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  
•       •       •

23007 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Aug 2012 at 10:15 AM (2 years 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 | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-24 12:11:17 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?


If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?
 
2012-08-24 12:11:20 PM  

nekom: Silly Jesus: He's going to be white, isn't he?

Who said it was a he?

/it's a he, and he's white. I'd put money on that.


I think this answers your question:

he shooter was one of the two killed, investigators said. They identified him as Jeffrey Johnson, 53, who was laid off last year and apparently killed a former co-worker Friday morning.

/WTF is going on?
 
2012-08-24 12:11:30 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.


Funny how comparing two different countries, with two different histories and cultures generally fails.

NYC has very strict gun laws and yet this still happened. Considering that, maybe you'd like to revisit your premise.
 
2012-08-24 12:11:32 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?


That ex-con who did time for a violent crime is legally prohibited from doing what you claim.
 
2012-08-24 12:12:12 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.

Suggesting that a gun owner not secure his firearm as to not be stolen is unreasonable.


I disagree; advising firearm owners to adequately secure their firearms is reasonable. Holding them criminally responsible for crimes committed by third parties who stole the owner's firearms despite any measures taken by the owner to prevent theft is not.
 
2012-08-24 12:12:52 PM  

USP .45: cassanovascotian: So EABOD USP .45

eat a bag of dynamite?

Veiled threat.


"Eat a big ol' donut" is considered a friendly greeting to cops. It's kind of long, though, so it's better to abbreviate.
 
2012-08-24 12:13:08 PM  

tricycleracer: Would you agree that DUI laws should be abolished since drunk driving deaths continue to occur?


Straw man.

On the one hand, you're arguing that we should restrict the ownership of firearms to prevent firearms-related crimes. These laws outlaw posession

On the other hand, you're arguing that we should eliminate DUI laws that make it illegal to drive while intoxicated. These laws outlaw actions.

Last I checked, it's illegal to shoot someone. That's a law that outlaws actions.

A more accurate analogy would have been for you to ask, "Would you agree that alcohol and driving should be abolished since drunk driving deaths continue to occur?"
 
2012-08-24 12:13:19 PM  

Dimensio: I disagree; advising firearm owners to adequately secure their firearms is reasonable. Holding them criminally responsible for crimes committed by third parties who stole the owner's firearms despite any measures taken by the owner to prevent theft is not.


How about contributory negligence in the event of a civil suit if the weapon wasn't "reasonably" secured?
 
2012-08-24 12:13:19 PM  

tricycleracer: 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?


False equivalence.

DUI laws criminalize a behavior. They don't ban alcohol or cars.
 
2012-08-24 12:14:09 PM  
Outlaw outlaws and only outlaws will be outlaws.
 
2012-08-24 12:14:16 PM  
I don't own any guns.  Probably never will.  But I have no problem with gun ownership rights as they are now.  I believe in a 2d Amendment interpretation that allows the ownership of weapons necessary to defend against illegal action by the government, to hunt, to sport with, to defend with. 
 
That said, I think we need intelligence testing for politicians and gun owners.
 
2012-08-24 12:14:18 PM  

carrion_luggage: 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.


+1. At first I read this hearing Chicago (Hard to Say I'm Sorry) but then I was all like,
"Oh...Billy Joel..DUH"
 
2012-08-24 12:14:37 PM  

Daffydil: gotta love the video...*dead guy lays on the curb*...*New Yorkers nonchalantly walk past enjoying their morning cup o java*


Hello Daf.. long time, no commuicotto :)
 
2012-08-24 12:15:07 PM  
I think Americans are trying to tell the world that they know how to shoot people, just don't know where to shoot them to kill them. Meanwhile the Mexicans are getting ready for war #2
 
2012-08-24 12:15:24 PM  
sigh.. you know what. I've done more than my share of fighting it out with the gun nuts of the USA; what I want to know is where are the non-psycho's...

Why aren't you guys getting angry about this? Why doesn't seeing indiscriminate murder of inoccent people on the streets or movie theatres make you angrier? Why are you so afraid to say "the 2nd amendment is bullshiat and we need to overturn it"? How many indiscriminate mass-murders is it going to take to provoke a reaction from you?

These farking gun-psychos are never going to change their minds until you confront them on it.

I've done my part, and I have finite energy and time that I'm going to devote to other purposes. But seriously: stop being pussies and farking stand up to these NRA douche-bags.
 
2012-08-24 12:15:27 PM  

tricycleracer: Dimensio: I disagree; advising firearm owners to adequately secure their firearms is reasonable. Holding them criminally responsible for crimes committed by third parties who stole the owner's firearms despite any measures taken by the owner to prevent theft is not.

How about contributory negligence in the event of a civil suit if the weapon wasn't "reasonably" secured?


A 17 year old was seriously injured when the car he stole crashed during a police chase.

The lady who's car he stole had run into a house for a second and left her purse containing the keys on the seat of the car.

Should she be held legally responsible for what the 17 year old did?
 
2012-08-24 12:15:33 PM  

Spade: tricycleracer: 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?

False equivalence.

DUI laws criminalize a behavior. They don't ban alcohol or cars.


Okay, lets talk drug laws then. Let's abolish those since they don't work (I'm actually in support of this one.)
 
2012-08-24 12:16:26 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".


Under the "assault weapons ban", which you referenced in your initial posting, "functionally identical rifles" would remain legally available to civilians.


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

By "functionally identical" I refer to firearms that are mechanically identical to those prohibited under the now-expired "assault weapons ban", even if they differ cosmetically.

Your proposal to prohibit ownership of all semi-automatic firearms is Unconstitutional.


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.

Semi-automatic rifles are "repeating rifles" by definition, and have multiple legitimate purposes.
 
2012-08-24 12:16:27 PM  

Spade: tricycleracer: Dimensio: I disagree; advising firearm owners to adequately secure their firearms is reasonable. Holding them criminally responsible for crimes committed by third parties who stole the owner's firearms despite any measures taken by the owner to prevent theft is not.

How about contributory negligence in the event of a civil suit if the weapon wasn't "reasonably" secured?

A 17 year old was seriously injured when the car he stole crashed during a police chase.

The lady who's car he stole had run into a house for a second and left her purse containing the keys on the seat of the car.

Should she be held legally responsible for what the 17 year old did?


If that's not contributory I don't know what is. See you in civil court, lady.
 
2012-08-24 12:16:37 PM  

tricycleracer: Dimensio: I disagree; advising firearm owners to adequately secure their firearms is reasonable. Holding them criminally responsible for crimes committed by third parties who stole the owner's firearms despite any measures taken by the owner to prevent theft is not.

How about contributory negligence in the event of a civil suit if the weapon wasn't "reasonably" secured?


You can already try that. It may or may not fail, depending on the circumstances. However, that's really not different than trying to sue someone if they left a baseball bat out and someone used that to injure someone.
 
2012-08-24 12:16:47 PM  

tricycleracer: 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?


Is there a constitutional right to drive a car?

/no there isn't
 
2012-08-24 12:16:55 PM  

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


i.imgur.com
 
2012-08-24 12:16:58 PM  
Well, you guys do what you want, it's your country. I can protect myself well enough by staying the fark out of it.
 
2012-08-24 12:17:06 PM  

tricycleracer: Okay, lets talk drug laws then. Let's abolish those since they don't work (I'm actually in support of this one.)


Me too.
 
2012-08-24 12:17:31 PM  

redmid17: tricycleracer: 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?

Is there a constitutional right to drive a car?

/no there isn't


And THAT's the entire argument. The 2nd amendment.

Carry on.
 
2012-08-24 12:17:57 PM  

tricycleracer: Spade: tricycleracer: 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?

False equivalence.

DUI laws criminalize a behavior. They don't ban alcohol or cars.

Okay, lets talk drug laws then. Let's abolish those since they don't work (I'm actually in support of this one.)


Okay, I'm cool with that one.

Hell, you can look at that murder chart from NYC posted earlier and see what that big ol' spike correlates to.
 
2012-08-24 12:19:03 PM  

cassanovascotian: sigh.. you know what. I've done more than my share of fighting it out with the gun nuts of the USA; what I want to know is where are the non-psycho's...

Why aren't you guys getting angry about this? Why doesn't seeing indiscriminate murder of inoccent people on the streets or movie theatres make you angrier? Why are you so afraid to say "the 2nd amendment is bullshiat and we need to overturn it"? How many indiscriminate mass-murders is it going to take to provoke a reaction from you?

These farking gun-psychos are never going to change their minds until you confront them on it.

I've done my part, and I have finite energy and time that I'm going to devote to other purposes. But seriously: stop being pussies and farking stand up to these NRA douche-bags.


I don''t own a gun. I don't intend to. I live in suburban CT.

Trust me on this, you are the psycho i am worried about.
 
2012-08-24 12:19:07 PM  

Spade: Hell, you can look at that murder chart from NYC posted earlier and see what that big ol' spike correlates to.


The hippity hop rapster musics?
 
2012-08-24 12:20:15 PM  

Spade: Hell, you can look at that murder chart from NYC posted earlier and see what that big ol' spike correlates to.


The crack-cocaine scare that was hyperinflated by the mainstream media?

(honest guess. i have no idea)
 
2012-08-24 12:20:43 PM  

The Wizard of Frobozz: In before politicizing begins...oh, no, wait, nevermind.


Well, we can't just have something happen without it being the fault of an entire political party can we?
 
2012-08-24 12:20:46 PM  

make me some tea: bighairyguy: They aren't even trying to tie this to Muslim terrorists.

Is it bad that the first thing I thought of was "Please don't let the shooter be muslim."


I think every sane muslim thinks that every time we hear about a shooting
 
2012-08-24 12:20:58 PM  

cassanovascotian: sigh.. you know what. I've done more than my share of fighting it out with the gun nuts of the USA; what I want to know is where are the non-psycho's...

Why aren't you guys getting angry about this? Why doesn't seeing indiscriminate murder of inoccent people on the streets or movie theatres make you angrier? Why are you so afraid to say "the 2nd amendment is bullshiat and we need to overturn it"? How many indiscriminate mass-murders is it going to take to provoke a reaction from you?

These farking gun-psychos are never going to change their minds until you confront them on it.

I've done my part, and I have finite energy and time that I'm going to devote to other purposes. But seriously: stop being pussies and farking stand up to these NRA douche-bags.


First off, non-American, your opinion on the matter could not mean less. Secondly, the NRA has 4 million members. There are at least 80 million gun owners in the United States, meaning that the NRA represents a whopping 5% of us. People's rights should never be left to the whim of the majority, especially one as hysterical and poorly-informed as you. That's why they're called rights. And the word you're looking for is "repealed," not "overturned." Amendments are not overturned, they aren't court decisions. Guns in the hands of private citizens are used defensively hundreds of thousands of times every year.
 
2012-08-24 12:22:05 PM  

probesport: Too bad it wasn't a gun free zone.


I want to get a whole bunch of gun free zone signs, then put at the bottom "Violators will be shot", just to see what happens.
 
2012-08-24 12:22:11 PM  

tricycleracer: Dimensio: I disagree; advising firearm owners to adequately secure their firearms is reasonable. Holding them criminally responsible for crimes committed by third parties who stole the owner's firearms despite any measures taken by the owner to prevent theft is not.

How about contributory negligence in the event of a civil suit if the weapon wasn't "reasonably" secured?


I would be agreeable to such a condition; should a firearm owner leave a firearm visibly displayed in an unlocked home, they will have created an "attractive nuisance".
 
2012-08-24 12:22:41 PM  

I_C_Weener: I don't own any guns.  Probably never will.  But I have no problem with gun ownership rights as they are now.  I believe in a 2d Amendment interpretation that allows the ownership of weapons necessary to defend against illegal action by the government, to hunt, to sport with, to defend with. 
 
That said, I think we need intelligence testing for politicians and gun owners.


Then we'd run out of politicians...

/We used to have intelligence tests for voters, but many folks had a problem with that.
 
2012-08-24 12:23:05 PM  

Bob16: Amerika really does need to take Bill Hicks'ssssss advice and kill itself.

What a shiat stain on the world.


Him and Carlin saw it comin'
 
2012-08-24 12:24:04 PM  
But I thought they didn't allow guns in New York? Did this guy teleport in from Texas or something?
 
2012-08-24 12:24:18 PM  

cassanovascotian: sigh.. you know what. I've done more than my share of fighting it out with the gun nuts of the USA; what I want to know is where are the non-psycho's...

Why aren't you guys getting angry about this? Why doesn't seeing indiscriminate murder of inoccent people on the streets or movie theatres make you angrier? Why are you so afraid to say "the 2nd amendment is bullshiat and we need to overturn it"? How many indiscriminate mass-murders is it going to take to provoke a reaction from you?

These farking gun-psychos are never going to change their minds until you confront them on it.

I've done my part, and I have finite energy and time that I'm going to devote to other purposes. But seriously: stop being pussies and farking stand up to these NRA douche-bags.


This is a silly post. Of course no one is happy that some dude decided to kill a coworker or that the NYPD happen to be very poor shots. No one. You want to ban the 2A - fine. That's something you can feel free to argue. However, you're going to lose that argument. Mostly due to the unnecessary restrictions on freedoms, the minimal lives that would be saved, the complete impracticality of implementing a firearm ban, and so forth. Simply put, if we're going to push for major change in the country there are many, many more things to go after. Why not look at the leading causes of preventable deaths and start at the top instead of somewhere near the middle? Why not push to actually address the issues that lead to violence, not just the tool used?

I'll tell you what I think it is - you don't like firearms. There's no good rational reason to dislike a tool, but whatever. That's your problem, not mine. Aside from that, fark off - it's not your country, douche.
 
2012-08-24 12:24:21 PM  

cassanovascotian: I've done my part


You are correct: in advocating Unconstitutional measures, presenting false information, repeatedly denying legitimate civilian uses of semi-automatic rifles despite being told upon multiple occasions of these uses and demonstrating complete ignorance of firearms technology, you have "done your part" in demonstrating advocates of civilian disarmament to be commonly poorly-informed, dishonest and irrational.
 
2012-08-24 12:24:42 PM  
Those damn Christianofascists are still on a killing spree I see. Perhaps if they didn't let them build their churches so close to ground zero.

In the US, guns don't kill people, Christians do.
 
2012-08-24 12:24:58 PM  

johnny farker: make me some tea: bighairyguy: They aren't even trying to tie this to Muslim terrorists.

Is it bad that the first thing I thought of was "Please don't let the shooter be muslim."

I think every sane muslim thinks that every time we hear about a shooting


So nobody then?

covermyfb.com
 
2012-08-24 12:25:29 PM  

CAADbury: Yep, only guns are used for mass killings. Get rid of guns and you'll eliminate mass killings.


www.plaguepuppy.net

drjudywood.com
 
2012-08-24 12:25:30 PM  
The suspect, using a .45-caliber semi-automatic handgun...

Cool, so we won't see THAT argument today. Also, I'm impressed that they didn't just call it an 'assault rifle', or even worse, am AK-47. Good job, CNN!
 
2012-08-24 12:25:35 PM  

ChuDogg: I think you might have aspergers or something. Seriously.


Resorting to lame and unfounded attempts at personal attacks. Interesting.
 
2012-08-24 12:25:46 PM  

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

[i.imgur.com image 700x467]


lol. that just needs some sparkly things.
 
2012-08-24 12:26:40 PM  

cassanovascotian: The funny thing is that alcohol has the potential -just every once in a while- for being used for things other than killing people -like celebrating, for example-. Now explain to me why we need to have AR-15s in society. Explain to me how this thing is useful for doing things other than killing people. I'm all ears.


AR-15s and other rifles also have the potential for being used for things other than killing people - like celebrating, for example.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-24 12:28:11 PM  
I'm surprised that none of Fark's resident gun nuts has used this latest once-in-a-blue-moon-rarely-ever-happens mass shooting to post pics of his gun collection. You guys are slippin'.
 
2012-08-24 12:28:51 PM  

MrSnrub: cassanovascotian: The funny thing is that alcohol has the potential -just every once in a while- for being used for things other than killing people -like celebrating, for example-. Now explain to me why we need to have AR-15s in society. Explain to me how this thing is useful for doing things other than killing people. I'm all ears.

AR-15s and other rifles also have the potential for being used for things other than killing people - like celebrating, for example.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 420x444]


The rifle depicted is clearly an AK-47.
 
2012-08-24 12:29:43 PM  
Bloomberg exploits another tragedy for his agenda? Color me shocked.
 
2012-08-24 12:30:01 PM  
Not a mass shooting.

Perp shoots victim at close range in what sounds like a gang/mob hit, and then tries to leave the scene.

Witness follows perp and alerts the cops.

Cops shoot perp and hit a bunch of innocent bystanders as well.
 
Displayed 50 of 1064 comments

First | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | 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