When are Democrats going to return to reality regarding firearm rights?

[Lithium381]

OTOH, anything that irritates and wastes the energy of gun owners and gun sellers is a net positive in my book.

Why? I don't understand why you would relish in the fact that I have to jump through hoops to legally obtain a gun which is guaranteed to me by the 2nd Amendment. What does that achieve for you? Would you be just as pleased to restrict 1st Amendment rights simply because you don't agree with it?

 

[DrPizza]

Yep, because everyone planning on going on a rampage knows that the magic number is 1000 rounds. Never go on a rampage with only 900 rounds.

What retarded legislation.

 

[micrometers]

I would actually be VERY interested in seeing what such an algorithm came up with. Then again, the information coming out can only be as good as the data going in . . .

All that would be needed would be linking computer inventory systems feeding all gun and ammo purchases to the NSA database. Maybe tied in with VISA and bank account information.

 

[micrometers]

Why? I don't understand why you would relish in the fact that I have to jump through hoops to legally obtain a gun which is guaranteed to me by the 2nd Amendment. What does that achieve for you? Would you be just as pleased to restrict 1st Amendment rights simply because you don't agree with it?

Some people just need something to complain about.

 

[berzerker60]

I'm not suggesting it's practical to get rid of guns in our society or that current gun laws are well designed. I was pointing out the stupidity of the "guns don't kill people, people do" argument, which completely leaves out the increased damage of a disturbed person with a gun vs. one without.

"Criminals don't follow laws" is another stupid argument. Criminals have easy access to guns because there are so many guns around to be stolen or bought. If there weren't, there would still be SOME guns, but many fewer regardless of whether they wanted to ignore the law.
Again, not saying proposed laws are likely to do anything about that, but please use worthwhile arguments when making a case regardless.

And of course guns vs. knives will be skewed, because if a gun is available obviously you will choose it over a knife.

Yes, because a gun is a more efficient killing tool. Which is why it has more cause for regulation. Just like we don't let bowie knives into stadiums but we do allow pocket knives, because they're much less dangerous weapons.

300m+ of us, one going on a rampage is statistical error

Yes, a statistical error with a much higher death count than a statistical error armed with a less efficient weapon.

Talk about a dumb argument. You need the face the reality that A) more gun laws are not going to stop people from killing each other, B) Criminals are not going to follow gun laws, no matter how many you make, C) The guns are already here, so no amount of gun laws is going to make them disappear, except banning, and door-to-door confiscation, and that is not EVER going to happen in this country.

There's been 23 mass shootings since 1996, only 12 of them have been in the US, the others have been in such gun control bastions as, Britain, Australia, Belgium and Germany.

http://news.yahoo.com/timeline-mass-shooting-incidents-last-20-years-003607548.html

Uh yeah, only over half of the world's mass shootings for a country with less than 5% of the world's population. So either we're many many times more murderous of a people than any other country, or there's something else at play here. Lax gun laws don't take all of the blame, and there's probably no fix even if they could, but don't pretend like guns don't cause problems even if you're arguing that they're worth it.

 

[Lithium381]

All that would be needed would be linking computer inventory systems feeding all gun and ammo purchases to the NSA database. Maybe tied in with VISA and bank account information.

That's over the top . . . . to personalize it? I thought we were just talking about collecting anonymous statistics and observing trends/patterns. . . . now you're getting too big-brother on me!

 

[bfdd]

OTOH, anything that irritates and wastes the energy of gun owners and gun sellers is a net positive in my book.

Why do you hate business so much? Such a scaredy cat please. How often do you drive? I want to take away your right to drive and I want to take away your right to question me for taking away your right to drive. What the fuck are you going to do about it?

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course not, and are you saying you wouldn't want that?

No... first step is all we do is report you.

I never offered that.

Followed by the usual paranoia, of course. Which was why I asked- you insinuated that the proposal intended to restrict ammo purchases, didn't you? Why else would you have mentioned restricting ammo purchases, anyway?

 

[Moonbeam]

NRA folk have induced psychosis. Nobody, I mean nobody is going to take guns away from Americans. The NRA is a club of psychotics hysterically foaming about an issue that is all in their heads. The notion that anybody is out to take our guns is as deluded as the notion that it is our guns that keep the some fantasy world government from taking over. Guns are useless against what a modern military could do to a civilian population. The only thing that stands between people and evil power is rational thinking, a quantity in very very short supply among gun psychos.

 

[bfdd]

NRA folk have induced psychosis. Nobody, I mean nobody is going to take guns away from Americans. The NRA is a club of psychotics hysterically foaming about an issue that is all in their heads. The notion that anybody is out to take our guns is as deluded as the notion that it is our guns that keep the some fantasy world government from taking over. Guns are useless against what a modern military could do to a civilian population. The only thing that stands between people and evil power is rational thinking, a quantity in very very short supply among gun psychos.

"guns are useless against a modern military" is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever fucking heard and you should be ashamed of yourself for even saying it. If they are so useless why the fuck do we arm our soldiers with them? Oh you think we're the only ones with a modern military? If they're so worthless, explain why you need to take them away then? Why? Shouldn't your military or police be able to fly in like superman and protect you with their guns? No, because that's not how it fucking works. Wanting to get rid of guns is a knee jerk reaction of emotions from weak individuals projecting their own weakness onto the rest of the world. You're weak Moonbeam mentally, spiritually and physically.

 

[SparkyJJO]

The net positive is that in America we can own, and carry guns, and it makes your skin crawl because there is nothing you can do about it.

There IS something he can do about it.

He can move to a paranoid country that watches your every move with cameras like the UK and leave the rest of us alone.

 

[schneiderguy]

Are you planning to pay someone to load that ammo for you? Just the thought of inserting 1000 rounds of .22LR into magazines makes my hands cramp up. I just shot 150 through my Ruger SR22 the other day and was sick of loading by the end, I can't imagine doing thee times that much.

I've got a revolver. No thumb issues for me

My friend has a Ruger MKIII and one of these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wFM9YFbKak

 

[Jhhnn]

NRA folk have induced psychosis. Nobody, I mean nobody is going to take guns away from Americans. The NRA is a club of psychotics hysterically foaming about an issue that is all in their heads. The notion that anybody is out to take our guns is as deluded as the notion that it is our guns that keep the some fantasy world government from taking over. Guns are useless against what a modern military could do to a civilian population. The only thing that stands between people and evil power is rational thinking, a quantity in very very short supply among gun psychos.

"guns are useless against a modern military" is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever fucking heard and you should be ashamed of yourself for even saying it. If they are so useless why the fuck do we arm our soldiers with them? Oh you think we're the only ones with a modern military? If they're so worthless, explain why you need to take them away then? Why? Shouldn't your military or police be able to fly in like superman and protect you with their guns? No, because that's not how it fucking works. Wanting to get rid of guns is a knee jerk reaction of emotions from weak individuals projecting their own weakness onto the rest of the world. You're weak Moonbeam mentally, spiritually and physically.

Moonbeam never offered that guns should be taken away, making what you offered more of a paranoid delusional rant than anything else.

What he offered wrt modern militaries is largely true, because they operate at a level of organization far above that of wannabee patriot heroes, and have much deadlier weapons at their disposal than mere firearms.

Geopolitical realities render the US immune from foreign invasion, anyway. It's been that way since the end of the Civil War. No matter what damned fool "patriots" & militia members claim, our internal conflicts will be resolved at the ballot box, even if they end up rightfully crushed beforehand in some sort of suicidal uprising against what is still a duly elected government of the people.

Honest & responsible gun owners do themselves no favors when they allow the most extreme voices among us to do all the talking, when they hold their tongues in the face of the lunacy of people like Wayne LaPierre. It's not like many people at all want to grab yer sacred guns, but when all they hear are the voices of extremists, it sets all too many to wondering if it might not be a good idea.

 

[Lithium381]

Moonbeam never offered that guns should be taken away, making what you offered more of a paranoid delusional rant than anything else.

What he offered wrt modern militaries is largely true, because they operate at a level of organization far above that of wannabee patriot heroes, and have much deadlier weapons at their disposal than mere firearms.

Geopolitical realities render the US immune from foreign invasion, anyway. It's been that way since the end of the Civil War. No matter what damned fool "patriots" & militia members claim, our internal conflicts will be resolved at the ballot box, even if they end up rightfully crushed beforehand in some sort of suicidal uprising against what is still a duly elected government of the people.

Honest & responsible gun owners do themselves no favors when they allow the most extreme voices among us to do all the talking, when they hold their tongues in the face of the lunacy of people like Wayne LaPierre. It's not like many people at all want to grab yer sacred guns, but when all they hear are the voices of extremists, it sets all too many to wondering if it might not be a good idea.

show me the numbers. laws like sb249 in california. against bullet buttons. . . and the awb. . . what problem do they think they're going to solve. banning guns with "barrel shrouds" and "flash hiders" as if those somehow contribute to the lethality of the firearm. if we're looking to solve the problems of "unnecessary" deaths lets start elsewhere. Tabacco. Car related deaths. If we just want to do raw numbers.. ..

 

[micrometers]

That's over the top . . . . to personalize it? I thought we were just talking about collecting anonymous statistics and observing trends/patterns. . . . now you're getting too big-brother on me!

James Holmes.

 

[umbrella39]

More inane FUD and paranoia...

 

[Jhhnn]

show me the numbers. laws like sb249 in california. against bullet buttons. . . and the awb. . . what problem do they think they're going to solve. banning guns with "barrel shrouds" and "flash hiders" as if those somehow contribute to the lethality of the firearm. if we're looking to solve the problems of "unnecessary" deaths lets start elsewhere. Tabacco. Car related deaths. If we just want to do raw numbers.. ..

I never offered that such things really make sense, so don't expect me to defend them. Don't expect me to defend looney-tune pro-gun ravers, either.

Let's say that the proposed law passes, and your name goes into a database if you buy more than 999 rounds at one time. Then what happens?

Nothing happens, that's what, probably even wrt people that the cops have reason to regard as dangerous whackjobs. They might pay a little more attention, anticipate problems if they have other reasons to arrest you, but that's it.

So get off it. Damned few people want to grab yer guns even if you own them for the stupidest fucking reasons in the world.

 

[nehalem256]

Dozens? No, quite a few? yes ...

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2261573

In reality, few of these mass shootings have had even a dozen people killed, much less "dozens"



Talk about a dumb argument. You need the face the reality that A) more gun laws are not going to stop people from killing each other, B) Criminals are not going to follow gun laws, no matter how many you make, C) The guns are already here, so no amount of gun laws is going to make them disappear, except banning, and door-to-door confiscation, and that is not EVER going to happen in this country.

There's been 23 mass shootings since 1996, only 12 of them have been in the US, the others have been in such gun control bastions as, Britain, Australia, Belgium and Germany.

http://news.yahoo.com/timeline-mass-shooting-incidents-last-20-years-003607548.html

So the US averages less than one mass shooting per year. Clearly this is an epidemic that requires drastic action!

 

[Pr0d1gy]

God, you people are worse than my ex when she was on the rag. Cry me a river.

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonbeam never offered that guns should be taken away, making what you offered more of a paranoid delusional rant than anything else.

What he offered wrt modern militaries is largely true, because they operate at a level of organization far above that of wannabee patriot heroes, and have much deadlier weapons at their disposal than mere firearms.

Geopolitical realities render the US immune from foreign invasion, anyway. It's been that way since the end of the Civil War. No matter what damned fool "patriots" & militia members claim, our internal conflicts will be resolved at the ballot box, even if they end up rightfully crushed beforehand in some sort of suicidal uprising against what is still a duly elected government of the people.

Honest & responsible gun owners do themselves no favors when they allow the most extreme voices among us to do all the talking, when they hold their tongues in the face of the lunacy of people like Wayne LaPierre. It's not like many people at all want to grab yer sacred guns, but when all they hear are the voices of extremists, it sets all too many to wondering if it might not be a good idea.

Hehehehehehehehehehehehehe. It was nice of you to have the patience to explain to bdff that he has the very psychotic reactions I spoke of. I couldn't do anything but laugh. My point, again, is that the notion that gun rights are going away is so profoundly ludicrous and impossible that only the insane would try to take them or believe that anybody seriously could. There are a few imbeciles, no doubt, that dream of taking away guns, and millions of trembling loonies that fear they will succeed. I guess bdff thinks I'm as afraid of life as he is. I got lots of guns and never think about using them for defense or jack off to the notion that somebody wants to take them away. It's as likely as the sun won't rise in the morning. Chicken Little told us so much when we were children.

 

[Moonbeam]

God, you people are worse than my ex when she was on the rag. Cry me a river.

There is a horrible amount of bias against women on internet sites. Make Anandtech better by not participating, please. Women are not things you compare other people to in order to put them down.

 

[xj0hnx]

Why? I don't understand why you would relish in the fact that I have to jump through hoops to legally obtain a gun which is guaranteed to me by the 2nd Amendment. What does that achieve for you? Would you be just as pleased to restrict 1st Amendment rights simply because you don't agree with it?

He hates freedom.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

There is a horrible amount of bias against women on internet sites. Make Anandtech better by not participating, please. Women are not things you compare other people to in order to put them down.

You never met my ex...lol

 

[trenchfoot]

I guess what's missing in this thread are the opinions of those whose husbands, wives, children and loved ones had fallen victim to gun crimes. You know, to see the whole picture and all that.

Who knows, maybe the majority of them want firearms for themselves now that tragedy has struck their lives. It just seems proper to hear their side of the story before making an informed opinion on this topic.

 

[monovillage]

I guess what's missing in this thread are the opinions of those whose husbands, wives, children and loved ones had fallen victim to gun crimes. You know, to see the whole picture and all that.

Who knows, maybe the majority of them want firearms for themselves now that tragedy has struck their lives. It just seems proper to hear their side of the story before making an informed opinion on this topic.

How about hearing from the people and their families who used a firearm to protect themselves and their families?

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5

http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm