ballp.it

Snakes In The Ball Pit => Yay, I get to talk about me! => Topic started by: Lemon on April 02, 2013, 12:08:28 pm

Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Lemon on April 02, 2013, 12:08:28 pm
Because I keep looking at Isfahan's pictures of gun porn but then have to follow up on stories about the real world.

NRA Unveils School Shield (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/nra-proposal-guns-schools-credible)

Here's the story so far: After a mass shooting of small children at a Conneticut elementary school was pretty much agreed upon to be The Worst Fucking Thing We Can Possibly Imagine, NRA CEO and Man With Unpleasant Face Wayne LaPierre immediately held some well attended press conferences insisting that people not lose perspective and try to take steps this same exact thing doesn't happen again tomorrow.

That doesn't go well, so LaPierre proposes his own solution: More guns! If the inside of elementary school looked like a Call of Duty game, then the end result is a World of Safety. LaPierre later goes on to propose that every school should have paid staff to patrol school grounds carrying automatic rifles. We're already treating schools like prisons, so hey - they might as well look the part. The NRA promises to create a rational plan that will please everyone.

This morning: The plan is released. What is the plan? Well, it's the exact same thing as mentioned above, except removing the word "paid", because that was troubling to the deficit hawks. So here's the new idea: Each and every school gets to start it's own militia! You recruit volunteers to come to your school at agreed upon times, bring your own arsenal with you, and you know, just hang out and make sure everything is safe. This means recruiting from a pool of people who have their own stockpiles of firearms and have nothing else to do during the weekdays but sit around and hope that violence occurs near them, and I have run out of my capacity for heavy-handed sarcasm. Just... fuck you, Wayne LaPierre.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: icarus on April 02, 2013, 12:16:49 pm
this is where i point out that almost immediately after sandyhook some school DID hire its own armed guards

and within a week, an armed guard left a loaded gun sitting by the sink in a student bathroom (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264764/Schools-new-armed-security-guard-leaves-handgun-school-bathroom-just-week-hired.html).

edit - the news story i linked to says it was unloaded, but when the story broke i remember people saying it was loaded. either way, leaving a gun floating around a school and then calling "no harm no foul" on it is kinda BS
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Chaz on April 02, 2013, 12:22:58 pm
WHAT.

FUCKING WHAT.

Lemon, if you're going to cause physical harm to LaPierre, I don't know what to suggest. Shooting him would be somewhat hypocritical and would probably create more problems than it'd solve. A knife would be more ironic (Just think of the headlines!). Personally, I think "Swift kick in the bollocks" is good. At least 100, in order to ensure he can't have any more offspring.

Sorry, this just hit a nerve somewhere in my brain that made me just shout "Fucking WHAT" out loud.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Isfahan on April 02, 2013, 12:47:16 pm
Once Bush Jr. took office and it became very very difficult to latch onto a gun-grabbing boogeyman, the fat and complacent NRA pretty much became a parody of itself. I'm a gun enthusiast but I've never given them a dime, nor will I associate myself with them in any way.

For those of you who were around for the PoE days, MalfunctionBob, a gunsperg who makes me look like a Call of Duty kiddie, pretty much echoed my opinions regarding the NRA.

(http://i.imgur.com/dDrS6gk.jpg)
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Goose Goose Honk At Me Now on April 02, 2013, 12:50:14 pm
His dick probably hasn't worked in years, Chaz, thus the slobbering, crazy-eyed defense of GUNS GUNS GUNS ALWAYS GUNS AND MORE GUNS

The worst thing I can wish on him is that the shame and horror of what he's supported slam into his brain at full force when he's in the middle of trying to justify his gross ideology to a grieving parent.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: montrith on April 02, 2013, 01:04:54 pm
See people, this is why I keep telling you we need to invent a machine that can punch people through the Internet. Fuck the new iPhone, I want to inflict violence on unsuspecting idiots with a dangerous agenda.

Minor pet peeve, how hard it is to understand the difference between a fascist and a socialist? You'd think how often people mention Hitler and Nazis in online conversation most people would know the difference by now.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: icarus on April 02, 2013, 01:13:12 pm
i'm gonna go out on a limb here and suspect that it has to do with the fact that the nazi party was started under the guise of being a socialist political party. not that it actually WAS...

plus you know years of the cold war teaching the public SOCIALISTS ARE BADDDDD NEWSSSSS caused the lines to blur just a wee bit
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Lemon on April 02, 2013, 01:16:00 pm
The NRA sometimes reminds me of PETA. On the forefront of a national debate is a well-funded lobbying group so morally destitute and embarassingly theatrical that two things happen:
The only real difference between the two organizations is that the NRA actually has the ability to affect policy, whereas PETA mostly uses its influence to convince terrible people do terrible photoshoots.

http://backseatcuddler.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/coreysusiepetaa.jpg (http://backseatcuddler.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/coreysusiepetaa.jpg)
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/03/courtney-stodden-peta-video/ (http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/03/courtney-stodden-peta-video/)
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/7/2011/03/peta.jpg (http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/7/2011/03/peta.jpg)
http://gawker.com/5950868/the-situations-peta-ad-and-its-inevitable-pussy-joke?tag=peta (http://gawker.com/5950868/the-situations-peta-ad-and-its-inevitable-pussy-joke?tag=peta)
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Runic on April 02, 2013, 02:57:31 pm
Minor pet peeve, how hard it is to understand the difference between a fascist and a socialist? You'd think how often people mention Hitler and Nazis in online conversation most people would know the difference by now.
montrith, April 02, 2013, 01:04:54 pm
Interestingly, I did once meet a man who was both a Trotskyist and a John Bircher.  He was fucking insane in so many ways.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Runic on April 02, 2013, 03:06:45 pm
Also, here in my beloved home state of Georgia this (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/02/1808001/georgia-mandatory-gun/) happened.

Georgia: Hey, at least it isn't Alabama!
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Runic on April 02, 2013, 03:10:04 pm
Oh, also Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Crazytown) came out with a truly beautiful argument against limiting high capacity clips that somehow manages to be homophobic in addition to making no sense and only being tangentially connected to the actual topic he was ostensibly discussing.  Here it is! (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/04/02/1813291/louie-gohmert-if-we-limit-gun-clip-rounds-same-sex-marriage-will-lead-to-bestiality/)  Seriously, he managed to work his opposition to gay marriage into an argument about gun control, and that is some kind of accomplishment.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: icarus on April 02, 2013, 06:13:25 pm
Anywhere not arizona: Hey, at least it isn't Arizona!
Runic, April 02, 2013, 03:06:45 pm

fixed that for ya
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Alpha Starsquatch on April 02, 2013, 06:31:17 pm
Some good news on Connecticut, however;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21997806

Connecticut gun bill

    Background checks on all gun sales
    Extends assault weapons ban to include 100 new types of firearm
    clips of 10 rounds or more must be registered
    Creates the first state registry of dangerous weapon offenders
    Creates an "ammunition eligibility" certificate
    Gun restrictions for people previously admitted to mental health facilities
    State grants for school safety improvements

On the other hand that one also linked me to a related article titled "Will Gun Laws Hurt the Mentally Ill", arguing that not letting people with a history of severe mental illness own guns "has set back stigma a trillion years"

Please tell me I'm not the only person absolutely fuming over this 'argument'. What part of not letting people with a worrisome psychiatric history own guns tantamount to stigmatization? I think it's the best fucking idea ever. Even if only a tiny fraction of the mentally ill are perpetrators of violent crimes, it still makes it harder for people who are unhinged to have access to easy-kill weapons.

The worst part is that the second article tries to argue that restrictions on mentally ill people owning guns... will make mentally ill people not want to seek treatment at all. Un-fucking-fathomable. Are there really people out there with depression and bipolar and anxiety who are going to prioritize someday possibly owning a gun above, you know, alleviating one's own suffering caused by their condition? Unlike healthcare coverage and the right not to be discriminated against when applying for work, guns aren't something everyone is entitled to.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Isfahan on April 02, 2013, 06:45:27 pm
Some good news on Connecticut, however; Al, April 02, 2013, 06:31:17 pm

I'd say mixed news at best. Banning guns? Registering clips? Ammunition eligibility certificate? None of that is going to prevent shit.

Criminals buy their guns illegally. The Newtown shooter stole the gun he used from his mother. I suppose they could try to pass some hilarious secure-your-gun legislation which would be completely unenforceable, but the problem here is that people are still thinking that this shit could be avoided if we only figure out what law will prevent it.

I mean, it's already pretty illegal to murder somebody, and not just with a gun, and yet it keeps happening.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Yossarian on April 02, 2013, 07:00:09 pm
There are certainly issues with mental health here.
Some good news on Connecticut, however; Al, April 02, 2013, 06:31:17 pm

I'd say mixed news at best. Banning guns? Registering clips? Ammunition eligibility certificate? None of that is going to prevent shit.

Criminals buy their guns illegally. The Newtown shooter stole the gun he used from his mother. I suppose they could try to pass some hilarious secure-your-gun legislation which would be completely unenforceable, but the problem here is that people are still thinking that this shit could be avoided if we only figure out what law will prevent it.

I mean, it's already pretty illegal to murder somebody, and not just with a gun, and yet it keeps happening.
Isfahan, April 02, 2013, 06:45:27 pm

As a side note 30 rounds is standard capacity, not high capacity.
I really believe that the issue is not entirely the availability of weapons, its more who ends up with them. Certainly there need to be restrictions on people who are clearly insane who own, or want to own guns. Banning things like pistol grips is going to get you nowhere, unless you count your approval ratings.

The NRA is insane, and Dianne Feinstein is insane. 99% of gun owners however are not running down the street screaming 'ITS HAPPENING' or plotting some kind of coup. A lot of people really just like shooting at targets. The whole has got a lot more to do with politicking now than it has to do with caring about how safe anyone is. For example my campus had 5 armed robberies in one week, and a sexual assault/kidnapping a month before. Now they dropped the ban on pepper spray, and are considering dropping the restriction on CCW.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Keetah Spacecat on April 02, 2013, 07:34:30 pm
Gosh this is making me think about the gun cache's my dad has hidden around the house and basement in case the 'race war' starts.

I dunno I always thought education was a good way at least, to help prevent accidental gun deaths between children. I grew up in rural PA and even though my dad is an insane gun nut, he at least taught me that guns are a powerful and dangerous tool. And that by learning about guns and how they should be properly handled and such makes you get a healthy fear of using it so you don't start playing around with guns. I'm not saying teach kids how to shoot guns XD I mean at least a lesson on it on why it's dangerous and why you shouldn't mess with a gun. And also educate parents on how to properly store their guns in a secure gun safe with a lock and NOT LEAVE THEM AROUND THE FREAKING HOUSE LIKE MY BROTHER. Something to that extent? 

Hahaha according to that mental health law thing I'm not suppose to be owning my .22 long rifle right now because of my chronic depression.

The NRA is effing crazy. My dad gets clips from them and they seriously had an article about how Bambi is the worst propaganda film ever and it ruined a whole generation of kids from loving guns and hunting.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Ansemaru on April 02, 2013, 07:42:03 pm
The fucking NRA, man. LET'S TAKE THIS HORRIBLE TRAGEDY AND USE IT AS A TIME TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT GUNS ARE GREAT! EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE GUNS! MORE GUNS! ALL THE GUNS ARE THE BEST WAY TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE (AND THE GUV'MINT TAKING AWAY OUR MONEY AND GUNS BECAUSE THEY'RE EEEEEVIL COMMIES)

It boggles the mind.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Delcat on April 02, 2013, 08:03:13 pm
I dunno I always thought education was a good way at least, to help prevent accidental gun deaths between children. I grew up in rural PA and even though my dad is an insane gun nut, he at least taught me that guns are a powerful and dangerous tool. And that by learning about guns and how they should be properly handled and such makes you get a healthy fear of using it so you don't start playing around with guns. I'm not saying teach kids how to shoot guns XD I mean at least a lesson on it on why it's dangerous and why you shouldn't mess with a gun. And also educate parents on how to properly store their guns in a secure gun safe with a lock and NOT LEAVE THEM AROUND THE FREAKING HOUSE LIKE MY BROTHER. Something to that extent?Keetah Spacecat, April 02, 2013, 07:34:30 pm

I grew up in rural Michigan and the last bit, so much.  Sooo many houses with young children with guns just lying around.  I don't really have a stance on gun control so much as I just really don't want kids handling guns.  It's not a legislative thing, it's a "no please don't do that" thing.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Yossarian on April 02, 2013, 08:27:04 pm
Its the abstinence argument all over again. You don't educate kids on guns and they go around thinking they are toys, and the people legislating on them don't know any better themselves for the most part. There's a little segment of tumblr that made it a mission to call out everyone with bad TD or treating guns like CAWADUUTY is real life. There are even a few gun safety blogs hanging around now.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Acierocolotl on April 02, 2013, 08:32:46 pm

I'd say mixed news at best. Banning guns? Registering clips? Ammunition eligibility certificate? None of that is going to prevent shit.

Criminals buy their guns illegally. The Newtown shooter stole the gun he used from his mother. I suppose they could try to pass some hilarious secure-your-gun legislation which would be completely unenforceable, but the problem here is that people are still thinking that this shit could be avoided if we only figure out what law will prevent it.

I mean, it's already pretty illegal to murder somebody, and not just with a gun, and yet it keeps happening.
Isfahan, April 02, 2013, 06:45:27 pm

Canada's a good starting point for comparisons--the culture isn't that radically different from the US, but it has much fiercer gun restrictions in place.  Maximum clip sizes, minimum barrel lengths, etc., etc.  Compare and contrast gun crimes between Canada and the US.  Honestly, I don't know what your results are and I'm only dipping my toes into this pond.

If you see really significant differences between the two, then you know that restricting gun access has an impact on crime, cultural differences notwithstanding.  If there isn't, your point stands with extra science to back it up and your post has gone from words to logical argument.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Victor Laszlo on April 02, 2013, 08:53:53 pm
Criminals buy their guns illegally. The Newtown shooter stole the gun he used from his mother. Isfahan, April 02, 2013, 06:45:27 pm
The second sentence is a direct refutation of the first.  What if it had been illegal for his mother to buy it?  Where would he have gotten it then?

We aren't talking about "criminals" in the sense of Vincent and Jules from Pulp Fiction, we're talking about mentally ill white kids mostly.  Do you think they have the money and connections to buy a pile of assault rifles from the cartel?

Part of the intent of restrictive laws is to slowly, like over a generation, reduce this country's collective boner for guns.  There really is little justification for private gun ownership.  Hunting I suppose, and home defense depending on where you live, but neither of those requires automatic firing and 30-round clips.  Really, what legitimate non-boner reason could you possibly have for owning an M-16?

As far as the armed guards in schools bit, I wonder if anyone at the NRA think tank considered whether a high school student would be smart enough to locate the old guy in the USS Ticonderoga hat with the bulge under his jacket and just shoot him first.  Hey look, free gun!


[yay] [victor] [yayvictor] [yayvictor!] [yay victor] [yay victor!] [yay-victor] [yay-victor!] [yay!] [victor!] [heart] [heart!] [dammitlemon]
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Isfahan on April 03, 2013, 02:07:27 am
The second sentence is a direct refutation of the first.  What if it had been illegal for his mother to buy it?  Where would he have gotten it then?Victor Laszlo, April 02, 2013, 08:53:53 pm

That gun wasn't bought illegally, and it wasn't bought by a criminal. I mean, what if the kid had no hands? How would he have pulled the trigger? Thinking up mitigating circumstances and then trying to wring a law out of them is exactly what people are trying to do.

We aren't talking about "criminals" in the sense of Vincent and Jules from Pulp Fiction, we're talking about mentally ill white kids mostly.  Do you think they have the money and connections to buy a pile of assault rifles from the cartel?

I sure don't, but I'm arguing the laws here. One perceived solution for keeping guns out of the hands of crazy white kids is to keep the guns out of the hands of fucking everybody. I don't cotton to that, and besides, you can't do it.

Part of the intent of restrictive laws is to slowly, like over a generation, reduce this country's collective boner for guns. There really is little justification for private gun ownership. Hunting I suppose, and home defense depending on where you live, but neither of those requires automatic firing and 30-round clips.  Really, what legitimate non-boner reason could you possibly have for owning an M-16?

I completely agree that that is the aim of gun-control legislation. Yes, remove the boner, and once the boner is gone, they can just remove the guns themselves. Gun-rights advocates are aware of the long-game trying to be played here. The immediate aim is to make gun ownership such a goddamn expensive hassle that nobody bothers. Then, when our grandkids are in the mindset of "oh, this gun-ban legislation won't affect me because I don't own a gun," it'll get passed through and even the option of legal gun ownership is completely off the table and then I guess we'll live in a utopia of good feelings where people aren't shitty to each other and no violent crime occurs ever. I mean, I can give reasons for gun ownership important to me and then someone else will dismiss those reasons as insufficient. Luckily for me, I don't need to play the justification game because it's a right. The second amendment is in place so that the people can violently oppose their government if need be. The hunting thing is actually a good monster cockogue between gun ownership and the presence of law enforcement. I mean, hunting is no justification for gun ownership either. Nobody has to hunt for their food anymore. We have grocery stores! It's not the wild west! If you're hungry and you want some venison, go to a restaurant! Why does anybody bother hunting at all? It's easy to do that with just about any reason someone could come up with to try and justify gun ownership. So let's take this to its logical conclusion and put up a straw man who owns guns but who can think of absolutely no reason why he should. The straw man still wins, because he doesn't have to provide a reason.

If we lose gun rights, we will never ever get them back. Never. Not ever. Zero percent chance. I know some folks would be fine with that, but I'm not. The world is not a place where you can pretend your safety will always be assured with no effort on your own part. The fact that you think even an appreciable fraction of the guns in private ownership are configured for fully-automatic fire is telling, as is calling clips "clips." Current gun legislation is going after semi-automatic operation. After that, they'll go after pump action, then lever action, then bolt action, then break-top/single-shot firearms, then anything else designed to strike a primer on a cartridge. Because of the 1986 manufacture-and-transfer law it's already quite prohibitively expensive to own a fully-automatic or select-fire firearm. Well, legally, anyway.

As far as the armed guards in schools bit, I wonder if anyone at the NRA think tank considered whether a high school student would be smart enough to locate the old guy in the USS Ticonderoga hat with the bulge under his jacket and just shoot him first.  Hey look, free gun!

We're pretty much all in agreement that the NRA is retarded. Their school-posse idea is retarded. Their rhetoric is retarded. The image they perpetuate is alienating and confrontational and it makes gun owners suffer because we get lumped in with it.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Lady Naga on April 03, 2013, 07:02:22 am
You know how when your dad catches you smoking at fourteen he makes you smoke an entire carton of cigarettes in a row? Guns should be treated the same way. If we just left whole piles of them lying around they'd stop being so novel and interesting and nobody would want to shoot them anymore because it'd be too gauché.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Boots Raingear on April 03, 2013, 10:17:35 am
If we lose gun rights, we will never ever get them back. Never. Not ever. Zero percent chance. Isfahan, April 03, 2013, 02:07:27 am
That does sound nice.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Victor Laszlo on April 03, 2013, 11:41:26 am
The second amendment is in place so that the people can violently oppose their government if need be.
You of all people should know better than to trot this one out.  I know that you know better than to believe that a pile of rednecks with AR-15s have the ability to violently oppose their government in any way that doesn't end in tragedy.  Their government also has assault weapons, along with tanks, fighter jets, nuclear weapons and an unlimited supply of money to acquire more of all of these.  This is a bullshit argument and has been ever since we decided to go from ad hoc militias to a standing army.  The 2nd amendment specifically allows the right to keep and bear arms so that when you were called up to join the military you would show up with your rifle.  There is no meaning to that today since you are issued a rifle when you are called up.  I think the hunting argument is silly too, but a lot of people like hunting and generally you don't hear about schools being shot up by hunting rifles so I'm willing to shrug my shoulders and let people sit in a tree all day hoping a deer wanders by because they aren't really hurting anybody by doing it.
That gun wasn't bought illegally, and it wasn't bought by a criminal. I mean, what if the kid had no hands? How would he have pulled the trigger? Thinking up mitigating circumstances and then trying to wring a law out of them is exactly what people are trying to do.
This is the entire point.  A gun capable of murdering 30 kindergarteners in a small amount of time was purchased legally.  If you think that's okay then we are starting pretty far apart.  Had that gun not been legally for sale then the specific tragedy in question would have had a harder time occurring.  Which is something some of us find desirable.  He could have gone in there with pistols, but odds are he wouldn't have clipped 30 kids before someone tackled him.  We can't prevent all shootings, but we can probably significantly reduce the number of mass casualty events that take place, and that is a worthy goal to me if only because if someone brought 30 shot-up kindergarteners into my ER I would probably develop an incurable drinking problem and I don't want that to happen.
The world is not a place where you can pretend your safety will always be assured with no effort on your own part. The fact that you think even an appreciable fraction of the guns in private ownership are configured for fully-automatic fire is telling, as is calling clips "clips."
Sorry I'm not up on the gun lingo.  It doesn't come up in my day to day life all that much. 
Because of the 1986 manufacture-and-transfer law it's already quite prohibitively expensive to own a fully-automatic or select-fire firearm.
And they're a small percentage of privately-owned guns?  You're right, gun laws are a total failure.

When was the last time, in a non-military setting, you fired a gun with a 30-round clip to assure your own safety?  In that setting, would a .38 special have done the trick, or did you need all thirty bullets to be fired within a few seconds without taking time to reload?


[yay] [victor] [yayvictor] [yayvictor!] [yay victor] [yay victor!] [yay-victor] [yay-victor!] [yay!] [victor!] [heart] [heart!] [dammitlemon]
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: montrith on April 03, 2013, 11:52:16 am
[heart] [heart!]

Lemon, you need to make Victor an emoticon quickly before he morphs into the fifth Planeteer.

As for guns, my personal stance is similar to that of Scott Adams. Everyone should have all the guns they want, but only I should have bullets.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Acierocolotl on April 03, 2013, 11:59:07 am
Am I pissing into the wind here?  Do I need to start chasing people around with all-caps screeds to get a point across?

ONE MORE TIME THEN:  The argument that "restricted guns may or may not have an impact on US crime," can be put the fuckin' crucible of science:  Canada, the country most like the US, has restricted gun laws.  DO THEY HAVE REDUCED GUN CRIMES?  Gee guys, why don't you find out from sources you trust and get back to me on this one?  Can I make it more obvious?
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Victor Laszlo on April 03, 2013, 12:29:11 pm
Am I pissing into the wind here?  Do I need to start chasing people around with all-caps screeds to get a point across?

ONE MORE TIME THEN:  The argument that "restricted guns may or may not have an impact on US crime," can be put the fuckin' crucible of science:  Canada, the country most like the US, has restricted gun laws.  DO THEY HAVE REDUCED GUN CRIMES?  Gee guys, why don't you find out from sources you trust and get back to me on this one?  Can I make it more obvious?
Acierocolotl, April 03, 2013, 11:59:07 am
This is America, Jack.  We don't argue from evidence here.  We just talk louder and louder until someone says "fuck it" and storms off to get drunk.  Or drunker, since these sorts of debates tend to start after we're drunk in the first place.


[heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart]
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Acierocolotl on April 03, 2013, 12:39:44 pm
This is America, Jack.  We don't argue from evidence here.  We just talk louder and louder until someone says "fuck it" and storms off to get drunk.  Or drunker, since these sorts of debates tend to start after we're drunk in the first place.
Victor Laszlo, April 03, 2013, 12:29:11 pm

Your points are solid.  Forgot where I was.  Sorry.

FUCK IT!  FUCK ALL YOUSE.  I'M GOIN' TO DWAYNE'S TO GO DRINKIN', BITCH!

Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Boots Raingear on April 03, 2013, 01:26:15 pm
In Switzerland, everyone is required to own a gun and (until recently, I believe) soldiers were allowed to keep relatively powerful weapons from their time in service.
Al, April 03, 2013, 12:40:46 pm
You may want to check your sources on this.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Isfahan on April 03, 2013, 01:26:55 pm
You of all people should know better than to trot this one out.  I know that you know better than to believe that a pile of rednecks with AR-15s have the ability to violently oppose their government in any way that doesn't end in tragedy.Victor Laszlo, April 03, 2013, 11:41:26 am

The point isn't to win, it's to resist. It's fatalistic to say so, but it's the ugly core of the matter. Combat is a goddamn tragedy factory.

This is the entire point.  A gun capable of murdering 30 kindergarteners in a small amount of time was purchased legally.  If you think that's okay then we are starting pretty far apart.  Had that gun not been legally for sale then the specific tragedy in question would have had a harder time occurring.  Which is something some of us find desirable.  He could have gone in there with pistols, but odds are he wouldn't have clipped 30 kids before someone tackled him.  We can't prevent all shootings, but we can probably significantly reduce the number of mass casualty events that take place, and that is a worthy goal to me if only because if someone brought 30 shot-up kindergarteners into my ER I would probably develop an incurable drinking problem and I don't want that to happen.

Yeah, alcohol is pretty pointless. Why does anyone need nearly two liters of sour mash whiskey? Only a person with immoral intentions would seriously consider purchasing those high-capacity bottles. If they weren't available, you'd have a harder time cultivating a drinking habit.

This is the hard part. The tragedy could have been prevented any number of ways. Banning guns is the way which happens to affect the most people not directly involved in the tragedy. Non-gun-owners will certainly be fine with it because, hey, no skin off their nose, right? But if the government can ban one thing, they can ban others, and sooner or later they'll get around to banning something you do give a shit about, and from promptings a lot less clear-cut than a mass-casualty event.

You're right, gun laws are a total failure.

Gun laws will always be a total failure, because greater than zero people will be shot in the United States every year no matter what does or does not get passed. Nobody will be happy with them ever, just for different reasons.

When was the last time, in a non-military setting, you fired a gun with a 30-round clip to assure your own safety?  In that setting, would a .38 special have done the trick, or did you need all thirty bullets to be fired within a few seconds without taking time to reload?

Never! I've managed to own five rifles and one pistol for the past six years without ever discharging any of them into a human face. But that's the necessity argument again. The bottom line is that I'm allowed to own what I own, and I'm breaking no laws in doing so. If I go to sleep on a given night and wake up the next morning as a criminal, it will have been because someone first took a wide black marker to the Bill of Rights and decided I couldn't be trusted.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: montrith on April 03, 2013, 03:58:49 pm
The bottom line is that I'm allowed to own what I own, and I'm breaking no laws in doing so. If I go to sleep on a given night and wake up the next morning as a criminal, it will have been because someone first took a wide black marker to the Bill of Rights and decided I couldn't be trusted.

Oh, it's not YOU we don't trust. It's this guy.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DtYJxraBpT0/UQ90Bcf_F7I/AAAAAAAAFPg/AakrwRRABdg/s1600/Gun+Nut.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DtYJxraBpT0/UQ90Bcf_F7I/AAAAAAAAFPg/AakrwRRABdg/s1600/Gun+Nut.jpg) (inline image removed by Lemon)

If I may offer a different perspective here, I do find the idea of "We need guns to protect us from our government" completely strange. Most people who argue for gun ownership here are hunters first and foremost, and I don't think I've ever met someone who owns a gun for self-defense purposes. I do know a few people, however, who've violently attacked other people, and I'm pretty happy these people didn't have guns when they went off the deep end. Only one guy I knew actually did manage to get a hold of a gun, and I think he even managed to shoot someone, since the police called my dad and asked if the person in question had ever handled the gun in our house. The Finnish government these days I think requires all gun-owners to go through basic gun-safety training and mental evaluation, be a member of a shooting society (hobby or hunting oriented) and keep all guns unloaded and under lock and key when not in use. I am perfectly happy with this system. It's not foolproof, but so far it's kept some people I know who shouldn't have a gun from having a gun.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's okay to let people have guns. It's just not okay to let people have guns just because they think they should have guns. A classmate of mine chased his mom out of the house after hitting his dad with an axe. I'm pretty sure he doesn't need a gun, even if he wants one.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: icarus on April 03, 2013, 04:03:58 pm
(http://i942.photobucket.com/albums/ad262/PGChaz/FPlusSpecialMessage.png)
AUAGHHH MY EYES
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Moriarty on April 03, 2013, 04:20:37 pm
Oh, it's not YOU we don't trust. It's this guy.

[that wonderful picture]
montrith, April 03, 2013, 03:58:49 pm

But that guy appears to be on the verge of preventing himself from ever being responsible for a child, and none of it would be possible without that gun he's holding. That picture is practically an argument for mandatory gun ownership.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Alpha Starsquatch on April 03, 2013, 04:32:45 pm
In Switzerland, everyone is required to own a gun and (until recently, I believe) soldiers were allowed to keep relatively powerful weapons from their time in service.
Al, April 03, 2013, 12:40:46 pm
You may want to check your sources on this.
Boots Raingear, April 03, 2013, 01:26:15 pm

I went back to the BBC article where I thought I'd gotten this info but nope, wasn't there. I'm not sure where I got that particular idea but thanks for pointing out the error.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Isfahan on April 03, 2013, 04:59:30 pm
If I may offer a different perspective here, I do find the idea of "We need guns to protect us from our government" completely strange.montrith, April 03, 2013, 03:58:49 pm

It's less strange for Libyans and Syrians.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: montrith on April 03, 2013, 05:11:57 pm
Hold on a sec, let me check something.

Nope. Still living in Finland, not Libya or Syria. If I ever move to either of those countries I'll keep you informed on my new perspective on the issue. Until then, I'm just glad that in my country we don't have to be scared of our government.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Isfahan on April 03, 2013, 05:27:40 pm
Apparently it is me who cannot be trusted, because when it comes time to ban guns, both me and that Internet-famous weirdo hairball up above will be treated the same, even though between us we've carried out zero massacres. So I'm stripped of a hobby of safely shooting guns I legally purchased because the very fact that I would want to own a gun means I'm a backwards sub-human, obviously up to no good, who has only the worst of intentions since no honest man should want to own something which makes such yucky thinkings happen in our feeling-place.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: icarus on April 03, 2013, 06:36:37 pm
not touching theeeeeeee rest of the gun debate

isfahan, how do you feel about gun dealers being more careful about tracking who/where/when they sell a gun? like, not a searchable database for public use, but at least a record for where guns are. like how you gotta register a car, and cops/dealers only access it when they have good cause to. cause as i understand it now, a lot of states don't even require legit legal gun shops to keep inventory. and that's...kinda screwy? and dangerous? i mean even liquor stores keep an inventory.

a registration database from my point of view might cut down on stuff like stolen gun sales. car registration helped some with car theft. i mean it's still there, but it's less of a rampant issue. and moreso, you don't wind up with like shady guys who have clean records but buy guns to resell them illegally to people who DON'T have clean records. like say some dude has a tiny apartment but winds up registering 700 semi-automatic rifles to it. he's probably not living with all 700 of them in his tiny place. it'd seem kinda worth looking into as a ATF officer, right?

i know some people get really like AAAAAA about the idea of keeping more careful track of gun sales, but i'm kinda head-scratching as to why. it wouldn't be preventing you from buying a new gun, or preventing anyone from selling you a gun. is it just about government being in personal business?
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Yossarian on April 03, 2013, 07:03:13 pm
The problem with gun laws is that despite 99.9999% of gun owners being perfectly responsible with them its that tiny percentile that everyone hears about and sees.
Personally I think a registry is a good thing for certain kinds of firearms, however what if for instance Syrians or Libyans had to register their firearms. That would make for a nice reprisal list in the event of some bullshit. By all means if someone has 300 rifles registered to their name and cant seem to find them within, oh say 30 seconds, then we have an issue that this list would be good for.
The whole fatalistic resistance of the government aspect is a shitty one, but a valid one. For instance in Vietnam a portion of the fighting was done by civilian rebels with semi automatic rifles, one still found around the world today, even in America. I speak of the SKS. A handful of people who know the land armed with whatever they can get a hold of can wreak havoc with enough traps and ingenuity. Now god forbid we ever have to resist the American government, but hypothetically speaking. Lets say that China and North Korea do a little tango and suddenly the mainland is invaded. A tragedy to be sure, but I damn sure would want an AR-15, a FAL, or even a bloody Mosin Nagant, anything I could get my hands on would be better than waiting it out.
You don't have to like gun culture, you don't have to own a gun, but a lot of Americans do. Its in the constitution for a reason.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Isfahan on April 03, 2013, 07:14:27 pm
isfahan, how do you feel about gun dealers tracking who/where/when they sell a gun? like, not a searchable database for public use, but at least a public record for where guns are. like how you gotta register a car, and cops/dealers only access it when they have good cause to.icarus, April 03, 2013, 06:36:37 pm

Federal Firearms License holders (usually just called FFLs) are required by law as a condition of their license to keep a record of every gun for which they perform a transfer, in addition to the federal background-check paperwork (NICS) and any special state paperwork required for a transfer. As you might imagine, this paperwork is signed and dated and initialed all to hell, in addition to addresses of residence and driver's license numbers recorded. I'm only familiar with the requirements in my home state, but for regulated firearms—which are all handguns and semi-automatic long guns—there's the NICS background check and corresponding Form 4473 (this is done for all transfers nationwide via FFL), the state background check and form for the transfer, and the mental-health affidavit implemented after Virginia Tech. The affidavit seems like a silly measure, because of course a crazy person who wants a gun is either not at an FFL in the first place or is going to swear to a piece of paper they're not crazy anyway, but it's more of a legal CYA for the FFLs than any real attempt to curb sales to crazies. Anyway, FFLs are required to keep a registry—like, actual binders and shit—of all these white-copy forms and be able to produce it for the ATF for inspection at any time.

cause from my point of view, it'd cut down on stuff like stolen gun sales. car registration helped some with car theft. i mean it's still there, but it's less of a rampant issue. and moreso, you don't wind up with like shady guys who have clean records but buy guns to resell them illegally to people who DON'T have clean records. like say some dude has a tiny apartment but winds up registering 700 semi-automatic rifles to it. he's probably not living with all 700 of them in his tiny place. it'd seem kinda worth looking into, right?

In Maryland there's a seven-day waiting period on regulated firearms between transfer (not purchase) and pickup which is built-in to the background-check process. On top of that, you cannot purchase more than one regulated firearm per 30-day period, ostensibly to prevent stockpiling like how you described. Not all states are like that, though. The practice you're describing is called a straw purchase, and it is indeed quite illegal. You have to affirm on your NICS paperwork that you are not performing a straw purchase, again a legal CYA. High-volume purchases by individuals (the exact amount varies by state) or numerous purchases occurring within a short time will bring up a red flag with NICS to investigate possible trafficking behavior.

i know some people get really like AAAAAA about the idea of keeping more careful track of gun sales, but i'm kinda head-scratching as to why. it wouldn't be preventing you from buying a new gun, or preventing anyone from selling you a gun. is it just about government being in personal business?

The reason people get AAAAAA about a federal-level firearms registry is because it's seen as slippery-slope legislation towards gun confiscation: authorities would have a ready-to-go list of guns and addresses they can visit and demand the surrender of guns X, Y, and Z, which are on record as being located here. If the owner cannot or will not produce the firearms, that's an arrest. In practice, of course, this would be an undertaking of such logistical heft that it would take years to pull off in addition to cramming probably thousands of people into prison. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US spread across tens of millions of households.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Runic on April 03, 2013, 07:22:35 pm
The thing is, nobody is talking about gun confiscation.  There is zero political support for an all out gun ban, even post Newtown.  That is simply a strawman.  Americans, in general, don't want to ban guns outright.  That's not the policy that is being discussed, and given the constitutional protections in place I seriously doubt that banning of things like high capacity mags, or even semi-automatic rifles will really act as a slippery slope to it.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Isfahan on April 03, 2013, 07:34:17 pm
The thing is, nobody is talking about gun confiscation.  There is zero political support for an all out gun ban, even post Newtown.  That is simply a strawman.  Americans, in general, don't want to ban guns outright.  That's not the policy that is being discussed, and given the constitutional protections in place I seriously doubt that banning of things like high capacity mags, or even semi-automatic rifles will really act as a slippery slope to it.
Runic, April 03, 2013, 07:22:35 pm

I was simply explaining why some gun owners wouldn't get behind registration. They perceive it's the first step which will eventually lead to confiscation. I made no claims as to its likelihood, and I even pointed out how infeasible it would be to actually carry out. They're just the fears some gun owners have, founded or not.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: icarus on April 03, 2013, 07:56:04 pm
how about local or state gun buyback programs?

i mean that seems pretty cut & dry, right? people willingly no longer desire their fire-arms, and so willingly give them up. they know they're going somewhere safe, to authorities who know how to handle them.  do they bug you? do you think it'd be more fair if the government didn't offer the shelf price for the gun, and thus made it more of a serious choice for the owner or somethin?

i'm just thinkin of this because of the daily show segment, i'll be honest. the guy who stepped in with his local NRA-esque chapter and instigated a private buyback at higher prices WITHOUT checking backgrounds/exchanging licenses/whatever other normal red tape there is really kinda pissed me off. just the fact that he was like YEAH I REALLY STUCK IT TO THOSE DAMN GUN STEALIN GUMMINT MONSTERS :O NOW THOSE GUNS HAVE DISAPPEARED BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY WITHOUT ANY ABILITY TO TRACE THEM THE WORLD IS SURELY A SAFER PLACE HERALD ME AS YOUR NEW HERO and i'm sitting there going arg anyone could have bought those guns arg arrrrrrg no safety checks at all arrrrrrggggg
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Boots Raingear on April 03, 2013, 08:26:55 pm
Oh, it's not YOU we don't trust. It's this guy.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DtYJxraBpT0/UQ90Bcf_F7I/AAAAAAAAFPg/AakrwRRABdg/s1600/Gun+Nut.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DtYJxraBpT0/UQ90Bcf_F7I/AAAAAAAAFPg/AakrwRRABdg/s1600/Gun+Nut.jpg) (inline image removed by Lemon)
montrith, April 03, 2013, 03:58:49 pm

Oh hi there, American Russel Brand.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Yossarian on April 03, 2013, 08:36:55 pm
how about local or state gun buyback programs?

i mean that seems pretty cut & dry, right? people willingly no longer desire their fire-arms, and so willingly give them up. they know they're going somewhere safe, to authorities who know how to handle them.  do they bug you? do you think it'd be more fair if the government didn't offer the shelf price for the gun, and thus made it more of a serious choice for the owner or somethin?

i'm just thinkin of this because of the daily show segment, i'll be honest. the guy who stepped in with his local NRA-esque chapter and instigated a private buyback at higher prices WITHOUT checking backgrounds/exchanging licenses/whatever other normal red tape there is really kinda pissed me off. just the fact that he was like YEAH I REALLY STUCK IT TO THOSE DAMN GUN STEALIN GUMMINT MONSTERS :O NOW THOSE GUNS HAVE DISAPPEARED BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY WITHOUT ANY ABILITY TO TRACE THEM THE WORLD IS SURELY A SAFER PLACE HERALD ME AS YOUR NEW HERO and i'm sitting there going arg anyone could have bought those guns arg arrrrrrg no safety checks at all arrrrrrggggg
icarus, April 03, 2013, 07:56:04 pm

The problem with gun buybacks is all the guns are destroyed and way too frequently people sell back antiques that should be in a museum. A lot of the time the police are not going to know whats priceless unless its something obvious like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyAQwiZkN3A)
No one should be buying guns outside the buyback program, because you WILL run into guns with criminal records. Private sales are legal though. The prices are also extremely low. Your typical AR variant could run you $1000 or more, gun buybacks only will offer you a few hundred at best.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Runic on April 03, 2013, 09:18:04 pm
The thing is, nobody is talking about gun confiscation.  There is zero political support for an all out gun ban, even post Newtown.  That is simply a strawman.  Americans, in general, don't want to ban guns outright.  That's not the policy that is being discussed, and given the constitutional protections in place I seriously doubt that banning of things like high capacity mags, or even semi-automatic rifles will really act as a slippery slope to it.
Runic, April 03, 2013, 07:22:35 pm

I was simply explaining why some gun owners wouldn't get behind registration. They perceive it's the first step which will eventually lead to confiscation. I made no claims as to its likelihood, and I even pointed out how infeasible it would be to actually carry out. They're just the fears some gun owners have, founded or not.
Isfahan, April 03, 2013, 07:34:17 pm
Fair enough.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: montrith on April 03, 2013, 09:34:05 pm
Just in case my earlier post was unclear (and it was, since I posted half asleep), I do not support banning all guns. I do support gun regulation. This opinion is based on purely what I know about the Finnish system and and applied in Finnish conditions. I know jack-all about legislation and political atmosphere in other countries, so I can't really provide an opinion when it comes to those.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Keetah Spacecat on April 04, 2013, 12:01:02 am
I still think education is still probably the best bet. Simply put it a good chunk of Americans have never seen a gun in real life. They only see it in movie theaters and shows where it's used to murder people. So of course they are going to turn around and freak out when a guy buys a bunch of ammo at once, even if he just wants to shoot some clay targets with his pals, because they think he's going to outright murder a whole bunch of people. They really don't know that a gun is just a tool and can be a hobby for people.

Simply put it tighter gun laws aren't really going to prevent horrible shootings. What will help prevent them is teaching people to recognize the signs of disturbed individuals and get them help BEFORE they choose to steal a gun or so and murder people. I think back to the Virgina Tech massacre and how everyone agreed the shooter was obviously disturbed and the school knew about it and nothing was done until it was too late. I always held firm that it's the individuals behind the guns that do the shootings, not the guns.

Still sometimes I wonder when people say they are using assault rifles to hunt with. It seems like it won't leave you very much left of the animal using one of those over a rifle.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Delcat on April 04, 2013, 02:24:20 am
The second sentence is a direct refutation of the first.  What if it had been illegal for his mother to buy it?  Where would he have gotten it then?Victor Laszlo, April 02, 2013, 08:53:53 pm

That gun wasn't bought illegally, and it wasn't bought by a criminal. I mean, what if the kid had no hands? How would he have pulled the trigger?Isfahan, April 03, 2013, 02:07:27 am

If someone doesn't have hands, they can't play violent video games so they'd have no urge to shoot a gun.

Actually I'm curious now, can you pull a trigger with any reliability without using your hands?
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Isfahan on April 04, 2013, 06:02:03 am
how about local or state gun buyback programs?icarus, April 03, 2013, 07:56:04 pm

Gun buyback programs will generally only appeal to folks who own illegal guns and wish to cease riding dirty with no questions asked. Normally, if you have a gun you want to sell you can just sell it to someone. For the sale to be legal, it has to go through an FFL transfer just like if you were buying or selling the gun at a store.

I do not support banning all guns. I do support gun regulation. This opinion is based on purely what I know about the Finnish system and and applied in Finnish conditions. I know jack-all about legislation and political atmosphere in other countries, so I can't really provide an opinion when it comes to those.montrith, April 03, 2013, 09:34:05 pm

Guns are regulated in the US, Montrith! They're just not regulated to the degree they are in most countries. People under 18, convicted felons, undocumented residents, and people with certain documented mental disorders cannot purchase guns. Some states require taking a safety course or proof of firearms training before purchase, some don't. Only a couple of states outright require a permit issued by law enforcement to purchase, but several require a state registration of firearms. The state gun laws are a confused mess of different levels of restriction, since even in the US, attitudes toward gun ownership will vary with the local popular opinion and political culture. As a rule of thumb, instead of determining a reason why someone should have a gun, a reason must be determined why not. That's the effects of having gun ownership as a right.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Isfahan on April 04, 2013, 06:35:09 am
I still think education is still probably the best bet. Simply put it a good chunk of Americans have never seen a gun in real life. They only see it in movie theaters and shows where it's used to murder people. So of course they are going to turn around and freak out when a guy buys a bunch of ammo at once, even if he just wants to shoot some clay targets with his pals, because they think he's going to outright murder a whole bunch of people.Keetah Spacecat, April 04, 2013, 12:01:02 am

As with many commodities, ammo is cheaper when you buy in bulk. That's why people buy lots of it at once. I myself bought about 2,000 rounds of 5.45mm for my AK because it cost about six cents per round that way instead of ten cents. I'm down to about 1,200 right now, because I take a couple of hundred rounds to the range with me whenever I want to shoot, and it goes faster than you might think.

Still sometimes I wonder when people say they are using assault rifles to hunt with. It seems like it won't leave you very much left of the animal using one of those over a rifle.

Many hunting rifles are semi-automatic. The vast, vast majority of what people would call "assault rifles" in the US are also semi-auto only. So what's the difference on the business end?

Here's a Ruger Mini-14 with a target stock on it:

(http://i.imgur.com/fXEXdQJ.jpg)

Here's an "assault rifle" AR-15:

(http://i.imgur.com/Woee4FK.jpg)

They both have semi-automatic-only operation and accept detachable clips of varying capacity. In addition, they both shoot the same round:

(http://i.imgur.com/WxF1VTP.jpg)

You have the same bullet coming out of two different clip-fed semi-automatic firearms. So what's the difference? One of them looks scary, like that gun what looks like the one in that war show I seen on the picture boxes they got down there at the Sears. States also have hunting clip restrictions, since it's easier to say you can't hunt with clips over x rounds than it is to specify which guns you can't hunt with by model. They do the same thing for shotguns and waterfowl hunting, often limiting clips to two or three rounds at most.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: montrith on April 04, 2013, 07:08:08 am
Okay, clearly I have been misinformed. I was under the impression that in the good old US of A anyone could just fill out a form and then BAM! One week later all the guns you want. That's what I get from getting my gun info from TV I guess. I do think that basic gun safety course should be a requisite if a person wants to own and use firearms, so if we're talking about gun ownership in the United States that's something that I think all states should adopt.

Personally, I do understand the appeal of shooting without the intent to harm. I did some shooting with air rifles when I was younger and quite enjoyed it. I was even pretty good at it, a lot better than I was at fencing at least. What keeps me from taking it up again is the fact that there really aren't any ranges just for target practice around here and I don't want to be one of those people who goes into the woods alone to shoot cans. There's already one in my family and it's quite enough, thank you.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Lady Naga on April 04, 2013, 07:43:24 am
I want to cause physical harm to gun debates.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: icarus on April 04, 2013, 07:45:00 am
well montrith there are loopholes

like the gun show loophole. i mean there should be efforts to fix that.

and there are counties and shops that don't follow protocol to the extent they could. so guns DO slip through cracks in the system and get into the hands of people who probably should not have them. above and beyond anything else, i think the ATF should have a larger budget and task force.

not to go banging on your door and taking your guns, but to just...make sure that those shops who don't follow protocol get shut down. to make sure shops get an inspection. currently they don't have the funds or the manpower to do either effectively.

giving the ATF a larger budget might also increase the chances of government sponsored gun education programs. i mean if as part of your gun buying process you had a dvd come home with you that was just like 'care and safety for your new gun' that'd be...at least something. we don't have that now, at least i don't think so. could be wrong.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Isfahan on April 04, 2013, 08:34:53 am
The gun-show loophole is real. Some states have closed it at their level, while others haven't. A federal closing of the loophole would stamp it out entirely.

As for giving the ATF a bigger budget... well, every federal institution is clamoring for a bigger budget, and approving more spending at a time like this would be a hard sell. I too want more gun education. I want guns to be demystified. I want people to know why it's goddamn silly to be worried about whether or not a gun has a straight grip or a pistol grip. I want more people to try shooting as a hobby.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Victor Laszlo on April 04, 2013, 08:50:31 am
[heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart] Can't we all just get along?[heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart][heart]

Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Lady Naga on April 04, 2013, 08:52:01 am
No.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Lemon on April 04, 2013, 09:42:50 am
Fuck that
Can't we all just get along?
Victor Laszlo, April 04, 2013, 08:50:31 am

Christ, I hope not. We're only on page 4 of this thread and already you're running out of vitriol? I started this thread for a reason, goddamn it. Get back in there.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Lady Naga on April 04, 2013, 09:44:12 am
Fuck that
Can't we all just get along?
Victor Laszlo, April 04, 2013, 08:50:31 am

Christ, I hope not. We're only on page 4 of this thread and already you're running out of vitriol?Lemon, April 04, 2013, 09:42:50 am

That's a funny way to spell "boring-ass gun debates"
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: montrith on April 04, 2013, 11:12:38 am
My ass is not boring!
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Acierocolotl on April 04, 2013, 11:30:21 am
My ass is not boring!
montrith, April 04, 2013, 11:12:38 am

I'll be the judge of that.

Wait.  How can I make this creepier?
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Runic on April 04, 2013, 03:52:25 pm
Fuck that
Can't we all just get along?
Victor Laszlo, April 04, 2013, 08:50:31 am

Christ, I hope not. We're only on page 4 of this thread and already you're running out of vitriol? I started this thread for a reason, goddamn it. Get back in there.
Lemon, April 04, 2013, 09:42:50 am
Seriously, nobody has even been compared to Hitler yet.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Psammetichus on April 04, 2013, 08:08:49 pm
I used to get really involved in these gun debates, but then I realized nothing will change anyway and we're forever stuck in the cycle of mass shooting leading to half-hearted attempts at gun control that eventually die out once we loose intere— hey, did you guys hear about the Rutgers coach? Oh man!

"wake up america" ~ron paul.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: chai tea latte on April 04, 2013, 10:08:53 pm
I'd be a lot happier if we just didn't have guns, but hey - we do! That cat isn't going back in the bag (because it is heavily armed and contrarian). I've gone shooting twice, both times on invitations from friends (it turns out a local range has ladies' days every wednesday, and all I had to pay for was ammo, which was nice). I guess it was sort of fun? Civilian access to shooting ranges weirds me out, honestly. I understand the rationale for police and military to use them, I guess, but I'm still a bit weirded out by the idea that people can just go and practice shooting things. Honestly, the thought of owning a gun terrifies me, because I know I'm not someone who could be a responsible gun owner (which I guess I've a bit of a high bar for).

I don't like guns. I really don't. I enjoyed my times at the range, because I got to get a better picture of what it was like to shoot a gun and to do that sort of thing, and I like spending time with my friends. But I did enjoy myself, which for a while had me questioning some things I believed about 'gun people'. I still don't like guns, but I understand why some people do.

And then I remember things like the per capita gun deaths in Canada and the US, the latter of which is like four or five times the former. That seems messed up to me, and says there's something going on with that that's not just a reflection of per capita ownership rates (3 guns per ten canadians, nine per ten americans).

I just don't like guns okay, they really really really scare me.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Isfahan on April 05, 2013, 04:50:27 am
If we didn't have shooting ranges, where would some people shoot their guns? I live in a state that doesn't have enough public land to shoot safely out in the wilderness, and that's also the reason it's illegal to hunt deer here with a normal rifle—you have to use either a shotgun or a muzzle-loader.

It's fine to not like guns and to not enjoy shooting. I think you're quite nice to agree to an activity you're not crazy about just to spend more time doing stuff with your friends. My mother is scared of guns too.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: One Of The Crappy Pokemon That Nobody Likes on April 05, 2013, 04:56:28 am
If we didn't have shooting ranges, where would some people shoot their guns? I live in a state that doesn't have enough public land to shoot safely out in the wilderness, and that's also the reason it's illegal to hunt deer here with a normal rifle—you have to use either a shotgun or a muzzle-loader.

It's fine to not like guns and to not enjoy shooting. I think you're quite nice to agree to an activity you're not crazy about just to spend more time doing stuff with your friends. My mother is scared of guns too.
Isfahan, April 05, 2013, 04:50:27 am

This makes it sound like you dragged her to a shooting range yourself.


... you did, didn't you.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: chai tea latte on April 05, 2013, 05:49:54 am
If we didn't have shooting ranges, where would some people shoot their guns? I live in a state that doesn't have enough public land to shoot safely out in the wilderness, and that's also the reason it's illegal to hunt deer here with a normal rifle—you have to use either a shotgun or a muzzle-loader.

It's fine to not like guns and to not enjoy shooting. I think you're quite nice to agree to an activity you're not crazy about just to spend more time doing stuff with your friends. My mother is scared of guns too.
Isfahan, April 05, 2013, 04:50:27 am

Well, if I'd my druthers, they wouldn't. But I don't, and so ranges fill that purpose nicely.

Also, I'd be worried about people who weren't scared of guns! They're scary things.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Isfahan on April 05, 2013, 08:43:31 am
This makes it sound like you dragged her to a shooting range yourself.

... you did, didn't you.
portaxx, April 05, 2013, 04:56:28 am

Nope! She just decided long ago that she didn't like guns. No specific reason, no traumatizing event or bad experience, just that guns are a thing Other People Who Live Far Away are into. She's never even fired a gun, a fact she's made clear to me several times. At this point, if I asked her if she wanted to go to a shooting range with me, her first assumption would be that I was teasing her.

Well, if I'd my druthers, they wouldn't. But I don't, and so ranges fill that purpose nicely.kal-elk, April 05, 2013, 05:49:54 am

If you had your druthers, I wouldn't be going to the range either:

I'd be a lot happier if we just didn't have guns

Said so yourself.

Also, I'd be worried about people who weren't scared of guns!

Just guns as objects? Worry about me, then. I'm not scared of guns. Nope. I am trained and educated in how to handle them. They hold few mysteries for me.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Moriarty on April 05, 2013, 09:35:25 am
Also, I'd be worried about people who weren't scared of guns! They're scary things.
kal-elk, April 05, 2013, 05:49:54 am

Eh, I'm not scared of guns, and I've never fired one in my life. NRA nutjobs like Wayne LaPierre are disturbing, but not the guns themselves.

Now, knives, on the other hand -- those are scary.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Bunnybread on April 05, 2013, 10:59:00 am
Worry about me, then.
Isfahan, April 05, 2013, 08:43:31 am

Oh we are, baby.  Trust me.  Probably not for the reasons you think, though.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: montrith on April 05, 2013, 01:12:54 pm
Also, I'd be worried about people who weren't scared of guns! They're scary things.
kal-elk, April 05, 2013, 05:49:54 am

Eh, I'm not scared of guns, and I've never fired one in my life. NRA nutjobs like Wayne LaPierre are disturbing, but not the guns themselves.

Now, knives, on the other hand -- those are scary.
Moriarty, April 05, 2013, 09:35:25 am

RARARARARARSEEPORTAXXAVATAR

You can only get my knife when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands!

No, but seriously. Finland has a bit of a weird culture with knives. Like that it was completely normal when I got my first one when I was like 10 or something. Like the fact that we have a saying that goes "A wedding is not a wedding without a knife-fight". That in most villages there's that one guy who gets drunk and thinks stabbing someone would be a great idea, and everyone else is just like "Yeah, that's what you're going to get with that guy, don't go drinking with him". That several variants of our national dress have knives incorporated into them. It's not that we are particularly violent, it's just that you're gonna need that in the forest.

I couldn't find a pic of the exact type of puukko I have, but this is pretty close. Mine just has a slightly longer blade and a darker handle.

(http://www.knifecenter.com/knifecenter/finn/images/121010.jpg)

And if you're not into knives, there's always axes.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: icarus on April 05, 2013, 01:30:56 pm
No, but seriously. Finland has a bit of a weird culture with knives. Like that it was completely normal when I got my first one when I was like 10 or something.
montrith, April 05, 2013, 01:12:54 pm

that's how it was in rural PA when i was growing up. it was pretty common to get your first swiss army knife or pen knife around 8 or 9 (only open it with permission, though!) and larger knives by 10 or 11. i still have a deer skinning knife my dad gave me back then, though it's incredibly dull now from years of being used to sharpen pencils.

really though all any of us 80s kids did with them was sharpen sticks and quote crocodile dundee
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Acierocolotl on April 05, 2013, 01:39:59 pm
I've got a rather basic knife myself--I really liked scouting and wilderness nonsense and it's not like Canada doesn't have a shortage of that sort of thing.  The knife was useful because it's very hard to punch tinder off sticks.

(Considering the Winter War, I'm happy to give the Finns lots of slack.)
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Yossarian on April 05, 2013, 02:15:00 pm
Rural Michigan here, and everyone has a knife all the time, in class, at work, in wallmart, everywhere and anywhere. I'm sitting in my dorm here with two utility knives in my desk and another two little swiss army knives somewhere or other with my tools. Michigan packs heat (or whatever is legal) all the time.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: cyclopeantrash on May 01, 2013, 06:45:50 am
I live in a mutant juxtaposition in the middle of Ohio where owning a knife is frowned upon unless you wear it in public. Where liking guns is tantamount to gay abortions while loving and owning guns makes you a folk hero. I don't know what to do with my county sometimes.

On the topic of gun rights and whatnot, I've never been afraid of them or the people who own them. I'm more afraid of the psychopaths who think that the only way to achieve true freedom is by objecting to safety protocols and regulations and owning more bang-rods than the nation of Andorra in the case that their freedom is impeded upon. Not coincidentally, the people I know who do this are emphatically libertarians. So A=B=C I'm afraid of libertarians with guns. I say we outlaw libertarianism, even though we run the risk of becoming a tyrannical censor-state in doing so. I think it would be worth it.

To bring Godwin's Law to 1. Montrith is Hitler because she has the audacity to not be a resident of or borderbuddies with MURRICA.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: montrith on May 01, 2013, 10:22:38 am
I'm borderbuddies with Russia though. Doesn't that make me a communist? Stalin maybe instead of Hitler?
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Acierocolotl on May 01, 2013, 10:33:04 am
The AO Coltrane household here thinks Finland is pretty swank, so don't go around Godwinning things up or these barbarians from the north are gonna swoop down and start takin' over, eh?

(http://derfcity.com/images/archive/earlystuff/fat.gif)

(Goddamn I love Derfcity.)
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: cyclopeantrash on May 01, 2013, 10:55:12 am
I'm borderbuddies with Russia though. Doesn't that make me a communist? Stalin maybe instead of Hitler?
montrith, May 01, 2013, 10:22:38 am

No, that just makes you Hitler and a Commie. Mr. McCarthy would have some choice words for you missy.

The AO Coltrane household here thinks Finland is pretty swank, so don't go around Godwinning things up or these barbarians from the north are gonna swoop down and start takin' over, eh?
Acierocolotl, May 01, 2013, 10:33:04 am

YOU BEST SHUT UP NOW YA HEAR! YA'LL SHOULD BE HONORED TO BE SO CLOSE TO SUCH A GLORIOUS NATION AS THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF JESUS!
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Isfahan on May 01, 2013, 01:19:37 pm
Finland is well familiar with advancing hordes; they had to fight off the Soviets in the Winter War. Though, in this case, the barbarian horde came from the south, not the north.

Hmm...

Though, if we annex Canada, I'm pretty sure they'll still only count as one star on the flag.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: Lemon on May 03, 2013, 04:09:30 pm
FUCK YOU. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nra-culture-war-convention-opens-texas-article-1.1334478)
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: cyclopeantrash on May 03, 2013, 04:28:23 pm
Oh boy. A gathering of the most ill-informed people in a single place. Please tell me this turns into the Gathering of the Juggalos for conservatives.
Title: I want to cause physical harm to Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: chai tea latte on May 03, 2013, 04:48:36 pm
“When we see tragedy, Barack Obama and Michael Bloomberg see opportunity,” the gun group’s head lobbyist said. “While we pray for God to comfort those experiencing unimaginable pain ... they run to microphones.”

I'm trying to make a noise that's simultaneously a snort of derision and a terrified scream.