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.

(CNN) NewsFlash The United States: 0 Days Since Last Mass Casualty Shooting   (cnn.com) divider line 1064
    More: NewsFlash, New York Fire Department  
•       •       •

23001 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Aug 2012 at 10:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

1064 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-24 11:58:04 AM

Alonjar: haha geez... after listening to the interview with the mayor, it sounds like I may have been correct earlier... Gunman shoots/kills 1, cops shoot 9 others.


Any of whom may have been armed.
 
2012-08-24 11:58:08 AM
When they take our guns, they'll just switch to repeating crossbows.
 
2012-08-24 11:58:14 AM

cassanovascotian: ekdikeo4: ^^ functionally equivalent to AR-15. Not banned under assault weapons ban, or any other proposed legislation. Why? It doesn't look scary.

so let's ban that too.
What don't you get about this?


What don't you get, about how the Constitution of the nation operates?
 
2012-08-24 11:58:17 AM

ChuDogg: ekdikeo4: ^^ functionally equivalent to AR-15. Not banned under assault weapons ban, or any other proposed legislation. Why? It doesn't look scary.

Paint it black.


[cdn.armslist.com image 640x480]

The most technically accurate definition of an assault rifle versus a hunting rifle is that one is painted black and the other is woodgrain.


In fact most assault weapons are less powerful than hunting rifles...

/just sayin'...
 
2012-08-24 11:58:43 AM

cassanovascotian: Dimensio: The current discussion relates to actions in which no AR-15 model rifle was used.


How, exactly, is your inaccurate image intended to relate to the current discussion?

Ok, I'm going to boil it down to the simplest possible form

A) there are violent people in society who would like to perform mass-killings.
B) making guns available makes it possible for these people to carry out mass killings for the notoriety they seek
C) perhaps something like a repeating rifle serve a legitimate purpose for hunting, but beyond that, guns serve absolutely no function other than to kill people.

....so, let's get rid of the guns....

It's really not so complicated. And you can try to smoke and mirrors with bullshiat about how much ammo a certain type of magazine carries and what type of gun does blah-blah-farking-blah... None of that shiat is in the least way relevent.


I can kill and injure more people than any recent "mass killing" with stuff I can buy from wal-mart and one good chemistry major to help.
 
2012-08-24 11:59:22 AM

probesport: Dimensio: ekdikeo4: Anything over 30 rounds is only available to police/military

I own a one-hundred round Beta C magazine for my AR-15. I also own a fifty-round .22lr magazine for use with the same firearm.

I am employed neither with a law enforcement agency nor a military branch.

Nor very secretive.


The one-hundred round magazine was purchased as a novelty item during a sale. The fifty round magazine was purchased as an item of convenience when target shooting. My ownership of neither item warrants secrecy.
 
2012-08-24 11:59:44 AM

Snarfangel: I Said: DamnYankees: I Said: Godscrack: Why is everyone so quick to call police 'heros' when it's just part of their job?

Because training or not, confronting someone who is clearly willing to shoot others is heroic.

This standard would make drug dealers heroic.

I could have added "for the safety of others" but I assumed that was obvious

Wait, so you are saying that drug dealers are not heroic?


I view them the way I view congress: Mine is a great guy, helping me out. Everyone else's is an asshole breaking the law and farking the place up.
 
2012-08-24 11:59:57 AM

CAADbury: AliceBToklasLives: CAADbury: The first amendment doesn't limit the kinds of speech.

FIRE!!!!!!

That's the USSC, not the Bill of Rights. I was careful in saying the BoR doesn't limit freedoms.


Oh, I forgot the Supreme Court was not established by the Constitution.

/and I forgot that the Bill of Rights were the first 10 amendments to said Constitution
//but yeah, go ahead and believe these are rights without any exceptions whatsoever
 
2012-08-24 12:00:01 PM

Alonjar: Gunman: 1
NYPD: 9 10

NYPD wins!


CNN is now saying that a total of 11 people were shot.
 
2012-08-24 12:00:01 PM

cassanovascotian: Dimensio: Do you believe that Mr. Holmes's actions would have been legal had he purchased and utilized a functionally identical rifle that lacked a grenade launcher lug, a telescoping stock and a flash hider?

sigh... so much derp here.

would it have been legal?.... it wouldn't have farking happened, if he hadn't been able to obtain that, or a " functionally identical rifle".

and if, by " functionally identical rifle" you mean sem-automatic, then get rid of those too.

if you mean something like a repeating rifle... then ok, that serves some function, and might have some purpose.... but it's a heck of a lot less efficient at killing people.


Well if you hadn't addressed his point about the AWB, then I imagine he wouldn't continually be bringing it up.
 
2012-08-24 12:00:13 PM

Spade: I can kill and injure more people than any recent "mass killing" with stuff I can buy from wal-mart and one good chemistry major to help.


This
 
2012-08-24 12:00:19 PM
Some folks like to get away
Take a holiday from their sanity
Fill their heads up with nonsense from Sean Hannity
Now they're out shooting tourists
And any colleagues they can find
They're in a murderous state of mind.
 
2012-08-24 12:00:19 PM

I_C_Weener: Never desired a visit to New York City.  This has not changed my mind.


I think I speak on behalf of all New Yorkers when I say that while it may be difficult for us to go on without your presence here, we will make the best of it.
 
2012-08-24 12:01:17 PM

ekdikeo4: cassanovascotian: ekdikeo4: ^^ functionally equivalent to AR-15. Not banned under assault weapons ban, or any other proposed legislation. Why? It doesn't look scary.

so let's ban that too.
What don't you get about this?

What don't you get, about how the Constitution of the nation operates?


He's from Nova Scotia and thinks "blow a load" is a death threat.

He's got a Pete Rose haircut and some disappointed parents.
 
2012-08-24 12:01:19 PM

Callous: Alonjar: Gunman: 1
NYPD: 9 10

NYPD wins!

CNN is now saying that a total of 11 people were shot.


Interesting, considering the shooter only had an 8 round magazine.
 
2012-08-24 12:01:21 PM

cassanovascotian: Dimensio: The current discussion relates to actions in which no AR-15 model rifle was used.


How, exactly, is your inaccurate image intended to relate to the current discussion?

Ok, I'm going to boil it down to the simplest possible form

A) there are violent people in society who would like to perform mass-killings.
B) making guns available makes it possible for these people to carry out mass killings for the notoriety they seek
C) perhaps something like a repeating rifle serve a legitimate purpose for hunting, but beyond that, guns serve absolutely no function other than to kill people.

....so, let's get rid of the guns....

It's really not so complicated. And you can try to smoke and mirrors with bullshiat about how much ammo a certain type of magazine carries and what type of gun does blah-blah-farking-blah... None of that shiat is in the least way relevent.


Yep, only guns are used for mass killings. Get rid of guns and you'll eliminate mass killings.
www.thedailybeast.com
 
2012-08-24 12:01:47 PM

seadoo2006: Dimensio: seadoo2006: Again, if you knew you were legally responsible for your firearms - even if they were stolen - how much more would you protect those guns.

Suggesting that a firearm owner is legally responsible for criminal misuse of their product after it is stolen by an unauthorized third party is unreasonable.

So, suggesting that a gun owner secure his firearm as to not be stolen is unreasonable?


FTFM.
 
2012-08-24 12:02:07 PM
Im curious about the shooter, they said he was fired last year during downsizing. Wonder what exactly triggered him to confront his ex manager and shoot him today.
 
2012-08-24 12:02:17 PM
Speaking as a foreigners abroad, I have to say it looks like the Americans have just started killing each other off. There's like 350 million of them so it'll be a while until the full effect is felt, although the push for citizens to arm themselves makes me think that perhaps this cataclysm will be a lot faster than expected.
 
2012-08-24 12:02:50 PM

Dimensio: probesport: Dimensio: ekdikeo4: Anything over 30 rounds is only available to police/military

I own a one-hundred round Beta C magazine for my AR-15. I also own a fifty-round .22lr magazine for use with the same firearm.

I am employed neither with a law enforcement agency nor a military branch.

Nor very secretive.

The one-hundred round magazine was purchased as a novelty item during a sale. The fifty round magazine was purchased as an item of convenience when target shooting. My ownership of neither item warrants secrecy.


Yeah but now you've already had to justify it just by mentioning it.
 
2012-08-24 12:03:06 PM

Alonjar: Spade: I can kill and injure more people than any recent "mass killing" with stuff I can buy from wal-mart and one good chemistry major to help.

This


Pfft. I can probably achieve the same results with a 12 pack of beer, and a Yugo.
 
2012-08-24 12:03:22 PM

ekdikeo4: plewis: Dimensio: HAMMERTOE: Magazine holds 100 bullets??? O RLY???

Removing the spring and other internal components could hypothetically allow for insertion of one-hundred uncased bullets.

You are missing the point. Yes, that's probably a 30 round mag (which, I just learned to my horror, you can buy on amazon along with a book that tells you how to make your own undocumented Ar-15) but the punchline is still at the bottom. We outlawed these things, the NRA decided that we needed to put these back into the civilian arsenal and people were killed with them. Why do non-soldiers need these kinds of weapons?

[media.liveauctiongroup.net image 850x283]

^^ functionally equivalent to AR-15. Not banned under assault weapons ban, or any other proposed legislation. Why? It doesn't look scary.


cdn.armslist.com

I am certain that advocates of prohibiting civilian ownership of "assault weapons" will be able to explain why the firearm that you displayed serves a legitimate civilian purpose while the firearm depicted above does not.
 
2012-08-24 12:03:38 PM
AliceBToklasLives:

Oh, I forgot the Supreme Court was not established by the Constitution.

/and I forgot that the Bill of Rights were the first 10 amendments to said Constitution
//but yeah, go ahead and believe these are rights without any exceptions whatsoever I forgot


/fixed...:)
 
2012-08-24 12:03:40 PM
The problem is that people don't have enough guns. If more people had guns, this kind of thing would have never happened.
 
2012-08-24 12:03:45 PM

willyfreddy: The US has way too many guns. And your crime rate is absolutely insane. I live in Canada, with a population of roughly 30 million, and we had 173 gun homicides in 2011. You live in the US, with a population of roughly 300 million (10x Canada), and you had 9146 gun homicides in 2011 (52x Canada)


You're right about the crime rate: the US has a crime rate that is disproportionally higher than the gun ownership rate, compared to Canada. According to the Wikipedia, Canada was the #13 country in the world for number of guns per hundred residents at 30.8. The US had 88.8, which is 2.8 times higher yet has, as you pointed out, a gun-related firearm homicide rate of 52x that of the Canada.

Switzerland has 45.7 guns per 100 residents (many of them full-automatic military rifles issued to their soldiers -- military service is mandatory and citizens keep their issued rifles and ammo at home) and violent crime rate is also very low compared to the US.

I would posit that the problem is people, not guns. What about Canada and Switzerland (and their respective populations) is different in regards to causes of violent crime? Both have good social safety nets and decent mental health care systems. That'd probably be a pretty good place to start on improving stuff in the US.
 
2012-08-24 12:03:51 PM

Alonjar: Spade: I can kill and injure more people than any recent "mass killing" with stuff I can buy from wal-mart and one good chemistry major to help.

This


I could kill more people than this if I drive a bus off a cliff, so gun control is pointless.
 
2012-08-24 12:04:17 PM

AliceBToklasLives: Oh, I forgot the Supreme Court was not established by the Constitution.

/and I forgot that the Bill of Rights were the first 10 amendments to said Constitution
//but yeah, go ahead and believe these are rights without any exceptions whatsoever


Yes, the Court can (and has) put certain restrictions on rights as a result of the externalities they cause.

You cannot shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater because that action infringes upon the rights of other patrons.

Tell me how the bare act of owning a firearm, or carrying it, infringes upon one of your basic rights?
 
2012-08-24 12:04:17 PM

imtheonlylp: Shirley more gun laws would curtail this type of behavior, no?


No. And don't call me Shirley.
 
2012-08-24 12:04:18 PM

cassanovascotian: ekdikeo4: ^^ functionally equivalent to AR-15. Not banned under assault weapons ban, or any other proposed legislation. Why? It doesn't look scary.

so let's ban that too.
What don't you get about this?


I do not "get" the irrational reasoning utilized to arrive at your decision that civilian ownership of rarely criminally misused classes of firearms should be prohibited.
 
2012-08-24 12:05:09 PM

Yanks_RSJ: I_C_Weener: Never desired a visit to New York City.  This has not changed my mind.

I think I speak on behalf of all New Yorkers when I say that while it may be difficult for us to go on without your presence here, we will make the best of it.


I will pray for your swift recovery from the disappointment. :)
 
My mom's new husband misses the bagels there...so I guess there is that.
 
2012-08-24 12:05:18 PM
It wouldn't be a day at work at the NYPD if they didn't shoot an innocent person or eight.
 
2012-08-24 12:05:45 PM

heypete: willyfreddy: The US has way too many guns. And your crime rate is absolutely insane. I live in Canada, with a population of roughly 30 million, and we had 173 gun homicides in 2011. You live in the US, with a population of roughly 300 million (10x Canada), and you had 9146 gun homicides in 2011 (52x Canada)

You're right about the crime rate: the US has a crime rate that is disproportionally higher than the gun ownership rate, compared to Canada. According to the Wikipedia, Canada was the #13 country in the world for number of guns per hundred residents at 30.8. The US had 88.8, which is 2.8 times higher yet has, as you pointed out, a gun-related firearm homicide rate of 52x that of the Canada.

Switzerland has 45.7 guns per 100 residents (many of them full-automatic military rifles issued to their soldiers -- military service is mandatory and citizens keep their issued rifles and ammo at home) and violent crime rate is also very low compared to the US.

I would posit that the problem is people, not guns. What about Canada and Switzerland (and their respective populations) is different in regards to causes of violent crime? Both have good social safety nets and decent mental health care systems. That'd probably be a pretty good place to start on improving stuff in the US.


Of course it is the people. Guns are just tools. Guns require a shooter. The USA has major social problems compared to countries like Switzerland.
 
2012-08-24 12:05:59 PM
Unfortunately, as long as the economy continues its downward shame spiral, I predict that we'll see
more incidents of otherwise perfectly normal people pushed to the brink until they snap.Granted,
the guy who shot up the movie theater was a certifiable loon, but he isn't the type I am talking about.

I'm talking about Mr. or Ms. Everyman who held down their 9-to-5, paid their taxes, paid their rent
or mortgage, did their best by their family and just got shiat on one too many times.

Gun control (or lack thereof) isn't the issue. If someone wants a gun badly enough, they'll manage
to get one, i guarantee it.
 
2012-08-24 12:06:37 PM
They have the strictest gun laws, though. How is such a thing possible?!?
 
2012-08-24 12:07:40 PM

doubled99: They have the strictest gun laws, though. How is such a thing possible?!?


Again, does this argument suggest that if a law can be broken there is no point in having the law?
 
2012-08-24 12:08:09 PM
Funny how this sort of thing doesn't happen nearly as often in Canada, which has stricter weapons laws.

But, you know, stricter gun laws are never effective.
 
2012-08-24 12:08:10 PM

tricycleracer: doubled99: They have the strictest gun laws, though. How is such a thing possible?!?

Again, does this argument suggest that if a law can be broken there is no point in having the law?


No, but it suggests that more laws aren't going to change things.
 
2012-08-24 12:08:18 PM

Spade: Callous: Alonjar: Gunman: 1
NYPD: 9 10

NYPD wins!

CNN is now saying that a total of 11 people were shot.

Interesting, considering the shooter only had an 8 round magazine.


I know what you're thinking. "Did he shoot eleven people, or only ten?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .45 handgun, one of the most powerful handguns in the world with an 8-round clip, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?
 
2012-08-24 12:08:20 PM

CAADbury: AliceBToklasLives: Oh, I forgot the Supreme Court was not established by the Constitution.

/and I forgot that the Bill of Rights were the first 10 amendments to said Constitution
//but yeah, go ahead and believe these are rights without any exceptions whatsoever

Yes, the Court can (and has) put certain restrictions on rights as a result of the externalities they cause.

You cannot shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater because that action infringes upon the rights of other patrons.

Tell me how the bare act of owning a firearm, or carrying it, infringes upon one of your basic rights?


If the owner of said firearm is, say, an ex-con, who did time for a violent crime, then my right to feel reasonably safe walking the streets has been infringed.

/you don't like that right because it's not written down by white guys 200+ years ago? Ok, how about my right to free speech, knowing a violent ex-con with a powerful weapon may be listening?
 
2012-08-24 12:08:27 PM

cassanovascotian: C) perhaps something like a repeating rifle serve a legitimate purpose for hunting, but beyond that, guns serve absolutely no function other than to kill people.....


Your third premise is demonstrably false, thus your conclusions are unreliable.


so, let's get rid of the guns....

In addition to being derived from a false premise, your proposal is Unconstitutional.
 
2012-08-24 12:08:44 PM

heypete: willyfreddy: The US has way too many guns. And your crime rate is absolutely insane. I live in Canada, with a population of roughly 30 million, and we had 173 gun homicides in 2011. You live in the US, with a population of roughly 300 million (10x Canada), and you had 9146 gun homicides in 2011 (52x Canada)

You're right about the crime rate: the US has a crime rate that is disproportionally higher than the gun ownership rate, compared to Canada. According to the Wikipedia, Canada was the #13 country in the world for number of guns per hundred residents at 30.8. The US had 88.8, which is 2.8 times higher yet has, as you pointed out, a gun-related firearm homicide rate of 52x that of the Canada.

Switzerland has 45.7 guns per 100 residents (many of them full-automatic military rifles issued to their soldiers -- military service is mandatory and citizens keep their issued rifles and ammo at home) and violent crime rate is also very low compared to the US.

I would posit that the problem is people, not guns. What about Canada and Switzerland (and their respective populations) is different in regards to causes of violent crime? Both have good social safety nets and decent mental health care systems. That'd probably be a pretty good place to start on improving stuff in the US.


Its the cold weather. It makes us Canadians sluggish and not want to go outside and shoot people.
You ever tried reloading an assault rifle with mitts on in -40c weather?
 
2012-08-24 12:08:45 PM
More than access to guns, the problem in the United States is a culture that promotes violence, war, conflict, isolation, punishment, and the shunning of mental illness. Bring back community support, make it alright for people with mental illness to seek help and function in society without shame, promote a culture of peace and love, not jingoism and sabre rattling, and you'll see less of this kind of violence.
 
2012-08-24 12:09:00 PM

clevershark: Funny how this sort of thing doesn't happen nearly as often in Canada, which has stricter weapons laws.

But, you know, stricter gun laws are never effective.


Canada also has socialized healthcare.

So maybe that's the answer.

If Americans knew that their hard-earned money was going to pay for the medical care of the person they were about to injure, maybe they wouldn't attack them.
 
2012-08-24 12:09:13 PM

Dimensio: probesport: Dimensio: ekdikeo4: Anything over 30 rounds is only available to police/military

I own a one-hundred round Beta C magazine for my AR-15. I also own a fifty-round .22lr magazine for use with the same firearm.

I am employed neither with a law enforcement agency nor a military branch.

Nor very secretive.

The one-hundred round magazine was purchased as a novelty item during a sale. The fifty round magazine was purchased as an item of convenience when target shooting. My ownership of neither item warrants secrecy.


Yeah, there's nothing preventing that ownership, I was noting that from all the sites that I had randomly selected from Google, they all had notes on them "high capacity magazines are only available to law enforcement or active military" .. but I guess that's a vendor policy.

*shrug*
 
2012-08-24 12:09:47 PM

Rich Cream: Dimensio: Removing the spring and other internal components could hypothetically allow for insertion of one-hundred uncased bullets.


What good is a magazine without a spring? Is he supposed to hold the gun upside-down so the bullets fall into the chamber?


I was addressing only technical accuracy, not practicality.
 
2012-08-24 12:09:52 PM

CAADbury: tricycleracer: doubled99: They have the strictest gun laws, though. How is such a thing possible?!?

Again, does this argument suggest that if a law can be broken there is no point in having the law?

No, but it suggests that more laws aren't going to change things.


Would you agree that DUI laws should be abolished since drunk driving deaths continue to occur?
 
2012-08-24 12:10:03 PM

AliceBToklasLives: If the owner of said firearm is, say, an ex-con, who did time for a violent crime, then my right to feel reasonably safe walking the streets has been infringed.


Convicted felons cannot purchase or possess firearms. 18 USC §922
 
2012-08-24 12:10:34 PM

DuudeStanky: Its the cold weather. It makes us Canadians sluggish and not want to go outside and shoot people.
You ever tried reloading an assault rifle with mitts on in -40c weather?


Hah. Never heard that one before. I may have to use it sometime. :)
 
2012-08-24 12:10:43 PM

AliceBToklasLives: CAADbury: AliceBToklasLives: Oh, I forgot the Supreme Court was not established by the Constitution.

/and I forgot that the Bill of Rights were the first 10 amendments to said Constitution
//but yeah, go ahead and believe these are rights without any exceptions whatsoever

Yes, the Court can (and has) put certain restrictions on rights as a result of the externalities they cause.

You cannot shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater because that action infringes upon the rights of other patrons.

Tell me how the bare act of owning a firearm, or carrying it, infringes upon one of your basic rights?

If the owner of said firearm is, say, an ex-con, who did time for a violent crime, then my right to feel reasonably safe walking the streets has been infringed.

/you don't like that right because it's not written down by white guys 200+ years ago? Ok, how about my right to free speech, knowing a violent ex-con with a powerful weapon may be listening?


Felons are already banned from owning guns and deadly weapons in every state and DC. Hell there are plenty of misdemeanors that disqualify you from firearm ownership.
 
2012-08-24 12:11:02 PM

JohnnyC: No... you tried to change the subject. At no point did I say we should transform the US society into the British society. That's what made your statement a strawman argument. Just because you didn't even realize you were doing it, doesn't mean you weren't doing it. Maybe more coffee for you? So you can wake the fark up?


My Boobies wasn't even to you, it was in response to somebody who made a comment that it was unfair to compare britain in america. Which i posted in agreement that a better comparison is brazil as the society and culture are more similar than england.

To which YOU responded to ME! How you can say that I'm making a strawman is ridiculous. I think you might have aspergers or something. Seriously.
 
Displayed 50 of 1064 comments

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report