Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(ABC)   "The NRA couldn't be reached for comment regarding whether the deactivation of its facebook page was connected to Friday's mass shooting"   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 443
    More: Obvious, NRA, school shootings, semi-automatic rifle, gun laws, assault weapons  
•       •       •

7713 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Dec 2012 at 1:43 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-17 02:46:29 PM  
Let's outlaw killing people!!
 
2012-12-17 02:46:45 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: waiting for hollywood to deactivate their facebook pages on all their violent shows and movies.

we have had guns for a long time. what has changed in the last 10 years that results in these senseless slaughters?


Why do people still take you seriously?
 
2012-12-17 02:47:13 PM  

KrispyKritter: after Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood" was brought to the silver screen we saw more disturbing behavior along this line. after a couple in the mid 60's (?) claimed to have been abducted and probed by aliens more people came forward and claimed the same thing happened to them.


Hey, when you head back to the Fifties, can I tag along? It sounds really swell.

/ OK, that for the funny. I don't agree with most of your post, (Nor to I want to debate it) but you raise some good points. So thanks.
 
2012-12-17 02:47:59 PM  

letrole: Can't blame guns, they were even more unrestricted and available in the past.


Yes, the founding fathers had unrestricted access to machine guns and assault rifles. Hell, they even had Glocks back in the day.
 
2012-12-17 02:48:24 PM  

IlGreven: onyxruby: This issue has nothing to do with guns, they are the red herring.

People can keep saying this. It doesn't make it true. Even if a majority of people believe it, it doesn't make it true.


Just curious, do you try to get cars banned because of the very large number of people killed by them every year? This is a people issue, just like drunk driving.
 
2012-12-17 02:48:52 PM  
Given the number of wall posts by illogical anti-gun sissies calling for the death of the NRA's president, they were smart to take their page down until this blows over. I don't see a problem with it. Anti-gun sissies have worked themselves up into a mindless mob (just see any recent comments page on Fark) and there's no reasoning with them. Ditto for pro-gun congressmen not showing up on Meet the Press. The only goal was the try to bait them and make them look dumb and the congressmen aren't going to fall for it.
 
2012-12-17 02:49:11 PM  

TypoFlyspray: snocone: Fear drives the need for prevention of violent crimes.
Problem is that the time line defies the concept.
So politicians and charlitans sell the concept to the afeared masses. PROFIT!

There is no law against violence that will ever provide safety from violence.

So making murder illegal does nothing to change the rate of murder?

Silly.

Nothing will ever provide complete safety. Doesn't mean that a well crafted, intelligently enforced law can't increase the level of safety by making violence more difficult.


Or we could address the actual problem, by identifying those who need help, then giving them that help.

But no, that's just crazy talk.
 
2012-12-17 02:49:50 PM  

onyxruby: IlGreven: onyxruby: This issue has nothing to do with guns, they are the red herring.

People can keep saying this. It doesn't make it true. Even if a majority of people believe it, it doesn't make it true.

Just curious, do you try to get cars banned because of the very large number of people killed by them every year? This is a people issue, just like drunk driving.


...and yet another strawman gets riddled with bullet holes. How many cars were used for even single murders last year, let alone mass murder?
 
2012-12-17 02:51:07 PM  

TypoFlyspray: Abuse Liability: It's a great thing you're no scientist. The old adage "correlation does not equal causation" would fit pretty well with your statement

Unfortunately for that argument, it's not commutative.

Correlation != Causation.
However,
Causation = Correlation

So if you see a correlation, you can start looking for a causation. And if you find other correlations, you can suspect you're on the right track.

Or you can say that Logic is just a way of being wrong with confidence.


While it may give you a good place to start, science has proven again and again that many of these things (e.g., violent video games, music, etc...) are simply sought out by those predisposed to violence (see crazy) and aren't actually a causative factor. In other words, I could jsay that Christmas causes mass shooting spree's because they each happen at least once a year.
 
2012-12-17 02:51:40 PM  
What does the NRA have to do with a mentally ill, non gun owning, mass murderer?
 
2012-12-17 02:51:43 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: we have had guns for a long time. what has changed in the last 10 years that results in these senseless slaughters?


George W. Bush allowed the assault weapons ban to expire.

/Next question
 
2012-12-17 02:52:05 PM  

letrole: But random shootings increase. Can't blame Religion, it's less influential today than ever.

Wow, what planet are you on?

Can't blame guns, they were even more unrestricted and available in the past.
Clearly it's not one where they teach history.

Can't blame bullies, *everyone* used to shun and pick-on the misfits.
And few of the misfits went and snapped and killed a bunch of people, because you could lock up the truly crazy before they snapped.
 
2012-12-17 02:52:10 PM  

brnt00: But let's keep derping about gun control.


High-capacity magazines - for when shooting a first grader ten times isn't enough!
 
2012-12-17 02:54:17 PM  

Kuroshin: Or we could address the actual problem, by identifying those who need help, then giving them that help.

But no, that's just crazy talk.


All in favor of it. That's a big part of the problem and needs to be fixed. But since it's not a perfect solution, let's see what else we can do to make violent impulses less deadly. I recommend we consider some reasonable gun control laws, enforcing the ones on the books, and getting rid of the loopholes.
 
2012-12-17 02:54:34 PM  

Kuroshin: Or we could address the actual problem, by identifying those who need help, then giving them that help.


So, again, in an effort to keep your 2nd amendment rights, you want to restrict both the 2nd and 1st amendment rights of people who score poorly on mental health evaluations, yet have never harmed anyone? Meanwhile, the healthy farkwads who kill their wives and kids before offing themselves will still have that opportunity? 

Mental health services would not have stopped Jovan Belcher. They might have stopped Chris Benoit, but that opens up a whole new can of worms, since he had no family history of mental illness; said mental illness was caused mostly by the bumps he took as a pro wrestler. Concussions can produce effects similar to those found in long-term mental psychoses. Does that mean we should lock up anyone who's ever wrestled, played football, or just hit their head on the pavement really hard one day?
 
2012-12-17 02:54:58 PM  

hbk72777: What does the NRA have to do with a mentally ill, non gun owning, mass murderer?


Hang on. I'll ask them on Facebook.
 
2012-12-17 02:55:17 PM  
letrole: Can't blame guns, they were even more unrestricted and available in the past.

IlGreven Yes, the founding fathers had unrestricted access to machine guns and assault rifles. Hell, they even had Glocks back in the day.

Richard Speck mass murdered eight nurses with a knife. He could have executed them with a revolver if he chose. Mass killings do not require automatic weapons.
 
2012-12-17 02:55:21 PM  

Abuse Liability: While it may give you a good place to start, science has proven again and again that many of these things (e.g., violent video games, music, etc...) are simply sought out by those predisposed to violence (see crazy) and aren't actually a causative factor.


I agree with you there.
 
2012-12-17 02:56:08 PM  
The NRA and gun lobby has an indefensible position and situations like CT only draw attention to it.

6% of Americans hunted last year.

Since Americans are not ever attacked by a squadron of bad guys, there is no argument for allowing Tanks, RPG's, assault rifles, ICBM's etc for home use.

Demanding that people be allowed spray 100 rounds in 1 min without limits is stupid.

When a crazy person decides they want to kill ...we cant stop them. They can bash, stab etc and will catch someone by surprise.

When a crazy person decides they want to kill 30 people - they cant do that without access to military type firepower / and explosives.

The tragedy may not have been avoidable, but it was certainly something that could have been mitigated. The NRA knows it and they should be ashamed at their lobby success.
 
2012-12-17 02:56:27 PM  

TypoFlyspray: namatad: His mother should get the death penalty for not properly safing her weapons.

/wait? what? she already did? GOOD.


O so very this.


You don't know that he didn't kill her and then take the weapons, though. Or if she had them securely stored and he stole them. He was an adult after all, and they lived in the same house. What was she supposed to do (besides not have any guns at all)? All he needed to do was get the key or the combination and open the safe.

The guns were legally obtained and otherwise lawful. The only person responsible here was the shooter. Period.
 
2012-12-17 02:56:38 PM  

brnt00: But let's keep derping about gun control.


Keep spewing that bullshiat. What'll you do when 'Obama comes for your guns' like you pro gun people like to say...that's your fantasy isn't it? Looks like you gun lovers are going to get what you've always wanted...a showdown with the left over assault weapon and handgun bans and as a bonus...it's a brown guy!
 
2012-12-17 02:58:34 PM  

letrole: letrole: Can't blame guns, they were even more unrestricted and available in the past.

IlGreven Yes, the founding fathers had unrestricted access to machine guns and assault rifles. Hell, they even had Glocks back in the day.

Richard Speck mass murdered eight nurses with a knife. He could have executed them with a revolver if he chose. Mass killings do not require automatic weapons.


That's not an argument for legalizing automatic weapons.
 
2012-12-17 02:58:46 PM  

TypoFlyspray: If you tag and title guns, and license gun owners, then make carrying an unlicensed gun or a gun without having a gun license a crime that carries significant jailtime and forfeiture of the weapon, you 1) Increase the risk level of carrying an unlicensed gun to the degree that smart criminals will carry them far less often, 2) Provide an opportunity for law enforcement to inject themselves into the situation before anyone gets shot, 3) Gradually decrease the number of illegal guns in circulation, and 4) Drive the price of those that remain on the black market up beyond the means of most criminals.

Further, if your gun is stolen, you would report it, because if you didn't you would bear some responsibility if it were used. People would be more likely to keep their guns in a secure storage and less likely to share the combination to that storage with their violently crazy kid.

If you want to let the perfect be the enemy of the better, you go ahead, but I'm going to try to make some progress here.



I like where your head is at, but this would never work and here is why:

If you tag and title guns, and license gun owners
Tagging and titling the guns creates a paper trail, which on the one hand is good, but on the other hand does nothing to account for the millions of guns that are now on the street and that cross into the US from Mexico. There will still be unaccounted guns. For those that are accounted for, that list becomes a shopping list for criminals who somehow manage to get their hands on it either by legal means like the Freedom of Information Act or illegal means like hacking for example. Look at the multiple security breeches on a yearly basis and how many SSNs and credit card numbers are hacked...Do you really think that the Federal Government will have this information in the most secure facility possible? Not likely as it is WAY too cost prohibitive.

then make carrying an unlicensed gun or a gun without having a gun license a crime that carries significant jailtime and forfeiture of the weapon

Criminals will still be criminals. This really only punishes law abiding citizens.

1) Increase the risk level of carrying an unlicensed gun to the degree that smart criminals will carry them far less often

Maybe. Only maybe. Sure the guys at the top may not carry, but their foot soldiers still will. This still goes back to the fact that criminals by their very nature do not follow the law, no matter how harsh the punishment.

2) Provide an opportunity for law enforcement to inject themselves into the situation before anyone gets shot


Not really sure what you are talking about here...

3) Gradually decrease the number of illegal guns in circulation,


How do you propose to do this? The only answer I've got is create more jobs, bolster the economy and make the criminal lifestyle less financially attractive.

Further, if your gun is stolen, you would report it, because if you didn't you would bear some responsibility if it were used. People would be more likely to keep their guns in a secure storage and less likely to share the combination to that storage with their violently crazy kid.

I cannot imagine this would be held up by SCOTUS. If someone breaks into my house and takes my things including my gun(s), I do not see how I am responsible for their actions post B&E. Are you responsible for the actions of someone who stole your car? Again, thef, and B&E are already illegal. 

Fine, use a biometric safe that requires a hand print...nothing is stopping me from slitting your throat, chopping off your hand and getting in from there...or at least threatening to do this to you...
 
2012-12-17 02:58:47 PM  

letrole: letrole: Can't blame guns, they were even more unrestricted and available in the past.

IlGreven Yes, the founding fathers had unrestricted access to machine guns and assault rifles. Hell, they even had Glocks back in the day.

Richard Speck mass murdered eight nurses with a knife. He could have executed them with a revolver if he chose. Mass killings do not require automatic weapons.


Makes it much easier. Guy in Connecticut walks into a school with a brace of guns and 20 people die. Guy in China walks into a school and 22 kids get cut. No one dies.

Call me whacky, but I'll take my chances with a guy with a knife if the other option is a guy with a gun.
 
2012-12-17 03:00:01 PM  

Gyrfalcon: The guns were legally obtained and otherwise lawful. The only person responsible here was the shooter. Period.


Had they been illegal in the first place they wouldn't have been there for him to take. What part about that aren't you grasping?
 
2012-12-17 03:00:13 PM  

TypoFlyspray: If you tag and title guns, and license gun owners, then make carrying an unlicensed gun or a gun without having a gun license a crime that carries significant jailtime and forfeiture of the weapon, you 1) Increase the risk level of carrying an unlicensed gun to the degree that smart criminals will carry them far less often, 2) Provide an opportunity for law enforcement to inject themselves into the situation before anyone gets shot, 3) Gradually decrease the number of illegal guns in circulation, and 4) Drive the price of those that remain on the black market up beyond the means of most criminals.


There is a problem with this: You can make a gun relatively easily. This guy made the receiver for an AK (the actual part that is classified as a "gun") using an old used shovel.

My main hunting rifle was handmade for me by my father.

Guns are a 600 year old technology that for most of that time were made using tools and materials inferior to those found at your Lowes or Home Depot.
 
2012-12-17 03:00:31 PM  
Meh, the gun lobby make's every gun-loving 'merican think the government is going to take away his or her revolver, shotgun, or hunting rifle. In actuality, they're using that support to sustain the minority of gun owners who believe they need to protect themselves against the government. Those folks have their own private arms race against law enforcement....and that's where the profits are.
 
2012-12-17 03:01:03 PM  

lilbjorn: tenpoundsofcheese: we have had guns for a long time. what has changed in the last 10 years that results in these senseless slaughters?

George W. Bush allowed the assault weapons ban to expire.

/Next question


Did it really take 160-170 posts before someone came in and Bush'd the thread?

Seriously. You people are slacking.
 
2012-12-17 03:01:36 PM  
Kuroshin: Or we could address the actual problem, by identifying those who need help, then giving them that help.


So the TSA riffling through your knickers at the airport is bad

But with the *same* Government authority, some sort of all-encompassing authority has the power to decide if you're a threat, and take whatever steps are necessary to cure you.
 
2012-12-17 03:01:56 PM  

TheOriginalEd: Kudos to the NRA for a moment of silence and trying not to feed the fire.


They're waiting for things to blow over a bit before they send out their fundraising letter.
 
2012-12-17 03:03:26 PM  

easypray: The NRA and gun lobby has an indefensible position and situations like CT only draw attention to it.

6% of Americans hunted last year.

Since Americans are not ever attacked by a squadron of bad guys, there is no argument for allowing Tanks, RPG's, assault rifles, ICBM's etc for home use.

Demanding that people be allowed spray 100 rounds in 1 min without limits is stupid.

When a crazy person decides they want to kill ...we cant stop them. They can bash, stab etc and will catch someone by surprise.

When a crazy person decides they want to kill 30 people - they cant do that without access to military type firepower / and explosives.

The tragedy may not have been avoidable, but it was certainly something that could have been mitigated. The NRA knows it and they should be ashamed at their lobby success.


I actually am in favor of stricter gun control, even though I don't believe it will help much (every little bit counts i guess). Just to play devil's advocate though, you don't really need military grade explosives to kill 30... or many more people. All you really need is time and opportunity, which many of these spree killers have. These killings are largely premeditated and as so many have pointed out, the perpetrators need professional medical help.
 
2012-12-17 03:03:31 PM  

Endive Wombat: then make carrying an unlicensed gun or a gun without having a gun license a crime that carries significant jailtime and forfeiture of the weapon

Criminals will still be criminals. This really only punishes law abiding citizens.


Law abiding citizens will have gun licenses. Those who don't...say it with me...will be criminals

Or, to use the gun nuts' oh-so-cherished car analogy: Drivers' licenses only punish law-abiding citizens. Criminals who don't have licenses will still have access to cars.
 
2012-12-17 03:04:14 PM  

easypray: The NRA and gun lobby has an indefensible position and situations like CT only draw attention to it.

6% of Americans hunted last year.

Since Americans are not ever attacked by a squadron of bad guys, there is no argument for allowing Tanks, RPG's, assault rifles, ICBM's etc for home use.

Demanding that people be allowed spray 100 rounds in 1 min without limits is stupid.

When a crazy person decides they want to kill ...we cant stop them. They can bash, stab etc and will catch someone by surprise.

When a crazy person decides they want to kill 30 people - they cant do that without access to military type firepower / and explosives.

The tragedy may not have been avoidable, but it was certainly something that could have been mitigated. The NRA knows it and they should be ashamed at their lobby success.


Did this guy use any Tanks/RPGs/ICBMs? (The answer is no)
Did he use an "assault rifle" capable of firing 100 rounds in 1 minute? (Unless his last name was Deschain, Dean or Chambers the answer is also no)

If the NRA took their facebook page offline due to the school shootings, its likely because they were smart enough to comprehend that there is no possibility of even remotely rational conversation regarding gun control right after a bunch of children were gunned down.
 
2012-12-17 03:04:21 PM  

Endive Wombat: Tagging and titling the guns creates a paper trail, which on the one hand is good, but on the other hand does nothing to account for the millions of guns that are now on the street and that cross into the US from Mexico


So it's not worth doing? What price the blood of children, man?

Endive Wombat: Fine, use a biometric safe that requires a hand print...nothing is stopping me from slitting your throat, chopping off your hand and getting in from there...or at least threatening to do this to you...


See, right here is where I know I don't need to argue with you.

Nevertheless, 1) I think they'd be less likely to send armed goons if the arms were more expensive and the goons were more likely to be arrested if armed. 2) If a guy gets pulled over with an unlicensed gun, he's going to jail or the morgue. 3) if every conviction leads to a destroyed gun, it decreases the number of guns.
 
2012-12-17 03:05:07 PM  

mizchief: IlGreven: letrole: Can't blame guns, they were even more unrestricted and available in the past.

Yes, the founding fathers had unrestricted access to machine guns and assault rifles. Hell, they even had Glocks back in the day.

Maybe not, but they did have access to cannons and cannon balls that explode on impact blasting shrapnel in all directions killing anyone in a 20 yard radius. There were much nastier ways of killing massive amounts of people long before rapid-reload small arms.


...and yet, there were fewer mass murders back in the day that weren't a result of war or oppression. Hell, the Boston Massacre only killed 5 people.
 
2012-12-17 03:05:09 PM  

Gyrfalcon: The only person responsible here was the shooter.


Spare some blame for the mother, who had a mentally unstable kid in a houseful of guns.

Oh, and the NRA, for raising holy hell any time any type of restriction is proposed.

Like on high-capacity magazines.
 
2012-12-17 03:06:07 PM  

clane: Let's outlaw killing people!!


Reactionary! Dirty hippy! Always wanting to take away freedom.
 
2012-12-17 03:06:26 PM  
Former British politician Ann Widdecombe tests Ford's active park assist feature in the U.K. in July 2011.

Old Uncle Tom Cobley and aaaaall

Old Uncle Tom Cobley and aaaaall
 
2012-12-17 03:06:31 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: "Crazy got a gun" is the reason most mass shootings happen. Preventing crazies from getting guns should be our top priority.


how do you think the NRA would feel about that sort of thing? don't they oppose any and all gun legislation?
 
2012-12-17 03:06:37 PM  

Abuse Liability:

I actually am in favor of stricter gun control, even though I don't believe it will help much (every little bit counts i guess). Just to play devil's advocate though, you don't really need military grade explosives to kill 30... or many more people. All you really need is time and opportunity, which many of these spree killers have. These killings are largely premeditated and as so many have pointed out, the perpetrators need professional medical help.


Again, this is not an argument for more guns. People who use it pretend that it is for whatever reason, but it's not.
 
2012-12-17 03:06:55 PM  
"Nuclear Weapons Don't Kill People, People Kill People"

A message from the National Nuke Association. Join the NNA today.*

*Application for NNA membership must be accompanied by proof of ownership of a functioning nuclear device.
 
2012-12-17 03:07:03 PM  
For over 100 years, these places took good care of the mentally ill. Now, they are in shambles, much like the people who need to be in there.

They were equipped with a Movie theater, bowling alley, a library and more. This wasn't "Johnny got his gun" bullshiat strapped to the bed bullshiat.

Keep giving out free birth control, screw the mentally ill.


Link
Link

200.74.243.171

25.media.tumblr.com

cdn.c.photoshelter.com
 
2012-12-17 03:07:53 PM  

EViLTeW: easypray: The NRA and gun lobby has an indefensible position and situations like CT only draw attention to it.

6% of Americans hunted last year.

Since Americans are not ever attacked by a squadron of bad guys, there is no argument for allowing Tanks, RPG's, assault rifles, ICBM's etc for home use.

Demanding that people be allowed spray 100 rounds in 1 min without limits is stupid.

When a crazy person decides they want to kill ...we cant stop them. They can bash, stab etc and will catch someone by surprise.

When a crazy person decides they want to kill 30 people - they cant do that without access to military type firepower / and explosives.

The tragedy may not have been avoidable, but it was certainly something that could have been mitigated. The NRA knows it and they should be ashamed at their lobby success.

Did this guy use any Tanks/RPGs/ICBMs? (The answer is no)
Did he use an "assault rifle" capable of firing 100 rounds in 1 minute? (Unless his last name was Deschain, Dean or Chambers the answer is also no)

If the NRA took their facebook page offline due to the school shootings, its likely because they were smart enough to comprehend that there is no possibility of even remotely rational conversation regarding gun control right after a bunch of children were gunned down.


By that logic Youtube should've taken its comment section offline after the Haditha killings.
 
2012-12-17 03:07:53 PM  

dittybopper: TypoFlyspray: If you tag and title guns, and license gun owners, then make carrying an unlicensed gun or a gun without having a gun license a crime that carries significant jailtime and forfeiture of the weapon, you 1) Increase the risk level of carrying an unlicensed gun to the degree that smart criminals will carry them far less often, 2) Provide an opportunity for law enforcement to inject themselves into the situation before anyone gets shot, 3) Gradually decrease the number of illegal guns in circulation, and 4) Drive the price of those that remain on the black market up beyond the means of most criminals.

There is a problem with this: You can make a gun relatively easily. This guy made the receiver for an AK (the actual part that is classified as a "gun") using an old used shovel.

My main hunting rifle was handmade for me by my father.

Guns are a 600 year old technology that for most of that time were made using tools and materials inferior to those found at your Lowes or Home Depot.


Really? I'm happy your father was a craftsman. Hand forged the barrel, did he?

People who are committed to killing someone with a gun will do so. Period.

What I am saying is that upping the level of commitment needed will dissuade some from killing and redirect others into either less deadly (knives, Axes, swords) or more easily detected (Bombs. Bioweapons) methods. I'd say it's worth it.

Basically, when your second amendment starts infringing on my first amendment right to freely assemble, I think it's the 2nd that gives.
 
2012-12-17 03:07:57 PM  

lenfromak: tenpoundsofcheese: waiting for hollywood to deactivate their facebook pages on all their violent shows and movies.

we have had guns for a long time. what has changed in the last 10 years that results in these senseless slaughters?

Well, the federal law that disarms everyone inside government schools. There's that.


Of course! I'd forgotten how all the administrators and teachers carried when I was in school in the 1970s.

Oh, wait, actually nobody was carrying then, either.
 
2012-12-17 03:10:11 PM  
img248.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-17 03:10:19 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: waiting for hollywood to deactivate their facebook pages on all their violent shows and movies.

we have had guns for a long time. what has changed in the last 10 years that results in these senseless slaughters?


If we knew that, we could fix it.
 
2012-12-17 03:12:17 PM  

TypoFlyspray: dittybopper: TypoFlyspray: If you tag and title guns, and license gun owners, then make carrying an unlicensed gun or a gun without having a gun license a crime that carries significant jailtime and forfeiture of the weapon, you 1) Increase the risk level of carrying an unlicensed gun to the degree that smart criminals will carry them far less often, 2) Provide an opportunity for law enforcement to inject themselves into the situation before anyone gets shot, 3) Gradually decrease the number of illegal guns in circulation, and 4) Drive the price of those that remain on the black market up beyond the means of most criminals.

There is a problem with this: You can make a gun relatively easily. This guy made the receiver for an AK (the actual part that is classified as a "gun") using an old used shovel.

My main hunting rifle was handmade for me by my father.

Guns are a 600 year old technology that for most of that time were made using tools and materials inferior to those found at your Lowes or Home Depot.

Really? I'm happy your father was a craftsman. Hand forged the barrel, did he?

People who are committed to killing someone with a gun will do so. Period.

What I am saying is that upping the level of commitment needed will dissuade some from killing and redirect others into either less deadly (knives, Axes, swords) or more easily detected (Bombs. Bioweapons) methods. I'd say it's worth it.

Basically, when your second amendment starts infringing on my first amendment right to freely assemble, I think it's the 2nd that gives.


Since when did the 2nd infringe on your right to freedom of assembly? Last time I checked, our latest precious snowflake monster was in illegal possession of the weapons, having murdered someone to steal them, after his attempts to purchase legally were denied.

So, great, you keep farking that chicken buddy.
 
2012-12-17 03:13:51 PM  

IlGreven: Abuse Liability:

I actually am in favor of stricter gun control, even though I don't believe it will help much (every little bit counts i guess). Just to play devil's advocate though, you don't really need military grade explosives to kill 30... or many more people. All you really need is time and opportunity, which many of these spree killers have. These killings are largely premeditated and as so many have pointed out, the perpetrators need professional medical help.

Again, this is not an argument for more guns. People who use it pretend that it is for whatever reason, but it's not.


Who's advocating more guns (I assuming you're implying its me as you quoted me)? I'm just saying move the focus to where its appropriate. Guns be damned.
 
2012-12-17 03:14:13 PM  
IlGreven: That's not an argument for legalizing automatic weapons.

Spree killings are not being conducted with machine guns. Now you posted this earlier comment:

IlGreven Yes, the founding fathers had unrestricted access to machine guns and assault rifles. Hell, they even had Glocks back in the day.


Are you blaming the availability of machine guns for spree killings? They weren't being used. Can you say moot point?

What you've done is form a strawman argument on the back of an asinine anachronism about the founding fathers having glocks. They didn't have wrist watches either.

Now with all that aside, I've never advocated the legalisation of machine guns. Not here, not elsewhere. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else who thinks you're a dipshiat.
 
Displayed 50 of 443 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report