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.

(Gizmodo)   Time machines are dangerous. Therefore, guns are too advanced for humans to be trusted with   (gizmodo.com) divider line 385
    More: Dumbass, 34th Street, death ray, exsanguination, accessibilities, The Time Machine  
•       •       •

10496 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Aug 2012 at 10:43 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-26 01:15:21 AM

Farker Soze: Ah, finally, a workable plan on how the Aurora shooter could have been stopped. If only Ron Jeremy was in that theater.


the hedgehog vs crazy eyes?

i didn't know ron jeremy was into that sort of thing

everybody down, he's going to unleash his pistol on the perp
 
2012-08-26 01:16:39 AM

way south: If Gizmodo thinks technology from the 17th technology is too dangerous to own, they must be flipping their wig over this internet thing.


They had AR-15s in the 1600s? Wow, someone should have told all those fools holding matches in one hand.
 
2012-08-26 01:17:22 AM

kosumi: loonatic112358: you can get those?

Yes: http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/storeproduct896.aspx


that's a bit much there

a fine balance beween 0 tolerance on guns and well that would be a good start
 
2012-08-26 01:18:58 AM

kosumi: The question, for me, is what proportion of self-defense situations for American civilians require semi-automatic weapons with 100-round drum magazines. I would guess none.


I realize that things like semi-automatic military-looking rifles and 100-round magazines can be imposing, but statistically, they account for very little of the crime, and just like all guns and related accessories, the overwhelming majority of the ones out there are never used illegally. It's the same thing with fully-automatic weapons - you may question the "need" for a law-abiding citizen to own one, but the fact is that legal privately-owned machine guns are virtually never used to murder anyone in America. I can only think of one case offhand, in fact.

And self-defense isn't the only justification for owning guns or accessories, anyway. I used to have a 50-round magazine for my semi-automatic Ruger .22, and it was fun as hell just to go out plinking with it.
 
2012-08-26 01:19:24 AM

GAT_00: Ok, one this is just being an ass for the point of being an ass and has no benefit to the conversation, and two, did someone distribute a memo about the authoritarian bit? I'd name names on that since I know who it started with, but some mod has a hard-on for banning me for things that everyone does, so I can't.


No, no memo. I just glommed that from a thread where you were adamant about keeping marijuana illegal because you don't like hippies.
 
2012-08-26 01:19:47 AM

MayoSlather: Lsherm: That's quite possibly the stupidest argument against guns I've ever read.

Not really. He's intentionally being outlandish, but the central point is there must be a line drawn when determining what is the acceptable level of killing machine citizens can possess. Everyone can agree that your neighbor shouldn't have access to launch a nuclear weapon, but when it's only dozens they can kill instead of millions, people get more argumentative about their right to own these weapons.

The potential for dozens of deaths is still too much. Pretty much hunting rifles and shotguns that can hold no more than 2 rounds is the appropriate limit that should be available for sale. Everything else is simply unnecessary.


What you don't seem to understand is that the constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms. There is not enough support for gun control to amend the constitution to remove one of the first ten amendments. So no matter what anyone thinks is "simply unnecessary" nothing is actually going to change substantially about the legality of owning firearms.
 
2012-08-26 01:20:34 AM
nigeman:

media.tumblr.com

I would have thought the phrase dihydrogen monoxide would have tipped you off.

The point is that his argument is ridiculous. Also that humans are assholes that have spent the vast majority of our ingenuity on two things: impressing the opposite sex and killing each other. If guns are too dangerous for us, what isn't? Knives are every bit as deadly as a gun. It's harder to miss with a knife, very had to defend against, and a hell of a lot harder to fix. I know for a fact that if I were attacked, I would MUCH prefer to be shot than stabbed. I also know that I would much prefer to carry a gun rather than a knife for my own safety. I am just as likely to hurt myself with a knife as an attacker.

But go ahead. Keep missing my point. I'll just sit back and watch your grammar deteriorate further.
 
2012-08-26 01:21:22 AM

GAT_00: violentsalvation: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees someone's right to own a firearm entirely disconnected from any service in a militia. But you are welcome to interpret it anyway you want.

The Supreme Court also once ruled that black people are property.

Just because the USSC says so doesn't mean it's actually right.


The supreme court makes judgement on what is constitutional. It isn't supposed to make judgments on morality, that's the job of the legislature.

Gaylord Fister: Guns are already being regulated. Check out the NFA. Full auto guns are illegal (yes I know you can buy them with lots of cash and some paperwork, but that doesn't change the fact that virtually nobody owns a full auto gun, and that's because of the NFA).

Why was there no outcry when full auto guns were banned? This distinction is completely arbitrary. You could just as well ban semi automatic guns and only allow repeating guns (bolt/lever/pump action, single action revolvers). Since the NFA is legally accepted as being constitutional, why should a slightly more restrictive NFA change that?

To extend the second amendment to our time is ridiculous. Back then, there were flintlock muskets and pistols, and that was it. If you wanted to carry over the militia aspect, you would have to legalize hand grenades and RPGs as well, because those are essential weapons of any modern infantry unit. Strangely, nobody is advocating that, even though a militia without at least RPGs would be powerless against any halfway decent military with armored vehicles. And since the whole militia idea is central to the second amendment, I think legally you would either have to allow grenades and RPGs and heavy machine guns, or repeal the second amendment altogether.

Personally, I would be all for restricting private ownership to repeating guns. Simply because it would be funny to watch gang bangers shoot each others old west style with single action revolvers.


It's legal to own RPG's, so you should set the level of hyperbole higher.

whatshisname: Great Janitor: You still haven't answered my question, why is a guy minding his own business a threat because he carries a gun?

If he carries a gun, it's indicative of a society where guns are big business, where guns are promoted by politicians and easy for anyone to obtain, no matter how crazy they are. So you'll have the weekly/daily mass shootings that the US has been seeing this summer. These aren't mass stabbings, mass bombings, mass punchings. They're mass shootings - because free and easy access to guns makes it really easy for any crazy idiot to shoot whomever they like.


Right, like the Sikh temple where six people were killed. Without guns mass killings and/or woundings of that amount of individuals in a small window by a single person won't happen.

Oh wait.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

Clearly its a gun control problem and not a problem of access to mental health treatment.
 
2012-08-26 01:21:48 AM

ScottRiqui: kosumi: The question, for me, is what proportion of self-defense situations for American civilians require semi-automatic weapons with 100-round drum magazines. I would guess none.

I realize that things like semi-automatic military-looking rifles and 100-round magazines can be imposing, but statistically, they account for very little of the crime, and just like all guns and related accessories, the overwhelming majority of the ones out there are never used illegally. It's the same thing with fully-automatic weapons - you may question the "need" for a law-abiding citizen to own one, but the fact is that legal privately-owned machine guns are virtually never used to murder anyone in America. I can only think of one case offhand, in fact.

And self-defense isn't the only justification for owning guns or accessories, anyway. I used to have a 50-round magazine for my semi-automatic Ruger .22, and it was fun as hell just to go out plinking with it.


i can see how it would be, but damn,

of course i was friends with someone who owned a gun for hunting elephants

if he wasn't 7' tall, it'd have looked ridiculous in his hands
 
2012-08-26 01:23:25 AM

loonatic112358: kosumi: loonatic112358: you can get those?

Yes: http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/storeproduct896.aspx

that's a bit much there

a fine balance beween 0 tolerance on guns and well that would be a good start


Again, going after the drum mags is focusing on the wrong part of the equation. There's a reason why virtually no one who isn't a shooting enthusiast even knew about those magazines before the Aurora shooting - before then, they hadn't been used in any crime that I can recall. Hell, the fact that the Colorado shooter used one might have actually *saved* lives. His jammed (as they're prone to do), forcing him to spend time clearing his weapon and reloading. Had he been using reliable old 30-round PMags, he likely wouldn't have been interrupted.
 
2012-08-26 01:23:30 AM

Farker Soze: GAT_00: Ok, one this is just being an ass for the point of being an ass and has no benefit to the conversation, and two, did someone distribute a memo about the authoritarian bit? I'd name names on that since I know who it started with, but some mod has a hard-on for banning me for things that everyone does, so I can't.

No, no memo. I just glommed that from a thread where you were adamant about keeping marijuana illegal because you don't like hippies.


Nobody would listen to a murderer tell them murder should be legal. Nobody would listen to a burglar tell them burglary should be legal. Why do we listen to potheads telling us pot should be legal?

And don't come back with Civil Rights. Drug use is not a fundamental right.
 
2012-08-26 01:24:05 AM

Heliodorus: The supreme court makes judgement on what is constitutional. It isn't supposed to make judgments on morality, that's the job of the legislature.


That's amusingly naive.
 
2012-08-26 01:25:26 AM

ScottRiqui: Again, going after the drum mags is focusing on the wrong part of the equation. There's a reason why virtually no one who isn't a shooting enthusiast even knew about those magazines before the Aurora shooting - before then, they hadn't been used in any crime that I can recall. Hell, the fact that the Colorado shooter used one might have actually *saved* lives. His jammed (as they're prone to do), forcing him to spend time clearing his weapon and reloading. Had he been using reliable old 30-round PMags, he likely wouldn't have been interrupted.


the idiot in aurora used those?

yea, that's not going to be good for their business

/still think that's a bit much but hey i;m just a sleepy fool on the internet
//
 
2012-08-26 01:25:38 AM

Heliodorus: Without guns mass killings and/or woundings of that amount of individuals in a small window by a single person won't happen.

Oh wait.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

Clearly its a gun control problem and not a problem of access to mental health treatment.


And once again, someone has to scour the world over many years to find statistics on non-gun related violence which are similar to what's occurred with guns in the US over the last few weeks. Yes, it may be a mental health problem, but giving the loonies free access to whatever firepower they want is not helping things.
 
2012-08-26 01:26:37 AM

ScottRiqui: the fact is that legal privately-owned machine guns are virtually never used to murder anyone in America


Surely this number would be higher, if there weren't so many restrictions on acquiring fully-automatic assault rifles. I would guess you agree there needs to be some kind of limit to how terrible a weapon one can pick up at a sporting goods store?
 
2012-08-26 01:26:55 AM

GAT_00: Nobody would listen to a murderer tell them murder should be legal. Nobody would listen to a burglar tell them burglary should be legal. Why do we listen to potheads telling us pot should be legal?And don't come back with Civil Rights. Drug use is not a fundamental right.


tax the shiat out of a commercial product, weaken the cartels, keep californians busy

/now the why's folks like to do that escape me, reality is too damn weird for hallucinogens
 
2012-08-26 01:27:47 AM

GAT_00: Farker Soze: GAT_00: Ok, one this is just being an ass for the point of being an ass and has no benefit to the conversation, and two, did someone distribute a memo about the authoritarian bit? I'd name names on that since I know who it started with, but some mod has a hard-on for banning me for things that everyone does, so I can't.

No, no memo. I just glommed that from a thread where you were adamant about keeping marijuana illegal because you don't like hippies.

Nobody would listen to a murderer tell them murder should be legal. Nobody would listen to a burglar tell them burglary should be legal. Why do we listen to potheads telling us pot should be legal?

And don't come back with Civil Rights. Drug use is not a fundamental right.


Nice. And you think there needed to be a memo for people to see it? How cute.
 
2012-08-26 01:28:49 AM
So, guns are weapons, so are swords.

And concealed carry is permitted in some states. So, as a sword-cane is a concealed weapon, is it legal to own a sword-cane, and to use said sword in self-defense?.
 
2012-08-26 01:29:42 AM

whatshisname: And once again, someone has to scour the world over many years to find statistics on non-gun related violence which are similar to what's occurred with guns in the US over the last few weeks. Yes, it may be a mental health problem, but giving the loonies free access to whatever firepower they want is not helping things.

this is from wikipedia

confirmed nutjobs aren't supposed to be able to get weapons
The following list of prohibited persons[5] are ineligible to own firearms under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.[6]
Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors except where state law reinstates rights, or removes disability.
Fugitives from justice
Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs
Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness.
Non-US citizens, unless permanently immigrating into the U.S. or in possession of a hunting license legally issued in the U.S.
Illegal Aliens
Those who have renounced U.S. citizenship
Minors defined as under the age of eighteen for long guns and the age of twenty-one for handguns, with the exception of Vermont, eligible at age sixteen.
Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (an addition)
Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition

Those who already own firearms would normally be required to relinquish them upon conviction.
 
2012-08-26 01:30:12 AM
Time machines don't change the future because they left gray's sports almanac behind in the past, people with time machines change the future because they left gray's sports almanac behind in the past.
 
2012-08-26 01:30:30 AM

CygnusDarius: So, guns are weapons, so are swords.

And concealed carry is permitted in some states. So, as a sword-cane is a concealed weapon, is it legal to own a sword-cane, and to use said sword in self-defense?.


i have no idea, but i do like the idea of that
 
2012-08-26 01:31:32 AM

Farker Soze: Nice. And you think there needed to be a memo for people to see it? How cute.


Would you listen to a murderer telling you murder should be legal?
 
2012-08-26 01:32:15 AM

GAT_00: Would you listen to a murderer telling you murder should be legal?


listen yes, agree with, probably not
 
2012-08-26 01:32:48 AM
*punches self for coming back in here*
 
2012-08-26 01:33:13 AM

gameshowhost: *punches self for coming back in here*


in a way, we're all masochists
 
2012-08-26 01:33:24 AM

kosumi: The question, for me, is what proportion of self-defense situations for American civilians require semi-automatic weapons with 100-round drum magazines. I would guess none.


If you were in a self defense situation, how many bullets would you want?
The traditional answer is "enough to get my ass out of this mess!".
...Which is why big magazines are a selling point for many guns. You can get carbines with over fifty rounds, and pistols that hold thirty in the grip, as standard loads.
Why the Beta-C that Holmes used is rare isn't because people don't want 100 round drums or because they'll never see themselves needing them. Its because that particular design is finicky and doesn't feed reliably.

Most people would rather have three thirty round mags that run nice instead of one big mag that jams. That's still 90 rounds total, and carbines don't take more than a heartbeat to reload.
If you count the entire load, my nightstand pistol has eighty rounds ready to go. They just happen to be in the bandoleer instead of in one giant magazine.

/Not that it means much. Most shootings are over in less than five shots.
/...Most.
/Anyone care to bet their life on a statistic?
/People will always want far more than they'll probably need.
 
2012-08-26 01:33:25 AM

whatshisname: And once again, someone has to scour the world over many years to find statistics on non-gun related violence which are similar to what's occurred with guns in the US over the last few weeks. Yes, it may be a mental health problem, but giving the loonies free access to whatever firepower they want is not helping things.


All a mentally unbalanced person has to do is buy some matches and gas and they can easily kill someone. Or buy a knife. Or a bit of twine. Or a plastic bag.

Guns are commonly used to kill people in America because we're just not creative but we sure are violent.
 
2012-08-26 01:36:02 AM

loonatic112358: this is from wikipedia

confirmed nutjobs aren't supposed to be able to get weapons



Trouble is, they aren't confirmed as nutjobs until they've killed a dozen people.
 
2012-08-26 01:37:55 AM

fastbow: Knives are every bit as deadly as a gun


Of course, which is why the police sometimes carry knives instead of guns.
 
2012-08-26 01:37:56 AM

kosumi: ScottRiqui: the fact is that legal privately-owned machine guns are virtually never used to murder anyone in America

Surely this number would be higher, if there weren't so many restrictions on acquiring fully-automatic assault rifles. I would guess you agree there needs to be some kind of limit to how terrible a weapon one can pick up at a sporting goods store?


Well, the fees and regulations involved in privately owning a machine gun (as well as the price of the guns themselves) have been prohibitive since 1934, so it's hard to make a valid comparison using "before and after" numbers - the country in 2012 is too different from how it was almost 80 years ago. Gangster movies notwithstanding, I don't think the streets were running with blood from machine gun firefights in 1933.

The problem with deciding what to allow and what to ban is that the lines often end up being arbitrary and frankly, stupid. Look at some of the characteristics that California says makes a rifle an "assault rifle" - things like bayonet lugs and pistol grips. Even if we both were to agree that a 100-round magazine is "too much", how do we determine what capacity *isn't* "too much"? Unless you limit everyone to single-shot weapons, you just end up drawing an arbitrary line somewhere. And unless you have some way of making all of the existing higher-capacity magazines that are already on the market disappear, it's not going to matter, because there will already be enough of them out there to supply the criminal minority. So once again, all you will have done will be to restrict and inconvenience the law-abiding.
 
2012-08-26 01:38:14 AM

way south: If you were in a self defense situation, how many bullets would you want?The traditional answer is "enough to get my ass out of this mess!"....Which is why big magazines are a selling point for many guns. You can get carbines with over fifty rounds, and pistols that hold thirty in the grip, as standard loads.Why the Beta-C that Holmes used is rare isn't because people don't want 100 round drums or because they'll never see themselves needing them. Its because that particular design is finicky and doesn't feed reliably.Most people would rather have three thirty round mags that run nice instead of one big mag that jams. That's still 90 rounds total, and carbines don't take more than a heartbeat to reload.If you count the entire load, my nightstand pistol has eighty rounds ready to go. They just happen to be in the bandoleer instead of in one giant magazine./Not that it means much. Most shootings are over in less than five shots./...Most./Anyone care to bet their life on a statistic?/People will always want far more than they'll probably need.


that 100 round drum has to add some weight, and slow down your ability to use it, that's got to be what, at least another pound or two to hold up
 
2012-08-26 01:38:22 AM

Mrbogey: All a mentally unbalanced person has to do is buy some matches and gas and they can easily kill someone. Or buy a knife. Or a bit of twine. Or a plastic bag.

Guns are commonly used to kill people in America because we're just not creative but we sure are violent.



Yeah, I can see the headlines now.

"12 killed in movie theatre as lunatic sneaks up behind them and puts plastic bags over their heads"
 
2012-08-26 01:40:35 AM
God, whatshisname couldn't have hooked you better if he had baited the line with cheetos-flavored poutine.
 
2012-08-26 01:40:52 AM

CygnusDarius: And concealed carry is permitted in some states. So, as a sword-cane is a concealed weapon, is it legal to own a sword-cane, and to use said sword in self-defense?.


Depends on the state. Here in Virginia, my permit is a concealed handgun license - it doesn't allow me to conceal anything else that would otherwise be illegal to carry concealed.
 
2012-08-26 01:40:59 AM

loonatic112358: GAT_00: Would you listen to a murderer telling you murder should be legal?

listen yes, agree with, probably not


So where's the line where we should suddenly listen and agree with the person committing the crime over the people who put the law into place?
 
2012-08-26 01:41:04 AM

whatshisname: Trouble is, they aren't confirmed as nutjobs until they've killed a dozen people.


I'd facepalm but i don't want to replace my glasses
 
2012-08-26 01:42:21 AM

GAT_00: So where's the line where we should suddenly listen and agree with the person committing the crime over the people who put the law into place?


let me know when you stumble into it, i'm not planning to listen to any murders regarding committing crimes anytime soon
 
2012-08-26 01:44:31 AM

kosumi: way south: If Gizmodo thinks technology from the 17th technology is too dangerous to own, they must be flipping their wig over this internet thing.

They had AR-15s in the 1600s? Wow, someone should have told all those fools holding matches in one hand.


Who said anything about AR-15's? The author of TFA certainly didn't.
To quote: "Unfortunately, guns are real. And for some reason, we're not willing to admit that, even though they've been around a while, they are too advanced for humans to use safely."

...This is a technology blog saying that people are too stupid for technology.
 
2012-08-26 01:45:24 AM

whatshisname: Yeah, I can see the headlines now.

"12 killed in movie theatre as lunatic sneaks up behind them and puts plastic bags over their heads"


A prime example of a lack of creativity. If he filled up an empty milk jug with kerosene and walked into the theatre with a lit flare and chucked both into the crowd... what do you think would have happened.

We have people in America who've killed more people than James Holmes all without using a gun.
 
2012-08-26 01:46:08 AM

GAT_00: Drug use is not a fundamental right.


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



GAT_00: Would you listen to a murderer telling you murder should be legal?


Who's being murdered or even harmed by the filthy hippy? Roe v. Wade hinged on the right of privacy. How is drug use different? You walk the liberal walk on most issues, but on this libertarian issue you're an authoritarian purely due to personal bias from what I can tell.

GAT_00: loonatic112358: GAT_00: Would you listen to a murderer telling you murder should be legal?

listen yes, agree with, probably not

So where's the line where we should suddenly listen and agree with the person committing the crime over the people who put the law into place?


I don't know, maybe if the person is actually not hurting anyone else and is just doing something that someone else disapproves of because said busybody is a moralistic douche?
 
2012-08-26 01:46:19 AM

Mrbogey: whatshisname: Yeah, I can see the headlines now.

"12 killed in movie theatre as lunatic sneaks up behind them and puts plastic bags over their heads"

A prime example of a lack of creativity. If he filled up an empty milk jug with kerosene and walked into the theatre with a lit flare and chucked both into the crowd... what do you think would have happened.

We have people in America who've killed more people than James Holmes all without using a gun.


we executed the only one that comes to my mind
 
2012-08-26 01:47:54 AM

GAT_00: So where's the line where we should suddenly listen and agree with the person committing the crime over the people who put the law into place?


well, if they've made an argument that's convinced you to act against the laws of your locale, then i guess that would be your point, your rubicon
 
2012-08-26 01:48:28 AM

ScottRiqui: And unless you have some way of making all of the existing higher-capacity magazines that are already on the market disappear, it's not going to matter, because there will already be enough of them out there to supply the criminal minority. So once again, all you will have done will be to restrict and inconvenience the law-abiding.


All true. There's no easy solutions to these issues, despite some of the comments above. Responsible gun owners like you, I'm not worried about, and some evil people will undoubtedly be able to get their hands on weapons that are banned. Generally I'm happy with it just being *hard* to get access to mass-casualty weapons, to limit the body count when crazies like Holmes and Loughner want to make themselves famous.
 
2012-08-26 01:50:03 AM

way south: kosumi: way south: If Gizmodo thinks technology from the 17th technology is too dangerous to own, they must be flipping their wig over this internet thing.

They had AR-15s in the 1600s? Wow, someone should have told all those fools holding matches in one hand.

Who said anything about AR-15's? The author of TFA certainly didn't.
To quote: "Unfortunately, guns are real. And for some reason, we're not willing to admit that, even though they've been around a while, they are too advanced for humans to use safely."

...This is a technology blog saying that people are too stupid for technology.


Hundred year old tech at that. The idea that we can suppress technology that has been around for a century is naive at best.
 
2012-08-26 01:51:12 AM

Farker Soze: I don't know, maybe if the person is actually not hurting anyone else and is just doing something that someone else disapproves of because said busybody is a moralistic douche?


Hey look, it's an absolute non-answer to keep dodging my specific questions so you can pretend you're holier than everyone else.
 
2012-08-26 01:51:29 AM

loonatic112358: nigeman: except that having those chemicals is actually controlled. Oops.

and yet there's been at least 2 fertilizer based bombs i can recall from memory, mcveighs and the 93 attempt to bomb the world trade center

i doubt it was as regulated in the 90's as it is now, but there's still plenty of things in the world that will go boom if mixed together and not all of them require you to show a drivers license


Don't forget the Tannerite. Still legal everywhere in the US, but won't be in Maryland after October.
 
2012-08-26 01:51:47 AM

loonatic112358: that 100 round drum has to add some weight, and slow down your ability to use it, that's got to be what, at least another pound or two to hold up


Yep - fully loaded, that's three pounds of ammo, plus whatever the magazine itself weighs. I wouldn't mind borrowing one someday just to see what doing a 100-round mag dump is like, but with the weight, bulk and unreliability, I wouldn't ever use one for anything important.
 
2012-08-26 01:52:58 AM
How about mandatory training in the use of the firearm you intend to buy along with classes about when, where, and why to use it? Along with better psych evaluations and better (for lack of a better word at the moment) tracking of guns sold to make sure they don't end up in the hands of undesireables.

Yeah, 2nd Amendment, standing militia, and rabid gun culture and all, but could we at least TRY to make it safer and more difficult for random people to ventilate churches, schools, and malls, as well as keep guns out of the hands of gangs, criminals, etc?

There has to be a middle ground, if both sides would stop screaming and hooting like chimpanzees and actually talk to each other.
 
2012-08-26 01:54:11 AM

loonatic112358: we executed the only one that comes to my mind


Well locally... 23 men strangled

Keeping in mind, few serial killers are ever completely accounted for. Many have more bodies than they fess up to. Many are never caught.
 
2012-08-26 01:54:22 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: How about mandatory training in the use of the firearm you intend to buy along with classes about when, where, and why to use it? Along with better psych evaluations and better (for lack of a better word at the moment) tracking of guns sold to make sure they don't end up in the hands of undesireables.Yeah, 2nd Amendment, standing militia, and rabid gun culture and all, but could we at least TRY to make it safer and more difficult for random people to ventilate churches, schools, and malls, as well as keep guns out of the hands of gangs, criminals, etc?There has to be a middle ground, if both sides would stop screaming and hooting like chimpanzees and actually talk to each other.


I would suggest mandatory gun safety classes in school
 
Displayed 50 of 385 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report