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.

(USA Today)   Criminals don't care about gun laws   (usatoday.com) divider line 453
    More: Obvious, camden, New Jersey, gun laws, Camden County, Second Amendment Foundation, gun regulation, America's Most Wanted, firearms dealer  
•       •       •

8135 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jul 2013 at 9:27 AM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-08 10:32:24 AM

happydude45: Jon iz teh kewl: MFAWG: Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer.  They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.

conservatism isn't about being rational, dude.

Actually, it is.


well if u knew that everyone had the same soul as u you wouldn't need to act like we're separate
 
2013-07-08 10:33:24 AM

Jarhead_h: dittybopper: vpb: Well, that's what prisons are for.

Bank robbers don't care about laws either, that doesn't mean that we don't need laws against robbing banks.

Laws against committing a violent act are fine.  That's not what you want, though:  You want laws against the possession of inanimate objects, which is something completely different.

Nice job trying to conflate the two, though.  I'm sure you'll get the usual group of useful idiots to agree with you.

"I am convinced that we can do to guns what we've done to drugs: create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have absolutely no control." - George L. Roman

It's basic economics, if there is a demand they will be suppliers.  Gun control rests on the idea that government can actually CONTROL guns.  It can't, it can only make an example here and there while making really bad people rich because they were the only ones who were brave enough to disobey the law and sell the things. Oh, and then the bad people are going to kill good people by accident during disputes over distribution rights.

Just like alcohol, just like pot, or coke or crack or heroin or five gallon tolliet tanks or fark all else.


Yep.

And guns aren't that hard to make:  They are a 600 year old technology, and even to this very day they are being made by hand in countries with very restrictive gun laws.

You can go down to your local Lowes or Home Depot and buy pretty much every thing you need to start cranking out primitive, but effective, home-made guns.
 
2013-07-08 10:35:15 AM
Well no shiat
 
2013-07-08 10:35:27 AM

Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Drivers ED Target shooting is really just practicing getting better at making things dead Plowing through farmers markets.

Redcato ad absurdium returned.


Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?
 
2013-07-08 10:36:35 AM

vanbiber874: The important point in this article is the call for a more holistic approach to crime in areas with high levels of violent crimes. Kids who live in the worst areas of the country do not have people that they look up to who haven't been in jail, or who aren't criminals. A great step to take in working toward a solution would be to invest in education, and recruit great teachers for areas like Camden. Then, instead of having primarily drug dealers and violent criminals as role models, kids might start looking up to their teachers as a mentor, and see a way out of the cycle of crime and failure. I support tougher gun laws, but that cannot be the only thing that happens if we truly do wan to find a solution that works. We really need to get to the core of the problem.


Hold on there smart guy(or girl), gun debates get clicks.

We've effectively thinned the herd of able and intelligent people who want to teach for a living by trimming down pay and benefits for decades.

Yeah, I'm agreeing with you. Schools keep hiring $100k plus/yr administrators and not teachers. It's an absurd public school problem.
 
2013-07-08 10:38:25 AM

MFAWG: Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer.  They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.


Not as much as it must suck to have gunphobia
 
2013-07-08 10:38:56 AM

scotty425: Dimensio: PanicMan: John Buck 41: 4+ week old article. Nice going, everyone involved.

Has anything changed in the past 4 weeks re gun laws or American culture as it relates to violence?

Illinois governor and shameless liar Pat Quinn used an amendatory veto to alter the recently passed concealed weapons permit law into uselessness while citing the crime rates of Chicago, which imposes very strict restrictions upon civilian firearm possession, as justification.

Tomorrow's thread on the override vote is gonna be EPIC!


I have not been anticipating any discussion of the vote; previous news regarding the matter (the governor's delay in addressing the bill and his eventual amendatory veto) did not, to my knowledge, reach Fark's Main or Politics pages.
 
2013-07-08 10:39:08 AM

thecpt: vanbiber874: The important point in this article is the call for a more holistic approach to crime in areas with high levels of violent crimes. Kids who live in the worst areas of the country do not have people that they look up to who haven't been in jail, or who aren't criminals. A great step to take in working toward a solution would be to invest in education, and recruit great teachers for areas like Camden. Then, instead of having primarily drug dealers and violent criminals as role models, kids might start looking up to their teachers as a mentor, and see a way out of the cycle of crime and failure. I support tougher gun laws, but that cannot be the only thing that happens if we truly do wan to find a solution that works. We really need to get to the core of the problem.

Hold on there smart guy(or girl), gun debates get clicks.

We've effectively thinned the herd of able and intelligent people who want to teach for a living by trimming down pay and benefits for decades.

Yeah, I'm agreeing with you. Schools keep hiring $100k plus/yr administrators and not teachers. It's an absurd public school problem.


Can I get a super size serving of this?
 
2013-07-08 10:40:22 AM
i need guns to protect me from other people
*shoots someone in defence*

oh shiat i killed someone i can't live with myself
 
2013-07-08 10:40:30 AM

dittybopper: Click Click D'oh: chuggernaught: Correct.  Now, where can I get my hands on a functional howitzer and rounds of ammo.  For home defense of course.  It's just an inanimate object so I should totally be allowed to have one.

/or as many as I choose for that matter.

Howitzer for Sale!

Here's a few more

They aren't illegal to own or operate, you just need to have your paperwork in order.

Actually, if you go with muzzleloading artillery, you don't need any paperwork.  I have a modest 76mm mortar that I shoot on very rare occasions.


You should refrain from advertising your ownership of such a device, lest gun control advocacy groups demand the closing of the "muzzle-loader loophole".
 
2013-07-08 10:42:24 AM
Next to PA. Damn borders.
 
2013-07-08 10:43:21 AM

Bit'O'Gristle: More people are killed by drunk drivers every year than are killed by guns.


That is total BS. In 2010, there were 31,328 gun deaths, and 32,885 automobile fatalities. Do you really believe that every single automobile fatality is caused by a drunk driver?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exce ed -traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

I don't see anyone banning cars or trucks.

No, you don't. Instead you see concerted government action to make cars safer, often over the vociferous objections of the automobile manufacturers.

You also see increasingly harsh penalties for people who are convicted of DUI, regardless of whether they actually caused a car accident or not.

The farking politicians are quick to jump on their soapbox, screaming about gun control, and banning this or that magazine, gun, or attachment. Blaming the farking tool the guy used is moranic.

Yes, there are people with an irrational fear of guns, just like there are people with an irrational fear of crime. You are more likely to be murdered by someone in your own home than a random person on the street, and your likelihood of dying by gun dramatically increases if you have one in your home.

With cars, we can work to make the safer. But how do you do that with guns? How do you make something designed to kill people safer? One way is to make sure it is stored safely so that irresponsible people can't get ahold of it, but most gun advocates are firmly against any requirements on how guns are stored.

The gun didn't go on a rampage and murder people, the person did. There have been cases where a drunk has killed multiple people with his car, and i have yet to see any car bans.

Right, but once again you see lots of increasing pressure to prevent drink driving.

Reasonable gun control advocates aren't calling for gun BANS, they want to make sure that guns don't get into the hands of criminals, which means the distribution is controlled, not eliminated.

How can you justify taking a gun away, when cars kill more than guns do?

I don't, and neither do most gun control advocates. Again, I don't want to take away your gun(s), I want to make sure that:

1) It's either on your person or stored safety where kids and burglars can't easily get it.
2) Gun owners know how to operate their weapon safely and legally
3) Criminals can't easily buy guns

Ah, because a car is NEEDED. We don't need guns to protect ourselves. I'm sure if criminals who totally respect gun laws knew that we had none, they would totally not take advantage of that for profit. Hell, they would probably be happy to hand them over and never touch one again. Let's make a law that everyone has to hand in their firearms, and see how that works out.

Nah, let's not. Let's just set up a strawman that nobody is arguing for, pretend that's what gun control advocates want, and then argue against it.
 
2013-07-08 10:43:39 AM

MFAWG: Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Drivers ED Target shooting is really just practicing getting better at making things dead Plowing through farmers markets.

Redcato ad absurdium returned.

Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?



Most things that people do for fun are pointless: golfing serves no purpose but to put a ball in a tiny cup.  Football serves no purpose but to carry a ball to one end of a long field.  Sailing serves no purpose but to take you around the water slowly.

Gun ownership (for, say, target-shooting) serves no purpose but to put little holes in a piece of paper.

...yet, of all those pointless activities, guess which one is a constitutionally-protected right?
 
2013-07-08 10:45:02 AM

Click Click D'oh: chuggernaught: Correct.  Now, where can I get my hands on a functional howitzer and rounds of ammo.  For home defense of course.  It's just an inanimate object so I should totally be allowed to have one.

/or as many as I choose for that matter.

Howitzer for Sale!

Here's a few more

They aren't illegal to own or operate, you just need to have your paperwork in order.


That's great. Let's do the same for smaller calibers too.
 
2013-07-08 10:45:53 AM

vpb: Bank robbers don't care about laws either, that doesn't mean that we don't need laws against robbing banks.


Came here to say this.

The exact same thing could be said about ANY criminal activity.
 
2013-07-08 10:46:41 AM

jshine: MFAWG: Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Drivers ED Target shooting is really just practicing getting better at making things dead Plowing through farmers markets.

Redcato ad absurdium returned.

Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?


Most things that people do for fun are pointless: golfing serves no purpose but to put a ball in a tiny cup.  Football serves no purpose but to carry a ball to one end of a long field.  Sailing serves no purpose but to take you around the water slowly.

Gun ownership (for, say, target-shooting) serves no purpose but to put little holes in a piece of paper.

...yet, of all those pointless activities, guess which one is a constitutionally-protected right?


yeah that's right we don't go around hitting people with golf clubs.  so only a grade A moran would shoot someone with a gun
 
2013-07-08 10:47:27 AM

dittybopper: Actually, if you go with muzzleloading artillery, you don't need any paperwork.  I have a modest 76mm mortar that I shoot on very rare occasions.


Feral cat hunting?
 
2013-07-08 10:48:37 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: jshine: MFAWG: Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Drivers ED Target shooting is really just practicing getting better at making things dead Plowing through farmers markets.

Redcato ad absurdium returned.

Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?


Most things that people do for fun are pointless: golfing serves no purpose but to put a ball in a tiny cup.  Football serves no purpose but to carry a ball to one end of a long field.  Sailing serves no purpose but to take you around the water slowly.

Gun ownership (for, say, target-shooting) serves no purpose but to put little holes in a piece of paper.

...yet, of all those pointless activities, guess which one is a constitutionally-protected right?

yeah that's right we don't go around hitting people with golf clubs.   so only a grade A moran would shoot someone with a gun



In general (outside of war or other extreme circumstances) that's true.
 
2013-07-08 10:49:30 AM

MFAWG: Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?


The NRA trains tens of thousands of Boy Scouts every year in basic rifle marksmanship.  Do you now live in fear of the NRAs private army of Boy Scout assassins, or do you admit the absurdity of your statement?
 
2013-07-08 10:49:53 AM

neomunk: Englebert Slaptyback: StaleCoffee

It would be nice if people differentiated gun control and regulation from gun bans, too.


Englebert Slaptyback:

 That would be nice, but these discussions seem to devolve into two polar opposite positions:

1) All guns for everyone all the time, with no regulation or administrative control like background checks.

2) No guns for anyone ever.

There is middle ground but hardly anyone wants to look at it.

neomonk: This just isn't true, it's the false dichotomy presented by those who think that even a conversation about what COULD be done is tyranny being persecuted against them by Commies who want to destroy America.


This is what I keep saying. I'm really sick of gun enthusiasts who can't have a reasonable discussion about what the limits should be. Because there are definitely examples of places where the existing limits are unreasonably harsh, and others where the existing limits are unreasonably generous.

Ideally we'd find a middle ground where criminals and mentally ill people have a really hard time getting ahold of firearms, but responsible gun owners are inconvenienced as little as possible.
 
2013-07-08 10:52:37 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: yeah that's right we don't go around hitting people with golf clubs.


Oh really?  Might want to ask Jack about that.
 
2013-07-08 10:53:04 AM
By definition "criminals" don't care about laws in general.  So what's your point subby?
 
2013-07-08 10:53:21 AM

Zasteva: neomunk: Englebert Slaptyback: StaleCoffee

It would be nice if people differentiated gun control and regulation from gun bans, too.


Englebert Slaptyback: That would be nice, but these discussions seem to devolve into two polar opposite positions:

1) All guns for everyone all the time, with no regulation or administrative control like background checks.

2) No guns for anyone ever.

There is middle ground but hardly anyone wants to look at it.

neomonk: This just isn't true, it's the false dichotomy presented by those who think that even a conversation about what COULD be done is tyranny being persecuted against them by Commies who want to destroy America.

This is what I keep saying. I'm really sick of gun enthusiasts who can't have a reasonable discussion about what the limits should be. Because there are definitely examples of places where the existing limits are unreasonably harsh, and others where the existing limits are unreasonably generous.

Ideally we'd find a middle ground where criminals and mentally ill people have a really hard time getting ahold of firearms, but responsible gun owners are inconvenienced as little as possible.


So long as Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Mr. Wayne LaPierre and Mr. Ted Nugent are involved in the discussion, intelligent discourse and reasoned proposals are not possible.
 
2013-07-08 10:55:28 AM

Zasteva: neomunk: Englebert Slaptyback: StaleCoffee

It would be nice if people differentiated gun control and regulation from gun bans, too.


Englebert Slaptyback: That would be nice, but these discussions seem to devolve into two polar opposite positions:

1) All guns for everyone all the time, with no regulation or administrative control like background checks.

2) No guns for anyone ever.

There is middle ground but hardly anyone wants to look at it.

neomonk: This just isn't true, it's the false dichotomy presented by those who think that even a conversation about what COULD be done is tyranny being persecuted against them by Commies who want to destroy America.

This is what I keep saying. I'm really sick of gun enthusiasts who can't have a reasonable discussion about what the limits should be. Because there are definitely examples of places where the existing limits are unreasonably harsh, and others where the existing limits are unreasonably generous.

Ideally we'd find a middle ground where criminals and mentally ill people have a really hard time getting ahold of firearms, but responsible gun owners are inconvenienced as little as possible.



Ideally it would be nice to have a reasonable discussion, yet as long as there is any faction that is determined to "ban", there will be a (somewhat reasonable) fear that any specific regulation is the thin end of the wedge.

The abortion debate illustrates the effect, with some states passing incrementally more restrictive laws year by year with the ultimate goal of making abortion de facto impossible (or at least impractical), though they may be Constitutionally unable to legislate it out of existence entirely.

The fact that many of the pro-gun crowd are probably also among the anti-abortion crowd wouldn't help the situation -- they are all too familiar with the tactic.
 
2013-07-08 10:55:48 AM

monoski: "But no law stopped him from becoming a teenage drug dealer who could easily acquire, and use, his weapon of choice "

So do we stop passing drug laws too since they don't seem to care about them either?


Yes!
 
2013-07-08 10:56:11 AM

Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?

The NRA trains tens of thousands of Boy Scouts every year in basic rifle marksmanship.  Do you now live in fear of the NRAs private army of Boy Scout assassins, or do you admit the absurdity of your statement?


That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read in quite a few weeks. Did you really type that in and think "Wow, that will get him to realize his statement was absurd!!"?

Seriously, you think the idea that guns are designed to kill people is more absurd than the idea of an NRA trained Boy Scout assassin army?

Okay then -- if guns aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?
 
2013-07-08 10:56:56 AM

Dimensio: PanicMan: John Buck 41: 4+ week old article. Nice going, everyone involved.

Has anything changed in the past 4 weeks re gun laws or American culture as it relates to violence?

Illinois governor and shameless liar Pat Quinn used an amendatory veto to alter the recently passed concealed weapons permit law into uselessness while citing the crime rates of Chicago, which imposes very strict restrictions upon civilian firearm possession, as justification.


THIS.  Meanwhile, over the weekend in Chicago - 9 dead, dozens wounded.  But it's ALL because they don't have a proper CC law in place.  Right.  Now pull the other one.  Friggin' idiot.  And not just Quinn.  The lot of you who think you can legislate the ghetto mentality out of existence.  Everybody likes to make fun of "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns", but it's true.  Or were you expecting all the gang-bangers to voluntarily surrender their weapons should firearms become illegal?
 
2013-07-08 10:57:18 AM

MFAWG: Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Drivers ED Target shooting is really just practicing getting better at making things dead Plowing through farmers markets.

Redcato ad absurdium returned.

Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?


Actually, they're just designed to shoot projectiles.  If they were designed to kill, every time someone massacred nothing but a paper target at the range, you could sue the manufacturer for a faulty product.

That said, the .223/5.56mm NATO round in an M-16/AR-15 is designed to wound, and not kill.
 
2013-07-08 10:57:58 AM

Zasteva: Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?

The NRA trains tens of thousands of Boy Scouts every year in basic rifle marksmanship.  Do you now live in fear of the NRAs private army of Boy Scout assassins, or do you admit the absurdity of your statement?

That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read in quite a few weeks. Did you really type that in and think "Wow, that will get him to realize his statement was absurd!!"?

Seriously, you think the idea that guns are designed to kill people is more absurd than the idea of an NRA trained Boy Scout assassin army?

Okay then -- if guns aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?


So, we arm cops so they can kill people?
 
2013-07-08 10:58:00 AM

Dimensio: scotty425: Dimensio: PanicMan: John Buck 41: 4+ week old article. Nice going, everyone involved.

Has anything changed in the past 4 weeks re gun laws or American culture as it relates to violence?

Illinois governor and shameless liar Pat Quinn used an amendatory veto to alter the recently passed concealed weapons permit law into uselessness while citing the crime rates of Chicago, which imposes very strict restrictions upon civilian firearm possession, as justification.

Tomorrow's thread on the override vote is gonna be EPIC!

I have not been anticipating any discussion of the vote; previous news regarding the matter (the governor's delay in addressing the bill and his eventual amendatory veto) did not, to my knowledge, reach Fark's Main or Politics pages.


Nope, it didn't make Fark before, but it might tomorrow. Tuesday both chambers of the Illinois General assembly will hold a vote to override Quinn's amendatory veto. Illinois is the last state prohibiting the carrying of firearms for self defense, a prohibition that was struck down by the 7th Circuit Court. July 9 is the deadline to have a law in place allowing concealed carry. If no law is in place and barring an appeal by Lisa Madigan to the SC, one of two things will happen, either "constitutional carry" or in Illinois' case FOID carry will be the rule or each county and home rule community will set their own laws. IMHO, the veto will be overridden and H183 will become law.
 
2013-07-08 11:02:01 AM

scotty425: Dimensio: scotty425: Dimensio: PanicMan: John Buck 41: 4+ week old article. Nice going, everyone involved.

Has anything changed in the past 4 weeks re gun laws or American culture as it relates to violence?

Illinois governor and shameless liar Pat Quinn used an amendatory veto to alter the recently passed concealed weapons permit law into uselessness while citing the crime rates of Chicago, which imposes very strict restrictions upon civilian firearm possession, as justification.

Tomorrow's thread on the override vote is gonna be EPIC!

I have not been anticipating any discussion of the vote; previous news regarding the matter (the governor's delay in addressing the bill and his eventual amendatory veto) did not, to my knowledge, reach Fark's Main or Politics pages.

Nope, it didn't make Fark before, but it might tomorrow. Tuesday both chambers of the Illinois General assembly will hold a vote to override Quinn's amendatory veto. Illinois is the last state prohibiting the carrying of firearms for self defense, a prohibition that was struck down by the 7th Circuit Court. July 9 is the deadline to have a law in place allowing concealed carry. If no law is in place and barring an appeal by Lisa Madigan to the SC, one of two things will happen, either "constitutional carry" or in Illinois' case FOID carry will be the rule or each county and home rule community will set their own laws. IMHO, the veto will be overridden and H183 will become law.


Truly, violent times are ahead for the state of Illinois. Less than six months after "shall-issue" concealed weapons permits were first issued in Wisconsin, a concealed weapons permit holder in the state shot another individual at an Aldi's grocery store over a simple disagreement*.

*The shooter disagreed with the victim's plan to commit armed robbery.
 
2013-07-08 11:02:19 AM

BgJonson79: Zasteva: Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?

The NRA trains tens of thousands of Boy Scouts every year in basic rifle marksmanship.  Do you now live in fear of the NRAs private army of Boy Scout assassins, or do you admit the absurdity of your statement?

That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read in quite a few weeks. Did you really type that in and think "Wow, that will get him to realize his statement was absurd!!"?

Seriously, you think the idea that guns are designed to kill people is more absurd than the idea of an NRA trained Boy Scout assassin army?

Okay then -- if guns aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

So, we arm cops so they can kill people?


Yes.

And we give them non-lethal alternatives like tazers so they can choose a lesser alternative.
 
2013-07-08 11:03:05 AM

Zasteva


This is what I keep saying. I'm really sick of gun enthusiasts who can't have a reasonable discussion about what the limits should be. Because there are definitely examples of places where the existing limits are unreasonably harsh, and others where the existing limits are unreasonably generous.

Ideally we'd find a middle ground where criminals and mentally ill people have a really hard time getting ahold of firearms, but responsible gun owners are inconvenienced as little as possible.


Disclaimer: I am not a firearm enthusiast in in the "gun nut" sense. For me it is not a lifestyle and I will not join the NRA, though I currently own eleven firearms of widely varying configurations, calibers, and ages.

To be candid I see the current process as being a very small inconvenience, or not really inconvenient at all. I complete a form and the guy behind the counter makes a five-minute phone call and I'm all set. However, I understand that my experience is not universal. I like the idea of background checks for all purchases. I do not see it as a slippery slope to "they're gonna takes our gunz!!".

Anyway, some gun owners are rational and reasonable people and would be happy to engage in respectful discussion. However, we are drowned out by the Shouty McYellsalot types on both sides.
 
2013-07-08 11:03:41 AM

Zasteva: Seriously, you think the idea that guns are designed to kill people is more absurd than the idea of an NRA trained Boy Scout assassin army?


No, the are both equally absurd and both patently false.  Guns are not designed and used solely to kill people, and training people to shoot firearms isn't training people to be an army of ninja assassins.  That's what Redacto ad Absurdium means.


Zasteva: Okay then -- if guns aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?


If cars aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?
 
2013-07-08 11:05:00 AM

Zasteva: BgJonson79: Zasteva: Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?

The NRA trains tens of thousands of Boy Scouts every year in basic rifle marksmanship.  Do you now live in fear of the NRAs private army of Boy Scout assassins, or do you admit the absurdity of your statement?

That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read in quite a few weeks. Did you really type that in and think "Wow, that will get him to realize his statement was absurd!!"?

Seriously, you think the idea that guns are designed to kill people is more absurd than the idea of an NRA trained Boy Scout assassin army?

Okay then -- if guns aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

So, we arm cops so they can kill people?

Yes.

And we give them non-lethal alternatives like tazers so they can choose a lesser alternative.


EVERY armed cop has a taser?  Are you sure about that?
 
2013-07-08 11:07:12 AM

Zasteva: neomunk: Englebert Slaptyback: StaleCoffee

It would be nice if people differentiated gun control and regulation from gun bans, too.


Englebert Slaptyback: That would be nice, but these discussions seem to devolve into two polar opposite positions:

1) All guns for everyone all the time, with no regulation or administrative control like background checks.

2) No guns for anyone ever.

There is middle ground but hardly anyone wants to look at it.

neomonk: This just isn't true, it's the false dichotomy presented by those who think that even a conversation about what COULD be done is tyranny being persecuted against them by Commies who want to destroy America.

This is what I keep saying. I'm really sick of gun enthusiasts who can't have a reasonable discussion about what the limits should be. Because there are definitely examples of places where the existing limits are unreasonably harsh, and others where the existing limits are unreasonably generous.

Ideally we'd find a middle ground where criminals and mentally ill people have a really hard time getting ahold of firearms, but responsible gun owners are inconvenienced as little as possible.


To act like that people that want to ban all guns outright have more than ZERO influence on any policy decision or debate on gun control is disingenuous.
 The debate has been for the last at least 30 years:

1) Looking at reasonable policies to reduce gun deaths.  That involve things like researching different options, looking at what places like Canada do, and universal background checks etc...
vs.
2) No restrictions or tracking of any kind (and therefore no research on options) on firearm purchases, carrying laws and weapon types.

What happens is that gun nuts act like a reasonable discussion on universal background checks (or the like) is equivalent to confiscating all firearms.


Plus, every discussion with gun nuts degenerates to them obsessing over the definition of every type or words to describe firearms.
 
2013-07-08 11:08:00 AM

monoski: So do we stop passing drug laws too since they don't seem to care about them either?


Yes.
 
2013-07-08 11:08:19 AM

Englebert Slaptyback: Zasteva

This is what I keep saying. I'm really sick of gun enthusiasts who can't have a reasonable discussion about what the limits should be. Because there are definitely examples of places where the existing limits are unreasonably harsh, and others where the existing limits are unreasonably generous.

Ideally we'd find a middle ground where criminals and mentally ill people have a really hard time getting ahold of firearms, but responsible gun owners are inconvenienced as little as possible.



Englebert Slaptyback:Disclaimer: I am not a firearm enthusiast in in the "gun nut" sense. For me it is not a lifestyle and I will not join the NRA, though I currently own eleven firearms of widely varying configurations, calibers, and ages.

To be candid I see the current process as being a very small inconvenience, or not really inconvenient at all. I complete a form and the guy behind the counter makes a five-minute phone call and I'm all set. However, I understand that my experience is not universal. I like the idea of background checks for all purchases. I do not see it as a slippery slope to "they're gonna takes our gunz!!".

Anyway, some gun owners are rational and reasonable people and would be happy to engage in respectful discussion. However, we are drowned out by the Shouty McYellsalot types on both sides.


Nice to hear from you! I've had discussion with a few other people like yourself and generally it's pretty easy to agree on some principles, and even a lot of specific ways to do things to implement those principles. So all is not lost, we just need to find a way for reasonable people to be heard over the Shouty McYellsalots of the world!
 
2013-07-08 11:09:35 AM

Aldon: Zasteva: neomunk: Englebert Slaptyback: StaleCoffee

It would be nice if people differentiated gun control and regulation from gun bans, too.


Englebert Slaptyback: That would be nice, but these discussions seem to devolve into two polar opposite positions:

1) All guns for everyone all the time, with no regulation or administrative control like background checks.

2) No guns for anyone ever.

There is middle ground but hardly anyone wants to look at it.

neomonk: This just isn't true, it's the false dichotomy presented by those who think that even a conversation about what COULD be done is tyranny being persecuted against them by Commies who want to destroy America.

This is what I keep saying. I'm really sick of gun enthusiasts who can't have a reasonable discussion about what the limits should be. Because there are definitely examples of places where the existing limits are unreasonably harsh, and others where the existing limits are unreasonably generous.

Ideally we'd find a middle ground where criminals and mentally ill people have a really hard time getting ahold of firearms, but responsible gun owners are inconvenienced as little as possible.

To act like that people that want to ban all guns outright have more than ZERO influence on any policy decision or debate on gun control is disingenuous.
 The debate has been for the last at least 30 years:

1) Looking at reasonable policies to reduce gun deaths.  That involve things like researching different options, looking at what places like Canada do, and universal background checks etc...
vs.
2) No restrictions or tracking of any kind (and therefore no research on options) on firearm purchases, carrying laws and weapon types.

What happens is that gun nuts act like a reasonable discussion on universal background checks (or the like) is equivalent to confiscating all firearms.


Plus, every discussion with gun nuts degenerates to them obsessing over the definition of every type or words to describe firearms.


Isn't an enumerated right something worth obsessing over?  I don't see a lot of people trying to get rid of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments...
 
2013-07-08 11:10:49 AM

Itstoearly: MFAWG: Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer.  They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.

Not as much as it must suck to have gunphobia


I own 3, and feel no need to carry any of them all the time, even though I have a CCW permit.
 
2013-07-08 11:11:43 AM

MFAWG: Itstoearly: MFAWG: Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer.  They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.

Not as much as it must suck to have gunphobia

I own 3, and feel no need to carry any of them all the time, even though I have a CCW permit.


I'm sorry you have to get permission from your state to exercise an enumerated right.
 
2013-07-08 11:12:03 AM
It's almost as if crime, gun or otherwise, is a social, economic, and cultural issue, not a gun issue. But nah, that can't be true. We all know it is the guns fault that people commit violent acts, not the people being brought up in a culture that promotes violent crime as the only way to get ahead.
 
2013-07-08 11:12:35 AM

Tom_Slick: This text is now purple: doglover: BTK used a steak knife and curtains.

If ugly curtains were illegal, the people who owned my house before me would have been executed.

Only Executed? The previous owner of my house would have been Shot, Stabbed, Beheaded, Drawn and Quartered.


Ahh. The notorious "Brazilian Referee".
 
2013-07-08 11:13:11 AM

Click Click D'oh: If cars aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?


We literally do THOUSANDS of things to make cars safer and we continue to do more every year.  Including tracking and limiting their use in a variety of ways.

Wouldn't it be insane not to?
 
2013-07-08 11:13:24 AM

arentol: It's almost as if crime, gun or otherwise, is a social, economic, and cultural issue, not a gun issue. But nah, that can't be true. We all know it is the guns fault that people commit violent acts, not the people being brought up in a culture that promotes violent crime as the only way to get ahead.


I have been assured that crime is the result of two factors:

1) The absence of concealed carry.
2) The continued presence of collapsing stocks, pistol grips and threaded barrels on firearms.
 
2013-07-08 11:14:24 AM

Aldon: Click Click D'oh: If cars aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

We literally do THOUSANDS of things to make cars safer and we continue to do more every year.  Including tracking and limiting their use in a variety of ways.

Wouldn't it be insane not to?


Cars are normally used in public.I'd argue more than 99%, but I have no real stats.

One does not have to use a gun in public.
 
2013-07-08 11:17:16 AM

Aldon: Click Click D'oh: If cars aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

We literally do THOUSANDS of things to make cars safer and we continue to do more every year.  Including tracking and limiting their use in a variety of ways.

Wouldn't it be insane not to?


An appropriate analog to the restrictions proposed by some gun control advocacy organizations is a ban on rear spoilers, hood scoops and chrome exhaust tips, and a specific ban on all Honda Civics, Toyota Corollas, Caterpillar D9s and Mitsubishi Lancers.

To reassure automobile owners that the proposal is not a total car ban, certain models will be explicitly not affected by legislation, such as the BMW 3-series, the Ford Edsel, the Sopwith Camel and the Cadillac Escalade.
 
2013-07-08 11:17:35 AM
It must suck to live in these places.

Sure, I get paid poorly compared to others in my field who live in other States.
But, there is very little violent crime here and no one bats an eye if I take a couple handguns to the range with my S.O and shoot off a couple hundred rounds for the fun of it.

Me:
sakonnetriveroutfitters.com

Her:
www.smith-wesson.com
 
2013-07-08 11:17:37 AM

Click Click D'oh: Zasteva: Seriously, you think the idea that  guns are designed to kill people is more absurd than the idea of an NRA trained Boy Scout assassin army?

Click Click D'oh: No, the are both equally absurd and both patently false.  Guns are not designed and used solely to kill people, and training people to shoot firearms isn't training people to be an army of ninja assassins.  That's what Redacto ad Absurdium means.

You understand that the meaning changes when you add words like "solely". I never said solely and I agree that's patently false.


Guns are designed and used to kill people. A subset of guns are designed primarily for other purposes (shotguns leap to mind), though that overwhelming majority (perhaps all) that are designed for other purposes will work to kill people too.

Zasteva: Okay then -- if guns aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

Click Click D'oh:
 If cars aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

Safety glass, bumpers, collapsing unibody frames that absorb the impact of collisions, safety belts, airbags, ABS, dynamic traction and stability control, and, in the near future we can expect to see things like automatic collision avoidance and eventually self-driving cars that take car out of human hands altogether.

Your turn!
 
2013-07-08 11:19:08 AM

BgJonson79: Isn't an enumerated right something worth obsessing over? I don't see a lot of people trying to get rid of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments...


Again, anyone trying to eliminate or confiscate firearms has ZERO influence today in policy or politics in general. It is disingenuous to suggest that is what is happening.


The Fourth and Fifth Amendments (and every human and constitutional right) has responsibility and reasonable restrictions associated with it why not the Second Amendment? That is what people are asking for who are on the other side of the debate.


I don't see why the Second Amendment should be treated differently than every other amendment or right.
 
Displayed 50 of 453 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report