The Big Gun Control Thread

ORIFICES of the ANCIENT ALIEN RACE of SATAN

That is so unintentionally hilarious that I can't stop giggling.

clover wrote:

Maybe we should get back to the idea that increased gun regulation needs to go hand-in-hand with better mental health access.

That would include mental health screening before allowing the purchase or ownership of firearms too, yes?

(no snark, I'm being sincere)

I'm not a god believing man, but I pray that my friends who lost a child at Sandy Hook NEVER see any of this sh*t. I'm sure it's inevitable, but I wish they'd be spared this insane, vitriolic nonsense. And I'm not talking about the lunatic quoted above. I'm talking about all the people making these claims.

Farscry wrote:
clover wrote:

Maybe we should get back to the idea that increased gun regulation needs to go hand-in-hand with better mental health access.

That would include mental health screening before allowing the purchase or ownership of firearms too, yes?

(no snark, I'm being sincere)

Maybe, if it was designed in such a way as to not be abused. That's partly the reason that today's resources are so fragmented- most are parts of the old paternalistic overreaching system that was broken up in the mid-late 20th century. Creating a path back to that in the name of "public safety" would be a mistake.

But really, screening isn't a mental health resource, it's just a test. My fear is that public concern would end there, and never make it to the increase of services that our society is clearly in need of. Gun regulations come at the problem from one end, but we need to approach it from the other as well.

lostlobster wrote:

I'm not a god believing man, but I pray that my friends who lost a child at Sandy Hook NEVER see any of this sh*t. I'm sure it's inevitable, but I wish they'd be spared this insane, vitriolic nonsense. And I'm not talking about the lunatic quoted above. I'm talking about all the people making these claims.

Lostlobster, I sincerely hope they don't. To go through the pain of losing a child and then have people say its a hoax is truly sickening.

Bear wrote:
lostlobster wrote:

I'm not a god believing man, but I pray that my friends who lost a child at Sandy Hook NEVER see any of this sh*t. I'm sure it's inevitable, but I wish they'd be spared this insane, vitriolic nonsense. And I'm not talking about the lunatic quoted above. I'm talking about all the people making these claims.

Lostlobster, I sincerely hope they don't. To go through the pain of losing a child and then have people say its a hoax is truly sickening.

They've received thousands of pieces of mail. I can't help but think there's at least one or two sickos out there willing to write them. I hope they have someone screening everything.

Plus, kind of hard to miss getting a whiff of it if you get on facebook.

EDIT: Anyway, this isn't about gun control. Carry on.

clover wrote:
Farscry wrote:
clover wrote:

Maybe we should get back to the idea that increased gun regulation needs to go hand-in-hand with better mental health access.

That would include mental health screening before allowing the purchase or ownership of firearms too, yes?

(no snark, I'm being sincere)

Maybe, if it was designed in such a way as to not be abused. That's partly the reason that today's resources are so fragmented- most are parts of the old paternalistic overreaching system that was broken up in the mid-late 20th century. Creating a path back to that in the name of "public safety" would be a mistake.

But really, screening isn't a mental health resource, it's just a test. My fear is that public concern would end there, and never make it to the increase of services that our society is clearly in need of. Gun regulations come at the problem from one end, but we need to approach it from the other as well.

I'm in full agreement with you that we need to address both problems from both directions.

I know we've tread the territory before, but just to reiterate my stances, I don't think the only problem with guns is letting them get in the hands of people with mental health trouble (of which, in full disclosure, I am one of them -- and I would not object if my depression/anxiety disqualifies me from gun ownership). It's also about better safety for the vast majority of gun owners, who would still be able to own and purchase them, but do not take proper care of their firearms or store them safely and securely.

I also don't think the only problem with mental health is in relation to gun ownership. Our mental healthcare standards are absolutely abysmal in the US. We need a cultural shift away from stigmatizing mental healthcare, and we need to massive reform in our healthcare to provide the right resources to those who need it.

This is the internet, so we love Lists.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...

Bear wrote:

I don't think it's a surprise that we have crazy people living among us but it blows me away that these people ("truthers") are openly willing to link their insanity on their Facebook page. From the earlier discussion on the freaks who are contending that is a hoax, I give you the following:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/27/sandy-hook-huge-hoax-and-anti-gun-psy-op/

Do yourself a favor, skip all the insanity in the article and read the posts below. If you wanted to figure out who shouldn't have guns, that's a great place to start.

Here's my favorite so far:

Sandy Hook was a HOAX, pulled off by ALIENS occupying human bodies. We are dealing with DEMONIC FORCES and their likely (local) origin of the humanoid reptilians is Zionist Israel. THEY had temples built throughout the world and throughout human history, aka ORIFICES of the ANCIENT ALIEN RACE of SATAN, through which THEY absorb human Negative Spiritual Energy (generated by Shekinah - "Shock & Awe"). Humanity is FEEDING the ALIENS through ALIEN-inspired wars, violence (real as well as staged), human suffering and idol worship (inspired by the ALIEN Orifices). Major Orifices are the Capitol in Wash. DC, the Vatican, the WH, the Federal Reserve building in Wash. DC, the Parthenon and other ancient temples as well as museums and libraries throughout the world.
NObamaIsAMartianAthiestMuslin.com wrote:

In the case of Sandy Hook, however, the situation is completely different, where we have one inconsistency after another: the mother was a teacher there and Adam was a student; the mother was not a teacher there an Adam was not a student. One shooter was involved, yet police radio reports show a second suspect was apprehended at the scene and a police helicopter video show yet a third suspect being tracked in the woods. The principal called the local paper about the shooting; the principal was dead on the scene. Excellent studies of the incoherence of the Sandy Hook narrative have been published by Niall Bradley, “Sandy Hook massacre story spins out of control” (Veterans Today, 20 December 2012) and by Professor James F. Tracy, “The Sandy Hook School Massacre: Unanswered Questions and Missing Information” (Global Research, 25 December 2012). Even NBC News has reported that there were four rather than two handguns inside the school and no long gun. There is no consistent story or coherent narrative.

Clearly the problem is Obama and his Illuminati handlers, and not a news media that rushes to report rumors first and checks facts later. It's Occam's Razor, people, and you don't have to be as crazy as I am to see it.

KingGorilla wrote:

This is the internet, so we love Lists.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...

That all seems really reasonable. I fail to see how anyone could have a problem with any of that.

NathanialG wrote:

That all seems really reasonable. I fail to see how anyone could have a problem with any of that.

Opponents view every measure as the next step to confiscation, even though gun control advocates have political power in only a couple of states. Their attitude is similar to the paranoia that sees a marxist state as the inevitable result of an income tax increase or a new helmet law. There's not much reasoning behind it.

Farscry wrote:
ORIFICES of the ANCIENT ALIEN RACE of SATAN

That is so unintentionally hilarious that I can't stop giggling.

It would be an awesome name for some kind of high-concept speed metal band.

I find it bizarre that people are saying there is "No consistent story or coherent narrative" as though that's proof of some conspiracy.

Of course there are mixed reports about how many weapons and gunmen there were, it's not surprising that a schoolyard shooting would be a chaotic and confusing event. A police helicopter is tracking some guy in the woods? It could just be some innocent guy strolling through the woods, but the police don't know that, so of course they follow him. In a TV show, that might be an inconsistency in the narrative, real life doesn't follow any such rules, it doesn't have a damn narrative. Do some people truly not understand this?

NathanialG wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

This is the internet, so we love Lists.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...

That all seems really reasonable. I fail to see how anyone could have a problem with any of that.

You didn't see #24? They took er guns!

Redwing wrote:

I find it bizarre that people are saying there is "No consistent story or coherent narrative" as though that's proof of some conspiracy.

In the eyes of the conspiracy monger, everything is evidence of conspiracy.

ruhk wrote:
Redwing wrote:

I find it bizarre that people are saying there is "No consistent story or coherent narrative" as though that's proof of some conspiracy.

In the eyes of the conspiracy monger, everything is evidence of conspiracy.

Absence of evidence is evidence of conspiracy.

Where's "close the gun show/private sale background check loophole"?

Tanglebones wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

What an elegant solution. Janitors! No extra headcount. Let's deputize janitors everywhere -- government buildings, movie theaters, malls etc...

Quis custodiet ipsos custodians?

Check out space janitors on youtube.

Robear wrote:

Where's "close the gun show/private sale background check loophole"?

Is that possible with an executive order?

Robear wrote:

Where's "close the gun show/private sale background check loophole"?

Per Slate, it is among the things he wants the Legislature to deal with.

Infographic:

IMAGE(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-x70Obr7UzDQ/UPbzhdKSZsI/AAAAAAAAAB4/Nz-nQGflugc/s1600/IMAG0976.jpg)

Edwin, all ridicule and sarcasm aside, what is your objection to a 10-round limit on magazine size? We associate large-capacity magazines with mass shootings. From a self-defense side, I don't see an issue with being limited to 10 rounds, or even 7.

The U.S. army issued a sidearm with a 7-round standard magazine for generations (many people STILL complain that the army never should have moved to the Beretta M9), and there are a ton of guys who still carry that style of weapon. If it was good for all those years, what makes it so awful now?

Also, regarding the limits on rifle mags, what's the practical, real-world impact of only being able to fire 10 rounds before a mag change rather than 20 or 30?

The key here is that we have two groups of voters with very extreme ideas about gun control on either side, and a whole bunch of people in the middle who would like to see a compromise.

I think the 7 versus 8 bullet debate is silly. Whatever their intentions, I think the NYS law failed miserably. The fundamental problem is that gun access in this country if far to easy. A simple background check is not sufficient due diligence to determine if someone should be allowed to own a gun or multiple guns. The fact that I can walk into Dick's sporting goods and walk out with a shotgun 15 minutes later is a HUGE problem.

There has to be a thorough process of criminal screening, mental health screening and training before a weapon on ANY type is sold. Personally, I'd like to see gun owners have to present a certificate from their physician that would at least reinforce their mental state.

Bear wrote:

I think the 7 versus 8 bullet debate is silly.

I'm surprised you'd say this. The Newtown shooter fired off something like 200-300 rounds in a short period of time. Your system of mental checks and training requirements would have had no effect on him, because he acquired the weapons via his mother. Other people will be able to get them through straw purchasers, if they are available on the open market. The idea is to remove them from the civil market entirely so the mentally ill can't get access to them.

The whole idea behind the NY law is to remove all high capacity magazines from civilian circulation. Now, we all know this won't work because it will be easy enough to buy them in a different state and carry them into NY. But the idea behind the rule isn't absurd.

I think later today I will post an info graphic of my own with 15, 16, 30, and 50 rounds of 9mm (depending on how much I have.)

Truth. Bear in mind it's not "7 bullets versus 8," but "7 bullets versus 30."

As for the wider effect of this, it's certain the gun market is wider and more diffuse than the hobby gaming market, but when NY state banned lead in miniatures, it made the entire games industry switch to pewter, which is part of the reason Games Workshop can charge $75 for an Orifice for your ancient alien race of Satan army.

clover wrote:

the old paternalistic overreaching system that was broken up in the mid-late 20th century.

Garsh, I don't think anyone's gussified up the term "nanny state" any better than that.

Farscry wrote:

We need a cultural shift away from stigmatizing mental healthcare, and we need to massive reform in our healthcare to provide the right resources to those who need it.

Absolutely. We also need to pursue a cultural shift away from guns. For my money, we should further restrict modern-era first-person shooters and toy guns, and put Recoil and Soldier of Fortune behind the counter alongside Shaved Beavers and Car & Dragon.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Absolutely. We also need to pursue a cultural shift away from guns. For my money, we should further restrict modern-era first-person shooters and toy guns, and put Recoil and Soldier of Fortune behind the counter alongside Shaved Beavers and Car & Dragon.

You can have my subscription of Car & Dragon when you yank it from my damp, clammy hands!

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Absolutely. We also need to pursue a cultural shift away from guns. For my money, we should further restrict modern-era first-person shooters and toy guns, and put Recoil and Soldier of Fortune behind the counter alongside Shaved Beavers and Car & Dragon.

The minors aren't interested in glossy magazines anyway. They have internet.

P.S. If it's shaved.... Technically, it's not a beaver anymore, is it?

lostlobster wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Absolutely. We also need to pursue a cultural shift away from guns. For my money, we should further restrict modern-era first-person shooters and toy guns, and put Recoil and Soldier of Fortune behind the counter alongside Shaved Beavers and Car & Dragon.

You can have my subscription of Car & Dragon when you yank it from my damp, clammy hands!

Finger -> Exhaust pipe?

IMAGE(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-x70Obr7UzDQ/UPbzhdKSZsI/AAAAAAAAAB4/Nz-nQGflugc/s1600/IMAG0976.jpg)

Note that unless you had the rightmost clip, you'd have had to reload to fire the amount of bullets used to kill 6 year old Noah Pozner, just one of 28 victims. That could cost you a few seconds. But with 30 round clips, you could do pretty much the same amount of damage to *three* six year olds, without reloading.

Just think, if all you had was a six round revolver, it would take *minutes* to kill 20 children, with the constant risk that even with a speed-loader some adult would manage to tangle you up during reload long enough to stop you. But hey, this isn't the 1920's anymore, our tech is way better now and there's no reason to restrict it. It's just one more bullet in the clip, more or less. How bad could it be?

After all, if you can't put out 30 rounds a second, how can you defend your home?