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  
•       •       •

9772 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2014 at 3:13 PM (37 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 03:53:32 AM  

Doom MD: 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.


No, it hasn't. It's been misrepresented six ways from Sunday, and those things have been dismissed with such non sequiturs as "pants-on-head retarded", but no one has actually read what I really did say and responded to that.

No one has disagreed on what I actually proposed, just what they imagine I said; no one has given a single citation to disprove what I've said, even though they demanded citations for my own data - which I happily provided, so yeah, I'm thinking I am the sane one here.
 
2014-04-10 03:56:03 AM  

ox45tallboy: 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.


You make no goddamn sense. Are you drunk? Seriously, trying to piece together the garbage you're spewing is absolutely mind-bending.

So you're going to buy some guns not all, some gun manufacturers but not all, and somehow this will limit the number of guns non-purchased companies will manufacture because feelings?
 
2014-04-10 03:56:07 AM  

ox45tallboy: I proposed limiting the number of new guns manufactured, which would naturally cause some manufacturers to go out of business.


s3-ak.buzzfed.com

ox45tallboy: 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.


Or maybe we're just quoting you directly and your ideas are terrible.  And maybe you've offered vague and nebulous platitudes over concrete specifics and are relying upon your opponents to simply agree with you, just because.
 
2014-04-10 03:56:21 AM  

ox45tallboy: 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.


I believe most of the violence problem would disappear if we could address its causes, for a change. We, as in America, as a whole. If you still think at the end of the day that a buy back would help, fine. But when I see photos of those, all I see are a couple revolvers I might pay $100 each for, single use retired rocket launcher tubes, and old inoperable rifles and shotguns I'd like to weld together in threes and turn into floor lamps.
 
2014-04-10 03:56:47 AM  

Fark It: You are absolutely delusional.


I think the only delusion I have is that some people might view gun crime and gun deaths as a problem that needs a solution, without believing that the slightest bit of gun control is an interference with their God-given rights to own every gun they can possibly own, and that their 2nd Amendment rights will still exist if there are fewer than one gun for every man, woman, and child in this country..
 
2014-04-10 03:59:03 AM  

ox45tallboy: Fark It: You are absolutely delusional.

I think the only delusion I have is that some people might view gun crime and gun deaths as a problem that needs a solution


End the drug war

without believing that the slightest bit of gun control is an interference with their God-given rights to own every gun they can possibly own, and that their 2nd Amendment rights will still exist if there are fewer than one gun for every man, woman, and child in this country..

Except this isn't the slightest bit of gun control, you're talking about driving gun companies out of business, nationalizing them, and pricing the poor out of the 2nd Amendment via market manipulation.
 
2014-04-10 04:01:37 AM  

Doom MD: You make no goddamn sense. Are you drunk? Seriously, trying to piece together the garbage you're spewing is absolutely mind-bending.

So you're going to buy some guns not all, some gun manufacturers but not all, and somehow this will limit the number of guns non-purchased companies will manufacture because feelings?


I just re-read what I wrote.

If that's not understandable to you, I don't think I'm the one with the problem.

You limit the number of guns produced. This means there are too many gun companies. So you buy out some of them, and re-tool to produce other machined parts needed by the government, such as precision military parts.

Then you buy back approximately $4 billion worth of whatever guns people will sell. This amounts to about 3 1/2% of the total guns in the country. Much of this will come from FFL's getting rid of old stock which doesn't sell that well. The firearms manufacturers now have lots of money and lots of inventory space, without much in the way of new guns available, so they being buying guns from the people that want to sell to them. This removes another 2% or so.

This isn't rocket science, dude.
 
2014-04-10 04:05:17 AM  

ox45tallboy: Much of this will come from FFL's getting rid of old stock which doesn't sell that well.


Is that money well spent?
 
2014-04-10 04:05:53 AM  
Never mind don't answer that, I'm going to bed.
 
2014-04-10 04:06:02 AM  

Fark It: ox45tallboy: I proposed limiting the number of new guns manufactured, which would naturally cause some manufacturers to go out of business.


Dang, dude, you can't even Inigo Montoya me properly.

nat·u·ral·ly
ˈnaCHərəlē/
adverb
1.
in a natural manner, in particular.
synonyms: by nature, by character, inherently, innately, congenitally More
in a normal manner; without distortion or exaggeration.
"act naturally"
synonyms: normally, in a natural manner/way, unaffectedly, spontaneously, genuinely, unpretentiously; More
antonyms: self-consciously
as a natural result.
"one leads naturally into the other"
without special help or intervention.
"naturally curly hair"
2.
as may be expected; of course.
"naturally, I hoped for the best"
synonyms: of course, as might be expected, needless to say;

So yeah, the dictionary thinks it means what I think it means, too.

Fark It: Or maybe we're just quoting you directly and your ideas are terrible.  And maybe you've offered vague and nebulous platitudes over concrete specifics and are relying upon your opponents to simply agree with you, just because.


Sorry, dude, but I haven't seen anyone yet argue my actual ideas, just a bunch of ad hominem attacks and arguments against things I never said.
 
2014-04-10 04:07:21 AM  

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: You make no goddamn sense. Are you drunk? Seriously, trying to piece together the garbage you're spewing is absolutely mind-bending.

So you're going to buy some guns not all, some gun manufacturers but not all, and somehow this will limit the number of guns non-purchased companies will manufacture because feelings?

I just re-read what I wrote.

If that's not understandable to you, I don't think I'm the one with the problem.

You limit the number of guns produced. This means there are too many gun companies. So you buy out some of them, and re-tool to produce other machined parts needed by the government, such as precision military parts.

Then you buy back approximately $4 billion worth of whatever guns people will sell. This amounts to about 3 1/2% of the total guns in the country. Much of this will come from FFL's getting rid of old stock which doesn't sell that well. The firearms manufacturers now have lots of money and lots of inventory space, without much in the way of new guns available, so they being buying guns from the people that want to sell to them. This removes another 2% or so.

This isn't rocket science, dude.


Hahahahhahahahahahhahahaha

You have no idea how the economy works do you? Buying a few gun companies doesn't change how many guns will be
manufactured, you've just given a competitive advantage to certain gun companies to expand their market presence. These factories aren't churning out firearms without people buying them.
 
2014-04-10 04:07:25 AM  

Fark It: Except this isn't the slightest bit of gun control, you're talking about driving gun companies out of business, nationalizing them, and pricing the poor out of the 2nd Amendment via market manipulation.


1.) Not all gun companies, but seriously? How many do we need?

2.) Why is that any worse than the market manipulation currently occurring?
 
2014-04-10 04:08:14 AM  

ox45tallboy: You limit the number of guns produced. This means there are too many gun companies. So you buy out some of them, and re-tool to produce other machined parts needed by the government, such as precision military parts.


So, you partially nationalize the firearms industry in order to manipulate the market and drive up prices.

Then you buy back approximately $4 billion worth of whatever guns people will sell. This amounts to about 3 1/2% of the total guns in the country.

Thank you for your citation.

Much of this will come from FFL's getting rid of old stock which doesn't sell that well.

Thank you for backing up this supposition.

The firearms manufacturers now have lots of money and lots of inventory space,

The ones that no longer produce firearms?  What do manufacturers want with tons of inventory space?  They want their product shipped out, purchased, not sitting on shelves.

without much in the way of new guns available, so they being buying guns from the people that want to sell to them.

The gun manufacturers or the dealers?  If there's a government-created gun shortage, why would people sell to the very people (FFLs) who helped create the shortage in the first place?

This removes another 2% or so.

And you base this estimate on what?

This isn't rocket science, dude.

No, this is word salad.
 
2014-04-10 04:09:45 AM  

violentsalvation: Is that money well spent?


Absolutely. As I've said at least three other times, it creates inventory space as well as gives them large amounts of cash with which to fill it with other guns from private citizens - specifically those who wouldn't sell to the gun buyback program on general principle. Every gun locked in the safes of the FFL holders is a gun not on the streets.
 
2014-04-10 04:10:35 AM  

BgJonson79: demaL-demaL-yeH: BgJonson79: The cops are cowards?

For the most part, yes, but their job requires them to be armed.

BgJonson79: Marines in Afghanistan are cowards?

No. Then, again, unlike Afghanistan, CONUS is not an active combat zone.

But he said people, with no qualifiers.  Maybe he should be more specific.

Do you support disarming the police?


Yes. It would help them remember that "police are the public" as some  insignificant, unarmed British cop said.
 
2014-04-10 04:11:28 AM  

Doom MD: Hahahahhahahahahahhahahaha

You have no idea how the economy works do you? Buying a few gun companies doesn't change how many guns will be
manufactured, you've just given a competitive advantage to certain gun companies to expand their market presence. These factories aren't churning out firearms without people buying them.


Hahahahahahahahahaa you're not even bothering reading my stuff, huh? You just want to argue.

I've specifically stated legislating a reduction in the number of guns manufactured.
 
2014-04-10 04:15:05 AM  

ox45tallboy: Absolutely. As I've said at least three other times, it creates inventory space


What's this obsession with inventory space?  Do you know how little physical space guns take up in a retail environment?

as well as gives them large amounts of cash with which to fill it with other guns from private citizens

Other guns which are now worth more due to dwindling supply

specifically those who wouldn't sell to the gun buyback program on general principle

Because those people would surely choose to do business with FFLs who participated in a gun buyback program beyond dumping non-functioning, broken guns for a profit.

Every gun locked in the safes of the FFL holders is a gun not on the streets.

THEN WHY TARGET THE INVENTORY OF FFLs IN THE FIRST PLACE?
 
2014-04-10 04:17:11 AM  

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: Hahahahhahahahahahhahahaha

You have no idea how the economy works do you? Buying a few gun companies doesn't change how many guns will be
manufactured, you've just given a competitive advantage to certain gun companies to expand their market presence. These factories aren't churning out firearms without people buying them.

Hahahahahahahahahaa you're not even bothering reading my stuff, huh? You just want to argue.

I've specifically stated legislating a reduction in the number of guns manufactured.


By buying some gun companies you said. Is English your primary language? Do you have some form of asperger's?
 
2014-04-10 04:18:14 AM  

ox45tallboy: I've specifically stated legislating a reduction in the number of guns manufactured.


Buy vaguely stating that "some" gun manufacturers will be bought out, voluntarily, to limit new guns being made, without mentioning any type of restriction on features or number produced.

How much of a reduction are we talking about?  Better yet, tell me how many guns you'd like to see produced in a year.  What's the limit?
 
2014-04-10 04:19:10 AM  

Fark It: So, you partially nationalize the firearms industry in order to manipulate the market and drive up prices


No, you limit the number of guns manufactured in order to manipulate the market and drive up prices. You nationalize a few gun manufacturers in order to keep from screwing over the stockholders and employees as a result of these regulations. Are you even reading what I'm writing here?

Fark It: Thank you for your citation.


You stated that $400 was absurdly low. I showed plenty of guns selling for well below that , and these are the guns the gun buyback program would target. On top of that, I cited FFL dealer prices instead of fair market value (i.e., what you would pay if purchasing from a private seller),


Fark It: The ones that no longer produce firearms? What do manufacturers want with tons of inventory space? They want their product shipped out, purchased, not sitting on shelves.


Wat?

Have you never worked retail sales?

Of course they want inventory turnover, that's the idea here, and why they would sell so many to the buyback program. They also want products on shelves for people to buy., which is why they would be buying more from individuals.

Fark It: And you base this estimate on what?


That one was arbitrarily pulled out of my ass; it could be more. But my proposal was for "most" of the buybacks to com from FFL's. 2% is "most" of 3 1/2%. This is the equivalent amount of inventory space that would soon be filled with more guns.
 
2014-04-10 04:19:12 AM  

Doom MD: Do you have some form of asperger's?


I am seriously beginning to wonder.

/I can't believe this dude's a Moderator
 
2014-04-10 04:21:40 AM  

Fark It: What's this obsession with inventory space?  Do you know how little physical space guns take up in a retail environment?


Yeah. I also know how many gun stores here in the South are pretty much nothing but guns. That's all their inventory.

Fark It: THEN WHY TARGET THE INVENTORY OF FFLs IN THE FIRST PLACE?


Because you're getting rid of guns that the store owner is tired of looking at and is likely to sell for cheap. This inventory space will be replaced with more expensive guns.
 
2014-04-10 04:24:33 AM  

Doom MD: By buying some gun companies you said. Is English your primary language? Do you have some form of asperger's?


No, that obviously wouldn't work. I'm sorry that you didn't read what I originally wrote; it's no wonder you're thinking that I'm not making sense. You're doing it backwards. The legislation of limits on firearm production comes first, THEN you buy up the gun companies that start to fail because of this, leaving the ones still in place to continue to do business at roughly their previous levels.
 
2014-04-10 04:26:36 AM  

ox45tallboy: You're doing it backwards. The legislation of limits on firearm production comes first, THEN you buy up the gun companies that start to fail because of this, leaving the ones still in place to continue to do business at roughly their previous levels.


That's totally different from nationalizing some gun companies and then running some out of business.  You just want to run some out of business and then nationalize some.

What specific legislation are we talking about here?
 
2014-04-10 04:29:19 AM  

Fark It: Buy vaguely stating that "some" gun manufacturers will be bought out, voluntarily, to limit new guns being made, without mentioning any type of restriction on features or number produced.

How much of a reduction are we talking about?  Better yet, tell me how many guns you'd like to see produced in a year.  What's the limit?


That's a good question.

I think that we can stand to cut firearms manufactured for civilian sale in the United States by 50% and the world won't come crashing down on us. This number is arbitrary; I'm more than willing to look at any data you could provide as to whether that is a bad number, or if there is a number that would be better at reducing the number of guns - whether it needs to be slower or faster than that to achieve the results of fewer guns running around.
 
2014-04-10 04:29:29 AM  

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: By buying some gun companies you said. Is English your primary language? Do you have some form of asperger's?

No, that obviously wouldn't work. I'm sorry that you didn't read what I originally wrote; it's no wonder you're thinking that I'm not making sense. You're doing it backwards. The legislation of limits on firearm production comes first, THEN you buy up the gun companies that start to fail because of this, leaving the ones still in place to continue to do business at roughly their previous levels.


Oh so on top of all of this garbage you're going to enact laws limiting the number of firearms that can be produced. So basically, only rich people have the right to self defense. Nevermind the fact it's really not that difficult to manufacture a firearm on your own and you'll create a thriving black market gun manufacturing industry overnight.
 
2014-04-10 04:31:26 AM  

Fark It: Doom MD: Do you have some form of asperger's?

I am seriously beginning to wonder.

/I can't believe this dude's a Moderator


I'm convinced he's making this up as he goes along
 
2014-04-10 04:33:03 AM  

Fark It: I am seriously beginning to wonder.

/I can't believe this dude's a Moderator


Yeah, me either.

I think if you'll review what I actually wrote tomorrow morning, you'll see that your arguments were against things I didn't write. I never said ban all guns or nationalize the entire gun industry or force everyone to sell their guns to the government. It's no wonder you've been insistent that I'm the one not making sense - you never bothered reading what I wrote!

Check it over tomorrow when you're feeling awake; you'll see that I've been pretty consistent.
 
2014-04-10 04:34:58 AM  

ox45tallboy: Fark It: Buy vaguely stating that "some" gun manufacturers will be bought out, voluntarily, to limit new guns being made, without mentioning any type of restriction on features or number produced.

How much of a reduction are we talking about?  Better yet, tell me how many guns you'd like to see produced in a year.  What's the limit?

That's a good question.

I think that we can stand to cut firearms manufactured for civilian sale in the United States by 50% and the world won't come crashing down on us. This number is arbitrary; I'm more than willing to look at any data you could provide


This is too rich.

as to whether that is a bad number, or if there is a number that would be better at reducing the number of guns - whether it needs to be slower or faster than that to achieve the results of fewer guns running around.

This literally reads like something a 4th-grader would write.  "Guns running around?"  Shouldn't the goal be to reduce the amount of criminals?  Why are we under any obligation to go along with your social engineering pipe-dream?  If there are too many new guns being produced, the market will correct, prices will drop as supply increases and saturates the market, and existing companies will either go under or re-tool.
 
2014-04-10 04:39:58 AM  

Doom MD: Oh so on top of all of this garbage you're going to enact laws limiting the number of firearms that can be produced.


Sigh.

100 posts later and we finally have you almost understanding what I wrote.

No,the FIRST thing to do is limit the number of new guns produced, not "on top of everything else". I'm sorry you're not reading what I'm writing.

Doom MD: So basically, only rich people have the right to self defense.


Nope, poor people that have guns keep their guns. No one takes any guns away from anyone involuntarily.

Doom MD: Nevermind the fact it's really not that difficult to manufacture a firearm on your own and you'll create a thriving black market gun manufacturing industry overnight.


I'm not seeing why that's the case. People that sell their guns to a buyback program generally don't take the money and go buy another gun.

And why would anyone buy an illegal gun when you can still go to the store and buy a legal one? This small amount of market pressure is not going to jack the price of guns so high that a guy with a 3D printer can undercut the legal stuff and still handle the risks.

A number of people will just choose not to own a gun, just as most people do nowadays. You're not preventing anyone from owning guns, you're just making it so that they're less likely to bother.
 
2014-04-10 04:46:37 AM  

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: Oh so on top of all of this garbage you're going to enact laws limiting the number of firearms that can be produced.

Sigh.

100 posts later and we finally have you almost understanding what I wrote.

No,the FIRST thing to do is limit the number of new guns produced, not "on top of everything else". I'm sorry you're not reading what I'm writing.

Doom MD: So basically, only rich people have the right to self defense.

Nope, poor people that have guns keep their guns. No one takes any guns away from anyone involuntarily.

Doom MD: Nevermind the fact it's really not that difficult to manufacture a firearm on your own and you'll create a thriving black market gun manufacturing industry overnight.

I'm not seeing why that's the case. People that sell their guns to a buyback program generally don't take the money and go buy another gun.

And why would anyone buy an illegal gun when you can still go to the store and buy a legal one? This small amount of market pressure is not going to jack the price of guns so high that a guy with a 3D printer can undercut the legal stuff and still handle the risks.

A number of people will just choose not to own a gun, just as most people do nowadays. You're not preventing anyone from owning guns, you're just making it so that they're less likely to bother.


So either what your proposing is so marginal it will do nothing at great expense or it will in fact make guns too expensive for the poor. You see, the poor aren't eternal beings. They die and are born every day. Some may actually want to purchase firearms for themselves. Your proposal in its more extreme form would make purchasing firearms more expensive since demand hasn't changed but supply has. If it's too expensive then people will turn to the black market. Now you've turned poor people into criminals for wanting to own a firearm to defend themselves. Yet here you are saying you want to end the drug war. Amazing.
 
2014-04-10 04:53:04 AM  

Fark It: This is too rich.


It's too rich to say that it's a proven fact that fewer guns mean less gun violence? And to make a proposal that will reduce the number of guns, and ask for any data showing why it wouldn't work?

Fark It: This literally reads like something a 4th-grader would write.  "Guns running around?"


Says the person that spent the last 100-some-odd posts responding to what he thought I said rather than what I actually did.

Fark It: Shouldn't the goal be to reduce the amount of criminals?


Absolutely. One way of doing that is to reduce the availability of the tolls of crime.

Fark It: Why are we under any obligation to go along with your social engineering pipe-dream?


Because SOMETHING needs to be done to reduce gun violence. If you have other proposals, then suggest them.

Fark It: If there are too many new guns being produced, the market will correct, prices will drop as supply increases and saturates the market, and existing companies will either go under or re-tool.


Or the market will be manipulated by people with a financial interest in fomenting gun violence, thereby selling more guns to more people to protect against said violence. Every major outbreak of gun violence is a win for the gun manufacturers, as they can just suggest that people need more guns.
 
2014-04-10 04:56:57 AM  

Doom MD: So either what your proposing is so marginal it will do nothing at great expense or it will in fact make guns too expensive for the poor. You see, the poor aren't eternal beings. They die and are born every day. Some may actually want to purchase firearms for themselves. Your proposal in its more extreme form would make purchasing firearms more expensive since demand hasn't changed but supply has. If it's too expensive then people will turn to the black market. Now you've turned poor people into criminals for wanting to own a firearm to defend themselves. Yet here you are saying you want to end the drug war. Amazing.


Nope. The poor get to keep their guns if they want to. They can sell them right now if they want , or not sell them. No one is forced to sell. But as gun crime starts to drop, more people will choose to sell. That's the idea. It will start a social trend of fewer guns.

I would likely keep my own gun, since I only own the one. I know that statistically someone in my household is more likely to be shot with it than an intruder meaning to do me harm. I understand that risk, and for the time being I would still keep it. But as gun violence begins to approach the levels seen in most of the rest of the civilized world, I would likely get rid of mine.
 
2014-04-10 04:57:43 AM  
Okay guys, I'm out. Once again, please look over what I actually posted, and then compare that to your own responses. I'll check back in here tomorrow.
 
2014-04-10 04:59:02 AM  

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: So either what your proposing is so marginal it will do nothing at great expense or it will in fact make guns too expensive for the poor. You see, the poor aren't eternal beings. They die and are born every day. Some may actually want to purchase firearms for themselves. Your proposal in its more extreme form would make purchasing firearms more expensive since demand hasn't changed but supply has. If it's too expensive then people will turn to the black market. Now you've turned poor people into criminals for wanting to own a firearm to defend themselves. Yet here you are saying you want to end the drug war. Amazing.

Nope. The poor get to keep their guns if they want to. They can sell them right now if they want , or not sell them. No one is forced to sell. But as gun crime starts to drop, more people will choose to sell. That's the idea. It will start a social trend of fewer guns.

I would likely keep my own gun, since I only own the one. I know that statistically someone in my household is more likely to be shot with it than an intruder meaning to do me harm. I understand that risk, and for the time being I would still keep it. But as gun violence begins to approach the levels seen in most of the rest of the civilized world, I would likely get rid of mine.


Keep? I'm talking about buying.
 
2014-04-10 05:11:35 AM  

Fark It: 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.


I apologize for my earlier fack up of stating shall issue when I meant may issue. Been a long week and it being capped off by a liter of Jim Beam hasn't helped much with the thought process, well maybe a tad bit more then that. Anyway I'm glad to see that there are sane people around to shoot down the ideological yet rather illogical folks out there, bed is calling meh!
 
2014-04-10 05:51:41 AM  

dropdfun: Anyway I'm glad to see that there are sane people around to shoot down the ideological yet rather illogical folks out there, bed is calling meh!


Thanks, dude, I try. This whole notion of "shall issue" is relatively new; historically, it's always been the local sheriff who approves or disapproves of someone carrying a gun around his town. And yes, there is concern when you've got someone like Sheriff Joe who abuses his authority, yet since the majority in his county are racists, he keeps getting elected.

You're not the only one who thinks ideological purity to the 2nd Amendment is ridiculous as well; local laws about carrying guns around town have been in place since prior to the Revolution.

Appealing to the notion of possible racism on the part of the local sheriff seems logical on the outside, but you wind up with a "zero tolerance policy" when you don't allow some local discretion, with the end result being someone having a gun who shouldn't and there's not a damn thing the local law enforcement can do about it until he shoots someone with it. The appeals process can take care of most all abuses. If necessary, make it the law that the sheriff must present clear and conclusive evidence regarding a particular individual's lack of fitness for CC; if there were an actual problem, there would be police reports even if no charges were filed.

I don't think people who believe in "shall issue" are completely illogical, but I agree with you that they are more ideologically bent than rational.
 
2014-04-10 08:31:14 AM  
For the record and this was a few hundred posts back, someone wanted to prevent a person with a misdemeanor DV charge prevented from carrying.

Well that person can't legally own a gun, and would fail the background check they need to get that shall issue permit anyway. It's been that way since the Lautenberg amendment was passed.
 
2014-04-10 08:48:22 AM  

ox45tallboy: way south: Thing is that there hasn't been a real price spike or drop. Availability has gone up with increased production, but even at the height of demand, the over the counter prices stayed relatively normal and companies resorted to things like first come first serve rather than gouging.

Yeahhhhhh...... about that......

[truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com image 850x616]

Source


Remember how I said some people made money in the crisis?    Its by auctions to panic buyers, which is what that graph attempts to track. Idiots will always rush out and pay more than they should.
Dealer prices, andColts factory price, remained relatively unchanged.

They weren't difficult to get either if you were willing to stick it out on a waiting list. A friend of mine picked up an LE model around the same time I got my Bushmaster A3.


/I paid $1100 in early 2013. Its presently $1123.
/Had to wait a month after ordering, but with our coupon laws I had plenty of time.
/My paperwork had been waiting for a commissioners signature from the previous summer.
/and the VI tops the list in murders per capita too... Go figure.
 
2014-04-10 09:32:48 AM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: My take on the gun term semantics argument, for what it's worth:

It's not just about saying "You got one minor part of your statement wrong, therefore the whole thing gets thrown out" (though there does appear to be some of that). It's that at this point, getting it wrong means you are not just ignorant on the subject, you are deliberately ignorant (look at all the images just in this thread that basically say "I know I'm wrong, what'r you gonna do about it?"). You're incorrect on a minor item, but when corrected you say "Whatever, it doesn't matter". When you're told that it does in fact make a difference, you say "No it doesn't, you're just trying to deflect from the real issue". If you know you're ignorant, how can you say that it doesn't matter? If you know you're wrong and refuse to accept a correction on the most minor of subjects, why would anyone listen to anything else you have to say?

If you say something wrong once out of ignorance, that's acceptable. Nobody can know everything. However, if after you are given the correct information you continue to say incorrect things that you now know to be incorrect, you aren't just ignorant, you're a liar. Why would anyone trust anything that person says after that?

So, yes, pro-gun folks will continue to be pedantic, because your ignorance is not equal to their knowledge. Especially when that ignorance goes past the discussion phase and makes it into the lawbooks.


It took 403 posts but finally:

i257.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-10 11:00:30 AM  

Fark It: Colt hasn't made revolvers in a long time.


Uh, about that...

ox45tallboy: 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.


1.  It shouldn't be off the books then.
2.  Misdemeanor DV is still a disqualifier to even touch firearms just like a felony due to the Lautenberg Amendment
3.  Historically sheriffs like using their 'discretion' more to deny minorities*, poor people, of the wrong party, or just plain didn't donate enough to his last re-election campaign.

*One of the reasons discretion is being shot down in some areas, due to obvious racial discrimination in it's use.
 
2014-04-10 11:01:26 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.


I'm pro-gun, and all in favor of ending the Drug War, but neither the Newtown or Aurora mass shootings were about drugs, iirc.  And Columbine wasn't either, iirc.
 
2014-04-10 11:19:27 AM  

violentsalvation: 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.


Hadn't heard that one before...I like the idea.

I think it's a pity the NRA doesn't believe in allowing doctors to discuss gun safes, or any other aspect of gun safety, with the parents of newborns...I guess they're just not a fan of the First Amendment.
 
2014-04-10 11:20:18 AM  

PunGent: I'm pro-gun, and all in favor of ending the Drug War, but neither the Newtown or Aurora mass shootings were about drugs, iirc.  And Columbine wasn't either, iirc.


You're absolutely correct. However, the proliferation of guns is definitely rooted in the drug war. Criminalizing drugs makes the whole business illegal, which leads to violence including turf wars, armed robbery of drug dealers, and property crimes of drug addicts. The gun industry counts on this, as when the "good" people feel insecure, they buy more guns to protect themselves against the bad people who have guns.

The gun industry loves gun violence - they arm both sides and laugh all the way to the bank at all the suckers. They skew and distort statistics to make themselves look like heroes who are trying to fight the violence and the bad guys, but they are busy fomenting the gun violence and its causes.
 
2014-04-10 11:22:38 AM  

ox45tallboy: Nope, poor people that have guns keep their guns.


Bingo!!


I was waiting for the obvious 'troll' line as if I had to choose one.  We finally got there.  It's been a tough read though.  You really had us going there, man.  Fantastic job.
 
2014-04-10 11:23:48 AM  

ox45tallboy: You're absolutely correct. However, the proliferation of guns is definitely rooted in the drug war.


There's a 4 decade decline in gun ownership.

Be careful, both sides have propagandized this.
 
2014-04-10 11:37:57 AM  

Firethorn: 1.  It shouldn't be off the books then.
2.  Misdemeanor DV is still a disqualifier to even touch firearms just like a felony due to the Lautenberg Amendment
3.  Historically sheriffs like using their 'discretion' more to deny minorities*, poor people, of the wrong party, or just plain didn't donate enough to his last re-election campaign.

*One of the reasons discretion is being shot down in some areas, due to obvious racial discrimination in it's use.


Sometimes small-town sheriffs make a judgement call on some things, like if Billy Ray gets arrested for doing something stupid, he'll lose his job down at the plant and Lerlene and the baby will be out on the street, so a nice little conversation in the back of the patrol car might be the best way of handling the situation. Sometimes, a small town sheriff knows that some drug dealing is going on, and he tolerates it because the dealer is smart enough to keep the violence away from his town, and if he busts the guy, then the next dealer might not be so smart. Sometimes the guy is just too slippery to bust. Once again, while there might not be arrest records or a criminal record, there are almost certainl police reports to back up the decision of the local guys.

Letting local law enforcement set the rules for their town has worked pretty well for most of American history. The whole "shall issue" movement is relatively new and unproven, and causes major headaches.

The irony is that most people that support "shall issue" are strong states' rights advocates who believe that someone in Washington, far removed the local area, has no business telling people in the state how to run things. The fact is, though, what works for inner city Atlanta to reduce gun violence doesn't always work for backwater Appalachia, and trying to pigeonhole both areas into the same set of gun laws usually hurts one area as much as it helps the other. Local control is best, as long as there is an appeals process for those who believe they are not being treated fairly.
 
2014-04-10 11:42:09 AM  

AltheaToldMe: Bingo!!


I was waiting for the obvious 'troll' line as if I had to choose one.  We finally got there.  It's been a tough read though.  You really had us going there, man.  Fantastic job.


I'm not getting why you keep calling my ideas a "troll". I said repeatedly that no one would be forced to give up their guns, just that the option would be there for people who would rather have the money, without these guns being put on the street and keeping the prices ridiculously low and the motivation for selling to someone who can't legally buy relatively high.

Poor people's rights would not be infringed any more than they are now. I fail to see what the difference would be.
 
2014-04-10 11:45:54 AM  

R.A.Danny: ox45tallboy: You're absolutely correct. However, the proliferation of guns is definitely rooted in the drug war.

There's a 4 decade decline in gun ownership.

Be careful, both sides have propagandized this.


While the number of legal gun owners relative to the total population has decreased, the number of guns and the number of criminals has increased. And why are fewer people choosing to own guns, at the same time that those with guns are buying more guns? Correlation does not always equal causation.
 
2014-04-10 11:52:26 AM  

ox45tallboy: the number of guns and the number of criminals has increased.


Crime rates are markedly down, dude. Who's feeding you this line of crap?
 
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 »
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