lennavan: Bravo Two: No, I'm pretty sure that violence in all forms are spurr of the moment acts, and I'm pretty sure that they occur, regardless.

Here I am, in this thread, arguing with citations, data and actual evidence.  And you're arguing with "I'm pretty sure."

Holy fark, this is the ultimate battle of imagination vs. reality.

Bravo Two: but forcing impediments to even exercise my right in the manner that I see fit (presuming it is within the bounds of established law) is no different than forcing impediments on my right to free speech and the manner I exercise it (within the bounds of the law/not causing harm to others), or vote.

Because you know, there's a huge epidemic of free-speech and voting related deaths in the country.  That's how you know these things are the same.

Fark you're stupid.  Your Boobies started out seeming so well thought through.  What the fark happened?

You know, I was about to post a knee-jerk reaction to you that would reference ancedotal experiences and other data that doesn't link to what i'm trying to say, and I can't argue with your citations and data, and I'll let the argument stand. You may even think me an imbecile, because i argue a position based on what i reasonably believe, which seems to be pretty inaccurate.

So, let me leave it at this: I understand your position, and I see what you have to say. However, as I stated in my second paragraph, I don't agree with the impugning of rights of the many based on the misdeeds of people. I believe that people are independently responsible for their own actions and that if we want to help people, we should be willing to do so in more meaningful ways than what some propose in the way of removing or restricting guns.

It has nothing to do with data, it has nothing to do with any implied scholarly position on anything, other than my refusal to have my rights tied to the actions of another individual.

I have also said in other threads on this topic that I'm willing to accept reasonable steps that we should be doing anyway: universal background checks. Better policing of dealers and cracking down on straw purchases. Finding ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  I will accept all of the measures that are reasonable and do not impugn my ability to exercise my rights.

As to the arguments about semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s, I abstain from the argument. I like my AR-15, it's useful for hunting certain game, and certain kinds of target shooting, and I really like shooting it on occasion, but it is neither necessary nor really a weapon I find fun to use frequently, and have often considered getting rid of it just because I don't know that it warrants owning just because I can or it has a convenient use for me.  That doesn't equate to me saying other people can't own them if they want to, but I may or may not really want to own one.

It's not my place to tell another person what is and isn't right for him to own. I don't agree with a lot of things other people do, but it's not my place to try and legislate them into compliance with my world view.

Gyrfalcon: Bravo Two: udhq: Violence and gun violence are 2 distinct issues with 2 distinct sets of solutions.

Violent crime as a whole is on a huge downward trend over the postwar period, and there are a variety of reasons for that: economic prosperity, legalized abortion, and medical/environmental factors in behavioral disorders (recent research suggests that unleaded gasoline may be a social "silver bullet".) Overall. we are a much less violent society than we were 50, 100 years ago. I would consider this an argument in favor of further gun restrictions, but that's an argument for another day...

But gun violence as a proportion of violent crime remains persistently high, and in some cases is on an upward trend.

A focus on mental healthcare suggests a fundamental misunderstanding that violence is a rational conclusion. It's not. 70% of suicide attempts are taken on an impulse, action occurring within an hour of ideation. I would suggest that this is probably also the case for other kinds of violence. I tend to believe that incidences of planned violence are the exception rather than the norm. And this is where some common sense speed bumps to acquiring firearms can be effective.

People have a right to bear arms, but not any kind of an entitlement to convenience. If you have to fill out a form 3 days before your hunting trip to get your rifle, well, I'm ok with that, if it means any number of domestic disputes will not escalate to murders in the heat of the moment.

No, I'm pretty sure that violence in all forms are spurr of the moment acts, and I'm pretty sure that they occur, regardless. Guns make for convenience. They do not change the impulse towards violence. A guy who has an urge to harm his wife may be inclined to use a gun because it's there, but that doesn't mean he isn't still inclined to hurt his wife if the gun's removed, and I wish people would stop singling out gun violence as though every other kind of violence is a non-issue. It's both sickening and retard ...

Thank you for saying it more elloquently than I can.

mbillips: Bolt action is innately superior to semi-auto, because you don't have a bunch of parts flying around after the round is fired. You know why all Olympic target rifles are bolt action? Because it's better for target shooting. The design of an AR's stock and sights are meant to allow a soldier to fire rapidly and relatively accurately. The shape of a hunting rifle's stock is designed for one thing: accuracy. Rapidity doesn't enter into it. That makes it superior for hunting in the sporting sense because your aim is supposed to be one shot, one kill, not spraying a bunch of 5.56 rounds down range.

Why are you asking such dumb questions? I would think that if you owned a rifle, you would know something about the history of firearms.

The Camp Perry, OH, 1000 yard match routinely has accuracy competitions involving semi-automatic M1 Garands, M14s, and ARs.  Many 1000-yard competitors are using accurized thousand-yard AR-15s and other semi-auto platforms.  Getting down to it, the Walther PS2000 Semi-automatic sniper rifle guaranteed accuracy equal to a bolt action rifle, as did the PSG1. Both weapons are extremely accurate.

A custom-built semi-automatic rifle made with exacting tolerances can be made as accurate as a bolt-action rifle, and it is done fairly often today.

An out of the box semi-auto rifle will likely not outshoot an accurized/high-end bolt action rifle, nor will an out of the box lower-end bolt action rifle outshoot an accurized/high-end bolt action rifle.

The accuracy is inherent in how everything is put together as much as in the action that drives the weapon.

flamingboar: I blame video games. And Teenagers. And Goths. And Mentally ill people. Does that cover everything?

Bullies

Danger Avoid Death: lennavan: Your Boobies started out seeming so well thought through. What the fark happened?

Filterpwnage?

yes, fark has a filter that makes me argue more from emotion and belief than data. It's amazing.

udhq: Bravo Two: No, I'm pretty sure that violence in all forms are spurr of the moment acts, and I'm pretty sure that they occur, regardless. Guns make for convenience. They do not change the impulse towards violence. A guy who has an urge to harm his wife may be inclined to use a gun because it's there, but that doesn't mean he isn't still inclined to hurt his wife if the gun's removed, and I wish people would stop singling out gun violence as though every other kind of violence is a non-issue. It's both sickening and retarded.

And, frankly, by your logic, I'm okay with a person having to fill out a form three days in advance of voting in order to obtain the right to do so if it means any number of piss-poor laws are prevented by electing stupid candidates.

We may come to a conclusion as to what firearms are available to own and which must be restricted, but forcing impediments to even exercise my right in the manner that I see fit (presuming it is within the bounds of established law) is no different than forcing impediments on my right to free speech and the manner I exercise it (within the bounds of the law/not causing harm to others), or vote.

You act as though the 2nd Amendment is a right only in the abstract and free to be impugned at your leisure, simply because you don't agree with it.

I feel badly about violence as well as you do, but I don't for a moment suppose that it is better to diminish the rights of the man so that the few might be hindered as opposed to doing everything in my power to see that those elements that are at the root of the behavior are combated.

The argument that violence and gun violence should be treated as indistinguishable is hard to swallow in a thread about 14 people who are alive only because their attacker did not have immediate access to a firearm.

That said, the courts have long established that the right to bear arms is not absolute--see: the government's legitimate interest in infringing upon your right to bear nuclear arm ...

I have to ask, do you think those 14 people, if asked, would say "Gee, I'm so glad that he had a knife rather than a gun?" Or do you think all of them are going to be pretty goddamn pissed that they got attacked at all? I don't think those people that got attacked would be willing to have such a desire to differentiate violence from *gun* violence.

As to your argument about the general welfare clause, I could equally argue that immediate access to a firearm is in the best interests of the general welfare of the citizenry based on the significant number of cases per year where a person used a firearm in self defense against a crime, whether by actually using it, or simply introducing it into the situation causing the antagonist to cease his activities.

So, assuming the generally published statistic of 1+ million people having to have used a firearm in some fashion to defend themselves, does that not balance against those who were victims of people using them against others in a malicious manner?

ShadowkahnCRX: Publikwerks: Listen, you can try and make this out to be an Obama joke, or try and make out knives to be more dangerous than a gun somehow, but the fact of the matter is that this is what Sandy Hook would  have been like had we had no second amendment and all firearms were banned or highly regulated.

Kepp making your jokes. Obviously, it's not too high a price.

And if we had no 5th amendment, a lot of criminals would be compelled to testify against themselves instead of being allowed to remain silent so that they get acquitted and released back into society to victimize more people.

While I'm fairly neutral on the whole "ban guns" issue (I don't believe the 2nd guarantees unfettered rights to weapon ownership, but I also don't believe a gun ban would be in any way effective) arguing that getting rid of an amendment would make some situations better and therefore it should be gotten rid of is jumping the (heh) gun a bit. If pressed I can probably come up with an unintended harmful consequence of every amendment in the Bill of Rights, and for that matter every clause in the Constitution, but such examples would not be sufficient evidence that the offending clause needs to be removed.

There is a point at which one must concede that bad things happen,  and that bad people do bad things, and that we will always have a nonzero number of homicides, no matter what we do. To that end, I'd rather personally accept the risk to myself of having a firearm around balanced against the very real reasons to have one  than be told by someone that I can't own them, or should have to go through a lot of hoops to own one, because someone somewhere might do something bad with them.

Too many people do bad shiat with a variety of implements for me to believe that just because they can be used to do evil means they should be taken away. I'm not a child.

bugontherug: udhq: Traditionally, the boundary of the 2nd amendment has been the general welfare clause.

The general welfare clause and the 2nd Amendment have almost, but not quite, no relationship to each other whatsoever. It is true that both involve connected strings of words ordered to convey meaning. It is also true that both appear in the document called the United States Constitution. In the original documents, they were likely written in the same color ink. After that, not much.

I think we agree in principle that the government may and should do more to restrict the availability of firearms. But you appear to have pulled that one from a deep, dark, smelly place.

There's actually a SCotUS decision about the general warfare clause that mentions the second (among other) amendments as not having fark all to do with limiting that clause. 1866 Ex Parte Milligan.

udhq: bugontherug: udhq: Traditionally, the boundary of the 2nd amendment has been the general welfare clause.

The general welfare clause and the 2nd Amendment have almost, but not quite, no relationship to each other whatsoever. It is true that both involve connected strings of words ordered to convey meaning. It is also true that both appear in the document called the United States Constitution. In the original documents, they were likely written in the same color ink. After that, not much.

I think we agree in principle that the government may and should do more to restrict the availability of firearms. But you appear to have pulled that one from a deep, dark, smelly place.

Ok, please enlighten all of us, from where in the constitution does the government derive the power to abridge the right of the public to keep and bear nuclear arms?

There is a Supreme Court ruling that says that the amendment was to allow militiamen to arm themselves like typical soldiers. So until an FGMP becomes TO&E, that doesn't seem an unreasonable argument. (Although there WAS private ownership of artillery back then.)

tom baker's scarf: Bravo Two: tom baker's scarf: stonicus: mbillips: Weird, nobody was killed? I thought it was just as easy to go on a murderous rampage with a knife or baseball bat as with a semi-automatic .223 rifle.

People kill people, not guns or knives.  If he had a gun, he would just wounded them like he did with the knife.

I'm not sure you understand how guns work. If knife=gun then why would the military bother making guns? why not just make really mean knives?

Because as America gets fatter, the ability to use a sword in battle is diminished, and firearms allow people to be really really lazy when fighting each other, using science to do the work for us.

It's hard to argue with kind of logic.

If the extremists really wanted to hurt us they would blow up the potatoe chip factories.

They tried by not letting people bring 8oz cans of soda aboard airplanes anymore.

Molavian: LarryDan43: Infernalist: LarryDan43: How many dead?

None.

No one seems to want to talk about that lil detail.

Weird.

[s12.postimg.org image 300x225]

so the people in critical condition matter less than the kids who were in critical condition?
weird.

mbillips: Olympic marksmen never EVER use semi-autos.

O RLY?!

tenpoundsofcheese: so the people in critical condition matter less than the kids who were in critical condition?
weird.

You can't fit an adult's organs into a child's body. But children, on the other hand, you can put their parts into anyone.

So yeah. You see, dead children good.

/or something. I'm trying really hard to make this analogy work here. Give me a break.

Lionel Mandrake: JungleBoogie: So, if we're going to have lethal weapons freely available in society, the only alternative, if we wish to reduce the frequency and severity of massacres, is to focus on the mental health of the population, and create a legal system which allows more in-patient treatment and outright institutionalization in mental hospitals, of those deemed to be a threat to themselves or to society. And also, the need to create a more robust mental health system in general.

Hey, if we get universal health care, including mental health care, that focuses on people and not profit,

He was covered for mental health care as was the guy who shot up the school, the guy who shot up the army base, and the guy who shot up the movie theater.  So WTF is your problem?

I'll shut the hell up about guns forever.
Given that, you can start now.

hardinparamedic: You can't fit an adult's organs into a child's body.

Tell that to Sandusky

udhq: But the inarguable truth  opinion is that "safety" ain't one of them.

You have an odd sense of what a "truth" is.

tenpoundsofcheese: hardinparamedic: You can't fit an adult's organs into a child's body.

Tell that to Sandusky

Even with lubrication, there was a LOT of tearing there, you know.

Whelp, cheese, old boy. We're officially going to hell.

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: JungleBoogie: So, if we're going to have lethal weapons freely available in society, the only alternative, if we wish to reduce the frequency and severity of massacres, is to focus on the mental health of the population, and create a legal system which allows more in-patient treatment and outright institutionalization in mental hospitals, of those deemed to be a threat to themselves or to society. And also, the need to create a more robust mental health system in general.

Hey, if we get universal health care, including mental health care, that focuses on people and not profit,

He was covered for mental health care as was the guy who shot up the school, the guy who shot up the army base, and the guy who shot up the movie theater.  So WTF is your problem?

I'll shut the hell up about guns forever.
Given that, you can start now.

You're right.  I was being too generous.  Universal health care (which you seem to think exist) is not nearly enough.  In addition there should be waiting periods, background checks for all firearms transfers (including inherited items), lifetime bans on felons for ever owning any firearm of any kind (hey, if it's OK for voting, why not gun ownership?), mandatory gun safety courses for each gun you buy, all guns and ammo should be uniquely marked so that purchases can be traced to the purchaser (if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about)...shall I go on?

Thank you for pointing out how incomplete my request was.

hardinparamedic: tenpoundsofcheese: hardinparamedic: You can't fit an adult's organs into a child's body.

Tell that to Sandusky

Even with lubrication, there was a LOT of tearing there, you know.

Whelp, cheese, old boy. We're officially going to hell.

odd, I read that as "tearing" as in "crying".
Both words spelled the same.

God forgives all comments made on fark, so we are okay.

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: JungleBoogie: So, if we're going to have lethal weapons freely available in society, the only alternative, if we wish to reduce the frequency and severity of massacres, is to focus on the mental health of the population, and create a legal system which allows more in-patient treatment and outright institutionalization in mental hospitals, of those deemed to be a threat to themselves or to society. And also, the need to create a more robust mental health system in general.

Hey, if we get universal health care, including mental health care, that focuses on people and not profit,

He was covered for mental health care as was the guy who shot up the school, the guy who shot up the army base, and the guy who shot up the movie theater.  So WTF is your problem?

I'll shut the hell up about guns forever.
Given that, you can start now.

You're right.  I was being too generous.  Universal health care (which you seem to think exist) is not nearly enough.  In addition there should be waiting periods, background checks for all firearms transfers (including inherited items), lifetime bans on felons for ever owning any firearm of any kind (hey, if it's OK for voting, why not gun ownership?), mandatory gun safety courses for each gun you buy, all guns and ammo should be uniquely marked so that purchases can be traced to the purchaser (if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about)...shall I go on?

Yes, you should go on since none of what you mentioned would have stopped the CT shootings, the one in the army base or the theater shooting.

Thank you for pointing out how incomplete my request was.
Your welcome.  Now add to your request something that actually would have prevented any of those shootings.

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: JungleBoogie: So, if we're going to have lethal weapons freely available in society, the only alternative, if we wish to reduce the frequency and severity of massacres, is to focus on the mental health of the population, and create a legal system which allows more in-patient treatment and outright institutionalization in mental hospitals, of those deemed to be a threat to themselves or to society. And also, the need to create a more robust mental health system in general.

Hey, if we get universal health care, including mental health care, that focuses on people and not profit,

He was covered for mental health care as was the guy who shot up the school, the guy who shot up the army base, and the guy who shot up the movie theater.  So WTF is your problem?

I'll shut the hell up about guns forever.
Given that, you can start now.

You're right.  I was being too generous.  Universal health care (which you seem to think exist) is not nearly enough.  In addition there should be waiting periods, background checks for all firearms transfers (including inherited items), lifetime bans on felons for ever owning any firearm of any kind (hey, if it's OK for voting, why not gun ownership?), mandatory gun safety courses for each gun you buy, all guns and ammo should be uniquely marked so that purchases can be traced to the purchaser (if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about)...shall I go on?

Yes, you should go on since none of what you mentioned would have stopped the CT shootings, the one in the army base or the theater shooting.

Thank you for pointing out how incomplete my request was.
Your welcome.  Now add to your request something that actually would have prevented any of those shootings.

Wow...you took that seriously...you're dumber than I thought.  And that ain't easy.

Because I've always considered you really fkn stupid.

umad: Lionel Mandrake: JungleBoogie: So, if we're going to have lethal weapons freely available in society, the only alternative, if we wish to reduce the frequency and severity of massacres, is to focus on the mental health of the population, and create a legal system which allows more in-patient treatment and outright institutionalization in mental hospitals, of those deemed to be a threat to themselves or to society. And also, the need to create a more robust mental health system in general.

Hey, if we get universal health care, including mental health care, that focuses on people and not profit, I'll shut the hell up about guns forever.  Whatever the effect on school shootings, there would be a net decrease in overall fatality and a net increase in quality of life for most people.  I'll take that trade.

If you would shut up about guns first then you could get pretty much whatever you want. Guns are the only thing keeping the Republicans in power.

You are a fool.

No offense...really

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: JungleBoogie: So, if we're going to have lethal weapons freely available in society, the only alternative, if we wish to reduce the frequency and severity of massacres, is to focus on the mental health of the population, and create a legal system which allows more in-patient treatment and outright institutionalization in mental hospitals, of those deemed to be a threat to themselves or to society. And also, the need to create a more robust mental health system in general.

Hey, if we get universal health care, including mental health care, that focuses on people and not profit,

He was covered for mental health care as was the guy who shot up the school, the guy who shot up the army base, and the guy who shot up the movie theater.  So WTF is your problem?

I'll shut the hell up about guns forever.
Given that, you can start now.

You're right.  I was being too generous.  Universal health care (which you seem to think exist) is not nearly enough.  In addition there should be waiting periods, background checks for all firearms transfers (including inherited items), lifetime bans on felons for ever owning any firearm of any kind (hey, if it's OK for voting, why not gun ownership?), mandatory gun safety courses for each gun you buy, all guns and ammo should be uniquely marked so that purchases can be traced to the purchaser (if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about)...shall I go on?

Yes, you should go on since none of what you mentioned would have stopped the CT shootings, the one in the army base or the theater shooting.

Thank you for pointing out how incomplete my request was.
Your welcome.  Now add to your request something that actually would have prevented any of those shootings.

Wow...you took that seriously...you're dumber than I thought.  And that ain't easy.

Because I've always considered you really fkn stupid.

You proposed similar things in other threads and you weren't kidding then.

Insert oh snap jpg here

Of course your response is "just kidding"

Or are you now saying you believe felons should have right to guns and there should be no waiting periods or safety courses?

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: JungleBoogie: So, if we're going to have lethal weapons freely available in society, the only alternative, if we wish to reduce the frequency and severity of massacres, is to focus on the mental health of the population, and create a legal system which allows more in-patient treatment and outright institutionalization in mental hospitals, of those deemed to be a threat to themselves or to society. And also, the need to create a more robust mental health system in general.

Hey, if we get universal health care, including mental health care, that focuses on people and not profit,

He was covered for mental health care as was the guy who shot up the school, the guy who shot up the army base, and the guy who shot up the movie theater.  So WTF is your problem?

I'll shut the hell up about guns forever.
Given that, you can start now.

You're right.  I was being too generous.  Universal health care (which you seem to think exist) is not nearly enough.  In addition there should be waiting periods, background checks for all firearms transfers (including inherited items), lifetime bans on felons for ever owning any firearm of any kind (hey, if it's OK for voting, why not gun ownership?), mandatory gun safety courses for each gun you buy, all guns and ammo should be uniquely marked so that purchases can be traced to the purchaser (if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about)...shall I go on?

Yes, you should go on since none of what you mentioned would have stopped the CT shootings, the one in the army base or the theater shooting.

Thank you for pointing out how incomplete my request was.
Your welcome.  Now add to your request something that actually would have prevented any of those shootings.

Wow...you took that seriously...you're dumber than I thought.  And that ain't easy.

Because I've always considered you really fkn stupid.

You proposed similar things in other ...

OK, cheese, whatever you say.  No offense but your shiat is tiresome so I'm going to ignore your ignorant ass for the rest of the day, k?  Bye.