News
Jan 8, 2013 at 10:00 am
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In News
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Paging Paul to shit all over a local business that ships globally, paging Paul.
Except:
is not so good. If you can't keep control of your deadly weapons, maybe you should take a break from playing with them.
Like some penises I know.
While you feign worry that it won't do any good, and wring your hands at all the fine, lovely antique beauties that will get melted down, stop and realize that there's a little bit of a chance that a few law abiding gun owners will get their stolen property back. Instead of whining about abstract nothings that won't affect you in any way, be grateful for one teeny little possible benefit to you.
Also, ask yourself how come there are so many fine guns laying around owned by people who don't know anything about guns, or want to keep them. It's the culture of entitlement that pervades gun lovers. "Gimme my gun, gimmie my gun, it's my RIGHT!"
Somebody paid top dollar for that gun, once. Where are they now? Just wandered off, like a 5 year old leaving their legos on the floor? Or dead unexpectedly at a young age, without a will to dispose of hteir valuable property, because of the high risk of suicide and murder that gun owners face.
If American gun lover respected guns, if they treated a gun as a responsibility, and a privilege, they'd take care of them. They'd destroy junk guns themselves, lest anyone be hurt, and they'd sell off valuable ones. Not leave them for clueless relatives to cart off to a gun buyback.
Right there. You just mixed up the responsibility to secure dangerous weapon with the right of people to be safe.
Can you imagine a soldier who loses his weapon whining, "But I'm a viiiiiiiiiiictim!" Jack Nicholson would order a code red.
In American gun culture today there isn't a hint of personal responsibility. Of duty. Understanding what a privlige gun owners enjoy. It's all me, me, me. My rights. My things. My toys. Gimmie gimmie gimmie.
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2013/jan/0…
1. Most guns cost way more than one or two hundred dollars. I suppose if you're broke or desperate this might be appealing, but you could still sell it for way more.
2. This sounds like a great way to get rid of a gun used in a crime, the authorities will destroy the evidence for you!
http://www.ravennablog.com/accidental-sh…
1. This is targeted at people who don't want to deal with anything like that, they just want a source of worry gone. I don't count myself among them, but they're certainly out there.
2. because chucking it into the sound would be too difficult, right?
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/…
There are a bunch of other articles but it should be noted they were not functional
"While the original picture (shown above) has a yellow stripe that, according to military personnel, denotes a “dummy,” a second picture (below) clearly shows the word “TRAINER.” We apologize for the error but maintain that if two rocket launchers stripped of parts could make its way into civilian hands, so could two live ones."
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/12/28/…
Yeah, and we know that all guns stolen are reported stolen. Serial numbers are never removed, and of course records are perfectly kept.
any buyback that encourages those marginal owners to give it up is good.
@20: "We were wrong, and we admit that. But we're still right in spirit." Gotta love that disconnect with reality.
Even if they didn't return stolen guns to their owners, which would you rather have: a stolen gun in the hands of a criminal, or the same gun destroyed, all paid for by Amazon and other donors, not gun owners, not the taxpayer?
Isn't it funny how many gun owners are victims of gun theft? I thought having a gun was supposed to protect you from crime, not turn you into a crime victim. I wonder if gun owners would buy a decent gun safe if they were required to buy insurance...
So you'd rather have the unreported stolen gun with no serial number remain on the streets, in the hands of the criminal who stole it, than have that gun destroyed? At no cost to you or the taxpayer. Why?
Do you think that without the gun buyback this unreported stolen gun with no serial number is going to find its way back to the owner by some other means? And if the owner really gave a shit, why didn't they report it?
No, gun theft isn't funny.
I did.
Nobody ever talks about safe storage. Don't like trigger locks, a gun in a sock drawer with a trigger lock is not secured.
Store all firearms (unloaded, duh) in a locked steel safe or gun cabinet. Your granddad's glass fronted gun cabinet with the little jewelry box lock is not enough. Store all ammunition in a separate locked steel cabinet. The gun safe and ammunition locker should be keyed separately. And store those keys securely (obviously). Mine are in a third, combination locked steel security box.
Is this combination 100% secure? Of course not, determined thieves with time on their hands can defeat any safe. But no kid in my house is going to just stumble upon a gun.
Fuck y'all and your bullshit feel good measures.
It's fine. You do that. Really, buy up those guns. The sad thing to me is that you're just a 12 year old pretending you have $250. It would actually be a good thing if you were for real.
But when you grow up and have a job, you could show up at a gun buyback and buy guns then. We're all looking forward to it. Honest. Do it.
@28- sure. If you are a responsible gun owner, it is probably an upgrade from where ever the gun was living before. Just make sure you're not buying a previously stolen weapon.
But it's not going to stop some gun nut who loaded up with military assault mods for his weapons at a gun show, or his usage of 100 round drum ammunition and flash suppressors.
You left out cholera epidemics. And hurricanes. And fear of a committed relationship. The list of things this will not stop is pretty long. Dog bites!
Oh, oh, car accidents. Shit bike accidents too. I'd better stop myself. This could never end.
What difference does it make to you?
"do flash suppressors play an important role in these mass killings?"
Why stop there?
Do flash suppressors play an important role in ANY gun-related violence (not counting wars or other military action).
Or bayonet lugs?
"Assault weapon" is a meaningless term because it focuses too much on the cosmetic features of a gun instead of the actual functionality.
Great! The gun control movement is wasting their time and money on a meaningless law. What is your problem with that? You should be happy.
They hijacked the thread to re-bleat their complaints about the Assault Weapons Ban. It's cosmetic and meaningless because it doesn't ban other weapons which they say are equivalent.
So it raises the question why they are so vehemently opposed to a law they claim is meaningless. It makes no sense that they should be in a tizzy over a law that they think doesn't do anything.
But why should gun enthusiasts worry so much? They should be happy that Bloomberg is going to pour his millions of dollars into passing a do-nothing law instead of something that could actually threaten their Second Amendment rights.
The problem is that this objection comes from gun nuts. They're concern trolling because, in fact, the Assault Weapons Ban does meaningfully reduce the firepower on the street. There's no other logical reason that I can see.
Good point.
There are a LOT more deaths due to cars than there are due to guns.
So any car with any 2 of the following will be illegal:
a. spoilers
b. hub caps
c. mp3 capable radio
d. black exterior
Now most law-abiding people will not be affected by this ban.
And anyone who criticizes it for being "cosmetic" is a "car nut" who can be ignored.
After all, if this ban will do "nothing" as you claim then why do you keep pointing out that it will do nothing?
*this message brought to you by The People Who Do Not Own Cars and Want Everyone To Ride Bicycles*
And the comparison with ricers is quite apt. Gun kooks and ricers are into it for the same reason: they think it makes them look cool. They think it makes them tough. Take away the cosmetic elements that they show off to compensate for their tiny penis, and they will find a new hobby.
In fact the Assault Weapons Ban does reduce the firepower on the street. It's exactly what the NRA hates about it. But even if it were only cosmetic, the effect would be fewer gun nuts. They'd probably switch to ricer cars.
"If it saves just one life....it's worth it"
So you're not going to answer the question? Why do you oppose the Assault Weapons Ban if you think it's meaningless? What's it to you? Why don't you appreciate the drain on the gun control movement's resources?
And you know the number of car deaths is only slightly more than guns. At the rate traffic deaths are declining and gun deaths increasing, guns will kill more than cars in a couple years.
Why? Regulation. Licensing. Enforcement. Mandatory safety technology. Cultural shift against drunk driving.
With regulation, licensing, enforcement, technology, and a reversal of our irresponsible gun culture, we could see gun deaths decrease just as automobile deaths have.
Even if you want to imagine that we're twice as better as the great unwashed, and use the lowest estimate of guns in private hands, there are at least 100,000 guns within the city limits.
And this buyback will do what? Get rid of a few hundred of them? It's hard to know just who is a bigger bunch of idiots, the "progressives" or the gun nuts. Both groups seem to be in earnest competition for the title of Biggest Laughingstock. How stupid are you people, anyway? Wait, better not answer that.
"I think 30 would be much more reasonable."
25 is safer.
30 is just unreasonably reckless endangerment.
*this message brought to you by The People Who Do Not Own Cars and Want Everyone To Ride Bicycles*
Speed limits annoy drivers. Noise limits on mufflers annoy and impede them. On and on. Civilization requires placing limits on behavior for the greater good.
It's pretty clear this rests on exactly that: rednecks and ricers like their monster trucks and their ridiculous cars with giant wings and fart cannon mufflers, and their penis-substitute assault weapons. They want their fun and they like their toys. They don't care about shit except that.
This is about man-child toys vs. dead children. Or collateral damage, as you would all them.
And if you exclude suicides, gun deaths are at about 9,000 a year right now. That isn't even a healthy percentage of vehicle deaths.
What's deceptive about your jokes about traffic regulation is that you're hiding the fact that lives have been saved by better cars, stricter rules, better enforcement, and changes in cultural attitudes, like alcohol and teen driving. We went from 60,000 deaths a year to 30,000. The improvement in deaths per miles traveled is not a factor of two, it's a factor of twenty . These changes have not come at too high a cost and the lives saved have been worth it.
You joke about it because you don't give a shit about other people. Gun nuts are the result of a culture of personal irresponsibility, materialism, consumerism, and selfishness.
And you exclude suicides because...?
Because they are increasing, commensurate with the spread of gun lust, and gun culture. And more guns.
Gun deaths exceed traffic deaths in 10 states already, and the number is going up.
"Consider all the TSA bullshit at the airport."
Exactly.
Banning cosmetic features has NOTHING to do with reducing deaths or crimes.
There are things that can be done to reduce deaths but those things deal more with the functionality rather than the cosmetic features.
With cars, banning spoilers does nothing to reduce highway deaths.
But reducing the speed limit might.
With guns, banning flash suppressors does nothing to reduce gun violence.
But requiring a magazine lock might.
Flash suppressors are not a civil right. Giving them up is not giving up any liberty. Liberty is about much more important things than a rocking loud car exhaust or a macho looking gun. If you want to be taken for a man, try growing up.
Gotta love the way you guys jump from any safety measure you don't like to institutional racism. "Hey! If we can discriminate on how guns look, can we discriminate on how people look? Can we? Can we? Please?"
I still haven't seen a compelling reason to ban them. Is there one, or are we just stuck on a stupid topic that nobody really wants to be talking about?
The Assault Weapons Ban defines which weapons it bans by combining various features which, taken together, make a military weapon. It's no a black-and-white thing like banning all semi-automatics, but it is effective in a rough way.
And of course banning large magazines his highly effective.
It certainly isn't perfect. It's easy to attack any proposed law by trying to pick holes in it, which is what the gun lobby's proxies do here. They think you can't pass anything that isn't perfect.
We have many effective laws that don't perfectly seal off every opportunity. They address a sizable chunk of the problem and are enforceable. Look at traffic lights. A red light is not an impenetrable wall that prevents any car from entering the intersection. It just tells people to stop, and it works most of the time. Enough to create a functional system.
A lot of these gun nuts are libertarians with no practical experience in making the world work. It's all hypothetical to them: flat taxes and Ayn Rand's magic trains. And a lot of them are just lying because they don't want to be told what to do. They like their macho man toys and mommy and daddy never told them they couldn't have any toy they wanted. Notice the rise of the NRA coincides with the dominance of the Baby Boom generation? Most spoiled kids ever, bar none.
And who knows? Maybe if a crazed sniper is picking off people in the mall parking lot, a law abiding member of our well regulated militia will use their personal weapon to shoot the bad guy, aided by the fact that the attacker's muzzle flash isn't concealed. Or the bad guy will have a harder time because they're blinded by their own muzzle flash. Flash suppressors make the weapon more effective. The military doesn't put them on for decoration, in spite of the claim that they're cosmetic.
Sounds like they have a lot in common with most Sloggers!
Time to build zip guns.
Imma gonna be rich!!!
http://chadperson.com/recess/images/pipe…
I also find it funny because Amazon sells firearm accessories and even mailed a SIG 556 to the wrong house.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08…
Yea they banned magazines in California and now California doesn't have gun crime anymore.
"The figures show that California had the highest number of gun murders last year - 1,790, which is 68% of all murders that year and equivalent to 3.25 per 100,000 people in the state."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/…
Same thing in NYC. They buy guns outside of the city. Could be California needs a border fence. Or it could be we need a national law. And years to clean up the hoarding that the run-up to the law triggers.
These inane arguments you get from your NRA list are sad. Don't you know anybody smart who could give you a good argument? Run upstairs and ask your mom.
That's the thing, though; they really don't. An SKS is precisely a military weapon: it's the semi-automatic rifle that was commonly by countries that later used the AK-47. It had a fixed magazine, so it didn't fit the bill for the Assault Weapons ban, and there were tens of thousands in circulation at the time. If you want to look at more recent firearms, you get stuck with a problem: very nearly every standard-issue military rifle that came after the SKS had one thing in common. They were all select-fire, capable of firing in bursts or in fully automatic mode. If you want to pick a distinguishing feature for a "military weapon," that's the definitive one. If you want to broaden your view of what "military weapon" is to include more specialized firearms, the US Army's M24 sniper rifle is actually a Remington 700, one of the most popular bolt-action hunting rifles ever. It would fit under no definition of "assault weapon" in any ban that I know of, despite being the exact same firearm the military uses. If you want to broaden the definition beyond that to anything that cosmetically resembles a military weapon, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve. It certainly no longer has anything to do with the potential for harm that such a device enables.
Here are two muzzle accessories. One is legal under California's "assault weapons" ban, and the other is illegal as it's a flash hider.
http://i.imgur.com/KpIli.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/910gM.jpg
Like I said, cosmetic differences on guns are as silly to try to legislate as cosmetic differences on cars (pro-gun people: PLEASE don't drag this off-topic to directly comparing cars versus guns).
I know you didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyway because I'm a selfish fucking asshole who only cares about myself:
Because your gun plan as you've laid it out here in the past several weeks is to start small where you can get something passed and stick a finger in the eye of a bunch of people you really dislike, disrespect and feel threatened by.
Or, worst (best?) case, watch it go down in flames, do nothing and let a bunch more murders happen for the next couple of years so that you can get a congressional majority and cram something more draconian down peoples throats before Barry O leaves town.
Step 1 is purposely useless or nearly so, so that then when it fails to work (and another bunch of criminals shoot each other, or an undefended classroom full of kids gets mowed down), you can quickly move on to successively more stringent laws/restrictions/registrations/arrests - people will already be used to "common sense steps," so the skids are greased.
In this model, any premature reductions in deaths/massacres in the meantime are bugs, not features, because they have the potential to short-circuit the big program too early, while the people you feel threatened by are still dangerous to you.
So, we gun nuts have a completely different worldview and honestly just don't want you in charge. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but our penises are too small to just stand by and have our guns confiscated, and be left with only Kid Rock, Jesus, Budweiser and maybe fart can mufflers tweaked just past the DOT limits to console our asshole selves, while the actual issues around violence are left unresolved.
PS - I'm all for buybacks or whatever the hell people want to do - raise the price high enough and I have some clunkers I'll gladly sell and you can melt to your heart's content
So, saying that car deaths are down due to "Regulation. Licensing. Enforcement. Mandatory safety technology." is a fallacious argument. The reality is much more that car deaths are down due to Safety Technology, period. While regulations..etc have certainly had an effect, it is much smaller than the overall effect of technological advancements in car design/safety features.
The reason why "gun-nuts" are outraged at the "assault-weapons" ban is because rifles, of any kind, make up about 4% of all firearms related deaths. Whereas handguns make up 50-75% of firearms related deaths. The vast majority of rifle (and "assault" rifles) are owned by law-abiding citizens, not criminals. If you really were interested in effectively saving lives you'd be looking at how to regulate cheap handguns, but you're not - you're too wrapped up in your penis issues.
Demographics is killing the opposition. America's gun nuts are a shrinking pool of angry white males who like the Tea Party. Women, minorities, young people can't stand their bullshit. The strength of incumbency and House district gerrymandering are the only reason they're even part of the conversation.
Most gun owners know what assholes these flash suppressor, 30 round magazine pencil dick losers are. Most gun owners want to close the gun show loophole, and most gun owners want stricter regulation and enforcement. The numbers are even higher among all Americans.
So yeah. Name calling is good. They're fucking fucks, and they suck.
But hey, I could be wrong. I don't own any firearms that would have been restricted under the 1994 ban, so it's not as though I'll be all that affected by it, either way. That is to say, I'll be surprised, but not by any means upset, if such a bill passes. Heck, I'm sure there's more than a few "assault weapon" owners out there that are looking forward to a new assault weapons ban. Just the *prospect* of one has already doubled prices.
I'm convinced that most "progressives" have never actually been interested in addressing gun control in any serious way, either practically or politically. How else to explain the series of bonehead maneuvering over the years, starting with essentially inviting the NRA to aggregate handguns and long guns and their owns into a single undifferentiated group, when in fact there have always been gigantic political and social differences between them?
To that, we add basic ignorance about guns, i.e., not bothering to understand that a "semiautomatic" gun is basically every gun or damn near every gun manufactured in the last 75 years or more. Okay, some shotguns no, some rifles, no. But you know what I mean.
And then we have the whole "assault weapon" deal, which is mostly a matter of cosmetics, along with basic ignorance about "large capacity magazines." It just goes on and on. Like so many issues, I'm convinced that "progressives" take positions not to accomplish anything other than stoke their sense of self-righteousness. This of course is equally true on the far right, but the "progressives" think they are so much smarter, and so much better, when in fact they're just the same as Sarah Palin and her tribal, faith-based friends.
So we just go on, saying everything and doing nothing.
It's not going to pass. The best shot is to unseat the guys who vote against it by having them run on their vote in the midterms.
These dead enders don't cave. Obama plays nice with them and doesn't call them names, but when it comes time to pass anything you have to play hardball. They don't negotiate, so fuck them. Vote them out by demonizing them. They'll have blood on their hands for the shooting rampages that we'll see in the next two years. They'll have it coming.
The attack ads are not going to be pretty, nor should they be.
"That's the thing, though; they really don't."
The problem is that you are arguing with someone who is so uninformed on the matter (even after months of being corrected in these forums) that he says that they do.
There is a limit to how much communication that can happen when one side refuses to accept basic facts.
Adding a flash suppressor to a gun does NOT make it a military gun.
Adding a flash suppressor to a gun does NOT make it more dangerous in a school/mall shooting.
Adding a flash suppressor to a gun does NOT make it more dangerous for gang violence.
And so on.
@88: I feel like you're setting up the narrative so that when legislation over-reaches the will of the people and fails, you can throw up your arms and cry "the gun lobby!" Like I said, I really do think that the current political will and popularity are both on the side of some sane gun control laws, but you're going to have to reign it in a bit if you expect to eventually get your way. You absolutely realize that what's required is a cultural shift as much as anything else, and cultural change never comes from a single piece of legislation.
Why? Usually the cutoff on these events is when they run out of money, not when there's a shortage of guns to be turned in. They will get lot more for their money at these prices. Were I a donor, I'd want them to price it just like they did.