are you being an idiot or just too many beers?
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
are you being an idiot or just too many beers?
Americas 'deadliest sniper' died in a shoot out at a Texas shooting range. Poignant and tragically ironic. As the old saying goes - if you live by it, you die by it.
it would be nice if these guys simply died....fast.
Looks like he got shot in the back from a young veteran with mental problems. Nothing like giving a gun to a guy who's stressed out from war.
I'd heard on television that the fella ran a program for vets with PTSD. You'd have to think that's a bit of a dangerous combination to begin with. I can see where target shooting might be helpful but at the same time there are other activities that can give you a similar break from reality (by means of having you concentrate on some activity rather than whatever is bothering you).
I'm starting to think that ranges should make protective vests mandatory equipment. I'll bet a lot of folks wouldn't like that, either.
But isn't this what the whole gun debate is (or should be) about? There's so many mentally ill people in the US, kids on meds, violent sociopaths, soldiers coming back with PTSD, etc etc etc, so why on earth is the NRA trying to make it as easy as possible to get assault weapons??? Not even the world's greatest sniper at a fecking firing range can stop these psychos. And then they use the arguement that so many "bad guys" are armed, so the "good guys" have to be even more armed, and enabled to get them more freely. When will this vicious circle end? And then you have to follow the money. Who's making all this blood money from massive arms sales? Doh
It's hard to say, Criminals are already prohibited from posessing arms so I don't think it's much of a stretch, or indeed, violation of the constituion to extend such a prohibition to other "unfit" individuals but the law needs to be worded carefully so that the definition of "unfit" cannot be extended to just anyone.
When you get shot from behind there's usually very little you can do about it. Also, the range was apparently deserted. On a busy day anyone who points a gun anywhere but down range is in for a nasty surprise, usually (at least up here).
Assault weapons will be banned for a while, I'm sure. Provided the definition is applied to only those weapons with select fire capability, I'm sure there won't be much fuss kicked up. Those things are five figures anyway, not many people will be put out by removing them from the marketplace.
Who's making all the money?
Well for the most part it's Cerebrus Capital Managment...but no one can figure out if they are pro-gun or anti-gun.
Mandatory Banckground checks has to be a start.
As for the criminal elements, it would dry up new gun aquisitions through teh loopholes at gun shows for a start.
And these background checks will not prevent your avaerge person who wants to own a gun from owning one.
As for the criminal elements, it would dry up new gun aquisitions through teh loopholes at gun shows for a start.
And these background checks will not prevent your avaerge person who wants to own a gun from owning one.
Estimates of legal guns stolen vary between 230,000 and 500,000 per year yet we are also told that stolen guns only account for 10-15% of gun crime.
However you look at those figures it is scary. If the figures are true what happens to the 200,000+ stolen guns that supposedly aren't used in gun crime? And how are so many legal guns used for crime? Or is it so easy to get guns in some places/states/ways that legal is an almost meaningless definition that simply means "not stolen" in many instances?
However you look at those figures it is scary. If the figures are true what happens to the 200,000+ stolen guns that supposedly aren't used in gun crime? And how are so many legal guns used for crime? Or is it so easy to get guns in some places/states/ways that legal is an almost meaningless definition that simply means "not stolen" in many instances?
I agree, mandatory background checks should be implemented as soon as possible for they will serve an important role as initial key steps towards addressing the senseless loss of life that has resulted from increasingly rampant gun violence. The hypocrisy of the NRA leadership on this particular issue is quite ridiculous; they supported it fifteen years ago but now they seem to have somehow discovered a reason (an absurd excuse) to object to any gun control legislation with this crucial component from being sincerely considered. I don’t believe this measure would subject any law-abiding gun owner to unnecessary difficulty in exercising his/her constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. So, I’m hoping that at least the background check component of the gun-control proposals raised a few weeks ago after the Sandy Hook tragedy will be ratified by Congress in the near future.
way round is registration Wibbs. also what Dwayne has said many times. keeping guns under lock and key.
Wouldn't have helped that army guy who got killed yesterday.
Not that a proper registration system isn't a great idea of course. One that tracks every gun from manufacture to destruction and tracks the owners properly as well.
Not that a proper registration system isn't a great idea of course. One that tracks every gun from manufacture to destruction and tracks the owners properly as well.
got to start somewhere. 98% gun owners support background checks. This will happen.
To throw your hands up is to surrender. Stakes are too high.
The NRA is more dangerous than NAMBLA.
To throw your hands up is to surrender. Stakes are too high.
The NRA is more dangerous than NAMBLA.
Gun control debate on Bill Maher last Friday
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sam-harr...d-cory-booker-gun-nuts-have-many-good-points/
This Cory Booker dude sure is annoying. Completely overtaken by emotion and not able to debate the topic rationally. I don't agree with Harris on the assault rifles though. It may not be the root of the problem, and it may not have prevented Newtown (or any other massacres), but there's no denying that an assault rifle makes killing a lot of people easier and more effective, and there's no reason why a civilian should have the right to own such a rifle. But he's right that the feverish focus on assault rifles doesn't make much sense in the broader debate on gun control in the US.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sam-harr...d-cory-booker-gun-nuts-have-many-good-points/
This Cory Booker dude sure is annoying. Completely overtaken by emotion and not able to debate the topic rationally. I don't agree with Harris on the assault rifles though. It may not be the root of the problem, and it may not have prevented Newtown (or any other massacres), but there's no denying that an assault rifle makes killing a lot of people easier and more effective, and there's no reason why a civilian should have the right to own such a rifle. But he's right that the feverish focus on assault rifles doesn't make much sense in the broader debate on gun control in the US.
Corey Booker does tend to dominate the conversation and boil everything down to pragmatism and especially when it relates to the town he is mayor of which is fair enough but he doesn't half go on.
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/
The NRA once supported gun control
It may seem hard to believe, but for decades the organization helped write federal laws restricting gun use.
For nearly a century after, its founding in 1871, the National Rifle Association was among America’s foremost pro-gun control organizations. It was not until 1977 when the NRA that Americans know today emerged, after libertarians who equated owning a gun with the epitome of freedom and fomented widespread distrust against government—if not armed insurrection—emerged after staging a hostile leadership coup.
In the years since, an NRA that once encouraged better markmanship and reasonable gun control laws gave way to an advocacy organization and political force that saw more guns as the answer to society’s worst violence, whether arming commercial airline pilots after 9/11 or teachers after the Newtown, while opposing new restrictions on gun usage.
It is hard to believe that the NRA was committed to gun-control laws for most of the 20th century—helping to write most of the federal laws restricting gun use until the 1980s.
“Historically, the leadership of the NRA was more open-minded about gun control than someone familiar with the modern NRA might imagine,” wrote Adam Winkler, a Second Amendment scholar at U.C.L.A. Law School, in his 2011 book, Gunfight: The Battle Over The Right To Bear Arms In America. “The Second Amendment was not nearly as central to the NRA’s identity for most of the organization’s history” . . .
The NRA once supported gun control
It may seem hard to believe, but for decades the organization helped write federal laws restricting gun use.
For nearly a century after, its founding in 1871, the National Rifle Association was among America’s foremost pro-gun control organizations. It was not until 1977 when the NRA that Americans know today emerged, after libertarians who equated owning a gun with the epitome of freedom and fomented widespread distrust against government—if not armed insurrection—emerged after staging a hostile leadership coup.
In the years since, an NRA that once encouraged better markmanship and reasonable gun control laws gave way to an advocacy organization and political force that saw more guns as the answer to society’s worst violence, whether arming commercial airline pilots after 9/11 or teachers after the Newtown, while opposing new restrictions on gun usage.
It is hard to believe that the NRA was committed to gun-control laws for most of the 20th century—helping to write most of the federal laws restricting gun use until the 1980s.
“Historically, the leadership of the NRA was more open-minded about gun control than someone familiar with the modern NRA might imagine,” wrote Adam Winkler, a Second Amendment scholar at U.C.L.A. Law School, in his 2011 book, Gunfight: The Battle Over The Right To Bear Arms In America. “The Second Amendment was not nearly as central to the NRA’s identity for most of the organization’s history” . . .
once a Democrat supports something....move further right into the loony bin.....
another shooting , this time in Denver and reports that kids are also killed. 
http://news.sky.com/story/1048510/denver-shooting-children-among-dead
http://news.sky.com/story/1048510/denver-shooting-children-among-dead
From CNN, Breaking News: LAPD: Ex-cop has killed one officer, is suspect in slaying of two people. Manhunt under way.
Because he was under age and the fact he wouldnt pass the criminal background
Or because he's part of the diversity . . . and he wears a hoodie.
A few hundred pro-gun demonstrators rallied outside the Oregon state Capitol on Friday to protest efforts to enact gun safety laws. A handful of protesters also entered the Capitol building itself and brandished assault rifles and other guns in the Capitol rotunda . . . Oregon law permits persons with concealed carry permits to openly carry weapons within public buildings, so the armed demonstrators behaved lawfully provided they had valid permits while standing inside the Capitol.
That is making the assumption he needed to defend himself. If Martin was defending himself if he could pass all the requirements to own a handgun it might have saved his life. If he was the attacker then law did it's job keeping a gun out of his hand (assuming he wanted one).
Stupid tweet.
He did. From a bloke with a gun who followed him and eventually killed him with a gun.
Can we enact this law in Washington DC?
MPs used to be able to take swords into the House of Commons here in the UK. Imagine how hilarious it would be during PMQs, the opposition brandished a sword and a duel ensued... Great TV that, let's bring swords back into Parliament!
I may actually watch question time or whatever it is called if that was happening
The focus on assault rifles seems misplaced. As irritating as the gun advocates are with their "it just looks scary" spiel followed by pedantic tech trivia about grips and magazines, they do have a point. Legislating against a small subclass of guns is a fairly toothless approach, and I'm not sure it's worth spending political capital for this sort of minutiae. On top of that, the nuts get to hone their out-to-take-my-guns paranoia for legislation that doesn't even nibble at the problem. Fundamentally I'm all for anything that gets guns out of hands, but the minimal effect it would have doesn't warrant the political will it would require.
I've heard background checks being hailed as more than just damage control, which seems dangerous as well. It's certainly presumptive to imagine civic records are an adequate predictor of responsible gun ownership, though surely it would keep them out of at least some of the wrong hands. Still, they should not be seen as anything more than a plaster on a hemorrhage. Many will find it too easy to believe this will serve as a fix. So again, for me this effort is misdirected.
Wouldn't background checks also run towards the discriminatory? I can imagine all sorts of legal appeals (many of them legitimate) to the effect that the government is denying what is currently at least, a constitutional right to some citizens.
So I'd rather the focus shift away from the particular type of gun, or the type of person. Given the chance, I'd switch to trying to legislate the exercise of this right. For me, the catastrophic loss was ceding the right to carry a gun outside one's property. Surely there's a cleaner legislative path for governing possession of this and that on public, or someone else's property? Caught out of the hosue with a handgun and you're legally hammered. On top of that, it might serve to more fundamentally split the gun owners. Every gun owner I know has no interest in leaving their house with the damned thing, as it serves only as home protection. If the government can be seen to decently represent their interests, then perhaps they'll set themselves apart from the lunacy that is the NRA. They can spend chuck their lobbying dollars elsewhere, or even towards a more reasonable incarnation of an NRA.
Anyway, loads of problems with this as well obviously, but for me it creates a more productive, debatable and realistic focus.
I've heard background checks being hailed as more than just damage control, which seems dangerous as well. It's certainly presumptive to imagine civic records are an adequate predictor of responsible gun ownership, though surely it would keep them out of at least some of the wrong hands. Still, they should not be seen as anything more than a plaster on a hemorrhage. Many will find it too easy to believe this will serve as a fix. So again, for me this effort is misdirected.
Wouldn't background checks also run towards the discriminatory? I can imagine all sorts of legal appeals (many of them legitimate) to the effect that the government is denying what is currently at least, a constitutional right to some citizens.
So I'd rather the focus shift away from the particular type of gun, or the type of person. Given the chance, I'd switch to trying to legislate the exercise of this right. For me, the catastrophic loss was ceding the right to carry a gun outside one's property. Surely there's a cleaner legislative path for governing possession of this and that on public, or someone else's property? Caught out of the hosue with a handgun and you're legally hammered. On top of that, it might serve to more fundamentally split the gun owners. Every gun owner I know has no interest in leaving their house with the damned thing, as it serves only as home protection. If the government can be seen to decently represent their interests, then perhaps they'll set themselves apart from the lunacy that is the NRA. They can spend chuck their lobbying dollars elsewhere, or even towards a more reasonable incarnation of an NRA.
Anyway, loads of problems with this as well obviously, but for me it creates a more productive, debatable and realistic focus.
A few hundred pro-gun demonstrators rallied outside the Oregon state Capitol on Friday to protest efforts to enact gun safety laws. A handful of protesters also entered the Capitol building itself and brandished assault rifles and other guns in the Capitol rotunda . . . Oregon law permits persons with concealed carry permits to openly carry weapons within public buildings, so the armed demonstrators behaved lawfully provided they had valid permits while standing inside the Capitol.
It's nitwits like this that can make it humiliating to be an American and and Oregonian.
doing nothing is worse than doing something even if not all that is needed. Background checks is a good start.
Agreed, but political capital, especially on a topic like this, is finite. It needs to be spent wisely.
Anyway, I do agree that background checks are a public good. Just a very incomplete one that mustn't be mistaken for a solution.
Fuxake RD, I can't tell you how pissed off that picture makes me. It's like a game to these turds.
Given that we're stuck with the infernal things, don't you reckon re-framing the debate to attack the issue of off property possession makes good sense? It seems a legally cleaner approach, and more directly addresses the actual problems with this rampant gun ownership. There's a good bit of momentum at the moment, and I'd love to see some different, more relevant ideas than what's being kicked around at the moment. Legislating assault rifles...? That's window dressing. More likely harm than good given the exhausting politics to get anything passed or even considered.
Anyway, I do agree that background checks are a public good. Just a very incomplete one that mustn't be mistaken for a solution.
Fuxake RD, I can't tell you how pissed off that picture makes me. It's like a game to these turds.
Given that we're stuck with the infernal things, don't you reckon re-framing the debate to attack the issue of off property possession makes good sense? It seems a legally cleaner approach, and more directly addresses the actual problems with this rampant gun ownership. There's a good bit of momentum at the moment, and I'd love to see some different, more relevant ideas than what's being kicked around at the moment. Legislating assault rifles...? That's window dressing. More likely harm than good given the exhausting politics to get anything passed or even considered.
we cannot see over the hill. These things are very difficult. remember how much money the NRA has and is spending on their lies. Reasonable people should have no problem whatsover to own guns...even assault rifles. I mean there are a couple of posters on here...who like shooting them. as reasonable people you will ever meet.
There is 98% support for background checks. it will be the start.
I agree with the off property possession issue. these last killings were unfortunately guns people owned and had at home. We cannot address them all at once I suppose.
as for me this is an emotionally draining thing. to feel powerless...something has to happen..start somewhere. its a terrible mess we have in this country.
There is 98% support for background checks. it will be the start.
I agree with the off property possession issue. these last killings were unfortunately guns people owned and had at home. We cannot address them all at once I suppose.
as for me this is an emotionally draining thing. to feel powerless...something has to happen..start somewhere. its a terrible mess we have in this country.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/487/harper-high-school-part-one
Not really gun control but it's gun violence related and definitely worth a listen.
Not really gun control but it's gun violence related and definitely worth a listen.
We can't even control illegal drugs and they want to control guns, less guns doesn't mean less guns in the hands of the gangs just more expensive to get but with the money they get from drugs... will be interesting to find out why we have shootouts every single year after the 80's, we had guns back then and less laws but less shootouts.
This is just utter madness, guns should be locked away, not taken to a fecking Pizza place to get a few dollars of the price
http://news.sky.com/story/1054226/gun-owners-given-special-pizza-discount
http://news.sky.com/story/1054226/gun-owners-given-special-pizza-discount
Damn technology, just print the magazine size you want 
http://news.yahoo.com/welcome-age-printed-gun-magazine-110126651--abc-news-politics.html
http://news.yahoo.com/welcome-age-printed-gun-magazine-110126651--abc-news-politics.html
"Mr Laze said 80% of his customers have brought guns into the pizza shop"
fecking hell, I don't even bother carrying discount cards and crap like that because I hate trash in my wallet.
Las Vegas this time.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/21/us/nevada-las-vegas-deaths/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Someone in a SUV fires into a Maserati. The Maserati enters the intersection, causes a multi car crash. Taxi catches fire with driver and one passenger in it. 2 people in taxi and one in Maserati dead.
EDIT:
Turns out it was some unknown rapper
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/22/us/nevada-las-vegas-deaths/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/21/us/nevada-las-vegas-deaths/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Someone in a SUV fires into a Maserati. The Maserati enters the intersection, causes a multi car crash. Taxi catches fire with driver and one passenger in it. 2 people in taxi and one in Maserati dead.
EDIT:
Turns out it was some unknown rapper
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/22/us/nevada-las-vegas-deaths/index.html?hpt=hp_t2