find rogue suppliers, etc. The police do this already but there's only so much time in the day and so much money in the budget. Prosecution rates for gun-related crimes are not very high (there was an article the other day about Chicago being one of the worst for prosecuting gun crimes, though it seems to have been from a dubious source). Something like 0.05% of people failing background checks at dealers get prosecuted. I, for one, think that they need better funding and resources to go after these traffickers and straw purchasers.

That said, how would things be any different than with drugs? The cops seem to do a great job at nailing the stupid criminals and the "little guys", like street dealers and individual users. The higher-ups in the gangs and drug distribution chain are caught more rarely, as it takes more resources to pursue them and they cover their tracks better. Even after spending billions of dollars and criminalizing pretty much all drugs (with strict penalties for violation and tons of people in jail or with criminal records), it's still trivial for anyone to acquire drugs with a phone call or two.
 

They don't have 3D printers down in Altgeld Gardens, I'll tell you that much.

Maybe not now, but wait 5 years. Computers and cellphones were once luxuries, but now are extremely common.

I'm sorry, but it's getting frustrating. There seems to be a whole lot of "*shrug* yea, but whatcha gonna do" going on, and I don't find that an acceptable place to settle.


What can I say? The genie is out of the bottle. You're not going to "unmake" the idea of the gun. I'm not saying there's nothing to do, but many of the gun control proposals made by Congress will do pretty much nothing to solve the problem: Sen. Feinstein's bill to ban the most popular legally-owned guns in the country (which are used in a tiny, tiny fraction of gun-related crimes) based mainly on their appearance rather than function does basically nothing. Sen. Schumer's bill will criminalize completely harmless, common things, like handing my gun to my wife at the range, by counting that as a "transfer of possession" that requires a background check. They have nice-sounding names, like the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" and the "Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013", but they don't do anything to actually address the problem and seriously infringe on the rights of the law-abiding.

If Congress could get their heads out of their collective asses, they might get something productive done, but until then they're just wasting time. You're not the only one who's annoyed by it.
 
2013-03-29 05:11:02 PM  

Doom MD: Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?

We're willing to give up people being shot all the time.

This is why your cause is failing, and rightfully so.

Yea, it's right for people to be dying all the time. Fark those people.

What did you think was an appropriate answer to your stupid question?

My question isn't stupid but rather highlights the pathos behind the entire gun control movement. Gun control advocates wave the bloody flag over a tragedy and make emotional arguments. You urge people to "compromise" which in truth is you trying to talk me into giving up my rights. Compromise implies a give and take. The gun control movement has been nothing but a gradual erosion of civil liberties. The awb was a total failure. What's one of the first things gun control advocates push for? A new assault weapons ban. Any ground anti-2a folks get is just the latest beachhead to move the goalposts from.

Compromise to a gun control advocate means something very different than to the rest of the world.

If you really think these acts will be so efficacious in saving lives, then compromise and give me something that will help me exercise my rights and maybe, just maybe ill be more willing to play along. You get more bees with honey.


1) "I don't want flashy, do-nothing regulations that make people feel better. I want people to use the anger that comes from these incidents to actually do something useful to stop my fellow Chicagoans from being murdered on a daily basis." - Me, earlier.

2) I'm not trying to stop you from exercising your rights. What have I said thus far that makes it sound like I am? If you're a law-abiding, responsible gun owner, then godspeed. Buy whatever your gun-loving ass wants. I'm not trying to come after your guns, no matter what your paranoia tells you.

3) Limited criminal access to firearms helps the gun owner, as it makes gun owners in general look better when there's less gun violence. Helping us will help you. Why wouldn't you want to do that? "What's in it for me?" Besides the image overhaul that comes with being part of the solution, another benefit is having less of your fellow citizens dying. Isn't that good enough?
 
2013-03-29 05:11:08 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Taking guns away from law abiding people like me.

Delusional.


*unchecks ignore*

wow can't even muster a 3/10
 
2013-03-29 05:13:09 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Car_Ramrod: heypete: Car_Ramrod: Any distributor of firearms at any level should be strongly regulated and face strict penalties if they fark up.

They are and they do.

Well it's obviously not farking working. Where the hell are all these guns coming from that all the criminals have? In your previous post that I'm not quoting because it's getting cumbersome, you say "the idea that one can restrict guns going to bad guys while still allowing good guys to get them is fundamentally wrong". That's it? Just give up? There's no way to find out where all these guns are coming from, who's buying them, who's supplying them? They come from somewhere. They don't have 3D printers down in Altgeld Gardens, I'll tell you that much.

I'm sorry, but it's getting frustrating. There seems to be a whole lot of "*shrug* yea, but whatcha gonna do" going on, and I don't find that an acceptable place to settle.

If your so frustrated Chicago resident, maybe you should be demanding your local reps enforce and prosecute gun crimes. Cause, there was just a thread a couple days ago about how Chicago does damn little about prosecuting gun crimes. Clean up your own house before trying to shiat in mine.


What makes you think I'm not doing just that? You can address a problem on multiple fronts at once.

And why do you keep on assuming any regulations that affect gun crime would affect you in any way? I'm not coming for your guns. If you're responsible and law-abiding, this does not affect you in any way.
 
2013-03-29 05:18:16 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Ow! That was my feelings!: Car_Ramrod: heypete: Car_Ramrod: Any distributor of firearms at any level should be strongly regulated and face strict penalties if they fark up.

They are and they do.

Well it's obviously not farking working. Where the hell are all these guns coming from that all the criminals have? In your previous post that I'm not quoting because it's getting cumbersome, you say "the idea that one can restrict guns going to bad guys while still allowing good guys to get them is fundamentally wrong". That's it? Just give up? There's no way to find out where all these guns are coming from, who's buying them, who's supplying them? They come from somewhere. They don't have 3D printers down in Altgeld Gardens, I'll tell you that much.

I'm sorry, but it's getting frustrating. There seems to be a whole lot of "*shrug* yea, but whatcha gonna do" going on, and I don't find that an acceptable place to settle.

If your so frustrated Chicago resident, maybe you should be demanding your local reps enforce and prosecute gun crimes. Cause, there was just a thread a couple days ago about how Chicago does damn little about prosecuting gun crimes. Clean up your own house before trying to shiat in mine.

What makes you think I'm not doing just that? You can address a problem on multiple fronts at once.

And why do you keep on assuming any regulations that affect gun crime would affect you in any way? I'm not coming for your guns. If you're responsible and law-abiding, this does not affect you in any way.


Fair enough and I applaud your efforts, if sincere. You'll have to excuse me a bit, I just got through a nasty and ugly fight in the Colorado legislature and not surprisingly, I'm tending to make assumptions about pro-control types. I'm sure it will pass around 11/5/14.
 
2013-03-29 05:22:38 PM  

Doom MD: My question isn't stupid but rather highlights the pathos behind the entire gun control movement. Gun control advocates wave the bloody flag over a tragedy and make emotional arguments. You urge people to "compromise" which in truth is you trying to talk me into giving up my rights. Compromise implies a give and take. The gun control movement has been nothing but a gradual erosion of civil liberties. The awb was a total failure. What's one of the first things gun control advocates push for? A new assault weapons ban. Any ground anti-2a folks get is just the latest beachhead to move the goalposts from.

Compromise to a gun control advocate means something very different than to the rest of the world.


Actually, the whole "gun control movement" is pushing for "[bolstering] the national background check system, [jumpstarting] government research on the causes of gun violence and [creating] a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership."

You're going to whine about what, now? What you think is happening?
 
2013-03-29 05:22:45 PM  

Car_Ramrod: So rules and regulations right now are perfect? They eliminate gun-related crime as much as humanly possibly? There's nothing else that can be done?


No, they arent perfect and Id be willing to listen to suggestions that would have a positive impact in reducing gun crime.  At present, the "Solutions" on the table dont do anything but that doesn't stop people from saying "Buh- but at least its something!"

If the solution doesn't help the problem then it isn't really a solution, it is simply another way of making it harder for people to be law-abiding citizens.  If you knew your neighbor your whole life and he wanted to buy your deer rifle, you'd probably just sell it to him. If Mandatory FFL checks went into place for all private transfers, you and your neighbor may or may not decide to sell the gun between each other.

The scumbag down the road who has $300 cash and needs a gun is going to go through black market means to get it anyways.


whidbey: It's not x, it's y. Or z to you.    Anything but what's being discussed.


Whats being discussed is how can we limit the cosmetic features of rifles which are responsible for 1% of gun crime in the USA.
Not how do we keep guns out of the hands of felons
Not how do we address gang and drug related gun crime
Not how do we address handgun crime in inner cities - which accounts for 70% of all gun crime.

We are discussing how do we ban cosmetic features. Of rifles. Which account for less than 1% of gun crime.  Say it a few times and let it sink in.

Mikey1969: Which "full auto weapons" are you talking about?


There's apparently a bunch of $25,000+ select-fire AK's and Thompsons that are showing up everywhere in street crimes.
 
2013-03-29 05:25:46 PM  

o5iiawah: Car_Ramrod: So rules and regulations right now are perfect? They eliminate gun-related crime as much as humanly possibly? There's nothing else that can be done?

No, they arent perfect and Id be willing to listen to suggestions that would have a positive impact in reducing gun crime.  At present, the "Solutions" on the table dont do anything but that doesn't stop people from saying "Buh- but at least its something!"

If the solution doesn't help the problem then it isn't really a solution, it is simply another way of making it harder for people to be law-abiding citizens.  If you knew your neighbor your whole life and he wanted to buy your deer rifle, you'd probably just sell it to him. If Mandatory FFL checks went into place for all private transfers, you and your neighbor may or may not decide to sell the gun between each other.

The scumbag down the road who has $300 cash and needs a gun is going to go through black market means to get it anyways.


That's why I've said 1000 times in this thread and others like it that people more familiar with guns and gun culture need to be involved in the conversation at a deeper level than, "You're stupid and your ideas are stupid". Come up with ideas that will help everyone. Move the conversation in a constructive direction. Don't just be an armchair quarterback.
 
2013-03-29 05:27:29 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: It's not x, it's y. Or z to you.    Anything but what's being discussed.

Whats being discussed is how can we limit the cosmetic features of rifles which are responsible for 1% of gun crime in the USA.
Not how do we keep guns out of the hands of felons
Not how do we address gang and drug related gun crime
Not how do we address handgun crime in inner cities - which accounts for 70% of all gun crime.


Actually, we have been advocating putting billions of dollars into research as to why gun violence occurs. If you don't oppose that, then we're not really arguing. Why you felt the need to bring up Chicago and downplay Sandy Hook I don't get.
 
2013-03-29 05:29:25 PM  

o5iiawah: Not how do we keep guns out of the hands of felons


and I would agree that the US has a major conflict of interest in keeping weapons out of the hands of felons because we are among the largest weapons manufacturers in the world, if not #1.
 
2013-03-29 05:33:18 PM  

Car_Ramrod: o5iiawah: Car_Ramrod: So rules and regulations right now are perfect? They eliminate gun-related crime as much as humanly possibly? There's nothing else that can be done?

No, they arent perfect and Id be willing to listen to suggestions that would have a positive impact in reducing gun crime.  At present, the "Solutions" on the table dont do anything but that doesn't stop people from saying "Buh- but at least its something!"

If the solution doesn't help the problem then it isn't really a solution, it is simply another way of making it harder for people to be law-abiding citizens.  If you knew your neighbor your whole life and he wanted to buy your deer rifle, you'd probably just sell it to him. If Mandatory FFL checks went into place for all private transfers, you and your neighbor may or may not decide to sell the gun between each other.

The scumbag down the road who has $300 cash and needs a gun is going to go through black market means to get it anyways.

That's why I've said 1000 times in this thread and others like it that people more familiar with guns and gun culture need to be involved in the conversation at a deeper level than, "You're stupid and your ideas are stupid". Come up with ideas that will help everyone. Move the conversation in a constructive direction. Don't just be an armchair quarterback.


Stop the 'assault weapon ban' nonsense then. The Democrats poisoned this debate almost immediately (deliberately???) by letting Feinstein go off. Seriously, she does not get to decide, as much as she wants to, what firearms Americans get to own. It is the Marianas Trench of red lines. Stop the prohibitionist bullshiat.
 
2013-03-29 05:38:50 PM  

Car_Ramrod: That's why I've said 1000 times in this thread and others like it that people more familiar with guns and gun culture need to be involved in the conversation at a deeper level than, "You're stupid and your ideas are stupid". Come up with ideas that will help everyone. Move the conversation in a constructive direction. Don't just be an armchair quarterback.


The usual cabal of cameroncrazy1984, widbey and NHA usually just overload the conversation with snarky comments that really only serve to show how little they actually know.

If I were king tomorrow.....  For starters, we need to change the national conversation on firearms.  The same people who have been saying for years that "Just say no" doesn't work with drugs and premarital sex are the first people to say that if we ban guns, sweep them under the rug, relegate their existence to the flyover states and scream loud whenever given a reason, that the issues behind firearms will be solved.  Children need to know at varying ages how to report the existence of a firearm, handle a firearm and shoot/clean a firearm.  While this isn't the responsibility of the Federal government, I would appreciate if they didn't shiat all over organizations that promoted safety.

I'd seriously reform federal drug law which would eliminate the need for street gangs to shoot each other and bystanders over it.  This would curb border violence among the cartels looking to push their way in.  Instead of incarcerating non-violent drug users, our penal system would be better off if we simply let them go, treated the addicted ones and more harshly punished those who use guns to commit crimes.

Though currently already a felony, I'd actually prosecute those who attempt to acquire a firearm when they have no legal right to do so.  Add half of their sentence and massive fines for stores that deal guns to felons.  Any fines paid go to victims of gun violence and firearms safety training.
 
2013-03-29 05:44:09 PM  

o5iiawah: ban guns


Delusional.

o5iiawah: Children need to know at varying ages how to report the existence of a firearm, handle a firearm and shoot/clean a firearm. While this isn't the responsibility of the Federal government, I would appreciate if they didn't shiat all over organizations that promoted safety.


static2.businessinsider.com
 
2013-03-29 05:44:34 PM  

whidbey: Doom MD: My question isn't stupid but rather highlights the pathos behind the entire gun control movement. Gun control advocates wave the bloody flag over a tragedy and make emotional arguments. You urge people to "compromise" which in truth is you trying to talk me into giving up my rights. Compromise implies a give and take. The gun control movement has been nothing but a gradual erosion of civil liberties. The awb was a total failure. What's one of the first things gun control advocates push for? A new assault weapons ban. Any ground anti-2a folks get is just the latest beachhead to move the goalposts from.

Compromise to a gun control advocate means something very different than to the rest of the world.

Actually, the whole "gun control movement" is pushing for "[bolstering] the national background check system, [jumpstarting] government research on the causes of gun violence and [creating] a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership."

You're going to whine about what, now? What you think is happening?


That isn't what the gun control movement wants, it's the point they've been forced to retreat to. This isn't even taking into account the absurd laws being passed that infringe on gun owners in their relevant state.

The devil is in the details. More comprehensive background checks can be a patient confidentiality nightmare and may discourage people from seeking mental health. Adding people on do not fly lists to be flagged by nics, as some advocates are pushing for, is absolutely a violation of civil liberties with no due process. Background checks can also be used as a back door way to register guns.

And research, sure, research has never been used to push an agenda, am I right? Same with ad campaigns.

Why am I so suspicious? Because these proposals are being made by politicians who have already made more aggressive gestures to restrict gun rights. Would you eat a sandwich made by someone who tried to stab you a week ago?
 
2013-03-29 05:47:33 PM  

whidbey: Why you felt the need to bring up Chicago and downplay Sandy Hook I don't get.


Because Sandy hook is an isolated incident caused by a person with a serious mental condition.  The facts are not out on Sandy hook and we wont know for years what was going through Adam Lanza's mind.  You cant ascertain how you're going to prevent the next Sandy Hook when many of the facts behind Sandy hook are still up in the air.  If you could wave a wand and prevent all spree shootings with AR-15's you would be of course saving lives but what of the tens of thousands that are killed with handguns or other weapons?

Gun violence is a problem. I guess I just dont understand why you are so rabidly fixated on what amounts to less than 1% of that problem.  Why fixate on the 1% and ignore the 70%?
 
2013-03-29 05:48:58 PM  

Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: My question isn't stupid but rather highlights the pathos behind the entire gun control movement. Gun control advocates wave the bloody flag over a tragedy and make emotional arguments. You urge people to "compromise" which in truth is you trying to talk me into giving up my rights. Compromise implies a give and take. The gun control movement has been nothing but a gradual erosion of civil liberties. The awb was a total failure. What's one of the first things gun control advocates push for? A new assault weapons ban. Any ground anti-2a folks get is just the latest beachhead to move the goalposts from.

Compromise to a gun control advocate means something very different than to the rest of the world.

Actually, the whole "gun control movement" is pushing for "[bolstering] the national background check system, [jumpstarting] government research on the causes of gun violence and [creating] a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership."

You're going to whine about what, now? What you think is happening?

That isn't what the gun control movement wants, it's the point they've been forced to retreat to. This isn't even taking into account the absurd laws being passed that infringe on gun owners in their relevant state.

The devil is in the details. More comprehensive background checks can be a patient confidentiality nightmare and may discourage people from seeking mental health. Adding people on do not fly lists to be flagged by nics, as some advocates are pushing for, is absolutely a violation of civil liberties with no due process. Background checks can also be used as a back door way to register guns.

And research, sure, research has never been used to push an agenda, am I right? Same with ad campaigns.

Why am I so suspicious? Because these proposals are being made by politicians who have already made more aggressive gestures to restrict gun rights. Would you eat a sandwich made by someone who tried to stab you a week ago?


Just stating facts.

Responding with unfounded paranoid speculation isn't.
 
2013-03-29 05:49:11 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: Why you felt the need to bring up Chicago and downplay Sandy Hook I don't get.

Because Sandy hook is an isolated incident caused by a person with a serious mental condition.  The facts are not out on Sandy hook and we wont know for years what was going through Adam Lanza's mind.  You cant ascertain how you're going to prevent the next Sandy Hook when many of the facts behind Sandy hook are still up in the air.  If you could wave a wand and prevent all spree shootings with AR-15's you would be of course saving lives but what of the tens of thousands that are killed with handguns or other weapons?

Gun violence is a problem. I guess I just dont understand why you are so rabidly fixated on what amounts to less than 1% of that problem.  Why fixate on the 1% and ignore the 70%?


Because handguns kill blah people
 
2013-03-29 05:50:38 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: o5iiawah: ban guns

Delusional.


Feinstein says she'd ban them all if she could. Holder says we need to brainwash people into thinking Guns are bad. Biden says that anything that gets passed in the way of gun control is only the beginning.  You're either delusional or illiterate.

o5iiawah: Children need to know at varying ages how to report the existence of a firearm, handle a firearm and shoot/clean a firearm. While this isn't the responsibility of the Federal government, I would appreciate if they didn't shiat all over organizations that promoted safety.

[static2.businessinsider.com image 850x517]


Im sorry, are you trying to argue something?  I know people who join the NRA for the rental car and hotel discounts.
 
2013-03-29 05:52:28 PM  

Doom MD: o5iiawah: whidbey: Why you felt the need to bring up Chicago and downplay Sandy Hook I don't get.

Because Sandy hook is an isolated incident caused by a person with a serious mental condition.  The facts are not out on Sandy hook and we wont know for years what was going through Adam Lanza's mind.  You cant ascertain how you're going to prevent the next Sandy Hook when many of the facts behind Sandy hook are still up in the air.  If you could wave a wand and prevent all spree shootings with AR-15's you would be of course saving lives but what of the tens of thousands that are killed with handguns or other weapons?

Gun violence is a problem. I guess I just dont understand why you are so rabidly fixated on what amounts to less than 1% of that problem.  Why fixate on the 1% and ignore the 70%?

Because handguns kill blah people


Leave it to progressives to be outraged over Trayvon Martin but completely ambivalent to the hundreds of black teenagers that die in the inner cities each year through gang violence or crossfire
 
2013-03-29 05:54:03 PM  

o5iiawah: Leave it to progressives to be outraged over Trayvon Martin but completely ambivalent to the hundreds of black teenagers that die in the inner cities each year through gang violence or crossfire


Those apples sure don't look like oranges.
 
2013-03-29 05:54:12 PM  

whidbey: Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: My question isn't stupid but rather highlights the pathos behind the entire gun control movement. Gun control advocates wave the bloody flag over a tragedy and make emotional arguments. You urge people to "compromise" which in truth is you trying to talk me into giving up my rights. Compromise implies a give and take. The gun control movement has been nothing but a gradual erosion of civil liberties. The awb was a total failure. What's one of the first things gun control advocates push for? A new assault weapons ban. Any ground anti-2a folks get is just the latest beachhead to move the goalposts from.

Compromise to a gun control advocate means something very different than to the rest of the world.

Actually, the whole "gun control movement" is pushing for "[bolstering] the national background check system, [jumpstarting] government research on the causes of gun violence and [creating] a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership."

You're going to whine about what, now? What you think is happening?

That isn't what the gun control movement wants, it's the point they've been forced to retreat to. This isn't even taking into account the absurd laws being passed that infringe on gun owners in their relevant state.

The devil is in the details. More comprehensive background checks can be a patient confidentiality nightmare and may discourage people from seeking mental health. Adding people on do not fly lists to be flagged by nics, as some advocates are pushing for, is absolutely a violation of civil liberties with no due process. Background checks can also be used as a back door way to register guns.

And research, sure, research has never been used to push an agenda, am I right? Same with ad campaigns.

Why am I so suspicious? Because these proposals are being made by politicians who have already made more aggressive gestures to restrict gun rights. Would you eat a sandwich made by someone who tried to stab you a week ago?

Just stating facts.

Responding with unfounded paranoid speculation isn't.


Please point out where what I'm saying is unfounded.
 
2013-03-29 05:54:42 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: Why you felt the need to bring up Chicago and downplay Sandy Hook I don't get.

Because Sandy hook is an isolated incident caused by a person with a serious mental condition.  The facts are not out on Sandy hook and we wont know for years what was going through Adam Lanza's mind.


That isn't acceptable. People have been clamoring for better mental healthcare policies for decades.

You cant ascertain how you're going to prevent the next Sandy Hook when many of the facts behind Sandy hook are still up in the air.

Actually, a law that would have made it a felony to keep unsecured weapons would have very likely prevented Lanza from getting the guns. So would seeing his name flagged on a database after he tried to unsuccessfully purchase dangerous weapons.

 If you could wave a wand and prevent all spree shootings with AR-15's you would be of course saving lives but what of the tens of thousands that are killed with handguns or other weapons?

Gun violence is a problem. I guess I just dont understand why you are so rabidly fixated on what amounts to less than 1% of that problem.  Why fixate on the 1% and ignore the 70%?


You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.
 
2013-03-29 05:56:38 PM  
I could be completely misreading what is being said, but im not sure anyone is against making the NCIS system better and easier to use for more people.  Its a pretty simple concept, if you have committed a qualifying crime and been convicted...you make the list (some misdemeanors disqualify you for gun ownership, not just felonies).  If your on the list, you do not get to purchase a firearm from a dealer.  I dont think anyone is against this.  *I live in California so I already have to visit an FFL to do private party transfers, and aside from being only the same pain in the ass as buying a new firearm, it does promote the firearms retailers and keeps them in business for when I want to buy ammo, reloading supplies or cleaning supplies.*

The part people are most disagreeable on in is the registration portion.  If I'm not a criminal and am legally allowed to purchase or own a firearm, why do *you* need to know what I have?  If I want to tell you, that is my decision, but what fundemental right do you have to know what I own in my home?  This information doesnt make you safer, or more in danger.  Because if you dont know, you will have no feeling on the matter in either direction.  The biggest problem is, when the NCIS legislation is presented, its almost always packaged with the registration requirement.

Now, for those of you playing the game.  Lets work on this "omg the AR15 is a military style firearm and must be banned"  Why?  I mean seriously.  I swear the people who want to do this are doing this just because they want to ban something and get a small power trip over the poeple who have firearms as a hobby.  There is no reasonable explaination to ban the thing.

Earlier there was a question as to why governments use the AR over the Mini-14.  Lets change the question to why governments use the M16 vs the M14.  Colt won the government contract for a new battle rifle in the early sixites (may have been very late fifties).  And since our benevolent government requires the winning companies of contracts to sub-contract out about 8% to small disenfranchised companies (in an effort to bolster small business), and the fact that Colt couldnt make enough M16's (later the M4) to fulfill the contract so they farmed the work out.  Nowadays the patents/copyrights are expired and anyone who wants can make one.  As for other government militaries using it, "If the US uses it it must be good (M4)"

If you want to a have decent conversation and try to come up with a solution to firearm violence, come to the table with more than "OMG gunz r bad mkay"
 
2013-03-29 05:57:57 PM  

Doom MD: That isn't what the gun control movement wants, it's the point they've been forced to retreat to. This isn't even taking into account the absurd laws being passed that infringe on gun owners in their relevant state.

The devil is in the details. More comprehensive background checks can be a patient confidentiality nightmare and may discourage people from seeking mental health. Adding people on do not fly lists to be flagged by nics, as some advocates are pushing for, is absolutely a violation of civil liberties with no due process. Background checks can also be used as a back door way to register guns.

And research, sure, research has never been used to push an agenda, am I right? Same with ad campaigns.

Why am I so suspicious? Because these proposals are being made by politicians who have already made more aggressive gestures to restrict gun rights. Would you eat a sandwich made by someone who tried to stab you a week ago?

Just stating facts.

Responding with unfounded paranoid speculation isn't.

Please point out where what I'm saying is unfounded.


lolwut
 
2013-03-29 05:59:16 PM  

whidbey: o5iiawah: whidbey: Why you felt the need to bring up Chicago and downplay Sandy Hook I don't get.

Because Sandy hook is an isolated incident caused by a person with a serious mental condition.  The facts are not out on Sandy hook and we wont know for years what was going through Adam Lanza's mind.

That isn't acceptable. People have been clamoring for better mental healthcare policies for decades.

You cant ascertain how you're going to prevent the next Sandy Hook when many of the facts behind Sandy hook are still up in the air.

Actually, a law that would have made it a felony to keep unsecured weapons would have very likely prevented Lanza from getting the guns. So would seeing his name flagged on a database after he tried to unsuccessfully purchase dangerous weapons.

 If you could wave a wand and prevent all spree shootings with AR-15's you would be of course saving lives but what of the tens of thousands that are killed with handguns or other weapons?

Gun violence is a problem. I guess I just dont understand why you are so rabidly fixated on what amounts to less than 1% of that problem.  Why fixate on the 1% and ignore the 70%?

You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.


Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?
 
2013-03-29 06:03:12 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: BayouOtter: No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.

I see someone didn't get the memo that the Dems marginalized our moonbats years ago.


diane who? now as a Democrat i don't claim her either but she does caucus with them.
 
2013-03-29 06:03:55 PM  

Doom MD: You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.

Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?


That's sure some convincing rebuttal.
 
2013-03-29 06:06:49 PM  

Doom MD: whidbey: o5iiawah: whidbey: Why you felt the need to bring up Chicago and downplay Sandy Hook I don't get.

Because Sandy hook is an isolated incident caused by a person with a serious mental condition.  The facts are not out on Sandy hook and we wont know for years what was going through Adam Lanza's mind.

That isn't acceptable. People have been clamoring for better mental healthcare policies for decades.

You cant ascertain how you're going to prevent the next Sandy Hook when many of the facts behind Sandy hook are still up in the air.

Actually, a law that would have made it a felony to keep unsecured weapons would have very likely prevented Lanza from getting the guns. So would seeing his name flagged on a database after he tried to unsuccessfully purchase dangerous weapons.

 If you could wave a wand and prevent all spree shootings with AR-15's you would be of course saving lives but what of the tens of thousands that are killed with handguns or other weapons?

Gun violence is a problem. I guess I just dont understand why you are so rabidly fixated on what amounts to less than 1% of that problem.  Why fixate on the 1% and ignore the 70%?

You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.

Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?


Did Lanza's mother own a safe? If not, would it not be reasonable that your heirs have the combination to said safe in case of tragedy?  Do people not keep things other than firearms in safes? Such as Wills or Trust paperwork that said heir may need access to?  Even if the mother had "secured storage" does not mean that Adam would not have had access to the firearms anyway.
 
2013-03-29 06:07:46 PM  

o5iiawah: Feinstein says she'd ban them all if she could.


Nope.

o5iiawah: Holder says we need to brainwash people into thinking Guns are bad.


Check the context. He was talking about changing kids' attitudes the way attitudes towards cigarettes have changed. As in, a gun won't make you cool or a man any more than a cigarette will.

o5iiawah: Biden says that anything that gets passed in the way of gun control is only the beginning.


So naturally that means he's shooting for a ban of all firearms.

Delusional.
 
2013-03-29 06:08:40 PM  

phenn: So are we.

However, we're a little more concerned with the cause of violence. Not the tool of choice. Most of us, anyway.


You mean causes like mental illness, when the GOP is dead-set against increasing funding for mental health care and research, and/or insurance reforms to mandate mental health coverage?

Or, how about poverty, when the GOP is dead-set against social programs that might help people in poverty in any form, increased minimum wages for underemployed/underpaid employees, or labor organization that might increase wages and benefits entirely in the purview of the private sphere?

Or education, which increases civic awareness, responsibility and marketability/profitability as an employee, when the GOP is dead-set against substantively improving public/compulsory education in any form?

How about hard drugs, which lead to violent crime, when the GOP is dead-set on criminalization and harsh prison sentencing (and privatization of prisons) that is known and proven to  not alleviate drug problems nor the criminal market that breeds violent crime?

Yeah, I'll believe conservatives and/or the Republican party or any of its iterations care one whit about the actual causes of gun violence, when they do  anything but obstruct any public policy that might reduce gun violence in any way whatsoever.
 
2013-03-29 06:08:40 PM  

Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?


Instead of banning guns gun control advocates are willing to just go with registration, increased taxes, licensing, and insurance premiums for gun ownership. Much like the same burdens we put on people for owning cars, for similar reasons.

Doom MD: I like how Chicago blames the lax gun laws around their city for causing all the gun violence, even though those places have less crime.


Lets look at state by state comparison of guns ownership and gun crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_st at e

Funny how as the % of guns per 100k goes down, so does the rate of homicides by gun, nearly perfectly linearly. And look which states are near the top of the list.

1. Louisina
2. Missouri
3. Maryland
4. South Carolina
5. Delaware

Facts be damned though, since they simply prove more guns = more gun related death we better just ignore it.
 
2013-03-29 06:09:13 PM  

whidbey: Doom MD: You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.

Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?

That's sure some convincing rebuttal.


How does one "outlaw unsecure firearm" storage? Please include effective enforcement policies.
 
2013-03-29 06:09:54 PM  

whidbey: You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.


We already have background checks. They work great for those who obtain their firearms legally. We need to prosecute the people who try to obtain them legally when they dont have the right to do so.  We dont currently do that.

The mental health issue is a slippery one since I dont think you or anyone here can adequately demonstrate that Lanza, Holmes, Kliebold, Harris or any other infamous spree shooters suffered from a severe mental condition and were denied medical treatment or didn't have access to it.  Each of these kids came from reasonably well off middle class families. Typically they were loners, or immersed themselves in fantasy worlds and people ignored the warning signs.  I dont think that its possible to create a federal department of outreach for lonely people.

I'm curious to know how you'd protect doctor-patient privilege and what you would define as mentally ill.  you'd also have to convince me that there's some timetable or cooling off period before a person with a mental condition can be cleared to own a firearm.  You'd also have to convince me that there wouldn't be doctors out there who would be reluctant to clear a person mentally safe simply because they dont want the liability associated with it.   You'd also have to convince me that this wouldn't cause people to hide from help for fear that their right to a firearm would be taken away.  Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder 40 years ago and it was changed not as a result of clinical review but political pressure.  Could political pressure classify another behavior as a mental disorder?

Again, im not sure how a national firearms registry would prevent SH, aurora or other spree shootings. We know how they got their firearms and we know who purchased them.

Rather than state your case, state why your solutions would help solve the problem.
 
2013-03-29 06:10:04 PM  

justtray: Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?

Instead of banning guns gun control advocates are willing to just go with registration, increased taxes, licensing, and insurance premiums for gun ownership. Much like the same burdens we put on people for owning cars, for similar reasons.

Doom MD: I like how Chicago blames the lax gun laws around their city for causing all the gun violence, even though those places have less crime.

Lets look at state by state comparison of guns ownership and gun crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_st at e

Funny how as the % of guns per 100k goes down, so does the rate of homicides by gun, nearly perfectly linearly. And look which states are near the top of the list.

1. Louisina
2. Missouri
3. Maryland
4. South Carolina
5. Delaware

Facts be damned though, since they simply prove more guns = more gun related death we better just ignore it.


Ohhh ohh, and the best part. Illinois, which includes chicago, is the one outlier with 80% gun rate and only 3.5 murder by guns. Why could that be...
 
2013-03-29 06:14:39 PM  

o5iiawah: The mental health issue is a slippery one since I dont think you or anyone here can adequately demonstrate that Lanza, Holmes, Kliebold, Harris or any other infamous spree shooters suffered from a severe mental condition and were denied medical treatment or didn't have access to it.  Each of these kids came from reasonably well off middle class families. Typically they were loners, or immersed themselves in fantasy worlds and people ignored the warning signs.  I dont think that its possible to create a federal department of outreach for lonely people.


Sorry, but that's not a reason not to fund mental health care or research with the intention of understanding gun violence.

I'm curious to know how you'd protect doctor-patient privilege and what you would define as mentally ill. you'd also have to convince me that there's some timetable or cooling off period before a person with a mental condition can be cleared to own a firearm. You'd also have to convince me that there wouldn't be doctors out there who would be reluctant to clear a person mentally safe simply because they dont want the liability associated with it. You'd also have to convince me that this wouldn't cause people to hide from help for fear that their right to a firearm would be taken away. Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder 40 years ago and it was changed not as a result of clinical review but political pressure. Could political pressure classify another behavior as a mental disorder?

I don't know. And how are we going to know if we don't have a targeted system in place? You're just speculating.

Again, im not sure how a national firearms registry would prevent SH, aurora or other spree shootings. We know how they got their firearms and we know who purchased them.

Rather than state your case, state why your solutions would help solve the problem.


Because there is no national database, and our currently underfunded mental health system does not adequately address the problems we're seen and identified.
 
2013-03-29 06:16:49 PM  

that bosnian sniper: phenn: So are we.

However, we're a little more concerned with the cause of violence. Not the tool of choice. Most of us, anyway.

You mean causes like mental illness, when the GOP is dead-set against increasing funding for mental health care and research, and/or insurance reforms to mandate mental health coverage?

Or, how about poverty, when the GOP is dead-set against social programs that might help people in poverty in any form, increased minimum wages for underemployed/underpaid employees, or labor organization that might increase wages and benefits entirely in the purview of the private sphere?

Or education, which increases civic awareness, responsibility and marketability/profitability as an employee, when the GOP is dead-set against substantively improving public/compulsory education in any form?

How about hard drugs, which lead to violent crime, when the GOP is dead-set on criminalization and harsh prison sentencing (and privatization of prisons) that is known and proven to  not alleviate drug problems nor the criminal market that breeds violent crime?

Yeah, I'll believe conservatives and/or the Republican party or any of its iterations care one whit about the actual causes of gun violence, when they do  anything but obstruct any public policy that might reduce gun violence in any way whatsoever.


Your irritation with the GOP is misdirected on me if you think I have anything to do with those chowderheads.
 
2013-03-29 06:18:41 PM  

Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.

Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?

That's sure some convincing rebuttal.

How does one "outlaw unsecure firearm" storage? Please include effective enforcement policies.


It's really not that hard. Make it mandatory to have your weapon secured that no one but you could possibly access it. Fines, jail time, whatever it takes. No way Lanza would have had access if we had a law like that.

But we don't, and I'm sure you don't want one in place. Just a guess.
 
2013-03-29 06:20:11 PM  
No guns, no big soda, no salt, no red meat, no cigarettes BUT HEY YOU CAN GET AN ABORTION!
 
2013-03-29 06:20:55 PM  

Gavenger: Even if the mother had "secured storage" does not mean that Adam would not have had access to the firearms anyway.


Authorities also found a gun safe in his bedroom and a holiday card from Nancy Lanza containing a check made out to her son for the purchase of yet another firearm.
 
2013-03-29 06:22:43 PM  

Doom MD: No guns, no big soda, no salt, no red meat, no cigarettes BUT HEY YOU CAN GET AN ABORTION!


Dude, no reason to go full trolltard on us.
 
2013-03-29 06:23:59 PM  

whidbey: Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.

Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?

That's sure some convincing rebuttal.

How does one "outlaw unsecure firearm" storage? Please include effective enforcement policies.

It's really not that hard. Make it mandatory to have your weapon secured that no one but you could possibly access it. Fines, jail time, whatever it takes. No way Lanza would have had access if we had a law like that.

But we don't, and I'm sure you don't want one in place. Just a guess.


Why would you not want your family to have access?  And as I stated above, most people store other things in firearms safes, not just firearms.  Such as Wills and Trust documentation, automobile titles, basically anything you would want stored in a secure container.  As for Wills and Trusts, maybe yours, they do your family zero benift if they dont have access to it in the event they needed it.  Thus nullifying your requirement that no one other than you have access to the storage container.  Unless your now requiring a seperate container for different items.  In which case thats just silly.
 
2013-03-29 06:26:02 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Gavenger: Even if the mother had "secured storage" does not mean that Adam would not have had access to the firearms anyway.

Authorities also found a gun safe in his bedroom and a holiday card from Nancy Lanza containing a check made out to her son for the purchase of yet another firearm.


Sooooo your agreeing that "secured storage" isnt the issue and we can drop it right?
 
2013-03-29 06:28:17 PM  

whidbey: Because there is no national database, and our currently underfunded mental health system does not adequately address the problems we're seen and identified.


So I'll ask again...

Explain how the current rate of gun crime would be reduced with a national firearms registry
Explain how the the spree shooters were yearning for care for their mental disorders and they didn't have adequate access to help

.

whidbey: But we don't, and I'm sure you don't want one in place. Just a guess.


Even if we did, how would we enforce it?  Door to door checks?

I yearn for the day that I can actually engage someone on rational, practical solutions that work...someone who isn't a carbon copy of everything Piers morgan has been clamoring for with no explanation as to why.
 
2013-03-29 06:28:21 PM  

Gavenger: whidbey: Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.

Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?

That's sure some convincing rebuttal.

How does one "outlaw unsecure firearm" storage? Please include effective enforcement policies.

It's really not that hard. Make it mandatory to have your weapon secured that no one but you could possibly access it. Fines, jail time, whatever it takes. No way Lanza would have had access if we had a law like that.

But we don't, and I'm sure you don't want one in place. Just a guess.

Why would you not want your family to have access?  And as I stated above, most people store other things in firearms safes, not just firearms.  Such as Wills and Trust documentation, automobile titles, basically anything you would want stored in a secure container.  As for Wills and Trusts, maybe yours, they do your family zero benift if they dont have access to it in the event they needed it.  Thus nullifying your requirement that no one other than you have access to the storage container.  Unless your now requiring a seperate container for different items.  In which case thats just silly.


Well yeah the gun would have to be in its own safe. And I'm sure there are ways to legally allow your family access. The question is whether Lanza would have been pegged as someone too mentally ill to be allowed access, and I don't know that.

From what I have seen, had we had some sort of national policy in place, he would have been certified nuts.
 
2013-03-29 06:28:53 PM  

whidbey: Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.

Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?

That's sure some convincing rebuttal.

How does one "outlaw unsecure firearm" storage? Please include effective enforcement policies.

It's really not that hard. Make it mandatory to have your weapon secured that no one but you could possibly access it. Fines, jail time, whatever it takes. No way Lanza would have had access if we had a law like that.

But we don't, and I'm sure you don't want one in place. Just a guess.


Define "secured". And you are wildly speculating that a twisted shiat like Lanza, who shot his own mother in the face, would be stopped or even deterred by such a law.
 
2013-03-29 06:29:47 PM  

Gavenger: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Gavenger: Even if the mother had "secured storage" does not mean that Adam would not have had access to the firearms anyway.

Authorities also found a gun safe in his bedroom and a holiday card from Nancy Lanza containing a check made out to her son for the purchase of yet another firearm.

Sooooo your agreeing that "secured storage" isnt the issue and we can drop it right?


I think we disagree on the definition of "secured."
 
2013-03-29 06:33:29 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: Because there is no national database, and our currently underfunded mental health system does not adequately address the problems we're seen and identified.

So I'll ask again...

Explain how the current rate of gun crime would be reduced with a national firearms registry
Explain how the the spree shooters were yearning for care for their mental disorders and they didn't have adequate access to help


Having a system would benefit law enforcement both locally and nationally. There is really no good idea why we shouldn't have it.

.whidbey: But we don't, and I'm sure you don't want one in place. Just a guess.

Even if we did, how would we enforce it?  Door to door checks?


Obviously, the only way we would find it didn't work is if someone didn't follow the rules and people got killed. And there would be severe penalties if that were the case. But yeah, if people are still going to be assholes about it, maybe there should have to be a provision where an inspector examines the safe and signs off on it.

It doesn't have to be that drastic.


I yearn for the day that I can actually engage someone on rational, practical solutions that work...someone who isn't a carbon copy of everything Piers morgan has been clamoring for with no explanation as to why.

That isn't an argument or an acceptable rebuttal. I have made some very valid points here. You've barely addressed any of them.
 
2013-03-29 06:36:28 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: whidbey: Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.

Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?

That's sure some convincing rebuttal.

How does one "outlaw unsecure firearm" storage? Please include effective enforcement policies.

It's really not that hard. Make it mandatory to have your weapon secured that no one but you could possibly access it. Fines, jail time, whatever it takes. No way Lanza would have had access if we had a law like that.

But we don't, and I'm sure you don't want one in place. Just a guess.

Define "secured". And you are wildly speculating that a twisted shiat like Lanza, who shot his own mother in the face, would be stopped or even deterred by such a law.


"Secured" would mean that Lanza would have been unable to access the guns he used for the Sandy Hook shooting. He would not have been a designated person allowed to use whatever access code or retinal scan or whatever means used to keep that safe locked.

This really that hard to imagine. Come on.
 
2013-03-29 06:37:55 PM  

whidbey: Gavenger: whidbey: Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.

Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?

That's sure some convincing rebuttal.

How does one "outlaw unsecure firearm" storage? Please include effective enforcement policies.

It's really not that hard. Make it mandatory to have your weapon secured that no one but you could possibly access it. Fines, jail time, whatever it takes. No way Lanza would have had access if we had a law like that.

But we don't, and I'm sure you don't want one in place. Just a guess.

Why would you not want your family to have access?  And as I stated above, most people store other things in firearms safes, not just firearms.  Such as Wills and Trust documentation, automobile titles, basically anything you would want stored in a secure container.  As for Wills and Trusts, maybe yours, they do your family zero benift if they dont have access to it in the event they needed it.  Thus nullifying your requirement that no one other than you have access to the storage container.  Unless your now requiring a seperate container for different items.  In which case thats just silly.

Well yeah the gun would have to be in its own safe. And I'm sure there are ways to legally allow your family access. The question is whether Lanza would have been pegged as someone too mentally ill to be allowed access, and I don't know that.

From what I have seen, had we had some sort of national policy in place, he would have been certified nuts.


I agree we have problems with Mental Health in the country that need to be addressed.  The problem I see is everyone see the problem, no one has a solution or something even close to one.  I know i certainly dont.  But I do have a lot of concerns.

Who gets to decide whether someone is mentally ill or not?  Is there a threshold for how mentally ill a person has to be in order to lose access to their Bill of Rights, are there degrees of mental illness?  How does one appeal this decision?  Seriously, if you say hes crazy, how does that person stand up and say they're not?  Are the people making these decisions subject to a board review to make sure they are following the guidelines accurately and not pushing their own personal agendas?

Everyone agrees we have problems, but aside from everyone standing up and yelling "We have a problem" NEITHER side has stepped up to come up with solutions.
 
2013-03-29 06:38:57 PM  

whidbey: That isn't an argument or an acceptable rebuttal. I have made some very valid points here. You've barely addressed any of them.


You havent made any valid points, nor have you asked anything of me.  On the other hand...

 I've asked you 3 times what a firearm registry would do to prevent gun crime and you havent answered.
I've asked you how a better mental health system would have prevented the recent spree shootings and you havent answered.  Sure, you say that Lanza would be "Certified insane" but are you calling for a Federal Mental Health Evaluation as a precursor to gun ownership?  It is okay if you are, we can debate that, I'm just trying to figure out the means to your ends....


The extent of your "Arguments" is usually saying something to the effect of 'Oh-Snap' whenever one of your lib buddies says something snarky an irrelevant.
 
2013-03-29 06:40:53 PM  

Gavenger: Who gets to decide whether someone is mentally ill or not?  Is there a threshold for how mentally ill a person has to be in order to lose access to their Bill of Rights, are there degrees of mental illness?  How does one appeal this decision?  Seriously, if you say hes crazy, how does that person stand up and say they're not?  Are the people making these decisions subject to a board review to make sure they are following the guidelines accurately and not pushing their own personal agendas?


How about just letting the mental health professionals weigh in before crying "conspiracy?"

Is this even possible?

Everyone agrees we have problems, but aside from everyone standing up and yelling "We have a problem" NEITHER side has stepped up to come up with solutions.

Well, that's bullshiat. TFA has 3 items the President is pushing for. All of them involve pushing for better education and understanding regarding gun violence.
 
2013-03-29 06:41:07 PM  

whidbey: o5iiawah: whidbey: Because there is no national database, and our currently underfunded mental health system does not adequately address the problems we're seen and identified.

So I'll ask again...

Explain how the current rate of gun crime would be reduced with a national firearms registry
Explain how the the spree shooters were yearning for care for their mental disorders and they didn't have adequate access to help

Having a system would benefit law enforcement both locally and nationally. There is really no good idea why we shouldn't have it.

.whidbey: But we don't, and I'm sure you don't want one in place. Just a guess.

Even if we did, how would we enforce it?  Door to door checks?

Obviously, the only way we would find it didn't work is if someone didn't follow the rules and people got killed. And there would be severe penalties if that were the case. But yeah, if people are still going to be assholes about it, maybe there should have to be a provision where an inspector examines the safe and signs off on it.

It doesn't have to be that drastic.


I yearn for the day that I can actually engage someone on rational, practical solutions that work...someone who isn't a carbon copy of everything Piers morgan has been clamoring for with no explanation as to why.

That isn't an argument or an acceptable rebuttal. I have made some very valid points here. You've barely addressed any of them.


So police inspecting people's homes at random without warrants to inspect your gun safe is permissible? Apparently the 2nd amendment isn't the only thing under fire.
 
2013-03-29 06:43:44 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Gavenger: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Gavenger: Even if the mother had "secured storage" does not mean that Adam would not have had access to the firearms anyway.

Authorities also found a gun safe in his bedroom and a holiday card from Nancy Lanza containing a check made out to her son for the purchase of yet another firearm.

Sooooo your agreeing that "secured storage" isnt the issue and we can drop it right?

I think we disagree on the definition of "secured."


Fair enough, my definition of secured is anyone, whom i deem is not authorized, cannot access the safe or container I use to store my firearms.  So i see the issue as this.  You disagree with the mother that Adam should not have been allowed access.  Well we can all unanimously and all together with a great big "DUH" now.  However hindsight is 20/20 and that was his mothers decision.  Just as it would be my decision of whether my children will have access to my safe (certainly not at all at a young age).  You, yourself,  do not get to make that decision for everyone, even though you really really want to.
 
2013-03-29 06:44:44 PM  

Gavenger: Who gets to decide whether someone is mentally ill or not?


THIS.
 
2013-03-29 06:45:15 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: That isn't an argument or an acceptable rebuttal. I have made some very valid points here. You've barely addressed any of them.

You havent made any valid points, nor have you asked anything of me.


lolwut

 On the other hand...

 I've asked you 3 times what a firearm registry would do to prevent gun crime and you havent answered.
I've asked you how a better mental health system would have prevented the recent spree shootings and you havent answered.  Sure, you say that Lanza would be "Certified insane" but are you calling for a Federal Mental Health Evaluation as a precursor to gun ownership?  It is okay if you are, we can debate that, I'm just trying to figure out the means to your ends....


Maybe you need to reread my posts. I have given a full response regarding each of your points. You just don't care for the answers.


The extent of your "Arguments" is usually saying something to the effect of 'Oh-Snap' whenever one of your lib buddies says something snarky an irrelevant.

The extent of your "Arguments" is usually saying something to the effect of 'Oh-Snap' whenever one of your lib buddies says something snarky an irrelevant.

No, someone schooled you for comparing the Sandy Hook tragedy to a day's shootings in Chicago. The honorable thing to do would have been to retract the point.
 
2013-03-29 06:47:24 PM  

Doom MD: I yearn for the day that I can actually engage someone on rational, practical solutions that work...someone who isn't a carbon copy of everything Piers morgan has been clamoring for with no explanation as to why.

That isn't an argument or an acceptable rebuttal. I have made some very valid points here. You've barely addressed any of them.

So police inspecting people's homes at random without warrants to inspect your gun safe is permissible? Apparently the 2nd amendment isn't the only thing under fire.


You really should see someone about that paranoia. Just saying. Where did I allude to any of that in my suggestion?
 
2013-03-29 06:48:27 PM  

whidbey: Ow! That was my feelings!: whidbey: Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.

Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?

That's sure some convincing rebuttal.

How does one "outlaw unsecure firearm" storage? Please include effective enforcement policies.

It's really not that hard. Make it mandatory to have your weapon secured that no one but you could possibly access it. Fines, jail time, whatever it takes. No way Lanza would have had access if we had a law like that.

But we don't, and I'm sure you don't want one in place. Just a guess.

Define "secured". And you are wildly speculating that a twisted shiat like Lanza, who shot his own mother in the face, would be stopped or even deterred by such a law.

"Secured" would mean that Lanza would have been unable to access the guns he used for the Sandy Hook shooting. He would not have been a designated person allowed to use whatever access code or retinal scan or whatever means used to keep that safe locked.

This really that hard to imagine. Come on.


He was a legal adult.

If he hadn't been so mentally defective he would have been like every other 20 year old, out of the house, in college, starting his own life, etc. He was very, very crazy and everyone, including his delusional mother knew it. Maybe he should have been committed? Maybe his damn mother should have been too...

Please, again, in as much legalize as you can fake, tell me how to properly 'secure' my firearms to be legal with the law you want.  This, the damn details, is what your side is so farking terrible with and they are what my side only cares about.

What are the limits to police power in your 'secure storage law'? Will there be inspections? Do the cops need a warrant to search? How much of my fourth amendment rights will I need to sacrifice to comply with your law?
 
2013-03-29 06:48:45 PM  

whidbey: Having a system would benefit law enforcement both locally and nationally. There is really no good idea why we shouldn't have it.


Okay, so you said it would "Benefit" law enforcement.  Explain how it would benefit law enforcement and how that would lead to a reduction in gun crime.
You're grandstanding that things are simply 'The right thing to do" and "Common sense" without actually explaining why.  As I've been saying all along - you have no argument.

Meanwhile upstream, I argued for a reform of federal drug law, which would lead in a reduction of drug-related gang violence.  No biters.

whidbey: How about just letting the mental health professionals weigh in before crying "conspiracy?"

Is this even possible?


OK, so let them "weigh in"  Who decides an individual must undergo a psych evaluation?  Would a successful eval be criteria for gun ownership? Would a federal gun permit be "shall issue" or "May issue?"  How often must an individual be evaluated? What is the cooling off period when an individual is deemed incompetent? Is there a fair review process?

you're denying someone either life, liberty or property not via due process of law but via the opinion of a doctor -
 
2013-03-29 06:49:41 PM  
\

phenn: Gavenger: Who gets to decide whether someone is mentally ill or not?

THIS.


So much for that solution.
Guess we're back to regulating guns.
 
2013-03-29 06:50:01 PM  

whidbey: Gavenger: Who gets to decide whether someone is mentally ill or not?  Is there a threshold for how mentally ill a person has to be in order to lose access to their Bill of Rights, are there degrees of mental illness?  How does one appeal this decision?  Seriously, if you say hes crazy, how does that person stand up and say they're not?  Are the people making these decisions subject to a board review to make sure they are following the guidelines accurately and not pushing their own personal agendas?

How about just letting the mental health professionals weigh in before crying "conspiracy?"

Is this even possible?

Everyone agrees we have problems, but aside from everyone standing up and yelling "We have a problem" NEITHER side has stepped up to come up with solutions.

Well, that's bullshiat. TFA has 3 items the President is pushing for. All of them involve pushing for better education and understanding regarding gun violence.


No one said anything about conspiracy, but if your going to put a system in place that could ultimately remove a persons rights, maybe we should have things in place to make sure its not abused?  Maybe?

Yeah I saw what the President said...gave you all a warm fuzzy did it?  Cause thats about the extent of what will come out of it.  He showed you he is doing something so youll like him again.
 
2013-03-29 06:52:29 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: \phenn: Gavenger: Who gets to decide whether someone is mentally ill or not?

THIS.

So much for that solution.
Guess we're back to regulating guns.


It's not a solution. It wouldn't change a thing.
 
2013-03-29 06:53:29 PM  

whidbey: Doom MD: I yearn for the day that I can actually engage someone on rational, practical solutions that work...someone who isn't a carbon copy of everything Piers morgan has been clamoring for with no explanation as to why.

That isn't an argument or an acceptable rebuttal. I have made some very valid points here. You've barely addressed any of them.

So police inspecting people's homes at random without warrants to inspect your gun safe is permissible? Apparently the 2nd amendment isn't the only thing under fire.

You really should see someone about that paranoia. Just saying. Where did I allude to any of that in my suggestion?


When you said an inspector would examine your safe and sign off on it. Or did you mean at point of purchase? That doesn't enforce safe storage. That's like forcing motorcyclists to own a helmet and assuming they're wearing it.
 
2013-03-29 06:54:13 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: Having a system would benefit law enforcement both locally and nationally. There is really no good idea why we shouldn't have it.

Okay, so you said it would "Benefit" law enforcement.  Explain how it would benefit law enforcement and how that would lead to a reduction in gun crime.
You're grandstanding that things are simply 'The right thing to do" and "Common sense" without actually explaining why.  As I've been saying all along - you have no argument.


I've explained several times that there is NO such system in place currently, and having that kind of standardization would benefit law enforcement by having that data. I said nothing about statistics. I said it's time we stepped up our game as a society.

whidbey: How about just letting the mental health professionals weigh in before crying "conspiracy?"

Is this even possible?

OK, so let them "weigh in"  Who decides an individual must undergo a psych evaluation?  Would a successful eval be criteria for gun ownership? Would a federal gun permit be "shall issue" or "May issue?"  How often must an individual be evaluated? What is the cooling off period when an individual is deemed incompetent? Is there a fair review process?


According to you, there isn't. Even when you yourself have no actual details of what such a program would entail.

you're denying someone either life, liberty or property not via due process of law but via the opinion of a doctor -

If someone wants to contest it in court, they're welcome to. I don't have the kind of disdain for doctors or apparently the whole mental health care system as you do.

Face it, you don't want any attempts at reform. You consider any regulation infringement. Be honest.
 
2013-03-29 06:54:53 PM  

whidbey: You really should see someone about that paranoia. Just saying. Where did I allude to any of that in my suggestion?


So you want a law with no enforcement mechanism.

whidbey: Maybe you need to reread my posts. I have given a full response regarding each of your points. You just don't care for the answers.


No you havent.  You said  it would "Benefit law enforcement"  without explaining how, or how it would reduce crime.  I dont care for the answers because they arent actual answers.  You said that we need better mental health without explaining particulars.  You're a fountain of anti-gun talking points with no substance.

whidbey: No, someone schooled you for comparing the Sandy Hook tragedy to a day's shootings in Chicago. The honorable thing to do would have been to retract the point.


I never said SH was a day's shootings in Chicago, just that the murder rate in Chicago is high, steady and able to be studied and that random spree shootings are far more difficult to understand.  Rather than focusing on a random event or a rifle that produces less than 1% of the gun crime, we should focus on how the majority of gun crime happens.....but you dont like that answer.
 
2013-03-29 06:54:58 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: \phenn: Gavenger: Who gets to decide whether someone is mentally ill or not?

THIS.

So much for that solution.
Guess we're back to regulating guns.


LOL, I never said I was against that solution, or some variation of it.  I merely asked that we make sure that it is implemented properly.  One does not remove someones rights lightly.  And I dont think either side would argue that point.

This is the main issue the "pro-gun" side has.  Whether they can put it into words or not.  We want effective legislation, not zero legislation.  But everytime we say "now wait a sec, this wasnt thought through" the other side jumps up and throws a tantrum thinking we want it to be Escape from LA across the US.
 
2013-03-29 06:56:22 PM  

Gavenger: Well, that's bullshiat. TFA has 3 items the President is pushing for. All of them involve pushing for better education and understanding regarding gun violence.

No one said anything about conspiracy, but if your going to put a system in place that could ultimately remove a persons rights, maybe we should have things in place to make sure its not abused?  Maybe?


You're welcome to show us how any of the 3 things proposed in tfa "could ultimately remove a person's rights."

Yeah I saw what the President said...gave you all a warm fuzzy did it?  Cause thats about the extent of what will come out of it.  He showed you he is doing something so youll like him again.

I didn't see anything. Do you agree with the 3 items listed in tfa? Why or why not?
 
2013-03-29 06:56:23 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: \phenn: Gavenger: Who gets to decide whether someone is mentally ill or not?

THIS.

So much for that solution.
Guess we're back to regulating guns.


www.wingtv.net
 
2013-03-29 06:58:07 PM  

Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: I yearn for the day that I can actually engage someone on rational, practical solutions that work...someone who isn't a carbon copy of everything Piers morgan has been clamoring for with no explanation as to why.

That isn't an argument or an acceptable rebuttal. I have made some very valid points here. You've barely addressed any of them.

So police inspecting people's homes at random without warrants to inspect your gun safe is permissible? Apparently the 2nd amendment isn't the only thing under fire.

You really should see someone about that paranoia. Just saying. Where did I allude to any of that in my suggestion?

When you said an inspector would examine your safe and sign off on it. Or did you mean at point of purchase? That doesn't enforce safe storage. That's like forcing motorcyclists to own a helmet and assuming they're wearing it.


Honestly, I would prefer that the gun owner sign an agreement at the time of purchase with no inspection needed.

Depends on whether or not it leads to someone getting killed. Not sure the Attorney General might see it that way.
 
2013-03-29 06:59:14 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: No, someone schooled you for comparing the Sandy Hook tragedy to a day's shootings in Chicago. The honorable thing to do would have been to retract the point.

I never said SH was a day's shootings in Chicago, just that the murder rate in Chicago is high, steady and able to be studied and that random spree shootings are far more difficult to understand.  Rather than focusing on a random event or a rifle that produces less than 1% of the gun crime, we should focus on how the majority of gun crime happens.....but you dont like that answer.


Ah the sound of goal posts moving in a Fark Gun Thread. How quaint.
 
2013-03-29 07:00:24 PM  

whidbey: Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: I yearn for the day that I can actually engage someone on rational, practical solutions that work...someone who isn't a carbon copy of everything Piers morgan has been clamoring for with no explanation as to why.

That isn't an argument or an acceptable rebuttal. I have made some very valid points here. You've barely addressed any of them.

So police inspecting people's homes at random without warrants to inspect your gun safe is permissible? Apparently the 2nd amendment isn't the only thing under fire.

You really should see someone about that paranoia. Just saying. Where did I allude to any of that in my suggestion?

When you said an inspector would examine your safe and sign off on it. Or did you mean at point of purchase? That doesn't enforce safe storage. That's like forcing motorcyclists to own a helmet and assuming they're wearing it.

Honestly, I would prefer that the gun owner sign an agreement at the time of purchase with no inspection needed.

Depends on whether or not it leads to someone getting killed. Not sure the Attorney General might see it that way.


So, you want a basic liability bill, not necessarily tied to storage?
 
2013-03-29 07:00:50 PM  
Also:

whidbey: Face it, you don't want any attempts at reform. You consider any regulation infringement. Be honest.


Or don't, in this case.
 
2013-03-29 07:01:04 PM  

heypete: Marcus Aurelius: You need a dangerous device permit. A $200 item. My form and fingerprints are already on file with the ATF.

Not exactly. You do need a tax stamp for the transfer, yes, and it does cost $200.

Each NFA item requires a separate Form 4, payment of the tax, background check, fingerprints, local law enforcement approval, etc. If you own 5 NFA items you need to go through the process 5 times -- they don't just skip certain parts because you're already in the system.

/NFA owner


Came here to say this.  Have two NFA items, a .22 suppressor, $200 stamp and damned if it didn't take three interviews with the county sheriff before he signed off on it figuring that I really am not a mobster, and a Serbu Super Shorty, ($5 "Any other weapon" stamp.)  Still had to see the sheriff again, but this time he signed off because he thought it was an interesting shotgun.  Both tax stamps took about 5 months to process each.
 
2013-03-29 07:02:26 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: whidbey: Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: I yearn for the day that I can actually engage someone on rational, practical solutions that work...someone who isn't a carbon copy of everything Piers morgan has been clamoring for with no explanation as to why.

That isn't an argument or an acceptable rebuttal. I have made some very valid points here. You've barely addressed any of them.

So police inspecting people's homes at random without warrants to inspect your gun safe is permissible? Apparently the 2nd amendment isn't the only thing under fire.

You really should see someone about that paranoia. Just saying. Where did I allude to any of that in my suggestion?

When you said an inspector would examine your safe and sign off on it. Or did you mean at point of purchase? That doesn't enforce safe storage. That's like forcing motorcyclists to own a helmet and assuming they're wearing it.

Honestly, I would prefer that the gun owner sign an agreement at the time of purchase with no inspection needed.

Depends on whether or not it leads to someone getting killed. Not sure the Attorney General might see it that way.

So, you want a basic liability bill, not necessarily tied to storage?


Ultimately, yes.
 
2013-03-29 07:03:17 PM  

whidbey: and having that kind of standardization would benefit law enforcement by having that data.


HOW

whidbey: According to you, there isn't. Even when you yourself have no actual details of what such a program would entail.


You're the one arguing for a Federal Mental health program that would overlap with firearms ownership.  Why dont you explain how the program will work?  You've suggested it.  I'm asking you how its going to work.

whidbey: If someone wants to contest it in court, they're welcome to. I don't have the kind of disdain for doctors or apparently the whole mental health care system as you do.


What the hell?  Where have I announced any disdain for doctors or the mental health system?  Do you get off on being flat out dishonest or lying?  Does it hurt you not to be the smartest person in the room?  Please quote me....

Face it, you don't want any attempts at reform. You consider any regulation infringement. Be honest.

I've already listed the reforms I'd like to see upthread. I actually explain how and why they would work. They would not curtail the rights of law abiding gun owners.
 
2013-03-29 07:04:51 PM  

whidbey: Gavenger: Well, that's bullshiat. TFA has 3 items the President is pushing for. All of them involve pushing for better education and understanding regarding gun violence.

No one said anything about conspiracy, but if your going to put a system in place that could ultimately remove a persons rights, maybe we should have things in place to make sure its not abused?  Maybe?

You're welcome to show us how any of the 3 things proposed in tfa "could ultimately remove a person's rights."


I think we are starting to respond to different portions of each others posts.  The system I was referring to was the mentally ill, being determined to be mentally ill and having their right to access the 2A infringed.  And was asking that any legislation enacted to make this come to pass be thought through and reasonable with checks and balances in place.


Yeah I saw what the President said...gave you all a warm fuzzy did it?  Cause thats about the extent of what will come out of it.  He showed you he is doing something so youll like him again.

I didn't see anything. Do you agree with the 3 items listed in tfa? Why or why not?


The first one has the most impact, though I still dont agree that the data on which firearms I own is necessary.  My criminal history should be all thats necessary to determine whether I am legally allowed to own a firearm.  What I own isnt anyones business.

#2 is a scientific study, who cares, all it will do is stir up the extreme left/right to scream and yell at each other that they are either right/wrong and will go no where.

#3 is to create commercials.  You know, those things you fast forward through on your DVR/TiVO?
 
2013-03-29 07:06:02 PM  

whidbey: o5iiawah: whidbey: No, someone schooled you for comparing the Sandy Hook tragedy to a day's shootings in Chicago. The honorable thing to do would have been to retract the point.

I never said SH was a day's shootings in Chicago, just that the murder rate in Chicago is high, steady and able to be studied and that random spree shootings are far more difficult to understand.  Rather than focusing on a random event or a rifle that produces less than 1% of the gun crime, we should focus on how the majority of gun crime happens.....but you dont like that answer.

Ah the sound of goal posts moving in a Fark Gun Thread. How quaint.


This is what I read....

o5iiawah: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?

These guys liked them pretty well.

[img2.timeinc.net image 220x300][timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com image 200x300][static.guim.co.uk image 200x300][www.gannett-cdn.com image 215x300]


Add those guys together and you get an average month in Chicago....
Sensationalism works.


If you're on the correct side of the issue, why must you lie about every little thing, Whidbey?
 
2013-03-29 07:07:04 PM  

whidbey: Ah the sound of goal posts moving in a Fark Gun Thread. How quaint.


You call it moving the goalposts...I call it what i said.

When you have no other argument, pounding your fists like a petulant child doesn't make you smart.
 
2013-03-29 07:07:24 PM  

whidbey: Ow! That was my feelings!: whidbey: Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: I yearn for the day that I can actually engage someone on rational, practical solutions that work...someone who isn't a carbon copy of everything Piers morgan has been clamoring for with no explanation as to why.

That isn't an argument or an acceptable rebuttal. I have made some very valid points here. You've barely addressed any of them.

So police inspecting people's homes at random without warrants to inspect your gun safe is permissible? Apparently the 2nd amendment isn't the only thing under fire.

You really should see someone about that paranoia. Just saying. Where did I allude to any of that in my suggestion?

When you said an inspector would examine your safe and sign off on it. Or did you mean at point of purchase? That doesn't enforce safe storage. That's like forcing motorcyclists to own a helmet and assuming they're wearing it.

Honestly, I would prefer that the gun owner sign an agreement at the time of purchase with no inspection needed.

Depends on whether or not it leads to someone getting killed. Not sure the Attorney General might see it that way.

So, you want a basic liability bill, not necessarily tied to storage?

Ultimately, yes.


ultimately? Not sure what you mean there, but it is a more realistic and enforceable pov.
 
2013-03-29 07:09:25 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: and having that kind of standardization would benefit law enforcement by having that data.

HOW

whidbey: According to you, there isn't. Even when you yourself have no actual details of what such a program would entail.

You're the one arguing for a Federal Mental health program that would overlap with firearms ownership.  Why dont you explain how the program will work?  You've suggested it.  I'm asking you how its going to work.


I don't have to tell you. I'm not an expert, I merely believe it to be a good common sense idea.

All you're doing here is showing the thread your skepticism and negative opinions regarding the industry.

Face it, you don't want any attempts at reform. You consider any regulation infringement. Be honest.

I've already listed the reforms I'd like to see upthread. I actually explain how and why they would work. They would not curtail the rights of law abiding gun owners.


Regulation via stronger background checks, a national registry and funding a better mental health care program does not equal "curtailing the rights" of anyone.

And I've looked over those suggestions upthread, and so what? Why are you so opposed to the additional suggestions being made?
 
2013-03-29 07:11:16 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: Ah the sound of goal posts moving in a Fark Gun Thread. How quaint.

You call it moving the goalposts...I call it what i said.

When you have no other argument, pounding your fists like a petulant child doesn't make you smart.


You didn't have an argument in the first place, and all your post served to do was show us how little sympathy you have for tragedies like Sandy Hook. It was a diversionary tactic, and you got called out on it.

I'm just going to assume the point has been dropped for the remainder of this discussion.
 
2013-03-29 07:13:20 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: If you're on the correct side of the issue, why must you lie about every little thing, Whidbey?


Whidbey is pathetic.  I only argue with him to get him spinning in circles or trying to defend and explain his moronic arguments.  On the surface, it seems as though he wants a good mental health system and for people to be safe with their firearms.  Seems harmless.....

If you go deeper, you find out he actually wants mandatory mental health evaluations for all people, with decisions made by unelected doctors and those who are deemed incompetent can contest it in court.  guilty until proven innocent.  He cant tell you what sort of cooling off period there should be for people who flunk out.

He also thinks that if you sign a form at a country sheriff, that you promise pretty please to use your safe that it will solve gun crime problems.
 
2013-03-29 07:15:00 PM  

o5iiawah: personal attacks, delusional assumptions


Funny stuff there dude
 
2013-03-29 07:17:35 PM  

whidbey: o5iiawah: whidbey: and having that kind of standardization would benefit law enforcement by having that data.

HOW

whidbey: According to you, there isn't. Even when you yourself have no actual details of what such a program would entail.

You're the one arguing for a Federal Mental health program that would overlap with firearms ownership.  Why dont you explain how the program will work?  You've suggested it.  I'm asking you how its going to work.

I don't have to tell you. I'm not an expert, I merely believe it to be a good common sense idea.

All you're doing here is showing the thread your skepticism and negative opinions regarding the industry.

Face it, you don't want any attempts at reform. You consider any regulation infringement. Be honest.

I've already listed the reforms I'd like to see upthread. I actually explain how and why they would work. They would not curtail the rights of law abiding gun owners.

Regulation via stronger background checks, a national registry and funding a better mental health care program does not equal "curtailing the rights" of anyone.

And I've looked over those suggestions upthread, and so what? Why are you so opposed to the additional suggestions being made?


That depends entirely on how such laws are enforced. Since we live in the age of President Drone Strike, there might be some skepticism that the regulatory system will be equitable. Especially with this issue currently being so partisan.
 
2013-03-29 07:18:30 PM  

Gavenger: whidbey: Gavenger: Well, that's bullshiat. TFA has 3 items the President is pushing for. All of them involve pushing for better education and understanding regarding gun violence.

No one said anything about conspiracy, but if your going to put a system in place that could ultimately remove a persons rights, maybe we should have things in place to make sure its not abused?  Maybe?

You're welcome to show us how any of the 3 things proposed in tfa "could ultimately remove a person's rights."

I think we are starting to respond to different portions of each others posts.  The system I was referring to was the mentally ill, being determined to be mentally ill and having their right to access the 2A infringed.  And was asking that any legislation enacted to make this come to pass be thought through and reasonable with checks and balances in place.


Yeah I saw what the President said...gave you all a warm fuzzy did it?  Cause thats about the extent of what will come out of it.  He showed you he is doing something so youll like him again.

I didn't see anything. Do you agree with the 3 items listed in tfa? Why or why not?

The first one has the most impact, though I still dont agree that the data on which firearms I own is necessary.  My criminal history should be all thats necessary to determine whether I am legally allowed to own a firearm.  What I own isnt anyones business.

#2 is a scientific study, who cares, all it will do is stir up the extreme left/right to scream and yell at each other that they are either right/wrong and will go no where.


So you don't believe that allowing peer-reviewed research would be a good idea?

#3 is to create commercials.  You know, those things you fast forward through on your DVR/TiVO?

I don't see anyone in the private sector stepping up. Do you?
 
2013-03-29 07:20:21 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: And I've looked over those suggestions upthread, and so what? Why are you so opposed to the additional suggestions being made?

That depends entirely on how such laws are enforced. Since we live in the age of President Drone Strike, there might be some skepticism that the regulatory system will be equitable. Especially with this issue currently being so partisan.


So you're just going to tag all of Obama's legacy with the cynical "President Drone Strike?" As if there weren't a shiatload of other positive accomplishments this administration has produced?

That's a bit disingenuous.
 
2013-03-29 07:21:46 PM  

whidbey: I don't have to tell you. I'm not an expert,


Ding Ding Ding.  We have a winner.

So you have some opinions but they arent founded on any basis of reality, experience or practicality - just that they seem like good ideas or the right things to do.  Meanwhile adults who know about firearms, law enforcement or who have experience in dealing with such things are having a discussion which involves facts, results, data...  Best to leave us alone and go read Mother Jones or something....

whidbey: You didn't have an argument in the first place, and all your post served to do was show us how little sympathy you have for tragedies like Sandy Hook. It was a diversionary tactic, and you got called out on it.


I do have sympathy for it.  I also have sympathy for the 400ish people that are killed in Chicago each year.  I want to bring both into the discussion.  Consider yourself called out on ignoring an ongoing tragedy.

My argument from the beginning is to change the national conversation on firearms that much like sex and drugs, "Just say no' doesn't work.  We need to reform drug laws to free up prisons and curtail drug violence and we need to lock up people who attempt to acquire a firearm who have no legal right to do so.

I can demonstrate how each will help the situation.  You cant.  Your answer is "I dont know - Im not an expert"
No shiat sherlock.
 
2013-03-29 07:21:49 PM  

vpb: i wonder what exactly is going on in someone's head to make them so obsessed with a weapons (or sporting goods if you listen to some gun nuts).

I remember when three wheel ATVs were banned.  there were people who were upset, but no one was threatening to start killing people.


What if your internet access was taken away due to a few isolated instances of mass shootings? Would you be mad?
 
2013-03-29 07:23:27 PM  

whidbey: o5iiawah: personal attacks, delusional assumptions

Funny stuff there dude


The laughter is all over here.....
 
2013-03-29 07:24:47 PM  
whidbey:
"Secured" would mean that Lanza would have been unable to access the guns he used for the Sandy Hook shooting. He would not have been a designated person allowed to use whatever access code or retinal scan or whatever means used to keep that safe locked.

This really that hard to imagine. Come on.


Yeah, actually. Since he just murdered his mom, he'd have unrestricted access to the safe for hours. There isn't a safe you can open that can't be broken into.
 
2013-03-29 07:28:52 PM  

whidbey: Ow! That was my feelings!: And I've looked over those suggestions upthread, and so what? Why are you so opposed to the additional suggestions being made?

That depends entirely on how such laws are enforced. Since we live in the age of President Drone Strike, there might be some skepticism that the regulatory system will be equitable. Especially with this issue currently being so partisan.

So you're just going to tag all of Obama's legacy with the cynical "President Drone Strike?" As if there weren't a shiatload of other positive accomplishments this administration has produced?

That's a bit disingenuous.


Every POTUS has their Albatrosses, drone murders are one of Obamas. It doesn't undue his accomplishments, but you are fooling yourself if you don't think it doesn't hurt him. It will haunt his legacy, the Dems, and almost certainly this country.

accidental (really) threadjack over.
 
2013-03-29 07:30:01 PM  

BayouOtter: Since he just murdered his mom, he'd have unrestricted access to the safe for hours.


Where did he get the gun to shoot her with?
 
2013-03-29 07:37:24 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BayouOtter: Since he just murdered his mom, he'd have unrestricted access to the safe for hours.

Where did he get the gun to shoot her with?


It was his, I'm pretty sure. Then again, he killed her while she was sleeping, so unless every knife, rock and stick was in the safe too.....
 
2013-03-29 07:41:21 PM  

whidbey: So, you want a basic liability bill, not necessarily tied to storage?

Ultimately, yes.


Firearm liability is a tricky subject, here is an article on it.

A portion:
The second largest subset of gun deaths and injuries are deliberately inflicted on another person; along with suicide, this accounts for all but a handful of annual gun deaths.   In the case of homicide/assault with a deadly weapon, however, we're now talking about a lot of shooters who cannot legally own their guns, either because they are too young, because they are felons, or because they live in a city which has historically made it very difficult to own handguns.  Those people are not going to acquire liability insurance just because you pass a law saying they have to, and given that they are also probably not going to register their guns, there's no way to force them to do so.  Moreover, insurance usually excludes criminal acts committed by the policyholder, because of course, there's a huge adverse selection problem.

Which leaves accidents.  Accidental death and injury rate from guns is fairly low, compared to both other gun incidents, and other categories of accident: 14,000 injuries and 600 deaths in 2011.  This sounds like a lot, but in a population of 300 million, a lot of people die each year from almost anything: dozens of kids a year drown in buckets. The rate of accidental firearm death or injury is much lower than something like drowning, much less a really common cause like motor vehicle accidents or medical mistakes.  And the damage is already often covered by other forms of insurance.

There would be some benefit to requiring insurance, but overall, we're talking about helping a pretty small number of people compared to the status quo.  There might be some kind of justice argument--shift the cost to gun owners rather than your and my health and homeowner's insurance--but we're talking about pennies a year.  It might be symbolically meaningful, but probably not financially.
 
2013-03-29 07:44:14 PM  

BayouOtter: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BayouOtter: Since he just murdered his mom, he'd have unrestricted access to the safe for hours.

Where did he get the gun to shoot her with?

It was his, I'm pretty sure.\


You're pretty wrong.

BayouOtter: knife, rock and stick


Keep up the good work.
 
2013-03-29 07:54:36 PM  
Nina_Hartley's_Ass:
Keep up the good work.

Pointing out how obviously easy it is for a homicidal maniac to kill a woman in her bed while she slumbers?

Just saying what you refuse to understand.