Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Examiner)   Westboro Baptist Church trolls victims of Aurora-Colorado shootings with Photoshopped pics and taunts on twitter, never actually shows up to protest   (examiner.com) divider line 153
    More: Followup, Baptist church, Colorado, morning, trolls, Aurora shootings, shootings  
•       •       •

11602 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jul 2012 at 9:29 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-07-24 04:55:05 AM  
I don't know if I believe in heaven or hell, but for people like Westboro members, I really hope there is a hell. Cause they deserve to be roasting in it.
 
2012-07-24 05:11:12 AM  
If only we could convince the farking nutjobs who went "OMG TUK ER GUNZ" mere hours after the killings that Westboro members were the ones ACTUALLY trying to take everyone's guns...
 
2012-07-24 05:22:34 AM  
I wonder if these dirtbags really think they are the "elect".
 
2012-07-24 06:22:25 AM  

strangeluck: I don't know if I believe in heaven or hell, but for people like Westboro members, I really hope there is a hell. Cause they deserve to be roasting in it.


Forget about heaven and hell, I'd just like to see some karma. Is that too much to ask?
 
2012-07-24 06:53:50 AM  
So, they are a bunch of pansy liars? Sounds about right. Pussies.
 
2012-07-24 06:54:16 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: strangeluck: I don't know if I believe in heaven or hell, but for people like Westboro members, I really hope there is a hell. Cause they deserve to be roasting in it.

Forget about heaven and hell, I'd just like to see some karma. Is that too much to ask?


Not at all. Karma like, such as seeing a major trolling of them, involving them genuinely believing that everyone they ever harassed or tormented was coming to beat the shiat out of them with rusty hammers and shovels, and then using those shovels to bury them in unmarked graves.

/maybe a little harsh, but these people truly disgust me.

Actually, they may already think that in a way. They troll to incite fear, but are too cowardly to actually show up anymore.
 
2012-07-24 07:11:00 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: strangeluck: I don't know if I believe in heaven or hell, but for people like Westboro members, I really hope there is a hell. Cause they deserve to be roasting in it.

Forget about heaven and hell, I'd just like to see some karma. Is that too much to ask?


If you want karma, go to Reddit. The real world doesn't work that way, and what's more, you should be thankful the WBC is "allowed" to protest, because it still gives a faint glimmer of hope that free speech isn't dead. Of course, I'm not convinced a group that didn't call themselves Christian would be allowed free speech with identical acts, but still.
 
2012-07-24 07:50:33 AM  

GAT_00: you should be thankful the WBC is "allowed" to protest, because it still gives a faint glimmer of hope that free speech isn't dead


You are correct in saying so. However, every time some miscreant abuses the First Amendment with hate speech, pornography, revealing state secrets for profit, and so on, it weakens that right.
 
2012-07-24 07:54:14 AM  

This About That: GAT_00: you should be thankful the WBC is "allowed" to protest, because it still gives a faint glimmer of hope that free speech isn't dead

You are correct in saying so. However, every time some miscreant abuses the First Amendment with hate speech, pornography, revealing state secrets for profit, and so on, it weakens that right.


I like how you simultaneously attack people restricting free speech - porn - while attacking people who use free speech - I'm assuming Wikileaks here, which isn't for profit.
 
2012-07-24 08:10:53 AM  

GAT_00: This About That: GAT_00: you should be thankful the WBC is "allowed" to protest, because it still gives a faint glimmer of hope that free speech isn't dead

You are correct in saying so. However, every time some miscreant abuses the First Amendment with hate speech, pornography, revealing state secrets for profit, and so on, it weakens that right.

I like how you simultaneously attack people restricting free speech - porn - while attacking people who use free speech - I'm assuming Wikileaks here, which isn't for profit.


I think we can include anyone who has sold sensitive material to another government or unreleased information to a corporation (or individual) in that description.
 
2012-07-24 08:29:06 AM  
Free speech is protected and all, but aren't they passing online bullying laws now? I wonder how this could be interpreted gi ven it is not their traditional arena, and appears less protest and more just taking fun in creating misery.
 
2012-07-24 08:46:50 AM  

Elandriel: Free speech is protected and all, but aren't they passing online bullying laws now? I wonder how this could be interpreted gi ven it is not their traditional arena, and appears less protest and more just taking fun in creating misery.


One of my more famous one liners:

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hate.
 
2012-07-24 08:49:17 AM  
Awww, look at our WBC. All growed up and in the 21st Century and shiat.
 
2012-07-24 09:09:01 AM  
See, gas prices are so high even WBC couldn't afford to drive from Kansas to Colorado!
 
2012-07-24 09:32:25 AM  
Meh, not surprised. They went all 'LULZ WE GONNA PROTEST THE ANATOMY OF HATE 'CAUSE WE HATE IT' at my college, and then never bothered to show up.

/was genuinely curious to see brainwashing in action
 
2012-07-24 09:32:28 AM  
Funny how no one really cared about the WBC when they were protesting gay funerals. People only got pissed once they turned their attention to the military and the tragedy of the day.
 
2012-07-24 09:32:36 AM  
Which is their MO now.

They tell someone they are going to protest an event.
People plan huge counter protests.
Counter protests make headlines.
WBC gets publicity without having to do anything.

Just ignore them and they will eventually go away.
 
2012-07-24 09:33:19 AM  
I'm surprised someone that wants to go on a killing spree hasn't targeted these people yet. I can't even see Fox News doing sympathy peices on these people.
 
2012-07-24 09:34:19 AM  

strangeluck: ecmoRandomNumbers: strangeluck: I don't know if I believe in heaven or hell, but for people like Westboro members, I really hope there is a hell. Cause they deserve to be roasting in it.

Forget about heaven and hell, I'd just like to see some karma. Is that too much to ask?

Not at all. Karma like, such as seeing a major trolling of them, involving them genuinely believing that everyone they ever harassed or tormented was coming to beat the shiat out of them with rusty hammers and shovels, and then using those shovels to bury them in unmarked graves.

/maybe a little harsh, but these people truly disgust me.

Actually, they may already think that in a way. They troll to incite fear, but are too cowardly to actually show up anymore.


Wouldn't this then change their role from trolls to terrorists?
 
2012-07-24 09:34:55 AM  
Don't feed the trolls. Don't twitter about them, don't go to their website to flame them, ignore them, it's the worst thing you can do to attention whores like this.
 
2012-07-24 09:35:00 AM  

wxboy: See, gas prices are so high even WBC couldn't afford to drive from Kansas to Colorado!


See guys? Now that's clever.
 
2012-07-24 09:35:34 AM  
Everyone is always asking Christians to speak out against fringe idiots who use our theology to make the world worse off so here I am speaking out.

I gave a little fist pump when Falwell died, I may just throw a party when Phelps bites it.

I know, it's pretty unChristian, but these people make me so angry.
 
2012-07-24 09:36:13 AM  
Oh look, more Christians/religious-crazies being assholes.
Is it a day that ends in 'Y'?
 
2012-07-24 09:36:51 AM  
I know it's mean to say, but if he really felt he had to do something like this, why didn't the shooter go to Westboro Baptist movie night instead of the Aurora cineplex?

I wonder what they'd be saying then. Would they consider it was God's will that something terrible happened to them? Or (more predictably) they'd say that God's enemies are many and are trying to stop their good work.
 
2012-07-24 09:36:52 AM  
What would they have protested?

They are Christians just like the shooter. They probably have a lot in common, except he's willing to kill people and they just annoy us.
 
2012-07-24 09:37:22 AM  

INeedAName: Everyone is always asking Christians to speak out against fringe idiots who use our theology to make the world worse off so here I am speaking out.

I gave a little fist pump when Falwell died, I may just throw a party when Phelps bites it.

I know, it's pretty unChristian, but these people make me so angry.



Why don't you pray too!? I'm sure that'll do something equally productive.
 
2012-07-24 09:37:29 AM  

INeedAName: Everyone is always asking Christians to speak out against fringe idiots who use our theology to make the world worse off so here I am speaking out.

I gave a little fist pump when Falwell died, I may just throw a party when Phelps bites it.

I know, it's pretty unChristian, but these people make me so angry.


/I agree, when the God troll phelps dies, the usa should band together all the gay people it can get, and soldiers, and dance and piss on his grave.
 
2012-07-24 09:37:42 AM  
Not that I'm calling for it, but I'm kind of shocked some other nut cases haven't taken them out. Maybe it is some sort of nut case professional courtesy.
 
2012-07-24 09:37:54 AM  
OHMIGOD it's Westboro, I must act in a completely predictable way!! They'll never see it coming!
 
2012-07-24 09:38:44 AM  
Turn or burn.
 
2012-07-24 09:38:48 AM  

PoochUMD: Which is their MO now.

They tell someone they are going to protest an event.
People plan huge counter protests.
Counter protests make headlines.
WBC gets publicity without having to do anything.

Just ignore them and they will eventually go away.


Lying and trolling to get thousands of people to gather and show their solidarity and commitment to love and decency? Well played, WBC. Well played indeed.
 
2012-07-24 09:38:58 AM  
"Unfortunately the WBC were only threatening to protest the event for their own exposure..."

Pretty sure that's always the case, whether they actually show up or not.
 
2012-07-24 09:39:26 AM  
I just do not get this church. I mean why would they attack the people of Aurora, it doesn't even make sense with their usual MO.
 
2012-07-24 09:40:47 AM  

HellRaisingHoosier: INeedAName: Everyone is always asking Christians to speak out against fringe idiots who use our theology to make the world worse off so here I am speaking out.

I gave a little fist pump when Falwell died, I may just throw a party when Phelps bites it.

I know, it's pretty unChristian, but these people make me so angry.


Why don't you pray too!? I'm sure that'll do something equally productive.


Because sitting at your computer being rude to strangers is productive. C'mon, don't be a dick.

/atheist
 
2012-07-24 09:41:35 AM  
What if Westboro Baptist Church were just a bunch of Atheists trying to give organized religion a bad name?

Or they are inbred.

Prolly inbred.
 
2012-07-24 09:41:49 AM  
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. These attention-whoring douche-nozzles deserve every bit as much hate and bile as they vomit onto others.
 
2012-07-24 09:41:49 AM  
These people are contrarians who are too stupid to know how stupid they look.
They must think they're extra clever or something, realizing something that nobody else realizes on behalf of god and etc.

/This gang provides ongoing proof that religion = mass delusional, despite the weight of reality and facts.
 
2012-07-24 09:42:09 AM  
Attention Whoring for Jesus! And manipulating a gullible media.
 
2012-07-24 09:45:51 AM  
Dear Drew -

Please talk to your staff - don't greenlight anymore WBC threads. Let the 1st Amendment live long and prosper, but let's not give the AW of WBC the attention they crave. If you want to see their behavior change, ignore them - send the message that this is NOT acceptable.

Thanks,

Alassra
 
2012-07-24 09:46:22 AM  
You know, I was struck by the senselessness of this shooting, and even though i don't know the victims personally, or the survivors, i felt a deep sense of sadness and empathy not only for the slain, but the wounded and their families. Once denial is over for them, they try to make sense of this crime, it's what we do, we look for some reason, some logic that would put this kind of tragedy in its place in our minds. But sadly, there is no sense, nowhere you can shove this incident and file it away under "oh..ok..that makes sense now."

To use this tragedy for a political or religious slant is beyond trolling, it's inhuman. If you have noticed, even the politicians have not jumped on the "OMG...GET RID OF ALL GUNS" platform. Because they would be vilified by the public for using this for a personal agenda for their beliefs, and people don't forget that shiat. It's not the guns fault this person did this..it was his insanity. If it had not been a gun, it would have been a bomb, or something else.

This "church" is a small group of attention whores, who HOPE someone does something to them, that they would then be able to take to court and sue. They crave attention and cash, and that is all, and aren't above doing or saying anything to get it. Deny them this. Ignore them and they will fade away eventually.

That being said, my families hearts go out to the victims and their families, and we hope that time will heal them. I hope that quick and fair justice is done to the shooter.
 
2012-07-24 09:47:25 AM  

Random Anonymous Blackmail: What if Westboro Baptist Church were just a bunch of Atheists trying to give organized religion a bad name?

Or they are inbred.

Prolly inbred.


You are insulting inbred people everywhere
 
2012-07-24 09:47:56 AM  
I'm starting to like these guys.
 
2012-07-24 09:51:10 AM  
Your event's not anything unless the WBC shows up.

But seriously--here's a way to diffuse their trolling. Tack on a little news scene in any big movie where crowds are gathered, like say a big spaceship came down like in Independence Day. Everyone is out staring at it--common people, ranks of police, the military is on standby, and of course a lot of people are holding up gay protest signs. The movie news announcer just casually mention the WBC is there too. No surprise, no condemnation in his voice--they're just part of the scene as expected.

Have a few mainstream movies where they're just depicted as the expected participants in the crowds. Eventually, they'll be perceived just like the Hare Krishna guys at the airports in the 70's--just a big joke. It will be the same as if they were showing up at real events dressed as Ghostbusters or a bunch of Muppets or as a band of Jawas.
 
2012-07-24 09:53:40 AM  
mightymike82


Random Anonymous Blackmail: What if Westboro Baptist Church were just a bunch of Atheists trying to give organized religion a bad name?

Or they are inbred.

Prolly inbred.

You are insulting inbred people everywhere


Wanna leave my sister out of this?
 
2012-07-24 09:54:49 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: This "church" is a small group of attention whores, who HOPE someone does something to them, that they would then be able to take to court and sue.


In fact, yes. The WBC is at the ragged edge of free speech. The kind that nobody really wants to hear, but what we all know we must permit to prevent infringements from encroaching upon us all.

Bit'O'Gristle: They crave attention and cash, and that is all, and aren't above doing or saying anything to get it. Deny them this. Ignore them and they will fade away eventually.


They have limits. When they know there's a good chance of grievous bodily harm (read: torn limb from limb and roasted over their own signs), they sit it out. The best thing that you can do is to exercise your inalienable right to ignore them. And yes, if the media treated their arrival/griping as the non-event that it is, they would shrivel up and become less of a thorn in people's sides...or, even better, violate the rights of someone else and have a lawsuit tossed their way.
 
2012-07-24 09:58:17 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: INeedAName: Everyone is always asking Christians to speak out against fringe idiots who use our theology to make the world worse off so here I am speaking out.

I gave a little fist pump when Falwell died, I may just throw a party when Phelps bites it.

I know, it's pretty unChristian, but these people make me so angry.

/I agree, when the God troll phelps dies, the usa should band together all the gay people it can get, and soldiers, and dance and piss on his grave.


You fool! That much Urine would flood the state!
 
2012-07-24 10:00:25 AM  

Diogenes: wxboy: See, gas prices are so high even WBC couldn't afford to drive from Kansas to Colorado!

See guys? Now that's clever.


I was going to go with a comment about how they must not be doing well financially and have had to cut back on travel.
 
2012-07-24 10:01:38 AM  

Alassra: Dear Drew -

Please talk to your staff - don't greenlight anymore WBC threads. Let the 1st Amendment live long and prosper, but let's not give the AW of WBC the attention they crave. If you want to see their behavior change, ignore them - send the message that this is NOT acceptable.

Thanks,

Alassra


"I like the First Amendment, but I don't want THOSE people using it. They're nasty. Thanks!"
 
2012-07-24 10:02:18 AM  
Like it or not, that was some quality trolling. Look at all the attention it garnered.
 
2012-07-24 10:03:19 AM  
what's odd is that a huge part of their MO is to piss people off until someone slugs them, then they act like a European soccer player, rolling on the ground and screaming as though someone clubbed them with a tire iron....pause to savour the thought....and we're back, and then sue everyone. And I mean everyone, the aggressor, the cops, the city. It's a large part of their funding.
 
2012-07-24 10:05:31 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: You know, I was struck by the senselessness of this shooting, and even though i don't know the victims personally, or the survivors, i felt a deep sense of sadness and empathy not only for the slain, but the wounded and their families. Once denial is over for them, they try to make sense of this crime, it's what we do, we look for some reason, some logic that would put this kind of tragedy in its place in our minds. But sadly, there is no sense, nowhere you can shove this incident and file it away under "oh..ok..that makes sense now."

To use this tragedy for a political or religious slant is beyond trolling, it's inhuman. If you have noticed, even the politicians have not jumped on the "OMG...GET RID OF ALL GUNS" platform. Because they would be vilified by the public for using this for a personal agenda for their beliefs, and people don't forget that shiat. It's not the guns fault this person did this..it was his insanity. If it had not been a gun, it would have been a bomb, or something else.

This "church" is a small group of attention whores, who HOPE someone does something to them, that they would then be able to take to court and sue. They crave attention and cash, and that is all, and aren't above doing or saying anything to get it. Deny them this. Ignore them and they will fade away eventually.

That being said, my families hearts go out to the victims and their families, and we hope that time will heal them. I hope that quick and fair justice is done to the shooter.


You're right about not using this to further polarize our political environment, but this just sticks out as stupid. It was guns, and tear gas, and more combat weaponry, ok? Let's not sugar coat this shiat because some right-wingers might get their panties in a twist over the fear of gun control laws.

It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he lobbed tear gas and then shot the place up.

It was a cold-blooded killer, armed with guns, who is responsible for this crime. Don't let that little tidbit get lost in the wave of grief everyone is experiencing.
 
2012-07-24 10:08:00 AM  
WBC needs a smiting.
 
2012-07-24 10:09:50 AM  
I'm not gonna kill you, I want you to do me a favor: I want you to tell all your friends about me.
What are you?!
I'm the Batman.
 
2012-07-24 10:10:45 AM  

GAT_00: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hate.


It does however mean the freedom to say I hate you.
 
2012-07-24 10:11:08 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: strangeluck: I don't know if I believe in heaven or hell, but for people like Westboro members, I really hope there is a hell. Cause they deserve to be roasting in it.

Forget about heaven and hell, I'd just like to see some karma. Is that too much to ask?


One doesn't exist without the other. You can't not believe in an afterlife and then believe in some form of cosmic justice. Either we live in a cold harsh reality, or we don't. It doesn't go both ways.

/WBC are the worst most vile scum on this earth
 
2012-07-24 10:11:37 AM  

GAT_00: Alassra: Dear Drew -

Please talk to your staff - don't greenlight anymore WBC threads. Let the 1st Amendment live long and prosper, but let's not give the AW of WBC the attention they crave. If you want to see their behavior change, ignore them - send the message that this is NOT acceptable.

Thanks,

Alassra

"I like the First Amendment, but I don't want THOSE people using it. They're nasty. Thanks!"


=============
Nope, they are free to use the 1st Amendment like the rest of us, but they don't need to get attention for it. See the difference?
 
2012-07-24 10:11:45 AM  
Some day they are going to throw one too many rocks at the hornet nest and they'll get stung.
 
2012-07-24 10:13:11 AM  
Whipped 'em again didn't we Josey
 
2012-07-24 10:16:00 AM  
Am I the only one who saw Louis Theroux's weird weekends, where he went to live with them for a few days? They are complete trolls.
 
2012-07-24 10:16:50 AM  

wxboy: Diogenes: wxboy: See, gas prices are so high even WBC couldn't afford to drive from Kansas to Colorado!

See guys? Now that's clever.

I was going to go with a comment about how they must not be doing well financially and have had to cut back on travel.


The gas was more subtle, and dovetails nicely with currently increasing prices.
 
2012-07-24 10:18:26 AM  

yeegrek: what's odd is that a huge part of their MO is to piss people off until someone slugs them, then they act like a European soccer player, rolling on the ground and screaming as though someone clubbed them with a tire iron....pause to savour the thought....and we're back, and then sue everyone. And I mean everyone, the aggressor, the cops, the city. It's a large part of their funding.


In the UK one can be added to a list of vexatious serial litigants, where any proposed legal proceedings must first be approved by a judge. Is there no similar system in the US?
 
2012-07-24 10:20:11 AM  

PoochUMD: Which is their MO now.

They tell someone they are going to protest an event.
People plan huge counter protests.
Counter protests make headlines.
WBC gets publicity without having to do anything.

Just ignore them and they will eventually go away.


BUT How do they make money doing this?
I though their MO was to troll people into legally questionable acts against WBC, Sue them, them settle out of court for $$.
How else could they fund their little hate group?
 
2012-07-24 10:24:17 AM  
Once any religion branches out beyond fostering communion of just yourself with God there will ALWAYS be contamination then distortions compounding atop the contaminations, then again, and again.
 
2012-07-24 10:25:36 AM  

GAT_00: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hate.


... Yes it does. Hate is a thought, an expression. The freedom to express that thought is dependent upon freedom of speech.
 
2012-07-24 10:27:49 AM  
Where's Toronto Batman when you need him?

"Repent ye sinners!"

"MY PARENTS ARE DEAD!!!"
 
2012-07-24 10:29:02 AM  

Arkham: Funny how no one really cared about the WBC when they were protesting gay funerals. People only got pissed once they turned their attention to the military and the tragedy of the day.


Wha? farking everyone had a problem with them as soon as they heard about them. They just never heard about them until they started protesting military funerals, but you can blame that on the media, not they people outside KS who never even heard of the bastards.
 
2012-07-24 10:29:55 AM  

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Bit'O'Gristle: You know, I was str.....
It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he lobbed tear gas and then shot the place up.

It was a cold-blooded killer, armed with guns, who is responsible for this crime. Don't let that little tidbit get lost in the wave of grief everyone is experiencing.


Are you saying that banning guns would prevent people from committing mass murder and terrorism?
If so, history would disagree. For example:

Tim McVeigh didn't use guns. He used diesel fuel and fertilizer.
You want to ban those too. What are we going to move freight with?
What about the 9-11 hijackers? Not a single firearm amongst them. Shall we ban airplanes?
People die because of cars everyday and yet we still drive.

IF the Aurora killer had wanted to kill people and he didn't have legal access to guns he could have got them on the black market or made a bomb. If you want to kill people, you don't HAVE to have a gun and banning guns will not prevent those intent on evil from carrying it out.
 
2012-07-24 10:30:22 AM  
Hey Mods-

Can we create a self-imposed moratorium on WBC greenlights? Greening only encourages them. Yes, I know people will bring up Free SpeechTM, but shouting about them does nothing. I'm not asking for a blanket "no greens for hate groups" or "groups we don't like." Just WBC.

As my grandmother used to say "You have every right to say anything you like. And I have every right to marginalize the fark out of you." The only way to marginalize is to give them less press. And fark is throwing tons of traffic to sites that give them press. Less greenlights = less traffic to the sites that cover them = sites less interested in covering them.
 
2012-07-24 10:30:30 AM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: HellRaisingHoosier: INeedAName: Everyone is always asking Christians to speak out against fringe idiots who use our theology to make the world worse off so here I am speaking out.

I gave a little fist pump when Falwell died, I may just throw a party when Phelps bites it.

I know, it's pretty unChristian, but these people make me so angry.


Why don't you pray too!? I'm sure that'll do something equally productive.

Because sitting at your computer being rude to strangers is productive. C'mon, don't be a dick.

/atheist


Am I being a dick? Yea.
Did I say I was being productive? No.

It's just one more example of one side hypocritically saying they'll do something productive. I don't care if they're good people or do good things, I just don't want them to think they are actually doing something of value when they're not.

And just because I like the series ....

"We're out here, 40 klicks in enemy lines, and this man of God here, he's a farkin' POG (personnel other than grunt). In fact, he's an officer POG. That's one more layer of bureaucracy and unnecessary logistics, one more asshole we need to supply MREs and baby wipes for. And worst of all, worst of all, the motherfarker doesn't even carry a weapon. When push comes to shove even Rolling Stone (hippy) picks up a gun but this farkin' shill of God, he can't cover a sector, he'll never hump ammo or Claymores. This is a farkin' war and we're here as warriors, so on top of everything else that's expected of us do we really need to drag him along and indulge in this make-believe bullshiat?" - Sergeant Brad 'Iceman' Colbert
 
2012-07-24 10:31:44 AM  

GAT_00: Alassra: Dear Drew -

Please talk to your staff - don't greenlight anymore WBC threads. Let the 1st Amendment live long and prosper, but let's not give the AW of WBC the attention they crave. If you want to see their behavior change, ignore them - send the message that this is NOT acceptable.

Thanks,

Alassra

"I like the First Amendment, but I don't want THOSE people using it. They're nasty. Thanks!"


Regardless, she's correct. If you ignore them, they would go away.

This is made entirely implausible by the vast majority of media outlets being financially motivated by a juicy story, of course. But she's correct. If you'd never heard of these people, if the media wasn't constantly responding to them, they would eventually disperse.

And it wouldn't be any great loss to society, in honesty.
 
2012-07-24 10:33:03 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: This "church" is a small group of attention whores, who HOPE someone does something to them, that they would then be able to take to court and sue.


How much can they sue for if they're gunned down?

Just curious.
 
2012-07-24 10:35:46 AM  
I'm not saying that the Westboro Baptist Church and Fred Phelps are trying to take our guns away. I'm just saying that they haven't denied it. And people must be trying to take our guns away, look at all the gun sales. They must answer these accusations.

/This'll never catch on.
 
GBB
2012-07-24 10:36:33 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: You know, I was struck by the senselessness of this shooting, and even though i don't know the victims personally, or the survivors, i felt a deep sense of sadness and empathy not only for the slain, but the wounded and their families. Once denial is over for them, they try to make sense of this crime, it's what we do, we look for some reason, some logic that would put this kind of tragedy in its place in our minds. But sadly, there is no sense, nowhere you can shove this incident and file it away under "oh..ok..that makes sense now."

<-----Stopped reading here.


See, there's the problem: People just toss their hands up and say "This was senseless". No, you just choose not to delve further and figure out why this guy did what he did. People don't want to hear that it's possible that he had some motive, or even no motive at all. I suppose, to quote a recent Batman movie, "Some people just want to watch the world burn". That is to say, he did it "just because he could". Either way, a decision was made to do this and to shut your eyes and plug your ears and shout, "THIS WAS A SENSELESS ACT!! LA LA LA LA!!!!" is, well, senseless.

Now, I'm not saying that anyone should coddle this guy or tell him, "aw, you had a bad experience and you shouldn't be blamed for this". No, he should be blamed for his actions. All I'm interested in is why. What actually happened to him to make this seem a reasonable response, or something to do? What can be done to address this in others? Is there anything that can be done to keep this from happening again? Regardless of you or my ability to comprehend his decision making and/or logic, there is a reason he did this, and it made sense to him. So, what is it?
 
2012-07-24 10:38:02 AM  
All things considered, if Westboro's going to be in force in heaven, I may opt to spent quality time in Hell.
 
2012-07-24 10:45:32 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: strangeluck: I don't know if I believe in heaven or hell, but for people like Westboro members, I really hope there is a hell. Cause they deserve to be roasting in it.

Forget about heaven and hell, I'd just like to see some karma. Is that too much to ask?


That's not how karma works. Too much bad karma will effect their next life, and I assume you want something quicker than that.
 
2012-07-24 10:46:53 AM  

IAMTHEINTARWEBS: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Bit'O'Gristle: You know, I was str.....
It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he lobbed tear gas and then shot the place up.

It was a cold-blooded killer, armed with guns, who is responsible for this crime. Don't let that little tidbit get lost in the wave of grief everyone is experiencing.

Are you saying that banning guns would prevent people from committing mass murder and terrorism?
If so, history would disagree. For example:

Tim McVeigh didn't use guns. He used diesel fuel and fertilizer.
You want to ban those too. What are we going to move freight with?
What about the 9-11 hijackers? Not a single firearm amongst them. Shall we ban airplanes?
People die because of cars everyday and yet we still drive.

IF the Aurora killer had wanted to kill people and he didn't have legal access to guns he could have got them on the black market or made a bomb. If you want to kill people, you don't HAVE to have a gun and banning guns will not prevent those intent on evil from carrying it out.


What's your point, Vanessa? Are you going to say next that if he'd really wanted to he could have hopped over the seats and stabbed everyone in the jugular with a spork in the absence of firearms? If you ban diesel, trucks don't move. If you ban airplanes, airplanes don't move. If you ban certain firearms and make others require a more rigorous process to obtain.... psychos planning a massacre have a harder time stocking their doomsday arsenals?

Oh that's right, no one ever talks about banning guns and neither did I. The argument always plays out as if any amount of gun "control" is tantamount to disarming and enslaving the citizenry.

Learn the difference between "control" and "ban", and then figure out how that could be applied to psychotic people planning massacres with items they picked up legally at your local mom and pop gun store.
 
2012-07-24 10:51:18 AM  

PoochUMD: Which is their MO now.

They tell someone they are going to protest an event.
People plan huge counter protests.
Counter protests make headlines.
WBC gets publicity without having to do anything.

Just ignore them and they will eventually go away.


Kind of hard to do, as communities have to prepare for what might happen if they DO show up (counter-protests, threats, things like that to make sure WBC is happy and not in sue mode).
 
2012-07-24 10:51:22 AM  

Alassra: Dear Drew -

Please talk to your staff - don't greenlight anymore WBC threads. Let the 1st Amendment live long and prosper, but let's not give the AW of WBC the attention they crave. If you want to see their behavior change, ignore them - send the message that this is NOT acceptable.

Thanks,

Alassra


Don't click on the link or comment in the thread. Things that don't get pageviews don't go green. Things that are basically assured to go over 100 comments always go green.
 
2012-07-24 10:55:13 AM  
Why can't the crazy-crazy people like Jared Laughner or this Holmes freak go kill some people that need killing?

Why the innocent people?

WBC members, a board room full of bankers, some war criminal who's escaped justice, etc.?

We also need to push back the gains that NRA has advanced in the last 20 years. Also need to reinstate bans of high-cap magazines and non-defense and non-sport firearms.
 
2012-07-24 10:55:44 AM  

SkunkWerks: GAT_00: Alassra: Dear Drew -

Please talk to your staff - don't greenlight anymore WBC threads. Let the 1st Amendment live long and prosper, but let's not give the AW of WBC the attention they crave. If you want to see their behavior change, ignore them - send the message that this is NOT acceptable.

Thanks,

Alassra

"I like the First Amendment, but I don't want THOSE people using it. They're nasty. Thanks!"

Regardless, she's correct. If you ignore them, they would go away.

This is made entirely implausible by the vast majority of media outlets being financially motivated by a juicy story, of course. But she's correct. If you'd never heard of these people, if the media wasn't constantly responding to them, they would eventually disperse.

And it wouldn't be any great loss to society, in honesty.


Has sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'LALALALALLALA I'm not listening!' ever done anything?
 
2012-07-24 11:02:14 AM  

wood0366: All things considered, if Westboro's going to be in force in heaven, I may opt to spent quality time in Hell.


"Go to heaven for the climate hell for the company." Mark Twain
 
2012-07-24 11:04:28 AM  
All I can say is, when the leaders of that church start to die...those fuenrals are going to be epic.
 
2012-07-24 11:10:28 AM  
I really wish we'd stop giving them the attention they are so desperately craving.
 
2012-07-24 11:10:59 AM  
Y'all done been trolled by the pros
 
2012-07-24 11:11:28 AM  

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: IAMTHEINTARWEBS: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Bit'O'Gristle: You know, I was str.....

What's your point, Vanessa? Are you going to say next that if he'd really wanted to he could have hopped over the seats and stabbed everyone in the jugular with a spork in the absence of firearms?


No. I never said that and you never said you were in favor of a ban.

If you ban diesel, trucks don't move. If you ban airplanes, airplanes don't move.
And yet you can use them to kill many more people in less time than firearms.


If you ban certain firearms and make others require a more rigorous process to obtain.... psychos planning a massacre have a harder time stocking their doomsday arsenals?
More rigorous how?

Oh that's right, no one ever talks about banning guns and neither did I.
UMMM, yes you did. Re-read your previous sentence. You pretty plainly advocate banning certain firearms. Which would those be?

The argument always plays out as if any amount of gun "control" is tantamount to disarming and enslaving the citizenry.

Learn the difference between "control" and "ban", and then figure out how that could be applied to psychotic people planning massacres with items they picked up legally at your local mom and pop gun store.

Or items picked up at their local mom and pop farm store.



Snark/attitude hurts your argument by turning off those your are discussing the issue with. If you want those on the opposite side of an issue to at least listen to what you are trying to convince them of, you should refrain from using them. Especially on emotionally charged issues.

Add all the laws you want to gun purchases and sales, it won't stop mass murder from happening.

That said, I am in favor of added gun control. I understand the difference between "ban" and "control" just fine. I think that guns should have titles, like cars and each transfer of ownership should be required to be recorded with the gov't. I also don't mind a waiting period (like handguns) for firearms purchases.

So let me ask you "What's your point, Vanessa?"
 
2012-07-24 11:12:10 AM  
I wish these people believed in the mother ship and 1986 Nike Air high-tops, and had about 600 gallons of special kool aid to drink. THEN they would be teh awesomeness.
 
2012-07-24 11:13:49 AM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: HellRaisingHoosier: INeedAName: Everyone is always asking Christians to speak out against fringe idiots who use our theology to make the world worse off so here I am speaking out.

I gave a little fist pump when Falwell died, I may just throw a party when Phelps bites it.

I know, it's pretty unChristian, but these people make me so angry.


Why don't you pray too!? I'm sure that'll do something equally productive.

Because sitting at your computer being rude to strangers is productive. C'mon, don't be a dick.

/atheist


It makes them feel like a man. It's all they've got.
 
2012-07-24 11:17:05 AM  

GAT_00: ecmoRandomNumbers: strangeluck: I don't know if I believe in heaven or hell, but for people like Westboro members, I really hope there is a hell. Cause they deserve to be roasting in it.

Forget about heaven and hell, I'd just like to see some karma. Is that too much to ask?

If you want karma, go to Reddit. The real world doesn't work that way, and what's more, you should be thankful the WBC is "allowed" to protest, because it still gives a faint glimmer of hope that free speech isn't dead. Of course, I'm not convinced a group that didn't call themselves Christian would be allowed free speech with identical acts, but still.


Even reddit doesn't work that way. It works just like the real world: nepostic croneyism and self-validation earn you brownie-points with other people.
 
2012-07-24 11:17:48 AM  

This About That: GAT_00: you should be thankful the WBC is "allowed" to protest, because it still gives a faint glimmer of hope that free speech isn't dead

You are correct in saying so. However, every time some miscreant abuses the First Amendment with hate speech, pornography, revealing state secrets for profit, and so on, it weakens that right.


One of these things is not like the other.
 
2012-07-24 11:20:46 AM  
I wonder who took the original picture. Can they lawyer up and claim damages?
 
2012-07-24 11:21:40 AM  
Well, he did send that cloud angel to confirm the kill.

/doubletap
 
2012-07-24 11:34:22 AM  

platedlizard: ecmoRandomNumbers: strangeluck: I don't know if I believe in heaven or hell, but for people like Westboro members, I really hope there is a hell. Cause they deserve to be roasting in it.

Forget about heaven and hell, I'd just like to see some karma. Is that too much to ask?

That's not how karma works. Too much bad karma will effect their next life, and I assume you want something quicker than that.


Yeah, like InstaKarma™ or something similar.
 
2012-07-24 11:35:46 AM  

IAMTHEINTARWEBS: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: IAMTHEINTARWEBS: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Bit'O'Gristle: You know, I was str.....

What's your point, Vanessa? Are you going to say next that if he'd really wanted to he could have hopped over the seats and stabbed everyone in the jugular with a spork in the absence of firearms?

No. I never said that and you never said you were in favor of a ban.

If you ban diesel, trucks don't move. If you ban airplanes, airplanes don't move.
And yet you can use them to kill many more people in less time than firearms.


If you ban certain firearms and make others require a more rigorous process to obtain.... psychos planning a massacre have a harder time stocking their doomsday arsenals?
More rigorous how?

Oh that's right, no one ever talks about banning guns and neither did I.
UMMM, yes you did. Re-read your previous sentence. You pretty plainly advocate banning certain firearms. Which would those be?

The argument always plays out as if any amount of gun "control" is tantamount to disarming and enslaving the citizenry.

Learn the difference between "control" and "ban", and then figure out how that could be applied to psychotic people planning massacres with items they picked up legally at your local mom and pop gun store.
Or items picked up at their local mom and pop farm store.



Snark/attitude hurts your argument by turning off those your are discussing the issue with. If you want those on the opposite side of an issue to at least listen to what you are trying to convince them of, you should refrain from using them. Especially on emotionally charged issues.

Add all the laws you want to gun purchases and sales, it won't stop mass murder from happening.

That said, I am in favor of added gun control. I understand the difference between "ban" and "control" just fine. I think that guns should have titles, like cars and each transfer of ownership should be required to be recorded with the gov't. I also don't mind a waiting period (like handgu ...


Pretty clearly that gun control laws would help curtail things like this. If you interpret the 2nd amendment to mean anyone can have a gun (or just about any other armament) without any other laws controlling their acquisition, then you accept that anyone can include mass murderers, the mentally disabled, known criminals, etc.

Conversely, if you don't feel comfortable with the idea that any mass murderer, crackpot, criminal, or psycho can walk into Wal-Mart and pick up guns and ammo, or go to any gun show and buy just about whatever the hell they want, perhaps you'd be in favor of some gun control laws?

Your initial defense was essentially that if the guy hadn't had a gun, he'd use a bomb. Ok, so what? If not a bomb, then a knife? Perhaps something else? But we're not talking about what he could have committed this massacre with, we're talking about what he did commit this massacre with. You seem to think gun control wouldn't have helped if he's determined enough to commit the crime, but I posit that the harder it is for guys like this to obtain private arsenals like he is known to have acquired, the safer we all are.
 
2012-07-24 11:36:05 AM  

imtheonlylp: I wish these people believed in the mother ship and 1986 Nike Air high-tops, and had about 600 gallons of special kool aid to drink. THEN they would be teh awesomeness.


I think you mean alcohol and barbiturates in apple sauce. And it was flavor-aid, not kool-aid.
 
2012-07-24 11:38:26 AM  

Alassra: Dear Drew -

Please talk to your staff - don't greenlight anymore WBC threads. Let the 1st Amendment live long and prosper, but let's not give the AW of WBC the attention they crave. If you want to see their behavior change, ignore them - send the message that this is NOT acceptable.

Thanks,

Alassra



Hate to say, but Fark isn't here to judge or censor. That is one thing that confuses the heck out of the political types complaining about favortism.

WBC threads deliver lulz, page views, advertising revenue and TF subscriptions. They make money. Which means more beer.
 
2012-07-24 11:53:33 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: INeedAName: Everyone is always asking Christians to speak out against fringe idiots who use our theology to make the world worse off so here I am speaking out.

I gave a little fist pump when Falwell died, I may just throw a party when Phelps bites it.

I know, it's pretty unChristian, but these people make me so angry.

/I agree, when the God troll phelps dies, the usa should band together all the gay people it can get, and soldiers, and dance and piss on his grave.


nah, not like a parade or anything. that's too constricting temporally. make it like a pilgrimage or something so your great-grandkids can participate too.
 
2012-07-24 11:59:41 AM  

trappedspirit: imtheonlylp: I wish these people believed in the mother ship and 1986 Nike Air high-tops, and had about 600 gallons of special kool aid to drink. THEN they would be teh awesomeness.

I think you mean alcohol and barbiturates in apple sauce. And it was flavor-aid, not kool-aid.


sorry, here in the south we usually call all sodas "Coke" and all fruit-flavored drink mixes are known as "Kool-Aid" ;)
 
2012-07-24 12:07:21 PM  
Why hasn't some psycho murdered these farkers yet?
 
2012-07-24 12:11:24 PM  

GBB: Bit'O'Gristle: You know, I was struck by the senselessness of this shooting, and even though i don't know the victims personally, or the survivors, i felt a deep sense of sadness and empathy not only for the slain, but the wounded and their families. Once denial is over for them, they try to make sense of this crime, it's what we do, we look for some reason, some logic that would put this kind of tragedy in its place in our minds. But sadly, there is no sense, nowhere you can shove this incident and file it away under "oh..ok..that makes sense now." <-----Stopped reading here.


See, there's the problem: People just toss their hands up and say "This was senseless". No, you just choose not to delve further and figure out why this guy did what he did. People don't want to hear that it's possible that he had some motive, or even no motive at all. I suppose, to quote a recent Batman movie, "Some people just want to watch the world burn". That is to say, he did it "just because he could". Either way, a decision was made to do this and to shut your eyes and plug your ears and shout, "THIS WAS A SENSELESS ACT!! LA LA LA LA!!!!" is, well, senseless.

Now, I'm not saying that anyone should coddle this guy or tell him, "aw, you had a bad experience and you shouldn't be blamed for this". No, he should be blamed for his actions. All I'm interested in is why. What actually happened to him to make this seem a reasonable response, or something to do? What can be done to address this in others? Is there anything that can be done to keep this from happening again? Regardless of you or my ability to comprehend his decision making and/or logic, there is a reason he did this, and it made sense to him. So, what is it?


/Can't answer that question, and he was obviously so full of the stupid and drugs at the hearing that he probably couldn't respond to his own name. I don't think there is ANYTHING we can do to stop someone from going completely bugshiat. Ya, maybe the guy was weird, and you would get a bad feeling after talking to him, but obviously nobody ever got the "charles whitman" feeling from him. People just snap, and we can make all the gun laws we want, and all the background checks, but in the end, people are just going to go full retard sometimes. Yes, in certain circumstances there have been signs, like in the Virgina state shooting. But i don't believe even in that incident there were clear "signs" that he was going to go all rambo. People just thought he was a loner and weird. That's not a reportable crime last time i checked.
 
2012-07-24 12:17:52 PM  

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Bit'O'Gristle: You know, I was struck by the senselessness of this shooting, and even though i don't know the victims personally, or the survivors, i felt a deep sense of sadness and empathy not only for the slain, but the wounded and their families. Once denial is over for them, they try to make sense of this crime, it's what we do, we look for some reason, some logic that would put this kind of tragedy in its place in our minds. But sadly, there is no sense, nowhere you can shove this incident and file it away under "oh..ok..that makes sense now."

To use this tragedy for a political or religious slant is beyond trolling, it's inhuman. If you have noticed, even the politicians have not jumped on the "OMG...GET RID OF ALL GUNS" platform. Because they would be vilified by the public for using this for a personal agenda for their beliefs, and people don't forget that shiat. It's not the guns fault this person did this..it was his insanity. If it had not been a gun, it would have been a bomb, or something else.

This "church" is a small group of attention whores, who HOPE someone does something to them, that they would then be able to take to court and sue. They crave attention and cash, and that is all, and aren't above doing or saying anything to get it. Deny them this. Ignore them and they will fade away eventually.

That being said, my families hearts go out to the victims and their families, and we hope that time will heal them. I hope that quick and fair justice is done to the shooter.

You're right about not using this to further polarize our political environment, but this just sticks out as stupid. It was guns, and tear gas, and more combat weaponry, ok? Let's not sugar coat this shiat because some right-wingers might get their panties in a twist over the fear of gun control laws.

It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he lobbed tear gas and then sho ...


/yes, it was guns, you're right, and he could have easily brought in 5 semiautomatic handguns with extended clips, and reloads. The AR-15 he was using had a 100 round drum magazine which i believe jammed his rifle up, and he did most of his killing with the handguns he had. It doesn't matter, he wanted to kill, and he had the tools. If it had not been guns, he would have looked up on the internet how to make a bomb, or set fire to the theater after locking the exit doors, or just taken his car and rolled over a bunch of people coming out. You're blaming the tool he used just like other people, and not blaming the suspect.
 
2012-07-24 12:25:12 PM  
Everyone, especially the media, just need to stop reporting anything that these people do. They are obviously enjoying being in the spotlight every time they "threaten" to protest somewhere. Well, stop putting them in the spotlight. Eventually they will just fade away.
 
2012-07-24 12:29:37 PM  

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he lobbed tear gas and then shot the place up.

It was a cold-blooded killer, armed with guns, who is responsible for this crime. Don't let that little tidbit get lost in the wave of grief everyone is experiencing.


So what if it was guns? Gun laws would not have prevented this from happening. Gun laws simply do not work, so people need to stop focusing on the guns and focus on the psychopath who decided to go on a shooting spree.
 
2012-07-24 12:31:18 PM  
There's never a psycho-killer around when you need one.
 
2012-07-24 12:51:16 PM  

GAT_00: SkunkWerks: GAT_00: Alassra: Dear Drew -

Please talk to your staff - don't greenlight anymore WBC threads. Let the 1st Amendment live long and prosper, but let's not give the AW of WBC the attention they crave. If you want to see their behavior change, ignore them - send the message that this is NOT acceptable.

Thanks,

Alassra

"I like the First Amendment, but I don't want THOSE people using it. They're nasty. Thanks!"

Regardless, she's correct. If you ignore them, they would go away.

This is made entirely implausible by the vast majority of media outlets being financially motivated by a juicy story, of course. But she's correct. If you'd never heard of these people, if the media wasn't constantly responding to them, they would eventually disperse.

And it wouldn't be any great loss to society, in honesty.

Has sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'LALALALALLALA I'm not listening!' ever done anything?


Has claiming you had an "invisible force-shield" when someone shot you while playing guns ever done anything?

Seeing as that's the direction you decided to take it, I thought I'd ask.
 
2012-07-24 12:59:42 PM  

lilbjorn: There's never a psycho-killer around when you need one.


Qu'est Que C'est?
 
2012-07-24 01:11:35 PM  

Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he lobbed tear gas and then shot the place up.

It was a cold-blooded killer, armed with guns, who is responsible for this crime. Don't let that little tidbit get lost in the wave of grief everyone is experiencing.

So what if it was guns? Gun laws would not have prevented this from happening. Gun laws simply do not work, so people need to stop focusing on the guns and focus on the psychopath who decided to go on a shooting spree.


Why not focus on BOTH? The psycho AND the ease with which he acquired military-grade weaponry.
 
2012-07-24 01:11:38 PM  

PoochUMD: Which is their MO now.

They tell someone they are going to protest an event.
People plan huge counter protests.
Counter protests make headlines.
WBC gets publicity without having to do anything.

Just ignore them and they will eventually go away.


I don't see how that makes them money though since their previous MO was
>Protest emotionally charged event
>Instigate a violent backlash
>Sue town for not providing adequate police protection

Maybe the fake protest is making them fake money. They're probably planning to buy epic mounts or something. farking twinks. GRIND FOR YOUR GEAR LIKE THE REST OF US YOU PUNKS!
 
2012-07-24 01:18:42 PM  
Considering what has happened the last few time they've come out. Not to surprised there too chicken shiat to show up.
 
2012-07-24 01:22:16 PM  

Primum: Why can't the crazy-crazy people like Jared Laughner or this Holmes freak go kill some people that need killing?

Why the innocent people?

WBC members, a board room full of bankers, some war criminal who's escaped justice, etc.?

We also need to push back the gains that NRA has advanced in the last 20 years. Also need to reinstate bans of high-cap magazines and non-defense and non-sport firearms.


Well besides the WBC, the others have private armies and paramiltary police forces on their payrolls that will protect their profits at all cost and even murder the innocent themselves.
 
2012-07-24 01:22:47 PM  
i1144.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-24 01:22:58 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Bit'O'Gristle: You know, I was struck by the senselessness of this shooting, and even though i don't know the victims personally, or the survivors, i felt a deep sense of sadness and empathy not only for the slain, but the wounded and their families. Once denial is over for them, they try to make sense of this crime, it's what we do, we look for some reason, some logic that would put this kind of tragedy in its place in our minds. But sadly, there is no sense, nowhere you can shove this incident and file it away under "oh..ok..that makes sense now."

To use this tragedy for a political or religious slant is beyond trolling, it's inhuman. If you have noticed, even the politicians have not jumped on the "OMG...GET RID OF ALL GUNS" platform. Because they would be vilified by the public for using this for a personal agenda for their beliefs, and people don't forget that shiat. It's not the guns fault this person did this..it was his insanity. If it had not been a gun, it would have been a bomb, or something else.

This "church" is a small group of attention whores, who HOPE someone does something to them, that they would then be able to take to court and sue. They crave attention and cash, and that is all, and aren't above doing or saying anything to get it. Deny them this. Ignore them and they will fade away eventually.

That being said, my families hearts go out to the victims and their families, and we hope that time will heal them. I hope that quick and fair justice is done to the shooter.

You're right about not using this to further polarize our political environment, but this just sticks out as stupid. It was guns, and tear gas, and more combat weaponry, ok? Let's not sugar coat this shiat because some right-wingers might get their panties in a twist over the fear of gun control laws.

It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he l ...


See now you're just making shiat up. He didn't use a bomb, he didn't set fire to the theater and lock the doors, or run over people with a car. He shot the place up with guns, and this is a dispute about whether or not tougher gun laws would have been able to keep said guns out of this asshole's hands.

Btw, guns are not a tool. A shovel is a tool. A gun is a deadly weapon with one purpose in mind. When you confuse the two you put guns in the same category as a wheelbarrow and that's just absurd.
 
2012-07-24 01:24:27 PM  

Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he lobbed tear gas and then shot the place up.

It was a cold-blooded killer, armed with guns, who is responsible for this crime. Don't let that little tidbit get lost in the wave of grief everyone is experiencing.

So what if it was guns? Gun laws would not have prevented this from happening. Gun laws simply do not work, so people need to stop focusing on the guns and focus on the psychopath who decided to go on a shooting spree.


And I disagree that tougher gun laws don't work, or would not have prevented something like this from happening. So, that's that then?
 
2012-07-24 01:24:49 PM  

JesusJuice: Why hasn't some psycho murdered these farkers yet?


It happened in the amazing movie "God Bless America" by Bobcat Goldthwait.
 
2012-07-24 01:47:05 PM  

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: He didn't use a bomb


Yes he did. Link
He made it using gasoline.
Should we ban gasoline?


Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: And I disagree that tougher gun laws don't work, or would not have prevented something like this from happening. So, that's that then?


You may disagree. You may believe in all kinds of things. It does not make them true and it doesn't make "that's that then".
disagreeing with someone doesn't make them wrong or invalidate their argument.

You must be trolling.
I find it hard to believe at this point that you aren't.
How can anyone make such baseless arguments and not be trolling.
 
2012-07-24 01:58:47 PM  

IAMTHEINTARWEBS: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: He didn't use a bomb

Yes he did. Link
He made it using gasoline.
Should we ban gasoline?


Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: And I disagree that tougher gun laws don't work, or would not have prevented something like this from happening. So, that's that then?

You may disagree. You may believe in all kinds of things. It does not make them true and it doesn't make "that's that then".
disagreeing with someone doesn't make them wrong or invalidate their argument.

You must be trolling.
I find it hard to believe at this point that you aren't.
How can anyone make such baseless arguments and not be trolling.


You may disagree. You may believe in all kinds of things. It does not make them true and it doesn't make "that's that then".
disagreeing with someone doesn't make them wrong or invalidate their argument.

When applied to you in response, it works the same way. And no, I'm not trolling, but I'm assuming that this is the point where you parrot the talking point that had some brave citizen been packing themselves they could have heroically stood up and put two between this guy's eyes before he got off a shot, right?

You can take the easy route and just put your foot down and say all guns for all people, all the time, and then chant 2nd the second amendment to yourself in your bunker at night - OR - You can realize that some people think tougher gun laws are a good idea if they can keep guns out of the hands of people like this. I'm sure you'll cite some NRA talking points about how no gun laws work, and gun violence is lower than reported, ad nauseum, and that's fine. At this point I'm not arguing with you, I'm flat disagreeing with you. And no, I won't Google the supporting information for you either.
 
2012-07-24 02:02:39 PM  

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Btw, guns are not a tool.


Are you mentally retarded?
 
2012-07-24 02:04:40 PM  
Never mind, I read your last response. The answer is, "Yes."
 
2012-07-24 02:05:24 PM  

Alassra: Dear Drew -

Please talk to your staff - don't greenlight anymore WBC threads. Let the 1st Amendment live long and prosper, but let's not give the AW of WBC the attention they crave. If you want to see their behavior change, ignore them - send the message that this is NOT acceptable.

Thanks,

Alassra


So much this.

Drew, read your own Twitter feed re: Sideshow Bob. You're clearly intelligent (as are most farkers), so at least come up with something equally intelligent to rob these fools of their notoriety as well.
 
2012-07-24 02:05:49 PM  
And Anonymous did more to spread the pics than Westboro did.

Good work guys!
 
2012-07-24 02:08:37 PM  

UnspokenVoice: Never mind, I read your last response. The answer is, "Yes."


Yes, enlighten me as to how guns are simply harmless tools. Bravo on your masterful dissertation of my comments. You must truly be in the highest echelons of academia for asking such brilliant questions as "Are you mentally retarded?"
 
2012-07-24 02:39:42 PM  

SkunkWerks: Regardless, she's correct. If you ignore them, they would go away.


Somehow I don't think they are thriving off of press releases and green lit threads.
 
2012-07-24 03:18:36 PM  
These WBC morons haven't even read the bible they claim to live by. God doesn't hate anybody, even the sinners. You can disapprove of what someone is doing without hating them. Still, though, I hate these guys. They make the rest of us (Christians) look bad.

/right wing
//Christian
///WBC still needs to die
 
2012-07-24 03:22:18 PM  

trappedspirit: SkunkWerks: Regardless, she's correct. If you ignore them, they would go away.

Somehow I don't think they are thriving off of press releases and green lit threads.


Are you suggesting they exist for some other reason?

I'm strapped to find one, honestly.
 
2012-07-24 03:23:31 PM  

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: UnspokenVoice: Never mind, I read your last response. The answer is, "Yes."

Yes, enlighten me as to how guns are simply harmless tools. Bravo on your masterful dissertation of my comments. You must truly be in the highest echelons of academia for asking such brilliant questions as "Are you mentally retarded?"


Please show me where I said it was harmless... Anything, even your example of a wheelbarrow, can be used to harm another person. Like I said, the answer is clearly yes.

If you have to lie, which you did by claiming that I said anything of the sort, it not only means your argument is weak it means you're a pathetic human being, shouldn't breed, and should leave the table when adults are discussing things. Do you not realize that we can scroll up, click the link to my reply, or probably even remember it well enough to KNOW that you're lying?

Don't worry though, you're appropriately farkied as a mentally retarded liar and will be treated as such. The handy script even noted the thread so when you attempt to deny it in future threads we'll have a way to verify it. And, no, don't worry - I'll remember and point it out to you again in the future. Why? Because liars on the internet are about the most pathetic people out there. If you can't be honest in an anonymous environment then you simply aren't an acceptable human.

So, support your argument with the man... Give it a shot. How is a firearm not a tool? Let's see if you can do it without telling additional lies.
 
2012-07-24 03:26:18 PM  

Nytfall: These WBC morons haven't even read the bible they claim to live by. GodJesus doesn't hate anybody, even the sinners. You can disapprove of what someone is doing without hating them. Still, though, I hate these guys. They make the rest of us (Christians) look bad.


FTFY

Jesus is the one who loves, you. His dad is a moody vengeant prick who will smite you if you eat shellfish, wear clothes of two different fabrics, or mark your skin with tattoos and wants you to marry the women you rape.
 
2012-07-24 03:26:28 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain: I'm not saying that the Westboro Baptist Church and Fred Phelps are trying to take our guns away. I'm just saying that they haven't denied it. And people must be trying to take our guns away, look at all the gun sales. They must answer these accusations.

/This'll never catch on.


They probably aren't even American citizens. They're probably Kenyan. And Muslim.

/Whar birth certificate?
 
2012-07-24 03:31:25 PM  

sure haven't: ecmoRandomNumbers: strangeluck: I don't know if I believe in heaven or hell, but for people like Westboro members, I really hope there is a hell. Cause they deserve to be roasting in it.

Forget about heaven and hell, I'd just like to see some karma. Is that too much to ask?

One doesn't exist without the other. You can't not believe in an afterlife and then believe in some form of cosmic justice. Either we live in a cold harsh reality, or we don't. It doesn't go both ways.

/WBC are the worst most vile scum on this earth


Those don't have to be mutually exclusive. A god being could dole out karma-esque consequences while a person is alive and still not HAVE to provide them an afterlife.
 
2012-07-24 03:49:36 PM  

UnspokenVoice: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: UnspokenVoice: Never mind, I read your last response. The answer is, "Yes."

Yes, enlighten me as to how guns are simply harmless tools. Bravo on your masterful dissertation of my comments. You must truly be in the highest echelons of academia for asking such brilliant questions as "Are you mentally retarded?"

Please show me where I said it was harmless... Anything, even your example of a wheelbarrow, can be used to harm another person. Like I said, the answer is clearly yes.

If you have to lie, which you did by claiming that I said anything of the sort, it not only means your argument is weak it means you're a pathetic human being, shouldn't breed, and should leave the table when adults are discussing things. Do you not realize that we can scroll up, click the link to my reply, or probably even remember it well enough to KNOW that you're lying?

Don't worry though, you're appropriately farkied as a mentally retarded liar and will be treated as such. The handy script even noted the thread so when you attempt to deny it in future threads we'll have a way to verify it. And, no, don't worry - I'll remember and point it out to you again in the future. Why? Because liars on the internet are about the most pathetic people out there. If you can't be honest in an anonymous environment then you simply aren't an acceptable human.

So, support your argument with the man... Give it a shot. How is a firearm not a tool? Let's see if you can do it without telling additional lies.


You do realize you're stating that a gun and a wheelbarrow, because they can both be used to kill, are equally valued as tools, correct? I just need to make sure I'm grasping the depth of your outright insanity in this thread, which prior to you going nuclear was a heated discussion at best.

And I'm not falling for your Rovian attempt at painting me as a liar for your idiotic comments. You literally stated:

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Btw, guns are not a tool.

UnspokenVoice: Are you mentally retarded? Never mind, I read your last response. The answer is, "Yes."


I tell you guns aren't a tool, and you go off calling me mentally retarded. Clearly you think guns are in the same class of harmless tools as the wheelbarrow I used in my analogy. Of course, you think because a wheelbarrow can be used in some fantasy situation to kill someone that makes them not harmless, so now I'm the liar.

You're a buffoon who's trying to twist my words, and your extreme reaction to an otherwise civil discussion tells me and everyone else in this thread all we need to know as to who the "acceptable human" is.

Also, grow up man. Your dumb ass opened in response to my comment with a flat out insult and offered nothing of substance in return, and you're going to internet tough guy me with threats that you're cataloging my comments? Get f*cked, troll.
 
2012-07-24 03:51:34 PM  

lohphat: Nytfall: These WBC morons haven't even read the bible they claim to live by. GodJesus doesn't hate anybody, even the sinners. You can disapprove of what someone is doing without hating them. Still, though, I hate these guys. They make the rest of us (Christians) look bad.


FTFY

Jesus is the one who loves, you. His dad is a moody vengeant prick who will smite you if you eat shellfish, wear clothes of two different fabrics, or mark your skin with tattoos and wants you to marry the women you rape.


Hey now, to be fair I'm pretty sure he doesn't want you to rape 'em to begin with but if you do...

Wow... Just picture that, for just a minute... So, you get drunk and eyeball some cute chick and you decide that tonight is the night you're going to tear a piece of that off - no matter what. Eventually, I'm not actually sure what goes on in their head at this time, they get to the raping business. You stumble home, drunk and spent, and wake up to the cops at the door.

Now, you've got to marry this woman that you raped last night. Let's hope you weren't already married but even if you weren't, there is no way in hell she's going to put out again, she's NEVER making you dinner or doing the dishes, and she sure as shiat isn't going to let you have your friends over to watch the game and have a few beers.

I can't say that I've ever really contemplated raping a biatch but, if that were the law, I think that would be the straw that broke the camel's back. That, right there, is a fine motivator to prevent rape. I don't think she's going to let you have a good night's sleep ever.

Oh, and what about the gays where it is illegal? If two guys want to get married one could just say the other one raped him and then what? Sometimes you gotta wonder if that God fella actually thought his cunning plan through. Though, I suspect, I'd be pretty pissed if I had created people and they chose to be like we are.
 
2012-07-24 03:55:12 PM  

SkunkWerks: Regardless, she's correct. If you ignore them, they would go away.


No, they won't. These bastards are farking dedicated. I'm also pretty sure that the younger generation(s) actually believe the crap they spew (or at least part of it). I'm positive that Freddy (and probably the oldest children) are just in it for the money, but the younger kids have been raised on in the compound and know nothing else. That means they are operating from belief, not money, and you can't just ignore belief away.
 
2012-07-24 03:58:44 PM  

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: UnspokenVoice: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: UnspokenVoice: Never mind, I read your last response. The answer is, "Yes."

Yes, enlighten me as to how guns are simply harmless tools. Bravo on your masterful dissertation of my comments. You must truly be in the highest echelons of academia for asking such brilliant questions as "Are you mentally retarded?"

Please show me where I said it was harmless... Anything, even your example of a wheelbarrow, can be used to harm another person. Like I said, the answer is clearly yes.

If you have to lie, which you did by claiming that I said anything of the sort, it not only means your argument is weak it means you're a pathetic human being, shouldn't breed, and should leave the table when adults are discussing things. Do you not realize that we can scroll up, click the link to my reply, or probably even remember it well enough to KNOW that you're lying?

Don't worry though, you're appropriately farkied as a mentally retarded liar and will be treated as such. The handy script even noted the thread so when you attempt to deny it in future threads we'll have a way to verify it. And, no, don't worry - I'll remember and point it out to you again in the future. Why? Because liars on the internet are about the most pathetic people out there. If you can't be honest in an anonymous environment then you simply aren't an acceptable human.

So, support your argument with the man... Give it a shot. How is a firearm not a tool? Let's see if you can do it without telling additional lies.

You do realize you're stating that a gun and a wheelbarrow, because they can both be used to kill, are equally valued as tools, correct? I just need to make sure I'm grasping the depth of your outright insanity in this thread, which prior to you going nuclear was a heated discussion at best.

And I'm not falling for your Rovian attempt at painting me as a liar for your idiotic comments. You literally stated:

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Btw, guns are not a t ...


You really are retarded... You are the one attempting to twist my words actually, not the other way around. You're a liar - still. I asked for ONE honest post and you couldn't even manage that. That ONE post was too far for you to go without telling additional lies.

Tools are DANGEROUS and should only be used by people who know how to use them. That is why your mom makes you wear a helmet when she lets you feed yourself with a fork. Yes, tools, all tools and pretty much anything is potentially dangerous if used incorrectly. A firearm is a tool. At no point did I give any indication that it was harmless. If you think tools are harmless you're an even bigger idiot than I had expected (which is pretty amazing as I was already pretty sure you were about as dumb as a rock).

You're wrong. You can't, you won't, admit it. It sucks but admitting your wrong is a lot easier than telling lies when we can all read what was written. It's cute that you attempt to claim I'm twisting your words. Dude, we HAVE a record of what was said by each of us. You even QUOTED me. It pains me to inform you but, yeah, you're not very bright and you're a liar. Duly noted and I'll make it a point to link to the thread when I point it out in the future and people can see and judge for themselves.

Now would be a good time to email a mod and ask them if they'll change your ID or just generate a new account. You're wrong. You're a liar. You're an idiot. All three of those are absolutely, undeniably, provably, correct statements. If you'd care to keep adding evidence I'm more than willing to keep pointing out your failures.
 
2012-07-24 04:05:18 PM  
God bless Fark and its handy ignore lists.

media.tumblr.com

/carry on, otherwise civil people. :-)
 
2012-07-24 04:19:49 PM  

SkunkWerks: trappedspirit: SkunkWerks: Regardless, she's correct. If you ignore them, they would go away.

Somehow I don't think they are thriving off of press releases and green lit threads.

Are you suggesting they exist for some other reason?

I'm strapped to find one, honestly.


I heard they be looking for lawsuits. Where the money at.
 
2012-07-24 05:07:02 PM  
I think I have a solution for dealing with the WBC "people".

A class-action lawsuit with every family that has ever been harassed by them suing the WBC for infliction of emotional distress.

Yes, they have the constitutional right to shoot their mouths off where ever they wish. They also have the responsibility to be accountable for what they say and how it affects people!
 
2012-07-24 06:48:30 PM  
They've been doing this for two decades and are just as trashy now as they were then.
 
2012-07-24 07:00:46 PM  
So if they just did it for attention, does that make them any better than the shooter?

/No, it doesn't.
//No, seriously. It doesn't. If he'd have taken on his victims and killed them with his bare hands, then he'd have a point in his favor.
 
2012-07-24 07:06:26 PM  
Farkers are no better than the WBC. At least the WBC people show their faces. Farkers sit behind computers and say asshole things.
 
2012-07-24 07:09:59 PM  

EmmaLou: Farkers are no better than the WBC. At least the WBC people show their faces. Farkers sit behind computers and say asshole things.


You have to seek out Farkers to hear what they have to say. The WBC goes out of their way to make sure as many people as possible hear their hate.
 
2012-07-24 07:27:12 PM  
No, those farkers are in every thread. They're right there. They don't have to be seeked out.
 
2012-07-24 07:39:01 PM  

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: God bless Fark and its handy ignore lists


i agree.
 
2012-07-24 07:48:32 PM  

evilempryss: I think I have a solution for dealing with the WBC "people".

A class-action lawsuit with every family that has ever been harassed by them suing the WBC for infliction of emotional distress.

Yes, they have the constitutional right to shoot their mouths off where ever they wish. They also have the responsibility to be accountable for what they say and how it affects people!


It's been tried, they're all lawyers and know how to walk right up to the line without quite crossing it.

The only real solution to them shooting their mouths off is to actually shoot their mouths off.
 
2012-07-24 07:51:32 PM  
Has anyone considered that they're trolls because they're a false-flag org? They do what they do to get people to come together and demonstrate tolerance and solidarity against bigots.
 
2012-07-24 07:51:56 PM  

BrynnMacFlynn: Meh, not surprised. They went all 'LULZ WE GONNA PROTEST THE ANATOMY OF HATE 'CAUSE WE HATE IT' at my college, and then never bothered to show up.

/was genuinely curious to see brainwashing in action


Louis Theroux did two documentaries for the BBC on the WBC, "America's Most Hated Family' and "America's Most Hated Family in Crisis".

Worth a watch, if you can.
 
2012-07-24 07:52:40 PM  

strangeluck: ecmoRandomNumbers: strangeluck: I don't know if I believe in heaven or hell, but for people like Westboro members, I really hope there is a hell. Cause they deserve to be roasting in it.

Forget about heaven and hell, I'd just like to see some karma. Is that too much to ask?

Not at all. Karma like, such as seeing a major trolling of them, involving them genuinely believing that everyone they ever harassed or tormented was coming to beat the shiat out of them with rusty hammers and shovels, and then using those shovels to bury them in unmarked graves.

/maybe a little harsh, but these people truly disgust me.

Actually, they may already think that in a way. They troll to incite fear, but are too cowardly to actually show up anymore.


Much like the other trolls on teh internetz...
 
2012-07-24 09:16:11 PM  

EmmaLou: No, those farkers are in every thread. They're right there. They don't have to be seeked out.


You sought out Fark.com. you know they are here, and you keep coming. Fark trolls are easy ignore, the WBC asshats not so much.
 
2012-07-25 10:46:33 AM  

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he lobbed tear gas and then shot the place up.

It was a cold-blooded killer, armed with guns, who is responsible for this crime. Don't let that little tidbit get lost in the wave of grief everyone is experiencing.

So what if it was guns? Gun laws would not have prevented this from happening. Gun laws simply do not work, so people need to stop focusing on the guns and focus on the psychopath who decided to go on a shooting spree.

And I disagree that tougher gun laws don't work, or would not have prevented something like this from happening. So, that's that then?


Washington DC had a total ban on all guns for something like 30 years, and they had one of the highest crime rates in the city, and that includes the most murders by firearms for several years running. Care to explain how that particular gun law worked? I mean, if guns were not allowed how were people able to use them to commit murder and to robbery?

And what about Chicago? For decades Chicago had a near total ban on handguns (only police officers and some select people in security jobs were allowed to own a handgun), yet during that time nearly all murders (around 85% if I remember correctly) were committed with a handgun. Again, care to explain how that gun law worked?

As for not stopping this, there was absolutely nothing in this guy's background that would have raised a red flag on a background check. Nothing. No matter how strict the requirements for getting a firearm he still would have met and passed all requirements and been able to purchase a firearm.
 
2012-07-25 10:48:04 AM  

Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he lobbed tear gas and then shot the place up.

It was a cold-blooded killer, armed with guns, who is responsible for this crime. Don't let that little tidbit get lost in the wave of grief everyone is experiencing.

So what if it was guns? Gun laws would not have prevented this from happening. Gun laws simply do not work, so people need to stop focusing on the guns and focus on the psychopath who decided to go on a shooting spree.

And I disagree that tougher gun laws don't work, or would not have prevented something like this from happening. So, that's that then?

Washington DC had a total ban on all guns for something like 30 years, and they had one of the highest crime rates in the city, and that includes the most murders by firearms for several years running. Care to explain how that particular gun law worked? I mean, if guns were not allowed how were people able to use them to commit murder and to robbery?

And what about Chicago? For decades Chicago had a near total ban on handguns (only police officers and some select people in security jobs were allowed to own a handgun), yet during that time nearly all murders (around 85% if I remember correctly) were committed with a handgun. Again, care to explain how that gun law worked?

As for not stopping this, there was absolutely nothing in this guy's background that would have raised a red flag on a background check. Nothing. No matter how strict the requirements for getting a firearm he still would have met and passed all requirements and been able to purchase a firearm.


* Highest crime rate in the country
 
2012-07-25 11:37:20 AM  

Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he lobbed tear gas and then shot the place up.

It was a cold-blooded killer, armed with guns, who is responsible for this crime. Don't let that little tidbit get lost in the wave of grief everyone is experiencing.

So what if it was guns? Gun laws would not have prevented this from happening. Gun laws simply do not work, so people need to stop focusing on the guns and focus on the psychopath who decided to go on a shooting spree.

And I disagree that tougher gun laws don't work, or would not have prevented something like this from happening. So, that's that then?

Washington DC had a total ban on all guns for something like 30 years, and they had one of the highest crime rates in the city, and that includes the most murders by firearms for several years running. Care to explain how that particular gun law worked? I mean, if guns were not allowed how were people able to use them to commit murder and to robbery?

And what about Chicago? For decades Chicago had a near total ban on handguns (only police officers and some select people in security jobs were allowed to own a handgun), yet during that time nearly all murders (around 85% if I remember correctly) were committed with a handgun. Again, care to explain how that gun law worked?

As for not stopping this, there was absolutely nothing in this guy's background that would have raised a red flag on a background check. Nothing. No matter how strict the requirements for getting a firearm he still would have met and passed all requirements and been able to purchase a firearm.


First off, I appreciate your tone. You're not being argumentative and that helps, so thank you. As for the DC gun ban, I've read conflicting information that states otherwise. For example, this article has this snippet:

"A 1991 study in The New England Journal of Medicine compared Washington to its suburbs before and after the gun law took effect. It found that the law was linked to a 25 percent drop in homicides involving firearms and a 23 percent drop in such suicides. The study found no drops in other kinds of homicides and suicides in Washington, and no changes in the suburbs."

After that different parties go on to dispute or back this claim, but I'm not going to back it since I think using D.C. as an example of gun control laws failing is inherently flawed. Keep in mind that D.C. had those laws enacted in the first place because they had record high crime rates. When you factor in poverty and a high concentration of African Americans who were particularly affected by the crack epidemic of the 1980's that ran rampant through that city, it's no surprise to me that their crime rates shot up despite the ban.

Similar statistics can be found elsewhere regarding Chicago. Now you state that there was nothing in his background that would have raised a red flag, and at first glance that appears to be true, so I won't dispute that. But... this guy did use tear gas canisters as part of his massacre, and had acquired quite the stock pile of ammunition and other weapons. Even if the ammunition stockpile (something to the tune of six thousand or more rounds) was acquired over time and otherwise wasn't a tip off, surely a civilian buying tear gas canisters would, right?

A typical pro-gun talking point is that guns are necessary for home and self-defense. Even taking that at face value, are tear gas canisters necessary for home or self-defense? If a robber breaks into your house are you going to pop a tear gas canister? If you're out in public and are about to be victimized in a crime, are you going to pop a tear gas canister? I don't see any reason for a civilian to own tear gas at all, and this guy buying it should have raise some eyebrows.
 
2012-07-25 04:15:48 PM  

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: "A 1991 study in The New England Journal of Medicine compared Washington to its suburbs before and after the gun law took effect. It found that the law was linked to a 25 percent drop in homicides involving firearms and a 23 percent drop in such suicides. The study found no drops in other kinds of homicides and suicides in Washington, and no changes in the suburbs."


So did it cause a decline in homcides? no, just a decline in homicides using guns. All this study proves is that if someone wants you dead, it's going to happen regardless of the instruments available.
 
2012-07-26 01:48:16 AM  

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he lobbed tear gas and then shot the place up.

It was a cold-blooded killer, armed with guns, who is responsible for this crime. Don't let that little tidbit get lost in the wave of grief everyone is experiencing.

So what if it was guns? Gun laws would not have prevented this from happening. Gun laws simply do not work, so people need to stop focusing on the guns and focus on the psychopath who decided to go on a shooting spree.

And I disagree that tougher gun laws don't work, or would not have prevented something like this from happening. So, that's that then?

Washington DC had a total ban on all guns for something like 30 years, and they had one of the highest crime rates in the city, and that includes the most murders by firearms for several years running. Care to explain how that particular gun law worked? I mean, if guns were not allowed how were people able to use them to commit murder and to robbery?

And what about Chicago? For decades Chicago had a near total ban on handguns (only police officers and some select people in security jobs were allowed to own a handgun), yet during that time nearly all murders (around 85% if I remember correctly) were committed with a handgun. Again, care to explain how that gun law worked?

As for not stopping this, there was absolutely nothing in this guy's background that would have raised a red flag on a background check. Nothing. No matter how strict the requirements for getting a firearm he still would have met and passed all requirements and been able to purchase a firearm.

First off, I appreciate your tone. You're not being argumentative and that helps, so thank you. As for the DC gun ban, I've read conflicting information that states otherwise. For example, this article has this snippet:

"A 1991 study in The New England Journal of Medicine compared Washington to its suburbs before and after the gun law took effect. It found that the law was linked to a 25 percent drop in homicides involving firearms and a 23 percent drop in such suicides. The study found no drops in other kinds of homicides and suicides in Washington, and no changes in the suburbs."

After that different parties go on to dispute or back this claim, but I'm not going to back it since I think using D.C. as an example of gun control laws failing is inherently flawed. Keep in mind that D.C. had those laws enacted in the first place because they had record high crime rates. When you factor in poverty and a high concentration of African Americans who were particularly affected by the crack epidemic of the 1980's that ran rampant through that city, it's no surprise to me that their crime rates shot up despite the ban.

Similar statistics can be found elsewhere regarding Chicago. Now you state that there was nothing in his background that would have raised a red flag, and at first glance that appears to be true, so I won't dispute that. But... this guy did use tear gas canisters as part of his massacre, and had acquired quite the stock pile of ammunition and other weapons. Even if the ammunition stockpile (something to the tune of six thousand or more rounds) was acquired over time and otherwise wasn't a tip off, surely a civilian buying tear gas canisters would, right?

A typical pro-gun talking point is that guns are necessary for home and self-defense. Even taking that at face value, are tear gas canisters necessary for home or self-defense? If a robber breaks into your house are you going to pop a tear gas canister? If you're out in public and are about to be victimized in a crime, are you going to pop a tear gas canister? I don't see any reason for a civilian to own tear gas at all, and this guy buying it should have raise some eyebrows.


Look at the overall crime statistics for DC. In particular, scroll to the bottom and see the index rates. The ban was enacted in 1975 and the first year of the ban was 1976. Granted, it does not break down the types of crimes to show just those committed with a gun, but crime actually go worse for a while when all guns were banned. But, even without the statistics it is pretty telling that there was any gun crime while there was a total gun ban in place. That alone is proof that gun bans cannot stop gun crime. Same with Chicago. They completely banned all hand guns (for the most part), and yet hand guns were still used hundreds of times each year to commit murders (not to mention used in robberies). Again, that alone should be proof that gun bans do not work. Those who are intent on committing a crime will get guns.

As for tear gas, was it really tear gas? And of what type? Was it in canister form as fired from a teargas gun? Or were they small like a pepper spray canister? I have not really been following the story so I simply do not know anything about the teargas. If they were in fact canisters of the type that police would use then I do have a problem with that. I do not think that civilians should have access to something like that.

Also, depending on who you talk to, guns are used to stop anywhere from 80,000 to 2,500,000 crimes every year in this country. The low number actually comes the Federal Government (the Department of Justice, if I remember correctly) and the high number comes from a study by Gary Kleck, Ph.D. a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. Yes, there is a lot of leeway between those two numbers, but even the lower estimate is pretty big. That is nearly or over four times higher than the number of people who are killed by guns (excluding suicides and accidents and police shootings). Pretty huge.

And, finally, there are about 80 million gun owners (in about 65% of all homes) who own about 250 million guns. Look at how many of those are never used in a crime. In 2007 there were less than 500 violent crimes per 100,000 people in America, but let us round that up to an even 500 for the sake of easy math. According to the 2010 census there are 308,745,538 people in the country. That is just over 1,500,000 violent crimes. Even assuming that all of those are committed with a gun that still means that 99.9999996% of all legally owned guns are never used to commit a crime (assuming, of course, that all crimes were committed by legally owned guns, which they obviously are not). So even taking statistics and skewing them in the worst light the numbers show that the vast, VAST majority of legally owned guns are "used" in a lawful manner.

Oh, as for being polite, well, I supposed I could toss in some insults such as "Communist libtard" or "America hater" if it would make you feel better. :-D
 
2012-07-26 09:49:11 AM  

Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: It was guns. The shooter? Yeah, he shot with guns. He didn't roll into that theater and toss cupcakes and tickle everyone with feathers, he lobbed tear gas and then shot the place up.

It was a cold-blooded killer, armed with guns, who is responsible for this crime. Don't let that little tidbit get lost in the wave of grief everyone is experiencing.

So what if it was guns? Gun laws would not have prevented this from happening. Gun laws simply do not work, so people need to stop focusing on the guns and focus on the psychopath who decided to go on a shooting spree.

And I disagree that tougher gun laws don't work, or would not have prevented something like this from happening. So, that's that then?

Washington DC had a total ban on all guns for something like 30 years, and they had one of the highest crime rates in the city, and that includes the most murders by firearms for several years running. Care to explain how that particular gun law worked? I mean, if guns were not allowed how were people able to use them to commit murder and to robbery?

And what about Chicago? For decades Chicago had a near total ban on handguns (only police officers and some select people in security jobs were allowed to own a handgun), yet during that time nearly all murders (around 85% if I remember correctly) were committed with a handgun. Again, care to explain how that gun law worked?

As for not stopping this, there was absolutely nothing in this guy's background that would have raised a red flag on a background check. Nothing. No matter how strict the requirements for getting a firearm he still would have met and passed all requirements and been able to purchase a firearm.

First off, I appreciate your tone. You're not being argumentative and that helps, so thank you. As for the DC gun ban, I've read conflicting information that states otherwise. For example, this article has this snipp ...


The specific gun control "idea" I see tossed around is that of licensing. For example in Texas, if you're mentally disabled or mentally ill you can't drive. For all others you learn how to drive and then pass a test to get your driver's license. And this is licensing for a simple car, but we assume it's necessary because a car in the hands of someone not trained in its use is actually dangerous. The same connection is easily drawn with guns. So the argument is really, had there been a gun licensing procedure where mental health was evaluated, would this guy still have been able to get his hands on all those weapons.

As for the crime statistics, it's pretty mind-blowing to search around on the internet for that as the facts are distorted to such a degree it's hard to tell what's legit and what isn't. Still looking though, to be fair.
 
2012-07-26 12:27:07 PM  

Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: The specific gun control "idea" I see tossed around is that of licensing. For example in Texas, if you're mentally disabled or mentally ill you can't drive. For all others you learn how to drive and then pass a test to get your driver's license. And this is licensing for a simple car, but we assume it's necessary because a car in the hands of someone not trained in its use is actually dangerous. The same connection is easily drawn with guns. So the argument is really, had there been a gun licensing procedure where mental health was evaluated, would this guy still have been able to get his hands on all those weapons.

As for the crime statistics, it's pretty mind-blowing to search around on the internet for that as the facts are distorted to such a degree it's hard to tell what's legit and what isn't. Still looking though, to be fair.


I have no problem with a test to own a firearm, but I think that a mental health screening is not a good idea, simply because there are so many differing opinions on mental health. It is not an exact science. Also, what happens if one of the psychologists doing the screening is anti-gun and decides to be very strict and starts denying a license out of spite? And what about the reverse? What if the screening waives through people who might have been better off being denied. The problem with mental health screening is that is is so subjective. At least with a driving test there are a specific set of criteria that need to be followed. It is still subjective to a certain extent, but not much.

As for this guy, given his high degree of intelligence and that this was premeditated he probably would have passed a mental health screening. People like this are very good at hiding emotions.

And in regards to crime statistics, those at the site I linked to seem to match up with numbers I have found at the CDC's website.
 
2012-07-26 12:55:50 PM  

Mock26: Fry's 100th Cup of Coffee: The specific gun control "idea" I see tossed around is that of licensing. For example in Texas, if you're mentally disabled or mentally ill you can't drive. For all others you learn how to drive and then pass a test to get your driver's license. And this is licensing for a simple car, but we assume it's necessary because a car in the hands of someone not trained in its use is actually dangerous. The same connection is easily drawn with guns. So the argument is really, had there been a gun licensing procedure where mental health was evaluated, would this guy still have been able to get his hands on all those weapons.

As for the crime statistics, it's pretty mind-blowing to search around on the internet for that as the facts are distorted to such a degree it's hard to tell what's legit and what isn't. Still looking though, to be fair.

I have no problem with a test to own a firearm, but I think that a mental health screening is not a good idea, simply because there are so many differing opinions on mental health. It is not an exact science. Also, what happens if one of the psychologists doing the screening is anti-gun and decides to be very strict and starts denying a license out of spite? And what about the reverse? What if the screening waives through people who might have been better off being denied. The problem with mental health screening is that is is so subjective. At least with a driving test there are a specific set of criteria that need to be followed. It is still subjective to a certain extent, but not much.

As for this guy, given his high degree of intelligence and that this was premeditated he probably would have passed a mental health screening. People like this are very good at hiding emotions.

And in regards to crime statistics, those at the site I linked to seem to match up with numbers I have found at the CDC's website.


It's sort of an endless loop to discuss whether or not it could have been prevented, but to me the purchase of tear gas (no civilian use) and a high volume of ammunition should have tipped someone off, somewhere. Had he been psychologically profiled before hand, it may have helped, but you are correct that he may have been intelligent enough to pass an exam unharmed.

In the broader issue of gun control, I have no doubt that determined individuals looking to get their hands on deadly weapons will do so, legally or otherwise, but I still think tightening the controls on exactly who can purchase these weapons would help significantly.

It's still much easier, at least where I live, to get firearms legally than it is to get them illegally.
 
Displayed 153 of 153 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report