11 school shootings you probably didn't know about

[Kaiser Khorosho]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Nyadriel

The parents of the children who died during the attack at Newtown went back to meet with Congress again to try again at gun control issues.

While I sympathize with them about their loss, ******** them and their attempts to disarm the populace. The issue hasn't changed. It is harsher sentences on those that use violent methods to commit crimes, and the media needs to shut the ******** up about identifying these worthless sacks of s**t, and merely identify them as 'alleged sack of s**t One in the Colorado theater shooting'.

Harsher penalties? Most of these dumb ******** get killed and therefore can't have a penalty carried OUT against them OR they claim insanity like the Aurora shooter. Its win/win for them. Either they get killed and don't have to deal with the consequences or they have therapy for the rest of their lives.

[Divine_Malevolence]

MemoriesOfGreen

Divine_Malevolence

Go crazy with a knife and I'd probably be able to single handedly kick your a** with my coat before you could so much as scratch anyone.
The entire "people will just use other weapons" falls short because other weapons are a shitton less effective.

Don't count on it.

Also, your comment to another user referring to guns as "highly dangerous toys" just further lets me know your ignorance on guns in general.

This is a nuclear warhead.
Your guns are toys. Playthings. Things of sport like golf putters and footballs. Even moreso than bladed weapons because things with blades have practical applications that can't be replaced with a rock, two sticks, and a string.

And I have to admit, the only thing that you should count on with me is my ability around a blade on both sides. I'm not a military guy who would be able to effortlessly disarm you bare handed, but I know how things cut, and I know how to prevent it in cases of far more lethal weapons than kitchen utensils.

[Divine_Malevolence]

Keltoi Samurai

Divine_Malevolence

Keltoi Samurai

Divine_Malevolence

The entire "people will just use other weapons" falls short because other weapons are a shitton less effective.

and yet, humanity has spent countless centuries killing each other with those very same less effective weapons.

question: once the guns least commonly used in firearm crimes are banned, and the end result is no reduction in crimes, what will be next on the agenda?

Inspections.

....
Actually, now I'm quite perplexed. Is it even required to have a license to have a gun? Is that s**t state by state?
Damn.

inspections . . . of what, exactly?

people's houses, to make sure they don't own the banned weapons?

and licensing is by state. some require no license at all, others require licenses to carry at all, some require a license to carry concealed, but either allow or disallow open carry universally to legal gun owners, some require a license to own.

as a rule, the places that require a license to own tend to have the highest crime rates.

Mandatory bringing it in at least once a year to demonstrate that you haven't just given it to that punk down the street for fiddy bucks.
Like car safety inspections.
People keep saying that the criminals are going to do this, how 'bout we make some steps to prevent them from getting into the hands of criminals.
I'd also advocate demonstrating that you store them properly. In the very least with photo evidence.



'Course, licensing should be federal. You should not have a gun unless you can demonstrate you aren't a psychopath in the same way you should not drive unless you can demonstrate that you can differentiate between a living room and a parking spot. The only reason I could possibly see anyone being against this would be if they personally couldn't dream of getting a license, in which case they probably shouldn't have a gun.

[Keltoi Samurai]

MemoriesOfGreen

Keltoi Samurai

Divine_Malevolence

The entire "people will just use other weapons" falls short because other weapons are a shitton less effective.

and yet, humanity has spent countless centuries killing each other with those very same less effective weapons.

question: once the guns least commonly used in firearm crimes are banned, and the end result is no reduction in crimes, what will be next on the agenda?

I dunno, Keltoi. You and I could hide up in the Appalachians with our stockpile of soon-to-be illegal weapons. The only drawback is we might get found out and killed by drones without an option to surrender, a fair trial, or a plea deal.

Are you coming on to me?

either way, you should know I actually don't own any "soon to be illegal" weapons. I don't own a semi-auto rifle at all, nor any handgun with a capacity of more'n nine rounds, so I've got a few rounds of "ok, we've been allowed to infringe on the rights of Americans this time, now let's do it again" before they start naming anything that'll cause trouble for me.

of course, that's precisely why I'm so against it, is because I know that the 1934 NFA was supposed to be a one-time-only thing, and then the 1968 law was supposed to be the last one, until they decided to add the 1986 ban, which was supposed to be the last step, until they pushed for the 1994 AWB, which came with a sunset provision so that, if we didn't like it, it'd just go away after 10 years, which was all well and good until nobody liked it and it went away after 10 years, and the lawmakers decided to try and pass it again without the sunset provision because even though it was designed to go away if it was ineffectual, and it proved to be ineffectual, they only put that sunset provision in there in the first place because they thought they'd have enough control in 10 years time to make it permanent, regardless of whether it did anything or not.

basically, the gun grabbers have shown repeatedly that it's always just "one more thing, and this is the last one, we swear." they swore back in 34, in 68, in 86, in 94, and they're swearing now. prior to 1934, the only federal law on any weapons was the 2nd amendment. somehow, there wasn't chaos and anarchy in the streets. prior to 1968, felons were allowed to own weapons once they were released from their sentence, and somehow we had less violent crime on the streets. prior to 1986, any non-felon could own a damn machine gun just so long as they paid an additional $200 tax stamp and adhered to a few restrictions on interstate travel, and we weren't living in a Mad Max wasteland.

"school shooting," though, became part of the vernacular in the middle of the AWB, and now, these violent incidents are on the news every night, and there's more news of it every time new firearm legislation is discussed, despite the fact that these incidents weren't stopped by the last legislation that was passed because of a media frenzy over firearms related crime. to look at the news, it seems we were safer during the era when firearms were available in mail-order catalogs, and Thompson submachine guns were less regulated than cars.

[Divine_Malevolence]

Keltoi Samurai

of course, that's precisely why I'm so against it, is because I know that the 1934 NFA was supposed to be a one-time-only thing, and then the 1968 law was supposed to be the last one, until they decided to add the 1986 ban, which was supposed to be the last step, until they pushed for the 1994 AWB, which came with a sunset provision so that, if we didn't like it, it'd just go away after 10 years, which was all well and good until nobody liked it and it went away after 10 years, and the lawmakers decided to try and pass it again without the sunset provision because even though it was designed to go away if it was ineffectual, and it proved to be ineffectual, they only put that sunset provision in there in the first place because they thought they'd have enough control in 10 years time to make it permanent, regardless of whether it did anything or not.

So what you're saying is that firearm laws shouldn't evolve as fast as firearms do?
'Cause things change over the course of eighty years.

[Keltoi Samurai]

Divine_Malevolence

Keltoi Samurai

Divine_Malevolence

Keltoi Samurai

Divine_Malevolence

The entire "people will just use other weapons" falls short because other weapons are a shitton less effective.

and yet, humanity has spent countless centuries killing each other with those very same less effective weapons.

question: once the guns least commonly used in firearm crimes are banned, and the end result is no reduction in crimes, what will be next on the agenda?

Inspections.

....
Actually, now I'm quite perplexed. Is it even required to have a license to have a gun? Is that s**t state by state?
Damn.

inspections . . . of what, exactly?

people's houses, to make sure they don't own the banned weapons?

and licensing is by state. some require no license at all, others require licenses to carry at all, some require a license to carry concealed, but either allow or disallow open carry universally to legal gun owners, some require a license to own.

as a rule, the places that require a license to own tend to have the highest crime rates.

Mandatory bringing it in at least once a year to demonstrate that you haven't just given it to that punk down the street for fiddy bucks.
Like car safety inspections.
People keep saying that the criminals are going to do this, how 'bout we make some steps to prevent them from getting into the hands of criminals.
I'd also advocate demonstrating that you store them properly. In the very least with photo evidence.



'Course, licensing should be federal. You should not have a gun unless you can demonstrate you aren't a psychopath in the same way you should not drive unless you can demonstrate that you can differentiate between a living room and a parking spot. The only reason I could possibly see anyone being against this would be if they personally couldn't dream of getting a license, in which case they probably shouldn't have a gun.

you're not from the US, are you?

I ask because you seem to suggest that federal licensing of firearms would be similar to the state-by-state licensing of automobiles we have, here.

also, not every state does automotive safety inspections, and there are plenty of reasons to disagree with federal licensing and minimum-annual check-ins to make sure you still own your firearms and have adequate storage, far beyond the simple "can't pass it, so I don't want it" strawman of yours. for one, do you have any idea how slowly the federal government works? requiring every firearm owner to keep up a license and inspections at a minimum of once a year is going to create fairly large lines at the federal courthouses, where btw, you cannot carry a firearm, thus making the inspections trickier.

also, how do you propose handling sales of firearms? like, an owner selling his weapon to a dealer? one bureaucrat loses a document along the way, and suddenly you're responsible for a firearm that you don't own anymore, and flat-out told them as much.

not to mention the current ******** of the NICS, which we've had for years, now, and we keep getting told the Feds are gonna fix it any time now, but they never do. when people with FFLs are getting flagged when they purchase a firearm, and the flag is based off of "this guy's name is in our system because he has an FFL," while at the same time, courts are ruling that requiring the registration of all firearms is a violation of the 4th amendment rights of convicted felons, meaning that constitutionally, it's only illegal for the law-abiding to own an unregistered firearm, but perfectly acceptable for a felon to do so . . .

really, the federal government seems to screw up so, so much when it comes to anything to do with firearms, that it's hard to imagine the answer is "give them even more control over the situation, since they're so horribly mismanaging the amount of control they wield currently."

[Divine_Malevolence]

Keltoi Samurai

you're not from the US, are you?

I ask because you seem to suggest that federal licensing of firearms would be similar to the state-by-state licensing of automobiles we have, here.

Okay, so now I know there are states where I don't want to drive in.

Keltoi Samurai

also, not every state does automotive safety inspections, and there are plenty of reasons to disagree with federal licensing and minimum-annual check-ins to make sure you still own your firearms and have adequate storage, far beyond the simple "can't pass it, so I don't want it" strawman of yours. for one, do you have any idea how slowly the federal government works?

Doesn't have to be expressly handled by the feds. Just mandated. There needs to be something country-wide stating that you need to demonstrate you aren't giving guns to gangsters or terrorists.

Keltoi Samurai

requiring every firearm owner to keep up a license and inspections at a minimum of once a year is going to create fairly large lines at the federal courthouses, where btw, you cannot carry a firearm, thus making the inspections trickier.

Don't have to be at a courthouse either.

Keltoi Samurai

also, how do you propose handling sales of firearms? like, an owner selling his weapon to a dealer? one bureaucrat loses a document along the way, and suddenly you're responsible for a firearm that you don't own anymore, and flat-out told them as much.

If the dealer's licensed, I don't understand where the problem would be. And it's not like you can't keep documentation as well.

Keltoi Samurai

not to mention the current ******** of the NICS, which we've had for years, now, and we keep getting told the Feds are gonna fix it any time now, but they never do.

Would be need some NICS if you had to be capable of providing your license?

Keltoi Samurai

when people with FFLs are getting flagged when they purchase a firearm, and the flag is based off of "this guy's name is in our system because he has an FFL,"

Sounds like something a simplification would do away with.

Keltoi Samurai

while at the same time, courts are ruling that requiring the registration of all firearms is a violation of the 4th amendment rights of convicted felons,

So courts are getting uppity about keeping convicts from getting guns while not doing anything about the Patriot act?

Keltoi Samurai

meaning that constitutionally, it's only illegal for the law-abiding to own an unregistered firearm, but perfectly acceptable for a felon to do so . . .

And you don't want to get this s**t fixed?

Keltoi Samurai

really, the federal government seems to screw up so, so much when it comes to anything to do with firearms, that it's hard to imagine the answer is "give them even more control over the situation, since they're so horribly mismanaging the amount of control they wield currently."

Considering how much the ATF's been gutted, I wouldn't be surprised.
How 'bout we go about actually fixing that?

[Keltoi Samurai]

Divine_Malevolence

Keltoi Samurai

of course, that's precisely why I'm so against it, is because I know that the 1934 NFA was supposed to be a one-time-only thing, and then the 1968 law was supposed to be the last one, until they decided to add the 1986 ban, which was supposed to be the last step, until they pushed for the 1994 AWB, which came with a sunset provision so that, if we didn't like it, it'd just go away after 10 years, which was all well and good until nobody liked it and it went away after 10 years, and the lawmakers decided to try and pass it again without the sunset provision because even though it was designed to go away if it was ineffectual, and it proved to be ineffectual, they only put that sunset provision in there in the first place because they thought they'd have enough control in 10 years time to make it permanent, regardless of whether it did anything or not.

So what you're saying is that firearm laws shouldn't evolve as fast as firearms do?
'Cause things change over the course of eighty years.

things really, really don't change over the course of 80 years.

the first automatic rifles capable of being carried and used by a single man were invented in the 1910's. the machine gun has been around since, depending on your point of view, 1718 or 1777 or 1861 or 1884 ( which means that, yes, the Founding Fathers DID anticipate automatic weapons, since they were actually offered a design for one to outfit soldiers with, but passed on it because of the pricetag ), the submachine gun has existed since 1915 or so, the detachable box magazine-fed semiautomatic pistol debuted in 1893, the first semiautomatic rifle in 1906.

pretty well every major advance in firearms technology, when you look at it, predates the 1934 law, with the exception of the assault rifle, which came out one year after the '34 law, though it was merely an incorporation of those preexisting technologies, rather than being something actually in any way new ( much in the same way the introduction of the cameraphone wasn't actually anything new, since cellphones already existed, and digital cameras already existed, so the idea of slapping the two together can hardly be seen as inventing something new ).

face it: the laws aren't evolving at the same pace as the firearms. the laws are evolving constantly, whereas the firearms are more or less stagnating.

[Divine_Malevolence]

Keltoi Samurai

Divine_Malevolence

Keltoi Samurai

of course, that's precisely why I'm so against it, is because I know that the 1934 NFA was supposed to be a one-time-only thing, and then the 1968 law was supposed to be the last one, until they decided to add the 1986 ban, which was supposed to be the last step, until they pushed for the 1994 AWB, which came with a sunset provision so that, if we didn't like it, it'd just go away after 10 years, which was all well and good until nobody liked it and it went away after 10 years, and the lawmakers decided to try and pass it again without the sunset provision because even though it was designed to go away if it was ineffectual, and it proved to be ineffectual, they only put that sunset provision in there in the first place because they thought they'd have enough control in 10 years time to make it permanent, regardless of whether it did anything or not.

So what you're saying is that firearm laws shouldn't evolve as fast as firearms do?
'Cause things change over the course of eighty years.

things really, really don't change over the course of 80 years.

the first automatic rifles capable of being carried and used by a single man were invented in the 1910's. the machine gun has been around since, depending on your point of view, 1718 or 1777 or 1861 or 1884 ( which means that, yes, the Founding Fathers DID anticipate automatic weapons, since they were actually offered a design for one to outfit soldiers with, but passed on it because of the pricetag ), the submachine gun has existed since 1915 or so, the detachable box magazine-fed semiautomatic pistol debuted in 1893, the first semiautomatic rifle in 1906.

pretty well every major advance in firearms technology, when you look at it, predates the 1934 law, with the exception of the assault rifle, which came out one year after the '34 law, though it was merely an incorporation of those preexisting technologies, rather than being something actually in any way new ( much in the same way the introduction of the cameraphone wasn't actually anything new, since cellphones already existed, and digital cameras already existed, so the idea of slapping the two together can hardly be seen as inventing something new ).

face it: the laws aren't evolving at the same pace as the firearms. the laws are evolving constantly, whereas the firearms are more or less stagnating.

So what you're saying is that I should treat my laptop the same as a laptop made thirty years ago because things don't change once they're invented?
Technically guns were invented back in the middle ages. I guess we should just treat them all as if they're muskets, right?
'Course, I'm wondering if you laid eyes upon the printed plastic pistol. 'Cause Ronald Reagan decided to outlaw that s**t way back when.

Just because a device has existed doesn't mean it can't be changed or improved, and to say that guns don't change or improve is just silly.

[Keltoi Samurai]

Divine_Malevolence

Keltoi Samurai

Divine_Malevolence

Keltoi Samurai

of course, that's precisely why I'm so against it, is because I know that the 1934 NFA was supposed to be a one-time-only thing, and then the 1968 law was supposed to be the last one, until they decided to add the 1986 ban, which was supposed to be the last step, until they pushed for the 1994 AWB, which came with a sunset provision so that, if we didn't like it, it'd just go away after 10 years, which was all well and good until nobody liked it and it went away after 10 years, and the lawmakers decided to try and pass it again without the sunset provision because even though it was designed to go away if it was ineffectual, and it proved to be ineffectual, they only put that sunset provision in there in the first place because they thought they'd have enough control in 10 years time to make it permanent, regardless of whether it did anything or not.

So what you're saying is that firearm laws shouldn't evolve as fast as firearms do?
'Cause things change over the course of eighty years.

things really, really don't change over the course of 80 years.

the first automatic rifles capable of being carried and used by a single man were invented in the 1910's. the machine gun has been around since, depending on your point of view, 1718 or 1777 or 1861 or 1884 ( which means that, yes, the Founding Fathers DID anticipate automatic weapons, since they were actually offered a design for one to outfit soldiers with, but passed on it because of the pricetag ), the submachine gun has existed since 1915 or so, the detachable box magazine-fed semiautomatic pistol debuted in 1893, the first semiautomatic rifle in 1906.

pretty well every major advance in firearms technology, when you look at it, predates the 1934 law, with the exception of the assault rifle, which came out one year after the '34 law, though it was merely an incorporation of those preexisting technologies, rather than being something actually in any way new ( much in the same way the introduction of the cameraphone wasn't actually anything new, since cellphones already existed, and digital cameras already existed, so the idea of slapping the two together can hardly be seen as inventing something new ).

face it: the laws aren't evolving at the same pace as the firearms. the laws are evolving constantly, whereas the firearms are more or less stagnating.

So what you're saying is that I should treat my laptop the same as a laptop made thirty years ago because things don't change once they're invented?
Technically guns were invented back in the middle ages. I guess we should just treat them all as if they're muskets, right?
'Course, I'm wondering if you laid eyes upon the printed plastic pistol. 'Cause Ronald Reagan decided to outlaw that s**t way back when.

Just because a device has existed doesn't mean it can't be changed or improved, and to say that guns don't change or improve is just silly.

so, then, tell me what the difference is between the old submachine guns of 1950 and the submachineguns of today.

how has the handgun become more deadly since the M1911?

what does an AK-74 do that a Sturmgewehr 44 doesn't?

the changes in the last 80 years have largely been in safeties, techniques to make them more drop-safe or easier to clean and maintain, and replacing wood and steel with high-impact polymers and lighter alloys.

in short, absolutely nothing that makes them more dangerous than they were 80 years ago, and more'n a few things that make them safer than they were 80 years ago.

and, if you notice, at no point did I opt to compare firearms across type, so your whole thing about muskets is rather out of place ( not to mention just plain wrong, since the musket was an invention of the Renaissance, not the Middle Ages. Hell, the handgonne didn't come to Europe until about the 16th century ). should I just assume you actually don't know much at all about firearms, and are driven more by hoplophobia than any actual knowledge on the subject?

[Divine_Malevolence]

Keltoi Samurai

so, then, tell me what the difference is between the old submachine guns of 1950 and the submachineguns of today.

how has the handgun become more deadly since the M1911?

what does an AK-74 do that a Sturmgewehr 44 doesn't?

the changes in the last 80 years have largely been in safeties, techniques to make them more drop-safe or easier to clean and maintain, and replacing wood and steel with high-impact polymers and lighter alloys.

in short, absolutely nothing that makes them more dangerous than they were 80 years ago, and more'n a few things that make them safer than they were 80 years ago.

and, if you notice, at no point did I opt to compare firearms across type, so your whole thing about muskets is rather out of place ( not to mention just plain wrong, since the musket was an invention of the Renaissance, not the Middle Ages. Hell, the handgonne didn't come to Europe until about the 16th century ). should I just assume you actually don't know much at all about firearms, and are driven more by hoplophobia than any actual knowledge on the subject?

Add a computer to a scope and you've got new aiming capabilities.
Handguns can be printed with plastic. Undetectable means unforseeable. That's a lot more dangerous.
Russian origins.
Not quite familiar with the inherent details, but I'd also assume things like decreased recoil, increased penetrating capabilities, higher accuracy at a range, and all manner of things that people enjoy making better.

And that's really only if the only changes that effect guns were limited to the guns themselves. I'm sure you're aware of what happened when someone had the brilliant idea to put a gun on a moving vehicle. Or in one. Or when they decided to take one on an international flight.


The world changes.
Guns change.
Saying that laws shouldn't change with it all is ******** stupid. Founding Fathers even noticed this, it's why the constitution can be amended.

[Nyadriel]

There are some loopholes that do need to be closed up. Turns out that the guy in Calif had been denied for gun ownership. The gun he used he had built from parts he bought over the internet.

[Keltoi Samurai]

Divine_Malevolence

Keltoi Samurai

so, then, tell me what the difference is between the old submachine guns of 1950 and the submachineguns of today.

how has the handgun become more deadly since the M1911?

what does an AK-74 do that a Sturmgewehr 44 doesn't?

the changes in the last 80 years have largely been in safeties, techniques to make them more drop-safe or easier to clean and maintain, and replacing wood and steel with high-impact polymers and lighter alloys.

in short, absolutely nothing that makes them more dangerous than they were 80 years ago, and more'n a few things that make them safer than they were 80 years ago.

and, if you notice, at no point did I opt to compare firearms across type, so your whole thing about muskets is rather out of place ( not to mention just plain wrong, since the musket was an invention of the Renaissance, not the Middle Ages. Hell, the handgonne didn't come to Europe until about the 16th century ). should I just assume you actually don't know much at all about firearms, and are driven more by hoplophobia than any actual knowledge on the subject?

Add a computer to a scope and you've got new aiming capabilities.
Handguns can be printed with plastic. Undetectable means unforseeable. That's a lot more dangerous.
Russian origins.
Not quite familiar with the inherent details, but I'd also assume things like decreased recoil, increased penetrating capabilities, higher accuracy at a range, and all manner of things that people enjoy making better.

And that's really only if the only changes that effect guns were limited to the guns themselves. I'm sure you're aware of what happened when someone had the brilliant idea to put a gun on a moving vehicle. Or in one. Or when they decided to take one on an international flight.


The world changes.
Guns change.
Saying that laws shouldn't change with it all is ******** stupid. Founding Fathers even noticed this, it's why the constitution can be amended.

so, how many computer scopes do you see at your local pawn shop/outdoor shop/Cabelas/Walmart? this technology isn't even illegal, but it's not actually out there, where people have access to it.

the plastic handguns, btw, still rely on metal components. namely, a metal firing pin ( not to mention it's basically a thousand-dollar zip-gun, liable to fail at any given moment ), and even if that was replaced, good luck finding metal-free ammo.

I'm not saying the laws shouldn't change to reflect the reality of the weapons, I'm pointing out that firearms have yet to become more lethal than they were 80 years ago. they have the same rates of fire, the same accuracy, the same freaking everything. so far, the two innovations you've managed to name are a single-shot pistol with less metal and no aiming capabilities, in addition to a half-inch barrel, meaning that even if you DID have sights to line up your one shot, you'd pretty well have to press it right up against your target to hit it, and computerized scopes that don't actually exist in the hands of civilians, but if they make a gun more dangerous, then it'd make sense to go after these scopes, rather than banning weapons that can't even be adapted to these systems ( believe it or not, a scope isn't a simple matter of "slap it on and go," even when you're talking the most rudimentary of optics, which means that for all the calibration a low-tech optic takes, the high-tech ones'd almost require total integration at the factory level ).

and you're part right about the difference between the AK-74 and the Sturmgewehr 44 being almost entirely country of origin, but the part that you're forgetting is that the Sturmgewehr 44 was the first assault rifle, whereas the AK-74 is the current main service weapon of the Russian Army. no significant change in the intervening decades.

guns do change, but they really haven't changed in any way that makes them any deadlier than they were during the interwar period between WWI and WWII. there have been some innovations in ammunition, but we're not discussing restrictions on the ammunition. there've been some innovations in scopes, but we're not discussing scopes, either. we're discussing the lethality of firearms, which has remained a constant for much of the 20th century, and into the 21st.

so, again, I ask: if the weapons aren't any more lethal than they were in the 30's, then why do we need different laws than we had in the 30's? wouldn't it make more sense to scale up the laws with innovations in lethality, rather than just going hog-wild banning the same guns that we've had since before any gun was banned?

[Divine_Malevolence]

Keltoi Samurai

I'm not saying the laws shouldn't change to reflect the reality of the weapons

Bitchin'.

Except it's more the reality of things in general. Things change, times change, crazy people change, and all the like.
Complaining about laws changing with times'n tech is just not worth doing. There last time someone changes the law about any given topic should by right be within four years of the last person dying of whatever intergalactic problem managed to pose enough of a threat to wipe out humanity.
One canno' progress without fixin' what ails 'em.

Keltoi Samurai

and you're part right about the difference between the AK-74 and the Sturmgewehr 44 being almost entirely country of origin

That part was basically mocking the inherent Germanness of the Sturm.

[Keltoi Samurai]

Divine_Malevolence

Keltoi Samurai

I'm not saying the laws shouldn't change to reflect the reality of the weapons

Bitchin'.

Except it's more the reality of things in general. Things change, times change, crazy people change, and all the like.
Complaining about laws changing with times'n tech is just not worth doing. There last time someone changes the law about any given topic should by right be within four years of the last person dying of whatever intergalactic problem managed to pose enough of a threat to wipe out humanity.
One canno' progress without fixin' what ails 'em.

Keltoi Samurai

and you're part right about the difference between the AK-74 and the Sturmgewehr 44 being almost entirely country of origin

That part was basically mocking the inherent Germanness of the Sturm.

the crazy people, though, didn't start coming out of the woodwork until after we started restricting the law-abiding citizenry's access to weapons, and even now, we hear on the news about cases of people going on rampages with weapons that were illegal for them to purchase. Hell, Sandy Hook and the recent thing in Cali both took place in states with standing AWBs, and that didn't stop 'em. Chicago, New York and DC all have bans on civilian firearms, and it's not helping them out, and all anybody can say about it is "make 'em undergo background checks" and "close the gun show loophole" and various other inane comments that make no sense, either because they reference problems that don't exist ( the infamous "gun show loophole" is entirely fictitious. it quite literally does not exist, and so far as I can tell, it's referencing something called "straw purchasing," which means one dude with a clean record goes and buys a firearm, then takes it to his buddy who does not have a clean record and illegally sells it to him. it's a problem, but one that will not be solved by licensing gun owners, or by cracking down on gun shows or expanding background checks. ), or they have literally no idea what they're talking about and so they're not arguing what they think they're arguing ( such as the "shoulder thing that goes up" woman, or Mayor Bloomberg's "you don't need an assault rifle to hunt," which may be true, but it fails on multiple points, not the least of which being that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, and the fact that assault rifles have been illegal since 1986 )


and, as for mocking the name . . . well, good for you, then. maybe next time you'll actually say something informed and/or relevant? a little education on this subject would help you to make a decent argument, I think. specifically, the very nature of the constitution, and some 20th century weapons history ( y'know, learning enough to be able to speak intelligently on the subject you have such a strong opinion on? because so far as I can tell, it's pretty much just a touch of the hoplophobia ruling your end of the discussion, rather than facts, and I rather think a bit of Freud's philosophy on the fear of weapons might be in play )