Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[GreatOak]

Do you back the things he said then?

You don't really need to agree with a video in order to post it. I'm sure Fused does though.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Not entirely. I agree with part of his message but not all of the points that he is bringing across. Obviously I want people to watch the video and judge for themselves rather then distract what I think personally. While I am deeply flattered their is a profound interest in what I believe personally. I don't want them to be tainted with pre judging the video.

Instead of that. I ask them to forum their own points of view.

So back to what Spectral said: Political Rhetoric is lame.

[Laize]

With all due respect. It's factually incorrect to say the Republicans never blocked ATF Director confirmation. This isn't about the money that Obama used in Washington or about the budget. It's about a desire to enforce the current laws on the books. You cannot do that by blocking that agency from having an active director to enforce these laws.

From Article.

“They have had nothing but acting directors. Do you wonder why some things would go wrong there?” John Killorin, a retired special agent from Atlanta and president of the ATF Association, told the Los Angeles Times. “This is a major law enforcement agency, and they need a confirmed director with the full responsibility and authority to run it.”

President Barack Obama’s nominee, ATF special agent Andrew Traver, has yet to have a Senate hearing.

Before Traver there was President George W. Bush’s choice, Michael J. Sullivan, a well-regarded U.S. attorney—and ally of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft—who was denied confirmation by Idaho GOP Senators Larry Craig and Michael Crapo, who sided with gun dealers in opposing the ATF nominee.

http://www.allgov.com/news/appointme...ee?news=843263

There's a good reason Traver has not gotten a hearing and why, even if he were appointed during recess (Which, btw, Obama has had five chances to do so far if he really cared about it... so don't just go blaming Congress) he wouldn't be confirmed.

Traver is about as anti-gun as you can get. He would push an agenda that favored banning guns and, as the head of the ATFE, he would have the political clout to do it on a level even the NRA would have a hard time fighting.

I have no doubt that he, unlike past ATFE directors, would obscure the fact that almost all weapons built over the last 100 years have been semi-automatic or how difficult it is to convert semi-automatic to full auto.

Rather than simply enforce existing legislation, he'd campaign for new legislation... and of that I have no doubt.

So yes, I would prefer the ATFE stay headless than have Andrew Traver at the helm.

[FusedMass]

You don't really need to agree with a video in order to post it. I'm sure Fused does though.

That's nice people in general don't need to agree with a video in order to post it.

Of course you make the giant exception in my case. Great way add in that extra sentence in rather. Rather then distract yourselves with what I think. Just watch the video. Again I don't reply to snide comments but I wanted point out you do agree with people posting videos even if they don't generally agree with everything expect in my case of course

Naturally.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

You don't really need to agree with a video in order to post it. I'm sure Fused does though.

What would be the point in posting a video you agree nor disagree with? I agree, I think she agreed with every word of it, but in one of her other posts she claimed she didn't so she didn't need to defend it.

[PhaelixWW]

Embrace the idea of a law to keep your weapon more secure like in a locked safe. It such a law was passed then this wouldn't be a problem. It shows that guns are too easy to access.

Conclusions can't be drawn from this case until all the facts are in.

At a brief news conference, however, Coweta Police Lt. Donnie Krumsiek offered few details, except to say that "no firearms were discharged in the buildling." He did not elaborate. [source]

So... still lots of unanswered questions.

To poster above me. You cannot just quote something out of context from a week ago and expect me remember EXACTLY where I left off. You should follow up with a question so I know just what you're talking about.

That's why there's this little button next to the "Originally Posted by FusedMass" that pulls up the original post with all its context.

Buuut, you'll never know that because you're ignoring me, eh?

As the poll stands right now more then half of the people agree with banning the assault weapon.

For the third time, it's "less than half", not "more than half". But I guess attention to detail isn't FusedMass' strong point.

Edit: Hoist by my own petard, here. In my haste, I brain-farted and read "more than half" and instead thought of the previous "more than twice as many". So in this instance, my attention to detail was lacking.

[GreatOak]

That's nice people in general don't need to agree with a video in order to post it.

Of course you make the giant exception in my case. Great way add in that extra sentence in rather. Rather then distract yourselves with what I think. Just watch the video. Again I don't reply to snide comments but I wanted point out you do agree with people posting videos even if they don't generally agree with everything expect in my case of course

Naturally.

Your post history makes it clear you support the President's plans, or did you just discover this yourself?

[FusedMass]

Your post history makes it clear you support the President's plans, or did you just discover this yourself?

What are the President's Plan. Please describe them to me in detail. So I know exactly what I am supposed be supporting. And that sentence wasn't part of any of his plans. That was part of his speech. There IS a difference.

Since you know better then I.

[Laize]

Piers shoots guns lol

What a twat.

"Who needs one of these?"

Wrong question to be asking, douchebag.

[Spectral]

Yes it does. I said I'm quoting two lines taken from his speech. It's taken out of context unless you listen to the rest of it to the following of to the bigger picture. If you want the full picture watch the full video. It's that simple.

If there's not actually an acknowledgement of the cost of any measures, then my comments hold.

edit - To be clear, since every fucking thing in this thread seems to be taken personally, my intention was to reply to Obama's statements not to say, "Hey Fused, defend those comments you didn't make!".

[Arkie]

As much as I would love for this to circle around people's mind solely. Reporting on gun violence is not equal to trying to change your mind. There are people outside of you that simply lurk and watch the threads that may be interested in knowing these type of things. I never said I wanted to convince you otherwise. I'm simply reporting on violent deaths related to guns.

It's possible I feel bad for the victim and wanted to share the story. That's the thing. I do care when a person does related to guns even if I don't know them personally. It's this great compassion I have and my motivation. As much as I would like this to circle around you personally. It's even bigger then that.

To poster above me. You cannot just quote something out of context from a week ago and expect me remember EXACTLY where I left off. You should follow up with a question so I know just what you're talking about.

Sure you have an anti-gun agenda or you wouldn't have spent the last week or two staying on this topic and yes you would like to change our minds to your way of thinking. We get that you claim to feel compassion for victims so again, give it a rest and quit arguing with the rest of us who treasure our second amendment rights. And while you claim innocent on getting snarky with others you did so in reply to what I said. Give it a rest and go do something productive with yourself rather than troll a forum constantly for weeks at a time. In all that time you have said absolutely nothing to change our right to own minds. And yes, I personally own two AR-15's. One Sp-1 and one custom made with accuracy and long distance shooting in mind which it does quite well. How much do you really personally know of firearms and ammunition? Not what you've read or youtubed but honestly know because you grew up shooting and hunting and learned to reload your own ammo?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

If there's not actually an acknowledgement of the cost of any measures, then my comments hold.

edit - To be clear, since every fucking thing in this thread seems to be taken personally, my intention was to reply to Obama's statements not to say, "Hey Fused, defend those comments you didn't make!".

I don't think she understands the difference between a personal attack, and attacking an argument/side/debate point/etc.

[Spectral]

Sure you have an anti-gun agenda or you wouldn't have spent the last week or two staying on this topic and yes you would like to change our minds to your way of thinking. We get that you claim to feel compassion for victims so again, give it a rest and quit arguing with the rest of us who treasure our second amendment rights.

I can see no good reason to tell Fused to "give it a rest". I mean, I personally don't have the desire to argue this thread more than about once every few days, but more power to anyone that does. I'm sure not going to tell someone what they should or shouldn't advocate, particularly when they're doing so in a space that's an entirely appropriate forum to it, and not cluttering that forum a bit. I really don't see the problem. Trying to change people's minds is a good thing.

[FusedMass]

I can see no good reason to tell Fused to "give it a rest". I mean, I personally don't have the desire to argue this thread more than about once every few days, but more power to anyone that does. I'm sure not going to tell someone what they should or shouldn't advocate, particularly when they're doing so in a space that's an entirely appropriate forum to it, and not cluttering that forum a bit. I really don't see the problem. Trying to change people's minds is a good thing.

Thank you. In a world reaction of hostile reactions to every word I say being taken personally as if I'm insulting their grandmother and trying to sell their ashes. It's comfort that some people do not take things personally or scream at someone every time they post. Since this thread has grown their has been a ton of violent reaction when I always tried to take comfort that I never freaked out and lost my cool. That might be nicest thing anyone said to me all day.

At least in this thread.

[mistuhbull]

Your rapid obsession with thinking me not answering question is growing tiresome. GreatOak posted a video. I posted a video. I decided to quote two sentences from that video. I never said I fully endorsed it. I never said It wasn't talking points. I never said anything. I just linked a video. Do you look at GreatOak video because he didn't quote anything directly from that video that means it's fine.

You're taking it as if I wrote the speech personally. I don't have to defend it. Because it's not MINE speech. If it was my words and my argument. Then you could do so. But it's not. It's President Obama. I didn't write his speech and here's obviously not here to defend his video. If I knew the person behind his speech then I could get in touch with him and you two could talk.

You do understand I am quoting it. Is not the same as I am personally saying it coming from it. That means you cannot directly attack it that I have to defend it. Because it's not my words. It's the President of the United States. I don't know how much clear I can make that. If I wrote the speech. I'd be more then happy to defend it. Because I didn't. I don't have to.

My rapid obsession? Please do elaborate on this rapid obsession. All I was doing is pointing out how your response to Spectral's post did not actually respond to it. I honestly don't give two shakes of a rat's ass wether it's your belief or not, I do care that posts are actually relevant to discussion and actually address what the poster you quoted posted. (yes, I do see the irony in that statement).

[Wells]

What a twat.

"Who needs one of these?"

Wrong question to be asking, douchebag.

Really?

Because I think asking why someone might need an automatic weapon is a pretty fair question.

[Aurondarklord]

I don't mind the idea of gun control in principle, but I believe we should focus on measures designed to keep all types of guns out of the hands of some people, not to keep some types of guns out of the hands of all people. I think we have enough rules about what type of gun you can own. We've got all the basic common sense stuff, you can't have a full auto gun, or grenades and rocket launchers, or a flamethrower or any kind of military hardware like that. Beyond that, I think an assault weapons ban is largely semantic, a law you put on the books to show the public the government is doing something, not one that'll get real results. I mean, what does an assault weapons ban restrict, really? you can't have a folding stock, or a barrel below a certain length, or certain types of grip, etc. Will that really do any good? I doubt it, a maniac will just saw off the stock and barrel if he has to, he's not gonna cancel his rampage because his weapon is clunky. The only part of that I see as making any sense is limiting clip size, but even there, that matters a lot more in soldier vs soldier firefights than some loon massacring the defenseless. The screaming 6 year olds were not gonna tackle Adam Lanza and wrestle away his weapon while he changed mags. So mostly, I think these kinds of ban serve to inconvenience the legitimate gun owner. I don't know why such a person would want an AR-15, maybe he just has a hard on for something that looks military, but as long as it's not automatic, I don't see the problem. It's his business what his gun looks like, and denying it to him won't stop crazy people from going on rampages. We know this from history, we've already HAD an assault weapons ban once, it didn't work. Columbine and a whole rash of school shootings happened DURING the ban, the shooters either got assault weapons illegally anyway, or were perfectly able to kill tons of people without them.

Instead of banning specific types of guns that have pedantic or near-arbitrary differences from other guns that can largely be summed up as "they look scarier", let's focus on laws designed to improve our mental healthcare system, and properly screen people who want to buy guns or apply for gun-related permits, to make sure we aren't giving guns of ANY kind to nutcases. I think that'll both work better, and not walk all over the rights of law abiding citizens in the process.

[GreatOak]

Is it bad that I laughed at the top comment and this video? I feel like an asshole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsSn_...ature=youtu.be

[Spectral]

Is it bad that I laughed at the top comment and this video? I feel like an asshole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsSn_...ature=youtu.be

Shit, so much infractable commenting comes to mind.

I'll leave it at the obvious reality that anyone that believes that particular bag of nonsense shouldn't be sad at all.

[Grizzly Willy]

Here's my face when reading those comments, in emoticon form: :|
Typical internet trash, don't see how they're funny, not surprised enough to be offended.