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 55
    More: News, New Jersey, armed police, NBC 4 New York, Pathmark, mass shooting, NJ Transit  
•       •       •

12657 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-08-31 09:33:39 AM
4 votes:

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 07:38:00 AM
4 votes:
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 07:26:46 AM
4 votes:
I'm just curious how many the cops killed.
2012-08-31 09:26:14 AM
3 votes:

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 08:06:56 AM
3 votes:

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 10:34:00 AM
2 votes:

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 10:01:20 AM
2 votes:

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 09:39:09 AM
2 votes:
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 09:38:17 AM
2 votes:
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.
2012-08-31 09:37:44 AM
2 votes:

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 09:19:08 AM
2 votes:

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 07:40:41 AM
2 votes:
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.
2012-09-01 06:24:24 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-08-31 06:30:51 PM
1 votes:

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!
2012-08-31 04:39:07 PM
1 votes:

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 03:49:34 PM
1 votes:

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.
gja [TotalFark]
2012-08-31 02:37:44 PM
1 votes:

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 02:35:43 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-08-31 02:28:09 PM
1 votes:

Lorelle: My condolences on having your peener amputated.


*TWEET*. Violation of Markley's Law. Ten yard penalty and loss of down.
2012-08-31 02:18:04 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-08-31 11:50:14 AM
1 votes:

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 11:29:55 AM
1 votes:

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 11:27:44 AM
1 votes:

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 11:02:08 AM
1 votes:

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 10:22:02 AM
1 votes:

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 10:20:37 AM
1 votes:

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 10:11:29 AM
1 votes:

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 10:09:05 AM
1 votes:

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 10:06:24 AM
1 votes:

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 10:06:18 AM
1 votes:

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 10:03:40 AM
1 votes:

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 09:57:57 AM
1 votes:

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 09:57:47 AM
1 votes:

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 09:57:35 AM
1 votes:

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 09:54:22 AM
1 votes:

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 09:52:11 AM
1 votes:
A state that the Brady Campaign gave an A- for gun control. Veddy Interesting.
2012-08-31 09:49:47 AM
1 votes:

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 09:49:22 AM
1 votes:
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 09:43:34 AM
1 votes:

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)?
2012-08-31 09:40:40 AM
1 votes:

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 09:37:08 AM
1 votes:

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 09:36:11 AM
1 votes:
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 09:30:49 AM
1 votes:

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 09:29:57 AM
1 votes:

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 09:29:44 AM
1 votes:

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 09:29:21 AM
1 votes:

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 09:28:30 AM
1 votes:
Today I learned that, according to the press, a double-murder, suicide is both a "mass shooting" and a "shootout"
2012-08-31 09:27:04 AM
1 votes:
We really need to more strictly enforce pornography laws. And pass that constitutional amendment to end gay marriage.
2012-08-31 09:23:23 AM
1 votes:

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 09:14:33 AM
1 votes:
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 09:13:26 AM
1 votes:

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 09:12:57 AM
1 votes:

abhorrent1: Concealed carry would have stopped this!


Like this?
2012-08-31 08:23:07 AM
1 votes:
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 07:42:02 AM
1 votes:
4.bp.blogspot.com

Guns mounted on the carts would have made for a pretty sweet lightning round.
2012-08-31 07:34:34 AM
1 votes:
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
 
Displayed 55 of 55 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report