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.

(Abc.net.au)   Indian man has axe to grind, takes it out on 5 girls and 4 women   (abc.net.au) divider line 153
    More: Sad, Indians, Press Trust of India, Madhya Pradesh, village elders, mental breakdown  
•       •       •

10851 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2013 at 8:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-05 08:19:37 AM
QUICK!!! BAN AXES!!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
 
2013-04-05 10:20:47 AM
way south: 

When someone commits an unthinkable crime, our focus should be on that person rather than their tools. Examining the weapon only explains the mechanics of how people died, not why the perpetrator decided to kill. As a result, controlling one tool only leads to deaths by different mechanics.
That isn't the outcome we're really interested in.


I'm all for focusing attention on the perpetrator of a crime, or even on the potential perpetrator of a crime, but I don't think it follows that we shouldn't focus attention on the means that perpetrator used to commit that crime.  If the weapon of choice of psychopaths is a semiautomatic rifle built on an AR-15 platform, or a semiautomatic pistol with a large capacity magazine, I think we need not only to try to identify psychopaths before they get their hands on such weapons, but also to ask ourselves whether the benefits of permitting such weapons to be available to the general public are outweighed by the fact that such weapons are favored by psychopaths.
 
2013-04-05 10:37:59 AM
I submitted this story yesterday from the version in a Bangkok paper and with a unfunny headline. Along with around 20 others.

Dementia is getting painful.
 
2013-04-05 10:43:22 AM
I'm still amazed that "ax murderer" is really a thing. Since Lizzie B., I mean.

I'd want a machete were I run amok. Sometimes the old ways are best.
 
2013-04-05 11:18:51 AM

tirob: way south: 

When someone commits an unthinkable crime, our focus should be on that person rather than their tools. Examining the weapon only explains the mechanics of how people died, not why the perpetrator decided to kill. As a result, controlling one tool only leads to deaths by different mechanics.
That isn't the outcome we're really interested in.

I'm all for focusing attention on the perpetrator of a crime, or even on the potential perpetrator of a crime, but I don't think it follows that we shouldn't focus attention on the means that perpetrator used to commit that crime.  If the weapon of choice of psychopaths is a semiautomatic rifle built on an AR-15 platform, or a semiautomatic pistol with a large capacity magazine, I think we need not only to try to identify psychopaths before they get their hands on such weapons, but also to ask ourselves whether the benefits of permitting such weapons to be available to the general public are outweighed by the fact that such weapons are favored by psychopaths.




Thing is we have to go back to the statistical chance of any particular weapon being used.
If I say that 99% of rifles or pistols will never be used in a crime, it stands to reason that a law targeted them will affect 99% of the population who are not criminals.
I'd be looking for needles by starting with the biggest bale of hay.

We come back to it being a human problem. We can spot the traits that create a high crime neighborhood (economics, culture, population density) and We know of other tell-tales (poor mental health, drug abuse, domestic violence) that precede most violent acts.
You shrink the search pool of potential criminals to something more manageable. I can then target resources on those hotspots and My efforts are better focused.

Its useful to understand the weapons involved, but every dollar spent triple checking an objects serial number is one less I can spend on the foot soldiers actually combating a problem.
 
2013-04-05 11:33:58 AM

Spanky_McFarksalot: Great, now I'll have to put up with my right-wing fb friends posting this like a brazillion times with some pro-gun statement.

Thanks a lot guy from India!


What the fark is wrong with you? Do you value your precious wood-cutting penis-extension over the lives of women and children? All we are asking for is some reasonable restrictions on sharp and pointy things. Your right to own sharp and pointy things doesn't trump my right to live in complete safety.

I hope somebody cuts up any women you are related to with an axe to teach you a lesson. Psychos like yourself should be put down for the good of the country.
 
2013-04-05 11:36:18 AM

weltallica: Am I in before the inevitable "B-B-BUT MEN ARE THE TRUE VICTIMS HERE!!!!" posters?


It's Friday. All of the strawmen are getting hammered at the bar.
 
2013-04-05 11:56:28 AM
way south:
Thing is we have to go back to the statistical chance of any particular weapon being used.
If I say that 99% of rifles or pistols will never be used in a crime, it stands to reason that a law targeted them will affect 99% of the population who are not criminals.
.


99 percent of what kind of rifles or pistols?  99 percent of AR-15 platform semiautomatic rifles, for example?

way south:
I'd be looking for needles by starting with the biggest bale of hay.
.


I think you could reduce the size of your theoretical hay bale exponentially by concentrating on certain kinds of firearms.  See above.

way south:
We come back to it being a human problem. We can spot the traits that create a high crime neighborhood (economics, culture, population density) and We know of other tell-tales (poor mental health, drug abuse, domestic violence) that precede most violent acts.

If only it were so simple.  Doing these things helps to prevent some violent crimes.  But by no means all of them.
 
2013-04-05 12:03:45 PM

tirob: I think you could reduce the size of your theoretical hay bale exponentially by concentrating on certain kinds of firearms. See above.


"Reducing the size" means trampling on the rights of innocent people you farking moron. Why is that so hard to understand?

Do you know what else we could do? We could mandate that everybody has to wear a GPS equipped ankle monitor so that the government can know where we are at all times. People would have to stop shooting eachother because it would be too easy to get caught.

My idea has the side benefit of helping in investigations for other crimes like rape and robbery too, so it is obviously better than yours. And don't give me any shiat about how it hurts innocent people. If you haven't done anything wrong, then you don't have anything to hide.
 
2013-04-05 12:10:38 PM
We're going to need an India tag soon.
 
2013-04-05 01:05:15 PM

weltallica: Am I in before the inevitable "B-B-BUT MEN ARE THE TRUE VICTIMS HERE!!!!" posters?


Well, I was "just asking questions" but got deleted.  "Welcome to Fark when there's a mod around" I guess
 
2013-04-05 02:03:38 PM

umad: tirob: I think you could reduce the size of your theoretical hay bale exponentially by concentrating on certain kinds of firearms. See above.

"Reducing the size" means trampling on the rights of innocent people you farking moron. Why is that so hard to understand?

Do you know what else we could do? We could mandate that everybody has to wear a GPS equipped ankle monitor so that the government can know where we are at all times. People would have to stop shooting eachother because it would be too easy to get caught.

My idea has the side benefit of helping in investigations for other crimes like rape and robbery too, so it is obviously better than yours. And don't give me any shiat about how it hurts innocent people. If you haven't done anything wrong, then you don't have anything to hide.


Just once---just once---I would like to be able to suggest, during the course of a discussion about gun rights, the idea that we could limit public access to a few types of semiautomatic weapons without someone's coming in and telling me that what will necessarily follow is totalitarian control of the population.

Your two-watt post is evidence that buttresses my long-held belief that you libertarians so-called think that you have rights while the rest of us have obligations.  What about *my* right to live anywhere I want and not have all of my neighbors find it necessary to pack Ruger Mini-14s?
 
2013-04-05 02:14:40 PM

tirob: What about *my* right to live anywhere I want and not have all of my neighbors find it necessary to pack Ruger Mini-14s?


How is that your "Right?" Where is this "Right" listed?
 
2013-04-05 02:19:10 PM

tirob: Just once---just once---I would like to be able to suggest, during the course of a discussion about gun rights, the idea that we could limit public access to a few types of semiautomatic weapons without someone's coming in and telling me that what will necessarily follow is totalitarian control of the population.


I'm not suggesting it will lead to totalitarian control. I'm just offering a better way to eliminate gun violence as well as a host of other crimes. Apparently you only care about gun violence. So what if your rights are affected. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

tirob: What about *my* right to live anywhere I want and not have all of my neighbors find it necessary to pack Ruger Mini-14s?


That one is easy. You don't have a right to tell your neighbors what they can and can't own, so my solution is for you to STFU and deal with it.
 
2013-04-05 02:41:36 PM
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-05 03:37:40 PM

BigNumber12: tirob: What about *my* right to live anywhere I want and not have all of my neighbors find it necessary to pack Ruger Mini-14s?

How is that your "Right?" Where is this "Right" listed?



As long as we're talking about Constitutional rights, and as long as we're interpreting the Constitution strictly here, where is your right to own a Ruger Mini-14 listed?  When the Constitution was written, "arms" meant a weapon that was a single-shot muzzle-loader.

umad: tirob What about *my* right to live anywhere I want and not have all of my neighbors find it necessary to pack Ruger Mini-14s?

That one is easy. You don't have a right to tell your neighbors what they can and can't own, so my solution is for you to STFU and deal with it.



Oh really?  I don't have the right to tell my neighbor that he can't own a helicopter that parks on his lawn and flies over the neighborhood at any time of the day or night?  Would his right to own and use his machine take precedence over the rights of his neighbors not to have a helicopter flying over their houses at all hours?

Yeah, I know.  You have rights, I have obligations.

umad: I'm not suggesting it will lead to totalitarian control.


I got your point the first time.  Just to make it as clear as crystal for you, I suggest to you that even if your worst nightmare comes true and we wind up passing laws that restrict the ownership of a few kinds of semiautomatic firearms, the "trampling of rights" that you complain about will be minor compared to the idea of fitting everyone with a GPS attached to an ankle bracelet; furthermore, one will not necessarily lead to the other.  Even the people whose right to buy a Bushmaster has been trampled will still be able to buy all the bolt-action rifles they want.
 
2013-04-05 03:51:12 PM

tirob: Oh really? I don't have the right to tell my neighbor that he can't own a helicopter that parks on his lawn and flies over the neighborhood at any time of the day or night?


You have the right to tell your neighbor anything you want to tell him. He has the right to tell you to go fark yourself and to mind your own business. So no, you do not have the right to determine what your neighbor is allowed to own. If you think you do, then post a farking citation.

tirob: I got your point the first time. Just to make it as clear as crystal for you, I suggest to you that even if your worst nightmare comes true and we wind up passing laws that restrict the ownership of a few kinds of semiautomatic firearms, the "trampling of rights" that you complain about will be minor compared to the idea of fitting everyone with a GPS attached to an ankle bracelet;


You say it is minor. I say having to wear an ankle monitor is minor. Do you think the government is really going to care what you do with your life as long as you aren't breaking any laws? It isn't a big deal, so just give up.

Banning a few kinds of semi-automatic firearms affects the rights of law-abiding citizens just like forced ankle monitors affects the rights of law-abiding citizens. Who put you in charge of deciding which rights are more important than others anyway? Maybe some of us value our guns more than we value our privacy. Since I don't think my privacy is important, then you shouldn't mind if I take it away from you as well.
 
2013-04-05 03:53:30 PM
And as long as we are interpereting the constitution "strictly" you need to get the fark off of the internet and never use it to communicate ever again. The founding fathers didn't type the constitution in Word you know.
 
2013-04-05 03:58:26 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com

I'm not saying it was induced by having a smaller weener, but......
 
2013-04-05 04:05:19 PM

tirob: When the Constitution was written, "arms" meant a weapon that was a single-shot muzzle-loader.


That's also what militaries was using at the time. By your logic, our current ban on military-grade, fully-automatic rifles is inconsistent with the 2nd Amendment, because civilians aren't allowed to wield the same rifles that soldiers do.

Or are you saying that the type of guns that civilians are allowed to own is frozen in time in the late 1700s, and was never meant to evolve?

They weren't farking stupid. These were the best minds in society. They knew that technology advances, and if they only wanted the 2nd to ever apply to single-shot muzzle-loaders, they farking well would have written it that way. The whole point of the 2nd was to give a civilian militia member firepower parity with a soldier - a fighting chance in conducting guerrilla warfare against an occupying army - foreign, or domestic.
 
2013-04-05 04:49:03 PM

sheep snorter: India man versus against Florida man. Florida man eats faces. While India man supports the core GOP policy(women are slaves as per the bible).

[i.imgur.com image 634x424]


Wow... What have therapists ever done to these people?
/"It's therapist" - Alex Trebek
 
2013-04-05 05:04:27 PM

tirob: I think you could reduce the size of your theoretical hay bale exponentially by concentrating on certain kinds of firearms.



Well, We're looking at around 300 rifle deaths a year and AR's are a small subset (they have a high asking price and are still rare among those most at risk to be involved in crimes), which means you're in "more likely to be hit by lightning" territory.

dl.dropbox.com
(some ammo seized from a local gun runner)

What you are looking for are 25 acp pocket guns sold and purchased by a handful of crooks that the ATF never seems to bust. There's been more than a few complaints about this in the past.

If we are going by what does the most damage, AR's shouldn't have made it into the debate.

tirob: If only it were so simple.  Doing these things helps to prevent some violent crimes.  But by no means all of them.


More than some.
Targeting domestic violence has been the secret behind reducing violence in many states. We know drug use attracts dealers, gangs, and trouble. Economics and population let us put big red X's on the crime map.  We know the causes.

We're supposed to go on this long walk to "save one child" by keeping a few bullets from being loaded into a magazine.  Why not save them in bulk by putting more effort behind proven methods?
 
2013-04-05 05:43:14 PM

BigNumber12: tirob: When the Constitution was written, "arms" meant a weapon that was a single-shot muzzle-loader.

That's also what militaries was using at the time. By your logic, our current ban on military-grade, fully-automatic rifles is inconsistent with the 2nd Amendment, because civilians aren't allowed to wield the same rifles that soldiers do.
.


No, my logic does not lead to such a conclusion.  Militaries were also using cannon at the time; navies were using frigates that could bear scores of them.  There was and is no Constitutional provision that permits a private citizen to own a cannon or a ship of the line.

BigNumber12: They weren't farking stupid. These were the best minds in society. They knew that technology advances, and if they only wanted the 2nd to ever apply to single-shot muzzle-loaders, they farking well would have written it that way. The whole point of the 2nd was to give a civilian militia member firepower parity with a soldier - a fighting chance in conducting guerrilla warfare against an occupying army - foreign, or domestic.


And if they had wanted the 2nd to apply to cannon and three-masted frigates, they would have written it that way, too.  It appears to me, at any rate, that Madison et al. believed that there were some weapons that citizens should be allowed--or even encouraged--to keep, and others that needed to remain under the exclusive control of authorities who were, in theory, responsible to the citizenry as a whole.  When I wrote that the 2nd should only apply to single-shot muzzle-loaders I had my tongue partly in cheek, of course, but I am quite serious when I say that I believe that I do not think the 2nd was ever meant to apply to *all* weapons, and I also think that we need to recalculate, in this age of scores of different kinds of hand-held missile death, exactly which ones ought to come under its protection and which ones ought not to.

The 2nd was, by the way, written at a time when it was taken for granted pretty much everywhere that every adult, able-bodied white male would be obliged to serve in the militia (hence the provision that nearly made it into the 2nd Amendment by which no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms would be compelled to serve).  After the War of 1812, when it became clear, because of advances in military tactics, that half-trained militia were well nigh useless in battle against regular troops, militias began to morph into the National Guard, and service in them became voluntary after a while.  To go back for a second to your point about laws and technologies evolving, I suggest that that the way things are now, we effectively no longer have the militias that are are alluded to in the first clause of the 2nd.  Does that invalidate the entire amendment?
 
2013-04-05 06:09:23 PM

umad: tirob: Oh really? I don't have the right to tell my neighbor that he can't own a helicopter that parks on his lawn and flies over the neighborhood at any time of the day or night?

You have the right to tell your neighbor anything you want to tell him. He has the right to tell you to go fark yourself and to mind your own business. So no, you do not have the right to determine what your neighbor is allowed to own. If you think you do, then post a farking citation.
.

Are you really this obtuse or are you just pulling my leg?  If have good reason to believe that my neighbor has a fully automatic AR15, I can if I so desire call the cops and/or the FBI and have that neighbor arrested.  So yes, there are, effectively, some things that I can tell my neighbor that he can't own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

umad: Banning a few kinds of semi-automatic firearms affects the rights of law-abiding citizens just like forced ankle monitors affects the rights of law-abiding citizens. Who put you in charge of deciding which rights are more important than others anyway? Maybe some of us value our guns more than we value our privacy. Since I don't think my privacy is important, then you shouldn't mind if I take it away from you as well.


Nobody put me in charge of anything.  I'm arguing for laws, not for a personal dictatorship, in case you haven't noticed.

The ankle monitors you describe would affect all citizens 24 hours a day.  Laws against certain kinds of semiautomatic firearms would affect a small minority of citizens, and would not affect their right to buy other kinds of guns, should they desire to do so.  I don't buy your comparison.
 
2013-04-05 06:22:59 PM

tirob: umad: tirob: Oh really? I don't have the right to tell my neighbor that he can't own a helicopter that parks on his lawn and flies over the neighborhood at any time of the day or night?

You have the right to tell your neighbor anything you want to tell him. He has the right to tell you to go fark yourself and to mind your own business. So no, you do not have the right to determine what your neighbor is allowed to own. If you think you do, then post a farking citation.
.
Are you really this obtuse or are you just pulling my leg?  If have good reason to believe that my neighbor has a fully automatic AR15, I can if I so desire call the cops and/or the FBI and have that neighbor arrested.  So yes, there are, effectively, some things that I can tell my neighbor that he can't own.


That would be quite a feat, since there is no such thing as an automatic AR15.

Nobody put me in charge of anything.  I'm arguing for laws, not for a personal dictatorship, in case you haven't noticed.

And we're telling you that you can take those proposed laws and shove them up your ass, in case you haven't noticed.

The ankle monitors you describe would affect all citizens 24 hours a day.  Laws against certain kinds of semiautomatic firearms would affect a small minority of citizens, and would not affect their right to buy other kinds of guns, should they desire to do so.  I don't buy your comparison.

Laws against certain kinds of semiautomatic firearms would actually affect every citizen, you know, since every citizen will be unable to own one. Now we're just back to arguing whether gun rights are less important than privacy rights. I say privacy rights aren't important, so we need to take yours away.
 
2013-04-05 06:38:27 PM

way south: tirob: I think you could reduce the size of your theoretical hay bale exponentially by concentrating on certain kinds of firearms.

Well, We're looking at around 300 rifle deaths a year and AR's are a small subset (they have a high asking price and are still rare among those most at risk to be involved in crimes), which means you're in "more likely to be hit by lightning" territory.


I'll buy that.  Unfortunately for the legal owners of private semiautomatic firearms, however, there have been several notorious mass murders recently in which such weapons have been used, and it appears to me that if we do nothing in response to such mass murders, we can expect to see more of them in the future.  The Firearms Act of 1934 was passed in response to a flurry of murders and other crimes in which automatic weapons were used; it seems to have more or less accomplished its purpose in that we no longer hear of too many crimes in which machine pistols were used.  And the Republic and its Constitution have survived.

way south:

What you are looking for are 25 acp pocket guns sold and purchased by a handful of crooks that the ATF never seems to bust. There's been more than a few complaints about this in the past.

If we are going by what does the most damage, AR's shouldn't have made it into the debate.


There ain't no justice.  I just don't think you can (or should) try to write laws restricting the legal ownership of small pistols.  Too many people--especially women and shopowners--believe that they need them to defend themselves.  There are already laws that prohibit crooks--or at least convicted felons--from owning guns; sounds as if they aren't getting enforced well where you are.  They don't get enforced well around here, either.

way south: We're supposed to go on this long walk to "save one child" by keeping a few bullets from being loaded into a magazine.  Why not save them in bulk by putting more effort behind proven methods?


Why not try attacking both the causes of crime that you cite *and* experimenting with restrictions on semiautomatic weapons to see if such restrictions put an end to the Columbine/Virginia Tech/Newtown events that we have been hearing about over the past few years?
 
2013-04-05 06:52:17 PM

umad: .
no such thing as an automatic AR15.
.


Very well.  Make it an M-16, then.  Same difference.

umad:
Laws against certain kinds of semiautomatic firearms would actually affect every citizen, you know, since every citizen will be unable to own one. Now we're just back to arguing whether gun rights are less important than privacy rights. I say privacy rights aren't important, so we need to take yours away.

Such laws would affect every citizen that wanted to buy one, but couldn't.  The ankle bracelets would affect a much larger group:  everyone that didn't want to wear one.

umad: And we're telling you that you can take those proposed laws and shove them up your ass, in case you haven't noticed.
.


I noticed.  Either cut out the aggressive language when arguing with me in the future or expect me not to respond to your posts.
 
2013-04-05 06:54:41 PM

way south: We know drug use attracts dealers, gangs, and trouble.


Yeah, and we could kill that problem in one fell swoop if our populace would pull their heads out of their asses with regard to legalizing currently illicit drugs.
 
2013-04-05 07:53:31 PM
As usual, much talk of rights little discussion of duties.
 
2013-04-05 08:00:52 PM

tirob: The ankle bracelets would affect a much larger group:  everyone that didn't want to wear one.


So? We're talking about which rights are acceptable to cut back in the name of public safety. My idea may inconvenience a few more people, but it will be much much more effective at stopping violent crime. It will stop violent crime of all flavors too, rather than just 1% of gun crimes. I say that makes up for any inconvenience you might feel. Don't you want to save the children? Or do you think your precious privacy is more important?

tirob: or expect me not to respond to your posts.


You have no idea how much this hurts me. When I wake up in the morning, the first thing I do is think "I wonder what tirob is doing right now? I hope I get a chance to make him like me today. That guy sure is swell!"

Grow up.
 
2013-04-05 08:04:42 PM
Isn't it time to have a serious discussion about sensible Indian Axe control.

What? It isn't a curry scented body spray?

Isn't there a few billion too many of them any ways?
 
2013-04-05 08:38:55 PM

tirob: Unfortunately for the legal owners of private semiautomatic firearms, however, there have been several notorious mass murders recently in which such weapons have been used, and it appears to me that if we do nothing in response to such mass murders, we can expect to see more of them in the future


See the problem is even if we ban the "bad" guns there will still be mass shootings so then what will the response be "well we don't need these evil revolvers and military style bolt action sniper rifles" and so on, instead of sitting back and examining why people are doing these things and addressing the root of the problems, we want a quick band aid to stick over the gangrenous wound so we can all sit back smile and nod at each other that we fixed it, right up until the next time some borderline personality grabs a axe or a knife and goes to work on some innocents, then we are back to looking for something else to ban...
 
2013-04-05 09:01:57 PM

cuzsis: fusillade762: BroncoFan_17: You anti gun people crack me up. When someone breaks into my house, intent on hurting my family members, I'm going to respond within seconds..........with a gun.

You're going to call a guy some dispatcher who is going to send you a guy........with a gun............who's going to take several minutes to get there.

Wouldn't you be doing your family a great service by just learning to use a gun yourselves?

Yeah. When my house catches fire I'm not gonna call some guy with a hose to put it out for me, I have my own hose.

If it's small enough for your hose to handle, then yes. That would be the prudent move. By waiting for the "guy with a hose" you risk further damage to your house and loved ones which is unnecessary if you can put it out yourself with your hose.

 Most people who own firearms, own one that is "big" enough to handle the average home invader. Obviously if there were too many they would call the guys with the bigger guns (aka hoses) to handle the problem.

 So, yes. That was a valid comparison when you looked at it.

/has put out small fires before.



Oh, you married a red head also?

I felt like Ricky Ricardo, many times.
 
2013-04-05 09:11:34 PM

umad: tirob: The ankle bracelets would affect a much larger group:  everyone that didn't want to wear one.

So? We're talking about which rights are acceptable to cut back in the name of public safety. My idea may inconvenience a few more people, but it will be much much more effective at stopping violent crime. It will stop violent crime of all flavors too, rather than just 1% of gun crimes. I say that makes up for any inconvenience you might feel. Don't you want to save the children? Or do you think your precious privacy is more important?
.

We've beaten this point to death.  Thank you for playing.
 
2013-04-05 09:23:08 PM

Pribar: tirob: Unfortunately for the legal owners of private semiautomatic firearms, however, there have been several notorious mass murders recently in which such weapons have been used, and it appears to me that if we do nothing in response to such mass murders, we can expect to see more of them in the future

See the problem is even if we ban the "bad" guns there will still be mass shootings.


Will there be as many?  As often?  We won't know until we see if restrictions work.

If you read my posts here you will see that I don't think it's either practical or advisable to regulate further either small pistols or bolt-action rifles.  And I'm entirely in agreement with the idea that we should spend more time trying to figure out why some people go out and try to do in other people en masse.
 
2013-04-05 09:24:43 PM

tirob: BigNumber12: tirob: When the Constitution was written, "arms" meant a weapon that was a single-shot muzzle-loader.

That's also what militaries was using at the time. By your logic, our current ban on military-grade, fully-automatic rifles is inconsistent with the 2nd Amendment, because civilians aren't allowed to wield the same rifles that soldiers do.
.

No, my logic does not lead to such a conclusion.  Militaries were also using cannon at the time; navies were using frigates that could bear scores of them.  There was and is no Constitutional provision that permits a private citizen to own a cannon or a ship of the line.

BigNumber12: They weren't farking stupid. These were the best minds in society. They knew that technology advances, and if they only wanted the 2nd to ever apply to single-shot muzzle-loaders, they farking well would have written it that way. The whole point of the 2nd was to give a civilian militia member firepower parity with a soldier - a fighting chance in conducting guerrilla warfare against an occupying army - foreign, or domestic.

And if they had wanted the 2nd to apply to cannon and three-masted frigates, they would have written it that way, too.  It appears to me, at any rate, that Madison et al. believed that there were some weapons that citizens should be allowed--or even encouraged--to keep, and others that needed to remain under the exclusive control of authorities who were, in theory, responsible to the citizenry as a whole.  When I wrote that the 2nd should only apply to single-shot muzzle-loaders I had my tongue partly in cheek, of course, but I am quite serious when I say that I believe that I do not think the 2nd was ever meant to apply to *all* weapons, and I also think that we need to recalculate, in this age of scores of different kinds of hand-held missile death, exactly which ones ought to come under its protection and which ones ought not to.

The 2nd was, by the way, written at a time when it was taken for granted pretty ...


Uhm, you are wrong. I own a cannon. There is nothing illegal about owning a cannon.

Get your facts straight.

Oh, and go get your GPS anklet.
 
2013-04-05 09:27:40 PM

2wolves: As usual, much talk of rights little discussion of duties.


Welcome to Libertarianville.
 
2013-04-05 09:28:04 PM

tirob: umad: tirob: Oh really? I don't have the right to tell my neighbor that he can't own a helicopter that parks on his lawn and flies over the neighborhood at any time of the day or night?

You have the right to tell your neighbor anything you want to tell him. He has the right to tell you to go fark yourself and to mind your own business. So no, you do not have the right to determine what your neighbor is allowed to own. If you think you do, then post a farking citation.
.
Are you really this obtuse or are you just pulling my leg?  If have good reason to believe that my neighbor has a fully automatic AR15, I can if I so desire call the cops and/or the FBI and have that neighbor arrested.  So yes, there are, effectively, some things that I can tell my neighbor that he can't own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

umad: Banning a few kinds of semi-automatic firearms affects the rights of law-abiding citizens just like forced ankle monitors affects the rights of law-abiding citizens. Who put you in charge of deciding which rights are more important than others anyway? Maybe some of us value our guns more than we value our privacy. Since I don't think my privacy is important, then you shouldn't mind if I take it away from you as well.

Nobody put me in charge of anything.  I'm arguing for laws, not for a personal dictatorship, in case you haven't noticed.

The ankle monitors you describe would affect all citizens 24 hours a day.  Laws against certain kinds of semiautomatic firearms would affect a small minority of citizens, and would not affect their right to buy other kinds of guns, should they desire to do so.  I don't buy your comparison.


Fully Automatic AR-15's are fully legal according. If you can afford one, and are willing to go through the licensing process.

Quite spreading falsehoods.
 
2013-04-05 09:39:46 PM

tirob: Why not try attacking both the causes of crime that you cite *and* experimenting with restrictions on semiautomatic weapons to see if such restrictions put an end to the Columbine/Virginia Tech/Newtown events that we have been hearing about over the past few years?


How did the Brady bill stop Columbine? You do remember the Brady bill, You do remember that it was allowed to expire because it had no effect what so ever on crime, don't you.

So, what you appear to be saying, since they used pump shotguns to kill at Columbine, we need to ban AR-15 style weapons.

Or is it, let's ban pistols, you know, the ones you are saying will never be banned, and the NUMBER 1 choice of murderers in the US, because the VT killer used 9mms?

And how would it have stopped Lanza? Who stole a weapon from his mother, after shooting her will a pistol, both weapons which had been in the family's possession for several years, because CT's strict gun laws thwarted his attempts to buy weapons.

In other words; let's ban them again, it'll work this time.
 
2013-04-05 09:42:26 PM

tirob: Unfortunately for the legal owners of private semiautomatic firearms, however


"Damn the statistics, full speed ahead!!"

tirob: The Firearms Act of 1934 was passed in response to a flurry of murders and other crimes in which automatic weapons were used


The NFA was about disarming unionswho showed a penchant for fighting back against their corrupt employers.It didn't ban anything from well shod crooks. This was a tax to make sure only the wealthy could own military weaponry. It was about keeping the coal flowing, not public safety.

The blood washing through the streets was put there by prohibition. The violence was curbed by the end of prohibition.
Using the damage wrought by one bad policy to excuse another bad policy doesn't solve problems. It just creates unexpected issues elsewhere.
In this case it was removing automatic and explosive weapons from production right before WWII started.

...Oops.

tirob: I just don't think you can (or should) try to write laws restricting the legal ownership of small pistols.


Then why emphasize on a weapons platform that IS NOT causing the gun violence problem?
Why not use this political floor time to fix the economic and social woes of the most troubled communities?

If this is about making politicians look tough for the cameras then save some money and have them  pose with a gun.

tirob: Why not try attacking both the causes of crime that you cite *and* experimenting with restrictions on semiautomatic weapons to see...


We ran this experiment for ten years.
The result was the CDC and the FBI stating that it was an ineffective waste of money and effort.  It didn't curb mass shootings or save people.

Why should we try the same experiment again?
We know what works. Why do something that we know doesn't work?
 
2013-04-05 09:42:56 PM

tirob: Pribar: tirob: Unfortunately for the legal owners of private semiautomatic firearms, however, there have been several notorious mass murders recently in which such weapons have been used, and it appears to me that if we do nothing in response to such mass murders, we can expect to see more of them in the future

See the problem is even if we ban the "bad" guns there will still be mass shootings.

Will there be as many?  As often?  We won't know until we see if restrictions work.

If you read my posts here you will see that I don't think it's either practical or advisable to regulate further either small pistols or bolt-action rifles.  And I'm entirely in agreement with the idea that we should spend more time trying to figure out why some people go out and try to do in other people en masse.


We had a assault weapons ban and a hi cap magazine ban for over a decade, it changed nothing, but lets keep slapping on band aids maybe that gangrene will go away. its easy to pay lip service to wanting to cure the problem but if all you want is to slap on a ban thats already been shown to be ineffective then you are part of the problem.
 
2013-04-05 09:57:58 PM
Slam1263:  there is nothing illegal about owning a cannon.

I didn't write that there was.  What I wrote was that cannon aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment.  There are certain kinds of cannon that are legal to own in some places, it is true.  But there are severe restrictions in many places on what kind of artillery pieces citizens can own.  Furthermore, exploding projectiles are banned just about everywhere.  And these restrictions stay in place partly because--as I pointed out--the 2nd Amendment does *not* explicitly cover artillery.
 
2013-04-05 10:04:54 PM

Slam1263: Fully Automatic AR-15's are fully legal according. If you can afford one, and are willing to go through the licensing process.

Quite spreading falsehoods.


I've been assured by another poster here that there is no such thing as a fully auto AR 15--I thought that the AR 15 was by definition a semiautomatic M16--but I'll bite and ask you for a citation.
 
2013-04-05 10:19:10 PM

Slam1263: tirob: Why not try attacking both the causes of crime that you cite *and* experimenting with restrictions on semiautomatic weapons to see if such restrictions put an end to the Columbine/Virginia Tech/Newtown events that we have been hearing about over the past few years?

How did the Brady bill stop Columbine? You do remember the Brady bill, You do remember that it was allowed to expire because it had no effect what so ever on crime, don't you.

So, what you appear to be saying, since they used pump shotguns to kill at Columbine, we need to ban AR-15 style weapons.

Or is it, let's ban pistols, you know, the ones you are saying will never be banned, and the NUMBER 1 choice of murderers in the US, because the VT killer used 9mms?

And how would it have stopped Lanza? Who stole a weapon from his mother, after shooting her will a pistol, both weapons which had been in the family's possession for several years, because CT's strict gun laws thwarted his attempts to buy weapons.

In other words; let's ban them again, it'll work this time.


Why don't you read some of my other posts here before you put words in my mouth?

Do you think that Mrs. Lanza would have had an AR-15 platform gun in her home if they had been illegal to own?  Do you think that her safety in her home would have been compromised if instead of that weapon she had been "obliged" to buy a six-shot bolt-action rifle instead?
 
2013-04-05 10:33:51 PM

tirob: Slam1263: Fully Automatic AR-15's are fully legal according. If you can afford one, and are willing to go through the licensing process.

Quite spreading falsehoods.

I've been assured by another poster here that there is no such thing as a fully auto AR 15--I thought that the AR 15 was by definition a semiautomatic M16--but I'll bite and ask you for a citation.


M-16 is a military designation for the AR-15, The AR-15 receiver was available in selective fire.

tirob: Slam1263:  there is nothing illegal about owning a cannon.

I didn't write that there was.  What I wrote was that cannon aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment.  There are certain kinds of cannon that are legal to own in some places, it is true.  But there are severe restrictions in many places on what kind of artillery pieces citizens can own.  Furthermore, exploding projectiles are banned just about everywhere.  And these restrictions stay in place partly because--as I pointed out--the 2nd Amendment does *not* explicitly cover artillery.


No specific weapon is mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, just the fact that it may not be abridged.

And yes, I own a piece of artillery that can shoot a 2 pound shot. The ammunition I am legally allow to possess is restricted. But I am a former artilleryman, how long do you think it would take me to lay a gun and bring fire onto target if I really wanted too? The only thing I keep in constant thought is that I took a oath at one time, and I have a duty to keep it.
 
2013-04-05 10:37:11 PM

tirob: Slam1263: tirob: Why not try attacking both the causes of crime that you cite *and* experimenting with restrictions on semiautomatic weapons to see if such restrictions put an end to the Columbine/Virginia Tech/Newtown events that we have been hearing about over the past few years?

How did the Brady bill stop Columbine? You do remember the Brady bill, You do remember that it was allowed to expire because it had no effect what so ever on crime, don't you.

So, what you appear to be saying, since they used pump shotguns to kill at Columbine, we need to ban AR-15 style weapons.

Or is it, let's ban pistols, you know, the ones you are saying will never be banned, and the NUMBER 1 choice of murderers in the US, because the VT killer used 9mms?

And how would it have stopped Lanza? Who stole a weapon from his mother, after shooting her will a pistol, both weapons which had been in the family's possession for several years, because CT's strict gun laws thwarted his attempts to buy weapons.

In other words; let's ban them again, it'll work this time.

Why don't you read some of my other posts here before you put words in my mouth?

Do you think that Mrs. Lanza would have had an AR-15 platform gun in her home if they had been illegal to own?  Do you think that her safety in her home would have been compromised if instead of that weapon she had been "obliged" to buy a six-shot bolt-action rifle instead?


Safety be damned, you don't have the right to safety, you have the right to bear arms.
 
2013-04-05 10:48:01 PM

way south: tirob: The Firearms Act of 1934

The NFA was about disarming unionswho showed a penchant for fighting back against their corrupt employers.It didn't ban anything from well shod crooks. This was a tax to make sure only the wealthy could own military weaponry. It was about keeping the coal flowing, not public safety.
.


It is true that there was some militant union activity going on (Minneapolis, San Francisco) around the time the act was passed, but I have never seen any evidence that that activity--or any similar activity--inspired the passage of the act.  Citation would help here.

way south:

Then why emphasize on a weapons platform that IS NOT causing the gun violence problem?

There are many facets of the gun violence problem.  Mass shootings by psychopaths who use semiautomatic weapons comprise one of them.  I focus on this particular weapons platform because I believe that the benefit of restricting semiautomatic weapons would outweigh the inconvenience to law-abiding citizens of not being able to buy them legally.

way south: We ran this experiment for ten years.
The result was the CDC and the FBI stating that it was an ineffective waste of money and effort.  It didn't curb mass shootings or save people.

Why should we try the same experiment again?
We know what works. Why do something that we know doesn't work?



That CDC study came out before Virginia Tech and Newtown.  It may be obsolete now.
 
2013-04-05 10:51:00 PM
Pribar: 
We had a assault weapons ban and a hi cap magazine ban for over a decade, it changed nothing, but lets keep slapping on band aids maybe that gangrene will go away. its easy to pay lip service to wanting to cure the problem but if all you want is to slap on a ban thats already been shown to be ineffective then you are part of the problem.

The study that showed that the ban was ineffective may be obsolete now, as I pointed out above.
 
2013-04-05 11:07:41 PM

Slam1263:
tirob: the 2nd Amendment does *not* explicitly cover artillery.

No specific weapon is mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, just the fact that it may not be abridged.
.



Slam1263: Safety be damned, you don't have the right to safety, you have the right to bear arms.


Notwithstanding the existence of the 2nd Amendment and its clause which guarantees citizens the right to bear arms, there are and have been for some time laws everywhere that ban people from owning certain kinds of weapons.  I give you the relevant Pennsylvania statute as an example:

http://reference.pafoa.org/statutes/PA/18/I/9/908/prohibited-offensi ve -weapons/

[Prohibited are] Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge, any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, razor or cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or otherwise, any stun gun, stun baton, taser or other electronic or electric weapon or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.

If the 2nd Amendment granted an absolute right as you appear to me to believe, every line of this provision of the statue would be unconstitutional.
 
2013-04-06 08:36:15 AM

tirob: That CDC study came out before Virginia Tech and Newtown.  It may be obsolete now.


No, it isn't.
Analysis of statistics doesn't work that way.

tirob: I focus on this particular weapons platform because I believe that the benefit of restricting semiautomatic weapons would outweigh the inconvenience to law-abiding citizens of not being able to buy them legally.


So the gun you just said a woman has a legal right to use in self defense is one that you would ban her from owning because you now think the risks outweigh the benefits.
...and the crook still doesn't care.   You just made more victims for him.

tirob: It is true that there was some militant union activity going on


Some?
You should look into the history of anti-union violence in that period.

Bans are excused as public safety measures, but throughout history they were always written against a minority or under class. Carry bans to prevent armed blacks,Switch blade bans for the italians, pistol bans for the immigrant Irish. Pot for the mexicans.
Now its rifles for the rural whites.
Billions of dollars dumped into fear politics and no one asks the question "Are we safe yet?".
 
Displayed 50 of 153 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report