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.

(WOKV Jacksonville)   Store customer with a concealed weapons permit attempts to stop a robbery. He wounds bystanders and gets into a shootout with police when they think he's the robber. Just kidding. He shot the robber dead and the police thanked him   (wokv.com) divider line 754
    More: Hero, concealed firearm, bystanders, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, dollar stores, North Side, robbery  
•       •       •

20050 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Aug 2012 at 5:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-29 04:45:48 PM

Dimensio: Silly Jesus: Mr.BobDobalita: Here's how the police handle it in Saginaw, Michigan!!!


POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW


POLICE EXECUTE MAN WITH KNIFE

0/10

Tueller Drill / A man with a knife is a lethal threat from a distance of 21 feet. Don't menacingly approach someone with a knife if you don't want to get shot.

They could have shot him in the leg, instead, or ideally they could have used their intense police marksman training to shoot the knife out of the subject's hand.


Lulz
 
2012-08-29 04:47:49 PM

Dimensio: Silly Jesus: Mr.BobDobalita: Here's how the police handle it in Saginaw, Michigan!!!


POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW


POLICE EXECUTE MAN WITH KNIFE

0/10

Tueller Drill / A man with a knife is a lethal threat from a distance of 21 feet. Don't menacingly approach someone with a knife if you don't want to get shot.

They could have shot him in the leg, instead, or ideally they could have used their intense police marksman training to shoot the knife out of the subject's hand.


Or the ever popular movie go-to, the shoulder shot. Works every time.
 
2012-08-29 04:49:30 PM
I have no doubt that the samaritan here felt it was a very desperate situation and was left with little or no choice to do what he did. Although, the same can be said for many who resort to thievery.
 
2012-08-29 04:52:57 PM
I give

Wrathskellar:

The two are not mutually exclusive. I'm fully supportive of addressing the root causes of crime, but that wasn't the impetus of this thread, so I haven't addressed it. At the same time I also advocate greater restriction of private ownership of certain types of weapons in order to limit the lethality of mass murder events.



Private ownership of AR-15s and high cap mags is not what causes mass murder.

I give you MASS MURDER SANS FIREARMS: BATH, MI SCHOOL BOMBING

Not to mention Oklahoma City....

Not to mention the reasons WHY the tuscon shooter, as well as the aurora shooters were captured is BECAUSE THEY USED HIGH CAP MAGS. The high cap mags are KNOWN for jamming, as they did on both occasions. Most of the killing at aurora was done with a regular pump shotgun and a glock pistol

Magazine changes take all of 1 second or less.


Also, only 4% of gun homicides are rifles. There is virtually ZERO REASON TO BAN "ASSAULT" RIFLES. The fact is they are used to perpetrate VERY few murders. The overwhelming majority is done with pistols.


You say what does anyone need a rifle for? People think that altercations are 1 v 1 when many times they're 1 v many... That's when you need more firepower. ARMED STORE OWNERS PROTECT STORE DURING RIOT Starts at about 1:05


MAN WARDS OFF 3 BURGLERS
 
2012-08-29 04:55:05 PM

Silly Jesus: Mr.BobDobalita: Here's how the police handle it in Saginaw, Michigan!!!


POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW


POLICE EXECUTE MAN WITH KNIFE

0/10

Tueller Drill / A man with a knife is a lethal threat from a distance of 21 feet. Don't menacingly approach someone with a knife if you don't want to get shot.


WRong.

Tueller drill is for holstered weapon and sudden threat. Not for 6 cops vs 1 guy with their guns already drawn.

Tasers? couple shots? Not 46 and about 30 after he was down.... Way to be a badge kisser though.
 
2012-08-29 04:58:23 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Or, you know, we could support a real mental health system and block the mentally ill from legally purchasing a firearm. Holmes, just like Loughner, just like Cho, and many other spree shooters were known wackos, but we need prohibition, not mental health in your world. *shakes head*


Why do we need to choose? Why can't we do both?
 
2012-08-29 05:03:29 PM

Wrathskellar: Ow! That was my feelings!: Or, you know, we could support a real mental health system and block the mentally ill from legally purchasing a firearm. Holmes, just like Loughner, just like Cho, and many other spree shooters were known wackos, but we need prohibition, not mental health in your world. *shakes head*

Why do we need to choose? Why can't we do both?


Why engage in unnecessarily and unreasonable restriction of liberty?
 
2012-08-29 05:04:00 PM

Wrathskellar: Ow! That was my feelings!: Or, you know, we could support a real mental health system and block the mentally ill from legally purchasing a firearm. Holmes, just like Loughner, just like Cho, and many other spree shooters were known wackos, but we need prohibition, not mental health in your world. *shakes head*

Why do we need to choose? Why can't we do both?


Because prohibitionism fails in the US everytime it has been tried. It doesn't solve the problem and creates numerous other "unintended" issues. There are 300 million firearms in the US, prohibitionism is fool's errand.
 
2012-08-29 05:18:12 PM

Mr.BobDobalita: Silly Jesus: Mr.BobDobalita: Here's how the police handle it in Saginaw, Michigan!!!


POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW POW


POLICE EXECUTE MAN WITH KNIFE

0/10

Tueller Drill / A man with a knife is a lethal threat from a distance of 21 feet. Don't menacingly approach someone with a knife if you don't want to get shot.

WRong.

Tueller drill is for holstered weapon and sudden threat. Not for 6 cops vs 1 guy with their guns already drawn.

Tasers? couple shots? Not 46 and about 30 after he was down.... Way to be a badge kisser though.


1. Yes, it applies to holstered weapons, but that doesn't discount the fact that the attacker can cover 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. The officers that he was headed toward (to the left of the video and obscured until the shooting ends) appeared to be within that distance and in danger from an unstable and aggressive person approaching them with a knife. Doesn't matter if it was sudden threat or not in this instance. He still had a knife. You don't fight those off with your bare hands.

2. Not all police departments are equipped with Tasers. The large department in my area is not. Beyond that, a charging man with a knife who appears to be "out of it" is not necessarily going to be dropped by a Taser. Watch some YouTube videos of folks pulling the Taser probes off and otherwise not being impacted by it. If the guy can get to you with the knife in less than 2 seconds, you don't really have time to shoot him AFTER the Taser fails. It's a great tool, but not always appropriate if the threat is imminent.

3. I understand psychologically why so many shots were fired. That many were unnecessary and was likely due to the officers not having been in that situation before. You hear someone else open fire...and you do the same etc. I don't think that it would have made much of a difference though. Even if one officer fired at him he would have very likely died. Police are trained to fire until the threat is stopped, and that in reality means numerous shots to center mass. At that range, that would be awfully hard to survive. So, while the volley of gunfire is indeed "shocking", I think that the end result would have been the same. The guy would have been dead, just with fewer holes.

Way to be a psycho with a knife kisser though...derp.
 
2012-08-29 05:18:25 PM

Wrathskellar: Ow! That was my feelings!: Or, you know, we could support a real mental health system and block the mentally ill from legally purchasing a firearm. Holmes, just like Loughner, just like Cho, and many other spree shooters were known wackos, but we need prohibition, not mental health in your world. *shakes head*

Why do we need to choose? Why can't we do both?



Because people like you and the ACLU don't think that mental hospitals are places to warehouse the insane. You'd rather them be "free" than have them to be forced to take their anti-psychotic medicine.
 
2012-08-29 05:19:28 PM

Dimensio: Why engage in unnecessarily and unreasonable restriction of liberty?


Because you and I apparently disagree on what we consider unnecessary and unreasonable.
 
2012-08-29 05:20:58 PM

84Charlie: Because people like you and the ACLU don't think that mental hospitals are places to warehouse the insane. You'd rather them be "free" than have them to be forced to take their anti-psychotic medicine.


I'm pretty sure I haven't told you what I think about that.
 
2012-08-29 05:21:55 PM

Beemer_Vol: My wife is a very good shot & knows how to handle her pistol safely, but doubts that she could kill another human. I told her to leave it in the safe unless she is completely ready to deal with the issue.


This is where I'm at with my decision about gun ownership. First, I think it's a huge responsibility -- and I don't even have any kids who might accidentally find it and misuse it. Second, I honestly question whether or not I have the guts and decisiveness to shoot to kill if necessary. I'd like to think that I do, but until I'm sure, I have to err on the side of safety and not own one. A gun really is just a tool and if I can't count on myself to use it properly when called upon, it can be used against me.

OTOH, killing tin cans and paper targets is fun. Decisions, decisions...
 
2012-08-29 05:37:56 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Beemer_Vol: My wife is a very good shot & knows how to handle her pistol safely, but doubts that she could kill another human. I told her to leave it in the safe unless she is completely ready to deal with the issue.

This is where I'm at with my decision about gun ownership. First, I think it's a huge responsibility -- and I don't even have any kids who might accidentally find it and misuse it. Second, I honestly question whether or not I have the guts and decisiveness to shoot to kill if necessary. I'd like to think that I do, but until I'm sure, I have to err on the side of safety and not own one. A gun really is just a tool and if I can't count on myself to use it properly when called upon, it can be used against me.

OTOH, killing tin cans and paper targets is fun. Decisions, decisions...


Take a gun safety course and rent a few guns at the range. If you decide to purchase, gun safe and/or gun locks. Have fun and be safe.
 
2012-08-29 06:01:49 PM

cassanovascotian: Loaded Six String: Should we find a nice infographic on how many people were killed with knives in each of these countries as well? Violent crime is violent crime regardless of the method. There is a root cause, or indeed many, and guns are not it.

Sure, Let's do that. Comparisons against Europe would involve cultural differences, so that complicates things, but Canada and the US are pretty similar -the only major difference being gun control legislation.... and what's the result?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 850x615]

yeah, so ... I'm gonna go ahead and say that guns have a lot to do with it.


You're using a graph that says that 1/5th of the US population was murdered in 2006 as proof of your point?

Hint: read the Y-axis label...
 
2012-08-29 06:02:09 PM
Teaching children "gun safety" has two versions in this country.
Option 1: Show the child what a gun is, teach them that it's something dangerous and not a toy. When they're old enough, take them to the range and teach them how to safely handle a firearm.
Option 2: "GUNS ARE BAD BECAUSE THEY'RE EVIL AND IF YOU TOUCH A GUN YOU WILL KILL YOUR WHOLE FAMILY AND ALL YOUR FRIENDS! Okay, I made my point, you can go back to playing Call of Duty now."
 
2012-08-29 06:12:27 PM
And since we're on a gun control topic, here's my views, speaking as a Californian who served in the Army for four years before an injury ended my service.
1. Restrictions on single-shot weaponry, be it an 'assault rifle' or a handgun, are bullshiat. California bans specific models of guns because they appeared to be super-effective in the movies the year before the legislation was passed (See: Shotguns with cylinders, short barrel shotguns, etc)
2. I believe that a certification should be required to own/use burst fire weaponry. Burst fire weaponry is partial spray and pray for the 3rd round.
3. No civilian has the need for a fully automatic weapon. Full auto is a tool for killing lots of people in a confined space in a short period of time. There is no reasonable self-defense justification for a fully automatic weapon.

Of course, here I am supporting gun ownership while not supporting owning an AK47... so I make enemies on both sides.
 
2012-08-29 06:13:41 PM

themeaningoflifeisnot: The original article not only did not mention whether the robbers were armed, but it also did not state how many times the robber was shot or mention his name. Wow, you're a tool.


From the original article.

"a customer at the store on Dunn Avenue shot 22 year-old Rakeem Odoms three times when Odoms refused to hand over his gun.

Is that clear enough for you?
 
2012-08-29 06:17:01 PM

Wrathskellar: Dimensio: Why engage in unnecessarily and unreasonable restriction of liberty?

Because you and I apparently disagree on what we consider unnecessary and unreasonable.


I love how you continue to ignore anyone else's views about what is reasonable and unreasonable, and yet continue to remain perplexed that we don't accept your view as reasonable.
 
2012-08-29 06:19:12 PM

DingleberryMoose: push3r: I would be much happier to see all the effort and money spent on lobbying for tighter gun control laws for legal owners funneled into programs addressing poverty, drug abuse, and the other societal issues that ultimately result in illegal gun use. I would also really love to go to the moon and back on a flying unicorn. Both scenarios are equally likely.

Duh! You'd need a pegasus to fly you somewhere. Unicorns don't fly.

[ponyvillegazette.com image 850x478] 

/politicians have no sense of normal life in the world they've created


That's actually the reason I specified a unicorn. A pegasus would be cool, but I want the horn.

/most politicians are no longer advocates, they're professional panderers
 
2012-08-29 06:24:03 PM

Securitywyrm: And since we're on a gun control topic, here's my views, speaking as a Californian who served in the Army for four years before an injury ended my service.
1. Restrictions on single-shot weaponry, be it an 'assault rifle' or a handgun, are bullshiat. California bans specific models of guns because they appeared to be super-effective in the movies the year before the legislation was passed (See: Shotguns with cylinders, short barrel shotguns, etc)
2. I believe that a certification should be required to own/use burst fire weaponry. Burst fire weaponry is partial spray and pray for the 3rd round.
3. No civilian has the need for a fully automatic weapon. Full auto is a tool for killing lots of people in a confined space in a short period of time. There is no reasonable self-defense justification for a fully automatic weapon.

Of course, here I am supporting gun ownership while not supporting owning an AK47... so I make enemies on both sides.


I generally agree with 1 and 2. On #3, some full auto weaponry is legal, but heavily restricted. No legally owned full-auto weapon has ever been used in a crime in recent history, and cost prohibitions being what they are, i doubt you're going to use that $15k Thompson full auto to go mow down some people.

Also, as someone who has fired a LOT of full auto makes and models, full auto is only fun for the first 10 minutes of "hee hee lots of bullets!" fun. After that, it's a royal pain in the ass to reload the magazines with enough rounds to make it fun, accuracy is out the window unless you switch to burst-firing, and after a while the jarring of shooting a LOT of bullets out of anything above a .223 or 7.62x39 leaves you really goddamn tired.

Likewise, it's kinda fun to play with legal explosives occasionally. Blowing shiat up is fun. However, like the 4th of July, once the boom is done, you realize you just blew a LOT of money for less pleasure than you'd get just going to vegas and getting a hooker for 15 minutes.

Sure, we can keep trying to ban firearms, getting progressively more restrictive out of some mistakenly placed sense that it actually makes a difference. Or, we can actually do what other countries with low crime rates have already done: reform the health care and social programs to actually help people, and weed out the crazies more effectively.
 
2012-08-29 06:34:17 PM

Securitywyrm: Teaching children "gun safety" has two versions in this country.
Option 1: Show the child what a gun is, teach them that it's something dangerous and not a toy. When they're old enough, take them to the range and teach them how to safely handle a firearm.
Option 2: "GUNS ARE BAD BECAUSE THEY'RE EVIL AND IF YOU TOUCH A GUN YOU WILL KILL YOUR WHOLE FAMILY AND ALL YOUR FRIENDS! Okay, I made my point, you can go back to playing Call of Duty now."


Well, if those are our only two options, I'll take Option 1.
 
2012-08-29 06:38:24 PM

Securitywyrm: 3. No civilian has the need for a fully automatic weapon. Full auto is a tool for killing lots of people in a confined space in a short period of time. There is no reasonable self-defense justification for a fully automatic weapon.


How dare you! Who are you to limit my freedoms? Those who something security, something something liberty, neither, etc., etc.
 
2012-08-29 06:43:24 PM

Kit Fister: I love how you continue to ignore anyone else's views about what is reasonable and unreasonable, and yet continue to remain perplexed that we don't accept your view as reasonable.


Hmmm ... I don't think I've ignored anyone's views by disagreeing with them. And I'm hardly perplexed, as I'm not seeking change anyone's mind, only to convey my own opinion on the subject. Besides, it's clear to me that we agree on certain issues. Preventing crime by addressing its root causes is as important as any restrictions on private ownership of firearms, for example. And that there must be *some* restrictions. We seem only to disagree on where that line of restriction should fall, yes?
 
2012-08-29 06:46:12 PM

Wrathskellar: Dimensio: Why engage in unnecessarily and unreasonable restriction of liberty?

Because you and I apparently disagree on what we consider unnecessary and unreasonable.


You had previously noted that a right to swing one's fist ends at another's nose. Would you then consider mandatory amputation of hands as a "reasonable" and "necessary" measure to prevent fist-nose contact? Such a preemptive measure is directly analogous to the measure that you propose.
 
2012-08-29 06:49:20 PM
Kit: I'm not sure the position I presented is, in fact, a straw man. The original argument would be "the solution to guns is more guns..." (It could also be "the solution to weapons is more weapons." - or really any form of that)

Be it concealed carry.. non concealed carry.. easier access to guns.. fewer or no restrictions on the types of guns people can buy.. no background checks (because criminals aren't getting checked).. making man portable missiles 100% legal and available.. and on and on..

I'm not oversimplifying the position of the gun crowd, since no one in the gun crowd is advocating for less guns, only more (in one way or another). I mean, as a "tool" would gun crowd folks be "okay" with single shot rifles only? Doubt it.

Regardless of the specifics.. the end result is some form of escalation.. and ultimately.. more weapons. As such, most all of their arguments boil down to arguments for escalation.

The type of weapon hardly matters either. You're trying to sell me that these things are tools. You're correct. Nuclear weapons are tools too. Pakistan is using them rather effectively to blackmail the US into providing mountains of dough and military assets. Pakistan also has more than one, so it pokes a hole in that axiom you presented.
 
2012-08-29 06:49:53 PM

Wrathskellar: Securitywyrm: 3. No civilian has the need for a fully automatic weapon. Full auto is a tool for killing lots of people in a confined space in a short period of time. There is no reasonable self-defense justification for a fully automatic weapon.

How dare you! Who are you to limit my freedoms? Those who something security, something something liberty, neither, etc., etc.


I should have added that, like full auto, semi-auto and high capacity are also tools for killing lots of people. As far as handguns are concerned, no civilian has a need for anything more than a six-shooter.
 
2012-08-29 06:50:59 PM
www.lolroflmao.com
 
2012-08-29 06:53:21 PM

Dimensio: You had previously noted that a right to swing one's fist ends at another's nose. Would you then consider mandatory amputation of hands as a "reasonable" and "necessary" measure to prevent fist-nose contact? Such a preemptive measure is directly analogous to the measure that you propose.


More than a little hyperbolous, wouldn't you say?

/ "hyperbolous"?
 
2012-08-29 06:59:58 PM

Wrathskellar: Wrathskellar: Securitywyrm: 3. No civilian has the need for a fully automatic weapon. Full auto is a tool for killing lots of people in a confined space in a short period of time. There is no reasonable self-defense justification for a fully automatic weapon.

How dare you! Who are you to limit my freedoms? Those who something security, something something liberty, neither, etc., etc.

I should have added that, like full auto, semi-auto and high capacity are also tools for killing lots of people. As far as handguns are concerned, no civilian has a need for anything more than a six-shooter.


You are erroneously assuming that "need" is relevant to exercise of civil liberties.
 
2012-08-29 07:01:28 PM

Wrathskellar: Dimensio: You had previously noted that a right to swing one's fist ends at another's nose. Would you then consider mandatory amputation of hands as a "reasonable" and "necessary" measure to prevent fist-nose contact? Such a preemptive measure is directly analogous to the measure that you propose.

More than a little hyperbolous, wouldn't you say?

/ "hyperbolous"?


You are proposing prohibition of civilian ownership of popular sporting rifles that are used to commit homicide less frequently than are unarmed attacks. For what reason is my proposal to prohibit civilian possession of an item more frequently utilized to commit homicide than the class of firearms that you wish to ban "hyperbole"?
 
2012-08-29 07:21:16 PM

Dimensio: You are erroneously assuming that "need" is relevant to exercise of civil liberties.


All civil liberties are subject to "reasonable" restrictions. All of them. When your desire for firepower in excess of what basic self-defense would dictate, results in multiple mass shooting events every year, then I would say additional restriction is justified.


Dimensio:
You are proposing prohibition of civilian ownership of popular sporting rifles that are used to commit homicide less frequently than are unarmed attacks. For what reason is my proposal to prohibit civilian possession of an item more frequently utilized to commit homicide than the class of firearms that you wish to ban "hyperbole"?


Because you can't kill 12 people with your bare hands in 3 minutes. Because the self defense function of privately owned firearms is adequately filled by a six-shot revolver. And because hands do lots more things outside their killing capability than guns do. I could probably think of another dozen reasons, but those should suffice, and this is silly and you know it.
 
2012-08-29 07:22:32 PM

Divorach: Kit: I'm not sure the position I presented is, in fact, a straw man. The original argument would be "the solution to guns is more guns..." (It could also be "the solution to weapons is more weapons." - or really any form of that)

Be it concealed carry.. non concealed carry.. easier access to guns.. fewer or no restrictions on the types of guns people can buy.. no background checks (because criminals aren't getting checked).. making man portable missiles 100% legal and available.. and on and on..

I'm not oversimplifying the position of the gun crowd, since no one in the gun crowd is advocating for less guns, only more (in one way or another). I mean, as a "tool" would gun crowd folks be "okay" with single shot rifles only? Doubt it.

Regardless of the specifics.. the end result is some form of escalation.. and ultimately.. more weapons. As such, most all of their arguments boil down to arguments for escalation.

The type of weapon hardly matters either. You're trying to sell me that these things are tools. You're correct. Nuclear weapons are tools too. Pakistan is using them rather effectively to blackmail the US into providing mountains of dough and military assets. Pakistan also has more than one, so it pokes a hole in that axiom you presented.


Actually, no, there is no escalation, because you assume that by advocating that we keep the rights we already have that means we want more and more guns. We simply want the right to exercise our right to common, ordinary self defense, and the right to own whatever we feel we want. It's a right, after all.

As to my axiom, as a matter of fact, it very much doesn't poke a hole in it. Quite the contrary. Pakistan has multiple nukes and uses them as leverage against other powers. No different than the US or Russia or the UK or anyone else with nukes.

The difference, and the point of the axiom, of fearing the guy with only one, is that the guy with only one, in the case of nukes, is more likely to use it.

That said, nuclear weapons are FAR from parallel to simple firearms.

Now, if the proliferation of firearms were truly tantamount to this vast increase in crime rate, why has the violent crime rate in the US steadily dropped over the past decade or so, while firearms ownership has gone up? Look at the numbers, they don't lie, however they are inconvenient for those who would sell people on the lie that more guns == bad, the same way they try to sell people on "zomg it's an assault rifle, ban it!" without realizing that the number of crimes committed with such weaponry by civilians in the past, say, 5 years can be counted in the sub-50 number range, if not sub-10.

So, the whole argument about proliferation and 'oh the answer to guns is more guns" is a strawman at best, completely dishonest at worst because, what, a violent crime happens and, instead of looking at the motivations behind the killer, you fixate on the tool used.

I'm fairly certain if I went back and looked up the body counts of people killed by serial killers and murderers using other implements, we'd see that the number of people killed by other means equalled or surpassed those killed with firearms. Firearms just happen to be a hot button issue.

Anyway, you're welcome to continue to have an intellectually dishonest discussion with yourself, but until you're willing to actually look at the facts in an unbiased manner and consider WHY bad things happen, you're only going to keep missing the point, much to the detriment of society as a whole as the topics at the root of crime continue to go unaddressed while you continue to strip law abiding citizens of the tools with which they can defend themselves.
 
2012-08-29 07:27:12 PM

Wrathskellar: Dimensio: You are erroneously assuming that "need" is relevant to exercise of civil liberties.

All civil liberties are subject to "reasonable" restrictions. All of them. When your desire for firepower in excess of what basic self-defense would dictate, results in multiple mass shooting events every year, then I would say additional restriction is justified.


Dimensio:
You are proposing prohibition of civilian ownership of popular sporting rifles that are used to commit homicide less frequently than are unarmed attacks. For what reason is my proposal to prohibit civilian possession of an item more frequently utilized to commit homicide than the class of firearms that you wish to ban "hyperbole"?

Because you can't kill 12 people with your bare hands in 3 minutes. Because the self defense function of privately owned firearms is adequately filled by a six-shot revolver. And because hands do lots more things outside their killing capability than guns do. I could probably think of another dozen reasons, but those should suffice, and this is silly and you know it.


And who are you to make such decisions?

What do you say to people who do not have the physical capability in their hands to work the action of a revolver? Or the odd situation where six shots don't end the confrontation? I have a boatload of shooting incidents documented by police where a subject continued to be combat effective after more than 8 hits to the body from standard-issue sidearms.

What about the possibility of multiple attackers that far exceed the capacity of that revolver you say is adequate?

You can't reasonably answer that because you hadn't thought about that. So your reasonably thought out concepts don't apply.
 
2012-08-29 07:27:41 PM

Wrathskellar: Because you can't kill 12 people with your bare hands in 3 minutes. Because the self defense function of privately owned firearms is adequately filled by a six-shot revolver. And because hands do lots more things outside their killing capability than guns do. I could probably think of another dozen reasons, but those should suffice, and this is silly and you know it.


The main problem here is how do you get to that point? Say that this was accepted by everyone and it was passed as law. At that point, law abiding folks would be armed with six-shot revolvers and the criminals would still have whatever weapon they wish to have...because they don't give a fark about the law.

This is the glaring problem with the gun control arguments that's rarely addressed. Before you even start looking at the issue of "should they be limited" you need to look at "CAN they be limited." If you can't figure out a way to limit them, from both law abiding citizens and criminals, then the whole argument of "SHOULD they be limited" is pointless. If the concept is in the end impossible to implement, why even debate the nuances of the doomed concept at all?

How would you propose gun prohibition (on a limited basis or total) be handled? Do you not think that it would end in an utter failure in the same way that alcohol and drug prohibition have, and for the same reasons? Supply. Demand. Black market. Violence. Etc.
 
2012-08-29 07:33:02 PM

Silly Jesus: Wrathskellar: Because you can't kill 12 people with your bare hands in 3 minutes. Because the self defense function of privately owned firearms is adequately filled by a six-shot revolver. And because hands do lots more things outside their killing capability than guns do. I could probably think of another dozen reasons, but those should suffice, and this is silly and you know it.

The main problem here is how do you get to that point? Say that this was accepted by everyone and it was passed as law. At that point, law abiding folks would be armed with six-shot revolvers and the criminals would still have whatever weapon they wish to have...because they don't give a fark about the law.

This is the glaring problem with the gun control arguments that's rarely addressed. Before you even start looking at the issue of "should they be limited" you need to look at "CAN they be limited." If you can't figure out a way to limit them, from both law abiding citizens and criminals, then the whole argument of "SHOULD they be limited" is pointless. If the concept is in the end impossible to implement, why even debate the nuances of the doomed concept at all?

How would you propose gun prohibition (on a limited basis or total) be handled? Do you not think that it would end in an utter failure in the same way that alcohol and drug prohibition have, and for the same reasons? Supply. Demand. Black market. Violence. Etc.


Plus firearms aren't exactly difficult to make. A good gunsmith with a mill and a lathe can make a reasonable full-auto in his basement. Hell, the Israelis did it back in the 50s. They can make AKs in third-world countries where they don't have all the machinery we do.

Ban all you want, you won't stop people who want guns from getting guns. Case in point: Mexico.

Legal gun ownership there is all but banned. The cartels smuggle the guns in from other countries, or simply buy off people in the military and get them that way.

Russia also has pretty much a ban on guns, except the Russian Mob is famous for their violence. Wonder where they got those guns?

Ah well, some people won't be satisfied until they electrocute themselves by sticking the fork in the power socket.
 
2012-08-29 07:35:24 PM

Divorach: Kit: I'm not sure the position I presented is, in fact, a straw man. The original argument would be "the solution to guns is more guns..." (It could also be "the solution to weapons is more weapons." - or really any form of that)

Be it concealed carry.. non concealed carry.. easier access to guns.. fewer or no restrictions on the types of guns people can buy.. no background checks (because criminals aren't getting checked).. making man portable missiles 100% legal and available.. and on and on..

I'm not oversimplifying the position of the gun crowd, since no one in the gun crowd is advocating for less guns, only more (in one way or another). I mean, as a "tool" would gun crowd folks be "okay" with single shot rifles only? Doubt it.


Where on earth are you getting this information from? What restrictions are being targeted for repeal which are not already shown to be ineffective in a state without them? Nearly all gun owners are fine with the background check system (aside from the fact that it needs more information from mental health providers) and I've yet to see someone speaking without hyperbole calling for the deregulation or legalization of "man portable missiles." Honestly, where have you heard this?

1. Reform the justice system to have a focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
2. Teach firearms safety in elementary and high schools.
3. Repeal the prohibition of drugs and treat drug addiction as an illness, not a crime.
4. Expand social assistance programs while placing an emphasis or incentive not to become dependant on them.
5. Expand mandatory sex education with an emphasis on proper contraceptive and condom use.
6. Institute a social education program designed to discourage criminal activity as a glamourous lifestyle of easy money.
7. Implement public awareness programs to reduce the social stigma of mental illness.
8. Increase funding for mental health care and implement a system which has the ability to ensure the mentally ill who are deemed a danger to themselves or others are properly cared for if deemed unable to care for themselves.
9. Reduce military spending and reallocate the funding to said health and education programs.
10. Implement large tariffs on companies which are based in the U.S. and manufacture goods in foreign countries to be imported back to the U.S.
11. Tax capital gains.
12. Give a tax incentive to U.S. companies to manufacture their goods in the U.S.
13. Repeal/ overturn the Citizens United ruling, restricting campaign contributions to single citizens only and to certain amounts. While arbitrary, $500 sounds fine to me, as it is not out of reach of a disproportionate percentage of the population.
14. All candidates for high public office are given a set amount of funding for their campaign. Contributions are capped at 200% of the supplied campaign funding, any surplus is redistributed into federal/ district funding depending on the office being sought.
15. Increase the Representative term to 4 years to alleviate the pressure to campaign.
16. Reduce the Senatorial term limit to 24 years in office. Senators should not be senators for life.


That's 16 things that should be done before any further attempt to restrict firearms should even be brought up again. Pick any 4 and look at how much good they could do if implemented, and you're going to focus on restricting the tools used in crime or in the case of semi-auto rifles used in so little crime as to be nonexistant? That honestly seems like it's going to do more good than addressing what leads to these crimes?
 
2012-08-29 07:37:28 PM

Kit Fister:
And who are you to make such decisions?


No one. I never said I was. I'm simply advocating a position. If anyone were to implement the proposal, it would the US Congress, the President, and the various States.

Kit Fister:
What do you say to people who do not have the physical capability in their hands to work the action of a revolver? Or the odd situation where six shots don't end the confrontation? I have a boatload of shooting incidents documented by police where a subject continued to be combat effective after more than 8 hits to the body from standard-issue sidearms.

What about the possibility of multiple attackers that far exceed the capacity of that revolver you say is adequate?


I never claimed it was a perfect solution, but it would eliminate or substantially impede the ability of someone like Jared Loughner to legally acquire a weapon of mass murder, while preserving your ability to own a weapon for self defense.
 
2012-08-29 07:42:31 PM

Loaded Six String: Divorach: Kit: I'm not sure the position I presented is, in fact, a straw man. The original argument would be "the solution to guns is more guns..." (It could also be "the solution to weapons is more weapons." - or really any form of that)

Be it concealed carry.. non concealed carry.. easier access to guns.. fewer or no restrictions on the types of guns people can buy.. no background checks (because criminals aren't getting checked).. making man portable missiles 100% legal and available.. and on and on..

I'm not oversimplifying the position of the gun crowd, since no one in the gun crowd is advocating for less guns, only more (in one way or another). I mean, as a "tool" would gun crowd folks be "okay" with single shot rifles only? Doubt it.


Where on earth are you getting this information from? What restrictions are being targeted for repeal which are not already shown to be ineffective in a state without them? Nearly all gun owners are fine with the background check system (aside from the fact that it needs more information from mental health providers) and I've yet to see someone speaking without hyperbole calling for the deregulation or legalization of "man portable missiles." Honestly, where have you heard this?

1. Reform the justice system to have a focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
2. Teach firearms safety in elementary and high schools.
3. Repeal the prohibition of drugs and treat drug addiction as an illness, not a crime.
4. Expand social assistance programs while placing an emphasis or incentive not to become dependant on them.
5. Expand mandatory sex education with an emphasis on proper contraceptive and condom use.
6. Institute a social education program designed to discourage criminal activity as a glamourous lifestyle of easy money.
7. Implement public awareness programs to reduce the social stigma of mental illness.
8. Increase funding for mental health care and implement a system which has the ability to ensure the mentally ill who ...


I've said it before upthread, I'll say it again...It's more politically flashy and expedient to target guns because of all the hype and hyperbole around them.

Half of your stuff would get run off the rails by people going "zomg soshulism!" and the other half would get run out by the "but...but...but...JESUS!" asshats.

So, instead of getting ANYTHING done right, we'll just keep getting bread and circuses while the government does nothing to help anyone but themselves and their cronies.

/tired of the whole goddamn thing.
 
2012-08-29 07:43:17 PM

Kit Fister: How would you propose gun prohibition (on a limited basis or total) be handled? Do you not think that it would end in an utter failure in the same way that alcohol and drug prohibition have, and for the same reasons? Supply. Demand. Black market. Violence. Etc.

Plus firearms aren't exactly difficult to make. A good gunsmith with a mill and a lathe can make a reasonable full-auto in his basement. Hell, the Israelis did it back in the 50s. They can make AKs in third-world countries where they don't have all the machinery we do.

Ban all you want, you won't stop people who want guns from getting guns. Case in point: Mexico.
[snip]


All good points. Again, there's no perfect solution, and I don't think I have all the answers. But a prohibition would make it substantially more difficult to acquire weapons of mass murder. It would also enable cops to arrest someone for possessing one before he gets to the theater.
 
2012-08-29 07:48:43 PM

Wrathskellar: Kit Fister:
And who are you to make such decisions?

No one. I never said I was. I'm simply advocating a position. If anyone were to implement the proposal, it would the US Congress, the President, and the various States.

Kit Fister:
What do you say to people who do not have the physical capability in their hands to work the action of a revolver? Or the odd situation where six shots don't end the confrontation? I have a boatload of shooting incidents documented by police where a subject continued to be combat effective after more than 8 hits to the body from standard-issue sidearms.

What about the possibility of multiple attackers that far exceed the capacity of that revolver you say is adequate?

I never claimed it was a perfect solution, but it would eliminate or substantially impede the ability of someone like Jared Loughner to legally acquire a weapon of mass murder, while preserving your ability to own a weapon for self defense.


Or a simple change in the law allowing mandatory psych evals of people identified by mental health professionals as having mental issues and violent tendencies, etc. like Jared, with a requirement to report them to police for such, and open reporting of mental health findings on NICS background checks would also substantially impede the ability of someone like Jared Loughner to legally acquire a weapon...
 
2012-08-29 07:53:21 PM

Wrathskellar: Kit Fister: How would you propose gun prohibition (on a limited basis or total) be handled? Do you not think that it would end in an utter failure in the same way that alcohol and drug prohibition have, and for the same reasons? Supply. Demand. Black market. Violence. Etc.

Plus firearms aren't exactly difficult to make. A good gunsmith with a mill and a lathe can make a reasonable full-auto in his basement. Hell, the Israelis did it back in the 50s. They can make AKs in third-world countries where they don't have all the machinery we do.

Ban all you want, you won't stop people who want guns from getting guns. Case in point: Mexico.
[snip]


All good points. Again, there's no perfect solution, and I don't think I have all the answers. But a prohibition would make it substantially more difficult to acquire weapons of mass murder. It would also enable cops to arrest someone for possessing one before he gets to the theater.


Citation Needed

Perhaps that would be plausible if we were starting from scratch, but how would you propose we get the thousands and thousands of weapons that exist currently off the streets? It's just not realistic.

Also, if prohibition makes it as hard to get a particular gun as it has made it to get marijuana, then most people in the country could obtain one in about ten minutes.
 
2012-08-29 07:54:37 PM

Kit Fister: Or a simple change in the law allowing mandatory psych evals of people identified by mental health professionals as having mental issues and violent tendencies, etc. like Jared, with a requirement to report them to police for such, and open reporting of mental health findings on NICS background checks would also substantially impede the ability of someone like Jared Loughner to legally acquire a weapon...


You say "or". I say "and".
 
2012-08-29 07:55:43 PM

Wrathskellar: Kit Fister: How would you propose gun prohibition (on a limited basis or total) be handled? Do you not think that it would end in an utter failure in the same way that alcohol and drug prohibition have, and for the same reasons? Supply. Demand. Black market. Violence. Etc.

Plus firearms aren't exactly difficult to make. A good gunsmith with a mill and a lathe can make a reasonable full-auto in his basement. Hell, the Israelis did it back in the 50s. They can make AKs in third-world countries where they don't have all the machinery we do.

Ban all you want, you won't stop people who want guns from getting guns. Case in point: Mexico.
[snip]


All good points. Again, there's no perfect solution, and I don't think I have all the answers. But a prohibition would make it substantially more difficult to acquire weapons of mass murder. It would also enable cops to arrest someone for possessing one before he gets to the theater.

 

roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-08-29 07:56:10 PM

Wrathskellar: Kit Fister: How would you propose gun prohibition (on a limited basis or total) be handled? Do you not think that it would end in an utter failure in the same way that alcohol and drug prohibition have, and for the same reasons? Supply. Demand. Black market. Violence. Etc.

Plus firearms aren't exactly difficult to make. A good gunsmith with a mill and a lathe can make a reasonable full-auto in his basement. Hell, the Israelis did it back in the 50s. They can make AKs in third-world countries where they don't have all the machinery we do.

Ban all you want, you won't stop people who want guns from getting guns. Case in point: Mexico.
[snip]


All good points. Again, there's no perfect solution, and I don't think I have all the answers. But a prohibition would make it substantially more difficult to acquire weapons of mass murder. It would also enable cops to arrest someone for possessing one before he gets to the theater.


Yes, because Sideshow Bob, with his guns in the trunk of his car and outside of view of anyone, would have been spotted with the guns. Except he wouldn't've been unless they had x-ray vision.

But what about his way into the theater? Nope, sorry, he propped open the exit door, snuck out after the theater was dark, moved his car closer, then donned his gear and grabbed his guns to return to the theater, according to accounts of the shooting. So, unless a cop was standing next to that exit door and saw him doing this, in the darkness around Midnight, still wouldn't've done something.

Another point: it's currently illegal for felons to be in possession of guns to begin with, and they can't legally acquire them. So, how do all these repeat offenders of armed robbery, aggravated assault, and felon in possession get their guns? Why can't the cops stop them from getting those guns? Maybe it's because the cops can't stop what they don't know about and you can't stop everything illegal from happening no matter how hard you try?

Now, you make the point about it being more difficult to get under a ban.

During prohibition, booze wasn't hard to get at all. Go to a speakeasy, know a guy who knows a guy, talk to the right store keeper, and you can get it.

Hell, if it's harder to get drugs because of prohibition, then why are our jails overflowing with drug arrests, and drug abuse continually showing as a major problem in the US? I don't even USE drugs, but I bet within an hour I could find a guy who sells whatever you want and get it.

You're living in a fantasy, my friend, one that isn't supported by reality. The only thing we CAN do is fight the cause, not the symptoms.
 
2012-08-29 07:57:05 PM

Wrathskellar: Kit Fister: Or a simple change in the law allowing mandatory psych evals of people identified by mental health professionals as having mental issues and violent tendencies, etc. like Jared, with a requirement to report them to police for such, and open reporting of mental health findings on NICS background checks would also substantially impede the ability of someone like Jared Loughner to legally acquire a weapon...

You say "or". I say "and".


Because one of us is realistic, the other is delusional.
 
2012-08-29 07:57:20 PM

Silly Jesus: Citation Needed


Really? Tell me, which is easier to get: heroin, or a pack of smokes? Which one will get you arrested for just having?
 
2012-08-29 08:01:52 PM

Wrathskellar: Silly Jesus: Citation Needed

Really? Tell me, which is easier to get: heroin, or a pack of smokes? Which one will get you arrested for just having?


Honestly? The heroin. I ask a guy, hand him some cash, no questions asked.

To buy smokes, I gotta go to the grocery, give them my ID and ask them for the smokes, they gotta get a manager to open up the tobacco locker and get out the smokes i want, then double-check my ID...

Same thing if I need allergy pills that contain certain drugs. It's legal, but I gotta go through all kinds of crap only to buy a limited supply. Easier to just buy the damn stuff on the street.

As to being arrested just for having it...sure, if the cop finds it. and if the cop is there to see you at all. Buy it, go home or somewhere where the cops aren't, no issues. Likewise, unless the cop has a reason to pay attention to you, he's not going to give a shiat.

I'll tell you this from experience: Several cop buddies of mine basically ahve said the same thing: unless you do something to give them a reason to give a shiat about you, they don't. Got a joint or some coke but otherwise don't pop their radar? Good for you.
 
2012-08-29 08:02:26 PM

Wrathskellar: Because you can't kill 12 people with your bare hands in 3 minutes. Because the self defense function of privately owned firearms is adequately filled by a six-shot revolver. And because hands do lots more things outside their killing capability than guns do. I could probably think of another dozen reasons, but those should suffice, and this is silly and you know it.


When you are attempting to prohibit civilian ownership of an object less frequently used to commit murder than knives as a means to "save lives", your charge of "silliness" is hypocritical.

Additionally, as you have already advocated prohibiting civilian concealed carry -- without any rational justification -- your claim that a "six shooter" is sufficient for defense is meaningless: you have already proposed prohibiting enabling civilians to have that means of defense available.
 
2012-08-29 08:03:53 PM

Wrathskellar: Silly Jesus: Citation Needed

Really? Tell me, which is easier to get: heroin, or a pack of smokes? Which one will get you arrested for just having?


Smokes / 5 minutes

Heroin / several phone calls and maybe about an hour

Point being, if I'm intent on getting a gun to inflict violence, it wouldn't be hard at all to do so. See the posts above yours pointing out to you the utter failure of drug and alcohol prohibition. What makes you think gun prohibition would be any more successful?

Hell, gun prohibition would be even more difficult than those failed enterprises because a gun is reusable. Once you're out of alcohol or drugs you have to go out and subvert the prohibition each and every time. With the gun prohibition, you don't need to deal with the prohibition again once you've obtained the weapon. Or, better yet, if you're in possession of the weapon when prohibition goes into effect, how are you going to be separated from it to start with?

Gun prohibition would make things less convenient, sure, but impossible or even extremely difficult? Highly doubtful.
 
Displayed 50 of 754 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report