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.

(Guardian)   You may want to sit down for this but it turns out that 42 of the 45 senators who voted against keeping criminals from getting guns are being paid by the gun lobby   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 171
    More: Obvious, gun rights, Mark Begich, Gun Owners of America, guns, crimes  
•       •       •

2066 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Apr 2013 at 11:21 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-19 02:25:08 PM  

Whistling Kitty Chaser: I don't know man. Guerrilla warfare is great for making life hell for a lot of people, I just don't see it as a viable option for overthrowing and supplanting a government. Eventually you'll have to organize and attack in force in order to take key pieces of territory such as D.C. and at that point your army will be vulnerable to tools of conventional warfare. In my opinion, if the US government becomes so bad as to truly warrant a revolution then there will be sufficient numbers of rebels that a ten round magazine limit and universal background checks won't hinder their cause. It's something I'm willing to risk if it means fewer/less effective mass shootings and less gun violence in general. You can argue whether or not those laws would be effective but for fark's sake at least have the debate on it rather than filibustering it outright.


Good book.

http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Revolutionary-Warfare-African-Revolut io n/dp/B000NVB5ZK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366395863&sr=8-1&keywords=hand book+of+revolutionary+warfare
 
2013-04-19 03:01:53 PM  

Whistling Kitty Chaser: I don't know man. Guerrilla warfare is great for making life hell for a lot of people, I just don't see it as a viable option for overthrowing and supplanting a government. Eventually you'll have to organize and attack in force in order to take key pieces of territory such as D.C. and at that point your army will be vulnerable to tools of conventional warfare. In my opinion, if the US government becomes so bad as to truly warrant a revolution then there will be sufficient numbers of rebels that a ten round magazine limit and universal background checks won't hinder their cause. It's something I'm willing to risk if it means fewer/less effective mass shootings and less gun violence in general. You can argue whether or not those laws would be effective but for fark's sake at least have the debate on it rather than filibustering it outright.


Ok lets say your right, that ten round magazines will not hinder any future uprising against an unjust government.  How would it make them any less effective in use during a mass shooting?  Im actually for universal background checks.  However, I am against registration regardless of what term you use for it.  The threat of some future US Govt using the registration as a means to confiscate is as real as anything can be in the "future".  Its an unknown.  Schroedingers Cat if you will.  But let me ask this, do you have a savings account?  For what purpose?  A big reason for a savings account is to guard against future financial difficulties.  You dont know if they will happen, but you sure as hell dont want to have difficulties and not be prepared.  True, not everyone does this, and not everyone uses it for the same reason.  Some poeple use the funds for hobbies.  And the same things goes for firearms.  You dont WANT to have to use a firearm for self defense, but youd rather have it and not need it as they say.  Not everyone will have a firearm for their own personal reasons, but to stand up and say "I dont like them so you cant have them is incredibly selfish" (I am talking about lawful ownership).  People also use them for various hobbies outside self defense.  Hunting, target practice, competitions and such.

There is no data supporting whether increased background checks or lower magazine capacities will equal to less mass shootings.  (Put aside the immediate argument of one organization lobbying against commissions to obtain said data.  They didnt happen so I think it inappropriate to use the "lack of data" to support an argument.)  Common sense would indicate that the recently proposed amendments would not have prevented the mass shootings.  The only one that may have an impact is the AWB and thats an outright ban of a very specific type of firearm, and would move a would-be shooter to a different type of firearm.  I do NOT advocate lawlessness, laws, good ones, are necessary.  But most of everything put forth has been attacks against law-abiding citizens.  Lets try not to create more criminals, and deal with the ones we have.
 
2013-04-19 03:12:09 PM  

ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?


This.

During the last election, Mayor Bloomberg's anti-gun group "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" alone spent as much as the NRA *AND* the gun manufacturer lobby (NSSF) combined on the election.

It's not the money that tipped the balance.  It was the ability of the NRA to get grassroots *VOTES* in some areas.

Support for gun control amongst the general public is very wide after a tragic event like Sandy Hook, but very shallow.  After the tragedy fades from the limelight, they go back to worrying about something else.  There are almost no single issue gun control voters.

There are, however, millions of single issue gun rights voters.  The support for gun rights isn't necessarily as wide as for gun control, but it's always there.  Narrower, but *MUCH* deeper, and that translates into votes.
 
2013-04-19 03:33:17 PM  

TheManofPA: I've always wanted to get my students to put together a who owns your congressman website. It would take some manpower but would be a fun resource at election time. Basically stockpile all the corporate and lobby donation records and then have a list about how it impacts his/her voting record. You could put up a record about how many times the person votes based on what they were paid.

The thing I can't figure out how to control for is the usual party politics side of things. A R who is going to vote pro-gun anyhow is going to be likely to receive money from NRA while a D who is going to vote pro-union is likely to receive money from a union. I guess you could really just chart the amount of times someone is willing to cross who pays them or only monitor things that aren't traditional R vs D fights (like say the piracy issues). Anyway, just figured I'd throw the idea out there if someone had good ways to do it.


Start it up; I'll donate!
 
2013-04-19 03:56:43 PM  

Gavenger: You dont WANT to have to use a firearm for self defense, but youd rather have it and not need it as they say.  Not everyone will have a firearm for their own personal reasons, but to stand up and say "I dont like them so you cant have them is incredibly selfish" (I am talking about lawful ownership).  People also use them for various hobbies outside self defense.  Hunting, target practice, competitions and such.


I'm not in favor of banning guns. However, large capacity magazines don't increase your ability to defend yourself(most concealed carry weapons are compact semi-autos or revolvers) nor are they necessary for hunting. I find it difficult to compare one's desire to use a large capacity magazine for target practice or for competition with the lives lost in mass shootings. Our society already bans fully automatic and burst fire weapons(apart from highly regulated special permits) in order to prevent mass casualties, magazine size limits are just one more step in that direction.

Gavenger: There is no data supporting whether increased background checks or lower magazine capacities will equal to less mass shootings.


Jared Loughner's shooting spree ended when he failed to properly change magazines. 11 children at Sandy Hook escaped during a magazine change by Adam Lanza. 80,000 people were denied the sale of a weapon due to a background check. Just because it only makes it more difficult and doesn't stop them from purchasing the guns through illegal means doesn't mean we should make it easy for them. There's also evidence from Australia(from Wednesday's TDS) that gun control laws do reduce the number of mass shootings and gun violence in general(though, as in Britain, I'm sure that stabbings and beatings increased).

Gavenger: The only one that may have an impact is the AWB and thats an outright ban of a very specific type of firearm, and would move a would-be shooter to a different type of firearm.


That different type of firearm would have been far less effective and that's the whole point. In a gun friendly society like ours there will never be a way to stop gun violence but we can at least take steps to reduce the number of casualties. Sure, America will be less fun with an AWB(which I haven't decided if I support or not, due to the shiatty way the last one was written and the implications of writing a proper one) but maybe we'll lose fewer school children every year to gun violence.

To speak to the issue in TFA, when 85-90% of America supports universal background checks, it's unconscionable to forbid even debating the checks on the senate floor. One of my senators(Baucus) is up for reelection next year(his 7th term) and his decision to side with the Republicans on this issue is going to weigh heavily in my decision to vote for him in a primary. Unfortunately, it's likely that any Republican on the ticket would be as bad or worse on this topic and substantially worse on many other important issues.
 
2013-04-19 05:02:04 PM  

Whistling Kitty Chaser: I'm not in favor of banning guns. However, large capacity magazines don't increase your ability to defend yourself(most concealed carry weapons are compact semi-autos or revolvers) nor are they necessary for hunting. I find it difficult to compare one's desire to use a large capacity magazine for target practice or for competition with the lives lost in mass shootings. Our society already bans fully automatic and burst fire weapons(apart from highly regulated special permits) in order to prevent mass casualties, magazine size limits are just one more step in that direction.


Here is where we may differ on the definition of "large capacity magazines", Any magazine that is issued with the firearm, from the manufacturer, I deem as a "standard capapcity magazine".  Excessive speed kills, so therefor I find it hard to justify any vehicle being capable of exceeding the speed limit.  Thousands of teenagers die every year from excessive speed.  So we should ban all vehicles capable of exceeding the speed limit and force manufacturers to produce cars that cannot do so.  The previous 3 sentences are stupid.  I know, you know it, we both agree.  Are there laws that say it is illegal to speed?  Yes there are, but we dont stop making vehicles that can exceed the limit.  So yeah, you want to eliminate 50rd, 100rd drum magazines, even that 30rd Glock mag which doesnt come standard with any of the Glock firearms.  I personally dont have an issue with it.  But lets let common sense rule, the magazine the manufacturer issues with the firearm should always be considered "standard capacity."

Whistling Kitty Chaser: Jared Loughner's shooting spree ended when he failed to properly change magazines. 11 children at Sandy Hook escaped during a magazine change by Adam Lanza. 80,000 people were denied the sale of a weapon due to a background check. Just because it only makes it more difficult and doesn't stop them from purchasing the guns through illegal means doesn't mean we should make it easy for them. There's also evidence from Australia(from Wednesday's TDS) that gun control laws do reduce the number of mass shootings and gun violence in general(though, as in Britain, I'm sure that stabbings and beatings increased).


Id like to know the details of Loughners shooting.  Like, he fired 30 rounds, I wanna know what each one of the rounds hit in order.  I can imagine after the first 15 or so he wasnt hitting much because by then most people have been on the ground hiding or behind something if they had the presence of mind to do so.  I could be wrong but this is data Id like to see.  Sandy Hook would have been better off with a single police officer sitting in a surveillance room watching CCTV of the outside of the school.  Im sure such a room doesnt exist, but would be far more effective than reducing the capacity of the magazines that were carried.  Catch the activity before it became a tragedy.  The 80,000 figure was already proved to be BS in another thread, even the source said Biden came out and doubled their numbers.  Even still, I know its illegal for felons to possess firearms, same for diagnosed mentally ill, but where is the legality of an attempt to purchase?  If the attempt is unsuccessful, is it still a crime?  Is it a crime everywhere?  I honestly dont know.  Any counttry other than the US is completely different socioeconomically than the US and is a hard sell for me to compare the two.

Whistling Kitty Chaser: That different type of firearm would have been far less effective and that's the whole point. In a gun friendly society like ours there will never be a way to stop gun violence but we can at least take steps to reduce the number of casualties. Sure, America will be less fun with an AWB(which I haven't decided if I support or not, due to the shiatty way the last one was written and the implications of writing a proper one) but maybe we'll lose fewer school children every year to gun violence.

To speak to the issue in TFA, when 85-90% of America supports universal background checks, it's unconscionable to forbid even debating the checks on the senate floor. One of my senators(Baucus) is up for reelection next year(his 7th term) and his decision to side with the Republicans on this issue is going to weigh heavily in my decision to vote for him in a primary. Unfortunately, it's likely that any Republican on the ticket would be as bad or worse on this topic and substantially worse on many other important issues.


Personally Id prefer to expand the scope of reducing gun deaths to all persons and not just limit it to school children.  And horribly written laws are horribly written and should therefore not be passed.  Not because of what they are trying to accomplish, but because they are horribly written.

I still call BS on the 90% statistic.  Where did it come from?  How many people were involved in the poll?  We know it wasnt everyone in the US.  Where was the poll conducted?  This is a tactic used to skew results.  You want a hardcore Liberal result, do a poll of persons at Berkeley, Ca, or in NYC.  Want a more conservative result?  Check the midwest or more rural areas.  This is why I HATE polls/statistics.  BOTH sides do it, which is why I ignore the stats from either side.  Because its almost a sure thing that its BS.

I dont agree with "forbiding debate."  Both sides should have a right to say their peace.  Unfortunately, "both sides" are farking useless and the whole lot of them should be replaced.  I think we might actually see some progress if it happened.
 
2013-04-19 05:11:26 PM  

ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?


You mean those manufacturers who rake in billions of dollars in sales of the "absence of gun"?

Yeah...that'd be...um...none.
 
2013-04-19 05:40:36 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: TsukasaK: Am I the only one who farking realizes that every single gun control measure being proposed as of late  would not have stopped the recent shootings?

They stole their guns. Your background checks, your magazine restrictions, every bit of it, completely meaningless.

There are shootings every day in our country. Thousands of them. The catalyst for this latest attempt may be 20 dead 6-year-olds, but it's also because of all the other dead people, too.

Uncool story, Bro:

My uncle committed suicide with a gun three weeks ago today. He would probably be alive right now if we had stricter gun control laws. It turns out, when folks don't have the means to kill themselves instantly, they choose to live.

/Uncool story, Bro


Then why does the US have a suicide rate comparable to most other first world countries despite having multitudes more firearms per capita?
 
2013-04-19 05:43:56 PM  

AteMyBrain: ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?

You mean those manufacturers who rake in billions of dollars in sales of the "absence of gun"?

Yeah...that'd be...um...none.


You can't think of a single organization that benefits from harsh gun bans or any infringements at all?  You've heard of the prison industry, right?  I'm sure they'd love an expanded base of "customers" that would inevitably spring up if guns were outlawed or the list of potential violations was expanded.  How about enforcement agencies, you realize they lobby politicians just like a corporation, right?  Harsher laws give them justification to expand their budgets.  Did you ever stop and think that maybe companies like Taser would love to see guns outlawed so that they could be the only game in town?
 
2013-04-19 05:45:11 PM  

Gavenger: Id like to know the details of Loughners shooting.  Like, he fired 30 rounds, I wanna know what each one of the rounds hit in order.  I can imagine after the first 15 or so he wasnt hitting much because by then most people have been on the ground hiding or behind something if they had the presence of mind to do so.


31 shots fired in 15 seconds and 19 dead or injured. I'm guessing he was still hitting his targets after the first 15 rounds.

Gavenger: But lets let common sense rule, the magazine the manufacturer issues with the firearm should always be considered "standard capacity."


Firearm manufacturers will immediately release a firearm whose "standard capacity" is 30 rounds. Common sense for manufacturers is "if there's profit in it, we'll make it." Leaving public safety up to private industry is not good policy.

I think your car analogy is flawed, for at least the following reasons: One, cars have to be deemed street legal; two, we register cars; three, drivers must be licensed(not the same as a background check, it requires demonstration of knowledge and skill); four, it's much easier to arrest/fine someone in the act of reckless driving before they've killed themselves or others. There's a lot of work done both technologically and legislatively to reduce vehicle deaths, particular with respect to impaired driving. For guns, technical advances(that I've seen, I don't keep up on these things) are to increase effectiveness and decrease the chance of an AD. Legislative "advances" in the last 10-15 years have been to make guns more available.

Incidentally, every time I hear Wayne LaPierre speak it drives me further toward wanting increased gun legislation. In the same interview he said that the 1 second it takes for someone like Lanza to change magazines makes no difference, but that a 10 round magazine limit would make a huge difference for someone defending themselves. If an attacker can change magazines, why can't I? And why do I need more than 10 rounds to take down an attacker if I've taken the time to train with my firearm?


This was fun. See you at the next shooting.
 
2013-04-19 05:51:02 PM  

Whistling Kitty Chaser: Firearm manufacturers will immediately release a firearm whose "standard capacity" is 30 rounds. Common sense for manufacturers is "if there's profit in it, we'll make it." Leaving public safety up to private industry is not good policy.


The AR-15 has been aorund since the 60s with a "standard" capacity of 30 rounds.
 
2013-04-19 06:19:22 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: AteMyBrain: ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?

You mean those manufacturers who rake in billions of dollars in sales of the "absence of gun"?

Yeah...that'd be...um...none.

You can't think of a single organization that benefits from harsh gun bans or any infringements at all?  You've heard of the prison industry, right?  I'm sure they'd love an expanded base of "customers" that would inevitably spring up if guns were outlawed or the list of potential violations was expanded.  How about enforcement agencies, you realize they lobby politicians just like a corporation, right?  Harsher laws give them justification to expand their budgets.  Did you ever stop and think that maybe companies like Taser would love to see guns outlawed so that they could be the only game in town?


Oh, of course. That makes perfect sense now. The Democrats are all being paid off by the taser industry. That's why they're trying to get common sense gun control laws passed. Because that would DESTROY the gun industry, and everyone would run out and load up on tasers.

How'd you get so smart, Gomer?
 
2013-04-19 06:49:47 PM  

Whistling Kitty Chaser: Firearm manufacturers will immediately release a firearm whose "standard capacity" is 30 rounds. Common sense for manufacturers is "if there's profit in it, we'll make it." Leaving public safety up to private industry is not good policy.


Well the only 30rd magazine I have issue with is the Glock one for the G18.  Im ok with the only people having access to it are the very very few people who have access to Glock 18's.  As for long guns, I only mentioned 50+rd magazines as, to date, other than going to the range and not having to reload as often, there is no justifiable reason to possess them.  And there is an issue with reliability.  The last thing I want near any of my firearms is a device attached to it and containing explosives with reliability issues.  This is a personal opinion however.  Leaving public safety up to the current legislative body is proving to be a bad choice as well.

Whistling Kitty Chaser: I think your car analogy is flawed, for at least the following reasons: One, cars have to be deemed street legal; two, we register cars; three, drivers must be licensed(not the same as a background check, it requires demonstration of knowledge and skill); four, it's much easier to arrest/fine someone in the act of reckless driving before they've killed themselves or others. There's a lot of work done both technologically and legislatively to reduce vehicle deaths, particular with respect to impaired driving. For guns, technical advances(that I've seen, I don't keep up on these things) are to increase effectiveness and decrease the chance of an AD. Legislative "advances" in the last 10-15 years have been to make guns more available.


And yet, with far more restricitons on driving a vehicle, more people die in vehicular incidents than from gun violence.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states">http://www.g unpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
vs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States" >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

270 million firearms vs. 254 million vehicles.  88 firearms per 100 people and more people die to vehicle incidents than firearms.  People are far more likely to be irresponsable behind the wheel than with a firearm.  With all that technology towards reducing deaths in vehicle incidents, they still happen more frequently than does gun violence.

I am not a member of the NRA, I dont pay attention to what he says.  If you need more than 10 rounds to take down an attacker, either (a) you need to spend more time at the range; or (b) you need a larger caliber.  Now a larger caliber may be ok for most men, but there are a lot of women out there that cannot deal with the recoil of a .45.  So you point them towards a 9mm.  A big issue I have with 9mm's is its a very small round.  It just does not convey a lot of kinetic energy to its target, when compared to a .40 or .45.  In a home defense situation, if you are using a hollow point round, there isnt a lot of time/space for that round to open up completely inside your home (situations vary based on home obviously).  If your attacker is wearing thick clothing, there is a good chance the clothing will fill the hollow point and the round becomes ball ammo and goes right through the attacker.  If your attacker is on speed or some other upper, your going to need several rounds to immobilize him...if your unlucky.  Multiply that out times multiple attackers and you see the point of more than 10 rounds.  Does everyone need more than 10 in a home invasion, no.  Are there instances where more than 10 is required, yes.  Shall we now condemn the unfortunate victim of a home invasion perpetrated by multiple attackers to a possible death so that some individuals can feel safer in the knowledge that I only have 10rd magazines as opposed to 17rd (Glock 17)?

Hell if anyone needs to be limited to 10 rounds its Law Enforcement, most specifically members of the LAPD.  Whereas I am very happy the two ladies survived, multiple LAPD officers unloaded multiple magazines each into a truck and still didnt manage to incapacitate the occupants.  Again, I am HAPPY they survived, but if LEO's my tax dollars pay for are going to brandish their sidearms and open fire on a suspect, I want them to hit what they intend.  How many of those rounds missed the truck?  Hell they werent even receiving return fire! They were in a residential neighborhood, how many people were put at risk during that firefight?  Are there better officer out there, im sure there are, and those better officers should be kicking the crap out of the bad ones.
 
2013-04-19 07:26:47 PM  

AteMyBrain: BraveNewCheneyWorld: AteMyBrain: ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?

You mean those manufacturers who rake in billions of dollars in sales of the "absence of gun"?

Yeah...that'd be...um...none.

You can't think of a single organization that benefits from harsh gun bans or any infringements at all?  You've heard of the prison industry, right?  I'm sure they'd love an expanded base of "customers" that would inevitably spring up if guns were outlawed or the list of potential violations was expanded.  How about enforcement agencies, you realize they lobby politicians just like a corporation, right?  Harsher laws give them justification to expand their budgets.  Did you ever stop and think that maybe companies like Taser would love to see guns outlawed so that they could be the only game in town?

Oh, of course. That makes perfect sense now. The Democrats are all being paid off by the taser industry. That's why they're trying to get common sense gun control laws passed. Because that would DESTROY the gun industry, and everyone would run out and load up on tasers.

How'd you get so smart, Gomer?


Except that's not what you said.  You said "You mean those manufacturers who rake in billions of dollars in sales of the "absence of gun"? "  While they may not all be manufacturers, there's plenty of groups with a financial interest in restricting firearms.  So your point wasn't based in reality.
 
2013-04-19 10:26:40 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: AteMyBrain: BraveNewCheneyWorld: AteMyBrain: ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?

You mean those manufacturers who rake in billions of dollars in sales of the "absence of gun"?

Yeah...that'd be...um...none.

You can't think of a single organization that benefits from harsh gun bans or any infringements at all?  You've heard of the prison industry, right?  I'm sure they'd love an expanded base of "customers" that would inevitably spring up if guns were outlawed or the list of potential violations was expanded.  How about enforcement agencies, you realize they lobby politicians just like a corporation, right?  Harsher laws give them justification to expand their budgets.  Did you ever stop and think that maybe companies like Taser would love to see guns outlawed so that they could be the only game in town?

Oh, of course. That makes perfect sense now. The Democrats are all being paid off by the taser industry. That's why they're trying to get common sense gun control laws passed. Because that would DESTROY the gun industry, and everyone would run out and load up on tasers.

How'd you get so smart, Gomer?

Except that's not what you said.  You said "You mean those manufacturers who rake in billions of dollars in sales of the "absence of gun"? "  While they may not all be manufacturers, there's plenty of groups with a financial interest in restricting firearms.  So your point wasn't based in reality.


Let it go, dude. You said a stupid thing. It happens.
 
2013-04-20 01:46:43 AM  
whores the lot of them
 
2013-04-20 02:55:36 AM  

Gavenger: Whistling Kitty Chaser: Both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War resulted in full scale war. I guarantee that Sherman, who had a class of tank named after him, would have loved to have tanks on his march to the sea.

Even if you don't agree with that I hope that you can agree that a 30 round pistol magazine has only two uses: Wasting rounds at the range and killing as many people as you can before someone stops you, as demonstrated by Jared Loughner. If someone is trying to defend themselves from a mugging or rape and can't manage to kill or maim their attacker at close range in the first five rounds(or ten if you prefer) then they're probably going to be mugged/raped anyway and the rounds that missed their target may well have struck an unintended target. Pistols are of limited use in an actual war situation(toppling a tyrannical government) and the lack of an extended magazine isn't going to be the difference between being the rebels in the Revolutionary War and the rebels in the Civil War.

Well during both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, the populations were a little more polarized to one side or the other than they are currently.  And Group 3 in my above statement is a much larger group than either Group 1 or Group 2.  Also, population density at the time of Sherman was a lot more spread out and you wouldnt have had as much collateral damage as you would now.  Sure some areas were densely populated, but not to the degree they are now.  Both sides in both conflicts also formed into large organized armies.  If anything were to occur in the future it would be closer to guerrilla warfare here in the States.

Personally I agree that I dont see the real need for a 30 round magazine for a pistol.  The magazine in question was originally designed for the Glock 18.  The G18 has such a high rate of fire that it would empty a standard (17rd) Glock magazine before you could effectively release the trigger.  FYI, the G18 is not a normal pistol for people to purchase, it is heavily regulated as it is a fully automatic machine pistol.  Due to the nature of the Glock designs, the higher capacity magazines fit all the same caliber handguns.  So the 30rd magazine designed for the G18 also fits the G17 and the smaller ones.  However, I disagree with limitations on access to the standard issue 17rd magazine that comes with the G17.

I agree with you that any future uprising will not be fought with pistols vs tanks.  It will be long guns vs. long guns.  Tanks are too vulnerable in densely populated areas against modible forces.  Too easy to sneak up on it and plant an IED to disable it.  Great against other tanks...but the rebels wont have tanks.  So that means you have to deploy your infantry to counter.  And its these forces that will do battle.  The tank cant just start unleashing 105mm hell into a neighborhood, this would be very bad for Group 1.  Sure, you could use it to hide behind, but thats about as useful as itll be.  Better to use APCs since they can carry more people and are protected from small arms fire.


Turn off Red Dawn bro, those Guatemalans ain't comin for ya.
 
2013-04-20 03:04:01 AM  
At the rabid "MORE GUN LAWS!!! IT WILL SAVE US!!!" - listen stupids... making gun laws and regulations stricter will have -zero- effect on keeping guns out of criminal's hands.  How many street thugs do you think go to Gander Mountain for their hardware?  THEY BUY THE CRAP FROM EACH OTHER OR STEAL THEM.  Geezus.  I don't know what fairy-tale land those who think that banning sales of assault weapons or any OTHER kind of gun is going to keep them out of the hands of criminals live in.  Outlawing drugs has done wonders, eh?  Outlawing prostitution has done wonders too, right?  Oh but THIS will be DIFFERENT.  Ooh, now there's a LAW saying that punk with the automatic weapon who's robbing the bank your wife works in cannot have it - I am sure if you tell him that he'll come to his senses and put it down immediately.  Now, do I think there is ANY reason for ANYONE in the general public to have a (functioning) assault weapon? NO.  But I also know that all the laws in the world won't stop criminals from having guns.  Laws aren't magic (not too sure about ponies and friendship either).  Let's focus on mental health.  Yes keep gun laws or even make them tougher if you wish BUT WAKE UP and realize that it WILL NOT KEEP GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS.  A .38 will make you just as dead as an AK-47.  Don't give me the "... but fewer bullets... fewer causalties..."  how many mass-shootings REALLY happen with assault weapons?  Y'all watch too many action films.
 
2013-04-20 08:29:01 AM  

redmid17: Whistling Kitty Chaser: Firearm manufacturers will immediately release a firearm whose "standard capacity" is 30 rounds. Common sense for manufacturers is "if there's profit in it, we'll make it." Leaving public safety up to private industry is not good policy.

The AR-15 has been aorund since the 60s with a "standard" capacity of 30 rounds.


Hell, the M-1 Carbine was first sold to the public after WWII, and that had 15 and 30 round magazines standard.
 
2013-04-20 08:30:43 AM  

AteMyBrain: That's why they're trying to get common sense gun control laws passed.


You keep using that phrase.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

/Common sense like NYS, where you aren't allowed to put more than 7 bullets in a 10 round magazine?
 
2013-04-20 08:40:54 AM  

AteMyBrain: Let it go, dude. You said a stupid thing. It happens.


Is your new debate strategy to mirror everything I say to you, hoping nobody will notice?  Interesting, your intellect is that of a 5 year old.
 
Displayed 21 of 171 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 »
Advertisement
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