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.

(Baton Rouge Advocate)   Dumb: Gun buyback programs. Even dumber: Refusing to take in illegal guns. You know, the ones everyone actually wants off the streets   (theadvocate.com) divider line 237
    More: Dumbass, gun buyback program, sawed-off shotguns, gun buyback, law enforcement officials  
•       •       •

9450 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Dec 2013 at 1:50 AM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



237 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-14 11:09:50 PM
I'll give anybody fifty bucks for a gun they own and don't want as long as it is not stolen or has a body on it.
 
2013-12-14 11:15:14 PM
I'll give anybody fifty-one bucks for a gun they own and don't want as long as it is not stolen or has a body on it.
 
2013-12-14 11:29:09 PM
ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.
 
2013-12-14 11:29:14 PM

violentsalvation: I'll give anybody fifty-one bucks for a gun they own and don't want as long as it is not stolen or has a body on it.


$51 bucks and I'm flexible on the body part.
 
TSD [TotalFark]
2013-12-14 11:33:30 PM
There's no headlines if illegal weapons are gone.
 
2013-12-14 11:37:20 PM
FTFA: "No assault-style weapons of the type Moore said are becoming the weapon of choice for criminals were turned in."

Bullshiat. The rate of usage for "assault weapons" in crime has held steady at around 2% for the last 30 years. I expect lies, but this one is just preposterous.
 
2013-12-14 11:51:36 PM
The only example that article mentioned of a gun that was refused was one that was so broken it couldn't possibly fire. It's not like they were rejecting sawed off shotguns and tommy guns with box mags.
 
2013-12-15 12:20:20 AM

HotWingAgenda: The only example that article mentioned of a gun that was refused was one that was so broken it couldn't possibly fire. It's not like they were rejecting sawed off shotguns and tommy guns with box mags.


ftfa
Not everyone left the Living Faith Christian Center on Winboure Avenue with a Circle K gas card for turning their unused and unwanted guns in to law enforcement officials, though.
They did not meet the criteria to receive a $50 Circle K gas card because their weapons were illegal
 
2013-12-15 12:32:10 AM

Frank N Stein: HotWingAgenda: The only example that article mentioned of a gun that was refused was one that was so broken it couldn't possibly fire. It's not like they were rejecting sawed off shotguns and tommy guns with box mags.

ftfa
Not everyone left the Living Faith Christian Center on Winboure Avenue with a Circle K gas card for turning their unused and unwanted guns in to law enforcement officials, though.
They did not meet the criteria to receive a $50 Circle K gas card because their weapons were illegal


This is an example of agenda blindness.  He literally couldn't see that sentence because it disagreed with his assumptions.
 
2013-12-15 12:39:28 AM
i43.tinypic.com


"Ah! Run, he's got a board with a nail in it!"
 
2013-12-15 12:45:18 AM
This is what happens when you let good intentions get beshiatted by bureaucracy
 
2013-12-15 01:37:05 AM
$50 isn't a lot for gas.
 
2013-12-15 01:51:07 AM
50 bucks is a lot of venison
 
2013-12-15 01:56:44 AM

Bucky Katt: $50 isn't a lot for gas.


At $3.25 a gallon that's a little over 15 gallons.  That's enough for someone to drive to a few gun shows to buy more guns.
 
2013-12-15 01:59:43 AM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: FTFA: "No assault-style weapons of the type Moore said are becoming the weapon of choice for criminals were turned in."

Bullshiat. The rate of usage for "assault weapons" in crime has held steady at around 2% for the last 30 years. I expect lies, but this one is just preposterous.


I caught that bit too. The only "assault weapons" becoming popular are the ones being brought in illegally from Mexico and those biatches are full on military assault rifles.
 
2013-12-15 02:00:53 AM
What I don't understand is why Baton Rouge  sold these guns to citizens if they were just going to buy them back later.  :-\
 
2013-12-15 02:01:06 AM

Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.


No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.
 
2013-12-15 02:02:02 AM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: FTFA: "No assault-style weapons of the type Moore said are becoming the weapon of choice for criminals were turned in."

Bullshiat. The rate of usage for "assault weapons" in crime has held steady at around 2% for the last 30 years. I expect lies, but this one is just preposterous.


For fair consideration: telling the truth would not be as conducive toward attaining popular support for unreasonable restrictions on popular sporting rifles.
 
2013-12-15 02:02:48 AM
It drew dozens. Dozens!

/not news
 
2013-12-15 02:02:56 AM

jayphat: Adolf Oliver Nipples: FTFA: "No assault-style weapons of the type Moore said are becoming the weapon of choice for criminals were turned in."

Bullshiat. The rate of usage for "assault weapons" in crime has held steady at around 2% for the last 30 years. I expect lies, but this one is just preposterous.

I caught that bit too. The only "assault weapons" becoming popular are the ones being brought in illegally from Mexico and those biatches are full on military assault rifles.


You mean the ones that were sent to Mexico from the US?
 
2013-12-15 02:03:42 AM
Gun buybacks are for making people feel better, not stopping crime.  Just like gun control laws.
 
2013-12-15 02:03:57 AM

Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.


Not sure if trolling...
 
2013-12-15 02:04:10 AM
What really boggles my mind is that there's still people out there who don't realize how farking retardedly inefficient gun buyback programes are
 
2013-12-15 02:05:15 AM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Bullshiat. The rate of usage for "assault weapons" in crime has held steady at around 2% for the last 30 years. I expect lies, but this one is just preposterous.


Uh, is that actually "assault weapons" or  all rifles?
 
2013-12-15 02:07:24 AM

Frank N Stein: What really boggles my mind is that there's still people out there who don't realize how farking retardedly inefficient gun buyback programes are


They don't perform their  stated function, no, but they do act as masturbatory fantasies/hate-ons for those who want to show people that yes, there are still firearms out there...despite their best efforts to save people from them.  :-P  "Why, there could be an assault rifle in your grandfather's attic, and you might not even know it!"
 
2013-12-15 02:08:42 AM

PaLarkin: Bucky Katt: $50 isn't a lot for gas.

At $3.25 a gallon that's a little over 15 gallons.  That's enough for someone to drive to a few gun shows Walmart parking lots to buy more guns.


You know, because it's totally a real thing that you can legally transact any gun sale in your nearby suburban public space.

How come police don't offer $50 gas cards to turn in the crazy mass murderer wannabees and gang banger assassins?  Wouldn't that get to the real root of the problem?
 
2013-12-15 02:09:43 AM

Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.


Well, the citizen that traded it in for a fifty buck gift certificate obviously didn't need it.

I'd guess all the citizens that didn't trade their sniper rifles in did still need them.
 
2013-12-15 02:10:10 AM
why is there no hue and cry that all these people are exploiting the 'gun show loophole'? How dare they sell guns without background checks!
 
2013-12-15 02:12:45 AM

stevarooni: Frank N Stein: What really boggles my mind is that there's still people out there who don't realize how farking retardedly inefficient gun buyback programes are

They don't perform their  stated function, no, but they do act as masturbatory fantasies/hate-ons for those who want to show people that yes, there are still firearms out there...despite their best efforts to save people from them.  :-P  "Why, there could be an assault rifle in your grandfather's attic, and you might not even know it!"


This made the news out here in Chicago. About a year or so ago Chicago held a gun buyback program. A gun shop/shooting club got together and turned in a bunch of inoperable/worthless guns for $100 each (I think). That group then used the money to fund a youth shooting camp and publicized what they did. Plenty of people got buttwrecked about it, and even the police weren't too happy about it:
"We host the gun turn-in event on an annual basis to encourage residents to turn in their guns so that we take firearms off our streets, and it's unfortunate that this group is abusing a program intended to increase the safety of our communities."

Maximum trolling. 10/10
 
2013-12-15 02:13:12 AM
Didn't I read somewhere that major firearms manufacturers are the ones subsidizing the gift cards for these buy backs?
 
2013-12-15 02:13:39 AM

Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.


So, I guess we shouldn't be using .223 rounds to kill gophers eh?
 
2013-12-15 02:14:42 AM

sendtodave: I'd guess all the citizens that didn't trade their sniper rifles in did still need them.



Fun fact: It wasn't actually sniper rifle, even if it did have cheap optics on top of it.
 
2013-12-15 02:16:04 AM
I'm kind of wondering about this "Japanese sniper rifle" thing. As far as I know; Japan really didn't have snipers; sure, they marksmen, but, snipers? They would have regarded sniping less than favorably. Especially with the huge revival of the bushido code preceding WW2. I'm betting it was a sporterized arisaka, with a modern scope, that was never a sniper rifle.
 
2013-12-15 02:16:35 AM

Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.


Not sure if hoplophobe or trolling.  Most likely answer seeing as this is Fark...  hoplophobe.
 
2013-12-15 02:17:42 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Didn't I read somewhere that major firearms manufacturers are the ones subsidizing the gift cards for these buy backs?


I don't know what you read, DJatToD, but I've never heard that.  Could be.  Though I've heard it's largely Bloomburg and  Bloomburg-like folks bankrolling these kinds of things.  Local police supply the manpower and possibly venue, and the number of guns turned tend to be pretty low, so no matter who's paying for it, they get a lot of publicity for their political views for a very low price.
 
2013-12-15 02:18:34 AM

Smeggy Smurf: Not sure if hoplophobe or trolling.  Most likely answer seeing as this is Fark...  hoplophobe.


Seeing as how this is Fark, it's more likely Extreme Sarcasm™.
 
2013-12-15 02:21:46 AM

iheartscotch: I'm kind of wondering about this "Japanese sniper rifle" thing. As far as I know; Japan really didn't have snipers; sure, they marksmen, but, snipers? They would have regarded sniping less than favorably. Especially with the huge revival of the bushido code preceding WW2. I'm betting it was a sporterized arisaka, with a modern scope, that was never a sniper rifle.


Yeah, the Japanese had sniper rifles,  iheartscotch, as variants of the Ariska Type 99 (MilitaryFactory.com).  There might have been a "revival of the bushido code", but the Japanese Imperial Army sure as hell weren't constrained by some ancient sense of honorable war, they fought to win and used dirty tricks when they had to.
 
2013-12-15 02:22:52 AM

Frank N Stein: What really boggles my mind is that there's still people out there who don't realize how farking retardedly inefficient gun buyback programes are


I think most people and politicians realize how ineffective they are but they get a good pile of revolvers on a table and like to do a "tough on crime" photo op.
 
2013-12-15 02:22:57 AM
jayphat:
So, I guess we shouldn't be using .223 rounds to kill gophers eh?

I can get .223 locally for 50 cents a round, can't find .22 anywhere for less than $1.00 a round.  You do the math.
 
2013-12-15 02:23:47 AM

sendtodave: Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

Well, the citizen that traded it in for a fifty buck gift certificate obviously didn't need it.

I'd guess all the citizens that didn't trade their sniper rifles in did still need them.


For what?

No, really; I want to know what a sniper rifle could be used for that another firearm could not be.
 
2013-12-15 02:23:56 AM

jayphat: Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

So, I guess we shouldn't be using .223 rounds to kill gophers eh?


Well, I'm hoping that he's just trolling and we don't need to point out that "high powered sniper rifles" are patterned after civilian hunting rifles. Or that "calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles" often start as civilian calibers. My Tikka T3 is more precise and more powerful than most "high powered sniper rifles". Has anyone every seen a "low powered sniper rifle" for that matter?

M-24 = Remington 700.
5.56 NATO = .223 Remington (with minor differences)
 
2013-12-15 02:26:08 AM

IlGreven: sendtodave: Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

Well, the citizen that traded it in for a fifty buck gift certificate obviously didn't need it.

I'd guess all the citizens that didn't trade their sniper rifles in did still need them.

For what?

No, really; I want to know what a sniper rifle could be used for that another firearm could not be.


Please describe the technical difference between a sniper rifle and a conventional hunting rifle.
 
2013-12-15 02:26:28 AM

IlGreven: sendtodave: Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

Well, the citizen that traded it in for a fifty buck gift certificate obviously didn't need it.

I'd guess all the citizens that didn't trade their sniper rifles in did still need them.

For what?

No, really; I want to know what a sniper rifle could be used for that another firearm could not be.


You think any gun with some glass bolted to the top is a sniper rifle, don't you?
 
2013-12-15 02:26:33 AM

IlGreven: sendtodave: Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

Well, the citizen that traded it in for a fifty buck gift certificate obviously didn't need it.

I'd guess all the citizens that didn't trade their sniper rifles in did still need them.

For what?

No, really; I want to know what a sniper rifle could be used for that another firearm could not be.


Accurate shooting at distance...
 
2013-12-15 02:26:57 AM

stevarooni: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Didn't I read somewhere that major firearms manufacturers are the ones subsidizing the gift cards for these buy backs?

I don't know what you read, DJatToD, but I've never heard that.  Could be.  Though I've heard it's largely Bloomburg and  Bloomburg-like folks bankrolling these kinds of things.  Local police supply the manpower and possibly venue, and the number of guns turned tend to be pretty low, so no matter who's paying for it, they get a lot of publicity for their political views for a very low price.


I may have just made that up...

I remember a few years back the ex's dad turned in a sawed off shotgun and got like $100 for it. He said it was mainly a bunch of old dudes turning in junky old rifles. There didn't seem to be any gang member types turning in handguns, shockingly enough.
 
2013-12-15 02:29:10 AM

jayphat: Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

So, I guess we shouldn't be using .223 rounds to kill gophers eh?


www.dvdizzy.com

Carl recommends using specially-shaped plastic explosive charges.
 
2013-12-15 02:31:03 AM

Frank N Stein: IlGreven: sendtodave: Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

Well, the citizen that traded it in for a fifty buck gift certificate obviously didn't need it.

I'd guess all the citizens that didn't trade their sniper rifles in did still need them.

For what?

No, really; I want to know what a sniper rifle could be used for that another firearm could not be.

You think any gun with some glass bolted to the top is a sniper rifle, don't you?


Sniper rifles are really long and have gigantic scopes on top, and are usually covered in grass and twigs and stuff, oh and they have a tripod usually
 
2013-12-15 02:31:04 AM

Frank N Stein: What really boggles my mind is that there's still people out there who don't realize how farking retardedly inefficient ineffective gun buyback programes are


FTFA
 
2013-12-15 02:31:45 AM
Yep,  Dow Jones, that's just  how gun buys [for destruction] work; mostly people getting rid of complete junk, and hoplophobes freeing themselves from the tyranny of having an old, inherited gun hanging around (that might be a $10,000 relic with true historical value).
 
2013-12-15 02:32:09 AM
These gun buy backs are just all sorts of stupid.

WW2 Japanese Sniper Rifle? Sell it to some collector for way more than $50. It will sit in a gun safe for the rest of its existence only to be taken out for show and target shooting on rare occasion.

The only gun buybacks that seem to work are the ones where the gun geeks show up and offer wholesale prices or at least far better than the cops.
 
2013-12-15 02:34:41 AM

Frank N Stein: IlGreven: sendtodave: Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

Well, the citizen that traded it in for a fifty buck gift certificate obviously didn't need it.

I'd guess all the citizens that didn't trade their sniper rifles in did still need them.

For what?

No, really; I want to know what a sniper rifle could be used for that another firearm could not be.

You think any gun with some glass bolted to the top is a sniper rifle, don't you?


Unless the glass is a snow globe. Then the gun is a Christmas decoration.
 
2013-12-15 02:35:33 AM

IlGreven: sendtodave: Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

Well, the citizen that traded it in for a fifty buck gift certificate obviously didn't need it.

I'd guess all the citizens that didn't trade their sniper rifles in did still need them.

For what?

No, really; I want to know what a sniper rifle could be used for that another firearm could not be.


I've used my nagant to hunt deer on many occasions. One of the most famous shots in WW2 was taken by a Russian sniper and a nagant. The deer don't stand a chance when you shoot them in the head.

/ they don't run far either
 
2013-12-15 02:35:36 AM
When they did this in Australia they would buy everything. Working or not. Legal or not, No questions asked.  The buyback here just happened to coincide with a great increase in penalty for having an illegal weapon.  Gun crime almost vanished overnight.
 
2013-12-15 02:36:16 AM
So....they accept the guns "no questions asked," but before destroying them, check if they've been used in any criminal activity. That doesn't really add up to me. If they're publicizing that they're checking the histories of these guns, I feel like that would discourage the unsavory types from turning in their firearms.

/not a gun owner myself, but practically all my family and friends are
//nothing against legally owning a gun and knowing how to safely use it, preferably via a series of lessons with a firearms instructor
 
2013-12-15 02:37:56 AM

IlGreven: sendtodave: Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

Well, the citizen that traded it in for a fifty buck gift certificate obviously didn't need it.

I'd guess all the citizens that didn't trade their sniper rifles in did still need them.

For what?

No, really; I want to know what a sniper rifle could be used for that another firearm could not be.


For whatever it is they are using currently using them for. Shooting stuff, most likely.

I'd guess you could substitute a different gun, maybe. But why go through the trouble? They already have a perfectly functional gun.
 
2013-12-15 02:38:21 AM

butt_made_baby: When they did this in Australia they would buy everything. Working or not. Legal or not, No questions asked.  The buyback here just happened to coincide with a great increase in penalty for having an illegal weapon.  Gun crime almost vanished overnight.

 

But then the dingos ate your babies.
 
2013-12-15 02:38:46 AM
"Dumb: Gun buyback programs."

i18.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-15 02:39:20 AM
So some dumbass took a rifle worth $200 - $500, hacked it up making a "deer rifle" worth maybe $125  and then was paid $50 for it?
And this is news somewhere?
/and if was an actual WWII "sniper rifle", someone may want to tell him he robbed himself for over $1k

Then there were the recently stolen from "friends or family" guns. It would be more effective if they just did a "Heroin for Guns" program.

//stupid humans
 
2013-12-15 02:40:16 AM

stevarooni: iheartscotch: I'm kind of wondering about this "Japanese sniper rifle" thing. As far as I know; Japan really didn't have snipers; sure, they marksmen, but, snipers? They would have regarded sniping less than favorably. Especially with the huge revival of the bushido code preceding WW2. I'm betting it was a sporterized arisaka, with a modern scope, that was never a sniper rifle.

Yeah, the Japanese had sniper rifles,  iheartscotch, as variants of the Ariska Type 99 (MilitaryFactory.com).  There might have been a "revival of the bushido code", but the Japanese Imperial Army sure as hell weren't constrained by some ancient sense of honorable war, they fought to win and used dirty tricks when they had to.


I had known that the Japanese military used the bushido code to indoctrinate its populous. They must not have had too many snipers; or Iwo Jima and Okinawa would have been worse.
 
2013-12-15 02:40:44 AM

stevarooni: Yep,  Dow Jones, that's just  how gun buys [for destruction] work; mostly people getting rid of complete junk, and hoplophobes freeing themselves from the tyranny of having an old, inherited gun hanging around (that might be a $10,000 relic with true historical value).


The thought that some clueless twit would bring a historic relic firearm to one of these events to be shredded just makes my eyes get misty. Oh sure, its a beautiful artifact from a bygone era that was passed down through generations of your family, but fark the effort of getting it appraised or selling it to someone that will appreciate it (unlike you), just throw it in a farking shredder.

Hey, lets go to the history museum next, I hear they have a bunch of really old and dangerous knives a child might hurt themselves with. We'd better urn that farker to the ground!
 
2013-12-15 02:41:08 AM
Shirley a Japanese rifle from WWII is worth more than $50. He'll even Rick from Pawn Stars might pay more.
 
2013-12-15 02:41:53 AM
Why are gun buyback programs dumb again?
 
2013-12-15 02:42:11 AM
WW2 Japanese Sniper Rifle? Like nothing more than Arisaka rifle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arisaka

Even your basic hunting rifle is likely better than any Arisaka that has been sitting around since WWII in some ones closet.
 
2013-12-15 02:42:16 AM

butt_made_baby: When they did this in Australia they would buy everything. Working or not. Legal or not, No questions asked.  The buyback here just happened to coincide with a great increase in penalty for having an illegal weapon.  Gun crime almost vanished overnight.


Now it's mostly knife crime?

img.fark.net
 
2013-12-15 02:43:58 AM

IlGreven: sendtodave: Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

Well, the citizen that traded it in for a fifty buck gift certificate obviously didn't need it.

I'd guess all the citizens that didn't trade their sniper rifles in did still need them.

For what?

No, really; I want to know what a sniper rifle could be used for that another firearm could not be.


So funny story-

Today I was out shooting in the desert with the wife. She has a Remington 700 chambered in 7mm (same model that the Army bases the M-24 on). I had my Ruger Scout (.308 Winchester- basically the same as the military 7.62x51 round) and my Tikka T3 in 300 WSM (.30 caliber). The Tikka is my hunting rifle, and it packs more knockdown power than most rifles the military is fielding today, with a few exceptions such as the .50 BMG and 338 Lapua.

The guys shooting near us were having a grand old time shooting up the desert, but between their inexperience and the growing pile of Budweiser bottles, they couldn't hit the 1 pound jar of Tannerite they set about 100 yards out. One of the guys staggered over and asked if I wanted to shoot their target. Now 100 yards is nothing, and the shot was easily made. The guys all cheered at the explosion and they hailed my Great Feat of Marksmanship. I asked them why they had me come over, and one of the guys said "well you have that cool sniper rifle there". Well, sorry guys, but this "sniper rifle" capable of shooting 4" groups at 600 yards is nothing but a hunting rifle.

That's really what sniper rifles are. They're just hunting rifles. The first sniper rifles WERE hunting rifles as in the early days of sniping, the military really didn't field anything acceptable for precision shooting, and up until Vietnam, most believed that sniping was not a soldier's profession. Most sniper rifles, except for the big boys like the Barrett or MacMillan started out as civilian rifles. The M-24 that I shot while in the Army started out as a Remington 700 just like my wife's, and they just replace the stock, add a Leo scope, Harris bipod and make it all black. Same action as a 700, same caliber (.308 Winchester). My wife's 700 is capable of engaging a target (deer) 500+ yards, and its completely stock. I've taken shots past 800 yards with my Tikka. Are these sniper rifles?

Typically, while the military occasionally makes a leap ahead of the civilians in terms of technology, the military is more often than not the ones who are militarizing civilian firearms, accessories, and techniques.
 
2013-12-15 02:44:10 AM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: FTFA: "No assault-style weapons of the type Moore said are becoming the weapon of choice for criminals were turned in."

Bullshiat. The rate of usage for "assault weapons" in crime has held steady at around 2% for the last 30 years. I expect lies, but this one is just preposterous.


Cool. What's the number when used in murder sprees that kill over 5 people? We're not saying we're gunna stop crime, but isn't it nice not to have mass murder?
 
2013-12-15 02:45:19 AM

howdoibegin: Why are gun buyback programs dumb again?


Some people in this thread touched on the reason why, but it essentially boils down to this: Politicians use tax money for a publicity campaign that does absolutely nothing to combat gun violence/get guns out of dangerous hands.
 
2013-12-15 02:45:31 AM

howdoibegin: Adolf Oliver Nipples: FTFA: "No assault-style weapons of the type Moore said are becoming the weapon of choice for criminals were turned in."

Bullshiat. The rate of usage for "assault weapons" in crime has held steady at around 2% for the last 30 years. I expect lies, but this one is just preposterous.

Cool. What's the number when used in murder sprees that kill over 5 people? We're not saying we're gunna stop crime, but isn't it nice not to have mass murder?


You are correct; mass murder is entirely impossible without use of a rifle featuring a pistol grip and adjustable stock.
 
2013-12-15 02:45:47 AM

Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.


This has to be a troll. People don't actually believe that, do they? 'As powerful as a sniper rifle'? 'Military assault calibers'? Seriously?

You need to put down that Time magazine and do some research. If you want to be afraid of being shot with something, be afraid of having a leg blown off with some old geezer's elk rifle. If I have to get shot with ANY kind of rifle, I'm hoping it will be an 'assault' rifle with military rounds. A gut shot from a soft nose .300 Weatherby will spray organ chunks for 30 feet.
 
2013-12-15 02:46:01 AM

iheartscotch: I had known that the Japanese military used the bushido code to indoctrinate its populous. They must not have had too many snipers; or Iwo Jima and Okinawa would have been worse.


Eh, no army ever has enough snipers for their tastes.  A beach filled with snipers, the air filled with planes, and the U.S. Navy plagued by an entire Navy of Japanese ships all there at the same time.  Poop in one hand, wish in the other, and tell me which one gets full first.  :D  Apparently the Japanese started to develop a stronger sniper program after they ran into a good number of snipers in China.
 
2013-12-15 02:47:16 AM

ElLoco: Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

This has to be a troll. People don't actually believe that, do they? 'As powerful as a sniper rifle'? 'Military assault calibers'? Seriously?

You need to put down that Time magazine and do some research. If you want to be afraid of being shot with something, be afraid of having a leg blown off with some old geezer's elk rifle. If I have to get shot with ANY kind of rifle, I'm hoping it will be an 'assault' rifle with military rounds. A gut shot from a soft nose .300 Weatherby will spray organ chunks for 30 feet.


Relax. He's being sarcastic.
 
2013-12-15 02:47:24 AM

howdoibegin: Why are gun buyback programs dumb again?


Why is prayer dumb?
 
2013-12-15 02:47:45 AM

howdoibegin: Adolf Oliver Nipples: FTFA: "No assault-style weapons of the type Moore said are becoming the weapon of choice for criminals were turned in."

Bullshiat. The rate of usage for "assault weapons" in crime has held steady at around 2% for the last 30 years. I expect lies, but this one is just preposterous.

Cool. What's the number when used in murder sprees that kill over 5 people? We're not saying we're gunna stop crime, but isn't it nice not to have mass murder?


Yeah, we probably should restrict people from having bombs.
 
2013-12-15 02:49:47 AM

CthulhuCalling: IlGreven: sendtodave: Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

Well, the citizen that traded it in for a fifty buck gift certificate obviously didn't need it.

I'd guess all the citizens that didn't trade their sniper rifles in did still need them.

For what?

No, really; I want to know what a sniper rifle could be used for that another firearm could not be.

So funny story-

Today I was out shooting in the desert with the wife. She has a Remington 700 chambered in 7mm (same model that the Army bases the M-24 on). I had my Ruger Scout (.308 Winchester- basically the same as the military 7.62x51 round) and my Tikka T3 in 300 WSM (.30 caliber). The Tikka is my hunting rifle, and it packs more knockdown power than most rifles the military is fielding today, with a few exceptions such as the .50 BMG and 338 Lapua.

The guys shooting near us were having a grand old time shooting up the desert, but between their inexperience and the growing pile of Budweiser bottles, they couldn't hit the 1 pound jar of Tannerite they set about 100 yards out. One of the guys staggered over and asked if I wanted to shoot their target. Now 100 yards is nothing, and the shot was easily made. The guys all cheered at the explosion and they hailed my Great Feat of Marksmanship. I asked them why they had me come over, and one of the guys said "well you have that cool sniper rifle there". Well, sorry guys, but this "sniper rifle" capable of shooting 4" groups at 600 yards is nothing but a hunting rifle.

That's really what sniper rifles are. They're just hunting rifles. The first sniper rifles WERE hunting rifles as in the early days of sniping, the military really didn't field anything acceptable for precision shooting, and up un ...


That's not a funny story. That's like me thinking it'd be awesome to tell you how knowledgeable I am about various strains of vegetables. I know my vegetables, check out my domain knowledge!
 
2013-12-15 02:50:13 AM

howdoibegin: Cool. What's the number when used in murder sprees that kill over 5 people? We're not saying we're gunna stop crime, but isn't it nice not to have mass murder?


The largest mass killing in a school in the United States was in Bath Township, Michigan, in 1927, and involved explosives (wiki).
 
2013-12-15 02:51:15 AM
Chicago's had those programs for years, never worked. Always wondered if a few crackheads ever traded in some stolen guns for some cash, pretty sure that one's happened.

Not quite sure if they had a ban on illegal guns, but they did have a supposed 'no questions asked' thing.
 
2013-12-15 02:51:21 AM

Frank N Stein: Relax. He's being sarcastic.


Ok. Whew.

I just, you know... you hear about people believing that stuff. It's hard to tell in text format.
 
2013-12-15 02:51:44 AM

howdoibegin: CthulhuCalling: IlGreven: sendtodave: Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

Well, the citizen that traded it in for a fifty buck gift certificate obviously didn't need it.

I'd guess all the citizens that didn't trade their sniper rifles in did still need them.

For what?

No, really; I want to know what a sniper rifle could be used for that another firearm could not be.

So funny story-

Today I was out shooting in the desert with the wife. She has a Remington 700 chambered in 7mm (same model that the Army bases the M-24 on). I had my Ruger Scout (.308 Winchester- basically the same as the military 7.62x51 round) and my Tikka T3 in 300 WSM (.30 caliber). The Tikka is my hunting rifle, and it packs more knockdown power than most rifles the military is fielding today, with a few exceptions such as the .50 BMG and 338 Lapua.

The guys shooting near us were having a grand old time shooting up the desert, but between their inexperience and the growing pile of Budweiser bottles, they couldn't hit the 1 pound jar of Tannerite they set about 100 yards out. One of the guys staggered over and asked if I wanted to shoot their target. Now 100 yards is nothing, and the shot was easily made. The guys all cheered at the explosion and they hailed my Great Feat of Marksmanship. I asked them why they had me come over, and one of the guys said "well you have that cool sniper rifle there". Well, sorry guys, but this "sniper rifle" capable of shooting 4" groups at 600 yards is nothing but a hunting rifle.

That's really what sniper rifles are. They're just hunting rifles. The first sniper rifles WERE hunting rifles as in the early days of sniping, the military really didn't field anything acceptable for precision shooting, and up un ...

That's not a funny story. That's like me thinking it'd be awesome to tell you how knowledgeable I am about various strains of vegetables. I know my vegetables, check out my domain knowledge!


Iunno, man, I just completely lost it at "tannerite."

Lol, tannerite.
 
2013-12-15 02:51:48 AM

howdoibegin: Adolf Oliver Nipples: FTFA: "No assault-style weapons of the type Moore said are becoming the weapon of choice for criminals were turned in."

Bullshiat. The rate of usage for "assault weapons" in crime has held steady at around 2% for the last 30 years. I expect lies, but this one is just preposterous.

Cool. What's the number when used in murder sprees that kill over 5 people? We're not saying we're gunna stop crime, but isn't it nice not to have mass murder?


Very few, actually. Consider firstly that "mass shootings' (4+ murders via gun by one person at one place at one time) take less that 200 hundred lives a year. Consider secondly that even the most deadly of shooting sprees (Lubys and Virgina Tech) the weapon of choice were handguns. In short, semiautomatic rifles aren't the problem and its pretty wasteful to go after them.

Mass murderers are the problem, and without guns they'll use arson (47 lives), arson again (198 lives), car bombs, crashes, whatever.
 
2013-12-15 02:52:51 AM

howdoibegin: Adolf Oliver Nipples: FTFA: "No assault-style weapons of the type Moore said are becoming the weapon of choice for criminals were turned in."

Bullshiat. The rate of usage for "assault weapons" in crime has held steady at around 2% for the last 30 years. I expect lies, but this one is just preposterous.

Cool. What's the number when used in murder sprees that kill over 5 people? We're not saying we're gunna stop crime, but isn't it nice not to have mass murder?


Turns out that pistols are still the favoured weapons in that case. Also, pump action shotguns have been used as well (the Naval Yard shooting, for example). Rifles/carbines are just not used in crimes that often.
 
2013-12-15 02:54:14 AM

sycraft: howdoibegin: Adolf Oliver Nipples: FTFA: "No assault-style weapons of the type Moore said are becoming the weapon of choice for criminals were turned in."

Bullshiat. The rate of usage for "assault weapons" in crime has held steady at around 2% for the last 30 years. I expect lies, but this one is just preposterous.

Cool. What's the number when used in murder sprees that kill over 5 people? We're not saying we're gunna stop crime, but isn't it nice not to have mass murder?

Turns out that pistols are still the favoured weapons in that case. Also, pump action shotguns have been used as well (the Naval Yard shooting, for example). Rifles/carbines are just not used in crimes that often.


The obvious solution is to expand the definition of "assault weapon" to include any firearm model ever used in a homicide. As the term "assault weapon" is entirely arbitrary, such alteration is fully justified.

The state of California attempted to enact such an expansion, but the state governor -- evidently in the pocket of the National Rifle Association -- vetoed the legislation.
 
2013-12-15 02:54:30 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers
 
2013-12-15 02:55:14 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

 Gun control does work.    In this country people were heavily against any reforms on guns at all.     It is illegal to own a semi automatic rifle.   It is illegal to own any rifle or shotgun with high capacity magazines.  People got over it.  Besides the resounding reasoning of MURICA why do you need a large caliber semi automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine?
 
2013-12-15 02:56:13 AM

butt_made_baby: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

 Gun control does work.    In this country people were heavily against any reforms on guns at all.     It is illegal to own a semi automatic rifle.   It is illegal to own any rifle or shotgun with high capacity magazines.  People got over it.  Besides the resounding reasoning of MURICA why do you need a large caliber semi automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine?


Please define "large caliber" and "high capacity magazine".
 
2013-12-15 02:57:05 AM

sendtodave: Iunno, man, I just completely lost it at "tannerite."

Lol, tannerite.


well, when you're out in the desert with a case of Budweiser and "borrowed" dad's AR, you're probably highly entertained with Tannerite as well.
 
2013-12-15 02:57:13 AM

howdoibegin: Why are gun buyback programs dumb again?


They aren't necessarily dumb. They just don't curb gun crime, which is what they are intended to do. There are old widows with closets full of hunting rifles and war relics that they don't know what to do with, or how to even ensure they're safe. So these these programs might help them. But there is a potential historical loss depending on who knows what gets turned in. Thankfully these cops had sharp eyes and were fair about it.
 
2013-12-15 02:58:33 AM

butt_made_baby: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

 Gun control does work.    In this country people were heavily against any reforms on guns at all.     It is illegal to own a semi automatic rifle.   It is illegal to own any rifle or shotgun with high capacity magazines.  People got over it.  Besides the resounding reasoning of MURICA why do you need a large caliber semi automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine?


oh, this old chestnut again.
 
2013-12-15 02:58:51 AM

iheartscotch: stevarooni: iheartscotch: I'm kind of wondering about this "Japanese sniper rifle" thing. As far as I know; Japan really didn't have snipers; sure, they marksmen, but, snipers? They would have regarded sniping less than favorably. Especially with the huge revival of the bushido code preceding WW2. I'm betting it was a sporterized arisaka, with a modern scope, that was never a sniper rifle.

Yeah, the Japanese had sniper rifles,  iheartscotch, as variants of the Ariska Type 99 (MilitaryFactory.com).  There might have been a "revival of the bushido code", but the Japanese Imperial Army sure as hell weren't constrained by some ancient sense of honorable war, they fought to win and used dirty tricks when they had to.

I had known that the Japanese military used the bushido code to indoctrinate its populous. They must not have had too many snipers; or Iwo Jima and Okinawa would have been worse.


I'm not a weapons expert, but according to several different documentaries I've seen, backed up by accounts that I've read, by the time Iwo Jima and Okinawa rolled around, the Japanese weren't just lacking in snipers, but their weapons were abysmally substandard and their lack of decent ammunition led to some units executing suicidal bayonet charges straight into the teeth of Allied machine gun fire. The whole Kamikaze phenomenon wasn't limited to airplanes.

If the aforementioned Japanese sniper rifle were made before the war or at it's outset, chances are it would be a very well-made weapon, albeit a truly unspectacular one. By what accounts I've read, the Japanese, unlike the Germans, placed very little value on infantry weapons. Now if the sniper rifle were one of those made toward or at the end of the war, firing it would literally be taking your life into your hands, as it would more than likely to blow up in your face. (I watched a documentary with a little Brit expert named Mike Loades, and he said he wouldn't fire a Japanese rifle made at the end of the war because it was too fragile and poorly made.)

My two cents. I'm not a weapons expert, as I said, but I am an avid history buff. I'd be more interested in the Japanese sniper rifle as a piece of history than I would as a weapon.
 
2013-12-15 02:59:45 AM

Dimensio: butt_made_baby: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

 Gun control does work.    In this country people were heavily against any reforms on guns at all.     It is illegal to own a semi automatic rifle.   It is illegal to own any rifle or shotgun with high capacity magazines.  People got over it.  Besides the resounding reasoning of MURICA why do you need a large caliber semi automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine?

Please define "large caliber" and "high capacity magazine".



Over 6.5mm and over ten rounds.      http://parliamentflagpost.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/australian-gun-laws . html
 
2013-12-15 03:00:35 AM
butt_made_baby: *link to a Daily Show segment*

You expect people to take you seriously?
 
2013-12-15 03:01:02 AM

Danger Avoid Death: Frank N Stein: IlGreven: sendtodave: Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

Well, the citizen that traded it in for a fifty buck gift certificate obviously didn't need it.

I'd guess all the citizens that didn't trade their sniper rifles in did still need them.

For what?

No, really; I want to know what a sniper rifle could be used for that another firearm could not be.

You think any gun with some glass bolted to the top is a sniper rifle, don't you?

Unless the glass is a snow globe. Then the gun is a Christmas decoration.


"That's not a gun, its a lamp!" "Yeah but its loaded !"
 
2013-12-15 03:01:12 AM
Nowhere does it say that the illegal guns were refused. What it does say -- which is clear if you understand English -- is that only those with guns that met certain criteria were eligible for the gas cards. Don't you suspect that those with illegal weapons simply had those weapons confiscated? Do you really think the law enforcement officers said "that gun is illegal, you can keep it"?
 
2013-12-15 03:02:43 AM

Danger Avoid Death: If the aforementioned Japanese sniper rifle were made before the war or at it's outset, chances are it would be a very well-made weapon, albeit a truly unspectacular one. By what accounts I've read, the Japanese, unlike the Germans, placed very little value on infantry weapons. Now if the sniper rifle were one of those made toward or at the end of the war, firing it would literally be taking your life into your hands, as it would more than likely to blow up in your face. (I watched a documentary with a little Brit expert named Mike Loades, and he said he wouldn't fire a Japanese rifle made at the end of the war because it was too fragile and poorly made.)

My two cents. I'm not a weapons expert, as I said, but I am an avid history buff. I'd be more interested in the Japanese sniper rifle as a piece of history than I would as a weapon.


Same problem that the Germans had towards the end of the war, they were in a rush to get the weapons out the door and into the field that they took a lot of shortcuts. I'll admit that the Germans on their worst day in QA were probably still superior to what the Japanese were churning out, but as a historical piece... absolutely. Especially if the chrysanthemum cartouche is still intact.
 
2013-12-15 03:02:45 AM

Andulamb: Nowhere does it say that the illegal guns were refused. What it does say -- which is clear if you understand English -- is that only those with guns that met certain criteria were eligible for the gas cards. Don't you suspect that those with illegal weapons simply had those weapons confiscated? Do you really think the law enforcement officers said "that gun is illegal, you can keep it"?


Well, that's not very sporting, is it?

The cops just stole their illegal guns!
 
2013-12-15 03:02:48 AM

butt_made_baby: Dimensio: butt_made_baby: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

 Gun control does work.    In this country people were heavily against any reforms on guns at all.     It is illegal to own a semi automatic rifle.   It is illegal to own any rifle or shotgun with high capacity magazines.  People got over it.  Besides the resounding reasoning of MURICA why do you need a large caliber semi automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine?

Please define "large caliber" and "high capacity magazine".


Over 6.5mm and over ten rounds.      http://parliamentflagpost.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/australian-gun-laws . html


Then you advocate banning many popular hunting rifle calibers, despite rifles as a whole being less commonly utilized to commit murder than unarmed attacks. Please explain the rational and logical basis for establishing a ten-round magazine to be "standard" and an eleven-round magazine to be "high-capacity".
 
2013-12-15 03:03:21 AM

Andulamb: Nowhere does it say that the illegal guns were refused. What it does say -- which is clear if you understand English -- is that only those with guns that met certain criteria were eligible for the gas cards. Don't you suspect that those with illegal weapons simply had those weapons confiscated? Do you really think the law enforcement officers said "that gun is illegal, you can keep it"?


I'd hope so. But it is Louisiana, after all.
 
2013-12-15 03:04:29 AM

Frank N Stein: butt_made_baby: *link to a Daily Show segment*

You expect people to take you seriously?


You don't see the comedy aspect of the "BECAUSE MURICA AND MY SUV" reasoning behind your current gun laws?
 
2013-12-15 03:04:31 AM

butt_made_baby: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

 Gun control does work.    In this country people were heavily against any reforms on guns at all.     It is illegal to own a semi automatic rifle.   It is illegal to own any rifle or shotgun with high capacity magazines.  People got over it.  Besides the resounding reasoning of MURICA why do you need a large caliber semi automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine?


i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com

Yeah, they worked really well, that is to say, not at all. At least criminals aren't able to get guns at all, right?
Oh wait Jeweller Angelos Koots admits to making sub-machine guns at his Seven Hills home and supplying them to biker groups
i.imgur.com


"Backyard arms trader Angelos Koots admitted making up to 100 of the perfectly constructed MAC 10 machine guns - more commonly seen in war zones and believed to have been used in Sydney gang shootings - at his Seven Hills house.
The guns, sold with two magazines and a silencer, were of such quality that during "Mythbuster" style tests alongside a genuine MAC 10 they fired 600 rounds a minute.

Sydney District Court heard that Koots made the guns for an associate who had links to outlaw motorcycle gangs.
The high-powered made-to-order weapons were then sold at meetings organised by a Penrith gym owner and another syndicate member, with the transaction taking place opposite a McDonalds in Glenmore Park."

Well sure he's the only arms trafficker in Australia, right? Wrong!
"A LAKE Macquarie man who was making handguns  that fell into the hands of Newcastle drug dealers was jailed on Monday for four years and six months."


But hey, back to your statement: Why do you NEED religious liberty, or freedom of the press? Why do you NEED a court with presumption of innocence, why do you NEED protection from unreasonable searches and seizures? We could play this all day long.
 
2013-12-15 03:05:17 AM

butt_made_baby: Dimensio: butt_made_baby: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

 Gun control does work.    In this country people were heavily against any reforms on guns at all.     It is illegal to own a semi automatic rifle.   It is illegal to own any rifle or shotgun with high capacity magazines.  People got over it.  Besides the resounding reasoning of MURICA why do you need a large caliber semi automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine?

Please define "large caliber" and "high capacity magazine".


Over 6.5mm and over ten rounds.      http://parliamentflagpost.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/australian-gun-laws . html


Ah. Sweet. So these will be perfectly fine, then.

img.fark.net

Good to know where the line is.
 
2013-12-15 03:07:48 AM

butt_made_baby: Dimensio: butt_made_baby: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

 Gun control does work.    In this country people were heavily against any reforms on guns at all.     It is illegal to own a semi automatic rifle.   It is illegal to own any rifle or shotgun with high capacity magazines.  People got over it.  Besides the resounding reasoning of MURICA why do you need a large caliber semi automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine?

Please define "large caliber" and "high capacity magazine".


Over 6.5mm and over ten rounds.      http://parliamentflagpost.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/australian-gun-laws . html


you realize that .308 Winchester (7.62 mm) is one of the most popular hunting and sporting rounds in use? In fact you're asking to ban the entire .30 cal family - 300 Savage, 308 Winchester, 300 WM, 300 WSM, 30-06... in addition the third most popular hunting and sporting caliber, the 7-08, 7mm Magnum and the .270 Winchester? Do you intend for hunters to induce suffering on animals by requiring them to use calibers that are insufficient to quickly and humanely take game?

To what rationale is your limitation on 10 rounds for capacity?
 
2013-12-15 03:10:32 AM

CthulhuCalling: Danger Avoid Death: If the aforementioned Japanese sniper rifle were made before the war or at it's outset, chances are it would be a very well-made weapon, albeit a truly unspectacular one. By what accounts I've read, the Japanese, unlike the Germans, placed very little value on infantry weapons. Now if the sniper rifle were one of those made toward or at the end of the war, firing it would literally be taking your life into your hands, as it would more than likely to blow up in your face. (I watched a documentary with a little Brit expert named Mike Loades, and he said he wouldn't fire a Japanese rifle made at the end of the war because it was too fragile and poorly made.)

My two cents. I'm not a weapons expert, as I said, but I am an avid history buff. I'd be more interested in the Japanese sniper rifle as a piece of history than I would as a weapon.

Same problem that the Germans had towards the end of the war, they were in a rush to get the weapons out the door and into the field that they took a lot of shortcuts. I'll admit that the Germans on their worst day in QA were probably still superior to what the Japanese were churning out, but as a historical piece... absolutely. Especially if the chrysanthemum cartouche is still intact.


Yeah, that would make it a true rarity, indeed.
 
2013-12-15 03:10:38 AM

butt_made_baby: Frank N Stein: butt_made_baby: *link to a Daily Show segment*

You expect people to take you seriously?

You don't see the comedy aspect of the "BECAUSE MURICA AND MY SUV" reasoning behind your current gun laws?


No. Because that's essentially a straw man argument and can be disregarded.
 
2013-12-15 03:13:47 AM

Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.


That is horrible.

/ Hate it when historical guns are butchered this way.
 
2013-12-15 03:15:36 AM

Medic Zero: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

That is horrible.

/ Hate it when historical guns are butchered this way.


Don't see why.

The value in these old things is their rarity, right?

Well then, making it one-of-a-kind is even better!
 
2013-12-15 03:16:18 AM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: FTFA: "No assault-style weapons of the type Moore said are becoming the weapon of choice for criminals were turned in."

Bullshiat. The rate of usage for "assault weapons" in crime has held steady at around 2% for the last 30 years. I expect lies, but this one is just preposterous.


Aw, be a sport. How else will people fund the never ending militarization of our police if they aren't perpetually terrified?
 
2013-12-15 03:20:11 AM

Frank N Stein: HotWingAgenda: The only example that article mentioned of a gun that was refused was one that was so broken it couldn't possibly fire. It's not like they were rejecting sawed off shotguns and tommy guns with box mags.

ftfa
Not everyone left the Living Faith Christian Center on Winboure Avenue with a Circle K gas card for turning their unused and unwanted guns in to law enforcement officials, though.
They did not meet the criteria to receive a $50 Circle K gas card because their weapons were illegal


That sentence only says that some who turned in their guns did not receive a gift card. It doesn't say the owners were allowed to leave with the illegal weapons.
 
2013-12-15 03:21:22 AM

Medic Zero: Adolf Oliver Nipples: FTFA: "No assault-style weapons of the type Moore said are becoming the weapon of choice for criminals were turned in."

Bullshiat. The rate of usage for "assault weapons" in crime has held steady at around 2% for the last 30 years. I expect lies, but this one is just preposterous.

Aw, be a sport. How else will people fund the never ending militarization of our police if they aren't perpetually terrified?


Hey, if the bad guys have "military grade assault weapons," then the cops need them, too!
 
2013-12-15 03:21:33 AM

BayouOtter: butt_made_baby: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

 Gun control does work.    In this country people were heavily against any reforms on guns at all.     It is illegal to own a semi automatic rifle.   It is illegal to own any rifle or shotgun with high capacity magazines.  People got over it.  Besides the resounding reasoning of MURICA why do you need a large caliber semi automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine?

[i.imgur.com image 521x341]
[i.imgur.com image 523x342]

Yeah, they worked really well, that is to say, not at all. At least criminals aren't able to get guns at all, right?
Oh wait Jeweller Angelos Koots admits to making sub-machine guns at his Seven Hills home and supplying them to biker groups
[i.imgur.com image 650x366]


"Backyard arms trader Angelos Koots admitted making up to 100 of the perfectly constructed MAC 10 machine guns - more commonly seen in war zones and believed to have been used in Sydney gang shootings - at his Seven Hills house.
The guns, sold with two magazines and a silencer, were of such quality that during "Mythbuster" style tests alongside a genuine MAC 10 they fired 600 rounds a minute.

Sydney District Court heard that Koots made the guns for an associate who had links to outlaw motorcycle gangs.
The high-powered made-to-order weapons were then sold at meetings organised by a Penrith gym owner and another syndicate member, with the transaction taking place opposite a McDonalds in Glenmore Park."

Well sure he's the only arms trafficker in Australia, right? Wrong!
"A LAKE Macquarie man who was making handguns  that fell into the hands of Newcastle drug dealers was jailed on Monday for four years and six months."


But hey, back to your statement: Why do you NEED religious liberty, or freedom of the press? Why do you NEED a court with presumption of innocence, why do you NEED protection from unreasonable searches and seizures? We could play this all day long.


Gee, it couldn't be that gun regulations were put in effect in RESPONSE to a rising problem, could it?

No, they're all idiots and assholes STEALING OUR FREEDUMZ!
 
2013-12-15 03:23:57 AM
Which weapons aren't used for assault?
 
2013-12-15 03:23:58 AM

Enigmamf: BayouOtter: butt_made_baby: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

 Gun control does work.    In this country people were heavily against any reforms on guns at all.     It is illegal to own a semi automatic rifle.   It is illegal to own any rifle or shotgun with high capacity magazines.  People got over it.  Besides the resounding reasoning of MURICA why do you need a large caliber semi automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine?

[i.imgur.com image 521x341]
[i.imgur.com image 523x342]

Yeah, they worked really well, that is to say, not at all. At least criminals aren't able to get guns at all, right?
Oh wait Jeweller Angelos Koots admits to making sub-machine guns at his Seven Hills home and supplying them to biker groups
[i.imgur.com image 650x366]


"Backyard arms trader Angelos Koots admitted making up to 100 of the perfectly constructed MAC 10 machine guns - more commonly seen in war zones and believed to have been used in Sydney gang shootings - at his Seven Hills house.
The guns, sold with two magazines and a silencer, were of such quality that during "Mythbuster" style tests alongside a genuine MAC 10 they fired 600 rounds a minute.

Sydney District Court heard that Koots made the guns for an associate who had links to outlaw motorcycle gangs.
The high-powered made-to-order weapons were then sold at meetings organised by a Penrith gym owner and another syndicate member, with the transaction taking place opposite a McDonalds in Glenmore Park."

Well sure he's the only arms trafficker in Australia, right? Wrong!
"A LAKE Macquarie man who was making handguns  that fell into the hands of Newcastle drug dealers was jailed on Monday for four years and six months."


But hey, back to your statement: Why do you NEED religious liberty, or freedom of the press? Why do you NEED a court with presumption of innocence, why do you NEED protection from unreasonable searches and seizures? We could play this all day long.

Gee, it couldn't be that gun regulations we ...


Look at the graphs again. The problem wasn't rising until after the firearms bans.
 
2013-12-15 03:25:38 AM

CthulhuCalling: That's really what sniper rifles are. They're just hunting rifles. The first sniper rifles WERE hunting rifles as in the early days of sniping, the military really didn't field anything acceptable for precision shooting, and up until Vietnam, most believed that sniping was not a soldier's profession. Most sniper rifles, except for the big boys like the Barrett or MacMillan started out as civilian rifles. The M-24 that I shot while in the Army started out as a Remington 700 just like my wife's, and they just replace the stock, add a Leo scope, Harris bipod and make it all black. Same action as a 700, same caliber (.308 Winchester). My wife's 700 is capable of engaging a target (deer) 500+ yards, and its completely stock. I've taken shots past 800 yards with my Tikka. Are these sniper rifles?

Typically, while the military occasionally makes a leap ahead of the civilians in terms of technology, the military is more often than not the ones who are militarizing civilian firearms, accessories, and techniques.


Actually Ronnie Barrett first sold his rifles to civilians.  That was in 1982.  Sales to military customers came later.  MacMillan was a me-too in the market of .50BMG, starting in the late 1980s.  You're wrong about the original market for .50BMG rifles, but the next paragraph still holds true: military brass figured these things would be useful on the battlefield.
 
2013-12-15 03:32:54 AM

Dimensio: Please describe the technical difference between a sniper rifle and a conventional hunting rifle.


The person firing it.
 
2013-12-15 03:41:11 AM
penis
 
2013-12-15 03:42:26 AM

gfid: Dimensio: Please describe the technical difference between a sniper rifle and a conventional hunting rifle.

The person firing it.


what if a sniper is hunting deer?
 
2013-12-15 03:47:10 AM

gfid: Dimensio: Please describe the technical difference between a sniper rifle and a conventional hunting rifle.

The person firing it.


and boom goes the dynamite.
 
2013-12-15 03:58:15 AM

log_jammin: gfid: Dimensio: Please describe the technical difference between a sniper rifle and a conventional hunting rifle.

The person firing it.

what if a sniper is hunting deer?



Is he "on the clock" or "off the clock"?
 
2013-12-15 04:04:45 AM

IlGreven: I'd guess all the citizens that didn't trade their sniper rifles in did still need them.

For what?

No, really; I want to know what a sniper rifle could be used for that another firearm could not be


 Define the term 'sniper rifle' for us first. Usually it is used by the gun ban contingent, as it is here, to describe any bolt-action (single shot) hunting rifle. Its single-shot status is in contrast to the auto-loading rifle, which they define as an 'assault rifle'.
 Remember, they don't want to ban all rifles, just 'assault rifles' and 'sniper rifles'. They really only want restrictions on just those two types, those that auto-load and those that don't. They will leave the rest alone. Really.

 In this case it was a simple deer hunting rifle, and a marginal one at that. But since it had a scope on it, its a 'sniper rifle' now to that group, which no civilian legitimately can justify the need to engage targets that far away. This is opposed to a rifle without optics, which they define as a 'military-style tactical rifle', designed only to engage targets at close range, which obviously no civilian has a legitimate need to have.
 Remember, those are the only two types they need to ban; those with scopes, and those without.

 Its the same logic they use in ammo discussions about the two dangerous ammo types; 'armor piercing' 'cop killer' bullets (solid tip), and 'dum-dum' 'exploding bullets' (hollow tip). They really only want restrictions on just those two types, the ones with holes in the tip and the the ones without holes. They will leave the rest alone. Really.
 
2013-12-15 04:14:26 AM

butt_made_baby: Besides the resounding reasoning of MURICA why do you need a large caliber semi automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine?


I own an assault weapon because if I ever have to use it will be against people. As both it, and the Second Amendment, were designed for.
The Second Amendment was not simply placed there for 'hunting' or 'sporting purposes', or even state militias, no matter how some idiots try to spin it.
 
2013-12-15 04:22:57 AM

BayouOtter: BayouOtter: howdoibegin: Adolf Oliver Nipples: FTFA: "No assault-style weapons of the type Moore said are becoming the weapon of choice for criminals were turned in."

Bullshiat. The rate of usage for "assault weapons" in crime has held steady at around 2% for the last 30 years. I expect lies, but this one is just preposterous.

Cool. What's the number when used in murder sprees that kill over 5 people? We're not saying we're gunna stop crime, but isn't it nice not to have mass murder?

Very few, actually. Consider firstly that "mass shootings' (4+ murders via gun by one person at one place at one time) take less that 200 hundred lives a year. Consider secondly that even the most deadly of shooting sprees (Lubys and Virgina Tech) the weapon of choice were handguns. In short, semiautomatic rifles aren't the problem and its pretty wasteful to go after them.

Mass murderers are the problem, and without guns they'll use arson (47 lives), arson again (198 lives), car bombs, crashes, whatever.


Oklahoma City killed 168 people I believe, which is more than the previous 11 years worth of mass shootings. Current 30 year average is 15 deaths per year from an average of 2 shooters with 530 deaths from 83 incidences since 1983. To put that into perspective, lightning kills around 27 people annually.

Some when you consider there are an average of 2 people a year willing to commit mass murder out a potential 120 million (est 2012 18+ male population), you're kind of out of luck in stopping it. Unless you really want to go total police state and screen every man woman and child over 13 for mental illness annually and then find somewhere to put the millions that show positive for things like schizophrenia and various affective disorders.

Course you could ban scary black semi auto rifles and reduce total annual death by <100, you could ban large capacity magazines and save <10 lives maybe, as 99% of murders with firearms involve handguns.

Or, we could cut to the chase and work on stamping out poverty and hunger, which would reduce all crime significantly. But really, that smacks of effort and doesn't sell news.

Fun fact, our current US murder rate is around 4.7/100k and if we eliminated all firearm related violence it'd drop to around 1.46 (est 16k deaths w/ 11k firearms related) which is still higher than the majority of Europe which pops in around 1.2. So maybe we're just a violent group of people?
 
2013-12-15 04:29:22 AM
So if a gun was illegal to own, wouldn't those guns just get confiscated?

/naïve
 
2013-12-15 04:29:53 AM

Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.


You're trolling right?  Because you just covered pretty much every firearm ever made.
 
2013-12-15 04:30:59 AM
FTA: Guns less than .38 caliber were worth a $50 gas card while anything higher than .38 caliber was worth $100, except for assault-style weapons, which were worth $300.

So, what's a .38 going for? Inquiring minds and such.
 
2013-12-15 04:40:42 AM
It shoots through schools.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-12-15 04:46:58 AM

OgreMagi: Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

You're trolling right?  Because you just covered pretty much every firearm ever made.


You are mistaken. My statement addresses only all rifle models above .22LR. It does not encompass any .22LR caliber rifle, nor does it cover non-rifle firearms.
 
2013-12-15 04:55:14 AM

Dimensio: You are mistaken. My statement addresses only all rifle models above .22LR. It does not encompass any .22LR caliber rifle, nor does it cover non-rifle firearms.


Brenda Ann Spencer is OK with that. Just not with Mondays.
 
2013-12-15 04:56:45 AM

Dimensio: OgreMagi: Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

You're trolling right?  Because you just covered pretty much every firearm ever made.

You are mistaken. My statement addresses only all rifle models above .22LR. It does not encompass any .22LR caliber rifle, nor does it cover non-rifle firearms.


So what?  You've eliminated all hunting rifles.  So you'd like to see deer suffering while a hunter tries to track it when it's wounded so he can put a dozen more shots in it in the hopes of bringing it down?

But you don't understand our laws.  It has NOTHING to do with hunting.  Zip.  Nada.  Zilch.  Even if hunting were completely outlawed in the US, we would still have the Right to own the weapons.  Firearm ownership is considered as important is free press, free speech, and religious freedom.  If our government attempted to completely ban private ownership of firearms, there would be a civil war.
 
2013-12-15 05:08:51 AM

powhound: FTA: Guns less than .38 caliber were worth a $50 gas card while anything higher than .38 caliber was worth $100, except for assault-style weapons, which were worth $300.

So, what's a .38 going for? Inquiring minds and such.


More than $100. A good condition revolver would easily go for $200 depending on make/model, a .380 auto, could possibly net $200 unless it's some pot metal Saturday night special. In short, $50 for anything functional is a monetary loss for the seller most of the time and $100 may be going price for damaged goods.
 
2013-12-15 05:35:52 AM

sendtodave: Medic Zero: Adolf Oliver Nipples: FTFA: "No assault-style weapons of the type Moore said are becoming the weapon of choice for criminals were turned in."

Bullshiat. The rate of usage for "assault weapons" in crime has held steady at around 2% for the last 30 years. I expect lies, but this one is just preposterous.

Aw, be a sport. How else will people fund the never ending militarization of our police if they aren't perpetually terrified?

Hey, if the bad guys have "military grade assault weapons," then the cops need them, too!


Great, are we gonna give the cops bayonets now too?
 
2013-12-15 05:41:43 AM

Dimensio: OgreMagi: Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

You're trolling right?  Because you just covered pretty much every firearm ever made.

You are mistaken. My statement addresses only all rifle models above .22LR. It does not encompass any .22LR caliber rifle, nor does it cover non-rifle firearms.


Awesome! So I'm cool with my American-180 machine gun that was designed to quell prison riots with sheer masses of .22LR. 275 round magazines and a ridiculously high rate of fire sure make for one fun bullet hose. Accuracy is for suckers who are afraid of running out of ammo.

And you're cool with my Pfeifer-Zelinska revolver, chambered in .600 Nitro Express, right? Shoots 15mm bullets with 11,000 joules of energy. Oughta keep those ducks off my lawn.

And if I need to keep those same ducks off my back 40, a scoped .44 Mag should do the trick, or maybe one of those fancy .223 handguns they've got. I don't mind your restrictions one bit! You've left all the good toys completely untouched!

<sarcasm off>

Seriously though, firearms come in so many shapes, sizes, and purposes from makers ludicrously creative, that your restrictions become silly in comparison to what actually exists, not to mention what would exist when makers started working around your rules.
 
2013-12-15 05:58:07 AM

The_Sponge: log_jammin: gfid: Dimensio: Please describe the technical difference between a sniper rifle and a conventional hunting rifle.

The person firing it.

what if a sniper is hunting deer?


Is he "on the clock" or "off the clock"?


snipers are always on the clock.
 
2013-12-15 06:00:32 AM
"It's really for the unsecured guns," Moore said. "We're not thinking gangsters will turn in their guns."

dl.dropboxusercontent.com


The purpose of a buyback shouldn't be to expedite the "only outlaws will have guns" part of gun control with your own damn money.

/I think its a safe bet alot of those guns will go "missing" between the buyback and the crusher.
/Someones going to make alot of money selling them to gangsters.
 
2013-12-15 06:30:46 AM

flak attack: Enigmamf: BayouOtter: butt_made_baby: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

 Gun control does work.    In this country people were heavily against any reforms on guns at all.     It is illegal to own a semi automatic rifle.   It is illegal to own any rifle or shotgun with high capacity magazines.  People got over it.  Besides the resounding reasoning of MURICA why do you need a large caliber semi automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine?

[i.imgur.com image 521x341]
[i.imgur.com image 523x342]

Yeah, they worked really well, that is to say, not at all. At least criminals aren't able to get guns at all, right?
Oh wait Jeweller Angelos Koots admits to making sub-machine guns at his Seven Hills home and supplying them to biker groups
[i.imgur.com image 650x366]


"Backyard arms trader Angelos Koots admitted making up to 100 of the perfectly constructed MAC 10 machine guns - more commonly seen in war zones and believed to have been used in Sydney gang shootings - at his Seven Hills house.
The guns, sold with two magazines and a silencer, were of such quality that during "Mythbuster" style tests alongside a genuine MAC 10 they fired 600 rounds a minute.

Sydney District Court heard that Koots made the guns for an associate who had links to outlaw motorcycle gangs.
The high-powered made-to-order weapons were then sold at meetings organised by a Penrith gym owner and another syndicate member, with the transaction taking place opposite a McDonalds in Glenmore Park."

Well sure he's the only arms trafficker in Australia, right? Wrong!
"A LAKE Macquarie man who was making handguns  that fell into the hands of Newcastle drug dealers was jailed on Monday for four years and six months."


But hey, back to your statement: Why do you NEED religious liberty, or freedom of the press? Why do you NEED a court with presumption of innocence, why do you NEED protection from unreasonable searches and seizures? We could play this all day long.

Gee, it couldn't be that gun regulations we ...

Look at the graphs again. The problem wasn't rising until after the firearms bans.


The graphs say nothing about firearms being used in the robberies.
 
2013-12-15 07:21:57 AM

iheartscotch: I'm kind of wondering about this "Japanese sniper rifle" thing. As far as I know; Japan really didn't have snipers; sure, they marksmen, but, snipers? They would have regarded sniping less than favorably. Especially with the huge revival of the bushido code preceding WW2. I'm betting it was a sporterized arisaka, with a modern scope, that was never a sniper rifle.


It wasn't areal "revival" it was marketing to get young and ignorant pumped up to die for their country, and they attached it to bushido.

They would have absolutely no farking problem with snipers.
 
2013-12-15 07:25:51 AM

ElLoco: butt_made_baby: Dimensio: butt_made_baby: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

 Gun control does work.    In this country people were heavily against any reforms on guns at all.     It is illegal to own a semi automatic rifle.   It is illegal to own any rifle or shotgun with high capacity magazines.  People got over it.  Besides the resounding reasoning of MURICA why do you need a large caliber semi automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine?

Please define "large caliber" and "high capacity magazine".


Over 6.5mm and over ten rounds.      http://parliamentflagpost.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/australian-gun-laws . html

Ah. Sweet. So these will be perfectly fine, then.

[img.fark.net image 535x152]

Good to know where the line is.


Not quite.

These would be OK too.  I'm glad all the "military style" weapons are out of civilian hands.

i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-15 07:30:35 AM

GodComplex: Course you could ban scary black semi auto rifles and reduce total annual death by <100, you could ban large capacity magazines and save <10 lives maybe, as 99% of murders with firearms involve handguns.


Bans like that are idiotic.

I do support requiring private sellers to follow some sort of process to ensure they are selling to someone who is legal, and that it is tracked.


enry: The graphs say nothing about firearms being used in the robberies


So you think there was a spike of "armed robberies" using knives after the ban?

Either way after the ban robberies went up.
 
2013-12-15 07:35:48 AM

liam76: GodComplex: Course you could ban scary black semi auto rifles and reduce total annual death by <100, you could ban large capacity magazines and save <10 lives maybe, as 99% of murders with firearms involve handguns.

Bans like that are idiotic.

I do support requiring private sellers to follow some sort of process to ensure they are selling to someone who is legal, and that it is tracked.


enry: The graphs say nothing about firearms being used in the robberies

So you think there was a spike of "armed robberies" using knives after the ban?

Either way after the ban robberies went up.


Of course they did.  The victims were then disarmed by law and everyone knew it.
 
2013-12-15 08:25:40 AM
FTA:During the event, two men walked up on the sidewalk in front of Living Faith with signs saying they would pay cash for guns. They stayed for a few minutes without any takers before walking to a nearby Cracker Barrel.

/is it racist if I imagine these two as rednecks wearing wife beaters and flannel hunting caps?
 
2013-12-15 08:27:20 AM

liam76: GodComplex: Course you could ban scary black semi auto rifles and reduce total annual death by <100, you could ban large capacity magazines and save <10 lives maybe, as 99% of murders with firearms involve handguns.

Bans like that are idiotic.

I do support requiring private sellers to follow some sort of process to ensure they are selling to someone who is legal, and that it is tracked.


enry: The graphs say nothing about firearms being used in the robberies

So you think there was a spike of "armed robberies" using knives after the ban?

Either way after the ban robberies went up.


Therefore gun bans are ineffectve and because Iraq.

Maybe you should look further back in history. Maybe look at why the crime rates increased over that time. Maybe you should look at how much higher they would have been if firearms were still legal.

The mantra from gun nuts is that the crimes are committed with illegal weapons, presumably stolen from wholesome firearm owners. So wouldn't a buyback get that cache of weapons from potentially unsafe owners be a good thing?
 
2013-12-15 08:41:27 AM

enry: Maybe you should look further back in history.


You attacked the graphs because "armed robbery" didn't call out how many were with guns. I was pointing out how stupid that objection is.

Now if you want to change topics and say you have a problem with the tmeline of the graph, great, but the point you made that I responded to was still stupid.


enry: Maybe look at why the crime rates increased over that time. Maybe you should look at how much higher they would have been if firearms were still legal.


By all means present that if you think it is relevant, but it doesn't change how stupid it is to complain that the crimes may have been committed with weapons other than guns.

enry: The mantra from gun nuts is that the crimes are committed with illegal weapons, presumably stolen from wholesome firearm owners.


I am not a gun nut. I think most guns used in crimes are bought on the black market.
 
2013-12-15 08:58:08 AM
What the hell kind of streets do YOU live on? Mine sometimes gets some garbage that's been blown by the wind, but never have I seen an AK-47 or a Luger roll on past.
 
2013-12-15 09:07:07 AM
liam76: enry: Maybe you should look further back in history.

You attacked the graphs because "armed robbery" didn't call out how many were with guns. I was pointing out how stupid that objection is.

Now if you want to change topics and say you have a problem with the tmeline of the graph, great, but the point you made that I responded to was still stupid.


Yeah, no.  I have a problem with every part of the graph and most importantly, your interpretation of said graph:

enry: Maybe look at why the crime rates increased over that time. Maybe you should look at how much higher they would have been if firearms were still legal.

By all means present that if you think it is relevant, but it doesn't change how stupid it is to complain that the crimes may have been committed with weapons other than guns.


So you're saying that no other weapons could have been used to commit a crime?  Please proceed.

enry: The mantra from gun nuts is that the crimes are committed with illegal weapons, presumably stolen from wholesome firearm owners.

I am not a gun nut. I think most guns used in crimes are bought on the black market.


So getting those weapons off the street so they can no longer be used on the black market is a good thing.  Glad we can agree.
 
2013-12-15 09:16:52 AM

enry: Yeah, no. I have a problem with every part of the graph and most importantly, your interpretation of said graph:


I haven't given my interpretation, I was saying your claim that it wasn't just about armed robberies with guns was a stupid point.

enry: So you're saying that no other weapons could have been used to commit a crime? Please proceed.


No. And you have to be particularly stupid or dishonest to think that.

So you think there was a spike of "armed robberies" using knives after the ban?

Either way after the ban robberies went up


I made it pretty clear that armed robberies could be done with weapons other than guns, but the fact remains that armed robberies still increased.

enry: So getting those weapons off the street so they can no longer be used on the black market is a good thing.


This is a good point if you are too dick in the toaster stupid to realize that people will get paid more to sell them to people who will use them in crimes or people who will sell them to someone who will use them to commit a crime.

Like many anti gun moves this si nothing more than a feel good move with no impact on actual crime.
 
2013-12-15 09:19:45 AM

IlGreven: sendtodave: Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

Well, the citizen that traded it in for a fifty buck gift certificate obviously didn't need it.

I'd guess all the citizens that didn't trade their sniper rifles in did still need them.

For what?

No, really; I want to know what a sniper rifle could be used for that another firearm could not be.


Shooting something far away. A snubnose .38 can't do that.

What do I win?
 
2013-12-15 09:28:05 AM

liam76: enry: Yeah, no. I have a problem with every part of the graph and most importantly, your interpretation of said graph:

I haven't given my interpretation, I was saying your claim that it wasn't just about armed robberies with guns was a stupid point.

enry: So you're saying that no other weapons could have been used to commit a crime? Please proceed.

No. And you have to be particularly stupid or dishonest to think that.

So you think there was a spike of "armed robberies" using knives after the ban?

Either way after the ban robberies went up

I made it pretty clear that armed robberies could be done with weapons other than guns, but the fact remains that armed robberies still increased.


So in other words, you're not interpreting what's there, but from what you can see it's pretty clear that the availability of guns played a part in the level of armed robberies. And you seem to be missing critical pieces of data, so the graph is invalid. 

enry: So getting those weapons off the street so they can no longer be used on the black market is a good thing.

This is a good point if you are too dick in the toaster stupid to realize that people will get paid more to sell them to people who will use them in crimes or people who will sell them to someone who will use them to commit a crime.

Like many anti gun moves this si nothing more than a feel good move with no impact on actual crime.


Kinda like selling meth. I could make a lot of money doing it if only I knew someone to buy it from me and not get caught.  Great reasoning there, you mental cul-de-sac.
 
2013-12-15 09:29:39 AM

howdoibegin: Adolf Oliver Nipples: FTFA: "No assault-style weapons of the type Moore said are becoming the weapon of choice for criminals were turned in."

Bullshiat. The rate of usage for "assault weapons" in crime has held steady at around 2% for the last 30 years. I expect lies, but this one is just preposterous.

Cool. What's the number when used in murder sprees that kill over 5 people? We're not saying we're gunna stop crime, but isn't it nice not to have mass murder?


I'm betting it's still pretty low. Even a 100 yr old gun design like the 1911 can carry 7rnds in its stock form.

You're going to have to get more specific, like "but how many times has an assault rifle been been used to kill more than 10 people when a rifle has been used in mass murder at a school or movie theatre?"

That should get the results you are looking for.
 
2013-12-15 09:39:49 AM

CthulhuCalling: jayphat: Adolf Oliver Nipples: FTFA: "No assault-style weapons of the type Moore said are becoming the weapon of choice for criminals were turned in."

Bullshiat. The rate of usage for "assault weapons" in crime has held steady at around 2% for the last 30 years. I expect lies, but this one is just preposterous.

I caught that bit too. The only "assault weapons" becoming popular are the ones being brought in illegally from Mexico and those biatches are full on military assault rifles.

You mean the ones that were sent to Mexico from the US?


Sent to the Mexican government from the US government, yes.
 
2013-12-15 09:43:05 AM

symptomoftheuniverse: FTA:During the event, two men walked up on the sidewalk in front of Living Faith with signs saying they would pay cash for guns. They stayed for a few minutes without any takers before walking to a nearby Cracker Barrel.

/is it racist if I imagine these two as rednecks wearing wife beaters and flannel hunting caps?


While I'm sure they were , I bet they were dressed a little nicer.

I hope this was a morning thing, Cracker Barrel has good pancakes.
 
2013-12-15 09:45:45 AM

Ivan the Tolerable: butt_made_baby: Besides the resounding reasoning of MURICA why do you need a large caliber semi automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine?

I own an assault weapon because if I ever have to use it will be against people. As both it, and the Second Amendment, were designed for.
The Second Amendment was not simply placed there for 'hunting' or 'sporting purposes', or even state militias, no matter how some idiots try to spin it.


So basically, you are waiting for the day when you will have to use your weapons to fire on American soldiers and citizens.

Alrighty then.
 
2013-12-15 09:54:00 AM

jaybeezey: howdoibegin: Adolf Oliver Nipples: FTFA: "No assault-style weapons of the type Moore said are becoming the weapon of choice for criminals were turned in."

Bullshiat. The rate of usage for "assault weapons" in crime has held steady at around 2% for the last 30 years. I expect lies, but this one is just preposterous.

Cool. What's the number when used in murder sprees that kill over 5 people? We're not saying we're gunna stop crime, but isn't it nice not to have mass murder?

I'm betting it's still pretty low. Even a 100 yr old gun design like the 1911 can carry 7rnds in its stock form.

You're going to have to get more specific, like "but how many times has an assault rifle been been used to kill more than 10 people when a rifle has been used in mass murder at a school or movie theatre?"

That should get the results you are looking for.


Now you're getting confused. See, we're talking about rifles, assault rifles, and "assault weapons".
The first two terms have actual objective definitions that we can use to describe and discriminate.
A rifle is a firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder, featuring a helical grooved barrel.
An assault rifle is a rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge which features select-fire capability - that is it can fire in single, burst, or fully automatic mode.
An "assault weapon" is a nebulous term that is purposefully kept vague in order to confuse you into equating semi-automatic guns with certain colors and ergonomic features for fully automatic assault rifles.
 
2013-12-15 09:55:21 AM

enry: So in other words, you're not interpreting what's there,


No.

I am saying your complaint about the stat being "armed robbery" vs "gun robbery" is farking stupid.

Get it?

I really can't break it down any simpler as fark has no means to communicate by crayons.


enry: Kinda like selling meth. I could make a lot of money doing it if only I knew someone to buy it from me and not get caught.


Kind of like it, except
-it is legal for the overwhelming majority of Americans to buy guns
-it is legal for the overwhelming majority of Americans to own guns
-it is legal for the overwhelming majority of Americans to sell guns, and there is not duty to investigate if the person they are selling to can legally own them

Hmm, so I guess it is nothing like meth, unless you are a complete farking idiot. Which seems to be spot on for you. Congratulations enry, with that bit of stupid, you have achieved a tag. "Complete farking idiot, thinks selling meth is like selling guns"
 
2013-12-15 09:55:31 AM

Even With A Chainsaw: Ivan the Tolerable: butt_made_baby: Besides the resounding reasoning of MURICA why do you need a large caliber semi automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine?

I own an assault weapon because if I ever have to use it will be against people. As both it, and the Second Amendment, were designed for.
The Second Amendment was not simply placed there for 'hunting' or 'sporting purposes', or even state militias, no matter how some idiots try to spin it.

So basically, you are waiting for the day when you will have to use your weapons to fire on American soldiers and citizens.

Alrighty then.


Sometimes people need to be shot, whether they be bands of rampaging criminals or an invading foreign army.
 
2013-12-15 09:59:25 AM

liam76: enry: So in other words, you're not interpreting what's there,

No.

I am saying your complaint about the stat being "armed robbery" vs "gun robbery" is farking stupid.

Get it?


Hey now, maybe he believes that getting robbed or murdered by a guy with a knife is somehow better. Like you might be dead, but you can be all smug because you're not going to Super-Hell, which is where guns send their victims.

Notice also he dismisses the fact that biker gangs and other criminals are getting full-auto MAC-10 clones and pistols to use in their crimes. Some gun control.
 
2013-12-15 10:13:18 AM

SCUBA_Archer: jayphat:
So, I guess we shouldn't be using .223 rounds to kill gophers eh?

I can get .223 locally for 50 cents a round, can't find .22 anywhere for less than $1.00 a round.  You do the math.


The world has gone topsy turvy man!
 
2013-12-15 10:22:02 AM

iheartscotch: IlGreven: sendtodave: Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

Well, the citizen that traded it in for a fifty buck gift certificate obviously didn't need it.

I'd guess all the citizens that didn't trade their sniper rifles in did still need them.

For what?

No, really; I want to know what a sniper rifle could be used for that another firearm could not be.

I've used my nagant to hunt deer on many occasions. One of the most famous shots in WW2 was taken by a Russian sniper and a nagant. The deer don't stand a chance when you shoot them in the head.

/ they don't run far either


IIRC, he got his skills hunting 

howdoibegin: Adolf Oliver Nipples: FTFA: "No assault-style weapons of the type Moore said are becoming the weapon of choice for criminals were turned in."

Bullshiat. The rate of usage for "assault weapons" in crime has held steady at around 2% for the last 30 years. I expect lies, but this one is just preposterous.

Cool. What's the number when used in murder sprees that kill over 5 people? We're not saying we're gunna stop crime, but isn't it nice not to have mass murder?


Care to explain how gun buy back programs that aren't getting in "assault weapons" turned in are stopping mass murder.

I paid $150 to a friend for her shotgun that has a larger capacity than 5 rounds. Assault weapon? No. I paid her that money and then loaned it back to her indefinitely. She's so poor she was going to turn it in at a gun buyback and then not have anything to defend her house with.

CSB?
 
2013-12-15 11:29:42 AM
Throwing out a question here.

I hear stories about those guns that might have killed someone with a previous owner and get traded down.  Probably something like a .38 auto, 9mm or .38 revolver.

Do police do a ballistic test on those before they get destroyed?  It would be interesting to see if police do that like the NSA does data-mining.
 
2013-12-15 11:45:21 AM

Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.


You have no idea what you are talking about, but keep voting democrat.
 
2013-12-15 11:47:19 AM

Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.


Do people not look at the name of a poster when they reply or something?  This is incredible.   I never imagined you'd get so many bites when it's obvious that YOU'RE the one who said that.
 
2013-12-15 11:51:29 AM

Even With A Chainsaw: I own an assault weapon because if I ever have to use it will be against people. As both it, and the Second Amendment, were designed for.
The Second Amendment was not simply placed there for 'hunting' or 'sporting purposes', or even state militias, no matter how some idiots try to spin it.

So basically, you are waiting for the day when you will have to use your weapons to fire on American soldiers and citizens.

Alrighty then.


Do you buy car insurance, waiting for the day you will have to use it?

How about GFCI outlets?

Smoke detectors?
 
2013-12-15 11:51:32 AM

Enemabag Jones: Throwing out a question here.

I hear stories about those guns that might have killed someone with a previous owner and get traded down.  Probably something like a .38 auto, 9mm or .38 revolver.

Do police do a ballistic test on those before they get destroyed?  It would be interesting to see if police do that like the NSA does data-mining.


They do, but since these are no-questions-asked buybacks they don't have a name to put to the gun even if it comes up dirty, something unlikely enough under the best of circumstances (CSI notwithstanding, ballistic fingerprinting isn't even remotely effective).
 
2013-12-15 11:58:32 AM
twiztedjustin
Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle
So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.
No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.
Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.
You have no idea what you are talking about, but keep voting democrat.


I don't have a phd in military history, but saying a high powered rifle sniper rifle could be accurate. The idea of making loads designed to kill people didn't start well until after WWII. During wwii, generally the loads used were more the the .30-06. I think it is a higher powered round used for hunting. That is the brass the Japanese rifle uses for those that make their rounds at home. It seems accurate for a reporter.
 
2013-12-15 12:02:15 PM

Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.


Yeah but was the chrysanthemum filed off or was it left intact.

Could be a couple hundred in value difference.
 
2013-12-15 12:12:20 PM

liam76: liam76: GodComplex: Course you could ban scary black semi auto rifles and reduce total annual death by <100, you could ban large capacity magazines and save <10 lives maybe, as 99% of murders with firearms involve handguns.

Bans like that are idiotic.

I do support requiring private sellers to follow some sort of process to ensure they are selling to someone who is legal, and that it is tracked.


They're not idiotic, it's the wedge theory. Ya know the route that the nutjobs go to get religion into schools?

Mass murder happens, "you don't need high cap mags!" Mags get banned

Mass murder happens, "You don't need guns with magazines!" Mags get banned +1

Mass murder happens "You don't need semi-autos!" Semis get banned

Ad infnitum.

And the private sale background check thing is a joke. Do you really think someone who purchased a gun from an FFL is going to sell to some gangbanger on the street corner? Of course not. You'd sooner see someone sell to some middle easterner with a Taliban Johnny beard. No, the gangbanger is going to find someone he knows to either make a straw purchase or buy something hot off the street. We ain't exactly the most tolerant culture.
 
2013-12-15 12:14:44 PM

Enemabag Jones: twiztedjustin
Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle
So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.
No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.
Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.
You have no idea what you are talking about, but keep voting democrat.

I don't have a phd in military history, but saying a high powered rifle sniper rifle could be accurate. The idea of making loads designed to kill people didn't start well until after WWII. During wwii, generally the loads used were more the the .30-06. I think it is a higher powered round used for hunting. That is the brass the Japanese rifle uses for those that make their rounds at home. It seems accurate for a reporter.


oh dear...
 
2013-12-15 12:15:54 PM
Adolf Oliver Nipples
Enemabag Jones: Throwing out a question here.
I hear stories about those guns that might have killed someone with a previous owner and get traded down. Probably something like a .38 auto, 9mm or .38 revolver.
Do police do a ballistic test on those before they get destroyed? It would be interesting to see if police do that like the NSA does data-mining.
They do, but since these are no-questions-asked buybacks they don't have a name to put to the gun even if it comes up dirty, something unlikely enough under the best of circumstances (CSI notwithstanding, ballistic fingerprinting isn't even remotely effective).


Never heard that about ballistic fingerprinting, interesting.

But what if the number of the gift card number was recorded, as they are sometimes used. Now I have to put my lead-foil hat back on.
 
2013-12-15 12:18:35 PM

feckingmorons: I'll give anybody fifty bucks for a gun they own and don't want as long as it is not stolen or has a body on it.


That's the huge problem with gun buy backs. My cop buddy says that known gang members frequent them to get rid of guns used in crimes. Its a horrible execution of an ok idea.
 
2013-12-15 12:22:28 PM

stewbert: feckingmorons: I'll give anybody fifty bucks for a gun they own and don't want as long as it is not stolen or has a body on it.

That's the huge problem with gun buy backs. My cop buddy says that known gang members frequent them to get rid of guns used in crimes. Its a horrible execution of an ok idea.



There have been stories where these guns don't even get disposed of...the department sells them to someone who then sells them to people where they might or might not end up in the wrong hands all over again.
 
2013-12-15 12:31:43 PM

CthulhuCalling: jayphat: Adolf Oliver Nipples: FTFA: "No assault-style weapons of the type Moore said are becoming the weapon of choice for criminals were turned in."

Bullshiat. The rate of usage for "assault weapons" in crime has held steady at around 2% for the last 30 years. I expect lies, but this one is just preposterous.

I caught that bit too. The only "assault weapons" becoming popular are the ones being brought in illegally from Mexico and those biatches are full on military assault rifles.

You mean the ones that were sent to Mexico from the US?


Yeah the ones the State Department sells to the Mexican government.

http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/761727_re-ct-us-mexico-ct-u-s-gove rn ment-may-be-primary-suppliers.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/legal-us-gun-sales-to-mexico-arming-cart el s/
 
2013-12-15 12:35:37 PM

Giltric: stewbert: feckingmorons: I'll give anybody fifty bucks for a gun they own and don't want as long as it is not stolen or has a body on it.

That's the huge problem with gun buy backs. My cop buddy says that known gang members frequent them to get rid of guns used in crimes. Its a horrible execution of an ok idea.


There have been stories where these guns don't even get disposed of...the department sells them to someone who then sells them to people where they might or might not end up in the wrong hands all over again.


Up here in the NW it's illegal for cops to destroy anything that falls under curio & relic, which currently includes anything made prior to 1963. Other states actually forbid police from destroying them and require they get sold to a FFL. Which should make everyone happy cause background checks prevent crime, right?

Course the bigger problem is that they the anti-gun crowd can't advertise buybacks, cause people show up with cash and offer better deals.
 
2013-12-15 12:36:26 PM

butt_made_baby: Dimensio: butt_made_baby: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

 Gun control does work.    In this country people were heavily against any reforms on guns at all.     It is illegal to own a semi automatic rifle.   It is illegal to own any rifle or shotgun with high capacity magazines.  People got over it.  Besides the resounding reasoning of MURICA why do you need a large caliber semi automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine?

Please define "large caliber" and "high capacity magazine".


Over 6.5mm and over ten rounds.      http://parliamentflagpost.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/australian-gun-laws . html


So, I can still have this one?http://www.shopalexanderarms.com/Rifles-6.5_Grendel_-_M4_Tactical _Seri es_-_Complete_Rifle.html
 
2013-12-15 12:36:48 PM

GodComplex: And the private sale background check thing is a joke. Do you really think someone who purchased a gun from an FFL is going to sell to some gangbanger on the street corner? Of course not. You'd sooner see someone sell to some middle easterner with a Taliban Johnny beard. No, the gangbanger is going to find someone he knows to either make a straw purchase or buy something hot off the street. We ain't exactly the most tolerant culture


No, they may sell to someone they don't know too well though.

Also it would provide more tools to go after the straw purchaser.

And how do you think guns get to the "hot off the street" point? They start off from a FFL.
 
2013-12-15 12:37:37 PM

GodComplex: Giltric: stewbert: feckingmorons: I'll give anybody fifty bucks for a gun they own and don't want as long as it is not stolen or has a body on it.

That's the huge problem with gun buy backs. My cop buddy says that known gang members frequent them to get rid of guns used in crimes. Its a horrible execution of an ok idea.


There have been stories where these guns don't even get disposed of...the department sells them to someone who then sells them to people where they might or might not end up in the wrong hands all over again.

Up here in the NW it's illegal for cops to destroy anything that falls under curio & relic, which currently includes anything made prior to 1963. Other states actually forbid police from destroying them and require they get sold to a FFL. Which should make everyone happy cause background checks prevent crime, right?

Course the bigger problem is that they the anti-gun crowd can't advertise buybacks, cause people show up with cash and offer better deals.


Free market wins again.
 
2013-12-15 12:40:41 PM

CthulhuCalling: She has a Remington 700 chambered in 7mm


I bought a 700 and a box of 7mmM 20 years ago.

20 shots, 8 moose, 12 elk.

Time for another box.
 
2013-12-15 12:46:31 PM
You gun fetishists who are always complaining that people see your fetish as a fetish?

Yeah, Subby REALLY isn't helping your cause here.
 
2013-12-15 12:52:11 PM

liam76: GodComplex: And the private sale background check thing is a joke. Do you really think someone who purchased a gun from an FFL is going to sell to some gangbanger on the street corner? Of course not. You'd sooner see someone sell to some middle easterner with a Taliban Johnny beard. No, the gangbanger is going to find someone he knows to either make a straw purchase or buy something hot off the street. We ain't exactly the most tolerant culture

No, they may sell to someone they don't know too well though.

Also it would provide more tools to go after the straw purchaser.

And how do you think guns get to the "hot off the street" point? They start off from a FFL.


You kill someone and the DA will throw a slew of charges at you....you give up info and the DA will reduce the charges and you plea down.

The perp almost always gives up the person who supplied the gun, but usually the supplier is another criminal, and the gun was stolen.

If you think gun nuts are paranoid about Obama comin to tek er gunz .....why would they not be paranoid about selling guns to people. Wouldn't every potential purchaser be an undercover ATF/LEO agent who wants to bust someone for dealing without a license?
 
2013-12-15 12:52:47 PM
TFA says nothing about refusing to take illegal guns, just that you don't get the $50 for illegal guns.

Also from TFA: "It's really for the unsecured guns," Moore said. "We're not thinking gangsters will turn in their guns."  And there's even an example in TFA:

 Among those bringing in a gun was Tina Johnson, whose mother recently died. She said she wasn't comfortable keeping the .38-caliber handgun that had belonged to her mother.
"I always tried to get her to get rid of it, but she wanted it for protection," Johnson said. "She had other guns that were stolen from her in the past."


So, why is this a bad thing again?
 
2013-12-15 12:52:49 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: You gun fetishists who are always complaining that people see your fetish as a fetish?

Yeah, Subby REALLY isn't helping your cause here.


wtfamireading.jpg
 
2013-12-15 12:57:29 PM

sycraft: howdoibegin: Adolf Oliver Nipples: FTFA: "No assault-style weapons of the type Moore said are becoming the weapon of choice for criminals were turned in."

Bullshiat. The rate of usage for "assault weapons" in crime has held steady at around 2% for the last 30 years. I expect lies, but this one is just preposterous.

Cool. What's the number when used in murder sprees that kill over 5 people? We're not saying we're gunna stop crime, but isn't it nice not to have mass murder?

Turns out that pistols are still the favoured weapons in that case. Also, pump action shotguns have been used as well (the Naval Yard shooting, for example). Rifles/carbines are just not used in crimes that often.


Bingo.   the whole "rise in mass murder and school shootings" is a myth.  Having something scary to blame it on just makes telling the lie easier.  like the knockout game.
 
2013-12-15 01:02:18 PM
Report guns stolen.
Trade them for cash at "gun buy back".
cops give them back.
profit
 
2013-12-15 01:15:37 PM

Giltric: The My Little Pony Killer: You gun fetishists who are always complaining that people see your fetish as a fetish?

Yeah, Subby REALLY isn't helping your cause here.

wtfamireading.jpg


Lol..  she's been trying to make "gun fetishist" a thing for months now. Both of the farkers that use it aren't to bright.
 
2013-12-15 01:20:34 PM

the_cnidarian: Which weapons aren't used for assault?


The vast majority of guns in the U.S.?
 
2013-12-15 01:28:02 PM

Giltric: The perp almost always gives up the person who supplied the gun, but usually the supplier is another criminal, and the gun was stolen.


Citation needed.

And if most guns being used in crimes have been stolen, why don;t we have constant headlines of the daily stolen guns that must be happening to support it?


Giltric: If you think gun nuts are paranoid about Obama comin to tek er gunz .....why would they not be paranoid about selling guns to people.


Why would they be?

In most states you can sell to anybody and unless they have proof the seller knew the person couldn't own a gun they did nothing wrong.
 
2013-12-15 01:28:46 PM

Giltric: liam76: GodComplex: And the private sale background check thing is a joke. Do you really think someone who purchased a gun from an FFL is going to sell to some gangbanger on the street corner? Of course not. You'd sooner see someone sell to some middle easterner with a Taliban Johnny beard. No, the gangbanger is going to find someone he knows to either make a straw purchase or buy something hot off the street. We ain't exactly the most tolerant culture

No, they may sell to someone they don't know too well though.

Also it would provide more tools to go after the straw purchaser.

And how do you think guns get to the "hot off the street" point? They start off from a FFL.

You kill someone and the DA will throw a slew of charges at you....you give up info and the DA will reduce the charges and you plea down.

The perp almost always gives up the person who supplied the gun, but usually the supplier is another criminal, and the gun was stolen.

If you think gun nuts are paranoid about Obama comin to tek er gunz .....why would they not be paranoid about selling guns to people. Wouldn't every potential purchaser be an undercover ATF/LEO agent who wants to bust someone for dealing without a license?


Exactly. A while back, some cleric was making noise about how Muslims should be buying guns from gunshows to kill infidels cause there was no background check. And all I could think, was "go ahead, see how that works out for ya.'

And I'm not so sure there is such a thing as dealing without a license. Sure if you make more than $2k annually in profit the state might come down on you for not having a business license, but there is no law saying you can't sell your possessions, first sale clause and all.

Now, manufacturing for sale without a license, that gets you a visit from the party van.
 
2013-12-15 01:32:31 PM

liam76: Giltric: The perp almost always gives up the person who supplied the gun, but usually the supplier is another criminal, and the gun was stolen.

Citation needed.

And if most guns being used in crimes have been stolen, why don;t we have constant headlines of the daily stolen guns that must be happening to support it?


Why would petty theft be in the news? No one cares that guns are stolen. Do you hear about every car that's stolen?
 
2013-12-15 01:35:36 PM
GodComplex:
And I'm not so sure there is such a thing as dealing without a license. Sure if you make more than $2k annually in profit the state might come down on you for not having a business license, but there is no law saying you can't sell your possessions, first sale clause and all.

The ATF doesn't publish hard lines for determining when you cross the line from private seller to firearms dealer, but you can usually thumb-rule it. If you're buying guns in bulk to sell in bulk, you're probably a dealer. If you're not licensed as a dealer, the hammer comes down.
 
2013-12-15 01:39:51 PM

BayouOtter: GodComplex:
And I'm not so sure there is such a thing as dealing without a license. Sure if you make more than $2k annually in profit the state might come down on you for not having a business license, but there is no law saying you can't sell your possessions, first sale clause and all.

The ATF doesn't publish hard lines for determining when you cross the line from private seller to firearms dealer, but you can usually thumb-rule it. If you're buying guns in bulk to sell in bulk, you're probably a dealer. If you're not licensed as a dealer, the hammer comes down.


Good to know, I've had the FFL paperwork in my filing cabinet for years, but I just can't bring myself to deal with the ATF and their vagueness.
 
2013-12-15 01:44:33 PM

NEDM: Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

Do people not look at the name of a poster when they reply or something?  This is incredible.   I never imagined you'd get so many bites when it's obvious that YOU'RE the one who said that.


I am not actually attempting to "troll". I am attempting to issue statements so outlandish that the intent of sarcasm is obvious to any reader.
 
2013-12-15 01:48:49 PM

Dimensio: I am not actually attempting to "troll". I am attempting to issue statements so outlandish that the intent of sarcasm is obvious to any reader.


You got a huge number of angry responses for having deployed simple sarcasm. It's almost like the emotions involved in this issue cloud the judgment of people on both sides.
 
2013-12-15 01:52:32 PM

BigNumber12: Dimensio: I am not actually attempting to "troll". I am attempting to issue statements so outlandish that the intent of sarcasm is obvious to any reader.

You got a huge number of angry responses for having deployed simple sarcasm. It's almost like the emotions involved in this issue cloud the judgment of people on both sides.


I'd argue Poe's law, but that sarcasm is an actual argument from I've heard from people who don't grasp what a hunting rifle is.
 
2013-12-15 02:13:48 PM

liam76: Giltric: The perp almost always gives up the person who supplied the gun, but usually the supplier is another criminal, and the gun was stolen.

Citation needed.

And if most guns being used in crimes have been stolen, why don;t we have constant headlines of the daily stolen guns that must be happening to support it?


Giltric: If you think gun nuts are paranoid about Obama comin to tek er gunz .....why would they not be paranoid about selling guns to people.

Why would they be?

In most states you can sell to anybody and unless they have proof the seller knew the person couldn't own a gun they did nothing wrong.



http://extranosalley.com/?p=36406

~~84 percent of those guns were stolen in a burglary; including 4 percent stolen from a relative or a friend.
6 percent of those guns were confiscated and resold by a "law enforcement officer."
2 percent of those guns were stolen from the police or the military.
2 percent of those guns were stolen from a parcel or delivery service.
That leaves just six percent of guns recovered from arrestees that could properly be considered possible "crime guns" that could also have been legally purchased.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

This link is an interesting one and an example of how statistics are kept vague to be used to push an agenda.

They count a criminal paying money for a gun as proof that most guns are bought to be used for a crime...but ignore if that gun was first stolen before being sold to that criminal.

They have to go back to a 1994 study in order to claim most guns used in crime are acquired through straw purchases....but in 1994 the mandate for background checks was a year or two old....they also use that study to claim that a majority of guns are acquired without background checks...because unless you bought a gun from 1993 on you never went through a background check. Plus if you conduct a survey and 4 people have purchased a gun since 1994 and 400 people had purchased a gun prior to 1994 only 4 people were ever exposed to a mandatory background check. You could safely say that a majority of guns were bought without a background check.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

~According to the 1991 Survey of
State Prison Inmates, among those
inmates who possessed a handgun,
9% had acquired it through theft, and
28% had acquired it through an illegal
market such as a drug dealer or fence.
Of all inmates, 10% had stolen at least
one gun, and 11% had sold or traded
stolen guns.


Weird stats huh?


You ever wonder how the ATF is able to track all these guns without a national registry of firearms?

You ever wonder why the gun control crowd insists that crimes can not be solved without one?

Someone is telling half truths...I bet it is not the ones defending their rights.
 
2013-12-15 02:19:17 PM

GodComplex: Why would petty theft be in the news? No one cares that guns are stolen. Do you hear about every car that's stolen?


Are cars often used to murder people?

GodComplex: there is no law saying you can't sell your possessions, first sale clause and all


In some states there are restrictions where you have to go through a FFL. I have a problem with that, in that it is a pain in the ass and can easily be circumvented by going to another state under the table.

I support the right to sell what you own, but guns are dangerous tools. I have no problem with common sense restrictions, and the only way to ensure people follow them is to track sales. It should be done at the federal level, or at least with standard requirements across the US, and free to sellers.
 
2013-12-15 02:26:14 PM

BigNumber12: Dimensio: I am not actually attempting to "troll". I am attempting to issue statements so outlandish that the intent of sarcasm is obvious to any reader.

You got a huge number of angry responses for having deployed simple sarcasm. It's almost like the emotions involved in this issue cloud the judgment of people on both sides.


For fair consideration: I have read serious proposals to
* Ban all firearms
* Ban all semi-automatic firearms
* Ban all ammunition calibers capable of penetrating police body armour
* Ban silencers
* Mandate "insurance" for all firearm owners.
* Limit ammunition possession to no more than one-hundred, fifty, or even ten rounds at a time
* Ban ammunition reloading
* Assign liability, typically civil but sometimes criminal, when a firearm is criminally misused to not only the owner of the firearm but even the original seller of the firearm and to the manufacturer of the firearm.

I have also read civilian disarmament advocates seriously claim that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution in some way imposes a prohibition upon firearm ownership by any individual who is not a member of a militia.

As such, I can understand why my postings may incorrectly be assumed to be sincere; numerous civilian disarmament advocates have already demonstrated themselves to be extremely unintelligent and irrational.
 
2013-12-15 02:28:29 PM

Dimensio: BigNumber12: Dimensio: I am not actually attempting to "troll". I am attempting to issue statements so outlandish that the intent of sarcasm is obvious to any reader.

You got a huge number of angry responses for having deployed simple sarcasm. It's almost like the emotions involved in this issue cloud the judgment of people on both sides.

For fair consideration: I have read serious proposals to
* Ban all firearms
* Ban all semi-automatic firearms
* Ban all ammunition calibers capable of penetrating police body armour
* Ban silencers
* Mandate "insurance" for all firearm owners.
* Limit ammunition possession to no more than one-hundred, fifty, or even ten rounds at a time
* Ban ammunition reloading
* Assign liability, typically civil but sometimes criminal, when a firearm is criminally misused to not only the owner of the firearm but even the original seller of the firearm and to the manufacturer of the firearm.

I have also read civilian disarmament advocates seriously claim that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution in some way imposes a prohibition upon firearm ownership by any individual who is not a member of a militia.

As such, I can understand why my postings may incorrectly be assumed to be sincere; numerous civilian disarmament advocates have already demonstrated themselves to be extremely unintelligent and irrational.


You could make a mint and retire early if you started selling people tickets to see the Egress.

I might even buy one.
 
2013-12-15 02:31:25 PM

liam76: GodComplex: Why would petty theft be in the news? No one cares that guns are stolen. Do you hear about every car that's stolen?

Are cars often used to murder people?


I guess you've never heard of vehicular manslaughter? Even with Affluenza Boy in the headlines?
 
2013-12-15 02:34:02 PM

Giltric: http://extranosalley.com/?p=36406


What study did they get that from?


Giltric: They count a criminal paying money for a gun as proof that most guns are bought to be used for a crime...but ignore if that gun was first stolen before being sold to that criminal.


Lest say you are right.
A law that makes it a crime to sell a gun withotu going through some type of check is still a good thing, as you will have more laws to go after peopel selling guns to criminals for.


Giltric: You ever wonder how the ATF is able to track all these guns without a national registry of firearms?


Define track. They know where guns are coming from since manufacture after 94. In some states they know if they have changed hands. From that they can extrapolate things.


Giltric: Someone is telling half truths...I bet it is not the ones defending their rights


If you don't think the NRA lies, you haven't been paying attention.

/anti gun nuts do to
 
2013-12-15 02:34:17 PM

liam76: GodComplex: Why would petty theft be in the news? No one cares that guns are stolen. Do you hear about every car that's stolen?

Are cars often used to murder people?


Or maybe you wanted examples of premeditated murder by vehicle?
 
2013-12-15 02:36:02 PM

IamSoSmart_S_M_R_T: liam76: GodComplex: Why would petty theft be in the news? No one cares that guns are stolen. Do you hear about every car that's stolen?

Are cars often used to murder people?

I guess you've never heard of vehicular manslaughter? Even with Affluenza Boy in the headlines?


You are smarter than that...
 
2013-12-15 02:48:39 PM

Dimensio: BigNumber12: Dimensio: I am not actually attempting to "troll". I am attempting to issue statements so outlandish that the intent of sarcasm is obvious to any reader.

You got a huge number of angry responses for having deployed simple sarcasm. It's almost like the emotions involved in this issue cloud the judgment of people on both sides.

For fair consideration: I have read serious proposals to
* Ban all firearms
* Ban all semi-automatic firearms
* Ban all ammunition calibers capable of penetrating police body armour
* Ban silencers
* Mandate "insurance" for all firearm owners.
* Limit ammunition possession to no more than one-hundred, fifty, or even ten rounds at a time
* Ban ammunition reloading
* Assign liability, typically civil but sometimes criminal, when a firearm is criminally misused to not only the owner of the firearm but even the original seller of the firearm and to the manufacturer of the firearm.

I have also read civilian disarmament advocates seriously claim that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution in some way imposes a prohibition upon firearm ownership by any individual who is not a member of a militia.

As such, I can understand why my postings may incorrectly be assumed to be sincere; numerous civilian disarmament advocates have already demonstrated themselves to be extremely unintelligent and irrational.



I know. I've read those things too, on this site, ad nauseum. But yours was pretty damned transparent :-)

Interesting: Upon reading up, I had thought that suppressors were less legal than they actually are.
 
2013-12-15 02:51:51 PM

liam76: GodComplex: Why would petty theft be in the news? No one cares that guns are stolen. Do you hear about every car that's stolen?

Are cars often used to murder people?

GodComplex: there is no law saying you can't sell your possessions, first sale clause and all

In some states there are restrictions where you have to go through a FFL. I have a problem with that, in that it is a pain in the ass and can easily be circumvented by going to another state under the table.

I support the right to sell what you own, but guns are dangerous tools. I have no problem with common sense restrictions, and the only way to ensure people follow them is to track sales. It should be done at the federal level, or at least with standard requirements across the US, and free to sellers.


And this is why you will not get background checks, this is why people fight so hard against them.

You're trying to create a list of who has guns.  This is not acceptable.

It's not the background check that bothers people.  The vast majority people selling a gun privately would be happy to verify that the person they're selling to is not a criminal.  But unless you can guarantee that said background check will absolutely not be used to track anything, it's not acceptable.
 
2013-12-15 02:52:25 PM

BigNumber12: Interesting: Upon reading up, I had thought that suppressors were less legal than they actually are.


I purchased a suppressor in early February.

I was able to legally take possession of it on Thursday.
 
2013-12-15 02:53:08 PM
If you're a concerned citizen that wants to make sure Grandpa's evil  Mauser or Colt Single Action Army gets off the streets and becomes rebar for the next generation of buildings, will a $50 gift card affect that decision at all?  Most police stations will accept legally surrendered guns for disposal any day of the week.
 
2013-12-15 02:53:24 PM
Dimensio:

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

most military rounds today are 7.65 mm, which is smaller than most guns. for that matter a 32 cal fire just fine in said military guns.  no private citizen would be caught dead using a bullet that small.
 
2013-12-15 02:56:30 PM

violentsalvation: howdoibegin: Why are gun buyback programs dumb again?

They aren't necessarily dumb. They just don't curb gun crime, which is what they are intended to do. There are old widows with closets full of hunting rifles and war relics that they don't know what to do with, or how to even ensure they're safe. So these these programs might help them. But there is a potential historical loss depending on who knows what gets turned in. Thankfully these cops had sharp eyes and were fair about it.


Damn, hell of a thing to have just sitting in your closet for 60 years.
 
2013-12-15 03:00:15 PM

liam76: If you don't think the NRA lies, you haven't been paying attention.


The greatest threat to freedom is the absence of criticism....Wole Soyinka.

There are thousands of people here who won't let the NRA get away with lying. And maybe a couple dozen who won't let the gun control crowd get away with lying.

A couple dozen people keep the discussion from being boring circle jerks....same as in the politics tab.


liam76: Define track. They know where guns are coming from since manufacture after 94. In some states they know if they have changed hands. From that they can extrapolate things.


There is always a trail. They can go as far as the guy who bought it from an FFL. Then they ask that guy, who bought it from the FFL, who he sold it to. He either gives them a name or says someone stole it and can produce the police report confirming his reporting of it as stolen. If he sold it to someone the interview continues with that person and so on and so forth. It's old time police work though...not a lot of people are willing to do legwork...everyone wants an easy mode button.

Cops can do better things with their time than siting in the same spot for 3 hours catching one guy speeding.

liam76: What study did they get that from?


according to another article using the same stats...a 1993 study by Hubbard and Edgar that I can not find.

Plenty of cops and other LEO interviewed in articles on the net who claim a majority of the guns they come across are stolen though.
 
2013-12-15 03:04:48 PM

SCUBA_Archer: If you're a concerned citizen that wants to make sure Grandpa's evil Mauser or Colt Single Action Army gets off the streets and becomes rebar for the next generation of buildings, will a $50 gift card affect that decision at all?


Yeah, just call me!


DarkVader: You're trying to create a list of who has guns. This is not acceptable.


No I am not.

There are many way to track it so it isn't in a central list (which is already against the law).


DarkVader: The vast majority people selling a gun privately would be happy to verify that the person they're selling to is not a criminal.


That is BS otherwise the vast majority would use a FFL as a broker.

DarkVader: But unless you can guarantee that said background check will absolutely not be used to track anything, it's not acceptable


As pointed out above it is already against the law.

I don't like the vast majority of laws being passed in states wrt guns, but they are a response to the fed being paralyzed on gun matters. Even when it comes to common sense stuff that the NRA supported 10 or 15 years ago, even when it comes to things that most NRA members support.
 
2013-12-15 03:16:34 PM

Giltric: There are thousands of people here who won't let the NRA get away with lying. And maybe a couple dozen who won't let the gun control crowd get away with lying.


Dude, you lose a lot of crdability by pretending that the NRA is some lonely warrior fighting against big groups for the rights of gun owners. They have a huge industry at their back, and operate little differently than a gun lobby group.


Giltric: There is always a trail. They can go as far as the guy who bought it from an FFL. Then they ask that guy, who bought it from the FFL, who he sold it to. He either gives them a name or says someone stole it and can produce the police report confirming his reporting of it as stolen. If he sold it to someone the interview continues with that person and so on and so forth. It's old time police work though...not a lot of people are willing to do legwork...everyone wants an easy mode button.

Cops can do better things with their time than siting in the same spot for 3 hours catching one guy speeding.


Actually cops can't do that if the person is out of their jurisdiction. And what happens if the original buyer is out of state. It gets expensive quick. Never mind the guy who first bought it can legally say he forgot who he sold it to, or lost the name, etc. Completely legal in most states.

I do agree with you about how cops do a lot of shiat that wastes time.


Giltric: Plenty of cops and other LEO interviewed in articles on the net who claim a majority of the guns they come across are stolen though


Plenty say the opposite. Where does that leave us?

Also see above
 
2013-12-15 03:17:41 PM

Jesstur: Dimensio:

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

most military rounds today are 7.65 mm, which is smaller than most guns. for that matter a 32 cal fire just fine in said military guns.  no private citizen would be caught dead using a bullet that small.


Actually, 7.65mm is large form most standard issue small arms for military units today.  NATO standard is 5.56mm, the Russians are using the AK-74, which is even smaller at 5.45mm, the latest Chinese rifle is 5.8.  That iygs all right around .22 caliber.
 
2013-12-15 03:34:05 PM

liam76: Dude, you lose a lot of crdability by pretending that the NRA is some lonely warrior fighting against big groups for the rights of gun owners. They have a huge industry at their back, and operate little differently than a gun lobby group.


Not to step in, but I believe he's talking specifically about the gun debate on Fark.
 
2013-12-15 03:41:33 PM

Frank N Stein: liam76: Dude, you lose a lot of crdability by pretending that the NRA is some lonely warrior fighting against big groups for the rights of gun owners. They have a huge industry at their back, and operate little differently than a gun lobby group.

Not to step in, but I believe he's talking specifically about the gun debate on Fark.


Ah, if so Giltric, my apologies.
 
2013-12-15 04:54:53 PM
I like to think of gun buyback programs as a minimum "resale" value for folks who made the mistake of buying worn out used gun that jams constantly.
 
2013-12-15 06:02:19 PM
It seems like they should have a guns for tutus program.
 
2013-12-15 08:36:33 PM

liam76: Frank N Stein: liam76: Dude, you lose a lot of crdability by pretending that the NRA is some lonely warrior fighting against big groups for the rights of gun owners. They have a huge industry at their back, and operate little differently than a gun lobby group.

Not to step in, but I believe he's talking specifically about the gun debate on Fark.

Ah, if so Giltric, my apologies.



No blood, no foul.
 
2013-12-16 12:42:52 AM

Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.


Trolling or Stupid....or both.  I'm sure you don't realize that the most popular sniper rifle also happens to be the most popular hunting rifle....The Remington 700.  Not to mention the most popular sniper round is the 308 Winchester, which happens to be less powerful than the WW1 era, 30-06 (the most popular big game hunting cartridge.    Oh and while I'm at it, the military assault rifles that have your panties in a wad, mostly were developed from existing civilian calibers.

If you are trolling....you suck at it for making it too easy.   If you are just stupid, maybe you just learned something.
 
2013-12-16 12:49:10 AM

Dimensio: You are correct; mass murder is entirely impossible without use of a rifle featuring a pistol grip and adjustable stock.


I'm calling bullshiat on this one....everyone knows it's the flash suppressor and foregrip that make it possible to commit mass murder.
 
2013-12-16 01:00:33 AM

Dimensio: I am not actually attempting to "troll". I am attempting to issue statements so outlandish that the intent of sarcasm is obvious to any reader.


The problem here is that your "outlandish" statements sound very much like the batshiat crazy derp routinely coming for the bed wetting gun grabber wannabes.
 
2013-12-16 02:11:05 AM
We need an "opposite" font. It should be in the Add Comment box. I nominate black background with white letters.
 
2013-12-16 02:19:41 AM
Is the government still selling of M1 Garands cheaply? Wonderful rifle...
 
2013-12-16 02:20:32 AM

liam76: GodComplex: Why would petty theft be in the news? No one cares that guns are stolen. Do you hear about every car that's stolen?

Are cars often used to murder people?

GodComplex: there is no law saying you can't sell your possessions, first sale clause and all

In some states there are restrictions where you have to go through a FFL. I have a problem with that, in that it is a pain in the ass and can easily be circumvented by going to another state under the table.

I support the right to sell what you own, but guns are dangerous tools. I have no problem with common sense restrictions, and the only way to ensure people follow them is to track sales. It should be done at the federal level, or at least with standard requirements across the US, and free to sellers.


The problem with requiring to go to an FFL to transfer is they tend to charge money. This falls in the similar vein of 'poll tax' in which you are being required to spend money to exercise a right. It's also pointless because there is no national registry, as that's illegal, and thus no way to enforce this method. Now, if I could call up the NICS at no charge, I'd have no problem doing so.

And a great number of things are dangerous, yet I can freely purchase and own things without government interference. Things like crossbows, gatling guns, and flame throwers. The problem with 'common sense' restrictions is that it's tyranny. Saying, "I can take away your rights cause it's just common sense" is probably one of the most absurd arguments one could make. Course if we were arguing from common sense, we spend more time regulating ladders and making sure kids knew how to swim and less time trying to remove rights.

Common sense is the last defense of someone who has lost the debate, and thus should never be brought up.
 
2013-12-16 03:12:17 AM

GodComplex: liam76: GodComplex: Why would petty theft be in the news? No one cares that guns are stolen. Do you hear about every car that's stolen?

Are cars often used to murder people?

GodComplex: there is no law saying you can't sell your possessions, first sale clause and all

In some states there are restrictions where you have to go through a FFL. I have a problem with that, in that it is a pain in the ass and can easily be circumvented by going to another state under the table.

I support the right to sell what you own, but guns are dangerous tools. I have no problem with common sense restrictions, and the only way to ensure people follow them is to track sales. It should be done at the federal level, or at least with standard requirements across the US, and free to sellers.

The problem with requiring to go to an FFL to transfer is they tend to charge money. This falls in the similar vein of 'poll tax' in which you are being required to spend money to exercise a right. It's also pointless because there is no national registry, as that's illegal, and thus no way to enforce this method. Now, if I could call up the NICS at no charge, I'd have no problem doing so.

And a great number of things are dangerous, yet I can freely purchase and own things without government interference. Things like crossbows, gatling guns, and flame throwers. The problem with 'common sense' restrictions is that it's tyranny. Saying, "I can take away your rights cause it's just common sense" is probably one of the most absurd arguments one could make. Course if we were arguing from common sense, we spend more time regulating ladders and making sure kids knew how to swim and less time trying to remove rights.

Common sense is the last defense of someone who has lost the debate, and thus should never be brought up.


Not just charging money for them, many just plain won't do it. They make  a pittance off of it and are on the hook for keeping all the documentation. Add that to the fact that many people frankly don't live close to an FFL. I live in downtown Chicago. We can't even buy ammo inside the city limits, let alone find an FFL who would facilitate a transfer. I understand the desire to track purchases, so frankly I'm okay with how Illinois handles that. Check for FOID (doesn't apply to states w/o owner id/permit), call ISP to verify FOID validity, and keep record of sale (name, date, serial #) and on you go. Well I guess I think the waiting period is stupid, just a way to inconvenience people who want to purchase weapons. Seller doesn't have to furnish that record unless contacted by police with a warrant.
 
2013-12-16 06:53:11 AM

redmid17: GodComplex: liam76: GodComplex: Why would petty theft be in the news? No one cares that guns are stolen. Do you hear about every car that's stolen?

Are cars often used to murder people?

GodComplex: there is no law saying you can't sell your possessions, first sale clause and all

In some states there are restrictions where you have to go through a FFL. I have a problem with that, in that it is a pain in the ass and can easily be circumvented by going to another state under the table.

I support the right to sell what you own, but guns are dangerous tools. I have no problem with common sense restrictions, and the only way to ensure people follow them is to track sales. It should be done at the federal level, or at least with standard requirements across the US, and free to sellers.

The problem with requiring to go to an FFL to transfer is they tend to charge money. This falls in the similar vein of 'poll tax' in which you are being required to spend money to exercise a right. It's also pointless because there is no national registry, as that's illegal, and thus no way to enforce this method. Now, if I could call up the NICS at no charge, I'd have no problem doing so.

And a great number of things are dangerous, yet I can freely purchase and own things without government interference. Things like crossbows, gatling guns, and flame throwers. The problem with 'common sense' restrictions is that it's tyranny. Saying, "I can take away your rights cause it's just common sense" is probably one of the most absurd arguments one could make. Course if we were arguing from common sense, we spend more time regulating ladders and making sure kids knew how to swim and less time trying to remove rights.

Common sense is the last defense of someone who has lost the debate, and thus should never be brought up.

Not just charging money for them, many just plain won't do it. They make  a pittance off of it and are on the hook for keeping all the documentation. Add that to the fact th ...


I do believe that's the ultimate goal. Sure you can own guns, but you can only buy them from FFLs, oh did we forget to mention we don't issue FFLs anymore? Damn shame.
 
2013-12-16 08:35:45 AM

gregscott: Is the government still selling of M1 Garands cheaply? Wonderful rifle...


If by "cheaply" you mean around $950 for a rack grade rifle (meaning parts from 2-3 manufacturers), and a couple of grand for decent ones through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, than yes, yes they are.  You'll only have to wait 120-180 days for delivery if they have any available.
 
2013-12-16 09:24:54 AM
Imagine how many people trade in perfectly good, collectible guns for $50. I would CRY if I saw a Python in the pile.

If you don't want a gun, go to your local gun store and offer it to them. Chances are you will get more than $50 and prevent a great gun from getting melted.

Thinking further, these events need someone well versed in firearms to inspect them prior to trade in to prevent a travesty.
 
2013-12-16 10:19:07 AM

gregscott: Is the government still selling of M1 Garands cheaply? Wonderful rifle...


They're still selling 'em, but blocked the import of 850,000 that the South Koreans wanted to sell back to us.  So we've got that going for us, which is nice.
 
2013-12-16 10:30:50 AM
Is this a stupid question?

Coworker is a huge gun fan.  Spends all his spare income on them. Goes hunting.  Recently he talked about eating squirrel.  I asked if he used some kind of snare or cage trap for that.  He was offended.  OFFENDED.  Like I had implied something ill about his mother's honor.

"No, you shoot it."

I inquired what kind of impact that makes on the available meat.  While by no means a munitions expert, I suspected even a .22 would rip up your typical squirrel and reduce the aleady limited meat on a critter that size.  Again, deeply offended, he said he only hits them in the head.
 
2013-12-16 10:34:17 AM

Kyro: Is this a stupid question?

Coworker is a huge gun fan.  Spends all his spare income on them. Goes hunting.  Recently he talked about eating squirrel.  I asked if he used some kind of snare or cage trap for that.  He was offended.  OFFENDED.  Like I had implied something ill about his mother's honor.

"No, you shoot it."

I inquired what kind of impact that makes on the available meat.  While by no means a munitions expert, I suspected even a .22 would rip up your typical squirrel and reduce the aleady limited meat on a critter that size.  Again, deeply offended, he said he only hits them in the head.


Yeah, that or bark them.
 
2013-12-16 10:40:32 AM

Kyro: Is this a stupid question?

Coworker is a huge gun fan.  Spends all his spare income on them. Goes hunting.  Recently he talked about eating squirrel.  I asked if he used some kind of snare or cage trap for that.  He was offended.  OFFENDED.  Like I had implied something ill about his mother's honor.

"No, you shoot it."

I inquired what kind of impact that makes on the available meat.  While by no means a munitions expert, I suspected even a .22 would rip up your typical squirrel and reduce the aleady limited meat on a critter that size.  Again, deeply offended, he said he only hits them in the head.


Nah, it's not a stupid question.  People get offended at nothing all the time.  Asking how someone how they got their game shouldn't be offensive.

A .22lr is a small round.  Even a squirrel isn't ripped up too much from that round.  Head shots are ideal, as your coworker said.  Again, his level of butt-hurt is because he's ready to be angry, not the "stupidity" of your question; hunters who want their sport to be seen in a better light should be more open to answering even simple-seeming questions, because a lot of people aren't exposed to hunting at all.
 
2013-12-16 12:25:51 PM

GodComplex: The problem with requiring to go to an FFL to transfer is they tend to charge money.


I would open to it being free by police or paid for by the FFL, or even requiring the govt to reimburse FFL's at a flat rate.


GodComplex: This falls in the similar vein of 'poll tax' in which you are being required to spend money to exercise a right.


You have no right to sell guns to whomever you wish.


GodComplex: It's also pointless because there is no national registry, as that's illegal, and thus no way to enforce this method.


Not true.

You don't need a national registry to run a trace.

GodComplex: Common sense is the last defense of someone who has lost the debate, and thus should never be brought up


Right now there is no federal law preventing you as an individual selling guns to convicted felons or others that we as a society have decided lost the right to bear arms. If you don't like calling a policy to preven that "common sense" fine, but don't pretend it is anything but stupid.


redmid17: Not just charging money for them, many just plain won't do it.


As I said above there are other options. And it would be very easy to make it a condition to have a FFL.
 
2013-12-16 12:33:25 PM

liam76: redmid17: Not just charging money for them, many just plain won't do it.

As I said above there are other options. And it would be very easy to make it a condition to have a FFL.


That still doesn't sidestep the issue that many people live pretty far away from an FFL. I can call the Illinois state police and get a yes/no for free. I have to keep a record of the transaction for ten years.

That system is perfectly fine. Frankly shoving it off to FFLs, who don't want to do it, or police, who have enough work, just doesn't seem like a very good idea. Just opening up access to existing systems is easier and much more politically attainable.
 
2013-12-16 12:38:12 PM

redmid17: liam76: redmid17: Not just charging money for them, many just plain won't do it.

As I said above there are other options. And it would be very easy to make it a condition to have a FFL.

That still doesn't sidestep the issue that many people live pretty far away from an FFL. I can call the Illinois state police and get a yes/no for free. I have to keep a record of the transaction for ten years.


That was one of the other options I was discussing.

I am not saying it shoudl all be through a FFL.


redmid17: That system is perfectly fine.


It is a system where in many states you can sell guns to felons and not be committing a crime.
It is a system where you can sell a gun and claim you don't remember who you sold it to and have commited no crime.

That isn't a "perfectly fine" system.


redmid17: Frankly shoving it off to FFLs, who don't want to do it, or police, who have enough work, just doesn't seem like a very good idea. Just opening up access to existing systems is easier and much more politically attainable


Do it through the post office, it doesn;t have to be the police, but I don't like the idea of any random person ebing able to check if I can legally own a gun.
 
2013-12-16 12:43:07 PM
liam76: redmid17: That system is perfectly fine.

It is a system where in many states you can sell guns to felons and not be committing a crime.
It is a system where you can sell a gun and claim you don't remember who you sold it to and have commited no crime.

That isn't a "perfectly fine" system.


It doesn't work that way in Illinois, which is the state I was talking about.

redmid17: Frankly shoving it off to FFLs, who don't want to do it, or police, who have enough work, just doesn't seem like a very good idea. Just opening up access to existing systems is easier and much more politically attainable

Do it through the post office, it doesn;t have to be the police, but I don't like the idea of any random person ebing able to check if I can legally own a gun.


So you're fine with any random person being able to sell you a gun, but not check to see if you can purchase one? Tell me, what's the difference between me calling the Ill state police to get a yes/no versus taking it to the police station/FFL/post office?

Either way the person is going to know if you can possess a gun and your personal information is going to be kept on file as it is. Even if I sell through an FFL, I'm going to keep a copy of that information as it is. Frankly that's kind of a weird position to hold.
 
2013-12-16 01:02:41 PM

redmid17: It doesn't work that way in Illinois, which is the state I was talking about.


I live in Md, we have to go through a FFL, which is too far in IMHO.
But the point is that the piecemeal laws state to state don't help the problem.


redmid17: So you're fine with any random person being able to sell you a gun, but not check to see if you can purchase one?


No. I made it pretty clear I am against that. Hence why I am for universal background checks.


redmid17: Tell me, what's the difference between me calling the Ill state police to get a yes/no versus taking it to the police station/FFL/post office?


If you are there in person the police will know you actually want to buy it, vice some guy calling up tp find out info about peopel without their permission.


redmid17: Frankly that's kind of a weird position to hold


I think you miss my point.

I don't liek a system wher eyou can call up and get info about peopel who have no interest in buying a gun from you. I am nto talking abotu an actual seller knowing if the person they wan tto sell to knowing if the person can buy a gun.
 
2013-12-16 01:46:57 PM

liam76: redmid17: It doesn't work that way in Illinois, which is the state I was talking about.

I live in Md, we have to go through a FFL, which is too far in IMHO.
But the point is that the piecemeal laws state to state don't help the problem.


redmid17: So you're fine with any random person being able to sell you a gun, but not check to see if you can purchase one?

No. I made it pretty clear I am against that. Hence why I am for universal background checks.


redmid17: Tell me, what's the difference between me calling the Ill state police to get a yes/no versus taking it to the police station/FFL/post office?

If you are there in person the police will know you actually want to buy it, vice some guy calling up tp find out info about peopel without their permission.


redmid17: Frankly that's kind of a weird position to hold

I think you miss my point.

I don't liek a system wher eyou can call up and get info about peopel who have no interest in buying a gun from you. I am nto talking abotu an actual seller knowing if the person they wan tto sell to knowing if the person can buy a gun.


You realize you'd have to have identifying information right, stuff like DL, DOB, full name, et al. I can't just call up and say "Hey ISP, tell me whether or not this man can buy a gun." without it. They'd tell me to pound sand. I can run a background check on you with just your name and get largely the same information. I don't think you understand how the systems actually work.
 
2013-12-16 02:05:05 PM

redmid17: You realize you'd have to have identifying information right, stuff like DL, DOB, full name, et al. I can't just call up and say "Hey ISP, tell me whether or not this man can buy a gun." without it. They'd tell me to pound sand. I can run a background check on you with just your name and get largely the same information.



#1 Not for free you can't.
#2 That is a lot easier to fake or take from a person without their knowledge if they don't have to see anybody in person.


redmid17: I don't think you understand how the systems actually work.


A few posts up you said the system was fine, when in many states there is nothing stopping you from sellingt o felons.
 
2013-12-16 02:12:00 PM

liam76: redmid17: You realize you'd have to have identifying information right, stuff like DL, DOB, full name, et al. I can't just call up and say "Hey ISP, tell me whether or not this man can buy a gun." without it. They'd tell me to pound sand. I can run a background check on you with just your name and get largely the same information.


#1 Not for free you can't.
#2 That is a lot easier to fake or take from a person without their knowledge if they don't have to see anybody in person.


Correct. It costs ~$15 bucks. And I have no farking idea what you are talking about with respect to point 2. Are you saying that it's easier to bypass the system as a felon?

redmid17: I don't think you understand how the systems actually work.

A few posts up you said the system was fine, when in many states there is nothing stopping you from sellingt o felons.


I said the system in Illinois was fine. To refresh your memory:

I can call the Illinois state police and get a yes/no for free. I have to keep a record of the transaction for ten years.That system is perfectly fine.

I never talked about any other "system."
 
2013-12-16 02:25:25 PM

redmid17: Correct. It costs ~$15 bucks. And I have no farking idea what you are talking about with respect to point 2. Are you saying that it's easier to bypass the system as a felon?


I am saying if the buyer never has to be present in person to show ID to an official it is a lot easier to fake who you are selling it to.


redmid17: I never talked about any other "system."


#1 You chimed in when we were talking about the US. If we were talking about gay marriage in the US and you were arguing that there need to be a federal standard, and I said you can get married in MD the system is just fine, that would show I don't knwo what is going on.

#2 the system is just fine only if if you believe there is a magical barrier around Illinois where what happens in other states has no effect on them.
 
2013-12-16 02:33:29 PM
liam76: redmid17: Correct. It costs ~$15 bucks. And I have no farking idea what you are talking about with respect to point 2. Are you saying that it's easier to bypass the system as a felon?

I am saying if the buyer never has to be present in person to show ID to an official it is a lot easier to fake who you are selling it to.

Yes I suppose it's easier to fake the FOID or DL you need to present to the private seller as well as the personal information needed by the cops to vet the purchaser.

redmid17: I never talked about any other "system."

#1 You chimed in when we were talking about the US. If we were talking about gay marriage in the US and you were arguing that there need to be a federal standard, and I said you can get married in MD the system is just fine, that would show I don't knwo what is going on.

#2 the system is just fine only if if you believe there is a magical barrier around Illinois where what happens in other states has no effect on them.


Context is important. That is why I mentioned IL before I talked about the "system." It's also why I said "that" system directly after mentioning IL laws, instead of "the system" or "the US system." Plain conversation shouldn't be this hard mind you. I also never said anything about the disparate laws around the US either. The obvious inference from my post would be that it would be a good idea to expand that system to every state, especially if you actually bothered to read the last two sentences in the post:

Frankly shoving it off to FFLs, who don't want to do it, or police, who have enough work, just doesn't seem like a very good idea. Just opening up access to existing systems is easier and much more politically attainable.

I'm clearly not talking about the IL system, since private sellers already have access to the existing ISP system.

/also are you typing on a phone?
 
2013-12-16 02:58:53 PM

redmid17: liam76: redmid17: Correct. It costs ~$15 bucks. And I have no farking idea what you are talking about with respect to point 2. Are you saying that it's easier to bypass the system as a felon?

I am saying if the buyer never has to be present in person to show ID to an official it is a lot easier to fake who you are selling it to.

Yes I suppose it's easier to fake the FOID or DL you need to present to the private seller as well as the personal information needed by the cops to vet the purchaser.


Just to enlighten you a bit more, here is the statute:  http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/98/098-0508.htm

A step by step process:

1) Find gun you want to buy and arrange selling date/time/place
2) Purchaser shows FOID to Seller. Seller shows FOID to purchaser. (you have to have a FOID to even possess firearms/ammo in IL).
3) Seller contacts ISP to verify that the FOID is valid
4) Seller writes down FOID information, gun information, and date. Must keep for ten years
5) Purchaser smartly puts weapon in case, thanks seller, and drives off.

The only difference between the process is an FFL (or whomever as authorized by govt) looking at the exact same information and calling the exact same number.
 
2013-12-16 02:59:30 PM

redmid17: The obvious inference from my post would be that it would be a good idea to expand that system to every state, especially if you actually bothered to read the last two sentences in the post:

Frankly shoving it off to FFLs, who don't want to do it, or police, who have enough work, just doesn't seem like a very good idea. Just opening up access to existing systems is easier and much more politically attainable.


Opening access isn't requiring people to use them. It isn't obvious that you want all states to require this.

redmid17: I'm clearly not talking about the IL system, since private sellers already have access to the existing ISP system


You just said you were talking about IL in that statement.


That system is perfectly fine. Frankly shoving it off to FFLs, who don't want to do it, or police, who have enough work, just doesn't seem like a very good idea. Just opening up access to existing systems is easier and much more politically attainable

There is your whole statement. If the underlined is supposed to be about IL and the rest isn't you aren't being clear about it at all.

And at the end of the day this semantics abotu IL system or US system is meaningless because the system in IL is broken unless the problem is fixed for the rest fo the US.
 
Displayed 237 of 237 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report