(12-18-2012, 06:52 PM)Jimbone Wrote: Yes, we had a ban and it also didn't stop the killing. So what's the point then in another ban, as it didn't do what was intended the first time?

This next ban will have to be stiffer than the last one - since the last one didn't produce the desired outcome, right?

What is it again you were saying about a slippery slope?

My suggestion Jim, would be to go purchase as many semi-automatics and ammo, now, while you still can.

It's not too late to make your home a fortress.

Yet.

(12-18-2012, 06:52 PM)Jimbone Wrote: Yes, we had a ban and it also didn't stop the killing. So what's the point then in another ban, as it didn't do what was intended the first time?

This next ban will have to be stiffer than the last one - since the last one didn't produce the desired outcome, right?

What is it again you were saying about a slippery slope?

*sigh* We're never going to agree. I don't see why people need semi-automatic weapons and magazines that hold 30 plus bullets. If gun control doesn't work at all, what the hell, might as well lift the ban on automatic weapons too! Won't change anything, right? Throw in a scud missile or two while you're at it (although scuds are so yesterday).

Legalize crack too because making that illegal hasn't worked very well either.

(12-18-2012, 09:06 PM)username Wrote:

(12-18-2012, 06:52 PM)Jimbone Wrote: Yes, we had a ban and it also didn't stop the killing. So what's the point then in another ban, as it didn't do what was intended the first time?

This next ban will have to be stiffer than the last one - since the last one didn't produce the desired outcome, right?

What is it again you were saying about a slippery slope?

*sigh* We're never going to agree. I don't see why people need semi-automatic weapons and magazines that hold 30 plus bullets. If gun control doesn't work at all, what the hell, might as well lift the ban on automatic weapons too! Won't change anything, right? Throw in a scud missile or two while you're at it (although scuds are so yesterday).

Legalize crack too because making that illegal hasn't worked very well either.

Ah, but see now we can get somewhere. It's magazine capacity that is the bigger problem... and I would agree with that. I don't really see a purpose - other than for me, laziness and convenience at the range - for high capacity magazines. And personally, I find the lower quantity magazine are actually more reliable and don't jam as often. Here where I live you can't have magazines larger than 10 rounds anyway...

But as far as semi automatic firearms, well, they aren't going anywhere. That is the majority of what is manufactured and sold. There are very few single shot firearms around.

The one point you make is one of the most important ones though. Criminals and those who want to do bad things don't give a shit about the law. Whether it's crack, scuds, or Syrian chemical weapons.

And MS, don't be a douche nozzle. You know what my argument is and how I am approaching it. So thanks anyway, but I have no intention of making my house a fortress.

In other countries they feel very unsafe coming to America, what with every family commiting murder and mayhem with their guns it seems like a very unsafe place right?

On the gun thing. My husband owns guns, I have never even fired one. This letter appeared in my local paper this morning:
**I have been a gun owner for over 30 years, and I enjoy target shooting and have weapons for home/self protection. I believe in the right to own guns, but as far as assault weapons there is absolutely no reason for private citizens to have one.

No one needs a 30- or 40-round (or more) magazine to go deer hunting, or to protect your home or property. Only military or police units should have them.

Current assault weapon owners will try to say that they have the “right” to have them for target shooting, but most (if not all) gun clubs frown on their use at the range. Get these high-capacity weapons off the market and out of the hands of people like the shooter in Newtown, Conn. It may not stop things like that from happening, but at least it is a small first step, instead of trying to come up with an instant gun control solution.
J. J. MATE JR
***

I also saw an thing on the news where one gun owner they interviewed said "I should not be forbidden from owning an assalt weapon because some idiot choses to shoot up a school with one".
The guy went on to say he needs it for hunting, target practic and protection. Now, last I checked, the only thing you can hunt with an assault rifle is a person!!
When the 2^nd amendment was written, the most dangerous weapon was the musket..which took a minute or so to reload. I am not sure they were even considering where weapons would be today.
I think the majority of folks are saying they want one simply because they can..and for no other reason.

(12-18-2012, 05:35 PM)Jimbone Wrote: Everyone here is smart enough to know that after the AR-15, the high capacity magazines, and anything else deemed 'assaulty' gets banned another crazy fucker is going to do this again right?

Most likely, but as time passes, I truly believe these incidents would diminish.

Then there will be calls to ban more... and then ban more... until your liberty has been whittled away to nothing. Where is the greater movement towards personal responsibility and the causes or treatment of the mentally ill? Or even a deeper introspection as to where we are as a society in general?

THAT IS MY POINT.

My point is that everything you've pointed out is a separate issue, and needs to be solved independently of each other. Yes, they all need attention.

Banning shit isn't going to bring those kids back, and it's not going to prevent another asshole from killing more people. But I'm glad it will make everyone feel so much fucking safer and better about themselves.

Unfortunately, this is the typical response from gun advocates. A lot of anger, denial and not offering up any real solutions. They're just certain that the guns themselves are NOT the problem.

I guess I have to be done here as well. There's no point in trying to instill the concept of liberty into people who would voluntarily give pieces of it up on sheer emotion.

Did you serve? Please don't refer to me as someone who does or doesn't understand freedom and liberty. That's a bullshit argument. We've given up freedom and liberty when we get on airplanes after 9/11. Changes can be made to try and ensure events don't repeat themselves.

And MS, don't be a douche nozzle. You know what my argument is and how I am approaching it. So thanks anyway, but I have no intention of making my house a fortress.

Why not? Aren't you afraid of all the criminals out there? I mean that's the reason people need these particular weapons, right?

(12-18-2012, 10:00 PM)Maggot Wrote: In other countries they feel very unsafe coming to America, what with every family commiting murder and mayhem with their guns it seems like a very unsafe place right?

Are you advocating that we allow this country to sink to the depths of the places immigrants are escaping from?


Look, I know that Jim and Maggot are decent guys. We disagree on this issue.

I feel as strongly on my side as they do on their side.

However, I don't think this debate will get swept under the rug this time.

Obama sets January deadline for gun policy proposals

WASHINGTON — Spurred by a horrific elementary school shooting, President Barack Obama tasked his administration Wednesday with creating concrete proposals to reduce the gun violence that has plagued the country.

"This time, the words need to lead to action," said Obama, who set a January deadline for the recommendations. He tasked Vice President Joe Biden with leading the effort and vowed to push for implementation of the policy proposals without delay.

The president, who exerted little political capital on gun control despite a series of mass shootings in his first term, bristled at suggestions that he had been silent on the issue during his first four years in office. But he acknowledged that Friday's deadly shooting had been "a wake-up call for all of us."

Full story:
http://news.msn.com/politics/obama-taps-...task-force

I just saw a stat that said three hundred million guns are owned by American citizens.

It's going to be at least a bajillion more than that after I get done with the fortress.

You're not the only one. My evening news did a story on recent gun purchases, they have skyrocketed around here.

I was kidding of course about the fortress.

Not surprising gun sales are booming. They typically do after these incidents... but given this event and the likelihood of some new restrictions, people are trying to make sure they get in before restrictions are passed.

(12-19-2012, 02:41 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Obama sets January deadline for gun policy proposals

The Government still has no clue where the assault weapons are that were sold to a Mexican drug cartel & subsequently used on one of the boarder agents....yet they want to set a deadline for gun policy proposals.....I guess they don't want to clean up old messes before creating new ones.

(12-18-2012, 02:05 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Hair, to me gun control and addressing mental health issues are two separate issues.

Regulating the sale, use and ownership of guns is "gun control".
Those with documented mental illnesses cannot purchase a gun; it's part of "gun control" already. That regulation is not keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally/emotionally unstable in some cases because so many are not treated or documented as "mentally ill". Imo, it's an integral part of the gun control discussion, when it comes to school spree killing especially.

Extending the background check criteria might help keep guns out of reach of the unstable, but should their family members be denied protection or their rights because of another's instability? Would it even make a difference since so many mental illnesses are undocumented? I've volleyed this one around in my mind and ultimately think that attempting to regulate gun ownership qualifications further beyond the purchaser him or herself would likely just add more cost and delay to the ownership process without any real benefit (and could be an infringement on some people's rights). JMO.

Midwest Spy Wrote:'What's the need for semi-automatic weapons in our society?'

You attempted (above) to address it and I thank you. You basically said it's 'the idea that a home-owner will want to have them because they want to be as well-armed as criminals entering their home.'

I'm not going to diminish your opinion, but I will respectfully disagree.

I didn't attempt to address it. It's not my opinion that homeowners need assault weapons for adequate self defense; it was clearly labeled as a re-iteration of an opinion expressed by others that I simply understood.

FTR, I don't think homeowners need assault weapons for home protection, but I don't care if they have them if they are legally owned, kept out of reach of children, and not accessible via the qualified owners to any criminals or mentally unstable/violent individuals. That last part is very hard to ensure and that's a big problem for me, as previously stated.

(12-20-2012, 06:23 AM)cannongal Wrote:

(12-19-2012, 02:41 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Obama sets January deadline for gun policy proposals

The Government still has no clue where the assault weapons are that were sold to a Mexican drug cartel & subsequently used on one of the boarder agents....yet they want to set a deadline for gun policy proposals.....I guess they don't want to clean up old messes before creating new ones.

I agree, cannongal, that Fast & Furious was a mess of an operation, the death of Terry was a terrible tragedy, and Obama and Holder are lucky that they've got executive privilege to keep more of the details (and thus continued focus/discussion) under wraps. IMO.

But, none of that suggests that the President should not hear proposals about reducing gun violence by January, imo. If anything, F&F could be used to support the argument for stricter gun control.

Hearing new proposals on how to resolve a serious problem is never a bad thing, imo. I am not currently for or against stricter gun controls insomuch as they will probably be limited to assault-type weapons and/or high capacity magazines. If there weren't already so many of those types of guns out there, I'd be more inclined to jump off of the fence and advocate for stricter control of them specifically.

Imo, new restrictions/increased controls might help reduce fatalities from gun violence in some cases, but I don't believe that they will address the root of the problem or will make a significant impact in the short term, based only on what I know now (I hope that I'm wrong about that). Maybe there will be a proposal submitted by January that increases my optimism; doubt it, but it could happen.

HOTD...define "assault weapons"

(12-20-2012, 08:14 AM)thekid65 Wrote: HOTD...define "assault weapons"

Hi Kid,

I'm not gonna ask what you're doing up so early. I wish that I wasn't.

I've been using "assault-type" weapons all along to avoid terminology debates when that's not the real issue. I've seen enough of that shit from both sides of the fence in the press.

"Assault" weapons is what I'm mostly seeing used in the press and by those advocating stricter gun control.

"Semi-Automatic" is what I'm sometimes seeing in the press and by those against stricter gun control.

"Assault-type" is what you're reading by a poster who doesn't think the terminology should be a means by which to divert the issues, but is recognizable as a semi-automatic weapon referred to as an assault weapon in the press.

And, yes, I know that Automatic weapons are banned.

I'm no expert on guns. So, if you wanna give me your input, Kid, I'm all ears.

(12-20-2012, 08:06 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: But, none of that suggests that the President should not hear proposals about reducing gun violence by January, imo. If anything, F&F could be used to support the argument for stricter gun control.

Hearing new proposals on how to resolve a serious problem is never a bad thing, imo. I am not currently for or against stricter gun controls insomuch as they will probably be limited to assault-type weapons and/or high capacity magazines. If there weren't already so many of those types of guns out there, I'd be more inclined to jump off of the fence and advocate for stricter control of them specifically.

My point wasn't about the proposal itself. I have nothing against the Gov't hearing proposals. I'm sad that it takes the loss of twenty 6 to 7 year olds to wake people up.

Where was the Prez back in July during the Aurora Massacre? A Semi-Automatic was used in that, too. Besides Colorado & Newton, there were 2 other mass murders using a semi & no one said boo.

(12-20-2012, 08:52 AM)cannongal Wrote:

(12-20-2012, 08:06 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: But, none of that suggests that the President should not hear proposals about reducing gun violence by January, imo. If anything, F&F could be used to support the argument for stricter gun control.

Hearing new proposals on how to resolve a serious problem is never a bad thing, imo. I am not currently for or against stricter gun controls insomuch as they will probably be limited to assault-type weapons and/or high capacity magazines. If there weren't already so many of those types of guns out there, I'd be more inclined to jump off of the fence and advocate for stricter control of them specifically.

My point wasn't about the proposal itself. I have nothing against the Gov't hearing proposals. I'm sad that it takes the loss of twenty 6 to 7 year olds to wake people up.

Where was the Prez back in July during the Aurora Massacre? A Semi-Automatic was used in that, too. Besides Colorado & Newton, there were 2 other mass murders using a semi & no one said boo.

I hear ya.

Actually, it is my understanding that Feinstein drafted her proposal for stricter gun control after the Aurora shootings. If I understand correctly, that is what is being used as the baseline to propose new laws that she will be presenting to the new-term Congress.

But, it wouldn't surprise me if gun control considerations had been intentionally put on the back-burner until after election; ¹⁄₃ of US households own guns. That's a lot of voters. The horror of the Connecticut elementary school killings presents the perfect catalyst at the perfect time for gun control advocates within the administration.

(12-20-2012, 08:29 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Hi Kid,

I'm not gonna ask what you're doing up so early. I wish that I wasn't.

I've been using "assault-type" weapons all along to avoid terminology debates when that's not the real issue. I've seen enough of that shit from both sides of the fence in the press.

"Assault" weapons is what I'm mostly seeing used in the press and by those advocating stricter gun control.

"Semi-Automatic" is what I'm sometimes seeing in the press and by those against stricter gun control.

"Assault-type" is what you're reading by a poster who doesn't think the terminology should be a means by which to divert the issues, but is recognizable as a semi-automatic weapon referred to as an assault weapon in the press.

And, yes, I know that Automatic weapons are banned.

I'm no expert on guns. So, if you wanna give me your input, Kid, I'm all ears.

I'm always up early, pay attention! And actually, I start a 10 day vacation from work today, so I'll probably participate a bit more in this neck of the woods. The reason I ask about the definition, is that I've been bickering with some dumbfucks on Facewank that seem to think that lifting the "assault weapon" ban in 04 contributed to this, and they want to see it re-instating thinking that it will help solve the problem. The ban was a complete joke, at best. And these guys have absolutely no clue. They got a bit quiet when I pointed out that Columbine, and the Jonesboro shootings happened during the ban period, and that the Tec-9 used in Columbine was actually a DC version specifically made for California which had stricter gun control laws.

So noted and banked: Kid is an early riser!!!!!

I'm only up this early when business mandates it; I love to sleep in.

Anyway, sounds like a frustratingly funny Facewank exchange. I keep my face outta that wanky world.

Lucky man regarding the vacation. Hope you get a chance to do some road traveling and use one of your Christmas gifts (you can claim it early), unless you're planning on re-gifting instead.