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  
•       •       •

5857 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 02:37:13 PM  

farkityfarker: Are people not aware that the perpetrator has been incarcerated?


The Assault weapons ban nuts have not been incarcerated.

People are buying all the guns they need to complete their collection before it becomes even more impossible for people to legally buy anything but Red Rider BB guns.
 
2012-07-24 02:37:15 PM  

Kit Fister: But yes, let's not stop that from getting our panties in a twist over those scary guns because no one was ever killed with anything else...


True that!
Last year there were 6353 people killed with knives, 2952 with clubs, 9800 with arrows (most shot with bows, but some were just plunged into victims) and over 25000 with harsh words. Note, all figures are POA.
 
2012-07-24 02:37:39 PM  
 
2012-07-24 02:37:47 PM  

POO_FLINGA: How many guns did Timothy McVeigh use? Or Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Jeff Dahmer?


Serial killer != mass murderer. Timothy McVeigh is a relevant example, Ted Bundy and Jeff Dahmer not so much. But yeah, if you want to kill a truly large amount of people at once it seems there's more efficient ways.

Bottom line is people don't like to think about the fact that there are no guarantees in life, you can die suddenly for completely farking random reasons.
 
2012-07-24 02:37:50 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

How do you know he had a CC permit?


I'm pretty sure the police can't disclose to a third party that someone has a carry license, especially through a license plate. And besides, that would only give them the registered owner, not the person driving the car.

I'm gonna go ahead and safely call bullshiat on this one.
 
2012-07-24 02:38:00 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Most CC permit holders are pretty scrupulous when it comes to following the law, so NO.


See, this is where my own immediate experience disagrees. Out of my friends, I know at least three habitual carriers who don't give the slightest gotdamn about signage. Carry at church, sporting events, bars, college campuses, whatever, signs be damned, unless they're likely to be searched. "Better in jail than dead" (or presumably out of a job, since one is in corrections). But, I don't know how common that really is across all gun-carriers, and I would even tend to be wary of most surveys in that vein.
 
2012-07-24 02:38:06 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

How do you know he had a CC permit?


See above... at the scene, they told me after they ran his plates. Right or wrong, that was enough to sour me on the "law abiding registered derp-d-derp." Any idiot can get any gun, and this jackass got a permit intending to use it to replace his needle-d**k.
 
2012-07-24 02:38:07 PM  

soup: ronaprhys: 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.

How about a voter education quiz prior to casting a vote? Or a poll tax?

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.


Now you're for expanding the rights to arm yourself? Hmm... Maybe you're getting smarter...

Just because you're a coward doesn't mean that you need to remove freedoms. Your cowardice for a vanishingly small risk is not justification for removing rights. (It is also not an acceptable excuse to broaden them either.)

You know that, right?
 
2012-07-24 02:38:46 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

How do you know he had a CC permit?


Why are the police telling someone about someone elses CCW....what if the guy who called the police was casing a house hoping the picked a house that contained firearms.

smells like one of those bullscat stories people use to make other people into some sort of criminal.
 
2012-07-24 02:39:08 PM  

Giltric: 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.


Yeah, it was in one of Malcolm Gladwell's books. Interesting story.
 
2012-07-24 02:39:23 PM  

Kit Fister: 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.

Oh really? Guess that means no revolution was ever successful then?


Please conflate a bit more until you've gone full pretzel.

Revolt away. I'll use your weapon and ammo after you're atomized.
 
2012-07-24 02:39:42 PM  

soup: Carousel Beast: 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.

No, voting can do a hell of a lot worse than a shooting spree. I'd certainly be in favor of curtailing your voting rights based on the drooling stupidity of your reply.

Nice reply - deflect from my comment and call me a drooling idiot. Certainly makes me think better of gun rights advocates.


Well, by you argument "voting can not be used to go on a killing spree.........."

Cars can, gasoline can, baseball bats can, most household chemicals can....

While I agree his response turned more ad hominen, he did raise a good point. If you curtail on right enumerated in the constitution, you can do it to all of them, like voting or free speech.

Right to own firearms has been upheld by scotus several times. Dont like it, move or campaign for a constitutional ammendment.
 
2012-07-24 02:40:16 PM  

soup: 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 prett ...


Actually, it was your earlier statement of limiting "bearing arms" to muskets and such that prompted my response. You seemed to be implying that certain rights should be limited, temporally speaking.

As far as private citizens owning advanced weaponry, let me ask you this: Have you ever been to a machine-gun shoot? These events take place periodically at large outdoor shooting ranges. Loud, but fun. And no, the weapons systems are not being displayed by military personnel. These are private citizens firing off their M-2 .50 caliber machine guns and 3000 rounds per minute mini-guns.
What I favor are reasonable restrictions. Just what is, and is not reaonable is the core argument in all gun-control disputes.

Is keeping guns away from individuals who have been judged mentally disturbed and a danger to themselves and others by medical authorities and the courts reasonable? Yes, it is.
Is requiring every potential gun-owner to pass a "mental stability evaluation" reasonable? No, not in the least.
 
2012-07-24 02:40:45 PM  

MythDragon: Uranus Is Huge!: 1) How do you sit comfortably in the theater with a handgun that is powerful enough to penetrate body armor?

Like this:
and


Except the ammo is illegal, and commercial ammo available for it is woefully crappy.
 
2012-07-24 02:40:56 PM  

thetubameister: HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

How do you know he had a CC permit?

See above... at the scene, they told me after they ran his plates. Right or wrong, that was enough to sour me on the "law abiding registered derp-d-derp." Any idiot can get any gun, and this jackass got a permit intending to use it to replace his needle-d**k.



Ahh he is a troll making things up. thats how he knew the guy had a ccw..."the police told him"
 
2012-07-24 02:41:25 PM  

thetubameister: See above... at the scene, they told me after they ran his plates. Right or wrong, that was enough to sour me on the "law abiding registered derp-d-derp." Any idiot can get any gun, and this jackass got a permit intending to use it to replace his needle-d**k.


So you called the cops after he left?
You should have pressed charges.
 
2012-07-24 02:42:15 PM  

Kit Fister: 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.

Oh really? Guess that means no revolution was ever successful then?


Advocating an overthrow of the US Gov't are we? We really think that's what the 2nd is for? It's the "in case you stop liking this document, start blowing away said document and all folks serving thereof" clause?

Unique interpretation.
 
2012-07-24 02:42:31 PM  
Okay, people keep bringing up body armor as a reason why a CCW defense would have been pointless.

My question is: Does anyone yet know precisely what type of 'body armor' he had?

It makes a huge difference between whether he had just plain riot gear (maybe mitigate some damage from a .32acp or smaller or a weak .380), or if he had plates (something like 9mm for Type I, 45 ACP for Type II, .308 rifles for Type IIIa, etc, though that's a rough guess from memory).

If he just had 'riot gear' or a plate carrier rig most CCW calibers would have gone through it. If he was actually using armor plates then that's a whole other story.
 
2012-07-24 02:43:35 PM  

Draskuul: Okay, people keep bringing up body armor as a reason why a CCW defense would have been pointless.

My question is: Does anyone yet know precisely what type of 'body armor' he had?

It makes a huge difference between whether he had just plain riot gear (maybe mitigate some damage from a .32acp or smaller or a weak .380), or if he had plates (something like 9mm for Type I, 45 ACP for Type II, .308 rifles for Type IIIa, etc, though that's a rough guess from memory).

If he just had 'riot gear' or a plate carrier rig most CCW calibers would have gone through it. If he was actually using armor plates then that's a whole other story.


I think the only real armor he had was the kevlar helmet, if that.
 
2012-07-24 02:44:02 PM  

Fark It: HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

How do you know he had a CC permit?

I'm pretty sure the police can't disclose to a third party that someone has a carry license, especially through a license plate. And besides, that would only give them the registered owner, not the person driving the car.

I'm gonna go ahead and safely call bullshiat on this one.


Suit yourself. I'm not sure I've seen any signs of police perfection here on fark... or anywhere. They simply advised me he had a carry license and brandishing it or threatening with it would get that license removed. But, your choice... cops are perfect in your world. So are gun owners too, I'll wager.
 
2012-07-24 02:44:06 PM  

thetubameister: HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

How do you know he had a CC permit?

See above... at the scene, they told me after they ran his plates. Right or wrong, that was enough to sour me on the "law abiding registered derp-d-derp." Any idiot can get any gun, and this jackass got a permit intending to use it to replace his needle-d**k.


Good to see that you completely failed any statistics or science class you've ever taken.

/because anecdote isn't the plural of data.
//Could use your same logic to clearly demonstrate all self-confessed liberals are facists.
///Or that all conservatives are a paragon of charity
////Or that all Muslims are kind and loving. Or extremely hateful of all non-muslins
 
2012-07-24 02:44:30 PM  

MythDragon: 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 image 620x461]
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 image 450x450]
They don't stop bullets. (unless you catch one in a full magazine....but then you might have other problems).


Maybe they said he was wearing body armor because that's what the police say he was wearing. And I'll take their word on this over your word any day. They say he was wearing a ballistic vest and ballistic helmet and ballistic limb protection.

You provide a receipt that proves nothing other than he bought one item and then argue he wasn't wearing a ballistic vest because it's not on that one receipt. This is specious reasoning at best, but more likely you're intentionally being deceptive and defensive.
 
2012-07-24 02:45:06 PM  

Draskuul: Okay, people keep bringing up body armor as a reason why a CCW defense would have been pointless.


No reason to distribute free condoms because they don't protect against rape.

/chimp logic
 
2012-07-24 02:45:19 PM  

thetubameister: Kit Fister: 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.

Oh really? Guess that means no revolution was ever successful then?

Advocating an overthrow of the US Gov't are we? We really think that's what the 2nd is for? It's the "in case you stop liking this document, start blowing away said document and all folks serving thereof" clause?

Unique interpretation.


You sound like a poll-eese man, what with your sorta fake story about the CC permit bully and now this.
 
2012-07-24 02:45:24 PM  

nacarter: I just love the ITG NRA cowboys that are coming out of the woodwork.

As a police officer, I'll tell you that the TACTICAL SQUAD doesn't want to go into that situation because the only thing harder than a dark movie theatre with 100+ panicking innocents in your arc of fire, an assailant in body armour, and teargas just for fun, is an airplane hijacking. Even if 10 people in that theatre had a weapon, 7 never even draw, and with visibility down to near zero, what the hell are the other three going to do with a Saturday Night Special? It looks real good when you have to explain to CNN that half a dozen kids also got caught in the crossfire - Anything to make the NRA newsletter, I guess.

NONE of you weekend warriors have any experience shooting while under the effects of tear gas, hell most of you haven't even done a night shoot. While it may look easy in Call of Duty, real life is a whole different game. What happens if things go sideways and you wind up with a hostage situation or barricaded subject? Are you cowboys negotiators as well?

Leave the heroics to the experts.


And, pretty much THIS... Well, except the whole LEO bit. I spent eight years in the service. I can't say what I'd have done during this if I had been there but I can say that it would be extremely unlikely that a firearm would have been my tool of choice for that situation. Combat is two things that people don't get. The first? It is scary. The second is that it usually very quick.

I, honestly, probably would have done what I could to cover me and mine and gotten them to safety as quickly as possible -- if possible. Other than my family/friends I don't think I'd have done anything else but that's mostly because I don't like people that much and the assholes were probably talking in the theater anyhow.
 
2012-07-24 02:46:30 PM  
In threads like this I'm not sure who to be amused by more, the ITG's, or the people who assume that everyone wets their pants as soon as they do when confronted with danger.
 
2012-07-24 02:47:07 PM  

Kit Fister: MythDragon: Uranus Is Huge!: 1) How do you sit comfortably in the theater with a handgun that is powerful enough to penetrate body armor?

Like this:
and

Except the ammo is illegal, and commercial ammo available for it is woefully crappy.


5.7mm is illegal?

Where? I just saw a shelf full at the local store when I went to pick up some CLP. SS109 is available for purchase....I have some mags loaded with it for the AR.

It doesn;t have to be made specially in order to defeat armor...the ballistic properties of the 5.7mm round will penetrate armor..... .17HMR can do it too I believe.
 
2012-07-24 02:47:12 PM  

thetubameister: spacelord321: SuperNinjaToad: the BIGGEST problem with most guns owners is they tend to think of themselves as uber rational, super cool, calm rational people who will only use it in the most extreme of danger and that they are also super sharpshooters.
Problem is most aren't sharpshooters and they are just as susceptible to stress, emotional distress, anger and irrationality than anyone else!
That's what makes gun owners so dangerous.

I would rather face a thug with an illegal gun who is trying to rob me than a 'law abiding' citizen with legally purchased AR-15s who just got dumped by his wife, lost his job because it got shipped to China, got everything taken away from him and was just told by his kids that they hate him and is going to call the new guy 'dad' instead of him...........and I just accidently cut him off in traffic .....and I look Asian...

WTF am I reading? I don't even...

This happened to me. Dipshiat tailgating idiot got mad when I flashed my brake lights, and eventually put on my hazards and slowed to a craw to get him to go around me. This CCW license holder got out of his car at the next light with his gun pulled. So, yeah, I'd like to discourage that piece of shiat from legally owning a gun.


So, because one person has done this to you, you assume we all act this way?
 
2012-07-24 02:48:39 PM  

Source4leko: In threads like this I'm not sure who to be amused by more, the ITG's, or the people who assume that everyone wets their pants as soon as they do when confronted with danger.


Well this IS the internet. It's a pretty bipolar place. Nuance is seen as weakness.
 
2012-07-24 02:50:09 PM  

slarti0001: MythDragon: 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 image 620x461]
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 image 450x450]
They don't stop bullets. (unless you catch one in a full magazine....but then you might have other problems).

Maybe they said he was wearing body armor because that's what the police say he was wearing. And I'll take their word on this over your word any day. They say he was wearing a ballistic vest and ballistic helmet and ballistic limb protection.

You provide a receipt that proves nothing other than he bought one item and then argue he wasn't wearing a ballistic vest because it's not on that one receipt. This is specious reasoning at best, but more likely you're intentionally being deceptive and defensive.


Maybe they were made of ballistic nylon.....like a watch band or a back pack.
 
2012-07-24 02:50:17 PM  

ronaprhys: thetubameister: HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

How do you know he had a CC permit?

See above... at the scene, they told me after they ran his plates. Right or wrong, that was enough to sour me on the "law abiding registered derp-d-derp." Any idiot can get any gun, and this jackass got a permit intending to use it to replace his needle-d**k.

Good to see that you completely failed any statistics or science class you've ever taken.

/because anecdote isn't the plural of data.
//Could use your same logic to clearly demonstrate all self-confessed liberals are facists.
///Or that all conservatives are a paragon of charity
////Or that all Muslims are kind and loving. Or extremely hateful of all non-muslins


HUH?!? Who's making an argument? Not I... It is only an anecdote. But I'll extrapolate - logically or illogically - from my own experiences as I will. And this douche was a douche.
 
2012-07-24 02:50:28 PM  
Has anyone here pointed out how unlikely it would be that his "body armor" would have protected him from a (boom) headshot?

Because in a crowded movie theater, I suspect there was no way for him to keep tabs on 100% of the people. One carefully aimed shot to the head would have been unlikely but by no means impossible.

The rush on guns is pretty logical and to be expected.
 
2012-07-24 02:50:54 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Jesus, does that mean more psychos are planning attacks?


Goddamnit, I lulz'd.
 
2012-07-24 02:50:59 PM  

snocone: cuzsis: chandler_vt: 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.

This. And Bit'O'Gristle: What if you are first one to get shot? So you will have no time to react. But wishful thinking is fun and you are a hero in your mind.

Then you were shot first and can't do anything.

But the odds of you getting shot first are 1/100 (Or whatever the seating capacity of the theater was).

Nobody is saying that you're guaranteed to live if you attack this guy back, death is still very likely. Only that it's generally preferable than sitting around waiting to be shot, where death is almost certain.

/also if someone had shot back he might have come to his senses in a hurry and left mid-attack. (Happens frequently enough with violent criminals)

W/o training and experience, some panic and run. Most just collapse.
Still, he would have most likely gone thru his ordinance before being engaged.


You're basing this statement on what exactly?
 
2012-07-24 02:51:02 PM  

UnspokenVoice: Combat is two things that people don't get. The first? It is scary. The second is that it usually very quick.


Especially is the attacker is completely up inside your OODA loop and you didn't even see him arrive there.
Perfect tactical surprise, out of the blue.
 
2012-07-24 02:51:13 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: His mother is a psychiatric nurse. I'd bet that she knew.
I'd also bet he's already diagnosed and was off his meds, but when we saw him in court he was back on them, and how.


That would explain her not being surprised to hear he was involved (as they imply in the news - but I've not seen any direct quotes of how that conversation went down). Of course I suppose it's possible he wasn't diagnosed with anything officially yet either but his mom was suspecting he needed to be, too...

If he was officially diagnosed, then I suppose the question is, was it in another state and so the information wasn't known? How exactly do such lookups happen, and were they done?

Completely apart from that I have to admit I'm curious if there are any photos of his apartment taken through the window or whatever. From the bare snippets of descriptions I've heard it probably looked pretty interesting.
 
2012-07-24 02:51:31 PM  

spacelord321: thetubameister: spacelord321: SuperNinjaToad: the BIGGEST problem with most guns owners is they tend to think of themselves as uber rational, super cool, calm rational people who will only use it in the most extreme of danger and that they are also super sharpshooters.
Problem is most aren't sharpshooters and they are just as susceptible to stress, emotional distress, anger and irrationality than anyone else!
That's what makes gun owners so dangerous.

I would rather face a thug with an illegal gun who is trying to rob me than a 'law abiding' citizen with legally purchased AR-15s who just got dumped by his wife, lost his job because it got shipped to China, got everything taken away from him and was just told by his kids that they hate him and is going to call the new guy 'dad' instead of him...........and I just accidently cut him off in traffic .....and I look Asian...

WTF am I reading? I don't even...

This happened to me. Dipshiat tailgating idiot got mad when I flashed my brake lights, and eventually put on my hazards and slowed to a craw to get him to go around me. This CCW license holder got out of his car at the next light with his gun pulled. So, yeah, I'd like to discourage that piece of shiat from legally owning a gun.

So, because one person has done this to you, you assume we all act this way?


Oy. One example means one example. Sheesh. Merely proves it can happen. Untwist thy knickers.
 
2012-07-24 02:52:43 PM  

Giltric: Maybe they were made of ballistic nylon.....like a watch band or a back pack.


Maybe they were rocket-equipped.

!!!
 
2012-07-24 02:53:26 PM  
MyNameIsMofuga: Why did they choose ribbons the same color as the shooter's hair?

can't stand memorial ribbons; they make me want to fly off in a fit of rage and go on a rampage or something
 
2012-07-24 02:54:37 PM  

thetubameister: ronaprhys: thetubameister: HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

How do you know he had a CC permit?

See above... at the scene, they told me after they ran his plates. Right or wrong, that was enough to sour me on the "law abiding registered derp-d-derp." Any idiot can get any gun, and this jackass got a permit intending to use it to replace his needle-d**k.

Good to see that you completely failed any statistics or science class you've ever taken.

/because anecdote isn't the plural of data.
//Could use your same logic to clearly demonstrate all self-confessed liberals are facists.
///Or that all conservatives are a paragon of charity
////Or that all Muslims are kind and loving. Or extremely hateful of all non-muslins

HUH?!? Who's making an argument? Not I... It is only an anecdote. But I'll extrapolate - logically or illogically - from my own experiences as I will. And this douche was a douche.


You've basically stated there that CCW holders aren't law-abiding citizens due to your personal experience. I don't think anyone would argue (assuming that this happened) that dude was anything other than a douche.

However, it still a well-proven fact that the vast majority of CCW holders are law-abiding citizens. You are, by providing this story and your comments, saying that you no longer believe that. That's a form of an argument as you are stating that anyone saying the vast majority are law-abiding is false.
 
2012-07-24 02:55:48 PM  
Overheard: "Why carry a gun? Because carrying a cop is too heavy."
 
2012-07-24 02:55:59 PM  

ronaprhys: However, it still a well-proven fact that the vast majority of CCW holders are law-abiding citizens.


In some states the crime rate amongst CCW holders is less than the police.
 
2012-07-24 02:57:06 PM  
thetubameister Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 02:42:15 PM


Kit Fister: 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.

Oh really? Guess that means no revolution was ever successful then?

Advocating an overthrow of the US Gov't are we? We really think that's what the 2nd is for? It's the "in case you stop liking this document, start blowing away said document and all folks serving thereof" clause?

Unique interpretation




No, realistic and correct interpretation.
While I certainly agree that in 2012, it is now impossible to defend yourself from government forces, this is what the amendment was originally for.
The other "rights" are useless without the ability to defend them.
And who is most likely to try to take away your rights?

If you really want to be pragmatic about it, with Patriot Act and dozens of other similar legislations, you really don't have any right to privacy, due process or free speech at all.
But that doesn't mean we should just abolish the rest of the Constitution.
Leave us our illusions!
 
2012-07-24 02:57:13 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: This happened to me. Dipshiat tailgating idiot got mad when I flashed my brake lights, and eventually put on my hazards and slowed to a craw to get him to go around me. This CCW license holder got out of his car at the next light with his gun pulled. So, yeah, I'd like to discourage that piece of shiat from legally owning a gun.

Was he wearing his CC permit pinned to his sleeve, as required by local law and custom?
Did the police come? Did you call them?
If not, why not?


Stop talking rationally. It makes it hard to lable you with stereotypes. If you understand such a thing...
 
2012-07-24 02:57:44 PM  

DORMAMU: If you curtail on right enumerated in the constitution, you can do it to all of them, like voting or free speech.


WHICH IS ALREADY DONE.

This isn't about banning guns. I'm no more for an outright ban than I am for mandatory firearms at conception with in-womb training.

The issue is that there are some reasonable restrictions on certain rights that are much more necessary for a properly functioning democracy. But the NRA (the organization) is vehemently, through completely unreasonable position, fighting any sane discussion on this.

As others and myself have asked, is it reasonable to consider restrictions for individuals who have been determined inadequate mentally to be sold a firearm? And is it a better use of our time to actually start working through how that framework might operate vs. just assuming it is all about taking your guns?

Yes a person could get it elsewhere (although a perhaps illegal elsewhere), but isn't this a better direction for the conversation given that other rights have reasonable (and yes admitted unreasonable in some cases) restrictions placed upon them by the State?
 
2012-07-24 02:58:48 PM  

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


Did you vote for Bush?

/you're not very good at this
//perhaps you should stop kneejerking before you hurt yourself
/really - you're not helping
 
2012-07-24 02:59:00 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Giltric: Maybe they were made of ballistic nylon.....like a watch band or a back pack.

Maybe they were rocket-equipped.

!!!


We believe the police when it fits our pre concieved notions......

Those kids at UC Davis could have been blocking the path....right?
 
2012-07-24 03:00:02 PM  

thetubameister: Kit Fister: 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.

Oh really? Guess that means no revolution was ever successful then?

Advocating an overthrow of the US Gov't are we? We really think that's what the 2nd is for? It's the "in case you stop liking this document, start blowing away said document and all folks serving thereof" clause?

Unique interpretation.


Ah, I see your ability to restrict meaning wo what's written is lacking.


The poster I responded to seemed to be suggesting that owning guns and/or attempting to throw off a government was impossible, so no reason to try.

I was pointing out that it was a patently false assertion.

However, please feel free to beat off to whatever you wanted my post to say.
 
2012-07-24 03:05:11 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Kit Fister: 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.

Oh really? Guess that means no revolution was ever successful then?

Please conflate a bit more until you've gone full pretzel.

Revolt away. I'll use your weapon and ammo after you're atomized.


Libya, Egypt, Syria. Successful, or at least partially so, revolutions with and against 20th/21st century weapons.
 
2012-07-24 03:05:15 PM  

doubled99: While I certainly agree that in 2012, it is now impossible to defend yourself from government forces, this is what the amendment was originally for.


My belly button was originally used for attaching me to my mom with a placenta.
I don't use it any more.
 
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