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.

(Huffington Post)   "We reached out to all 31 pro-gun rights senators in the new Congress to invite them on the program to share their views on the subject this morning," ... "We had no takers"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 1019
    More: Sad, congresses, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Louie Gohmert, assault weapons, Michael Bloomberg, senate democrats, Mayor of New York City, Fox News Sunday  
•       •       •

4961 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Dec 2012 at 5:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1019 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-17 12:07:08 AM  

clyph: Tea_tempest_Cup: No amount of gays getting married or abortions that occur will increase my odds of getting murdered.

And neither do your chances of getting murdered increase if your neighbors own guns.

Statistically, your odds of getting shot and killed are virtually nil unless you're a black male with a criminal record who's involved in the drug trade and/or a gang member. The vast majority of murders are criminals killing other criminals - according to CDC the top two risk factors for being the victim of a murder or an attempted murder are having a criminal record and gang affiliation.

Freak occurrences like this are just that - freak occurrences. They are tragic, but they are rare - which is what makes them newsworthy. There are a lot of other dangers that are much more real that you don't hear about on the news precisely because they are so commonplace. You are several times more likely to drown in your own home, or have a heart attack while doing yard work, or get run over crossing the street than you are to be a murder victim. You are getting yourself all worked up over a threat that is FAR less common than the real threats you blithely ignore every day

20 dead kids is a tragedy, no doubt. But, to put it in perspective, an average of around 60 kids die in accidental drownings EVERY MONTH (Source: CDC - average of 10 accidental drownings/day, 20% children). Where's the cry for swimming pool and bathtub control? Those kill LOTS more kids than guns. Mandatory water safety classes would save a lot more lives than any gun control law that you can think up.


Ugh. Not the let's pull random shiat out of our ass and make an equivalency to gun deaths line of reasoning
 
2012-12-17 12:07:54 AM  

clyph: Tea_tempest_Cup: No amount of gays getting married or abortions that occur will increase my odds of getting murdered.

And neither do your chances of getting murdered increase if your neighbors own guns.

Statistically, your odds of getting shot and killed are virtually nil unless you're a black male with a criminal record who's involved in the drug trade and/or a gang member. The vast majority of murders are criminals killing other criminals - according to CDC the top two risk factors for being the victim of a murder or an attempted murder are having a criminal record and gang affiliation.

Freak occurrences like this are just that - freak occurrences. They are tragic, but they are rare - which is what makes them newsworthy. There are a lot of other dangers that are much more real that you don't hear about on the news precisely because they are so commonplace. You are several times more likely to drown in your own home, or have a heart attack while doing yard work, or get run over crossing the street than you are to be a murder victim. You are getting yourself all worked up over a threat that is FAR less common than the real threats you blithely ignore every day

20 dead kids is a tragedy, no doubt. But, to put it in perspective, an average of around 60 kids die in accidental drownings EVERY MONTH (Source: CDC - average of 10 accidental drownings/day, 20% children). Where's the cry for swimming pool and bathtub control? Those kill LOTS more kids than guns. Mandatory water safety classes would save a lot more lives than any gun control law that you can think up.


And you are now favorited!
 
2012-12-17 12:08:05 AM  

clyph: Tea_tempest_Cup: No amount of gays getting married or abortions that occur will increase my odds of getting murdered.

And neither do your chances of getting murdered increase if your neighbors own guns.

Statistically, your odds of getting shot and killed are virtually nil unless you're a black male with a criminal record who's involved in the drug trade and/or a gang member. The vast majority of murders are criminals killing other criminals - according to CDC the top two risk factors for being the victim of a murder or an attempted murder are having a criminal record and gang affiliation.

Freak occurrences like this are just that - freak occurrences. They are tragic, but they are rare - which is what makes them newsworthy. There are a lot of other dangers that are much more real that you don't hear about on the news precisely because they are so commonplace. You are several times more likely to drown in your own home, or have a heart attack while doing yard work, or get run over crossing the street than you are to be a murder victim. You are getting yourself all worked up over a threat that is FAR less common than the real threats you blithely ignore every day

20 dead kids is a tragedy, no doubt. But, to put it in perspective, an average of around 60 kids die in accidental drownings EVERY MONTH (Source: CDC - average of 10 accidental drownings/day, 20% children). Where's the cry for swimming pool and bathtub control? Those kill LOTS more kids than guns. Mandatory water safety classes would save a lot more lives than any gun control law that you can think up.


Are you saying that we should not be upset because 20 kids were gunned down because they could just have easily drowned?

Statistically speaking, what do the statistics tell you about the chances of 2o kids getting shot down in a school on Friday? What do statistics tell you about the chances of another idiot threatening to shoot up a school in Indiana?

Statistics are fine but the asshole did not shoot statistics, he shot children.
 
2012-12-17 12:08:30 AM  
Link zero guns.
 
2012-12-17 12:09:41 AM  

Farker Soze: justtray: Yeah, theoretically, assuming he'shiatting at a 70% rate that could account for all the bullets in the bodies, but not the number of fatalities. Correct me if im wrong, but i believe people can survive a shot or two or 9 from a glock if not well placed. Seems like a higher power weapon would be required to see the ratio of fatalities to injuries we saw here.

6 out of 7 survive a handgun shooting if they receive medical attention in a reasonable amount of time. High caliber rifles and intermediate ones (like the .223) at close range are much more deadly.


So... We agree he probably didn't kill all these people with handguns then. That's interesting info on handguns actually. Thanks for that. Seems to fit with my preconceived notion too
 
2012-12-17 12:10:41 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: Ugh. Not the let's pull random shiat out of our ass and make an equivalency to gun deaths line of reasoning


It's a legitimate gripe. Sort of like the disparity of breast cancer research gets all the attention when other forms of cancer kill far more people.
 
2012-12-17 12:10:52 AM  

Rockstone: You know, your chances of dying in a mass shooting is approximately zero. Maybe 500 people have died from mass shootings in recent history. Think about your chances of even being involved in one...
ZERO.
Accept that the possibility of mass shootings are partially the price we pay to live in a free society. There's better things you can do rather than restrict gun ownership. Things such as, oh, I don't know- security in the schools (have a police officer there all the time), or perhaps better access to mental health care. But you know, none of you will ever admit it.
There's plenty of reasons you cannot ban all firearms, both technical and legal. No one will willingly give up their firearms, and the gun nuts would be completely willing to go bat-shiat crazy to stop people from taking it. Not to mention, trying to do that would violate many other laws.
Banning rifles isn't the answer though- the perpetrator or the Virgina tech massacre just used two hand guns the whole time. The Columbine shooters used sawed off shotguns which are illegal. That didn't stop them.

Why are the same people who called the patriot act an overreaction (and I do believe it is one) now overreacting to mass shootings? Can someone please explain this to me? I cannot figure out why. You'd think the liberal, the one who believes that people should have the right to whatever they want, would be for the right to own firearms. Liberals usually think the government is untrustworthy when it comes to law. So why are they the ones clamoring for the government to restrict access to firearms?

I'm not trying to incite anything, I just really want to know the logic behind it.


How many people have to die in spree shootings before you decide that enough is enough?

Tell you what I will do, asshole. I will buy you a plane ticket to CT. and then you can explain to 20 sets of parents that their children died as part of the price for a free society.

I hope they kick the shiat out of you and I hope the post it on Youtube.
 
2012-12-17 12:11:49 AM  

justtray: Farker Soze: justtray: Yeah, theoretically, assuming he'shiatting at a 70% rate that could account for all the bullets in the bodies, but not the number of fatalities. Correct me if im wrong, but i believe people can survive a shot or two or 9 from a glock if not well placed. Seems like a higher power weapon would be required to see the ratio of fatalities to injuries we saw here.

6 out of 7 survive a handgun shooting if they receive medical attention in a reasonable amount of time. High caliber rifles and intermediate ones (like the .223) at close range are much more deadly.

So... We agree he probably didn't kill all these people with handguns then. That's interesting info on handguns actually. Thanks for that. Seems to fit with my preconceived notion too


hello????? It has been confirmed that he shoot all of them with the rifle.
 
2012-12-17 12:12:10 AM  

justtray:
I dont see how what i suggested infringes on any rights anymore than usual. I assume you're cherry picking 'background checks' or 'mental health screenings.' I can do without those. Though, personally, I think they could be implemented in such a way as to not infringe much more than an employer will demand or TSA already does.


I'm calling out specifically mental health screenings. Most jobs don't require a full on psych profile, and even for the ones that do, there's no political motivation to make a specific candidate fail. Using it as a precursor to buying a gun is wide open for abuse if someone has an agenda. It's not like there aren't already cities and states in the northeast with unofficial policies of denying anyone a permit on subjective grounds, even though the law says to issue them.

While I agree we need better access to mental health care in this country, the flip side is that involuntary commitment to a mental hospital is a long-favored end run around due process for dissidents and other undesirables when it's politically convenient in regimes around the world.
 
2012-12-17 12:13:29 AM  

Rockstone: Accept that the possibility of mass shootings are partially the price we pay to live in a free society.


How many mass shootings would there have to be in order to change your mind? Don't pussyfoot around. Give me a figure.
 
2012-12-17 12:13:44 AM  

chuckufarlie: Rockstone: You know, your chances of dying in a mass shooting is approximately zero. Maybe 500 people have died from mass shootings in recent history. Think about your chances of even being involved in one...
ZERO.
Accept that the possibility of mass shootings are partially the price we pay to live in a free society. There's better things you can do rather than restrict gun ownership. Things such as, oh, I don't know- security in the schools (have a police officer there all the time), or perhaps better access to mental health care. But you know, none of you will ever admit it.
There's plenty of reasons you cannot ban all firearms, both technical and legal. No one will willingly give up their firearms, and the gun nuts would be completely willing to go bat-shiat crazy to stop people from taking it. Not to mention, trying to do that would violate many other laws.
Banning rifles isn't the answer though- the perpetrator or the Virgina tech massacre just used two hand guns the whole time. The Columbine shooters used sawed off shotguns which are illegal. That didn't stop them.

Why are the same people who called the patriot act an overreaction (and I do believe it is one) now overreacting to mass shootings? Can someone please explain this to me? I cannot figure out why. You'd think the liberal, the one who believes that people should have the right to whatever they want, would be for the right to own firearms. Liberals usually think the government is untrustworthy when it comes to law. So why are they the ones clamoring for the government to restrict access to firearms?

I'm not trying to incite anything, I just really want to know the logic behind it.

How many people have to die in spree shootings before you decide that enough is enough?

Tell you what I will do, asshole. I will buy you a plane ticket to CT. and then you can explain to 20 sets of parents that their children died as part of the price for a free society.

I hope they kick the shiat out of you and I hope ...


How many people have died in spree shootings? Not very many. You're much more likely to be struck by lightning.
It IS the price you pay to live in a free society. There's no country that doesn't have some type of rampages (maybe not by firearms). Well, maybe North Korea, but at that point, why live?

I don't understand the cognitive dissonance it must take for some of the most diehard liberals to be so anti-gun, and yet also so anti-Patriot Act.
 
2012-12-17 12:14:45 AM  

clyph: Tea_tempest_Cup: No amount of gays getting married or abortions that occur will increase my odds of getting murdered.

And neither do your chances of getting murdered increase if your neighbors own guns.

Statistically, your odds of getting shot and killed are virtually nil unless you're a black male with a criminal record who's involved in the drug trade and/or a gang member. The vast majority of murders are criminals killing other criminals - according to CDC the top two risk factors for being the victim of a murder or an attempted murder are having a criminal record and gang affiliation.

Freak occurrences like this are just that - freak occurrences. They are tragic, but they are rare - which is what makes them newsworthy. There are a lot of other dangers that are much more real that you don't hear about on the news precisely because they are so commonplace. You are several times more likely to drown in your own home, or have a heart attack while doing yard work, or get run over crossing the street than you are to be a murder victim. You are getting yourself all worked up over a threat that is FAR less common than the real threats you blithely ignore every day

20 dead kids is a tragedy, no doubt. But, to put it in perspective, an average of around 60 kids die in accidental drownings EVERY MONTH (Source: CDC - average of 10 accidental drownings/day, 20% children). Where's the cry for swimming pool and bathtub control? Those kill LOTS more kids than guns. Mandatory water safety classes would save a lot more lives than any gun control law that you can think up.


You just need to know this is not a logical argument. Exchange drownings with anything, its not logical.

Its been explained in every thread so I have to assume you're being willfully ignorant.

"Bad things happen so don't do anything about it."
"People commit crimes so don't have any laws to control it."

Do you see why you shouldn't try that line of argument? Probably not. You'll just ignore it like you ignored my last comment ripping your post to shreds. As I said, disgusting.
 
2012-12-17 12:16:09 AM  

James F. Campbell: Rockstone: Accept that the possibility of mass shootings are partially the price we pay to live in a free society.

How many mass shootings would there have to be in order to change your mind? Don't pussyfoot around. Give me a figure.


Assuming that 15 people died on average every mass shooting, around 70 before I'd even consider changing my mind.
(70 would mean that 1000 people have died because of a mass shooting, more or less. That's still far less than those that died in 9/11, and still far less than the number of children who die every year of drowning)
 
2012-12-17 12:16:49 AM  

justtray: Farker Soze: justtray: Yeah, theoretically, assuming he'shiatting at a 70% rate that could account for all the bullets in the bodies, but not the number of fatalities. Correct me if im wrong, but i believe people can survive a shot or two or 9 from a glock if not well placed. Seems like a higher power weapon would be required to see the ratio of fatalities to injuries we saw here.

6 out of 7 survive a handgun shooting if they receive medical attention in a reasonable amount of time. High caliber rifles and intermediate ones (like the .223) at close range are much more deadly.

So... We agree he probably didn't kill all these people with handguns then. That's interesting info on handguns actually. Thanks for that. Seems to fit with my preconceived notion too


What I'm hearing in the clusterfark of the media is the rifle was used.

Interesting video of GSWs from a surgeon's anesthesiologists point of view. I'll try to find it.

Here it is. Skip to 0.50

Link

Rifle are rarely used in shootings, but when used will fark you up.
 
2012-12-17 12:17:04 AM  

justtray: clyph: Tea_tempest_Cup: No amount of gays getting married or abortions that occur will increase my odds of getting murdered.

And neither do your chances of getting murdered increase if your neighbors own guns.

Statistically, your odds of getting shot and killed are virtually nil unless you're a black male with a criminal record who's involved in the drug trade and/or a gang member. The vast majority of murders are criminals killing other criminals - according to CDC the top two risk factors for being the victim of a murder or an attempted murder are having a criminal record and gang affiliation.

Freak occurrences like this are just that - freak occurrences. They are tragic, but they are rare - which is what makes them newsworthy. There are a lot of other dangers that are much more real that you don't hear about on the news precisely because they are so commonplace. You are several times more likely to drown in your own home, or have a heart attack while doing yard work, or get run over crossing the street than you are to be a murder victim. You are getting yourself all worked up over a threat that is FAR less common than the real threats you blithely ignore every day

20 dead kids is a tragedy, no doubt. But, to put it in perspective, an average of around 60 kids die in accidental drownings EVERY MONTH (Source: CDC - average of 10 accidental drownings/day, 20% children). Where's the cry for swimming pool and bathtub control? Those kill LOTS more kids than guns. Mandatory water safety classes would save a lot more lives than any gun control law that you can think up.

You just need to know this is not a logical argument. Exchange drownings with anything, its not logical.

Its been explained in every thread so I have to assume you're being willfully ignorant.

"Bad things happen so don't do anything about it."
"People commit crimes so don't have any laws to control it."

Do you see why you shouldn't try that line of argument? Probably not. You'll just ...


There's nothing that will fix it that is not an overreaction.
 
2012-12-17 12:17:05 AM  

joe714: justtray:
I dont see how what i suggested infringes on any rights anymore than usual. I assume you're cherry picking 'background checks' or 'mental health screenings.' I can do without those. Though, personally, I think they could be implemented in such a way as to not infringe much more than an employer will demand or TSA already does.

I'm calling out specifically mental health screenings. Most jobs don't require a full on psych profile, and even for the ones that do, there's no political motivation to make a specific candidate fail. Using it as a precursor to buying a gun is wide open for abuse if someone has an agenda. It's not like there aren't already cities and states in the northeast with unofficial policies of denying anyone a permit on subjective grounds, even though the law says to issue them.

While I agree we need better access to mental health care in this country, the flip side is that involuntary commitment to a mental hospital is a long-favored end run around due process for dissidents and other undesirables when it's politically convenient in regimes around the world.


Well I agree and that's why I think the 'better mental health!' argument is a stupid deflection. As I said, take that part away, and you still reduce guns via economic disinsentive alone.
 
2012-12-17 12:17:11 AM  

Rockstone: I'm not trying to incite anything, I just really want to know the logic behind it.


It's a matter of values and perceived risk versus perceived reward.

In general, the guys on the left see gun ownership as a stupid risk that provides no significant rewards. And the guys on the right see giving up gun ownership as a stupid risk that provides no significant rewards.

As you pointed out, the numbers are practically non-existent in regards to the actual risk versus reward. So it becomes a debate about values and not realities.
 
2012-12-17 12:17:58 AM  

justtray: You want to keep the status quo for entirely selfish reasons, and I find that horribly disgusting.


And you want to take a shiat on the constitution for entirely selfish and non-sensical (not to mention statistically incorrect) reasons.

Gun control is demonstrably not effective in preventing crime, for the simple reason that CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW. The most violent cities are uniformly the ones with the most strict gun control laws.

Drugs are illegal, yet they are incredibly easy to buy. What makes you think that gun running is any more difficult than drug running, or that banning them would be any more effective than banning drugs? It wouldn't.

If you want to address gun crime, go after the gangs. Legalizing drugs would be a good start as it would help deprive them of both the means and the motive for killing each other. A national make-work jobs program like the old Civilian Conservation Corps wouldn't be a bad idea either.

As for tragedies like this, the solution is crazy person control, not gun control. What's the common element between this shooting, the VT shooting, the Columbine shooting, and the Aurora shooting? A CRAZY PERSON who had shown clear warning signs, and an escalating pattern of erratic behavior that was ignored by their friends and family members.
 
2012-12-17 12:18:17 AM  

GhostFish: Rockstone: I'm not trying to incite anything, I just really want to know the logic behind it.

It's a matter of values and perceived risk versus perceived reward.

In general, the guys on the left see gun ownership as a stupid risk that provides no significant rewards. And the guys on the right see giving up gun ownership as a stupid risk that provides no significant rewards.

As you pointed out, the numbers are practically non-existent in regards to the actual risk versus reward. So it becomes a debate about values and not realities.


Thank you, that explains it.
 
2012-12-17 12:18:43 AM  

Rockstone: justtray: clyph: Tea_tempest_Cup: No amount of gays getting married or abortions that occur will increase my odds of getting murdered.

And neither do your chances of getting murdered increase if your neighbors own guns.

Statistically, your odds of getting shot and killed are virtually nil unless you're a black male with a criminal record who's involved in the drug trade and/or a gang member. The vast majority of murders are criminals killing other criminals - according to CDC the top two risk factors for being the victim of a murder or an attempted murder are having a criminal record and gang affiliation.

Freak occurrences like this are just that - freak occurrences. They are tragic, but they are rare - which is what makes them newsworthy. There are a lot of other dangers that are much more real that you don't hear about on the news precisely because they are so commonplace. You are several times more likely to drown in your own home, or have a heart attack while doing yard work, or get run over crossing the street than you are to be a murder victim. You are getting yourself all worked up over a threat that is FAR less common than the real threats you blithely ignore every day

20 dead kids is a tragedy, no doubt. But, to put it in perspective, an average of around 60 kids die in accidental drownings EVERY MONTH (Source: CDC - average of 10 accidental drownings/day, 20% children). Where's the cry for swimming pool and bathtub control? Those kill LOTS more kids than guns. Mandatory water safety classes would save a lot more lives than any gun control law that you can think up.

You just need to know this is not a logical argument. Exchange drownings with anything, its not logical.

Its been explained in every thread so I have to assume you're being willfully ignorant.

"Bad things happen so don't do anything about it."
"People commit crimes so don't have any laws to control it."

Do you see why you shouldn't try that line of argument? Probably not. Yo ...


Untrue. I posted it on the last page. I'll edit my copy paste version and post it in the next thread for you. There will be another thread.
 
2012-12-17 12:20:13 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: clyph: Tea_tempest_Cup: No amount of gays getting married or abortions that occur will increase my odds of getting murdered.

And neither do your chances of getting murdered increase if your neighbors own guns.

Statistically, your odds of getting shot and killed are virtually nil unless you're a black male with a criminal record who's involved in the drug trade and/or a gang member. The vast majority of murders are criminals killing other criminals - according to CDC the top two risk factors for being the victim of a murder or an attempted murder are having a criminal record and gang affiliation.

Freak occurrences like this are just that - freak occurrences. They are tragic, but they are rare - which is what makes them newsworthy. There are a lot of other dangers that are much more real that you don't hear about on the news precisely because they are so commonplace. You are several times more likely to drown in your own home, or have a heart attack while doing yard work, or get run over crossing the street than you are to be a murder victim. You are getting yourself all worked up over a threat that is FAR less common than the real threats you blithely ignore every day

20 dead kids is a tragedy, no doubt. But, to put it in perspective, an average of around 60 kids die in accidental drownings EVERY MONTH (Source: CDC - average of 10 accidental drownings/day, 20% children). Where's the cry for swimming pool and bathtub control? Those kill LOTS more kids than guns. Mandatory water safety classes would save a lot more lives than any gun control law that you can think up.

Ugh. Not the let's pull random shiat out of our ass and make an equivalency to gun deaths line of reasoning


The CDC is not random shiat. They're called FACTS, you montherfarking nimrod. Sorry that the FACTS don't agree with your political agenda. You're as bad as a farking republitard.
 
2012-12-17 12:22:00 AM  

Farker Soze: justtray: Farker Soze: justtray: Yeah, theoretically, assuming he'shiatting at a 70% rate that could account for all the bullets in the bodies, but not the number of fatalities. Correct me if im wrong, but i believe people can survive a shot or two or 9 from a glock if not well placed. Seems like a higher power weapon would be required to see the ratio of fatalities to injuries we saw here.

6 out of 7 survive a handgun shooting if they receive medical attention in a reasonable amount of time. High caliber rifles and intermediate ones (like the .223) at close range are much more deadly.

So... We agree he probably didn't kill all these people with handguns then. That's interesting info on handguns actually. Thanks for that. Seems to fit with my preconceived notion too

What I'm hearing in the clusterfark of the media is the rifle was used.

Interesting video of GSWs from a surgeon's anesthesiologists point of view. I'll try to find it.

Here it is. Skip to 0.50

Link

Rifle are rarely used in shootings, but when used will fark you up.


Uh, NSFW starting about 8:00. forgot about that.
 
2012-12-17 12:23:18 AM  

Tyee: Link zero guns.


We can't stop everything. But we ought to stop what we can.
 
2012-12-17 12:23:38 AM  

Farker Soze: Peter von Nostrand: Ugh. Not the let's pull random shiat out of our ass and make an equivalency to gun deaths line of reasoning

It's a legitimate gripe. Sort of like the disparity of breast cancer research gets all the attention when other forms of cancer kill far more people.


I won't argue on the cancer research but I disagree with the swimming pool/bath tub line of thought. It's BS. Absolute BS. If a bath tub was an efficient killing machine, designed solely for that purpose and that purpose alone, he would have dragged a claw foot tub in that school and went to town. Like it or not, guns are in their own category. Attempts to pit them against random objects is pure deflection
 
2012-12-17 12:24:43 AM  
The pro-gun side will lose big because they will refuse to help find a way to prevent gun violence. When the laws get enacted, they will be written only by those who want to get rid of guns.
 
2012-12-17 12:24:44 AM  
i14.photobucket.com

These men are cowards, Donny.
 
2012-12-17 12:27:04 AM  

clyph: Peter von Nostrand: clyph: Tea_tempest_Cup: No amount of gays getting married or abortions that occur will increase my odds of getting murdered.

And neither do your chances of getting murdered increase if your neighbors own guns.

Statistically, your odds of getting shot and killed are virtually nil unless you're a black male with a criminal record who's involved in the drug trade and/or a gang member. The vast majority of murders are criminals killing other criminals - according to CDC the top two risk factors for being the victim of a murder or an attempted murder are having a criminal record and gang affiliation.

Freak occurrences like this are just that - freak occurrences. They are tragic, but they are rare - which is what makes them newsworthy. There are a lot of other dangers that are much more real that you don't hear about on the news precisely because they are so commonplace. You are several times more likely to drown in your own home, or have a heart attack while doing yard work, or get run over crossing the street than you are to be a murder victim. You are getting yourself all worked up over a threat that is FAR less common than the real threats you blithely ignore every day

20 dead kids is a tragedy, no doubt. But, to put it in perspective, an average of around 60 kids die in accidental drownings EVERY MONTH (Source: CDC - average of 10 accidental drownings/day, 20% children). Where's the cry for swimming pool and bathtub control? Those kill LOTS more kids than guns. Mandatory water safety classes would save a lot more lives than any gun control law that you can think up.

Ugh. Not the let's pull random shiat out of our ass and make an equivalency to gun deaths line of reasoning

The CDC is not random shiat. They're called FACTS, you montherfarking nimrod. Sorry that the FACTS don't agree with your political agenda. You're as bad as a farking republitard.


I didn't say the CDC was random shiat, the bath tub/pool line is. You can take anything in there, twist it around and pretend it means something but it doesn't. No one takes a bath tub somewhere to kill people. Bath tubs are not designed for that purpose. Pretending accidents are the same to intentional acts is not a solid debate position. However, I'm sure you've won over many people with insults
 
2012-12-17 12:29:56 AM  

Rockstone: I'm not trying to incite anything, I just really want to know the logic behind it.


There is no logic behind it. It's purely an irrational, emotional response, and no exposure to facts will change their minds. Gun-grabbers are just like creationists - they have a deeply held ideology / mythology that they've committed themselves to (typically via early childhood indoctrination), and it's easier for them to discredit or ignore any facts that contradict their ideology than it is for them to admit that they are wrong. Same mental pathology, different ideology.

There's been a lot of interesting research done recently on why people get so entrenched in mistaken beliefs and why they are so resistant to factual information.
 
2012-12-17 12:29:59 AM  

Farker Soze: justtray: Farker Soze: justtray: Yeah, theoretically, assuming he'shiatting at a 70% rate that could account for all the bullets in the bodies, but not the number of fatalities. Correct me if im wrong, but i believe people can survive a shot or two or 9 from a glock if not well placed. Seems like a higher power weapon would be required to see the ratio of fatalities to injuries we saw here.

6 out of 7 survive a handgun shooting if they receive medical attention in a reasonable amount of time. High caliber rifles and intermediate ones (like the .223) at close range are much more deadly.

So... We agree he probably didn't kill all these people with handguns then. That's interesting info on handguns actually. Thanks for that. Seems to fit with my preconceived notion too

What I'm hearing in the clusterfark of the media is the rifle was used.

Interesting video of GSWs from a surgeon's anesthesiologists point of view. I'll try to find it.

Here it is. Skip to 0.50

Link

Rifle are rarely used in shootings, but when used will fark you up.


On a related issue, yeah - the .223 has a problem with "stopping power". Right.
 
2012-12-17 12:30:38 AM  
How many mass shootings would there have to be in order to change your mind? Don't pussyfoot around. Give me a figure.

add that......, then divide the total by Timothy McVeigh's killings,.... without a gun,.... and its meaningless, isn't it? .... really.
or the knives in China, Briton, Chicago, St. Paul... 
its not the method, don't fall for the easy out, that isn't easy, or an out, obviously.
 
2012-12-17 12:31:16 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: I didn't say the CDC was random shiat, the bath tub/pool line is. You can take anything in there, twist it around and pretend it means something but it doesn't. No one takes a bath tub somewhere to kill people. Bath tubs are not designed for that purpose. Pretending accidents are the same to intentional acts is not a solid debate position. However, I'm sure you've won over many people with insults


Why is there no lobbies to stop people from drowning in the bath tub? Guns, while they are designed to kill, are also used in recreation and hunting. Guns have a purpose. There's a reason why we allow guns. They're also helpful in self defense.
You're debating over something that has only effected 500 people in our nation. There's more efficient uses of our resources than passing laws banning firearms.
 
2012-12-17 12:31:56 AM  

clyph: justtray: You want to keep the status quo for entirely selfish reasons, and I find that horribly disgusting.

And you want to take a shiat on the constitution for entirely selfish and non-sensical (not to mention statistically incorrect) reasons.

Gun control is demonstrably not effective in preventing crime, for the simple reason that CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW. The most violent cities are uniformly the ones with the most strict gun control laws.

Drugs are illegal, yet they are incredibly easy to buy. What makes you think that gun running is any more difficult than drug running, or that banning them would be any more effective than banning drugs? It wouldn't.

If you want to address gun crime, go after the gangs. Legalizing drugs would be a good start as it would help deprive them of both the means and the motive for killing each other. A national make-work jobs program like the old Civilian Conservation Corps wouldn't be a bad idea either.

As for tragedies like this, the solution is crazy person control, not gun control. What's the common element between this shooting, the VT shooting, the Columbine shooting, and the Aurora shooting? A CRAZY PERSON who had shown clear warning signs, and an escalating pattern of erratic behavior that was ignored by their friends and family members.


I see you've moved to arguing dishonestly, so I will be ignoring you after this post but i wanted to point out a couple things.

1. My suggestions do not violate the constitution, and certainly not the 2nd ammendment, so you're also technically wrong about my intentions.

2. Gun control is proven to work. All the cherry picked stats on "violent crime" in the world won't change that fact.

3. The black market argument is actually an admission of #2 working. And based on the cost, penalty, and enforcement of registration, would severely reduce the incentive to take part in a black market, unless you really think being a drug dealer is glamous and safe hobby, in which case, good luck.

4. Im all for legalizing marijuana, for the exact purpose you described, but this is also a slippery slope. If marjiuana, then why not coke? If coke, then why not heroin? It has the same problems guns do. Where do you draw the line? I think we all agree it has to be somewhere. America is reactionary, so I suppose we leave it up to the people, which means weed gets legalized and other drugs not, for now.

5. There is no "crazy control." Its a pure deflection. Many of these cases, including this one, had no prior recorded mental health issues. Unless you're advocating forced checks and institutionalization, then I will agree with you, and lock you up first and foremost, as you have demonstrated a lack of logic, empathy, paranoia, and anti social disorder. Which is why, again, you're not being honest, just trying to deflect from the real solution, because it inconveniences you. Sorry dude, but that's America. I'd love to be able to drink and drive too, and can up until about .20 BAC, but if I do past .08, im going to jail. A few bad eggs ruin it for us all.

Now goodbye forever.
 
2012-12-17 12:32:08 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: Farker Soze: Peter von Nostrand: Ugh. Not the let's pull random shiat out of our ass and make an equivalency to gun deaths line of reasoning

It's a legitimate gripe. Sort of like the disparity of breast cancer research gets all the attention when other forms of cancer kill far more people.

I won't argue on the cancer research but I disagree with the swimming pool/bath tub line of thought. It's BS. Absolute BS. If a bath tub was an efficient killing machine, designed solely for that purpose and that purpose alone, he would have dragged a claw foot tub in that school and went to town. Like it or not, guns are in their own category. Attempts to pit them against random objects is pure deflection


I'm not a fan of guns, but I can still recognize that it's entirely possible to see them as a tool to be used only in self defense and not only as "efficient killing machines". A person highly trained in lethal martial arts isn't necessarily learning those skills just to be an efficient killing machine. Those skills have defensive applications, just as weapons do.

Should we start putting severe restrictions on martial arts training just because such training can be abused?
 
2012-12-17 12:35:29 AM  

justtray: 2. Gun control is proven to work. All the cherry picked stats on "violent crime" in the world won't change that fact.


NOT in the USA. It works in other countries because there aren't as many guns as people. (The USA has around 300 million guns in its borders)

clyph: Rockstone: I'm not trying to incite anything, I just really want to know the logic behind it.

There is no logic behind it. It's purely an irrational, emotional response, and no exposure to facts will change their minds. Gun-grabbers are just like creationists - they have a deeply held ideology / mythology that they've committed themselves to (typically via early childhood indoctrination), and it's easier for them to discredit or ignore any facts that contradict their ideology than it is for them to admit that they are wrong. Same mental pathology, different ideology.

There's been a lot of interesting research done recently on why people get so entrenched in mistaken beliefs and why they are so resistant to factual information.


The funny thing is the people who are so pro gun-control are, once again, the same group of people who are so anti-creationist. That does explain a lot though.
 
2012-12-17 12:40:52 AM  

vygramul: On a related issue, yeah - the .223 has a problem with "stopping power". Right.


It depends on barrel length and range. Up close a carbine or rifle are equally effective, but at combat ranges soldiers have been complaining about their 14.5" M4's stopping power. The original M16 was designed around a 20" barrel.
 
2012-12-17 12:41:38 AM  

Farker Soze: justtray: Farker Soze: justtray: Yeah, theoretically, assuming he'shiatting at a 70% rate that could account for all the bullets in the bodies, but not the number of fatalities. Correct me if im wrong, but i believe people can survive a shot or two or 9 from a glock if not well placed. Seems like a higher power weapon would be required to see the ratio of fatalities to injuries we saw here.

6 out of 7 survive a handgun shooting if they receive medical attention in a reasonable amount of time. High caliber rifles and intermediate ones (like the .223) at close range are much more deadly.

So... We agree he probably didn't kill all these people with handguns then. That's interesting info on handguns actually. Thanks for that. Seems to fit with my preconceived notion too

What I'm hearing in the clusterfark of the media is the rifle was used.

Interesting video of GSWs from a surgeon's anesthesiologists point of view. I'll try to find it.

Here it is. Skip to 0.50

Link

Rifle are rarely used in shootings, but when used will fark you up.


This is a really awesome video, thank you. Some good stats in there too. I had a friend in high school who would watch 'faces of death' military like videos who would explain this type of stuff to me. Especially the actual damage and speed/spinning of bullets. Crazy to see the damage.
 
2012-12-17 12:41:42 AM  

Rockstone: Accept that the possibility of mass shootings are partially the price we pay to live in a free society.


No. I refuse to accept that 20 dead kindergartners is the price we must pay for freedom. Yes, bad things happen, but we don't have to just blindly accept it. For some reason, the conservative response to everything is "We can't find a perfect solution so we shouldn't bother with any solution at all". No. I refuse to be Athens fearfully sacrificing 14 youth a year to the Minotaur so that they can remain at peace. That's not what America is about. There are solutions to this problem. We can fix this.
 
2012-12-17 12:42:03 AM  

Rockstone: Peter von Nostrand: I didn't say the CDC was random shiat, the bath tub/pool line is. You can take anything in there, twist it around and pretend it means something but it doesn't. No one takes a bath tub somewhere to kill people. Bath tubs are not designed for that purpose. Pretending accidents are the same to intentional acts is not a solid debate position. However, I'm sure you've won over many people with insults

Why is there no lobbies to stop people from drowning in the bath tub? Guns, while they are designed to kill, are also used in recreation and hunting. Guns have a purpose. There's a reason why we allow guns. They're also helpful in self defense.
You're debating over something that has only effected 500 people in our nation. There's more efficient uses of our resources than passing laws banning firearms.


Guns are designed to kill. They have an ancillary purpose for recreational shooting. Hunting is killing. I've never heard of a hunter bragging about stunning a dear with a rubber bullet. I'm not sure where you are getting this 500 number from or what it refers to and it's your opinion that there are more efficient uses of our resources than addressing gun violence. I disagree

GhostFish: Peter von Nostrand: Farker Soze: Peter von Nostrand: Ugh. Not the let's pull random shiat out of our ass and make an equivalency to gun deaths line of reasoning

It's a legitimate gripe. Sort of like the disparity of breast cancer research gets all the attention when other forms of cancer kill far more people.

I won't argue on the cancer research but I disagree with the swimming pool/bath tub line of thought. It's BS. Absolute BS. If a bath tub was an efficient killing machine, designed solely for that purpose and that purpose alone, he would have dragged a claw foot tub in that school and went to town. Like it or not, guns are in their own category. Attempts to pit them against random objects is pure deflection

I'm not a fan of guns, but I can still recognize that it's entirely possible to see them as a tool to be used only in self defense and not only as "efficient killing machines". A person highly trained in lethal martial arts isn't necessarily learning those skills just to be an efficient killing machine. Those skills have defensive applications, just as weapons do.

Should we start putting severe restrictions on martial arts training just because such training can be abused?


I own a gun. I'm even thinking about getting my wife a gun more suitable for her. Guns can be used for protection but let's be real, guns are designed to kill. I don't have a gun to stun an intruder. I don't have a gun to distract an intruder. If your argument is that a weapon such as the one this guy used is the same as someone knowing martial arts, I'm not going to bother. It's not the same and you know it
 
2012-12-17 12:43:47 AM  

James F. Campbell: iq_in_binary: As am I, read what I proposed, ask any questions, and let's see if we can get something ironed out to flood our representative's inboxes with.

No. Americans love their guns too much, and they won't learn their lesson unless it hurts. The real question is this: how many mass murders will be enough to change their minds? We'll probably find out sooner rather than later.


Do you even know what the NFA does? As outlined in my proposal, the gun control effects would be similar to the laws in, say Austria.

Don't just tell me "No." Tell me what you think is wrong with it.
 
2012-12-17 12:46:22 AM  

Rockstone: You know, your chances of dying in a mass shooting is approximately zero. Maybe 500 people have died from mass shootings in recent history. Think about your chances of even being involved in one...
ZERO.
Accept that the possibility of mass shootings are partially the price we pay to live in a free society. There's better things you can do rather than restrict gun ownership. Things such as, oh, I don't know- security in the schools (have a police officer there all the time), or perhaps better access to mental health care. But you know, none of you will ever admit it.
There's plenty of reasons you cannot ban all firearms, both technical and legal. No one will willingly give up their firearms, and the gun nuts would be completely willing to go bat-shiat crazy to stop people from taking it. Not to mention, trying to do that would violate many other laws.
Banning rifles isn't the answer though- the perpetrator or the Virgina tech massacre just used two hand guns the whole time. The Columbine shooters used sawed off shotguns which are illegal. That didn't stop them.

Why are the same people who called the patriot act an overreaction (and I do believe it is one) now overreacting to mass shootings? Can someone please explain this to me? I cannot figure out why. You'd think the liberal, the one who believes that people should have the right to whatever they want, would be for the right to own firearms. Liberals usually think the government is untrustworthy when it comes to law. So why are they the ones clamoring for the government to restrict access to firearms?

I'm not trying to incite anything, I just really want to know the logic behind it.


I'm waiting till tomorrow to see if I'm right, but I'm formulating a theory that the sheer horror and magnitude of this kind of thing causes people to shut down. Liberal or conservative, pro or anti government has nothing to do with it. The raw terror of this kind of event makes people immediately turn to authority and discount ANY OTHER possible solution. Kind of a "Daddy help me!" response.

Since this began, several people right here on Fark have proposed whole, partial, reasonable or outrageous solutions to this problem. Without exception, they have ALL been shot down (to coin a phrase) by opponents on both sides of the aisle as going too far or not going far enough; as being too extreme or not extreme enough; as not being workable or not solving the whole problem or because the "other side" would never go for it. Then the discussion goes back to the Meaning of the 2d Amendment or whether having guns in classrooms would have worked or the logistics of CCW in a dark theater. Rhetorical questions like "If you were facing a mugger in a dark alley wouldn't YOU want a gun?"

I don't know if this response is nationwide, or confined to us here on Fark. I suspect not. I'm not sure if it's because of the overwhelming panic engendered by the thought that anyone, anywhere, at any time could do this kind of thing or what. But the same thing happened after the Aurora shooting: Mass panic followed by mass apathy (nutjobs who want to kill lots of people will find a way so there's no point in doing anything) followed by mass ostrich-like head-in-sand behavior. Hopefully it doesn't happen again. We shall see. But probably we will do the same thing again.
 
2012-12-17 12:46:22 AM  

chuckufarlie: justtray: James F. Campbell: iq_in_binary: As am I, read what I proposed, ask any questions, and let's see if we can get something ironed out to flood our representative's inboxes with.

No. Americans love their guns too much, and they won't learn their lesson unless it hurts. The real question is this: how many mass murders will be enough to change their minds? We'll probably find out sooner rather than later.

We're finding out right now, it's very interesting to watch it happen. Sad it has taken so many lives to come to this, but at least it's happening.

If you truely care though, don't try to ban anything. Make it economically unfeasible and desirable to own weapons. Tax, regulation, and buyback programs are what will reduce the amount of guns in circulation, not forced bans.

too many of these rednecks are not going to give up their guns until they are forced to do so. Look at the idiot in Indiana. He was well stocked with guns and ammo. No tax was going to make him change his mind.


And you think outright bans will work? You're going to get a lot of people killed thinking like that. This is pretty much from what I've been able to gather the best chance we have at comprehensive gun control that will actually fix the problem, instead of relying on cliches and stereotypes, think of constructive ways we could get it done.
 
2012-12-17 12:46:53 AM  

Rockstone: justtray: 2. Gun control is proven to work. All the cherry picked stats on "violent crime" in the world won't change that fact.

NOT in the USA. It works in other countries because there aren't as many guns as people. (The USA has around 300 million guns in its borders)

clyph: Rockstone: I'm not trying to incite anything, I just really want to know the logic behind it.

There is no logic behind it. It's purely an irrational, emotional response, and no exposure to facts will change their minds. Gun-grabbers are just like creationists - they have a deeply held ideology / mythology that they've committed themselves to (typically via early childhood indoctrination), and it's easier for them to discredit or ignore any facts that contradict their ideology than it is for them to admit that they are wrong. Same mental pathology, different ideology.

There's been a lot of interesting research done recently on why people get so entrenched in mistaken beliefs and why they are so resistant to factual information.

The funny thing is the people who are so pro gun-control are, once again, the same group of people who are so anti-creationist. That does explain a lot though.


How would we know it didn't work? We've never had serious gun control legislation, and you know it.

Are you really trying to argue that increasing the cost of new weapons, forcing registration, requiring property tax on guns, and limiting the legal amount a person could own wouldn't reduce the number in circulation?

If so, you're just laughably wrong. Think "cash for clunkers." Huge scam, gave you a tax deduction, not even a payment, and still considered a vastly successful program. Also i heard someone mention all the post Katrina people willing to give their guns up. When you increase the cost, and offer cheap buyback, yes, the number of guns will begin to drop, and when you tax them and require more expensive and stringent upkeep, the total each person can afford goes down.

I know you probably don't like it, but rarely is change easily accepted.
 
2012-12-17 12:48:43 AM  

Mentat: Rockstone: Accept that the possibility of mass shootings are partially the price we pay to live in a free society.

No. I refuse to accept that 20 dead kindergartners is the price we must pay for freedom. Yes, bad things happen, but we don't have to just blindly accept it. For some reason, the conservative response to everything is "We can't find a perfect solution so we shouldn't bother with any solution at all". No. I refuse to be Athens fearfully sacrificing 14 youth a year to the Minotaur so that they can remain at peace. That's not what America is about. There are solutions to this problem. We can fix this.


If you come up with an idea that won't infringe on the rights of people to own firearms, sure.


Peter von Nostrand: Guns are designed to kill. They have an ancillary purpose for recreational shooting. Hunting is killing. I've never heard of a hunter bragging about stunning a dear with a rubber bullet. I'm not sure where you are getting this 500 number from or what it refers to and it's your opinion that there are more efficient uses of our resources than addressing gun violence. I disagree


How many mass shootings has there been in the past 20 years? Not too many, maybe 10 or 15 or so. Assuming each killed 30 (which is way, way too high), that's only 450 deaths from mass shootings. Guns are designed to kill, yes, but they're also for recreation.

Peter von Nostrand: I own a gun. I'm even thinking about getting my wife a gun more suitable for her. Guns can be used for protection but let's be real, guns are designed to kill. I don't have a gun to stun an intruder. I don't have a gun to distract an intruder. If your argument is that a weapon such as the one this guy used is the same as someone knowing martial arts, I'm not going to bother. It's not the same and you know it


It may as well be the same
 
2012-12-17 12:53:00 AM  

Rockstone: It may as well be the same


Okay, your opinion is that a guy knowing martial arts is just as deadly as this kid with the gun he had. Have a good evening, let's talk when you've had some time to reconsider this postion
 
2012-12-17 12:56:06 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: Rockstone: It may as well be the same

Okay, your opinion is that a guy knowing martial arts is just as deadly as this kid with the gun he had. Have a good evening, let's talk when you've had some time to reconsider this postion


How would you quantify "just as deadly"?
And if we're quantifying it, does that mean it does have something to do with the numbers?
Because before you were implying that the numbers are irrelevant and that the intent is what mattered.
 
2012-12-17 12:57:52 AM  

iq_in_binary: Do you even know what the NFA does? As outlined in my proposal, the gun control effects would be similar to the laws in, say Austria.


Does Austria have an inner-city gang problem and a highly profitable, prohibition-fueled black market? Does Austria have an economically repressed underclass for gangs to recruit from? No? Then what works in Austria won't work here.

Simple-minded solutions do not solve complex social problems.

Treating the symptom does not cure the underlying disease.

Banning inanimate objects / substances does not change human behavior.

Passing harsher laws does not deter people who don't fear going to prison.
 
2012-12-17 12:58:04 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: COMALite J: At least mittromneysdog isn′t one of those gun-grabbers who tries to claim that the Second Amendment doesn′t really say nor mean what it clearly and plainly says and means.

The second Amendment is NOT clear and plain.


The Supreme Court would like a word with you.

Citation.
 
2012-12-17 12:58:12 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Rockstone: You know, your chances of dying in a mass shooting is approximately zero. Maybe 500 people have died from mass shootings in recent history. Think about your chances of even being involved in one...
ZERO.
Accept that the possibility of mass shootings are partially the price we pay to live in a free society. There's better things you can do rather than restrict gun ownership. Things such as, oh, I don't know- security in the schools (have a police officer there all the time), or perhaps better access to mental health care. But you know, none of you will ever admit it.
There's plenty of reasons you cannot ban all firearms, both technical and legal. No one will willingly give up their firearms, and the gun nuts would be completely willing to go bat-shiat crazy to stop people from taking it. Not to mention, trying to do that would violate many other laws.
Banning rifles isn't the answer though- the perpetrator or the Virgina tech massacre just used two hand guns the whole time. The Columbine shooters used sawed off shotguns which are illegal. That didn't stop them.

Why are the same people who called the patriot act an overreaction (and I do believe it is one) now overreacting to mass shootings? Can someone please explain this to me? I cannot figure out why. You'd think the liberal, the one who believes that people should have the right to whatever they want, would be for the right to own firearms. Liberals usually think the government is untrustworthy when it comes to law. So why are they the ones clamoring for the government to restrict access to firearms?

I'm not trying to incite anything, I just really want to know the logic behind it.

I'm waiting till tomorrow to see if I'm right, but I'm formulating a theory that the sheer horror and magnitude of this kind of thing causes people to shut down. Liberal or conservative, pro or anti government has nothing to do with it. The raw terror of this kind of event makes people immediately turn to authority and dis ...


Yeah well I'm stubborn, I haven't heard from you yet, read my proposal. Tell me what you think. I want this thing ironed out and being flooded into the inboxes of every farker with a brain's representatives before the new news cycle starts.
 
2012-12-17 01:00:07 AM  

clyph: iq_in_binary: Do you even know what the NFA does? As outlined in my proposal, the gun control effects would be similar to the laws in, say Austria.

Does Austria have an inner-city gang problem and a highly profitable, prohibition-fueled black market? Does Austria have an economically repressed underclass for gangs to recruit from? No? Then what works in Austria won't work here.

Simple-minded solutions do not solve complex social problems.

Treating the symptom does not cure the underlying disease.

Banning inanimate objects / substances does not change human behavior.

Passing harsher laws does not deter people who don't fear going to prison.


So you completely missed where my proposal doesn't ban a farking thing and actually lifts the Hughes Amendment?

Idiot. Learn to read.
 
2012-12-17 01:00:30 AM  

clyph: iq_in_binary: Do you even know what the NFA does? As outlined in my proposal, the gun control effects would be similar to the laws in, say Austria.

Does Austria have an inner-city gang problem and a highly profitable, prohibition-fueled black market? Does Austria have an economically repressed underclass for gangs to recruit from? No? Then what works in Austria won't work here.

Simple-minded solutions do not solve complex social problems.

Treating the symptom does not cure the underlying disease.

Banning inanimate objects / substances does not change human behavior.

Passing harsher laws does not deter people who don't fear going to prison.


I keep telling people that the US culture is different than the rest of the world. People just ignore it.

/ it's also why Sweeden's ultra-relaxed jail sentencing system would not work here.
 
Displayed 50 of 1019 comments

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report