Stephen King weighs in on gun control

[Shadow boxer 3]

people still bitchin about their guns

[~AK49~]

So recently i was asked if i wanted to buy a fully auto ak47 with two banana clips. Umad?

But but but fully auto weapons are illegal, how is such a thing possible? Might as well just hang a 'gun free zone' sign on the door, what could go wrong?

[A.K.A]

So recently i was asked if i wanted to buy a fully auto ak47 with two banana clips. Umad?

But but but fully auto weapons are illegal, how is such a thing possible? Might as well just hang a 'gun free zone' sign on the door, what could go wrong?

Is there a point you're trying to make or are you just drunk and rambling?

[~AK49~]

Is there a point you're trying to make or are you just drunk and rambling?

The point im trying to make is quit living in fantasy land. Where theres a demand, there will be a supply. Further regulations on guns does nothing but effectively disarm law abiding citizens.

Important edit to previous post, said ak was only 200 bucks. I declined of course, as i didnt want a hot weapon that probably had a body or some on it.

And now im gonna speak from experience...what do you want? A mini sniper? A sawed off? Silencers? Fully auto weapons? Bullet proof vests? Flak jackets? What you want cuz?

[2shameless]

I see the argument as silly as saying people need rifles to defend themselves from a much, much better equipped government. Neither scenario is plausible.

I find dismissing the collective power of 70 or 80 million people armed with over 300 million guns and over a billion magazines full of ammo equally silly. There was a reason that Japan didn't attack the mainland with a ground force during WWII.

So, all an armed society produced in this case was a bunch of unnecessary death to both the government side and their own side. It's never been attempted since, so its a terrible example to show how guns protect us from oppression. It seems more likely based of the history that a bunch of armed crazies band together to fight an oppression that doesn't exist and gets a bunch of people killed in the process.

I provided it as an example of the lengths our government has gone to in the past to coerce it's populace, not of an example of a defense against "tyranny." But you knew that already.

How many people ward off intruders with gunfire each year? I can't imagine it being a significant amount of people.

Probably not as many as those protected by the threat of breaking into a house in the middle of the night that might be armed. Seeing as how much higher home robberies are in places like the U.K, for example. But it seems callous to dismiss the ones that are able to defend themselves either with gunfire or the more often simple act of brandishing a firearm.

In conclusion I think that the War on Guns will be about as successful as Prohibition, the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty. Which is to say not at all.

[A.K.A]

The point im trying to make is quit living in fantasy land. Where theres a demand, there will be a supply. Further regulations on guns does nothing but effectively disarm law abiding citizens.

Important edit to previous post, said ak was only 200 bucks. I declined of course, as i didnt want a hot weapon that probably had a body or some on it.

And now im gonna speak from experience...what do you want? A mini sniper? A sawed off? Silencers? Fully auto weapons? Bullet proof vests? Flak jackets? What you want cuz?

If you have to pay for guns with bodies on them your deal isn't as hot as you think it is, cuz.

[~AK49~]

If you have to pay for guns with bodies on them your deal isn't as hot as you think it is, cuz.

To a law abiding citizen, sure. The point is still escaping you. Do you think a two strike felon who is about to go put in some work gives a fuk? Or worse yet, do you think somebody who is planning in shooting u a school gives a fuk?

The bottom line, where there is a demand, there will be a supply.

[A.K.A]

To a law abiding citizen, sure. The point is still escaping you. Do you think a two strike felon who is about to go put in some work gives a fuk? Or worse yet, do you think somebody who is planning in shooting u a school gives a fuk?

The bottom line, where there is a demand, there will be a supply.

Most of these school shootings are done by people who were too odd to obtain an illegal firearm. It would cut down on the weirdos shooting up large groups of people, it wouldn't cut down on gang crime though, I agree. Most of that violence is directed at gangbangers and drug dealers though, so the threat to me is extremely small.

[squealpiggy]

I should point out that my intention with this thread was to make a cheap joke about teenagers with psychic powers, not start another tedious gun debate. Oh well.

Decent enough redirection, I suppose. From the article you posted:

King recalls that the fictional schoolboy killer in his 1977 novel Rage, which was published under a pen name, Richard Bachman, resonated with several boys who subsequently rampaged at their own schools. One, Barry Loukaitis, shot dead a teacher and two students in Moses Lake, Washington in 1996, then quoted a line from the novel: "This sure beats algebra, doesn't it?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...say-amazon-nra

What concerns me is the anti-gun culture in this country, especially since it tends to come from those that are inherently anti-American. Present company excluded, of course.

Gun culture extends to the absurd belief that guns are necessary to defend against government tyranny. It's the sort of thing that makes people feel the need to carry a concealed handgun to a wedding. The sort of thing that concentrates on the highly unlikely circumstance of an armed home invasion to the degree that a teenager who forgot his keys can be shot to death with no attempt to determine his identity.

Once again she is California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who is currently proposing legislation to ban 150 models of rifles, pistols and shotguns. If you don't know who she is, you probably shouldn't be discussing U.S. gun control with any degree of credibility.

You posted a video that is 18 years old and related to an assault weapons ban. It has nothing to do with current legislation at all, which seeks to limit things like magazine size.

Well that's certainly a change from the usual "you can't fight tanks with your pea shooter" argument, but I'm not sure "the gubmint will just nuke your whole state, muthafcka" is any better.

The idea that you need guns to defend yourself against your government is ludicrous.

I think most intruders are unarmed, but even so I believe that single moms should be afforded the ability to defend themselves and their kids even if they are. The 7 round number of chosen specifically to allow the outlawing of an extremely popular weapon that has remained essentially unchanged for over a century. You seem to be fine with it, I am not.

You talk about your constitutional rights then you talk about gunning down criminals. Which is it?

Just to be clear, I am not "outraged" that career politicians are seeking further infringement on one of my constitutionally protected rights, as something like the NY legislation has zero chance of passing nationwide. Nor am I averse to a little civil discussion on the matter, as long as it is honest, realistic and straightforward.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Nobody is infringing your right to keep and bear arms. They are limiting you on which arms you can bear. Unless you're arguing for the right to private ownership of nuclear weapons then you advocate at least some limit on what arms are permissible to bear. The question is where you draw the line.

It's also evident that the amendment is archaic given the emphasis on a "well regulated militia". The notion of the state being defended by a militia was out of date in 1789 when it was ratified. By that point in time militias were starting to become obsolete for state security compared to standing armies used by major nations. Of course by the end of the Revolutionary War militias were romanticised as being the tool of emancipation of a republic from an Empire. It's natural to consider a successful revolution as being the doing of the rebels I suppose, even though the end of the war had considerably more to do with French threats against India, a much more important resource to defend.

In any case the right to bear arms is related the establishment of militias. Not to do with home defence. Not to do with little old ladies with herpes defending their meagre orphans from murderous rapists and government nazis.

Most gun owners are protecting themselves from intruders while they wait 30 min for 911 to respond.

The proportion of gun owners that ever are in the situation where they use their guns to protect themselves from intruders is so tiny it's effectively zero. The odd highly publicised anecdote of the little old ladies who protect themselves from certain rape by shooting an idiot on crack through their door is not indicative of a brave armed citizenry defending themselves from hordes of slightly armed bandits.

Yeah I still don't understand how any sane person would think of nuking an entire state to stop a small % of the population who would refuse to be willingly enslaved.

Dictators do not come to power by use of armed oppression.

People today are undoubtedly softer, but there are enough heavily armed veterans and such to make a Pol Pot type think twice about attempting to usurp in this country.

Pol Pot did not "usurp" power from a legitimate government. He rose to power after the Khmer Rouge rebellion which was a popular movement. Hitler rose to power as part of a popular movement. Stalin came to power following the death of Lenin who came to power on the crest of a popular movement.

Fact is that dictators don't steal power from an unwilling populace. They get the populace or a a significant proportion of the populace on their side and use that popularity to achieve power.

I think I could live with "tyranny" comprised of asking me not to own people. Maybe that's just me.

So you draw the line at a prohibition on slavery? In the South they considered such a prohibition to be an unacceptable infringement on their rights and went to war over it. How did that work out for them?

As I said, 90% of handguns are affected. Will they all design and construct new magazines to comply with a single state's new law? I don't know, but there are a fair number of New Yorkers who aren't going to be able to protect themselves until then.

I believe these are restrictions on new sales. And what do you mean "protect themselves"?

[Kenny MF Powers]

Incorrect. Or are you talking specifically about California's draconian gun laws? Either way you are wrong.

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:
All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip, flash suppressor, like this

even if you only have a single 5 rd clip for it.

All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel like these .22s







You might want to reread that particular post. Yes some women, or men for that matter, are uncomfortable with recoil. Likewise they are more comfortable with smaller calibers like a .22, like this one (now illegal in NY.)





You've never seen a woman shoot a .45? Yes a 1911 .45 kicks considerably less than a Glock 27 .40, for example.

I am talking specifically about California since thats what she is proposing the bill for...

Second point, do you not know what "and" means? That doesnt mean a detachable magazine only makes the gun illegal. It means detachable mag, AND one of those other features. Just like I said in my post you quoted... Currently from what I understand the law now in Cali is exactly the same only it is allowed 2 of those features, rather than just 1 which is the main proposed change...

Ive seen plenty of women shoot .45 with no problems at all. I have never seen even a child have an issue with recoil from a .22... Im not the one claiming recoil is an issue for them. You did.