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.

(Fox News)   In a tiny bit of silver lining to the latest mass slaughter committed through the use of high-capacity firearms, Discovery is cancelling one of its gun-fetish shows   (foxnews.com) divider line 231
    More: Followup, American Guns, discovery, Hollywood, gun violence, Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, cult film, graphic violence  
•       •       •

6198 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 17 Dec 2012 at 6:16 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-17 07:19:39 PM  

3StratMan: Barfmaker: 3StratMan: What makes a rifle an "assault rifle" anyway?

Shooting somebody with it.

Have to try harder than that.


If this is really what we're gonna quibble over for the next two months don't be surprised when they just get draconian with whatever laws they propose.

I'd say if you wanted to ban "assault weapons" you could say: Has "this much" caliber and can fire bullets "this fast".

But again, unless the pro-gun lobby get's proactive and dictates the terms of the legislation you're gonna wind up with something you're going to hate because they were too interested in semantics.
 
2012-12-17 07:19:41 PM  
Say bye bye to these shows then

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-17 07:20:22 PM  

fusillade762: Nabb1: It was kind of a sad knock off of "Sons of Guns," anyway.

This. And I got kinda sick of SoG this past season. The overly dramatic music and camera work they did before every (it seemed) pull of the trigger (and then... COMMERCIAL!) got old.

Now Top Shot I dig. I hope they bring that one back. It's refreshing to see a reality show that's an ACTUAL competition. No judges needed.


I quit watching top shot when it stopped being a shooting competition and became another stupid reality voting people off the island type show.
 
2012-12-17 07:23:18 PM  
Skipping over the not-unanticipated derp, I will say that I wish Discover would cancel everything but Mythbusters and Dirty Jobs and start all over again, going back to the original mission statement about it being some kind of learning experience. "Deadliest Catch" has run its course.

The other shows got it all wrong. They did not understand exactly why "Deadliest Catch" was so compelling. It was not blue collar middle aged men arguing. It wasn't the physicality of the job. It wasn't it being located in Alaska. The crab fisherman show was good because the producers and editors made it about relationships between people, and threaded it into a compelling narrative that moved along.
 
2012-12-17 07:23:37 PM  

3StratMan: Take one home and put it on your dining room table, and wait and see how long it takes until it starts shooting you.


Is that where Nancy Lanza kept hers?
 
2012-12-17 07:26:16 PM  

Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Barfmaker:

I'd say if you wanted to ban "assault weapons" you could say: Has "this much" caliber and can fire bullets "this fast".
.


Considering most of the guns that people call "assault rifles" have a much smaller caliber than your average semi-auto hunting rifle, and don't shoot any faster either, your description fails.
 
2012-12-17 07:28:17 PM  

kg2095: The Troof hurts: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: wildcardjack: orclover: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: [www.motherjones.com image 466x625]

/but don't call it a fetish

If I had a bushmaster, this ad would make me want to melt it down out of shame.

It's a toy. Something people dress up and buy all sorts of accessories for. Just because it can put a hole in something it's regarded as a dangerous object.

I can think of some other reasons.

Alcohol kills more people than pistols and rifles in this country. Why the rage about rifles?

Because they are totally unnecessary accessories for people who feel inadequate.

A gun is a machine that is used to kill. Now why would anyone want such a machine unless they were aimin' to do themselves some killin'?

Self Defense? When was the last time any of you gun fetishists ever defended yourself or anyone else with your killing machine?

In case of foreign attack? Your gun is equally useless against ICBMs and 767s.

Guns are for psychos and knobs.


What about collectors? I have legitimate reasons to have a Luger and a Mauser. They don't work, however. Are non-functional historical guns also for psychos and knobs?
 
2012-12-17 07:29:35 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: 3StratMan: Take one home and put it on your dining room table, and wait and see how long it takes until it starts shooting you.

Is that where Nancy Lanza kept hers?


Could have been. Even if it was, it still wouldn't have shot her until SOMEBODY pick it up, aimed at her, and pulled the trigger. Even then it still wouldn't be the gun's fault.
 
2012-12-17 07:31:42 PM  

coeyagi: The Troof hurts: coeyagi: The Troof hurts: Either way it would be nice if the media would stop calling the AR-15 an assault rifle.

The should call it a tickle rifle. Because for one nanosecond before massive bone or muscle damage, that's what it does to your body.

Doesn't a 9mm pistol do the same thing? Let's call every gun an assault gun. You know make it EXTRA scary sounding.

No argument here. But I'm actually interested in pragmatic measures to reduce the violence. Trifling over nomenclature is just good fun but it doesn't do shiat to address the problem. Reduce the incidents? Go after the intent and motivation, not the tool, especially one enshrined in our culture and defended by multi-millions of dollars by a heartless lobbying group.

Go after:

1) The Drug Trade
2) Mental Health Care
3) The Glorification of Gun Culture
4) Sensationalization of these crimes in the media

No easy solutions to fix any of those, but if you chip away at any of those issues, you'll see a reduction.


Needs to be repeated.

Again. And again. And again and again and again.

Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

/OKC attack was performed using assault bombs
 
2012-12-17 07:32:38 PM  

SmellsLikePoo: The Troof hurts: Either way it would be nice if the media would stop calling the AR-15 an assault rifle.

This should be good... Go on, we're all listening....


Name a weapon that you don't assault people with.
 
2012-12-17 07:33:21 PM  
Back in my day (the 80s) DnD and heavy metal music were responsible for violent youth.

If Im going to blame anything other than the shooter it would be our crappy mental healthcare system.
 
2012-12-17 07:34:51 PM  

kg2095: Self Defense? When was the last time any of you gun fetishists ever defended yourself or anyone else with your killing machine?


We all don't have the luxury of living in a neighborhood free of brown people like you do.
 
2012-12-17 07:35:14 PM  

Lando Lincoln: SmellsLikePoo: The Troof hurts: Either way it would be nice if the media would stop calling the AR-15 an assault rifle.

This should be good... Go on, we're all listening....

Name a weapon that you don't assault people with.


Pronouns fail when the noun itself already describes a weapon. There isn't a murder device in the world that can't be called an "assault [whatever]".

I'm drinking from an "assault highball glass" at the moment. I also drive an "assault vehicle" and ride an "assault motorcycle".
 
2012-12-17 07:35:20 PM  

Kuroshin: coeyagi: The Troof hurts: coeyagi: The Troof hurts: Either way it would be nice if the media would stop calling the AR-15 an assault rifle.

The should call it a tickle rifle. Because for one nanosecond before massive bone or muscle damage, that's what it does to your body.

Doesn't a 9mm pistol do the same thing? Let's call every gun an assault gun. You know make it EXTRA scary sounding.

No argument here. But I'm actually interested in pragmatic measures to reduce the violence. Trifling over nomenclature is just good fun but it doesn't do shiat to address the problem. Reduce the incidents? Go after the intent and motivation, not the tool, especially one enshrined in our culture and defended by multi-millions of dollars by a heartless lobbying group.

Go after:

1) The Drug Trade
2) Mental Health Care
3) The Glorification of Gun Culture
4) Sensationalization of these crimes in the media

No easy solutions to fix any of those, but if you chip away at any of those issues, you'll see a reduction.

Needs to be repeated.

Again. And again. And again and again and again.

Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

/OKC attack was performed using assault bombs


Link
 
2012-12-17 07:36:50 PM  

3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Barfmaker:

I'd say if you wanted to ban "assault weapons" you could say: Has "this much" caliber and can fire bullets "this fast".
.

Considering most of the guns that people call "assault rifles" have a much smaller caliber than your average semi-auto hunting rifle, and don't shoot any faster either, your description fails.


Ummmm ok? I wasn't arguing that what people were saying was correct, I was trying to suggest a way of measurement that makes a modicum of sense so in the future assault weapons bans make some logical sense.

Again, the pro-gun crowd wants to spend their time arguing semantics instead of merits you're going to lose the debate.
 
2012-12-17 07:38:06 PM  

Contents Under Pressure: Skipping over the not-unanticipated derp, I will say that I wish Discover would cancel everything but Mythbusters and Dirty Jobs and start all over again, going back to the original mission statement about it being some kind of learning experience. "Deadliest Catch" has run its course.


BRING BACK ROBOTS AND JUNKYARDS!!! TO THE TWITTERS!
 
2012-12-17 07:38:39 PM  

kg2095: Self Defense? When was the last time any of you gun fetishists ever defended yourself or anyone else with your killing machine?


Five years ago. Wife was being stalked by the director of the movie in which she was starring. He was dangerous and the police wouldn't do anything about him until he actually turned violent. Things went in that direction...

Your move, dipshiat.
 
2012-12-17 07:38:54 PM  

Kuroshin: Lando Lincoln: SmellsLikePoo: The Troof hurts: Either way it would be nice if the media would stop calling the AR-15 an assault rifle.

This should be good... Go on, we're all listening....

Name a weapon that you don't assault people with.

Pronouns fail when the noun itself already describes a weapon. There isn't a murder device in the world that can't be called an "assault [whatever]".

I'm drinking from an "assault highball glass" at the moment. I also drive an "assault vehicle" and ride an "assault motorcycle".


That's my point. ALL weapons are "assault" weapons. It's just a scary word that people put around some weapons to make them easier to ban.
 
2012-12-17 07:40:06 PM  

Kuroshin: kg2095: Self Defense? When was the last time any of you gun fetishists ever defended yourself or anyone else with your killing machine?

Five years ago. Wife was being stalked by the director of the movie in which she was starring. He was dangerous and the police wouldn't do anything about him until he actually turned violent. Things went in that direction...

Your move, dipshiat.


Whats the name of that film? can I find it on redtube or xhamster?
 
2012-12-17 07:40:12 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-17 07:40:29 PM  

Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Barfmaker:

I'd say if you wanted to ban "assault weapons" you could say: Has "this much" caliber and can fire bullets "this fast".
.

Considering most of the guns that people call "assault rifles" have a much smaller caliber than your average semi-auto hunting rifle, and don't shoot any faster either, your description fails.

Ummmm ok? I wasn't arguing that what people were saying was correct, I was trying to suggest a way of measurement that makes a modicum of sense so in the future assault weapons bans make some logical sense.

Again, the pro-gun crowd wants to spend their time arguing semantics instead of merits you're going to lose the debate.


There is no appropriate definition for "assault weapon." A weapon, by definition, is designed for assault. Adding a pronoun does not add any value to the description.
 
2012-12-17 07:40:50 PM  
www.goordnance.army.mil
Inconsolable.
 
2012-12-17 07:41:26 PM  
meh do much care for either of the two gun shows.
 
2012-12-17 07:42:41 PM  

Kuroshin: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Barfmaker:

I'd say if you wanted to ban "assault weapons" you could say: Has "this much" caliber and can fire bullets "this fast".
.

Considering most of the guns that people call "assault rifles" have a much smaller caliber than your average semi-auto hunting rifle, and don't shoot any faster either, your description fails.

Ummmm ok? I wasn't arguing that what people were saying was correct, I was trying to suggest a way of measurement that makes a modicum of sense so in the future assault weapons bans make some logical sense.

Again, the pro-gun crowd wants to spend their time arguing semantics instead of merits you're going to lose the debate.

There is no appropriate definition for "assault weapon." A weapon, by definition, is designed for assault. Adding a pronoun does not add any value to the description.


FINE. My suggestion for banning certain guns would still be valid if you called it "Weapons ban" instead of "Assault Weapons ban".

Again, you guys are gonna get so caught up in semantics that the actual law is going to be incredibly draconian because no one can decided what the definition of "is" is.
 
2012-12-17 07:43:35 PM  

Cyno01: [www.goordnance.army.mil image 242x302]
Inconsolable.


and the sales of white gloves have taken a hit
 
2012-12-17 07:43:57 PM  

Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Barfmaker:

I'd say if you wanted to ban "assault weapons" you could say: Has "this much" caliber and can fire bullets "this fast".
.

Considering most of the guns that people call "assault rifles" have a much smaller caliber than your average semi-auto hunting rifle, and don't shoot any faster either, your description fails.

Ummmm ok? I wasn't arguing that what people were saying was correct, I was trying to suggest a way of measurement that makes a modicum of sense so in the future assault weapons bans make some logical sense.

Again, the pro-gun crowd wants to spend their time arguing semantics instead of merits you're going to lose the debate.


Part of the problem is that "assault weapons" bans make no sense, since a lot of the criterion is put in by people who have no idea what it is they are banning, or what the stuff does. For example, "Barrel shrouds" always end up in the mix. If they had any idea what a "Barrel shroud" even was or what it's purpose is, it wouldn't be brought up in the discussion. Semantics matter.
 
2012-12-17 07:44:17 PM  

zedster: Kuroshin: kg2095: Self Defense? When was the last time any of you gun fetishists ever defended yourself or anyone else with your killing machine?

Five years ago. Wife was being stalked by the director of the movie in which she was starring. He was dangerous and the police wouldn't do anything about him until he actually turned violent. Things went in that direction...

Your move, dipshiat.

Whats the name of that film? can I find it on redtube or xhamster?


Nice. Sometimes I forgot that I'm posting to Fark. ;)
 
2012-12-17 07:48:30 PM  

Lunchlady: Kuroshin: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Barfmaker:

I'd say if you wanted to ban "assault weapons" you could say: Has "this much" caliber and can fire bullets "this fast".
.

Considering most of the guns that people call "assault rifles" have a much smaller caliber than your average semi-auto hunting rifle, and don't shoot any faster either, your description fails.

Ummmm ok? I wasn't arguing that what people were saying was correct, I was trying to suggest a way of measurement that makes a modicum of sense so in the future assault weapons bans make some logical sense.

Again, the pro-gun crowd wants to spend their time arguing semantics instead of merits you're going to lose the debate.

There is no appropriate definition for "assault weapon." A weapon, by definition, is designed for assault. Adding a pronoun does not add any value to the description.

FINE. My suggestion for banning certain guns would still be valid if you called it "Weapons ban" instead of "Assault Weapons ban".

Again, you guys are gonna get so caught up in semantics that the actual law is going to be incredibly draconian because no one can decided what the definition of "is" is.


Then pick something. You can't pick some scary-sounding pronoun for something that is, by definition, a scary device to those without familiarity.

But there's also the very solid point that you can never pick a definition of a weapon to ban that will not impact legitimate sportsmen and women. My .30-06 is FAR deadlier than any AR-15 or Glock on the planet. However, it doesn't look scary, so most people wouldn't even give a crap.

You're throwing around names in an attempt to quantify emotion, not lethality or danger. There's nothing inherently more lethal or dangerous in an AR-15 than any semi-auto hunting rifle.
 
2012-12-17 07:48:34 PM  

Lunchlady: FINE. My suggestion for banning certain guns would still be valid if you called it "Weapons ban" instead of "Assault Weapons ban".

Again, you guys are gonna get so caught up in semantics that the actual law is going to be incredibly draconian because no one can decided what the definition of "is" is.


Why do you want to ban "assault" weapons? Handguns kill a heck of a lot more people every year than any Bushmaster rifle ever did.

It's just a feel-good measure that really won't do anything, but it will make it look like we care about addressing problems, even though we really don't. That's America for you.
 
2012-12-17 07:48:48 PM  

Igor Jakovsky: Back in my day (the 80s) DnD and heavy metal music were responsible for violent youth.

If Im going to blame anything other than the shooter it would be our crappy mental healthcare system.


I'm a D&D-playing headbanger, but this post is retarded. Unless you know of a whole bunch of people who were mass murdered by Player's Handbook-wielding madmen?

*book to the neck*

CRIT!
 
2012-12-17 07:49:01 PM  

3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Barfmaker:

I'd say if you wanted to ban "assault weapons" you could say: Has "this much" caliber and can fire bullets "this fast".
.

Considering most of the guns that people call "assault rifles" have a much smaller caliber than your average semi-auto hunting rifle, and don't shoot any faster either, your description fails.

Ummmm ok? I wasn't arguing that what people were saying was correct, I was trying to suggest a way of measurement that makes a modicum of sense so in the future assault weapons bans make some logical sense.

Again, the pro-gun crowd wants to spend their time arguing semantics instead of merits you're going to lose the debate.

Part of the problem is that "assault weapons" bans make no sense, since a lot of the criterion is put in by people who have no idea what it is they are banning, or what the stuff does. For example, "Barrel shrouds" always end up in the mix. If they had any idea what a "Barrel shroud" even was or what it's purpose is, it wouldn't be brought up in the discussion. Semantics matter.


That is exactly my farking point. Unless the pro-gun crowd gets out in front of this thing and proposes pro-active legislation you're going to get burned by horrifically draconian and illogical new laws.

Instead you are content to play pedantic man on the internet after people who don't understand what they're doing pass the law.
 
2012-12-17 07:49:20 PM  

Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Barfmaker: 3StratMan: What makes a rifle an "assault rifle" anyway?

Shooting somebody with it.

Have to try harder than that.

If this is really what we're gonna quibble over for the next two months don't be surprised when they just get draconian with whatever laws they propose.

I'd say if you wanted to ban "assault weapons" you could say: Has "this much" caliber and can fire bullets "this fast".

But again, unless the pro-gun lobby get's proactive and dictates the terms of the legislation you're gonna wind up with something you're going to hate because they were too interested in semantics.


It's gonna get draconian anyway. The wingnuts on either side are going to control the "discussion" (re: FLAME WAR) and the people who don't give much of a crap either way are going to either say "STFU and fix it", or if we get a few more gems out of idiots like Rep. Gohmert, just side with the anti-gun politicians regardless. The problem, at the end of the day, won't get fixed and the responsible ones are just going to get the shaft. All because, most likely, the NRA and their idiots will have the loudest voice and, as usual, the derpiest excuses for brains you've ever seen.

Back on the real topic...I gave Sons of Guns a chance for the first two episodes. When they actually tried to pass off a Masterkey system as something new and never-before-seen, I stopped watching and haven't since. It surprises me none to hear that they've gotten stupider as time goes on. Discovery's other gun efforts, I can't even make it through one episode. Except FutureWeapons, and frankly, I put that all on Mack.

"The AH-64 Apache Longbow. The newest, deadliest addition to the U.S. Military's arsenal."

*checks episode air date: 2007. Introduction of the Longbow: 2003*

He's John Bunnell, except more lethal.
 
2012-12-17 07:52:08 PM  

Lunchlady: Again, you guys are gonna get so caught up in semantics that the actual law is going to be incredibly draconian because no one can decided what the definition of "is" is.


You're right. Personally, I'm fine with banning any use of gunpowder beyond fireworks so a ban on ALL semi-automatics sounds like a generous compromise.

I really love fireworks, tho.
 
2012-12-17 07:54:25 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Lunchlady: FINE. My suggestion for banning certain guns would still be valid if you called it "Weapons ban" instead of "Assault Weapons ban".

Again, you guys are gonna get so caught up in semantics that the actual law is going to be incredibly draconian because no one can decided what the definition of "is" is.

Why do you want to ban "assault" weapons? Handguns kill a heck of a lot more people every year than any Bushmaster rifle ever did.

It's just a feel-good measure that really won't do anything, but it will make it look like we care about addressing problems, even though we really don't. That's America for you.


I DON'T.

Jesus Christ is no one actually reading my posts?

Look I'll spell this out:

-I am not a gun enthusiast. Though I own a gun I hardly ever fire it.
-There is going to be new laws brought forward because of these mass shootings.
-It is going to be ridiculous and not make any sense to people who actually know guns.
-The pro-gun crowd (i.e. YOU) need to propose some legislation or strongly support a stance that shows people you're serious and not "just compensating for a small penis" You are the ones who know what will make a difference and what won't.
-But instead all the NRA and you do is dig your heels in about literally ANYTHING that comes down the pipe and what winds up passing doesn't make any sense and doesn't do anything.
-Then you spend the next 10 years biatching because you missed your chance to actually contribute to the discussion

This legislation is coming, whether you like it or not. You'll be happier if you get out in front of it.
 
2012-12-17 07:54:26 PM  

Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Barfmaker:

I'd say if you wanted to ban "assault weapons" you could say: Has "this much" caliber and can fire bullets "this fast".
.

Considering most of the guns that people call "assault rifles" have a much smaller caliber than your average semi-auto hunting rifle, and don't shoot any faster either, your description fails.

Ummmm ok? I wasn't arguing that what people were saying was correct, I was trying to suggest a way of measurement that makes a modicum of sense so in the future assault weapons bans make some logical sense.

Again, the pro-gun crowd wants to spend their time arguing semantics instead of merits you're going to lose the debate.

Part of the problem is that "assault weapons" bans make no sense, since a lot of the criterion is put in by people who have no idea what it is they are banning, or what the stuff does. For example, "Barrel shrouds" always end up in the mix. If they had any idea what a "Barrel shroud" even was or what it's purpose is, it wouldn't be brought up in the discussion. Semantics matter.

That is exactly my farking point. Unless the pro-gun crowd gets out in front of this thing and proposes pro-active legislation you're going to get burned by horrifically draconian and illogical new laws.

Instead you are content to play pedantic man on the internet after people who don't understand what they're doing pass the law.


But there isn't anything to propose! That's the point! What do we cover? Caliber? Then what about Elk hunters? .30-06/.308/7.62 is the best tool for the job! What caliber is an "assault rifle"? Most are 5.56mm, which is smaller and weaker. How about capacity? My .30-06 hunting rifle accepts magazines of *any* size. Not only that, but it takes seconds to reload a mag-fed weapon. You can destroy an entire crowd with only four-round magazines - especially in the more common hunting calibers.

The "assault weapons" bans only address the appearance of lethality, not the reality. It's feel-good legislation that does *nothing* to impact a person's ability to project lethality.
 
2012-12-17 07:56:33 PM  
Just gonna leave these here...

ist1-2.filesor.com


ist1-2.filesor.com

ist1-2.filesor.com

ist1-2.filesor.com

ist1-4.filesor.com 

ist1-1.filesor.com 

ist1-2.filesor.com
 
2012-12-17 07:57:28 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Lunchlady: Again, you guys are gonna get so caught up in semantics that the actual law is going to be incredibly draconian because no one can decided what the definition of "is" is.

You're right. Personally, I'm fine with banning any use of gunpowder beyond fireworks so a ban on ALL semi-automatics sounds like a generous compromise.

I really love fireworks, tho.


Sorry, it's enshrined in the Constitution and decided upon by the SCOTUS. Guns aren't going anywhere.

Guns aren't the problem anyway. They aren't even a problem. They're just a thing. Dealing with mental health issues *is* the problem. We fail hard at it. We need to do better.
 
2012-12-17 07:57:44 PM  

Kuroshin: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Barfmaker:

I'd say if you wanted to ban "assault weapons" you could say: Has "this much" caliber and can fire bullets "this fast".
.

Considering most of the guns that people call "assault rifles" have a much smaller caliber than your average semi-auto hunting rifle, and don't shoot any faster either, your description fails.

Ummmm ok? I wasn't arguing that what people were saying was correct, I was trying to suggest a way of measurement that makes a modicum of sense so in the future assault weapons bans make some logical sense.

Again, the pro-gun crowd wants to spend their time arguing semantics instead of merits you're going to lose the debate.

Part of the problem is that "assault weapons" bans make no sense, since a lot of the criterion is put in by people who have no idea what it is they are banning, or what the stuff does. For example, "Barrel shrouds" always end up in the mix. If they had any idea what a "Barrel shroud" even was or what it's purpose is, it wouldn't be brought up in the discussion. Semantics matter.

That is exactly my farking point. Unless the pro-gun crowd gets out in front of this thing and proposes pro-active legislation you're going to get burned by horrifically draconian and illogical new laws.

Instead you are content to play pedantic man on the internet after people who don't understand what they're doing pass the law.

But there isn't anything to propose! That's the point! What do we cover? Caliber? Then what about Elk hunters? .30-06/.308/7.62 is the best tool for the job! What caliber is an "assault rifle"? Most are 5.56mm, which is smaller and weaker. How about capacity? My .30-06 hunting rifle accepts magazines of *any* size. Not only that, but it takes seconds to reload a mag-fed weapon. You can destroy an entire crowd with only four-round magazines - especially in the more common hunting calibers.

The "assault weapons" bans only address the appearanc ...


Magazine capacity and rate of fire, and ease of reloading. This are all things that would help reduce the number of deaths whe there's a mass murder.

When, not if.
 
2012-12-17 07:58:48 PM  

Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Barfmaker:



. Unless the pro-gun crowd gets out in front of this thing and proposes pro-active legislation you're going to get burned by horrifically draconian and illogical new laws.

.


Except guns are STILL not the problem- so any gun legislation to try to fix the problem is useless, and an easy way out to avoid dealing with the real causes of the problem. You're just hoping the pro-gun crowd will "get in front of this thing" so you can point a finger at them and say they are admitting that guns truly are the problem. Which they never will, because the problem is not the guns.
 
2012-12-17 07:59:57 PM  

Brick-House: Just gonna leave these here...

[ist1-2.filesor.com image 612x612]


[ist1-2.filesor.com image 430x648]

[ist1-2.filesor.com image 639x800]

[ist1-2.filesor.com image 720x476]

[ist1-4.filesor.com image 400x600] 

[ist1-1.filesor.com image 640x800] 

[ist1-2.filesor.com image 640x800]


Not that I oppose the pants-dropping awesomeness that are those photos, but have you ever made a post on Fark that required you to write an actual paragraph defending an argument rather than posting hot pictures of chicks or some right-wing shill "infographics" in the Politics tab?
 
2012-12-17 08:00:28 PM  
I disagree that Walking Dead fetishizes guns. The characters really do live in a post-apocalyptic setting, and guns are totally appropriate. Also, these days they usually melee the walkers in the dead because shooting is too loud.
 
2012-12-17 08:01:03 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Igor Jakovsky: Back in my day (the 80s) DnD and heavy metal music were responsible for violent youth.

If Im going to blame anything other than the shooter it would be our crappy mental healthcare system.

I'm a D&D-playing headbanger, but this post is retarded. Unless you know of a whole bunch of people who were mass murdered by Player's Handbook-wielding madmen?

*book to the neck*

CRIT!


I think he meant that D&D was blamed for being responsible, in an irrational way.

In any case, I'm sure that picture of the succubus in the Monster Manual was responsible for more than her fair share of dead kittens.
 
2012-12-17 08:03:02 PM  

3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Barfmaker:



. Unless the pro-gun crowd gets out in front of this thing and proposes pro-active legislation you're going to get burned by horrifically draconian and illogical new laws.

.

Except guns are STILL not the problem- so any gun legislation to try to fix the problem is useless, and an easy way out to avoid dealing with the real causes of the problem. You're just hoping the pro-gun crowd will "get in front of this thing" so you can point a finger at them and say they are admitting that guns truly are the problem. Which they never will, because the problem is not the guns.


Guns aren't the problem, but they make the problem orders of magnitude worse. alcohol isn't the problem, but combine it with driving and you've got a problem.
 
2012-12-17 08:03:24 PM  

Kuroshin: Guns aren't going anywhere.


Fine. Don't complain when you wake up with Daisys and flintlocks.
 
2012-12-17 08:04:04 PM  

3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Barfmaker:



. Unless the pro-gun crowd gets out in front of this thing and proposes pro-active legislation you're going to get burned by horrifically draconian and illogical new laws.

.

Except guns are STILL not the problem- so any gun legislation to try to fix the problem is useless, and an easy way out to avoid dealing with the real causes of the problem. You're just hoping the pro-gun crowd will "get in front of this thing" so you can point a finger at them and say they are admitting that guns truly are the problem. Which they never will, because the problem is not the guns.


You know what makes people angry at gun owners when this shiat happens? Their intransigence. Either the Congress is going to pass ridiculous shiat about trigger locks and calibers or they're going to pass something that actually makes sense. The choice is up to you. I don't really care if you don't agree with the sentiment. You're going to either get burned really really bad by the federal government or you're going to get something you can live with.

It doesn't even need to be a weapons ban, hell propose limits on how long it takes to purchase, or no more gun show sales, or finger print gun safes. I don't really care but if you are going to argue that guns aren't the problem then try proposing something that actually addresses the problem.
 
2012-12-17 08:04:15 PM  

born_yesterday: Mike Chewbacca: Igor Jakovsky: Back in my day (the 80s) DnD and heavy metal music were responsible for violent youth.

If Im going to blame anything other than the shooter it would be our crappy mental healthcare system.

I'm a D&D-playing headbanger, but this post is retarded. Unless you know of a whole bunch of people who were mass murdered by Player's Handbook-wielding madmen?

*book to the neck*

CRIT!

I think he meant that D&D was blamed for being responsible, in an irrational way.

In any case, I'm sure that picture of the succubus in the Monster Manual was responsible for more than her fair share of dead kittens.


Wut?

*googles*

Um...ok. Ran out of Playboys?
 
2012-12-17 08:06:56 PM  
Wal-Mart also pulled the Bushmaster from its online catalog today.
 
2012-12-17 08:06:57 PM  

Clutch2013: born_yesterday: Mike Chewbacca: Igor Jakovsky: Back in my day (the 80s) DnD and heavy metal music were responsible for violent youth.

If Im going to blame anything other than the shooter it would be our crappy mental healthcare system.

I'm a D&D-playing headbanger, but this post is retarded. Unless you know of a whole bunch of people who were mass murdered by Player's Handbook-wielding madmen?

*book to the neck*

CRIT!

I think he meant that D&D was blamed for being responsible, in an irrational way.

In any case, I'm sure that picture of the succubus in the Monster Manual was responsible for more than her fair share of dead kittens.

Wut?

*googles*

Um...ok. Ran out of Playboys?


I was 13. A stiff breeze was enough to set me off. Hell, the women's underwear section of the Sears catalog was like Christmas.
 
2012-12-17 08:09:49 PM  

Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Lunchlady: 3StratMan: Barfmaker:



. Unless the pro-gun crowd gets out in front of this thing and proposes pro-active legislation you're going to get burned by horrifically draconian and illogical new laws.

.

Except guns are STILL not the problem- so any gun legislation to try to fix the problem is useless, and an easy way out to avoid dealing with the real causes of the problem. You're just hoping the pro-gun crowd will "get in front of this thing" so you can point a finger at them and say they are admitting that guns truly are the problem. Which they never will, because the problem is not the guns.

You know what makes people angry at gun owners when this shiat happens? Their intransigence. Either the Congress is going to pass ridiculous shiat about trigger locks and calibers or they're going to pass something that actually makes sense. The choice is up to you. I don't really care if you don't agree with the sentiment. You're going to either get burned really really bad by the federal government or you're going to get something you can live with.

It doesn't even need to be a weapons ban, hell propose limits on how long it takes to purchase, or no more gun show sales, or finger print gun safes. I don't really care but if you are going to argue that guns aren't the problem then try proposing something that actually addresses the problem.


But my careful analysis of all the gun threads since Friday has taught me that guns are "tools." It's not the fault of the "tool", it's the fault of the person using the tool. So why don't we ban other tools like hammers and cars, all of which can be used as deadly weapons?

/Maybe because a hammer isn't a "tool" which the sole function is to kill people.
 
2012-12-17 08:09:56 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Wal-Mart also pulled the Bushmaster from its online catalog today.


Gun-grabbers.
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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