If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

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

10495 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Aug 2012 at 10:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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.com
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.com
 
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.com
 
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.com
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.

www.scottbieser.com
 
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
www.underconsideration.com
www.underconsideration.com

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.org


/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.com
 
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.com
 
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.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

Oh wait.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

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

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

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

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


i can see how it would be, but damn,

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

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

loonatic112358: kosumi: loonatic112358: you can get those?

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

that's a bit much there

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


the idiot in aurora used those?

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

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

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

Oh wait.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

this is from wikipedia

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

gameshowhost: *punches self for coming back in here*


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

loonatic112358: this is from wikipedia

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



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

fastbow: Knives are every bit as deadly as a gun


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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



Yeah, I can see the headlines now.

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

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


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

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

listen yes, agree with, probably not


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

whatshisname: Yeah, I can see the headlines now.

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


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

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

GAT_00: Drug use is not a fundamental right.


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



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


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

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

listen yes, agree with, probably not

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


Well locally... 23 men strangled

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

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


I would suggest mandatory gun safety classes in school
 
2012-08-26 01:54:27 AM

GAT_00: Heliodorus: The supreme court makes judgement on what is constitutional. It isn't supposed to make judgments on morality, that's the job of the legislature.

That's amusingly naive.


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

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


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

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

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

[www.scottbieser.com image 540x540]


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

GAT_00: Farker Soze: I don't know, maybe if the person is actually not hurting anyone else and is just doing something that someone else disapproves of because said busybody is a moralistic douche?

Hey look, it's an absolute non-answer to keep dodging my specific questions so you can pretend you're holier than everyone else.


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

kosumi: Generally I'm happy with it just being *hard* to get access to mass-casualty weapons, to limit the body count when crazies like Holmes and Loughner want to make themselves famous.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


Unf, Arnold was HOT back then.

/DAT ASS
 
2012-08-26 02:12:25 AM

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

GAT_00: Heliodorus: The supreme court makes judgement on what is constitutional. It isn't supposed to make judgments on morality, that's the job of the legislature.

That's amusingly naive.


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


give me doughnuts:
And factually correct.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This has been argued to death.

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

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

Facts. How do they work?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Its a simplistic argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This has been argued to death.

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

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

Facts. How do they work?

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

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


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

Do you want me to mail you your militia card?

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

Unless they're a dang-ol' librul.


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

GAT_00: Farker Soze: Nice. And you think there needed to be a memo for people to see it? How cute.

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


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

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

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

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

This has been argued to death.

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

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

Facts. How do they work?

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

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


Then why does it talk about the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and not the right of the militia to do so?
 
2012-08-26 10:53:40 AM
This is by far the dumbest "gun" article ever written. Followed by the dumbest FARK-GUN-THREAD ever.


Guns are weapons. Weapons exist. Weapons have ALWAYS been around. Even before some evolved apes began making them,they existed naturally. Weapons are on plants and animals. (thorns,claws,horns and teeth etc)

Weapons will never go away. Strong preying on weak will always occur. Armed or unarmed.

Stop whining and grow a pair. Pussy.

There are so many serious and truly scary as HELL things going on in this world right now.
Some Americans who occasionally go koo-koo with a pistol is at the bottom of the list of things to worry about.
 
2012-08-26 10:58:44 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.


The freedom to do what you want to your own body isn't a fundamental right?
 
2012-08-26 11:04:09 AM

kosumi: 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.


Depends on who they're defending against. The dudes who wrote the Bill of Rights assumed an authoritarian government.
 
2012-08-26 11:05:37 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.


When was the last time a "mass shooting" resulted in 24 people killed?
 
2012-08-26 11:17:18 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-26 11:19:50 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.


Except that he tried to draw his line by comparing it to time machines or death rays brought in by someone from another culture.

Of course it's not acceptable to give another culture stuff they don't have! You have no idea what the end effect will be, and if it's anything like times when historically we've tried to do that, it could wreck huge chunks of their culture!

And none of that, in any way, shape, or form, applies to a gun we designed, refined, and own a frickin' patent on.
 
2012-08-26 11:20:20 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: How about mandatory training in the use of the firearm you intend to buy along with classes about when, where, and why to use it? Along with better psych evaluations and better (for lack of a better word at the moment) tracking of guns sold to make sure they don't end up in the hands of undesireables.

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

There has to be a middle ground, if both sides would stop screaming and hooting like chimpanzees and actually talk to each other.


So, you support pre-crime?
 
2012-08-26 11:26:23 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.


Why should that scare anyone? I don't understand the fear of an inanimate object.
 
2012-08-26 11:27:09 AM

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.


Public high schools teach chemistry, too...
 
2012-08-26 11:30:04 AM

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


BeSerious: Hey you managed to post something stupider than the article. Congrats.


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


It's a cartoon. You know, the same reason Superman used to bounce bullets off his chest but ducked when the empty gun was thrown at him.

hamdinger: 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.


Yet you have no problem with the article's concept of using a time-machine? Perhaps guns ARE too advanced for some humans to be trusted with.

gameshowhost: Yes, because people WHO WERE WILLING TO FLY THEMSELVES INTO BUILDINGS AND DIAF were going to smile and go peacefully.


What's the point in going straight to Allah as a failure? Might as well get "three hots and a cot" on our dime while awaiting rescue/armageddon/whatever.

GAT_00: The right to bear arms is a clause dependent on being in a militia. Militias have no value without organization, because they are unable to be effective. All you have with an unorganized militia is a lynch mob. And unorganized militia is a contradiction in terms, like compassionate conservatism.


Sorry, our constitution does not say it must be a "government" organized militia. Kinda defeats the purpose when you think about it.
 
2012-08-26 11:41:40 AM

loonatic112358: 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?


It's cute when they think that passing a law against (whatever) will stop criminals from doing it. Cute, until it infringes on MY rights. Apparently people really DO think that a possession charge will deter someone who has their mind set on evil.
 
2012-08-26 11:53:18 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: How about mandatory training in the use of the firearm you intend to buy along with classes about when, where, and why to use it? Along with better psych evaluations and better (for lack of a better word at the moment) tracking of guns sold to make sure they don't end up in the hands of undesireables


Question: Would any of that have prevented the shooting at the Empire State building? How about Columbine? Virginia Tech? If your proposed rules would not prevent any of those killings, what is the point of imposing the rule? In the absence of any articulated reasoning for imposition of these rules, I am forced to consider the possibility that the purpose of these rules is solely to make it inconvenient, expensive, and annoying for eighty million law-abiding gun owners to purchase, own, or carry firearms.

Question: Who defines "undesirables"? Felons, those convicted of domestic abuse, and those diagnosed with dangerous mental conditions are already prohibited by federal and state law from owning, possessing, or using firearms. What other "undesirables" do you wish to disarm?

Question: What psychological conditions would be legally disqualifying?

Question: Who pays for this "mandatory training"? Adding an additional expense to the already-expensive process of owning a firearm will only serve to effectively disarm those in the lower economic strata. Since the underlying problem is homicidal assholes, I fail to see any benefit in making homicidal assholes into better shooters.

There are roughly three hundred million legally-owned firearms in the US. owned by approximately eighty million law-abiding citizens. The overwhelming majority of those firearms are never used for anything more than punching holes in various targets at a distance. A vanishingly small percentage of those weapons are used to commit crimes. Making firearms ownership prohibitively expensive and bureaucratically onerous has had no useful effect on crime in cities like Washington DC, New York, and Chicago (note that crime in those cities has fallen over the last few decades, roughly at the same rate as the country's overall crime rate). Adding your additional regulatory hurdles to prevent the exercise of a Constitutionally-guaranteed right would not have prevented the news-worthy incidents which started this latest conversation.

Depending on your jurisdiction, here is what you must go through to purchase a firearm: You probably have to purchase it from a federally-licensed firearms dealer. Before you can get your firearm, you have to complete paperwork for the government and undergo a background check (this has been expedited to be little more than a phone call to BATF, for which I am grateful). In some jurisdictions, there is a waiting period after paying for the firearm before you are allowed to take possession. There are numerous restrictions on how and when you may transport your firearm and where and how it must be stored (again, depending on jurisdiction). You may or may not be permitted to carry the firearm on your person, concealed or otherwise. In some states, mere possession of a firearm on the property of any venue where alcohol of any sort is sold is a felony. Transporting a firearm- even disassembled in a locked container in the trunk of your car- across state (and sometimes county) lines is fraught with a byzantine tangle of competing laws, restrictions, and regulations. Those who wish to carry concealed must get another background check, frequently must also get permission from their local law enforcement agency, and have to pay a regular fee for the privilege- all despite the fact that citizens licensed for concealed carry are far less likely than the general population to commit crimes. It is already a royal pain in the blast-off tubes to own a firearm in this country. Why make it more difficult? It certainly wouldn't have prevented the recent shootings.
 
2012-08-26 12:06:11 PM

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?.


This question actually underscores a very important point. In many jurisdictions, it is legal to carry firearms, but illegal to carry a sword. Here in the Shallow South, I could walk down the street wearing a pistol openly (provided I didn't threaten anyone with it), and the cops would almost certainly ask me some questions, but they couldn't legally stop me from doing so. If I walked down the same streets wearing a sword, I could legally be arrested merely for the crime of carrying a "knife" with a blade length which exceeded state law. Note that the Shallow South only permits the carrying of concealed firearms- not knives or any other weapon. This is unbelievably stupid, IMO. If citizens can be trusted to carry firearms openly, why not swords or long-bladed knives? 

By the way, sword-canes are specifically unlawful in a great many jurisdictions- including mine.
 
2012-08-26 12:06:34 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.


Why? What possible difference can it make if you don't get shot with a gun that only has 2 rounds rather than not getting shot with a gun that has 30 rounds? Are you really gullible enough to think trying to restrict guns to 1 or 2 shots is even possible? There are not 270 million guns in the US any more, over 150,000,000 have been bought since the instant background check system was put in operation and they don't expire like a bag of oranges, there are way more guns in the US than there are people and very few people are going to peacefully give them up because some handful of Billionaires are worried that the peasants might wake up and turn on them.
Why do you think all our major politicians have squads of bodyguards with "assault weapons"? If some lunatic decided to try to shoot Bloomberg how many shots do you think his "private army" are going to fire into the crowd trying to stop him? That's OK according to you though, they are "trained military and police". They're the "only ones" who should be able to kill lots of people at random.

By the way, there are zero "Gun Control" laws that stop you from having a nuclear weapon. The only thing really stopping you is that your mom won't give you a allowance that would buy one and she wouldn't let you keep it in the basement anyway.
 
2012-08-26 01:00:19 PM

Wenchmaster: 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?.

This question actually underscores a very important point. In many jurisdictions, it is legal to carry firearms, but illegal to carry a sword. Here in the Shallow South, I could walk down the street wearing a pistol openly (provided I didn't threaten anyone with it), and the cops would almost certainly ask me some questions, but they couldn't legally stop me from doing so. If I walked down the same streets wearing a sword, I could legally be arrested merely for the crime of carrying a "knife" with a blade length which exceeded state law. Note that the Shallow South only permits the carrying of concealed firearms- not knives or any other weapon. This is unbelievably stupid, IMO. If citizens can be trusted to carry firearms openly, why not swords or long-bladed knives? 

By the way, sword-canes are specifically unlawful in a great many jurisdictions- including mine.


Really? I always thought that sword-canes needed a permit, especially since I see a lot sites that sell 'functional' sword canes. I mean, they should be protected under the 2nd amendment, right (swords in general, I mean) ? Besides, it would make for more interesting headlines.
 
2012-08-26 01:11:24 PM

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

[www.scottbieser.com image 540x540]


Yes, because definitely the one thing you want in a pressurized cabin five miles up in the air with hundreds of passengers packed like sardines are dozens of people with firearms who are predisposed to shoot at anything they find threatening.

Also, if those passengers all had guns as well, that means that the terrorists would have had them too.
 
2012-08-26 01:14:00 PM
I'd like to point out that whether we can be trusted with them or not is a moot point: Guns are a 600 year old technology that can be produced using tools and materials inferior to what you will find at your local Home Depot. We are even on the verge of having printable, disposable guns.

You can't stuff the toothpaste back into the tube, no matter how hard you try.
 
2012-08-26 01:25:39 PM
Handguns are not magical death rays.
 
2012-08-26 01:45:57 PM

BgJonson79: 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.

The freedom to do what you want to your own body isn't a fundamental right?


Crazy, isn't it? Abortion: That's a personal right, a privacy issue. It should be legal. Listen to the women. Gay marriage: All for it, civil rights, it's wrong for it to be illegal, listen to the gays in this case. Pot: OH HELL NO! fark those guys, keep it illegal because I don't like potheads.
 
2012-08-26 02:13:32 PM

CygnusDarius: Really? I always thought that sword-canes needed a permit, especially since I see a lot sites that sell 'functional' sword canes. I mean, they should be protected under the 2nd amendment, right (swords in general, I mean) ? Besides, it would make for more interesting headlines.


I agree completely- Swords should also be protected under the 2nd Amendment. I'm not sure it's actually been run through our court system yet. The rules regarding swords vary from state to state- and even by city or county. I've been to places where wearing a sword or even holding a machete off your own property would be an arrestable offense. OTOH, I've worn swords openly in many places on the Left Coast when I lived there.
 
2012-08-26 02:16:25 PM
How about we try an experiment.

We pass a federal law that anyone who can legally own a handgun can carry it concealed with no permit required.

After 10 years, we compare the crime statistics.

We had 10 years of the Clinton gun ban, seems fair to try 10 years the other way.
 
2012-08-26 02:28:31 PM

Neo Sharkey: How about we try an experiment.

We pass a federal law that anyone who can legally own a handgun can carry it concealed with no permit required.

After 10 years, we compare the crime statistics.

We had 10 years of the Clinton gun ban, seems fair to try 10 years the other way.


The neat thing is during the 10 year gun ban, absolutely no discernable difference in gun crime occurred. And that was reported from the ATF itself. And no, I'm not going to bother looking for the reference, but I found it ineresting. For some stupid reason, the Brady center and all the other gun grabbing retards still think it is critically important to bring back the ban to prevent crime even though IT DIDN'T WORK LAST TIME.
 
2012-08-26 02:58:03 PM

Farkage: The neat thing is during the 10 year gun ban, absolutely no discernable difference in gun crime occurred. And that was reported from the ATF itself. And no, I'm not going to bother looking for the reference, but I found it ineresting. For some stupid reason, the Brady center and all the other gun grabbing retards still think it is critically important to bring back the ban to prevent crime even though IT DIDN'T WORK LAST TIME.


Au contraire, drive-by bayonettings were at an all time low during the ban.
 
2012-08-26 03:27:10 PM
What I learned from this thread is that GAT_00 should never own a gun of any kind, nor be allowed to hold anything sharper than a butterknife.
 
2012-08-26 03:36:26 PM

Farkage: Neo Sharkey: How about we try an experiment.

We pass a federal law that anyone who can legally own a handgun can carry it concealed with no permit required.

After 10 years, we compare the crime statistics.

We had 10 years of the Clinton gun ban, seems fair to try 10 years the other way.

The neat thing is during the 10 year gun ban, absolutely no discernable difference in gun crime occurred. And that was reported from the ATF itself. And no, I'm not going to bother looking for the reference, but I found it ineresting. For some stupid reason, the Brady center and all the other gun grabbing retards still think it is critically important to bring back the ban to prevent crime even though IT DIDN'T WORK LAST TIME.


The AWB was like sneaking the camels nose into the NRA's tent. They wanted a firm launch pad for the next big ban and hoped to divide the gun owner base around the "you don't need that" argument. Its not dissimilar from the Machine gun registry ban.
It couldn't work because the people behind it didn't understand what they were banning. Rifles are involved in a very tiny minority of shootings. Banning all rifles, much less certain styles of rifle, would not have enough of an impact to show up in the statisticals.

But the ban crowd knows that most politicians won't stand up for machine guns or scary looking weapons (taking a note from the Hughes amendment. A ban to prevent incidents with the kind of gun that was responsible for only two murders in the preceding decade). These guys are tepid about weapons rights and the Brady bunch are good at emotional arguments.
The only reason the AWB expired is because someone snuck in the sunset clause at the last moment.
I'd wager good money that, if not for this, GWB would have ignored it and that law would still be on the books.

Because the AWB failed, and because it helped to cost a number of politicians their seats, getting it back into play is now more about looking for vindication than over any concern for preventing violence.
...But its also become a lightning rod that attracts the ire of the NRA and gun rights activists.

Myself, I think its a dead issue.
It had the opposite of the desired effect and now Obama is trying to dig himself out from under the Democrats legacy.

/If I was him, I'd reopen the MG registry and put the whole issue to bed.
/Its a big item on the pro-gun movements wish list and will have no effect on crime statistics.
 
2012-08-26 04:57:08 PM

BgJonson79: Keizer_Ghidorah: How about mandatory training in the use of the firearm you intend to buy along with classes about when, where, and why to use it? Along with better psych evaluations and better (for lack of a better word at the moment) tracking of guns sold to make sure they don't end up in the hands of undesireables.

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

There has to be a middle ground, if both sides would stop screaming and hooting like chimpanzees and actually talk to each other.

So, you support pre-crime?


I support intelligence, but that's apparently a lost cause in this day and age and country.
 
2012-08-26 08:03:55 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.


Those capacity restrictions did not actually exist. You couldn't buy a NEW gun with more than a 10-round magazine, but you could buy any number of used guns with 30-, 50- or 100-round magazines. And you could buy "pre-ban" magazines by the gross.

The horse has been stolen; locking the barn at this point will do no good. There are hundreds of millions of guns in private possession in this country, and there is no feasible or constitutional way to round them up and get rid of them. Just forget gun control; it's not going to make any difference whatsoever. Concentrate on deglamorizing mass shootings, and better mental health care. That might help. Or just ignore mass shootings; they kill fewer people than beestings.

According to a Scripps Howard study of FBI stats, there were 965 mass murders between 1980 and 2008, with 4,685 victims. That's fewer than 250 per year. More than 3,000 people drown accidentally every year, yet we don't ban swimming, which is an order of magnitude more dangerous than the threat from mass shootings.
 
2012-08-26 09:03:15 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: BgJonson79: Keizer_Ghidorah: How about mandatory training in the use of the firearm you intend to buy along with classes about when, where, and why to use it? Along with better psych evaluations and better (for lack of a better word at the moment) tracking of guns sold to make sure they don't end up in the hands of undesireables.

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

There has to be a middle ground, if both sides would stop screaming and hooting like chimpanzees and actually talk to each other.

So, you support pre-crime?

I support intelligence, but that's apparently a lost cause in this day and age and country.


Isn't it intelligent to wait until people actually commit a crime before we arrest them, or limit their rights?
 
TWX
2012-08-26 09:32:34 PM

mbillips: 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.

Those capacity restrictions did not actually exist. You couldn't buy a NEW gun with more than a 10-round magazine, but you could buy any number of used guns with 30-, 50- or 100-round magazines. And you could buy "pre-ban" magazines by the gross.

The horse has been stolen; locking the barn at this point will do no good. There are hundreds of millions of guns in private possession in this country, and there is no feasible or constitutional way to round them up and get rid of them. Just forget gun control; it's not going to make any difference whatsoever. Concentrate on deglamorizing mass shootin ...


Comparing individual drownings only to mass shootings is not valid. Comparing even individual drownings to individual shootings is still not valid. Comparing those drowned by intentional act, ie, murder, to those shot, is.

As for the concept of the cat being out of the bag, there lots of countries that have chosen to remove pistols and most rifles from their citizens, including many first-world nations. I have no doubt, that if laws allowed or mandated the removal of high capacity magazines, ranges and gun stores would find mandates upon them to prohibit use or service of such at their facilities, effectively leaving banned devices to not be used due to reduced places to use them, and less resources to repair them when they wear out, letting them go through attrition.

I don't think that they'd ever decide to retract the right to own small caliber handguns, but I do think that it's very possible to ban the high capacity magazines and to even begin to sunset their existence. Many more high profile shootings with high capacity magazines will probably ensure that.
 
2012-08-26 10:21:58 PM
Okay, for anyone that hasn't been paying attention until now:

1)a gun is a gun is a gun. A .22 will kill you just as dead as a .44 or a .50 or a howitzer. Anyone in America can have a 1851 Navy cap and ball revolver mailed to their door with everything needed to load it, and it's just as deadly as when Wild Bill carried a pair of them. It amazes me that there aren't more convience store robberies with them.

2)the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with either hunting or defense from crime. It is stritchly a provision that forces the government to recognize that the citizenery have the right to stockpile arms and ammunition to use against an unspecified tyranny, foreign or domestic.

3)Governments ban private arms for exactly one reason, control. They want to be the only one that can shoot anybody, which usually leads to lots of innocent people being shot, hence the second amendment providing some hope that the people can shoot back.

4)yes, the whole thing is a circle. It will never end.
 
2012-08-26 10:31:33 PM

TWX: I don't think that they'd ever decide to retract the right to own small caliber handguns, but I do think that it's very possible to ban the high capacity magazines and to even begin to sunset their existence. Many more high profile shootings with high capacity magazines will probably ensure that.


A magazine is a metal box with a spring in it. The parts are not rare, hard to find, or difficult to recreate. They are inexpensive and have a shelf life of centuries.
What will happen is the price will rise on the collectibles and the black market will keep the non compliant gun owners equipped. The crime and rampage killing issue will go unchanged, as it did the last time.

The one thing the AWB was very good at was in helping to turn the tide against the Democrats in the late 90's.
So after weighting the steep political cost VS what little will be achieved with this, its pretty certain that politicians will avoid the gun rights debate like a plague.
 
2012-08-26 11:15:29 PM

way south: TWX: I don't think that they'd ever decide to retract the right to own small caliber handguns, but I do think that it's very possible to ban the high capacity magazines and to even begin to sunset their existence. Many more high profile shootings with high capacity magazines will probably ensure that.

A magazine is a metal box with a spring in it. The parts are not rare, hard to find, or difficult to recreate. They are inexpensive and have a shelf life of centuries.
What will happen is the price will rise on the collectibles and the black market will keep the non compliant gun owners equipped. The crime and rampage killing issue will go unchanged, as it did the last time.

The one thing the AWB was very good at was in helping to turn the tide against the Democrats in the late 90's.
So after weighting the steep political cost VS what little will be achieved with this, its pretty certain that politicians will avoid the gun rights debate like a plague.


I wholeheartedly concur, as far as 2012 goes. There are too many senate seats up for grabs to go for an issue that hot-button, especially when the clear majority is against it. 2013 however, will see the return of the UN Small Arms treaty ratification and likely several other gun-ban laws. Whichever candidate wins the Oval Office in November will sign them.
 
2012-08-27 12:03:44 AM

Jarhead_h: way south: TWX: I don't think that they'd ever decide to retract the right to own small caliber handguns, but I do think that it's very possible to ban the high capacity magazines and to even begin to sunset their existence. Many more high profile shootings with high capacity magazines will probably ensure that.

A magazine is a metal box with a spring in it. The parts are not rare, hard to find, or difficult to recreate. They are inexpensive and have a shelf life of centuries.
What will happen is the price will rise on the collectibles and the black market will keep the non compliant gun owners equipped. The crime and rampage killing issue will go unchanged, as it did the last time.

The one thing the AWB was very good at was in helping to turn the tide against the Democrats in the late 90's.
So after weighting the steep political cost VS what little will be achieved with this, its pretty certain that politicians will avoid the gun rights debate like a plague.

I wholeheartedly concur, as far as 2012 goes. There are too many senate seats up for grabs to go for an issue that hot-button, especially when the clear majority is against it. 2013 however, will see the return of the UN Small Arms treaty ratification and likely several other gun-ban laws. Whichever candidate wins the Oval Office in November will sign them.


It may depend most on how the NRA crowd reacts, and they have no love for that UN arms treaty.
The UN itself doesn't affect much that Americans should care about, but the political association with it isn't good for either party.

If the president signs it (Be it Obama or Romney), I wager its going to be one of the most low key affairs ever.
Because the opposing side is sure to hold it up as proof of his party trying to do something nefarious.

Looking at a dead heat for 2012 and a mess for 2016, I don't see either of them wanting the trouble.
 
2012-08-27 12:33:20 AM
If the logic is that there are some technologies that are too dangerous period, then I'll be in favor of a gun ban as soon as we ban nuclear weapons.

If the logic is that there are some technologies that are too dangerous for some people to have, then the argument isn't about safety, it's about who gets to say who has the technology and who doesn't.

Plenty of people die in car accidents. The entire Earth is changing as a result of our use of petrochemicals. Millions of people have/will die because of this since the inception of automobiles, engines in general, refining, oil based materials, etc. We haven't banned those yet.

It's human nature to fear the close danger while ignoring the wider one, even if it is far more hazardous.

Let me know when oil companies stop running tankers aground or hiring drunken captains. Let me know when they get more than a slap on the wrist for saturating thousands of miles of coastline with thick crude or when the Gulf of Mexico isn't a toxic wasteland due to the proper use of the technology we have used in such a mature manner collectively, and I'll get right on turning my firearms in.

Why are guns any different from a time machine? A time machine can affect a gigantic swath of humanity. One man with a gun requires skill to kill as many people as he has ammunition.
Genocides have been carried out with less advanced technology. Genghis Khan slaughtered millions with just horse archers. In Rwanda, they used primarily machetes.
Guns are different from time machines because personal firearms are designed to resist those broad reaching social powers and make them cost more to prosecute. If people come looking for me because of my ethnicity, I can resist. If the police want to oppress me, I can resist. If the army wants to occupy my land, I can make it more expensive for them to do that. I can put fear into people trying to do me wrong or harm me or my family. The fear of the same violence they threaten to use against me. Not as much, not on as large a scale, but at least I can return it in kind.

And if some nut invents a time machine and threatens to go and kill his grandfather and rip a hole in the fabric of space time, at least I can shoot the bastard before he tries it.
 
2012-08-27 10:30:02 PM

mbillips: According to a Scripps Howard study of FBI stats, there were 965 mass murders between 1980 and 2008, with 4,685 victims. That's fewer than 250 per year. More than 3,000 people drown accidentally every year, yet we don't ban swimming,


Yes, people dying accidentally doing something they enjoy is quite comparable to having your life taken by a mass murderer.
 
Displayed 385 of 385 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report