Skip to content
 
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.

(The New York Times)   It's time to start talking about taking away guns, not everyone's and not all of them but a whole lot of them   ( nytimes.com) divider line
    More: Hero, Firearm, Las Vegas, gun control, Las Vegas killer, right time, sensible gun regulation, gun control dance, Gun politics  
•       •       •

2925 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Oct 2017 at 4:50 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-10-04 01:54:59 PM  
Good luck with that Hoseitall
 
2017-10-04 01:56:59 PM  
In before:  But mah freedomz!
 
2017-10-04 02:10:35 PM  
A partial seizure would be exponentially more difficult/expensive than a total ban/confiscation.

But, then, we all do know who you are kidding.
 
2017-10-04 02:17:28 PM  
One argument is that it somehow undermines the credibility of gun-control advocates to get the lingo wrong. Let's be clear: We don't have credibility with the other side of the argument, regardless of the precision of our words, and the linguistic niceties blur the main issue.

The Second Amendment gives individuals a right to own firearms, the Supreme Court has decided, but not carte blanche to own any number or kind of firearm, regardless of its purpose, design or lethality.

There is no good reason for a civilian to own rifles like the ones used by the Las Vegas killer and even less to own many of them. We need to steadily remove from private hands those kinds of guns, and ammunition designed to kill and maim more effectively or to pierce armor. Then we need to find more ways to reduce the number of weapons we own.


Nailed it.
 
2017-10-04 02:19:08 PM  
hes-right-you-know.jpg
 
2017-10-04 03:30:26 PM  
No one can own anything more advanced than a blunderbuss but everyone has to own and be trained in the use of one.

Compromise.
 
2017-10-04 03:41:04 PM  

snocone: A partial seizure would be exponentially more difficult/expensive than a total ban/confiscation.

But, then, we all do know who you are kidding.


I have always been for smarter/stricter gun controls and the AW ban on sales. I've never thought it was smart to go after guns that have already been sold.

However, I would hope when someone completely loses their shiat and is committed to a mental hospital, there is a mechanism for going and getting their guns.  Does anyone know if this happens in the US?
 
2017-10-04 03:48:23 PM  

mrshowrules: Does anyone know if this happens in the US?


I don't believe that it does.

But it probably should in such cases.
 
2017-10-04 04:25:22 PM  
This should be a rational and thoughtful discussion
 
2017-10-04 04:38:11 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: mrshowrules: Does anyone know if this happens in the US?

I don't believe that it does.

But it probably should in such cases.


So the first question would be "how do we know the own gun?" and you are f$cked right there because you don't unless he/she voluntarily tells you.

So you could be in a mental hospital for 3 months because your dog has been telling you to kill your neighbours but your guns will be waiting for you at home the moment you are released.
 
2017-10-04 04:39:03 PM  
There are two different problems when it comes to guns:
Most everyday homicides and suicides are done with handguns.

It seems most mass shootings are done with assault rifles (I don't care if they are technically not AWs).

Which do you go after first? As I've said in the past, only allowing manually cycled weapons would be a start. Those would include bolt-action rifles, pump shotguns and single-action only handguns.

Heck, you could still allow people to own ARs and AKs, but just require them to be kept at a licensed club or shooting range.
 
2017-10-04 04:46:46 PM  
How to Create a Gun-Free America in 5 Easy Steps
Youtube bnoFKskvSq4
 
2017-10-04 04:52:45 PM  

mrshowrules: So the first question would be "how do we know the own gun?" and you are f$cked right there because you don't unless he/she voluntarily tells you.


Or, you take steps to ensure (to the best possible ability) that every single firearm in circulation is registered, and that changes in ownership are tracked over time.

We already do it for automobiles, so we know such a system can be setup.  It may not be 1000% perfect, but it does work.

/not trying to flame you
 
2017-10-04 04:52:50 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: In before:  But mah toyz!


ftfy
 
2017-10-04 04:52:55 PM  
Sorry, we are taking your guns, its Obama's fault, nothing we can do about it.
 
2017-10-04 04:53:53 PM  

mrshowrules: Grand_Moff_Joseph: mrshowrules: Does anyone know if this happens in the US?

I don't believe that it does.

But it probably should in such cases.

So the first question would be "how do we know the own gun?" and you are f$cked right there because you don't unless he/she voluntarily tells you.

So you could be in a mental hospital for 3 months because your dog has been telling you to kill your neighbours but your guns will be waiting for you at home the moment you are released.


Jokes on you,  it's my goldfish!
 
2017-10-04 04:54:40 PM  
It's far past time.
 
2017-10-04 04:54:49 PM  
Story on bloomberg that there's a rush to buy bump stocks. This is where we are. Bloated toad congratulating himself for bungling a natural disaster. Largest mass shooting in the country's history. And Real Murkans rush to buy the same thing the killer used.

*vomit*
 
2017-10-04 04:54:56 PM  
On Monday, Hillary Clinton talked about the lunacy of allowing easy access to silencers. She wondered if the bloodletting might have been even worse if the killer had dampened the sound of his shots.
Following the usual pattern, opponents of gun control attacked her for her "ignorance" about the technology of firearms and what silencers really do or don't do.


I'm pretty ambivalent about the gun debate, but her comment was pretty ignorant.
 
2017-10-04 04:56:31 PM  
How about mandatory liability insurance for gun owners, with minimum coverage limits tied to the rate of fire and capacity of the weapon?
 
2017-10-04 04:56:38 PM  

FortyHams: No one can own anything more advanced than a blunderbuss but everyone has to own and be trained in the use of one.

Compromise.


And everyone gets aborted, no exceptions.

I'm okay with this.
 
2017-10-04 04:58:48 PM  

mrshowrules: when someone completely loses their shiat and is committed to a mental hospital, there is a mechanism for going and getting their guns.  Does anyone know if this happens in the US?


If you are involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, they do come get your stuff in most states I believe. They certainly do here. You also can't pass a 4473, which is required when you purchase a gun (this is the "background check" people talk about.) Other auto-fails on a 4473 include lack of citizenship, prior felony convictions, and domestic violence convictions. It also asks if you're purchasing the gun for someone who can't own one, which is called a straw purchase and is illegal. If you get busted for that the charge is weapons trafficking and the penalty is steep.
 
2017-10-04 04:59:37 PM  

Scanty Em: Story on bloomberg that there's a rush to buy bump stocks. This is where we are. Bloated toad congratulating himself for bungling a natural disaster. Largest mass shooting in the country's history. And Real Murkans rush to buy the same thing the killer used.

*vomit*


Gotta get 'em before they get banned dontcha know.
 
2017-10-04 04:59:52 PM  

lilplatinum: On Monday, Hillary Clinton talked about the lunacy of allowing easy access to silencers. She wondered if the bloodletting might have been even worse if the killer had dampened the sound of his shots.
Following the usual pattern, opponents of gun control attacked her for her "ignorance" about the technology of firearms and what silencers really do or don't do.

I'm pretty ambivalent about the gun debate, but her comment was pretty ignorant.


Would more people have been hurt or killed if the gunfire was quieter?
 
2017-10-04 05:00:14 PM  
More impotent emotional outbursts.   Great job.   Wont make the other side dig in at all.

So let's say this magical law comes to pass. Are you really talking about mass confiscations of firearms? And do you think that will go well?
 
2017-10-04 05:00:49 PM  

Uncle Eazy: There are two different problems when it comes to guns:
Most everyday homicides and suicides are done with handguns.

It seems most mass shootings are done with assault rifles (I don't care if they are technically not AWs).

Which do you go after first? As I've said in the past, only allowing manually cycled weapons would be a start. Those would include bolt-action rifles, pump shotguns and single-action only handguns.

Heck, you could still allow people to own ARs and AKs, but just require them to be kept at a licensed club or shooting range.


I still think requiring a license to purchase ammo would be the way to go

with regular proficiency certifications
 
2017-10-04 05:01:14 PM  
I think the author should go door to door and exclaim "I'm from the Government Gun Confiscation Unit. I am here to take some of your guns. Not all of them. Just some of them". I want a GoPro attached to his head
 
2017-10-04 05:01:16 PM  
Guns don't breed, if you want less guns just stop making them so bloody easy to buy.
 
2017-10-04 05:01:33 PM  
I've given up and just accepted the possibility that I, or someone I know and love, might die in a mass shooting or violent crime.  It sucks but I'm so tired of this debate going nowhere thanks to powerful lobbying groups that have bought their way up politician's assholes.  There is nothing the average person can do and so I've just given up trying.
 
2017-10-04 05:01:36 PM  

The Lizard People: mrshowrules: when someone completely loses their shiat and is committed to a mental hospital, there is a mechanism for going and getting their guns.  Does anyone know if this happens in the US?

If you are involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, they do come get your stuff in most states I believe. They certainly do here. You also can't pass a 4473, which is required when you purchase a gun (this is the "background check" people talk about.) Other auto-fails on a 4473 include lack of citizenship, prior felony convictions, and domestic violence convictions. It also asks if you're purchasing the gun for someone who can't own one, which is called a straw purchase and is illegal. If you get busted for that the charge is weapons trafficking and the penalty is steep.


I got 5150'd for four days, and no one took anything of mine, fwiw
 
2017-10-04 05:01:42 PM  

lilplatinum: On Monday, Hillary Clinton talked about the lunacy of allowing easy access to silencers. She wondered if the bloodletting might have been even worse if the killer had dampened the sound of his shots.
Following the usual pattern, opponents of gun control attacked her for her "ignorance" about the technology of firearms and what silencers really do or don't do.

I'm pretty ambivalent about the gun debate, but her comment was pretty ignorant.


One person said a suppressor can lower the volume of a gun shot by as much as 30 dB.  That's quite a lot.  In a more typical scenario, a suppressed firearm is still insanely loud, but at 1200 yards (feet?), or, say, in some other part of a large concrete building, like a school, would it matter?  Either for identifying it as gun shots not fireworks, or orientating to its location?
 
2017-10-04 05:01:47 PM  

someonelse: lilplatinum: On Monday, Hillary Clinton talked about the lunacy of allowing easy access to silencers. She wondered if the bloodletting might have been even worse if the killer had dampened the sound of his shots.
Following the usual pattern, opponents of gun control attacked her for her "ignorance" about the technology of firearms and what silencers really do or don't do.

I'm pretty ambivalent about the gun debate, but her comment was pretty ignorant.

Would more people have been hurt or killed if the gunfire was quieter?


Probably no change.
 
2017-10-04 05:02:11 PM  

loonatic112358: I still think requiring a license to purchase ammo would be the way to go

with regular proficiency certifications


Police excepted, of course.
 
2017-10-04 05:02:30 PM  

raius: Guns don't breed, if you want less guns just stop making them so bloody easy to buy.


There's already approximately 300 million guns in the United
 
2017-10-04 05:02:45 PM  

Saiga410: someonelse: lilplatinum: On Monday, Hillary Clinton talked about the lunacy of allowing easy access to silencers. She wondered if the bloodletting might have been even worse if the killer had dampened the sound of his shots.
Following the usual pattern, opponents of gun control attacked her for her "ignorance" about the technology of firearms and what silencers really do or don't do.

I'm pretty ambivalent about the gun debate, but her comment was pretty ignorant.

Would more people have been hurt or killed if the gunfire was quieter?

Probably no change.


Your data on that?
 
2017-10-04 05:03:05 PM  

DubyaHater: I think the author should go door to door and exclaim "I'm from the Government Gun Confiscation Unit. I am here to take some of your guns. Not all of them. Just some of them". I want a GoPro attached to his head


I'm told gun owners are lae abiding people, so it shouldn't be a problem.
 
2017-10-04 05:03:48 PM  
  We should really adopt and adapt a system like Germany uses.

Germans can own guns, in fact, a lot of guns... that just have do to things, like you know
prove they know how to use them safely, store and keep them safely... in safes...


Can Germans Have Guns? (Weapon Laws In Germany)
Youtube q0-J2pYLCvI


Germans can own guns, and yet have wild orders of magnitude fewer gun crimes and gun deaths per capita then the US.

img.fark.netView Full Size


US Guns Deaths.

vs

German Gun Deaths
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-10-04 05:04:26 PM  
loonatic112358: regular proficiency certifications

I would be so farking ready for this. The amount of people with no concept of trigger discipline or sweeping at the range makes me nervous.
 
2017-10-04 05:05:24 PM  

weddingsinger: One person said a suppressor can lower the volume of a gun shot by as much as 30 dB.  That's quite a lot.  In a more typical scenario, a suppressed firearm is still insanely loud, but at 1200 yards (feet?), or, say, in some other part of a large concrete building, like a school, would it matter?  Either for identifying it as gun shots not fireworks, or orientating to its location?


A suppressed gun is still at a decibel level of a jackhammer or jet taking off nearby, so it's not like quiet.   In some hypothetical scenarios it might make it more difficult to locate a shooter (certainly not in this one), but it's a pretty long stretch to biatch about them when there are much more pressing gun control objectives.

The primary purpose of a suppressor is to help the shooter's hearing to the extent it can.
 
2017-10-04 05:07:41 PM  

FortyHams: No one can own anything more advanced than a blunderbuss but everyone has to own and be trained in the use of one.

Compromise.


You can only own a firearm if you are honorably discharged from the military.

You appeal to the right, which likes the military, and the left, which hates guns.
 
2017-10-04 05:07:48 PM  
Routine gun buy backs coupled with much tougher regulations to get more guns would do the trick.
It wouldn't be overnight, but as time passes the amount of weapons in private hands would decline.
 
2017-10-04 05:08:54 PM  

The Lizard People: mrshowrules: when someone completely loses their shiat and is committed to a mental hospital, there is a mechanism for going and getting their guns.  Does anyone know if this happens in the US?

If you are involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, they do come get your stuff in most states I believe. They certainly do here. You also can't pass a 4473, which is required when you purchase a gun (this is the "background check" people talk about.) Other auto-fails on a 4473 include lack of citizenship, prior felony convictions, and domestic violence convictions. It also asks if you're purchasing the gun for someone who can't own one, which is called a straw purchase and is illegal. If you get busted for that the charge is weapons trafficking and the penalty is steep.


So my ex-wife was involuntarily committed on a 51-50, multiple times here in California. Not once during any of her committals was I asked about whether she has any weapons in the home, or told that she needs to register them, or even told that if she did have any that I should lock them up.

However, when she falsely accused me of domestic violence, I had 72 hours to either surrender my guns to the local police, or sell them to a licensed dealer. Giving or selling them to family or friends was expressly forbidden. I did wind up having the police return them after the temporary restraining order that was issued was thrown out in court.

As far as I know, you are only asked on the 4473 form if you've been committed to a mental facility, I have no idea if they actually verify your answer.

So yes, there are some pretty large loopholes here that need to be closed up regarding mental health and firearms.

/Yes, my ex-wife is an absolute shiat show, why do you ask?
 
2017-10-04 05:08:56 PM  

raius: Guns don't breed, if you want less guns just stop making them so bloody easy to buy.


Now that's an idea.  How about a sin tax on guns and ammo?  Increased pricing worked for cigarettes.  They say it'll work for soda, too.States can use the money to fund:

Also, basic licensing requirements that include a written exam, practical exam, eye exam, and a mental health and criminal check.  Then mandatory registration of every purchase, with a fee, too, just like when you buy/sell a car.
 
2017-10-04 05:09:02 PM  

lilplatinum: weddingsinger: One person said a suppressor can lower the volume of a gun shot by as much as 30 dB.  That's quite a lot.  In a more typical scenario, a suppressed firearm is still insanely loud, but at 1200 yards (feet?), or, say, in some other part of a large concrete building, like a school, would it matter?  Either for identifying it as gun shots not fireworks, or orientating to its location?

A suppressed gun is still at a decibel level of a jackhammer or jet taking off nearby, so it's not like quiet.   In some hypothetical scenarios it might make it more difficult to locate a shooter (certainly not in this one), but it's a pretty long stretch to biatch about them when there are much more pressing gun control objectives.

The primary purpose of a suppressor is to help the shooter's hearing to the extent it can.


So, in Vegas, would more people have been hurt or killed if the gunfire had sounded like a jackhammer?
 
2017-10-04 05:09:08 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: This should be a rational and thoughtful discussion


I haven't seen a single bullet counter make a single parent in any of the threads since the tragedy in LV

I have a ton of them farkied in piss yellow. Every mass killing with firearms has added to that list for years now. Not a single parent from any of them. It's freaking me out. Are they being censored? I know they aren't self censoring. They aren't capable of it
 
2017-10-04 05:09:17 PM  

Boxingoutsider: raius: Guns don't breed, if you want less guns just stop making them so bloody easy to buy.

There's already approximately 300 million guns in the United


I didn't say it was a quick fix but those numbers will do down over time if you don't have an inexhaustible source to buy from.  It would also make it much harder for small time criminals to get guns over time.  You don't have to go door to door taking guns, if you had laws around proper gun storage and licencing while on public property you would see that supply decrease even quicker.

There are many things that can be done to make the is better, they won't happen but it wouldn't be hard to change if politicians took a stand.
 
2017-10-04 05:09:35 PM  
So, ok, lets have that conversation.

How exactlt do you define these weapons and not end up with something like AWB's that focus on accessories rather than actual killing power?

When you reference armor piercing ammunition, what standard are we using? The one the ATF uses? Lets look at some issues there the . Tokarev ammo isnt designed to be armor piercing, and isnt constructed as one accordong to the ATG but itll sail through any police soft body armor vest that exists because its small and fast. Likewise even the weakest and softest .223 ammo will break a police soft body armor vest, simply because such vests are not rated for cartridges like that. Most legal definitions of "armor piercing" really arent terribly functional at actually defining what that means, or focus only on one specific type of armor without putting that into context.

More to the point, given that there are 8 or possibly 9 digits worth of weapons we're talking about here, depending on how the author means this, how are you going to go about taking that many guns from that many people, most of whom probably dont want to give them up, and almost none of which are registered or tracked in any way?
 
2017-10-04 05:10:09 PM  

Close2TheEdge: I've given up and just accepted the possibility that I, or someone I know and love, might die in a mass shooting or violent crime.  It sucks but I'm so tired of this debate going nowhere thanks to powerful lobbying groups that have bought their way up politician's assholes.  There is nothing the average person can do and so I've just given up trying.


You sound like you need a kitten break.

washingtonpost.comView Full Size
 
2017-10-04 05:10:39 PM  

lilplatinum: weddingsinger: One person said a suppressor can lower the volume of a gun shot by as much as 30 dB.  That's quite a lot.  In a more typical scenario, a suppressed firearm is still insanely loud, but at 1200 yards (feet?), or, say, in some other part of a large concrete building, like a school, would it matter?  Either for identifying it as gun shots not fireworks, or orientating to its location?

A suppressed gun is still at a decibel level of a jackhammer or jet taking off nearby, so it's not like quiet.   In some hypothetical scenarios it might make it more difficult to locate a shooter (certainly not in this one), but it's a pretty long stretch to biatch about them when there are much more pressing gun control objectives.

The primary purpose of a suppressor is to help the shooter's hearing to the extent it can.

 
I share the first knee jerk reaction to the idea as most leftists, but I must say, the silencer thing isn't that big a deal for the above stated reasons. Do mind, however, it's literally the only thing we can use to 'stig it' to the right.
 
2017-10-04 05:11:04 PM  

JustToLetYouKnowFriend: We should really adopt and adapt a system like Germany uses.

Germans can own guns, in fact, a lot of guns... that just have do to things, like you know
prove they know how to use them safely, store and keep them safely... in safes...


[YouTube video]

Germans can own guns, and yet have wild orders of magnitude fewer gun crimes and gun deaths per capita then the US.

[img.fark.net image 850x304]

US Guns Deaths.

vs

German Gun Deaths
[img.fark.net image 850x547]


Every single one of these comparisons between countries and their gun deaths fails to take into account the fact that Americans are inherently violent love guns very much and have a problem with entitlement and anger. Comparing us to any European country is like comparing bananas to bowling balls.
 
Displayed 50 of 587 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and 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