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  
•       •       •

20053 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Aug 2012 at 5:41 AM (2 years 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 08:07:21 PM  
Well, Dimensio and SillyJesus, it's been a pleasure. And to all the other honest, common-sense farkers in this thread. I'm done and off for the night. Drop me a line sometime.

Wrathskellar, I truly wish you all the best in staying there in California and staying the hell away from the rest of the country where there are nowhere near as many laws on the books to protect precious snowflakes like you.
 
2012-08-29 08:08:31 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?


04.images.fireden.net

Do you think drug prohibition has been successful in the US? Hint, I've been able to get week, coke, meth, shrooms, acid, etc, etc since junior high. I have 25 years of personal experience that prohibition is a failed, pointless policy. But I'm sure in a country that already has 300 million firearms, THIS TIME, THIS TIME, it will succeed with no unintended consequences at all.
 
2012-08-29 08:46:38 PM  

Wrathskellar: prohibition would make it substantially more difficult to acquire weapons of mass murder.


Not in America.

Not with millions of people working in direct opposition to laws they don't agree with and have great historical precedent to disagree with.
 
2012-08-29 08:50:54 PM  

Silly Jesus: Gun prohibition would make things less convenient, sure, but impossible or even extremely difficult? Highly doubtful.


I'm well aware of the difficulties involved with prohibition of any thing. That doesn't make it not worth doing. I'm fine with "less convenient". I'm not after impossible, but extremely difficult would be nice.

Dimensio: 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.


You can't kill 12 people in three minutes with a knife. And knives have vastly more non-murder uses than the guns in question do.

Dimensio: 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.


I'd prefer for licensed gun owners to apply for open carry permits. Hence my preference for getting rid of concealed carry.
 
2012-08-29 08:57:21 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Do you think drug prohibition has been successful in the US? Hint, I've been able to get week, coke, meth, shrooms, acid, etc, etc since junior high. I have 25 years of personal experience that prohibition is a failed, pointless policy. But I'm sure in a country that already has 300 million firearms, THIS TIME, THIS TIME, it will succeed with no unintended consequences at all.


doglover: Wrathskellar: prohibition would make it substantially more difficult to acquire weapons of mass murder.

Not in America.

Not with millions of people working in direct opposition to laws they don't agree with and have great historical precedent to disagree with.


Don't confuse "substantially more difficult" with impossible. See above. Despiter Kit Fister's protestations to the contrary, for most Americans heroin really is harder to acquire and riskier to possess than smokes because of the legal prohibitions on it.
 
2012-08-29 09:08:05 PM  

Wrathskellar: Ow! That was my feelings!: Do you think drug prohibition has been successful in the US? Hint, I've been able to get week, coke, meth, shrooms, acid, etc, etc since junior high. I have 25 years of personal experience that prohibition is a failed, pointless policy. But I'm sure in a country that already has 300 million firearms, THIS TIME, THIS TIME, it will succeed with no unintended consequences at all.

doglover: Wrathskellar: prohibition would make it substantially more difficult to acquire weapons of mass murder.

Not in America.

Not with millions of people working in direct opposition to laws they don't agree with and have great historical precedent to disagree with.

Don't confuse "substantially more difficult" with impossible. See above. Despiter Kit Fister's protestations to the contrary, for most Americans heroin really is harder to acquire and riskier to possess than smokes because of the legal prohibitions on it.


Interesting that you pull heroin out as your drug war example. Not exactly a popular drug. What about weed? Firearms are really popular, the herb is really popular. That would be a fairer, more reasonable comparison. Do you think weed is difficult to get?

Also, what about the 300 million firearms already in circulation? What is your solution to them?
 
2012-08-29 09:12:31 PM  

Wrathskellar: I'm well aware of the difficulties involved with prohibition of any thing. That doesn't make it not worth doing. I'm fine with "less convenient". I'm not after impossible, but extremely difficult would be nice.


I'm one of the most law-abiding citizens you will ever meet. Hell, I actually pay taxes on internet purchases. If they repeal the 2nd (which will never happen) I will no longer be a law-abiding citizen. I will not, under any circumstance, willingly give up my gun. And I have no doubt there are tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of people in the same boat. The idea of the 2nd being repelled is so ridiculous it's really not worth even discussing.
 
2012-08-29 09:26:40 PM  

NightOwl2255: Wrathskellar: I'm well aware of the difficulties involved with prohibition of any thing. That doesn't make it not worth doing. I'm fine with "less convenient". I'm not after impossible, but extremely difficult would be nice.

I'm one of the most law-abiding citizens you will ever meet. Hell, I actually pay taxes on internet purchases. If they repeal the 2nd (which will never happen) I will no longer be a law-abiding citizen. I will not, under any circumstance, willingly give up my gun. And I have no doubt there are tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of people in the same boat. The idea of the 2nd being repelled is so ridiculous it's really not worth even discussing.


In honor of this post, and the 2nd amendment in general, I think tomorrow I'll go out and buy another gun. I'll make sure it's a high-cap mass murder edition just to spite wrathstalker.
 
2012-08-29 09:30:16 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Interesting that you pull heroin out as your drug war example. Not exactly a popular drug. What about weed? Firearms are really popular, the herb is really popular. That would be a fairer, more reasonable comparison. Do you think weed is difficult to get?


Heroin is the better example. Anyone can grow weed. Not anyone can build a semi-automatic pistol.

Ow! That was my feelings!: Also, what about the 300 million firearms already in circulation? What is your solution to them?


I don't have one. Anyway, it would probably be a good bit less than 300 million if you consider that any manual action weapon would be okey-dokey.
 
2012-08-29 09:31:30 PM  

Kit Fister: NightOwl2255: Wrathskellar: I'm well aware of the difficulties involved with prohibition of any thing. That doesn't make it not worth doing. I'm fine with "less convenient". I'm not after impossible, but extremely difficult would be nice.

I'm one of the most law-abiding citizens you will ever meet. Hell, I actually pay taxes on internet purchases. If they repeal the 2nd (which will never happen) I will no longer be a law-abiding citizen. I will not, under any circumstance, willingly give up my gun. And I have no doubt there are tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of people in the same boat. The idea of the 2nd being repelled is so ridiculous it's really not worth even discussing.

In honor of this post, and the 2nd amendment in general, I think tomorrow I'll go out and buy another gun. I'll make sure it's a high-cap mass murder edition just to spite wrathstalker.


Wrathstalker would be an awesome name for a band.
 
2012-08-29 09:43:37 PM  

NightOwl2255: I'm one of the most law-abiding citizens you will ever meet. Hell, I actually pay taxes on internet purchases. If they repeal the 2nd (which will never happen) I will no longer be a law-abiding citizen. I will not, under any circumstance, willingly give up my gun. And I have no doubt there are tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of people in the same boat. The idea of the 2nd being repelled is so ridiculous it's really not worth even discussing.


For the latecomers who may not have read all 712 posts (or the 200 since I started in), I'm not advocating the abolition of all private ownership of firearms. Like the current severe restrictions on automatic weapons and military hardware (which most people - not all, but most - find reasonable), I'm advocating similar restrictions on semi-automatic, high capacity and easily concealed firearms. The point is to limit the lethal potential of incidents like the Aurora theater shooting. Problem is, that would probably run afoul of the 2nd. So as a secondary argument, my position is that the 2nd amendment is pretty nearly obsolete wrt its original intent.
 
2012-08-29 10:36:04 PM  

Wrathskellar: Not anyone can build a semi-automatic pistol.


Go to Sears and get a Craftsman drill press for about $200. Go to Harbor Freight and get a vise that will travel in X and Y for about $50. Spend another $100 or so on tooling, then another few dollars on good cold-rolled steel. Spend 15 minutes on the internet searching for gun blueprints (Makarov or PA-63 would be good choices, they're in the strongest blowback caliber and neither has more than about 20 parts) and how to machine metals. Anybody with a little mechanical ability, 4 square feet of bench space, $400, and a few hours to do it in can make a functional semiautomatic pistol.
 
2012-08-29 10:46:41 PM  

DingleberryMoose: Wrathskellar: Not anyone can build a semi-automatic pistol.

Go to Sears and get a Craftsman drill press for about $200. Go to Harbor Freight and get a vise that will travel in X and Y for about $50. Spend another $100 or so on tooling, then another few dollars on good cold-rolled steel. Spend 15 minutes on the internet searching for gun blueprints (Makarov or PA-63 would be good choices, they're in the strongest blowback caliber and neither has more than about 20 parts) and how to machine metals. Anybody with a little mechanical ability, 4 square feet of bench space, $400, and a few hours to do it in can make a functional semiautomatic pistol.


So, exactly what I just said, right? Thanks for the illustration.
 
2012-08-29 10:51:03 PM  

Wrathskellar: DingleberryMoose: Wrathskellar: Not anyone can build a semi-automatic pistol.

Go to Sears and get a Craftsman drill press for about $200. Go to Harbor Freight and get a vise that will travel in X and Y for about $50. Spend another $100 or so on tooling, then another few dollars on good cold-rolled steel. Spend 15 minutes on the internet searching for gun blueprints (Makarov or PA-63 would be good choices, they're in the strongest blowback caliber and neither has more than about 20 parts) and how to machine metals. Anybody with a little mechanical ability, 4 square feet of bench space, $400, and a few hours to do it in can make a functional semiautomatic pistol.

So, exactly what I just said, right? Thanks for the illustration.


So your ideas will force folks to add an extra day or two to the planning of their massacre. That should save loads of lives.
 
2012-08-29 11:04:08 PM  

Silly Jesus: Wrathskellar: DingleberryMoose: Wrathskellar: Not anyone can build a semi-automatic pistol.

Go to Sears and get a Craftsman drill press for about $200. Go to Harbor Freight and get a vise that will travel in X and Y for about $50. Spend another $100 or so on tooling, then another few dollars on good cold-rolled steel. Spend 15 minutes on the internet searching for gun blueprints (Makarov or PA-63 would be good choices, they're in the strongest blowback caliber and neither has more than about 20 parts) and how to machine metals. Anybody with a little mechanical ability, 4 square feet of bench space, $400, and a few hours to do it in can make a functional semiautomatic pistol.

So, exactly what I just said, right? Thanks for the illustration.

So your ideas will force folks to add an extra day or two to the planning of their massacre. That should save loads of lives.


Because of the difficulty you've illustrated, we've just reduced the population of people with access to a semi-auto handgun by what, a factor of ten?

imokwiththat.jpg

Unless you're like that other guy who thinks it's easier to get heroin than a pack of smokes.
 
2012-08-29 11:06:19 PM  

Wrathskellar: You can't kill 12 people in three minutes with a knife.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341569,00.html
"A young man wielding a 5-inch knife stabbed four people to death in a small Alaska fishing and tourist town"

But, regrettably, the time it took was not recorded.,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,440901,00.html
"The 31-year-old suspect, identified only by his surname, Jeong, first set fire to his room in a low-cost lodging facility in southern Seoul and then stabbed other residents with a sashimi knife while fleeing the fire, police said.
Five people were stabbed to death"

- no time frame given, so let's go on...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Jia_%28Chinese_murderer%29
"Subsequently, Yang charged into the building and randomly stabbed nine unarmed police officers, four in the lobby and duty room and five more while making his way up to the 21st floor, before police managed to subdue him.
Six policemen suffered stab-wounds in their lungs, livers and necks and bled to death."

But, again, no time frame was given.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
"At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers"

- And the numbers of people stabbed to death rise higher and higher toward 12, but you might win on points- once again no time frame given.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
"Police concluded it was at 12:33 P.M. when he hit five people with the truck... he then left the truck and stabbed at least 12 people, according to a witness, while screaming..... he dropped his knife and was held down by the police at 12:35 P.M.."

-he stabbed 12 people, killing 4... in 2 minutes. That's still only 6 in three minutes, but we're halfway there. Those other victims could easily have ended up dead, depending on the details of where and how they were stabbed, how quickly they got medical attention, etc .

So, we have seen that it certainly IS possible to stab 12 people in less than 3 minutes, and that the number who actually die can certainly get that high as well.

 
2012-08-29 11:07:38 PM  

fredklein: [snip]


Aw heck. didn't close the i tag. Oh, well, you get the point.
 
2012-08-29 11:09:24 PM  

Wrathskellar: Silly Jesus: Wrathskellar: DingleberryMoose: Wrathskellar: Not anyone can build a semi-automatic pistol.

Go to Sears and get a Craftsman drill press for about $200. Go to Harbor Freight and get a vise that will travel in X and Y for about $50. Spend another $100 or so on tooling, then another few dollars on good cold-rolled steel. Spend 15 minutes on the internet searching for gun blueprints (Makarov or PA-63 would be good choices, they're in the strongest blowback caliber and neither has more than about 20 parts) and how to machine metals. Anybody with a little mechanical ability, 4 square feet of bench space, $400, and a few hours to do it in can make a functional semiautomatic pistol.

So, exactly what I just said, right? Thanks for the illustration.

So your ideas will force folks to add an extra day or two to the planning of their massacre. That should save loads of lives.

Because of the difficulty you've illustrated, we've just reduced the population of people with access to a semi-auto handgun by what, a factor of ten?

That's only if you start from 0. How do you propose rounding up the hundreds of thousands already in existence?

imokwiththat.jpg

Unless you're like that other guy who thinks it's easier to get heroin than a pack of smokes.

That would hold true in most urban areas for the reasons that he mentioned. I know a corner that I can drive to at any time, day or night, and get any drug I want. I'd have to find an open gas station and grab my ID to get some smokes.

 
2012-08-29 11:15:08 PM  

Wrathskellar: Because of the difficulty you've illustrated, we've just reduced the population of people with access to a semi-auto handgun by what, a factor of ten?


Um, there is no real "difficulty" there. And besides, the ones who can will make guns for the ones who can't.

Or they'll just smuggle them in from outside the USA. Like drugs and illegal aliens are smuggled in today. Your idea has the fatal flaw that CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW. If someone is planning on a mass murder, will they really be deterred because one possible type of weapon is a little harder to get? Nope.
 
2012-08-29 11:51:36 PM  

fredklein: -he stabbed 12 people, killing 4... in 2 minutes. That's still only 6 in three minutes, but we're halfway there. Those other victims could easily ...


Yes, I get the point that there are contrary examples. The world's a messy and complicated place. I'm not after perfection. Are you expecting that of me?

The point you need to prove though is that

1) mass knifings are at least as prevalent and at least as lethal as mass shootings
2) knives have as few alternate non-murder uses as semi-automatic weapons
 
2012-08-29 11:58:42 PM  

fredklein: Wrathskellar: Because of the difficulty you've illustrated, we've just reduced the population of people with access to a semi-auto handgun by what, a factor of ten?

Um, there is no real "difficulty" there. And besides, the ones who can will make guns for the ones who can't.

Or they'll just smuggle them in from outside the USA. Like drugs and illegal aliens are smuggled in today. Your idea has the fatal flaw that CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW. If someone is planning on a mass murder, will they really be deterred because one possible type of weapon is a little harder to get? Nope.


You seem to have missed the first oh, four hours of this conversation. I'm not worried about criminals. I'm worried about the ease with which an otherwise law-abiding person can get hands on a weapon of mass murder.

Like I said fred, I'm not after making it impossible. That's stupid. I'm cool with making it significantly harder anyone to access those weapons. I think forcing people to buy on the illegal black market, or manufacture guns themselves, and face arrest if caught in either of those activities is significantly harder. Not impossible. Significantly harder.

/that's what she said
 
2012-08-30 12:25:37 AM  

Wrathskellar: I think forcing people to buy on the illegal black market, or manufacture guns themselves, and face arrest if caught in either of those activities is significantly harder.


You must have life experience in a police state or fairy-tale land. (checked your profile before I added the police state bit, sorry) There are significant portions of the country where your nearest neighbor is at least a quarter mile away and you have a cellar and everything necessary to survive doomsday because tornadoes are common and modern amenities like electricity and running water (which comes from the electricity working the motor on the pump at the bottom of your well) aren't to be depended upon when it's stormy. The land is flat and the roads are straight. In those areas, it's practically impossible to police the activities in and around those isolated homes and the barns and other outbuildings thereabouts. The people who live in those areas are the self-sufficient types who could manufacture a functional gun in a pinch but prefer to buy something with a rifled barrel because accuracy is nice and they have better things to do with their time. Those better things include making a living. If there's suddenly a black market for guns, there will be a ready supply. Prohibition of any type of weapon or drug really doesn't work, it just makes them more expensive. I know people who can barely afford the gas to get to work and whose rent or mortgage payment is behind who can support their weed, tobacco, and satellite TV habits. It's simply a question of priorities.
 
2012-08-30 12:49:10 AM  
He came in telling em they had to hand over that money or get the pew but then HE got the pew THAT'S irony
 
2012-08-30 01:50:37 AM  

DingleberryMoose: Wrathskellar: I think forcing people to buy on the illegal black market, or manufacture guns themselves, and face arrest if caught in either of those activities is significantly harder.

You must have life experience in a police state or fairy-tale land. (checked your profile before I added the police state bit, sorry) There are significant portions of the country where your nearest neighbor is at least a quarter mile away and you have a cellar and everything necessary to survive doomsday because tornadoes are common and modern amenities like electricity and running water (which comes from the electricity working the motor on the pump at the bottom of your well) aren't to be depended upon when it's stormy. The land is flat and the roads are straight. In those areas, it's practically impossible to police the activities in and around those isolated homes and the barns and other outbuildings thereabouts. The people who live in those areas are the self-sufficient types who could manufacture a functional gun in a pinch but prefer to buy something with a rifled barrel because accuracy is nice and they have better things to do with their time. Those better things include making a living. If there's suddenly a black market for guns, there will be a ready supply. Prohibition of any type of weapon or drug really doesn't work, it just makes them more expensive. I know people who can barely afford the gas to get to work and whose rent or mortgage payment is behind who can support their weed, tobacco, and satellite TV habits. It's simply a question of priorities.


You're apparently one of those who consider heroin as easy to access as a pack of smokes if it fits your religious beliefs.

I'm from the midwest. I'm one of those who's perfectly capable of fabricating a gun or, well, pretty much anything else you got the tools for, and some stuff you don't. I'm also capable of realizing that for the majority of Americans humans, having to fabricate a freakin gun with tools in your garage is a fairly significant impedement to gun ownership. 

I'll say it one more time, I'm not interested in a perfect solution. I'm ok with a significant barrier.
 
2012-08-30 03:16:01 AM  

Wrathskellar: DingleberryMoose: Wrathskellar: I think forcing people to buy on the illegal black market, or manufacture guns themselves, and face arrest if caught in either of those activities is significantly harder.

You must have life experience in a police state or fairy-tale land. (checked your profile before I added the police state bit, sorry) There are significant portions of the country where your nearest neighbor is at least a quarter mile away and you have a cellar and everything necessary to survive doomsday because tornadoes are common and modern amenities like electricity and running water (which comes from the electricity working the motor on the pump at the bottom of your well) aren't to be depended upon when it's stormy. The land is flat and the roads are straight. In those areas, it's practically impossible to police the activities in and around those isolated homes and the barns and other outbuildings thereabouts. The people who live in those areas are the self-sufficient types who could manufacture a functional gun in a pinch but prefer to buy something with a rifled barrel because accuracy is nice and they have better things to do with their time. Those better things include making a living. If there's suddenly a black market for guns, there will be a ready supply. Prohibition of any type of weapon or drug really doesn't work, it just makes them more expensive. I know people who can barely afford the gas to get to work and whose rent or mortgage payment is behind who can support their weed, tobacco, and satellite TV habits. It's simply a question of priorities.

You're apparently one of those who consider heroin as easy to access as a pack of smokes if it fits your religious beliefs.

I'm from the midwest. I'm one of those who's perfectly capable of fabricating a gun or, well, pretty much anything else you got the tools for, and some stuff you don't. I'm also capable of realizing that for the majority of Americans humans, having to fabricate a freakin gun wit ...


Anyone with sufficient motivation, and malice will plan things out in advance.

Anders Brevik bought a cop outfit, and built a bomb to make a diversion. I'm pretty sure blasting caps are difficult to get over there. Badges are illegal to own out here.

The VT killer bought his stuff weeks in advance. Even if Virginia had a 3 or 10 day waiting period, it wouldn't have applied to him.

Marvin Heemeyer built his killdozer over a period of a year and a half.

A cult in Japan went around attacking people with sarin nerve gas.

McVeigh spent months planning, before blowing up a federal building in Oklahoma.

The common element here is that all these guys had malice aforethought. They planned well in advance to make their attacks as bloody as possible. Different methods, different tools, but all did what they wanted. You can make whatever laws you want, but that doesn't stop the crazies.

And if people want guns and can't make them, but others don't want them but can make them, even if all guns were illegal, you would end up with a black market. The Chechins, and Afghani insurgents are literally using handmade guns built from old replicas, and made out of trash can lids, and they haven't been stopped.
 
2012-08-30 03:16:06 AM  

BostonEMT: puffy999: AngryDragon: The random killing sprees are usually in "gun free zones".

Yes, Jonestown was a gun free zone.

what about Waco, Texas??

/just sayin' is all


What part of 'usually' isn't understood? From what I remember in the news, about 80% of spree killings occur within 'gun free zones'.

craigdamage: ....also,after having seen the FREAKONOMICS documentary,I seriously question the number of "reported killings" in Japan.


Japan's suicide rate is higher than the USA's suicide + murder rate. You're more likely to die by your own hand in Japan than you are to die by your own or another's in the USA.

bonobo73: Basically youre saying that the person, the man who was killed, was worth less than the money in the cash register. No one automatically deserves to die for pulling a gun. Society says so, as we do not award the death penalty for armed assault.


I, and most other self defense proponents, view it a bit differently. You see, it was the robber who placed the value of the cash register on human life, specifically the cashiers. Well, maybe the gun is fake/unloaded so he's not actually threatening death, but as a self defense matter we tend to take the criminal at his word. Finding that unacceptable, we discount HIS life to the $50 or so, but value the clerks fully (call it $2M). As such, the fairly low probability of him actually killing the clerk still means the choice of least loss is to kill him. It wasn't the defensive shooter that chose to devalue life. It was the Robber himself.
 
2012-08-30 07:04:22 AM  

Wrathskellar: The point you need to prove though is that

1) mass knifings are at least as prevalent and at least as lethal as mass shootings


Well, in places where guns are controlled, there's basically a choice between bombs or knifes. For instance, 14,000 knife victims a year in England. So "based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US.".

2) knives have as few alternate non-murder uses as semi-automatic weapons


That's a disingenuous argument. "Oh, yeah, that object is dangerous and kills thousands each year... but I find it pretty useful, and don't want it banned'.

Besides, guns have plenty of uses:

Protecting your family in emergencies
Personal safety and self defense
Preventing and deterring crimes
Detaining criminals for arrest
Guarding our national borders
Preserving our interests abroad
Helping defend our allies
Overcoming tyranny
International trade
Emergency preparedness
Commerce and employment
Historical preservation and study
Obtaining food by hunting
Olympic competition
Collecting
Sporting pursuits
Target practice
Recreational shooting 

Knives just cut stuff.
 
2012-08-30 07:06:22 AM  

Wrathskellar: I'm not worried about criminals. I'm worried about the ease with which an otherwise law-abiding person can get hands on a weapon of mass murder.


If they ARE 'law abiding', there is no legitimate reason to fear their owning a gun.

If they are NOT 'law abiding', they won't obey the gun laws anyway.
 
2012-08-30 08:30:36 AM  

Wrathskellar: I'll say it one more time, I'm not interested in a perfect solution. I'm ok with a significant barrier.


You are advocating an unreasonable infringement upon liberty without rational basis.

All rifles, of which semi-automatic rifles are a smaller subset, are less commonly used to commit murder than are knives. Any claim that prohibiting civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles is warranted is a lie. In claiming such a prohibition to be warranted, you are lying. You are therefore a liar; claims issued by you are not credible.
 
2012-08-30 08:46:22 AM  

Wrathskellar: You're apparently one of those who consider heroin as easy to access as a pack of smokes if it fits your religious beliefs.


Nope, I'm a social worker who eventually left the job because it started to follow me home. I've seen people who live in hovels and only eat what they can get with food stamps find a way to afford a very expensive meth habit. I had someone come into the office on December 23 one year and ask for presents for his kids for Christmas. He had a wrapper on his forearm of a new tattoo. Because it was my job to make his children's lives better and not just their Christmas, I told him to show them the tat and explain to them how Dad thought it was more important to get a new tat than get them something for Christmas. (I also knew the kids had presents waiting from other people, the kids weren't staying with Dad.) People will get what they want/value (like a new tat or drugs or a gun or new rims) and sacrifice what they don't (like presents for their kids, food, making the house payment). Simply put, society needs to stop holding inanimate objects responsible for peoples' actions and hold those people accountable.

/it may be possible to make the argument it's harder to get smokes than to get horse in some jurisdictions
//not true in our area
///it is easier for underage kids to get weed than to get cigs, though
 
2012-08-30 09:00:19 AM  

bonobo73: Basically youre saying that the person, the man who was killed, was worth less than the money in the cash register. No one automatically deserves to die for pulling a gun. Society says so, as we do not award the death penalty for armed assault.


Wow, way to miss the point. When someone threatens an innocent with what appears to be a lethal weapon, the societal norm is that the person being threatened should be protected. Whether there is a cash register, rape, or drunken rampage involved is merely incidental. The important issue is the protection of the innocent, and if the aggressor must be killed in order to protect the innocent we're OK with that. (Ever seen a Disney movie? Queen Grimhilde to Gaston, the aggressor dies and the innocent lives.)

The death penalty is frequently awarded for successful armed assault, but because "successful armed assault" is a cumbersome phrase, we use the single short word "murder."
 
2012-08-30 09:12:06 AM  
*yawns, smacks lips, sips coffee* Jesus, are we still fudging with the retards, the intentionally naive "i'm a gun owner who believes in giving up my gun rights" guys, and ignoramuses?
 
2012-08-30 09:12:53 AM  

bonobo73: DEEEEEEEEEEEEEERP!


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-30 10:04:43 AM  

NightOwl2255: Farkage: Even the Clinton administration, while pushing hard for gun bans, finally admitted that firearms were used between 2 and 3 million times per year preventing or stopping crime.

Citation please? And I really mean that. I would really like to see that.


From http://www.gunfacts.info Page 41

Fact: Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times - more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.243 Of these instances, 15.7% of the people using firearms defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so.
Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.

243 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Kleck and Gertz, Fall 1995
 
2012-08-30 10:28:28 AM  
quick quiz, what do the majority of victims of handgun wounds die from?
 
2012-08-30 10:30:42 AM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: quick quiz, what do the majority of victims of handgun wounds die from?


Thug Life TM?
 
2012-08-30 10:35:58 AM  

Silly Jesus: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: quick quiz, what do the majority of victims of handgun wounds die from?

Thug Life TM?


Old age or cancer or automobile accidents or anything but the handgun wound.
 
2012-08-30 10:51:12 AM  

Callous: NightOwl2255: Farkage: Even the Clinton administration, while pushing hard for gun bans, finally admitted that firearms were used between 2 and 3 million times per year preventing or stopping crime.

Citation please? And I really mean that. I would really like to see that.

From http://www.gunfacts.info Page 41

Fact: Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times - more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.243 Of these instances, 15.7% of the people using firearms defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so.
Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.

243 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Kleck and Gertz, Fall 1995


How does linking to source that cites a survey that has been widely discredited* show that the Clinton administration admitted anything? There's no mention of the Clinton administration anywhere in your cite.

*It was a random survey, not a scientific study and the methodology was piss poor to say the least. When they called, they asked to speak to the "head of the household" which, of course, meant that a disproportionate amount of those surveyed were men. But when they extrapolated the results, they used the adult population of the US in their calculations. They called 5000 homes and received 66 affirmative answers, and from those 66 they extrapolated the 2.5 million number.
 
2012-08-30 01:30:57 PM  

Wrathskellar: Dimensio: What law "enables" my ownership of an AR-15 rifle?

Sorry, more accurately, it's the lack of a restriction. I didn't know you were going to go all semantic on me.


This statement actually explains a lot about your train of thought. It's not semantics, it's philosophy. You seem to believe that restriction is inherent and liberty needs justification/approval. The Constitution was written to document and give the weight of law to liberty being inherent.
 
2012-08-30 02:30:04 PM  

fredklein: Wrathskellar: The point you need to prove though is that

1) mass knifings are at least as prevalent and at least as lethal as mass shootings

Well, in places where guns are controlled, there's basically a choice between bombs or knifes. For instance, 14,000 knife victims a year in England. So "based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US."


This doesn't convince me that mass knifings are at least as prevalent and at least as lethal as mass shootings. Sure, people are killed by knives, but a mass knifing event is both less frequent and less lethal compared to mass shooting events.

fredklein: Wrathskellar: 2) knives have as few alternate non-murder uses as semi-automatic weapons

That's a disingenuous argument. "Oh, yeah, that object is dangerous and kills thousands each year... but I find it pretty useful, and don't want it banned'.

Besides, guns have plenty of uses:

[snip list]
Knives just cut stuff.


There are knives in every household. There aren't guns in every household. It's silly to argue that guns are somehow just as useful as knives. Who's using a disingenuous line of reasoning? You are. And your doing so indicates an unwillingness to confront the actual issue.
 
2012-08-30 02:35:18 PM  

fredklein: Wrathskellar: I'm not worried about criminals. I'm worried about the ease with which an otherwise law-abiding person can get hands on a weapon of mass murder.

If they ARE 'law abiding', there is no legitimate reason to fear their owning a gun.

If they are NOT 'law abiding', they won't obey the gun laws anyway.


Neither of which addresses my point. Jared Loughner was a perfectly law abiding gun owner until he pulled the trigger that day. One might ignore the gun laws, but I propose placing a set of obstacles and risks in the way of their acquiring a weapon of mass murder.
 
2012-08-30 02:40:34 PM  

Dimensio: You are advocating an unreasonable infringement upon liberty without rational basis.

All rifles, of which semi-automatic rifles are a smaller subset, are less commonly used to commit murder than are knives. Any claim that prohibiting civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles is warranted is a lie. In claiming such a prohibition to be warranted, you are lying. You are therefore a liar; claims issued by you are not credible.


We can disagree on what's reasonable or rational. But if you need to call me a liar to strengthen your position, you've already lost.

To your point though, while knives may be more commonly used to commit murder than semi-auto long arms, I counter that it's really hard to kill 12 people in 3 minutes with a knife.
 
2012-08-30 02:53:15 PM  

Wrathskellar: There are knives in every household. There aren't guns in every household.


Only because some people have an irrational fear of them.

Jared Loughner was a perfectly law abiding gun owner until he pulled the trigger that day.

If by "perfectly law abiding" you mean he had committed two previous offenses: "in October 2007, he was cited in Pima County for possession of drug paraphernalia and on October 13, 2008, he was charged after defacing a street sign in Marana, near Tucson (which was dismissed following the completion of a diversion program in March 2009)."
 
2012-08-30 03:10:33 PM  

fredklein: Wrathskellar: Jared Loughner was a perfectly law abiding gun owner until he pulled the trigger that day.

If by "perfectly law abiding" you mean he had committed two previous offenses: "in October 2007, he was cited in Pima County for possession of drug paraphernalia and on October 13, 2008, he was charged after defacing a street sign in Marana, near Tucson (which was dismissed following the completion of a diversion program in March 2009)."


He also ran a stop sign that day. But none of that prevented him from legally acquiring a weapon which he then used to commit mass murder, so yes, that's what I mean. Aside from pedancy, do you have a point?

/"pedanticness"? "pedanticity"?
 
2012-08-30 03:14:05 PM  

fredklein: Wrathskellar: There are knives in every household. There aren't guns in every household.

Only because some people have an irrational fear of them.


Seriously? Not because knives are more useful and cheaper?

This is a stupid line of argument, and pursuing it makes it clear you're trying to distract from the actual issue.
 
2012-08-30 04:00:57 PM  

Wrathskellar: Aside from pedancy, do you have a point?


Already made it:

If they ARE 'law abiding', there is no legitimate reason to fear their owning a gun.

If they are NOT 'law abiding', they won't obey the gun laws anyway.
 
2012-08-30 05:24:20 PM  

fredklein: Wrathskellar: Aside from pedancy, do you have a point?

Already made it:

If they ARE 'law abiding', there is no legitimate reason to fear their owning a gun.

If they are NOT 'law abiding', they won't obey the gun laws anyway.


That's a meaningless tautology, and I've addressed it once already. You're a pedant, and you're looking more and more like a troll.

2/10, only because I bit twice.
 
2012-08-30 06:41:48 PM  

Wrathskellar: fredklein: Wrathskellar: Aside from pedancy, do you have a point?

Already made it:

If they ARE 'law abiding', there is no legitimate reason to fear their owning a gun.

If they are NOT 'law abiding', they won't obey the gun laws anyway.

That's a meaningless tautology, and I've addressed it once already.


No, you didn't. You said "Neither of which addresses my point. Jared Loughner was a perfectly law abiding gun owner until he pulled the trigger that day. " You never clarified what 'your point' might be , and were incorrect (or lied) about his lack of previous crimes.
 
2012-08-30 08:57:05 PM  
Kit:

You simply say there is no escalation. Wrong. There is escalation, and must be. The case of Scott Gadell in 1986 resulted in escalation. Crooks get better guns? Cops get better guns. So crooks get better guns: escalation. Weapons necessitate escalation. Always have, always will.

You go on to say, "We simply want the right to exercise our right to common, ordinary self defense, *and* the right to own whatever we feel we want." That first part I 100% agree with. The second part is where I have a problem. Whatever we feel we want huh? Wow. That right there points to escalation. What if what you want is a SA-7?

Anton Scalia is considering this right now. Look it up elsewhere too... I can say this: the number of US airliners shot down with man portable surface to air missiles over the United States is currently zero. But make these things legal, and that will climb to a non-zero number.

Your axiom says the guy with one is dangerous; the guy with many is not. It's wrong because, in reality, the guy with ANY is dangerous. Gun owners accidentally shoot loved ones, themselves and others. It happens all the time. Police in NYC recently peppered INNOCENT people while shooting a bad guy. I'm not saying they're at fault, I'm just saying totally innocent people got shot up just because ANY guns were available.

Those who'd develop more and more powerful weapons also face the dangers of things going wrong. The United States and entire world is LESS safe by the very existence of nuclear weapons.

You're wrong. Axiom broken.

Nuclear weapons are far from simple fire arms, I agree, but you just said, "and the right to own whatever we feel we want" - so nuclear weapons are back on the table. So are SA-7's. I have no idea what you or anyone else want, but I'd have to be comfortable with someone having *anything* - which I'm not.

"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?"

I never said it was. But, here you're saying that more guns == less violent crime. e.g. "the solution to violent crime is more guns."

"So, the whole argument about proliferation and 'oh the answer to guns is more guns" is a strawman at best"

You JUST said it. Go back and read what you wrote. You said that violent crime is down because of more guns. You never once considered that violent crime could be down for a whole host of socioeconomic reasons ASIDE from the proliferation of firearms. You are arguing that more weapons make the world MORE safe, not LESS safe.

I don't believe I'm being intellectually dishonest at all. I'm simply arguing that MORE weapons of ANY kind make the world less safe.
 
2012-08-31 03:27:33 AM  

Divorach: You simply say there is no escalation. Wrong. There is escalation, and must be. The case of Scott Gadell in 1986 resulted in escalation. Crooks get better guns? Cops get better guns. So crooks get better guns: escalation. Weapons necessitate escalation. Always have, always will.


Not generally, no. Short of full breakdown in the law like Mexico and Somalia, crooks are running around with what they always have -cheap concealable weapons such as handguns.

That right there points to escalation. What if what you want is a SA-7?

You're talking about the SA-7 also known as the ANZA MK-1 right? A $5k single shot, of unknown quality given that it's the lowest available price. It's even of questionable value against today's commuter planes - they rise above it's range very quickly, and are massive enough that one is unlikely to cause the plane to crash.

Believe it or not, it'd be a massive hassle but I could probably buy one legally today. But it's so far into 'rich man's toy' that it hasn't been an issue in the USA. Why are we proposing laws against something that there's never been an issue before?

Anton Scalia is considering this right now. Look it up elsewhere too... I can say this: the number of US airliners shot down with man portable surface to air missiles over the United States is currently zero. But make these things legal, and that will climb to a non-zero number.

What are the odds that, even if we KEEP it illegal, that the terrorists with international connections will simply smuggle one in rather than paying the (estimated, once you figure in the work), $100k price tag currently on getting a legal one? What are the odds the individual or small domestic group will simply do what they have historically done - smuggle a bomb on board in some fashion?

I'm not saying they're at fault, I'm just saying totally innocent people got shot up just because ANY guns were available.

Go back in history; violence didn't start with the gun. Ergo, without the gun violence will still exist. Personally, I don't think we should be concentrating on reducing gun violence, but violence in general. Cut violence in half and you'd have fewer incidents than if you eliminated gun violence completely.

Those who'd develop more and more powerful weapons also face the dangers of things going wrong. The United States and entire world is LESS safe by the very existence of nuclear weapons.

Obviously you don't understand the theory of MAD. Alfred Nobel hoped that his development of dynamite would cause war to be so horrible that people wouldn't engage on it. He was wrong. But Albert Einstein made something powerful enough.

The USA and USSR never really came to blows because of it.
The periodic wars between India and Pakistan came to an end when they both developed the bomb.
The Islamic nations surrounding Israel haven't attacked again.

On average, the world is more peaceful than it has ever been, and I attribute most of it to the effects of MAD. No longer is there any chance of 'coming out ahead' in a war against a nuclear armed nation. It's better to talk and trade instead.

You're wrong. Axiom broken.

Poor logic, you're declaring victory way too early.

I have no idea what you or anyone else want, but I'd have to be comfortable with someone having *anything* - which I'm not.

Human rights, like free speech as well as self defense, don't have anything to do with you being 'comfortable' with it.

I never said it was. But, here you're saying that more guns == less violent crime. e.g. "the solution to violent crime is more guns."

I'm going to modify his statement. More guns in law abiding hands equals less crime. Crime in the USA tends to be the lowest where every homeowner owns a gun. Crime tends to be the highest where said arms are only in the hands of the criminals, or more accurately the gangs.

You are arguing that more weapons make the world MORE safe, not LESS safe.

Yes, I'd agree that socioeconomic conditions probably has a large deal to do with being safer in the USA - 90% of the USA is as safe as Europe(oddly, it's the better armed sections that are safest on average). 1% is worse than Somolia.

ANYWAYS. There's all sorts of points in history - Rwanda, Kurds, and Jews to just name 3 out of multitudes, where effective weapons could have saved people from genocide. And, as has been said, 'assault rifles' is only a start. Preventing genocide is where having some SA-7s(not to mentio anti-tank rockets and such) would be a good thing.
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report