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.

(Think Progress)   In one day, more people have signed a petition asking Obama to address gun control than Texans wanting to secede from the Union   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 1045
    More: Obvious, President Obama, unions, gun regulation, petitions  
•       •       •

3078 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Dec 2012 at 8:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1045 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-15 10:38:39 PM

Silverstaff: Mrtraveler01: This is why I can't stand you guys. You guys act so smug and have your heads up your ass just because you own a gun.

I honestly don't care if you own a gun or what type of gun you own, but to think that maybe there is something we can do to minimize the frequency of these tragic events is the equivalent of trying to take your guns away makes me realize that we might as well get used to more tragic shootings like this because we'll never do anything to fix it.

Seriously, fark this country and the way it handles this issue.

Sorry for the rant but some of these pro-gun people give Prius owners a run for their money in a smugness contest.

Want to know why I'm ranting?

Because I've spent the day online, not just on Fark, but on other message boards, on progressive Facebook groups, on discussions on news sites. The level of left-wing derp online is toxic right now. It's like a mirror-universe version of Teabagger derp. People that I used to think were rational and sensible are now talking about oppressing me and taking away my guns. If I want to own an AR-15 and a Beretta 92 for sport shooting and home defense, that's my own goddamn business.

There are a lot of vocal posters out there clamoring for repealing the Second Amendment, or for draconian anti-gun laws. You've seen people in this very thread trying to say there is no reason for anybody to have a semi-automatic rifle.

It makes me angry because I see people who just a little while ago were ranting about Republicans wanting to take away their freedoms during the election, now standing up without noticing their own hypocrisy talking about revoking basic Constitutional rights because of one mans crimes.

It is like saying that the First Amendment should be repealed because of the WBC. A few assholes abusing a civil right shouldn't spoil it for the rest of us.


we can eliminate certain types of guns without tarnishing the Second Amendment.

BTW, the assholes are not abusing a civil right, you moron, they are killing children,
 
2012-12-15 10:38:51 PM

Lionel Mandrake: "BravadoGT: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.

You do know that the same day this happened a lunatic in China went into a school and stabbed 22 kids, right?

And you do know that no one died, right?

The "they'll just use a knife or ax or baseball bat" argument is the absolute stupidest argument in the entire discussion."


---

Let's take a moment to inventory the weapons that Tim McVeigh, Mohammed Atta and Julio Gonzalez used to successfully commit mass murder, shall we?

(Spoiler: zero firearms in each case, and body counts 5, 100, and 3 times as high [respectively] as the highest-grossing shooting in US history.)
 
2012-12-15 10:39:38 PM

Lionel Mandrake: That tool is weighing his entire "argument" on ONE incident.


Yea, he's using sophistry. Something as an anti-civil gun rights activist you should be quite familiar.
 
2012-12-15 10:39:38 PM

chuckufarlie: rohar: chuckufarlie: rohar: chuckufarlie: violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC. As a start. If someone wants to make a petition asking for something similar I'd sign it. There is no achievable amount of gun control that would make a bit of difference, otherwise.

yes, there is a mental health issue in the USA but more funding for mental health is not going to solve the problem, or even slow it down. The people in the last three shootings had not been diagnosed as mentally ill. Beyond that, a person that is sane and rational on Monday is fully capable of snapping on Tuesday and shooting up a school on Wednesday. How is your proposal going to help in that case?

Mental health only helps when you get the people diagnosed and medicated.

The medical officials call these shooters "rage killers". Rage is something that is rarely diagnosed and it usually comes on before it can be diagnosed.

Got any other bright ideas?

Funny thing, statistically violent crime was much lower per capita before we completely defunded public mental health in the '80s.

/kinda takes the wind out of your argument don't it?

I suppose that you are assuming that nothing else had an impact on that statistic, do you? Of all of the things that could have had an impact on that result, you are going to go with your "idea".

Causation and correlation - look it up.

Certainly. But causation does not occur without correlation. Can you find any point in history where there was a passage of a gun control law and violent crime decreased?

the phrase is that correlation does not imply causation. I think that you probably need to have that explained, don't ya?

There has never been a time or location that banned guns where there was not a way to get them across the border.


Tell me, ...


No. I need no explanation. Unless you can identify a causation without a matching correlation. Problem here is that there has been no gun legislation with any correlation to rates of gun related crime. By definition, causation does not occur without correlation (correlation must be a part of causation, but correlation on it's own is not causation).

No gun control law in America has ever had an affect on mortality rates. It's never happened in the many years we've been trying it. That said, gun control laws have been fairly predictable, while mortality rates fluctuate dramatically decade to decade.

Maybe, just maybe, some other legislation is at play. I'm sure you can figure it out, you're all that intelligent and all. Right?
 
2012-12-15 10:39:59 PM
First off, this last shooting was done with someone else's firearms.

Second, I'm not opposed to a 3-7 day waiting period on firearm sales. But I'd like to see if there's any statistics supporting the prior application of waiting periods.

It looks like most of these shootings have been a byproduct of a non-existent mental healthcare system. Addressing the guns to solve mass murder is addressing a symptom, not a cause.
 
2012-12-15 10:40:02 PM

spmkk: Lionel Mandrake: "BravadoGT: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.

You do know that the same day this happened a lunatic in China went into a school and stabbed 22 kids, right?

And you do know that no one died, right?

The "they'll just use a knife or ax or baseball bat" argument is the absolute stupidest argument in the entire discussion."

---

Let's take a moment to inventory the weapons that Tim McVeigh, Mohammed Atta and Julio Gonzalez used to successfully commit mass murder, shall we?

(Spoiler: zero firearms in each case, and body counts 5, 100, and 3 times as high [respectively] as the highest-grossing shooting in US history.)


Therefore there is no need for gun laws.
 
2012-12-15 10:40:18 PM
Well, they did say he was coming for their guns....
 
2012-12-15 10:40:24 PM

rohar: chuckufarlie: rohar: pornopose: rohar: pornopose: rohar: pornopose: I used to be okay with the staus quo. No longer. Our leaders need to sit down and make some changes to gun ownership requirements in this country. When a class full of little kids gets shot up, something has to change. Period. I'm not saying go gun grabbing. I'm not saying get rid of the second amendment. But they HAVE to do SOMETHING. To do nothing would constitute the biggest failure of leadership at all levels of our government. This must not be ignored.

Can you come up with a correlation between a change in gun control laws and a change in gun violence corrected for external variables? Either positive or negative?

If not, why go down that road?

Let's call it an experiment. We experiemented with supply side economics, alcohol prohibition, raising the drinking age, bailouts and lot of other things. All these things have a common denominator, they were passed in a an attempt to deal with problems people were having. We can argue until we're blue int he face about what the right answer is. How about we just do SOMETHING and see how it works? If it doesn't work, let's try something else.

Inaction is not an acceptable response to this situation. Everyone has theories. Let's start putting them to the test and then put the ones that don't work to rest. Right, wrong or indifferent we have to do SOMETHING.

That's just the thing, we've already put them to the test. We've passed legislation, historically, that had a direct affect on gun violence both positively and negatively. We already know how to change this. But you're right, we should abandon everything you know in favor of your statistically unfounded "experiment".

Oh give it a rest. I'm no expert on gun law and I don't know the right answer. I freely admit that. My point is that inaction is unacceptable. The status quo needs to change.

Do you disagree with me about that?

One law isn't going to fix shiat. But the time for ignoring gun violence in this ...

So Britain, a European island where their neighbors damned near outlaw guns fits right into the same theory?

Can you cite a single gun control law that had any affect on homicide rates? Positive or negative?


Still to lazy to spend ten seconds googling Phil and Jens? If you want real statistics and analysis on this that's still a pretty good place to start.

But, see, you don't actually want to have an evidence informed conversation about this, do you?
 
2012-12-15 10:40:59 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Mrbogey: It's not "smugness" it's people smarter than you in this realm of study telling you that you're wrong. Stop whining that nobody is taking your crazy seriously.

"It's not conceit when people way more awesome than you point out your pathetic inferiority!!"

...what a doosh


You sound f*cking stupid, anyone ever tell you that?

/"come at me, I'm armed -- go for it!"
//an ^ argument you will never hear from anti-gun nuts while they hide under their blankets and cry into their pillows
 
2012-12-15 10:40:59 PM

chuckufarlie: mittromneysdog: Okay, gun safety advocates. Here's the simple reality. Gun rights voters are willing to vote solely on the issue of gun rights. People who otherwise despise the Republican agenda vote Republican for no reason other than gun rights. For this reason alone, it is political suicide for the Democrats to address gun safety.

If you want government action on gun safety, you need to make yourselves as fanatically devoted to the issue as gun rights advocates are to theirs. If you despise literally everything else the Democrats support, you must still march to the polls en masse, you must volunteer for their campaigns, you must donate large sums of money to their cause, and to organizations like the Brady campaign. Democrats must win where otherwise they would lose solely on the issue of gun safety. Republicans must lose where otherwise they would win.

Until then, you can neither expect action on gun safety, nor will you deserve any.

We just won a presidential election for the second straight time. I am thinking that there are enough people to support a change if Congress would act. Not that I expect them to act.


Don't count on it. The gun rights voters will get out in the midterms. The gun safety voters can't be bothered to show up to presidential elections if the weather is bad.

I'd like people to prove me wrong. I'd like the Republicans to get clobbered in 2014 on the issue of gun safety. But I'm not holding my breath. I mean, I'd also like to win Powerball when the jackpot is half a billion dollars.
 
2012-12-15 10:42:14 PM

bulldg4life: Therefore there is no need for gun laws.


A sensible person would discern that current gun laws are good enough.
 
2012-12-15 10:42:24 PM
JohnnyC

"Citizen A is in aisle 10. Citizen B is in aisle 11. Both hear gunshots go off somewhere nearby. Both draw weapons and start looking for the shooter. Citizen A checks around the corner and sees Citizen B crouched in aisle 11 with a gun. How does Citizen A know that Citizen B is a "good guy"? He doesn't... so as Citizen B turns to look in the direction of Citizen A, Citizen A fires... Citizen C heard the shots too and then another shot. He zeroes in on Citizen A, who just shot Citizen B. Citizen C shoots Citizen A...

All sorts of scenarios like this are a problem with the idea of "hero citizen saves the day". The reality is that all any of those people with guns is likely going to do is make matters worse and increase the amount of lead flying around. Sure... there is the off chance that they might just put one in the head of the original shooter and drop them like a rock... but the chances are much higher that they are just going to make matters worse."


Never said it was a perfect solution. But once again, I'd rather take that scenario than the scenario where I'm cowering in a corner of the produce aisle, and my means of defense is the largest apple or banana I can find. The cops aren't going to save you, the banana isn't going to save you, and the CCW holder also might not save you, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who has the best chance of doing so in the crucial first minutes when this all goes down.
 
2012-12-15 10:42:41 PM
My heart goes out to everyone harmed by this tragedy, their friends, and their families.

I would like to say that since 1991, American society appears to becoming less violent, though, rather than more so.

www.americanprogress.org

Arguments for increased gun control need to recognize that A) Connecticut actually has fairly strict gun laws compared to other states (it was ranked #5 according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence), B) We survived the 90's, which had much higher rates of violence, and C) Pushing through laws based on shock and sadness gives us things like the Patriot Act and the TSA.

We do need measures to get mentally ill people the help they need, and ways to keep guns out of the hands of those likely to harm others. I just don't want to see expensive measures rammed through Congress that would have been useless to prevent the tragedy in Connecticut to begin with.
 
2012-12-15 10:42:50 PM

mittromneysdog: chuckufarlie: mittromneysdog: Okay, gun safety advocates. Here's the simple reality. Gun rights voters are willing to vote solely on the issue of gun rights. People who otherwise despise the Republican agenda vote Republican for no reason other than gun rights. For this reason alone, it is political suicide for the Democrats to address gun safety.

If you want government action on gun safety, you need to make yourselves as fanatically devoted to the issue as gun rights advocates are to theirs. If you despise literally everything else the Democrats support, you must still march to the polls en masse, you must volunteer for their campaigns, you must donate large sums of money to their cause, and to organizations like the Brady campaign. Democrats must win where otherwise they would lose solely on the issue of gun safety. Republicans must lose where otherwise they would win.

Until then, you can neither expect action on gun safety, nor will you deserve any.

We just won a presidential election for the second straight time. I am thinking that there are enough people to support a change if Congress would act. Not that I expect them to act.

Don't count on it. The gun rights voters will get out in the midterms. The gun safety voters can't be bothered to show up to presidential elections if the weather is bad.

I'd like people to prove me wrong. I'd like the Republicans to get clobbered in 2014 on the issue of gun safety. But I'm not holding my breath. I mean, I'd also like to win Powerball when the jackpot is half a billion dollars.


I would actually forego the powerball jack pot if we could get reasonable gun control laws.
 
2012-12-15 10:43:13 PM

rohar: chuckufarlie: rohar: chuckufarlie: rohar: chuckufarlie: violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC. As a start. If someone wants to make a petition asking for something similar I'd sign it. There is no achievable amount of gun control that would make a bit of difference, otherwise.

yes, there is a mental health issue in the USA but more funding for mental health is not going to solve the problem, or even slow it down. The people in the last three shootings had not been diagnosed as mentally ill. Beyond that, a person that is sane and rational on Monday is fully capable of snapping on Tuesday and shooting up a school on Wednesday. How is your proposal going to help in that case?

Mental health only helps when you get the people diagnosed and medicated.

The medical officials call these shooters "rage killers". Rage is something that is rarely diagnosed and it usually comes on before it can be diagnosed.

Got any other bright ideas?

Funny thing, statistically violent crime was much lower per capita before we completely defunded public mental health in the '80s.

/kinda takes the wind out of your argument don't it?

I suppose that you are assuming that nothing else had an impact on that statistic, do you? Of all of the things that could have had an impact on that result, you are going to go with your "idea".

Causation and correlation - look it up.

Certainly. But causation does not occur without correlation. Can you find any point in history where there was a passage of a gun control law and violent crime decreased?

the phrase is that correlation does not imply causation. I think that you probably need to have that explained, don't ya?

There has never been a time or location that banned guns where there was not a way to get them across the border.


Tell me, ...

No. I need no explanation. Unless you can identify a causation without a matching correlation. Problem here is that there has been no gun legislation with any correlation to rates of gun related crime. By definition, causation does not occur without correlation (correlation must be a part of causation, but correlation on it's own is not causation).

No gun control law in America has ever had an affect on mortality rates. It's never happened in the many years we've been trying it. That said, gun control laws have been fairly predictable, while mortality rates fluctuate dramatically decade to decade.

Maybe, just maybe, some other legislation is at play. I'm sure you can figure it out, you're all that intelligent and all. Right?


Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.
 
2012-12-15 10:43:41 PM

mittromneysdog: urban.derelict: //if only ANYONE ELSE AT THE SCHOOL HAD A F*CKING GUN then MAYBE they could have been safe

Yeah, dammit. WHY DON'T KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS PACK HEAT!!!


You're goddamn right. Why didn't the principal, in his duties to protect and direct students to a wealth of knowledge, have ZERO security at the school? Schools are PERFECT TARGETS because they're "GUN-FREE" which means perps can take their time, like this gentleman did.

Nobody wonders why this happened out in the middle of nowhere in New England, nobody wonders why Holmes got away with multiple murders in a Colorado movie theatre -- NOBODY ELSE HAS F*CKING WEAPONS YOU F*CKING DIPshiatS

/unarmed = always the victim, never the hero
 
2012-12-15 10:43:41 PM

Mrbogey: bulldg4life: Therefore there is no need for gun laws.

A sensible person would discern that current gun laws are good enough.


With the ability of mentally disturbed people purchasing multiple guns, someone that feels current gun laws are sufficient should be deemed a goddamn idiot
 
2012-12-15 10:43:44 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Mrbogey: Because that's the solution being proposed! The pro-civil rights folks have offered a lot of things we can do to prevent this tragedy but the pinheaded anti-civil rights folks keep plugging their ears and yelling "No! Must ban guns! Ban them!!! Australia!!!!"


All I've heard from the "pro civil rights folks" is idiotic things like "the teachers should've been armed" and other stupid remarks. The closest thing I've heard was trying to find a way to restrict access to guns to people who are mentally unstable/ill.

Mrbogey: It's not "smugness" it's people smarter than you in this realm of study telling you that you're wrong. Stop whining that nobody is taking your crazy seriously.
"It's not conceit when people way more awesome than you point out your pathetic inferiority!!"

...what a doosh



Amen.

I don't care if you own a gun. I just don't need to hear you bragging about it.
 
2012-12-15 10:44:36 PM

chuckufarlie: I would actually forego the powerball jack pot if we could get reasonable gun control laws.


Wow. If this is true, you are a MUCH better man than me.
 
2012-12-15 10:44:49 PM

Mrbogey: There are a number of women who've been the victims of sexual violence at the hands of felons released due to lenient prison sentences. Would it sway you if I posted their pics and demanding we pass a three strikes law on felonies?


Three rape convictions and we throw away the key?

Pix or no, why the hell would I have a problem with that?
 
2012-12-15 10:44:56 PM

Snarfangel: My heart goes out to everyone harmed by this tragedy, their friends, and their families.

I would like to say that since 1991, American society appears to becoming less violent, though, rather than more so.

[www.americanprogress.org image 507x427]

Arguments for increased gun control need to recognize that A) Connecticut actually has fairly strict gun laws compared to other states (it was ranked #5 according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence), B) We survived the 90's, which had much higher rates of violence, and C) Pushing through laws based on shock and sadness gives us things like the Patriot Act and the TSA.

We do need measures to get mentally ill people the help they need, and ways to keep guns out of the hands of those likely to harm others. I just don't want to see expensive measures rammed through Congress that would have been useless to prevent the tragedy in Connecticut to begin with.


the idiot in Connecticut had not been diagnosed as having mental health issues. There is no reason to believe that increased measures to get help for mentally ill people would have changed anything that happened yesterday. Or what happened in Oregon last week or in Colorado last summer.
 
2012-12-15 10:45:25 PM

mittromneysdog: Don't count on it. The gun rights voters will get out in the midterms. The gun safety voters can't be bothered to show up to presidential elections if the weather is bad.


That must be why Obama won, handily? You think it was because the weather was good.

Don't get me wrong... midterms tend to be lower turnout in general, but it seems you're just making shiat up to support your opinion. Unless of course you have some citation you can provide that shows that what you said is in any way backed up by fact?
 
2012-12-15 10:45:36 PM

Mrbogey: A sensible person would discern that current gun laws are good enough.


a sensible person would f*cking pack heat, for christ sake.

Option A: a perp breaks into your house. Do you

a. call the cops and hide in fear for your life
b. shoot the motherf*cker dead, report the dead body in the hall after you step over it to make a sammich

Cops haev f*cking TOLD ME -- "kill them, that way there is only one story: YOURS"
 
2012-12-15 10:45:40 PM

Mrbogey: Lionel Mandrake: That tool is weighing his entire "argument" on ONE incident.

Yea, he's using sophistry. Something as an anti-civil gun rights activist you should be quite familiar.


Oh look! Another idiot who thinks not toeing the NRA line makes you an anti-civil rights activist!! 

Fight on, mighty civil rights warrior!!
 
2012-12-15 10:45:41 PM
mittromneysdog

"Don't count on it. The gun rights voters will get out in the midterms. The gun safety voters can't be bothered to show up to presidential elections if the weather is bad.

I'd like people to prove me wrong. I'd like the Republicans to get clobbered in 2014 on the issue of gun safety"

As a gun rights voter who voted Obama in the last two general elections and DID vote in the last midterms, I'm getting a kick out of your reply. Did I mention that my brother, a gun user, and two of my three best friends, also gun owners, voted Obama? It's not as simple as pro-guns/Republicans, anti-guns/Democrats anymore.
 
2012-12-15 10:45:47 PM

birdmanesq: Still to lazy to spend ten seconds googling Phil and Jens? If you want real statistics and analysis on this that's still a pretty good place to start.

But, see, you don't actually want to have an evidence informed conversation about this, do you?


Phil and Jens have never, in their entire history, cited a single correlation between gun control legislation and a change to the homicide rate.

I don't know what planet you live on, but in my world data > anecdote.
 
2012-12-15 10:45:48 PM
provideocoalition.com

\not obscure
 
2012-12-15 10:46:00 PM

kapaso: Maybe we should let the tsa run school security, arm the teachers and every adult on campus with an assault rifle and a tactical shotgun (a pistol against someone with an ak 47 would defeat the whole point) and body armor, then our kids will finally be safe. That might work, of course once we've turned our schools into a cross between an airport and a prison we will finally have something concrete to look at everyday and remind us what a shiathole this country is becoming.


Why stop there? We should arm the kindergartners. If they're trained responsibly, there will be no danger to anyone but the attacker.
 
2012-12-15 10:46:24 PM

urban.derelict: You sound f*cking stupid, anyone ever tell you that?


Yes. douchebags say retarded shiat like that all the time.
 
2012-12-15 10:46:49 PM

wildcardjack: First off, this last shooting was done with someone else's firearms.

Second, I'm not opposed to a 3-7 day waiting period on firearm sales. But I'd like to see if there's any statistics supporting the prior application of waiting periods.

It looks like most of these shootings have been a byproduct of a non-existent mental healthcare system. Addressing the guns to solve mass murder is addressing a symptom, not a cause.


The mental healthcare system has been the whipping boy for many states when it comes to budget cuts and look at what it's caused us. Until we realize that adequate mental healthcare is critical, we'll never address the cause.

The cynic in me doesn't see this happening though.
 
2012-12-15 10:47:10 PM

Lionel Mandrake: BravadoGT: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.

You do know that the same day this happened a lunatic in China went into a school and stabbed 22 kids, right?

And you do know that no one died, right?

The "they'll just use a knife or ax or baseball bat" argument is the absolute stupidest argument in the entire discussion.


The gun fetishists keep bringing up that thing in China as proof of what? If people did not have access to guns they would wound each other instead of murder?
 
2012-12-15 10:47:12 PM

Silverstaff: Mrtraveler01: This is why I can't stand you guys. You guys act so smug and have your heads up your ass just because you own a gun.

I honestly don't care if you own a gun or what type of gun you own, but to think that maybe there is something we can do to minimize the frequency of these tragic events is the equivalent of trying to take your guns away makes me realize that we might as well get used to more tragic shootings like this because we'll never do anything to fix it.

Seriously, fark this country and the way it handles this issue.

Sorry for the rant but some of these pro-gun people give Prius owners a run for their money in a smugness contest.

Want to know why I'm ranting?

Because I've spent the day online, not just on Fark, but on other message boards, on progressive Facebook groups, on discussions on news sites. The level of left-wing derp online is toxic right now. It's like a mirror-universe version of Teabagger derp. People that I used to think were rational and sensible are now talking about oppressing me and taking away my guns. If I want to own an AR-15 and a Beretta 92 for sport shooting and home defense, that's my own goddamn business.

There are a lot of vocal posters out there clamoring for repealing the Second Amendment, or for draconian anti-gun laws. You've seen people in this very thread trying to say there is no reason for anybody to have a semi-automatic rifle.

It makes me angry because I see people who just a little while ago were ranting about Republicans wanting to take away their freedoms during the election, now standing up without noticing their own hypocrisy talking about revoking basic Constitutional rights because of one mans crimes.

It is like saying that the First Amendment should be repealed because of the WBC. A few assholes abusing a civil right shouldn't spoil it for the rest of us.


One man's crimes? Where have you been the last five years? This shiat keeps happening and it's always from legally purchased guns. There was a mass shooting in a mall last week. There will probably be another mass shooting next week.

You should also read the 2nd Amendment. "Well regulated" is right there at the beginning. We are just asking for some more regulation. A lot more. It's right there in the Bill of Rights.
 
2012-12-15 10:47:18 PM
Your blue states only need to secede from the Union and they could do away with the 2nd Amendment very easily. You know they're gonna keep proliferating weapons and bullets in the red states so you might want to consider a divorce. The federal government got their asses kicked by a few Branch Davidians and I don't think you libs really want to get into a gun grabbing war with all the armed people in this country.

Do something constructive instead of blowing a bunch of hot air.
 
2012-12-15 10:47:36 PM

urban.derelict: mittromneysdog: urban.derelict: //if only ANYONE ELSE AT THE SCHOOL HAD A F*CKING GUN then MAYBE they could have been safe

Yeah, dammit. WHY DON'T KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS PACK HEAT!!!

You're goddamn right. Why didn't the principal, in his duties to protect and direct students to a wealth of knowledge, have ZERO security at the school? Schools are PERFECT TARGETS because they're "GUN-FREE" which means perps can take their time, like this gentleman did.

Nobody wonders why this happened out in the middle of nowhere in New England, nobody wonders why Holmes got away with multiple murders in a Colorado movie theatre -- NOBODY ELSE HAS F*CKING WEAPONS YOU F*CKING DIPshiatS

/unarmed = always the victim, never the hero


Rock on, bro! I do believe this KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS SHOULD PACK HEAT argument is a winning one for gun rights advocates. I think you should make it in as many public forums as possible. That's it. Shout it at the top of your lungs. Write to the editor of your newspaper. Do everything in your power to get this message out to as many people as possible.
 
2012-12-15 10:47:38 PM

mittromneysdog: chuckufarlie: I would actually forego the powerball jack pot if we could get reasonable gun control laws.

Wow. If this is true, you are a MUCH better man than me.


As the father of two children, I have been hit very hard by recent events. If giving up a jackpot is all it would take, I would gladly do so.

I cannot even imagine how those parents feel right now. Their lives have been devastated.
 
2012-12-15 10:47:49 PM
keithgabryelski

Thanks man, appreciate it.
 
2012-12-15 10:48:11 PM

Mrtraveler01: I don't care if you own a gun. I just don't need to hear you bragging about it.


I let people know so they don't make the mistake of coming anywhere near my house. I don't want to clean your f*cking blood off my sh*t because you decided to break into my house...

guns deter crime. lack of guns promotes crime. Look what happened in D.C. when they tried to ban handguns:

all the criminals were armed, none of the law abiding citizens were
 
2012-12-15 10:48:22 PM
Fact: There is no correlation between the number of handguns in a population and the amount of handgun violence in said population.*

* Ignoring all of the societies in the world that have banned/severely restricted handgun ownership. Statistics can suckmaballs.
 
2012-12-15 10:49:13 PM

chuckufarlie: banning guns in DC when you can just go to Virginia and buy one almost anywhere, anytime.


As long as you are 21 and pass the background check....right?...hell even law enforcemnet has to jump through hoops when purchasing a non duty weapon.

something something facts something something sounds better.
 
2012-12-15 10:49:15 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: You should also read the 2nd Amendment. "Well regulated" is right there at the beginning. We are just asking for some more regulation. A lot more. It's right there in the Bill of Rights.


I think the question we need to ask is how much more regulation "pro-civil rights gun folks" would be willing to accept?
 
2012-12-15 10:49:20 PM

bulldg4life: I love that the auto- response when "gun control" is mentioned is "omg gun grabber blargh rabble cold dead hands".

You know, if gun nuts admitted there was a problem and took the initiative to help with reasonable gun control legislation...gun grabbing wouldn't be an option.

But, god forbid that happen.


Okay, as a gun nut, who is normally a liberal, and on most political issues on the other side of the fence, let me speak here.

I spent way too much time today online. Not just on Fark, but on some of my favorite Facebook groups, like say Americans Against The Tea Party, formerly one of my favorites, but now a group I finally had to just quit because the anti-gun rhetoric was getting way too annoying.

There are a lot of people on there who instantly jumped to talking about repealing the second amendment, about criminalizing all gun possession, talking about how barbaric and backwards the very idea of guns in non police/military hands is.

The immediate response to that is: over our dead bodies. Extremist rhetoric on one side breeds like responses.

You want me to talk rationally about what could be done?

1. Improvements in psychiatric care. Single payer psychiatric care nationwide. Any American who wants counseling or psychiatric care should get it, for free, including medications and inpatient care. Would probably have the side effect of seriously cutting down on homelessness too.

2. Media changes. Stop sensationalizing this crap. Don't let it be a path to Herostratic Fame, i.e. making the people who did this famous. Downplay the name of the shooter, play up the names of the victims. Minimize coverage of the person who did it. Ill people who want to be famous shouldn't think of committing atrocities to get fame, fame from evil deed should be damn hard to get. The Romans had it right, Damnio Memoriae. We can't quite do that in a society with the First Amendment, but knowing how to deal with people who do bad things for the fame is millennia old challenge of society.

3. Regulate ammunition. I'd say make ammo like pseudoephedrine is in many states. Track the sales, and put an upper cap on how much can be bought per-person per-month.

I'd say that would do a lot of it, just off the top of my head.
 
2012-12-15 10:50:09 PM

BravadoGT: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.


By this same logic, since the knowledge on how to build nuclear weapons is out there, we should just give some to Iran, right? I mean it's against the law to randomly nuke other countries, so there's absolutely no point in restricting access to the tools.
 
2012-12-15 10:50:41 PM

Mrtraveler01: The closest thing I've heard was trying to find a way to restrict access to guns to people who are mentally unstable/ill.


Then you're a "low information" person. Several congressmen have called for a comprehensive semi-auto rifle ban.

bulldg4life: With the ability of mentally disturbed people purchasing multiple guns, someone that feels current gun laws are sufficient should be deemed a goddamn idiot


This guy didn't buy his guns. Current gun laws prohibit mentally unfit persons from buying them.

Connecticut has "liberal" laws on declaring a person mentally unsound. They're one of only a few states that don't have forced treatment for mentally disturbed folks. Luckily for those who worked to reform Connecticut law, this guy was sheltered by his mother enough that in most any state he would have stayed off the radar of mental health screeners.
 
2012-12-15 10:50:42 PM

birdmanesq: Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.


Like Chicago?

That whole argument is another correlation / causation and it ignores everything else. And you know it.
 
2012-12-15 10:50:48 PM

bulldg4life: Farker Soze: bulldg4life: What color is the sky in your world? And, why do you feel the need to write such tripe to save your precious guns?

Yeah, don't you know Obama isn't going to take your guns? Now quick, everyone go sign this petition telling Obama to take your guns.

Where in the article (or the petition) is it implied that guns will be taken?

I love that the auto- response when "gun control" is mentioned is "omg gun grabber blargh rabble cold dead hands".

You know, if gun nuts admitted there was a problem and took the initiative to help with reasonable gun control legislation...gun grabbing wouldn't be an option.

But, god forbid that happen.


The goal of this petition is to force the Obama Administration to produce legislation that limits access to guns.


Oh, I see, they don't want to take guns, they just want to restrict who and what guns any future person can own. Technically they aren't taking your gun so why all the complaints? No gun grabbing here.
 
2012-12-15 10:50:48 PM

chuckufarlie: mittromneysdog: chuckufarlie: I would actually forego the powerball jack pot if we could get reasonable gun control laws.

Wow. If this is true, you are a MUCH better man than me.

As the father of two children, I have been hit very hard by recent events. If giving up a jackpot is all it would take, I would gladly do so.

I cannot even imagine how those parents feel right now. Their lives have been devastated.


I am the father of a six year old boy, and I've been moved to tears more than once by the coverage of these events. They showed a little memorial shrine some people had made, that had some little boy/girl's stuffed tiger wearing a bowtie. I know that was some victim's beloved toy, and I could NOT fight back the tears.

But damn, we're talking HALF A BILLION DOLLARS here. Good for you. Seriously. I'm just saying I'm not that much of a saint.
 
2012-12-15 10:50:52 PM

rohar: birdmanesq: Still to lazy to spend ten seconds googling Phil and Jens? If you want real statistics and analysis on this that's still a pretty good place to start.

But, see, you don't actually want to have an evidence informed conversation about this, do you?

Phil and Jens have never, in their entire history, cited a single correlation between gun control legislation and a change to the homicide rate.

I don't know what planet you live on, but in my world data > anecdote.


I'm sorry, perhaps you haven't read anything by them. Specifically all the stuff that cites correlations between gun legislation and gun crime: a major portion of their work on the cost of gun violence.

See, in my world data trumps anecdote. And I'm pretty sure that Phil Cook and Jens Ludwig are two of the most highly respected empirical researchers of gun violence, who come to almost exactly the opposite conclusion as you, anecdotally, or with very broad bivariate relationships seem to have arrived at.
 
2012-12-15 10:51:16 PM

Popcorn Johnny: keithgabryelski

Thanks man, appreciate it.


ditto.
 
2012-12-15 10:51:20 PM

wildcardjack: First off, this last shooting was done with someone else's firearms.

Second, I'm not opposed to a 3-7 day waiting period on firearm sales. But I'd like to see if there's any statistics supporting the prior application of waiting periods.

It looks like most of these shootings have been a byproduct of a non-existent mental healthcare system. Addressing the guns to solve mass murder is addressing a symptom, not a cause.


The idiot in Connecticut was never diagnosed as being mentally ill. You have to identify the issue before you can rectify the situation. There is a mental health care system in this country but you cannot force people to enter it. Not one of the last three shooters had been diagnosed prior to the event.
 
2012-12-15 10:51:32 PM

wildcardjack: First off, this last shooting was done with someone else's firearms.

Second, I'm not opposed to a 3-7 day waiting period on firearm sales. But I'd like to see if there's any statistics supporting the prior application of waiting periods.

It looks like most of these shootings have been a byproduct of a non-existent mental healthcare system. Addressing the guns to solve mass murder is addressing a symptom, not a cause.


Reminds me of this gem, for some reason.
 
Displayed 50 of 1045 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report