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.

(Rochdale Online)   Out of concern that children are not already sufficiently irrationally terrified of firearms, UK public overwhelmingly supports stopping gun magazine sales to minors   (rochdaleonline.co.uk) divider line 157
    More: Asinine, gun magazines, British Association, Freudian, shooting sports, guns, W.H. Smith PLC.  
•       •       •

1577 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Sep 2012 at 1:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-18 12:13:51 PM
Not a good day to post this, subby.
 
2012-09-18 12:34:53 PM

crumblecat: Not a good day to post this, subby.


Would yesterday have been better?
 
2012-09-18 01:04:35 PM
Well no shiat.

What's the point of allowing magazine sales of you can't own firearms to begin with?

That's like trying to sell gasoline to the Amish.
 
2012-09-18 01:05:11 PM
However, they can still buy clips, right?
 
2012-09-18 01:05:19 PM

Dimensio: crumblecat: Not a good day to post this, subby.

Would yesterday have been better?


I don't know, were 2 unarmed Woman Police Officers gunned down yesterday?
 
2012-09-18 01:06:15 PM
Treat your population like children and they'll always stay children.
 
2012-09-18 01:07:39 PM

I'm an excellent driver: I don't know, were 2 unarmed Woman Police Officers gunned down yesterday?


Unpossible. Britain is a gun-free utopia, so criminals couldn't possibly have guns.
 
2012-09-18 01:08:04 PM

crumblecat: Not a good day to post this, subby.


Why not?
 
2012-09-18 01:09:26 PM

I'm an excellent driver: Dimensio: crumblecat: Not a good day to post this, subby.

Would yesterday have been better?

I don't know, were 2 unarmed Woman Police Officers gunned down yesterday?


I understand now. Clearly, this tragedy could have been averted by prohibiting children from reading firearm-themes magazines.
 
2012-09-18 01:09:40 PM

clyph: I'm an excellent driver: I don't know, were 2 unarmed Woman Police Officers gunned down yesterday?

Unpossible. Britain is a gun-free utopia, so criminals couldn't possibly have guns.


Nice. Remind me to pop into the next US gun massacre thread for a little bit of shallow minded, jingoistic dick waving
 
2012-09-18 01:09:47 PM

CAADbury: Well no shiat.

What's the point of allowing magazine sales of you can't own firearms to begin with?

That's like trying to sell gasoline to the Amish.


^^
 
2012-09-18 01:10:37 PM
Maybe someday we will stop rhetorically and ineffectually asking "what's next?" and declare "that's it".
 
2012-09-18 01:10:40 PM

clyph: Unpossible. Britain is a gun-free utopia, so criminals couldn't possibly have guns.


Or grenades.

Clearly, the UK needs tighter grenade control laws.
 
2012-09-18 01:11:45 PM

dalmo: Nice. Remind me to pop into the next US gun massacre thread for a little bit of shallow minded, jingoistic dick waving


You must not have attended any of the recent ones, if you think you'd be adding anything new with that.
 
2012-09-18 01:14:09 PM

stevarooni: dalmo: Nice. Remind me to pop into the next US gun massacre thread for a little bit of shallow minded, jingoistic dick waving

You must not have attended any of the recent ones, if you think you'd be adding anything new with that.


The general failure to comprehend basic logic often astounds me.
 
2012-09-18 01:15:56 PM
An overwhelming majority of people want gun magazines that show animals being killed for sport consigned to newsagents' top shelves alongside pornography,

Thru out human history, people have never hunted until they were of legal age and passed a course on sensitivity.
 
2012-09-18 01:16:48 PM

dabbletech: However, they can still buy clips, right?


came for that
well done
 
2012-09-18 01:18:53 PM
These people used to have a global empire, now they piss themselves at their own shadows. Pretty damn sobering when you think about it.
 
2012-09-18 01:22:39 PM
I could almost understand this idea if it was for magazines like Recoil or any of the publications others that target "assault" weapons (Just for the record I'm not opposed to ARs and that ilk). Only because Britain is a country of pussies who have had most of their rights taken away so they can let their government take care of them.

But magazines that clearly target sporting uses of firearms is just plain silly. I hunt for meat, not for sport, so anything I shoot other than coyotes will be used for meat. Just last week my five year old daughter informed me that there was a squirrel in the yard and I should shoot it. So I grabbed my pellet gun and shot it. Then she watched me skin it and told me I did it wrong (knife was dull so I missed up a couple slits). And she got mad because I told her I was going to put it in the freezer and make Brunswick stew once I got a few more. She wanted to eat it for dinner. Nothing wrong with that. If you're going to eat meat it has to be killed somehow.
 
2012-09-18 01:22:46 PM
Oh noes! 2 police women shot! How many people were stabbed in the UK last week?
 
2012-09-18 01:24:37 PM

dalmo: clyph: I'm an excellent driver: I don't know, were 2 unarmed Woman Police Officers gunned down yesterday?

Unpossible. Britain is a gun-free utopia, so criminals couldn't possibly have guns.

Nice. Remind me to pop into the next US gun massacre thread for a little bit of shallow minded, jingoistic dick waving


I like dick waving. But, I call it my gun.
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-09-18 01:24:57 PM
I hate democracy too.
 
2012-09-18 01:25:15 PM

Tat'dGreaser: An overwhelming majority of people want gun magazines that show animals being killed for sport consigned to newsagents' top shelves alongside pornography,

Thru out human history, people have never hunted until they were of legal age and passed a course on sensitivity.


And certainly not the British.

They have no history of ever hunting on their own lands, much less traveling to exotic locals to hunt large and dangerous creatures there.
 
2012-09-18 01:27:01 PM

inner ted: dabbletech: However, they can still buy clips, right?

came for that
well done


I was gonna post this, but I was gonna be serious.
 
2012-09-18 01:28:24 PM
Eee begs to disagree........


goodfilmguide.co.uk
 
2012-09-18 01:29:51 PM
Define "irrationally afraid of firearms"? Shouldn't a small child be afraid of a firearm until they are mature enough to check to see if it is loaded before they point it at someone, say, age 55 or 60?

The 3,000 or so kids who "rationally" and "fearless" play with firearms each year, shooting themselves or somebody else, often a smaller child, should they be taught not to be irrationally afraid of firearms or is it too damn late to teach them anything?

How much should we fear firearms? The munitions lobby seems to think not at all. I guess I'm just a scardy cat, but then I know that far more people commit suicide with firearms than with drugs (you're six times as likely to be successful, by the way, if you choose firearms, proving that they do in fact kill people in a sense which just doesn't apply to plastic sporks or placebos).

And that more people are injured or killed accidentally than intentionally. And that more crimes of passion kill people (mostly women and children) than bad guys. And that even the police are more likely to kill than the average criminal. In short, that guns are most often used for purposes that have nothing to do with their intended purpose of poking fatal holes in bad guys and giant ravenous beasts.

The Fear of God firearms is the beginning of wisdom. You won't get far if you're surrounded by deadly weapons and don't have a proper respect for their little ways, such as killing you nine times out of ten despite not being loaded. You know they are not loaded. Here, point the gun at your head and prove it.
 
2012-09-18 01:32:06 PM
Speaking of "irrationally afraid", perhaps you should check to see if your language is loaded.

Hee, hee, hee! (Runs away in a zig-zag pattern.)
 
2012-09-18 01:32:21 PM
I don't care one way or the other, but are kids really buying lots of gun magazines? Seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
 
2012-09-18 01:33:32 PM

I'm an excellent driver: I don't know, were 2 unarmed Woman Police Officers gunned down yesterday?


Were they gunned down by a troop of boys on horseback, wearing form-fitting red coats? Were they flushed out by a pack of baying hounds before the shoot? Were they gunned down with rifles?

If the answers are 'no' - and we both know they're 'no' - do you really think banning hunting and sporting magazines is going to do a damn bit of anything to prevent tragedies like this? Those officers were sent to a burglary in progress where said burgler happened to be a man already wanted for murder. I don't think he spent much time reading articles about pheasant hunting.

Learning about weapons in a responsible manner (say, connected with hunting) promotes the use of said weapons in a likewise responsible manner. It's far better for kids to learn about firearms through hunting than from disaffected children friends who feel a need to stick it to the man (which often enough is the same 'man' who's providing the benefits they live on).

Slow your roll and get angry at the killer - not at inanmiate objects. Subby isn't to blame for the dead officers. Neither are hunting magazines.

#nogunsrage
 
2012-09-18 01:34:26 PM
Comments in threads like this make me want to go out behind my house and fire a .45 bullet into the ground, then walk back in comfortable in knowing that I haven't committed a felony in doing so and will not soon be serving prison time.

/waves jingoistic dick
 
2012-09-18 01:34:45 PM

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: Treat your population like children and they'll always stay children.


Woohoo, bonsai children!
 
2012-09-18 01:36:17 PM

dalmo: clyph: I'm an excellent driver: I don't know, were 2 unarmed Woman Police Officers gunned down yesterday?

Unpossible. Britain is a gun-free utopia, so criminals couldn't possibly have guns.

Nice. Remind me to pop into the next US gun massacre thread for a little bit of shallow minded, jingoistic dick waving


How? You don't have an email address.
 
2012-09-18 01:37:31 PM

brantgoose: Define "irrationally afraid of firearms"? Shouldn't a small child be afraid of a firearm until they are mature enough to check to see if it is loaded before they point it at someone, say, age 55 or 60?

The 3,000 or so kids who "rationally" and "fearless" play with firearms each year, shooting themselves or somebody else, often a smaller child, should they be taught not to be irrationally afraid of firearms or is it too damn late to teach them anything?

How much should we fear firearms? The munitions lobby seems to think not at all. I guess I'm just a scardy cat, but then I know that far more people commit suicide with firearms than with drugs (you're six times as likely to be successful, by the way, if you choose firearms, proving that they do in fact kill people in a sense which just doesn't apply to plastic sporks or placebos).

And that more people are injured or killed accidentally than intentionally. And that more crimes of passion kill people (mostly women and children) than bad guys. And that even the police are more likely to kill than the average criminal. In short, that guns are most often used for purposes that have nothing to do with their intended purpose of poking fatal holes in bad guys and giant ravenous beasts.

The Fear of God firearms is the beginning of wisdom. You won't get far if you're surrounded by deadly weapons and don't have a proper respect for their little ways, such as killing you nine times out of ten despite not being loaded. You know they are not loaded. Here, point the gun at your head and prove it.


Well, I suppose if you don't want to check the dictionary for what irrational means, I can provide it for you.

Irrational: Neither logical nor reasonable.

So an irrational fear, would be a fear that is neither logical nor reasonable. For example, a gun is not going to jump up and shoot you by itself. That in itself is not a logical thought. It's also not reasonable to assume that just because someone owns a gun they are a homicidal maniac just waiting for their chance.

Yes, firearms are quite dangerous, and to that extent you need to be very careful with them and keep them out of the hands of those who aren't (ie: children).

But the current cult of fear that surrounds firearms goes far beyond these simple tenants.
 
2012-09-18 01:40:18 PM

lewismarktwo: Oh noes! 2 police women shot! How many people were stabbed in the UK last week?


A lot less per capita than those shot in the USA. Plus accidental and innocent bystander casualties are almost non-existant.
 
2012-09-18 01:41:28 PM

spunkymunky: If you're going to eat meat it has to be killed somehow.


images2.wikia.nocookie.net


www.bbqrescue.com.au

images.icnetwork.co.uk
 
2012-09-18 01:42:56 PM

brantgoose: The 3,000 or so kids


citation, please
 
2012-09-18 01:45:29 PM

give me doughnuts: brantgoose: The 3,000 or so kids

citation, please


The gun also kills you nine out of ten times despite not being loaded. =) He's full of wharrgarble today; not really worth spending time on.
 
2012-09-18 01:46:07 PM

12349876: lewismarktwo: Oh noes! 2 police women shot! How many people were stabbed in the UK last week?

A lot less per capita than those shot in the USA. Plus accidental and innocent bystander casualties are almost non-existant.


I'll give Britain a big indirect thumbs-up for this. Taking firearms out of the hands of beat cops and restricting them to only those officers with extensive combat firearms training was just about the smartest thing I've seen a country ever do.

It's also possible that British criminals may be better shots, as well... but I couldn't speak to that point.
 
2012-09-18 01:46:52 PM

12349876: lewismarktwo: Oh noes! 2 police women shot! How many people were stabbed in the UK last week?

A lot less per capita than those shot in the USA. Plus accidental and innocent bystander casualties are almost non-existant.


But but but America!
But the reason the 2 policewomen getting shot is big and scarey and worthy of some unspoken sense of reverence is because they were SHOT with BULLETS!!@ If they had been run down by a milk trolley no one would be looking to ban Cheddar cheese.
 
2012-09-18 01:48:20 PM

brantgoose: The 3,000 or so kids who "rationally" and "fearless" play with firearms each year, shooting themselves or somebody else, often a smaller child, should they be taught not to be irrationally afraid of firearms or is it too damn late to teach them anything?


Up until a certain age, yes, firearms should be kept out of kids' reach because they're incapable of handling firearms safely. Around 8 or 9, though, kids are old enough to learn to deal with firearms safely. Not to go to the range on their own, but certainly to learn that it isn't some source of magic and mystery; it's a tool, it requires great care, and it is dangerous...but not blind fear. It's not as easy as a gun lock, but gun-proofing your kids is a heck of a lot more effective than kid-proofing your guns (pre-teens have been known to get past locks, after all). Irrational fear doesn't really help, though, because that causes kids to fetishize firearms, and they have unreasonable expectations of what guns can do and of what they are.

brantgoose: How much should we fear firearms? The munitions lobby seems to think not at all. I guess I'm just a scardy cat, but then I know that far more people commit suicide with firearms than with drugs (you're six times as likely to be successful, by the way, if you choose firearms, proving that they do in fact kill people in a sense which just doesn't apply to plastic sporks or placebos).


Especially in the case of suicide, the gun isn't the problem. Granted that firearms are much more effective than drugs, but there's a gender issue at play here, too...men tend to choose the more effective and/or bloodier means of suicide, while women choose the cleaner ones (that are often merely calls for help). More men might simply choose a long walk off a short pier, or suicide-by-car, or something of the sort.

brantgoose: [...] In short, that guns are most often used for purposes that have nothing to do with their intended purpose of poking fatal holes in bad guys and giant ravenous beasts.


There's also the deterrent effect of brandishing firearms that don't fit into your statistics, most likely, because those events are generally not reported to the police. The deterrent effect of homes that might legally have firearms versus unlikely to have them.

brantgoose: The Fear of God firearms is the beginning of wisdom. You won't get far if you're surrounded by deadly weapons and don't have a proper respect for their little ways, such as killing you nine times out of ten despite not being loaded. You know they are not loaded. Here, point the gun at your head and prove it.


Irrational fear isn't good, though. Respecting firearms is the better path. Understanding what they actually do, rather than trembling at the thought of them. People are killed by acting as if they had no fear of guns, but they're also killed by treating them as if they could blow up at the slightest touch. More the former than the latter, but I still submit that irrational fear, while effective in getting one's desired results, results in a weakened subject rather than an enlightened, thoughtful citizen.
 
2012-09-18 01:50:07 PM
dabbletech: However, they can still buy clips, right?

Came here to post a serious version of that question, specifically whether a) the handgun ban after the Dunblaine school shooting didn't ban handgun magazines as well, b) sales of magazines for long guns hadn't been banned then or at some time before or after, and c) minors hadn't been banned from purchasing magazines, along with ammunition and the firearms themselves, already ("If the U.S. does that, then a fortiori...").

Then I read the article, and once I got about halfway through, the first half of the Fark headline made more sense.

It's good to see that the ambiguity fail was imported from the article headline rather than introduced in the Fark headline.

/FMCDH
 
2012-09-18 01:52:41 PM

Wingchild: give me doughnuts: brantgoose: The 3,000 or so kids

citation, please

The gun also kills you nine out of ten times despite not being loaded. =) He's full of wharrgarble today; not really worth spending time on.


The stats on children dying by guns are often deliberately skewed by including people over 18. One source I looked at showed that of the gun-related deaths for 0-19 years of age, over half were in the 18-19 year olds, and of those, most were homicides.

The under-18 deaths by accident were far lower than poisoning deaths, and just a fraction of drowning deaths.
 
2012-09-18 01:54:26 PM

MorePeasPlease: spunkymunky: If you're going to eat meat it has to be killed somehow.


I don't know if I would be able to look my dog in the eye after eating its leg.
 
2012-09-18 01:57:44 PM

Zarquon's Flat Tire: I don't know if I would be able to look my dog in the eye after eating its leg.


That's why you definitely go for the rear legs. Otherwise he'd kind of list downward.
 
2012-09-18 01:59:26 PM

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: Treat your population like children and they'll always stay children.


And that is the core of their cunning plan.
 
2012-09-18 02:01:04 PM

give me doughnuts: The stats on children dying by guns are often deliberately skewed by including people over 18. One source I looked at showed that of the gun-related deaths for 0-19 years of age, over half were in the 18-19 year olds, and of those, most were homicides.


I agree - though I think you could just say "stats are often deliberately skewed" and leave it at that. Death by accidental firearm discharge in the United States was around 550ish incidents in 2009, per the CDC. Firearm suicides was up over 18k. Deaths attributed to alcohol was just over 24k (excluding homicides), and deaths attributed to drugs - including overdose, excluding homicides - was up over 39k.

Everybody toys with stats to get the outcome the want. Like you, I find it mildly irritating. =)

Q) What do firearms and posters who use made up, uncited stats have in common?
A) They're both tools. =)
 
2012-09-18 02:02:19 PM

cuzsis: But the current cult of fear that surrounds firearms goes far beyond these simple tenants.


"a cult of fear"? Do we live in the same country? Sounds like you're a little defensive.

fark, I'd be defensive too if my "side" was represented by some of the loons who claim to be proud gun owners.
 
2012-09-18 02:03:08 PM

brantgoose: The munitions lobby seems to think not at all. I guess I'm just a scardy cat, but then I know that far more people commit suicide with firearms than with drugs (you're six times as likely to be successful, by the way, if you choose firearms, proving that they do in fact kill people in a sense which just doesn't apply to plastic sporks or placebos).


Are you able to explain the suicide rate of Japan, which is higher than the combined suicide and homicide rates of the United States of America, despite the absence of civilian access to firearms?


And that more people are injured or killed accidentally than intentionally.


The Centers for Disease Control website enables creation of custom injury and death reports. According to generated reports for firearms injuries in 2010.

14,161 individuals were nonfatally injured in unintended incidents.
59,344 individuals were nonfatally injured in intended incidents (this includes legally justified uses of force).

606 individuals were fatally injured in unintended incidents.
11,422 individuals were fataly injured in intended incidents (this includes legally justified uses of force but excludes suicides).

Are you able to explain the apparent inconsistency of your claim with reality?


And that more crimes of passion kill people (mostly women and children) than bad guys.

Please substantiate this assertion.


And that even the police are more likely to kill than the average criminal.

How does a statistic regarding injuries caused by police relate to the populace as a whole? What defines an "average criminal"?
 
2012-09-18 02:04:03 PM
I acknowledge that I my closing html tag was malformed and I apologize.
 
2012-09-18 02:06:12 PM

give me doughnuts: brantgoose: The 3,000 or so kids

citation, please


Not quite what doughnuts was talking about, but maybe this is where he got 3,000 from and it's still relevant to the thread.

In 1999, 3,385 children and youth ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.
This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists.
The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to
214 unintentional
1,078 suicides
1,990 homicides
83 for which the intent could not be determined
20 due to legal intervention
Of the total firearms-related deaths:
73 were of children under five years old
416 were children 5-14 years old
2,896 were 15-19 years old

Link

I know that homicide and suicide aren't the same as playing with guns and many would happen without guns, but given how easy and successful guns are in committing suicide and homicide compared to other methods, those numbers would go down some if there were magically no guns.

You certainly wouldn't see this happening with a knife.

Boy, 4, killed by stray bullet in Bx. gunfight
 
Displayed 50 of 157 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report