swingset

9. Mass shooting equals public hanging. Just as it says. Bring back public hangings for those who commit these heinous crimes. I vote for that

Most mass shooters off themselves. Do you think this is a deterrent? And, the others are so desperate for attention that they'll murder 30 people so the world can feel their pain. Hanging one that lives through it isn't going to scare off the next Adam Lanza...in fact it might play right into his desperation...expecially if there's a media circus about it.

If you wanna kill them just to have the world rid of them, ok that's an argument but it's not going to stop these things from happening.

The one guaranteed way to end or severely lessen these types of shootings is to stop publicizing them, but then that's never going to happen. The proof of this is every time we have a big one, there's rashes of copycats that get caught or attempt something lamely similar immediately afterwards. The circus fuels the desperate/crazies to want their share of the media attention.

Already saw the video, I'm just here for the stupidity...

The goal isn't to just stop Newtown. It is to lower gun crime overall. And no one is being punished by Caspers list. Just minor inconveniences.

Something has to change. We can quote convenient statistics and quote neat little sayings but the bottom line is gun violence in this country is statistically much higher than most civilized countries. Much higher. Yea you can find a few exceptions here and there but the norm is we shoot the fuck out of each other far more than most anywhere else.

So much fail. That's exactly the talk of the anti's, when they're trying to reasonably chip away...and we've been there and tried it. The bans and restrictions don't do anything, we've seen it again and again.

The violence problem is almost entirely dependent on culture. Years ago when our laws were more lax, access to guns almost entirely unrestricted, we had very very little gun crime. So you think more restriction is going to do something? Seriously?

That's not convenient statistics, it's the historical truth, a matter of record. And to vilify guns as the catalyst for violence or crime is single-minded and wrong, and why we're constantly chasing the wrong boogeyman.

Just for fun, factor out gang-and-drug related gun crime and you see that America is on par with most countries that have a tiny fraction of our gun ownership and drastically heavier restrictions. Doesn't that tell you something? It's not the guns, it's other factors and if you reduce gun crime at the expense of normal people's "convenience" (which is a highly subjective matter of opinion) you'll just shift it to something else (see Britain and knife/club/fist) violence and murder. Not that it will matter anyway, there are 280,000,000 guns out there. You can't put that horse back in the barn. All you are doing is going further towards prohibition which doesn't impact criminals just you and I....and creates a black market industry where there shouldn't be one anyway. Stop vilifying the fucking guns.

It's not the guns.

Look at Detroit, at Chicago, at Washington DC. For fuck's sake, if you can't figure something out about those areas and gun crime I worry for you.

Compromise is bullshit.

Looks like the Republicans in New York just compromised with Cuomo and his merry band and everyone with a Garand, or an Enfield, or a 10/22, or a 10 round handgun is fucked.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Gun-Control-Assault-Weapons-Ban-Magazines-Limit-Cuomo-NY-186794151.html

How about let's not compromise until we're fighting just to keep our single-shots and stay off a watch list?

Remember, this is a give and take scenario meant to be a compromise between both sides. These aren't necessarily things I want, but things I'm willing to do. I am not willing to agree to any new weapons ban, registration, etc. However, I am willing to give in other areas in order to work together. That's the key here. Both sides of this debate need to work together instead of being steadfast in their opinions. New legislation is coming. Don't for a minute think it's not. It's imparative that we work together on this.

I disagree with this entirely too. We've been compromising since 1934, and it hasn't satisfied the gun-grabbers, nor have any of the compromises been effective at their intended goals.

And the other side isn't interested in compromise. They're solely and demonstrably interested in eroding gun ownership incrementally. This isn't hyperbole, they've admitted it and done it.

We need to be steadfast, because the 2nd amendment isn't ambiguous....and guns aren't the issue they're just the tools.

Look at Ohio, Ben, we've been gaining gun rights BACK instead of ceding them in the last 10 years. Are we worse off for it, or better? We're not compromising locally we've been on the offensive - and your plan is to give more stuff up to the Feds?

Fuck that.

The shell would have been supported.

Not by much, the closing slide on one side (which is only as firm as the recoil spring) the face of the chamber on the other. Far cry from an enclosed chamber that it can expand evenly as the powder burns. The forward momentum of a bullet is provided (momentarily) by being secured into the chamber by the bolt face as the primer detonates. Once the brass expands and seals the powder burn completes it. This is all out of whack in the above scenario - there's nothing behind the rim to "start" the bullet so the complete energy of the detonation happens to the powder, and that tends to expand (bell) the front of the case first when there's partial hold on the bullet itself (both sides in this case)....and the bullet usually limps out rather than shoots out forcefully.

You can try this (if you're brave) by holding a .22 in a pair of pliers and whacking the primed end. It'll detonate, it'll be loud and the bullet will fly out - but not with much momentum. Bench vice might be a better idea.

I'd be really interested to see the fired case, cause I can see a rimfire detonating this way for sure but not retaining a lot of energy for propulsion...not enough for two wounds.

Here's my gun control idea:

Don't.

Number 1 switches the burden of legality from the wrongdoer and criminal to the innocent person selling a legal and constitutionally protected object. Don't agree with that, at all. Private sales are no one's business. It won't stop anything, just make straw sales and thefts more common.

Number 2, well ok let's just have that. Now tell me what constitutes a mental health issue that should disbar someone from owning a gun. Depression? Anxiety? ADD?....yeah, that's not going to be a mess of lawsuits. Unintended consequence = fewer people seek treatment if they know they will lose their guns or never own one. More undiagnosed crazies instead of treated ones.

Number 4, I'm in favor of training and recommend it. But requiring it? Vermont doesn't even require permits (and I favor that). Are the streets running red with blood from negligence up there? Nope. Ok then, I don't think its the states job to mandate that either.

Number 5 is favoritism towards people who have received training that's not necessarily geared towards concealed carry and self-defense. In fact, I truly believe that my years of defensive training are superior to what an average infantry soldier receives. Projecting force with a rifle is a different skill set than CCW. Weapons handling and so forth, that's fine, but I don't think anything should put you to the front of the line for CCW. Also, what standardization is there going to be? Most government training on anything is sub-par at best. Seen the abysmal results of government-sanctioned driving lately? So, again, not in favor of that.

Number 7 I'm not a fan of either. Do you trust the justice system that much? Not me, no way. I'm absolutely certain innocent people have fried and hung, and as long as that's the case I don't favor death. Life in prison is fine, at least there's a chance of overturning bad sentences and trials.

Number 9 sounds good, except many mass killers already do, and will (if you have your way) just kill themselves. They want to go out in a blaze of glory...being hung or eating a bullet isn't a deterrent - it's the gory notoriety and a public hanging would worsen this, not help it. For them, it's about making everyone else understand their torment...the only solution to that is media silence which isn't gonna happen. Number 3 takes care of the mass shooting problem, by and large.

The rest I agree with.

Well how is this for crazy...

They were on the line doing drills and the .22 pistol had a stove pipe that faced to the right . Slide came forward from the previous shot and struck the primer firing the round. Went through the next person thigh and then though the 2nd persons calf.

I take back my 4 rules comment.

Seems odd that a somewhat unsupported case fired hard enough to go through 2 people.

A Very Long Engagement

Nine Queens

Dead Man's Shoes

Dark Blue World

Twilight Samurai

The criminal element possesses many illegal items and does many illegal things. That's why we call them criminals. Ever wonder why you can't move more than $10,000 in cash without filling out some forms? (If you're lucky enough to be able to round up $10k, that is.)

It's the "arms" and "people" that are the cogent parts of the text here. Current activities are centered around defining arms, my point is "people" should include police and other similar bodies. You're point about criminal oppression will no doubt be brought up by the police if the idea above is ever proposed. "We will be at a disadvantage," will be their take. The response is, "So, why should you be any better prepared for those threats than WE are?"

And like your first paragraph the police will as they always have receive preferential treatment when anything is banned. That's how it's always been.

They're special, and professional guardians of the little people, so they deserve better stuff....so the argument goes.

And the liberals with armed security details will gladly give the executor of their laws the teeth to bite, while taking yours.

I don't know why this is so difficult. Just apply any weapons bans that apply to the general public to the police and other forces operating domestically.

The general principle would be that anyone charged with keeping the peace must do so with the same means available to the general populace. This keeps the protectors and defenders from becoming the oppressors, which seems to be the general worry.

It also gives the upper hand to the criminal element and black market, which is another source of oppression.

How about we just read the 2nd amendment and take that "shall not be infringed part" to heart?

It's not a mysterious amendment, frankly.

Concealed means concealed.

Shapiro is a smart guy. I disagree with him on the national database, but otherwise he was a calm, rational voice of sanity to Piers Magley's tired one-note bullshit.

I agree. How do we solve this problem?

Great question. I'm sure common sense gun regulation is foremost on Cheech's lips...starting with the guns used in the least amount of crimes.

How well is Mexico's strict gun control working to curb the rampant violence?

Oooh, looks like not at all. Japan's gun ban seems to work, except they're homogenous and don't have violence problems in general. Switzerland doesn't seem to have any gun violence at all, but 1 out of 2 people have guns. Britain has made gun violence very small in societal problems, but their violent crime rate and murder rate are soaring.

It almost seems like guns have nothing to do with a country's propensity towards societal violence....so let's focus on why people turn into murderous dickbags.

Bowl us over with it Cheech, I wanna learn how to keep people from murdering each other.

Yeah, um, we on the "left" don't need to do that. I've got an entire facebook feed of people alluding to armed conflict or insurrection if a AWB is passed.

Well, you on the left ARE doing that so it's academic. People are worked up on both sides, but I haven't read anyone other than Yeager suggesting he's going to shoot people. Hot air about conflict from the gun bunch is no different than the talk of social upheaval and violence that I heard from the Occutards. Point being that there are always people running their mouths, and very few people who will ever do anything about it. The problem is, and you can either be honest or lie to yourself, that the liberal media only sees one side as the problem.

If you feel like you need to take up arms against the government, then you should do just that. If I may quote Carlin: "Come on, you moral crusaders, let's see a little smoke to match that fire in your belly."

If you feel the need to take a royal shit on basic, inalienable civil liberties, then don't be surprised if people are angry no matter what their political stripe. You won't goad me into saying I want violence or a revolution. We have a very effective system of peaceful government (rightly because of the 1st and 2nd), so I want that to work. Besides, in that awful scenario - your side is fucked.

The NRA has openly said it wants to have a "conversation", but so far the only thing that's being conversed is the same tired slippery slope fallacies that we've seen again and again. This time there's the added nugget of mental health, which would be nice if the solution from the NRA wasn't "just tag them all and put them in a database, like sex offenders". I seem to recall some legislation passed recently that would have actually given these people some legitimate medical help and therapy, if it wasn't gutted...

The slippery slope is a matter of historical record. Gun control has been incrementally ratcheted up from nothing to our current levels of nearly 20,000 gun laws on the books and the areas with the strictest control have rampant gun violence. The NRA is smart, and doing their function, to hold the line. Guns aren't the catalyst for violence, Magz. So, I care not a whit about your opinion on that and what you think the NRA ought to be doing.

Also, Alex Jones has been posted on here fairly regularly, even more so when stuff like this comes up. Don't play the ignorant card now, disavowing knowledge of him one day and link to Infowars the next. I'm still a little annoyed with Piers in giving him the platform to spew his idiocy to a much broader audience, but perhaps that's the necessary medicine to shine a light on the true nature of this "conversation".

You're confusing me with someone else, sparky, I've never linked to Infowars in my life. I know of Alex Jones, but culturally he's not a household name. I think the man's a truther fuckwad and about as in line with my political beliefs as you are.

Piers wanted a nutjob, and got one, and even if I agree with AJ on guns he does not represent gun owners any more than Michael Moore represents all liberals....but the left will surely not see it that way. Hell, you're proof that....you think I'm part of that same nutty fringe, based on your own fantasies instead of anything I've ever written or said.

Made even more sickening by handing them all the ammo they need on a velvet pillow on a silver platter with a silk bow tied around it.

99.99% of gun owners didn't hand them anything. Alex Jones and Yeager have come out of relative cultural obscurity not because they suddenly have gravitas amongst anyone, but because the left looks for loony examples to feed their narrative.

As much as I disagree with his timing and rhetoric, the fact is there have always been blowhards across the entire political spectrum and this is 100% about the left demonizing us. If it weren't Yeager, they'd find someone else to hand them the soundbites they crave.

Nothing new, been going on for years.

And when the left has its idiots expressing desires to "shoot NRA members" the media is silent. Not that Yeager isn't a royal douche for mouthing off (and that's all it is, he's not going to shoot anything), but the hypocrisy is sickening.

Let's assume Barry implements some meaningful gun control measures via Executive Order, bypassing the legislative process.

I predict that would cause civil unrest in many areas across the country. There would be many protests and the Nat'l Guard would become involved.

Doubt it's ever going to come to that, Obama can't change existing law or create law. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court are likely to stand by and let that happen. Even if they tend to agree with him, the separation of power argument alone would compel them to act.

Besides, if he did are you going to start shooting people? Who are you going to shoot? Most gun owners will not start acting like a mob...even if it was warranted. In fact, I'd say 99% of gun owners will fume and never leave their house...even if he passed a sweeping gun ban, which will most certainly not be drastic enough to cause civil unrest.

And the technology or know-how to disable their nonsense will be available widely and quickly after they hit the market, just as it is with any tech....not that it matters, there are already 3,000,000 normal guns out there for criminals to use.

He can issue Executive Orders, but he can't create law. Period, end of fucking story.

That always cracked me up. He's got a bunch of other ones since then.

I'm sorry Daddy Gubmint, I sold all my scary guns to a shady character in a gun show years ago. His name? Hmmmm....well, legally I'm not required to collect that information, but I seem to remember that it was Chuck U. Farley. Yeah, that sounds right. You're welcome.

Got a new handgun the other day. Went and got an early model AMT AutomagII. Haven't shot it yet and I am really itching to go. 6inch barrel, 9 shots, 22 magnum.

Nice! Those are fun guns, I've owned a couple over the years, still regret letting them go. They can be a little finicky with ammo, but both mine ran CCI's like a champion.

Never borrow money for a toy.