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

(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  
•       •       •

12669 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 410 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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