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.

(LA Times)   In the last 20 years, gun murders have dropped almost by half. Fark: Americans believe gun crime is rising. Thanks, American media   (latimes.com) divider line 832
    More: Followup, Americans, Bureau of Justice Statistics, gun murders, spree killers, Pew Research Center, Small Arms Survey  
•       •       •

6219 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 May 2013 at 9:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-08 03:43:27 PM  

MichiganFTL: Fully automatic firearms are pretty much for suppression rather than mass murder. If you hold down the trigger on a fully auto M16, you've got about 4 seconds, you can't control it as well as semi-auto and you're basically just spray and pray.


This cannot be overstated.  Our military rifles fire three round bursts instead of actual full auto for this very reason.
 
2013-05-08 03:43:31 PM  
All I know is between my family and friends we own around 300 guns, and there have never been any incidences of violence against humans or accidental shootings.

Maybe we're better people than certain sectors of American society?
 
2013-05-08 03:44:27 PM  

MichiganFTL: JesseL: that bosnian sniper: If gun control doesn't work, then why are automatic firearms the least-employed of all available firearms in violent crimes?

Still have yet to get an answer for that one.

Because fully automatic firearms aren't really any more useful than other types for most things?

I'd love to have one for fun, but if I were knocking over a liquor store or massacring a bunch of kids it wouldn't get the job done any better than what I already have.

Fully automatic firearms are pretty much for suppression rather than mass murder. If you hold down the trigger on a fully auto M16, you've got about 4 seconds, you can't control it as well as semi-auto and you're basically just spray and pray. Remember the North Hollywood Shootout? Full auto, ZERO people killed other than the perpetrators.

Quit living in movies, one well placed shot can do more than 30 on full auto. Surprisingly, outside of the difficulty of getting them, they're just not practical for almost anything a criminal wants to do unless you're laying down suppressing fire while your buddies flank your target...


0_o

You just agreed with what I was trying to say.

/07 FFL considering getting an SOT
 
2013-05-08 03:46:53 PM  

JesseL: MichiganFTL: JesseL: that bosnian sniper: If gun control doesn't work, then why are automatic firearms the least-employed of all available firearms in violent crimes?

Still have yet to get an answer for that one.

Because fully automatic firearms aren't really any more useful than other types for most things?

I'd love to have one for fun, but if I were knocking over a liquor store or massacring a bunch of kids it wouldn't get the job done any better than what I already have.

Fully automatic firearms are pretty much for suppression rather than mass murder. If you hold down the trigger on a fully auto M16, you've got about 4 seconds, you can't control it as well as semi-auto and you're basically just spray and pray. Remember the North Hollywood Shootout? Full auto, ZERO people killed other than the perpetrators.

Quit living in movies, one well placed shot can do more than 30 on full auto. Surprisingly, outside of the difficulty of getting them, they're just not practical for almost anything a criminal wants to do unless you're laying down suppressing fire while your buddies flank your target...

0_o

You just agreed with what I was trying to say.

/07 FFL considering getting an SOT


Yep, was more of continuing your correct point of view... also I was too lazy to scroll up farther to the original...
 
2013-05-08 03:48:16 PM  

Saiga410: raatz01: That doesn't mean US gun crime isn't high compared to other countries, because it is. It was just INSANE (300% worse) in the 60-80s. I'm convinced the lead poisoning causing abnormally high violent crime theory has merit.

The rise and fall corilates to florinated water.  We start to florinate the water and crime rates rise.  People start to buy bottled water and the rates start to decline.  It doesnt take a rocket sturgeon to see this.


I'm no Alan Einstein but you might be on to something.
 
2013-05-08 03:49:04 PM  

fickenchucker: All I know is between my family and friends we own around 300 guns, and there have never been any incidences of violence against humans or accidental shootings.

Maybe we're better people than certain sectors of American society?


Maybe you just need more time.
 
2013-05-08 03:54:15 PM  

mrshowrules: fickenchucker: All I know is between my family and friends we own around 300 guns, and there have never been any incidences of violence against humans or accidental shootings.

Maybe we're better people than certain sectors of American society?

Maybe you just need more time.


Maybe it's possible that safe and responsible gun owners actually exist.
 
2013-05-08 03:54:37 PM  

mrshowrules: fickenchucker: All I know is between my family and friends we own around 300 guns, and there have never been any incidences of violence against humans or accidental shootings.

Maybe we're better people than certain sectors of American society?

Maybe you just need more time.


Ah yes, the 'all gun owners are ticking time bombs' defense...

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-08 03:56:33 PM  

mrshowrules: Because (as I raised in my post earlier)  the US is not exceptional.  Less/more guns in a society will lead to less/more violence.


An interesting, but false, theory:

www.guncite.com
 
2013-05-08 03:59:26 PM  

dittybopper: mrshowrules: Because (as I raised in my post earlier)  the US is not exceptional.  Less/more guns in a society will lead to less/more violence.

An interesting, but false, theory:

[www.guncite.com image 711x255]


Yes, but we need to break handgun supply down into 'scary black assault handguns' and 'the rest'.
 
2013-05-08 04:01:47 PM  
Dan the Schman:  add that to the advantage of them knowing more about the ins and outs of their own home than a strange intruder, and a couple clips should be adequate.

Right, because everyone carries a bag of extra magazines with them at all times. If you bothered to read my post, you'll have noticed that the aggressor has forewarning and can bring as many magazines as he wants, but the defender is often limited to what is on their person.

As for the one-in-a-million example of the intruder persisting after being shot 5 times..

It isn't one in a million. I'm sure you have a stack of citations proving that criminals are easily foiled with a single shot. In fact, its so obvious that even the police only carry a single bullet with them!
 
2013-05-08 04:03:23 PM  

JustGetItRight: For the same reason that any a rifle, isn't often used in violent crime (only around 300 murders a year).  It isn't easily transported or concealed and it is difficult to be used effectively.


So in other words, they're subject to gun control; otherwise, open carry and transportation would be entirely legal.

Handguns can be hidden and transported in any kind of vehicle.  Shotguns can't be transported as easily, but at close range they can be used to brutal effect with very little practice.  Both handguns and shotguns are also less expensive than all but the most basic rifles.

That depends heavily upon the firearm involved, its type and manufacture. There are multiple rifles perfectly capable of killing people on the market for $500 or less, and there are both handguns and shotguns on the market for $2000 and above. Frankly, in my experience of decent quality and make, rifles are the  cheapest of those three categories -- other than shotguns, they're most definitely the easiest to acquire considering gun laws and taxes that run up overhead for the manufacturer and seller -- all of which are considered forms of gun control, by limiting accessibility on the means of income.

So again, I submit, if gun control  doesn't work then why are the most lethal weapons used  least in violent crimes?
 
2013-05-08 04:03:35 PM  

MichiganFTL: dittybopper: mrshowrules: Because (as I raised in my post earlier)  the US is not exceptional.  Less/more guns in a society will lead to less/more violence.

An interesting, but false, theory:

[www.guncite.com image 711x255]

Yes, but we need to break handgun supply down into 'scary black assault handguns' and 'the rest'.


I own two threaded barrels for my carry gun, though I normally carry the firearm with its non-threaded stock barrel. Perhaps I should document the times when I attach one of the threaded barrels to determine if violent crime rates increase during those periods.
 
2013-05-08 04:08:30 PM  

that bosnian sniper: So again, I submit, if gun control doesn't work then why are the most lethal weapons used least in violent crimes?


Because not many people can carry a rifle or shotgun in their pants.
 
2013-05-08 04:09:20 PM  
Subby: "In the last 20 years, gun murders have dropped almost by half. Fark: Americans believe gun crime is rising.  Because hospitals have increased the survival rate of gun shot victims by almost 100% in the last 20 yearsThanks, Before ObamacareAmerican media medical caregivers"

FTFSubbie
 
2013-05-08 04:09:48 PM  

JesseL: that bosnian sniper: So again, I submit, if gun control doesn't work then why are the most lethal weapons used least in violent crimes?

Because not many people can carry a rifle or shotgun in their pants.


Do not a collapsing or folding stock enable rifles and shotguns to be concealed in such a manner?
 
2013-05-08 04:11:31 PM  

Dimensio: JesseL: that bosnian sniper: So again, I submit, if gun control doesn't work then why are the most lethal weapons used least in violent crimes?

Because not many people can carry a rifle or shotgun in their pants.

Do not a collapsing or folding stock enable rifles and shotguns to be concealed in such a manner?


Yes, if you don't mind looking like MC Hammer with a bum leg.
 
2013-05-08 04:13:10 PM  

JesseL: that bosnian sniper: So again, I submit, if gun control doesn't work then why are the most lethal weapons used least in violent crimes?

Because not many people can carry a rifle or shotgun in their pants.


Handgun - Easily concealed - most 9mm come standard ~17 rds
Rifle - Not easily concealed - most .223 come standard 20-30rds
Shotgun - Not easily concealed legally - most 12ga come standard ~5+1

Yeah, if you want to max your violent crime capability while limiting your footprint/burden you're not going to choose a 'fully automatic super-assualt cannongun with a shoulder thing that goes up and a bayonet'.
 
2013-05-08 04:14:22 PM  

Dimensio: JesseL: that bosnian sniper: So again, I submit, if gun control doesn't work then why are the most lethal weapons used least in violent crimes?

Because not many people can carry a rifle or shotgun in their pants.

Do not a collapsing or folding stock enable rifles and shotguns to be concealed in such a manner?


Actually, if you just remove the stock...

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-08 04:15:38 PM  

MichiganFTL: JesseL: that bosnian sniper: So again, I submit, if gun control doesn't work then why are the most lethal weapons used least in violent crimes?

Because not many people can carry a rifle or shotgun in their pants.

Handgun - Easily concealed - most 9mm come standard ~17 rds
Rifle - Not easily concealed - most .223 come standard 20-30rds
Shotgun - Not easily concealed legally - most 12ga come standard ~5+1

Yeah, if you want to max your violent crime capability while limiting your footprint/burden you're not going to choose a 'fully automatic super-assualt cannongun with a shoulder thing that goes up and a bayonet'.


I own a 20-round magazine for my 12 gauge shotgun. It has proven very reliable.

/By which I mean that it reliably jams after every three rounds.
 
2013-05-08 04:16:09 PM  

Tumunga: Subby: "In the last 20 years, gun murders have dropped almost by half. Fark: Americans believe gun crime is rising.  Because hospitals have increased the survival rate of gun shot victims by almost 100% in the last 20 yearsThanks, Before ObamacareAmerican media medical caregivers"

FTFSubbie


That would be a brilliant observation if it weren't wrong. 

"Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades. "
 
2013-05-08 04:18:40 PM  

Dimensio: MichiganFTL: JesseL: that bosnian sniper: So again, I submit, if gun control doesn't work then why are the most lethal weapons used least in violent crimes?

Because not many people can carry a rifle or shotgun in their pants.

Handgun - Easily concealed - most 9mm come standard ~17 rds
Rifle - Not easily concealed - most .223 come standard 20-30rds
Shotgun - Not easily concealed legally - most 12ga come standard ~5+1

Yeah, if you want to max your violent crime capability while limiting your footprint/burden you're not going to choose a 'fully automatic super-assualt cannongun with a shoulder thing that goes up and a bayonet'.

I own a 20-round magazine for my 12 gauge shotgun. It has proven very reliable.

/By which I mean that it reliably jams after every three rounds.


I really wouldn't ever trust my life to any extended magazine. That's why it's been actually beneficial most of these idiots carried them because they jam in almost every single case. And I'm guessing Saiga?
 
2013-05-08 04:20:52 PM  

MichiganFTL: Dimensio: JesseL: that bosnian sniper: So again, I submit, if gun control doesn't work then why are the most lethal weapons used least in violent crimes?

Because not many people can carry a rifle or shotgun in their pants.

Do not a collapsing or folding stock enable rifles and shotguns to be concealed in such a manner?

Actually, if you just remove the stock...

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 300x168]


I always wondered what happened to the buffer tube/receiver extension on that. Does she have it embedded in her femur, or are they using one of those rifles that moves the buffer system into the upper? Inquiring minds (with poor suspension of disbelief) want to know.
 
2013-05-08 04:21:37 PM  

JesseL: that bosnian sniper: So again, I submit, if gun control doesn't work then why are the most lethal weapons used least in violent crimes?

Because not many people can carry a rifle or shotgun in their pants.


Yeah, it's almost as if there are laws against open carry, that mean if someone intends to commit a crime they have to conceal their weapons.
 
2013-05-08 04:23:22 PM  

MichiganFTL: Dimensio: MichiganFTL: JesseL: that bosnian sniper: So again, I submit, if gun control doesn't work then why are the most lethal weapons used least in violent crimes?

Because not many people can carry a rifle or shotgun in their pants.

Handgun - Easily concealed - most 9mm come standard ~17 rds
Rifle - Not easily concealed - most .223 come standard 20-30rds
Shotgun - Not easily concealed legally - most 12ga come standard ~5+1

Yeah, if you want to max your violent crime capability while limiting your footprint/burden you're not going to choose a 'fully automatic super-assualt cannongun with a shoulder thing that goes up and a bayonet'.

I own a 20-round magazine for my 12 gauge shotgun. It has proven very reliable.

/By which I mean that it reliably jams after every three rounds.

I really wouldn't ever trust my life to any extended magazine. That's why it's been actually beneficial most of these idiots carried them because they jam in almost every single case. And I'm guessing Saiga?


Your guess is accurate. The twenty round magazine has failed to perform well despite several adjustments. A ten-round magazine shipped with the firearm has performed reasonably, though I have suffered occasional feed failures with it. The factory five-round magazine for the firearm has never failed to feed properly.
 
2013-05-08 04:25:57 PM  

that bosnian sniper: JustGetItRight: For the same reason that any a rifle, isn't often used in violent crime (only around 300 murders a year).  It isn't easily transported or concealed and it is difficult to be used effectively.

So in other words, they're subject to gun control; otherwise, open carry and transportation would be entirely legal.

Handguns can be hidden and transported in any kind of vehicle.  Shotguns can't be transported as easily, but at close range they can be used to brutal effect with very little practice.  Both handguns and shotguns are also less expensive than all but the most basic rifles.

That depends heavily upon the firearm involved, its type and manufacture. There are multiple rifles perfectly capable of killing people on the market for $500 or less, and there are both handguns and shotguns on the market for $2000 and above. Frankly, in my experience of decent quality and make, rifles are the  cheapest of those three categories --


Your experience doesn't extend to Hi-Points, Jennings, Lorcins, Ravens, and their ilk then. Pistols, which generally chamber low-pressure (in relation to rifles, excepting .22lr) can be made with cheap as dirt and terrible quality pot metal alloys. This allows cheap, poor quality but semi-functional pistols to be had for under 100 dollars in some cases, or even less. You won't find them in the hands of a hunter, sportsman, or police officer because they are shiatty guns that aren't reliable and sometimes crack in half, but they are excellent for cheap gangbangers for murdering a drug rival or holding up a 7-11.

Googlem Lorcin, Raven, or Bryco.

 So again, I submit, if gun control  doesn't work then why are the most lethal weapons used  least in violent crimes?


Rifles are expensive and unwieldy in both concealment and close-combat. A cheap alloy piece of shiat pistol is more convenient for the average criminal.
 
2013-05-08 04:27:30 PM  

that bosnian sniper: JesseL: that bosnian sniper: So again, I submit, if gun control doesn't work then why are the most lethal weapons used least in violent crimes?

Because not many people can carry a rifle or shotgun in their pants.

Yeah, it's almost as if there are laws against open carry, that mean if someone intends to commit a crime they have to conceal their weapons.


Except that even in places where open carry is legal, criminals still don't want to announce to the world that they're carrying. For offensive action you need surprise, for defense deterrence can work too.

I've open carried plenty, including rifles.

i100.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-08 04:36:03 PM  
BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mouldy Squid: BraveNewCheneyWorld:

Is English your second, or third language?  What do you think it means to "chew someone out"?

*hint* you can't just add the words together.


So insults are all you have when you can't misuse the dictionary to make a disingenuous argument? The fact remains that the "to be controlled, govern or direct by rule, to subject to guidance or restriction" definition of the word 'regulate' was in common and literary use before, during and after the American Revolution. Your argument is refuted, not by me, but by the very text you claim supports it. If you are going to argue that the framers of your constitution meant something else by the word 'regulate' you are going to have to use more than a dictionary to prove it. Perhaps some other contemporary document written about the same subject where your definition is used without ambiguity?

The fact that they added 'well' before 'regulate' does not alter the meaning. 'Well' is simply an adverb, in this case meaning "in a thorough manner" or "in a good or satisfactory way". It can be added to 'regulate' in all of the definitions the OED lists for 'regulate', such as "well controlled, well governed, well directed by rule, well subjected to guidance or restriction". In point of fact, adverbs are specifically made to "just add together' with a verb in the same way that adjectives are added to nouns. Adding 'red' to 'house' does not change the meaning of 'house' to something else. It merely adds a quality. 'well' adds a quality to 'regulated'. I think that you might need a remedial course in English Grammar.

"chew someone out" is an informal American euphemism. 'chew' is a verb, 'out' is a preposition indicating direction. As a preposition, 'out' is incorrectly used when describing the verb 'out'. It does not perform the same function as 'well' in 'well regulated'. To most speakers of English, 'chew someone out' makes little to no sense and has improper grammar. Considering the almost impeccable, if somewhat archaic, grammar of the person(s) who wrote the constitution, you probably should have chosen a better phrase.
 
2013-05-08 04:44:27 PM  

JustGetItRight: Wayne 985: That's paranoia

It is paranoia when thegGovernor of New York openly states that confiscation is an option?

It is paranoia when the senior senator from California says "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it "

That's paranoia?  Got it.

No, gun owners aren't paranoid.  You're in denial.


I Googled your quote. It's from 1995 in response to a question about assault rifles. If you're still pissing in your pants, lip quivering and thinking that a wistful hope for a democratic vote 8 years ago equates total gun confiscation, then yeah... You're paranoid.

That would be like me refusing to support anything Republicans put forward and using a quote from James Inhofe in the 90s as my rationale. It's stupid.
 
2013-05-08 04:47:22 PM  

JesseL: [i100.photobucket.com image 800x600]


What is the rationale here? You're not doing anything immoral, but it still looks like playing dress-up. Unless you're LARPing or working as a real life vigilante/superhero, that is baffling to me.

I would never do that anymore than I would go shopping at Target carrying a broadsword.
 
2013-05-08 04:48:50 PM  

Wayne 985: JesseL: [i100.photobucket.com image 800x600]

What is the rationale here? You're not doing anything immoral, but it still looks like playing dress-up. Unless you're LARPing or working as a real life vigilante/superhero, that is baffling to me.

I would never do that anymore than I would go shopping at Target carrying a broadsword.


Perhaps he was traveling to shoot targets.

/Any rational individual understands that a katana is more appropriate for Target.
 
2013-05-08 04:52:16 PM  

BayouOtter: Your experience doesn't extend to Hi-Points, Jennings, Lorcins, Ravens, and their ilk then. Pistols, which generally chamber low-pressure (in relation to rifles, excepting .22lr) can be made with cheap as dirt and terrible quality pot metal alloys. This allows cheap, poor quality but semi-functional pistols to be had for under 100 dollars in some cases, or even less. You won't find them in the hands of a hunter, sportsman, or police officer because they are shiatty guns that aren't reliable and sometimes crack in half, but they are excellent for cheap gangbangers for murdering a drug rival or holding up a 7-11.


After actually handling, shooting and owning them, I'd take Hi Point out of that list (with the exception of price). Yeah, they are clunky and inexpensive, but they are reliable. They are basically an example of the least amount of effort that it takes to make a well-functioning firearm. Anything less and you run into safety/reliability problems, and more is mostly going into fit and finish (which does have it's place, and is generally worth the money).
 
2013-05-08 04:53:32 PM  

Wayne 985: JesseL: [i100.photobucket.com image 800x600]

What is the rationale here? You're not doing anything immoral, but it still looks like playing dress-up. Unless you're LARPing or working as a real life vigilante/superhero, that is baffling to me.

I would never do that anymore than I would go shopping at Target carrying a broadsword.


I live in Prescott Arizona and was getting together with some friends in Phoenix (~100 miles away) to go shooting in the desert. My motorcycle was the only reliable vehicle I had that day and there aren't a lot of good options for carrying a rifle on a sportbike and especially not for concealing it.

Interestingly, I received zero police attention and all that happened when I stopped for gas was that someone asked me what caliber my rifle was.
 
2013-05-08 04:54:19 PM  

Wayne 985: What is the rationale here? You're not doing anything immoral, but it still looks like playing dress-up. Unless you're LARPing or working as a real life vigilante/superhero, that is baffling to me.


I've carried like that to the range. I've also openly carried a pistol partly just because I can (there are other reasons, but that is still a reason).
 
2013-05-08 04:55:05 PM  

that bosnian sniper: JustGetItRight: For the same reason that any a rifle, isn't often used in violent crime (only around 300 murders a year).  It isn't easily transported or concealed and it is difficult to be used effectively.

So in other words, they're subject to gun control; otherwise, open carry and transportation would be entirely legal.


Um, No not at all.  In my state, I can carry my rifle or shotgun in my vehicle with absolutely no permit required.  On the other hand, my handguns require a concealed carry permit to be in my vehicle (unless stored in the trunk).  Following your logic, the weapon of choice would be the long gun - which can be legally purchased at a younger age and transported without a permit but the weapon of choice is the handgun which is subject to far more restrictions.


Handguns can be hidden and transported in any kind of vehicle.  Shotguns can't be transported as easily, but at close range they can be used to brutal effect with very little practice.  Both handguns and shotguns are also less expensive than all but the most basic rifles.

That depends heavily upon the firearm involved, its type and manufacture. There are multiple rifles perfectly capable of killing people on the market for $500 or less, and there are both handguns and shotguns on the market for $2000 and above. Frankly, in my experience of decent quality and make, rifles are the  cheapest of those three categories -- other than shotguns, they're most definitely the easiest to acquire considering gun laws and taxes that run up overhead for the manufacturer and seller -- all of which are considered forms of gun control, by limiting accessibility on the means of income.


Of  course I can spend more on certain handguns and I can find cheap rifles but I can buy a used 9mm or .380 for a couple hundred at any pawn shop.  I can get a .38 revolver for a bit over half that (all prices prior to gun grab efforts.  Probably more right now)  If I watch the sales, I can get a NEW pump at Academy for under $250.

So again, I submit, if gun control  doesn't work then why are the most lethal weapons used  least in violent crimes?

You can't easily hide them and they're hard to bring to bear inside the close quarters of a convenience store, automobile, or living room.  In a nutshell, because they aren't effective choices for the job.
 
2013-05-08 04:55:28 PM  

Mouldy Squid: The fact that they added 'well' before 'regulate' does not alter the meaning.


And that is why you fail.  My citation proved you're wrong, and your citation indicates you have a very mediocre, or at best "selective" understanding of the English language.
 
2013-05-08 04:59:10 PM  

Tumunga: Subby: "In the last 20 years, gun murders have dropped almost by half. Fark: Americans believe gun crime is rising.  Because hospitals have increased the survival rate of gun shot victims by almost 100% in the last 20 yearsThanks, Before ObamacareAmerican media medical caregivers"

FTFSubbie


Since you haven't read the thread, I'll post the same reply to the other idiot that posted without reading the study.

During the same time that murders dropped 40%, NON FATAL incidents dropped 70%.
 
2013-05-08 05:02:36 PM  

JesseL: Wayne 985: JesseL: [i100.photobucket.com image 800x600]

What is the rationale here? You're not doing anything immoral, but it still looks like playing dress-up. Unless you're LARPing or working as a real life vigilante/superhero, that is baffling to me.

I would never do that anymore than I would go shopping at Target carrying a broadsword.

I live in Prescott Arizona and was getting together with some friends in Phoenix (~100 miles away) to go shooting in the desert. My motorcycle was the only reliable vehicle I had that day and there aren't a lot of good options for carrying a rifle on a sportbike and especially not for concealing it.

Interestingly, I received zero police attention and all that happened when I stopped for gas was that someone asked me what caliber my rifle was.


Fair points, and I apologize for the condescension. I guess I've become accustomed to seeing weirdos during the recent gun debates who really do play dress up and carry rifles for no apparent reason (hello, Tea Party gatherings).
 
2013-05-08 05:09:52 PM  

pdee: CCW in 1993:
[www.gun-nuttery.com image 606x509]

2011:
[www.gun-nuttery.com image 614x509]


Does this have any thing to do with the stats in TFA?

It cant be denied that the bloodbath the anti-gun crowded predicted when states started isuing has not occured.


That graphic does nothing to further the idea that the government is trying to take yer guns, please delete it off the internet immediately.
 
2013-05-08 05:10:22 PM  

Wayne 985: I Googled your quote. It's from 1995 in response to a question about assault rifles. If you're still pissing in your pants, lip quivering and thinking that a wistful hope for a democratic vote 8 years ago equates total gun confiscation, then yeah... You're paranoid.

That would be like me refusing to support anything Republicans put forward and using a quote from James Inhofe in the 90s as my rationale. It's stupid.


Nice that you skipped the 2013 Cuomo quotes about confiscation.  They're as easy to find as Diane's 1995 quote.

As far as the age goes, what about her actions should make anyone think she's any less radical today?  Her 2013 proposal was a greater reach than the totally useless 1994 law.
 
2013-05-08 05:33:54 PM  

Wayne 985: Fair points, and I apologize for the condescension. I guess I've become accustomed to seeing weirdos during the recent gun debates who really do play dress up and carry rifles for no apparent reason (hello, Tea Party gatherings).

 
No offense taken.

Even other gunnuts from other places sometimes have a hard time immediately grasping the idea of a place where guns just don't have that taboo, open carry won't get you taken down by a SWAT team, and people open carry for reasons other than to make a political statement.
 
2013-05-08 05:36:48 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mouldy Squid: The fact that they added 'well' before 'regulate' does not alter the meaning.

And that is why you fail.  My citation proved you're wrong, and your citation indicates you have a very mediocre, or at best "selective" understanding of the English language.


My "selective" understanding of the English language at least extends to knowing how to use the Oxford English Dictionary correctly. The OED entry for 'well-regulated' provides no definitions, only citation of use. None of the uses shown provide an unambiguous meaning. Each of the examples can easily fall under definitions 1a, 1b, 1c, 2 or 3  (which is the one you are so poorly trying to impose on the wording of the 2nd Amendment) of the 'regulate' entry . Nothing in your citation proves that the writers of your constitution were using definition 3. If 'well-regulated' had a specific definition that was separate from the definitions of 'well' and 'regulated', or one that was unusual or context specific, the OED would have provided one. 
 
The only specific thing that entry tells us is that the word 'well-regulated' is a participle, which you managed to leave out of your quote. As a participle, 'well-regulated' is simply an adjective compounded from an adverb and a verb. Participles can also be nouns, but since the 'militia' is the noun in, 'well-regulated' only describes the attribute. In fact, the cross-reference for 'well-regulated' directs to the entry:
 
'regulated, ppl. a.
a. Governed by rule, properly controlled or directed, adjusted to some standard etc. Also freq. in combs., as badly-, ill-, well-regulated.
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined
c. Proverb.
 
So, in fact, the definition of 'well-regulated' means what everyone one who isn't you takes it to mean. I was willing to throw you a bone with the ambiguity, but the OED itself is telling you that you are wrong.
 
2013-05-08 05:37:14 PM  

Wayne 985: I guess I've become accustomed to seeing weirdos during the recent gun debates who really do play dress up and carry rifles for no apparent reason


While there are likely folks out there who are OCing mainly to make some sort of statement (I've never met or talked to them and won't pretend to speak for them), in my experience they are in a very small (but highly publicized) minority. And even those guys aren't wrong for doing so. All the people I have spoken to don't view and statement they might be making as an extremely low priority. They (and I'm in that group myself) do it for many other reasons, any statements being made are just a bonus.
 
2013-05-08 05:39:34 PM  

Bane of Broone: So, overall gun violence has gone down with stricter gun control laws? I'm shocked. SHOCKED I tell you!


Hush, child. Gun worshippers don't want to hear that.
 
2013-05-08 05:41:01 PM  

Lorelle: Bane of Broone: So, overall gun violence has gone down with stricter gun control laws? I'm shocked. SHOCKED I tell you!

Hush, child. Gun worshippers don't want to hear that.


And gun grabber ignore the increased sales, liberalization of concealed carry, and end of the assault weapons ban that happened during the same time frame.
 
2013-05-08 05:47:00 PM  

JustGetItRight: And gun grabber ignore the increased sales, liberalization of concealed carry, and end of the assault weapons ban that happened during the same time frame.


Who has grabbed guns, now?? Gun worshippers are sooo delusional.
 
2013-05-08 05:50:08 PM  
Mouldy Squid: [derp]
 
Repeating your flawed logic, and extending it to a small wall of text doesn't make it true.
 
2013-05-08 05:50:59 PM  

Lorelle: JustGetItRight: And gun grabber ignore the increased sales, liberalization of concealed carry, and end of the assault weapons ban that happened during the same time frame.

Who has grabbed guns, now?? Gun worshippers are sooo delusional.


Your assessment of delusion would be more credible were you not already known to be a willful liar.
 
2013-05-08 05:51:34 PM  

Lorelle: Who has grabbed guns, now??


Well, New York state just turned thousands into criminals, but other than that nice effort at ignoring the truth that gun violence has greatly decreased despite a great increase in the number of guns available and being carried every day.
 
2013-05-08 05:54:56 PM  

JustGetItRight: Lorelle: Who has grabbed guns, now??

Well, New York state just turned thousands into criminals, but other than that nice effort at ignoring the truth that gun violence has greatly decreased despite a great increase in the number of guns available and being carried every day.


Lorelle tends to ignore data not convenient to her agenda, such as the fact that "assault weapons" are rarely criminally misused. When she does not ignore such data, she instead willfully and dishonestly misrepresents the statements of others.
 
Displayed 50 of 832 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report