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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2017-10-06 10:28:01 AM  
52 votes:
My new favorite...


img.fark.netView Full Size
2017-10-06 09:11:33 AM  
32 votes:
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 10:16:47 AM  
28 votes:

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 09:22:18 AM  
17 votes:
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 10:29:56 AM  
15 votes:

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 11:02:06 AM  
12 votes:

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.
2017-10-06 10:54:51 AM  
10 votes:

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.
d23 [BareFark]
2017-10-06 10:23:29 AM  
10 votes:
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 10:31:01 AM  
9 votes:

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 10:11:21 AM  
9 votes:

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 11:53:56 AM  
6 votes:
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 10:25:27 AM  
6 votes:
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 10:21:47 AM  
6 votes:

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....
2017-10-06 11:45:56 AM  
5 votes:
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 10:30:58 AM  
5 votes:
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 10:29:39 AM  
5 votes:
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 09:54:50 AM  
5 votes:
I just buy meth now

/They never ask for an ID
2017-10-06 12:27:52 PM  
4 votes:

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 12:21:47 PM  
4 votes:

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 12:12:07 PM  
4 votes:
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 11:42:28 AM  
4 votes:
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 10:37:26 AM  
4 votes:

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 02:03:16 PM  
3 votes:

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 01:53:39 PM  
3 votes:

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 01:43:26 PM  
3 votes:
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 12:30:27 PM  
3 votes:

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 11:54:29 AM  
3 votes:

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 11:51:07 AM  
3 votes:
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 11:40:13 AM  
3 votes:

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.
d23 [BareFark]
2017-10-06 11:09:59 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:31:23 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:26:20 AM  
3 votes:

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 08:12:27 PM  
2 votes:

capn' fun: ChicagoKev: capn' fun: Maybe. But making it inconvenient is part of the idea. It's how you gradually move people off of one type of gun to another while still allowing everyone to have a gun.

The government should never be in the business of making it inconvenient to exercise a constitutional right.

Imagine the outrage if it was suggested that requiring ID to vote on election day was reasonable so long as people still had the option to mail in their absentee ballot, with the suggestion that the goal was to gradually move people off ofday-of secret ballots?

I'm talking about a specific type of firearms. Not voting rights or anything else. Along with an alternative to purchase and own other types of firearms while still making the first available with a few more steps towards ownership. That is a rasonable plan that could make a genuine difference and still respect the 2nd Amendment.


No.  You feel free to buy all the alternatives you want, add them to whatever lists you want, pay extra for them whenever you like.  Count everyone else out.

The rest of us don't consider your plan reasonable, and we also know it won't make much of a difference, and is obviously disrespectful of the 2nd amendment.
2017-10-06 08:05:09 PM  
2 votes:

capn' fun: Maybe. But making it inconvenient is part of the idea. It's how you gradually move people off of one type of gun to another while still allowing everyone to have a gun.


The answer is a definite and final NO.

When people start using those other guns to commit mass murders, it's a given that you or someone like you will come along and start playing nice and suggesting that we need to add those guns to the list now and it's OK because people can still  get whatever guns are left without a bunch of unnecessary hoops and added expenses.

So, no.  We're not foolish enough to go down this road with you.
2017-10-06 07:32:42 PM  
2 votes:

capn' fun: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: capn' fun: ZeroPly: capn' fun: Okay. What if the new categorization also came with a reduction in the cost of the tax stamp, an allocation of funds to develop and implement a faster, more efficient processing system, a generous grace period of 24-36 months to register any semi-autos already owned? Why not-it would be a good opportunity to address problems like the current backlog.

And remember-any other non-Class III gun is still available as an alternative?

If you're living in a 3 bedroom 2 bath house, and someone graciously offered to move you into a studio apartment, would you agree?

Right now I can walk into my gun store, do a background check, and walk out with a semi-auto rifle in under 30 minutes. That's the service standard that needs to be met. And don't say it's not possible - it doesn't take airlines 3 months to determine if someone is on the no-fly list.

Build a system where anyone can run a background check and get an answer in under a minute, then go through another screen to confirm the transfer. I'm just talking about semi-autos, not NFA. If a seller refuses to use the system, they take on the liability for whatever the weapon is eventually used for, and I don't know anyone who would want that. Right now I can sell my AR-15 to a guy in the Walmart parking lot that I've never met before, and it's completely legal, so this would be a huge jump forward. This model would tear the gray market in half.

The US has the best IT infrastructure and resources on the planet, why does everyone keep assuming that this is impossible? It's 2017, we shouldn't have to be dealing with "tax stamps".

The point of the tax stamp and the delay is twofold: first, to disincentivize people from buying Class III guns, and second, to provide adequate time for an actual, reasonably thorough background check. The idea is that if most consumers walk into a store and have two rifles to choose from-say, an AR-15 and a Remington bolt action in .223 (an ...


Just because you send in fingerprints doesn't mean they actually do anything with them. It's more about inconvenience than anything else.
2017-10-06 04:03:30 PM  
2 votes:

Corn_Fed: Callous: Corn_Fed: pedrop357: Corn_Fed: ZeroPly: 
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.

Fair enough. I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of gun owners, especially those making modest incomes, who would see such money as game-changing. And a voluntary approach with a tempting amount of money is a better approach than threatening to confiscate/ban people's guns.

What other rights do you think the government should be able to buy away from the citizenry?

Everyone's got a price. It's voluntary. Why would you have a problem with something that's voluntary? Does this proposal scare you because it would likely divide the gun crowd, with many choosing to take the money?


Start the ball rolling with voting rights or search and seizure rights and let us see how it works.
$1 million to permanently waive your 4th amendment rights or $1million to permanently waive voting rights.
2017-10-06 04:02:24 PM  
2 votes:

Corn_Fed: Callous: Do you even listen to yourself?  You're basing who gets to enjoy their rights on wealth level.

That makes no sense. Your argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would be that all guns should be free, since to put a price on any of them amounts to a financial restriction of a right.


There's a difference between the materials having a cost and a fee inherent to participating in the right.  But I don't expect you to recognize the difference.
2017-10-06 03:56:09 PM  
2 votes:

Corn_Fed: Callous: Corn_Fed: pedrop357: Corn_Fed: ZeroPly: 
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.

Fair enough. I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of gun owners, especially those making modest incomes, who would see such money as game-changing. And a voluntary approach with a tempting amount of money is a better approach than threatening to confiscate/ban people's guns.

What other rights do you think the government should be able to buy away from the citizenry?

Everyone's got a price. It's voluntary. Why would you have a problem with something that's voluntary? Does this proposal scare you because it would likely divide the gun crowd, with many choosing to take the money?


No it scares me because you think that people's rights should be legal for the government to buy away from them.

I think I'm done with you, your proposals are patently absurd.  But by all means keep posting, your a glorious example of what's wrong with how anti-rights people think.
2017-10-06 02:59:50 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:08:26 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:02:30 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:02:06 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:46:11 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:12:58 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:46:16 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:45:16 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:34:08 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:33:59 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:25:34 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:06:29 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:03:42 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:54:25 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:49:47 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:36:44 AM  
2 votes:
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 11:22:23 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:18:27 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:17:10 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:16:18 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:13:22 AM  
2 votes:
img.fark.netView Full Size
2017-10-06 11:11:34 AM  
2 votes:
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 11:04:05 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:59:06 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:57:25 AM  
2 votes:
Having to show your DL when buying sudafed is more onerous than having to go through a background check?
2017-10-06 10:52:09 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:39:05 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:05:27 AM  
2 votes:
When Sudafed is outlawed only outlaws will have Sudafed.

//amidoingitright?
2017-10-06 07:53:54 PM  
1 vote:

capn' fun: Maybe. But making it inconvenient is part of the idea. It's how you gradually move people off of one type of gun to another while still allowing everyone to have a gun.


The government should never be in the business of making it inconvenient to exercise a constitutional right.

Imagine the outrage if it was suggested that requiring ID to vote on election day was reasonable so long as people still had the option to mail in their absentee ballot, with the suggestion that the goal was to gradually move people off ofday-of secret ballots?
2017-10-06 07:21:28 PM  
1 vote:

capn' fun: I guarantee you that the background check to get a Class III permit is more in depth than buying a .22 Cricket at Bass Pro, starting with the fingerprints.


You guarantee, huh?

Also, it's not a permit.  Class 3 is the type of Special Occupancy Taxpayer that the FFL is.

The thing to be approved that we need a tax stamp attached to is the ATF Form 1 for manufacturing an NFA firearm or a Form 4 for transferring one.
2017-10-06 07:08:27 PM  
1 vote:

capn' fun: ZeroPly: capn' fun: Okay. What if the new categorization also came with a reduction in the cost of the tax stamp, an allocation of funds to develop and implement a faster, more efficient processing system, a generous grace period of 24-36 months to register any semi-autos already owned? Why not-it would be a good opportunity to address problems like the current backlog.

And remember-any other non-Class III gun is still available as an alternative?

If you're living in a 3 bedroom 2 bath house, and someone graciously offered to move you into a studio apartment, would you agree?

Right now I can walk into my gun store, do a background check, and walk out with a semi-auto rifle in under 30 minutes. That's the service standard that needs to be met. And don't say it's not possible - it doesn't take airlines 3 months to determine if someone is on the no-fly list.

Build a system where anyone can run a background check and get an answer in under a minute, then go through another screen to confirm the transfer. I'm just talking about semi-autos, not NFA. If a seller refuses to use the system, they take on the liability for whatever the weapon is eventually used for, and I don't know anyone who would want that. Right now I can sell my AR-15 to a guy in the Walmart parking lot that I've never met before, and it's completely legal, so this would be a huge jump forward. This model would tear the gray market in half.

The US has the best IT infrastructure and resources on the planet, why does everyone keep assuming that this is impossible? It's 2017, we shouldn't have to be dealing with "tax stamps".

The point of the tax stamp and the delay is twofold: first, to disincentivize people from buying Class III guns, and second, to provide adequate time for an actual, reasonably thorough background check. The idea is that if most consumers walk into a store and have two rifles to choose from-say, an AR-15 and a Remington bolt action in .223 (and trust me-if auch a reclassification h ...


There is no difference between an NFA background check and a standard background check. They both use NICS.
2017-10-06 06:10:59 PM  
1 vote:

capn' fun: Okay. What if the new categorization also came with a reduction in the cost of the tax stamp, an allocation of funds to develop and implement a faster, more efficient processing system, a generous grace period of 24-36 months to register any semi-autos already owned? Why not-it would be a good opportunity to address problems like the current backlog.

And remember-any other non-Class III gun is still available as an alternative?


If you're living in a 3 bedroom 2 bath house, and someone graciously offered to move you into a studio apartment, would you agree?

Right now I can walk into my gun store, do a background check, and walk out with a semi-auto rifle in under 30 minutes. That's the service standard that needs to be met. And don't say it's not possible - it doesn't take airlines 3 months to determine if someone is on the no-fly list.

Build a system where anyone can run a background check and get an answer in under a minute, then go through another screen to confirm the transfer. I'm just talking about semi-autos, not NFA. If a seller refuses to use the system, they take on the liability for whatever the weapon is eventually used for, and I don't know anyone who would want that. Right now I can sell my AR-15 to a guy in the Walmart parking lot that I've never met before, and it's completely legal, so this would be a huge jump forward. This model would tear the gray market in half.

The US has the best IT infrastructure and resources on the planet, why does everyone keep assuming that this is impossible? It's 2017, we shouldn't have to be dealing with "tax stamps".
2017-10-06 05:57:59 PM  
1 vote:

capn' fun: Okay. What if the new categorization also came with a reduction in the cost of the tax stamp, an allocation of funds to develop and implement a faster, more efficient processing system, a generous grace period of 24-36 months to register any semi-autos already owned? Why not-it would be a good opportunity to address problems like the current backlog.

And remember-any other non-Class III gun is still available as an alternative?


Sorry, still no.  The registry was closed in 1986 for machineguns despite assurances throughout the history of the NFA that it was merely a tax and minor registration measure.

Given the repeated deceptions by gun control supporters and politicians, compliance for your little test would probably be under 20%.
2017-10-06 05:35:07 PM  
1 vote:

capn' fun: The last suppressor I bought cost me a tax stamp and about six months of playing with other toys until the paperwork went through. I toyed with the idea of going through the hoops when I had the opportunity to buy a fully automatic .45 Thompson, but it wasn't the process that stopped me, it was the farkwit who I was planning on buying from constantly jacking the price up every the closer and closer it got to my actually having the paperwork ready. I decided to spend the money on a couple of new, non-Class III toys and a vacation instead.

Sorry-just as I'm never going to be able to convince you that having to pay a few hundred bucks and wait isn't an undue burden on owning a particular kind of gun, you're never going to convince me that it is. I've gone through the process, and it really isn't that big a deal as long as you plan ahead. And if "the shiat hits the fan!" in the meantime and I genuinely thought I'd have to survive in the apocalypse, I'd rather have my 870 over any of my AR-15s, anyway.


And this is a big part of the problem. When the healthcare debate was going on, no one would have agreed to a system where you mailed paperwork to the government, and then 6 months later you'd get something mailed back to you, then you have insurance. No, let's make an online system, because we're not in 1982 any more.

But for guns, it's completely cool with people if gun owners have to put up with that, because it's not THEM that's being inconvenienced. That contributes significantly to the rift between the two sides.

I'm not agreeing to any system that involves a 6 month turnaround time for an approval. I work in IT, and if someone can't do better than that, they're f*cking logistically incompetent, and not worth dealing with.
2017-10-06 05:08:10 PM  
1 vote:

pedrop357: capn' fun: Callous: capn' fun: pedrop357: capn' fun: Like I said-some would see it as a de facto ban. But a tax stamp and a background check aren't economically burdensome, if we're being honest. If someone is so poor that they can't afford a few hundred dollars for the tax stamp and paperwork, then owning a semi-auto probably shouldn't be high on the list of their priorities, especially when they can pick up a decent rifle, shotgun, or revolver in their price range and without the hassles of a Class III.

No.
That lesson was learned in 1986 with the dishonestly approved amendment closing the registry to machineguns.  Beyond that, the ATF charges collects $200 to check fingerprints with the FBI and file some papers and it's always taken them months to do this.  They've had backlogs of 10+ months for a while now.
So once again, no.

Seriously?

If a couple of hundred bucks and some patience are too much of a burden, then that is a very good indicator of someone who probably shouldn't be trusted with a semi-auto to begin with. Especially when there are hundreds of rifles, shotguns, and pistols available that aren't semi-auto.

So we're to judge someone's fitness to exercise their rights on their wealth level?  Great plan.  Rich people like the Vegas mass murderer will probably find that to be a wonderful idea.  Let's try it on all the rights in the BOR in numerical order.

First, how about we charge you a couple hundred bucks for every internet forum you post on, email address you have, social media account you have, etc.  Then we can charge you a couple hundred bucks every time you attend a public event, go to church, or write to one of your Senators of Representatives.

How's that sound?  After all you probably can't be trusted if you don't have a couple hundred bucks to throw at each one of those activities.

How about you cough up a couple hundred bucks to each law enforcement jurisdiction you encounter so that you don't get searched whenever they feel like it?  P ...


The last suppressor I bought cost me a tax stamp and about six months of playing with other toys until the paperwork went through. I toyed with the idea of going through the hoops when I had the opportunity to buy a fully automatic .45 Thompson, but it wasn't the process that stopped me, it was the farkwit who I was planning on buying from constantly jacking the price up every the closer and closer it got to my actually having the paperwork ready. I decided to spend the money on a couple of new, non-Class III toys and a vacation instead.

Sorry-just as I'm never going to be able to convince you that having to pay a few hundred bucks and wait isn't an undue burden on owning a particular kind of gun, you're never going to convince me that it is. I've gone through the process, and it really isn't that big a deal as long as you plan ahead. And if "the shiat hits the fan!" in the meantime and I genuinely thought I'd have to survive in the apocalypse, I'd rather have my 870 over any of my AR-15s, anyway.
2017-10-06 04:55:13 PM  
1 vote:

capn' fun: It wouldn't be about making gun control advocates "feel good"; it would be about keeping the most dangerous categories of guns out of the hands of people who can't-or won't-submit to a background check and the responsibilities of owning them. Or can't even be bothered to plan ahead in purchasing them.


You are really bad at this.  Every mass shooter has planned ahead.   They're no the most dangerous category of weapons.

The people who can't/won't submit to a background check will just get another weapons; the black market will be full of pre-registry firearms to choose from.  NFA background checks are against the same NICS system that over-the-counter checks are done from.

What sort of stats do you have to show that people who commit crimes with semi-auto weapons do so shortly after buying their gun, or even just months later?

We're not going to wait 10+ months, spend an extra $200, and leave ourselves open to confiscation and inability to buy new ones just to let people like you play out some silly, poorly thought out test.
2017-10-06 04:33:26 PM  
1 vote:

ZeroPly: capn' fun: Seriously?

If a couple of hundred bucks and some patience are too much of a burden, then that is a very good indicator of someone who probably shouldn't be trusted with a semi-auto to begin with. Especially when there are hundreds of rifles, shotguns, and pistols available that aren't semi-auto.

Let me ask you a counter question...

Suppose every time you needed to buy a car, you had to submit fingerprints and paperwork, and then wait 8 months for a green light. And if the paperwork got messed up, there's no service guarantee on when the feds will have it straightened out for you.

Would you be OK with that system, if you were reasonably confident that it would reduce traffic fatalities by say 10%? And this is a hypothetical - I'm not saying 10% is a correct number. I'm just asking if saving that number of lives every year would be worth the personal inconvenience to you.


If I knew that buying a particular kind of car would involve fingerprints, paperwork, and an 8 month wait, and I still wanted that particular kind of car, then yes-I would be absolutely fine with it. Especially if I could trot on down to a dealership and buy my choice of many other types of car without any extra hassles or waiting.

With the exception of suicides, removing semi-autos from general use would reduce gun injuries and deaths a LOT more than 10%. It would also limit the damage in mass shootings. How many little kids in Newtown would still be alive today if that lunatic had been forced to work a bolt in between every shot?.

10% wouldn't even cover just the number of idiots who wouldn't accidentally shoot themselves or someone else when they're jerking off with their rifle or pistol (Excuse me; I meant "accidentally discharging it when they're loading a live round into the chamber on top of a loaded magazine and/or forgetting that they have a live round already loaded into the chamber and pointing it at themselves or someone else"). And, not for nothing, it would also drastically curb the number of small children who accidentally discharge a gun when they find one that an irresponsible adult left within their reach.
2017-10-06 04:26:04 PM  
1 vote:

capn' fun: pedrop357: capn' fun: Like I said-some would see it as a de facto ban. But a tax stamp and a background check aren't economically burdensome, if we're being honest. If someone is so poor that they can't afford a few hundred dollars for the tax stamp and paperwork, then owning a semi-auto probably shouldn't be high on the list of their priorities, especially when they can pick up a decent rifle, shotgun, or revolver in their price range and without the hassles of a Class III.

No.
That lesson was learned in 1986 with the dishonestly approved amendment closing the registry to machineguns.  Beyond that, the ATF charges collects $200 to check fingerprints with the FBI and file some papers and it's always taken them months to do this.  They've had backlogs of 10+ months for a while now.
So once again, no.

Seriously?

If a couple of hundred bucks and some patience are too much of a burden, then that is a very good indicator of someone who probably shouldn't be trusted with a semi-auto to begin with. Especially when there are hundreds of rifles, shotguns, and pistols available that aren't semi-auto.


Hey, and now we have reason to show people like you aren't to be trusted to decide mental health state.

If I'm unwilling to spend an extra $200 and wait 10+ months for something that will only be a feelgood measure for gun control supporters, that just makes me sensible.
2017-10-06 04:23:55 PM  
1 vote:

capn' fun: pedrop357: capn' fun: Like I said-some would see it as a de facto ban. But a tax stamp and a background check aren't economically burdensome, if we're being honest. If someone is so poor that they can't afford a few hundred dollars for the tax stamp and paperwork, then owning a semi-auto probably shouldn't be high on the list of their priorities, especially when they can pick up a decent rifle, shotgun, or revolver in their price range and without the hassles of a Class III.

No.
That lesson was learned in 1986 with the dishonestly approved amendment closing the registry to machineguns.  Beyond that, the ATF charges collects $200 to check fingerprints with the FBI and file some papers and it's always taken them months to do this.  They've had backlogs of 10+ months for a while now.
So once again, no.

Seriously?

If a couple of hundred bucks and some patience are too much of a burden, then that is a very good indicator of someone who probably shouldn't be trusted with a semi-auto to begin with. Especially when there are hundreds of rifles, shotguns, and pistols available that aren't semi-auto.


So we're to judge someone's fitness to exercise their rights on their wealth level?  Great plan.  Rich people like the Vegas mass murderer will probably find that to be a wonderful idea.  Let's try it on all the rights in the BOR in numerical order.

First, how about we charge you a couple hundred bucks for every internet forum you post on, email address you have, social media account you have, etc.  Then we can charge you a couple hundred bucks every time you attend a public event, go to church, or write to one of your Senators of Representatives.

How's that sound?  After all you probably can't be trusted if you don't have a couple hundred bucks to throw at each one of those activities.

How about you cough up a couple hundred bucks to each law enforcement jurisdiction you encounter so that you don't get searched whenever they feel like it?  Papers or a couple hundred bucks please.  After all if you don't have the money, you probably can't be trusted.  Getting prosecuted for a crime?  Couple hundred bucks or no lawyer and you have to testify against yourself.

And votes, good God, how could we ever trust someone that come up with a couple hundred bucks with something as important as a vote.

Go on you do a couple now.
2017-10-06 04:09:42 PM  
1 vote:
And yet Meth is still readily available
2017-10-06 03:58:06 PM  
1 vote:

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?


Your question is incredibly insightful, and I really wish people would ask more questions like this in gun threads, because it brings out the difference in "gun culture" between someone like me and someone who doesn't shoot at all.

$1 million? Wouldn't take it. I like shooting, and honestly, there's not a whole lot that I need a million for. I pay all my bills on time, retirement is maxed each year, and the last thing I need in my life is more toys. I'm by no means rich, but I'm happy with where I am.

Plus, I actually have to do a lot of work on the guns at home. Things like boresighting, cleaning, dry firing etc. Consider my average range routine:

Day prior - strip, make sure everything works, light lube if warranted, dry fire
Immediately after range - clean, lube a bit on the heavy side, put into safe
1 week after - take out of safe and clean again, then very light lube
every 6 months - clean if I haven't fired it in that long

The range that I like is about 45 minutes away, and it's not feasible for me to drive there the day prior to shooting to make sure everything's ready to go. And to fire at 1000m distances, I have to drive for 2-3 hours. I have a big selection of tools and accessories that I use for cleaning (think solvent tanks), so it wouldn't be practical to transport all of that either.
2017-10-06 03:47:39 PM  
1 vote:

Corn_Fed: pedrop357: Corn_Fed: ZeroPly: 
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.

Fair enough. I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of gun owners, especially those making modest incomes, who would see such money as game-changing. And a voluntary approach with a tempting amount of money is a better approach than threatening to confiscate/ban people's guns.


What other rights do you think the government should be able to buy away from the citizenry?
2017-10-06 03:43:47 PM  
1 vote:

capn' fun: Like I said-some would see it as a de facto ban. But a tax stamp and a background check aren't economically burdensome, if we're being honest. If someone is so poor that they can't afford a few hundred dollars for the tax stamp and paperwork, then owning a semi-auto probably shouldn't be high on the list of their priorities, especially when they can pick up a decent rifle, shotgun, or revolver in their price range and without the hassles of a Class III.



If someone can't afford a couple hundred dollars to afford voter registration and a poll tax then voting shouldn't be high on the list of their priorities.....

Do you even listen to yourself?  You're basing who gets to enjoy their rights on wealth level.
2017-10-06 03:38:42 PM  
1 vote:

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?


I'm not willing to sell my rights for anything.  Clearly you are if you would even propose that.

How much is your vote worth?  How much are you willing to sell your other rights for?
2017-10-06 03:36:09 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:28:05 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:16:21 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:58:56 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:58:49 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:40:41 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:35:55 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:31:03 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:17:24 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:10:10 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:55:23 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:50:42 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:41:31 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:33:40 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:29:03 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:28:33 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:26:43 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:26:13 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:25:36 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:23:58 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:21:35 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:19:10 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:16:25 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:05:54 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:01:22 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:59:12 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:43:23 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:42:47 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:40:03 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:37:59 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:25:49 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:22:34 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:13:25 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:07:21 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:04:40 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:03:43 PM  
1 vote:
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 11:57:45 AM  
1 vote:
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 11:56:33 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:54:39 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:52:20 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:50:50 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:48:32 AM  
1 vote:

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: My new favorite...


[img.fark.net image 512x288]


You reached too far

djtrumpnetwork.comView Full Size
2017-10-06 11:38:55 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:35:58 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:32:08 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:26:36 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:10:09 AM  
1 vote:
Drug war you say? A fine example of insanity.
2017-10-06 11:07:22 AM  
1 vote:
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.
2017-10-06 11:03:50 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:59:52 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2017-10-06 10:48:02 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:44:36 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:36:34 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:29:32 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:25:06 AM  
1 vote:
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.
 
Displayed 137 of 137 comments

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