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  
•       •       •

12650 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Aug 2012 at 9:09 AM (1 year 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 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!
 
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 »






Report