If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   NY Daily News editorial board outraged, I say OUTRAGED that Obama and Romney did NOT freak out and use the Aurora massacre for panicked petty political stumping   (nydailynews.com) divider line 327
    More: Asinine, NY Daily News, obama, NRA, Wayne LaPierre, morning, accident happened, anxiety disorders, body counts  
•       •       •

2828 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jul 2012 at 12:54 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



327 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-22 12:57:37 PM
So are you pro Batman or anti Batman? The world needs to know right now!
 
2012-07-22 12:58:19 PM
An AR-15 and a shotgun qualify as "heavy weaponry"?

wtfamireading?
 
2012-07-22 01:00:14 PM
I just want to know where the gunman got the SWAT outfit. They sell this stuff to the general public?
 
2012-07-22 01:00:35 PM
What better time to brIng up a debate about gun control and our shiatty mental health services than after a crazy dude goes on a mass killing spree?
 
2012-07-22 01:02:14 PM
Yes, it's truly a sad state of affairs when political opportunism takes a back seat to reasonable discussion.
 
2012-07-22 01:02:18 PM
Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.
 
2012-07-22 01:03:58 PM
Ugh, as with most everything in life, the answer lies somewhere in the middle -- between "this is the price we pay for not having to live in a total police state" to "maybe we should watch the sale of large amounts of ammo closer like we do with the chemicals to make meth, etc.".

Short of creating a jackboot thug police state to live in or inventing some magical gun disintegrator the only thing reasonable, to me anyway, is to watch closer the sales of ammo that fuel attacks like this. I'm not even sure that that would offer much.

Anyway, right after a tragedy like this is probably the exact wrong time to attempt any reasoned discussion.
 
2012-07-22 01:04:29 PM
Ha! Reminds me of how Boston sports radio is constantly frothing at the mouth that Bellichick doesn't say outrageous things (like Rex Ryan) to give them fodder and make their jobs easier. BTW, they lobbied HARD to get Bobby Valentine for the Red Sox.
 
2012-07-22 01:05:53 PM
Weren't we told after the Giffords shooting that it wasn't the right time to discuss gun control? I bet the same people who said that then are the same people who say that now, and they all won't want to discuss gun control unless the discussion is, "Screw gun control. We need more guns, 'cos non-whites are scary, and not everybody can afford a huge vehicle to compensate for their tiny penis."
 
2012-07-22 01:06:45 PM
Well I reached my monumentally dumb shiat quota for the day. Thanks Fark.
 
2012-07-22 01:06:51 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.


Ask Osama bin Laden.
 
2012-07-22 01:06:55 PM

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: An AR-15 and a shotgun qualify as "heavy weaponry"?

wtfamireading?


It is in NY.
 
2012-07-22 01:07:32 PM

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: An AR-15 and a shotgun qualify as "heavy weaponry"?

wtfamireading?


www.fileplanet.com
Agrees
 
2012-07-22 01:08:15 PM

Snatch Bandergrip: bigsteve3OOO: Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.

Ask Osama bin Laden.


Both tried.
 
2012-07-22 01:08:36 PM
"I just want to know where the gunman got the SWAT outfit. They sell this stuff to the general public?"

Yes some one last night said on FOX News that you can buy that type of outfit on E-BAY.
 
2012-07-22 01:10:54 PM
"An AR-15 and a shotgun qualify as "heavy weaponry?"

It is if no one else has ANY weapons.
 
2012-07-22 01:11:54 PM

wolfjc: "An AR-15 and a shotgun qualify as "heavy weaponry?"

It is if no one else has ANY weapons.


Blow it out your ass.
 
2012-07-22 01:13:30 PM
Can you imagine what the NY Daily News Op-Ed would be saying if Obama had?
 
2012-07-22 01:14:40 PM

wolfjc: "An AR-15 and a shotgun qualify as "heavy weaponry?"

It is if no one else has ANY weapons.


So issue everyone a sidearm with their learner's permit.

/problem solved.
//armed, polite, all that.

Great_Milenko: Blow it out your ass.


Or that.
 
2012-07-22 01:14:42 PM

Great_Milenko: wolfjc: "An AR-15 and a shotgun qualify as "heavy weaponry?"

It is if no one else has ANY weapons.

Blow it out your ass.


Wouldn't that qualify as an assault weapon?
 
2012-07-22 01:15:16 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-22 01:15:23 PM

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: So issue everyone a sidearm with their learner's permit.


It worked for cars, right?
 
2012-07-22 01:16:25 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.


www.demotivationalposters.org

I can.
 
2012-07-22 01:17:37 PM

simplicimus: I just want to know where the gunman got the SWAT outfit. They sell this stuff to the general public?


Yes. Including body armor.
 
2012-07-22 01:19:23 PM

wolfjc: "I just want to know where the gunman got the SWAT outfit. They sell this stuff to the general public?"

Yes some one last night said on FOX News that you can buy that type of outfit on E-BAY.


Well, buying that stuff might be noteworthy to authorities, unless you're going up against well armed deer.
 
2012-07-22 01:21:12 PM
The police chief in Aurora, Colo., said he is confident that massacre gunman James Holmes acted alone. The police chief was dead wrong.
Standing at Holmes' side as he unleashed an AR-15 assault rifle and a shotgun and a handgun was Wayne LaPierre, political enforcer of the National Rifle Association.
Standing at Holmes' side as he sprayed bullets and buckshot into a crowded movie theater were Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, a President and a would-be President, who have bowed to the NRA's dictates and who responded to the slaughter Friday with revolting, useless treacle.


Author is a disgusting human being and needs mental help. I recommend percussive therapy.
 
2012-07-22 01:21:16 PM

simplicimus: Well, buying that stuff might be noteworthy to authorities,


I'll prepare for the zombie apocalypse however the fark I want, tyvm.
 
2012-07-22 01:23:45 PM
Yeah they should wait for at least a few more gun massacres committed by responsible gun owners before addressing anything.
 
2012-07-22 01:24:21 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Snatch Bandergrip: bigsteve3OOO: Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.

Ask Osama bin Laden.

Both tried.


encrypted-tbn2.google.com
 
2012-07-22 01:25:09 PM

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: I'll prepare for the zombie apocalypse however the fark I want, tyvm.



Hehe, I was going to ask what you'd need body armor for against zombies. But like "The Walking Dead" and other zombie flicks have shown, one must protect themselves against the living as much as the undead.
 
2012-07-22 01:26:02 PM

simplicimus: Well, buying that stuff might be noteworthy to authorities, unless you're going up against well armed deer.


As long as we monitor sales of clown suits too. They cause far more harm than good.
 
2012-07-22 01:28:54 PM

Spare Me: simplicimus: Well, buying that stuff might be noteworthy to authorities, unless you're going up against well armed deer.

As long as we monitor sales of clown suits too. They cause far more harm than good.


It's not the clown suits that cause harm, it's the makeup.
 
2012-07-22 01:28:58 PM

b0rg9: Ugh, as with most everything in life, the answer lies somewhere in the middle -- between "this is the price we pay for not having to live in a total police state" to "maybe we should watch the sale of large amounts of ammo closer like we do with the chemicals to make meth, etc.".
Short of creating a jackboot thug police state to live in or inventing some magical gun disintegrator the only thing reasonable, to me anyway, is to watch closer the sales of ammo that fuel attacks like this. I'm not even sure that that would offer much.
Anyway, right after a tragedy like this is probably the exact wrong time to attempt any reasoned discussion.


What drives me crazy about any gun related discussion is that everyone is basically in the middle. But EVERY argument gets turned into a discussion of extremes. No one thinks we should confiscate all weapons. No one thinks weaponized anthrax should be sold to the general public. So everyone in America is in 100% agreement that we will have both guns and some reasonable laws regarding them. But anytime a topic comes up about a specific gun law, instead of arguing the merits of that law, it becomes:
Line 1: "The 2nd Amendment is absolute!"
Line 2: "Not it isn't."
Line 3: "Yes it is!"
Line 4: Go to line 2
 
2012-07-22 01:30:37 PM
mjcdn.motherjones.com

Patience, the leader of the GOP is too busy reading comic books yet to comment on the Aurora Tragedy.
 
2012-07-22 01:31:30 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Yeah they should wait for at least a few more gun massacres committed by responsible gun owners before addressing anything.


Okay, I'm not taking a side on the whole gun-control shiatstorm, but that argument is a complete load and you know it. Any gun owner who uses it for a massacre automatically doesn't qualify as responsible. Any time something like this happens, that "responsible gun owner" line is brought out as a No True Scotsman. "Well, he doesn't count! He's not a RESPONSIBLE owner!" Seems like pretty good fire control to me, he knew how to use the guns he owned, and they were apparently kept in functional condition. Seems "responsible" enough ownership to at least merit the discussion, regardless of the regrettable use.
 
2012-07-22 01:32:01 PM
Meh...not to worry. There are plenty of the usual suspects willing taking up the faux-rage here on Fark.
 
2012-07-22 01:36:28 PM
I thought Aurora was a gun free zone or something where CCW was not allowed.....due to the Columbine massacre 20 miles away.
 
2012-07-22 01:36:55 PM
This is how the "national dialogue" on gun control always goes after one of these massacres, and how it will inevitably go this time:

Responsible Citizen: "Oh my gosh, that's terrible! So many people killed! And apparently the gunman got those very high-powered weapons really easily. Maybe its time we talk about regulating those things more closely."

Republican: "How can you possibly advocate taking away MAH FREEDUMS to carry around a small arsenal wherever I go! Guns don't kill people, people kill people!"

Responsible Citizen: "Oh, um okay, maybe we can meet somewhere in the middle. You're right to point out the obviously very large role of the gunman. How about we invest in public mental health facilities and outreach programs to depressed/mentally unstable people? And how about we launch a public initiative to decrease poverty, which has been proven to exacerbate violent crime rates?"

Republican: "Are you kidding?! That's socialism! That's TYRANNY! YOU MIGHT AS WELL SHOOT EVERYBODY IN THE FACE!"

Responsible Citizen: "Ugh . . . okay, so what do you think we should do?"

Republican: "MAKE EVERYONE BUY GUNS AND CARRY THEM AROUND WHEREVER THEY GO!"

Responsible Citizen: "fark it. I'll just buy a bullet-proof vest . . ."

*walks away*
 
2012-07-22 01:39:58 PM

Giltric: I thought Aurora was a gun free zone or something where CCW was not allowed.....due to the Columbine massacre 20 miles away.


Let me guess, you're one of those folks who think that this would've all been prevented if they allowed CCW in cinemas in Aurora.

Because anyone can accurately shoot a guy in a dark and smoky movie theater without harming someone else unintentionally.

*rolls eyes*
 
2012-07-22 01:41:49 PM

Garble: b0rg9: Ugh, as with most everything in life, the answer lies somewhere in the middle -- between "this is the price we pay for not having to live in a total police state" to "maybe we should watch the sale of large amounts of ammo closer like we do with the chemicals to make meth, etc.".
Short of creating a jackboot thug police state to live in or inventing some magical gun disintegrator the only thing reasonable, to me anyway, is to watch closer the sales of ammo that fuel attacks like this. I'm not even sure that that would offer much.
Anyway, right after a tragedy like this is probably the exact wrong time to attempt any reasoned discussion.

What drives me crazy about any gun related discussion is that everyone is basically in the middle. But EVERY argument gets turned into a discussion of extremes. No one thinks we should confiscate all weapons. No one thinks weaponized anthrax should be sold to the general public. So everyone in America is in 100% agreement that we will have both guns and some reasonable laws regarding them. But anytime a topic comes up about a specific gun law, instead of arguing the merits of that law, it becomes:
Line 1: "The 2nd Amendment is absolute!"
Line 2: "Not it isn't."
Line 3: "Yes it is!"
Line 4: Go to line 2


It certainly doesn't help when everyone twists the other side's opinion into complete fabrication. For instance, the tea partiers, thanks to Fox News, are convinced that Obama is teaming up with the UN to take away all guns from everybody. Fear-mongering like that makes intelligent discussion about policy specific completely impossible.
 
2012-07-22 01:42:30 PM
Yes, as though this would have saved a single life.
 
2012-07-22 01:42:36 PM

The Name: This is how the "national dialogue" on gun control always goes after one of these massacres, and how it will inevitably go this time:


You forgot about blaming Marilyn Manson.
 
2012-07-22 01:43:40 PM

Last Man on Earth: Okay, I'm not taking a side on the whole gun-control shiatstorm, but that argument is a complete load and you know it. Any gun owner who uses it for a massacre automatically doesn't qualify as responsible. Any time something like this happens, that "responsible gun owner" line is brought out as a No True Scotsman.


My thing is the person that is responsible today is one perceived slight or bout of crazy away from being wildly irresponsible. I uh...don't generally trust people, and I can't think of anyone that should be allowed to possess the kinds and volume of weapons that this guy did. He looked great on paper, but here we are. There are a lot of unstable people in our midst.

Basically, I'm starting to look at anyone that owns arsenals as a future spree killer. There is quite literally no way to stop them.
 
2012-07-22 01:44:24 PM

Mrtraveler01: Giltric: I thought Aurora was a gun free zone or something where CCW was not allowed.....due to the Columbine massacre 20 miles away.

Let me guess, you're one of those folks who think that this would've all been prevented if they allowed CCW in cinemas in Aurora.

Because anyone can accurately shoot a guy in a dark and smoky movie theater without harming someone else unintentionally.

*rolls eyes*


So we replace P.E. with mandatory SWAT training in high school.

/bonus: Kids will actually get some excercise!
//do I have to think of everything around here?
 
2012-07-22 01:44:30 PM

Millennium: Yes, as though this would have saved a single life.


Every life would have been saved if no one had lives in the first place.

/Only let the dead watch movies
 
2012-07-22 01:46:03 PM

HotWingConspiracy: There is quite literally no way to stop them.


Anyone owning more than X guns or rounds of ammunition must submit to annual mental examinations.
 
2012-07-22 01:47:21 PM
Obamacare is more of a step in the right direction to prevent this sort of thing than any form of gun control. If this guy could have had some sort of mental health care for whatever demons he has this could have been prevented. We're close to the financial burden not being an issue and the next step is getting rid of the social stigma against mental problems.
 
2012-07-22 01:48:02 PM

Mrtraveler01: Giltric: I thought Aurora was a gun free zone or something where CCW was not allowed.....due to the Columbine massacre 20 miles away.

Let me guess, you're one of those folks who think that this would've all been prevented if they allowed CCW in cinemas in Aurora.

Because anyone can accurately shoot a guy in a dark and smoky movie theater without harming someone else unintentionally.

*rolls eyes*


Not anyone....some people, sure.

Some groups do live fire training with living hostages sitting in front of paper targets.......

Are you saying it's impossible?
 
2012-07-22 01:49:42 PM

Lost Thought 00: HotWingConspiracy: There is quite literally no way to stop them.

Anyone owning more than X guns or rounds of ammunition must submit to annual mental examinations.


Or at the very least, a quick visit and interview by the cops. No charges or anything. Just a "Hey, you aren't going to use these to go on a rampage or anything? Are you?"

Once somebody starts orders thousands of rounds of ammunition, they should be on a watch list of some sort. Nothing to restrict any of their freedoms, but at least worth checking in with on a regular basis to make sure they're still thinking rationally.
 
2012-07-22 01:50:48 PM

sexy-fetus: Obamacare is more of a step in the right direction to prevent this sort of thing than any form of gun control. If this guy could have had some sort of mental health care for whatever demons he has this could have been prevented. We're close to the financial burden not being an issue and the next step is getting rid of the social stigma against mental problems.


Obamacare will help cut costs by not testing everybody for every ailment under the sun when they are sick....how would Obamacare help us IRt this scenario again?
 
2012-07-22 01:51:07 PM

Lost Thought 00: HotWingConspiracy: There is quite literally no way to stop them.

Anyone owning more than X guns or rounds of ammunition must submit to annual mental examinations.


Holmes bought the guns and ammo within a span of 60 days. He had 300 to go before his next exam.
 
2012-07-22 01:51:46 PM

sexy-fetus: Obamacare is more of a step in the right direction to prevent this sort of thing than any form of gun control. If this guy could have had some sort of mental health care for whatever demons he has this could have been prevented. We're close to the financial burden not being an issue and the next step is getting rid of the social stigma against mental problems.


I don't know. This kid with a clean mental health record and a degree in neuroscience expects us to believe that the only job he could find was "at McDonalds." Also, he apparently thought Adult Friend Finder was an actual dating service.
 
2012-07-22 01:52:16 PM

Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: I thought Aurora was a gun free zone or something where CCW was not allowed.....due to the Columbine massacre 20 miles away.

Let me guess, you're one of those folks who think that this would've all been prevented if they allowed CCW in cinemas in Aurora.

Because anyone can accurately shoot a guy in a dark and smoky movie theater without harming someone else unintentionally.

*rolls eyes*

Not anyone....some people, sure.

Some groups do live fire training with living hostages sitting in front of paper targets.......

Are you saying it's impossible?


And the chances of someone that skilled being at a cinema in Aurora, CO at midnight are...?

I'm saying it's not realistic.
 
2012-07-22 01:53:01 PM
People were killed in Colorado. You know what this means? It means that we need to have a reasonable discussion about repealing the 2nd amendment. Also, it means that I can talk about penis sizes and how gun owners are racist.

Anyone who doesn't want a reasonable repeal of the second amendment has a small penis and hates black people.

/That's pretty much the argument you'll hear from the loons on fark.
 
2012-07-22 01:54:26 PM

Giltric: Some groups do live fire training with living hostages sitting in front of paper targets.......


Yeah. They're hicks, Rita.
 
2012-07-22 01:54:34 PM

wolfjc: "I just want to know where the gunman got the SWAT outfit. They sell this stuff to the general public?"

Yes some one last night said on FOX News that you can buy that type of outfit on E-BAY.


Paintball friends of mine have riot gear-like stuff. You can go here and buy an entire riot gear kit for under $300. The site also sells gas masks & hazmat suits. That stuff isn't illegal to own. It just raises some serious questions if you're wearing it anywhere outside the police force or a paintball field.
 
2012-07-22 01:54:53 PM

NeoCortex42: Lost Thought 00: HotWingConspiracy: There is quite literally no way to stop them.

Anyone owning more than X guns or rounds of ammunition must submit to annual mental examinations.

Or at the very least, a quick visit and interview by the cops. No charges or anything. Just a "Hey, you aren't going to use these to go on a rampage or anything? Are you?"

Once somebody starts orders thousands of rounds of ammunition, they should be on a watch list of some sort. Nothing to restrict any of their freedoms, but at least worth checking in with on a regular basis to make sure they're still thinking rationally.


Someone active in shooting sports will go through thousands of rounds easily.

But the cops that you want to interview people...are they the same cops that regularly pull black people over for ummm suspicious activity, pull their glock instead of their taser and shoot someone accidentally , spray peper spray in peaceful protestors faces and use qtips to rub the irritating agent directly on their eyes. plant drugs or weapons in suspects, kick down the door to the wrong apartment and shoot little old ladies sitting in easy chairs......those cops?
 
2012-07-22 01:55:39 PM

Frank N Stein: People were killed in Colorado. You know what this means? It means that we need to have a reasonable discussion about repealing the 2nd amendment. Also, it means that I can talk about penis sizes and how gun owners are racist.

Anyone who doesn't want a reasonable repeal of the second amendment has a small penis and hates black people.

/That's pretty much the argument you'll hear from the loons on fark.


That's because well-armed black men with huge penises aren't allowed on the internet.
 
2012-07-22 01:55:45 PM

Frank N Stein: People were killed in Colorado. You know what this means? It means that we need to have a reasonable discussion about repealing the 2nd amendment. Also, it means that I can talk about penis sizes and how gun owners are racist.

Anyone who doesn't want a reasonable repeal of the second amendment has a small penis and hates black people.

/That's pretty much the argument you'll hear from the loons on fark.


Sounds like you guys are the real victims of this tragedy.
 
2012-07-22 01:56:20 PM
I'm in favor of gun control in the form of common-sense stuff like making sure the people who purchase firearms pass basic background and mental health exams, but from all accounts even that would not have helped here. I'm glad both parties are (mostly) staying away from their standard go-to talking points in tragedies like this, because neither more guns nor more regulation would have helped here.

I think the best thing that could be done in this country is for teenagers to be taught proper safety and reaction to firearms. They should be taught how to clear most weapons, how to tell if the safety is on or off, and how to find cover or concealment and move safely away from fire. The shooter drill should be as basic a safety drill as tornado, earthquke, or fire drills.
 
2012-07-22 01:57:43 PM

Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: I thought Aurora was a gun free zone or something where CCW was not allowed.....due to the Columbine massacre 20 miles away.

Let me guess, you're one of those folks who think that this would've all been prevented if they allowed CCW in cinemas in Aurora.

Because anyone can accurately shoot a guy in a dark and smoky movie theater without harming someone else unintentionally.

*rolls eyes*

Not anyone....some people, sure.

Some groups do live fire training with living hostages sitting in front of paper targets.......

Are you saying it's impossible?

And the chances of someone that skilled being at a cinema in Aurora, CO at midnight are...?

I'm saying it's not realistic.


There were military personnel in the theatre at the time....some might even be victims, but none were armed, and I don;t have access to their dd214's to see if they attended any schools where they might be more proficient in violence of action then normal military personnel.

It could be more realistic then you think.

u skeered?
 
2012-07-22 01:58:07 PM

FishStampede: I think the best thing that could be done in this country is for teenagers to be taught proper safety and reaction to firearms. They should be taught how to clear most weapons, how to tell if the safety is on or off, and how to find cover or concealment and move safely away from fire. The shooter drill should be as basic a safety drill as tornado, earthquke, or fire drills.


Maybe it would be easier to stop fostering a delusional sense of entitlement.
 
2012-07-22 01:58:16 PM

you are a puppet: Frank N Stein: People were killed in Colorado. You know what this means? It means that we need to have a reasonable discussion about repealing the 2nd amendment. Also, it means that I can talk about penis sizes and how gun owners are racist.

Anyone who doesn't want a reasonable repeal of the second amendment has a small penis and hates black people.

/That's pretty much the argument you'll hear from the loons on fark.

Sounds like you guys are the real victims of this tragedy.


The victims are the ones killed or wounded by the madman.

Not sure what you're trying to say.
 
2012-07-22 01:58:19 PM
Sounds like the media is all butthurt when people don't react to things the way they want them to do.
 
2012-07-22 01:59:37 PM

Frank N Stein: People were killed in Colorado. You know what this means? It means that we need to have a reasonable discussion about repealing the 2nd amendment. Also, it means that I can talk about penis sizes and how gun owners are racist.

Anyone who doesn't want a reasonable repeal of the second amendment has a small penis and hates black people.

/That's pretty much the argument you'll hear from the loons on fark.


I'll bite. Who is advocating repealing the second amendment again?

Are you basically saying that any form or regulation involving gun ownership is an infringement of your 2nd Amendment rights?

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-22 02:00:04 PM

wedun: NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: An AR-15 and a shotgun qualify as "heavy weaponry"?

wtfamireading?

[www.fileplanet.com image 400x225]
Agrees


farm4.static.flickr.com

Sometimes you need just a little less gun.
 
2012-07-22 02:00:53 PM
Their headline Firday (or maybe it was yesterday) was just a giant picture of of Obama's frowning face with the boldface words "HOW MANY MORE MUST DIE, MR. PRESIDENT?!?" Trolls.
 
2012-07-22 02:01:03 PM

Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: I thought Aurora was a gun free zone or something where CCW was not allowed.....due to the Columbine massacre 20 miles away.

Let me guess, you're one of those folks who think that this would've all been prevented if they allowed CCW in cinemas in Aurora.

Because anyone can accurately shoot a guy in a dark and smoky movie theater without harming someone else unintentionally.

*rolls eyes*

Not anyone....some people, sure.

Some groups do live fire training with living hostages sitting in front of paper targets.......

Are you saying it's impossible?

And the chances of someone that skilled being at a cinema in Aurora, CO at midnight are...?

I'm saying it's not realistic.

There were military personnel in the theatre at the time....some might even be victims, but none were armed, and I don;t have access to their dd214's to see if they attended any schools where they might be more proficient in violence of action then normal military personnel.

It could be more realistic then you think.

u skeered?


No, why would I be scared?

I still think it's an unrealistic expectation to expect someone to accurately shoot someone in a dark smoky movie theater where everyone is running in a panic and getting in the way of someone trying to shoot the main shooter.
 
2012-07-22 02:02:13 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.


Don't ask don't tell.
Gay marriage.
Disclosure of personal finances.
To start wars v. to end them.
Working towards universal healthcare (ACA doesn't achieve it, but gets us closer).

So... really, not one?
 
2012-07-22 02:03:46 PM

Mrtraveler01: Frank N Stein: People were killed in Colorado. You know what this means? It means that we need to have a reasonable discussion about repealing the 2nd amendment. Also, it means that I can talk about penis sizes and how gun owners are racist.

Anyone who doesn't want a reasonable repeal of the second amendment has a small penis and hates black people.

/That's pretty much the argument you'll hear from the loons on fark.

I'll bite. Who is advocating repealing the second amendment again?

Are you basically saying that any form or regulation involving gun ownership is an infringement of your 2nd Amendment rights?


I shouldn't have said repeal. But certainly restrictions are touted by some. Magazine round restrictions, watch lists etc.
 
2012-07-22 02:04:52 PM

firefly212: bigsteve3OOO: Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.

Don't ask don't tell.
Gay marriage.
Disclosure of personal finances.
To start wars v. to end them.
Working towards universal healthcare (ACA doesn't achieve it, but gets us closer).

So... really, not one?


Well someones position on gay marriage only evolved when the polls told him it was time to pander....err come out in favor of gay marriage.
 
2012-07-22 02:06:34 PM

GhostFish: The police chief in Aurora, Colo., said he is confident that massacre gunman James Holmes acted alone. The police chief was dead wrong.
Standing at Holmes' side as he unleashed an AR-15 assault rifle and a shotgun and a handgun was Wayne LaPierre, political enforcer of the National Rifle Association.
Standing at Holmes' side as he sprayed bullets and buckshot into a crowded movie theater were Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, a President and a would-be President, who have bowed to the NRA's dictates and who responded to the slaughter Friday with revolting, useless treacle.

Author is a disgusting human being and needs mental help. I recommend percussive therapy.


If this had been like, some kind of issue where the guy had been previously committed, and it hadn't shown up on a background check, or the guy had a history of violent crimes that maybe weren't felonious, then we could have some kind of reason for tweeking gun control laws, maybe serially violent people (even if not felonious) shouldn't be able to get guns, and maybe there are problems with background checks... but this guy was a clean as a whistle law-abiding citizen right up until he was a mass-murderer... I'm not going to categorize all of the first category as high-risk of falling into the second category. There are reasonable forms of gun control, but pretty much none of those would have stopped this guy... even if there were no guns at all, it's pretty evident he had some serious bomb-making skills... what then, we're going to ban learning about chemistry (your house has the materials to make a bomb too, usually right under the kitchen sink or out in the garage)...
 
2012-07-22 02:06:44 PM

Giltric: firefly212: bigsteve3OOO: Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.

Don't ask don't tell.
Gay marriage.
Disclosure of personal finances.
To start wars v. to end them.
Working towards universal healthcare (ACA doesn't achieve it, but gets us closer).

So... really, not one?

Well someones position on gay marriage only evolved when the polls told him it was time to pander....err come out in favor of gay marriage.


Or come out against it if you're Mitt Romney. ;)
 
2012-07-22 02:08:41 PM

Frank N Stein: Mrtraveler01: Frank N Stein: People were killed in Colorado. You know what this means? It means that we need to have a reasonable discussion about repealing the 2nd amendment. Also, it means that I can talk about penis sizes and how gun owners are racist.

Anyone who doesn't want a reasonable repeal of the second amendment has a small penis and hates black people.

/That's pretty much the argument you'll hear from the loons on fark.

I'll bite. Who is advocating repealing the second amendment again?

Are you basically saying that any form or regulation involving gun ownership is an infringement of your 2nd Amendment rights?

I shouldn't have said repeal. But certainly restrictions are touted by some. Magazine round restrictions, watch lists etc.


the beta mag jammed....which is what they are prone to do. He probably hurt/killed more people with the sporting shotgun that would not be covered under a AWB or magazine restriction.

If the actor did not have access to fireamrs he probably would have came up with something else...maybe ammonia and bleach bombs....and hurt/killed more people.

broken person is broken and intent on doing harm......not alot that can prevent that.
 
2012-07-22 02:08:58 PM

Frank N Stein: I shouldn't have said repeal.


Yeah. That's what made you look like an idiot. Your wording.
 
2012-07-22 02:09:26 PM
I've been getting great amusement out of the backseat Dirty Harry types who think that with their sidearm they could've made all the difference against a guy in armor, fully armed who got the drop on a room full of people. Yeah modern reality is totally the OK Corral.
 
2012-07-22 02:10:31 PM

Frank N Stein: People were killed in Colorado. You know what this means? It means that we need to have a reasonable discussion about repealing the 2nd amendment. Also, it means that I can talk about penis sizes and how gun owners are racist.

Anyone who doesn't want a reasonable repeal of the second amendment has a small penis and hates black people.

/That's pretty much the argument you'll hear from the loons on fark.


i'm for adjustments to the second amendment.

i'm also for you engaging this discussion without you per-emptively accusing others of racism.

How about that?

Is there a reasonable reason to own an assault weapon or have the ability to purchase thousands of rounds of bullets?

Would it be reasonable to have a 100% citizen restriction on such weapons and purchase of ammunition for such guns if weapons? I think so.

Is it reasonable to have restrictions on other weapons inside highly populated areas (cities) if such city's citizens agree such restrictions are reasonable for their community.

(remember I'm talking about amending the 2nd -- it's not obvious any of this will be possible without re-thinking what is and what is not required in our constitution).
 
2012-07-22 02:11:26 PM

bonefish: I've been getting great amusement out of the backseat Dirty Harry types who think that with their sidearm they could've made all the difference against a guy in armor, fully armed who got the drop on a room full of people. Yeah modern reality is totally the OK Corral.


4.bp.blogspot.com

"Wait, who started this whole thing?"
 
2012-07-22 02:11:39 PM

Lost Thought 00: HotWingConspiracy: There is quite literally no way to stop them.

Anyone owning more than X guns or rounds of ammunition must submit to annual mental examinations.


...But most of these attackers are politically active college students who didn't own many guns.
Since there are fewer of those than there are gun owners, wouldn't it take less time to force all students to undergo mental evaluations?
 
2012-07-22 02:12:13 PM

Mrtraveler01: Giltric: firefly212: bigsteve3OOO: Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.

Don't ask don't tell.
Gay marriage.
Disclosure of personal finances.
To start wars v. to end them.
Working towards universal healthcare (ACA doesn't achieve it, but gets us closer).

So... really, not one?

Well someones position on gay marriage only evolved when the polls told him it was time to pander....err come out in favor of gay marriage.

Or come out against it if you're Mitt Romney. ;)


5. Marriage:
BSG: The colonists use the word "seal" in preference to marriage, and a couple is sealed "not only for now but for all the eternities." (Adama in Lost Planet of Ancient Gods.)

LDS: In the LDS church, marriage refers to a secular joining and "sealing" referes to a bond sanctified by God and "not only for time, but for all eternity."

Lords of Kobol, how do I reach these keeeeeds.
 
2012-07-22 02:12:46 PM

Giltric: Frank N Stein: Mrtraveler01: Frank N Stein: People were killed in Colorado. You know what this means? It means that we need to have a reasonable discussion about repealing the 2nd amendment. Also, it means that I can talk about penis sizes and how gun owners are racist.

Anyone who doesn't want a reasonable repeal of the second amendment has a small penis and hates black people.

/That's pretty much the argument you'll hear from the loons on fark.

I'll bite. Who is advocating repealing the second amendment again?

Are you basically saying that any form or regulation involving gun ownership is an infringement of your 2nd Amendment rights?

I shouldn't have said repeal. But certainly restrictions are touted by some. Magazine round restrictions, watch lists etc.

the beta mag jammed....which is what they are prone to do. He probably hurt/killed more people with the sporting shotgun that would not be covered under a AWB or magazine restriction.

If the actor did not have access to fireamrs he probably would have came up with something else...maybe ammonia and bleach bombs....and hurt/killed more people.

broken person is broken and intent on doing harm......not alot that can prevent that.


Other than better mental health care/coverage in this country...no, not a lot.
 
2012-07-22 02:13:28 PM

bonefish: I've been getting great amusement out of the backseat Dirty Harry types who think that with their sidearm they could've made all the difference against a guy in armor, fully armed who got the drop on a room full of people. Yeah modern reality is totally the OK Corral.


Was it actual body armor or load bearing tactical flak vest?
 
2012-07-22 02:14:04 PM

Giltric: I thought Aurora was a gun free zone or something where CCW was not allowed.....due to the Columbine massacre 20 miles away.


lol, no... there's no such thing as a ccw zone in Colorado... there's like... federal buildings, post offices, and a couple other kinds of buildings you can't take guns into, but you couldn't possibly get a city ordinance to make a whole town be ccw-free. Liberal though I may be, we Coloradans do love guns. Aside from that, given the guy had an AR and a shotgun in addition to his two pistols, I don't really see how a ccw is relevant to him. In the theater, any well-trained person wouldn't have fired (even if they had their gun)... dark theater, hundreds of panicked patrons, tear gas f'n with your vision, and the shooter having body armor... odds are far higher that you'd end up killing an innocent person than killing the bad guy. Gohmert notwithstanding, reasonable gun owners would have done exactly what all the patrons of the theater did (given the numbers, I'd wager a couple had ccw permits and maybe even guns)... but you still do the right thing... get to a tactically better place, then evaluate the situation... given that police were on-site within two minutes, by the time any holders would have gotten to a reasonably safe place to engage, it was no longer their place to do so.
 
2012-07-22 02:14:07 PM

bonefish: I've been getting great amusement out of the backseat Dirty Harry types who think that with their sidearm they could've made all the difference against a guy in armor, fully armed who got the drop on a room full of people. Yeah modern reality is totally the OK Corral.


I have been assured that their penises are far larger than ordinary'. They are are secret weapons to protect freedoms and are unspeakably persecuted for their superiority as men. If only they had been there to annihilate all obstacles to our liberty and deflect the bullets with eagles..
 
2012-07-22 02:14:51 PM

SN1987a goes boom: Giltric: Frank N Stein: Mrtraveler01: Frank N Stein: People were killed in Colorado. You know what this means? It means that we need to have a reasonable discussion about repealing the 2nd amendment. Also, it means that I can talk about penis sizes and how gun owners are racist.

Anyone who doesn't want a reasonable repeal of the second amendment has a small penis and hates black people.

/That's pretty much the argument you'll hear from the loons on fark.

I'll bite. Who is advocating repealing the second amendment again?

Are you basically saying that any form or regulation involving gun ownership is an infringement of your 2nd Amendment rights?

I shouldn't have said repeal. But certainly restrictions are touted by some. Magazine round restrictions, watch lists etc.

the beta mag jammed....which is what they are prone to do. He probably hurt/killed more people with the sporting shotgun that would not be covered under a AWB or magazine restriction.

If the actor did not have access to fireamrs he probably would have came up with something else...maybe ammonia and bleach bombs....and hurt/killed more people.

broken person is broken and intent on doing harm......not alot that can prevent that.

Other than better mental health care/coverage in this country...no, not a lot.


You going to force people into pysch evals? How would you know they are broken people?
 
2012-07-22 02:15:26 PM

Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: firefly212: bigsteve3OOO: Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.

Don't ask don't tell.
Gay marriage.
Disclosure of personal finances.
To start wars v. to end them.
Working towards universal healthcare (ACA doesn't achieve it, but gets us closer).

So... really, not one?

Well someones position on gay marriage only evolved when the polls told him it was time to pander....err come out in favor of gay marriage.

Or come out against it if you're Mitt Romney. ;)

5. Marriage:
BSG: The colonists use the word "seal" in preference to marriage, and a couple is sealed "not only for now but for all the eternities." (Adama in Lost Planet of Ancient Gods.)

LDS: In the LDS church, marriage refers to a secular joining and "sealing" referes to a bond sanctified by God and "not only for time, but for all eternity."

Lords of Kobol, how do I reach these keeeeeds.




thinkprogress.org
 
2012-07-22 02:16:11 PM

way south: Lost Thought 00: HotWingConspiracy: There is quite literally no way to stop them.

Anyone owning more than X guns or rounds of ammunition must submit to annual mental examinations.

...But most of these attackers are politically active college students who didn't own many guns.
Since there are fewer of those than there are gun owners, wouldn't it take less time to force all students to undergo mental evaluations?


Or, since we are going full blood for the blood god, why not just lobotomize or mentally incapacitate all newborns starting new so that there can't be any more events like this? Freedom isn't free, you know.
 
2012-07-22 02:16:19 PM
You cannont legislate the actions of a madman. So don't start trying now.
 
2012-07-22 02:19:38 PM

Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: firefly212: bigsteve3OOO: Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.

Don't ask don't tell.
Gay marriage.
Disclosure of personal finances.
To start wars v. to end them.
Working towards universal healthcare (ACA doesn't achieve it, but gets us closer).

So... really, not one?

Well someones position on gay marriage only evolved when the polls told him it was time to pander....err come out in favor of gay marriage.

Or come out against it if you're Mitt Romney. ;)

5. Marriage:
BSG: The colonists use the word "seal" in preference to marriage, and a couple is sealed "not only for now but for all the eternities." (Adama in Lost Planet of Ancient Gods.)

LDS: In the LDS church, marriage refers to a secular joining and "sealing" referes to a bond sanctified by God and "not only for time, but for all eternity."

Lords of Kobol, how do I reach these keeeeeds.



[thinkprogress.org image 300x275]


Thats almost as awesome as the, endorsement from the NRA he recieved
 
2012-07-22 02:20:21 PM

bonefish: I've been getting great amusement out of the backseat Dirty Harry types who think that with their sidearm they could've made all the difference against a guy in armor, fully armed who got the drop on a room full of people. Yeah modern reality is totally the OK Corral.


Don't forget the smoke/gas bomb.

To suggest that ANYONE would've been prepared enough to safely take down the shooter in that situation is hopelessly naive.
 
2012-07-22 02:21:01 PM

Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: firefly212: bigsteve3OOO: Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.

Don't ask don't tell.
Gay marriage.
Disclosure of personal finances.
To start wars v. to end them.
Working towards universal healthcare (ACA doesn't achieve it, but gets us closer).

So... really, not one?

Well someones position on gay marriage only evolved when the polls told him it was time to pander....err come out in favor of gay marriage.

Or come out against it if you're Mitt Romney. ;)

5. Marriage:
BSG: The colonists use the word "seal" in preference to marriage, and a couple is sealed "not only for now but for all the eternities." (Adama in Lost Planet of Ancient Gods.)

LDS: In the LDS church, marriage refers to a secular joining and "sealing" referes to a bond sanctified by God and "not only for time, but for all eternity."

Lords of Kobol, how do I reach these keeeeeds.



[thinkprogress.org image 300x275]

Thats almost as awesome as the, endorsement from the NRA he recieved


Mitt Romney is many things to many people. Depending on what they want to hear of course.
 
2012-07-22 02:21:39 PM

LordJiro: bonefish: I've been getting great amusement out of the backseat Dirty Harry types who think that with their sidearm they could've made all the difference against a guy in armor, fully armed who got the drop on a room full of people. Yeah modern reality is totally the OK Corral.

Don't forget the smoke/gas bomb.

To suggest that ANYONE would've been prepared enough to safely take down the shooter in that situation is hopelessly naive.


Smoke, and darkness for that matter, works both ways right....you can't see him....he can't see you?
 
2012-07-22 02:23:45 PM

Giltric: LordJiro: bonefish: I've been getting great amusement out of the backseat Dirty Harry types who think that with their sidearm they could've made all the difference against a guy in armor, fully armed who got the drop on a room full of people. Yeah modern reality is totally the OK Corral.

Don't forget the smoke/gas bomb.

To suggest that ANYONE would've been prepared enough to safely take down the shooter in that situation is hopelessly naive.

Smoke, and darkness for that matter, works both ways right....you can't see him....he can't see you?


Exactly, so the wannabe hero would just be shooting aimlessly in the dark because he can't spot the shooter in the dark and through the tear gas.

Glad you finally saw it our way.
 
2012-07-22 02:24:14 PM

Epoch_Zero: way south: Lost Thought 00: HotWingConspiracy: There is quite literally no way to stop them.

Anyone owning more than X guns or rounds of ammunition must submit to annual mental examinations.

...But most of these attackers are politically active college students who didn't own many guns.
Since there are fewer of those than there are gun owners, wouldn't it take less time to force all students to undergo mental evaluations?

Or, since we are going full blood for the blood god, why not just lobotomize or mentally incapacitate all newborns starting new so that there can't be any more events like this? Freedom isn't free, you know.


Look, I'm just trying to suggest a reasonable plan of action here.
We only need to force a mental health evaluation on certain demographics. But if you start with "gun owners" then you've got tens of millions to sort through.
With a much smaller group, like white democrats who've recently dropped out of college, you'd get two out of three of these guys right off the bat.
 
2012-07-22 02:25:22 PM

Giltric: LordJiro: bonefish: I've been getting great amusement out of the backseat Dirty Harry types who think that with their sidearm they could've made all the difference against a guy in armor, fully armed who got the drop on a room full of people. Yeah modern reality is totally the OK Corral.

Don't forget the smoke/gas bomb.

To suggest that ANYONE would've been prepared enough to safely take down the shooter in that situation is hopelessly naive.

Smoke, and darkness for that matter, works both ways right....you can't see him....he can't see you?


You really don't see a difference between a homicidal maniac shooting blindly into a crowd and crowd shooting blindly back?
 
2012-07-22 02:25:59 PM

Giltric: LordJiro: bonefish: I've been getting great amusement out of the backseat Dirty Harry types who think that with their sidearm they could've made all the difference against a guy in armor, fully armed who got the drop on a room full of people. Yeah modern reality is totally the OK Corral.

Don't forget the smoke/gas bomb.

To suggest that ANYONE would've been prepared enough to safely take down the shooter in that situation is hopelessly naive.

Smoke, and darkness for that matter, works both ways right....you can't see him....he can't see you?


The shooter obviously didn't have a specific target in mind. Accuracy wasn't a real big concern, as it would be to anyone trying to shoot him. Plus, he had a gas mask, so the smoke/gas/whatever it was wasn't as big of a problem.
 
2012-07-22 02:26:50 PM

keithgabryelski: Is there a reasonable reason to own an assault weapon or have the ability to purchase thousands of rounds of bullets?


Define "assault weapon". Be specific, please.

If you mean AR-15s, yes, there's plenty of reasons why they should be open for ownership: they're one of the most widely-used firearms in America for a reason. They're moderately priced, reasonably accurate, have tons of accessories/mods, fire a reasonably affordable cartridge, have good ergonomics, adjustable components for shooters of various sizes and builds, etc. They're extremely popular. Their only "sin" is that they look scary to some people.

They're functionally identical to other semi-auto rifles like the Mini-14: they fire the same cartridge at comparable velocities. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994-2004 banned AR-15s (among others) but not Mini-14s even though they're essentially the same. California's AWB still does. There's really no reason why they should be restricted and other semi-auto rifles not.

As for thousands of rounds of ammo, I don't really see the concern: I can easily go through 200 rounds of ammo during a range session. Many vendors offer discounts for bulk purchases because it saves them effort: rather than needing to unpack all the 20-round boxes from a 1,000 case, they can just put a shipping label on the case itself and send it. Same thing with even larger quantities. For example, ammoman.com offers a $20 discount if you buy 5,000 rounds of ammo at a time rather than the 1,000 case.

When military-surplus .30-06 Springfield ammo was available from South Korea at reasonable prices, I would routinely buy a few thousand rounds a week for a month or two -- it's military-surplus, so they're not making any new ammo, the price was right, and it ran great through my M1 Garand. Nothing nefarious about that.

.22 Long Rifle ammo is commonly available in 500-round "bricks". Considering the relative cost of shipping ammo, it's often cheaper to buy in bulk. Buying 5,000 rounds at a time is relatively common, particularly if one can get all the ammo from the same manufacturers lot. Buying from the same lot helps ensure consistency, as the ammo was made around the same time, on the same day, on the same machine. This is a great benefit for competition shooters who can go through thousands of rounds of ammo in training and competitions.

Buying the ammo in individual boxes at a retail store would significantly increase the cost.

In short: Yes, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to own "assault weapons" and to buy thousands of rounds of ammo at a time.
 
2012-07-22 02:27:01 PM

Giltric: Smoke, and darkness for that matter, works both ways right....you can't see him....he can't see you?


So let one fly!

www.nonstick.com

Yeeehaw!
 
2012-07-22 02:28:40 PM

way south: With a much smaller group, like white democrats who've recently dropped out of college, you'd get two out of three of these guys right off the bat.


Now you're just dragging your heels.
 
2012-07-22 02:29:40 PM
Personally, I think this is a mental health issue first, then a gun control issue second. And only in the context of "should mentally unstable / bat shiat crazy people have access to guns? hell no."
 
2012-07-22 02:30:09 PM

germ78: Personally, I think this is a mental health issue first, then a gun control issue second. And only in the context of "should mentally unstable / bat shiat crazy people have access to guns? hell no."


This.
 
2012-07-22 02:30:15 PM

Mrtraveler01: Giltric: LordJiro: bonefish: I've been getting great amusement out of the backseat Dirty Harry types who think that with their sidearm they could've made all the difference against a guy in armor, fully armed who got the drop on a room full of people. Yeah modern reality is totally the OK Corral.

Don't forget the smoke/gas bomb.

To suggest that ANYONE would've been prepared enough to safely take down the shooter in that situation is hopelessly naive.

Smoke, and darkness for that matter, works both ways right....you can't see him....he can't see you?

Exactly, so the wannabe hero would just be shooting aimlessly in the dark because he can't spot the shooter in the dark and through the tear gas.

Glad you finally saw it our way.


Well I'm glad noone took out the shooter so we could have this theoretical conversation. Imagine how boring it would be if someone managed to tackle him when he was fiddling with his jammed beta mag.
 
2012-07-22 02:31:28 PM

firefly212: bigsteve3OOO: Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.

Don't ask don't tell.
Gay marriage.
Disclosure of personal finances.
To start wars v. to end them.
Working towards universal healthcare (ACA doesn't achieve it, but gets us closer).

So... really, not one?


DADT was step 1 of letting gays have the right to serve. (which I agree with BTW) Bush did step 1 0bama did step 2
Gay marriage was not an issue untill Bush set up the softball of the Defense of Marriage Act (never passed) to set the stage for Biden to allow 0bama to say what should have been said years ago.(because freedom for all is what the government is supposed to protect not limit)
Bush hid as many finance issues as 0bama and Mitt the Twit.
Bush started 2, 0bama has not ended even 1 but started at least 2 more (Libya and Syria)
Prescription part D was the largest government giveaway of healthcare and set up 0bama care.

no sir you have not shown any difference
 
2012-07-22 02:32:47 PM
have you guys realized that bigsteve is f*cking with you yet?
 
2012-07-22 02:33:17 PM
LOVE the comments in that article, pretty much every one of them blaming everyone but the guy who did the shooting. When will people understand that tighter gun controls will not stop a determined criminal from getting a gun. And they need to stop placing the blame on people who had nothing to do with a criminal act beyond existing.
 
2012-07-22 02:34:23 PM

thamike: Giltric: Smoke, and darkness for that matter, works both ways right....you can't see him....he can't see you?

So let one fly!

[www.nonstick.com image 350x291]

Yeeehaw!


Plus you could use all those meat bags running around as cover.
 
2012-07-22 02:35:08 PM

Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: LordJiro: bonefish: I've been getting great amusement out of the backseat Dirty Harry types who think that with their sidearm they could've made all the difference against a guy in armor, fully armed who got the drop on a room full of people. Yeah modern reality is totally the OK Corral.

Don't forget the smoke/gas bomb.

To suggest that ANYONE would've been prepared enough to safely take down the shooter in that situation is hopelessly naive.

Smoke, and darkness for that matter, works both ways right....you can't see him....he can't see you?

Exactly, so the wannabe hero would just be shooting aimlessly in the dark because he can't spot the shooter in the dark and through the tear gas.

Glad you finally saw it our way.

Well I'm glad noone took out the shooter so we could have this theoretical conversation. Imagine how boring it would be if someone managed to tackle him when he was fiddling with his jammed beta mag.


How much does moving goalposts pay...professionally?
 
2012-07-22 02:38:17 PM

Giltric: Plus you could use all those meat bags running around as cover.


That works both ways.
 
2012-07-22 02:38:22 PM

SN1987a goes boom: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: LordJiro: bonefish: I've been getting great amusement out of the backseat Dirty Harry types who think that with their sidearm they could've made all the difference against a guy in armor, fully armed who got the drop on a room full of people. Yeah modern reality is totally the OK Corral.

Don't forget the smoke/gas bomb.

To suggest that ANYONE would've been prepared enough to safely take down the shooter in that situation is hopelessly naive.

Smoke, and darkness for that matter, works both ways right....you can't see him....he can't see you?

Exactly, so the wannabe hero would just be shooting aimlessly in the dark because he can't spot the shooter in the dark and through the tear gas.

Glad you finally saw it our way.

Well I'm glad noone took out the shooter so we could have this theoretical conversation. Imagine how boring it would be if someone managed to tackle him when he was fiddling with his jammed beta mag.

How much does moving goalposts pay...professionally?


I'm still waiting on how you would tell who has a mental problem without forcing every citizen into some sort of pyschiatric evaluation.
 
2012-07-22 02:39:35 PM

thamike: Giltric: Plus you could use all those meat bags running around as cover.

That works both ways.


I doubt many people stayed near the guy in kit who was shooting up the theater.
 
2012-07-22 02:41:11 PM

GhostFish: The police chief in Aurora, Colo., said he is confident that massacre gunman James Holmes acted alone. The police chief was dead wrong.
Standing at Holmes' side as he unleashed an AR-15 assault rifle and a shotgun and a handgun was Wayne LaPierre, political enforcer of the National Rifle Association.
Standing at Holmes' side as he sprayed bullets and buckshot into a crowded movie theater were Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, a President and a would-be President, who have bowed to the NRA's dictates and who responded to the slaughter Friday with revolting, useless treacle.

Author is a disgusting human being and needs mental help. I recommend percussive therapy.


Seconded.
 
2012-07-22 02:42:35 PM

bigsteve3OOO: DADT was step 1 of letting gays have the right to serve. (which I agree with BTW) Bush did step 1 0bama did step 2


DADT was Clinton.
 
2012-07-22 02:44:07 PM

Giltric: I'm still waiting on how you would tell who has a mental problem without forcing every citizen into some sort of pyschiatric evaluation


I'm waiting on you to tell who has cancer without forcing every citizen into a cancer evaluation.

That makes just as much sense as what you said.
 
2012-07-22 02:46:22 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: I'm still waiting on how you would tell who has a mental problem without forcing every citizen into some sort of pyschiatric evaluation

I'm waiting on you to tell who has cancer without forcing every citizen into a cancer evaluation.

That makes just as much sense as what you said.


Thats easy....when you pass blood you go to the doctor. When you feel a lump in your breast or on your balls you go to the doctor, and you follow the doctors advice

When you feel like killing a theater full of people you usually keep it to yourself because you know you are a broken individual.
 
2012-07-22 02:49:05 PM

Giltric: thamike: Giltric: Plus you could use all those meat bags running around as cover.

That works both ways.

I doubt many people stayed near the guy in kit who was shooting up the theater.


You forgot to have a V-8.
 
2012-07-22 02:51:24 PM

thamike: Giltric: thamike: Giltric: Plus you could use all those meat bags running around as cover.

That works both ways.

I doubt many people stayed near the guy in kit who was shooting up the theater.

You forgot to have a V-8.


Tomatoes give me acid.
 
2012-07-22 02:54:52 PM

cameroncrazy1984: bigsteve3OOO: DADT was step 1 of letting gays have the right to serve. (which I agree with BTW) Bush did step 1 0bama did step 2

DADT was Clinton.


Oh yeah I forgot about Bubba. Look my point is valid. This is a Don King Fight. Whomever wins Don King owns the fighters and get the royalties. The fighters get a small piece of the action and the fans paid too much for admission.
 
2012-07-22 02:56:25 PM
Putting an impassioned editorial on two pages to increase your page hits is pretty sad.
 
2012-07-22 02:57:58 PM

thamike: way south: With a much smaller group, like white democrats who've recently dropped out of college, you'd get two out of three of these guys right off the bat.

Now you're just dragging your heels.


I was going for subtlety, dammit.
 
2012-07-22 02:58:18 PM

heypete: keithgabryelski: Is there a reasonable reason to own an assault weapon or have the ability to purchase thousands of rounds of bullets?

Define "assault weapon". Be specific, please.

If you mean AR-15s, yes, there's plenty of reasons why they should be open for ownership: they're one of the most widely-used firearms in America for a reason. They're moderately priced, reasonably accurate, have tons of accessories/mods, fire a reasonably affordable cartridge, have good ergonomics, adjustable components for shooters of various sizes and builds, etc. They're extremely popular. Their only "sin" is that they look scary to some people.

They're functionally identical to other semi-auto rifles like the Mini-14: they fire the same cartridge at comparable velocities. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994-2004 banned AR-15s (among others) but not Mini-14s even though they're essentially the same. California's AWB still does. There's really no reason why they should be restricted and other semi-auto rifles not.

As for thousands of rounds of ammo, I don't really see the concern: I can easily go through 200 rounds of ammo during a range session. Many vendors offer discounts for bulk purchases because it saves them effort: rather than needing to unpack all the 20-round boxes from a 1,000 case, they can just put a shipping label on the case itself and send it. Same thing with even larger quantities. For example, ammoman.com offers a $20 discount if you buy 5,000 rounds of ammo at a time rather than the 1,000 case.

When military-surplus .30-06 Springfield ammo was available from South Korea at reasonable prices, I would routinely buy a few thousand rounds a week for a month or two -- it's military-surplus, so they're not making any new ammo, the price was right, and it ran great through my M1 Garand. Nothing nefarious about that.

.22 Long Rifle ammo is commonly available in 500-round "bricks". Considering the relative cost of shipping ammo, it's often cheaper to buy in bulk. ...


actually -- you haven't listed one reasonable reason to own a gun such as was used by this shooter.

as for the definition of assault rifle -- how about any rifle that has any automation to the loading of a weapon of more than one intermediary round. we can negotiate what that means -- but I would be conservative in restricting more weapons rather than less.

and actually I'm looking for gun owners to come up with reasonable restrictions.

it's time to admit we don't need as many guns and the kind of guns we have.
 
2012-07-22 03:00:30 PM

bigsteve3OOO: firefly212: bigsteve3OOO: Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.

Don't ask don't tell.
Gay marriage.
Disclosure of personal finances.
To start wars v. to end them.
Working towards universal healthcare (ACA doesn't achieve it, but gets us closer).

So... really, not one?

DADT was step 1 of letting gays have the right to serve. (which I agree with BTW) Bush did step 1 0bama did step 2
Gay marriage was not an issue untill Bush set up the softball of the Defense of Marriage Act (never passed) to set the stage for Biden to allow 0bama to say what should have been said years ago.(because freedom for all is what the government is supposed to protect not limit)
Bush hid as many finance issues as 0bama and Mitt the Twit.
Bush started 2, 0bama has not ended even 1 but started at least 2 more (Libya and Syria)
Prescription part D was the largest government giveaway of healthcare and set up 0bama care.

no sir you have not shown any difference


i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-07-22 03:03:15 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Oh yeah I forgot about Bubba. Look my point is valid. This is a Don King Fight. Whomever wins Don King owns the fighters and get the royalties. The fighters get a small piece of the action and the fans paid too much for admission


Except for the fact that the two parties are vastly different on economics, social issues and foreign policy, sure.
 
2012-07-22 03:06:39 PM

cameroncrazy1984: bigsteve3OOO: Oh yeah I forgot about Bubba. Look my point is valid. This is a Don King Fight. Whomever wins Don King owns the fighters and get the royalties. The fighters get a small piece of the action and the fans paid too much for admission

Except for the fact that the two parties are vastly different on economics, social issues and foreign policy, sure.


name one please.
 
2012-07-22 03:13:46 PM

Giltric: SN1987a goes boom: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: LordJiro: bonefish: I've been getting great amusement out of the backseat Dirty Harry types who think that with their sidearm they could've made all the difference against a guy in armor, fully armed who got the drop on a room full of people. Yeah modern reality is totally the OK Corral.

Don't forget the smoke/gas bomb.

To suggest that ANYONE would've been prepared enough to safely take down the shooter in that situation is hopelessly naive.

Smoke, and darkness for that matter, works both ways right....you can't see him....he can't see you?

Exactly, so the wannabe hero would just be shooting aimlessly in the dark because he can't spot the shooter in the dark and through the tear gas.

Glad you finally saw it our way.

Well I'm glad noone took out the shooter so we could have this theoretical conversation. Imagine how boring it would be if someone managed to tackle him when he was fiddling with his jammed beta mag.

How much does moving goalposts pay...professionally?

I'm still waiting on how you would tell who has a mental problem without forcing every citizen into some sort of pyschiatric evaluation.


Nice misdirection. Also, you don't need to force every citizen into it, just ones who buy 4 guns in one month.
 
2012-07-22 03:14:07 PM
i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-07-22 03:17:13 PM

keithgabryelski: actually -- you haven't listed one reasonable reason to own a gun such as was used by this shooter.


I haven't? Perhaps you and I don't really see eye-to-eye on this issue.

That said, you haven't listed one reason why one of the most common rifles in the country shouldn't be legal to own.

Our rights default to "on", whether it comes to free speech, buying firearms, fast cars, or junk food. The onus is on the one restricting that right to show why it should be restricted.

as for the definition of assault rifle -- how about any rifle that has any automation to the loading of a weapon of more than one intermediary round. we can negotiate what that means -- but I would be conservative in restricting more weapons rather than less.

So, the majority of all firearms in public hands? Sure, that seems totally reasonable.

and actually I'm looking for gun owners to come up with reasonable restrictions.

What's wrong with existing regulations? True machine guns are already highly regulated and extremely rare. Semi-automatic firearms are in wide use by the general public, so that's really not going to fly.

The 1994-2004 Federal AWB didn't really have any effect on crime, so why bother trying it again? As an aside, Switzerland (where I live) issues fully-auto automatic rifles to the civilian population (military service is mandatory for able-bodied/minded males) and they keep these weapons and ammo in their homes. Ownership of private firearms, including semi-automatic firearms, is extremely common. Violent crime rates are extremely low, even with access to military-grade firepower. Why not look to the Swiss for inspiration as to how they are able to have such a relatively violence-free society even with such firearms?

it's time to admit we don't need as many guns and the kind of guns we have.

Ok, then don't buy those types of guns. Nobody's forcing you to.

Knee-jerk reactions to rare, high-profile events are almost certainly not the correct course of action.
 
2012-07-22 03:18:39 PM

bigsteve3OOO: cameroncrazy1984: bigsteve3OOO: Oh yeah I forgot about Bubba. Look my point is valid. This is a Don King Fight. Whomever wins Don King owns the fighters and get the royalties. The fighters get a small piece of the action and the fans paid too much for admission

Except for the fact that the two parties are vastly different on economics, social issues and foreign policy, sure.

name one please.


You only want one? Okay

Republicans want to cut taxes on the top 1%. Democrats want to return the top marginal rate to 39%, same as it was under Clinton. That's one. Do you want more?
 
2012-07-22 03:21:20 PM

keithgabryelski: actually -- you haven't listed one reasonable reason to own a gun such as was used by this shooter.


Guesses as to why?

How about: "Because technology moved on" and the old designs are obsolete.
With plastic and new milling techniques, Guns haven't needed to look like your grand daddies hunting rifle since the 1950's.
It is more expensive to own a Garand today than to get an AR (Minus the election year markup, of course).

dl.dropbox.com

dl.dropbox.com

/Closer to the truth: "Because you'll never be satisfied with the restrictions you get".
/Your kind is disingenuous and there is always one more thing on your list to take from everyone else.
/Bolt action rifles with fixed magazines have changed this world more drastically than any assault rifle.
 
2012-07-22 03:21:34 PM

keithgabryelski: as for the definition of assault rifle -- how about any rifle that has any automation to the loading of a weapon of more than one intermediary round. we can negotiate what that means -- but I would be conservative in restricting more weapons rather than less.


Why don't we define "assault rifle" as what the consensus is that has been used for years and not what any random jerk-off decides is the correct definition?
 
2012-07-22 03:24:31 PM

way south: It is more expensive to own a Garand today than to get an AR (Minus the election year markup, of course).


Tell me about it.

/dies a little every time he sees the prices for .30-06.
 
2012-07-22 03:28:45 PM

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: I'm still waiting on how you would tell who has a mental problem without forcing every citizen into some sort of pyschiatric evaluation

I'm waiting on you to tell who has cancer without forcing every citizen into a cancer evaluation.

That makes just as much sense as what you said.

Thats easy....when you pass blood you go to the doctor. When you feel a lump in your breast or on your balls you go to the doctor, and you follow the doctors advice

When you feel like killing a theater full of people you usually keep it to yourself because you know you are a broken individual.


Yes, because the only symptom of mental illness is snapping and killing a bunch of people. And mental illness never manifests itself prior to a psychotic break.
 
2012-07-22 03:32:49 PM

heypete: keithgabryelski: Is there a reasonable reason to own an assault weapon or have the ability to purchase thousands of rounds of bullets?

Define "assault weapon". Be specific, please.

If you mean AR-15s, yes, there's plenty of reasons why they should be open for ownership: they're one of the most widely-used firearms in America for a reason. They're moderately priced, reasonably accurate, have tons of accessories/mods, fire a reasonably affordable cartridge, have good ergonomics, adjustable components for shooters of various sizes and builds, etc. They're extremely popular. Their only "sin" is that they look scary to some people.

They're functionally identical to other semi-auto rifles like the Mini-14: they fire the same cartridge at comparable velocities. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994-2004 banned AR-15s (among others) but not Mini-14s even though they're essentially the same. California's AWB still does. There's really no reason why they should be restricted and other semi-auto rifles not.

As for thousands of rounds of ammo, I don't really see the concern: I can easily go through 200 rounds of ammo during a range session. Many vendors offer discounts for bulk purchases because it saves them effort: rather than needing to unpack all the 20-round boxes from a 1,000 case, they can just put a shipping label on the case itself and send it. Same thing with even larger quantities. For example, ammoman.com offers a $20 discount if you buy 5,000 rounds of ammo at a time rather than the 1,000 case.

When military-surplus .30-06 Springfield ammo was available from South Korea at reasonable prices, I would routinely buy a few thousand rounds a week for a month or two -- it's military-surplus, so they're not making any new ammo, the price was right, and it ran great through my M1 Garand. Nothing nefarious about that.

.22 Long Rifle ammo is commonly available in 500-round "bricks". Considering the relative cost of shipping ammo, it's often cheaper to buy in bulk. Buying 5,000 rounds at a time is relatively common, particularly if one can get all the ammo from the same manufacturers lot. Buying from the same lot helps ensure consistency, as the ammo was made around the same time, on the same day, on the same machine. This is a great benefit for competition shooters who can go through thousands of rounds of ammo in training and competitions.

Buying the ammo in individual boxes at a retail store would significantly increase the cost.

In short: Yes, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to own "assault weapons" and to buy thousands of rounds of ammo at a time.


Just curious, I've heard of people hunting with a range rifle but I can't remember hearing/ seeing anybody use an AR-15. Do people use that for hunting? Seems like the round would tear up a good bit of meat.
 
2012-07-22 03:32:51 PM

heypete: way south: It is more expensive to own a Garand today than to get an AR (Minus the election year markup, of course).

Tell me about it.

/dies a little every time he sees the prices for .30-06.


My grandfather used to own an M1 Carbine and has some ammo left over from when he got rid of it about 10 years ago. He gave me 200 rounds a couple weeks ago. Said it was worth about fifty cents a round. I have $100 worth of ammo for a rifle I don't even own yet.
 
2012-07-22 03:34:39 PM

SN1987a goes boom: Giltric: SN1987a goes boom: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: LordJiro: bonefish: I've been getting great amusement out of the backseat Dirty Harry types who think that with their sidearm they could've made all the difference against a guy in armor, fully armed who got the drop on a room full of people. Yeah modern reality is totally the OK Corral.

Don't forget the smoke/gas bomb.

To suggest that ANYONE would've been prepared enough to safely take down the shooter in that situation is hopelessly naive.

Smoke, and darkness for that matter, works both ways right....you can't see him....he can't see you?

Exactly, so the wannabe hero would just be shooting aimlessly in the dark because he can't spot the shooter in the dark and through the tear gas.

Glad you finally saw it our way.

Well I'm glad noone took out the shooter so we could have this theoretical conversation. Imagine how boring it would be if someone managed to tackle him when he was fiddling with his jammed beta mag.

How much does moving goalposts pay...professionally?

I'm still waiting on how you would tell who has a mental problem without forcing every citizen into some sort of pyschiatric evaluation.

Nice misdirection. Also, you don't need to force every citizen into it, just ones who buy 4 guns in one month.


Misdirection? Um no. you made a claim I asked how you would go about it. And you ignored it because you probably regretted posting such stupid tripe .

I'd agree with the mental eval to determine if somoene was hypothetically willing to take another life based on purchases....as long as you are ok with a mental eval where a person is set on taking another life....like with abortion.
 
2012-07-22 03:35:13 PM

cameroncrazy1984: bigsteve3OOO: cameroncrazy1984: bigsteve3OOO: Oh yeah I forgot about Bubba. Look my point is valid. This is a Don King Fight. Whomever wins Don King owns the fighters and get the royalties. The fighters get a small piece of the action and the fans paid too much for admission

Except for the fact that the two parties are vastly different on economics, social issues and foreign policy, sure.

name one please.

You only want one? Okay

Republicans want to cut taxes on the top 1%. Democrats want to return the top marginal rate to 39%, same as it was under Clinton. That's one. Do you want more?


This is a perfect example. What they say and what happens is two completely separate things. How much did the top 1% tax rate go up during the two years that the dems had the house, senate, and presidency? same as when the reps had it. They talk but do not deliver. How much 0bamacare as a percentage is paid by the poor and middle class compared to the rich? The same as Bushes tax rate. The dems wrote the law and passed it and yet it similar screws the people you claim they champion.
 
2012-07-22 03:35:57 PM

Giltric: When you feel like killing a theater full of people you usually keep it to yourself because you know you are a broken individual.


i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-07-22 03:36:50 PM

Giltric: SN1987a goes boom: Giltric: SN1987a goes boom: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: LordJiro: bonefish: I've been getting great amusement out of the backseat Dirty Harry types who think that with their sidearm they could've made all the difference against a guy in armor, fully armed who got the drop on a room full of people. Yeah modern reality is totally the OK Corral.

Don't forget the smoke/gas bomb.

To suggest that ANYONE would've been prepared enough to safely take down the shooter in that situation is hopelessly naive.

Smoke, and darkness for that matter, works both ways right....you can't see him....he can't see you?

Exactly, so the wannabe hero would just be shooting aimlessly in the dark because he can't spot the shooter in the dark and through the tear gas.

Glad you finally saw it our way.

Well I'm glad noone took out the shooter so we could have this theoretical conversation. Imagine how boring it would be if someone managed to tackle him when he was fiddling with his jammed beta mag.

How much does moving goalposts pay...professionally?

I'm still waiting on how you would tell who has a mental problem without forcing every citizen into some sort of pyschiatric evaluation.

Nice misdirection. Also, you don't need to force every citizen into it, just ones who buy 4 guns in one month.

Misdirection? Um no. you made a claim I asked how you would go about it. And you ignored it because you probably regretted posting such stupid tripe .

I'd agree with the mental eval to determine if somoene was hypothetically willing to take another life based on purchases....as long as you are ok with a mental eval where a person is set on taking another life....like with abortion.


I'd prefer that instead of doctors shoving ultrasound wands up people's vaginas.
 
2012-07-22 03:38:55 PM

simplicimus: Spare Me: simplicimus: Well, buying that stuff might be noteworthy to authorities, unless you're going up against well armed deer.

As long as we monitor sales of clown suits too. They cause far more harm than good.

It's not the clown suits that cause harm, it's the makeup.


And that's why we need guns. The woods here are just crawlin' with clown.
 
2012-07-22 03:39:55 PM

heypete: way south: It is more expensive to own a Garand today than to get an AR (Minus the election year markup, of course).

Tell me about it.

/dies a little every time he sees the prices for .30-06.


You will find no sympathy here.

/Bought a tin of 7.62X54R through the local shop. After taxes, shipping fees, markup, paid $160.
/We pay around $10 for 50 .22LR
/Saw a 500 round jug of ,22 at Walmart in Georgia for less than $25.
/The cashier asked me why I was crying...
 
2012-07-22 03:40:18 PM

dinch: Just curious, I've heard of people hunting with a range rifle but I can't remember hearing/ seeing anybody use an AR-15. Do people use that for hunting? Seems like the round would tear up a good bit of meat.


5.56mm/.223 caliber ammo is actually a pretty common deer-class cartridge. All the major manufacturers make ammo suitable for hunting (softpoints, ballistic tips, etc.) with it. It's not really suitable for larger critters like bears, elk, etc., but is quite common for deer and smaller creatures. Why would you think the round would tear up the meat? .308 and other cartridges are considerably more powerful and are also common for hunting and they don't ruin the meat (assuming you're a decent shot).

That said, my understanding is that the AR isn't really common for hunting. Some states restrict hunting with firearms with detachable magazines. It's also not the lightest gun around, so that could be burdensome for hunters.

The AR is extremely common in competitions, though, as there's a wide variety of accessories (optics, hand grips, match-grade triggers, etc.).

/recreational and occasionally-competitive shooter, not a hunter.
 
2012-07-22 03:41:38 PM

bigsteve3OOO: This is a perfect example. What they say and what happens is two completely separate things. How much did the top 1% tax rate go up during the two years that the dems had the house, senate, and presidency?


It didn't go up because Republicans in the Senate blocked it. Oh look, the difference becomes clear again! Shocking how the facts continue to go against your theory that both sides are exactly the same.
 
2012-07-22 03:41:47 PM

heypete: way south: It is more expensive to own a Garand today than to get an AR (Minus the election year markup, of course).

Tell me about it.

/dies a little every time he sees the prices for .30-06.


Same here. Still kicking myself for not picking up a range rifle and/ or a nice lever action before Obama got elected. Always liked the M-1's but damn, they seemed heavy!

DAMN YOU OBAMA!
 
2012-07-22 03:42:10 PM

dinch: Seems like the round would tear up a good bit of meat


Round might be too small and light to even penetrate enough hide/tissue to cause hemorhagging/death in the animal (deer) you intend to kill.

But .223 is a popular varmint caliber out west for something like prairie dogs.
 
2012-07-22 03:44:02 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: I'm still waiting on how you would tell who has a mental problem without forcing every citizen into some sort of pyschiatric evaluation

I'm waiting on you to tell who has cancer without forcing every citizen into a cancer evaluation.

That makes just as much sense as what you said.

Thats easy....when you pass blood you go to the doctor. When you feel a lump in your breast or on your balls you go to the doctor, and you follow the doctors advice

When you feel like killing a theater full of people you usually keep it to yourself because you know you are a broken individual.

Yes, because the only symptom of mental illness is snapping and killing a bunch of people. And mental illness never manifests itself prior to a psychotic break.


So you want to profile people?
 
2012-07-22 03:44:40 PM

Epoch_Zero: [i0.kym-cdn.com image 450x598]


What the f*ck does that even mean?
 
2012-07-22 03:45:21 PM

Farker Soze: keithgabryelski: as for the definition of assault rifle -- how about any rifle that has any automation to the loading of a weapon of more than one intermediary round. we can negotiate what that means -- but I would be conservative in restricting more weapons rather than less.

Why don't we define "assault rifle" as what the consensus is that has been used for years and not what any random jerk-off decides is the correct definition?


How about you help the discussion instead of throwing down "jerk off". I'm unconcerned with the name of weapon.

Yeah, I'm looking to restrict gun rights. I'm looking for it to be done legally -- let's scratch the 2nd amendment -- I'll start with that.

I see no benefit to allowing any citizen the right to a semi-automatic weapon or anything that could be converted into such a thing.

And that opinion isn't just mine.

You'll get your hackles up -- maybe you care about this part of the constitution -- I don't really care if you do -- I think it is an outdated law. Nearly as outdated as the 3rd amendment.
 
2012-07-22 03:45:55 PM

Giltric: So you want to profile people?


Why would you need to profile those that are showing symptoms of mental illness?
 
2012-07-22 03:47:43 PM

heypete: dinch: Just curious, I've heard of people hunting with a range rifle but I can't remember hearing/ seeing anybody use an AR-15. Do people use that for hunting? Seems like the round would tear up a good bit of meat.

5.56mm/.223 caliber ammo is actually a pretty common deer-class cartridge. All the major manufacturers make ammo suitable for hunting (softpoints, ballistic tips, etc.) with it. It's not really suitable for larger critters like bears, elk, etc., but is quite common for deer and smaller creatures. Why would you think the round would tear up the meat? .308 and other cartridges are considerably more powerful and are also common for hunting and they don't ruin the meat (assuming you're a decent shot).

That said, my understanding is that the AR isn't really common for hunting. Some states restrict hunting with firearms with detachable magazines. It's also not the lightest gun around, so that could be burdensome for hunters.

The AR is extremely common in competitions, though, as there's a wide variety of accessories (optics, hand grips, match-grade triggers, etc.).

/recreational and occasionally-competitive shooter, not a hunter.


Ah, ok. Thanks. Have limited knowledge of AR ammo and always thought that their rounds tumbled so that they could drop whatever they hit, pretty much wherever they got hit.
 
2012-07-22 03:49:31 PM
It is pretty obvious to all but the most derpified conspiracy theorists that Obama has many more things he thinks are more important to tackle than gun control.
 
2012-07-22 03:49:48 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: So you want to profile people?

Why would you need to profile those that are showing symptoms of mental illness?


Whos observing them prior to their evaluation?


Confused thinking
Long-lasting sadness or irritability

Extremely high and low moods
Excessive fear, worry, or anxiety
Social withdrawal
Dramatic changes in eating or sleeping habits
Strong feelings of anger
Delusions
or hallucinations (seeing or hearing things that are not really there)
Increasing inability to cope with daily problems and activities
Thoughts of suicide
Denial of obvious problems
Many unexplained physical problems
Abuse of drugs and/or alcohol


You seem like a prime candidate for an eval...someone give cameron an eval stat!
 
2012-07-22 03:50:59 PM

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: So you want to profile people?

Why would you need to profile those that are showing symptoms of mental illness?

Whos observing them prior to their evaluation?


Confused thinking
Long-lasting sadness or irritability
Extremely high and low moods
Excessive fear, worry, or anxiety
Social withdrawal
Dramatic changes in eating or sleeping habits
Strong feelings of anger
Delusions or hallucinations (seeing or hearing things that are not really there)
Increasing inability to cope with daily problems and activities
Thoughts of suicide
Denial of obvious problems
Many unexplained physical problems
Abuse of drugs and/or alcohol


You seem like a prime candidate for an eval...someone give cameron an eval stat!


Other humans? Not everyone lives in complete isolation like you appear to.
 
2012-07-22 03:53:56 PM

heypete: keithgabryelski: actually -- you haven't listed one reasonable reason to own a gun such as was used by this shooter.

I haven't? Perhaps you and I don't really see eye-to-eye on this issue.


surely we don't. I don't consider the constitution some holy document that shouldn't be changed in the face of societal change.

we have different needs now, as a country, than we did 200 years ago.


That said, you haven't listed one reason why one of the most common rifles in the country shouldn't be legal to own.

my reason for banning:

there is no need for a citizen to own a weapon that has firepower to assault a group of people. Much like automatic weapons.

I'd be fine with a mechanism that allows for such weapons to be stored on a third party grounds that can be checked out for target practice but do not leave the premises.



Ok, then don't buy those types of guns. Nobody's forcing you to.

Knee-jerk reactions to rare, high-profile events are almost certainly not the correct course of act ...


this isn't a knee jerk reaction. It's taken many years to come to this conclusion.

Sure, i won't buy them -- but I don't want you to be able to posses them.

90000 deaths in the country by guns each year.

this country has a weird relationship with guns -- and it needs to stop.
 
2012-07-22 03:55:17 PM

cameroncrazy1984: bigsteve3OOO: This is a perfect example. What they say and what happens is two completely separate things. How much did the top 1% tax rate go up during the two years that the dems had the house, senate, and presidency?

It didn't go up because Republicans in the Senate blocked it. Oh look, the difference becomes clear again! Shocking how the facts continue to go against your theory that both sides are exactly the same.


Actually they only were able to "block" it because they did not "wink", "wink":, have the votes to attempt to try to pass it. So they actually let it die in the Senate rather than vote on it. Who would want to go on record as voting for a tax hike ya know right? They completely played you, me and all of us.
 
2012-07-22 03:56:40 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: So you want to profile people?

Why would you need to profile those that are showing symptoms of mental illness?


Man, I hated that profile stuff in 3rd grade, with the black paper and chalk. Don't think it would help in this situation.
 
2012-07-22 03:58:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: So you want to profile people?

Why would you need to profile those that are showing symptoms of mental illness?

Whos observing them prior to their evaluation?


Confused thinking
Long-lasting sadness or irritability
Extremely high and low moods
Excessive fear, worry, or anxiety
Social withdrawal
Dramatic changes in eating or sleeping habits
Strong feelings of anger
Delusions or hallucinations (seeing or hearing things that are not really there)
Increasing inability to cope with daily problems and activities
Thoughts of suicide
Denial of obvious problems
Many unexplained physical problems
Abuse of drugs and/or alcohol


You seem like a prime candidate for an eval...someone give cameron an eval stat!

Other humans? Not everyone lives in complete isolation like you appear to.


ahh so naming names?

Maybe we can dedicate an entire secret force to spying on people, maybe give them black trench coats with lots of pockets for ummm objects to observing citizens with.

YA VOL!

Wasn't Zimmerman just observing Trayvon.......that cool with you?
 
2012-07-22 03:58:48 PM

bigsteve3OOO: cameroncrazy1984: bigsteve3OOO: This is a perfect example. What they say and what happens is two completely separate things. How much did the top 1% tax rate go up during the two years that the dems had the house, senate, and presidency?

It didn't go up because Republicans in the Senate blocked it. Oh look, the difference becomes clear again! Shocking how the facts continue to go against your theory that both sides are exactly the same.

Actually they only were able to "block" it because they did not "wink", "wink":, have the votes to attempt to try to pass it. So they actually let it die in the Senate rather than vote on it. Who would want to go on record as voting for a tax hike ya know right? They completely played you, me and all of us.


Lemme guess. RON PAUL voter?
 
2012-07-22 03:58:57 PM

Clockwork Kumquat: simplicimus: Spare Me: simplicimus: Well, buying that stuff might be noteworthy to authorities, unless you're going up against well armed deer.

As long as we monitor sales of clown suits too. They cause far more harm than good.

It's not the clown suits that cause harm, it's the makeup.

And that's why we need guns. The woods here are just crawlin' with clown.


Well here in Texas, clown hunting is pretty easy, what with the rodeos and birthday parties.
 
2012-07-22 04:05:11 PM

Epoch_Zero: [i0.kym-cdn.com image 450x598]


img11.imageshack.us

Fixed.
 
2012-07-22 04:07:59 PM

bigsteve3OOO: cameroncrazy1984: bigsteve3OOO: This is a perfect example. What they say and what happens is two completely separate things. How much did the top 1% tax rate go up during the two years that the dems had the house, senate, and presidency?

It didn't go up because Republicans in the Senate blocked it. Oh look, the difference becomes clear again! Shocking how the facts continue to go against your theory that both sides are exactly the same.

Actually they only were able to "block" it because they did not "wink", "wink":, have the votes to attempt to try to pass it. So they actually let it die in the Senate rather than vote on it. Who would want to go on record as voting for a tax hike ya know right? They completely played you, me and all of us.


If by "let it die in the senate rather than vote on it" you mean it was filibustered by Republicans and didn't get the required 60 votes to make final voting, sure. Why must you continue to be disingenuous and/or lie about what actually happened? There was a vote on it. The Republicans used a rule that required 60 votes to pass it. There were never 60 Democrats in the Senate.

This is now the third time that I've proven to you that Republicans and Democrats are not the same. Shall we do it a fourth time? I have a whole metric ton of other examples.
 
2012-07-22 04:08:26 PM
I hope NYDN gets a tsunami of hate mail.
 
2012-07-22 04:09:49 PM

Epoch_Zero: [i0.kym-cdn.com image 450x598]


Of course we would call him a terrorist if he were muslim, we're not allowed to call "religious" people insane when they think they get directions from god.
 
2012-07-22 04:11:17 PM

cameroncrazy1984: bigsteve3OOO: cameroncrazy1984: bigsteve3OOO: This is a perfect example. What they say and what happens is two completely separate things. How much did the top 1% tax rate go up during the two years that the dems had the house, senate, and presidency?

It didn't go up because Republicans in the Senate blocked it. Oh look, the difference becomes clear again! Shocking how the facts continue to go against your theory that both sides are exactly the same.

Actually they only were able to "block" it because they did not "wink", "wink":, have the votes to attempt to try to pass it. So they actually let it die in the Senate rather than vote on it. Who would want to go on record as voting for a tax hike ya know right? They completely played you, me and all of us.

If by "let it die in the senate rather than vote on it" you mean it was filibustered by Republicans and didn't get the required 60 votes to make final voting, sure. Why must you continue to be disingenuous and/or lie about what actually happened? There was a vote on it. The Republicans used a rule that required 60 votes to pass it. There were never 60 Democrats in the Senate.

This is now the third time that I've proven to you that Republicans and Democrats are not the same. Shall we do it a fourth time? I have a whole metric ton of other examples.


He's a troll, and a pretty bad one at that, I just gave up and put him on ignore.... you could prove it to infinity, but he's committed to the character.
 
2012-07-22 04:13:05 PM

firefly212: He's a troll, and a pretty bad one at that, I just gave up and put him on ignore.... you could prove it to infinity, but he's committed to the character


I'm bored at work on a Sunday. It keeps me sharp.
 
2012-07-22 04:16:33 PM

keithgabryelski: Farker Soze: keithgabryelski: as for the definition of assault rifle -- how about any rifle that has any automation to the loading of a weapon of more than one intermediary round. we can negotiate what that means -- but I would be conservative in restricting more weapons rather than less.

Why don't we define "assault rifle" as what the consensus is that has been used for years and not what any random jerk-off decides is the correct definition?

How about you help the discussion instead of throwing down "jerk off". I'm unconcerned with the name of weapon.

Yeah, I'm looking to restrict gun rights. I'm looking for it to be done legally -- let's scratch the 2nd amendment -- I'll start with that.

I see no benefit to allowing any citizen the right to a semi-automatic weapon or anything that could be converted into such a thing.

And that opinion isn't just mine.

You'll get your hackles up -- maybe you care about this part of the constitution -- I don't really care if you do -- I think it is an outdated law. Nearly as outdated as the 3rd amendment.


I wasn't talking about your opinions. You can have your opinions, but you can't have your own definitions for well established items. The definition of what an assault rifle is is not dependent on your opinion. If you claim a double-decker bus is a subcompact car, we are not going to "negotiate" the definition of subcompact down to a 3/4 ton pickup truck instead.
 
2012-07-22 04:18:30 PM

heypete: keithgabryelski: Is there a reasonable reason to own an assault weapon or have the ability to purchase thousands of rounds of bullets?

Define "assault weapon". Be specific, please.

If you mean AR-15s, yes, there's plenty of reasons why they should be open for ownership: they're one of the most widely-used firearms in America for a reason. They're moderately priced, reasonably accurate, have tons of accessories/mods, fire a reasonably affordable cartridge, have good ergonomics, adjustable components for shooters of various sizes and builds, etc. They're extremely popular. Their only "sin" is that they look scary to some people.

They're functionally identical to other semi-auto rifles like the Mini-14: they fire the same cartridge at comparable velocities. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994-2004 banned AR-15s (among others) but not Mini-14s even though they're essentially the same. California's AWB still does. There's really no reason why they should be restricted and other semi-auto rifles not.

As for thousands of rounds of ammo, I don't really see the concern: I can easily go through 200 rounds of ammo during a range session. Many vendors offer discounts for bulk purchases because it saves them effort: rather than needing to unpack all the 20-round boxes from a 1,000 case, they can just put a shipping label on the case itself and send it. Same thing with even larger quantities. For example, ammoman.com offers a $20 discount if you buy 5,000 rounds of ammo at a time rather than the 1,000 case.

When military-surplus .30-06 Springfield ammo was available from South Korea at reasonable prices, I would routinely buy a few thousand rounds a week for a month or two -- it's military-surplus, so they're not making any new ammo, the price was right, and it ran great through my M1 Garand. Nothing nefarious about that.

.22 Long Rifle ammo is commonly available in 500-round "bricks". Considering the relative cost of shipping ammo, it's often cheaper to buy in bulk. ...


Because it's cheap? That the reason to own an assault rifle and thousands of rounds?

This country is farked.
 
2012-07-22 04:21:26 PM

Farker Soze:
I wasn't talking about your opinions. You can have your opinions, but you can't have your own definitions for well established items. The definition of what an assault rifle is is not dependent on your opinion. If you claim a double-decker bus is a subcompact car, we are not going to "negotiate" the definition of subcompact down to a 3/4 ton pickup truck instead.


geezus -- is that all?

he asked me for a definition, which i took to mean "what do you want to ban" not "what do you want assault rifle to mean".

I'd of used the wikipedia definition if it was the former.

But you had to interpret this in a way that you could call me a jerk-off?

great
 
2012-07-22 04:23:47 PM

dinch: Ah, ok. Thanks. Have limited knowledge of AR ammo and always thought that their rounds tumbled so that they could drop whatever they hit, pretty much wherever they got hit.


No problem. :)

Certain types of military-spec 5.56mm NATO rounds are unstable in tissue and can tumble and fragment. They have poorer performance at longer range, so they've been phased out in favor of more stable ammo with better long-range performance. Hunting-type ammo does not behave in that manner.
 
2012-07-22 04:25:35 PM

Disposable Rob: Because it's cheap? That the reason to own an assault rifle and thousands of rounds?


An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a common semi-auto rifle that is functionally identical to other, commonly-owned semi-auto rifles.
 
2012-07-22 04:26:53 PM

keithgabryelski: Farker Soze:
I wasn't talking about your opinions. You can have your opinions, but you can't have your own definitions for well established items. The definition of what an assault rifle is is not dependent on your opinion. If you claim a double-decker bus is a subcompact car, we are not going to "negotiate" the definition of subcompact down to a 3/4 ton pickup truck instead.

geezus -- is that all?

he asked me for a definition, which i took to mean "what do you want to ban" not "what do you want assault rifle to mean".

I'd of used the wikipedia definition if it was the former.

But you had to interpret this in a way that you could call me a jerk-off?

great


I said any jerk-off. If you want to interpret that as referring to you personally, go ahead.

Persecution complex much?
 
2012-07-22 04:28:20 PM

keithgabryelski: there is no need for a citizen to own a weapon that has firepower to assault a group of people. Much like automatic weapons.

I'd be fine with a mechanism that allows for such weapons to be stored on a third party grounds that can be checked out for target practice but do not leave the premises.



*checks profile* Yup, Boston.

I can sort of understand this attitude when I hear it from people who live in urban areas. There, the primary purpose of a gun (aside from the occasional target practice) tends to be "shoot other humans."

For those of us who live out in the sticks, guns tend to be a tool first and a weapon second. Depending on the local wildlife, there are places where it's not safe to go without one. Depending on the local economy, you or your neighbors may be using it to keep food on the table. And sometimes, Wild Kingdom comes to your front lawn and starts nosing around the porch and peeking in the windows. As much as some people enjoy the macho fantasy aspect of it, the truth is that self-defense, home defense and the like come a distant second to fending off the vagaries of mother nature.

And any weapon sufficient for those legitimate purposes has more than enough "firepower to assault a group of people."
 
2012-07-22 04:30:03 PM

Farker Soze: Persecution complex much?


That's why AR-15s are so popular.
 
2012-07-22 04:34:59 PM

thamike: Farker Soze: Persecution complex much?

That's why AR-15s are so popular.


Tasty Taste: So what you tryin' to say? You tryin' to say that I'm, like, paranoid 'n stuff? Do I look like the kind of person that would be paranoid? I mean, when you rollin' with THIS (holds up a bazooka), would you be paranoid?
 
2012-07-22 04:40:52 PM

keithgabryelski: Farker Soze:
I wasn't talking about your opinions. You can have your opinions, but you can't have your own definitions for well established items. The definition of what an assault rifle is is not dependent on your opinion. If you claim a double-decker bus is a subcompact car, we are not going to "negotiate" the definition of subcompact down to a 3/4 ton pickup truck instead.

geezus -- is that all?

he asked me for a definition, which i took to mean "what do you want to ban" not "what do you want assault rifle to mean".

I'd of used the wikipedia definition if it was the former.

But you had to interpret this in a way that you could call me a jerk-off?

great

I completely disagree with your opinion on firearms ownership. That being said, I have to respect your willingness to actually explain your opinion, and engage in debate about it. You sir are actually helping.
 
2012-07-22 04:41:14 PM

Wasteland: keithgabryelski: there is no need for a citizen to own a weapon that has firepower to assault a group of people. Much like automatic weapons.

I'd be fine with a mechanism that allows for such weapons to be stored on a third party grounds that can be checked out for target practice but do not leave the premises.


*checks profile* Yup, Boston.

I can sort of understand this attitude when I hear it from people who live in urban areas. There, the primary purpose of a gun (aside from the occasional target practice) tends to be "shoot other humans."

For those of us who live out in the sticks, guns tend to be a tool first and a weapon second. Depending on the local wildlife, there are places where it's not safe to go without one. Depending on the local economy, you or your neighbors may be using it to keep food on the table. And sometimes, Wild Kingdom comes to your front lawn and starts nosing around the porch and peeking in the windows. As much as some people enjoy the macho fantasy aspect of it, the truth is that self-defense, home defense and the like come a distant second to fending off the vagaries of mother nature.

And any weapon sufficient for those legitimate purposes has more than enough "firepower to assault a group of people."


no they don't -- you can assault one or two -- but not a group.

yes, i see issues with non-urban areas and guns -- but i wasn't talking about all guns -- i am willing to engage that question, though.

is there another mechanism for solving issues in the sticks?
 
2012-07-22 04:41:19 PM

DempseySR26: Epoch_Zero: [i0.kym-cdn.com image 450x598]

[img11.imageshack.us image 467x616]

Fixed.


Unpossible, all liberals are gun grabbing, panty waist, tree huggers incapable of being manly enough to pick up a gun, much less fire it.

/you are a retard
 
2012-07-22 04:44:04 PM

Farker Soze: keithgabryelski: Farker Soze:
I wasn't talking about your opinions. You can have your opinions, but you can't have your own definitions for well established items. The definition of what an assault rifle is is not dependent on your opinion. If you claim a double-decker bus is a subcompact car, we are not going to "negotiate" the definition of subcompact down to a 3/4 ton pickup truck instead.

geezus -- is that all?

he asked me for a definition, which i took to mean "what do you want to ban" not "what do you want assault rifle to mean".

I'd of used the wikipedia definition if it was the former.

But you had to interpret this in a way that you could call me a jerk-off?

great

I said any jerk-off. If you want to interpret that as referring to you personally, go ahead.

Persecution complex much?


i'm just calling you out on stupid shiat. and let me make it clear -- when you want to engage someone in an argument and you chose to first twist their argument into something that is ridiculous, YOU are committing the fallacy of "doing stupid shiat".
 
2012-07-22 04:58:49 PM

keithgabryelski: surely we don't. I don't consider the constitution some holy document that shouldn't be changed in the face of societal change.


And I do? I don't recall ever stating that or anything that could be construed that way.

we have different needs now, as a country, than we did 200 years ago.

Certainly. No argument there. Fortunately, the Constitution includes mechanisms for amending it.

Do I wish that it were easier to amend the constitution? Sometimes -- there are certainly some changes that could be made to update it to reflect today's world, but I didn't write it and really don't have much say in the matter.

my reason for banning:

there is no need for a citizen to own a weapon that has firepower to assault a group of people. Much like automatic weapons.


Automatic weapons are already heavily restricted.

The use of rifles (regardless of type) are rarely used in violent crime: they tend to be larger, harder to conceal, and generally not well suited for most crime. Handguns are more common, but are also frequently used for defensive purposes -- the number of defensive uses of firearms (that is, where they are used to protect the user from death or serious bodily injury) exceeds the criminal use, so it can be argued that they have a net benefit.

Previous restrictions on firearms, such as the 1994-2004 federal "assault weapons ban" and state-level restrictions have had essentially no effect on violent crime. Washington DC and Chicago have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and they have significant amounts of violent crime.

What types of guns could be used to assault a group of people? Charles Whitman used a bolt-action Remington 700 rifle as the primary weapon in his 1966 shooting spree at the University of Texas and killed a total of 16 people and wounded 32 others. Should bolt-action rifles, as are commonly used by hunters, be banned? What about revolvers? Revolvers can be used to assault groups of people. Should they be banned? Lever-action guns, which have been around for ~150 years, can fire quite quickly and can be used for nefarious purposes. How far does your definition extend?

Sure, i won't buy them -- but I don't want you to be able to posses them.

Why? What harm does my lawful ownership and use of firearms do? Unless you're a paper target, you have nothing to fear from me.

90000 deaths in the country by guns each year.

What country are you talking about? Your numbers are not correct.

Violent crime is a symptom of some other problem. I'd much rather that resources be applied to help solve that problem rather than focus on specific tools that are occasionally used for unlawful purposes, hence my earlier mention of the Swiss: they have widespread firearm ownership (according to the Wikipedia there are 45.7 guns per 100 residents) and very low violent crime rates. Finland and Sweden also rank in the top 10 list of countries sorted by number of guns per capita (with Norway, France, and Canada all very close) and their crime rates are quite low. Serbia, Cyprus, and Saudi Arabia are also relatively low crime (though I have no idea how accurate the stats are for those countries, though) and have a large number of guns per capita. This suggests that access to firearms is not the driving cause of violent crime -- there's some other factor.

Why not focus on the problem, rather than a symptom?
 
2012-07-22 05:00:23 PM

globalwarmingpraiser: I completely disagree with your opinion on firearms ownership. That being said, I have to respect your willingness to actually explain your opinion, and engage in debate about it. You sir are actually helping.


I agree wholeheartedly.
 
2012-07-22 05:01:28 PM

keithgabryelski: i'm just calling you out on stupid shiat. and let me make it clear -- when you want to engage someone in an argument and you chose to first twist their argument into something that is ridiculous, YOU are committing the fallacy of "doing stupid shiat".


Listen, I didn't say a damn thing about your argument. I'm saying don't call a knife a spoon.

as for the definition of assault rifle -- how about any rifle that has any automation to the loading of a weapon of more than one intermediary round

You don't get to make up your own definition. Why don't you say "as for the kind of weapons I would like to ban --" instead? I'm just calling you out on the stupid shiat you did there.
 
2012-07-22 05:03:08 PM

simplicimus: I just want to know where the gunman got the SWAT outfit. They sell this stuff to the general public?


Sure.

There's an ad for body armor on Fark right now (or at least there was until this morning). Free market, baby!
 
2012-07-22 05:08:55 PM
The only opinion I have right now is that all of the "OMG GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE ANSWER" shiat that's all over facebook seems pretty goddamned tactless.
 
2012-07-22 05:11:19 PM
I'd like to remind all those people asking "is it reasonable to own an assault weapon" if they they it's reasonable to ask for ID to vote. Both are fundamental rights....

Just a point to think on....
 
2012-07-22 05:13:15 PM

globalwarmingpraiser:
I completely disagree with your opinion on firearms ownership. That being said, I have to respect your willingness to actually explain your opinion, and engage in debate about it. You sir are actually helping.


well, it's good to hear respect. thank you. i didn't expect this to be an easy discussion.

as an aside, i understand the desire for people to keep their rights sacred -- it's a right, holy shiat this is where we put our efforts as citizens to ensure they aren't tossed aside willy nilly.

but just as people would consider modifying the 14th Amendment to do away with the "Jus soli" in favor of "jus sanguinis" -- i'm actually in favor of this discussion. I don't hold sacred the idea that born on US soil of foreign parents yields any reasonable right to citizenship. Although I don't see a good reason to appose Jus Soli, either -- it seems a decision was made a while back ago, it was a reasonable decision and why change if there isn't a compelling need.

in any case, just as people would reconsider the 14th (and may consider a compelling need -- hey, bring it up -- i don't see it, but maybe i'm wrong) -- why not reconsider the 2nd? I certainly see a compelling need to reduce these weapons in the face of what is needed by individuals for reasonable use vs. the needs of communities to limit firepower in their limits. And specifically some features of weapons that are of a less traditional need, and some of the laws around the distribution of any gun or rifle.
 
2012-07-22 05:13:30 PM

keithgabryelski: Wasteland: And any weapon sufficient for those legitimate purposes has more than enough "firepower to assault a group of people."

no they don't -- you can assault one or two -- but not a group.


Sure you can. Any decent deer rifle will get quite a few if the shooter is sniping from cover; depending on the circumstances, people may not even know which way to run. (Think back to the tower sniper in '66, Charles Whitman. Killed 16, wounded 32, and he did most of that with a bolt-action Remington.) Grandpa's 20-year-old (but well cared for) bird hunting shotgun? That's a Browning 12 gauge, and at close range it's absolutely lethal.

The common denominator of these killings isn't automatic or semi-auto weapons per se. It's an area with lots of potential targets, combined with the potential for lots of panic.


yes, i see issues with non-urban areas and guns -- but i wasn't talking about all guns -- i am willing to engage that question, though.
is there another mechanism for solving issues in the sticks?


That's (partly) the point. It is all guns. Human beings are animals. We have the same resistance to high-velocity bits of metal as any other animal- that is to say, not much. If it'll do for them, it'll do for us.

And there are still places where, sometimes, you have to be able to kill animals as quickly and cleanly as possible for your own well-being.
 
2012-07-22 05:14:10 PM

MadMagnum: I'd like to remind all those people asking "is it reasonable to own an assault weapon" if they they it's reasonable to ask for ID to vote. Both are fundamental rights....

Just a point to think on....


Do you generally kill people while casting your ballot?
 
2012-07-22 05:15:30 PM

heypete:
What types of guns could be used to assault a group of people? Charles Whitman used a bolt-action Remington 700 rifle as the primary weapon in his 1966 shooting spree at the University of Texas and killed a total of 16 people and wounded 32 others.


Aaaaand beat me to the point. I should check comments before hitting the button.

/tiny fist, I shakes it
 
2012-07-22 05:19:31 PM

cameroncrazy1984: MadMagnum: I'd like to remind all those people asking "is it reasonable to own an assault weapon" if they they it's reasonable to ask for ID to vote. Both are fundamental rights....

Just a point to think on....

Do you generally kill people while casting your ballot?


Indirectly? Sure.
 
2012-07-22 05:20:52 PM

cameroncrazy1984: MadMagnum: I'd like to remind all those people asking "is it reasonable to own an assault weapon" if they they it's reasonable to ask for ID to vote. Both are fundamental rights....

Just a point to think on....

Do you generally kill people while casting your ballot?


If you're voting for the other guy, you might as well be!
 
2012-07-22 05:27:49 PM

teeny: The only opinion I have right now is that all of the "OMG GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE ANSWER" shiat that's all over facebook seems pretty goddamned tactless.


Absolutely agreed...of course, it seems to mostly be in response to the "OMG BAN ALL GUNS NOW" posts...or at least that's what I've seen on online news comments (dear god, why do I even read them? I guess I'm a sucker for pain.).

If a discussion is to be had about gun rights/gun control, I'd much rather it be in a calm, reasoned, and relatively unemotional way that is supported by facts. Emotional knee-jerk reactions in the aftermath of a rare but high-profile event rarely make for good policy.
 
2012-07-22 05:32:36 PM

heypete: keithgabryelski: surely we don't. I don't consider the constitution some holy document that shouldn't be changed in the face of societal change.

And I do? I don't recall ever stating that or anything that could be construed that way.


yeah, those were different thoughts -- i didn't mean to impart the second on to you in any way -- that was poor juxtaposition of sentences on my part.

we have different needs now, as a country, than we did 200 years ago.

Certainly. No argument there. Fortunately, the Constitution includes mechanisms for amending it.

Do I wish that it were easier to amend the constitution? Sometimes -- there are certainly some changes that could be made to update it to reflect today's world, but I didn't write it and really don't have much say in the matter.

my reason for banning:

there is no need for a citizen to own a weapon that has firepower to assault a group of people. Much like automatic weapons.

Automatic weapons are already heavily restricted.


not heavily restricted enough it seems. and it seems that there are a bunch of grandfather clauses for rapid fire weapons. these seem unreasonable. the idea that weapons should not be fully tracked seems unreasonable.

The use of rifles (regardless of type) are rarely used in violent crime: they tend to be larger, harder to conceal, and generally not well suited for most crime. Handguns are more common, but are also frequently used for defensive purposes -- the number of defensive uses of firearms (that is, where they are used to protect the user from death or serious bodily injury) exceeds the criminal use, so it can be argued that they have a net benefit.

it's not obvious to me that removing all rights to handguns isn't a reasonable solution -- maybe conceal and carry is a good first step with severe limitations on any carrying inside community limits should the community value such things.


Previous restrictions on firearms, such as the 1994-2004 federal "assault weapons ban" and state-level restrictions have had essentially no effect on violent crime. Washington DC and Chicago have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and they have significant amounts of violent crime.


but overall crime is not the issue -- it's the massive slaughter that an assault weapons ban would be intended to curtail.

What types of guns could be used to assault a group of people? Charles Whitman used a bolt-action Remington 700 rifle as the primary weapon in his 1966 shooting spree at the University of Texas and killed a total of 16 people and wounded 32 others. Should bolt-action rifles, as are commonly used by hunters, be banned? What about revolvers? Revolvers can be used to assault groups of people. Should they be banned ...

I'm trying to find a position that allows for hunting of some type -- with the knowledge that a sharpened spoon can do a lot of damage if you are able to sneak up on a number of people.

Whitman is an interesting case -- my initial reaction would be the location of the weapon, ie, in a large community. He was in a fortified location (well, at least a protective location) with the advantage of height -- he had a great advantage because of his location and proximity to lots of people.

In any case, i'd be ok with a full ban on weapons in certain areas -- which includes both a bolt action and handgun.

I'd counter the ban with firing ranges inside city limits that could locker citizen's weapons for the time they wish and for use inside the range for training.
 
2012-07-22 05:36:26 PM

firefly212: Giltric: I thought Aurora was a gun free zone or something where CCW was not allowed.....due to the Columbine massacre 20 miles away.

lol, no... there's no such thing as a ccw zone in Colorado... there's like... federal buildings, post offices, and a couple other kinds of buildings you can't take guns into, but you couldn't possibly get a city ordinance to make a whole town be ccw-free. Liberal though I may be, we Coloradans do love guns. Aside from that, given the guy had an AR and a shotgun in addition to his two pistols, I don't really see how a ccw is relevant to him. In the theater, any well-trained person wouldn't have fired (even if they had their gun)... dark theater, hundreds of panicked patrons, tear gas f'n with your vision, and the shooter having body armor... odds are far higher that you'd end up killing an innocent person than killing the bad guy. Gohmert notwithstanding, reasonable gun owners would have done exactly what all the patrons of the theater did (given the numbers, I'd wager a couple had ccw permits and maybe even guns)... but you still do the right thing... get to a tactically better place, then evaluate the situation... given that police were on-site within two minutes, by the time any holders would have gotten to a reasonably safe place to engage, it was no longer their place to do so.


And any attempt to play cowboy after the police arrived would have marked that hotshot as an accomplice and be shot at by police officers. Not a wise position to get into.
 
2012-07-22 05:36:55 PM

heypete: teeny: The only opinion I have right now is that all of the "OMG GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE ANSWER" shiat that's all over facebook seems pretty goddamned tactless.

Absolutely agreed...of course, it seems to mostly be in response to the "OMG BAN ALL GUNS NOW" posts...or at least that's what I've seen on online news comments (dear god, why do I even read them? I guess I'm a sucker for pain.).

If a discussion is to be had about gun rights/gun control, I'd much rather it be in a calm, reasoned, and relatively unemotional way that is supported by facts. Emotional knee-jerk reactions in the aftermath of a rare but high-profile event rarely make for good policy.


This. At this point in the gun-control debate Even the term "assault weapon" in very nebulously defined. Thanks to terrorism, a bottle of bleach is a WMD. The whaaargarbl gets unbearable.
 
2012-07-22 05:41:15 PM

teeny: The only opinion I have right now is that all of the "OMG GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE ANSWER" shiat that's all over facebook seems pretty goddamned tactless.


It's largely because of the "OMG GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE ANSWER" shiat that I am pretty much in favor of banning firearms. We're not going to get any compromises from these gun nuts, and they already think the fedrul gub'mint is out to take their guns away --might as well indulge their apocalyptic fantasies and go all-out Waco on them. I'd rather see that than more and more women and children killed by lunatics who got their gun as easily as they would a candy bar at the local 7-Eleven.*

Yes, I know not all gun-owners are gun nuts --many are quite reasonable and non-fanatical about their gun-ownership-- but I'm fed up with all the pussyfooting on the issue. As far as I'm concerned, taking away even these peoples' guns is a small price to pay for a drop in gun crimes in this country. I'd be more than willing to settle for some compromise position, but the NRA and the Teabagger types have made it absolutely clear that that isn't going to happen.

*Yes, I know women and children were killed in Waco, but it was the best reference I could come up with.
 
2012-07-22 05:47:12 PM

The Name: teeny: The only opinion I have right now is that all of the "OMG GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE ANSWER" shiat that's all over facebook seems pretty goddamned tactless.

It's largely because of the "OMG GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE ANSWER" shiat that I am pretty much in favor of banning firearms. We're not going to get any compromises from these gun nuts, and they already think the fedrul gub'mint is out to take their guns away --might as well indulge their apocalyptic fantasies and go all-out Waco on them. I'd rather see that than more and more women and children killed by lunatics who got their gun as easily as they would a candy bar at the local 7-Eleven.*

Yes, I know not all gun-owners are gun nuts --many are quite reasonable and non-fanatical about their gun-ownership-- but I'm fed up with all the pussyfooting on the issue. As far as I'm concerned, taking away even these peoples' guns is a small price to pay for a drop in gun crimes in this country. I'd be more than willing to settle for some compromise position, but the NRA and the Teabagger types have made it absolutely clear that that isn't going to happen.

*Yes, I know women and children were killed in Waco, but it was the best reference I could come up with.


Except you got the 94 AWB and it didn't do anything for crime. As well as they "compromise" was that the gun grabbers just kept coming. Call of your dogs and I'll call of mine....

Plus using "Teabagger" doesn't add a lot of weight to your argument.
 
2012-07-22 05:48:01 PM

bigsteve3OOO: I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.


As Ted Williams said, "If you don't think too good, don't think too much."
 
2012-07-22 05:54:01 PM

MadMagnum: Except you got the 94 AWB and it didn't do anything for crime.


You know, that information could just as easily be marshaled to justify banning smaller arms as well.
 
2012-07-22 05:56:56 PM

keithgabryelski: not heavily restricted enough it seems. and it seems that there are a bunch of grandfather clauses for rapid fire weapons. these seem unreasonable. the idea that weapons should not be fully tracked seems unreasonable.


NFA automatic firearms are one of the most fully tracked items in the country. You need to register, pay a lot of money and get permission to own one. You need to get approval to transfer one to anyone, who will also have to register, pay a lot of money and get permission to own it. You need to inform the ATF to transport one across any state line. The government probably knows where 99 percent of them are at any time. The only thing they could do to track them better is weld a GPS unit on all of them. You can't "grandfather" your way out of any of this.
 
2012-07-22 05:58:35 PM

The Name: MadMagnum: Except you got the 94 AWB and it didn't do anything for crime.

You know, that information could just as easily be marshaled to justify banning smaller arms as well.


Only if you are libitard with the IQ of 3! See i can do it too!
 
2012-07-22 05:59:07 PM

The Name: I'd be more than willing to settle for some compromise position, but the NRA and the Teabagger types have made it absolutely clear that that isn't going to happen.


This. I hate the idea of a police state as much as anyone, but the teabaggers are already pissed about the current permit laws, waiting periods, registration fees and mandatory gun safety classes...all of which seem more than reasonable to me.
 
2012-07-22 05:59:15 PM

simplicimus: I just want to know where the gunman got the SWAT outfit. They sell this stuff to the general public?


yes all that stuff he got was legal,available to the general public,most of it obtained online and it never raised a red flag anywhere. 6000 rounds of ammo. 4 guns including an AR-15 with a 100 round drum mag. tear gas grenades,body armor etc.

hell he had to jump through less hoops than I have to to get my goddamned drivers license renewed this year. I have to have a birth certificate,social security card and 2 utility bills with my name and address on them. and I've had Ga license for almost 40 yrs now. goddamned GOP and their new voter ID laws making everything farking complicated. and don't even get me started on trying to buy primatene tablets for my asthma.
 
2012-07-22 06:08:38 PM

The Name: I know not all gun-owners are gun nuts --many are quite reasonable and non-fanatical about their gun-ownership-- but I'm fed up with all the pussyfooting on the issue. As far as I'm concerned, taking away even these peoples' guns is a small price to pay for a drop in gun crimes in this country.


So, you're just "fed up with all the pussyfooting on the issue" of private gun ownership, are you? It doesn't bother you that you just said that you don't give a flying fark about living in a democratic society? That it's okay to simply abrogate the Constitution to make you feel better about a tragedy? How do you reconcile that with your otherwise liberal leanings, such as the right to privacy, free speech, choice, and a host of others?

BTW, your odds of being killed by a drunk driver are about twice those of being murdered by gun. Where is your outrage against the evil devices used to perpetrate these deaths? Where is your clarion call to outlaw cars so irresponsible drivers won't use them to kill thousands more innocent men, women and children every year?

Too easily sheeple like you are stampeded into surrendering their fundamental rights in the cynically manipulation of their fears. You should be ashamed to call yourself an adult.
 
2012-07-22 06:10:59 PM

Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: I thought Aurora was a gun free zone or something where CCW was not allowed.....due to the Columbine massacre 20 miles away.

Let me guess, you're one of those folks who think that this would've all been prevented if they allowed CCW in cinemas in Aurora.

Because anyone can accurately shoot a guy in a dark and smoky movie theater without harming someone else unintentionally.

*rolls eyes*

Not anyone....some people, sure.

Some groups do live fire training with living hostages sitting in front of paper targets.......

Are you saying it's impossible?

And the chances of someone that skilled being at a cinema in Aurora, CO at midnight are...?

I'm saying it's not realistic.

There were military personnel in the theatre at the time....some might even be victims, but none were armed, and I don;t have access to their dd214's to see if they attended any schools where they might be more proficient in violence of action then normal military personnel.

It could be more realistic then you think.

u skeered?




You were doing fine until this:

www.grammarics.com


THEN I knew you were an idiot.
 
2012-07-22 06:12:24 PM

Hobodeluxe: hell he had to jump through less hoops than I have to to get my goddamned drivers license renewed this year. I have to have a birth certificate,social security card and 2 utility bills with my name and address on them. and I've had Ga license for almost 40 yrs now. goddamned GOP and their new voter ID laws making everything farking complicated. and don't even get me started on trying to buy primatene tablets for my asthma.


That's because you're a Democrat. If you were a Republican, which is to say white (in Georgia), you'd get all that shiat automatically waived.

/snark
 
2012-07-22 06:14:47 PM

keithgabryelski: heypete: keithgabryelski: surely we don't. I don't consider the constitution some holy document that shouldn't be changed in the face of societal change.

And I do? I don't recall ever stating that or anything that could be construed that way.

yeah, those were different thoughts -- i didn't mean to impart the second on to you in any way -- that was poor juxtaposition of sentences on my part.

we have different needs now, as a country, than we did 200 years ago.

Certainly. No argument there. Fortunately, the Constitution includes mechanisms for amending it.

Do I wish that it were easier to amend the constitution? Sometimes -- there are certainly some changes that could be made to update it to reflect today's world, but I didn't write it and really don't have much say in the matter.

my reason for banning:

there is no need for a citizen to own a weapon that has firepower to assault a group of people. Much like automatic weapons.

Automatic weapons are already heavily restricted.

not heavily restricted enough it seems. and it seems that there are a bunch of grandfather clauses for rapid fire weapons. these seem unreasonable. the idea that weapons should not be fully tracked seems unreasonable.

The use of rifles (regardless of type) are rarely used in violent crime: they tend to be larger, harder to conceal, and generally not well suited for most crime. Handguns are more common, but are also frequently used for defensive purposes -- the number of defensive uses of firearms (that is, where they are used to protect the user from death or serious bodily injury) exceeds the criminal use, so it can be argued that they have a net benefit.

it's not obvious to me that removing all rights to handguns isn't a reasonable solution -- maybe conceal and carry is a good first step with severe limitations on any carrying inside community limits should the community value such things.


Previous restrictions on firearms, such as the 1994-2004 federal "assault weapons ban" and state-level restrictions have had essentially no effect on violent crime. Washington DC and Chicago have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and they have significant amounts of violent crime.

but overall crime is not the issue -- it's the massive slaughter that an assault weapons ban would be intended to curtail.

What types of guns could be used to assault a group of people? Charles Whitman used a bolt-action Remington 700 rifle as the primary weapon in his 1966 shooting spree at the University of Texas and killed a total of 16 people and wounded 32 others. Should bolt-action rifles, as are commonly used by hunters, be banned? What about revolvers? Revolvers can be used to assault groups of people. Should they be banned ...

I'm trying to find a position that allows for hunting of some type -- with the knowledge that a sharpened spoon can do a lot of damage if you are able to sneak up on a number of people.

Whitman is an interesting case -- my initial reaction would be the location of the weapon, ie, in a large community. He was in a fortified location (well, at least a protective location) with the advantage of height -- he had a great advantage because of his location and proximity to lots of people.

In any case, i'd be ok with a full ban on weapons in certain areas -- which includes both a bolt action and handgun.

I'd counter the ban with firing ranges inside city limits that could locker citizen's weapons for the time they wish and for use inside the range for training.


(Sorry for the wall of text. I'm on my mobile device and selective quoting isn't really easy.)

No problem. Just wanted to make sure it was clear that although we disagree I am (or at least try to be) a reasonable person.

I'm not sure I understand your reference to automatic weapons not being controlled enough: my understanding is that an automatic weapon was not used in this incident. Semi-auto guns are not "automatic".

I think the last time a crime was committed with a legally owned full auto gun was in the 80s, but I'm going off memory here.

Mass shootings are statistically very, very rare. Excluding this one, the major ones in the last 20 years or so: Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Tucson have all been committed with handguns. Such events are extremely high-profile and really get media attention, which serves to make people think they're more common.

Statistically, so-called "assault weapons" are used very rarely in crime, as are long guns of any type. It really doesn't make sense to place restrictions on such guns specifically. There already was a federal ban on "assault weapons" between 1994-2004 and there was essentially no effect on crime. Since mass shootings are so rare, it's not really possible to get good stats on the ban's effect on those events.

Also, recreational use of firearms (particularly AR-15s and similar modern guns) and the possession of firearms for defensive purposes outnumbers the use of firearms for hunting. The gun culture has changed quite a bit over the last few decades.

Your heart is in the right place, but the ideas you've proposed would serve to infringe on the rights of the law-abiding but not really have a meaningful effect on those who would use guns for crime.

Nobody wants violent crime (criminals excluded, perhaps) and mass shootings. It's just that we disagree on how to best go about effectively reducing such tragedies.

/It's late here in Europe, so please forgive me for leaving the discussion at this point. It's been nice to have a reasonable discussion, even though we disagree.
//Apologies again for the wall of text.
 
2012-07-22 06:15:41 PM

StoneColdAtheist: /snark


FTFY.
 
2012-07-22 06:16:07 PM

StoneColdAtheist: So, you're just "fed up with all the pussyfooting on the issue" of private gun ownership, are you? It doesn't bother you that you just said that you don't give a flying fark about living in a democratic society?


Said like someone who's never heard of Europe.
 
2012-07-22 06:20:27 PM

Farker Soze: keithgabryelski: not heavily restricted enough it seems. and it seems that there are a bunch of grandfather clauses for rapid fire weapons. these seem unreasonable. the idea that weapons should not be fully tracked seems unreasonable.

NFA automatic firearms are one of the most fully tracked items in the country. You need to register, pay a lot of money and get permission to own one. You need to get approval to transfer one to anyone, who will also have to register, pay a lot of money and get permission to own it. You need to inform the ATF to transport one across any state line. The government probably knows where 99 percent of them are at any time. The only thing they could do to track them better is weld a GPS unit on all of them. You can't "grandfather" your way out of any of this.


that may be true for automatics -- why not make it true for all weapons? that sounds like a good first step.
 
2012-07-22 06:21:28 PM

dericwater: firefly212: Giltric: I thought Aurora was a gun free zone or something where CCW was not allowed.....due to the Columbine massacre 20 miles away.

lol, no... there's no such thing as a ccw zone in Colorado... there's like... federal buildings, post offices, and a couple other kinds of buildings you can't take guns into, but you couldn't possibly get a city ordinance to make a whole town be ccw-free. Liberal though I may be, we Coloradans do love guns. Aside from that, given the guy had an AR and a shotgun in addition to his two pistols, I don't really see how a ccw is relevant to him. In the theater, any well-trained person wouldn't have fired (even if they had their gun)... dark theater, hundreds of panicked patrons, tear gas f'n with your vision, and the shooter having body armor... odds are far higher that you'd end up killing an innocent person than killing the bad guy. Gohmert notwithstanding, reasonable gun owners would have done exactly what all the patrons of the theater did (given the numbers, I'd wager a couple had ccw permits and maybe even guns)... but you still do the right thing... get to a tactically better place, then evaluate the situation... given that police were on-site within two minutes, by the time any holders would have gotten to a reasonably safe place to engage, it was no longer their place to do so.

And any attempt to play cowboy after the police arrived would have marked that hotshot as an accomplice and be shot at by police officers. Not a wise position to get into.


Two young men who died had military backgrounds. One in the Navy, the other in the Air Force. Didn't seem to do any help for anyone. Two other young men died shielding their girlfriends and had no military background. Several others without military or police backgrounds and not carrying a gun dragged wounded loved ones and strangers to safety. Some others tried to help, but actually just put people into harm's way again because they didn't know what to do.

In a situation as chaotic as that one, how an individual reacts is something of a crap shoot. And the results of what these people did are unpredictable in terms of helping out or hurting. Some things people did helped protect others, and some things people did made things worse. And yet so many people, especially gun nuts, especially young gun nuts who think they're invincible, say with an almost creepy level of certainty that in that situation they would have, or the other people should have, done this or that, and I was/am a cop or a Marine or grew up with guns or hunted all my life so I know I would have done the exact right thing so that everything would have turned out alright. It's said with this tone that makes it sound like they salivate at the chance to prove how much of a superhero they are.

It bugs me, because honestly we don't know how we will react to an extreme situation that surprises us. And yet... It's easy to do this Monday Morning Quarterbacking thing from the safety of our home, on the computer and relatively anonymously. But it's equally disturbing that these same Monday morning quaterbacks never pull this kind of crap for disasters and tragedies that aren't caused by an armed psychotic. You don't see them saying how doctors or sick people should have reacted in the case of viral epidemics, or what they would do in those situations. You don't even see many doctors or nurses pulling that crap. It's just when it comes to situations involving weapons, a ton of people who have touched a weapon while touching themselves seems to have the absolute pinpoint perfect solution, and oh man if only they were there.
 
2012-07-22 06:27:49 PM
In general, it's a bad idea to waste your time on a person who goes to the trouble of spelling Obama's name with a 0. It speaks of a mindset which is incredibly juvenile or incredibly divorced from reality.
 
2012-07-22 06:29:02 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.


Well, Obama did give us the first serious attempt at health care reform in decades, which Romney is now threatening to tear down (even though he implemented a similar program in Massachusetts). Also, Obama actually managed to get Bin Laden, when all we ever got from Bush was failure and apathy. So there's that.
 
2012-07-22 06:31:57 PM

keithgabryelski: Farker Soze: keithgabryelski: not heavily restricted enough it seems. and it seems that there are a bunch of grandfather clauses for rapid fire weapons. these seem unreasonable. the idea that weapons should not be fully tracked seems unreasonable.

NFA automatic firearms are one of the most fully tracked items in the country. You need to register, pay a lot of money and get permission to own one. You need to get approval to transfer one to anyone, who will also have to register, pay a lot of money and get permission to own it. You need to inform the ATF to transport one across any state line. The government probably knows where 99 percent of them are at any time. The only thing they could do to track them better is weld a GPS unit on all of them. You can't "grandfather" your way out of any of this.

that may be true for automatics -- why not make it true for all weapons? that sounds like a good first step.


Good luck getting 3/4s of the States to agree with you.
 
2012-07-22 06:45:20 PM

The Name: StoneColdAtheist: So, you're just "fed up with all the pussyfooting on the issue" of private gun ownership, are you? It doesn't bother you that you just said that you don't give a flying fark about living in a democratic society?

Said like someone who's never heard of Europe.


Familiar enough to know that the United States does not operate under European law (ignoring the fact that I've been practically everywhere in western Europe and literally spent years of my life there).

But speaking of "never heard of" something, you seem to have never heard that a private right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution. Or is the document "just a piece of paper" to you?
 
2012-07-22 06:47:02 PM

heypete:
The use of rifles (regardless of type) are rarely used in violent crime: they tend to be larger, harder to conceal, and generally not well suited for most crime. Handguns are more common, but are also frequently used for defensive purposes -- the number of defensive uses of firearms (that is, where they are used to protect the user from death or serious bodily injury) exceeds the criminal use, so it can be argued that they have a net benefit.

it's not obvious to me that removing all rights to handguns isn't a reasonable solution -- maybe conceal and carry is a good first step with severe limitations on any carrying inside community limits should the community value such things.


Previous restrictions on firearms, such as the 1994-2004 federal "assault ...


i think you misunderstand my intentions. This isn't a knee-jerk reaction to stop what happened last week.

I basically don't see a reason to have firearms in cities -- and marginal reasons outside of cities.

if that right was taken away (inside cities), i'd be fine with it -- and I bet most people would have a hard time coming up with a logical reason to allow them.

90,000 murders by guns each year in the united states.

let's get rid of this gun culture -- how did we get to a point where holding a gun sideways is cool? someone had to think holding a gun was cool first and one-up it.

let's get rid of these guns -- where they are not essentially needed -- toss em.

collectors -- sorry, you can put them in a museum -- I'm ok with that.
 
2012-07-22 06:47:41 PM

StoneColdAtheist: But speaking of "never heard of" something, you seem to have never heard that a private right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution.


As part of a well-regulated militia.
 
2012-07-22 06:53:44 PM

keithgabryelski: 90,000 murders by guns each year in the united states.


Now you're blatantly trolling.
 
2012-07-22 06:56:07 PM

keithgabryelski: let's get rid of these guns -- where they are not essentially needed -- toss em.

collectors -- sorry, you can put them in a museum -- I'm ok with that.




Good God....you're either an idiot or a troll....perhaps both.
 
2012-07-22 07:06:09 PM

Kome: StoneColdAtheist: But speaking of "never heard of" something, you seem to have never heard that a private right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution.

As part of a well-regulated militia.


Sounds like someone never read the Heller decision.
 
2012-07-22 07:06:43 PM

HeartBurnKid: bigsteve3OOO: Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.

Well, Obama did give us the first serious attempt at health care reform in decades, which Romney is now threatening to tear down (even though he implemented a similar program in Massachusetts). Also, Obama actually managed to get Bin Laden, when all we ever got from Bush was failure and apathy. So there's that.


It is sad that smart people like the ones that post on this site are unwilling to see the forest for the trees. I weep for you and your kind. It will be your undoing.
 
2012-07-22 07:12:30 PM

Farker Soze: keithgabryelski: 90,000 murders by guns each year in the united states.

Now you're blatantly trolling.


not sure where i got that number. it seems off now that i'm looking at wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea t h_rate

but we seem to be closer to the top than I am comfortable with.
 
2012-07-22 07:14:02 PM

The_Sponge: keithgabryelski: let's get rid of these guns -- where they are not essentially needed -- toss em.

collectors -- sorry, you can put them in a museum -- I'm ok with that.



Good God....you're either an idiot or a troll....perhaps both.


for what cause -- the collector comment? i don't see that as stupid or trolling.
 
2012-07-22 07:14:55 PM

Kome: It bugs me, because honestly we don't know how we will react to an extreme situation that surprises us. And yet... It's easy to do this Monday Morning Quarterbacking thing from the safety of our home, on the computer and relatively anonymously. But it's equally disturbing that these same Monday morning quaterbacks never pull this kind of crap for disasters and tragedies that aren't caused by an armed psychotic. You don't see them saying how doctors or sick people should have reacted in the case of viral epidemics, or what they would do in those situations. You don't even see many doctors or nurses pulling that crap. It's just when it comes to situations involving weapons, a ton of people who have touched a weapon while touching themselves seems to have the absolute pinpoint perfect solution, and oh man if only they were there.


I've been saying that since this went down, and nobody bothers to respond...which tells me I'm absolutely right, that these armchair warriors are just SO SURE they'd have done something different, they never bother to think of themselves ACTUALLY BEING in that situation. In their minds, they could have shot this guy right between the eyes in a dark, smoke-filled theater full of panicked people struggling for the exits--so of course the problem is people need moar gunz.
 
2012-07-22 07:15:06 PM

LibertyHiller: Kome: StoneColdAtheist: But speaking of "never heard of" something, you seem to have never heard that a private right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution.

As part of a well-regulated militia.

Sounds like someone never read the Heller decision.


That is something interpreted about our Constitution. And one that I'm fine with, to be honest. But explicit mention of a private right for individuals to keep and bear arms is not, technically, in the Constitution.
 
2012-07-22 07:15:06 PM

heypete: keithgabryelski: Is there a reasonable reason to own an assault weapon or have the ability to purchase thousands of rounds of bullets?

Define "assault weapon". Be specific, please.

If you mean AR-15s, yes, there's plenty of reasons why they should be open for ownership: they're one of the most widely-used firearms in America for a reason. They're moderately priced, reasonably accurate, have tons of accessories/mods, fire a reasonably affordable cartridge, have good ergonomics, adjustable components for shooters of various sizes and builds, etc. They're extremely popular. Their only "sin" is that they look scary to some people.

They're functionally identical to other semi-auto rifles like the Mini-14: they fire the same cartridge at comparable velocities. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994-2004 banned AR-15s (among others) but not Mini-14s even though they're essentially the same. California's AWB still does. There's really no reason why they should be restricted and other semi-auto rifles not.

As for thousands of rounds of ammo, I don't really see the concern: I can easily go through 200 rounds of ammo during a range session. Many vendors offer discounts for bulk purchases because it saves them effort: rather than needing to unpack all the 20-round boxes from a 1,000 case, they can just put a shipping label on the case itself and send it. Same thing with even larger quantities. For example, ammoman.com offers a $20 discount if you buy 5,000 rounds of ammo at a time rather than the 1,000 case.

When military-surplus .30-06 Springfield ammo was available from South Korea at reasonable prices, I would routinely buy a few thousand rounds a week for a month or two -- it's military-surplus, so they're not making any new ammo, the price was right, and it ran great through my M1 Garand. Nothing nefarious about that.

.22 Long Rifle ammo is commonly available in 500-round "bricks". Considering the relative cost of shipping ammo, it's often cheaper to buy in bulk. ...


That's all wonderful - I just have one question.

Why?

I mean, besides "cause it's cool", because frankly Stinger missiles are cool as well, but for some reason the govt won't let me have those either.

Seriously. I have a couple of guns, left by my father. They're neat gadgets, and I can see the interest in collecting and firing them at targets. I can even see the interest in having one around the house for security purposes, even though I 1) doubt I'll be near the gun when the shyt hits the fan and 2) would probably do more harm than good if I had it.

Much like people with Big-Ass dogs, *their* dog is a harmless little mushball but *everyone elses* dog had been abused to the point they kill anything that moves.

Does your need for unfettered access to guns and ammo overshadow any responsibility that having that kind of access enables the nutbags of the world to do?

Because I am willing to stipulate gun training requirements, and special permits/interviews for unusual weapons *because* I don't believe being *careful* with dangerous toys is "stepping on my Gog given Rights".

YMMV
 
2012-07-22 07:16:04 PM

keithgabryelski: 90,000 murders by guns each year in the united states.


How can you expect anyone to take your other points seriously when you spout such errant and easily disproved nonsense?
 
2012-07-22 07:21:54 PM

StoneColdAtheist: keithgabryelski: 90,000 murders by guns each year in the united states.

How can you expect anyone to take your other points seriously when you spout such errant and easily disproved nonsense?


yet, you are willing to engage me after I corrected the mistake.

hey -- sorry man... i was off by an order on gun related deaths (not murders).

you can focus on this error -- or engage me in the argument at hand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea t h_rate

firearms related deaths are way to high and comparable with third world nations.
 
2012-07-22 07:22:07 PM
Gog?
 
2012-07-22 07:39:29 PM

Gyrfalcon: I've been saying that since this went down, and nobody bothers to respond...which tells me I'm absolutely right, that these armchair warriors are just SO SURE they'd have done something different, they never bother to think of themselves ACTUALLY BEING in that situation. In their minds, they could have shot this guy right between the eyes in a dark, smoke-filled theater full of panicked people struggling for the exits--so of course the problem is people need moar gunz.


I think a problem is that people, no matter their background, are so caught up in the fantasy that since we are all for the most part well-intentioned people, the outcomes of whatever we do will be good things. Many professionals and amateurs or expertly trained individuals who are just trying to help do screw up, and sometimes screw up badly. It's why you can sue your physician for medical malpractice. Sometimes a competent and genuinely good person fails to consider something that should have been considered. There are, without a doubt, numerous stories of people who failed to consider the potential bad outcomes and nothing bad did happen (or nothing worse occurred, at least). But there are likely many more stories out there of people who failed to think things through all the way and something worse did happen. You can never know in a particular situation, especially one you've never been in before, the precise cascade of effects that your actions will have, but that doesn't seem to stop some people from thinking the most brazen actions they could possibly make will be both (a) the ones that they do make and (b) the absolute right call to make.
 
2012-07-22 07:41:39 PM

keithgabryelski: StoneColdAtheist: keithgabryelski: 90,000 murders by guns each year in the united states.

How can you expect anyone to take your other points seriously when you spout such errant and easily disproved nonsense?

yet, you are willing to engage me after I corrected the mistake.

hey -- sorry man... i was off by an order on gun related deaths (not murders).

you can focus on this error -- or engage me in the argument at hand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea t h_rate

firearms related deaths are way to high and comparable with third world nations.


Looks like the number is around 35-36k / year from your source.
 
2012-07-22 07:41:48 PM

Kome: LibertyHiller: Kome: StoneColdAtheist: But speaking of "never heard of" something, you seem to have never heard that a private right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution.

As part of a well-regulated militia.

Sounds like someone never read the Heller decision.

That is something interpreted about our Constitution. And one that I'm fine with, to be honest. But explicit mention of a private right for individuals to keep and bear arms is not, technically, in the Constitution.


Well, technically, it's in an amendment. But even if you don't consider amendments to be "in" the Constitution, at the time it was written, the overwhelming consensus (e.g. Blackstone, Mason, Story) was that individuals had a private right to keep and bear arms.
 
2012-07-22 07:47:34 PM
I can understand the impulse. You here about something this awful - this mindless and incomprehensible - and your mind just recoils. you want it not to be. And you want to DO something - something to somehow make it better, or stop it happening again. You really, really want to.
But sometimes, you can't. We live in a crowded, technologically capable and rather anonymous society. And as long as we do - things like this will happen. In a nation of 300 million people, there are always going to be a few really crazy ones up to something bad - and they will hurt some people.
Confiscatory gun laws won't prevent it.
Making all citizens arm themselves won't prevent it.
Making mental health care more available won't prevent it either - the truly, virulently mad rarely seek or accept help. It would be a good thing - but it won't stop this.
And there is a danger here - we have already seen how trying to prevent an unpreventable evil by force of law can lead to worse results (drugs) - and we have to resist the impulse to start randomly passing laws whenever something bad happens. Trying too hard to remedy that which cannot be entirely remedied can lead to cures that are worse than the disease.
Try to be better people. Try to build a better world. But accept that human life is not a pain free, tragedy free experience. No matter how evolved we become, tragedy and suffering will always be with us.
 
2012-07-22 07:53:42 PM

CheapEngineer: Gog?


Magog.
 
2012-07-22 08:06:54 PM

keithgabryelski: StoneColdAtheist: keithgabryelski: 90,000 murders by guns each year in the united states.

How can you expect anyone to take your other points seriously when you spout such errant and easily disproved nonsense?

yet, you are willing to engage me after I corrected the mistake.


No, I type slowly and am active right now on other tabs and non-Fark forums... :)

But your adjusted number is also wrong. According the Centers for Disease Control, whose job it is to track such things, in 2009 (the latest year for which there are official stats) there were 11,493 homicides by firearm in the USA. That's high enough, but is still about one-eighth of the number you initially quoted.
 
2012-07-22 08:10:08 PM

jso2897: I can understand the impulse. You here about something this awful - this mindless and incomprehensible - and your mind just recoils. you want it not to be. And you want to DO something - something to somehow make it better, or stop it happening again. You really, really want to.
But sometimes, you can't. We live in a crowded, technologically capable and rather anonymous society. And as long as we do - things like this will happen. In a nation of 300 million people, there are always going to be a few really crazy ones up to something bad - and they will hurt some people.
Confiscatory gun laws won't prevent it.
Making all citizens arm themselves won't prevent it.
Making mental health care more available won't prevent it either - the truly, virulently mad rarely seek or accept help. It would be a good thing - but it won't stop this.
And there is a danger here - we have already seen how trying to prevent an unpreventable evil by force of law can lead to worse results (drugs) - and we have to resist the impulse to start randomly passing laws whenever something bad happens. Trying too hard to remedy that which cannot be entirely remedied can lead to cures that are worse than the disease.
Try to be better people. Try to build a better world. But accept that human life is not a pain free, tragedy free experience. No matter how evolved we become, tragedy and suffering will always be with us.


Try to be better people and build a better world... how? If not by trying to influence people's behaviors through laws, or restrict their access to weapons through regulation, or help improve detection and intervention for the mentally unstable, then how?

The problem with saying "There will always be..." is that it sends the message that we can offload the responsibility of trying to come up with a solution. If you don't think this is the type of problem that warrants a lot of deep thought on your side, that's fine. We all have issues that we care deeply about and we all have issues we don't care so much about. But please don't come in with the whole "There will always be..." line. We may always have polio on this planet, but a lot of phenomenal minds who cared about the issue a lot managed to make it much less of the problem than it used to be. Maybe taking a good hard look at our laws, our regulations, and our mental health system might not do much, but they are the logical places to start even if they don't turn out to be the places we should end up. Just because psychotic people intent on doing harm will "always" find a way to do so doesn't necessarily mean the rest of society should make it easier for them by allowing them access to assault rifles more easily than someone can get an appointment with a counselor.

Complacency in the face of a problem is the surest fire way to keep the problem from ever being minimized. This is as true for deranged lunatics as it is any other problem.
 
2012-07-22 08:15:35 PM

Gyrfalcon: I've been saying that since this went down, and nobody bothers to respond...which tells me I'm absolutely right, that these armchair warriors are just SO SURE they'd have done something different, they never bother to think of themselves ACTUALLY BEING in that situation. In their minds, they could have shot this guy right between the eyes in a dark, smoke-filled theater full of panicked people struggling for the exits--so of course the problem is people need moar gunz.


When I was bouncing, there were a LOT of folks who leaped up AFTER a situation boiled over. Plenty of folks who had sound advice for what we SHOULD have done, popping wise after the folks were down and being hauled off.

Most of them just stood around and watched. Or weren't even aware of what was happening until long after.

Even if you're trained, and ready, bad things can happen. I was stabbed three times by a guy who had a Swiss Army knife tucked away, and we missed it. I had one of his buddies and was locking his arm up, and this little guy stuck me. Never saw it coming. Luckily, he only had a itty bitty blade out, and the ribs took most of the force, which is their job, so Go Evolution! for them doing their job. My buddy tackled the little bastiche, and nearly 300lbs of pissed off Scottish bouncer fell on this poor 120lb Chollo wannabe, and no one in the crowd even realized what had happened. Heck, half of the muttering was the excessive force that was used on the little guy by the big bad mean bouncer. We handed the guy off to the cops, and I got my stitches, and most of the crowd didn't even register what had happened.

We got offered weapons fair often when I was bouncing. Pepper spray, stun guns, a whole raft of ideas were floated around. We refused, because the last thing you want in a crowd of folks who are in various stages of being drunk or high is pepper spray, and stun guns and tasers can be taken away and used on you. The one thing we kept were our mini-mag lights, which made excellent fulcrums for hand and wrist locks, and impromptu hand loads if things got messy on the floor. We did that, because we didn't want to hurt innocent folks. And that is really what you have to realize when you carry any weapon--can it be taken? Will it blow through a wall and injure a bystander? What happens if I miss? To use a weapon effectively, you have to understand all those principles, and in an enclosed area, with bystanders, you have to be aware of all those factors. Which is why I am a firm advocate for weapons licensing with training. Not just fill out a form, and roll on, but train folks not just how to fire, and basic safety, but when to use the sucker.

When were training for bouncing, we trained with a good number of cops. We trained for the near impossible disarms--defending against a knife in close quarters against someone who knows how to use one and you don't have a weapons is not just hard, it WILL generally get you sliced up. You have to accept that, and move on, and the one time I did have to do a knife disarm, I was lucky in that it was some idiot who just waved it around. We trained on weapons disarms of several sorts--guns, knives, sticks, and even hand loads. The one thing we were drilled, is that under 20 feet, pulling a gun is rarely effective against someone with knife or other hand weapon. In the time it takes to clear a weapon and bring it to bear, they're on you. Probably having stuck you a few times, by the time you can even think about bringing it up.

In a situation with a weapon already drawn, the best plan is to get under cover, draw, and then take a bead. Not try to play cowboy. That gets people shot every year. Because people watch movies and imagine that they can BE that guy. And the real world ain't like that. When to shoot is as important as how to shoot. And I'd rather see folks trained, and trained well, than just have guns floating around.
 
2012-07-22 08:19:59 PM

Kome: jso2897: I can understand the impulse. You here about something this awful - this mindless and incomprehensible - and your mind just recoils. you want it not to be. And you want to DO something - something to somehow make it better, or stop it happening again. You really, really want to.
But sometimes, you can't. We live in a crowded, technologically capable and rather anonymous society. And as long as we do - things like this will happen. In a nation of 300 million people, there are always going to be a few really crazy ones up to something bad - and they will hurt some people.
Confiscatory gun laws won't prevent it.
Making all citizens arm themselves won't prevent it.
Making mental health care more available won't prevent it either - the truly, virulently mad rarely seek or accept help. It would be a good thing - but it won't stop this.
And there is a danger here - we have already seen how trying to prevent an unpreventable evil by force of law can lead to worse results (drugs) - and we have to resist the impulse to start randomly passing laws whenever something bad happens. Trying too hard to remedy that which cannot be entirely remedied can lead to cures that are worse than the disease.
Try to be better people. Try to build a better world. But accept that human life is not a pain free, tragedy free experience. No matter how evolved we become, tragedy and suffering will always be with us.

Try to be better people and build a better world... how? If not by trying to influence people's behaviors through laws, or restrict their access to weapons through regulation, or help improve detection and intervention for the mentally unstable, then how?

The problem with saying "There will always be..." is that it sends the message that we can offload the responsibility of trying to come up with a solution. If you don't think this is the type of problem that warrants a lot of deep thought on your side, that's fine. We all have issues that we care deeply about and we all have issues we don't care so much about. But please don't come in with the whole "There will always be..." line. We may always have polio on this planet, but a lot of phenomenal minds who cared about the issue a lot managed to make it much less of the problem than it used to be. Maybe taking a good hard look at our laws, our regulations, and our mental health system might not do much, but they are the logical places to start even if they don't turn out to be the places we should end up. Just because psychotic people intent on doing harm will "always" find a way to do so doesn't necessarily mean the rest of society should make it easier for them by allowing them access to assault rifles more easily than someone can get an appointment with a counselor.

Complacency in the face of a problem is the surest fire way to keep the problem from ever being minimized. This is as true for deranged lunatics as it is any other problem.


The thing about this tragedy, is that the knee jerk reactions on the part of the folks who fear "gun grabbers" unfortunately make things far more difficult.

There millions of responsible gun owners in this country. Folks who enjoy sport s...hooting, who carry legal concealed carries for various reasons. There are also millions of less than responsible gun owners, who treat their guns as a fetish to hold up against the gub'ment, the Illegals, the Gang Bangers or whatever myth that they have in their heads, but really, just want to have a hogleg at their side so they can feel like a cowboy.

And then we have criminals.

Criminals will kill people if they want. The UK and Japan have stringent restrictions, and yet, they still have murders. Well, Japan has a lot of "missing persons" reports that aren't solved, and the Yakuza invest heavily in building contacts, so infer what you will there. Stringent restrictions on arms didn't really stop a lot of violence in the UK, but it did force folks into peculiar rackets to get them. It put the IRA into the terrorist training business. It got them to make a LOT of bombs. It got them to go overseas to make contacts to smuggle weapons in.

We need to have a frank discussion on reasonable gun control and licensing. Licensing is something not keeping folks from having arms, but it's nice to know who is qualified to use arms, and who has what, just in case.

There are folks who are carrying today who have no business near a weapon of any kind. There are criminals carrying weapons that have never seen a licensed dealer. We take the guns off the streets entirely, folks will find other ways to do each other in, because simply taking arms away won't change the reasons that people turn to violence, and THAT is the discussion that gets lost in these sorts of debates.

Mental health issues, poverty issues, job issues, economic mobility issues, drug and criminal issues, education and access issues. These are what we NEED to discuss when we talk about violent crime. Instead, folks are focusing on the tools used to commit the crimes. Just about any tool can be a weapon if you hold it right. As a chef, I carry to work enough carbon steel to flense down a deer or cow in fair time. More, I have access to the means to make someone disappear within days if I run a few specials, and few would be the wiser, and probably even compliment the results. I have the means, and the opportunity, I don't have a reason. Simply having access doesn't turn folks into killers. People turn to violence for reasons, and we continue to focus on the tools, as opposed to the reasons folks turn to violence. And that is what cripples any real debate on crime.

Gun control issues should be less about the tools, but rather focus on the real issue: crime. Peoples' fear of crime and the reasons people turn to crime. Sadly, as a nation, we're not ready for that discussion really, because that would entail a lot more work than we're really ready for, and that would mean actually solving problems that people profit from greatly...
 
2012-07-22 08:26:07 PM
hubiestubert

I have a sneaking suspicion that you and I said the same thing, you were just more eloquent and colorful.
 
2012-07-22 08:41:12 PM

Kome: hubiestubert

I have a sneaking suspicion that you and I said the same thing, you were just more eloquent and colorful.


lh3.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-07-22 08:45:28 PM
Scripture says he will wipe away every tear from their eyes.

Barrack Obama

circa 2 minutes ago in Aurora.
 
2012-07-22 08:47:54 PM

SN1987a goes boom: bigsteve3OOO: Snatch Bandergrip: bigsteve3OOO: Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.

Ask Osama bin Laden.

Both tried.

[encrypted-tbn2.google.com image 230x219]



Operation Cannonball. Look it up.
 
2012-07-22 08:49:53 PM
Cmon man ise the telkeprompter in speeches. This is embarassong.
 
2012-07-22 08:53:38 PM
i1161.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-22 08:56:17 PM

jmr61: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: I thought Aurora was a gun free zone or something where CCW was not allowed.....due to the Columbine massacre 20 miles away.

Let me guess, you're one of those folks who think that this would've all been prevented if they allowed CCW in cinemas in Aurora.

Because anyone can accurately shoot a guy in a dark and smoky movie theater without harming someone else unintentionally.

*rolls eyes*

Not anyone....some people, sure.

Some groups do live fire training with living hostages sitting in front of paper targets.......

Are you saying it's impossible?

And the chances of someone that skilled being at a cinema in Aurora, CO at midnight are...?

I'm saying it's not realistic.

There were military personnel in the theatre at the time....some might even be victims, but none were armed, and I don;t have access to their dd214's to see if they attended any schools where they might be more proficient in violence of action then normal military personnel.

It could be more realistic then you think.

u skeered?



You were doing fine until this:

[www.grammarics.com image 444x300]


THEN I knew you were an idiot.


Are you an english lit major or something?

Cause I would kill for a large coffee right now.
 
2012-07-22 09:00:42 PM

heypete: /dies a little every time he sees the prices for .30-06.


get a Mosin-Nagant, has the satisfying ***BOOM*** and only hits hard on your shoulder, not your wallet. $98-$160 for the rifle, 17-25 cents per round for the russian surplus it was meant to fire.

available in full length model 91/30 and carbine m-44

ammo typically comes in sealed 440 round spam cans, or wood crates with two spam cans. you will want to buy a crate at first usually, or find a supplier that can guarantee you a can opener (looks like the one on your pocketknife, just much larger) since the openers come in each crate, and so crates always have one, cans have them half the time usually, also you will usually be guaranteed one if you order 2 spam cans, but double check where you order from to make sure, or you might end up with well sealed ammo and nothing to open it with.

other spam cans look more like bricks ans open like sardine cans, these don't need the tool but also look a little flimsy
 
2012-07-22 09:05:45 PM

Frank N Stein: [i1161.photobucket.com image 300x224]


:-)
 
2012-07-22 09:12:55 PM
Dear scumbag daily news

Fark you and the jackass you rode in on. This was a horrfic shooting by a madman and is not something we need to bring politics into.

tittysprinkles, lanadapter

/open letter
//best you're going to get
///fark off
 
2012-07-22 09:16:02 PM

keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: [i1161.photobucket.com image 300x224]

:-)


But seriously, your ideas will never happen. Better to put your mind to actually solving why these crimes happen, as opposed to restricting the tools.
 
2012-07-22 09:18:48 PM
Oh boy! Gun thread!

i79.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-22 09:28:54 PM

Frank N Stein: keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: [i1161.photobucket.com image 300x224]

:-)

But seriously, your ideas will never happen. Better to put your mind to actually solving why these crimes happen, as opposed to restricting the tools.


it's time for people to talk about this. It's time for rational discussion. It's time to ask where the needs actually are and where the "fun to have" accommodated within this reason will happen without it being the guiding factor.

and, yes, I believe our fascination with guns is a primary reason for our high death rate with respect to firearms.
 
2012-07-22 09:39:02 PM

keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: [i1161.photobucket.com image 300x224]

:-)

But seriously, your ideas will never happen. Better to put your mind to actually solving why these crimes happen, as opposed to restricting the tools.

it's time for people to talk about this. It's time for rational discussion. It's time to ask where the needs actually are and where the "fun to have" accommodated within this reason will happen without it being the guiding factor.

and, yes, I believe our fascination with guns is a primary reason for our high death rate with respect to firearms.


Since most gun deaths are gang related, the "fascination" with firearms have little to do with anything. It's mostly drugs and money. Some gangster with a shiatty Hi-Point isn't fascinated with guns so much as he's vying for money, drugs, or power.

The other most common gun death is suicide. Want to ban guns because of suicide? Well, just look at Japan.
 
2012-07-22 09:41:02 PM

Frank N Stein: Since most gun deaths are gang related, the "fascination" with firearms have little to do with anything. It's mostly drugs and money. Some gangster with a shiatty Hi-Point isn't fascinated with guns so much as he's vying for money, drugs, or power.


that seems like a good enough reason.
 
2012-07-22 09:44:01 PM

keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: [i1161.photobucket.com image 300x224]

:-)

But seriously, your ideas will never happen. Better to put your mind to actually solving why these crimes happen, as opposed to restricting the tools.

it's time for people to talk about this. It's time for rational discussion. It's time to ask where the needs actually are and where the "fun to have" accommodated within this reason will happen without it being the guiding factor.

and, yes, I believe our fascination with guns is a primary reason for our high death rate with respect to firearms.


When people are afraid of being terrorized, forcing them to give up the one means they have for self defense probably wont work.
After decades of watching gun control fail to prevent violence, fail to block illegal purchasing, fail to spot the warning signs and fail to deliver on any of the security its proponents promised, some might even think it makes more sense to go in the other direction.

dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-07-22 09:48:39 PM

keithgabryelski: and, yes, I believe our fascination with guns is a primary reason for our high death rate with respect to firearms.


If everybody had respect for our fellow man would our fascination with guns override that brotherly love and force us to shoot eachother?

Most murders stem from arguments. If you put every farker in one room and gave everyone a gun with one bullet, some people would die. People would die if you gave everyone a gallon of gas and a match instead of a gun. It has nothing to do with weapons. It has to do with our lack of respect for one another.
Look at how many people here can't discuss anything without resorting to insults......are they the ones who would torch someone or are they the ones people wind up torching?
 
2012-07-22 09:49:40 PM

way south: When people are afraid of being terrorized, forcing them to give up the one means they have for self defense probably wont work.
After decades of watching gun control fail to prevent violence, fail to block illegal purchasing, fail to spot the warning signs and fail to deliver on any of the security its proponents promised, some might even think it makes more sense to go in the other direction.


no one reasonable believes everyone should have a firearm.

And i'm talking about a complete ban -- at least in cities. That is a completely different thing than partial ban on certain mostly - unused weapons.
 
2012-07-22 09:50:40 PM

Lost Thought 00: HotWingConspiracy: There is quite literally no way to stop them.

Anyone owning more than X guns or rounds of ammunition must submit to annual mental examinations.


That would require money be put in US mental health facilities. Considering I can't walk down Market St without hearing ten different voices gibbering madly to beings only they can see, I'll let you extrapolate how likely that is.

/if we build one less fighter jet, the terrorists win!
 
2012-07-22 09:55:05 PM

Giltric: keithgabryelski: and, yes, I believe our fascination with guns is a primary reason for our high death rate with respect to firearms.

If everybody had respect for our fellow man would our fascination with guns override that brotherly love and force us to shoot eachother?

Most murders stem from arguments. If you put every farker in one room and gave everyone a gun with one bullet, some people would die. People would die if you gave everyone a gallon of gas and a match instead of a gun. It has nothing to do with weapons. It has to do with our lack of respect for one another.
Look at how many people here can't discuss anything without resorting to insults......are they the ones who would torch someone or are they the ones people wind up torching?


there is quite a difference between shooting a gun and stabbing some one.

btw, i haven't heard of one fight breaking out at a fark party.

face to face it quite different than a forum.
 
2012-07-22 09:57:15 PM

keithgabryelski: way south: When people are afraid of being terrorized, forcing them to give up the one means they have for self defense probably wont work.
After decades of watching gun control fail to prevent violence, fail to block illegal purchasing, fail to spot the warning signs and fail to deliver on any of the security its proponents promised, some might even think it makes more sense to go in the other direction.

no one reasonable believes everyone should have a firearm.

And i'm talking about a complete ban -- at least in cities. That is a completely different thing than partial ban on certain mostly - unused weapons.


How would your ban even be remotely effective without essentially creating police state? Your solution is to create another prohibition which will, if any other prohibition is any indication, create even MORE crime and murder. Your cure is worse than the symptom.


Seriously, do you not see that? Your
 
2012-07-22 10:03:21 PM

Frank N Stein: How would your ban even be remotely effective without essentially creating police state? Your solution is to create another prohibition which will, if any other prohibition is any indication, create even MORE crime and murder. Your cure is worse than the symptom.

Seriously, do you not see that? Your


prohibition of alcohol is completely different than guns.

if automatic weapons ban works reasonably, why not apply it to handguns? all guns?
 
2012-07-22 10:11:00 PM

keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: How would your ban even be remotely effective without essentially creating police state? Your solution is to create another prohibition which will, if any other prohibition is any indication, create even MORE crime and murder. Your cure is worse than the symptom.

Seriously, do you not see that? Your

prohibition of alcohol is completely different than guns.

if automatic weapons ban works reasonably, why not apply it to handguns? all guns?


Because there's over 200 million guns in this country. And zip guns can be made easily.
Congrats, you just created a black market for something that is saturated everywhere, not to mentioned take unprecedented liberties with the constitution (if your plan is to have any teeth). You also most likely gave rise to armed resistance, causing even more deaths to go along with the black market and perpetuatig even more of a police state. That's what a gun ban will do.

Your flawless logic amazes me.
 
2012-07-22 10:15:40 PM

keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: How would your ban even be remotely effective without essentially creating police state? Your solution is to create another prohibition which will, if any other prohibition is any indication, create even MORE crime and murder. Your cure is worse than the symptom.

Seriously, do you not see that? Your

prohibition of alcohol is completely different than guns.

if automatic weapons ban works reasonably, why not apply it to handguns? all guns?


Because, as the North Hollywood shootout and other incidents have shown, it didn't work.
Long arms cause the minority of all firearm death and fully automatic weapons were an extreme minority of those. Yet criminals are still getting them.

They applied the ideals of Alcohol prohibition to stopping the flow of drugs, thinking that maybe it would work this time.
Billions of dollars down the tube, hundreds of thousands of lives destroyed, and a stalemated war later, it didn't work.

Find a prohibition that works before you suggest its so simple as "trying harder".
 
2012-07-22 10:17:27 PM

Frank N Stein: keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: How would your ban even be remotely effective without essentially creating police state? Your solution is to create another prohibition which will, if any other prohibition is any indication, create even MORE crime and murder. Your cure is worse than the symptom.

Seriously, do you not see that? Your

prohibition of alcohol is completely different than guns.

if automatic weapons ban works reasonably, why not apply it to handguns? all guns?

Because there's over 200 million guns in this country. And zip guns can be made easily.
Congrats, you just created a black market for something that is saturated everywhere, not to mentioned take unprecedented liberties with the constitution (if your plan is to have any teeth). You also most likely gave rise to armed resistance, causing even more deaths to go along with the black market and perpetuatig even more of a police state. That's what a gun ban will do.

Your flawless logic amazes me.


you should read my statements.

I think we should have an honest discussion -- start now about the needs and wants for guns.

and we need to change the hearts and minds of the people with regard to this.

and we should move to an amendment of the 2nd.

Armed resistance because of gun restrictions is not a reasonable act -- if you think it is, you are part of the problem.

You have no right of insurrection.

yes, this will take time -- but it is time to talk and move on this subject.
 
2012-07-22 10:19:08 PM

keithgabryelski: there is quite a difference between shooting a gun and stabbing some one.


Especially when alot of statistics include suicide as a death by firearm.

But if you look atthe fbi stats on crime..Link you'll see that people are dicks. They already use other objects more often then firearms. Without firearms people will still be dicks....the numbers for firearms would just be represented by a different inanimate object.
 
2012-07-22 10:19:39 PM

way south: keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: How would your ban even be remotely effective without essentially creating police state? Your solution is to create another prohibition which will, if any other prohibition is any indication, create even MORE crime and murder. Your cure is worse than the symptom.

Seriously, do you not see that? Your

prohibition of alcohol is completely different than guns.

if automatic weapons ban works reasonably, why not apply it to handguns? all guns?

Because, as the North Hollywood shootout and other incidents have shown, it didn't work.
Long arms cause the minority of all firearm death and fully automatic weapons were an extreme minority of those. Yet criminals are still getting them.

They applied the ideals of Alcohol prohibition to stopping the flow of drugs, thinking that maybe it would work this time.
Billions of dollars down the tube, hundreds of thousands of lives destroyed, and a stalemated war later, it didn't work.

Find a prohibition that works before you suggest its so simple as "trying harder".


Also keep in mind that before the ban, there was a total of 2 deaths from legally owned machine guns. The ban is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
 
2012-07-22 10:23:23 PM

keithgabryelski: no one reasonable believes everyone should have a firearm.

And i'm talking about a complete ban -- at least in cities. That is a completely different thing than partial ban on certain mostly - unused weapons.


Some very reasonable nations do believe this because they have to deal with threats of terrorism and invasion.
The reason is that if you are suffering from random acts of internal chaos, you have to be prepared to respond.

Putting the guns away, so that only the minority of terrorists and criminals can continue to use them unopposed, wont bring the peace you are looking for.
 
2012-07-22 10:26:54 PM

keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: How would your ban even be remotely effective without essentially creating police state? Your solution is to create another prohibition which will, if any other prohibition is any indication, create even MORE crime and murder. Your cure is worse than the symptom.

Seriously, do you not see that? Your

prohibition of alcohol is completely different than guns.

if automatic weapons ban works reasonably, why not apply it to handguns? all guns?

Because there's over 200 million guns in this country. And zip guns can be made easily.
Congrats, you just created a black market for something that is saturated everywhere, not to mentioned take unprecedented liberties with the constitution (if your plan is to have any teeth). You also most likely gave rise to armed resistance, causing even more deaths to go along with the black market and perpetuatig even more of a police state. That's what a gun ban will do.

Your flawless logic amazes me.

you should read my statements.

I think we should have an honest discussion -- start now about the needs and wants for guns.

and we need to change the hearts and minds of the people with regard to this.

and we should move to an amendment of the 2nd.

Armed resistance because of gun restrictions is not a reasonable act -- if you think it is, you are part of the problem.

You have no right of insurrection.

yes, this will take time -- but it is time to talk and move on this subject.


You are an enemy of freedom. I'll sleep well knowing that your kind is in the fringe minority and your dangerous anti-freedom ideas will never gain traction.

That may seem like hyperbole, but I mean it. You want to create a police state because less than 1%. Your talk of "changing hearts and minds" would be nothing but a propaganda campaign to support the police state.

Move to North Korea or something. They have strict gun control and an all powerful government. You'd like it there.
 
2012-07-22 10:30:01 PM

keithgabryelski: You have no right of insurrection.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Sure we do. We were born from an insurrection.
 
2012-07-22 10:36:16 PM

way south: keithgabryelski: no one reasonable believes everyone should have a firearm.

And i'm talking about a complete ban -- at least in cities. That is a completely different thing than partial ban on certain mostly - unused weapons.

Some very reasonable nations do believe this because they have to deal with threats of terrorism and invasion.
The reason is that if you are suffering from random acts of internal chaos, you have to be prepared to respond.

Putting the guns away, so that only the minority of terrorists and criminals can continue to use them unopposed, wont bring the peace you are looking for.


a fallacy that has plagued us: if you don't have a bigger weapon than criminals will rule the state.

that doesn't seem to exist in reality.

in any case, reality must set it in someday:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea t h_rate

let's talk. talk about guns. talk about needs.
 
2012-07-22 10:41:08 PM

keithgabryelski: way south: keithgabryelski: no one reasonable believes everyone should have a firearm.

And i'm talking about a complete ban -- at least in cities. That is a completely different thing than partial ban on certain mostly - unused weapons.

Some very reasonable nations do believe this because they have to deal with threats of terrorism and invasion.
The reason is that if you are suffering from random acts of internal chaos, you have to be prepared to respond.

Putting the guns away, so that only the minority of terrorists and criminals can continue to use them unopposed, wont bring the peace you are looking for.

a fallacy that has plagued us: if you don't have a bigger weapon than criminals will rule the state.

that doesn't seem to exist in reality.

in any case, reality must set it in someday:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea t h_rate

let's talk. talk about guns. talk about needs.


Canada has almost as many guns as the US (with increasingly loosening regulations) yet much less gun deaths.

This destroys your "less guns less crime" theory.

/did your keyboard cause you to post such rediculous ideas?
//do guns cause crime?
 
2012-07-22 10:45:29 PM

keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: How would your ban even be remotely effective without essentially creating police state? Your solution is to create another prohibition which will, if any other prohibition is any indication, create even MORE crime and murder. Your cure is worse than the symptom.

Seriously, do you not see that? Your

prohibition of alcohol is completely different than guns.

if automatic weapons ban works reasonably, why not apply it to handguns? all guns?

Because there's over 200 million guns in this country. And zip guns can be made easily.
Congrats, you just created a black market for something that is saturated everywhere, not to mentioned take unprecedented liberties with the constitution (if your plan is to have any teeth). You also most likely gave rise to armed resistance, causing even more deaths to go along with the black market and perpetuatig even more of a police state. That's what a gun ban will do.

Your flawless logic amazes me.

you should read my statements.

I think we should have an honest discussion -- start now about the needs and wants for guns.

and we need to change the hearts and minds of the people with regard to this.

and we should move to an amendment of the 2nd.

Armed resistance because of gun restrictions is not a reasonable act -- if you think it is, you are part of the problem.

You have no right of insurrection.

yes, this will take time -- but it is time to talk and move on this subject.


Please explain, specifically, how you will attain sufficient support for a repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Please explain, specifically, how all currently lawfully possessed firearms will be confiscated from their civilian owners. Explain how this confiscation will be enforced and explain how owners will be compensated for the loss of their property and for reimbursement of any fees paid for permits relating to that confiscated property, including concealed weapons permits.

Please explain, specifically, how you will guarantee the security and the safety of all newly disarmed civilians, having removed a viable means of defense from them.
 
2012-07-22 10:47:14 PM

Frank N Stein: You are an enemy of freedom. I'll sleep well knowing that your kind is in the fringe minority and your dangerous anti-freedom ideas will never gain traction.

That may seem like hyperbole, but I mean it. You want to create a police state because less than 1%. Your talk of "changing hearts and minds" would be nothing but a propaganda campaign to support the police state.

Move to North Korea or something. They have strict gun control and an all powerful government. You'd like it there.


that's a little harsh -- I love this country and am not moving. I do however vote -- and I will use my verbal skills to convince others.

You will post pictures of bullets and a gun shaped in a moderately threatening message.

Who here is the enemy of freedom? (see how that works when you take an extreme view?)

Changing hearts and minds might be just educating people as to what they need and don't need.

helmut use for children on bicycles, skate boards, and roller blades is up -- the idea of "freedom" is outweighed by the insanity of head injuries on 10 year olds.

seat belt use -- up.

smoking in public places? it's not a police state when most people agree with the law.
 
2012-07-22 10:48:46 PM

Dimensio: Please explain, specifically, how you will attain sufficient support for a repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Please explain, specifically, how all currently lawfully possessed firearms will be confiscated from their civilian owners. Explain how this confiscation will be enforced and explain how owners will be compensated for the loss of their property and for reimbursement of any fees paid for permits relating to that confiscated property, including concealed weapons permits.

Please explain, specifically, how you will guarantee the security and the safety of all newly disarmed civilians, having removed a viable means of defense from them.


has this not been done in a modern society many times?
 
2012-07-22 10:50:58 PM

keithgabryelski: Dimensio: Please explain, specifically, how you will attain sufficient support for a repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Please explain, specifically, how all currently lawfully possessed firearms will be confiscated from their civilian owners. Explain how this confiscation will be enforced and explain how owners will be compensated for the loss of their property and for reimbursement of any fees paid for permits relating to that confiscated property, including concealed weapons permits.

Please explain, specifically, how you will guarantee the security and the safety of all newly disarmed civilians, having removed a viable means of defense from them.

has this not been done in a modern society many times?


I am unaware of any previous occurrence of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution being repealed in "modern society". You have addressed none of my questions.
 
2012-07-22 10:51:53 PM

Giltric: keithgabryelski: You have no right of insurrection.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Sure we do. We were born from an insurrection.


we have lawful remedies to alter our governments course.

We gave up our right of insurrection when our founding fathers signed the constitution.
 
2012-07-22 10:52:30 PM

Dimensio: I am unaware of any previous occurrence of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution being repealed in "modern society". You have addressed none of my questions.


in other countries.
 
2012-07-22 10:53:18 PM

keithgabryelski: Dimensio: I am unaware of any previous occurrence of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution being repealed in "modern society". You have addressed none of my questions.

in other countries.


How could any other country repeal the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

You have still addressed none of my questions.
 
2012-07-22 10:59:05 PM

Dimensio: keithgabryelski: Dimensio: I am unaware of any previous occurrence of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution being repealed in "modern society". You have addressed none of my questions.

in other countries.

How could any other country repeal the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

You have still addressed none of my questions.


has any modern nation ... oh geezus where the hell is my beer
 
2012-07-22 11:01:17 PM

keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: You are an enemy of freedom. I'll sleep well knowing that your kind is in the fringe minority and your dangerous anti-freedom ideas will never gain traction.

That may seem like hyperbole, but I mean it. You want to create a police state because less than 1%. Your talk of "changing hearts and minds" would be nothing but a propaganda campaign to support the police state.

Move to North Korea or something. They have strict gun control and an all powerful government. You'd like it there.

that's a little harsh -- I love this country and am not moving. I do however vote -- and I will use my verbal skills to convince others.

You will post pictures of bullets and a gun shaped in a moderately threatening message.

Who here is the enemy of freedom? (see how that works when you take an extreme view?)

Changing hearts and minds might be just educating people as to what they need and don't need.

helmut use for children on bicycles, skate boards, and roller blades is up -- the idea of "freedom" is outweighed by the insanity of head injuries on 10 year olds.

seat belt use -- up.

smoking in public places? it's not a police state when most people agree with the law.


That is possibly the stupidest thing I've heard on Fark. Even dumber than most Teabagger derp. In fact, you match the Teabaggers' stereotype of "liberals" so well, I'm half convinced you're a false flag troll. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and just assume that you are a complete, utter moron who just happens to be on the extreme left fringe rather than the extreme right.
 
2012-07-22 11:02:13 PM

keithgabryelski: Dimensio: keithgabryelski: Dimensio: I am unaware of any previous occurrence of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution being repealed in "modern society". You have addressed none of my questions.

in other countries.

How could any other country repeal the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

You have still addressed none of my questions.

has any modern nation ... oh geezus where the hell is my beer


You continue to respond, yet you have failed to actually address my questions.

If you are unable to explain the logistics of implementation of your proposal, then no reason exists to consider your proposal to be of any merit.
 
2012-07-22 11:07:25 PM

keithgabryelski: Giltric: keithgabryelski: You have no right of insurrection.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Sure we do. We were born from an insurrection.

we have lawful remedies to alter our governments course.

We gave up our right of insurrection when our founding fathers signed the constitution.


Well the constitution is outdated right? Why hide behind it now, oh fair weather friend of freedom......
 
2012-07-22 11:07:59 PM

keithgabryelski: that doesn't seem to exist in reality.


Actually it has existed in many states in the past.
Which is where the second amendment and things like mandatory conscription came from. The constant need to be prepared, inside and out, because a nations enemies can be as insidious as they are plentiful.

The US isn't dealing with anything new, we just give it more technical descriptions.

/There is one noteworthy European superpower that repealed its citizens rights to self defense in the 1930's.
/Very popular government. The people agreed with everything its leadership suggested.
/...Didn't end well.
 
2012-07-22 11:08:50 PM

LordJiro: smoking in public places? it's not a police state when most people agree with the law.

That is possibly the stupidest thing I've heard on Fark. Even dumber than most Teabagger derp. In fact, you match the Teabaggers' stereotype of "liberals" so well, I'm half convinced you're a false flag troll. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and just assume that you are a complete, utter moron who just happens to be on the extreme left fringe rather than the extreme right.


What I like the most is you don't actually describe what your reasoning is.

My point: a police state (as generally defined) is the antithesis of a democratic state where people chose to restrict their rights and have remedies of repeal.

You just want to spit bile -- go right on.
 
2012-07-22 11:09:51 PM

Dimensio: keithgabryelski: Dimensio: keithgabryelski: Dimensio: I am unaware of any previous occurrence of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution being repealed in "modern society". You have addressed none of my questions.

in other countries.

How could any other country repeal the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

You have still addressed none of my questions.

has any modern nation ... oh geezus where the hell is my beer

You continue to respond, yet you have failed to actually address my questions.

If you are unable to explain the logistics of implementation of your proposal, then no reason exists to consider your proposal to be of any merit.


you and I are done. I've answered your questions in previous messages and directly, twice -- you refuse to take context into account with my response, I don't believe you actually wish to discuss these points.

good day.
 
2012-07-22 11:11:42 PM

keithgabryelski: Dimensio: keithgabryelski: Dimensio: keithgabryelski: Dimensio: I am unaware of any previous occurrence of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution being repealed in "modern society". You have addressed none of my questions.

in other countries.

How could any other country repeal the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

You have still addressed none of my questions.

has any modern nation ... oh geezus where the hell is my beer

You continue to respond, yet you have failed to actually address my questions.

If you are unable to explain the logistics of implementation of your proposal, then no reason exists to consider your proposal to be of any merit.

you and I are done. I've answered your questions in previous messages and directly, twice -- you refuse to take context into account with my response, I don't believe you actually wish to discuss these points.

good day.


You have, in fact, failed to provide any explanation of the means by which all firearms would be effectively confiscated and their owners compensated in full. Your claim that you have addressed my questions is, therefore, a lie. Consequently, you are a liar and your claims are not credible. Your dishonesty is consistent with my observation that advocates of civilian disarmament, which you have acknowledged yourself to be, are frequently ill-informed, dishonest or irrational.
 
2012-07-22 11:12:01 PM

Giltric:

Well the constitution is outdated right? Why hide behind it now, oh fair weather friend of freedom......


i know you're just poking .. but let me say:

just like states can not opt-out of the union -- you are not permitted to overthrow this government by force.

there are remedies to disagreement, you must use them.
 
2012-07-22 11:13:18 PM

hubiestubert: Criminals will kill people if they want. The UK and Japan have stringent restrictions, and yet, they still have murders. Well, Japan has a lot of "missing persons" reports that aren't solved, and the Yakuza invest heavily in building contacts, so infer what you will there. Stringent restrictions on arms didn't really stop a lot of violence in the UK, but it did force folks into peculiar rackets to get them. It put the IRA into the terrorist training business. It got them to make a LOT of bombs. It got them to go overseas to make contacts to smuggle weapons in.


This is just another application of the 80/20 rule. 20% of the people cause 80% of the problems. Career criminals are not the majority of people in America; and they will find a way to kill people if their job is killing. If they cannot get guns, then they'll use knives; take away the knives and they'll use clubs. The majority of people who use guns to kill other people--the 80% of killers--don't kill more than that one person. If they don't get caught, odds are they'll never kill again. (Example: John List murdered his entire family, and was caught 18 years later, having never had an encounter with the police since the murders)

So just "banning guns" is never going to stop either the career criminals--who kill for a living--or the majority of people who kill one person and never again in their lives. Only addressing the real issues will stop the problem.
 
2012-07-22 11:13:31 PM

way south: keithgabryelski: that doesn't seem to exist in reality.

Actually it has existed in many states in the past.
Which is where the second amendment and things like mandatory conscription came from. The constant need to be prepared, inside and out, because a nations enemies can be as insidious as they are plentiful.

The US isn't dealing with anything new, we just give it more technical descriptions.

/There is one noteworthy European superpower that repealed its citizens rights to self defense in the 1930's.
/Very popular government. The people agreed with everything its leadership suggested.
/...Didn't end well.


start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Pisto l s_Act_1903
 
2012-07-22 11:25:06 PM

keithgabryelski: start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Pisto l s_Act_1903


Ooh, an attempted info-spam of things I've already read... Which should have lead you to the 1938 German weapons act that banned Jews from gun ownership. Nice laws they got.
Well the important thing is that banning weapons from places like the British isles would lead to stopping terrorists and criminals from causing incidents.

/Except for all the parts where it didn't.
/Meanwhile, in Switzerland...
 
2012-07-22 11:32:11 PM

way south: keithgabryelski: start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Pisto l s_Act_1903

Ooh, an attempted info-spam of things I've already read... Which should have lead you to the 1938 German weapons act that banned Jews from gun ownership. Nice laws they got.
Well the important thing is that banning weapons from places like the British isles would lead to stopping terrorists and criminals from causing incidents.

/Except for all the parts where it didn't.
/Meanwhile, in Switzerland...


keithgabryelski has already established himself to be dishonest. His initial claim of an annual firearm-related homicide rate of 90,000 incidents per year in the United States of America demonstrates an unwillingness to conduct basic research regarding the subject that he is attempting to address. His failure to reassess his position following being informed of his substantial error is evidence that reality is not a basis for his advocacy of civilian disarmament.
 
2012-07-22 11:42:11 PM

Gyrfalcon: hubiestubert: Criminals will kill people if they want. The UK and Japan have stringent restrictions, and yet, they still have murders. Well, Japan has a lot of "missing persons" reports that aren't solved, and the Yakuza invest heavily in building contacts, so infer what you will there. Stringent restrictions on arms didn't really stop a lot of violence in the UK, but it did force folks into peculiar rackets to get them. It put the IRA into the terrorist training business. It got them to make a LOT of bombs. It got them to go overseas to make contacts to smuggle weapons in.

This is just another application of the 80/20 rule. 20% of the people cause 80% of the problems. Career criminals are not the majority of people in America; and they will find a way to kill people if their job is killing. If they cannot get guns, then they'll use knives; take away the knives and they'll use clubs. The majority of people who use guns to kill other people--the 80% of killers--don't kill more than that one person. If they don't get caught, odds are they'll never kill again. (Example: John List murdered his entire family, and was caught 18 years later, having never had an encounter with the police since the murders)

So just "banning guns" is never going to stop either the career criminals--who kill for a living--or the majority of people who kill one person and never again in their lives. Only addressing the real issues will stop the problem.


Very much so. Until America comes to grip with what is causing folks to turn to crime, and violent crime, we are going to have problems. It is in part cultural, it is in part alienation from our fellow citizens, but it has a LOT to do with economic conditions.

The military spends a lot of time and effort in training young men, and now young women, to kill. Social apes that we are, it takes a bit to get us to really hurt one another. There is scuffling, there is adrenaline, there are accidents, but people have to really be motivated to really hurt one another under normal conditions. You can train that away, and oddly enough, we often accidentally train folks, or give them strong enough motivation to overcome that inhibition. You can train kids from an early age away from those inhibitions. You can train young men and women as well, but societal conditions often arise that wear those away as well, and that is more the issue, that we are wearing down those inhibitions early and often with societal conditions that make violence a survival trait, and thus makes good sense to inculcate.

One of my crew was fairly well trained. He was a brawler, he was a big guy. He mixed it up fairly often, but because he was a big guy, he held back often. He broke a guy's arm in dust up at the bar. He had a guy in a lock, and the guy tried to wrench free, and wound up breaking his own arm. To his credit, my boy held it together to get the guy to the EMTs and then promptly went out back, threw up, and quit that night. There was a line that he was just not prepared to go to. Most folks have one. You have to train that away in most folks, and if you don't, there is something really wrong with that person. We have those inhibitions for a reason. As a society, we keep training young men and women away from those inhibitions, and then are surprised when they act.

We need to stop training them inadvertently. We need to address the underlying issues that cause our monkey brains to kick in and start shoving back against rival troops, or preying on our own for goodies.
 
2012-07-22 11:43:36 PM

way south: keithgabryelski: start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Pisto l s_Act_1903

Ooh, an attempted info-spam of things I've already read... Which should have lead you to the 1938 German weapons act that banned Jews from gun ownership. Nice laws they got.
Well the important thing is that banning weapons from places like the British isles would lead to stopping terrorists and criminals from causing incidents.

/Except for all the parts where it didn't.
/Meanwhile, in Switzerland...


i wasn't attempting to be snide. maybe the "start here" wasn't the right thing to say.

my point:
Britain did this without armed insurrection. Ireland was an occupied zone, in essence -- i don't count it.
 
2012-07-22 11:58:32 PM
To all the people (well I lost track if it was one or several) arguing for more gun control

Have you ever been target shooting at a range? Or trap shooting? Have you ever fired a gun at all? Don't you think you should try it before you decide unanimously to take away everyone's rights? Heck if anyone who is against guns lives near the Bay Area, CA, I would invite you to come shooting my "EVIL" AR-15 and handguns if you want.
 
2012-07-22 11:59:39 PM

StoneColdAtheist: Familiar enough to know that the United States does not operate under European law (ignoring the fact that I've been practically everywhere in western Europe and literally spent years of my life there).

But speaking of "never heard of" something, you seem to have never heard that a private right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution. Or is the document "just a piece of paper" to you?


Oh, keep in mind that all I said was that I would be in favor of a nationwide gun ban --I said nothing about how it would be enacted. If the proper legal channels were to deem that an amendment to the Constitution is necessary for such a ban to take place, then I would advocate making such an amendment before enacting the ban.
 
2012-07-23 12:12:45 AM

SCUBA_Archer: To all the people (well I lost track if it was one or several) arguing for more gun control

Have you ever been target shooting at a range? Or trap shooting? Have you ever fired a gun at all? Don't you think you should try it before you decide unanimously to take away everyone's rights? Heck if anyone who is against guns lives near the Bay Area, CA, I would invite you to come shooting my "EVIL" AR-15 and handguns if you want.


yes.

and when I next go to SF -- i'll ring you up.

My position doesn't mean I don't find guns beautiful mechanical devices and just darn fun.
 
2012-07-23 12:47:00 AM

SCUBA_Archer: To all the people (well I lost track if it was one or several) arguing for more gun control

Have you ever been target shooting at a range? Or trap shooting? Have you ever fired a gun at all? Don't you think you should try it before you decide unanimously to take away everyone's rights? Heck if anyone who is against guns lives near the Bay Area, CA, I would invite you to come shooting my "EVIL" AR-15 and handguns if you want.


I'm FOR gun ownership, but I never got to try an AR. OK if I come by?
 
2012-07-23 01:11:42 AM

SCUBA_Archer: To all the people (well I lost track if it was one or several) arguing for more gun control

Have you ever been target shooting at a range? Or trap shooting? Have you ever fired a gun at all? Don't you think you should try it before you decide unanimously to take away everyone's rights? Heck if anyone who is against guns lives near the Bay Area, CA, I would invite you to come shooting my "EVIL" AR-15 and handguns if you want.



To all the people arguing for a repeal of current gun regulations (more specifically the ones on my facebook page posting unprovoked statuses--independent of a discussion-- defending their 2nd amendment rights):

Have you ever lost a friend or loved one to a deranged idiot wielding a firearm? Don't you think you should show a little empathy towards those that have (and JUST DID), and STFU? If there are any of you out there in the Aurora, CO area, I'm sure the parents of the dead 6-year-old will invite you to the funeral.
 
2012-07-23 01:24:37 AM

keithgabryelski: Britain did this without armed insurrection. Ireland was an occupied zone, in essence -- i don't count it.


"This plan works if you don't count the fact that it spread terrorism and set the city ablaze several times"
...Not Disingenuous at all.

The British gun ownership rates were always low and it never prevented a tragedy.
Their mistreatment of subjects was also a bone of contention with the Americans, if you recall. Its not a model we want to follow.

/Meanwhile Israel, with its armed conscripts roaming the streets, can hold its own in a far worst neighborhood.
/Put a few Muslims in London and they start torching the place.
 
2012-07-23 01:32:09 AM

teeny: Have you ever lost a friend or loved one to a deranged idiot wielding a firearm? Don't you think you should show a little empathy towards those that have (and JUST DID), and STFU? If there are any of you out there in the Aurora, CO area, I'm sure the parents of the dead 6-year-old will invite you to the funeral.


Actually I have lost a friend to gun violence. It sucks, but it didn't change my mind about respecting constitutional rights.
...But don't let that stop you from making a one sided emotional argument to capitalize on someone elses pain for your personal political gain.

/Remember after 9/11 when people did that to push through the patriot act?
/Remember what a bad idea that turned out to be?
/When did it become a good idea?
 
2012-07-23 01:38:56 AM

teeny: SCUBA_Archer: To all the people (well I lost track if it was one or several) arguing for more gun control

Have you ever been target shooting at a range? Or trap shooting? Have you ever fired a gun at all? Don't you think you should try it before you decide unanimously to take away everyone's rights? Heck if anyone who is against guns lives near the Bay Area, CA, I would invite you to come shooting my "EVIL" AR-15 and handguns if you want.


To all the people arguing for a repeal of current gun regulations (more specifically the ones on my facebook page posting unprovoked statuses--independent of a discussion-- defending their 2nd amendment rights):

Have you ever lost a friend or loved one to a deranged idiot wielding a firearm? Don't you think you should show a little empathy towards those that have (and JUST DID), and STFU? If there are any of you out there in the Aurora, CO area, I'm sure the parents of the dead 6-year-old will invite you to the funeral.


Ah, the Think of the CHILDREN! argument that gets all manners of censorship and draconian measures passed.
 
2012-07-23 01:57:14 AM
This just in. Criminals do not follow the law, whether they be gun laws or laws on murder. Any idiot who makes that claim is just a goddam fool...and I include the author of this article.
 
2012-07-23 03:11:52 AM

CheapEngineer: That's all wonderful - I just have one question.

Why?


Why not? I find shooting to be a fun hobby. Competitions are also enjoyable, even though I routinely do relatively poorly -- I can't train as often as I'd like and many of the other shooters are considerably more skilled than I.

I mean, besides "cause it's cool", because frankly Stinger missiles are cool as well, but for some reason the govt won't let me have those either.

That's not really a fair comparison. The difference between a rifle and an anti-aircraft missile is enormous. The difference between an AR-15 and other common semi-auto rifles is essentially nil.

Seriously. I have a couple of guns, left by my father. They're neat gadgets, and I can see the interest in collecting and firing them at targets. I can even see the interest in having one around the house for security purposes, even though I 1) doubt I'll be near the gun when the shyt hits the fan and 2) would probably do more harm than good if I had it.

Ok, so we're essentially in agreement: collecting can be interesting and firing at targets are fun.

Much like people with Big-Ass dogs, *their* dog is a harmless little mushball but *everyone elses* dog had been abused to the point they kill anything that moves.

Dogs have a will of their own and can act on their own accord. They can be trained (or abused) to behave independently in certain ways. Even mild-mannered dogs can have a bad day, get overwhelmed, and bite.

Guns are inanimate pieces of metal, wood, and/or plastic with no will of their own. The responsibility for their use lies entirely with the user.

Does your need for unfettered access to guns and ammo overshadow any responsibility that having that kind of access enables the nutbags of the world to do?

I also have essentially unlimited access (within the bounds of my personal finances, of course) to fast vehicles and alcoholic beverages. I enjoy driving (while sober, of course) and drinking responsibly. My desire for cars and alcohol to be available to the public doesn't mean that I'm "enabling" drunk drivers or am responsible in any way for their totally independent actions.

Other countries have high levels of gun ownership -- I've cited Switzerland and their government issuing full-auto assault rifles to essentially every adult male as an example -- and much lower rates of violent crime, including mass shootings.

There have been various restrictions on firearms in the US in the past, such as the 1994-2004 AWB and various state-level laws, but those laws have had essentially no effect on violent crime. Lawful ownership of firearms in Chicago and Washington DC is very tightly controlled (so much so that people sued DC over the restrictions, took the case to the Supreme Court, and won.) and yet violent crime there is extraordinarily high.

This implies that violent crime is dependent on some factor other than mere access to violent crime. I think we, as a society, would be better of trying to fix that factor rather than trying to treat a symptom.

Because I am willing to stipulate gun training requirements, and special permits/interviews for unusual weapons *because* I don't believe being *careful* with dangerous toys is "stepping on my Gog given Rights".

Well, "unusual weapons" like machine guns, private artillery, explosives, etc. are already tightly regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. There's nothing really unusual, uncommon, or particularly dangerous about AR-15s and other semi-auto rifles.

I'm a big fan of training. I spent a few years in the army (though that had surprisingly little small arms training; I was a 19K tank crewman, so the emphasis in training was on the tank's weapons systems). I've also sought out private instruction, though I really should go back for more once I return to the US. I'm not really sure how I feel about mandatory training for common off-the-shelf guns, though: firearms-related accidental injuries and deaths are already at a historically low value and continue to decrease, suggesting that basic familiarity with guns isn't really an issue.

Still, it's a reasonable suggestion that is plausible, particularly compared to the "OMG BAN ALL GUNS" calls.

YMMV

Indeed.
 
2012-07-23 03:17:15 AM

way south:
/Put a few Muslims in London and they start torching the place.


not for nuthin': that's a disgusting thing to say.
 
2012-07-23 06:19:26 AM

Giltric:

I'd agree with the mental eval to determine if somoene was hypothetically willing to take another life based on purchases....as long as you are ok with a mental eval where a person is set on taking another life....like with abortion.


hang on, do we let the nutters have the kid or do we force them to have the abortion.

This argument confuses me
 
2012-07-23 07:05:22 AM

keithgabryelski: way south:
/Put a few Muslims in London and they start torching the place.

not for nuthin': that's a disgusting thing to say.


But its not untrue, is it?
London sits apart from the usual European chaos and has a relatively stable population. Lots of money, functional leadership system, modern socialisms and everything you should expect from an enlightened first world nation. You'd think life would be simple there but they still have riots over things like immigration issues, and bombings caused by unhappy subjects. They didn't see an end to violence after their knee-jerk gun ban.
That promise turned out to be a lie.

You can move ten times the number of Muslims, Mexicans, Asians or what have you into the US and we barely notice.
Israel sits on the rim of the worlds Anus and has to deal with a large chunk of the population actively hating on its government.
Switzerland decided to pop its tent right next to Europes most violent crossroads and it had to put up with centuries of war.

You look at the worlds last superpower and suggest it would be better if we took apart its system and restructured it in the image of a less successful nation. You should be able to see why many people won't agree to that.
If they don't agree, how do you plan to persuade them?
...by force?
 
2012-07-23 07:24:17 AM
Twelve killed.

Memorial Day weekend.

Chicago.

*crickets*

Obama hates black people.
 
2012-07-23 08:00:32 AM

bigsteve3OOO: Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.


one's only half white
 
2012-07-23 08:37:41 AM

way south: keithgabryelski: way south:
/Put a few Muslims in London and they start torching the place.

not for nuthin': that's a disgusting thing to say.

But its not untrue, is it?
London sits apart from the usual European chaos and has a relatively stable population. Lots of money, functional leadership system, modern socialisms and everything you should expect from an enlightened first world nation. You'd think life would be simple there but they still have riots over things like immigration issues, and bombings caused by unhappy subjects. They didn't see an end to violence after their knee-jerk gun ban.
That promise turned out to be a lie.


Are you saying the Bradford riots happened in London? Or saying that the riots of 2001 (which were in the North) are still happening today?

Or that these riots had ANYTHING to do with gun laws?

cause it sounds like you are...
 
2012-07-23 09:19:24 AM

thisone: Are you saying the Bradford riots happened in London? Or saying that the riots of 2001 (which were in the North) are still happening today?


Actually I'm implying that quite a few incidents have happened during these last few decades despite the governments implementation of stricter gun control on a populace that was already not big on gun ownership.

In short: Gun control was a charade.
 
2012-07-23 09:30:45 AM

way south: thisone: Are you saying the Bradford riots happened in London? Or saying that the riots of 2001 (which were in the North) are still happening today?

Actually I'm implying that quite a few incidents have happened during these last few decades despite the governments implementation of stricter gun control on a populace that was already not big on gun ownership.

In short: Gun control was a charade.


That list is more or less bombing plots by the PIRA and RIRA. I don't really know what point you are trying to make here.
 
2012-07-23 09:38:04 AM
Now it appears that the murderer of Colorado-born American Abdulrahman al-Awlaki is going to Colorado to comfort the victims and their families. Isn't that special.
 
2012-07-23 09:40:40 AM

Halli: That list is more or less bombing plots by the PIRA and RIRA. I don't really know what point you are trying to make here.


Ahh, my bad.
I forgot that we don't count terrorism as being related to "violence" round these parts.
 
2012-07-23 10:27:39 AM
Its rather obvious that the terminal crazies like this crave the attention that they get from the news outlets. Their exploits will be on the front page of every newspaper and be on every 24 news channel program for the next week or two.

I think the obvious solution is to make it a federal felony offense to publish/air the name image or rantings of people that do this shiat so that they get no damned attention. They should be given orwellian unperson status. But hey I guess infringing the 1st ammendment is completely out of the question to those who are gung ho about infringing the 2nd.
 
2012-07-23 10:43:58 AM

way south: Halli: That list is more or less bombing plots by the PIRA and RIRA. I don't really know what point you are trying to make here.

Ahh, my bad.
I forgot that we don't count terrorism as being related to "violence" round these parts.


Well why was there so much violence in that region?

Surely it has to stem from something....maybe the Plantation of Ulster....seizing crops from an entire country....

There seems to be violence against England wherever she tried to meddle.....good for them. Fark the crown.

Sure, the army came to visit me, 'twas in the early hours,
with Saladins and Saracens and Ferret armoured cars.
They thought they had me cornered, but I gave them all a fright
with the armour-piercing bullets of my little armalite.
 
2012-07-23 11:09:40 AM

RolandGunner: SN1987a goes boom: bigsteve3OOO: Snatch Bandergrip: bigsteve3OOO: Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.

Ask Osama bin Laden.

Both tried.

[encrypted-tbn2.google.com image 230x219]


Operation Cannonball. Look it up.


That isn't helping Steve's case much. From what I can see, it was a clusterfark caused at least in part by George diverting resources to Iraq.

Too little, too late.
 
2012-07-23 12:14:06 PM

way south: keithgabryelski: way south:
/Put a few Muslims in London and they start torching the place.

not for nuthin': that's a disgusting thing to say.

But its not untrue, is it?


Your comment is islamaphobic and pretty disgusting and not discourse I wish to be associated with.

You look at the worlds last superpower and suggest it would be better if we took apart its system and restructured it in the image of a less successful nation. You should be able to see why many people won't agree to that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea t h_rate

the numbers show england to be much better off.


If they don't agree, how do you plan to persuade them?
...by force?


oh puhlease -- i've said plenty of times that the people have to be convinced it is a good move and this should be done lawfully.
 
2012-07-23 01:01:12 PM
What really gets me is if you are going to kill someone, how about someone who deserves it? There are many in the news consistently to choose from who are real bastards. Shoot one of them for God's sake.
Doing it randomly screws us all. Doing it with purpose... depending on the target... may be noble.

Damn kids have no common sense. (And some people never grow up.)

/If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns. Ta Da!
 
2012-07-23 01:16:49 PM

Stoker: What really gets me is if you are going to kill someone, how about someone who deserves it? There are many in the news consistently to choose from who are real bastards. Shoot one of them for God's sake.
Doing it randomly screws us all. Doing it with purpose... depending on the target... may be noble.

Damn kids have no common sense. (And some people never grow up.)

/If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns. Ta Da!


sunflowerstate.files.wordpress.com

this guy thought he was doing just that.
 
2012-07-23 01:54:17 PM
I'm sorry, who is that guy, and who was his target? (I don't recall seeing his face.)

And BTW, the guy who shot the AZ Congresswoman Gifford, did not seem to have reason either because it sounded like he was just shooting at everyone. Random targets and then finally hitting the person? Or maybe he was too stupid to just aim. Still, I do not know Gifford and she hasn't been such a douche bag to be consistently in the papers for "against the people" mentality. (At least I haven't heard.)

And these are just comments for those lunatics out there who would go shooting at people randomly. Ya know- If you are going to be a freakin' lunatic, at least do something that might actually make people say "well, he had it coming" than what a freaking sick bastard you are. (Just saying.)

No matter what, either way, this will lead to the taking away of our guns.
 
2012-07-23 02:15:10 PM

keithgabryelski: way south: keithgabryelski: way south:
/Put a few Muslims in London and they start torching the place.

not for nuthin': that's a disgusting thing to say.

But its not untrue, is it?


Your comment is islamaphobic and pretty disgusting and not discourse I wish to be associated with.

You look at the worlds last superpower and suggest it would be better if we took apart its system and restructured it in the image of a less successful nation. You should be able to see why many people won't agree to that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea t h_rate

the numbers show england to be much better off.


If they don't agree, how do you plan to persuade them?
...by force?

oh puhlease -- i've said plenty of times that the people have to be convinced it is a good move and this should be done lawfully.



What's the split out of "Countries by knife-related deaths?" or "Countries by bomb-related deaths?"

Meaningless statistics are meaningless.
 
2012-07-23 02:30:53 PM

way south: teeny: Have you ever lost a friend or loved one to a deranged idiot wielding a firearm? Don't you think you should show a little empathy towards those that have (and JUST DID), and STFU? If there are any of you out there in the Aurora, CO area, I'm sure the parents of the dead 6-year-old will invite you to the funeral.

Actually I have lost a friend to gun violence. It sucks, but it didn't change my mind about respecting constitutional rights.
...But don't let that stop you from making a one sided emotional argument to capitalize on someone elses pain for your personal political gain.



I'm not a hardcore advocate for gun control. I just think it takes a special kind of asshole to be all "GUNS ARE AWESOME" right now. But go on...I'm sure you feel very patriotic waving around copies of the constitution with the second amendment highlighted in red, white and blue.
 
2012-07-23 02:52:37 PM

Gyrfalcon:
What's the split out of "Countries by knife-related deaths?" or "Countries by bomb-related deaths?"

Meaningless statistics are meaningless.


consider this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicid e _rate
 
2012-07-23 02:58:49 PM

Stoker: I'm sorry, who is that guy, and who was his target? (I don't recall seeing his face.)


Scott Roeder

he shot and killed Dr. George Tiller for being an abortion doctor.

You position: why don't these shooters kill people we can all agree are bad.

my position: we have enough people who think they can decide that line.
 
2012-07-23 03:14:29 PM

The Name: StoneColdAtheist: Familiar enough to know that the United States does not operate under European law (ignoring the fact that I've been practically everywhere in western Europe and literally spent years of my life there).

But speaking of "never heard of" something, you seem to have never heard that a private right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution. Or is the document "just a piece of paper" to you?

Oh, keep in mind that all I said was that I would be in favor of a nationwide gun ban --I said nothing about how it would be enacted. If the proper legal channels were to deem that an amendment to the Constitution is necessary for such a ban to take place, then I would advocate making such an amendment before enacting the ban.


Fair enough, though you initial comments didn't come through sounding that reasonable.
 
2012-07-23 03:21:26 PM

way south: Halli: That list is more or less bombing plots by the PIRA and RIRA. I don't really know what point you are trying to make here.

Ahh, my bad.
I forgot that we don't count terrorism as being related to "violence" round these parts.


Perhaps Halli believes homicide acceptable when committed with an implement other than a firearm.
 
2012-07-23 05:22:23 PM

Dimensio: way south: Halli: That list is more or less bombing plots by the PIRA and RIRA. I don't really know what point you are trying to make here.

Ahh, my bad.
I forgot that we don't count terrorism as being related to "violence" round these parts.

Perhaps Halli believes homicide acceptable when committed with an implement other than a firearm.


No I just don't see what bombs have to do with gun control.
 
2012-07-23 05:50:16 PM

Halli: Dimensio: way south: Halli: That list is more or less bombing plots by the PIRA and RIRA. I don't really know what point you are trying to make here.

Ahh, my bad.
I forgot that we don't count terrorism as being related to "violence" round these parts.

Perhaps Halli believes homicide acceptable when committed with an implement other than a firearm.

No I just don't see what bombs have to do with gun control.


References to deaths caused by criminal bombing incidents suggest that civilian disarmament advocates who claim that enacting unreasonable restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership will prevent incidents of mass murder may be mistaken.
 
2012-07-23 06:17:45 PM

Dimensio: Halli: Dimensio: way south: Halli: That list is more or less bombing plots by the PIRA and RIRA. I don't really know what point you are trying to make here.

Ahh, my bad.
I forgot that we don't count terrorism as being related to "violence" round these parts.

Perhaps Halli believes homicide acceptable when committed with an implement other than a firearm.

No I just don't see what bombs have to do with gun control.

References to deaths caused by criminal bombing incidents suggest that civilian disarmament advocates who claim that enacting unreasonable restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership will prevent incidents of mass murder may be mistaken.


Yeah that still makes no sense when talking about gun control and bombing campaigns by a terrorist organization.
 
2012-07-23 07:33:55 PM

DrPainMD: Now it appears that the murderer of Colorado-born American Abdulrahman al-Awlaki is going to Colorado to comfort the victims and their families. Isn't that special.


Keep farking that chicken mass of bloody feathers.
 
2012-07-25 11:36:26 AM
GUN GRABBER "LOGIC" AND QUICK REJOINDERS
A quick Gun Thread guide by TK

1. 2nd amendment only refers to the military!
or
1. So are you a member of a well-regulated militia?

1a. Nope. The supreme court decided in DC vs. Heller that the "well regulated militia" was an "inclusionary" clause, not an "exclusionary" one. In short, the 2nd amendment legally means what the NRA has been saying it meant this entire time.

2. You're obviously compensating for something

2a. Ask your mom, she'd know.

3. Guns lead to crime!

3a. Nope. States with open carry have lower violent crime rates (after being balanced for population. Of course Wyoming has less crime than New York.. they have fewer people, too!)


4. What about "common sense" restrictions like background check, etc?

4a. If you have to beg for permission to do something, it's no longer a right. Personally, I don't think it's a great idea, the government having a nicely formatted list of everybody with so much as a pistol.. do you?


5. But those laws make it harder for criminals to get guns!

5a. And I'm sure all the criminals out there will choose to abide by your law instead of buying them off the black market.

6. Guns have no purpose but to kill people and should be banned!

6a. Tell that to the ladies and gentlemen who go down to the range every weekend to have some fun. Some people collect stamps, some people collect guns. Some people play golf, some people go target shooting. What business of yours is someone else's hobby that isn't affecting you?

7. What do you need such a dangerous tool for?

7a. None of your damned business. Less bluntly, a gun is only dangerous when misused, much like any other tool. Did you know that concealed carry permit holders are statistically the LEAST LIKELY group to commit a crime or unintentionally harm someone?

8. So since you view any restrictions on the 2nd as unconstitutional, clearly this means it's okay for you to develop a nuclear bomb in your garage.

8a. Nice strawman. Call me when that actually happens and actually makes it to court. Keep in mind that there are entirely different laws on weapons of mass destruction, even on an international level.

9. The founding fathers wouldn't know anything about the powerful weapons we have today, the 2nd doesn't cover those.
or
9. The 2nd amendment is a relic of a bygone era

9a. Who determines if a right enshrined in our constitution is "antiquated"? You? Haha. The legislature. Oh, whoops, they already decided that it was nothing of the sort. (see 1a). How would you feel if your right to free speech or right to face your accuser was deemed "antiquated"? That's basically what you're asking; on a constitutional level, both are equal.

Always available at http://bit.ly/gungrabbers
 
Displayed 327 of 327 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report