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  
•       •       •

9758 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2014 at 3:13 PM (25 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
 
2014-04-10 02:53:07 AM

ox45tallboy: 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.


How is a gun sitting unsold in an ffl's inventory on the street?Making gun dealers flush with cash and inventory room is a recipe for them ordering more guns. There are many gun manufacturers who would be thrilled to oblige. You're really just subsidizing the firearm industry.
 
2014-04-10 02:55:22 AM

Fark It: 10 million guns that are likely barely functioning and statistically unlikely to be used in a crime.


Really? What gun is statistically the most used in a crime? And keep in mind that "used in a crime" does not necessarily mean that the trigger was pulled.

Fark It: 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.


Just out of curiosity.... where did they buy that $100 Raven? And where will they go to get another when that one is at the bottom of the ocean or whatever?

Fark It: How do you figure?


Because gun sops are in business. If someone offered them a reasonable price for their inventory, they would take it. Sure, there would be some who wouldn't, but many would.

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


Yeah, I still am. Where do you think FFL dealers will go to restock their inventory? If the guns are in the gun store's safe, they're not on the street being used to commit crimes.

You lost me with the rest. It's like you're trying your best to not see what I'm writing, so you can argue against something other than what I'm actually saying.

Let's hear a counterproposal for reducing the number of guns in this country - not eliminating, mind you, just reducing a bit, and also reducing gun crime by keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally ill.
 
2014-04-10 02:55:26 AM

ox45tallboy: That's why you do it differently than they have in the past - target the FFL dealers.


FFL dealers already do this with gun buybacks...

You get them to sell off huge parts of their inventory that aren't selling.

FFL dealers do not have this problem....

This gets more guns off the street.

By, in your words, "targeting the FFL dealers."  Got it.

Limit new sales of firearms as well

Good luck.

and you wind up driving up the price.

Thereby reducing the (already nonexistent/nonmeasurable) effectiveness of your so-called "buyback."

Then gun crime will start to come down. And once again, not a single person has been involuntarily deprived of any gun they own.

And here we are now back in fairytale land.  Sure, you're not confiscating from anybody (yet, as you've pointed out more than once, but LOOK OUT!  If you don't capitulate then we will!), you're just going to price poor people out of exercising a Constitutional right by artificially and deliberately manipulating the markets and ban more guns.
 
2014-04-10 02:56:26 AM

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?"


Oh, look, kids! It's this bullshiat again.
 
2014-04-10 02:57:08 AM

ox45tallboy: Gun owners need to have a seat at the table now or they'll be excluded from it later.


I keep hearing this specific rhetoric, like now the adults are at the table and the hammer is coming down. But then I read the proposals and I have a hard time keeping a straight face. Yeah 3.5% of unwanted guns bought back at an undervalued, mere $4 billion dollars. That will be an easy sell, and it will totally do something to prevent the next such and so on.

I'm sorry for interrupting, I forgot the adults were seated.
 
2014-04-10 02:58:20 AM

Doom MD: The point is your entire proposal makes no sense and you're entirely ignorant of what you're talking about


Ummmm... I'm th guy that's provided citations to back up everything I've been questioned on; you seem to be on the side that has to stoop to non sequiturs because you can't argue facts when they're not on your side.

Doom MD: 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.


Sigh. Now you've spent so long responding to the second part that you've forgotten about the first part - you limit new production and sales.
 
2014-04-10 02:58:56 AM

ox45tallboy: You lost me with the rest. It's like you're trying your best to not see what I'm writing


What you're writing makes absolutely no sense.

Let's hear a counterproposal for reducing the number of guns in this country - not eliminating, mind you, just reducing a bit,

Why am I under any obligation to offer up a proposal to reduce the number of guns in this country?  There are a record number of guns in this country and crime is at a record low.

and also reducing gun crime by keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally ill.

End the drug war.
 
2014-04-10 03:00:24 AM

Doom MD: 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.


So you tell Colt they can't make so many guns anymore. Or. you buy them out with taxpayer money and you convert the part of their factory that doesn't make guns for the military into making something else the government needs a lot of. Everyone keeps their job, the shareholders get happy, everyone's happy.
 
2014-04-10 03:01:01 AM

Fark It: and also reducing gun crime by keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally ill.

End the drug war.


ta-da!
 
2014-04-10 03:01:36 AM

violentsalvation: I keep hearing this specific rhetoric, like now the adults are at the table and the hammer is coming down. But then I read the proposals and I have a hard time keeping a straight face. Yeah 3.5% of unwanted guns bought back at an undervalued, mere $4 billion dollars. That will be an easy sell, and it will totally do something to prevent the next such and so on.

I'm sorry for interrupting, I forgot the adults were seated.


So what's your counterproposal? What policy are you in favor of that will reduce gun violence?
 
2014-04-10 03:02:46 AM

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: The point is your entire proposal makes no sense and you're entirely ignorant of what you're talking about

Ummmm... I'm th guy that's provided citations to back up everything I've been questioned on; you seem to be on the side that has to stoop to non sequiturs because you can't argue facts when they're not on your side.

Doom MD: 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.

Sigh. Now you've spent so long responding to the second part that you've forgotten about the first part - you limit new production and sales.


Citations? A colt revolver is your well researched citation? So tell me, how are you going to limit sales and the creation of new guns? Is this after your buyback had either set such a low bar nobody sells to you or such a high bar you've bankrupted the nation ?
 
2014-04-10 03:04:27 AM

Fark It: Why am I under any obligation to offer up a proposal to reduce the number of guns in this country?  There are a record number of guns in this country and crime is at a record low.


Compared to what? Other countries with stricter gun laws? Or other countries with comparable gun laws? Or other countries with looser gun laws? Or do you mean other parts of American History?
 
2014-04-10 03:05:49 AM

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: 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.

So you tell Colt they can't make so many guns anymore. Or. you buy them out with taxpayer money and you convert the part of their factory that doesn't make guns for the military into making something else the government needs a lot of. Everyone keeps their job, the shareholders get happy, everyone's happy.


Now the mask comes off. So you want the USA to be like Venezuela and forcibly nationalize an entire industry? To deny people their rights? Do you have any idea what a misguided child you sound like right now? This is so unrealistic it's hilarious.
 
2014-04-10 03:05:56 AM

ox45tallboy: Ummmm... I'm th guy that's provided citations to back up everything I've been questioned on; you seem to be on the side that has to stoop to non sequiturs because you can't argue facts when they're not on your side.


Going on to gunsamerica or gunbroker and throwing together a list of guns that cost under $400 to prove your point is not a "citation."  It's not scholarly, it means nothing, especially when you've been questioned on your baseless, unfounded, and flat-out incorrect assertion that gun buybacks targeting cheap guns in the inventory of FFLs or in the possession of the poor/lower middle class will have any effect on crime.

Your grand idea is to take something that can be generously called "mostly a waste of time," rather than a complete waste of time, and upscale it to the point where the cost of implementation runs into the low 11-figures.  At best, your idea will increase the value of the guns (tools) that no criminal in their right mind would give up and make it easier for them to trade up to something more effective.  It also has the added benefit of effectively barring the poor from gun ownership.
 
2014-04-10 03:06:42 AM

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: 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.

So you tell Colt they can't make so many guns anymore. Or. you buy them out with taxpayer money and you convert the part of their factory that doesn't make guns for the military into making something else the government needs a lot of. Everyone keeps their job, the shareholders get happy, everyone's happy.


LOL is this guy for real?
 
2014-04-10 03:06:43 AM

ox45tallboy: violentsalvation: I keep hearing this specific rhetoric, like now the adults are at the table and the hammer is coming down. But then I read the proposals and I have a hard time keeping a straight face. Yeah 3.5% of unwanted guns bought back at an undervalued, mere $4 billion dollars. That will be an easy sell, and it will totally do something to prevent the next such and so on.

I'm sorry for interrupting, I forgot the adults were seated.

So what's your counterproposal? What policy are you in favor of that will reduce gun violence?


End the drug war. Trying not to turn legal gun owners into criminals via misguided legislation would be a good move too.
 
2014-04-10 03:08:56 AM

dropdfun: ox45tallboy: Doom MD: 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.

So you tell Colt they can't make so many guns anymore. Or. you buy them out with taxpayer money and you convert the part of their factory that doesn't make guns for the military into making something else the government needs a lot of. Everyone keeps their job, the shareholders get happy, everyone's happy.

LOL is this guy for real?


I know, I hope it's a troll because i seriously couldn't handle someone having this argument with me in real life. It's just laughable.
 
2014-04-10 03:11:02 AM

ox45tallboy: So you tell Colt they can't make so many guns anymore.


Colt hasn't made revolvers in a long time.

Doom MD: Now the mask comes off. So you want the USA to be like Venezuela and forcibly nationalize an entire industry? To deny people their rights? Do you have any idea what a misguided child you sound like right now? This is so unrealistic it's hilarious.


He's offering up a compromise!  He's not some lunatic who wants to take all of your guns, he just wants to nationalize gun manufacturers so they can't sell you any.  If we don't listen to his voice of reason then the gun grabbers will enact gun control that you won't like because you won't agree to gun control that you don't like.
 
2014-04-10 03:11:46 AM

Fark It: End the drug war.


Hey, that sounds good to me.

You know, I'm willing to bet that that by itself would reduce gun violence so much that it would be decades before we would see the next major gun restriction attempt.

Here's another one from me - get rid of "Shall Issue". Leave it up to the local sheriff to decide, with an appeals process in place to limit abuse of authority. Sometimes a local sheriff might think it's not a good idea to give a handgun carry permit to a guy with a history of off-the-books or misdemeanor-only domestic violence. Sometimes it takes someone local to know that a particular individual deals meth but keeps it very quiet, or another individual has mental issues but has never been officially diagnosed and can't be forced to get help because they're not really a danger to anyone - as long as they don't have a gun.
 
2014-04-10 03:12:52 AM

Fark It: ox45tallboy: So you tell Colt they can't make so many guns anymore.

Colt hasn't made revolvers in a long time.

Doom MD: Now the mask comes off. So you want the USA to be like Venezuela and forcibly nationalize an entire industry? To deny people their rights? Do you have any idea what a misguided child you sound like right now? This is so unrealistic it's hilarious.

He's offering up a compromise!  He's not some lunatic who wants to take all of your guns, he just wants to nationalize gun manufacturers so they can't sell you any.  If we don't listen to his voice of reason then the gun grabbers will enact gun control that you won't like because you won't agree to gun control that you don't like.


The best part for me is where he totally ignores the fact his unrealistic proposal would also be heinously expensive.
 
2014-04-10 03:14:05 AM

Doom MD: Now the mask comes off. So you want the USA to be like Venezuela and forcibly nationalize an entire industry? To deny people their rights? Do you have any idea what a misguided child you sound like right now? This is so unrealistic it's hilarious.


Nope. Didn't say that. The government can make offers on a takeover bid the same as anyone else.

And once again, no one is being "denied their rights". No one has to sell. Many will choose to because the money is worth more to them than having a gun around. But no one, not even the gun manufacturers, will have to sell.
 
2014-04-10 03:15:54 AM

ox45tallboy: Fark It: End the drug war.

Hey, that sounds good to me.

You know, I'm willing to bet that that by itself would reduce gun violence so much that it would be decades before we would see the next major gun restriction attempt.

Here's another one from me - get rid of "Shall Issue". Leave it up to the local sheriff to decide, with an appeals process in place to limit abuse of authority.


No.  Self-defense ought not to be predicated on the whims of the Barney Fiefs and Sheriff Joes of the world.

Sometimes a local sheriff might think it's not a good idea to give a handgun carry permit to a guy with a history of off-the-books or misdemeanor-only domestic violence.

Law enforcement should be allowed to object to concealed carry applicants in states that regulate concealed carry.

Sometimes it takes someone local to know that a particular individual deals meth but keeps it very quiet, or another individual has mental issues but has never been officially diagnosed and can't be forced to get help because they're not really a danger to anyone - as long as they don't have a gun.

So, a judge or psychiatrist?
 
2014-04-10 03:17:31 AM

Fark It: Going on to gunsamerica or gunbroker and throwing together a list of guns that cost under $400 to prove your point is not a "citation."  It's not scholarly, it means nothing, especially when you've been questioned on your baseless, unfounded, and flat-out incorrect assertion that gun buybacks targeting cheap guns in the inventory of FFLs or in the possession of the poor/lower middle class will have any effect on crime.


Errr.... fewer guns equals less gun crime. Are you seriously arguing that this is not the case? Are you also arguing that cheaper guns are not statistically more likely to be used in a crime than more expensive ones?

Fark It: Your grand idea is to take something that can be generously called "mostly a waste of time," rather than a complete waste of time, and upscale it to the point where the cost of implementation runs into the low 11-figures.  At best, your idea will increase the value of the guns (tools) that no criminal in their right mind would give up and make it easier for them to trade up to something more effective.  It also has the added benefit of effectively barring the poor from gun ownership.


Wait, wait, wait... so you really believe that guns should be cheap and readily available to anyone who wants one?
 
2014-04-10 03:17:59 AM

ox45tallboy: Fark It: End the drug war.

Hey, that sounds good to me.

You know, I'm willing to bet that that by itself would reduce gun violence so much that it would be decades before we would see the next major gun restriction attempt.

Here's another one from me - get rid of "Shall Issue". Leave it up to the local sheriff to decide, with an appeals process in place to limit abuse of authority. Sometimes a local sheriff might think it's not a good idea to give a handgun carry permit to a guy with a history of off-the-books or misdemeanor-only domestic violence. Sometimes it takes someone local to know that a particular individual deals meth but keeps it very quiet, or another individual has mental issues but has never been officially diagnosed and can't be forced to get help because they're not really a danger to anyone - as long as they don't have a gun.


Shall issue has been abused countless times. So no. Does no work for you?
 
2014-04-10 03:18:21 AM

dropdfun: LOL is this guy for real?


Yup. You got a counterproposal?
 
2014-04-10 03:18:58 AM

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: Now the mask comes off. So you want the USA to be like Venezuela and forcibly nationalize an entire industry? To deny people their rights? Do you have any idea what a misguided child you sound like right now? This is so unrealistic it's hilarious.

Nope. Didn't say that. The government can make offers on a takeover bid the same as anyone else.

And once again, no one is being "denied their rights". No one has to sell. Many will choose to because the money is worth more to them than having a gun around. But no one, not even the gun manufacturers, will have to sell.


Your idea is pants-on-head retarded and I'm starting to wonder if I'm arguing with a 14 year old.
 
2014-04-10 03:20:25 AM

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: Now the mask comes off. So you want the USA to be like Venezuela and forcibly nationalize an entire industry? To deny people their rights? Do you have any idea what a misguided child you sound like right now? This is so unrealistic it's hilarious.

Nope. Didn't say that. The government can make offers on a takeover bid the same as anyone else.

And once again, no one is being "denied their rights". No one has to sell. Many will choose to because the money is worth more to them than having a gun around. But no one, not even the gun manufacturers, will have to sell.


Also, if your proposal is voluntary it will fall apart. Then you will do something mandatory for the world refusing to comply with your common sense compromise. Or something.
 
2014-04-10 03:21:36 AM

ox45tallboy: violentsalvation: I keep hearing this specific rhetoric, like now the adults are at the table and the hammer is coming down. But then I read the proposals and I have a hard time keeping a straight face. Yeah 3.5% of unwanted guns bought back at an undervalued, mere $4 billion dollars. That will be an easy sell, and it will totally do something to prevent the next such and so on.

I'm sorry for interrupting, I forgot the adults were seated.

So what's your counterproposal? What policy are you in favor of that will reduce gun violence?


Well there's the drug war, which I'm sure you're already in favor of ending. And better health care, single payer, which I'm sure you're in favor of. True mental health parity which I'm sure, yeah that again, getting redundant. Better wages, jobs programs, more scholarships, cheaper tuition - of all things we throw money at, we should throw more at hungry minds. Development incentives in inner cities (dog whistle?). Etc. There is so much we could, and should actually do to make violence an afterthought for those who resort to it now. But if we are stuck on guns, I'd throw out the idea of tax incentives on newly bought, properly installed gun safes.
 
2014-04-10 03:22:11 AM

ox45tallboy: Fark It: End the drug war.

Hey, that sounds good to me.

You know, I'm willing to bet that that by itself would reduce gun violence so much that it would be decades before we would see the next major gun restriction attempt.

Here's another one from me - get rid of "Shall Issue". Leave it up to the local sheriff to decide, with an appeals process in place to limit abuse of authority. Sometimes a local sheriff might think it's not a good idea to give a handgun carry permit to a guy with a history of off-the-books or misdemeanor-only domestic violence. Sometimes it takes someone local to know that a particular individual deals meth but keeps it very quiet, or another individual has mental issues but has never been officially diagnosed and can't be forced to get help because they're not really a danger to anyone - as long as they don't have a gun.


Yeah, because as demonstrated in so many "Shall Issue" states, counties and what have you, it wont be used as a tool to hook up those that are in some politicians inner circle, donor or a privileged class while denying regular law abiding citizens the opportunity to exercise one of our constitutional rights. This coming from a guy that has to deal with those that use guns against myself and the general public on a regular basis, sir your lacking in common sense. That or you need to move back to Venezuela.
 
2014-04-10 03:23:40 AM

ox45tallboy: dropdfun: LOL is this guy for real?

Yup. You got a counterproposal?


Yeah, not doing any of the retarded crap you suggested. The United States would be better off not doing anything than embarking on the fantastical quagmire you're vomiting on here. You might as well make a pile of billions of dollars, set it on fire, and let a bunch of homeless people get warm by it. You would get a lot more use of that money doing that with it.
 
2014-04-10 03:26:20 AM

Doom MD: I know, I hope it's a troll because i seriously couldn't handle someone having this argument with me in real life. It's just laughable.


You know, I think exactly the same thing when I hear about someone denied their 2nd Amendment rights because their heart is no longer beating, and all I hear from people like Wayne LaPierre is "we need more guns! Sorry about that person being dead, but don't you dare even think about infringing on the rights of those of us who are still alive!"

That, to me, is laughable. It's laughable when someone thinks there is no gun crime problem. It's laughabl when someone thinks it's their patriotic duty to make damn sure no one interferes with the right of commerce for the people that want to make something that has no other legitimate purpose other than to put large holes in something. It's laughable when someone pulls out the old, "Ha! it's a magazine, not a clip! You don't know the difference, therefore you're not entitled to have an opinion on gun control!" It's laughable to me when people believe the money they send to the NRA actually does anything except promote fear and panic in order to make money for gun companies.

That's a whole lot more laughable than a program that costs less than the tax refund we gave to GE last year.
 
2014-04-10 03:27:27 AM

Doom MD: Shall issue has been abused countless times. So no. Does no work for you?


Yes, shall issue is constantly abused. So no, no doesn't really work for me.
 
2014-04-10 03:29:12 AM

Fark It: He's offering up a compromise!  He's not some lunatic who wants to take all of your guns, he just wants to nationalize gun manufacturers so they can't sell you any.  If we don't listen to his voice of reason then the gun grabbers will enact gun control that you won't like because you won't agree to gun control that you don't like.


No, I want to limit the number of new guns manufactured. As this would displace workers and run some gun manufacturers out of business, I propose buying them out instead of letting them die and leaving the stockholders penniless and the workers unemployed.
 
2014-04-10 03:29:13 AM

ox45tallboy: And once again, no one is being "denied their rights". No one has to sell. Many will choose to because the money is worth more to them than having a gun around. But no one, not even the gun manufacturers, will have to sell.


.......

Earlier:

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.

So you tell Colt they can't make so many guns anymore. Or. you buy them out with taxpayer money and you convert the part of their factory that doesn't make guns for the military into making something else the government needs a lot of. Everyone keeps their job, the shareholders get happy, everyone's happy


I can't wait to see you try to worm your way out of this one.

Errr.... fewer guns equals less gun crime. Are you seriously arguing that this is not the case?

It would appear not, since the amount of guns in circulation is at a record high, while crime is at a record low, even compared to countries with stricter gun control laws.  Like Mexico and every Central American country.

Are you also arguing that cheaper guns are not statistically more likely to be used in a crime than more expensive ones?

No, I'm saying that cheap handguns are statistically more likely to be used in crimes (not cheap shotguns and .22s), and that "buybacks" are ineffective.

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

For the fifth or sixth time, in case you haven't read it.  Or in case you are ignoring it, in which case, LOOK EVERYONE!

Wait, wait, wait... so you really believe that guns should be cheap and readily available to anyone who wants one?

I believe that the poor should have the same access to their Constitutional Rights as the rich, that they follow the same rules, and that the accessibility of their rights not be arbitrarily and maliciously manipulated and hampered by statist, ideologically-driven anti-gun lunatics.
 
2014-04-10 03:30:05 AM

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: I know, I hope it's a troll because i seriously couldn't handle someone having this argument with me in real life. It's just laughable.

You know, I think exactly the same thing when I hear about someone denied their 2nd Amendment rights because their heart is no longer beating, and all I hear from people like Wayne LaPierre is "we need more guns! Sorry about that person being dead, but don't you dare even think about infringing on the rights of those of us who are still alive!"

That, to me, is laughable. It's laughable when someone thinks there is no gun crime problem. It's laughabl when someone thinks it's their patriotic duty to make damn sure no one interferes with the right of commerce for the people that want to make something that has no other legitimate purpose other than to put large holes in something. It's laughable when someone pulls out the old, "Ha! it's a magazine, not a clip! You don't know the difference, therefore you're not entitled to have an opinion on gun control!" It's laughable to me when people believe the money they send to the NRA actually does anything except promote fear and panic in order to make money for gun companies.

That's a whole lot more laughable than a program that costs less than the tax refund we gave to GE last year.


How much do you think it would cost to nationalize the firearm industry? Considering your cost estimates of gun buybacks I'm really eager to hear this.
 
2014-04-10 03:31:33 AM

Doom MD: The best part for me is where he totally ignores the fact his unrealistic proposal would also be heinously expensive.


Compared to what?

We're talking $4 billion. Think about how much money we spend on criminal justice of perpetrators of gun crime, as well as the societal costs of the deaths from gun violence.
 
2014-04-10 03:31:35 AM

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: Shall issue has been abused countless times. So no. Does no work for you?

Yes, shall issue is constantly abused. So no, no doesn't really work for me.


Sucks for you. Shall issue exists in most states now. Even California and Hawaii have gone shall issue. Federal court precedent is starting to go in that direction. We might even see universal ccw reciprocity in the next decade.
 
2014-04-10 03:33:46 AM

Fark It: No.  Self-defense ought not to be predicated on the whims of the Barney Fiefs and Sheriff Joes of the world.


Which is why I said "appeals process". Are you not even bothering to read what I'm writing before tossing out a knee-jerk reaction?

Fark It: Law enforcement should be allowed to object to concealed carry applicants in states that regulate concealed carry


That sounds good to me. Why shouldn't they be allowed to object in states that do not regulate concealed carry?
 
2014-04-10 03:35:23 AM

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: The best part for me is where he totally ignores the fact his unrealistic proposal would also be heinously expensive.

Compared to what?

We're talking $4 billion. Think about how much money we spend on criminal justice of perpetrators of gun crime, as well as the societal costs of the deaths from gun violence.


And think about how much we spend on gun buybacks that are a "waste of time and money."
 
2014-04-10 03:36:42 AM

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: The best part for me is where he totally ignores the fact his unrealistic proposal would also be heinously expensive.

Compared to what?

We're talking $4 billion. Think about how much money we spend on criminal justice of perpetrators of gun crime, as well as the societal costs of the deaths from gun violence.


First you're going to buy up all the guns. Then you're going to buy up all the gun companies. How much do you think it would cost to buy Colt, much less the entire firearm industry. 4 billion? You're adorable.
 
2014-04-10 03:38:10 AM

ox45tallboy: Fark It: No.  Self-defense ought not to be predicated on the whims of the Barney Fiefs and Sheriff Joes of the world.

Which is why I said "appeals process". Are you not even bothering to read what I'm writing before tossing out a knee-jerk reaction?

Fark It: Law enforcement should be allowed to object to concealed carry applicants in states that regulate concealed carry

That sounds good to me. Why shouldn't they be allowed to object in states that do not regulate concealed carry?


Rights should totally be predicated on subjective criteria! No way that could be abused!
 
2014-04-10 03:39:57 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/11/business/colt-to-go-private-for-660- million.html

Colt can be bought for 660 million dollars... In 1988
 
2014-04-10 03:40:24 AM

Doom MD: Your idea is pants-on-head retarded and I'm starting to wonder if I'm arguing with a 14 year old.


That's all I'm hearing is "that's retarded" and "that's stupid". No one can provide any argument as to why it's a bad idea, or would infringe on anyone's rights. All I hear is complete non sequiturs of "what an idiotic idea" with absolutely no cited references (which I've happily provided) or even logical conclusions.

Step up your game, man! You have to say why this is pants-on-head-retarded!

Pants-on-head retarded to me is the people who believe that their "right" to own any gun they want to and carry it wherever they want to is more important than anyone else's right to not risk getting shot by accident, or even a business owner's right to tell people what's allowed and not allowed in his establishment.

Pants-on-head retarded is the people that won't even acknowledge there is a problem with gun crime, much less offer any realistic solution other than "give everyone more guns!"
 
2014-04-10 03:41:58 AM

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: The best part for me is where he totally ignores the fact his unrealistic proposal would also be heinously expensive.


Compared to what?

We're talking $4 billion.


Yes, you're talking $4 billion, to effectively do nothing that would curb gun violence, in a way that would alienate every gun-owning constituent of every congresscritter who backed you're hypothetical proposal. And let's be honest, seats would be lost. Pragmatism isn't you're strong suit.
 
2014-04-10 03:42:10 AM

Doom MD: Also, if your proposal is voluntary it will fall apart. Then you will do something mandatory for the world refusing to comply with your common sense compromise. Or something.


Why do you believe that? People like money. They like it s much it even trumps their ideals at times. This is why small town residents shop at Walmart even though it means the death of their local businesses.
 
2014-04-10 03:43:00 AM

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: Your idea is pants-on-head retarded and I'm starting to wonder if I'm arguing with a 14 year old.

That's all I'm hearing is "that's retarded" and "that's stupid". No one can provide any argument as to why it's a bad idea, or would infringe on anyone's rights. All I hear is complete non sequiturs of "what an idiotic idea" with absolutely no cited references (which I've happily provided) or even logical conclusions.

Step up your game, man! You have to say why this is pants-on-head-retarded!

Pants-on-head retarded to me is the people who believe that their "right" to own any gun they want to and carry it wherever they want to is more important than anyone else's right to not risk getting shot by accident, or even a business owner's right to tell people what's allowed and not allowed in his establishment.

Pants-on-head retarded is the people that won't even acknowledge there is a problem with gun crime, much less offer any realistic solution other than "give everyone more guns!"


Are you reading the same thread as everyone else? Your proposal has been torn to shreds. Has anybody even agreed that your proposal sounds sane, much less effective? When the entire world seems crazy you're likely the insane one, buddy.
 
2014-04-10 03:43:17 AM

ox45tallboy: Why shouldn't they be allowed to object in states that do not regulate concealed carry?


If the state doesn't require a license to carry a concealed weapon, how can law enforcement object to your application?  I believe in the appeals process for shall-issue.  I do not believe in may-issue, it can be abused way too much.  What's to stop an ideologically-driven sheriff from denying carry permits for hispanics, other minorities, or people who donate to opponents?  How is some nebulous appeals process going to prevent that?  How is leaving something as big of a deal as concealed carry up to the whims of one law enforcement official prudent?  How can you in any way reconcile that idea with the notion of due process?  Law enforcement should have to petition an appeals board to deny concealed carry permits, it shouldn't be that regular citizens with clean records have to petition appeals boards to get concealed carry permits.
 
2014-04-10 03:45:23 AM

violentsalvation: Well there's the drug war, which I'm sure you're already in favor of ending. And better health care, single payer, which I'm sure you're in favor of. True mental health parity which I'm sure, yeah that again, getting redundant. Better wages, jobs programs, more scholarships, cheaper tuition - of all things we throw money at, we should throw more at hungry minds. Development incentives in inner cities (dog whistle?). Etc. There is so much we could, and should actually do to make violence an afterthought for those who resort to it now. But if we are stuck on guns, I'd throw out the idea of tax incentives on newly bought, properly installed gun safes.


Now those seem reasonable and common-sense. Also, I'd bet that the drop in drug crime will also mean that the streets become safe enough that many more people will choose to NOT own a gun.

Then you're left with a crapload of guns that are going for cheap. Which starts the gun crime cycle all over again, without some way of just getting rid of a large number of guns.
 
2014-04-10 03:45:52 AM

ox45tallboy: No one can provide any argument as to why it's a bad idea, or would infringe on anyone's rights. All I hear is complete non sequiturs of "what an idiotic idea" with absolutely no cited references (which I've happily provided) or even logical conclusions.


You are absolutely delusional.
 
2014-04-10 03:50:21 AM

Doom MD: First you're going to buy up all the guns. Then you're going to buy up all the gun companies. How much do you think it would cost to buy Colt, much less the entire firearm industry. 4 billion? You're adorable.


Hey, at least I actually read what you write and respond to it instead of making up something and responding to that.

I proposed buying approximately 3 1/2% of guns, nowhere even remotely close to "all", even anywhere close enough to make it anything other than a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. Nor did I say buy up "all" the gun companies. I proposed limiting the number of new guns manufactured, which would naturally cause some manufacturers to go out of business. I proposed buying up some of the companies that would otherwise go out of business in order to protect the stockholders and employees, and also to produce guns and other machined parts for the military.

If you have to misrepresent my words in order to respond to them, maybe it's because my actual idea isn't so bad after all. Maybe you just can't come up with any response to what I actually proposed, so you just made something up and argued it against it.
 
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 »






Report