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.

(Denver Post)   Gun sales in Colorado have jumped more than 41 percent since Friday   (denverpost.com) divider line 619
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

5859 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jul 2012 at 12:19 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-24 01:45:40 PM  

MoveZig: HotIgneous Intruder: MoveZig: I have an Ruger LC9. Plenty of stopping power. Great for conceal carry.

And you know that the first time you shoot a person, that round is going to cost you and the taxpayers at least $150,000 dollars, right?

/Boasting about your weapon on the internet really puts you into a different zone of premeditation should you ever have to use that weapon.
//Zealous much?
///Heaven help you should the opposing attorney ever find your fark postings.

That' why I hope it never happens.

/Researching what weapon fits your requirements and ensuring competency with said weapon is called responsible ownership, not boasting.
//No
///Kind of a huge jump from stating ownership benefits to opposing attorney talk. Not everyone that carries looks for a reason to shoot someone. Personally, I'd rather stick to paper targets.


That's it.
Walk it back, Mister Plenty of Stopping Power.
 
2012-07-24 01:46:09 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not surprised. I wish someone if not someones in that theater were carrying that night. The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too. Better chance having a gun you can use than just cowering back in fear and waiting to get shot like a dog.


I guess you can go with that logic, but every round of yours found lodged in someones body nets you a negligent homicide/attempted homicide charge. Even very highly trained cops accuracy is awful from more than a few feet away in comparatively clear conditions. Im not anti gun. I do have a CCW license. I probably would not have opened fire on this guy unless he was right next to me and I felt I had no choice. Gun ownership/responsibility extends to every round you fire and everything they strike.
 
2012-07-24 01:46:28 PM  
Perspective:

2006 Firearm Murders: 10,225
2007 Firearm Murders: 10,129
2008 Firearm Murders: 9,528
2009 Firearm Murders: 9,199
2010 Firearm Murders: 8,775

Total Firearm Murders, 2006-2010: 47,836

--

2006 Traffic Fatalities: 42,708
2007 Traffic Fatalities: 41,259
2008 Traffic Fatalities: 37,423
2009 Traffic Fatalities: 33,808
2010 Traffic Fatalities: 32,885

Total Traffic Fatalities, 2006-2010: 188,083

--

Annual iatrogenic deaths, various studies, mainstream estimate: 225,000 - 284,000
5 year estimate: 1,125,000 - 1,420,000

Annual iatrogenic deaths, various studies, non-mainstream estimate: 783,936 - 999,936
5 year estimate: 3,919,680 - 4,999,680

--

Refs:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in- th e-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis
http://www.avaresearch.com/ava-main-website/files/20100401061256.pdf ?p age=files/20100401061256.pdf
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
 
2012-07-24 01:46:30 PM  
Not saying that I want to see innocents die.. but when a CCW holder gets shot in a business that had the "No concealed weapons" sign in the window, I want to see a huge lawsuit for that company not allowing someone with a legal license the avenue to protect themselves.
 
2012-07-24 01:46:52 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Noticeably F.A.T.: HotIgneous Intruder: So, if there had been a Rambo shooter in that theater, he would have been arrested immediately for violating Aurora's gun laws.

Aurora, Colorado already has strict gun control laws on the books that make it:

Illegal to carry a concealed weapon, even if you're a law-abiding citizen.
Illegal to discharge a firearm in public unless you are a peace officer.

source.

Your source is kinda wrong. Not that they laws aren't on the books, but with the exception of Denver the city laws are preempted by state laws. The only reason that's not true in Denver is that their law has been on the books for so long, and they can afford lots of lawyers. And even with all that, their law is close to going away.

Regular citizens can afford tons of lawyers and so are compelled to follow the local laws.
Especially ho-ha law-and-order gun-toters.
Therefore they did.


But I do agree with some of the other posters here. Disorienting environment, disabling agent, and the risk of hitting innocent people. Definitely taking cover and trying to get out.
 
2012-07-24 01:47:11 PM  

soup: i.r.id10t: soup: How about a mental health assessment for anyone looking to buy a firearm? Is that too much to ask? Background checks don't pick up crazy if crazy was never diagnosed.

Right after you complete a mental health assessment before speaking, publishing, voting, gathering, holding church services, etc.

Except none of those things can be used to go on a killing spree in a crowded place.


Except the voting part. That's why we need voter ID laws. To prevent NRA members from voting.
 
2012-07-24 01:49:06 PM  

Al_Ed: I woulda been all, like, firing at this clown with my concealed M60 from the hip, friggin' belts of ammo across my bare chest making Rambo look like a straight up pussy, yo! And the after the head shot and he's down? Yup...tea baggin' him...once for every person he harmed. Then I'd whip out my cock and piss into the smoking holes of his body left by my tracers lest the theater burn down and hurt anyone else.

Only because that's how I roll.


Dude, you obviously stole my pitch for "Duke Nukem Forever 2: Murderlicious Boogaloo." Expect a call from my lawyer, who works for the firm of Kalashnikov, Browning, Smith & Wesson.
 
2012-07-24 01:49:11 PM  

Forced Perspective: Gun control is the theory that a dozen dead movie goers in a Colorado theater is morally and politically preferable to a live patron explaining to the police how James Holmes got shot.


That is the single most intelligent thing I have read on Fark today. (No sarcasm mode). Thank you.

Me explaining how James Homles got shot:
"He was being a douche"
 
2012-07-24 01:49:42 PM  

MoveZig: But I do agree with some of the other posters here. Disorienting environment, disabling agent, and the risk of hitting innocent people. Definitely taking cover and trying to get out.


Same here.
Any sane person, even if carrying, would have seen the impossibility of that scenario.
Dark, teargas, chaotic, the frigging stupid move still playing on the screen and making noise, a shooter at crowd-level. Impossible.

Plus, I'd bet most of the people were completely psychologically flummoxed since they were off in movie fantasy land in their heads.
 
2012-07-24 01:49:50 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: master_dman: The 2nd amendment was created so we can protect ourselves from the government.

But you can't.
That's what you don't seem to get.

It's impossible, no matter what weapons you have.
Not to mention incredibly stupid to even try.



Tell that to all the people in the countries that just had a successful uprising. I can think of what.. three.. four in the last year.

You sound like a pussy who piddles in the corner at the first sign of any trouble.
 
2012-07-24 01:50:06 PM  

Blue_Blazer: elguerodiablo:
So what happens in this fantasy when the cops finally burst in and see you holding a gun with a smile on your face and a bunch of dead bodies on the ground? Are they going to assume you handled the situation or that you and the other vigilanties are perps #2-5.

THIS.

Do any of these pieces of macho bullshiat think that far? Even if someone managed to take this guy down, he's now the 'second shooter' accomplice and would likely be arrested and convicted, if the police or ANOTHER lone wolf CCW holder didn't kill him first.


Some of us don't think only of ourselves. Small price to pay for my fellow humans, whose lives I value as much as my own.
 
2012-07-24 01:50:23 PM  

Ned Stark: soup: Ned Stark: soup: i.r.id10t: soup: How about a mental health assessment for anyone looking to buy a firearm? Is that too much to ask? Background checks don't pick up crazy if crazy was never diagnosed.

Right after you complete a mental health assessment before speaking, publishing, voting, gathering, holding church services, etc.

Except none of those things can be used to go on a killing spree in a crowded place.

A million or so Iraqis may have strong opinions about your assertion that American votes don't kill anyone.

Look, more hyperbole.

I'm not saying voting isn't important. I'm saying one mentally deficient person cannot use a single vote to go on a murderous rampage.

Again, I ask, why is it such a point of contention to require a mental health check before letting someone own deadly weapons? Do you think mentally disabled people should be able to buy guns?

Because the pre-purchase evals would abruptly be politicized. California man likes to hunt? Torturing animals is a sure sign of craziness. No gun for him. Texas woman covers every wall of we house with warnings amour "them" written in her own blood? She's such a creative decorator! Sell her a howitzer. It would be utterly pointless and contaminate the already janky field or psychology with even more crap science.


Ok, so you think psychology is "crap science." Sure... alright, let's not do anything then. Whatever.

We'll just have to live with mass shootings every year or more. It's such a small statistic anyway, so who cares?
 
2012-07-24 01:50:34 PM  

soup: give me doughnuts: soup: Carousel Beast: IQof20: So nobody can tell you that you're so crazy that you cannot have a gun vote? Which is the same logic of why the gentleman in question wasn't being treated within a facility despite concerns for his mental well-being. Which allowed his gentleman to go and buy several guns influence and election aaaand...

That a person can't even bring up the point that perhaps...just...perhaps...there are certain times when certain people should not be carrying a weapon voting just makes all of this stupid. If you can't at least come up with one situation where a person should yield their right to carry vote then I don't believe your opinion is relevant beyond the number of bullets ballots you have in your chamber.

And *THAT* unfortunately is the ultimate fear of anyone even tentatively raising their hand vs. anything the NRA is feeding that very vocal minority.

How does your post look now? You can substitute any other right - speech, assembly, etc, and see why your argument is a failure.

Voting cannot be used to go on a killing spree by a crazy person.

If you want to talk about "bearing arms" as being your right, then please stick to muskets, bows, arrows, and swords. Thanks.

Then kindly get off this online forum and limit your screeds to those produced by quill pens and a hand operated printing press. Thanks

Do you think mentally disabled people should be able to purchase guns?


An irrelevant question. Here's one relevant to your previous statements: Do you think the exercise of Constitutionally protected rights should be limited to the technology available in the late 18th century?
 
2012-07-24 01:51:52 PM  

master_dman: Not saying that I want to see innocents die.. but when a CCW holder gets shot in a business that had the "No concealed weapons" sign in the window, I want to see a huge lawsuit for that company not allowing someone with a legal license the avenue to protect themselves.


MoveZig: HotIgneous Intruder: Noticeably F.A.T.: HotIgneous Intruder: So, if there had been a Rambo shooter in that theater, he would have been arrested immediately for violating Aurora's gun laws.

Aurora, Colorado already has strict gun control laws on the books that make it:

Illegal to carry a concealed weapon, even if you're a law-abiding citizen.
Illegal to discharge a firearm in public unless you are a peace officer.

source.

Your source is kinda wrong. Not that they laws aren't on the books, but with the exception of Denver the city laws are preempted by state laws. The only reason that's not true in Denver is that their law has been on the books for so long, and they can afford lots of lawyers. And even with all that, their law is close to going away.

Regular citizens can afford tons of lawyers and so are compelled to follow the local laws.
Especially ho-ha law-and-order gun-toters.
Therefore they did.

But I do agree with some of the other posters here. Disorienting environment, disabling agent, and the risk of hitting innocent people. Definitely taking cover and trying to get out.


Rule 1 is Take Cover.
This guy had little chance of being stopped by any means in that environment in the time expired.
Just not enough time, a very effective tactic.
Lesson, crappy AR15 is crappy.
 
2012-07-24 01:52:07 PM  

jso2897: Al_Ed: I woulda been all, like, firing at this clown with my concealed M60 from the hip, friggin' belts of ammo across my bare chest making Rambo look like a straight up pussy, yo! And the after the head shot and he's down? Yup...tea baggin' him...once for every person he harmed. Then I'd whip out my cock and piss into the smoking holes of his body left by my tracers lest the theater burn down and hurt anyone else.

Only because that's how I roll.

Yeah, but what if he respawns a minute later with a flamethrower?


farm4.staticflickr.com

He takes out his whole team?
 
2012-07-24 01:52:24 PM  

Blue_Blazer: elguerodiablo:
So what happens in this fantasy when the cops finally burst in and see you holding a gun with a smile on your face and a bunch of dead bodies on the ground? Are they going to assume you handled the situation or that you and the other vigilanties are perps #2-5.

THIS.

Do any of these pieces of macho bullshiat think that far? Even if someone managed to take this guy down, he's now the 'second shooter' accomplice and would likely be arrested and convicted, if the police or ANOTHER lone wolf CCW holder didn't kill him first.


Once the shooter is down, you dont continue walking around with your gun still in your hand...you holster it and do what you can to either help the wounded or make sure the police (and medics) are on their way. As soon as the police arrive you calmly disclose your weapon and allow them to take it from you. Do not reach for it yourself.
 
2012-07-24 01:52:27 PM  

gopher321: In other news, the NRA today introduced their new spokesman...

[mojoimage.com image 700x600]


You're stupid farty pants
 
2012-07-24 01:52:39 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Since the Declaration of Inderpendance was written in the 17th century, I think 2nd amendment should apply only to weapons available at that time. Wanna bear arms? Here's your bow, your arrows, your sword, and your catapult. Now fark off.


Ok and I guess the first amendement should only cover printing presses right? You can has a fail.

uttertosh: Galloping Galoshes: Two or three citizens returning fire choking on tear gas, puking because of it, whilst not being able to see, would have terminated this incident their lives very quickly.

fixed for realism.

None of you responding with this ITG shiat have ever been subjected to tear gas, EVAR.

I have. The thing you are 'pulling' is your shirt over your mouth, nose and eyes. Trust me.


I used to run our battalion gas house at Ft. Carson with my NBC Sgt. We got to take our masks off when it was nice and saturated. Yeah gas sucks, IF you've delt with it before it's not nearly as bad.

I don't mind someone who's never met me before calling me an ITG. If that's what you think cool thats your deal. But be openminded enough to know that there are some legit badasses that still can't lawfully carry in a place that displays a no concealed weapons sign.

For those that want to do a google or two while reading fark search USPSA match videos. See what your average competitive shooter can do.
Would you be ok with them being armed in a theater?

If not consider this: Your average police officer only shoots a yearly or bi anual qualification, gets no dept. ammo for training, and MAY have cleaned their gun after their last qualification (probably not it's a glock right?). Factor in the last time they had any firearms instruction was at the academy and they are required to carry everywhere. If you're not concerned maybe you are that trusting soul I can distribute my dead uncles Nigerian treasure to...
 
2012-07-24 01:53:14 PM  

soup: Ned Stark: soup: Ned Stark: soup: i.r.id10t: soup: How about a mental health assessment for anyone looking to buy a firearm? Is that too much to ask? Background checks don't pick up crazy if crazy was never diagnosed.

Right after you complete a mental health assessment before speaking, publishing, voting, gathering, holding church services, etc.

Except none of those things can be used to go on a killing spree in a crowded place.

A million or so Iraqis may have strong opinions about your assertion that American votes don't kill anyone.

Look, more hyperbole.

I'm not saying voting isn't important. I'm saying one mentally deficient person cannot use a single vote to go on a murderous rampage.

Again, I ask, why is it such a point of contention to require a mental health check before letting someone own deadly weapons? Do you think mentally disabled people should be able to buy guns?

Because the pre-purchase evals would abruptly be politicized. California man likes to hunt? Torturing animals is a sure sign of craziness. No gun for him. Texas woman covers every wall of we house with warnings amour "them" written in her own blood? She's such a creative decorator! Sell her a howitzer. It would be utterly pointless and contaminate the already janky field or psychology with even more crap science.

Ok, so you think psychology is "crap science." Sure... alright, let's not do anything then. Whatever.

We'll just have to live with mass shootings every year or more. It's such a small statistic anyway, so who cares?


Care all you want, but don't go all batchit and fall for political agendas.
 
2012-07-24 01:53:24 PM  

master_dman: HotIgneous Intruder: master_dman: The 2nd amendment was created so we can protect ourselves from the government.

But you can't.
That's what you don't seem to get.

It's impossible, no matter what weapons you have.
Not to mention incredibly stupid to even try.


Tell that to all the people in the countries that just had a successful uprising. I can think of what.. three.. four in the last year.


How do you think they would fare against the American military?
 
2012-07-24 01:54:01 PM  

mallorn: People aren't buying guns because they suddenly think they could protect everyone in a situation like Aurora.

They're buying guns because they like guns and are worried that the fallout will limit accessibility. Stock up before it's illegal.


Uhh, unless it's black market sales, I'm pretty sure having someone come by to confiscate your now illegal gun from the registered database wouldn't be that hard.
 
2012-07-24 01:54:34 PM  

Wolf_Cub: Just out of curiousity, can you site a single incident where the use a Freedom of Speech ended with 15 people dead? How about people voting? Can't come up with one? If you can't then your argument is both stupid and invalid.


I don't need to do so. The fact is that when one uses their freedom to break a law, one pays the consequences when they're caught. That's all that needs to be said. The penalties for using freedom of speech poorly, or tampering with votes, are scaled appropriately due to their impact on society and the freedom of the victims. Same with misusing firearms. As such, the arguments are equally valid when attempting to pass restrictions on legal usage.

As for all the CCW fans who thing they would have shot James Holmes and stopped this tragedy, Something to actually think about. Most of you, if you have any training at all, have been trained at center mass shots. Holmes was wearing Body Armor. The best you would have done is break a rib or two and slowed him down. Oh and turned yourself (unprotected as you would have been in a theater, unless you wear body armor everywhere you go) into the next target/victim. You wouldn't have stopped him...you would have died or been severly injured at best. And that is assuming you HIT him, and not a fellow citizen who was running through the tear gas to try and get out themselves. And if you hit a fellow citizen and killed them...YOU would also be up on charges for manslaughter at the very least, because under the circumstances YOU opening fire on the nutjob could and would be consider depraved indifference for the lives of others in the line of fire from both YOU and the nutjob. But if you are ever in this situation, please feel free to open fire if you can, getting you off the streets is just as important as getting Holmes off the streets. because YOU are just as crazy.

No, in no instance could someone defending themselves be legitimately construed as depraved indifference, assuming they didn't just shut their eyes and open fire wildly. I don't make the argument that I, if I was in the theatre and carrying concealed (or openly) that I would've been able to stop Sideshow Bob. I don't even necessarily make the argument that I would've tried. It all depends on a number of factors that aren't actually worth arguing. What can be argued, however, is that without the ability for law-abiding citizens to carry firearms there's no chance to even try.

soup:
OK, so you're equating voting to the right to bear arms. Got it.

So let's allow anyone to own a tank. Or a RPG. Or a nuke. Since "arms" as written in the 18th century clearly was meant to cover every single possible future weapon. Oh, and even though they didn't have any real understanding of people with mental problems back then, we should just not worry about if that guy buying a few automatic rifles, handguns, and a shotgun or two is crazy.

In fact, let's do nothing since people die all the time anyway. Gotta let real 'Muricans play with their toys.


See the above response for how one can equate the two.

I don't think the Founders had any real issue with someone owning a mortar or cannon. I see no real issue with someone owning a tank. Nukes are, for all practical purposes, unobtainable simply due to their cost.

As for the crazy portion, if someone has been legitimately diagnosed as mentally unstable for purposes other than firearm control, then they have legitimate restrictions placed on them already. Freedom of movement may be constrained (institutionalized), they may not be able to get a driver's license, and in many areas they're unable to purchase a firearm from a business. In some instances, depending on the severity, it may even be legal to seize their firearms or other bits of property. However, to institute a mandatory sanity test (which is what you're asking for) prior to purchase is really not different than a poll tax. It's something that can be artificially manipulated to restrict a right. If you're unaware, that's unconstitutional.
 
2012-07-24 01:54:58 PM  

master_dman: Tell that to all the people in the countries that just had a successful uprising. I can think of what.. three.. four in the last year.

You sound like a pussy who piddles in the corner at the first sign of any trouble.


And you sound like an idiot.

But you go ahead and fight the full force of the government and all its weapons head-on
Let me know how that works out for you.
Or let me see it on the news.

/I have icepicks, a warm plate of food, and a smile for any hostiles who should turn up at my house.
[All you need is an icepick to stick in an ear to get an assault rifle and ammunition if it comes down to that, but I digress.]
 
2012-07-24 01:55:18 PM  

Bendal: I call utter bullshiat on your claim. "Two or three citizens" firing their handguns at an armored gunman in a dark




Why do people keep saying he was wearing body armor?
The reciept:
bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com
Shows he bought a tactical vest. NOT body armor. All a tactical vest is, is a vest with pouches for mags and straps to hang equipment from.
Looks just like this:
www.blackhawk.com
They don't stop bullets. (unless you catch one in a full magazine....but then you might have other problems).
 
2012-07-24 01:57:25 PM  

hitlersbrain: It would be nice if the people allowed to do so could be regulated.


You're not the first person to make that claim. You know that they are regulated already, right? So why are you being dishonest?

It's not as bad as the folks claiming that it was an automatic weapon... *sighs*
 
2012-07-24 01:57:27 PM  

Carousel Beast: Carousel Beast:
And we have limits on arms in certain situations now.


Thanks. Now say that the State has the right to determine reasonable guidelines on usage and practice of said rights within the boundaries expressed within the Constitution. ;)

What we don't do, though, is decide someone is "crazy" and start taking away their rights in a blanket manner.

Which isn't what I said. I simply stated that the NRA (the organization - not every member) is promoting that you can't trust anyone to tell you that you're crazy so here's a gun.

...[slippery slope argument condensed for space]...

There's always a legitimate concern for laws falling outside of the realm of what's reasonable. Which is why we have a system where laws are dynamic in some regards and can move w/ society. Hopefully in small ways, but that's the nature of our system.

The issue is that the slope is waaaaay on the other side at this point. As I stated originally, you yourself are not easily allowing a discussion on someone who is "crazy" not getting a weapon. I'm all for starting to lay out what constitutes "crazy". But you've already jumped the shark to me taking *RON PAUL!!!!* supporters rights away. If anybody's doing that BTW, it's the Republican Party, not me.

I accept the concerns for "what is crazy", but let's define it instead of just throwing ye' olde slippery slope argument out there w/o some real tied down concerns short of Nazi Germany.
 
2012-07-24 01:57:43 PM  

MythDragon: Why do people keep saying he was wearing body armor?



People are poorly informed and stupid?
 
2012-07-24 01:57:52 PM  

give me doughnuts: soup: give me doughnuts: soup: Carousel Beast: IQof20: So nobody can tell you that you're so crazy that you cannot have a gun vote? Which is the same logic of why the gentleman in question wasn't being treated within a facility despite concerns for his mental well-being. Which allowed his gentleman to go and buy several guns influence and election aaaand...

That a person can't even bring up the point that perhaps...just...perhaps...there are certain times when certain people should not be carrying a weapon voting just makes all of this stupid. If you can't at least come up with one situation where a person should yield their right to carry vote then I don't believe your opinion is relevant beyond the number of bullets ballots you have in your chamber.

And *THAT* unfortunately is the ultimate fear of anyone even tentatively raising their hand vs. anything the NRA is feeding that very vocal minority.

How does your post look now? You can substitute any other right - speech, assembly, etc, and see why your argument is a failure.

Voting cannot be used to go on a killing spree by a crazy person.

If you want to talk about "bearing arms" as being your right, then please stick to muskets, bows, arrows, and swords. Thanks.

Then kindly get off this online forum and limit your screeds to those produced by quill pens and a hand operated printing press. Thanks

Do you think mentally disabled people should be able to purchase guns?

An irrelevant question. Here's one relevant to your previous statements: Do you think the exercise of Constitutionally protected rights should be limited to the technology available in the late 18th century?


How is my question irrelevant? I've been asking it for the past hour, and no gun rights advocates have tried to answer it. Again - do you think mentally disabled people should be allowed to own guns?

And no, the exercise of Constitutionally protected rights should evolve as the country and technology evolves. That's pretty clear. So saying that we should control who can own 21st century "arms' and also saying that the internet is a useful form of free speech that should be protected for everyone isn't a contradictory statement, as much as you're trying to portray it as one.

By the way, do you believe anyone should be able to purchase a RPG or tank if they have the means? If not, isn't that a form of "arms" control?
 
2012-07-24 01:57:58 PM  

fonebone77: Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not surprised. I wish someone if not someones in that theater were carrying that night. The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too. Better chance having a gun you can use than just cowering back in fear and waiting to get shot like a dog.

I guess you can go with that logic, but every round of yours found lodged in someones body nets you a negligent homicide/attempted homicide charge. Even very highly trained cops accuracy is awful from more than a few feet away in comparatively clear conditions. Im not anti gun. I do have a CCW license. I probably would not have opened fire on this guy unless he was right next to me and I felt I had no choice. Gun ownership/responsibility extends to every round you fire and everything they strike.


The obligatory response from the gun nuts would be that any CCW licensed person would be a far better shot than your local police officer since they would've spent hundreds of hours per month at the range compared to cops who don't have the time since they are patrolling the streets.
 
2012-07-24 01:58:45 PM  

MythDragon: Why do people keep saying he was wearing body armor?


Because the media said it at the beginning of all of this, now try getting those worms back in the can.
 
2012-07-24 01:58:50 PM  
Any honest brass count yet?
 
2012-07-24 01:58:59 PM  

soup: Ned Stark: soup: Ned Stark: soup: i.r.id10t: soup: How about a mental health assessment for anyone looking to buy a firearm? Is that too much to ask? Background checks don't pick up crazy if crazy was never diagnosed.

Right after you complete a mental health assessment before speaking, publishing, voting, gathering, holding church services, etc.

Except none of those things can be used to go on a killing spree in a crowded place.

A million or so Iraqis may have strong opinions about your assertion that American votes don't kill anyone.

Look, more hyperbole.

I'm not saying voting isn't important. I'm saying one mentally deficient person cannot use a single vote to go on a murderous rampage.

Again, I ask, why is it such a point of contention to require a mental health check before letting someone own deadly weapons? Do you think mentally disabled people should be able to buy guns?

Because the pre-purchase evals would abruptly be politicized. California man likes to hunt? Torturing animals is a sure sign of craziness. No gun for him. Texas woman covers every wall of we house with warnings amour "them" written in her own blood? She's such a creative decorator! Sell her a howitzer. It would be utterly pointless and contaminate the already janky field or psychology with even more crap science.

Ok, so you think psychology is "crap science." Sure... alright, let's not do anything then. Whatever.

We'll just have to live with mass shootings every year or more. It's such a small statistic anyway, so who cares?


Psychology is pretty janky----->all of psychology ice crap.
Hurrdurr keep smacking that strawman.

But to explicitly answer your question, no I don't think people with diagnosed mental disorders should be able to purchase firearms but you shouldn't have to undergo screening specifically to purchase them.
 
2012-07-24 01:58:59 PM  

Iranoobie: [redstatevirginia.com image 675x450]
Faith in action. Bolt action, that is.


Guns on the nun.
 
2012-07-24 01:59:30 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Since the Declaration of Inderpendance was written in the 17th century, I think 2nd amendment should apply only to weapons available at that time. Wanna bear arms? Here's your bow, your arrows, your sword, and your catapult. Now fark off.


WTF are you talking about?
 
2012-07-24 02:00:48 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: master_dman: HotIgneous Intruder: master_dman: The 2nd amendment was created so we can protect ourselves from the government.

But you can't.
That's what you don't seem to get.

It's impossible, no matter what weapons you have.
Not to mention incredibly stupid to even try.


Tell that to all the people in the countries that just had a successful uprising. I can think of what.. three.. four in the last year.

How do you think they would fare against the American military?


Fairly well actually......Wasn;t there a Marine who devastated the technologically unmatched US war machine in an excercise where he was severely limited as far as arms and weapon systems....I think the left used that excercise against the hawks in a thread or two dozen here calling for an invasion of Iran.

You don;t have to actually defeat a tank, or Apache or F 15...you only have to defeat the driver or pilot..I think there may even be maps that show you where the bases are across the country .....

asymmetrical and improvised warfare is a sonuvabiatch
 
2012-07-24 02:00:57 PM  

Jim_Callahan: On a slightly different "perspective" note:

Colorado movie theater shooting (friday):
-- months or years of preparation
-- loads of expensive armaments
-- body count: 12
-- collateral damage: maybe some people will rethink visiting the theater for the next couple weeks

Coyote crash on highway 59 (sunday):
-- five seconds of negligence
-- single beat-up f150 worth about 500$
-- body count:14
-- collateral damage: shut down major shipping highway for several hours


Sideshow Bob wasn't even the most destructive individual criminal this weekend, and the other guy didn't need a gun or free time to top the body count. Real criminals are apparently more dangerous even without intending to be.

I guess no one cares, though. Maybe the victims don't count on account of being brown and looking for work.

//Alternate moral: obviously, we need to ban the use of automobiles by all non-law-enforcement personnel.


Jim Callahan's World: Where 58 injured people are not collateral damage.
 
2012-07-24 02:01:46 PM  

give me doughnuts: give me doughnuts:An irrelevant question. Here's one relevant to your previous statements: Do you think the exercise of Constitutionally protected rights should be limited to the technology available in the late 18th century?


Actually the question of mental capacity is a VERY relevant question here and specifically to the situation at hand.

However, it is pleasant that you chose to recognize the fellow's position was a knock on the "original intent" argument yet now appear to be attempting literal translation to obfuscate. Kudos on your internet argument skills.
 
2012-07-24 02:01:47 PM  

redlegrick: uttertosh: Bit'O'Gristle: uttertosh: Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not surprised. I wish someone if not someones in that theater were carrying that night. The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too. Better chance having a gun you can use than just cowering back in fear and waiting to get shot like a dog.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

/yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.


except, IRL: you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

I agree with that last one. I carry, and I've experienced tear gas. If I were in the theatre, the LAST thing I would've done would be to draw and fire. It's dark, there's confusing light sources (the screen), confusion, people darting this way and that. Add to this mix an incapacitating agent, and all someone'd do is add to the body count. Maybe if the dude were within spitting distance, I may have attempted, but other than that, I'd have been @ssh0les and elbows getting out of there too.

And yes, I consider myself well-trained, I have taken the FBI equivalent course and am an alternate on my club's PPC league, so I am not spewing ITG nonsense here.


Favorited: Reasonable gun guy!
 
2012-07-24 02:01:59 PM  

Monongahela Misfit: Suggesting that the NRA had anything to do with Sideshow Bob going nuts in CO is just pathetic.


The gun community has a responsibility to police their own.
 
2012-07-24 02:02:12 PM  

Giltric: You don;t have to actually defeat a tank, or Apache or F 15...you only have to defeat the driver or pilot..I think there may even be maps that show you where the bases are across the country .....

asymmetrical and improvised warfare is a sonuvabiatch


That's why those vehicles are, ya know, armored.

Assymetrical brains and eyeballs are a summabiatch, aren't they?
 
2012-07-24 02:02:22 PM  

Forced Perspective: Gun control is the theory that a dozen dead movie goers in a Colorado theater is morally and politically preferable to a live patron explaining to the police how James Holmes got shot.


Well said sir.
 
2012-07-24 02:02:31 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: MoveZig: HotIgneous Intruder: MoveZig: I have an Ruger LC9. Plenty of stopping power. Great for conceal carry.

And you know that the first time you shoot a person, that round is going to cost you and the taxpayers at least $150,000 dollars, right?

/Boasting about your weapon on the internet really puts you into a different zone of premeditation should you ever have to use that weapon.
//Zealous much?
///Heaven help you should the opposing attorney ever find your fark postings.

That' why I hope it never happens.

/Researching what weapon fits your requirements and ensuring competency with said weapon is called responsible ownership, not boasting.
//No
///Kind of a huge jump from stating ownership benefits to opposing attorney talk. Not everyone that carries looks for a reason to shoot someone. Personally, I'd rather stick to paper targets.

That's it.
Walk it back, Mister Plenty of Stopping Power.


Huh? I'm not walking back anything. You're the troll that immediately goes into full derp, "You're gonna cost taxpayers $$, you boaster!" Just because you own a weapon for conceal carry means you're looking for a reason to actually use it.

No matter what the weapon, 12 ga. for skeet or sport shooting, .30-30 for hunting, or 9mm for self/home defense: research, education, training and proficiency are all components of responsible ownership.
 
2012-07-24 02:02:40 PM  

doubled99: Galloping Galoshes Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 12:35:32 PM


Bit'O'Gristle: /yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.

I endorse this message. I like the ones that suggest you run. Last time I checked, you can't outrun a bullet.
I was always taught: run away from a knife, run toward a gun. If you can get inside of about 6 feet, you have a good chance. And throw anything you can reach in the gunman's face.

Of course, if you have a weapon and training, just pop him. From cover.



Please. The average Farker is offended by the thought that anyone would ever do anything in a violent situation. "You're dreaming, internet tough guy!"
Faking Bruce Lee could be in a thread here and all he'd get are "ITG" hurled at him.



This.

Given the amount of people who have recently come back from the armed forces with both training and experience, I'm not sure I'd just be throwing ITG around willy nilly myself.

Also the basic fact that everyone reacts differently. *Some* people may curl up and do nothing, but not everyone will do that when presented with this sort of situation. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that a few people would attack him right back if they had the means.

/That's just nature.
 
2012-07-24 02:02:42 PM  

master_dman: People just don't seem to get it.

The 2nd amendment was created so we can protect ourselves from the government.

The only people who want to get rid of guns are the government, or people who are woefully ignorant.


And how would this work exactly? Shoot cops? FBI? Senators? On who's approval? This is what the constitution provides for? Shootin' Presidents? Sounds like Oswald should've gotten a medal for constitutional bravery! Am I allowed to start blowing away TSA agents because of the 2nd Amendment? Hooray (kidding, DHS... making a point... I know you're readin' this too...)!

Fark wouldn't be anywhere near as interesting if everyone had to pass basic logic courses before participating. It allows massive derp-fests like this one. Woo Hoo!

\thinks that "militia" part might not have referred to blowing away your gub'mint.
 
2012-07-24 02:02:56 PM  

PsyLord: fonebone77: Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not surprised. I wish someone if not someones in that theater were carrying that night. The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too. Better chance having a gun you can use than just cowering back in fear and waiting to get shot like a dog.

I guess you can go with that logic, but every round of yours found lodged in someones body nets you a negligent homicide/attempted homicide charge. Even very highly trained cops accuracy is awful from more than a few feet away in comparatively clear conditions. Im not anti gun. I do have a CCW license. I probably would not have opened fire on this guy unless he was right next to me and I felt I had no choice. Gun ownership/responsibility extends to every round you fire and everything they strike.

The obligatory response from the gun nuts would be that any CCW licensed person would be a far better shot than your local police officer since they would've spent hundreds of hours per month at the range compared to cops who don't have the time since they are patrolling the streets.


Cops have to prove themselves once a year....and from what I hear they are given an unlimited amount of time and ammo to prove themself qualified.

On average we go through 1000 rounds a month shooting paper....recreationally.
 
2012-07-24 02:03:13 PM  

Giltric: HotWingConspiracy: master_dman: HotIgneous Intruder: master_dman: The 2nd amendment was created so we can protect ourselves from the government.

But you can't.
That's what you don't seem to get.

It's impossible, no matter what weapons you have.
Not to mention incredibly stupid to even try.


Tell that to all the people in the countries that just had a successful uprising. I can think of what.. three.. four in the last year.

How do you think they would fare against the American military?

Fairly well actually......Wasn;t there a Marine who devastated the technologically unmatched US war machine in an excercise where he was severely limited as far as arms and weapon systems....I think the left used that excercise against the hawks in a thread or two dozen here calling for an invasion of Iran.

You don;t have to actually defeat a tank, or Apache or F 15...you only have to defeat the driver or pilot..I think there may even be maps that show you where the bases are across the country .....

asymmetrical and improvised warfare is a sonuvabiatch


There was also a squid that did more damage to a battleship than battle.
People are scary dangerous all by themselves.
 
2012-07-24 02:03:50 PM  
wookiee cookie Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 01:05:27 PM


doubled99: Galloping Galoshes Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 12:35:32 PM


Bit'O'Gristle: /yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.

I endorse this message. I like the ones that suggest you run. Last time I checked, you can't outrun a bullet.
I was always taught: run away from a knife, run toward a gun. If you can get inside of about 6 feet, you have a good chance. And throw anything you can reach in the gunman's face.

Of course, if you have a weapon and training, just pop him. From cover.



Please. The average Farker is offended by the thought that anyone would ever do anything in a violent situation. "You're dreaming, internet tough guy!"
Faking Bruce Lee could be in a thread here and all he'd get are "ITG" hurled at him.

bruce lee didn't use guns nor advocate gun ownership saturation of the public

/the more you know




Hey! Thanks for that important piece of information!
 
2012-07-24 02:05:39 PM  

jayhawk88: OK, you know what? You want to pack heat at the library or supermarket? Fine. Go pass an FBI weapons training course. The same one they give to agents. You do it at your own cost too. If it's that damn important to you, if you really feel like your life is in danger every time you enter a Denny's, this should be no problem for you.


I have a friend who thoroughly believes this: She packs heat every where she goes, because she is convinced that one crazy is just waiting to jump her and attack. NO....she's not particularly hot. She's pretty average, but god help you if you even slightly insinuate that her guns might not be the constant necessity she needs at her side. (No, she's never been in a situation where she'd have to fire it.) She's a middle aged, large woman who knows that she's the next target on a crazy's list.

How she manages to muster up the courage to leave the house is beyond me.

/Why yes, she is a tea party member...why do you ask?
//all I've heard is how she's ready to protect her life if this ever happens in a theater she's in. I sprained my eye rolling at that one.
 
2012-07-24 02:05:59 PM  
From reading various articles from the past several days, allow me to group everyone into one fo two categories.
(This is a generalization, and just two categories for the sake of simplicity. I know there are variables that don't fit, but that's not what I am addressing)

Gun Nuts:
-Love Guns
-Knows all about guns.
-Can tell you how guns work, how to safety use them, how to clean them and how to store them properly
-Have lots of experience with guns. Shoots them frequently
-Raised with guns. Their paw had a gun, and he took them out to shoot it to show them how to correctly use it.

Anti-Gun Nuts
-Hates guns
-Knows fark-all about guns
-Can tell you that an automatic Glock-47 takes a high capacity clip and shoots cop killer bullets through 8 feet of brick wall, 4 miles way.
-Has no experience with guns, other than the time they saw their kid playing Call of Honor:Bloody Warfare and grounded him for a month.
-Was given a BB when he was 7. Promptly shot his sister in the eye with the evil thing. Hasn't touched a gun since.

I think there was some sort of correlation I was trying to make, but I forgot where I was going with this.
 
2012-07-24 02:07:20 PM  

Giltric: HotWingConspiracy: master_dman: HotIgneous Intruder: master_dman: The 2nd amendment was created so we can protect ourselves from the government.

But you can't.
That's what you don't seem to get.

It's impossible, no matter what weapons you have.
Not to mention incredibly stupid to even try.


Tell that to all the people in the countries that just had a successful uprising. I can think of what.. three.. four in the last year.

How do you think they would fare against the American military?

Fairly well actually......Wasn;t there a Marine who devastated the technologically unmatched US war machine in an excercise where he was severely limited as far as arms and weapon systems....I think the left used that excercise against the hawks in a thread or two dozen here calling for an invasion of Iran.


That scenario assumes you've got an army with a command structure. I don't see that playing out when the Hoverround revolution commences.

You don;t have to actually defeat a tank, or Apache or F 15...you only have to defeat the driver or pilot..I think there may even be maps that show you where the bases are across the country .....

Approaching a base would be the last thing I'd want to do in that situation.

asymmetrical and improvised warfare is a sonuvabiatch

Without a doubt, I just don't see it going well for any potential Johnny Rebs in our midst.
 
Displayed 50 of 619 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report