Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Grizzly Willy]

Going to post this on its own, even though I had it as an edit to my post on the previous page.
Regarding the National Institution of Justice figure given by Bytch:
I should point out this quote:

The NSPOF based estimate of millions of DGUs [Defensive Gun Uses] each year greatly exaggerates the true number

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

[Priestiality]

Who said anything about going to jail?

I said you weren't protected by the first amendment, as you claimed. Thanks for playing.

I should have guessed satire was beyond your intellectual capabilities for understanding.

Again, my claiming of the First Amendment was sarcasm.



sar·casm (särkzm)
n.
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3. The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.
[Late Latin sarcasmus, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein, to bite the lips in rage, from sarx, sark-, flesh.]
sarcasm [ˈsɑːkæzəm]
n
1. mocking, contemptuous, or ironic language intended to convey scorn or insult
2. the use or tone of such language
[from Late Latin sarcasmus, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to rend the flesh, from sarx flesh]

Infracted: Please refrain from calling people intellectually incapable of "x". In addition, please refrain from pulling definitions of words everyone understands out of dictionaries just to mock them.

[Wells]

So no hand guns will be banned if this passes?

Again, calling a ban based on magazine size a hand gun ban when it doesn't determine bans based on whether its a hand gun or not and handguns will still be readily available after the ban passes is pretty stupid.

[Bytch]

Why are fully-automatic AR-15s with 30-round magazines and hollow-point bullets called ‘personal defense’ weapons when the Department of Homeland Security purchases them, but semi-auto AR-15s are assault rifles in the hands of citizens? DHS bid for 7,000 FULLY automatic rifles.

DHS admits AR-15 with 30-round magazine is “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters”

By the way, the DHS is only authorized to work within the U.S. borders, so who do they plan to use these weapons on?

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&m...=core&_cview=0

[Priestiality]

Why are fully-automatic AR-15s with 30-round magazines and hollow-point bullets called ‘personal defense’ weapons when the Department of Homeland Security purchases them, but semi-auto AR-15s are assault rifles in the hands of citizens? DHS bid for 7,000 FULLY automatic rifles.

By the way, the DHS is only authorized to work within the U.S. borders, so who do they plan to use these weapons on?

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&m...=core&_cview=0

More infowars shit... And yes, I'm aware that FBO is used as a site for vendors to bid on government contracts. You forgot to link the purchase order for the 1.6billion rounds of .223 ammo, or the subsequent order of 200000 more rounds of .223 ammo. Alex would be disappointed.

[Bytch]

More infowars shit... And yes, I'm aware that FBO is used as a site for vendors to bid on government contracts. You forgot to link the purchase order for the 1.6billion rounds of .223 ammo, or the subsequent order of 200000 more rounds of .223 ammo. Alex would be disappointed.

I had no idea who Alex Jones was until some1 said something about him earlier. i have yet to check into him. But it seems like he might be a good guy. Since all of you know his credentials.

[ShaggySweetness]

Yes, I have implied it so strongly... which is why I have stated repeatedly that I do not support repealing the 2nd amendment, and have never given any indication that I do so besides pointing out some of the horrendous faults in logic that some pro-gun advocates implement in their arguments. Faulty logic is faulty regardless of its ultimate objective.

The same is easily said for both sides.

[Priestiality]

I had no idea who Alex Jones was until some1 said something about him earlier. i have yet to check into him. But it seems like he might be a good guy. Since all of you know his credentials.

Ok seriously, we know you're lying. How? You continue to link to affiliate sites and cite the same sources using the same arguments from articles on his site, but you seem to think as long as you don't link to it directly we won't catch on.

[ShaggySweetness]

Going to post this on its own, even though I had it as an edit to my post on the previous page.
Regarding the National Institution of Justice figure given by Bytch:
I should point out this quote:


https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

I highly doubt the number is correct, as many people who successfuly defend themselves with their weapons may not report it.

[Grizzly Willy]

The same is easily said for both sides.

I don't understand what the point of this is. Saying that the it's fine when you do it, just because the other guys do it, doesn't make it O.K. for you to do it.

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 07:29 PM ----------

I highly doubt the number is correct, as many people who successfuly defend themselves with their weapons may not report it.

In which case the use of the 2 million mark is tossed out the window because it's unverifiable.

[Deleted]

I have a REALLY huge issue with that section. Could you define it please? I'm really tired of people using it with zero clarification as to what they are implying.

What's so hard to understand?

There are hundreds of millions of firearms in the U.S. Are you seriously naive enough to suggest that the availability of firearms in the US isn't going to affect how readily available they are to criminals? Especially when they aren't sufficiently secured?

[Kasierith]

What's so hard to understand?

There are hundreds of millions of firearms in the U.S. Are you seriously naive enough to suggest that the availability of firearms in the US isn't going to affect how readily available they are to criminals? Especially when they aren't sufficiently secured?

From the source that Grokan provided:

"About 211,000 handguns and 382,000 long guns were stolen in noncommercial thefts in 1994."

[Cthulhu 2020]

Fused were you seriously dropped on your head as a child. If you think CNN is neutral and Piers is saying the truth you just lost what very little bit of respect i had for you.

CNN is neutral, it may not be to your view points though. Middle of the road neutral appears left biased if your view of the world is firmly grounded in the delusions fed to you by Fox News.

[smelltheglove]

There's 3 "types" of sellers at a gunshow;
1) licensed dealers, bound to all the same background check laws as if they sell in a store.
2) private individuals selling personal firearms, most states don't require you to do a background check when you sell a firearm you own, whether in your house or at a gunshow.
3) "private dealers" are folks that buy guns and resell them for profit. They are breaking the law by doing so, ATF knows who they are, if there are any still around. Around here, they were all shut down years ago.

The "gun show loophole" is mostly anti-gun types trying to make it seem like all of #2 is actually #3, while ignoring #1 being at the show at all. If they want to regulate private sales, the system would need to apply to any avenue of such, not just gun-shows.

Currently, there is no way for a private person to run a background check on a buyer, unless they want to "run it through a dealer" which is a voluntary process of the dealer (and would charge for it).

As part of a licensed dealer, it was always hilarious when the news would run a thing saying "there's no background checks at gunshows, you can just buy and walk!" and then the people would get mad at us when we explained that the news was wrong, and stupid, and they did have to wait. They'd still buy the gun, wait the wait, get the background check and grumble the entire time.

thank you for the answer. in your opinion, based on your experience, do we need better regulation on gun shows? how serious do you feel the issue of 2 and 3 overall, and what solution would you suggest (if you felt it should be addressed to whatever degree)?

[Tinykong]

I should have guessed satire was beyond your intellectual capabilities for understanding.

And it's my First Amendment right to call you unstable. Thanks for playing.

Doesn't sound like satire or sarcasm to me. Especially not considering the context in which you were talking, since you called him unstable over his comment about taking a chain saw to a lawyers face, which he claimed was protected speeh.

Keep on moving those goal posts, pretty soon you'll be in another reality.

[Priestiality]

Doesn't sound like satire or sarcasm to me. Especially not considering the context in which you were talking, since you called him unstable over his comment about taking a chain saw to a lawyers face, which he claimed was protected speeh.

Keep on moving those goal posts, pretty soon you'll be in another reality.

To reiterate: sar·casm (särkzm)
n.
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3. The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.
[Late Latin sarcasmus, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein, to bite the lips in rage, from sarx, sark-, flesh.]
sarcasm [ˈsɑːkæzəm]
n
1. mocking, contemptuous, or ironic language intended to convey scorn or insult
2. the use or tone of such language
[from Late Latin sarcasmus, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to rend the flesh, from sarx flesh]

Just because you can't understand sarcasm, doesn't mean no one else can either.

I guess I'll spell it out for you: She claimed First Amendment protection, it doesn't apply. Knowing that it didn't apply to my statement either, I utilized the exact same faulty logic to point out that in using said faulty logic, I could absolve myself as well. Like I said, two wrongs don't make a right, but occasionally DO make excellent satire.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Just because you can't understand sarcasm, doesn't mean no one else can either.

Ah the good old "My humor and sarcasm is too advanced and sophisticated for these nincompoops to understand so I'm going to belittle them because I just made an ass of myself but was only j/k!"

Reminds me a lot of this.

[Bytch]

CNN is neutral, it may not be to your view points though. Middle of the road neutral appears left biased if your view of the world is firmly grounded in the delusions fed to you by Fox News.

CNN neutral?!?!?...bwhaaaa. I TRY not to watch any MSM. But there are times i do, when family members are watching it. But NONE of them on any network, that I've found are neutral. But there is one person I do like. Judge Andrew Napolitano

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 08:45 PM ----------

Ok seriously, we know you're lying. How? You continue to link to affiliate sites and cite the same sources using the same arguments from articles on his site, but you seem to think as long as you don't link to it directly we won't catch on.

You do realize most of the real journalists are saying the same thing? Its not just one person.

[Priestiality]

CNN neutral?!?!?...bwhaaaa. I TRY not to watch any MSM. But there are times i do, when family members are watching it. But NONE of them on any network, that I've found are neutral. But there is one person I do like. Judge Andrew Napolitano

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 08:45 PM ----------




You do realize most of the real journalists are saying the same thing? Its not just one person.

You do realize the people you call real journalists are just bloggers reposting from other bloggers? It's not just one blogger.

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 08:47 PM ----------

Ah the good old "My humor and sarcasm is too advanced and sophisticated for these nincompoops to understand so I'm going to belittle them because I just made an ass of myself but was only j/k!"

Reminds me a lot of this.

I like how you conveniently leave out the literal explanation of it. Carry on.

[Nadev]

CNN is neutral, it may not be to your view points though. Middle of the road neutral appears left biased if your view of the world is firmly grounded in the delusions fed to you by Fox News.

I agree with what someone said earlier in the thread: CNN isn't neutral; it puts out left and right biased articles in an effort to be seen as such.

That and the fact that they're more and more like a celebrity tabloid.