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.

(CBS 42 Birmingham) NewsFlash Gunman enters Alabama hospital, opens fire. Injures three before being killed by police. Begun, the copycat shootings have   (cbs42.com) divider line 835
    More: NewsFlash, St. Vincent, Alabama, UAB, shootings, guns  
•       •       •

18593 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Dec 2012 at 2:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-15 01:42:35 PM
Wouldn't a copycat shooting have something do with the first shooting, dumbfark?
 
2012-12-15 01:44:32 PM
Thus making today too soon to discuss this.
 
2012-12-15 01:45:49 PM

thismomentinblackhistory: Thus making today too soon to discuss this.


Maybe tomorrow?
 
2012-12-15 01:54:30 PM
Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!
 
2012-12-15 01:57:07 PM

ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!


You are thinking too small. Everybody over the age of 18 15 12 needs to be armed, all the time. It's the only way to insure that we are safe.
 
2012-12-15 01:58:25 PM

ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!


Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.
 
2012-12-15 01:58:58 PM
Seriously, if at least the security could be armed legally, then folks who are armed illegally couldn't kill so much before being gunned down. Or is there some flaw in this logic that makes legal gun ownership such a bad idea?
 
2012-12-15 01:59:52 PM
Must be a day ending in Y

/it's tragic that this is happening so often we're becoming numb to it
 
2012-12-15 02:00:12 PM
Wait, wait, nevermind, I remembered the train incident. People either don't react fast enough, are afraid to, or afraid of the consequences in a situation like self-defense.
 
2012-12-15 02:02:01 PM
This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.
 
2012-12-15 02:02:17 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: becoming numb to it


I'm not becoming numb, I'm becoming angry. Something must change. Also, F*CK the NRA.
 
2012-12-15 02:03:53 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.


I just wanted to make a "stat" joke. Jeez.
 
2012-12-15 02:05:50 PM

ToxicMunkee: Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.

I just wanted to make a "stat" joke. Jeez.


I thought it was funny

/FWIW
 
2012-12-15 02:06:35 PM
It's america's version of the suicide bomber at this point. Happening all the time.
 
2012-12-15 02:07:05 PM
 
2012-12-15 02:07:14 PM
That's convenient for the ambulance drivers.
 
2012-12-15 02:11:42 PM
arm all the women!
 
2012-12-15 02:12:38 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.


Yeah, funny how it was a policeman who took him out, not some dumbass civilian.
 
2012-12-15 02:13:06 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.


Please, please tell me this isn't meant to be an argument that the carnage was limited because of other armed people that prevented it. If so, it'd be pretty clear that you didn't bother to RTFA before commenting.

FTFA: After the shooting, the suspect immediately put down the gun and surrendered to hospital security
 
2012-12-15 02:14:01 PM

ToxicMunkee: I just wanted to make a "stat" joke. Jeez.


Yeah, I caught it too but with some of the conversations that have been occurring over the last two days, that one little difference was striking.
 
2012-12-15 02:16:44 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Yeah, funny how it was a policeman who took him out, not some dumbass civilian.


And had it been a dumbass civilian?

I

unyon: FTFA: After the shooting, the suspect immediately put down the gun and surrendered to hospital security


What article did you read?!
 
2012-12-15 02:18:16 PM

unyon: Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.

Please, please tell me this isn't meant to be an argument that the carnage was limited because of other armed people that prevented it. If so, it'd be pretty clear that you didn't bother to RTFA before commenting.

FTFA: After the shooting, the suspect immediately put down the gun and surrendered to hospital security


Guh?

The gunman was killed by a Birmingham police officer. Officials have not released this person's identity.
 
2012-12-15 02:19:23 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: And had it been a dumbass civilian?


Considering that that rarely if ever happens, I don't think we need to worry about that.
 
2012-12-15 02:19:58 PM
 
2012-12-15 02:22:25 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Considering that that rarely if ever happens


Which means what?

make me some tea: Link


Good luck with that here.
 
2012-12-15 02:26:23 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.

Yeah, funny how it was a policeman who took him out, not some dumbass civilian.


If a civilian took him out, would they still be a dumbass civilian?
 
2012-12-15 02:29:46 PM
Did this man play Mass Effect? This is important!
 
2012-12-15 02:30:48 PM

basemetal: cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.

Yeah, funny how it was a policeman who took him out, not some dumbass civilian.

If a civilian took him out, would they still be a dumbass civilian?


Yes. Because who knows who else he would've shot.
 
2012-12-15 02:31:48 PM

basemetal: If a civilian took him out, would they still be a dumbass civilian?


Well, since that rarely if ever happens he doesn't have to answer that question.
 
2012-12-15 02:32:16 PM
Happy 221st Birthday Second Amendment. God Bless well-regulated militias everywhere.

You know, the bill of rights is just a piece of paper. If enough of us think gun ownership is too stupid to handle, with too many negative consequences, for too many people, we could amend it. Been done before.
 
2012-12-15 02:33:13 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Yes. Because who knows who else he would've shot.


And had the same happened with the cop, would he have been a dumbass cop? Since we're dealing in the land of what ifs and all.
 
2012-12-15 02:34:21 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: Yes. Because who knows who else he would've shot.

And had the same happened with the cop, would he have been a dumbass cop? Since we're dealing in the land of what ifs and all.


Yes. See, I have this weird thing wherein I trust people with formal training more than nuts. But hey, that's just me.
 
2012-12-15 02:34:58 PM

make me some tea: Link


That isn't going to happen, so maybe we should look for an actual solution.
 
2012-12-15 02:38:13 PM

cameroncrazy1984: basemetal: cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.

Yeah, funny how it was a policeman who took him out, not some dumbass civilian.

If a civilian took him out, would they still be a dumbass civilian?

Yes. Because who knows who else he would've shot.


What if the civilian only took out the gunman, would they still be a dumbass civilian? Are all civilians dumbasses? Are you a civilian?
 
2012-12-15 02:39:36 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: Yes. Because who knows who else he would've shot.

And had the same happened with the cop, would he have been a dumbass cop? Since we're dealing in the land of what ifs and all.

Yes. See, I have this weird thing wherein I trust people with formal training more than nuts. But hey, that's just me.


So taking a CCW class isn't training? How about prior military?
 
2012-12-15 02:40:20 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: Yes. Because who knows who else he would've shot.

And had the same happened with the cop, would he have been a dumbass cop? Since we're dealing in the land of what ifs and all.

Yes. See, I have this weird thing wherein I trust people with formal training more than nuts. But hey, that's just me.


Ha! You haven't hung around with a bunch of cops before, have you?

/they have some real winners in their ranks too, Johnny
 
2012-12-15 02:43:43 PM

violentsalvation: make me some tea: Link

That isn't going to happen, so maybe we should look for an actual solution.


And also. Link Link

Crazies goona craze.
 
2012-12-15 02:43:49 PM

basemetal: What if the civilian only took out the gunman, would they still be a dumbass civilian?


Again, that's never happened before so...
 
2012-12-15 02:53:41 PM

cameroncrazy1984: basemetal: What if the civilian only took out the gunman, would they still be a dumbass civilian?

Again, that's never happened before so...


So you ARE a civilian......
 
2012-12-15 02:55:18 PM
If I had to get shot by a gunman, I'd prefer it was in a hospital.
 
2012-12-15 02:55:18 PM
"If this happens like 16 or 17 more times, I'm Outta Here Man!"
 
2012-12-15 02:55:46 PM

BSABSVR: Wouldn't a copycat shooting have something do with the first shooting, dumbfark?


Wouldn't walking into a place and shooting a people be the same farking thing, no matter if it's a mall, school or hospital?
 
2012-12-15 02:57:15 PM
It's next week when the copycat killings will really start. You know, when the little kids are back in elementary school,

America: Fark Yeah!!!
 
2012-12-15 02:57:41 PM
ARM THE COMA PATIENTS
 
2012-12-15 02:57:49 PM
At approximately 4:00 a.m., officers from the South Precinct responded to the incident location to investigate a report of a person with a gun. Upon arrival, officers located the suspect on the 5th floor hallway. As officers approached, the suspect began firing a handgun at the officers, striking one officer and two members of the hospital staff. An assisting Birmingham Police officer returned gunfire fatally wounding the suspect. Due to the circumstances at the scene, the victims were transported to a neighboring hospital for treatment. The three victims' injuries are not life threatening.


Were the cops taking cover behind the hospital staff?
 
2012-12-15 02:58:35 PM

globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.


mayan apocalypse maybe?
 
2012-12-15 02:59:17 PM

BSABSVR: Did this man play Mass Effect? This is important!


I'm about to, so you might want to call the cops in my area and tell them to be on alert.

/only owns nerf guns
 
2012-12-15 02:59:59 PM

globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.


A lot. But, some of us cope. The others are farked up on prescription meds. Or, maybe it's that devil's breath shiat. Who knows.

To me, people stopped acting 'normally' decades ago.

And it sucks.
 
2012-12-15 03:00:16 PM

BSABSVR: Did this man play Mass Effect? This is important!


No.. He played (dramatic music).. THE SEQUEL!
 
2012-12-15 03:00:16 PM

coco ebert: ARM THE COMA PATIENTS


Too late - someone gave the guns to the Parkinson's wing.

DUCK!
 
2012-12-15 03:00:17 PM

Weaver95: globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.

mayan apocalypse maybe?


It is only 6 days away...good thing I stocked up on whiskey this weekend.
 
2012-12-15 03:00:24 PM
If you're trying to kill somebody, the last place I'd do it is in a hospital.
 
2012-12-15 03:00:44 PM
God dammit.
 
2012-12-15 03:01:01 PM

Weaver95: globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.

mayan apocalypse maybe?


Is it wrong that I was thinking that Dec. 21st is why the crazy is coming out of the woodwork recently. Not that I think anything will come of it but these assholes might.
 
2012-12-15 03:01:01 PM
Obviously the solution is to allow invalid hospital patients to carry firearms, right republicans?
 
2012-12-15 03:01:04 PM
I bet this doesn't get much coverage.

P
 
2012-12-15 03:01:08 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: Yeah, funny how it was a policeman who took him out, not some dumbass civilian.

And had it been a dumbass civilian?


Aren't the dumbass civilians the one's doing all the killing?
 
2012-12-15 03:01:25 PM
What the hell is wrong with people?
 
2012-12-15 03:01:33 PM
KNOCK IT OFF!
 
2012-12-15 03:01:35 PM
zerodayssincelastmassshooting.jpg
 
2012-12-15 03:02:24 PM
All this reminds of a series of school attacks that took place in China over a year and a half time frame, shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%93201 1)

You'll notice 21 dead, 90 injured after a series of school attacks across China. Even more interesting - no guns were used. Only knives, hammers and cleavers. So how far will outlawing guns really go towards stopping anything?
 
2012-12-15 03:02:26 PM

Generation_D: Happy 221st Birthday Second Amendment. God Bless well-regulated militias everywhere.

You know, the bill of rights is just a piece of paper. If enough of us think gun ownership is too stupid to handle, with too many negative consequences, for too many people, we could amend it. Been done before.


So do it and quit acting like the NRA or gun-rights people are the obstacle. If you have the numbers, you get it passed. It's that simple.
 
2012-12-15 03:02:41 PM
Now is not the time to talk about copycat killings, submitter.

theridgewoodblog.net
 
2012-12-15 03:03:39 PM

Generation_D: Happy 221st Birthday Second Amendment. God Bless well-regulated militias everywhere.

You know, the bill of rights is just a piece of paper. If enough of us think gun ownership is too stupid to handle, with too many negative consequences, for too many people, we could amend it. Been done before.


Amen. I've been saying the same thing about several of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They're all outdated and don't fit in with today's society.
 
2012-12-15 03:03:42 PM
Well, SOMEBODY didn't like The Hobbit.
 
2012-12-15 03:03:54 PM

ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!


AND the anti-gunners are out of the gate first....putting some real distance on the competition...
 
2012-12-15 03:04:09 PM

cameroncrazy1984: basemetal: cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.

Yeah, funny how it was a policeman who took him out, not some dumbass civilian.

If a civilian took him out, would they still be a dumbass civilian?

Yes. Because who knows who else he would've shot.


Because cops have better aim? Is that what you're trying say?

Someone slept through this year.
 
2012-12-15 03:04:12 PM
www.rhythmism.com

I guess the cops pulled the plug on him.
 
2012-12-15 03:04:15 PM
Pretty soon basement dweller video game hermits will look like the smart ones for choosing to never leave the house.

/I'm one of them so I can say that
 
2012-12-15 03:04:44 PM

VvonderJesus: If you're trying to kill somebody, the last place I'd do it is in a hospital.

Heh.

What's wrong with people!?!?
 
2012-12-15 03:04:45 PM

ElLoco: Generation_D: Happy 221st Birthday Second Amendment. God Bless well-regulated militias everywhere.

You know, the bill of rights is just a piece of paper. If enough of us think gun ownership is too stupid to handle, with too many negative consequences, for too many people, we could amend it. Been done before.

Amen. I've been saying the same thing about several of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They're all outdated and don't fit in with today's society.


So is that an indictment of the Amendments, or society?
 
2012-12-15 03:05:07 PM

NotoriousFire: So how far will outlawing guns really go towards stopping anything?



You realize that yesterday a man in China stabbed 22 school children and NONE OF THEM DIED, right?
 
2012-12-15 03:05:11 PM
Headline says it's a copycat, and describes it like one, but in this case there was a guy with a gun who WASN'T shooting. They called the cops, who had time to get there and approach him. THAT'S when the shooting started. Doesn't sound much like the nut job killing a mess of little kids in an elementary school.
 
2012-12-15 03:05:53 PM

violentsalvation: That's convenient for the ambulance drivers.


Not really. Gone is the chance to charge a fortune.
 
2012-12-15 03:06:02 PM

Nefarious: Weaver95: globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.

mayan apocalypse maybe?

Is it wrong that I was thinking that Dec. 21st is why the crazy is coming out of the woodwork recently. Not that I think anything will come of it but these assholes might.


The diminishing prospects for the future in a world of growing authoritarianism might not help, either.
 
2012-12-15 03:06:07 PM

Generation_D: Happy 221st Birthday Second Amendment. God Bless well-regulated militias everywhere.

You know, the bill of rights is just a piece of paper. If enough of us think gun ownership is too stupid to handle, with too many negative consequences, for too many people, we could amend it. Been done before.


Good luck.
 
2012-12-15 03:06:22 PM
Restart mass shooting count to 0 again.
 
2012-12-15 03:06:44 PM

Generation_D: Happy 221st Birthday Second Amendment. God Bless well-regulated militias everywhere.

You know, the bill of rights is just a piece of paper. If enough of us think gun ownership is too stupid to handle, with too many negative consequences, for too many people, we could amend it. Been done before.


You are absolutely correct. Obviously your view is in the minority.
 
2012-12-15 03:06:50 PM

ThreeEdgedSword: Restart mass shooting count to 0 again.


Dude it never made it to one..
 
2012-12-15 03:07:19 PM
This isn't helping the 12/21/12 end of the world nonsense
 
2012-12-15 03:07:19 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

"Nurse, scalpel. Thank you. Clamp. GUN."

*BLAMMO!*

"Thank you. Pressure here."
 
2012-12-15 03:07:25 PM
I'm fairly certain that a gun is the opposite of a hospital.
 
2012-12-15 03:07:50 PM
Pfft, that's a typical afternoon in DC or B'more.
 
2012-12-15 03:07:57 PM

LessO2: violentsalvation: That's convenient for the ambulance drivers.

Not really. Gone is the chance to charge a fortune.


They took the injured to another hospital. Score!
 
2012-12-15 03:08:08 PM
THIS HAS TO STOP NOW
 
2012-12-15 03:08:17 PM

shower_in_my_socks: NotoriousFire: So how far will outlawing guns really go towards stopping anything?


You realize that yesterday a man in China stabbed 22 school children and NONE OF THEM DIED, right?


You might have missed the point. He still tried to harm or kill them. Doesn't matter what he did it with. There was something intrinsically WRONG with the farker. Wrong with HIM.

It doesn't mean all people who own knives are going to try stabbing a bunch of children.

You cannot punish the whole of society because there are crazies in the world. That just doesn't make any sense.
 
2012-12-15 03:08:22 PM

styckx: Pretty soon basement dweller video game hermits will look like the smart ones for choosing to never leave the house.

/I'm one of them so I can say that


Leaving the house and doing stuff is highly overrated.
 
2012-12-15 03:09:01 PM

Gosling: I'm fairly certain that a gun is the opposite of a hospital.


Doctor's mistakes kill more people than guns do.

shiatty, huh?
 
2012-12-15 03:09:03 PM

SilentStrider: BSABSVR: Did this man play Mass Effect? This is important!

I'm about to, so you might want to call the cops in my area and tell them to be on alert.

/only owns nerf guns


Has the word gun in it therefore dangerous... Stop him!
 
2012-12-15 03:09:30 PM

unyon: Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.

Please, please tell me this isn't meant to be an argument that the carnage was limited because of other armed people that prevented it. If so, it'd be pretty clear that you didn't bother to RTFA before commenting.

FTFA: After the shooting, the suspect immediately put down the gun and surrendered to hospital security


Funny, I don't see that in the article at all. The guy didn't open fire until police confronted him.

This is an open-shut case - suicide by cop.
 
2012-12-15 03:09:36 PM

globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.


The last night of Hanukkah always gets people riled up. This is the obvious outcome when someone loses all of their chocolate coins in a high-stakes game of dreidel.
 
2012-12-15 03:10:04 PM
So Obama gets reelected... suddenly a bunch of shootings happen... then the next thing you know he'll want to take away all our guns... OMG!!!

/sorry took off the tinfoil hat for a moment.
 
2012-12-15 03:10:09 PM

NotoriousFire: All this reminds of a series of school attacks that took place in China over a year and a half time frame, shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%93201 1)

You'll notice 21 dead, 90 injured after a series of school attacks across China. Even more interesting - no guns were used. Only knives, hammers and cleavers. So how far will outlawing guns really go towards stopping anything?


Just leave it alone...they are in heaven...every single one of these makes them salivate even more. Just let them enjoy it...its what theyve always wanted...people to die so they can ban something they are scared of.

Banning guns isnt going to stop muggers, rapists, home invaders, robbery, assault and the vast majority of all other crime...and they know it...but getting those scary guns taken away will make them feel safe, for a little while. Until a friend, family member, or even them personally is a victim of crime...then they will have something new to scream about.

But for now...just let them rant and rave and have their happiness.
 
2012-12-15 03:10:40 PM

shower_in_my_socks: NotoriousFire: So how far will outlawing guns really go towards stopping anything?


You realize that yesterday a man in China stabbed 22 school children and NONE OF THEM DIED, right?


And? There are plenty of examples of just such a thing (China, stabbing, school children) were quite a few did die. For some who did get stabbed, perhaps they would've preferred death to living. That's not being snarky - I'm being honest. Did anyone get paralyzed, brain trauma, etc? At what point is life preferred to death? I know that's not the issue, but my point stands - any weapon can be used in such heinous activities. Gun, non-gun, whichever.
 
2012-12-15 03:12:08 PM

phenn: You cannot punish the whole of society because there are crazies in the world. That just doesn't make any sense.



SURE YOU CAN. Have you noticed a change in security at airports since 9/11? Compare our DUI laws now with 50 years ago. If the @sshole in Newtown yesterday had a knife instead of two guns, he would not have killed 26 people. And the ability for one nutjob with zero military training to walk into a building and murder 26 people, only stopping to kill himself when he was basically done doing what he wanted to do, is not what the authors of the 2nd Amendment had in mind, mainly because that wasn't technologically possible at the time.
 
2012-12-15 03:12:14 PM

phenn: ....


Well said, I should've refreshed one more time before I posted my reply. Well said...
 
2012-12-15 03:12:23 PM

phenn: shower_in_my_socks: NotoriousFire: So how far will outlawing guns really go towards stopping anything?


You realize that yesterday a man in China stabbed 22 school children and NONE OF THEM DIED, right?

You might have missed the point. He still tried to harm or kill them. Doesn't matter what he did it with. There was something intrinsically WRONG with the farker. Wrong with HIM.

It doesn't mean all people who own knives are going to try stabbing a bunch of children.

You cannot punish the whole of society because there are crazies in the world. That just doesn't make any sense.


I have a hard time seeing how keeping you owning a limited number of weapons and having you go through extensive training/psych checks to own said weapons is "punishment." It's actually called "be a responsible member of society."
 
2012-12-15 03:12:33 PM
So sad. Couldn't even get the UAV.
 
2012-12-15 03:13:03 PM

Sultan Of Herf: Banning guns isnt going to stop muggers, rapists, home invaders, robbery, assault and the vast majority of all other crime...and they know it...but getting those scary guns taken away will make them feel safe, for a little while. Until a friend, family member, or even them personally is a victim of crime...then they will have something new to scream about.


And this is precisely why I see gun ownership as a selfish act. You feel safer and yet endanger the lives of unknown innocents.
 
2012-12-15 03:13:33 PM
ENOUGH
 
2012-12-15 03:14:11 PM
Makes me wonder if we are going to see more crazies do more crazy shiat leading up to the 21st.

/self fulfilling prophecy?
 
2012-12-15 03:14:27 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: phenn: shower_in_my_socks: NotoriousFire: So how far will outlawing guns really go towards stopping anything?


You realize that yesterday a man in China stabbed 22 school children and NONE OF THEM DIED, right?

You might have missed the point. He still tried to harm or kill them. Doesn't matter what he did it with. There was something intrinsically WRONG with the farker. Wrong with HIM.

It doesn't mean all people who own knives are going to try stabbing a bunch of children.

You cannot punish the whole of society because there are crazies in the world. That just doesn't make any sense.

I have a hard time seeing how keeping you owning a limited number of weapons and having you go through extensive training/psych checks to own said weapons is "punishment." It's actually called "be a responsible member of society."


Extensive training/psych checks to own a weapon paid for by one's own money, yet when it comes time to drug test welfare recipients to ensure your (taxpayer) money isn't going to drugs all kinds of shiat hits the fan. Good luck with that...
 
2012-12-15 03:14:45 PM

shower_in_my_socks: phenn: You cannot punish the whole of society because there are crazies in the world. That just doesn't make any sense.


SURE YOU CAN. Have you noticed a change in security at airports since 9/11? Compare our DUI laws now with 50 years ago. If the @sshole in Newtown yesterday had a knife instead of two guns, he would not have killed 26 people. And the ability for one nutjob with zero military training to walk into a building and murder 26 people, only stopping to kill himself when he was basically done doing what he wanted to do, is not what the authors of the 2nd Amendment had in mind, mainly because that wasn't technologically possible at the time.


If that is the kind of life you seek, you are living in the wrong country.

And, I'm relatively certain the authors of the second amendment realized that implements would improve at some stage.

The law is the law. Again, find another place where the laws suit you better.
 
2012-12-15 03:15:25 PM

Podmore: Headline says it's a copycat, and describes it like one, but in this case there was a guy with a gun who WASN'T shooting. They called the cops, who had time to get there and approach him. THAT'S when the shooting started. Doesn't sound much like the nut job killing a mess of little kids in an elementary school.


Sounds more like suicide by cop.
 
2012-12-15 03:15:46 PM
John Dewey: And this is precisely why I see gun ownership as a selfish act. You feel safer and yet endanger the lives of unknown innocents.

This makes zero sense.
 
2012-12-15 03:15:53 PM
DRTFA, but when this happens around here, it's usually some 'banger visiting the E-room looking to finish a job half done.
 
2012-12-15 03:15:57 PM

Podmore: Headline says it's a copycat, and describes it like one, but in this case there was a guy with a gun who WASN'T shooting. They called the cops, who had time to get there and approach him. THAT'S when the shooting started. Doesn't sound much like the nut job killing a mess of little kids in an elementary school.


Yeah, this. The guy was on the fifth floor, so it would seem his intent wasn't to just go in and start shooting the place up, and he didn't start shooting till the cops got there--in fact, according to the report, he was specifically shooting AT the cops, not at random people.

This is kind of like what I was saying yesterday--we have a mass killing, and then the media goes into frenzy mode, labeling every incident where shots are fired a "mass shooting" with extra emphasis and exclamation points, before all the facts are in. This was NOT a mass shooting, this was probably a robbery, or even a situation where some guy had a gun on him and freaked when the cops got there.

Go, responsible media.
 
2012-12-15 03:16:04 PM

phenn: The law is the law. Again, find another place where the laws suit you better.


Yes because we never change laws based on new understandings or new evidence that makes us rethink previous laws.
 
2012-12-15 03:16:20 PM

Molavian: Generation_D: Happy 221st Birthday Second Amendment. God Bless well-regulated militias everywhere.

You know, the bill of rights is just a piece of paper. If enough of us think gun ownership is too stupid to handle, with too many negative consequences, for too many people, we could amend it. Been done before.

Good luck.


We'll see. Enough crazy out there people might be motivated to try to put a stop to it.

The NRA is just another teabagging group of asshats to some. Once their noise gets overruled by deaths would not have happened anywhere else but America, things can change. Particularly with all the new arrivals here, people that didn't grow up worshipping the Gun like some of my countrymen did.
 
2012-12-15 03:16:21 PM
Jesus farking Christ, America.
 
2012-12-15 03:17:02 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Have you noticed a change in security at airports since 9/11?


The comparable reaction would be if we banned Islam after 9/11, and expelled all members of the religion. Never mind that there's a constitutional right, and never mind that a barest shred of a minority supported the attacks, let alone were involved, but hey, sometimes you have to take away actual freedoms to protect people, right?

Historically a major dividing line between the aristocracy and the serfs was the right to keep and bear arms. The aristocrats allowed for armed serfs when they started needing more troops for their wars, and the resulting empowerment cost them a lot of power. They have never forgotten this, and would happily retake that power.
 
2012-12-15 03:17:06 PM

phenn: You cannot punish the whole of society because there are crazies in the world.


But enough about the NRA....
 
2012-12-15 03:17:12 PM
jasonjeffrey.files.wordpress.com 

Seriously, can this shiat just stop? If you're freaking out about the Mayan Apocalypse or whatever that's causing you cowardly shiats to commit suicide by cop just take yourself out without involving anyone else?
 
2012-12-15 03:17:16 PM
Well, if you're going to get shot, I can think of a lot of places worse than a hospital*

*Considering you have insurance
 
2012-12-15 03:17:37 PM

Molavian: Gosling: I'm fairly certain that a gun is the opposite of a hospital.

Doctor's mistakes kill more people than guns do.

shiatty, huh?


Most of them aren't intending to do it. False equivalency is false.
 
2012-12-15 03:17:59 PM

ultraholland: John Dewey: And this is precisely why I see gun ownership as a selfish act. You feel safer and yet endanger the lives of unknown innocents.

This makes zero sense.


What do you think Nancy Lanza owned guns?

1. Hobby
2. Safety
3. Collector
4. ?????

She owned them for one of the three reasons most often given. She had zero intention of using them to harm. She had zero intention of letting someone else use them to harm. And yet, they were used to kill 27 people including herself and one asshole.

She wanted one of those three things and chose those over the potential danger. And anyone who currently own guns and continue to purchase guns is doing the same.

Responsible gun ownership is an oxymoron.
 
2012-12-15 03:18:06 PM

John Dewey: Yes because we never change laws based on new understandings or new evidence that makes us rethink previous laws.


good luck getting the 2nd Amendement to the bill of rights changed.
 
2012-12-15 03:18:15 PM

ToxicMunkee: Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.

I just wanted to make a "stat" joke. Jeez.


His mode of operation was a little mean, wasn't it? Meaner than average, I guess.
 
2012-12-15 03:18:34 PM

globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.

Roger Ebert: "...events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1."

Each malcontent looking to make history has to aim higher and higher now to be the new "worst ever." Maybe they can get into WMD.
 
2012-12-15 03:18:42 PM
The gun nuts will get another night of wet dreams now. Enjoy it freaks. Hope you like living in the world you created.
 
2012-12-15 03:18:50 PM
someone on Freepers this morning suggested that the media should NOT BE ALLOWED to report on these shootings, as it encourages copycats, and riles up the population. They are more than happy to squash the 1st amendment, to keep what they think are their 2nd amendment 'rights'.
 
2012-12-15 03:19:21 PM

John Dewey: phenn: The law is the law. Again, find another place where the laws suit you better.

Yes because we never change laws based on new understandings or new evidence that makes us rethink previous laws.


Read the thread. People are actually suggesting that the constitution and the amendments (our laws) need to be done away with. Not amended.
 
2012-12-15 03:19:26 PM

Generation_D: Molavian: Gosling: I'm fairly certain that a gun is the opposite of a hospital.

Doctor's mistakes kill more people than guns do.

shiatty, huh?

Most of them aren't intending to do it. False equivalency is false.


Um, most gun owners aren't intending to commit a mass shooting. You admit some doctors do kill people deliberately. "False equivalency" does not mean "I don't like your argument so derp derp derp" like you think it does.
 
2012-12-15 03:20:04 PM

Generation_D: Happy 221st Birthday Second Amendment. God Bless well-regulated militias everywhere.

You know, the bill of rights is just a piece of paper. If enough of us think gun ownership is too stupid to handle, with too many negative consequences, for too many people, we could amend it. Been done before.


Sure you could amend that "piece of paper."But you STILL won't get our guns! You haven't seen bloodshed until you try to take guns away from the populace. House to house searches to connfiscate weapons? Good luck with that. And if you think all guns are registered, so you have a handy list of what homes to barge into, you're nuts.
 
2012-12-15 03:20:09 PM

Shrugging Atlas: ENOUGH


Oh shiat, he centered it! It's on now!
 
2012-12-15 03:20:53 PM
If one truly does outlaw guns/stricter gun control, does anyone expect the future-criminals-of-America to really not have access to such weapons? I mean, seriously? Between Mexico, Latin America, etc - guns are I imagine relatively easy to obtain. How many weapons used in serious crime are actually registered to the criminal?

It will be about as successful as outlawing cocaine and heroin. Guess what, people still have access to both. And who has access? I'll give you a hint - not law-abiding citizens...
 
2012-12-15 03:21:28 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.


Yes, shot by a COP, a trained professional doing their job.

Not some wannabe with delusions of grandeur.
 
2012-12-15 03:21:39 PM

phenn: shower_in_my_socks: NotoriousFire: So how far will outlawing guns really go towards stopping anything?


You realize that yesterday a man in China stabbed 22 school children and NONE OF THEM DIED, right?

You might have missed the point. He still tried to harm or kill them. Doesn't matter what he did it with. There was something intrinsically WRONG with the farker. Wrong with HIM.

It doesn't mean all people who own knives are going to try stabbing a bunch of children.

You cannot punish the whole of society because there are crazies in the world. That just doesn't make any sense.


Deciding to take handguns away isn't punishing any more than saying people can't build bombs or own RPGs.

I farking love shooting handguns, but I have no other reason to have one. Blowing shiat up would probably also be fun, but I have no other reason to be allowed to build bombs. Let people keep their shotguns and deer rifles. Hunting is legit, but those are a little harder to conceal for sneaking them into a school or hospital.

If guns are severely restricted, shootings go down. Ask the countries where that exact thing has happened.
 
2012-12-15 03:21:56 PM

flucto: MaudlinMutantMollusk: becoming numb to it

I'm not becoming numb, I'm becoming angry. Something must change. Also, F*CK the NRA.


When was the last time you saw a NRA member shoot someone?
 
2012-12-15 03:22:01 PM
Sick, demented people will continue to do horrible things. With or without firearms. Link
 
2012-12-15 03:22:04 PM

phenn: Read the thread. People are actually suggesting that the constitution and the amendments (our laws) need to be done away with. Not amended.


Where are they suggesting to do away with the constitution? I know I haven't read this thread THAT carefully, but....I seriously doubt someone did that.
 
2012-12-15 03:22:17 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: basemetal: If a civilian took him out, would they still be a dumbass civilian?

Well, since that rarely if ever happens he doesn't have to answer that question.


It has happened several times just in the past couple of years. Most recent one would be the spree shooting in SLC.
 
2012-12-15 03:22:24 PM

Great_Milenko: Not some wannabe with delusions of grandeur.


You know how I know you aren't familiar with Birmingham cops?
 
2012-12-15 03:22:27 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: John Dewey: Yes because we never change laws based on new understandings or new evidence that makes us rethink previous laws.

good luck getting the 2nd Amendement to the bill of rights changed.


IDK. They said gays would never marry, they said pot would never be legalized. They said smoking would never be outlawed in bars.

A whole lot of sh*t they say that eventually happens.

I have zero emotional connection to needing to own a gun. The people that own guns and brag about it always seem like internet tough guys who are compensating. I know there are literally millions of people in Westernized countries worldwide who somehow manage to go through their happy productive lives without owning a gun.

American Exceptionalism is useful until it starts killing more Americans than it saves. Then it needs to evolve.

Europeans somehow live their lives without the need to shoot at things to feel fulfilled or feel defended.

I don't see why we're so special, other than our violent past. Which lately, seems to also be our violent present.
 
2012-12-15 03:23:10 PM
Thankfully security was on hand this time, but you get the point.

i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-15 03:23:52 PM

Boojum2k: Generation_D: Molavian: Gosling: I'm fairly certain that a gun is the opposite of a hospital.

Doctor's mistakes kill more people than guns do.

shiatty, huh?

Most of them aren't intending to do it. False equivalency is false.

Um, most gun owners aren't intending to commit a mass shooting. You admit some doctors do kill people deliberately. "False equivalency" does not mean "I don't like your argument so derp derp derp" like you think it does.


Irrelevant. We outlaw lots of behavior on account of the minority that abuses it. And most of the world outlaws, or restricts much more greatly, gun ownership particularly assault rifle ownership.
 
2012-12-15 03:24:05 PM

cochlear: someone on Freepers this morning suggested that the media should NOT BE ALLOWED to report on these shootings, as it encourages copycats, and riles up the population. They are more than happy to squash the 1st amendment, to keep what they think are their 2nd amendment 'rights'.


Yeah, I remember that time the media went into an elementary school and slaughtered 26 people. I remember it well.
 
2012-12-15 03:24:06 PM
Fark it. Martial law, go.
 
2012-12-15 03:24:10 PM
images2.dailykos.com
 
2012-12-15 03:24:20 PM

DoomPaul: Thankfully security was on hand this time, but you get the point.


What would the average number of people killed in mass shootings be if nobody had guns?
 
2012-12-15 03:24:42 PM

DoomPaul: Thankfully security was on hand this time, but you get the point.

[i45.tinypic.com image 539x539]


Now put that up against stats showing how many people in a Western country outside the USA are killed by guns, at all. See how it does.
 
2012-12-15 03:24:42 PM

Generation_D: Molavian: Gosling: I'm fairly certain that a gun is the opposite of a hospital.

Doctor's mistakes kill more people than guns do.

shiatty, huh?

Most of them aren't intending to do it. False equivalency is false.


Guns aren't intending to kill anyone, either.
 
2012-12-15 03:25:26 PM

DoomPaul: Thankfully security was on hand this time, but you get the point.

[i45.tinypic.com image 539x539]


Average number of people killed when guns ownership is either outlawed or severely restricted: A f*ck ton small than a society than in the current US.

Number of mass killings when gun ownership is either outlawed or several restricted: A f*ck ton less than a in the current US
 
2012-12-15 03:25:37 PM

MemeSlave: ElLoco: Generation_D: Happy 221st Birthday Second Amendment. God Bless well-regulated militias everywhere.

You know, the bill of rights is just a piece of paper. If enough of us think gun ownership is too stupid to handle, with too many negative consequences, for too many people, we could amend it. Been done before.

Amen. I've been saying the same thing about several of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They're all outdated and don't fit in with today's society.

So is that an indictment of the Amendments, or society?


It's more an indictment of morans who bring up Constitutional rights over an incident in a facility that not only does not have to observe 2nd Amendment rights (firearms are forbidden within St. Vincent's... or anything that can be used as a lethal weapon), but also employs armed security and metal screening at all entrances.

It's almost like some law written on a piece of paper somewhere made little difference to the perp.
 
2012-12-15 03:25:59 PM
good thing is wasn't a bunch of soldiers firing on civilians...

or people from some other country...

then no one would care...

/miss the cancer threads
//sad face
 
2012-12-15 03:26:02 PM

Molavian: Generation_D: Molavian: Gosling: I'm fairly certain that a gun is the opposite of a hospital.

Doctor's mistakes kill more people than guns do.

shiatty, huh?

Most of them aren't intending to do it. False equivalency is false.

Guns aren't intending to kill anyone, either.


WILL SOMEONE THINK OF THE INNOCENT GUNS?
 
2012-12-15 03:26:08 PM

ToxicMunkee: Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.

I just wanted to make a "stat" joke. Jeez.


And he was the only armed person until the police showed up.
 
2012-12-15 03:26:17 PM
I rarely hear mention of "I can't get a gun so I'll build a bomb" scenarios.

Explosives and triggers are incredibly easy to make in advance from very benign materials.

Tack an extra zero on the end of body counts. Scary.

Fix the people and they won't do evil shiat.
 
2012-12-15 03:26:20 PM

Generation_D: IDK. They said gays would never marry, they said pot would never be legalized. They said smoking would never be outlawed in bars.

Ah yes, the 11th, 12th and 13th amendments in the Bill of Rights... Most people don't know about those.

A whole lot of sh*t they say that eventually happens.

I have zero emotional connection to needing to own a gun. The ople that own guns and brag about it always seem like internet tough guys who are compensating. I know there are literally millions of people in Westernized countries worldwide who somehow manage to go through their happy productive lives without owning a gun.
\
American Exceptionalism is useful until it starts killing more Americans than it saves. Then it needs to evolve.

Europeans somehow live their lives without the need to shoot at things to feel fulfilled or feel defended.

I don't see why we're so special, other than our violent past. Which lately, seems to also be our violent present.


Look, if you want to increase gun control, change the constitution.
 
2012-12-15 03:26:23 PM

Dingleberry Dickwad: [jasonjeffrey.files.wordpress.com image 300x391] 


dtdstudios.com
 
2012-12-15 03:26:48 PM

Ed Finnerty: coco ebert: ARM THE COMA PATIENTS

Too late - someone gave the guns to the Parkinson's wing.

DUCK!


I love hate love you for making me laugh at that.
 
2012-12-15 03:26:50 PM
Will someone please think of the mass shootings...oic..you are...nvm then.
 
2012-12-15 03:27:02 PM

ElLoco: Amen. I've been saying the same thing about several of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They're all outdated and don't fit in with today's society.


Which ones?
 
2012-12-15 03:27:11 PM

Popcorn Johnny: BSABSVR: Wouldn't a copycat shooting have something do with the first shooting, dumbfark?

Wouldn't walking into a place and shooting a people be the same farking thing, no matter if it's a mall, school or hospital?


Then every shooting is a copycat shooting of the first shooting ever? Please tell me you are not that stupid.
 
2012-12-15 03:27:24 PM

lewismarktwo: Shrugging Atlas: ENOUGH

Oh shiat, he centered it! It's on now!


Its part of a standard I follow:

Bold, Center, Italics for schools
Center for hospitals
Bold for places of worship
Italics for random shopping centers
lolcats for NRA meetings
 
2012-12-15 03:27:25 PM
I realize that I won't outshout the internet tough guy gun rights brigade. Thats not the point.

A whole lot of us out here think you guys are idiots, and I bet I live to see the day you all are outvoted.

Its happened before, it'll happen again. Gun Rights is just a sh*tty 220 year old thought on a piece of paper. The Fourth Amendment has been trashed by modern interpretation, the First Amendment is in tatters compared to its meaning back when it was written. The Second Amendment actually had a good reason for being, but it doesn't any more. Tyranny is not overthrown by your home collection of weapons. However, many innocent people quite often could be.

I'm fed up with it, I suspect many others are too.
 
2012-12-15 03:27:36 PM
John Dewey: What do you think Nancy Lanza owned guns?

because she was a farking idiot who took her clearly mentally disturbed son to the range.


And anyone who currently own guns and continue to purchase guns is doing the same.

Again, zero sense.
 
2012-12-15 03:27:57 PM

ShuyaNanahara: globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.

The last night of Hanukkah always gets people riled up. This is the obvious outcome when someone loses all of their chocolate coins in a high-stakes game of dreidel.


And also you. Bravo, you wacky farker, and thanks for putting the farking fun back in my fark.
 
2012-12-15 03:28:02 PM

Generation_D: DoomPaul: Thankfully security was on hand this time, but you get the point.

[i45.tinypic.com image 539x539]

Now put that up against stats showing how many people in a Western country outside the USA are killed by guns, at all. See how it does.


i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-15 03:28:10 PM

BSABSVR: Then every shooting is a copycat shooting of the first shooting ever? Please tell me you are not that stupid.


Please tell me you're not stupid enough to see the similarities.
 
2012-12-15 03:28:21 PM

globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.


I'm convinced a lot of this insanity has something to do with the supposed end of the world being on the 21st of this month; people are going stupid.
 
2012-12-15 03:28:29 PM
So 'any asshat can take these evil inanimate guns and kill bajillions of people, but THERE'S NO WAY an armed civilian could manage to take out the murdering asshat because that shiat is too hard and only trained pros can do that'

The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
 
2012-12-15 03:28:38 PM

globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.


It's the year of the dragon. Apparently, everyone is acting like they are riding it.
 
2012-12-15 03:29:12 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: Generation_D: IDK. They said gays would never marry, they said pot would never be legalized. They said smoking would never be outlawed in bars.
Ah yes, the 11th, 12th and 13th amendments in the Bill of Rights... Most people don't know about those.

A whole lot of sh*t they say that eventually happens.

I have zero emotional connection to needing to own a gun. The ople that own guns and brag about it always seem like internet tough guys who are compensating. I know there are literally millions of people in Westernized countries worldwide who somehow manage to go through their happy productive lives without owning a gun.
\
American Exceptionalism is useful until it starts killing more Americans than it saves. Then it needs to evolve.

Europeans somehow live their lives without the need to shoot at things to feel fulfilled or feel defended.

I don't see why we're so special, other than our violent past. Which lately, seems to also be our violent present.

Look, if you want to increase gun control, change the constitution.


That is literally what it would take. The Constitution's been amended many times throughout history. I am wondering when the tipping point on it being amended to fix the 2nd Amendment will be, if it will be.

Lots of angry gun owners. You all need to chill the eff out. The world doesn't agree with you, and probably only about a 60/40 majority in America even agrees with you.

You are the minority, clinging to outmoded solutions to modern problems.
 
2012-12-15 03:29:19 PM

Generation_D: We outlaw lots of behavior on account of the minority that abuses it.


And you are okay with this? You were just commenting above on legalizing pot, which I agree with, but it can be abused by a tiny minority.
 
2012-12-15 03:29:30 PM
Yeah. Sure. Mexico has low gun availability. You just keep thinking that.
 
2012-12-15 03:29:44 PM

Generation_D: Happy 221st Birthday Second Amendment. God Bless well-regulated militias everywhere.

You know, the bill of rights is just a piece of paper. If enough of us think gun ownership is too stupid to handle, with too many negative consequences, for too many people, we could amend it. Been done before.


Paramedics responding to the scene found nearly 1,000 injured people.

/window seat
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2012-12-15 03:29:55 PM
This was bound to happen since we've systematically removed Mike Huckleberry's God™ from all the hospitals.
 
2012-12-15 03:30:07 PM
There's something wrong with this country. I don't hate guns and wish to see them banned and chucked in the ocean, so please don't take this as some kind of TAKE ALL THE GUNS!! commentary. It's not. That doesn't mean I don't think there needs to be tighter controls on who can and cannot get their hands on them, though. That's not really what I think needs to be focused on in the immediate short-term, what needs to be addressed is mental health care. Not every jackass who goes shooting up a school or mall or hospital or church is mentally disturbed, but the great majority are. Rather than immediately clanging the "BAN THE GUNS!!!" bell, I think we need to do more to treat the causes of what makes these people go unhinged and shoot up public areas. Guns, by themselves, are not dangerous. It's the person using the gun and the reasons they're using it that make it dangerous. If we help mentally disturbed people get the help they desperately need, they will be less likely to get their hands on a firearm and use it on other people. They may take themselves out, which is in and of itself a tragedy, but at least it won't be compounded with the fact they took 20 other people with them.
 
2012-12-15 03:30:37 PM

ultraholland: John Dewey: What do you think Nancy Lanza owned guns?

because she was a farking idiot who took her clearly mentally disturbed son to the range.


And anyone who currently own guns and continue to purchase guns is doing the same.

Again, zero sense.


You can never have 100% control over how a gun you own is used. Period. So by owning it/possessing it you are putting others at risk. The more guns there are in society, the higher the risk of being shot for individual members of that society. So whatever your reasons are for owning a gun, they are selfish ones. You are putting your own safety/pleasure above the needs of other innocent members of your society.

Gun ownership=selfishness.
 
2012-12-15 03:30:39 PM

Gosling: Yeah. Sure. Mexico has low gun availability. You just keep thinking that.


You think if we outlaw guns in the US, that gun availability would decrease? Ha! Yeah right...
 
2012-12-15 03:30:43 PM

DoomPaul: Generation_D: DoomPaul: Thankfully security was on hand this time, but you get the point.

[i45.tinypic.com image 539x539]

Now put that up against stats showing how many people in a Western country outside the USA are killed by guns, at all. See how it does.

[i48.tinypic.com image 659x819]


Apples to Bananas. Typical gun nut crap.

You took "violent assaults" and are comparing them to "shootings."

Violence in countries is not the same. If anything, its an argument for fewer guns.

Less deaths from a fistfight than a shootout.
 
2012-12-15 03:30:47 PM

Generation_D: DoomPaul: Thankfully security was on hand this time, but you get the point.

[i45.tinypic.com image 539x539]

Now put that up against stats showing how many people in a Western country outside the USA are killed by guns, at all. See how it does.


The only western country the same size as ours is Australia, and the population density isn't there. Neither are the demographics.
 
2012-12-15 03:30:58 PM

Gosling: Yeah. Sure. Mexico has low gun availability. You just keep thinking that.


And the cartels buy theirs through our lax gun laws.
 
2012-12-15 03:31:11 PM

Generation_D: The world doesn't agree with you, and probably only about a 60/40 majority in America even agrees with you.


No, you move.
 
2012-12-15 03:31:52 PM
Hardly a copycat if it happens on an almost daily basis anyway. The idea of gun control in America is screwed at this point, because there are too many guns and too many nuts out there to control. All that can be done now is have armed security at every soft target to minimize the killing sprees that are pretty much inevitible in a gun-saturated society.
 
2012-12-15 03:31:56 PM
 
2012-12-15 03:32:29 PM

Ed Finnerty: Dingleberry Dickwad: [jasonjeffrey.files.wordpress.com image 300x391] 

[dtdstudios.com image 300x391]


Ed Finnerty: Dingleberry Dickwad: [jasonjeffrey.files.wordpress.com image 300x391] 

[dtdstudios.com image 300x391]


Ok, I giggled.

/Window seat please.
 
2012-12-15 03:32:31 PM

tricycleracer: Different subject, same topic.


The Onion has been sadly prophetic.
 
2012-12-15 03:32:51 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: Yes. Because who knows who else he would've shot.

And had the same happened with the cop, would he have been a dumbass cop? Since we're dealing in the land of what ifs and all.

Yes. See, I have this weird thing wherein I trust people with formal training more than nuts. But hey, that's just me.


Many residents of the city of New York believe the same.
 
2012-12-15 03:32:56 PM

Popcorn Johnny: DoomPaul: Thankfully security was on hand this time, but you get the point.

What would the average number of people killed in mass shootings be if nobody had guns?


Yeah, what if nobody had guns, man?
ih1.redbubble.net
 
2012-12-15 03:33:07 PM

cochlear: someone on Freepers this morning suggested that the media should NOT BE ALLOWED to report on these shootings, as it encourages copycats, and riles up the population. They are more than happy to squash the 1st amendment, to keep what they think are their 2nd amendment 'rights'.


They have the right idea, just the wrong emphasis. The media shouldn't be reporting on these incidents with such gusto and enthusiasm, taking a full day to dissect each killer's motives and life history, interviewing the survivors and families as if it was some kind of national event. There is no reason we should be seeing "BREAKING NEWS!!!" on even such a tragic story 14 hours after the event has happened on major news outlets like CNN and MSNBC with serious-looking talking heads advising us on how to discuss this with our children and signs of delayed trauma to be alert for; and potential warning signs of mental illness in older teens and all the rest. Nor should we have rehashings of every single major shooting any time another one happens (as I'm sure we'll get over the next week), or excited reporters comparing this killer to past killers, or breathless newscasters telling us "Another shooting in the news today as X people are injured/killed in an incident eerily similar to last week's deadly spree".

It is way past time that the media--TV, radio, print and internet--acknowledged their role in the rise in these incidents; in their presence in the public consciousness, their presence in the minds of psychopaths and psychotics, and the degree to which they've become entertainment in the minds of the average person. And the media's contribution to what some refer to as "gun culture." It's so exciting to have live car chases that end in death, live shots of scared kids being herded out of schools, live scenes of SWAT teams storming buildings--but these aren't fiction, they're real, and the news shows should remember that. They should no more be allowed to hide behind the 1st Amendment than gun owners should be allowed to hide behind the 2d when things like this happen.
 
2012-12-15 03:33:20 PM

John Dewey:

You can never have 100% control over how a car you own is used. Period. So by owning it/possessing it you are putting others at risk. The more cars there are in society, the higher the risk of being injured for individual members of that society. So whatever your reasons are for owning a car , they are selfish ones. You are putting your own safety/pleasure above the needs of other innocent members of your society.

Car ownership=selfishness.


Surrender your car citizen!
 
2012-12-15 03:33:21 PM
It would be nice to have a combo breaker tomorrow
 
2012-12-15 03:33:24 PM
John Dewey: You can never have 100% control over how a gun you own is used. Period. So by owning it/possessing it you are putting others at risk. The more guns there are in society, the higher the risk of being shot for individual members of that society. So whatever your reasons are for owning a gun, they are selfish ones. You are putting your own safety/pleasure above the needs of other innocent members of your society.

The same could be said about personal vehicles. Your argument does nothing to address violent crime.
 
2012-12-15 03:33:24 PM
thismodernworld.com
 
2012-12-15 03:33:25 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: Look, if you want to increase gun control, change the constitution.


Why? It says a right to bear arms, not which ones. The Supreme Court has already rules that such limits are constitutional. Just need to add Handguns and assault rifles to the NFA, amking them title II weapons
 
2012-12-15 03:33:45 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: Generation_D: IDK. They said gays would never marry, they said pot would never be legalized. They said smoking would never be outlawed in bars.
Ah yes, the 11th, 12th and 13th amendments in the Bill of Rights... Most people don't know about those.

A whole lot of sh*t they say that eventually happens.

I have zero emotional connection to needing to own a gun. The ople that own guns and brag about it always seem like internet tough guys who are compensating. I know there are literally millions of people in Westernized countries worldwide who somehow manage to go through their happy productive lives without owning a gun.
\
American Exceptionalism is useful until it starts killing more Americans than it saves. Then it needs to evolve.

Europeans somehow live their lives without the need to shoot at things to feel fulfilled or feel defended.

I don't see why we're so special, other than our violent past. Which lately, seems to also be our violent present.

Look, if you want to increase gun control, change the constitution.


We are going to. Then we're going to use that argument against you, and you don't get to make a sound about it.

Conservatives won't have presidental power again anytime soon, and we're going to replace Thomas, Alito, possibly more with liberals who will override their previous ruling on guns.

Its only a matter of time, deal with it.
 
2012-12-15 03:33:58 PM

camaroash: I rarely hear mention of "I can't get a gun so I'll build a bomb" scenarios.

Explosives and triggers are incredibly easy to make in advance from very benign materials.

Tack an extra zero on the end of body counts. Scary.

Fix the people and they won't do evil shiat.


It's one hell of a leap of logic when an argument against limiting gun sales is the crazies will just build bombs instead. I'm pretty sure if they wanted to blow shiat up they would just blow shiat up. I doubt access to a 9mm pistol is the bulwark protecting society from mass bombings.
 
2012-12-15 03:34:02 PM
Maybe the shadow government is beaming crazy waves into people's brains that make them go all bonkers and shoot everyone up.

Then, after enough mass shootings occur, the government will disarm everyone at the public's behest.

Then, after we're all disarmed, the government will make it's totalitarian NWO move and we won't be able to fight back.

It makes perfect sense!

/got nothin'
//have no idea why these things are happening
///may evil no longer antagonize those already suffering
 
2012-12-15 03:34:05 PM

phenn: shower_in_my_socks: NotoriousFire: So how far will outlawing guns really go towards stopping anything?


You realize that yesterday a man in China stabbed 22 school children and NONE OF THEM DIED, right?

You might have missed the point. He still tried to harm or kill them. Doesn't matter what he did it with. There was something intrinsically WRONG with the farker. Wrong with HIM.

It doesn't mean all people who own knives are going to try stabbing a bunch of children.

You cannot punish the whole of society because there are crazies in the world. That just doesn't make any sense.


Reality: non-gun massacres result in fewer deaths; still happen

Solution: don't bother restricting guns or making it harder to buy one or do anything to change the glorification of gun culture, because it won't solve the problem 100%

Do people realize how stupid those arguments sound? Addressing the gun nut culture through laws and other means won't make the issue go away, but it will help.
 
2012-12-15 03:35:19 PM
Besides, I don't know of any place outside of soccer that feels the need to separate out the UK's various components. Scotland is not a country. And

Really, I should have stopped reading after the 'Mexico has low gun availability' part. The whole damn thing just sticks its head in the sand more than a Romney campaign staffer.
 
2012-12-15 03:35:20 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-15 03:35:20 PM

Someothermonkey: phenn: shower_in_my_socks: NotoriousFire: So how far will outlawing guns really go towards stopping anything?


You realize that yesterday a man in China stabbed 22 school children and NONE OF THEM DIED, right?

You might have missed the point. He still tried to harm or kill them. Doesn't matter what he did it with. There was something intrinsically WRONG with the farker. Wrong with HIM.

It doesn't mean all people who own knives are going to try stabbing a bunch of children.

You cannot punish the whole of society because there are crazies in the world. That just doesn't make any sense.

Reality: non-gun massacres result in fewer deaths; still happen

Solution: don't bother restricting guns or making it harder to buy one or do anything to change the glorification of gun culture, because it won't solve the problem 100%

Do people realize how stupid those arguments sound? Addressing the gun nut culture through laws and other means won't make the issue go away, but it will help.


You are confusing the absence of useless firearm restrictions with the absence of any action at all.
 
2012-12-15 03:35:47 PM
PlatypusPuke: Then, after enough mass shootings occur, the government will disarm everyone at the public's behest.

Obama engineered all of this so the UN can grab our guns, or something.
 
2012-12-15 03:36:31 PM
You are comparing cars to semi-automatic weapons?

Seriously?

Serious farking ly?

Let's replace car with nuclear weapons


Let's replace car with bananas.

Seriously?

A gun is a thing unto itself. You would rather feel personally safer than know the likelihood of twenty kindergartners dying has been drastically reduced?
 
2012-12-15 03:36:44 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: I have a hard time seeing how keeping you owning a limited number of weapons and having you go through extensive training/psych checks to own said weapons is "punishment." It's actually called "be a responsible member of society."


Most of the rabble I have heard from the anti gun crowd is ban all guns not just having you go through extensive training/psych checks or limiting how many guns you can own.

A crazy person will still figure out a way to hurt or kill multiple people by way of driving a vehicle (car truck plane it doesn't matter ) into a crowd or making a homemade bomb or just running through a crowd stabbing people.
 
2012-12-15 03:37:35 PM

ultraholland: PlatypusPuke: Then, after enough mass shootings occur, the government will disarm everyone at the public's behest.

Obama engineered all of this so the UN can grab our guns, or something.


I've already seen posts popping up on Facebook about the shootings being some revival of an MKULTRA-esque program to turn public opinion.
 
2012-12-15 03:37:51 PM

NotoriousFire: Gosling: Yeah. Sure. Mexico has low gun availability. You just keep thinking that.

You think if we outlaw guns in the US, that gun availability would decrease? Ha! Yeah right...


This. That's the problem with "out-lawing" guns at this point (like Canada, which alot of people point to when attempting to show how utopian we could be if we did it). Guns are so widespread, unless you go into every single persons home and literally take the guns out, then track down every gang-member and find their stash, then shut down all of the gun-shops AND take all of their merch, guns are STILL going to be out there. The only difference is who gets them. Hint: The people you don't want to have them, and this shiat will continue to happen.
 
2012-12-15 03:38:03 PM
Why am I the one having to justify not owning killing devices? Shouldn't the gun owners have to justify their need to own? Talk about backwards land.
 
2012-12-15 03:38:25 PM

John Dewey: ultraholland: John Dewey: What do you think Nancy Lanza owned guns?

because she was a farking idiot who took her clearly mentally disturbed son to the range.


And anyone who currently own guns and continue to purchase guns is doing the same.

Again, zero sense.

You can never have 100% control over how a gun you own is used. Period. So by owning it/possessing it you are putting others at risk. The more guns there are in society, the higher the risk of being shot for individual members of that society. So whatever your reasons are for owning a gun, they are selfish ones. You are putting your own safety/pleasure above the needs of other innocent members of your society.

Gun ownership=selfishness.


I'm a gunsmith, I can ensure the only time any firearm in my control will function is when I want it to. So can anybody with any mechanical aptitude and the ability to find their own ass without the aid of a flashlight.

It's about as simple as taking the keys out of the ignition, or disconnecting the battery in a car.

You're obviously not very bright.
 
2012-12-15 03:38:26 PM
Surprised this one doesn't seem to be getting any national media attention.
 
2012-12-15 03:38:56 PM
Lets play this on the news all day too and see if we can't get more people to snap. Because all the attention these events certainly couldn't lead to more people committing them...

/farking morons
 
2012-12-15 03:39:10 PM

justtray: We are going to. Then we're going to use that argument against you, and you don't get to make a sound about it.


Well, put up or shut up

Conservatives won't have presidental power again anytime soon, and we're going to replace Thomas, Alito, possibly more with liberals who will override their previous ruling on guns.

Its only a matter of time, deal with it.


lolwut
 
2012-12-15 03:39:16 PM

BSABSVR: Did this man play Mass Effect? This is important!


no, but my mom's friend's sister said his brother did, EBIL!
 
2012-12-15 03:39:55 PM
My favorite part of these threads is the gun nuts with their cherry picked, out of context, bullshiat stats.

Absolute best is comparing to car fatalities. You have to have an IQ in the single digits to think thats a legitimate argument. Cars are essential to every single person's way of life, are owned by nearly everyone, and used every day. Compare the number of fatalities per mile driven to the number of fatalities per bullet shot, and get back to me.
 
2012-12-15 03:39:56 PM

Generation_D: [thismodernworld.com image 720x672]


the site that hosts that picture is going to crash at this rate.
 
2012-12-15 03:39:58 PM

Popcorn Johnny: What would the average number of people killed in mass shootings be if nobody had guns?


The same amount of people who were drinking during prohibition.
 
2012-12-15 03:40:02 PM
Who is this strawman who keeps saying he wants to ban all guns sales and take all guns? He sounds like a dick, but apparently he's very powerful politically.
 
2012-12-15 03:40:04 PM

iq_in_binary: I'm a gunsmith, I can ensure the only time any firearm in my control will function is when I want it to. So can anybody with any mechanical aptitude and the ability to find their own ass without the aid of a flashlight.


Excellent. I just stabbed you in your sleep with my knife and now have your gun to go kill 20 kids.

Congrats.
 
2012-12-15 03:40:29 PM

John Dewey: Why am I the one having to justify not owning killing devices? Shouldn't the gun owners have to justify their need to own? Talk about backwards land.


Second amendment already justifies a gun owners "need" to own. You need to justify your point - the US Bill of Rights justifies against your point.
 
2012-12-15 03:40:44 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: Popcorn Johnny: What would the average number of people killed in mass shootings be if nobody had guns?

The same amount of people who were drinking during prohibition.


Funny, you don't see a whole lot of shooting deaths in the UK
 
2012-12-15 03:40:56 PM

Generation_D: I realize that I won't outshout the internet tough guy gun rights brigade. Thats not the point.

A whole lot of us out here think you guys are idiots, and I bet I live to see the day you all are outvoted.

Its happened before, it'll happen again. Gun Rights is just a sh*tty 220 year old thought on a piece of paper. The Fourth Amendment has been trashed by modern interpretation, the First Amendment is in tatters compared to its meaning back when it was written. The Second Amendment actually had a good reason for being, but it doesn't any more. Tyranny is not overthrown by your home collection of weapons. However, many innocent people quite often could be.

I'm fed up with it, I suspect many others are too.


Since you ignored me the first time, I'll say it again: Have your vote. You STILL aren't getting our guns. How do you propose to do that? Good luck!
 
2012-12-15 03:41:04 PM

ultraholland: Obama engineered all of this so the UN can grab our guns, or something.


At this point? He might as well just go ahead and try to grab them. Every time any attempt at any gun control or gun-violence debate is made, no matter how minor the request, it's met with the exact same full-frontal assault by the opposition as if Obama had personally broken into people's houses to remove the guns from their houses himself. You have to know any gun debate is going to turn into a slugfest whether you want it to be one or not. So he might as well just give the NRA the fight they're going to have with or without him. Come out swinging, and not back down when he's told 'how dare you politicize this'. It's going to get politicized anyway. Just roll with it. Besides, you may be worried about the NRA's money and power, but people worried about conservative superPAC's buying the elections we had just last month and look how much egg they got on their face. The money can be beaten. In fact, the money can get its ass handed to it. Money don't vote.
 
2012-12-15 03:41:19 PM

NotoriousFire: Second amendment already justifies a gun owners "need" to own. You need to justify your point - the US Bill of Rights justifies against your point.


The Bill of Rights justified owning a musket.
 
2012-12-15 03:41:23 PM
John Dewey: Serious farking ly?

Yes, because your assertion is just as reasonable when cars are inserted. I'm obviously not going to convince you of your error, so I'll just let you have this one. I am selfish. I like my weapons. I do not allow mentally unstable people even know I have them, let alone handle them.
 
2012-12-15 03:41:29 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: Popcorn Johnny: What would the average number of people killed in mass shootings be if nobody had guns?

The same amount of people who were drinking during prohibition.


you don't say?

www.nypost.com
 
2012-12-15 03:41:48 PM

John Dewey: Why am I the one having to justify not owning killing devices? Shouldn't the gun owners have to justify their need to own? Talk about backwards land.


In free societies, rights of action and of ownership are allowed by default, and restriction requires justification. Perhaps you prefer residence in an authoritarian society.
 
2012-12-15 03:41:52 PM

NotoriousFire: John Dewey: Why am I the one having to justify not owning killing devices? Shouldn't the gun owners have to justify their need to own? Talk about backwards land.

Second amendment already justifies a gun owners "need" to own. You need to justify your point - the US Bill of Rights justifies against your point.


Then why are things like full-auto weapons and rocket launchers illegal to purchase without heavy restrictions? Why can't other weapons also be restricted?
 
2012-12-15 03:42:06 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Britney Spear's Speculum: Popcorn Johnny: What would the average number of people killed in mass shootings be if nobody had guns?

The same amount of people who were drinking during prohibition.

Funny, you don't see a whole lot of shooting deaths in the UK


Guns aren't outlawed in the UK. Not to mention how many more people are in the UK vs the US?
 
2012-12-15 03:42:13 PM

justtray: Absolute best is comparing to car fatalities. You have to have an IQ in the single digits to think thats a legitimate argument. Cars are essential to every single person's way of life, are owned by nearly everyone, and used every day. Compare the number of fatalities per mile driven to the number of fatalities per bullet shot, and get back to me.


Considering the number of bullets expended in training by the numerous law enforcement agencies in the US (everything from local police to Coast Guard to FBI), I imagine the fatalities-per-bullet-shot is extremely low. Even less than fatalities-per-mile-driven. Would be interesting to see...
 
2012-12-15 03:42:22 PM

I_Hate_Iowa: phenn: shower_in_my_socks: NotoriousFire: So how far will outlawing guns really go towards stopping anything?


You realize that yesterday a man in China stabbed 22 school children and NONE OF THEM DIED, right?

You might have missed the point. He still tried to harm or kill them. Doesn't matter what he did it with. There was something intrinsically WRONG with the farker. Wrong with HIM.

It doesn't mean all people who own knives are going to try stabbing a bunch of children.

You cannot punish the whole of society because there are crazies in the world. That just doesn't make any sense.

Deciding to take handguns away isn't punishing any more than saying people can't build bombs or own RPGs.

I farking love shooting handguns, but I have no other reason to have one. Blowing shiat up would probably also be fun, but I have no other reason to be allowed to build bombs. Let people keep their shotguns and deer rifles. Hunting is legit, but those are a little harder to conceal for sneaking them into a school or hospital.

If guns are severely restricted, shootings go down. Ask the countries where that exact thing has happened.


And yet a good portion of mass killings are with rifles and shotguns. People will still find ways to kill even if you took all guns away. shootinfgs go down maybe but I bet mass poisonings or bombings still happen. Look at the Japan subway thing a while back. Sarin attack
 
2012-12-15 03:42:34 PM

John Dewey: iq_in_binary: I'm a gunsmith, I can ensure the only time any firearm in my control will function is when I want it to. So can anybody with any mechanical aptitude and the ability to find their own ass without the aid of a flashlight.

Excellent. I just stabbed you in your sleep with my knife and now have your gun to go kill 20 kids.

Congrats.


It's called a safety, on my carry gun there are 2, a grip safety and a thumb safety. Takes less than a tenth of a second to engage or disengage the thumb safety and the grip safety is engaged by gripping the gun. You're dead at the doorway and I'm filling out way too much paperwork. And 70+ million other people just like me aren't killing any school children every day.
 
2012-12-15 03:42:38 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: justtray: We are going to. Then we're going to use that argument against you, and you don't get to make a sound about it.

Well, put up or shut up

Conservatives won't have presidental power again anytime soon, and we're going to replace Thomas, Alito, possibly more with liberals who will override their previous ruling on guns.

Its only a matter of time, deal with it.

lolwut


I meant Scalia.

And yes we will put up, and not shut up. When we do, you will be the one shutting up, or dying for your cause. Either way, win win
 
2012-12-15 03:42:55 PM

Friction8r: Generation_D: I realize that I won't outshout the internet tough guy gun rights brigade. Thats not the point.

A whole lot of us out here think you guys are idiots, and I bet I live to see the day you all are outvoted.

Its happened before, it'll happen again. Gun Rights is just a sh*tty 220 year old thought on a piece of paper. The Fourth Amendment has been trashed by modern interpretation, the First Amendment is in tatters compared to its meaning back when it was written. The Second Amendment actually had a good reason for being, but it doesn't any more. Tyranny is not overthrown by your home collection of weapons. However, many innocent people quite often could be.

I'm fed up with it, I suspect many others are too.

Since you ignored me the first time, I'll say it again: Have your vote. You STILL aren't getting our guns. How do you propose to do that? Good luck!


It's funny how you gun nuts think that the US Military will have such a problem confiscating your semi-auto AR when it pretty much dismantled two foreign militaries.
 
2012-12-15 03:43:08 PM

cameroncrazy1984: NotoriousFire: John Dewey: Why am I the one having to justify not owning killing devices? Shouldn't the gun owners have to justify their need to own? Talk about backwards land.

Second amendment already justifies a gun owners "need" to own. You need to justify your point - the US Bill of Rights justifies against your point.

Then why are things like full-auto weapons and rocket launchers illegal to purchase without heavy restrictions? Why can't other weapons also be restricted?


Lawmakers argued for a "need" for those extant restrictions. If you believe that further restriction is warranted -- and that such restriction will survive judicial scrutiny -- then you are free to argue a "need" for them.
 
2012-12-15 03:44:23 PM

ultraholland: I do not allow mentally unstable people even know I have them, let alone handle them.


I know and fully believe you and the overwhelming majority of the gun owners in this country act what they feel is a responsible manner with their firearms. I know and fully believe that 99.99813857194% of gun owners would never knowingly let someone who is mentally unstable around their firearms.

But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Time and time again.

When will enough be enough? What cost is too high?

26 hours ago I believed there was such a thing as responsible gun ownership. No more.
 
2012-12-15 03:44:25 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: phenn: shower_in_my_socks: NotoriousFire: So how far will outlawing guns really go towards stopping anything?


You realize that yesterday a man in China stabbed 22 school children and NONE OF THEM DIED, right?

You might have missed the point. He still tried to harm or kill them. Doesn't matter what he did it with. There was something intrinsically WRONG with the farker. Wrong with HIM.

It doesn't mean all people who own knives are going to try stabbing a bunch of children.

You cannot punish the whole of society because there are crazies in the world. That just doesn't make any sense.

I have a hard time seeing how keeping you owning a limited number of weapons and having you go through extensive training/psych checks to own said weapons is "punishment." It's actually called "be a responsible member of society."


Why set a limit? People can really only fire one at once. Why punish collectors? What's the limit? What about people who already have more than the limit?
 
2012-12-15 03:44:32 PM

cameroncrazy1984: It's funny how you gun nuts think that the US Military will have such a problem confiscating your semi-auto AR when it pretty much dismantled two foreign militaries.


Posse Comitatus Act... good luck with that.
 
2012-12-15 03:44:54 PM

DoomPaul: Generation_D: DoomPaul: Thankfully security was on hand this time, but you get the point.

[i45.tinypic.com image 539x539]

Now put that up against stats showing how many people in a Western country outside the USA are killed by guns, at all. See how it does.

[i48.tinypic.com image 659x819]


Derpa Derpa Doooooo... time to wake up, everybody. Let's go get skewed data to support our argument, sit back, fold our arms, and be all smugtarded. W0ot!
 
2012-12-15 03:46:00 PM
Haven't been reading up on the school shooting, so forgive me, but have they determined how he got his gun yet? Was it his to begin with? Did he buy it legally? Because if either of those answers are "no", this "What if" gun control debate is moot.
 
2012-12-15 03:46:04 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: Not to mention how many more people are in the UK vs the US?


I'm sorry that you don't understand what "per capita" means

The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.22 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants compared to the United States' 2.7 and to Germany's 1.1 

And I didn't say "banned," I've always said "heavily restricted"
 
2012-12-15 03:46:36 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Friction8r: Generation_D: I realize that I won't outshout the internet tough guy gun rights brigade. Thats not the point.

A whole lot of us out here think you guys are idiots, and I bet I live to see the day you all are outvoted.

Its happened before, it'll happen again. Gun Rights is just a sh*tty 220 year old thought on a piece of paper. The Fourth Amendment has been trashed by modern interpretation, the First Amendment is in tatters compared to its meaning back when it was written. The Second Amendment actually had a good reason for being, but it doesn't any more. Tyranny is not overthrown by your home collection of weapons. However, many innocent people quite often could be.

I'm fed up with it, I suspect many others are too.

Since you ignored me the first time, I'll say it again: Have your vote. You STILL aren't getting our guns. How do you propose to do that? Good luck!

It's funny how you gun nuts think that the US Military will have such a problem confiscating your semi-auto AR when it pretty much dismantled two foreign militaries.


You haven't met your average enlisted man or woman. A lot of officers would die before people figured out the whole confiscation thing wasn't going to happen.
 
2012-12-15 03:46:59 PM

saturn badger: When was the last time you saw a NRA member shoot someone?


I see them defending the rampant and completely unnecessary uncontrolled access to weapons that no sane society needs, and I see them doing it all the farking time. fark guns and fark the people who defend them.
 
2012-12-15 03:47:15 PM

justtray: The_Sponge: contrapunctus: It warms my heart to know that gun control is yet another issue they're bound to lose on eventually.


Really? You're proud that an important right is about to be stripped away? That's sad.

Whats important about it?


Still waiting.
 
2012-12-15 03:47:18 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: John Dewey: Yes because we never change laws based on new understandings or new evidence that makes us rethink previous laws.

good luck getting the 2nd Amendement to the bill of rights changed.


Actually it's the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, the first ten amendments are commonly/mistakenly referred to as the Bill of Rights. Bill of Rights is such a nasty term since it implies that people are subjects under the government and that the government bestows rights to the peons as it sees fit.
 
2012-12-15 03:47:30 PM

Dimensio: If you believe that further restriction is warranted -- and that such restriction will survive judicial scrutiny -- then you are free to argue a "need" for them


How about two mass shootings in two days using legally-obtained firearms?

That was the need argued when the UK banned most firearms, and they now enjoy one of the lowest gun-death rates in the world.
 
2012-12-15 03:47:46 PM

jbc: This was bound to happen since we've systematically removed Mike Huckleberry's God™ from all the hospitals.


It's a Catholic hospital, so it wasn't Mike Farkleberry's God.
 
2012-12-15 03:47:47 PM
WTF is this sh... Oh, hell naw! I'm going back to bed

bestontop.com

feel free to join me.
 
2012-12-15 03:48:17 PM

cameroncrazy1984: How about two mass shootings in two days using legally-obtained firearms?


How about an intended third?
 
2012-12-15 03:48:31 PM

John Dewey: ultraholland: I do not allow mentally unstable people even know I have them, let alone handle them.

I know and fully believe you and the overwhelming majority of the gun owners in this country act what they feel is a responsible manner with their firearms. I know and fully believe that 99.99813857194% of gun owners would never knowingly let someone who is mentally unstable around their firearms.

But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Time and time again.

When will enough be enough? What cost is too high?

26 hours ago I believed there was such a thing as responsible gun ownership. No more.


Now replace every instance of "gun owners" with "Muslims." Voila! You're a modern racist, xenophobic American. Also known as a Republican.
 
2012-12-15 03:48:51 PM

Dimensio: John Dewey: Why am I the one having to justify not owning killing devices? Shouldn't the gun owners have to justify their need to own? Talk about backwards land.

In free societies, rights of action and of ownership are allowed by default, and restriction requires justification. Perhaps you prefer residence in an authoritarian society.


Justification: Guns were built with one purpose: To kill. Current gun technology allows the killing to happen at sickening rates.

Fin.
 
2012-12-15 03:49:16 PM

John Dewey: phenn: Read the thread. People are actually suggesting that the constitution and the amendments (our laws) need to be done away with. Not amended.

Where are they suggesting to do away with the constitution? I know I haven't read this thread THAT carefully, but....I seriously doubt someone did that.



I'll go on record as saying the entire constitution needs to be shredded and rewritten. Beyond the obvious reason that it was written by people whose ideas of "freedom", "equality", and "rights" are unrecognizable from ours, it's a vague, flaccid, document that is mostly useless at guiding the country.

Consider this - more than a few Supreme Court decisions are by 5-4 votes. That means that the top legal experts in the country, who have studied the constitution most of their lives, cannot agree on what it says. If you were in your calculus 101 class, and every 15 minutes a group of full professors had to be convened to decide what the texbook was saying, you'd be remarkably stupid to not request a new textbook.

The procedure is about the same as reading tea leaves, so it's time that we recognized that tea leaves do not have any intrinsic epistemological value.
 
2012-12-15 03:49:32 PM

camaroash: I rarely hear mention of "I can't get a gun so I'll build a bomb" scenarios.

Explosives and triggers are incredibly easy to make in advance from very benign materials.

Tack an extra zero on the end of body counts. Scary.

Fix the people and they won't do evil shiat.


You're conflating two kinds of people. One is the kind of person who deliberately and purposefully goes out to kill people. The other is the one who just snaps and grabs something and kills people. They sometimes cross, but that Venn diagram is really very small. The person who snaps and then deliberately and purposefully sets out to kill large numbers of people, although a staple of action movies and video games, is very rare.

The kid yesterday is an example of the latter. Yes, he appears to have had mental issues for some time; but something triggered him at the end, he snatched up the guns that were handy and started killing people. Had he been in a household without guns, he wouldn't have sat patiently around and assembled several bombs to run down to the school and kill kids.

Now, there are people who want to kill large number of people; but they wouldn't be randomly targeting grade schools. Despite what people like to believe, terrorists pick their targets with specific ends in mind, and don't need guns to do their deeds. But this is a different social issue.
 
2012-12-15 03:49:33 PM

John Dewey: ultraholland: I do not allow mentally unstable people even know I have them, let alone handle them.

I know and fully believe you and the overwhelming majority of the gun owners in this country act what they feel is a responsible manner with their firearms. I know and fully believe that 99.99813857194% of gun owners would never knowingly let someone who is mentally unstable around their firearms.

But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Time and time again.

When will enough be enough? What cost is too high?

26 hours ago I believed there was such a thing as responsible gun ownership. No more.


Your irrational belief is not a valid basis for public policy.
 
2012-12-15 03:49:39 PM
Copycat? Please. Completely unrelated. I'm guessing at this right now, but...

The guy paniced on seeing cops and opened fire.

He's alright got warrants out for him. Possibly serious ones. Came to the hospital to look for someone - maybe a friend who got shot up in a turf war, maybe an enemy who did. When the cops showed up, he thought he was cornered - so he opens fire. If there had been no cops there, there would've been likely been no gunfire - but, well, I'll bet anything this guy was already a serious felon. He just happened to get picked up at a hospital instead of a ghetto, and that made it news. Nothing special here, really. People just on edge and looking for copycats, looking for more stuff to get into a gun control fight over - but this really wasn't anything too special. Dangerous suspect opens fire at cops, gets shot and killed.
 
2012-12-15 03:51:01 PM

John Dewey:
Justification: Guns were built with one purpose: To kill. Current gun technology allows the killing to happen at sickening rates.


So let's set a scenario - you're at your home, with your wife and two children (made up - it's a scenario). You hear glass break downstairs, you look down your stairwell - there are two intruders, one with a gun and one with a knife. You have a firearm in your nightstand. Do you use this weapon to protect your family? Or do you not, because "guns are bad!" Which do you choose?
 
2012-12-15 03:51:09 PM

John Dewey: Why am I the one having to justify not owning killing devices? Shouldn't the gun owners have to justify their need to own? Talk about backwards land.


I'm fully in favor of removing the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution. Outdated crap that holds us back, makes us the slow kid in the world.
 
2012-12-15 03:51:14 PM

iq_in_binary: Now replace every instance of "gun owners" with "Muslims." Voila! You're a modern racist, xenophobic American. Also known as a Republican.


Why do gun owners keep feeling the need to replace words?

Why can you not see that guns are a thing unto themselves?

They aren't bananas. Those were made to eat.

They aren't nuclear weapons. They were made to kill on a scale of thousands.

Guns were made to expedite person to person killing.
 
2012-12-15 03:51:24 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: If you believe that further restriction is warranted -- and that such restriction will survive judicial scrutiny -- then you are free to argue a "need" for them

How about two mass shootings in two days using legally-obtained firearms?

That was the need argued when the UK banned most firearms, and they now enjoy one of the lowest gun-death rates in the world.


The Sandy Hook shooting was with illegally obtained weapons.
 
2012-12-15 03:52:29 PM
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-12-15 03:52:30 PM
How to solve the vulnerable nature of our schools while providing additional employment options to our veterans.

Armed Security Guards.

Helicopter parents may cry foul, but it kills two birds with one stone. The veterans who opt in and don't mind the risk get a steady job that fits their skillset. The schools gain someone on hand who has the ability to react while under fire, which is more than what can be said for a majority of CCW holders.
 
2012-12-15 03:52:32 PM
Oh great.

Now we'll have to ban schools AND hospitals.
 
2012-12-15 03:52:54 PM

John Dewey: NotoriousFire: Second amendment already justifies a gun owners "need" to own. You need to justify your point - the US Bill of Rights justifies against your point.

The Bill of Rights justified owning a musket.


The right of the People to keep and bear ARMS, not "muskets," ya dolt. I enjoy mine, and I'm keeping them, and you can't do a thing about it...except flame on, which is delightful!
 
2012-12-15 03:53:10 PM
Right now, there's hundreds of families in America who see a gun not as a self defense necessity or a hunting luxury, but rather as what killed their classmate in cold blood.

I hope we don't need to make that be a majority that's seen a massacre first-hand before we do something.
 
2012-12-15 03:53:19 PM

iq_in_binary: The Sandy Hook shooting was with illegally obtained weapons.


Taking them from your mothers house isn't the same thing as breaking in and stealing them.
 
2012-12-15 03:53:26 PM

zippolight2002: Haven't been reading up on the school shooting, so forgive me, but have they determined how he got his gun yet? Was it his to begin with? Did he buy it legally? Because if either of those answers are "no", this "What if" gun control debate is moot.


The firearms were reportedly the property of his mother, which would indicate that she did not secure them despite knowing a resident of her home to be mentally unstable.

I have read, but cannot yet confirm, that the shooter did attempt to purchase a rifle on his own but that he was denied.
 
2012-12-15 03:53:46 PM

Gosling: cameroncrazy1984: How about two mass shootings in two days using legally-obtained firearms?

How about an intended third?

An arrest affidavit says Chavez tried to convince other students to help him lure students into the auditorium, chain the doors shut and start shooting. The Tulsa World reports that authorities say Chavez threatened to kill students who didn't help.


You just can't find good help nowadays.

/prefer window seat
 
2012-12-15 03:53:47 PM

NotoriousFire: John Dewey:
Justification: Guns were built with one purpose: To kill. Current gun technology allows the killing to happen at sickening rates.

So let's set a scenario - you're at your home, with your wife and two children (made up - it's a scenario). You hear glass break downstairs, you look down your stairwell - there are two intruders, one with a gun and one with a knife. You have a firearm in your nightstand. Do you use this weapon to protect your family? Or do you not, because "guns are bad!" Which do you choose?


Your non sequitur is non sequitur-y.
 
2012-12-15 03:53:54 PM

iq_in_binary: You haven't met your average enlisted man or woman. A lot of officers would die before people figured out the whole confiscation thing wasn't going to happen


Haha, yeah right. These guys are trained to follow orders. You don't think they'd fall in line after the first mutineer was shot? Do you have no knowledge of history?
 
2012-12-15 03:54:06 PM

Friction8r: Generation_D: Happy 221st Birthday Second Amendment. God Bless well-regulated militias everywhere.

You know, the bill of rights is just a piece of paper. If enough of us think gun ownership is too stupid to handle, with too many negative consequences, for too many people, we could amend it. Been done before.

Sure you could amend that "piece of paper."But you STILL won't get our guns! You haven't seen bloodshed until you try to take guns away from the populace. House to house searches to connfiscate weapons? Good luck with that. And if you think all guns are registered, so you have a handy list of what homes to barge into, you're nuts.


I was surprised at how easily Americans handed over their guns post-Katrina. Hopefully we'll never have to find out how such a scenario would play out.
 
2012-12-15 03:54:07 PM

NotoriousFire: John Dewey:
Justification: Guns were built with one purpose: To kill. Current gun technology allows the killing to happen at sickening rates.

So let's set a scenario - you're at your home, with your wife and two children (made up - it's a scenario). You hear glass break downstairs, you look down your stairwell - there are two intruders, one with a gun and one with a knife. You have a firearm in your nightstand. Do you use this weapon to protect your family? Or do you not, because "guns are bad!" Which do you choose?


I have played that scenario out time and again over the last 24 hours.

I would rather roll the dice that I will never face that than roll the dice of sending my kid to school everyday knowing some whackjob has easy access to guns.

And my wife has been the victim of a home invasion and lives with that fear. She and I are on the same page. So my word on it may not have as much weight as hers. At least not in my mind.
 
2012-12-15 03:54:16 PM

TheEdibleSnuggie: globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.

I'm convinced a lot of this insanity has something to do with the supposed end of the world being on the 21st of this month; people are going stupid.


Really..... Just this year? School shooting's have been taking place in this country since the 1700's. Not to mention all the other types of gun violence. Don't by naive, this is America, we were built by the use of firearms.
 
2012-12-15 03:54:30 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: If you believe that further restriction is warranted -- and that such restriction will survive judicial scrutiny -- then you are free to argue a "need" for them

How about two mass shootings in two days using legally-obtained firearms?

That was the need argued when the UK banned most firearms, and they now enjoy one of the lowest gun-death rates in the world.


What were their "gun death" and total homicide rates prior to the enactment of the regulation to which you refer?
 
2012-12-15 03:54:43 PM

mr lawson: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 542x539]


And when one of the security guards who is armed to the teeth has a really bad day?
 
2012-12-15 03:54:50 PM

DeathByGeekSquad: Helicopter parents may cry foul, but it kills two birds with one stone. The veterans who opt in and don't mind the risk get a steady job that fits their skillset. The schools gain someone on hand who has the ability to react while under fire, which is more than what can be said for a majority of CCW holders.


hell...i say give federal government funds for that idea.
 
2012-12-15 03:55:03 PM

cameroncrazy1984: basemetal: What if the civilian only took out the gunman, would they still be a dumbass civilian?

Again, that's never happened before so...



Actually it has. A woman with a concealed weapon shot the man shooting up the New Life Church.
 
2012-12-15 03:55:09 PM

mr lawson: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 542x539]


Thats funny. I would vote "All weapons prohibited on the premises." And define that as the whole country.

I'd much rather outlaw guns entirely and then sort out who the criminals are, than leave guns lying around and wait for the next round of victims to happen.
 
2012-12-15 03:55:09 PM

John Dewey: Dimensio: John Dewey: Why am I the one having to justify not owning killing devices? Shouldn't the gun owners have to justify their need to own? Talk about backwards land.

In free societies, rights of action and of ownership are allowed by default, and restriction requires justification. Perhaps you prefer residence in an authoritarian society.

Justification: Guns were built with one purpose: To kill. Current gun technology allows the killing to happen at sickening rates.

Fin.


Funny, the gun technology today, as in what civilians have been able to purchase, hasn't "changed" since pretty much 1919. The gun technology related to the guns used in the Sandy Hook shooting hasn't changed since, well, 1911. Sure it's been repackaged a little bit and is a little bit lighter now, but it's pretty much the same weapon technology.

Now, the stuff the Army is playing with now with those 25MM grenades is new, but that's not going to be available to American civilians any time soon, if ever.

The whole discussion would probably be a lot more effective and constructive if it was being held by people who actually knew what they were talking about instead of pulling stuff out of their ass.
 
2012-12-15 03:55:27 PM

John Dewey: Dimensio: John Dewey: Why am I the one having to justify not owning killing devices? Shouldn't the gun owners have to justify their need to own? Talk about backwards land.

In free societies, rights of action and of ownership are allowed by default, and restriction requires justification. Perhaps you prefer residence in an authoritarian society.

Justification: Guns were built with one purpose: To kill. Current gun technology allows the killing to happen at sickening rates.

Fin.


Those are assertions, not justifications.
 
2012-12-15 03:55:35 PM

Dimensio: Your irrational belief is not a valid basis for public policy


Actually, in the UK it is. The Firearms act of 1997 was enacted after the Dunblane school massacre. And it works.
 
2012-12-15 03:56:07 PM

Dimensio: ot yet confirm, that the shooter did attempt to purchase a rifle on his own but that he was denied.


Soooo the current gun-control laws worked? It was the parent that f'ed up? Why are we having this debate at all?
 
2012-12-15 03:56:22 PM

John Dewey: mr lawson: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 542x539]

And when one of the security guards who is armed to the teeth has a really bad day?


absolutely no difference in outcome.
 
2012-12-15 03:56:27 PM

John Dewey: And when one of the security guards who is armed to the teeth has a really bad day?


No, no - "staff" is always reliable, see? More guns is clearly the way to reduce the opportunity to use guns. Are you slow or something?
 
2012-12-15 03:56:33 PM

tshauk: TheEdibleSnuggie: globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.

I'm convinced a lot of this insanity has something to do with the supposed end of the world being on the 21st of this month; people are going stupid.

Really..... Just this year? School shooting's have been taking place in this country since the 1700's. Not to mention all the other types of gun violence. Don't by naive, this is America, we were built by the use of firearms.


And now we're crumbling from within because of it. Hopefully we don't become Somalia or Afghanistan.
 
2012-12-15 03:56:40 PM

iq_in_binary: Funny, the gun technology today, as in what civilians have been able to purchase, hasn't "changed" since pretty much 1919. The gun technology related to the guns used in the Sandy Hook shooting hasn't changed since, well, 1911. Sure it's been repackaged a little bit and is a little bit lighter now, but it's pretty much the same weapon technology.


And the 2nd amendment was written in 19....19.....what year exactly was that?
 
2012-12-15 03:57:05 PM

Friction8r: John Dewey: NotoriousFire: Second amendment already justifies a gun owners "need" to own. You need to justify your point - the US Bill of Rights justifies against your point.

The Bill of Rights justified owning a musket.

The right of the People to keep and bear ARMS, not "muskets," ya dolt. I enjoy mine, and I'm keeping them, and you can't do a thing about it...except flame on, which is delightful!


Keep reading. Don't stop after the first sentence this time.

I hope you fight back when we force you to register your weapons and pay property taxes on them. Then we can legally put you down and remove you from the equation.
 
2012-12-15 03:57:24 PM

DeathByGeekSquad: How to solve the vulnerable nature of our schools while providing additional employment options to our veterans.

Armed Security Guards.

Helicopter parents may cry foul, but it kills two birds with one stone. The veterans who opt in and don't mind the risk get a steady job that fits their skillset. The schools gain someone on hand who has the ability to react while under fire, which is more than what can be said for a majority of CCW holders.


Maybe I have my terms mixed up, but I think helicopter parents are the group that would get behind such a plan the most. They'd probably appreciate a Bradley IFV parked at the school entrance as well.
 
2012-12-15 03:57:55 PM
John Dewey: I would rather roll the dice that I will never face that than roll the dice of sending my kid to school everyday knowing some whackjob has easy access to guns.

You're far more likely to die in a car accident. If you're basing decisions off of rolling the dice then you should severely limit the amount of time your kid's in a car.
 
2012-12-15 03:58:18 PM

zippolight2002: Haven't been reading up on the school shooting, so forgive me, but have they determined how he got his gun yet? Was it his to begin with? Did he buy it legally? Because if either of those answers are "no", this "What if" gun control debate is moot.


His mother's arms cache. She was an avid shooter, apparently.

We don't know yet if she was an NRA member, but it did say she frequented shooting ranges.

So apparently the model gun-owning citizen.
 
2012-12-15 03:58:23 PM

John Dewey: Why am I the one having to justify not owning killing devices? Shouldn't the gun owners have to justify their need to own? Talk about backwards land.


How about we justify you not being thrown in jail? You might rape someone. Shouldn't you justify that you won't rape someone.
 
2012-12-15 03:58:41 PM
zippolight2002: Soooo the current gun-control laws worked? It was the parent that f'ed up? Why are we having this debate at all?

because guns bad, that's why. There is no other reason.
 
2012-12-15 03:58:45 PM

Popcorn Johnny: DoomPaul: Thankfully security was on hand this time, but you get the point.

What would the average number of people killed in mass shootings be if nobody had guns?


Fantasy.

You think 300 million guns are going to evaporate?
 
2012-12-15 03:58:52 PM

zippolight2002: Dimensio: ot yet confirm, that the shooter did attempt to purchase a rifle on his own but that he was denied.

Soooo the current gun-control laws worked? It was the parent that f'ed up? Why are we having this debate at all?


Facts are of no relevance to most individuals. The AR-15 type rifle reported to have been found was located in the car and was never used, yet gun control advocates are using its presence as justification to renew an "assault weapons ban".
 
2012-12-15 03:58:55 PM

mr lawson: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 542x539]


Neither. Though the second will likely result in 5-year-olds being caught in the crossfire of a shootout. Which I'm sure is just the best solution for everyone.
 
2012-12-15 03:59:21 PM
Oh for christ sake. You will never ban guns here in America. It will never happen. After anything like this you get the knee jerk reactions of "Let's BAN GUNS!" or "Their coming to TAKE OUR GUNS!". Might as well talk about banning alcohol everytime some drunk driver crashes a kills a family of four. That is just as stupid and will never happen either.
 
2012-12-15 03:59:22 PM
Responsible gun owners are the reason you can embarrass yourself on Fark assigning blame to an object rather than the user of that object.
 
2012-12-15 03:59:30 PM
Generation_D: So apparently the model gun-owning citizen.

aside from letting her crazy-ass son use them
 
2012-12-15 03:59:59 PM

DeathByGeekSquad: How to solve the vulnerable nature of our schools while providing additional employment options to our veterans.

Armed Security Guards.

Helicopter parents may cry foul, but it kills two birds with one stone. The veterans who opt in and don't mind the risk get a steady job that fits their skillset. The schools gain someone on hand who has the ability to react while under fire, which is more than what can be said for a majority of CCW holders.


Brilliant plan. Except for the mental illness prevalent in our veterans (PTS, anyone?) which would make the kids less safe instead of more safe
 
2012-12-15 04:00:01 PM

Medic Zero: You think 300 million guns are going to evaporate?


If laws were put in place making them illegal, most would. The others would be weeded out over time.
 
2012-12-15 04:00:05 PM

Dimensio: cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: If you believe that further restriction is warranted -- and that such restriction will survive judicial scrutiny -- then you are free to argue a "need" for them

How about two mass shootings in two days using legally-obtained firearms?

That was the need argued when the UK banned most firearms, and they now enjoy one of the lowest gun-death rates in the world.

What were their "gun death" and total homicide rates prior to the enactment of the regulation to which you refer?


According to the British Journal of Criminology, as of 2011, gun homicides have declined for 7 straight years, so my guess is, higher than .22 per 100k.
 
2012-12-15 04:00:11 PM

globalwarmingpraiser: John Dewey: Why am I the one having to justify not owning killing devices? Shouldn't the gun owners have to justify their need to own? Talk about backwards land.

How about we justify you not being thrown in jail? You might rape someone. Shouldn't you justify that you won't rape someone.


Is jailing those that disagree with your viewpoint how a gun nut solves problems now?

So much for that pesky First Amendment.

Guess I was right, gun nuts only care about the 2nd Amendment, they give f--k all about the others.
 
2012-12-15 04:00:40 PM

John Dewey: NotoriousFire: Second amendment already justifies a gun owners "need" to own. You need to justify your point - the US Bill of Rights justifies against your point.

The Bill of Rights justified owning a musket.


i798.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-15 04:01:08 PM

John Dewey:
I would rather roll the dice that I will never face that than roll the dice of sending my kid to school everyday knowing some whackjob has easy access to guns.


Understood that's your choice. What about those individuals out there who have had to use such firearms in defense of their family and/or home? Those individuals who, if otherwise did not use their firearm, would have had a family member killed or raped?

I understand you have your belief on firearms, and I respect that. But there are others, who have been in different situations, who have theirs. To say gun-control, in its entirety, will completely eliminate innocent death from such firearms is ridiculous. Now if people were required to do their due diligence, and secure their firearm(s) when not in use, I'd support that. But complete outlaw is neither American nor beneficial.
 
2012-12-15 04:01:09 PM

Tellingthem: Oh for christ sake. You will never ban guns here in America. It will never happen. After anything like this you get the knee jerk reactions of "Let's BAN GUNS!" or "Their coming to TAKE OUR GUNS!". Might as well talk about banning alcohol everytime some drunk driver crashes a kills a family of four. That is just as stupid and will never happen either.


Never say never. 100 years ago you could probably have said they'd never outlaw inter-racial marriage.
 
2012-12-15 04:01:25 PM

Medic Zero: Popcorn Johnny: DoomPaul: Thankfully security was on hand this time, but you get the point.

What would the average number of people killed in mass shootings be if nobody had guns?

Fantasy.

You think 300 million guns are going to evaporate?


Scientifically, part of them would, if you melted them down.
 
2012-12-15 04:01:26 PM
We don't need gun control. We need Psychos control.
Criminals do not shoot up schools...Psychos do.
 
2012-12-15 04:01:50 PM

globalwarmingpraiser: How about we justify you not being thrown in jail? You might rape someone. Shouldn't you justify that you won't rape someone.


You're right. My body and penis could be used to rape...let's see...how many women in a 30-60 second span?
 
2012-12-15 04:02:28 PM

NotoriousFire: Understood that's your choice. What about those individuals out there who have had to use such firearms in defense of their family and/or home? Those individuals who, if otherwise did not use their firearm, would have had a family member killed or raped


Those individuals are a minute portion of the population as a whole. Especially when compared to those who are murdered by legally-obtained firearms.
 
2012-12-15 04:02:38 PM

Generation_D: tshauk: TheEdibleSnuggie: globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.

I'm convinced a lot of this insanity has something to do with the supposed end of the world being on the 21st of this month; people are going stupid.

Really..... Just this year? School shooting's have been taking place in this country since the 1700's. Not to mention all the other types of gun violence. Don't by naive, this is America, we were built by the use of firearms.

And now we're crumbling from within because of it. Hopefully we don't become Somalia or Afghanistan.


I'll agree we are crumbling, but not because of weapons in our homes, no no...that's just to simple; it's because Americans have lost any back bone and are no controlled by what the media and politicians tell them to think, and the masses drink it all up. No will power to adjust a corrupt Government. We used to be a nation FOR the people, BY the people, when was the last time you felt your Government was on YOUR side?
 
2012-12-15 04:02:45 PM

NotoriousFire: John Dewey:
I would rather roll the dice that I will never face that than roll the dice of sending my kid to school everyday knowing some whackjob has easy access to guns.


Understood that's your choice. What about those individuals out there who have had to use such firearms in defense of their family and/or home? Those individuals who, if otherwise did not use their firearm, would have had a family member killed or raped?

I understand you have your belief on firearms, and I respect that. But there are others, who have been in different situations, who have theirs. To say gun-control, in its entirety, will completely eliminate innocent death from such firearms is ridiculous. Now if people were required to do their due diligence, and secure their firearm(s) when not in use, I'd support that. But complete outlaw is neither American nor beneficial.


I'm much more likely to get caught in gang crime crossfires or lone gun nut shooting up a mall than I am likely to get raped.

Why does your defense of your family get to put me in more danger than I would be otherwise?
 
2012-12-15 04:02:49 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Friction8r: Generation_D: I realize that I won't outshout the internet tough guy gun rights brigade. Thats not the point.

A whole lot of us out here think you guys are idiots, and I bet I live to see the day you all are outvoted.

Its happened before, it'll happen again. Gun Rights is just a sh*tty 220 year old thought on a piece of paper. The Fourth Amendment has been trashed by modern interpretation, the First Amendment is in tatters compared to its meaning back when it was written. The Second Amendment actually had a good reason for being, but it doesn't any more. Tyranny is not overthrown by your home collection of weapons. However, many innocent people quite often could be.

I'm fed up with it, I suspect many others are too.

Since you ignored me the first time, I'll say it again: Have your vote. You STILL aren't getting our guns. How do you propose to do that? Good luck!

It's funny how you gun nuts think that the US Military will have such a problem confiscating your semi-auto AR when it pretty much dismantled two foreign militaries.


Hilarious! The US Military's going house to house in a hundred million homes to confiscate weapons? Hell, most of them are sons and daughters of gun owners. Plus, are they gonna have metal detectors cover the hundred acres of our family farm searching? Like I said, you haven't seen bloodshed till you try that stunt.

/Duke sucks!
/BIG BLUE! National Champs!
 
2012-12-15 04:02:53 PM

Gosling: mr lawson: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 542x539]

Neither. Though the second will likely result in 5-year-olds being caught in the crossfire of a shootout. Which I'm sure is just the best solution for everyone.


better a cross-fire than only an one-way fire.
 
2012-12-15 04:02:55 PM

NotoriousFire: But complete outlaw is neither American nor beneficial.


You're right. Not beneficial. Except for the countries where it has been.
 
2012-12-15 04:03:24 PM

ultraholland: Generation_D: So apparently the model gun-owning citizen.

aside from letting her crazy-ass son use them


In this incident, the problem was clearly with access by an unstable individual, not ability for an unstable individual to purchase. A reasonable means of addressing this situation -- beyond examining the overall state of mental health care and treatment in the United States of America -- is consideration of firearms storage (or even presence) when a mentally ill individual lives in the residence.

I do know that individuals may be arrested for storing firearms in homes in which a convicted felon resides, even if the owner of the firearms is not a prohibited person. How this law currently applies to mentally unstable individuals, however, I do not know.
 
2012-12-15 04:03:30 PM

Generation_D: Why does your defense of your family get to put me in more danger than I would be otherwise?


This.
 
2012-12-15 04:03:32 PM

saturn badger: flucto: MaudlinMutantMollusk: becoming numb to it

I'm not becoming numb, I'm becoming angry. Something must change. Also, F*CK the NRA.

When was the last time you saw a NRA member shoot someone?


Dick Cheney? I could be wrong - he might not have been a member of the NRA, but certainly accepted their support...and they REALLY should have revoked his card if he was.
 
2012-12-15 04:03:33 PM

tshauk: Generation_D: tshauk: TheEdibleSnuggie: globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.

I'm convinced a lot of this insanity has something to do with the supposed end of the world being on the 21st of this month; people are going stupid.

Really..... Just this year? School shooting's have been taking place in this country since the 1700's. Not to mention all the other types of gun violence. Don't by naive, this is America, we were built by the use of firearms.

And now we're crumbling from within because of it. Hopefully we don't become Somalia or Afghanistan.

I'll agree we are crumbling, but not because of weapons in our homes, no no...that's just to simple; it's because Americans have lost any back bone and are no controlled by what the media and politicians tell them to think, and the masses drink it all up. No will power to adjust a corrupt Government. We used to be a nation FOR the people, BY the people, when was the last time you felt your Government was on YOUR side?


About never, whats your point. Owning a gun isn't changing that one.
 
2012-12-15 04:03:43 PM

Skywolf Philosopher: Seriously, if at least the security could be armed legally, then folks who are armed illegally couldn't kill so much before being gunned down. Or is there some flaw in this logic that makes legal gun ownership such a bad idea?


Even if security guards could be legally armed (And in many places, they can be) most businesses, governments, and NGOs would not arm their security guards for liability reasons.

I like guns, truly I do, but treating them like they'll solve every violent crime is laughably simplistic.
 
2012-12-15 04:03:46 PM
Surely it's fine to give up some liberty in exchange for security.

i50.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-15 04:03:53 PM

globalwarmingpraiser: How about we justify you not being thrown in jail? You might rape someone. Shouldn't you justify that you won't rape someone.


Okay, let's set down some firm boundaries, regardless of what the law says. Even though one might have a concealed-carry permit, even though one might be ALLOWED to carry a gun into an elementary school, even though we just had a shooting in an elementary school, that does not make it OKAY to carry a gun into an elementary school. It doesn't matter if the Supreme Court okays it 9-0. You do not pack heat in an elementary school. Under any circumstances. Full stop. You do not pack heat in a hospital. Under any circumstances. Full stop. You do not place 5-year-olds or hospital patients in a position to get caught in the crossfire of a shootout. That's not advocating law. That's advocating basic human decency. Just because the law says you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD. The law doesn't prevent me from hiding under the seat of a movie theater and leaping out and screaming out the ending to everyone the second the lights dim. But if I did so, I would be an asshole. If you pack heat in a hospital or an elementary school, you are an asshole.

People need to stop themselves for five seconds and consider, truly consider, where the hell they're thinking it's okay to have a gun. They need to stop themselves for five seconds and truly THINK about what kind of guns they really need to have, and how many they need to have. You are in Anytown USA. Al Qaeda is not coming over the horizon in a fleet of helicopters with Ride of the Valkyries playing in the background, and if it was, the Army's got it handled anyway. If the arsenal you have on hand in your house is sufficient to take on such a fleet, you need to scale back. A simple handgun is sufficient for most of your home-invasion needs, and that's in the unlikely event that a home invasion ever happens to you at all and you are able to reach your gun before the intruder does AND that the intruder does not bring his own gun and gets the drop on you. And by the way, the deer you're hunting? It does not know how to use firearms and likely just wants to be left alone. You do not need a gun rated above that which is sufficient to bring down the largest game commonly found near you.

And in any case, there is no circumstance you are going to run into that is going to require you pumping death into someone or something with more than one bullet at a time. You do not need anything that does such a thing. Full stop. You do not. Besides, anything after that first bullet is going to be wildly inaccurate anyway because the recoil is going to screw with you. 'Suppressive fire' is not a phrase that needs to be in your hunting or home-protection vocabulary, and if you think it does, you need to rethink at least a couple of your life decisions.
 
2012-12-15 04:03:56 PM

Generation_D: globalwarmingpraiser: John Dewey: Why am I the one having to justify not owning killing devices? Shouldn't the gun owners have to justify their need to own? Talk about backwards land.

How about we justify you not being thrown in jail? You might rape someone. Shouldn't you justify that you won't rape someone.

Is jailing those that disagree with your viewpoint how a gun nut solves problems now?

So much for that pesky First Amendment.

Guess I was right, gun nuts only care about the 2nd Amendment, they give f--k all about the others.


It is called Hyperbole. I was using his argument against him. I was exercising free speech. I hold it near and dear. But I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.
 
2012-12-15 04:04:09 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: If you believe that further restriction is warranted -- and that such restriction will survive judicial scrutiny -- then you are free to argue a "need" for them

How about two mass shootings in two days using legally-obtained firearms?

That was the need argued when the UK banned most firearms, and they now enjoy one of the lowest gun-death rates in the world.

What were their "gun death" and total homicide rates prior to the enactment of the regulation to which you refer?

According to the British Journal of Criminology, as of 2011, gun homicides have declined for 7 straight years, so my guess is, higher than .22 per 100k.


How has the total homicide rate changed?
 
2012-12-15 04:04:21 PM

mr lawson: Gosling: mr lawson: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 542x539]

Neither. Though the second will likely result in 5-year-olds being caught in the crossfire of a shootout. Which I'm sure is just the best solution for everyone.

better a cross-fire than only an one-way fire.


Better dead to a gun nut than living, apparently.
 
2012-12-15 04:04:29 PM

Popcorn Johnny: iq_in_binary: The Sandy Hook shooting was with illegally obtained weapons.

Taking them from your mothers house isn't the same thing as breaking in and stealing them.


Actually in his case yes. He was underage to possess a pistol for one.
 
2012-12-15 04:04:32 PM
I like how the discussions on yesterday's event started pretty reasonably and then went blue retard whereas it appears that the discussions for this event simply start retarded and go downhill from there..
 
2012-12-15 04:04:33 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Medic Zero: You think 300 million guns are going to evaporate?

If laws were put in place making them illegal, most would. The others would be weeded out over time.


Maybe you should talk to someone from the Balkans.
 
2012-12-15 04:04:34 PM

mr lawson: We don't need gun control. We need Psychos control.
Criminals do not shoot up schools...Psychos do.


Im sure you wont mind when youre identified as a psycho
 
2012-12-15 04:04:48 PM

mr lawson: We don't need gun control. We need Psychos control.
Criminals do not shoot up schools...Psychos do.


Actually I think you'll find it is psychos with guns that shoot people.
 
2012-12-15 04:04:54 PM
Well, I'm going to go drive my gun to the store. Hope there's enough room in the chamber for the groceries.
 
2012-12-15 04:05:42 PM

John Dewey: globalwarmingpraiser: How about we justify you not being thrown in jail? You might rape someone. Shouldn't you justify that you won't rape someone.

You're right. My body and penis could be used to rape...let's see...how many women in a 30-60 second span?


What's your recovery time, and isn't one victim enough? Quit living in fear, I don't. Most gun owners consider their guns like insurance. Something that they never need.
 
2012-12-15 04:05:46 PM

Medic Zero: whizbangthedirtfarmer: phenn: shower_in_my_socks: NotoriousFire: So how far will outlawing guns really go towards stopping anything?


You realize that yesterday a man in China stabbed 22 school children and NONE OF THEM DIED, right?

You might have missed the point. He still tried to harm or kill them. Doesn't matter what he did it with. There was something intrinsically WRONG with the farker. Wrong with HIM.

It doesn't mean all people who own knives are going to try stabbing a bunch of children.

You cannot punish the whole of society because there are crazies in the world. That just doesn't make any sense.

I have a hard time seeing how keeping you owning a limited number of weapons and having you go through extensive training/psych checks to own said weapons is "punishment." It's actually called "be a responsible member of society."

Why set a limit? People can really only fire one at once. Why punish collectors? What's the limit? What about people who already have more than the limit?


1) A limit prevents proliferation and trading/selling of guns.
2) I don't give two shiats about collectors.
3) The limit in many countries is one. If you go the self-defense route with this, please keep in mind you pointed out that you can only "really fire one at once."
4) They will have to be grandfathered in or go through the same testing for each weapon, including, perhaps, providing written justification for each.
 
2012-12-15 04:06:38 PM
The Mayan apocalypse has begun.
 
2012-12-15 04:06:40 PM

Generation_D: Tellingthem: Oh for christ sake. You will never ban guns here in America. It will never happen. After anything like this you get the knee jerk reactions of "Let's BAN GUNS!" or "Their coming to TAKE OUR GUNS!". Might as well talk about banning alcohol everytime some drunk driver crashes a kills a family of four. That is just as stupid and will never happen either.

Never say never. 100 years ago you could probably have said they'd never outlaw inter-racial marriage.


Ummm yeah...we tried to outlaw alcohol once and it failed. We tried outlawing drugs and it failed. I think that the majority of people are catching on...
 
2012-12-15 04:06:45 PM

morlinge: Actually I think you'll find it is psychos with guns that shoot people.


ummmm...that's the point.
 
2012-12-15 04:06:47 PM
John Dewey: Well, I'm going to go drive my gun to the store. Hope there's enough room in the chamber for the groceries.

I'm happy that you've made progress today.
 
2012-12-15 04:06:53 PM

Friction8r: cameroncrazy1984: Friction8r: Generation_D: I realize that I won't outshout the internet tough guy gun rights brigade. Thats not the point.

A whole lot of us out here think you guys are idiots, and I bet I live to see the day you all are outvoted.

Its happened before, it'll happen again. Gun Rights is just a sh*tty 220 year old thought on a piece of paper. The Fourth Amendment has been trashed by modern interpretation, the First Amendment is in tatters compared to its meaning back when it was written. The Second Amendment actually had a good reason for being, but it doesn't any more. Tyranny is not overthrown by your home collection of weapons. However, many innocent people quite often could be.

I'm fed up with it, I suspect many others are too.

Since you ignored me the first time, I'll say it again: Have your vote. You STILL aren't getting our guns. How do you propose to do that? Good luck!

It's funny how you gun nuts think that the US Military will have such a problem confiscating your semi-auto AR when it pretty much dismantled two foreign militaries.

Hilarious! The US Military's going house to house in a hundred million homes to confiscate weapons? Hell, most of them are sons and daughters of gun owners. Plus, are they gonna have metal detectors cover the hundred acres of our family farm searching? Like I said, you haven't seen bloodshed till you try that stunt.

/Duke sucks!
/BIG BLUE! National Champs!


Nobody is confiscating sh*t.

Over time, in the coming years and decades, the need to own a gun to feel like a whole complete man is going to evolve away, just like the need to beat n-ggers to plant crops evolved away.

It wont be quick, but I have faith that civilization will prevail. The world does not see gun nuttery as essential to having a Westernized culture.

Only we do, because we are stuck with this 18th century document that promises it, and because plenty of people buy into the lies that come with it.
 
2012-12-15 04:07:07 PM

Friction8r: cameroncrazy1984: Friction8r: Generation_D: I realize that I won't outshout the internet tough guy gun rights brigade. Thats not the point.

A whole lot of us out here think you guys are idiots, and I bet I live to see the day you all are outvoted.

Its happened before, it'll happen again. Gun Rights is just a sh*tty 220 year old thought on a piece of paper. The Fourth Amendment has been trashed by modern interpretation, the First Amendment is in tatters compared to its meaning back when it was written. The Second Amendment actually had a good reason for being, but it doesn't any more. Tyranny is not overthrown by your home collection of weapons. However, many innocent people quite often could be.

I'm fed up with it, I suspect many others are too.

Since you ignored me the first time, I'll say it again: Have your vote. You STILL aren't getting our guns. How do you propose to do that? Good luck!

It's funny how you gun nuts think that the US Military will have such a problem confiscating your semi-auto AR when it pretty much dismantled two foreign militaries.

Hilarious! The US Military's going house to house in a hundred million homes to confiscate weapons? Hell, most of them are sons and daughters of gun owners. Plus, are they gonna have metal detectors cover the hundred acres of our family farm searching? Like I said, you haven't seen bloodshed till you try that stunt.

/Duke sucks!
/BIG BLUE! National Champs!


How do you think the US military secures a country?

You legitimately have zero idea of how military operations work.
 
2012-12-15 04:07:29 PM
The Baker Act, 5150, etc. needs to be federal at this point. That's the only remote possibility of avoiding shiat like this.
 
2012-12-15 04:07:38 PM

globalwarmingpraiser: Most gun owners consider their guns like insurance. Something that they never need.


I'm don't doubt that's what Nancy Lanza thought. She probably even taught her kids responsible ownership and respect for the guns. Maybe even took them to the range.

I know that's what I thought until yesterday.
 
2012-12-15 04:07:42 PM

DoomPaul: Surely it's fine to give up some liberty in exchange for security.


Where does someone else's liberty to carry firearms end and my liberty not to get shot start?
 
2012-12-15 04:08:08 PM

DoomPaul: Surely it's fine to give up some liberty in exchange for security.

[i50.tinypic.com image 500x270]


Except I'm not afraid of the government, I'm afraid of some lone wolf wackjob mad at being spanked by his big breasted mother and deciding to mow me down while I buy porn and mac n cheese at 7-11.
 
2012-12-15 04:08:18 PM

cameroncrazy1984: basemetal: What if the civilian only took out the gunman, would they still be a dumbass civilian?

Again, that's never happened before so...


Apparently you have me on ignore because a posted a link for you two days ago that says otherwise.
 
2012-12-15 04:08:30 PM
And the media has another orgasm as it rushes to it's places, somber looks on their faces. Just before the camera goes on you hear, "Don't show me below the waist, I have a wet spot.
 
2012-12-15 04:08:32 PM

John Dewey: Well, I'm going to go drive my gun to the store. Hope there's enough room in the chamber for the groceries.


I loled
 
2012-12-15 04:08:59 PM

John Dewey: Well, I'm going to go drive my gun to the store. Hope there's enough room in the chamber for the groceries.


You're not thinking outside the box enough. If you USE your gun as the TOOL It was intended to be, you could rob the store and have lots of money--money to buy more GUNS with!
 
2012-12-15 04:09:10 PM

tricycleracer: The Baker Act, 5150, etc. needs to be federal at this point. That's the only remote possibility of avoiding shiat like this.


I can support such a proposal.
 
2012-12-15 04:09:10 PM

John Dewey: globalwarmingpraiser: Most gun owners consider their guns like insurance. Something that they never need.

I'm don't doubt that's what Nancy Lanza thought. She probably even taught her kids responsible ownership and respect for the guns. Maybe even took them to the range.

I know that's what I thought until yesterday.


How can you teach something you don't know yourself. Keeping YOUR guns unlocked, is NOT responsible.
 
2012-12-15 04:09:19 PM

Generation_D: tshauk: Generation_D: tshauk: TheEdibleSnuggie: globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.

I'm convinced a lot of this insanity has something to do with the supposed end of the world being on the 21st of this month; people are going stupid.

Really..... Just this year? School shooting's have been taking place in this country since the 1700's. Not to mention all the other types of gun violence. Don't by naive, this is America, we were built by the use of firearms.

And now we're crumbling from within because of it. Hopefully we don't become Somalia or Afghanistan.

I'll agree we are crumbling, but not because of weapons in our homes, no no...that's just to simple; it's because Americans have lost any back bone and are no controlled by what the media and politicians tell them to think, and the masses drink it all up. No will power to adjust a corrupt Government. We used to be a nation FOR the people, BY the people, when was the last time you felt your Government was on YOUR side?

About never, whats your point. Owning a gun isn't changing that one.


That is my point Gen D..... We have the ability to change our political landscape to reflect a less corrupt Government, we simply lack the will. When the masses once again decide we have been spoon fed enough bullshiat and our backs are breaking under the yolks of a corrupt Government, I kinda hope I still own a gun.
 
2012-12-15 04:09:25 PM

Gosling: globalwarmingpraiser: How about we justify you not being thrown in jail? You might rape someone. Shouldn't you justify that you won't rape someone.

Okay, let's set down some firm boundaries, regardless of what the law says. Even though one might have a concealed-carry permit, even though one might be ALLOWED to carry a gun into an elementary school, even though we just had a shooting in an elementary school, that does not make it OKAY to carry a gun into an elementary school. It doesn't matter if the Supreme Court okays it 9-0. You do not pack heat in an elementary school. Under any circumstances. Full stop. You do not pack heat in a hospital. Under any circumstances. Full stop. You do not place 5-year-olds or hospital patients in a position to get caught in the crossfire of a shootout. That's not advocating law. That's advocating basic human decency. Just because the law says you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD. The law doesn't prevent me from hiding under the seat of a movie theater and leaping out and screaming out the ending to everyone the second the lights dim. But if I did so, I would be an asshole. If you pack heat in a hospital or an elementary school, you are an asshole.

People need to stop themselves for five seconds and consider, truly consider, where the hell they're thinking it's okay to have a gun. They need to stop themselves for five seconds and truly THINK about what kind of guns they really need to have, and how many they need to have. You are in Anytown USA. Al Qaeda is not coming over the horizon in a fleet of helicopters with Ride of the Valkyries playing in the background, and if it was, the Army's got it handled anyway. If the arsenal you have on hand in your house is sufficient to take on such a fleet, you need to scale back. A simple handgun is sufficient for most of your home-invasion needs, and that's in the unlikely event that a home invasion ever happens to you at all and you are able to reach your gun before the intruder do ...


I was responding in a manner to ridicule a ridiculous idea. I used hyperbole. Hell the person I responded got it, even though we disagree.
 
2012-12-15 04:09:31 PM
Apparently every firearm is a dnaGeneration_D:
I'm much more likely to get caught in gang crime crossfires or lone gun nut shooting up a mall than I am likely to get raped.

Sounds like you're the selfish one. "12% of women answered "yes" to questions about whether they experienced something that met the definition of attempted rape." I can furnish citations if you desire. But I seriously doubt 12% of women have been in a shootout.
 
2012-12-15 04:09:33 PM

John Dewey: Sultan Of Herf: Banning guns isnt going to stop muggers, rapists, home invaders, robbery, assault and the vast majority of all other crime...and they know it...but getting those scary guns taken away will make them feel safe, for a little while. Until a friend, family member, or even them personally is a victim of crime...then they will have something new to scream about.

And this is precisely why I see gun ownership as a selfish act. You feel safer and yet endanger the lives of unknown innocents.


Please explain how my guns, safely stored in a house full of stable people, are endangering any innocent people...and do it without using their simple existence as the basis of your argument...also do it without further assumption, including but not limited to my personal experience, training or expertise, since you dont have any knowledge of those.


Dimensio: John Dewey: Why am I the one having to justify not owning killing devices? Shouldn't the gun owners have to justify their need to own? Talk about backwards land.

In free societies, rights of action and of ownership are allowed by default, and restriction requires justification. Perhaps you prefer residence in an authoritarian society.


No no, he (and those of like mind) just want the restriction or ban of things that make them scared, and/or dont inconvenience them. You will notice that despite the huge number of unjustified deaths blamed on irresponsibility while operating a motor vehicle, they arent calling for a ban or restrictions on owning them. Clearly current levels of driver training and deterrents to things like drunk driving arent sufficient, people are still dying...but you dont see the outrage over that.
 
2012-12-15 04:09:34 PM
Comparing the danger of guns to the danger of cars seems like a silly argument now, and will seem even sillier in the future when humans aren't allowed to operate them.
 
2012-12-15 04:09:42 PM
mr lawson
Yeah, that's been posted ad nauseum on my Facebook wall by my Tea Party friends/relatives. It's great to know that you have this problem boiled down to a single derp-y slogan.
 
2012-12-15 04:10:08 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Medic Zero: You think 300 million guns are going to evaporate?

If laws were put in place making them illegal, most would. The others would be weeded out over time.


The Ca. national guard is approx 22k strong. There are 12 million households in California. Good luck with that house to house confiscation. Also, who the hell is going to pay for your confiscation scheme? Even if you don't compensate gun owners the sheer and cost size of the enterprise would rival or exceed the entire war on terror.
 
2012-12-15 04:10:16 PM

ultraholland: John Dewey: Well, I'm going to go drive my gun to the store. Hope there's enough room in the chamber for the groceries.

I'm happy that you've made progress today.


He was continuing with the stupid argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people. I was just reminding him that actually it is people with guns that kill people.
 
2012-12-15 04:10:17 PM

mr lawson: We don't need gun control. We need Psychos control.
Criminals do not shoot up schools...Psychos do.


Psychos with guns. Freely gotten because gun nuts demanded it.
 
2012-12-15 04:10:18 PM

mr lawson: We don't need gun control. We need Psychos control.
Criminals do not shoot up schools...Psychos do.


images1.wikia.nocookie.net

To be fair, they think we're man-animals.
 
2012-12-15 04:10:30 PM

cameroncrazy1984: How do you think the US military secures a country?


superior fire-power?
 
2012-12-15 04:10:54 PM

zippolight2002: Keeping YOUR guns unlocked, is NOT responsible.


Do we know that's what she did?

But do you not see the fallacy/slipper slope here?

As the details come out I foresee gun owners falling into a false sense of security, "Well obviously if she'd just ___________ then this wouldn't have happened. I know I don't __________ so it won't happen to me and mine"

When will we eventually run out of ___________'s?
 
2012-12-15 04:11:49 PM

drewogatory: The Ca. national guard is approx 22k strong. There are 12 million households in California. Good luck with that house to house confiscation.


So you think most registered gun owners would ignore laws to turn in their weapons after being given notice to do so?
 
2012-12-15 04:12:16 PM

globalwarmingpraiser: I was responding in a manner to ridicule a ridiculous idea. I used hyperbole. Hell the person I responded got it, even though we disagree.


Ah. Well, in any case. I needed to get that out regardless.
 
2012-12-15 04:12:21 PM
Lunatics need to be in a rubber room with a coat that ties in the back, not walking the streets.
 
mjg
2012-12-15 04:12:33 PM
www.delvecchio.ca

Sometimes ...

/sad
 
2012-12-15 04:12:39 PM

tshauk: Generation_D: tshauk: TheEdibleSnuggie: globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.

I'm convinced a lot of this insanity has something to do with the supposed end of the world being on the 21st of this month; people are going stupid.

Really..... Just this year? School shooting's have been taking place in this country since the 1700's. Not to mention all the other types of gun violence. Don't by naive, this is America, we were built by the use of firearms.

And now we're crumbling from within because of it. Hopefully we don't become Somalia or Afghanistan.

I'll agree we are crumbling, but not because of weapons in our homes, no no...that's just to simple; it's because Americans have lost any back bone and are no controlled by what the media and politicians tell them to think, and the masses drink it all up. No will power to adjust a corrupt Government. We used to be a nation FOR the people, BY the people, when was the last time you felt your Government was on YOUR side?


Oooooookay. So the guy shot kindergartners because the government is corrupt? Are the Illuminati and the Reptilians also working with the government to make the New World Order?
 
2012-12-15 04:12:51 PM

Mark Ratner: The Mayan apocalypse has begun.


Pretty sure the Spanish had the Mayan apocalypse wrapped up by the end of 1697.
 
2012-12-15 04:12:54 PM

Popcorn Johnny: drewogatory: The Ca. national guard is approx 22k strong. There are 12 million households in California. Good luck with that house to house confiscation.

So you think most registered gun owners would ignore laws to turn in their weapons after being given notice to do so?


Probably the same individuals who ignore federal law that prohibits usage of marijuana, despite what state law says.
 
2012-12-15 04:12:55 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: Dinki: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

You are thinking too small. Everybody over the age of 18 15 12 needs to be armed, all the time. It's the only way to insure that we are safe.

wasn't the tradition in the old west something like 8 or 9 for a father to start teaching his son how to shoot (with a .22 or something similar)?


Not sure about the "old" west. Dad started me shooting at 4. Gave me a .22 when I turned 7 and a 12 gauge when I turned 13. Both of them hold places of honor in the gun safe to this day.

/born in 68. Does that qualify as Old West?
//if so, off my lawn.
 
2012-12-15 04:13:00 PM
Family dispute, has nothing to do with the other murders.
 
2012-12-15 04:13:06 PM

Popcorn Johnny: drewogatory: The Ca. national guard is approx 22k strong. There are 12 million households in California. Good luck with that house to house confiscation.

So you think most registered gun owners would ignore laws to turn in their weapons after being given notice to do so?


Catch-22 was such a good movie. Didn't they make a book out of that?
 
2012-12-15 04:13:15 PM
Here is a modest proposal that I'm actually kind of liking - http://moproposal.blogspot.com/2012/12/121512-i-am-extraordinarily-ang ry-and.html

1. Firearms remain legal. But, they must be larger than a grown man's arm, so that they cannot be concealed. They must also be day-glo orange, so that they are unmistakably guns. Whoever carries their gun must wear a day-glo orange hat that says, CARRYING A GUN on it. Hunters will not have to change their behavior or (with the exception of painting their guns) their outfits in any real way. Failure to adhere to this law will result in 20 years in prison, no exceptions.

2. Any entertainment (TV, Movies, Video Games, Books, etc.) that feature gun-play will be subject to a tax of 20% of the producers' profits. Producers can still make blood-soaked entertainment, understanding that their profits will be reduced.

3. The press can only publish the names or biographies of mass killers by paying a 20% tax on their organization's profits for the year. To avoid the tax, mass killers can be denoted by an alias ("A-hole #4", for example), insuring that slaughter is not an easy road to fame. Any news organization will also be fined $200,000.00 every time they ask a victim of senseless violence "how they feel". They fine doubles if a minor is asked that inane question (We can guess how they feel on our own, thanks).
 
2012-12-15 04:13:16 PM

John Dewey: globalwarmingpraiser: Most gun owners consider their guns like insurance. Something that they never need.

I'm don't doubt that's what Nancy Lanza thought. She probably even taught her kids responsible ownership and respect for the guns. Maybe even took them to the range.

I know that's what I thought until yesterday.


We can no more legislate away risk than we can legislate away hate, evil, or crazy. You want backing on better psych care, hey I am with you. You want better background checks, I am on your side. But when an honor student wants to kill a lot of people, I am sure that he will be able to. A few household cleaners and a plan would do it. And it would be even more gruesome.
 
2012-12-15 04:13:20 PM

KiwDaWabbit: DoomPaul: Surely it's fine to give up some liberty in exchange for security.

Where does someone else's liberty to carry firearms end and my liberty not to get shot start?


When the gun nuts tell you its OK to keep living in their country, obviously.

Or, when the rest of the world tells the USA to cut out the crap.

We're 6% of the worlds population, and the world doesn't have gun laws even close to ours.

With immigration like it is, with more and more people growing up in fear of gun nuts and gun nut demands for violence, I have no doubt eventually we will outlaw guns, or at the least, bring back "Well-Regulated" militias.

Not this crap we have now, a bunch of dufuses with minor arsenals thinking they're more secure, then acting amazed and shocked (or increasingly, defensive and angry) when their failed philosophy results in Yet Another Massacre.
 
2012-12-15 04:13:32 PM

Popcorn Johnny: drewogatory: The Ca. national guard is approx 22k strong. There are 12 million households in California. Good luck with that house to house confiscation.

So you think most registered gun owners would ignore laws to turn in their weapons after being given notice to do so?


Enough to give us about fifteen Ruby Ridge-style incidents a month, yeah.
 
2012-12-15 04:13:42 PM

tshauk: TheEdibleSnuggie: globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.

I'm convinced a lot of this insanity has something to do with the supposed end of the world being on the 21st of this month; people are going stupid.

Really..... Just this year? School shooting's have been taking place in this country since the 1700's. Not to mention all the other types of gun violence. Don't by naive, this is America, we were built by the use of firearms.


Ok, I'm going to have to explain this to you...

No, I'm not surprised by school shootings, or gun violence-- period. I know it happens, I know it's in our culture, and that's not what I'm referring to. However, this recent uptick in people going completely off the deep end with the gun violence this year; this month? Like bozos walking into a school full of children and opening fire? Or this guy who walks into a hospital and takes out 2 - 3 people? Yeah, I'm going to attribute that to all this ridiculous hysteria concerning the 'end of the world.'

You're talking about people who have nothing to lose, and probably figure the world is going to end in a week- so fark it.
 
2012-12-15 04:13:49 PM
This Nick Meli fellow (one of those mystical concealed carry heroes) is popping up as "something you'll never hear from the liberal media." I think it's more of a "this guy is possibly a full of shiat attention whore" issue but was wondering if anybody had another take.
 
2012-12-15 04:14:23 PM

mr lawson: cameroncrazy1984: How do you think the US military secures a country?

superior fire-power?


Also, organization and training

But logistically and reasonably, nobody's going to take your guns. The UK government didn't do it in 1997 and if the US tightens restricitions similarly, we won't do it either.
 
2012-12-15 04:15:08 PM
Dimensio
In this incident, the problem was clearly with access by an unstable individual, not ability for an unstable individual to purchase. A reasonable means of addressing this situation -- beyond examining the overall state of mental health care and treatment in the United States of America -- is consideration of firearms storage (or even presence) when a mentally ill individual lives in the residence.

I do know that individuals may be arrested for storing firearms in homes in which a convicted felon resides, even if the owner of the firearms is not a prohibited person. How this law currently applies to mentally unstable individuals, however, I do not know.


What would you think of a state law imposing liability on a gun owner if the gun is used by another person to commit a non-justifiable homicide (and was not stolen)? That would put the onus on the gun owner to take steps to secure the gun from being used by another person.
 
2012-12-15 04:15:14 PM

The_Sponge: KNOCK IT OFF!


captainmaxthedestroyer: THIS HAS TO STOP NOW


Shrugging Atlas: ENOUGH


You're right - ban the Caps Lock!
 
2012-12-15 04:15:40 PM

Generation_D: John Dewey: Why am I the one having to justify not owning killing devices? Shouldn't the gun owners have to justify their need to own? Talk about backwards land.

I'm fully in favor of removing the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution. Outdated crap that holds us back, makes us the slow kid in the world.



I think the 2nd amendment can be replaced. 38 out of 50 states are required. Gun nuts are a minority, and tragedies like these are almost universally dismayed.

I don't think the writers of the constitution envisioned mass produced semiautomatic handguns and the social ills they create when that amendment was written.

Let's replace the 2nd amendment with something less vague. I think there are certainly legitimate uses for private ownership of guns - wildlife land management and hunting - with manually loaded long guns. But man-killing handguns, especially semi-autos, should be tightly regulated and the replacement amendment should make it clear the government has the right to do so.

The difficult question is what to do with the millions of guns and accessories out there, and the culture surrounding them. For that, I propose that as a society, gun nuttery and the violence fetishization becomes as socially unacceptable as racism or homophobia. We don't have to support this.
 
2012-12-15 04:15:57 PM

Popcorn Johnny: drewogatory: The Ca. national guard is approx 22k strong. There are 12 million households in California. Good luck with that house to house confiscation.

So you think most registered gun owners would ignore laws to turn in their weapons after being given notice to do so?


I suspect that many firearm owners would wait until the Supreme Court of the United States ruled upon the validity of the confiscation order.
 
2012-12-15 04:15:58 PM

NotoriousFire: Popcorn Johnny: drewogatory: The Ca. national guard is approx 22k strong. There are 12 million households in California. Good luck with that house to house confiscation.

So you think most registered gun owners would ignore laws to turn in their weapons after being given notice to do so?

Probably the same individuals who ignore federal law that prohibits usage of marijuana, despite what state law says.


Why do you think those are the same individuals?

Are you really this intellectually bankrupt? If so, its ignore list time
 
2012-12-15 04:16:15 PM

Skyd1v: HindiDiscoMonster: Dinki: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

You are thinking too small. Everybody over the age of 18 15 12 needs to be armed, all the time. It's the only way to insure that we are safe.

wasn't the tradition in the old west something like 8 or 9 for a father to start teaching his son how to shoot (with a .22 or something similar)?

Not sure about the "old" west. Dad started me shooting at 4. Gave me a .22 when I turned 7 and a 12 gauge when I turned 13. Both of them hold places of honor in the gun safe to this day.

/born in 68. Does that qualify as Old West?
//if so, off my lawn.


Same here I was born in 77. Started off on my grandpas 22. Then bumped up to shotguns a few years later. My niece and nephew have as well. Both born in the late 90's and now shot three generations of guns.
 
2012-12-15 04:16:16 PM

John Dewey: zippolight2002: Keeping YOUR guns unlocked, is NOT responsible.

Do we know that's what she did?

But do you not see the fallacy/slipper slope here?

As the details come out I foresee gun owners falling into a false sense of security, "Well obviously if she'd just ___________ then this wouldn't have happened. I know I don't __________ so it won't happen to me and mine"

When will we eventually run out of ___________'s?


Hey, if it turns out she didn't lock her guns up like she was supposed to. Maybe it'll wake up other gun-owners that do the same.
 
2012-12-15 04:16:21 PM
To the people that think the military would just follow orders and go around confiscating guns, you really do think our military would turn on their own countrymen, their friends, their neighbors, like they would going house to house in a foreign land?

I don't believe for a minute they would. I know we've pretty much gutted the 4th after 9/11, but I don't think house to house weapons seizures would go over well, unless you want to get rid of the 4th when you repeal the 2nd.

/Will never happen
//Lets start treating crazy people..which is something all of those gun-free countries also do very well
 
2012-12-15 04:16:25 PM

Fellate O'Fish: What would you think of a state law imposing liability on a gun owner if the gun is used by another person to commit a non-justifiable homicide (and was not stolen)? That would put the onus on the gun owner to take steps to secure the gun from being used by another person.


This actually makes sense. I'd vote for this in a second.
 
2012-12-15 04:16:45 PM

Fellate O'Fish: Dimensio
In this incident, the problem was clearly with access by an unstable individual, not ability for an unstable individual to purchase. A reasonable means of addressing this situation -- beyond examining the overall state of mental health care and treatment in the United States of America -- is consideration of firearms storage (or even presence) when a mentally ill individual lives in the residence.

I do know that individuals may be arrested for storing firearms in homes in which a convicted felon resides, even if the owner of the firearms is not a prohibited person. How this law currently applies to mentally unstable individuals, however, I do not know.

What would you think of a state law imposing liability on a gun owner if the gun is used by another person to commit a non-justifiable homicide (and was not stolen)? That would put the onus on the gun owner to take steps to secure the gun from being used by another person.


I agree something needs to be done, but I draw the line at holding other people responsible for something they did not physically do.
 
2012-12-15 04:17:20 PM

NotoriousFire: Popcorn Johnny: drewogatory: The Ca. national guard is approx 22k strong. There are 12 million households in California. Good luck with that house to house confiscation.

So you think most registered gun owners would ignore laws to turn in their weapons after being given notice to do so?

Probably the same individuals who ignore federal law that prohibits usage of marijuana, despite what state law says.


All US citizens obey every law all the time.

i49.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-15 04:17:32 PM

Generation_D: Psychos with guns. Freely gotten because gun nuts demanded it.


Psychos are the problem. Lock 'em up, get them help, hell... tag and release. Do what it takes to remove them from out society. Only then will the mass shootings end.
/plus get the media to quit going gaga when they happen. Don't encourage them.
 
2012-12-15 04:18:03 PM
Can we get a flashing Dumbass tag?
 
2012-12-15 04:18:04 PM

John Dewey: Here is a modest proposal that I'm actually kind of liking - http://moproposal.blogspot.com/2012/12/121512-i-am-extraordinarily-ang ry-and.html

1. Firearms remain legal. But, they must be larger than a grown man's arm, so that they cannot be concealed. They must also be day-glo orange, so that they are unmistakably guns. Whoever carries their gun must wear a day-glo orange hat that says, CARRYING A GUN on it. Hunters will not have to change their behavior or (with the exception of painting their guns) their outfits in any real way. Failure to adhere to this law will result in 20 years in prison, no exceptions.

2. Any entertainment (TV, Movies, Video Games, Books, etc.) that feature gun-play will be subject to a tax of 20% of the producers' profits. Producers can still make blood-soaked entertainment, understanding that their profits will be reduced.

3. The press can only publish the names or biographies of mass killers by paying a 20% tax on their organization's profits for the year. To avoid the tax, mass killers can be denoted by an alias ("A-hole #4", for example), insuring that slaughter is not an easy road to fame. Any news organization will also be fined $200,000.00 every time they ask a victim of senseless violence "how they feel". They fine doubles if a minor is asked that inane question (We can guess how they feel on our own, thanks).


Those are some of the most pants-on-head retarded ideas I have ever read. I fail to see how #2 and #3 would have any impact whatsoever on gun violence and #1 would be ignored entirely by anyone set on carnage because hey, what does the sentence for carrying a gun matter when you're planning on mass murder anyhow?

Seriously. That's some dumb sh*t right there.
 
2012-12-15 04:18:29 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: tshauk: Generation_D: tshauk: TheEdibleSnuggie: globalwarmingpraiser: This year has been crazy. WTF is wrong with people.

I'm convinced a lot of this insanity has something to do with the supposed end of the world being on the 21st of this month; people are going stupid.

Really..... Just this year? School shooting's have been taking place in this country since the 1700's. Not to mention all the other types of gun violence. Don't by naive, this is America, we were built by the use of firearms.

And now we're crumbling from within because of it. Hopefully we don't become Somalia or Afghanistan.

I'll agree we are crumbling, but not because of weapons in our homes, no no...that's just to simple; it's because Americans have lost any back bone and are no controlled by what the media and politicians tell them to think, and the masses drink it all up. No will power to adjust a corrupt Government. We used to be a nation FOR the people, BY the people, when was the last time you felt your Government was on YOUR side?

Oooooookay. So the guy shot kindergartners because the government is corrupt? Are the Illuminati and the Reptilians also working with the government to make the New World Order?


Don't get side tracked by stupidity: I'm not talking about the horrible incident yesterday. It's the larger debate, don't take my guns until we have built a more representative Government, then I will gladly hand them over.
 
2012-12-15 04:18:35 PM

zippolight2002: John Dewey: zippolight2002: Keeping YOUR guns unlocked, is NOT responsible.

Do we know that's what she did?

But do you not see the fallacy/slipper slope here?

As the details come out I foresee gun owners falling into a false sense of security, "Well obviously if she'd just ___________ then this wouldn't have happened. I know I don't __________ so it won't happen to me and mine"

When will we eventually run out of ___________'s?

Hey, if it turns out she didn't lock her guns up like she was supposed to. Maybe it'll wake up other gun-owners that NOT do the same.


ftfm
 
2012-12-15 04:18:36 PM
upload.wikimedia.org
Don Letts RIP
 
2012-12-15 04:19:11 PM

zippolight2002: zippolight2002: John Dewey: zippolight2002: Keeping YOUR guns unlocked, is NOT responsible.

Do we know that's what she did?

But do you not see the fallacy/slipper slope here?

As the details come out I foresee gun owners falling into a false sense of security, "Well obviously if she'd just ___________ then this wouldn't have happened. I know I don't __________ so it won't happen to me and mine"

When will we eventually run out of ___________'s?

Hey, if it turns out she didn't lock her guns up like she was supposed to. Maybe it'll wake up other gun-owners that NOT do the same.

ftfm


Screwed it up again, nvm.
 
2012-12-15 04:19:17 PM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: This Nick Meli fellow (one of those mystical concealed carry heroes) is popping up as "something you'll never hear from the liberal media." I think it's more of a "this guy is possibly a full of shiat attention whore" issue but was wondering if anybody had another take.


The funny part is it only defeats the argument that the rambo fantacists have, that more guns would lead to less shootings. Its nearly impossible for a civilian to identify the actual threat and make a smart decision. He didn't stop it, all he did was risk more lives by pulling out his weapon.
 
2012-12-15 04:19:37 PM
If you think censoring the name of spree shooters will stop spree shooters, you have failed to think from the perspective of spree shooters. If you insist that they are doing it for fame, I think there is a lot more allure to being known as "He Who Should Not Be Named."

Or maybe these people are not monsters. Maybe they really are just sick, and sick in a way that could afflict yourself or your loved ones. Nobody is so far removed from an undiagnosed psychosis that they can truly say they would never do this. It isn't about them vs. us and that we need to weed out the them. By all means though, keep bloviating about how you are above this monster by describing in detail how you'd dismember him slowly.
 
2012-12-15 04:20:02 PM

A Shambling Mound: Mark Ratner: The Mayan apocalypse has begun.

Pretty sure the Spanish had the Mayan apocalypse wrapped up by the end of 1697.


+1..you know what I meant, smartass
 
2012-12-15 04:20:24 PM

John Dewey: Here is a modest proposal that I'm actually kind of liking - http://moproposal.blogspot.com/2012/12/121512-i-am-extraordinarily-ang ry-and.html

1. Firearms remain legal. But, they must be larger than a grown man's arm, so that they cannot be concealed. They must also be day-glo orange, so that they are unmistakably guns. Whoever carries their gun must wear a day-glo orange hat that says, CARRYING A GUN on it. Hunters will not have to change their behavior or (with the exception of painting their guns) their outfits in any real way. Failure to adhere to this law will result in 20 years in prison, no exceptions.

2. Any entertainment (TV, Movies, Video Games, Books, etc.) that feature gun-play will be subject to a tax of 20% of the producers' profits. Producers can still make blood-soaked entertainment, understanding that their profits will be reduced.

3. The press can only publish the names or biographies of mass killers by paying a 20% tax on their organization's profits for the year. To avoid the tax, mass killers can be denoted by an alias ("A-hole #4", for example), insuring that slaughter is not an easy road to fame. Any news organization will also be fined $200,000.00 every time they ask a victim of senseless violence "how they feel". They fine doubles if a minor is asked that inane question (We can guess how they feel on our own, thanks).


no problem with this at all.
 
2012-12-15 04:20:35 PM

DoomPaul: Generation_D: DoomPaul: Thankfully security was on hand this time, but you get the point.

[i45.tinypic.com image 539x539]

Now put that up against stats showing how many people in a Western country outside the USA are killed by guns, at all. See how it does.

[i48.tinypic.com image 659x819]


The problem is Japan and Switzerland can not be compared to the US and Mexico. They are both extremely disciplined by nature, where as Americans and Mexicans are not.
 
2012-12-15 04:20:46 PM

mr lawson: Generation_D: Psychos with guns. Freely gotten because gun nuts demanded it.

Psychos are the problem. Lock 'em up, get them help, hell... tag and release. Do what it takes to remove them from out society. Only then will the mass shootings end.
/plus get the media to quit going gaga when they happen. Don't encourage them.


Like i said, we're locking you up. You're fine with that? We've deemed you a psycho
 
2012-12-15 04:21:10 PM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: If you think censoring the name of spree shooters will stop spree shooters, you have failed to think from the perspective of spree shooters. If you insist that they are doing it for fame, I think there is a lot more allure to being known as "He Who Should Not Be Named."


Agreed, part of that whole "Anonymous" allure that spurs kiddie hackers into the lifestyle.
 
2012-12-15 04:21:37 PM

Molavian: Generation_D: DoomPaul: Thankfully security was on hand this time, but you get the point.

[i45.tinypic.com image 539x539]

Now put that up against stats showing how many people in a Western country outside the USA are killed by guns, at all. See how it does.

The only western country the same size as ours is Australia AND CANADA, and the population density isn't there. Neither are the demographics.


but I digress...
 
2012-12-15 04:22:24 PM
no one else amazed that the queens husband, Prince Philip, hasn't made a reference connecting shooting people to a cricket match.

and yes he has done that....
 
2012-12-15 04:23:14 PM

Mark Ratner: A Shambling Mound: Mark Ratner: The Mayan apocalypse has begun.

Pretty sure the Spanish had the Mayan apocalypse wrapped up by the end of 1697.

+1..you know what I meant, smartass


Why yes. Yes, I did. :)
 
2012-12-15 04:23:17 PM

Fellate O'Fish: Dimensio
In this incident, the problem was clearly with access by an unstable individual, not ability for an unstable individual to purchase. A reasonable means of addressing this situation -- beyond examining the overall state of mental health care and treatment in the United States of America -- is consideration of firearms storage (or even presence) when a mentally ill individual lives in the residence.

I do know that individuals may be arrested for storing firearms in homes in which a convicted felon resides, even if the owner of the firearms is not a prohibited person. How this law currently applies to mentally unstable individuals, however, I do not know.

What would you think of a state law imposing liability on a gun owner if the gun is used by another person to commit a non-justifiable homicide (and was not stolen)? That would put the onus on the gun owner to take steps to secure the gun from being used by another person.


I could only support such a measure if the law required "reasonable" measures (with actual "reasonable" measures defined) that, if followed, would absolve a firearm owner of liability. A firearm owner whose firearms are stolen despite taking reasonable measures to secure his or her firearms should suffer no liability for the actions of criminals.
 
2012-12-15 04:23:56 PM

Popcorn Johnny: drewogatory: The Ca. national guard is approx 22k strong. There are 12 million households in California. Good luck with that house to house confiscation.

So you think most registered gun owners would ignore laws to turn in their weapons after being given notice to do so?


Without fair compensation? Alot. I'd wager a very large number of folks would hide them and hope the law was struck down at a later date rather than lose tens of thousands of dollars with no compensation. Or choose to sell them on the black market when the value inevitably skyrockets. And America has a far,far more entrenched and sophisticated gun culture than any of the other countries you've mentioned, to think that you can somehow uninvent the wheel is absurd.
 
2012-12-15 04:24:18 PM
I bet guns evolve out of American culture, if it survives, in under 100 years.

Enjoy your freedoms to shoot everything you want now.
 
2012-12-15 04:24:57 PM

buzzcut73: To the people that think the military would just follow orders and go around confiscating guns, you really do think our military would turn on their own countrymen, their friends, their neighbors, like they would going house to house in a foreign land?

I don't believe for a minute they would. I know we've pretty much gutted the 4th after 9/11, but I don't think house to house weapons seizures would go over well, unless you want to get rid of the 4th when you repeal the 2nd.

/Will never happen
//Lets start treating crazy people..which is something all of those gun-free countries also do very well



In a rational discussion, confiscations are plain unnecessary as much as they are impractical and ill-advised. Better to tackle the social issues that lead to the fetishization of weapons, make purchasing new weapons more difficult, and perhaps a well funded buyback program for guns and accessories.
 
2012-12-15 04:25:14 PM

saturn badger: flucto: MaudlinMutantMollusk: becoming numb to it

I'm not becoming numb, I'm becoming angry. Something must change. Also, F*CK the NRA.

When was the last time you saw a NRA member shoot someone?


Dick Cheney?
 
2012-12-15 04:25:17 PM

Generation_D: mr lawson: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 542x539]

Thats funny. I would vote "All weapons prohibited on the premises." And define that as the whole country.

I'd much rather outlaw guns entirely and then sort out who the criminals are, than leave guns lying around and wait for the next round of victims to happen.


Good luck getting my guns for less than market value. Otherwise you'll be finding the confiscation process to be a right biatch.
 
2012-12-15 04:25:50 PM
The way I see it, there is no one answer, but everything needs to be on the table for discussion in the U.S. That doesn't mean that Big Brother is going to take away your guns, but it does mean that the national dialogue needs to be all-inclusive and not all-dismissive as I fear it will be.

Again, in my opinion, three things need to change:

1. Violence (not just gun violence) needs to become less socially acceptable in the U.S., period. This will take quite a large sociocultural shift.

2. The U.S. needs a robust mental healthcare system, which includes education for the populace at large that having a mental disorder doesn't make you "defective" and that sometimes, you can't just "suck it up, Nancy". I'm sick of hearing "Back in my day, we didn't have therapy and talk about our emotions." Well, back in your day, schools were segregated and women were relegated to the kitchen. In a historical sense, "your day" sucked and you're on the wrong side of history.

3. We (the U.S.) need to make it more difficult to obtain a gun. That doesn't have to mean "impossible", but you'll have to go through more hoops. Sorry if you feel like you need your M-15 to protect your double-wide a few weeks earlier. You can be patient.
 
2012-12-15 04:26:02 PM

justtray: You're fine with that? We've deemed you a psycho


who is "we" and what is the test?
you know just spouting out hypotheticals not based on any real science or data make you look desperate. Or perhaps it is projection.
Let me guess...YOU or somebody you know has been found to be psychotic? Right?
 
2012-12-15 04:26:35 PM

justtray: Friction8r: John Dewey: NotoriousFire: Second amendment already justifies a gun owners "need" to own. You need to justify your point - the US Bill of Rights justifies against your point.

The Bill of Rights justified owning a musket.

The right of the People to keep and bear ARMS, not "muskets," ya dolt. I enjoy mine, and I'm keeping them, and you can't do a thing about it...except flame on, which is delightful!

Keep reading. Don't stop after the first sentence this time.

I hope you fight back when we force you to register your weapons and pay property taxes on them. Then we can legally put you down and remove you from the equation.


Who is WE? Some pussified lib posting on the internet?? You really think the military will EVER go house to house to confiscate all guns?? That notion is precisely why our Founders wanted the citizenry to be armed in the first place!! You lose! You have no game, and zero chance of taking our guns.
 
2012-12-15 04:26:45 PM

iq_in_binary: Generation_D: mr lawson: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 542x539]

Thats funny. I would vote "All weapons prohibited on the premises." And define that as the whole country.

I'd much rather outlaw guns entirely and then sort out who the criminals are, than leave guns lying around and wait for the next round of victims to happen.

Good luck getting my guns for less than market value. Otherwise you'll be finding the confiscation process to be a right biatch.


We'll just tax you on each one instead until you're begging us to give you anything for them.
 
2012-12-15 04:26:48 PM

Generation_D: I bet guns evolve out of American culture, if it survives, in under 100 years.

Enjoy your freedoms to shoot everything you want now.


I truly and wholeheartedly hope you are right.
 
2012-12-15 04:27:22 PM

KiwDaWabbit: The way I see it, there is no one answer, but everything needs to be on the table for discussion in the U.S. That doesn't mean that Big Brother is going to take away your guns, but it does mean that the national dialogue needs to be all-inclusive and not all-dismissive as I fear it will be.

Again, in my opinion, three things need to change:

1. Violence (not just gun violence) needs to become less socially acceptable in the U.S., period. This will take quite a large sociocultural shift.

2. The U.S. needs a robust mental healthcare system, which includes education for the populace at large that having a mental disorder doesn't make you "defective" and that sometimes, you can't just "suck it up, Nancy". I'm sick of hearing "Back in my day, we didn't have therapy and talk about our emotions." Well, back in your day, schools were segregated and women were relegated to the kitchen. In a historical sense, "your day" sucked and you're on the wrong side of history.

3. We (the U.S.) need to make it more difficult to obtain a gun. That doesn't have to mean "impossible", but you'll have to go through more hoops. Sorry if you feel like you need your M-15 to protect your double-wide a few weeks earlier. You can be patient.


Yup.
 
2012-12-15 04:27:23 PM

SlothB77: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 726x416]


Farking thing didn't even reach 1 this time.
 
2012-12-15 04:28:26 PM

SlothB77:


That image has an unrealistic number of columns hunny
 
2012-12-15 04:28:32 PM

mr lawson: justtray: You're fine with that? We've deemed you a psycho

who is "we" and what is the test?
you know just spouting out hypotheticals not based on any real science or data make you look desperate. Or perhaps it is projection.
Let me guess...YOU or somebody you know has been found to be psychotic? Right?


You tell me, you're the one who ignorantly uses it as a deflection. Who gets locked up?
 
2012-12-15 04:28:57 PM

iq_in_binary: Generation_D: mr lawson: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 542x539]

Thats funny. I would vote "All weapons prohibited on the premises." And define that as the whole country.

I'd much rather outlaw guns entirely and then sort out who the criminals are, than leave guns lying around and wait for the next round of victims to happen.

Good luck getting my guns for less than market value. Otherwise you'll be finding the confiscation process to be a right biatch.


I dont think I care what you own.

What I care about is the society we both share over values what you own as a necessity for survival and defense.

The rest of the world that we call civilized for the most part disputes the value you placed on owning weapons.

Thats what will eventually fix this. The rest of the world keeps seeping into America as much as we try and deny it.

Just like the Romney bots were shocked and amazed to find a majority didn't want their derp, so too will the gun owners one day be shocked and amazed that most in America dispute their need to own a gun, or their fear-based requirement that everyone else own one to feel defended too.
 
2012-12-15 04:29:04 PM

drewogatory: Without fair compensation? Alot.


So people with registered firearms would ignore the law and refuse to turn in their guns if the 2nd Amendment was repealed? Maybe a few nuts, but most people aren't that dumb.
 
2012-12-15 04:29:37 PM
Jaws_Victim
I agree something needs to be done, but I draw the line at holding other people responsible for something they did not physically do.

I understand your point. But it's not exactly radical. Tort law requires people to take reasonable steps to prevent property damage and injury to other people. If they fail to, and someone suffers property damage or is injured, they have to pay.

That's all this is. If you're a responsible gun owner, you should take reasonable steps to prevent your gun(s) from being used by someone else. That's especially true if someone with access to your gun(s) has a criminal record or has shown signs of mental instability.

In economic terms, it's a classic example of a negative externality. The law forces you to take steps to internalize costs that other people could incur as a result of your carelessness. And no guns are banned, confiscated, etc.
 
2012-12-15 04:29:48 PM

Friction8r: justtray: Friction8r: John Dewey: NotoriousFire: Second amendment already justifies a gun owners "need" to own. You need to justify your point - the US Bill of Rights justifies against your point.

The Bill of Rights justified owning a musket.

The right of the People to keep and bear ARMS, not "muskets," ya dolt. I enjoy mine, and I'm keeping them, and you can't do a thing about it...except flame on, which is delightful!

Keep reading. Don't stop after the first sentence this time.

I hope you fight back when we force you to register your weapons and pay property taxes on them. Then we can legally put you down and remove you from the equation.

Who is WE? Some pussified lib posting on the internet?? You really think the military will EVER go house to house to confiscate all guns?? That notion is precisely why our Founders wanted the citizenry to be armed in the first place!! You lose! You have no game, and zero chance of taking our guns.


If you believed that you wouldn't be in this thread trying to convince me otherwise.

Your guns will be taken, or you'll go broke or to jail trying to keep them. Win/win/win
 
2012-12-15 04:30:02 PM

justtray: You tell me, you're the one who ignorantly uses it as a deflection. Who gets locked up?


Start here
 
2012-12-15 04:30:37 PM

tricycleracer: Catch-22 was such a good movie. Didn't they make a book out of that?


Why you ... don't make me come over there!
 
2012-12-15 04:30:53 PM
 
2012-12-15 04:30:58 PM
So you have a society that celebrates stupidity, cuts education, thinks that guns are Jesus' gift from heaven, in economic downfall and no one puts 2 and 2 together?

Wow you Yanks are really really really stupid to say the least.
 
2012-12-15 04:32:15 PM

Popcorn Johnny: drewogatory: Without fair compensation? Alot.

So people with registered firearms would ignore the law and refuse to turn in their guns if the 2nd Amendment was repealed? Maybe a few nuts, but most people aren't that dumb.


What "registered" firearms do you keep referring to? Only a tiny fraction of the weapons in this country could be construed as registered in any way. There is no "lisT'. You would basically be dependant on the honour system to get people to declare them and turn them in.
 
2012-12-15 04:32:59 PM
TheDirtyNacho: I don't think the writers of the constitution envisioned mass produced semiautomatic handguns and the social ills they create when that amendment was written.

when the 2nd was written those available firearms were the most advanced of their day; they were mass produced as best they could be at that time. They were the most deadly weapons the world had seen. They could be reloaded faster than previous firearms. Your distinction between guns of yesteryear and now is quite arbitrary. When the 2nd was written its authors envisioned the citizenry possessing the most dangerous weapons ever.
 
2012-12-15 04:33:12 PM
Everyone with the over 270,000,000 privately owned guns in the United States please send your name, address, and social security number so we may tax and/or confiscate your guns.

Thank you. 

i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-15 04:33:47 PM

whither_apophis: So Obama gets reelected... suddenly a bunch of shootings happen... then the next thing you know he'll want to take away all our guns... OMG!!!

/sorry took off the tinfoil hat for a moment.


There were a bunch of people at Midway airport last night talking about how it's all a government conspiracy to blame it on a secret cult of secret gunmen that are trying to appear individual but are actually all in a group, to cover up the fact that it's actually the government shooting people.

I wanted to punch them in their faces so hard. SO HARD.
 
2012-12-15 04:33:52 PM

Popcorn Johnny: drewogatory: Without fair compensation? Alot.

So people with registered firearms would ignore the law and refuse to turn in their guns if the 2nd Amendment was repealed? Maybe a few nuts, but most people aren't that dumb.


Are you advocating confiscation without compensation?
 
2012-12-15 04:33:57 PM

mr lawson: justtray: You tell me, you're the one who ignorantly uses it as a deflection. Who gets locked up?

Start here


Be specific. I know rhe DS4. Do people with depression get locked up? How about semi autistic? Whose judgement do we defer to? All of those diagnoses are subjective. I accurately played two of the as pseudo patients in my psych class ~10 years ago. Everyone has some level of the disorders, and I think you'd be surprised to find out you do too, as well as most gun nuts having anti social personality disorder.

Like i said, we're locking you up, based on your own suggestion.
 
2012-12-15 04:34:21 PM
6 mass shootings in under 4 months. Another arrested yesterday plotting to do the same to a school in OK. This shooter was handled by those who had no weapons. The mass shooter at the army base was surrounded by trained soldiers with weapons and did more damage. The shooter in Texas was surrounded by those who could openly carry and a few did but was not stopped by them until he ran out of bullets.

The only way to stop this is to make move gun control to the Federal level. This way your gun permits are valid in EVERY state. Same rules in EVERY state. And the mentally ill can be prevented from getting guns. Nearly 90% of all these massacres were from folks who had LEGALLY OBTAINED guns. And nearly all of the shooters were WHITE.
 
2012-12-15 04:34:47 PM
DSM-IV even*
 
2012-12-15 04:35:04 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.


But he was the only armed person there. He didn't open fire until the cops arrived (after being called by unarmed hospital staff) and confronted him.
 
2012-12-15 04:36:43 PM

drewogatory: What "registered" firearms do you keep referring to? Only a tiny fraction of the weapons in this country could be construed as registered in any way. There is no "lisT'. You would basically be dependant on the honour system to get people to declare them and turn them in.


Keep thinking that.
 
2012-12-15 04:36:57 PM
Dimensio
I could only support such a measure if the law required "reasonable" measures (with actual "reasonable" measures defined) that, if followed, would absolve a firearm owner of liability.

Agreed. What would you think of something like -- when a gun is not in the owner's custody/possession, it should be placed in a secure gun safe or trigger-locked. If not, and another person uses the gun to kill or injure, the owner is also liable for the injury/death. (If the gun is in the owner's custody/possession, no such requirement. Obviously, such a measure would be unconstitutional under District of Columbia v. Heller.)

A firearm owner whose firearms are stolen despite taking reasonable measures to secure his or her firearms should suffer no liability for the actions of criminals.

Agreed. But in light of the fact that stolen firearms are frequently used in crime, what about owner liability for injury/death caused by a stolen firearm if the owner knew his/her gun was stolen and failed to report it?
 
2012-12-15 04:37:28 PM
'We heard after Columbine that it was too soon to talk about gun laws. We heard it after Virginia Tech. After Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek. And now we are hearing it again.

For every day we wait, 34 more people are murdered with guns. Today, many of them were five-year-olds.

President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown. But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem.

Calling for "meaningful action" is not enough. We need immediate action.'

-Mayor Bloomberg


Obama, Democrat, and Bloomberg, Republican appear to agree.

What say you, gun nuts? No laws can change because you say? Or is there just no need because its always the victims fault because they didn't arm themselves enough to shoot back in time?
 
2012-12-15 04:37:41 PM

KiwDaWabbit: The way I see it, there is no one answer, but everything needs to be on the table for discussion in the U.S. That doesn't mean that Big Brother is going to take away your guns, but it does mean that the national dialogue needs to be all-inclusive and not all-dismissive as I fear it will be.

Again, in my opinion, three things need to change:

1. Violence (not just gun violence) needs to become less socially acceptable in the U.S., period. This will take quite a large sociocultural shift.

2. The U.S. needs a robust mental healthcare system, which includes education for the populace at large that having a mental disorder doesn't make you "defective" and that sometimes, you can't just "suck it up, Nancy". I'm sick of hearing "Back in my day, we didn't have therapy and talk about our emotions." Well, back in your day, schools were segregated and women were relegated to the kitchen. In a historical sense, "your day" sucked and you're on the wrong side of history.

3. We (the U.S.) need to make it more difficult to obtain a gun. That doesn't have to mean "impossible", but you'll have to go through more hoops. Sorry if you feel like you need your M-15 to protect your double-wide a few weeks earlier. You can be patient.


Thank you, you saved me a bunch of typing. Very Well Said
 
2012-12-15 04:38:07 PM

Fellate O'Fish: Dimensio
I could only support such a measure if the law required "reasonable" measures (with actual "reasonable" measures defined) that, if followed, would absolve a firearm owner of liability.

Agreed. What would you think of something like -- when a gun is not in the owner's custody/possession, it should be placed in a secure gun safe or trigger-locked. If not, and another person uses the gun to kill or injure, the owner is also liable for the injury/death. (If the gun is in the owner's custody/possession, no such requirement. Obviously, such a measure would be unconstitutional under District of Columbia v. Heller.)

A firearm owner whose firearms are stolen despite taking reasonable measures to secure his or her firearms should suffer no liability for the actions of criminals.

Agreed. But in light of the fact that stolen firearms are frequently used in crime, what about owner liability for injury/death caused by a stolen firearm if the owner knew his/her gun was stolen and failed to report it?


I am not necessarily opposed to such a measure, but proving that an owner knew a firearm to be stolen is difficult.
 
2012-12-15 04:39:09 PM
Guns aren't really the problem, it's the attitudes towards them, as well as the over-glorification of violence.

The USA is basically screwed; this problem isn't going to go away no matter what: you can't fix stupid.
 
2012-12-15 04:39:49 PM
Fellate O'Fish: Agreed. But in light of the fact that stolen firearms are frequently used in crime, what about owner liability for injury/death caused by a stolen firearm if the owner knew his/her gun was stolen and failed to report it?

I'm absolutely fine with this. Only a moron would not report their weapon stolen, and they deserve pain.
 
2012-12-15 04:40:01 PM
To everyone defending gun rights as they currently are in America:

Your arguments are what helped this kid get weapons and murder 6 year olds.

I doubt you think that is true, but I do. Many others will too.
 
2012-12-15 04:40:58 PM

justtray: Everyone has some level of the disorders, and I think you'd be surprised to find out you do too, as well as most gun nuts having anti social personality disorder.


Whatever level a person is at which is deemed to have the highest probability of mass killings as defined by experts of such incidences.

/are you seriously defending Psychotic mass killers?!?!?
 
2012-12-15 04:41:00 PM
 
2012-12-15 04:41:05 PM

ekdikeo4: This is an open-shut case - suicide by cop.


BigBooper: Sounds more like suicide by cop.


This sounds like it to me. I really dislike 'Suicide by cop' though. I'm going to suggest we use one of the other terms, like victim-precipitated homicide. 'Blue suicide' is a creepy name if we need one.
 
2012-12-15 04:41:36 PM

WhippingBoy: Guns aren't really the problem, it's the attitudes towards them, as well as the over-glorification of violence.

The USA is basically screwed; this problem isn't going to go away no matter what: you can't fix stupid.


I think it evolves away over time. Worldwide, the USA gun owner is the outlier.
 
2012-12-15 04:41:54 PM
Dimensio: but proving that an owner knew a firearm to be stolen is difficult.

then the owner would not be liable if the state couldn't show that they knowingly failed to report the theft. The onus is on the state to provide evidence of wrongdoing.
 
2012-12-15 04:42:22 PM

Popcorn Johnny: drewogatory: What "registered" firearms do you keep referring to? Only a tiny fraction of the weapons in this country could be construed as registered in any way. There is no "lisT'. You would basically be dependant on the honour system to get people to declare them and turn them in.

Keep thinking that.


The vast majority of my life you could buy any firearm directly over the counter,cash and carry, no question asked,no records kept. So,yeah, I will keep thinking that.
 
2012-12-15 04:42:42 PM
Guns for everybody bumper sticker!

Convenient e-mail address on the webpage....
 
2012-12-15 04:42:45 PM
I don't think it's fair to compare gun bans to drug/alcohol bans. Any idiot can grow pot, coca, make moonshine, etc. on private property, which is why these bans are easily subverted. I don't think many people can manufacture their own guns at home.
 
2012-12-15 04:42:49 PM

Generation_D: To everyone defending gun rights as they currently are in America:

Your arguments are what helped this kid get weapons and murder 6 year olds.

I doubt you think that is true, but I do. Many others will too.


Your irrational assessment is not a valid basis for public policy.
 
2012-12-15 04:43:44 PM

KiwDaWabbit: The way I see it, there is no one answer, but everything needs to be on the table for discussion in the U.S. That doesn't mean that Big Brother is going to take away your guns, but it does mean that the national dialogue needs to be all-inclusive and not all-dismissive as I fear it will be.

Again, in my opinion, three things need to change:

1. Violence (not just gun violence) needs to become less socially acceptable in the U.S., period. This will take quite a large sociocultural shift.

2. The U.S. needs a robust mental healthcare system, which includes education for the populace at large that having a mental disorder doesn't make you "defective" and that sometimes, you can't just "suck it up, Nancy". I'm sick of hearing "Back in my day, we didn't have therapy and talk about our emotions." Well, back in your day, schools were segregated and women were relegated to the kitchen. In a historical sense, "your day" sucked and you're on the wrong side of history.

3. We (the U.S.) need to make it more difficult to obtain a gun. That doesn't have to mean "impossible", but you'll have to go through more hoops. Sorry if you feel like you need your M-15 to protect your double-wide a few weeks earlier. You can be patient.


This is Fark, quit being logical.
 
2012-12-15 04:44:04 PM
So what do you figure will be next? Nursing home? Maternity ward? Home for sick children?
Best prepare yourselves now for it, as it's pretty much inevitable at this point.
 
2012-12-15 04:44:26 PM
Generation_D: I doubt you think that is true, but I do.

Convincing. So convincing.
 
2012-12-15 04:44:26 PM
Dimensio
I am not necessarily opposed to such a measure, but proving that an owner knew a firearm to be stolen is difficult.

True. Can you think of an alternative measure that might achieve similar results? (I think some such measure would be beneficial, in light of the fact that stolen firearms are frequently used in violent crime.) I am aware that owners are required by federal law to report stolen firearms, but I am not sure how stringently the law is enforced, or whether it has significant criminal penalties.
 
2012-12-15 04:44:40 PM

John Dewey: Here is a modest proposal that I'm actually kind of liking - http://moproposal.blogspot.com/2012/12/121512-i-am-extraordinarily-ang ry-and.html

1. Firearms remain legal. But, they must be larger than a grown man's arm, so that they cannot be concealed. They must also be day-glo orange, so that they are unmistakably guns. Whoever carries their gun must wear a day-glo orange hat that says, CARRYING A GUN on it. Hunters will not have to change their behavior or (with the exception of painting their guns) their outfits in any real way. Failure to adhere to this law will result in 20 years in prison, no exceptions.

2. Any entertainment (TV, Movies, Video Games, Books, etc.) that feature gun-play will be subject to a tax of 20% of the producers' profits. Producers can still make blood-soaked entertainment, understanding that their profits will be reduced.

3. The press can only publish the names or biographies of mass killers by paying a 20% tax on their organization's profits for the year. To avoid the tax, mass killers can be denoted by an alias ("A-hole #4", for example), insuring that slaughter is not an easy road to fame. Any news organization will also be fined $200,000.00 every time they ask a victim of senseless violence "how they feel". They fine doubles if a minor is asked that inane question (We can guess how they feel on our own, thanks).


WTF am I reading? Sh*t like this is why I can't take gun-grabbers seriously. You have no intention of making America safer. You want to paint guns to look like water pistols and pretend that crazy murderers give a crap about the laws, or that something bigger than my hand cant be tucked under my coat. And then you want to put a strangulation of a tax on the First Amendment.
 
2012-12-15 04:45:06 PM
How does this relate to the school shooting? This was a guy with a gun, who was confronted police, and opened fire on them instead. He wasn't hunting down random people to shoot.
 
2012-12-15 04:45:23 PM

justtray: Friction8r: justtray: Friction8r: John Dewey: NotoriousFire: Second amendment already justifies a gun owners "need" to own. You need to justify your point - the US Bill of Rights justifies against your point.

The Bill of Rights justified owning a musket.

The right of the People to keep and bear ARMS, not "muskets," ya dolt. I enjoy mine, and I'm keeping them, and you can't do a thing about it...except flame on, which is delightful!

Keep reading. Don't stop after the first sentence this time.

I hope you fight back when we force you to register your weapons and pay property taxes on them. Then we can legally put you down and remove you from the equation.

Who is WE? Some pussified lib posting on the internet?? You really think the military will EVER go house to house to confiscate all guns?? That notion is precisely why our Founders wanted the citizenry to be armed in the first place!! You lose! You have no game, and zero chance of taking our guns.

If you believed that you wouldn't be in this thread trying to convince me otherwise.

Your guns will be taken, or you'll go broke or to jail trying to keep them. Win/win/win


I love this assumption that it's going to happen. You know what the biggest obstacle to that will be? Look up District of Columbia v. Heller. The SCotUS ruled that the Second Amendment covers the legal purchase, ownership, and use of firearms. Basically you'd have to either have that decision overturned OR have the Second Amendment repealed. Not likely, to be honest. Especially since this resurgence of anti-gun enthusiasm is likely to die off after the turn of the year when decrying drunk driving due to New Years accidents, or something else, occupies the short attention span of our country.
 
2012-12-15 04:45:36 PM

drewogatory: The vast majority of my life you could buy any firearm directly over the counter,cash and carry, no question asked,no records kept. So,yeah, I will keep thinking that.


Good, then have fun becoming a felon when they come for your guns.
 
2012-12-15 04:45:38 PM

WhippingBoy: So what do you figure will be next? Nursing home? Maternity ward? Home for sick children?


I don't think it can get any worse than shooting up a kindergartner class.
 
2012-12-15 04:46:07 PM
Goddammit, Subby. >:-(
 
2012-12-15 04:46:41 PM

mr lawson: WhippingBoy: So what do you figure will be next? Nursing home? Maternity ward? Home for sick children?

I don't think it can get any worse than shooting up a kindergartner class.


Don't kid yourself. It can ALWAYS get worse.
 
2012-12-15 04:46:50 PM

davidphogan: How does this relate to the school shooting? This was a guy with a gun, who was confronted police, and opened fire on them instead. He wasn't hunting down random people to shoot.


I will refer you to my previous posting.
 
2012-12-15 04:49:19 PM
Nope...this doesn't count. In the last threads, people brought up the knife attack in china, then others said it doesn't count because no one died....so this doesn't count and should be wiped from the net.


But here....this one counts- Link
 
2012-12-15 04:49:40 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Friction8r: cameroncrazy1984: Friction8r: Generation_D: I realize that I won't outshout the internet tough guy gun rights brigade. Thats not the point.

A whole lot of us out here think you guys are idiots, and I bet I live to see the day you all are outvoted.

Its happened before, it'll happen again. Gun Rights is just a sh*tty 220 year old thought on a piece of paper. The Fourth Amendment has been trashed by modern interpretation, the First Amendment is in tatters compared to its meaning back when it was written. The Second Amendment actually had a good reason for being, but it doesn't any more. Tyranny is not overthrown by your home collection of weapons. However, many innocent people quite often could be.

I'm fed up with it, I suspect many others are too.

Since you ignored me the first time, I'll say it again: Have your vote. You STILL aren't getting our guns. How do you propose to do that? Good luck!

It's funny how you gun nuts think that the US Military will have such a problem confiscating your semi-auto AR when it pretty much dismantled two foreign militaries.

Hilarious! The US Military's going house to house in a hundred million homes to confiscate weapons? Hell, most of them are sons and daughters of gun owners. Plus, are they gonna have metal detectors cover the hundred acres of our family farm searching? Like I said, you haven't seen bloodshed till you try that stunt.

/Duke sucks!
/BIG BLUE! National Champs!

How do you think the US military secures a country?

You legitimately have zero idea of how military operations work.


Look who doesn't know history! Our Founders wanted us to have guns in case our military ever turned against the citizenry. Yes, the military could nuke our own cities, drop bombs on their own families, and go house to house to confiscate weapons. They could mustard gas us too. But they won't, ever, for they ARE us.
 
2012-12-15 04:49:41 PM

NotoriousFire: If one truly does outlaw guns/stricter gun control, does anyone expect the future-criminals-of-America to really not have access to such weapons? I mean, seriously? Between Mexico, Latin America, etc - guns are I imagine relatively easy to obtain. How many weapons used in serious crime are actually registered to the criminal?

It will be about as successful as outlawing cocaine and heroin. Guess what, people still have access to both. And who has access? I'll give you a hint - not law-abiding citizens...


I kind of like what is being proposed in Michigan -- that people can obtain a proper license to carry in "no carry" zones. They require significantly more stringent mental health and other checks than a regular concealed carry permit. Now, they need to back it up with things like "schools must have someone employed who has this license and carries".
 
2012-12-15 04:51:15 PM

Friction8r: Who is WE? Some pussified lib posting on the internet?? You really think the military will EVER go house to house to confiscate all guns?? That notion is precisely why our Founders wanted the citizenry to be armed in the first place!! You lose! You have no game, and zero chance of taking our guns.


You do realize that a sh*t-ton of liberals own guns, yes? We're just easy to overlook because we're not in the press and on the blogs screaming about how awesome we are for having one in lieu of a functioning penis.

No one wants your guns, Sparky. Relax. You'll encounter some here and there on the intertubes or at the corner bar, but gun control has been a dead issue to liberals for years. Unlike the last Republican presidential nominee.
 
2012-12-15 04:51:43 PM
stop killing people.
turn off all guns.
 
2012-12-15 04:51:57 PM

Dimensio: davidphogan: How does this relate to the school shooting? This was a guy with a gun, who was confronted police, and opened fire on them instead. He wasn't hunting down random people to shoot.

I will refer you to my previous posting.


That's what I thought. I had a feeling it was just an excuse to carry on the threads from yesterday.
 
2012-12-15 04:53:10 PM

Acharne: ekdikeo4: This is an open-shut case - suicide by cop.

BigBooper: Sounds more like suicide by cop.

This sounds like it to me. I really dislike 'Suicide by cop' though. I'm going to suggest we use one of the other terms, like victim-precipitated homicide. 'Blue suicide' is a creepy name if we need one.


Well, when you intentionally force a cop to kill you .. I suppose if we had suicide booths, then some of this would go away.
 
2012-12-15 04:54:16 PM
For those of you who may not know about St Vincent's in Birmingham, I spent a lot of time in that hospital. St Vincent's is not the hospital you think about this happening in. Ex wife had many health problems, and was admitted for many short stays there. Dr James Andrews, the guy who does all of the major league pitcher's shoulders and elbows, and football player's knees, has his practice at this hospital. It's a major, big league hospital in a city with many other major hospitals.

I'm a former EMT, and my mom is a retired RN. You might expect a gun to show up in the ER, not on the cardiac floor. And as someone who has worked closely with Birmingham PD on a number of things, yeah, they have their share of yahoos, but you do not want to tangle with them. Training is one thing they are not short on. My bet is the cops fired once, hitting the gunman, and I'm serious about that. The jerkoff walking around the hospital with the gun was shooting at whatever moved. And the cops only shot when they had no other choice. Believe that too.

The Birmingham PD and St Vincents hospital are two things I am very very familiar with. I know half the cops that work the south precinct.

All I can do is shake my head at this one. Why was this guy in there at 4am? Only thing I can see was he was trying to finish something that he started and missed the first time.
 
2012-12-15 04:54:50 PM

StupidPopMediaReference: justtray: Friction8r: justtray: Friction8r: John Dewey: NotoriousFire: Second amendment already justifies a gun owners "need" to own. You need to justify your point - the US Bill of Rights justifies against your point.

The Bill of Rights justified owning a musket.

The right of the People to keep and bear ARMS, not "muskets," ya dolt. I enjoy mine, and I'm keeping them, and you can't do a thing about it...except flame on, which is delightful!

Keep reading. Don't stop after the first sentence this time.

I hope you fight back when we force you to register your weapons and pay property taxes on them. Then we can legally put you down and remove you from the equation.

Who is WE? Some pussified lib posting on the internet?? You really think the military will EVER go house to house to confiscate all guns?? That notion is precisely why our Founders wanted the citizenry to be armed in the first place!! You lose! You have no game, and zero chance of taking our guns.

If you believed that you wouldn't be in this thread trying to convince me otherwise.

Your guns will be taken, or you'll go broke or to jail trying to keep them. Win/win/win

I love this assumption that it's going to happen. You know what the biggest obstacle to that will be? Look up District of Columbia v. Heller. The SCotUS ruled that the Second Amendment covers the legal purchase, ownership, and use of firearms. Basically you'd have to either have that decision overturned OR have the Second Amendment repealed. Not likely, to be honest. Especially since this resurgence of anti-gun enthusiasm is likely to die off after the turn of the year when decrying drunk driving due to New Years accidents, or something else, occupies the short attention span of our country.



Though I can't be certain, this time feels different and the massacre of many children may represent a turning point as it did in the UK.

Despite the youthfulness of some of these shooters, among the younger population that now holds huge voting power, gun rights are not nearly as popular as they are among the older more rural set.

38 states are required to change the constitution. I think it can be done. Might take some time, the present republicans in congress would go bonkers, but I believe that the time for rational gun reform is peeking over the horizon and - for the young people just starting their families - this is a pertinent political issue.
 
2012-12-15 04:55:03 PM

Popcorn Johnny: drewogatory: The vast majority of my life you could buy any firearm directly over the counter,cash and carry, no question asked,no records kept. So,yeah, I will keep thinking that.

Good, then have fun becoming a felon when they come for your guns.


Look, I'm not arguing pro or con on confiscation. You are supporting it, I'm asking you how logistically you are going to accomplish your goal, how much is it going to cost, where's the funding coming from, what agencies are going to be tasked with it, what resources you'll need, your timetable, etc. If you haven't got a firm idea of how much it's going to cost or if it is even feasible in the real world, it's easy to just spout "Just take them all".
 
2012-12-15 04:55:59 PM

dickfreckle: Friction8r: Who is WE? Some pussified lib posting on the internet?? You really think the military will EVER go house to house to confiscate all guns?? That notion is precisely why our Founders wanted the citizenry to be armed in the first place!! You lose! You have no game, and zero chance of taking our guns.

You do realize that a sh*t-ton of liberals own guns, yes? We're just easy to overlook because we're not in the press and on the blogs screaming about how awesome we are for having one in lieu of a functioning penis.

No one wants your guns, Sparky. Relax. You'll encounter some here and there on the intertubes or at the corner bar, but gun control has been a dead issue to liberals for years. Unlike the last Republican presidential nominee.


Yep. I'm actually a bit surprised by the recent embrace of guns by some of my more liberal friends. Always interesting to be talking about going to the range with a wal-mart hating, whole foods loving, organic buying, vegan hippie. Luckily i can shoot better than them so far...
 
2012-12-15 04:56:22 PM

dickfreckle: Friction8r: Who is WE? Some pussified lib posting on the internet?? You really think the military will EVER go house to house to confiscate all guns?? That notion is precisely why our Founders wanted the citizenry to be armed in the first place!! You lose! You have no game, and zero chance of taking our guns.

You do realize that a sh*t-ton of liberals own guns, yes? We're just easy to overlook because we're not in the press and on the blogs screaming about how awesome we are for having one in lieu of a functioning penis.

No one wants your guns, Sparky. Relax. You'll encounter some here and there on the intertubes or at the corner bar, but gun control has been a dead issue to liberals for years. Unlike the last Republican presidential nominee.


I wouldn't say that's necessarily true, I'm seeing a crapton of "TAKE AWAY EVERYONE'S GUNS" on the liberal side.
 
2012-12-15 04:57:53 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.

Yeah, funny how it was a policeman who took him out, not some dumbass civilian.


How cute, lil cameron thinks cops aren't civilians and civilians are dumbasses. I don't think lil cam is a cop or a soldier, guess he's just a dumbass
 
2012-12-15 04:58:39 PM

PainfulItching: The jerkoff walking around the hospital with the gun was shooting at whatever moved. And the cops only shot when they had no other choice. Believe that too.


Where did you hear he fired before the cops got there? The linked article mentions nothing about any shots fired until the cops showed up.
 
2012-12-15 04:59:15 PM

violentsalvation: violentsalvation: make me some tea: Link

That isn't going to happen, so maybe we should look for an actual solution.

And also. Link Link

Crazies goona craze.


Lock up the tards and crazy people

I blame Obama
Us
 
2012-12-15 04:59:47 PM

BalugaJoe: stop killing people.
turn off all guns.


Never seen a gun go off all by itself.

/People kill people
 
2012-12-15 05:00:42 PM
This is exactly what the authors of the 2nd Amendment had in mind: From the medical examiner in the CT case "I only did seven autopsies and they ranged from three to 11 wounds a piece."
 
2012-12-15 05:01:52 PM
I hear squabbling on the internets helps things, kinda like praying.
 
2012-12-15 05:02:56 PM

John Dewey: This is exactly what the authors of the 2nd Amendment had in mind: From the medical examiner in the CT case "I only did seven autopsies and they ranged from three to 11 wounds a piece."


Are you unaware that appeal to emotion is logically fallacious, or are you intentionally relying upon logical fallacy due to an inability to rationally justify your position?
 
2012-12-15 05:03:48 PM

John Dewey: This is exactly what the authors of the 2nd Amendment had in mind: From the medical examiner in the CT case "I only did seven autopsies and they ranged from three to 11 wounds a piece."


The kid was a good shot... wonder what his groupings were like?
 
2012-12-15 05:04:53 PM
kombat_unit: I hear squabbling on the internets helps things, kinda like praying.

squabbling is worlds more effective than prayer and you know it
 
2012-12-15 05:05:01 PM

NotoriousFire: So let's set a scenario - you're at your home, with your wife and two children (made up - it's a scenario). You hear glass break downstairs, you look down your stairwell - there are two intruders, one with a gun and one with a knife. You have a firearm in your nightstand. Do you use this weapon to protect your family? Or do you not, because "guns are bad!" Which do you choose?


You know, I hear this scenario all the time from gun enthusiasts, but I can never quite remember what you're supposed to do. Do you fire the weapon with your right hand while jerking furiously with your left, or is it the other way around?
 
2012-12-15 05:06:14 PM

Dimensio: Are you unaware that appeal to emotion is logically fallacious, or are you intentionally relying upon logical fallacy due to an inability to rationally justify your position?


1. Who says this we should separate emotion out from this?

2. Who says the above is removed from logic? To me it's illogical that anyone should have a weapon capable of doing that. To me it is illogical to believe the authors of the 2nd amendment would feel differently than me had they foreseen such weapons coming into existence.
 
2012-12-15 05:06:15 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.

Yeah, funny how it was a policeman who took him out, not some dumbass civilian.


Did you smell your fingers after you typed that?
 
2012-12-15 05:07:08 PM
And the suicide by cop angle is BS, The usual MO is for them to point the gun at the cop or an innocent person while exposed to the cop's shot, forcing the cop to make the decision to pull the trigger. Many times they will find the weapon was not even loaded.

This guy shot/shot at innocents. This was not a suicide. This was multiple attempted homicide, at minimum.
 
2012-12-15 05:08:09 PM

John Dewey: Dimensio: Are you unaware that appeal to emotion is logically fallacious, or are you intentionally relying upon logical fallacy due to an inability to rationally justify your position?

1. Who says this we should separate emotion out from this?


Emotion is irrelevant to the validity of an argument.

2. Who says the above is removed from logic? To me it's illogical that anyone should have a weapon capable of doing that. To me it is illogical to believe the authors of the 2nd amendment would feel differently than me had they foreseen such weapons coming into existence.

You have confused your opinion with "logic".
 
2012-12-15 05:08:14 PM

jfarkinB: NotoriousFire: So let's set a scenario - you're at your home, with your wife and two children (made up - it's a scenario). You hear glass break downstairs, you look down your stairwell - there are two intruders, one with a gun and one with a knife. You have a firearm in your nightstand. Do you use this weapon to protect your family? Or do you not, because "guns are bad!" Which do you choose?

You know, I hear this scenario all the time from gun enthusiasts, but I can never quite remember what you're supposed to do. Do you fire the weapon with your right hand while jerking furiously with your left, or is it the other way around?


No silly, You fire first and then stick it in the barrel while it's still warm...
 
2012-12-15 05:09:15 PM
Hey dipshaits, the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect you from the government not to protect you from your fellow citizens.

Add this to Justin Beiber, Jersey Shores and just about everything on TLC and it's quite clear we are witnessing the end of the American Empire.
 
2012-12-15 05:09:37 PM
From WashPo - Dan Holmes, a landscaper who worked on Nancy Lanza's home, said about a year ago she brought out an antique rifle in a case to show him.

Holmes said that while she collect old guns, he had no idea she might have the type of weapons used in the school shooting.

Hmmm....if the above is true, I wonder why he didn't use the antique one. Assuming it was operational of course....
 
2012-12-15 05:09:40 PM

davidphogan: PainfulItching: The jerkoff walking around the hospital with the gun was shooting at whatever moved. And the cops only shot when they had no other choice. Believe that too.

Where did you hear he fired before the cops got there? The linked article mentions nothing about any shots fired until the cops showed up.


Pardon me if I phrased it wrong. The intended message was that when he saw/heard the cops, he started shooting.
 
2012-12-15 05:13:09 PM
dennysgod: Justin Beiber

he's Canadian, but you're correct.
 
2012-12-15 05:17:13 PM

iq_in_binary: Generation_D: mr lawson: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 542x539]

Thats funny. I would vote "All weapons prohibited on the premises." And define that as the whole country.

I'd much rather outlaw guns entirely and then sort out who the criminals are, than leave guns lying around and wait for the next round of victims to happen.

Good luck getting my guns for less than market value. Otherwise you'll be finding the confiscation process to be a right biatch.


Thats my point...theres nothing I can do if they ban them, but any police, military, etc that shows up to collect better bring...cash. No checks. No govt bonds. No Walmart gift cards. CASH. The full retail price too, not the used value. You are not taking my legally obtained personal property without just compensation. I bought them legally, with legally earned money. Ban them if you wish, but Im getting compensated for my property. Hell, in the event of a ban they can reimburse me for the then useless CCW as well.

Then, after all the citizens guns are collected, the police will turn theirs over as well. After all, if you want to be all "UK has no guns"...guess what, neither do their regular police. After all, all the guns, every last one of them have been collected right...cops no longer need guns to do their job.
 
2012-12-15 05:18:28 PM
Just to wade in here, if we were to have a discussion about curbs on firearms, what would be some suggestions?

I think anything related to limiting the access to firearms is not going to be very effective. There are already too many guns on the street - that ship has sailed. Still, some restrictions might help. For example, linking all mental health records to a central database, then requiring that database to be searched before you can purchase a gun (kind of like a criminal background check, just for head cases). It won't stop the determined ones, but it's a start.

Frankly, probably the best approach would be a massive tax on ammo. A $1 tax per pistol round (including .22lr) and a $5 tax per rifle shell or shotgun shell. All reloading supplies would be equally taxed. Index the tax to inflation. It sounds horrible, but you won't infringe on anyone's ability to own a gun. Or shoot a gun. Or hunt. But it will sure put a crimp in the amount of shots fired - or the ability of losers to shoot at all.

I'm sure I have just enraged some 2nd amendment guys - but I assure you that's not my intention. I just want to discuss: what form does "reasonable" gun control take? Any thoughts?
 
2012-12-15 05:19:41 PM

phenn: shower_in_my_socks: phenn: You cannot punish the whole of society because there are crazies in the world. That just doesn't make any sense.


SURE YOU CAN. Have you noticed a change in security at airports since 9/11? Compare our DUI laws now with 50 years ago. If the @sshole in Newtown yesterday had a knife instead of two guns, he would not have killed 26 people. And the ability for one nutjob with zero military training to walk into a building and murder 26 people, only stopping to kill himself when he was basically done doing what he wanted to do, is not what the authors of the 2nd Amendment had in mind, mainly because that wasn't technologically possible at the time.

If that is the kind of life you seek, you are living in the wrong country.

And, I'm relatively certain the authors of the second amendment realized that implements would improve at some stage.

The law is the law. Again, find another place where the laws suit you better.


You know, I would, but unfortunately I was born in this shiathole country and haven't been able to make enough money to escape it yet.
 
2012-12-15 05:19:52 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.

Yeah, funny how it was a policeman who took him out, not some dumbass civilian.


I don't understand this obsession with only police being armed. Yes, they are trained in safe weapons usage. Yes, they (presumably) have passed psychological tests. (Well, maybe not in some cases).

But so have many civilians. Many civilians are ex-military, and may know how to safely and effectly handle firearms better than cops. And it's not like the training is super-duper-secret-cops-only.

So what's the beef with having adequately trained armed civilians?

Please, rational responses only. (Or is that too much to ask on Fark?)

/Patiently awaiting the "troll" accusations from people that got nuthin' else.
 
2012-12-15 05:22:25 PM

justtray: iq_in_binary: Generation_D: mr lawson: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 542x539]

Thats funny. I would vote "All weapons prohibited on the premises." And define that as the whole country.

I'd much rather outlaw guns entirely and then sort out who the criminals are, than leave guns lying around and wait for the next round of victims to happen.

Good luck getting my guns for less than market value. Otherwise you'll be finding the confiscation process to be a right biatch.

We'll just tax you on each one instead until you're begging us to give you anything for them.


How on earth are you going to establish a taxable value?
 
2012-12-15 05:22:51 PM

Skywolf Philosopher: Seriously, if at least the security could be armed legally, then folks who are armed illegally couldn't kill so much before being gunned down. Or is there some flaw in this logic that makes legal gun ownership such a bad idea?


These cases show what happens when criminals with guns can do in places where they're the only ones armed. Nobody at the school was armed and that evil bastich killed 26 people. The other one at the hospital started shooting when cops shows up. He hurt 3 people and killed nobody before the cops were able to kill him.

So what's wrong with responsible adults at school having guns? IMHO nothing. Anyone who wants to bring a gun to school should be required to first take a safety course and show they're able to hit what they're aiming at. As far as hospitals are concerned, it sould be up to the owners, but seems to me it would be a good idea to allow people who know how to handle a gun safely the option to bring one with them to work if they want to.

It's a sad state of affairs, but in this day and age with violent nutballs running around, it's a good idea to have some armed people around. As many of these mass shootings have shown, the criminal can kill a lot of people before the cops get there.
 
2012-12-15 05:23:51 PM

Private_Citizen: Just to wade in here, if we were to have a discussion about curbs on firearms, what would be some suggestions?

I think anything related to limiting the access to firearms is not going to be very effective. There are already too many guns on the street - that ship has sailed. Still, some restrictions might help. For example, linking all mental health records to a central database, then requiring that database to be searched before you can purchase a gun (kind of like a criminal background check, just for head cases). It won't stop the determined ones, but it's a start.

Frankly, probably the best approach would be a massive tax on ammo. A $1 tax per pistol round (including .22lr) and a $5 tax per rifle shell or shotgun shell. All reloading supplies would be equally taxed. Index the tax to inflation. It sounds horrible, but you won't infringe on anyone's ability to own a gun. Or shoot a gun. Or hunt. But it will sure put a crimp in the amount of shots fired - or the ability of losers to shoot at all.

I'm sure I have just enraged some 2nd amendment guys - but I assure you that's not my intention. I just want to discuss: what form does "reasonable" gun control take? Any thoughts?


Taxing reloading supplies would result in substantial increases in the private manufacture of equipment used by reloaders. I am unaware of any data showing privately reloaded ammunition to be popular amongst violent criminals. A typical street criminal will steal ammunition, while a mentally unstable individual will likely be undeterred by an additional cost from taxation of ammunition.
 
2012-12-15 05:24:24 PM

justtray: Friction8r: justtray: Friction8r: John Dewey: NotoriousFire: Second amendment already justifies a gun owners "need" to own. You need to justify your point - the US Bill of Rights justifies against your point.

The Bill of Rights justified owning a musket.

The right of the People to keep and bear ARMS, not "muskets," ya dolt. I enjoy mine, and I'm keeping them, and you can't do a thing about it...except flame on, which is delightful!

Keep reading. Don't stop after the first sentence this time.

I hope you fight back when we force you to register your weapons and pay property taxes on them. Then we can legally put you down and remove you from the equation.

Who is WE? Some pussified lib posting on the internet?? You really think the military will EVER go house to house to confiscate all guns?? That notion is precisely why our Founders wanted the citizenry to be armed in the first place!! You lose! You have no game, and zero chance of taking our guns.

If you believed that you wouldn't be in this thread trying to convince me otherwise.

Your guns will be taken, or you'll go broke or to jail trying to keep them. Win/win/win


Since it WON'T be the military coming to take them, I assume it will be a band of wussified libs knocking on the door demanding my weapons. Since they won't be armed, they will be in a rather impotent position. But please, keep shouting at clouds. I'm gonna blast my Rmington 870 Express Magnum into the woods right now, just to smell the powder, hear the kaboom, and mostly out of spite. I'll shoot the bolt action 3030 later. The sonic boom is righteous!
 
2012-12-15 05:25:23 PM

Private_Citizen: Frankly, probably the best approach would be a massive tax on ammo. A $1 tax per pistol round (including .22lr) and a $5 tax per rifle shell or shotgun shell. All reloading supplies would be equally taxed. Index the tax to inflation. It sounds horrible, but you won't infringe on anyone's ability to own a gun. Or shoot a gun. Or hunt. But it will sure put a crimp in the amount of shots fired - or the ability of losers to shoot at all.

I'm sure I have just enraged some 2nd amendment guys - but I assure you that's not my intention. I just want to discuss: what form does "reasonable" gun control take? Any thoughts?


I have a feeling the courts might end up looking at that similar to the stance they take on poll taxes. Taxing someone to use their rights is usually frowned upon by courts.
 
2012-12-15 05:27:56 PM
Time to reset the countdown on the "when it's okay to talk about gun control" clock.
 
2012-12-15 05:28:40 PM
Idiot: "Hey, look what happens when someone else has a gun and can stop madmen"
Everyone else: "It was a cop, retard."
Idiot: "This just proves everyone should be able to have guns"
 
2012-12-15 05:31:26 PM
Let's just celebrate all the places where there is no shooting. My house, for example.

Hmmmmmm, I wonder who that is at the door...
 
2012-12-15 05:31:35 PM

Dimensio: Private_Citizen: Just to wade in here, if we were to have a discussion about curbs on firearms, what would be some suggestions?

I think anything related to limiting the access to firearms is not going to be very effective. There are already too many guns on the street - that ship has sailed. Still, some restrictions might help. For example, linking all mental health records to a central database, then requiring that database to be searched before you can purchase a gun (kind of like a criminal background check, just for head cases). It won't stop the determined ones, but it's a start.

Frankly, probably the best approach would be a massive tax on ammo. A $1 tax per pistol round (including .22lr) and a $5 tax per rifle shell or shotgun shell. All reloading supplies would be equally taxed. Index the tax to inflation. It sounds horrible, but you won't infringe on anyone's ability to own a gun. Or shoot a gun. Or hunt. But it will sure put a crimp in the amount of shots fired - or the ability of losers to shoot at all.

I'm sure I have just enraged some 2nd amendment guys - but I assure you that's not my intention. I just want to discuss: what form does "reasonable" gun control take? Any thoughts?

Taxing reloading supplies would result in substantial increases in the private manufacture of equipment used by reloaders. I am unaware of any data showing privately reloaded ammunition to be popular amongst violent criminals. A typical street criminal will steal ammunition, while a mentally unstable individual will likely be undeterred by an additional cost from taxation of ammunition.


When I suggested taxing reloading supplies, I was specifically thinking of the bullets themselves. The cases, primers, dies, powder, etc can remain untaxed. Of course, some people will hard cast their own, but I doubt they will be the type to go on a violent spree (never heard of it before).

As for the theft aspect - people tend to lock up things that are valuable. For example, class three weapons are legal, just horribly expensive. As a consequence, I can think of zero cases where a class three weapon was used in a rampage. I could be wrong, but I assume that's because almost all of them are in the hands of collectors - who keep them in safes.

I propose that if a box of 9mm was suddenly $70, you wouldn't find too many of them just laying around in people's houses waiting to be stolen. Make something expensive enough, and they won't be as common. I really do believe it would reduce gun violence in the long run - without reducing gun ownership itself.
 
2012-12-15 05:32:32 PM
What the hell is wrong with you people? You mad? I can understand that, its upsetting. But when you start coming after my guns, I instantly quit giving a shiat if you live or die, leaning toward die. DIAF douche nozzles.
 
2012-12-15 05:32:40 PM

Private_Citizen: I propose that if a box of 9mm was suddenly $70, you wouldn't find too many of them just laying around in people's houses waiting to be stolen. Make something expensive enough, and they won't be as common. I really do believe it would reduce gun violence in the long run - without reducing gun ownership itself.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-15 05:33:25 PM

thisisarepeat: What the hell is wrong with you people? You mad? I can understand that, its upsetting. But when you start coming after my guns, I instantly quit giving a shiat if you live or die, leaning toward die. DIAF douche nozzles.


This is the type of well-balanced reason point I like seeing from someone that owns guns.
 
2012-12-15 05:34:19 PM

Private_Citizen: When I suggested taxing reloading supplies, I was specifically thinking of the bullets themselves. The cases, primers, dies, powder, etc can remain untaxed. Of course, some people will hard cast their own, but I doubt they will be the type to go on a violent spree (never heard of it before).


Taxing bullets will instantly result on a substantial increase in the number of individuals who cast bullets.

Excessive taxation upon a product necessary for exercise of a Constitutionally protected right is itself Unconstitutional, as was ruled in Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue.
 
2012-12-15 05:35:51 PM

Pichu0102: Time to reset the countdown on the "when it's okay to talk about gun control" clock.


Homicide is only the 15th leading cause of death in the US and gun violence is just a subset of that. It makes far more sense and you would save far more lives if you allocated resources based on the overall numbers and not squander them on a small fraction of preventable deaths because gun deaths are more sensationalistic.
 
2012-12-15 05:36:21 PM

davidphogan: Private_Citizen: Frankly, probably the best approach would be a massive tax on ammo. A $1 tax per pistol round (including .22lr) and a $5 tax per rifle shell or shotgun shell. All reloading supplies would be equally taxed. Index the tax to inflation. It sounds horrible, but you won't infringe on anyone's ability to own a gun. Or shoot a gun. Or hunt. But it will sure put a crimp in the amount of shots fired - or the ability of losers to shoot at all.

I'm sure I have just enraged some 2nd amendment guys - but I assure you that's not my intention. I just want to discuss: what form does "reasonable" gun control take? Any thoughts?

I have a feeling the courts might end up looking at that similar to the stance they take on poll taxes. Taxing someone to use their rights is usually frowned upon by courts.


It's possible some people could argue that, but I doubt it would hold up. Even your right to vote can be regulated (felons). Gun ownership is already regulated, and ammunition is already taxed. All this would do it increase the rate (think cigarette tax).
 
2012-12-15 05:38:13 PM

bulldg4life: Private_Citizen: I propose that if a box of 9mm was suddenly $70, you wouldn't find too many of them just laying around in people's houses waiting to be stolen. Make something expensive enough, and they won't be as common. I really do believe it would reduce gun violence in the long run - without reducing gun ownership itself.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 320x274]


Yeah, pretty much. Although $5000 a bullet does strike me as a bit over the top!
 
2012-12-15 05:38:27 PM

drewogatory: Pichu0102: Time to reset the countdown on the "when it's okay to talk about gun control" clock.

Homicide is only the 15th leading cause of death in the US and gun violence is just a subset of that. It makes far more sense and you would save far more lives if you allocated resources based on the overall numbers and not squander them on a small fraction of preventable deaths because gun deaths are more sensationalistic.


Because god knows we couldn't possibly address more than one problem at a time...
 
2012-12-15 05:39:00 PM

drewogatory: Homicide is only the 15th leading cause of death in the US and gun violence is just a subset of that. It makes far more sense and you would save far more lives if you allocated resources based on the overall numbers and not squander them on a small fraction of preventable deaths because gun deaths are more sensationalistic.


Well, if you think about it...the people arguing for increased gun control are probably arguing for better access to healthcare (which would cover some of the 14 other causes of death) while the people railing against gun control are probably arguing against increased health care coverage, too. So, it's the same argument with the same people, just a different topic.
 
2012-12-15 05:39:28 PM
Roger Ebert had it right:
" Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy."
 
2012-12-15 05:39:34 PM

thisisarepeat: What the hell is wrong with you people? You mad? I can understand that, its upsetting. But when you start coming after my guns, I instantly quit giving a shiat if you live or die, leaning toward die. DIAF douche nozzles.


www.patentspostgrant.com
 
2012-12-15 05:39:41 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: drewogatory: Pichu0102: Time to reset the countdown on the "when it's okay to talk about gun control" clock.

Homicide is only the 15th leading cause of death in the US and gun violence is just a subset of that. It makes far more sense and you would save far more lives if you allocated resources based on the overall numbers and not squander them on a small fraction of preventable deaths because gun deaths are more sensationalistic.

Because god knows we couldn't possibly address more than one problem at a time...


What part of "allocate resources based on overall numbers" did you not understand?
 
2012-12-15 05:40:40 PM

bulldg4life: drewogatory: Homicide is only the 15th leading cause of death in the US and gun violence is just a subset of that. It makes far more sense and you would save far more lives if you allocated resources based on the overall numbers and not squander them on a small fraction of preventable deaths because gun deaths are more sensationalistic.

Well, if you think about it...the people arguing for increased gun control are probably arguing for better access to healthcare (which would cover some of the 14 other causes of death) while the people railing against gun control are probably arguing against increased health care coverage, too. So, it's the same argument with the same people, just a different topic.


Progressive firearm owners, such as myself, have been arguing in support of improved access to mental health care (and improved access to healthcare overall) for several years.
 
2012-12-15 05:41:07 PM

thisisarepeat: What the hell is wrong with you people? You mad? I can understand that, its upsetting. But when you start coming after my guns, I instantly quit giving a shiat if you live or die, leaning toward die. DIAF douche nozzles.


You sound like that shooter.
 
2012-12-15 05:41:43 PM

violentsalvation: John Dewey: Here is a modest proposal that I'm actually kind of liking - http://moproposal.blogspot.com/2012/12/121512-i-am-extraordinarily-ang ry-and.html

1. Firearms remain legal. But, they must be larger than a grown man's arm, so that they cannot be concealed. They must also be day-glo orange, so that they are unmistakably guns. Whoever carries their gun must wear a day-glo orange hat that says, CARRYING A GUN on it. Hunters will not have to change their behavior or (with the exception of painting their guns) their outfits in any real way. Failure to adhere to this law will result in 20 years in prison, no exceptions.

2. Any entertainment (TV, Movies, Video Games, Books, etc.) that feature gun-play will be subject to a tax of 20% of the producers' profits. Producers can still make blood-soaked entertainment, understanding that their profits will be reduced.

3. The press can only publish the names or biographies of mass killers by paying a 20% tax on their organization's profits for the year. To avoid the tax, mass killers can be denoted by an alias ("A-hole #4", for example), insuring that slaughter is not an easy road to fame. Any news organization will also be fined $200,000.00 every time they ask a victim of senseless violence "how they feel". They fine doubles if a minor is asked that inane question (We can guess how they feel on our own, thanks).

WTF am I reading? Sh*t like this is why I can't take gun-grabbers seriously. You have no intention of making America safer. You want to paint guns to look like water pistols and pretend that crazy murderers give a crap about the laws, or that something bigger than my hand cant be tucked under my coat. And then you want to put a strangulation of a tax on the First Amendment.


Christ, I'm glad I wasn't the only one whose eye started twitching after that.
 
2012-12-15 05:41:52 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: thisisarepeat: What the hell is wrong with you people? You mad? I can understand that, its upsetting. But when you start coming after my guns, I instantly quit giving a shiat if you live or die, leaning toward die. DIAF douche nozzles.

You sound like that shooter.


He was at work it's not him.
 
2012-12-15 05:42:13 PM

Private_Citizen: Just to wade in here, if we were to have a discussion about curbs on firearms, what would be some suggestions?

I think anything related to limiting the access to firearms is not going to be very effective. There are already too many guns on the street - that ship has sailed. Still, some restrictions might help. For example, linking all mental health records to a central database, then requiring that database to be searched before you can purchase a gun (kind of like a criminal background check, just for head cases). It won't stop the determined ones, but it's a start.

Frankly, probably the best approach would be a massive tax on ammo. A $1 tax per pistol round (including .22lr) and a $5 tax per rifle shell or shotgun shell. All reloading supplies would be equally taxed. Index the tax to inflation. It sounds horrible, but you won't infringe on anyone's ability to own a gun. Or shoot a gun. Or hunt. But it will sure put a crimp in the amount of shots fired - or the ability of losers to shoot at all.

I'm sure I have just enraged some 2nd amendment guys - but I assure you that's not my intention. I just want to discuss: what form does "reasonable" gun control take? Any thoughts?


Which I will not be affected by in the least. You do realize it's trivial to make and cast your own jacketed/swaged rounds right? And most reloaders already have enough powder for a lifetime. Further more, reloaders are not the ones committing these crimes. You're talking about policies that are purely punitive, that would have absolutely no effect on gun violence whatsoever. None, zip zilch nada. Nothing at all.
 
2012-12-15 05:42:34 PM

Dimensio: Progressive firearm owners, such as myself, have been arguing in support of improved access to mental health care (and improved access to healthcare overall) for several years.


You and the other half a dozen people that think that way are far outnumbered. You must see that, right?
 
2012-12-15 05:42:59 PM
If you see criminals as a group of morally flawed bogeyman that exist only to subvert laws and cause chaos, then I can see why you think you need a gun for protection. If you realize that a crime is the result of a complex web of opportunity, psychology, and stresses which can involve any person, it is a lot easier to see that the crimes that occur in a society with more prohibitive access to guns will have less shootings.
 
2012-12-15 05:44:59 PM

Friction8r: justtray: Friction8r: justtray: Friction8r: John Dewey: NotoriousFire: Second amendment already justifies a gun owners "need" to own. You need to justify your point - the US Bill of Rights justifies against your point.

The Bill of Rights justified owning a musket.

The right of the People to keep and bear ARMS, not "muskets," ya dolt. I enjoy mine, and I'm keeping them, and you can't do a thing about it...except flame on, which is delightful!

Keep reading. Don't stop after the first sentence this time.

I hope you fight back when we force you to register your weapons and pay property taxes on them. Then we can legally put you down and remove you from the equation.

Who is WE? Some pussified lib posting on the internet?? You really think the military will EVER go house to house to confiscate all guns?? That notion is precisely why our Founders wanted the citizenry to be armed in the first place!! You lose! You have no game, and zero chance of taking our guns.

If you believed that you wouldn't be in this thread trying to convince me otherwise.

Your guns will be taken, or you'll go broke or to jail trying to keep them. Win/win/win

Since it WON'T be the military coming to take them, I assume it will be a band of wussified libs knocking on the door demanding my weapons. Since they won't be armed, they will be in a rather impotent position. But please, keep shouting at clouds. I'm gonna blast my Rmington 870 Express Magnum into the woods right now, just to smell the powder, hear the kaboom, and mostly out of spite. I'll shoot the bolt action 3030 later. The sonic boom is righteous!


I have shot several guns over the years. Enjoyed it. I have no issue with hunting. But people like you? People like you make me realize that we need to just get rid of guns altogether.
 
2012-12-15 05:45:07 PM

bulldg4life: Dimensio: Progressive firearm owners, such as myself, have been arguing in support of improved access to mental health care (and improved access to healthcare overall) for several years.

You and the other half a dozen people that think that way are far outnumbered. You must see that, right?


Only half of firearm owners identify as Republican. The remaining half break evenly between Democrat and Independent.

The most vocal firearm advocacy organizations are led and represented by irrational "right-wing" individuals, but that does not mean that a significant percentage of civilian firearm ownership rights advocates themselves advocate right-wing causes.
 
2012-12-15 05:45:21 PM

hlehmann: Roger Ebert had it right:
" Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy."


I've often thought that a ban on mentioning the killers at all in the media would help. I think there is a certain subset of losers who seek fame through infamy. However, that really might infringe on 1st amendment rights. Still, if the killers were ignored, and their victims were lauded, I doubt you would see these mental cases try to "go out in a blaze of glory".
 
2012-12-15 05:45:54 PM

bulldg4life: Dimensio: Progressive firearm owners, such as myself, have been arguing in support of improved access to mental health care (and improved access to healthcare overall) for several years.

You and the other half a dozen people that think that way are far outnumbered. You must see that, right?


That's not true,the vast majority of gun owners are quite reasonable. Unfortunately, a by product of being reasonable is we don't shout loud enough to be heard over the derp.
 
2012-12-15 05:46:30 PM

buzzcut73: To the people that think the military would just follow orders and go around confiscating guns, you really do think our military would turn on their own countrymen, their friends, their neighbors, like they would going house to house in a foreign land?


There were Guardsmen kicking down doors and helping law enforcement confiscate firearms after Katrina.

But when it happens nationwide, I expect it will be whatever Blackwater's called at the time.
 
2012-12-15 05:47:09 PM

drewogatory: What part of "allocate resources based on overall numbers" did you not understand?


The part where it doesn't make any sense since it completely ignores the fact that some of those problems are far more difficult and expensive than others to solve. Or maybe the part where you completely ignore the fact that many of those top killers are already consuming millions to billions of dollars of resources and tens, hundreds of thousands or possibly even millions of man-hours ever year in an attempt at resolution versus the relatively paltry effort and sum spent on gun control. Or the part where many of the top killers are killing people who have some blame in their deaths through their own actions versus, you know, a classroom through of kindergartners who are only at fault to the extent that they went to school that day.

But you keep pretending you have any point and aren't just blathering complete bullshiat in a transparent attempt to whore for your personal paranoias.
 
2012-12-15 05:47:13 PM

Dimensio: that does not mean that a significant percentage of civilian firearm ownership rights advocates themselves advocate right-wing causes.


Dimensio: Only half of firearm owners identify as Republican. The remaining half break evenly between Democrat and Independent.


Ok...so...looking at your assessment of gun owners, I'm going to say 2/3rds or more advocate right-wing causes.
 
2012-12-15 05:48:25 PM

drewogatory: That's not true,the vast majority of gun owners are quite reasonable. Unfortunately, a by product of being reasonable is we don't shout loud enough to be heard over the derp.


Perhaps you should. You know, the moderate muslims in the world get blasted for not doing the same thing. Same with the Christians, the atheists, and every other group.

At some point, the reasonable gun owners should be able to see that there is an issue that needs to be resolved. Not shouting loud enough to be heard over the derp doesn't help anything.
 
2012-12-15 05:48:57 PM

bulldg4life: Ok...so...looking at your assessment of gun owners, I'm going to say 2/3rds or more advocate right-wing causes.


Math is hard when you're not keeping a round count so you know when you're empty.
 
2012-12-15 05:49:26 PM

iq_in_binary: Private_Citizen: Just to wade in here, if we were to have a discussion about curbs on firearms, what would be some suggestions?

I think anything related to limiting the access to firearms is not going to be very effective. There are already too many guns on the street - that ship has sailed. Still, some restrictions might help. For example, linking all mental health records to a central database, then requiring that database to be searched before you can purchase a gun (kind of like a criminal background check, just for head cases). It won't stop the determined ones, but it's a start.

Frankly, probably the best approach would be a massive tax on ammo. A $1 tax per pistol round (including .22lr) and a $5 tax per rifle shell or shotgun shell. All reloading supplies would be equally taxed. Index the tax to inflation. It sounds horrible, but you won't infringe on anyone's ability to own a gun. Or shoot a gun. Or hunt. But it will sure put a crimp in the amount of shots fired - or the ability of losers to shoot at all.

I'm sure I have just enraged some 2nd amendment guys - but I assure you that's not my intention. I just want to discuss: what form does "reasonable" gun control take? Any thoughts?

Which I will not be affected by in the least. You do realize it's trivial to make and cast your own jacketed/swaged rounds right? And most reloaders already have enough powder for a lifetime. Further more, reloaders are not the ones committing these crimes. You're talking about policies that are purely punitive, that would have absolutely no effect on gun violence whatsoever. None, zip zilch nada. Nothing at all.


I'll repeat myself here:
When I suggested taxing reloading supplies, I was specifically thinking of the bullets themselves. The cases, primers, dies, powder, etc can remain untaxed. Of course, some people will hard cast their own, but I doubt they will be the type to go on a violent spree (never heard of it before).

I don't care about the people casting their own. I just don't want people buying Speer JHP bullets (just an example, not a condemnation of Speer) as a way to circumvent the ammo tax.
 
2012-12-15 05:50:55 PM
The part where it doesn't make any sense since it completely ignores the fact that some of those problems are far more difficult and expensive than others to solve.

You don't think the expense of banning and seizing guns would easily equal the amount spent on medical research? Or that that money would save far more live if it was spent on education and healthcare? I think you're severly underestimating the resources it would require to achieve your goals.
 
2012-12-15 05:51:12 PM

Generation_D: 'We heard after Columbine that it was too soon to talk about gun laws. We heard it after Virginia Tech. After Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek. And now we are hearing it again.

For every day we wait, 34 more people are murdered with guns. Today, many of them were five-year-olds.

President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown. But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem.

Calling for "meaningful action" is not enough. We need immediate action.'

-Mayor Bloomberg

Obama, Democrat, and Bloomberg, Republican appear to agree.

What say you, gun nuts? No laws can change because you say? Or is there just no need because its always the victims fault because they didn't arm themselves enough to shoot back in time?


There is NO LAW without defense of borders. The founders were all about the citizens being able to defend themselves from their own government if needed. It's the foundation of our country. And yes, they were quite familiar with whacked out liberals back then, too.
 
2012-12-15 05:52:57 PM
We need better care for people who are mentally ill. Take the nanny in New York who stabbed those children, and the Texas whackadoodle who carved a pentagram into that kids' flesh, these weren't firearm attacks, yet these people clearly needed help.While we shouldn't dismiss a call to at least examine the potentials that enacting more stringent gun laws will incur, we should also take a look at the underlying disease that causes people to snap. Crazy will always find a way to accomplish its' goal. Could it be that getting help is cost prohibitive for many? I mean, if the choice is between food, rent and taking time off work to get mental treatment, most will bypass the treatment to take care of what they need at that moment. I just believe the cause of these tragedies is so much deeper than just stricter gun laws.

just my .$02
 
2012-12-15 05:53:24 PM

bulldg4life: drewogatory: That's not true,the vast majority of gun owners are quite reasonable. Unfortunately, a by product of being reasonable is we don't shout loud enough to be heard over the derp.

Perhaps you should. You know, the moderate muslims in the world get blasted for not doing the same thing. Same with the Christians, the atheists, and every other group.

At some point, the reasonable gun owners should be able to see that there is an issue that needs to be resolved. Not shouting loud enough to be heard over the derp doesn't help anything.


I'm actually a very progressive guy myself, and a gun owner. I see plenty of fellow gun owners who are also reasonable. Unfortunately, we often are represented by the "We should all be allowed rocket launchers" crowd.

As for speaking out, that's what I'm trying to do. Seriously, what specifically should we do about gun violence that will help? It seems like no matter what you suggest, the loud ones will shout you down.
 
2012-12-15 05:54:07 PM

bulldg4life: thisisarepeat: What the hell is wrong with you people? You mad? I can understand that, its upsetting. But when you start coming after my guns, I instantly quit giving a shiat if you live or die, leaning toward die. DIAF douche nozzles.

This is the type of well-balanced reason point I like seeing from someone that owns guns.


How do you feel about people that want to remove your possessions, or enact legislation rendering any right you enjoy to exercise so expensive that only 1%ers can have that right? It is absolutely infuriating to listen to you assholes whine about how badly you need to fark ME over because some ASSHOLE shot some people in Alabama.
 
2012-12-15 05:56:43 PM

thisisarepeat: bulldg4life: thisisarepeat: What the hell is wrong with you people? You mad? I can understand that, its upsetting. But when you start coming after my guns, I instantly quit giving a shiat if you live or die, leaning toward die. DIAF douche nozzles.

This is the type of well-balanced reason point I like seeing from someone that owns guns.

How do you feel about people that want to remove your possessions, or enact legislation rendering any right you enjoy to exercise so expensive that only 1%ers can have that right? It is absolutely infuriating to listen to you assholes whine about how badly you need to fark ME over because some ASSHOLE shot some people in Alabama.


Why are your guns so important to you? Seriously.... Don't you think it's a tad over the top there sparky?
 
2012-12-15 05:57:10 PM

John Dewey: ultraholland: John Dewey: And this is precisely why I see gun ownership as a selfish act. You feel safer and yet endanger the lives of unknown innocents.

This makes zero sense.

What do you think Nancy Lanza owned guns?

1. Hobby
2. Safety
3. Collector
4. ?????

She owned them for one of the three reasons most often given. She had zero intention of using them to harm. She had zero intention of letting someone else use them to harm. And yet, they were used to kill 27 people including herself and one asshole.

She wanted one of those three things and chose those over the potential danger. And anyone who currently own guns and continue to purchase guns is doing the same.

Responsible gun ownership is an oxymoron.


So ban cars and alcohol too? If something could ever come to harm somebody it should be removed from everyone right?
 
2012-12-15 05:57:55 PM

thisisarepeat: bulldg4life: thisisarepeat: What the hell is wrong with you people? You mad? I can understand that, its upsetting. But when you start coming after my guns, I instantly quit giving a shiat if you live or die, leaning toward die. DIAF douche nozzles.

This is the type of well-balanced reason point I like seeing from someone that owns guns.

How do you feel about people that want to remove your possessions, or enact legislation rendering any right you enjoy to exercise so expensive that only 1%ers can have that right? It is absolutely infuriating to listen to you assholes whine about how badly you need to fark ME over because some ASSHOLE shot some people in Alabama.


Reasoned rebuttals to unreasonable proposals will be more productive than will expressions of rage.
 
2012-12-15 05:57:58 PM

thisisarepeat: How do you feel about people that want to remove your possessions, or enact legislation rendering any right you enjoy to exercise so expensive that only 1%ers can have that right?


I am very upset when people don't look at health care or student loan issues.

Of course, I also don't advocate the complete removal of gun ownership.

So, you're just shouting at nothingness.
 
2012-12-15 05:59:00 PM

cmg1230: We need better care for people who are mentally ill. Take the nanny in New York who stabbed those children, and the Texas whackadoodle who carved a pentagram into that kids' flesh, these weren't firearm attacks, yet these people clearly needed help.While we shouldn't dismiss a call to at least examine the potentials that enacting more stringent gun laws will incur, we should also take a look at the underlying disease that causes people to snap. Crazy will always find a way to accomplish its' goal. Could it be that getting help is cost prohibitive for many? I mean, if the choice is between food, rent and taking time off work to get mental treatment, most will bypass the treatment to take care of what they need at that moment. I just believe the cause of these tragedies is so much deeper than just stricter gun laws.

just my .$02


I agree, there's always going to be crazies. The gun control people are just disturbed at how easy it is for the crazies to get a gun, train with that gun, and then show up and single handedly commit mass murder. The difference between the crazy in China who stabbed 20+ kids this week and the school shooting here, is none of the stabbing victims died. A knife
 
2012-12-15 05:59:29 PM

Private_Citizen: It's possible some people could argue that, but I doubt it would hold up. Even your right to vote can be regulated (felons). Gun ownership is already regulated, and ammunition is already taxed. All this would do it increase the rate (think cigarette tax).


You can't tax someone's right to vote and we already have laws against felons owning guns. A punitive tax on a basic right would be quite a shock if it held up through court challenges, and might actually accidentally strike down existing taxes on ammo.
 
2012-12-15 06:00:25 PM

thisisarepeat: How do you feel about people that want to remove your possessions, or enact legislation rendering any right you enjoy to exercise so expensive that only 1%ers can have that right? It is absolutely infuriating to listen to you assholes whine about how badly you need to fark ME over because some ASSHOLE shot some people in Alabama.


Yes, heaven forbid we have any talk about our collective responsibilities as a society to keep our friends and loved ones safe from some 'asshole' in Alabama / Connecticut / Oregon / Colorado / Arizona / And Soon A State Near You.

Its all about you and your rights. Any attempts to try to balance those rights with responsibility and you throw a tantrum. fark us, you've got yours.

Guess what, pal. The answer just took another step closer to 'No, fark you.'
 
2012-12-15 06:00:38 PM

Dimensio: Princ


Pffftt Farkers don't work!
 
2012-12-15 06:00:48 PM

Private_Citizen: I agree, there's always going to be crazies.


Yet in countries with better access to mental health care this kind of thing doesn't happen all the time. The US and Chine combine for 38 of the 64 most violent school attacks I can find a list of.
 
2012-12-15 06:01:14 PM

hlehmann: Roger Ebert had it right:
" Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy."


Bears repeating. But nobody wants to talk about the idea that maybe the NEWS MEDIA is helping these freaks by endlessly rehashing their exploits and that maybe one way to slow them down would be to not make them the #1 topic for three days after each incident.

No no! Let's blame guns, movies, video games, and lazy gun owners! It's never the MEDIA'S fault!
 
2012-12-15 06:01:33 PM
Hmm, Fark must have interpreted my "less than" sign as a hanging html tag. Anyway, a knife is Not equal to a gun.
 
2012-12-15 06:01:52 PM

thisisarepeat: How do you feel about people that want to remove your possessions, or enact legislation rendering any right you enjoy to exercise so expensive that only 1%ers can have that right? It is absolutely infuriating to listen to you assholes whine about how badly you need to fark ME over because some ASSHOLE shot some people in Alabama.


Obama'z comin' fer yer gunz! Oh noes!111111111eleventyone!!!!!!
 
2012-12-15 06:02:09 PM

drewogatory: Pichu0102: Time to reset the countdown on the "when it's okay to talk about gun control" clock.

Homicide is only the 15th leading cause of death in the US and gun violence is just a subset of that. It makes far more sense and you would save far more lives if you allocated resources based on the overall numbers and not squander them on a small fraction of preventable deaths because gun deaths are more sensationalistic.


So let's not do anything about guns because they aren't the number 1 killer.
 
2012-12-15 06:03:50 PM

davidphogan: Private_Citizen: I agree, there's always going to be crazies.

Yet in countries with better access to mental health care this kind of thing doesn't happen all the time. The US and Chine combine for 38 of the 64 most violent school attacks I can find a list of.


You won't hear me oppose better health care. I think the mental health system here is a joke (a bad one).
 
2012-12-15 06:07:22 PM

Gyrfalcon: Bears repeating. But nobody wants to talk about the idea that maybe the NEWS MEDIA is helping these freaks by endlessly rehashing their exploits and that maybe one way to slow them down would be to not make them the #1 topic for three days after each incident.


Are you seriously suggesting a media blackout on these types of incidents? We're ALL hungry for information about what happened, because it is directly relevant to certain perpetual cultural debates. I mean, if you really think about it, that you are posting in this thread contributes to exactly the sort of infamy you argue motivates some of these killers.

If you want a media blackout on this kind of stuff, it can happen. But you have to stop consuming media when it reports it. And you have to stop discussing the issue too, because that gives rise to more demand for the media that reports it. I just don't think what you're suggesting here is realistic.
 
2012-12-15 06:08:29 PM

DoomPaul: Surely it's fine to give up some liberty in exchange for security.


What security?

The security of letting anyone have a gun so that the crazy child of a gun nut can destroy the lives of dozens and change forever the lives of hundreds?

Ban all handguns now.
 
2012-12-15 06:09:24 PM
Aren't there already laws on the books about killing people? Please tell me how people who break those laws will follow new ones.
 
2012-12-15 06:10:07 PM

bulldg4life: drewogatory: That's not true,the vast majority of gun owners are quite reasonable. Unfortunately, a by product of being reasonable is we don't shout loud enough to be heard over the derp.

Perhaps you should. You know, the moderate muslims in the world get blasted for not doing the same thing. Same with the Christians, the atheists, and every other group.

At some point, the reasonable gun owners should be able to see that there is an issue that needs to be resolved. Not shouting loud enough to be heard over the derp doesn't help anything.


Reasonable gun owners do, they do this at the ballot box, which is why unless a politician is completely secure in their seat (Pelosi for instance), they won't bring up gun control because they know its political suicide to do so, even Carville admits that this is why gun control is dying as a political issue. Its as if you said "A drunk guy did something bad, so I propose we have a vote on whether or not we should take all of your alcohol away." (sound familiar) Group punishment doesn't work at all on a democracy and doesn't work for long on a representative democracy.
 
2012-12-15 06:11:08 PM

JRoo: DoomPaul: Surely it's fine to give up some liberty in exchange for security.

What security?

The security of letting anyone have a gun so that the crazy child of a gun nut can destroy the lives of dozens and change forever the lives of hundreds?

Ban all handguns now.


Because guns are the only tool these people use to kill others.

Brilliant idea I say.
 
2012-12-15 06:12:11 PM

thisisarepeat: Reasonable gun owners do, they do this at the ballot box, which is why unless a politician is completely secure in their seat (Pelosi for instance), they won't bring up gun control because they know its political suicide to do so


This would imply that gun owners are not reasonable since they lash out at anyone that discusses gun control.

What in the hell argument are you making?
 
2012-12-15 06:12:54 PM

Solaris: Because guns are the only tool these people use to kill others.


Hey, great argument. People also use tools other than nuclear bombs to kill others. Therefore, there's no good reason to restrict private ownership of nuclear bombs.
 
2012-12-15 06:14:55 PM
On Wednesday Adam Lanza was a law abiding citizen. On Thursday he did this.

- Charlotte Bacon, 2/22/06, female
- Daniel Barden, 9/25/05, male
- Rachel Davino, 7/17/83, female.
- Olivia Engel, 7/18/06, female
- Josephine Gay, 12/11/05, female
- Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 04/04/06, female
- Dylan Hockley, 3/8/06, male
- Dawn Hocksprung, 06/28/65, female
- Madeleine F. Hsu, 7/10/06, female
- Catherine V. Hubbard, 6/08/06, female
- Chase Kowalski, 10/31/05, male
- Jesse Lewis, 6/30/06, male
- James Mattioli , 3/22/06, male
- Grace McDonnell, 12/04/05, female
- Anne Marie Murphy, 07/25/60, female
- Emilie Parker, 5/12/06, female
- Jack Pinto, 5/06/06, male
- Noah Pozner, 11/20/06, male
- Caroline Previdi, 9/07/06, female
- Jessica Rekos, 5/10/06, female
- Avielle Richman, 10/17/06, female
- Lauren Russeau, 6/1982, female (full date of birth not specified)
- Mary Sherlach, 2/11/56, female
- Victoria Soto, 11/04/85, female
- Benjamin Wheeler, 9/12/06, male
- Allison N. Wyatt, 7/03/06, female
 
2012-12-15 06:16:53 PM

mittromneysdog: Solaris: Because guns are the only tool these people use to kill others.

Hey, great argument. People also use tools other than nuclear bombs to kill others. Therefore, there's no good reason to restrict private ownership of nuclear bombs.


Well, anyone who can afford one can get one anyway. What's the practical benefit of restricting ownership of things that only governments can afford?
 
2012-12-15 06:19:13 PM

JRoo: DoomPaul: Surely it's fine to give up some liberty in exchange for security.

What security?

The security of letting anyone have a gun so that the crazy child of a gun nut can destroy the lives of dozens and change forever the lives of hundreds?

Ban all handguns now.


Your proposal first requires amending the United States Constitution. Additionally, you are appealing to emotion, which is logically fallacious.
 
2012-12-15 06:20:27 PM

Waxing_Chewbacca: On Wednesday Adam Lanza was a law abiding citizen. On Thursday he did this.
[names removed]


Have you any other emotional appeals to offer, or have you any actual logical arguments to present?
 
2012-12-15 06:20:46 PM
From one of yesterday's threads. What_now was overly optimistic, it seems.

i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-15 06:21:22 PM
We could stop this stuff in a heartbeat if we changed our stance from shouting for bed wetting fear laws to protect us and instead changed our response to how we handle these people afterward.

Take the Dark Knight shootings. How about every Monday night at 9PM Pacific we have a new reality show called Crying Young Man Gets Ass Raped by a Clown With a Two Foot Strapon. We do that every Monday for a year. At the end of the year we take him up in a helicopter over a large parking lot and film while we give him two options. Jump or next year will be known as the Gang Bang Season.

The kid from yesterday? Pump him full of lantern fuel, dress him up in a nice suit, make him look all calm and peaceful. As your are filming his funeral have somebody light him on fire and lower the casket. Lower him down and have a dump truck full of raw sewage put out the flames and fill the grave. Lower the concrete lid and cover with dirt. His tombstone reads, "Here lies some guy we buried in a sarcophagus of shiat."

A couple of more examples like these and I bet mass murder becomes a thingof the past.
 
2012-12-15 06:23:11 PM
Has anyone pointed this out yet (FTFA):

At approximately 4:00 a.m., officers from the South Precinct responded to the incident location to investigate a report of a person with a gun. Upon arrival, officers located the suspect on the 5th floor hallway. As officers approached, the suspect began firing a handgun at the officers, striking one officer and two members of the hospital staff. An assisting Birmingham Police officer returned gunfire fatally wounding the suspect. Due to the circumstances at the scene, the victims were transported to a neighboring hospital for treatment. The three victims' injuries are not life threatening.

-----------------------------

This was not a mass shooting. This was a dude walking into the hospital with a gun on him, someone saw it, and the cops gunned him down in the hospital.

How is that a mass shooting?
 
2012-12-15 06:24:10 PM

mittromneysdog: Solaris: Because guns are the only tool these people use to kill others.

Hey, great argument. People also use tools other than nuclear bombs to kill others. Therefore, there's no good reason to restrict private ownership of nuclear bombs.


You miss the argument entirely. Banning a specific method of murder is fruitless when there are infinite ways these monsters can accomplish their goal.

Why is the argument on what these people use to do this?

Why is it not on what we could have done to stop this person from doing this rather than HOW this person did this?
 
2012-12-15 06:24:39 PM

untaken_name: mittromneysdog: Solaris: Because guns are the only tool these people use to kill others.

Hey, great argument. People also use tools other than nuclear bombs to kill others. Therefore, there's no good reason to restrict private ownership of nuclear bombs.

Well, anyone who can afford one can get one anyway. What's the practical benefit of restricting ownership of things that only governments can afford?


Several Soviet nuclear weapons have gone missing since the end of the Cold War. I don't know if they were ever located. I do know that it was a major fear that one of those missing nuclear weapons would finds its way into the hands of a terrorist organization, which would then use it. I'd like to be able to punish anyone who obtains a nuclear bomb, whether or not we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt their intent to use it... unlawfully.

In any event, I've read at least one estimate that put the cost of crafting a crude nuclear weapons that might not function properly at around $100,000. Can't say whether or not that's realistic. I am saying that it's a good idea to have a statute on the books just in case.
 
2012-12-15 06:25:39 PM
I know nothing about this instance, didn't even read the article, but my guess is this guy heard about yesterday's shooting , thought he wanted to defend himself by carrying his gun with him everywhere he went, he went to a hospital where guns aren't permitted. They told him to leave, he didn't, they called cops on him, gets into confrontation with cops, he draws, bam bam couple people dead.
 
2012-12-15 06:26:42 PM

Pichu0102: drewogatory: Pichu0102: Time to reset the countdown on the "when it's okay to talk about gun control" clock.

Homicide is only the 15th leading cause of death in the US and gun violence is just a subset of that. It makes far more sense and you would save far more lives if you allocated resources based on the overall numbers and not squander them on a small fraction of preventable deaths because gun deaths are more sensationalistic.

So let's not do anything about guns because they aren't the number 1 killer.


Can none of you people read? "allocate resources based on the overall numbers". Why commit a disproportionate amount of finite resources toward solving a very small percentage of the overall issue of preventable deaths?
 
2012-12-15 06:27:23 PM
There should be a button that can turn off a gun.
 
2012-12-15 06:27:56 PM

Dimensio: Waxing_Chewbacca: On Wednesday Adam Lanza was a law abiding citizen. On Thursday he did this.
[names removed]

Have you any other emotional appeals to offer, or have you any actual logical arguments to present?


I get a little tired of the "law abiding citizen" crap. I have followed your posts. You sound like many of my friends who are gun owners; smart and reasonable. We disagree on aspects of the question at hand. However, as you yourself have stated I believe, there are those on your side with a far right wing agenda and who have, in this very thread as in countless other instances, shown a callous disregard for the lives lost. I posted this to remind them... These were largely children.
 
2012-12-15 06:28:23 PM

JRoo: Ban all handguns now.


You are a profoundly silly little man.
 
2012-12-15 06:29:28 PM

occamswrist: I know nothing about this instance, didn't even read the article, but my guess is this guy heard about yesterday's shooting , thought he wanted to defend himself by carrying his gun with him everywhere he went, he went to a hospital where guns aren't permitted. They told him to leave, he didn't, they called cops on him, gets into confrontation with cops, he draws, bam bam couple people dead.


The only deceased individual is the man who initiated the shooting.