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.

(Huffington Post)   The NRA is the Enabler of Death   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 366
    More: Obvious, Bill Moyers, NRA, Andrews Air Force Base, mass shooting, second floor, TDKR, University of Colorado Hospital, Air Force One  
•       •       •

2295 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jul 2012 at 10:48 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-25 02:21:01 AM  

Chimperror2: Russky: Chimperror2: hinten: Chimperror2: hinten: Why do we not allow everybody to fly planes in this country?

We do.

We let everyone try but decided it might be prudent not to allow everyone.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Everyone can fly. Everyone can shoot people in movie theaters. It's just illegal. Remember that kid from Seattle that kept stealing planes? We don't eliminate planes from society or cars or anything else because nutcases get a hold of them, even illegally.



Planes have a purpose other than killing things, guns don't. That's such a stupid argument.

Guns kill bad people, too. I don't want a gun to be equal to the nut job in the theater. I want a gun to kill the nut jobs with a knife that's 20 feet away. I want guns so the 110lb, 5'2" woman being raped and shoot and kill her 225, 6'2" linebacker rapist. Guns have a purpose and it's to stop people from being being terrorized by those with evil intentions. Yes, they are misused. So are planes.


So, you'd have been the guy in the movie theater packing an RPG?
 
2012-07-25 02:39:03 AM  

blahpers: Chimperror2: Russky: Chimperror2: hinten: Chimperror2: hinten: Why do we not allow everybody to fly planes in this country?

We do.

We let everyone try but decided it might be prudent not to allow everyone.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Everyone can fly. Everyone can shoot people in movie theaters. It's just illegal. Remember that kid from Seattle that kept stealing planes? We don't eliminate planes from society or cars or anything else because nutcases get a hold of them, even illegally.



Planes have a purpose other than killing things, guns don't. That's such a stupid argument.

Guns kill bad people, too. I don't want a gun to be equal to the nut job in the theater. I want a gun to kill the nut jobs with a knife that's 20 feet away. I want guns so the 110lb, 5'2" woman being raped and shoot and kill her 225, 6'2" linebacker rapist. Guns have a purpose and it's to stop people from being being terrorized by those with evil intentions. Yes, they are misused. So are planes.

So, you'd have been the guy in the movie theater packing an RPG?


No. Glock 27. Pretty useless against a rifle. A lot better than a bag of popcorn and a coke. I can't stop Russia from nuking us either. Doesn't mean I have to be victimized by every turd on the planet with a baseball bat (and yes, I would shoot someone trying to hit me with a bat or stab me with a knife).
 
2012-07-25 02:53:36 AM  
kanesays:

Since you feel link comparing the UK to the US in a thread talking about shooting sprees, it is worth point out, that even they have shooting sprees from time to time.

If you want to see a almost complete success story, look at Japan. Their idea of a major shooting spree leaves 2 or 3 people dead. In the US, that's called monday morning.

/before you ask the obvious question, take note of the 5:1 population difference between the US and the UK.
 
2012-07-25 06:07:18 AM  

Renowned transvestite sexologist: kanesays:

Since you feel link comparing the UK to the US in a thread talking about shooting sprees, it is worth point out, that even they have shooting sprees from time to time.

If you want to see a almost complete success story, look at Japan. Their idea of a major shooting spree leaves 2 or 3 people dead. In the US, that's called monday morning.

/before you ask the obvious question, take note of the 5:1 population difference between the US and the UK.


Japan is more suicide oriented. Sometimes nuclear suicide.
 
2012-07-25 07:44:59 AM  

Renowned transvestite sexologist: Since you feel link comparing the UK to the US in a thread talking about shooting sprees


home.comcast.net

Yes, let's.
 
2012-07-25 01:37:18 PM  

Chimperror2: blahpers: Chimperror2: Russky: Chimperror2: hinten: Chimperror2: hinten: Why do we not allow everybody to fly planes in this country?

We do.

We let everyone try but decided it might be prudent not to allow everyone.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Everyone can fly. Everyone can shoot people in movie theaters. It's just illegal. Remember that kid from Seattle that kept stealing planes? We don't eliminate planes from society or cars or anything else because nutcases get a hold of them, even illegally.



Planes have a purpose other than killing things, guns don't. That's such a stupid argument.

Guns kill bad people, too. I don't want a gun to be equal to the nut job in the theater. I want a gun to kill the nut jobs with a knife that's 20 feet away. I want guns so the 110lb, 5'2" woman being raped and shoot and kill her 225, 6'2" linebacker rapist. Guns have a purpose and it's to stop people from being being terrorized by those with evil intentions. Yes, they are misused. So are planes.

So, you'd have been the guy in the movie theater packing an RPG?

No. Glock 27. Pretty useless against a rifle. A lot better than a bag of popcorn and a coke. I can't stop Russia from nuking us either. Doesn't mean I have to be victimized by every turd on the planet with a baseball bat (and yes, I would shoot someone trying to hit me with a bat or stab me with a knife).


As people pack more, criminals would simply up the ante. Pretty soon, every random thug would have the gear this guy did. So people would feel the need to pack bigger weapons, prompting criminals to upgrade as well. Before long, it's full-auto and frags in every armed robbery/murder. This doesn't the number of instances of violent crime; it simply increase the scale of the casualties. But hey, at least you get to feel like you fought back.
 
2012-07-25 01:39:11 PM  

Renowned transvestite sexologist: kanesays:

Since you feel link comparing the UK to the US in a thread talking about shooting sprees, it is worth point out, that even they have shooting sprees from time to time.

If you want to see a almost complete success story, look at Japan. Their idea of a major shooting spree leaves 2 or 3 people dead. In the US, that's called monday morning.

/before you ask the obvious question, take note of the 5:1 population difference between the US and the UK.


And as the stats show, the disparity in gun murders is more along the lines of 300:1. It's not population, it's mentality. We Americans are farking crazy.
 
2012-07-25 02:05:54 PM  

blahpers: Chimperror2: blahpers: Chimperror2: Russky: Chimperror2: hinten: Chimperror2: hinten: Why do we not allow everybody to fly planes in this country?

We do.

We let everyone try but decided it might be prudent not to allow everyone.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Everyone can fly. Everyone can shoot people in movie theaters. It's just illegal. Remember that kid from Seattle that kept stealing planes? We don't eliminate planes from society or cars or anything else because nutcases get a hold of them, even illegally.



Planes have a purpose other than killing things, guns don't. That's such a stupid argument.

Guns kill bad people, too. I don't want a gun to be equal to the nut job in the theater. I want a gun to kill the nut jobs with a knife that's 20 feet away. I want guns so the 110lb, 5'2" woman being raped and shoot and kill her 225, 6'2" linebacker rapist. Guns have a purpose and it's to stop people from being being terrorized by those with evil intentions. Yes, they are misused. So are planes.

So, you'd have been the guy in the movie theater packing an RPG?

No. Glock 27. Pretty useless against a rifle. A lot better than a bag of popcorn and a coke. I can't stop Russia from nuking us either. Doesn't mean I have to be victimized by every turd on the planet with a baseball bat (and yes, I would shoot someone trying to hit me with a bat or stab me with a knife).

As people pack more, criminals would simply up the ante. Pretty soon, every random thug would have the gear this guy did. So people would feel the need to pack bigger weapons, prompting criminals to upgrade as well. Before long, it's full-auto and frags in every armed robbery/murder. This doesn't the number of instances of violent crime; it simply increase the scale of the casualties. But hey, at least you get to feel like you fought back.


Criminals most commonly carry small revolvers or handguns because they are easy to conceal. They neither need nor want the larger weapons for mugging people or holding up stores. Combine that with the fact that the weapons you mention are practically impossible for most civilians to acquire AND civilians are going to be carrying the same class of gun as the criminals (can't openly carry in most places and no one hauls around their AR-15 as a daily piece), and you're prediction pretty easily falls apart.

Now that doesn't rule out cases, especially along the border, where gangs and cartels are arming their members and dealers with increasingly large and more powerful weapons. Outlawing guns like the AR-15 (around $750 brand new) in the United States would make a negligible dent in those numbers, especially since you can get a full auto AK-47 for $450 in Mexico and tens of thousands of Mexican soldiers are deserting the army and joining the cartel gear and guns coming with. Address the drugs and you will do a far better job of reducing firearm crimes in the US. Gangs and cartels can't buy the weapons if they don't have the cash.
 
2012-07-25 02:28:30 PM  

redmid17: Criminals most commonly carry small revolvers or handguns because they are easy to conceal. They neither need nor want the larger weapons for mugging people or holding up stores. Combine that with the fact that the weapons you mention are practically impossible for most civilians to acquire AND civilians are going to be carrying the same class of gun as the criminals (can't openly carry in most places and no one hauls around their AR-15 as a daily piece), and you're prediction pretty easily falls apart.


Criminals carry handguns because they are easy to conceal and effective. If handguns cease being effective, criminals will discard concealibility in favor of effectiveness. As for larger weapons being more difficult to come by, sure, by today's standards. You think that'll stay the same in a culture in which everybody is packing? The culture that the NRA wants to bring about?

I'm not arguing for outlawing the AR-15--or anything else. Far from it. I am pointing out the problem with the idea that if everybody carried a handgun, fewer innocent people would be killed in violent crime. Research, data, and plain reasoning suggest that this idea is flawed. The problem is far more complicated than that.
 
2012-07-25 02:37:43 PM  

blahpers: redmid17: Criminals most commonly carry small revolvers or handguns because they are easy to conceal. They neither need nor want the larger weapons for mugging people or holding up stores. Combine that with the fact that the weapons you mention are practically impossible for most civilians to acquire AND civilians are going to be carrying the same class of gun as the criminals (can't openly carry in most places and no one hauls around their AR-15 as a daily piece), and you're prediction pretty easily falls apart.

Criminals carry handguns because they are easy to conceal and effective. If handguns cease being effective, criminals will discard concealibility in favor of effectiveness. As for larger weapons being more difficult to come by, sure, by today's standards. You think that'll stay the same in a culture in which everybody is packing? The culture that the NRA wants to bring about?

I'm not arguing for outlawing the AR-15--or anything else. Far from it. I am pointing out the problem with the idea that if everybody carried a handgun, fewer innocent people would be killed in violent crime. Research, data, and plain reasoning suggest that this idea is flawed. The problem is far more complicated than that.


Well no they wouldn't. Felons are not allowed to carry weapons. Most criminals are felons. Larger guns cannot be concealed and open carry is prevented by municipal or state law (where this crime is most likely going to occur) without a carry permit, sometimes even if you have a carry permit. If they are seen carrying a large, unconcealable weapon, they would be asked for a permit, and then arrested. They lose the advantages of carrying a firearm if people can see it AND they cannot hide it from the people who can arrest them for unlawful carry. It's neither worth carrying a large, expensive weapon nor buying said large expensive weapon in the commission of a minor crime like a mugging or armed robbery. The payoff from the crime isn't going to be substantial and a larger weapon makes you that much more conspicuous to everyone. That's some common sense. I'm not saying everyone should go around carrying. I'm just saying criminals won't escalate because it's unwise for them to do so. They would adapt in other way.
 
2012-07-25 04:01:37 PM  

redmid17: blahpers: redmid17: Criminals most commonly carry small revolvers or handguns because they are easy to conceal. They neither need nor want the larger weapons for mugging people or holding up stores. Combine that with the fact that the weapons you mention are practically impossible for most civilians to acquire AND civilians are going to be carrying the same class of gun as the criminals (can't openly carry in most places and no one hauls around their AR-15 as a daily piece), and you're prediction pretty easily falls apart.

Criminals carry handguns because they are easy to conceal and effective. If handguns cease being effective, criminals will discard concealibility in favor of effectiveness. As for larger weapons being more difficult to come by, sure, by today's standards. You think that'll stay the same in a culture in which everybody is packing? The culture that the NRA wants to bring about?

I'm not arguing for outlawing the AR-15--or anything else. Far from it. I am pointing out the problem with the idea that if everybody carried a handgun, fewer innocent people would be killed in violent crime. Research, data, and plain reasoning suggest that this idea is flawed. The problem is far more complicated than that.

Well no they wouldn't. Felons are not allowed to carry weapons. Most criminals are felons. Larger guns cannot be concealed and open carry is prevented by municipal or state law (where this crime is most likely going to occur) without a carry permit, sometimes even if you have a carry permit. If they are seen carrying a large, unconcealable weapon, they would be asked for a permit, and then arrested. They lose the advantages of carrying a firearm if people can see it AND they cannot hide it from the people who can arrest them for unlawful carry. It's neither worth carrying a large, expensive weapon nor buying said large expensive weapon in the commission of a minor crime like a mugging or armed robbery. The payoff from the crime isn't going to be ...


Again, you argue based on current statute (and in some cases local statute, which is even less relevant). Perhaps it is unfair to extrapolate based on, e.g., Chimperror2's posts, but [s]he seems like a "no restriction on the right to bear arms, period" type. In such a culture, concealed/open is irrelevant. Felon status is irrelevant. Everybody can carry whatever guns they want. In that culture, a criminal will first and foremost look for the weakest marks. Second, they will ensure that they decisively outgun their victims. Right now, that's a handgun, club, or knife to an unarmed victim. In an "everybody carry" culture, they will necessarily upgrade to more dangerous weapons that have a higher incidence of collateral damage. Unless you think they will simply say "meh, maybe I should rethink my life"?
 
2012-07-25 05:04:41 PM  

blahpers: redmid17: blahpers: redmid17: Criminals most commonly carry small revolvers or handguns because they are easy to conceal. They neither need nor want the larger weapons for mugging people or holding up stores. Combine that with the fact that the weapons you mention are practically impossible for most civilians to acquire AND civilians are going to be carrying the same class of gun as the criminals (can't openly carry in most places and no one hauls around their AR-15 as a daily piece), and you're prediction pretty easily falls apart.

Criminals carry handguns because they are easy to conceal and effective. If handguns cease being effective, criminals will discard concealibility in favor of effectiveness. As for larger weapons being more difficult to come by, sure, by today's standards. You think that'll stay the same in a culture in which everybody is packing? The culture that the NRA wants to bring about?

I'm not arguing for outlawing the AR-15--or anything else. Far from it. I am pointing out the problem with the idea that if everybody carried a handgun, fewer innocent people would be killed in violent crime. Research, data, and plain reasoning suggest that this idea is flawed. The problem is far more complicated than that.

Well no they wouldn't. Felons are not allowed to carry weapons. Most criminals are felons. Larger guns cannot be concealed and open carry is prevented by municipal or state law (where this crime is most likely going to occur) without a carry permit, sometimes even if you have a carry permit. If they are seen carrying a large, unconcealable weapon, they would be asked for a permit, and then arrested. They lose the advantages of carrying a firearm if people can see it AND they cannot hide it from the people who can arrest them for unlawful carry. It's neither worth carrying a large, expensive weapon nor buying said large expensive weapon in the commission of a minor crime like a mugging or armed robbery. The payoff from the crime isn't go ...


No one is going to repeal current statutes. Your argument is irrelevant now because you're spewing out impossible scenarios. Also nowhere does Chimp say he wants unrestricted, unregulated carry for everyone. In the few states that allow it (Alaska, Arizona, etc...), they haven't seen criminals arming themselves with more powerful weapons to mug people.
 
2012-07-26 09:12:44 PM  

redmid17: You know the NRA has helped write every single substantive piece of gun legislation since 34 right?


In order to make sure that more whack jobs get guns.


"... the bill included protecting the ability of veterans designated as having psychological conditions, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, and individuals successfully treated for mental illness to purchase guns."

Were you including this to make my point? I have yet to encounter anyone "successfully" treated for a mental illness. I've encountered many people who took some form of medication and then decided that they were cured and stopped taking that medication. It's just like being cured of alcoholism or homosexuality.
 
2012-07-26 11:57:53 PM  

rosebud_the_sled: redmid17: You know the NRA has helped write every single substantive piece of gun legislation since 34 right?

In order to make sure that more whack jobs get guns.


"... the bill included protecting the ability of veterans designated as having psychological conditions, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, and individuals successfully treated for mental illness to purchase guns."

Were you including this to make my point? I have yet to encounter anyone "successfully" treated for a mental illness. I've encountered many people who took some form of medication and then decided that they were cured and stopped taking that medication. It's just like being cured of alcoholism or homosexuality.


Okay, you know literally nothing about the history of gun legislation. Run along now and let the adults finish talking.
 
2012-07-27 01:30:09 AM  

redmid17: Okay, you know literally nothing about the history of gun legislation. Run along now and let the adults finish talking.


Don't need to know the history, just need to know how it turns out. The minor actions are of no consequence compared to the result, little man.

The result is the intent of intelligent people. The little people are just swept up with the chaff.

The result in this case is that nothing has been done; therefore, the plan of the intelligent people was to have nothing done. The people with planning, money and desire who benefit are the truth.

What has been done? Nothing of consequence; therefore the desire to was to have nothing done and have it get worse.
If there was a desire for things to improve by the people who are planning, thinking and with money, then the outcome would be different.

There is nothing being done to keep guns out of the hands of people who are incapable of respecting them and the people around them. Any 'tard can get a gun.

There is no effort to determine who is incapable of owning a gun just as there is no effort made to determine who can raise a child. There is an effort made to determine who can drive a car. There is an effort made to determine who can fly a plane. There is an effort made to determine who can build a fence above 6 feet.

I do know what it takes to respect a weapon and use one. Most people are not capable of that, such as Dick Cheney who can not even stop from shooting a lawyer, regardless of how tempting a target that may be.

FO, pudgy little man. You do not know who you are writing to.
 
2012-07-27 10:19:09 AM  

rosebud_the_sled: redmid17: Okay, you know literally nothing about the history of gun legislation. Run along now and let the adults finish talking.

Don't need to know the history, just need to know how it turns out. The minor actions are of no consequence compared to the result, little man.

The result is the intent of intelligent people. The little people are just swept up with the chaff.

The result in this case is that nothing has been done; therefore, the plan of the intelligent people was to have nothing done. The people with planning, money and desire who benefit are the truth.

What has been done? Nothing of consequence; therefore the desire to was to have nothing done and have it get worse.
If there was a desire for things to improve by the people who are planning, thinking and with money, then the outcome would be different.

There is nothing being done to keep guns out of the hands of people who are incapable of respecting them and the people around them. Any 'tard can get a gun.

There is no effort to determine who is incapable of owning a gun just as there is no effort made to determine who can raise a child. There is an effort made to determine who can drive a car. There is an effort made to determine who can fly a plane. There is an effort made to determine who can build a fence above 6 feet.

I do know what it takes to respect a weapon and use one. Most people are not capable of that, such as Dick Cheney who can not even stop from shooting a lawyer, regardless of how tempting a target that may be.

FO, pudgy little man. You do not know who you are writing to.


Neither pudgy, nor little, but that's largely irrelevant to my point. You know nothing of the legislation you speak of and I suspect you are trolling at this point.
 
Displayed 16 of 366 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

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