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  
•       •       •

7716 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 03:15:15 PM  

TypoFlyspray: 3) if every conviction leads to a destroyed gun, it decreases the number of guns.


You realize that guns taken after being involved in violent crimes and felonies, are already destroyed, right? They're not sold or taken out of police evidence?
 
2012-12-17 03:15:28 PM  

letrole: 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.


That's probably me
 
2012-12-17 03:15:41 PM  

Flakeloaf: 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.

Youtube is pro-marine? pro-invasion-of-Iraq?
Throw me a bone here, I'm trying to understand how Youtube and the NRA are comparable in these two situations.
 
2012-12-17 03:15:44 PM  

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


It takes literally a single second to swap out a magazine. Maybe 2 if you are fumble fingered. So let's say you are limited to 10 round magazines by law. In order to shoot 100 rounds in a minute, you'd have to do 9 swaps (assuming you started with a loaded gun). So that would cost you 9 to 18 seconds, leaving 42 to 51 seconds to shoot those 100 rounds.

I just timed pulling an imaginary trigger by extending my trigger finger and pulling it back fairly rapidly, but certainly not as quickly as I *COULD* have done it. I managed 19 repetitions in 5 seconds, so I'd be able to shoot 100 rounds in about 26 seconds of actual shooting.

OK, so 26 seconds trigger time + 18 seconds of fumble-fingered reloads = 44 seconds total. If I worked on it, I could probably halve the time, or at least get it under 30 seconds.

So, you really didn't think about your talking point, did you?
 
2012-12-17 03:16:28 PM  

Abuse Liability: 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.


I'm not implying you're doing it. I'm implying most of the people who use the argument are using it for that reason, since most of the people who use the argument are the ones who tend to be the 2nd amendment defenders.  My argument against that notion, if you're really dedicated, you can get Quaaludes, too.
 
2012-12-17 03:17:48 PM  

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

It takes literally a single second to swap out a magazine. Maybe 2 if you are fumble fingered. So let's say you are limited to 10 round magazines by law. In order to shoot 100 rounds in a minute, you'd have to do 9 swaps (assuming you started with a loaded gun). So that would cost you 9 to 18 seconds, leaving 42 to 51 seconds to shoot those 100 rounds.

I just timed pulling an imaginary trigger by extending my trigger finger and pulling it back fairly rapidly, but certainly not as quickly as I *COULD* have done it. I managed 19 repetitions in 5 seconds, so I'd be able to shoot 100 rounds in about 26 seconds of actual shooting.

OK, so 26 seconds trigger time + 18 seconds of fumble-fingered reloads = 44 seconds total. If I worked on it, I could probably halve the time, or at least get it under 30 seconds.

So, you really didn't think about your talking point, did you?


Can you convert that to Miculeks?

I'm bad with comparisons using numbers.
 
2012-12-17 03:18:30 PM  

hbk72777: For over 100 years, these places took good care of the mentally ill


Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Yep. Good care.

I guess most of the people advocating for bringing them back aren't old enough to remember what happened in them.
 
2012-12-17 03:18:35 PM  

IlGreven: 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.


Yes, but war and oppression were much more common, so you had more people dying. Unless Black people don't count, of course.
 
2012-12-17 03:19:16 PM  

Giltric: Can you convert that to Miculeks?

I'm bad with comparisons using numbers.


Geez, they'd shiat their drawers seeing what he can do with a *REVOLVER*.
 
2012-12-17 03:20:49 PM  

Red_Fox: 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?


Ha! Ha! LOL. You owe me a new keyboard!!!!!!

Had they been illegal in the first place they wouldn't have been there for him to take? You mean like Cocaine or pot or prostitutes? I don't snort, smoke or patronize but if I wanted to, I'm sure I could fine any of these 3 within 30 minutes.

You really live in a fantasy world don't you? How about going the 'Full Monty' and tell us how it should have been illegal to commit murder? If there were laws against that, I'm sure the shooter would have followed them.
 
2012-12-17 03:26:06 PM  

Red_Fox: 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?


What? do you think that people who legally own guns today are just going to hand them over if a law passes?
 
2012-12-17 03:26:40 PM  

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.

.

Actually we had unrestricted access until the mid sixties, then the US government began to fear the hippies.

I bet that the Libyans, Algerians are happy they had they human right to protect themselves.
 
2012-12-17 03:29:17 PM  

Flash_NYC: Red_Fox: 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?

Ha! Ha! LOL. You owe me a new keyboard!!!!!!

Had they been illegal in the first place they wouldn't have been there for him to take? You mean like Cocaine or pot or prostitutes? I don't snort, smoke or patronize but if I wanted to, I'm sure I could fine any of these 3 within 30 minutes.

You really live in a fantasy world don't you? How about going the 'Full Monty' and tell us how it should have been illegal to commit murder? If there were laws against that, I'm sure the shooter would have followed them.


Based on my conversations with some friends at the FBI, it's pretty easy to get just about any gun you want illegally, and all of the guys i know could have anything, including full auto, within a few days, if they had the cash.
 
2012-12-17 03:30:09 PM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: [img248.imageshack.us image 325x325]


GOP: Gullible Old People.
 
2012-12-17 03:31:16 PM  
img842.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-17 03:32:18 PM  

Red_Fox: 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?


The part where wishing them away will work.
 
2012-12-17 03:33:28 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: [img842.imageshack.us image 466x625]


Do you have a link to the original? The one with Hulk Hogan in the background hitting the kids with a chair?
 
2012-12-17 03:33:30 PM  

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


For that gun, no.

But you don't have to hand-forge a barrel anyway: He built one gun entirely from scratch. For the barrel, he took square steel stock and used his drill press to cut the bore. Then he chucked it up in his lathe, and turned it nice and round. After he did that, he reamed the bore to its final caliber. Since it was a smoothbore (ie., a shotgun), he didn't rifle it. He didn't have to forge the barrel because appropriate steel stock was available to purchase relatively cheaply.

Given the tools, which tens of thousands of Americans have, along with the skills to use them, really anyone can make a gun. A simple single-shot is so easy a kid with a couple semesters of shop could make one, and even a more elaborate gun isn't that hard. Friend of mine bought a rough frame casting for a Colt 1911-style handgun, and a parts kit, and made his own. Doesn't have a serial number on it because he made it himself, and it's perfectly legal to do so.

Making guns is such a popular hobby that there are entire companies dedicated to supplying such hobbyists. Some of them have been in business for 50 years or more.

My point is, though, that even if you could magically prevent legal guns from leaking into the illegal market, something that is impossible, there would still be a market for guns, and it would be a *LUCRATIVE* market for those who want to make some money.

Now all of a sudden you don't have to worry about a handful of manufacturers each turning out tens of thousands of guns, but tens of thousands of manufacturers, each turning out a handful of guns. Much harder thing to keep track of.
 
2012-12-17 03:33:40 PM  

snocone: Red_Fox: 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?

The part where wishing them away will work.



We are wishing them away. You are wishing that these 20 dead children will go away and that America will forget. It's called a tipping point. Welcome to it.
 
2012-12-17 03:34:10 PM  
LOL now dem senators are crying about assault weapons bans, which still would have done nothing in this case as the killer used pistols. Never let a crisis go to waste.
 
2012-12-17 03:35:35 PM  

Kuroshin: 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.


You job, should you accept, is to make that profitable for the boreasses that run this madhouse.
Should solve the problem if you actually care for people.
 
2012-12-17 03:35:59 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: snocone: Red_Fox: 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?

The part where wishing them away will work.


We are wishing them away. You are wishing that these 20 dead children will go away and that America will forget. It's called a tipping point. Welcome to it.


You missed it. The tipping point was June 26th, 2008.
 
2012-12-17 03:36:10 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: snocone: Red_Fox: 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?

The part where wishing them away will work.


We are wishing them away. You are wishing that these 20 dead children will go away and that America will forget. It's called a tipping point. Welcome to it.


Serious?
Oh, you kid!
 
2012-12-17 03:37:09 PM  

Joe Blowme: LOL now dem senators are crying about assault weapons bans, which still would have done nothing in this case as the killer used pistols. Never let a crisis go to waste.


Not to mention the fact that Connecticut has an assault weapons ban already. The rifle used was legal under that ban, apparently.
 
2012-12-17 03:39:41 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.


Really, keep using the "CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO!" argument. It definitely makes a good point - for more regulations on firearms. 

i48.photobucket.com

See, a drunk driver can be caught before he kills anyone, because the mere act of driving drunk is illegal. However, we usually find out that some whackjob had an arsenal only AFTER he kills a couple dozen people because we don't track ammo purchases or require registration of all firearms across the board.
 
2012-12-17 03:40:36 PM  

dittybopper: Joe Blowme: LOL now dem senators are crying about assault weapons bans, which still would have done nothing in this case as the killer used pistols. Never let a crisis go to waste.

Not to mention the fact that Connecticut has an assault weapons ban already. The rifle used was legal under that ban, apparently.


And yet not a peep about the guy in china who stabbed 20+ kids the same day? Its all the guns fault and if we only had more laws that only the sane follow we can avoid this kind of stuff.... derp
 
2012-12-17 03:41:05 PM  
Is it wrong for me to take such pleasure in watching the GOP branding itself the Pro-School Massacre Party?

It fits nicely with the Pro-Rape, Pro-Greed and Pro-Torture planks in their platform. LOL. Enjoy GOP.
 
2012-12-17 03:41:18 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: 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.

Really, keep using the "CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO!" argument. It definitely makes a good point - for more regulations on firearms. 

[i48.photobucket.com image 500x675]

See, a drunk driver can be caught before he kills anyone, because the mere act of driving drunk is illegal. However, we usually find out that some whackjob had an arsenal only AFTER he kills a couple dozen people because we don't track ammo purchases or require registration of all firearms across the board.


But you only need cash to buy a car.
You do not nead a license or training or good health.
 
2012-12-17 03:42:11 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Is it wrong for me to take such pleasure in watching the GOP branding itself the Pro-School Massacre Party?

It fits nicely with the Pro-Rape, Pro-Greed and Pro-Torture planks in their platform. LOL. Enjoy GOP.


What have liberals done to stop rape greed and torture?
 
2012-12-17 03:42:41 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: 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.

Really, keep using the "CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO!" argument. It definitely makes a good point - for more regulations on firearms. 

[i48.photobucket.com image 500x675]

See, a drunk driver can be caught before he kills anyone, because the mere act of driving drunk is illegal. However, we usually find out that some whackjob had an arsenal only AFTER he kills a couple dozen people because we don't track ammo purchases or require registration of all firearms across the board.


And at what point do you differentiate between the guy who legally owns lots of guns and ammo, and someone who's a whackjob?
 
2012-12-17 03:42:49 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Really, keep using the "CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO!" argument. It definitely makes a good point - for more regulations on firearms.


I can buy a car and drive it through a crowded farmer's market without doing any of those things.
 
2012-12-17 03:43:17 PM  

Joe Blowme: dittybopper: Joe Blowme: LOL now dem senators are crying about assault weapons bans, which still would have done nothing in this case as the killer used pistols. Never let a crisis go to waste.

Not to mention the fact that Connecticut has an assault weapons ban already. The rifle used was legal under that ban, apparently.

And yet not a peep about the guy in china who stabbed 20+ kids the same day? Its all the guns fault and if we only had more laws that only the sane follow we can avoid this kind of stuff.... derp


it doesn't count because they didn't die, or something.
 
2012-12-17 03:43:40 PM  

Joe Blowme: LOL now dem senators are crying about assault weapons bans, which still would have done nothing in this case as the killer used pistols. Never let a crisis go to waste.


Never stop posting in ignorance.

Link

Authorities recovered three semi-automatic firearms next to Adam Lanza: a .223 caliber Bushmaster XM-15 rifle, a 10mm Glock handgun, and a 9mm SIG Sauer handgun...police say Lanza used the rifle against most of the victims. According to the medical examiner, all victims were shot with the same "long weapon" and were hit multiple times.
 
2012-12-17 03:44:12 PM  
States with Extremely High Populations of Gun Owners(more than 50%)
•1. Wyoming - 59.7%
•2. Alaska - 57.8%
•3. Montana - 57.7%
•4. South Dakota - 56.6%
•5. West Virginia - 55.4%
•6. Mississippi - 55.3%
•6. Idaho - 55.3%
•6. Arkansas - 55.3%
•9. Alabama - 51.7%
•10. North Dakota - 50.7%
States with High Populations of Gun Owners
•11. Kentucky - 47.7%
•12. Wisconsin - 44.4% (Battleground state. See Wisconsin in 2012 Elections.)
•13. Louisiana - 44.1%
•14. Utah - 43.9%
•14. Tennessee - 43.9%
•16. Oklahoma - 42.9%
•16. Iowa - 42.9% (Battleground state. See Iowa in 2012 Elections.)
•18. South Carolina - 42.3%
•19. Kansas - 42.1%
•20. Vermont - 42.0%
•21. Missouri - 41.7% (Battleground state. See Missouri in 2012 Elections.)
•21. Minnesota - 41.7%
•23. North Carolina - 41.3% (Battleground state. See North Carolina in 2012 Elections.)
•24. Maine - 40.5%
•25. Georgia - 40.3%

Just the registered ones!
Wish Wish Wish
 
2012-12-17 03:45:16 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Is it wrong for me to take such pleasure in watching the GOP branding itself the Pro-School Massacre Party?

It fits nicely with the Pro-Rape, Pro-Greed and Pro-Torture planks in their platform. LOL. Enjoy GOP.


The most retarded FARKER since that "crangelous" dude. Top notch troll.
 
2012-12-17 03:46:06 PM  
But the programs received a statement from the NRA declining to comment because details of the investigation into the shooting were still pending.

OMG, the NRA is acting responsibly? WTF?
 
2012-12-17 03:46:43 PM  

Joe Blowme: Insatiable Jesus: Is it wrong for me to take such pleasure in watching the GOP branding itself the Pro-School Massacre Party?

It fits nicely with the Pro-Rape, Pro-Greed and Pro-Torture planks in their platform. LOL. Enjoy GOP.

The most retarded FARKER since that "crangelous" dude. Top notch troll.


He is. It's true.
 
2012-12-17 03:47:11 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Joe Blowme: LOL now dem senators are crying about assault weapons bans, which still would have done nothing in this case as the killer used pistols. Never let a crisis go to waste.

Never stop posting in ignorance.

Link

Authorities recovered three semi-automatic firearms next to Adam Lanza: a .223 caliber Bushmaster XM-15 rifle, a 10mm Glock handgun, and a 9mm SIG Sauer handgun...police say Lanza used the rifle against most of the victims. According to the medical examiner, all victims were shot with the same "long weapon" and were hit multiple times.


Forensics people get shiat wrong all the time....just look at the number of black people on death row.
 
2012-12-17 03:47:31 PM  

Giltric: Insatiable Jesus: Is it wrong for me to take such pleasure in watching the GOP branding itself the Pro-School Massacre Party?

It fits nicely with the Pro-Rape, Pro-Greed and Pro-Torture planks in their platform. LOL. Enjoy GOP.

What have liberals done to stop rape greed and torture?



It's not about reality, it's about perceived reality. You see, we learned it by watching you. So have a seat and watch how the game you invented works when turned around on you. Find a talking point that outweighs the carnage of what just happened and the emotional connection a mojority of Americans have to this issue.

And since when the fark do you whiners care about American law? I thought you were all seceding to form your own right wing utopias.
 
2012-12-17 03:47:35 PM  

styckx: p4p3rm4t3: .....

[img255.imageshack.us image 243x182]

[i.imgur.com image 400x334]


helllzzz ya (even if i am late)
global3.memecdn.com
 
2012-12-17 03:47:36 PM  

Kit Fister: rufus-t-firefly: 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.

Really, keep using the "CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO!" argument. It definitely makes a good point - for more regulations on firearms. 

[i48.photobucket.com image 500x675]

See, a drunk driver can be caught before he kills anyone, because the mere act of driving drunk is illegal. However, we usually find out that some whackjob had an arsenal only AFTER he kills a couple dozen people because we don't track ammo purchases or require registration of all firearms across the board.

And at what point do you differentiate between the guy who legally owns lots of guns and ammo, and someone who's a whackjob?


Do you own a lot of guns? Fine. Did you buy a lot of guns and ammo in a short amount of time? Perhaps you need to be interviewed to find out if you're going through a divorce, or stopped taking your meds...

Perhaps a well-timed "Do you have any mentally ill people in your household? Are your weapons secured against others using the weapons without your knowledge?" might have helped prevent this particular massacre.
 
2012-12-17 03:48:15 PM  

Dead for Tax Reasons: RexTalionis: 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?

Apparently, guns don't kill people, movies kill people.

No, it's the violent video games


It's the increasing paranoia of the mentally ill stoked by a sensastionalist media.
 
2012-12-17 03:51:34 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Are your weapons secured against others using the weapons without your knowledge?" might have helped prevent this particular massacre.


SO every gun owner should be given a check from the government to purchase a gun safe and if they dont use it charge them with a crime....problem solved.

All government spending is stimulus....something the democrats can get behind.
 
2012-12-17 03:51:55 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Joe Blowme: LOL now dem senators are crying about assault weapons bans, which still would have done nothing in this case as the killer used pistols. Never let a crisis go to waste.

Never stop posting in ignorance.

Link

Authorities recovered three semi-automatic firearms next to Adam Lanza: a .223 caliber Bushmaster XM-15 rifle, a 10mm Glock handgun, and a 9mm SIG Sauer handgun...police say Lanza used the rifle against most of the victims. According to the medical examiner, all victims were shot with the same "long weapon" and were hit multiple times.


My bad... still... how that ban on heroin working for ya?
 
2012-12-17 03:51:58 PM  

Giltric: rufus-t-firefly: 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.

Really, keep using the "CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO!" argument. It definitely makes a good point - for more regulations on firearms. 

[i48.photobucket.com image 500x675]

See, a drunk driver can be caught before he kills anyone, because the mere act of driving drunk is illegal. However, we usually find out that some whackjob had an arsenal only AFTER he kills a couple dozen people because we don't track ammo purchases or require registration of all firearms across the board.

But you only need cash to buy a car.
You do not nead a license or training or good health.


Tax, title and registration need some kind of identification.

But, since you're pointing out some small details, I take it you're OK with requiring insurance and registration of all firearms? It's a start.
 
2012-12-17 03:52:38 PM  
Yes, I guess they don't want the president of the organization, Mr. Wayne La Pierre, to, shall we say, shoot from the hip about this event. He has a tendency to come across as a real douche at times.
 
2012-12-17 03:54:55 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Kit Fister: rufus-t-firefly: 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.

Really, keep using the "CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO!" argument. It definitely makes a good point - for more regulations on firearms. 

[i48.photobucket.com image 500x675]

See, a drunk driver can be caught before he kills anyone, because the mere act of driving drunk is illegal. However, we usually find out that some whackjob had an arsenal only AFTER he kills a couple dozen people because we don't track ammo purchases or require registration of all firearms across the board.

And at what point do you differentiate between the guy who legally owns lots of guns and ammo, and someone who's a whackjob?

Do you own a lot of guns? Fine. Did you buy a lot of guns and ammo in a short amount of time? Perhaps you need to be interviewed to find out if you're going through a divorce, or stopped taking your meds...

Perhaps a well-timed "Do you have any mentally ill people in your household? Are your weapons secured against others using the weapons without your knowledge?" might have helped prevent this particular massacre.


I take BP meds, otherwise i'm healthy. I own, probably, 16 or 17 guns, combination of pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.

I keep at any given time about 5,000 rounds of the common calibers (considering I shoot 2-3000 rounds per weekend, I'm ordering fairly frequently).
 
2012-12-17 03:55:21 PM  
cdn.smosh.com 
cause we could always use a bit of courtesy in these threads

/amirite?
 
2012-12-17 03:56:06 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Tax, title and registration need some kind of identification.

But, since you're pointing out some small details, I take it you're OK with requiring insurance and registration of all firearms? It's a start.


Would have prevented this how? It wouldn't.

Just say you want to incrementally make it harder and harder to acquire and keep firearms, resulting in an eventual ban.

We're on the internet, you can just come out with it.
 
2012-12-17 03:56:16 PM  
hbk72777


Not sure exactly what your point is, but that middle picture is a power station.

/That is located at Pilgrim State Hospital
 
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