Post: #276

From where I sit, this isn't about banning guns in their entirety. It is about banning certain kinds of armaments and the tactical gear that accompany them. There is no reason on this earth that civilians should be allowed to own automatic weapons or possess high-capacity magazines. Zero. Zip. Zilch. No reason at all.

Shotguns? Fine. Bolt-action rifles? Fine. Semi-auto handguns? Sure. Those are all weapons that you can legitmately say are for personal self-defence, defence of your home, hunting, or sport-shooting purposes. But all automatic weapons should be banned from civilian use, in addition to clips that hold more than 10 rounds. If you can't stop your attacker with 10 shots then you need to just accept that your ticket is punched.

And all of these idiots running around thinking there guns will protect them from gov't tyranny need to get a fucking clue. The gov't has tanks, bombs, missiles, artillery,etc---your gun isn't going to do shit except take out a few federal agents before you are given the Darwin award. And while we're at it, we need to close the gun show loophole. Right now, 40 percent of all guns are bought at gun shows because they don't require background checks. This is ludicrous.

Gun owners (99 percent of them law abiding and peaceful, btw) need to accept that there are social costs to society as whole for permitting gun ownership and that those costs need to be weighed against the benefits. Getting rid of automatic weapons and high-capacity clips are obvious and completely reasonable steps to balance these competing imperatives.

Post: #277

(12-16-2012 09:56 PM)MSW2007 Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:50 PM)garygroundwork Wrote:  1n 1996 there was a school massacre in Scotland, 15 kids killed. The UK immediately banned guns. There hasn't been a massacre since.

In 1996 there was a massacre in Australia 35 killed. The government immediately banned guns. There hasn't been a massacre since.

Got to love guns.

Great.

While we're tossing out examples of other countries, let's consider Switzerland. Nearly every adult male citizen owns a military grade "assault rifle" and the ammunition to go with it. As I understand, in one year there were 27 homicides in the whole of Switzerland, 24 of which were committed by non-Swiss. No massacres.

We can toss examples back and forth all day. What's your point?

He is showing a before and after with Australia and UK. Is it purely coincidence that the banning of guns eliminated massacres in the forementioned countries?

Post: #278

Common sense - he has it:

Post: #279

(12-17-2012 12:15 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  \ He went after retired cops and others that were legitimate owners. If they couldn't show a legitimate cause to own a gun, he made them give them up.

The states that demand a "legitimate reason" to own a gun are the worst ones of all. Even states that are pretty strict on guns, like Maryland, acknowledge that if you spend 30 years locking up criminals, it would probably be a good idea to allow you to continue to carry a weapon after you retire, because after you spend 30 years locking people in jail, there's probably going to be more than a few of them who want a little retaliation.

I went to college in South Carolina. Our campus cops were real, gun carrying, sworn police officers. Several of them were retired Chicago police who moved down there for a couple of reasons.
1. It was a great way to supplement their existing pensions.
2. The university doesn't need swat teams.
3. They're already sworn police officers and only require minimal training.
4. When you pick up a badge and a gun every single time you leave the house for 30+ years, and then someone basically tells you "you can't be trusted any longer" it's not going to sit well with you. You're going to get the fuck out of there.
And those guys were some of the coolest cops out there.

Post: #280

(12-17-2012 01:40 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 12:15 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  \ He went after retired cops and others that were legitimate owners. If they couldn't show a legitimate cause to own a gun, he made them give them up.

The states that demand a "legitimate reason" to own a gun are the worst ones of all. Even states that are pretty strict on guns, like Maryland, acknowledge that if you spend 30 years locking up criminals, it would probably be a good idea to allow you to continue to carry a weapon after you retire, because after you spend 30 years locking people in jail, there's probably going to be more than a few of them who want a little retaliation.

I went to college in South Carolina. Our campus cops were real, gun carrying, sworn police officers. Several of them were retired Chicago police who moved down there for a couple of reasons.
1. It was a great way to supplement their existing pensions.
2. The university doesn't need swat teams.
3. They're already sworn police officers and only require minimal training.
4. When you pick up a badge and a gun every single time you leave the house for 30+ years, and then someone basically tells you "you can't be trusted any longer" it's not going to sit well with you. You're going to get the fuck out of there.
And those guys were some of the coolest cops out there.

This is the crux of it right here. At the same time, I also wanted to illustrate how it isn't a straight across the board, liberal/conservative issue. Giuliani is as hardcore conservative as they come, but he was the one going after legit owners, and it was the police union that gave him major backing during his runs for Mayor because he was a law & order guy. As soon as he got in, that's who he fucked. Many will question Bloomberg's stance on guns, but he's doing his job - he's doing everything he can to stanch the flow of illegal weapons onto his streets. He isn't going after ex-cops.

Post: #281

(12-17-2012 02:24 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  This is the crux of it right here. At the same time, I also wanted to illustrate how it isn't a straight across the board, liberal/conservative issue. Giuliani is as hardcore conservative as they come, but he was the one going after legit owners, and it was the police union that gave him major backing during his runs for Mayor because he was a law & order guy. As soon as he got in, that's who he fucked. Many will question Bloomberg's stance on guns, but he's doing his job - he's doing everything he can to stanch the flow of illegal weapons onto his streets. He isn't going after ex-cops.

In what universe is Giuliani a conservative??

He is a statist, like most Republicans. Just a different flavor of statist than the Democrats. Statists want government to have a monopoly on violence.

Gun control is more a statist vs. non-statist issue than it is liberal vs. 'conservative' issue.

Post: #282

Connecticut School Shooting Doesn’t Deter Crowd At Gun Show In Montgomery County

LOL! Just goes to show how out of touch the media is on guns.

Why on earth would law abiding Americans avoid a gun show when they have been presented with another horrifying example of how gun control laws do not deter evil (in fact, just make it easier for the homicidal to find soft targets), and are facing yet another infringement of their rights?

Would the media be surprised if, after a spate of high-profile drunk driving accidents and introduction of a bill to mandate breathalyzer-keyed ignitions in all new cars (regardless of whether the buyer has ever had a DWI), that turnout at auto dealerships soared as people scrambled to get pre-ban cars?

Post: #283

(12-17-2012 12:37 PM)Moma Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:56 PM)MSW2007 Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:50 PM)garygroundwork Wrote:  1n 1996 there was a school massacre in Scotland, 15 kids killed. The UK immediately banned guns. There hasn't been a massacre since.

In 1996 there was a massacre in Australia 35 killed. The government immediately banned guns. There hasn't been a massacre since.

Got to love guns.

Great.

While we're tossing out examples of other countries, let's consider Switzerland. Nearly every adult male citizen owns a military grade "assault rifle" and the ammunition to go with it. As I understand, in one year there were 27 homicides in the whole of Switzerland, 24 of which were committed by non-Swiss. No massacres.

We can toss examples back and forth all day. What's your point?

He is showing a before and after with Australia and UK. Is it purely coincidence that the banning of guns eliminated massacres in the forementioned countries?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12...ide_a.html

Here's a piece from Slate about the measures taken by the Australian government, and the results of them. According to the article, the measures didn't just stop massacres (there were 11 such massacres pre-'95, none after), but a drop in robberies and even suicides with firearms. They eliminated the private sale of firearms, and gun buy-backs were largely effective. At the same time, we have to compare cultures of different countries before we assume the same results in a country like ours. It's still food for thought.

Post: #284

Fantastic.

When the bad guys give up their guns, the government can have mine, too.

Post: #285

I'd like a nation-wide conversation about boys on medication raised by single mothers. It won't happen

Post: #286

I'm sure a lot of people's guns will get "lost" if a nation wide ban was ever put in place and they were forced to turn them in. I know mine would.

Post: #287

Would it get lost if you were subject to 10+ years in prison for having a gun in your home...thats the easy solution to curb that occurence.

Post: #288

(12-17-2012 05:41 PM)lavidaloca Wrote:  Would it get lost if you were subject to 10+ years in prison for having a gun in your home...thats the easy solution to curb that occurence.

Nation-wide ban = civil war. Even the gun-hating statists in this country understand that. I hope.

Post: #289

I'm going to put what Basil was saying in this thread in here.

/thread-18720-...#pid329370

(12-16-2012 11:40 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 11:22 PM)FourToTheFloor Wrote:  If you have a child with mental illness, you should think twice about owning guns unless you've got a very robust safe.

I found a blog post from a girl making the same points you and I made: thedailyspork.com/2012/12/16/on-a-serious-note/

But otherwise, this dimension has been studiously ignored by the media. Of course, if the media acknowledged that the guns were stored improperly, that would detract from their argument for more gun control. Speaking from personal experience, almost anyone who is pro gun control and does not own a gun is a damn retard when it comes to discussing guns - they're so emotionally repulsed by them that they can't discuss them maturely; all they can muster is 'get rid of them!' This would be like a bitter cyclist seeing a senile old guy run people over, and then declaring that private car ownership should be abandoned.

They're only harming themselves - if they put some of their energy into making gun ownership more secure, instead of just opposing guns completely, they might be more effective in reducing disasters like these. Instead, when the gun opponents lose, they lose influence over how guns are used.

(12-17-2012 12:03 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 11:48 PM)NYJ Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 11:45 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 11:22 PM)FourToTheFloor Wrote:  If you have a child with mental illness, you should think twice about owning guns unless you've got a very robust safe.

Well I don't think there was any reason for her to be owning an assault rifle that is for sure.

+1.

I can see you owning a handgun or two for home protection, but unless you're expecting an home invasion from a jihadist group I think an AR is overkill.

This is a minor example of what I'm talking about. Your thinking is ass backwards - there may be justified reasons for a civilian owning an AR; ARs may or may not contribute to the violent crime rate. Both of those points are in dispute, yet you're taking them for granted without having studied the matter.

What probably isn't in dispute, even among the most fervent gun supporters, is that Nancy Lanza failed to store her guns appropriately. However, this isn't a pleasant line of discussion for someone who hates guns. That would be like asking a traditional Catholic for ideas on how to make pre-marital sex safe - they're not going to make something they strenuously oppose safer and easier to manage.

Fourtothefloor, why would her sex matter given that a gun makes one's physical strength irrelevant? You could be a midget and take on Mike Tyson and win, if you were well armed and he wasn't.

Post: #290

(12-17-2012 05:41 PM)lavidaloca Wrote:  Would it get lost if you were subject to 10+ years in prison for having a gun in your home...thats the easy solution to curb that occurence.

Thereby clogging an already overpopulated and understaffed prison system? It's filled up enough already with non-violent drug offenders.

I'm going to guess that atleast 95% of gun owners in America are not criminals. You're willing to toss all of these non-criminals into prison (with real criminals) for asserting their constitutional rights?

Post: #291

(12-17-2012 05:56 PM)MSW2007 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 05:41 PM)lavidaloca Wrote:  Would it get lost if you were subject to 10+ years in prison for having a gun in your home...thats the easy solution to curb that occurence.

Thereby clogging an already overpopulated and understaffed prison system? It's filled up enough already with non-violent drug offenders.

I'm going to guess that atleast 95% of gun owners in America are not criminals. You're willing to toss all of these non-criminals into prison (with real criminals) for asserting their constitutional rights?

Do you really think he would care if that happened? He's from Canada and grew up in a nice neighborhood. Sounds like Disney Land up there loco. No wonder you don't give a fuck about people owning guns.

(12-17-2012 02:52 PM)lavidaloca Wrote:  But even then I don't know where you live but a z4 where I grew up is the type of car parents gave there kids on their 16th birthdays. Heck, most of my friends were driving new cadi's, h2's, new mercedes and audi's. Granted I grew up in what would be the equivalent to a gated community in the US and my neighbor had multiple exotics which he raced.

Post: #292

(12-14-2012 03:10 PM)Samseau Wrote:  America produces disenfranchised men, and these men have absolutely nothing to live for, so they have no remorse for any of their actions and probably want to kill themselves in the first place.

"If I kill myself I'll fade into oblivion. Nothing will change, others will hurt like me, nobody cares about our pain and nothing we do in life changes it; I'll get back at them at least! Hit em where it hurts! What're they gonna do to me anyway?"

That's the line of thought. It's apparently a common thread. Columbine, Oklahoma city, etc.

Also, banning guns won't do a damn bit of good. I can walk into a few south baltimore parking lots with $100 and walk out with 2 guns and some ammo. Guns are actually incredibly simple pieces of machinery, and can be made with basic hand tools anyway. Whether or not your moral issue is more guns or less guns or that they don't matter, enforcing the legislation won't work, it'll just piss people who own guns legitimately off.

Post: #293

(12-17-2012 08:18 PM)Anon-A-Moose Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 03:10 PM)Samseau Wrote:  America produces disenfranchised men, and these men have absolutely nothing to live for, so they have no remorse for any of their actions and probably want to kill themselves in the first place.

"If I kill myself I'll fade into oblivion. Nothing will change, others will hurt like me, nobody cares about our pain and nothing we do in life changes it; I'll get back at them at least! Hit em where it hurts! What're they gonna do to me anyway?"

That's the line of thought. It's apparently a common thread. Columbine, Oklahoma city, etc.

It's hard enough to get people to talk about mental health, but this is specifically male mental health which no one cares about, and there is a deeper undercurrent beneath that which is the futility of the modern world. i won't hold my breath for any of that to get seriously discussed in the mainstream. once people are done emoting on social networks the episode will be over and they'll go back to their general shittiness.

Post: #294

^These are the type of guns Adam Lanza used in the killings (although he actually had a full size 9mm Glock and not the subcompact shown). He also reportedly had hi-cap (30 round) magazines for the hand guns.

My guess is the assault weapons ban is coming back.

There may also be a push for other tougher gun laws as well (Ex. high capacity magazine ban for hand guns & rifles).

Post: #295

(12-17-2012 08:28 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  My guess is the assault weapons ban is coming back.

There may also be a push for other tougher gun laws as well (Ex. high capacity magazine ban for hand guns & rifles).

I don't think either an AWB or a high cap ban will get passed. The original AWB was passed when the Dems controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, and even then they couldn't make it permanent, nor was it particularly effective since a massive supply of ARs and mags were sold in the year before the ban (just as is happening now - everyone is sold out on nearly everything AR-related).

Since the ban expiration, a few million AR15s have been sold (that's what happens when people feel the government doesn't want you to have something), so you have way more black rifle owners who are politically motivated than you did in 1994. And that number pales in comparison to the number of pistol owners who have 'high capacity' mags - Glocks, M&Ps, XDs, etc., etc.

Speaking of high capacity mags:




Let's see if the AWB introduced today can even get out of committee.

Post: #296

(12-17-2012 08:44 PM)assman Wrote:  Let's see if the AWB introduced today can even get out of committee.

I've been wondering about that.

Anyone know what committee would handle such, and what Congressional members compose said committee?

Post: #297

(12-17-2012 08:28 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  My guess is the assault weapons ban is coming back.

There may also be a push for other tougher gun laws as well (Ex. high capacity magazine ban for hand guns & rifles).

I had to hand in all my guns, [AR7, Franchi12G PA8 Pump, and Franchi S/Auto] because they where all banned, that hurt!

Now all i have is a single shot 12G, and a .22 rim bolt action

GovCo did pay top dollar for them, but still they where mine and sadly missed, if they do similar in USA, it will cost you lot BILLIONS

This all starts with having to get them registered, so they know what you own.

If you get caught in Australia with a unregistered gun, your in deep poo

My advice is fight like hell and keep ALL of your guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0B_UZNtEk4

God Bless America

We still have shootings, drive by at houses shootings, hold ups and robberies, so criminals still have, and will always have guns

"Lifes about, shooting your load"

Post: #298

(12-17-2012 12:33 PM)dragnet Wrote:  There is no reason on this earth that civilians should be allowed to own automatic weapons or possess high-capacity magazines. Zero. Zip. Zilch. No reason at all.

Why make such blanket generalizations? You do realize that our military is privatized to a great extent? Raytheon is run by civilians, contracts with the government, but owns patents to missile systems, miniguns, smart munitions. A bunch of dumb civilians that own the rights to tactical weapons systems? Heresy!!!

Or Blackwater Security Consulting. Ex military guys were in Iraq as security for valuable infrastructure. Someone has to protect construction workers, truck drivers, etc. In fact, Blackwater guys could buy their own gear. There is a huge market to making the best tactical gear because they want to buy the best and protect themselves. You need civilian entrepreneurs to own tactical guns so that they can invent better products.

Take your fuzzy pander elsewhere.

Post: #299

(12-17-2012 08:18 PM)Anon-A-Moose Wrote:  Guns are actually incredibly simple pieces of machinery, and can be made with basic hand tools anyway. Whether or not your moral issue is more guns or less guns or that they don't matter, enforcing the legislation won't work, it'll just piss people who own guns legitimately off.

This is a really good point. Even if guns are banned, people will just post the knowledge of how to build guns on the internet and people will build their own guns.

The AK-47 I hear is insanely simple and cheap to make, it really would be like trying to ban pot. How can you can something that is so easy to produce nearly anyone with some will power could do it?

Post: #300

When Kennedy was assassinated, security for Presidents was absurdly lax. Yet he was the first President to be assassinated in over 60 years.

When Columbine happened, gun laws were no more lax than they were decades before, yet mass school shootings were not the regular occurrence they've since become.

Gun control advocates want to legislate regulations to paper over changes in the culture which they have no understanding of and what's worse, evince little interest in understanding.