salto;1874996 wrote:Give me a fucking break. How many of those were manufactured, compared to AR-15s? Also- what is the misfire ratio of the girardoni, compared to todays AR 15?

NRA gun fanatics bull shit, comparing a contraption which hardly worked to todays assault rifles. You're gone full retard, superman.

Calling an AR-15 an "assault rifle" is the very definition of "going full retard".

salto;1874996 wrote:Give me a fucking break. How many of those were manufactured, compared to AR-15s? Also- what is the misfire ratio of the girardoni, compared to todays AR 15?

NRA gun fanatics bull shit, comparing a contraption which hardly worked to todays assault rifles. You're gone full retard, superman.

What a rational and well thought out argument.
The idiot you quoted said guns of the time only held one bullet. 4 seconds of google searching proved that wrong.

salto;1874996 wrote:Give me a fucking break. How many of those were manufactured, compared to AR-15s? Also- what is the misfire ratio of the girardoni, compared to todays AR 15?

NRA gun fanatics bull shit, comparing a contraption which hardly worked to todays assault rifles. You're gone full retard, superman.

Well, if you want to know something about this gun that doesn't come from Comical Right Wing Blog #3473572, try this:

http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-girandoni-repeating-air-rifle.html

An interesting read. The gun was used as part of the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

superman;1875000 wrote:What a rational and well thought out argument.
The idiot you quoted said guns of the time only held one bullet. 4 seconds of google searching proved that wrong.

Remember that liberals think with their feelings, not their brains.


Well, maybe they have to do it that way.

QuakerOats;1875005 wrote:Remember that liberals think with their feelings, not their brains.


Well, maybe they have to do it that way.

Pot, kettle, black.

salto;1874973 wrote:Elizabeth M.‏ @_ElizabethMay6h6 hours ago

Too many people have accepted the normality of mass slaughter as a necessary sacrifice to an amendment written when guns held 1 bullet.

False, they held more than 1.

kizer permanente;1874979 wrote:Guns aren't a Republican/Democrat issue. There's plenty of Democrats who are gun enthusiasts who don't want to see legislation written on guns and there's plenty of Republicans who thinks guns need limitations on them. There's enough support on both sides of the aisle that we're probably not going to see anything come about.
I do think it's silly to be so staunch on one side or the other. You don't need to be completely opposed to gun sales and you don't need to be completely opposed to gun legislation. Claiming 2nd amendment when talks of limiting capacity or firing capability is just as idiotic as claiming rifles need to be banned because sometimes they're used in mass shootings. There should definitely be open dialog though to compromise. Killing 58 people and injuring hundreds more isn't acceptable because "fuck it, it is what it is; second amendment". And banning "assault rifles" because they look scary isn't a platform either. Common sense needs to prevail. This thread is a perfect illustration of the shit show that is surrounded by this issue. Before the facts came out, everyone was so adamant of "their side" ..." guy illegally purchased or altered the guns...and on the flip side "the constitution is outdated and needs changed!!"

tldr version:
We need compromise on gun control.

I can agree with 99.9% of this post. Very well thought out.

superman;1874988 wrote:So the people who think Trump is literally Hitler want him to do the most facist thing possible and take away guns from citizens?

Yes.

salto;1874990 wrote:Trying anything is better than nothing.

No, it's not.

Heretic;1875004 wrote:Well, if you want to know something about this gun that doesn't come from Comical Right Wing Blog #3473572, try this:

http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-girandoni-repeating-air-rifle.html

An interesting read. The gun was used as part of the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

Interesting!

salto;1874990 wrote:Trying anything is better than nothing. Offer an outrageously beneficial buy-back program, after stricter gun laws are put in place. Sure, some yahoos like_that will decide not to turn in their weapons, get paid and stay legal, but if later caught, they face jail time.

So coerce them to turn in their guns in the guise of a buy back program. Sounds very constitutional (spoiler, it's not). Good luck getting back 300M+ guns. Australia was only able to get 1/5 of their guns back which was a total of 650K, and they don't have a bill of rights to protect their people's rights to property.

Also, I don't own any guns, but nice try.

salto;1874974 wrote:Get out your tin foil.

Said, please tell us more about what you are learning from browncafe.com. Must be some very intelligent discussions over there.

isadore;1874906 wrote:a zygote does not equal a baby to me, it does to you. But you have revealed a coward who believes thousands of babies are being slaughtered daily and allows it to go on.

If that is what allows you to sleep at night so be it. Take a look at the development of a baby up to where it is allowed to be aborted and tell me that isn't a human being.

So if ya are calling me a coward for allowing abortions then you must be a real big ***** if you don't start sweeping the US and taking all of our guns.

Go ahead, I dare you.

like_that;1875015 wrote:So coerce them to turn in their guns in the guise of a buy back program. Sounds very constitutional. Good luck getting back 300M+ guns.

Also, I don't own any guns, but nice try.

I think it was in Northern Ohio somewhere recently that the police had a buyback program, and some gun owners/dealers went and offered the people more than the cops were paying.

queencitybuckeye;1875019 wrote:I think it was in Northern Ohio somewhere recently that the police had a buyback program, and some gun owners/dealers went and offered the people more than the cops were paying.

Free market at its best. The only way a buy back slightly program works is if you coerce gun owners, which is unconstitutional.

Edit: did you mean dealers as in actual businesses or shady black market dealers?

superman;1874988 wrote:So the people who think Trump is literally Hitler want him to do the most facist thing possible and take away guns from citizens?

best post on this thread

like_that;1875015 wrote:So coerce them to turn in their guns in the guise of a buy back program. Sounds very constitutional (spoiler, it's not). Good luck getting back 300M+ guns. Australia was only able to get 1/5 of their guns back which was a total of 650K, and they don't have a bill of rights to protect their people's rights to property.

Also, I don't own any guns, but nice try.[/QUOTE

Govt would have to offer a huge sum of money to get the weapons back and those who do take the offers would not be people who be committing these crimes.

Also another segment of people who would do it would sell some of their lesser weapons or just a fraction of their arsenal and make bank on the buyback and could use it to buy more ammo or better weapons on the black market.


Going forward who knows what kinds of security we will see at events. Some day this will happen at a big time athletic event.

I spent 6 weeks in a country where guards openly Carry ak47s, wand everyone going into shopping centers, banks, average and up restaurants, security checks on vehicles gping into parking lots, hotels, etc. It was almost like going through TSA 5 to 6 times a day. It sucks! Luckily being whitey we didn't get as much scrutiny as the Muslims but it really is no way to live. Everything out of your pockets, scanned to go into a pizza place or grocery store?

Sucks

salto;1874990 wrote:Trying anything is better than nothing.

If it's poorly thought out and likely to effect zero change, then no, it's not.

salto;1874990 wrote:Offer an outrageously beneficial buy-back program, after stricter gun laws are put in place. Sure, some yahoos like_that will decide not to turn in their weapons, get paid and stay legal, but if later caught, they face jail time.

I'm a threat to no one, why should I turn in my firearms on the whims of politicians looking to secure votes? What is the benefit to society by taking my guns or throwing me in jail if I refuse to comply with a clearly unconstitutional act?

I say, like anything else, we focus on technology to address the situation. We already have shot spotter and other detection systems, so let's build on that. Densely populated areas (including sporting events and other large venues) should have systems developed and set in place to use technology to locate, and have people on hand to operate via drone to take people out. It's not inconceivable to have operators verify targets and given oks to take out this way. Cost would obviously be the deterrent here. But, like any thing else, it's how much you value it. Is it better to throw money are development of technology, or possibly unconstitutional measures that wont fix anything.

I also found the Girandoni rifle link interesting. As I read, it reminded me of a Sherlock Holmes story, and sure enough, at the end of the article it was mentioned.......The Adventure of the Empty House.

justincredible;1875036 wrote:If it's poorly thought out and likely to effect zero change, then no, it's not.

I'm happy we don't do this, otherwise we could have massive amounts of debt.

BRF;1875039 wrote:I also found the Girandoni rifle link interesting. As I read, it reminded me of a Sherlock Holmes story, and sure enough, at the end of the article it was mentioned.......The Adventure of the Empty House.

Yeah, it's been a long while since I read that story, but it did ring a bell when I saw the title.

kizer permanente;1875037 wrote:I say, like anything else, we focus on technology to address the situation. We already have shot spotter and other detection systems, so let's build on that. Densely populated areas (including sporting events and other large venues) should have systems developed and set in place to use technology to locate, and have people on hand to operate via drone to take people out. It's not inconceivable to have operators verify targets and given oks to take out this way. Cost would obviously be the deterrent here. But, like any thing else, it's how much you value it. Is it better to throw money are development of technology, or possibly unconstitutional measures that wont fix anything.

So, you prefer a high-tech border wall?

salto;1874973 wrote:Elizabeth M.‏ @_ElizabethMay6h6 hours ago

Too many people have accepted the normality of mass slaughter as a necessary sacrifice to an amendment written when guns held 1 bullet.

Whoever this is, apparently she's too worked up to do a 30-second Google search to learn that this is idiocy.

There were already tripod-mounted, primitive machine guns by the time that was written.

The Puckle Gun

queencitybuckeye;1874980 wrote:Yes, but the discussion nearly always consists of people pulling out their same sets of talking points and misapplied terms ("assault rifle" to name one). Hard to have a real discussion when at best those having the discussion are ignorant of the subject-matter, at worst intentionally being untruthful.

Which means that nobody appears ready to actually have the discussion, including those crying out about having a discussion.

salto;1874990 wrote:Trying anything is better than nothing. Offer an outrageously beneficial buy-back program, after stricter gun laws are put in place. Sure, some yahoos like_that will decide not to turn in their weapons, get paid and stay legal, but if later caught, they face jail time.

A few problems:

(1) Where's the money coming from for this buyback program? You know we're already spending more than we have/bring in, correct?

(2) If not turning in a gun results in a person facing jail time, then you're not talking about "stricter gun laws." You're talking about a ban.

(3) Such a ban would turn people who, up to this point, have never been criminal aggressors in any victim-based crime into criminals. You are, in effect, telling people, "I know you've always been law-abiding citizens who have sought to be peaceful and get along with your fellow citizens, but that same behavior is now going to make you a criminal because of something you own, even if you don't use it, mention it, or do anything malicious with it."

Turning peaceful people into criminals for living the same way they always have might be "trying something," but it's not trying anything sound or reasonable. All it does is create more nonviolent criminals to share already packed prison cells with other nonviolent offenders like recreational drug users.

All that to say no. Trying anything isn't always better than trying nothing. Have you consider trying punching yourself in the face to see if it makes your life better? Of course not. Because you'd need to have a reason to think it would.

QuakerOats;1874991 wrote:The cities with the most gun control have the most murders. But facts and logic are most elusive to libs.

Per capita, this isn't actually the case, but the ones with the least gun control aren't at the top of those leader boards, either.

Surprise surprise. The presence/absence of gun laws and the presence/absence of gun crime don't seem to correlate that well.

salto;1874996 wrote:Give me a fucking break. How many of those were manufactured, compared to AR-15s? Also- what is the misfire ratio of the girardoni, compared to todays AR 15?

NRA gun fanatics bull shit, comparing a contraption which hardly worked to todays assault rifles. You're gone full retard, superman.

First of all, she didn't mention the misfire rate. She mentioned holding more than one shot. She was hilariously wrong. You probably shouldn't keep trying to defend that point.

Second, an AR-15? Really? It's not any different or more dangerous than a Browning BAR .308, for example, and yet nobody would be calling for the confiscation of those or treating them as significantly problematic, because they don't look as scary.

Third, by why means do you claim that a gun "hardly" worked? It's entirely possible that because they were made by hand, there were, in fact, fewer misfires per thousand for those, as they wouldn't have dealt with unchecked anomalies like what can happen in a modern production line.

queencitybuckeye;1875040 wrote:I'm happy we don't do this, otherwise we could have massive amounts of debt.

Yeah. Boy, we've dodged that bullet so far.

justincredible;1875036 wrote:If it's poorly thought out and likely to effect zero change, then no, it's not.



I'm a threat to no one, why should I turn in my firearms on the whims of politicians looking to secure votes? What is the benefit to society by taking my guns or throwing me in jail if I refuse to comply with a clearly unconstitutional act?

Despite data saying the exact opposite, some on here still believe more guns = more murders.

like_that;1875056 wrote:Despite data saying the exact opposite, some on here still believe more guns = more murders.

Would Jimmy Kimmel lie to them??!?!? What the hell did I miss where some dumb night time talk show host is the new voice of the "people"?

thavoice;1875018 wrote:If that is what allows you to sleep at night so be it. Take a look at the development of a baby up to where it is allowed to be aborted and tell me that isn't a human being.

So if ya are calling me a coward for allowing abortions then you must be a real big ***** if you don't start sweeping the US and taking all of our guns.

Go ahead, I dare you.

you rave and rave about abortion as murder with thousands being killed. Each and every abortion a murder of a baby. If you believe that why aren't you stopping them. You stand by and watch a slaughter

iclfan2;1875058 wrote:Would Jimmy Kimmel lie to them??!?!? What the hell did I miss where some dumb night time talk show host is the new voice of the "people"?

He can't be; I am.