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.

(WSMV Nashville)   Senator Campfield posted a photo that has been circulating on many gun rights websites, showing what is titled as an "assault pressure cooker" and includes labels such as "tactical pistol grip" and "can cook for hours without reloading"   (wsmv.com) divider line 270
    More: Dumbass, Campfield, Channel 4 News, assault pressure cooker, Sandy Hook Elementary School, senator  
•       •       •

3714 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Apr 2013 at 10:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-23 10:59:46 AM  
 
2013-04-23 11:00:07 AM  
As a person who owns guns, supports gun rights, and doesn't think any meaningful legislation will be passed (that is not to say legislation will not be passed, just that it won't be meaningful, i.e. will not solve the gun violence problem), let me just say that most of the strawman arguments posed by gun rights advocates totally suck balls and don't serve to prove anything other than there's a lot of mouth breathers with guns.  Also, a lot of the arguments posed by gun control advocates are ill-informed, lacking in fact, based upon heresay, and also void of any reason or understanding of the myriad of different cultures contained right here in our great nation.  It seems that those that yell the loudest, on both sides, need to shut the fark up and let the adults figure it out, because they have no farking clue what they are actually talking about.  Emotion, vitriol, and misinformation are things that should never be used as a catalyst to legislation, or a lack thereof.
 
2013-04-23 11:01:51 AM  

Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: TerminalEchoes: according to Obama's exact words

Just reminding everyone that you're a liar. You know people can use the internet to look things up, right?

"If even one child's life can be saved, then we need to act"

It's on the White House website.

That's not what TE was referring to.


Nevertheless, it is what Obama believes. Why else would he have it on his website?
 
2013-04-23 11:01:52 AM  

Fart_Machine: Because pressure cookers already come pre-equipped with explosives?


A perception about pressure cookers as an instrument of terrorism has been formed in the public where none existed before.  Same as box-cutters after 9/11.
 
2013-04-23 11:01:58 AM  
That's mildly amusing but everyone with an ounce of brains knows that it's not the pressure cooker that made the boom, it was the explosive inside.   The obvious solution would be to require background checks for purchasing explosives (or anything that contains explosives) and adding chemical tags so that they can be traced.
 
2013-04-23 11:02:00 AM  

Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?


Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.
 
2013-04-23 11:02:36 AM  

Wellon Dowd: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

One of my cousins, whom I usually ignore, posted this on Facebook:

[i.imgur.com image 412x403]

My first reaction is that it is illegal to manufacture, possess, or use a bomb. Further we highly regulate the operation of automobiles and most states require people who do so to be insured. So why the pro-gun folks are trying to draw parallels between them is beyond me.


so you're saying there are no gun regulations?  Heck I tripped over 3 of them coming into work today just laying around the sidewalk.  Kids at the bus stop were playing cowboys and indians with them before I got there.
 
2013-04-23 11:02:40 AM  
The fact that there are people in this thread defending this "pressure cooker control" nonsense shows what a hive-mind the gun nuts have become.  They've really surrendered their ability to apply critical thinking to their own paranoid, false notions that owning a gun is so incredibly important that it truly is a matter of life and death in our society.

Keep towing the line for your corporate lobbyist NRA overlords, morons.
 
2013-04-23 11:02:45 AM  
GanjSmokr:

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Why does it have to be a specific number? Can we agree that it is too high right now and work to reduce it? Or does that idea remain invalid unless I tell you that I want to reduce the number of murdered kids x%. Cuz if I have to pick a reduction percentage I want it would be 100%, but we have to be realistic.

Ned Stark:
Well I tried explaing the concept and you just couldn't grasp it so I tried analogy. You've heard of them before, right?

Sure I have. Yours is just bad and doesn't apply.
 
2013-04-23 11:03:33 AM  

Farce-Side: As a person who owns guns, supports gun rights, and doesn't think any meaningful legislation will be passed (that is not to say legislation will not be passed, just that it won't be meaningful, i.e. will not solve the gun violence problem), let me just say that most of the strawman arguments posed by gun rights advocates totally suck balls and don't serve to prove anything other than there's a lot of mouth breathers with guns.  Also, a lot of the arguments posed by gun control advocates are ill-informed, lacking in fact, based upon heresay, and also void of any reason or understanding of the myriad of different cultures contained right here in our great nation.  It seems that those that yell the loudest, on both sides, need to shut the fark up and let the adults figure it out, because they have no farking clue what they are actually talking about.  Emotion, vitriol, and misinformation are things that should never be used as a catalyst to legislation, or a lack thereof.


This.
 
2013-04-23 11:03:54 AM  

MichiganFTL: Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?

Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.



Yeah that's exactly what I argued.   Getting rid of guns would result in a utopian society.  You know what, you're right.  lets stockpile as many deadly weapons as possible.  That will make everyone a lot safer.

Jesus.
 
2013-04-23 11:04:08 AM  

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?

You think this whole thing is about blame? No wonder we can't get anywhere. Not everything is a moral crusade. We just want less dead kids.

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Lord_Baull: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


I hear all the time in the news about how "the car" careeened out of control and crashed into the Farmer's Market. You also hear about family tragedies when "the gun went off accidentally."

We blame the elderly driver that drove the car into the Farmer's Market, not the car. We don't then start banning that make and model of car that was driven either.  And when you say "the gun went off accidentally", I don't see any people being blamed - just the "gun".  Had you said "Someone accidentally fired the gun" instead of "the gun went off accidentally", that would be blaming a person.



You need to pay more attention.
 
2013-04-23 11:04:54 AM  

mysticcat: Fortunately, Senator Campfield, in whose district I grew up many moons ago, will not be around to troll us after the next election.  He'll be bankrolled out of office.


This. Knoxville has alot of idiots in it, but most are smart enough to recognize this loser for what he is: a closet case with a tiny dick.

I met him once. As swarmy and condescending as you would think.

/Has he been outed as a "secret gay" yet?
 
2013-04-23 11:06:33 AM  

GoldSpider: Fart_Machine: Because pressure cookers already come pre-equipped with explosives?

A perception about pressure cookers as an instrument of terrorism has been formed in the public where none existed before.  Same as box-cutters after 9/11.


Yup just like shoes and underwear are associated with terrorism. Try more straw.
 
2013-04-23 11:06:51 AM  

CPennypacker: GanjSmokr:

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Why does it have to be a specific number? Can we agree that it is too high right now and work to reduce it? Or does that idea remain invalid unless I tell you that I want to reduce the number of murdered kids x%. Cuz if I have to pick a reduction percentage I want it would be 100%, but we have to be realistic.

Ned Stark:
Well I tried explaing the concept and you just couldn't grasp it so I tried analogy. You've heard of them before, right?

Sure I have. Yours is just bad and doesn't apply.


What exactly doesn't fit about it?
 
2013-04-23 11:07:28 AM  

Chummer45: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?

Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.


Yeah that's exactly what I argued.   Getting rid of guns would result in a utopian society.  You know what, you're right.  lets stockpile as many deadly weapons as possible.  That will make everyone a lot safer.

Jesus.


What are your 'common sense' measures? Or are you just mad that there are a ton of countries with high gun ownership per capita with low murder/violence rates and that there are a ton of countries with low gun ownership per capita with high murder/violence rates which pokes holes in your 'mountains of evidence' argument?
 
2013-04-23 11:07:39 AM  

CPennypacker: GanjSmokr:

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Why does it have to be a specific number? Can we agree that it is too high right now and work to reduce it? Or does that idea remain invalid unless I tell you that I want to reduce the number of murdered kids x%. Cuz if I have to pick a reduction percentage I want it would be 100%, but we have to be realistic.


I want to know because I'd like to know when there will be enough laws for you to be satisfied.

If, as you just said, you want it to be a 100% reduction, then there will never be enough laws for you and you'll never be satisfied with the situation.  Thanks for being honest here at least.
 
2013-04-23 11:07:42 AM  

Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: TerminalEchoes: according to Obama's exact words

Just reminding everyone that you're a liar. You know people can use the internet to look things up, right?

"If even one child's life can be saved, then we need to act"

It's on the White House website.

That's not what TE was referring to.

Nevertheless, it is what Obama believes. Why else would he have it on his website?


Well ignoring the fact that the person I was responding to was lying, which was the point of my post, why would Obama talk about the need to stop children from dying due to guns, in remarks specifically discussing gun violence? Probably because he's not an asshole.
 
2013-04-23 11:07:51 AM  
Headline.

Headline.

Headline.


That took all of two minutes.
 
2013-04-23 11:08:25 AM  

GanjSmokr: I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?


It's a deflection tactic that depends on the assumption that "proposal X" will in fact reduce the number of child victims going unchallenged.  Anyone opposed to "proposal X" finds himself defending himself against a charge that he opposes reducing child victims.
 
2013-04-23 11:08:47 AM  

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr:

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Why does it have to be a specific number? Can we agree that it is too high right now and work to reduce it? Or does that idea remain invalid unless I tell you that I want to reduce the number of murdered kids x%. Cuz if I have to pick a reduction percentage I want it would be 100%, but we have to be realistic.

I want to know because I'd like to know when there will be enough laws for you to be satisfied.

If, as you just said, you want it to be a 100% reduction, then there will never be enough laws for you and you'll never be satisfied with the situation.  Thanks for being honest here at least.


Are you saying you're ok with kids dying?
 
2013-04-23 11:08:47 AM  

Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: TerminalEchoes: according to Obama's exact words

Just reminding everyone that you're a liar. You know people can use the internet to look things up, right?

"If even one child's life can be saved, then we need to act"

It's on the White House website.

That's not what TE was referring to.

Nevertheless, it is what Obama believes. Why else would he have it on his website?

Well ignoring the fact that the person I was responding to was lying, which was the point of my post, why would Obama talk about the need to stop children from dying due to guns, in remarks specifically discussing gun violence? Probably because he's not an asshole.


So do you support any measure that would prevent just one child from dying?
 
2013-04-23 11:09:42 AM  

Ned Stark: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr:

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Why does it have to be a specific number? Can we agree that it is too high right now and work to reduce it? Or does that idea remain invalid unless I tell you that I want to reduce the number of murdered kids x%. Cuz if I have to pick a reduction percentage I want it would be 100%, but we have to be realistic.

Ned Stark:
Well I tried explaing the concept and you just couldn't grasp it so I tried analogy. You've heard of them before, right?

Sure I have. Yours is just bad and doesn't apply.

What exactly doesn't fit about it?


Ned I don't think it's just him, I didn't get it either man.  I'd love to know what you meant though.
 
2013-04-23 11:11:26 AM  

GoldSpider: Anyone opposed to "proposal X" finds himself defending himself against a charge that he opposes reducing child victims.


CPennypacker: Are you saying you're ok with kids dying?


Thanks for so thoroughly demonstrating my point.
 
2013-04-23 11:11:48 AM  
Some senators need a punch in the face.
 
2013-04-23 11:12:45 AM  

GoldSpider: GoldSpider: Anyone opposed to "proposal X" finds himself defending himself against a charge that he opposes reducing child victims.

CPennypacker: Are you saying you're ok with kids dying?

Thanks for so thoroughly demonstrating my point.


If you read how our discussion started you would realize that your point doesn't apply to what I'm saying.
 
2013-04-23 11:13:04 AM  

Tomahawk513: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr:

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Why does it have to be a specific number? Can we agree that it is too high right now and work to reduce it? Or does that idea remain invalid unless I tell you that I want to reduce the number of murdered kids x%. Cuz if I have to pick a reduction percentage I want it would be 100%, but we have to be realistic.

Ned Stark:
Well I tried explaing the concept and you just couldn't grasp it so I tried analogy. You've heard of them before, right?

Sure I have. Yours is just bad and doesn't apply.

What exactly doesn't fit about it?

Ned I don't think it's just him, I didn't get it either man.  I'd love to know what you meant though.


"Your plan does not do what you say it does" is a valid criticism of a plan even if you still would not support an amended, functional plan.

That's all.
 
2013-04-23 11:14:50 AM  

MichiganFTL: Chummer45: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?

Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.


Yeah that's exactly what I argued.   Getting rid of guns would result in a utopian society.  You know what, you're right.  lets stockpile as many deadly weapons as possible.  That will make everyone a lot safer.

Jesus.

What are your 'common sense' measures? Or are you just mad that there are a ton of countries with high gun ownership per capita with low murder/violence rates and that there are a ton of countries with low gun ownership per capita with high murder/violence rates which pokes holes in your 'mountains of evidence' argument?


Hey as long as we have the same regulations and training as those countries you listed, I am all for it.
 
2013-04-23 11:16:13 AM  

MichiganFTL: What are your 'common sense' measures?


Arresting kids who wear a t-shirt with a picture of a gun.
 
2013-04-23 11:17:40 AM  

jrodr018: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?

Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.


Yeah that's exactly what I argued.   Getting rid of guns would result in a utopian society.  You know what, you're right.  lets stockpile as many deadly weapons as possible.  That will make everyone a lot safer.

Jesus.

What are your 'common sense' measures? Or are you just mad that there are a ton of countries with high gun ownership per capita with low murder/violence rates and that there are a ton of countries with low gun ownership per capita with high murder/violence rates which pokes holes in your 'mountains of evidence' argument?

Hey as long as we have the same regulations and training as those countries you listed, I am all for it.


which ones?
 
2013-04-23 11:18:49 AM  

MichiganFTL: Chummer45: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?

Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.


Yeah that's exactly what I argued.   Getting rid of guns would result in a utopian society.  You know what, you're right.  lets stockpile as many deadly weapons as possible.  That will make everyone a lot safer.

Jesus.

What are your 'common sense' measures? Or are you just mad that there are a ton of countries with high gun ownership per capita with low murder/violence rates and that there are a ton of countries with low gun ownership per capita with high murder/violence rates which pokes holes in your 'mountains of evidence' argument?


Look, I'm not here to get into the weeds on a stupid internet argument with you (that you have no doubt spent hours on gun forums prepping for).   My original statement was correct when you look at western, industrialized nations that are similar to the U.S.  Looking at those statistics, objectively, leads to the conclusion that less guns = less violent crime.

The United States is a massive outlier when it comes to per capita gun ownership, and a huge outlier when it comes to per capita gun homicides.  You can sit here and pretend that "correlation does not equal causation" in this instance all you want, but the bottom line is that I can't have a rational discussion with you, because you're clearly way too impassioned in your defense of unregulated gun ownership, and have already labeled me as a "gun control advocate."

I guess if you can rest easy knowing that your hobby is protected, while thousands of Americans are killed or wounded thanks in no small part to the huge availability of guns in our country, then so be it.

I just hope you realize that you're caught up in a hugely profitable political/industrial machine that has gotten so good, that it convinced its members to buy huge amounts of guns, ammo, and accessories in response to the brutal shooting of two dozen or so elementary school kids.  And the best part?  The NRA/industry group convinced all of its members that they had no choice but to spend all of that money in donations and purchases, because the "enemy" (i.e., gun control advocates) left them no choice.
 
2013-04-23 11:19:11 AM  

Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: TerminalEchoes: according to Obama's exact words

Just reminding everyone that you're a liar. You know people can use the internet to look things up, right?

"If even one child's life can be saved, then we need to act"

It's on the White House website.

That's not what TE was referring to.

Nevertheless, it is what Obama believes. Why else would he have it on his website?

Well ignoring the fact that the person I was responding to was lying, which was the point of my post, why would Obama talk about the need to stop children from dying due to guns, in remarks specifically discussing gun violence? Probably because he's not an asshole.

So do you support any measure that would prevent just one child from dying?


You really shouldn't telegraph your talking points so much. "We need to act" does not mean "Let's just do anything for shiats and giggles". What is hard to understand about that? I believe there are steps we can take to reduce gun violence while still allowing responsible people to enjoy their 2nd Amendment rights. I would need to see individual suggestions before I give them my support. Just because gun nuts don't want any regulations, doesn't mean I want every regulation.

Do you think nothing can/should be done? That everything is perfect as is? That there is no policy or regulation that might help address gun violence?
 
2013-04-23 11:19:27 AM  

Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: TerminalEchoes: according to Obama's exact words

Just reminding everyone that you're a liar. You know people can use the internet to look things up, right?

"If even one child's life can be saved, then we need to act"

It's on the White House website.

That's not what TE was referring to.

Nevertheless, it is what Obama believes. Why else would he have it on his website?

Well ignoring the fact that the person I was responding to was lying, which was the point of my post, why would Obama talk about the need to stop children from dying due to guns, in remarks specifically discussing gun violence? Probably because he's not an asshole.

So do you support any measure that would prevent just one child from dying?


::Bud Nippers:: It's not possible to prevent every kid from dying prematurely, things like disease, neglect, abuse, and just plain old stupidity will see to that.  However, as a society, we have a responsibility to try to prevent kids from dying prematurely, so we place strict regulations on food, provide health insurance and nutrition assistance to children, engineer strict building codes so kids don't fall off stuff or can't climb over it, and use PSAs as well as harsh punishments for child abuse.  How does this relate to guns?  Well, a few months ago, 20 kids were wiped out in an instant by a person with a particularly lethal firearm.  One or two and we might write it off to a horrific accident, or a horrible murderer, but 20?  That doesn't just happen.  Therefore, it is understandable, responsible even to take steps that could prevent a similar scenario, just like we do in other aspects of society.
 
2013-04-23 11:22:12 AM  

Tomahawk513: How does this relate to guns? Well, a few months ago, 20 kids were wiped out in an instant by a person with a particularly lethal firearm.


By "particularly lethal" do you mean "semi-automatic"?  Just wondering.
 
2013-04-23 11:22:41 AM  

CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr:

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Why does it have to be a specific number? Can we agree that it is too high right now and work to reduce it? Or does that idea remain invalid unless I tell you that I want to reduce the number of murdered kids x%. Cuz if I have to pick a reduction percentage I want it would be 100%, but we have to be realistic.

I want to know because I'd like to know when there will be enough laws for you to be satisfied.

If, as you just said, you want it to be a 100% reduction, then there will never be enough laws for you and you'll never be satisfied with the situation.  Thanks for being honest here at least.

Are you saying you're ok with kids dying?


For the record, I'm not OK with kids dying in general.

I'm fine with preventing the deaths of children.  As long as you are actually doing something that will prevent the deaths of children.  IMO, most of the proposed  knee-jerk reactionary law changes will do nothing to do that and then you'll want more laws because we didn't reduce the number of children killed with the first new set of laws that was passed.  When does that end?

/for some people, it will only end with the repeal of the 2nd
 
2013-04-23 11:22:57 AM  
It would be absurd for someone to propose a pressure cooker ban, pressure cooker regulations, or pressure cooker registration, so it's equally absurd for anyone to propose similar things for guns, which are the exact same thing!

Guns are just metal things, like any other thing made of metal.  We don't regulate spoons!  Why would we regulate guns?

It's crazy that some people in here don't understand this incredibly convincing and persuasive argument.
 
2013-04-23 11:24:24 AM  
Also, to everyone who says "guns aren't as regulated as cars or ::insert object here::", I think you'll find that there are a TON of regulations, both federal and state on guns right now.

For instance, just at the federal level, there are:

NFA 1934, Omnibus CC & SSA 1968, GCA of 1968, FOPA 1986, GFSZA 1990, Brady Handgun VPA 1993, PoLCiAA. Throw in all of the state laws on top of that and you'd be surprised they are pretty regulated as is. Not saying there's not room for improvement, but don't believe people who say there's no regulation to firearms in this country.
 
2013-04-23 11:24:52 AM  

GoldSpider: Tomahawk513: How does this relate to guns? Well, a few months ago, 20 kids were wiped out in an instant by a person with a particularly lethal firearm.

By "particularly lethal" do you mean "semi-automatic"?  Just wondering.



Yeah seriously.  An assault rifle is impossible to define, so I want to bait you into saying something that is technically incorrect so that I can accuse you of trying to ban something you don't even understand.
 
2013-04-23 11:25:01 AM  

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr:

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Why does it have to be a specific number? Can we agree that it is too high right now and work to reduce it? Or does that idea remain invalid unless I tell you that I want to reduce the number of murdered kids x%. Cuz if I have to pick a reduction percentage I want it would be 100%, but we have to be realistic.

I want to know because I'd like to know when there will be enough laws for you to be satisfied.

If, as you just said, you want it to be a 100% reduction, then there will never be enough laws for you and you'll never be satisfied with the situation.  Thanks for being honest here at least.

Are you saying you're ok with kids dying?

For the record, I'm not OK with kids dying in general.

I'm fine with preventing the deaths of children.  As long as you are actually doing something that will prevent the deaths of children.  IMO, most of the proposed  knee-jerk reactionary law changes will do nothing to do that and then you'll want more laws because we didn't reduce the number of children killed with the first new set of laws that was passed.  When does that end?

/for some people, it will only end with the repeal of the 2nd


We could start with the background checks that had wide support but died anyway because one of the two major political parties in this country serve the gun lobby over their own constituents
 
2013-04-23 11:26:47 AM  

MichiganFTL: Also, to everyone who says "guns aren't as regulated as cars or ::insert object here::", I think you'll find that there are a TON of regulations, both federal and state on guns right now.

For instance, just at the federal level, there are:

NFA 1934, Omnibus CC & SSA 1968, GCA of 1968, FOPA 1986, GFSZA 1990, Brady Handgun VPA 1993, PoLCiAA. Throw in all of the state laws on top of that and you'd be surprised they are pretty regulated as is. Not saying there's not room for improvement, but don't believe people who say there's no regulation to firearms in this country.



Yes, and the NRA is constantly working to undermine these laws.  This is the problem I have with most pro-NRA gun owners.  They're willing to ignore all the harm the NRA is doing because, in their mind, the NRA's overall goal of "protecting against gun confiscation" is a noble one.

That, and the fact that the NRA is a corporate whore lobbying group with a borderline cult-like following.
 
2013-04-23 11:28:20 AM  

MichiganFTL: jrodr018: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?

Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.


Yeah that's exactly what I argued.   Getting rid of guns would result in a utopian society.  You know what, you're right.  lets stockpile as many deadly weapons as possible.  That will make everyone a lot safer.

Jesus.

What are your 'common sense' measures? Or are you just mad that there are a ton of countries with high gun ownership per capita with low murder/violence rates and that there are a ton of countries with low gun ownership per capita with high murder/violence rates which pokes holes in your 'mountains of evidence' argument?

Hey as long as we have the same regulations and training as those countries you listed, I am all for it.

which ones?


I am sure you know these, but I will list them after a brief google search:

Switzerland: Conscripted militia (military gun training)
Finland: Firearms Act 1998 (individuals HAVE to demonstrate a valid reason to have guns)
Sweden: Vapenlagen law 1996, all permits have to be obtained from the police

I can keep going, but I am sure you knew all of these. Study it out.
 
2013-04-23 11:29:55 AM  

GoldSpider: Tomahawk513: How does this relate to guns? Well, a few months ago, 20 kids were wiped out in an instant by a person with a particularly lethal firearm.

By "particularly lethal" do you mean "semi-automatic"?  Just wondering.


Specifically, I mean
1) a fairly easy to handle (as opposed to a longer or heavier rifle)
2) semi-automatic weapon with a (as opposed to pump action, lever action, bolt action, etc.)
3) detachable magazine of (vs fixed)
4) 20-30 rounds.  (vs 5-8 in a revolver, 10-15 in most handguns, 8 or so in a shotgun, etc.)

Really it's a combination of those things that makes one weapon more lethal than another.
 
2013-04-23 11:31:26 AM  

jrodr018: MichiganFTL: jrodr018: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?

Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.


Yeah that's exactly what I argued.   Getting rid of guns would result in a utopian society.  You know what, you're right.  lets stockpile as many deadly weapons as possible.  That will make everyone a lot safer.

Jesus.

What are your 'common sense' measures? Or are you just mad that there are a ton of countries with high gun ownership per capita with low murder/violence rates and that there are a ton of countries with low gun ownership per capita with high murder/violence rates which pokes holes in your 'mountains of evidence' argument?

Hey as long as we have the same regulations and training as those countries you listed, I am all for it.

which ones?

I am sure you know these, but I will list them after a brief google search:

Switzerland: Conscripted militia (military gun training)
Finland: Firearms Act 1998 (individuals HAVE to demonstrate a valid reason to have guns)
Sweden: Vapenlagen law 1996, all permits have to be obtained from the police

I can keep going, but I am sure you knew all of these. Study it out.


While not opposed to any of these, Switzerland won't happen here. Sweden's is reasonable, but what's the difference between that and ours NICS system which does a background check (I don't see a policeman being able to profile a person perfectly), Finland's would be reasonable, depending on what reasons were given (although this would also probably not make it because of the 2nd amendment).
 
2013-04-23 11:34:53 AM  

Chummer45: Yeah seriously. An assault rifle is impossible to define, so I want to bait you into saying something that is technically incorrect so that I can accuse you of trying to ban something you don't even understand.


Not my intent at all.  I think the only way to significantly lower gun violence is to ban and confiscate semi-automatic pistols.
 
2013-04-23 11:36:05 AM  

Dimensio: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

Gun ban advocates claim that pistol grips and collapsing stocks enhance the lethality of a rifle. I know that it is not trolling; they really are that stupid.


Technically, they make the gun viable in scenarios that they would otherwise be unwieldy -- like indoors or in close quarters.   It doesn't make the bullets any more deadly but it does make the weapon more deadly.
 
2013-04-23 11:36:11 AM  

GoldSpider: Chummer45: Yeah seriously. An assault rifle is impossible to define, so I want to bait you into saying something that is technically incorrect so that I can accuse you of trying to ban something you don't even understand.

Not my intent at all.  I think the only way to significantly lower gun violence is to ban and confiscate semi-automatic pistols.


That would actually statistically have a lot more impact.
 
2013-04-23 11:38:01 AM  

PopularFront: Dimensio: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

Gun ban advocates claim that pistol grips and collapsing stocks enhance the lethality of a rifle. I know that it is not trolling; they really are that stupid.

Technically, they make the gun viable in scenarios that they would otherwise be unwieldy -- like indoors or in close quarters.   It doesn't make the bullets any more deadly but it does make the weapon more deadly.


If that was their big concern, they would have grabbed a bullpup.
 
2013-04-23 11:38:47 AM  

MichiganFTL: That would actually statistically have a lot more impact.


Much more so than any of the other ideas being floated.  The problem is that such an effort would likely not pass Constitutional muster in its current form, and the idea of amending it is unfortunately a non-starter.

So we're left with largely symbolic measures like background checks and AWB.
 
2013-04-23 11:42:26 AM  
When used correctly, a gun results in a dead person/thing.  When used correctly, a pressure cooker results in dinner.
 
2013-04-23 11:44:07 AM  

MichiganFTL: jrodr018: MichiganFTL: jrodr018: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?

Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.


Yeah that's exactly what I argued.   Getting rid of guns would result in a utopian society.  You know what, you're right.  lets stockpile as many deadly weapons as possible.  That will make everyone a lot safer.

Jesus.

What are your 'common sense' measures? Or are you just mad that there are a ton of countries with high gun ownership per capita with low murder/violence rates and that there are a ton of countries with low gun ownership per capita with high murder/violence rates which pokes holes in your 'mountains of evidence' argument?

Hey as long as we have the same regulations and training as those countries you listed, I am all for it.

which ones?

I am sure you know these, but I will list them after a brief google search:

Switzerland: Conscripted militia (military gun training)
Finland: Firearms Act 1998 (individuals HAVE to demonstrate a valid reason to have guns)
Sweden: Vapenlagen law 1996, all permits have to be obtained from the police

I can keep going, but I am sure you knew all of these. Study it out ...


So I am not sure what your intentions are, and you may have the best intentions in the world, but why would you even compare them to our specific situation then? Even Sweden has a far more strict gun control, you need to be a citizen in good standing (maybe do a check on a person background, let's call it a "personal background check"), I do not need to be part of a hunting club for at least 6 months,etc. Sorry for the snark, but I hate it when people bring out these countries and make them out to be a gun utopia, it is a gun utopia because people are actually responsible with their weapons. But what the hell do I know?
 
Displayed 50 of 270 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | 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