I'm a gonna say it.
Extensive. Gun. Control.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2012, 01:25:41 PM
I'm a gonna say it.
Extensive. Gun. Control.
If the kids had had guns, there would have been no problem.
Fuck off with the politics in this thread
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 02:10:45 PM
Fuck off with the politics in this thread
Sounds like this asshole had an assault rifle. Civilians just shouldn't fucking be allowed to own that shit. This is the only time those weapons are going to be used.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 02:50:35 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 02:10:45 PM
Fuck off with the politics in this thread
Sounds like this asshole had an assault rifle. Civilians just shouldn't fucking be allowed to own that shit. This is the only time those weapons are going to be used.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 02:10:45 PM
Fuck off with the politics in this thread
Language. Any discussion about how to prevent similar stuff in the future is going to be about politics.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 02:50:35 PM
Sounds like this asshole had an assault rifle. Civilians just shouldn't fucking be allowed to own that shit. This is the only time those weapons are going to be used.
Looks like you don't get it. This is not the time or place for scoring political points.
I didn't see any news reports suggesting he used an assault rifle. :hmm:
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 03:01:10 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 02:50:35 PM
Sounds like this asshole had an assault rifle. Civilians just shouldn't fucking be allowed to own that shit. This is the only time those weapons are going to be used.
Looks like you don't get it. This is not the time or place for scoring political points.
There was just a mass stabbing at an elementary school in China. Care to guess how many Chinese students died?
I really don't want to hear about how this doesn't have anything to do with politics. This has everything to do with gun control.
AP is reporting that he had this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FA-GJSUFCUAANr51.jpg%3Alarge&hash=086c8b890cf107452d6878800335556e4f73c961)
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 03:06:09 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 03:01:10 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 02:50:35 PM
Sounds like this asshole had an assault rifle. Civilians just shouldn't fucking be allowed to own that shit. This is the only time those weapons are going to be used.
Looks like you don't get it. This is not the time or place for scoring political points.
There was just a mass stabbing at an elementary school in China. Care to guess how many Chinese students died?
I really don't want to hear about how this doesn't have anything to do with politics. This has everything to do with gun control.
AP is reporting that he had this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FA-GJSUFCUAANr51.jpg%3Alarge&hash=086c8b890cf107452d6878800335556e4f73c961)
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Caliga on December 14, 2012, 03:02:06 PM
I didn't see any news reports suggesting he used an assault rifle. :hmm:
I don't get the hype over assault rifles anyway (I presume by 'assault rifle' we are talking like an modern infantry weapon here, right?). In the hands of an amateur inside a building a shotgun would be by far the most dangerous weapon. Even a handgun, people like this guy are not sniping from the UT Tower they are shooting from just a few feet away, a AK-47 is not really some big uptick in effectiveness in those circumstances.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 03:06:09 PM
There was just a mass stabbing at an elementary school in China. Care to guess how many Chinese students died?
I really don't want to hear about how this doesn't have anything to do with politics. This has everything to do with gun control.
Then start your own thread and get out of this one.
Quote from: merithyn on December 14, 2012, 03:12:23 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 03:06:09 PM
There was just a mass stabbing at an elementary school in China. Care to guess how many Chinese students died?
I really don't want to hear about how this doesn't have anything to do with politics. This has everything to do with gun control.
Then start your own thread and get out of this one.
+1
Quote from: merithyn on December 14, 2012, 03:12:23 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 03:06:09 PM
There was just a mass stabbing at an elementary school in China. Care to guess how many Chinese students died?
I really don't want to hear about how this doesn't have anything to do with politics. This has everything to do with gun control.
Then start your own thread and get out of this one.
Seriously. As Obama's spokesperson said - this isn't the time for politics.
Done
Gun control isn't politics. Not in these circumstances.
Probably a good idea.
Look, we've gone through this how many times this year? People are massacred, hecklers scream about how it's "not the time for politics", and then everyone forgets about it within two weeks. It's a sick process.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2012, 01:25:41 PM
I'm a gonna say it.
Extensive. Gun. Control.
FUCK OFF YOU PUSSY
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2012, 03:11:20 PM
I don't get the hype over assault rifles anyway (I presume by 'assault rifle' we are talking like an modern infantry weapon here, right?). In the hands of an amateur inside a building a shotgun would be by far the most dangerous weapon. Even a handgun, people like this guy are not sniping from the UT Tower they are shooting from just a few feet away, a AK-47 is not really some big uptick in effectiveness in those circumstances.
I guess maybe I'm not sure what Spellus means by 'assault rifle'. To me an assault rifle is capable of selective fire (typically full auto, burst, and single shot) and it is definitely illegal for a civilan to own those in most cases--as in you cannot walk into a gun shop and buy one or pick up a transfer you bought from say an online retailer. However, the distinction is kind of a silly one because a skilled shooter can fire very quickly with a semiautomatic weapon, and probably more accurately. It's one of those things that the media has gotten into people's heads that doesn't matter as much as people think it does.
Must be one of the only thread to have more replies then views.
Get your bites in quick, before the bodies are cold.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 03:19:47 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2012, 01:25:41 PM
I'm a gonna say it.
Extensive. Gun. Control.
FUCK OFF YOU PUSSY
You want cheap and easy access to guns, move to FATA or Somalia.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 03:19:28 PM
Look, we've gone through this how many times this year? People are massacred, hecklers scream about how it's "not the time for politics", and then everyone forgets about it within two weeks. It's a sick process.
You are absolutely right. The problem with this issue is that there is no way for Congress or the President or anyone else to push a button, or sign a piece of paper, etc. and fix it. They may try, but it definitely won't work, simply because there's no way for anyone in a position of authority to know who owns what guns without searching every house in America.
We made a choice, rightly or wrongly, as a society many generations ago to have an armed citizenry and I don't see any realistic way to change that without a total social upheaval.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2012, 03:20:50 PM
Must be one of the only thread to have more replies then views.
:lol: YEA
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 03:19:47 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2012, 01:25:41 PM
I'm a gonna say it.
Extensive. Gun. Control.
FUCK OFF YOU PUSSY
Why are you afraid of your government?
Pussy? I like guns. I'm interested in guns. I own fake guns. That doesn't make me think one should be able to own an arsenal or one. Too many people are untrustworthy with weapons. I gladly give that freedom* up to ensure the security of my childs.
*altho, I never did have that freedom.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 03:23:33 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 03:19:47 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2012, 01:25:41 PM
I'm a gonna say it.
Extensive. Gun. Control.
FUCK OFF YOU PUSSY
You want cheap and easy access to guns, move to FATA or Somalia.
Extensive. Gun. Control. will not prevent what happened.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2012, 03:29:05 PM
Why are you afraid of your government?
Well my government does torture people in secret black sites across the world and has drones that can murder you from long range.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 02:50:35 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 02:10:45 PM
Fuck off with the politics in this thread
Sounds like this asshole had an assault rifle. Civilians just shouldn't fucking be allowed to own that shit. This is the only time those weapons are going to be used.
Can you explain what that means?
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 03:30:49 PM
Extensive. Gun. Control. will not prevent what happened.
Yeah it happens on a daily basis in countries with extensive gun control. The evidence is overwhelming.
In any case, like Caliga says, the horse is way out of the barn and in any case the Supreme Court has already ruled.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 03:06:09 PM
AP is reporting that he had this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FA-GJSUFCUAANr51.jpg%3Alarge&hash=086c8b890cf107452d6878800335556e4f73c961)
How much does something like that go for?
Seems like there are less expensive forms of penis enlargement, at least if my spam box contents are to be believed.
I'm happier living in a place with sensible gun control laws, but ultimately I do not think that imposing stricter laws in the US is going to make much difference - there are millions of guns available already, and a culture in which many view gun ownership of all sorts as a right. Changing the laws under those circumstances will have about as much impact as having pot illegal in the "war on drugs" has had - namely, not much. Doesn't make sense to start an equally-futile "war on guns".
Much more effective, IMO, would be to put serious resources into mental health issues, and to overhaul the laws relating to the mentally ill. I dunno about the US, but in Ontario at least it is very difficult (really, impossible) to legally and sensibly deal with someone who is crazy and appears to be dangerous - I've seen that first hand.
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2012, 03:30:56 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2012, 03:29:05 PM
Why are you afraid of your government?
Well my government does torture people in secret black sites across the world and has drones that can murder you from long range.
Another Black House nut. Great. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2012, 03:30:56 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2012, 03:29:05 PM
Why are you afraid of your government?
Well my government does torture people in secret black sites across the world and has drones that can murder you from long range.
Yeah but a conceal carry Glock isn't going to be much protection against that.
FWIW I tend to the Caliga-Malthus view you endorse.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 03:30:49 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 03:23:33 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 03:19:47 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2012, 01:25:41 PM
I'm a gonna say it.
Extensive. Gun. Control.
FUCK OFF YOU PUSSY
You want cheap and easy access to guns, move to FATA or Somalia.
Extensive. Gun. Control. will not prevent what happened.
Attack on the same day in China. No one died. No guns. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-attacks-22-kids-knife-china-school-article-1.1220230?localLinksEnabled=false)
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2012, 03:32:18 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 03:30:49 PM
Extensive. Gun. Control. will not prevent what happened.
Yeah it happens on a daily basis in countries with extensive gun control. The evidence is overwhelming.
In any case, like Caliga says, the horse is way out of the barn and in any case the Supreme Court has already ruled.
Outlaw and aggressive enforcement is the only way. What do "you" want to give up?
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2012, 03:32:42 PM
I dunno about the US, but in Ontario at least it is very difficult (really, impossible) to legally and sensibly deal with someone who is crazy and appears to be dangerous - I've seen that first hand.
Yeah it is the same here.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 03:35:59 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 03:30:49 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 03:23:33 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 03:19:47 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2012, 01:25:41 PM
I'm a gonna say it.
Extensive. Gun. Control.
FUCK OFF YOU PUSSY
You want cheap and easy access to guns, move to FATA or Somalia.
Extensive. Gun. Control. will not prevent what happened.
Attack on the same day in China. No one died. No guns. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-attacks-22-kids-knife-china-school-article-1.1220230?localLinksEnabled=false)
Notice the bold. :lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 03:36:08 PM
Outlaw and aggressive enforcement is the only way. What do "you" want to give up?
"Me"? Not sure what you mean here but I support the Bill of Rights. I was just discussing it as a practical matter.
If you can get rid of guns it does dramatically reduce murders and gun violence. But that would be practically impossible here, and besides the Supreme Court already ruled against Gun Control.
I think it would be beneficial if states did risk analysis as part of preparing risk management decisions. It will never happen but there you go.
Quote from: derspiess on December 14, 2012, 03:31:53 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 02:50:35 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 02:10:45 PM
Fuck off with the politics in this thread
Sounds like this asshole had an assault rifle. Civilians just shouldn't fucking be allowed to own that shit. This is the only time those weapons are going to be used.
Can you explain what that means?
He's busy shooting his mouth of, so...gonna go with "no."
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 14, 2012, 03:32:28 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 03:06:09 PM
AP is reporting that he had this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FA-GJSUFCUAANr51.jpg%3Alarge&hash=086c8b890cf107452d6878800335556e4f73c961)
How much does something like that go for?
Seems like there are less expensive forms of penis enlargement, at least if my spam box contents are to be believed.
I'm guessing 3 to 4 grand with the optics & whatnot. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this was not really the type of rifle/configuration that was used and some AP writer just used the first pic that matched his Google search.
But I tend to shake my head at overly-tricked-out mall ninja/TacticLOL guns like this one. I could almost see it being useful for long-range shooting competition-- if it weren't for the retarded vertical foregrip.
The weapon reminds me of Timmypics.
Ranged weapon. Much more effective and less expensive chioces out there for what the shooter wanted to do.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 03:55:35 PM
Ranged weapon. Much more effective and less expensive chioces out there for what the shooter wanted to do.
I doubt "expense" was a primary factor here. :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on December 14, 2012, 03:48:01 PM
But I tend to shake my head at overly-tricked-out mall ninja/TacticLOL guns like this one. I could almost see it being useful for long-range shooting competition-- if it weren't for the retarded vertical foregrip.
What's the deal on the wine opener in the stock?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2012, 03:59:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 14, 2012, 03:48:01 PM
But I tend to shake my head at overly-tricked-out mall ninja/TacticLOL guns like this one. I could almost see it being useful for long-range shooting competition-- if it weren't for the retarded vertical foregrip.
What's the deal on the wine opener in the stock?
I honestly don't know for sure, but I think it might be a knob to fine-tune the stock length.
Appears to be a price well worth paying.
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 03:22:03 PM
Get your bites in quick, before the bodies are cold.
Oh, give us a break with this sanctimonious bullshit. This is no tragic accident, this is a predictable and oft-repeated consequence of a tragically stupid policy we have with regards to guns. While the radical gun nuts whose idiocy kills other people "respectfully think about the victims of this tragedy" so that they don't have to think about the murderous consequences of their policies, people like myself are thinking about the victims of tomorrow's tragedy. Today's victims are already dead, tomorrow's victims don't have to be.
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2012, 04:16:01 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 03:22:03 PM
Get your bites in quick, before the bodies are cold.
Oh, give us a break with this sanctimonious bullshit. This is no tragic accident, this is a predictable and oft-repeated consequence of a tragically stupid policy we have with regards to guns. While the radical gun nuts whose idiocy kills other people "respectfully think about the victims of this tragedy" so that they don't have to think about the murderous consequences of their policies, people like myself are thinking about the victims of tomorrow's tragedy. Today's victims are already dead, tomorrow's victims don't have to be.
Out of respect for the gunman they should wait until his hands are cold to pry the gun from them.
QuoteOh, give us a break with this sanctimonious bullshit. This is no tragic accident, this is a predictable and oft-repeated consequence of a tragically stupid policy we have with regards to guns. While the radical gun nuts whose idiocy kills other people "respectfully think about the victims of this tragedy" so that they don't have to think about the murderous consequences of their policies, people like myself are thinking about the victims of tomorrow's tragedy. Today's victims are already dead, tomorrow's victims don't have to be.
Well said
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2012, 04:16:01 PM
Oh, give us a break with this sanctimonious bullshit. This is no tragic accident, this is a predictable and oft-repeated consequence of a tragically stupid policy we have with regards to guns. While the radical gun nuts whose idiocy kills other people "respectfully think about the victims of this tragedy" so that they don't have to think about the murderous consequences of their policies, people like myself are thinking about the victims of tomorrow's tragedy. Today's victims are already dead, tomorrow's victims don't have to be.
You can fuck right off. You're not going to fix it this week. Let people grieve and get over the shock. Then, if you haven't forgotten about it in a few days we can work toward a rational solution.
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2012, 04:16:01 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 03:22:03 PM
Get your bites in quick, before the bodies are cold.
Oh, give us a break with this sanctimonious bullshit. This is no tragic accident, this is a predictable and oft-repeated consequence of a tragically stupid policy we have with regards to guns. While the radical gun nuts whose idiocy kills other people "respectfully think about the victims of this tragedy" so that they don't have to think about the murderous consequences of their policies, people like myself are thinking about the victims of tomorrow's tragedy. Today's victims are already dead, tomorrow's victims don't have to be.
Indeed.
DG once the ages of the murdered are know, as an actuarial could you work out how many person years have been wiped out ?
I'd guess it's at least 1,500 years.
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 04:22:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2012, 04:16:01 PM
Oh, give us a break with this sanctimonious bullshit. This is no tragic accident, this is a predictable and oft-repeated consequence of a tragically stupid policy we have with regards to guns. While the radical gun nuts whose idiocy kills other people "respectfully think about the victims of this tragedy" so that they don't have to think about the murderous consequences of their policies, people like myself are thinking about the victims of tomorrow's tragedy. Today's victims are already dead, tomorrow's victims don't have to be.
You can fuck right off. You're not going to fix it this week. Let people grieve and get over the shock. Then, if you haven't forgotten about it in a few days we can work toward a rational solution.
As 'Butt so enjoys: This.
Quote from: mongers on December 14, 2012, 04:28:50 PM
DG once the ages of the murdered are know, as an actuarial could you work out how many person years have been wiped out ?
I'd guess it's at least 1,500 years.
I'm not a life actuary, but I'm sure an approximation shouldn't be too hard. However, I'm not sure what putting a number on such tragedy would illuminate that a figure of 20 dead children wouldn't.
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 04:22:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2012, 04:16:01 PM
Oh, give us a break with this sanctimonious bullshit. This is no tragic accident, this is a predictable and oft-repeated consequence of a tragically stupid policy we have with regards to guns. While the radical gun nuts whose idiocy kills other people "respectfully think about the victims of this tragedy" so that they don't have to think about the murderous consequences of their policies, people like myself are thinking about the victims of tomorrow's tragedy. Today's victims are already dead, tomorrow's victims don't have to be.
You can fuck right off. You're not going to fix it this week. Let people grieve and get over the shock. Then, if you haven't forgotten about it in a few days we can work toward a rational solution.
If you want to grieve then why are you f-bombing people in a pissing contest thread?
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 04:22:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2012, 04:16:01 PM
Oh, give us a break with this sanctimonious bullshit. This is no tragic accident, this is a predictable and oft-repeated consequence of a tragically stupid policy we have with regards to guns. While the radical gun nuts whose idiocy kills other people "respectfully think about the victims of this tragedy" so that they don't have to think about the murderous consequences of their policies, people like myself are thinking about the victims of tomorrow's tragedy. Today's victims are already dead, tomorrow's victims don't have to be.
You can fuck right off. You're not going to fix it this week. Let people grieve and get over the shock. Then, if you haven't forgotten about it in a few days we can work toward a rational solution.
I am a bit puzzled as to how a discussion on languish about gun control - an obvious issue raised whenever something like this happens - prevents people who need to grieve from grieving.
Also, how does preventing public discourse about a potential solution help anyone?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 14, 2012, 05:24:45 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 04:22:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2012, 04:16:01 PM
Oh, give us a break with this sanctimonious bullshit. This is no tragic accident, this is a predictable and oft-repeated consequence of a tragically stupid policy we have with regards to guns. While the radical gun nuts whose idiocy kills other people "respectfully think about the victims of this tragedy" so that they don't have to think about the murderous consequences of their policies, people like myself are thinking about the victims of tomorrow's tragedy. Today's victims are already dead, tomorrow's victims don't have to be.
You can fuck right off. You're not going to fix it this week. Let people grieve and get over the shock. Then, if you haven't forgotten about it in a few days we can work toward a rational solution.
I am a bit puzzled as to how a discussion on languish about gun control - an obvious issue raised whenever something like this happens - prevents people who need to grieve from grieving.
Also, how does preventing public discourse about a potential solution help anyone?
My own take is that if people want to discuss a public policy issue as a result of a tragedy that's fine.
If people have pre-existing axes to grind, and take said tragedy as an excuse to grind said axes, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 04:22:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2012, 04:16:01 PM
Oh, give us a break with this sanctimonious bullshit. This is no tragic accident, this is a predictable and oft-repeated consequence of a tragically stupid policy we have with regards to guns. While the radical gun nuts whose idiocy kills other people "respectfully think about the victims of this tragedy" so that they don't have to think about the murderous consequences of their policies, people like myself are thinking about the victims of tomorrow's tragedy. Today's victims are already dead, tomorrow's victims don't have to be.
You can fuck right off. You're not going to fix it this week. Let people grieve and get over the shock. Then, if you haven't forgotten about it in a few days we can work toward a rational solution.
I disagree, maybe the President should give an address/interview tomorrow and say, look if you're feeling suicidal, have worrisome thoughts, are on the verge of something/snapping, then just take all of your guns to the local police station and hand them in, no questions asked and try and get some help, go talk to someone.
Maybe it wouldn't have any effect, but given how powerless the US president is on this 'issue' maybe using the feelings surrounding this madness, it might stop one or two other troubled individuals from doing another gun outrage in the coming weeks or months ?
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2012, 05:31:00 PM
My own take is that if people want to discuss a public policy issue as a result of a tragedy that's fine.
If people have pre-existing axes to grind, and take said tragedy as an excuse to grind said axes, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Much as I hate to admit it, you have captured my own thoughts exactly.
Use of a tragedy as an anecdote to support an unsupportable position is asinine and borderline assholish. Especially when using some incident in dictatorship as a counter-anecdote.
Use of a tragedy as a spur to realistic discussion of realistic alternatives is fine, and even commendable.
While I believe that the USSC is dead wrong about how and why the Second Amendment came to be fundamental US law, I don't think that it matters a whole lot. What matters is that these kinds of incidents don't come out of the blue, and that people like the perp here were allowed to own guns in spite of the fact that people around him almost certainly knew that the perp was a danger to himself and others. No, I don't have inside knowledge on the case, but I am willing to bet that this will come out in the days ahead.
There needs to be some way to separate people like this guy from their guns, because his right to keep and bear arms doesn't over-ride the right of 5-year-olds to attend school without being murdered.
Quote from: grumbler on December 14, 2012, 05:43:02 PM
Use of a tragedy as a spur to realistic discussion of realistic alternatives is fine, and even commendable.
I will admit to a certain amount of irrational rage today, but I don't think anything is lost by waiting until the dead are buried to start this discussion.
I agree with pretty much the rest of your post. I don't know how often these killers give off warning signs, perhaps it's more often than I thought.
For the record, the reaction to the 1996 Dunblane primary school massacre was the banning of all handguns larger than .22 cal.
Quote from: grumbler on December 14, 2012, 05:43:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2012, 05:31:00 PM
My own take is that if people want to discuss a public policy issue as a result of a tragedy that's fine.
If people have pre-existing axes to grind, and take said tragedy as an excuse to grind said axes, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
There needs to be some way to separate people like this guy from their guns, because his right to keep and bear arms doesn't over-ride the right of 5-year-olds to attend school without being murdered.
Very well said indeed.
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2012, 05:31:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 14, 2012, 05:24:45 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 04:22:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2012, 04:16:01 PM
Oh, give us a break with this sanctimonious bullshit. This is no tragic accident, this is a predictable and oft-repeated consequence of a tragically stupid policy we have with regards to guns. While the radical gun nuts whose idiocy kills other people "respectfully think about the victims of this tragedy" so that they don't have to think about the murderous consequences of their policies, people like myself are thinking about the victims of tomorrow's tragedy. Today's victims are already dead, tomorrow's victims don't have to be.
You can fuck right off. You're not going to fix it this week. Let people grieve and get over the shock. Then, if you haven't forgotten about it in a few days we can work toward a rational solution.
I am a bit puzzled as to how a discussion on languish about gun control - an obvious issue raised whenever something like this happens - prevents people who need to grieve from grieving.
Also, how does preventing public discourse about a potential solution help anyone?
My own take is that if people want to discuss a public policy issue as a result of a tragedy that's fine.
If people have pre-existing axes to grind, and take said tragedy as an excuse to grind said axes, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
You mean like every other political issue? Something bad happens, it catches people's attention and there is political discussion. I guess we shouldn't be talking about Syria in a political discussion cause someone might be using it have an excuse to grind an axe.
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 05:51:01 PM
but I don't think anything is lost by waiting until the dead are buried to start this discussion.
Unfortunately, I think in a lot of these cases you have to strike while the iron is hot; waiting will dissapate the shock/outrage/horror that is necessary to actually effect change.
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 05:51:01 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 14, 2012, 05:43:02 PM
Use of a tragedy as a spur to realistic discussion of realistic alternatives is fine, and even commendable.
I will admit to a certain amount of irrational rage today, but I don't think anything is lost by waiting until the dead are buried to start this discussion.
I agree with pretty much the rest of your post. I don't know how often these killers give off warning signs, perhaps it's more often than I thought.
Here's my irrational rage - that as soon as a tragedy happens people start speculating as to potential explanations, such as mental illness, until we have some actual evidence.
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 05:51:01 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 14, 2012, 05:43:02 PM
Use of a tragedy as a spur to realistic discussion of realistic alternatives is fine, and even commendable.
I will admit to a certain amount of irrational rage today, but I don't think anything is lost by waiting until the dead are buried to start this discussion.
I agree with pretty much the rest of your post. I don't know how often these killers give off warning signs, perhaps it's more often than I thought.
Okay, lets have the second amendment discussion about a massacre that happened a year ago. I mean, there a whole bunch of them. Why don't you pick a few for us.
Quote from: Kleves on December 14, 2012, 05:57:19 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 05:51:01 PM
but I don't think anything is lost by waiting until the dead are buried to start this discussion.
Unfortunately, I think in a lot of these cases you have to strike while the iron is hot; waiting will dissapate the shock/outrage/horror that is necessary to actually effect change.
Yeah, I can't exactly recall what the last gun outrage in the US was, some of the victims of, may still be awaiting burial.
edit:
oh, it was the guy at the mall, damn I bet he's immortal soul is pissed about losing out on the limelight.
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 04:22:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2012, 04:16:01 PM
Oh, give us a break with this sanctimonious bullshit. This is no tragic accident, this is a predictable and oft-repeated consequence of a tragically stupid policy we have with regards to guns. While the radical gun nuts whose idiocy kills other people "respectfully think about the victims of this tragedy" so that they don't have to think about the murderous consequences of their policies, people like myself are thinking about the victims of tomorrow's tragedy. Today's victims are already dead, tomorrow's victims don't have to be.
You can fuck right off. You're not going to fix it this week. Let people grieve and get over the shock. Then, if you haven't forgotten about it in a few days we can work toward a rational solution.
Nobody here lost a kid and so we have no need to grieve. Let's get straight to the politics.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2012, 05:55:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2012, 05:31:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 14, 2012, 05:24:45 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 04:22:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2012, 04:16:01 PM
Oh, give us a break with this sanctimonious bullshit. This is no tragic accident, this is a predictable and oft-repeated consequence of a tragically stupid policy we have with regards to guns. While the radical gun nuts whose idiocy kills other people "respectfully think about the victims of this tragedy" so that they don't have to think about the murderous consequences of their policies, people like myself are thinking about the victims of tomorrow's tragedy. Today's victims are already dead, tomorrow's victims don't have to be.
You can fuck right off. You're not going to fix it this week. Let people grieve and get over the shock. Then, if you haven't forgotten about it in a few days we can work toward a rational solution.
I am a bit puzzled as to how a discussion on languish about gun control - an obvious issue raised whenever something like this happens - prevents people who need to grieve from grieving.
Also, how does preventing public discourse about a potential solution help anyone?
My own take is that if people want to discuss a public policy issue as a result of a tragedy that's fine.
If people have pre-existing axes to grind, and take said tragedy as an excuse to grind said axes, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
You mean like every other political issue? Something bad happens, it catches people's attention and there is political discussion. I guess we shouldn't be talking about Syria in a political discussion cause someone might be using it have an excuse to grind an axe.
You appear to have misconstrued my argument.
If there is a tragedy in Syria, and the Israeli government uses that as an excuse for why Israel needs to keep the Golan Heights, that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Quote from: Kleves on December 14, 2012, 05:57:19 PM
Unfortunately, I think in a lot of these cases you have to strike while the iron is hot; waiting will dissapate the shock/outrage/horror that is necessary to actually effect change.
Shock, outrage and horror aren't a good basis for policy.
Quote from: The Brain on December 14, 2012, 04:39:16 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 04:22:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2012, 04:16:01 PM
Oh, give us a break with this sanctimonious bullshit. This is no tragic accident, this is a predictable and oft-repeated consequence of a tragically stupid policy we have with regards to guns. While the radical gun nuts whose idiocy kills other people "respectfully think about the victims of this tragedy" so that they don't have to think about the murderous consequences of their policies, people like myself are thinking about the victims of tomorrow's tragedy. Today's victims are already dead, tomorrow's victims don't have to be.
You can fuck right off. You're not going to fix it this week. Let people grieve and get over the shock. Then, if you haven't forgotten about it in a few days we can work toward a rational solution.
If you want to grieve then why are you f-bombing people in a pissing contest thread?
This started in the other thread and was put into this thread by Management(R).
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2012, 05:58:03 PM
Here's my irrational rage - that as soon as a tragedy happens people start speculating as to potential explanations, such as mental illness, until we have some actual evidence.
That's fair
Quote from: mongers on December 14, 2012, 05:55:23 PM
For the record, the reaction to the 1996 Dunblane primary school massacre was the banning of all handguns larger than .22 cal.
That may work for scotland, but the US..... eh. It would take a herculean effort just to collect and enforce at this point. Not to mention the 2nd Amend issue.
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 06:01:31 PM
Quote from: Kleves on December 14, 2012, 05:57:19 PM
Unfortunately, I think in a lot of these cases you have to strike while the iron is hot; waiting will dissapate the shock/outrage/horror that is necessary to actually effect change.
Shock, outrage and horror aren't a good basis for policy.
How so ?
Sometime fight or flight is a good response mechanism; dithering can kill.
FWIW, the rifle was found in the killer's car, not in the school. The damage he did happened with two handguns.
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 06:01:31 PM
Shock, outrage and horror aren't a good basis for policy.
Perhaps not, but I think it's a necessary lubricant for overcoming political inertia/resistance in a case like this.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 06:03:21 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 14, 2012, 05:55:23 PM
For the record, the reaction to the 1996 Dunblane primary school massacre was the banning of all handguns larger than .22 cal.
That may work for scotland, but the US..... eh. It would take a herculean effort just to collect and enforce at this point. Not to mention the 2nd Amend issue.
I don't doubt it, we all know, no change will happen as a result of this massacre. I just thought it interesting that it took us 18 months to decide on our response to that outrage.
And the response was a UK wide one, enacted by parliament, Scotland was only relevant because it was the scene of the crime and if he'd lived he'd have been convicted under Scottish laws.
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2012, 06:00:35 PM
You appear to have misconstrued my argument.
If there is a tragedy in Syria, and the Israeli government uses that as an excuse for why Israel needs to keep the Golan Heights, that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
The problem with your example is that Israel is taking advantage of the tragedy to press on their interests. People who think that the current US gun situation is nuts, as well as the people who defend it, have no discernible vested interest. They're just dismayed that the inmates have taken over the asylum, and their dismay is brought to the forefront when events like this occur.
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 06:01:31 PM
Quote from: Kleves on December 14, 2012, 05:57:19 PM
Unfortunately, I think in a lot of these cases you have to strike while the iron is hot; waiting will dissapate the shock/outrage/horror that is necessary to actually effect change.
Shock, outrage and horror aren't a good basis for policy.
Necessary to wake people out of apathy. There's a large part of this country that loves guns, but there's another part this just doesn't give enough of a shit.
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 04:22:20 PMYou can fuck right off. You're not going to fix it this week. Let people grieve and get over the shock. Then, if you haven't forgotten about it in a few days we can work toward a rational solution.
Perhaps some people grieve and deal with the shock by discussing possible solutions, including gun control. It seems unfair to deny them that.
Why is "it's so sad and tragic, I want to cry" a more legitimate coping mechanism than "this is horrible, we should change these things so it doesn't happen again"?
In a few days when emotions are more settled (and if you haven't forgotten about it), you can work towards a rational solution. Impugning people's motives just because their coping mechanism differs from yours is probably not going to make a rational solution more likely, however.
Quote from: mongers on December 14, 2012, 06:08:56 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 06:03:21 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 14, 2012, 05:55:23 PM
For the record, the reaction to the 1996 Dunblane primary school massacre was the banning of all handguns larger than .22 cal.
That may work for scotland, but the US..... eh. It would take a herculean effort just to collect and enforce at this point. Not to mention the 2nd Amend issue.
I don't doubt it, we all know, no change will happen as a result of this massacre. I just thought it interesting that it took us 18 months to decide on our response to that outrage.
And the response was a UK wide one, enacted by parliament, Scotland was only relevant because it was the scene of the crime and if he'd lived he'd have been convicted under Scottish laws.
True, I think the estimate of POWs in the US is 270 Million. I think it's higher.
Quote from: merithyn on December 14, 2012, 06:01:37 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 14, 2012, 04:39:16 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 04:22:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2012, 04:16:01 PM
Oh, give us a break with this sanctimonious bullshit. This is no tragic accident, this is a predictable and oft-repeated consequence of a tragically stupid policy we have with regards to guns. While the radical gun nuts whose idiocy kills other people "respectfully think about the victims of this tragedy" so that they don't have to think about the murderous consequences of their policies, people like myself are thinking about the victims of tomorrow's tragedy. Today's victims are already dead, tomorrow's victims don't have to be.
You can fuck right off. You're not going to fix it this week. Let people grieve and get over the shock. Then, if you haven't forgotten about it in a few days we can work toward a rational solution.
If you want to grieve then why are you f-bombing people in a pissing contest thread?
This started in the other thread and was put into this thread by Management(R).
Yes?
Quote from: Kleves on December 14, 2012, 06:06:09 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 06:01:31 PM
Shock, outrage and horror aren't a good basis for policy.
Perhaps not, but I think it's a necessary lubricant for overcoming political inertia/resistance in a case like this.
The problem is that there's no easy solution to these sorts of things. Sure, you can ban guns like crazy and impose harsh penalties for possession, but in a country that has hundreds of millions of firearms on the loose, there's no chance of such a law being effective in the real world, and the sorts of people who would retain their guns would in general be exactly the sort of people who shouldn't have them. Sure, you could create additional mental health resources and encourage communities to reach out to people who might be marginalized, but that would fly in the face of the last 30-40 years of cultural (and economic) evolution.
The simple truth is that in the US, short of turning public areas into fortresses, there is nothing to be done.
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 05:51:01 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 14, 2012, 05:43:02 PM
Use of a tragedy as a spur to realistic discussion of realistic alternatives is fine, and even commendable.
I will admit to a certain amount of irrational rage today, but I don't think anything is lost by waiting until the dead are buried to start this discussion.
I agree with pretty much the rest of your post. I don't know how often these killers give off warning signs, perhaps it's more often than I thought.
Perhaps "irrational rage" is such warning sign?
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 06:12:18 PM
Necessary to wake people out of apathy. There's a large part of this country that loves guns, but there's another part this just doesn't give enough of a shit.
The fact is that you flipped out about an assault rifle that wasn't even used. We didn't even know how many children had died by what means and by who's hand before you were immediately flipping out about gun control AS IF YOU KNEW ENOUGH TO HAVE AN OPINION ON THE MATTER IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
Well, you didn't, and it had the exact opposite affect than you wanted - for me, at least. I could care even less about gun control than I did before because of reactionary idiots like you. Your agenda was more important than finding out the facts of the situation. Your uneducated opinion drove home the point that you don't really care about what happened or why. All you care about is getting rid of guns, and what a handy little story to work with to that end.
The problem, as I see it, is the person doing the shooting and no amount of gun control is going to prevent them from getting the fucking things in the first place. We're a hunting nation, which means that there will always be guns around. We already deal with thousands of illegal guns all over the country due to drugs and fairly open borders. Screaming "gun control" isn't going to do shit about this situation. The guy in Portland stole the gun he used. We have no idea if this guy had his guns by legal or illegal methods.
You want the country to get on board with your program? Then show data - real, hard data - that a) it's possible to do in this country, b) that it would matter when it comes to these kinds of situations, and c) that the police agree that any of this is worth their time and energy.
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 06:01:31 PM
Quote from: Kleves on December 14, 2012, 05:57:19 PM
Unfortunately, I think in a lot of these cases you have to strike while the iron is hot; waiting will dissapate the shock/outrage/horror that is necessary to actually effect change.
Shock, outrage and horror aren't a good basis for policy.
I'll be sure to tell the Budapest Jews saved by Swedish
Schutzpässe.
Merri, shut up and stop being a half of the Languish Power Idiot Couple.
Quote from: Martinus on December 14, 2012, 06:26:04 PM
Merri, shut up and stop being a half of the Languish Power Idiot Couple.
Fuck off, Marti. I haven't even talked to Max about this today. Believe it or not, I have my own opinions with my own ideas that I don't need to buy from my boy toys.
I don' think 'reactionary' means what you think it means. Spellus isn't a reactionary. He's an entirely different kind of lunatic.
Merithyn, I don't give a shit if qualified, sane people want to own elephant guns or massive shotguns. The problem is that this guy was, judging by his actions, insane and almost certainly sociopathic. Now, there was today a very similar incident in a Chinese grade school, but because the crazed asshat only had a knife he wasn't able to actually kill anyone. The difference here isn't asshat but what the asshat had in his hands at the time of his attempted massacre.
But the idea that policy criticism is inappropriate now is, frankly, beyond me. Why were we able to talk about FEMA funding and competence after Katrina but can't talk about gun control when a madman guns down 30 people? This is the exact right time to have this discussion. People are being slaughtered. People are going to continue being slaughtered as long as any asshat hell bent on slaughtering as many people as he can before he dies can get his hands on a weapon capable of killing 20 people within minutes.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 06:16:50 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 14, 2012, 06:08:56 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 06:03:21 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 14, 2012, 05:55:23 PM
For the record, the reaction to the 1996 Dunblane primary school massacre was the banning of all handguns larger than .22 cal.
That may work for scotland, but the US..... eh. It would take a herculean effort just to collect and enforce at this point. Not to mention the 2nd Amend issue.
I don't doubt it, we all know, no change will happen as a result of this massacre. I just thought it interesting that it took us 18 months to decide on our response to that outrage.
And the response was a UK wide one, enacted by parliament, Scotland was only relevant because it was the scene of the crime and if he'd lived he'd have been convicted under Scottish laws.
True, I think the estimate of POWs in the US is 270 Million. I think it's higher.
Yeah it's might even be a couple of orders of magnitude different; I'd almost be surprised if our large handgun and subsequent complete handgun ban resulting in more than a million weapons being affected amongst a population of 56 million people.
edit;
seems like it's out by yet another order of magnitude, a bit of googling suggest at the time in Great Britain there were about 57,000 people affected by the larger than .22 cal hand gun ban.
So that's about one in a thousand people vs what in the US now ?
Most people I know own more than a few.
Also, Merithyn, I know how much you appreciate being able to feel morally superior to people, but I lost my cousin in a mass shooting incident in Utah in 2007. Put a fucking sock in it. You don't have any right to claim a more legitimate reaction to this than the one I had.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 06:29:50 PM
Merithyn, I don't give a shit if qualified, sane people want to own elephant guns or massive shotguns. The problem is that this guy was, judging by his actions, insane and almost certainly sociopathic. Now, there was today a very similar incident in a Chinese grade school, but because the crazed asshat only had a knife he wasn't able to actually kill anyone. The difference here isn't asshat but what the asshat had in his hands at the time of his attempted massacre.
But the idea that policy criticism is inappropriate now is, frankly, beyond me. Why were we able to talk about FEMA funding and competence after Katrina but can't talk about gun control when a madman guns down 30 people? This is the exact right time to have this discussion. People are being slaughtered. People are going to continue being slaughtered as long as any asshat hell bent on slaughtering as many people as he can before he dies can get his hands on a weapon capable of killing 20 people within minutes.
Because you started the discussion with ZERO information on what kind of weapon this particular madman had in his hand. You heard "gun" and went ballistic. You flew off the handle at the idea of a rifle on the scene, without any idea that it had never actually been IN THE SCHOOL. You STILL have no idea whether he had obtained the gun via legal or illegal methods.
Katrina - we knew what it was. We knew how it happened. We knew what to expect. You cannot claim the same, and to try is just assinine.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 06:33:00 PM
Also, Merithyn, I know how much you appreciate being able to feel morally superior to people, but I lost my cousin in a mass shooting incident in Utah in 2007. Put a fucking sock in it. You don't have any right to claim a more legitimate reaction to this than the one I had.
I'm not saying that I did. I'm saying that if you really want change like you claim, your methods leave a lot to be desired.
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 05:51:01 PM
I will admit to a certain amount of irrational rage today, but I don't think anything is lost by waiting until the dead are buried to start this discussion.
I agree with pretty much the rest of your post. I don't know how often these killers give off warning signs, perhaps it's more often than I thought.
My most frequent nightmare since Columbine is a school shooting nightmare. I agree that nothing is lost by rationale and calm reflection, but it is hard to resist absurd reactions like GF's "Extensive. Gun. Control." that started the discussion.
I am convinced that these things don't come out of the blue. Columbine didn't, Virginia Tech didn't, and I'd bet this one didn't. The problem is the disconnect between people recognizing a threat and anyone taking meaningful action on it. The presumption currently is that Joe Shmoe has the right to carry incredibly lethal firepower until someone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he doesn't. That assumption has no basis in the second amendment or anywhere else, IMO. The state has a reasonable power to restrict the ability of its citizens to inflict grievous bodily harm on each other when it has a reasonable suspicion that said citizen may have the desire to do so. It has to be on an individual level to pass constitutional muster, but the suspicion is going to be individual pretty much by definition.
Oh, fucking horse shit. We knew that a madman had a gun. That's a policy failure right there, and the fact that he was able to do this on substantial scale indicated that he wasn't firing a fucking muzzle-loader.
Quote from: Martinus on December 14, 2012, 06:26:04 PM
Merri, shut up and stop being a half of the Languish Power Idiot Couple.
Wow, where did that come from?
Quote from: grumbler on December 14, 2012, 06:35:40 PM
My most frequent nightmare since Columbine is a school shooting nightmare. I agree that nothing is lost by rationale and calm reflection, but it is hard to resist absurd reactions like GF's "Extensive. Gun. Control." that started the discussion.
I am convinced that these things don't come out of the blue. Columbine didn't, Virginia Tech didn't, and I'd bet this one didn't. The problem is the disconnect between people recognizing a threat and anyone taking meaningful action on it. The presumption currently is that Joe Shmoe has the right to carry incredibly lethal firepower until someone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he doesn't. That assumption has no basis in the second amendment or anywhere else, IMO. The state has a reasonable power to restrict the ability of its citizens to inflict grievous bodily harm on each other when it has a reasonable suspicion that said citizen may have the desire to do so. It has to be on an individual level to pass constitutional muster, but the suspicion is going to be individual pretty much by definition.
This, to me, seems absolutely fair.
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2012, 06:00:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2012, 05:55:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2012, 05:31:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 14, 2012, 05:24:45 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 04:22:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2012, 04:16:01 PM
Oh, give us a break with this sanctimonious bullshit. This is no tragic accident, this is a predictable and oft-repeated consequence of a tragically stupid policy we have with regards to guns. While the radical gun nuts whose idiocy kills other people "respectfully think about the victims of this tragedy" so that they don't have to think about the murderous consequences of their policies, people like myself are thinking about the victims of tomorrow's tragedy. Today's victims are already dead, tomorrow's victims don't have to be.
You can fuck right off. You're not going to fix it this week. Let people grieve and get over the shock. Then, if you haven't forgotten about it in a few days we can work toward a rational solution.
I am a bit puzzled as to how a discussion on languish about gun control - an obvious issue raised whenever something like this happens - prevents people who need to grieve from grieving.
Also, how does preventing public discourse about a potential solution help anyone?
My own take is that if people want to discuss a public policy issue as a result of a tragedy that's fine.
If people have pre-existing axes to grind, and take said tragedy as an excuse to grind said axes, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
You mean like every other political issue? Something bad happens, it catches people's attention and there is political discussion. I guess we shouldn't be talking about Syria in a political discussion cause someone might be using it have an excuse to grind an axe.
You appear to have misconstrued my argument.
If there is a tragedy in Syria, and the Israeli government uses that as an excuse for why Israel needs to keep the Golan Heights, that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Here's a better example of an asswipe using the tragedy to push for their own agenda:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/huckabee-schools-place-of-carnage-because-we-systematically
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 06:37:43 PM
Oh, fucking horse shit. We knew that a madman had a gun. That's a policy failure right there, and the fact that he was able to do this on substantial scale indicated that he wasn't firing a fucking muzzle-loader.
Really? So you know - when the police still have no clue - that this man had the gun legally? Maybe you should let the cops in on that little tidbit. As for the "substantial scale", he shot little kids. Babies. What do you think was going to happen? They were going to swarm him to get the handguns away from him? Once the six (yes, only six) adults were killed and he was in a room alone with 20 kids, he could stand there and reload and reload and reload as much as he wanted. It didn't require a massive gun to do what he did, as is obvious by the fact that he didn't have massive guns.
So no, you didn't - and still don't - have enough information to start screaming for policy changes when you don't know what the fuck happened.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 14, 2012, 06:37:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 14, 2012, 06:26:04 PM
Merri, shut up and stop being a half of the Languish Power Idiot Couple.
Wow, where did that come from?
Martinus. You're surprised? :huh:
Being an LEO, you just cant get to the scene fast enough. Sadly when it starts, people are dying until you do.
Those first few responding LEO's today, were their local cops. Can you imagine the absolute helplessness hearing that dispatched over the radio. You are automatically reactive.
Quote from: grumbler on December 14, 2012, 06:35:40 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 05:51:01 PM
I will admit to a certain amount of irrational rage today, but I don't think anything is lost by waiting until the dead are buried to start this discussion.
I agree with pretty much the rest of your post. I don't know how often these killers give off warning signs, perhaps it's more often than I thought.
My most frequent nightmare since Columbine is a school shooting nightmare. I agree that nothing is lost by rationale and calm reflection, but it is hard to resist absurd reactions like GF's "Extensive. Gun. Control." that started the discussion.
I am convinced that these things don't come out of the blue. Columbine didn't, Virginia Tech didn't, and I'd bet this one didn't. The problem is the disconnect between people recognizing a threat and anyone taking meaningful action on it. The presumption currently is that Joe Shmoe has the right to carry incredibly lethal firepower until someone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he doesn't. That assumption has no basis in the second amendment or anywhere else, IMO. The state has a reasonable power to restrict the ability of its citizens to inflict grievous bodily harm on each other when it has a reasonable suspicion that said citizen may have the desire to do so. It has to be on an individual level to pass constitutional muster, but the suspicion is going to be individual pretty much by definition.
While I agree with everything in the second part of the post, this seems like a difference in tone simply because what you are talking about would be substantially more extensive gun control. We're arguing degrees of action rather than action and inaction, and thus I don't understand why reactions like GF's and presumably my own are "absurd".
Grumbler, from everything I've ever read on this board or heard about you outside of it you seem eminently sensible, sane, and off of Languish extremely mild mannered. I cannot envision an ideal, equitable firearms legislation that would not allow you ownership of most varieties of guns currently available to similarly disposed civilians. The question is how lax we are about freely selling these weapons, when they so often end up in the hands of crazed murderers and Mexican cartels.
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2012, 03:39:12 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 03:36:08 PM
Outlaw and aggressive enforcement is the only way. What do "you" want to give up?
"Me"? Not sure what you mean here but I support the Bill of Rights. I was just discussing it as a practical matter.
If you can get rid of guns it does dramatically reduce murders and gun violence. But that would be practically impossible here, and besides the Supreme Court already ruled against Gun Control.
if the sale of new guns is regulated, as well as the legal resale of actual guns (say, assault rifle typically used for these kind of murders), over a long period of time, you will see a decrease in the number of guns circulating through the US.
But I know, that requires a Constitutional Amendment with 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States. Not gonna happen.
You can regulate the guns all you want. They are not the variable in the equation. We are.
Royal?
Quote from: merithyn on December 14, 2012, 06:42:47 PM
So no, you didn't - and still don't - have enough information to start screaming for policy changes when you don't know what the fuck happened.
Well, I'm going to guess that one of two scenarios happened.
1) He bought the guns legally.
2) He bought the guns illegally, but these guns were at some point legally sold in the United States.
If he made his own guns out of a blacksmithy he'd made in his backyard, or if he'd imported the guns from Canada or Mexico, I'll condece that my original understanding of the situation was substantially flawed enough for my criticism of policy to be rash. But that's these are the only scenarios in which this isn't a legitimate policy question, and the near impossibility of these scenarios means you have
no right to play this bullshit moral upper ground.
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2012, 03:32:42 PM
Much more effective, IMO, would be to put serious resources into mental health issues, and to overhaul the laws relating to the mentally ill. I dunno about the US, but in Ontario at least it is very difficult (really, impossible) to legally and sensibly deal with someone who is crazy and appears to be dangerous - I've seen that first hand.
Easy gun access + mental diseases = explosive combo.
Unfortunately, no easy way to deal with the issue. In socialized medicine, you have to deal with the lack of offer for a nearly unlimited demand. Just about everyone feeling "depressed" will want to see a shrink if it's free or nearly free.
If you need to pay for these services, than it's likely that the people really needing it won't get access to it.
And then you have the issue of individual liberty. Where do you draw the line between someone "a little bit weird" and a total psychopath, before he acts? Luka Rocco Magnota might have seemed a little bit weird to people who knew him, but it's only once he killed his first human victim that he was considered a psychopath. By then, it's too late.
Some people are able to act normally under the influence of their meds, but how can you make sure they do take it? It's often up to the family to watch this, but it's not like it's easy to supervise an adult. Either he lives outside of your house and you have no real control, or he lives in his own private quarter and you don't really intrude on him.
My uncle was always a little bit weird, but up 'til the moment he picked the gun and shot himself, no one thought he was really sick. And it's not something family easily discuss with neighbours, friends and even family: "oh my son, he's kinda nuts, you know, but I think he's ok, I don't think he's gonna shoot anyone with my hunting rifles, you know".
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 06:51:27 PM
You can regulate the guns all you want. They are not the variable in the equation. We are.
they are a variable in the equation, just as the human beings committing these crimes.
Unless you find a way to regulate human beings, you'll have to tackle the other issue at some point: easy access to guns for anyone is problematic. At least some form of psychic eval before you get a license to own and/or carry a gun. Especially semi automatic rifle. Severe laws about gun handling too. Don't tell me it's normal to leave guns when kids have easy access to.
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2012, 06:42:18 PM
Here's a better example of an asswipe using the tragedy to push for their own agenda:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/huckabee-schools-place-of-carnage-because-we-systematically
Wow, if that reporting is accurate, then that's some asshattery.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 06:44:04 PM
Being an LEO, you just cant get to the scene fast enough. Sadly when it starts, people are dying until you do.
Those first few responding LEO's today, were their local cops. Can you imagine the absolute helplessness hearing that dispatched over the radio. You are automatically reactive.
Yeah, sad and an unenviable position to be in.
Say if all schools had the equivalent of a sky marshal, one teacher/member of staff allowed to be permanently armed and ready to reach within the school buildings, leaving aside any entry guards the school might have, would that be any better or would it just offer the opportunity for an additional once a decade tragedy to be committed by that individual.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 06:54:36 PM
But that's these are the only scenarios in which this isn't a legitimate policy question, and the near impossibility of these scenarios means you have no right to play this bullshit moral upper ground.
It isn't about a moral high ground. It's about having a relatively rational and informed discussion about a serious issue here in the states. People like you are as much the reason why nothing gets done as the NRA nutjobs. The worst part is that neither of you see yourselves as the problem.
Quote from: merithyn on December 14, 2012, 07:07:47 PMIt isn't about a moral high ground. It's about having a relatively rational and informed discussion about a serious issue here in the states. People like you are as much the reason why nothing gets done as the NRA nutjobs. The worst part is that neither of you see yourselves as the problem.
People who want gun control in response to a mass shooting are as much part of the reason nothing gets done about gun control as the people who want nothing done about gun control?
I'm sorry Meri, but that's absurd.
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2012, 06:58:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2012, 03:32:42 PM
Much more effective, IMO, would be to put serious resources into mental health issues, and to overhaul the laws relating to the mentally ill. I dunno about the US, but in Ontario at least it is very difficult (really, impossible) to legally and sensibly deal with someone who is crazy and appears to be dangerous - I've seen that first hand.
Easy gun access + mental diseases = explosive combo.
Unfortunately, no easy way to deal with the issue. In socialized medicine, you have to deal with the lack of offer for a nearly unlimited demand. Just about everyone feeling "depressed" will want to see a shrink if it's free or nearly free.
If you need to pay for these services, than it's likely that the people really needing it won't get access to it.
And then you have the issue of individual liberty. Where do you draw the line between someone "a little bit weird" and a total psychopath, before he acts? Luka Rocco Magnota might have seemed a little bit weird to people who knew him, but it's only once he killed his first human victim that he was considered a psychopath. By then, it's too late.
Some people are able to act normally under the influence of their meds, but how can you make sure they do take it? It's often up to the family to watch this, but it's not like it's easy to supervise an adult. Either he lives outside of your house and you have no real control, or he lives in his own private quarter and you don't really intrude on him.
My uncle was always a little bit weird, but up 'til the moment he picked the gun and shot himself, no one thought he was really sick. And it's not something family easily discuss with neighbours, friends and even family: "oh my son, he's kinda nuts, you know, but I think he's ok, I don't think he's gonna shoot anyone with my hunting rifles, you know".
From my limited experience, the main problem seems to be that some mentally ill people do not *want* treatment, and there is effectively no legal mechanism for dealing with that.
Of course there is a balance of issues here. My impression is that, in the past, the balance was weighed heavily in favour of harsh intervention and incarceration of the mentally ill. Then, laws were reformed to redress the abuses this generated - but the pendulum swung too far in the other direction: now it is very difficult if not impossible to deal with the mentally ill who do not wish to be treated. The families of those who are mentally ill are effectively left to cope with it as best they can (or not, as the case may be).
I've seen several unfortunate examples of this in "real life".
Quote from: mongers on December 14, 2012, 07:01:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2012, 06:42:18 PM
Here's a better example of an asswipe using the tragedy to push for their own agenda:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/huckabee-schools-place-of-carnage-because-we-systematically
Wow, if that reporting is accurate, then that's some asshattery.
Yup. What a tool. Assuming of course it is accurate.
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2012, 06:46:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2012, 03:39:12 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 03:36:08 PM
Outlaw and aggressive enforcement is the only way. What do "you" want to give up?
"Me"? Not sure what you mean here but I support the Bill of Rights. I was just discussing it as a practical matter.
If you can get rid of guns it does dramatically reduce murders and gun violence. But that would be practically impossible here, and besides the Supreme Court already ruled against Gun Control.
if the sale of new guns is regulated, as well as the legal resale of actual guns (say, assault rifle typically used for these kind of murders), over a long period of time, you will see a decrease in the number of guns circulating through the US.
I dont think so. I agree with Malthus' point that the reason we have fewer guns in Canada is cultural not legal. Even if gun laws in the US were tightened people who want them could get them. In this case I think the law has to follow not lead.
Although I think Grumbler's point is well taken that there has to be a mechanism to better screen people who wish to obtain firearms.
Quote from: mongers on December 14, 2012, 07:07:00 PM
Yeah, sad and an unenviable position to be in.
Say if all schools had the equivalent of a sky marshal, one teacher/member of staff allowed to be permanently armed and ready to reach within the school buildings, leaving aside any entry guards the school might have, would that be any better or would it just offer the opportunity for an additional once a decade tragedy to be committed by that individual.
The schools here have a uniformed police officer on duty. I think it's just one for the entire district though. I seem to recall a story about one of the kids going for his gun once. I don't think they carry them in the school anymore.
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2012, 07:12:41 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 14, 2012, 07:07:47 PMIt isn't about a moral high ground. It's about having a relatively rational and informed discussion about a serious issue here in the states. People like you are as much the reason why nothing gets done as the NRA nutjobs. The worst part is that neither of you see yourselves as the problem.
People who want gun control in response to a mass shooting are as much part of the reason nothing gets done about gun control as the people who want nothing done about gun control?
I'm sorry Meri, but that's absurd.
Then you weren't following the whole thread. People who start screaming about gun control and policy changes citing a mass shooting with zero information on how those may have helped - or not - are no different than people screaming that if everyone had been carrying a gun none of this would have happened. They're screaming to hear their own voices, not to actually affect real and useful change.
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2012, 07:00:55 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 06:51:27 PM
You can regulate the guns all you want. They are not the variable in the equation. We are.
they are a variable in the equation, just as the human beings committing these crimes.
I disagree. Guns either
1. Do nothing
2. when used, destroy what's in their trajectory
Bottom line. Humans are the varible.
Quote from: Maximus on December 14, 2012, 07:16:38 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 14, 2012, 07:07:00 PM
Yeah, sad and an unenviable position to be in.
Say if all schools had the equivalent of a sky marshal, one teacher/member of staff allowed to be permanently armed and ready to reach within the school buildings, leaving aside any entry guards the school might have, would that be any better or would it just offer the opportunity for an additional once a decade tragedy to be committed by that individual.
The schools here have a uniformed police officer on duty. I think it's just one for the entire district though. I seem to recall a story about one of the kids going for his gun once. I don't think they carry them in the school anymore.
Each of the middle schools and high schools have officers on campus. A student did grab for the officer at Riley's school's gun. E was stopped and arrested. The officer still carries his gun on campus.
Quote from: merithyn on December 14, 2012, 07:21:19 PMThen you weren't following the whole thread. People who start screaming about gun control and policy changes citing a mass shooting with zero information on how those may have helped - or not - are no different than people screaming that if everyone had been carrying a gun none of this would have happened. They're screaming to hear their own voices, not to actually affect real and useful change.
And people screaming in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy is the reason nothing is done about the problem?
I don't think so.
Furthermore, as I said upthread, I think screaming for gun control in the aftermath of a gun tragedy is a perfectly natural form of grieving and of coping with the situation. Like you said, let people grieve, then once there is a little bit of time and distance from the tragedy, start working on rational solutions.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 07:25:57 PM
I disagree. Guns either
1. Do nothing
2. when used, destroy what's in their trajectory
Bottom line. Humans are the varible.
Well, if you have a person with a gun, intent on killing as many people as possible, you're looking at a tragedy about to happen.
If you change the intent of the person, as you suggest, then the tragedy is likely averted.
However, if you remove the gun from the person, then the magnitude of the tragedy is likely significantly lessened.
Both are variables.
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2012, 07:31:26 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 07:25:57 PM
I disagree. Guns either
1. Do nothing
2. when used, destroy what's in their trajectory
Bottom line. Humans are the varible.
Well, if you have a person with a gun, intent on killing as many people as possible, you're looking at a tragedy about to happen.
If you change the intent of the person, as you suggest, then the tragedy is likely averted.
However, if you remove the gun from the person, then the magnitude of the tragedy is likely significantly lessened.
Both are variables.
Which is predictable?
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 07:25:57 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2012, 07:00:55 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 06:51:27 PM
You can regulate the guns all you want. They are not the variable in the equation. We are.
they are a variable in the equation, just as the human beings committing these crimes.
I disagree. Guns either
1. Do nothing
2. when used, destroy what's in their trajectory
Bottom line. Humans are the varible.
I don't disagree, but I think Grumbler has a point in the fearsome effectiveness of these modern weapons as they relate to the 2nd amendment.
This guy might well have killed the majority of the children, not with an 'assault rifle' which incidentally seems to raise the temperature of any debate, but with a couple of modern highly effective semi-automatic pistols, things that seem a world away from even the Webley type revolvers my great-grandfather's generation had in the trenches.
And I guess the same sort of weapons you guys have to be in an arms race with to outmatch them.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 07:34:06 PMWhich is predictable?
I'm not sure what you mean by the question...
Quote from: mongers on December 14, 2012, 07:36:05 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 07:25:57 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2012, 07:00:55 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 06:51:27 PM
You can regulate the guns all you want. They are not the variable in the equation. We are.
they are a variable in the equation, just as the human beings committing these crimes.
I disagree. Guns either
1. Do nothing
2. when used, destroy what's in their trajectory
Bottom line. Humans are the varible.
I don't disagree, but I think Grumbler has a point in the fearsome effectiveness of these modern weapons as they relate to the 2nd amendment.
This guy might well have killed the majority of the children, not with an 'assault rifle' which incidentally seems to raise the temperature of any debate, but with a couple of modern highly effective semi-automatic pistols, things that seem a world away from even the Webley type revolvers my great-grandfather's generation had in the trenches.
And I guess the same sort of weapons you guys have to be in an arms race with to outmatch them.
Yes
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2012, 07:28:46 PM
And people screaming in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy is the reason nothing is done about the problem?
I don't think so.
I don't remember saying this, but then, you don't seem to care what I say or don't say, so it doesn't really matter.
Quote
Furthermore, as I said upthread, I think screaming for gun control in the aftermath of a gun tragedy is a perfectly natural form of grieving and of coping with the situation. Like you said, let people grieve, then once there is a little bit of time and distance from the tragedy, start working on rational solutions.
Fair enough. It's why I suggested that another thread be opened. The two forms of grieving were at odds with one another, I felt it most appropriate to separate them.
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2012, 07:37:58 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 07:34:06 PMWhich is predictable?
I'm not sure what you mean by the question...
The gun isnt going to shoot by itself. The gun doesnt decide that.
Any time anyone suffers some loss the feeling of powerlessness leads to an urge to control. Build structures in the chaos to keep out the bears and all that.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 07:44:11 PMThe gun isnt going to shoot by itself. The gun doesnt decide that.
True enough.
To me that would suggest that removing the gun is the more predictable way to deal with these tragedies, as it is the more predictable variable.
Quote from: merithyn on December 14, 2012, 07:43:26 PMI don't remember saying this, but then, you don't seem to care what I say or don't say, so it doesn't really matter.
You said
QuotePeople like you are as much the reason why nothing gets done as the NRA nutjobs. The worst part is that neither of you see yourselves as the problem.
and elaborated by saying
QuotePeople who start screaming about gun control and policy changes citing a mass shooting with zero information on how those may have helped - or not - are no different than people screaming that if everyone had been carrying a gun none of this would have happened. They're screaming to hear their own voices, not to actually affect real and useful change.
That to me suggested that you were saying that people who scream for gun control and policy changes (with zero information) are just as much the reason why nothing gets done as the NRA nutjobs. Like I said, I think that's absurd.
If that's not what you meant, I apologize for misunderstanding you; however, it leaves me unclear what point you were making.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 07:44:11 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2012, 07:37:58 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 07:34:06 PMWhich is predictable?
I'm not sure what you mean by the question...
The gun isnt going to shoot by itself. The gun doesnt decide that.
True, but if you have someone with a handgun, you have someone who is thinking murderous thoughts. The whole point of handguns is to kill humans.
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2012, 07:59:45 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 14, 2012, 07:43:26 PMI don't remember saying this, but then, you don't seem to care what I say or don't say, so it doesn't really matter.
You said QuotePeople like you are as much the reason why nothing gets done as the NRA nutjobs. The worst part is that neither of you see yourselves as the problem.
and elaborated by saying QuotePeople who start screaming about gun control and policy changes citing a mass shooting with zero information on how those may have helped - or not - are no different than people screaming that if everyone had been carrying a gun none of this would have happened. They're screaming to hear their own voices, not to actually affect real and useful change.
That to me suggested that you were saying that people who scream for gun control and policy changes (with zero information) are just as much the reason why nothing gets done as the NRA nutjobs. Like I said, I think that's absurd.
If that's not what you meant, I apologize for misunderstanding you; however, it leaves me unclear what point you were making.
The part in parenthesis is not an addendum but the actual point.
And it's still flat out absurd not to assume that an American civilian madman with a handgun didn't qt some point benefit from lax gun regulations somewhere in the United States. Your point is still obviously invalid.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 08:19:42 PM
And it's still flat out absurd not to assume that an American civilian madman with a handgun didn't qt some point benefit from lax gun regulations somewhere in the United States. Your point is still obviously invalid.
:huh:
At some point, a madman with a bomb benefited from lax library laws and learned how to build an explosive. Should we then tighten all laws regarding what people can check out?
That's an absurd statement to cover the fact that your statements in the immediate aftermath made no sense and were based entirely on gun control rhetoric and not at all on the situation at hand.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 07:44:11 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2012, 07:37:58 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 07:34:06 PMWhich is predictable?
I'm not sure what you mean by the question...
The gun isnt going to shoot by itself. The gun doesnt decide that.
And a person isnt going to shoot without one. You need both a person and a gun for a person to shoot a gun. The argument that only the person is a variable is a bit absurd.
Complete non sequitor, Merithyn. You are flailing.
We have q policy meant to prevent this. This keeps happening. It happens again. Examining the policy is the only rational option.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 14, 2012, 08:28:48 PM
And a person isnt going to shoot without one. You need both a person and a gun for a person to shoot a gun. The argument that only the person is a variable is a bit absurd.
The problem is not with dirty bombs, the problem is with the people who want to explode them in densely populated places.
You can keep trying to ride this false equivalency train as long as you like, but that was one of the most angrily worded posts that's ever been directed at me and all of the assumptions you made it on were horseshit.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 14, 2012, 08:28:48 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 07:44:11 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2012, 07:37:58 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 07:34:06 PMWhich is predictable?
I'm not sure what you mean by the question...
The gun isnt going to shoot by itself. The gun doesnt decide that.
And a person isnt going to shoot without one. You need both a person and a gun for a person to shoot a gun. The argument that only the person is a variable is a bit absurd.
The person decides to pull the trigger at another human being.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 08:30:46 PM
Complete non sequitor, Merithyn. You are flailing.
We have q policy meant to prevent this. This keeps happening. It happens again. Examining the policy is the only rational option.
If you can't see how your response could at the very least be considered over-the-top and therefore liable to turn reasonable people off to your way of thinking, then there's no point in continuing this discussion.
Squeelus, I think virtually everyone in this country would agree that madmen should not have access to firearms. The issue is how to implement it.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 07:25:57 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2012, 07:00:55 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 06:51:27 PM
You can regulate the guns all you want. They are not the variable in the equation. We are.
they are a variable in the equation, just as the human beings committing these crimes.
I disagree. Guns either
1. Do nothing
2. when used, destroy what's in their trajectory
Bottom line. Humans are the varible.
I disagree. Atomic bombs either
1. Do nothing
2. when used, destroy what's in their trajectory
Bottom line. Humans are the varible.
Yet, you can't have them in your homes.
I'm not sure where to put this thought, so here will do.
Can anyone explain to me how one attempted shoe bomber equals removing our shoes at airports, but regular massacres don't equal gun control?
Shamelessly stolen from social media.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 03:19:28 PM
Probably a good idea.
Look, we've gone through this how many times this year? People are massacred, hecklers scream about how it's "not the time for politics", and then everyone forgets about it within two weeks. It's a sick process.
Yet violent crime rates and gun crime rates continue to decrease. Nobody gives a shit when gang-bangers splat each other all over the pavement. So, there you go, giving a fuck when it ain't your turn to give a fuck.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 08:35:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 14, 2012, 08:28:48 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 07:44:11 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2012, 07:37:58 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 07:34:06 PMWhich is predictable?
I'm not sure what you mean by the question...
The gun isnt going to shoot by itself. The gun doesnt decide that.
And a person isnt going to shoot without one. You need both a person and a gun for a person to shoot a gun. The argument that only the person is a variable is a bit absurd.
The person decides to pull the trigger at another human being.
Yes, but I think you would agree that if there was no trigger to pull the decision becomes moot.
Quote from: Scipio on December 14, 2012, 09:37:46 PM
Yet violent crime rates and gun crime rates continue to decrease.
Meh, that's a little debatable, as public agencies have a habit of fucking with statistics for their own purposes.
QuoteNobody gives a shit when gang-bangers splat each other all over the pavement. So, there you go, giving a fuck when it ain't your turn to give a fuck.
Exactly. Why be shocked over mass shootings when it's happening every day.
People smoke, knowing full well they can get cancer. Alcohol is legal and people drink, knowing full well they can turn their automobile into a 2 ton weapon. It's our right to do so, and it's our right to demand relatively unfettered access to firearms. Incidents like today are simply the price of admission for living in America.
So, sorry kids. Wrong place, wrong time. It happens. You just happened to have rolled snake eyes in the American casino of life. At least you got it out of the way early.
The only real public policy alternative in all this is not to prevent school shootings, but to hope it's not your kids' school. There are no other viable alternatives left.
Quote from: Scipio on December 14, 2012, 09:37:46 PM
Yet violent crime rates and gun crime rates continue to decrease. Nobody gives a shit when gang-bangers splat each other all over the pavement. So, there you go, giving a fuck when it ain't your turn to give a fuck.
I think the problem of gang violence and mass shootings are quite a bit different. How many indiscriminate mass shootings a year did they have in 1920s Sicily?
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2012, 10:06:50 PM
Quote from: Scipio on December 14, 2012, 09:37:46 PM
Yet violent crime rates and gun crime rates continue to decrease. Nobody gives a shit when gang-bangers splat each other all over the pavement. So, there you go, giving a fuck when it ain't your turn to give a fuck.
I think the problem of gang violence and mass shootings are quite a bit different. How many indiscriminate mass shootings a year did they have in 1920s Sicily?
Ah, so if gangs and all the other daily gun murders simply saved up all their shootings for one day instead of spreading it out over the course of the year, that would make it OK. Gotcha.
Quote
If you can't see how your response could at the very least be considered over-the-top and therefore liable to turn reasonable people off to your way of thinking, then there's no point in continuing this discussion.
My reaction was stereotypicaly liberal. It also wasn't totally irrational. I don't think there's a good reason for garden variety civilians to own M4s. I think the fact that this asshat owned one should have set off something on somebody's radar, though I have no way of knowing how tightly regulated the M4 is.
I also think your reaction to my post was almost entirely unearned. I'm an excitable poster and I posted an excited post. Your Centrist screed blaming gun control activists for gun violence and repeatedly calling me all types of 7th Grade names was far, far more over the top than my "what was he doing with an assault rifle, why are those legal" liberal post.
Also, what decade are you living in, Merithyn? The NRA won a decade ago. Hard blue states are passing concealed carry laws.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 14, 2012, 10:08:56 PM
Ah, so if gangs and all the other daily gun murders simply saved up all their shootings for one day instead of spreading it out over the course of the year, that would make it OK. Gotcha.
A smart policy against one wouldn't necessarily work against the other. Different forms of gun violence exist. :huh:
Pretty horrible that people are supporting pathetic gun control laws even in light of this incident. At the least it should be a case of saying something should be done then forgetting about it a few days later.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 14, 2012, 09:56:15 PM
Quote from: Scipio on December 14, 2012, 09:37:46 PM
Yet violent crime rates and gun crime rates continue to decrease.
Meh, that's a little debatable, as public agencies have a habit of fucking with statistics for their own purposes.
QuoteNobody gives a shit when gang-bangers splat each other all over the pavement. So, there you go, giving a fuck when it ain't your turn to give a fuck.
Exactly. Why be shocked over mass shootings when it's happening every day.
People smoke, knowing full well they can get cancer. Alcohol is legal and people drink, knowing full well they can turn their automobile into a 2 ton weapon. It's our right to do so, and it's our right to demand relatively unfettered access to firearms. Incidents like today are simply the price of admission for living in America.
So, sorry kids. Wrong place, wrong time. It happens. You just happened to have rolled snake eyes in the American casino of life. At least you got it out of the way early.
The only real public policy alternative in all this is not to prevent school shootings, but to hope it's not your kids' school. There are no other viable alternatives left.
That's almost poetic. :(
Couldn't think of something to rhyme with "dead kids".
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2012, 08:32:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 14, 2012, 08:28:48 PM
And a person isnt going to shoot without one. You need both a person and a gun for a person to shoot a gun. The argument that only the person is a variable is a bit absurd.
The problem is not with dirty bombs, the problem is with the people who want to explode them in densely populated places.
Dirty bombs are retarded. That's why so little is done to prevent their use.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 06:44:04 PM
Being an LEO, you just cant get to the scene fast enough. Sadly when it starts, people are dying until you do.
Those first few responding LEO's today, were their local cops. Can you imagine the absolute helplessness hearing that dispatched over the radio. You are automatically reactive.
I think the shooter was a GEMINI. :secret:
'If the news coverage is any guide, there has been a change of tone in recent years in the public conversation about guns. The two-word phrase "gun control" is being used considerably less often than it was 10 or 20 years ago. But the phrase "gun rights" is being used more often. And the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is being invoked more frequently in the discussion.'
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/in-public-conversation-on-guns-a-rhetorical-shift/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F12%2F14%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2F14fivethirtyeight-guns2%2F14fivethirtyeight-guns2-blog480.png&hash=e27de36ae6fd4d1033f8791e5c5b19adb3c49ea1)
Quote from: Martinus on December 15, 2012, 01:57:57 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 06:44:04 PM
Being an LEO, you just cant get to the scene fast enough. Sadly when it starts, people are dying until you do.
Those first few responding LEO's today, were their local cops. Can you imagine the absolute helplessness hearing that dispatched over the radio. You are automatically reactive.
I think the shooter was a GEMINI. :secret:
Aren't you special.
Quote from: Phillip V on December 15, 2012, 02:10:42 AM
'If the news coverage is any guide, there has been a change of tone in recent years in the public conversation about guns. The two-word phrase "gun control" is being used considerably less often than it was 10 or 20 years ago. But the phrase "gun rights" is being used more often. And the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is being invoked more frequently in the discussion.'
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/in-public-conversation-on-guns-a-rhetorical-shift/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F12%2F14%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2F14fivethirtyeight-guns2%2F14fivethirtyeight-guns2-blog480.png&hash=e27de36ae6fd4d1033f8791e5c5b19adb3c49ea1)
I'm always perplexed by the Americans' attitude towards guns. I - and most people I know - never owned a gun and never even think of owning a gun, yet it seems such a central piece of many Americans' lives, with a lot of people owning guns. Why is it such a fetish for you guys?
Freedom fetish.
Quote from: Martinus on December 15, 2012, 03:42:33 AM
I'm always perplexed by the Americans' attitude towards guns. I - and most people I know - never owned a gun and never even think of owning a gun, yet it seems such a central piece of many Americans' lives, with a lot of people owning guns. Why is it such a fetish for you guys?
We never had the opportunity to adopt the age old European pastime of killing Jews for fun, so we found a different hobby.
Quote from: Martinus on December 15, 2012, 03:42:33 AM
I'm always perplexed by the Americans' attitude towards guns. I - and most people I know - never owned a gun and never even think of owning a gun, yet it seems such a central piece of many Americans' lives, with a lot of people owning guns. Why is it such a fetish for you guys?
They are toys. They allow adults to fantasize about being a big hero and stopping criminals/foreigners/the evil government.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2012, 09:36:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 15, 2012, 03:42:33 AM
I'm always perplexed by the Americans' attitude towards guns. I - and most people I know - never owned a gun and never even think of owning a gun, yet it seems such a central piece of many Americans' lives, with a lot of people owning guns. Why is it such a fetish for you guys?
They are toys. They allow adults to fantasize about being a big hero and stopping criminals/foreigners/the evil government.
:hmm:
For some, perhaps for many this might be an explanation.
I know it varies from state to state, but what is the general process of buying a gun legally in the US? Is a case of turning up with paperwork and the money, or do you have to go through a more rigorous registration and licencing process?
Quote from: Warspite on December 15, 2012, 10:21:12 AM
I know it varies from state to state, but what is the general process of buying a gun legally in the US? Is a case of turning up with paperwork and the money, or do you have to go through a more rigorous registration and licencing process?
Typically:
1. Go to sporting good store and pick out any rifle, shotgun, or handgun sold there.
2. Pay for it.
3. Wait while a computerized background check is ran.
4.. Go home.
That's the default. You don't need to have any special license to buy the gun, there isn't typically a waiting period, or etc.
A few States are more restrictive, but there are a lot more States where the above is the procedure than anything else. Some States have a "waiting period" on handgun purchases, a very small number of States require a owner license to buy firearms. A very small number of States strictly regulated the type of firearm (California for example.) People often believe there is a handgun waiting period Federally, this is not true. When the Brady Bill (named after a Reagan Press Secretary whose brain got blown open by Ronald Reagan's would-be assassin and whose wife went on a gun control crusade) first became law there was a 5 day waiting period but the law stipulated that in 1998 when the computerized NICS system was in place an instant computerized background check would replace the waiting period. A small number of States have separate waiting period laws designed to prevent people in a state of passion from buying a gun, but that's rare.
In Virginia the background check is done both through VFTP and NICS, the VFTP is the State-level criminal background database, and for State offenses is actually a lot more complete and accurate than NICS. In Virginia typically the only thing that would stop me from going out right now and coming home with a gun would be a "false hit" in the NICS of VFTP system which would prohibit the gun dealer from selling to me. I'd have to go get that resolved. However, gun shows are unregulated here, and are a constant occurrence. I can go to a gun show today and buy a gun and not even have to get the background check.
A small class of weapons are regulated under the National Firearms Act, basically fully automatic weapons and specific types of military ordinance. These are not generally carried in any stores, and can only be transferred under strict guidelines and permits to own such weapons can be hard to get.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 14, 2012, 08:35:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 14, 2012, 08:28:48 PM
And a person isnt going to shoot without one. You need both a person and a gun for a person to shoot a gun. The argument that only the person is a variable is a bit absurd.
The person decides to pull the trigger at another human being.
The problem with each side of this is that neither are addressing the same thing. Beefor seems to be saying that while a gun is a force multiplier, if that human force (violence) is zero (or next to it) than it doesn't matter. CC is saying that humans will be violent and therefore guns should go.
Given the genie is out of the bottle on guns in the USA, ending gun in the hands of crazies, stoopids, or ijits is not going to happen any time soon. However, I do not know of a way to limit these groups and their inability to live in the modern world or have the state control the crazies
Quote from: PDH on December 15, 2012, 11:30:44 AM
Given the genie is out of the bottle on guns in the USA, ending gun in the hands of crazies, stoopids, or ijits is not going to happen any time soon. However, I do not know of a way to limit these groups and their inability to live in the modern world or have the state control the crazies
I agree, the US is too far down the road in its gun culture for a change in the law to make any difference. But the argument that guns are not inherently dangerous is absurd - ie the guns dont shoot people, people shoot people mantra of the gun nuts.
Here is what typifies a "gun haven" state in the U.S.:
1. Shall-issue concealed carry permits. States typically have may issue or shall issue concealed carry permits. Shall issue means if a citizen applies for a concealed carry permit, and passes usually a handgun safety course, the State issues the permit. The permit issuer cannot discriminate or choose not to issue the permit to a citizen who has met the requirements. A may issue State, you typically have to meet some requirements (usually more rigorous than the paltry safety training in a may issue State) and then file an application typically with a local law enforcement agency (city police or county sheriff.) Then the police have the discretion to either say "this guy can get a concealed carry permit." It is 100% up to their discretion, and they may decide not to issue one. In some States this essentially means only celebrities, politicians, and former police or such will ever get a concealed carry permit. However some States with may issue permits, the issuers generally will allow regular citizens to have a permit as long as they don't set off any alarm bells.
2. No licensing requirements to purchase firearms.
3. No firearms registration. (Meaning no government entity knows how many or which guns you have purchased.)
This is the law in about 39 States. The rest of the States vary, for example Alabama, is may issue but there is no registration or license required to buy any firearm. California is may issue, prohibits certain classes of firearms, and requires a license to purchase most types of handguns, and has registration of ownership. Connecticut is may issue, requires a license to purchase handguns, but doesn't require registration of any guns. Delaware is may issue, but there is no license to purchase or any registration of firearms.
Even in the States generally considered to have the most restrictive firearms laws (California, New Jersey, Illinois, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts) it is still very easy compared to almost any other country on earth to legally buy a gun. Typically in those States, it is easier than getting a driver's license for the first time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2012, 11:35:03 AM
I agree, the US is too far down the road in its gun culture for a change in the law to make any difference. But the argument that guns are not inherently dangerous is absurd - ie the guns dont shoot people, people shoot people mantra of the gun nuts.
I'm a gun owner but am distrustful of the masses and think it should be tightly regulated. I think aside from a few minor quirks in banning specific weapons I do not believe should be banned, much of continental Europe has reasonable gun laws. In Germany for example almost every gun I own would be legal. In Germany there is a five gun limit without a special collector's permit, which I would probably qualify for, but in the whole they are reasonable gun control regimes.
The gun problem is a beast with several legs that I've identified:
1. Any reasonable reforms are blocked by what I call the "gun diehards" or "gun nuts." These people, despite their inanity and stupidity, mostly
are not dangerous or the ones committing crimes. They are the ones with large arsenals who masturbate furiously to guns and have an unhealthy relationship with guns. However by and large, they are also the people who would be
most likely to be able to successfully comply with the storage, educational, and etc requirements under say, German gun control law (aside from limitations on total number of firearms.) Where these people are part of the problem, is they are intrinsically paranoid. They believe
any gun control is a covert effort to ban all guns, so they oppose all gun control.
2. Historical and cultural reasons has lead to widespread gun availability for many years. This means there are a large number of "casual owners" who do not fall into the gun nut category, but own 2-3 guns. These casual owners are more likely than the gun nuts to unsafely store firearms. The mother of the Connecticut shooter would probably fall into this category, she had three guns and her son had easy access to them. These people most likely would not own guns if there was a German style licensing regime. They are not gun nuts, so they would look at such a licensing regime and simply not bother with the effort. But because of the history behind guns in America, there are a ton of casual gun owners, and any laws designed to force them to take more responsibility for the guns they own (ex: storage laws, strict penalties for their guns being used by other people etc) are blocked by the gun nuts and their powerful political machine.
3. The above two legs, the gun nuts blocking any reasonable gun control and the large number of casual owners who buy guns because it's so easy and they might want 2-3 of them, means that it is very easy for the "true undesirables" to get guns. These are the people like John Holmes or Adam Lanza. Because of the gun nuts there are few ways you can stop them from
legally buying guns. And because we've had this situation for so long, even if you could put something in place like Germany has (mandatory psychological evaluation for people under age 25 who want a firearm license--a very reasonable thing, as young adults are disproportionately the most likely to commit all gun homicides and spree shootings) it wouldn't matter. There are so many casual gun owners that most of these people could just rummage through their parents house and find a hand gun, or find a friend who would loan or sell them a gun.
4. Because of the confluence of the other three legs, people are convinced any reform is impossible and thus not worth pursuing.
Personally, I disagree with that fourth point, but it's one reason would-be reformers have basically abandoned the issue. I think if you had a gun licensing and control regime in place, over time it would make less gun owners. Far fewer casual gun owners would buy guns because it would inconvenient. In a few generations, most guns would be concentrated in the hands of the gun nuts or casual owners who had just inherited them. At that point, you could start imposing some laws to try and "claw back" the guns in the casuals by passing some stricter laws. At that point, guys like Adam Lanza or John Holmes would have a much harder time getting a gun, because of the gun control laws in place and the fact that a few generations of more limited gun ownership has made it harder to get guns otherwise.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2012, 11:35:03 AM
I agree, the US is too far down the road in its gun culture for a change in the law to make any difference. But the argument that guns are not inherently dangerous is absurd - ie the guns dont shoot people, people shoot people mantra of the gun nuts.
I'm not sure (it is just how I read it) that Beefor was arguing that - rather I got that he was saying it is the person's desire for violent acts that takes the latent power of the gun and makes that violence far worse. If that was what he was arguing, I must admit that I am not nearly as optimistic as he is about finding a way to make people in modern society less violent without a totalitarian like state.
And you are right, since modern society IS violent, having such force multipliers easy to access just makes things worse.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 15, 2012, 11:57:26 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2012, 11:35:03 AM
I agree, the US is too far down the road in its gun culture for a change in the law to make any difference. But the argument that guns are not inherently dangerous is absurd - ie the guns dont shoot people, people shoot people mantra of the gun nuts.
I'm a gun owner but am distrustful of the masses and think it should be tightly regulated. I think aside from a few minor quirks in banning specific weapons I do not believe should be banned, much of continental Europe has reasonable gun laws. In Germany for example almost every gun I own would be legal. In Germany there is a five gun limit without a special collector's permit, which I would probably qualify for, but in the whole they are reasonable gun control regimes.
The gun problem is a beast with several legs that I've identified:
1. Any reasonable reforms are blocked by what I call the "gun diehards" or "gun nuts." These people, despite their inanity and stupidity, mostly are not dangerous or the ones committing crimes. They are the ones with large arsenals who masturbate furiously to guns and have an unhealthy relationship with guns. However by and large, they are also the people who would be most likely to be able to successfully comply with the storage, educational, and etc requirements under say, German gun control law (aside from limitations on total number of firearms.) Where these people are part of the problem, is they are intrinsically paranoid. They believe any gun control is a covert effort to ban all guns, so they oppose all gun control.
2. Historical and cultural reasons has lead to widespread gun availability for many years. This means there are a large number of "casual owners" who do not fall into the gun nut category, but own 2-3 guns. These casual owners are more likely than the gun nuts to unsafely store firearms. The mother of the Connecticut shooter would probably fall into this category, she had three guns and her son had easy access to them. These people most likely would not own guns if there was a German style licensing regime. They are not gun nuts, so they would look at such a licensing regime and simply not bother with the effort. But because of the history behind guns in America, there are a ton of casual gun owners, and any laws designed to force them to take more responsibility for the guns they own (ex: storage laws, strict penalties for their guns being used by other people etc) are blocked by the gun nuts and their powerful political machine.
3. The above two legs, the gun nuts blocking any reasonable gun control and the large number of casual owners who buy guns because it's so easy and they might want 2-3 of them, means that it is very easy for the "true undesirables" to get guns. These are the people like John Holmes or Adam Lanza. Because of the gun nuts there are few ways you can stop them from legally buying guns. And because we've had this situation for so long, even if you could put something in place like Germany has (mandatory psychological evaluation for people under age 25 who want a firearm license--a very reasonable thing, as young adults are disproportionately the most likely to commit all gun homicides and spree shootings) it wouldn't matter. There are so many casual gun owners that most of these people could just rummage through their parents house and find a hand gun, or find a friend who would loan or sell them a gun.
4. Because of the confluence of the other three legs, people are convinced any reform is impossible and thus not worth pursuing.
Personally, I disagree with that fourth point, but it's one reason would-be reformers have basically abandoned the issue. I think if you had a gun licensing and control regime in place, over time it would make less gun owners. Far fewer casual gun owners would buy guns because it would inconvenient. In a few generations, most guns would be concentrated in the hands of the gun nuts or casual owners who had just inherited them. At that point, you could start imposing some laws to try and "claw back" the guns in the casuals by passing some stricter laws. At that point, guys like Adam Lanza or John Holmes would have a much harder time getting a gun, because of the gun control laws in place and the fact that a few generations of more limited gun ownership has made it harder to get guns otherwise.
Thanks for that, a very enlightening post.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 15, 2012, 11:44:54 AM
Even in the States generally considered to have the most restrictive firearms laws (California, New Jersey, Illinois, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts) it is still very easy compared to almost any other country on earth to legally buy a gun. Typically in those States, it is easier than getting a driver's license for the first time.
In New Jersey, it depends on where. In the rural areas it would be easy to get police to allow you to buy a gun. Here in Jersey City, you have bureaucracy in place to harass you out of wanting to get one, and you also have to lie about the reason for getting one (don't say "self-defense", say "target practice"). Pretty ridiculous in its own right.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2012, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: PDH on December 15, 2012, 11:30:44 AM
Given the genie is out of the bottle on guns in the USA, ending gun in the hands of crazies, stoopids, or ijits is not going to happen any time soon. However, I do not know of a way to limit these groups and their inability to live in the modern world or have the state control the crazies
- ie the guns dont shoot people, people shoot people
You got it right, see that wasnt hard.
Define gun nut.
Caliga
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 02:58:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2012, 11:35:03 AM
- ie the guns dont shoot people, people shoot people
You got it right, see that wasnt hard.
Define gun nut.
You. ;) Not that that's a bad thing, in and of itself; it's the gun nuts that are nuts elsewhere in life that are the problem. :P
However, using the "guns don't kill people" argument as a defense is both fallacious and morally bankrupt. It's unfortunate that someone as intelligent as yourself subscribes to it.
Quote from: katmai on December 15, 2012, 03:23:54 PM
Caliga
I own three firearms. There are people around here who own way more than that. :sleep:
Well I dare not mention Derspicy as fraid he will shoot me.
People rarely shoot each other without guns, and they're much easier to regulate than people.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2012, 03:31:43 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 02:58:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 15, 2012, 11:35:03 AM
- ie the guns dont shoot people, people shoot people
You got it right, see that wasnt hard.
Define gun nut.
You. ;) Not that that's a bad thing, in and of itself; it's the gun nuts that are nuts elsewhere in life that are the problem. :P
However, using the "guns don't kill people" argument as a defense is both fallacious and morally bankrupt. It's unfortunate that someone as intelligent as yourself subscribes to it.
Lets just say, if guns were to be "outlawed" or "banned" in this country a;
Gun nut= someone who who will not give up their guns no matter what.
Me= turn in the guns. Not a gun nut.
and I dont subscribe to "guns dont kill people". They do. They are the implements, nothing more.
Quote
Extensive. Gun. Control. will not prevent what happened.
Outlaw and aggressive enforcement is the only way. What do "you" want to give up?
Ranged weapon. Much more effective and less expensive chioces out there for what the shooter wanted to do.
That may work for scotland, but the US..... eh. It would take a herculean effort just to collect and enforce at this point. Not to mention the 2nd Amend issue.
True, I think the estimate of POWs in the US is 270 Million. I think it's higher.
Most people I know own more than a few.
Being an LEO, you just cant get to the scene fast enough. Sadly when it starts, people are dying until you do. Those first few responding LEO's today, were their local cops. Can you imagine the absolute helplessness hearing that dispatched over the radio. You are automatically reactive.
You can regulate the guns all you want. They are not the variable in the equation. We are.
I disagree. Guns either 1. Do nothing 2. when used, destroy what's in their trajectory
The gun isnt going to shoot by itself. The gun doesnt decide that.
The person decides to pull the trigger at another human being.
Quote from: Neil on December 15, 2012, 03:51:35 PM
People rarely shoot each other without guns, and they're much easier to regulate than people.
Awesome revelation there.
FYI, you can shoot somebody with a crossbow.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 04:05:53 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 15, 2012, 03:51:35 PM
People rarely shoot each other without guns, and they're much easier to regulate than people.
Awesome revelation there.
FYI, you can shoot somebody with a crossbow.
Thus, 'people rarely shoot each other without guns' rather than 'people can't shoot each other without guns'.
You should feel ashamed of yourself.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 04:05:53 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 15, 2012, 03:51:35 PM
People rarely shoot each other without guns, and they're much easier to regulate than people.
Awesome revelation there.
FYI, you can shoot somebody with a crossbow.
:lol: How many accurate crossbow shots do you think you get get off in a crowded confused room in 3 minutes?
EDIT: I say a gun nut is anyone who can say "guns don't kill people, people do" with a straight face today.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 04:05:53 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 15, 2012, 03:51:35 PM
People rarely shoot each other without guns, and they're much easier to regulate than people.
Awesome revelation there.
FYI, you can shoot somebody with a crossbow.
That's an idiotic argument. You can use a lot of weapons, however not all weapons are equally effective in the hands of mass murderer.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 04:05:17 PM
Extensive. Gun. Control. will not prevent what happened.
This sentence to me makes no sense at all. If you make it an hassle casual gun owners will not own guns. If less people own guns then there is a better chance that gun culture will go away.
Quote from: DGuller on December 15, 2012, 04:41:11 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 04:05:53 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 15, 2012, 03:51:35 PM
People rarely shoot each other without guns, and they're much easier to regulate than people.
Awesome revelation there.
FYI, you can shoot somebody with a crossbow.
That's an idiotic argument. You can use a lot of weapons, however not all weapons are equally effective in the hands of mass murderer.
Ya think
Quote from: sbr on December 15, 2012, 04:28:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 04:05:53 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 15, 2012, 03:51:35 PM
People rarely shoot each other without guns, and they're much easier to regulate than people.
Awesome revelation there.
FYI, you can shoot somebody with a crossbow.
:lol: How many accurate crossbow shots do you think you get get off in a crowded confused room in 3 minutes?
EDIT: I say a gun nut is anyone who can say "guns don't kill people, people do" with a straight face today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS4RKoRyTik :lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 04:46:56 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 15, 2012, 04:28:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 04:05:53 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 15, 2012, 03:51:35 PM
People rarely shoot each other without guns, and they're much easier to regulate than people.
Awesome revelation there.
FYI, you can shoot somebody with a crossbow.
:lol: How many accurate crossbow shots do you think you get get off in a crowded confused room in 3 minutes?
EDIT: I say a gun nut is anyone who can say "guns don't kill people, people do" with a straight face today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS4RKoRyTik :lol:
So assuming you own the one of those that exists, your answer is 12. That's lessr than 26. :smarty:
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 15, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 04:05:17 PM
Extensive. Gun. Control. will not prevent what happened.
This sentence to me makes no sense at all.
Makes perfect sense. What are you going to do about the guns already in circulation?
QuoteIf you make it an hassle casual gun owners will not own guns.
I disagree.
QuoteIf less people own guns then there is a better chance that gun culture will go away.
What are are you going to do with the exsisting guns in circulation? est 270 million guns in US. Easier said than done. Also what about enforcement? Underground trading, black market?
Quote from: Neil on December 15, 2012, 04:27:31 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 04:05:53 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 15, 2012, 03:51:35 PM
People rarely shoot each other without guns, and they're much easier to regulate than people.
Awesome revelation there.
FYI, you can shoot somebody with a crossbow.
Thus, 'people rarely shoot each other without guns' rather than 'people can't shoot each other without guns'.
You should feel ashamed of yourself.
I dont
Quote from: katmai on December 15, 2012, 03:46:05 PM
Well I dare not mention Derspicy as fraid he will shoot me.
Hey now, you're the dangerous minority.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 05:05:11 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 15, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 04:05:17 PM
Extensive. Gun. Control. will not prevent what happened.
This sentence to me makes no sense at all.
Makes perfect sense. What are you going to do about the guns already in circulation?
QuoteIf you make it an hassle casual gun owners will not own guns.
I disagree.
QuoteIf less people own guns then there is a better chance that gun culture will go away.
What are are you going to do with the exsisting guns in circulation? est 270 million guns in US. Easier said than done. Also what about enforcement? Underground trading, black market?
Is that your typical response to difficult problems, just admit defeat and give up? Or is it that your selfish need to prove your "manhood" by these virtual penis extensions just overrides what matters to anyone else?
Not one person here has advocated for the immediate banning of guns and sending in the SWAT/military to take them. That is not going to happen; but starting the process of reigning things in slowly is a different story and is something that should be starting. Many years too late, but better late than never.
That this thread is twice as long as the one it spawned from tells you something about human nature right there.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 15, 2012, 05:33:16 PM
That this thread is twice as long as the one it spawned from tells you something about human nature right there.
The other thread is pretty pathetic, what with all the faux outrage from Meri and Max whenever someone tries to discuss the shooting rather than just mouthing the same empty sounds of 'shock' and 'horror'.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 04:05:53 PM
FYI, you can shoot somebody with a crossbow.
And you can beat somebody to death with the Sunday New York Times, if one were so inclined. But that's not the point, now is it?
QuoteIs that your typical response to difficult problems, just admit defeat and give up?
Give up, where did you read that? I posed questions.
QuoteOr is it that your selfish need to prove your "manhood" by these virtual penis extensions just overrides what matters to anyone else?
Here you make a childish ignorant personal attack for some reason. Why? Are you afraid of the questions asked?
I all ready stated "I" will follow all laws passed concerning firearms. So, how am I selfishly overriding what matters to anyone else? Perhaps the problem lies with your dick size.
QuoteNot one person here has advocated for the immediate banning of guns and sending in the SWAT/military to take them. That is not going to happen; but starting the process of reigning things in slowly is a different story and is something that should be starting.
Neither am I.
QuoteMany years too late, but better late than never.
Yes
I prefer SMGs. The Swedish K is solid enough to beat someone into pulp with.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2012, 05:36:15 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 04:05:53 PM
FYI, you can shoot somebody with a crossbow.
And you can beat somebody to death with the Sunday New York Times, if one were so inclined. But that's not the point, now is it?
Of course, but then Neil is the Master of the Obvious.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 15, 2012, 05:33:16 PM
That this thread is twice as long as the one it spawned from tells you something about human nature right there.
How so? I am a gun owner an think something needs to be done.
This is for
sbr;
If the extreme were to happen and guns are banned in the US, I will follow the
Law.
Did you get that sbr? Is that pretty crystal clear? Can you comprehend that? Anything else I need to explain in the above statement?
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 05:39:58 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 15, 2012, 05:33:16 PM
That this thread is twice as long as the one it spawned from tells you something about human nature right there.
How so? I am a gun owner an think something needs to be done.
What do you think would be a practical, effective solution to the gun problem in the US?
If you already posted something similar somewhere I must have missed it.
I tried to get the ball rolling on reform of gun laws before, but no one really bit. Second times a charm.
As I said before, we all think nutters should not have guns. Not terribly hard in practice when it comes to people who have already been diagnosed. Just a question of collecting and sharing information. The idea breaks down however when talking about people who are nutters but not yet diagnosed. Do we require everyone who wants to buy a gun a psychiatric evaluation? That seems awfully invasive. Do we use "warning flags?"
Limitations on gun sales to the general population run into the Constitution. If people are really serious about gun regulation, then you need to start a debate on amending the Constitution. You can't count on selecting only justices who think the wording of the Constitution is just a suggestion.
Quote from: sbr on December 15, 2012, 05:43:03 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 05:39:58 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 15, 2012, 05:33:16 PM
That this thread is twice as long as the one it spawned from tells you something about human nature right there.
How so? I am a gun owner an think something needs to be done.
What do you think would be a practical, effective solution to the gun problem in the US?
If you already posted something similar somewhere I must have missed it.
off the top of the head. A start only;
Close gunshow loop holes or ban them all together.
Require all firearm transaction to go through a licensed FFL.
Ban
actions based on military assault rifles. Both auto and semi auto. i.e. AK series, M16 series, G-3 series etc.
Require a permit to own.
Expand the disqualifications for gun ownership.
Cash for firearm turn in or tax deduction.
What's the typical design basis threat of American schools? Should it include a lone gunman?
Quote from: The Brain on December 15, 2012, 05:54:20 PM
What's the typical design basis threat of American schools? Should it include a lone gunman?
:huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2012, 05:50:12 PM
If people are really serious about gun regulation, then you need to start a debate on amending the Constitution.
IMO this is the only way.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 05:56:57 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 15, 2012, 05:54:20 PM
What's the typical design basis threat of American schools? Should it include a lone gunman?
:huh:
What is unclear?
Quote from: The Brain on December 15, 2012, 05:54:20 PM
What's the typical design basis threat of American schools? Should it include a lone gunman?
Active shooter scenarios have been part of school threat analysis for a few years already, really took off since Columbine. More colleges have really taken to it since Virginia Tech, although more progressive schools have had mass casualty drills of all sorts for a long time. Used to be bombs and fire events. Now it's active shooters.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2012, 06:01:53 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 15, 2012, 05:54:20 PM
What's the typical design basis threat of American schools? Should it include a lone gunman?
Active shooter scenarios have been part of school threat analysis for a few years already, really took off since Columbine. More colleges have really taken to it since Virginia Tech, although more progressive schools have had mass casualty drills of all sorts for a long time. Used to be bombs and fire events. Now it's active shooters.
My impression is that few schools in America have security measures that stop a lone gunman.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2012, 06:01:53 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 15, 2012, 05:54:20 PM
What's the typical design basis threat of American schools? Should it include a lone gunman?
Active shooter scenarios have been part of school threat analysis for a few years already, really took off since Columbine. More colleges have really taken to it since Virginia Tech, although more progressive schools have had mass casualty drills of all sorts for a long time. Used to be bombs and fire events. Now it's active shooters.
I believe LE down it Portland had ran drills at the very mall that had the recent shooting.
Quote from: The Brain on December 15, 2012, 06:05:18 PM
My impression is that few schools in America have security measures that stop a lone gunman.
Security measures are predicated, like everything else, on budget.
And you don't stop a lone gunman. The operational assumption is that there will be casualties The objective is to mitigate them.
Quote from: The Brain on December 15, 2012, 06:05:18 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2012, 06:01:53 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 15, 2012, 05:54:20 PM
What's the typical design basis threat of American schools? Should it include a lone gunman?
Active shooter scenarios have been part of school threat analysis for a few years already, really took off since Columbine. More colleges have really taken to it since Virginia Tech, although more progressive schools have had mass casualty drills of all sorts for a long time. Used to be bombs and fire events. Now it's active shooters.
My impression is that few schools in America have security measures that stop a lone gunman.
Around here most have none.
Some schools around here in the cities do. Damn if I can remember what they call them. And no not security guards. Some have been cut because of bugets though.
Damn brain read some posts
QuoteBeing an LEO, you just cant get to the scene fast enough. Sadly when it starts, people are dying until you do.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2012, 06:07:16 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 15, 2012, 06:05:18 PM
My impression is that few schools in America have security measures that stop a lone gunman.
Security measures are predicated, like everything else, on budget.
And you don't stop a lone gunman. The operational assumption is that there will be casualties The objective is to mitigate them.
So it's not in the design basis threat. Should it be?
QuoteAnd you don't stop a lone gunman.
How many active shooters have been neutralized by a citizen with a CCW? I dont know. Funny how a CCW carrying citizen is never around at active shootings. Guess thereare not as many as people say.
Quote from: The Brain on December 15, 2012, 06:10:27 PM
So it's not in the design basis threat. Should it be?
If you're talking about applying universal standards of compliance, that would bridge more jurisdictions than you can shake a lone gunman at. Threat and vulnerability assessments and the build out solutions are all going to be localized, based on risk, budget and response, and usually as an afterthought to construction. Most modern schools (<20 years old) are designed for visitor management, where all visitors are funneled to the administrative offices, but that's not always the case.
Should it be? It should be considered, but we're talking about risk: and the primary, existential threat to children in modern schools aren't lone gunman, it's their parents.
Quote from: The Brain on December 15, 2012, 06:05:18 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2012, 06:01:53 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 15, 2012, 05:54:20 PM
What's the typical design basis threat of American schools? Should it include a lone gunman?
Active shooter scenarios have been part of school threat analysis for a few years already, really took off since Columbine. More colleges have really taken to it since Virginia Tech, although more progressive schools have had mass casualty drills of all sorts for a long time. Used to be bombs and fire events. Now it's active shooters.
My impression is that few schools in America have security measures that stop a lone gunman.
Options
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/s480x480/598458_438869902835228_743461741_n.jpg)
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 06:01:15 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2012, 05:50:12 PM
If people are really serious about gun regulation, then you need to start a debate on amending the Constitution.
IMO this is the only way.
Not really. You just need enough years of Democratic dominance to fix the Supreme Court. Why go through all that trouble of amending the Constitution when you can just use a more modern interpretation?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2012, 05:50:12 PM
I tried to get the ball rolling on reform of gun laws before, but no one really bit. Second times a charm.
As I said before, we all think nutters should not have guns. Not terribly hard in practice when it comes to people who have already been diagnosed. Just a question of collecting and sharing information. The idea breaks down however when talking about people who are nutters but not yet diagnosed. Do we require everyone who wants to buy a gun a psychiatric evaluation? That seems awfully invasive. Do we use "warning flags?"
It might be invasive but gunmen shooting up schools/shopping malls is rather invasive to me. I think this is a Good of the Many/Good of the Few to me.
QuoteLimitations on gun sales to the general population run into the Constitution. If people are really serious about gun regulation, then you need to start a debate on amending the Constitution. You can't count on selecting only justices who think the wording of the Constitution is just a suggestion.
It shouldn't run into the Constitution, too bad activist judges had to get that ball rolling.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2012, 06:21:07 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 15, 2012, 06:10:27 PM
So it's not in the design basis threat. Should it be?
If you're talking about applying universal standards of compliance, that would bridge more jurisdictions than you can shake a lone gunman at. Threat and vulnerability assessments and the build out solutions are all going to be localized, based on risk, budget and response, and usually as an afterthought to construction. Most modern schools (<20 years old) are designed for visitor management, where all visitors are funneled to the administrative offices, but that's not always the case.
Should it be? It should be considered, but we're talking about risk: and the primary, existential threat to children in modern schools aren't lone gunman, it's their parents.
Indeed. It would be crazy expensive and the resources should (were they available which they are not) be spent on rational stuff. One of the reasons I would love to see governments do risk analysis before deciding on security/safety issues. Not gonna happen though. Today we spend insane amounts on some risks while virtually ignoring others.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 05:52:12 PM
off the top of the head. A start only;
Close gunshow loop holes or ban them all together.
Require all firearm transaction to go through a licensed FFL.
Require a permit to own.
Expand the disqualifications for gun ownership.
One of your problems with banning weapons is enforcement. How do you propose you stop me from buying a gun from my dad or next door neighbour?
QuoteBan actions based on military assault rifles. Both auto and semi auto. i.e. AK series, M16 series, G-3 series etc.
I don't understand what you mean by action in this context. The action of shooting, or action as in part of the rifle?
QuoteCash for firearm turn in or tax deduction.
Agreed. It won't get guns from the "gun nuts"* but those guns that would be turned by these programs are the more likely to be stolen and/or sold to undesirables, IMO.
*As defined by Otto a few pages ago.
QuoteOne of your problems with banning weapons is enforcement. How do you propose you stop me from buying a gun from my dad or next door neighbour?
QuoteRequire all firearm transaction to go through a licensed FFL.
I listed it.
QuoteI don't understand what you mean by action in this context. The action of shooting, or action as in part of the rifle?
Example of a action/receiver
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gunaccessories.com%2FAK47-MAK90%2Frv-1r.jpg&hash=872aec1a04cd3c241cc0c8f640f0b5bd8d5f1316)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftodd.mainecav.org%2Fpaintball%2Fm16%2Fdboysm4.jpg&hash=60a14e751f011e4db8bf505db1344754e8008ab9)
QuoteCash for firearm turn in or tax deduction.
QuoteIt won't get guns from the "gun nuts"* but those guns that would be turned by these programs are the more likely to be stolen and/or sold to undesirables, IMO.
Wittleing away at what's in circulation by feeding greed.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 06:56:12 PM
QuoteOne of your problems with banning weapons is enforcement. How do you propose you stop me from buying a gun from my dad or next door neighbour?
QuoteRequire all firearm transaction to go through a licensed FFL.
I listed it.
Right but doesn't touch on the enforcement side. I could make a list that says
Require all handguns to be turned into local sheriff's office, but that doesn't do any good because it is unenforceable and would never happen.
It is a start, and something needs to be done but I don't think your ideas prevent any of the shopping mall/school shooting sprees we have seen in the last decade.
QuoteQuoteI don't understand what you mean by action in this context. The action of shooting, or action as in part of the rifle?
Example of a action/receiver
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gunaccessories.com%2FAK47-MAK90%2Frv-1r.jpg&hash=872aec1a04cd3c241cc0c8f640f0b5bd8d5f1316)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftodd.mainecav.org%2Fpaintball%2Fm16%2Fdboysm4.jpg&hash=60a14e751f011e4db8bf505db1344754e8008ab9)
Ok makes sense now. I'm not sure why that sentence confused me when I first read it; I understood all of the words individually but together they looked like a foreign language to me. :blush:
Quote from: sbr on December 15, 2012, 06:32:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2012, 05:50:12 PM
I tried to get the ball rolling on reform of gun laws before, but no one really bit. Second times a charm.
As I said before, we all think nutters should not have guns. Not terribly hard in practice when it comes to people who have already been diagnosed. Just a question of collecting and sharing information. The idea breaks down however when talking about people who are nutters but not yet diagnosed. Do we require everyone who wants to buy a gun a psychiatric evaluation? That seems awfully invasive. Do we use "warning flags?"
It might be invasive but gunmen shooting up schools/shopping malls is rather invasive to me. I think this is a Good of the Many/Good of the Few to me.
QuoteLimitations on gun sales to the general population run into the Constitution. If people are really serious about gun regulation, then you need to start a debate on amending the Constitution. You can't count on selecting only justices who think the wording of the Constitution is just a suggestion.
It shouldn't run into the Constitution, too bad activist judges had to get that ball rolling.
Frankly, these sound like the arguments of someone who is uninterested in convincing enough of the American public to enact change.
QuoteOk makes sense now. I'm not sure why that sentence confused me when I first read it; I understood all of the words individually but together they looked like a foreign language to me. :blush:
You have to forgive me sometimes. I'm only the second generation standing upright. :P
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 15, 2012, 11:21:00 AM
However, gun shows are unregulated here, and are a constant occurrence. I can go to a gun show today and buy a gun and not even have to get the background check.
Point of clarification here. While that's technically true, if you buy a gun from a licensed dealer at a gun show (which constitute a majority of sellers at gun shows) you will have to go through the background check. Some shows even prohibit non-dealers from selling guns at tables. A majority of sales at most gun shows are through licensed dealers.
You can of course legally buy a gun from an individual (i.e., non-dealer) without going through background checks, but that's something you can do anywhere (as long as both individuals reside in the same state). The fact that this sometimes takes place at a gun show is incidental.
IMO there is no gun show "loophole" as many seem to think.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 15, 2012, 05:33:16 PM
That this thread is twice as long as the one it spawned from tells you something about human nature right there.
The other thread is about being sad. I am not sad, I am angry.
Actually, I'm a sad I have trouble reading the articles about the dead children without bursting into tears but it's not a reason to dwell on it. Discussion needs to happen.
Quote from: derspiess on December 15, 2012, 08:36:50 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 15, 2012, 11:21:00 AM
However, gun shows are unregulated here, and are a constant occurrence. I can go to a gun show today and buy a gun and not even have to get the background check.
Point of clarification here. While that's technically true, if you buy a gun from a licensed dealer at a gun show (which constitute a majority of sellers at gun shows) you will have to go through the background check. Some shows even prohibit non-dealers from selling guns at tables. A majority of sales at most gun shows are through licensed dealers.
You can of course legally buy a gun from an individual (i.e., non-dealer) without going through background checks, but that's something you can do anywhere (as long as both individuals reside in the same state). The fact that this sometimes takes place at a gun show is incidental.
IMO there is no gun show "loophole" as many seem to think.
As a private seller with a table, I can sell to another person at a gun show. No Background check required.
Here is what should happen.
QuoteI want to sell a gun to another person, i.e., a private party transfer. Am I required to conduct the transaction through a licensed California firearms dealer?
Yes. Firearm sales must be conducted through a fully licensed California firearms dealer. Failure to do so is a violation of California law. The buyer (and seller, in the event that the; buyer is denied), must meet the normal firearm purchase and delivery requirements. "Antique firearms," as defined in Section 921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code, and curio or relic rifles/shotguns, defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations that are over 50 years old, are exempt from this requirement.
Firearms dealers are required to process private party transfers upon request. Firearms dealers may charge a fee not to exceed $10 per firearm for conducting a private party transfer. Example:
For a private party transfer involving one or more handguns, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00 for the first handgun and $31.00 for each additional handgun involved in the same transaction.
For private party transfers involving one or more long guns, or a private party transfer involving one handgun, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00. The dealer may charge an additional dealer-service fee of$10.00 per each additional firearm transferred.
QuoteThough commonly referred to as the "Gun Show Loophole," the "private sales" described include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.
Quote from: sbr on December 15, 2012, 06:40:02 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 05:52:12 PM
Cash for firearm turn in or tax deduction.
Agreed. It won't get guns from the "gun nuts"* but those guns that would be turned by these programs are the more likely to be stolen and/or sold to undesirables, IMO.
No, the guns most likely to get turned in are muskets used by somebody's 5 times-great-granddaddy in the Civil War.
Quote from: derspiess on December 15, 2012, 08:36:50 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 15, 2012, 11:21:00 AM
However, gun shows are unregulated here, and are a constant occurrence. I can go to a gun show today and buy a gun and not even have to get the background check.
Point of clarification here. While that's technically true, if you buy a gun from a licensed dealer at a gun show (which constitute a majority of sellers at gun shows) you will have to go through the background check. Some shows even prohibit non-dealers from selling guns at tables. A majority of sales at most gun shows are through licensed dealers.
You can of course legally buy a gun from an individual (i.e., non-dealer) without going through background checks, but that's something you can do anywhere (as long as both individuals reside in the same state). The fact that this sometimes takes place at a gun show is incidental.
IMO there is no gun show "loophole" as many seem to think.
I pointedly clarified your points of clarification, where you validate Otto's statement.
Quote from: dps on December 15, 2012, 09:18:26 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 15, 2012, 06:40:02 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 05:52:12 PM
Cash for firearm turn in or tax deduction.
Agreed. It won't get guns from the "gun nuts"* but those guns that would be turned by these programs are the more likely to be stolen and/or sold to undesirables, IMO.
No, the guns most likely to get turned in are muskets used by somebody's 5 times-great-granddaddy in the Civil War.
Disagree
Gun buybacks aren't exactly a new thing. They're just not that effective as long as they're being replaced by new guns.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 09:22:02 PM
Quote from: dps on December 15, 2012, 09:18:26 PM
No, the guns most likely to get turned in are muskets used by somebody's 5 times-great-granddaddy in the Civil War.
Disagree
BPD would get lots of rifles and very few operable handguns from their buybacks. And out of the handguns, there were always a ton of shitty old .38 long barrels dating from the 1940s, never very many nice semi-autos and modern pieces.
And we all know gangbangers love to use bolt action rifles.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2012, 09:27:38 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 09:22:02 PM
Quote from: dps on December 15, 2012, 09:18:26 PM
No, the guns most likely to get turned in are muskets used by somebody's 5 times-great-granddaddy in the Civil War.
Disagree
BPD would get lots of rifles and very few operable handguns from their buybacks. And out of the handguns, there were always a ton of shitty old .38 long barrels dating from the 1940s, never very many nice semi-autos and modern pieces.
And we all know gangbangers love to use bolt action rifles.
Ah, then there should be too many left for this go around. :lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 09:15:09 PM
As a private seller with a table, I can sell to another person at a gun show. No Background check required.
Assuming the gun show organizers allow it, you sure can. I didn't say you couldn't. But you can sell to another person outside of gun shows. There's nothing really special about you being able to do that at that specific venue. I can understand (though still disagree with) the argument to restrict private sales but specifically going after gun shows seems silly.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 06:13:29 PM
QuoteAnd you don't stop a lone gunman.
How many active shooters have been neutralized by a citizen with a CCW? I dont know. Funny how a CCW carrying citizen is never around at active shootings. Guess thereare not as many as people say.
:)
Portland Mall Shooting
http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
Quote from: derspiess on December 15, 2012, 09:38:29 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 09:15:09 PM
As a private seller with a table, I can sell to another person at a gun show. No Background check required.
Assuming the gun show organizers allow it, you sure can. I didn't say you couldn't. But you can sell to another person outside of gun shows. There's nothing really special about you being able to do that at that specific venue. I can understand (though still disagree with) the argument to restrict private sales but specifically going after gun shows seems silly.
There is a substantial difference between a private sale between you and I, and someone who knows they'd fail a background check going to a gun show with an exhibition hall full of non-FFL dealers as a one-stop shop to purchase firearms knowing they wouldn't get a background check. That's what closing the loophole is all about, reducing the opportunity for those who shouldn't get guns from getting them easier.
To say that shutting down the gun show issue wouldn't stop someone from getting a gun is akin to 11B's "You can kill somebody with macrame needles and an ironing board, too" logic. It's bullshit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2012, 09:59:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 15, 2012, 09:38:29 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 09:15:09 PM
As a private seller with a table, I can sell to another person at a gun show. No Background check required.
Assuming the gun show organizers allow it, you sure can. I didn't say you couldn't. But you can sell to another person outside of gun shows. There's nothing really special about you being able to do that at that specific venue. I can understand (though still disagree with) the argument to restrict private sales but specifically going after gun shows seems silly.
There is a substantial difference between a private sale between you and I, and someone who knows they'd fail a background check going to a gun show with an exhibition hall full of non-FFL dealers as a one-stop shop to purchase firearms knowing they wouldn't get a background check. That's what closing the loophole is all about, reducing the opportunity for those who shouldn't get guns from getting them easier.
To say that shutting down the gun show issue wouldn't stop someone from getting a gun is akin to 11B's "You can kill somebody with macrame needles and an ironing board, too" logic. It's bullshit.
HEY, INEVER SAID THAT. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2012, 09:59:43 PM
There is a substantial difference between a private sale between you and I,
Not to be pedantic but a transfer between you & me would have to go through an FFL since we live in different states.
Quoteand someone who knows they'd fail a background check going to a gun show with an exhibition hall full of non-FFL dealers as a one-stop shop to purchase firearms knowing they wouldn't get a background check. That's what closing the loophole is all about, reducing the opportunity for those who shouldn't get guns from getting them easier.
I've been to many gun shows and I've never seen an exhibition hall full of non-FFL dealers. I think it's silly to say I can sell a gun to someone via classified ad or gun auction site or whatnot, but I can't do so in a building where a gun show happens to be taking place.
QuoteTo say that shutting down the gun show issue wouldn't stop someone from getting a gun is akin to 11B's "You can kill somebody with macrame needles and an ironing board, too" logic. It's bullshit.
Nopers. Shutting down the "loophole" will not prevent anyone from getting a gun if they really want one. There are many other ways to do that. You might as well just restrict private sales altogether to accomplish what you're after.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 10:14:45 PM
HEY, INEVER SAID THAT. :lol:
You could put someone's eye with those bastards.
Why are the "gun nuts™" on here offering up control measures and you "anti-gun nutters™" arent?
It's called a rear guard action.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2012, 10:56:13 PM
It's called a rear guard action.
If y'all lets us set the policy, np.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 15, 2012, 11:57:26 AM
John Holmes
I'd be surprised if John Holmes ever felt the need to over-compensate.
Quote from: derspiess on December 15, 2012, 10:24:04 PM
You might as well just restrict private sales altogether to accomplish what you're after.
I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
All gun shows should be restricted to FFL dealers, or no private sales without mandatory background checks. Works for plenty of states like California and New York, where last I heard guns were not in short supply and the ability to purchase them was still robust, so it should not be a problem with all 50, including that inbred shithole you live in.
Incidentally, I wonder if anyone has ever compiled statistics on what percentage of shooters already own guns beforehand and what percentage go out to buy one after devising the plan to start a shoot out.
I think it would be an interesting factor as to whether background/psych checks at the moment of purchase are enough or whether all gun owners should undergo these from time to time.
Quick google search reveals that at least the Colombine, Virginia Tech and Batman cinema shooters all bought guns shortly before the deed.
On this note, I wonder if a somewhat sideline approach - of introducing the obligation of the gun owner/vendor to exercise due diligence in making sure the person they give/sell the gun to is not a nut - coupled with the civil (tort) liability for any damage caused by the nut in question if the owner/vendor cannot prove due diligence was exercised - would not do the trick. This would seriously discourage people from selling guns outside of licensed dealers, while at the same time not banning it per se.
Is it true that you are a lawyer?
I am no gun nut.
I don't think the 2nd Amendment protects anyone's "right" to own a handgun.
Even if it did, I would argue that it is a stupid "right", and should be repealed. The right to tote around a gun is NOT, IMO, a fundamental human right, or necessary to a free society. This is easily proven by noting that there are plenty of perfectly free societies that function quite well without the citizens therein being allowed to pack a gun.
All that being said, gun control won't stop things like this from happening. No amount of it that is realistically possible in the US today will make any difference. There are already too many guns, and too ingrained of a culture to matter in any meaningful manner.
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2012, 08:54:21 AM
All that being said, gun control won't stop things like this from happening. No amount of it that is realistically possible in the US today will make any difference. There are already too many guns, and too ingrained of a culture to matter in any meaningful manner.
I'm not sure.
A great many of these attackers (like this one, or the Batman movie one) are kids who got their guns the easy way (the school guy even got his mommy to get him his), and I suspect that, in a regulated enviroment, they would not know where to go to get an illegal weapon. They'd probably be afraid to go to the illegal gun dealers.
Yes, a gun ban won't prevent criminals/determined guys from getting guns, but then again:
1 - Criminals want to use their guns for crimes. That often means robberies and the like, not going into a school, killing a bunch of kids and then turning the gun on themselves.
2 - Determined guys more often want guns for protection/bawl at them; few would really be the type to go on a killing spree.
Take me as an example: though Portugal has all guns ultra-banned, I got my Walther PPK and ammo from an illegal dealer. I'm a prime example that gun laws don't stop determined folks to get them. On the other hand, I also had the brains to know how to get it, and those very same brains tell me doing this kind of shit is incredibly stupid and cowardly; i'll never do anything like that. But we don't get kids going around shooting schools and cinemas, just the occasional well-organized robber gang.
Basically, what I mean is: tight gun laws prevent stupid kids (and their dumb parents) from getting guns. And those are usually the types that make these massacres.
What if the teachers were allowed to carry guns? I think this would have turned out quite differently.
Connecticut has a concealed carry law. I'm sure someone in that school COULD have carried a gun. I'm sure no one did because no one expects to need one. There are hundreds of thousands of schools in the US and what? Five have been shot up?
He shot each of the children multiple times. He wanted to make sure they were truly dead with no chance of survival. This guy wanted children dead, and nothing in place to keep schools safe was going to stop him from making that happen. Not the buzz-in system (he broke a window to get in), not gun laws (I understand the guns he had were legal(?), and CT is one of the strictest with gun laws in this country), nada. He came in prepared to do battle against small children with four guns and a flack jacket. Unless the teacher was a crack shot with a handgun - or carried a really big handgun - the guy was going to kill people.
This particular man (is 20 a man?) was fucked up, and he did a fucked up thing. Maybe I'm just being a defeatist, but I just don't believe that tighter gun laws would have changed things.
Schools are usually gun free zones. You can't legally enter the premise with a concealed carry as a civilian.
I'd be all for banning all hand guns except it isn't going to ever happen in our bat shit stupid political system. Barring that, I'd prefer to send my future kids to a school where the instructors are able to do something about a mass murderer.
Quote from: Fate on December 16, 2012, 09:14:37 AM
What if the teachers were allowed to carry guns? I think this would have turned out quite differently.
Didn't he have a bullet-proof vest? I would imagine that it is quite hard for a non-professional to shoot someone who comes at you armed with an assault rifle, armored and with the intent to kill before he shoots you.
Quote from: Zanza on December 16, 2012, 09:44:05 AM
Quote from: Fate on December 16, 2012, 09:14:37 AM
What if the teachers were allowed to carry guns? I think this would have turned out quite differently.
Didn't he have a bullet-proof vest? I would imagine that it is quite hard for a non-professional to shoot someone who comes at you armed with an assault rifle, armored and with the intent to kill before he shoots you.
:yes:
Ok, I went to check the statistics for biggest school shootings over the last 20 years or so, and I gotta say I did not find what I was expecting:
1989 - Montreal, Canada - 14 dead
1996 - Dunblane, UK - 17 dead
1999 - Columbine, US - 13 dead
2002 - Erfurt, Germany - 16 dead
2006 - Shiguan, China - 12 dead
2007 - Blacksburg, US - 32 dead
2008 - Kauhajoki, Finland - 12 dead
2009 - Winnenden, Germany - 15 dead
2009 - Baku, Azerbajian - 12 dead
2010 - Linchang, China - 10 dead
2011 - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - 12 dead
2012 - Newtown, US - 27 dead
This does not seem to support the existence of a significant correlation between gun control laws and these incidents. :huh:
If anything, this seems to suggests one thing we new already - Americans think they are special and overreact when shit that happens all over the world happens to them.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 15, 2012, 05:33:16 PM
That this thread is twice as long as the one it spawned from tells you something about human nature right there.
Yes, it tells you that people feel the need to find reasonable laws that will prevent this kind of tragedy in the future
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2012, 09:58:08 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 15, 2012, 05:33:16 PM
That this thread is twice as long as the one it spawned from tells you something about human nature right there.
Yes, it tells you that people feel the need to find reasonable laws that will prevent this kind of tragedy in the future
Only that global statistics of such tragedies seem to imply no correlation between laws and the chance of them happening. Germany and China are quite high on the list, despite having very tight gun control laws, for example.
Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2012, 09:51:00 AM
If anything, this seems to suggests one thing we new already - Americans think they are special and overreact when shit that happens all over the world happens to them.
You find new ways to amaze
The guns used in the German massacres in Erfurt and Winnenden were legal under our strict law. The first shooter was member of a shooting club and had a permit to own the guns. The second shooter's father had a permit and was allowed to keep the weapons at home. So even with strict laws shooters can get legal weapons with some preparation. If the deed is planned long-term, and that doesn't seem to be unusual in these cases, it is possible to get a legal weapon.
Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2012, 09:51:00 AM
Ok, I went to check the statistics for biggest school shootings over the last 20 years or so, and I gotta say I did not find what I was expecting:
1989 - Montreal, Canada - 14 dead
1996 - Dunblane, UK - 17 dead
1999 - Columbine, US - 13 dead
2002 - Erfurt, Germany - 16 dead
2006 - Shiguan, China - 12 dead
2007 - Blacksburg, US - 32 dead
2008 - Kauhajoki, Finland - 12 dead
2009 - Winnenden, Germany - 15 dead
2009 - Baku, Azerbajian - 12 dead
2010 - Linchang, China - 10 dead
2011 - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - 12 dead
2012 - Newtown, US - 27 dead
This does not seem to support the existence of a significant correlation between gun control laws and these incidents. :huh:
You're only looking at school shootings. Factor in also "movie theater shootings", "mall shootings", "office shootings" and the like.
Also, note at the locations of the shooting - the US gets three major incidents, Germany two, and all the others go to a different nation. Everone can get a nut once, but more than once and it's not an isolated incident anymore.
According to this article on CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/23/opinion/webster-aurora-shooter/index.html), the US has a murder rate seven times higher than other high-income nations and almost 20 times the gun murder with guns.
Also note that the US has had 12 mass shootings (against innocents) in the last 12 months. How many other countries can say the same? The other kinds of large-scale shootings (like in Mexico) are criminals fighting amongst themselves.
America does not have a problem with "isolated elements" - there are many crazies around with easy access to guns, period.
Quote from: Zanza on December 16, 2012, 09:44:05 AM
Quote from: Fate on December 16, 2012, 09:14:37 AM
What if the teachers were allowed to carry guns? I think this would have turned out quite differently.
Didn't he have a bullet-proof vest? I would imagine that it is quite hard for a non-professional to shoot someone who comes at you armed with an assault rifle, armored and with the intent to kill before he shoots you.
You know he's trolling right?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 16, 2012, 10:29:17 AM
Quote from: Zanza on December 16, 2012, 09:44:05 AM
Quote from: Fate on December 16, 2012, 09:14:37 AM
What if the teachers were allowed to carry guns? I think this would have turned out quite differently.
Didn't he have a bullet-proof vest? I would imagine that it is quite hard for a non-professional to shoot someone who comes at you armed with an assault rifle, armored and with the intent to kill before he shoots you.
You know he's trolling right?
I live in Midland, Texas. That kind of view isn't trolling - it's the view of a supermajority. Obama got 18% of the vote here this year.
Quote from: Zanza on December 16, 2012, 09:44:05 AM
Quote from: Fate on December 16, 2012, 09:14:37 AM
What if the teachers were allowed to carry guns? I think this would have turned out quite differently.
Didn't he have a bullet-proof vest? I would imagine that it is quite hard for a non-professional to shoot someone who comes at you armed with an assault rifle, armored and with the intent to kill before he shoots you.
Let's say grumbler was in the classroom adjacent from Ms. Sandy Hook (who died after hiding her children from the gunman.) He hears the shots. He unholsters his hand gun and proceeds to ambush the killer as he exits Ms. Hook's classroom. The vest isn't an argument against arming teachers. You shoot someone with a bullet proof vest and they are going to be stunned. It feels like a baseball bat hit you.
Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2012, 03:32:51 AM
Incidentally, I wonder if anyone has ever compiled statistics on what percentage of shooters already own guns beforehand and what percentage go out to buy one after devising the plan to start a shoot out.
I think it would be an interesting factor as to whether background/psych checks at the moment of purchase are enough or whether all gun owners should undergo these from time to time.
I used Wikipedia to look up the last 10 or so mass shooters in the US, most of them bought all or some of the guns used in their shooting in a small period of time before the shooting itself. Some used guns belonging to other people that they had easy access to.
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2012, 08:54:21 AM
I am no gun nut.
I don't think the 2nd Amendment protects anyone's "right" to own a handgun.
Even if it did, I would argue that it is a stupid "right", and should be repealed. The right to tote around a gun is NOT, IMO, a fundamental human right, or necessary to a free society. This is easily proven by noting that there are plenty of perfectly free societies that function quite well without the citizens therein being allowed to pack a gun.
All that being said, gun control won't stop things like this from happening. No amount of it that is realistically possible in the US today will make any difference. There are already too many guns, and too ingrained of a culture to matter in any meaningful manner.
I tend to think it does, and think the Roberts court actually got Heller "right." If you read the Heller decision, despite how vilified the Roberts court is by the left (and in many cases with justification) Scalia actually makes a sound argument. Basically, if you haven't read the ruling, the majority held:
1. The linguistic structure of the Second Amendment is consistent with other declarations of rights written around that time in America. The "regulated militia" prefatory clause is no indication that the objective clause which declares the right is only in existence because fo the prefatory clause. Many declarations of rights have a prefatory clause with an "example of why this right is important" in early American State constitutions and etc, and those prefatory clauses were never intended to limit the scope of the right being declared.
2. The Second Amendment is not an individual right to own any weapon by anyone with no regulations. It leaves the door open for various regulatory schemes.
3. However, it says the second amendment
is an individual right to own firearms.
4. It further says, it is an individual right to own firearms in "common usage", and that handguns are "common usage" so while regulations on firearms are constitutional blanket bans on handguns are not, because they are a firearm in common usage. They specifically do not overturn Miller, and still assert bans on weapons not in common usage are fine (things like Tommy guns which inspired the 1934 NFA.) The door is still open on regulations of magazine capacities and things like that. And a licensing regime would not run afoul of any of the plaintext of the ruling.
5. It also states an intrinsic right to self defense, and says gun regulations cannot be written in such a way as to deny someone the means to use a gun in their home for self defense.
Quote from: Fate on December 16, 2012, 10:33:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 16, 2012, 10:29:17 AM
Quote from: Zanza on December 16, 2012, 09:44:05 AM
Quote from: Fate on December 16, 2012, 09:14:37 AM
What if the teachers were allowed to carry guns? I think this would have turned out quite differently.
Didn't he have a bullet-proof vest? I would imagine that it is quite hard for a non-professional to shoot someone who comes at you armed with an assault rifle, armored and with the intent to kill before he shoots you.
You know he's trolling right?
I live in Midland, Texas. That kind of view isn't trolling - it's the view of a supermajority. Obama got 18% of the vote here this year.
Midland, Texas isn't posting. You are. Your bland and obvious trolling is one of your least likeable traits. That and your tendency to cut people into little bits.
Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2012, 10:01:52 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2012, 09:58:08 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 15, 2012, 05:33:16 PM
That this thread is twice as long as the one it spawned from tells you something about human nature right there.
Yes, it tells you that people feel the need to find reasonable laws that will prevent this kind of tragedy in the future
Only that global statistics of such tragedies seem to imply no correlation between laws and the chance of them happening. Germany and China are quite high on the list, despite having very tight gun control laws, for example.
I think the bigger picture is gun control in general. While the school shooting was obviously tragic, the US has around 11,000 firearm homicides a year, or are about 30 a day. So every day, the equivalent of the Newtown shooting school occurs. While mass shootings are probably less preventable than other kinds of firearm homicides, there's still the broad point that more gun control is needed.
Keep reading and hearing today that the. 223 was the primary weapon used.
Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2012, 09:51:00 AM
This does not seem to support the existence of a significant correlation between gun control laws and these incidents. :huh:
If anything, this seems to suggests one thing we new already - Americans think they are special and overreact when shit that happens all over the world happens to them.
What are you talking about? We got the top two spots. :yeah:
Quote from: Queequeg on December 16, 2012, 12:34:33 PM
Keep reading and hearing today that the. 223 was the primary weapon used.
Yeah, it was a rifle after all. Kind of obvious in hindsight, given that there were so few wounded.
Sounds like his mother was crazy as shit as well. Member of a survivalist society ("Doomsday Preppers movement"), stored tons of dried food, and kept an armory to defend herself in what prior to last week was one of the safest cities in America. According to her sister in law she was preparing for the economy to collapse.
Quote from: stjaba on December 16, 2012, 12:12:17 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2012, 10:01:52 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2012, 09:58:08 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 15, 2012, 05:33:16 PM
That this thread is twice as long as the one it spawned from tells you something about human nature right there.
Yes, it tells you that people feel the need to find reasonable laws that will prevent this kind of tragedy in the future
Only that global statistics of such tragedies seem to imply no correlation between laws and the chance of them happening. Germany and China are quite high on the list, despite having very tight gun control laws, for example.
I think the bigger picture is gun control in general. While the school shooting was obviously tragic, the US has around 11,000 firearm homicides a year, or are about 30 a day. So every day, the equivalent of the Newtown shooting school occurs. While mass shootings are probably less preventable than other kinds of firearm homicides, there's still the broad point that more gun control is needed.
Yeah but then it does not make sense (except as an appeal to emotions) to say that one wants stricter gun control so that such tragedies do not happen. :P
What is it with people and not keeping their guns locked away?
Quote from: Fate on December 16, 2012, 01:05:42 PM
Sounds like his mother was crazy as shit as well. Member of a survivalist society ("Doomsday Preppers movement"), stored tons of dried food, and kept an armory to defend herself in what prior to last week was one of the safest cities in America. According to her sister in law she was preparing for the economy to collapse.
Well, the economy has collapsed and she was killed by an act of violence in one of the safest cities in America. Who's crazy now?
Quote from: Martinus on December 16, 2012, 01:11:21 PM
Yeah but then it does not make sense (except as an appeal to emotions) to say that one wants stricter gun control so that such tragedies do not happen. :P
Sometimes it takes tragedies and bare appeals to emotion to get important policy changes. It's happened before and it will happen again.
Quote from: Fate on December 16, 2012, 01:05:42 PM
Sounds like his mother was crazy as shit as well. Member of a survivalist society ("Doomsday Preppers movement"), stored tons of dried food, and kept an armory to defend herself in what prior to last week was one of the safest cities in America. According to her sister in law she was preparing for the economy to collapse.
Really, is this verified ?
I just thought those people were harmless loones, though I guess most actions have consequences, intended or not.
Quote from: mongers on December 16, 2012, 01:48:56 PM
Quote from: Fate on December 16, 2012, 01:05:42 PM
Sounds like his mother was crazy as shit as well. Member of a survivalist society ("Doomsday Preppers movement"), stored tons of dried food, and kept an armory to defend herself in what prior to last week was one of the safest cities in America. According to her sister in law she was preparing for the economy to collapse.
Really, is this verified ?
I just thought those people were harmless loones, though I guess most actions have consequences, intended or not.
She was a harmless loony. She got shot in the face by the not-so-harmless loony, remember?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2012, 01:50:11 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 16, 2012, 01:48:56 PM
Quote from: Fate on December 16, 2012, 01:05:42 PM
Sounds like his mother was crazy as shit as well. Member of a survivalist society ("Doomsday Preppers movement"), stored tons of dried food, and kept an armory to defend herself in what prior to last week was one of the safest cities in America. According to her sister in law she was preparing for the economy to collapse.
Really, is this verified ?
I just thought those people were harmless loones, though I guess most actions have consequences, intended or not.
She was a harmless loony. She got shot in the face by the not-so-harmless loony, remember?
Yes, but the eschatological frenzy these loose groupings generate, might help to push looser wing-nuts over the 'edge' so to speak.
Quote from: mongers on December 16, 2012, 01:53:39 PM
Yes, but the eschatological frenzy these loose groupings generate, might help to push looser wing-nuts over the 'edge' so to speak.
Meh, I sincerely doubt this kid's pathology was fueled by prepper stockpiling. Anti-social sociopaths don't work that way.
Yeah, I that doesn't really add up, and mongers,
QuoteAuthorities said Adam Lanza had no criminal history, and it was not clear whether he had a job. Lanza was believed to have suffered from a personality disorder, said a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Another law enforcement official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said Lanza also had been diagnosed with Asperger's, a mild form of autism often characterized by social awkwardness.
People with the disorder are often highly intelligent. While they can become frustrated more easily, there is no evidence of a link between Asperger's and violent behavior, experts say.
The law enforcement officials insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the unfolding investigation.
Richard Novia, the school district's head of security until 2008, who also served as adviser for the high school technology club, of which Lanza was a member, said he clearly "had some disabilities."
"If that boy would've burned himself, he would not have known it or felt it physically," Novia said in a phone interview. "It was my job to pay close attention to that."
Sincerely doubt Mommy's prepper stockpiling was the trigger, mongers.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2012, 01:57:34 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 16, 2012, 01:53:39 PM
Yes, but the eschatological frenzy these loose groupings generate, might help to push looser wing-nuts over the 'edge' so to speak.
Meh, I sincerely doubt this kid's pathology was fueled by prepper stockpiling. Anti-social sociopaths don't work that way.
We don't know if he was formally diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder. We do know mommy was certifiably insane. Planning for the government to collapse but living the life of luxury off of her sugar daddy's $330,000/yr alimony and child support payment.
Quote from: Martim Silva on December 16, 2012, 09:07:08 AM
A great many of these attackers (like this one, or the Batman movie one) are kids who got their guns the easy way (the school guy even got his mommy to get him his), and I suspect that, in a regulated enviroment, they would not know where to go to get an illegal weapon. They'd probably be afraid to go to the illegal gun dealers.
Yes, a gun ban won't prevent criminals/determined guys from getting guns, but then again:
1 - Criminals want to use their guns for crimes. That often means robberies and the like, not going into a school, killing a bunch of kids and then turning the gun on themselves.
2 - Determined guys more often want guns for protection/bawl at them; few would really be the type to go on a killing spree.
Take me as an example: though Portugal has all guns ultra-banned, I got my Walther PPK and ammo from an illegal dealer. I'm a prime example that gun laws don't stop determined folks to get them. On the other hand, I also had the brains to know how to get it, and those very same brains tell me doing this kind of shit is incredibly stupid and cowardly; i'll never do anything like that. But we don't get kids going around shooting schools and cinemas, just the occasional well-organized robber gang.
Basically, what I mean is: tight gun laws prevent stupid kids (and their dumb parents) from getting guns. And those are usually the types that make these massacres.
Where I live, we make laws with the expectation that people will follow them. Not with the expectation that some hypocrites who are smart enough to circumvent them is ok. :P
I had read that from the school security guy about Lanza not being able to feel if he was being burned with a match. I've heard of that disorder before, there was actually a guy in his early 20s years ago when we first moved to this house, one of the neighbor's sons who had a similar issue. He was also, incidentally, MR/DD or ID (whatever the PC term was, he was high functioning mentally retarded / intellectually disabled--and not autism spectrum.) I think eventually they had to put him in a group home as he wasn't around for long after we moved here, but he had some serious care issues because of his diminished mental capacity and his inability to feel pain. He wrecked a dirt bike in the woods once and walked around for awhile unconcerned with a seriously injured leg.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2012, 11:14:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2012, 08:54:21 AM
I am no gun nut.
I don't think the 2nd Amendment protects anyone's "right" to own a handgun.
Even if it did, I would argue that it is a stupid "right", and should be repealed. The right to tote around a gun is NOT, IMO, a fundamental human right, or necessary to a free society. This is easily proven by noting that there are plenty of perfectly free societies that function quite well without the citizens therein being allowed to pack a gun.
All that being said, gun control won't stop things like this from happening. No amount of it that is realistically possible in the US today will make any difference. There are already too many guns, and too ingrained of a culture to matter in any meaningful manner.
I tend to think it does, and think the Roberts court actually got Heller "right." If you read the Heller decision, despite how vilified the Roberts court is by the left (and in many cases with justification) Scalia actually makes a sound argument. Basically, if you haven't read the ruling, the majority held:
1. The linguistic structure of the Second Amendment is consistent with other declarations of rights written around that time in America. The "regulated militia" prefatory clause is no indication that the objective clause which declares the right is only in existence because fo the prefatory clause. Many declarations of rights have a prefatory clause with an "example of why this right is important" in early American State constitutions and etc, and those prefatory clauses were never intended to limit the scope of the right being declared.
2. The Second Amendment is not an individual right to own any weapon by anyone with no regulations. It leaves the door open for various regulatory schemes.
3. However, it says the second amendment is an individual right to own firearms.
4. It further says, it is an individual right to own firearms in "common usage", and that handguns are "common usage" so while regulations on firearms are constitutional blanket bans on handguns are not, because they are a firearm in common usage. They specifically do not overturn Miller, and still assert bans on weapons not in common usage are fine (things like Tommy guns which inspired the 1934 NFA.) The door is still open on regulations of magazine capacities and things like that. And a licensing regime would not run afoul of any of the plaintext of the ruling.
5. It also states an intrinsic right to self defense, and says gun regulations cannot be written in such a way as to deny someone the means to use a gun in their home for self defense.
Meh, whatever. I think the language is ambiguous enough that it means whatever the reader wants it to mean.
More importantly (at least to me) is that even if I were to agree with you about what it says, it would not change my opinion about it's modern relavance any. If I thought it said that, I would have no problem supporting an amendment to ditch the 2nd altogether. Note that is not saying that I think there should or should not be more gun control - only that I think the decisions about what is or is not reasonable gun control should be made without deference to some fundamental right, because I don't think any such fundamental right exists to begin with (at least in the manner we define and believe in "fundamental rights").
Like I said before, I don't think you can take away the right to free speech, or freedom of religion, or freedom to congregate and still have a free society. I think you can heavily restrict gun ownership and still have a free society, therefore I would much prefer us to be able to make our laws without any restrictions that are fundamentally designed to protect a free society.
The "right to bear arms" is a means to an end, and I think it is clear that in reality, a bunch of people owning guns on modern society does nothing towards keeping us free.
Quote from: DGuller on December 16, 2012, 01:00:41 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 16, 2012, 12:34:33 PM
Keep reading and hearing today that the. 223 was the primary weapon used.
Yeah, it was a rifle after all. Kind of obvious in hindsight, given that there were so few wounded.
Like Meri said, he shot them all several times to be sure. Maybe he had to with such a small caliber round.
That round does terrible damage. I doubt multiple shots would be necessary at all.
Wouldn't the extra power from a rifle make it at least as powerful as a short from a mid-range semiautomatic pistol?
Quote from: Queequeg on December 16, 2012, 07:20:30 PM
Wouldn't the extra power from a rifle make it at least as powerful as a short from a mid-range semiautomatic pistol?
IIRC that's an extra powder round as well. Like a magnum, only little. Not like a kiddie's .22 plinker.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 16, 2012, 06:17:43 PM
Like Meri said, he shot them all several times to be sure. Maybe he had to with such a small caliber round.
.223 Remington is what police tactical teams use. It's a nasty round to begin with, and he slaughtered them.
Quote from: derspiess on December 16, 2012, 07:06:04 PM
That round does terrible damage. I doubt multiple shots would be necessary at all.
Yeah, that is a brutal round, especially against freaking little kids.
Christ.
A .223 isn't a .22. Against soft targets it is nasty. He shot them each several times not because he had to...
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 16, 2012, 06:17:43 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 16, 2012, 01:00:41 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 16, 2012, 12:34:33 PM
Keep reading and hearing today that the. 223 was the primary weapon used.
Yeah, it was a rifle after all. Kind of obvious in hindsight, given that there were so few wounded.
Like Meri said, he shot them all several times to be sure. Maybe he had to with such a small caliber round.
I wouldn't call a .223 round "small caliber". Yeah, it's narrow, but it's really going to fuck you up a lot more than a pistol round, especially when it goes through a child. It's going to tumble and give you hydstrostatic shock.
It won't tumble as much as fragment and leave a big wound cavity. The hydrostatic thing is likely though.
Small entry wound. Big exit wound.
Is there any chance we could stop this conversation? I really don't need any more mental images of the effect multiple high-powered rifle peculiarly hideous rounds would have on first graders.
Which isn't something Lanza would have seen. Maybe he kept shooting because he wasn't aware of how much damage he had already done. Or maybe he just couldn't stop himself once he started.
Meri, it's not something I really want to think about but having read battlefield reports of 5.56 wounds I'm pretty sure he'd see the effects.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 16, 2012, 09:35:23 PM
Is there any chance we could stop this conversation? I really don't need any more mental images of the effect multiple high-powered rifle peculiarly hideous rounds would have on first graders.
Given that this is Languish, and you're let people know that it's bothering you, I'd say very little chance now. Heck, now it'll probably come up in every thread you post in for a while.
Quote from: derspiess on December 16, 2012, 09:40:13 PM
Meri, it's not something I really want to think about but having read battlefield reports of 5.56 wounds I'm pretty sure he'd see the effects.
They'd be physically visible, but I wonder if he was really actually seeing anything by that point.
Quote from: derspiess on December 16, 2012, 09:40:13 PM
Meri, it's not something I really want to think about but having read battlefield reports of 5.56 wounds I'm pretty sure he'd see the effects.
I didn't know. I can't think of any other reason he would keep shooting. It just doesn't make sense. None of it does.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 16, 2012, 09:35:23 PM
Is there any chance we could stop this conversation? I really don't need any more mental images of the effect multiple high-powered rifle peculiarly hideous rounds would have on first graders.
Maybe if you'd kept your piehole shut when you were asked.
Quote from: merithyn on December 16, 2012, 09:43:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 16, 2012, 09:40:13 PM
Meri, it's not something I really want to think about but having read battlefield reports of 5.56 wounds I'm pretty sure he'd see the effects.
I didn't know. I can't think of any other reason he would keep shooting. It just doesn't make sense. None of it does.
I'm not sure it ever will.
Quote from: merithyn on December 16, 2012, 09:43:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 16, 2012, 09:40:13 PM
Meri, it's not something I really want to think about but having read battlefield reports of 5.56 wounds I'm pretty sure he'd see the effects.
I didn't know. I can't think of any other reason he would keep shooting. It just doesn't make sense. None of it does.
He's shooting a gun at a person. You know full well what it's going to do. If he was going to be shocked by watching viscera burst from small bodies, he wouldn't be shooting them in the first place.
It doesn't make sense to you because shooting little children doesn't make sense to you.
Meri, you're overthinking things again.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2012, 10:01:47 PM
Meri, you're overthinking things again.
:cry:
I know. Sorry.
Some of us deal with adversity by intellectually analyzing the hell out of it. It's just as reflexive as the response to call for control. :)
It's not a good thing to do sometimes, though. :sleep:
Depends on the emotional context.
Quote from: merithyn on December 16, 2012, 10:31:11 PM
It's not a good thing to do sometimes, though. :sleep:
Better than the alternative. If there is a car accident at a dangerous intersection, I would feel more comfortable if the cops were callously investigating the causes so soon after the tragedy, rather than breaking open their boxes of tissues and sobbing into them.
Quote from: DGuller on December 16, 2012, 10:46:06 PM
If there is a car accident at a dangerous intersection, I would feel more comfortable if the cops were callously investigating the causes so soon after the tragedy, rather than breaking open their boxes of tissues and sobbing into them.
The jokes are priceless sometimes.
And don't think the cops are the only ones, either. Seen plenty of trauma surgeons busting on somebody right there on the table.
Like the guy who came in off a chopper from a motorcycle accident with both his feet in plastic bags getting X-rayed on the bed next to him. Reading off his vitals, when they got to height, doc was "well, whatever it is, subtract two feet". I LOL'd. :blush:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 16, 2012, 10:52:39 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 16, 2012, 10:46:06 PM
If there is a car accident at a dangerous intersection, I would feel more comfortable if the cops were callously investigating the causes so soon after the tragedy, rather than breaking open their boxes of tissues and sobbing into them.
The jokes are priceless sometimes.
And don't think the cops are the only ones, either. Seen plenty of trauma surgeons busting on somebody right there on the table.
Like the guy who came in off a chopper from a motorcycle accident with both his feet in plastic bags getting X-rayed on the bed next to him. Reading off his vitals, when they got to height, doc was "well, whatever it is, subtract two feet". I LOL'd. :blush:
:lmfao:
Haven't read this thread, so I'm sure people have made this point. But, rightly or wrongly, it's extremely unlikely that anything substantial will be done on the issue of gun control. That being said, we should look at reforming the treatment of the mentally ill. These days it seems we just toss the crazies in jail once they commit a crime, and otherwise don't worry about.
http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother
QuoteWhen I asked my son's social worker about my options, he said that the only thing I could do was to get Michael charged with a crime. "If he's back in the system, they'll create a paper trail," he said. "That's the only way you're ever going to get anything done. No one will pay attention to you unless you've got charges."
I don't believe my son belongs in jail. The chaotic environment exacerbates Michael's sensitivity to sensory stimuli and doesn't deal with the underlying pathology. But it seems like the United States is using prison as the solution of choice for mentally ill people. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of mentally ill inmates in U.S. prisons quadrupled from 2000 to 2006, and it continues to rise—in fact, the rate of inmate mental illness is five times greater (56 percent) than in the non-incarcerated population.
With state-run treatment centers and hospitals shuttered, prison is now the last resort for the mentally ill—Rikers Island, the LA County Jail and Cook County Jail in Illinois housed the nation's largest treatment centers in 2011.
Quote from: Berkut on December 16, 2012, 06:14:52 PMMeh, whatever. I think the language is ambiguous enough that it means whatever the reader wants it to mean.
More importantly (at least to me) is that even if I were to agree with you about what it says, it would not change my opinion about it's modern relavance any. If I thought it said that, I would have no problem supporting an amendment to ditch the 2nd altogether. Note that is not saying that I think there should or should not be more gun control - only that I think the decisions about what is or is not reasonable gun control should be made without deference to some fundamental right, because I don't think any such fundamental right exists to begin with (at least in the manner we define and believe in "fundamental rights").
Like I said before, I don't think you can take away the right to free speech, or freedom of religion, or freedom to congregate and still have a free society. I think you can heavily restrict gun ownership and still have a free society, therefore I would much prefer us to be able to make our laws without any restrictions that are fundamentally designed to protect a free society.
The "right to bear arms" is a means to an end, and I think it is clear that in reality, a bunch of people owning guns on modern society does nothing towards keeping us free.
Heller simply says you can't outright ban weapons in common usage, the right to bear arms is an individual and you have an innate right to self defense. You can think what you want about it, but the fact is our constitution was not written to just ignore parts that you think are outdated. For example the long lame duck term after elections was so people riding horses would have time to get to Washington for the swearing in. That became antiquated, but you have to actually amend the Constitution to change that, you can't just declare it antiquated and move on. That's the point I was making, your interpretation of the second amendment is irrelevant when it clashes with a precedential ruling from the SCOTUS.
FWIW, I'm an anti-populist, I think only trusted individuals should have guns and gun ownership should require licensing. But I think we should have set criteria for said licensing and if you meet that criteria the government has to issue it to you just like they do a driver's license. It shouldn't be discretionary. I think Germany has a good law though, that under the age of 25 you have to get a psychiatric evaluation to get a gun. Incidentally, it seems a lot of the worst gun users are under the age of 25.
Heller allows wide latitude for regulation of firearms, so in all reality unless you are advocating a gun ban outright there is no reason to war with the second amendment in the first place. All it takes is 13 States not wanting to repeal it and you're dead in the water. It is unlikely you could get that many on board in any of our lifetimes.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 17, 2012, 07:32:59 AM
I think Germany has a good law though, that under the age of 25 you have to get a psychiatric evaluation to get a gun. Incidentally, it seems a lot of the worst gun users are under the age of 25.
Then you start straddling the right to privacy, in addition to the right to bear arms. That really starts to complicate things.
I don't know what Germany's privacy laws are regarding mental health issues, but I'm sure they are substantially more progressive for the sake of the greater community at large than it is here. But that is as foreign a concept here as it the concept of the 2nd Amendment is for Germans.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 15, 2012, 06:21:56 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 15, 2012, 06:05:18 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2012, 06:01:53 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 15, 2012, 05:54:20 PM
What's the typical design basis threat of American schools? Should it include a lone gunman?
Active shooter scenarios have been part of school threat analysis for a few years already, really took off since Columbine. More colleges have really taken to it since Virginia Tech, although more progressive schools have had mass casualty drills of all sorts for a long time. Used to be bombs and fire events. Now it's active shooters.
My impression is that few schools in America have security measures that stop a lone gunman.
Options
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/s480x480/598458_438869902835228_743461741_n.jpg)
I don't trust the majority of public school teachers to do the job they were hired for....definitely do not trust them to have firearms!
I know the high school near me has an armed county sheriff on campus during school hours. I am not against that.
Quote from: Mr. Grey on December 17, 2012, 09:53:11 AM
I don't trust the majority of public school teachers to do the job they were hired for....definitely do not trust them to have firearms!
I know the high school near me has an armed county sheriff on campus during school hours. I am not against that.
QuoteA Republican Congressman said that elementary school principals should be armed and have access to assault rifles in order to kill potential shooters.
Representative Louie Gohmert theorized that if the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School had an M-4 rifle in her office, then she would have been able to shoot Adam Lanza before he proceeded to kill 20 students and six adults at the Newtown, Connecticut school.
'I wish to God she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn't have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands and takes him out and takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids,' he said.
He feels that 'having been a judge and reviewed photographs of these horrific scenes and knowing that children have these defensive wounds, gun shots through their arms and hands as they try to protect themselves, and, hearing the heroic stories of the principal, lunging, trying to protect (the children)' the principal would have been helped if she had her own automatic weapon.
Ah, Congressional Republicans.
Methinks his comment was somewhat inappropriate. :yes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 17, 2012, 09:58:41 AM
Quote from: Mr. Grey on December 17, 2012, 09:53:11 AM
I don't trust the majority of public school teachers to do the job they were hired for....definitely do not trust them to have firearms!
I know the high school near me has an armed county sheriff on campus during school hours. I am not against that.
QuoteA Republican Congressman said that elementary school principals should be armed and have access to assault rifles in order to kill potential shooters.
Representative Louie Gohmert theorized that if the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School had an M-4 rifle in her office, then she would have been able to shoot Adam Lanza before he proceeded to kill 20 students and six adults at the Newtown, Connecticut school.
'I wish to God she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn't have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands and takes him out and takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids,' he said.
He feels that 'having been a judge and reviewed photographs of these horrific scenes and knowing that children have these defensive wounds, gun shots through their arms and hands as they try to protect themselves, and, hearing the heroic stories of the principal, lunging, trying to protect (the children)' the principal would have been helped if she had her own automatic weapon.
Ah, Congressional Republicans.
Good that he's expanded from terror babies.
As surprising as it is, only marginally less quackers than Sheilbh's fave-rave pastor fucktard:
QuoteMike Huckabee: Sandy Hook shooting not surprising after God 'removed from our schools'
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee commented on the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., on Fox News, saying that Americans have "systematically removed God from our schools" and thus shouldn't be surprised when violence occurs there.
Huckabee: The biggest aftermath of something like this is people are going to look for, 'Why did it happen?' Okay, well the answer is inexplicable. And what do we do to stop it? You can take certain measures, and I think your that previous guest had a lot of great ideas which is very important. But ultimately, you can take every gun away in America and somebody will use a bomb. When somebody has an intent to do incredible damage, they're going to find a way to do it. In the case of the Jonesboro shooters we were talking about an 11 and a 12 year old kid who took high powered rifles and gunned down their classmates and teachers after they had got them into a school yard by setting off a fire alarm where they were trapped in a fenced area and couldn't get back in because the door locked after them. They were sitting ducks. And the question was how can an 11 and a 12 year old do this? And the answer is nobody can understand how that can happen.
Huckabee: So you know, people will want to pass new laws, but unless you change peoples' hearts, there I transition maybe to the pastor side. This is a heart issue, it's not something, laws don't change this kind of thing.
Host: You know, invariably, people ask after tragedies like this, 'How could God let this happen?'
Huckabee: Well, you know it's an interesting thing. We ask why there's violence in our schools but we've systematically removed God from our schools. Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage because we've made it a place where we don't want to talk about eternity, life, what responsibility means, accountability. That we're not just going to have to be accountable to the police if they catch us but one day we stand before a holy God in judgment. If we don't believe that, then we don't fear that. And so I sometimes when people say, 'Why did God let it happen?' you know, God wasn't armed. He didn't go to the school. But God will be there in the form of a lot of people with hugs and with therapy and a whole lot of ways which I think he will be involved in the aftermath. Maybe we ought to let him in on the front end and we wouldn't have to call him to show up when it's all said and done at the back end.
Then again...when was the last time a Catholic school got shot up? :papisthmmm:
:rolleyes:
FWIW I told you people back in 2008 that Huck was evil and dangerous. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 17, 2012, 10:17:10 AM
As surprising as it is, only marginally less quackers than Sheilbh's fave-rave pastor fucktard:
QuoteMike Huckabee: Sandy Hook shooting not surprising after God 'removed from our schools'
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee commented on the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., on Fox News, saying that Americans have "systematically removed God from our schools" and thus shouldn't be surprised when violence occurs there.
Huckabee: The biggest aftermath of something like this is people are going to look for, 'Why did it happen?' Okay, well the answer is inexplicable. And what do we do to stop it? You can take certain measures, and I think your that previous guest had a lot of great ideas which is very important. But ultimately, you can take every gun away in America and somebody will use a bomb. When somebody has an intent to do incredible damage, they're going to find a way to do it. In the case of the Jonesboro shooters we were talking about an 11 and a 12 year old kid who took high powered rifles and gunned down their classmates and teachers after they had got them into a school yard by setting off a fire alarm where they were trapped in a fenced area and couldn't get back in because the door locked after them. They were sitting ducks. And the question was how can an 11 and a 12 year old do this? And the answer is nobody can understand how that can happen.
Huckabee: So you know, people will want to pass new laws, but unless you change peoples' hearts, there I transition maybe to the pastor side. This is a heart issue, it's not something, laws don't change this kind of thing.
Host: You know, invariably, people ask after tragedies like this, 'How could God let this happen?'
Huckabee: Well, you know it's an interesting thing. We ask why there's violence in our schools but we've systematically removed God from our schools. Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage because we've made it a place where we don't want to talk about eternity, life, what responsibility means, accountability. That we're not just going to have to be accountable to the police if they catch us but one day we stand before a holy God in judgment. If we don't believe that, then we don't fear that. And so I sometimes when people say, 'Why did God let it happen?' you know, God wasn't armed. He didn't go to the school. But God will be there in the form of a lot of people with hugs and with therapy and a whole lot of ways which I think he will be involved in the aftermath. Maybe we ought to let him in on the front end and we wouldn't have to call him to show up when it's all said and done at the back end.
Then again...when was the last time a Catholic school got shot up? :papisthmmm:
Odd considering the Kid was home schooled.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 17, 2012, 10:36:44 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 17, 2012, 10:17:10 AM
As surprising as it is, only marginally less quackers than Sheilbh's fave-rave pastor fucktard:
QuoteMike Huckabee: Sandy Hook shooting not surprising after God 'removed from our schools'
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee commented on the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., on Fox News, saying that Americans have "systematically removed God from our schools" and thus shouldn't be surprised when violence occurs there.
Huckabee: The biggest aftermath of something like this is people are going to look for, 'Why did it happen?' Okay, well the answer is inexplicable. And what do we do to stop it? You can take certain measures, and I think your that previous guest had a lot of great ideas which is very important. But ultimately, you can take every gun away in America and somebody will use a bomb. When somebody has an intent to do incredible damage, they're going to find a way to do it. In the case of the Jonesboro shooters we were talking about an 11 and a 12 year old kid who took high powered rifles and gunned down their classmates and teachers after they had got them into a school yard by setting off a fire alarm where they were trapped in a fenced area and couldn't get back in because the door locked after them. They were sitting ducks. And the question was how can an 11 and a 12 year old do this? And the answer is nobody can understand how that can happen.
Huckabee: So you know, people will want to pass new laws, but unless you change peoples' hearts, there I transition maybe to the pastor side. This is a heart issue, it's not something, laws don't change this kind of thing.
Host: You know, invariably, people ask after tragedies like this, 'How could God let this happen?'
Huckabee: Well, you know it's an interesting thing. We ask why there's violence in our schools but we've systematically removed God from our schools. Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage because we've made it a place where we don't want to talk about eternity, life, what responsibility means, accountability. That we're not just going to have to be accountable to the police if they catch us but one day we stand before a holy God in judgment. If we don't believe that, then we don't fear that. And so I sometimes when people say, 'Why did God let it happen?' you know, God wasn't armed. He didn't go to the school. But God will be there in the form of a lot of people with hugs and with therapy and a whole lot of ways which I think he will be involved in the aftermath. Maybe we ought to let him in on the front end and we wouldn't have to call him to show up when it's all said and done at the back end.
Then again...when was the last time a Catholic school got shot up? :papisthmmm:
Odd considering the Kid was home schooled.
No no no , you got it all wrong - what he's saying is that God deliberately refused to protect these little kids from the homeschooled nut (with the survivalist mom's arsenal)
because the victim kids weren't godly enough. If they'd been properly forced to pray in school, God would never have allowed this. But little kids not forced to pray? God turns his back on them.
[Am I the only one with an urge to punch Huckabee right in the nuts about now? :D]
Quote from: Malthus on December 17, 2012, 10:49:03 AM
[Am I the only one with an urge to punch Huckabee right in the nuts about now? :D]
And then some.
What do you want to bet the mom was a Gold Bug?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 17, 2012, 10:58:18 AM
What do you want to bet the mom was a Gold Bug?
Yeah, pile it on!
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2012, 11:14:12 AM
I tend to think it does, and think the Roberts court actually got Heller "right." If you read the Heller decision, despite how vilified the Roberts court is by the left (and in many cases with justification) Scalia actually makes a sound argument.
Scalia's reading is not implausible but it begs quite a number iof question
First, the whole notion of whether the Second Amendment announced an individual or "collective right" IMO is a red herring. Of course we are talking about individual rights. The question is what is the scope and boundaries of the right in question.
Scalia's answer goes like this:
(1) the prefatory clause has no limiting effect, based on a law review article by Eugene Volokh that noted the existence of prefatory clauses in four state constitition freedom of speech/press provisions.
(2) a contemporary analysis of use of the term "keep" arms reveals few examples of usage but in the absence of evidence that such usage was limited to militia weapons, Scalia presumes there is no such limitation
(3) although the term "bear arms" was often used in 18th century texts to refer specifically to usage in the military context, Scalia believes it should be interpreted beyond that context principally on the strength of the authority of state constitutions that included 2nd amendment analogues referrring to the "defence of self and state"
(4) On the weight of this apparently ambiguous textual evidence, Scalia concludes that the 2nd amendment should be read as "guaranteeing the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" -- even though none of the texts he relies on uses that term or anything close to it.
(5) He then limits the scope of the right by endorsing the Miller opinion to limit the kinds of weapons to which the 2nd amendment applies; except that whereas Miller limits the right to "ordinary military equipment", Scalia excises the word "military" and rewrites the protection to reflect those arms "typically possessed by law abiding citizens".
There are all sorts of problems here. First, the analysis of textual usage as often is the case, gives ambiguous results that Scalia has to spon to make work for his case. For example, Scalia points to pre-Bill of Rights state constitutions that contain provisions stating "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state" as his principal evidence that the term "bear arms" refers to personal defence as well as in the context of militia service. But there is a very obvious problem with this argument - the Federal version of the amendment, written later than these examples, omitted any language about "defence of themselves." Second, Scalia's textual analysis that the Second Amendment protects a right to carry weapons in the case of "confrontation" contradicts
Miller as a sawed-off shotgun is in fact a very useful weapon for confrontation purposes. Miller is also embarassing because on its face it raises the "M-16 problem" by relying on a distinction between "ordinary military equipment" and "unusual" equipment, a distinction which Scalia gives lip service to before abandoning it for his "weapons typically possessed by law abiding citizens" standard. That definition suffers from obvious circularity problems - that which is protected is that which people "typically" have.
It basically comes down to a lot of legal dancing to basically endorse the status quo as it presently exists in a majority of states (as against a more restrictive minority).
Of course, the entirety hinges on making the preamble into surplusage. That is a very odd move to make in interpreting the Constitution to say the least. As legislative and legal documents go, the Constitution is a model of conciseness. The usual interpretive canon that operates is to give meaning to every single word - as Scalia universally does both in Heller and in other contexts. And ignoring the preamble is particularly questionable because the 2nd amendment stands out as alone among all the Bill of Rights in having such a preamble. Scalia's justification for those move is weak IMO: he cites a law review article for the proposition that "other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose." No other support is cited for this concept. The article in question relates a few free press (and similar) clauses in some state constitutions that have preambles like: "The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state, [therefore] [operative clause]" There is nothing to indicate that these clauses were viewed as meaningless or without effect.
Despite all these problems, Scalia's opinion can be justified in a different way: as a reasoned exercise in results-oriented jurisprudence. The DC ban seemed unreasonable. At the same time, pragmatic judgment suggests it would not be wise to eliminate the possibility of regulating firearms in some meaningful way. Scalia's opinion gets that result. But to the extent it does involve results-oriented reasoning, then it can be fairly criticized on policy grounds for not reaching 100% the right result.
Joan:
The issue I have with pro-control arguments about the preamble, is that it requires a large number of unsupported logical leaps to arrive at the conclusion that the writers wanted people to have the right to bear arms only to the extent that it would result in a higher quality militia. If that were the intention, there are obvious and easy ways it could have been written.
Quote from: Malthus on December 17, 2012, 10:49:03 AM
No no no , you got it all wrong - what he's saying is that God deliberately refused to protect these little kids from the homeschooled nut (with the survivalist mom's arsenal) because the victim kids weren't godly enough. If they'd been properly forced to pray in school, God would never have allowed this. But little kids not forced to pray? God turns his back on them.
And then there is this gem:
"And so I sometimes when people say, 'Why did God let it happen?' you know, God wasn't armed. He didn't go to the school."
Right.
If only someone had enrolled God in the elementary school and given Him a conceal carry license. With a crack shot like that on the job, no worries.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2012, 12:46:55 PM
Joan:
The issue I have with pro-control arguments about the preamble, is that it requires a large number of unsupported logical leaps to arrive at the conclusion that the writers wanted people to have the right to bear arms only to the extent that it would result in a higher quality militia. If that were the intention, there are obvious and easy ways it could have been written.
That's not the only way to read it. But what is clear is that there must be some logicaly connection to the scope of the right (and its limitation on government power) and the clearly stated purpose.
There isn't a clear answer here but that doesn't mean the right answer is to pretend as though the language isn't there and pay no attention to it. In any other context, Scalia would have short shrift for such a blatant anti-textual argument.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 17, 2012, 12:52:29 PM
That's not the only way to read it. But what is clear is that there must be some logicaly connection to the scope of the right (and its limitation on government power) and the clearly stated purpose.
Why must there be? The only other preamble to a right is pure puffery.
We ascribe weight to preambles or non-operative clauses all the time. Hell, that whole "general welfare" thing is in the preamble to the whole document. Should we not?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 17, 2012, 01:00:42 PM
We ascribe weight to preambles or non-operative clauses all the time. Hell, that whole "general welfare" thing is in the preamble to the whole document. Should we not?
Can you give me an example of a preamble influencing the meaning?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2012, 12:59:28 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 17, 2012, 12:52:29 PM
That's not the only way to read it. But what is clear is that there must be some logicaly connection to the scope of the right (and its limitation on government power) and the clearly stated purpose.
Why must there be? The only other preamble to a right is pure puffery.
What do you mean? No other right in the Constitution has a similar structure.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 17, 2012, 01:02:21 PM
What do you mean? No other right in the Constitution has a similar structure.
Doesn't the first? Sometimes I'm really at a disadvantage because I grew up overseas. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2012, 01:02:21 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 17, 2012, 01:00:42 PM
We ascribe weight to preambles or non-operative clauses all the time. Hell, that whole "general welfare" thing is in the preamble to the whole document. Should we not?
Can you give me an example of a preamble influencing the meaning?
Not really--I mean don't people generally assume the gov't has the power to look after the general welfare, even though those words appear in the preamble and not in an otherwise operative clause?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2012, 01:03:21 PM
Doesn't the first? Sometimes I'm really at a disadvantage because I grew up overseas. :Embarrass:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"
No textual limitation.
http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother
Quote
I Am Adam Lanza's Mother
Liza Long
Three days before 20-year-old Adam Lanza killed his mother, then opened fire on a classroom full of Connecticut kindergartners, my 13-year-old son Michael (name changed) missed his bus because he was wearing the wrong color pants.
"I can wear these pants," he said, his tone increasingly belligerent, the black-hole pupils of his eyes swallowing the blue irises.
"They are navy blue," I told him. "Your school's dress code says black or khaki pants only."
"They told me I could wear these," he insisted. "You're a stupid bitch. I can wear whatever pants I want to. This is America. I have rights!"
"You can't wear whatever pants you want to," I said, my tone affable, reasonable. "And you definitely cannot call me a stupid bitch. You're grounded from electronics for the rest of the day. Now get in the car, and I will take you to school."
I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me.
A few weeks ago, Michael pulled a knife and threatened to kill me and then himself after I asked him to return his overdue library books. His 7- and 9-year-old siblings knew the safety plan—they ran to the car and locked the doors before I even asked them to. I managed to get the knife from Michael, then methodically collected all the sharp objects in the house into a single Tupperware container that now travels with me. Through it all, he continued to scream insults at me and threaten to kill or hurt me.
That conflict ended with three burly police officers and a paramedic wrestling my son onto a gurney for an expensive ambulance ride to the local emergency room. The mental hospital didn't have any beds that day, and Michael calmed down nicely in the ER, so they sent us home with a prescription for Zyprexa and a follow-up visit with a local pediatric psychiatrist.
We still don't know what's wrong with Michael. Autism spectrum, ADHD, Oppositional Defiant or Intermittent Explosive Disorder have all been tossed around at various meetings with probation officers and social workers and counselors and teachers and school administrators. He's been on a slew of antipsychotic and mood-altering pharmaceuticals, a Russian novel of behavioral plans. Nothing seems to work.
At the start of seventh grade, Michael was accepted to an accelerated program for highly gifted math and science students. His IQ is off the charts. When he's in a good mood, he will gladly bend your ear on subjects ranging from Greek mythology to the differences between Einsteinian and Newtonian physics to Doctor Who. He's in a good mood most of the time. But when he's not, watch out. And it's impossible to predict what will set him off.
Several weeks into his new junior high school, Michael began exhibiting increasingly odd and threatening behaviors at school. We decided to transfer him to the district's most restrictive behavioral program, a contained school environment where children who can't function in normal classrooms can access their right to free public babysitting from 7:30 to 1:50 Monday through Friday until they turn 18.
The morning of the pants incident, Michael continued to argue with me on the drive. He would occasionally apologize and seem remorseful. Right before we turned into his school parking lot, he said, "Look, Mom, I'm really sorry. Can I have video games back today?"
"No way," I told him. "You cannot act the way you acted this morning and think you can get your electronic privileges back that quickly."
His face turned cold, and his eyes were full of calculated rage. "Then I'm going to kill myself," he said. "I'm going to jump out of this car right now and kill myself."
That was it. After the knife incident, I told him that if he ever said those words again, I would take him straight to the mental hospital, no ifs, ands, or buts. I did not respond, except to pull the car into the opposite lane, turning left instead of right.
"Where are you taking me?" he said, suddenly worried. "Where are we going?"
"You know where we are going," I replied.
"No! You can't do that to me! You're sending me to hell! You're sending me straight to hell!"
I pulled up in front of the hospital, frantically waving for one of the clinicians who happened to be standing outside. "Call the police," I said. "Hurry."
Michael was in a full-blown fit by then, screaming and hitting. I hugged him close so he couldn't escape from the car. He bit me several times and repeatedly jabbed his elbows into my rib cage. I'm still stronger than he is, but I won't be for much longer.
The police came quickly and carried my son screaming and kicking into the bowels of the hospital. I started to shake, and tears filled my eyes as I filled out the paperwork—"Were there any difficulties with... at what age did your child... were there any problems with.. has your child ever experienced.. does your child have..."
At least we have health insurance now. I recently accepted a position with a local college, giving up my freelance career because when you have a kid like this, you need benefits. You'll do anything for benefits. No individual insurance plan will cover this kind of thing.
For days, my son insisted that I was lying—that I made the whole thing up so that I could get rid of him. The first day, when I called to check up on him, he said, "I hate you. And I'm going to get my revenge as soon as I get out of here."
By day three, he was my calm, sweet boy again, all apologies and promises to get better. I've heard those promises for years. I don't believe them anymore.
On the intake form, under the question, "What are your expectations for treatment?" I wrote, "I need help."
And I do. This problem is too big for me to handle on my own. Sometimes there are no good options. So you just pray for grace and trust that in hindsight, it will all make sense.
I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza's mother. I am Dylan Klebold's and Eric Harris's mother. I am Jason Holmes's mother. I am Jared Loughner's mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho's mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it's easy to talk about guns. But it's time to talk about mental illness.
According to Mother Jones, since 1982, 61 mass murders involving firearms have occurred throughout the country. Of these, 43 of the killers were white males, and only one was a woman. Mother Jones focused on whether the killers obtained their guns legally (most did). But this highly visible sign of mental illness should lead us to consider how many people in the U.S. live in fear, like I do.
When I asked my son's social worker about my options, he said that the only thing I could do was to get Michael charged with a crime. "If he's back in the system, they'll create a paper trail," he said. "That's the only way you're ever going to get anything done. No one will pay attention to you unless you've got charges."
I don't believe my son belongs in jail. The chaotic environment exacerbates Michael's sensitivity to sensory stimuli and doesn't deal with the underlying pathology. But it seems like the United States is using prison as the solution of choice for mentally ill people. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of mentally ill inmates in U.S. prisons quadrupled from 2000 to 2006, and it continues to rise—in fact, the rate of inmate mental illness is five times greater (56 percent) than in the non-incarcerated population.
With state-run treatment centers and hospitals shuttered, prison is now the last resort for the mentally ill—Rikers Island, the LA County Jail and Cook County Jail in Illinois housed the nation's largest treatment centers in 2011.
No one wants to send a 13-year-old genius who loves Harry Potter and his snuggle animal collection to jail. But our society, with its stigma on mental illness and its broken healthcare system, does not provide us with other options. Then another tortured soul shoots up a fast food restaurant. A mall. A kindergarten classroom. And we wring our hands and say, "Something must be done."
I agree that something must be done. It's time for a meaningful, nation-wide conversation about mental health. That's the only way our nation can ever truly heal.
God help me. God help Michael. God help us all.
Why aren't the girls pulling their weight in the mass murder department anyway? I think the thing about boys being more likely to be outliers is correct. Also, damn. Maybe we're looking at the wrong things here.
WTF is that. Not going to waste a couple minutes of life reading that.
Chilling article. I can't help but wonder though if her position is being filtered through the eyes of a mother. She doesn't want her son charged with a crime. but does think that if he continues on he will be a killer. Kind of sounds like she's holding out hope that her son can be "cured."
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 17, 2012, 01:50:02 PM
Why aren't the girls pulling their weight in the mass murder department anyway? I think the thing about boys being more likely to be outliers is correct. Also, damn. Maybe we're looking at the wrong things here.
Not there MO I recken
Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2012, 02:05:22 PM
Chilling article. I can't help but wonder though if her position is being filtered through the eyes of a mother. She doesn't want her son charged with a crime. but does think that if he continues on he will be a killer. Kind of sounds like she's holding out hope that her son can be "cured."
Can he be? She makes it sound pretty hopeless. But of course that's her own sense of desperation talking I think.
I think someone already posted that in the urine free thread.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 17, 2012, 02:08:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2012, 02:05:22 PM
Chilling article. I can't help but wonder though if her position is being filtered through the eyes of a mother. She doesn't want her son charged with a crime. but does think that if he continues on he will be a killer. Kind of sounds like she's holding out hope that her son can be "cured."
Can he be? She makes it sound pretty hopeless. But of course that's her own sense of desperation talking I think.
I don't know but she's the one who said she doesn't want him charged with a crime (/social worker suggested it). Not that I don't see her position as she's his mother but she seems to want some option of committing him against his well but that doesn't involve being charged with a crime. Though part of that latter bit is because she doesn't want him in jail.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 17, 2012, 02:06:18 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 17, 2012, 01:50:02 PM
Why aren't the girls pulling their weight in the mass murder department anyway? I think the thing about boys being more likely to be outliers is correct. Also, damn. Maybe we're looking at the wrong things here.
Not there MO I recken
Historically, haven't female murderers been more into poisioning? There were a number of cases of nurses giving lots of folks a "helping hand" that way, I recall. :hmm:
Dunno if they would qualify as "mass" murders, or more of the "serial" variety though.
Jennifer San Marco
San Marco had a history of mental problems and strange behaviours before she killed a former neighbour on Jan 30, 2006, and passed through a heavily guarded security station into a mail processing plant and distribution centre in Goleta, California. There, using a pistol, the 44 year old shot and killed five people on location, with a sixth dying two days later in hospital. San Marco took her own life at the scene, and left no suicide note.
Amy Bishop, The Deadly Professor
On February 12, 2010, neurobiologist Amy Bishop pulled a gun in her biology department meeting at the University o Alabama, and killed (allegedly) three people, wounded three others.
Allegedly? I thought she pled guilty.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 17, 2012, 07:32:59 AMI think Germany has a good law though, that under the age of 25 you have to get a psychiatric evaluation to get a gun. Incidentally, it seems a lot of the worst gun users are under the age of 25.
Our last 17 year-old school shooter just took his father's gun out of the nightstand and went on to kill 15 people.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 17, 2012, 07:40:52 AMI don't know what Germany's privacy laws are regarding mental health issues, but I'm sure they are substantially more progressive for the sake of the greater community at large than it is here. But that is as foreign a concept here as it the concept of the 2nd Amendment is for Germans.
I reckon you talk to a psychologist or psychiatrist and he just gives a thumbs up or down, no more. And I am sure you can get the evaluation and never have to hand it in if it comes out negative, so the person at the weapon's registry wouldn't know. I don't really see a major privacy issue with that to be honest. It's between you and the psych guy, who is by law bound to professional secrecy anyway.
I know practically nothing about psychiatric evaluations, but how reliable are they? I mean, wouldn't it be pretty easy to lie to avoid being classified as dangerously crazy?
Quote from: derspiess on December 17, 2012, 04:57:02 PM
I know practically nothing about psychiatric evaluations, but how reliable are they? I mean, wouldn't it be pretty easy to lie to avoid being classified as dangerously crazy?
It depends how thorough they are.
They have a variety of ways of determining your mental state beyond self-reported information, since obviously an individual can have incentives to lie. It can be found out - if you have enough time.
But I can tell you a lot of our "psych evaluations" are the doc spending 15 minutes talking to the person while in cells.
Quote from: Zanza on December 17, 2012, 03:55:31 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 17, 2012, 07:32:59 AMI think Germany has a good law though, that under the age of 25 you have to get a psychiatric evaluation to get a gun. Incidentally, it seems a lot of the worst gun users are under the age of 25.
Our last 17 year-old school shooter just took his father's gun out of the nightstand and went on to kill 15 people.
That's the problem right there - if people are owning guns for personal safety reasons, they are generally going to be accessible to everyone who lives with them.
Until and unless they have biometric trigger locks.
Quote from: Malthus on December 17, 2012, 05:05:51 PM
That's the problem right there - if people are owning guns for personal safety reasons, they are generally going to be accessible to everyone who lives with them.
Until and unless they have biometric trigger locks.
Well, there are different levels of accessibility, though. I don't think you need a biometric trigger lock to make a gun reasonably inaccessible.
I have a small safe on the nightstand with a four button combo lock on it. I can get the gun out in about two seconds, but nobody else can get it at all. It's not hard to be reasonably responsible about it and make them inaccessible to the kiddies.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 17, 2012, 05:22:00 PM
I have a small safe on the nightstand with a four button combo lock on it. I can get the gun out in about two seconds, but nobody else can get it at all. It's not hard to be reasonably responsible about it and make them inaccessible to the kiddies.
I am familiar with that type of safe :)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 17, 2012, 05:22:00 PM
I have a small safe on the nightstand with a four button combo lock on it. I can get the gun out in about two seconds, but nobody else can get it at all. It's not hard to be reasonably responsible about it and make them inaccessible to the kiddies.
If everyone was voluntarily as prudent as you then there would be no problem. But they are not - hence the requirement for laws.
Quote from: derspiess on December 17, 2012, 11:17:11 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 17, 2012, 10:58:18 AM
What do you want to bet the mom was a Gold Bug?
Yeah, pile it on!
Hey, at least the real monster of our time, Susan Rice was stopped.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 17, 2012, 12:50:24 PM
And then there is this gem:
"And so I sometimes when people say, 'Why did God let it happen?' you know, God wasn't armed. He didn't go to the school."
Right.
If only someone had enrolled God in the elementary school and given Him a conceal carry license. With a crack shot like that on the job, no worries.
I interpreted that as 'This isn't the fault of my god, it's the fault of the shooter'. I mean, I know the Huckster is a Republican, and you do like to see everything they do in the worst possible light (and sometimes that's even justified), but that seems to me to be a pretty ho-hum statement of 'the bad guys are responsible for the bad things they do'.
What a stupid way to make that point.
Quote from: derspiess on December 17, 2012, 05:26:52 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 17, 2012, 05:22:00 PM
I have a small safe on the nightstand with a four button combo lock on it. I can get the gun out in about two seconds, but nobody else can get it at all. It's not hard to be reasonably responsible about it and make them inaccessible to the kiddies.
I am familiar with that type of safe :)
I'm thinking about getting a gun, and if I do, I was planning on getting exactly that type of safe for it.
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2012, 06:24:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 17, 2012, 12:50:24 PM
And then there is this gem:
"And so I sometimes when people say, 'Why did God let it happen?' you know, God wasn't armed. He didn't go to the school."
Right.
If only someone had enrolled God in the elementary school and given Him a conceal carry license. With a crack shot like that on the job, no worries.
I interpreted that as 'This isn't the fault of my god, it's the fault of the shooter'. I mean, I know the Huckster is a Republican, and you do like to see everything they do in the worst possible light (and sometimes that's even justified), but that seems to me to be a pretty ho-hum statement of 'the bad guys are responsible for the bad things they do'.
I think it is still fair though. I would say that this type of incident is exactly one that could shake one's belief in God. Deflecting it to being the fault of the shooter is kind of weak.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 17, 2012, 01:50:02 PM
Why aren't the girls pulling their weight in the mass murder department anyway? I think the thing about boys being more likely to be outliers is correct. Also, damn. Maybe we're looking at the wrong things here.
Not all types of mental illness show an equal gender split. Autism spectrum disorders, antisocial personality disorder, etc. all have a strong male predominance. Depression, anxiety, and borderline/histrionic personality disorders have a female predominance. Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia show an even split.
Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2012, 07:08:43 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2012, 06:24:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 17, 2012, 12:50:24 PM
And then there is this gem:
"And so I sometimes when people say, 'Why did God let it happen?' you know, God wasn't armed. He didn't go to the school."
Right.
If only someone had enrolled God in the elementary school and given Him a conceal carry license. With a crack shot like that on the job, no worries.
I interpreted that as 'This isn't the fault of my god, it's the fault of the shooter'. I mean, I know the Huckster is a Republican, and you do like to see everything they do in the worst possible light (and sometimes that's even justified), but that seems to me to be a pretty ho-hum statement of 'the bad guys are responsible for the bad things they do'.
I think it is still fair though. I would say that this type of incident is exactly one that could shake one's belief in God. Deflecting it to being the fault of the shooter is kind of weak.
Not really. Free will and all that shit.
If that sort of thing shakes a person's belief in their god, that's between them and their conscience. I just don't see how that absolves the shooter of responsibility.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 17, 2012, 07:00:43 PM
What a stupid way to make that point.
Do you really think that Huckabee is that big a threat to run for President? It seems to me that he's something of a spent force, and the crazy Christian aspect of the party is going to go for people who are far less sane than the Huckster.
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2012, 07:49:18 PM
Not really. Free will and all that shit.
If that sort of thing shakes a person's belief in their god, that's between them and their conscience. I just don't see how that absolves the shooter of responsibility.
Sure but then you get to the "evilness" of god and why is god something I should believe in or even respect if it is going to allow such evil things to occur.
I don't think it absolves the shooter of responsibility either.
Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2012, 07:51:52 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2012, 07:49:18 PM
Not really. Free will and all that shit.
If that sort of thing shakes a person's belief in their god, that's between them and their conscience. I just don't see how that absolves the shooter of responsibility.
Sure but then you get to the "evilness" of god and why is god something I should believe in or even respect if it is going to allow such evil things to occur.
I don't think it absolves the shooter of responsibility either.
You can certainly blame it on the 'evilness' of god if you like, but I think the orthodox Christian view is that evil acts are caused by the gift of free will coupled with the fall.
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2012, 08:05:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2012, 07:51:52 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2012, 07:49:18 PM
Not really. Free will and all that shit.
If that sort of thing shakes a person's belief in their god, that's between them and their conscience. I just don't see how that absolves the shooter of responsibility.
Sure but then you get to the "evilness" of god and why is god something I should believe in or even respect if it is going to allow such evil things to occur.
I don't think it absolves the shooter of responsibility either.
You can certainly blame it on the 'evilness' of god if you like, but I think the orthodox Christian view is that evil acts are caused by the gift of free will coupled with the fall.
Well obviously I'm inserting my own thoughts - but I remember as a child thinking this god business sounds like crap. He and his son love us but then allow all these terrible things to happen to innocent people - children who haven't even had a chance to make their own choices. That's not any kind of love I want a part of.
Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2012, 08:09:18 PM
Well obviously I'm inserting my own thoughts - but I remember as a child thinking this god business sounds like crap. He and his son love us but then allow all these terrible things to happen to innocent people - children who haven't even had a chance to make their own choices. That's not any kind of love I want a part of.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Still, I could definitely see how Christians could believe the way they could.
Quote from: Malthus on December 17, 2012, 05:05:51 PM
Quote from: Zanza on December 17, 2012, 03:55:31 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 17, 2012, 07:32:59 AMI think Germany has a good law though, that under the age of 25 you have to get a psychiatric evaluation to get a gun. Incidentally, it seems a lot of the worst gun users are under the age of 25.
Our last 17 year-old school shooter just took his father's gun out of the nightstand and went on to kill 15 people.
That's the problem right there - if people are owning guns for personal safety reasons, they are generally going to be accessible to everyone who lives with them.
Until and unless they have biometric trigger locks.
It's easy to own a gun for home safety when it's just a trip to the sporting goods store. My point with a move towards owner-licensing models ala Sweden that I may have made either in this thread or the other ones about all this, is it will make it harder for people who don't really care to properly own a gun own a gun. It probably would not have stopped this, as the mother of Adam Lanza appears to have been a "prepper" so was going to have guns even if there was red tape. But it would mean many fewer new gun owners, and over time and generations that would "break" the gun culture, I think.
I do not like gun culture. I think only the worthy should own guns.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 17, 2012, 07:00:43 PM
What a stupid way to make that point.
The problem of evil is a stupid debate. If you're at all educated, you're wholly familiar with all the various approaches to it, and you either believe in God or you don't. Explicating the problem of evil to a bunch of Baptists/Evangelicals/other subrational Christians is like trying to scoop urine out of a public pool with a slotted spoon. These are people who despite their belief in the unerrant Bible reject the Apocrypha without understanding why, and think that when people die they become angels. Their understanding of Christian dogma is so poor it's a wonder they know murder is wrong, because they sure don't know why it's wrong, anymore than they know why gossiping is wrong, or stealing is wrong.
Quote from: Scipio on December 17, 2012, 09:26:31 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 17, 2012, 07:00:43 PM
What a stupid way to make that point.
The problem of evil is a stupid debate. If you're at all educated, you're wholly familiar with all the various approaches to it, and you either believe in God or you don't. Explicating the problem of evil to a bunch of Baptists/Evangelicals/other subrational Christians is like trying to scoop urine out of a public pool with a slotted spoon. These are people who despite their belief in the unerrant Bible reject the Apocrypha without understanding why, and think that when people die they become angels. Their understanding of Christian dogma is so poor it's a wonder they know murder is wrong, because they sure don't know why it's wrong, anymore than they know why gossiping is wrong, or stealing is wrong.
I can dig this.
And that's all well and good, but remember that Scipio's point of view is from an isolated and backwards branch of the Christian family.
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2012, 09:49:58 PM
And that's all well and good, but remember that Scipio's point of view is from an isolated and backwards branch of the Christian family.
True. I just lump him in there. :)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 17, 2012, 05:22:00 PM
I have a small safe on the nightstand with a four button combo lock on it. I can get the gun out in about two seconds, but nobody else can get it at all. It's not hard to be reasonably responsible about it and make them inaccessible to the kiddies.
The dumbasss mother of that murderer, could have spent less than 25.00 four all four of the guns. Yet she knew her son was fucked up and did nothing of the kind.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.shutterstock.com%2Fdisplay_pic_with_logo%2F260701%2F260701%2C1272574397%2C1%2Fstock-photo-red-trigger-lock-on-a-pistol-with-clipping-path-at-this-size-52035247.jpg&hash=735e774afd1ce3cb38a424d7cad605e630da5bf2)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehathaways.org%2Flock3.jpg&hash=c2bcd93c69e018811f02d70fe7d88ab9a135b649)
Also notice the integral locking system on this Bersa. Should be standard.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2.armslist.com%2Fsites%2Farmslist%2Fuploads%2Fposts%2F2012%2F06%2F25%2F446521_01_bersa_thunder_380_640.jpg&hash=688a160238a33f9c8b0994c461294aa724b0a4b1)
Surely the Second Amendment protects your right to not use triggerlocks?
Maybe next the NRA can get using dum-dum rounds on preschoolers ruled as protected speech.
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2012, 10:20:55 PM
Surely the Second Amendment protects your right to not use triggerlocks?
Maybe next the NRA can get using dum-dum rounds on preschoolers ruled as protected speech.
Indeed. Performance Art. Qualifies it for an NEA grant.
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2012, 10:20:55 PM
Surely the Second Amendment protects your right to not use triggerlocks?
Maybe next the NRA can get using dum-dum rounds on preschoolers ruled as protected speech.
You're a moron.
I didn't feel the image was appropriate.
What image?
Quote from: derspiess on December 17, 2012, 08:07:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 17, 2012, 06:16:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 17, 2012, 11:17:11 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 17, 2012, 10:58:18 AM
What do you want to bet the mom was a Gold Bug?
Yeah, pile it on!
Hey, at least the real monster of our time, Susan Rice was stopped.
:huh:
Don't act all confused.
Assuming the mother knew her son was nuts, to what degree can be held liable (whether criminally or in tort) for failing to secure the firearms so he cannot reach them?
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2012, 02:23:52 AM
Assuming the mother knew her son was nuts, to what degree can be held liable (whether criminally or in tort) for failing to secure the firearms so he cannot reach them?
Somehow I don't think she'll be standing trial anytime soon. Or standing for that matter.
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2012, 10:45:51 PM
I didn't feel the image was appropriate.
Com-on man that was hilarious.
:lol:
Hey, look who's going to crash the party!
QuoteWestboro Baptist Church, the tiny independent fundamentalist Christian church based in Topeka, Kan., announced on Twitter that, once again, they are planning to stomp over our nation's heartache by protesting at the funerals of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and declaring "God sent the shooter."
You know something's a media circus when the real-life trolls try to insert themselves into it. :)
One of these days, somebody's going to walk across the street, and bludgeon one of them with a Louisville Slugger. And they'd be acquitted.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 18, 2012, 06:30:56 AM
One of these days, somebody's going to walk across the street, and bludgeon one of them with a Louisville Slugger. And they'd be acquitted.
I'm always shocked no one from the WBC has ever been killed. People get killed for mouthing off all the time, and often less offensively and over less serious issues than any of the WBC people.
No kidding, right? Especially when they fuck around with servicemen's funerals. Speaks volumes of the discipline of soldiers and marines not to thump the living fuck out of those whackos right then and there.
The Warlocks(IIRC) showed up for a funeral here in Ohio when Westboro said they was coming. The Warlocks showed, Westboro didn't.
Doesn't WBC no-show most of the time?
Quote from: Caliga on December 18, 2012, 08:08:18 AM
Doesn't WBC no-show most of the time?
Supposedly. I would've liked to see the Warlocks in action though.
I like watching interviews with that dude's daughter. Imagine if she had a love child with Charles Manson? :lol:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 17, 2012, 05:22:00 PM
I have a small safe on the nightstand with a four button combo lock on it. I can get the gun out in about two seconds, but nobody else can get it at all. It's not hard to be reasonably responsible about it and make them inaccessible to the kiddies.
The problem then becomes ensuring that the kids don't find out the simple combo, and not leaving it unlocked for some perfectly reasonable reason.
No doubt you are prudent about these things - problem is ensuring that the average idiot is. Always, every day, day in and day out.
Back in the day, almost 40 years ago now, up at the cottage (and generally in the countryside) people just treated guns like any other tool - they were stored on racks, but not locked or anything (what changed that was not safety, but the threat of theft). I myself, when a child, very nearly shot my brothers.
What happened was this: my brothers are (to a child) considerably older than me - 4 and 6 years respectively. I was around 7 or so. My parents left my 13 year old brother in charge and drove to the city for a night for some reason. My two older brothers spent the evening around the fire telling me horror stories (I should mention that this cottage has no electricity). In particular, stories about the "mad axeman" who was reputed to live in the dark woods just outside the cabin. His specialty was sharpening his axe outside the bedroom of his victims before dragging them to a gruesome death. He lived in a tumbledown cabin on the property that was once the home of a madwoman (the cabin and the madwoman parts were true) and the mad axeman was her son (this part was not true, but I believed it).
Late that night, I woke up to the sound of a whetstone being dragged across steel: "wheet, wheet, wheet". I was scared shitless. I called out to my brothers - but they were both gone from their rooms. I heard the "wheet, wheet" sound a few more times, then a slow shuffling through the leaves towards the door ... so I did what any sensible 7 year old would do when threatened by a mad axeman: I grabbed the shotgun off the rack. It was really easy to load (it was a single-shot - you just break it open and slide the shell in) and there was a box of 10 g. shells right there. Then I sat facing the door with the butt of the gun against the wall (not wishing to hurt my shoulder) and finger trembling on the trigger with the gun pointed at the door ... fortunately I didn't pull it right away, as of course it was my brothers who came in, having successfully pranked me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 18, 2012, 08:04:09 AM
No kidding, right? Especially when they fuck around with servicemen's funerals. Speaks volumes of the discipline of soldiers and marines not to thump the living fuck out of those whackos right then and there.
Somehow I think that parents of the dead kids may be less disciplined. :ph34r:
I keep all of my guns in a very heavy steel gun safe. None are at the ready for home protection.
My reasoning was this, after having a child:
1. Loaded guns even with educated children are dangerous.
2. A loaded gun isn't as much home protection as most people think.
The most fanciful situation out there is a home invasion where they bust down the doors. That's the most pressing need for a gun, but in reality unless you have a loaded gun in every room in your house, there is no guarantee at all you'll be able to get to one in such a situation. And if you have a loaded gun in every room in your house, that is all the more dangerous to children.
So even when I kept a revolver in my night stand I think in such a situation, the reality is a home invasion would have to be met with physical force of the hand to hand type unless I was lucky enough to be in my bedroom when it started. Other situations, like someone prowling around the property, setting off the alarm or etc trying to steal--that presents more than enough time for me to get to one of my locked guns.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 18, 2012, 10:03:57 AM
The most fanciful situation out there is a home invasion where they bust down the doors. That's the most pressing need for a gun, but in reality unless you have a loaded gun in every room in your house, there is no guarantee at all you'll be able to get to one in such a situation. And if you have a loaded gun in every room in your house, that is all the more dangerous to children.
So even when I kept a revolver in my night stand I think in such a situation, the reality is a home invasion would have to be met with physical force of the hand to hand type unless I was lucky enough to be in my bedroom when it started. Other situations, like someone prowling around the property, setting off the alarm or etc trying to steal--that presents more than enough time for me to get to one of my locked guns.
I used to take off my shoulder holster and hang it on the coat rack when I got home from work. :unsure: First thing to come off at the end of the day, last thing to put on going out the door in the morning.
Now, I don't even bother keeping anything around for protection at the ready anymore; I've been out of bail bonds for so long, I doubt anybody still remembers if they want to kill me or not, and mainly because nobody in this town's going to climb three flights of stairs to whack me. They can wait for me down by the car.
I do keep my handguns in combo lock cases now, because of the cleaning ladies; still quick enough to get to for the rare pounding at the door at 2am--but that's usually because the Dazzling Urbanites come home drunk as shit, and forget they live downstairs.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 18, 2012, 12:23:59 AM
Don't act all confused.
It's not an act. I'm still trying to figure out what Susan Rice has to do with this.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 18, 2012, 10:15:45 AM
I used to take off my shoulder holster and hang it on the coat rack when I got home from work. :unsure: First thing to come off at the end of the day, last thing to put on going out the door in the morning.
Did you shake your head wearily & mumble "I'm gettin' too old for this shit" when you did it?
Quote from: derspiess on December 18, 2012, 10:37:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 18, 2012, 10:15:45 AM
I used to take off my shoulder holster and hang it on the coat rack when I got home from work. :unsure: First thing to come off at the end of the day, last thing to put on going out the door in the morning.
Did you shake your head wearily & mumble "I'm gettin' too old for this shit" when you did it?
He did, all the while knowing he had to break in an eager rookie and try to solve that murder, all in his last two weeks before retirement.
Quote from: PDH on December 18, 2012, 10:49:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 18, 2012, 10:37:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 18, 2012, 10:15:45 AM
I used to take off my shoulder holster and hang it on the coat rack when I got home from work. :unsure: First thing to come off at the end of the day, last thing to put on going out the door in the morning.
Did you shake your head wearily & mumble "I'm gettin' too old for this shit" when you did it?
He did, all the while knowing he had to break in an eager rookie and try to solve that murder, all in his last two weeks before retirement.
But he's still alive. Shouldn't he have been shot down on his last day, gasping out some last inspiring words to the rookie that made all the difference? :hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 18, 2012, 06:30:56 AM
One of these days, somebody's going to walk across the street, and bludgeon one of them with a Louisville Slugger.
Unfortunately, they are all immune to being beaten senseless.
Quote from: PDH on December 18, 2012, 10:49:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 18, 2012, 10:37:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 18, 2012, 10:15:45 AM
I used to take off my shoulder holster and hang it on the coat rack when I got home from work. :unsure: First thing to come off at the end of the day, last thing to put on going out the door in the morning.
Did you shake your head wearily & mumble "I'm gettin' too old for this shit" when you did it?
He did, all the while knowing he had to break in an eager rookie and try to solve that murder, all in his last two weeks before retirement.
:lol: Throw darts at the dartboard before setting the metronome at bedtime.
If only I had a Bernice at home.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 18, 2012, 12:34:56 PM
Quote from: PDH on December 18, 2012, 10:49:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 18, 2012, 10:37:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 18, 2012, 10:15:45 AM
I used to take off my shoulder holster and hang it on the coat rack when I got home from work. :unsure: First thing to come off at the end of the day, last thing to put on going out the door in the morning.
Did you shake your head wearily & mumble "I'm gettin' too old for this shit" when you did it?
He did, all the while knowing he had to break in an eager rookie and try to solve that murder, all in his last two weeks before retirement.
:lol: Throw darts at the dartboard before setting the metronome at bedtime.
If only I had a Bernice at home.
I think it was a knife, not darts, IIRC.
WHATEVAH
Quote from: derspiess on December 18, 2012, 10:35:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 18, 2012, 12:23:59 AM
Don't act all confused.
It's not an act. I'm still trying to figure out what Susan Rice has to do with this.
Don't be coy. I saw you get all defensive about the gun issue, I just reminded you of your glorious victory over the monster Susan Rice.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 18, 2012, 02:18:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 18, 2012, 10:35:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 18, 2012, 12:23:59 AM
Don't act all confused.
It's not an act. I'm still trying to figure out what Susan Rice has to do with this.
Don't be coy. I saw you get all defensive about the gun issue, I just reminded you of your glorious victory over the monster Susan Rice.
Okay. Odd though that it seems like you are now more fixated on her than I ever was.
:D No tags backs.
Quote from: derspiess on December 18, 2012, 02:20:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 18, 2012, 02:18:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 18, 2012, 10:35:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 18, 2012, 12:23:59 AM
Don't act all confused.
It's not an act. I'm still trying to figure out what Susan Rice has to do with this.
Don't be coy. I saw you get all defensive about the gun issue, I just reminded you of your glorious victory over the monster Susan Rice.
Okay. Odd though that it seems like you are now more fixated on her than I ever was.
I doubt that. I'm not interested in her. I was interested in your rage against this woman which you couldn't really explain to us.
Let it go, Raz.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 18, 2012, 10:15:45 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 18, 2012, 10:03:57 AM
The most fanciful situation out there is a home invasion where they bust down the doors. That's the most pressing need for a gun, but in reality unless you have a loaded gun in every room in your house, there is no guarantee at all you'll be able to get to one in such a situation. And if you have a loaded gun in every room in your house, that is all the more dangerous to children.
So even when I kept a revolver in my night stand I think in such a situation, the reality is a home invasion would have to be met with physical force of the hand to hand type unless I was lucky enough to be in my bedroom when it started. Other situations, like someone prowling around the property, setting off the alarm or etc trying to steal--that presents more than enough time for me to get to one of my locked guns.
I used to take off my shoulder holster and hang it on the coat rack when I got home from work. :unsure: First thing to come off at the end of the day, last thing to put on going out the door in the morning.
Now, I don't even bother keeping anything around for protection at the ready anymore; I've been out of bail bonds for so long, I doubt anybody still remembers if they want to kill me or not, and mainly because nobody in this town's going to climb three flights of stairs to whack me. They can wait for me down by the car.
I do keep my handguns in combo lock cases now, because of the cleaning ladies; still quick enough to get to for the rare pounding at the door at 2am--but that's usually because the Dazzling Urbanites come home drunk as shit, and forget they live downstairs.
Good, sensible, thought out stuff.
Susan Rice was the dutiful lackey that she was to protect the Prez.
Quote from: mongers on December 18, 2012, 02:44:08 PM
Good, sensible, thought out stuff.
I also had my semi-auto test-fired by a buddy at the county police years ago to get the ballistics results on file, in the event it was somehow lost or stolen, and used in a crime for tracing purposes. My revolver was already on file, since it had be stolen once and recovered. Used to keep the make, model and manufacturer numbers on a laminated card in my wallet in the event they disappeared.
The P38 is not on file, however. :whistle: One never knows... :ph34r:
Quote from: garbon on December 18, 2012, 02:32:13 PM
Let it go, Raz.
I will when you and Derspeiss let your Obama thing go.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 18, 2012, 02:49:59 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 18, 2012, 02:44:08 PM
Good, sensible, thought out stuff.
I also had my semi-auto test-fired by a buddy at the county police years ago to get the ballistics results on file, in the event it was somehow lost or stolen, and used in a crime for tracing purposes. My revolver was already on file, since it had be stolen once and recovered. Used to keep the make, model and manufacturer numbers on a laminated card in my wallet in the event they disappeared.
The P38 is not on file, however. :whistle: One never knows... :ph34r:
I've wondered-- with it being very easy to swap barrels on many semi-auto pistols, do criminals ever do that to try to foil investigators?
Quote from: derspiess on December 18, 2012, 03:47:39 PM
I've wondered-- with it being very easy to swap barrels on many semi-auto pistols, do criminals ever do that to try to foil investigators?
If criminals were that smart, they wouldn't be criminals. You don't want to be caught with a gun if you're a suspect for anything, ever. Not on your person, not in your home, etc.
Swapping barrels sounds like something a non-criminal mind would do. :P Still plenty of powder residue all over the rest of it.
GREEN LIGHT SPEESH DELIVER THE PACKAGE REPEAT DELIVER THE PACKAGE
That's why a lot of criminals would run out of guns soon enough - they would get mucky, nasty, bent, etc.
...or they would try to do gun repairs and it would go all Cal on them. (SPROING!) "Oh, damn. I hope that springy thing or that little metal dealie aren't important."
Quote from: Razgovory on December 18, 2012, 04:06:36 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 18, 2012, 03:43:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 18, 2012, 03:19:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 18, 2012, 02:32:13 PM
Let it go, Raz.
I will when you and Derspeiss let your Obama thing go.
:huh:
What, are all the lights not on upstairs today Speiss?
Its that nobody is home... :secret:
Quote from: Razgovory on December 18, 2012, 04:06:36 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 18, 2012, 03:43:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 18, 2012, 03:19:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 18, 2012, 02:32:13 PM
Let it go, Raz.
I will when you and Derspeiss let your Obama thing go.
:huh:
What, are all the lights not on upstairs today Speiss?
So I have an "Obama thing" now? How recently have I mentioned him? Or is my lack of proper Obama worship my "thing"?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 18, 2012, 03:59:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 18, 2012, 03:47:39 PM
I've wondered-- with it being very easy to swap barrels on many semi-auto pistols, do criminals ever do that to try to foil investigators?
If criminals were that smart, they wouldn't be criminals. You don't want to be caught with a gun if you're a suspect for anything, ever. Not on your person, not in your home, etc.
Swapping barrels sounds like something a non-criminal mind would do. :P Still plenty of powder residue all over the rest of it.
Maybe I watch too much TV. "Ballistic fingerprinting" seems to be portrayed as if it were an ironclad way of proving guilt or innocence.
And so another thread dies
Quote from: PDH on December 18, 2012, 04:03:12 PM
...or they would try to do gun repairs and it would go all Cal on them. (SPROING!) "Oh, damn. I hope that springy thing or that little metal dealie aren't important."
My Beretta is fine now. Cal: quick study. :)
http://www.newser.com/story/159551/utah-11-year-old-i-brought-gun-to-school-for-protection.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=united&utm_campaign=rss_3_2
I guess if the school cant do it.
Hopefully that psycho spends some time in juvenile hall.
Quote from: Neil on December 18, 2012, 08:54:40 PM
Hopefully that psycho spends some time in juvenile hall.
No shit, huh. ;)
A humerous proposal a friend of mine posted on facebook...and I think she was being serious. Basically- All these shootings are always men. Ban men from having guns, only let women have them for protection.
Quote from: Tyr on December 19, 2012, 02:47:49 AM
A humerous proposal a friend of mine posted on facebook...and I think she was being serious. Basically- All these shootings are always men. Ban men from having guns, only let women have them for protection.
Of course 11B4V not that long ago posted two examples (one very recent) of females shooters.
Seems more like a testosterone issue. Just flood the water system with estrogen, and the US will be a lovely, peaceful oasis of generosity and love. :wub:
Quote from: merithyn on December 19, 2012, 08:27:40 AM
Just flood the water system with estrogen, and the US will be a lovely, peaceful oasis of generosity and love. :wub:
And male breasts. I don't think so. :mad:
Quote from: merithyn on December 19, 2012, 08:27:40 AM
Seems more like a testosterone issue. Just flood the water system with estrogen, and the US will be a lovely, peaceful oasis of generosity and love. :wub:
A common misconception. When it comes to working together for the betterment of society, women are far, far worse than men.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 19, 2012, 08:30:57 AM
Quote from: merithyn on December 19, 2012, 08:27:40 AM
Just flood the water system with estrogen, and the US will be a lovely, peaceful oasis of generosity and love. :wub:
And male breasts. I don't think so. :mad:
Have you looked around you lately, man? Do you not already SEE the male breasts flopping around on the beach?? :contract:
Quote from: Neil on December 19, 2012, 08:43:04 AM
A common misconception. When it comes to working together for the betterment of society, women are far, far worse than men.
Well, we'd be putting flowers in gun barrels instead of bullets. :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_VnAYEIAbyhw%2FSmMrq8amXNI%2FAAAAAAAAAXM%2Fnwj549oIg7w%2Fs400%2F1967_par37859&hash=e2f054edccad0b22d26ff6beade0c13b4c393a7b)
Great, the United States of Human Resources. Pass.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 19, 2012, 08:50:21 AM
Great, the United States of Human Resources. Pass.
:lol:
Yeah, not sure I'm ready for that, either. Maybe we can just find a few hermaphrodites to lead things.
Quote from: merithyn on December 19, 2012, 08:27:40 AM
Seems more like a testosterone issue. Just flood the water system with estrogen, and the US will be a lovely, peaceful oasis of generosity and love. :wub:
already being done. The pill infused pee is wrecking ecological havoc.
Quote from: merithyn on December 19, 2012, 08:48:20 AM
Well, we'd be putting flowers in gun barrels instead of bullets. :)
No, the Presidentette would be having girls killed because they were mean to her in high school.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 19, 2012, 08:50:21 AM
Great, the United States of Human Resources. Pass.
No shit. Welcome to the Department of
Defense Building Bridges Across Stakeholder Silos.
Quote from: merithyn on December 19, 2012, 08:48:20 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 19, 2012, 08:43:04 AM
A common misconception. When it comes to working together for the betterment of society, women are far, far worse than men.
Well, we'd be putting flowers in gun barrels instead of bullets. :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_VnAYEIAbyhw%2FSmMrq8amXNI%2FAAAAAAAAAXM%2Fnwj549oIg7w%2Fs400%2F1967_par37859&hash=e2f054edccad0b22d26ff6beade0c13b4c393a7b)
You know, they really are more effective when they shoot bullets.
Quote from: merithyn on December 19, 2012, 08:27:40 AM
Seems more like a testosterone issue. Just flood the water system with estrogen, and the US will be a lovely, peaceful oasis of generosity and love. :wub:
Madeleine Albright bombed the shit out of the Serbs. Golda Meir killed the hell out of the Egyptians and Syrians. Margaret Thatcher caved in hundreds of Argentinian skulls with her purse.
:secret: It was a joke. :secret:
Quote from: merithyn on December 19, 2012, 09:47:00 AM
:secret: It was a joke. :secret:
A joke in the sense that you think the opposite, or a joke in the sense that you'd prefer not to debate it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 19, 2012, 09:50:08 AM
Quote from: merithyn on December 19, 2012, 09:47:00 AM
:secret: It was a joke. :secret:
A joke in the sense that you think the opposite, or a joke in the sense that you'd prefer not to debate it?
A joke as in it's silly to think that all of one gender or another would be absolutely one way or another. A joke as in no one with any intelligence about human nature would assume that a government made up entirely by women would create a Utopia of sweetness and light. A joke as in it's an extreme comment to make fun of the idea that women would be so much better at running things.
But you know, when you have to explain the joke... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 19, 2012, 09:50:08 AM
A joke in the sense that you think the opposite, or a joke in the sense that you'd prefer not to debate it?
I think a joke about gender stereotypes.
lulz, sugartits.
:lol:
QuoteBushmaster Rifle Prices Rise After Connecticut Shooting
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/bushmaster-rifle-prices-rise-after-connecticut-shooting/
QuoteWalmart Out Of Guns As Americans Race For Arms After Newtown
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/walmart-guns-newtown_n_2332612.html
Seriously, I had thought to stock up on 30 round mags to resell if a ban popped up(assuming already existing mags were grandfathered in).
But an angel popped up on my shoulder and tsk tsk'ed the devil on the other shoulder.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 21, 2012, 03:52:03 PM
:lol:
QuoteBushmaster Rifle Prices Rise After Connecticut Shooting
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/bushmaster-rifle-prices-rise-after-connecticut-shooting/
QuoteWalmart Out Of Guns As Americans Race For Arms After Newtown
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/walmart-guns-newtown_n_2332612.html
The paranoia over gun control is really sad. I know politicians are making noise right now but this is not going anywhere. But man they will find any excuse the freak out that the government is coming for their guns, as if they would give a crap about your guns if they wanted to get you for some reason. What are you going to do? Gun down some poor cop?
This is just a scam by the gun manufacturers and all these fools are brainless tools.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 21, 2012, 03:58:03 PM
Seriously, I had thought to stock up on 30 round mags to resell if a ban popped up(assuming already existing mags were grandfathered in).
You weren't the only one.
Several places had 10-packs of Magpul 30-round mags on sale for $99 a couple weeks ago (normal retail is about $15 apiece). Bastards at Cheaper Than Dirt (ha!) marked them up to $60 apiece last Sunday.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2012, 04:06:32 PM
The paranoia over gun control is really sad. I know politicians are making noise right now but this is not going anywhere. But man they will find any excuse the freak out that the government is coming for their guns, as if they would give a crap about your guns if they wanted to get you for some reason. What are you going to do? Gun down some poor cop?
You're making a leap, there. People aren't buying guns, ammo & magazines because they are afraid the government will try to take them away from them-- they're (foolishly I'll admit) buying up everything because they're worried about future availability.
FWIW, most people I'm aware of who participated in the panic-buying frenzy had been on the fence about buying an AR but figured this might be their last chance to buy one at the current price. Of course I've also heard stories about hoarders, but not everyone is hoarding.
That doesn't strike me as mutually exclusive. If the government takes the guns away that would probably make them scarce in the future. We had a similar thing when Obama was elected in 2008, when ammunition became scarce. There were lots of conspiracy theories floating around about that.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 21, 2012, 03:58:03 PM
Seriously, I had thought to stock up on 30 round mags to resell if a ban popped up(assuming already existing mags were grandfathered in).
But an angel popped up on my shoulder and tsk tsk'ed the devil on the other shoulder.
5.56mm and 7.62mm are getting mighty scarce too.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2012, 04:28:13 PM
That doesn't strike me as mutually exclusive. If the government takes the guns away that would probably make them scarce in the future. We had a similar thing when Obama was elected in 2008, when ammunition became scarce. There were lots of conspiracy theories floating around about that.
Again, no. People though the Dems were going to try to either tax ammunition, ban imports, or find other ways to make it more scarce and/or expensive.
Quote from: derspiess on December 21, 2012, 04:30:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2012, 04:28:13 PM
That doesn't strike me as mutually exclusive. If the government takes the guns away that would probably make them scarce in the future. We had a similar thing when Obama was elected in 2008, when ammunition became scarce. There were lots of conspiracy theories floating around about that.
Again, no. People though the Dems were going to try to either tax ammunition, ban imports, or find other ways to make it more scarce and/or expensive.
Are you saying there weren't a lot of conspiracy theories floating around?
Quote from: derspiess on December 21, 2012, 04:30:32 PM
Again, no. People though the Dems were going to try to either tax ammunition, ban imports, or find other ways to make it more scarce and/or expensive.
So long as we do not return the situation in the 80s and early 90s, when the majority of the people were in favor of gun control, the Democrats are not going to do jack. Though the ones who will politically benefit from it will make some noise but there are too many Democrats who support guns to really get any traction.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2012, 04:37:50 PM
Are you saying there weren't a lot of conspiracy theories floating around?
There certainly were. And believe me, you've probably only heard the tip of the iceberg. I'm just telling you that the reason for most of the ammo panic-buying in 2008 was not conspiratorial. Unless you think fear of possible anti-gun/ammo legislation from a Democrat House/Senate/President is a conspiracy theory.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2012, 04:42:22 PM
Though the ones who will politically benefit from it will make some noise but there are too many Democrats who support guns to really get any traction.
Eight days ago you would have been absolutely correct. But things appear to be a little different now. See: Joe Manchin, who had an "A" NRA rating but is now singing a different tune.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 21, 2012, 04:29:05 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 21, 2012, 03:58:03 PM
Seriously, I had thought to stock up on 30 round mags to resell if a ban popped up(assuming already existing mags were grandfathered in).
But an angel popped up on my shoulder and tsk tsk'ed the devil on the other shoulder.
5.56mm and 7.62mm are getting mighty scarce too.
When I go to the range, I burn off around 90 7.62 rounds per session. My stock isn't gonna last long if these panicking faggits don't calm the fuck down.
I haven't shot any 7.62 for a while. I still have a couple cases of Barnaul "Hunting Cartridges" from 5 or 6 years ago when 7.62 was still pretty cheap, plus a bunch of really nice-looking East German stuff that is unfortunately corrosive.
The only 7.62x39 rifle I have is a Yugo M59/66 SKS (the one with the silly grenade launcher on the end that ruins the balance) and I got it unissued so I'm trying to keep it in pristine shape.
You people are funny.
I was interested in what the gun-tards were selling/buying right now. I found several interesting posts where guys were wanting to trade Ruger Mini-14s, with typically 2-3 factory 30 round magazines included and a collapsible stock. Wanting to trade it for "any AR variant."
What that shows me is someone has a perfectly serviceable semiautomatic rifle that they want to trade for an AR-15 for almost surely cosmetic reasons because they fear the AR-15 may be banned.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 21, 2012, 05:04:26 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 21, 2012, 04:29:05 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 21, 2012, 03:58:03 PM
Seriously, I had thought to stock up on 30 round mags to resell if a ban popped up(assuming already existing mags were grandfathered in).
But an angel popped up on my shoulder and tsk tsk'ed the devil on the other shoulder.
5.56mm and 7.62mm are getting mighty scarce too.
When I go to the range, I burn off around 90 7.62 rounds per session. My stock isn't gonna last long if these panicking faggits don't calm the fuck down.
I think I bought a case of 5.56 last year. I might buy another case, but it isnt a priority. My inventory still remains well above 500 rounds for 5.56/7.62. I dont really just go to the range and just blast ammo for sake of blasting anymore. The Govmint supplies that fun. Most of my personal range is connected to load development for the hunting rifles I have.
QuoteEast German stuff that is unfortunately corrosive.
Perfectly fine ammo just clean the weapon real good. Should be some techs on the net.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 21, 2012, 05:17:08 PM
I was interested in what the gun-tards were selling/buying right now. I found several interesting posts where guys were wanting to trade Ruger Mini-14s, with typically 2-3 factory 30 round magazines included and a collapsible stock. Wanting to trade it for "any AR variant."
What that shows me is someone has a perfectly serviceable semiautomatic rifle that they want to trade for an AR-15 for almost surely cosmetic reasons because they fear the AR-15 may be banned.
I owed a mini-14 a few years back before I sold it. Perfectly fine weapon, proven action. Good handling characteristics.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 21, 2012, 05:17:08 PM
I was interested in what the gun-tards were selling/buying right now. I found several interesting posts where guys were wanting to trade Ruger Mini-14s, with typically 2-3 factory 30 round magazines included and a collapsible stock. Wanting to trade it for "any AR variant."
What that shows me is someone has a perfectly serviceable semiautomatic rifle that they want to trade for an AR-15 for almost surely cosmetic reasons because they fear the AR-15 may be banned.
There's going to be a run on extended magazines, just like we saw in the pre-Brady days, which didn't affect the market that much anyway.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 21, 2012, 05:34:22 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 21, 2012, 05:17:08 PM
I was interested in what the gun-tards were selling/buying right now. I found several interesting posts where guys were wanting to trade Ruger Mini-14s, with typically 2-3 factory 30 round magazines included and a collapsible stock. Wanting to trade it for "any AR variant."
What that shows me is someone has a perfectly serviceable semiautomatic rifle that they want to trade for an AR-15 for almost surely cosmetic reasons because they fear the AR-15 may be banned.
There's going to be a run on extended magazines, just like we saw in the pre-Brady days, which didn't affect the market that much anyway.
Interesting. Ive seen several websites the have Cetme/G3 20 rd mags for dirt cheap. Must be just effecting the AR series.
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/519948/military-surplus-magazine-hk-g3-hk91-ptr-91-cetme-308-winchester-20-round-aluminum-black
Meh, there was the run up for extended semi-automatic handgun MAGAZINES before the manufacturers were required by law to sell the MAGAZINES that came with the weapon at 10 rounds max in the MAGAZINE.
After all, what's the point in owning a Glock 17 with MAGAZINES that only hold 10 rounds? ZOMG 1 IN TEH PIPE WHADDA BONUS
An armed guard in every school - The US has become a bad parady of itself.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2012, 07:49:47 PM
An armed guard in every school - The US has become a bad parady of itself.
In a lot of jurisdictions, a lot of school districts have police officers assigned to high schools. The more affluent counties in Maryland call them School Resource Officers, and Baltimore has a Baltimore City Public Schools Police force that is its own force, and separate from the BPD.
The role of school resource officers is to do everything from providing drug awareness/DWI awareness, to coordinating the Police Athletic Leagues and Driver's Education, to monitoring and counseling first-time nonviolent teenage offenders. And, oh yeah, manage to provide security as time permits.
You're a parody of yourself, condescending Canuckistani. But we expect no less.
You fucked with the wrong ex-cop, cc :o
Quote from: derspiess on December 21, 2012, 04:44:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2012, 04:37:50 PM
Are you saying there weren't a lot of conspiracy theories floating around?
There certainly were. And believe me, you've probably only heard the tip of the iceberg. I'm just telling you that the reason for most of the ammo panic-buying in 2008 was not conspiratorial. Unless you think fear of possible anti-gun/ammo legislation from a Democrat House/Senate/President is a conspiracy theory.
I don't give panic buyers the same respect you do. Hell, most of them probably believe Obama is a Kenyan National.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 21, 2012, 08:10:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2012, 07:49:47 PM
An armed guard in every school - The US has become a bad parady of itself.
In a lot of jurisdictions, a lot of school districts have police officers assigned to high schools. The more affluent counties in Maryland call them School Resource Officers, and Baltimore has a Baltimore City Public Schools Police force that is its own force, and separate from the BPD.
The role of school resource officers is to do everything from providing drug awareness/DWI awareness, to coordinating the Police Athletic Leagues and Driver's Education, to monitoring and counseling first-time nonviolent teenage offenders. And, oh yeah, manage to provide security as time permits.
You're a parody of yourself, condescending Canuckistani. But we expect no less.
Have fun living in your armed camp. Wouldnt want to be you.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You and Neil can go make sweet flanneled love together, fisting a moose with a Molson.
I welcome the NRA statement/rant, it's a nice demonstration of just how out of touch they are with the prevailing mood/atmosphere following this most recent gun outrage.
Quote from: mongers on December 21, 2012, 11:06:40 PM
I welcome the NRA statement/rant, it's a nice demonstration of just how out of touch they are with the prevailing mood/atmosphere following this most recent gun outrage.
They always are. It always passes.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 21, 2012, 11:58:02 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 21, 2012, 11:06:40 PM
I welcome the NRA statement/rant, it's a nice demonstration of just how out of touch they are with the prevailing mood/atmosphere following this most recent gun outrage.
They always are. It always passes.
I don't doubt it.
Just a pity, when the next one roles along, people will be reminded nothing has changed.
I always wonder why they don't keep their heads down, and let this pass.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2012, 01:04:34 AM
I always wonder why they don't keep their heads down, and let this pass.
Fundraising opportunity.
Stopped by the local Gun Store I haunt on the way in to work. I wanted to get a first hand look for myself. :huh: WTF :lmfao:
Yes, I bought a gun. The owner seemed relieved that I brought up a nice sako bolt action rifle to the counter. Nothing beats a nice, well crafted bolt action long gun.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 22, 2012, 05:42:31 PM
Stopped by the local Gun Store I haunt on the way in to work. I wanted to get a first hand look for myself. :huh: WTF :lmfao:
Yes, I bought a gun. The owner seemed relieved that I brought up a nice sako bolt action rifle to the counter. Nothing beats a nice, well crafted bolt action long gun.
You mean to look at the current buying frenzy ? :unsure:
Quote from: 11B4V on December 22, 2012, 05:42:31 PM
Nothing beats a nice, well crafted bolt action long gun.
:hmm: Cluster bomb? Chain gun?
Quote from: mongers on December 22, 2012, 06:08:54 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 22, 2012, 05:42:31 PM
Stopped by the local Gun Store I haunt on the way in to work. I wanted to get a first hand look for myself. :huh: WTF :lmfao:
Yes, I bought a gun. The owner seemed relieved that I brought up a nice sako bolt action rifle to the counter. Nothing beats a nice, well crafted bolt action long gun.
You mean to look at the current buying frenzy ? :unsure:
Yes, what does that tell ya?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2012, 06:13:04 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 22, 2012, 05:42:31 PM
Nothing beats a nice, well crafted bolt action long gun.
:hmm: Cluster bomb? Chain gun?
Ahh, au contraire, moose face. :P
Quote from: 11B4V on December 22, 2012, 06:17:51 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 22, 2012, 06:08:54 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 22, 2012, 05:42:31 PM
Stopped by the local Gun Store I haunt on the way in to work. I wanted to get a first hand look for myself. :huh: WTF :lmfao:
Yes, I bought a gun. The owner seemed relieved that I brought up a nice sako bolt action rifle to the counter. Nothing beats a nice, well crafted bolt action long gun.
You mean to look at the current buying frenzy ? :unsure:
Yes, what does that tell ya?
I don't know 11B, it's all a bit beyond my comprehension. :huh:
I'm hoping you'll explain it
Quote from: mongers on December 22, 2012, 07:50:52 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 22, 2012, 06:17:51 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 22, 2012, 06:08:54 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 22, 2012, 05:42:31 PM
Stopped by the local Gun Store I haunt on the way in to work. I wanted to get a first hand look for myself. :huh: WTF :lmfao:
Yes, I bought a gun. The owner seemed relieved that I brought up a nice sako bolt action rifle to the counter. Nothing beats a nice, well crafted bolt action long gun.
You mean to look at the current buying frenzy ? :unsure:
Yes, what does that tell ya?
I don't know 11B, it's all a bit beyond my comprehension. :huh:
I'm hoping you'll explain it
It means, I feel I dont need anything. Ammo, magazines, assault weapons that is. ;) But a fine bolt action heavy caliber stopping rifle, is a different story all together.
But yes I went to checkout/watch the choas. :D
Quote from: 11B4V on December 22, 2012, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 22, 2012, 07:50:52 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 22, 2012, 06:17:51 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 22, 2012, 06:08:54 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 22, 2012, 05:42:31 PM
Stopped by the local Gun Store I haunt on the way in to work. I wanted to get a first hand look for myself. :huh: WTF :lmfao:
Yes, I bought a gun. The owner seemed relieved that I brought up a nice sako bolt action rifle to the counter. Nothing beats a nice, well crafted bolt action long gun.
You mean to look at the current buying frenzy ? :unsure:
Yes, what does that tell ya?
I don't know 11B, it's all a bit beyond my comprehension. :huh:
I'm hoping you'll explain it
It means, I feel I dont need anything. Ammo, magazines, assault weapons that is. ;) But a fine bolt action heavy caliber stopping rifle, is a different story all together.
But yes I went to checkout/watch the choas. :D
:thumpsup:
Do people not do measured responses nowadays or is headless chickens the new meme ?
I can't help but think that the pro-gun crowd is poorly served by the NRA. I keep thinking that better arguments could be made then, "Lets arm the teachers", or "Schools should have armed security guards". Why not point out that, while certainly tragic, crazed gunmen attacks like this are very rare. The chances of being killed in one of these type of things is about only about two times as likely as being killed by a lightning. That changing laws because of statistical outliers is silly.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2012, 10:36:58 PM
I can't help but think that the pro-gun crowd is poorly served by the NRA. I keep thinking that better arguments could be made then, "Lets arm the teachers", or "Schools should have armed security guards". Why not point out that, while certainly tragic, crazed gunmen attacks like this are very rare. The chances of being killed in one of these type of things is about only about two times as likely as being killed by a lightning. That changing laws because of statistical outliers is silly.
They have. Where you been.
What?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2012, 10:40:42 PM
What?
Kleves quote
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,8995.285.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-gun-control/2012/12/21/6ffe0ae8-49fd-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story_1.html
QuoteFive myths about gun control
After the horrific mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, a nation long resistant to gun control seems ready to act — or at least talk about acting. President Obama has said he will make firearm legislation a "central issue" of his second term, and National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre called for Congress "to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school in this nation." But before America tackles gun control, let's tackle a few misunderstandings about how dangerous our weapons are, what they're used for and what the Constitution says about them.
1. Gun control is a losing battle for Democrats.
In his 2004 memoir, Bill Clinton wrote that Democrats lost control of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections because they had passed an assault-weapons ban that year. Many Democrats believe that Al Gore lost the 2000 presidential race because of his embrace of stronger gun laws during the Democratic primaries.
But close study of these and other elections shows otherwise. In the Republican victory of 1994, many incumbent Democrats in traditionally GOP-leaning districts couldn't hold on to their seats, whatever their position on the Second Amendment. And American Prospect editor Paul Waldman's analysis of national elections from 2004 to 2010 found that the NRA had little success electing pro-gun candidates over those not favored by the group. Waldman also concludes that, despite its repeated claims, the NRA did not deliver the presidential race to George W. Bush in 2000.
The lesson is not a new one in American politics: Single issues rarely determine electoral outcomes, and guns are no exception. This year, for example, the open floodgates of campaign cash on both sides — more than $1 billionfor each presidential candidate alone — dwarfed NRA spending.
And witness conservative Democrats, such as Sens. Mark Warner (Va.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Bob Casey (Pa.), as well as Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, who have voiced support for possible new gun laws after Sandy Hook.
2. Guns are deadliest as murder weapons.
Gun murders grab headlines, but more Americans die every year from gun suicides than gun homicides. In 2009, for example, almost 11,500 Americans were killed by someone else with a gun, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but more than 18,000 killed themselves with a firearm.
Some may shrug and say that suicidal individuals without guns would simply turn to another method. This is wrong. Not only do numerous studies link the presence of guns to elevated suicide rates, but suicide by gun is far more lethal than other methods. The "success rate" of gun suicide is about 90 percent, compared with less than 30 percent for poisoning, for example. Firearms also require the least amount of persistence and effort; the ease of pulling a trigger makes a gun more appealing to those who act on impulse. And studies of suicide survivors find that only about one in 10makes a second attempt.
3. America's schools have become shooting galleries.
From Columbine to Sandy Hook, few crimes are more heinous than the killing of children. But schools are remarkably safe for kids — safer than their homes or the streets. Out of a school-age population of roughly 50 million, the number of violent school deaths between 1992 and 2010 did not exceed 63 per year, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. In other words, the odds of a child dying from a violent attack at school are about one in a million.
That statistic is cold comfort to the families of the children slain in Connecticut and elsewhere. But schools continue to be safe places, and since the 1999 Columbine High School shooting, many have implemented security procedures to foil those contemplating crimes in the classroom. These measures include lockdown drills, metal detectors and security cameras, extra training for faculty and staff, and the presence of police officers — sometimes called "resource officers" — assigned to regular school duty.
4. Gun regulations are incompatible with America's gun heritage.
When we think of settlers of colonial America and the 19th-century Wild West, we often picture fearless frontiersmen defending hearth and home from predators. But while gun possession is as old as the country, so is gun regulation.
In 1619, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a law making the transfer of guns to Native Americans punishable by death. Other laws across the colonies criminalized selling or giving firearms to slaves, indentured servants, Catholics, vagrants and those who refused to swear a loyalty oath to revolutionary forces. Guns could be confiscated or kept in central locations for the defense of the community. And in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the state and federal governments conducted several arms censuses. (Imagine what the NRA would say if government officials went door to door today asking people how many guns they owned and whether they were functional.)
On the western frontier in the 19th century, to stave off violence, new towns and cities enacted laws to bar carrying guns. In fact, the typical western town had stricter gun laws than many 21st-century states. Today, four states have completely eliminated permits for handgun ownership and carrying.
5. The Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of Americans to rise up against a tyrannical government.
This canard is repeated with disturbing frequency. The Constitution, in Article I, allows armed citizens in militias to "suppress Insurrections," not cause them. The Constitution defines treason as "levying War" against the government in Article III, and the states can ask the federal government for assistance "against domestic Violence" under Article IV.
Our system provides peaceful means for citizens to air grievances and change policy, from the ballot box to the jury box to the right to peaceably assemble. If violence against an oppressive government were somehow countenanced in the Second Amendment, then Timothy McVeigh and Lee Harvey Oswald would have been vindicated for their heinous actions. But as constitutional scholar Roscoe Pound noted, a "legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted" because it would "defeat the whole Bill of Rights" — including the Second Amendment.
Funny how the author omitted one significant set of gun control measures in our history when writing #4: the ones that prohibited blacks in the south from owning them in the 19th century.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2012, 10:36:58 PM
I can't help but think that the pro-gun crowd is poorly served by the NRA. I keep thinking that better arguments could be made then, "Lets arm the teachers", or "Schools should have armed security guards". Why not point out that, while certainly tragic, crazed gunmen attacks like this are very rare. The chances of being killed in one of these type of things is about only about two times as likely as being killed by a lightning. That changing laws because of statistical outliers is silly.
That's not an argument gun nuts would want to make. Yes, school shooting are rare. Regular shootings, which kill thousands every year, are common, and many times more common than in countries with very limited gun ownership. That argument could advance more pervasive control, rather than a token bullshit law to limit assault rifles.
Quote from: derspiess on December 22, 2012, 11:55:13 PM
Funny how the author omitted one significant set of gun control measures in our history when writing #4: the ones that prohibited blacks in the south from owning them in the 19th century.
Why is that funny? I don't think he was trying to be comprehensive and he did mention a prohibition of colonial slavery having guns. That is a little different than what you mention, but I don't think he is trying to hide something.
The idea that guns are needed in case the government turns evil is just :bleeding:
Quote from: Tyr on December 23, 2012, 12:38:06 AM
The idea that guns are needed in case the government turns evil is just :bleeding:
Indeed. If the US of A decides you and your friends will die - you-will-die - full stop. No matter how vast a private arsenal you have in your basement. But then again myths are all about beliefs - not about facts. And we already know Americans are a people... predisposed to faith...
G.
Quote from: DGuller on December 23, 2012, 12:23:48 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2012, 10:36:58 PM
I can't help but think that the pro-gun crowd is poorly served by the NRA. I keep thinking that better arguments could be made then, "Lets arm the teachers", or "Schools should have armed security guards". Why not point out that, while certainly tragic, crazed gunmen attacks like this are very rare. The chances of being killed in one of these type of things is about only about two times as likely as being killed by a lightning. That changing laws because of statistical outliers is silly.
That's not an argument gun nuts would want to make. Yes, school shooting are rare. Regular shootings, which kill thousands every year, are common, and many times more common than in countries with very limited gun ownership. That argument could advance more pervasive control, rather than a token bullshit law to limit assault rifles.
Yeah, but the discussion isn't about regular shootings. Everyone is focused on this elementary school shooting.
Quote from: Tyr on December 23, 2012, 12:38:06 AM
The idea that guns are needed in case the government turns evil is just :bleeding:
It is a bit quaint isn't it?
Quote from: Grallon on December 23, 2012, 12:52:25 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 23, 2012, 12:38:06 AM
The idea that guns are needed in case the government turns evil is just :bleeding:
Indeed. If the US of A decides you and your friends will die - you-will-die - full stop. No matter how vast a private arsenal you have in your basement. But then again myths are all about beliefs - not about facts. And we already know Americans are a people... predisposed to faith...
G.
If you already know that, then whatcha bitchin about?
Quote from: 11B4V on December 23, 2012, 02:12:23 AM
Quote from: Grallon on December 23, 2012, 12:52:25 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 23, 2012, 12:38:06 AM
The idea that guns are needed in case the government turns evil is just :bleeding:
Indeed. If the US of A decides you and your friends will die - you-will-die - full stop. No matter how vast a private arsenal you have in your basement. But then again myths are all about beliefs - not about facts. And we already know Americans are a people... predisposed to faith...
G.
If you already know that, then whatcha bitchin about?
Cause that's what he does.
Quote from: DGuller on December 23, 2012, 12:23:48 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2012, 10:36:58 PM
I can't help but think that the pro-gun crowd is poorly served by the NRA. I keep thinking that better arguments could be made then, "Lets arm the teachers", or "Schools should have armed security guards". Why not point out that, while certainly tragic, crazed gunmen attacks like this are very rare. The chances of being killed in one of these type of things is about only about two times as likely as being killed by a lightning. That changing laws because of statistical outliers is silly.
That's not an argument gun nuts would want to make. Yes, school shooting are rare. Regular shootings, which kill thousands every year, are common, and many times more common than in countries with very limited gun ownership. That argument could advance more pervasive control, rather than a token bullshit law to limit assault rifles.
They will advance the token bullshit and claim victory. They will then use it for their reelection.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 23, 2012, 12:55:35 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 22, 2012, 10:45:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2012, 10:40:42 PM
What?
Kleves quote
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,8995.285.html
Read my post again.
Ah, quite. My answer is; They (NRA) done have to make a better argument.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 23, 2012, 02:21:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 23, 2012, 12:55:35 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 22, 2012, 10:45:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2012, 10:40:42 PM
What?
Kleves quote
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,8995.285.html
Read my post again.
Ah, quite. My answer is; They (NRA) done have to make a better argument.
Um.... Okay. I'm just going to nod my head and agree with you.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 23, 2012, 02:14:42 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 23, 2012, 02:12:23 AM
Quote from: Grallon on December 23, 2012, 12:52:25 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 23, 2012, 12:38:06 AM
The idea that guns are needed in case the government turns evil is just :bleeding:
Indeed. If the US of A decides you and your friends will die - you-will-die - full stop. No matter how vast a private arsenal you have in your basement. But then again myths are all about beliefs - not about facts. And we already know Americans are a people... predisposed to faith...
G.
If you already know that, then whatcha bitchin about?
Cause that's what he does.
How silly of me, of course. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on December 23, 2012, 02:22:42 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 23, 2012, 02:21:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 23, 2012, 12:55:35 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 22, 2012, 10:45:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2012, 10:40:42 PM
What?
Kleves quote
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,8995.285.html
Read my post again.
Ah, quite. My answer is; They (NRA) dont have to make a better argument.
Um.... Okay. I'm just going to nod my head and agree with you.
fixed
Quote from: DGuller on December 23, 2012, 12:23:48 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2012, 10:36:58 PM
I can't help but think that the pro-gun crowd is poorly served by the NRA. I keep thinking that better arguments could be made then, "Lets arm the teachers", or "Schools should have armed security guards". Why not point out that, while certainly tragic, crazed gunmen attacks like this are very rare. The chances of being killed in one of these type of things is about only about two times as likely as being killed by a lightning. That changing laws because of statistical outliers is silly.
That's not an argument gun nuts would want to make. Yes, school shooting are rare. Regular shootings, which kill thousands every year, are common, and many times more common than in countries with very limited gun ownership. That argument could advance more pervasive control, rather than a token bullshit law to limit assault rifles.
What's your definition of "Gun Nut".
Quote from: Grallon on December 23, 2012, 12:52:25 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 23, 2012, 12:38:06 AM
The idea that guns are needed in case the government turns evil is just :bleeding:
Indeed. If the US of A decides you and your friends will die - you-will-die - full stop. No matter how vast a private arsenal you have in your basement. But then again myths are all about beliefs - not about facts. And we already know Americans are a people... predisposed to faith...
G.
Yeah, I'm sure having guns would have helped these innocent bystanders and children regularly blown up to pieces by drones. Which, incidentally, makes the whole outrage about the school shooting rather hypocritical. Karma can be a bitch sometimes.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 23, 2012, 02:27:11 AM
What's your definition of "Gun Nut".
At its most basic, I would define it as someone who thinks America is a safer place with guns around. I think there is some merit in the argument that the genie is out of the bottle, and that America can't be disarmed, but to even deny that having hundreds of millions of guns around leads to more dead people is the kind of imbecility that earns you the "gun nut" title.
Quote from: DGuller on December 23, 2012, 02:57:49 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 23, 2012, 02:27:11 AM
What's your definition of "Gun Nut".
At its most basic, I would define it as someone who thinks America is a safer place with guns around. I think there is some merit in the argument that the genie is out of the bottle, and that America can't be disarmed, but to even deny that having hundreds of millions of guns around leads to more dead people is the kind of imbecility that earns you the "gun nut" title.
That is why "you" people will fail to get nothing more than half-assed lame measures in place, if that. Your camp has not discovered the moderate gun owners or the casual gun owners.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 23, 2012, 03:07:17 AM
That is why "you" people will fail to get nothing more than half-assed lame measures in place, if that. Your camp has not discovered the moderate gun owners or the casual gun owners.
How does this flow from what I wrote? Moderate gun owners or casual gun owners are still imbeciles if they think guns make America safer. The number of leaps of logic one has to take to arrive at that conclusion indicates lack of rationality, and the presence of fervor. This kind of idiocy is what entrenches gun culture in US.
Quote from: DGuller on December 23, 2012, 03:15:07 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 23, 2012, 03:07:17 AM
That is why "you" people will fail to get nothing more than half-assed lame measures in place, if that. Your camp has not discovered the moderate gun owners or the casual gun owners.
How does this flow from what I wrote? Moderate gun owners or casual gun owners are still imbeciles if they think guns make America safer. The number of leaps of logic one has to take to arrive at that conclusion indicates lack of rationality, and the presence of fervor. This kind of idiocy is what entrenches gun culture in US.
Again you fail. Your camp will continue to fail with that attitude and tone. You wont get half of your agenda without the "imbecile" moderates and casuals.
Quote from: Martinus on December 23, 2012, 02:45:58 AM
Yeah, I'm sure having guns would have helped these innocent bystanders and children regularly blown up to pieces by drones. Which, incidentally, makes the whole outrage about the school shooting rather hypocritical. Karma can be a bitch sometimes.
:yawn: Lamest troll ever.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 23, 2012, 03:23:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 23, 2012, 02:45:58 AM
Yeah, I'm sure having guns would have helped these innocent bystanders and children regularly blown up to pieces by drones. Which, incidentally, makes the whole outrage about the school shooting rather hypocritical. Karma can be a bitch sometimes.
:yawn: Lamest troll ever.
It's Marty. What you expect? :lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on December 23, 2012, 03:20:12 AM
Again you fail. Your camp will continue to fail with that attitude and tone. You wont get even a fractiion of your agenda without the "imbecile" moderates and casuals.
How do you know what my agenda is? The only thing I'm passionate about in this issue is the sheer insanity of the gun nuts. I'm not a gun ban advocate, I'm just an advocate for an honest debate about gun control with honest facts. Imbeciles, even moderate ones, are the enemies of such an honest debate.
Quote from: DGuller on December 23, 2012, 03:25:37 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 23, 2012, 03:20:12 AM
Again you fail. Your camp will continue to fail with that attitude and tone. You wont get even a fractiion of your agenda without the "imbecile" moderates and casuals.
Imbeciles, even moderate ones, are the enemies of such an honest debate.
That's your problem. "You" are not displaying a willingness for honest debate. Only insults that wont get your camp anywhere.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 23, 2012, 03:23:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 23, 2012, 02:45:58 AM
Yeah, I'm sure having guns would have helped these innocent bystanders and children regularly blown up to pieces by drones. Which, incidentally, makes the whole outrage about the school shooting rather hypocritical. Karma can be a bitch sometimes.
:yawn: Lamest troll ever.
He could be honest, I wouldn't put that kind of Fred Phelps logic beyond him.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 23, 2012, 03:30:09 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 23, 2012, 03:25:37 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 23, 2012, 03:20:12 AM
Again you fail. Your camp will continue to fail with that attitude and tone. You wont get even a fractiion of your agenda without the "imbecile" moderates and casuals.
Imbeciles, even moderate ones, are the enemies of such an honest debate.
That's your problem. "You" are not displaying a willingness for honest debate. Only insults.
The debate is not about whether guns make the society more safe or less safe. There should be no debate about that, which is why I regard people who think the first conclusion is plausible as a lost cause. The debate is about the desired trade-off between safety and whatever benefits there are of gun ownership.
To put it another way, what annoys me about the "gun ownership makes us safe" argument is that it's like a Laffer Curve argument. It's an attempt to kill an honest debate in its infancy by advancing a falsehood. Instead of trying to balance opposing forces, like safety vs. rights in the gun case, and government revenues vs. property rights in the tax case, the claim is that you can have your cake and eat it too. There is no compromise to be head: the further to the extreme you go, the better. There is no debating people who fall for this shit.
Quote from: DGuller on December 23, 2012, 03:33:30 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 23, 2012, 03:30:09 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 23, 2012, 03:25:37 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 23, 2012, 03:20:12 AM
Again you fail. Your camp will continue to fail with that attitude and tone. You wont get even a fractiion of your agenda without the "imbecile" moderates and casuals.
Imbeciles, even moderate ones, are the enemies of such an honest debate.
That's your problem. "You" are not displaying a willingness for honest debate. Only insults.
The debate is about the desired trade-off between safety and whatever benefits there are of gun ownership.
There will not be any realistic safety, only false sense of safety unless guns are limited, restricted, and tightly controlled.
and the above is stated by a "gun nut".
Quote from: DGuller on December 23, 2012, 03:48:20 AM
To put it another way, what annoys me about the "gun ownership makes us safe" argument is that it's like a Laffer Curve argument.
It does not, in and of itself.
Realistic control measures can and that's what has to be decided on. It wont be accomplished by half measures or token measures. It will need to be extreme.
Gun culture is not just about the "gun". It's also about attitude towards, for lack of better words. It used to be the "Hunting Culture". Something totally different than the current "Gun Culture" IMO. I am someone who has been in that culture since age 8. Growing up, no guns in the house were locked, whether it be in a safe or trigger locks. But, I knew if I touched one of those fucking things, (excepting hunting season or the rare target shooting), I would get my ass beat.
Take a gun to school. Are you fucking kidding me, that never crossed my mind.
Yeah, but that's a different argument. That's the argument of feasibility, not safety. Personally I'm not really in favor of gun control. Gun rights are in the constitution and I don't like messing with the constitution. Besides, I've never been killed by a gun, so they can't be that dangerous.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 23, 2012, 04:13:24 AM
Yeah, but that's a different argument. That's the argument of feasibility, not safety. Personally I'm not really in favor of gun control. Gun rights are in the constitution and I don't like messing with the constitution. Besides, I've never been killed by a gun, so they can't be that dangerous.
You sell yourself short as usual. As a matter that is a lamer troll than Matry's. You should go light yourself on fire.
I am in favor of gun control.
That's not a troll. I really don't care about the issue that much. The fight over taxes, that's shit is important. Guns, not so much.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 23, 2012, 04:20:34 AM
That's not a troll. I really don't care about the issue that much. The fight over taxes, that's shit is important. Guns, not so much.
Disagree.
Well, I suppose I can't win them all over. I don't know about gun culture. I know people like to shoot them at paper targets, and that some people collect them. I guess it's like stamp collecting except that you can kill people with them. I don't care that much.
It's not a troll. I simply realized that I care as much about some kids who got their brains blown out by some nut in the US as about kids who got blown up by a drone in Afghanistan. Which is to say - not much.
Quote from: Martinus on December 23, 2012, 05:00:45 AM
It's not a troll. I simply realized that I care as much about some kids who got their brains blown out by some nut in the US as about kids who got blown up by a drone in Afghanistan. Which is to say - not much.
Like I said, you are probably just an idiot. And indeed you are. Still the Fred Phelps logic with the Karma thing was nice.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 23, 2012, 03:50:12 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 23, 2012, 03:33:30 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 23, 2012, 03:30:09 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 23, 2012, 03:25:37 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 23, 2012, 03:20:12 AM
Again you fail. Your camp will continue to fail with that attitude and tone. You wont get even a fractiion of your agenda without the "imbecile" moderates and casuals.
Imbeciles, even moderate ones, are the enemies of such an honest debate.
That's your problem. "You" are not displaying a willingness for honest debate. Only insults.
The debate is about the desired trade-off between safety and whatever benefits there are of gun ownership.
There will not be any realistic safety, only false sense of safety unless guns are limited, restricted, and tightly controlled.
and the above is stated by a "gun nut".
This is a reasoned, practical stance to have.
Quote from: Martinus on December 23, 2012, 02:45:58 AM
Yeah, I'm sure having guns would have helped these innocent bystanders and children regularly blown up to pieces by drones. Which, incidentally, makes the whole outrage about the school shooting rather hypocritical. Karma can be a bitch sometimes.
...and Marty shows why you don't have to have faith to be a complete idiot.
Yes, your right Marty - those 20 children were all murdered as karmic retribution for collateral damage from the war against terrorism.
Quote from: Martinus on December 23, 2012, 05:00:45 AM
It's not a troll. I simply realized that I care as much about some kids who got their brains blown out by some nut in the US as about kids who got blown up by a drone in Afghanistan. Which is to say - not much.
See, and this is why you're an idiot. The kids killed in the US were mostly white. The kids killed in the war on terror are various undesirables.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/deport-british-citizen-piers-morgan-attacking-2nd-amendment/prfh5zHD
:lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 23, 2012, 12:45:42 PM
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/deport-british-citizen-piers-morgan-attacking-2nd-amendment/prfh5zHD
:lol:
I saw part of that interview. Piers is an obstacle to reasonable debate. He should not be deported though.
Him and Martin Bashir should be ejected from a c-17.
I mean, Britain can send us better people. Fucking Limeys.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 23, 2012, 12:48:20 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 23, 2012, 12:45:42 PM
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/deport-british-citizen-piers-morgan-attacking-2nd-amendment/prfh5zHD
:lol:
I saw part of that interview. Piers is an obstacle to reasonable debate. He should not be deported though.
I agree, he should not return to europe, we don't want him back.
Quote from: Berkut on December 23, 2012, 10:40:18 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 23, 2012, 02:45:58 AM
Yeah, I'm sure having guns would have helped these innocent bystanders and children regularly blown up to pieces by drones. Which, incidentally, makes the whole outrage about the school shooting rather hypocritical. Karma can be a bitch sometimes.
...and Marty shows why you don't have to have faith to be a complete idiot.
Yes, your right Marty - those 20 children were all murdered as karmic retribution for collateral damage from the war against terrorism.
If you go around the world murdering children, don't expect people to shed tears over your own.
I'll keep that in mind, if I you know, start murdering children. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 23, 2012, 12:50:52 PM
Him and Martin Bashir should be ejected from a c-17.
What a wonderful aircraft to jump from ;)
Quote from: 11B4V on December 23, 2012, 02:59:06 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 23, 2012, 12:50:52 PM
Him and Martin Bashir should be ejected from a c-17.
What a wonderful aircraft to jump from ;)
I see them everyday. :wub:
Quote from: Martinus on December 23, 2012, 01:32:52 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 23, 2012, 10:40:18 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 23, 2012, 02:45:58 AM
Yeah, I'm sure having guns would have helped these innocent bystanders and children regularly blown up to pieces by drones. Which, incidentally, makes the whole outrage about the school shooting rather hypocritical. Karma can be a bitch sometimes.
...and Marty shows why you don't have to have faith to be a complete idiot.
Yes, your right Marty - those 20 children were all murdered as karmic retribution for collateral damage from the war against terrorism.
If you go around the world murdering children, don't expect people to shed tears over your own.
That is an excellent point, by your standards.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 23, 2012, 02:22:42 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 23, 2012, 02:21:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 23, 2012, 12:55:35 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 22, 2012, 10:45:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2012, 10:40:42 PM
What?
Kleves quote
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,8995.285.html
Read my post again.
Ah, quite. My answer is; They (NRA) done have to make a better argument.
Um.... Okay. I'm just going to nod my head and agree with you.
Because the NRA thinks the problem will be solved by placing an armed guard at the schools or arming goods guys. Problem is they miss the point altogether.
IMO the point in question is;
If we are at a point or juncture in time, where we have to put armed guards at schools or arm good people to combat the bad, then the problem is
already spun way out of control. The NRA fails to even recognize this.
So, NRA why do we need to put arm guards at schools?
Why do we need to arm good people to protect us?
Hey, 11B, you're an NRA member, right--do you agree with the prevailing opinion in the media that the NRA leadership is out of step with the majority of NRA members?
I know OttoVB seems to but derSKS doesn't, but I've seen all these poll numbers showing that a majority of NRA members agree with sensible gun control legislation--something the leadership doesn't.
Where do you stand with Crazy Wayne and their lobby's zero tolerance policy on control?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 23, 2012, 07:22:59 PM
Hey, 11B, you're an NRA member, right--do you agree with the prevailing opinion in the media that the NRA leadership is out of step with the majority of NRA members?
Yes
Quote
I know OttoVB seems to but derSKS doesn't, but I've seen all these poll numbers showing that a majority of NRA members agree with sensible gun control legislation--something the leadership doesn't.
The "GUN CULTURE" has taken it over. The moderates "Hunting Culture" and " Casuals"dont hold sway over the nutter minority.
Quote
Where do you stand with Crazy Wayne and their lobby's zero tolerance policy on control?
They are fucking idiots and represent the fringe. However, the anti-gun crew will make no headway by lumping the moderates and casuals with the nutters. They are just exposing themselves as fringe anti-nutters. Who do you think the moderates and casuals will identify with? Certainly not the anti-gun nutters.
As I said; If we have arrived at a juncture where armed guards need to be in schools, then the problem has already spun out of control. Because we shouldnt need or have to.
QuoteSo, NRA why do we need to put arm guards at schools?
Why do we need to arm good people to protect us?
I posed these two questions on FB. It should be interesting.
But Seedy, the people I grew up with, around, knew, and associated with were a Hunting Culture. Something very different from today's Gun Culture™. These cats didnt carry when they were not hunting or camping for example. But they wouldnt hesitate to blow a mother fucker away that was attempting to break in their house and/or hurting their family.
My step dad had twenty or so guns. Not one of them an assault rifle and only one was a pistol, a revolver at that. As a matter of fact none of the people I knew or knew of, had an assault rifle. If some knob had showed up at the hunting camp with an assault rifle, he'd have been ridiculed and run out of camp. It has been preverted.
I recall a conversation a while back (couple of years) with a knob co-worker. He was boasting that the rifle he was going to get for deer hunting was a Remington 700 Tactical. I just looked at him, called him and idiot and told him he didnt know the first thing about hunting. That is the perversion that is nowadays called the "Gun Culture".
I could go on and on with this perversion.
Mall ninjas. Tacticalol.
My SKS and AK are range queens.
and I have a FB bite(s)
I'll keep my guns, my money, and my freedom.
You can keep your change.
And Martinus.
See? Siegebreaker is a perfect example of why gun control is necessary. He's got experience shooting children, not to mention raping them.
Quote from: Siege on December 23, 2012, 09:56:42 PM
I'll keep my guns, my money, and my freedom.
You can keep your change.
And Martinus.
So, if it's a lawful change, you would support it? Right?
As long as there's no "Goat Personhood" amendment attached.
Quote from: Neil on December 23, 2012, 10:00:01 PM
See? Siegebreaker is a perfect example of why gun control is necessary. He's got experience shooting children, not to mention raping them.
Has he ever actually admitted to shooting them?
Now they are shooting firemen.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 23, 2012, 08:10:07 PM
But Seedy, the people I grew up with, around, knew, and associated with were a Hunting Culture. Something very different from today's Gun Culture™. These cats didnt carry when they were not hunting or camping for example. But they wouldnt hesitate to blow a mother fucker away that was attempting to break in their house and/or hurting their family.
My step dad had twenty or so guns. Not one of them an assault rifle and only one was a pistol, a revolver at that. As a matter of fact none of the people I knew or knew of, had an assault rifle. If some knob had showed up at the hunting camp with an assault rifle, he'd have been ridiculed and run out of camp. It has been preverted.
I recall a conversation a while back (couple of years) with a knob co-worker. He was boasting that the rifle he was going to get for deer hunting was a Remington 700 Tactical. I just looked at him, called him and idiot and told him he didnt know the first thing about hunting. That is the perversion that is nowadays called the "Gun Culture".
I could go on and on with this perversion.
Then make a real statement. Terminate your membership to the NRA.
Maybe if more members did that, NRA leadership would get the point and stop going full retard.
Hell, I own handguns, too. But I'd never belong to that organization, exactly because of its leadership.
What sort of benefits does the NRA offer their members?
Insurance, a free hat, and monthly magazine. Plus some ranges/clubs require NRA membership.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 24, 2012, 08:54:51 AM
Then make a real statement. Terminate your membership to the NRA.
Maybe if more members did that, NRA leadership would get the point and stop going full retard.
Yeah, do it 'cuz Seedy sez so :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on December 24, 2012, 09:49:49 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 24, 2012, 08:54:51 AM
Then make a real statement. Terminate your membership to the NRA.
Maybe if more members did that, NRA leadership would get the point and stop going full retard.
Yeah, do it 'cuz Seedy sez so :lol:
Alternately do it because Wayne LaWhatshisname is foaming at the mouth and spouting gibberish.
Quote from: Jacob on December 24, 2012, 12:30:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 24, 2012, 09:49:49 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 24, 2012, 08:54:51 AM
Then make a real statement. Terminate your membership to the NRA.
Maybe if more members did that, NRA leadership would get the point and stop going full retard.
Yeah, do it 'cuz Seedy sez so :lol:
Alternately do it because Wayne LaWhatshisname is foaming at the mouth and spouting gibberish.
This.
It's actually the most reasonable response for the gun owners of the Hunting Culture and Collectors in the US to make their point. I've said a dozen times that I want to learn to hunt, but I see no reason to join the NRA in order to get and use a hunting rifle. I couldn't, in good conscience, contribute to that kind of lunacy. If you want to rid yourself of the idiots, you have to give them a reason to do so. Someone like me isn't important to them, since I was never a member and they would just consider me a lefty nutcase if I sent them a letter. Members leaving - and telling them why they're leaving - would show them what really needs to happen.
Is there even another non-crazy alternative to the NRA? Seems like rifle associations in the US would have to tend to go loony at some tipping point.
Quote from: HVC on December 24, 2012, 12:53:50 PM
Is there even another non-crazy alternative to the NRA? Seems like rifle associations in the US would have to tend to go loony at some tipping point.
Nope. They're one of the strongest lobbying groups in the country.
Just renewed my membership btw :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on December 24, 2012, 01:16:10 PM
Just renewed my membership btw :contract:
you make baby Jesus cry. And just before his birthday too.
Quote from: derspiess on December 24, 2012, 01:16:10 PM
Just renewed my membership btw :contract:
Hey I spout crazy bullshit all the time and you never give me money.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 24, 2012, 01:24:23 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 24, 2012, 01:16:10 PM
Just renewed my membership btw :contract:
Hey I spout crazy bullshit all the time and you never give me money.
Oh, you get some of my money.
Quote from: HVC on December 24, 2012, 01:18:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 24, 2012, 01:16:10 PM
Just renewed my membership btw :contract:
you make baby Jesus cry. And just before his birthday too.
They put out a good magazine :D
Plus the rifle & pistol club I'm trying to join requires NRA membership.
Quote from: derspiess on December 24, 2012, 01:30:58 PM
Quote from: HVC on December 24, 2012, 01:18:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 24, 2012, 01:16:10 PM
Just renewed my membership btw :contract:
you make baby Jesus cry. And just before his birthday too.
They put out a good magazine :D
Plus the rifle & pistol club I'm trying to join requires NRA membership.
It's so exclusive it won't have you as a member, unless you prove you're a nut, figures. :cool:
Quote from: mongers on December 24, 2012, 01:35:31 PM
It's so exclusive it won't have you as a member, unless you prove you're a nut, figures. :cool:
:rolleyes:
Quote from: HVC on December 24, 2012, 12:53:50 PM
Is there even another non-crazy alternative to the NRA? Seems like rifle associations in the US would have to tend to go loony at some tipping point.
I could see a new gun owners and collectors group, with responsible, thoughtful members like 11B4V and OttoV, garnering some attention over time.
Of course if the politicians and media only respond to people/lobby groups from the extreme ends of the spectrum on any issue, then such an organisation would be doomed.
Quote from: HVC on December 24, 2012, 01:18:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 24, 2012, 01:16:10 PM
Just renewed my membership btw :contract:
you make baby Jesus cry. And just before his birthday too.
Jesus used assault rifles to fight the Romans. FACT.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 24, 2012, 01:50:14 PM
Quote from: HVC on December 24, 2012, 01:18:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 24, 2012, 01:16:10 PM
Just renewed my membership btw :contract:
you make baby Jesus cry. And just before his birthday too.
Jesus used assault rifles to fight the Romans. FACT.
while riding dinosaurs!
Quote from: mongers on December 24, 2012, 01:48:47 PM
Quote from: HVC on December 24, 2012, 12:53:50 PM
Is there even another non-crazy alternative to the NRA? Seems like rifle associations in the US would have to tend to go loony at some tipping point.
I could see a new gun owners and collectors group, with responsible, thoughtful members like 11B4V and OttoV, garnering some attention over time.
Of course if the politicians and media only respond to people/lobby groups from the extreme ends of the spectrum on any issue, then such an organisation would be doomed.
but with an issue likes guns eventually you'd have enough nuts joIn that it would tip the new group over. I mean there has to be a time when the NRA wasn't this bad.
Following is the letter of resignation sent last week by former President George Bush to the National Rifle Association: May 3, 1995
Dear Mr. Washington,
I was outraged when, even in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of N.R.A., defended his attack on federal agents as "jack-booted thugs." To attack Secret Service agents or A.T.F. people or any government law enforcement people as "wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms" wanting to "attack law abiding citizens" is a vicious slander on good people.
Al Whicher, who served on my [ United States Secret Service ] detail when I was Vice President and President, was killed in Oklahoma City. He was no Nazi. He was a kind man, a loving parent, a man dedicated to serving his country -- and serve it well he did.
In 1993, I attended the wake for A.T.F. agent Steve Willis, another dedicated officer who did his duty. I can assure you that this honorable man, killed by weird cultists, was no Nazi.
John Magaw, who used to head the U.S.S.S. and now heads A.T.F., is one of the most principled, decent men I have ever known. He would be the last to condone the kind of illegal behavior your ugly letter charges. The same is true for the F.B.I.'s able Director Louis Freeh. I appointed Mr. Freeh to the Federal Bench. His integrity and honor are beyond question.
Both John Magaw and Judge Freeh were in office when I was President. They both now serve in the current administration. They both have badges. Neither of them would ever give the government's "go ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law abiding citizens." (Your words)
I am a gun owner and an avid hunter. Over the years I have agreed with most of N.R.A.'s objectives, particularly your educational and training efforts, and your fundamental stance in favor of owning guns.
However, your broadside against Federal agents deeply offends my own sense of decency and honor; and it offends my concept of service to country. It indirectly slanders a wide array of government law enforcement officials, who are out there, day and night, laying their lives on the line for all of us.
You have not repudiated Mr. LaPierre's unwarranted attack. Therefore, I resign as a Life Member of N.R.A., said resignation to be effective upon your receipt of this letter. Please remove my name from your membership list. Sincerely, [ signed ] George Bush
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us/letter-of-resignation-sent-by-bush-to-rifle-association.html
Quote from: derspiess on December 24, 2012, 01:16:10 PM
Just renewed my membership btw :contract:
Of course you did. Retards of a feather flock together.
I let my membership lapse several years ago after one of LaPierre's outbursts. I forget which. -_-
Quote from: Razgovory on December 24, 2012, 02:24:15 PM
Following is the letter of resignation sent last week by former President George Bush to the National Rifle Association: May 3, 1995
...
However, your broadside against Federal agents deeply offends my own sense of decency and honor; and it offends my concept of service to country. It indirectly slanders a wide array of government law enforcement officials, who are out there, day and night, laying their lives on the line for all of us.
Interesting how the congressional Republicans have blocked nominees for Director of ATF since it was swept under Treasury in 2006 on behalf of the GUN NUTS(tm).
They even shitcanned Dubya's pick, who was Father Ashcroft's good buddy. And Obama's pick has been waiting for a confirmation hearing all this time.
Quote from: derspiess on December 24, 2012, 01:30:58 PM
Quote from: HVC on December 24, 2012, 01:18:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 24, 2012, 01:16:10 PM
Just renewed my membership btw :contract:
you make baby Jesus cry. And just before his birthday too.
They put out a good magazine :D
Plus the rifle & pistol club I'm trying to join requires NRA membership.
The American Hunter Mag is the best IMO.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 24, 2012, 08:54:51 AM
Then make a real statement. Terminate your membership to the NRA.
Maybe if more members did that, NRA leadership would get the point and stop going full retard.
Hell, I own handguns, too. But I'd never belong to that organization, exactly because of its leadership.
I let it ride for now.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 24, 2012, 03:07:42 PM
The American Hunter Mag is the best IMO.
Are your pages as sticky as derspiess's copies?
:bleeding:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 24, 2012, 03:20:15 PM
:bleeding:
Here's me favs. Not NRA mags
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjustmediakits.com%2Fimages.mediakit%2F2%2Frifle.2602.jpg&hash=d6d897629da8673613e1d6cb9cdab2b2cd1d5508)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Faccurateshooter.net%2FBlog%2Ffreemaghanddec09.jpg&hash=fdef5919f06af97ceae549294a706899af1ae9ef)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catchannel.com%2Fimages%2Fcovers%2FCF1212_160.jpg&hash=497a301d80941f6985a980e8ef7c51f2ae8881d2)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 24, 2012, 03:32:14 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catchannel.com%2Fimages%2Fcovers%2FCF1212_160.jpg&hash=497a301d80941f6985a980e8ef7c51f2ae8881d2)
And just how sticky are your pages of this? :hmm:
Mew. Squee.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfPpPt.jpg&hash=016b50f3e3d2988075d7ddc442e92f0cd0dd4488)
:lol:
:lol:
I'm so not going to post mine. :P
Besides, the "Protocols of the Elder Lawyers of Zion" isn't even a real magazine
Idiocy begets idiocy.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/bank-of-america-allegedly-drops-mcmillan-gun-company-for-political-reasons/
Mcmillan is a high end custom outfit with prices out of reach of the nutjobs.
Magpul is known high cap mags. They i can understand.
QuoteCops: Killer of 2 NY firemen had same make, caliber rifle used in Connecticut school massacre
By Associated Press, Updated: Tuesday, December 25, 12:18 PM
WEBSTER, N.Y. — Police say the man who lured firefighters in Webster, N.Y., into a deadly ambush had the same make and caliber semiautomatic rifle as the one used in the Connecticut school massacre.
Webster Police Chief Gerald Pickering said Tuesday that 62-year-old William Spengler was armed with a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle, a .38-caliber revolver and a 12-gauge shotgun in Monday's ambush. Spengler killed two firefighters and wounded two others before fatally shooting himself.
Police have not said which weapon or weapons were used to shoot the firefighters.
Spengler, who set his house on fire to lure the first responders, left a note saying he wanted to burn down the neighborhood and kill as many people as possible. But the note didn't give a motive for the shooting.
(https://www.motherjones.com/files/BushmasterAd-Maxim_0.jpg)
So are these 'semi-military' type rifles 'better'/more useful to the urban terrorists like this guy and the 20 year old in Newtown, than a pray and spray AK47/clone ?
Quote from: mongers on December 25, 2012, 03:05:23 PM
So are these 'semi-military' type rifles 'better'/more useful to the urban terrorists like this guy and the 20 year old in Newtown, than a pray and spray AK47/clone ?
If I understand tour question, be thankful they did not have fully auto.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 25, 2012, 04:04:04 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 25, 2012, 03:05:23 PM
So are these 'semi-military' type rifles 'better'/more useful to the urban terrorists like this guy and the 20 year old in Newtown, than a pray and spray AK47/clone ?
If I understand tour question, be thankful they did not have fully auto.
Yes, you see talk in media about assault weapons, but that's not too useful a description, so I wanted to know how it compares with military issue.
Basically it's only a notch or two below what Seigy would use in the field, baring all the ancillary equipments a soldier/marine has and the combat training ?
You can't legally buy weapons that fire full automatic. Like a Uzi, you hold the trigger down and the magazine empties out.
These are semi-automatics, which means each time you pull the trigger one bullet comes out. Like most handguns.
My understanding is the US military decided to do away with full auto on its latest iteration of the M-16. Now you can switch it between semi auto and three round burst mode.
I also understand it's relatively easy to make a slight modification to a legal semi auto rifle to enable it to fire full auto.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 25, 2012, 03:00:58 PM
QuoteCops: Killer of 2 NY firemen had same make, caliber rifle used in Connecticut school massacre
By Associated Press, Updated: Tuesday, December 25, 12:18 PM
WEBSTER, N.Y. — Police say the man who lured firefighters in Webster, N.Y., into a deadly ambush had the same make and caliber semiautomatic rifle as the one used in the Connecticut school massacre.
Webster Police Chief Gerald Pickering said Tuesday that 62-year-old William Spengler was armed with a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle, a .38-caliber revolver and a 12-gauge shotgun in Monday's ambush. Spengler killed two firefighters and wounded two others before fatally shooting himself.
Police have not said which weapon or weapons were used to shoot the firefighters.
Spengler, who set his house on fire to lure the first responders, left a note saying he wanted to burn down the neighborhood and kill as many people as possible. But the note didn't give a motive for the shooting.
My brother's brother and sister in law live in Webster and belong to that volunteer FD, and his brother in law is a cop who worked with the one guy who was also a cop. :(
The motive is looking twisted...
It is sounding like his mother died in October. Left everything to the sister and the West Webster Fire Department. No one liked him in the area but tolerated him for his mother's sake. Once she died, he was basically cut off from money and shunned.
So, he killed the sister, tried to burn down the houses nearby, and ambushed the firefighters because they got money from his dead mother...
I love that the liberals placed a limit on parole. I have several murderers I supervise in the area that will be on for life based on their crimes. He should have been in that category.
Quote from: Strix on December 25, 2012, 09:16:53 PM
The motive is looking twisted...
It is sounding like his mother died in October. Left everything to the sister and the West Webster Fire Department. No one liked him in the area but tolerated him for his mother's sake. Once she died, he was basically cut off from money and shunned.
So, he killed the sister, tried to burn down the houses nearby, and ambushed the firefighters because they got money from his dead mother...
I love that the liberals placed a limit on parole. I have several murderers I supervise in the area that will be on for life based on their crimes. He should have been in that category.
Interesting, yep sounds like a more sensible approach.
Quote from: Strix on December 25, 2012, 09:16:53 PM
I love that the liberals placed a limit on parole. I have several murderers I supervise in the area that will be on for life based on their crimes. He should have been in that category.
The problem with this knee-jerk thinking is that it's a one-way ratchet. Whenever the punishment falls short of summary execution by the arresting officers, you always have the possibility of a bad guy doing some bad thing again. It's easy to know when leniency fails; it's nearly impossible to know when leniency succeeds.
Quote from: Strix on December 25, 2012, 09:16:53 PM
The motive is looking twisted...
It is sounding like his mother died in October. Left everything to the sister and the West Webster Fire Department. No one liked him in the area but tolerated him for his mother's sake. Once she died, he was basically cut off from money and shunned.
So, he killed the sister, tried to burn down the houses nearby, and ambushed the firefighters because they got money from his dead mother...
From what I've read, he loved his mother and hated his sister all his life, who shared one side of the house and they never communicated; once Mom kicked it, he fell apart, and torching sis was just a bonus.
Quote from: Martinus on December 23, 2012, 02:45:58 AM
Yeah, I'm sure having guns would have helped these innocent bystanders and children regularly blown up to pieces by drones. Which, incidentally, makes the whole outrage about the school shooting rather hypocritical. Karma can be a bitch sometimes.
OK Ward Churchill.
I was sorta amused when some liberul journalist faggits published the names and addresses of registered gun owners in a couple of counties in NY.
Even more amused when the names of the liberul journalist faggits names and addresses were published.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 26, 2012, 05:36:12 PM
I was sorta amused when some liberul journalist faggits published the names and addresses of registered gun owners in a couple of counties in NY.
Even more amused when the names of the liberul journalist faggits names and addresses were published.
Guess they thought "they" were the only ones who could play that game.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 26, 2012, 05:45:14 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 26, 2012, 05:36:12 PM
I was sorta amused when some liberul journalist faggits published the names and addresses of registered gun owners in a couple of counties in NY.
Even more amused when the names of the liberul journalist faggits names and addresses were published.
Guess they thought "they" were the only ones who could play that game.
Journalists aren't noted for their intelligence.
Ed, you may be right.... :lol:
http://www.newser.com/story/159919/gregory-could-face-prison-term-over-magazine.html
QuoteNBC asked if David Gregory could hold a high-capacity magazine on Meet the Press Sunday, and police said no—but Gregory did it anyway, according to a police email. "NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied," reads the email from Washington police to a group called Patriot Perspective, which had inquired whether Gregory would be charged with a crime. "This matter is currently being investigated." DC prohibits such magazines, even when they aren't attached to a firearm.
The misdemeanor offense is rarely prosecuted but could lead to a $1,000 fine and year-long prison sentence for Gregory, the Washington Post reports. He held what looked like a magazine while grilling NRA chief Wayne LaPierre about the wisdom of banning assault weapons: "Here's a magazine for ammunition that carries 30 bullets," said Gregory. But LaPierre said an assault-weapons ban would not help deter mass murders like the one in Newtown, Conn. Now Washington, DC, detectives hope to determine whether NBC shot the interview in the District and whether the magazine contained bullets and was real.
Here's a quote from the comments section. Priceless.
QuoteYou people throwing the words "assault rifle" around don't seem to realize that you can be assaulted with anything, including words. Ever hear of "verbal assault"? Anything that can be used as a weapon can be considered an "assault" whatever. You can use an AR-15 or 22, 25, 32 or 38 or 45 or 308, 270, 300, a muzzleloader, knife, brick, bat, or your fist to assault another person. When and if you are arrested, you will be charged with, guess what, "assault". The dumb ass media, and a lot of other dumb ass citizens use that word to dramatize and sensationalize the issue. Sort of like using the word "racist", the word has been worn out by it's missuse by a very uninformed and ignorant public.
I'm going to guess the guy is also a racist. It's unclear if he's using "assault" in a legal sense or not.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2012, 02:10:33 AM
I'm going to guess the guy is also a racist. It's unclear if he's using "assault" in a legal sense or not.
He is attempting to say an
Assault Rifle or Assault Weapon is not a type of firearm. By his logic there would be Assault Muzzleloader, Assault Bluderbuss, Assault etc. The bolded above is/are a type/classification of a weapon. Another example would by Submachine Gun, Battle Rifle...etc.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 27, 2012, 02:21:07 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2012, 02:10:33 AM
I'm going to guess the guy is also a racist. It's unclear if he's using "assault" in a legal sense or not.
He is attempting to say an Assault Rifle or Assault Weapon is not a type of firearm. By his logic there would be Assault Muzzleloader, Assault Bluderbuss, Assault etc. The bolded above is/are a type/classification of a weapon. Another example would by Submachine Gun, Battle Rifle...etc.
I was under the impression that "Assault rifle" described a type of firearm rather then what it actually being used for. For instance and AK-47 is an assault rifle. If you club someone with it, it doesn't become a "bludgeoning rifle". In fact, I thought the term actually came from German, to describe a certain type of late war small arm. The Germans liked the word "Sturm" which is translated into English as "assault" and "storm". So they had "Storm Troopers" and "Assault Artillery" and the like.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2012, 02:37:58 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 27, 2012, 02:21:07 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2012, 02:10:33 AM
I'm going to guess the guy is also a racist. It's unclear if he's using "assault" in a legal sense or not.
He is attempting to say an Assault Rifle or Assault Weapon is not a type of firearm. By his logic there would be Assault Muzzleloader, Assault Bluderbuss, Assault etc. The bolded above is/are a type/classification of a weapon. Another example would by Submachine Gun, Battle Rifle...etc.
I was under the impression that "Assault rifle" described a type of firearm rather then what it actually being used for. For instance and AK-47 is an assault rifle. If you club someone with it, it doesn't become a "bludgeoning rifle". In fact, I thought the term actually came from German, to describe a certain type of late war small arm. The Germans liked the word "Sturm" which is translated into English as "assault" and "storm".
Yes, it's a classification.
German StG 44 or Sturmgewehr 44 is considered the first assault rifle. Fired the 7.92x33mm.
Generally;
Assault Rifle fires a intermediate-power cartridge. i.e M16, AK-47, AK74, StG 44,
Battle Rifle fires a full power rifle cartridge. i.e Ljungman Rifle Ag m/42, G43, M14, G3, M1 Garand, SVT-40
Submachine gun fires a pistol cartridge. MP 40, MP 5, Thompson
Left is the 7.92x57 or 8x57js
Right is the 7.92x33 or 7.92mm Kurz
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-WoonvejVMdE%2FUE3Di751wXI%2FAAAAAAAAE3o%2FUodRfabK-nc%2Fs400%2F11-1c742c889a%252B%2525281%252529.jpg&hash=f374ced723b1bb54fc0f6c065e4ac5c1a0549263)
:yeah: :yes: :uffda: :punk: My excuse to hunt Africa. Though it is left handed, easy enough to shoot right handed.
This my friends is a Sako AV Bolt Action Rifle. Chambered for one of the oldest commercial belted magnum cartridges that was originally loaded with cordite. Introduced in 1912 as the .375 Belted Rimless Nitro-Express or better known today as the .375 Holland & Holland. It is still cambered today by all major rifle manufactures.
From this cartridge case, came the famous Weatherby Cartridges, and a slew of other modern day belted magnums and wildcats.
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/15614_4997292061286_1282010859_n.jpg)
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/398691_4997292901307_939418012_n.jpg)
Quote from: 11B4V on December 27, 2012, 03:17:05 AM
:yeah: :yes: :uffda: :punk: My excuse to hunt Africa.
I think they prefer being called "black".
Quote from: Syt on December 27, 2012, 03:27:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 27, 2012, 03:17:05 AM
:yeah: :yes: :uffda: :punk: My excuse to hunt Africa.
I think they prefer being called "black".
Now, now lets not be testy. :lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on December 27, 2012, 02:54:11 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2012, 02:37:58 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 27, 2012, 02:21:07 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2012, 02:10:33 AM
I'm going to guess the guy is also a racist. It's unclear if he's using "assault" in a legal sense or not.
He is attempting to say an Assault Rifle or Assault Weapon is not a type of firearm. By his logic there would be Assault Muzzleloader, Assault Bluderbuss, Assault etc. The bolded above is/are a type/classification of a weapon. Another example would by Submachine Gun, Battle Rifle...etc.
I was under the impression that "Assault rifle" described a type of firearm rather then what it actually being used for. For instance and AK-47 is an assault rifle. If you club someone with it, it doesn't become a "bludgeoning rifle". In fact, I thought the term actually came from German, to describe a certain type of late war small arm. The Germans liked the word "Sturm" which is translated into English as "assault" and "storm".
Yes, it's a classification.
German StG 44 or Sturmgewehr 44 is considered the first assault rifle. Fired the 7.92x33mm.
Generally;
Assault Rifle fires a intermediate-power cartridge. i.e M16, AK-47, AK74, StG 44,
Battle Rifle fires a full power rifle cartridge. i.e Ljungman Rifle Ag m/42, G43, M14, G3, M1 Garand, SVT-40
Submachine gun fires a pistol cartridge. MP 40, MP 5, Thompson
That's what I thought. Years of wargaming have given me a decent knowledge of German wartime weaponry.
BAN ASSAULT SPENCER RIFLES
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 25, 2012, 05:44:48 PM
You can't legally buy weapons that fire full automatic. Like a Uzi, you hold the trigger down and the magazine empties out.
These are semi-automatics, which means each time you pull the trigger one bullet comes out. Like most handguns.
My understanding is the US military decided to do away with full auto on its latest iteration of the M-16. Now you can switch it between semi auto and three round burst mode.
I also understand it's relatively easy to make a slight modification to a legal semi auto rifle to enable it to fire full auto.
The move to three round burst happened in the 80s, actually. M16A2 models started rolling out in the 80s and by the mid-90s had replaced most older stuff. Some models of the M16A2 still retained full automatic as one of its select fire modes, but the overwhelming majority of those distributed to the military removed full automatic in favor of three round burst. They have mostly tried to replace M16A2s with either M4 variants where appropriate or M16A4 when they still want a full sized rifle. Like the A2, some A4 models have full automatic mode but the ones sold and distributed to the U.S. military generally do not.
The modern M4 variants have both full automatic models and three round burst models. Probably the most widely used M4 variant I would guess would be the M4A1, which is fully automatic. So a lot of soldiers today would have that instead of a three round burst model. I think the Navy may use the M4E2 which is three round burst.
I remember hearing awhile back the Army wanted to replace almost all original M4s and M16 variants with the M4A1, so at that point we'd be back to mostly fully automatic. Then I think there is some dream of a whole new rifle in a few years but that's the kind of thing they talk about all the time.
And yes, full automatic was studied in Vietnam and they decided untrained soldiers basically blow their load and waste serious amounts of ammunition. So that was the primary reasoning behind going to three round burst, as studies showed it gave most of the real benefits of fully automatic fire in an infantry rifle while giving superior real world performance in terms of accuracy and etc.
I don't know the reason the fully automatic variant of the M4 is the most popular with the military these days. I'd guess maybe they feel better training than draftees got in Nam allows modern soldiers to put it to good use. The reason they are preferring M4 to the full size rifle is they say within 300 yards the rifles have very similar performance and most firefights in the new century have involved distances under 100 yards, as well as urban operations fighting through buildings etc where the shorter weapon is much more maneuverable.
My thoughts on spree shootings are fully automatic weapons would result probably in fewer deaths than the semiautomatic ones the shooters actually use.
Reasons:
1. These tools are almost always untrained shooters.
2. Submachine guns and fully automatic rifles exhaust even the largest made magazines very, very quickly. An Uzi will empty a 50 round magazine in 5 seconds.
3. Most spree shootings people are not extremely tightly grouped, so a fool holding his trigger down until the magazine is empty might waste an entire magazine shooting at one person or only a few persons. They would probably run out of ammunition before they killed nearly as many as they could have with a semiautomatic.
For example Adam Lanza, deliberately and methodically shot each child multiple times to insure they died. With a fully automatic weapon, in untrained hands, he'd probably spray the room which would actually leave many students unfazed and depending on how stupid he was he might not have brought enough ammunition to actually execute every kid in the classroom if he was just madly spraying bullets.
But who knows, if someone knows what they're doing with an automatic weapon it'd be bad.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 27, 2012, 09:50:15 AM
The reason they are preferring M4 to the full size rifle is they say within 300 yards the rifles have very similar performance and most firefights in the new century have involved distances under 100 yards, as well as urban operations fighting through buildings etc where the shorter weapon is much more maneuverable.
Also the slight weight difference. Apparently some guys obsess over minimizing weight on their weapons.
Personally, I'd take an old school M16A2 any day. Or maybe an A3 with an Aimpoint :)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 27, 2012, 09:58:10 AM
My thoughts on spree shootings are fully automatic weapons would result probably in fewer deaths than the semiautomatic ones the shooters actually use.
You're probably right. Full auto would definitely be scarier, though.
QuoteBut who knows, if someone knows what they're doing with an automatic weapon it'd be bad.
They're so flippin' expensive, it would practically have to be a rich dude. And rich guys don't seem to be prone to that. Come to think of it, I don't know if I've ever heard of a legal class 3 weapon being used in a crime.
Note that you do not need a Class 3 NFA license to have a legal Title II weapon. Class 3 NFA license is what you need to legally be a dealer in Title II weapons (Class 2 is for manufacturers and Class 1 is for importers.) You have to get approval and a stamp to receive a Title II weapon as an individual.
Under that regime, no weapon legally transferred to an individual under those regulations has ever been used in a crime.
I believe two legal Title II weapons have been used in crimes. But both were used by renegade cops who had access to them legally, but through a different means than the NFA transfer process.
There have also been a small handful of crimes committed with illegally owned firearms (usually poor quality submachine guns or machine pistols smuggled into the country.)
Here's a summary of Feinstein's wish list, er, bill: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
QuoteIn January, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devises.
Heh.
Vastly expanded AWB that also requires registering of all grandfathered guns under the NFA.
0% chance of passing the House. I'd wager 50/50 odds at best of getting out of the Senate. Even with pro-gun Democrats like Joe Manchin flip-flopping, I'm not sure he's flopped that far.
Maybe she wasn't sure whether to use "clip" or "magazine", and didn't want to look foolish? Or maybe she though, quite rightly, that laws shouldn't be written in a way that makes them easy to circumvent in letter, so that some douchebag wouldn't be able to claim that his 100 round box isn't a magazine?
Quote from: DGuller on December 27, 2012, 01:42:09 PM
Maybe she wasn't sure whether to use "clip" or "magazine", and didn't want to look foolish? Or maybe she though, quite rightly, that laws shouldn't be written in a way that makes them easy to circumvent in letter, so that some douchebag wouldn't be able to claim that his 100 round box isn't a magazine?
It's "devices." :secret:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 27, 2012, 01:44:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 27, 2012, 01:42:09 PM
Maybe she wasn't sure whether to use "clip" or "magazine", and didn't want to look foolish? Or maybe she though, quite rightly, that laws shouldn't be written in a way that makes them easy to circumvent in letter, so that some douchebag wouldn't be able to claim that his 100 round box isn't a magazine?
It's "devices." :secret:
:mad: Are you studying to become an English teacher?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 27, 2012, 01:40:17 PM
Vastly expanded AWB that also requires registering of all grandfathered guns under the NFA.
0% chance of passing the House. I'd wager 50/50 odds at best of getting out of the Senate. Even with pro-gun Democrats like Joe Manchin flip-flopping, I'm not sure he's flopped that far.
He won't. Back before Christmas he said he had seen a copy of the bill & wouldn't support it. He then went on to speak in vague terms about "clips" and how he favored "conversations".
Quote from: DGuller on December 27, 2012, 01:47:01 PM
:mad: Are you studying to become an English teacher?
Why are you venting your uncontrollable slavic rage at me? It was Speish' gag.
DG would like a diagram of these devices. His masters in Moscow are getting tired of blueberry recipes he sends them.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 27, 2012, 02:14:03 PM
DG would like a diagram of these devices. His masters in Moscow are getting tired of blueberry recipes he sends them.
:rolleyes: I eat my blueberries raw.
Quote from: DGuller on December 27, 2012, 02:19:08 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 27, 2012, 02:14:03 PM
DG would like a diagram of these devices. His masters in Moscow are getting tired of blueberry recipes he sends them.
:rolleyes: I eat my blueberries raw.
Which is why they sicken you. Your vodka ridden Slavic body can't handle the freshness of American fruits.
There's a sex joke in there somewhere.
Quote from: derspiess on December 27, 2012, 01:30:48 PM
Here's a summary of Feinstein's wish list, er, bill: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
QuoteIn January, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devises.
Heh.
As OVB said. It will go down like the Titanic.
$20 says some kind of gun legislation passes before the end of 2013.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 27, 2012, 03:55:39 PM
$20 says some kind of gun legislation passes before the end of 2013.
I could see something passing, just not the bill as Feinstein wrote it.
Requiring registration of
every existing firearm under the NFA is simply insane compared to where the public and many politicians are on the issue. That one is probably gone right away.
I'm almost tempted to take your bet because the Republican House has basically been one of the most uncompromising entities in history even on stuff they
needed to compromise on, so I'd be shocked if they compromised on something like this. But a lot of dead kids, maybe possibly, could get a AWB similar to the 1994 pushed through again.
Something to keep in mind is the Hastert Rule. Unless a "majority of the majority" agrees with the legislation no GOP Speaker will even bring legislation to the House floor, so even if it would pass with 100% of House Dems and a few GOP, at least if Boehner intends to keep faith with the Hastert Rule it would never see a vote.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 27, 2012, 04:12:17 PM
I could see something passing, just not the bill as Feinstein wrote it.
Obviously. I foresee something like that Mickey Mouse bill that Clinton signed, the one that banned foreign made AK clones only.
A word to the wise, USAians - gun registries are not effective.
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2012, 04:16:26 PM
A word to the wise, USAians - gun registries are not effective.
We want to do stuff because LOL WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING!!!!1111, and not necessarily stuff that will be at all effective or make any sense either. :)
Quote from: Barrister on December 27, 2012, 04:16:26 PM
A word to the wise, USAians - gun registries are not effective.
Not effective for what?
Or is it that Canadians are ineffectual?
I thought Canada was the northern paradise of gun registration and peaceful smugness. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 27, 2012, 04:15:41 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 27, 2012, 04:12:17 PM
I could see something passing, just not the bill as Feinstein wrote it.
Obviously. I foresee something like that Mickey Mouse bill that Clinton signed, the one that banned foreign made AK clones only.
and it relly didnt do that. :lol:
LA Gun Buyback Yields ... Rocket Launchers?! :lmfao:
http://www.newser.com/story/160013/la-gun-buyback-yields-rocket-launchers.html
How else do you stop a tyrannical government that attacks you with tanks?
Quote from: Syt on December 30, 2012, 02:10:57 AM
How else do you stop a tyrannical government that attacks you with tanks?
quite so.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 30, 2012, 02:06:41 AM
LA Gun Buyback Yields ... Rocket Launchers?! :lmfao:
http://www.newser.com/story/160013/la-gun-buyback-yields-rocket-launchers.html
I read they were giving up to $200 for assault rifles. I'd figure with their sale value, they'd either had to be in crap shape, or the sellers desperate.
On one site, commenters are saying that one of the "rocket launchers"....
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flatimesblogs.latimes.com%2F.a%2F6a00d8341c630a53ef017ee6b2099e970d-640wi&hash=bab2beb604ed42065a9acb11f1f9b25ee4eaa9d9)
...is trainer that shoots 9mm rounds.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 30, 2012, 02:06:41 AM
LA Gun Buyback Yields ... Rocket Launchers?! :lmfao:
http://www.newser.com/story/160013/la-gun-buyback-yields-rocket-launchers.html
Yeah I saw that. Thing is, I don't think either of those are illegal. They are essentially spent casings. One was a M72 and other was an AT4 both of which are one shot weapons.
AT4 :wub:
Quote from: Syt on December 30, 2012, 02:10:57 AM
How else do you stop a tyrannical government that attacks you with tanks?
I liked one of the replies in the comment section:
QuoteHey genius; who you gonna kill when the bank takes your house? If your gov't wants to get rid of you all they have to do is delete your social security number. Time to see the world through the eyes of an adult, partner.
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2012, 10:20:55 PM
Surely the Second Amendment protects your right to not use triggerlocks?
Maybe next the NRA can get using dum-dum rounds bullet on preschoolers ruled as protected speech.
I dont think you know what a dum-dum bullet is. I probably have several thousand down stairs in my reloading room. They are quite legal. But not legal so to speak for the military to use.
Dum-dum bullets also known as hollow point or soft point bullets.
(https://default.secure.media.ipcdigital.co.uk/502%7C0000009ea%7C36e5_35-cal-Remington-bullets.jpg)
Orignal british .303 Dum dum bullet
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi120.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo191%2Faoe276%2FDscf0011.jpg&hash=8a2fa161883c0daa795cef956661a39d2a59b440)
I like how 11B is fine with using dum-dum bullets on preschoolers.
Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2013, 03:34:29 AM
I like how 11B is fine with using dum-dum bullets on preschoolers.
Naptime means naptime. :contract:
^_^
That is actually an excellent example of why I would support getting rid of the 2nd Amendment.
When it becomes difficult to discuss how to legislate what kind of specialized ammunition private citizens should be able to carry in the portable machine guns, I start to think that whatever the intent of the founding fathers might have been in regards to the right(s) the 2nd is protecting is not really relevant to that discussion.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 06, 2013, 02:40:31 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2012, 10:20:55 PM
Surely the Second Amendment protects your right to not use triggerlocks?
Maybe next the NRA can get using dum-dum rounds bullet on preschoolers ruled as protected speech.
I dont think you know what a dum-dum bullet is. I probably have several thousand down stairs in my reloading room. They are quite legal. But not legal so to speak for the military to use.
Why would you think that I wouldn't know what a dum-dum bullet is? With my background in Imperial history and arms control, how could I not? Do you think that because I don't jerk off to firearms that I don't know my history?
The key part of my statement isn't so much the particulars of the ammunition, but rather that the NRA are a bunch of dangerous lunatics who can't be trusted with firearms. I wasn't making a statement on the legality of the dum-dum, but rather that the NRA wants kids to get shot. The dum-dum was just for effect as a terrible weapon.
Dude, Even I know what it is. It's not like it's big secret.
Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2013, 03:34:29 AM
I like how 11B is fine with using dum-dum bullets on preschoolers.
He doesn't care as long as you know what a dum-dum is.
Wait, do dum-dums go in a clip or a magazine?
Quote from: sbr on January 06, 2013, 01:48:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2013, 03:34:29 AM
I like how 11B is fine with using dum-dum bullets on preschoolers.
He doesn't care as long as you know what a dum-dum is.
Wait, do dum-dums go in a clip or a magazine?
Pamphlets.
Quote from: sbr on January 06, 2013, 01:48:35 PM
Wait, do dum-dums go in a clip or a magazine?
:lol:
The proper place is a revolver cylinder. Duh.
Quotebut rather that the NRA wants kids to get shot
They do? Were did they say that. Typical anti-nutter statement.
Quote from: Berkut on January 06, 2013, 10:50:30 AM
When it becomes difficult to discuss how to legislate what kind of specialized ammunition private citizens should be able to carry in the portable machine guns
What specialized ammo are you taking about? If your talking about soft point bullets..they are not specialized. If you are talking armor piercing ..yes most def. Tungston core solid...specialized yes...but used for dangerous game hunting, very expensive, and not available below .338 caliber. Hollow Point Boat Tail bullets...specialized yes....expensive.
So, active shooters carrying "Assault Weapons" use cheap
military bulk ball ammunition, which is not used/ legal for big game hunting, not good competition target ammo, and not used for dangerous game hunting.
The 2nd Amend talks about gun ownership not ammo ownership.
Machine guns...really. What machine guns?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 06, 2013, 01:58:11 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 06, 2013, 01:48:35 PM
Wait, do dum-dums go in a clip or a magazine?
:lol:
The proper place is a revolver cylinder. Duh.
no hydra-shoks or as Neil states "dum-dum" :lol: can go in a magazine too.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 06, 2013, 08:36:29 PM
Quotebut rather that the NRA wants kids to get shot
They do? Were did they say that. Typical anti-nutter statement.
They want guns near children and everybody carrying hidden weapons. Just because they don't think through the consequences of their stances doesn't mean that those consequences don't exist.
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2013, 09:28:20 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 06, 2013, 08:36:29 PM
Quotebut rather that the NRA wants kids to get shot
They do? Were did they say that. Typical anti-nutter statement.
They want guns near children and everybody carrying hidden weapons. Just because they don't think through the consequences of their stances doesn't mean that those consequences don't exist.
So, you are admitting they didn't say "they" want kids to get shot?
Quote from: 11B4V on January 06, 2013, 08:39:05 PM
Machine guns...really. What machine guns?
Portable ones. :smarty:
Quote from: 11B4V on January 06, 2013, 09:29:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2013, 09:28:20 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 06, 2013, 08:36:29 PM
Quotebut rather that the NRA wants kids to get shot
They do? Were did they say that. Typical anti-nutter statement.
They want guns near children and everybody carrying hidden weapons. Just because they don't think through the consequences of their stances doesn't mean that those consequences don't exist.
So, you are admitting they didn't say "they" want kids to get shot?
No.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 06, 2013, 09:44:39 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 06, 2013, 08:39:05 PM
Machine guns...really. What machine guns?
Portable ones. :smarty:
:lol: Ah, quite so. I dont know of many active shooter incidents that have been armed with an M240
Quote from: 11B4V on January 06, 2013, 08:39:05 PM
The 2nd Amend talks about gun ownership not ammo ownership.
No it says arms. It doesn't specify what kind.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 06, 2013, 10:06:00 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 06, 2013, 08:39:05 PM
The 2nd Amend talks about gun ownership not ammo ownership.
No it says arms. It doesn't specify what kind.
and that's not ammunition, so what's your point. Are you saying all "Arms"? Swords, knives, bows, crossbows..get real. GUNS
Quote1. (Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) weapons collectively See also small arms
2. (Military) military exploits prowess in arms
3. (History / Heraldry) the official heraldic symbols of a family, state, etc., including a shield with distinctive devices, and often supports, a crest, or other insignia
bear arms
a. (Military) to carry weapons
b. (Military) to serve in the armed forces
c. (History / Heraldry) to have a coat of arms
(Military)
in or under arms armed and prepared for war
(Military)
lay down one's arms to stop fighting; surrender
(Military)
present arms Military
a. a position of salute in which the rifle is brought up to a position vertically in line with the body, muzzle uppermost and trigger guard to the fore
b. the command for this drill
(Military)
take (up) arms to prepare to fight
to arms! arm yourselves!
up in arms indignant; prepared to protest strongly
A pointed stick
http://www.azcentral.com/insiders/laurieroberts/2013/01/05/the-insanity-of-arming-the-mentally-ill/?sf8381924=1
QuoteKristi's story: the insanity of arming the mentally ill
Pain radiated through the phone when Kristi Stadler called the crisis hotline in the wee hours one May morning.
"I would like to kill myself ...," she told Luis, the voice at the other end of the line. "I know that life is an option for me but I know it's been an option for the past 12 years and it hasn't gotten any better and when it does it always gets bad again."
Terry Stadler tears up as he talks about his daughter's 12-year battle with mental illness. She fought it with everything she had, he says. With repeated hospitalizations, with medication and an electrical implant designed to help with her deep depression. With crisis counseling and years of work with psychiatrists.
She fought hard, he says, right up until that day in May 2009, when the Phoenix Police Department handed her a loaded gun. Fifteen hours later, Kristi Lee Stadler was dead.
And the police department? Turns out it's not illegal to give a mentally ill person a loaded gun. Just as it's not illegal for someone like Kristi – an emotionally unstable woman who killed herself in part because she was having "horrible horrible" thoughts about her infant daughter – to be able to walk into a gun store, order up a .38 and a box of ammo and walk off onto the streets of Phoenix.
Such is the state of gun laws in this state and in this country – as we have seen and seen and so sadly seen, with tragic result.
Kristi grew up in Ahwatukee with her father Terry, an airline pilot, and a stepmother. Her mother left the family when Kristi and her twin brother were 2 years old. Kristi's battle with mental illness began when she was 12 and attempted suicide by overdosing on aspirin. Over the next 12 years, she would repeatedly attempt to take her life by various means though often the attempts seemed half hearted, doctors would later say.
Kristi had a daughter in October 2008 and though Terry worried about how motherhood would affect Kristi's illness, she seemed "on top of the world," he says. Things were good through Christmas that year, then her illness hit hard. By early February, the child's father had taken away their daughter, apparently fearing for her safety, and Kristi bought herself a .38. Despite her mental illness, she was legally able to buy the gun because she had always cooperated with her treatment and thus had never been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital by a judge.
On Feb. 6, 2009, she hiked onto South Mountain and called her psychiatrist, threatening to shoot herself. The psychiatrist notified police and met them at the site, handing an officer her cell phone so that he could talk Kristi down. When it was over, police confiscated the gun for safekeeping.
Kristi would spend the next week in a mental hospital and the next month undergoing treatment for alcoholism. She was released into a halfway house but was kicked out in late April because she had been unable to get a job and had returned to drinking.
So, of course, it was time for the police to return Kristi's gun.
Knowing that she had a history of mental illness.
Knowing that she had threatened suicide two months earlier.
Knowing that she had a psychiatrist, whose contact information was listed on the police report of the February incident. Unfortunately, no one ever called her to ask whether it would be wise to give Kristi a gun.
Instead, police did the requisite "Brady check", verifying that Kristi had never been ordered by a judge into treatment, and proceeded to track her down to let her know she could come get her gun.
Kristi picked up her gun and her bullets on May 7, 2009.
She died just after 4 a.m. on May 8.
Her father sued both Phoenix police and the Department of Public Safety, which he believes mishandled the situation after being dispatched to assist his daughter. For Phoenix police to return a gun to a person they know is mentally ill is "absolutely total gross negligence," he said.
"They took the gun away from her for a reason. That reason was that she was unsafe to have the gun. The community was also in danger with her in possession of that weapon and then they turn around, with no information, and give it right back to her. That brings up a question: why in the hell did you take it away in the first place?"
A police spokesman referred me to the city's attorney in the lawsuit, who did not return a call. In court papers, the city contended that federal and state law required police to give Kristi her gun back.
"Had the city not returned Kristi's gun, she would have possessed a viable civil rights action against the city for violating her Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights," attorney Michele Iafrate wrote.
Under that thinking, I suppose the police would have returned Jared Loughner's gun, had it been him and not Kristi on that mountain.
U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton dismissed Terry Stadler's lawsuit last month, noting that the police followed the law. "Plaintiff suggests that the court develop a new limitation on the constitutional right to bear arms that would require all state and local governments to determine that an individual is not at risk of committing suicide prior to returning a seized firearm," Bolton wrote. "The Court believes that establishing such a limitation is a legislative function, not a judicial one."
As it just so happens, the Legislature gets underway on Jan. 14. Given Newtown, it seems fitting that our leaders would rethink our current practice of putting guns into the hands of the mentally ill.
Ben Van Houten, managing attorney of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, says states can and some do impose additional restrictions. Under California law, for example, Kristi could not have gotten her gun back so soon after a threatened suicide.
"Mental health is one of those areas where there are fairly narrow prohibitions under federal law so it's no surprise that tragedies happen," Van Houten told me.
Terry Stadler lost his lawsuit and he may lose his house, as Phoenix and the state are asking that he be ordered to pay $450,000 to cover their legal fees. But he's not dropping his battle to keep the community and the many Kristis of this world safe.
He is hoping to find a legislator to take up the cause. He proposes, among other things, that a suicidal person requiring police intervention be prohibited from possessing firearms until a psychiatrist certifies that the person is no longer a threat to himself or others.
Incoming House Health Committee Chairwoman Heather Carter has agreed to meet with Stadler and consider what could be done.
"You hear a story like this," she said. "How do you fall through the cracks like that?"
You fall through the cracks because the gun lobby in this country has refused to consider common-sense restrictions that would keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. You fall because we have a Legislature whose answer is always more guns, not fewer. You fall because the police are either unable or unwilling to ask questions before returning a gun to a mentally unstable person.
"You want to talk about mental health and insanity," Terry Stadler said. "This is insanity. Having information that she is suffering from mental illness and giving the gun back. I want the Phoenix Police Department to stand up and tell me to my face that they were right."
Before they and state legislators who will inevitably balk at anything that smacks of gun control do that, they might want to listen to the words of 24-year-old Kristi, during her last hour on this earth.
"I went and picked up my gun today because they gave it back to me because they're very, very stupid and now I have my gun and it's loaded and I'd like to shoot myself," she told Luis, the crisis counselor. "So there's my dilemma. I'm a little drunk ... When I try to kill myself I'm usually drunk. It makes it easier. I've tried this many times and I've been unsuccessful but a gun makes it very easy to be successful in killing yourself. "
(Column published Jan. 6, 2013, The Arizona Republic)
Nice.
Saw the early list of gun control proposals. Big whoop.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 06, 2013, 11:55:20 PM
Nice.
I don't know, aren't you reaching a tipping point in the US, where you're soon going to be considered weird or mentally ill if you Don't have a gun ?
It's about Freedom and Liberty, man. You just don't get it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 07, 2013, 02:55:09 PM
It's about Freedom and Liberty, man. You just don't get it.
Yep, must be because I'm only a subject of HMQ.
Thanks for the example of how to fuck up in writing about a news story, sbr. My guess is that The Arizona Republic doesn't have very high standards for its columnists.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 06, 2013, 10:14:33 PM
and that's not ammunition, so what's your point. Are you saying all "Arms"? Swords, knives, bows, crossbows..get real. GUNS
Does the Second Amendment cover swords? I honestly have no idea.
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2013, 11:26:38 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 06, 2013, 10:14:33 PM
and that's not ammunition, so what's your point. Are you saying all "Arms"? Swords, knives, bows, crossbows..get real. GUNS
Does the Second Amendment cover swords? I honestly have no idea.
The modern conclusion is yes.
http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/20/right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-includes-knives/
I think there is some difference of opinion on 'assault swords' though.
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2013, 11:39:34 AM
I think there is some difference of opinion on 'assault swords' though.
Damn does that include my Landsknecht Zweihänder?
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2013, 11:45:49 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2013, 11:39:34 AM
I think there is some difference of opinion on 'assault swords' though.
Damn does that include my Landsknecht Zweihänder?
You're safe since it was made before 1900.
Quote from: PDH on January 08, 2013, 11:47:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2013, 11:45:49 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 08, 2013, 11:39:34 AM
I think there is some difference of opinion on 'assault swords' though.
Damn does that include my Landsknecht Zweihänder?
You're safe since it was made before 1900.
In that case I think virtually all assault swords are also safe then :P
Piers Morgan got yelled at by Alex Jones, one of the internet's biggest nuts.
In other news, the kick piers out petition isn't that funny anymore since I found out Alex jones created it. But I'd still like piers dropped out of a C-17.
Did Alex Jones think Piers Morgan was an pawn of the Illuminati?
I didn't really know who Alex Jones was until this episode. Why not just deport both of them.
Nice how he was honest of about why conservative are mad about Fast and Furious. It's to defame the 2nd amendment.
So Biden mentioned that Obama might use executive orders to push his gun control agenda, which is interesting in a couple ways. First, it may be a sign that the administration realizes it isn't going to have much luck pushing anything through congress.
Second, there are no real significant gun control measures that can be taken via executive order. AFAIK about the only card Obama can play is to curtail importation of foreign-made firearms and/or ammunition. That would annoy gun owners by driving up prices and limiting availability, but I don't think it would have much effect beyond that.
Of course, it's Joe Biden speaking so who the hell knows if it has any basis in reality in the first place.
Quote from: derspiess on January 09, 2013, 02:25:14 PM
Of course, it's Joe Biden speaking so who the hell knows if it has any basis in reality in the first place.
You know what you are? You're an anti-Bidentite, Jerry. A rabid anti-Bidentite!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.heavy.com%2Fmedia%2F2012%2F10%2Fjoe2.jpg&hash=165b2cb384af5bda0a67adca9f82071f54328e35)
(https://lh3.ggpht.com/-glonPz4iOTE/UC02S_Wo-dI/AAAAAAAABQg/2ksRfTq9UMY/s1600/joeBidenHey.jpg)
(https://lh3.ggpht.com/-Q2DEbKdvEsM/UHf9qcB9hKI/AAAAAAAALLg/Xwi1i25dWq4/s400/joe-biden-paul-ryan-debate-meme-shut-your-punk-mouth.jpg)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1190.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz446%2FArcwn%2Fjoe.jpg&hash=b8665f0e096aeeff7f1e71ea9cbb6fdb068129d0)
Quote from: derspiess on January 09, 2013, 02:25:14 PM
So Biden mentioned that Obama might use executive orders to push his gun control agenda, which is interesting in a couple ways. First, it may be a sign that the administration realizes it isn't going to have much luck pushing anything through congress.
What's interesting about this to me is that AFAIK no one has actually proposed a legislative agenda that has no chance in Congress. I hear plenty of talk about standing up to the intimidation of the NRA, how the time to act is finally here, how important it is to protect our children, but not a peep about what laws should be changed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2013, 03:24:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 09, 2013, 02:25:14 PM
So Biden mentioned that Obama might use executive orders to push his gun control agenda, which is interesting in a couple ways. First, it may be a sign that the administration realizes it isn't going to have much luck pushing anything through congress.
What's interesting about this to me is that AFAIK no one has actually proposed a legislative agenda that has no chance in Congress. I hear plenty of talk about standing up to the intimidation of the NRA, how the time to act is finally here, how important it is to protect our children, but not a peep about what laws should be changed.
Feinstein introduced her wish list bill, and one could argue that it's a starting point and could be pared down to something that would pass the Senate. No way it would pass the House, though. Not sure if anything other than a symbolic measure would.
Which come to think of it the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was largely symbolic, unless you think bayonet lugs were a huge public threat.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2013, 02:55:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 09, 2013, 02:25:14 PM
Of course, it's Joe Biden speaking so who the hell knows if it has any basis in reality in the first place.
You know what you are? You're an anti-Bidentite, Jerry. A rabid anti-Bidentite!
:D
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.qkme.me%2F3r7obn.jpg&hash=35ba107864b4c4604b0126a7fa457b39426c8eb9)
Quote from: derspiess on January 09, 2013, 03:43:23 PM
Feinstein introduced her wish list bill, and one could argue that it's a starting point and could be pared down to something that would pass the Senate. No way it would pass the House, though. Not sure if anything other than a symbolic measure would.
I'd forgotten about that. Do you recall the particulars?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2013, 04:20:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 09, 2013, 03:43:23 PM
Feinstein introduced her wish list bill, and one could argue that it's a starting point and could be pared down to something that would pass the Senate. No way it would pass the House, though. Not sure if anything other than a symbolic measure would.
I'd forgotten about that. Do you recall the particulars?
Shore do, though some of the 'particulars' are a little vague:
Quote from: derspiess on December 27, 2012, 01:30:48 PM
Here's a summary of Feinstein's wish list, er, bill: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
QuoteIn January, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devises.
Heh.
Now see, this is a prime example of why people think the NRA is as squirrelly as it gets. Morons acting like the guns are fucking fetuses.
QuoteNRA Vows To Stop Tucson From Destroying Guns
www.npr.com
Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and her husband, Mark Kelly, have formed a political action committee to support prevention of gun violence. The announcement came Tuesday, the second anniversary of the mass shooting in Tucson that left six dead and wounded 13, including Giffords.
Churches and fire stations around the city rang bells in memory of the victims and in commemoration of other mass shootings since Tucson.
The Tucson Police Department also held a gun buyback Tuesday. Police want to destroy the 206 firearms turned in to them. But the National Rifle Association says that would violate Arizona law.
A line of people with guns formed in front of the midtown Tucson police station well before the 9 a.m. starting time for the buyback.
At a command post in the parking lot, officers checked weapons to make sure they hadn't been stolen or used in a crime, and took the guns. The people who turned them in got a $50 Safeway gift card for every gun — money donated by the grocery chain and by private contributors.
Anna Jolivet had four old rifles she didn't want: "They belonged to my husband, and he passed away four years ago, and I haven't had any success in having someone take them off of me since then. So I thought this is a good time to turn them in."
That's exactly what Republican Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik expected when he asked the police to do the buyback. What he didn't expect was the response after he announced the event.
"I've been getting threats," Kozachik says. "I've been getting emails. I've been getting phone calls in the office trying to shut this thing down or 'We're going to sue you' or 'Who do you think you are?' "
Todd Rathner, an Arizona lobbyist and a national board member of the NRA, may sue. He has no problem with the gun buyback, but he does have a problem with the fate of the guns once police take possession of them.
"We do believe that it is illegal for them to destroy those guns," he says.
Rathner says Arizona state law forces local governments to sell seized or abandoned property to the highest bidder.
"If property has been abandoned to the police, then they are required by ARS 12-945 to sell it to a federally licensed firearms dealer, and that's exactly what they should do," he says.
That way, Rathner says, the guns can be put back in circulation or given away.
The Tucson city attorney calls that a misreading of the law.
Councilman Kozachik says the guns aren't being abandoned; they're being turned in voluntarily.
"This is about giving somebody the chance to say, 'Look I'm not comfortable having this weapon, here's an opportunity for me to just get rid of it in a proper manner,' " Kozachik says.
Rathner says the NRA will ask for an accounting of every weapon turned in and then go to court to stop the firearms from being destroyed. If that doesn't work, Rathner says they'll change the law.
"We just go back and we tweak it and tune it up, and we work with our friends in the Legislature and fix it so they can't do it," Rathner adds.
At the gun buyback, gun-rights advocates held signs reading "Cash For Guns" and "Pay Double for Your Guns." As cars pulled into the parking lot, they asked drivers if they wanted to sell their guns privately rather than turn them in. There were few takers.
Doug Deahn couldn't understand it: "Can't figure they'd rather line up and give them away. Can't figure that out."
What's to become of the weapons may still be unclear. But in the current political climate, this controversy seems to show that, in Arizona at least, it's tough for an owner to get rid of an unwanted gun.
:lol:
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2013, 08:49:48 AM
:lol:
It would be funnier if these people weren't so dangerous.
I always though 'gun rights' issues were about the rights of the gun owners.
How wrong I was. :huh:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr03%2F2013%2F1%2F9%2F13%2Fenhanced-buzz-6108-1357756227-0.jpg&hash=a9804c0de98819dec403371479403239da5736c6)
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2013, 10:54:26 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr03%2F2013%2F1%2F9%2F13%2Fenhanced-buzz-6108-1357756227-0.jpg&hash=a9804c0de98819dec403371479403239da5736c6)
Nice.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2013, 08:40:14 AM
Doug Deahn couldn't understand it: "Can't figure they'd rather line up and give them away. Can't figure that out."
I would imagine that they want to avoid the legal fallout when these nutjobs start shooting up schools or federal buildings or what have you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2013, 08:54:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2013, 08:49:48 AM
:lol:
It would be funnier if these people weren't so dangerous.
It is an interesting legal question, but since the turned in guns are usually in bad shape, to the point of only being "guns" in the legal sense, screw it. Occasionally though you spot a rare item in the pile of turn-ins, so that's a shame when it happens.
Quote from: derspiess on January 10, 2013, 11:41:57 AM
It is an interesting legal question,
No, it isn't, as there is no question. They are being voluntarily surrendered in exchange for compensation, they are not being seized nor abandoned. So there is no question. Stop playing Gun Nut, Esq.
Quotebut since the turned in guns are usually in bad shape, to the point of only being "guns" in the legal sense, screw it. Occasionally though you spot a rare item in the pile of turn-ins, so that's a shame when it happens.
Well, that's just to fucking bad.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2013, 01:29:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 10, 2013, 11:41:57 AM
It is an interesting legal question,
No, it isn't, as there is no question. They are being voluntarily surrendered in exchange for compensation, they are not being seized nor abandoned. So there is no question. Stop playing Gun Nut, Esq.
Quotebut since the turned in guns are usually in bad shape, to the point of only being "guns" in the legal sense, screw it. Occasionally though you spot a rare item in the pile of turn-ins, so that's a shame when it happens.
Well, that's just to fucking bad.
[derspiess]
One of the greatest tragedies of World War Two was the genocide of valuable weapons slaughtered at the end of the war; those weapons still had a lot to contribute to humanity.
[/derspiess]
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/1987_509206615769013_133538015_n.jpg)
Cute Firefly reference.
Quote from: derspiess on January 10, 2013, 11:41:57 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2013, 08:54:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2013, 08:49:48 AM
:lol:
It would be funnier if these people weren't so dangerous.
It is an interesting legal question, but since the turned in guns are usually in bad shape, to the point of only being "guns" in the legal sense, screw it. Occasionally though you spot a rare item in the pile of turn-ins, so that's a shame when it happens.
I had to deal with a local judge in rural Alberta who'd always give me grief when I asked for a gun that had
been used in the commission of a crime to be forfeited for destruction. He argued they should be re-sold so the government could gain the money.
But I went and asked the local RCMP and the Chief Firearms Officer. They wanted no part of re-selling the firearms. They tended to be in shitty condition*, and wanted nothing to do with the potential liability of selling shitty used guns.
*In fact the bigger problem for us was that these guns tended to be so shitty it was hard to prove they still even worked.
Ugh...just got an email from an acquaintance of mine this afternoon; the father of one of the Sandy Hook kids was his best man at his wedding.
Just turned 7 years old three days earlier, was going to have her big girl birthday party the next day.
What a bummer of an email.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2013, 01:29:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 10, 2013, 11:41:57 AM
It is an interesting legal question,
No, it isn't, as there is no question. They are being voluntarily surrendered in exchange for compensation, they are not being seized nor abandoned. So there is no question. Stop playing Gun Nut, Esq.
Quotebut since the turned in guns are usually in bad shape, to the point of only being "guns" in the legal sense, screw it. Occasionally though you spot a rare item in the pile of turn-ins, so that's a shame when it happens.
Well, that's just to fucking bad.
Compensation.... :lmfao: Dude their is no way I will volutarliy turn in a $1700 rifle for $200.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 10, 2013, 07:01:25 PM
Quit being a girl.
Quit the NRA. They're batshit crazy, and you know it.
Quote from: Barrister on January 10, 2013, 05:19:38 PM
*In fact the bigger problem for us was that these guns tended to be so shitty it was hard to prove they still even worked.
Have you ever let the fact that the weapon in question doesn't work stop you from sending someone to jail for killing someone with it?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2013, 06:34:15 PM
Ugh...just got an email from an acquaintance of mine this afternoon; the father of one of the Sandy Hook kids was his best man at his wedding.
Just turned 7 years old three days earlier, was going to have her big girl birthday party the next day.
What a bummer of an email.
It's a small price to pay for freedom.
Excuse me while I go throw up.
Quote from: Berkut on January 10, 2013, 08:06:16 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2013, 06:34:15 PM
Ugh...just got an email from an acquaintance of mine this afternoon; the father of one of the Sandy Hook kids was his best man at his wedding.
Just turned 7 years old three days earlier, was going to have her big girl birthday party the next day.
What a bummer of an email.
It's a small price to pay for freedom.
Excuse me while I go throw up.
Yes, it makes loosing a sibling in a road 'accident' seem less than terrible.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2013, 06:34:15 PM
Ugh...just got an email from an acquaintance of mine this afternoon; the father of one of the Sandy Hook kids was his best man at his wedding.
Just turned 7 years old three days earlier, was going to have her big girl birthday party the next day.
What a bummer of an email.
:(
Quote from: Berkut on January 10, 2013, 08:05:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 10, 2013, 05:19:38 PM
*In fact the bigger problem for us was that these guns tended to be so shitty it was hard to prove they still even worked.
Have you ever let the fact that the weapon in question doesn't work stop you from sending someone to jail for killing someone with it?
The homicides I've worked on have never been by firearm. :(
The "offence" the firearm is involved in is usually unsafe storage.
Dude, this is Canada, not the U.S. You can't keep your rifle loaded and under the bed!And it's not that the weapon didn't work - it' that it was so shitty no police officer wanted to risk their life test-firing it.
Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2013, 12:05:49 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 10, 2013, 08:05:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 10, 2013, 05:19:38 PM
*In fact the bigger problem for us was that these guns tended to be so shitty it was hard to prove they still even worked.
Have you ever let the fact that the weapon in question doesn't work stop you from sending someone to jail for killing someone with it?
The homicides I've worked on have never been by firearm. :(
The "offence" the firearm is involved in is usually unsafe storage.
Dude, this is Canada, not the U.S. You can't keep your rifle loaded and under the bed!
And it's not that the weapon didn't work - it' that it was so shitty no police officer wanted to risk their life test-firing it.
WTF? Do you have Mounties going around inspecting people's homes for loaded rifles under their beds?
Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2013, 12:05:49 AM
The homicides I've worked on have never been by firearm. :(
I do not envy you. When I studied some law enforcement in college, I quickly realized that it's a really unpleasant business.
Quote from: dps on January 11, 2013, 12:29:23 AM
WTF? Do you have Mounties going around inspecting people's homes for loaded rifles under their beds?
I assume it comes up when someone is on the cop's radar for some other reason.
Cops get called in on a domestic dispute, and sticking out from under the bed is a loaded shotgun = unsafe storage charge, that sort of thing.
Quote from: dps on January 11, 2013, 12:29:23 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2013, 12:05:49 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 10, 2013, 08:05:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 10, 2013, 05:19:38 PM
*In fact the bigger problem for us was that these guns tended to be so shitty it was hard to prove they still even worked.
Have you ever let the fact that the weapon in question doesn't work stop you from sending someone to jail for killing someone with it?
The homicides I've worked on have never been by firearm. :(
The "offence" the firearm is involved in is usually unsafe storage.
Dude, this is Canada, not the U.S. You can't keep your rifle loaded and under the bed!
And it's not that the weapon didn't work - it' that it was so shitty no police officer wanted to risk their life test-firing it.
WTF? Do you have Mounties going around inspecting people's homes for loaded rifles under their beds?
If only. :(
Malthus has it right - unsafe storage is a fairly common charge, but it invariably is laid when polcie are called for some other reason, then discover the improperly stored firearm.
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2013, 01:55:35 PM
[derspiess]
One of the greatest tragedies of World War Two was the genocide of valuable weapons slaughtered at the end of the war; those weapons still had a lot to contribute to humanity.
[/derspiess]
No shit. One of the saddest stories is that all those MP44s that survived WWII and were then used by East Germany prior to adoption of the AK were later given away *free* to socialist African countries/movements. Might as well have just sunk crates of them at the bottom of the sea :(
They could have been modified to semi-auto and sold on the surplus market.
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 10:31:34 AM
No shit. One of the saddest stories is that all those MP44s that survived WWII and were then used by East Germany prior to adoption of the AK were later given away *free* to socialist African countries/movements. Might as well have just sunk crates of them at the bottom of the sea :(
I dunno, the Africans just used them on each other, the dolphins might have used them on us. :o
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 11, 2013, 10:38:48 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 10:31:34 AM
No shit. One of the saddest stories is that all those MP44s that survived WWII and were then used by East Germany prior to adoption of the AK were later given away *free* to socialist African countries/movements. Might as well have just sunk crates of them at the bottom of the sea :(
I dunno, the Africans just used them on each other, the dolphins might have used them on us. :o
If they were equipped with flipper trigger adapters-- and only then MAYBE :contract:
There was a Stg 44 turned in at a Chicago gun thingy last year.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 11, 2013, 10:46:32 AM
There was a Stg 44 turned in at a Chicago gun thingy last year.
I think there are a small number floating around in the US-- I'd have to think most of them are registered class III weapons. AIM Surplus sells new production 7.92x33mm ammo so there has to be a market for it somewhere.
Supposedly there is a youtube video of a cache of them (in a disorganized pile rather than neatly packed into crates of course) being found by rebels in Syria, but it hasn't been verified.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 11, 2013, 10:46:32 AM
There was a Stg 44 turned in at a Chicago gun thingy last year.
My Dad was telling me about one of the buy backs the BPD ran in 1971 or '72 and some really nice pieces were surrendered, including a lot of vintage WW2 stuff, from war-service Thompsons to plenty of German stuff and Chicom shit from the Korean War; so much it was trucked out by flat beds on palettes. Had such a massive turn out, the commissioner went to the federal government to even see about reimbursement, they spent so much money.
All of it went straight to the furnace at Bethelem Steel.
Every life gun is sacred.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/320917_10151175591480766_910657179_n.jpg)
Quote from: Phillip V on January 12, 2013, 12:43:38 AM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/320917_10151175591480766_910657179_n.jpg)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F64Gia.jpg&hash=64294b29cc3d6a301b7a79211d44aa5e11a7b8a5)
Lame.
If gun buybacks don't do the trick, maybe video game buybacks will!
http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/11/state-melrose-mayor-target-violent-video-games/rJDPeKQTBfKYIt92Gic24L/story.html
Yeah, Obama at least does need guns to make him safer, what with the whole NRA looking to assassinate him, not to mention all the terror-types, Chinese and the like.
And Phil's wasn't?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2013, 12:08:33 PM
And Phil's wasn't?
Phil's pic was a joke, your pic was a weak argument.
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2013, 12:36:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2013, 12:08:33 PM
And Phil's wasn't?
You tell me.
Okay, Phil's was dishonest on every level. Since you asked for my opinion honestly, I assume you'll accept it.
Okay Tats, enumerate every level that it's dishonest.
In PowerPoint format.
Also, give the list in interpretive dance.
You have 6 hours.
Oh and incidentally cause I like that cat picture that's been floating around the internet so much I found this version that fits perfectly.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRA5Jo.jpg&hash=c7281fb4aa8f17c9de4a3866b610c8ffa2565b24)
Feel free to use it when I disappoint you. I guess I should mention that my name is Brad.
Loaded Revolutionary War-Era Cannon Found In Central Park
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/01/11/exclusive-loaded-revolutionary-war-era-cannon-found-in-central-park/
Unacceptable. Bloomberg must be arrested immediately.
The current spate of talk about the NRA reminds me more than a little about the old Occupy Wall Street and Obama talk about the rich. In both cases it seems to me that people have lost sight of the ultimate objective, i.e. legislation. Discrediting and vilifying the NRA and rich people should be a means to an end, but people are treating it as a end in and of itself.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2013, 04:19:41 PM
The current spate of talk about the NRA reminds me more than a little about the old Occupy Wall Street and Obama talk about the rich. In both cases it seems to me that people have lost sight of the ultimate objective, i.e. legislation. Discrediting and vilifying the NRA and rich people should be a means to an end, but people are treating it as a end in and of itself.
Yea. :lmfao:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2013, 04:19:41 PM
The current spate of talk about the NRA reminds me more than a little about the old Occupy Wall Street and Obama talk about the rich. In both cases it seems to me that people have lost sight of the ultimate objective, i.e. legislation. Discrediting and vilifying the NRA and rich people should be a means to an end, but people are treating it as a end in and of itself.
What do you think is easier to accomplish?
That said - pretty silly here as NRA does enough on its own to discredit and paint itself as a villain.
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 07:51:16 PM
That said - pretty silly here as NRA does enough on its own to discredit and paint itself as a villain.
Yeah, they don't seem to do themselves any favors in the PR department, except for internal consumption.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2013, 03:23:20 PM
Okay Tats, enumerate every level that it's dishonest.
Was he a member of the NRA?
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 07:51:16 PM
What do you think is easier to accomplish?
Beating up the NRA. So what? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 07:51:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2013, 04:19:41 PM
The current spate of talk about the NRA reminds me more than a little about the old Occupy Wall Street and Obama talk about the rich. In both cases it seems to me that people have lost sight of the ultimate objective, i.e. legislation. Discrediting and vilifying the NRA and rich people should be a means to an end, but people are treating it as a end in and of itself.
What do you think is easier to accomplish?
That said - pretty silly here as NRA does enough on its own to discredit and paint itself as a villain.
and not enough people are paying attention. I hope Obama expends political capital on the gun fight.
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2013, 04:19:34 PM
Unacceptable. Bloomberg must be arrested immediately.
Bloomberg is the poster boy for left wing nut jobs. IMO he is the very picture of the govmint I dont want.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/nyregion/new-york-city-to-restrict-powerful-prescription-drugs-in-public-hospitals-emergency-rooms.html?_r=0
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2013, 08:52:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 07:51:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2013, 04:19:41 PM
The current spate of talk about the NRA reminds me more than a little about the old Occupy Wall Street and Obama talk about the rich. In both cases it seems to me that people have lost sight of the ultimate objective, i.e. legislation. Discrediting and vilifying the NRA and rich people should be a means to an end, but people are treating it as a end in and of itself.
What do you think is easier to accomplish?
That said - pretty silly here as NRA does enough on its own to discredit and paint itself as a villain.
and not enough people are paying attention. I hope Obama expends political capital on the gun fight.
I've no idea what you mean by the first part.
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 08:56:00 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2013, 08:52:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 07:51:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2013, 04:19:41 PM
The current spate of talk about the NRA reminds me more than a little about the old Occupy Wall Street and Obama talk about the rich. In both cases it seems to me that people have lost sight of the ultimate objective, i.e. legislation. Discrediting and vilifying the NRA and rich people should be a means to an end, but people are treating it as a end in and of itself.
What do you think is easier to accomplish?
That said - pretty silly here as NRA does enough on its own to discredit and paint itself as a villain.
and not enough people are paying attention. I hope Obama expends political capital on the gun fight.
I've no idea what you mean by the first part.
American public, as a whole, has a seriuos case of ADHD.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2013, 08:55:23 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2013, 04:19:34 PM
Unacceptable. Bloomberg must be arrested immediately.
Bloomberg is the poster boy for left wing nut jobs. IMO he is the very picture of the govmint I dont want.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/nyregion/new-york-city-to-restrict-powerful-prescription-drugs-in-public-hospitals-emergency-rooms.html?_r=0
What's nutty about that? We live in a nation where Vicodin is the most widely prescribed drug. At the urging of the DEA, the FDA is up to consider again whether or not to put more constraints on prescribing it.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2013, 08:57:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 08:56:00 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2013, 08:52:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 07:51:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2013, 04:19:41 PM
The current spate of talk about the NRA reminds me more than a little about the old Occupy Wall Street and Obama talk about the rich. In both cases it seems to me that people have lost sight of the ultimate objective, i.e. legislation. Discrediting and vilifying the NRA and rich people should be a means to an end, but people are treating it as a end in and of itself.
What do you think is easier to accomplish?
That said - pretty silly here as NRA does enough on its own to discredit and paint itself as a villain.
and not enough people are paying attention. I hope Obama expends political capital on the gun fight.
I've no idea what you mean by the first part.
American public, as a whole, has a seriuos case of ADHD.
With regards to the NRA?
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 08:57:49 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2013, 08:55:23 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2013, 04:19:34 PM
Unacceptable. Bloomberg must be arrested immediately.
Bloomberg is the poster boy for left wing nut jobs. IMO he is the very picture of the govmint I dont want.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/nyregion/new-york-city-to-restrict-powerful-prescription-drugs-in-public-hospitals-emergency-rooms.html?_r=0
What's nutty about that? We live in a nation where Vicodin is the most widely prescribed drug. At the urging of the DEA, the FDA is up to consider again whether or not to put more constraints on prescribing it.
So public hospitals are ok?
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 08:58:09 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2013, 08:57:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 08:56:00 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2013, 08:52:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 07:51:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2013, 04:19:41 PM
The current spate of talk about the NRA reminds me more than a little about the old Occupy Wall Street and Obama talk about the rich. In both cases it seems to me that people have lost sight of the ultimate objective, i.e. legislation. Discrediting and vilifying the NRA and rich people should be a means to an end, but people are treating it as a end in and of itself.
What do you think is easier to accomplish?
That said - pretty silly here as NRA does enough on its own to discredit and paint itself as a villain.
and not enough people are paying attention. I hope Obama expends political capital on the gun fight.
I've no idea what you mean by the first part.
American public, as a whole, has a seriuos case of ADHD.
With regards to the NRA?
With regard to anything.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2013, 09:00:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 08:57:49 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2013, 08:55:23 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2013, 04:19:34 PM
Unacceptable. Bloomberg must be arrested immediately.
Bloomberg is the poster boy for left wing nut jobs. IMO he is the very picture of the govmint I dont want.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/nyregion/new-york-city-to-restrict-powerful-prescription-drugs-in-public-hospitals-emergency-rooms.html?_r=0
What's nutty about that? We live in a nation where Vicodin is the most widely prescribed drug. At the urging of the DEA, the FDA is up to consider again whether or not to put more constraints on prescribing it.
So public hospitals are ok?
Are you drunk? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 09:00:47 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2013, 09:00:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 08:57:49 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2013, 08:55:23 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2013, 04:19:34 PM
Unacceptable. Bloomberg must be arrested immediately.
Bloomberg is the poster boy for left wing nut jobs. IMO he is the very picture of the govmint I dont want.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/nyregion/new-york-city-to-restrict-powerful-prescription-drugs-in-public-hospitals-emergency-rooms.html?_r=0
What's nutty about that? We live in a nation where Vicodin is the most widely prescribed drug. At the urging of the DEA, the FDA is up to consider again whether or not to put more constraints on prescribing it.
So public hospitals are ok?
Are you drunk? :unsure:
So it's OK that only public hospitals are being targeted by bloomberg?
and no to your question.
I don't really see it as big problem except for the bit that the article cites as ERs as the main medical providers for plenty of people. Of course, the article also mentions that he's hardly adopting a new stance - as it has been pushed elsewhere.
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 09:10:51 PM
I don't really see it as big problem except for the bit that the article cites as ERs as the main medical providers for plenty of people. Of course, the article also mentions that he's hardly adopting a new stance - as it has been pushed elsewhere.
Glad you feel Dr. Bloomberg is on your side. Perhaps you are on his baby formula crusade too.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2013, 09:17:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 09:10:51 PM
I don't really see it as big problem except for the bit that the article cites as ERs as the main medical providers for plenty of people. Of course, the article also mentions that he's hardly adopting a new stance - as it has been pushed elsewhere.
Glad you feel Dr. Bloomberg is on your side. Perhaps you are on his baby formula crusade too.
Wow, that was a rather blatant shift of the goal posts! :lol:
Why don't you stay focused on the hospital drugs issue, since it was your poster-child for the kind of government you don't want?
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2013, 09:27:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2013, 09:17:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 09:10:51 PM
I don't really see it as big problem except for the bit that the article cites as ERs as the main medical providers for plenty of people. Of course, the article also mentions that he's hardly adopting a new stance - as it has been pushed elsewhere.
Glad you feel Dr. Bloomberg is on your side. Perhaps you are on his baby formula crusade too.
Wow, that was a rather blatant shift of the goal posts! :lol:
Why don't you stay focused on the hospital drugs issue, since it was your poster-child for the kind of government you don't want?
You tell a new post pardum crazed mother to breast feed when she wants to use formula. I think CdM would give you a good eulogy.
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2013, 09:27:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2013, 09:17:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 09:10:51 PM
I don't really see it as big problem except for the bit that the article cites as ERs as the main medical providers for plenty of people. Of course, the article also mentions that he's hardly adopting a new stance - as it has been pushed elsewhere.
Glad you feel Dr. Bloomberg is on your side. Perhaps you are on his baby formula crusade too.
Wow, that was a rather blatant shift of the goal posts! :lol:
Why don't you stay focused on the hospital drugs issue, since it was your poster-child for the kind of government you don't want?
I think his strategy is to switch from topic to topic in an attempt to daze and confused. Somehow talk about the NRA and gun control has led to breastfeeding.
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 08:57:49 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2013, 08:55:23 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2013, 04:19:34 PM
Unacceptable. Bloomberg must be arrested immediately.
Bloomberg is the poster boy for left wing nut jobs. IMO he is the very picture of the govmint I dont want.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/nyregion/new-york-city-to-restrict-powerful-prescription-drugs-in-public-hospitals-emergency-rooms.html?_r=0
What's nutty about that? We live in a nation where Vicodin is the most widely prescribed drug. At the urging of the DEA, the FDA is up to consider again whether or not to put more constraints on prescribing it.
Nutter supporter
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2013, 09:45:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 08:57:49 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2013, 08:55:23 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2013, 04:19:34 PM
Unacceptable. Bloomberg must be arrested immediately.
Bloomberg is the poster boy for left wing nut jobs. IMO he is the very picture of the govmint I dont want.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/nyregion/new-york-city-to-restrict-powerful-prescription-drugs-in-public-hospitals-emergency-rooms.html?_r=0
What's nutty about that? We live in a nation where Vicodin is the most widely prescribed drug. At the urging of the DEA, the FDA is up to consider again whether or not to put more constraints on prescribing it.
Nutter supporter
Oh is there some amendment that grants us the right to endless amount of painkillers that I'm forgetting?
Christ, I didn't think gun owners could look any worse, then I read the last few pages of this grease fire. :lol:
Quote from: sbr on January 12, 2013, 09:58:14 PM
Christ, I didn't think gun owners could look any worse, then I read the last few pages of this grease fire. :lol:
Great isnt it.
Give me Vicodin or give me death.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 12, 2013, 10:00:31 PM
Give me Vicodin or give me death.
"I" would not deprive you of that. Garbon on the otherhand........
My chocolate princess would never deny his boo a painkiller. :)
Quote from: 11B4V on January 12, 2013, 08:58:25 PM
Exactly...dishonest. Thanks for proving my point.
Not really. I don't know, but the cartoonist may. I didn't create it. Is membership rolls open to the public? I thought it was silly, but saw something equally silly. So I responded in Kind. From what I gleaned, he and his mother seemed fairly typical of NRA type gun owners. Owned several semi-automatic rifles, stockpiled ammunition and went to the range to shoot often, and were vaguely paranoid. If three days before the shooting some guys tried to rob the place, and Mr. Lanza shot them in self-defense he would be held up as example of why people need guns to protect their homes.
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2013, 09:57:44 PM
Oh is there some amendment that grants us the right to endless amount of painkillers that I'm forgetting?
Isn't the pursuit of happiness an inalienable right? Certainly that must include the right to get totally fucking high.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2013, 10:30:07 PM
From what I gleaned, he and his mother seemed fairly typical of NRA type gun owners. Owned several semi-automatic rifles, stockpiled ammunition and went to the range to shoot often, and were vaguely paranoid.
:lol: Where did you get this typical NRA member profile from Raz?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2013, 11:25:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2013, 10:30:07 PM
From what I gleaned, he and his mother seemed fairly typical of NRA type gun owners. Owned several semi-automatic rifles, stockpiled ammunition and went to the range to shoot often, and were vaguely paranoid.
:lol: Where did you get this typical NRA member profile from Raz?
With Raz...who knows.
Quote from: Neil on January 12, 2013, 10:34:06 PM
Isn't the pursuit of happiness an inalienable right? Certainly that must include the right to get totally fucking high.
You bring up a very good point. :hmm:
If 11Bravo wasn't so paranoid, he wouldn't own so many guns. See? Easy!
Quote from: Phillip V on January 12, 2013, 12:43:38 AM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/320917_10151175591480766_910657179_n.jpg)
I don't get you paranoid guntypes. Even though even the Dems wildest crazy scheme, which will be watered down if it passes anyway, does not include serious gun control. Yet the insane fury at nothing continues, Supreme Court decision or no. This is why I think you people are mentally ill.
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2013, 10:29:31 AM
If gun buybacks don't do the trick, maybe video game buybacks will!
http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/11/state-melrose-mayor-target-violent-video-games/rJDPeKQTBfKYIt92Gic24L/story.html
Well that should make the NRA happy, they clearly do not give two shits about the First Amendment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2013, 11:25:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2013, 10:30:07 PM
From what I gleaned, he and his mother seemed fairly typical of NRA type gun owners. Owned several semi-automatic rifles, stockpiled ammunition and went to the range to shoot often, and were vaguely paranoid.
:lol: Where did you get this typical NRA member profile from Raz?
The stuff they put out.
It's not paranoia when you really are out to take their guns away. :contract:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 13, 2013, 12:30:24 AM
It's not paranoia when you really are out to take their guns away. :contract:
I know crazy. :contract:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 13, 2013, 12:30:24 AM
It's not paranoia when you really are out to take their guns away. :contract:
Indeed. What it is is malice.
Quote from: Valmy on January 12, 2013, 11:38:25 PM
I don't get you paranoid guntypes. Even though even the Dems wildest crazy scheme, which will be watered down if it passes anyway, does not include serious gun control. Yet the insane fury at nothing continues, Supreme Court decision or no. This is why I think you people are mentally ill.
Wow. Mentally ill? Really? Do you apply that label to those who passionately defend other freedoms?
Anyway, the fact of the matter is that many Dems would very much like to outlaw all firearms. No, they're not likely to get their way at the moment, but the possibility of any anti-gun legislation taking place is legitimate reason for gun rights advocates to be concerned.
Classic liberal :rolleyes:
Quote from: Valmy on January 12, 2013, 11:43:53 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2013, 10:29:31 AM
If gun buybacks don't do the trick, maybe video game buybacks will!
http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/11/state-melrose-mayor-target-violent-video-games/rJDPeKQTBfKYIt92Gic24L/story.html
Well that should make the NRA happy, they clearly do not give two shits about the First Amendment.
Hyperbole much?
Quote from: derspiess on January 13, 2013, 02:28:34 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 12, 2013, 11:38:25 PM
I don't get you paranoid guntypes. Even though even the Dems wildest crazy scheme, which will be watered down if it passes anyway, does not include serious gun control. Yet the insane fury at nothing continues, Supreme Court decision or no. This is why I think you people are mentally ill.
Wow. Mentally ill? Really? Do you apply that label to those who passionately defend other freedoms?
Anyway, the fact of the matter is that many Dems would very much like to outlaw all firearms. No, they're not likely to get their way at the moment, but the possibility of any anti-gun legislation taking place is legitimate reason for gun rights advocates to be concerned.
Classic liberal :rolleyes:
:lmfao:
It's not that the NRA doesn't care at all about the First Amendment. It's just that their overriding concern is the Second, and they would sacrifice anything to preserve their interpretation of it. Unfortunately, they're entirely wrong in this because the Second Amendment is backwards paleo-law, but it's still their job to advocate, even if that advocation would destroy the world entire.
I don't think conservatives are mentally ill. They are, however, highly fearful of many things, and that drives many of their positions. Maybe it's good to have some fearful people around in society, to avoid becoming complacent, but currently they're definitely a drag on the advancement of American society.
Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2013, 04:32:40 PM
I don't think conservatives are mentally ill. They are, however, highly fearful of many things, and that drives many of their positions. Maybe it's good to have some fearful people around in society, to avoid becoming complacent, but currently they're definitely a drag on the advancement of American society.
That is a mental illness. It's called litigious paranoia.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 13, 2013, 04:38:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2013, 04:32:40 PM
I don't think conservatives are mentally ill. They are, however, highly fearful of many things, and that drives many of their positions. Maybe it's good to have some fearful people around in society, to avoid becoming complacent, but currently they're definitely a drag on the advancement of American society.
That is a mental illness. It's called litigious paranoia.
I think diagnosing half of US population as mentally ill isn't going to be helpful. It's just a personal preference that varies by individual, much like risk aversion. You need some people at every reasonable point of the scale, but the key is moderation and lock of lopsidedness.
Yeah. If enough people have it, it's not mental illness anymore. Look at faggotry, for example.
Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2013, 05:11:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 13, 2013, 04:38:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2013, 04:32:40 PM
I don't think conservatives are mentally ill. They are, however, highly fearful of many things, and that drives many of their positions. Maybe it's good to have some fearful people around in society, to avoid becoming complacent, but currently they're definitely a drag on the advancement of American society.
That is a mental illness. It's called litigious paranoia.
I think diagnosing half of US population as mentally ill isn't going to be helpful. It's just a personal preference that varies by individual, much like risk aversion. You need some people at every reasonable point of the scale, but the key is moderation and lock of lopsidedness.
It's not half the population. There's like 4 million NRA members. More people take Prozac then that. If you are thinking of the GOP, they aren't half the population, Like maybe a third. And I remind you about 48% of them believe that last election was stolen by a defunct organization that helped people find low cost housing. That's pretty delusional. Shit, the WHO estimated that 500 million people in the world suffer from some sort of mental illness.
Oh, Raz and his selective reading of isolated polls. Don't ever change :hug:
Quote from: derspiess on January 13, 2013, 06:03:23 PM
Oh, Raz and his selective reading of isolated polls. Don't ever change :hug:
You are mistaking me for Phil.
Quote from: derspiess on January 13, 2013, 06:03:23 PM
Oh, Raz and his selective reading of isolated polls. Don't ever change :hug:
Hehe, what's he going on about these days?
You could try just reading my posts.
Quote from: derspiess on January 13, 2013, 02:28:34 PM
Wow. Mentally ill? Really? Do you apply that label to those who passionately defend other freedoms?
Anyway, the fact of the matter is that many Dems would very much like to outlaw all firearms. No, they're not likely to get their way at the moment, but the possibility of any anti-gun legislation taking place is legitimate reason for gun rights advocates to be concerned.
Slippery slope logic.
I assume you also must be a die-hard ACLU fan, since the possibility of any infringement of any civil liberty is reason to be concerned.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 14, 2013, 11:34:08 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 13, 2013, 02:28:34 PM
Wow. Mentally ill? Really? Do you apply that label to those who passionately defend other freedoms?
Anyway, the fact of the matter is that many Dems would very much like to outlaw all firearms. No, they're not likely to get their way at the moment, but the possibility of any anti-gun legislation taking place is legitimate reason for gun rights advocates to be concerned.
Slippery slope logic.
I assume you also must be a die-hard ACLU fan, since the possibility of any infringement of any civil liberty is reason to be concerned.
Not ACLU so much, but I'm a big fan of the bill of rights.
Just not the people who defend it passionately?
Quote from: derspiess on January 13, 2013, 02:28:34 PM
Wow. Mentally ill? Really? Do you apply that label to those who passionately defend other freedoms?
Paranoid yes. It gets me annoyed because what are the Dems proposing here? A massive increase in the surveliance state. But it seems that is cool so long as no gun control...because it seems that is all we need for our freedoms.
I support gun rights completely moron. Not the over-the-top crazy hysterical way the paranoid crazies go at it.
QuoteAnyway, the fact of the matter is that many Dems would very much like to outlaw all firearms. No, they're not likely to get their way at the moment, but the possibility of any anti-gun legislation taking place is legitimate reason for gun rights advocates to be concerned.
History has shown that even when the gun control peeps have popular support AND control of the congress they cannot get anything passed that is anything but a minor annoyance. They continue talking about 'no military grade weapons blah blah' as if that is meaningful.
QuoteClassic liberal
Yep.
And mentally ill was pretty strong. I just hate those little 'this is how guns make us safe and free' pictures going around, it just seems to Michael Moorish.
Quote from: Valmy on January 14, 2013, 02:38:02 PM
Paranoid yes. It gets me annoyed because what are the Dems proposing here? A massive increase in the surveliance state. But it seems that is cool so long as no gun control...because it seems that is all we need for our freedoms.
Who is proposing that? And are you sure no Dems are proposing gun restrictions?
QuoteI support gun rights completely moron. Not the over-the-top crazy hysterical way the paranoid crazies go at it.
Again, do you go after similar-acting freedom of speech advocates the same way?
QuoteHistory has shown that even when the gun control peeps have popular support AND control of the congress they cannot get anything passed that is anything but a minor annoyance.
One could argue that the "paranoia" you refer to helped prevent meaningful anti-gun legislation at the federal level.
And that's ignoring the state level, at which many states have enacted significant anti-gun laws.
I thought you guys were all about states rights.
Until overturned by the USSC, DC had a de facto private gun ban. So I don't think it's nutter butter paranoid to think that some people want to take guns away completely.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2013, 03:43:25 PM
I thought you guys were all about states rights.
You seriously trying to use that line?
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2013, 03:49:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2013, 03:43:25 PM
I thought you guys were all about states rights.
You seriously trying to use that line?
You and I had this argument about state's rights and local control a little while ago. Hell, I think guns were the example I used. Can't find the thread right now. I think it was in April of last year. I was arguing that local control was a bullshit position and used gun rights as an example.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2013, 05:21:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2013, 03:49:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2013, 03:43:25 PM
I thought you guys were all about states rights.
You seriously trying to use that line?
You and I had this argument about state's rights and local control a little while ago. Hell, I think guns were the example I used. Can't find the thread right now. I think it was in April of last year. I was arguing that local control was a bullshit position and used gun rights as an example.
So the fact that you've used that line before is proof of-- what, again? It's a weak argument to make, but I'll let you go on and tell me how "states rights" supporters should have zero qualms about anti-gun legislation.
It was in the context of another law concerning abortion. You said you opposed the law but really didn't care because it was in Ohio, I pointed out that's why the state's rights issue is bullshit because if it was guns you would give a shit.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2013, 05:35:24 PM
It was in the context of another law concerning abortion. You said you opposed the law but really didn't care because it was in Ohio, I pointed out that's why the state's rights issue is bullshit because if it was guns you would give a shit.
Ah, it was the Virginia ultrasound thingie. So then go on about the gun part. Not sure if I'm following.
Spicy, ABORT MISSION.
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2013, 05:52:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2013, 05:35:24 PM
It was in the context of another law concerning abortion. You said you opposed the law but really didn't care because it was in Ohio, I pointed out that's why the state's rights issue is bullshit because if it was guns you would give a shit.
Ah, it was the Virginia ultrasound thingie. So then go on about the gun part. Not sure if I'm following.
My original point was that state's rights was bullshit since it's just a fallback position. You don't believe that you give up the right to defend your home with a firearm because you go to another state. You said that it was not, it wasn't your business what they did in other states and if they passed laws that you took away your freedoms in your state you'd simply move to another. You didn't care about what they did in other states. Apparently you now do.
Explain to me specifically how my position has changed.
I will, but I'll have to get back to you later cause I don't feel like digging through the archives right now. You could be proactive and prove yourself wrong for me, that would be a big help.
Spicy, PULL THE LEVER
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2013, 07:14:59 PM
I will, but I'll have to get back to you later cause I don't feel like digging through the archives right now. You could be proactive and prove yourself wrong for me, that would be a big help.
You always seem to be trying to paint me into some imaginary corner. You should find something more productive to do with your time. I don't even feel guilty about using the Yicratic Method on you anymore.
But let me sum it up for you. Yes, I believe in having more power decentralized down to the state level. No, that does not mean I think states can usurp constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms such as free speech, freedom of religion, 2nd Amendment, etc.
But that doesn't mean I get worked up about all gun issues in other states. For example New York appears to be getting ready to pass a stupid restriction reducing acceptable magazine size from 10 to 7 rounds. It's silly and won't reduce any crime, but meh I have other things to worry about.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 14, 2013, 08:00:34 PM
Spicy, PULL THE LEVER
I'm having my fun with the crazy. Wait your turn.
I like Raz. He's a Cardinals fan so he can't be all that bad.
Sorry, I ain't feeling tonight. Maybe tomorrow. I looked through the archives for a while but got disgusted by Grumbler-Berkut "Only I know what Freedom is" rants.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2013, 08:30:04 PM
Sorry, I ain't feeling tonight. Maybe tomorrow. I looked through the archives for a while but got disgusted by Grumbler-Berkut "Only I know what Freedom is" rants.
I've already thrown everything I have on the table, so don't bother if you're expecting to have a conversation.
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2013, 08:20:57 PM
He's a Cardinals fan so he can't be all that bad.
ugh.
Biden says they've identified 19 executive courses of action, but it sounds like it's more along the lines of increased enforcement of existing laws, in which case bully for them.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/biden-guns-executive-actions-86187.html?hp=t1_3
Obama promised to fill us in on the details this week. Hopefully he's more prompt with that than he's been with his budget.
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2013, 08:40:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2013, 08:30:04 PM
Sorry, I ain't feeling tonight. Maybe tomorrow. I looked through the archives for a while but got disgusted by Grumbler-Berkut "Only I know what Freedom is" rants.
I've already thrown everything I have on the table, so don't bother if you're expecting to have a conversation.
Oh you have more. They always have more.
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2013, 08:20:57 PM
I like Raz.
Same here. But he thinks I'm a gun nut and I am far from that. So, he's a little bonkers.
Yay New York!
I think state solutions to gun violence are a ridiculous concept. The benefits of an individual state action are going to be minimized due to proximity to less civilized states, but the inadvertent legal troubles of someone accidentally straying into a tough gun law state with an illegal gun or magazine in their glove compartment are going to be maximized. We're a single country for a reason.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 14, 2013, 10:07:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2013, 08:20:57 PM
I like Raz.
Same here. But he thinks I'm a gun nut and I am far from that. So, he's a little bonkers.
No, I think you are guy with tats.
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2013, 08:40:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2013, 08:30:04 PM
Sorry, I ain't feeling tonight. Maybe tomorrow. I looked through the archives for a while but got disgusted by Grumbler-Berkut "Only I know what Freedom is" rants.
I've already thrown everything I have on the table, so don't bother if you're expecting to have a conversation.
Oh and I found the thread. I confused it with some similar arguments that you never answered. http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,7907.0.html
QuoteQuote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 12:43:14 pm
So you like laws changing drastically as you move from one district to another?
District? You mean "state", right? Anywho-- yeah, pretty much. That way I can pick up & move to another state if I don't like my own state's laws. I can happily live in a red state while some fruitcake left coaster lives happily in his state.
Quote
Are there laws that you support but wouldn't want as a federal laws?
Yeah, probably. More importantly there are laws in other states (and some laws in Ohio) that I don't want to see implemented on a federal level.
Quote
Say gun ownership laws or conceal and carry or whatever?
While I generally favor more gun rights across the country, I'd leave it to individual states to decide how they permit concealed carry.
Quote
Quote from: DGuller on January 15, 2013, 03:22:52 AM
I think state solutions to gun violence are a ridiculous concept. The benefits of an individual state action are going to be minimized due to proximity to less civilized states, but the inadvertent legal troubles of someone accidentally straying into a tough gun law state with an illegal gun or magazine in their glove compartment are going to be maximized. We're a single country for a reason.
Not big on federalism, are you?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2013, 02:30:25 PM
Just not the people who defend it passionately?
:lol:
"I'm big on the Bill of Rights...but people who are big on the Bill of Rights for a living suck."
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2013, 04:29:35 AM
Oh and I found the thread. I confused it with some similar arguments that you never answered.
:nelson: Sour grapes. Should have just left it alone.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2013, 11:33:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2013, 02:30:25 PM
Just not the people who defend it passionately?
:lol:
"I'm big on the Bill of Rights...but people who are big on the Bill of Rights for a living suck."
They don't give two shits about the Second Amendment, so I wouldn't give them credit for defending the Bill of Rights.
Quote from: dps on January 15, 2013, 11:31:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 15, 2013, 03:22:52 AM
I think state solutions to gun violence are a ridiculous concept. The benefits of an individual state action are going to be minimized due to proximity to less civilized states, but the inadvertent legal troubles of someone accidentally straying into a tough gun law state with an illegal gun or magazine in their glove compartment are going to be maximized. We're a single country for a reason.
Not big on federalism, are you?
Not when it comes to rights, no. Also not when you the end result is a very messy legal patchwork that makes Holy Roman Empire look centralized.
Quote from: dps on January 15, 2013, 11:31:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 15, 2013, 03:22:52 AM
I think state solutions to gun violence are a ridiculous concept. The benefits of an individual state action are going to be minimized due to proximity to less civilized states, but the inadvertent legal troubles of someone accidentally straying into a tough gun law state with an illegal gun or magazine in their glove compartment are going to be maximized. We're a single country for a reason.
Not big on federalism, are you?
Pointing out that a particular division of powers within a federal state doesnt make sense does not make one an enemy of Federalism.
"Americans should be allowed to have whatever damn weapons they want. It keeps government honest." ~ Thomas Jefferson to George Washington at Abraham Lincoln's Third Inauguration, 1802.
:huh:
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 11:38:59 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2013, 11:33:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2013, 02:30:25 PM
Just not the people who defend it passionately?
:lol:
"I'm big on the Bill of Rights...but people who are big on the Bill of Rights for a living suck."
They don't give two shits about the Second Amendment, so I wouldn't give them credit for defending the Bill of Rights.
Actually, they do.
They just don't masturbate to it like you do. :hug:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2013, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 11:38:59 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2013, 11:33:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2013, 02:30:25 PM
Just not the people who defend it passionately?
:lol:
"I'm big on the Bill of Rights...but people who are big on the Bill of Rights for a living suck."
They don't give two shits about the Second Amendment, so I wouldn't give them credit for defending the Bill of Rights.
Actually, they do.
They just don't masturbate to it like you do. :hug:
No they don't, and they've said as much.
Surprise, surprise. Obama is using schoolkids as props in his big announcement tomorrow.
They have no position on specific gun control initiatives, which has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 02:19:14 PM
Surprise, surprise. Obama is using schoolkids as props in his big announcement tomorrow.
Why the sarcasm? Kids did die didnt they? The most recent tragedy is the impetus for this isn't it?
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 02:19:14 PM
Surprise, surprise. Obama is using schoolkids as props in his big announcement tomorrow.
Wasn't it a bunch of murdered schoolkids that started this whole discussion in the first place? Or are you starting to channel James Yeager now?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2013, 02:31:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 02:19:14 PM
Surprise, surprise. Obama is using schoolkids as props in his big announcement tomorrow.
Why the sarcasm? Kids did die didnt they? The most recent tragedy is the impetus for this isn't it?
Obama's anti-gun agenda has nothing to do with the tragedy. Whatever he's going to propose tomorrow, I can guarantee it's been in the Dems' back pocket for quite a while. They were just waiting for a crisis/tragedy to push it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2013, 02:28:38 PM
They have no position on specific gun control initiatives, which has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
Nice cop out.
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 11:38:59 AM
They don't give two shits about the Second Amendment, so I wouldn't give them credit for defending the Bill of Rights.
So you defend that NRA for standing up for civil rights, even though the
only rights they care about are the rights to bear arms?
Whereas the ACLU - which defends
every single other individual and civil right in the Constitution - they get a big fat zero on the Spicy Liberty Exam because they don't take any position on gun rights.
Why don't you just fess up and admit the patchouli turns you off.
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 03:06:04 PM
Nice cop out.
It's not a cop out - they are very clear that they do not beleive that the Second Amendment raises any civil liberties issues. Because the ACLU only takes positions on civil liberties issues, they have nothing to say, just like they have nothing to say about monetary policy, or inheritance rights.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 15, 2013, 03:11:32 PM
So you defend that NRA for standing up for civil rights, even though the only rights they care about are the rights to bear arms?
Well the NRA is pretty much by definition focused on the 2nd Amendment and gun rights.
QuoteWhereas the ACLU - which defends every single other individual and civil right in the Constitution - they get a big fat zero on the Spicy Liberty Exam because they don't take any position on gun rights.
Why don't you just fess up and admit the patchouli turns you off.
I have, actually. The fact that they are left-leaning is the reason I don't like them.
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 03:05:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2013, 02:31:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 02:19:14 PM
Surprise, surprise. Obama is using schoolkids as props in his big announcement tomorrow.
Why the sarcasm? Kids did die didnt they? The most recent tragedy is the impetus for this isn't it?
Obama's anti-gun agenda has nothing to do with the tragedy. Whatever he's going to propose tomorrow, I can guarantee it's been in the Dems' back pocket for quite a while. They were just waiting for a crisis/tragedy to push it.
Right, he waited his entire first administration and all the mass shootings during it to finally spring his "anti-gun agenda" on us. Man, you've officially drank the La Pierre Kool-Aid. :lol:
You usually get a pass for your anti-choice fetus love and your "traditional gender roles" bullshit, but congrats, you've officially scored the Ignorant White Trash Hat Trick. :cheers:
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 03:05:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2013, 02:31:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 02:19:14 PM
Surprise, surprise. Obama is using schoolkids as props in his big announcement tomorrow.
Why the sarcasm? Kids did die didnt they? The most recent tragedy is the impetus for this isn't it?
Obama's anti-gun agenda has nothing to do with the tragedy. Whatever he's going to propose tomorrow, I can guarantee it's been in the Dems' back pocket for quite a while. They were just waiting for a crisis/tragedy to push it.
Good grief - not another claim of a "hidden agenda". :bleeding:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2013, 03:28:13 PM
Right, he waited his entire first administration and all the mass shootings during it to finally spring his "anti-gun agenda" on us.
Whether or not it's been a huge priority for Obama himself, his proposals tomorrow will undoubtedly contain items from the Dem anti-gun faction's wish list. Can we at least agree upon that? Anyway when he announces his proposals tomorrow they will become his anti-gun agenda.
QuoteMan, you've officially drank the La Pierre Kool-Aid. :lol:
Really? That's what put me over the edge in your book? Okay :D
Quote from: Barrister on January 15, 2013, 03:43:29 PM
Good grief - not another claim of a "hidden agenda". :bleeding:
So you think politicians always leave their cards out on the table for everyone to see?
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 03:50:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 15, 2013, 03:43:29 PM
Good grief - not another claim of a "hidden agenda". :bleeding:
So you think politicians always leave their cards out on the table for everyone to see?
I'm sure the FEMA death camps are just sitting part of plan "B"
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2013, 03:53:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 03:50:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 15, 2013, 03:43:29 PM
Good grief - not another claim of a "hidden agenda". :bleeding:
So you think politicians always leave their cards out on the table for everyone to see?
I'm sure the FEMA death camps are just sitting part of plan "B"
:yawn: Shouldn't you be mining old threads in hopes of digging up ammo to use against me?
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 11:36:02 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2013, 04:29:35 AM
Oh and I found the thread. I confused it with some similar arguments that you never answered.
:nelson: Sour grapes. Should have just left it alone.
I found it, didn't I? And there you were not giving a damn about other states so long as your state got your control. And here you are bothered that other states have gun restrictions. I don't think you care about rights at all. I think all you care about is if
you get to own guns.
"Digging up ammo" ITS ALWAYS ABOUT THE GUNS WITH YOU
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 03:55:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2013, 03:53:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 03:50:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 15, 2013, 03:43:29 PM
Good grief - not another claim of a "hidden agenda". :bleeding:
So you think politicians always leave their cards out on the table for everyone to see?
I'm sure the FEMA death camps are just sitting part of plan "B"
:yawn: Shouldn't you be mining old threads in hopes of digging up ammo to use against me?
All ready did, and got what I needed. Not that's necessary with you gong down the "Hidden Agenda" Route.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2013, 03:56:10 PM
I found it, didn't I? And there you were not giving a damn about other states so long as your state got your control. And here you are bothered that other states have gun restrictions.
That's not what I said.
QuoteI don't think you care about rights at all. I think all you care about is if you get to own guns.
No, you just described Seedy.
I don't think Obama really cares about gun control even with people going into hysterics about "he'll take away our guns" during both elections. It's not a high priority issue for him except, of course, to the extent that there's a public outcry about it.
If we were dealing with a rational congress I'd expect the gun control issue to be used as a bargaining chip for something that Obama actually cared about (along with a meaningless/ineffective bit of gun control reform). With this congress I expect it to be blown up into a long drawn out mess.
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 03:50:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 15, 2013, 03:43:29 PM
Good grief - not another claim of a "hidden agenda". :bleeding:
So you think politicians always leave their cards out on the table for everyone to see?
Pretty much.
They don't put it front and centre of their 30 second advertisements, but if you're curious what a politician is going to do, if you go back and see what they've written, what they've said in speeches, see what their campaign material is, you get a pretty good idea what they are going to do.
Maybe you have to be a Canadian Conservative to get the blood all angried up about the phrase "hidden agenda". For at least a decade the Liberals used the "hidden agenda" claim against Reform/Alliance. Even once Harper was elected they claimed he had a "hidden agenda". Now, after 6 years of government, people have finally realized "gee, I guess Harper meant what he was saying after all".
Now that doesn't mean they do everything say...
Quote from: frunk on January 15, 2013, 04:03:37 PM
I don't think Obama really cares about gun control even with people going into hysterics about "he'll take away our guns" during both elections. It's not a high priority issue for him except, of course, to the extent that there's a public outcry about it.
Isn't it possible that he's also responding to pressure from within his own party?
Quote from: Barrister on January 15, 2013, 04:07:42 PM
Maybe you have to be a Canadian Conservative to get the blood all angried up about the phrase "hidden agenda".
Okay, but you were the one who used the term :unsure:
Quote from: Phillip V on January 15, 2013, 12:14:08 PM
"Americans should be allowed to have whatever damn weapons they want. It keeps government honest." ~ Thomas Jefferson to George Washington at Abraham Lincoln's Third Inauguration, 1802.
Even if he did, Thomas Jefferson doesn't have anything useful to say about the proper way to run a modern, civilized country. When everybody goes back to subsistence farming, then he might be helpful.
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 04:08:10 PM
Quote from: frunk on January 15, 2013, 04:03:37 PM
I don't think Obama really cares about gun control even with people going into hysterics about "he'll take away our guns" during both elections. It's not a high priority issue for him except, of course, to the extent that there's a public outcry about it.
Isn't it possible that he's also responding to pressure from within his own party?
I'd consider that part of public outcry in both effect and in "hidden agenda" conspiracy worthiness.
Quote from: frunk on January 15, 2013, 04:14:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 04:08:10 PM
Quote from: frunk on January 15, 2013, 04:03:37 PM
I don't think Obama really cares about gun control even with people going into hysterics about "he'll take away our guns" during both elections. It's not a high priority issue for him except, of course, to the extent that there's a public outcry about it.
Isn't it possible that he's also responding to pressure from within his own party?
I'd consider that part of public outcry in both effect and in "hidden agenda" conspiracy worthiness.
Alrighty then :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 03:59:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2013, 03:56:10 PM
I found it, didn't I? And there you were not giving a damn about other states so long as your state got your control. And here you are bothered that other states have gun restrictions.
That's not what I said.
QuoteI don't think you care about rights at all. I think all you care about is if you get to own guns.
No, you just described Seedy.
Then what were you saying? What I described is the typical libertarian problem. "I got what I want, fuck the rest of you".
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 03:50:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 15, 2013, 03:43:29 PM
Good grief - not another claim of a "hidden agenda". :bleeding:
So you think politicians always leave their cards out on the table for everyone to see?
Okay, what cards are your fellow conservatives leaving off the table? What is their hidden agenda?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2013, 04:18:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 03:59:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2013, 03:56:10 PM
I found it, didn't I? And there you were not giving a damn about other states so long as your state got your control. And here you are bothered that other states have gun restrictions.
That's not what I said.
QuoteI don't think you care about rights at all. I think all you care about is if you get to own guns.
No, you just described Seedy.
Then what were you saying? What I described is the typical libertarian problem. "I got what I want, fuck the rest of you".
I'm not playing that game, Raz. I've clearly stated my positions and it's not worth my time to re-type them. It's up to you to prove your silly accusations, since you're the one making htem.
I did. I'm unclear exactly what you answer is. Ball's in your court.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2013, 04:20:25 PM
Okay, what cards are your fellow conservatives leaving off the table? What is their hidden agenda?
First of all I'm not comfortable with the term "hidden agenda", and I'll note again that it was Beeb's term. But I'm sure there's a whole slew of conservative lawmakers' agenda items that they're saving for the right moment.
Geez, you guys are so ready to pounce over anything I say in this thread that I could say the sky is blue and you'd flip out.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2013, 04:23:16 PM
I did. I'm unclear exactly what you answer is. Ball's in your court.
Then I'm sure you missed a post or two. Not gonna encourage laziness on your part.
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 04:26:21 PM
I could say the sky is blue
Looks gray to me.
What kind of game you trying to play here?
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 04:27:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2013, 04:23:16 PM
I did. I'm unclear exactly what you answer is. Ball's in your court.
Then I'm sure you missed a post or two. Not gonna encourage laziness on your part.
Can't read your mind Derspeiss. You have stated positions but they are contradictory. When asked, further you simply answer they aren't and that you have now answered my questions. You goaded me, gunna back out now?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2013, 05:03:21 PM
You goaded me, gunna back out now?
I think I will. It's getting tiresome having to re-state things to you multiple times.
Putting aside the Raz-spicey shadowboxing...
Spicey - so what do you think of the President's supposed proposals? As I understand them, they are:
-tougher Assault Weapon ban
-limits to ammunition device ;) size
-universal background checks
-better database for weapons sales
-"strengthen measures" to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill
I can tell you I'm definitely against the database for weapon sales. Trust me on this - it won't work.
But an assault weapons ban, limit on device size, and background checks don't sound like bad ideas...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/15/new-york-assault-weapons-guns/1835785/
QuoteNew York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a package of tougher gun measures Tuesday, soon after the state Assembly voted to bolster the state's ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
The Democrat-dominated Assembly passed the bill Tuesday by a 104-43 vote after the state Senate approved it by a wide margin late Monday.
The vote makes New York the first state to enact tighter restrictions on guns after the Dec. 14 massacre in Newtown, Conn.
"What we're saying today is some of these weapons is beyond what we believe to be reasonable for purchase for New Yorkers," said Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh, a Manhattan Democrat who chairs the state chapter of State Legislators Against Illegal Guns.
The gun-control package makes changes and additions to a broad swath of state law, ranging from requiring universal background checks for all gun and ammunition sales, boosting the state's power to confiscate firearms from the mentally ill and increasing penalties for gun-related crime.
The bill includes an immediate ban on semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols with a "military-style feature," such as a flash suppressor or a bayonet mount. Guns that are currently legal but are soon to be banned would be grandfathered in, but their owners would have to register with the state.
Magazines would be limited to a maximum capacity of seven bullets, down from the current 10.
The legislation would also include the "Webster provision," a life-without-parole sentence for anyone found to have killed a first responder. The provision is a reference to the Christmas Eve shooting in the Monroe County town, where two firefighters were shot and killed.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/pols-target-apple-nra-game-article-1.1240475
QuoteApple buckled under pressure from angry New York pols Tuesday and agreed to raise the age restriction on a violent new National Rifle Association shooting game from 4 to 12.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, who had been pushing to get the parental rating raised to age 17, called Apple's move "a step in the right direction."
"Apple did the right thing by acknowledging that this game isn't for young children, but should go farther and make the restrictions as tight as possible," said Schumer.
"The NRA has acted in an unbelievably hypocritical fashion by blaming the nation's gun violence on video games and movies, then coming out with a game - for children - featuring assault weapons. Apple should not facilitate children using it."
There was no immediate response from the NRA.
Quote from: Barrister on January 15, 2013, 05:11:26 PM
Spicey - so what do you think of the President's supposed proposals? As I understand them, they are:
-tougher Assault Weapon ban
Oppose. From my cold dead hands & whatnot. So they look scary-- deal with it.
Quote-limits to ammunition device ;) size
Oppose. See above. Doesn't take long to drop mag & reload in most cases anyway, so I don't really see the logic behind it.
Quote-universal background checks
Oppose. I should be able to dispose of my own property to someone within my state without having to transfer through a dealer. That said, if this one sneaked through it wouldn't kill me. When I sell something it's almost always on an auction site the buyer usually ends up being someone out of state-- I have to ship to a dealer (or Curio & Relic license-holder if it's a C&R-classified weapon).
Quote-better database for weapons sales
If this refers to the database used for background checks, I'm fine with it. If it refers to gun registration, I think that was ruled unconstitutional.
Quote-"strengthen measures" to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill
I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous crazies, so on the surface I can't say I oppose. Would have to see details before I say for certain.
Quote from: garbon on January 15, 2013, 05:26:24 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/pols-target-apple-nra-game-article-1.1240475
QuoteApple buckled under pressure from angry New York pols Tuesday and agreed to raise the age restriction on a violent new National Rifle Association shooting game from 4 to 12.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, who had been pushing to get the parental rating raised to age 17, called Apple's move "a step in the right direction."
"Apple did the right thing by acknowledging that this game isn't for young children, but should go farther and make the restrictions as tight as possible," said Schumer.
"The NRA has acted in an unbelievably hypocritical fashion by blaming the nation's gun violence on video games and movies, then coming out with a game - for children - featuring assault weapons. Apple should not facilitate children using it."
There was no immediate response from the NRA.
Shooting virtual paper targets = violence? :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 05:31:13 PM
If it refers to gun registration, I think that was ruled unconstitutional.
They have been upheld by the DC Circuit and the 7th Circuit. Don't know of any case that holds otherwise.
I'm concerned that Obama will ruin the coalition he built in popular support with the moderates out West joining up with the Democrats instead of the GOP and the South. This is exactly the issue that could break that up and drive those people back into the arms of Dixie. And is it worth the risk? How likely is it that some lasting laws will come of this that are not either ineffective or temporary? IMO it's risking a lot for very little potential gain.
A second term president can to what is right rather than worry about re-election
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 05:35:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 15, 2013, 05:26:24 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/pols-target-apple-nra-game-article-1.1240475
QuoteApple buckled under pressure from angry New York pols Tuesday and agreed to raise the age restriction on a violent new National Rifle Association shooting game from 4 to 12.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, who had been pushing to get the parental rating raised to age 17, called Apple's move "a step in the right direction."
"Apple did the right thing by acknowledging that this game isn't for young children, but should go farther and make the restrictions as tight as possible," said Schumer.
"The NRA has acted in an unbelievably hypocritical fashion by blaming the nation's gun violence on video games and movies, then coming out with a game - for children - featuring assault weapons. Apple should not facilitate children using it."
There was no immediate response from the NRA.
Shooting virtual paper targets = violence? :lol:
The slaughter of Daisy paper targets over the decades is a war crime.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2013, 06:46:43 PM
A second term president can to what is right rather than worry about re-election
We don't just have a president. We also have Congress and state governments. If we have another backlash-fueled GOP sweep of state governments, we'll see the introduction of Jim Crow II laws in many places.
I'm downloading that game for Tommy tonight just to piss off Chuckie Schumer. And Germany.
Quote from: DGuller on January 15, 2013, 06:52:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2013, 06:46:43 PM
A second term president can to what is right rather than worry about re-election
We don't just have a president. We also have Congress and state governments. If we have another backlash-fueled GOP sweep of state governments, we'll see the introduction of Jim Crow II laws in many places.
Eventually your country will be brought kicking and screaming into the modern age
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 06:56:29 PM
I'm downloading that game for Tommy tonight just to piss off Chuckie Schumer. And Germany.
Pew pew pew.
I have my prayers out for D's children.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/emulate-alex-jones/
An opinion piece by former MLB pitcher and current mentally ill gun nut John Rocker.
QuotePITCHING POLITICS
EMULATE ALEX JONES
Exclusive: John Rocker notes radio host is doing gun-defense job GOP has failed to do
It seems like all the news you read from conservatives these days is incredibly pessimistic: The Republican Party, after a narrow Mitt Romney loss in November, appears ready to capitulate on a number of issues, most importantly going all-in on the Hispanic vote (which most assuredly means some form of amnesty this year).
The whole "fiscal cliff" fiasco and the implementing of Obamacare means that come payday, a lot of hardworking Americans are going to see their take-home dollars reduced to pay for new taxes.
But above all of this sits the one issue few members of the GOP, even fewer conservative pundits and, worse, even the National Rifle Association fail to realize is the pressing matter of our age: President Barack Obama's decision to use the political capital garnered from the Sandy Hook tragedy to make an all-out assault on gun ownership.
That the GOP has yet to see one fresh face take the lead and attack the Democrats' attempts to curtail the Second Amendment is shameful – but what do you expect from politicians fearful of a voting public that basically resembles an Oprah Winfrey audience at this point and can easily be swayed to change their opinions, even if they fly in the face of reality?
Mr. Obama wants to severely neuter the Second Amendment and disarm the law-abiding citizens of this nation, a similar act of tyrants throughout the 20th century such as Stalin, Mao and Hitler. Absolute certainties are a rare thing in this life, but one I think can be collectively agreed upon is the undeniable fact that the Holocaust would have never taken place had the Jewish citizenry of Hitler's Germany had the right to bear arms and defended themselves with those arms.
It's fitting that one of the few individuals to make a public stand against the gun-grab, and President Obama's lapdog media, has been the incredibly outspoken and confrontational Alex Jones.
Now, there are many areas where Alex Jones, the host of "The Alex Jones Show" and man behind InfoWars.com, and I disagree politically, but having appeared on his show before I can say that his stance for freedom, American sovereignty and the Second Amendment deserves not just respect but emulation.
Appearing on "Piers Morgan Tonight" with Piers Morgan, a British expatriate who serves as a 21st century version of a King George Redcoat championing the disarming of the American people, Jones let him have it in a way that no individual from the GOP or the NRA – save the late, great Charlton Heston who is sorely needed now – has dared when confronting any mouthpiece for Obama's gun-grab.
Here's the main point of the conversation, with Jones telling Morgan, "The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting, it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs."
He'd even go one step further, saying, "1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms."
Jones has the type of energy I like and, more importantly, that is desperately needed by patriotic Americans who are beginning to view the actions of the Obama administration as treasonous and the milquetoast response by the GOP as pedestrian.
The Second Amendment is there to protect Americans from both tyranny and street thugs, and it's a real shame the good folks at CNN haven't left their heavily guarded headquarters in downtown Atlanta – CNN is located only a few stone throws away from some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the city – and taken a trip to the home of the Hermans just up the road in Loganville.
Located in Gwinnett County, an idyllic suburban county of Atlanta but now a microcosm of the very problems found in California, the wife of Donnie Herman showed just how important the Second Amendment is when a street thug fresh from the streets of downtown Atlanta, Paul Ali Slater, attempted a home invasion.
Here's what the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported about the heroic mother of twins who dared defend her family, her property and her life from the type of thuggery that makes Atlanta one of the nations most dangerous cities:
"She was home with her kids when police say Slater forced his way in their front door with a crowbar. Chapman said he likely did not think anyone was home because the woman's car was parked inside the garage.
"But once inside, it's suspected that Slater overheard the woman talking on the phone to her husband. [Walton Sherriff Joe] Chapman said that explains why Slater headed to the attic crawlspace, where the 37-year-old working mom was hiding with her children.
"He was greeted by six bullets. Only one missed, but Slater was still conscious.
"'The guy's face down, crying,' the sheriff said. The woman told him to stay down or she'd shoot again."
Using a .38 revolver, Mrs. Herman protected her family and her property, performing that age-old American tradition of self-defense.
That is heroic. In one story, the entire narrative of those who want to take away the Second Amendment and put the guns into the hands of only the law, which is nothing but an extension of the ever-increasing tyrannical leftist state, is brought crashing to the ground.
The police were incapable of responding in time to stop this home invasion; who knows what might have happened to Mrs. Herman and her twins had she not been armed?
So to that sanctimonious Piers Morgan and those determined to disarm Americans – and yes, any form of gun control is only the initial first step toward total gun control – I say read the story coming from the suburbs of Atlanta and, if possible, allow the notion of why the Second Amendment is so important to the safety of Americans to circulate through your closed minds.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/emulate-alex-jones/#0bwSSqgIKWymbWBc.99
Quote from: DGuller on January 15, 2013, 06:52:47 PM
we'll see the introduction of Jim Crow II laws in many places.
:huh: :hmm:
That article is just painful.
The unoriginal "OMG GUN CONTROL=STALIN,HITLER,MAO!" always annoys on so many levels. Its a stupid comparison that doesn't work and based on untrue facts. The Nazis actually lessened gun controls in Germany quite considerably (and really built up Germany's arms manufacturing industries). Pretty sure people had guns in Stalin's Russia too.
Gah. What's the point. :bleeding:
How many Jews do you think owned guns in late 1930's Germany?
Survey says: not enough.
It's a retarded and offensive argument. It takes a lot more than a gun to defend yourself against a government. People are also quite susceptible to denial in such situations, and I doubt that there were many Jews who perceived the situation to be desperate enough to see going out with a bang as a preferred alternative, until it was too late. Tens of thousands of military personnel purged by Stalin in 1930ies obviously had guns, and the training to use them, but they were led to slaughter with just as little fuss as less armed victims.
Quote from: sbr on January 15, 2013, 07:42:02 PM
How many Jews do you think owned guns in late 1930's Germany?
How many blacks were armed in Jeffersonian America?
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 05:07:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2013, 05:03:21 PM
You goaded me, gunna back out now?
I think I will. It's getting tiresome having to re-state things to you multiple times.
A multiple of zero is still zero. But I'll take your answer as far as I could tell what it is, you accept federalism when when it's politically convenient, but must be oppose when it's not.
I think I will ejaculate in a 30 round magazine tomorrow during Obama's speech.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2013, 07:53:50 PM
A multiple of zero is still zero.
I can confirm that. :yes: :smarty:
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 15, 2013, 07:55:50 PM
I think I will ejaculate in a 30 round magazine tomorrow during Obama's speech.
:x I wouldn't want to be shot with a bullet from that magazine.
Ed don't buy oil for his gun.
Quote from: sbr on January 15, 2013, 07:42:02 PM
How many Jews do you think owned guns in late 1930's Germany?
That falls under Jew control policies, not gun control policies. Jews not being allowed guns was a pretty "well duh" rule along with them not being allowed a lot of other, much more significant, stuff.
As far as gun control is concerned the dictatorial Nazis slackened it heavily from democratic Weimar's super tight controls.
Mao is often brought up, but I thought that large citizen militias were kinda his thing.
Quote from: Tyr on January 15, 2013, 08:04:41 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 15, 2013, 07:42:02 PM
How many Jews do you think owned guns in late 1930's Germany?
That falls under Jew control policies, not gun control policies. Jews not being allowed guns was a pretty "well duh" rule along with them not being allowed a lot of other, much more significant, stuff.
As far as gun control is concerned the dictatorial Nazis slackened it heavily from democratic Weimar's super tight controls.
Incorrect. Weimar gun control was strict until 1928, when it was loosened up a bit. Then in the Nazi era it was a mixed bag-- it was slackened in some respects but made more strict in others. If you were a Nazi party member you faced practically no restrictions. At the other end of the spectrum Jews were totally forbidden from owning guns. If neither of these applied to you, you had to positively demonstrate your trustworthiness and need for a firearm.
You mean like a background check? So they are like our laws. The Nazis also completely deregulated long arms. They wanted an armed populace. It's hard to deny that the Germans liberalized gun ownership. People do, but they often use false quotes.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2013, 08:34:55 PM
You mean like a background check? So they are like our laws. The Nazis also completely deregulated long arms. They wanted an armed populace. It's hard to deny that the Germans liberalized gun ownership. People do, but they often use false quotes.
I don't think it was the same kind of background check. For starters I think they focused on your political trustworthiness and secondly you had to demonstrate a need.
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 09:01:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2013, 08:34:55 PM
You mean like a background check? So they are like our laws. The Nazis also completely deregulated long arms. They wanted an armed populace. It's hard to deny that the Germans liberalized gun ownership. People do, but they often use false quotes.
I don't think it was the same kind of background check. For starters I think they focused on your political trustworthiness and secondly you had to demonstrate a need.
Yeah, for handguns. Not long arms. They wanted armed citizens to prevent an army coup, Communist insurrection or enemy invasion. In the case of enemy invasion they did arm nearly anyone they could, giving weapons to anyone to nearly everyone who could hold them and formed them into "Well regulated militias". Of course this utterly failed to hold back the enemy.
QuoteSecond, with regard to gun possession, the 1938 Nazi gun laws
represented a further liberalization of gun control regulations. In fact, most of
the changes in the law reflected a loosening of the regulations, not a tightening.
The Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, is patterned on the Law on Firearms
and Ammunition of April 12, 1928. The two laws have the same structure,
similar section headings, and broadly similar language.
Section IV of both statutes address the same topic with the same
header, "Acquisition, Carrying, Possession, and Importation of Firearms and
Ammunition."72 These are the provisions that deal with possession and
carrying of firearms. The first important revision in the 1938 law concerns the
scope of the gun control regulation regarding the need for an acquisition
permit: whereas the 1928 law regarding the acquisition or transfer of guns
applied to "firearms and ammunition,"73 which included any and all "weapons
from which a bullet or a load of pellets may be driven through a barrel, by
means of the development of an explosive gas or air pressure"74—i.e. rifles,
shotguns, handguns, etc.—the 1938 law applied only to "handguns."75 In other
words, the 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer
of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition.
The second set of revisions effectuate an enlargement of the exceptions
to the acquisition permit requirement. The 1938 law effectively extended the
number of groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit
requirement. Whereas the 1928 law exempted primarily "officials of the central
government, the states, as well as the German Railways Company,"76 "business
owners" dealing in guns,77 and holders of a "firearms carry permit,"78 the 1938
law included these exemptions, but extended them to include holders of
"annual hunting permits,"79 as well as a larger group of government workers
and Nazi party members.80 The effect of these changes meant that anyone with
an annual hunting permit did not need a permit for the acquisition or transfer
of any firearms, whether long guns or handguns. Moreover, an additional
provision in the 1938 law states that "a hunting license entitles the holder to
carry firearms and handguns,"81 suggesting that the hunting license also extends
an exemption for handgun carrying. Under the 1928 law, the hunting permit
only entitled its holder to acquire "handguns as noted on it"82 and to carry
handguns during the hunting activity.83
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/harcourt_fordham.pdf
You know, if German Jews had been some heavily armed militia amidst the rest of the population, then maybe one or two of the Nazi's criticism of them might have been understandable.
As it was, whatever the German guns laws at the time, if the rest of the population is as armed or under-armed as you , it ain't gonna make a lot of difference; the government and the active/passive support of 95% of the population means the 5% are going to lose out in any oppression/genocide.
Hell in Rwanda were the split was government/75% vs a minority, they managed to outpace the nazis on a daily basis to eradicate many of that 25%, most of the neighbourly dirty work done with machetes.
One of the assumptions there is about dictatorships is that they are always unpopular and only hold on to power through brutality. I don't think this is true. In fact, a well armed citizenry may very well preserve a popular form of oppression.
What difference would armed Jews have made? There were far more armed Germans than their would have been armed Jews. Armed Southerners weren't able to preserve slavery either despite their insurrection, so fuck the Second Amendment. This sort of discussion is pointless, and the crazy guy should be ashamed of himself.
Quote from: Neil on January 15, 2013, 10:58:30 PM
What difference would armed Jews have made? There were far more armed Germans than their would have been armed Jews. Armed Southerners weren't able to preserve slavery either despite their insurrection, so fuck the Second Amendment. This sort of discussion is pointless, and the crazy guy should be ashamed of himself.
Why should I be ashamed of myself? And yeah, if the Second Amendment was meant to stop the Feds then it was miserable failure.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2013, 11:43:30 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 15, 2013, 10:58:30 PM
What difference would armed Jews have made? There were far more armed Germans than their would have been armed Jews. Armed Southerners weren't able to preserve slavery either despite their insurrection, so fuck the Second Amendment. This sort of discussion is pointless, and the crazy guy should be ashamed of himself.
Why should I be ashamed of myself? And yeah, if the Second Amendment was meant to stop the Feds then it was miserable failure.
I meant John Rocker, but I guess you could be ashamed too if you like.
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 03:23:09 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 15, 2013, 03:11:32 PM
So you defend that NRA for standing up for civil rights, even though the only rights they care about are the rights to bear arms?
Well the NRA is pretty much by definition focused on the 2nd Amendment and gun rights.
QuoteWhereas the ACLU - which defends every single other individual and civil right in the Constitution - they get a big fat zero on the Spicy Liberty Exam because they don't take any position on gun rights.
Why don't you just fess up and admit the patchouli turns you off.
I have, actually. The fact that they are left-leaning is the reason I don't like them.
The fact that the right defines the ACLU as left leaning speaks to just how much they really give a shit about actual liberty.
Btw, did we ever talk about this:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gun-appreciation-day-leader-to-cnn-if-blacks-had-guns-they-never-would-have-been-slaves/
Quote'Gun Appreciation Day' Leader To CNN: If Blacks Had Guns, They Never Would Have Been Slaves
Appearing on CNN this morning, "Gun Appreciation Day" chairman Larry Ward said that if blacks had been armed, there never would have been slavery in America.
Ward's group planned the appreciation day for the weekend of President Obama's second inauguration, and some critics have attacked the celebration for its proximity to Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.
"I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with me if he were alive today that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country's founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history," Ward told CNN host Carol Costello.
Co-panelist Maria Roach of United for Change USA immediately took issue with Ward's claim, labeling it a "ridiculous" example of "theater" in the gun debate. She then went after "Gun Appreciation Day" as a whole, calling it a "power play" that ignores the victims of mass shootings and instead focuses solely on appreciating the weapons themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEfvuO5icKQ
Yes, I believe we've discussed how the gun nuts manage to dig themselves a deeper hole every time they open their mouths.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2013, 03:24:39 AM
Yes, I believe we've discussed how the gun nuts manage to dig themselves a deeper hole every time they open their mouths.
I wonder if he expected he'd face such an eloquent black woman. :)
She did look, for a brief moment, that she could've reached through the camera and beat him with her shoe.
Wait until you see the new political ad from the NRA. On the 1 month anniversary of the Sandy Hook shooting, it's chock full of heady tasteful goodness. Should make despiess sponge with another anti-Obama orgasm.
I'll look for a decent link.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2013, 06:35:14 AM
Wait until you see the new political ad from the NRA. On the 1 month anniversary of the Sandy Hook shooting, it's chock full of heady tasteful goodness. Should make despiess sponge with another anti-Obama orgasm.
I'll look for a decent link.
I liked it.
I just bet you did, Ed McVeigh.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/15/nra-obama-ad/
The facial expression of the Mika bitch was priceless this morning.
I'd so bang her though, in the way Neil would bang a Nixon daughter.
Notice how Joe took the usual conservative angle giving Donnie the shit, though? It's about the movies and the culture, yadda yadda yadda. The problem with gun violence is everything except the guns.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2013, 08:25:11 AM
I'd so bang her though, in the way Neil would bang a Nixon daughter.
Notice how Joe took the usual conservative angle giving Donnie the shit, though? It's about the movies and the culture, yadda yadda yadda. The problem with gun violence is everything except the guns.
Oh yeah, I'd assfick Mika while reading John Birch pamphlets to her.
As much running and Stairmaster work as she does, she'd crush us both with her thighs like a Christmas walnut.
Who's Mika?
It's a secret.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2013, 08:20:45 AM
I just bet you did, Ed McVeigh.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/15/nra-obama-ad/
So odd. Makes it seem like we're just itching for gun violence every day in our schools
Mika Brzezinski
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2013, 09:37:15 AM
So odd. Makes it seem like we're just itching for gun violence every day in our schools
I like the insinuation that since the President's children require Secret Service protection--who by their very existence possess a specific and existential criminal, political and terrorist threat dynamic--that he somehow doesn't give a shit about anybody else's kids. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2013, 06:35:14 AM
Wait until you see the new political ad from the NRA. On the 1 month anniversary of the Sandy Hook shooting, it's chock full of heady tasteful goodness. Should make despiess sponge with another anti-Obama orgasm.
I'll look for a decent link.
I should read your reaction before I watch anything political. Made it that much more enjoyable to watch :)
Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2013, 09:54:14 AM
I should read your reaction before I watch anything political. Made it that much more enjoyable to watch :)
It's a very silly ad.
I liked the animation, though; looks like they went with the "Ford F-150 with Dennis Leary" approach. Must go over well with the Johnny Six-Gun crowd.
Be sure to have some Kleenex nearby when you jizz.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2013, 09:55:44 AM
It's a very silly ad.
Who knows-- if I had watched it before I saw your reaction I might almost agree. But the reverse-Seedy taint factor made me enjoy the whole thing.
QuoteI liked the animation, though; looks like they went with the "Ford F-150 with Dennis Leary" approach. Must go over well with the Johnny Six-Gun crowd.
:lol: True.
I actually didn't know who it was but then looked up Mika using google's news feature. Quite simple. :D
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 02:19:14 PM
Surprise, surprise. Obama is using schoolkids as props in his big announcement tomorrow.
It's only four of them, who wrote letters directly to the President about Sandy Hook.
Some real exploitation there. :lol:
Watching the Bamster now. His executive orders don't really sound like gun control, which is fine. His legislative proposals so far are in line with what Beeb posted.
He mentioned violent video games, which I'm sure Languishites will ignore.
Oh, and he trotted out the "if it saves just one life it's worth it" line :bleeding:
I forgot to ejaculate into a 30 round magazine.
Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2013, 12:08:49 PM
Watching the Bamster now. His executive orders don't really sound like gun control, which is fine. His legislative proposals so far are in line with what Beeb posted.
Which means they won't get passed. :P
I like how he finally slipped in the Director of the ATF nomination. 6 years. :rolleyes:
QuoteHe mentioned violent video games, which I'm sure Languishites will ignore.
Yes, because gun violence is about anything else other than, say, oh I don't know, guns.
QuoteOh, and he trotted out the "if it saves just one life it's worth it" line :bleeding:
Who knows, could be your kid.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2013, 12:13:48 PM
Who knows, could be your kid.
You goin' there? :yeahright:
Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2013, 12:18:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2013, 12:13:48 PM
Who knows, could be your kid.
You goin' there? :yeahright:
Why not, you're a parent. You're invested in the problem.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 16, 2013, 12:09:55 PM
I forgot to ejaculate into a 30 round magazine.
Forgot? :yeahright: I bet your banana clip was too curved to feed the rounds properly.
and Obama makes the safe play.
QuoteThe announcement is over, and Obama is signing the 23 executive actions. These actions are in addition to laws that Obama wants Congress to pass. Here, according to the White House, are the 23 executive actions that he and his administration will do:
1. "Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system."
2. "Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system."
3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."
4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks."
5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."
6. "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers."
7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."
8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission)."
9. "Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."
10. "Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement."
11. "Nominate an ATF director."
12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."
13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."
14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."
15. "Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies."
16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."
17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."
18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."
19. "Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education."
20. "Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover."
21. "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges."
22. "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations."
23. "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health."
Quote from: DGuller on January 16, 2013, 12:44:22 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 16, 2013, 12:09:55 PM
I forgot to ejaculate into a 30 round magazine.
Forgot? :yeahright: I bet your banana clip was too curved to feed the rounds properly.
Banana clip.. really. You anti-gun nutters really, at least, need to do some reading. Ignorant. MAGAZINE you twit.
http://www.amazon.com/Goody-35955-Banana-Clip-5/dp/B0017QDM6U
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F41rNnQYue7L._SY355_.jpg&hash=8978a2028efcf8b1858842dd6780a6d7f1bb204d)
Quote from: 11B4V on January 16, 2013, 01:03:41 PM
and Obama makes the safe play.
And certain GOP congressmen are already talking about impeachment over it anyway.
:mellow:
Quote from: 11B4V on January 16, 2013, 01:06:38 PM
Banana clip.. really. You anti-gun nutters really, at least, need to do some reading. Ignorant.
ITS A BANANA MAGAZINE DAMMIT
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2013, 01:07:04 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 16, 2013, 01:03:41 PM
and Obama makes the safe play.
And certain GOP congressmen are already talking about impeachment over it anyway.
They were talking about it yesterday and a few days before when there was some hysteria about him possibly overreaching his authority via executive order. That was a silly notion then and if they're still talking impeachment it's even sillier now that he's confirmed what his executive orders are.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2013, 01:07:04 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 16, 2013, 01:03:41 PM
and Obama makes the safe play.
And certain GOP congressmen are already talking about impeachment over it anyway.
Tea Baggers.
Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2013, 12:49:18 AM
The fact that the right defines the ACLU as left leaning speaks to just how much they really give a shit about actual liberty.
:lol:
What a silly thing to say.
Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2013, 01:11:09 PM
They were talking about it yesterday and a few days before when there was some hysteria about him possibly overreaching his authority via executive order. That was a silly notion then and if they're still talking impeachment it's even sillier now that he's confirmed what his executive orders are.
Considering the White House released pretty much everything they were going to debut today as late as Friday to the media, the GOPtards were not really working off anything this weekend they didn't already know about. So crazy is still fucking crazy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2013, 09:50:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2013, 09:37:15 AM
So odd. Makes it seem like we're just itching for gun violence every day in our schools
I like the insinuation that since the President's children require Secret Service protection--who by their very existence possess a specific and existential criminal, political and terrorist threat dynamic--that he somehow doesn't give a shit about anybody else's kids. :lol:
The White House was right with this one: Repugnant and cowardly. That's the heart of the NRA.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 16, 2013, 01:06:38 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 16, 2013, 12:44:22 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 16, 2013, 12:09:55 PM
I forgot to ejaculate into a 30 round magazine.
Forgot? :yeahright: I bet your banana clip was too curved to feed the rounds properly.
Banana clip.. really. You anti-gun nutters really, at least, need to do some reading. Ignorant. MAGAZINE you twit.
And yet you knew exactly what he meant, as would anyone participating in the conversation. The purpose of language is to convey meaning, and the difference isn't as important as you're pretending it is.
Some dude wrote a piece on HuffPo a couple months ago where he advocated banning "high-magazine clips". :P
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2013, 08:12:33 PM
Incorrect. Weimar gun control was strict until 1928, when it was loosened up a bit. Then in the Nazi era it was a mixed bag-- it was slackened in some respects but made more strict in others. If you were a Nazi party member you faced practically no restrictions. At the other end of the spectrum Jews were totally forbidden from owning guns. If neither of these applied to you, you had to positively demonstrate your trustworthiness and need for a firearm.
you are confusing racial/political discriminatory laws with gun control. Lots of civic prohibitions were ultimately placed on Jews and other "undesirables" such as positions in the civil service or universities, rights to acquire real property etc. The gun restrictions were just part and parcel.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 16, 2013, 01:51:45 PM
Some dude wrote a piece on HuffPo a couple months ago where he advocated banning "high-magazine clips". :P
11B would have had a heart attack. Or possibly gone on a rage-induced spree-shooting.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2013, 01:07:04 PM
And certain GOP congressmen are already talking about impeachment over it anyway.
Item No 23 does come close to an impeachable offense.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2013, 10:18:15 PM
One of the assumptions there is about dictatorships is that they are always unpopular and only hold on to power through brutality. I don't think this is true. In fact, a well armed citizenry may very well preserve a popular form of oppression.
On the flip side - the country with the lowest recorded level of private gun ownership was Tunisia just before the green revolution (and since). The fact that Tunisia's revolt has been by far the most successful and positive is probably coincidental.
On the other end of the spectrum, Yemen's very high level of gun ownership has worked out just dandy for them . . .
Arabs don't kill people.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 16, 2013, 02:25:15 PM
On the other end of the spectrum, Yemen's very high level of gun ownership has worked out just dandy for them . . .
Hey man, right now those Yemeni tribesmen with their flintlocks are on the front lines of America's War on Al Qaeda down there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2013, 02:28:22 PM
Hey man, right now those Yemeni tribesmen with their flintlocks are on the front lines of America's War on Al Qaeda down there.
So how's our second and third lines doing? :ph34r:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 16, 2013, 02:51:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2013, 02:28:22 PM
Hey man, right now those Yemeni tribesmen with their flintlocks are on the front lines of America's War on Al Qaeda down there.
So how's our second and third lines doing? :ph34r:
That'll be the Saudi interior ministry and the religious affairs police. : :pope:
Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2013, 12:08:49 PM
Watching the Bamster now. His executive orders don't really sound like gun control, which is fine. His legislative proposals so far are in line with what Beeb posted.
He mentioned violent video games, which I'm sure Languishites will ignore.
Oh, and he trotted out the "if it saves just one life it's worth it" line :bleeding:
Pisses me off. See? I told you guns are going to be fine. It is the rest of the Bill of Rights that are going to get it....well will continue to get it.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 16, 2013, 01:03:41 PM
and Obama makes the safe play.
Yeah he always does that. He likes to think of himself as a pragmatist.
Quote from: Valmy on January 16, 2013, 03:00:58 PM
Pisses me off. See?
See what? I said last week that there wasn't much he could do through executive order.
QuoteI told you guns are going to be fine.
He proposed some restrictive legislation, though. Chances are it will not get through Congress, but it is going to get introduced, and it will get voted on (at least in the Senate), and until it's defeated I don't think it's advisable for gun rights supporters to ignore it.
QuoteIt is the rest of the Bill of Rights that are going to get it....well will continue to get it.
Go on.
Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2013, 03:18:06 PM
Go on.
Instead of gun control I think the main effect will be increased databasing and careful watching on who has the guns. That is, after all, what he has been saying.
Quote from: Valmy on January 16, 2013, 03:42:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2013, 03:18:06 PM
Go on.
Instead of gun control I think the main effect will be increased databasing and careful watching on who has the guns. That is, after all, what he has been saying.
A sisyphean task, sadly. Most likely ineffective.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 16, 2013, 03:50:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 16, 2013, 03:42:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2013, 03:18:06 PM
Go on.
Instead of gun control I think the main effect will be increased databasing and careful watching on who has the guns. That is, after all, what he has been saying.
A sisyphean task, sadly. Most likely ineffective.
But isn't ineffectiveness the whole point?
Quote from: Valmy on January 16, 2013, 03:13:44 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 16, 2013, 01:03:41 PM
and Obama makes the safe play.
Yeah he always does that. He likes to think of himself as a pragmatist.
He also likes to think of himself as smarter than the rest of us.
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2013, 04:32:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 16, 2013, 03:13:44 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 16, 2013, 01:03:41 PM
and Obama makes the safe play.
Yeah he always does that. He likes to think of himself as a pragmatist.
He also likes to think of himself as smarter than the rest of us.
Nice Jab. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2013, 04:32:12 PMHe also likes to think of himself as smarter than the rest of us.
:lol:
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2013, 04:32:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 16, 2013, 03:13:44 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 16, 2013, 01:03:41 PM
and Obama makes the safe play.
Yeah he always does that. He likes to think of himself as a pragmatist.
He also likes to think of himself as smarter than the rest of us.
Well in your case :console:
In celebration of Obama's 23, I;
1. Fitted the 358 in a new stock.
2. Installed a new trigger on the Remington 8x57.
3. Reload about 30 rounds of 8x57mm for the Remington.
4. Organized my reloading equipment.
:cheers:
Classy. Watcha got planned for Dr. King's Birthday? Some rope work?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2013, 07:55:40 PM
Classy. Watcha got planned for Dr. King's Birthday? Some rope work?
Cleaning the Remington Model 6
Was watching Dan Rather Reports the other night; had a very interesting interview with the Aussie Ambassador to the US; part of it was regarding their gun control laws since the 1996 massacre.
It's bolt action or nothing at all down there. How incredibly dull.
You know when Australian rednecks are more level headed then American rednecks that you guys have some issues.
Fuck Australia. Ruled by a woman. :yuk:
I got a kick out of this chick:
http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4576
QuoteLawless told Campus Reform on Tuesday that in her view the findings were proof that President Obama should move swiftly, and without the permission of Congress if necessary, in order limit the availability of firearms.
"The next generation plans on owning guns, so if we want to avoid the tragedies that we've seen... we obviously need to move quickly and if an executive order is the way to do it, then that is the way the to do it," she said.
Heh.
Typical chick.... talking when men are trying to talk.
Really, derspiess? A website named "Campusreform.org"? Why not www.butchyleftychicksknowalltheanswers.com?
Quote from: derspiess on January 17, 2013, 12:20:09 PM
I got a kick out of this chick:
Yeah, she is almost as bad as all the nutters that say they need to have guns to keep their government honest.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 01:03:18 PM
Really, derspiess? A website named "Campusreform.org"? Why not www.butchyleftychicksknowalltheanswers.com?
BTW any interest on doing anything with www.holidaythemedmammies.com ? I think we may have stumbled upon an unexploited market niche last month.
Pfft, I'll make 'em myself, and put them up on Etsy.
That strikes me as a poor domain name. Too long!
Can anyone confirm some outlet saying no assault rifles were used at Sandy Hook? Hearing reports coming out that only handguns were found.
Haven't seen anything.
Then again, weren't the original reports that day stated that the Bushmaster was found in the car?
And even if it wasn't used, does it even matter? It certainly wouldn't help handguns, now would it?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 09:35:41 PM
Haven't seen anything.
Then again, weren't the original reports that day stated that the Bushmaster was found in the car?
And even if it wasn't used, does it even matter? It certainly wouldn't help handguns, now would it?
Afraid?
Of?
You're right: the blood spray patterns from 1st graders' exploded skulls are probably not nearly as bad.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 09:46:25 PM
You're right: the blood spray patterns from 1st graders' exploded skulls are probably not nearly as bad.
Dude used a 10mm HG. That is a vicious round. Only pistol round more vicious would be a FN 5.7mm
Then what's the hubbub about whether the rifle was used?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 09:49:55 PM
Then what's the hubbub about whether the rifle was used?
I dont know. Left Wingers been touting the AR's and Sandy Hook.
It's not like the AR's never been used in other mass shootings, you know.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 09:52:00 PM
It's not like the AR's never been used in other mass shootings, you know.
For sure.
Regarding your sig: Are you retarded?
They sometimes get like that, Neil. It's an NRA thing. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 10:22:58 PM
They sometimes get like that, Neil. It's an NRA thing. :P
I assume it's a troll, but since I know some gun-owners are lunatics I thought I'd ask.
It's like the sort of thing that Caliga's mom or Syt's sisters would forward on Facebook. At least, I assume it is since I don't use Facebook.
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2013, 10:21:51 PM
Regarding your sig: Are you retarded?
No different than the crook in your AV pic. Embarrassment of a Prez.
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2013, 10:29:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 10:22:58 PM
They sometimes get like that, Neil. It's an NRA thing. :P
I assume it's a troll, but since I know some gun-owners are lunatics I thought I'd ask.
It's like the sort of thing that Caliga's mom or Syt's sisters would forward on Facebook. At least, I assume it is since I don't use Facebook.
Bingo
Quote from: 11B4V on January 17, 2013, 10:43:23 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2013, 10:21:51 PM
Regarding your sig: Are you retarded?
No different than the crook in your AV pic. Embarrassment of a Prez.
They sometimes get like that, 11B. It's a Canadian thing. :P
Quote from: 11B4V on January 17, 2013, 10:43:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2013, 10:29:08 PM
I assume it's a troll,
Bingo
My avatar isn't. I eagerly anticipate the return of the BATF's relevance.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 17, 2013, 10:49:58 PM
Hopefully they have improved since Waco. :lol:
You make it sound like Waco was a bad thing. :unsure:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 10:52:38 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 17, 2013, 10:49:58 PM
Hopefully they have improved since Waco. :lol:
You make it sound like Waco was a bad thing. :unsure:
The initial entry was. :P
That's why you never involve the locals. :mad:
Quote from: 11B4V on January 17, 2013, 10:43:23 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2013, 10:21:51 PM
Regarding your sig: Are you retarded?
No different than the crook in your AV pic. Embarrassment of a Prez.
He was the greatest thing about your treasonous little state.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 17, 2013, 10:43:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2013, 10:29:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 10:22:58 PM
They sometimes get like that, Neil. It's an NRA thing. :P
I assume it's a troll, but since I know some gun-owners are lunatics I thought I'd ask.
It's like the sort of thing that Caliga's mom or Syt's sisters would forward on Facebook. At least, I assume it is since I don't use Facebook.
Bingo
So the misspelling is deliberate then?
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2013, 10:29:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 10:22:58 PM
They sometimes get like that, Neil. It's an NRA thing. :P
I assume it's a troll, but since I know some gun-owners are lunatics I thought I'd ask.
It's like the sort of thing that Caliga's mom or Syt's sisters would forward on Facebook. At least, I assume it is since I don't use Facebook.
These are from my sisters today.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/582461_462515073797350_612803509_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/46089_329736207135572_244355941_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/486014_461854557196735_1294288748_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s480x480/379175_589231001106357_165100795_n.jpg)
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2013, 10:29:08 PM
It's like the sort of thing that Caliga's mom or Syt's sisters would forward on Facebook. At least, I assume it is since I don't use Facebook.
You may be thinking of my mother in law... my mother is actually an extreme liberal ex-hippie Democrat. On this issue she would be happy with a total firearms ban, actually.
Quote from: Syt on January 18, 2013, 07:46:58 AM
These are from my sisters today.
The second I see an image on Facebook with an American flag backdrop, I immediately tune it out of my head and ignore it. Sad really, but I know it's going to be some insane nonsense.
Quote from: Caliga on January 18, 2013, 08:10:18 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2013, 10:29:08 PM
It's like the sort of thing that Caliga's mom or Syt's sisters would forward on Facebook. At least, I assume it is since I don't use Facebook.
You may be thinking of my mother in law... my mother is actually an extreme liberal ex-hippie Democrat. On this issue she would be happy with a total firearms ban, actually.
I actually had 'mother-in-law' the first time I wrote it, but then I accidentally deleted half my post. :(
Quote from: Syt on January 18, 2013, 07:46:58 AM
These are from my sisters today.
Ask them to seek out better quality images. :x
Quote from: Syt on January 18, 2013, 07:46:58 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2013, 10:29:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 10:22:58 PM
They sometimes get like that, Neil. It's an NRA thing. :P
I assume it's a troll, but since I know some gun-owners are lunatics I thought I'd ask.
It's like the sort of thing that Caliga's mom or Syt's sisters would forward on Facebook. At least, I assume it is since I don't use Facebook.
These are from my sisters today.
.....
I'm sorry for your loss*, must be very difficult for you. :(
* of family members to irrationality,
Quote from: Syt on January 18, 2013, 07:46:58 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2013, 10:29:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 10:22:58 PM
They sometimes get like that, Neil. It's an NRA thing. :P
I assume it's a troll, but since I know some gun-owners are lunatics I thought I'd ask.
It's like the sort of thing that Caliga's mom or Syt's sisters would forward on Facebook. At least, I assume it is since I don't use Facebook.
These are from my sisters today.
One of those images doesn't quite belong... :unsure:
Maybe they're in the Log Cabin Gun Club.
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2013, 10:12:34 AM
Quote from: Syt on January 18, 2013, 07:46:58 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2013, 10:29:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 10:22:58 PM
They sometimes get like that, Neil. It's an NRA thing. :P
I assume it's a troll, but since I know some gun-owners are lunatics I thought I'd ask.
It's like the sort of thing that Caliga's mom or Syt's sisters would forward on Facebook. At least, I assume it is since I don't use Facebook.
These are from my sisters today.
One of those images doesn't quite belong... :unsure:
Yeah, how did that last one get there?
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2013, 10:17:55 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2013, 10:12:34 AM
Quote from: Syt on January 18, 2013, 07:46:58 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2013, 10:29:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 10:22:58 PM
They sometimes get like that, Neil. It's an NRA thing. :P
I assume it's a troll, but since I know some gun-owners are lunatics I thought I'd ask.
It's like the sort of thing that Caliga's mom or Syt's sisters would forward on Facebook. At least, I assume it is since I don't use Facebook.
These are from my sisters today.
One of those images doesn't quite belong... :unsure:
Yeah, how did that last one get there?
He explained a few days ago, for some reason one or both are pro-gay rights, which doesn't fit in with the rest of the teabaggery.
Quote from: Caliga on January 18, 2013, 08:11:19 AM
Quote from: Syt on January 18, 2013, 07:46:58 AM
These are from my sisters today.
The second I see an image on Facebook with an American flag backdrop, I immediately tune it out of my head and ignore it. Sad really, but I know it's going to be some insane nonsense.
Yeah.
It's a shame that our primary national symbol has become a warning of impending stupidity. :(
Off-topic but in the same vein as silly Facebook stuff, my best friend's sister is a teacher and always posts these "OMG Teachers are America's backbone and are so dedicated and work so much harder than anyone else" pics & whatnot. Yet whenever there is a snow day, such as today in her county, she celebrates more than most kids probably do.
Great gal & all, but she has some quirks. Like using the term "Yankee" a lot. She grew up in West Virginia and currently lives in Richmond. Not like she's from the deep south or anything.
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2013, 10:51:23 AM
He explained a few days ago, for some reason one or both are pro-gay rights, which doesn't fit in with the rest of the teabaggery.
Gay does not necessarily equal rational or tolerant. You have undoubtly stopped reading Marti's threads and so have not been given that constant reminder.
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2013, 10:17:55 AM
Yeah, how did that last one get there?
The sister who posted it has a gay son in the Navy.
The other sister has a gay brother in law. Who was in the Navy (pilot in GW1). No, really.
At least my nephew who recently moved to the U.S. posts stuff like this instead:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/424037_593018834056965_771712862_n.jpg)
Quote from: Syt on January 18, 2013, 12:29:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2013, 10:17:55 AM
Yeah, how did that last one get there?
The sister who posted it has a gay son in the Navy.
The other sister has a gay brother in law. Who was in the Navy (pilot in GW1). No, really.
Jesus, they must be really bored in that branch.
Quote from: DGuller on January 18, 2013, 12:31:25 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 18, 2013, 12:29:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2013, 10:17:55 AM
Yeah, how did that last one get there?
The sister who posted it has a gay son in the Navy.
The other sister has a gay brother in law. Who was in the Navy (pilot in GW1). No, really.
Jesus, they must be really bored in that branch.
IN THE NAVY!
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2013, 12:47:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 18, 2013, 12:31:25 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 18, 2013, 12:29:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2013, 10:17:55 AM
Yeah, how did that last one get there?
The sister who posted it has a gay son in the Navy.
The other sister has a gay brother in law. Who was in the Navy (pilot in GW1). No, really.
Jesus, they must be really bored in that branch.
IN THE NAVY!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-wkc_om6H58I%2FTrKWdJAtvxI%2FAAAAAAAAAgQ%2FjrOMrNl53Po%2Fs1600%2FPaul%2BCadmus%25252C%2B%2BThe%2BFleets%2BIn.jpg&hash=d3f9edb21886a0a82e21ecfaae54853caca4ffca)
:cool:
Just ran across this & wanted to see what you guys, particularly Seedy, think. I know it's a conservative news site, but they are the primary source so it's not like I can dig up an msnbc.com article to placate you guys. So anyway assuming Biden said this, what do you guys think-- seems to me like it contradicts his and the president's stated commitment to do whatever possible to stop guns from getting into the hands of dangerous people.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/biden-to-nra-we-dont-have-the-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks
QuoteDuring the National Rifle Association's meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and the White House gun violence task force, the vice president said the Obama administration does not have the time to fully enforce existing gun laws.
Jim Baker, the NRA representative present at the meeting, recalled the vice president's words during an interview with The Daily Caller: "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately."
Submitting false information on an ATF Form 4473 — required for the necessary background check to obtain a firearm — is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison, depending on prior convictions and a judge's discretion, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Isn't that simply a reflection of the funding available for enforcement?
Considering how Congress has consistently hamstrung the BATF and the Federal government's ability to enforce Federal gun laws over the last 20 years by slicing its budget, legislatively preventing it from doing its job, and tabling the ability to name its director for 6 years, I can see why he'd say that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 18, 2013, 01:29:07 PM
Considering how Congress has consistently hamstrung the BATF and the Federal government's ability to enforce Federal gun laws over the last 20 years by slicing its budget, legislatively preventing it from doing its job, and tabling the ability to name its director for 6 years, I can see why he'd say that.
Figured you'd find a way to defend it. If funding is what's really preventing them from enforcing this law, why haven't I seen anything from Obama to specifically address it? I'd have to think that would meet with little opposition. Also, how would the BATF be able to enforce new gun laws if it can't deal with something relatively easy like this?
:lol: Whoops!
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Flocal%2Fnew_york&id=8958116
QuoteNEW YORK (WABC) -- A troubling oversight has been found within New York State's sweeping new gun laws.
The ban on having high-capacity magazines, as it's written, would also include law enforcement officers.
Magazines with more than seven rounds will be illegal under the new law when that part takes effect in March.
I see nothing wrong with that.
That's what professional courtesy is for.
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2013, 01:39:14 PM
Figured you'd find a way to defend it. If funding is what's really preventing them from enforcing this law, why haven't I seen anything from Obama to specifically address it? I'd have to think that would meet with little opposition. Also, how would the BATF be able to enforce new gun laws if it can't deal with something relatively easy like this?
No reason to defend it; it's a statement of fact. I'm sure you're more than happy that NRA-sponsored Congressional legislation ensures that an agency manned by only 2,500 agents is only allowed to audit over the 132,000+ holders of federal firearms dealer licenses no more than once a year.
And besides, enforcing manufacturing and import bans on specific weaponry is a hell of a lot easier than trying to chase down individuals that provide erroneous or falsified information on forms that require background checks THAT ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE DESTROYED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF SUBMISSION AS DICTATED BY THE TIARHT AMENDMENTS OF 2003, YOU COCKSUCKING NRA WHOREBEAST.
But I suspect you knew that anyway, and are looking for a troll fight.
Quote from: Neil on January 18, 2013, 01:59:15 PM
I see nothing wrong with that.
They should all go back to revolvers anyway.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 18, 2013, 02:15:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 18, 2013, 01:59:15 PM
I see nothing wrong with that.
They should all go back to revolvers anyway.
Doesn't the Colt .45 1911 have a 7 round
magazine clip?
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2013, 01:54:40 PM
:lol: Whoops!
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Flocal%2Fnew_york&id=8958116
QuoteNEW YORK (WABC) -- A troubling oversight has been found within New York State's sweeping new gun laws.
The ban on having high-capacity magazines, as it's written, would also include law enforcement officers.
Magazines with more than seven rounds will be illegal under the new law when that part takes effect in March.
Damn Bloomberg didnt think of that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 18, 2013, 02:14:23 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2013, 01:39:14 PM
Figured you'd find a way to defend it. If funding is what's really preventing them from enforcing this law, why haven't I seen anything from Obama to specifically address it? I'd have to think that would meet with little opposition. Also, how would the BATF be able to enforce new gun laws if it can't deal with something relatively easy like this?
THAT ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE DESTROYED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF SUBMISSION AS DICTATED BY THE TIARHT AMENDMENTS OF 2003,
Hehe.....yea.
Still wouldn't stop it from the accidental discharges semi-autos can suffer from at the hands of a nitwit and blowing up the sink in the ready room. Never liked that grip safety/trigger safety feature, either.
Revolvers are operationally safer and more idiot-proof, IMHO.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 18, 2013, 03:17:49 PM
Revolvers are operationally safer and more idiot-proof, IMHO.
This is true.
I'm sure criminals would prefer that LEOs go back to revolvers as well :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2013, 03:22:06 PM
I'm sure criminals would prefer that LEOs go back to revolvers as well :lol:
I'm sure finance departments that have to pay out damages for accidental discharges and shootings because nitwit cops are given semi-automatic handguns designed for combat instead of a revolver that forces an officer to actually think about his actions before pulling the trigger would prefer it, too.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 18, 2013, 03:17:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 18, 2013, 02:14:23 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2013, 01:39:14 PM
Figured you'd find a way to defend it. If funding is what's really preventing them from enforcing this law, why haven't I seen anything from Obama to specifically address it? I'd have to think that would meet with little opposition. Also, how would the BATF be able to enforce new gun laws if it can't deal with something relatively easy like this?
THAT ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE DESTROYED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF SUBMISSION AS DICTATED BY THE TIARHT AMENDMENTS OF 2003,
Hehe.....yea.
I hope they raid your compound and set your beer fridge in the garage on fire.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 18, 2013, 03:26:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2013, 03:22:06 PM
I'm sure criminals would prefer that LEOs go back to revolvers as well :lol:
I'm sure finance departments that have to pay out damages for accidental discharges and shootings because nitwit cops are given semi-automatic handguns designed for combat instead of a revolver that forces an officer to actually think about his actions before pulling the trigger would prefer it, too.
Sounds like a training issue. And chillax.
Eat me, derHeston.
You know, if criminals would follow the current laws, we would not need any new ones. I think we need to sit down with criminals over a beer and talk to them about that.
Quote from: lustindarkness on January 18, 2013, 03:56:57 PM
You know, if criminals would follow the current laws, we would not need any new ones. I think we need to sit down with criminals over a beer and talk to them about that.
Beer Summits fix everything.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F96138%2Fthumbs%2Fr-BEER-SUMMIT-large570.jpg&hash=ff50a288da3454f89f717f0d09453d9d79c13550)
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2013, 03:22:06 PM
I'm sure criminals would prefer that LEOs go back to revolvers as well :lol:
Eh criminals are a pretty poorly armed group if we go by weapons seized by cops.
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2013, 09:09:46 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2013, 03:22:06 PM
I'm sure criminals would prefer that LEOs go back to revolvers as well :lol:
Eh criminals are a pretty poorly armed group if we go by weapons seized by cops.
I like my chances with my .357 and its 6 Golden Saber buddies still in the holster over any snot-nosed little gangsta shit with 17 rounds in a semi-auto he's holding sideways and aiming at a down angle at ten paces or more.
Less than ten paces, I take it from him and shove it up his ass.
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2013, 09:09:46 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2013, 03:22:06 PM
I'm sure criminals would prefer that LEOs go back to revolvers as well :lol:
Eh criminals are a pretty poorly armed group if we go by weapons seized by cops.
Don't be so sure. Martinus saw a movie once where the criminals had machine guns.
You are making me want to play with the old .38.
I really should get my bail bonds license back.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 18, 2013, 09:19:37 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2013, 09:09:46 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2013, 03:22:06 PM
I'm sure criminals would prefer that LEOs go back to revolvers as well :lol:
Eh criminals are a pretty poorly armed group if we go by weapons seized by cops.
I like my chances with my .357 and its 6 Golden Saber buddies still in the holster over any snot-nosed little gangsta shit with 17 rounds in a semi-auto he's holding sideways and aiming at a down angle at ten paces or more.
Less than ten paces, I take it from him and shove it up his ass.
I would think that a revolver would be more suitable for shoving up someone's ass than a semiautomatic pistol. An additional benefit is that revolver sights are protruding a lot more, so you also get a nice barbing effect once the barrel is in.
DG: ass insertion specialist
Quote from: DGuller on January 18, 2013, 09:26:46 PM
I would think that a revolver would be more suitable for shoving up someone's ass than a semiautomatic pistol. An additional benefit is that revolver sights are protruding a lot more, so you also get a nice barbing effect once the barrel is in.
Sideways, it doesn't really matter.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 18, 2013, 09:19:37 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2013, 09:09:46 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2013, 03:22:06 PM
I'm sure criminals would prefer that LEOs go back to revolvers as well :lol:
Eh criminals are a pretty poorly armed group if we go by weapons seized by cops.
I like my chances with my .357 and its 6 Golden Saber buddies still in the holster over any snot-nosed little gangsta shit with 17 rounds in a semi-auto he's holding sideways and aiming at a down angle at ten paces or more.
Less than ten paces, I take it from him and shove it up his ass.
You're a relic. From a 70s cop show.
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2013, 10:02:20 PM
You're a relic. From a 70s cop show.
Never shot a sink or a locker or a car window, though. Can't say that about some non-relic cops with Glocks I've known.
Seedy is getting too old for this shit.
That's goddamned right.
I now present an accurate depiction of CdM's years on the force:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5rRZdiu1UE
My Dad used to keep one of those old globe lights in his take home car back in the day. Always put it on the dash instead of the roof, though.
''Hey Dad, why don't you put it on the roof like Kojak does on TV."
"Because TV doesn't show you how it slides off and hits Kojak in the head on every goddamn right turn."
Quote from: lustindarkness on January 18, 2013, 03:56:57 PM
You know, if criminals would follow the current laws, we would not need any new ones. I think we need to sit down with criminals over a beer and talk to them about that.
Naw, the lazy ass ATF just needs to get off their asses and quit whinning.
Using the kids as props was icky.
They're not good for much else, what with all the child labor laws we have.
Using them as targets seems a bit worse.
The gun shop I went to today for shits and giggles was a hilarious clusterfuck.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2013, 03:34:24 PM
Using them as targets seems a bit worse.
Do you use kids as targets?
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 19, 2013, 08:46:26 PM
The gun shop I went to today for shits and giggles was a hilarious clusterfuck.
No doubt. Couple of gus from work went to the gunshow today. Cant wait to hear about that. :lol:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/19/us/north-carolina-gun-show-shooting/index.html
Quote(CNN) -- At least five people -- three in North Carolina, one in Indiana and one in Ohio -- were injured after weapons went off at gun shows Saturday, officials said, at a time when there's been renewed discussion about private gun sales at such shows.
The most casualties came at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show in Raleigh, where attendees bolted -- with at least one woman wiping out in the frenetic scene -- when gunfire rang out around 1 p.m., as seen on video captured by CNN affiliate WRAL.
Police later explained that a a 36-year-old man from Wilmington, North Carolina, was unfastening the case of his 12-gauge shotgun on a table near the show entrance when it accidentally discharged. The man planned to sell the shotgun at the show.
The bird shot ended up injuring three people. One was a sheriff's deputy, who suffered a slight injury to his hand and was treated and released at a local hospital before returning immediately to work, said Joel Keith, chief of police of the North Carolina State Fair.
A 54-year-old woman from Benson, North Carolina, was being treated a wound to her right torso at a local hospital, and a 50-year-old man from Durham, North Carolina, was treated for an injured left hand, Keith told reporters.
"I want to emphasize that this is an accident," Keith said.
That said, Wake County sheriff's investigators and the local prosecutor will determine whether to file charges against the gun's owner, authorities said.
Sheriff Donnie Harrison said he was unsure whether it was legal to bring a loaded gun on state fairgrounds. However, when the state fair is held in October, it is illegal to bring a loaded gun to the fairground because of the large crowds, authorities said.
"This is state property. That's something we're looking into," Harrison told reporters. "It's early right now."
The shooting prompted police to ban any private gun sales -- in which visitors bring their firearms to sell at the gun show -- for the remainder of the two-day show, which concludes Sunday, Keith said. He added there wouldn't be any private gun sales on fairgrounds for the indefinite future.
The gun show was closed after the shooting and will reopen Sunday. At that point, show vendors can continue to sell firearms, which are already secured inside the show, Keith said.
"If we thought if it was a problem or a hazard, we wouldn't have this show," Keith said about private gun sales at the show. "I'm sure there isn't anybody who hates this more than the guy who owned this weapon."
Man shoots business partner with semi-automatic handgun
A person is in stable condition at a northern Ohio hospital after being shot by his business partner at a gun show run by Conrad and Dowdell Productions, said Medina police Chief Patrick Berarducci.
The original owner of the Taurus semi-automatic 9 mm handgun used in the shooting brought the firearm into the show fully loaded. This is despite the policy of searches to make sure all guns are not loaded and rendered safe before others can handle them.
The man who bought the gun told police that he took it out, then accidentally fired it, said Berarducci. A single bullet ended up going into the arm and thigh of this man's business partner.
Authorities don't know who brought the loaded firearm into the gun show and sold it, added the police chief. They'll file a request with the federal ATF to track this person down.
The victim, meanwhile, is in good spirits with non-life-threatening injuries, according to Berarducci.
And in Indianapolis, a man walking out of the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife Show shot himself in the hand as he was loading his .45-caliber semi-automatic firearm, Indiana State Police said in a statement.
The 54-year-old Indianapolis man was sent to Wishard Hospital for treatment after being "slightly" injured.
"The investigation determined the shooting to be accidental, and no charges will be filed," police said.
Shootings occur as gun debate rages
Reforming private gun sales -- at shows or anywhere else -- is among the changes that President Barack Obama is now seeking by requiring background checks.
The president has called for action in the wake of last month's shooting at a school in Newtown, Connecticut, which left 27 people -- 20 of them children age 7 or younger -- dead. Gun control activists have likewise pushed for changes, while gun rights advocates have said restrictions on gun sales are unnecessary and in defiance of their Second Amendment rights.
Currently, federal law requires background checks on gun sales by federally licensed firearms dealers, who are often among the vendors at gun shows.
Saturday's incidents occurred on 'Gun Appreciation Day," an event led by a gun rights group that urged Americans to "go to your local gun store, gun range or gun show with your Constitution, American flags and your 'Hands off my Guns' sign to send a loud and clear message."
Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, last Sunday issued a statement predicting this event would drive up sales of things like "assault-style rifles," which have already "skyrocketed" in the wake of the Newtown mass shooting.
Jabari Richards, a gun enthusiast, told WRAL at the Raleigh, North Carolina, show that he thought some reforms were wise.
"I think there should be background checks for everybody," Richards said, "because then you know they ... are capable of having a gun."
But another man at the Raleigh show said it was useless for Washington to step in.
"The gun laws that they have on the books aren't enforced, don't do any good," Al Galbraith said.
Untrained newbs flocking to gun shows. Figures.
We can only hope they continue to think their own ranks.
Quote from: sbr on January 20, 2013, 02:49:22 AM
We can only hope they continue to think their own ranks.
This really isn't a big thinking crowd.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 19, 2013, 09:14:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2013, 03:34:24 PM
Using them as targets seems a bit worse.
Do you use kids as targets?
No but some do, which is the point isnt it?