Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

10508 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 01:54:27 AM  

GAT_00: 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.


And factually correct.
 
2012-08-26 01:55:40 AM  

Farker Soze: The idea that we can suppress technology that has been around for a century is naive at best.


Many World War I era weapons are pretty effectively suppressed - tanks, cannons and bombs come to mind. Landmines, mustard gas, the list goes on. Give it two decades, and we're in the nuclear era. It's not naive at all.
 
2012-08-26 01:56:34 AM  
Were some of you seriously saying that mankind is only 10000 years old? There's TONS of evidence that says otherwise. The fossil record, carbon dating...Hell, Damascus shows signs of of being inhabited for 10000 years. Did God make it sprout out of the ground so Adam and Eve could have somewhere to live? Come on...this is the 21st century. Time to grow up and realize that the universe is a little more complex than they thought 2000 years ago.

Oh, and we will always find ways to kill each other. Be it with guns, death rays, or pointed sticks.
 
2012-08-26 01:57:00 AM  

Alleyoop: Time travel? I would go back to 9/10/01 and arm some people.

[www.scottbieser.com image 540x540]


If everyone on the plane was allowed to carry a gun, why wouldn't the terrorists have carried guns? They had box cutters because they could carry them. I'm sure they would have used a more deadly weapon such as a gun if they had been allowed to.
 
2012-08-26 01:57:26 AM  

GAT_00: 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.


It was a stupid question. Let's make breathing illegal. Hey, you're breathing, off to jail you go. You don't agree? Why should we listen to this criminal that our breathing law is wrong?

The line is if you he isn't harming anyone else and you're just being a moralistic douche then the law is probably unjust.
 
2012-08-26 01:58:42 AM  

kosumi: fastbow: Knives are every bit as deadly as a gun

Of course, which is why the police sometimes carry knives instead of guns.


Knives don't offer the same range or the same element of authority, and require you to possibly get very messy. As a tradeoff, they make any minor confrontation very dangerous and create wounds that if not treated immediately are every bit as fatal, if not moreso, than a gunshot.

Police don't carry them because the range, authority, and cleanliness of firearms are important. The blood tradeoff and wounds knives create are not ideal for police work, so they don't carry them.

If you don't believe me, try this: give a friend an uncapped magic marker, then try to resist him marking you. See how effective that can be. In the right hands, you'll see marks all over your wrists, and possibly other areas that slashes and stabs would be terribly inconvenient.
 
2012-08-26 02:01:29 AM  

kosumi: Farker Soze: The idea that we can suppress technology that has been around for a century is naive at best.

Many World War I era weapons are pretty effectively suppressed - tanks, cannons and bombs come to mind. Landmines, mustard gas, the list goes on. Give it two decades, and we're in the nuclear era. It's not naive at all.


Making a homemade cannon or bomb is trivial. Tanks? Link
 
2012-08-26 02:03:18 AM  

kosumi: 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.


Well, Loughner only used a simple 9mm semi-automatic pistol - hardly an ideal choice for a mass-killing weapon. Granted, he had a 33-round magazine, but even some of the Glock "standard" magazines hold 17 rounds, so he could have the same capacity with only one spare magazine. Honestly, anything other than a single-shot firearm is going to allow for a large amount of dead in a short amount of time, if there's a crazy involved.

Charles Whitman killed and wounded more (13 and 32, respectively) during the UT Austin clock tower shooting, and I think he predominantly used a pump-action rifle and a bolt-action rifle.
 
2012-08-26 02:03:56 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.


At some point you will realize what people do to themselves in their own home is not murder and to pretend there is any equivalency between the two is insanity.

I have never smoked weed in my life but I have had some problems with other addictions and I will tell you that your drug laws never hindered availability or affected cost for me. The only thing the drug war affects are the civil rights of people who don't use. But you blame all the "tough on crime" civil right violations on conservatives, conveniently.
 
2012-08-26 02:07:04 AM  

fastbow: If you don't believe me, try this: give a friend an uncapped magic marker, then try to resist him marking you. See how effective that can be. In the right hands, you'll see marks all over your wrists, and possibly other areas that slashes and stabs would be terribly inconvenient.


I've had friends who trained that way to learn knifes, very scary.

But to say, blanket statement, that knives are just as deadly as guns is silly. At the very least, guns have a shallower learning curve, which is part of the Gizmodo guy's argument.
 
2012-08-26 02:09:55 AM  

kosumi: But to say, blanket statement, that knives are just as deadly as guns is silly. At the very least, guns have a shallower learning curve, which is part of the Gizmodo guy's argument.


yes and no, point and shoot doesn't mean you'll hit your target, but the training you'd have to go through for using a knife effectively is likely much more
 
2012-08-26 02:10:59 AM  
As far a marijuana goes, the part I can't reconcile is that it's illegal while alcohol isn't. If neither had existed up to this point, and they were both introduced tomorrow, could you make a cogent argument for criminalizing the use of one, but not the other? I couldn't.
 
2012-08-26 02:11:54 AM  

Nem Wan: Time machines made so you can't take guns. What could go wrong?
[harrythespiderblog.files.wordpress.com image 650x366]


Unf, Arnold was HOT back then.

/DAT ASS
 
2012-08-26 02:12:25 AM  

Farker Soze: Making a homemade cannon or bomb is trivial.


Pipebombs and modified bulldozers are not military-grade weapons, even for a century ago. The real things are legally restricted, and for good reason.
 
2012-08-26 02:14:27 AM  

kosumi: Farker Soze: Making a homemade cannon or bomb is trivial.

Pipebombs and modified bulldozers are not military-grade weapons, even for a century ago. The real things are legally restricted, and for good reason.


the ones from a century ago aren't as potent as the ones improvised now
 
2012-08-26 02:18:54 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.


We have already drawn a line and I will fight any attempts to change it for the gun-control idiots...
 
2012-08-26 02:19:10 AM  

kosumi: fastbow: If you don't believe me, try this: give a friend an uncapped magic marker, then try to resist him marking you. See how effective that can be. In the right hands, you'll see marks all over your wrists, and possibly other areas that slashes and stabs would be terribly inconvenient.

I've had friends who trained that way to learn knifes, very scary.

But to say, blanket statement, that knives are just as deadly as guns is silly. At the very least, guns have a shallower learning curve, which is part of the Gizmodo guy's argument.


Depends on the gun, the knife, and the situation.
The guns shallow learning curve apparently wasn't shallow enough for those cops outside the Empire state building, and long range shooting is a talent you really have to work at. Guns aren't an instinctive technology. They have their nuances to learn as with any machine.

Alot of people who get stabbed weren't done in by someone who trained with a knife, or even with a proper combat weapon. Its often an angry partner with a blade from the kitchen drawer. Domestic squabbles make up the second largest chunk of the murder statistic next to gang violence.

Every weapon has its ideal situation for use. Guns just happen to shine between ten and fifty feet.
Inside that, knives can be quite deadly.
 
2012-08-26 02:20:14 AM  

ScottRiqui: Honestly, anything other than a single-shot firearm is going to allow for a large amount of dead in a short amount of time, if there's a crazy involved.


For me, that's evidence against their value to society. If I could wave a magic wand, and all gun owners were limited to 6 round mags, I doubt that it would reduce their ability to defend themselves.

But, given that mags of that capacity are everywhere, I'm at least happy Loughner didn't have a full-auto AK or fragmentation grenades; he'd have killed many more, and I doubt anyone would have tried to tackle him.
 
2012-08-26 02:23:34 AM  

GAT_00: 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.


Wait, wait, wait, people use existing law and the ability to pass new ones to enact their own agendas? No shiat Sherlock. That's a given, the purpose of the constitution was to enumerate rules and protections for that process in America. The Supreme court is designed to ensure that the legislature and government does not overstep its bounds by reviewing laws and orders. It does not get to unilaterally review and pass judgment on every aspect of society because Jesus, Muhammed, Moses, Xenu, Buddha, "its wrong and I'm going to change it LOL", etc. But whatever, condescending and meaningless dismissals, and random references to slavery are just as valid.


give me doughnuts:
And factually correct.

Wrote my response...saw yours.. realized I could have been really concise.

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.


Or like, in able to show how guns aren't the cause of the violence, a person would look at countries where strict gun laws make gun ownership virtually nonexistent. They also may pay attention to the world outside of America. The latter is purely speculative as we all know everything outside of the US is a abstract at best. The fact that the last few shootings were recent is only indicative that they... happened recently. Its hard to believe but random acts of violence on this level don't happen often. So yes if your commenting during the lull between stabbings/shootings the stories will be a few years old. For comparison, the Columbine shootings took place 12 years ago, and the VT shootings took place a year before any of the stabbings I linked (there are more incidents of stabbing but..i digress). But whatever... guns are bad right? So I can misrepresent things as long as I get rid of guns? That's Debbie Wasserman-schultz level of integrity, good job.

And as you mentioned about guns meaningfully increasing the amount of injuries and death, clearly they're not.
 
2012-08-26 02:24:51 AM  

radiobiz: whatshisname: radiobiz: This is fun. Let's pull more dumb statements out of our butts and post em.

Sorry, it's not 47%, it's 46% of Americans believe God created humans in their current form within the last 10000 years.

Again, prove them wrong. All you did was post a link to a graphic. Where's the proof? You may not agree with them (neither do I but that's not the point), but you can't prove any differently and your difference in beliefs doesn't make you superior to them.


If God did exist, and is as loving and kind and thinks humanity is as precious as they say he is, why did he put the one thing he didn't want humans to touch right in the middle of the garden and fail to keep watch out for Satan sneaking in? Why did he curse the entire universe to eventual death to punish two humans and their descendents? Why does he randomly slaughter people with natural disasters and allow evil people to slaughter more? Why is his answer to everything "destroy it all and send most of my creation to undending unspeakable torture"?

Man in God's image, Man causes the universe to be cursed, Man is the thing that makes God want to destroy everything and also save everything, Man this and Man that. Religion, especially Christianity, is a tribute to the increbile ego and arrogance of the human animal. We think we're the center of the universe and everything happens because of us. We create all-powerful beings and make them slaves to what we think, say, and do. We feel that our high intelligence makes us the masters of fate, that nature should bend to our whims. There is only one thing in this universe more common than hydrogen, and that's the hubris of man.
 
2012-08-26 02:29:25 AM  

loonatic112358: the ones from a century ago aren't as potent as the ones improvised now


Imagine a weapon that could deliver a blast comparable to the one that destroyed the Oklahoma City Federal Building from seven miles away, and reloads in minutes. No, the deadliest weapons from even a century ago are not things you can cobble together from a visit to Home Depot.
 
2012-08-26 02:29:40 AM  
Previous post flooded with bolded text...how did that happen?
 
2012-08-26 02:30:11 AM  
Whoa... I just thought of something.. if you had a time machine you could go back in time and UNINVENT GUN POWDER!!!/

So chew on that Grimsplodo guy.
 
2012-08-26 02:32:37 AM  

way south: The guns shallow learning curve apparently wasn't shallow enough for those cops outside the Empire state building, and long range shooting is a talent you really have to work at. Guns aren't an instinctive technology. They have their nuances to learn as with any machine.


All true. But the Gizmodo guy's point was that you can take a life much more easily with a gun for any given amount of training, regardless of your intentions. No one accidentally wounds half a dozen bystanders with a knife.
 
2012-08-26 02:33:24 AM  

whatshisname: radiobiz: Oh for farks sake. That's your argument? No, guns are designed to kill animals, to shoot holes in paper targets, to bust up flying clay discs, to shoot visual distress signals high into the air, to start marathons, to launch ropes and other messenger devices, to clear minefields, and to kill people.

Yes, and the average American keeps a handgun in their nightstand drawer to start marathons and bust up clay disks It's absolutely incredible how Americans will back peddle to try and justify their insatiable appetite for guns.


It's not an insatiable appetite. I have guns to protect me from my fellow farking Americans. Especially anyone who considers themselves conservative, Republican, or Tea Party. Those farkers should all scare anyone these days
 
2012-08-26 02:35:30 AM  

my lip balm addiction: whatshisname: radiobiz: Oh for farks sake. That's your argument? No, guns are designed to kill animals, to shoot holes in paper targets, to bust up flying clay discs, to shoot visual distress signals high into the air, to start marathons, to launch ropes and other messenger devices, to clear minefields, and to kill people.

Yes, and the average American keeps a handgun in their nightstand drawer to start marathons and bust up clay disks It's absolutely incredible how Americans will back peddle to try and justify their insatiable appetite for guns.

It's not an insatiable appetite. I have guns to protect me from my fellow farking Americans. Especially anyone who considers themselves conservative, Republican, or Tea Party. Those farkers should all scare anyone these days


Isn't that cute. You think there's a difference between all us little people.
 
2012-08-26 02:35:34 AM  
It's been fun, guys, but I've got to turn in for the night. Happy shooting and stay safe, ScottRiqui.
 
2012-08-26 02:37:05 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: There is only one thing in this universe more common than hydrogen, and that's the hubris of man.


I picture Einstein at a blackboard giving a lecture and making this statement.

A student speaks up, "Uh, Mr. Einstein Sir, in the third equation you forgot to carry the one..."

Einstein: "Oy. I stand corrected. Hydrogen is more common."
 
2012-08-26 02:45:39 AM  

Farker Soze: Keizer_Ghidorah: There is only one thing in this universe more common than hydrogen, and that's the hubris of man.

I picture Einstein at a blackboard giving a lecture and making this statement.

A student speaks up, "Uh, Mr. Einstein Sir, in the third equation you forgot to carry the one..."

Einstein: "Oy. I stand corrected. Hydrogen is more common."


Thing is, hydrogen is being converted to helium and other elements, while humans are breeding like rabbits. It's only a matter of time before hydrogen does become the second-most abundant element.

/of course, human hubris has to compete with human stupidity for the top spot
 
2012-08-26 03:13:17 AM  

jaytkay: pedrop357: jaytkay: But not as stupid as bedwetters who "need" a gun to to drive to 7-11 for a Slurpee.

They're only surpassed by the bedwetters who freak out about the idea that the guy getting a Slurpee and minding his own business might be carrying a gun.

oh snap such a clever response we have here the present-day equivalent of oscar wilde someone call the pulitzer committee


In other words, you ain't got shiat
 
2012-08-26 03:16:39 AM  

kosumi: way south: The guns shallow learning curve apparently wasn't shallow enough for those cops outside the Empire state building, and long range shooting is a talent you really have to work at. Guns aren't an instinctive technology. They have their nuances to learn as with any machine.

All true. But the Gizmodo guy's point was that you can take a life much more easily with a gun for any given amount of training, regardless of your intentions. No one accidentally wounds half a dozen bystanders with a knife.


You've obviously never worked in the craft hut at a Boy Scout summer camp...

/WoodFingercarving Merit Badge FTW
//I didn't work there either
///taught archery and rifle shooting without injury
////except me, but that was my fault, and not with a gun
 
2012-08-26 03:48:31 AM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Farker Soze: GAT_00: Farker Soze: GAT_00: The right to bear arms is a clause dependent on being in a militia.

No, it clearly isn't, as all research into original intent points to. Please, disagree with it if you want, but don't lie about it.

I'm sorry I'm capable of understanding how clauses work in English.

Clearly you don't, as the militia part is not a qualifying clause.

Not necessarily, but it could be. It all depends on how you parse the word "being." It's a pretty poorly written Amendment.

In any case, I'm surprised that gun control advocates don't point to the original Constitution's second militia clause:

(The Congress shall have Power) "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

Under that power, the feds can require people to submit to a rigorous program of training and certification as part of the militia, only exempting those who choose not to bear arms. In other words, they can make firearm ownership as prohibitive as possible; all they can't do, really, is ban it outright. Is it weaselly? Sure. But it's totally legal.


I don't see anything that says anything about the right of an individual to bear arms. This only lays a general framework for militias, and nothing else.
 
2012-08-26 03:49:01 AM  

Mensan: a link to another story: "Whidbey Island woman beaten, strangled to death."


Isn't there someone on Fark with that handle? Hmmm...
 
2012-08-26 04:39:51 AM  

Great Janitor: There was a job interview that I had several years ago. The manager who interviewed me told me that part of my job was to take the cash at closing to the bank at the end of the day after the store closed. I asked "Can I carry a gun with me when I leave with the store's money?" He said "No, employees are forbidden to carry weapons." I said "So, you want me to carry thousands of dollars out of the store and to my car unarmed." He said "That's company policy." I said "So, someone can sit out there in their car, wait for the store to close, leave with the day's cash for the bank, pull a gun on me, take the money and hope I don't get shot." He paused, said nothing. I turned the job down.


csb, once I turned one down because at the end of the interview they said I'd need to shave my beard. I'm sure our grandkids will get a kick out of the concept that, once upon a time, Americans could actually pick and choose among jobs.

Many years ago, my best friend had this same "deposit the cash" job for a store that closed at midnight. The risk of someone waiting to jump him was dealt with by a police cruiser coming by the parking lot a few minutes after midnight, chasing stragglers off with their spotlight. Cheap insurance at the price of a free coffee that would have been thrown out anyway. But it shows that what you were concerned about was a very real threat, even in a small town 30 years ago.

As a general rule, I think employees have no business resisting being robbed unless that's in their job description. That cash isn't mine, and so it isn't my place to decide if defending it was worth a life. Plus the employer unfairly ends up financially liable for damage or injuries if there's a gunfight while on the clock.

But I never cared for the part of that job that made my friend feel like there was a target painted on his back.
 
2012-08-26 04:54:00 AM  

Beowoolfie: Great Janitor: There was a job interview that I had several years ago. The manager who interviewed me told me that part of my job was to take the cash at closing to the bank at the end of the day after the store closed. I asked "Can I carry a gun with me when I leave with the store's money?" He said "No, employees are forbidden to carry weapons." I said "So, you want me to carry thousands of dollars out of the store and to my car unarmed." He said "That's company policy." I said "So, someone can sit out there in their car, wait for the store to close, leave with the day's cash for the bank, pull a gun on me, take the money and hope I don't get shot." He paused, said nothing. I turned the job down.

csb, once I turned one down because at the end of the interview they said I'd need to shave my beard. I'm sure our grandkids will get a kick out of the concept that, once upon a time, Americans could actually pick and choose among jobs.

Many years ago, my best friend had this same "deposit the cash" job for a store that closed at midnight. The risk of someone waiting to jump him was dealt with by a police cruiser coming by the parking lot a few minutes after midnight, chasing stragglers off with their spotlight. Cheap insurance at the price of a free coffee that would have been thrown out anyway. But it shows that what you were concerned about was a very real threat, even in a small town 30 years ago.

As a general rule, I think employees have no business resisting being robbed unless that's in their job description. That cash isn't mine, and so it isn't my place to decide if defending it was worth a life. Plus the employer unfairly ends up financially liable for damage or injuries if there's a gunfight while on the clock.

But I never cared for the part of that job that made my friend feel like there was a target painted on his back.


I turned down a job recently because they wanted me to shave my beard. I told them the pay wasn't high enough for that.

After I turned down the job in my story because I didn't want to be shot at by someone wanting the store's money that day, I went home and told my parents why I turned the job down, my mom thought I was being dumb. My dad, who in his early 20s managed a 7-11 and survived 3 armed robberies didn't blame me. I even felt justified in my choice when I found out that armored car drivers are armed and constantly carry large sums of cash around. Felt more justified when I took a job later one and the owner told me that even though he's never had more than $1,000 a night cash from a job that he's personally done and gotten paid for, he carries a concealed hand gun. He's said in the years he owned the business he's only had two people attempt to rob him after a job. All he had to do was just show the gun while loading the equipment and they backed away both times.
 
2012-08-26 05:21:47 AM  
Humans have been killing each other since Oog decided he wanted Kor's cave, and picked up a heavy rock. I don't see that ever changing.
 
2012-08-26 05:31:27 AM  

MayoSlather: Sale of most guns currently available should be banned...along with death rays. We can't expect Bugs Bunny to always be around to dismantle them.


If anyone points a gun at you, just stick your finger in the barrel. Joke's on the shooter when they pull the trigger!

/Mythbusters found a tiny bit of truth to this.
//Too lazy to link.
///Not too lazy to just type: TLTL
 
2012-08-26 05:45:27 AM  
t0.gstatic.com 

NO MEATWAD ITS TOO DANGEROUS!!
 
2012-08-26 07:47:19 AM  
What kills more people per year in the USA?
Guns?
Cars?
Cigarettes?
 
2012-08-26 08:19:58 AM  

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

People can't be trusted with guns.
But not for the reasons in that silly article.


Yeah, we need to get rid of them because nobody EVER uses them for anything other than just killing everyone in sight, right?

Wauconda, Illinois: Pharmacist shoots robbery suspect on Thursday, February 17, 2011
Chicago Tribune: A man armed with a knife demanded drugs from two employees at a Wauconda drug store. After refusing to surrender, the pharmacist fired a shot, sending the intruder to the hospital.

Boston, Massachusetts: Store Clerk Shoots Man In Botched Robbery on Thursday, February 17, 2011
The Boston Channel: An armed robber was shot by an armed clerk in Boston.

Armed Pastor Holds Thieves for Police on Wednesday, February 16, 2011
KRIS TV An armed pastor confronted two juveniles attempting to steal from a church remodeling project. The teens first pleaded, then threatened, the pastor, who held the men for police.

Hazleton, Pennsylvania: Home invasion intruder killed on Thursday, February 10, 2011
The Standard Speaker: A female homeowner shot one of several intruders breaking into her home in Pennsylvania. The woman was wounded but is expected to recover; one intruder was killed, the others retreated.

Indianapolis, Indiana: Man fatally shot during car break-in on Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Indianapolis Star: An armed homeless man confronted two citizens and tried to break into their car. The owners were present, but rather than complying with the gunman's demands, they drew weapons of their own, shooting the would-be robber. Neither armed citizen has been charged.
 
2012-08-26 08:30:37 AM  

GAT_00: enforcerpsu: 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.

This has been argued to death.

The sentence, the way it is written, guarantees a individual right to bear arms.

Oh, and just so you know, you are already in the militia. Every able bodied male 18 and above is part of the USA unorganized militia.

Facts. How do they work?

The right to bear arms is a clause dependent on being in a militia. Militias have no value without organization, because they are unable to be effective. All you have with an unorganized militia is a lynch mob.

And unorganized militia is a contradiction in terms, like compassionate conservatism.


"Well regulated" back when the Bill of Rights was written meant "In it's proper working order" These days people like you try to redefine it as "Strictly controlled". It's not the same thing no matter how much you try to pretend it is. And why would the Founding Fathers make it a right strictly controlled by the government when they just fought a war to get us away from a very oppressive government and guarantee we will never be forced to endure oppression again? No matter how many times this comes up, you just never really address these issues.

Here are a few more that you'll just end up ignoring anyway (since things like facts and history trouble you so much):
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. - James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. - Samuel Adams

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. - Alexander Hamilton

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... - George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. - Richard Henry Lee 1788

And last but not least:
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

Now, since you're a unmitigated tool that refuses to actually think about what the Founding Fathers meant, please explain all of the above in your "people aren't allowed to have arms unless they are in a militia strictly controlled by the government" mindset.
 
2012-08-26 08:37:01 AM  

whatshisname: loonatic112358: it's a tool that can be used for good, or evil just like much of the rest of the things humanity has come up with

Bullshiat. How much of the rest of our technology is specifically designed to kill or incapacitate people if used as directed?


More than you might think. Knives. Axes/hatchets. Archery tackle. Silly examples? Not at all: A specialized target pistol, lever action deer carbine, or goose gun is no more designed to shoot people than a kitchen knife is designed to stab people.

Aside from that, though, there is a logical error in your question, because it's not always wrong to kill or incapacitate people. Every single society recognizes a right to self-defense, and even in countries where defense of others isn't recognized, it can still be a moral positive to shoot someone in the process of, for example, beating someone to death. I positively *HATE* the platitude "Violence never solved anything", because it's literally not true, and as a moral guideline it's also wrong. While violence is rarely the answer, sometimes it's the *ONLY* appropriate answer.
 
2012-08-26 08:42:55 AM  

kosumi: way south: The guns shallow learning curve apparently wasn't shallow enough for those cops outside the Empire state building, and long range shooting is a talent you really have to work at. Guns aren't an instinctive technology. They have their nuances to learn as with any machine.

All true. But the Gizmodo guy's point was that you can take a life much more easily with a gun for any given amount of training, regardless of your intentions. No one accidentally wounds half a dozen bystanders with a knife.


No one accidentally wounds half a dozen bystanders with a gun, either. The recent kerfluffle in NYC was *INTENTIONAL*. The police didn't accidentally shoot their guns, they did it on purpose. Perhaps they had good reason, but you can't argue that they were wounded by accidental discharges.
 
2012-08-26 08:53:45 AM  

kosumi: way south: The guns shallow learning curve apparently wasn't shallow enough for those cops outside the Empire state building, and long range shooting is a talent you really have to work at. Guns aren't an instinctive technology. They have their nuances to learn as with any machine.

All true. But the Gizmodo guy's point was that you can take a life much more easily with a gun for any given amount of training, regardless of your intentions. No one accidentally wounds half a dozen bystanders with a knife.


Its a simplistic argument.

How do we define an accident when murder is involved?
In the rampage killings of Osaka (8 deaths, 15 wounded) and Akihabara(7 deaths, 10 wounded), the attackers managed to catch quite a few people off guard with no training. Because those are rampage killings, we have no way of knowing who they intended to hurt and how many were happenstance.
Its not uncommon for officers responding to DV calls to get cut. I know one that tried to cuff an abusive husband only to get jumped by the wife. He got sixteen stitches for his troubles.

If you break down shootings by incident: Gangs probably have the highest rate of accidental injury, or so we can only assume.
They shoot into crowds hap hazardly and we have no way to know if they mean to or not. They wont be disarming anyway so its a moot point.
This leaves us with the under trained and ill equipped police force as your second largest source of stray bullets. They wont be disarming either.

Now you're looking at CCW owners, who are liable for every shot they fire.
You'll probably find they hit very few bystanders.

If the attacker intends to kill alot of people, its a dangerous presumption that (when deprived of a gun) they'll just give up and go home.
 
2012-08-26 09:48:42 AM  

GAT_00: enforcerpsu: 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.

This has been argued to death.

The sentence, the way it is written, guarantees a individual right to bear arms.

Oh, and just so you know, you are already in the militia. Every able bodied male 18 and above is part of the USA unorganized militia.

Facts. How do they work?

The right to bear arms is a clause dependent on being in a militia. Militias have no value without organization, because they are unable to be effective. All you have with an unorganized militia is a lynch mob.

And unorganized militia is a contradiction in terms, like compassionate conservatism.


Sorry bub. It's not. The clause is completely independent. End of story.

Do you want me to mail you your militia card?

Regardless, nothing changes now. People like yourself are too scared to admit that its not a gun problem. But for people like myself we've already won the fight. Not only is it our right and we choose to excercise it but no politician will touch it. It's political suicide.
 
2012-08-26 09:51:00 AM  

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


True that, but I think I could write something even more stupid. It would take some imagination an time, though.
 
2012-08-26 10:21:25 AM  

whatshisname: Securitywyrm: Blaming guns for gun violence is like blaming both airplanes and skyscrapers for 9/11.

Guns are designed with one thing in mind - killing people. Airplanes and skyscrapers, not so much.


Then why can't gun manufacturers be sued for faulty products when they're used at the range and nobody died?
 
2012-08-26 10:27:10 AM  

hamdinger: TOSViolation: The Internet is too dangerous of a technology for libtards to have access to.

A-hyuck! Ah believes the gubmint should stay outta people's private lives. And the Constitooshun grants people all sortsa rights to say whatever they want.

Unless they're a dang-ol' librul.


The Constituion doesn't grant rights to individuals, it guarantees them!
 
2012-08-26 10:39:09 AM  

GAT_00: 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?


Isn't murder, by definition, the illegal killing of someone?
 
2012-08-26 10:40:15 AM  

GAT_00: enforcerpsu: 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.

This has been argued to death.

The sentence, the way it is written, guarantees a individual right to bear arms.

Oh, and just so you know, you are already in the militia. Every able bodied male 18 and above is part of the USA unorganized militia.

Facts. How do they work?

The right to bear arms is a clause dependent on being in a militia. Militias have no value without organization, because they are unable to be effective. All you have with an unorganized militia is a lynch mob.

And unorganized militia is a contradiction in terms, like compassionate conservatism.


Then why does it talk about the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and not the right of the militia to do so?
 
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 »
Advertisement
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