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.

(Westword)   Coloradoan decides to test the state's open-carry firearm law, apparently not realizing the law does not allow carrying in an establishment where liquor is served. Yes, it's a theatre   (blogs.westword.com) divider line 331
    More: Dumbass, James Mapes, firearms, establishments, Thornton Police Department  
•       •       •

9774 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jul 2012 at 2:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-30 06:00:44 PM

wmoonfox: Yes you were, no you weren't, and no it wasn't.

Any CCW-holder who doesn't understand that it is both illegal and beyond stupid to carry a firearm, concealed or openly, into a bar or other establishment that serves alcohol, needs to be shot. They make us all look bad, and we don't need that crap right now.

I personally apologize for all CCW-holders on behalf of this man, and suggest that he be beaten about the neck and shoulders until he learns the value of reading his fecking permit. I would also not be opposed to his permit being revoked for a term no shorter than forever.


That is not true in every state.!
 
2012-07-30 06:01:27 PM

thisone: redmid17: Also you completely dismiss the countries like Mexico that have pretty stringent firearm ownership yet even higher rates of gun violence than the US. Most of the countries you have compares us to in the past also don't have 3rd world countries bordering to the south where whole provinces are controlled by militarily equipped drug cartels. Something like 80% of the gun violence in the US is drug or gang related. Take away the drugs and suddenly the gangs can't afford the guns and have little to fight over and the cartels get undermined, lose cash, and can't afford guns.

so what I'm getting from this is: legalize drugs and outlaw guns?

that's cool


I am unable to conceive of any rational or honest interpretation of redmid17's statement that would allow for such a possible conclusion. Please explain the means by which you have derived it.
 
2012-07-30 06:02:40 PM

justtray: automatic expanded clip weapons


What shooting are you speaking of?
 
2012-07-30 06:04:26 PM

LaraAmber: I think the word "onerous" or "severe" is missing. If you put in so many restrictions that the end results is civilian disarmament for everyone but the rich and connected, it's the same as a flat ban for the average citizen.


Disarmament is "gun grabbing". Actually, actively taking guns out of the hands and homes of the people. Restrictions, while a pain in the ass, and often close to unconstitutional are not gun grabbing. The closest thing we've has lately was the AWB. Which not only did not involve gun grabbing, it didn't even make owning one of the banned weapons illegal. There is no serious movement to disarm the American people.
 
2012-07-30 06:04:59 PM

BGates: justtray: automatic expanded clip weapons

What shooting are you speaking of?


justtray is a known liar whose statements should not be interpreted as having any connectino with reality.
 
2012-07-30 06:05:22 PM

Dimensio: Your hatred and contempt for all police officers is unwarranted.


Not so fast there Tex...
 
2012-07-30 06:08:17 PM

imtheonlylp: I call BS. Who can afford to go to the movies that often?


People without families or a girlfriend.
 
2012-07-30 06:11:07 PM

Dimensio: justtray is a known liar whose statements should not be interpreted as having any connectino with reality.


I wonder what it's like living in the mind of a person like justtray . Since there is, at best, a tenuous connection to reality is it like heaven or hell? I would hope that if I lost connection with reality I would make up a place of milk and honey, and not some terror filled place of demons.
 
2012-07-30 06:12:47 PM

NightOwl2255: LaraAmber: I think the word "onerous" or "severe" is missing. If you put in so many restrictions that the end results is civilian disarmament for everyone but the rich and connected, it's the same as a flat ban for the average citizen.

Disarmament is "gun grabbing". Actually, actively taking guns out of the hands and homes of the people. Restrictions, while a pain in the ass, and often close to unconstitutional are not gun grabbing. The closest thing we've has lately was the AWB. Which not only did not involve gun grabbing, it didn't even make owning one of the banned weapons illegal. There is no serious movement to disarm the American people.


There have been isolated incident(s) where authorities have actually physically taken weapons from people. Hell the NRA had to file an emergency injunction and the Feds had to pass a law to prevent more Katrina style appropriations. I can't think of any other examples off the top of my head, but it clearly warranted enough of a backlash to create the Vitter Amendment.
 
2012-07-30 06:14:52 PM

NightOwl2255: Restrictions, while a pain in the ass, and often close to unconstitutional are not gun grabbing. The closest thing we've has lately was the AWB. Which not only did not involve gun grabbing, it didn't even make owning one of the banned weapons illegal.


California (1999), NYC (1991), and New Orleans (2005). New Orleans involved storming houses without warrants to seize weapons.
 
2012-07-30 06:18:55 PM

Dimensio: thisone: redmid17: Also you completely dismiss the countries like Mexico that have pretty stringent firearm ownership yet even higher rates of gun violence than the US. Most of the countries you have compares us to in the past also don't have 3rd world countries bordering to the south where whole provinces are controlled by militarily equipped drug cartels. Something like 80% of the gun violence in the US is drug or gang related. Take away the drugs and suddenly the gangs can't afford the guns and have little to fight over and the cartels get undermined, lose cash, and can't afford guns.

so what I'm getting from this is: legalize drugs and outlaw guns?

that's cool

I am unable to conceive of any rational or honest interpretation of redmid17's statement that would allow for such a possible conclusion. Please explain the means by which you have derived it.


well, the leap of logic includes:
80% of gun violence being drug or gang related.
gangs get money from drugs to buy guns
people buy legal guns to protect themselves from people who have guns illegally
if we legalize drugs, then there's no drug related gun violence, no gangs have guns, therefore the already tiny portion of people who have illegal guns becomes even tiner.
So tiny in fact that outlawing guns would actually prevent "bad" people from having guns
And if no "bad" people have guns, then "good" people don't need to protect themselves from "bad" people with guns, so they're cool with outlawing guns

So, legalize drugs, outlaw guns.
 
2012-07-30 06:21:32 PM
i have been staring at 50 critical priority features that must be implemented into a new product by tomorrow night.

and fully tested.

it's no drugs, but it does provide some highly funny leaps in logic
 
2012-07-30 06:23:13 PM

thisone: Dimensio: thisone: redmid17: Also you completely dismiss the countries like Mexico that have pretty stringent firearm ownership yet even higher rates of gun violence than the US. Most of the countries you have compares us to in the past also don't have 3rd world countries bordering to the south where whole provinces are controlled by militarily equipped drug cartels. Something like 80% of the gun violence in the US is drug or gang related. Take away the drugs and suddenly the gangs can't afford the guns and have little to fight over and the cartels get undermined, lose cash, and can't afford guns.

so what I'm getting from this is: legalize drugs and outlaw guns?

that's cool

I am unable to conceive of any rational or honest interpretation of redmid17's statement that would allow for such a possible conclusion. Please explain the means by which you have derived it.

well, the leap of logic includes:
80% of gun violence being drug or gang related.
gangs get money from drugs to buy guns
people buy legal guns to protect themselves from people who have guns illegally
if we legalize drugs, then there's no drug related gun violence, no gangs have guns, therefore the already tiny portion of people who have illegal guns becomes even tiner.
So tiny in fact that outlawing guns would actually prevent "bad" people from having guns
And if no "bad" people have guns, then "good" people don't need to protect themselves from "bad" people with guns, so they're cool with outlawing guns

So, legalize drugs, outlaw guns.


So like he said, no rational interpretation? The ATF estimated that there were 270 million guns in the US in 2006. NICS checks have been through the root since Obama was elected. It's very likely there is a 100 gun to 100 person ratio in the country right now. It's neither practical nor expedient because a lot of people use guns to do other things like target shoot and hunt (like myself). Even countries like Japan (pretty much the heaviest gun laws in the world) still allow sporting exceptions.

/you're an idiot
 
2012-07-30 06:26:17 PM

redmid17: /you're an idiot


and you're terribly serious.
 
2012-07-30 06:26:43 PM
It's been awhile since the last thread where bed-wetting gun nuts show off their e-peens.

Keep up the good work, and never forget:

1. Without CCW, all people darker than you would murder/rape/burgle you.
2. Scary muslins hate your freedoms and want to destroy you in your sleep.
3. Once Obama is re-elected, he is DEFINITELY coming after your guns. Last time was just a juke out. So go stock up on a shed full of ammo as soon as possible
 
2012-07-30 06:27:00 PM

thisone: Dimensio: thisone: redmid17: Also you completely dismiss the countries like Mexico that have pretty stringent firearm ownership yet even higher rates of gun violence than the US. Most of the countries you have compares us to in the past also don't have 3rd world countries bordering to the south where whole provinces are controlled by militarily equipped drug cartels. Something like 80% of the gun violence in the US is drug or gang related. Take away the drugs and suddenly the gangs can't afford the guns and have little to fight over and the cartels get undermined, lose cash, and can't afford guns.

so what I'm getting from this is: legalize drugs and outlaw guns?

that's cool

I am unable to conceive of any rational or honest interpretation of redmid17's statement that would allow for such a possible conclusion. Please explain the means by which you have derived it.

well, the leap of logic includes:
80% of gun violence being drug or gang related.
gangs get money from drugs to buy guns
people buy legal guns to protect themselves from people who have guns illegally
if we legalize drugs, then there's no drug related gun violence, no gangs have guns, therefore the already tiny portion of people who have illegal guns becomes even tiner.
So tiny in fact that outlawing guns would actually prevent "bad" people from having guns
And if no "bad" people have guns, then "good" people don't need to protect themselves from "bad" people with guns, so they're cool with outlawing guns

So, legalize drugs, outlaw guns.


Please explain how you derived "outlawing guns would actually prevent 'bad' people from having guns" from any previous posting other than your own.
 
2012-07-30 06:27:53 PM

redmid17: There have been isolated incident(s) where authorities have actually physically taken weapons from people. Hell the NRA had to file an emergency injunction and the Feds had to pass a law to prevent more Katrina style appropriations. I can't think of any other examples off the top of my head, but it clearly warranted enough of a backlash to create the Vitter Amendment.


Cops taking guns from abandoned\unoccupied houses that were very likely to be looted is not really gun grabbing. They didn't go in guns blazing demanding that citizens give up their guns. And let's remember, we are taking about the NOLA PD.
 
2012-07-30 06:27:58 PM
I'm pissed the government won't allow me to have nuclear arms. Now, only criminals have nuclear arms in the United States, and we're all forced to cower in fear. I'm not allowed to properly defend myself. If they wanted to, these hoodlums could break into my house and rape my kitten while I sit there helpless because my measly AK-47 is useless against their bomb.
 
2012-07-30 06:29:33 PM

thisone: redmid17: /you're an idiot

and you're terribly serious.


I tend to be when people advocate steaingl thousands of dollars worth of tools from me.

Let's ban all computers so there will be no cybercrime!

/see how dumb that sounds?
 
2012-07-30 06:30:44 PM

Dimensio: thisone: Dimensio: thisone: redmid17: Also you completely dismiss the countries like Mexico that have pretty stringent firearm ownership yet even higher rates of gun violence than the US. Most of the countries you have compares us to in the past also don't have 3rd world countries bordering to the south where whole provinces are controlled by militarily equipped drug cartels. Something like 80% of the gun violence in the US is drug or gang related. Take away the drugs and suddenly the gangs can't afford the guns and have little to fight over and the cartels get undermined, lose cash, and can't afford guns.

so what I'm getting from this is: legalize drugs and outlaw guns?

that's cool

I am unable to conceive of any rational or honest interpretation of redmid17's statement that would allow for such a possible conclusion. Please explain the means by which you have derived it.

well, the leap of logic includes:
80% of gun violence being drug or gang related.
gangs get money from drugs to buy guns
people buy legal guns to protect themselves from people who have guns illegally
if we legalize drugs, then there's no drug related gun violence, no gangs have guns, therefore the already tiny portion of people who have illegal guns becomes even tiner.
So tiny in fact that outlawing guns would actually prevent "bad" people from having guns
And if no "bad" people have guns, then "good" people don't need to protect themselves from "bad" people with guns, so they're cool with outlawing guns

So, legalize drugs, outlaw guns.

Please explain how you derived "outlawing guns would actually prevent 'bad' people from having guns" from any previous posting other than your own.


why? I was responding by enumerating a leap of logic, since when do leaps of logic have anything to do with links to posts?
 
2012-07-30 06:32:37 PM

redmid17: thisone: redmid17: /you're an idiot

and you're terribly serious.

I tend to be when people advocate steaingl thousands of dollars worth of tools from me.

Let's ban all computers so there will be no cybercrime!

/see how dumb that sounds?


not particularly. Ban networks though, that may help.
 
2012-07-30 06:34:26 PM

NightOwl2255: Cops taking guns from abandoned\unoccupied houses that were very likely to be looted is not really gun grabbing. They didn't go in guns blazing demanding that citizens give up their guns. And let's remember, we are taking about the NOLA PD.


I didn't finish, we are talking about NOLA PD which has a rich history of violating citizens rights. No matter what the law, if a group of cops are willing to break the law, the law really doesn't matter. And yes, I'm aware of some actual confiscations.
 
2012-07-30 06:35:32 PM

thisone: redmid17: thisone: redmid17: /you're an idiot

and you're terribly serious.

I tend to be when people advocate steaingl thousands of dollars worth of tools from me.

Let's ban all computers so there will be no cybercrime!

/see how dumb that sounds?

not particularly. Ban networks though, that may help.


You can still have computer crime though, so we should ban computers as well. Think of the children.
 
2012-07-30 06:41:35 PM

redmid17: thisone: redmid17: thisone: redmid17: /you're an idiot

and you're terribly serious.

I tend to be when people advocate steaingl thousands of dollars worth of tools from me.

Let's ban all computers so there will be no cybercrime!

/see how dumb that sounds?

not particularly. Ban networks though, that may help.

You can still have computer crime though, so we should ban computers as well. Think of the children.


aww man, moving the goal posts! you said cybercrime, and never mentioned children before.

I require an argument specification before hand.

refactoring in the unaccetable impact of computer crime on children, including obesity, which we know is caused by computers.

indeed, we must not only ban computers, but also all processors.

I'm debating on whether we can still use a Babbage difference engine though.

Probably not.
 
2012-07-30 06:49:42 PM

thisone: redmid17: thisone: redmid17: thisone: redmid17: /you're an idiot

and you're terribly serious.

I tend to be when people advocate steaingl thousands of dollars worth of tools from me.

Let's ban all computers so there will be no cybercrime!

/see how dumb that sounds?

not particularly. Ban networks though, that may help.

You can still have computer crime though, so we should ban computers as well. Think of the children.

aww man, moving the goal posts! you said cybercrime, and never mentioned children before.

I require an argument specification before hand.

refactoring in the unaccetable impact of computer crime on children, including obesity, which we know is caused by computers.

indeed, we must not only ban computers, but also all processors.

I'm debating on whether we can still use a Babbage difference engine though.

Probably not.


Dude I'm thinking we might have to ban stuff as far back as the Antikythera
 
2012-07-30 06:54:06 PM

redmid17:
Dude I'm thinking we might have to ban stuff as far back as the Antikythera


I'm going with the Greek island interpretation. Simply for the irony of banning it.

I've been informed that we must add in foosball as well. It has to go, for the sake of the children.
 
2012-07-30 06:54:50 PM

thisone: redmid17:
Dude I'm thinking we might have to ban stuff as far back as the Antikythera

I'm going with the Greek island interpretation. Simply for the irony of banning it.

I've been informed that we must add in foosball as well. It has to go, for the sake of the children.


It's hard to play foosball with a beer in your hand, so I agree.
 
2012-07-30 06:55:51 PM

NightOwl2255: Cops taking guns from abandoned\unoccupied houses that were very likely to be looted is not really gun grabbing. They didn't go in guns blazing demanding that citizens give up their guns. And let's remember, we are taking about the NOLA PD.


Yes, actually they did confiscate guns from people. Not with guns blazing, but confiscated nonetheless.
Link
 
2012-07-30 06:58:26 PM
I'm a big proponent of keeping guns away from nuts.

Maybe I need to add "away from idiots" too.
 
2012-07-30 06:59:56 PM

HaywoodJablonski: It's been awhile since the last thread where bed-wetting gun nuts show off their e-peens.

Keep up the good work, and never forget:

1. Without CCW, all people darker than you would murder/rape/burgle you.
2. Scary muslins hate your freedoms and want to destroy you in your sleep.
3. Once Obama is re-elected, he is DEFINITELY coming after your guns. Last time was just a juke out. So go stock up on a shed full of ammo as soon as possible


Is that what you assume people w/ CCW's assume? I am tryn to follow.

You forgot to add a penis supplement reference!
 
2012-07-30 07:00:32 PM

pedrop357: Yes, actually they did confiscate guns from people. Not with guns blazing, but confiscated nonetheless.


Yeah, I knew that and had forgotten (what's that about history repeating?). My point is, it was not a law that was passed and the guberment started grabbing guns. That was a very isolated case of a force acting beyond the scope of their power. I stand by my statement that there is not a serious movement to actually take guns out of the hands of citizens.
 
2012-07-30 07:03:31 PM

NightOwl2255: pedrop357: Yes, actually they did confiscate guns from people. Not with guns blazing, but confiscated nonetheless.

Yeah, I knew that and had forgotten (what's that about history repeating?). My point is, it was not a law that was passed and the guberment started grabbing guns. That was a very isolated case of a force acting beyond the scope of their power. I stand by my statement that there is not a serious movement to actually take guns out of the hands of citizens.


Fair enough.
 
2012-07-30 07:04:43 PM

HaywoodJablonski: It's been awhile since the last thread where bed-wetting gun nuts show off their e-peens.

Keep up the good work, and never forget:

1. Without CCW, all people darker than you would murder/rape/burgle you.
2. Scary muslins hate your freedoms and want to destroy you in your sleep.


Me and my Muslim brother-in-law:

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net


/taught him to shoot my AK
 
2012-07-30 07:13:30 PM

cryinoutloud: InternetSecurityGuard: James, James, James. You need to check out Thunderwear:
http://www.thunderwear.com/holsters.asp
Either that or cut the pretense and start carrying a murse:
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/BAG-070
I have been carrying one of these around for several years now. So folks have gotten used to seeing me with it. Externally it has radios, GPS and cameras. But folks have no idea what is in the hidden pcket.

But how's he supposed to shoot the liberal shooter if his gun is concealed in a secret pocket? Dammit, when the man needs to shoot someone, he needs to do it NOW.

Also, he looks exactly like what I'd expect a guy like him to look like:

[blogs.westword.com image 380x480]

Ignorant and proud of it.


Does his shirt say Liberalism?
 
2012-07-30 07:17:19 PM

serial_crusher: unlikely: I've actually met that guy, and he's a pretty typical "AMURKA FUK YAH... COLD DEAD FINGERS" kind of redneck.

It's vaguely surprising he didn't know you're not allowed to carry into a place with alcohol. That's one of the questions on the CCW written.

Not that it matters; he won't have that CCW any more.

It's slightly possible that he didn't know they sell alcohol there? Most crappy movie theaters don't.
He says he's a regular, and the place is named Cinebarre though. So missing a detail like that would be vaguely surprising if he wasn't the "AMURKA FUK YAH" type, but recent GOP superstars have taught me to expect that kind of lack of attention to detail.


He's been going to the theater for years. RTFA
 
2012-07-30 07:19:48 PM

unlikely: I've actually met that guy, and he's a pretty typical "AMURKA FUK YAH... COLD DEAD FINGERS" kind of redneck.

It's vaguely surprising he didn't know you're not allowed to carry into a place with alcohol. That's one of the questions on the CCW written.

Not that it matters; he won't have that CCW any more.


Why would he lose his CCW? He didn't actually break any laws.
 
2012-07-30 07:22:29 PM

JesseL: HaywoodJablonski: It's been awhile since the last thread where bed-wetting gun nuts show off their e-peens.

Keep up the good work, and never forget:

1. Without CCW, all people darker than you would murder/rape/burgle you.
2. Scary muslins hate your freedoms and want to destroy you in your sleep.

Me and my Muslim brother-in-law:

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 592x453]


/taught him to shoot my AK


Is that a big ol ham on the table?
 
2012-07-30 07:33:22 PM

thisone: Dimensio: thisone: Dimensio: thisone: redmid17: Also you completely dismiss the countries like Mexico that have pretty stringent firearm ownership yet even higher rates of gun violence than the US. Most of the countries you have compares us to in the past also don't have 3rd world countries bordering to the south where whole provinces are controlled by militarily equipped drug cartels. Something like 80% of the gun violence in the US is drug or gang related. Take away the drugs and suddenly the gangs can't afford the guns and have little to fight over and the cartels get undermined, lose cash, and can't afford guns.

so what I'm getting from this is: legalize drugs and outlaw guns?

that's cool

I am unable to conceive of any rational or honest interpretation of redmid17's statement that would allow for such a possible conclusion. Please explain the means by which you have derived it.

well, the leap of logic includes:
80% of gun violence being drug or gang related.
gangs get money from drugs to buy guns
people buy legal guns to protect themselves from people who have guns illegally
if we legalize drugs, then there's no drug related gun violence, no gangs have guns, therefore the already tiny portion of people who have illegal guns becomes even tiner.
So tiny in fact that outlawing guns would actually prevent "bad" people from having guns
And if no "bad" people have guns, then "good" people don't need to protect themselves from "bad" people with guns, so they're cool with outlawing guns

So, legalize drugs, outlaw guns.

Please explain how you derived "outlawing guns would actually prevent 'bad' people from having guns" from any previous posting other than your own.

why? I was responding by enumerating a leap of logic, since when do leaps of logic have anything to do with links to posts?


I believe that you have confused a "non-sequitur", which you have employed, with a "leap of logic", which you have not. The two concepts, while sometimes confused, are not equivalent.
 
2012-07-30 07:36:20 PM
NightOwl2255


>> OnlyM3: I did that last week and fark's resident hoplophobe immediately called
>> it "cherry picking".

Dude, that's because most of your linked articles were just plain ol robberies
Like the school shootingS?

and there was zero reason to be believe there was going to be shooting of any kind.Like the "simple robbery" where the guy walked in an immediately opened fire. Right. No reason at all to believe he'd keep shooting. o.O

The church shooter that was stopped, that's an example of a mass shooting that was stopped. A convenience store robbery is not. Yet you denied that one as well.
 
2012-07-30 07:48:16 PM

oakleym82


And I do. I mean for times when you come upon a situation that requires intervention, like rape rape or something, in which case I'd probably open my mouth regardless of whether or not I was packing.


Appreciate the clarification and sorry about the misunderstanding.
 
2012-07-30 07:49:29 PM

LaraAmber


In fact, the CCW class emphasized that when you carry you need to be extra careful to not escalate the situation: don't close the distance, don't take a swing, don't get drawn into heated words. The other person may be an asshole, but you're armed and know it. Don't give him a chance to take your weapon and be an armed asshole and don't get into a situation where you're now going to jail over a parking space because you can't control your temper.


I was already aware of that, which is why I stressed keeping the word-hole shut. Still good advice, though.
 
2012-07-30 07:54:41 PM

NightOwl2255: JesseL: HaywoodJablonski: It's been awhile since the last thread where bed-wetting gun nuts show off their e-peens.

Keep up the good work, and never forget:

1. Without CCW, all people darker than you would murder/rape/burgle you.
2. Scary muslins hate your freedoms and want to destroy you in your sleep.

Me and my Muslim brother-in-law:

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 592x453]


/taught him to shoot my AK

Is that a big ol ham on the table?


ROFL

Could be. I'm sure Thahir didn't partake of it if it was.
 
2012-07-30 08:06:37 PM

JesseL: /taught him to shoot my AK


Stop being ridiculous. If he is a Muslim I am sure he already knew how to shoot an AK.
 
2012-07-30 08:06:39 PM

LaraAmber: Whiskey Dickens:
I wasn't blaming anything on the Aurora victims, but if they're guilty of something, it's allowing the gun owners such say in lawmaking that there are now 275 million guns legally owned in America.
This translates to 90 guns per 100 citizens, and many more rampages to come. :(

Oh wait, I now see your point, there are 275 million guns legally owned in America. And the Aurora shooting that took place in my backyard is such a freak instance that it made international news and was talked about all over the world until basically the Olympics started. That means there are millions of guns in this country NOT being used to kill people every day. That translates to 90 guns per 100 citizens NOT being used to kill our neighbors every day!

Yeah America!


www.brookings.edu
 
2012-07-30 08:11:13 PM

JesseL: HaywoodJablonski: It's been awhile since the last thread where bed-wetting gun nuts show off their e-peens.

Keep up the good work, and never forget:

1. Without CCW, all people darker than you would murder/rape/burgle you.
2. Scary muslins hate your freedoms and want to destroy you in your sleep.

Me and my Muslim brother-in-law:

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 592x453]


/taught him to shoot my AK


The baby in orange should probably be checked for eye cancer.
I'm not a doctor but I did stay in a holiday inn express last night that had a poster of a kid with eye cancer.

/btw, is the skinny guy the muslin?
 
2012-07-30 08:25:36 PM

iserlohn: LaraAmber: Whiskey Dickens:
I wasn't blaming anything on the Aurora victims, but if they're guilty of something, it's allowing the gun owners such say in lawmaking that there are now 275 million guns legally owned in America.
This translates to 90 guns per 100 citizens, and many more rampages to come. :(

Oh wait, I now see your point, there are 275 million guns legally owned in America. And the Aurora shooting that took place in my backyard is such a freak instance that it made international news and was talked about all over the world until basically the Olympics started. That means there are millions of guns in this country NOT being used to kill people every day. That translates to 90 guns per 100 citizens NOT being used to kill our neighbors every day!

Yeah America!

[www.brookings.edu image 850x639]


...actually, those are interesting stats. For every 1 million people, the US has 890,000 guns and commits 32.5 homicides with guns -- in other words, 32.5/890000/1000000 = 3.6e-11 homicides per gun per person (per year, I assume).

Taking (say) Ireland as a comparison, 8.3/90000/1000000 = 9.2e-11 homicides per gun per person.

...or, in other words, Ireland commits about 3x more homicides per person per gun than the US.

So, really, given the prevalence of guns in the US, it's amazing the homicide rate is as low as it is. If Irish gun ownership was at the same level as in the US, then by that scaling, their gun-homicide rate would be about 3x higher than in the US.
 
2012-07-30 08:26:39 PM

Four Horsemen of the Domestic Dispute: The baby in orange should probably be checked for eye cancer.
I'm not a doctor but I did stay in a holiday inn express last night that had a poster of a kid with eye cancer.


It's been a couple years since that picture was taken and he hasn't had any eye problems - I think it's just a photographic artifact.

Four Horsemen of the Domestic Dispute: /btw, is the skinny guy the muslin?


Nope, but that's the first time I've ever been called "the skinny guy". Made my day!
 
2012-07-30 08:30:53 PM

iserlohn: LaraAmber: Whiskey Dickens:
I wasn't blaming anything on the Aurora victims, but if they're guilty of something, it's allowing the gun owners such say in lawmaking that there are now 275 million guns legally owned in America.
This translates to 90 guns per 100 citizens, and many more rampages to come. :(

Oh wait, I now see your point, there are 275 million guns legally owned in America. And the Aurora shooting that took place in my backyard is such a freak instance that it made international news and was talked about all over the world until basically the Olympics started. That means there are millions of guns in this country NOT being used to kill people every day. That translates to 90 guns per 100 citizens NOT being used to kill our neighbors every day!

Yeah America!

[www.brookings.edu image 850x639]


Would not a more reasonable assessment compare firearm ownership rates with overall homicide rates, or do the authors of that chart believe homicide acceptable when committed with an implement other than a firearm?
 
2012-07-30 08:34:34 PM
Also, assault weapons account for 4% of murders.
 
2012-07-30 08:38:15 PM
Westworld dudes are openly carrying in an establishment were liquor is served. (Not sure why the robot needs whiskey but... *shrug*)
img208.imageshack.us
 
Displayed 50 of 331 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report