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
    More: Scary, President Obama, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, law enforcement officials, scientific methods, semiautomatic firearms, Richard Feldman, NRA  
•       •       •

3832 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Mar 2013 at 11:06 AM (3 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 500 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report