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  
•       •       •

9474 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Dec 2013 at 1:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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"
 
Displayed 50 of 237 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report