To GunLoons , Facts Are Strange Things
GunLoon Jay, in comments:
News reports now say that the shooter used an “SKS” rifle. The SKS rifle was not banned by the federal AWB and most if not all of the state & city bans.
Anyone want to predict if we will see the bogus claim by deceitful gun control advocates that this shooting is connected to “expiration of the AWB”?
Comment by Jay — December 6, 2007 @ 10:39 am | Edit This
Unfortunately, for Jay, the rifle that was used in the Omaha Mall shootings was an AK-47. And it was a rifle that would have been banned had not the GOP alowed the AWB to expire in deference to a terrorist organization’s, NRA, demands.
Will the GunLoons admit they were wrong? Nope. Read the comments at BeggarsCanBe Choosers. One can read gunloonery at it’s most silly and dishonest.
At least Sebastian didn’t mention his Muay Thai expertise, so that’s a positive.
Update: For the record, an SKS should have been part of the AWB. It really has no use for hunting; to make an SKS even marginally acceptable for hunting, you’d have to spend a boatload of money. Even then, you’d have a low-end hunting firearm.
Seeing as I’ve never mentioned any expertise at anything at all (other than pointing out what lying loon you happen to be…I do seem have that down pretty well, eh?), I guess we’ll have to assume you’re off your meds again.
Nice to see your homoerotic obsession with me persists…as does your lack of sack. You still haven’t come over for your martial arts “lesson”. I’m waiting with baited breath!
In any event…you’re an idiot. As everyone with a clue knows, an AK47 is a select fire weapon that was already regulated under the NFA of 1934, but was NOT banned under the Clinton AWB you’re crooning about (which regulated SEMI auto rifles). Oh well…your dumbshittedness continues unabated by reason and rationality. Shocking, I know.
Your kind continue to misrepresent the Clinton era AWB. It didn’t say you couldn’t possess the regulated weapons if you owned them before the ban anyway–so the AWB didn’t make it so that people who wanted such firearms couldn’t find them. It was a pointless law that did nothing more than create a boom market for manufacturers who made rifles that were designed to circumnavigate the stupid (bayonet lugs? Flash suppressors? Yeah…those things are dangerous…NOT) regulations in the AWB.
As for the SKS…who cares if it’s useful for hunting or not? Classic red herring–hunting isn’t the only reason to own a rifle.
Nice to see that McDonald is open about his censorship of comments. He censors everything he doesn’t like, you censor Thirdpower’s comments…
And your best efforts to lie about this to the contrary, you’ve never been able to identify anything I’ve censored at all.
Funny.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — December 9, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
Nice to see you’re calling 4 million law abiding Americans terrorists, though. You’re a real class act.
As far as I can tell, nobody who’s not a gun rights blogger actually reads the nonsensical tripe on this page, but just in case:
Calling a semi auto knock off an AK47 is just as dumb as saying an AR15 is the same thing as an M16. As dishonest and discredit anti gun loon Josh Sugarmann said, anti gunners profit from confusing the public about the difference between full and semi auto.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — December 9, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
Sebastian the Muay Thai Expert chimes in, drunkenly.
……..
Again, the weapon used in the Omaha Mall murders was an AK-47. But even it were not–an SKS really has no practical use other than combat or…going to a mall and killing a bunch of innocent folks.
………..
Yet, drunken terrorists like Sebastian thinks it imperative that anyone and everyone have an AK-47.
Comment by Administrator — December 9, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
Nice to see that McDonald is open about his censorship of comments.
I’ve never censored a comment. You, OTOH, can’t say likewise. Nor can your buddy Jabba the Hutt Kevin Baker claim that as well.
Comment by Administrator — December 9, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
Thirdpower documented you censoring his comment on his page. Nice try, shitbreath. I notice you’re unable to defend McDonald’s censorship, however.
I’ve never censored a comment. Hint: what I erased on my site had nothing that could be considered relevant commentary. It was no different than deleting a spam. It had no political import, no intellectual effort went into it, and not letting people engage in personal attacks that have nothing to do with the topic at hand isn’t censorship by even the most lenient standard for that word.
In any event, the Omaha rifle was a WASR-10, which is NOT an AK47.
Like most gun controllers…you know nothing about what you want to ban.
SKSs are actually quite commonly used for target shooting and hunting. I think you get sexual pleasure from being misinformed.
When you coming over? I’ll have the pads and gear ready to go. You’re gonna LOVE your martial arts lesson. I’ll take pictures of the carnage, don’t worry.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — December 9, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
As I noted, I never censor…Sadly, the same cannot be said for Sebastian, the Muay Thai Expert.
Comment by Administrator — December 9, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
And, yes, the rifle in question was an AK-47. Sebastian’s just been drinking again to dull the memory of his trauma. Which was likely caused by his drinking.
…..
I’ll have the pads and gear ready to go.
Pads and gear? Good Lord, Sebastian uses Kotex???
Comment by Administrator — December 9, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
SKSs are actually quite commonly used for target shooting and hunting.
Ummm, no. Not by anyone remotely familiar with firearms. To be sure, there are those who might target shoot or hunt with SKSs—but they’re the same folks who would use a wrench to hammer a nail.
Comment by Administrator — December 9, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
“To be sure, there are those who might target shoot or hunt with SKSs—but they’re the same folks who would use a wrench to hammer a nail.”
—-
Really? Care to provide a citation for that, or are you gonna stick with random, baseless supposition?
Comment by Jay — December 9, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
Jay: Your lack of firearm knowledge is showing. Again.
Comment by Administrator — December 9, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
The SKS is quite popular with people who hunt. Go to the wikipedia page for the SKS. Do a search for SKS and hunting on google.
You’ll find several links discussing what a common and silly myth the “SKS isn’t used for hunting” lie really is.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — December 9, 2007 @ 11:21 pm
http://www.victorinc.com/SKS-FAQ.html
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — December 9, 2007 @ 11:21 pm
As anyone can see, I can verify with links and documentation that the SKS is in fact used in hunting applications. I actually substantiate my arguments. You should try it sometime, Jadepenis.
Most hunting in wooded and brush areas is done at less than 100 yards, a range at which the SKS is more than adequately accurate. Have you ever actually shot one? How do you know how accurate it is?
Nice to see you’re stooping to sexist humor instead of stopping by my place for your uh…”instruction”.
Your mendacity is exceeding only by your cowardice.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — December 9, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
Oh, and for the last fucking time, a WASR-10 is NOT an AK47.
Any more than an AR15 is an M4 or a Toyota is a Nissan.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — December 9, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
Thanks for your kind words.
You know, I’m kind of surprised that the gun nuts would even challenge the stats on gun murders in England.
Any reasonably intelligent person knows that England has only a very small number of gun homicides per year.
I mentioned that England has around 30 gun murders a year (actually, it was around 50 in 2005/2006) and the gun nuts went apesh*t and started trotting out all these (totally irrelevent) stats on vague crimes like “gun crimes” and total homicides in England.
But they don’t seem able to confront the reality that THERE WERE ONLY 50 GUN MURDERS IN ENGLAND IN 2005/06 and that ANY PERSON WITH TWO F*CKING BRAIN CELLS COULD FIGURE OUT THAT THIS IS BECAUSE ENGLAND RESTRICTS GUNS.
Marc McDonald
http://www.beggarscanbechoosers.com
Comment by Marc McDonald — December 10, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
(This is my first comment since my original Dec 6 post — there appears to be another Jay.)
As has been pointed out, most news reports specify an “AK47 type rifle.” My original post was based upon reports on the web sites of the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center. I have long known that much of what they print is inaccurate — apparently, I will now have to assume that EVEN MORE of what they print is inaccurate. Both have now changed that part of their sites.
Comment by Jay — December 10, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
“For the record, an SKS should have been part of the AWB.”
It was not part of the AWB since it does not meet the definition of an AW in the federal and most if not all state and local bans.
In fact, California (which revised its AWB to “close loopholes” and ban “copycats”) STILL does not ban SKS’s.
Comment by Jay — December 10, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
Wow, Marc, I’m surprised you had the guts to come post somewhere that you can’t simply stifle the comments from people that disagree with you.
The point you’re missing isn’t that England has a low murder rate. We’re not disagreeing. What we’re pointing out is that they had a low murder rate EVEN BEFORE they had strict gun control laws.
I’m surprised you’re trying to argue that England’s low murder rate is gun law related–as anyone with two fucking brain cells would also realize that you’d have to establish that they had a higher murder rate before the gun control laws came along. Unfortunately…that’s not the case, and thus all your ranting is for naught. England actually has seen gun crime go UP and not down since they confiscated all the legally registered handguns. The murder rate in the UK has always been minimal (which is a cultural phenomena, not a legal one), and was so well before they went around the bend on gun control.
No wonder you don’t allow comments on your blog; having people eviscerate your arguments is embarrassing, isn’t it?
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — December 10, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
Hi Sebastian,
Re:
>>>they had a low murder rate EVEN
>>>BEFORE they had strict gun control
>>>laws.
Where, exactly, are you getting this information from? Your ass?
The fact is, England and Wales had an incredibly low 50 gun murders in
2005/06.
By the blood-soaked standards of America, that number is practically
unfathomable. 50 people are shot dead with guns here in the U.S. on
a typical day.
That’s really the only stat that matters. Everything else is just
muddying the waters. You can talk all you want to about how England’s
gun control has nothing to do with its tiny firearm murder rate, but
frankly (outside of the NRA Kool-Aid drinkers) I really don’t think
your arguments are going to be taken seriously by the majority of
Americans (who are sick and tired of senseless gun violence). Oh,
and as taxpayers, we’re also sick and tired of being forced to foot
the tab for the staggering cost of gunshot injuries, which cost America
$20 billion a year (80 percent of which is paid for with taxpayer dollars).
Marc McDonald
http://www.beggarscanbechoosers.com
Comment by Marc McDonald — December 10, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
Marc,
Nothing in that pathetic rant of yours changed the simple fact that the UK had a low homicide rate BEFORE they enacted strict gun control laws. You didn’t even try to address that point.
Let’s review: before gun control, low gun crime rates. After gun control, low (but growing) gun crime rates.
The only person pulling anything from their ass is you. You didn’t even try to address the larger point, which was that the UK had low gun crime rates before they passed a bunch of draconian, anti freedom laws. You simply assumed because they have low gun crime rates today it must be because of gun control laws…a stupid theory blown out of the water by the fact that they had low gun crime rates well before gun control came to town 100 years ago…but rather than acknowledge that, you’re sticking your fingers in your ear and screaming like a schoolgirl.
Even Jadedouche himself posted a link that showed that the UK had a low gun crime rate by anybody’s standards.
And you consider yourself a journalist? Pathetic.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — December 10, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
“For the record, an SKS should have been part of the AWB.”
It was not part of the AWB since it does not meet the definition of an AW in the federal and most if not all state and local bans.
In fact, California (which revised its AWB to “close loopholes” and ban “copycats”) STILL does not ban SKS’s.
Comment by Jay
Ummm… maybe thats because its not an AW!!! Well that was hard to figure out. It is nothing like an ak-47, wasr-10 or any other “assault rifle” as you like to call them! Wouldn’t any weapon used in an assault be an AW?
Anyway…
It (an sks) isn’t “an AK-47 type rifle” or “similar to the AK-47.” (Or, as one widely-circulated newspaper story grotesquely claimed, “based on the AK-47″ - a neat trick if it were true, since the SKS was in existence years before the AK-47 was designed!) As you know by now if you’ve been reading the preceding pages, the only things it has in common with the AK-47 is that they both were designed by Russians and they use the same ammunition.
It isn’t a weapon of great or “devastating” power. The 7.62x39mm. round is ballistically similar to the well-known American .30-30, which most experts consider the lightest round acceptable for deer hunting. It is much less powerful than the M-16, or the typical full-power military or sporting rifle. It is true that it will penetrate the typical police protective vest. So will any reasonably effective defensive or sporting firearm, including a muzzle-loading Kentucky rifle. (http://www.sff.net/people/sanders/sks4.html) Couldn’t have said it better myself! sorry. Just saving time.
Comment by B — December 12, 2007 @ 10:05 pm