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  
•       •       •

3715 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Apr 2013 at 10:11 AM (2 years 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 01:07:21 PM  

Chummer45: Also, as a risk analyst, surely you realize that focusing on only one variable (crazy people) is kind of dumb.


When the "crazy madman mass killer" factor is removed from the equation, you have a 0% death rate attributed to 'crazy madman mass killers'.

Its called a limiting factor.

Are you saying that imposing relatively strict regulations on guns will not reduce the risk of crazy people shooting places up?

It might, but it probably won't reduce the number of people killed by madman mass murders.

Imagine that tomorrow all blue cars were banned from the roads. Would you see a decrease in blue-car related accidents and fatalities? Yes. Will you see a dip in the overall accident/fatality rates? Probably not.

In either case you've spent a lot of time, effort, and money for little to zero gain.

I'm beginning to think that you're just some assclown.

No need for personal insults.
 
2013-04-23 01:12:23 PM  

Tomahawk513: That's not entirely accurate. The amendment states that for the purpose of maintaining a readily available militia, and thereby protecting against foreign attack, the right to own weapons shall not be infringed (paraphrasing, whatever). I agree that this is a legitimate interest of the state. Therefore, it makes sense that the state would also have a vested interest in making sure that those who would fill its militia's ranks are mentally healthy individuals. The state also has an interest in making sure the right to life for an individual is not violated by another individual. If the state could show that person with criteria x, y, and z are n% more likely to misuse that right, it could then put forth the argument that allowing the person in question to exercise his/her second amendment rights puts the rights of other people in jeopardy. For example, if research showed that Divorced Adult Male Veterans with Children and Diagnosed PTSD were 350% more likely to harm themselves or someone else than the national average, the state could push for stipulations, such as mental health clearance, or outright revocation of that person's 2nd amendment rights. We have a precedent for this behavior since criminals are not authorized to purchase firearms.


So basically you want to use the matrices that insurance companies use to calculate risk and apply them to everyone. Then use them as yes/then triggers for different levels of scrutiny? Neat idea. It's too cold and calculating to ever be actual law but it's a really interesting idea.

My only problem is that is punishing someone for something they may do. Just because I am more likely to do something does not in fact mean that I will do something. And god help you if you make race or gender part of your equation.
 
2013-04-23 01:32:12 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Tomahawk513: That's not entirely accurate. The amendment states that for the purpose of maintaining a readily available militia, and thereby protecting against foreign attack, the right to own weapons shall not be infringed (paraphrasing, whatever). I agree that this is a legitimate interest of the state. Therefore, it makes sense that the state would also have a vested interest in making sure that those who would fill its militia's ranks are mentally healthy individuals. The state also has an interest in making sure the right to life for an individual is not violated by another individual. If the state could show that person with criteria x, y, and z are n% more likely to misuse that right, it could then put forth the argument that allowing the person in question to exercise his/her second amendment rights puts the rights of other people in jeopardy. For example, if research showed that Divorced Adult Male Veterans with Children and Diagnosed PTSD were 350% more likely to harm themselves or someone else than the national average, the state could push for stipulations, such as mental health clearance, or outright revocation of that person's 2nd amendment rights. We have a precedent for this behavior since criminals are not authorized to purchase firearms.

So basically you want to use the matrices that insurance companies use to calculate risk and apply them to everyone. Then use them as yes/then triggers for different levels of scrutiny? Neat idea. It's too cold and calculating to ever be actual law but it's a really interesting idea.

My only problem is that is punishing someone for something they may do. Just because I am more likely to do something does not in fact mean that I will do something. And god help you if you make race or gender part of your equation.


Washington, we call this effective political discourse.  You should try it out sometime!
 
2013-04-23 01:48:17 PM  
It's just a crazy coincidence that basically every mass shooter over the last year has used an AR-15. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of murdering people. A knife would have had the same impact in all those cases.
 
2013-04-23 01:56:42 PM  

justtray: It's just a crazy coincidence that basically every mass shooter over the last year has used an AR-15. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of murdering people. A knife would have had the same impact in all those cases.


Brevik, who killed 70+ people, did not use an AR-15.
Even Cho killed more than Lanza without using an AR-15

Kim Dae-han killed 198 people with some gas and matches.

But whatever.
 
2013-04-23 01:58:21 PM  
Late to the party, but, can we have a conversation on WHY high-capacity magazines should be banned?

In a mass shooting situation, the shooter only has, at best, a few seconds to unload into a crowd of people as they start running for their lives.

If the shooter has to switch guns or reload, it gives the victims a few seconds to get further away and closer to safety.

Can anyone make an argument for why they would NEED a high-capacity magazine? (aside from "because freedom".....because you don't have the freedom to drive drunk at 200MPH or to get naked in Times Square and helicopter your dick around)
 
2013-04-23 01:59:24 PM  

justtray: It's just a crazy coincidence that basically every mass shooter over the last year has used an AR-15. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of murdering people. A knife would have had the same impact in all those cases.


A real crazy coincidence would be if many of them were taking antidepressants.
.
 
2013-04-23 01:59:25 PM  
I wonder how the senator would react if somone left a pressure cooker (not an actual bomb) infront of his office.
 
2013-04-23 02:06:26 PM  

iron_city_ap: I wonder how the senator would react if somone left a pressure cooker (not an actual bomb) infront of his office.


What would be more concerning is the person who buys someone a pressure cooker, backpack and an alarm clock as a gift to someone and then is too cheap to buy wrapping paper so just stuffs them inside each other and puts it under the Christmas tree or on a table.
 
2013-04-23 02:07:16 PM  

CPennypacker: They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal


If you focus on the real problem - the crazy person - and actually do things to help them, chances are they won't kill any at all.

Which is what the goal should be.
 
2013-04-23 02:07:43 PM  
So what he's saying is that pressure cookers can be dangerous in the wrong hands, and the majority of home canners are responsible individuals.
 
2013-04-23 02:08:42 PM  

sugar_fetus: CPennypacker: They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

If you focus on the real problem - the crazy person - and actually do things to help them, chances are they won't kill any at all.

Which is what the goal should be.


People with true concern for the mentally ill don't use the term "crazy" and refer to them as a problem. People looking for a scapegoat do,
 
2013-04-23 02:10:10 PM  

Tamater: Late to the party, but, can we have a conversation on WHY high-capacity magazines should be banned?

Good question. Why?

In a mass shooting situation, the shooter only has, at best, a few seconds to unload into a crowd of people as they start running for their lives.


Well, Loughner had that issue, certainly. More 'successful' shooters like Lanza and Cho chose locations where people could not escape, and chained doors shut, etc.

If the shooter has to switch guns or reload, it gives the victims a few seconds to get further away and closer to safety.

It didn't help the victims of Cho (Who used 10 and 15 round magazines) because he selected a time and place where his victims were contained. Not so much Lanza either, but if you believe that the three second window afforded by a magazine change will make an appreciable difference, I guess that is an opinion.

Can anyone make an argument for why they would NEED a high-capacity magazine?

For the same reason the police officer NEEDS to have a 17 round magazine. To protect myself and my family.

Too bad I don't have body armor and radio backup and a duty belt with three more magazines when I'm in my boxers at 3 am.
 
2013-04-23 02:10:40 PM  
Since this year is the 50th anniversary of the murder of Oswald, I suppose we can look forward to this guy criticizing Lee's choice of a Mannlicher Carcano. A better rifle and he wouldn't have needed that third shot, right? But Kennedy was a liberal (sort of), so it hardly matters.
 
2013-04-23 02:14:42 PM  

CPennypacker: People with true concern for the mentally ill don't use the term "crazy" and refer to them as a problem. People looking for a scapegoat do,


to be honest, my concern for the mentally ill extends only to making sure they don't harm anyone.  How that is accomplished, I'm not terribly concerned with.
 
2013-04-23 02:15:12 PM  

BayouOtter: justtray: It's just a crazy coincidence that basically every mass shooter over the last year has used an AR-15. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of murdering people. A knife would have had the same impact in all those cases.

Brevik, who killed 70+ people, did not use an AR-15.
Even Cho killed more than Lanza without using an AR-15

Kim Dae-han killed 198 people with some gas and matches.

But whatever.


Which of those was in the last year?

GanjSmokr: justtray: It's just a crazy coincidence that basically every mass shooter over the last year has used an AR-15. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of murdering people. A knife would have had the same impact in all those cases.

A real crazy coincidence would be if many of them were taking antidepressants.
.

Really? Feel free to give me some sources on that. Sounds like BS considering that's private medical information that basically no one could legally know. But from your posts in here, you're one of the disgustingly dishonest gun nuts, so I guess it's not a lie if it supports your narrative and you believe it hard enough.
 
2013-04-23 02:16:56 PM  

BayouOtter: Tamater: Late to the party, but, can we have a conversation on WHY high-capacity magazines should be banned?

Good question. Why?

In a mass shooting situation, the shooter only has, at best, a few seconds to unload into a crowd of people as they start running for their lives.

Well, Loughner had that issue, certainly. More 'successful' shooters like Lanza and Cho chose locations where people could not escape, and chained doors shut, etc.

If the shooter has to switch guns or reload, it gives the victims a few seconds to get further away and closer to safety.

It didn't help the victims of Cho (Who used 10 and 15 round magazines) because he selected a time and place where his victims were contained. Not so much Lanza either, but if you believe that the three second window afforded by a magazine change will make an appreciable difference, I guess that is an opinion.

Can anyone make an argument for why they would NEED a high-capacity magazine?

For the same reason the police officer NEEDS to have a 17 round magazine. To protect myself and my family.

Too bad I don't have body armor and radio backup and a duty belt with three more magazines when I'm in my boxers at 3 am.


You need a high capacity magazine for the same reasons the police do? Police work and home defense are the same thing?

How do you rationalize this derp to yourself? Please elaborate.

It's like a never ending stream of illogical arguments from gun-rights proponents.
 
2013-04-23 02:17:07 PM  

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: People with true concern for the mentally ill don't use the term "crazy" and refer to them as a problem. People looking for a scapegoat do,

to be honest, my concern for the mentally ill extends only to making sure they don't harm anyone.  How that is accomplished, I'm not terribly concerned with.


I know! Lets keep them from getting guns!
 
2013-04-23 02:20:44 PM  

justtray: You need a high capacity magazine for the same reasons the police do? Police work and home defense are the same thing?


Police do not use guns as defensive weapons. Their purpose is to show power and intimidate (ie threaten people with death).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pN2gzeG0MU
 
2013-04-23 02:20:47 PM  

CPennypacker: People with true concern for the mentally ill don't use the term "crazy" and refer to them as a problem. People looking for a scapegoat do,


Nice redirect. Too bad it's pretty visible, and meaningless.

Of course, I assume you won't count my own many years of struggle with depression as adding anything to my knowledge of those under mental health care.

Trust me, we refer to each other as 'crazies' all the fraking time. We refer to what we have as a problem. That's why we're actually trying to get that part of ourselves fixed.

So, how about addressing my actual point instead of just offhandedly insulting me? It's okay. I'll wait...
 
2013-04-23 02:20:52 PM  

justtray: Which of those was in the last year?


I'm sorry your argument only holds up in an extremely limited data set.
 
2013-04-23 02:22:50 PM  

CPennypacker: I know! Lets keep them from getting guns!


By including a prospective gun buyer's medical history in a background check?
 
2013-04-23 02:23:55 PM  
I think the picture points to some of the criticisms of the tactics used in gun control, specifically the Assault Weapons Ban which is based on catagorization of features. It is characteristics of the weapon (which largely does not affect how the weapon operates) that drive whether or not a weapon is banned.  If it looks like a scary weapon seen in movies used by "bad guys" it is more likely to be banned rather than the exact same weapon more classically displayed with a wood stock which wouldn't be banned even if the weapon actually functions the same.  Banning by features isn't making anyone safe, if you want bans to work (assuming you can) you have to address the capabilities and most features of weapons do nothing to enhance killing ability in a meaningful way. Are we safer if we ban assualt weapons pressure cookers over traditional ones.  No.

Please, don't mistake this support of the parody picture making me some kind of gun nut.  I am not opposed to much of the restrictions proposed concerning firearms. However, I am peeved at the tendency for feel good laws that do little or nothing to address the actual issue of gun violence, such as assault weapons bans.  Background checks, inventory control of gun dealers, expanded mental health record keeping databases to check for problem gun owners (HIPPA rules make this a very tricky area) will all help much more than picking on scary looking weapons which leave the exact same classically looking ones available.
 
2013-04-23 02:24:21 PM  

sugar_fetus: CPennypacker: People with true concern for the mentally ill don't use the term "crazy" and refer to them as a problem. People looking for a scapegoat do,

Nice redirect. Too bad it's pretty visible, and meaningless.

Of course, I assume you won't count my own many years of struggle with depression as adding anything to my knowledge of those under mental health care.

Trust me, we refer to each other as 'crazies' all the fraking time. We refer to what we have as a problem. That's why we're actually trying to get that part of ourselves fixed.

So, how about addressing my actual point instead of just offhandedly insulting me? It's okay. I'll wait...


You don't have a point, and while you and your other depressed friends may refer to each other as "crazies," when you're talking about it in terms of treatment and addressing society's problems, its inappropriate. You may think you're a "crazy" but I guarantee you your therapist doesn't call you that.
 
2013-04-23 02:29:44 PM  

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: I know! Lets keep them from getting guns!

By including a prospective gun buyer's medical history in a background check?


Or some sort of mental health clearance as a license requirement? I don't know, you're the one that wants to stop people with mental health problems from hurting people. Wouldn't a good way of doing that be to stop them from getting weaponry?
 
2013-04-23 02:37:09 PM  

justtray: GanjSmokr: justtray: It's just a crazy coincidence that basically every mass shooter over the last year has used an AR-15. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of murdering people. A knife would have had the same impact in all those cases.

A real crazy coincidence would be if many of them were taking antidepressants.
.
Really? Feel free to give me some sources on that. Sounds like BS considering that's private medical information that basically no one could legally know. But from your posts in here, you're one of the disgustingly dishonest gun nuts, so I guess it's not a lie if it supports your narrative and you believe it hard enough.



http://ssristories.com/index.php?p=school
 
2013-04-23 02:39:05 PM  
Hi, hello, is this the three where gun-nuts will argue that guns are less lethal than pressure cookers?
 
2013-04-23 02:44:00 PM  

justtray: BayouOtter:
Brevik, who killed 70+ people, did not use an AR-15.
Even Cho killed more than Lanza without using an AR-15

Kim Dae-han killed 198 people with some gas and matches.

But whatever.

Which of those was in the last year?


Dae-han was 2003, why does it matter?
 
2013-04-23 02:53:42 PM  

GanjSmokr: justtray: GanjSmokr: justtray: It's just a crazy coincidence that basically every mass shooter over the last year has used an AR-15. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of murdering people. A knife would have had the same impact in all those cases.

A real crazy coincidence would be if many of them were taking antidepressants.
.
Really? Feel free to give me some sources on that. Sounds like BS considering that's private medical information that basically no one could legally know. But from your posts in here, you're one of the disgustingly dishonest gun nuts, so I guess it's not a lie if it supports your narrative and you believe it hard enough.


http://ssristories.com/index.php?p=school


Wow, even worse than I expected. A no credibility blog, without even one case documented in 2012. Epic fail.

BayouOtter: justtray: BayouOtter:
Brevik, who killed 70+ people, did not use an AR-15.
Even Cho killed more than Lanza without using an AR-15

Kim Dae-han killed 198 people with some gas and matches.

But whatever.

Which of those was in the last year?

Dae-han was 2003, why does it matter?


Because I said that basically all of the mass shootings in the last year have been using AR-15's. Your counter argument did nothing to divert the very clear, growing trend, which shows that mass shooters are choosing AR-15s because of their capacity for killing in a very short period of time and ease of accessibility.

You should argue with yourself though. If it's easier/more deadly to use bombs or pistols or sniper rifles, why aren't they using them? Why did the boston bombers feel the need to have an AR-15 if they already had bombs, which based on your argument above, are as effective if not moreso?

All the gun nuts want to frame the argument dishonestly, which is the exact topic of this thread, and fallacy involved. That anything can be used to kill someone, so don't regulate anything, or regulate all equally. Everything isn't apples, and some weapons are more deadly, and more regulated.
 
2013-04-23 02:53:51 PM  

CPennypacker: Is the senator making a toung in cheeck critique of gun laws, that they do not address what makes the gun dangerous? Perhaps we should do what he wants and make bullets illegal instead.


Good luck with that.  If you want a GOP Super-majority in the Senate, and House, and a Teapublican President for the next 20 years, go ahead and go all in with that strategy.  Personally, I'd rather not go back to feudalism part 2 ... this time with machine guns and drones.
 
2013-04-23 02:54:03 PM  

optimistic_cynic: Jim_Callahan: optimistic_cynic: True but even in competition the object is do destroy the object you're shooting at whether it be a paper target or clay pigeons, it is still a tool for destruction. I would say the same for for archery as well.

/likes guns but does support stronger background checks

By that logic, boiling things in pressurized oil isn't exactly good for them, or constructive...

Perhaps, but I'm still pretty sure that guns were originally designed for killing and killing only as opposed to say a knife that has both utility and killing purposes.


Guns aren't designed to kill people, they're designed to propel a projectile towards a target accurately. If guns were designed for killing people, target practice or hunting would be a misuse of the gun. By that line offor logic, every shot fired that didn't kill someone would be a misuse of a firearm.

The "guns are designed for killing people" line is just a bunch of emotional hyperbole.
 
2013-04-23 02:56:47 PM  

hinten: Hi, hello, is this the three where gun-nuts will argue that guns are less lethal than pressure cookers?


Yes. Also, did you know that a lot of people die in car accidents?  Therefore, cars are way more dangerous than guns.
 
2013-04-23 02:56:53 PM  
For those of you that are new to the mental health canard that gets trotted out in all of these threads, what they mean is that it should be much easier to involutarily commit someone that might be a threat.

Somehow, making it easier to lock up people that are not criminals is the only way to preserve true freedom.
 
2013-04-23 03:01:09 PM  

justtray: Wow, even worse than I expected. A no credibility blog, without even one case documented in 2012. Epic fail.


Yea... "no credibility" as in they link to actual news articles about each event and point out exactly what made them believe the people involved were on SSRIs.  And do you feel that events before 2012 didn't actually happen or do you just not care about them?

In all honesty, I fully expected you to dismiss anything I posted, so I'm really not sure why I even bothered.

/I have you farkied as "not worth it" and I need to actually heed my own warnings.  This will be my last reply to you, kiddo.
 
2013-04-23 03:07:15 PM  
justtray:
Because I said that basically all of the mass shootings in the last year have been using AR-15's.

Okay, and? Why is 'last year' so vital? If someone dies more than year ago does it not count?

You should argue with yourself though. If it's easier/more deadly to use bombs or pistols or sniper rifles, why aren't they using them?

Cho killed more people than Lanza using a pair of pistols, but that wasn't last year so I suppose it doesn't count?

Thankfully most people who decide killing lots of people aren't the most rational actors.

Why did the boston bombers feel the need to have an AR-15 if they already had bombs, which based on your argument above, are as effective if not moreso?

An AR-15 is a discriminate guided weapon - its more useful for killing one or three people in front of you in the context of an escape.
A bomb is better at indiscriminate mass murder than a rifle, which is why its better for a terrorist attack.
 
2013-04-23 03:08:44 PM  

GanjSmokr: justtray: It's just a crazy coincidence that basically every mass shooter over the last year has used an AR-15. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of murdering people. A knife would have had the same impact in all those cases.

A real crazy coincidence would be if many of them were taking antidepressants.
.


GanjSmokr: justtray: Wow, even worse than I expected. A no credibility blog, without even one case documented in 2012. Epic fail.

Yea... "no credibility" as in they link to actual news articles about each event and point out exactly what made them believe the people involved were on SSRIs.   And do you feel that events before 2012 didn't actually happen or do you just not care about them?

In all honesty, I fully expected you to dismiss anything I posted, so I'm really not sure why I even bothered.

/I have you farkied as "not worth it" and I need to actually heed my own warnings.  This will be my last reply to you, kiddo.


Yes, invalid arguments often get dismissed. Feel free to come back when you have some valid ones.
 
2013-04-23 03:14:12 PM  

justtray: Yes, invalid arguments often get dismissed.


Like singling out the only year whose data vaguely follows your otherwise baseless claim.
 
2013-04-23 03:15:22 PM  

Chummer45: hinten: Hi, hello, is this the three where gun-nuts will argue that guns are less lethal than pressure cookers?

Yes. Also, did you know that a lot of people die in car accidents?  Therefore, cars are way more dangerous than guns.


How dishonest of you. Why do you want to frame the discussion with cars? Do you really want guns to have the same safety standards and federal and state regulations that cars have? Do you really want to pass competency tests for owning a firearm? If not, you are being dishonest, but you probably know you are being a terrible and dishonest human being.
 
2013-04-23 03:16:02 PM  

BayouOtter: It didn't help the victims of Cho (Who used 10 and 15 round magazines) because he selected a time and place where his victims were contained. Not so much Lanza either, but if you believe that the three second window afforded by a magazine change will make an appreciable difference, I guess that is an opinion.


I did napkin math on here one time about the implications of banning large magazines, and it came out to something like it doubled or tripled the amount of downtime that a mass-murderer wouldn't be shooting children in the face. The math is pretty simple. More time reloading means less time to shoot children. A handful of children who aren't murdered in an equivalent time frame may not be an "appreciable difference" to you, but I can assure you that the children in question would consider it appreciable.
 
2013-04-23 03:18:00 PM  

BayouOtter: justtray:
Because I said that basically all of the mass shootings in the last year have been using AR-15's.

Okay, and? Why is 'last year' so vital? If someone dies more than year ago does it not count?

You should argue with yourself though. If it's easier/more deadly to use bombs or pistols or sniper rifles, why aren't they using them?

Cho killed more people than Lanza using a pair of pistols, but that wasn't last year so I suppose it doesn't count?

Thankfully most people who decide killing lots of people aren't the most rational actors.

Why did the boston bombers feel the need to have an AR-15 if they already had bombs, which based on your argument above, are as effective if not moreso?

An AR-15 is a discriminate guided weapon - its more useful for killing one or three people in front of you in the context of an escape.
A bomb is better at indiscriminate mass murder than a rifle, which is why its better for a terrorist attack.


I agree all guns need to be better regulated. I don't think you've posed an argument with one anecdotal story of Cho killing people with pistols compared to the Aurora, Sandy Hook, Boston Bombers who all used AR-15s to name a few recent ones. It is quite impressive Cho killed so many though considering handguns only kill in about 1/7 compared to a much higher rate for rifle bullet injuries.

Bombs are also risky, and the components of them are heavily regulated. Guns in general are better than bombs for non-surprise combat for many reasons, but why did they choose to use an AR-15? (see above) Or even just listen to the videos posted on line of 100s of bullets going off in minutes.

You really have to have your head in the sand pretty deep to not accept that there are guns that need to be not only more regulated than other guns, but that all firearms need stronger regulation and tracking to prevent these situations from occurring in the first place.

Side note - I am eager to hear how the bombing suspects were able to get their hands on all the explosive materials required. Seems there may be some gaps in the existing regulation for bomb materials too.
 
2013-04-23 03:21:12 PM  

justtray: Side note - I am eager to hear how the bombing suspects were able to get their hands on all the explosive materials required. Seems there may be some gaps in the existing regulation for bomb materials too.


With some money and a nearby Walmart, you can put together a bomb in an afternoon.
 
2013-04-23 03:24:08 PM  

MichiganFTL: jrodr018: MichiganFTL: jrodr018: MichiganFTL: jrodr018: 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 

I compared them in response to an argument:

jrodr018: that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general

Please do not quote me on something I did not say. Feel free to check back on the thread. An actual serious discussion on all of the issues you mentioned is warranted, but, when the NRA side counterargument is the picture of a pressure cooker, man, come on, really? Why can we talk about actually licensing people, like all of the countries you listed? how about carrying weapons in safes, like all the countries you listed? That is thrown out of the discussion as soon as is brought up. THAT is the problem with gun debate. As far as I know, on the gun control side, only crazies advocate that ALL weapons are taken away, because most reasonable people understand we have that right and that right cannot be taken away.

I apologize, that was Chummer45, not you. I just clicked the quote button too quick, my mistake. The NICS system and 'licensing' people are only as good as the information put into them. Without adequate mental health reporting/intervention (difficult on the intervention part), we'll still have a few slip through the cracks, so that needs to be tied up too. The NICS needs to have a civilian version where I can put in a person's Name, DOB, DL# and get a simple yes/no to be able to buy a gun so I know who I'm selling to is legit.

I don't know how we can carry weapons in safes, so I'm lost on that one, my safe is like 2,000 lbs empty.

Feel free to read up on how the countries you ...


Canada's Laws Regarding the Storage and Transportation of Firearms
 
2013-04-23 03:29:00 PM  
i253.photobucket.comI DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS GUY GOT ELECTED!!!
 
2013-04-23 03:33:53 PM  
CPennypacker:
You don't have a point, and while you and your other depressed friends may refer to each other as "crazies," when you're talking about it in terms of treatment and addressing society's problems, its inappropriate. You may think you're a "crazy" but I guarantee you your therapist doesn't call you that.

I do, and she does, except during any formal setting or paperwork. As Fark is about as far from formal as it gets, well I'm sure you can figure it out.

Glad to know you know so much about me. You still haven't addressed my point. At this point, I know you won't.
 
2013-04-23 03:36:14 PM  
Wow, BayouOtter just flat-out beat down this thread.....you anti-gunners need to log out, grab a chai latte and regroup.

/golf clap
 
2013-04-23 03:39:39 PM  

shutin: Wow, BayouOtter just flat-out beat down this thread.....you anti-gunners need to log out, grab a chai latte and regroup.

/golf clap


I prefer "background checker" to "anti-gunner."

Also, you may need to wipe off the corner your mouth. Looks like Bayou Otter left you a little something.
 
2013-04-23 03:46:33 PM  

sugar_fetus: CPennypacker:
You don't have a point, and while you and your other depressed friends may refer to each other as "crazies," when you're talking about it in terms of treatment and addressing society's problems, its inappropriate. You may think you're a "crazy" but I guarantee you your therapist doesn't call you that.

I do, and she does, except during any formal setting or paperwork. As Fark is about as far from formal as it gets, well I'm sure you can figure it out.

Glad to know you know so much about me. You still haven't addressed my point. At this point, I know you won't.


I did address your point. "Fixing the crazies" is a canard. It'll be easier to repeal the second amendment entirely than it will be to pass mental health medical reform so intensive and comprehensive that we fix all the crazies. Let's work on improving mental healthcare in this country and along the way we can keep people who are unstable from owning dangerous weaponry.
 
2013-04-23 03:52:27 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: I did napkin math on here one time about the implications of banning large magazines, and it came out to something like it doubled or tripled the amount of downtime that a mass-murderer wouldn't be shooting children in the face.


You're assuming that
A) That banning a bit of sheet metal and a spring will keep it from being available
B) That nobody knows how long it takes to change a magazine - triples sounds like a lot, but 6 seconds instead of 2 isn't much.

Again, I find it very odd that retired/active law enforcement get exemptions on magazine bans, but nobody else can.

The math is pretty simple. More time reloading means less time to shoot children. A handful of children who aren't murdered in an equivalent time frame may not be an "appreciable difference" to you, but I can assure you that the children in question would consider it appreciable.

On the personal level, you are right, it is a huge difference.

On the nation policy level when you propose to spend billions of dollars and untold amounts of resources and manpower for the payoff of a dozen or two dozen lives, I'm going to call you irresponsible.

Those kinds of resources, if spent on healthcare (mental and otherwise), income inequality, ending the drug war, and breaking violence/poverty cycles would save many more lives and improve a great many more.


justtray:
It is quite impressive Cho killed so many though considering handguns only kill in about 1/7 compared to a much higher rate for rifle bullet injuries.

Cho had better rates of return on his resources with pistols, as opposed to the AR-15 examples, so you want to make the AR-15 unavailable? So the next shooter will choose a more effective weapon? What?

Bombs are also risky, and the components of them are heavily regulated.

Not really. I mean, if you gave anyone with the internet about a week and a few hundred dollars they could build some pretty effective IEDs with stuff you get at Home Depot.

I think a lot of people are just lazy, even when it comes to mass murder. Thankfully.

Guns in general are better than bombs for non-surprise combat for many reasons, but why did they choose to use an AR-15? (see above)

The AR-15 is really popular because it has a super strong and super popular aftermarket that allows for a lot of customization that lends it to many legitimate sporting purposes.
 
2013-04-23 04:07:06 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: justtray: Side note - I am eager to hear how the bombing suspects were able to get their hands on all the explosive materials required. Seems there may be some gaps in the existing regulation for bomb materials too.

With some money and a nearby Walmart, you can put together a bomb in an afternoon.


Most likely you'd blow up your trailer and be a qualifier for the next Darwin Awards.
 
2013-04-23 04:45:27 PM  

Chummer45: 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 ...



If you look at the stats I'd guess that in most of these similar countries that have less guns that the violent crime just shifted from guns to other types. Gun grabbers don't care about violent crime unless it involves a gun.
 
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