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)   If the Vegas shooter had been trying to stockpile cold medicine instead of guns, he would have been sitting in jail long ago   ( cnn.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Methamphetamine, Mandalay Bay Resort, street drug methamphetamine, 30-day period, Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, federal act sets, National Precursor Log, Drug Diversion Investigators  
•       •       •

3613 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Oct 2017 at 10:20 AM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



289 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-10-06 09:11:33 AM  
Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.
 
2017-10-06 09:22:18 AM  
Yes. I stopped buying pseudoephedrine containing medicines when they started requiring ID and imposing limits.

Someone could make meth with some pseudoephedrine. Better put allergy sufferers on a list!
 
2017-10-06 09:54:50 AM  
I just buy meth now

/They never ask for an ID
 
2017-10-06 10:05:27 AM  
When Sudafed is outlawed only outlaws will have Sudafed.

//amidoingitright?
 
2017-10-06 10:11:21 AM  

Ambivalence: Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.


Bullsh*t there isn't. They just aren't as powerful as the NRA.
 
2017-10-06 10:16:47 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Ambivalence: Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.

Bullsh*t there isn't. They just aren't as powerful as the NRA.


It's not that they're less powerful, it's that they'd much prefer that you take the $400 month prescription allergy meds than some cheap ass Sudafed.
 
2017-10-06 10:21:47 AM  

Ambivalence: Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.


There is a lobbying group of pharmaceutical companies and they protected the fark out of their product. Whether sold to meth makers or people with colds, they profited. So they sure as hell didn't want limits. Even placing it behind the counter w/o prescription, limits or tracking hurts sales since people just browse then aisle and grab something and the extra step of asking w/o any prejudice lowers sales. Also, the boxes stolen by junkies had already been paid for by the pharmacy, so the manufacturers already had their profit.

It took years and years of headlines about societal problems with meth before any laws could be passed thanks to the lobbying of pharmaceutical manufacturers. They made the same arguments Colombia or Mexico make about cocaine: Hey, it's not our fault. People are gonna do what they are gonna do. Why don't we address demand and addiction....
 
d23 [BareFark]
2017-10-06 10:23:29 AM  
but but but but Kennedy on Fox Business just told me yesterday that if trucks drove into a crowd we wouldn't regulate trucks!

Though, oops, we do regulate trucks.  So confusing.
 
2017-10-06 10:25:06 AM  
This is why I just collect the Americium in fire alarms. Everyone thinks I'm just being safe when I'm really building my own nuclear reactor.
 
2017-10-06 10:25:27 AM  
Hard to believe two distinct and separate things are regulated differently. Especially when one has a whole constitutional amendment protecting it and the other is used to make meth.

 But they're regulated differently?!?? I'm literally choking on my gluten free non gmo muffin and my half soy double chai mocha choca latte in surprise.
 
2017-10-06 10:26:20 AM  

d23: but but but but Kennedy on Fox Business just told me yesterday that if trucks drove into a crowd we wouldn't regulate trucks!

Though, oops, we do regulate trucks.  So confusing.


We should regulate guns too. I cant believe the United States doesn't regulate guns.
 
2017-10-06 10:28:01 AM  
My new favorite...


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-10-06 10:29:32 AM  

question_dj: Yes. I stopped buying pseudoephedrine containing medicines when they started requiring ID and imposing limits.

Someone could make meth with some pseudoephedrine. Better put allergy sufferers on a list!


Allegra is way better at controlling my allergies when they flare up.
 
2017-10-06 10:29:39 AM  
Ah the result of the glorious war on drugs. What is really sad is you can be thrown in jail for just buying  pseudoephedrine
 
2017-10-06 10:29:56 AM  

js34603: Hard to believe two distinct and separate things are regulated differently. Especially when one has a whole constitutional amendment protecting it and the other is used to make meth.

 But they're regulated differently?!?? I'm literally choking on my gluten free non gmo muffin and my half soy double chai mocha choca latte in surprise.


An odd take going for the false equivalence argument on an argument literally based on false equivalence, though at least the article is meant to draw attention to the absurd idea that Sudafed, a product with legitimate and safe uses, is more heavily regulated than guns, a product that also has legitimate uses, though is far more destructive.

/stop hiding behind the 2nd.  It says 'well-regulated' and even if you want to argue it doesn't apply to individuals, we can literally change decide the law, as a country, via an amendment, if enough people were to agree.
 
2017-10-06 10:30:29 AM  

d23: but but but but Kennedy on Fox Business just told me yesterday that if trucks drove into a crowd we wouldn't regulate trucks!

Though, oops, we do regulate trucks.  So confusing.


We're pretty close to having self driving trucks eliminate the jobs of drivers... so why not develop self-shooting guns to put mass shooters out of business?
 
2017-10-06 10:30:58 AM  
Well, technically, pharmaceuticals (mostly legal ones) kill far more people than guns do.

So ... in this case, it kinda makes sense. Regulate the thing that kills more people.

Having said that, the drugs that kill the most people every day are not opioids being used by hardcore addicts. Prescription medication kills more people by far, just from regular side effects and adverse reactions. They kill so many people, we don't exactly how many people they kill

Drugs actually are dangerous, yo.
 
2017-10-06 10:31:01 AM  

js34603: Especially when one has a whole constitutional amendment protecting it and the other is used to make meth.


One puts holes in things at a distance and the other clears nasal passages. Personally, I find that I need my nasal passages cleared more often than I need holes put in things relatively far away from me.

/only occasionally have I considered trying to clear my sinuses with a gun
 
2017-10-06 10:31:23 AM  

weddingsinger: stop hiding behind the 2nd.  It says 'well-regulated' and even if you want to argue it doesn't apply to individuals, we can literally change decide the law, as a country, via an amendment, if enough people were to agree


That's why the NRA is so frothy.  They can see the writing on the wall.
 
2017-10-06 10:32:06 AM  
Our founding fathers could never have predicted Breaking Bad.
 
2017-10-06 10:36:34 AM  
The issue isn't about guns, the issue is about sudafed being over-regulated.  It's the same as the opioid "crisis." People seem to forget that there is a valid medical use for it.

I'm in a tiny podunk town in the middle of nowhere.  Most of the meth I see is from Mexico.  When I see locally produced meth, it's an oddity.  The fact that the local market is being supplied by the cartels is concerning, to say the least.
 
2017-10-06 10:36:47 AM  

Aidan: js34603: Especially when one has a whole constitutional amendment protecting it and the other is used to make meth.

One puts holes in things at a distance and the other clears nasal passages. Personally, I find that I need my nasal passages cleared more often than I need holes put in things relatively far away from me.

/only occasionally have I considered trying to clear my sinuses with a gun


Clear your sinuses?  Pfft, rookie.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-10-06 10:37:26 AM  

kbronsito: Ambivalence: Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.

There is a lobbying group of pharmaceutical companies and they protected the fark out of their product. Whether sold to meth makers or people with colds, they profited. So they sure as hell didn't want limits. Even placing it behind the counter w/o prescription, limits or tracking hurts sales since people just browse then aisle and grab something and the extra step of asking w/o any prejudice lowers sales. Also, the boxes stolen by junkies had already been paid for by the pharmacy, so the manufacturers already had their profit.

It took years and years of headlines about societal problems with meth before any laws could be passed thanks to the lobbying of pharmaceutical manufacturers. They made the same arguments Colombia or Mexico make about cocaine: Hey, it's not our fault. People are gonna do what they are gonna do. Why don't we address demand and addiction....


They aren't wrong. Attacking supply is a mistake in the drug war.
 
2017-10-06 10:39:05 AM  
The challenge is (registering guns) not the act of registering guns, it's what will be done long term with the information?  Historically many governments, as they move towards totalitarianism, have not been huge fans of private gun ownership.  Not saying that is a viable outcome, but it is within the realm of possibilities.

That being said, not 100% sure how we put in place a system to keep up with purchases.  Many of us have more than the 1 gun per person.  At an abstract level, recording how many is probably not a bad thing.  At that practical level, it does concern one.

Argument has been made, well you have to register your cars.  Not necessarily, only registration is needed for operating on public roads.  If I have 10 acres someplace, I can keep them there, drive them around, no license tag needed.

Yes, dude bought a lot of guns in a short period.  Not sure how to reasonably corral that detail and not cause angst among the, while polite, heavily armed segment of the population
 
2017-10-06 10:39:35 AM  
We need to start prescribing guns.
 
2017-10-06 10:40:33 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-10-06 10:41:49 AM  
Because Nevada Gun law mentiond in artice.  Sign seen in Fallon Nevada.

What could go wrong?
 
2017-10-06 10:44:36 AM  
I keep seeing memes like this.

Oh after 1 shoe bomber we have to take off our shoes, but guns!!!!

Oh you can't buy pot, but guns!!!!

Using stupid, laws to encourage the implementation of other laws is illogical.
 
2017-10-06 10:45:30 AM  
Thank God he wasn't lobbing Jarts from the 32nd floor. Of course, he would have had to gone to Mexico to buy those.
 
2017-10-06 10:46:32 AM  
There's no constitutional right to health care!

/chessmate liberdinos
 
2017-10-06 10:48:02 AM  
Laws have extremely limited effects on prevention. With enough planning and treachery there will always be success at horror regardless of the means to carry it out. Everyone else but me, you live in cages and then I'll be safe, okay?
 
2017-10-06 10:52:09 AM  
We don't need to drag politics into this issue that is clearly all the Democrats fault. No amount of regulation could have prevented this tragedy, except for perhaps Barack Obama's anti-gun deregulation of bump stocks, which should not be reexamined in any meaningful way by congress, at all. Nancy Pelosi should step down.

It's just too soon to politicize this tragedy.
 
2017-10-06 10:52:19 AM  

js34603: gluten free non gmo muffin and my half soy double chai mocha choca latte in surprise.


Look out for the armpit hair, you poor little milk-blooded beta.
 
2017-10-06 10:54:30 AM  

question_dj: Yes. I stopped buying pseudoephedrine containing medicines when they started requiring ID and imposing limits.

Someone could make meth with some pseudoephedrine. Better put allergy sufferers on a list!


Why? It's still a pretty effective decongestant.  Worth it (to me) to put myself on a watchlist in order to have it around when I need it.

/normally I just take nettle extract for my sinuses
 
2017-10-06 10:54:51 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: My new favorite...


[img.fark.net image 512x288]


a.abcnews.comView Full Size


2,996 dead by the use of knives.
 
2017-10-06 10:55:40 AM  
Or if he had tried to buy and install a non-restricted flow showerhead.
 
2017-10-06 10:57:25 AM  
Having to show your DL when buying sudafed is more onerous than having to go through a background check?
 
2017-10-06 10:58:21 AM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Drugs actually are dangerous, yo.


Guns are actually dangerous, yo.
 
2017-10-06 10:59:06 AM  

Ambivalence: Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.


There's also no law against stockpiling Sudafed, subby's misleading clickbait headline notwithstanding. You can have crates of Sudafed in your basement, and noone's going to come by and put you in prison.
 
2017-10-06 10:59:52 AM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Well, technically, pharmaceuticals (mostly legal ones) kill far more people than guns do.

So ... in this case, it kinda makes sense. Regulate the thing that kills more people.

Having said that, the drugs that kill the most people every day are not opioids being used by hardcore addicts. Prescription medication kills more people by far, just from regular side effects and adverse reactions. They kill so many people, we don't exactly how many people they kill

Drugs actually are dangerous, yo.


Cars kill FAR more people than guns. ~35k a year. And that's pretty heavily regulated too.
 
d23 [BareFark]
2017-10-06 11:00:04 AM  

Jaymark108: There's no constitutional right to health care!

/chessmate liberdinos


Yes, and we only bring up human morality at times that it is useful to us.
 
2017-10-06 11:00:50 AM  

ZeroPly: Ambivalence: Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.

There's also no law against stockpiling Sudafed, subby's misleading clickbait headline notwithstanding. You can have crates of Sudafed in your basement, and noone's going to come by and put you in prison.


Why are you in basement??
 
2017-10-06 11:02:06 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: My new favorite...


[img.fark.net image 512x288]

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

2,996 dead by the use of knives.


Knife:
img.fark.netView Full Size

Plane:
img.fark.netView Full Size


There is a slight difference between the two.
 
d23 [BareFark]
2017-10-06 11:02:10 AM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: The issue isn't about guns, the issue is about sudafed being over-regulated.  It's the same as the opioid "crisis." People seem to forget that there is a valid medical use for it.

I'm in a tiny podunk town in the middle of nowhere.  Most of the meth I see is from Mexico.  When I see locally produced meth, it's an oddity.  The fact that the local market is being supplied by the cartels is concerning, to say the least.


And your experience can be extrapolated to everyone, everything, everywhere.  We got it.
 
2017-10-06 11:03:50 AM  

6nome: Our founding fathers could never have predicted Breaking Bad.


Are you kidding?  Those dudes smuggled rum and dealt in slaves.  The only thing different is selling meth instead of spices from the East Indies.
 
2017-10-06 11:04:05 AM  

ZeroPly: Ambivalence: Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.

There's also no law against stockpiling Sudafed, subby's misleading clickbait headline notwithstanding. You can have crates of Sudafed in your basement, and noone's going to come by and put you in prison.


Go the the drug store and tell them you want to buy Sudafed in bulk.  Or call Pfizer and tell them that you want to buy crates of it to just have stockpiled in your basement.  Come back and let us all know how that worked out for you.
 
2017-10-06 11:04:07 AM  

ChrisDe: Thank God he wasn't lobbing Jarts from the 32nd floor. Of course, he would have had to gone to Mexico to buy those.


Please tell me more about these mexican jarts.  Might have to take a road trip
 
2017-10-06 11:04:54 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: My new favorite...


[img.fark.net image 512x288]

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

2,996 dead by the use of knives.


Disgusting, isn't it?

They should have been allowed to have guns on the plane, but libtards say nooooooooo!
 
2017-10-06 11:05:00 AM  

Aidan: /only occasionally have I considered trying to clear my sinuses with a gun



Preach, brother!
 
2017-10-06 11:07:22 AM  
The Vegas shooter will always be a mystery. Just the way he wants it. He knew that we will be talking about him for years to come. Mystery always keep people talking.
 
d23 [BareFark]
2017-10-06 11:09:59 AM  

Petit_Merdeux: Disgusting, isn't it?

They should have been allowed to have guns on the plane, but libtards say nooooooooo!


The Bush administration was full of "libtards"?

Anyway, I know this was a joke, but it's very Poe-ish.  Especially since "libtard" is basically just a word for "person who did something or holds belief I don't like" to so many Trump voters.
 
2017-10-06 11:10:09 AM  
Drug war you say? A fine example of insanity.
 
2017-10-06 11:11:34 AM  
I was sick so i went to the 24 hour grocery store for some meds.  Couldn't get any because they were behind lock and key that only the pharmacy staff had.  Even the night manager didn't have a key.  WTF kind of shiat is that.
 
2017-10-06 11:12:55 AM  

d23: The Bush administration was full of "libtards"?


Come on, dude. You know that the law of "It's the last administration's fault!" hold here.
 
2017-10-06 11:12:58 AM  

kbronsito: Ambivalence: Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.

There is a lobbying group of pharmaceutical companies and they protected the fark out of their product. Whether sold to meth makers or people with colds, they profited. So they sure as hell didn't want limits. Even placing it behind the counter w/o prescription, limits or tracking hurts sales since people just browse then aisle and grab something and the extra step of asking w/o any prejudice lowers sales. Also, the boxes stolen by junkies had already been paid for by the pharmacy, so the manufacturers already had their profit.

It took years and years of headlines about societal problems with meth before any laws could be passed thanks to the lobbying of pharmaceutical manufacturers. They made the same arguments Colombia or Mexico make about cocaine: Hey, it's not our fault. People are gonna do what they are gonna do. Why don't we address demand and addiction....


Any yet, I could get meth in about 11 minutes.
 
2017-10-06 11:13:22 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-10-06 11:14:50 AM  

Saiga410: ChrisDe: Thank God he wasn't lobbing Jarts from the 32nd floor. Of course, he would have had to gone to Mexico to buy those.

Please tell me more about these mexican jarts.  Might have to take a road trip


You can actually buy them from countries outside the U.S. and Canada, and have them sent to the U.S. They ship them unassembled, so it's considered "parts". A workaround, kind of like replacing the stock on a semi-automatic weapon to make it function as an automatic weapon.

https://www.crowndarts.com/
 
2017-10-06 11:16:18 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: My new favorite...


[img.fark.net image 512x288]


How about a bomb? Does that make a more valid point? Now my cellphone should be illegal?
 
2017-10-06 11:17:10 AM  

weddingsinger: js34603: Hard to believe two distinct and separate things are regulated differently. Especially when one has a whole constitutional amendment protecting it and the other is used to make meth.

 But they're regulated differently?!?? I'm literally choking on my gluten free non gmo muffin and my half soy double chai mocha choca latte in surprise.

An odd take going for the false equivalence argument on an argument literally based on false equivalence, though at least the article is meant to draw attention to the absurd idea that Sudafed, a product with legitimate and safe uses, is more heavily regulated than guns, a product that also has legitimate uses, though is far more destructive.

/stop hiding behind the 2nd.  It says 'well-regulated' and even if you want to argue it doesn't apply to individuals, we can literally change decide the law, as a country, via an amendment, if enough people were to agree.


Straw man's gonna straw.

Riddle me this.  If the "well regulated" portion of the Second Amendment was meant to be the focus of the "right" encapsulated in it why do several states have more clearly delineated rights to bear arms in their State Constitutions?

Pennsylvania State Constitution (Ratified 1874) Section 21:

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Citation: http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html

Delaware State Constitution (Ratified 1897) Section 20:

"A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Citation:  http://delcode.delaware.gov/constitution/constitution-02.shtml#TopOfP​a​ge

The US Constitution can only giveth rights, it can't taketh away.  So even IF you did away with the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, you would have a far larger issue on the state level.  This is just two examples, and merely scratches the surface.

Pseudo ephedrine based decongestants are clearly over regulated due to their use via the extraction method to make Methamphetamine.  But last time I checked I didn't have to fill out a three page form and pass a background check to get a Claritin D (Which I take daily).  My last allergy pill didn't have a serial number on it.  The notion that the sale of allergy medicine is more regulated than the sale of firearms is just plain stupid.  I can be a felon, under 18, with a history of mental health issues, a fugitive from justice, heroin addict illegal alien and I can still purchase my allergy medicine.

The same doesn't apply to firearms.....
 
2017-10-06 11:17:37 AM  
JohnCarter: The challenge is (registering guns) not the act of registering guns, it's what will be done long term with the information?  Historically many governments, as they move towards totalitarianism, have not been huge fans of private gun ownership.  Not saying that is a viable outcome, but it is within the realm of possibilities.

That being said, not 100% sure how we put in place a system to keep up with purchases.  Many of us have more than the 1 gun per person.  At an abstract level, recording how many is probably not a bad thing.  At that practical level, it does concern one.

Argument has been made, well you have to register your cars.  Not necessarily, only registration is needed for operating on public roads.  If I have 10 acres someplace, I can keep them there, drive them around, no license tag needed.

Yes, dude bought a lot of guns in a short period.  Not sure how to reasonably corral that detail and not cause angst among the, while polite, heavily armed segment of the population

The arguments against registration and collection of registration information ring hollow, to me. The 2nd Amendment may guarantee a right to bear arms, and Heller may interpret that right to belong to individuals, but neither the Constitution nor any legal decision since it was ratified guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms secretly. Even a CCW owner who carries a concealed firearm still has to obtain the permit to do so. Also, mandatory registration and tracking actually could make a difference in preventing another Las Vegas by making sure that an individual who is stockpiling an absurd amount of weapons, ammunition, and tannerite in a short period of time pops up on someone's radar.
 
2017-10-06 11:18:27 AM  

d23: Petit_Merdeux: Disgusting, isn't it?

They should have been allowed to have guns on the plane, but libtards say nooooooooo!

The Bush administration was full of "libtards"?

Anyway, I know this was a joke, but it's very Poe-ish.  Especially since "libtard" is basically just a word for "person who did something or holds belief I don't like" to so many Trump voters.


The word libtard been around before Trump ran for president. So they arent all Trump voters. Liberals dont like it when someone group everybody in one place but you are doing it yourself so knock it off.

/not a trump supporter
//not a libtard as well.
///just a middle of the road guy.
////last, stay off of my lawn!
 
2017-10-06 11:20:46 AM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: [img.fark.net image 850x478]


Wish there was one of those in my town.
 
2017-10-06 11:22:23 AM  

Cdr.Murdock: weddingsinger: js34603: Hard to believe two distinct and separate things are regulated differently. Especially when one has a whole constitutional amendment protecting it and the other is used to make meth.

 But they're regulated differently?!?? I'm literally choking on my gluten free non gmo muffin and my half soy double chai mocha choca latte in surprise.

An odd take going for the false equivalence argument on an argument literally based on false equivalence, though at least the article is meant to draw attention to the absurd idea that Sudafed, a product with legitimate and safe uses, is more heavily regulated than guns, a product that also has legitimate uses, though is far more destructive.

/stop hiding behind the 2nd.  It says 'well-regulated' and even if you want to argue it doesn't apply to individuals, we can literally change decide the law, as a country, via an amendment, if enough people were to agree.

Straw man's gonna straw.

Riddle me this.  If the "well regulated" portion of the Second Amendment was meant to be the focus of the "right" encapsulated in it why do several states have more clearly delineated rights to bear arms in their State Constitutions?

Pennsylvania State Constitution (Ratified 1874) Section 21:

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Citation: http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html

Delaware State Constitution (Ratified 1897) Section 20:

"A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Citation:  http://delcode.delaware.gov/constitution/constitution-02.shtml#TopOfPa​ge

The US Constitution can only giveth rights, it can't taketh away.  So even IF you did away with the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, you would have a far larger issue on the state level.  This is just two examples, and merely scratches the surface.

Pseudo ephedrine based decongestants are clearly ...


The Constitution certainly does taketh away. The US Constitution preempts the constitutions of the individual States. Just ask the Southern states. And if the 2nd Amendment were to be altered to exclude an individual right to ownership, or include mandatory registration, etc., then that would be the law of the land-literally.
 
2017-10-06 11:26:36 AM  

Ambivalence: Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.


Actually, there is.  But, they're too busy trying to hustle penis pills, expensive anti-depressants, and jacking up the price of Epi-Pens to care about a drug that's been in the common domain for nearly 30 years.
 
2017-10-06 11:28:45 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-10-06 11:31:24 AM  

JohnCarter: ZeroPly: Ambivalence: Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.

There's also no law against stockpiling Sudafed, subby's misleading clickbait headline notwithstanding. You can have crates of Sudafed in your basement, and noone's going to come by and put you in prison.

Why are you in basement??


Dude, do you even survivalist? If your basement's not full of supplies, what's it going to look like when your friends come by? Sudafed, ammo, whatever - just have some crates stacked up to the rafters.
 
2017-10-06 11:32:08 AM  

Bonzo_1116: 6nome: Our founding fathers could never have predicted Breaking Bad.

Are you kidding?  Those dudes smuggled rum and dealt in slaves.  The only thing different is selling meth instead of spices from the East Indies.


some people think our founding fathers were studious British snobs and gentlemen.... just fyi,  the marine corps was founded in a bar by a bunch of drunk rebellious alpha males, a trend that continues to this day. And Franklin hung out with prostitues and def drank in excess,especially during his France tour. Many owned slaves and delt in treasonous affairs (from a Brit perspective),on a daily basis which would give most people an anxiety diagnosis and ptsd...so yea, they knew some shiat and meant what they wrote.
 
2017-10-06 11:35:58 AM  

Callous: ZeroPly: Ambivalence: Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.

There's also no law against stockpiling Sudafed, subby's misleading clickbait headline notwithstanding. You can have crates of Sudafed in your basement, and noone's going to come by and put you in prison.

Go the the drug store and tell them you want to buy Sudafed in bulk.  Or call Pfizer and tell them that you want to buy crates of it to just have stockpiled in your basement.  Come back and let us all know how that worked out for you.


I agree. You basically have to submit to a rectal probe to buy Sudafed now. Doctors aren't prescribing Oxycodone to my friends who have legitimate need for it (kidney stones etc). Someone just wrote upthread that they couldn't get Sudafed at night because the case was locked. And all those regulations were beyond useless, all they did is make heroin easy to get a hold of.

So what makes you think I want the federal government to do to guns what they did to drugs??
 
2017-10-06 11:36:38 AM  

TNel: I was sick so i went to the 24 hour grocery store for some meds.  Couldn't get any because they were behind lock and key that only the pharmacy staff had.  Even the night manager didn't have a key.  WTF kind of shiat is that.


The law?

I once left my keys (car, apartment, and store) in the pharmacy while closing one night. The pharmacy had its own security system, and only pharmacists could have the code to disarm it. My store manager was not very happy...
 
2017-10-06 11:36:44 AM  
Look, if this guy hadn't been able to assemble an arsenal of military weapons, he would have just snuck a truck into his hotel room and driven out the window into that crowd.

In other words, if we can't prevent all murders, we shouldn't bother trying to stop any murders.
 
2017-10-06 11:38:55 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: My new favorite...


[img.fark.net image 512x288]


Interesting that dickhead had to make the distinction "white man".

White guilt at it's finest, Fark him right in his insecure, grandstanding arsehole.
 
2017-10-06 11:39:15 AM  

Ambivalence: Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.


Bare Sudafed? Like....naked?

\Oh my!!!
 
2017-10-06 11:40:08 AM  

Saiga410: ChrisDe: Thank God he wasn't lobbing Jarts from the 32nd floor. Of course, he would have had to gone to Mexico to buy those.

Please tell me more about these mexican jarts.  Might have to take a road trip


I had a set of original Jarts that used to be my parents'.  Years ago, I was gonna sell them on eBay but decided I didn't want to risk getting sued after they ended up in someone's brain.   Looking on there now, I see there is a market for the empty box they came in...lol.
 
2017-10-06 11:40:13 AM  

FlyingBacon: d23: Petit_Merdeux: Disgusting, isn't it?

They should have been allowed to have guns on the plane, but libtards say nooooooooo!

The Bush administration was full of "libtards"?

Anyway, I know this was a joke, but it's very Poe-ish.  Especially since "libtard" is basically just a word for "person who did something or holds belief I don't like" to so many Trump voters.

The word libtard been around before Trump ran for president. So they arent all Trump voters. Liberals dont like it when someone group everybody in one place but you are doing it yourself so knock it off.

/not a trump supporter
//not a libtard as well.
///just a middle of the road guy.
////last, stay off of my lawn!


As a liberal (except on guns), I absolutely LOVE it when someone uses "libtard". That's the equivalent of my opposition showing up to a town hall meeting in full camo, while I've shown up in a suit.
 
2017-10-06 11:41:25 AM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: Look, if this guy hadn't been able to assemble an arsenal of military weapons, he would have just snuck a truck into his hotel room and driven out the window into that crowd.

In other words, if we can't prevent all murders, we shouldn't bother trying to stop any murders.


 By stopping murders you obviously mean doing it the way you agree with, right? Well either way, seeing as you agree that he could have drove a truck out his window instead of stockpiling firearms, I guess we can meet in the middle.
 
2017-10-06 11:42:28 AM  
I bought some mucinex that my doctor recommended once. It wasn't prescription but I guess it was the stronger stuff they keep behind the counter at the pharmacy. I had to sign something, put my finger on the POS scanner, register as a sex offender, give a DNA sample and have a microchip implanted in my neck.

Well, maybe not all that but it kinda felt like that. I wasn't buying 100 boxes or anything. Just one with like 12 pills. Seems to be working though. They've totally gotten rid of the meth problem in Murica!
 
2017-10-06 11:42:45 AM  

question_dj: Yes. I stopped buying pseudoephedrine containing medicines when they started requiring ID and imposing limits.

Someone could make meth with some pseudoephedrine. Better put allergy sufferers on a list!


What's wrong with showing ID?  What's wrong with the limit?  Sheesh.  Yet you quit buying it for these reasons.  Have a drug history?
 
2017-10-06 11:45:06 AM  
Why are so many people  biatching about the fact that he had a bunch of guns.  Once you have 1 (or two if pistols) is hard to argue that more than that makes you more dangerous.  I do see that in this case he could have switched weapons due to the barrel overheating. but that's about it, right?
 
2017-10-06 11:45:47 AM  

chris chrisson: AugieDoggyDaddy: [img.fark.net image 850x478]

Wish there was one of those in my town.


Me,  I don't like guns, I'm a recovering alcholic (most of the time),  and I was able to Escape from Fallon the day prior.
Town has more that one Gun & Ammo & Liquor stores.
 
2017-10-06 11:45:56 AM  
I'm not sure subby realized this when posting, but what the federal government has done with Sudafed in particular, and the war on drugs in general, is an argument AGAINST more gun control.
 
2017-10-06 11:48:32 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: My new favorite...


[img.fark.net image 512x288]


You reached too far

djtrumpnetwork.comView Full Size
 
2017-10-06 11:49:47 AM  

js34603: d23: but but but but Kennedy on Fox Business just told me yesterday that if trucks drove into a crowd we wouldn't regulate trucks!

Though, oops, we do regulate trucks.  So confusing.

We should regulate guns too. I cant believe the United States doesn't regulate guns.


You have no idea what you are talking about.  There are over 22k gun laws on the books here in the US.
 
2017-10-06 11:50:50 AM  

GDubDub: question_dj: Yes. I stopped buying pseudoephedrine containing medicines when they started requiring ID and imposing limits.

Someone could make meth with some pseudoephedrine. Better put allergy sufferers on a list!

What's wrong with showing ID?  What's wrong with the limit?  Sheesh.  Yet you quit buying it for these reasons.  Have a drug history?


Why should you need to see my id? Why should there be a limit? Why do you assume a drug history?

Lithium is used to make meth do I need to show you my ID and only be able to buy 10 "AA" batteries at the store because of the potential that I could do something that you have no evidence to suggest that I would do?
 
2017-10-06 11:51:07 AM  
Slightly off-topic, but I've noticed that when the gun-fetishists pull out their favorite tactic (claiming that proposed gun control wouldn't have helped in this particular instance), the best response is "how would YOUR "solution" of an armed citizenry have helped?"

Given that...

A) no one could initially tell where the shooting was coming from;

B) the shooter was a mile away;

C) the shooter was in a tiny hotel room surrounded by innocent hotel guests;

...there is no way the "more guns" approach would have helped the situation at all, or resulted in fewer deaths.

Only the prohibition of such weapons could've stopped this.
 
2017-10-06 11:52:20 AM  

GDubDub: question_dj: Yes. I stopped buying pseudoephedrine containing medicines when they started requiring ID and imposing limits.

Someone could make meth with some pseudoephedrine. Better put allergy sufferers on a list!

What's wrong with showing ID?  What's wrong with the limit?  Sheesh.  Yet you quit buying it for these reasons.  Have a drug history?


Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little pseudoephedrine deserve neither liberty or pseudoephedrine.

Ben "Sudafed" Franklin
 
2017-10-06 11:53:24 AM  

question_dj: Someone could make meth with some pseudoephedrine. Better put allergy sufferers on a list!


What can I make with stuff I can buy at Wall Mart?
Like Bleach, Ammonia, BBs. Nails. Pipe. Pipe ends, Baking soda, H2O2, Powdered laundry soap. A 5 gallon gas can, batteries, Alarm clocks, Wires, and frozen avocodos. (Just to toss off the DHS reading this )
 
2017-10-06 11:53:50 AM  

ZeroPly: FlyingBacon: d23: Petit_Merdeux: Disgusting, isn't it?

They should have been allowed to have guns on the plane, but libtards say nooooooooo!

The Bush administration was full of "libtards"?

Anyway, I know this was a joke, but it's very Poe-ish.  Especially since "libtard" is basically just a word for "person who did something or holds belief I don't like" to so many Trump voters.

The word libtard been around before Trump ran for president. So they arent all Trump voters. Liberals dont like it when someone group everybody in one place but you are doing it yourself so knock it off.

/not a trump supporter
//not a libtard as well.
///just a middle of the road guy.
////last, stay off of my lawn!

As a liberal (except on guns), I absolutely LOVE it when someone uses "libtard". That's the equivalent of my opposition showing up to a town hall meeting in full camo, while I've shown up in a suit.


Wearing a suit doesnt make you smarter. Its like lipstick on a pig.
 
2017-10-06 11:53:56 AM  
A 64 year old man killed 58 people in 10 minutes from a 32nd floor window and what does America talk about? It's allergies.

A lunatic kills his mother, steals her arsenal and goes on a killing spree in a classroom of 7 years olds and what do we talk about? Mortal Kombat.

Two kids flip their shiat and go on a rampage through their High School mowing down students and what do we blame? Marilyn Manson.

We are a nation of horrible, horrible people. That's really all there is to it. Gun owners are in favor of the mass murder of children so long as it means they don't have to fill out some extra paperwork and everyone else just doesn't care.
 
2017-10-06 11:54:25 AM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: Look, if this guy hadn't been able to assemble an arsenal of military weapons,

He Didn't
he would have just snuck a truck into his hotel room and driven out the window into that crowd.
He Couldn't
In other words, if we can't prevent all murders, we shouldn't bother trying to stop any murders.
We Shouldn't
 
2017-10-06 11:54:29 AM  

GDubDub: Why are so many people  biatching about the fact that he had a bunch of guns.  Once you have 1 (or two if pistols) is hard to argue that more than that makes you more dangerous.  I do see that in this case he could have switched weapons due to the barrel overheating. but that's about it, right?


It's because there's a big divide between, say, gun owners in the Midwest, and someone in Manhattan who's never even fired one.

Where I am, it's completely normal for someone to have 15 or 20 guns, even if they're not a collector. It's rare for a gun owner to have less than 3 or 4 (including handguns) if they shoot regularly. Think of it like shoes. Someone in a Nigerian village might wonder why an American would need 8 different pairs of shoes. But when you start talking about a couple of pairs of dress shoes, some running shoes, golf shoes, hiking, etc etc, it adds up fast.

It's not stockpiling in a lot of these cases. Someone might have three AR15's with different configurations on them so they don't have to keep moving around optics or their suppressor. So trying to limit the number of guns someone can have is an automatic deal-breaker, and gets that owner out of the conversation and onto the NRA membership list.
 
2017-10-06 11:54:39 AM  

GDubDub: js34603: d23: but but but but Kennedy on Fox Business just told me yesterday that if trucks drove into a crowd we wouldn't regulate trucks!

Though, oops, we do regulate trucks.  So confusing.

We should regulate guns too. I cant believe the United States doesn't regulate guns.

You have no idea what you are talking about.  There are over 22k gun laws on the books here in the US.


You need to tap your sarcasm meter.  The needle may be stuck.  If that doesnt work, check the batteries.
 
2017-10-06 11:56:23 AM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: The issue isn't about guns, the issue is about sudafed being over-regulated.  It's the same as the opioid "crisis." People seem to forget that there is a valid medical use for it.

I'm in a tiny podunk town in the middle of nowhere.  Most of the meth I see is from Mexico.  When I see locally produced meth, it's an oddity.  The fact that the local market is being supplied by the cartels is concerning, to say the least.


And how much meth do you come across in your average day?
 
2017-10-06 11:56:33 AM  

GDubDub: Why are so many people  biatching about the fact that he had a bunch of guns.  Once you have 1 (or two if pistols) is hard to argue that more than that makes you more dangerous.  I do see that in this case he could have switched weapons due to the barrel overheating. but that's about it, right?


Because it adds more fuel to the argument against firearms. That's about it. What that guy did was scary. People are scared and what they want is to live delusional unrealistic quiet happy lives contrary to the evidence supporting an alternative narritive.
 
2017-10-06 11:57:45 AM  
capn' fun:Just ask the Southern states.

620,00 deaths later....

capn' fun: And if the 2nd Amendment were to be altered to exclude an individual right to ownership, or include mandatory registration, etc., then that would be the law of the land-literally.

Good luck with that one.  Last time the a Constitutional amendment was ratified that took rights away from people, it ended well (Prohibition).  And that doesn't take into account the conflict between State and US Constitutions.  There's no right to booze it up in any State Constitution (a notion I support, wholeheartedly BTW).

When someone comes up with a REAL answer, I'm willing to listen.  Let's be honest, this is nothing but a political football.  If a certain political segment of the country really wants no more guns, then advocate for total confiscation from EVERYONE.  Door to door searches, long prison terms for illegal possession.  Suspension for 4th amendment rights so the government can force their way into homes and search for illegal contraband without a warrant.

It just won't work.  We don't have the resources.  Besides the fact there's a strong "gun culture" in the US, it's just too big and daunting task.  More people would die in the aftermath of such an undertaking (again, reference Prohibition) than die from a decade of Las Vegas' and Sandy Hook's trying to implement it.

I don't have the answer.  That's why I'm some dopey guy posting under a pseudonym on an internet comment forum.

But even if you did get both houses of congress to ratify an amendment abolishing the Second amendment, AND get it through enough state legislative bodies to make it law, the enforcement of it would be a blood bath.  Literally, financially, and politically.
 
2017-10-06 12:03:42 PM  

Corn_Fed: Slightly off-topic, but I've noticed that when the gun-fetishists pull out their favorite tactic (claiming that proposed gun control wouldn't have helped in this particular instance), the best response is "how would YOUR "solution" of an armed citizenry have helped?"

Given that...

A) no one could initially tell where the shooting was coming from;

B) the shooter was a mile away;

C) the shooter was in a tiny hotel room surrounded by innocent hotel guests;

...there is no way the "more guns" approach would have helped the situation at all, or resulted in fewer deaths.

Only the prohibition of such weapons could've stopped this.


This is a Wikipedia leader board for mass shooters:
img.fark.netView Full Size


I think we can all agree that keeping this type of score encourages crazy people to go for a new high score. So that the next guy is going to spend months figuring out how he can break 65. It's the equivalent of the Coney Island hot dog eating contest.

So what's your solution to tweak the first amendment so that we can force Wikipedia to take down this leader board? Or are you saying that there's nothing that we can do, and we just have to accept this as a contributing factor to mass shootings as a cost of having first amendment freedom?

In a similar vein, you're not going to reduce mass shootings by inconveniencing legal gun owners. You can make some incremental changes, but it makes much more sense to focus on handgun violence, since mass shootings are a small fraction of gun homicides. Centering gun control efforts around mass shootings is like centering disease control around Ebola.
 
2017-10-06 12:03:43 PM  
What a coincidence, we could probably halt a LOT of gun violence by not fighting the drug war. That includes cops shooting people.

But, then again we'd have to stop voting for democrats and go libertarian, and no dem has the balls when big bad scary republicans appear. See, the WRONG lizard might win.
 
2017-10-06 12:04:40 PM  

Corn_Fed: Slightly off-topic, but I've noticed that when the gun-fetishists pull out their favorite tactic (claiming that proposed gun control wouldn't have helped in this particular instance), the best response is "how would YOUR "solution" of an armed citizenry have helped?"

Given that...

A) no one could initially tell where the shooting was coming from;

B) the shooter was a mile away;

C) the shooter was in a tiny hotel room surrounded by innocent hotel guests;

...there is no way the "more guns" approach would have helped the situation at all, or resulted in fewer deaths.

Only the prohibition of such weapons could've stopped this.


Minus the black market. You forgot that in your equation.
 
2017-10-06 12:06:29 PM  

give me doughnuts: Smelly Pirate Hooker: Drugs actually are dangerous, yo.

Guns are actually dangerous, yo.


Yeah, I get it. But pharmaceuticals kill many more people.
 
2017-10-06 12:07:21 PM  

skozlaw: A 64 year old man killed 58 people in 10 minutes from a 32nd floor window and what does America talk about? It's allergies.

A lunatic kills his mother, steals her arsenal and goes on a killing spree in a classroom of 7 years olds and what do we talk about? Mortal Kombat.

Two kids flip their shiat and go on a rampage through their High School mowing down students and what do we blame? Marilyn Manson.

We are a nation of horrible, horrible people. That's really all there is to it. Gun owners are in favor of the mass murder of children so long as it means they don't have to fill out some extra paperwork and everyone else just doesn't care.


You name 4 people and somehow draw a conclusion we are a "nation of horrible" people? Damn, man...at least try a little for a more sound argument.
 
2017-10-06 12:07:42 PM  

Cdr.Murdock: capn' fun:Just ask the Southern states.

620,00 deaths later....

capn' fun: And if the 2nd Amendment were to be altered to exclude an individual right to ownership, or include mandatory registration, etc., then that would be the law of the land-literally.

Good luck with that one.  Last time the a Constitutional amendment was ratified that took rights away from people, it ended well (Prohibition).  And that doesn't take into account the conflict between State and US Constitutions.  There's no right to booze it up in any State Constitution (a notion I support, wholeheartedly BTW).

When someone comes up with a REAL answer, I'm willing to listen.  Let's be honest, this is nothing but a political football.  If a certain political segment of the country really wants no more guns, then advocate for total confiscation from EVERYONE.  Door to door searches, long prison terms for illegal possession.  Suspension for 4th amendment rights so the government can force their way into homes and search for illegal contraband without a warrant.

It just won't work.  We don't have the resources.  Besides the fact there's a strong "gun culture" in the US, it's just too big and daunting task.  More people would die in the aftermath of such an undertaking (again, reference Prohibition) than die from a decade of Las Vegas' and Sandy Hook's trying to implement it.

I don't have the answer.  That's why I'm some dopey guy posting under a pseudonym on an internet comment forum.

But even if you did get both houses of congress to ratify an amendment abolishing the Second amendment, AND get it through enough state legislative bodies to make it law, the enforcement of it would be a blood bath.  Literally, financially, and politically.


I think the most sensible thing to do would be to re-classify semi-auto rifles and pistols as Class III (as has been discussed to death in earlier threads). But my point was that the 2nd Amendment is simply that-an amendment to a document which frames our government. It is not inerrant scripture, and changing it is a political issue much more than it is a legal one.
 
2017-10-06 12:08:25 PM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: My new favorite...


[img.fark.net image 512x288]


When govts quit killing their citizens at the rate of 290 million a century your point might be valid
 
2017-10-06 12:10:12 PM  
Cdr.Murdock:
When someone comes up with a REAL answer, I'm willing to listen.  Let's be honest, this is nothing but a political football.  If a certain political segment of the country really wants no more guns, then advocate for total confiscation from EVERYONE.  Door to door searches, long prison terms for illegal possession.  Suspension for 4th amendment rights so the government can force their way into homes and search for illegal contraband without a warrant.

It just won't work.  We don't have the resources.  Besides the fact there's a strong "gun culture" in the US, it's just too big and daunting task.  More people would die in the aftermath of such an undertaking (again, reference Prohibition) than die from a decade of Las Vegas' and Sandy Hook's trying to implement it.

I don't have the answer.  That's why I'm some dopey guy posting under a pseudonym on an internet comment forum.


The sale of shovels, waterproof containers and the like would literally go off the charts.  Not to mention the shootouts in the streets between formerly law abiding citizens and searchers.  Mayhem would in fact ensue
 
2017-10-06 12:11:00 PM  

Cdr.Murdock: The US Constitution can only giveth rights, it can't taketh away.  So even IF you did away with the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, you would have a far larger issue on the state level.  This is just two examples, and merely scratches the surface.


Th Constitution doesnt grant rights. The Bill of Rights acknowledge rights that shall not be infringed. If you look at the Declaration of Independence you will see where the Founders used Natural law as the source of their right to revolt. 

Natural law means rights are inherent upon birth.
 
2017-10-06 12:12:07 PM  
Just as a case in point.. my husband had hip surgery last week.. I needed to get him a refill on the pain meds (low dosage of oxycodon)..
I had to drive to the Dr. to pick up the script.
They can't call them in.
They can't have refills on them.
When I got to the pharmacy, they didn't have enough in stock to fill the script.
They can't partial fill. If you take the partial amount, you can't come back for what they owe you.
They can't call to other pharmacies to see if they have the drug in stock. It is illegal for them to tell anyone over the phone what they have in stock.
So 4 pharmacies later, I found one that had the amount needed.
They need to scan your driver's license. People cannot pick up the drug for you unless they have it in hand.
You need to sign your name in several places.
The state keeps track of how many pills you have been prescribed. If you get too many, the pharmacy can deny it to you.

If you go to a gun show here, and have a permit, you can walk out with 2 guns ..
 
2017-10-06 12:13:25 PM  

ChuckRoddy: What a coincidence, we could probably halt a LOT of gun violence by not fighting the drug war. That includes cops shooting people.

But, then again we'd have to stop voting for democrats and go libertarian, and no dem has the balls when big bad scary republicans appear. See, the WRONG lizard might win.


As the resident gun nut in this thread, yes and no. Yes, stopping the war on drugs entirely would greatly reduce gun homicides based on turf wars and so on. But you'd still have violence as in robberies, muggings, carjackings, etc etc.

The real enemy is the two party system. If Libertarians and the Green Party could get influence in the legislative process proportional to their membership, things would change. But of course that's about as likely as repealing the second amendment. Right now, someone who's a libertarian is shut out of the process altogether. And my vote for president while in Missouri is about as consequential as a fart in a hurricane.
 
2017-10-06 12:17:04 PM  

abhorrent1: I bought some mucinex that my doctor recommended once. It wasn't prescription but I guess it was the stronger stuff they keep behind the counter at the pharmacy. I had to sign something, put my finger on the POS scanner, register as a sex offender, give a DNA sample and have a microchip implanted in my neck.

Well, maybe not all that but it kinda felt like that. I wasn't buying 100 boxes or anything. Just one with like 12 pills. Seems to be working though. They've totally gotten rid of the meth problem in Murica!


Eh, they got most of the production moved abroad, which is fine by me.
 
2017-10-06 12:19:50 PM  

ZeroPly: GDubDub: Why are so many people  biatching about the fact that he had a bunch of guns.  Once you have 1 (or two if pistols) is hard to argue that more than that makes you more dangerous.  I do see that in this case he could have switched weapons due to the barrel overheating. but that's about it, right?

It's because there's a big divide between, say, gun owners in the Midwest, and someone in Manhattan who's never even fired one.

Where I am, it's completely normal for someone to have 15 or 20 guns, even if they're not a collector. It's rare for a gun owner to have less than 3 or 4 (including handguns) if they shoot regularly. Think of it like shoes. Someone in a Nigerian village might wonder why an American would need 8 different pairs of shoes. But when you start talking about a couple of pairs of dress shoes, some running shoes, golf shoes, hiking, etc etc, it adds up fast.

It's not stockpiling in a lot of these cases. Someone might have three AR15's with different configurations on them so they don't have to keep moving around optics or their suppressor. So trying to limit the number of guns someone can have is an automatic deal-breaker, and gets that owner out of the conversation and onto the NRA membership list.


So farking what?? Who gives a shiat about your hobby?? Take up golf, hiking or knitting or something.  Your hobby is farking up a bunch of innocent people.  Let's allow strict regulation of guns (we won't get a total ban) and you can still have your lame hobby if you really want it and don't break too many laws.  Sheesh.
 
2017-10-06 12:21:47 PM  

capn' fun: I think the most sensible thing to do would be to re-classify semi-auto rifles and pistols as Class III (as has been discussed to death in earlier threads). But my point was that the 2nd Amendment is simply that-an amendment to a document which frames our government. It is not inerrant scripture, and changing it is a political issue much more than it is a legal one.


Nope. Not going to happen. Yes, it will reduce gun homicides considerably - no argument from me there. But it would be political suicide for anyone in a red state to even consider this. A Democrat in Missouri would have a greater chance of getting elected after sleeping with a 14 year old, than they would if they tried to ban semi-auto rifles and pistols. So it's a distraction to even discuss it.

How about if we stop considering really effective solutions that don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and start looking at somewhat effective solutions that will make a difference? Everyone in the gun control discussion is letting perfect be the enemy of good. That's why nothing ever changes.
 
2017-10-06 12:21:48 PM  

fark_the_herald_angel_sings: Just as a case in point.. my husband had hip surgery last week.. I needed to get him a refill on the pain meds (low dosage of oxycodon)..
I had to drive to the Dr. to pick up the script.
They can't call them in.
They can't have refills on them.
When I got to the pharmacy, they didn't have enough in stock to fill the script.
They can't partial fill. If you take the partial amount, you can't come back for what they owe you.
They can't call to other pharmacies to see if they have the drug in stock. It is illegal for them to tell anyone over the phone what they have in stock.
So 4 pharmacies later, I found one that had the amount needed.
They need to scan your driver's license. People cannot pick up the drug for you unless they have it in hand.
You need to sign your name in several places.
The state keeps track of how many pills you have been prescribed. If you get too many, the pharmacy can deny it to you.

If you go to a gun show here, and have a permit, you can walk out with 2 guns ..


If only there was a way to make a firearm out of pseudoephedrine, amiright? For the solution to your confusion research how this move is making someone mega rich or how the old way was making someone lose profits.
 
2017-10-06 12:22:34 PM  

ZeroPly: Callous: ZeroPly: Ambivalence: Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.

There's also no law against stockpiling Sudafed, subby's misleading clickbait headline notwithstanding. You can have crates of Sudafed in your basement, and noone's going to come by and put you in prison.

Go the the drug store and tell them you want to buy Sudafed in bulk.  Or call Pfizer and tell them that you want to buy crates of it to just have stockpiled in your basement.  Come back and let us all know how that worked out for you.

I agree. You basically have to submit to a rectal probe to buy Sudafed now. Doctors aren't prescribing Oxycodone to my friends who have legitimate need for it (kidney stones etc). Someone just wrote upthread that they couldn't get Sudafed at night because the case was locked. And all those regulations were beyond useless, all they did is make heroin easy to get a hold of.

So what makes you think I want the federal government to do to guns what they did to drugs??


I was only addressing the bold above.  They placed limits on how much you can legally buy in a month, so a stockpile would take a long period of time to legally build up.  So should you build up a stockpile over a long period of time and they discover the pattern of purchases or the stockpile you going to get anal probed at best and imprisoned at worst.  And your stockpile is going to get seized with no compensation.  The fact that you violated no laws will not matter as we are quick to sacrifice freedom on the alter of perceived safety.  And they will threaten you with prosecution on trumped up charges if you make any waves.  And considering that meth can be made with a soda bottle and a couple household chemicals, that you likely own, they probably can boogeyman you into a jury conviction without any real evidence of wrongdoing.
 
2017-10-06 12:25:34 PM  

geggam: Cdr.Murdock: The US Constitution can only giveth rights, it can't taketh away.  So even IF you did away with the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, you would have a far larger issue on the state level.  This is just two examples, and merely scratches the surface.

Th Constitution doesnt grant rights. The Bill of Rights acknowledge rights that shall not be infringed. If you look at the Declaration of Independence you will see where the Founders used Natural law as the source of their right to revolt. 

Natural law means rights are inherent upon birth.


Yet natural law or the constitution didn't stop the founding fathers (or their decedents) from buying, selling and abusing humans as they would cattle.

The US Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments) is a flawed document because it was written by humans a long time ago. Society and technology changes and this will change what is a right. Privacy is a right that is nearly completely missing from the US Constitution and yet is very important today. Just like the concept of slavery is reviled by most people.
 
2017-10-06 12:25:49 PM  

Corn_Fed: Slightly off-topic, but I've noticed that when the gun-fetishists pull out their favorite tactic (claiming that proposed gun control wouldn't have helped in this particular instance), the best response is "how would YOUR "solution" of an armed citizenry have helped?"

Given that...

A) no one could initially tell where the shooting was coming from;

B) the shooter was a mile away;

C) the shooter was in a tiny hotel room surrounded by innocent hotel guests;

...there is no way the "more guns" approach would have helped the situation at all, or resulted in fewer deaths.

Only the prohibition of such weapons could've stopped this.


Just because one solution won't work in this instance that's not a reason to force another ineffective solution on the people that didn't commit the crime.
 
2017-10-06 12:27:52 PM  

dk47: ZeroPly: GDubDub: Why are so many people  biatching about the fact that he had a bunch of guns.  Once you have 1 (or two if pistols) is hard to argue that more than that makes you more dangerous.  I do see that in this case he could have switched weapons due to the barrel overheating. but that's about it, right?

It's because there's a big divide between, say, gun owners in the Midwest, and someone in Manhattan who's never even fired one.

Where I am, it's completely normal for someone to have 15 or 20 guns, even if they're not a collector. It's rare for a gun owner to have less than 3 or 4 (including handguns) if they shoot regularly. Think of it like shoes. Someone in a Nigerian village might wonder why an American would need 8 different pairs of shoes. But when you start talking about a couple of pairs of dress shoes, some running shoes, golf shoes, hiking, etc etc, it adds up fast.

It's not stockpiling in a lot of these cases. Someone might have three AR15's with different configurations on them so they don't have to keep moving around optics or their suppressor. So trying to limit the number of guns someone can have is an automatic deal-breaker, and gets that owner out of the conversation and onto the NRA membership list.

So farking what?? Who gives a shiat about your hobby?? Take up golf, hiking or knitting or something.  Your hobby is farking up a bunch of innocent people.  Let's allow strict regulation of guns (we won't get a total ban) and you can still have your lame hobby if you really want it and don't break too many laws.  Sheesh.


Here's a list of people who care about my hobby:

1 - all my elected state officials, since I vote in every last election
2 - all my elected local officials, since I vote in every last election
3 - national candidates, who care about my state officials staying happy
4 - other elected officials, since I regularly send them personally written letters
5 - the NRA, since I pay my dues and tell them exactly what I want them to do

You don't like my "hobby"? Here's what you can do - go f*ck yourself. The reason idiots like you don't get anywhere, is because all you do is foam at the mouth in Internet forums.
 
2017-10-06 12:30:27 PM  

Norfolking Chance: The US Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments) is a flawed document because it was written by humans a long time ago. Society and technology changes and this will change what is a right. Privacy is a right that is nearly completely missing from the US Constitution and yet is very important today. Just like the concept of slavery is reviled by most people.


So use the internal mechanism (Article 5) and change the damn document to match the current times.
 
2017-10-06 12:33:59 PM  

ZeroPly: In a similar vein, you're not going to reduce mass shootings by inconveniencing legal gun owners.



Until this guy decided he really hated bro-country fans, he was a "legal gun owner."
If he were repeatedly "inconvenienced" during his eleven month span of acquiring weapons, ammunition, and accessories, perhaps he would have been brought to the attention of the law enforcement community.

We don't actually know what will or will not reduce mass shootings until we actually try something. But instead of doing that, we just have candle-light vigils and wait for the next mass shooting.
 
2017-10-06 12:34:08 PM  

kittyhas1000legs: TNel: I was sick so i went to the 24 hour grocery store for some meds.  Couldn't get any because they were behind lock and key that only the pharmacy staff had.  Even the night manager didn't have a key.  WTF kind of shiat is that.

The law?

I once left my keys (car, apartment, and store) in the pharmacy while closing one night. The pharmacy had its own security system, and only pharmacists could have the code to disarm it. My store manager was not very happy...


The pills shouldn't be locked away in the pharmacy.  It's an OTC product that doesn't need a pharmacist to handle.  All of those items need to be in an area where a manager has access 24/7 just like the baby formula.

I'm tired of feeling like a damn criminal whenever I want pills when I'm sick.
 
2017-10-06 12:34:12 PM  

Norfolking Chance: geggam: Cdr.Murdock: The US Constitution can only giveth rights, it can't taketh away.  So even IF you did away with the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, you would have a far larger issue on the state level.  This is just two examples, and merely scratches the surface.

Th Constitution doesnt grant rights. The Bill of Rights acknowledge rights that shall not be infringed. If you look at the Declaration of Independence you will see where the Founders used Natural law as the source of their right to revolt. 

Natural law means rights are inherent upon birth.

Yet natural law or the constitution didn't stop the founding fathers (or their decedents) from buying, selling and abusing humans as they would cattle.

The US Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments) is a flawed document because it was written by humans a long time ago. Society and technology changes and this will change what is a right. Privacy is a right that is nearly completely missing from the US Constitution and yet is very important today. Just like the concept of slavery is reviled by most people.


Slavery is reviled you say but every day I see another wage slave go so deep in debt they can never escape. 

Calling the Constitution obsolete is interesting ( read stupid ) . Perhaps you can get some folks together and have a civil war and write a better one. 

Im doubting it though
 
2017-10-06 12:36:03 PM  

roddack: GDubDub: question_dj: Yes. I stopped buying pseudoephedrine containing medicines when they started requiring ID and imposing limits.

Someone could make meth with some pseudoephedrine. Better put allergy sufferers on a list!

What's wrong with showing ID?  What's wrong with the limit?  Sheesh.  Yet you quit buying it for these reasons.  Have a drug history?

Why should you need to see my id? Why should there be a limit? Why do you assume a drug history?

Lithium is used to make meth do I need to show you my ID and only be able to buy 10 "AA" batteries at the store because of the potential that I could do something that you have no evidence to suggest that I would do?


No, but if you have those and a couple other benign things you can be charged with  having precursors.
 
2017-10-06 12:37:59 PM  

ZeroPly: dk47: ZeroPly: GDubDub: Why are so many people  biatching about the fact that he had a bunch of guns.  Once you have 1 (or two if pistols) is hard to argue that more than that makes you more dangerous.  I do see that in this case he could have switched weapons due to the barrel overheating. but that's about it, right?

It's because there's a big divide between, say, gun owners in the Midwest, and someone in Manhattan who's never even fired one.

Where I am, it's completely normal for someone to have 15 or 20 guns, even if they're not a collector. It's rare for a gun owner to have less than 3 or 4 (including handguns) if they shoot regularly. Think of it like shoes. Someone in a Nigerian village might wonder why an American would need 8 different pairs of shoes. But when you start talking about a couple of pairs of dress shoes, some running shoes, golf shoes, hiking, etc etc, it adds up fast.

It's not stockpiling in a lot of these cases. Someone might have three AR15's with different configurations on them so they don't have to keep moving around optics or their suppressor. So trying to limit the number of guns someone can have is an automatic deal-breaker, and gets that owner out of the conversation and onto the NRA membership list.

So farking what?? Who gives a shiat about your hobby?? Take up golf, hiking or knitting or something.  Your hobby is farking up a bunch of innocent people.  Let's allow strict regulation of guns (we won't get a total ban) and you can still have your lame hobby if you really want it and don't break too many laws.  Sheesh.

Here's a list of people who care about my hobby:

1 - all my elected state officials, since I vote in every last election
2 - all my elected local officials, since I vote in every last election
3 - national candidates, who care about my state officials staying happy
4 - other elected officials, since I regularly send them personally written letters
5 - the NRA, since I pay my dues and tell them exactly what I want the ...


There you go making my point for me: 1. shiatheads 2. shiatheads 3. shiatheads 4. shiatheads 5. assholes.

Wanna know why nobody cares about regulating my hobbies?  'Cause nobody gets killed because of them.
 
2017-10-06 12:40:03 PM  
ZeroPly:
This is a Wikipedia leader board for mass shooters: [img.fark.net image 763x208]

Um, the David Burke one was a plane crash, not a shooting, per se. He shot the pilots. Everyone else died when the plane crashed.
 
2017-10-06 12:41:58 PM  

give me doughnuts: Smelly Pirate Hooker: Drugs actually are dangerous, yo.

Guns are actually dangerous, yo.


People on or coming off of SSRI drugs that get guns are even more dangerous, yo.
 
2017-10-06 12:42:47 PM  

FlyingBacon: The Vegas shooter will always be a mystery. Just the way he wants it. He knew that we will be talking about him for years to come. Mystery always keep people talking.


I'm not sure why this is a mystery.

A society saturated in (and infatuated with) instruments of death has its scheduled biweekly mass murder. We love celebrity, wealth, and violence...not human life. Hell, we spent a trillion dollars on an flying weapon of death but we kick, scream and protest when someone suggests we provide healthcare TO OUR FARKING SELVES.

This violence IS who we are. The female orgasm is a mystery. Not this shooting.
 
2017-10-06 12:43:23 PM  

weddingsinger: /stop hiding behind the 2nd.  It says 'well-regulated' and even if you want to argue it doesn't apply to individuals, we can literally change decide the law, as a country, via an amendment, if enough people were to agree.


It says well-regulated when talking about the rights of states to have a militia. That's like arguing that we only have the right to peacefully assemble when we're going to church.

But your second point is the important, valid one. I have yet to see any suggestions of any laws which are both Constitutional and would actually make a difference - except perhaps outlawing bump-stocks that let you fire semi-automatic weapons at insane rates.

If we want to significantly restrict who can have firearms, who can carry firearms, and who can keep firearms then we need to have a significant discussion on amending the Constitution.
 
2017-10-06 12:45:16 PM  

ZeroPly: capn' fun: I think the most sensible thing to do would be to re-classify semi-auto rifles and pistols as Class III (as has been discussed to death in earlier threads). But my point was that the 2nd Amendment is simply that-an amendment to a document which frames our government. It is not inerrant scripture, and changing it is a political issue much more than it is a legal one.

Nope. Not going to happen. Yes, it will reduce gun homicides considerably - no argument from me there. But it would be political suicide for anyone in a red state to even consider this. A Democrat in Missouri would have a greater chance of getting elected after sleeping with a 14 year old, than they would if they tried to ban semi-auto rifles and pistols. So it's a distraction to even discuss it.

How about if we stop considering really effective solutions that don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and start looking at somewhat effective solutions that will make a difference? Everyone in the gun control discussion is letting perfect be the enemy of good. That's why nothing ever changes.


I disagree. It's going to happen.

We can debate the root causes, but the severity and frequency of these massacres has been steadily increasing. If close to 600 people killed or wounded in 10 minutes isn't enough to shift the political will, then it will be the next one (or fifth, seventh, etc.) with 750 victims, or even 1000. If you had predicted this time last week what Paddock has done, most people would have thought you were crazy. But here we all are. And I believe that someone else eventually will do worse, now that they have his example to follow and no practical restrictions will be put in place.

Eventually, the overwhelming majority of Americans are going to get tired of having their personal safety subordinated to the 2nd Amendment. And no amount of money poured into videos, ads, social media, or otherwise by the NRA or other groups will dissuade them from voting against politicians who support the status quo.
 
2017-10-06 12:46:01 PM  

FlyingBacon: /not a trump supporter
//not a libtard as well.
///just a middle of the road guy.
////last, stay off of my lawn!


*angrily eyes number of slashies....
 
2017-10-06 12:46:16 PM  

dk47: abhorrent1: I bought some mucinex that my doctor recommended once. It wasn't prescription but I guess it was the stronger stuff they keep behind the counter at the pharmacy. I had to sign something, put my finger on the POS scanner, register as a sex offender, give a DNA sample and have a microchip implanted in my neck.

Well, maybe not all that but it kinda felt like that. I wasn't buying 100 boxes or anything. Just one with like 12 pills. Seems to be working though. They've totally gotten rid of the meth problem in Murica!

Eh, they got most of the production moved abroad, which is fine by me.


Boy has that helped.  Wow look how well CMEA has worked since 2005.  I'm so glad we now have this overly burdensome law that drove manufacturers and jobs overseas and puts someone seeking relief from a cold or allergies on a government watch list.
d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.netView Full Size
 
2017-10-06 12:48:45 PM  

give me doughnuts: Dancin_In_Anson: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: My new favorite...


[img.fark.net image 512x288]

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

2,996 dead by the use of knives.

Knife:
[img.fark.net image 355x355]
Plane:
[img.fark.net image 680x365]

There is a slight difference between the two.


Did they hijack a plane using another plane? Where did they get the first plane from to hijack the other plane?

No knives = no plane = no sudden impact into buildings, followed by a raging inferno of jet fuel that melted steel beams.
 
2017-10-06 12:49:55 PM  
"The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 requires persons must steal anything containing pseudoephedrine"
 
2017-10-06 12:50:35 PM  

gar1013: give me doughnuts: Dancin_In_Anson: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: My new favorite...


[img.fark.net image 512x288]

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

2,996 dead by the use of knives.

Knife:
[img.fark.net image 355x355]
Plane:
[img.fark.net image 680x365]

There is a slight difference between the two.

Did they hijack a plane using another plane? Where did they get the first plane from to hijack the other plane?

No knives = no plane = no sudden impact into buildings, followed by a raging inferno of jet fuel that melted steel beams.


Then we should take everyone's money away because they can use that to buy knives and hijack planes and then fly them into buildings.

See how silly that sounds?
 
2017-10-06 12:51:44 PM  
How many guns did he actually use?

I don't see how 30 guns are more deadly than one, in the hands of one man
 
2017-10-06 12:54:47 PM  

Callous: ZeroPly: Callous: ZeroPly: Ambivalence: Sadly, there's not constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bare Sudafed.  Nor is there a lobbying group that promotes Sudafed.

There's also no law against stockpiling Sudafed, subby's misleading clickbait headline notwithstanding. You can have crates of Sudafed in your basement, and noone's going to come by and put you in prison.

Go the the drug store and tell them you want to buy Sudafed in bulk.  Or call Pfizer and tell them that you want to buy crates of it to just have stockpiled in your basement.  Come back and let us all know how that worked out for you.

I agree. You basically have to submit to a rectal probe to buy Sudafed now. Doctors aren't prescribing Oxycodone to my friends who have legitimate need for it (kidney stones etc). Someone just wrote upthread that they couldn't get Sudafed at night because the case was locked. And all those regulations were beyond useless, all they did is make heroin easy to get a hold of.

So what makes you think I want the federal government to do to guns what they did to drugs??

I was only addressing the bold above.  They placed limits on how much you can legally buy in a month, so a stockpile would take a long period of time to legally build up.  So should you build up a stockpile over a long period of time and they discover the pattern of purchases or the stockpile you going to get anal probed at best and imprisoned at worst.  And your stockpile is going to get seized with no compensation.  The fact that you violated no laws will not matter as we are quick to sacrifice freedom on the alter of perceived safety.  And they will threaten you with prosecution on trumped up charges if you make any waves.  And considering that meth can be made with a soda bottle and a couple household chemicals, that you likely own, they probably can boogeyman you into a jury conviction without any real evidence of wrongdoing.


Very unlikely to happen to me personally, since I have a clean record and have no problem fighting back against the prosecutor just for the entertainment value. But your point about prosecutorial overreach is spot on - they will find anything they can to get you to plead guilty to an entirely legal act.

And yet, people in this thread think I should trust these same people with details of my gun collection...
 
2017-10-06 12:56:45 PM  

Callous: dk47: abhorrent1: I bought some mucinex that my doctor recommended once. It wasn't prescription but I guess it was the stronger stuff they keep behind the counter at the pharmacy. I had to sign something, put my finger on the POS scanner, register as a sex offender, give a DNA sample and have a microchip implanted in my neck.

Well, maybe not all that but it kinda felt like that. I wasn't buying 100 boxes or anything. Just one with like 12 pills. Seems to be working though. They've totally gotten rid of the meth problem in Murica!

Eh, they got most of the production moved abroad, which is fine by me.

Boy has that helped.  Wow look how well CMEA has worked since 2005.  I'm so glad we now have this overly burdensome law that drove manufacturers and jobs overseas and puts someone seeking relief from a cold or allergies on a government watch list.
[d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net image 800x482]


And that's just deaths. I'm sure there are stats out there on arrests for manufacture and other meth related crime too. Maybe it's just social media and the news cycle but the meth problem seems to me to have gotten worse, not better over the last 10 years, including labs.
 
2017-10-06 12:57:51 PM  

hobnail: question_dj: Yes. I stopped buying pseudoephedrine containing medicines when they started requiring ID and imposing limits.

Someone could make meth with some pseudoephedrine. Better put allergy sufferers on a list!

Why? It's still a pretty effective decongestant.  Worth it (to me) to put myself on a watchlist in order to have it around when I need it.

/normally I just take nettle extract for my sinuses


Phenylephrine works just as well, without overdrying. And I don't have to show ID/have a limit.
 
2017-10-06 12:58:21 PM  

GDubDub: question_dj: Yes. I stopped buying pseudoephedrine containing medicines when they started requiring ID and imposing limits.

Someone could make meth with some pseudoephedrine. Better put allergy sufferers on a list!

What's wrong with showing ID?  What's wrong with the limit?  Sheesh.  Yet you quit buying it for these reasons.  Have a drug history?


Yeah man. I'm seriously addicted to cedar and juniper pollen. Cat dander too. It's just like, such an incredible high, man.
 
2017-10-06 12:59:12 PM  

capn' fun: JohnCarter: The challenge is (registering guns) not the act of registering guns, it's what will be done long term with the information?  Historically many governments, as they move towards totalitarianism, have not been huge fans of private gun ownership.  Not saying that is a viable outcome, but it is within the realm of possibilities.

That being said, not 100% sure how we put in place a system to keep up with purchases.  Many of us have more than the 1 gun per person.  At an abstract level, recording how many is probably not a bad thing.  At that practical level, it does concern one.

Argument has been made, well you have to register your cars.  Not necessarily, only registration is needed for operating on public roads.  If I have 10 acres someplace, I can keep them there, drive them around, no license tag needed.

Yes, dude bought a lot of guns in a short period.  Not sure how to reasonably corral that detail and not cause angst among the, while polite, heavily armed segment of the population

The arguments against registration and collection of registration information ring hollow, to me. The 2nd Amendment may guarantee a right to bear arms, and Heller may interpret that right to belong to individuals, but neither the Constitution nor any legal decision since it was ratified guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms secretly. Even a CCW owner who carries a concealed firearm still has to obtain the permit to do so. Also, mandatory registration and tracking actually could make a difference in preventing another Las Vegas by making sure that an individual who is stockpiling an absurd amount of weapons, ammunition, and tannerite in a short period of time pops up on someone's radar.


The argument made above wasn't "registration is Unconstitutional". The argument was "I don't trust the government to hold that information without using it illegally".
 
2017-10-06 12:59:23 PM  

TheVirginMarty: question_dj: Yes. I stopped buying pseudoephedrine containing medicines when they started requiring ID and imposing limits.

Someone could make meth with some pseudoephedrine. Better put allergy sufferers on a list!

Allegra is way better at controlling my allergies when they flare up.


Allegra is an antihistamine. Allegra-D contains pseudoephedrine. As a decongestant, it's really aggressive anyway. Phenylephrine is just as effective and less aggressive.
 
2017-10-06 01:01:22 PM  

capn' fun: ZeroPly: capn' fun: I think the most sensible thing to do would be to re-classify semi-auto rifles and pistols as Class III (as has been discussed to death in earlier threads). But my point was that the 2nd Amendment is simply that-an amendment to a document which frames our government. It is not inerrant scripture, and changing it is a political issue much more than it is a legal one.

Nope. Not going to happen. Yes, it will reduce gun homicides considerably - no argument from me there. But it would be political suicide for anyone in a red state to even consider this. A Democrat in Missouri would have a greater chance of getting elected after sleeping with a 14 year old, than they would if they tried to ban semi-auto rifles and pistols. So it's a distraction to even discuss it.

How about if we stop considering really effective solutions that don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and start looking at somewhat effective solutions that will make a difference? Everyone in the gun control discussion is letting perfect be the enemy of good. That's why nothing ever changes.

I disagree. It's going to happen.

We can debate the root causes, but the severity and frequency of these massacres has been steadily increasing. If close to 600 people killed or wounded in 10 minutes isn't enough to shift the political will, then it will be the next one (or fifth, seventh, etc.) with 750 victims, or even 1000. If you had predicted this time last week what Paddock has done, most people would have thought you were crazy. But here we all are. And I believe that someone else eventually will do worse, now that they have his example to follow and no practical restrictions will be put in place.

Eventually, the overwhelming majority of Americans are going to get tired of having their personal safety subordinated to the 2nd Amendment. And no amount of money poured into videos, ads, social media, or otherwise by the NRA or other groups will dissuade them from voting against politicians who ...


The problem is in the "overwhelming majority" part. Yes, if you have an overwhelming majority, it could happen. But Scalia calculated that just 4% of the population in the right states could block a constitutional amendment.

It didn't happen after Sandy Hook. If a mass shooting of 20 elementary school students isn't enough, what exactly do you think it will take?

This "masses will rise up" idea is great in theory, but in reality gun control has been eroding over the last decade, not tightening.
 
2017-10-06 01:05:54 PM  

ZeroPly: capn' fun: I think the most sensible thing to do would be to re-classify semi-auto rifles and pistols as Class III (as has been discussed to death in earlier threads). But my point was that the 2nd Amendment is simply that-an amendment to a document which frames our government. It is not inerrant scripture, and changing it is a political issue much more than it is a legal one.

Nope. Not going to happen. Yes, it will reduce gun homicides considerably - no argument from me there. But it would be political suicide for anyone in a red state to even consider this. A Democrat in Missouri would have a greater chance of getting elected after sleeping with a 14 year old, than they would if they tried to ban semi-auto rifles and pistols. So it's a distraction to even discuss it.

How about if we stop considering really effective solutions that don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and start looking at somewhat effective solutions that will make a difference? Everyone in the gun control discussion is letting perfect be the enemy of good. That's why nothing ever changes.


I would love to see "effective solutions that will make a difference" that are also Constitutional and are able to reasonably be implemented. The best I've seen is banning bump-stocks. This gun nut is all on board with that suggestion.
 
2017-10-06 01:08:25 PM  

capn' fun: ZeroPly: capn' fun: I think the most sensible thing to do would be to re-classify semi-auto rifles and pistols as Class III (as has been discussed to death in earlier threads). But my point was that the 2nd Amendment is simply that-an amendment to a document which frames our government. It is not inerrant scripture, and changing it is a political issue much more than it is a legal one.

Nope. Not going to happen. Yes, it will reduce gun homicides considerably - no argument from me there. But it would be political suicide for anyone in a red state to even consider this. A Democrat in Missouri would have a greater chance of getting elected after sleeping with a 14 year old, than they would if they tried to ban semi-auto rifles and pistols. So it's a distraction to even discuss it.

How about if we stop considering really effective solutions that don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and start looking at somewhat effective solutions that will make a difference? Everyone in the gun control discussion is letting perfect be the enemy of good. That's why nothing ever changes.

I disagree. It's going to happen.

We can debate the root causes, but the severity and frequency of these massacres has been steadily increasing. If close to 600 people killed or wounded in 10 minutes isn't enough to shift the political will, then it will be the next one (or fifth, seventh, etc.) with 750 victims, or even 1000. If you had predicted this time last week what Paddock has done, most people would have thought you were crazy. But here we all are. And I believe that someone else eventually will do worse, now that they have his example to follow and no practical restrictions will be put in place.

Eventually, the overwhelming majority of Americans are going to get tired of having their personal safety subordinated to the 2nd Amendment. And no amount of money poured into videos, ads, social media, or otherwise by the NRA or other groups will dissuade them from voting against politicians who ...


They haven't been increasing in frequency.
There are no "practical restrictions" that would stop these kinds of killers.  Mass murderers have used just about every kind of firearm there is to kill large numbers of people, in addition to IEDs, vehicles, and fire.

Mass shooting are a very small proportion of firearm deaths, committed by 5-15 people a year.  What solution do you have that could possibly make even a small dent in the problem?
 
2017-10-06 01:10:16 PM  
That's the sad truth.  I just LOVE being treated like a criminal because I caught a farking cold and want to sleep, so I buy Ny-Quil.

It's easier to buy a trunk full of alcohol, 37 guns, 75 knives, a boat anchor (without a boat), a mase, mace, or anything else you want...  unless it is a single bottle of cold medicine.
 
2017-10-06 01:11:02 PM  

GDubDub: question_dj: Yes. I stopped buying pseudoephedrine containing medicines when they started requiring ID and imposing limits.

Someone could make meth with some pseudoephedrine. Better put allergy sufferers on a list!

What's wrong with showing ID?  What's wrong with the limit?  Sheesh.  Yet you quit buying it for these reasons.  Have a drug history?


It's stupid that's what's wrong with it. It's not like being carded for buying beer. They scan the bar-code on the back of your license. I don't know where that information goes. I also had to fill out and sign a form. It's just dumb.

I got the same treatment buying a can black spray paint at HD that I was using to paint the lamp post in front of my house. No form but they scanned the bar-code on the back of my license. Why? I'm a middle aged, cargo shorts wearing, suburban white guy.  Do they think I'm gonna go out tagging or huffing?

I've also been carded buying a can of dust-off. Where does it end?
 
2017-10-06 01:11:31 PM  

d23: but but but but Kennedy on Fox Business just told me yesterday that if trucks drove into a crowd we wouldn't regulate trucks!

Though, oops, we do regulate trucks.  So confusing.


Is the purchase of them subject to background checks, licensing requirements, quantity limits, etc.?

The answer is no.

Trucks are not regulated like guns even in countries like France despite their use in a massacre that killed 84 and injured 458 in a span of only a few minutes.
 
2017-10-06 01:12:58 PM  

weddingsinger: /stop hiding behind the 2nd.  It says 'well-regulated' and even if you want to argue it doesn't apply to individuals, we can literally change decide the law, as a country, via an amendment, if enough people were to agree.


Absolutely correct. All you have to do is get 38 states to ratify your amendment. Now take a look at this list:

Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming

Which one of those states are you going to convince to vote for your proposal? You need at least one. Notice that I didn't even put Texas in there, since I don't even consider them in the top 13 who would oppose a 2nd amendment change.

The problem with your idea is that under the US system, states have disproportionate influence vs citizens. Changing the 2nd amendment is far more difficult than most people realize.
 
2017-10-06 01:13:48 PM  

weddingsinger: js34603: Hard to believe two distinct and separate things are regulated differently. Especially when one has a whole constitutional amendment protecting it and the other is used to make meth.

 But they're regulated differently?!?? I'm literally choking on my gluten free non gmo muffin and my half soy double chai mocha choca latte in surprise.

An odd take going for the false equivalence argument on an argument literally based on false equivalence, though at least the article is meant to draw attention to the absurd idea that Sudafed, a product with legitimate and safe uses, is more heavily regulated than guns, a product that also has legitimate uses, though is far more destructive.

/stop hiding behind the 2nd.  It says 'well-regulated' and even if you want to argue it doesn't apply to individuals, we can literally change decide the law, as a country, via an amendment, if enough people were to agree.

 
Sudafed is not more heavily regulated than firearms.  What do you mean 'hiding behind the 2nd'?   If someone was engaging protected speech that wasn't popular, would you tell them to stop hiding behind the 1st amendment because we can literally change the law as a country, via an amendment?
 
2017-10-06 01:13:53 PM  
When I was a user, the quality of meth went up after the pseudoephedrine regs and production moved to Mexico.

Gun enthusiasts might experience similar gains
 
2017-10-06 01:16:25 PM  

chris chrisson: Corn_Fed: Slightly off-topic, but I've noticed that when the gun-fetishists pull out their favorite tactic (claiming that proposed gun control wouldn't have helped in this particular instance), the best response is "how would YOUR "solution" of an armed citizenry have helped?"

Given that...

A) no one could initially tell where the shooting was coming from;

B) the shooter was a mile away;

C) the shooter was in a tiny hotel room surrounded by innocent hotel guests;

...there is no way the "more guns" approach would have helped the situation at all, or resulted in fewer deaths.

Only the prohibition of such weapons could've stopped this.

Minus the black market. You forgot that in your equation.


But you neglect to mention how arming the citizenry with "more guns" would've solved this incident.

As for the black market--it would make guns, especially semi-automatics--prohibitively expensive for most people. That might not have stopped a multi-millionaire like Paddock, but if such guns are $40,000 like fully-automatic black market guns are, that would eliminate access for 99.9% of mass shooters. I'm all for it.
 
2017-10-06 01:17:08 PM  

MattytheMouse: We don't need to drag politics into this issue that is clearly all the Democrats fault. No amount of regulation could have prevented this tragedy, except for perhaps Barack Obama's anti-gun deregulation of bump stocks, which should not be reexamined in any meaningful way by congress, at all. Nancy Pelosi should step down.


If he hadn't had a bump stock, he could never have fired the gun just as fast as his finger would allow.  Nope, not possible.

It's just too soon to politicize this tragedy.

Yet here you are.  The only people who say this are whiny lefties who want to politicize things while the bodies are warm and we have next to no details.
Hell, a bunch of pro-gun control idiots went on a twitter storm talking about gun control, only to find out later that the incident was a knife attack stopped by a cop with a gun.
 
2017-10-06 01:18:36 PM  

gar1013: followed by a raging inferno of jet fuel that melted steel beams.


Impossible Alex Jones has assured me that Jet Fuel has no effect on steel beams
 
2017-10-06 01:19:10 PM  

Callous: Corn_Fed: Slightly off-topic, but I've noticed that when the gun-fetishists pull out their favorite tactic (claiming that proposed gun control wouldn't have helped in this particular instance), the best response is "how would YOUR "solution" of an armed citizenry have helped?"

Given that...

A) no one could initially tell where the shooting was coming from;

B) the shooter was a mile away;

C) the shooter was in a tiny hotel room surrounded by innocent hotel guests;

...there is no way the "more guns" approach would have helped the situation at all, or resulted in fewer deaths.

Only the prohibition of such weapons could've stopped this.

Just because one solution won't work in this instance that's not a reason to force another ineffective solution on the people that didn't commit the crime.


Gun control isn't ineffective. In fact, as virtually all international data shows, it is quite effective at reducing, sometimes eliminating, these kinds of mass shootings. But we CAN say that the gun-fetishists' argument of "more guns" is total BS.
 
2017-10-06 01:19:58 PM  

ZeroPly: dk47: ZeroPly: GDubDub: Why are so many people  biatching about the fact that he had a bunch of guns.  Once you have 1 (or two if pistols) is hard to argue that more than that makes you more dangerous.  I do see that in this case he could have switched weapons due to the barrel overheating. but that's about it, right?

It's because there's a big divide between, say, gun owners in the Midwest, and someone in Manhattan who's never even fired one.

Where I am, it's completely normal for someone to have 15 or 20 guns, even if they're not a collector. It's rare for a gun owner to have less than 3 or 4 (including handguns) if they shoot regularly. Think of it like shoes. Someone in a Nigerian village might wonder why an American would need 8 different pairs of shoes. But when you start talking about a couple of pairs of dress shoes, some running shoes, golf shoes, hiking, etc etc, it adds up fast.

It's not stockpiling in a lot of these cases. Someone might have three AR15's with different configurations on them so they don't have to keep moving around optics or their suppressor. So trying to limit the number of guns someone can have is an automatic deal-breaker, and gets that owner out of the conversation and onto the NRA membership list.

So farking what?? Who gives a shiat about your hobby?? Take up golf, hiking or knitting or something.  Your hobby is farking up a bunch of innocent people.  Let's allow strict regulation of guns (we won't get a total ban) and you can still have your lame hobby if you really want it and don't break too many laws.  Sheesh.

Here's a list of people who care about my hobby:

1 - all my elected state officials, since I vote in every last election
2 - all my elected local officials, since I vote in every last election
3 - national candidates, who care about my state officials staying happy
4 - other elected officials, since I regularly send them personally written letters
5 - the NRA, since I pay my dues and tell them exactly what I want them to do

You don't like my "hobby"? Here's what you can do - go f*ck yourself. The reason idiots like you don't get anywhere, is because all you do is foam at the mouth in Internet forums.


May I ask approximately how many guns you own?
 
2017-10-06 01:21:35 PM  

pedrop357: Is the purchase of them subject to background checks, licensing requirements, quantity limits, etc.?

The answer is no.

Trucks are not regulated like guns....


Trucks aren't regulated LIKE guns, because they AREN'T guns in function or design so your point is moot. An individual planning a terrorist attack with a truck wouldn't buy 23 of them, for example.

While you may be able to BUY a truck without a license, before it can be operated on the road it has to meet numerous requirements and restrictions.

STOP COMPARING GUNS TO OTHER SHIAT!
 
2017-10-06 01:23:58 PM  

Corn_Fed: Callous: Corn_Fed: Slightly off-topic, but I've noticed that when the gun-fetishists pull out their favorite tactic (claiming that proposed gun control wouldn't have helped in this particular instance), the best response is "how would YOUR "solution" of an armed citizenry have helped?"

Given that...

A) no one could initially tell where the shooting was coming from;

B) the shooter was a mile away;

C) the shooter was in a tiny hotel room surrounded by innocent hotel guests;

...there is no way the "more guns" approach would have helped the situation at all, or resulted in fewer deaths.

Only the prohibition of such weapons could've stopped this.

Just because one solution won't work in this instance that's not a reason to force another ineffective solution on the people that didn't commit the crime.

Gun control isn't ineffective. In fact, as virtually all international data shows, it is quite effective at reducing, sometimes eliminating, these kinds of mass shootings. But we CAN say that the gun-fetishists' argument of "more guns" is total BS.


Meant to say "Gun control IS effective."
 
2017-10-06 01:23:59 PM  
Fark it. Lets just gonna make the possession, manufacture and sale of ammunition illegal.
 
2017-10-06 01:25:36 PM  

Corn_Fed: Slightly off-topic, but I've noticed that when the gun-fetishists pull out their favorite tactic (claiming that proposed gun control wouldn't have helped in this particular instance), the best response is "how would YOUR "solution" of an armed citizenry have helped?"


Yeah, if we can't stop all bad things, then we shouldn't try to stop any.

Given that...

A) no one could initially tell where the shooting was coming from;


They got the general direction pretty quickly

B) the shooter was a mile away;

500 yards

C) the shooter was in a tiny hotel room surrounded by innocent hotel guests;

Yep.  No one except an experienced sniper would have a chance.

...there is no way the "more guns" approach would have helped the situation at all, or resulted in fewer deaths.

Only the prohibition of such weapons could've stopped this.


Not just the prohibition, but a high success rate confiscation.  He could have still done this with his rifles and no dump stocks.  If he didn't have guns for some reason, but a grudge, he could have driven a truck or used handguns on the ground, possibly even obtained a plane (he would know how) and flown into it.
If his desire was to hurt the casino, he just takes a few handguns down to the floor and shoots the place up.

You would need to subjects 10s of millions of gun owners to extra constitutional(at best) regulations and invasiveness formerly unseen in this country just to have a slim chance to actually stop people like him.  THIS is why gun owners and the groups they oppose your little suggestions.
 
2017-10-06 01:26:13 PM  

ZeroPly: weddingsinger: /stop hiding behind the 2nd.  It says 'well-regulated' and even if you want to argue it doesn't apply to individuals, we can literally change decide the law, as a country, via an amendment, if enough people were to agree.

Absolutely correct. All you have to do is get 38 states to ratify your amendment. Now take a look at this list:

Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming

Which one of those states are you going to convince to vote for your proposal? You need at least one. Notice that I didn't even put Texas in there, since I don't even consider them in the top 13 who would oppose a 2nd amendment change.

The problem with your idea is that under the US system, states have disproportionate influence vs citizens. Changing the 2nd amendment is far more difficult than most people realize.


Don't forget GA -- US home of Glock.
 
2017-10-06 01:26:43 PM  

meanmutton: I would love to see "effective solutions that will make a difference" that are also Constitutional and are able to reasonably be implemented. The best I've seen is banning bump-stocks. This gun nut is all on board with that suggestion.


I'm not an obstructionist for the sake of being an obstructionist. I posted my own solution to drastically reduce gun violence in another thread, so will copy paste here. Any arguments of how this is unconstitutional gladly entertained:

1 - expand the background check system so that civilians can use it. Anyone should be able to put in their information (name/social/address), the firearm's serial, and the seller's information, and within 1 minute get a response of yes, no, or "takes more work". This will allow tracking of 95% of the firearms that are shuffled around.

2 - gun shows have to use the system if available. Provide 24/7 tech support. If tech support says the system is working and the problem is at your end, then no sale. If tech support says the system is down, go back to old procedures and have BATFE follow up on the sale.

3 - people in the background check system get a credit rating. If you already own several machine guns, you're a 750. If you've never purchased before, you're a 400. Etc.

4 - create tiers based on lethality. Shotguns, single shot rifles, and revolvers are Tier 0. You can sell or buy one if you're smart enough to figure out how a web form works. Serial numbers are tracked.

4a - semi-autos and large caliber .50 cal or under are Tier 1. Those transfers are scrutinized in greater detail, and don't expect the sale to go through if the seller's credit isn't good as in #3. You can be easily flagged for Tier 2 based on mental health conditions without a judge's order.

4b - existing full-auto and large caliber over .50 cal is Tier 2. All those owners are grandfathered in, and their records transferred to the new systems.

4c - this is a new tier for full auto weapons manufactured after 1986. Purchase of one of these requires extensive pre-screening, inspection of storage facilities, and regular visits from the BATFE at non-trivial expense. It also requires a minimum purchase cost - say over $10K, and a boatload of taxes. You don't get this unless you really really want it. Still subject to limitations, you can't get an M2 or something like that.

5 - require liability based on tier. Tier 0 requires nothing, but anything above does.

6 - minimal training or demonstrable experience required for Tier 1 (similar to CCW), extensive training required above that, to include procedures on weapon security, laws etc etc.

7 - base the storage requirements based on tier. Losing a Tier 1 firearm or getting it stolen triggers a full BATFE investigation and a lot of hassle. Losing a Tier 2 or Tier 3 should be vanishingly rare (as it is right now).

As I mentioned in the other thread, 4c is the heart of this. That's how you get the red states, the NRA, and all the gun owners on board.
 
2017-10-06 01:28:33 PM  

Corn_Fed: Callous: Corn_Fed: Slightly off-topic, but I've noticed that when the gun-fetishists pull out their favorite tactic (claiming that proposed gun control wouldn't have helped in this particular instance), the best response is "how would YOUR "solution" of an armed citizenry have helped?"

Given that...

A) no one could initially tell where the shooting was coming from;

B) the shooter was a mile away;

C) the shooter was in a tiny hotel room surrounded by innocent hotel guests;

...there is no way the "more guns" approach would have helped the situation at all, or resulted in fewer deaths.

Only the prohibition of such weapons could've stopped this.

Just because one solution won't work in this instance that's not a reason to force another ineffective solution on the people that didn't commit the crime.

Gun control isn't ineffective. In fact, as virtually all international data shows, it is quite effective at reducing, sometimes eliminating, these kinds of mass shootings. But we CAN say that the gun-fetishists' argument of "more guns" is total BS.


Lower populations, different demographics, no 250 year history of extensive civilian firearm ownership, etc.
France has lost more people in the last few years to a small number of terrorists using IEDs, guns, and a truck than the US has to mass shooters, and they have around 1/5 as many people as we do.
 
2017-10-06 01:29:03 PM  

pedrop357: It's just too soon to politicize this tragedy.

Yet here you are.  The only people who say this are whiny lefties who want to politicize things while the bodies are warm and we have next to no details.
attack stopped by a cop with a gun.


Fine. We won't politicize THIS tragedy. Let's talk about the Dallas Police shootings, Pulse nightclub, San Bernardino and Charleston church shootings then.
 
2017-10-06 01:33:40 PM  

pedrop357: capn' fun: ZeroPly: capn' fun: I think the most sensible thing to do would be to re-classify semi-auto rifles and pistols as Class III (as has been discussed to death in earlier threads). But my point was that the 2nd Amendment is simply that-an amendment to a document which frames our government. It is not inerrant scripture, and changing it is a political issue much more than it is a legal one.

Nope. Not going to happen. Yes, it will reduce gun homicides considerably - no argument from me there. But it would be political suicide for anyone in a red state to even consider this. A Democrat in Missouri would have a greater chance of getting elected after sleeping with a 14 year old, than they would if they tried to ban semi-auto rifles and pistols. So it's a distraction to even discuss it.

How about if we stop considering really effective solutions that don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and start looking at somewhat effective solutions that will make a difference? Everyone in the gun control discussion is letting perfect be the enemy of good. That's why nothing ever changes.

I disagree. It's going to happen.

We can debate the root causes, but the severity and frequency of these massacres has been steadily increasing. If close to 600 people killed or wounded in 10 minutes isn't enough to shift the political will, then it will be the next one (or fifth, seventh, etc.) with 750 victims, or even 1000. If you had predicted this time last week what Paddock has done, most people would have thought you were crazy. But here we all are. And I believe that someone else eventually will do worse, now that they have his example to follow and no practical restrictions will be put in place.

Eventually, the overwhelming majority of Americans are going to get tired of having their personal safety subordinated to the 2nd Amendment. And no amount of money poured into videos, ads, social media, or otherwise by the NRA or other groups will dissuade them from voting against poli ...


Regarding frequency: Looking only at the past five years, beginning with Aurora. Then just a few months later was Newtown. Since then there has been San Bernardino, and Orlando. Now Las Vegas. Each time the body count has steadily risen, and the types of bodies has been broadened.

Regarding prevention: Even without banning or restricting any particular type of firearm, ammunition, or explosives like Tannerite (and why that shiat is sold OTC is beyond me), simply having mandatory registration and monitoring of sales would have put Paddock on somebody's radar. At the very least, it would enable the ATF or even a State agency to identify when someone is stockpiling 30+ guns, thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammunition, and what appear to be over a hundred pounds of explosives in about a year.

The NRA is powerful because they own politicians. The politicians are in office because people vote for them. People vote for them because they value the 2nd Amendment and what it guarantees them. And through gerrymandering, micro-targeting single-issue voters, and carpet bombing style advertising, the GOP and the NRA are able to keep those voters-and therefore the politicians-in line. But, eventually, some nutjob (or a couple of nutjobs working together) is going to so absolutely, thoroughly, and utterly abuse the rights afforded by the 2nd Amendment that even them most die-hard GOP voter is going to switch sides-at least on that issue.

As I said up-thread: Paddock has raised the threshold to around 600 "real" Americans at a country western music festival, and it's still not enough. So whatever the eventual lunatic is going to do to top that is going to be spectacularly awful, but it's going to happen. And the way the pacing of these things has been going it will be sooner rather than later, I'm extremely sad to say.
 
2017-10-06 01:35:56 PM  

dk47: So farking what?? Who gives a shiat about your hobby?? Take up golf, hiking or knitting or something. Your hobby is farking up a bunch of innocent people. Let's allow strict regulation of guns (we won't get a total ban) and you can still have your lame hobby if you really want it and don't break too many laws. Sheesh.


Given that outright bans would have very little effect on the daily violence in this country without fairly successful confiscation, what good do you think strict regulation would do?

Drug war related murders will go on as usual-drug dealers and gang members will still find ways to get guns either directly because they have a clean record or they know someone who does, as will most criminals.  The 5-15 a year spree and mass killers will simply shift methods ever so slightly and carry on.
Periods of stricter gun control 20-40 years ago had higher firearm homicide rates than today.
 
2017-10-06 01:41:31 PM  

capn' fun: Regarding prevention: Even without banning or restricting any particular type of firearm, ammunition, or explosives like Tannerite (and why that shiat is sold OTC is beyond me), simply having mandatory registration and monitoring of sales would have put Paddock on somebody's radar. At the very least, it would enable the ATF or even a State agency to identify when someone is stockpiling 30+ guns, thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammunition, and what appear to be over a hundred pounds of explosives in about a year.


Tannerite is not an explosive the way most people think of it.  You have to shoot the container more-or-less straight on with a rifle round with velocity around 2200fps, and it doesn't produce a firey explosion.

What good would putting him on someone's radar do?  Assuming his behavior didn't change at all knowing that frequent purchases are scrutinized, he wasn't doing anything illegal or wrong (at the time).  They might talk to him, poke around, and then have to move on to the next investigation.
99.99% of the inquiries would be futile, and the chances of them finding that .01% among all the falses is, well, so low that they wouldn't.
 
2017-10-06 01:41:34 PM  

meanmutton: ZeroPly: capn' fun: I think the most sensible thing to do would be to re-classify semi-auto rifles and pistols as Class III (as has been discussed to death in earlier threads). But my point was that the 2nd Amendment is simply that-an amendment to a document which frames our government. It is not inerrant scripture, and changing it is a political issue much more than it is a legal one.

Nope. Not going to happen. Yes, it will reduce gun homicides considerably - no argument from me there. But it would be political suicide for anyone in a red state to even consider this. A Democrat in Missouri would have a greater chance of getting elected after sleeping with a 14 year old, than they would if they tried to ban semi-auto rifles and pistols. So it's a distraction to even discuss it.

How about if we stop considering really effective solutions that don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and start looking at somewhat effective solutions that will make a difference? Everyone in the gun control discussion is letting perfect be the enemy of good. That's why nothing ever changes.

I would love to see "effective solutions that will make a difference" that are also Constitutional and are able to reasonably be implemented. The best I've seen is banning bump-stocks. This gun nut is all on board with that suggestion.


Ban all you want, I'm sure the suicidal mass murdering psychopaths will abide by THAT law and never do this.  A short piece of pipe, metal rod, and flat metal.  Bingo, homemade bump stock.
img.fark.netView Full Size

Your law will potentially lower the casualty count of all the mass murders committed by people that don't break the law.  Oh wait......
 
2017-10-06 01:43:26 PM  
This is not a problem with the way guns are regulated.

This is a MASSIVE problem with the way Sudafed is regulated.

I had to buy some recently.  I was at the pharmacy picking up some other things, at least one of them controlled.  The pharmacist knew me.  ID for controlled prescription drugs?  Nope, not needed, they've seen me many times before, not necessary.

Over the counter pseudoephedrine, no prescription needed?  Yeah, the pharmacist who has known me for years wants my driver's license.

It's a bad law.  It needs to go away.
 
2017-10-06 01:43:58 PM  

WillJM8528: pedrop357: It's just too soon to politicize this tragedy.

Yet here you are.  The only people who say this are whiny lefties who want to politicize things while the bodies are warm and we have next to no details.
attack stopped by a cop with a gun.

Fine. We won't politicize THIS tragedy. Let's talk about the Dallas Police shootings, Pulse nightclub, San Bernardino and Charleston church shootings then.


I didn't say we can't politicize, just mocking the person saying we can't politicize it while doing so themselves, as well as pointing that out that the criticism is only really appropriate when people do it while information on the incident is nonexistent.
 
2017-10-06 01:44:47 PM  

DarkVader: This is not a problem with the way guns are regulated.

This is a MASSIVE problem with the way Sudafed is regulated.

I had to buy some recently.  I was at the pharmacy picking up some other things, at least one of them controlled.  The pharmacist knew me.  ID for controlled prescription drugs?  Nope, not needed, they've seen me many times before, not necessary.

Over the counter pseudoephedrine, no prescription needed?  Yeah, the pharmacist who has known me for years wants my driver's license.

It's a bad law.  It needs to go away.


LOL Good luck with that argument!

It's true enough, but that's not gonna work this time :(
 
2017-10-06 01:46:11 PM  

pedrop357: Tannerite is not an explosive the way most people think of it. You have to shoot the container more-or-less straight on with a rifle round with velocity around 2200fps, and it doesn't produce a firey explosion.


And that's different from most high explosives how?  You can't exactly set off C4 with a match either, and a blasting cap will set off tannerite.

I'm not saying that means tannerite is bad, but it's not exactly unique among high explosives just because it's stable under most conditions.
 
2017-10-06 01:47:24 PM  

give me doughnuts: ZeroPly: In a similar vein, you're not going to reduce mass shootings by inconveniencing legal gun owners.


Until this guy decided he really hated bro-country fans, he was a "legal gun owner."
If he were repeatedly "inconvenienced" during his eleven month span of acquiring weapons, ammunition, and accessories, perhaps he would have been brought to the attention of the law enforcement community.

We don't actually know what will or will not reduce mass shootings until we actually try something. But instead of doing that, we just have candle-light vigils and wait for the next mass shooting.


Given that he planned this out and had some idea what he was doing, he undoubtedly would have adjusted his strategy to avoid some or all attention.  The attention he did get would have been fruitless.  They talk to him, find nothing, and have to move on.

Those of us who have even a basic understanding of the problem are unwilling to let people like you, who barely think in two dimension, 'try' things to see how they work.
 
2017-10-06 01:47:28 PM  

Corn_Fed: May I ask approximately how many guns you own?


Far fewer than you're thinking. I only target shoot, and I'm more about precision than variety, so here's my current "arsenal":

Sig P226 - for bowling pin and other target competitions
Colt AR-15 - (of course) for rapid fire and "fun", and because I miss shooting M4's
Savage 338 Lapua - for intermediate distance shooting, currently on loan to a buddy
Barrett M99 .416 bolt action - my favorite, for shooting at 600 to 1000 yard range

Of course, add in a reloading bench, spotter scopes, chronographs, etc, and it's more of a money pit than a hobby...
 
2017-10-06 01:50:42 PM  

Callous: meanmutton: ZeroPly: capn' fun: I think the most sensible thing to do would be to re-classify semi-auto rifles and pistols as Class III (as has been discussed to death in earlier threads). But my point was that the 2nd Amendment is simply that-an amendment to a document which frames our government. It is not inerrant scripture, and changing it is a political issue much more than it is a legal one.

Nope. Not going to happen. Yes, it will reduce gun homicides considerably - no argument from me there. But it would be political suicide for anyone in a red state to even consider this. A Democrat in Missouri would have a greater chance of getting elected after sleeping with a 14 year old, than they would if they tried to ban semi-auto rifles and pistols. So it's a distraction to even discuss it.

How about if we stop considering really effective solutions that don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and start looking at somewhat effective solutions that will make a difference? Everyone in the gun control discussion is letting perfect be the enemy of good. That's why nothing ever changes.

I would love to see "effective solutions that will make a difference" that are also Constitutional and are able to reasonably be implemented. The best I've seen is banning bump-stocks. This gun nut is all on board with that suggestion.

Ban all you want, I'm sure the suicidal mass murdering psychopaths will abide by THAT law and never do this.  A short piece of pipe, metal rod, and flat metal.  Bingo, homemade bump stock.
[img.fark.net image 288x175]
Your law will potentially lower the casualty count of all the mass murders committed by people that don't break the law.  Oh wait......


Because if we can't stop everything we should say fark it and do nothing.  Am I right?
 
2017-10-06 01:53:39 PM  

TNel: Callous: meanmutton: ZeroPly: capn' fun: I think the most sensible thing to do would be to re-classify semi-auto rifles and pistols as Class III (as has been discussed to death in earlier threads). But my point was that the 2nd Amendment is simply that-an amendment to a document which frames our government. It is not inerrant scripture, and changing it is a political issue much more than it is a legal one.

Nope. Not going to happen. Yes, it will reduce gun homicides considerably - no argument from me there. But it would be political suicide for anyone in a red state to even consider this. A Democrat in Missouri would have a greater chance of getting elected after sleeping with a 14 year old, than they would if they tried to ban semi-auto rifles and pistols. So it's a distraction to even discuss it.

How about if we stop considering really effective solutions that don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and start looking at somewhat effective solutions that will make a difference? Everyone in the gun control discussion is letting perfect be the enemy of good. That's why nothing ever changes.

I would love to see "effective solutions that will make a difference" that are also Constitutional and are able to reasonably be implemented. The best I've seen is banning bump-stocks. This gun nut is all on board with that suggestion.

Ban all you want, I'm sure the suicidal mass murdering psychopaths will abide by THAT law and never do this.  A short piece of pipe, metal rod, and flat metal.  Bingo, homemade bump stock.
[img.fark.net image 288x175]
Your law will potentially lower the casualty count of all the mass murders committed by people that don't break the law.  Oh wait......

Because if we can't stop everything we should say fark it and do nothing.  Am I right?


Actually, it's called the "Perfect Solution Fallacy" and it has a special relationship with gun control (on both sides)

"The perfect solution fallacy is a related informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented.[4] This is an example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between multiple component elements of a situation or problem, and, as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallac​y

Gonna take a whole shiat ton of fixes to get this resolved.  Which sucks, because patience is something that we shouldn't have to use when mass murders are the result.
 
2017-10-06 01:55:16 PM  

WillJM8528: pedrop357: Is the purchase of them subject to background checks, licensing requirements, quantity limits, etc.?

The answer is no.

Trucks are not regulated like guns....

Trucks aren't regulated LIKE guns, because they AREN'T guns in function or design so your point is moot. An individual planning a terrorist attack with a truck wouldn't buy 23 of them, for example.

While you may be able to BUY a truck without a license, before it can be operated on the road it has to meet numerous requirements and restrictions.

STOP COMPARING GUNS TO OTHER SHIAT!


No.  It's relevant to the issue of how dedicated mass murderers work.

You can buy a truck without any background check and operate it illegally right away to drive into crowds and kill dozens.  You can rent one with a maybe a little more scrutiny and do the same.  Even if some crazy background check and extra police scrutiny were applied to trucks, it wouldn't matter.  Either 'clean' guys would be ones renting, they would instead steal them, or they would shift methods to bombs and guns.
It would accomplish nothing in terms of public safety.
 
2017-10-06 01:55:23 PM  

give me doughnuts: ZeroPly: In a similar vein, you're not going to reduce mass shootings by inconveniencing legal gun owners.


Until this guy decided he really hated bro-country fans, he was a "legal gun owner."
If he were repeatedly "inconvenienced" during his eleven month span of acquiring weapons, ammunition, and accessories, perhaps he would have been brought to the attention of the law enforcement community.

We don't actually know what will or will not reduce mass shootings until we actually try something. But instead of doing that, we just have candle-light vigils and wait for the next mass shooting.


Riiiiight cause when it doesn't work it'll get promptly repealed and stop being an unnecessary burden on the law abiding, just like CMEA was.  I mean anti-gun people are so well known for supporting the repeal of laws that had absolutely no effect on crime, like the assault weapons ban.
 
2017-10-06 01:57:23 PM  

TNel: Callous: meanmutton: ZeroPly: capn' fun: I think the most sensible thing to do would be to re-classify semi-auto rifles and pistols as Class III (as has been discussed to death in earlier threads). But my point was that the 2nd Amendment is simply that-an amendment to a document which frames our government. It is not inerrant scripture, and changing it is a political issue much more than it is a legal one.

Nope. Not going to happen. Yes, it will reduce gun homicides considerably - no argument from me there. But it would be political suicide for anyone in a red state to even consider this. A Democrat in Missouri would have a greater chance of getting elected after sleeping with a 14 year old, than they would if they tried to ban semi-auto rifles and pistols. So it's a distraction to even discuss it.

How about if we stop considering really effective solutions that don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and start looking at somewhat effective solutions that will make a difference? Everyone in the gun control discussion is letting perfect be the enemy of good. That's why nothing ever changes.

I would love to see "effective solutions that will make a difference" that are also Constitutional and are able to reasonably be implemented. The best I've seen is banning bump-stocks. This gun nut is all on board with that suggestion.

Ban all you want, I'm sure the suicidal mass murdering psychopaths will abide by THAT law and never do this.  A short piece of pipe, metal rod, and flat metal.  Bingo, homemade bump stock.
[img.fark.net image 288x175]
Your law will potentially lower the casualty count of all the mass murders committed by people that don't break the law.  Oh wait......

Because if we can't stop everything we should say fark it and do nothing.  Am I right?


Most of the 'reasonable' suggestions have no chance of impacting mass murders, and minimal chance of dealing with the vast majority of 'everyday' murders.  The less reasonable ones are unconstitutional, would require a near police state to get anywhere near the necessary level of compliance.
 
2017-10-06 01:58:19 PM  

WillJM8528: pedrop357: It's just too soon to politicize this tragedy.

Yet here you are.  The only people who say this are whiny lefties who want to politicize things while the bodies are warm and we have next to no details.
attack stopped by a cop with a gun.

Fine. We won't politicize THIS tragedy. Let's talk about the Dallas Police shootings, Pulse nightclub, San Bernardino and Charleston church shootings then.


Take all those numbers, add them together, and then compare to the number of handgun deaths this year alone.

Mass shootings account for a tiny portion of gun homicides, but a disproportionate amount of media coverage. Focusing on them is like focusing on Ebola while heart disease and diabetes run rampant, and are far easier to prevent.
 
2017-10-06 02:00:41 PM  

ArthurVandelay: Actually, it's called the "Perfect Solution Fallacy" and it has a special relationship with gun control (on both sides)

"The perfect solution fallacy is a related informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented.[4] This is an example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between multiple component elements of a situation or problem, and, as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacy

Gonna take a whole shiat ton of fixes to get this resolved. Which sucks, because patience is something that we shouldn't have to use when mass murders are the result.


No, we know how this works and know that most of the solutions will have little to no effect on the problem, while creating new problems and burdening a protected right.  The resources put into the this new thing we're supposed to just try could be more effective if applied to the things actually causing the violence problem.

Even a partial end to the drug war would save more lives than just about any gun control proposal.
 
2017-10-06 02:00:57 PM  
Lol talk about fulfilling posts!

Step one: Mention "Perfect World Fallacy"
Step two: Let others post to thread
Step three: ????
Step four: Prophet!!
 
2017-10-06 02:01:41 PM  

pedrop357: capn' fun: Regarding prevention: Even without banning or restricting any particular type of firearm, ammunition, or explosives like Tannerite (and why that shiat is sold OTC is beyond me), simply having mandatory registration and monitoring of sales would have put Paddock on somebody's radar. At the very least, it would enable the ATF or even a State agency to identify when someone is stockpiling 30+ guns, thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammunition, and what appear to be over a hundred pounds of explosives in about a year.

Tannerite is not an explosive the way most people think of it.  You have to shoot the container more-or-less straight on with a rifle round with velocity around 2200fps, and it doesn't produce a firey explosion.

What good would putting him on someone's radar do?  Assuming his behavior didn't change at all knowing that frequent purchases are scrutinized, he wasn't doing anything illegal or wrong (at the time).  They might talk to him, poke around, and then have to move on to the next investigation.
99.99% of the inquiries would be futile, and the chances of them finding that .01% among all the falses is, well, so low that they wouldn't.


I know what Tannerite is. I've had plenty of fun with it, myself. But that's the extent of it-fun. It's literally nothing more than a "boom toy" with no purpose other than for people to shoot with a rifle to get a nice explosion, and if it were banned or restricted there would be no genuine loss to the sport shooting world.

As for being on someone's radar: today, under the current circumstances, it wouldn't do much, if anything. And I appreciate that many people oppose the idea that any government actor should be able to monitor their purchases for any reason whatsoever. But that doesn't mean that such monitoring couldn't be effective. And that's why we have the 4th Amendment and the safeguards around it (warrants, probable cause, etc.).
 
2017-10-06 02:02:06 PM  

ZeroPly: Corn_Fed: May I ask approximately how many guns you own?

Far fewer than you're thinking. I only target shoot, and I'm more about precision than variety, so here's my current "arsenal":

Sig P226 - for bowling pin and other target competitions
Colt AR-15 - (of course) for rapid fire and "fun", and because I miss shooting M4's
Savage 338 Lapua - for intermediate distance shooting, currently on loan to a buddy
Barrett M99 .416 bolt action - my favorite, for shooting at 600 to 1000 yard range

Of course, add in a reloading bench, spotter scopes, chronographs, etc, and it's more of a money pit than a hobby...


What farking hobby isn't a money pit?  I am in to flight sims and I just bought new speakers for my computer.

My hobby can't be used for mass murder, though.
 
2017-10-06 02:02:30 PM  

ArthurVandelay: Actually, it's called the "Perfect Solution Fallacy" and it has a special relationship with gun control (on both sides)

"The perfect solution fallacy is a related informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented.[4] This is an example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between multiple component elements of a situation or problem, and, as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacy

Gonna take a whole shiat ton of fixes to get this resolved.  Which sucks, because patience is something that we shouldn't have to use when mass murders are the result.


As the resident gun nut for this thread, I agree with this completely. Look at common ground in background checks and tracking, rather than wasting time trying to ban all semi-autos, or high capacity magazines. Start with a narrow ban on sales of bump stocks and trigger cranks. Hell, I've already sent an email to the NRA with my membership info, requesting that they support that ban as long as it's not too broad.
 
2017-10-06 02:03:16 PM  

ArthurVandelay: TNel: Callous: meanmutton: ZeroPly: capn' fun: I think the most sensible thing to do would be to re-classify semi-auto rifles and pistols as Class III (as has been discussed to death in earlier threads). But my point was that the 2nd Amendment is simply that-an amendment to a document which frames our government. It is not inerrant scripture, and changing it is a political issue much more than it is a legal one.

Nope. Not going to happen. Yes, it will reduce gun homicides considerably - no argument from me there. But it would be political suicide for anyone in a red state to even consider this. A Democrat in Missouri would have a greater chance of getting elected after sleeping with a 14 year old, than they would if they tried to ban semi-auto rifles and pistols. So it's a distraction to even discuss it.

How about if we stop considering really effective solutions that don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and start looking at somewhat effective solutions that will make a difference? Everyone in the gun control discussion is letting perfect be the enemy of good. That's why nothing ever changes.

I would love to see "effective solutions that will make a difference" that are also Constitutional and are able to reasonably be implemented. The best I've seen is banning bump-stocks. This gun nut is all on board with that suggestion.

Ban all you want, I'm sure the suicidal mass murdering psychopaths will abide by THAT law and never do this.  A short piece of pipe, metal rod, and flat metal.  Bingo, homemade bump stock.
[img.fark.net image 288x175]
Your law will potentially lower the casualty count of all the mass murders committed by people that don't break the law.  Oh wait......

Because if we can't stop everything we should say fark it and do nothing.  Am I right?

Actually, it's called the "Perfect Solution Fallacy" and it has a special relationship with gun control (on both sides)

"The perfect solution fallacy is a related informal fallacy that occurs when an arg ...


That's because pro-gun people only see the mass murders as the problem.  Anti-gunners see everyone that owns one as a problem even if they never do anything wrong.

Banning the bump stocks will prevent the people that won't commit mass murder from getting them.  But it won't prevent the people that will commit mass murder from making one in their basement or garage.

So pro-gun people see it as a complete failure as it doesn't prevent the problem and it only effects those that wouldn't commit mass murder in the first place.

Anti-gunners see it as a partial solution because it sticks it "those people" even though it doesn't prevent the mass murders from making then.
 
2017-10-06 02:04:34 PM  

pedrop357: ArthurVandelay: Actually, it's called the "Perfect Solution Fallacy" and it has a special relationship with gun control (on both sides)

"The perfect solution fallacy is a related informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented.[4] This is an example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between multiple component elements of a situation or problem, and, as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacy

Gonna take a whole shiat ton of fixes to get this resolved. Which sucks, because patience is something that we shouldn't have to use when mass murders are the result.

No, we know how this works and know that most of the solutions will have little to no effect on the problem, while creating new problems and burdening a protected right.  The resources put into the this new thing we're supposed to just try could be more effective if applied to the things actually causing the violence problem.

Even a partial end to the drug war would save more lives than just about any gun control proposal.


Don't worry, I am just pointing out you guys are actively using the fallacy.

Don't Grabs:
"It won't save as many lives as stopping the drug war, so it's not perfect and therefore worthless"
(implied, not said)

Grab'ems:
"Take away guns, and the violence will stop."
(Forgetting criminals don't listen to laws, or ignoring that...)

Like I said, gonna take a ton of fixes to quash this social bug.  Honestly, I don't think humans are up to the task at this point in our development.

/Owns exactly 0 guns
//1 old ass dagger
///Jade handle, so $$$
 
2017-10-06 02:06:44 PM  
ArthurVandelay: ...
//1 old ass-dagger

that'smyfetish.gif
ifyou'rebraveenough.jpg
 
2017-10-06 02:08:01 PM  

ZeroPly: WillJM8528: pedrop357: It's just too soon to politicize this tragedy.

Yet here you are.  The only people who say this are whiny lefties who want to politicize things while the bodies are warm and we have next to no details.
attack stopped by a cop with a gun.

Fine. We won't politicize THIS tragedy. Let's talk about the Dallas Police shootings, Pulse nightclub, San Bernardino and Charleston church shootings then.

Take all those numbers, add them together, and then compare to the number of handgun deaths this year alone.

Mass shootings account for a tiny portion of gun homicides, but a disproportionate amount of media coverage. Focusing on them is like focusing on Ebola while heart disease and diabetes run rampant, and are far easier to prevent.


I'm not focusing, merely DISCUSSING AT THIS TIME. Telling me I can't discuss mass shootings because other types of murder occur and account for more deaths merely ensures nothing EVER gets done.

To continue your medical analogy, it's like telling me I can't take the splinter out of my finger because I also need a heart transplant.
 
2017-10-06 02:08:26 PM  

WillJM8528: ZeroPly: Corn_Fed: May I ask approximately how many guns you own?

Far fewer than you're thinking. I only target shoot, and I'm more about precision than variety, so here's my current "arsenal":

Sig P226 - for bowling pin and other target competitions
Colt AR-15 - (of course) for rapid fire and "fun", and because I miss shooting M4's
Savage 338 Lapua - for intermediate distance shooting, currently on loan to a buddy
Barrett M99 .416 bolt action - my favorite, for shooting at 600 to 1000 yard range

Of course, add in a reloading bench, spotter scopes, chronographs, etc, and it's more of a money pit than a hobby...

What farking hobby isn't a money pit?  I am in to flight sims and I just bought new speakers for my computer.

My hobby can't be used for mass murder, though.


How do we know you aren't training yourself to fly a plane into a music festival?

Better ban flight sims.  Your hobby be damned.
 
2017-10-06 02:10:10 PM  

ArthurVandelay: Don't worry, I am just pointing out you guys are actively using the fallacy.

Don't Grabs:
"It won't save as many lives as stopping the drug war, so it's not perfect and therefore worthless"
(implied, not said)


My point specifically has been to focus on handgun violence to reduce overall gun homicides, rather than fixating on mass shooters. That's definitely not a perfect strategy, but it's a strategy that focuses on guns. I just posted my entire plan, and I haven't had one constitutional objection yet, or one argument that it won't reduce violence.
 
2017-10-06 02:14:18 PM  

ZeroPly: ArthurVandelay: Actually, it's called the "Perfect Solution Fallacy" and it has a special relationship with gun control (on both sides)

"The perfect solution fallacy is a related informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented.[4] This is an example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between multiple component elements of a situation or problem, and, as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacy

Gonna take a whole shiat ton of fixes to get this resolved.  Which sucks, because patience is something that we shouldn't have to use when mass murders are the result.

As the resident gun nut for this thread, I agree with this completely. Look at common ground in background checks and tracking, rather than wasting time trying to ban all semi-autos, or high capacity magazines. Start with a narrow ban on sales of bump stocks and trigger cranks. Hell, I've already sent an email to the NRA with my membership info, requesting that they support that ban as long as it's not too broad.


You, you I like :)

Well I like everyone, but you're extra smart and savvy.

The only good thing to come of these tragedies will be the change.  Like I said earlier, sucks that we have to be slow about it.  But that's human for you.

It would be great to wave a Nirvana wand and make everything fixed, not gonna happen though.

One last thing, a question:

In the countries that have the ultra low gun violence (due to bans), what is their regular violence like when compared with our gun violence?   Or, better yet, are there graphs/diagrams of just "violent acts"?

Seems to me those would help one side, or the other, to finally prove a point.  Is it humans that are the problem, or the tools the humans are using.

/In before Kobain reference
 
2017-10-06 02:15:44 PM  

chris chrisson: Jiro


I don't know. Why don't you ask the 22,000 who were the intended murder victims of one gunman.
 
2017-10-06 02:16:16 PM  

ZeroPly: ArthurVandelay: Don't worry, I am just pointing out you guys are actively using the fallacy.

Don't Grabs:
"It won't save as many lives as stopping the drug war, so it's not perfect and therefore worthless"
(implied, not said)

My point specifically has been to focus on handgun violence to reduce overall gun homicides, rather than fixating on mass shooters. That's definitely not a perfect strategy, but it's a strategy that focuses on guns. I just posted my entire plan, and I haven't had one constitutional objection yet, or one argument that it won't reduce violence.


My "implied not said" part was for the poster I was directly responding to, and no other poster.  Sorry for the confusion!!
 
2017-10-06 02:17:22 PM  

WillJM8528: ZeroPly: WillJM8528: pedrop357: It's just too soon to politicize this tragedy.

Yet here you are.  The only people who say this are whiny lefties who want to politicize things while the bodies are warm and we have next to no details.
attack stopped by a cop with a gun.

Fine. We won't politicize THIS tragedy. Let's talk about the Dallas Police shootings, Pulse nightclub, San Bernardino and Charleston church shootings then.

Take all those numbers, add them together, and then compare to the number of handgun deaths this year alone.

Mass shootings account for a tiny portion of gun homicides, but a disproportionate amount of media coverage. Focusing on them is like focusing on Ebola while heart disease and diabetes run rampant, and are far easier to prevent.

I'm not focusing, merely DISCUSSING AT THIS TIME. Telling me I can't discuss mass shootings because other types of murder occur and account for more deaths merely ensures nothing EVER gets done.

To continue your medical analogy, it's like telling me I can't take the splinter out of my finger because I also need a heart transplant.


It's more like stopping to take a splinter out of your finger when you're in full cardiac arrest and really need to call 911. There are going to be handgun homicides in just about every large city this weekend. It's unlikely there will be another mass shooting.

I have absolutely no problem discussing mass shootings. But visualize a patient, methodical, detail-oriented person who is educated and has $250K in the bank. Realistically, you're not going to keep that person from killing a bunch of people unless you put up metal detectors at every McDonald's. We can make it harder for the stupid or the poor, but there's no big solution.
 
2017-10-06 02:17:24 PM  

Callous: ArthurVandelay: TNel: Callous: meanmutton: ZeroPly: capn' fun: I think the most sensible thing to do would be to re-classify semi-auto rifles and pistols as Class III (as has been discussed to death in earlier threads). But my point was that the 2nd Amendment is simply that-an amendment to a document which frames our government. It is not inerrant scripture, and changing it is a political issue much more than it is a legal one.

Nope. Not going to happen. Yes, it will reduce gun homicides considerably - no argument from me there. But it would be political suicide for anyone in a red state to even consider this. A Democrat in Missouri would have a greater chance of getting elected after sleeping with a 14 year old, than they would if they tried to ban semi-auto rifles and pistols. So it's a distraction to even discuss it.

How about if we stop considering really effective solutions that don't have a snowball's chance in hell, and start looking at somewhat effective solutions that will make a difference? Everyone in the gun control discussion is letting perfect be the enemy of good. That's why nothing ever changes.

I would love to see "effective solutions that will make a difference" that are also Constitutional and are able to reasonably be implemented. The best I've seen is banning bump-stocks. This gun nut is all on board with that suggestion.

Ban all you want, I'm sure the suicidal mass murdering psychopaths will abide by THAT law and never do this.  A short piece of pipe, metal rod, and flat metal.  Bingo, homemade bump stock.
[img.fark.net image 288x175]
Your law will potentially lower the casualty count of all the mass murders committed by people that don't break the law.  Oh wait......

Because if we can't stop everything we should say fark it and do nothing.  Am I right?

Actually, it's called the "Perfect Solution Fallacy" and it has a special relationship with gun control (on both sides)

"The perfect solution fallacy is a related informal fallacy that oc ...


I don't see every gun owner as a problem. I don't believe all guns should be banned. I appreciate what the 2nd Amendment was getting at, in spirit.

But I DO NOT agree with the idea that just because someone's mother birthed them on US soil (or the soil of a US territory), and they've managed to make it at least 18 years from that birth without having committed a felony, been involuntarily committed, or adjudicated as mentally incompetent, that they should be able to buy as many guns and ammunition as their finances will allow, with little or no oversight whatsoever depending on where in the country their particular patch of dirt happens to be. We don't let people drive, or operate heavy equipment, or fly, stockpile and use industrial chemicals, or even make sandwiches in a commercial kitchen without regulations and oversight, but somehow amassing literal arsenals, in literal secrecy, is out of bounds?
 
2017-10-06 02:18:50 PM  

WillJM8528: ZeroPly: WillJM8528: pedrop357: It's just too soon to politicize this tragedy.

Yet here you are.  The only people who say this are whiny lefties who want to politicize things while the bodies are warm and we have next to no details.
attack stopped by a cop with a gun.

Fine. We won't politicize THIS tragedy. Let's talk about the Dallas Police shootings, Pulse nightclub, San Bernardino and Charleston church shootings then.

Take all those numbers, add them together, and then compare to the number of handgun deaths this year alone.

Mass shootings account for a tiny portion of gun homicides, but a disproportionate amount of media coverage. Focusing on them is like focusing on Ebola while heart disease and diabetes run rampant, and are far easier to prevent.

I'm not focusing, merely DISCUSSING AT THIS TIME. Telling me I can't discuss mass shootings because other types of murder occur and account for more deaths merely ensures nothing EVER gets done.

To continue your medical analogy, it's like telling me I can't take the splinter out of my finger because I also need a heart transplant.


You know what else gets nothing done?  Gun control.
 
2017-10-06 02:22:05 PM  

WillJM8528: ZeroPly: Corn_Fed: May I ask approximately how many guns you own?

Far fewer than you're thinking. I only target shoot, and I'm more about precision than variety, so here's my current "arsenal":

Sig P226 - for bowling pin and other target competitions
Colt AR-15 - (of course) for rapid fire and "fun", and because I miss shooting M4's
Savage 338 Lapua - for intermediate distance shooting, currently on loan to a buddy
Barrett M99 .416 bolt action - my favorite, for shooting at 600 to 1000 yard range

Of course, add in a reloading bench, spotter scopes, chronographs, etc, and it's more of a money pit than a hobby...

What farking hobby isn't a money pit?  I am in to flight sims and I just bought new speakers for my computer.

My hobby can't be used for mass murder, though.


You mean like the flight sims the 9/11 attackers trained on so they could effectively utilize a commercial airliner as a missile? You didn't think that one all the way through...
 
2017-10-06 02:22:29 PM  

Callous: WillJM8528: ZeroPly: Corn_Fed: May I ask approximately how many guns you own?

Far fewer than you're thinking. I only target shoot, and I'm more about precision than variety, so here's my current "arsenal":

Sig P226 - for bowling pin and other target competitions
Colt AR-15 - (of course) for rapid fire and "fun", and because I miss shooting M4's
Savage 338 Lapua - for intermediate distance shooting, currently on loan to a buddy
Barrett M99 .416 bolt action - my favorite, for shooting at 600 to 1000 yard range

Of course, add in a reloading bench, spotter scopes, chronographs, etc, and it's more of a money pit than a hobby...

What farking hobby isn't a money pit?  I am in to flight sims and I just bought new speakers for my computer.

My hobby can't be used for mass murder, though.

How do we know you aren't training yourself to fly a plane into a music festival?

Better ban flight sims.  Your hobby be damned.


I initially thought your comment was stupid (or...meant to be intentionally absurd) but...I will play.

You do realize that people have actually talked about stuff like this, right?  Back when the Columbine shootings happened, people openly discussed banning or heavily regulating games with excessive violence (calling them "murder simulators").

So, how stupid is our farking country?  We are more willing to ban harmless shiat than we are actual tools used to kill people.
 
2017-10-06 02:24:18 PM  

capn' fun: But I DO NOT agree with the idea that just because someone's mother birthed them on US soil (or the soil of a US territory), and they've managed to make it at least 18 years from that birth without having committed a felony, been involuntarily committed, or adjudicated as mentally incompetent, that they should be able to buy as many guns and ammunition as their finances will allow, with little or no oversight whatsoever depending on where in the country their particular patch of dirt happens to be. We don't let people drive, or operate heavy equipment, or fly, stockpile and use industrial chemicals, or even make sandwiches in a commercial kitchen without regulations and oversight, but somehow amassing literal arsenals, in literal secrecy, is out of bounds?


I am in no way a gun expert, I own zero guns.

However, do you not need to get a license to carry?
Is there not a background check? (Yes, I used to work in sporting goods at K-Mart)
Are there not laws about how/when you can carry?

Increase requirements for gun aquisition, sure!

If they're not already, licences too.  Along with "shooters ed" for new gun getters.  Maybe a test to take when renewal of license comes?  Another "shooters ed" when you get "too old" and shouldn't have the keys...(IE: Like cars?)

Taking things away is childs play.  As in how you treat children, "That's bad for you, momma is gonna make it safe now."  Adults like to be adult, even when they're not.  So if you try to un-adult them, they're really gonna bawl.

And that's just this one little piece of the gun issue.  I think we should focus on the why, and not the how, but I seem to be in a minority.  (Why = Mental instability (period).)
 
2017-10-06 02:25:05 PM  

WillJM8528: pedrop357: It's just too soon to politicize this tragedy.

Yet here you are.  The only people who say this are whiny lefties who want to politicize things while the bodies are warm and we have next to no details.
attack stopped by a cop with a gun.

Fine. We won't politicize THIS tragedy. Let's talk about the Dallas Police shootings, Pulse nightclub, San Bernardino and Charleston church shootings then.


There's lots more where those came from. A smorgasbord, if you'll have it.

But now is not the time to talk about a buffet-style meal with multiple hot and cold dishes of various foods on a table.
 
2017-10-06 02:26:13 PM  

capn' fun: But I DO NOT agree with the idea that just because someone's mother birthed them on US soil (or the soil of a US territory), and they've managed to make it at least 18 years from that birth without having committed a felony, been involuntarily committed, or adjudicated as mentally incompetent, that they should be able to buy as many guns and ammunition as their finances will allow, with little or no oversight whatsoever depending on where in the country their particular patch of dirt happens to be. We don't let people drive, or operate heavy equipment, or fly, stockpile and use industrial chemicals, or even make sandwiches in a commercial kitchen without regulations and oversight, but somehow amassing literal arsenals, in literal secrecy, is out of bounds?


Those 18 year olds without a criminal background can buy all the cars, heavy equipment, airplanes, chemicals, and commercial kitchen equipment their finances will allow with minimal to no oversight.  Not even a background check like they would face buying a gun from a dealer.

Just about ANYONE can receive flight training.  The licensing process is straightforward and shall issue.
Heavy equipment is a per-company thing mixed with some OSHA regs.
Chemicals are a company and OSHA thing again
Making sandwiches in a commercial kitchen doesn't require any licensing or government training in most areas
 
2017-10-06 02:26:31 PM  

pedrop357: WillJM8528: ZeroPly: WillJM8528: pedrop357: It's just too soon to politicize this tragedy.

Yet here you are.  The only people who say this are whiny lefties who want to politicize things while the bodies are warm and we have next to no details.
attack stopped by a cop with a gun.

Fine. We won't politicize THIS tragedy. Let's talk about the Dallas Police shootings, Pulse nightclub, San Bernardino and Charleston church shootings then.

Take all those numbers, add them together, and then compare to the number of handgun deaths this year alone.

Mass shootings account for a tiny portion of gun homicides, but a disproportionate amount of media coverage. Focusing on them is like focusing on Ebola while heart disease and diabetes run rampant, and are far easier to prevent.

I'm not focusing, merely DISCUSSING AT THIS TIME. Telling me I can't discuss mass shootings because other types of murder occur and account for more deaths merely ensures nothing EVER gets done.

To continue your medical analogy, it's like telling me I can't take the splinter out of my finger because I also need a heart transplant.

You know what else gets nothing done?  Gun control.


Damn near every first world nation on the surface of the Earth would like a word with you.

Even big cities with gun control are comparatively safe. I lived in NYC for several years and I think their gun control works fairly well.
 
2017-10-06 02:28:14 PM  

capn' fun: I don't see every gun owner as a problem. I don't believe all guns should be banned. I appreciate what the 2nd Amendment was getting at, in spirit.

But I DO NOT agree with the idea that just because someone's mother birthed them on US soil (or the soil of a US territory), and they've managed to make it at least 18 years from that birth without having committed a felony, been involuntarily committed, or adjudicated as mentally incompetent, that they should be able to buy as many guns and ammunition as their finances will allow, with little or no oversight whatsoever depending on where in the country their particular patch of dirt happens to be. We don't let people drive, or operate heavy equipment, or fly, stockpile and use industrial chemicals, or even make sandwiches in a commercial kitchen without regulations and oversight, but somehow amassing literal arsenals, in literal secrecy, is out of bounds?


This all sounds good in theory, but the devil is in the details. How are you going to determine who is competent? Let local law enforcement decide? Because in NYC you can get a concealed carry permit if you know the mayor, but not if you're a battered wife. Are you sure that the police chief in St. Louis isn't going to discriminate against black applicants coming in wearing saggy pants?

The particular model is the problem. Gun rights are just like voting rights. Do you think people should be required to show competence with the issues (for example by answering a written test), before they are allowed to vote? I'll argue that a country where 50% of the voters doesn't understand that Puerto Rican residents are US citizens, is far more dangerous than a country with a few mass shootings a year.
 
2017-10-06 02:29:07 PM  

WillJM8528: pedrop357: WillJM8528: ZeroPly: WillJM8528: pedrop357: It's just too soon to politicize this tragedy.

Yet here you are.  The only people who say this are whiny lefties who want to politicize things while the bodies are warm and we have next to no details.
attack stopped by a cop with a gun.

Fine. We won't politicize THIS tragedy. Let's talk about the Dallas Police shootings, Pulse nightclub, San Bernardino and Charleston church shootings then.

Take all those numbers, add them together, and then compare to the number of handgun deaths this year alone.

Mass shootings account for a tiny portion of gun homicides, but a disproportionate amount of media coverage. Focusing on them is like focusing on Ebola while heart disease and diabetes run rampant, and are far easier to prevent.

I'm not focusing, merely DISCUSSING AT THIS TIME. Telling me I can't discuss mass shootings because other types of murder occur and account for more deaths merely ensures nothing EVER gets done.

To continue your medical analogy, it's like telling me I can't take the splinter out of my finger because I also need a heart transplant.

You know what else gets nothing done?  Gun control.

Damn near every first world nation on the surface of the Earth would like a word with you.

Even big cities with gun control are comparatively safe. I lived in NYC for several years and I think their gun control works fairly well.


Works well at stopping gun violence, but has violence gone down?  Or are they just using other things to be violent with?

The gun is not violent, the human is.  If you take away his gun, he is still violent.  Are there charts/graphs that show he decides to not act on that violence, without a boom stick?
 
2017-10-06 02:29:09 PM  
Oops. That didn't turn out right.

chris chrisson: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: My new favorite...

[img.fark.net image 512x288]

How about a bomb? Does that make a more valid point? Now my cellphone should be illegal?


I don't know. Why don't you try asking the 22,000 intended murder victims of one gun man?

/now fortified with complete sentences
 
2017-10-06 02:30:46 PM  

WillJM8528: I initially thought your comment was stupid (or...meant to be intentionally absurd) but...I will play.

You do realize that people have actually talked about stuff like this, right?  Back when the Columbine shootings happened, people openly discussed banning or heavily regulating games with excessive violence (calling them "murder simulators").

So, how stupid is our farking country?  We are more willing to ban harmless shiat than we are actual tools used to kill people.


A big difference between flight sims and video games which have been called "murder simulators" is that the educational and simulation aspect is only true of flight sims. Call of Duty doesn't teach maintenance of a weapon, tactics, anything practical at all really. Doom doesn't teach you how to reload magazines. It is a false equivalence because only one of those things actually fits the practical definition of simulation.
 
2017-10-06 02:31:03 PM  

WillJM8528: pedrop357: WillJM8528: ZeroPly: WillJM8528: pedrop357: It's just too soon to politicize this tragedy.

Yet here you are.  The only people who say this are whiny lefties who want to politicize things while the bodies are warm and we have next to no details.
attack stopped by a cop with a gun.

Fine. We won't politicize THIS tragedy. Let's talk about the Dallas Police shootings, Pulse nightclub, San Bernardino and Charleston church shootings then.

Take all those numbers, add them together, and then compare to the number of handgun deaths this year alone.

Mass shootings account for a tiny portion of gun homicides, but a disproportionate amount of media coverage. Focusing on them is like focusing on Ebola while heart disease and diabetes run rampant, and are far easier to prevent.

I'm not focusing, merely DISCUSSING AT THIS TIME. Telling me I can't discuss mass shootings because other types of murder occur and account for more deaths merely ensures nothing EVER gets done.

To continue your medical analogy, it's like telling me I can't take the splinter out of my finger because I also need a heart transplant.

You know what else gets nothing done?  Gun control.

Damn near every first world nation on the surface of the Earth would like a word with you.


Apples to oranges.  Lower population, different demographics, minimal or no history of mass civilian armament.  From what I can remember, none were colonies that used arms to fight their independence.

Even big cities with gun control are comparatively safe. I lived in NYC for several years and I think their gun control works fairly well.

NYC's crime rate isn't that much better than rest of the country, and they have a massive police presence to help it out.  NYC has a population:police ratio of around 1:160, which is way more just about anywhere else.  Why are New Yorkers compared to so many more less policed areas?
 
2017-10-06 02:32:12 PM  

pedrop357: WillJM8528: pedrop357: WillJM8528: ZeroPly: WillJM8528: pedrop357: It's just too soon to politicize this tragedy.

Yet here you are.  The only people who say this are whiny lefties who want to politicize things while the bodies are warm and we have next to no details.
attack stopped by a cop with a gun.

Fine. We won't politicize THIS tragedy. Let's talk about the Dallas Police shootings, Pulse nightclub, San Bernardino and Charleston church shootings then.

Take all those numbers, add them together, and then compare to the number of handgun deaths this year alone.

Mass shootings account for a tiny portion of gun homicides, but a disproportionate amount of media coverage. Focusing on them is like focusing on Ebola while heart disease and diabetes run rampant, and are far easier to prevent.

I'm not focusing, merely DISCUSSING AT THIS TIME. Telling me I can't discuss mass shootings because other types of murder occur and account for more deaths merely ensures nothing EVER gets done.

To continue your medical analogy, it's like telling me I can't take the splinter out of my finger because I also need a heart transplant.

You know what else gets nothing done?  Gun control.

Damn near every first world nation on the surface of the Earth would like a word with you.

Apples to oranges.  Lower population, different demographics, minimal or no history of mass civilian armament.  From what I can remember, none were colonies that used arms to fight their independence.

Even big cities with gun control are comparatively safe. I lived in NYC for several years and I think their gun control works fairly well.

NYC's crime rate isn't that much better than rest of the country, and they have a massive police presence to help it out.  NYC has a population:police ratio of around 1:160, which is way more just about anywhere else.  Why are New Yorkers compared to so many more less policed areas?


Sorry, police:population of 1:160
 
2017-10-06 02:34:48 PM  
pedrop357: ...population:police ratio of around 1:160...

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-10-06 02:35:49 PM  

ZeroPly: capn' fun: I don't see every gun owner as a problem. I don't believe all guns should be banned. I appreciate what the 2nd Amendment was getting at, in spirit.

But I DO NOT agree with the idea that just because someone's mother birthed them on US soil (or the soil of a US territory), and they've managed to make it at least 18 years from that birth without having committed a felony, been involuntarily committed, or adjudicated as mentally incompetent, that they should be able to buy as many guns and ammunition as their finances will allow, with little or no oversight whatsoever depending on where in the country their particular patch of dirt happens to be. We don't let people drive, or operate heavy equipment, or fly, stockpile and use industrial chemicals, or even make sandwiches in a commercial kitchen without regulations and oversight, but somehow amassing literal arsenals, in literal secrecy, is out of bounds?

This all sounds good in theory, but the devil is in the details. How are you going to determine who is competent? Let local law enforcement decide? Because in NYC you can get a concealed carry permit if you know the mayor, but not if you're a battered wife. Are you sure that the police chief in St. Louis isn't going to discriminate against black applicants coming in wearing saggy pants?

The particular model is the problem. Gun rights are just like voting rights. Do you think people should be required to show competence with the issues (for example by answering a written test), before they are allowed to vote? I'll argue that a country where 50% of the voters doesn't understand that Puerto Rican residents are US citizens, is far more dangerous than a country with a few mass shootings a year.


Make semi-autos a Class III. Again-this was beaten to death in prior threads, but the idea is that anyone who is willing to take the time and spend the money to have them will also have been properly vetted, and their guns won't simply "disappear" in into the fog of private sales or being "gifted" to friends and relatives. It would have the added benefit of preventing almost all of the "cleaning incidents" and other accidental discharges from the asinine "one in the pipe" mentality, and it would be a LOT harder for toddlers and small children to accidentally shoot themselves or someone else if they stumble on a non semi-auto.

As for everyone else, they can still hunt, sport shoot, cowboy shoot, biathlon, 3-gun, defend their homes or businesses, plink varmints, conceal carry, and any other gun-related activity with a bolt or lever action rifle, a pump or breach shotgun, or a revolver.
 
2017-10-06 02:35:55 PM  

ArthurVandelay: pedrop357: ...population:police ratio of around 1:160...

[img.fark.net image 500x480]


That or the Blues Brothers would have worked.
 
2017-10-06 02:37:45 PM  
Well, since it's beginning to look like the Confederate Army in here, I'm off.
 
2017-10-06 02:40:33 PM  
Ooo a Trump supporter, and now a southern belle.  I'm just all sorts of new things today!

Unless I am not part of the re-risers, then damn!

/Bad day for advocating Devils
//Also at Black Rock
///And for Mr. Chan
 
2017-10-06 02:40:41 PM  

give me doughnuts: ZeroPly: In a similar vein, you're not going to reduce mass shootings by inconveniencing legal gun owners.


Until this guy decided he really hated bro-country fans, he was a "legal gun owner."
If he were repeatedly "inconvenienced" during his eleven month span of acquiring weapons, ammunition, and accessories, perhaps he would have been brought to the attention of the law enforcement community.

We don't actually know what will or will not reduce mass shootings until we actually try something. But instead of doing that, we just have candle-light vigils and wait for the next mass shooting.


The problem with this is that you try something, it doesn't work so you try something else. That doesn't work so now you try something else and so on and so on. The problem is that all of those things (laws) you've tried that didn't work stay on the books. All you're doing is adding more and more regulation without ever getting rid of the regulation that didn't work. That's the slippery slope.
 
2017-10-06 02:40:52 PM  
Why is no one talking about this?

'Las Vegas Shooting: Video Shows 'Security Guard' Gunman Shoot Into Crowd'

http://thenewyorknewsday.com/2017/10/05/las-vegas-shooting-video-show​s​-security-guard-gunman-shoot-into-crowd/#
 
2017-10-06 02:42:13 PM  

ArthurVandelay: One last thing, a question:

In the countries that have the ultra low gun violence (due to bans), what is their regular violence like when compared with our gun violence?   Or, better yet, are there graphs/diagrams of just "violent acts"?

Seems to me those would help one side, or the other, to finally prove a point.  Is it humans that are the problem, or the tools the humans are using.

/In before Kobain reference


This is a tough one, and honestly, I don't know. The Australian data shows that homicides continued to trend up after their ban in '96, peaked in '99, and then came down as part of an overall trend. I think we can conclude from that data that other weapons take over from guns at least to some extent. But there are so many confounders that it's hard to separate variables.

Unfortunately, this is like climate change. There's no point discussing raw data unless you're an expert in that particular area, and even with my applied math degree, I'd be hesitant to come up with any conclusions.
 
2017-10-06 02:45:29 PM  

ZeroPly: ArthurVandelay: One last thing, a question:

In the countries that have the ultra low gun violence (due to bans), what is their regular violence like when compared with our gun violence?   Or, better yet, are there graphs/diagrams of just "violent acts"?

Seems to me those would help one side, or the other, to finally prove a point.  Is it humans that are the problem, or the tools the humans are using.

/In before Kobain reference

This is a tough one, and honestly, I don't know. The Australian data shows that homicides continued to trend up after their ban in '96, peaked in '99, and then came down as part of an overall trend. I think we can conclude from that data that other weapons take over from guns at least to some extent. But there are so many confounders that it's hard to separate variables.

Unfortunately, this is like climate change. There's no point discussing raw data unless you're an expert in that particular area, and even with my applied math degree, I'd be hesitant to come up with any conclusions.


Fair enough :(

I just have the nagging feeling folks are focusing on the symptoms of a problem, rather than the problem itself.

If I had to guess what the problem is, I wouldn't.  That shiat doesn't help.
 
2017-10-06 02:45:58 PM  

Totally Sharky Complete: Why is no one talking about this?

'Las Vegas Shooting: Video Shows 'Security Guard' Gunman Shoot Into Crowd'

http://thenewyorknewsday.com/2017/10/05/las-vegas-shooting-video-shows​-security-guard-gunman-shoot-into-crowd/#


That looks like an LVMPD officer sort of hunkering down.  If he started firing a weapon into the crowd, people would be noticeably shifting their attention to him and then shifting their movement to run away from him.
 
2017-10-06 02:49:53 PM  

capn' fun: Make semi-autos a Class III. Again-this was beaten to death in prior threads, but the idea is that anyone who is willing to take the time and spend the money to have them will also have been properly vetted, and their guns won't simply "disappear" in into the fog of private sales or being "gifted" to friends and relatives. It would have the added benefit of preventing almost all of the "cleaning incidents" and other accidental discharges from the asinine "one in the pipe" mentality, and it would be a LOT harder for toddlers and small children to accidentally shoot themselves or someone else if they stumble on a non semi-auto.

As for everyone else, they can still hunt, sport shoot, cowboy shoot, biathlon, 3-gun, defend their homes or businesses, plink varmints, conceal carry, and any other gun-related activity with a bolt or lever action rifle, a pump or breach shotgun, or a revolver.


As a regular shooter, this idea just won't fly. It takes months to get a Class III license and transfer, and a lot of paperwork. When I bought my Sig P226, I pointed to the one I wanted on the shelf, gave them my credit card, and literally walked out 30 minutes later with the pistol, a few hundred rounds of ammo, and a "call us if you don't like it" from the guy at the counter. That's what I'm used to right now, and more importantly, that's what all gun owners in Missouri are used to. We like our system.

On behalf of every person I regularly shoot with, they will fight you tooth-and-nail if you expect them to get a Class III license just to get a 9mm semi-auto.

On the other hand, tracking would work, and tracking is good. Set up a usable tracking system, and you keep those semi-autos from disappearing into the gray market. I'm 100% with you there, IF the tracking system is well thought out, and not a bureaucratic federal nightmare that involves weeks of waiting.
 
2017-10-06 02:54:10 PM  

ZeroPly: ArthurVandelay: One last thing, a question:

In the countries that have the ultra low gun violence (due to bans), what is their regular violence like when compared with our gun violence?   Or, better yet, are there graphs/diagrams of just "violent acts"?

Seems to me those would help one side, or the other, to finally prove a point.  Is it humans that are the problem, or the tools the humans are using.

/In before Kobain reference

This is a tough one, and honestly, I don't know. The Australian data shows that homicides continued to trend up after their ban in '96, peaked in '99, and then came down as part of an overall trend. I think we can conclude from that data that other weapons take over from guns at least to some extent. But there are so many confounders that it's hard to separate variables.

Unfortunately, this is like climate change. There's no point discussing raw data unless you're an expert in that particular area, and even with my applied math degree, I'd be hesitant to come up with any conclusions.


MATH EXPERT UNABLE TO DETERMINE ANY LINK BETWEEN GUN CONTROL AND DECLINE IN VIOLENCE
 
2017-10-06 02:58:49 PM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: The problem with this is that you try something, it doesn't work so you try something else. That doesn't work so now you try something else and so on and so on. The problem is that all of those things (laws) you've tried that didn't work stay on the books. All you're doing is adding more and more regulation without ever getting rid of the regulation that didn't work. That's the slippery slope.


Like it or not, the first amendment is going to become an issue sooner rather than later. Someone with the right military background would have known what chemical bombs to set off in the hallway, that would render ineffective the M40 gas masks that the military and SWAT use. If they had done that, it would have kept first responders from breaking down the hotel door for an hour or two. And I'm talking chemicals that you can buy at Walmart and mix together. So picture this guy firing away into the stampede unhindered until it's just dead bodies.

What happens when someone posts details all over on how to create chemical barriers to slow down first responders? Or details on how to wire explosives to the doors so that no SWAT team is going to breach without spending an hour getting EOD guys on site? That's what keeps me awake at night, not whether some crazy will be able to buy a 100 round magazine.
 
2017-10-06 02:58:56 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: ZeroPly: ArthurVandelay: One last thing, a question:

In the countries that have the ultra low gun violence (due to bans), what is their regular violence like when compared with our gun violence?   Or, better yet, are there graphs/diagrams of just "violent acts"?

Seems to me those would help one side, or the other, to finally prove a point.  Is it humans that are the problem, or the tools the humans are using.

/In before Kobain reference

This is a tough one, and honestly, I don't know. The Australian data shows that homicides continued to trend up after their ban in '96, peaked in '99, and then came down as part of an overall trend. I think we can conclude from that data that other weapons take over from guns at least to some extent. But there are so many confounders that it's hard to separate variables.

Unfortunately, this is like climate change. There's no point discussing raw data unless you're an expert in that particular area, and even with my applied math degree, I'd be hesitant to come up with any conclusions.

MATH EXPERT UNABLE TO DETERMINE ANY LINK BETWEEN GUN CONTROL AND DECLINE IN VIOLENCE


Agreed.  Look at the states in the US and their gun control laws, then look at their crime and/or murder rates.

The US was recently at record lows in crime, and is still near them, while many gun control laws have been removed or reduced.  It's taken a long time, but it has worked.

If we could begin dismantling the drug war, we'd see heft decreases in violence.  Couple that with attention to high crime areas and the other things that lead them to being high crime areas, and we'd see even more decreases.
 
2017-10-06 02:59:50 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: ZeroPly: ArthurVandelay: One last thing, a question:

In the countries that have the ultra low gun violence (due to bans), what is their regular violence like when compared with our gun violence?   Or, better yet, are there graphs/diagrams of just "violent acts"?

Seems to me those would help one side, or the other, to finally prove a point.  Is it humans that are the problem, or the tools the humans are using.

/In before Kobain reference

This is a tough one, and honestly, I don't know. The Australian data shows that homicides continued to trend up after their ban in '96, peaked in '99, and then came down as part of an overall trend. I think we can conclude from that data that other weapons take over from guns at least to some extent. But there are so many confounders that it's hard to separate variables.

Unfortunately, this is like climate change. There's no point discussing raw data unless you're an expert in that particular area, and even with my applied math degree, I'd be hesitant to come up with any conclusions.

MATH EXPERT UNABLE TO DETERMINE ANY LINK BETWEEN GUN CONTROL AND DECLINE IN VIOLENCE


Umm, yeah... so you can imagine my amusement when the rest of you think that you can...
 
2017-10-06 03:03:25 PM  

Corn_Fed: May I ask approximately how many guns you own?


There is one way to find out, show up at his place in the middle of the night, unwelcome.
 
2017-10-06 03:10:13 PM  

WillJM8528: Callous: WillJM8528: ZeroPly: Corn_Fed: May I ask approximately how many guns you own?

Far fewer than you're thinking. I only target shoot, and I'm more about precision than variety, so here's my current "arsenal":

Sig P226 - for bowling pin and other target competitions
Colt AR-15 - (of course) for rapid fire and "fun", and because I miss shooting M4's
Savage 338 Lapua - for intermediate distance shooting, currently on loan to a buddy
Barrett M99 .416 bolt action - my favorite, for shooting at 600 to 1000 yard range

Of course, add in a reloading bench, spotter scopes, chronographs, etc, and it's more of a money pit than a hobby...

What farking hobby isn't a money pit?  I am in to flight sims and I just bought new speakers for my computer.

My hobby can't be used for mass murder, though.

How do we know you aren't training yourself to fly a plane into a music festival?

Better ban flight sims.  Your hobby be damned.

I initially thought your comment was stupid (or...meant to be intentionally absurd) but...I will play.

You do realize that people have actually talked about stuff like this, right?  Back when the Columbine shootings happened, people openly discussed banning or heavily regulating games with excessive violence (calling them "murder simulators").

So, how stupid is our farking country?  We are more willing to ban harmless shiat than we are actual tools used to kill people.


So you're saying we should keep the flight sims and ban the planes?
 
2017-10-06 03:15:46 PM  

FlyingBacon: Corn_Fed: May I ask approximately how many guns you own?

There is one way to find out, show up at his place in the middle of the night, unwelcome.


If you do that you'll probably only see one of them, briefly, if you see it at all.
 
2017-10-06 03:16:21 PM  

ZeroPly: capn' fun: Make semi-autos a Class III. Again-this was beaten to death in prior threads, but the idea is that anyone who is willing to take the time and spend the money to have them will also have been properly vetted, and their guns won't simply "disappear" in into the fog of private sales or being "gifted" to friends and relatives. It would have the added benefit of preventing almost all of the "cleaning incidents" and other accidental discharges from the asinine "one in the pipe" mentality, and it would be a LOT harder for toddlers and small children to accidentally shoot themselves or someone else if they stumble on a non semi-auto.

As for everyone else, they can still hunt, sport shoot, cowboy shoot, biathlon, 3-gun, defend their homes or businesses, plink varmints, conceal carry, and any other gun-related activity with a bolt or lever action rifle, a pump or breach shotgun, or a revolver.

As a regular shooter, this idea just won't fly. It takes months to get a Class III license and transfer, and a lot of paperwork. When I bought my Sig P226, I pointed to the one I wanted on the shelf, gave them my credit card, and literally walked out 30 minutes later with the pistol, a few hundred rounds of ammo, and a "call us if you don't like it" from the guy at the counter. That's what I'm used to right now, and more importantly, that's what all gun owners in Missouri are used to. We like our system.

On behalf of every person I regularly shoot with, they will fight you tooth-and-nail if you expect them to get a Class III license just to get a 9mm semi-auto.

On the other hand, tracking would work, and tracking is good. Set up a usable tracking system, and you keep those semi-autos from disappearing into the gray market. I'm 100% with you there, IF the tracking system is well thought out, and not a bureaucratic federal nightmare that involves weeks of waiting.


I've been shooting for decades, and I can appreciate your point. It would be a pain in my own ass. But at the same time it would force me really have to sit back and think about whether I really need my AR-15s, or are they just fun? Or, is there really much my Benelli can do that my 870 can't? Or, if I actually had to use a concealed handgun, am I really worse off with a snub nose .357 or a Taurus Judge than I am with a compact semi-auto? And if I decide that, yes, I really do need-or just plain want-to have a semi-auto, then there is an existing, clearly defined process for me to keep them or buy more. I've got a clean record, I have the extra cash, and I have plenty of patience.

There has to be a balance between ordinary, law-abiding citizens being able to enjoy shooting and the safety of the public at large. Yes, some people would consider categorizing semi-autos as Class IIIs as a de facto ban, but there would be absolutely nothing stopping any of them from owning semi-autos except for the same criteria which would stop them from owning any other Class III today. And they would still have literally hundreds of makes and models of firearms to choose from to accomplish any legitimate purpose, with no more effort than walking into a store with valid ID and a method of payment.
 
2017-10-06 03:19:42 PM  

capn' fun: 've been shooting for decades, and I can appreciate your point. It would be a pain in my own ass. But at the same time it would force me really have to sit back and think about whether I really need my AR-15s, or are they just fun? Or, is there really much my Benelli can do that my 870 can't? Or, if I actually had to use a concealed handgun, am I really worse off with a snub nose .357 or a Taurus Judge than I am with a compact semi-auto? And if I decide that, yes, I really do need-or just plain want-to have a semi-auto, then there is an existing, clearly defined process for me to keep them or buy more. I've got a clean record, I have the extra cash, and I have plenty of patience.


You're free to divest yourself of any firearms you don't think you need.  It won't make any difference to the homicide rate, unless you think you're thinking of committing murder.
 
2017-10-06 03:24:53 PM  

capn' fun: ZeroPly: capn' fun: Make semi-autos a Class III. Again-this was beaten to death in prior threads, but the idea is that anyone who is willing to take the time and spend the money to have them will also have been properly vetted, and their guns won't simply "disappear" in into the fog of private sales or being "gifted" to friends and relatives. It would have the added benefit of preventing almost all of the "cleaning incidents" and other accidental discharges from the asinine "one in the pipe" mentality, and it would be a LOT harder for toddlers and small children to accidentally shoot themselves or someone else if they stumble on a non semi-auto.

As for everyone else, they can still hunt, sport shoot, cowboy shoot, biathlon, 3-gun, defend their homes or businesses, plink varmints, conceal carry, and any other gun-related activity with a bolt or lever action rifle, a pump or breach shotgun, or a revolver.

As a regular shooter, this idea just won't fly. It takes months to get a Class III license and transfer, and a lot of paperwork. When I bought my Sig P226, I pointed to the one I wanted on the shelf, gave them my credit card, and literally walked out 30 minutes later with the pistol, a few hundred rounds of ammo, and a "call us if you don't like it" from the guy at the counter. That's what I'm used to right now, and more importantly, that's what all gun owners in Missouri are used to. We like our system.

On behalf of every person I regularly shoot with, they will fight you tooth-and-nail if you expect them to get a Class III license just to get a 9mm semi-auto.

On the other hand, tracking would work, and tracking is good. Set up a usable tracking system, and you keep those semi-autos from disappearing into the gray market. I'm 100% with you there, IF the tracking system is well thought out, and not a bureaucratic federal nightmare that involves weeks of waiting.

I've been shooting for decades, and I can appreciate your point. It would be a pain in my own ass. Bu ...


Exactly, and no one will object to making a Constitutionally protected right prohibitively expensive for the poor.  That's why we have poll taxes and voter registration fees.  Gotta keep that riff-raff out.

And just imagine how well that would have worked to prevent the millionaire Vegas mass murderer from doing what he did.
 
2017-10-06 03:25:55 PM  

Corn_Fed: Gun control isn't ineffective. In fact, as virtually all international data shows, it is quite effective at reducing, sometimes eliminating, these kinds of mass shootings. But we CAN say that the gun-fetishists' argument of "more guns" is total BS.


So you say, but if it can't stop all gun violence, there's no point in even discussing it.
 
2017-10-06 03:26:49 PM  

Callous: FlyingBacon: Corn_Fed: May I ask approximately how many guns you own?

There is one way to find out, show up at his place in the middle of the night, unwelcome.

If you do that you'll probably only see one of them, briefly, if you see it at all.


True... same at my place. Very likely from a .45 Glock.
 
2017-10-06 03:28:05 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Corn_Fed: Gun control isn't ineffective. In fact, as virtually all international data shows, it is quite effective at reducing, sometimes eliminating, these kinds of mass shootings. But we CAN say that the gun-fetishists' argument of "more guns" is total BS.

So you say, but if it can't stop all gun violence, there's no point in even discussing it.


There's no point in discussing sweeping things with enormous costs that even if complied with 90+% would barely make a dent in the issue.
 
2017-10-06 03:29:44 PM  

pedrop357: capn' fun: 've been shooting for decades, and I can appreciate your point. It would be a pain in my own ass. But at the same time it would force me really have to sit back and think about whether I really need my AR-15s, or are they just fun? Or, is there really much my Benelli can do that my 870 can't? Or, if I actually had to use a concealed handgun, am I really worse off with a snub nose .357 or a Taurus Judge than I am with a compact semi-auto? And if I decide that, yes, I really do need-or just plain want-to have a semi-auto, then there is an existing, clearly defined process for me to keep them or buy more. I've got a clean record, I have the extra cash, and I have plenty of patience.

You're free to divest yourself of any firearms you don't think you need.  It won't make any difference to the homicide rate, unless you think you're thinking of committing murder.


Sure I am. But with the current state of gun control in this country (or lack thereof), there's no way for me to be comfortable that one of my guns won't wind up at a crime scene somewhere, or in a hotel room in Las Vegas after having been used to mow down a few dozen people before the barrel overheated. Even if I insist that the buyer meet me at a licensed dealer and I pay for the transfer, there's nothing to stop him from selling it on out of the trunk of his car or "gift" it to one of his buddies who can't buy a gun because he whacked his wife around for bringing him a sammich cut diagonally instead of horizontally. That's how every criminal ever gets their guns-either stealing them from legal owners, or buying guns which had once been owned legally and were stolen or sold on privately.

The only way I can "divest myself" of any of my guns without worry is to only sell it to someone I know and trust, or to run my radial arm saw through the barrel. And if that isn't part of the problem, I don't know what is.
 
2017-10-06 03:32:09 PM  

ZeroPly: Corn_Fed: May I ask approximately how many guns you own?

Far fewer than you're thinking. I only target shoot, and I'm more about precision than variety, so here's my current "arsenal":

Sig P226 - for bowling pin and other target competitions
Colt AR-15 - (of course) for rapid fire and "fun", and because I miss shooting M4's
Savage 338 Lapua - for intermediate distance shooting, currently on loan to a buddy
Barrett M99 .416 bolt action - my favorite, for shooting at 600 to 1000 yard range

Of course, add in a reloading bench, spotter scopes, chronographs, etc, and it's more of a money pit than a hobby...


Okay, so four guns. How would this proposal sound to you:

If you voluntarily agree to give up ownership of all your guns permanently, you get $1 million. You could still rent guns at a range and have fun with them there, but not take them outside the range. Perhaps even retain the four guns you own, but they would be kept at a gun range, and never allowed outside of it. (There would be severe penalties for breaking the agreement)

Would that voluntary approach with significant financial incentive sound reasonable to you? Something you would conceivably agree to?
 
2017-10-06 03:33:55 PM  

capn' fun: pedrop357: capn' fun: 've been shooting for decades, and I can appreciate your point. It would be a pain in my own ass. But at the same time it would force me really have to sit back and think about whether I really need my AR-15s, or are they just fun? Or, is there really much my Benelli can do that my 870 can't? Or, if I actually had to use a concealed handgun, am I really worse off with a snub nose .357 or a Taurus Judge than I am with a compact semi-auto? And if I decide that, yes, I really do need-or just plain want-to have a semi-auto, then there is an existing, clearly defined process for me to keep them or buy more. I've got a clean record, I have the extra cash, and I have plenty of patience.

You're free to divest yourself of any firearms you don't think you need.  It won't make any difference to the homicide rate, unless you think you're thinking of committing murder.

Sure I am. But with the current state of gun control in this country (or lack thereof), there's no way for me to be comfortable that one of my guns won't wind up at a crime scene somewhere, or in a hotel room in Las Vegas after having been used to mow down a few dozen people before the barrel overheated. Even if I insist that the buyer meet me at a licensed dealer and I pay for the transfer, there's nothing to stop him from selling it on out of the trunk of his car or "gift" it to one of his buddies who can't buy a gun because he whacked his wife around for bringing him a sammich cut diagonally instead of horizontally. That's how every criminal ever gets their guns-either stealing them from legal owners, or buying guns which had once been owned legally and were stolen or sold on privately.

The only way I can "divest myself" of any of my guns without worry is to only sell it to someone I know and trust, or to run my radial arm saw through the barrel. And if that isn't part of the problem, I don't know what is.


Have you ever sold or traded in a car?  How did you guarantee it would never be used to run people down?
 
2017-10-06 03:36:09 PM  

Corn_Fed: ZeroPly: Corn_Fed: May I ask approximately how many guns you own?

Far fewer than you're thinking. I only target shoot, and I'm more about precision than variety, so here's my current "arsenal":

Sig P226 - for bowling pin and other target competitions
Colt AR-15 - (of course) for rapid fire and "fun", and because I miss shooting M4's
Savage 338 Lapua - for intermediate distance shooting, currently on loan to a buddy
Barrett M99 .416 bolt action - my favorite, for shooting at 600 to 1000 yard range

Of course, add in a reloading bench, spotter scopes, chronographs, etc, and it's more of a money pit than a hobby...

Okay, so four guns. How would this proposal sound to you:

If you voluntarily agree to give up ownership of all your guns permanently, you get $1 million. You could still rent guns at a range and have fun with them there, but not take them outside the range. Perhaps even retain the four guns you own, but they would be kept at a gun range, and never allowed outside of it. (There would be severe penalties for breaking the agreement)

Would that voluntary approach with significant financial incentive sound reasonable to you? Something you would conceivably agree to?


No.
 
2017-10-06 03:37:45 PM  

Callous: capn' fun: ZeroPly: capn' fun: Make semi-autos a Class III. Again-this was beaten to death in prior threads, but t