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  
•       •       •

3630 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Oct 2017 at 10:20 AM (19 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 289 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report