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.

(CNN)   Good news: if you sold an assault rifle in the past year then you made a nice profit. Bad news: if you bought an assault rifle in the past year then you're a sucker   (money.cnn.com) divider line 723
    More: Obvious, assault weapons, Wedbush Securities, assault rifles, Sandy Hook, Thunder, Falls Church  
•       •       •

9773 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2014 at 3:13 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-09 10:46:32 PM  

sugar_fetus: Carn:Does banning them say he's going to come to your house and take them away?  Or might they perhaps have to do something like allow existing ones and ban new purchases, since it's absolutely unfeasible to go house to house so Mr. Obama can rip them from your hands?  If you start off viewing him as the devil, there's no other way to look at anything.

I never understood why you would want to ban something and not confiscate it as well. Does that mean the 'assault weapons' that are owned arent dangerous - or at least not dangerous enough to confiscate, and that only new ones are?


- Because if you're in favor of gun control (I'm elucidating the argument, not necessarily agreeing with it) you might want to take what you can get, rather than nothing at all.

Doesn't this create two types of citizens - those that can legally own 'assault weapons' because they owned them before the ban, and those who cannot own them? Is this how people want the laws to apply? How do you prove you owned the rifle before the ban? The last 'assault weapon' ban allowed you to buy and sell rifles that already existed, but not make new ones/ How was that supposed to lower crime?

- My understanding is similar to what someone else posted; reduction over time, through attrition.  "The perfect is the enemy of the good", would be the underlying thinking.

Afa "two types of citizens", well...it's a nice theory, but that ship sailed a LONG time ago.
 
2014-04-09 10:48:37 PM  

USP .45: shtychkn: USP .45: shtychkn: Are not not aware the "pro gun" group that rant about how Obama was going to take their guns were/are partially funded by gun manufactures?

I love this "as if" shiat where Obama is all pro gun now simply because he failed to get what he wanted.

If he had his way, assault weapons would be grandfathered, but buying, selling, transferring, or gifting of existing rifles would be prohibited, aka defacto ban like in New York. He doesn't take them, he lets death take them.

So, still can tell he answer:

Are you purposely ignorant or just plain stupid?

Do you purposefully listen to Maroon 5, or is it part of your beta male instincts?


That's right. Carrying the "great equalizer" make you an alpha.

Guess what. Some dont need guns to replace Their manhood.
 
2014-04-09 10:48:45 PM  

shtychkn: USP .45: shtychkn: Are not not aware the "pro gun" group that rant about how Obama was going to take their guns were/are partially funded by gun manufactures?

I love this "as if" shiat where Obama is all pro gun now simply because he failed to get what he wanted.

If he had his way, assault weapons would be grandfathered, but buying, selling, transferring, or gifting of existing rifles would be prohibited, aka defacto ban like in New York. He doesn't take them, he lets death take them.

So, still can tell he answer:

Are you purposely ignorant or just plain stupid?


Nope. He's right. Feinstein II: Thumbhole Bugaloo would have banned production, transfer, sale or inheritance of millions of currently legal guns. It would have made any "ugly" guns illegal for completely cosmetic reasons. President Obama supported it. When it died he said he would try to find other ways to make them illegal. That's all a matter of public record.

When Ugly Gun Ban I passed back in the 90s the usual suspects including Kennedy, Schumer and Feinstein said it was "just the beginning". Their next bills included 4000% tax on all gun parts, limits on how many you could buy, arsenal licenses that would have made you pay hundreds or thousands. of dollars in fees for owning a couple boxes of .22 ammunition.

They also included bans on "high power sniper rifles" which would have made the bolt action hunting rifles they claimed to support illegal.

This also gave Congress to the Greedy Old Pedo Party.
 
2014-04-09 10:49:19 PM  

tripleseven: USP .45: tripleseven: Until sandy hook there was no talk of gun control from Obama. The hysteria was brought up by the right based upon his previous legislation. I sincerely believe he had no intention whatsoever to enact any gun control legislation and he was praying to get through his tenure without a event forcing his hand.

During his presidency there was no talk, but historically there has been. Shame on the right for assuming he wouldn't be a politically opportunistic little hack when in office. All that Hope and Change confused everyone into thinking he would be principled.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

The most striking is "Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons." Which is a defacto ban on on everything I own, which gets "taken" when I die. Truly a sinister way to approach public policy; "you're dead so what do you care?"

You got played.


I know right? It's like, he takes these positions and then denies taking them at a later date.

Seems familiar...
 
2014-04-09 10:49:53 PM  

tripleseven: USP .45: 

Barrel shrouds don't allow or prevent rapid fire, and gun control advocates could care less if they prevent burns or not, they believe they assist in rapid fire WHICH IS WHY YOU BROUGHT IT UP.

So, in short, Derp! ?


In short, he's right. You're wrong. And since you know you're wrong but lampshade it by croaking "derp" you're also a liar
 
2014-04-09 10:52:01 PM  

anuran: tripleseven: USP .45: 

Barrel shrouds don't allow or prevent rapid fire, and gun control advocates could care less if they prevent burns or not, they believe they assist in rapid fire WHICH IS WHY YOU BROUGHT IT UP.

So, in short, Derp! ?

In short, he's right. You're wrong. And since you know you're wrong but lampshade it by croaking "derp" you're also a liar


Maybe you should read the entire thread.
 
2014-04-09 10:55:40 PM  

shtychkn: That's right. Carrying the "great equalizer" make you an alpha.

Guess what. Some dont need guns to replace Their manhood.


Obama must be the the gelding of the bunch then, sprinkling MRAPs all around the country like he's a tactical Johnny Appleseed. Strange how he says we need to get weapons of war off the streets, then in a very literal way, puts weapons of war on the streets...like ones that actually drive around on the streets.
 
2014-04-09 10:58:26 PM  

MylesHeartVodak: I have never been so conflicted as in the past year.

A co-worker who is openly gay, openly very liberal, and an ex-very pro gun control supporter announced that he bought an "assault rifle that could shoot 30 times before reloading."  I was very proud that he actually began to see the light, he saw what might have been a good opportunity, and he got involved in the shooting sports.  I offered to give him safety and shooting lessons, but he refused.  I offered advice on how to lock it up and secure the rifle.  Ignored.  He's not the most astute person, often irresponsible, he is physically clumsy and often shows very poor judgement.   He actually is among the crowd that really should never own a weapon, but I will defend his right to own it.

I am proud to see new enthusiasts to the sport, but am less than thrilled when they turn down open offers for education and training.  I even offered listings for accredited training courses.  "Nope, don't need them."  This is a person who I am glad to see change his mindset, but he lacks the background and foundation of safety rules, and he refuses to get training.

/Not even a CSB, just my own conflicted emotions.


I understand where you're coming from, but I land on the other side of the fence.  I'm pro-gun, but I won't defend that guy's right to own one.

Rights come with responsibilities.

And enough asshats like that guy endanger the right for the rest of us.
 
2014-04-09 11:05:55 PM  

USP .45: shtychkn: That's right. Carrying the "great equalizer" make you an alpha.

Guess what. Some dont need guns to replace Their manhood.

Obama must be the the gelding of the bunch then, sprinkling MRAPs all around the country like he's a tactical Johnny Appleseed. Strange how he says we need to get weapons of war off the streets, then in a very literal way, puts weapons of war on the streets...like ones that actually drive around on the streets.


OK. You officially made the "batshiat insane derper" list.

I bet your friends cousins gfs aunts saw a truck overturn on the highway and it was filled with martial law signs.
 
2014-04-09 11:17:19 PM  

tripleseven: USP .45: shtychkn: That's right. Carrying the "great equalizer" make you an alpha.

Guess what. Some dont need guns to replace Their manhood.

Obama must be the the gelding of the bunch then, sprinkling MRAPs all around the country like he's a tactical Johnny Appleseed. Strange how he says we need to get weapons of war off the streets, then in a very literal way, puts weapons of war on the streets...like ones that actually drive around on the streets.

OK. You officially made the "batshiat insane derper" list.

I bet your friends cousins gfs aunts saw a truck overturn on the highway and it was filled with martial law signs.


http://www.dailyiowan.com/2014/04/08/Opinions/37365.html

It's actually depressing knowing I'm arguing with some middle aged burden that doesn't know how to acquire and search for information on the internet.
 
2014-04-09 11:19:58 PM  
 
2014-04-09 11:21:03 PM  

USP .45: tripleseven: USP .45: shtychkn: That's right. Carrying the "great equalizer" make you an alpha.

Guess what. Some dont need guns to replace Their manhood.

Obama must be the the gelding of the bunch then, sprinkling MRAPs all around the country like he's a tactical Johnny Appleseed. Strange how he says we need to get weapons of war off the streets, then in a very literal way, puts weapons of war on the streets...like ones that actually drive around on the streets.

OK. You officially made the "batshiat insane derper" list.

I bet your friends cousins gfs aunts saw a truck overturn on the highway and it was filled with martial law signs.

http://www.dailyiowan.com/2014/04/08/Opinions/37365.html

It's actually depressing knowing I'm arguing with some middle aged burden that doesn't know how to acquire and search for information on the internet.


Ah so your just young and dumb.
 
2014-04-09 11:21:17 PM  

USP .45: tripleseven: USP .45: shtychkn: That's right. Carrying the "great equalizer" make you an alpha.

Guess what. Some dont need guns to replace Their manhood.

Obama must be the the gelding of the bunch then, sprinkling MRAPs all around the country like he's a tactical Johnny Appleseed. Strange how he says we need to get weapons of war off the streets, then in a very literal way, puts weapons of war on the streets...like ones that actually drive around on the streets.

OK. You officially made the "batshiat insane derper" list.

I bet your friends cousins gfs aunts saw a truck overturn on the highway and it was filled with martial law signs.

http://www.dailyiowan.com/2014/04/08/Opinions/37365.html

It's actually depressing knowing I'm arguing with some middle aged burden that doesn't know how to acquire and search for information on the internet.


I see...Obama delivered it personally. As if there hasn't been a militarization of the police going on for the past 25 years. Can you link to your assertion that Obama is dropping them allover the country?

Additionally, you do understand the definition of "opinion piece".
 
2014-04-09 11:23:30 PM  

cgremlin: sugar_fetus: Of course, I'll get no answers, merely insults.

Moran.

You asked intelligent, reasonable questions for which I too would like to see answers.  I just didn't want to disappoint you in case there were no other insults.


Awesome! Thank you very much! :-D
 
2014-04-09 11:25:20 PM  

USP .45: tripleseven: USP .45: shtychkn: That's right. Carrying the "great equalizer" make you an alpha.

Guess what. Some dont need guns to replace Their manhood.

Obama must be the the gelding of the bunch then, sprinkling MRAPs all around the country like he's a tactical Johnny Appleseed. Strange how he says we need to get weapons of war off the streets, then in a very literal way, puts weapons of war on the streets...like ones that actually drive around on the streets.

OK. You officially made the "batshiat insane derper" list.

I bet your friends cousins gfs aunts saw a truck overturn on the highway and it was filled with martial law signs.

http://www.dailyiowan.com/2014/04/08/Opinions/37365.html

It's actually depressing knowing I'm arguing with some middle aged burden that doesn't know how to acquire and search for information on the internet.


Its more depressing to know you don't understand time and dates. The program referenced in your article wasfrom 2006. Godammed obama and his time machine again.

Oh, so also from your article the are deploying surplus vehicles. What side of the aisle loves military spending and believes it should be sancrsanct.


I'll wait for your answer.
 
2014-04-09 11:25:58 PM  

ultraholland: gravy chugging cretin.: Are you intimidated yet?

[img.fark.net image 850x566]

of the patriotic gimp? Slightly.


I'm more frightened of his gun than his rifle.

/one is for fighting, one is for fun
 
2014-04-09 11:26:24 PM  

tripleseven: I see...Obama delivered it personally. As if there hasn't been a militarization of the police going on for the past 25 years. Can you link to your assertion that Obama is dropping them allover the country?


I know it's like Obama isn't even the president, with like, executive authority over all departments. Crazy right?

Additionally, you do understand the definition of "opinion piece".

I know right, it's like some right winger opinion pieced a fictional MRAP into a fictional town. Crazy right?

militarization of the police going on for the past 25 years.

I know right, it's like you didn't just call me a batshiat insane derper and then go and say the exact same thing with less actual evidence than me? Crazy right?
 
2014-04-09 11:31:51 PM  
ox45tallboy:The idea behind banning new sales is that when you limit the existing supply, not only does the price go up, but the number of guns actually begins to decline after some get damaged due to misuse, accidents, confiscations from criminals, and general wear and tear. Eventually, these types of guns are only held by those who appreciate them and would be extremely responsible with them, to the point of keeping them under lock and key constantly. The high price also results in fewer criminals being able to afford one, as opposed to right now when there is a glut in the used AR-15 market from so many people realizing Obama's not coming for them and they can sell the one they have now and buy another later.

It would take decades, or longer for the supply of 'assault weapons' to dry up in the US - more time than everyone here alive has.

If it's 'too dangerous' to sell, it's too dangerous to own. Period. People advocating 'banning but grandfathering' are being
intellectual dishonest and actually advocate banning and confiscation,. as long as the confiscation takesplace after the original owner is dead. It's theepitome of "I got mine - fsck you!"

Not much of a difference in the long run, and I'm looking out for not just our rights, but
our posterity. I will not trade my future descendants rights away.
 
2014-04-09 11:31:52 PM  

tripleseven: The program referenced in your article wasfrom 2006. Godammed obama and his time machine again.


Obama isn't the president and has no control over the DoD. This shiat is crazy. He can Executive Order some birth control, but can't stop the flow of MRAPs. Must be a difficult job to be the president and not the president at the same time.
 
2014-04-09 11:33:55 PM  

USP .45: tripleseven: The program referenced in your article wasfrom 2006. Godammed obama and his time machine again.

Obama isn't the president and has no control over the DoD. This shiat is crazy. He can Executive Order some birth control, but can't stop the flow of MRAPs. Must be a difficult job to be the president and not the president at the same time.


What have you done to elect representation that will solve this problem?
 
2014-04-09 11:36:15 PM  

tripleseven: Let me ask you this, when you last voted, did you support a candidate that is pro military spending?


Depends on how recently. Democrats are currently the ultranationalist, Big Security, hawk party of intervention and drone strikes on brown people. Whereas Republicans are the "let them kill each other so I can not get molested by TSA" party.

Must suck to have become what you hate eh?
 
2014-04-09 11:37:48 PM  

USP .45: tripleseven: Let me ask you this, when you last voted, did you support a candidate that is pro military spending?

Depends on how recently. Democrats are currently the ultranationalist, Big Security, hawk party of intervention and drone strikes on brown people. Whereas Republicans are the "let them kill each other so I can not get molested by TSA" party.

Must suck to have become what you hate eh?


Does it hurt being a caricature?
 
2014-04-09 11:39:42 PM  

tripleseven: USP .45: tripleseven: The program referenced in your article wasfrom 2006. Godammed obama and his time machine again.

Obama isn't the president and has no control over the DoD. This shiat is crazy. He can Executive Order some birth control, but can't stop the flow of MRAPs. Must be a difficult job to be the president and not the president at the same time.

What have you done to elect representation that will solve this problem?


Vote for the least authoritarian candidates I can find with my one vote, and biatch on the internet with futility regarding these issues.
 
2014-04-09 11:41:48 PM  

USP .45: tripleseven: USP .45: tripleseven: The program referenced in your article wasfrom 2006. Godammed obama and his time machine again.

Obama isn't the president and has no control over the DoD. This shiat is crazy. He can Executive Order some birth control, but can't stop the flow of MRAPs. Must be a difficult job to be the president and not the president at the same time.

What have you done to elect representation that will solve this problem?

Vote for the least authoritarian candidates I can find with my one vote, and biatch on the internet with futility regarding these issues.


Least authoritarian huh? So I guess you're a libertarian?

Did you vote for bush? Did you support the war in Iraq?

Don't reply. I already know the answer.
 
2014-04-10 12:38:03 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: dittybopper: cameroncrazy1984: Turns out,  dittybopper, that words actually mean things outside the gun-nut lexicon.

So a barrel shroud is a shoulder thing that goes up?  And we should ban ghost gun .30 round assault clips that can fire 30 caliber bullets in half a second?

Words have meaning.  Gun-nuts invented those words.  We get to decide what they mean.

No you don't. English-speakers do. Too bad. You were wrong, just be a man and admit it.


Josh Sugarmann, director of the Violence Policy Center:

"Assault weapons-just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms-are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

What you meant to say is that propagandists decide what words mean, and people like you decide whether or not to follow them.
 
2014-04-10 12:44:11 AM  

Geotpf: dk47: The whole assault weapons ban is a non sequitur in my opinion.  What we really need is strict criminal background checks, waiting periods, licensing and removing loopholes due to private party sales. This inconveniences hunters, sporters, paranoid homeowners etc. but in the end law abiding citizens should still be able to get and use the ...

I agree.  Attempting to ban  types of guns (beyond the long existing near total ban on full autos) just results in petty arguments about how the ban is stupid, as it's nearly impossible for such a ban to be of any use unless it's massively broad, so you end up just banning things randomly (like the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, which (as mentioned many times) banned guns that were no more lethal than ones it didn't ban).

The proper response, IMHO, after Newtown would have been something along the lines of the following:

1. The Federal government would take control of all regulation of guns.  No state or local restriction could be tougher (or weaker) than the Federal one.  (Local gun control laws are useless because there a device called an automobile that allows criminals to drive from a place with weak laws and buy guns there and then take them to a place with strict laws, plus the Feds have the constitutional right to "well-regulate the milita").

2. There would be a website and toll free number which would need to be checked before any gun transfer of any kind (sale, gift, whatever).  The buyer would have to supply something like first and last name and date of birth, and it would shoot back a "Ok to sell" or a "Not ok to sell" binary answer to the seller when he looks them up.  The data on felons and people with mental health issues would be strengthened to make sure the "Not ok to sell" list was up to date and accurate as possible.

3. There would be a standard, nationwide, concealed carry permit process, run by the Federal government.

I think this type of thing could have passed Congress (including the House) and would have helped keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them (as well as expanding the rights of others to buy, own, and use guns for non-evil purposes).  But, nope, compromise is dead.


This would be a proposal that would invoke compromise and give gun owners things they would want in the process. This is really against the bad faith negotiations invoked by gun control advocates
 
2014-04-10 01:17:46 AM  

sugar_fetus: It would take decades, or longer for the supply of 'assault weapons' to dry up in the US - more time than everyone here alive has.


I think you missed something in what I said:

ox45tallboy: Couple this with a buyback program, and tons of people will willingly give up their guns in exchange for money.


Put up a gun buyback program offering market value plus, say 10% on guns. There are plenty of people who will take this, especially those that bought up all of the guns that the NRA claimed Obama was about to ban. Of course there will be tons of people who will refuse on general principle, but there will be tons of others, especially gun shops, who will cash in on this deal to get rid of old inventory.

At an liberal (heh!) estimate of $400 per gun, we can get rid of 10 million guns for the low, low price of 4 billion dollars. This is only about 3 1/2% of the number of guns currently in the country, but they're the most important ones to take off the streets. Most of the guns will come from gun shops, which means they will have lots of inventory room to buy more guns from people. This is a good thing for taking guns off the streets, since FFL dealers are not only heavily regulated, but also go to great pains to secure the guns they own.

The remainder of the guns will come almost exclusively from poor people who need the money. These are the people who are more likely to turn to crime due to poverty, and they also are less likely to keep their guns secure because they don't have the money for a safe, and they live in poor neighborhoods where burglary is more common.

The beauty of this is that everything is strictly voluntary. No one gets forced to give up their guns. Attrition brings the numbers down to something reasonable (i.e., less than the almost one gun per man, woman, and child we have now).

sugar_fetus: If it's 'too dangerous' to sell, it's too dangerous to own. Period. People advocating 'banning but grandfathering' are beingintellectual dishonest and actually advocate banning and confiscation,. as long as the confiscation takesplace after the original owner is dead. It's theepitome of "I got mine - fsck you!"


That argument bears no weight with regards to what I am advocating. People are free to bequeath their firearms, or sell them to other mentally stable individuals without criminal records. Nothing mandatory at all.

sugar_fetus: Not much of a difference in the long run, and I'm looking out for not just our rights, butour posterity. I will not trade my future descendants rights away.


I hear this rhetoric all the time. I'm a gun owner, and this offends me deeply. The dudes who built this country started it with the Declaration of Independence, in which the inherent rights endowed by the Creator were listed with "life" being first and foremost. They didn't get around to listing "the right to keep and bear arms" until after the Constitution had already been signed and approved!

It's not that people shouldn't have a right to defend themselves, it's that the proliferation of ridiculous amounts of guns due to rampant market manipulation by such people as the industry trade group National Rifle Association is starting to affect people's lives. People that get killed by guns don't have any 2nd Amendment rights anymore, because even if you stick a gun in their coffin, they're not likely to keep and bear it. They'll just kind of lie there and ignore it. Why isn't anyone thinking about the 2nd Amendment rights of gun victims, instead of only their own?

Let's reduce the number of guns, and work on getting them out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable, in order to protect the right to Life. Then we'll work on Liberty and the Purfuit of Happinefs. If gun advocates don't start proposing their own ideas of how to reduce gun violence, they'll soon be left out of the discussion while the majority, non-gun-owning population does something about the problem.
 
2014-04-10 01:23:55 AM  

ox45tallboy: Put up a gun buyback program offering market value plus, say 10% on guns


....

At an liberal (heh!) estimate of $400 per gun

img.4plebs.org

You paraphrased this from the New Yorker/The Atlantic/Mother Jones, right?  You're a gun owner?  That claim means nothing, there are 80 million gun owners in this country, and 80 million different opinions on gun control.
 
2014-04-10 01:35:43 AM  
It's cute he thinks the average gun is 400 dollars.
 
2014-04-10 01:43:32 AM  

Doom MD: It's cute he thinks the average gun is 400 dollars.


There was a columnist for WaPo, Matt Miller, who wrote an embarrassingly stupid editorial in the wake of Newtown, where he held up Australia's "buyback" (without referring to it as what it really was, a confiscation) as a model, and then threw out the lowball of $500 per gun, which would magically make America's streets safer because we would somehow turn in the same amount of guns as Australians were severely overestimated to have turned in.  The disarmament advocates quickly fell in line and began parroting this nonsense, although they smartly have stopped referencing Australia's confiscation program (for the most part).
 
2014-04-10 01:49:07 AM  

Fark It: You paraphrased this from the New Yorker/The Atlantic/Mother Jones, right?  You're a gun owner?  That claim means nothing, there are 80 million gun owners in this country, and 80 million different opinions on gun control.


Nope, that's all my own.

Do you feel an estimate of $400 for the average gun purchased through a buyback plan is an unreasonable estimate? Keep in mind that many will be barely serviceable Saturday Night Specials that might be worth $100 on the street but a legitimate firearms dealer would never touch. On the other side of the fence, there are some AR-15 clones that will be bringing the average back up.

I find it fascinating how you respond to me by accusing me of plagiarizing at the same time you're saying you didn't bother reading what I typed. Once again, this is why the majority of people who don't own guns will soon decide to put a stop to the gun violence without the gun owners having a say in the matter. Gun owners need to have a seat at the table now or they'll be excluded from it later.
 
2014-04-10 01:58:26 AM  

ox45tallboy: Do you feel an estimate of $400 for the average gun purchased through a buyback plan is an unreasonable estimate?


Yes.

Keep in mind that many will be barely serviceable Saturday Night Specials that might be worth $100 on the street but a legitimate firearms dealer would never touch.

No criminal is going to give up a tool of their trade for $100.  Or $110.  Or however much they can sell/trade it for on the street.

On the other side of the fence, there are some AR-15 clones that will be bringing the average back up.

The AR-15 is the most popular firearm in America.  The vast, overwhelming majority of AR-15 owners will ridicule your proposal.  If you want to buyback/confiscate them, you're going to need a lot of money, since there is a huge cottage industry in aftermarket parts that will now be relatively useless.  An AR owner who submits to a buyback is going to have scopes, optics, magazines, accessories, and probably even ammo that they can't use in any of their other guns.

Once again, this is why the majority of people who don't own guns will soon decide to put a stop to the gun violence without the gun owners having a say in the matter. Gun owners need to have a seat at the table now or they'll be excluded from it later.

"Give us what we want now, or we'll take more later."

Get farked.
 
2014-04-10 02:00:22 AM  

Doom MD: It's cute he thinks the average gun is 400 dollars.


It's cute that you think the average gun is worth more than $400. You've got to include the .22's and .20 gauge shotguns and crappy .25 cal "ladies' guns" as well as the Mossbergs and H&K's.

I'm referring to the average price of a used gun that would be purchased through a buyback program, not the average sale price of a brand new gun.

$400 is waaaay overpriced for a lousy .25 or a 30-year-old Walmart special bird gun. I stand by my numbers until you can show that the average sale price of all used firearms is significantly different.
 
2014-04-10 02:06:16 AM  

ox45tallboy: Fark It: You paraphrased this from the New Yorker/The Atlantic/Mother Jones, right?  You're a gun owner?  That claim means nothing, there are 80 million gun owners in this country, and 80 million different opinions on gun control.

Nope, that's all my own.

Do you feel an estimate of $400 for the average gun purchased through a buyback plan is an unreasonable estimate? Keep in mind that many will be barely serviceable Saturday Night Specials that might be worth $100 on the street but a legitimate firearms dealer would never touch. On the other side of the fence, there are some AR-15 clones that will be bringing the average back up.

I find it fascinating how you respond to me by accusing me of plagiarizing at the same time you're saying you didn't bother reading what I typed. Once again, this is why the majority of people who don't own guns will soon decide to put a stop to the gun violence without the gun owners having a say in the matter. Gun owners need to have a seat at the table now or they'll be excluded from it later.


Do you even know what guns retail for? 400 dollars? You could get a decent shotgun, plinker, or a second hand polymer pistol for around that, maybe, and not much else. Certainly no safe queen. Legal gun owners don't generally run around with $100 ravens. Please find me the politician willing to pay joe citizen fair market value +10% for his Barrett rifle. You are literally plucking numbers out of the air. To be fair, this puts you roughly at the average of most gun control advocate politicians, I'll even throw in an extra 10%
 
2014-04-10 02:08:50 AM  

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: It's cute he thinks the average gun is 400 dollars.

It's cute that you think the average gun is worth more than $400. You've got to include the .22's and .20 gauge shotguns and crappy .25 cal "ladies' guns" as well as the Mossbergs and H&K's.

I'm referring to the average price of a used gun that would be purchased through a buyback program, not the average sale price of a brand new gun.

$400 is waaaay overpriced for a lousy .25 or a 30-year-old Walmart special bird gun. I stand by my numbers until you can show that the average sale price of all used firearms is significantly different.


How many ravens does it take to offset the cost of a single Barrett rifle? Please retake statistics 101.
 
2014-04-10 02:11:54 AM  

ox45tallboy: You've got to include the .22's and .20 gauge shotguns and crappy .25 cal "ladies' guns"


And how often are these guns used in crimes, since the desired effect is to reduce crime?

I stand by my numbers that I pulled out of my ass until you can disprove my baseless claim show that the average sale price of all used firearms is significantly different.

I'm going to offer something only slightly more credible than rectally-recovered figures and offer a personal anecdote, that the average used gun costs significantly in excess of $400, as pretty much the only used guns that go for less are certain FFL 03 C&R guns (mostly long guns, and bolt-action ones at that).  Like the Mosin Nagant, Czech Mausers, etc.
 
2014-04-10 02:12:20 AM  

Fark It: No criminal is going to give up a tool of their trade for $100.  Or $110.  Or however much they can sell/trade it for on the street.


LOL wut

You're saying that no one will sell a crappy handgun for $100?

Let me give you a tour of Atlanta, my friend.

Fark It: The AR-15 is the most popular firearm in America.  The vast, overwhelming majority of AR-15 owners will ridicule your proposal.  If you want to buyback/confiscate them, you're going to need a lot of money, since there is a huge cottage industry in aftermarket parts that will now be relatively useless.  An AR owner who submits to a buyback is going to have scopes, optics, magazines, accessories, and probably even ammo that they can't use in any of their other guns.


Perhaps I wasn't clear with what I wrote. Or perhaps you really did "stop reading there" when you said you did, and are just responding to what you think I said instead of what I actually said. I never said $400 for an AR-15, I said $400 as the "average" price for ALL guns being bought back. I have no idea where in the world you came up with "AR-15", as that series of letters was not in the post you were replying to. I also said that most would be coming from overstock of FFL dealers, crap guns that they can't get rid of anyways - why would they sell an AR-15 for $400, unless it wasn't in good repair?

AR-15's repurchased will bring more money than $400. Crappy Saturday night specials and old 1950's era rusted-up 20-gauge shotguns will bring less. If, as you said, the vast majority of AR-15 owners love love love their guns, they probably wouldn't sell them back to the government at any price - thereby proving my point for me, so thanks for that. The vast majority of guns purchased would be of the crappy variety, and $400 is not an unreasonable estimate for the average price of all the firearms repurchased.
 
2014-04-10 02:15:12 AM  

Doom MD: How many ravens does it take to offset the cost of a single Barrett rifle? Please retake statistics 101.


For guns like that (that aren't used in crimes) you just need a ban without a grandfather clause, like they're pushing in New Jersey.  You don't have to "buy it back" when it's an illegal assault weapon.  The compensation will be allowing you to keep (some) of your other guns.  For now.
 
2014-04-10 02:15:20 AM  

ox45tallboy: Fark It: No criminal is going to give up a tool of their trade for $100.  Or $110.  Or however much they can sell/trade it for on the street.

LOL wut

You're saying that no one will sell a crappy handgun for $100?

Let me give you a tour of Atlanta, my friend.

Fark It: The AR-15 is the most popular firearm in America.  The vast, overwhelming majority of AR-15 owners will ridicule your proposal.  If you want to buyback/confiscate them, you're going to need a lot of money, since there is a huge cottage industry in aftermarket parts that will now be relatively useless.  An AR owner who submits to a buyback is going to have scopes, optics, magazines, accessories, and probably even ammo that they can't use in any of their other guns.

Perhaps I wasn't clear with what I wrote. Or perhaps you really did "stop reading there" when you said you did, and are just responding to what you think I said instead of what I actually said. I never said $400 for an AR-15, I said $400 as the "average" price for ALL guns being bought back. I have no idea where in the world you came up with "AR-15", as that series of letters was not in the post you were replying to. I also said that most would be coming from overstock of FFL dealers, crap guns that they can't get rid of anyways - why would they sell an AR-15 for $400, unless it wasn't in good repair?

AR-15's repurchased will bring more money than $400. Crappy Saturday night specials and old 1950's era rusted-up 20-gauge shotguns will bring less. If, as you said, the vast majority of AR-15 owners love love love their guns, they probably wouldn't sell them back to the government at any price - thereby proving my point for me, so thanks for that. The vast majority of guns purchased would be of the crappy variety, and $400 is not an unreasonable estimate for the average price of all the firearms repurchased.


Serious question, do you actually think gun buybacks have any impact on crime? If you have any evidence for it that would be fantastic.

That being said, I'll gather every single raven in my city and gladly sell it to you for 400 a pop.
 
2014-04-10 02:15:59 AM  

Fark It: Doom MD: How many ravens does it take to offset the cost of a single Barrett rifle? Please retake statistics 101.

For guns like that (that aren't used in crimes) you just need a ban without a grandfather clause, like they're pushing in New Jersey.  You don't have to "buy it back" when it's an illegal assault weapon.  The compensation will be allowing you to keep (some) of your other guns.  For now.


Won't somebody think of the helicopters?
 
2014-04-10 02:27:51 AM  

ox45tallboy: You're saying that no one will sell a crappy handgun for $100?


Not somebody who uses crappy, $100 handguns....

AR-15's repurchased will bring more money than $400. Crappy Saturday night specials and old 1950's era rusted-up 20-gauge shotguns will bring less. If, as you said, the vast majority of AR-15 owners love love love their guns, they probably wouldn't sell them back to the government at any price - thereby proving my point for me, so thanks for that. The vast majority of guns purchased would be of the crappy variety, and $400 is not an unreasonable estimate for the average price of all the firearms repurchased.

Let's read the rest of what you posted.  Shockingly, it got stupider.

At an liberal (heh!) estimate of $400 per gun, we can get rid of 10 million guns for the low, low price of 4 billion dollars.

10 million guns that are likely barely functioning and statistically unlikely to be used in a crime.  And if your hope is to get crime guns off of the street, I pity your thinking.  The average criminal is not going to dispose of evidence by handing it over to the police, it's going to end up at the bottom of a large body of water or buried in the desert.  They're not going to dispose of a tool of their trade for less than the utility it brings to them.  The average street hood with a $100 Raven won't turn it in for $110, not when they can use it to bump off rival drug dealers or knock over a liquor store.

This is only about 3 1/2% of the number of guns currently in the country, but they're the most important ones to take off the streets.

See above.

Most of the guns will come from gun shops,

How do you figure?

which means they will have lots of inventory room to buy more guns from people.

If these are guns nobody wants what are gun shops doing with them in the first place?

This is a good thing for taking guns off the streets,

I thought we were talking about gun dealers/FFLs

since FFL dealers

OK, now you are, four words ago you were talking about taking guns off the streets.

are not only heavily regulated, but also go to great pains to secure the guns they own.

But you just said that we need to get these guns out of their shops to keep them off the streets...

The remainder of the guns will come almost exclusively from poor people who need the money.

But who had enough money for a gun in the first place...

These are the people who are more likely to turn to crime due to poverty, and they also are less likely to keep their guns secure because they don't have the money for a safe, and they live in poor neighborhoods where burglary is more common.

If the GOP was anti-gun, this is what they would sound like.
 
2014-04-10 02:28:35 AM  
 
2014-04-10 02:35:15 AM  

Doom MD: Do you even know what guns retail for? 400 dollars? You could get a decent shotgun, plinker, or a second hand polymer pistol for around that, maybe, and not much else. Certainly no safe queen. Legal gun owners don't generally run around with $100 ravens. Please find me the politician willing to pay joe citizen fair market value +10% for his Barrett rifle. You are literally plucking numbers out of the air. To be fair, this puts you roughly at the average of most gun control advocate politicians, I'll even throw in an extra 10%


Oh, good sir, I'm so, so sorry that you've been given misinformation. To be fair, that puts you roughly at the average of most believe that their 2nd Amendment rights trump everyone else's.

Here's a bunch of shotguns for $400 or less.

How about pistols? They've even got a Ruger .380 for $295! (Insert comment on the inferiority of this gun).

Have you been to one of the Walmarts in the South that still sell guns recently? They usually have two or three guns for more than $400, the rest less. And that's NEW price!

Now, while you might not want a gun that sells for as low as $200-$300, the fact is, a lot of people do. Natural Light is one of the top selling beers in the US - not because anyone likes it, or enjoys it for the taste, but because it's cheap and it does the trick.

Most people who own guns are not fanatics about it, much less connoiseurs. They can't afford to be. Most criminals who own guns buy the cheapest thing they can find that will put a hole in something, even it it's not a particularly large hole.

And once again, you've missed the biggest point - the purpose of this exercise would not be to target expensive guns that people have bought tons of accessories for - it's specifically to get the cheap guns off the market, since these guns are far more likely to be used in a crime than someone's prized possession AR-15 clone.

Your only argument so far has been against something I didn't even say. Do you have anything to say about what I actually did say, or do you agree it's a reasonable proposition?
 
2014-04-10 02:36:41 AM  

Doom MD: How many ravens does it take to offset the cost of a single Barrett rifle? Please retake statistics 101.


How many Barretts would be voluntarily traded in vs. how many Ravens?

Please retake economics 101.
 
2014-04-10 02:42:24 AM  

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: Do you even know what guns retail for? 400 dollars? You could get a decent shotgun, plinker, or a second hand polymer pistol for around that, maybe, and not much else. Certainly no safe queen. Legal gun owners don't generally run around with $100 ravens. Please find me the politician willing to pay joe citizen fair market value +10% for his Barrett rifle. You are literally plucking numbers out of the air. To be fair, this puts you roughly at the average of most gun control advocate politicians, I'll even throw in an extra 10%

Oh, good sir, I'm so, so sorry that you've been given misinformation. To be fair, that puts you roughly at the average of most believe that their 2nd Amendment rights trump everyone else's.

Here's a bunch of shotguns for $400 or less.

How about pistols? They've even got a Ruger .380 for $295! (Insert comment on the inferiority of this gun).

Have you been to one of the Walmarts in the South that still sell guns recently? They usually have two or three guns for more than $400, the rest less. And that's NEW price!

Now, while you might not want a gun that sells for as low as $200-$300, the fact is, a lot of people do. Natural Light is one of the top selling beers in the US - not because anyone likes it, or enjoys it for the taste, but because it's cheap and it does the trick.

Most people who own guns are not fanatics about it, much less connoiseurs. They can't afford to be. Most criminals who own guns buy the cheapest thing they can find that will put a hole in something, even it it's not a particularly large hole.

And once again, you've missed the biggest point - the purpose of this exercise would not be to target expensive guns that people have bought tons of accessories for - it's specifically to get the cheap guns off the market, since these guns are far more likely to be used in a crime than someone's prized possession AR-15 clone.

Your only argument so far has been against something I didn't even say. Do you have anything to say about what I actually did say, or do you agree it's a reasonable proposition?


The point is your entire proposal makes no sense and you're entirely ignorant of what you're talking about. If people wanted to sell their guns they can already do so. Paying above market value for crappy or broken guns is a waste of money. You're incenting people to obtain these guns and then sell them to you for a profit. This then encourages more ravens to be made and you're back at square 1 but the taxpayer is poorer. Setting a bar at a low 400 dollars will encourage very few people to actually turn in any guns, however.You totally lost me on the FFL thing. Gun stores try not to stock inventory they'll be unable to move. However, they'll gladly buy a bunch of crappy broken guns if they can unload it onto the government at a profit.
 
2014-04-10 02:42:27 AM  

Fark It: I'm going to offer something only slightly more credible than rectally-recovered figures and offer a personal anecdote, that the average used gun costs significantly in excess of $400, as pretty much the only used guns that go for less are certain FFL 03 C&R guns (mostly long guns, and bolt-action ones at that).  Like the Mosin Nagant, Czech Mausers, etc.


Yeah, too bad I've already linked to a ton of handguns priced well below $400 - from FFL dealers, at the first gun sales site I found on a Google search. You think they'd be more or less from a private seller?

Oh, look! here's some revolvers as well. , including a Colt .38 Police for $275, and a decent selection of S&W .38 special for $389.
 
2014-04-10 02:45:52 AM  

ox45tallboy: Fark It: I'm going to offer something only slightly more credible than rectally-recovered figures and offer a personal anecdote, that the average used gun costs significantly in excess of $400, as pretty much the only used guns that go for less are certain FFL 03 C&R guns (mostly long guns, and bolt-action ones at that).  Like the Mosin Nagant, Czech Mausers, etc.

Yeah, too bad I've already linked to a ton of handguns priced well below $400 - from FFL dealers, at the first gun sales site I found on a Google search. You think they'd be more or less from a private seller?

Oh, look! here's some revolvers as well. , including a Colt .38 Police for $275, and a decent selection of S&W .38 special for $389.


So I turn in the colt for a 125 dollar profit. Then I can buy another one and do the same. This will totally exhaust the gun supply since colt stopped making guns so long ago.

I'm really failing to see how this actually helps anything.
 
2014-04-10 02:47:16 AM  

Doom MD: Serious question, do you actually think gun buybacks have any impact on crime? If you have any evidence for it that would be fantastic.

That being said, I'll gather every single raven in my city and gladly sell it to you for 400 a pop.


By themselves? If they do, it's pretty minimal, as most of the guns are crap and nonworking. That's why you do it differently than they have in the past - target the FFL dealers. You get them to sell off huge parts of their inventory that aren't selling, and you'll get them flush with both cash and inventory room. This gets more guns off the street. Limit new sales of firearms as well, and you wind up driving up the price. Then gun crime will start to come down. And once again, not a single person has been involuntarily deprived of any gun they own.
 
2014-04-10 02:47:27 AM  

ox45tallboy: Fark It: I'm going to offer something only slightly more credible than rectally-recovered figures and offer a personal anecdote, that the average used gun costs significantly in excess of $400, as pretty much the only used guns that go for less are certain FFL 03 C&R guns (mostly long guns, and bolt-action ones at that).  Like the Mosin Nagant, Czech Mausers, etc.

Yeah, too bad I've already linked to a ton of handguns priced well below $400 - from FFL dealers, at the first gun sales site I found on a Google search. You think they'd be more or less from a private seller?

Oh, look! here's some revolvers as well. , including a Colt .38 Police for $275, and a decent selection of S&W .38 special for $389.


Yeah, and it sure looks like they're just sitting on the shelves.  It totally looks like these gun shops need billions of dollars from the federal government to clear out their inventory.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/29/gun-buybacks-mostly -a -waste-of-time-and-money-experts-say.html

/what makes you think that these types of guns aren't, in fact, undervalued, and that a soft confiscation/buyback won't increase the demand, and therefore drive up the prices?  You think the market value would remain static after a "buyback"?
 
2014-04-10 02:50:40 AM  

USP .45: shtychkn: James!: The gun market is probably the most easily manipulated market ever.

So much this.  The Gun Companies get people scared that they are going to loose their guns and people drive up the demand and the price (and profits) follow!

What a talent to just be able to make up nonsense on demand like that.


Now that, folks, is how to do deliberately obtuse.
Give that man the clap. Go on.
OK, I'll let the Estevez brothers start:
reactiongifs.me
 
Displayed 50 of 723 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | 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