5 stars for stupidity and poor debating tactics!
You've chosen a good representative for how stupid you are, so congratulations.
The Autobon thing made me laugh. My God, you people are idiots.
As a Kraftwerk fan there's no excuse for how I just spelled autobahn.
The Autobahn IS regulated.
You need licenses to drive in Germany and you have to take tests to drive.
Driving is a privilege and not a right.
Not to mention that getting a drivers license in Germany is more akin to getting a pilot's license in the US.
Add in strict yearly inspections, heavy use of public transportation and the cost of gasoline and registration, and the German private automotive landscape is so dissimilar to that of the US as to make comparisons meaningless.
And half of the Autobahn has speed limits.
And getting into accidents, or, if the dipshit analogies from those Freedoom and this NRA idiot are to be taken seriously, usually means strong consequences for the right of the driver.
So there's really no insights to be gleaned from this moron, but it was pretty funny.
These guys always pull out examples from other countries* like Switzerland's gun laws or the autobahn, and they sound good to people too lazy to any further research (i.e. your typical tea partier).
Like all conservative argument though, they never hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.
*except when it comes to healthcare, then people are dying in the street by the millions in Canada and Britain
|Oscar Wildcat |
We need to see lots more people like this guy join the NRA.
What people? Black people? Yeah, I'm sure after the NRA's demographic shifts enough into the coloured territory, all those racist gun-nuts will change their ideological assumptions to save themselves from gun-hoarding darkies. It's brilliant!
I'd be surprised if you could find someone in the NRA that spelled "colored" the way you did.
Yes, specifically young black males, ideally wearing hoodies but the pseudo-gang paraphenalia is good enough. One or more gold teeth a big ++.
I mean, if they can't bond over a shared love of guns, whatever is even the point of the NRA?
Fine Gmork. Fine.
You're not a gun nut.
You are a gun idiot.
Actually, it's not such a horrible moniker. I was over at my brothers house, and on his kitchen table were two copies of the American Rifleman. One was from 1956, and the cover showed a golden field at dusk, a woodsman off in the distance with 12 gauge over his shoulder and retriever at his side. A good day's hunting, even if his bag was empty.
The other was the latest issue. On the cover was a roid popping lunatic cradling something that looked like what you'd find behind a wall in a Doom level. On the back was a picture of a terrified Santa Claus, being held at gunpoint. OK, the back cover ad _was_ funny, but you see how the whole "gun nut" thing has evolved, no?
Can we get back to Oscar Wildcat for a second? What the hell are you talking about psuedo-gang paraphernalia? His hat brim isn't even flat.
Any city/college sporting open carry would suddenly start writing exceptions if the local Middle Eastern populace started forming rifle clubs with open carry public meetings.
I wish there was a gun rights organization that I could join... as a gun owning liberal. The NRA is batshit insane, and as far as I can tell there's nobody out there promoting reasonable, rational, and effective gun laws. :(
You people are ridiculous. Thanks for being so completely off-base and out of touch with reality that you destroy your own arguments with incredibly obvious logical fallacies.
|The God of Biscuits |
And where do these people think criminals are getting their guns illegally?
From honest, God-fearing capitalists, of course. We can't protect innocent people at the cost of hurting poor, innocent weapons manufacturing conglomerates, can we? That would just be silly.
Some Chinese guy making them in his basement or something I don't know.
Uh, it's called the black market.
Gun show purchases are legal, so if you're implying that is where "criminals" are getting them, you're probably only 0.050% right.
Gmork, please point out all the mass shootings where the weapons were purchased from the black market.
Show your work.
Black market hell. This is how criminals get guns:
The thing to note about that article: the straw purchaser only got in trouble because she wasn't savvy enough to lie or get a lawyer during interrogation. All you have to say is "I lost the gun" and all your criminal liability disappears.
It's not hard to prevent this kind of gun running. All you have to do is hold people responsible for their guns when they end up being used in a crime. Make it a crime not to report your weapon missing, make it a crime to lose more than one gun in a short time, make it a crime if your gun is found in the hands of someone who couldn't legally own it. Shut down gun shops that repeatedly sell to people who commit these kinds of crimes. Then ordinary people won't buy guns for gangsters in exchange for 0. Even if all it does is raise that price a few hundred dollars, or make it very hard for a desperate person to move more than one gun, a lot fewer people will die in Chicago.
Well, maybe it's too late for Chicago actually. We have so many illegal guns in the city that they'll still be easy to get for a long time after we shut down the supply routes. But still, if your bathroom is flooded, you can hem and haw about how to best clean up the mess AFTER you shut off the damn faucets.
I'd make a robocop reference as to what can save chicago, but I realized any cyborg that is a native chicagoan would be too fat for titanium legs to hold up.
I'm tired of posting statistics to angry gun people.
Until you can actually respond with any research that reinforces your positions in an intelligent way, you bring nothing to the table except the blathering of a shiny object fetishist.
Of course criminals go to gun shows and pawn shops.
There are hundreds of thousands of stolen guns that end u being sold "legitimately." These guns are stolen from people that own guns.
Gun control laws in places like Chicago are a result of desperation. They fail because guns can't be controlled in America any more than liquor could. Using guns for self defense is virtually unheard of in a legal sense. Pulling a gun on someone generally involves an escalation of some kind, in which case it's your fault for pulling the gun.
Keep watching movies and letting that inform your reality.
It should be noted that gun lovers don't care about being right in any debate sense. By virtue of them owning the gun and brandishing it, they "win." That's the power of guns, it takes away any need to actually know anything.
As freedoom said, he doesn't actually read anything.
Also, in the state of Oregon where I live, it is legal to buy guns off the street. There's a street in the NE where I can buy a gun from a guy, no questions asked, and it's totally legal. It varies greatly from state to state. It is also to buy .22's here without a permit. To buy any other gun here, you get a background check that takes a few days (they check for violent crimes), then the gun is yours. There's very little oversight of this whole process, and there never will be.
Any firearm, 22s included, requires a federal background check when purchased from an FFL holder (such as any store that sells new or used guns). This is true in all states. I don't know what "permit" you're talking about, only a very small number of states require permits for certain kinds of guns (typically handguns), and there's no evidence that they do anything to reduce gun violence in those states.
Anti-gun people also tend to be unwilling to have an intelligent debate, since they tend to lack basic understanding about firearms. Throwing about terms like "automatic", "assault weapon", and "clip" is a good indicator that the person does not know what they're talking about.
If you are in favor of banning "assault weapons" or high capacity magazines, I would invite you to read the CDC's and NIJ's studies on the Clinton AWB when we did precisely that. In summary, these studies found NO EVIDENCE that these laws reduced gun violence.
I you look at the data, it's obvious. The kinds of firearms that those laws regulated are used in a tiny minority of gun violence cases. The overwhelming majority of gun violence cases involve handguns and (unsurprisingly) criminals.
Furthermore these laws are completely ineffective as they are based on "scary" cosmetic features, not function. You can't have gun A because it's black and black guns are scary, but you can have gun B because it has a wood stock. Even though the caliber and function of guns A and B are identical.
I'd like to see rational laws which are actually effective at reducing gun violence without impinging upon our rights. Unfortunately most proposed gun legislation is neither rational nor effective.
Interestingly, nobody is talking about banning anything on here.
I am aware of the stupidity of the assault weapons ban and that Diane Feinstein probably isn't.
"Unfortunately most proposed gun legislation is neither rational nor effective." That's true. I wonder why gun legislation is never allowed to flourish in our culture in any form. I would venture to say people dwelling on the Brady Bill, a kneejerk and ineffectual piece of legislation that both caved to the gun lobby and was meant to succor the police unions, should perhaps come up with some kind of "rational" legislation themselves. It becomes hard when we get stand your ground.
You are completely wrong about how buying guns in Oregon works, I'm sorry to say. My roommate has a few .22's. He didn't need to do anything special to acquire them.
Once again, I don't give a shit what kinds of guns you want to play with. I've posited some pretty basic forms of legislation that would probably be effectual, but let's face it, gun violence is a symptom of complex socioeconomic and cultural problems that can't be solved with bans. This doesn't mean you have to be stupid and think you're a patriot or vigilante guardian of justice by owning lots of guns. You like shooting things because it makes you feel good. I like playing poker.
I've lived in Oregon, I'm not ignorant of the law there. You appear to be ignorant of the federal regulations regarding firearm purchases.
If your roomate did not fill out an F4473 when purchasing his firearms (assuming he bought them from a brick and mortar store), he broke federal law. http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
This form requires an instant background check be performed. The FFL holder (store employee) calls the DOJ, provides them with the information on the form, and they run the check. If the purchaser is a felon or other person who is not allowed to own a firearm, the sale is not legally allowed to proceed.
It's a pretty painless process, if you have a clean record it only takes a few minutes (maybe 10). It is, however, a bit like the TSA no-fly list; one can get on the wrong list by virtue of one's name, or if one's SSN is stolen, etc. Then it's a major pain in the neck.
According to your link: "If you buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer, there will be the standard federal background check done through the police state police. The police state police will keep a record of your purchase as long as they can. Oregon law says they can keep the info for 5 years. (If you think they’ll destroy the info after 5 years we have bridge we’d like to sell you.)"
And in general, we appear to agree. I haven't read your posts about potentially effective gun legislation, but I'd like to. I'm having a hard time coming up with much that is effective, rational, and doesn't go too far on one's rights. I like the idea of a better background check system, but private sales remain an issue that I'm not sure how to deal with.
Oh one further note, buying a gun at a pawn shop is no different from any other FFL dealer (private gun shop, sporting goods store, etc). It still requires the instant background check.
Gun shows may not, depending on state law, but the research I've seen indicates that gun shows aren't really a problem in that regard. The overwhelming majority of guns used in gun crimes come from illegal sources such as straw buyers.
I like the part where baleen shut the fuck up. Thanks for covering things I was about to, glass.
Shut up Gmork.
From the FAQ:
"If you buy a gun from a licensed dealer in Oregon, a background check is performed by the Oregon State Police. At that time the make, model, caliber and serial number of the gun is recorded, along with all your personal information. In that sense, the gun has been “registered.” However, in private transfers, there is no such background check required, although you can conduct one voluntarily if you really think the State Police need your .00. This IS NOT required by law unless your transfer takes place at a “gun show.” So unless you have chosen to conduct the (entirely voluntary) background check, there is no “gun registration” in Oregon. If you move here with your own guns, or have acquired them from a private party in Oregon, there is no “registration” of any kind and no permits to own or transport. The only “permit” in Oregon is for concealed carry."
This is not really the point.
Let's reset this dialog, glasseye, since you are not Gmork and you aren't Freedoom.
Once more, I am not a strict gun control advocate.
I believe you should be able to play with whatever guns you want. My roommate has guns. Many of my friends hunt and shoot. My brother is rather heavily armed. I've never seen it, but I believe my dad has a .45 somewhere. These are people I love. I am well aware that guns can be ok in the hands of good people, and when used responsibly, they CAN protect people from certain situations, but that's the exception to the norm.
My issue is mostly with gun culture and what I see as gun fetishism. I am disgusted by the contrast of gun ownership with patriotism. I do not believe the 2nd Amendment necessarily permits one to wield everything that contains bullets anymore than it permits a person to hold private stores of sarin gas and nuclear warheads. I hate that people would hold a gun show anywhere near a place where horrible shootings recently occurred. I find it repulsive that when people have issues with crime the immediate reaction by many is to employ guns and the language of gun violence, as if this were necessarily going to solve the problem. I dislike the culture that likens gun possession with safety. I believe the statistical basis for likening gun density with increased security and lower crime is dubious, just as I believe gun control itself to be ineffectual at addressing the reasons why there is so much gun crime in the first place. I also believe that in carrying guns people will be more likely to settle disputes by employing guns, as opposed to doing pussy things like conflict evasion. I am aware of statistics where guns are used to "repel crime." For reasons I can discuss, I believe a lot of these statistics to be strained and misleading at best. According to the majority of legal cases involving gun usage where "self defense" was in play, I'm not far off the mark.
What would I like to see in gun legislation?
Universally mandated safety regulations requiring a gun safety class to be passed for the possession and use of pistols, shotguns and semi-automatic weapons, either recoil or gas operated. Safety classes would include proper handling, storage, securing weapons from thieves, and, like in driving courses, education about conflict resolution and "passive" as opposed to "aggressive" gun possession. It sounds really annoying. It should be annoying to get a device that can easily kill 10 people within a few minutes.
In keeping with automotive allegories, we should greatly increase funding and education efforts regarding the dangers of guns, the real life legal recourses for Charles Bronson syndrome (carrying a gun everywhere because you think you will save yourself or somebody from a crime), better home management education for containing firearms (so that ~175,000 of them aren't stolen every year), basic gun safety, the link between depression, gun access and increased suicide rates, and so on.
Mandated reporting of stolen firearms with severe fines when mandate is not met.
Full transparency and reporting on ammunition sales and gun transfers, private or otherwise.
Destruction of all weapons seized from criminals, as opposed to returning them to the public via auctions and so on. Not that this would reduce gun crime, I just find police selling weapons seized from criminals to be bad for business and self-defeating.
Increased funding for caring for those with mental illness, as well as outreach efforts for those who are isolated or suffering. This would require returning 6-7 billion in funding to these kinds of programs that have been whittled away since the early 80's.
Increased funding for a wide swathe of social programs that
have nothing to do with guns that might reduce gun violence but lay outside the jurisdiction of the topic of gun control and gun culture. Actually, this is the most important thing I can think of.
Baleen, we are in agreement regarding Oregon law. Purchases from FFLs (gun shops, pawn shops, sporting good stores) must undergo the mandatory instant background check, private sales do not. I was unaware that gun shows in OR required the background check, that's a good thing.
Gun culture is certainly obnoxious, I'm with you there. It does vary hugely by place, in my experience. In SoCal gun owners were of basically three groups - 1) clueless folks who were a danger on the range (had a 357 magnum pointed at my by mistake, AFTER he had passed the CA handgun safety test), and 2) casual and safe shooters (myself and lots of others), and 3) gun culture fanatics (rare, but loud and annoying). Out here in WI the largest group by far are hunters, followed by casual folks and ex-military. I've yet to see a single gun culture fanatic at the range. I also feel far safer at the range here than I did in SoCal, despite the SoCal ranges having dedicated range masters and safety officers who kept a close eye on things. People out here just have more a clue when it comes to gun safety, it seems.
Aside from a few studies (such as the CDC and NIJ ones mentioned above), the statistics on gun violence are incredibly incomplete and misleading. There are privacy laws which protect gun owners (good), and funding for gun violence studies is very restricted (bad).
I like the idea of mandated safety classes, provided they are broadly available. IMO they should be in every high school and mandatory (subject to religious exemptions); closely supervised, of course. Or perhaps at local community colleges. If made as accessible as driver's ed, this could significantly reduce accidental deaths from firearms, promote safe storage of firearms, et cetera (all good things). Firearms safety is very easy when one follows a few simple rules. Also we have to be careful not to too heavily restrict access to what is, under law, a fundamental right. Go too far and the courts will strike it down (of course, this is all wishful thinking... but yeah). Speaking of Oregon, I took an excellent firearms safety course at an indoor range in Clackamas. IIRC it was run by the sheriffs, and required before we were allowed to use the range.
I have mixed feelings regarding reporting stolen firearms. I have good records on my firearms, because I'm an engineer who cares about that sort of thing. Most people can't tell you the VIN on their car, much less the serial number of any guns they may own. Registration has obvious privacy implications that I'm uncomfortable with, and that the right wing will never let pass. The same thing goes for reporting ammo sales.
I don't really like the idea of the police destroying otherwise legal firearms. Much like drug cars their sales can benefit public safety when placed in the hands of responsible members of the public.
I completely agree regarding social and mental health programs. These are, IMO, the most effective ways to reduce gun violence.
See, not really that much disagreement at all.
Unfortunately the gun fanatics control the debate on the right, and the reactionaries (and victims of gun violence) control the debate on the left, and never the twain shall meet.
As for Oregon law, "private party" is a pretty nebulous term, wouldn't you agree? This is why I am within my rights to go to Alberta Ave and get me a Glock, no questions asked.
I think that legally "private party" means anyone who does not have an FFL. IIRC FFL holders are required to log sales/purchases of their personal firearms in the same manner as they have to do their commercial sales.
A C&R license requires the same (a special license allowing you to buy curio and relic / historic firearms more easily).
And yeah, I agree about the polarization of the gun debate. It drive this gun-owning liberal democrat crazy that there's no organization promoting the kind of legislation that I would like to see passed.
Y'all should just move to Canada. It's similar to the U.S., except we take things like "freedom" and "sensible governance" a bit more seriously (not much more seriously, but a bit.).
Just use the knife if you aren't a noobs! It's an instant kill with invincibility frames!
I love the argument of "why have laws, since criminals will just break the law anyway?" It's one of the weirdest arguments I can imagine for why we apparently should just live in total anarchy.
|Mr. Purple Cat Esq. |
Best bit for me is when he goes just look at 'Europe'
I was thinking - hows he going to spin this one?
In many EU countries guns are nigh impossible to obtain legally (unless your a farmer), police dont have them, and gun deaths are a tiny fraction of those in more permissive countries.
Have a look at the 1st two images here.
I've seen this question posted many times and no gun nut has ever answered it:
Even assuming that guns are an effective and necessary form of self defense, why would you need anything more than a double barrel shotgun or breech loading rifle for self defense and hunting?
At least with self-defense, the stock gun nut answer is that you might not be attacked by a single assailant. I tend to think that's insane though.
My argument would be that if you have a single shot weapon, to be 100% safe in that situation, you pretty much have to shoot to kill. I would rather not unless I have to, and so personally I would prefer something like a small caliber semi-auto handgun.
It's worth saying that I think self-defense is a batshit insane reason to own a gun. I also think that restricting the types of weapons people can own beyond current federal restrictions shows a profound ignorance of how guns work, how effective they are, and what types of weapons criminals prefer.
Because it's a ridiculous question.
I don't hunt, and I don't consider my guns self-defense objects (they're locked away, and rifles anyway). I enjoy safely punching holes in paper targets at the range. I have a couple historic firearms because I'm interested in military history.
I was giving leeway even saying that you need guns for self defense and hunting.
"Because they're fun and I'm a collector"? No, sorry. That is not good enough reason to keep them legal.
Feel free to author a constitutional amendment. Because until one passes, they will remain legal (subject to some restrictions).
How much do you value your freedom of speech? Isn't it enough that large corporations can publish newspapers? Do individuals really NEED the same freedom? ;)
The point of the above is that, whether you like it or not, gun ownership is a legal right in the United States. Subject to some restrictions, yes, but wishing a right away isn't going to get you anywhere.
I, and the supreme court, would disagree.
I've thought about it, and this dude's right. The best thing for everyone is to keep stocking our shelves full of guns and ammo. Yeah, that's got to be the best possible solution for everyone and their collective well being. There's just too many things to shoot. You know, like those thug teenagers. That'll teach 'em a lesson.
Wait no. I've just now stopped being a horrid ass. Fuck your guns. Let's melt them all down and make motorcycles out of 'em all. You bitches can start knife fighting for all I care. Guns are for terrified little shitstains.
Whining about the existence of something that will never go away makes you a retarded fucking shitstain.
|Binro the Heretic |
You want to know something? I DO want to take your guns away. I want to take your guns away just to watch you cry about your guns being taken away.
You fuckers always talk about how you NEED those guns to fight oppression, but we've been oppressed for decades and you chickenshit assholes have done fuck-all about it.
Seeing you freak out when your guns are taken away will amuse me.
You're just as cool as the kids who protest outside the abortion clinics with pictures of dead babies. SHOW 'EM HOW IT'S DONE!
^ the true retardation of gun freaks
Honestly as a gun-owning liberal Democrat I find the "take all the guns away!" and "why do you NEED guns" nonsense just as irritating as the "not a single step backwards!" and "you can take it from my cold dead hands" nonsense.
Reasonable, rational, and effective gun laws... I know, keep dreaming.
Yes, questioning the necessity of letting everyone own deadly weapons, what a load of irrational nonsense.
You still never answered the question: why do you NEED guns? Being a collector, target shooting, and scaring off hordes of imaginary attackers are not good enough reasons.
Oh my god, I missed your comment where you equate restricting gun ownership to the government, to free speech only applying to corporations.
It is impossible to debate with that level of stupidity. That there is exactly why "nut" is such an apt shorthand for you idiots.
I do agree with you though that striking down the 2nd amendment entirely would be better than limited restrictions. If you think public demand for guns is closel enough to that of booze and drugs to start another prohibition era, you are projecting.
Why do you think that you NEED 99% of the stuff you own? You don't own or do anything just because it's fun?
I already know that the response is: "but guns are DESIGNED only to kill!"
Well mine weren't. My AR-15 was designed specifically for competitive shooting. So were my handguns. And I don't see how the intent of the original designer matters at all anyway; these are inanimate objects.
Lots of things that we own aren't really necessary for survival and are dangerous when misused. I don't see why guns should have some special burden of proving a "need" to own one. They are fun as hell to shoot, and that is "need" enough even without specific constitutional protection.
Suppression of gun ownership in America is hopeless and would be likely ineffective.
You continue to miss the point, Nominal. Your question about why people "need" guns is completely irrelevant. Full stop. Just like our other constitutionally protected rights, we have the right to own firearms. The desire behind someone's choice to exercise that right is none of your business, provided they do so in a lawful and safe manner (which the overwhelming majority of gun owners do). That's what I was getting at with my comparison to the first amendment - why someone chooses to exercise their right is none of my business. The KKK may protest on the white house lawn just as you may, and protecting that right is more important than any desire to not hear a message we may disagree with.
Call me stupid if it makes you feel better.
It's not the Government's place to tell you that you can't own rocket launchers and C4? NOTHING should be illegal?
So far I've only seen two faces to the debate of keeping guns legal: Charles Bronson nuts and South Park "both sides are equally wrong" fence sitting objectivist horseshit.
I want to fight Gmork. With hands and feet and shit. Like men. I live in Philadelphia. Can we make this happen? It can be filmed and posted here, no matter the outcome.
Me, almost immediately after I posted this: "Fuck, I should have said I wasn't a bouncer."
Me, almost immediately after I posted this: "Fuck, I should learn how to reply."
Me, almost immediately after I posted this: "Fuck, I did reply, but NoScript fucked it up."
| Register or login To Post a Comment|