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  
•       •       •

18599 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

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 835 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