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.

(NBC New York)   If you picked New Jersey as the location of the next mass shooting, come up and claim your prize. Several dead, including the shooter, after a "shootout" in a supermarket   (nbcnewyork.com) divider line 410
    More: News, New Jersey, armed police, NBC 4 New York, Pathmark, mass shooting, NJ Transit  
•       •       •

12667 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Aug 2012 at 9:09 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-08-31 07:26:46 AM  
I'm just curious how many the cops killed.
 
2012-08-31 07:34:34 AM  
My PathmRk by me closed down for good. It's good to know this one opens at 6a.m. Weekdays.


/another shooting to close to home. My wifes office is a half mile away
 
2012-08-31 07:38:00 AM  
I don't think shootouts count as a mass shooting. When I think of a mass shooting, I think of a guy with a gun who goes to some unassuming place and just starts shooting people at random (or maybe not random, if it was some sort of office rage thing.)

This could be a botched robbery or some sort of argument that got out of hand. Then again, someone could have decided at 4:00 am to just start shooting people stocking shelves at Pathmark.

Either way, I think we need to differentiate these situations.
 
2012-08-31 07:40:41 AM  
Ok, this says a disgruntled worker shot two people and then killed himself. I don't think two counts as a mass shooting,

I tell ya, that graveyard shift really does things to your head.
 
2012-08-31 07:42:02 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

Guns mounted on the carts would have made for a pretty sweet lightning round.
 
2012-08-31 07:46:43 AM  
Here we go again.
*makes popcorn*
 
2012-08-31 07:54:50 AM  
Only three dead? Damn, if only he shot a few more then we could have another media panic on our hands.
 
2012-08-31 08:02:22 AM  
Glorious freedom everywhere.
 
2012-08-31 08:06:56 AM  

marius2: Only three dead? Damn, if only he shot a few more then we could have another media panic on our hands.


As it is, it seems like incidents that would normally only be regional stories are getting national exposure, thus making the debate on gun control more prominent this election. Is there some sort of nefarious purpose behind it? Probably not: The news organizations are sheep that tend to follow what the others are doing, hence we get crap like the "Summer of the Shark", and the like.
 
2012-08-31 08:23:07 AM  
this is like the mass die-off hysteria last year, remember that? you know, the shiat that happens every day that for some reason becomes an epidemic when people realize they just haven't been paying attention. don't worry, you'll get used to it and go back to not caring.
 
2012-08-31 08:26:31 AM  
At 4AM? At least wait until people have had their coffee!
 
2012-08-31 09:10:54 AM  
Concealed carry would have stopped this!
 
2012-08-31 09:12:35 AM  
Wet cleanup, isle six. Cleanup, isle six.
 
2012-08-31 09:12:57 AM  

abhorrent1: Concealed carry would have stopped this!


Like this?
 
2012-08-31 09:13:26 AM  

GAT_00: Glorious freedom everywhere.


Hey guys, let's turn this into a gun thread! It's totally not about inadequate mental health care and support for the kids we sent to the desert to shoot at people for 15-20% of their lives! It's about access to firearms!

/I don't even disagree with your stance on gun rights... much...
//but god DAMN dude.
 
2012-08-31 09:14:29 AM  
blog.cleveland.com

shoulda had turkey bowling....
 
2012-08-31 09:14:31 AM  
As more of the military comes back from overseas, we're going to see this happen more and more. But since the VA is soshulism according to the people in control of the budget, I seriously doubt we will see improvements to mental health care until they are flushed out of the system like the little shiats they are.
 
2012-08-31 09:14:33 AM  
Sweet! I'm sure this was a bad deal for those who were hurt and/or killed, but from my perspective Fridays are always kind of slow and so I'm glad that there will be a shooting thread to follow during the day. Always an entertaining way to cap off the week!
 
2012-08-31 09:14:52 AM  

dittybopper: marius2: Only three dead? Damn, if only he shot a few more then we could have another media panic on our hands.

As it is, it seems like incidents that would normally only be regional stories are getting national exposure, thus making the debate on gun control more prominent this election. Is there some sort of nefarious purpose behind it? Probably not: The news organizations are sheep that tend to follow what the others are doing, hence we get crap like the "Summer of the Shark", and the like.


Remember the bird and fish kills in late '11, early '12?
 
2012-08-31 09:14:52 AM  
This marine was slicing the pie at the supermarket...
 
2012-08-31 09:15:04 AM  

fragMasterFlash: Wet cleanup, isle six. Cleanup, isle six.


Irv, we were never in aisle 7!
 
2012-08-31 09:15:08 AM  
The media likes mass shootings these days. Especially in schools.
 
2012-08-31 09:15:22 AM  

JerseyTim: This could be a botched robbery or some sort of argument that got out of hand. Then again, someone could have decided at 4:00 am to just start shooting people stocking shelves at Pathmark.


2guyscrossfitting.files.wordpress.com

WHY DOES HE HATE THESE CANS!
 
2012-08-31 09:15:35 AM  
Which Batman villain did he think he was?
 
2012-08-31 09:16:18 AM  
Work place shooting, nothing to see, move along.
 
2012-08-31 09:16:58 AM  
Guy musta thought that "Army of Darkness" was a how to video

/got nuthin
 
2012-08-31 09:18:00 AM  
Cleanup, and 5, 6 7 and 12

Crudbucket: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 495x411]

Guns mounted on the carts would have made for a pretty sweet lightning round.


if it wasn't for that commie, Obama, the shoppers would have been able to defend themselves.
 
2012-08-31 09:18:13 AM  

Shadowtag: Which Batman villain did he think he was?


The Grocer
 
2012-08-31 09:18:29 AM  
NJ supermarket? Did somebody tell Chris Christie he couldn't have ho-ho's again?
 
2012-08-31 09:18:46 AM  
Look, I'm just saying those "10 items or less" signs are there for a reason.

Mainly, to annoy grammar Nazis who think it should be "10 items or fewer."
 
2012-08-31 09:18:56 AM  
This is why I do all my shopping at Haggen.
 
2012-08-31 09:19:08 AM  

BeesNuts: GAT_00: Glorious freedom everywhere.

Hey guys, let's turn this into a gun thread! It's totally not about inadequate mental health care and support for the kids we sent to the desert to shoot at people for 15-20% of their lives! It's about access to firearms!

/I don't even disagree with your stance on gun rights... much...
//but god DAMN dude.


You are addressing an individual who believes justified self-defense to be murder in all cases where an assailant dies. Do not expect rational discourse.
 
2012-08-31 09:19:47 AM  
"Shootout"
i.imgur.com
 
2012-08-31 09:20:00 AM  
It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.
 
2012-08-31 09:20:28 AM  
thanks gun nuts! we learned yesterday, this is "AWESOME".
 
2012-08-31 09:21:12 AM  
Those Protectrons are useless.

/less than nothing
 
2012-08-31 09:21:46 AM  
If only the cashiers had been packing heat, none of this would have happened. Also, some tax cuts couldn't hurt.
 
2012-08-31 09:22:18 AM  
God bless these people and their families for sacrificing so much for our right to bear arms.
 
2012-08-31 09:22:18 AM  
"The gunman, an ex-Marine, had been working at the store for about two weeks"

America's Heroes!
 
2012-08-31 09:22:52 AM  
Ex-Marine Kills Two, Self in NJ Supermarket Shootout

Trolled in the boobies.
 
2012-08-31 09:23:23 AM  

dittybopper: marius2: Only three dead? Damn, if only he shot a few more then we could have another media panic on our hands.

As it is, it seems like incidents that would normally only be regional stories are getting national exposure, thus making the debate on gun control more prominent this election. Is there some sort of nefarious purpose behind it? Probably not: The news organizations are sheep that tend to follow what the others are doing, hence we get crap like the "Summer of the Shark", and the like.


Especially since any debate about "gun control" is a joke right now. There is no real debate. The Second Amendment allows only the most minimal and non-intrusive of firearms legislation, and the courts have so ruled. It's a dead issue, unless you are looking to stimulate gun and ammo sales with fear tactics.
 
2012-08-31 09:23:56 AM  

PsyLord: Work place shooting, nothing to see, move along.


If dipshiats will slow down on the highway to look at a fender bender, I think yet another shooting like this deserves attention.
 
2012-08-31 09:23:59 AM  
Only two? Think of how many the shooter could have bagged if he'd had access to an ammunition belt!
 
2012-08-31 09:23:59 AM  

Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.


It isn't going to change. That war is over, we lost, and the price we will pay for the right of self-righteous honkeys to own military grade weaponry and armor piercing bullets is that sometimes one of them will get all shooty.
 
2012-08-31 09:24:26 AM  
I particularly liked this part...

A law enforcement source familiar with the investigation said the suspect got into an argument with co-workers at the store Friday morning, then went out to his car and returned a short time later, dressed in camouflage and carrying weapons.

Employees saw what he was doing and locked the door, the source said, but the gunman shot out the windows and went inside, killing two people. He then killed himself.


/cue cunning plan images
 
2012-08-31 09:25:09 AM  
He probably wasn't even supposed to be there today.
 
2012-08-31 09:26:10 AM  
I wouln't call killing two people and then yourself a "mass shooting." I'd call that New Jersey.
 
2012-08-31 09:26:14 AM  

Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.


Your babbling makes me sick. Fortunately for us, both are Constitutionally protected.
 
2012-08-31 09:26:34 AM  

BeesNuts: GAT_00: Glorious freedom everywhere.

Hey guys, let's turn this into a gun thread! It's totally not about inadequate mental health care and support for the kids we sent to the desert to shoot at people for 15-20% of their lives! It's about access to firearms!


Okay, then, you've convinced me. Let's ignore the elephant in the room...and this turd in the punchbowl gives it a nice tangy taste...
 
2012-08-31 09:27:04 AM  
We really need to more strictly enforce pornography laws. And pass that constitutional amendment to end gay marriage.
 
2012-08-31 09:27:09 AM  

Snarfangel: Look, I'm just saying those "10 items or less" signs are there for a reason.

Mainly, to annoy grammar Nazis who think it should be "10 items or fewer."


My local Alberton's signs actually do say "13 items or fewer". It's really not that difficult to get it right.
 
2012-08-31 09:28:04 AM  

Dimensio: BeesNuts: GAT_00: Glorious freedom everywhere.

Hey guys, let's turn this into a gun thread! It's totally not about inadequate mental health care and support for the kids we sent to the desert to shoot at people for 15-20% of their lives! It's about access to firearms!

/I don't even disagree with your stance on gun rights... much...
//but god DAMN dude.

You are addressing an individual who believes justified self-defense to be murder in all cases where an assailant dies. Do not expect rational discourse.


Especially from people who believe he condones Jerry Sandusky's actions.
 
2012-08-31 09:28:30 AM  
Today I learned that, according to the press, a double-murder, suicide is both a "mass shooting" and a "shootout"
 
2012-08-31 09:28:54 AM  
Going to have to get used to this. When one guy shoots up a place, he inspires a bunch of other crazies to do it.
 
2012-08-31 09:29:20 AM  
doublesecretprobation: " don't worry, you'll get used to it and go back to not caring."

This.
 
2012-08-31 09:29:21 AM  

This text is now purple: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

Your babbling makes me sick. Fortunately for us, both are Constitutionally protected.


Look, we already knew you were both underendowed and impotent, you don't need to keep reminding us.
 
2012-08-31 09:29:44 AM  

This text is now purple: Fortunately for us, both are Constitutionally protected.


Well, we can have a debate about exactly what is Constitutionally protected. But for the sake of argument, let's assume it's ownership of any gun by any U.S. citizen...

Does that mean we should let the status quo remain, unchecked? Or maybe is it time to start disucssing an amendment that makes the Second Amendment more reasonable in light of modern society? You may recall the original one was written when a "mass shooting" would have taken over an hour because of reload time.
 
2012-08-31 09:29:57 AM  

Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.


Hate to break it to you, but no amount of legislation will cure crazy. Guns are just plain outlawed in Japan for private citizens to own, but guess what? People still get shot.

It's the collective mental state of this country to get a quick fix to any problem perceived, real or imagined. Take a pill instead of seeking counseling, get liposuction instead of diet and exercise, shoot everyone instead of dealing with your inner demons. As long as guns are being made, this will continue to happen.
 
2012-08-31 09:30:00 AM  

AngryDragon: Today I learned that, according to the press, a double-murder, suicide is both a "mass shooting" and a "shootout"


Well, he was carrying an AK-47.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-08-31 09:30:46 AM  

marius2: I'm just curious how many the cops killed.


One too few apparently.
 
2012-08-31 09:30:49 AM  

Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.


You live in Chicago. This happened in NJ. Both places seem to have a surprising lack of "NRA lobbying power and influence", based on their laws.

Also, subby, bravo on that trolltastic headline. This thread will reach infinity. It already has Gat 00 in here making an ass of himself. Wait till the rest of us west-coasters wake up for it to really take off.
 
2012-08-31 09:31:01 AM  

farkityfarker: Snarfangel: Look, I'm just saying those "10 items or less" signs are there for a reason.

Mainly, to annoy grammar Nazis who think it should be "10 items or fewer."

My local Alberton's signs actually do say "13 items or fewer". It's really not that difficult to get it right.



But if you have to pay by the letter...or the sign is a little smaller than expected; some allowance it tolerated.
 
2012-08-31 09:32:38 AM  
You know what this reminds me of? Video games.
 
2012-08-31 09:32:39 AM  

Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.


Obviously, were New Jersey to impose more substantial restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership, this incident could have been averted.
 
2012-08-31 09:33:31 AM  
Were these guys the responding officers?

www.fbastard.com
 
2012-08-31 09:33:39 AM  

qsblues: Guns are just plain outlawed in Japan for private citizens to own, but guess what? People still get shot.


Yes, yes they do...in Japan, 0.07 people out of every 100,000 people are killed by guns. In the U.S., it's 10.27 out of every 100,000.

That's 146 times more gun deaths per capita.
 
2012-08-31 09:33:42 AM  
Was it in another "gun free zone"?
 
2012-08-31 09:33:57 AM  

Trivia Jockey: This makes me sick.


Well youre in the right place.

Amerika is a very sick country.
 
2012-08-31 09:35:17 AM  
"So, it says here you are ex-military?", the human resources agent said, sweat trickling down his forehead.
 
2012-08-31 09:36:11 AM  
The victims included an 18 year old woman? Wait, there were only two people shot, so obviously the reporter is trying to make this thing sound worse than it was. And, if the other victim was a man, well, we all know that men are expendable.
 
2012-08-31 09:36:12 AM  

AngryDragon: Today I learned that, according to the press, a double-murder, suicide is both a "mass shooting" and a "shootout"


This reporter(s) also got word from a law enforcement source about how the whole thing played out but then a little ways after that they said it wasn't immediately clear how the window was broken.

I don't think I've ever seen three reporters for an article before.

/I usually don't look but I scrolled back up to label the reporter as a he or she but then saw 3 reporters taking credit for the article.
//Is that common?
 
2012-08-31 09:36:13 AM  

Dimensio: Obviously, were New Jersey to impose more substantial restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership, this incident could have been averted.


In any given individual shooting incident, it's hard to determine if and when the shooter could have gotten the guns were the laws different. That's just a guessing game, and probably not a fruitful one.

But when you look at population statistics in various jurisdictions with differing gun laws, you CAN draw conclusions about the likelihood of gun violence to occur. In countries that don't grant citizens broad rights to own guns, they have far far less gun violence per capita. So somehow those laws are making it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to get guns. Not impossible, but harder.
 
2012-08-31 09:36:53 AM  
From the article - The gunman was a former Marine

No surprise there.
 
2012-08-31 09:36:56 AM  

Tawnos: Also, subby, bravo on that trolltastic headline. This thread will reach infinity. It already has Gat 00 in here making an ass of himself. Wait till the rest of us west-coasters wake up for it to really take off.


Especially the "mass shooting" part. Now, I'm not an expert in mass shootings but three people dead is NOT a "mass shooting."
I'm sure we'll have several dozen posts debating where the cutoff point should be.
 
2012-08-31 09:37:08 AM  

qsblues: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

Hate to break it to you, but no amount of legislation will cure crazy. Guns are just plain outlawed in Japan for private citizens to own, but guess what? People still get shot.

It's the collective mental state of this country to get a quick fix to any problem perceived, real or imagined. Take a pill instead of seeking counseling, get liposuction instead of diet and exercise, shoot everyone instead of dealing with your inner demons. As long as guns are being made instant gratification continues to be the norm, this will continue to happen.


FTFY
 
2012-08-31 09:37:20 AM  

3StratMan: Was it in another "gun free zone"?


Well, it was in New Jersey which is basically one big "gun-free zone", so yes.
 
2012-08-31 09:37:44 AM  

calm like a bomb: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

It isn't going to change. That war is over, we lost, and the price we will pay for the right of self-righteous honkeys to own military grade weaponry and armor piercing bullets is that sometimes one of them will get all shooty.


Military-grade weaponry is restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Handgun ammunition capable of penetrating body armour (legally determined by composition of the bullet core) is prohibited to civilians by federal law.

Civilian disarmament advocates "lose" because they consistently demonstrate themselves fundamentally ignorant of firearms terminology and even of existing regulations when proposing new restrictions. Their ignorance results in their proposals being entirely unreasonable and irrational infringements upon liberty. An unfortunate consequence of this ignorance is that even reasonable and rational proposals are adamantly opposed by firearm ownership rights advocacy organizations due to a conditioned response from numerous previous proposals that were not reasonable.
 
2012-08-31 09:37:59 AM  

farkityfarker: Snarfangel: Look, I'm just saying those "10 items or less" signs are there for a reason.

Mainly, to annoy grammar Nazis who think it should be "10 items or fewer."

My local Alberton's signs actually do say "13 items or fewer". It's really not that difficult to get it right.


Hell all our back stock carts at my store are labeled by "Isle"
 
2012-08-31 09:38:11 AM  
Maybe if all the other store workers were armed, they wouldn't have gotten killed by the fellow with marine training.

/what kind of camo helps you blend in to a supermarket?
 
2012-08-31 09:38:12 AM  
So if you shoot at yourself, it's considered a "shootout"?
 
2012-08-31 09:38:17 AM  
It's time to send prayers to the families of those affected, express our concern about violence, and then continue to do nothing but deep throat the NRA and wank off to gun porn.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-08-31 09:38:46 AM  

BeesNuts: GAT_00: Glorious freedom everywhere.

Hey guys, let's turn this into a gun thread! It's totally not about inadequate mental health care and support for the kids we sent to the desert to shoot at people for 15-20% of their lives! It's about access to firearms!
.

Well, now that you have, it's kind of idiotic to pretend that access to guns isn't a factor or that mental health care eliminates this sort of thing.

Anyone with any sense at all is going to realize that there is a problem, even if their main concern is to keep the problem from being solved because they own a gun shop or can't feel like a man without dressing up in camo and holding an assault rifle.
 
2012-08-31 09:39:09 AM  
comment FTA: "What is this world coming to..." 

You mean the same world that historically has seen brutality and carnage beyond what most present day people have ever witnessed?

Yes, this is another tragic shooting - but what recent period of time was without incident? 1970's...1960's?

OH, RIGHT..the 1950's!
It had modern appliances and chores could get done so much quicker...everyone was friendly and knew your name...
 
2012-08-31 09:39:20 AM  

Dimensio: Their ignorance results in their proposals being entirely unreasonable and irrational infringements upon liberty.


That's why new laws aren't going to do anything meaningful, it's going to take a new amendment. So maybe 200 years from now we can get that done.
 
2012-08-31 09:39:33 AM  
www.lolwtfcomics.com

Can we...at least TRY to go a month without something like this happening?
 
2012-08-31 09:39:46 AM  

3StratMan: Was it in another "gun free zone"?


The incident occurred in New Jersey, so yes.
 
2012-08-31 09:39:57 AM  
I think people are missing the point. If the Marine (there's no such thing as an ex-Marine) hadn't had a gun, he would never have been able to take out the gunman. Who knows how many people would have died then?
 
2012-08-31 09:40:40 AM  

ghare: This text is now purple: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

Your babbling makes me sick. Fortunately for us, both are Constitutionally protected.

Look, we already knew you were both underendowed and impotent, you don't need to keep reminding us.


And, there it is!
The gun grabber mantra - they always think of the cock first.

/They seem to like the cock.
//NTTAWWT
 
2012-08-31 09:40:48 AM  
FTA - "He was armed with an AK-47 assault rifle and an automatic pistol."

img831.imageshack.us
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-08-31 09:42:00 AM  

Crudbucket: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 495x411]

Guns mounted on the carts would have made for a pretty sweet lightning round.


If only someone had been carrying one of these, they could have taken him out.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-08-31 09:43:34 AM  

Trivia Jockey: Dimensio: Their ignorance results in their proposals being entirely unreasonable and irrational infringements upon liberty.

That's why new laws aren't going to do anything meaningful, it's going to take a new amendment. So maybe 200 years from now we can get that done.


How would "a new amendment" address the problem of civilian disarmament advocates being demonstrably ignorant of firearms technology (thus proposing bans on all hunting ammunition, upon a class of firearms rarely used to commit murder and upon a class of firearms that does not and likely will never exist) and ignorant of existing regulations (thus proposing prohibiting civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms)?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-08-31 09:44:17 AM  

ManateeGag: Cleanup, and 5, 6 7 and 12

Crudbucket: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 495x411]

Guns mounted on the carts would have made for a pretty sweet lightning round.

if it wasn't for that commie, Obama, the shoppers would have been able to defend themselves.


That's true. If that 18 year old girl had been carrying she could have taken down the trained Marine before he could kill anyone.
 
2012-08-31 09:45:06 AM  

Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.


You need to loosen up if 2 people who you don't have even the slightest connection to are shot in a place nowhere near you in an event that has absolutely no bearing on your life or anyone you know makes you sick.

I'm fairly sure far worse attrocities have been committed throughout the world in the time it took me to type this.
 
2012-08-31 09:46:17 AM  
Has anyone pointed out that it's only two people plus the gunman who are dead, and that's only three people and therefore this isn't a big deal and isn't tragic and isn't yet another symptom of America's psychotic gun fetish?

Has that been said?
 
2012-08-31 09:46:45 AM  

Dimensio: calm like a bomb: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

It isn't going to change. That war is over, we lost, and the price we will pay for the right of self-righteous honkeys to own military grade weaponry and armor piercing bullets is that sometimes one of them will get all shooty.

Military-grade weaponry is restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Handgun ammunition capable of penetrating body armour (legally determined by composition of the bullet core) is prohibited to civilians by federal law..


I can buy an AR-15 from a dozen places right now. I can find AK-47s by the crateload. I can legally buy a .50 cal sniper rifle. And for the former two, provided they are not labeled as such, I can buy bullets that will pierce armor. Those laws are written on tissue paper.
 
2012-08-31 09:47:16 AM  
I know that Fark isn't the news, but greenlighting this headline as a "mass shooting" plays into the sensationalist media that Drew's book railed against. This is the "summer of the shark" all over again.
 
2012-08-31 09:47:59 AM  
You get all these former military men going crazy because:
1. They don't evaluate nor treat them adequately
2. They are trained to think that a gun will resolve a dispute
3. Even if you are by some miracle evaluated and declared mentally unstable you are still allowed to keep your guns
 
2012-08-31 09:48:24 AM  
Mass shooting equals two now? Please. Over hype much shall we?
 
2012-08-31 09:49:19 AM  
marius2: I'm just curious how many the cops killed.

You hoping for a big body count?
 
2012-08-31 09:49:22 AM  
254.4 million registered vehicles in the US
~10,000 deaths per year caused by drunk drivers

270 million guns in the US
~11,500 murders per year through use of firearm


So, roughly the same amount/percentage of death is caused by each when they're used irresponsibly. While this is not advocating that any murder is ok, it does put in perspective that hundreds of millions of people responsibly use their firearms per year, but the crazies get the news.
 
2012-08-31 09:49:47 AM  

Trivia Jockey: This text is now purple: Fortunately for us, both are Constitutionally protected.

Well, we can have a debate about exactly what is Constitutionally protected. But for the sake of argument, let's assume it's ownership of any gun by any U.S. citizen...

Does that mean we should let the status quo remain, unchecked? Or maybe is it time to start disucssing an amendment that makes the Second Amendment more reasonable in light of modern society? You may recall the original one was written when a "mass shooting" would have taken over an hour because of reload time.


Mass shootings are exceedingly rare, but good for ratings and pushing an agenda so they get disproportionate coverage. Should we start repealing all the amendments due to a few egregious offenders?

/The only way you would have stopped this shooting is to go back in time and kept human beings from inventing gunpowder
//Or allowed the victims to be armed and have a chance at defending themselves, but that's just crazy talk right?
 
2012-08-31 09:50:58 AM  
SEMPER FI! GOOD WORK SOLDIER!

/farkin A I hate military.
 
2012-08-31 09:50:59 AM  

calm like a bomb: Dimensio: calm like a bomb: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

It isn't going to change. That war is over, we lost, and the price we will pay for the right of self-righteous honkeys to own military grade weaponry and armor piercing bullets is that sometimes one of them will get all shooty.

Military-grade weaponry is restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Handgun ammunition capable of penetrating body armour (legally determined by composition of the bullet core) is prohibited to civilians by federal law..

I can buy an AR-15 from a dozen places right now. I can find AK-47s by the crateload. I can legally buy a .50 cal sniper rifle. And for the former two, provided they are not labeled as such, I can buy bullets that will pierce armor. Those laws are written on tissue paper.


Does it take a lot of effort to be that ignorant? Or are you just trolling?
 
2012-08-31 09:52:07 AM  
If only everyone had guns. No one would ever get shot.
 
2012-08-31 09:52:11 AM  
A state that the Brady Campaign gave an A- for gun control. Veddy Interesting.
 
2012-08-31 09:52:44 AM  

Dimensio: How would "a new amendment" address the problem of civilian disarmament advocates being demonstrably ignorant of firearms technology...



Because they are making their arguments about what and how to ban certain guns within the framework of the Second Amendment, which severely limits what kinds of laws they can pass. In other words, the fact the Second Amendment exists as it does currently means the only real gun control debates we can have is whether to ban certain types of guns. And it's this parsing out of gun types that leads to the arguments going astray because a lot of people don't know what they're talking about (as you've pointed out).
 
2012-08-31 09:53:51 AM  

JerseyTim


I tell ya, that graveyard shift really does things to your head.


Like putting holes in it.
 
2012-08-31 09:54:12 AM  

R.A.Danny: A state that the Brady Campaign gave an A- for gun control. Veddy Interesting.


The grade is based on how many restrictive laws they have on the books. It doesn't matter if they work.
 
2012-08-31 09:54:22 AM  

calm like a bomb: Dimensio: calm like a bomb: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

It isn't going to change. That war is over, we lost, and the price we will pay for the right of self-righteous honkeys to own military grade weaponry and armor piercing bullets is that sometimes one of them will get all shooty.

Military-grade weaponry is restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Handgun ammunition capable of penetrating body armour (legally determined by composition of the bullet core) is prohibited to civilians by federal law..

I can buy an AR-15 from a dozen places right now.


AR-15 rifles commonly available to civilians in the United States of America are semi-automatic with a minimum barrel length of sixteen inches and thus are not "military grade" weaponry. Such rifles are typically used for recreational target shooting and for hunting, not for military purposes.


I can find AK-47s by the crateload.

Actual AK-47 rifles are assault rifles and, as such, are classified as "machine guns" by the 1934 National firearms Act of 1934.


I can legally buy a .50 cal sniper rifle.

This is the only firearm that you have identified that is used by military forces, however civilian use of it differs from military use. Criminal misuse of such firearms is rare, and thus restricting civilian ownership of such firearms (beyond those restrictions already applied to general firearm ownership) is unwarranted.


And for the former two, provided they are not labeled as such, I can buy bullets that will pierce armor. Those laws are written on tissue paper.

Any common rifle caliber above .22LR will pierce police-issue body armour. Prohibiting civilian ownership of rifle ammunition capable of penetrating police body armour will result in a complete ban on all hunting rifle ammunition except for ammunition suitable for hunting rabbits and squirrels.
 
2012-08-31 09:54:26 AM  
Tenatra
2012-08-31 09:24:26 AM

I particularly liked this part...

A law enforcement source familiar with the investigation said the suspect got into an argument with co-workers at the store Friday morning, then went out to his car and returned a short time later, dressed in camouflage and carrying weapons.

Employees saw what he was doing and locked the door, the source said, but the gunman shot out the windows and went inside, killing two people. He then killed himself.


Nice. These people were so lucky N.J. law protects their right to cower on the floor praying for their lives with no means to actually defend themselves.
 
2012-08-31 09:54:28 AM  

MichiganFTL: So, roughly the same amount/percentage of death is caused by each when they're used irresponsibly. While this is not advocating that any murder is ok, it does put in perspective that hundreds of millions of people responsibly use their firearms per year, but the crazies get the news.


Having the use of automobiles adds a lot more utility to our society than gun ownership does. If you took away both, we'd suffer a hell of a lot more from not having cars than we would from guns.

So false equivalency.
 
2012-08-31 09:54:37 AM  

Quigs: SEMPER FI! GOOD WORK SOLDIER!

/farkin A I hate military.


Then pickup a rifle and defend the country yourself, coward.
 
2012-08-31 09:56:06 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Mass shootings are exceedingly rare, but good for ratings and pushing an agenda so they get disproportionate coverage


OK, fine, let's not use mass shootings as the barometer. Let's look at overall gun violence, of any kind, per capita. And that's where gun advocates lose, at least on the "banning guns has no effect" argument.

Sadly, though, gun advocates usually win on the legal argument.
 
2012-08-31 09:57:35 AM  

Trivia Jockey: Dimensio: How would "a new amendment" address the problem of civilian disarmament advocates being demonstrably ignorant of firearms technology...


Because they are making their arguments about what and how to ban certain guns within the framework of the Second Amendment, which severely limits what kinds of laws they can pass. In other words, the fact the Second Amendment exists as it does currently means the only real gun control debates we can have is whether to ban certain types of guns. And it's this parsing out of gun types that leads to the arguments going astray because a lot of people don't know what they're talking about (as you've pointed out).


I do not understand how altering the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution will eliminate the ignorance of civilian disarmament advocates, nor alter the inherent irrationality and unreasonableness of their proposals.
 
2012-08-31 09:57:47 AM  

qsblues: Hate to break it to you, but no amount of legislation will cure crazy. Guns are just plain outlawed in Japan for private citizens to own, but guess what? People still get shot.

It's the collective mental state of this country to get a quick fix to any problem perceived, real or imagined. Take a pill instead of seeking counseling, get liposuction instead of diet and exercise, shoot everyone instead of dealing with your inner demons. As long as guns are being made, this will continue to happen.


Care to do a comparison of the number of gun killings per capita in Japan versus the US?

Yeah, I didn't think so. So I'll do it for you. I'm sure there's more recent data out there; I just used the first I could find. And it's such a night-and-day difference that frankly, there's no need for more up to date data. If either country had changed enough to make a difference in the comparison, people would be screaming about it.

United States: 10.27 firearm-related deaths (4.14 firearm-related homicides) per 100,000 population, per year (2004-2006 CDC figures)
Japan: 0.07 firearm-related deaths (0.02 firearm-related homicides) per 100,000 population, per year (1994 figures from Krug 1998)

Yes, you are 207 times more likely to be murdered by firearm in the US, than in Japan.

But then we all knew that already. The whole "guns don't kill people, we need guns to stop people being killed, etc" argument is totally bogus and always has been. The US has the most guns per capita in the developed world, the highest rate of gun deaths in the western world, and the highest gun homicide rate in the western world. It's also the country that you can't go more than a couple of weeks without hearing about the latest mass-murder from some gun-toting lunatic.

Easy access to guns equals increased likelihood of gun homicide. It *is* that simple.

You're right that changing the law won't (quickly) solve the problem here, but that's not because gun control doesn't work. It's because you can't control what's already out there and in many cases with no paper trail whatsoever. Regulating gun ownership only affects new purchases; the gun nuts aren't going to voluntarily hand their weapons in, by and large. The US has made its bed, and will continue to be shot dead in it for the foreseeable future.
 
2012-08-31 09:57:51 AM  
Damn, last week's NYC shooting was right outside of the pub I watch football at every weekend. This one is in the town next over from where I live.

Getting a little too close to home...farking stop you coonts.
 
2012-08-31 09:57:52 AM  

tallguywithglasseson: So if you shoot at yourself, it's considered a "shootout"?


Depends on if you hit yourself the first time...and if you shoot back.
 
2012-08-31 09:57:57 AM  

Trivia Jockey: MichiganFTL: So, roughly the same amount/percentage of death is caused by each when they're used irresponsibly. While this is not advocating that any murder is ok, it does put in perspective that hundreds of millions of people responsibly use their firearms per year, but the crazies get the news.

Having the use of automobiles adds a lot more utility to our society than gun ownership does. If you took away both, we'd suffer a hell of a lot more from not having cars than we would from guns.

So false equivalency.


Only if you believe gins have no utility in our society. Which ignores everything from self defense to defense of the country should the worst happen.
 
2012-08-31 09:58:37 AM  

vpb: BeesNuts: GAT_00: Glorious freedom everywhere.

Hey guys, let's turn this into a gun thread! It's totally not about inadequate mental health care and support for the kids we sent to the desert to shoot at people for 15-20% of their lives! It's about access to firearms!
.
Well, now that you have, it's kind of idiotic to pretend that access to guns isn't a factor or that mental health care eliminates this sort of thing.

Anyone with any sense at all is going to realize that there is a problem, even if their main concern is to keep the problem from being solved because they own a gun shop or can't feel like a man without dressing up in camo and holding an assault rifle.


I believe BeesNuts makes a valid point. Stable people don't usually go directly to "kill them" for conflict resolution. The reporting indicates he was depressed or suffered from mental illness (though the source may be suspect), how clear cut can it be? Just spitballing, but perhaps the underlying issue wasn't his access to firearms, but the kink in his thinking that "shoot my coworkers and then myself" seemed like a reasonable path. Sure, it's reasonable to say that folks who are unstable or a risk to themselves and others shouldn't have access to firearms, but they'll still be crazy and they would still be a risk to society. Remove the immediate threat (the individual's access to firearms), find them help, and help them develop skills that help them to realize that "shooting people is bad." Take away the crazy thinking and we'll see less of these kinds of events, and we'll help to build more complete people. Win/win.
 
2012-08-31 09:58:59 AM  

JerseyTim: I know that Fark isn't the news, but greenlighting this headline as a "mass shooting" plays into the sensationalist media that Drew's book railed against. This is the "summer of the shark" all over again.


"What can YOU do to protect yourself from supermarket-based rampages? Our investigative journalism reveals that people who buy cat food AND oranges are 12% less likely to commit firearm based public homicides. Ted Woodward has the story at 11"
 
2012-08-31 09:59:18 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Quigs: SEMPER FI! GOOD WORK SOLDIER!

/farkin A I hate military.

Then pickup a rifle and defend the country yourself, coward.


Next time I'm given the chance to protect the country from backwards military farks who kill 18 year olds stuck working graveyard shifts? I will.
 
2012-08-31 09:59:22 AM  
woke up this morning, got myself a gun.
 
2012-08-31 09:59:31 AM  
From TFA:


An ex-Marine
...
The gunman was a former Marine


Which is it?

("Ex-Marine" = dishonorable discharge or similar; "former Marine" = honorable discharge.)
 
2012-08-31 09:59:38 AM  

calm like a bomb: Dimensio: calm like a bomb: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

It isn't going to change. That war is over, we lost, and the price we will pay for the right of self-righteous honkeys to own military grade weaponry and armor piercing bullets is that sometimes one of them will get all shooty.

Military-grade weaponry is restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Handgun ammunition capable of penetrating body armour (legally determined by composition of the bullet core) is prohibited to civilians by federal law..

I can buy an AR-15 from a dozen places right now. I can find AK-47s by the crateload. I can legally buy a .50 cal sniper rifle. And for the former two, provided they are not labeled as such, I can buy bullets that will pierce armor. Those laws are written on tissue paper.


You didn't try to cram in as many polysyllabic words as you possibly could to express your point, so your argument is invalid.
 
2012-08-31 10:00:14 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Only if you believe gins have no utility in our society. Which ignores everything from self defense to defense of the country should the worst happen.


So if you had to choose between your car and your guns, you'd choose your guns because there's about a one in one hundred million chance you're going to have to stop the Viet Cong from taking over the US.

Seems legit.
 
2012-08-31 10:00:25 AM  

MichiganFTL: 254.4 million registered vehicles in the US
~10,000 deaths per year caused by drunk drivers

270 million guns in the US
~11,500 murders per year through use of firearm


So, roughly the same amount/percentage of death is caused by each when they're used irresponsibly. While this is not advocating that any murder is ok, it does put in perspective that hundreds of millions of people responsibly use their firearms per year, but the crazies get the news.


You're only counting murders. In the 2006-2007 statistical year, only 4.14 deaths/100K were homicides. 5.71/100K were suicides and 0.23/100K were unintentional, for a total of 10.27/100K. (according to the UN). That puts the US in sixth place in the number of firearm deaths. In the same year, according to the US Census, the automobile death rate was 104/100K population. Clearly, we need car control.
 
2012-08-31 10:00:53 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Only if you believe gins have no utility in our society.


I prefer vodka.
 
2012-08-31 10:01:03 AM  
He went coo-coo for coco puffs..
 
2012-08-31 10:01:15 AM  
Sounds like subby works for CNN.
 
2012-08-31 10:01:18 AM  
If Jersey Shore hadn't been cancelled this NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED!!!
 
2012-08-31 10:01:20 AM  

calm like a bomb: I can buy an AR-15 from a dozen places right now. I can find AK-47s by the crateload. I can legally buy a .50 cal sniper rifle. And for the former two, provided they are not labeled as such, I can buy bullets that will pierce armor. Those laws are written on tissue paper.


The problem is, terms like "military grade" and "armor piercing" are meaningless without proper definitions. The "AR-15"s and "AK-47"s that you can buy as a civilian without going through the NFA paperwork and fees are simply small- and medium-caliber semi-automatic rifles, respectively. That's why the "assault rifle" ban had to go through such absurd contortions in determining which rifles were "okay" and which rifles were "evil". 'Oh, it's got a bayonet lug? That's one more check in the 'evil' category!"

Likewise, there are lots of bullets that will pierce the type of body armor that most police officers wear, even without being designed to do so. This is because those vests are intended almost exclusively to stop handgun bullets. Grandad's 30-06 will blast through a Level III police vest as if it were stuffed with cotton balls. That doesn't mean that a typical lead core, copper-jacketed .30 cal bullet is "armor piercing" ammunition.
 
2012-08-31 10:02:26 AM  
Go ahead ban all guns. I'll get myself an easily equipped machine shop in the garage and start turning out fully automatic sten submachine guns.

I'll be rich!!

/Brits did just that in the 1940's
// guns ain't hi-tech. They're mechanical
 
2012-08-31 10:03:40 AM  

jso2897: dittybopper: marius2: Only three dead? Damn, if only he shot a few more then we could have another media panic on our hands.

As it is, it seems like incidents that would normally only be regional stories are getting national exposure, thus making the debate on gun control more prominent this election. Is there some sort of nefarious purpose behind it? Probably not: The news organizations are sheep that tend to follow what the others are doing, hence we get crap like the "Summer of the Shark", and the like.

Especially since any debate about "gun control" is a joke right now. There is no real debate. The Second Amendment allows only the most minimal and non-intrusive of firearms legislation, and the courts have so ruled. It's a dead issue, unless you are looking to stimulate gun and ammo sales with fear tactics.


Or unless you are looking at re-igniting the moribund debate on gun control before an election.

Trying to stimulate gun and ammo sales with fear tactics? It's not the NRA reporting on these stories, and traditionally the national Mainstream MSM Media outside of FoxNews has been either actively hostile to the idea of individual gun ownership, or at best benignly neglectful.

The whole idea that the media are reporting on this in order to boost sales of guns is patently ridiculous to anyone who has even a passing familiarity with the history of reporting on gun issues outside of the specialty gun media outlets.
 
2012-08-31 10:03:51 AM  

Dimensio: I do not understand how altering the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution will eliminate the ignorance of civilian disarmament advocates, nor alter the inherent irrationality and unreasonableness of their proposals.


I don't know how to make this much clearer...if we amended the 2nd Amendment, for example, to say that "firearms may only be owned by members of the military, national guard and law enforcement", then people's lack of knowledge of what is or is not an assault rifle becomes irrelevant. And, accordingly, silly proposals for banning assault rifles based on said lack of knowledge becomes irrelevant.

(I'm not necessarily advocating this type of amendment, just making the point that under the current framework we're left with quibbling over the type and quantity of guns to ban.)
 
2012-08-31 10:03:52 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Only if you believe gins have no utility in our society. Which ignores everything from self defense to defense of the country should the worst happen.


Defense of the country isn't really possible any more. In the 1700s it was organized guys with muskets vs. disorganized guys with muskets. Now it'd be organized guys with artillery, tanks, apcs, body armor, helicopters, and jets vs disorganized guys with rifles and Molotov cocktails. If it came down to it, the US citizenry would be totally incapable of defending itself against the US Armed Forces.
 
2012-08-31 10:04:42 AM  
Not a mass shooting. Just another Friday morning in New Jersey.
 
2012-08-31 10:05:01 AM  

gweilo8888: Easy access to guns equals increased likelihood of gun homicide. It *is* that simple.

You're right that changing the law won't (quickly) solve the problem here, but that's not because gun control doesn't work. It's because you can't control what's already out there and in many cases with no paper trail whatsoever. Regulating gun ownership only affects new purchases; the gun nuts aren't going to voluntarily hand their weapons in, by and large. The US has made its bed, and will continue to be shot dead in it for the foreseeable future.


Yup, this.
 
2012-08-31 10:05:26 AM  

Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.


Does New Jersey have strict gun laws?
 
2012-08-31 10:05:51 AM  

jso2897: The Second Amendment allows only the most minimal and non-intrusive of firearms legislation, and the courts have so ruled


Depends on how you define "minimal and non-intrusive", I suppose.
Heller doesn't invalidate bans on concealed weapons, firearms licensing (such as in D.C.), bans on certain kinds of weapons or ammunition, etc., and doesn't contain the words "intrusive" or "minimal".

The actual debate, however, is clearly being won by the more permissive side, shall-issue conceal/carry is becoming the norm, NTTAWRT.

These things ebb and flow over time, however, there may be some overreach/push back at some point, if not on something like "stand your ground", then maybe something else.
 
2012-08-31 10:05:53 AM  

you have pee hands: Fail in Human Form: Only if you believe gins have no utility in our society. Which ignores everything from self defense to defense of the country should the worst happen.

Defense of the country isn't really possible any more. In the 1700s it was organized guys with muskets vs. disorganized guys with muskets. Now it'd be organized guys with artillery, tanks, apcs, body armor, helicopters, and jets vs disorganized guys with rifles and Molotov cocktails. If it came down to it, the US citizenry would be totally incapable of defending itself against the US Armed Forces.


The actual war? Yeah. The insurgency? Not so much.
 
2012-08-31 10:06:04 AM  

pippi longstocking: You get all these former military men going crazy because:
1. They don't evaluate nor treat them adequately


I'm not sure how it works for troops returning from the desert if they are screened or not but after you are out of the military you can file a claim with the VA for issues that you acquired while you were on duty. The VA will send you to a psych for an evaluation if you claim any mental problems. Not only that but after you are in the VA system, you can talk with your primary care doctor and ask to see a psych and he/she will set you up with one.

I see a psychologist and psychiatrist monthly for free. Meds are taken care of too and on top of that I get money for disability too. If he had mental health issues and they were acknowledged by the VA, depending on his disability percentage he may have been able to get as much if not more than he was making at the grocery store - Tax Free from disability payments.
 
2012-08-31 10:06:07 AM  

JackieRabbit: You're only counting murders. In the 2006-2007 statistical year, only 4.14 deaths/100K were homicides. 5.71/100K were suicides and 0.23/100K were unintentional, for a total of 10.27/100K. (according to the UN). That puts the US in sixth place in the number of firearm deaths. In the same year, according to the US Census, the automobile death rate was 104/100K population. Clearly, we need car control.


Do you mean 10.4/100k? There are certainly not upwards of a quarter million automobile deaths in the US every year.
 
2012-08-31 10:06:10 AM  

Rev.K: Fail in Human Form: Only if you believe gins have no utility in our society. Which ignores everything from self defense to defense of the country should the worst happen.

So if you had to choose between your car and your guns, you'd choose your guns because there's about a one in one hundred million chance you're going to have to stop the Viet Cong from taking over the US.

Seems legit.


Different tools for different purposes. For example in about an hour I'm going to use my car to go pickup my new pistol from the local gun shop.

/he called yesterday because he finally tracked down the new Glock I wanted
//got a hell of a deal :-)
 
2012-08-31 10:06:18 AM  

Dimensio: Military-grade weaponry is restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Handgun ammunition capable of penetrating body armour (legally determined by composition of the bullet core) is prohibited to civilians by federal law.

Civilian disarmament advocates "lose" because they consistently demonstrate themselves fundamentally ignorant of firearms terminology and even of existing regulations when proposing new restrictions. Their ignorance results in their proposals being entirely unreasonable and irrational infringements upon liberty. An unfortunate consequence of this ignorance is that even reasonable and rational proposals are adamantly opposed by firearm ownership rights advocacy organizations due to a conditioned response from numerous previous proposals that were not reasonable.


The 1934 NFA doesn't prohibit military style weapons from being owned, but does classify fully-automatic weapons as machine guns, which are then subject to registration and a $200 tax when being sold or transferred. There is no federal law that prohibits citizens from owning machine guns (though some states do), but the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act imposes a de-facto ban by prohibiting civilian ownership of machine guns registered after 1986, restricting the supply of civilian-ownable fully automatic weapons.

It's the combination of the NFA registration requirement coupled with the Hughes ownership restriction that creates an effective ban on fully-automatic weapons, people have tried (and failed) to impose a true ban on civilian ownership of fully-automatic weapons. One reason is the likelihood of being found unconstitutional in the US supreme court, the other is a lack of rationale.

The 1934 NFA was enacted in response to the use of fully-automatic weapons by prohibition-era gangs. The registration requirement ensured that straw-purchases were not a viable way for gangs to acquire weapons, and the $200 tax stamp ensured that fully-automatic weapons were far too costly to be used in crime (after which the "dirty" gun would loose it's value). This proved to be a remarkably effective deterrent, between 1934 and 1986 there were a total of two homicides committed with legally owned fully-automatic weapons, and one of those was committed with a service weapon issued to a police officer.

It's my opinion that the 1986 Hughes amendment is a solution in search of a problem- driven by fears of rising gang violence and an incorrect perception that fully-automatic weapons were being sought and acquired by the drug gangs of the day. I would fully favor a repeal of the Hughes amendment (hence allowing civilian ownership of fully-automatic weapons in those states that have not banned civilian ownership) so long as there was an appropriate barrier to entry, such as increasing the 1934 $200 machine gun tax to $1000.
 
2012-08-31 10:06:24 AM  

Trivia Jockey: I don't know how to make this much clearer...if we amended the 2nd Amendment, for example, to say that "firearms may only be owned by members of the military, national guard and law enforcement", then people's lack of knowledge of what is or is not an assault rifle becomes irrelevant.


While such an amendment would render numerous proposals Constitutionally viable, those proposals would remain unreasonable and irrational.

Prohibiting legal recognition of same-sex unions would be unquestionably Constitutionally viable should opponents of such recognition succeed in adding a "federal marriage amendment", but such a prohibition would remain unreasonable and irrational even under such an amendment.
 
2012-08-31 10:06:37 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Only if you believe gins have no utility in our society. Which ignores everything from self defense to defense of the country should the worst happen.


No, but I believe (and I think it's pretty obvious) that automobiles add a lot MORE utility to society at large. The average American can have a full, productive week without ever touching his gun, but try and do that without a car.
 
2012-08-31 10:07:22 AM  

MichiganFTL: 254.4 million registered vehicles in the US
~10,000 deaths per year caused by drunk drivers

270 million guns in the US
~11,500 murders per year through use of firearm


So, roughly the same amount/percentage of death is caused by each when they're used irresponsibly. While this is not advocating that any murder is ok, it does put in perspective that hundreds of millions of people responsibly use their firearms per year, but the crazies get the news.


Don't drink and shoot.

I actually like this comparison in a weird way. it has logical flaws considering terms and amount of use though, but the idea that it should be more difficult to be eligible for gun ownership could help the numbers. My basis for that is that this article said he had a history of depression/mental problems.
 
2012-08-31 10:08:33 AM  

Dimensio: While such an amendment would render numerous proposals Constitutionally viable, those proposals would remain unreasonable and irrational.


Why is that, exactly?
 
2012-08-31 10:09:05 AM  

Trivia Jockey: Fail in Human Form: Only if you believe gins have no utility in our society. Which ignores everything from self defense to defense of the country should the worst happen.

No, but I believe (and I think it's pretty obvious) that automobiles add a lot MORE utility to society at large. The average American can have a full, productive week without ever touching his gun, but try and do that without a car.


Increased access to mass transit will eliminate most need for automobiles. As many firearms control advocates state: "it is worth the effort if it saves one life".
 
2012-08-31 10:09:17 AM  

Buttbone McGillicutty: FTA - "He was armed with an AK-47 assault rifle and an automatic pistol."

[img831.imageshack.us image 640x533]


i18.photobucket.com

Sorry - obligatory.
 
2012-08-31 10:09:26 AM  

you have pee hands: If it came down to it, the US citizenry would be totally incapable of defending itself against the US Armed Forces.


Not that the situation would ever happen but for the sake of discussion let's say it did. The scenario of the majority of the population versus the military.

How on earth would our military (assuming it stays fully intake throughout this, no mass desertions) occupy the entire country and fight, lets say, a 15 million person insurgency (only 5% of the population).
 
2012-08-31 10:09:32 AM  
How many mass murderers in history have used firearms?

Jeffrey Dahmer No.

Charles Manson No.

Ted Bundy No.

John Wayne Gacy No.

Adolf Hitler Ummm I suppose that's a yes. Although technically the murders were in gas chanbers.

David Berkowitz Yes, we have a hit.

Jack the Ripper Not likely but he might've.


So let's stop confusing mass murders with rampages. They're different in cause and ahem execution.
 
2012-08-31 10:09:33 AM  

JackieRabbit: Clearly, we need car control.


People don't stew in their basements, fondling their cars and dreaming of the day "I'll show them!!".
 
2012-08-31 10:09:44 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Quigs: SEMPER FI! GOOD WORK SOLDIER!

/farkin A I hate military.

Then pickup a rifle and defend the country yourself, coward.


Why would you even bite on that? If you're gonna feed a troll at least make it a good one.
 
2012-08-31 10:10:07 AM  
Clearly, more people nees to carry guns. That is the only solution. Those victims weren't real Americans© since they didn't carry at lethal weaponry on them at all times.
 
2012-08-31 10:11:12 AM  

Trivia Jockey: Having the use of automobiles adds a lot more utility to our society than gun ownership does. If you took away both, we'd suffer a hell of a lot more from not having cars than we would from guns.

So false equivalency.


I believe we'd suffer as a country a hell of a lot more in the long run by banning guns than cars. If we ban cars and force people to use only public transportation or non-motorized transportation, we would still get things done, albeit most likely less efficiently. However, wouldn't the earth-lovers appreciate this? Less damage to our environment, less fuel, more disposable income for people, less congested highways?

If we ban guns from civilian population, you severely limit the civilian's ability to defend themselves, not from the government, but from other civilians who will either obtain guns illegally or simply use other methods of murder. Even historically, we've seen countries who have established a ban on firearms ownership also have heavily decreased overall freedoms, even in modern day countries such as China, India, North Korea (albeit, this may not be considered a 'modern' country), and especially through history. While some examples may be brought up such as GB and Australia, I believe, as others do, that there are underlying factors in these mass shootings (>10 casualties) that we need to address such as mental health treatment availability and harsher punishments for straw buyers and illegal transfers.
 
2012-08-31 10:11:29 AM  

Trivia Jockey: Dimensio: While such an amendment would render numerous proposals Constitutionally viable, those proposals would remain unreasonable and irrational.

Why is that, exactly?


Rifles are less frequently utilized to commit homicide than are unarmed attacks, knives or blunt objects (each item considered separately, not combined). "Assault weapons bans" target a smaller subset of the total set of rifles. Establishing such a ban as constitutionally viable would not alter the fact that ban targets a set of firearms less likely to be used to commit murder than an individual's hands and feet, a knife or a blunt object. In light of such data, what rational purpose does such a ban serve?
 
2012-08-31 10:12:07 AM  

Trivia Jockey: Fail in Human Form: Only if you believe gins have no utility in our society. Which ignores everything from self defense to defense of the country should the worst happen.

No, but I believe (and I think it's pretty obvious) that automobiles add a lot MORE utility to society at large. The average American can have a full, productive week without ever touching his gun, but try and do that without a car.


On a day to day basis, for most people, I would agree. Just remember though, that in the grande scheme of things you're able to drive your car because people with weapons are patrolling the area.

/At the end of the day you're responsible for your own safety though
 
2012-08-31 10:12:57 AM  
More cricket noises as I look for a rebuttal from jarheads claiming that only ex-Army soldiers do this sort of thing.

The ghost of Charles Whitman says: "only two kills? Is that how they trained you in rifle marksmanship on Parris Island? I am disappoint, shiatbird."
 
2012-08-31 10:14:02 AM  

MichiganFTL: I believe we'd suffer as a country a hell of a lot more in the long run by banning guns than cars. ... If we ban guns from civilian population, you severely limit the civilian's ability to defend themselves, not from the government, but from other civilians who will either obtain guns illegally or simply use other methods of murder.


I don't think that argument has any factual merit behind it, so we can agree to disagree.
 
2012-08-31 10:14:33 AM  
I bet an extreme couponer was involved.
 
2012-08-31 10:14:37 AM  

dittybopper: jso2897: dittybopper: marius2: Only three dead? Damn, if only he shot a few more then we could have another media panic on our hands.

As it is, it seems like incidents that would normally only be regional stories are getting national exposure, thus making the debate on gun control more prominent this election. Is there some sort of nefarious purpose behind it? Probably not: The news organizations are sheep that tend to follow what the others are doing, hence we get crap like the "Summer of the Shark", and the like.

Especially since any debate about "gun control" is a joke right now. There is no real debate. The Second Amendment allows only the most minimal and non-intrusive of firearms legislation, and the courts have so ruled. It's a dead issue, unless you are looking to stimulate gun and ammo sales with fear tactics.

Or unless you are looking at re-igniting the moribund debate on gun control before an election.

Trying to stimulate gun and ammo sales with fear tactics? It's not the NRA reporting on these stories, and traditionally the national Mainstream MSM Media outside of FoxNews has been either actively hostile to the idea of individual gun ownership, or at best benignly neglectful.

The whole idea that the media are reporting on this in order to boost sales of guns is patently ridiculous to anyone who has even a passing familiarity with the history of reporting on gun issues outside of the specialty gun media outlets.


I never said the "media" were trying to do anything. There are political entities, groups, and organizations who are putting out the "They're going to take your guns" message. Whether the media reports on it or not, the message goes out to the faithful. You can argue intent till the cows come home, but there is no question that getting these ideas in circulation stimulates gun and ammo sales.
Anyway - i have no desire to convince you of anything. If you disagree with me, fine.
 
2012-08-31 10:15:45 AM  

Trivia Jockey: qsblues: Guns are just plain outlawed in Japan for private citizens to own, but guess what? People still get shot.

Yes, yes they do...in Japan, 0.07 people out of every 100,000 people are killed by guns. In the U.S., it's 10.27 out of every 100,000.

That's 146 times more gun deaths per capita.


One thing that's never mention is that yeah, they have more *GUN* deaths, but they don't have more "intentional deaths" (ie., homicides and suicides combined).

For example, Japan has a homicide rate of 0.4 per 100,000, and a suicide rate of 23.8 per 100,000, making their total "intentional death" rate of 24.2 per 100,000.

The US has a homicide rate of 4.2 per 100,000, and a suicide rate of 11.8 per 100,000, making our "intentional death" rate 16.0 per 100,000.

(Sources:
List of countries by intentional homicide rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

But that's OK, though, because those Japanese who are dying by intentional violence at a rate 50% higher than the US aren't using guns, because OMG GUNZ R BAD!
 
2012-08-31 10:16:09 AM  

Quigs: SEMPER FI! GOOD WORK SOLDIER!

/farkin A I hate military.


I'm sorry you feel that way. No way you can be convinced that somewhere in the 22 million Americans that are veterans you might find someone worth having a beer with? I mean, discounting about 7% of your fellow citizens across all ethnic and social strata seems a little shortsighted. Anyhow, if you hate them that is your prerogative, but you are shutting yourself off from some pretty decent cats.
 
2012-08-31 10:17:13 AM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Not that the situation would ever happen but for the sake of discussion let's say it did. The scenario of the majority of the population versus the military.

How on earth would our military (assuming it stays fully intake throughout this, no mass desertions) occupy the entire country and fight, lets say, a 15 million person insurgency (only 5% of the population).


Fear, mostly. If you had 15 million legitimate insurgents who were willing to die for the cause, they wouldn't be able to. If you had 15 million "insurgents" who liked the idea but weren't willing to accept the fact that taking a shot gives away their location and may mean a quick death, a small but visible and iron fisted presence is enough. I happen to think there are more people who are 'internet tough' than actually willing to risk death for a cause.
 
2012-08-31 10:17:20 AM  

Dimensio: that ban targets a set of firearms


That's kind of my point...I don't think there's a lot of merit behind a ban that targets only a set or subset of firearms. That's why I was focusing my argument on a more blanket firearms amendment than pretty much only allows the military and law enforcement to bear arms.

As for your knife, hands and feet argument, I think it's a little absurd to argue against a guns ban because people can still kill people with farr less lethal means. Guns make it fairly easy to kill somebody. If you really have a grudge against someone, your likelihood of success for killing them goes down a LOT when you move from a pistol to a knife or a baseball bat.
 
2012-08-31 10:18:16 AM  

dittybopper: For example, Japan has a homicide rate of 0.4 per 100,000, and a suicide rate of 23.8 per 100,000, making their total "intentional death" rate of 24.2 per 100,000.


I have read -- though not seen confirmed -- that murder-suicide events of an entire family (where a family member kills those living with him or her before killing himself or herself) are counted as an event of mass suicide, rather than a single suicide and multiple murders.

I do not know how this claim may be corroborated, however.
 
2012-08-31 10:18:42 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Then pickup a rifle and defend the country yourself, coward.


From what? Iran? Iraq? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Who the fark are you pants-pissing afraid of now?
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-08-31 10:18:56 AM  

calm like a bomb: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

It isn't going to change. That war is over, we lost, and the price we will pay for the right of self-righteous honkeys to own military grade weaponry and armor piercing bullets is that sometimes one of them will get all shooty.


Ah yes, the race card is out of the deck!
You're an asshat for even attempting that. Go drown yourself in a fat fryer.
 
2012-08-31 10:19:38 AM  
Let me change the subject a bit and put all the legalities and rights issues aside...

Can some of you gun advocates explain why you want to have guns so badly? Why you feel the need to have them?

A lot of advocates tell me they want to exercise their rights, and that's fine, but putting that aside, is there any other reason why you feel it's so important to own a gun or guns?
 
2012-08-31 10:19:49 AM  
Supermarket employee here. I'm pretty much going to be paranoid for the rest of the day/weekend. This is our fourth busiest weekend coming up, behind Christmas and Thanksgiving, and now this happens. Well there goes our sales for the weekend.
 
2012-08-31 10:20:06 AM  

BeesNuts: GAT_00: Glorious freedom everywhere.

Hey guys, let's turn this into a gun thread! It's totally not about inadequate mental health care and support for the kids we sent to the desert to shoot at people for 15-20% of their lives! It's about access to firearms!

/I don't even disagree with your stance on gun rights... much...
//but god DAMN dude.


It's about both. But in terms of mental health...how do you help people that don't seek help?

Generally speaking stuff like this happens by people that feel hopeless and desperate. They feel like there is nothing left but the anger. A poor economy, and an increasingly detached society are likely contributors. Anecdotally, the way we live in modern society seems to isolate people more than ever. People tied into their communities seem far less likely to do something like this, but for many people most human contact comes from a job and/or a spouse and when those connections to life are lost the impact is much higher to the individual. Thus sparking the despair, anger and desperation that leads to these shootings. That's my hypothesis anyways.
 
2012-08-31 10:20:26 AM  

Trivia Jockey: Guns make it fairly easy to kill somebody.


This is why they are called "equalizers". Because the weak and defenseless can't use their physical abilities to defend themselves. The threat from a 90 year-old with a gun is the same as a pro football player with a gun.
 
2012-08-31 10:20:29 AM  
Trivia Jockey:That's kind of my point...I don't think there's a lot of merit behind a ban that targets only a set or subset of firearms.

While I endorse neither regulation, I would suggest that prohibiting ownership of all firearms is less rational than is prohibiting ownership of a smaller subset based upon perceived criminal misuse.


As for your knife, hands and feet argument, I think it's a little absurd to argue against a guns ban because people can still kill people with farr less lethal means.

My position is that more individuals are murdered with use of knives than with use of rifles in any given year.
 
2012-08-31 10:20:37 AM  

Rich Cream: How many mass murderers in history have used firearms?

Jeffrey Dahmer No.

Charles Manson No.

Ted Bundy No.

John Wayne Gacy No.

Adolf Hitler Ummm I suppose that's a yes. Although technically the murders were in gas chanbers.

David Berkowitz Yes, we have a hit.

Jack the Ripper Not likely but he might've.


So let's stop confusing mass murders with rampages. They're different in cause and ahem execution.


Most of your examples are serial killers, not mass murderers.

Completely different mindset/psychology
 
2012-08-31 10:21:22 AM  

Rich Cream: How many mass murderers in history have used firearms?

Jeffrey Dahmer No.

Charles Manson No.

Ted Bundy No.

John Wayne Gacy No.

Adolf Hitler Ummm I suppose that's a yes. Although technically the murders were in gas chanbers.

David Berkowitz Yes, we have a hit.

Jack the Ripper Not likely but he might've.


So let's stop confusing mass murders with rampages. They're different in cause and ahem execution.


None of those people were mass murders*. Serial killers are not mass murderers.

Mass murder is when you go to a place and kill a bunch of people. Serial killing is when you kill a lot of people in separate incidences over time**.


*well, Hitler, but that's a tad more complicated.
**spree killing is when you go to a bunch of different places in a short period of time and kill a bunch of different people
 
2012-08-31 10:21:32 AM  

Weirdnjfan1: Supermarket employee here. I'm pretty much going to be paranoid for the rest of the day/weekend. This is our fourth busiest weekend coming up, behind Christmas and Thanksgiving, and now this happens. Well there goes our sales for the weekend.



Oh sure, THAT'S going to stop the grand consumerism of the USA. Okay.
 
2012-08-31 10:21:56 AM  

lunchinlewis: Those Protectrons are useless.

/less than nothing


Made me giggle, for what it's worth.
 
2012-08-31 10:22:02 AM  

Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.


These are poor and middle class people being murdered with guns. When rich people start getting murdered with guns, everyone will be pointing their index fingers at each other and saying "Bang!"
 
2012-08-31 10:22:52 AM  

you have pee hands: Now it'd be organized guys with artillery, tanks, apcs, body armor, helicopters, and jets vs disorganized guys with rifles and Molotov cocktails.


Wait a minute: I thought tanks and jets "aren't particularly useful against an insurgency". Or does that only apply to *FOREIGN* insurgencies?
 
2012-08-31 10:23:21 AM  
www.gsp.org

"He hates steroids/mindless whores/axe/this shade of orange!!!"
 
2012-08-31 10:23:29 AM  

Trivia Jockey: qsblues: Guns are just plain outlawed in Japan for private citizens to own, but guess what? People still get shot.

Yes, yes they do...in Japan, 0.07 people out of every 100,000 people are killed by guns. In the U.S., it's 10.27 out of every 100,000.

That's 146 times more gun deaths per capita.


But they have an astonishing 3346 times the number of tentacle rapes.
 
2012-08-31 10:23:36 AM  
2 = mass? Humm, I guess a threesome is now a orgy?
 
2012-08-31 10:24:40 AM  

GRCooper: Most of your examples are serial killers, not mass murderers.

Completely different mindset/psychology



JerseyTim: None of those people were mass murders*. Serial killers are not mass murderers.

Mass murder is when you go to a place and kill a bunch of people. Serial killing is when you kill a lot of people in separate incidences over time**.




Well, the definitions overlap so I guess my original point was mootified by this? That the real crazies don't even use guns? Only people on a rampage or "spree"?
 
2012-08-31 10:25:01 AM  

Trivia Jockey: MichiganFTL: I believe we'd suffer as a country a hell of a lot more in the long run by banning guns than cars. ... If we ban guns from civilian population, you severely limit the civilian's ability to defend themselves, not from the government, but from other civilians who will either obtain guns illegally or simply use other methods of murder.

I don't think that argument has any factual merit behind it, so we can agree to disagree.


It's possible to both agree or disagree with him. I think he is missing the real issue - the futility of prohibition. Whether it's guns,pornography, drugs - it all boils down to child- proofing the world:
Children should not see pornography, so we must forbid it to adults.
Young, weak, or mentally ill people shouldn't take drugs - so reaponsible adults must be forbidden them as well.
Loons and criminals and kids shouldn't have guns - so the sane, law-abiding adult must be deprived of them.

It does not work. It has never worked in human history. It won't work here and now.. It turns the law abiding into criminals, and makes criminals rich and powerful. The ban on alcohol gave us the Mafia. The ban on drugs have given us the Zetas. And a ban on guns will give us one more criminal syndicate to deal with - because law abiding adults are not going to surrender control of their own lives because someone wishes to subject them to treatment appropriate to a child or an imbecile.
Your heart may be in the right place - but prohibition fails, good intentions notwithstanding.
 
2012-08-31 10:25:05 AM  
Dang it! I guess it's time to drum some more CCW success stories again!

Didn't we just do this?
 
2012-08-31 10:25:15 AM  

Lord Soth: Quigs: SEMPER FI! GOOD WORK SOLDIER!

/farkin A I hate military.

I'm sorry you feel that way. No way you can be convinced that somewhere in the 22 million Americans that are veterans you might find someone worth having a beer with? I mean, discounting about 7% of your fellow citizens across all ethnic and social strata seems a little shortsighted. Anyhow, if you hate them that is your prerogative, but you are shutting yourself off from some pretty decent cats.


I've got five military friends. Only one is active. When the dipshiat came back home last month, bunch of us went bowling. When we left, in the parking lot he popped his trunk and pulled out his M4 and passed it around between our circle of friends. He said it was cool though, because 'The bullets were in the center console in the car.'

While I do like that in general, military folk tend to be more motivated and able to get shiat done, the whole uniformity and sanding down of personality is aberrant, and the main reason folks claim to respect that type of behavior is a long-standing propaganda campaign..
 
2012-08-31 10:25:16 AM  

Trivia Jockey: Can some of you gun advocates explain why you want to have guns so badly? Why you feel the need to have them?


Collection, appreciate the craftsmanship and history behind them (M14, M1 Garand, Mauser 98k), hunting (I process/eat what I kill. Venison's yummy). How many reasons do I need to pass this test?
 
2012-08-31 10:25:43 AM  

planes: The victims included an 18 year old woman? Wait, there were only two people shot, so obviously the reporter is trying to make this thing sound worse than it was. And, if the other victim was a man, well, we all know that men are expendable.


FTFA:

The victims were an 18-year-old woman and a 24-year-old man, officials said.

What the fark are you on about?
 
2012-08-31 10:26:18 AM  

Dimensio: My position is that more individuals are murdered with use of knives than with use of rifles in any given year.


And I would agree that a ban only on rifles isn't going to be massively effective.

I personally, and this is just my opinion, fall on the side of "do we really need to own any guns in our modern society? No, I don't think so". I also happen to interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean only the "militia" can own guns, which translates to the National Guard, but I concede that I've already lost that one.
 
2012-08-31 10:27:01 AM  

Snarfangel: But they have an astonishing 3346 times the number of tentacle rapes.


OK, I laughed.
 
2012-08-31 10:28:20 AM  

dittybopper: Trivia Jockey: qsblues: Guns are just plain outlawed in Japan for private citizens to own, but guess what? People still get shot.

Yes, yes they do...in Japan, 0.07 people out of every 100,000 people are killed by guns. In the U.S., it's 10.27 out of every 100,000.

That's 146 times more gun deaths per capita.

One thing that's never mention is that yeah, they have more *GUN* deaths, but they don't have more "intentional deaths" (ie., homicides and suicides combined).

For example, Japan has a homicide rate of 0.4 per 100,000, and a suicide rate of 23.8 per 100,000, making their total "intentional death" rate of 24.2 per 100,000.

The US has a homicide rate of 4.2 per 100,000, and a suicide rate of 11.8 per 100,000, making our "intentional death" rate 16.0 per 100,000.

(Sources:
List of countries by intentional homicide rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

But that's OK, though, because those Japanese who are dying by intentional violence at a rate 50% higher than the US aren't using guns, because OMG GUNZ R BAD!


I don't think we compare ourselves to the Japanese. They have used underwear vending machines and suicide is deeply ingrained in their culture. We are culturally different to the core and any argument using rates and percentages (albeit very good arguments with factual data) are missing the basis of a good comparison.
 
2012-08-31 10:28:22 AM  

Weirdnjfan1: Supermarket employee here. I'm pretty much going to be paranoid for the rest of the day/weekend. This is our fourth busiest weekend coming up, behind Christmas and Thanksgiving, and now this happens. Well there goes our sales for the weekend.


WTH? Diapers are in aisle 6 you sally.
 
2012-08-31 10:28:24 AM  

MichiganFTL: Collection, appreciate the craftsmanship and history behind them (M14, M1 Garand, Mauser 98k), hunting (I process/eat what I kill. Venison's yummy). How many reasons do I need to pass this test?


It's not a test. I'm simply doing a mental exercise where I read the responses you guys provide, and then I weigh them in my own mind against the harm that guns cause. It's a balancing test I'm conducting in my own head.
 
2012-08-31 10:29:00 AM  

Trivia Jockey: It's not a test.


Er, I mean it's not a test for you.
 
2012-08-31 10:29:09 AM  

MichiganFTL: If we ban guns from civilian population, you severely limit the civilian's ability to defend themselves, not from the government, but from other civilians who will either obtain guns illegally or simply use other methods of murder.


Would you have a problem if I walk around in full riot gear + riot shield? Just for self defense

/I got my riot shield training in Counter Strike :p
 
2012-08-31 10:29:13 AM  

Trivia Jockey: Let me change the subject a bit and put all the legalities and rights issues aside...

Can some of you gun advocates explain why you want to have guns so badly? Why you feel the need to have them?

A lot of advocates tell me they want to exercise their rights, and that's fine, but putting that aside, is there any other reason why you feel it's so important to own a gun or guns?


Does "I enjoy shooting" answer your question? I enjoy riding motorcycles, so I have a motorcycle. I enjoy Scotch, so I keep a bottle in the kitchen. I enjoy shooting, so I own firearms. Not really scientific. I could go all googley and tell you I hunt a few times a year (mostly birds), or that I want to learn about competitive shooting (3 gun looks like a ton of fun), but it just comes down to "I enjoy shooting" and its difficult to do without firearms. Is that fair?

Of course, I don't speak for all gun owners, and there are going to be some real eyebrow raising responses, but to each his own.
 
2012-08-31 10:29:27 AM  

Rich Cream: Well, the definitions overlap so I guess my original point was mootified by this? That the real crazies don't even use guns? Only people on a rampage or "spree"?


There are many different types of crazies and they all have their own methods and reasons. Serial killers may be more motivated by the physical act of killing and want a "hands on" approach, while mass murders could be out to kill as many people in as easy a method as possible.
 
2012-08-31 10:29:41 AM  
so he changed his clothes to shoot someone?
 
2012-08-31 10:30:03 AM  

dittybopper: Wait a minute: I thought tanks and jets "aren't particularly useful against an insurgency". Or does that only apply to *FOREIGN* insurgencies?


Depends how interested you are in minimizing collateral damage. Also, tanks are pretty farking intimidating.
 
2012-08-31 10:30:05 AM  

calm like a bomb: Dimensio: calm like a bomb: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

It isn't going to change. That war is over, we lost, and the price we will pay for the right of self-righteous honkeys to own military grade weaponry and armor piercing bullets is that sometimes one of them will get all shooty.

Military-grade weaponry is restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Handgun ammunition capable of penetrating body armour (legally determined by composition of the bullet core) is prohibited to civilians by federal law..

I can buy an AR-15 from a dozen places right now. I can find AK-47s by the crateload. I can legally buy a .50 cal sniper rifle. And for the former two, provided they are not labeled as such, I can buy bullets that will pierce armor. Those laws are written on tissue paper.


Actually, it's entirely legal to purchase armor-piercing ammunition for the AR-15 and AK-47. The federal prohibition on armor-piercing ammunition is for handgun calibers. Rifle bullets are extremely energetic by nature, and even non-armor-piercing bullets are going to go right through standard body armor at the ranges that police shootouts occur. However, pistols tend to fire relatively slow moving and heavy bullets which can be stopped by thin body armor. The point of the handgun armor-piercing ammo ban is to prevent someone from carrying such "cop killers" in a concealed fashion.

Just for reference, no one labels their bullets as "armor piercing," but the ability of a bullet to penetrate armor is largely determined by the construction of the bullet. Full Metal Jacket (or FMJ) bullets are sheathed in a hard metal to prevent deformation when impacting objects. This keeps all of the bullet's kinetic energy concentrated in a small area, which lets it penetrate deeply and retain kinetic energy. FMJ penetrate most armors, but they actually cause less trauma to the human body than other types of bullets.

Hollow Point (or HP) ammunition has a hollow recess in the nose of the bullet. This design causes the bullet to expand very rapidly (almost explosively) on impact, and transfers the maximum amount of energy in the shortest amount of time. These bullets are used on small animals to avoid wounding the creature and causing an agonizing death. They're used handguns to provide a "knockdown" effect against unarmored humans. Soft body armor works on the principle of catching a hollow point bullet and having it expend all of it's energy expanding within the soft armor layers, so by the time it reaches the person it has lost most or all of it's energy.

Soft Point (or SP) ammunition has a nose made out of a soft metal such as lead. These are a middle-ground between FMJ and HP ammunition in that they do expand upon impact, but are designed to expand more slowly. Because the nose of the bullet provides some measure of resistance, a soft point bullet will penetrate to a certain depth before really expanding and loosing energy into the surrounding tissue. The idea is that the bullet penetrates to the depth of the animal's vital organs before expending much energy, and the releasing it rapidly. These bullets are commonly used for larger game to ensure a quick kill, which improves the quality of the meat and avoids prolonged animal suffering (and are usually required by law when hunting such animals).
 
2012-08-31 10:30:55 AM  

Trivia Jockey: MichiganFTL: Collection, appreciate the craftsmanship and history behind them (M14, M1 Garand, Mauser 98k), hunting (I process/eat what I kill. Venison's yummy). How many reasons do I need to pass this test?

It's not a test. I'm simply doing a mental exercise where I read the responses you guys provide, and then I weigh them in my own mind against the harm that guns cause. It's a balancing test I'm conducting in my own head.


Ok so lets say you pass an admendment outlawing all civilian gun ownership.

How do you go about collecting them?
 
2012-08-31 10:31:02 AM  

justneal: so he changed his clothes to shoot someone?


He put on his "killin clothes"
 
2012-08-31 10:31:53 AM  

Trivia Jockey: Can some of you gun advocates explain why you want to have guns so badly? Why you feel the need to have them?

A lot of advocates tell me they want to exercise their rights, and that's fine, but putting that aside, is there any other reason why you feel it's so important to own a gun or guns?


I actually used my shotgun to defend my family from two armed home invaders. My wife had my pistol in the event I failed. No one on this planet will ever be able to convince me to turn in my firearms.
 
2012-08-31 10:32:17 AM  

you have pee hands: JackieRabbit: You're only counting murders. In the 2006-2007 statistical year, only 4.14 deaths/100K were homicides. 5.71/100K were suicides and 0.23/100K were unintentional, for a total of 10.27/100K. (according to the UN). That puts the US in sixth place in the number of firearm deaths. In the same year, according to the US Census, the automobile death rate was 104/100K population. Clearly, we need car control.

Do you mean 10.4/100k? There are certainly not upwards of a quarter million automobile deaths in the US every year.


Oops, I grabbed the wrong line from the PDF doc. There were 10.4M automobile accidents in 2006. Of these there were 45,300 fatalities. Sorry about that!
 
2012-08-31 10:32:22 AM  

The_Sponge: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

Does New Jersey have strict gun laws?


Since you can't legally own a BB gun without an FID card I'll say yes.
/it's illegal to own a gun in NJ
//the FID card is an exemption to that law
///it's also a big PIA to get one, and CCW is outright unattainable
 
2012-08-31 10:32:54 AM  

AlwaysRightBoy: My wifes office


AlwaysRightBoy: My PathmRk by me closed down for good. It's good to know this one opens at 6a.m. Weekdays.


/another shooting to close to home. My wifes office is a half mile away


Oh my god. Is she okay?
 
2012-08-31 10:33:07 AM  

Tenatra: Would you have a problem if I walk around in full riot gear + riot shield? Just for self defense

/I got my riot shield training in Counter Strike :p


If were to the point where we have the necessity to wear full riot gear and a riot shield to buy a gallon of milk, it's time to move out of Flint.
 
2012-08-31 10:33:07 AM  

you have pee hands: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Not that the situation would ever happen but for the sake of discussion let's say it did. The scenario of the majority of the population versus the military.

How on earth would our military (assuming it stays fully intake throughout this, no mass desertions) occupy the entire country and fight, lets say, a 15 million person insurgency (only 5% of the population).

Fear, mostly. If you had 15 million legitimate insurgents who were willing to die for the cause, they wouldn't be able to. If you had 15 million "insurgents" who liked the idea but weren't willing to accept the fact that taking a shot gives away their location and may mean a quick death, a small but visible and iron fisted presence is enough. I happen to think there are more people who are 'internet tough' than actually willing to risk death for a cause.


Dude, I watched Red Dawn like 50 times. I am totally ready for the C Thomas Howell role.

/except I would shoot at the attack helicopter from behind the giant rock instead of standing in front of it...
//then work at repopulating the country with Jennifer Grey and Lea Thompson
 
2012-08-31 10:34:00 AM  

Trivia Jockey: Let me change the subject a bit and put all the legalities and rights issues aside...

Can some of you gun advocates explain why you want to have guns so badly? Why you feel the need to have them?

A lot of advocates tell me they want to exercise their rights, and that's fine, but putting that aside, is there any other reason why you feel it's so important to own a gun or guns?


Well, not being a big gun enthusiast, I can't answer those questions, but I can pose a couplee of my own.

WHY do you wish to have access to alcohol? It's poisonous, and makes people violent and crazy.

WHY would you wish to have pornography? It rots the mind, and subverts healthy sexuality.

WHY would you wish to have access to tobacco, or pot? They are bad for your health, and pot makes people lazy and stupid.

But above all:
WHY, in the name of all that is holy, would you bother to justify, to me, your desire to possess a right based upon your ability to explain your "need" for it to my nosy, intrusive satisfaction?
 
2012-08-31 10:34:07 AM  

jscart: The_Sponge: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

Does New Jersey have strict gun laws?

Since you can't legally own a BB gun without an FID card I'll say yes.
/it's illegal to own a gun in NJ
//the FID card is an exemption to that law
///it's also a big PIA to get one, and CCW is outright unattainable


Really? Is that the whole state or just metro areas? Wow and I thought NY was bad :(
 
2012-08-31 10:34:21 AM  
At least this time the "mass" shooting was a number greater than one. So, grats for that, I guess
 
2012-08-31 10:34:43 AM  

Trivia Jockey: Let me change the subject a bit and put all the legalities and rights issues aside...

Can some of you gun advocates explain why you want to have guns so badly? Why you feel the need to have them?

A lot of advocates tell me they want to exercise their rights, and that's fine, but putting that aside, is there any other reason why you feel it's so important to own a gun or guns?


My "need", if any, is not relevant.
 
2012-08-31 10:36:45 AM  
Several = 2?
 
2012-08-31 10:36:46 AM  

Tenatra: Would you have a problem if I walk around in full riot gear + riot shield? Just for self defense

/I got my riot shield training in Counter Strike :p


Some places prohibit ownership of body armor by civilians under the rationale that there is no justifiable reason for a civilian to want body armor unless they expect to be in a gunfight. Federal law restricts the ownership of body armor by felons and minors. Most places have laws that increase the severity of the offense if you wear body armor during the commission of a crime.

I know you're joking, but there really are people out there who think that you shouldn't be trusted with body armor- a completely passive item designed solely for the protection of the user. I really think that some people just power-trip and cannot stand the idea that your average Joe should be allowed to protect themselves.
 
2012-08-31 10:37:08 AM  

Trivia Jockey: It's not a test. I'm simply doing a mental exercise where I read the responses you guys provide, and then I weigh them in my own mind against the harm that guns cause. It's a balancing test I'm conducting in my own head.


My concern with the harm that guns cause is the factors behind them, such as how do we stop the cause of the gun violence by decreasing gang proliferation, reduce prescription drug abuse, improve mental health treatment availability, and the aforementioned increase in punishment for straw buyers and other illegal transfers.
 
2012-08-31 10:37:58 AM  

Weirdnjfan1: Supermarket employee here. I'm pretty much going to be paranoid for the rest of the day/weekend. This is our fourth busiest weekend coming up, behind Christmas and Thanksgiving, and now this happens. Well there goes our sales for the weekend.


I was employed as a third shift cashier several years ago. Following a robbery, another third-shift cashier asked management if she was permitted to carry pepper spray. She was informed that doing so was prohibited; she later quit.

I did not ask. I then kept the pepper spray canister visibly hung outside of my pocket. No one said anything.
 
2012-08-31 10:38:25 AM  

jscart: The_Sponge: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

Does New Jersey have strict gun laws?

Since you can't legally own a BB gun without an FID card I'll say yes.
/it's illegal to own a gun in NJ
//the FID card is an exemption to that law
///it's also a big PIA to get one, and CCW is outright unattainable


Yeah. We're the dipshiat state.

We had a guy call up the state troopers and ask about how he was supposed to transport his guns into the state, as he was moving. Followed their advice to the letter, had all the proper permits, etc.

Long story short, cops searched his car, found the guns. Had to arrest him. The law says that ALL guns are illegal. Then a seperate law has the exceptions. At court, the judge wouldn't allow the exceptions to be read, so the guy got thrown in jail.
 
2012-08-31 10:38:26 AM  

Fubini: Tenatra: Would you have a problem if I walk around in full riot gear + riot shield? Just for self defense

/I got my riot shield training in Counter Strike :p

Some places prohibit ownership of body armor by civilians under the rationale that there is no justifiable reason for a civilian to want body armor unless they expect to be in a gunfight. Federal law restricts the ownership of body armor by felons and minors. Most places have laws that increase the severity of the offense if you wear body armor during the commission of a crime.

I know you're joking, but there really are people out there who think that you shouldn't be trusted with body armor- a completely passive item designed solely for the protection of the user. I really think that some people just power-trip and cannot stand the idea that your average Joe should be allowed to protect themselves.


I cannot legally wear body armor or own guns so I am getting a kick....
 
2012-08-31 10:40:08 AM  

jso2897: WHY do you wish to have access to alcohol? It's poisonous, and makes people violent and crazy.


People forget that at one point in this country we saw fit to make it illegal for everyone to have alcohol, despite the fact that the large majority of alcohol users did so safely and legally, at the behest of a small minority that were morally opposed to the idea. The country rapidly figured out that it was a horrible idea.

Even as late as the last decade we had groups like MADD that wanted to mandate the installation of a breathalyzer in every vehicle.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-08-31 10:41:07 AM  

jso2897: Trivia Jockey: Let me change the subject a bit and put all the legalities and rights issues aside...

Can some of you gun advocates explain why you want to have guns so badly? Why you feel the need to have them?

A lot of advocates tell me they want to exercise their rights, and that's fine, but putting that aside, is there any other reason why you feel it's so important to own a gun or guns?

Well, not being a big gun enthusiast, I can't answer those questions, but I can pose a couplee of my own.

WHY do you wish to have access to alcohol? It's poisonous, and makes people violent and crazy.

WHY would you wish to have pornography? It rots the mind, and subverts healthy sexuality.

WHY would you wish to have access to tobacco, or pot? They are bad for your health, and pot makes people lazy and stupid.

But above all:
WHY, in the name of all that is holy, would you bother to justify, to me, your desire to possess a right based upon your ability to explain your "need" for it to my nosy, intrusive satisfaction?


THANK YOU!!! Finally a clearly thought out and lucid line of reasoning that really gives some perspective.
 
2012-08-31 10:42:03 AM  

Mazzic518: jscart: The_Sponge: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

Does New Jersey have strict gun laws?

Since you can't legally own a BB gun without an FID card I'll say yes.
/it's illegal to own a gun in NJ
//the FID card is an exemption to that law
///it's also a big PIA to get one, and CCW is outright unattainable

Really? Is that the whole state or just metro areas? Wow and I thought NY was bad :(


As a NJ gun owner.....

If you want to get a gun, its pretty easy assuming you aren't a criminal. Depending on your town it can take a while (several months) for all of your paperwork to get processed for your first gun, but after that, subsequent purchases are pretty quick. Just the normal waiting periods for the most part.

Concealed carry requires you to demonstrate an actual need for it, be it as part of your job, or a reasonable threat against you that the police will agree with. It also requires some training. Because of that, very few people outside of ex law enforcement have it.

They are also pretty strict on rules on how you transport a gun and where you can\can't transport it to\from. I used to live down the street from a gun range, and technically if you really wanted to get into it, it was against the law for me to walk directly to the range, even if it was closer to me than where my car was parked.

Yes BB Guns require a firearm id card to buy.
 
2012-08-31 10:43:46 AM  
and also as a NJ gun owner, i don't have an issue with any of our gun laws. Yea, the BB Gun one is a little silly, but I have bigger things in life to worry about than the difficulty in obtaining a bb gun.
 
2012-08-31 10:44:16 AM  

Mazzic518: jscart: The_Sponge: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

Does New Jersey have strict gun laws?

Since you can't legally own a BB gun without an FID card I'll say yes.
/it's illegal to own a gun in NJ
//the FID card is an exemption to that law
///it's also a big PIA to get one, and CCW is outright unattainable

Really? Is that the whole state or just metro areas? Wow and I thought NY was bad :(


Whole state, even the pines.
/I'd love to be able to go and shoot my Grandfathers old 22 but I can't
//couldn't even get my son a Red Rider for x-mas
 
2012-08-31 10:46:46 AM  
On the plus side, he gets twenty cents off his next fill-up at Shell.
 
2012-08-31 10:46:53 AM  

Headso: This marine was slicing the pie at the supermarket...


That "m" in marine needs to be capitalized. Marine is what it needs to be. Just sayin
 
2012-08-31 10:48:16 AM  
i141.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-31 10:48:26 AM  
img.gawkerassets.com
 
2012-08-31 10:48:59 AM  

Free Radical: "The gunman, an ex-Marine, had been working at the store for about two weeks"

America's Heroes!


No such thing as "ex" Marine
 
2012-08-31 10:49:33 AM  

Wittenberg Dropout: Dang it! I guess it's time to drum some more CCW success stories again!

Didn't we just do this?


I submitted an article about a motorist who heroically shot a douchebag cyclist, though it will likely be "redlit".
 
2012-08-31 10:51:43 AM  

jbabbler: Several = 2?


Three individuals were shot, in total. Civilian disarmament advocacy organizations always include suicides when presenting numbers of individuals killed by "gun violence".
 
2012-08-31 10:52:04 AM  
Ahhh, this happened in "gun-free" New Jersey, so of course most of you tards blame guns and/or the NRA.
 
2012-08-31 10:53:37 AM  

tallguywithglasseson: Ex-Marine Kills Two, Self in NJ Supermarket Shootout

Trolled in the boobies.


Lol...is that anything like motorboating? 

www2.dallasdancemusic.com
 
2012-08-31 10:54:17 AM  

Quigs: Fail in Human Form: Quigs: SEMPER FI! GOOD WORK SOLDIER!

/farkin A I hate military.

Then pickup a rifle and defend the country yourself, coward.

Next time I'm given the chance to protect the country from backwards military farks who kill 18 year olds stuck working graveyard shifts? I will.


So you enlisted yesterday?
 
2012-08-31 10:55:18 AM  

Quigs: jscart: The_Sponge: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

Does New Jersey have strict gun laws?

Since you can't legally own a BB gun without an FID card I'll say yes.
/it's illegal to own a gun in NJ
//the FID card is an exemption to that law
///it's also a big PIA to get one, and CCW is outright unattainable

Yeah. We're the dipshiat state.

We had a guy call up the state troopers and ask about how he was supposed to transport his guns into the state, as he was moving. Followed their advice to the letter, had all the proper permits, etc.

Long story short, cops searched his car, found the guns. Had to arrest him. The law says that ALL guns are illegal. Then a seperate law has the exceptions. At court, the judge wouldn't allow the exceptions to be read, so the guy got thrown in jail.


Even more egregious is the ignoring of the federal Firearm Owners Protection Act by the New Jersey Port Authority.
 
2012-08-31 10:55:39 AM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Dude, I watched Red Dawn like 50 times. I am totally ready for the C Thomas Howell role.

/except I would shoot at the attack helicopter from behind the giant rock instead of standing in front of it...


Your plot sucks! :-|
 
2012-08-31 10:55:44 AM  

Freebyrdjason: Headso: This marine was slicing the pie at the supermarket...

That "m" in marine needs to be capitalized. Marine is what it needs to be. Just sayin


Yes because he was a proud Corps Soldier!!!
 
2012-08-31 10:55:47 AM  

Dimensio: My "need", if any, is not relevant.


It will be very relevant if and when we ever got to discussing a complete overhaul of the second amendment.
 
2012-08-31 10:56:09 AM  

Quigs:
I've got five military friends. Only one is active. When the dipshiat came back home last month, bunch of us went bowling. When we left, in the parking lot he popped his trunk and pulled out his M4 and passed it around between our circle of friends. He said it was cool though, because 'The bullets were in the center console in the car.'

While I do like that in general, military folk tend to be more motivated and able to get shiat done, the whole uniformity and sanding down of personality is aberrant, and the main reason folks claim to respect that type of behavior is a long-standing propaganda campaign..


Ah, I misunderstood. At risk of putting words in your mouth, you "hate the military" in terms of the culture within the military and not the individuals that comprise it. Fair enough, but I would wager more exposure to the positive elements (camaraderie, tradition, dedication, honor) might change your opinion. I'm not convinced that it is a long standing propaganda campaign as much as the military historically has been a necessary society function (the "Security Dilemma" is worth reading about), and large groups require some form of order or discipline to be effective (as evidenced by society at large requiring law and law enforcement to maintain cohesion).

Please tell your friend to be careful with that rifle, and if you suspect he is going to harm himself or others have one of your other former military friends contact his Command or First Sergeant.
 
2012-08-31 10:56:15 AM  

you have pee hands: Fear, mostly. If you had 15 million legitimate insurgents who were willing to die for the cause, they wouldn't be able to. If you had 15 million "insurgents" who liked the idea but weren't willing to accept the fact that taking a shot gives away their location and may mean a quick death, a small but visible and iron fisted presence is enough.


Here is the problem with the idea: You don't have to be able to win. You just have to make it expensive enough that the other side isn't going to try.

First, you have to understand the culture that the military largely draws from: The gun culture, at least for combat arms troops. Generally, if it's a white boy from the sticks who grew up hunting and shooting, he'll end up in some sort of combat-related specialty by choice. He likes guns, and the idea of getting *PAID* to play with the really good stuff is quite attractive. The black kid from the ghetto is more likely to be using the military as a gateway to a better opportunity, so he or she is more likely to pick a non-combat arms specialty that has some civilian counterpart.

Many of those people are going to be reluctant to fire upon people just like them. Some fraction, if ordered to do that sort of thing, would defect and take their equipment with them. Some would refuse orders. And don't forget that the ones they would be fighting, if they don't have actual combat or military experience themselves, likely would be shown the ropes by someone who has.

Then you have people like me: Sure, I'm a part of the gun culture, but I wouldn't actively engage in any insurgency outside of some *VERY* exceptional circumstances that I can't envision happening in my lifetime. I've got a family, ie., something very precious to lose. But I do my part to make things more difficult for the government to suppress any such insurgency by using my military and non-military experience in signals intelligence, radio, and encryption to inform about ways to communicate that are safer and offer more protection than calling up your buddies on their cell phones. Go ahead and google "dittybopper fark encryption" and you'll see what I mean.

I'm actually working on an essay that I will publish on teh innartubes about using low-tech, more secure means of communication to thwart technologically advanced monitoring. It's mostly just common sense sort of stuff, but if you don't actually think about it, it wouldn't necessarily occur to you that using a common walkie-talkie to communicate is safer than using a cellphone. I should be finished with that essay RSN ;-)
 
2012-08-31 10:57:32 AM  

Fubini: Some places prohibit ownership of body armor by civilians under the rationale that there is no justifiable reason for a civilian to want body armor unless they expect to be in a gunfight. Federal law restricts the ownership of body armor by felons and minors. Most places have laws that increase the severity of the offense if you wear body armor during the commission of a crime.

I know you're joking, but there really are people out there who think that you shouldn't be trusted with body armor- a completely passive item designed solely for the protection of the user. I really think that some people just power-trip and cannot stand the idea that your average Joe should be allowed to protect themselves.


Yea that is an over the top scenario but I have a feeling like people are more intimidated by body armor than by a handgun for this reason. I'd much rather wear a vest and protect the vitals in my chest rather than carry a gun and have no armor.
 
2012-08-31 10:57:34 AM  

GAT_00: Glorious freedom everywhere.


It's one way to solve the looming pensions shortfall, I'll give you that.
 
2012-08-31 10:57:35 AM  

Trivia Jockey: Dimensio: My "need", if any, is not relevant.

It will be very relevant if and when we ever got to discussing a complete overhaul of the second amendment.


Given established trends of popular support of civilian firearm ownership rights, I suspect that I will have died of natural causes before the Second Amendment is altered or repealed.
 
2012-08-31 10:58:08 AM  

Trivia Jockey: It will be very relevant if and when we ever got to discussing a complete overhaul of the second amendment.


Do we really NEED free speech? I can just get my thoughts on Comedy Central and then spout them off like my own opinions. Matt Damon.
 
2012-08-31 10:58:19 AM  

Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.


Perhaps, but in this case I think I think the more important issue is one of health care. Specifically mental health care. Especially for guys who likely have PTSD and/or TBI
 
2012-08-31 11:00:29 AM  

you have pee hands: JackieRabbit: You're only counting murders. In the 2006-2007 statistical year, only 4.14 deaths/100K were homicides. 5.71/100K were suicides and 0.23/100K were unintentional, for a total of 10.27/100K. (according to the UN). That puts the US in sixth place in the number of firearm deaths. In the same year, according to the US Census, the automobile death rate was 104/100K population. Clearly, we need car control.

Do you mean 10.4/100k? There are certainly not upwards of a quarter million automobile deaths in the US every year.


You are correct that there aren't that many automobile deaths each year: Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Click the link entitled Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2010. FYI it's a PDF. They list all causes of death and mash the data up in various ways. I'll summarize the relevant bits here but I think everyone should look for themselves.

Death by Motor vehicle accidents in 2010: 35,080
Death by accidental discharge of firearms in 2010: 600
Suicide by firearm in 2010: 19,308
Homicide by firearm in 2010: 11,015
Total deaths by firearm in 2010: 30,923

Bottom line: car accidents kill more people than firearms (at least in 2010). 4,157 more, to be exact. That's enough people to fill almost 95 school buses.

The table I'm talking about starts on page 17 of the PDF. There's 30-ish causes of death per page. Car accidents are at the bottom of page 19 and firearm deaths are at the top of page 20. The table ends at page 20.

Also of interest are the comparisons with previous years starting on page 38. Death by both car accidents and firearms are falling and (at least since 2007) have always had a relationship of more people dying by car than by gun.

So that's enough facts for the moment.

Here's an opinion: I do not understand why isn't there the same amount of emotional hysteria surrounding car accidents as there is for anything to do with firearms. Cars kill more people, in spite of there being almost an equal number of both in the U.S. Sure, cars are more generally utilitarian but so are knives and I still have a healthy fear of being stabbed. However, utilitarian or not, the argument has always been about saving lives. Or so we've always been told.

Well, there's a bigger killer out there than firearms and it doesn't get nearly the attention firearms get. Where's the Brady Campaign against bad drivers? Mothers against bad drivers?

I'm forced to admit that because such organizations don't exist (or don't at the level they do for firearms issues), the position gun control advocates have taken is not based on a rational desire to reduce death. Otherwise, they would do the logical thing and start with what kills the most people first, then the second, and so on.

I won't make any assumptions about the true agenda but the data and logic indicate that it's not about saving lives.

The news is breathlessly reporting this tragic event, like they do for every shooting that didn't happen in a low-income part of Detroit. Yet I bet that same news station reported on more car accident fatalities in the last couple of weeks and it barely made a blip beyond the usual note of how much longer everyone's commute just got.

A gun control advocate cannot logically claim any moral high ground whatsoever as long as they do not attack the provably more deadly causes of preventable death with a proportionally greater amount of fervor.
 
2012-08-31 11:00:36 AM  
 
2012-08-31 11:01:57 AM  

thecpt: We are culturally different to the core and any argument using rates and percentages (albeit very good arguments with factual data) are missing the basis of a good comparison.


That was kind of my point.
 
2012-08-31 11:01:59 AM  

Mazzic518: Freebyrdjason: Headso: This marine was slicing the pie at the supermarket...

That "m" in marine needs to be capitalized. Marine is what it needs to be. Just sayin

Yes because he was a proud Corps Soldier!!!


Hahaha what ya tryin to do, get me going first thing this morning?
 
2012-08-31 11:02:08 AM  

MichiganFTL: Trivia Jockey: It will be very relevant if and when we ever got to discussing a complete overhaul of the second amendment.

Do we really NEED free speech? I can just get my thoughts on Comedy Central and then spout them off like my own opinions. Matt Damon.


Is protection from unwarranted search and seizure really "NEEDED"? If citizens are violating no law, then they have no reason to fear unannounced inspections of their homes.
 
2012-08-31 11:02:15 AM  

Trivia Jockey: MichiganFTL: Collection, appreciate the craftsmanship and history behind them (M14, M1 Garand, Mauser 98k), hunting (I process/eat what I kill. Venison's yummy). How many reasons do I need to pass this test?

It's not a test. I'm simply doing a mental exercise where I read the responses you guys provide, and then I weigh them in my own mind against the harm that guns cause. It's a balancing test I'm conducting in my own head.


This statement right here makes all of your arguments for gun control invalid. It shows that you are not willing to look at the issue logically, and your desire for control comes from an emotional need. You care not for statistics, non-cherry picked data, you only seem to say 'guns are scary and bad and no one should have them'. Guns have plenty of legitimate uses, with self defense and hunting being the top two. Homicides/suicides from guns are done with so few of the actual percentage of guns, that it is almost negligible. Yes, it is tragic when someone is killed, but that's true no matter how they die.

As an above poster stated:

jso2897: prohibition fails, good intentions notwithstanding.


Making things illegal only makes criminals of previously law-abiding citizens. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The Constitution says that we are allowed to keep and bear arms. The 'militia' argument is weak, due to all able bodied people being considered part of the militia. If you truly want to try to make guns illegal, start at the Constitution. I think you will find, however, that way more people disagree with you than agree, which means such an amendment would never pass.
 
2012-08-31 11:02:41 AM  
The sign said "15 items or fewer", they had it coming.
 
2012-08-31 11:02:41 AM  

Pfactor: like they do for every shooting that didn't happen in a low-income part of Detroit.


It doesn't even make the 11 o'clock unless it's a block war anymore around here.
 
2012-08-31 11:03:07 AM  

tallguywithglasseson: Another mass shooting, in Minnesota (new window)


I see what you did there.
 
2012-08-31 11:03:21 AM  

gameshowhost: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Dude, I watched Red Dawn like 50 times. I am totally ready for the C Thomas Howell role.

/except I would shoot at the attack helicopter from behind the giant rock instead of standing in front of it...

Your plot sucks! :-|


You are just jealous that I would get Lea AND Jennifer. Now get up there and piss in that radiator.
 
2012-08-31 11:03:52 AM  

MichiganFTL: Trivia Jockey: It will be very relevant if and when we ever got to discussing a complete overhaul of the second amendment.

Do we really NEED free speech? I can just get my thoughts on Comedy Central and then spout them off like my own opinions. Matt Damon.


As a victim of drive-by laughter, I think telling jokes should be left to licensed comedians.
 
2012-08-31 11:04:15 AM  

Mazzic518: Freebyrdjason: Headso: This marine was slicing the pie at the supermarket...

That "m" in marine needs to be capitalized. Marine is what it needs to be. Just sayin

Yes because he was a proud Corps Core Soldier!!!


I have corrected your error.
 
2012-08-31 11:07:08 AM  

trappedspirit: [i141.photobucket.com image 500x550]


That's good, but it needs to have "Gun = penis substitute" added in order to adequately cover "Markley's Law".
 
2012-08-31 11:09:08 AM  
If you picked "who cares?" come and claim your award.
 
2012-08-31 11:09:35 AM  

Freebyrdjason: Free Radical:

"The gunman, an ex-Marine, had been working at the store for about two weeks"

America's Heroes!

No such thing as "ex" Marine


Came here to say this. And to remind y'all of this patriotic Marine (link)
 
2012-08-31 11:11:25 AM  

dittybopper: thecpt: We are culturally different to the core and any argument using rates and percentages (albeit very good arguments with factual data) are missing the basis of a good comparison.

That was kind of my point.


Yeah, I was speaking generally for the consideration that it was thread derailment. And as for the fact that they have 400 times more tentacle rapes, I am shocked we have one for there to be a multiplicative comparison.
 
2012-08-31 11:11:37 AM  
BTW, I would like to thank everyone who posted specifics regarding New Jersey's gun laws.

/My question was meant to be rhetorical, though.
//Suck it, gun grabbers.
 
2012-08-31 11:13:08 AM  

Freebyrdjason


No such thing as "ex" Marine


Wrong. Ex-Marines received dishonorable discharges; former Marines were honorably discharged.
 
2012-08-31 11:17:42 AM  

gja: jso2897: Trivia Jockey: Let me change the subject a bit and put all the legalities and rights issues aside...

Can some of you gun advocates explain why you want to have guns so badly? Why you feel the need to have them?

A lot of advocates tell me they want to exercise their rights, and that's fine, but putting that aside, is there any other reason why you feel it's so important to own a gun or guns?

Well, not being a big gun enthusiast, I can't answer those questions, but I can pose a couplee of my own.

WHY do you wish to have access to alcohol? It's poisonous, and makes people violent and crazy.

WHY would you wish to have pornography? It rots the mind, and subverts healthy sexuality.

WHY would you wish to have access to tobacco, or pot? They are bad for your health, and pot makes people lazy and stupid.

But above all:
WHY, in the name of all that is holy, would you bother to justify, to me, your desire to possess a right based upon your ability to explain your "need" for it to my nosy, intrusive satisfaction?

THANK YOU!!! Finally a clearly thought out and lucid line of reasoning that really gives some perspective.


On a personal level, i have no idea why somebody would want to own a bunch of guns. I'm a farm boy, and to me, a gun is a tool - like a shovel or a rake. i would no more collect or shoot guns for amusement than I would collect shovels and dig holes for fun. I don't really care for guns, and only own one - more an antique than a gun, really. My opposition to gun prohibition is not rooted in any love of guns on my part.
 
2012-08-31 11:18:05 AM  

Dimensio: Wittenberg Dropout: Dang it! I guess it's time to drum some more CCW success stories again!

Didn't we just do this?

I submitted an article about a motorist who heroically shot a douchebag cyclist, though it will likely be "redlit".


Why do the mods hate amurricah?
 
2012-08-31 11:19:03 AM  

The_Sponge: Suck it, gun grabbers.


This is a straw man in most regards. I know of few people that would support a policy that required Americans to relinquish property they currently own. However what we allow for sale in the future of new and used weapons is the main issue.
 
2012-08-31 11:19:44 AM  

Dimensio: Mazzic518: Freebyrdjason: Headso: This marine was slicing the pie at the supermarket...

That "m" in marine needs to be capitalized. Marine is what it needs to be. Just sayin

Yes because he was a proud Corps Core Soldier!!!

I have corrected your error.


T/y for that! I bet he was the best damn soldier in the Core!! September 5!!!
 
2012-08-31 11:20:10 AM  

Snarfangel: MichiganFTL: Trivia Jockey: It will be very relevant if and when we ever got to discussing a complete overhaul of the second amendment.

Do we really NEED free speech? I can just get my thoughts on Comedy Central and then spout them off like my own opinions. Matt Damon.

As a victim of drive-by laughter, I think telling jokes should be left to licensed comedians.


Yeah - but what if Dane Cook got a license to carry?
 
2012-08-31 11:21:28 AM  

tallguywithglasseson: Another mass shooting, in Minnesota (new window)


Mass shooting now means one person firing one bullet? From the sound of the story, one person shot someone he knew once, and police fired several times.

Well no wonder we have so many mass shootings.
 
2012-08-31 11:27:44 AM  

MayoSlather: The_Sponge: Suck it, gun grabbers.

This is a straw man in most regards. I know of few people that would support a policy that required Americans to relinquish property they currently own. However what we allow for sale in the future of new and used weapons is the main issue.


That argument lost a lot of water once California actually started requiring gun owners to turn in certain types of legally owned weapons.

http://www.wnd.com/1999/07/3745/

It's unfortunate that this link is to WND, but from what I know the facts seem to be represented fairly with a little hyperbole around the sides. The short version is that the state said a gun was legal to own, then retroactively said it was not legal and gave gun owners a deadline to turn their rifles into a gun buyback program or else be in violation of the law. This happened in 1998.
 
2012-08-31 11:29:12 AM  

MayoSlather: The_Sponge: Suck it, gun grabbers.

I know of few people that would support a policy that required Americans to relinquish property they currently own.


You haven't been in very many of these threads, have you?

However what we allow for sale in the future of new and used weapons is the main issue.

Tell me all about your plan.
 
2012-08-31 11:29:55 AM  

Fubini: MayoSlather: The_Sponge: Suck it, gun grabbers.

This is a straw man in most regards. I know of few people that would support a policy that required Americans to relinquish property they currently own. However what we allow for sale in the future of new and used weapons is the main issue.

That argument lost a lot of water once California actually started requiring gun owners to turn in certain types of legally owned weapons.

http://www.wnd.com/1999/07/3745/

It's unfortunate that this link is to WND, but from what I know the facts seem to be represented fairly with a little hyperbole around the sides. The short version is that the state said a gun was legal to own, then retroactively said it was not legal and gave gun owners a deadline to turn their rifles into a gun buyback program or else be in violation of the law. This happened in 1998.


You are mistaken. Firearm owners were not instructed to turn their firearms to a "buyback program"; instead, they were offered no compensation at all for the confiscation of their property.
 
2012-08-31 11:30:25 AM  

qsblues: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

Hate to break it to you, but no amount of legislation will cure crazy. Guns are just plain outlawed in Japan for private citizens to own, but guess what? People still get shot.

It's the collective mental state of this country to get a quick fix to any problem perceived, real or imagined. Take a pill instead of seeking counseling, get liposuction instead of diet and exercise, shoot everyone instead of dealing with your inner demons. As long as guns are being made, this will continue to happen.


It's not even access to guns though. Curing crazy doesn't mean take away their guns, it means find a way to CURE them. Any crazy can find ways to kill people, and thankfully, only 2 did die. Imagine if he had one of these?
cbssanfran.files.wordpress.com
i81.servimg.com
4.bp.blogspot.com 

All of these are handmade, and instructions are easily found on the net. Don't outlaw guns, lock up criminals who kill, and cure the crazy. THEN this world can be a better place.
 
2012-08-31 11:31:50 AM  
Tenatra:

I'd much rather wear a vest and protect the vitals in my chest rather than carry a gun and have no armor.

Me too. I'm a pretty low-key person (in person anyway) and obviously not worth sticking up, so it's easier to picture getting shot by mistake than to imagine feeling motivated enough to shoot anybody. Cf. the Empire State Building "shootout" and the collateral damage in gang-bangers' drive-bys.

With an armored vest, a Kevlar helmet and a special hard cup I'd be good to go almost anywhere. In a bad neighborhood I'd want armor for my dogs too.
 
2012-08-31 11:34:26 AM  
Only cowards own guns.
 
2012-08-31 11:36:11 AM  

The One True TheDavid: With an armored vest, a Kevlar helmet and a special hard cup I'd be good to go almost anywhere. In a bad neighborhood I'd want armor for my dogs too.


www.lifeinthefastlane.ca

Mandatory in Detroit if you want your pup to see age 2.
 
2012-08-31 11:36:20 AM  
Only three dead? Does this mean that Ann Margret's not coming?

farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2012-08-31 11:36:27 AM  

Casey Anthony: Only cowards own guns.


Have you any rational commentary, rather than a "poisoning the well" fallacy, to offer, or do you rely upon fallacious argumentation due to an awareness that your position lacks any intellectual merit?
 
2012-08-31 11:36:51 AM  

jso2897: Snarfangel: MichiganFTL: Trivia Jockey: It will be very relevant if and when we ever got to discussing a complete overhaul of the second amendment.

Do we really NEED free speech? I can just get my thoughts on Comedy Central and then spout them off like my own opinions. Matt Damon.

As a victim of drive-by laughter, I think telling jokes should be left to licensed comedians.

Yeah - but what if Dane Cook got a license to carry?


Dude... that's a weapon of mass destruction and terrorism.
 
2012-08-31 11:38:11 AM  

Dimensio: Fubini: MayoSlather: The_Sponge: Suck it, gun grabbers.

This is a straw man in most regards. I know of few people that would support a policy that required Americans to relinquish property they currently own. However what we allow for sale in the future of new and used weapons is the main issue.

That argument lost a lot of water once California actually started requiring gun owners to turn in certain types of legally owned weapons.

http://www.wnd.com/1999/07/3745/

It's unfortunate that this link is to WND, but from what I know the facts seem to be represented fairly with a little hyperbole around the sides. The short version is that the state said a gun was legal to own, then retroactively said it was not legal and gave gun owners a deadline to turn their rifles into a gun buyback program or else be in violation of the law. This happened in 1998.

You are mistaken. Firearm owners were not instructed to turn their firearms to a "buyback program"; instead, they were offered no compensation at all for the confiscation of their property.


All the links I've ever seen talk about the mandatory buyback program, but it's kind of hard to get good sources about this particular event, so if you know of one go ahead and post it.
 
2012-08-31 11:40:19 AM  

Casey Anthony: Only cowards own guns.


Only morons make blanket statements
 
2012-08-31 11:42:44 AM  
Saw this on PIX11 this morning Live from the scene. Disturbing stuff.

Why are so many people losing their minds and killing others in such grandiose ways recently? (Okay, grandiose for them...)
 
2012-08-31 11:50:14 AM  

MayoSlather: The_Sponge: Suck it, gun grabbers.

This is a straw man in most regards. I know of few people that would support a policy that required Americans to relinquish property they currently own. However what we allow for sale in the future of new and used weapons is the main issue.



How about a current U.S. Senator:

Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."[24]

In July 2006, Feinstein voted against the Vitter Amendment to prohibit Federal funds being used for the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during a disaster.[25] [26]


Not to mention that she is a total hypocrite:

Feinstein possessed a concealed handgun permit in the early 70's "And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me." -- 27 April 1995 [27]
 
2012-08-31 11:50:26 AM  

Dimensio: Casey Anthony: Only cowards own guns.

Have you any rational commentary, rather than a "poisoning the well" fallacy, to offer, or do you rely upon fallacious argumentation due to an awareness that your position lacks any intellectual merit?


You never make a point. You just string a bunch of words together ultimately saying NOTHING.
 
2012-08-31 11:51:10 AM  

edgesrealm: Saw this on PIX11 this morning Live from the scene. Disturbing stuff.

Why are so many people losing their minds and killing others in such grandiose ways recently? (Okay, grandiose for them...)


OK, I'll answer, it is because of the recent focus on guns as a way to solve your problems. Own a gun and you are suddenly defended against the terrors that you see on TV. We are being told that a gun solves everything, keeps the minorities and opposite political groups away. You even need to carry one around to be safe. The weak minded pick up on this and are buying guns and then using them to solve their problems when really they need some meds. The Aurora Shooters car was full of "Gun Today" mags for example, complete with fantasy stories about people solving their problems with guns.
 
2012-08-31 11:51:36 AM  

GRCooper: Casey Anthony: Only cowards own guns.

Only morons make blanket statements


Case in point.
 
2012-08-31 11:51:38 AM  

edgesrealm: Saw this on PIX11 this morning Live from the scene. Disturbing stuff.

Why are so many people losing their minds and killing others in such grandiose ways recently? (Okay, grandiose for them...)


There aren't more people doing this than there were before, the media is just being hyper-sensitive to it. It's a shame, but it's the truth. Also, two people dead is not a "mass shooting". The instances where someone walks into a crowded area and starts shooting at random are still extremely rare.
 
2012-08-31 11:52:10 AM  

edgesrealm: Why are so many people losing their minds and killing others in such grandiose ways recently?



Tonight's full moon?
 
2012-08-31 11:52:15 AM  
TWO people killed other than the gunman, and its a "mass shooting"??

hahahahahahahahahaha. where do these news people come up with this shiat?
 
2012-08-31 11:52:40 AM  

Fubini: All the links I've ever seen talk about the mandatory buyback program, but it's kind of hard to get good sources about this particular event, so if you know of one go ahead and post it.


Rifle Buyback Covers Weapon Being Outlawed (sfgate)
Illegal-Gun Buyback Slow Going / Only 250 rifles turned in despite budget for 5,600 (sfgate)
 
2012-08-31 11:54:04 AM  
So when is Bloomberg going to step in front of a camera and exploit this?
 
2012-08-31 11:56:55 AM  

ScottRiqui: Grandad's 30-06 will blast through a Level III police vest as if it were stuffed with cotton balls.


Technically most wear level III-A vests (soft). Full Level III vests have a ceramic plate insert which will stop a 30-06/.308. Each plate weighs a ton so no officers carry them, but soldiers do in war zones. And there are even handgun hunting rounds that exceed III-A ratings - .454 Casull and .500 S&W come to mind.

Sadly I think I have to go with the "this is just an ordinary homicide" opinion here. If this were black-on-black crime, we wouldn't even hear about it.
 
2012-08-31 11:57:18 AM  

KarmicDisaster: edgesrealm: Saw this on PIX11 this morning Live from the scene. Disturbing stuff.

Why are so many people losing their minds and killing others in such grandiose ways recently? (Okay, grandiose for them...)

OK, I'll answer, it is because of the recent focus on guns as a way to solve your problems. Own a gun and you are suddenly defended against the terrors that you see on TV. We are being told that a gun solves everything, keeps the minorities and opposite political groups away. You even need to carry one around to be safe. The weak minded pick up on this and are buying guns and then using them to solve their problems when really they need some meds. The Aurora Shooters car was full of "Gun Today" mags for example, complete with fantasy stories about people solving their problems with guns.


This is a fantasy narrative. I don't know a single gun owner that would rather use a gun than resolving a situation in some other way. I don't know of a single firearms instruction program that advocates this. Everyone I talk to who has a gun for home defense says that their plan is to stand at the top of the stairs and yell that they have a gun.

Do you really think that Holmes was trying to solve a problem by doing this? What would even give you that idea?
 
2012-08-31 12:05:09 PM  

Dimensio: Trivia Jockey: Let me change the subject a bit and put all the legalities and rights issues aside...

Can some of you gun advocates explain why you want to have guns so badly? Why you feel the need to have them?

A lot of advocates tell me they want to exercise their rights, and that's fine, but putting that aside, is there any other reason why you feel it's so important to own a gun or guns?

My "need", if any, is not relevant.


I'm kind of on your side, but goddamit, why do you have to be such an insufferable sperglord on this issue? It's making me reconsider my laissez-faire stance on guns.
 
2012-08-31 12:09:11 PM  

Trivia Jockey: Can some of you gun advocates explain why you want to have guns so badly? Why you feel the need to have them?

A lot of advocates tell me they want to exercise their rights, and that's fine, but putting that aside, is there any other reason why you feel it's so important to own a gun or guns?


Because a 50-kilogram elderly female can defend herself against a young 100-kilogram male attacker with a gun fairly easily compared to matching the attacker's physical superiority with her smaller mass.

Firearms level the playing field for those who are weak, infirm, disabled, or otherwise vulnerable to the violence of unfriendly strangers who are larger, stronger, or more physically capable. The police cannot protect every citizen (and SCOTUS has ruled that they are not legally required to do so) 24-7, and the response times for police in many cities runs into the ten-minute range. We are responsible for our own safety and well-being, and we cannot rely upon the state to provide protection from the violence of greater size or strength, so we arm ourselves.

I used to run three miles a day, train in karate and ju-jitsu, and served in the military. Even in my prime, there were individuals or groups of people who could have taken me down unarmed. In my current state of decrepitude, I can neither run away, effectively fight back, nor survive a beating by younger, stronger, and larger opponents. Since those threats have a demonstrated non-zero probability, I take the prudent precaution of owning a firearm and getting a license to carry one in accordance with local laws. I also visit the range regularly to hone my skills with the weapons I own.

tl/dr version: I choose not to be a victim of larger, stronger, more fit human predators who are known to inhabit my city, so I carry a gun.
 
2012-08-31 12:13:26 PM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-08-31 12:14:31 PM  
Look, if you're going to lump every shooting where 2 or more people get shot in Columbine, Aurora, and the other real mass shootings, just look in my local paper.

Not one day goes by where less than 2 people are injured in a shooting.
 
2012-08-31 12:16:56 PM  

marius2: Only three dead? Damn, if only he shot a few more then we could have another media panic on our hands.


If he tagged 4, it would officially count as a "spree"
 
2012-08-31 12:18:48 PM  

Fubini:

This is a fantasy narrative. I don't know a single gun owner that would rather use a gun than resolving a situation in some other way. I don't know of a single firearms instruction program that advocates this. Everyone I talk to who has a gun for home defense says that their plan is to stand at the top of the stairs and yell that they have a gun.


Stand at the stairs and yell? Are they nuts or just suicidal? I'm not particularly interested in going out and looking for trouble but if it comes to my home it is shoot until the gun goes 'click', slap the next magazine in and repeat until there is no further motion or I'm out of magazines (which will take a while) at which point I switch to the next gun. Anything else just begs for getting shot first.

Maybe I just follow the NYPD style of '5000 shots cause he was holding a comb' style of response but inside my home I think I'll stick with it instead of the Hollywood style of 'oh I'll say I have a gun and they'll be all nice and compliant'. At least I aim a bit better than them.
 
2012-08-31 12:20:15 PM  
We may be slowly dropping down the international rankings in terms of academic performance and economic klout, but damn, we are maintaining our superiority in the realm of citizen-on-citizen gun violence.

Thank God for giving us the power to interperet the 2nd Amendment out of historical context!
 
2012-08-31 12:23:03 PM  

Fubini: KarmicDisaster: edgesrealm: Saw this on PIX11 this morning Live from the scene. Disturbing stuff.

Why are so many people losing their minds and killing others in such grandiose ways recently? (Okay, grandiose for them...)

OK, I'll answer, it is because of the recent focus on guns as a way to solve your problems. Own a gun and you are suddenly defended against the terrors that you see on TV. We are being told that a gun solves everything, keeps the minorities and opposite political groups away. You even need to carry one around to be safe. The weak minded pick up on this and are buying guns and then using them to solve their problems when really they need some meds. The Aurora Shooters car was full of "Gun Today" mags for example, complete with fantasy stories about people solving their problems with guns.

This is a fantasy narrative. I don't know a single gun owner that would rather use a gun than resolving a situation in some other way. I don't know of a single firearms instruction program that advocates this. Everyone I talk to who has a gun for home defense says that their plan is to stand at the top of the stairs and yell that they have a gun.

Do you really think that Holmes was trying to solve a problem by doing this? What would even give you that idea?


You are mixing up the 99.999% of gun owners that stop at putting the gun in their pocket or having it handy and feel better with the few deranged individuals that see the gun as the solution to their problem, e.g. the Empire State building shooter. It is difficult to understand the nonlinear thinking process of a mentally ill person, I have no idea what Holmes was thinking and I doubt that it would make sense if I knew. Promoting guns so heavily as needed for defense or protection or second amendment solutions is just going to increase the number of deranged people buying guns as well, with the unfortunate consequences.
 
2012-08-31 12:27:10 PM  
Damn... violence comes to my hometown.
 
2012-08-31 12:27:13 PM  

jso2897: Buttbone


Cat Fancy
 
2012-08-31 12:37:38 PM  
Headline FAIL
 
2012-08-31 12:40:08 PM  

R.A.Danny: A state that the Brady Campaign gave an A- for gun control. Veddy Interesting.


If NJ would've tightened gun control to get an A or A+ from the Brady Campaign, this would never have happened.
 
2012-08-31 12:42:16 PM  

Fubini: Dimensio: Fubini: MayoSlather: The_Sponge: Suck it, gun grabbers.

This is a straw man in most regards. I know of few people that would support a policy that required Americans to relinquish property they currently own. However what we allow for sale in the future of new and used weapons is the main issue.

That argument lost a lot of water once California actually started requiring gun owners to turn in certain types of legally owned weapons.

http://www.wnd.com/1999/07/3745/

It's unfortunate that this link is to WND, but from what I know the facts seem to be represented fairly with a little hyperbole around the sides. The short version is that the state said a gun was legal to own, then retroactively said it was not legal and gave gun owners a deadline to turn their rifles into a gun buyback program or else be in violation of the law. This happened in 1998.

You are mistaken. Firearm owners were not instructed to turn their firearms to a "buyback program"; instead, they were offered no compensation at all for the confiscation of their property.

All the links I've ever seen talk about the mandatory buyback program, but it's kind of hard to get good sources about this particular event, so if you know of one go ahead and post it.


According to an information bulletin released by the California Department of Justice, "no reimbursement is authorized in exchange for relinquishing assault weapons registered after the March 30, 1992 deadline".
 
2012-08-31 12:44:29 PM  

Casey Anthony: Dimensio: Casey Anthony: Only cowards own guns.

Have you any rational commentary, rather than a "poisoning the well" fallacy, to offer, or do you rely upon fallacious argumentation due to an awareness that your position lacks any intellectual merit?

You never make a point. You just string a bunch of words together ultimately saying NOTHING.


You did not address my question.

For what reason did you rely upon fallacious reasoning? Did you do so due to an awareness that your position lacks any intellectual merit, or are you unaware that your initial statement is no more rational nor honest than is the statement "only child molesters use the Fark handle "Casey Anthony""?
 
2012-08-31 12:46:36 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: I'm kind of on your side, but goddamit, why do you have to be such an insufferable sperglord on this issue?


I am an insufferable sperglord on all issues. However, same-sex marriage discussions and evolution discussions have not occurred as frequently as of late and, when they do occur, fewer individuals advocating the irrational position with respect to those issues contribute to them.
 
2012-08-31 12:48:02 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: From TFA:


An ex-Marine
...
The gunman was a former Marine


Which is it?

("Ex-Marine" = dishonorable discharge or similar; "former Marine" = honorable discharge.)


I thought it was "Once a Marine, always a Marine." The one thing that I did note FTA was that he was a "rifleman," only in 2 years, and never went overseas. I didn't think they were letting anyone out after only 2 years these days. Unless they got kicked out, that is. So, no blaming on Battle induced PTSD.
 
2012-08-31 12:52:17 PM  
As to getting rid of the guns that already exist (as a thought experiment rather than a position I advocate), I've thought of a few ideas, though even liberals may not like them.

First, ban all imports of guns and ammunition. Even from Canada. Play the Messicans/turrists/Chicoms cards if need be to placate Republicans, because race-baiting is okay if it's for a good cause.

Next, force all domestic ammunition manufacturers to only produce redesigned bullets in a new, nonstandard caliber that will not function (very well) in existing firearms.

Next, ban the sale of reloading powder.

This would largely prevent gun crime after an adjustment period, wherein gangbangers could make more money selling their bullets to panicked old white people than they would selling crack or meth.

If you want to truly go overboard, replace the firing pin->primer mechanism with a bullet that includes a tiny receiver that must detect a signal from a transmitter just behind the firing chamber before activating a charge via capacitor composed of a primer that is much less sensitive than lead azide or lead styphnate. (I would recommend a mix of erythritol tetranitrate and mannitol hexanitrate). The transmitter/receiver dynamic would require authentication via a system protected by public-key encryption.

Next, in this overboard fantasy, the production of nitrocellulose would need to be curbed via a few measures. Sale of any and all nitrate salts in any quantity would require an agricultural or pyrotechnic license. Nitrocellulose lacquer would require a pyrotechnic permit that only the wealthiest pyrotechnicians could afford. Magician's flash paper would have to go.


I can still think of dozens of ways to create a system for propelling a metallic slug at high velocity via explosive release of chemical energy, but this would make me the rare exception to the norm.

Hunters who aren't rich enough to be hunting foxes will be relegated to the crossbow, until one of those is used in a murder. Then they'd have to use something else. Perhaps the atlatl.



Also, you'd need to give massive, MASSIVE bailouts to Smith & Wesson, Ruger, and the like to compensate them and keep them in business. I'm talking an even bigger giveaway than Cash For Clunkers + GM bailout.


GAT, I find your views on corporate campaigning, banking regulation, healthcare, and foreign policy to be, well, awesome. But this is one issue where it really isn't feasible to approach it from any other direction than 'find the crazies and lock them up preemptively.'

You could instead take advantage of the situation and do the world a favor by pumping that blubbery shiatcamel Adelson full of .30-00 hollow point.
 
2012-08-31 12:55:34 PM  

Dimensio: omnibus_necanda_sunt: I'm kind of on your side, but goddamit, why do you have to be such an insufferable sperglord on this issue?

I am an insufferable sperglord on all issues. However, same-sex marriage discussions and evolution discussions have not occurred as frequently as of late and, when they do occur, fewer individuals advocating the irrational position with respect to those issues contribute to them.


Opinion revised... upward.
 
2012-08-31 01:01:24 PM  

Trivia Jockey: Let me change the subject a bit and put all the legalities and rights issues aside...

Can some of you gun advocates explain why you want to have guns so badly? Why you feel the need to have them?

A lot of advocates tell me they want to exercise their rights, and that's fine, but putting that aside, is there any other reason why you feel it's so important to own a gun or guns?


I use my .270 for deer hunting, as well as the occasional coyote. The deer provide meat for my family and it helps keep the population down. I also just really enjoy hunting. The coyotes can be a problem because they start killing livestock when they get too populated.

I use my 12 gauge to hunt pheasants. Again, for food and sport. I have a 20 gauge that I bought for my son to use while pheasant hunting. My next oldest just turned 12 and is now old enough to hunt, so I'll probably have to buy another shotgun for Christmas again this year.

The .22 is handy for keeping rabbits out of the garden. It's also a great gun to start the kids out with when teaching them how to safely handle a firearm. There's not much kick so it's not real intimidating, but it's dangerous and under the proper supervision you can teach them to respect a firearm and handle it properly. You can also take them out and put 100 rounds through it teaching them how to shoot without spending a small fortune.

I have some money saved up to buy a varmint rifle, probably a .223. I want that for shooting prairie dogs and coyotes. The prairie dogs are invasive and ruin pastures, and shooting them helps keep the population in check. The .270 would work for both, but the ammo is a lot more expensive, and it's overkill in most situations.

Someday when my kids are older, I'll probably buy a handgun. I haven't decided if I want a revolver or a semi-auto. Maybe both. Why do I want a hand gun? Mostly for fun. They can also be handy on the farm if you happen across a coon, skunk, badger, etc. and you don't have a rifle handy. Do I NEED a handgun? Not really. I still plan to buy one. Or two. Or more, who knows?

I suppose according to the gun-grabbers on Fark, all of this means I have a tiny penis. If I'm successful and go out and buy a car that's nicer than you can afford, my penis will probably disappear altogether. We all know that the only reason people ever want to have things that I don't approve of or can't afford is because they're compensating for a tiny member. Those of you living in mom's basement must have the biggest dicks on the planet. Too bad no woman will ever see them.
 
2012-08-31 01:04:34 PM  
I wish that people would read the article before they write ignorant comments. The article clearly states that the shooter has never served overseas. That means it is highly unlikely that he suffers from PTSD as a result of his military service. That also makes it unlikely that lack of VA support had anything to do with the shooting. The article did mention that the individual had a possible history of depression.

Not to take away from the tragedy of the situation but I also believe this incident was mislabeled as a "mass shooting" or a "shootout". It appears to be a case where one individual was angered by two others, came back to the scene, targeted them specifically and then turned the firearm on himself. Upon hearing the term mass shooting I envision someone who is moving about shooting people at random or shooting a large number of people who were not chosen at random.

The recent NYC incident was also not a "mass shooting" unless you consider the perpetrators to be the NYPD.
 
2012-08-31 01:06:29 PM  

GRCooper: Casey Anthony: Only cowards own guns.

Only morons make blanket statements


Only the dead know Denmark.
 
2012-08-31 01:08:16 PM  

BeesNuts: GAT_00: Glorious freedom everywhere.

Hey guys, let's turn this into a gun thread! It's totally not about inadequate mental health care and support for the kids we sent to the desert to shoot at people for 15-20% of their lives! It's about access to firearms!

/I don't even disagree with your stance on gun rights... much...
//but god DAMN dude.


I thought it should be about how bat shiat nuts you people in the states are.
 
2012-08-31 01:13:36 PM  

BeesNuts: GAT_00: Glorious freedom everywhere.

Hey guys, let's turn this into a gun thread! It's totally not about inadequate mental health care and support for the kids we sent to the desert to shoot at people for 15-20% of their lives! It's about access to firearms!

/I don't even disagree with your stance on gun rights... much...


So you agree that it is murder when a woman shoots a rapist who is trying to rape her?
 
2012-08-31 01:14:40 PM  

Dimensio: Casey Anthony: Dimensio: Casey Anthony: Only cowards own guns.

Have you any rational commentary, rather than a "poisoning the well" fallacy, to offer, or do you rely upon fallacious argumentation due to an awareness that your position lacks any intellectual merit?

You never make a point. You just string a bunch of words together ultimately saying NOTHING.

You did not address my question.

For what reason did you rely upon fallacious reasoning? Did you do so due to an awareness that your position lacks any intellectual merit, or are you unaware that your initial statement is no more rational nor honest than is the statement "only child molesters use the Fark handle "Casey Anthony""?


To what "fallacious reasoning" are you referring? I did not provide any reasoning. Oh, it's just more word vomit.

What is the reasoning behind owning a gun. To protect yourself? Why do you feel you need to protect yourself? What are you afraid of? You are obviously fearful and insecure if you feel you need a firearm. Your gun is your little security blanket. It qualms the fear and anxiety you feel deep down in your soul. You are a coward.
 
2012-08-31 01:17:49 PM  

Wenchmaster: Because a 50-kilogram elderly female can defend herself against a young 100-kilogram male attacker with a gun fairly easily compared to matching the attacker's physical superiority with her smaller mass.


I"m sorry, but we've already had this debate in this country. In the 70's. It's been settled.

The metric system lost. Get over it.
 
2012-08-31 01:18:48 PM  
I picked the USA. I won, but due to the odds, the payoff was just getting my bet money back.
 
2012-08-31 01:20:10 PM  

Casey Anthony: Dimensio: Casey Anthony: Dimensio: Casey Anthony: Only cowards own guns.

Have you any rational commentary, rather than a "poisoning the well" fallacy, to offer, or do you rely upon fallacious argumentation due to an awareness that your position lacks any intellectual merit?

You never make a point. You just string a bunch of words together ultimately saying NOTHING.

You did not address my question.

For what reason did you rely upon fallacious reasoning? Did you do so due to an awareness that your position lacks any intellectual merit, or are you unaware that your initial statement is no more rational nor honest than is the statement "only child molesters use the Fark handle "Casey Anthony""?

To what "fallacious reasoning" are you referring? I did not provide any reasoning. Oh, it's just more word vomit.

What is the reasoning behind owning a gun. To protect yourself? Why do you feel you need to protect yourself? What are you afraid of? You are obviously fearful and insecure if you feel you need a firearm. Your gun is your little security blanket. It qualms the fear and anxiety you feel deep down in your soul. You are a coward.


calms not qualms. sorry, i just got so excited.
 
2012-08-31 01:20:16 PM  
Another day, another mass shooting, another "abberation" according to gun nuts.
 
2012-08-31 01:22:09 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Hunters who aren't rich enough to be hunting foxes will be relegated to the crossbow, until one of those is used in a murder. Then they'd have to use something else. Perhaps the atlatl.


Just you *TRY* and stop me:

img79.imageshack.us

i56.tinypic.com

i50.tinypic.com

i45.tinypic.com

i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-08-31 01:22:53 PM  
I'm still waiting for HOW exactly stricter gun laws will keep some asshole from getting a gun or even modifying his weapon, which is very simple. I want to hear the logic behind it. I cant tell you how many people I've had this conversation with while stoned. They simple cant connect the dots
 
2012-08-31 01:25:59 PM  

Gdalescrboz: I'm still waiting for HOW exactly stricter gun laws will keep some asshole from getting a gun or even modifying his weapon, which is very simple. I want to hear the logic behind it. I cant tell you how many people I've had this conversation with while stoned. They simple cant connect the dots


People who want to ban firearms general rely on emotional arguments. They're afraid of them so reason doesn't really enter into it. They simply view it as a murder's weapon, not as a tool that can both be used and misused depending on the person holding it.

/Got my new Glock today :-)
//Can't wait to take it to the range tomorrow
 
2012-08-31 01:26:29 PM  

Casey Anthony: Dimensio: Casey Anthony: Dimensio: Casey Anthony: Only cowards own guns.

Have you any rational commentary, rather than a "poisoning the well" fallacy, to offer, or do you rely upon fallacious argumentation due to an awareness that your position lacks any intellectual merit?

You never make a point. You just string a bunch of words together ultimately saying NOTHING.

You did not address my question.

For what reason did you rely upon fallacious reasoning? Did you do so due to an awareness that your position lacks any intellectual merit, or are you unaware that your initial statement is no more rational nor honest than is the statement "only child molesters use the Fark handle "Casey Anthony""?

To what "fallacious reasoning" are you referring? I did not provide any reasoning. Oh, it's just more word vomit.

What is the reasoning behind owning a gun. To protect yourself? Why do you feel you need to protect yourself? What are you afraid of? You are obviously fearful and insecure if you feel you need a firearm. Your gun is your little security blanket. It qualms the fear and anxiety you feel deep down in your soul. You are a coward.


Your baseless ad hominem attacks are no more credible nor warranted than would be the accusation that you post to FARK as a means of distracting you from your desire to molest children.
 
2012-08-31 01:27:09 PM  

Lorelle: Another day, another mass shooting, another "abberation" according to gun nuts.


As you are a known liar, your claims are not credible.
 
2012-08-31 01:29:33 PM  

Lorelle: Another day, another mass shooting, another "abberation" according to gun nuts.


Doesn't there have to be some sort of lower victim limit for it to count as a "mass shooting"? I mean, this guy had an argument with his cow-orkers, went to his car and got guns, apparently shot the two people he wanted to kill, then killed himself before the cops even arrived.

That's a "mass shooting" only under the loosest possible definition of the word. If a guy kills his girlfriend then shoots himself at a mall, is that also a mass shooting, because there are a bunch of people around?
 
2012-08-31 01:30:42 PM  

dittybopper: Lorelle: Another day, another mass shooting, another "abberation" according to gun nuts.

Doesn't there have to be some sort of lower victim limit for it to count as a "mass shooting"? I mean, this guy had an argument with his cow-orkers, went to his car and got guns, apparently shot the two people he wanted to kill, then killed himself before the cops even arrived.

That's a "mass shooting" only under the loosest possible definition of the word. If a guy kills his girlfriend then shoots himself at a mall, is that also a mass shooting, because there are a bunch of people around?


To provide fair consideration, Lorelle has exhibited symptoms of poor reading comprehension ability.
 
2012-08-31 01:31:30 PM  
Can we not call it a mass shooting since only like 3 people died? Mass shootings should be like 8 or plus. Got me excited for nutting.
 
2012-08-31 01:36:32 PM  
The problem with a lot of gun nuts is that they think their right to bear arms is justification to use it to solve every slight against them. They have been so ingrained with the self-defense rationale that pretty much every situation that doesn't go their way is an 'attack' that they need to 'defend' themselves against. Responsible gun owners know that the very last thing they want is to have to be in a situation where you need to make the decision to draw your weapon and pull the trigger. Gun nuts, on the other hand, are actively hoping to plant a few slugs in the next person who they perceive as a 'threat'.
 
2012-08-31 01:42:37 PM  

Trivia Jockey: Can some of you gun advocates explain why you want to have guns so badly? Why you feel the need to have them?


Because I want my mother who is in her 50's and about 5' and a buck ten to have a fighting chance if somebody my size ever goes after her. I don't really give a shiat that you don't agree. I will never let your ilk get your way. And I'm not alone.
 
2012-08-31 01:42:43 PM  

Dimensio: To provide fair consideration, Lorelle has exhibited symptoms of poor reading comprehension ability.


Am I the only one who has noticed that "Lorelle" is an anagram for "eel roll"? Maybe we should start calling her "Ms. Unagi".
 
2012-08-31 01:43:11 PM  
Some people are taking the cancellation of Jersey Shore harder than others...
 
2012-08-31 01:46:17 PM  

vpb: Crudbucket: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 495x411]

Guns mounted on the carts would have made for a pretty sweet lightning round.

If only someone had been carrying one of these, they could have taken him out.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x160]


farkin' A!
 
2012-08-31 01:46:56 PM  

NutWrench: Tawnos: Also, subby, bravo on that trolltastic headline. This thread will reach infinity. It already has Gat 00 in here making an ass of himself. Wait till the rest of us west-coasters wake up for it to really take off.

Especially the "mass shooting" part. Now, I'm not an expert in mass shootings but three people dead is NOT a "mass shooting."
I'm sure we'll have several dozen posts debating where the cutoff point should be.


To be fair, the body count was only listed as "several" when this link was posted.
 
2012-08-31 01:47:38 PM  

Dimensio: Your baseless ad hominem attacks are no more credible nor warranted than would be the accusation that you post to FARK as a means of distracting you from your desire to molest children.


How are they baseless? What do you do with a gun, brush your teeth? No, you own a gun to protect yourself from the scary bogey man you fear is going to get you one of these days. And you're terrified someone is going to take your little security blanket away, which is why you exert so much time and energy posting in these FARK threads.
 
2012-08-31 01:49:43 PM  
Farking LOL! I love all the internet lawyers and military experts in these threads. Thanks for the laughs, guys.
 
2012-08-31 01:51:37 PM  

Casey Anthony: Dimensio: Your baseless ad hominem attacks are no more credible nor warranted than would be the accusation that you post to FARK as a means of distracting you from your desire to molest children.

How are they baseless? What do you do with a gun, brush your teeth? No, you own a gun to protect yourself from the scary bogey man you fear is going to get you one of these days. And you're terrified someone is going to take your little security blanket away, which is why you exert so much time and energy posting in these FARK threads.


Your accusations are based upon unjustified assumptions which are, as I have stated, as valid as is the assumption that you are a closet pedophile.
 
2012-08-31 01:59:13 PM  

Gdalescrboz: I'm still waiting for HOW exactly stricter gun laws will keep some asshole from getting a gun or even modifying his weapon, which is very simple. I want to hear the logic behind it. I cant tell you how many people I've had this conversation with while stoned. They simple cant connect the dots


Stricter laws on production could reduce the number of gun crimes.

You can't stop that with local laws about possession, because criminals can simply drive to the neighboring city or state and get what they want.

The gun manufacturers produce far more weapons than the legitimate market can handle. They know that a huge amount of their sales are destined to criminals via straw buyers.
 
2012-08-31 02:00:40 PM  

jaytkay: The gun manufacturers produce far more weapons than the legitimate market can handle. They know that a huge amount of their sales are destined to criminals via straw buyers.


Please substantiate this assertion.
 
2012-08-31 02:01:12 PM  
I blame Charlton Heston.

/gotta blame somebody.
 
2012-08-31 02:07:06 PM  

Dimensio: As you are a known liar, your claims are not credible.


You're here already? I thought you'd still be in bed masturbating with yer gunz.
 
2012-08-31 02:07:21 PM  

theknuckler_33: The problem with a lot of gun nuts is that they think their right to bear arms is justification to use it to solve every slight against them. They have been so ingrained with the self-defense rationale that pretty much every situation that doesn't go their way is an 'attack' that they need to 'defend' themselves against. Responsible gun owners know that the very last thing they want is to have to be in a situation where you need to make the decision to draw your weapon and pull the trigger. Gun nuts, on the other hand, are actively hoping to plant a few slugs in the next person who they perceive as a 'threat'.


Except there is no basis in fact for your assumption. If it were true, we'd have gun deaths far eclipsing every other source of death in the US.

According to the CDC
, in 2010, there were a total of 2,465,932 deaths in the US (page 17). Of those, only 31,513 were firearm related (p.20). that is only 1.28% of ALL deaths in the US for 2010. Those deaths include: Homicide, Suicide, Legal Intervention, and Accidental Discharge. There were more deaths from Drugs (37,792), Motor Vehicles (35,080), Septic Shock (34,843), Hypertension (33,275), Kidney Failure (44,388)... the list goes on.

The other argument is about kids finding guns in the home and accidentally shooting themselves or others. In 2010, there were only 600 accidental discharge deaths. 600. 600. While it is tragic to those closely involved, it's meaningless statistically. Even if we add in all the firearm related deaths that were of 'undetermined intent', assuming all of them were accidental discharge of someone finding a gun, that brings it to 846. Again, not statistically significant. Certainly not enough to create more inane restrictions on a legal item.

Again, Prohibition doesn't work. All it does is make criminals of otherwise law-abiding people. You would have to magically remove all guns from the face of the earth, while simultaneously removing all knowledge of how to manufacture them and ammunition to remove gun deaths. Which just won't happen. Besides, those who get an itch to kill will have other means available. Knives, baseball bats, bare hands, cars, bombs, etc. Attack the root cause, not the tool used.
 
2012-08-31 02:07:44 PM  

Lorelle: Dimensio: As you are a known liar, your claims are not credible.

You're here already? I thought you'd still be in bed masturbating with yer gunz.


You are a liar. Claims issued by you are not credible.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-08-31 02:08:19 PM  

Lorelle: Another day, another mass shooting, another "abberation" according to gun nuts.


And yet another glib, flippant, knee-jerk remark from a woman with more space than brains.

/stop thinking with your ovaries
//and stop letting your emotions cloud any reason you might otherwise be capable of
 
2012-08-31 02:10:25 PM  

Dimensio: Lorelle: Dimensio: As you are a known liar, your claims are not credible.

You're here already? I thought you'd still be in bed masturbating with yer gunz.

You are a liar. Claims issued by you are not credible.


Thinking about her as "Ms. Unagi", I read that last sentence as "Clams issued by you are not edible".
 
2012-08-31 02:14:02 PM  

dittybopper: Am I the only one who has noticed that "Lorelle" is an anagram for "eel roll"? Maybe we should start calling her "Ms. Unagi".


Am I the only one who has noticed that "dittybopper" is an anagram for "Be Drip Potty?"

gja: And yet another glib, flippant, knee-jerk remark from a woman with more space than brains.

/stop thinking with your ovaries
//and stop letting your emotions cloud any reason you might otherwise be capable of


My condolences on having your peener amputated.
 
2012-08-31 02:14:18 PM  

tgambitg: theknuckler_33: The problem with a lot of gun nuts is that they think their right to bear arms is justification to use it to solve every slight against them. They have been so ingrained with the self-defense rationale that pretty much every situation that doesn't go their way is an 'attack' that they need to 'defend' themselves against. Responsible gun owners know that the very last thing they want is to have to be in a situation where you need to make the decision to draw your weapon and pull the trigger. Gun nuts, on the other hand, are actively hoping to plant a few slugs in the next person who they perceive as a 'threat'.

Except there is no basis in fact for your assumption. If it were true, we'd have gun deaths far eclipsing every other source of death in the US.


I was speaking of a mindset and it is absolutely true.
 
2012-08-31 02:16:27 PM  

Russky: BeesNuts: GAT_00: Glorious freedom everywhere.

Hey guys, let's turn this into a gun thread! It's totally not about inadequate mental health care and support for the kids we sent to the desert to shoot at people for 15-20% of their lives! It's about access to firearms!

/I don't even disagree with your stance on gun rights... much...
//but god DAMN dude.

I thought it should be about how bat shiat nuts you people in the states are.


I'd ask you about tour country's nuttiness, but I'm sure you would use a lot of Stalin on the answer. I know that you are Lenin to the left, but Pol Pot, meet kettle.
 
2012-08-31 02:18:04 PM  

theknuckler_33: tgambitg: theknuckler_33: The problem with a lot of gun nuts is that they think their right to bear arms is justification to use it to solve every slight against them. They have been so ingrained with the self-defense rationale that pretty much every situation that doesn't go their way is an 'attack' that they need to 'defend' themselves against. Responsible gun owners know that the very last thing they want is to have to be in a situation where you need to make the decision to draw your weapon and pull the trigger. Gun nuts, on the other hand, are actively hoping to plant a few slugs in the next person who they perceive as a 'threat'.

Except there is no basis in fact for your assumption. If it were true, we'd have gun deaths far eclipsing every other source of death in the US.

I was speaking of a mindset and it is absolutely true.


Can you point to a survey of people asked about their views on guns? Or a credible news source stating this? Because Billy-Bob down the road spewing nonsense is anecdotal, not data. Cold, hard, facts are all that laws should be made on, not emotion. NEVER emotion. Because emotion is fallible to the extreme, and logic flies out the window.

Just because you feel in your heart that it is true about 'gun nuts' does not make it true. Back up your claims, or tell the truth and say it is your opinion. Because it is not 'absolutely true' until you can back it up with facts.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-08-31 02:20:48 PM  

Lorelle: dittybopper: Am I the only one who has noticed that "Lorelle" is an anagram for "eel roll"? Maybe we should start calling her "Ms. Unagi".

Am I the only one who has noticed that "dittybopper" is an anagram for "Be Drip Potty?"

gja: And yet another glib, flippant, knee-jerk remark from a woman with more space than brains.

/stop thinking with your ovaries
//and stop letting your emotions cloud any reason you might otherwise be capable of

My condolences on having your peener amputated.


"peener"? What are you like 6 years old?
Grow the hell up woman. And while you are at it learn to think before posting such predictable pablum.
Penii were not part of this conversation (you seem to have a certain preoccupation with it however, perhaps some psychotherapy sessions can help you explore and deal with that).

The fact remains, your post was indicative of an emotionally charged, flippant, knee-jerk comment born of baseless fear and hatred for an inanimate object.

Learn to think critically.
 
2012-08-31 02:22:29 PM  
Nearly 350 posts and we're finally to a steady diet of "small penis", "child molester", and "masturbating with ur gunz".

I think we're about done here, Lou.
 
2012-08-31 02:26:02 PM  

gja:
Grow the hell up woman. And while you are at it learn to think before posting such predictable pablum.
Penii were not part of this conversation (you seem to have a certain preoccupation with it however, perhaps some psychotherapy sessions can help you explore and deal with that).

The fact remains, your post was indicative of an emotionally charged, flippant, knee-jerk comment born of baseless fear and hatred for an inanimate object.

Learn to think critically.


Oh, puh-LEEZE. Ovaries have nothing to do with guns, but you seem to have a preoccupation with them.

You also seem to have hatred for women who don't worship guns. On second thought, you seem to have hatred for ALL women.
 
2012-08-31 02:28:09 PM  

Lorelle: My condolences on having your peener amputated.


*TWEET*. Violation of Markley's Law. Ten yard penalty and loss of down.
 
2012-08-31 02:31:05 PM  

dittybopper: Lorelle: My condolences on having your peener amputated.

*TWEET*. Violation of Markley's Law. Ten yard penalty and loss of down.


NO FAIR! I was thisclose to a touchdown!

/killing time before FATFAG
 
2012-08-31 02:33:25 PM  

gja: Penii were not part of this conversation (you seem to have a certain preoccupation with it however, perhaps some psychotherapy sessions can help you explore and deal with that).

The fact remains, your post was indicative of an emotionally charged, flippant, knee-jerk comment born of baseless fear and hatred for an inanimate object.


Wait, were you talking about guns, or your penis?
 
2012-08-31 02:34:08 PM  
jaytkay SmartestFunniest 2012-08-31 01:59:13 PM


Gdalescrboz: I'm still waiting for HOW exactly stricter gun laws will keep some asshole from getting a gun or even modifying his weapon, which is very simple. I want to hear the logic behind it. I cant tell you how many people I've had this conversation with while stoned. They simple cant connect the dots

Stricter laws on production could reduce the number of gun crimes.


Exactly my point. Stricter gun control laws COULD increase gun violence. Hell, stricter gun control laws COULD turn us all into bears. I cant explain why, but it could. Stop giving us hypotheticals and make logical connections that WILL lead to decreased gun violence. I'd be all for it if I heard a good explanation, thus far I haven't heard anything. I'm biting at the bit, feed me, please feed me.
 
2012-08-31 02:35:43 PM  

Lorelle: Am I the only one who has noticed that "dittybopper" is an anagram for "Be Drip Potty?"


Oh, come on, you can do better than that. Like "trippy bed toy", which would imply a penis substitute.

It's like you're not even *TRYING* anymore.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-08-31 02:37:44 PM  

Lorelle: gja:
Grow the hell up woman. And while you are at it learn to think before posting such predictable pablum.
Penii were not part of this conversation (you seem to have a certain preoccupation with it however, perhaps some psychotherapy sessions can help you explore and deal with that).

The fact remains, your post was indicative of an emotionally charged, flippant, knee-jerk comment born of baseless fear and hatred for an inanimate object.

Learn to think critically.

Oh, puh-LEEZE. Ovaries have nothing to do with guns, but you seem to have a preoccupation with them.

You also seem to have hatred for women who don't worship guns. On second thought, you seem to have hatred for ALL women.


Not that it is salient to the convo, but I love women and have a certain reverence for them in general (that whole giving-birth-to-new-lives thing). I actually love them enough to get married a second time!

I hate nobody. Hate is an ugly emotion I have no room for. I do not hate women who don't worship guns likely because I myself do not worship bits of metal and plastic/wood, etc...

But neither do I get all 'wet-my-pants' fearful of them. They are objects, and about as likely to kill me as a parked car.

And I intensely despise when an otherwise possibly intelligent person (i am referring to you, herein) acts in a way that they need not if they were only to count 10, think with a cool head, and THEN act.

It's called self-control. Perhaps one day you will give it a spin?
 
2012-08-31 02:39:01 PM  
Charlie: "Gee Mr. Wonka does this thread really happen every week?"

Willy Wonka: "It sure does, Charlie. Just like clockwork. A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-08-31 02:39:49 PM  

dittybopper: Lorelle: My condolences on having your peener amputated.

*TWEET*. Violation of Markley's Law. Ten yard penalty and loss of down.


Holy Shiat! I was not aware of this!

/laughing so hard I just f-ed up the java I was writing....
 
2012-08-31 02:42:42 PM  

gja: I actually love them enough to get married a second time!


I think that's proof enough for anyone to refute any remark of 'coward'. Crazy, maybe, but with 50% of this countries marriages ending in divorce and the other 50% in death, I think it's by far a greater threat to you. If only we could shoot it.
 
2012-08-31 02:46:37 PM  

dittybopper: Oh, come on, you can do better than that. Like "trippy bed toy", which would imply a penis substitute.

It's like you're not even *TRYING* anymore.


Oh, all right...

Body Prep Tit
Pop Dirty Bet
Pry Top Bidet
Bed Potty Rip

Happy now??
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-08-31 02:47:29 PM  
2 things really need to happen in the U.S.A.

1. We need to decriminalize Marijuana.
Tax it, don't tax, I don't f-ing care. Just STOP throwing people in jail for it.
We need the room in jail for...

2. Make it a felony offense to use ANY weapon in the commission, or attempt to commit, a crime. Make the sentence long enough to make the miscreants take pause and ask themselves "is this really gonna be worth doing xx years without any possible time-off/plea-bargainng etc...

3. Apply same type of sentencing to ANY proven gang/organized crime members.

That's where I would start anyway.
 
2012-08-31 02:54:35 PM  

gja: 2. Make it a felony offense to use ANY weapon in the commission, or attempt to commit, a crime. Make the sentence long enough to make the miscreants take pause and ask themselves "is this really gonna be worth doing xx years without any possible time-off/plea-bargainng etc...


I would advocate only such a penalty for crimes involving an actual victim. I would not wish for police to charge an individual who negligently ran a red light with a felony offense merely because the driver was also in possession of a firearm but I do know that some police and prosecutors would do so if legally possible.
 
2012-08-31 02:56:42 PM  

gja: It's called self-control. Perhaps one day you will give it a spin?


Perhaps you should take your own advice??

You got very upset by my initial comment (and that was weak bait, too. Not my best effort), then proceeded to bring my ovaries into the conversation, which is highly indicative of YOUR loss of self-control.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-08-31 02:58:15 PM  

Dimensio: gja: 2. Make it a felony offense to use ANY weapon in the commission, or attempt to commit, a crime. Make the sentence long enough to make the miscreants take pause and ask themselves "is this really gonna be worth doing xx years without any possible time-off/plea-bargainng etc...

I would advocate only such a penalty for crimes involving an actual victim. I would not wish for police to charge an individual who negligently ran a red light with a felony offense merely because the driver was also in possession of a firearm but I do know that some police and prosecutors would do so if legally possible.


Yes, of course. My error by omission. These sentences would be doled out for crimes involving victims. The intent I had was to STOP HAVING US KILL EACH OTHER.
 
2012-08-31 03:04:37 PM  

gja: 2 things really need to happen in the U.S.A.

1. We need to decriminalize Marijuana.
Tax it, don't tax, I don't f-ing care. Just STOP throwing people in jail for it.
We need the room in jail for...

2. Make it a felony offense to use ANY weapon in the commission, or attempt to commit, a crime. Make the sentence long enough to make the miscreants take pause and ask themselves "is this really gonna be worth doing xx years without any possible time-off/plea-bargainng etc...

3. Apply same type of sentencing to ANY proven gang/organized crime members.

That's where I would start anyway.


That's a long '2' things. While I don't have any disagreement with 1, for 2 is the sentence really what deters people from a crime? "Oh man, I'm going to get 15 years instead of 5 for this crime, I better not do it?"

And on the 3rd, we already have just as many of those in the jails as on the streets, they're just as comfortable. So unless you fashion a Judge Dredd scenario, maybe some program to spread out prisoner populations throughout the country so no clusters develop? I don't think there are as many Bloods in Pedokah, North Dakota so they would lose their support system. Now this wouldn't prevent them from forming new gangs, but maybe if we shifted populations around bi-yearly, we wouldn't have the prison gang culture we have now.
 
2012-08-31 03:05:49 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: gja: Penii were not part of this conversation (you seem to have a certain preoccupation with it however, perhaps some psychotherapy sessions can help you explore and deal with that).

The fact remains, your post was indicative of an emotionally charged, flippant, knee-jerk comment born of baseless fear and hatred for an inanimate object.

Wait, were you talking about guns, or your penis?


The anti-gun crowd has a proven, undefineable obsession with the dick.
It's one of the first remarks out of them in any gun thread, or for that matter, a thread discussing any automobile that is larger than a battery-powered roller skate.

They seem to love the cock.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-08-31 03:07:27 PM  

Lorelle: gja: It's called self-control. Perhaps one day you will give it a spin?

Perhaps you should take your own advice??

You got very upset by my initial comment (and that was weak bait, too. Not my best effort), then proceeded to bring my ovaries into the conversation, which is highly indicative of YOUR loss of self-control.


HAHA, "very upset"? No little lady, 'me' very upset would be a not-so-pretty picture. Mildly annoyed is about right, sweetie.
I am very long of patience and tolerance, but once to the end of that, things get a tad shall-we-say loud and less than congenial.

I never lose my self control nor my composure. That is not tolerated in my position, and would be a career ending character fault.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-08-31 03:11:35 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: gja: Penii were not part of this conversation (you seem to have a certain preoccupation with it however, perhaps some psychotherapy sessions can help you explore and deal with that).

The fact remains, your post was indicative of an emotionally charged, flippant, knee-jerk comment born of baseless fear and hatred for an inanimate object.

Wait, were you talking about guns, or your penis?


Touche'. You would get a month of TF, if you didn't already have it, for the wittiest retort in-thread.
My hat is off to you, sir.

//wasn't REALLY wearing a hat...just sayin.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-08-31 03:22:23 PM  

MichiganFTL: gja: 2 things really need to happen in the U.S.A.

1. We need to decriminalize Marijuana.
Tax it, don't tax, I don't f-ing care. Just STOP throwing people in jail for it.
We need the room in jail for...

2. Make it a felony offense to use ANY weapon in the commission, or attempt to commit, a crime. Make the sentence long enough to make the miscreants take pause and ask themselves "is this really gonna be worth doing xx years without any possible time-off/plea-bargainng etc...

3. Apply same type of sentencing to ANY proven gang/organized crime members.

That's where I would start anyway.

That's a long '2' things. While I don't have any disagreement with 1, for 2 is the sentence really what deters people from a crime? "Oh man, I'm going to get 15 years instead of 5 for this crime, I better not do it?"

And on the 3rd, we already have just as many of those in the jails as on the streets, they're just as comfortable. So unless you fashion a Judge Dredd scenario, maybe some program to spread out prisoner populations throughout the country so no clusters develop? I don't think there are as many Bloods in Pedokah, North Dakota so they would lose their support system. Now this wouldn't prevent them from forming new gangs, but maybe if we shifted populations around bi-yearly, we wouldn't have the prison gang culture we have now.


Yeah, we REALLY need to break the backs of these farking gangs. They tear up a neighborhood something fierce. Here in Long Island they have polluted 1 town so badly the cops barely patrol anymore. The P.O. basically sit back with a "f them, let them kill each other off" attitude.
The town's real name is Wyandanch, it's dirt name is Crime-danch . How messed up is THAT?

More handguns per square mile than you would believe. Not one is legal, bet on it.
 
2012-08-31 03:25:14 PM  

Lorelle: gja:
Grow the hell up woman. And while you are at it learn to think before posting such predictable pablum.
Penii were not part of this conversation (you seem to have a certain preoccupation with it however, perhaps some psychotherapy sessions can help you explore and deal with that).

The fact remains, your post was indicative of an emotionally charged, flippant, knee-jerk comment born of baseless fear and hatred for an inanimate object.

Learn to think critically.

Oh, puh-LEEZE. Ovaries have nothing to do with guns, but you seem to have a preoccupation with them.

You also seem to have hatred for women who don't worship guns. On second thought, you seem to have hatred for ALL women.


I like all women.., EIP



/lol
 
2012-08-31 03:48:59 PM  

gja: Dimensio: gja: 2. Make it a felony offense to use ANY weapon in the commission, or attempt to commit, a crime. Make the sentence long enough to make the miscreants take pause and ask themselves "is this really gonna be worth doing xx years without any possible time-off/plea-bargainng etc...

I would advocate only such a penalty for crimes involving an actual victim. I would not wish for police to charge an individual who negligently ran a red light with a felony offense merely because the driver was also in possession of a firearm but I do know that some police and prosecutors would do so if legally possible.

Yes, of course. My error by omission. These sentences would be doled out for crimes involving victims. The intent I had was to STOP HAVING US KILL EACH OTHER.


But will it?

If armed robbery becomes almost equivalent to murder in terms of punishment, then will armed robbers stop leaving witnesses?

/just thinking it through ...
 
2012-08-31 03:49:34 PM  

Trivia Jockey: Let me change the subject a bit and put all the legalities and rights issues aside...

Can some of you gun advocates explain why you want to have guns so badly? Why you feel the need to have them?

A lot of advocates tell me they want to exercise their rights, and that's fine, but putting that aside, is there any other reason why you feel it's so important to own a gun or guns?

See, you are so very wrong here. You miss the point.

I'm a VERY big gun advocate. Very big. How many guns do I own? 0.
The First Amendment allows people to exercise the right to free speech and that includes silence.
 
2012-08-31 03:54:21 PM  
I wonder how many time this will play out and if Americans will ever go to a single shot/no multiple shot magazine scenario on gun control.

Alternativly they could incrementally start by saying anyone with any criminal record can't have guns, they require a psych test, boiling the frog measures.

/Just wondering if their is a point at which 51% could consider gun control.
 
2012-08-31 03:55:18 PM  
ahh, the tiny dick gun lovers out in force again.
 
2012-08-31 04:01:07 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: As more of the military comes back from overseas, we're going to see this happen more and more. But since the VA is soshulism according to the people in control of the budget, I seriously doubt we will see improvements to mental health care until they are flushed out of the system like the little shiats they are.


WOW. Did you even read the article? He NEVER served overseas. But I guess FACTS don't really have a place in your attempt to distort and go with an obvious agenda. Good Job.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-08-31 04:01:34 PM  

pacified: ahh, the tiny dick gun lovers out in force again.


You gotta have a tiny dick to love a gun, their holes are soooo small its tough for big willys to fit into.

/i neither love nor hate guns. unliving bits of metal and mechanisms are just that
 
2012-08-31 04:01:54 PM  
Maybe it's time to have a monthly psychological assessment of gun owners? It's just that even normal people can go crazy at any moment. Initially, you're a responsible gun owner, then later you'll be some rage fueled badass with a gun.

Owning a gun means having huge responsibility not just to yourself, but also to those around you. If you think you need a gun, then be cautious, know your responsibility and have yourself checked from time to time. It's going to be a hassle, but maybe it's for the best, both for yourself and others.
 
2012-08-31 04:02:04 PM  

marius2: I'm just curious how many the cops killed.


Gee, I guess you might know if you read the article. WOW.
 
2012-08-31 04:02:06 PM  

pacified: ahh, the tiny dick gun lovers out in force again.


I am curious: what is the cause of your obsession with male genitalia?
 
2012-08-31 04:03:05 PM  

pacified: ahh, the tiny dick gun lovers out in force again.


And yet another to prove the theory...

/It's OK to love the dick - we're not here to judge you.
 
2012-08-31 04:03:21 PM  

Enemabag Jones: Alternativly they could incrementally start by saying anyone with any criminal record can't have guns


Are you unaware that individuals previously convicted of any felony offense are prohibited by law from possessing firearms?
 
2012-08-31 04:04:13 PM  
Sorry, I'll leave now as I can see this place is over run with the anti-gun fanatics & their agendas.
 
2012-08-31 04:05:59 PM  

GreenSun: Maybe it's time to have a monthly psychological assessment of guncar owners? It's just that even normal people can go crazy at any moment. Initially, you're a responsible guncar owner, then later you'll be some rage fueled badass with a guncar.

Owning a guncar means having huge responsibility not just to yourself, but also to those around you. If you think you need a guncar, then be cautious, know your responsibility and have yourself checked from time to time. It's going to be a hassle, but maybe it's for the best, both for yourself and others.


Do you see how inane your argument is now? You could substitute car for gun and still have the same argument. Or any number of other things that kill more people than guns. Stop blaming the tool.
 
2012-08-31 04:06:17 PM  

GreenSun: Maybe it's time to have a monthly psychological assessment of gun owners? It's just that even normal people can go crazy at any moment. Initially, you're a responsible gun owner, then later you'll be some rage fueled badass with a gun.


Perhaps a monthly psychological assessment of all United States residents would be more appropriate.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-08-31 04:07:51 PM  

TXEric: pacified: ahh, the tiny dick gun lovers out in force again.

And yet another to prove the theory...

/It's OK to love the dick - we're not here to judge you.


encrypted-tbn2.google.com
 
2012-08-31 04:09:00 PM  

Dimensio: GreenSun: Maybe it's time to have a monthly psychological assessment of gun owners? It's just that even normal people can go crazy at any moment. Initially, you're a responsible gun owner, then later you'll be some rage fueled badass with a gun.

Perhaps a monthly psychological assessment of all United States residents would be more appropriate.


Given the number of gun owners, the two are functionally equivalent.
 
2012-08-31 04:11:27 PM  

Dimensio: Enemabag Jones: Alternativly they could incrementally start by saying anyone with any criminal record can't have guns

Are you unaware that individuals previously convicted of any felony offense are prohibited by law from possessing firearms?


Or that you can be a criminal and not even know it? The fact that any police officer can come up to you and likely find a crime being broken if they scour criminal codes for an offense doesn't help matters. If you're in New York City and you work in a convenience store, and you sell someone under 18 a Sharpie, you've broken the law. Using that logic, you can't own a gun.
 
2012-08-31 04:29:18 PM  
tgambitg,
Dimensio: Enemabag Jones: Alternativly they could incrementally start by saying anyone with any criminal record can't have guns
Are you unaware that individuals previously convicted of any felony offense are prohibited by law from possessing firearms?
Or that you can be a criminal and not even know it? The fact that any police officer can come up to you and likely find a crime being broken if they scour criminal codes for an offense doesn't help matters. If you're in New York City and you work in a convenience store, and you sell someone under 18 a Sharpie, you've broken the law. Using that logic, you can't own a gun.


Not talking about felons, although 'felony' means as much to me now as 'sex offender' does without more information.

I am talking about public intoxication, low level shoplifting, DWI's, as a way of culling those who have access to guns. Making it something more restricted like getting a license to carry a firearm in some states, or own a full-auto firearm.

If one wanted to start restricting access to guns, start with anyone that has a low-level criminal record and work up from there. It would probably be smarter in American politics then restricting access to semi-auto firearms.
 
2012-08-31 04:29:44 PM  

tgambitg: I was speaking of a mindset and it is absolutely true.

Can you point to a survey of people asked about their views on guns? Or a credible news source stating this? Because Billy-Bob down the road spewing nonsense is anecdotal, not data. Cold, hard, facts are all that laws should be made on, not emotion. NEVER emotion. Because emotion is fallible to the extreme, and logic flies out the window.

Just because you feel in your heart that it is true about 'gun nuts' does not make it true. Back up your claims, or tell the truth and say it is your opinion. Because it is not 'absolutely true' until you can back it up with facts.


I like how you put gun nuts in quotes as if it is a fictional thing.

Look, I'm not proposing any laws at all, let alone based on emotion. Let me put what I said another way. I am of the opinion that the trait I described is not so much a trait of gun nuts, but rather the definition of gun nuts (ie. if someone does not think that way, they are not a gun nut). Does that soothe your butthurt?
 
2012-08-31 04:36:51 PM  

meintx2001: marius2: I'm just curious how many the cops killed.

Gee, I guess you might know if you read the article. WOW.


Gee, when I posted at the start of the thread that information was not available.

Though seriously, welcometofark.jpg.
 
2012-08-31 04:37:11 PM  

Lorelle: Another day, another mass shooting, another "abberation" according to gun nuts.


You misspelled "election year". There was one murder a day in Detroit alone last year. This is not some frightening new trend. Firearms advocates aren't responsible for this. We are firearms advocates because of this.
 
2012-08-31 04:39:07 PM  

AngryDragon: Lorelle: Another day, another mass shooting, another "abberation" according to gun nuts.

You misspelled "election year". There was one murder a day in Detroit alone last year. This is not some frightening new trend. Firearms advocates aren't responsible for this. We are firearms advocates because of this.


Lorelle is convinced that such violence will be abated through imposition of strict restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership, such as the efforts implemented in New Jersey.
 
2012-08-31 04:39:55 PM  

GreenSun: Maybe it's time to have a monthly psychological assessment of gun owners? It's just that even normal people can go crazy at any moment. Initially, you're a responsible gun owner, then later you'll be some rage fueled badass with a gun.

Owning a gun means having huge responsibility not just to yourself, but also to those around you. If you think you need a gun, then be cautious, know your responsibility and have yourself checked from time to time. It's going to be a hassle, but maybe it's for the best, both for yourself and others.


Monthly? You gonna pay for that?
 
2012-08-31 04:40:58 PM  

Dimensio: Enemabag Jones: Alternativly they could incrementally start by saying anyone with any criminal record can't have guns

Are you unaware that individuals previously convicted of any felony offense are prohibited by law from possessing firearms?


Unless they get their rights restored which I am hoping to do this year
 
2012-08-31 05:21:57 PM  
Tyler then drew a handgun and shot himself.

If only his head had had a gun, it might have had a chance to defend itself.
 
2012-08-31 05:23:35 PM  

Mazzic518: Dimensio: Enemabag Jones: Alternativly they could incrementally start by saying anyone with any criminal record can't have guns

Are you unaware that individuals previously convicted of any felony offense are prohibited by law from possessing firearms?

Unless they get their rights restored which I am hoping to do this year


I'd still expect a hold and you'll have to file an appeal to get the weapon. I was just talking with the gun shop owner about that today when I picked up my pistol. You'll get it eventually, but it's a pain in the ass.
 
2012-08-31 06:30:51 PM  

Dimensio: calm like a bomb: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

It isn't going to change. That war is over, we lost, and the price we will pay for the right of self-righteous honkeys to own military grade weaponry and armor piercing bullets is that sometimes one of them will get all shooty.

Military-grade weaponry is restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Handgun ammunition capable of penetrating body armour (legally determined by composition of the bullet core) is prohibited to civilians by federal law.

Civilian disarmament advocates "lose" because they consistently demonstrate themselves fundamentally ignorant of firearms terminology and even of existing regulations when proposing new restrictions. Their ignorance results in their proposals being entirely unreasonable and irrational infringements upon liberty. An unfortunate consequence of this ignorance is that even reasonable and rational proposals are adamantly opposed by firearm ownership rights advocacy organizations due to a conditioned response from numerous previous proposals that were not reasonable.




Someone just got favorited!
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-08-31 09:12:05 PM  

Dimensio: calm like a bomb: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

It isn't going to change. That war is over, we lost, and the price we will pay for the right of self-righteous honkeys to own military grade weaponry and armor piercing bullets is that sometimes one of them will get all shooty.

Military-grade weaponry is restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Handgun ammunition capable of penetrating body armour (legally determined by composition of the bullet core) is prohibited to civilians by federal law.

Civilian disarmament advocates "lose" because they consistently demonstrate themselves fundamentally ignorant of firearms terminology and even of existing regulations when proposing new restrictions. Their ignorance results in their proposals being entirely unreasonable and irrational infringements upon liberty. An unfortunate consequence of this ignorance is that even reasonable and rational proposals are adamantly opposed by firearm ownership rights advocacy organizations due to a conditioned response from numerous previous proposals that were not reasonable.


Someone just got a month of TF......
 
2012-08-31 10:24:32 PM  

gja: Someone just got a month of TF......


Awww, bless. The guntards are getting all touchy-feely-kissy-smoochy.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-08-31 11:17:03 PM  

gweilo8888: gja: Someone just got a month of TF......

Awww, bless. The guntards are getting all touchy-feely-kissy-smoochy.


Come up with a lucid, well thought-out and reasonable argument and you can get the same.
Otherwise, take your snark and bile and go sit in a corner like the rest of the kids whose moms have to pin notes to their clothing so they make it home after riding the short bus.
 
2012-09-01 12:11:19 AM  

gja: Dimensio: calm like a bomb: Trivia Jockey: It's going to take dozens and dozens more of these shootings before anyone has the balls to start challenging the NRA's lobbying power and influence.

This makes me sick. As does each shooting.

It isn't going to change. That war is over, we lost, and the price we will pay for the right of self-righteous honkeys to own military grade weaponry and armor piercing bullets is that sometimes one of them will get all shooty.

Military-grade weaponry is restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Handgun ammunition capable of penetrating body armour (legally determined by composition of the bullet core) is prohibited to civilians by federal law.

Civilian disarmament advocates "lose" because they consistently demonstrate themselves fundamentally ignorant of firearms terminology and even of existing regulations when proposing new restrictions. Their ignorance results in their proposals being entirely unreasonable and irrational infringements upon liberty. An unfortunate consequence of this ignorance is that even reasonable and rational proposals are adamantly opposed by firearm ownership rights advocacy organizations due to a conditioned response from numerous previous proposals that were not reasonable.

Someone just got a month of TF......


Your gesture is appreciated.
 
2012-09-01 12:30:26 AM  

TonnageVT: Damn, last week's NYC shooting was right outside of the pub I watch football at every weekend. This one is in the town next over from where I live.

Getting a little too close to home...farking stop you coonts.


this can happen anywheres...but stay glock-residue free my friend!
 
2012-09-01 01:12:57 AM  
Three points:

1. Switzerland - Every adult male in Switzerland is issued a military sidearm (a pistol), which they are required to keep in their homes in between annual civilian militia training. Switzerland also has one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the world.
Ref: http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/reps/nameri/vusa/wasemb/polaff/gun own.html
2. Brazil - Among the lowest, worldwide, per capita gun ownership numbers but is among the highest in homicides by firearms.
Ref: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonoberholtzer/2012/07/24/we-have-a-lot- of-guns/
3. "Marine" in the article - NEVER deployed overseas and served 2 years. That means he got kicked out - likely under other than honorable circumstances or straight dishonorably discharged. That is tantamount to being a felon, never being able to vote again and unable to legally own firearms.
Ref: RTFA.

/Draw your own conclusions.
 
2012-09-01 04:00:02 AM  

Casey Anthony: Only cowards own guns.


Only idiots rely on cops to save you from a "coward."
 
2012-09-01 06:24:24 AM  

automaticman: Three points:

1. Switzerland - Every adult male in Switzerland is issued a military sidearm (a pistol), which they are required to keep in their homes in between annual civilian militia training. Switzerland also has one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the world.
Ref: http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/reps/nameri/vusa/wasemb/polaff/gun own.html
2. Brazil - Among the lowest, worldwide, per capita gun ownership numbers but is among the highest in homicides by firearms.
Ref: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonoberholtzer/2012/07/24/we-have-a-lot- of-guns/
3. "Marine" in the article - NEVER deployed overseas and served 2 years. That means he got kicked out - likely under other than honorable circumstances or straight dishonorably discharged. That is tantamount to being a felon, never being able to vote again and unable to legally own firearms.
Ref: RTFA.

/Draw your own conclusions.


If he was dishonorably discharged he was already violating the law for possessing a weapon. As you said, it's the same as a felony for all intents and purposes.
 
2012-09-01 04:56:19 PM  

gja: Come up with a lucid, well thought-out and reasonable argument and you can get the same.
Otherwise, take your snark and bile and go sit in a corner like the rest of the kids whose moms have to pin notes to their clothing so they make it home after riding the short bus.


Awww, bless. Guntard got her panties in a bunch.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-09-02 05:47:45 PM  

gweilo8888: gja: Come up with a lucid, well thought-out and reasonable argument and you can get the same.
Otherwise, take your snark and bile and go sit in a corner like the rest of the kids whose moms have to pin notes to their clothing so they make it home after riding the short bus.

Awww, bless. Guntard got her panties in a bunch.


FYI I'm a dude. Try underpants (checking....nope not in a bunch).

/haters gonna hate I suppose, whatevs
 
Displayed 410 of 410 comments

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


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report