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  
•       •       •

3647 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Oct 2017 at 10:20 AM (41 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


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

 
2017-10-06 02:30:46 PM  

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know what else gets nothing done?  Gun control.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know what else gets nothing done?  Gun control.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


Make semi-autos a Class III. Again-this was beaten to death in prior threads, but the idea is that anyone who is willing to take the time and spend the money to have them will also have been properly vetted, and their guns won't simply "disappear" in into the fog of private sales or being "gifted" to friends and relatives. It would have the added benefit of preventing almost all of the "cleaning incidents" and other accidental discharges from the asinine "one in the pipe" mentality, and it would be a LOT harder for toddlers and small children to accidentally shoot themselves or someone else if they stumble on a non semi-auto.

As for everyone else, they can still hunt, sport shoot, cowboy shoot, biathlon, 3-gun, defend their homes or businesses, plink varmints, conceal carry, and any other gun-related activity with a bolt or lever action rifle, a pump or breach shotgun, or a revolver.
 
2017-10-06 02:35:55 PM  

ArthurVandelay: pedrop357: ...population:police ratio of around 1:160...

[img.fark.net image 500x480]


That or the Blues Brothers would have worked.
 
2017-10-06 02:37:45 PM  
Well, since it's beginning to look like the Confederate Army in here, I'm off.
 
2017-10-06 02:40:33 PM  
Ooo a Trump supporter, and now a southern belle.  I'm just all sorts of new things today!

Unless I am not part of the re-risers, then damn!

/Bad day for advocating Devils
//Also at Black Rock
///And for Mr. Chan
 
2017-10-06 02:40:41 PM  

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


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

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


The problem with this is that you try something, it doesn't work so you try something else. That doesn't work so now you try something else and so on and so on. The problem is that all of those things (laws) you've tried that didn't work stay on the books. All you're doing is adding more and more regulation without ever getting rid of the regulation that didn't work. That's the slippery slope.
 
2017-10-06 02:40:52 PM  
Why is no one talking about this?

'Las Vegas Shooting: Video Shows 'Security Guard' Gunman Shoot Into Crowd'

http://thenewyorknewsday.com/2017/10/05/las-vegas-shooting-video-show​s​-security-guard-gunman-shoot-into-crowd/#
 
2017-10-06 02:42:13 PM  

ArthurVandelay: One last thing, a question:

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

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

/In before Kobain reference


This is a tough one, and honestly, I don't know. The Australian data shows that homicides continued to trend up after their ban in '96, peaked in '99, and then came down as part of an overall trend. I think we can conclude from that data that other weapons take over from guns at least to some extent. But there are so many confounders that it's hard to separate variables.

Unfortunately, this is like climate change. There's no point discussing raw data unless you're an expert in that particular area, and even with my applied math degree, I'd be hesitant to come up with any conclusions.
 
2017-10-06 02:45:29 PM  

ZeroPly: ArthurVandelay: One last thing, a question:

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

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

/In before Kobain reference

This is a tough one, and honestly, I don't know. The Australian data shows that homicides continued to trend up after their ban in '96, peaked in '99, and then came down as part of an overall trend. I think we can conclude from that data that other weapons take over from guns at least to some extent. But there are so many confounders that it's hard to separate variables.

Unfortunately, this is like climate change. There's no point discussing raw data unless you're an expert in that particular area, and even with my applied math degree, I'd be hesitant to come up with any conclusions.


Fair enough :(

I just have the nagging feeling folks are focusing on the symptoms of a problem, rather than the problem itself.

If I had to guess what the problem is, I wouldn't.  That shiat doesn't help.
 
2017-10-06 02:45:58 PM  

Totally Sharky Complete: Why is no one talking about this?

'Las Vegas Shooting: Video Shows 'Security Guard' Gunman Shoot Into Crowd'

http://thenewyorknewsday.com/2017/10/05/las-vegas-shooting-video-shows​-security-guard-gunman-shoot-into-crowd/#


That looks like an LVMPD officer sort of hunkering down.  If he started firing a weapon into the crowd, people would be noticeably shifting their attention to him and then shifting their movement to run away from him.
 
2017-10-06 02:49:53 PM  

capn' fun: Make semi-autos a Class III. Again-this was beaten to death in prior threads, but the idea is that anyone who is willing to take the time and spend the money to have them will also have been properly vetted, and their guns won't simply "disappear" in into the fog of private sales or being "gifted" to friends and relatives. It would have the added benefit of preventing almost all of the "cleaning incidents" and other accidental discharges from the asinine "one in the pipe" mentality, and it would be a LOT harder for toddlers and small children to accidentally shoot themselves or someone else if they stumble on a non semi-auto.

As for everyone else, they can still hunt, sport shoot, cowboy shoot, biathlon, 3-gun, defend their homes or businesses, plink varmints, conceal carry, and any other gun-related activity with a bolt or lever action rifle, a pump or breach shotgun, or a revolver.


As a regular shooter, this idea just won't fly. It takes months to get a Class III license and transfer, and a lot of paperwork. When I bought my Sig P226, I pointed to the one I wanted on the shelf, gave them my credit card, and literally walked out 30 minutes later with the pistol, a few hundred rounds of ammo, and a "call us if you don't like it" from the guy at the counter. That's what I'm used to right now, and more importantly, that's what all gun owners in Missouri are used to. We like our system.

On behalf of every person I regularly shoot with, they will fight you tooth-and-nail if you expect them to get a Class III license just to get a 9mm semi-auto.

On the other hand, tracking would work, and tracking is good. Set up a usable tracking system, and you keep those semi-autos from disappearing into the gray market. I'm 100% with you there, IF the tracking system is well thought out, and not a bureaucratic federal nightmare that involves weeks of waiting.
 
2017-10-06 02:54:10 PM  

ZeroPly: ArthurVandelay: One last thing, a question:

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

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

/In before Kobain reference

This is a tough one, and honestly, I don't know. The Australian data shows that homicides continued to trend up after their ban in '96, peaked in '99, and then came down as part of an overall trend. I think we can conclude from that data that other weapons take over from guns at least to some extent. But there are so many confounders that it's hard to separate variables.

Unfortunately, this is like climate change. There's no point discussing raw data unless you're an expert in that particular area, and even with my applied math degree, I'd be hesitant to come up with any conclusions.


MATH EXPERT UNABLE TO DETERMINE ANY LINK BETWEEN GUN CONTROL AND DECLINE IN VIOLENCE
 
2017-10-06 02:58:49 PM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: The problem with this is that you try something, it doesn't work so you try something else. That doesn't work so now you try something else and so on and so on. The problem is that all of those things (laws) you've tried that didn't work stay on the books. All you're doing is adding more and more regulation without ever getting rid of the regulation that didn't work. That's the slippery slope.


Like it or not, the first amendment is going to become an issue sooner rather than later. Someone with the right military background would have known what chemical bombs to set off in the hallway, that would render ineffective the M40 gas masks that the military and SWAT use. If they had done that, it would have kept first responders from breaking down the hotel door for an hour or two. And I'm talking chemicals that you can buy at Walmart and mix together. So picture this guy firing away into the stampede unhindered until it's just dead bodies.

What happens when someone posts details all over on how to create chemical barriers to slow down first responders? Or details on how to wire explosives to the doors so that no SWAT team is going to breach without spending an hour getting EOD guys on site? That's what keeps me awake at night, not whether some crazy will be able to buy a 100 round magazine.
 
2017-10-06 02:58:56 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: ZeroPly: ArthurVandelay: One last thing, a question:

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

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

/In before Kobain reference

This is a tough one, and honestly, I don't know. The Australian data shows that homicides continued to trend up after their ban in '96, peaked in '99, and then came down as part of an overall trend. I think we can conclude from that data that other weapons take over from guns at least to some extent. But there are so many confounders that it's hard to separate variables.

Unfortunately, this is like climate change. There's no point discussing raw data unless you're an expert in that particular area, and even with my applied math degree, I'd be hesitant to come up with any conclusions.

MATH EXPERT UNABLE TO DETERMINE ANY LINK BETWEEN GUN CONTROL AND DECLINE IN VIOLENCE


Agreed.  Look at the states in the US and their gun control laws, then look at their crime and/or murder rates.

The US was recently at record lows in crime, and is still near them, while many gun control laws have been removed or reduced.  It's taken a long time, but it has worked.

If we could begin dismantling the drug war, we'd see heft decreases in violence.  Couple that with attention to high crime areas and the other things that lead them to being high crime areas, and we'd see even more decreases.
 
2017-10-06 02:59:50 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: ZeroPly: ArthurVandelay: One last thing, a question:

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

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

/In before Kobain reference

This is a tough one, and honestly, I don't know. The Australian data shows that homicides continued to trend up after their ban in '96, peaked in '99, and then came down as part of an overall trend. I think we can conclude from that data that other weapons take over from guns at least to some extent. But there are so many confounders that it's hard to separate variables.

Unfortunately, this is like climate change. There's no point discussing raw data unless you're an expert in that particular area, and even with my applied math degree, I'd be hesitant to come up with any conclusions.

MATH EXPERT UNABLE TO DETERMINE ANY LINK BETWEEN GUN CONTROL AND DECLINE IN VIOLENCE


Umm, yeah... so you can imagine my amusement when the rest of you think that you can...
 
2017-10-06 03:03:25 PM  

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


There is one way to find out, show up at his place in the middle of the night, unwelcome.
 
2017-10-06 03:10:13 PM  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Better ban flight sims.  Your hobby be damned.

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

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

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


So you're saying we should keep the flight sims and ban the planes?
 
2017-10-06 03:15:46 PM  

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

There is one way to find out, show up at his place in the middle of the night, unwelcome.


If you do that you'll probably only see one of them, briefly, if you see it at all.
 
2017-10-06 03:16:21 PM  

ZeroPly: capn' fun: Make semi-autos a Class III. Again-this was beaten to death in prior threads, but the idea is that anyone who is willing to take the time and spend the money to have them will also have been properly vetted, and their guns won't simply "disappear" in into the fog of private sales or being "gifted" to friends and relatives. It would have the added benefit of preventing almost all of the "cleaning incidents" and other accidental discharges from the asinine "one in the pipe" mentality, and it would be a LOT harder for toddlers and small children to accidentally shoot themselves or someone else if they stumble on a non semi-auto.

As for everyone else, they can still hunt, sport shoot, cowboy shoot, biathlon, 3-gun, defend their homes or businesses, plink varmints, conceal carry, and any other gun-related activity with a bolt or lever action rifle, a pump or breach shotgun, or a revolver.

As a regular shooter, this idea just won't fly. It takes months to get a Class III license and transfer, and a lot of paperwork. When I bought my Sig P226, I pointed to the one I wanted on the shelf, gave them my credit card, and literally walked out 30 minutes later with the pistol, a few hundred rounds of ammo, and a "call us if you don't like it" from the guy at the counter. That's what I'm used to right now, and more importantly, that's what all gun owners in Missouri are used to. We like our system.

On behalf of every person I regularly shoot with, they will fight you tooth-and-nail if you expect them to get a Class III license just to get a 9mm semi-auto.

On the other hand, tracking would work, and tracking is good. Set up a usable tracking system, and you keep those semi-autos from disappearing into the gray market. I'm 100% with you there, IF the tracking system is well thought out, and not a bureaucratic federal nightmare that involves weeks of waiting.


I've been shooting for decades, and I can appreciate your point. It would be a pain in my own ass. But at the same time it would force me really have to sit back and think about whether I really need my AR-15s, or are they just fun? Or, is there really much my Benelli can do that my 870 can't? Or, if I actually had to use a concealed handgun, am I really worse off with a snub nose .357 or a Taurus Judge than I am with a compact semi-auto? And if I decide that, yes, I really do need-or just plain want-to have a semi-auto, then there is an existing, clearly defined process for me to keep them or buy more. I've got a clean record, I have the extra cash, and I have plenty of patience.

There has to be a balance between ordinary, law-abiding citizens being able to enjoy shooting and the safety of the public at large. Yes, some people would consider categorizing semi-autos as Class IIIs as a de facto ban, but there would be absolutely nothing stopping any of them from owning semi-autos except for the same criteria which would stop them from owning any other Class III today. And they would still have literally hundreds of makes and models of firearms to choose from to accomplish any legitimate purpose, with no more effort than walking into a store with valid ID and a method of payment.
 
2017-10-06 03:19:42 PM  

capn' fun: 've been shooting for decades, and I can appreciate your point. It would be a pain in my own ass. But at the same time it would force me really have to sit back and think about whether I really need my AR-15s, or are they just fun? Or, is there really much my Benelli can do that my 870 can't? Or, if I actually had to use a concealed handgun, am I really worse off with a snub nose .357 or a Taurus Judge than I am with a compact semi-auto? And if I decide that, yes, I really do need-or just plain want-to have a semi-auto, then there is an existing, clearly defined process for me to keep them or buy more. I've got a clean record, I have the extra cash, and I have plenty of patience.


You're free to divest yourself of any firearms you don't think you need.  It won't make any difference to the homicide rate, unless you think you're thinking of committing murder.
 
2017-10-06 03:24:53 PM  

capn' fun: ZeroPly: capn' fun: Make semi-autos a Class III. Again-this was beaten to death in prior threads, but the idea is that anyone who is willing to take the time and spend the money to have them will also have been properly vetted, and their guns won't simply "disappear" in into the fog of private sales or being "gifted" to friends and relatives. It would have the added benefit of preventing almost all of the "cleaning incidents" and other accidental discharges from the asinine "one in the pipe" mentality, and it would be a LOT harder for toddlers and small children to accidentally shoot themselves or someone else if they stumble on a non semi-auto.

As for everyone else, they can still hunt, sport shoot, cowboy shoot, biathlon, 3-gun, defend their homes or businesses, plink varmints, conceal carry, and any other gun-related activity with a bolt or lever action rifle, a pump or breach shotgun, or a revolver.

As a regular shooter, this idea just won't fly. It takes months to get a Class III license and transfer, and a lot of paperwork. When I bought my Sig P226, I pointed to the one I wanted on the shelf, gave them my credit card, and literally walked out 30 minutes later with the pistol, a few hundred rounds of ammo, and a "call us if you don't like it" from the guy at the counter. That's what I'm used to right now, and more importantly, that's what all gun owners in Missouri are used to. We like our system.

On behalf of every person I regularly shoot with, they will fight you tooth-and-nail if you expect them to get a Class III license just to get a 9mm semi-auto.

On the other hand, tracking would work, and tracking is good. Set up a usable tracking system, and you keep those semi-autos from disappearing into the gray market. I'm 100% with you there, IF the tracking system is well thought out, and not a bureaucratic federal nightmare that involves weeks of waiting.

I've been shooting for decades, and I can appreciate your point. It would be a pain in my own ass. Bu ...


Exactly, and no one will object to making a Constitutionally protected right prohibitively expensive for the poor.  That's why we have poll taxes and voter registration fees.  Gotta keep that riff-raff out.

And just imagine how well that would have worked to prevent the millionaire Vegas mass murderer from doing what he did.
 
2017-10-06 03:25:55 PM  

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


So you say, but if it can't stop all gun violence, there's no point in even discussing it.
 
2017-10-06 03:26:49 PM  

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

There is one way to find out, show up at his place in the middle of the night, unwelcome.

If you do that you'll probably only see one of them, briefly, if you see it at all.


True... same at my place. Very likely from a .45 Glock.
 
2017-10-06 03:28:05 PM  

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

So you say, but if it can't stop all gun violence, there's no point in even discussing it.


There's no point in discussing sweeping things with enormous costs that even if complied with 90+% would barely make a dent in the issue.
 
2017-10-06 03:29:44 PM  

pedrop357: capn' fun: 've been shooting for decades, and I can appreciate your point. It would be a pain in my own ass. But at the same time it would force me really have to sit back and think about whether I really need my AR-15s, or are they just fun? Or, is there really much my Benelli can do that my 870 can't? Or, if I actually had to use a concealed handgun, am I really worse off with a snub nose .357 or a Taurus Judge than I am with a compact semi-auto? And if I decide that, yes, I really do need-or just plain want-to have a semi-auto, then there is an existing, clearly defined process for me to keep them or buy more. I've got a clean record, I have the extra cash, and I have plenty of patience.

You're free to divest yourself of any firearms you don't think you need.  It won't make any difference to the homicide rate, unless you think you're thinking of committing murder.


Sure I am. But with the current state of gun control in this country (or lack thereof), there's no way for me to be comfortable that one of my guns won't wind up at a crime scene somewhere, or in a hotel room in Las Vegas after having been used to mow down a few dozen people before the barrel overheated. Even if I insist that the buyer meet me at a licensed dealer and I pay for the transfer, there's nothing to stop him from selling it on out of the trunk of his car or "gift" it to one of his buddies who can't buy a gun because he whacked his wife around for bringing him a sammich cut diagonally instead of horizontally. That's how every criminal ever gets their guns-either stealing them from legal owners, or buying guns which had once been owned legally and were stolen or sold on privately.

The only way I can "divest myself" of any of my guns without worry is to only sell it to someone I know and trust, or to run my radial arm saw through the barrel. And if that isn't part of the problem, I don't know what is.
 
2017-10-06 03:32:09 PM  

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

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

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

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


Okay, so four guns. How would this proposal sound to you:

If you voluntarily agree to give up ownership of all your guns permanently, you get $1 million. You could still rent guns at a range and have fun with them there, but not take them outside the range. Perhaps even retain the four guns you own, but they would be kept at a gun range, and never allowed outside of it. (There would be severe penalties for breaking the agreement)

Would that voluntary approach with significant financial incentive sound reasonable to you? Something you would conceivably agree to?
 
2017-10-06 03:33:55 PM  

capn' fun: pedrop357: capn' fun: 've been shooting for decades, and I can appreciate your point. It would be a pain in my own ass. But at the same time it would force me really have to sit back and think about whether I really need my AR-15s, or are they just fun? Or, is there really much my Benelli can do that my 870 can't? Or, if I actually had to use a concealed handgun, am I really worse off with a snub nose .357 or a Taurus Judge than I am with a compact semi-auto? And if I decide that, yes, I really do need-or just plain want-to have a semi-auto, then there is an existing, clearly defined process for me to keep them or buy more. I've got a clean record, I have the extra cash, and I have plenty of patience.

You're free to divest yourself of any firearms you don't think you need.  It won't make any difference to the homicide rate, unless you think you're thinking of committing murder.

Sure I am. But with the current state of gun control in this country (or lack thereof), there's no way for me to be comfortable that one of my guns won't wind up at a crime scene somewhere, or in a hotel room in Las Vegas after having been used to mow down a few dozen people before the barrel overheated. Even if I insist that the buyer meet me at a licensed dealer and I pay for the transfer, there's nothing to stop him from selling it on out of the trunk of his car or "gift" it to one of his buddies who can't buy a gun because he whacked his wife around for bringing him a sammich cut diagonally instead of horizontally. That's how every criminal ever gets their guns-either stealing them from legal owners, or buying guns which had once been owned legally and were stolen or sold on privately.

The only way I can "divest myself" of any of my guns without worry is to only sell it to someone I know and trust, or to run my radial arm saw through the barrel. And if that isn't part of the problem, I don't know what is.


Have you ever sold or traded in a car?  How did you guarantee it would never be used to run people down?
 
2017-10-06 03:36:09 PM  

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

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

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

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

Okay, so four guns. How would this proposal sound to you:

If you voluntarily agree to give up ownership of all your guns permanently, you get $1 million. You could still rent guns at a range and have fun with them there, but not take them outside the range. Perhaps even retain the four guns you own, but they would be kept at a gun range, and never allowed outside of it. (There would be severe penalties for breaking the agreement)

Would that voluntary approach with significant financial incentive sound reasonable to you? Something you would conceivably agree to?


No.
 
2017-10-06 03:37:45 PM  

Callous: capn' fun: ZeroPly: capn' fun: Make semi-autos a Class III. Again-this was beaten to death in prior threads, but 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 ...


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.
 
2017-10-06 03:38:42 PM  

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

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

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

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

Okay, so four guns. How would this proposal sound to you:

If you voluntarily agree to give up ownership of all your guns permanently, you get $1 million. You could still rent guns at a range and have fun with them there, but not take them outside the range. Perhaps even retain the four guns you own, but they would be kept at a gun range, and never allowed outside of it. (There would be severe penalties for breaking the agreement)

Would that voluntary approach with significant financial incentive sound reasonable to you? Something you would conceivably agree to?


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 03:42:37 PM  

Callous: capn' fun: pedrop357: capn' fun: 've been shooting for decades, and I can appreciate your point. It would be a pain in my own ass. But at the same time it would force me really have to sit back and think about whether I really need my AR-15s, or are they just fun? Or, is there really much my Benelli can do that my 870 can't? Or, if I actually had to use a concealed handgun, am I really worse off with a snub nose .357 or a Taurus Judge than I am with a compact semi-auto? And if I decide that, yes, I really do need-or just plain want-to have a semi-auto, then there is an existing, clearly defined process for me to keep them or buy more. I've got a clean record, I have the extra cash, and I have plenty of patience.

You're free to divest yourself of any firearms you don't think you need.  It won't make any difference to the homicide rate, unless you think you're thinking of committing murder.

Sure I am. But with the current state of gun control in this country (or lack thereof), there's no way for me to be comfortable that one of my guns won't wind up at a crime scene somewhere, or in a hotel room in Las Vegas after having been used to mow down a few dozen people before the barrel overheated. Even if I insist that the buyer meet me at a licensed dealer and I pay for the transfer, there's nothing to stop him from selling it on out of the trunk of his car or "gift" it to one of his buddies who can't buy a gun because he whacked his wife around for bringing him a sammich cut diagonally instead of horizontally. That's how every criminal ever gets their guns-either stealing them from legal owners, or buying guns which had once been owned legally and were stolen or sold on privately.

The only way I can "divest myself" of any of my guns without worry is to only sell it to someone I know and trust, or to run my radial arm saw through the barrel. And if that isn't part of the problem, I don't know what is.

Have you ever sold or traded in a car?  How did you guarantee it woul ...


I don't. But I have 100% confidence that any gun I sell will only be used to shoot something, and I think it's less than a 50/50 chance that any car I sell will be used to drive to things versus being driven into things. And I am 100% confident that after I transfer the title to the buyer at the DMV, it's 100% not my problem anymore. And if there were a similar system for transferring and tracking firearms-like with Class III firearms-I'd feel just as confident, too.
 
2017-10-06 03:43:47 PM  

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 03:45:48 PM  

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.
 
2017-10-06 03:46:45 PM  

capn' fun: And if there were a similar system for transferring and tracking firearms


Go to a dealer and have him run a background check on the buyer and fill out a 4473.  Or put it on consignment.  Done.

Next ridiclous problem?
 
2017-10-06 03:47:39 PM  

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 03:50:17 PM  

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.
 
2017-10-06 03:50:33 PM  

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?
 
2017-10-06 03:53:57 PM  

Callous: 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.


We're not talking about voting, or poll taxes. And it's those types of silly, specious arguments that make any kind of reasonable debate on this topic go straight to "stupid".

We're talking about one type of gun versus plenty of alternative options. If it's that important to someone to be able to have their gun go "bang" every time they pull the trigger, or have a high capacity magazine, then the only thing standing in their way is putting aside some cash every month for a while until they can afford it. Just like anything else that's expensive, to them, that they'd like to own. Otherwise, they would still be able to trot on down to their local sporting goods store and buy a rifle, or a shotgun, or a pistol any time they like-it just wouldn't be semi-automatic.
 
2017-10-06 03:56:09 PM  

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 03:57:55 PM  

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.
 
2017-10-06 03:58:06 PM  

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

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

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

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

Okay, so four guns. How would this proposal sound to you:

If you voluntarily agree to give up ownership of all your guns permanently, you get $1 million. You could still rent guns at a range and have fun with them there, but not take them outside the range. Perhaps even retain the four guns you own, but they would be kept at a gun range, and never allowed outside of it. (There would be severe penalties for breaking the agreement)

Would that voluntary approach with significant financial incentive sound reasonable to you? Something you would conceivably agree to?


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 04:02:08 PM  

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.


#include <amendment-ix.h>
 
2017-10-06 04:02:24 PM  

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 04:03:30 PM  

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 04:07:58 PM  

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.
 
2017-10-06 04:09:42 PM  
And yet Meth is still readily available
 
2017-10-06 04:13:24 PM  

Callous: 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.


I think this legal distinction is correct. Eminent domain is already legal, and if the only thing in the way of an LA to San Francisco hyperloop is one farm, the government should be able to force the sale, provided the compensation is so high that it's clear it's a last resort. But rights can't be bought in the same way that property can.

Politically it would never work, but restricting weapons to ranges is still a good idea. The problem is that it might not meet second amendment requirements due to availability - if sh*t hits the fan next Thursday at 2am, what guarantee do I have that I can get to my weapons before the government locks down all the authorized ranges?
 
Displayed 50 of 289 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | 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