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
    More: Dumbass, 34th Street, death ray, exsanguination, accessibilities, The Time Machine  
•       •       •

10537 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Aug 2012 at 10:43 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



385 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-08-25 09:00:12 PM  
Guns are similar to time machines in the same way catapults are to kumquats.

/worst rant ever
 
2012-08-25 09:06:58 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size

Don't you mean "heaters?"
 
2012-08-25 09:12:08 PM  
As if we needed more evidence that any Gizmodo article gets greened, no matter what it is about.
 
2012-08-25 09:37:54 PM  
Darn it, I've been waiting for a time travel-related thread for a while so I can jump in with "Boobies" and become a Fark time traveller.

Alas, too late.
 
2012-08-25 09:48:17 PM  
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.
 
2012-08-25 09:59:11 PM  
That's quite possibly the stupidest argument against guns I've ever read.
 
2012-08-25 10:11:37 PM  
I'm not sure I even wanna RTFA. My brain already hurts.
 
2012-08-25 10:18:55 PM  

gameshowhost: I'm not sure I even wanna RTFA. My brain already hurts.


It's pretty stupid.
 
2012-08-25 10:19:28 PM  

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.
 
2012-08-25 10:25:15 PM  

GAT_00: gameshowhost: I'm not sure I even wanna RTFA. My brain already hurts.

It's pretty stupid.


I couldn't resist clicking.
 
2012-08-25 10:28:55 PM  

MayoSlather: 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.

 
2012-08-25 10:29:51 PM  

doglover: MayoSlather: 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.


This was supposed to be Professor Farnsworth with his Spheroboom TM
 
2012-08-25 10:36:39 PM  

MayoSlather: 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.


2? You've obviously never gone barn pigeon hunting.
 
2012-08-25 10:40:22 PM  

gameshowhost: MayoSlather: 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.

2? You've obviously never gone barn pigeon hunting.


I mean if this is a critical function in modern society then allow a special permit to be available. It definitely sounds of utmost importance.
 
2012-08-25 10:42:14 PM  

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.


I disagree. It was a stupid article.
 
2012-08-25 10:46:03 PM  
Uh... wow.
 
2012-08-25 10:46:54 PM  
Article was stupid.

But not as stupid as bedwetters who "need" a gun to to drive to 7-11 for a Slurpee.
 
2012-08-25 10:47:39 PM  

GAT_00: As if we needed more evidence that any Gizmodo article gets greened, no matter what it is about.


Calling that an "article" is very similar to their comparison of guns and time machines.
 
2012-08-25 10:50:18 PM  
This is,without,the dumbest article I've ever read. And it's not even from Cracked.com.
 
2012-08-25 10:52:03 PM  
Jesus Christ, if I wanted to kill a bunch of people I'm pretty sure I could find a way to gas up a chainsaw in a Target and have at it.
 
2012-08-25 10:52:10 PM  
Safety Not Guaranteed
 
2012-08-25 10:52:12 PM  

Apos: This is,without a doubt,the dumbest article I've ever read. And it's not even from Cracked.com.



Sorry. My anger at confronting such an inane piece interfered with my post.
 
2012-08-25 10:52:22 PM  
The stupid is strong in that post
 
2012-08-25 10:52:49 PM  
What ever the hell he was smoking, he needs to quit
 
2012-08-25 10:53:15 PM  

MayoSlather: 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.


But then how will I defend myself when the Nazis Commies U.N. invades?
 
2012-08-25 10:53:55 PM  

GAT_00: As if we needed more evidence that any Gizmodo article gets greened, no matter what it is about.


I don't think that was an article, i think someone submitted comments from gizmodo to fark
 
2012-08-25 10:53:56 PM  
I think the writer plagiarized that from a middle school newspaper.
 
2012-08-25 10:55:41 PM  
Yeeehaw

i391.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2012-08-25 10:56:05 PM  
Thanks for reminding me why I avoid gizmodo links.
 
2012-08-25 10:56:06 PM  
Quick! Someone post that meme where some guy runs up to a group of people, falls down and yells out something trolly, only to have the group of people turn on each other in argument.

'cus that's all the article was.
 
2012-08-25 10:56:54 PM  
FTA :Too many people are dying. Colorado. 34th Street.

I don't know about thatI don't remember anyone dying.

someone post the minutes from the time travelers club.
 
2012-08-25 10:56:54 PM  
Dumbest article, argument, and green of the day.
 
2012-08-25 10:57:03 PM  
I didn't RTFA, but given that it is Gizmodo I imagine they think that changing the law will actually affect what people do. But given that they are simply taking it for granted that time travel is possible, that shouldn't surprise anyone.

Idiots.
 
2012-08-25 10:57:41 PM  

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.
 
2012-08-25 10:57:56 PM  
Joe, your problem isn't guns, it's me mercifully suffocating you to death with a pillow to the reluctant but nodding acceptance of everyone on Earth who is not also as retarded as you are.

/ Would you sell a pillow at WalMart?
 
2012-08-25 10:58:31 PM  
... Guns already exist. It's pretty stupid to suggest that they shouldn't now.
 
2012-08-25 10:58:44 PM  

BuckTurgidson: Joe, your problem isn't guns, it's me mercifully suffocating you to death with a pillow to the reluctant but nodding acceptance of everyone on Earth who is not also as retarded as you are.

/ Would you sell a pillow at WalMart?


that's a waste of a perfectly good pillow
 
2012-08-25 10:58:50 PM  

MayoSlather: 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.


Yes, I think most people would agree that there is a limit on the destructive capability of weapon that an individual should be allowed to possess, the question is what it this limit.
 
TWX
2012-08-25 11:00:02 PM  

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.


I support the capacity restrictions that were in place in the nineties. Generally speaking, if you as John Q. Public can't get it done in ten rounds, you probably can't get done at all.

Mind you, I support mandatory training and proficiency to purchase or otherwise obtain, other than through inheritance, anything over a 20 gauge shotgun or a .22 rifle (long gun, .22 rifle-firing pistols do not count), but I know the odds of that coming to pass are very slim. Courses would include learning when it's not OK to introduce a weapon into circumstances, and guidelines for securing one's firearms against theft or other uses not overseen by the owner.
 
2012-08-25 11:00:51 PM  
Hmm.. Interesting argument...

I have a device that can accelerate over two tons of metal and flammables to about 150 miles per hour. Similar devices kill around 30,000 people a year. Surely these are too dangerous for us common plebes!

Thousands of people keep large, unsecured vats of the dangerous chemical known as dihydrogen monoxide in and around their homes. This chemical is responsible for thousands of deaths per year. Surely we must end this household menace!

We're surrounded by a shiatload of items that can be used to wreak immense havoc if used incorrectly. What makes one any more dangerous than the next? If we started banning everything that a determined person could use to injure another person, we'd end up with practically nothing available to us.

Oh, and the analogy fails because most fictional time-machine havoc stems from causality disruption. You kill Hitler, and come home to Red Alert. You go to a 1950s prom, get your mom and dad together, and end up almost ruining the lives of everyone you know three times. You go back to Roswell and become your own grandpa, later going back to end the American Revolution. Causality is the big danger with time machines, and while guns can be argued to effect causality as well, nobody really cares about that particular argument, because when you use a gun, you generally don't have to memorize a lot of new kings when you get back home...
 
2012-08-25 11:01:14 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: Yes, I think most people would agree that there is a limit on the destructive capability of weapon that an individual should be allowed to possess, the question is what it this limit.


exactly how do you plan to limit people from making something that exceeds your defined limit?
 
2012-08-25 11:03:23 PM  
SHUT UP, DOCTOR! DON'T MAKE ME SIC THE SILENCE ON YOU AGAIN!!1!

:-/
 
2012-08-25 11:03:30 PM  
It's perfectly acceptable to own a gun as long as it's not black with rounded corners.
 
2012-08-25 11:05:01 PM  
If time machines ever became a reality, there may have to be a thing like the Eye of Harmony (Doctor Who) to prevent the web of time of changing by keeping established events fixed. The best explanation that I've heard about this is in the Doctor Who audio plays where Rassalon first established time travel. He then went into the far future and found that another race would one day create time travel and wipe Gallifrey and the Time Lords out of existence. He then established the Eye of Harmony to protect his version of the web of time and then trap the future threat (called the Divergence) in a pocket, timeless universe, of his own creation.

Before time travel could be extended to the "masses" there would need to be an Eye of Harmony to prevent too much damage to the timeline.

As for guns, there are millions of Americans who legally own weapons. It's less than one percent of those who own guns who use guns to commit crimes and murders. So it makes no sense at all to say "Since so few gun owners use guns to kill, and the rest have them for protection, we need to ban all hand guns." And honestly, those who go through the process of getting the conceal carry licenses aren't the ones to fear. I'm honestly scared more of those who want to ban guns over those who legally own them and legally conceal and carry those guns.
 
2012-08-25 11:05:33 PM  
When I was a kid the future featured jet packs and interplanetary travel. I guess we didn't get there because it was too dangerous.
 
2012-08-25 11:06:13 PM  

ladyfortuna: Yeeehaw


Oh Lord all up IN of this time BIATCH!
 
2012-08-25 11:07:07 PM  
guess what, dum dum?

the guns are already here.
they're not going anywhere.


of course it's insane, it's the USA
 
2012-08-25 11:07:29 PM  

dbubb: When I was a kid the future featured jet packs and interplanetary travel. I guess we didn't get there because it was too dangerous.


i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2012-08-25 11:07:34 PM  

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


Seriously. I believe in the 2nd Amendment and enforcing it and even I think this is a really stupid argument.
 
2012-08-25 11:07:50 PM  

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
 
2012-08-25 11:08:06 PM  
A gun cannot have the potential of causing a reality destroying paradox.
 
2012-08-25 11:08:50 PM  

PsyLord: A gun cannot have the potential of causing a reality destroying paradox.


So you didn't try to kill the younger version of Revolver Ocelot in MGS3, thereby getting the "Time Paradox" ending?
 
2012-08-25 11:10:32 PM  
Number of people killed by cars every year > Number of people killed by guns every year. Therefore according to the article, we should not be allowed to have cars.

Blaming guns for gun violence is like blaming both airplanes and skyscrapers for 9/11.
 
2012-08-25 11:10:56 PM  

PsyLord: A gun cannot have the potential of causing a reality destroying paradox.


so no shooting through time portals, check
 
2012-08-25 11:11:27 PM  

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.
 
2012-08-25 11:11:42 PM  

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


He does ask a good question, if someone is minding their own business, what matter is it that they have a gun?
 
2012-08-25 11:12:17 PM  
The baby heard me say Fark! Oh no! What do we do now?
 
2012-08-25 11:12:21 PM  

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

Seriously. I believe in the 2nd Amendment and enforcing it and even I think this is a really stupid argument.


This.
 
2012-08-25 11:12:41 PM  

phrawgh: Safety Not Guaranteed


I was torn between this and time cube guy...
 
2012-08-25 11:12:41 PM  
Can't f*ck your own grandmother with a gun.

Well... Maybe... Hm...
 
2012-08-25 11:13:04 PM  
Cars cause lots of death because people make bad decisions while driving two tons of steel and glass. Let's ban those.

I understand there are some differences with guns and that I will get yelled at by some wet blanket. If you don't want people to have guns, you have to change the Constitution. It's as simple as that. You can't ignore the Second Amendment. You can keep guns away from some people at the margins, people with felony records or serious mental illness diagnoses and dangerous behavior. But that's not going to keep the undiagnosed crazies or disgruntled former employees from going on a rampage.

Don't want guns on the streets? Repeal the Second Amendment and you can have just about any gun law passed that you please. But you have to accept that that's tough road to hoe - full repeal of the Second Amendment is politically unpopular, and you have to be prepared for the possibility that you will lose and will just have to accept that some people will have guns and some of them will use them for evil purposes.
 
2012-08-25 11:13:58 PM  

FZXXAAROPPTTSWAXESXZZXAAS!!!


And here I am at the crucifixion.
With an M=60 and a bukkit of ammo.
Do I let them nail this dude and create thousands of years of suffering?
Or do I ventilate the Roman guards?

OOOOoooooooooooh.
You have hazelnuts, roasted in garlic oil?
BRB
 
2012-08-25 11:14:48 PM  
Holy crap. Someone needs to go to journalism school.
 
2012-08-25 11:16:48 PM  

indylaw: Cars cause lots of death because people make bad decisions while driving two tons of steel and glass. Let's ban those.

I understand there are some differences with guns and that I will get yelled at by some wet blanket. If you don't want people to have guns, you have to change the Constitution. It's as simple as that. You can't ignore the Second Amendment. You can keep guns away from some people at the margins, people with felony records or serious mental illness diagnoses and dangerous behavior. But that's not going to keep the undiagnosed crazies or disgruntled former employees from going on a rampage.

Don't want guns on the streets? Repeal the Second Amendment and you can have just about any gun law passed that you please. But you have to accept that that's tough road to hoe - full repeal of the Second Amendment is politically unpopular, and you have to be prepared for the possibility that you will lose and will just have to accept that some people will have guns and some of them will use them for evil purposes.

The second amendment is there to protect the rest.
 
2012-08-25 11:16:54 PM  
I will only begin to even CONSIDER accepting this line of reasoning when someone can tell me how it can be implemented.
 
2012-08-25 11:17:37 PM  

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.
 
2012-08-25 11:17:54 PM  

Great Janitor: 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

He does ask a good question, if someone is minding their own business, what matter is it that they have a gun?


You know the multiple stories we read every week about "barricade situations" after some guy kills his family?

How many of those stories do not involve handguns?

I know gun enthusiasts get all emotional and excited and spout off talking points from today's email fundraiser from the NRA, but just this once please present some facts. Try to be rational. Enlighten me.
 
2012-08-25 11:18:15 PM  

jaytkay: Article was stupid.

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


Well, maye not for a Slurpee. Now, if you're going for some iced tea and skittles ...
 
2012-08-25 11:18:25 PM  
I could kill about 10 people with my car right meow if I wanted to.
 
2012-08-25 11:18:49 PM  

TripcodeMel: I will only begin to even CONSIDER accepting this line of reasoning when someone can tell me how it can be implemented.


you could change the dimensions of most ammo so it wouldn't work in civilian hands, but that assumes people aren't capable of reloading their own casings
 
2012-08-25 11:19:03 PM  

fastbow: Hmm.. Interesting argument...

I have a device that can accelerate over two tons of metal and flammables to about 150 miles per hour. Similar devices kill around 30,000 people a year. Surely these are too dangerous for us common plebes!

Thousands of people keep large, unsecured vats of the dangerous chemical known as dihydrogen monoxide in and around their homes. This chemical is responsible for thousands of deaths per year. Surely we must end this household menace!

We're surrounded by a shiatload of items that can be used to wreak immense havoc if used incorrectly. What makes one any more dangerous than the next? If we started banning everything that a determined person could use to injure another person, we'd end up with practically nothing available to us.

Oh, and the analogy fails because most fictional time-machine havoc stems from causality disruption. You kill Hitler, and come home to Red Alert. You go to a 1950s prom, get your mom and dad together, and end up almost ruining the lives of everyone you know three times. You go back to Roswell and become your own grandpa, later going back to end the American Revolution. Causality is the big danger with time machines, and while guns can be argued to effect causality as well, nobody really cares about that particular argument, because when you use a gun, you generally don't have to memorize a lot of new kings when you get back home...


People drink water. Guns kill, and have no other purpose. They are designed to kill. So yes you can kill people with a rolling pin, but a gun makes it so much easier. So much easier that fatalities happen that otherwise might not have. That's pretty simple to understand.
 
2012-08-25 11:20:10 PM  

TripcodeMel: I will only begin to even CONSIDER accepting this line of reasoning when someone can tell me how it can be implemented.


1. Apple comes out with the iGun. (Gizmodo creams their jeans over it and suddenly doesn't hate guns anymore)
2. Apple sues all other gun manufacturers for retroactively ripping them off. Bribed judges see it Apple's way.
3. Now all guns are Apple iGuns
4. The Apple iGun only has half the functionality of regular guns, so less people die.
 
2012-08-25 11:20:17 PM  

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.


According to who? You? Fine. You can have your two round long guns.

Me, I'll keep my 5 round semiauto 20 gauge, my 15 round clip semiauto pistol, and 6 shot revolver. Who are you to say I shouldn't have them? There's a nice little thing called the Constitution that says I can. My state says I can and my county even licensed me to carry my handguns in a concealed manner and encourages me to do so.
 
2012-08-25 11:20:46 PM  

indylaw: derstand there are some differences with guns and that I will get yelled at by some wet blanket. If you don't want people to have guns, you have to change the Constitution. It's as simple as that. You can't ignore the Second Amendmen


actually the second amendment allows for guns to be kept in a citizens, militia. So no, you actually don't need an amendment, just for people to read the whole amendment.
 
2012-08-25 11:21:06 PM  
fark, I'll have to come up with a counter argument for this before all my Dem friends start using it.
 
2012-08-25 11:23:01 PM  

TripcodeMel: I will only begin to even CONSIDER accepting this line of reasoning when someone can tell me how it can be implemented.


Well, first we toss the guns into the time machine. Then we set the time machine for 1,000 years into the future.

Then we can sit back and relax for 1,000 years until our insectoid manservants suddenly and mysteriously acquire an arsenal of guns and revolt.
 
2012-08-25 11:23:06 PM  

nigeman: People drink water. Guns kill, and have no other purpose. They are designed to kill. So yes you can kill people with a rolling pin, but a gun makes it so much easier. So much easier that fatalities happen that otherwise might not have. That's pretty simple to understand.


you're trying to cure a symptom, first you would have to make humans not want to kill people with rolling pins, knives, cars, or whatever else is handy
 
2012-08-25 11:23:12 PM  
FACT:

All men have dix and balls, and most of them can use them, at least passing well;

FACT: You can rape a woman with this equipment, therefore you may not have it.

FACT: All women have titz and pussies, and you can be a whore with such equipment;

Therefore, you may not have it.

Even in places where guns are legal, very few use them to kill, and fewer yet are killed by them. Yet with very few exceptions, EVERY man has the equipment to be a rapist, and EVERY woman has the equipment to be a whore, so why no laws against sex?
 
2012-08-25 11:23:56 PM  

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 discharging bullets. Airplanes and skyscrapers, not so much.

 

Airplanes designed with killing people in mind.
 
2012-08-25 11:24:02 PM  

olddinosaur: Even in places where guns are legal, very few use them to kill, and fewer yet are killed by them. Yet with very few exceptions, EVERY man has the equipment to be a rapist, and EVERY woman has the equipment to be a whore, so why no laws against sex?


You're not familiar with some of the old blue laws, and laws regarding prostitution are you
 
2012-08-25 11:25:10 PM  

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.


Is that Slurpee more than 12 oz? Those 32oz drinks of mass destruction need to be banned. Do you realize how much damage you can do with just one of those?
 
2012-08-25 11:28:07 PM  
I want those two minutes back.
 
2012-08-25 11:28:35 PM  

ttc2301: I want those two minutes back.


quick, hop into your time machine
 
2012-08-25 11:29:06 PM  

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.


One, this is not true, and two, what does design have to do with anything? People don't design swimming pools to kill kids (at least that's what the industry wants you to believe), yet they are responsible for four times more children dying each year than guns. There is no redeeming social value of pools other than dangerous entertainment. I like to call them murder holes. We banned lawn darts, why not focus on these reckless threats to our children now?
 
2012-08-25 11:29:32 PM  

whatshisname:

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


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. I'm sure I forgot a few uses there but any reasonable and sane person gets my point.
 
2012-08-25 11:30:04 PM  

nigeman: indylaw: derstand there are some differences with guns and that I will get yelled at by some wet blanket. If you don't want people to have guns, you have to change the Constitution. It's as simple as that. You can't ignore the Second Amendmen

actually the second amendment allows for guns to be kept in a citizens, militia. So no, you actually don't need an amendment, just for people to read the whole amendment.


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.
 
2012-08-25 11:30:43 PM  
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.
 
2012-08-25 11:31:05 PM  

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.


Using this logic, any motor vehicle larger than a moped should also be banned.

In 1998, 30,708 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths
In 1998, 41,501 people in the United States died from automobile-related deaths

Firearms are involved in 0.5% of accidental deaths nationally, compared to motor vehicles (37%), poisoning (22%), falls (17%), suffocation (5%), drowning (2.9%), fires (2.5%), medical mistakes (1.7%), environmental factors (1.3%), and pedal cycles (0.7%). Among children: motor vehicles (41%), suffocation (21%), drowning (15%), fires (8%), pedal cycles (2%), poisoning (2%), falls (1.9%), environmental factors (1.5%), firearms (1.1%) and medical mistakes (1%).
 
Al!
2012-08-25 11:31:06 PM  
Cars kill more people than guns. I never see rants proposing a ban on automobiles. Malaria kills more people than guns and cars combined. Seriously, more people die jumping off of bridges than die in mass shootings. You don't want to see people bleeding in the streets? Quit watching cable news. They're going to show you what gets the ratings. Nothing more, nothing less. Bridge jumpers don't get the ratings, so you don't see them plastered all over the news.
 
2012-08-25 11:32:21 PM  

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.


You're right. Police officers shouldn't carry them, because they're carrying a tool that's only functions to kill people and they're supposed to "Serve and Protect" It doesn't work at all to dissuade people from attacking the police.
 
2012-08-25 11:32:57 PM  

loonatic112358: nigeman: People drink water. Guns kill, and have no other purpose. They are designed to kill. So yes you can kill people with a rolling pin, but a gun makes it so much easier. So much easier that fatalities happen that otherwise might not have. That's pretty simple to understand.

you're trying to cure a symptom, first you would have to make humans not want to kill people with rolling pins, knives, cars, or whatever else is handy


no not at all. if somebody wants to kill someone they will, if someone is angry, they can pull a trigger pretty quickly, and kill someone that otherwise would not have died, further it makes a whole bunch of crimes far easier to do and that is to say nothing of accidents with guns. Further you can's have a drive by without a gun. This is all very simple to understand, it won't stop all murder, but it will stop a lot of them. To say that that isn't good enough is ridiculous.
 
2012-08-25 11:33:23 PM  

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.
 
2012-08-25 11:34:01 PM  
Tell me why guns are any different.

Since the hippie asked, I may as well answer:

The next time some 300lb blob of beer, steroids and stupid hops of his Harley to spend a few minutes raping your wife/daughter/sister/mom ... you just go ahead and try to stop him with your mighty bong-fu and see if throwing your Birkenstocks at him will solve the problem.

Or you could just shoot him. Better yet, she can just shoot him herself.

Guns are what put people like you & me on even footing with people like Genghis Khan, which is why people like Genghis Khan no longer run the planet. But hey, if you want to go back to living under the yolk of Meatheads with Big Axes, knock yourself out.

4.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size

Above: A world without guns.

 
2012-08-25 11:34:09 PM  
Can I have a gun?
 
2012-08-25 11:34:21 PM  
Time travel? I would go back to 9/10/01 and arm some people.

scottbieser.comView Full Size
 
2012-08-25 11:34:23 PM  

radiobiz: whatshisname:

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

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. I'm sure I forgot a few uses there but any reasonable and sane person gets my point.


not sure if serious.
 
2012-08-25 11:34:44 PM  

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.
 
2012-08-25 11:35:38 PM  

nigeman: no not at all. if somebody wants to kill someone they will, if someone is angry, they can pull a trigger pretty quickly, and kill someone that otherwise would not have died, further it makes a whole bunch of crimes far easier to do and that is to say nothing of accidents with guns. Further you can's have a drive by without a gun. This is all very simple to understand, it won't stop all murder, but it will stop a lot of them. To say that that isn't good enough is ridiculous.


i think that's the only logical argument i've heard yet against firearms
 
2012-08-25 11:35:49 PM  

nigeman: fastbow: Hmm.. Interesting argument...

I have a device that can accelerate over two tons of metal and flammables to about 150 miles per hour. Similar devices kill around 30,000 people a year. Surely these are too dangerous for us common plebes!

Thousands of people keep large, unsecured vats of the dangerous chemical known as dihydrogen monoxide in and around their homes. This chemical is responsible for thousands of deaths per year. Surely we must end this household menace!

We're surrounded by a shiatload of items that can be used to wreak immense havoc if used incorrectly. What makes one any more dangerous than the next? If we started banning everything that a determined person could use to injure another person, we'd end up with practically nothing available to us.

Oh, and the analogy fails because most fictional time-machine havoc stems from causality disruption. You kill Hitler, and come home to Red Alert. You go to a 1950s prom, get your mom and dad together, and end up almost ruining the lives of everyone you know three times. You go back to Roswell and become your own grandpa, later going back to end the American Revolution. Causality is the big danger with time machines, and while guns can be argued to effect causality as well, nobody really cares about that particular argument, because when you use a gun, you generally don't have to memorize a lot of new kings when you get back home...

People drink water. Guns kill, and have no other purpose. They are designed to kill. So yes you can kill people with a rolling pin, but a gun makes it so much easier. So much easier that fatalities happen that otherwise might not have. That's pretty simple to understand.


What about the Japanese Tsunami? What about swimming pools? What about damned reservoirs and out-of-control rivers? Water's one vindictive biatch.

Or, to better adress your concern of design, nobody should have a knife. They're thousands of years old and designed to do one thing: kill. We've been killing each other with knives for longer than we've had literature. So, by your own admitted logic, we should not have knives. Your CutCo? Gone. Your pocket knife, that heinous killing tool? Gone.

Or to take it further, we've been killing each other with blunt instruments ever since we lost our tails. We picked up branches for no other reason, so by your own logic, we should have no blunt instruments. Your baseball bat, rolling pin, paperweight? All gone...

Kind of ridiculous, huh? Guns might have been designed to kill, but they have other functions as well. Get with the program. This isn't the 1500s anymore.
 
2012-08-25 11:36:01 PM  

nigeman: loonatic112358: nigeman: People drink water. Guns kill, and have no other purpose. They are designed to kill. So yes you can kill people with a rolling pin, but a gun makes it so much easier. So much easier that fatalities happen that otherwise might not have. That's pretty simple to understand.

you're trying to cure a symptom, first you would have to make humans not want to kill people with rolling pins, knives, cars, or whatever else is handy

no not at all. if somebody wants to kill someone they will, if someone is angry, they can pull a trigger pretty quickly, and kill someone that otherwise would not have died, further it makes a whole bunch of crimes far easier to do and that is to say nothing of accidents with guns. Further you can's have a drive by without a gun. This is all very simple to understand, it won't stop all murder, but it will stop a lot of them. To say that that isn't good enough is ridiculous.


It's also a lot easier to defend yourself with a gun than it is with rolling pin, frying pan, stapler, or paring knife...
 
2012-08-25 11:36:39 PM  

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

[www.scottbieser.com image 540x540]


how come the terrorists don't have guns in that scenario?
 
2012-08-25 11:37:34 PM  

nigeman: how come the terrorists don't have guns in that scenario?


stupid troll comic is stupid
 
2012-08-25 11:37:55 PM  

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.


Just because you think they got this one wrong doesn't mean you are right.
 
2012-08-25 11:38:39 PM  
underconsideration.comView Full Size

underconsideration.comView Full Size


Nope... Not dangerous at all...
 
2012-08-25 11:39:11 PM  

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

[www.scottbieser.com image 540x540]


HERR DERR HAR'S WUT I WOODA DUN TO DEM DAR TERISTS!

I'm all for gun rights, but shiat like that is farking pathetic.
 
2012-08-25 11:39:38 PM  

jaytkay: Great Janitor: 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

He does ask a good question, if someone is minding their own business, what matter is it that they have a gun?

You know the multiple stories we read every week about "barricade situations" after some guy kills his family?

How many of those stories do not involve handguns?

I know gun enthusiasts get all emotional and excited and spout off talking points from today's email fundraiser from the NRA, but just this once please present some facts. Try to be rational. Enlighten me.


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

There are millions of people in this country who own guns, millions, but, there are not the numbers of people who are murdered to say that all hand guns need to be taken away because of the murders because it's less than one percent of those with hand guns who cause the murders.

Let's also look at places like Chicago. Chicago has a 100% hand gun ban. But, there are hand gun murders in Chicago. A complete hand gun ban has done nothing but kept a city of 3 million people defenseless from those who have no problem going to the suburbs getting a gun, then breaking the law by bringing the guns into the city to commit more crimes. And that is one of the biggest flaws with the anti-gun movement, murderers break laws, so if you're going to commit a murder, what consequence is it to you to also break the no hand gun law? When you really think about it, if you use a hand gun to shoot someone in Chicago, what is the point is punishing you for breaking the hand gun ban? So in that view point, breaking the law of no hand guns is almost unpunishable, since odds are, you won't know they have a hand gun until it's used.
 
2012-08-25 11:40:12 PM  
I was looking at local news before coming to Fark. The first story I read: "Vancouver homeowner shoots, kills intruder." At the bottom of that article was a link to another story: "Whidbey Island woman beaten, strangled to death."

I wonder if the author of the time machine / gun story thinks the Whidbey Island woman is somehow superior to the Vancouver person who didn't want to be a victim. And I wonder why feminists, who otherwise claim that women should never rely on a man, say a woman should call 911 then spread her legs for a rapist instead of having access to a weapon for self defense.
 
2012-08-25 11:40:41 PM  
FTFA: How many people have to literally bleed to death in our streets before we realize that easy access to a tool that any unskilled person can use to snatch a life out of existence is too much responsibility for humans?

The alternative of only having weapons the skilled can use seems much worse to me. I'm not a trained historian, but I'm pretty sure that would lead to tyranny (not that guns are a sure fire way to avoid it or anything). Of course I should consider ancient Greece when I say this. I know they were a heavily restricted democracy, but perhaps they are a good counterexample. Anyone feel qualified to educate me on that?
 
2012-08-25 11:40:55 PM  
Since we're talking about taking away rights, why not the right to breed without a license or the right to vote without some sort of military, first responder, police, or other service experience? After all, someone has to give birth to politicians, and they create these laws that get people killed. Not to menation sending troops to war to kill even more people... 

And pens...ban pens. They allow people to write things that incite others to do violence in the name or religion or ideology or the state...
 
2012-08-25 11:41:31 PM  
 
2012-08-25 11:42:26 PM  

violentsalvation: nigeman: indylaw: derstand there are some differences with guns and that I will get yelled at by some wet blanket. If you don't want people to have guns, you have to change the Constitution. It's as simple as that. You can't ignore the Second Amendmen

actually the second amendment allows for guns to be kept in a citizens, militia. So no, you actually don't need an amendment, just for people to read the whole amendment.

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.


This. I understand the argument about the militia and agree that it kind of makes sense. But I think it's wrong. Of course, what I think doesn't matter. SCOTUS has made it very clear how the 2nd is to be interpreted. So yes, it would take a constitutional amendment to change anything at this point.

Fortunately for me, I agree with SCOTUS on this issue. Now if we could just something done about the mistake called Citizens United.
 
2012-08-25 11:43:20 PM  

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


The lady doth protest too much, methinks
 
2012-08-25 11:44:11 PM  

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.


Fine, than let's get rid of cars. Look at the number of automotive deaths per year and compare to gun deaths. Cars have to go; everyone can use public transport because that's safer.

Bacon needs to be banned, too. Red meat kills, there is science to prove it. I don't need to quote it, you are smart enough to google the numbers. More people die from eating red meat and the subsequent heart problems than from guns, so let's ban it too.

Tylenol is one of the deadliest over-the-counter medications. More deaths due to Tylenol overdose than some prescription meds. So, let's ban that. And aspirin while we're at it, because why not.

/stupid arguement
 
2012-08-25 11:44:15 PM  

RatMaster999: Since we're talking about taking away rights, why not the right to breed without a license or the right to vote without some sort of military, first responder, police, or other service experience? After all, someone has to give birth to politicians, and they create these laws that get people killed. Not to menation sending troops to war to kill even more people... 

And pens...ban pens. They allow people to write things that incite others to do violence in the name or religion or ideology or the state...


"someone should do something about Tiller"

Don't forget speech. Nothing but trouble.
 
2012-08-25 11:44:55 PM  
The Internet is too dangerous of a technology for libtards to have access to.
 
2012-08-25 11:45:49 PM  

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.
 
2012-08-25 11:46:09 PM  

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

[www.scottbieser.com image 540x540]


Hey you managed to post something stupider than the article. Congrats.
 
2012-08-25 11:46:44 PM  
Setting people on fire is still okay.
 
2012-08-25 11:48:46 PM  

fastbow: nigeman: fastbow: Hmm.. Interesting argument...

I have a device that can accelerate over two tons of metal and flammables to about 150 miles per hour. Similar devices kill around 30,000 people a year. Surely these are too dangerous for us common plebes!

Thousands of people keep large, unsecured vats of the dangerous chemical known as dihydrogen monoxide in and around their homes. This chemical is responsible for thousands of deaths per year. Surely we must end this household menace!

We're surrounded by a shiatload of items that can be used to wreak immense havoc if used incorrectly. What makes one any more dangerous than the next? If we started banning everything that a determined person could use to injure another person, we'd end up with practically nothing available to us.

Oh, and the analogy fails because most fictional time-machine havoc stems from causality disruption. You kill Hitler, and come home to Red Alert. You go to a 1950s prom, get your mom and dad together, and end up almost ruining the lives of everyone you know three times. You go back to Roswell and become your own grandpa, later going back to end the American Revolution. Causality is the big danger with time machines, and while guns can be argued to effect causality as well, nobody really cares about that particular argument, because when you use a gun, you generally don't have to memorize a lot of new kings when you get back home...

People drink water. Guns kill, and have no other purpose. They are designed to kill. So yes you can kill people with a rolling pin, but a gun makes it so much easier. So much easier that fatalities happen that otherwise might not have. That's pretty simple to understand.

What about the Japanese Tsunami? What about swimming pools? What about damned reservoirs and out-of-control rivers? Water's one vindictive biatch.

Or, to better adress your concern of design, nobody should have a knife. They're thousands of years old and designed to do one thing: kill. We've b ...


did you read what I wrote? How could you misunderstand it? How can you compare guns to a natural phenomenon like a tsunami? How are you that stupid ? You can't see a difference between the ease of killing someone with a gun or a knife? Or a bystander? Really? Stop being deliberately obtuse. The problem is the ease of killing someone and the lack of any real utilitarian use beyond that, apart from being an elaborate hole puncher. Now don't make me repeat myself again. Just go back and meditate on my reasoning, and you'll see it all quite simple to understand if you open your mind. good boy.
 
2012-08-25 11:48:49 PM  

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.
 
2012-08-25 11:48:51 PM  

Farker Soze: RatMaster999: Since we're talking about taking away rights, why not the right to breed without a license or the right to vote without some sort of military, first responder, police, or other service experience? After all, someone has to give birth to politicians, and they create these laws that get people killed. Not to menation sending troops to war to kill even more people... 

And pens...ban pens. They allow people to write things that incite others to do violence in the name or religion or ideology or the state...

"someone should do something about Tiller"

Don't forget speech. Nothing but trouble.


Exactly. This whole internet thing needs to go.
 
2012-08-25 11:50:24 PM  

TWX: 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.

I support the capacity restrictions that were in place in the nineties. Generally speaking, if you as John Q. Public can't get it done in ten rounds, you probably can't get done at all.

Mind you, I support mandatory training and proficiency to purchase or otherwise obtain, other than through inheritance, anything over a 20 gauge shotgun or a .22 rifle (long gun, .22 rifle-firing pistols do not count), but I know the odds of that coming to pass are very slim. Courses would include learning when it's not OK to introduce a weapon into circumstances, and guidelines for securing one's firearms against theft or other uses not overseen by the owner.


The 9mm under my bed would be useless if locked up. My 9mm would be illegal in your 10 round world.

Please tell me how someone would defend themselves if their gun was locked away. I'd love to hear it.

My wife knows its there and she also knows how to use it.
 
2012-08-25 11:51:08 PM  
Here's a hypothetical question: what if the second amendment had included explosives? What if it had said, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms and explosives"?

Would that mean only gunpowder? Because back then that was the only explosive. Or would it mean that you should now be able to own C4? What about nuclear bombs?
 
2012-08-25 11:52:07 PM  

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.


No back peddling here. You said guns are designed for one purpose and that is totally incorrect. There are many purposes.

You ever had a crazed drug addict try to break into your house at 2AM? I have. You ever had a stalker follow you around town? I have. You better believe there's a gun in my nightstand.

My shotgun's primary purpose is hunting, secondary is home defense. The handguns? Yep, they are designed to kill people. I've trained with them, practice regularly, carry them, and pray I'll never have use them on another human being.

Should there be limits? Absolutely, and I'm glad there are. But a total ban is idealistic and unreasonable.
 
2012-08-25 11:52:37 PM  

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


Seriously... Why the hell do you care if someone is carrying concealed while buying a slurpee? Is this something that keeps you up at night?

The people legally carrying aren't the problem.
 
2012-08-25 11:53:18 PM  

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.


Daily, weekly shootings??? Excuse me??? I think your numbers might be a bit off. But, don't you think it's a bit messed up to be in the frame of mind to think that anyone with a gun is a potential mass shooter? Great way to think the best of people. I know that were I live roughly one third of the population is carrying a concealed hand gun legally. It doesn't keep me scared hiding in my home, most of the time I don't even think about it. And in my area there hasn't been mass shootings or anything like that. The only time I've seen a gun fire a round I was at a firing range. And those times when I'm in a mall or a grocery store and I realize that no less than five people in that store are legally carrying a concealed hand gun, I actually feel pretty safe.
 
2012-08-25 11:53:18 PM  

indylaw: ...tough road to hoe -...


Row to hoe.

/Sorry, man. Pet peeve.

I know, supposably there are people who could care less, and that's a mute point, but to each is own.
 
2012-08-25 11:53:23 PM  

Gaylord Fister: Here's a hypothetical question: what if the second amendment had included explosives? What if it had said, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms and explosives"?

Would that mean only gunpowder? Because back then that was the only explosive. Or would it mean that you should now be able to own C4? What about nuclear bombs?


it's legal now, what do you think firecrackers and m-80's are?
 
2012-08-25 11:53:55 PM  

nigeman: People drink water. Guns kill, and have no other purpose. They are designed to kill. So yes you can kill people with a rolling pin, but a gun makes it so much easier. So much easier that fatalities happen that otherwise might not have. That's pretty simple to understand.


...But to make this an argument for gun control, the audience must believe killing is always wrong.
Most people don't believe that, which is why there are laws allowing for Justifiable Homicide.

So the question is not just who should be allowed to own a gun, but who should have the ability to defend themselves with lethal force. If you say "only agents of the state" then we start going down a very different road than the original ideal of making the nation into a murder-free zone.
This is why people see gun control as being less about public safety and more about keeping the proletariat in line.


In the end, criminals and cops don't have to obey weapons laws.
The people who don't shoot other people will be weakened the most and gain the least.

I don't see why anyone in a democracy would want to support that.
 
2012-08-25 11:53:56 PM  

nigeman: fastbow: Hmm.. Interesting argument...

I have a device that can accelerate over two tons of metal and flammables to about 150 miles per hour. Similar devices kill around 30,000 people a year. Surely these are too dangerous for us common plebes!

Thousands of people keep large, unsecured vats of the dangerous chemical known as dihydrogen monoxide in and around their homes. This chemical is responsible for thousands of deaths per year. Surely we must end this household menace!

We're surrounded by a shiatload of items that can be used to wreak immense havoc if used incorrectly. What makes one any more dangerous than the next? If we started banning everything that a determined person could use to injure another person, we'd end up with practically nothing available to us.

Oh, and the analogy fails because most fictional time-machine havoc stems from causality disruption. You kill Hitler, and come home to Red Alert. You go to a 1950s prom, get your mom and dad together, and end up almost ruining the lives of everyone you know three times. You go back to Roswell and become your own grandpa, later going back to end the American Revolution. Causality is the big danger with time machines, and while guns can be argued to effect causality as well, nobody really cares about that particular argument, because when you use a gun, you generally don't have to memorize a lot of new kings when you get back home...

People drink water. Guns kill, and have no other purpose. They are designed to kill. So yes you can kill people with a rolling pin, but a gun makes it so much easier. So much easier that fatalities happen that otherwise might not have. That's pretty simple to understand.


Logical fallacy: assuming the death happens because a gun is designed to kill. It could have happened in any other method. Pick one. There are a million ways to die.

It's not simple like you say it is.
 
2012-08-25 11:54:09 PM  

violentsalvation: 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.

Just because you think they got this one wrong doesn't mean you are right.


Well, they pretended the original statement didn't exist, and just focused on the clause to the exclusion of the intent.

And just because you think they got it right doesn't mean you're right either.
 
2012-08-25 11:57:09 PM  

jaytkay: Great Janitor: 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

He does ask a good question, if someone is minding their own business, what matter is it that they have a gun?

You know the multiple stories we read every week about "barricade situations" after some guy kills his family?

How many of those stories do not involve handguns?

I know gun enthusiasts get all emotional and excited and spout off talking points from today's email fundraiser from the NRA, but just this once please present some facts. Try to be rational. Enlighten me.


I know anti-gun enthusiasts get all emotional and excited and spout off talking points from the latest ill conceived gun control law (shoulder thing that goes up! OH NOES!), but just his once, please present some facts. Try to be rational. Enlighten us.
How does disarming the law-abiding segment of the population make them any safer?

Compare violent crime rates in Switzerland to the UK. Almost all men in Switzerland are trained to handle firearms and keep 2 weapons in their homes (rifle and pistol).

lawful activity isn't newsworthy.

"Man drives to work... arrives safely"
"Couple engages in consensual sex in their home"
"Grandmother carries concealed pistol into beauty parlor... returns home without incident"

The millions of hunters aren't newsworthy.
The millions of people who carry daily aren't newsworthy.

Learn how to safely operate a firearm, and you'll not be so deathly afraid of them.
 
2012-08-25 11:57:24 PM  

Great Janitor: And those times when I'm in a mall or a grocery store and I realize that no less than five people in that store are legally carrying a concealed hand gun, I actually feel pretty safe.


Which should scare you. The fact that it doesn't shows just how desensitized to guns the American public has become.
 
2012-08-25 11:57:41 PM  

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?
 
2012-08-25 11:58:09 PM  

Great Janitor: He does ask a good question, if someone is minding their own business, what matter is it that they have a gun?


It's that and the hypocrisy.

Gun control groups and their supporters continuously put forth proposals to ban or restrict firearms-types, capacity, where carried, etc. THEN they criticize gun rights supporters as obsessed with the gun issue as if it's wrong or questionable to be that way. Well, gun rights supporters are only about as obsessed with keeping and expanding their firearms rights as the gun control groups are in taking away and diminishing them.

We hear the same thing play out with the whole carrying in public issue. Those who wish to carry firearms for protection or feel they "need" to are bedwetters. Those who wish to deny them that right are not bedwetters even though they nearly always delve into arguments about encouraging violence, fear that the person may misuse the gun on them, etc. Either they're both bedwetters of similar scale, or they're not.
 
2012-08-25 11:58:41 PM  

loonatic112358: Further you can's have a drive by without a gun.

i think that's the only logical argument i've heard yet against firearms


Um, yes you can. Crossbows, blowguns, airguns, bows and arrows, polybolos, and javelins just to name a few. All of this excludes the fact that zip guns are easy to make or you can just run people over with the car.

There is absolutely no way to stop people from killing each other. Since the dawn of time a significant portion of human thought and energy has gone into the creation and use of weapons. Making them illegal just makes it harder for law abiding people to get them, it doesn't stop someone already willing to break the law. Nor does it make people less able to kill each other, it just brings knives back into fashion.
 
2012-08-25 11:59:29 PM  

whatshisname: Great Janitor: And those times when I'm in a mall or a grocery store and I realize that no less than five people in that store are legally carrying a concealed hand gun, I actually feel pretty safe.

Which should scare you. The fact that it doesn't shows just how desensitized to guns the American public has become.


as we should be, it's not a boogieman lurking in a dark corner wating for innocent passersby, 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
 
2012-08-25 11:59:47 PM  

GAT_00: Just because the USSC says so doesn't mean it's actually right.


Like Roe vs Wade, right?
 
2012-08-26 12:00:04 AM  

whatshisname: Great Janitor: And those times when I'm in a mall or a grocery store and I realize that no less than five people in that store are legally carrying a concealed hand gun, I actually feel pretty safe.

Which should scare you. The fact that it doesn't shows just how desensitized to guns the American public has become.


Huh? WHY? Who's the cowardly one with he small penis again?
 
2012-08-26 12:01:11 AM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Um, yes you can. Crossbows, blowguns, airguns, bows and arrows, polybolos, and javelins just to name a few. All of this excludes the fact that zip guns are easy to make or you can just run people over with the car.There is absolutely no way to stop people from killing each other. Since the dawn of time a significant portion of human thought and energy has gone into the creation and use of weapons. Making them illegal just makes it harder for law abiding people to get them, it doesn't stop someone already willing to break the law. Nor does it make people less able to kill each other, it just brings knives back into fashion.


and those would be more difficult to fire while driving (not to say people don't, some folks are awesome archers from horseback)

but back to my statement, so far that's the only argument that i've seen the antigun posters make that at least has some sort of basis in rationality
 
2012-08-26 12:01:11 AM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: loonatic112358: Further you can's have a drive by without a gun.

i think that's the only logical argument i've heard yet against firearms

Um, yes you can. Crossbows, blowguns, airguns, bows and arrows, polybolos, and javelins just to name a few. All of this excludes the fact that zip guns are easy to make or you can just run people over with the car.

There is absolutely no way to stop people from killing each other. Since the dawn of time a significant portion of human thought and energy has gone into the creation and use of weapons. Making them illegal just makes it harder for law abiding people to get them, it doesn't stop someone already willing to break the law. Nor does it make people less able to kill each other, it just brings knives back into fashion.


So why not make it easier for people to kill each other? Collect your Nobel Prize for amazing logic!
 
2012-08-26 12:02:15 AM  

s10.postimage.orgView Full Size



/oblig
 
2012-08-26 12:03:47 AM  

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?
 
2012-08-26 12:03:52 AM  

whatshisname: Great Janitor: And those times when I'm in a mall or a grocery store and I realize that no less than five people in that store are legally carrying a concealed hand gun, I actually feel pretty safe.

Which should scare you. The fact that it doesn't shows just how desensitized to guns the American public has become.


No it shouldn't. It shows me how educated much of the American public has come.
 
2012-08-26 12:04:20 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.



English...do you speak it?
 
2012-08-26 12:04:44 AM  

MayoSlather: gameshowhost: MayoSlather: 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.

2? You've obviously never gone barn pigeon hunting.

I mean if this is a critical function in modern society then allow a special permit to be available. It definitely sounds of utmost importance.


._.

/just so you know, i'm a libby-lib-libtard who disagrees with many interpretations of the 2nd amendment and supports a degree of gun control
//that said... what ~you~ are suggesting treads dangerously close to squeezing the meaning out of a constitutionally-protected right
///if 'critical function' is the guiding principle, then toss out everything we got: feel free to submit a draft of your version of the constitution
 
2012-08-26 12:05:19 AM  
Without a gun, explain to me how an elderly woman living alone can protect herself if someone breaks in.

Or should people too weak to put up a fight not be allowed to live on their own?
 
2012-08-26 12:05:24 AM  

nigeman: So why not make it easier for people to kill each other? Collect your Nobel Prize for amazing logic!


sure, you just need to do it the same way mcveigh did, get you some ammonia nitrate, which is commonly used in farming, and some other ingredients

though if some fool does i hope it blows up in there face
 
2012-08-26 12:06:00 AM  

nigeman: indylaw: derstand there are some differences with guns and that I will get yelled at by some wet blanket. If you don't want people to have guns, you have to change the Constitution. It's as simple as that. You can't ignore the Second Amendmen

actually the second amendment allows for guns to be kept in a citizens, militia. So no, you actually don't need an amendment, just for people to read the whole amendment.


That's a bullshiat argument and always has been. There were no standing militia at the time of the amendment. The militia was and is the citizenry, who own and bring their own guns.

Try again.
 
2012-08-26 12:07:01 AM  
Time machines made so you can't take guns. What could go wrong?
harrythespiderblog.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2012-08-26 12:07:19 AM  

whatshisname: Great Janitor: And those times when I'm in a mall or a grocery store and I realize that no less than five people in that store are legally carrying a concealed hand gun, I actually feel pretty safe.

Which should scare you. The fact that it doesn't shows just how desensitized to guns the American public has become.


100 people legally carrying concealed hand guns does not scare me.

1 nut job with a gun scares me.
 
2012-08-26 12:07:19 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?


How do you propose people defend themselves in their own homes? I'd rather depend on a weapon than be at the mercy of the criminals that just broke into my house.
 
2012-08-26 12:07:24 AM  

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

[www.scottbieser.com image 540x540]

how come the terrorists don't have guns in that scenario?


Would you imagine if, in the future, three factions (one to avoid 9/11, another to let it flow, and another to create a bigger mess by taking both sides) had access to time machines? It would be a disaster. Journeyman Project style.
 
2012-08-26 12:07:59 AM  

radiobiz: It shows me how educated much of the American public has come.


47% of the people in your country believe God created humans in their current form sometime in the past 10,000 years. You may have put a man on the moon but your average citizens are not respected around the world for their advanced logic and reasoning skills.
 
2012-08-26 12:08:08 AM  

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


Is that a challenge? Because you know many will attempt to outdo it.
 
2012-08-26 12:08:14 AM  

TOSViolation: 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.


English...do you speak it?


Shucky-ding-dang! I'm just speakin' Teabagger-ese! So we can understand each other!
Don't wanna sound like onna them-thar librul elitists, does we? With all that fancy schoolin' and edukayshun and all them big words.
Hail Palin, bro!
 
2012-08-26 12:08:54 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?


Handguns are piss-poor at killing people. 6 out of 7 people shot with one survive.
 
2012-08-26 12:09:17 AM  
It doesn't matter, guns aren't going anywhere, so suck it gun haters. There's literally nothing you can do about it.

You could prevent murders tho, just not by taking the guns.
 
2012-08-26 12:09:21 AM  

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


you realize that thing you're typing on is evolved from a military program right

the rockets that get satellites into space

besides i said tools, a machete is a tool, so is a wrench, so is a car
 
2012-08-26 12:09:23 AM  

Wise_Guy: How do you propose people defend themselves in their own homes?


Move to a country where you don't feel the need to carry a gun all the time?
 
2012-08-26 12:10:05 AM  

RatMaster999: It's also a lot easier to defend yourself with a gun than it is with rolling pin, frying pan, stapler, or paring knife...


Wrong.
 
2012-08-26 12:10:17 AM  

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.
 
2012-08-26 12:10:25 AM  

whatshisname: radiobiz: It shows me how educated much of the American public has come.

47% of the people in your country believe God created humans in their current form sometime in the past 10,000 years. You may have put a man on the moon but your average citizens are not respected around the world for their advanced logic and reasoning skills.


If only we Americans could garner the worldwide respect Canadians do.
 
2012-08-26 12:11:06 AM  

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

[www.scottbieser.com image 540x540]


Yes, because people WHO WERE WILLING TO FLY THEMSELVES INTO BUILDINGS AND DIAF were going to smile and go peacefully.
 
2012-08-26 12:11:27 AM  

Farker Soze: Handguns are piss-poor at killing people. 6 out of 7 people shot with one survive.


And only 1 in 100,000 people who have an iPhone thrown at them actually die.
What's your point?
 
2012-08-26 12:11:31 AM  

GAT_00: violentsalvation: 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.

Just because you think they got this one wrong doesn't mean you are right.

Well, they pretended the original statement didn't exist, and just focused on the clause to the exclusion of the intent.

And just because you think they got it right doesn't mean you're right either.


The intent is not protected without the clause.

Regardless, I enjoy my second amendment rights and I think the scrotus got it right. If you think they got it wrong you know what you have to do to change what is accepted now.
 
2012-08-26 12:11:35 AM  

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


Hmm - it appears that I've spent the last thirty years and thousands of rounds of ammunition horribly misusing my guns, then - I haven't managed to incapacitate or kill a single person yet.

Here's a hint - spend some time actually reading the owner's manuals for various weapons. They're designed to propel a projectile at high speed - nothing more. The actual use (target practice, plinking, hunting, competition, or mass murder) is left up to the user.
 
2012-08-26 12:12:03 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?


I'd be willing to bet quite a bit is descended from various things specifically designed to kill or incapacitate people.

You want me to start?
 
2012-08-26 12:12:06 AM  

whatshisname: Wise_Guy: How do you propose people defend themselves in their own homes?

Move to a country where you don't feel the need to carry a gun all the time?


you really need to stop watching the damn news so much

go outside enjoy your country before winter sets in
 
2012-08-26 12:13:00 AM  

hamdinger: TOSViolation: 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.


English...do you speak it?

Shucky-ding-dang! I'm just speakin' Teabagger-ese! So we can understand each other!
Don't wanna sound like onna them-thar librul elitists, does we? With all that fancy schoolin' and edukayshun and all them big words.
Hail Palin, bro!


Wow! You sound way too retarded to own a gun. Maybe you have a point.
 
2012-08-26 12:13:40 AM  

Wise_Guy: Without a gun, explain to me how an elderly woman living alone can protect herself if someone breaks in.

Or should people too weak to put up a fight not be allowed to live on their own?


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.
 
2012-08-26 12:14:36 AM  

ScottRiqui: Here's a hint - spend some time actually reading the owner's manuals for various weapons. They're designed to propel a projectile at high speed - nothing more.


Guns don't kill people! Bullets do,
 
2012-08-26 12:15:44 AM  

whatshisname: Guns don't kill people! Bullets do,


and knives in the hands of an attacker, and a car with a loose nut behind the wheel
 
2012-08-26 12:16:00 AM  

whatshisname: Farker Soze: Handguns are piss-poor at killing people. 6 out of 7 people shot with one survive.

And only 1 in 100,000 people who have an iPhone thrown at them actually die.
What's your point?


That many? Wow, iPhones are dangerous. Let's ban them.
 
2012-08-26 12:16:17 AM  

loonatic112358: nigeman: So why not make it easier for people to kill each other? Collect your Nobel Prize for amazing logic!

sure, you just need to do it the same way mcveigh did, get you some ammonia nitrate, which is commonly used in farming, and some other ingredients

though if some fool does i hope it blows up in there face


except that having those chemicals is actually controlled. Oops.
 
2012-08-26 12:16:22 AM  

whatshisname: radiobiz: It shows me how educated much of the American public has come.

47% of the people in your country believe God created humans in their current form sometime in the past 10,000 years.


Prove them wrong, tough guy.

You may have put a man on the moon but your average citizens are not respected around the world for their advanced logic and reasoning skills.

Citation needed please. Your country may have two languages but most of the world thinks buying milk in a bag is silly. Oh, and your beer sucks.

This is fun. Let's pull more dumb statements out of our butts and post em.
 
2012-08-26 12:17:35 AM  

loonatic112358: and knives in the hands of an attacker, and a car with a loose nut behind the wheel


I keep reading about those mass stabbings and people mowing down dozens with vehicles.
 
2012-08-26 12:17:42 AM  

whatshisname: Wise_Guy: How do you propose people defend themselves in their own homes?

Move to a country where you don't feel the need to carry a gun all the time?


So you got nothing.

Thanks. That's what I thought.
 
2012-08-26 12:18:45 AM  

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.
 
2012-08-26 12:19:54 AM  

nigeman: loonatic112358: nigeman: So why not make it easier for people to kill each other? Collect your Nobel Prize for amazing logic!

sure, you just need to do it the same way mcveigh did, get you some ammonia nitrate, which is commonly used in farming, and some other ingredients

though if some fool does i hope it blows up in there face

except that having those chemicals is actually controlled. Oops.


Unless, you like.. own a farm or know someone who does or maybe where a farm might be that you could steal it from.
 
2012-08-26 12:20:06 AM  

whatshisname: loonatic112358: and knives in the hands of an attacker, and a car with a loose nut behind the wheel

I keep reading about those mass stabbings and people mowing down dozens with vehicles.


There would be mass stabbings if there were no guns. Check out England.

I think they're in the process of banning sporks as we speak.
 
2012-08-26 12:20:32 AM  

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.
 
2012-08-26 12:22:24 AM  

Wise_Guy: So you got nothing.

Thanks. That's what I thought.


Perhaps if America tried to end its love affair with guns, everyone wouldn't feel the need to stuff one down their pants when going to the store for some milk?
 
2012-08-26 12:22:58 AM  

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
 
2012-08-26 12:23:37 AM  

nigeman: There is absolutely no way to stop people from killing each other. Since the dawn of time a significant portion of human thought and energy has gone into the creation and use of weapons. Making them illegal just makes it harder for law abiding people to get them, it doesn't stop someone already willing to break the law. Nor does it make people less able to kill each other, it just brings knives back into fashion.

So why not make it easier for people to kill each other? Collect your Nobel Prize for amazing logic!


It's the same argument against Prohibition and the Drug War. Making guns illegal does nothing to stop their sale, all it does it take them out of the hands of the law abiding. Trying to ban them will never work, they're too easy to hide, transport, and make. It's better to educate people about responsible gun ownership and put some reasonable restrictions where they can be taken. Look at Chicago for example. Do you really think that if guns vanished the murders would too?

I'll be honest, making it marginally harder for criminals to kill people with firearms isn't worth taking them out of the hands of the public.
 
2012-08-26 12:23:49 AM  
Ahh, my plan worked! I totally went back in time to drink with Drew in 1997 and tell him about this amazing idea for a website that began with F and ended with K.

Lo and behold, I come back to all of these comments!

/Amazing what a little time travel can do
 
2012-08-26 12:25:13 AM  

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.

violentsalvation: The intent is not protected without the clause.

Regardless, I enjoy my second amendment rights and I think the scrotus got it right. If you think they got it wrong you know what you have to do to change what is accepted now.


I honestly can't tell what you're saying in that first sentence.

And what I have to do to change it involves stopping the NRA from lying to the American people and buying USSC justices and I can't possibly accomplish that.
 
2012-08-26 12:25:25 AM  

whatshisname: loonatic112358: and knives in the hands of an attacker, and a car with a loose nut behind the wheel

I keep reading about those mass stabbings and people mowing down dozens with vehicles.


stabbing

here's one closer to you Link

there's a photo that shows up in fark cycling threads that makes my point regarding vehicles
 
2012-08-26 12:25:42 AM  
Guns are an equalizer in society. When guns are removed, no one can be equal again.

If you want to have every aspect of your life controlled by someone else, get rid of all your guns.
 
2012-08-26 12:27:13 AM  

whatshisname: Perhaps if America tried to end its love affair with guns, everyone wouldn't feel the need to stuff one down their pants when going to the store for some milk?


Over reaching statement much?
 
2012-08-26 12:28:01 AM  

loonatic112358: stabbing

here's one closer to you Link

there's a photo that shows up in fark cycling threads that makes my point regarding vehicles


Do you understand the concepts of scale or frequency?
 
2012-08-26 12:29:06 AM  

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.
 
2012-08-26 12:29:28 AM  

whatshisname: Wise_Guy: So you got nothing.

Thanks. That's what I thought.

Perhaps if America tried to end its love affair with guns, everyone wouldn't feel the need to stuff one down their pants when going to the store for some milk?


You need to stop watching so much TV. But I guess there's nothing else to do in Canada so have at it.
 
2012-08-26 12:30:02 AM  

jaytkay: Article was stupid.

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


Moron.
 
2012-08-26 12:31:08 AM  

whatshisname: loonatic112358: stabbing

here's one closer to you Link

there's a photo that shows up in fark cycling threads that makes my point regarding vehicles

Do you understand the concepts of scale or frequency?


Yes. Again, look at England-- you know-- the country that keeps Canada as its biatch?

Yeah, they have had a lot of trouble with stabbings since getting rid of guns. You should look it up while you're snowed in for the next 10 months.
 
2012-08-26 12:31:34 AM  

radiobiz: 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


Are you farking insane? Anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature can prove that God did not create humans as-is in the last 10,000 years.
 
2012-08-26 12:31:45 AM  

whatshisname: Do you understand the concepts of scale or frequency?


I do, but i'm wondering if you do
 
2012-08-26 12:32:10 AM  

miss diminutive: Guns are similar to time machines in the same way catapults are to kumquats.

/worst rant ever


This.

I'm as pro gun control as a firearms-worshipper can be, and that article was WAY over the top.
 
2012-08-26 12:32:24 AM  

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.
 
2012-08-26 12:33:54 AM  
About half of the households in America have at least one gun.

There are about 270 millions guns in the U.S.

There are about 300 million people in the U.S.

There are about 11,500 firearm homicides in the U.S. annually.

Even assuming that each homicide was committed using a different gun (no multiple killings at all), that still means that each year, 99.6% of the firearms in the U.S. *aren't* used to commit a murder.

Also, even the *non-firearm* murder rate for the U.S. is higher than the *total* murder rate for many other Western countries. In short, we don't have a "gun problem" in the U.S. - we have a "homicidal asshole* problem.
 
2012-08-26 12:34:33 AM  

loonatic112358: whatshisname: Do you understand the concepts of scale or frequency?

I do, but i'm wondering if you do


No, you don't. You posted a link to a stabbing from 2009 and a reference to an image of a car taking out some cyclists. Compare that to the incidents of gun violence in the US.Different scale, different frequency.
 
2012-08-26 12:36:23 AM  

whatshisname: Wise_Guy: So you got nothing.

Thanks. That's what I thought.

Perhaps if America tried to end its love affair with guns, everyone wouldn't feel the need to stuff one down their pants when going to the store for some milk?


You know what, fark it, if it scares idiots like you into staying on your side of the fence, I'm all for it.
 
2012-08-26 12:38:08 AM  

whatshisname: No, you don't. You posted a link to a stabbing from 2009 and a reference to an image of a car taking out some cyclists. Compare that to the incidents of gun violence in the US.Different scale, different frequency.


did you not make this statements? I keep reading about those mass stabbings and people mowing down dozens with vehicles.

never mind that most deaths aren't mass homicides but usually 1 person killing one other person
 
2012-08-26 12:38:30 AM  

Wise_Guy: You know what, fark it, if it scares idiots like you


And here we see the real reason for carrying a gun emerging. Do you have a pit bull as well?
 
2012-08-26 12:38:43 AM  

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.


Who cares? WE LANDED A GIANT FARKING ROBOT ON MARS LAST WEEK. Beat that, bumpkin.
 
2012-08-26 12:39:24 AM  

loonatic112358: did you not make this statements? I keep reading about those mass stabbings and people mowing down dozens with vehicles.


I did, sarcastically, and you were unable to refute it.
 
2012-08-26 12:40:08 AM  

whatshisname: Wise_Guy: You know what, fark it, if it scares idiots like you

And here we see the real reason for carrying a gun emerging. Do you have a pit bull as well?


I don't have a dog. Or carry a gun. What now, moron?
 
2012-08-26 12:40:37 AM  

Wise_Guy: whatshisname: Wise_Guy: So you got nothing.

Thanks. That's what I thought.

Perhaps if America tried to end its love affair with guns, everyone wouldn't feel the need to stuff one down their pants when going to the store for some milk?

You know what, fark it, if it scares idiots like you into staying on your side of the fence, I'm all for it.


Probably for the best that he stays behind the fence, as he sure seems really curious about what everyone has stuffed down their pants.
 
2012-08-26 12:42:04 AM  

whatshisname: loonatic112358: did you not make this statements? I keep reading about those mass stabbings and people mowing down dozens with vehicles.

I did, sarcastically, and you were unable to refute it.


That's because you keep ignoring the fact that England does have a problem with knives and people getting stabbed.

I know you don't like to talk about England. Don't worry, if you guys ever decide to stop being their biatch, we'll lend you some guns.
 
2012-08-26 12:42:40 AM  

whatshisname: radiobiz: 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

Are you farking insane? Anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature can prove that God did not create humans as-is in the last 10,000 years.


Great, then this should be easy for you. Prove it. (here's a hint- you can't. No one can. Kinda like the Big Bang. Yeah, it probably happened but prove it). That's why we call them theories. Not as in conspiracy, as in scientific.

Anyway we're getting off point. You as a Canadian were telling us Americans that how much more superior you are than us and why we should bow to your personal expertise and guidance on all gun rights and control issues.
 
2012-08-26 12:42:51 AM  

whatshisname: And here we see the real reason for carrying a gun emerging. Do you have a pit bull as well?


It's not that those of us who carry do it to scare you (not that you would know I'm carrying anyway). It's more a realization that you being frightened of the *possibility* that I'm carrying is a "your problem" and not a "my problem".

And no, I don't have a pit bull, either.
 
2012-08-26 12:43:34 AM  

whatshisname: I did, sarcastically, and you were unable to refute it.


you have an irrational fear, i can do nothing with you until you can make an argument that is not crouched in this fear

How do you feel about Canada having near as high a gun ownership as the US?
 
2012-08-26 12:44:48 AM  
In an ironic twist, I would use a gun to kill the first human.
 
2012-08-26 12:46:29 AM  
You know how bad Canada sucks? Our shiattiest, coldest, nobody-wants-to-live-there-because-it's-freezing-and-sucks-so-bad states--the ones way at the top of the map, are where Canada farking begins! That's better than anything they got-- North Dakota is like Florida to them. Minnesota is like the Bahamas.

They probably don't want anyone to have guns or half their population would blow their farking brains out that day.
 
2012-08-26 12:47:19 AM  

Wise_Guy: You know how bad Canada sucks? Our shiattiest, coldest, nobody-wants-to-live-there-because-it's-freezing-and-sucks-so-bad states--the ones way at the top of the map, are where Canada farking begins! That's better than anything they got-- North Dakota is like Florida to them. Minnesota is like the Bahamas.

They probably don't want anyone to have guns or half their population would blow their farking brains out that day.


you just had to go there didn't you
 
2012-08-26 12:49:50 AM  

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.


How do internal commas work again?
 
2012-08-26 12:50:25 AM  
Hey guys, Toronto and London are pretty nice.

The rest though, Dante's Ninth Circle.
 
2012-08-26 12:50:41 AM  
So we're clear on guns, time machines, and death rays. But I need to know where we stand on the following:
-Faster-than-light travel
-Starbases
-Dimensional portals
-Sentient robots (humanoid or non-humanoid)
-UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis.
 
2012-08-26 12:51:07 AM  

Farker Soze: Hey guys, Toronto and London are pretty nice.The rest though, Dante's Ninth Circle.


The only way to get out is to pass satans balls?
 
2012-08-26 12:52:01 AM  

Wise_Guy: You know how bad Canada sucks? Our shiattiest, coldest, nobody-wants-to-live-there-because-it's-freezing-and-sucks-so-bad states--the ones way at the top of the map, are where Canada farking begins! That's better than anything they got-- North Dakota is like Florida to them. Minnesota is like the Bahamas.


I live in Canada's largest city. It's at about the same latitude as Southern Oregon. We have a lake effect so the winters are mild and the summers are pleasant.

But by all means, keep being the poster child for the ignorant American.
 
2012-08-26 12:52:04 AM  

loonatic112358: How do you feel about Canada having near as high a gun ownership as the US?


Only if "barely a third as many guns per capita" counts as "near as high" (31 per hundred versus 89 per hundred). That, taken with the fact that the U.S. population is almost ten times greater than Canada's, means that the ratio of total American-owned guns to Canadian-owned guns is closer to 25:1.
 
2012-08-26 12:53:17 AM  

loonatic112358: Wise_Guy: You know how bad Canada sucks? Our shiattiest, coldest, nobody-wants-to-live-there-because-it's-freezing-and-sucks-so-bad states--the ones way at the top of the map, are where Canada farking begins! That's better than anything they got-- North Dakota is like Florida to them. Minnesota is like the Bahamas.

They probably don't want anyone to have guns or half their population would blow their farking brains out that day.

you just had to go there didn't you


I regret nothing.
 
2012-08-26 12:54:06 AM  

ScottRiqui: Only if "barely a third as many guns per capita" counts as "near as high" (31 per hundred versus 89 per hundred). That, taken with the fact that the U.S. population is almost ten times greater than Canada's, means that the ratio of total American-owned guns to Canadian-owned guns is closer to 25:1.


i misread the wiki article then

bah it's almost midnight my brain will be soup soon
 
2012-08-26 12:55:55 AM  

MayoSlather: 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.


Pretty much this. I understand the desire to be able to defend yourself and your family, I really do. But civilians with access to firearms that can kill dozens of people in the blink of an eye are simply unjustifiable in a civil society.
 
2012-08-26 12:57:04 AM  

loonatic112358: whatshisname: No, you don't. You posted a link to a stabbing from 2009 and a reference to an image of a car taking out some cyclists. Compare that to the incidents of gun violence in the US.Different scale, different frequency.

did you not make this statements? I keep reading about those mass stabbings and people mowing down dozens with vehicles.

never mind that most deaths aren't mass homicides but usually 1 person killing one other person


Of course, so are most shootings, so that may undermine your argument.
 
2012-08-26 12:57:27 AM  

kosumi: Pretty much this. I understand the desire to be able to defend yourself and your family, I really do. But civilians with access to firearms that can kill dozens of people in the blink of an eye are simply unjustifiable in a civil society.


are we there yet, cause from watching the silly season every four years i have my doubts
 
2012-08-26 12:57:31 AM  

whatshisname: Wise_Guy: You know how bad Canada sucks? Our shiattiest, coldest, nobody-wants-to-live-there-because-it's-freezing-and-sucks-so-bad states--the ones way at the top of the map, are where Canada farking begins! That's better than anything they got-- North Dakota is like Florida to them. Minnesota is like the Bahamas.

I live in Canada's largest city. It's at about the same latitude as Southern Oregon. We have a lake effect so the winters are mild and the summers are pleasant.

But by all means, keep being the poster child for the ignorant American.


Yeah, you're right. I was generalizing an entire country.

That's a pretty stupid thing to do.

Wouldn't you agree?
 
2012-08-26 12:58:03 AM  

Gyrfalcon: never mind that most deaths aren't mass homicides but usually 1 person killing one other personOf course, so are most shootings, so that may undermine your argument.


i could swear my statement would encompass yours
 
2012-08-26 01:00:10 AM  

kosumi: But civilians with access to firearms that can kill dozens of people in the blink of an eye are simply unjustifiable in a civil society.


And yet, the vast, overwhelmingly majority of us are able to own them responsibly. I know that when you're talking about numbers in the hundreds of millions, even the tail ends of the bell curve can start to look pretty thick. But why not concentrate on the crazies at the tail of the curve, rather than their tools? That way, you don't have to lump the other 100 million of us in with them, since we're not bothering anyone.
 
2012-08-26 01:00:35 AM  

GreenAdder: So we're clear on guns, time machines, and death rays. But I need to know where we stand on the following:
-Faster-than-light travel

How else am I to get to Risa???

-Starbases
need to stop somewhere on my trip to Risa

-Dimensional portals
would be awesome!!!

-Sentient robots (humanoid or non-humanoid)
Even at faster than light, I'm going to need something to do on my trip to Risa, so I'll bring a sentient female sex droid.

-UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis.
If there's a pay check involved, I'll believe anything you want.
 
2012-08-26 01:00:54 AM  

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.
 
2012-08-26 01:01:39 AM  

Wise_Guy: Yeah, you're right. I was generalizing an entire country.

That's a pretty stupid thing to do.

Wouldn't you agree?



I would. But the American love affair with guns is no generalization. It's a statistic.
 
2012-08-26 01:03:43 AM  

loonatic112358: nigeman: no not at all. if somebody wants to kill someone they will, if someone is angry, they can pull a trigger pretty quickly, and kill someone that otherwise would not have died, further it makes a whole bunch of crimes far easier to do and that is to say nothing of accidents with guns. Further you can's have a drive by without a gun. This is all very simple to understand, it won't stop all murder, but it will stop a lot of them. To say that that isn't good enough is ridiculous.

i think that's the only logical argument i've heard yet against firearms


i71.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2012-08-26 01:03:46 AM  
That's some weapons-grade strawmanning right there.
 
2012-08-26 01:04:28 AM  
There are days I wish I had a time machine so I could eliminate GIZMODO from existence.
 
2012-08-26 01:04:57 AM  

whatshisname: Wise_Guy: Yeah, you're right. I was generalizing an entire country.

That's a pretty stupid thing to do.

Wouldn't you agree?


I would. But the American love affair with guns is no generalization. It's a statistic.


Sure it is. 'Love affair'? What does that mean exactly?
 
2012-08-26 01:07:06 AM  

GAT_00: 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.

How do internal commas work again?


Honestly, it could be slightly clearer, but anyone with an modicum of unbiased thought can see that changing "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." to "GAT_00, being the wisest most totally awesome person in the world and definitely not authoritarian against anything he personally doesn't like, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." changes nothing concerning the right of the people to keep and bear Arms whether or not is shall be infringed.

Or are you making a jab at my shiatty grammar? Irrelevant.
 
2012-08-26 01:07:22 AM  

whatshisname: I would. But the American love affair with guns is no generalization. It's a statistic.


That i'll agree on, there's a lot of people down here that love to collect guns, they make plans to go out shooting with friends, hell there's a place that'll let you shoot machine guns for a fee
 
2012-08-26 01:08:07 AM  

viscountalpha: There are days I wish I had a time machine so I could eliminate GIZMODO from existence.


Just stop them from making the redesign, i sort of liked em back then
 
2012-08-26 01:08:54 AM  

Wise_Guy: Sure it is. 'Love affair'? What does that mean exactly?


Well, sometimes a gun is just a weapon.....
 
2012-08-26 01:09:19 AM  

Wise_Guy: 'Love affair'? What does that mean exactly?


One day, when you emerge from your Mom's basement, you may find out. I hope he's a nice young man.
 
2012-08-26 01:10:09 AM  

ScottRiqui: And yet, the vast, overwhelmingly majority of us are able to own them responsibly. I know that when you're talking about numbers in the hundreds of millions, even the tail ends of the bell curve can start to look pretty thick. But why not concentrate on the crazies at the tail of the curve, rather than their tools? That way, you don't have to lump the other 100 million of us in with them, since we're not bothering anyone.


You are right, I agree. The overwhelming majority of gun owners I know are decent people who probably wouldn't kill unnecessarily, even if the target deserved it, and they could legally get away with it. But even if the "crazy proportion" is 0.0001%, it doesn't matter - it isn't the relevant metric. 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.
 
2012-08-26 01:10:48 AM  

Wise_Guy: whatshisname: Wise_Guy: Yeah, you're right. I was generalizing an entire country.

That's a pretty stupid thing to do.

Wouldn't you agree?


I would. But the American love affair with guns is no generalization. It's a statistic.

Sure it is. 'Love affair'? What does that mean exactly?


Love affair, things stuffed down pants... you know, wink wink, nudge nudge.
 
2012-08-26 01:11:18 AM  

Wise_Guy: Sure it is. 'Love affair'? What does that mean exactly?


Remember those old Looney Tunes where Bugs Bunny would stick his finger in Elmer Fudd's shotgun? Yeah. Like that, only... not a finger.
 
2012-08-26 01:11:36 AM  

kosumi: You are right, I agree. The overwhelming majority of gun owners I know are decent people who probably wouldn't kill unnecessarily, even if the target deserved it, and they could legally get away with it. But even if the "crazy proportion" is 0.0001%, it doesn't matter - it isn't the relevant metric. 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.


you can get those?
 
2012-08-26 01:13:45 AM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Wise_Guy: Sure it is. 'Love affair'? What does that mean exactly?

Remember those old Looney Tunes where Bugs Bunny would stick his finger in Elmer Fudd's shotgun? Yeah. Like that, only... not a finger.


Ah, finally, a workable plan on how the Aurora shooter could have been stopped. If only Ron Jeremy was in that theater.
 
2012-08-26 01:14:31 AM  
If Gizmodo thinks technology from the 17th technology is too dangerous to own, they must be flipping their wig over this internet thing.
 
2012-08-26 01:14:35 AM  

Farker Soze: GAT_00: 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.

How do internal commas work again?

Honestly, it could be slightly clearer, but anyone with an modicum of unbiased thought can see that changing "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." to "GAT_00, being the wisest most totally awesome person in the world and definitely not authoritarian against anything he personally doesn't like, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." changes nothing concerning the right of the people to keep and bear Arms whether or not is shall be infringed.

Or are you making a jab at my shiatty grammar? Irrelevant.


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.
 
2012-08-26 01:15:00 AM  

whatshisname: Wise_Guy: 'Love affair'? What does that mean exactly?

One day, when you emerge from your Mom's basement, you may find out. I hope he's a nice young man.


Right-- just deflect or outright ignore any question you can't handle.

Clearly the sign of a superior intellect. Or a troll.

One or the other.
 
2012-08-26 01:15:11 AM  

loonatic112358: you can get those?


Yes: http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/storeproduct896.aspx
 
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.comView Full Size


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