Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   The Democratic paradise of Washington, DC has some of the most restrictive handgun laws in the nation, which means that the 1400 armed robberies that took place there last year are, like, totally a figment of your imagination   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 443
    More: Obvious, robbery, handguns, imaginations  
•       •       •

860 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Jan 2014 at 12:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-05 08:40:09 PM  

Doom MD: udhq: KIA: There won't be any such "compromise" unless you're prepared to register all of your means of First Amendment communication and subject them to regular inspection and fill out paperwork whenever they are transferred, then register your religion(s) along with the manner(s) in which you intend to practice them, and the place(s) in which you intend to assert privilege against illegal search and seizure, fill out applications for due process, knowing that if you make any mistake in any of that paperwork, your right will evaporate, then condition your rights to trial by jury, privilege against self-incrimination, and acknowledge that you have no protection against cruel or unusual punishments unless you've registered with some bureaucratic institution somewhere.

Except none of those other constitutional rights have come into direct conflict with the general welfare clause like the 2nd Amendment has when paired with modern technology the founders couldn't have imaged.

And when those other rights DO conflict with \general welfare, they ARE subject to restrictions, i.e. yelling "fire" in a theater.

Being responsible for the consequences of yelling fire in a crowded theater is vastly different than the mere act of owning a firearm. My owning a firearm does not interfere with your welfare.


Yes it does.  Actuarially speaking, choosing to own a gun raises the risk of death of everyone in your household, as well as that of your neighbors.  No matter how safe you think you are, gun ownership is inherently risky and it is more likely to kill or injure a member of your household than it is to deter a crime.

That's not necessarily an argument for prohibition, but the statistics themselves are not all even controversial.
 
2014-01-05 08:42:14 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: FARKLIBS be like
[www.troll.me image 550x413]

Login:Elvis Presleys Death Throne    (What's
Fark account number:830200
Account created:2012-12-20 07:46:53 (1 year ago)


Ahh, the Ultimate Lib Defense.  I had an account long before that one was created, 6 days after Sandy Hook.

I created a new one because a Liberal had made a death threat to someone on one of the Fark AWB threads at the time, and my handle had the remote possibility of revealing my identity and location.

I enjoy Fark, but not enough to worry about crazy people coming after me.
 
2014-01-05 08:42:26 PM  

Dimensio: What specific limitations do you propose?


The ones where I offer something reasonable, though vague, because this is a Fark thread, not a Congressional committee, that seems capable of accomplishing the goal of reducing gun crime without violating anyone's rights, and you pedantically nitpick them to death with ways they can be evaded while I try to explain to you that the possibility of evading detection is no reason not to have a law if the law in itself is reasonable.  Glad we got that out of the way.

Dimensio: How would those limitations survive a Constitutional challenge?


They probably wouldn't, which is why the Constitution would probably need amending first.
 
2014-01-05 08:42:30 PM  

udhq: hoosing to own a gun raises the risk of death of everyone in your household,


Higher than 100%?  Well, color me shocked.  Most of my math classes said 100% was as high as you could go.
 
2014-01-05 08:43:46 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Chummer45: udhq: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: That picture was just for you. You're only mad because you couldn't post it yourself, for gun owners who's constitutional rights had been stripped away.

No matter; that "discussed and renegotiated" thing got its ass kicked last year and I don't expect we'll be hearing from it any time soon.

It is good to see that your ilk never tire of that whole standing on the graves of dead kids thing though.

And your ilk never gets tired of enabling those who want to make more dead kids.

The right likes to say that the left is afraid of guns, but that's not true.  Guns are tools, and in the hands of well trained people, they can be used for good.  What we fear are guns in the hands of unhinged, anti-social people like you who see their guns not as a grave set of rights and responsibilities,  but as something to wave in the air to piss off the right people.

You don't seem to take gun ownership seriously at all, and the good gun owners out there should want you to sit down, shut up and stop making them all look like deranged adolescents.


To be fair, gun culture political beliefs are pretty deranged.  Once a person has accepted the proposition that owning a gun is a political statement, and that it is important to own a gun to protect you from our democratically elected government, then it's hard to consider that person anything other than somewhat delusional or deranged.

I'm a gun owner that gets completely disgusted by gun politics and gun fetishists.  Although I would not be in favor of outright bans on most weapons, I am in favor of regulating guns in a comprehensive and common-sense way.  I also have contempt for the insanely irresponsible and unethical gun industry and its political arm, the NRA.

I didn't know reasonable people like you existed.

Seriously, I understand the right to own a gun, a lot of my family hunts and I understand the need to protect your property. But I also understand the need to regulate who can ow ...



Yes.  But the problem is that the policy debate is, to a large extent, controlled by the NRA on the right.  And the NRA takes the absolutist view that any gun control is a slippery slope towards tyranny.

Of course, in practice the NRA is just a vehicle to promote insanely irresponsible policies that benefit the gun industry.  But their rhetorical strategy is to scare their members with the abstract notion that any gun regulations will lead directly to mass confiscation.  That's how they justify opposing even the most basic, common-sense regulations like closing the gun show loophole (which the vast majority of Americans - including most gun owners - support).  Of course, the real reason the NRA opposes closing the gun show loophole is because the gun industry wants the "freedom" to sell its wares with as little regulation as possible.
 
2014-01-05 08:43:54 PM  

The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.


The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there
 
2014-01-05 08:44:50 PM  

The Name: Dimensio: What specific limitations do you propose?

The ones where I offer something reasonable, though vague, because this is a Fark thread, not a Congressional committee, that seems capable of accomplishing the goal of reducing gun crime without violating anyone's rights, and you pedantically nitpick them to death with ways they can be evaded while I try to explain to you that the possibility of evading detection is no reason not to have a law if the law in itself is reasonable.  Glad we got that out of the way.

You are "poisoning the well".

 
2014-01-05 08:45:04 PM  

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there



Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.
 
2014-01-05 08:48:03 PM  

Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.


If you wanted to expand the NFA to all firearms, you better start with the 2nd amendment first.
 
2014-01-05 08:48:55 PM  

Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.


Glad you support repealing the Hughes amendment
 
2014-01-05 08:49:33 PM  

Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.


I suspect that few firearm owners in this nation would be amenable to imposing a regulation that mandated explicit approval by a local sheriff and then imposed a twelve to eighteen month wait for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives prior to pickup of any purchased firearm.
 
2014-01-05 08:52:09 PM  

udhq: Doom MD: udhq: KIA: There won't be any such "compromise" unless you're prepared to register all of your means of First Amendment communication and subject them to regular inspection and fill out paperwork whenever they are transferred, then register your religion(s) along with the manner(s) in which you intend to practice them, and the place(s) in which you intend to assert privilege against illegal search and seizure, fill out applications for due process, knowing that if you make any mistake in any of that paperwork, your right will evaporate, then condition your rights to trial by jury, privilege against self-incrimination, and acknowledge that you have no protection against cruel or unusual punishments unless you've registered with some bureaucratic institution somewhere.

Except none of those other constitutional rights have come into direct conflict with the general welfare clause like the 2nd Amendment has when paired with modern technology the founders couldn't have imaged.

And when those other rights DO conflict with \general welfare, they ARE subject to restrictions, i.e. yelling "fire" in a theater.

Being responsible for the consequences of yelling fire in a crowded theater is vastly different than the mere act of owning a firearm. My owning a firearm does not interfere with your welfare.

Yes it does.  Actuarially speaking, choosing to own a gun raises the risk of death of everyone in your household, as well as that of your neighbors.  No matter how safe you think you are, gun ownership is inherently risky and it is more likely to kill or injure a member of your household than it is to deter a crime.

That's not necessarily an argument for prohibition, but the statistics themselves are not all even controversial.


You clearly didnt grasp the nuance. Committing an action that hurts people (yelling fire in a theater) and owning a piece of metal and plastic ( a gun) are very different things.
 
2014-01-05 08:52:40 PM  

The Name: Dimensio: What specific limitations do you propose?

The ones where I offer something reasonable, though vague, because this is a Fark thread, not a Congressional committee, that seems capable of accomplishing the goal of reducing gun crime without violating anyone's rights, and you pedantically nitpick them to death with ways they can be evaded while I try to explain to you that the possibility of evading detection is no reason not to have a law if the law in itself is reasonable.  Glad we got that out of the way.

Dimensio: How would those limitations survive a Constitutional challenge?

They probably wouldn't, which is why the Constitution would probably need amending first.



To the latter point, Heller was a 5-4 decision.  All the Supreme Court needs is one conservative justice to retire and a progressive justice to take its place, and Heller (which overturned centuries of settled precedent)can be reversed.  Also, Heller itself was a very narrow holding, and only stands for the proposition that a jurisdiction cannot completely ban gun ownership.  Also, even the conservative Heller majority was careful to make clear that all sorts of gun regulations would be acceptable under the conservative majority's interpretation of the second amendment.
 
2014-01-05 08:52:43 PM  

redmid17: Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.

If you wanted to expand the NFA to all firearms, you better start with the 2nd amendment first.


Heh.  I like how so many of these conversations come down to: Farker: "Well, if we just got really serious about restricting gun ownership, then we'd have lower murder rates with little having been lost."  Fark gun nut: "You're right, but alas . . . . the second amendment."  Me: "Well, why don't we just amend it?"  Fark gun nut: "Um, no.  Because reasons."
 
2014-01-05 08:53:20 PM  

plewis: hubiestubert: etc.

Dude, stop with the rational thought.  This is a gun thread.

That said, I live in the district.  The concentration of people who make for tempting targets and the number of visitors here makes stricter gun control than the average place pretty reasonable.  Also, Congress lets us have only as much say in this kind of thing as they want to let us get away with, being the only place in the nation that can't vote for anyone with any power in congress.


A roll of coins in the hand would take your fatass out.
 
2014-01-05 08:54:19 PM  

Dimensio: Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.

I suspect that few firearm owners in this nation would be amenable to imposing a regulation that mandated explicit approval by a local sheriff and then imposed a twelve to eighteen month wait for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives prior to pickup of any purchased firearm.


You can get around the sheriff signature easily enough with a gun trust. I'd be more concerned jurisdictions that do not allow NFA weapons at all. I have a feeling it would take a while to get that sorted out in the courts.
 
2014-01-05 08:54:28 PM  

The Name: redmid17: Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.

If you wanted to expand the NFA to all firearms, you better start with the 2nd amendment first.

Heh.  I like how so many of these conversations come down to: Farker: "Well, if we just got really serious about restricting gun ownership, then we'd have lower murder rates with little having been lost."  Fark gun nut: "You're right, but alas . . . . the second amendment."  Me: "Well, why don't we just amend it?"  Fark gun nut: "Um, no.  Because reasons."


You are certainly welcome to advocate amendment of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, by attaining support of two-thirds of each branch of Congress and three-fourths of the states.
 
2014-01-05 08:56:59 PM  

The Name: redmid17: Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.

If you wanted to expand the NFA to all firearms, you better start with the 2nd amendment first.

Heh.  I like how so many of these conversations come down to: Farker: "Well, if we just got really serious about restricting gun ownership, then we'd have lower murder rates with little having been lost."  Fark gun nut: "You're right, but alas . . . . the second amendment."  Me: "Well, why don't we just amend it?"  Fark gun nut: "Um, no.  Because reasons."


I don't see a compelling reason to amend it given that there are other options which would be more effective at reducing the crime, politically feasible, and logistically possible. Even if the 2nd amendment were changed to accommodate that and the measure passed with overwhelming support, the sheer logistical and enforcement issues would be mind boggling.
 
2014-01-05 08:57:48 PM  

Dimensio: "Spree killings" committed with use of fully automatic weapons were not occurring with any frequency at all prior to the 1986 Hughes amendment to the Firearm Owner's Protection Act. Concern regarding occurrences of such incidents in the future is therefore not rationally justified.


But several have taken place since with weapons that violate the Hughs Amendment.  Technology has changed since then, and these weapons are better and more portable than they were when the ban was put in place.
 
2014-01-05 08:59:23 PM  

udhq: Dimensio: "Spree killings" committed with use of fully automatic weapons were not occurring with any frequency at all prior to the 1986 Hughes amendment to the Firearm Owner's Protection Act. Concern regarding occurrences of such incidents in the future is therefore not rationally justified.

But several have taken place since with weapons that violate the Hughs Amendment.  Technology has changed since then, and these weapons are better and more portable than they were when the ban was put in place.


Uhhhh, no.
 
2014-01-05 09:00:48 PM  

udhq: Dimensio: "Spree killings" committed with use of fully automatic weapons were not occurring with any frequency at all prior to the 1986 Hughes amendment to the Firearm Owner's Protection Act. Concern regarding occurrences of such incidents in the future is therefore not rationally justified.

But several have taken place since with weapons that violate the Hughs Amendment.  Technology has changed since then, and these weapons are better and more portable than they were when the ban was put in place.


Name one. Also might want to look up what the Hughes Amendment did, if you're not familiar with it.
 
2014-01-05 09:03:05 PM  

redmid17: I don't see a compelling reason to amend it given that there are other options which would be more effective at reducing the crime, politically feasible, and logistically possible.


But it would be somewhat effective, right?  Are you just not that serious about reducing crime?  Again, let's assume you get a direct vote on it.  Would you vote to repeal it to help fight crime?

redmid17: Even if the 2nd amendment were changed to accommodate that and the measure passed with overwhelming support, the sheer logistical and enforcement issues would be mind boggling.


As I said to Dimensio above, I'm not biting on logistics/enforcement concern trolling.
 
2014-01-05 09:03:24 PM  

HeadLever: udhq: hoosing to own a gun raises the risk of death of everyone in your household,

Higher than 100%?  Well, color me shocked.  Most of my math classes said 100% was as high as you could go. I have no idea how actuarial science works.


FTFY
 
2014-01-05 09:03:45 PM  

Doom MD: Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.

Glad you support repealing the Hughes amendment



wut
 
2014-01-05 09:05:45 PM  

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.

If you wanted to expand the NFA to all firearms, you better start with the 2nd amendment first.

Heh.  I like how so many of these conversations come down to: Farker: "Well, if we just got really serious about restricting gun ownership, then we'd have lower murder rates with little having been lost."  Fark gun nut: "You're right, but alas . . . . the second amendment."  Me: "Well, why don't we just amend it?"  Fark gun nut: "Um, no.  Because reasons."

I don't see a compelling reason to amend it given that there are other options which would be more effective at reducing the crime, politically feasible, and logistically possible. Even if the 2nd amendment were changed to accommodate that and the measure passed with overwhelming support, the sheer logistical and enforcement issues would be mind boggling.



Oh my, I know.  It's not like I am against changing the 2nd amendment. It's just that it would be sooooo hard to do it.  And quit blaming guns for stuff. They never hurt anyone!

Therefore, I am against changing the 2nd amendment.
 
2014-01-05 09:05:56 PM  

The Name: redmid17: I don't see a compelling reason to amend it given that there are other options which would be more effective at reducing the crime, politically feasible, and logistically possible.

But it would be somewhat effective, right?  Are you just not that serious about reducing crime?  Again, let's assume you get a direct vote on it.  Would you vote to repeal it to help fight crime?

redmid17: Even if the 2nd amendment were changed to accommodate that and the measure passed with overwhelming support, the sheer logistical and enforcement issues would be mind boggling.

As I said to Dimensio above, I'm not biting on logistics/enforcement concern trolling.


I've already said I would vote no. I'd like to address the root of the problem, not the symptom.

You're not biting on the logistics/enforcement/likelihood aspects for the same reason you haven't given any specifics when asked. You have nothing productive to add.
 
2014-01-05 09:10:49 PM  

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: I don't see a compelling reason to amend it given that there are other options which would be more effective at reducing the crime, politically feasible, and logistically possible.

But it would be somewhat effective, right?  Are you just not that serious about reducing crime?  Again, let's assume you get a direct vote on it.  Would you vote to repeal it to help fight crime?

redmid17: Even if the 2nd amendment were changed to accommodate that and the measure passed with overwhelming support, the sheer logistical and enforcement issues would be mind boggling.

As I said to Dimensio above, I'm not biting on logistics/enforcement concern trolling.

I've already said I would vote no. I'd like to address the root of the problem, not the symptom.

You're not biting on the logistics/enforcement/likelihood aspects for the same reason you haven't given any specifics when asked. You have nothing productive to add.


For fair consideration, providing specifics creates a real risk of factual refutation. As an example, an advocate of a federal "assault weapons ban" may be faced with being asked to explain why this is a legitimate civilian firearm, yet this is a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no possible legitimate civilian use and thus be forced to ignore the question entirely, to admit that the classification is entirely arbitrary and thus not in any way focused upon public safety or to admit a complete lack of understanding of the firearms technology that they advocate regulating.
 
2014-01-05 09:10:54 PM  

Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.

If you wanted to expand the NFA to all firearms, you better start with the 2nd amendment first.

Heh.  I like how so many of these conversations come down to: Farker: "Well, if we just got really serious about restricting gun ownership, then we'd have lower murder rates with little having been lost."  Fark gun nut: "You're right, but alas . . . . the second amendment."  Me: "Well, why don't we just amend it?"  Fark gun nut: "Um, no.  Because reasons."
I don't see a compelling reason to amend it given that there are other options which would be more effective at reducing the crime, politically feasible, and logistically possible. Even if the 2nd amendment were changed to accommodate that and the measure passed with overwhelming support, the sheer logistical and enforcement issues would be mind boggling.

Oh my, I know.  It's not like I am against changing the 2nd amendment. It's just that it would be sooooo hard to do it.  And quit blaming guns for stuff. They never hurt anyone!

Therefore, I am against changing the 2nd amendment.


I have actively said the entire thread I'm against changing the second amendment but I suppose reading is hard?
Feel free to check my post at 2014-01-05 05:18:20 PM.

And yes any kind of sweeping gun legislation needs to have logistics thought about very hard and very carefully. There are 310 or so million guns in the US. There are a million or so cops. A few agencies would have a hand as far as registration enforcement would go. ATF has a pretty sweet history of incompetence and a nice vindictive streak. The gov't would have to pour in hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to even get started.
 
2014-01-05 09:11:26 PM  

The Name: redmid17: Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.

If you wanted to expand the NFA to all firearms, you better start with the 2nd amendment first.

Heh.  I like how so many of these conversations come down to: Farker: "Well, if we just got really serious about restricting gun ownership, then we'd have lower murder rates with little having been lost."  Fark gun nut: "You're right, but alas . . . . the second amendment."  Me: "Well, why don't we just amend it?"  Fark gun nut: "Um, no.  Because reasons."



Hahah, exactly.  It's a multilayered approach to trying to justify terrible gun policy.  Like, once you can't justify your silly philosophical points any more, you retreat to "well, I'm not saying it's right.. the founding fathers said I'm right - right there in the constitution."  Like the views of the "founding fathers" (whatever that means) constitute decrees of infallible demigods.

And then when you say - why not amend it, they say "oh man, you know, that would just be so hard.  Plus criminals are the real problem.  plus blah blah blah guns don't kill people blah blah law abiding citizens liberty blah"

I
 
2014-01-05 09:11:57 PM  

Dimensio: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: I don't see a compelling reason to amend it given that there are other options which would be more effective at reducing the crime, politically feasible, and logistically possible.

But it would be somewhat effective, right?  Are you just not that serious about reducing crime?  Again, let's assume you get a direct vote on it.  Would you vote to repeal it to help fight crime?

redmid17: Even if the 2nd amendment were changed to accommodate that and the measure passed with overwhelming support, the sheer logistical and enforcement issues would be mind boggling.

As I said to Dimensio above, I'm not biting on logistics/enforcement concern trolling.

I've already said I would vote no. I'd like to address the root of the problem, not the symptom.

You're not biting on the logistics/enforcement/likelihood aspects for the same reason you haven't given any specifics when asked. You have nothing productive to add.

For fair consideration, providing specifics creates a real risk of factual refutation. As an example, an advocate of a federal "assault weapons ban" may be faced with being asked to explain why this is a legitimate civilian firearm, yet this is a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no possible legitimate civilian use and thus be forced to ignore the question entirely, to admit that the classification is entirely arbitrary and thus not in any way focused upon public safety or to admit a complete lack of understanding of the firearms technology that they advocate regulating.


That one is easy. Someone could poke their eye out on that threaded barrel. Not all of us want to live dangerously.
 
2014-01-05 09:12:47 PM  

redmid17: I'd like to address the root of the problem, not the symptom.


But why not address the symptom, too?  You've already come out in support of an unprecedentedly ambitious program of social welfare that would be incredibly difficult to implement in this country.  Why is the second amendment completely off the table?

redmid17: You're not biting on the logistics/enforcement/likelihood aspects for the same reason you haven't given any specifics when asked. You have nothing productive to add.


Now that I think about it, I'd like to hear some specifics on how you'd address the root of the problem.  Please use footnotes, not endnotes.  I don't like having to flip to the back all the time.
 
2014-01-05 09:13:02 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: DC is also a small geographic area.  Expand DC's gun control laws to VA and MD and the gun crime rate in DC would drop further.



It's cute that you really believe that. Let us know when you grow up and join the real world.
 
2014-01-05 09:13:51 PM  
The figment of your imagination is that loose handgun laws limit crime.
 
2014-01-05 09:14:31 PM  

redmid17: Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.

If you wanted to expand the NFA to all firearms, you better start with the 2nd amendment first.

Heh.  I like how so many of these conversations come down to: Farker: "Well, if we just got really serious about restricting gun ownership, then we'd have lower murder rates with little having been lost."  Fark gun nut: "You're right, but alas . . . . the second amendment."  Me: "Well, why don't we just amend it?"  Fark gun nut: "Um, no.  Because reasons."
I don't see a compelling reason to amend it given that there are other options which would be more effective at reducing the crime, politically feasible, and logistically possible. Even if the 2nd amendment were changed to accommodate that and the measure passed with overwhelming support, the sheer logistical and enforcement issues would be mind boggling.

Oh my, I know.  It's not like I am against changing the 2nd amendment. It's just that it would be sooooo hard to do it.  And quit blaming guns for stuff. They never hurt anyone!

Therefore, I am against changing the 2nd amendment.

I have actively said the entire thread I'm against changing the second amendment but I suppose reading is hard?
Feel free to check my post at 2014-01-05 05:18:20 PM.

And yes any kind of sweeping gun legislation needs to have logistics thought about very hard and very carefully. There are 310 or so millio ...



So you're pointing to a problem that the NRA and the gun culture created as an excuse not to change the law.

How convenient.  I guess creating problems that are hard to fix is good politics.
 
2014-01-05 09:15:16 PM  

Chummer45: The Name: Dimensio: What specific limitations do you propose?

The ones where I offer something reasonable, though vague, because this is a Fark thread, not a Congressional committee, that seems capable of accomplishing the goal of reducing gun crime without violating anyone's rights, and you pedantically nitpick them to death with ways they can be evaded while I try to explain to you that the possibility of evading detection is no reason not to have a law if the law in itself is reasonable.  Glad we got that out of the way.

Dimensio: How would those limitations survive a Constitutional challenge?

They probably wouldn't, which is why the Constitution would probably need amending first.


To the latter point, Heller was a 5-4 decision.  All the Supreme Court needs is one conservative justice to retire and a progressive justice to take its place, and Heller (which overturned centuries of settled precedent)can be reversed.  Also, Heller itself was a very narrow holding, and only stands for the proposition that a jurisdiction cannot completely ban gun ownership.  Also, even the conservative Heller majority was careful to make clear that all sorts of gun regulations would be acceptable under the conservative majority's interpretation of the second amendment.


Then magic, right. Magic and fairy tails, yeah.

What this country needs is it's guns ripped from them, then we can truly realize our dream.

Wake the fark up.
 
2014-01-05 09:16:06 PM  

theknuckler_33: The figment of your imagination is that loose handgun laws limit crime.


fark you asshole!

I watched a gun commit a crime on my way home from my volunteer work.

Right up your ass.
 
2014-01-05 09:17:27 PM  

redmid17: The gov't would have to pour in hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to even get started.


Cut the military by a fraction of a percentage point, and you've got all the funding you need right there.
 
2014-01-05 09:21:44 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Try banning water from the center of your bathtub.


Better analogy is try having a no peeing section of your pool.
 
2014-01-05 09:27:13 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: theknuckler_33: The figment of your imagination is that loose handgun laws limit crime.

fark you asshole!

I watched a gun commit a crime on my way home from my volunteer work.

Right up your ass.


The readings on my sarcasm detector are inconclusive. Perhaps my model is obsolete.
 
2014-01-05 09:28:15 PM  

The Name: redmid17: I'd like to address the root of the problem, not the symptom.

But why not address the symptom, too?  You've already come out in support of an unprecedentedly ambitious program of social welfare that would be incredibly difficult to implement in this country.  Why is the second amendment completely off the table?

redmid17: You're not biting on the logistics/enforcement/likelihood aspects for the same reason you haven't given any specifics when asked. You have nothing productive to add.

Now that I think about it, I'd like to hear some specifics on how you'd address the root of the problem.  Please use footnotes, not endnotes.  I don't like having to flip to the back all the time.


Because changing an amendment is incredibly hard to do, on top of the fact I don't think it needs to be changed. All of the legal legwork has already been done for the healthcare part. ACA was declared constitutional. Medicaid and Medicare have been around for 50 years.  There isn't an enforcement issue. Everyone gets healthcare coverage by default. You don't have to worry about digging around through people's like you might have to do for guns. There's no arrests. You would have to raise taxes and probably merge medicare/medicaid into whatever bureau would run it. It also wouldn't clog up the justice system.

Reid had the ability to nuke the filibuster when ACA was passed. The US could easily have had the single payer system Obama wanted. Now we have a pretty shiatty half-assed implementation that is pissing a lot of people off and enriching the companies who deserve it the least. shiat they could pass the single payer option this week if they wanted to.

Steps to reduce crime:
1) Release non-violent offenders from prison. shiat's expensive and keeping them in prison doesn't help anyting. Work on anti-recidivism programs. They're pretty successful in other countries
2) End the war on drugs (this one is obvious)
3) Expand healthcare like I noted above
4) Make sure mental healthcare is not stigmatized and available to everyone. Want to keep those spree shooters from happening
5) Provide job training and education opportunities for those who are unemployed or came from underprivileged backgrounds. Probably want to shift school funding from property taxes to a standardized per student model or something similar.

Those are all broad strokes. I've written this type of post before so I might be missing something really obvious.
 
2014-01-05 09:30:42 PM  

Chummer45: Like the views of the "founding fathers" (whatever that means) constitute decrees of infallible demigods.


Ugh, don't get me started on Americans and the Founding farking Fathers.
 
2014-01-05 09:31:57 PM  
Just to bring back some sanity to the gun thread for a moment, it's worth noting that there are gun laws that have historically had a positive effect.  Banning convicted criminals from owning guns has forced them largely to avoid temptation when they're trying to go legit, CCP training requirements certainly reduce the risk of licensed carriers doing something stupid with their guns, etc.

There are really only three centerpieces of gun control law that flat-out accomplish nothing: magazine size limits intentionally set several rounds below industry standards, flat-out municipal/state ownership bans, and cosmetic bans.  These are both kind of obviously stupid on basic logical grounds, and have proven ineffective when implemented.

A lot of the other stuff that's been proposed, like universalizing the ban on ownership by people that have been involuntarily committed to an institution, allowing the background check system to access mental health records where relevant, allowing anyone to access the background check system, and closing the stupid gun "collector" exemption loophole... are really good ideas.  And I say this as someone who has never  not had a gun or five somewhere in my living space.

//The gun-show loophole, especially, is  demonstrably the source of a decent portion of the guns used in crimes.  Arguing against closing that takes a pretty heavy dose of head-in-the sand.
//The main problem with the gun control movement is that the loudest people in it make the three completely discredited measures the centerpiece of their bullshiat.  If Obama was the visible leader of the gun-control push instead of Feinstein (he basically runs off of the last paragraph in what he's advocating) it'd be a lot more palatable to, y'know, sane people.
 
2014-01-05 09:32:12 PM  

The Name: redmid17: The gov't would have to pour in hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to even get started.

Cut the military by a fraction of a percentage point, and you've got all the funding you need right there.


I'd rather use that money for universal healthcare. When the DoD is actively telling Congress "we don't need more equipment" you know there is an issue.

Chummer45: So you're pointing to a problem that the NRA and the gun culture created as an excuse not to change the law.

How convenient.  I guess creating problems that are hard to fix is good politics.


Even if the NRA and gun culture disappeared overnight, changing an amendment is an incredibly high hurdle. 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states? I mean the states couldn't even agree on the child labor amendment or the equal rights amendment.
 
2014-01-05 09:33:22 PM  

udhq: HeadLever: udhq: hoosing to own a gun raises the risk of death of everyone in your household,

Higher than 100%?  Well, color me shocked.  Most of my math classes said 100% was as high as you could go. I have no idea how actuarial science works.

FTFY


Please explain.  Or are you going to bring it the 'hard science' fact that those that posses more of x have a greater likelihood of dying from said possession.

x can equal swimming pools, cars, guns or or whatever you really want.
 
2014-01-05 09:41:35 PM  

redmid17: Because changing an amendment is incredibly hard to do, on top of the fact I don't think it needs to be changed. All of the legal legwork has already been done for the healthcare part. ACA was declared constitutional. Medicaid and Medicare have been around for 50 years.  There isn't an enforcement issue. Everyone gets healthcare coverage by default. You don't have to worry about digging around through people's like you might have to do for guns. There's no arrests. You would have to raise taxes and probably merge medicare/medicaid into whatever bureau would run it. It also wouldn't clog up the justice system.

Reid had the ability to nuke the filibuster when ACA was passed. The US could easily have had the single payer system Obama wanted. Now we have a pretty shiatty half-assed implementation that is pissing a lot of people off and enriching the companies who deserve it the least. shiat they could pass the single payer option this week if they wanted to.

Steps to reduce crime:
1) Release non-violent offenders from prison. shiat's expensive and keeping them in prison doesn't help anyting. Work on anti-recidivism programs. They're pretty successful in other countries
2) End the war on drugs (this one is obvious)
3) Expand healthcare like I noted above
4) Make sure mental healthcare is not stigmatized and available to everyone. Want to keep those spree shooters from happening
5) Provide job training and education opportunities for those who are unemployed or came from underprivileged backgrounds. Probably want to shift school funding from property taxes to a standardized per student model or something similar.

Those are all broad strokes. I've written this type of post before so I might be missing something really obvious.


I did miss a really obvious one: Prosecute people who lie on a 4473. You'd be surprised how many fugitives and felons try to buy a gun legally. That's a five year sentence that would keep them off the street. It's not like you don't know where the person lives either. Don't even have to pick him or her up on the spot.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf
 
2014-01-05 09:41:47 PM  

redmid17: Because changing an amendment is incredibly hard to do


Stop with the "It's tooo HHAAAAAARRRD" crap.  Tell me why it doesn't need to be changed.  You have said in this thread that doing so, and following it up with more restrictive gun legislation, would in fact lead to a reduction in gun crime, even if a little bit.  Tell me why that little bit isn't worth you voting, in our hypothetical scenario, to amend or repeal it.

redmid17: You would have to raise taxes and probably merge medicare/medicaid into whatever bureau would run it.


You're proposing THAT as your eminently possible alternative to my idea?  Have you SEEN the current house of Reps?

redmid17: Those are all broad strokes.


Okay, so you've gotten us to America, circa 1950.  I can definitely see how some of those things would reduce crime, but you're not exactly setting up a Scandinavian welfare state.  You really, really oversold this plan.
 
2014-01-05 09:49:43 PM  

HeadLever: Please explain.  Or are you going to bring it the 'hard science' fact that those that posses more of x have a greater likelihood of dying from said possession.


A bit under 800 people in the US die from "accidental" (usually more like "negligent" but y'know, whatever) gunshot wounds in a given year.

Drowning in "recreational water settings" (the CDC's category, not mine-- so private pools, public pools, and self-contained/lifeguarded public swimming areas on lakes, basically) kills about 3000 to 4000 Americans a year.

As of 2010 apparently about 50% of households owned at least one firearm.  According to the CDC, roughly 40% of the US "cannot swim", so interaction in terms of "having this thing in the general area" is about the same.

So... there you go.  A swimming pool is statistically 5x more dangerous to have in your home than guns.  Actually, probably worse than that, since the CDC's drowning number doesn't tell me lifeguarded vs. non-lifeguarded and the unmonitored tub in your neighborhood your kid is playing around is probably in the latter category.

// That was kinda fun.  Usually you compare guns to cars, since they're both in the "useful equipment that's dangerous if you fark up while using it" category, and swimming pools are more... passive.  Cars kill 35-40 thousand Americans a year, btw, having an automobile is pretty much the biggest risk to your health outside of diet/heart disease.  Taking the bus statistically can easily save your life.
 
2014-01-05 09:53:32 PM  

Jim_Callahan: HeadLever: Please explain.  Or are you going to bring it the 'hard science' fact that those that posses more of x have a greater likelihood of dying from said possession.

A bit under 800 people in the US die from "accidental" (usually more like "negligent" but y'know, whatever) gunshot wounds in a given year.

Drowning in "recreational water settings" (the CDC's category, not mine-- so private pools, public pools, and self-contained/lifeguarded public swimming areas on lakes, basically) kills about 3000 to 4000 Americans a year.

As of 2010 apparently about 50% of households owned at least one firearm.  According to the CDC, roughly 40% of the US "cannot swim", so interaction in terms of "having this thing in the general area" is about the same.

So... there you go.  A swimming pool is statistically 5x more dangerous to have in your home than guns.  Actually, probably worse than that, since the CDC's drowning number doesn't tell me lifeguarded vs. non-lifeguarded and the unmonitored tub in your neighborhood your kid is playing around is probably in the latter category.

// That was kinda fun.  Usually you compare guns to cars, since they're both in the "useful equipment that's dangerous if you fark up while using it" category, and swimming pools are more... passive.  Cars kill 35-40 thousand Americans a year, btw, having an automobile is pretty much the biggest risk to your health outside of diet/heart disease.  Taking the bus statistically can easily save your life.


Swimming pools are not designed to kill, so the argument is invalid. Or something.
 
2014-01-05 09:53:49 PM  

The Name: redmid17: Because changing an amendment is incredibly hard to do

Stop with the "It's tooo HHAAAAAARRRD" crap.  Tell me why it doesn't need to be changed.  You have said in this thread that doing so, and following it up with more restrictive gun legislation, would in fact lead to a reduction in gun crime, even if a little bit.  Tell me why that little bit isn't worth you voting, in our hypothetical scenario, to amend or repeal it.

redmid17: You would have to raise taxes and probably merge medicare/medicaid into whatever bureau would run it.

You're proposing THAT as your eminently possible alternative to my idea?  Have you SEEN the current house of Reps?

redmid17: Those are all broad strokes.

Okay, so you've gotten us to America, circa 1950.  I can definitely see how some of those things would reduce crime, but you're not exactly setting up a Scandinavian welfare state.  You really, really oversold this plan.


1) I don't want it changed. How about that? In my view it's perfectly fine as is.
2) I guarantee you my proposal has a lot better chance of happening in the near or remote future than your's does. Do you not remember 4 years ago when we were debating more or less exactly what I outlined? If the Democrats had been such chickenshiats, then we'd have it already.

There are some things you'd have to extrapolate from the plan. Fewer felons from the war on drugs means fewer people DQ'ed from job searches because of a criminal records. Lack of opportunities to earn money are the primary catalyst in criminal activity. If you take the economic incentive out of things like drug dealing and turf wars -- ending war on drugs also meant legalizing and regulating most types of drugs if I wasn't clear -- there is no reason so shoot up a corner so you can deal drugs. I think you're really underestimating how effective this would be. Frankly there are a lot of things I'd like to take from Scandinavian and Canadian models. Like I said, these are broad strokes.
 
2014-01-05 09:59:22 PM  

Truther: TuteTibiImperes: DC is also a small geographic area.  Expand DC's gun control laws to VA and MD and the gun crime rate in DC would drop further.


It's cute that you really believe that. Let us know when you grow up and join the real world.


It's pretty simple: more guns and easier access to guns leads to more gun violence.  Take a look at this:

www.washingtonpost.com

The US leads the developed world in gun violence.  Sure, there are cultural and economic factors as well, but you can't tell me that there's not poverty in Greece, Poland, Ireland, or other nations on that list.

Plus, there have been scientific studies that show areas with higher firearm ownership have higher rates of gun violence.

Would expanding DC's restrictions to VA and MD completely solve the problem in DC?  No, guns would still find their way in, but it would certainly help reduce the number of guns going in and help alleviate the problem.  We'd need nationwide restrictions to really have a big effect.
 
Displayed 50 of 443 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report