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  
•       •       •

3830 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Mar 2013 at 11:06 AM (1 year 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 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.
 
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