Sign in to follow this  
Guest One of Five

Oh Looky - NY Sheriffs Association responds to Cuomo's gun laws.

Recommended Posts

Strangely, Missouri's newest proposals go much further than New York or New Jersey and propose confiscation of mean looking guns.

 

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

 

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

 

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

 

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

 

 

If they really don't want to take r gunz, I wish elected officials would quit talking about it and proposing it in legislation. That kind of thing just makes the NRA sound believable.

 

Minnesota too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scalia: Gun Control Headed Back to Supreme Court

 

The long-time duck hunter revealed that he's taken Obama appointee Elena Kagan hunting several times, the last being for big game in Wyoming where she shot a whitetail doe. "She dropped that doe with one shot," he said during an event that featured questions from NPR's court reporter Nina Totenberg.

 

Scalia detailed his life-long experience with guns and said it started while in high school when he was on a military academy's rifle team. Scalia said he would bring his gun to school on the subway in New York and often competed with West Point cadets.

 

Back then, he said, Americans didn't go nuts when they saw a gun. "It was no big deal. Carrying a gun was no big deal," he said. Today is a different story, he lamented. "It's very sad the attitude of the public at large on guns has changed so much that they associate it with nothing but crime."

 

Scalia explained why he wrote Heller, but wouldn't discuss current gun control limits in Congress and the states. "There are doubtless cases on the way up," he said, adding that limits on what weapons can be owned will likely be part of any new decision. "There are doubtless limits, but what they are we will see."

 

In addition to ruling on the types of weapons that are protected under the second amendment, I think they are likely to rule on whether a citizen must prove a need before getting permission to keep and bear a weapon and whether the second amendment applies outside the home.

 

which is why i wish you'd stop trying to pull the "self defense" card. a citizen need not give a justification for exercising a right. in this way you aren't helping. as i said before...there are a number of reasons a citizen might own a gun....those reasons are no business of the government unless and/or until they are used criminally or dangerously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scalia: Gun Control Headed Back to Supreme Court

 

The long-time duck hunter revealed that he's taken Obama appointee Elena Kagan hunting several times, the last being for big game in Wyoming where she shot a whitetail doe. "She dropped that doe with one shot," he said during an event that featured questions from NPR's court reporter Nina Totenberg.

 

Scalia detailed his life-long experience with guns and said it started while in high school when he was on a military academy's rifle team. Scalia said he would bring his gun to school on the subway in New York and often competed with West Point cadets.

 

Back then, he said, Americans didn't go nuts when they saw a gun. "It was no big deal. Carrying a gun was no big deal," he said. Today is a different story, he lamented. "It's very sad the attitude of the public at large on guns has changed so much that they associate it with nothing but crime."

 

Scalia explained why he wrote Heller, but wouldn't discuss current gun control limits in Congress and the states. "There are doubtless cases on the way up," he said, adding that limits on what weapons can be owned will likely be part of any new decision. "There are doubtless limits, but what they are we will see."

 

In addition to ruling on the types of weapons that are protected under the second amendment, I think they are likely to rule on whether a citizen must prove a need before getting permission to keep and bear a weapon and whether the second amendment applies outside the home.

 

which is why i wish you'd stop trying to pull the "self defense" card. a citizen need not give a justification for exercising a right. in this way you aren't helping. as i said before...there are a number of reasons a citizen might own a gun....those reasons are no business of the government unless and/or until they are used criminally or dangerously.

 

If the Supreme Court takes up the question of whether or not justification is needed, they will consider it in light of the core purpose of the right. Kagan might also consider her new hobby, which would be nice. She probably used a hollow point on that deer.

 

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

 

Should I post the pic of the dead pig again? We still haven't finished eating him.

 

Yesterday morning, I was wearing a gun around for a while. One of my dogs had a raccoon up a tree and it was a big one. If it was stupid enough to come down, I wanted to be prepared to end the fight quickly. After a while, it took a nap up there! The dog got bored and distracted and the coon departed unharmed.

 

I might do some target practice today, but probably not inside the home.

 

Better? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think they plan to emulate the Aussie model?

 

Fuck, I hope not. How is that murder rate in AUS these days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think they plan to emulate the Aussie model?

 

Fuck, I hope not. How is that murder rate in AUS these days?

better question, is the 2nd amendment about militias?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think they plan to emulate the Aussie model?

 

Fuck, I hope not. How is that murder rate in AUS these days?

 

On a per capita basis virtually unchanged since the gun laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scalia: Gun Control Headed Back to Supreme Court

 

The long-time duck hunter revealed that he's taken Obama appointee Elena Kagan hunting several times, the last being for big game in Wyoming where she shot a whitetail doe. "She dropped that doe with one shot," he said during an event that featured questions from NPR's court reporter Nina Totenberg.

 

Scalia detailed his life-long experience with guns and said it started while in high school when he was on a military academy's rifle team. Scalia said he would bring his gun to school on the subway in New York and often competed with West Point cadets.

 

Back then, he said, Americans didn't go nuts when they saw a gun. "It was no big deal. Carrying a gun was no big deal," he said. Today is a different story, he lamented. "It's very sad the attitude of the public at large on guns has changed so much that they associate it with nothing but crime."

 

Scalia explained why he wrote Heller, but wouldn't discuss current gun control limits in Congress and the states. "There are doubtless cases on the way up," he said, adding that limits on what weapons can be owned will likely be part of any new decision. "There are doubtless limits, but what they are we will see."

 

In addition to ruling on the types of weapons that are protected under the second amendment, I think they are likely to rule on whether a citizen must prove a need before getting permission to keep and bear a weapon and whether the second amendment applies outside the home.

 

which is why i wish you'd stop trying to pull the "self defense" card. a citizen need not give a justification for exercising a right. in this way you aren't helping. as i said before...there are a number of reasons a citizen might own a gun....those reasons are no business of the government unless and/or until they are used criminally or dangerously.

 

If the Supreme Court takes up the question of whether or not justification is needed, they will consider it in light of the core purpose of the right. Kagan might also consider her new hobby, which would be nice. She probably used a hollow point on that deer.

 

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

 

Should I post the pic of the dead pig again? We still haven't finished eating him.

 

Yesterday morning, I was wearing a gun around for a while. One of my dogs had a raccoon up a tree and it was a big one. If it was stupid enough to come down, I wanted to be prepared to end the fight quickly. After a while, it took a nap up there! The dog got bored and distracted and the coon departed unharmed.

 

I might do some target practice today, but probably not inside the home.

 

Better? ;)

 

didn't you leave most of the meat to spoil

 

troubling...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wascawy wabbit was yummy two nights ago.

 

wabbit-dinnew.jpg

 

That is a crappy looking range you need to sell some guns and upgrade your kitchen. Also the sauce looks fatty you need better mushrooms and learn how to incorporate wine and a rue in your sauce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, Washington State legislators say: we did not mean to put that in there...

 

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

 

In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.

 

“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think they plan to emulate the Aussie model?

 

Fuck, I hope not. How is that murder rate in AUS these days?

 

On a per capita basis virtually unchanged since the gun laws.

 

Exactly! Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, Washington State legislators say: we did not mean to put that in there...

 

 

He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”

I have been blasting the NRAfor its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think they plan to emulate the Aussie model?

 

Fuck, I hope not. How is that murder rate in AUS these days?

 

On a per capita basis virtually unchanged since the gun laws.

 

Exactly! Thank you.

 

And gun crime has risen exponentially. Nary a day goes buy without a shooting at present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charles shows that if one sorts by unemployment, and you'll see a remarkable consistency across a wide spectrum of society in crime stats. Ongoing major gang wars and retirement homes aside, of course...

 

 

http://www.amazon.co...0/dp/0307453421

 

Good point, Mark - I'd think most folks w/a job are too busy being productive to engage in the negative behaviors we'd like to eliminate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, Washington State legislators say: we did not mean to put that in there...

 

 

He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”

I have been blasting the NRAfor its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.

NRA responds.

http://youtu.be/6gI2qb0MS50

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wascawy wabbit was yummy two nights ago.

 

wabbit-dinnew.jpg

 

That is a crappy looking range you need to sell some guns and upgrade your kitchen. Also the sauce looks fatty you need better mushrooms and learn how to incorporate wine and a rue in your sauce

 

For someone who claims to be french and is criticizing someones cooking, you have a funny way of spelling roux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a per capita basis virtually unchanged since the gun laws.

 

Exactly! Thank you.

 

And gun crime has risen exponentially. Nary a day goes buy without a shooting at present.

 

but..... but....... but..... I thought guns were not allowed there. How does this happen?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wascawy wabbit was yummy two nights ago.

 

wabbit-dinnew.jpg

 

That is a crappy looking range you need to sell some guns and upgrade your kitchen. Also the sauce looks fatty you need better mushrooms and learn how to incorporate wine and a rue in your sauce

 

For someone who claims to be french and is criticizing someones cooking, you have a funny way of spelling roux.

 

You will roux the day you crossed gaytor...... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already have pythons and Nile monitors and crocodiles. If a 'roo shows up, I'll shoot it and eat it too. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a per capita basis virtually unchanged since the gun laws.

 

Exactly! Thank you.

 

And gun crime has risen exponentially. Nary a day goes buy without a shooting at present.

 

but..... but....... but..... I thought guns were not allowed there. How does this happen?????

 

No, if you jump through all the hoops you can have one.

 

If you don't want to jump through the hoops you can have anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a per capita basis virtually unchanged since the gun laws.

 

Exactly! Thank you.

 

And gun crime has risen exponentially. Nary a day goes buy without a shooting at present.

 

but..... but....... but..... I thought guns were not allowed there. How does this happen?????

 

No, if you jump through all the hoops you can have one.

 

If you don't want to jump through the hoops you can have anything.

 

Sounds familiar.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the '95 gun laws registration was compulsory. An air gun with a rifled barrel had to be registered. All pistols had to be registered

 

All they missed was the unregistered ones.

 

A container of Glocks got through customs a little while back. Customs guy paid off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the '95 gun laws registration was compulsory. An air gun with a rifled barrel had to be registered. All pistols had to be registered

 

All they missed was the unregistered ones.

 

A container of Glocks got through customs a little while back. Customs guy paid off.

 

PBO said last month that around 800,000 Ozzie owned firearms were 'voluntarily' turned in during the Buy Back. But then went on to say that at the time, there were more than 3 million firearms in private citizens hands. I asked him where the hell the other 2.2 mil+ 'un-turned in' guns were, and he vaguely suggested that those were either 'lost'....or buried. Which I found to be a bit far fetched, given the penalties.

 

You know anything about those numbers, Grumps?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the '95 gun laws registration was compulsory. An air gun with a rifled barrel had to be registered. All pistols had to be registered

 

All they missed was the unregistered ones.

 

A container of Glocks got through customs a little while back. Customs guy paid off.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa..... Wait a darn minute...... Are you seriously suggesting that registration programs can lead to gun confiscation??? Tell me you're not serious!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. I handed in everything I had to by law at the time. I've since handed in the rest.

 

I can't do the hoops from overseas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the '95 gun laws registration was compulsory. An air gun with a rifled barrel had to be registered. All pistols had to be registered

 

All they missed was the unregistered ones.

 

A container of Glocks got through customs a little while back. Customs guy paid off.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa..... Wait a darn minute...... Are you seriously suggesting that registration programs can lead to gun confiscation??? Tell me you're not serious!

 

Maybe. :rolleyes: A lot of folks handed in unregistered weapons in the buy back. A lot of folks might have kept their unregistered weapons as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scalia: Gun Control Headed Back to Supreme Court

 

The long-time duck hunter revealed that he's taken Obama appointee Elena Kagan hunting several times, the last being for big game in Wyoming where she shot a whitetail doe. "She dropped that doe with one shot," he said during an event that featured questions from NPR's court reporter Nina Totenberg.

 

Scalia detailed his life-long experience with guns and said it started while in high school when he was on a military academy's rifle team. Scalia said he would bring his gun to school on the subway in New York and often competed with West Point cadets.

 

Back then, he said, Americans didn't go nuts when they saw a gun. "It was no big deal. Carrying a gun was no big deal," he said. Today is a different story, he lamented. "It's very sad the attitude of the public at large on guns has changed so much that they associate it with nothing but crime."

 

Scalia explained why he wrote Heller, but wouldn't discuss current gun control limits in Congress and the states. "There are doubtless cases on the way up," he said, adding that limits on what weapons can be owned will likely be part of any new decision. "There are doubtless limits, but what they are we will see."

 

In addition to ruling on the types of weapons that are protected under the second amendment, I think they are likely to rule on whether a citizen must prove a need before getting permission to keep and bear a weapon and whether the second amendment applies outside the home.

 

which is why i wish you'd stop trying to pull the "self defense" card. a citizen need not give a justification for exercising a right. in this way you aren't helping. as i said before...there are a number of reasons a citizen might own a gun....those reasons are no business of the government unless and/or until they are used criminally or dangerously.

 

If the Supreme Court takes up the question of whether or not justification is needed, they will consider it in light of the core purpose of the right. Kagan might also consider her new hobby, which would be nice. She probably used a hollow point on that deer.

 

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

 

Should I post the pic of the dead pig again? We still haven't finished eating him.

 

Yesterday morning, I was wearing a gun around for a while. One of my dogs had a raccoon up a tree and it was a big one. If it was stupid enough to come down, I wanted to be prepared to end the fight quickly. After a while, it took a nap up there! The dog got bored and distracted and the coon departed unharmed.

 

I might do some target practice today, but probably not inside the home.

 

Better? ;)

no, not at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it stupid? They are in it to make money! Wayne's earning his salary now, big time.

 

No, I get that. Supply and demand and all....

 

Stupidity mainly on the part of the people pushing to ban a type of rifle that is used so infrequently that it barely registers on the stats. For instance, the gun I'm buying will be used in tactical rifle competitions. If you outlaw that just because its black and scary looking - you will have squashed a sport enjoyed by thousands every week. Stupidity,

 

Do they need to look like military weapons? If they're used in tactical shooting competitions why not have them look like civilian weapons? Yellow and black like a typical piece of industrial equipment.

 

The different look wouldn't take away from your new gun's effectiveness, just discourage the mentally ill perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it stupid? They are in it to make money! Wayne's earning his salary now, big time.

 

No, I get that. Supply and demand and all....

 

Stupidity mainly on the part of the people pushing to ban a type of rifle that is used so infrequently that it barely registers on the stats. For instance, the gun I'm buying will be used in tactical rifle competitions. If you outlaw that just because its black and scary looking - you will have squashed a sport enjoyed by thousands every week. Stupidity,

 

Do they need to look like military weapons? If they're used in tactical shooting competitions why not have them look like civilian weapons? Yellow and black like a typical piece of industrial equipment.

 

The different look wouldn't take away from your new gun's effectiveness, just discourage the mentally ill perhaps?

The Hello Kitty rifle. Guaranteed to make even the most hardened criminal Nugent right in his pants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it stupid? They are in it to make money! Wayne's earning his salary now, big time.

 

No, I get that. Supply and demand and all....

 

Stupidity mainly on the part of the people pushing to ban a type of rifle that is used so infrequently that it barely registers on the stats. For instance, the gun I'm buying will be used in tactical rifle competitions. If you outlaw that just because its black and scary looking - you will have squashed a sport enjoyed by thousands every week. Stupidity,

 

Do they need to look like military weapons? If they're used in tactical shooting competitions why not have them look like civilian weapons? Yellow and black like a typical piece of industrial equipment.

 

The different look wouldn't take away from your new gun's effectiveness, just discourage the mentally ill perhaps?

The Hello Kitty rifle. Guaranteed to make even the most hardened criminal Nugent right in his pants.

 

 

I'm just following the model used by children's toy manufacturers. They used to make authentic looking weapons, now they make weapons (squirt guns, cap guns, play guns) that look like they fell out of Buck Roger's pimp spaceship.

 

The video games, movie makers, film directors and soldiers should use the scary black military rifles ... but when a civilian picks up his or her weapon, ideally a little alarm bell in the head would be triggered by the yellow warning appliques and assorted danger markings that puts the owner in the emotional state of "danger-real-life-consequences-ahead", rather than "XBox-military-adventure-ahead. "

 

Hello Kitty no good, it needs to announce itself as dangerous rather than toy-like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it stupid? They are in it to make money! Wayne's earning his salary now, big time.

 

No, I get that. Supply and demand and all....

 

Stupidity mainly on the part of the people pushing to ban a type of rifle that is used so infrequently that it barely registers on the stats. For instance, the gun I'm buying will be used in tactical rifle competitions. If you outlaw that just because its black and scary looking - you will have squashed a sport enjoyed by thousands every week. Stupidity,

 

Do they need to look like military weapons? If they're used in tactical shooting competitions why not have them look like civilian weapons? Yellow and black like a typical piece of industrial equipment.

 

The different look wouldn't take away from your new gun's effectiveness, just discourage the mentally ill perhaps?

The Hello Kitty rifle. Guaranteed to make even the most hardened criminal Nugent right in his pants.

 

 

I'm just following the model used by children's toy manufacturers. They used to make authentic looking weapons, now they make weapons (squirt guns, cap guns, play guns) that look like they fell out of Buck Roger's pimp spaceship.

 

The video games, movie makers, film directors and soldiers should use the scary black military rifles ... but when a civilian picks up his or her weapon, ideally a little alarm bell in the head would be triggered by the yellow warning appliques and assorted danger markings that puts the owner in the emotional state of "danger-real-life-consequences-ahead", rather than "XBox-military-adventure-ahead. "

 

Hello Kitty no good, it needs to announce itself as dangerous rather than toy-like.

How about warning labels like cigarette and alcohol bottles have. But make them so anyone within view of the weapon can see it. Something like "Caution: This is a potentially deadly sporting assault weapon. The safe use of this weapon is entirely determined by the mental state of the bearer. Use extreme caution."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it stupid? They are in it to make money! Wayne's earning his salary now, big time.

 

No, I get that. Supply and demand and all....

 

Stupidity mainly on the part of the people pushing to ban a type of rifle that is used so infrequently that it barely registers on the stats. For instance, the gun I'm buying will be used in tactical rifle competitions. If you outlaw that just because its black and scary looking - you will have squashed a sport enjoyed by thousands every week. Stupidity,

 

Do they need to look like military weapons? If they're used in tactical shooting competitions why not have them look like civilian weapons? Yellow and black like a typical piece of industrial equipment.

 

The different look wouldn't take away from your new gun's effectiveness, just discourage the mentally ill perhaps?

The Hello Kitty rifle. Guaranteed to make even the most hardened criminal Nugent right in his pants.

 

 

I'm just following the model used by children's toy manufacturers. They used to make authentic looking weapons, now they make weapons (squirt guns, cap guns, play guns) that look like they fell out of Buck Roger's pimp spaceship.

 

The video games, movie makers, film directors and soldiers should use the scary black military rifles ... but when a civilian picks up his or her weapon, ideally a little alarm bell in the head would be triggered by the yellow warning appliques and assorted danger markings that puts the owner in the emotional state of "danger-real-life-consequences-ahead", rather than "XBox-military-adventure-ahead. "

 

Hello Kitty no good, it needs to announce itself as dangerous rather than toy-like.

 

And how many children got murdered in school during that 40+ year long period?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Mikey, once again you're not quite as knowledgeble about certain things as you think you are. See these two beauties? They weren't made this year to resemble Buck Roger's pimp gun. These girls were made in-------1958

 

You're welcome......

 

 

 

 

 

 

imagesqtbnANd9GcQK6K2JL1yHc6MmE8yqF.jpg

 

 

 

9752950_1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you would like the "cool" taken out of guns there is little to worry about. The continued acceptance and encouragement of paranoid extremists by those in the businesss of selling weapons has that aspect well under control.

All toy guns should have distictive orange barrels tips/suppressors, that is a good and resonable requirement especially as CCWs grow in popularity. Further i feel that true firearms should NOT have orange on thier barrels or supressors.

Airguns are tricky, as many have the power to penetrate human flesh, but would be very inefficiant as a weapon against all but small game and inanimate targets like those used in indoor target practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you would like the "cool" taken out of guns there is little to worry about. The continued acceptance and encouragement of paranoid extremists by those in the businesss of selling weapons has that aspect well under control.

All toy guns should have distictive orange barrels tips/suppressors, that is a good and resonable requirement especially as CCWs grow in popularity. Further i feel that true firearms should NOT have orange on thier barrels or supressors.

Airguns are tricky, as many have the power to penetrate human flesh, but would be very inefficiant as a weapon against all but small game and inanimate targets like those used in indoor target practice.

So any idiot thief or evil-doer that wants an extra second or two can paint a real gun's barrel orange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And how many children got murdered in school during that 40+ year long period?....

 

By guns or industrial machines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Mikey, once again you're not quite as knowledgeble about certain things as you think you are. See these two beauties? They weren't made this year to resemble Buck Roger's pimp gun. These girls were made in-------1958

 

You're welcome......

 

 

 

 

 

 

imagesqtbnANd9GcQK6K2JL1yHc6MmE8yqF.jpg

 

 

 

9752950_1.jpg

 

There beautiful guns but uhhh ... what the fuck do they have to do with anything that I mentioned?

 

Posting under the influence again Rick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you would like the "cool" taken out of guns there is little to worry about. The continued acceptance and encouragement of paranoid extremists by those in the businesss of selling weapons has that aspect well under control.

All toy guns should have distictive orange barrels tips/suppressors, that is a good and resonable requirement especially as CCWs grow in popularity. Further i feel that true firearms should NOT have orange on thier barrels or supressors.

Airguns are tricky, as many have the power to penetrate human flesh, but would be very inefficiant as a weapon against all but small game and inanimate targets like those used in indoor target practice.

So any idiot thief or evil-doer that wants an extra second or two can paint a real gun's barrel orange.

 

That might not work too well. Do criminals avoid weapons like sawed off shotguns to mitigate their lawbreaking? Altering a weapon illegally sounds like something folks would want to avoid regardless their intent to commit a crime, regular weapons are effective enough, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm just following the model used by children's toy manufacturers. They used to make authentic looking weapons, now they make weapons (squirt guns, cap guns, play guns) that look like they fell out of Buck Roger's pimp spaceship.

 

The video games, movie makers, film directors and soldiers should use the scary black military rifles ... but when a civilian picks up his or her weapon, ideally a little alarm bell in the head would be triggered by the yellow warning appliques and assorted danger markings that puts the owner in the emotional state of "danger-real-life-consequences-ahead", rather than "XBox-military-adventure-ahead. "

 

Why not instead make all the X-box games use yellow and pink buck rodgers looking guns and stop trying to make it an immersive true to life military, assassain, or murder rampage experience so that people on the edge of mental sanity are constantly programmed to think of black rifles as the primary means of destruction?

 

That's a serious question. Since, the mentally unstable child or young adult is far more likely to spend a 99:1 ratio of his/her time on a video game rather than handling a real weapon, make the game the deprogramming aspect so when and if they pick up a REAL rifle - the alarm bells you speak of go off and they get that this is a real dangerous weapon to be handled with care and caution rather than the yellow and orange "virtual" guns they've been playing with for 19 hours a day. Seriously, the black gun was there LONG before the "x-box military adventure". Why does the gun have to change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would not be difficult to trace Xbox addiction a create a registry to keep guns out of their hands. Just missing a few pieces to make it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not instead make all the X-box games use yellow and pink buck rodgers looking guns and stop trying to make it an immersive true to life military, assassain, or murder rampage experience so that people on the edge of mental sanity are constantly programmed to think of black rifles as the primary means of destruction?

 

That might work.

 

But there is a definite emotional effect of black and gun metal and oiled walnut, it looks badass, sort of Grim Reaperish. If gamers shot neon orange and purple polka dot weapons it wouldn't necessarily decouple their activities with the process of holding a black AK. And of course, for the military applications, there is genuine need for matte black weapons, but civilian use perhaps less so, and visibly badged civilian versions of weapons would probably not be any less effective in the spirit of the Second.

 

And I'm not suggesting a law, I would prefer the industry get together and say something to the effect of "what can we do to improve our interaction with the general public without damaging our interaction with our customers?" Maybe yellow-and-black weapons are that, or maybe something else. But it's like what Cavendish mentioned a few weeks ago; the industry isn't doing that at all, they're taking a contentious approach and they don't seem willing to work on the problem.

 

The toy industry did exactly that, they constructed a voluntary compliance once some of their customers were accidentally shot or got into trouble for having too-realistic-looking weapons. Now when you walk the aisles of the toy store, you do see some realistic looking weapons, but the majority of them do not look realistic at all, they've taken on a form that reflects their function, and the purple pipes and are there to move the water through the Super Soaker. Of course, people have been shot over Super Soakers and paint ball guns too, but I suspect the industry change has been positive.

 

The civilian form of the weapons should perhaps reflect the civilian application of the weapons ... not stalking some terrorists in Faluja or sniping some insurgents in Baghdad, but more accurately, being a home defense tool, being a sporting weapon for the range, maybe doing some hunting where hunters are clad in orange vests anyway. The military black or gunmetal doesn't seem to have a visual place here in my opinion.

 

That's a serious question. Since, the mentally unstable child or young adult is far more likely to spend a 99:1 ratio of his/her time on a video game rather than handling a real weapon, make the game the deprogramming aspect so when and if they pick up a REAL rifle - the alarm bells you speak of go off and they get that this is a real dangerous weapon to be handled with care and caution rather than the yellow and orange "virtual" guns they've been playing with for 19 hours a day. Seriously, the black gun was there LONG before the "x-box military adventure". Why does the gun have to change?

 

I'm not convinced that gamers are making a more dangerous environment, on some level -- at least with street crime -- keeping potential criminals inside behind the X-Box rather than on the street can do something to possibly make things safer.

 

But also, remember, the kind of people who pick up a military-style weapon or handgun and commit ungodly acts of mayhem are severely emotionally ill. You're asking "why does the gun have to change" which is a contentious position. Instead of asking that question, howabout asking this question ... "What can we do in the gun community to urge our industry to help avoid ungodly acts of mayhem?"

 

I don't have the answers obviously, I'm just making a suggestion. It seems to me however, that possibly taking some of the "badass" emotion away from civilian weapons and replacing that with "caution, caution, caution" might help. Will it? We have no idea, nobody has tried it. People try things, if it helps they do more of the same. But discounting it out of hand seems contentious to me.

 

 

Okay Jeff, here is my experience in a related area ... motorcycles.

 

I have been riding for decades, and I've noticed one near absolute ... riders that do the crazy, dangerous shit like pull 140 mph down a midnight highway, or take the twisties like something out of circuit race, are -- in my experience of observation -- far more likely to do that on a crotch-rocket than a super-motard or a cruiser. The crotch-rocket (i.e. the Hyabusa, or Blackbird) is often very close to the genuine race bike, and it does something to the rider, it changes the state-of-mind, at least it did so with me.

 

But a super-motard might have a nearly identical performance envelope in the lower speeds, and in some cases be more maneuverable, but it doesn't necessarily suggest to the rider to drive dangerously.

 

The rider interacts with that bike ... and having a race-ready bike seems to make the rider race-ready too, even when they shouldn't be anywhere near 70 mph let along 140 mph. The industry has done something with warning stickers and such, but in my opinion, if they did a bit more to ruin the buzz, like put a warning sticker on the tank that suggests the rider is on a street bike that is not built for race conditions, that they could (and in my opinion would) save some lives at the expense of moving less product.

 

Yes, the reality is that -- like your AK that you're having built -- bikers want the not-from-concentrate product. The main difference between guns and bikes is that a motorcyclist seems more likely to kill himself first with emotionally-ill behavior before putting anyone else in danger -- usually, but not always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry mike. But I disagree with your whole premise. The "bad-assness" of a black gun is 'NOT what compels these psychos to kill people. You're blaming the tool again. These guys, for whatever fucked up reason, have decided that killing a bunch of people is a great way to get their jollies, achieve immortality, or whatever. If it wasn't a gun it would be a bomb, or a Molotov cocktail or a SUV.

 

Again, if you want to blame anything, I would tell you that the Xbox probably contributes more to these fragile people picking up an assault rifle than the rifle itself. When you get to chose your gun in COD or other first person shooter game and you've literally spent the last 7 hours straight mowing people down with AR-15s..... Gee I wonder which method of mass murder might come to mind first as your weapon of choice. There were LOTS of black rifles out before video games hit the street and you never ever heard of a shooting with one. Now, everyone thinks assault rifle when you at there games for hours and hours. For the people who can seperate reality from fantasy, no big deal. For those fragile ones who can't, picking up an AR for someone who has killed thousands of virtual people with an AR-15 or AK-47, Using a real one to kill when they snap is as natural to them as picking their nose.

 

I would even postulate that the spike in popularity of the AR, especially among younger folk is directly or at least partially related to their familiarity to them from playing video games. If you grow up shooting AR-15s on line from the age of 5, that's likely what's going to be on your mind when you walk in a gun shop. If all weapons in a game were purple and yellow and looked like super soakers, I doubt people would be rushing out to buy black rifles.

 

So in summary, your entire premise is wrong if you think the look of a gun is what causes people to pick it up and kill others with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in----investigators came out yesterday and reported that Adam Lanza not only adored and admired the Norway mass murderer (and wanted to beat his 'record'), but that he also spent hours and hours and hours practicing his shooting skills whilst playing (ta-DAH) violent video games.

 

I'm shocked.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jesus fucking christ....really?

perhaps you missed these parts:

 

 

 

(Reuters) - The man who shot dead 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school wanted to kill more people than the 77 slain by a Norwegian man in a 2011 rampage, CBS News reported on Monday, citing unnamed law enforcement sources.

A Connecticut state police spokesman dismissed the report as inaccurate speculation.

Adam Lanza, 20, who killed himself as police closed in on him at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14, saw himself in direct competition with Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people in a bombing and shooting attack in Norway on July 22, 2011, CBS said. Breivik surrendered to police.

Citing two officials briefed on the Newtown investigation, CBS said Lanza targeted the elementary school because he saw it as the "easiest target" with the "largest cluster of people."

The report did not say how the investigators learned of Lanza's desire to compete with Breivik.

Lanza was also motivated by violent videogames and had spent numerous hours playing games and working on his computer shooting skills in a private gaming room in his basement with blacked out windows, CBS said. Investigators recovered a large number of games from the basement, the report said.

Evidence shows that in his mind, Lanza was likely acting out the fantasies of a videogame during his shooting spree with each death amounting to some kind of "score," CBS said.

Lanza killed 20 schoolchildren aged 6 and 7 plus six adults who worked at the school, shocking the United States and leading President Barack Obama to propose new gun-control legislation.

Authorities have not publicly spoken of his motive.

"This is not official Connecticut State Police information and is someone's speculation regarding the case," Connecticut State Police Lieutenant Paul Vance told Reuters in an email statement.

When asked if the CBS report was in any way accurate, Vance responded, "No."

Breivik, a self-styled warrior against Muslim immigration, killed eight people by bombing the Oslo government headquarters and then shot dead 69 people at the ruling party's summer youth camp.

A Norwegian judge last year sentenced Breivik to the maximum 21 years in prison, though his release can be put off indefinitely should he be deemed a threat to society.

(Reporting by Daniel Trotta in New York; Editing by Mohammad Zargham and Eric Beech)

 

 

idiots....so in your zeal to take the load off guns you throw toys and games under the bus....and post crap like this shit. pretty pathetic. and not in any way helpful in the 2nd amendment struggle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in----investigators came out yesterday and reported that Adam Lanza not only adored and admired the Norway mass murderer (and wanted to beat his 'record'), but that he also spent hours and hours and hours practicing his shooting skills whilst playing (ta-DAH) violent video games.

 

I'm shocked.....

There's definitely a link there. Violent video games, a weapon capable of carrying out the violence, and an unstable person obsessed with both. Its a three legged stool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you point out a helpful post on the gun issue, elle?

yes.

 

do you think booth's post is helpful in any way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in----investigators came out yesterday and reported that Adam Lanza not only adored and admired the Norway mass murderer (and wanted to beat his 'record'), but that he also spent hours and hours and hours practicing his shooting skills whilst playing (ta-DAH) violent video games.

 

I'm shocked.....

There's definitely a link there. Violent video games, a weapon capable of carrying out the violence, and an unstable person obsessed with both. Its a three legged stool.

If you keep talking as if this is all part of the picture, and we can't just point the finger at any one factor as the sole cause, you are gonna cause some folks to Nugent their pants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in----investigators came out yesterday and reported that Adam Lanza not only adored and admired the Norway mass murderer (and wanted to beat his 'record'), but that he also spent hours and hours and hours practicing his shooting skills whilst playing (ta-DAH) violent video games.

 

I'm shocked.....

There's definitely a link there. Violent video games, a weapon capable of carrying out the violence, and an unstable person obsessed with both. Its a three legged stool.

If you keep talking as if this is all part of the picture, and we can't just point the finger at any one factor as the sole cause, you are gonna cause some folks to Nugent their pants.

Just saying, remove one of the components and the stool falls over. Remove two of them and you have a plate with a stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the stool won't fall over if you remove the games any more so than it will fall over if you remove the guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you point out a helpful post on the gun issue, elle?

yes.

 

do you think booth's post is helpful in any way?

 

Then please do.

 

I did not say his post was helpful, was just looking for an example to follow.

 

Getting back to New York's new law, credit to a Facebook friend for finding this:

 

To put "GUN CONTROL" in perspective - Anthony Raymondo says "Here is a list of just some of the crimes New York state finds LESS OFFENSIVE than owning a 30 round magazine (now a class D felony):

120.70 - Luring a child | E Felony

121.11 - Criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation | A Misdemeanor

125.10 - Criminally negligent homicide | E Felony

130.20 - Sexual misconduct | A Misdemeanor

130.25 - Rape 3rd degree | E Felony

130.40 - Criminal sexual act 3rd degree | E Felony

130.52 - Forcible touching | A Misdemeanor

130.53 - Persistent sexual abuse | E Felony (repeat child molester, must be caught and convicted in two separate cases before the charges even reach this level)

130.65A - Aggravated sexual abuse 4th degree | E Felony

130.85 - Female genital mutilation | E Felony

135.05 - Unlawful imprisonment 2nd degree | A Misdemeanor

135.10 - Unlawful imprisonment 1st degree | E Felony

135.45 - Custodial interference 2nd degree | A Misdemeanor"

 

I think all of those things are worse than possessing a 30 round magazine. I realize my opinion is probably not helpful, so I'm hoping for some examples to emulate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the stool won't fall over if you remove the games any more so than it will fall over if you remove the guns.

If Lanza only had his virtual guns, he'd still be in the basement disappointing his mother. Sandy Hook would still be just another yuppy suburb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh, the irony of people blaming games, toys and fantasy rather than life situations, guns and reality.

 

 

hell....can't even get real news instead of the fantasy posted by booth up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you point out a helpful post on the gun issue, elle?

yes.

 

do you think booth's post is helpful in any way?

 

Then please do.

 

I did not say his post was helpful, was just looking for an example to follow.

 

are you going to answer the question? do you think booth's post is in any way helpful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three legs of fire.

Fuel - Oxygen - Ignition

 

Fuel - An unstable mind

Oxygen - Stimilus to feed that mind (violent gaming, abuse, bullying, alienation, right wing talk radio)

Ignition - a high capacity assault weapon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you point out a helpful post on the gun issue, elle?

yes.

 

do you think booth's post is helpful in any way?

 

Then please do.

 

I did not say his post was helpful, was just looking for an example to follow.

 

are you going to answer the question? do you think booth's post is in any way helpful?

 

No, I'm not on the anti-video game bandwagon. I think most players, like most gun owners, do not go on murderous rampages.

 

I'd like to see some of those helpful posts, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the stool won't fall over if you remove the games any more so than it will fall over if you remove the guns.

If Lanza only had his virtual guns, he'd still be in the basement disappointing his mother. Sandy Hook would still be just another yuppy suburb.

you don't know that. people who will kill will kill...we can "if only" all day long.

you can't have my right to keep and bear arms because lanza killed those people. to paraphrase samuel clemens it's like telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the stool won't fall over if you remove the games any more so than it will fall over if you remove the guns.

If Lanza only had his virtual guns, he'd still be in the basement disappointing his mother. Sandy Hook would still be just another yuppy suburb.

you don't know that. people who will kill will kill...we can "if only" all day long.

you can't have my right to keep and bear arms because lanza killed those people. to paraphrase samuel clemens it's like telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it.

You can legally have as many virtual RPG and fully automatic virtual weapons you want. Even virtual nuclear ones. But we infringe your right to keep and bear real ones all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry mike. But I disagree with your whole premise. The "bad-assness" of a black gun is 'NOT what compels these psychos to kill people. You're blaming the tool again. These guys, for whatever fucked up reason, have decided that killing a bunch of people is a great way to get their jollies, achieve immortality, or whatever. If it wasn't a gun it would be a bomb, or a Molotov cocktail or a SUV.

 

Again, if you want to blame anything, I would tell you that the Xbox probably contributes more to these fragile people picking up an assault rifle than the rifle itself. When you get to chose your gun in COD or other first person shooter game and you've literally spent the last 7 hours straight mowing people down with AR-15s..... Gee I wonder which method of mass murder might come to mind first as your weapon of choice. There were LOTS of black rifles out before video games hit the street and you never ever heard of a shooting with one. Now, everyone thinks assault rifle when you at there games for hours and hours. For the people who can seperate reality from fantasy, no big deal. For those fragile ones who can't, picking up an AR for someone who has killed thousands of virtual people with an AR-15 or AK-47, Using a real one to kill when they snap is as natural to them as picking their nose.

 

I would even postulate that the spike in popularity of the AR, especially among younger folk is directly or at least partially related to their familiarity to them from playing video games. If you grow up shooting AR-15s on line from the age of 5, that's likely what's going to be on your mind when you walk in a gun shop. If all weapons in a game were purple and yellow and looked like super soakers, I doubt people would be rushing out to buy black rifles.

 

So in summary, your entire premise is wrong if you think the look of a gun is what causes people to pick it up and kill others with.

 

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. There most definitely were mass murders with assault weapons before the advent of realistic video games, such as the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre.

 

I've suggested a possible industry response that would require no regulation and would barely effect gun enthusiasts and you've convinced yourself that the conversation isn't even worthy of discussion. You've declared yourself expert on the internal workings of deranged psychopaths.

 

Perhaps you've demonstrated the industry problem that Cavendish suggested?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you point out a helpful post on the gun issue, elle?

yes.

 

do you think booth's post is helpful in any way?

 

Then please do.

 

I did not say his post was helpful, was just looking for an example to follow.

 

are you going to answer the question? do you think booth's post is in any way helpful?

 

No, I'm not on the anti-video game bandwagon. I think most players, like most gun owners, do not go on murderous rampages.

 

I'd like to see some of those helpful posts, though.

 

most of cavendish's post. point break is usually helpful. moe alpha is typically reasonable. i'm sorry to disappoint you but i'm not going to search for specific posts and cut and paste for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the stool won't fall over if you remove the games any more so than it will fall over if you remove the guns.

If Lanza only had his virtual guns, he'd still be in the basement disappointing his mother. Sandy Hook would still be just another yuppy suburb.

you don't know that. people who will kill will kill...we can "if only" all day long.

you can't have my right to keep and bear arms because lanza killed those people. to paraphrase samuel clemens it's like telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it.

You can legally have as many virtual RPG and fully automatic virtual weapons you want. Even virtual nuclear ones. But we infringe your right to keep and bear real ones all the time.

 

i am aware and said so just yesterday that the second amendment is already infringed upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three legs of fire.

Fuel - Oxygen - Ignition

 

Fuel - An unstable mind

Oxygen - Stimilus to feed that mind (violent gaming, abuse, bullying, alienation, right wing talk radio)

Ignition - a high capacity assault weapon

to be clear....is the "ignition" the only "leg" you are suggesting be removed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, I'm not on the anti-video game bandwagon. I think most players, like most gun owners, do not go on murderous rampages.

 

I'd like to see some of those helpful posts, though.

If violent video games cause violent murderous rampages, couldn't one also draw a connection that pornography causes rape?

I think you can, but there is a missing component. A criminal mind.

Porn is used to relieve sexual tension, peacefully in the privacy of your own home.

Violent gaming serves the same purpose.

But only for healthy minds. Mix in an unhealthy mind and you start to have problems.

Does that mean we need to ban porn and violent gaming? Not sure. Directly they hurt nobody. Indirectly, maybe.

 

BTW, all my posts are helpful and somethings just downright knee slapping.

 

Three legs of fire.

Fuel - Oxygen - Ignition

 

Fuel - An unstable mind

Oxygen - Stimilus to feed that mind (violent gaming, abuse, bullying, alienation, right wing talk radio)

Ignition - a high capacity assault weapon

to be clear....is the "ignition" the only "leg" you are suggesting be removed?

I think we need to regulate all three legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm not on the anti-video game bandwagon. I think most players, like most gun owners, do not go on murderous rampages.

 

I'd like to see some of those helpful posts, though.

If violent video games cause violent murderous rampages, couldn't one also draw a connection that pornography causes rape?

I think you can, but there is a missing component. A criminal mind.

Porn is used to relieve sexual tension, peacefully in the privacy of your own home.

Violent gaming serves the same purpose.

But only for healthy minds. Mix in an unhealthy mind and you start to have problems.

Does that mean we need to ban porn and violent gaming? Not sure. Directly they hurt nobody. Indirectly, maybe.

 

BTW, all my posts are helpful and somethings just downright knee slapping.

 

Three legs of fire.

Fuel - Oxygen - Ignition

 

Fuel - An unstable mind

Oxygen - Stimilus to feed that mind (violent gaming, abuse, bullying, alienation, right wing talk radio)

Ignition - a high capacity assault weapon

to be clear....is the "ignition" the only "leg" you are suggesting be removed?

I think we need to regulate all three legs.

 

how so? what regulation now in place would you change and what regulations not in place do you suggest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

how so? what regulation now in place would you change and what regulations not in place do you suggest?

A multi layered approach.

 

Universal backgound checks for assault weapons purchases.

Require a registry of existing assault weapons.

Encode in violent video gaming a registry of excessive use to be downloaded via the internet into a national database.

Cross check that database during background checks for further scrutiny and evaluation by committee.

Periodic cross checking of the gaming database with the gun registry.

When there's a hit, contact the registered assault weapon owner for further evaluation and surveillance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yowza...that's pretty far reaching...

does your approach also include a registry of crazy people, people on mood altering meds (including but not limited to zoloft, chantix), really anyone who might be unstable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yowza...that's pretty far reaching...

does your approach also include a registry of crazy people, people on mood altering meds (including but not limited to zoloft, chantix), really anyone who might be unstable.

That's the most difficult leg to regulate. It will require a delicate and compassionate evaluation of targeted individual. Its unfortunately also the last leg of the stool to be identified. The first two legs must be installed before we can even find the final leg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like nazi germany to me.

 

Think of the Children.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three legs of fire.

Fuel - Oxygen - Ignition

 

Fuel - An unstable mind

Oxygen - Stimilus to feed that mind (violent gaming, abuse, bullying, alienation, right wing talk radio)

Ignition - a high capacity assault weapon

 

FAIL. The rifle was NOT the ignitor. The fact that he was a loser, likely bullied most of his life, and had fantasies of being famous by doing this were the "ignitor". The gun was just the handy tool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yowza...that's pretty far reaching...

does your approach also include a registry of crazy people, people on mood altering meds (including but not limited to zoloft, chantix), really anyone who might be unstable.

That's the most difficult leg to regulate. It will require a delicate and compassionate evaluation of targeted individual. Its unfortunately also the last leg of the stool to be identified. The first two legs must be installed before we can even find the final leg.

 

Cunt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long night at work...tired...fuck being verbose

 

Here is a graph, linked to source. Explain Canada.

shootinggraph.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long night at work...tired...fuck being verbose

 

Here is a graph, linked to source. Explain Canada.

shootinggraph.png

That is a helpful post. Very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry mike. But I disagree with your whole premise. The "bad-assness" of a black gun is 'NOT what compels these psychos to kill people. You're blaming the tool again. These guys, for whatever fucked up reason, have decided that killing a bunch of people is a great way to get their jollies, achieve immortality, or whatever. If it wasn't a gun it would be a bomb, or a Molotov cocktail or a SUV.

 

Again, if you want to blame anything, I would tell you that the Xbox probably contributes more to these fragile people picking up an assault rifle than the rifle itself. When you get to chose your gun in COD or other first person shooter game and you've literally spent the last 7 hours straight mowing people down with AR-15s..... Gee I wonder which method of mass murder might come to mind first as your weapon of choice. There were LOTS of black rifles out before video games hit the street and you never ever heard of a shooting with one. Now, everyone thinks assault rifle when you at there games for hours and hours. For the people who can seperate reality from fantasy, no big deal. For those fragile ones who can't, picking up an AR for someone who has killed thousands of virtual people with an AR-15 or AK-47, Using a real one to kill when they snap is as natural to them as picking their nose.

 

I would even postulate that the spike in popularity of the AR, especially among younger folk is directly or at least partially related to their familiarity to them from playing video games. If you grow up shooting AR-15s on line from the age of 5, that's likely what's going to be on your mind when you walk in a gun shop. If all weapons in a game were purple and yellow and looked like super soakers, I doubt people would be rushing out to buy black rifles.

 

So in summary, your entire premise is wrong if you think the look of a gun is what causes people to pick it up and kill others with.

 

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. There most definitely were mass murders with assault weapons before the advent of realistic video games, such as the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre.

 

I've suggested a possible industry response that would require no regulation and would barely effect gun enthusiasts and you've convinced yourself that the conversation isn't even worthy of discussion. You've declared yourself expert on the internal workings of deranged psychopaths.

 

Perhaps you've demonstrated the industry problem that Cavendish suggested?

 

I AM having the discussion. We're discussing aren't we?

 

I just don't buy your premise that painting a gun to look like an industrial tool will somehow make a deranged psychopath suddenly lose his urge to kill when he picks it up because he will be reminded in that last moment that he's holding a dangerous tool NO SHIT its dangerous, why do you think he's using it to kill people? I think the danger part is pretty well understood.

 

And don't you dare attempt to label me as a self-declared expert on psychopathic mentality. YOU of all people shouldnt't casting stones about being a self-styled expert in something. I certainly don't claim to know what goes through a killer's mind. But I'm pretty sure (for the reasons I've stated) that painting a gun neon green or purple will not keep a killer from pulling the trigger in a classroom full of kids.

 

I think its a dunb idea that won't solve anything. But if we are going to go down the path of making things look less bad-ass - why aren't you asking the video game industry to make all their viirtual M-16s be purple and pink and have unicorns on the side so all the gamers don't automatically associate black rifles with death and mass killing with no consequences. I think my idea has FAR more chance of actually achieving something than yours. By the time the killer has made the decision to kill, his mind is likely made up and the color of the gun won't make a tiny bit of difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three legs of fire.

Fuel - Oxygen - Ignition

 

Fuel - An unstable mind

Oxygen - Stimilus to feed that mind (violent gaming, abuse, bullying, alienation, right wing talk radio)

Ignition - a high capacity assault weapon

 

FAIL. The rifle was NOT the ignitor. The fact that he was a loser, likely bullied most of his life, and had fantasies of being famous by doing this were the "ignitor". The gun was just the handy tool.

That was covered in the fuel leg. You can change the labels of the legs around, but is still a three legged stool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites