Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Gun Control thread
#36

I am pretty sure this isn't a joke.

Ladies and Gentleman, I give you "The Bed Bunker"

Reply
#37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Peace View Post

So let's ban them. The worst thing that can happen is that we're in the same exact place we are right now, so there's nothing to lose. I'm sick of the idea that legislation isn't worth it unless it solves the entire problem. The gun lobby frames things like that because they know such legislation can never exist. So what if a law only improves the situation slightly? If "slightly" means a few less assault weapons in the hands of psychopaths, a few less people dead because of them, I'm okay with thinking small.

And again, we come to the usual "talking points" for the bans. What is an Assault Weapon? As with King's "semi-auto", it's a meaningless description that sounds oh so good but describes nothing. BTW, "auto" or military grade guns have been banned from public ownership for decades.

Reply
#38
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

I am pretty sure this isn't a joke.

Ladies and Gentleman, I give you "The Bed Bunker"

If you are that paranoid, you would think just having a pistol under your pillow would be more cost effective.

Reply
#39
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbrother View Post

If you are that paranoid, you would think just having a pistol under your pillow would be more cost effective.


It worked for James Bond.

I've got good news and I've got bad news. The bad news is that I have lost my way. The good news is that I'm way ahead of schedule.
Reply
#40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimwit View Post

And again, we come to the usual "talking points" for the bans. What is an Assault Weapon? As with King's "semi-auto", it's a meaningless description that sounds oh so good but describes nothing. BTW, "auto" or military grade guns have been banned from public ownership for decades.

This is the most ridiculous thing that gun nuts say. 'Assault Weapon' and 'Semi-auto' do have very specific meanings. Semi-auto is a weapon that doesn't require manual operation of the breach (or manual cocking of the hammer in the case of revolvers) in order to fire successive rounds, so the speed with which the user can fire is limited only by how quickly they can pull the trigger. 'Assault Weapons' are designed to maintain accuracy when firing rapidly (via flash and recoil suppressors, muzzle breaks, etc), and have higher capacity magazines. These are weapons that are not designed for self-defense, and they're sure as shit not designed for hunting.

Seriously, what the fuck do you think the 'AR' in AR-15 stands for?

Reply
#41

Yeah, but Bond is British. This is America and you go big or you go home here, dammit.

Reply
#42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post

This is the most ridiculous thing that gun nuts say. 'Assault Weapon' and 'Semi-auto' do have very specific meanings. Semi-auto is a weapon that doesn't require manual operation of the breach (or manual cocking of the hammer in the case of revolvers) in order to fire successive rounds, so the speed with which the user can fire is limited only by how quickly they can pull the trigger. 'Assault Weapons' are designed to maintain accuracy when firing rapidly (via flash and recoil suppressors, muzzle breaks, etc), and have higher capacity magazines. These are weapons that are not designed for self-defense, and they're sure as shit not designed for hunting.

Seriously, what the fuck do you think the 'AR' in AR-15 stands for?

So you feel that the banning of semi autos is justified because of their convenience?

And I guess this hunting rifle

<br />

is far superior and less dangerous than this thing

<br />

which should be banned because?

Reply
#43

Because they are BOTH pathetically stupid devices

and only MORONS use them

QED

Reply
#44

There's this weird, I dare say willful, obtuseness on the part of a lot of gun advocates on how the law works.  Yup, it makes definitions and draws argued but ultimately arbitrary lines around stuff.  Pointing that out is not an argument against it all by itself, I'm sorry.

They end up sounding like post modern art student hippies.  "You just can't describe the multivarious meta-beauty variety-ness of guns with your "definitions" man!  It's, like, a flow of music you've got to be a part of.  You just don't get it, man! Your reductive pigeon holing is just, like, trying to strangle the free expression of stopping power.  But it won't be supressed!  The calibre is too large!"  and so on

The endless fussing over how 'assault weapons' is a vague category only argues for expanding controls, not reducing them, to sayyyy. semi-autos altogether, or something like that.  I wonder if that's really what they want.

Reply
#45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimwit View Post

So you feel that the banning of semi autos is justified because of their convenience?

And I guess this hunting rifle

is far superior and less dangerous than this thing

which should be banned because?

IMO the difference between the 2 guns above is that the one on top is more than likely to be used to hunt and target shoot by a mature, responsible individual.

The one below it is nothing more than a 'toy' to prop up the ego of some immature (and possibly paranoid) adult who thinks of guns as 'cool' and that if he owns more and more guns, the safer his world will be.

I'd bet that one of this person's favorite movies is 'The Matrix' or, if he's a little older, 'Commando'.

Reply
#46

If I'm not mistaken, those are both variations on a popular "ranch" gun made by Ruger, right?  The bottom one is designated as a "tactical" model.  Now, what the actual differences besides the looks and the rail for mounting lights and scopes and such are, I couldn't tell you.  What I can say is that the idea a civilian would need tactical weaponry (whether or not that particular rifle really qualifies) is kind of ridiculous.  But the problem with the debate isn't even really where the line should be drawn, as intelligent people will differ there.  The problem is that the gun people do not want to enter into the discussion at all, as they seem to feel like any further restriction is tantamount to banning all guns.

Reply
#47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimwit View Post

So you feel that the banning of semi autos is justified because of their convenience?

And I guess this hunting rifle

is far superior and less dangerous than this thing

which should be banned because?


They both should be banned. There is no difference between these two killing tools.

Reply
#48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimwit View Post

So you feel that the banning of semi autos is justified because of their convenience?

And I guess this hunting rifle

is far superior and less dangerous than this thing

which should be banned because?

I really don't think you can say which should be banned just by looking at them. It is how they function that matters. I don't know the ins and outs of these weapons but the top one isn't much different, in appearance, than my little varmint rifle. Of course, my gun is bolt-action and only holds 5 bullets at a time, because it is a tool, not a toy. VTRan really hit that aspect on the head. People that would buy that bottom gun are essentially purchasing a toy.

Reply
#49

As a English man in the USA, the one thing I don't understand about gun ownership is why isn't it Federally regulated. I live in Texas and was able to buy a gun in a week, even as a foreign resident. I had to show that I've lived in the same place for 6 months. Really, all I had to do was get a citizen to buy the gun then gift it to me a few weeks later. At the time, I thought all the paperwork and the proof of address was kept in some database somewhere, along with the guns serial number. Turns out I was wrong. They don't track shit, it was a background check only. Whats the point of that, when you can gift/private sale guns without notification. You have to transfer registration if you sell a or a car, why not guns.

With all the different rules state to state a start should be made to at least have a federal database of guns and their owners. This way we could see if anyone has a collection of 60 assault rifles and 10000 rounds of ammo.

I got my gun for sport and protection (ex wife was crazy, seriously) but haven't shot it in over a year. I clean it once a month though. At this point banning anything wont work. It's like banning water when your swimming, nothing is going to happen you're still swimming.

Reply
#50

Ancedotal: The NRA rhetoric has pushed some sportsman gun owners I know over into the "gubmit comin for ya!' camp.  Limbaugh and the Fox talking heads must be pushing it too.

Reply
#51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimwit View Post

So you feel that the banning of semi autos is justified because of their convenience?

Yes. Because what they are making convenient IS KILLING THINGS.

Reply
#52

AH, my friend, but they also are making convenient the rising up against and tyranny and defending liberty!

Reply
#53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Parker View Post

As a English man in the USA, the one thing I don't understand about gun ownership is why isn't it Federally regulated. I live in Texas and was able to buy a gun in a week, even as a foreign resident. I had to show that I've lived in the same place for 6 months. Really, all I had to do was get a citizen to buy the gun then gift it to me a few weeks later. At the time, I thought all the paperwork and the proof of address was kept in some database somewhere, along with the guns serial number. Turns out I was wrong. They don't track shit, it was a background check only. Whats the point of that, when you can gift/private sale guns without notification. You have to transfer registration if you sell a or a car, why not guns.

With all the different rules state to state a start should be made to at least have a federal database of guns and their owners. This way we could see if anyone has a collection of 60 assault rifles and 10000 rounds of ammo.

There's an excellent Daily Show segment on this that basically says, the NRA bought out the congressmen who then pushed forward a bill that essentially neutered the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) force to some 1000 people, and also said that a national registration is illegal and even gunshop owners don't have to list all of their inventory or sales. And why we don't have a national registry to begin with, well, STATE'S RIGHTS. FUCK THE BIG GOVERNMENT, I AIN'T TELLING NO CITY DWELLING PANSY ABOUT MY GUNS.

Why there aren't any real state registries I'm sure can be summed up with the same feelings. We really distrust the government here. Probably goes way back.

I'm probably being hyperbolic, but then...maybe not.

Reply
#54
AMaybe part of the answer is for news outlets to show the pictures of what assault rifles do to the bodies of victims.

(Link is Safe For Work, goes to text editorial.)

_
Reply
#55

http://gawker.com/5979907/georgia-homeow...ng-address

I don't even have words for that one.

Reply
#56

All gun crime can be attributed to mental illness, if we classify stupendous assholely as a mental illness.

Reply
#57
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post

http://gawker.com/5979907/georgia-homeow...ng-address

I don't even have words for that one.

I've lived in the South almost all my life, and I'd still feel safer on any street in any city than a random driveway in the rural South.

Reply
#58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post

http://gawker.com/5979907/georgia-homeow...ng-address

I don't even have words for that one.


Too many old people think 'Gran Torino' is a documentary.

Reply
#59

Man, fuck Apple Maps, can't find its dick in a brown paper bag...or some odd metaphor.

Humor aside. A, dunno what the gps was and B, fuck that guy.

Reply
#60
ABought and read the King essay. I recommend it. Money goes to a good cause, too, as has been said here.

King owns three handguns and is not calling for a complete gun ban. Just the ones that cause mass death; the ones nobody outside an actual war zone has any business owning.
Reply
#61

Again, I'm confused. Rather than referencing my previous post, why are we talking banning and restrictions. Shouldn't we be talking registration, databases and record keeping. Doesn't this deter the bad element. Also, if a single 18 year old dude in Idaho owns 18 pistols and 14 AR-15's with no recognizable income, shouldn't that set flags waving. Also, why are we not tracking ammo sales. Certainly, this will drive sales to illegal side of things, but it's better than dragging guns from cold dead hands.

Also, I'd figured in the case of suppressors and fully automatic weapons, you need a separate permit/license to own them, in the States in which they are allowed, that is Federally monitored. Again I was wrong (shocker) you just need to pass the Class III Federal background check and pay $200 for a Tax stamp and get a local Sheriff to sign off on the ownership. This, depending on the Sheriff, may involve some snooping by them. Oh, and have a bunch of cash. This just seems crazy. You need to register a boat trailer for fucks sake.

Good job we track people that read Mein Kampf. We'll at least they know if they have a car/boat/fishing license/seadoo/house.

Reply
#62

Uh, uh....uh....go back across the Pond!

Yeah. Yeah, that showed him...yeah... ...

Reply
#63
A
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Happenin View Post

There's an excellent Daily Show segment on this that basically says, the NRA bought out the congressmen who then pushed forward a bill that essentially neutered the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) force to some 1000 people, and also said that a national registration is illegal and even gunshop owners don't have to list all of their inventory or sales. And why we don't have a national registry to begin with, well, STATE'S RIGHTS. FUCK THE BIG GOVERNMENT, I AIN'T TELLING NO CITY DWELLING PANSY ABOUT MY GUNS.

Why there aren't any real state registries I'm sure can be summed up with the same feelings. We really distrust the government here. Probably goes way back.

I'm probably being hyperbolic, but then...maybe not.

In an emergency, the government is our only hope against violent gun nuts. Look at what happened in Katrina, and then imagine that sort of lawlessness on a national scale. That is why guns are a national security threat, and banning and melting them down is the only option.

Reply
#64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Happenin View Post

There's an excellent Daily Show segment on this that basically says, the NRA bought out the congressmen who then pushed forward a bill that essentially neutered the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) force to some 1000 people, and also said that a national registration is illegal and even gunshop owners don't have to list all of their inventory or sales. And why we don't have a national registry to begin with, well, STATE'S RIGHTS. FUCK THE BIG GOVERNMENT, I AIN'T TELLING NO CITY DWELLING PANSY ABOUT MY GUNS.

Why there aren't any real state registries I'm sure can be summed up with the same feelings. We really distrust the government here. Probably goes way back.

I'm probably being hyperbolic, but then...maybe not.

In an emergency, the government is our only hope against violent gun nuts. Look at what happened in Katrina, and then imagine that sort of lawlessness on a national scale. That is why guns are a national security threat, and banning and melting them down is the only option.

And just HOW do you propose to do such a thing?  Look, I realize thinking isn't exactly your strong suit, but at least TRY to educate yourself on a topic, before you make yourself out to be even more of a fool than you already have.  Like them or not, there will not be any mass gun bans or seizures in this country.  There are simply far too many in the hands of the citizenry to even make a dent in the overall numbers.

Reply
#65

I find it hilarious the threat to take away people's right to own guns has both sides of the issue begging for the government to take away our privacy.

Reply
#66
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrickBurgundy View Post

And just HOW do you propose to do such a thing?  Look, I realize thinking isn't exactly your strong suit, but at least TRY to educate yourself on a topic, before you make yourself out to be even more of a fool than you already have.  Like them or not, there will not be any mass gun bans or seizures in this country.  There are simply far too many in the hands of the citizenry to even make a dent in the overall numbers.

There's that 'Can do!' spirit I've heard so much about.

Reply
#67

Gun owners are starting to kill each other off:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/03/nav...port-says/

Reply
#68

If only someone on that shooting range had been armed, this tragedy could have been prevented.

Reply
#69

They were loaded up with target rounds, not anti-personnel rounds.

Reply
#70

...What difference does that make? As far as I know practice rounds aren't made of marshmellows and sunshine.

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)