cameroncrazy1984: Lando Lincoln: Seriously. The 2nd Amendment is not to guarantee that we can hunt. Stop trying to insinuate this.I'm starting to believe it was an eighteenth century practical joke
ghare: John Buck 41: This is getting really f*cking tiresome. We get it. Most Farkers and most Fark suits don't like guns. Can we move on? There must be a big boob thread out there waiting to be greenlit.I like guns just fine. Reasonable restrictions on them are obviously necessary and constitutional, however.Of course, in Australia, where after a mass shooting they banned certain guns, there has not been a mass shooting since.
DubtodaIll: Second, weapon technology has been the primary driver of human success since we were smart enough to use then.
John Buck 41: This is getting really f*cking tiresome. We get it. Most Farkers and most Fark suits don't like guns. Can we move on? There must be a big boob thread out there waiting to be greenlit.
Chthonic Echoes: DubtodaIll: Second, weapon technology has been the primary driver of human success since we were smart enough to use then.Huh. I would have picked agriculture. Or maybe manufacturing and materials science. Transportation is probably a contender, also.
oldfarthenry: Wouldn't it be easier (& cheaper) to just learn how to aim guns? You'd have to stop waving them above your head while you pontificate to do it.
Somaticasual: So, basically, it soups up your bump-firing? Wouldn't one of those crank devices be a little cheaper and practical?
Huck And Molly Ziegler: Can't we just modify the Second Amendment a TINY bit? To where you're not allowed to own functioning crap that can kill a whole lot of people in 30 seconds? You can't hunt with it, you can't do meaningful target practice with it.
fusillade762: Lenny_da_Hog: fusillade762: t3knomanser: Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.15,000 or so accidental shootings (with about 600 fatalities) per year is "absurdly low"?
dittybopper: Somaticasual: So, basically, it soups up your bump-firing? Wouldn't one of those crank devices be a little cheaper and practical?Yep. You can buy them for $23 at Cabelas.
t3knomanser: ArkAngel: The problem with a tax is that you would be forcing the costs of guns illegally used and, for the most part, illegally acquired onto those who would acquire them legally.Again, we're addressing an externality. I would imagine such a tax would actually be absurdly low, on a per fire-arm basis. The purpose isn't to punish gun owners, it's to address the negative externality created by having weapons commonly available. The tax serves two purposes- it depresses demand for firearms (thus shrinking the negative externality) and creates a fund that can be used to fund law enforcement and first responders, as well as firearm safety programs (reducing the risks).ArkAngel: Again, most guns used in crimes are illegally acquiredMost used in accidents, suicides, and domestic violence are legally acquired. Again, on an actuarial basis, I imagine the costs to the user would be very low. This has the added purpose of creating a financial incentive to reduce the risks associated with firearms.
Medic Zero: Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: FTFYYou know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you? If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?Bravo!
ArkAngel: . And how would the insurance work? Again, most guns used in crimes are illegally acquired. If they will not or can not acquire them legally, what is the likelihood that they will insure them?
Grand_Moff_Joseph: But don't you dare take those modifications away. the founding fathers clearly intended for these devices to be available./snark
Lando Lincoln: Seriously. The 2nd Amendment is not to guarantee that we can hunt. Stop trying to insinuate this.
simkatu: No real hunters use AR-15s for hunting game. Only dumbass fat asses that can barely make it 50 yards from their cars without a Hoveround pretend they are useful for hunting. If you weigh 300 lbs and can run the 40 yard dash in 10 minutes, then the AR-15 is your weapon.I'm from Kansas. My family has hunted for years. I own over 50 firearms myself. We have over 6000 acres of land that people hunt on every year. We have hunting lodges that house hundreds of hunters every season that come to hunt game. In the last 30 years, not a single hunter has ever come to hunt game and brought an AR-15 as their weapon of choice. None of them has ever brought a magazine that holds 30 rounds..
simkatu: No real hunters use AR-15s for hunting game
The Stealth Hippopotamus: Now that was a really well thought out retort. Maybe too well thought out.
Rik01: I used to be a courier in another city. I'd arrive early, as manager, to open up the station. It wasn't unusual to find a spent shell or two in the parking lot. Sometimes I could find where they hit the cement walls. They were fired from at least a mile away.
DubtodaIll: Also how close are we to ray guns? I'm tired of bullets.
oakleym82: a nation responsible for the deaths of millions A DERP (millions?) due to imperialism
GungFu: [cdn.ebaumsworld.com image 500x350][themainland.net image 850x532]Meh, wake me up when we see these mentioned in the news and a new high score has been set for US mass killings.
Psycat: How about a gun that shoots only flower petals?
You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: OMG 900 ROUND A MINUTE!!Hurr Durr FPSRussia!!!Slidefire stocks are novelty. Cheap peices of composite crap.Most AR's are built for semi auto fire and firing at a false auto rate is a great way to lose a non-auto spec hammer, bolt or a firing pin.
John Buck 41: FlashHarry: Dinjiin: [images55.fotki.com image 450x720][i50.tinypic.com image 450x720]FTFYOnly 886 greenlit links = you have a small penis. You need 1000.Just as valid a theory as the bullshiat you're spouting
aegean: Once again, dumbmitter, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.
FlashHarry: aegean: Once again, dumbmitter, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.i see no mention of the second amendment in the headline.and the "hunting" thing, i suspect, comes from the oft-repeated NRA claim that weapons of this nature are used for home defense and hunting.
Surpheon: Lenny_da_Hog: They are not intentionally criminal cases -- things like DUI aren't considered intentionally criminal. If you intentionally murder someone with your car,What happened to the arguement that the majority of guns used to kill people are stolen? Adam Lanza's mom was intentionally criminal when she stockpiled military grade hardware and didn't properly secure it from her crazy son?
Psycat: Ever watch one of those old Tom & Jerry cartoons where Tom and Jerry are so intent on battling each other that Butch the Dog can smack them in the head with a fireplace poker, leaving comic cat- and mouse-shaped dents, and Tom & Jerry are so single-minded in their battle that they don't realize they've suffered what would be a fatal head wound outside of Toontown?That's exactly what Fark is when a couple of guys go at it in a tiresome flame war--I'm not mentioning names for now. I could waltz in, crack some corny Borscht-Belt jokes, detonate an atomic bomb, [blogs.scientificamerican.com image 475x378], or show a penis-shaped gun, and you squareheads here would keep up their endless penis-compensation accusations ad infinitum.
HBK: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: If you are enamored by something as crude and simplistic as a gun, it's safe to say you probably have never had to write anything in a Blue Book.Because blue books are so interesting?Some of the biggest gun afficianados I know are liberal J.D.s.
violentsalvation: Shostie: violentsalvation: We need something like Godwin's law for when someone brings up their penis envy in a gun thread. FlashHarry peniswinned the thread.He "Flashed Henry."Oooo that has my vote.Anybody else have a suggestion for what we should call this gun thread debate curiosity?? Use the funny button to vote.
Surpheon: duffblue: If gun control advocates want to actually have meaningful discussion and debate about the "assault weapon" and "high capacity" ban, they MUST address these questionsHoly shiat. I think I briefly dated you in college.If you want to protect gun rights, you need to suggest why they are worth protecting even at the cost of kindergarterners being literally blown to pieces by a crazy guy with a military assault weapon (one with excellent gun control - he put in range time from the reports) .Sorry, 20 dead kindergartners puts the ball in your court a hell of a lot more than a black teen armed with a pack of Skittles. If you don't comprehend how, you have completely lost the battle. It's just a matter of time before you lose your gun rights. Welcome to a meritocracy. Stupid tends to lose in the long run.
Bullseyed: Fallacy #1: The second amendment is for hunting.Truth: The second amendment is specifically designed so that if the government does something you don't agree with, you can kill military/government agents and protect your own rights.
Surpheon: Adam Lanza's mom was intentionally criminal when she stockpiled military grade hardware and didn't properly secure it from her crazy son?
t3knomanser: I don't understand the reasoning that something must be useful in order to be ownable. I own a few firearms. I would never turn them on another human being or animal, not even in self defense (okay, maybe an animal in self defense).Is there anything inherently wrong with chucking 900 rounds of lead downrange in a controlled environment if that's what you want to do? I think it's incredibly silly, but it's a kind of neat engineering challenge.The problem with firearms is one of externalities. Firearms create an attractive nuisance- we are all measurably less safe because firearms exist and are common in the US. Between accidents, outlier incidents like mass shootings (which, by population, are exceedingly rare), and crime (which usually doesn't involve legally owned firearms, which makes new laws on the subject difficult).So let's apply economics to the problem: each firearm carries with it a risk that it is used in a negative fashion. Each negative application carries with it a social cost- deaths, medical bills, public fear, and so on. This gives us a strategy for attacking the problem in a fashion far more nuanced than "2nd Amendment, biatches!" and "Ban (some/most/all) guns!"A gun tax, for example, would be perfectly reasonable- an assessment at the point of purchase for the total social costs of allowing firearms to be owned. It could be adjusted based on its ability to enact costs- high fire rates and large magazines would be taxed more steeply. Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.This allows us to restrict access to firearms without taking active steps to ban anything, it allows us to evaluate our measures based on measurable economic values, it creates a new class of charge to be brought against those who use firearms illegally. It addresses things in terms of externalities.
If you like these links, you'll love
Come on, it's $5 a month, just do it.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Apr 20 2018 13:24:10
Runtime: 0.769 sec (769 ms)