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 836
    More: NewsFlash, St. Vincent, Alabama, UAB, shootings, guns  
•       •       •

18591 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?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
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...
 
Displayed 50 of 836 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report