So, can we at least agree you don't need an assault rifle as a civilian?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT
 

Shock and Awe:
Thought everyone would like to know that the Sandy Hook shooting didn't even use an "assault weapon". He had four handguns.

source

I thought he used a Bushmaster, and that earlier reports were garbled?

WaitWHAT:
I'd imagine the kinds of guns that are going to be banned are the ones that have the high capacity to be used in mass shootings (e.g., semi-automatic "assault" rifles with large magazines) rather than, say, handguns, shotguns or hunting rifles.

Unfortunately, probably not. Firstly, you can't ban rifles with large detachable magazines, you have to ban both seperately.

Secondly, if hunting rifles are allowed, what about semi-automatic hunting rifles? Or Garands?

Handguns are quite nice for mass shootings, though there seems to be moves to restrict them as well.

WaitWHAT:

Cette:

The problem is that it quickly demonstrates that the changes being pushed are being done by someone who knows dick all about the subject they're legislating.

If they can't even understand the basics of what they're regulating then how can they be trusted to judge what and should and shouldn't be allowed. Hell they made up a term that means nothing to anyone who knows about guns just to make them sound scary.

Would you trust a guy who was trying to regulate automotive policy if he suddenly started demanding a ban on the sale of "Woosh Cars" and when pressed to describe what that is basically said cars that have features that make them look faster regardless of actual performance effect?

I'd imagine the kinds of guns that are going to be banned are the ones that have the high capacity to be used in mass shootings (e.g., semi-automatic "assault" rifles with large magazines) rather than, say, handguns, shotguns or hunting rifles.

And you'd imagine wrong. Without understanding how guns work you can't understand what you actually need to be looking at to accomplish your goal of stopping these kinds of things. Not that legislation will do shit mind you but it'd be nice if they could at least look like they know what the hell they're doing.

Cette:
And you'd imagine wrong. Without understanding how guns work you can't understand what you actually need to be looking at to accomplish your goal of stopping these kinds of things. Not that legislation will do shit mind you but it'd be nice if they could at least look like they know what the hell they're doing.

You'd be the first person to prove this legislation won't work. While there's plenty evidence that it will, for instance the background checks. And magazine capacity is a matter of pure mechanics: fewer bullets -> more reloads -> less firepower -> always fewer victims. Ironclad stuff.
Care to give it a try and make the change in between all those pro-gun underbelly sentiments of "Omg teh libruls is coming for mah guns!" stuff?

thaluikhain:

Shock and Awe:
Thought everyone would like to know that the Sandy Hook shooting didn't even use an "assault weapon". He had four handguns.

source

I thought he used a Bushmaster, and that earlier reports were garbled?

There were about three different stories I've heard. This seems to be the final one though.

Actually I agree that strengthening the background checks is a good idea. Being able to go to a booth at a gunshow and have it treated like a garage sale is bullshit and needs to be dealt with. Likewise a decent shared registry to actually do the checks in is great.

Magazine Size I don't think will do much unless it's knocked all the way into the ground. 10 is still enough to do plenty of damage and there'll be enough of the old ones grandfathered in that if someone really wants one they can get it and they'll be going through back channels and person to person sales to acquire them regardless.

That and when you put a small magazine on anything in the semi auto assault rifle class it effectively becomes the same as a number of civilian designed farm or "varmint" rifles. Hell the civilian AK47 performs very similarly to a lever action 30-30 winchester when you put say a five round magazine on it and that's still a very common deer rifle.

Won't hurt me any to see them dropped down but all it'll really do is make a bunch of politicians look like they did something effective to those that don't know any better.

The assault weapons ban was always toothless as far as reducing actual killing power. Bayonet mounts? Really? If your concern is someone stabbing you with a gun then you're really missing the point.

If you wanted to truly decrease peoples ability to do these things you'd have to take things down to roughly bolt action only with internal magazines set to the legal standards. And that would have to include pistols as well on down to leaving only single action revolvers maybe.

And there's no way in hell you'll see any bans with teeth that sharp get passed.

And of course then you'd have to find a way to deal with all the legal pre ban guns which most people aren't going to just fork over. Never mind that all of this only effects the people who actually follow the laws.

Well that and if they put in enough practiced and carried several guns on their person a fellow could still shoot a great many unarmed people who are stuck in a crowded area with few exits.

Note my personal stance is you should be able to have pretty much whatever as long as you can pass a thorough background check but I won't be building my anti "gubment" bunker anytime soon.

That may have been a bit scattered time to pass out it seems.

In the USA, I think you should be able to own any firearm you want to purchase. It doesn't matter if it's an automatic weapon or a shotgun.

Shock and Awe:

thaluikhain:

Shock and Awe:
Thought everyone would like to know that the Sandy Hook shooting didn't even use an "assault weapon". He had four handguns.

source

I thought he used a Bushmaster, and that earlier reports were garbled?

There were about three different stories I've heard. This seems to be the final one though.

The point is it really doesn't matter. Under the strictest capacity laws and a pistol in each hand, that's at least 14 rounds. Catastrophic in a classroom full of unarmed, defenseless human beings.

Yes, if people had to choose they'd rather get shot at 14 times than 30, but doesn't change the tiny fact that you're still getting shot at over a dozen times in a matter of seconds.

TheIronRuler:
It doesn't matter if it's an automatic weapon or a shotgun.

What if it's an automatic shotgun?

RhombusHatesYou:

TheIronRuler:
It doesn't matter if it's an automatic weapon or a shotgun.

What if it's an automatic shotgun?

Fits in the automatic category. Same belief as Iron Ruler though, also Iron slider.

You do realize that we WON the Iraq War, right?

We won against people who have trained and fought their whole lives against organized armies, but you can surely defeat the most bloated military budget in the country, right.

When people like you are murdering civilians in the street, I hope you can look yourselves in the mirror. Because you're one step away from becoming a domestic terrorist.

I don't know if we 'won' the war. No one ever seemed to define what winning over there would be, and we kinda just left.

Besides, on another note, I'd argue that many in the military would not side with the government if it ever came to a civil war.

Shock and Awe:

It is significant because this is a sign of a different set of priorities held by the military. They are bound mainly to the constitution and the law and not to the Government. This is different from other countries such as the UK, or Finland. These are an allegiance to the Government. I point this out because these other oaths are from what I can tell the norm for most countries. The US is different. We are a nation that was forged in the fire of rebellion.

Actually the UK military swears allegiance to the Queen, not the government. It's our version of 'uphold the constitution' as the monarch is seen to be above government and represent the whole nation.

Most countries probably have some kind of loophole (monarch, constitution, 'the nation', etc.) to stop the government forcing troops to fight their own people. I doubt the US is unique in that respect.

TheIronRuler:
In the USA, I think you should be able to own any firearm you want to purchase. It doesn't matter if it's an automatic weapon or a shotgun.

Well, automatic weapons are actually better for mass murderers to use; because they have a very high rate of jamming and fully automatic fire tends to be very inefficient, wasting bullets on bodies that are already mortally wounded/dead and adding so much recoil as to be difficult to control (For some guns). The only way to properly use a fully automatic gun for killing would be in controlled bursts, but...in that case, it may as well be a burst fire or semi-automatic gun.

Kopikatsu:
very high rate of jamming.

Totally ignoring most of that post; just wanted to say that most automatic weapons don't have significant jamming problems.

RANDOM FACT MAN AWAY!!

I shall not agree I don't need an assault rifle. I shall acquire whatever weapon I deem needed for my purposes.

I'll agree I don't need military grade equipment like a jet though.

wombat_of_war:
americans need to follow the spirit of their constitution. every american has the right to own a musket but the rest of their weapons need to be banned

Okay then, but The First Amendment will only cover Christianity and the idea of no "cruel of unusual punishment" doesn't cover having a car-battery hooked up to your nipples. And The Forth Amendment will not cover spy planes or satellites peeking into your home. Any other form of modern technology or developments will not be covered by the Bill of Rights. It never says "the right of the people to keep and bear muskets." It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Blablahb:

Cette:
And you'd imagine wrong. Without understanding how guns work you can't understand what you actually need to be looking at to accomplish your goal of stopping these kinds of things. Not that legislation will do shit mind you but it'd be nice if they could at least look like they know what the hell they're doing.

You'd be the first person to prove this legislation won't work. While there's plenty evidence that it will, for instance the background checks. And magazine capacity is a matter of pure mechanics: fewer bullets -> more reloads -> less firepower -> always fewer victims. Ironclad stuff.
Care to give it a try and make the change in between all those pro-gun underbelly sentiments of "Omg teh libruls is coming for mah guns!" stuff?

We're getting back to those problems that come about when you argue about guns, and do not know anything about using them. A magazine swap takes about two seconds to accomplish for your average shooter. This can be shortened using methods like taping magazines together. The only time a magazine ban will have any effect on a situation is when it involves shooting at other people with guns, even then it's negligible. If you are shooting unarmed (because if its a mass shooting, chances are its in a gun free zone) and surprised people it really doesn't matter all that much what you are using. You can bust in there with a bolt action rifle and have all sorts of mayhem.

Shock and Awe:
We're getting back to those problems that come about when you argue about guns, and do not know anything about using them.

Your prejudices are funny.

However, the smaller the amount of firepower a weapon has (for instance because the magazines need to be changed more often) the fewer victims in case of a spree shooting. That makes it a usefull measure to take untill the US can move forward, rid itself of the gun violence lobby and start legislating a decent weapons ban.

Blablahb:

Shock and Awe:
We're getting back to those problems that come about when you argue about guns, and do not know anything about using them.

Your prejudices are funny.

However, the smaller the amount of firepower a weapon has (for instance because the magazines need to be changed more often) the fewer victims in case of a spree shooting. That makes it a usefull measure to take untill the US can move forward, rid itself of the gun violence lobby and start legislating a decent weapons ban.

Question: let's say someone is in a school, shooting up a bunch of unarmed kids and teachers. What is the difference between using one 30 round magazine and three 10 round magazines?

Blablahb:

Shock and Awe:
We're getting back to those problems that come about when you argue about guns, and do not know anything about using them.

Your prejudices are funny.

However, the smaller the amount of firepower a weapon has (for instance because the magazines need to be changed more often) the fewer victims in case of a spree shooting. That makes it a usefull measure to take untill the US can move forward, rid itself of the gun violence lobby and start legislating a decent weapons ban.

Yes because everyone that is for guns totally wants gun violence. When is the last time ANY NRA member did ANY mass shooters. Near ninety percent of these shooters are democrats. You can't rid a group just to make yourself feel yourself fell good. It will never be ridden want to know why because instead of compromising like with the pro gun groups the anti gun groups want to turn us into anther version of Europe, or Australia, or even ban all guns and the gun owners know it. And nowadays people can just PRINT a 30 round clip. Every gun law was design to make people feel good. Think about woo I just limited guns now I feel good enough for children instead of combating the real problem which is the person. That is why our prisons are filing up, and that's why urban areas like New York City even if it lower some crime is still higher vs the average amount of homicides in the nation. The facts don't lie. Just look at Chicago, or Detroit.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/145664-3d-printed-30-round-ar-magazine-brings-us-ever-closer-to-a-fully-3d-printed-gun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Detroit

CaptainChip:
Question: let's say someone is in a school, shooting up a bunch of unarmed kids and teachers. What is the difference between using one 30 round magazine and three 10 round magazines?

Or one could carry a pistol in each hand.

10 * 2 = number of children killed at Sandy Hook. And that's without reaching for another magazine or weapon.

Careful with this logic, it is devastating to their case for laws that mildly annoy.

Gergar12:
Yes because everyone that is for guns totally wants gun violence. When is the last time ANY NRA member did ANY mass shooters. Near ninety percent of these shooters are democrats. You can't rid a group just to make yourself feel yourself fell good. It will never be ridden want to know why because instead of compromising like with the pro gun groups the anti gun groups want to turn us into anther version of Europe, or Australia, or even ban all guns and the gun owners know it. And nowadays people can just PRINT a 30 round clip. Every gun law was design to make people feel good. Think about woo I just limited guns now I feel good enough for children instead of combating the real problem which is the person. That is why our prisons are filing up, and that's why urban areas like New York City even if it lower some crime is still higher vs the average amount of homicides in the nation. The facts don't lie. Just look at Chicago, or Detroit.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/145664-3d-printed-30-round-ar-magazine-brings-us-ever-closer-to-a-fully-3d-printed-gun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Detroit

On one hand, I mostly agree with you. On the other, you're citing Wikipedia.

I mean... come on.

Blablahb:

Shock and Awe:
We're getting back to those problems that come about when you argue about guns, and do not know anything about using them.

Your prejudices are funny.

However, the smaller the amount of firepower a weapon has (for instance because the magazines need to be changed more often) the fewer victims in case of a spree shooting. That makes it a usefull measure to take untill the US can move forward, rid itself of the gun violence lobby and start legislating a decent weapons ban.

Well first off its really helpful to understand what your talking about regardless of the situation. I don't tend to try and argue the merits of string theory because I really don't have more then a elementary understanding of it. The same could be said with firearms. You also still haven't told me how a two second pause is significant when someone is trying to kill unarmed individuals. All you have said is that there is "less firepower" which isn't really that much of an argument.

As for this being a hold over until a "decent weapons ban" thats exactly what Americans want....said no one ever.

Shock and Awe:

Blablahb:

Shock and Awe:
We're getting back to those problems that come about when you argue about guns, and do not know anything about using them.

Your prejudices are funny.

However, the smaller the amount of firepower a weapon has (for instance because the magazines need to be changed more often) the fewer victims in case of a spree shooting. That makes it a usefull measure to take untill the US can move forward, rid itself of the gun violence lobby and start legislating a decent weapons ban.

Well first off its really helpful to understand what your talking about regardless of the situation. I don't tend to try and argue the merits of string theory because I really don't have more then a elementary understanding of it. The same could be said with firearms. You also still haven't told me how a two second pause is significant when someone is trying to kill unarmed individuals. All you have said is that there is "less firepower" which isn't really that much of an argument.

As for this being a hold over until a "decent weapons ban" thats exactly what Americans want....said no one ever.

Also important to note: maybe one in 25000 shootings in the US is a "spree shooting", if that. Of those shootings, all the deadliest were committed with weapons these sorts of bans don't cover at all. So these bans don't really do anything useful.

Assault weapons are very important for defending my home against terrorist incursions.

/sarcasm

Guys, guys, guys. I don't know about what weapons are being used in crimes, but the fact is that all the massacres that created this issue were done by lunatics. People who were sick in the head. People who SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GIVEN ITEMS THAT CAN KILL PEOPLE BY POINTING THEM AND PULLING A TRIGGER. I think that it's people, not guns, that kill, but you can't deny that a they can be operated by almost anyone without much training, should be kept away from these mentally sick psychopaths.

Stop talking about whether we need handguns in our purses, 50 guns in our sheds, armed guards in our schools or a complete weapon ban. We need a proper licensing and background checking system to make sure we aren't giving weapons to people who might snap, who clearly can't handle that type of power.

I'm not saying there's some type of foolproof system that can scan someone and say 'yup, serial killer waiting to happen', but since it only takes one loony to kill dozens of people, we should focus on stopping said loonies from getting weapons instead of panicking and banning the right to defend yourself. It's a much more reasonable step in the right direction.

On a unrelated note, I should mention that the only reason that gun laws haven't changed for the last decade or two (I haven't done my homework) is probably because of the constitution, and the gun companies to preach it every time someone suggests a change, when it's obvious that they see it as a threat to their business.

Infernal Lawyer:

Stop talking about whether we need handguns in our purses, 50 guns in our sheds, armed guards in our schools or a complete weapon ban. We need a proper licensing and background checking system to make sure we aren't giving weapons to people who might snap, who clearly can't handle that type of power.

Dude....we DO have one.

It needs refining. It sure as hell needs a better method of access and updating. But we do have it....

ComradeJim270:

On one hand, I mostly agree with you. On the other, you're citing Wikipedia.

I mean... come on.

In aggregate Wikipedia is actually only slightly less accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica. Something like 5 errors for Britannica's every 4.

GunsmithKitten:

Infernal Lawyer:

Stop talking about whether we need handguns in our purses, 50 guns in our sheds, armed guards in our schools or a complete weapon ban. We need a proper licensing and background checking system to make sure we aren't giving weapons to people who might snap, who clearly can't handle that type of power.

Dude....we DO have one.

It needs refining. It sure as hell needs a better method of access and updating. But we do have it....

Exactly. Emphasis on 'proper'. Again, I haven't done my homework, but I've heard that gun laws differ from state to state? When it comes to licensing, background checks and selling weapons? Some states don't have a licencing system. Shouldn't there be a refined, nation-wide system and/or database?

Infernal Lawyer:

GunsmithKitten:

Infernal Lawyer:

Stop talking about whether we need handguns in our purses, 50 guns in our sheds, armed guards in our schools or a complete weapon ban. We need a proper licensing and background checking system to make sure we aren't giving weapons to people who might snap, who clearly can't handle that type of power.

Dude....we DO have one.

It needs refining. It sure as hell needs a better method of access and updating. But we do have it....

Exactly. Emphasis on 'proper'. Again, I haven't done my homework, but I've heard that gun laws differ from state to state? When it comes to licensing, background checks and selling weapons? Some states don't have a licencing system. Shouldn't there be a refined, nation-wide system and/or database?

There is a baseline minimum. All guns can only be sold through ATF licensed dealers. You don't need to own a license to own a firearm in any state (it wouldn't be much of "constitutional right" if they did) but everybody must go through, at minimum, an instant federal background check, online. All guns made have to go through a ballistic test, and can only be sold to the public through licensed dealers (all sales are recorded). States often have extra background checks as well. New Jersey has three background checks, the already mentioned instant one, one using the state's own databases (which are given to the feds anyway) and a mailed one to the federal government, which uses the same data base as the first test anyway.

Now, what I think you got confused about is that there are states with licenses to carry the gun around concealed, known as a conceal carry license. Most states issue these on a "Shall Issue" basis (such as Texas), I.E. if you pass the background check, the police are legally obligated to give you the license. Other states are "May Issue," I.E. the local sheriff doesn't have to give you the license, even if you pass the background check, if he doesn't feel like it. This means, unless your local sheriff is generous, you aren't getting a license unless you "generously donate" to the local police department (such as California). Some states don't require a license to carry around the gun concealed or out in the open (such as Vermont, oddly enough). One states doesn't issue the license, period. Illinois doesn't issue the license, period.

Not G. Ivingname:

Infernal Lawyer:

GunsmithKitten:

Dude....we DO have one.

It needs refining. It sure as hell needs a better method of access and updating. But we do have it....

Exactly. Emphasis on 'proper'. Again, I haven't done my homework, but I've heard that gun laws differ from state to state? When it comes to licensing, background checks and selling weapons? Some states don't have a licencing system. Shouldn't there be a refined, nation-wide system and/or database?

There is a baseline minimum. All guns can only be sold through ATF licensed dealers. You don't need to own a license to own a firearm in any state (it wouldn't be much of "constitutional right" if they did) but everybody must go through, at minimum, an instant federal background check, online. All guns made have to go through a ballistic test, and can only be sold to the public through licensed dealers (all sales are recorded). States often have extra background checks as well. New Jersey has three background checks, the already mentioned instant one, one using the state's own databases (which are given to the feds anyway) and a mailed one to the federal government, which uses the same data base as the first test anyway.

Now, what I think you got confused about is that there are states with licenses to carry the gun around concealed, known as a conceal carry license. Most states issue these on a "Shall Issue" basis (such as Texas), I.E. if you pass the background check, the police are legally obligated to give you the license. Other states are "May Issue," I.E. the local sheriff doesn't have to give you the license, even if you pass the background check, if he doesn't feel like it. This means, unless your local sheriff is generous, you aren't getting a license unless you "generously donate" to the local police department (such as California). Some states don't require a license to carry around the gun concealed or out in the open (such as Vermont, oddly enough). One states doesn't issue the license, period. Illinois doesn't issue the license, period.

Even in gun friendly Virginia, we operate on "may issue" basis. You can be turned down for a CC permit for any reason they feel like regardless how clean your record is.

GunsmithKitten:

Not G. Ivingname:

Infernal Lawyer:

Exactly. Emphasis on 'proper'. Again, I haven't done my homework, but I've heard that gun laws differ from state to state? When it comes to licensing, background checks and selling weapons? Some states don't have a licencing system. Shouldn't there be a refined, nation-wide system and/or database?

There is a baseline minimum. All guns can only be sold through ATF licensed dealers. You don't need to own a license to own a firearm in any state (it wouldn't be much of "constitutional right" if they did) but everybody must go through, at minimum, an instant federal background check, online. All guns made have to go through a ballistic test, and can only be sold to the public through licensed dealers (all sales are recorded). States often have extra background checks as well. New Jersey has three background checks, the already mentioned instant one, one using the state's own databases (which are given to the feds anyway) and a mailed one to the federal government, which uses the same data base as the first test anyway.

Now, what I think you got confused about is that there are states with licenses to carry the gun around concealed, known as a conceal carry license. Most states issue these on a "Shall Issue" basis (such as Texas), I.E. if you pass the background check, the police are legally obligated to give you the license. Other states are "May Issue," I.E. the local sheriff doesn't have to give you the license, even if you pass the background check, if he doesn't feel like it. This means, unless your local sheriff is generous, you aren't getting a license unless you "generously donate" to the local police department (such as California). Some states don't require a license to carry around the gun concealed or out in the open (such as Vermont, oddly enough). One states doesn't issue the license, period. Illinois doesn't issue the license, period.

Even in gun friendly Virginia, we operate on "may issue" basis. You can be turned down for a CC permit for any reason they feel like regardless how clean your record is.

GunsmithKitten:

Not G. Ivingname:

Infernal Lawyer:

Exactly. Emphasis on 'proper'. Again, I haven't done my homework, but I've heard that gun laws differ from state to state? When it comes to licensing, background checks and selling weapons? Some states don't have a licencing system. Shouldn't there be a refined, nation-wide system and/or database?

There is a baseline minimum. All guns can only be sold through ATF licensed dealers. You don't need to own a license to own a firearm in any state (it wouldn't be much of "constitutional right" if they did) but everybody must go through, at minimum, an instant federal background check, online. All guns made have to go through a ballistic test, and can only be sold to the public through licensed dealers (all sales are recorded). States often have extra background checks as well. New Jersey has three background checks, the already mentioned instant one, one using the state's own databases (which are given to the feds anyway) and a mailed one to the federal government, which uses the same data base as the first test anyway.

Now, what I think you got confused about is that there are states with licenses to carry the gun around concealed, known as a conceal carry license. Most states issue these on a "Shall Issue" basis (such as Texas), I.E. if you pass the background check, the police are legally obligated to give you the license. Other states are "May Issue," I.E. the local sheriff doesn't have to give you the license, even if you pass the background check, if he doesn't feel like it. This means, unless your local sheriff is generous, you aren't getting a license unless you "generously donate" to the local police department (such as California). Some states don't require a license to carry around the gun concealed or out in the open (such as Vermont, oddly enough). One states doesn't issue the license, period. Illinois doesn't issue the license, period.

Even in gun friendly Virginia, we operate on "may issue" basis. You can be turned down for a CC permit for any reason they feel like regardless how clean your record is.

Thanks guys, that clears up a lot for me. Guess that's the beauty of the internet though: You can pretend to know what you're passionately arguing about even when you clearly don't XD Still, it's a shame you can't just shove a dipstick into someone's ear and tell if they're gonna be a potential mass murderer.
Actually, about these background tests... It still kinda sounds like they're just checking the criminal database... But I'm probably wrong again. Care to clarify?

On carry permits, it really is different in every state. Even how people react is different. When I lived in New Mexico, it was very clear that you did not require any sort of license to carry a handgun so long as it was visible and a lot of people would either not really care or just note "huh, that guy has a gun." Here in Washington, it's more controversial and while it's supposed to be legal to open-carry unlicensed, but people will think it's weird in a lot of places and some police apparently get on your case if you do it because even they're not entirely clear on what exactly the laws say regarding this.

This is why it seems simplistic to me to look at a few stats and go "See, gun control in the US does/does not work!" What would work where I live now probably wouldn't work down in NM, where Mexican drug cartels have a presence and a grand total of zero fucks to give about US gun laws. What works in one state might not work in another.

Infernal Lawyer:
...Stop talking about whether we need handguns in our purses...

I am trying to think of a worse place for a woman to keep her handgun, and all I can come up with is "jammed up her butt."

randomsix:
In aggregate Wikipedia is actually only slightly less accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica. Something like 5 errors for Britannica's every 4.

Well, I guess I have an aversion to citing Wikipedia from doing a few too many research papers for professors who have to tell people not to cite Wikipedia what feels like a dozen times for each assignment. It's great for finding other sources, though.

But also, I'd be interested to see how those stats hold up when applied just to obscure or controversial issues. I have no doubt Wikipedia is highly accurate on, say... chemistry, or tigers, or something like that, but talk about something like abortion or gun control and you've got an encyclopedia which allows people to try and shoehorn in their particular ideology in a manner I'd wager nobody at Britannica would have the balls to try even if they had the inclination.

ComradeJim270:

Infernal Lawyer:
...Stop talking about whether we need handguns in our purses...

-...I am trying to think of a worse place for a woman to keep her handgun, and all I can come up with is "jammed up her butt."...-

Thanks for taking my comment way out of context. You were doing quite well with your argument, then you cut and paste a sliver of my argument so you can make a smart-ass quip. And then you casually go back to being perfectly reasonable, like you didn't make some stupid school-boy poo-poo joke.

Infernal Lawyer:
Thanks for taking my comment way out of context. You were doing quite well with your argument, then you cut and paste a sliver of my argument so you can make a smart-ass quip. And then you casually go back to being perfectly reasonable, like you didn't make some stupid school-boy poo-poo joke.

Wow, good thing I was making no consideration to the context, or any attempt to connect that to my actual points in any meaningful or reasonable fashion, and in fact wasn't even trying to make a joke: that comment was totally serious, off the top of my head I could not think of a worse place for a person to carry a handgun that isn't an orifice.

Also, if one person reads that and goes "Wow, carrying my gun/my significant other carrying her gun in [her] purse is actually a pretty terrible idea", I really don't care how the comment is perceived.

ComradeJim270:

Infernal Lawyer:
Thanks for taking my comment way out of context. You were doing quite well with your argument, then you cut and paste a sliver of my argument so you can make a smart-ass quip. And then you casually go back to being perfectly reasonable, like you didn't make some stupid school-boy poo-poo joke.

Wow, good thing I was making no consideration to the context, or any attempt to connect that to my actual points in any meaningful or reasonable fashion, and in fact wasn't even trying to make a joke: that comment was totally serious, off the top of my head I could not think of a worse place for a person to carry a handgun that isn't an orifice.

Also, if one person reads that and goes "Wow, carrying my gun/my significant other carrying her gun in [her] purse is actually a pretty terrible idea", I really don't care how the comment is perceived.

Look, you're clearly against guns in general, and I respect that. But my original comment was about ignoring the debate on how awful/brilliant guns are, because you can go back and forth on that all day (such as, say, whether or not we should be keeping guns on ourselves, like in our purses), and thinking more about focusing on keeping guns away from loonies, which aside from figuring out how it could be done, isn't really up for debate.

Since most people don't understand what I mean by 'up for debate', usually because they're hard for one side or another, I'm going to be intuitive here: You and some people think guns are bad. Other people think guns are good. Two sides of one debate. On the other hand, no-one is thick enough to think giving guns to lunatics or people who are sick the head is a good idea.

Like I said, you made some very good points before, but I don't appreciate you setting me up for a childish toilet joke. I don't care how much you hate guns or guns laws or whatever, suggesting people shove guns up their asses after copy and pasting half a sentence from a comment you barely looked at, then somehow rationalizing it with your potentially legitimate beliefs is just bizarrely immature.

Sorry for starting what could easily be a rage war, guys. Just keep it dignified, please.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked