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)   Romney: Sideshow Bob's weapons were obtained illegally. Actual fact: Sideshow Bob's weapons were obtained legally. For those keeping score, so far this year, that's Romney 0, actual fact 314   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 228
    More: Stupid, Sideshow Bob, Mitt Romney, John Hinckley, morning, assault weapons, Jared Loughner, court reporter, pseudologia fantastica  
•       •       •

2983 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jul 2012 at 1:09 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-26 08:03:35 AM  
romney lies? jeez, my world has come crashing down!
 
2012-07-26 08:07:53 AM  
Romney is just trying to balance out reality's liberal bias.
 
2012-07-26 08:40:29 AM  
Romney said SOME were obtained illegally. Bombs are always obtained illegally.
 
2012-07-26 09:08:05 AM  

unamused: Romney said SOME were obtained illegally. Bombs are always obtained illegally.


He didn't kill anyone with the bombs.
 
2012-07-26 09:09:05 AM  

unamused: Romney said SOME were obtained illegally. Bombs are always obtained illegally.


Didn't he make the bombs himself with ingredients he bought legally?
 
2012-07-26 09:35:12 AM  

Vodka Zombie: unamused: Romney said SOME were obtained illegally. Bombs are always obtained illegally.

Didn't he make the bombs himself with ingredients he bought legally?


Yes, he did.
 
2012-07-26 09:56:24 AM  

unamused: Romney said SOME were obtained illegally. Bombs are always obtained illegally.


If he BOUGHT the bombs pre made, yes.
 
2012-07-26 10:00:57 AM  

unamused: Romney said SOME were obtained illegally. Bombs are always obtained illegally.


If I can't carry bombs around, how am I going to take down the oppressive US government?
 
2012-07-26 10:01:54 AM  

Vodka Zombie: unamused: Romney said SOME were obtained illegally. Bombs are always obtained illegally.

Didn't he make the bombs himself with ingredients he bought legally?


It's still illegal to make or possess them in Colorado.
 
2012-07-26 10:02:27 AM  

RexTalionis: Didn't he make the bombs himself with ingredients he bought legally?

Yes, he did.


BOOTSTRAPS
 
2012-07-26 10:03:21 AM  

GAT_00: unamused: Romney said SOME were obtained illegally. Bombs are always obtained illegally.

If he BOUGHT the bombs pre made, yes.


At this point, we don't know.
 
2012-07-26 10:04:13 AM  

ArkAngel: Vodka Zombie: unamused: Romney said SOME were obtained illegally. Bombs are always obtained illegally.

Didn't he make the bombs himself with ingredients he bought legally?

It's still illegal to make or possess them in Colorado.


So is meth but people still manage to do that.
 
2012-07-26 10:04:31 AM  
Where the hell do I legally get tear gas?
 
2012-07-26 10:05:24 AM  

ArkAngel: Vodka Zombie: unamused: Romney said SOME were obtained illegally. Bombs are always obtained illegally.

Didn't he make the bombs himself with ingredients he bought legally?

It's still illegal to make or possess them in Colorado.


So is walking into a theater and shooting a bunch of people. The point is, he did it all with stuff he obtained legally.
 
2012-07-26 10:07:17 AM  
I think you're cheating the actual fact side of a few points, subby.
 
2012-07-26 10:10:44 AM  

unamused: GAT_00: unamused: Romney said SOME were obtained illegally. Bombs are always obtained illegally.

If he BOUGHT the bombs pre made, yes.

At this point, we don't know.


Except you assumed a method of acquisition. I didn't. So, you should take your own advice.

If he hadn't made a bomb, which I presume is illegal to posses, this guy would not have committed a crime before he opened fire.
 
2012-07-26 10:10:52 AM  
Does it really matter?

If illegally obtained, it means our enforcement is shiat.

If legally obtained, it means the laws are suspect.
 
2012-07-26 10:21:18 AM  
He could only be talking about the bombs but he's applying that to gun laws. What an asshole.
 
2012-07-26 10:32:48 AM  

Diogenes: Does it really matter?

If illegally obtained, it means our enforcement is shiat.

If legally obtained, it means the laws are suspect.


The vast majority of gun crime is committed with illegally obtained firearms. Of course, the vast majority of gun crime is not really reported on. Mass shootings, which are incredibly rare events, tend to get reported on a whole bunch.

In any case, Aurora is an outlier. He used legally obtained firearms, but he also engaged in a mass shooting. These are exceptional and rare events, compared to the steady background of gun crime. I would hesitate to take any action based on an outlier event like this, and instead focus on systems for dealing with the far more common gun crimes that go largely ignored.
 
2012-07-26 10:35:51 AM  

t3knomanser: Diogenes: Does it really matter?

If illegally obtained, it means our enforcement is shiat.

If legally obtained, it means the laws are suspect.

The vast majority of gun crime is committed with illegally obtained firearms. Of course, the vast majority of gun crime is not really reported on. Mass shootings, which are incredibly rare events, tend to get reported on a whole bunch.

In any case, Aurora is an outlier. He used legally obtained firearms, but he also engaged in a mass shooting. These are exceptional and rare events, compared to the steady background of gun crime. I would hesitate to take any action based on an outlier event like this, and instead focus on systems for dealing with the far more common gun crimes that go largely ignored.


It wasn't an outlier. Loughner didn't commit a crime before he opened fire. IIRC these almost always involve legit weapons.
 
2012-07-26 10:37:26 AM  

t3knomanser: I would hesitate to take any action based on an outlier event like this


If I implied that, I didn't intend to.

But I think my point agrees with yours. Legal or illegal, we've got a gun problem. The system lacks sanity.
 
2012-07-26 10:37:31 AM  

t3knomanser: The vast majority of gun crime is committed with illegally obtained firearms. Of course, the vast majority of gun crime is not really reported on


If they're not reported on then how do you know they were done with illegally obtained guns?
 
2012-07-26 10:41:07 AM  

GAT_00: t3knomanser: Diogenes: Does it really matter?

If illegally obtained, it means our enforcement is shiat.

If legally obtained, it means the laws are suspect.

The vast majority of gun crime is committed with illegally obtained firearms. Of course, the vast majority of gun crime is not really reported on. Mass shootings, which are incredibly rare events, tend to get reported on a whole bunch.

In any case, Aurora is an outlier. He used legally obtained firearms, but he also engaged in a mass shooting. These are exceptional and rare events, compared to the steady background of gun crime. I would hesitate to take any action based on an outlier event like this, and instead focus on systems for dealing with the far more common gun crimes that go largely ignored.

It wasn't an outlier. Loughner didn't commit a crime before he opened fire. IIRC these almost always involve legit weapons.


The VA Tech shooter obtained his weapons legally, as well. That's 3 examples within the past 5 years where the weapons were obtained legally.
 
2012-07-26 10:41:39 AM  

GAT_00: It wasn't an outlier.


In the scope of gun crimes, it certainly was. The vast majority of gun crimes are not mass shootings, they're usually done using illegally obtained weapons. Mass shootings themselves represent exceptional events- that's why they're news in the first place. Let's assume that we have one mass shooting of between 10-20 victims every year (we don't, but roll with me). The odds of any American being caught in a mass shooting are vanishingly small. Compare that to the gun homicide rate in the US which is 65 deaths. We could have three Auroras a year before we got close to the far more common gun crime incidents (and that's only homicides- there are vastly more assaults with guns).

The point I'm trying to make is that mass shootings are rare and unusual events. We probably shouldn't worry too much about them very much when there's far more prevalent issues to deal with.
 
2012-07-26 10:41:52 AM  

Mugato: t3knomanser: The vast majority of gun crime is committed with illegally obtained firearms. Of course, the vast majority of gun crime is not really reported on

If they're not reported on then how do you know they were done with illegally obtained guns?


Gut Feeling, obviously. It never, ever lies.
 
2012-07-26 10:42:27 AM  

t3knomanser: they're usually done using illegally obtained weapons.


Prove it. Get us some statistics.
 
2012-07-26 10:43:14 AM  

Mugato: If they're not reported on then how do you know they were done with illegally obtained guns?


Because statistics are gathered and documented? I was using "reported on" in the sense of "reporters and journalists". A gun homicide is strictly local news. Ten gun homicides at the same time is a national media event.
 
2012-07-26 10:46:06 AM  

t3knomanser: GAT_00: It wasn't an outlier.

In the scope of gun crimes, it certainly was. The vast majority of gun crimes are not mass shootings, they're usually done using illegally obtained weapons. Mass shootings themselves represent exceptional events- that's why they're news in the first place. Let's assume that we have one mass shooting of between 10-20 victims every year (we don't, but roll with me). The odds of any American being caught in a mass shooting are vanishingly small. Compare that to the gun homicide rate in the US which is 65 deaths. We could have three Auroras a year before we got close to the far more common gun crime incidents (and that's only homicides- there are vastly more assaults with guns).

The point I'm trying to make is that mass shootings are rare and unusual events. We probably shouldn't worry too much about them very much when there's far more prevalent issues to deal with.


Yeah, we shouldn't worry about homicidal maniacs. OK.

We have problems in this country, but this preventable. To simply throw up our hands and say, 'well, not that many people die' is frankly criminal.

Plane crashes are rare too. It doesn't mean we don't try to prevent them.
 
2012-07-26 10:46:45 AM  
www.imgbase.info

The guns were illegally obtained.
 
2012-07-26 10:48:19 AM  
 
2012-07-26 10:49:17 AM  

GAT_00: Yeah, we shouldn't worry about homicidal maniacs. OK.


We certainly shouldn't put too much effort into it when there are far greater threats to life and limb that are equally preventable.
 
2012-07-26 10:49:18 AM  

t3knomanser: cameroncrazy1984: Prove it. Get us some statistics.

Citations: Wright, James D., Peter H. Rossi (1994). Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms. Aldine de Gruyter. ISBN 0-202-30543-0., and Cook, Philip J., Jens Ludwig (1996). Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive Survey of Gun Ownership and Use. Police Foundation.

To be fair, nearly every firearm starts off as legally owned at some point.


Well, I'm sure glad nothing could have changed since 1996.
 
2012-07-26 10:50:53 AM  

t3knomanser: GAT_00: Yeah, we shouldn't worry about homicidal maniacs. OK.

We certainly shouldn't put too much effort into it when there are far greater threats to life and limb that are equally preventable.


Yes, because nobody is capable of fixing more than one thing at a time.

I'm honestly appalled by you.
 
2012-07-26 10:53:31 AM  
The gun nuts have two stands on this issue.

"The shooting was a rare incident. It shouldn't affect anyone's opinion of gun laws."

"The shooting was a travesty! It's the theater's fault for having a no gun policy! If lawful citizens were allowed to have guns, we'd have gone John McClane on his ass!"
 
2012-07-26 10:54:47 AM  

GAT_00: Well, I'm sure glad nothing could have changed since 1996


Those were the first two citations I found, and this is a fark thread- there are limits to how much research I'm going to do to support my assertions. If I wanted to write an article on the deeper problems of gun crime and provide serious approaches to solving the real problems, I'd be writing an academic essay, not a forum post.

The point remains: incidents like Aurora are seriously rare, and are not easily preventable. The problems of detecting mental illness and responding to it constructively are many and have many opportunities to be worse than the disease. Restricting legal ownership hasn't curtailed access to firearms (only 15% of federal inmates purchased a firearm from a retail location and most got them from their family or friends), and there are thorny problems there, even before we get to the constitutionality.

There are better things we could do with our time than this hand-wringing over a tragic, but rare event.
 
2012-07-26 10:56:33 AM  

Mugato: It's the theater's fault for having a no gun policy!


These people are idiots. A dark, crowded space, filled with smoke from smoke bombs/tear-gas? The only thing more guns could have done in that situation is increased the number of victims.
 
2012-07-26 10:59:58 AM  
To add, I'm not saying absolutely no action must be taken. I'm saying the action should be proportional to the danger we're trying to address. A society that sets policy based on what mentally insane people do is a mentally insane society.
 
2012-07-26 11:01:44 AM  

t3knomanser: To add, I'm not saying absolutely no action must be taken. I'm saying the action should be proportional to the danger we're trying to address. A society that sets policy based on what mentally insane people do is a mentally insane society.


Yeah, because arguing that we shouldn't waste our time couldn't possibly be interpreted as saying no action should happen.
 
2012-07-26 11:02:51 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: The VA Tech shooter obtained his weapons legally, as well. That's 3 examples within the past 5 years where the weapons were obtained legally.


As of last week, it was still too soon to talk about gun regulation, but it was just about to be OK.

Now, it's too soon again.

1. "Current laws are sufficient."
2. Massacre occurs
3. "It's too soon to talk about new laws."
4. Wait until people forget about massacre.
5. Repeat from #1.
 
2012-07-26 11:05:08 AM  

GAT_00: Yeah, because arguing that we shouldn't waste our time couldn't possibly be interpreted as saying no action should happen.


And maybe that's why I added that post to clarify my comments. You see, people who aren't idiots bound for my ignore list can sometimes piece together the thread of a conversation and realize that some statements follow from other statements and establish context. That context can sometimes be applied retroactively, in a way that future statements can reframe previous statements.

Or, to put it in a more simple way: It's called reading. Left to right, top to bottom. A group of words together is a sentence.
 
2012-07-26 11:05:56 AM  

t3knomanser: To add, I'm not saying absolutely no action must be taken. I'm saying the action should be proportional to the danger we're trying to address. A society that sets policy based on what mentally insane people do is a mentally insane society.


Let's keep mentally insane people from buying weapons. For starters, make it a bit more difficult to buy multiple firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition in a short period of time.

Or is that a mentally insane policy?
 
2012-07-26 11:08:14 AM  
"This person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already. But he had them," Romney told NBC News in an interview. "And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't."

So, he shouldn't have had any kind of weapons, but let's not change the law to keep future people from doing the same thing.

LEADERSHIP.
 
2012-07-26 11:09:39 AM  

t3knomanser: GAT_00: Yeah, because arguing that we shouldn't waste our time couldn't possibly be interpreted as saying no action should happen.

And maybe that's why I added that post to clarify my comments. You see, people who aren't idiots bound for my ignore list can sometimes piece together the thread of a conversation and realize that some statements follow from other statements and establish context. That context can sometimes be applied retroactively, in a way that future statements can reframe previous statements.

Or, to put it in a more simple way: It's called reading. Left to right, top to bottom. A group of words together is a sentence.


Well, I'm not able to read your mind, and I responded piece by piece as you added it by reading each one. I'm sorry i didn't divine your entire thought process that you failed to commit to typing out.

So where would addressing mass homicides be on your list of priorities?
 
2012-07-26 11:15:55 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: t3knomanser: To add, I'm not saying absolutely no action must be taken. I'm saying the action should be proportional to the danger we're trying to address. A society that sets policy based on what mentally insane people do is a mentally insane society.

Let's keep mentally insane people from buying weapons. For starters, make it a bit more difficult to buy multiple firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition in a short period of time.

Or is that a mentally insane policy?


That will set off the people that claim they have the right to won those weapons with large ammo capacity. Yes, you have the right, but why do you need them?
IMHO guns are for
Protection
Sport shooting
Hunting.

t3.gstatic.com

/image hot like this topic
Or, when you absolutely got to kill every motherf*cker in the room.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-26 11:18:08 AM  

unamused: Romney said SOME were obtained illegally. Bombs are always obtained illegally.


Why do we blame bombs? The second amendment doesn't say guns it says "arms". I think the NRA needs to demand that the unconstitutional ban on bombs end.
 
2012-07-26 11:19:48 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: For starters, make it a bit more difficult to buy multiple firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition in a short period of time.


Problem: we're planning for crazy people. Truly, seriously crazy people will prepare for months and do things like spend weeks crafting bombs. I'm not certain this is a true deterrent. Also, you run into problems with individuals who have legitimate reasons to buy large amounts of ammunition- like range operators. While laws vary by state, there's no Federal certification equivalent to an FFL for range operators. But mostly, it doesn't achieve its desired goal. You can cut out the impulse purchases.

The other problem is that detecting mentally ill people is very difficult, especially because false positives would be a serious problem. Any system that allows people to be committed or otherwise have their liberties constrained against their will is a system that offers plenty of opportunity for abuse.

Perhaps a better solution would be a data-mining system that tracks large purchases. Tied with real intelligence gathering, you could identify potential hazards before they act, and get them into some sort of treatment program. That kind of thing would unfortunately be very expensive to operate, although it offers the chance to be very effective.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-26 11:22:24 AM  

t3knomanser: Diogenes: Does it really matter?

If illegally obtained, it means our enforcement is shiat.

If legally obtained, it means the laws are suspect.

The vast majority of gun crime is committed with illegally obtained firearms. Of course, the vast majority of gun crime is not really reported on. Mass shootings, which are incredibly rare events, tend to get reported on a whole bunch.

In any case, Aurora is an outlier. He used legally obtained firearms, but he also engaged in a mass shooting. These are exceptional and rare events, compared to the steady background of gun crime. I would hesitate to take any action based on an outlier event like this, and instead focus on systems for dealing with the far more common gun crimes that go largely ignored.


Because the issue is on peoples "radar screens" now, that's why.
 
2012-07-26 11:24:58 AM  
Hmm. So you get put on ignore lists for not reading someone's mind. That's a new one.

Oh well. Someone want to quote me because I genuinely want an answer as to where stopping mass homicide should be on the priority list.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-26 11:27:00 AM  

t3knomanser: GAT_00: Yeah, we shouldn't worry about homicidal maniacs. OK.

We certainly shouldn't put too much effort into it when there are far greater threats to life and limb that are equally preventable.


So why not deal with all of them? The false dilemma seems to be a favorite fallacy with the pro-gun people.
 
2012-07-26 11:32:30 AM  

t3knomanser: Diogenes: Does it really matter?

If illegally obtained, it means our enforcement is shiat.

If legally obtained, it means the laws are suspect.

The vast majority of gun crime is committed with illegally obtained firearms. Of course, the vast majority of gun crime is not really reported on. Mass shootings, which are incredibly rare events, tend to get reported on a whole bunch.

In any case, Aurora is an outlier. He used legally obtained firearms, but he also engaged in a mass shooting. These are exceptional and rare events, compared to the steady background of gun crime. I would hesitate to take any action based on an outlier event like this, and instead focus on systems for dealing with the far more common gun crimes that go largely ignored.


Well, the reason why these get the attention is that they are as you said (1) rare, (2) random, and (3) large number of victims.

The other two major areas with gun crime... there is at least a "reason" behind it... I am not saying that makes it "right", but, people can "wrap their heads" around why it is happening....

1) Gang violence.... innocents do get hurt and killed, but, the reasoning behind the violence is pretty cut & dry.... gang members going after turf or making a "statement" against other gangs. And 99% of the time, it happens in areas where the gangs predominantly live, so, if you don't go to "gang neighborhoods", you are fairly well insulated from this.

2) Domestic violence..... angry spouse shoots their spouse, or who their spouse was cheating with, etc... "crimes of passion". Again, not right, the person shouldn't have done it, but, you don't need an automatic weapon to shoot just one person.

Something like this shooting, unfortunately it evokes strong emotions because of the randomness, and you can argue if it wasn't as easy to obtain the firearms legally, would be have went to lengths to get them illegally? Hard to say. If someone wants to do something like this strongly enough, will they in any way they can anyways?

IMO... I think in almost all of these cases, there have been significant signs out there, in some cases extremely desperate cries for help, almost to the point where they want someone to try to stop them (ie, the stuff this guy sent out a week ago that never got read). I think focusing on our mental health system in the U.S. would go much further in preventing these rare spree shooter types of events than various gun laws would. Not that I think anyone really needs "automatic" weapons... I am the polar opposite of a "gun enthusiast"... but, I can see the point that, bad people will do bad things one way or another.
 
Displayed 50 of 228 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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