fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,943
- 138,378
I dont think the majority of the population of NY supports the ban, I believe it is being imposed on them.
Gun control
- Thread starter Saladus
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
General Antony
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 1,147
- 4,802
Teachers may be trained as auxiliary police officers. I'm curious to see if they do it.http://m.sj-r.com/sjr/pm_60615/conte...tguid=Dog95eie
Borzak
Bronze Baron of the Realm
- 25,463
- 33,218
More goofiness in the NY law that wasn't thought out well. The lower receiver for an AR-15 which is the actual firearm according to the ATF and has the serial number has none of the characteristics that are banned under the law such as a pistol grip (until a grip is put on it), a barrel shround, telescoping stock etc...so are we to assume you can still legally own, buy, have shipped to your FFL AR lowers?
Well to continue this further it would only be illegal when mated with an upper that doesn't meet the requirements. Having the upper separate from the lower doesn't make it an offending firearm. So according to the actual law you could have lowers and uppers, you just couldn't mate the 2 of them together. Much like in the rest of the country (most of it) that when you buy a lower and fill out the 4473 for pistol it has to be mated to an AR pistol upper and will always be a pistol and it can't be swapped with a rifle upper and vice versa.
Just odd stuff.
Well to continue this further it would only be illegal when mated with an upper that doesn't meet the requirements. Having the upper separate from the lower doesn't make it an offending firearm. So according to the actual law you could have lowers and uppers, you just couldn't mate the 2 of them together. Much like in the rest of the country (most of it) that when you buy a lower and fill out the 4473 for pistol it has to be mated to an AR pistol upper and will always be a pistol and it can't be swapped with a rifle upper and vice versa.
Just odd stuff.
So in other words, you can't explain how guns = political clout, ie., you're full of shit.
New York is the mecca for all things liberal; the birthplace of occupy wall-street. And it isn't a monarchy, the people who made that law were voted in by like-minded New Yorkers. Absent some poll that shows otherwise, it stands to reason then that the majority of New York citizens support that law, no matter how stupid it is.
More news.Teenager shoots and kills 5
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,943
- 138,378
Maybe you're too dense to get the point that security given by others can be taken at any moment? ask the Japanese Americans what rights they had, it's a list of privileges no more no less.
It's not just about gaining something, It's about preserving what you have.
The U.S. needs to adopt U.K style gun laws. There is no justifiable reason whatsoever to have guns in a modern world. I can see how it made sense 200 years ago for the founding fathers to include it when the most deadly weapon out there was a single bullet flintlock and everyone had access to the same technology, but today it doesn't make sense. I don't even think police should have guns in the majority of cases.
To those that think having guns protects you from government, the idea that an armed population is actually going to make a different against a modern military is laughable.
To the argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people - who gives a flying fuck? guns make it a lot easier to kill, and there is a reason that murder drops significantly when guns are removed.
To the people touting home defense, you are far more likely to shoot yourself than any robber statistically speaking.
The entire country should be disarmed, doesn't matter if it takes 100 years and 100 billion USD of buybacks and confiscations. I don't understand how people in the U.S. send their kids to school when mass shootings are happening on a regular basis.
To those that think having guns protects you from government, the idea that an armed population is actually going to make a different against a modern military is laughable.
To the argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people - who gives a flying fuck? guns make it a lot easier to kill, and there is a reason that murder drops significantly when guns are removed.
To the people touting home defense, you are far more likely to shoot yourself than any robber statistically speaking.
The entire country should be disarmed, doesn't matter if it takes 100 years and 100 billion USD of buybacks and confiscations. I don't understand how people in the U.S. send their kids to school when mass shootings are happening on a regular basis.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,943
- 138,378
I don't understand how people fly passenger airplanes. Or drive cars. Or plug in electronic equipment. Or wake up.
This phenomena isn't happening on a regular basis. That's some FoxNews level of stupid, just of the Liberal flavor.
Guns are just the modern version of "the stick". We've always had them and always will. Then we won't when they evolve into the next version of "the stick".
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,943
- 138,378
Not only are you wrong on this point, you are %100 in the wrong direction. and your whole anti gun rant is full of logical problems as well
here is a harvard study that asks that question and comes up with the opposite of your faulty logic.
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_stud...terproductive/
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf
"Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases."
yes an armed populace does influence leaders from becoming too tyranical.
Yes it does matter that people kill people and if you take guns away they will use whatever is at hand instead.
I want to see a citation that you are more likely to shoot yourself than a robber, than smells like bullshit
The whole rant reads like dian feinstein wrote it or a troll to be honest. If you really believe that stuff you must also think the government can do no harm and police are there to protect you (heres a hint, they aren't)
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,150
- 160,366
lol, this guy.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/15/world/...ack/index.html
i.e. i dont have an argument for this one.
yeah, we should just leave ourselves at a mercy of home invaders. especially when they know that no one at home has a gun. then they will stop stealing our TVs and jewelry.
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 46,399
- 98,648
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,943
- 138,378
that harvard paper I found has alot of gems in it. like this one.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf
The point is exemplified by the conclusions of the premier
study of English gun control. Done by a senior English police
official as his thesis at the Cambridge University Institute of
Criminology and later published as a book, it found (as of the
early 1970s), "Half a century of strict controls . . . has ended,
perversely, with a far greater use of [handguns] in crime than
ever before." 51 The study also states that:
No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to
the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in
crime was very much less [in England before 1920] when
there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted
criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm
without restriction.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf
The point is exemplified by the conclusions of the premier
study of English gun control. Done by a senior English police
official as his thesis at the Cambridge University Institute of
Criminology and later published as a book, it found (as of the
early 1970s), "Half a century of strict controls . . . has ended,
perversely, with a far greater use of [handguns] in crime than
ever before." 51 The study also states that:
No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to
the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in
crime was very much less [in England before 1920] when
there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted
criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm
without restriction.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,943
- 138,378
Harvard study on gun control
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf
Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has
the industrialized world's highest murder rate has been an artifact
of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the
true homicide rates. Since well before that date, the Soviet Union
possessed extremely stringent gun controls that were effectuated
by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement. So
successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have
firearms and very few murders involve them.Yet, manifest success
in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet
Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the
developed world. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gun-less Soviet
Union's murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those
of gun-ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then
steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically
that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times
higher than that of the United States.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf
Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has
the industrialized world's highest murder rate has been an artifact
of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the
true homicide rates. Since well before that date, the Soviet Union
possessed extremely stringent gun controls that were effectuated
by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement. So
successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have
firearms and very few murders involve them.Yet, manifest success
in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet
Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the
developed world. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gun-less Soviet
Union's murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those
of gun-ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then
steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically
that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times
higher than that of the United States.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
Since 2009, 37 people have been killed in "mass school shootings" in the U.S....118 people were killed by lightning in that time frame.
Seeing as my child is morethan three times more likely to be killed by lightning, than killed in a school mass shooting, I'm going to call you a fucking moron for not understanding how I send them to school. Seriously, how do you use the phrase "statistically speaking" ANYWHERE in your post and still drop a turd statement like this.
And that's NOT struck by lightning. That'skilled. The number of people struck was over a thousand.
- 6,338
- 7,144
Wow, is that one hell of a fucking leap of logic! Between this thread and the paleo diet thread, I'm beginning to see why our country is doomed. You're all idiots. I mean basic skills like being able to logically navigate from A to B to C are completely gone. Just fucking retards. Ugh!
- 6,338
- 7,144