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.

(The Daily Caller)   George Will: Tougher gun laws, assault weapons ban won't help. But shhh, he uses real world info, data and ignores media hyperbole. So warning; you might learn something   (dailycaller.com) divider line 865
    More: Obvious, George Will, assault weapons ban, gun laws, assault weapons, hyperbole, .info  
•       •       •

6313 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Dec 2012 at 3:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-16 07:37:11 PM  

FarkTorrance: Empty Matchbook: Pokey.Clyde: ghare: 20 dead 6-and-7-year-olds say George Will is full of shiat.

And I say you are full of shiat. Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?

A law that made mental health facilities more affordable/accessible than an assault rifle?

Congratulations...you're my very first favorited Farker.


TOP O' THE WORLD, MA!!! (no snark, I'm egotistical enough to get a giddy thrill out of this)
 
2012-12-16 07:37:28 PM  

iq_in_binary: rolladuck: iq_in_binary: You have no idea what you're talking about.

Care to elaborate?

Except for extremely limited production run guns like the Hush Puppy, and guns like the MP5SD (INTEGRALLY SUPPRESSED, completely different from attaching a suppressor to the end of the barrel) using specially prepared ammo (subsonic), the vast majority of suppressors are barely capable of getting a gunshot report hearing safe. Barely. Even the highest rated suppressors for sound attenuation achieve at best 38dB of attenuation. Your average 9mm report is right at 140dB. That means we're going from 140dB (BANG! RIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNG) to 100dB (BANG!). You can still hear that over a mile away. To get better than that you have to go integrally suppressed, and even then you have to use subsonic ammo.


Which is why I stand by my assertion that suppressors are only tactically useful if you need to use one, MAYBE two shots and will be shortly leaving your position. Since they risk screwing up the ballistics of the bullet, (if they slow below Mach 1 during flight they will start to tumble) they're not reliable for longer-range shots. That means you have to be pretty close. It does you no benefit to reduce your bullet's power if you intend to remain at the scene, and more than two shots will get people nearby thinking "that might be gunfire after all" and will start determining your location. You don't flee when you've defended your home, and the report from a firearm can be helpful in convincing other perpetrators to abandon their attack. It's more likely a burglar will flee when faced with gunfire than hang around.

There was a shooting a couple blocks from my house in the summer, they fired eight shots. I wasn't sure it was gunfire at first because the first two were many seconds apart, but I looked out a window, and turned off the TV. After about 30 seconds, shots 3 through 8 were fired. I barely heard the rounds, being inside with other noises (A/C, laundry), but the cracks were pretty distinct. While in good conditions you can hear a 100dB crack from hundreds of yards away, the practical distance is much shorter. With the dishwasher going and a football game on, I might not notice if someone just three or four houses down fires a gun indoors.
 
2012-12-16 07:37:40 PM  
Lets see. Pass gun grabbing and banning measures that do nothing but make half the country feel better. Or enact civil rights restricting laws that test and treat the populace for its epidemic mental health problems that are causing mass homicides?
1-media-cdn.foolz.us

That way everybody is pissed off! Lets do both. If nobody is happy then we must have done something right.
 
2012-12-16 07:39:43 PM  

keithgabryelski: kyrg: Guns are a straw man. If you had a once of integrity you would be in the streets trying to end the sale of cigarettes (400,000 deaths a year) vehicles (30,000 deaths a year) and alcohol (40,000 deaths a year)

oh PUHLease.

people kill themselves -- that is a concern, but a different issue. you can be concerned about deaths that occur in different ways but also understand that a person's choice to kill them-self is a separate issue than a mass murder.

what we are talking about is not reducing any death (or even the most number of deaths) -- but the violent kind, the murder kind, the multi-person kind, and it seems that guns are so intertwined with this case it is worth talking about them when discussing prevention.


So, a thousands of deaths one at a time is better that 26 at once? Your serious right?
 
2012-12-16 07:46:34 PM  

thisispete: kyrg: You people are sooo tiresome.

Guns are a straw man. If you had a once of integrity you would be in the streets trying to end the sale of cigarettes (400,000 deaths a year) vehicles (30,000 deaths a year) and alcohol (40,000 deaths a year)

The real obscenity with this tragic event is not guns, but mental illness.
Think of what might have been prevented if that 500 Billion dollars swirling down the Solindra sewer drain had been invested in Mental facilities and the people to staff them.

Gabby Giffords, Denver movie goers, the list of victims is long, but the source of all this pain is ignored for political reasons.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Guns are another public health crisis and there is at least the political will to take action on them. If there's motivation to work on cars, cigarettes and alcohol then that would be great too. But give up on the idea that nothing should be done because we can't do everything else.


The point is the several dozen 800 pound Gorillas in the room we choose to ignore because they don't have the emotional charge a murdered doe eyed 7 year old has. This nations Cronic ADD problem dealing with long term problems will be our undoing.
 
2012-12-16 07:49:24 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: Daedalus27: Common? Not really, these regulations were enacted due to Prohibition violence. It was a small subset of gangsters utilizing Tommy guns, BARs and other WW1 automatic weapons to protect their gang turf and dispose of rivals that led to the ban on those types weapons. They weren't exactly common.

Okay, but you are arguing that these weapons are too common now, right?


No I am not, that is why I am suggesting that extending the NFA may not be effective. By covering the regulation of very uncommon and expensive weapons it affects weapons that the criminal element has little interest in utilizing when there are substantially similiar weapons available without the hassels. Automatic weapon and others under the act are not utilized in criminal activity so they aren't too common as you said,. It is easy to point to the success of the NFA potentially because it is narrowly targeted rather than the requirements themselves. Maybe there was an issue back when first enacted, but the production and sales of automatic weapons and other prohibited types dried up and are not widely available for huge costs which reduces interest in their use to criminals. Weapons under the NFA are very rare considering the amount of firearms in the US.
 
2012-12-16 07:49:26 PM  

kyrg: keithgabryelski: kyrg: Guns are a straw man. If you had a once of integrity you would be in the streets trying to end the sale of cigarettes (400,000 deaths a year) vehicles (30,000 deaths a year) and alcohol (40,000 deaths a year)

oh PUHLease.

people kill themselves -- that is a concern, but a different issue. you can be concerned about deaths that occur in different ways but also understand that a person's choice to kill them-self is a separate issue than a mass murder.

what we are talking about is not reducing any death (or even the most number of deaths) -- but the violent kind, the murder kind, the multi-person kind, and it seems that guns are so intertwined with this case it is worth talking about them when discussing prevention.

So, a thousands of deaths one at a time is better that 26 at once? Your serious right?


One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.
 
2012-12-16 07:50:01 PM  

orclover: Lets see. Pass gun grabbing and banning measures that do nothing but make half the country feel better. Or enact civil rights restricting laws that test and treat the populace for its epidemic mental health problems that are causing mass homicides?


You probably don't want a nation that is over-medicated. The kind of treatment is rather important, so that you don't end up just tranquilizing everybody.
 
2012-12-16 07:53:11 PM  

rolladuck: iq_in_binary: rolladuck: iq_in_binary: You have no idea what you're talking about.

Care to elaborate?

Except for extremely limited production run guns like the Hush Puppy, and guns like the MP5SD (INTEGRALLY SUPPRESSED, completely different from attaching a suppressor to the end of the barrel) using specially prepared ammo (subsonic), the vast majority of suppressors are barely capable of getting a gunshot report hearing safe. Barely. Even the highest rated suppressors for sound attenuation achieve at best 38dB of attenuation. Your average 9mm report is right at 140dB. That means we're going from 140dB (BANG! RIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNG) to 100dB (BANG!). You can still hear that over a mile away. To get better than that you have to go integrally suppressed, and even then you have to use subsonic ammo.

Which is why I stand by my assertion that suppressors are only tactically useful if you need to use one, MAYBE two shots and will be shortly leaving your position. Since they risk screwing up the ballistics of the bullet, (if they slow below Mach 1 during flight they will start to tumble) they're not reliable for longer-range shots. That means you have to be pretty close. It does you no benefit to reduce your bullet's power if you intend to remain at the scene, and more than two shots will get people nearby thinking "that might be gunfire after all" and will start determining your location. You don't flee when you've defended your home, and the report from a firearm can be helpful in convincing other perpetrators to abandon their attack. It's more likely a burglar will flee when faced with gunfire than hang around.

There was a shooting a couple blocks from my house in the summer, they fired eight shots. I wasn't sure it was gunfire at first because the first two were many seconds apart, but I looked out a window, and turned off the TV. After about 30 seconds, shots 3 through 8 were fired. I barely heard the rounds, being inside with other noises (A/C, laundry), b ...


Suppressors are for protecting hearing. They should be treated as safety equipment, not banned
 
2012-12-16 07:55:21 PM  

drewogatory: Tahs4Evar: cameroncrazy1984: Tell that to the UK, a country that hasn't had a mass shooting since Dunblane, after which they enacted the 1997 Firearms act.

THIS. You could include Australia, where we haven't had such a tragedy since we banned these sorts of weapons as a response to the Port Arthur massacre.

Banning these types of guns works.

Huh. Cause gun control has had pretty much no effect in Australia. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html


I'll quote the entire paragraph from the article you linked:

Other researchers have focused on mass shootings: there were 11 in Australia in the decade before 1996, and there have been none since. This appears to be a strong argument for gun laws designed to help prevent massacres like Port Arthur. But McPhedran argues that because "mass shootings have been such a rare event historically ... it's incredibly difficult to perform a reliable statistical test on such rare events." Massacres, she argues, are a separate research question.

Let's just bold that one important bit there have been none since.

Here are two famous (for Australian anyway) mass shootings that occurred previously.
Hoddle Street
Queen Street

So maybe these mass killings did represent a statically insignificant increase in the number of gun deaths, but as per your article since 1996 there have been none since. That is over 15 years of evidence. I think it has worked. I discussed this with an policeman friend of mine this morning. Although an avid shooter who was deeply against the idea at the time, he agreed it was a very good thing to do and is now a strong supporter of our strict anti-gun laws.
 
2012-12-16 08:02:44 PM  

kyrg: keithgabryelski: kyrg: Guns are a straw man. If you had a once of integrity you would be in the streets trying to end the sale of cigarettes (400,000 deaths a year) vehicles (30,000 deaths a year) and alcohol (40,000 deaths a year)

oh PUHLease.

people kill themselves -- that is a concern, but a different issue. you can be concerned about deaths that occur in different ways but also understand that a person's choice to kill them-self is a separate issue than a mass murder.

what we are talking about is not reducing any death (or even the most number of deaths) -- but the violent kind, the murder kind, the multi-person kind, and it seems that guns are so intertwined with this case it is worth talking about them when discussing prevention.

So, a thousands of deaths one at a time is better that 26 at once? Your serious right?


sure.

A thousand deaths to cigarrettes and who gives a fark -- at least it's killing smokers (have you ever been around a smoker?)

26 murders in an elementary school -- THAT is what we should be concentrating on.

or more seriously:

people should be able to do harm to themselves and the value of that harm (as considered by society) is much less than when someone choose to harm someone else.

absolute numbers are interesting. if this was a once in 100 years type thing we'd freak out but may consider that it happens so infrequently we may accept that any fix has more complications than the problem.
 
2012-12-16 08:05:08 PM  

iq_in_binary: Suppressors are for protecting hearing. They should be treated as safety equipment, not banned


cfnewsads.thomasnet.com

Just as effective. And much less expensive. Bonus: completely compatible with all varieties of firearms. And far less likely to be used to aid in murder.
 
2012-12-16 08:07:32 PM  

rolladuck: iq_in_binary: Suppressors are for protecting hearing. They should be treated as safety equipment, not banned

[cfnewsads.thomasnet.com image 425x397]

Just as effective. And much less expensive. Bonus: completely compatible with all varieties of firearms. And far less likely to be used to aid in murder.


Not effective against firearms with muzzle brakes. Which people install because they can't have suppressors and want to tame the recoil a little.

I mean really, you're just coming with Rambo fantasies as a basis for banning suppressors. They're safety equipment, nothing more.
 
2012-12-16 08:13:15 PM  

orclover: Lets see. Pass gun grabbing and banning measures that do nothing but make half the country feel better. Or enact civil rights restricting laws that test and treat the populace for its epidemic mental health problems that are causing mass homicides?
[1-media-cdn.foolz.us image 260x260]

That way everybody is pissed off! Lets do both. If nobody is happy then we must have done something right.


you cannot force people to be tested for mental health issues. And the ones who really need it are going to be that last to seek it on their own.
 
2012-12-16 08:22:24 PM  

Outrageous Muff: "Oh my god, this thing is so terrible beyond words."
"To make sure this never happens again we need to ban assault weapons!"
"But no assault weapons were used? How would that have stopped this horrible thing from happening?"
"Because guns are bad."
"But hundreds of millions of North Americans own guns and there aren't mass shooting every day. Isn't this really more of a mental health issue?"
"No, because guns are bad."


Erm, Americans. This is primarily an American problem. Canadians don't have the same sort of trouble that Americans have - yes, we have our own crazies who go on shooting rampages, but not nearly as often as Americans.

While this does have a huge mental health angle, there's also the American culture in general - one of the most pervasive icons in American mythos is the Man picking up a Gun to go off and deal with the Bad Guy on his own. Sane Americans know this is an archetype, a mythos, a story, and they know that most problems they solve can't be solved with a gun. Less sane Americans lose that perspective, see the gun as the way to solve their problems, then go off and do stupid things with guns.
 
2012-12-16 08:29:51 PM  

chuckufarlie: orclover: Lets see. Pass gun grabbing and banning measures that do nothing but make half the country feel better. Or enact civil rights restricting laws that test and treat the populace for its epidemic mental health problems that are causing mass homicides?
[1-media-cdn.foolz.us image 260x260]

That way everybody is pissed off! Lets do both. If nobody is happy then we must have done something right.

you cannot force people to be tested for mental health issues. And the ones who really need it are going to be that last to seek it on their own.


Why can't we have some sort of citizen's referral system? I can report my neighbor if I suspect he's growing pot in his house. Why can't I report him if I suspect he's going to go off the reservation?
 
2012-12-16 08:31:52 PM  

chuckufarlie: orclover: Lets see. Pass gun grabbing and banning measures that do nothing but make half the country feel better. Or enact civil rights restricting laws that test and treat the populace for its epidemic mental health problems that are causing mass homicides?
[1-media-cdn.foolz.us image 260x260]

That way everybody is pissed off! Lets do both. If nobody is happy then we must have done something right.

you cannot force people to be tested for mental health issues. And the ones who really need it are going to be that last to seek it on their own.


People who don't want to be tested can buy a musket. You want better than that, you need a full mental work-up. Sticks to the letter of the Constitution while allowing sane people to buy machine guns and rocket launchers.
 
2012-12-16 08:33:47 PM  
All you have to do to see Georg Will's point is to look at the rate of gun violence in industrialized countries with tough gun laws.
 
2012-12-16 08:38:05 PM  

iq_in_binary: The Hughes amendment didn't restrict access to automated weapons. All weapons the NFA applies to previous to the ban are still legal to own and purchase re: machine guns. They're still here, hundreds of thousands of them, and they're not being used in crimes.


again, you don't get that in describing this classification of weapons, complete with hurdles to obtaining them, you are describing a success story. that you can't find stats on their crime utility is a testament to the success of placing the barrier to possession at a higher level than 'you have a pulse'.

again, the fact you aren't finding these weapons used in crimes is a good thing. to state, as others have, and i was responding to, that any gun control measure undertaken has to have a reacharound to gun rights advocates in it, with the suggestion of lifting machine gun regulations in the specific post i was responding to....it's intentionally undo-ing what works because it's thought of as a bargaining chip - a means to get what you want rather than looking at what works and why it works.

somewhere in this 'compromise' strain of thought is a daft assumption that any gun legislation will be square one - like this isn't an issue that's gone back and forth for decades.

what gun control compromise was given to anybody when AWB expired? what gun control compromise was given to anybody when federal and park lands were opened to concealed carry? what gun control compromise was given to anybody when state legislation opened up dramatically resulting in just one lonely 1 state with 'no issue'....and even that going to the supreme court?

the folks standing there asking 'what do we get?' like they're owed anydamnthing in trade for any gun regulations not only seem selfish as fark, they seem completely unaware of what we have already gotten - and because we've gotten the laundry list of wants already, now is a good time to pretend we're at square one, and compromises must be given.
 
2012-12-16 08:41:32 PM  

iq_in_binary: rolladuck: iq_in_binary: Suppressors are for protecting hearing. They should be treated as safety equipment, not banned

[cfnewsads.thomasnet.com image 425x397]

Just as effective. And much less expensive. Bonus: completely compatible with all varieties of firearms. And far less likely to be used to aid in murder.

Not effective against firearms with muzzle brakes. Which people install because they can't have suppressors and want to tame the recoil a little.

I mean really, you're just coming with Rambo fantasies as a basis for banning suppressors. They're safety equipment, nothing more.


You're right - a suppressor is safety equipment - that much we can agree on.
 
2012-12-16 08:42:39 PM  
What I would personally find very helpful would be if somebody could give me some selective data and sweeping generalizations. In lieu of that I'll take some hyperbole and a comic that makes your opponent appear to be childish.

Anybody?
 
2012-12-16 08:44:15 PM  

rolladuck: Just as effective. And much less expensive. Bonus: completely compatible with all varieties of firearms. And far less likely to be used to aid in murder.


Suppressors aren't generally used for crime. Also, they're currently legal to own. You just have to pay a fee and file a gov't registration.
 
2012-12-16 08:46:12 PM  

Kimothy: hey are commonplace and occur several times a year.


bullshiat. Something occuring several times a year doesn't make it common. We have millions of kids in school, statistically, while this incident is tragic. it is an anomaly. Calling it common place is a lie.
 
2012-12-16 08:47:27 PM  
"$5000 a bullet...."
 
2012-12-16 08:50:31 PM  
The same people saying to 'treat mental health' are saying removing guns won't do anything.

The irony.

And no, the gun nuts don't want to 'do both.' They want to do neither, but they don't want to look like the total douches they are, so they present the invalid, unspecific, 'fix mental health' argument.

Ive never been disgusted by so many morons on fark as I have in the last few days.
 
2012-12-16 08:54:26 PM  

justtray: The same people saying to 'treat mental health' are saying removing guns won't do anything.

The irony.

And no, the gun nuts don't want to 'do both.' They want to do neither, but they don't want to look like the total douches they are, so they present the invalid, unspecific, 'fix mental health' argument.

Ive never been disgusted by so many morons on fark as I have in the last few days.


People wanting to take away something of mine, which I have never used to hurt anybody, and legally own disgusts me. Go fark yourself.
 
2012-12-16 08:58:08 PM  

manimal2878: bullshiat. Something occuring several times a year doesn't make it common. We have millions of kids in school, statistically, while this incident is tragic. it is an anomaly. Calling it common place is a lie.


manimal2878: People wanting to take away something of mine, which I have never used to hurt anybody, and legally own disgusts me. Go fark yourself.


20 dead kids and all you can think of is yourself. No, you go fark yourself.
 
2012-12-16 08:58:36 PM  
 
2012-12-16 09:01:18 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: manimal2878: bullshiat. Something occuring several times a year doesn't make it common. We have millions of kids in school, statistically, while this incident is tragic. it is an anomaly. Calling it common place is a lie.

manimal2878: People wanting to take away something of mine, which I have never used to hurt anybody, and legally own disgusts me. Go fark yourself.

20 dead kids and all you can think of is yourself. No, you go fark yourself.


Do you know how many kids die a day? Tons of children die everyday and nobody gives a fark. You are using these specific 20 dead children for your own political purposes. You are a disgusting asshole.
 
2012-12-16 09:01:58 PM  

manimal2878: justtray: The same people saying to 'treat mental health' are saying removing guns won't do anything.

The irony.

And no, the gun nuts don't want to 'do both.' They want to do neither, but they don't want to look like the total douches they are, so they present the invalid, unspecific, 'fix mental health' argument.

Ive never been disgusted by so many morons on fark as I have in the last few days.

People wanting to take away something of mine, which I have never used to hurt anybody, and legally own disgusts me. Go fark yourself.


For what has to be the 2000th time - most of us aren't saying take away your toys, we are saying that it's time to talk about meaningful controls on ownership. It's time to stop the 'you got mental health policies in my gun control policies' vs the 'no, you got gun control in my mental health policies' inanity and maybe look at both. Either way, things have got to change.
 
2012-12-16 09:03:33 PM  

manimal2878: justtray: The same people saying to 'treat mental health' are saying removing guns won't do anything.

The irony.

And no, the gun nuts don't want to 'do both.' They want to do neither, but they don't want to look like the total douches they are, so they present the invalid, unspecific, 'fix mental health' argument.

Ive never been disgusted by so many morons on fark as I have in the last few days.

People wanting to take away something of mine, which I have never used to hurt anybody, and legally own disgusts me. Go fark yourself.


I'm not saying this about you personally, so don't take this as a personal attack. But until a few days ago, that mother and her son had never used their guns to hurt anybody either.
 
2012-12-16 09:04:54 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: manimal2878: bullshiat. Something occuring several times a year doesn't make it common. We have millions of kids in school, statistically, while this incident is tragic. it is an anomaly. Calling it common place is a lie.

manimal2878: People wanting to take away something of mine, which I have never used to hurt anybody, and legally own disgusts me. Go fark yourself.

20 dead kids and all you can think of is yourself. No, you go fark yourself.


Of course I think of myself when the argument immediately launched is to take away the means of lawful members of society to defend ourselves from those meaning us harm and who will not follow the law. I am happy to know that if someone comes into my home that I have the means to protect myself and my family from harm so myself and my family doesn't end up dead like those 20 kids who had no protection. Moves to restrict this ability which utilize the tragedy concern me as they are using the deaths to push a politcal objective that fits their worldview.
 
2012-12-16 09:06:54 PM  

llachlan: manimal2878: justtray: The same people saying to 'treat mental health' are saying removing guns won't do anything.

The irony.

And no, the gun nuts don't want to 'do both.' They want to do neither, but they don't want to look like the total douches they are, so they present the invalid, unspecific, 'fix mental health' argument.

Ive never been disgusted by so many morons on fark as I have in the last few days.

People wanting to take away something of mine, which I have never used to hurt anybody, and legally own disgusts me. Go fark yourself.

For what has to be the 2000th time - most of us aren't saying take away your toys, we are saying that it's time to talk about meaningful controls on ownership. It's time to stop the 'you got mental health policies in my gun control policies' vs the 'no, you got gun control in my mental health policies' inanity and maybe look at both. Either way, things have got to change.


I'm not going to add up the number of "well if we take away all the guns there will be no more crime" posts that I have seen in the past few days, but I think you are wrong to say most of us are not saying that. It seems most pro-gun control people envision the confiscation of all guns as exactly the ideal form of gun control.

I already have a waiting period, a background check, and if I want to carry my gun outside my residence (CCW) I already have to take classes, get fingerprinted and have a fbi background check. So when you talk about meaningful regulations, either you are ignorant of all the regulations currently in place, or it appears you are and are talking about confiscation.

So what meaningful regulation are you proposing that is already not in place?
 
2012-12-16 09:07:54 PM  

Pincy: manimal2878: justtray: The same people saying to 'treat mental health' are saying removing guns won't do anything.

The irony.

And no, the gun nuts don't want to 'do both.' They want to do neither, but they don't want to look like the total douches they are, so they present the invalid, unspecific, 'fix mental health' argument.

Ive never been disgusted by so many morons on fark as I have in the last few days.

People wanting to take away something of mine, which I have never used to hurt anybody, and legally own disgusts me. Go fark yourself.

I'm not saying this about you personally, so don't take this as a personal attack. But until a few days ago, that mother and her son had never used their guns to hurt anybody either.


And?
 
2012-12-16 09:08:44 PM  

manimal2878: Do you know how many kids die a day? Tons of children die everyday and nobody gives a fark. You are using these specific 20 dead children for your own political purposes. You are a disgusting asshole.


We get it, your rights trump our rights not get shot. We get the same bullshiat every time this happens, and it happens again and again and again and not once do you admit there's a problem. Every time blah blah blah how many kids die a day, and nothing happens and then one day wham we lose 20 kindergarteners in one massacre.

No, fark you, you disgusting excuse for humanity.
 
2012-12-16 09:10:55 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: ghare: 20 dead 6-and-7-year-olds say George Will is full of shiat.

And I say you are full of shiat. Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?


A gun safe, how does it work?
 
2012-12-16 09:20:31 PM  

manimal2878: llachlan: manimal2878: justtray: The same people saying to 'treat mental health' are saying removing guns won't do anything.

The irony.

And no, the gun nuts don't want to 'do both.' They want to do neither, but they don't want to look like the total douches they are, so they present the invalid, unspecific, 'fix mental health' argument.

Ive never been disgusted by so many morons on fark as I have in the last few days.

People wanting to take away something of mine, which I have never used to hurt anybody, and legally own disgusts me. Go fark yourself.

For what has to be the 2000th time - most of us aren't saying take away your toys, we are saying that it's time to talk about meaningful controls on ownership. It's time to stop the 'you got mental health policies in my gun control policies' vs the 'no, you got gun control in my mental health policies' inanity and maybe look at both. Either way, things have got to change.

I'm not going to add up the number of "well if we take away all the guns there will be no more crime" posts that I have seen in the past few days, but I think you are wrong to say most of us are not saying that. It seems most pro-gun control people envision the confiscation of all guns as exactly the ideal form of gun control.

I already have a waiting period, a background check, and if I want to carry my gun outside my residence (CCW) I already have to take classes, get fingerprinted and have a fbi background check. So when you talk about meaningful regulations, either you are ignorant of all the regulations currently in place, or it appears you are and are talking about confiscation.

So what meaningful regulation are you proposing that is already not in place?


Well, it would be awesome if you had to do all those things in every state, for starters. I'm not in the least ignorant of the regulations - but I think maybe you might not be up to speed on the lack of consistency across the states.

It always baffled me that if you were all Americans, how doing something in Wyoming could be legal, and doing the same thing in New York resulted in incarceration - that has to be the most 'unequal' thing I can think of. While there isn't a hope in hell of being lucky enough to get a standardized penal code, I really think it's time for a standardized set of gun ownership rules that are the minimum standards - states can tighten but not loosen them.

I love my gun, but I love being a responsible member of society more - and I'll gladly take the steps necessary to own my gun under tighter controls (as I see that you already have).
 
2012-12-16 09:22:08 PM  
You will always have crazy people is what they say, when it's convenient to their argument to do nothing. When they want to distract from the gun issues themselves to "mental health", does the same "always have crazy people" argument apply? If it does, then why make incredibly deadly mass-killing machines so easily available in a society that will always have crazy people?

And why is it limited to "crazy people"? How do you define that for purposes of gun ownership, or being around guns? Doesn't someone going on a shooting spree make them APPEAR "crazy" no matter how rational they were up until that point? If someone has ever been depressed, are they suddenly unable to be around anyone who owns a gun?

Or are we talking about magically making everyone in the world suddenly non-violent and peaceful? How is that likely, since one of the pro-gun arguments is that criminals will always exist, which means we need protection? Or are you ONLY concerned with arming YOURSELF, and fark everyone else, including when the gun nut BECOMES the criminal and we all suffer for it?

The "mental health" angle is a bullshiat deflection, like all the others. The FACT of the matter is we have highly efficient and extremely deadly weapons out there that are too easily abused, and that needs to be addressed.
 
2012-12-16 09:23:27 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: manimal2878: Do you know how many kids die a day? Tons of children die everyday and nobody gives a fark. You are using these specific 20 dead children for your own political purposes. You are a disgusting asshole.

We get it, your rights trump our rights not get shot. We get the same bullshiat every time this happens, and it happens again and again and again and not once do you admit there's a problem. Every time blah blah blah how many kids die a day, and nothing happens and then one day wham we lose 20 kindergarteners in one massacre.

No, fark you, you disgusting excuse for humanity.


This incident is a tragedy, it's awful and farked up, but guess what, there is nobody to blame but the killer himself, not the tool he used to do it, or the person he stole the guns from. He is to blame, him and him alone. He decided to kill those children. You want answers as to why this happened. There are no answers. You want to tell yourself this will never happen again. It will. Like I said, tragedies happen everyday, why does this one have you wanting to infringe on my rights? The only answer is to try and lie to yourself about how you will be preventing it from happening again. If it's not a shooting there will be children dying of starvation in another country. For some reason you have an emotional reaction to these children but not any other children.
 
2012-12-16 09:25:21 PM  
eat your bullets, johnny - there are starving kids in africa.
 
2012-12-16 09:27:09 PM  

manimal2878: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: manimal2878: Do you know how many kids die a day? Tons of children die everyday and nobody gives a fark. You are using these specific 20 dead children for your own political purposes. You are a disgusting asshole.

We get it, your rights trump our rights not get shot. We get the same bullshiat every time this happens, and it happens again and again and again and not once do you admit there's a problem. Every time blah blah blah how many kids die a day, and nothing happens and then one day wham we lose 20 kindergarteners in one massacre.

No, fark you, you disgusting excuse for humanity.

This incident is a tragedy, it's awful and farked up, but guess what, there is nobody to blame but the killer himself, not the tool he used to do it, or the person he stole the guns from. He is to blame, him and him alone. He decided to kill those children. You want answers as to why this happened. There are no answers. You want to tell yourself this will never happen again. It will. Like I said, tragedies happen everyday, why does this one have you wanting to infringe on my rights? The only answer is to try and lie to yourself about how you will be preventing it from happening again. If it's not a shooting there will be children dying of starvation in another country. For some reason you have an emotional reaction to these children but not any other children.




You actually went the "starving kids in africa" route. You're actually saying, that people who want to make mass shootings harder to pull off are wrong because we haven't solved world hunger.

Congratulations on the most idiotic red herring in history.
 
2012-12-16 09:27:25 PM  
The problem isn't that guns are too easy to get, although they are. The problem isn't that there are too many guns in the US, although there are.

The problem is that too many sick farks love guns. There is something twisted in America, and it's twisted around a trigger.
 
2012-12-16 09:31:17 PM  

lordjupiter: manimal2878: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: manimal2878: Do you know how many kids die a day? Tons of children die everyday and nobody gives a fark. You are using these specific 20 dead children for your own political purposes. You are a disgusting asshole.

We get it, your rights trump our rights not get shot. We get the same bullshiat every time this happens, and it happens again and again and again and not once do you admit there's a problem. Every time blah blah blah how many kids die a day, and nothing happens and then one day wham we lose 20 kindergarteners in one massacre.

No, fark you, you disgusting excuse for humanity.

This incident is a tragedy, it's awful and farked up, but guess what, there is nobody to blame but the killer himself, not the tool he used to do it, or the person he stole the guns from. He is to blame, him and him alone. He decided to kill those children. You want answers as to why this happened. There are no answers. You want to tell yourself this will never happen again. It will. Like I said, tragedies happen everyday, why does this one have you wanting to infringe on my rights? The only answer is to try and lie to yourself about how you will be preventing it from happening again. If it's not a shooting there will be children dying of starvation in another country. For some reason you have an emotional reaction to these children but not any other children.



You actually went the "starving kids in africa" route. You're actually saying, that people who want to make mass shootings harder to pull off are wrong because we haven't solved world hunger.

Congratulations on the most idiotic red herring in history.


No, I'm saying bad things happen. You can't prevent all tragedy in the world.

I'm specifically addressing the post I was responding to that keeps throwing out the number of dead kids as if that has meaning. One kid is just as important to those that knew that kid, no matter how they died.

Congratulations on being a fark stick though.
 
2012-12-16 09:32:16 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: orclover: Lets see. Pass gun grabbing and banning measures that do nothing but make half the country feel better. Or enact civil rights restricting laws that test and treat the populace for its epidemic mental health problems that are causing mass homicides?

You probably don't want a nation that is over-medicated. The kind of treatment is rather important, so that you don't end up just tranquilizing everybody.


Tranquilizing everybody would be the safest and kindest mercy you could show for the entire country. A mentally healthy and lulled populace would be the single most peaceful entity this world has ever seen. Violence, rape, suicide, all would be almost completely gone. Depression? Gone. It would be a farking utopia and it should be done to us at gun point, hell, at nuke point if need be.

chuckufarlie: orclover: Lets see. Pass gun grabbing and banning measures that do nothing but make half the country feel better. Or enact civil rights restricting laws that test and treat the populace for its epidemic mental health problems that are causing mass homicides?
[1-media-cdn.foolz.us image 260x260]

That way everybody is pissed off! Lets do both. If nobody is happy then we must have done something right.

you cannot force people to be tested for mental health issues. And the ones who really need it are going to be that last to seek it on their own.


You can force people to do anything if you are willing enough. We should be willing to do whats right for everybody, No matter what the cost. Even if we have to heavily medicate the entire population, it would be the civilized thing to do. Cant force people to get tested? We can force them to get naked to get on a plane. We can force to piss in a cup to get any job. Forcing them through regular psychoanalysis and treatment would be child's play by comparison to what we put people through daily.

This country desperately needs mood stabilizers in the water supply. Thats not a troll, thats a farking fact.
 
2012-12-16 09:32:59 PM  

Notabunny: All you have to do to see Georg Will's point is to look at the rate of gun violence in industrialized countries with tough gun laws.


George Will is a farking idiot. Let's just accept that as a starting point please. In terms of statistics, start with how many shooting sprees you have every year in the US and divide by the IQ of the average gun nut.
 
2012-12-16 09:34:04 PM  
RFID chips and tokens required for all civilian gun purchases...or biometrics. Eliminate the 'point and shoot' aspect of guns and for manufacturers into the 21st century. no corresponding RFID token, no firey. This exists and would prevent any unauthorized use of a gun. Eventually all guns without this tech would become rarer and rarer and more expensive and more suspicious too. We could enact that tomorrow and not run afoul of any 2nd amendment fight. no one would be facing any undue burden in getting a gun.

There are other solutions than banning or confiscation...gun supporters like to pretend these do not exist.
 
2012-12-16 09:35:04 PM  

Notabunny: All you have to do to see Georg Will's point is to look at the rate of gun violence in industrialized countries with tough gun laws.


and by that you mean -- look that george will has it backwards?
 
2012-12-16 09:36:17 PM  

heap: iq_in_binary: The Hughes amendment didn't restrict access to automated weapons. All weapons the NFA applies to previous to the ban are still legal to own and purchase re: machine guns. They're still here, hundreds of thousands of them, and they're not being used in crimes.

again, you don't get that in describing this classification of weapons, complete with hurdles to obtaining them, you are describing a success story. that you can't find stats on their crime utility is a testament to the success of placing the barrier to possession at a higher level than 'you have a pulse'.

again, the fact you aren't finding these weapons used in crimes is a good thing. to state, as others have, and i was responding to, that any gun control measure undertaken has to have a reacharound to gun rights advocates in it, with the suggestion of lifting machine gun regulations in the specific post i was responding to....it's intentionally undo-ing what works because it's thought of as a bargaining chip - a means to get what you want rather than looking at what works and why it works.

somewhere in this 'compromise' strain of thought is a daft assumption that any gun legislation will be square one - like this isn't an issue that's gone back and forth for decades.

what gun control compromise was given to anybody when AWB expired? what gun control compromise was given to anybody when federal and park lands were opened to concealed carry? what gun control compromise was given to anybody when state legislation opened up dramatically resulting in just one lonely 1 state with 'no issue'....and even that going to the supreme court?

the folks standing there asking 'what do we get?' like they're owed anydamnthing in trade for any gun regulations not only seem selfish as fark, they seem completely unaware of what we have already gotten - and because we've gotten the laundry list of wants already, now is a good time to pretend we're at square one, and compromises must be given.


I'm talking about placing damn near all the guns in this country under the same program that we restricted machine guns, sbrs, aows and suppressors with and you're biatching at me telling me that I'm asking for concessions. You don't want to fix the problem, you just want to ban things. Are you going to contribute anything to the discussion? Because your way requires repealing the 2nd Amendment, and that is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Do you want to fix the problem or not.
 
2012-12-16 09:38:54 PM  

manimal2878: lordjupiter: manimal2878: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: manimal2878: Do you know how many kids die a day? Tons of children die everyday and nobody gives a fark. You are using these specific 20 dead children for your own political purposes. You are a disgusting asshole.

We get it, your rights trump our rights not get shot. We get the same bullshiat every time this happens, and it happens again and again and again and not once do you admit there's a problem. Every time blah blah blah how many kids die a day, and nothing happens and then one day wham we lose 20 kindergarteners in one massacre.

No, fark you, you disgusting excuse for humanity.

This incident is a tragedy, it's awful and farked up, but guess what, there is nobody to blame but the killer himself, not the tool he used to do it, or the person he stole the guns from. He is to blame, him and him alone. He decided to kill those children. You want answers as to why this happened. There are no answers. You want to tell yourself this will never happen again. It will. Like I said, tragedies happen everyday, why does this one have you wanting to infringe on my rights? The only answer is to try and lie to yourself about how you will be preventing it from happening again. If it's not a shooting there will be children dying of starvation in another country. For some reason you have an emotional reaction to these children but not any other children.



You actually went the "starving kids in africa" route. You're actually saying, that people who want to make mass shootings harder to pull off are wrong because we haven't solved world hunger.

Congratulations on the most idiotic red herring in history.

No, I'm saying bad things happen. You can't prevent all tragedy in the world.

I'm specifically addressing the post I was responding to that keeps throwing out the number of dead kids as if that has meaning. One kid is just as important to those that knew that kid, no matter how they died.

Congratulations on being ...


Your argument is bullshiat. Nobody's trying to prevent all bad things from happening. We are trying to reduce some of the bad things we can potentially control. All you are doing is trying to diver from that by pointing to unrelated items.
 
2012-12-16 09:41:01 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: ghare: 20 dead 6-and-7-year-olds say George Will is full of shiat.

And I say you are full of shiat. Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?


Weak, weak, weaksauce.
 
Displayed 50 of 865 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report