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.

(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
    More: Followup, American Guns, discovery, Hollywood, gun violence, Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, cult film, graphic violence  
•       •       •

6207 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 17 Dec 2012 at 6:16 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-12-17 05:22:52 PM  
and nothing was lost
 
2012-12-17 05:23:02 PM  
Stupid overreaction.
 
2012-12-17 05:26:33 PM  
It was kind of a sad knock off of "Sons of Guns," anyway.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-17 05:28:52 PM  
Now how about their crappy "reality" shows that aren't about guns?
 
2012-12-17 05:29:24 PM  
I find these shows incredibly boring. I think the angle is "chicks with guns" for dudes who are into that kind of thing.
 
2012-12-17 05:32:55 PM  
That changes everything
 
2012-12-17 06:15:34 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-17 06:15:35 PM  
Good riddence. I won't lie that I saw this show a couple of times though. I remember a episode where a couple goes into the store to buy a pair of him/her handguns. The guy loved guns but the girl had supposedly never touched a gun in her life and was scared of them. They decide to take her to the range to "familiarize" her with firearms. Needless to say, she nails every single shot and magically becomes a master marksman and gunsmith over night. That's "reality" tv for you right there.
 
2012-12-17 06:19:27 PM  
www.motherjones.com

/but don't call it a fetish
 
2012-12-17 06:23:45 PM  
Either way it would be nice if the media would stop calling the AR-15 an assault rifle.
 
2012-12-17 06:24:31 PM  
That should even it out.
So we're good, right?
 
2012-12-17 06:24:43 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-17 06:27:53 PM  
They are cancelling Mythbusters??
 
2012-12-17 06:30:49 PM  

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....
 
2012-12-17 06:32:13 PM  
I watched it a couple times when it first came on. Father is a gigantic douche, mom and daughter are interchangeable attention whores, the son was the only likable one. No loss at all with this cancellation.

/honestly thought it had already been cancelled.
 
2012-12-17 06:33:38 PM  

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.

It's similar to hot rodding. There's the core functionality and the rest is stylin'.
 
2012-12-17 06:34:19 PM  

5 star chef of tv dinners: Good riddence. I won't lie that I saw this show a couple of times though. I remember a episode where a couple goes into the store to buy a pair of him/her handguns. The guy loved guns but the girl had supposedly never touched a gun in her life and was scared of them. They decide to take her to the range to "familiarize" her with firearms. Needless to say, she nails every single shot and magically becomes a master marksman and gunsmith over night. That's "reality" tv for you right there.


Yup, a pink gun and one practice session with elaborate sets for a shooting range will convert ANY woman who is squeamish about guns into a master marksman instantly. I grew up in the south in a hunting family. I've shot lots of guns (on my grandfather's property of 100 acres at trees). I've never been THAT accurate. I also didn't get an orgasmic thrill out of it like that chick did. I call shenanigans. I'm not sad to see that show go, though. Any show that portrays gun ownership like owning an expensive toy should be canceled imo.
 
2012-12-17 06:35:12 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.


It's been pretty clear since the end of the first season that SoG has been more about the cameras than the business. I used to really enjoy watching the really smart guys engineer solutions to tricky requests. Now I can't stand that show.
 
2012-12-17 06:36:50 PM  
The show was just pre-scripted gun porn, but the blonde chick was pretty hot. I watched it like 3 times, it was pretty "meh".
 
2012-12-17 06:37:29 PM  

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


What does the "AR" stand for, then?
 
2012-12-17 06:37:31 PM  

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.

assets.nydailynews.com
 
2012-12-17 06:37:36 PM  

Lunchlady: 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.

It's been pretty clear since the end of the first season that SoG has been more about the cameras than the business. I used to really enjoy watching the really smart guys engineer solutions to tricky requests. Now I can't stand that show.


Same here. I really liked seeing the machining segments, but it got so OMGDRAMA filled it's giving American Chopper a run for its money.
 
2012-12-17 06:45:41 PM  

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?
 
2012-12-17 06:47:40 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....


What makes a rifle an "assault rifle" anyway?
 
2012-12-17 06:47:47 PM  

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.

[assets.nydailynews.com image 850x280]


22 kids in Connecticut is a tragedy.

1000 people, many of them children, in Afganistan is a statisic.
 
2012-12-17 06:48:22 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-17 06:51:18 PM  

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 you don't understand anything about the shock and outrage associated with a mass shooting versus an individual car accident not to mention the evil intent to kill people with guns versus the unintended consequences and lack of intent with a drunk driving accident?

//not saying we shouldn't do more to curtail alcohol-related deaths, but you have to understand group psychology, bro.
 
2012-12-17 06:51:26 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-17 06:51:36 PM  

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?


Rage?
 
2012-12-17 06:54:13 PM  

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.


And now my penis has a new nickname.
 
2012-12-17 06:54:26 PM  

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


Shooting somebody with it.
 
2012-12-17 06:55:36 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: and nothing was lost


Except 4 of the nicest tits on TV.

/Mom and daughter both have awesome farking bodies
 
2012-12-17 06:55:41 PM  

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.


"If it's good enough for the professional, it's good enough for you. Bushmaster. The world's finest AR-platform rifle."
 
2012-12-17 06:55:42 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-17 06:56:03 PM  
"Quentin Tarantino seems to believe he is magically disconnected from the human race. Somehow everything he creates has no impact on us? He's not the only director or movie producer who denies any negative effect from their work," scoffed documentary producer Nicole Clark

I know the first name, who's the second?

Ohh. Maybe that's the problem.
 
2012-12-17 06:59:09 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.


Fully agree.
 
2012-12-17 07:04:24 PM  
www.windhamweaponry.com

Windham Weaponry MPC- what Bushmaster wishes they still were like.
 
2012-12-17 07:06:06 PM  

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

Shooting somebody with it.


Have to try harder than that.
 
2012-12-17 07:06:38 PM  

3StratMan: [www.windhamweaponry.com image 850x283]

Windham Weaponry MPC- what Bushmaster wishes they still were like.


Hypothetically speaking, which brand would you recommend for reducing an elementary school's class sizes?
 
2012-12-17 07:08:54 PM  

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

Shooting somebody with it.

Have to try harder than that.


True. It's not like the mere act of being shot is "assaulting" in any way. You got do it with a frowny face or a ragey face. If you're grinning like the Extenze Smilin' Bob guy when you shoot me, it's really just kind of a slapstick "Oh, did I do that?!?! -Urkel" kind of comedy.
 
2012-12-17 07:09:48 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: 3StratMan: [www.windhamweaponry.com image 850x283]

Windham Weaponry MPC- what Bushmaster wishes they still were like.

Hypothetically speaking, which brand would you recommend for reducing an elementary school's class sizes?


The "PTA approves more teacher hirings" kind of cock-out weaponry.
 
2012-12-17 07:10:23 PM  

coeyagi: Olympic Trolling Judge: 3StratMan: [www.windhamweaponry.com image 850x283]

Windham Weaponry MPC- what Bushmaster wishes they still were like.

Hypothetically speaking, which brand would you recommend for reducing an elementary school's class sizes?

The "PTASchool Board approves more teacher hirings" kind of cock-out weaponry.


FTFM
 
2012-12-17 07:12:04 PM  
Legalize ALL guns based on a meritocracy. Every class of weapon is forbidden to the 0th level citizen, even metal steak knives. As you age, training and classes and a clean record allow you to apply for higher licenses. Eventually, you could even work your way up to Tactical Nuke, although sale would be prohibited as per usual.

This way, we could eliminate a large part of the anti-gun crowd's objections and piss off any psychotic executives who wormed their way up the corporate ladder but fail the psych profile for metal cutlery. "Would sir like his steak pre-cut or will sir be using his hands?"
 
2012-12-17 07:13:53 PM  

doglover: Legalize ALL guns based on a meritocracy. Every class of weapon is forbidden to the 0th level citizen, even metal steak knives. As you age, training and classes and a clean record allow you to apply for higher licenses. Eventually, you could even work your way up to Tactical Nuke, although sale would be prohibited as per usual.

This way, we could eliminate a large part of the anti-gun crowd's objections and piss off any psychotic executives who wormed their way up the corporate ladder but fail the psych profile for metal cutlery. "Would sir like his steak pre-cut or will sir be using his hands?"


The amount of bureaucracy needed to enforce this would be legendary. Well, it'll create jobs at least.
 
2012-12-17 07:14:56 PM  

my lip balm addiction: The Stealth Hippopotamus: and nothing was lost

Except 4 of the nicest tits on TV.

/Mom and daughter both have awesome farking bodies


You need new glasses. The daughter is fine(aside from being a total airhead), but the mom is Iggy Pop with implanted globes. ICK
 
2012-12-17 07:15:35 PM  

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

Shooting somebody with it.

Have to try harder than that.

True. It's not like the mere act of being shot is "assaulting" in any way. You got do it with a frowny face or a ragey face. If you're grinning like the Extenze Smilin' Bob guy when you shoot me, it's really just kind of a slapstick "Oh, did I do that?!?! -Urkel" kind of comedy.


southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com

"Awkward.."
 
2012-12-17 07:16:55 PM  

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

Shooting somebody with it.


Much like when someone is stabbed with a knife, all knives are deemed Assault Knives.
 
2012-12-17 07:18:07 PM  
www.windhamweaponry.com

Take one home and put it on your dining room table, and wait and see how long it takes until it starts shooting you. After it sits there long enough and you finally realize it isn't going to shoot you, maybe you will start to think about addressing the real causes of the shootings that happen.
 
2012-12-17 07:18:38 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-17 07:19:06 PM  

coeyagi: doglover: Legalize ALL guns based on a meritocracy. Every class of weapon is forbidden to the 0th level citizen, even metal steak knives. As you age, training and classes and a clean record allow you to apply for higher licenses. Eventually, you could even work your way up to Tactical Nuke, although sale would be prohibited as per usual.

This way, we could eliminate a large part of the anti-gun crowd's objections and piss off any psychotic executives who wormed their way up the corporate ladder but fail the psych profile for metal cutlery. "Would sir like his steak pre-cut or will sir be using his hands?"

The amount of bureaucracy needed to enforce this would be legendary. Well, it'll create jobs at least.


Oh no. Honestly we just need one film crew, a couple-a few poker-faced actors and a patsy like... Mayor Bloomberg.

I just wanna see one guy flip the frig out at a steak joint.
 
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.
 
2012-12-17 08:10:55 PM  

born_yesterday: 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.


Hell, words could have did it for me.

I'm just saying...if ever there were a proper usage for the term "butterface"...
 
2012-12-17 08:11:41 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: 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.


You're kidding, right?

So carrying more than one firearm isn't possible?

So using explosives isn't possible?

You know, even if I weren't a gun owner (I don't actually own, or want to own what many like to call "assault rifles"), I would be tearing open the holes in your logic. People who wish to carry out a mass-murder will find the most expedient way of doing so - legal or not (lulz). Once the tipping point has been reached where a person makes the final decision to go on a killing spree, they will not hesitate to use any means possible, and it is entirely impossible to impact their body count at that moment via legislation. You have to stop them before they make that final decision!

You can't impact lethality via legislation! Just because you're a scaredy cat who wants big brother to make the big bad world all safe, doesn't mean that it's at all possible. It's not even possible to put a dent in it. Why do places that have more guns manage to have less gun violence? Because they deal with their crazies! Why do places that have tougher gun laws end up with more gun violence? Because they don't manage their crazies! A person who wants a body count will always find a way to increase their lethality. Some are more effective than others, but what's important is that they made a decision that could have been avoided in the first place.

Anders Behring Breivik didn't merely use firearms. He used explosives in downtown Oslo. Explosives that were illegal. He chose to use firearms on the encampment, rather than explosives, due to his own personal desires. He had the access, but instead chose a lesser method (firearms) than the greater (explosives) that he had access to. This was a personal choice of a man who wanted to kill people.

You're arguing in favor of doing nothing to solve the problem. Banning anything does not stop crazies from gaining access to highly-lethal devices that can wipe out dozens, if not hundreds at a time.

Focus on the cause!
 
2012-12-17 08:12:47 PM  

Close2TheEdge: /Maybe because a hammer isn't a "tool" which the sole function is to kill people.


Hey, guns can also be used to open beer cans, turn on televisions, and add speed holes to cars to make them go faster.
 
2012-12-17 08:14:22 PM  

Close2TheEdge: 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.


My analysis has determined that simply because of the knowledge that I possess regarding guns (not actually possessing one, mind you), I'm just as responsible for those deaths and that someday, there might be a few more I can actually call my own.

/that seemed to be the sentiment, anyway
//lot of AAA derp floating around from both ends
///no, don't vote Republican, dammit
 
2012-12-17 08:16:03 PM  

hundreddollarman: 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.


That is a truly idiotic statement, and severely racist.

If 'brown people' are resorting to crime where you live that will be a direct result of racial discrimination denying them the same education and employment opportunities as those born pale. Racists created this situation not 'brown people'.

As it happens I live in a part of Sydney in which white people are very much in the minority. Fool.
 
2012-12-17 08:16:20 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.


OK, how about starting by getting rid of "gun free zones". Most of the mass shootings happen in the gun free zones because the cowards know there will be no one there that can fight back and stop them while they shoot to their heart's content.
 
2012-12-17 08:19:11 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.


OK, lets see a link to the news story where you went all Dirty Harry and killed a bad man. Otherwise, I don't believe you.
 
2012-12-17 08:19:43 PM  

my lip balm addiction: The Stealth Hippopotamus: and nothing was lost

Except 4 of the nicest tits on TV.

/Mom and daughter both have awesome farking bodies


Really? The mom has that tanned lady leather look with duck bill lips and fake balloon tits.
 
2012-12-17 08:20:02 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: 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?


No. Psychos and knobs want functional killing machines.
 
2012-12-17 08:23:13 PM  

3StratMan: 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.

OK, how about starting by getting rid of "gun free zones". Most of the mass shootings happen in the gun free zones because the cowards know there will be no one there that can fight back and stop them while they shoot to their heart's content.


You know that's not happening. Regardless of wisdom parents are one of the few groups with more power than the gun lobby and there's no way they are going to get rid of "gun free" schools.
 
2012-12-17 08:23:48 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.


Nice troll, only illegal guns are for psychos, most gun owners I know are fanatical about safety, there needs to be stricter rules to keep guns out of owners hands that take psychoactive drugs for mental disorders.
 
2012-12-17 08:25:04 PM  

kg2095: 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.

OK, lets see a link to the news story where you went all Dirty Harry and killed a bad man. Otherwise, I don't believe you.


Link
 
2012-12-17 08:27:26 PM  
Came for pics of that guy's daughter, found a gun discussion. Fark, I am disapoint.


/dumb show
//who pays $20,000 for a custom Henry repeater?
 
2012-12-17 08:29:29 PM  

kg2095: 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.

OK, lets see a link to the news story where you went all Dirty Harry and killed a bad man. Otherwise, I don't believe you.


Who said I killed him? Or even shot him?

Again, you're a dipshiat.
 
2012-12-17 08:29:42 PM  

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

OK, how about starting by getting rid of "gun free zones". Most of the mass shootings happen in the gun free zones because the cowards know there will be no one there that can fight back and stop them while they shoot to their heart's content.

You know that's not happening. Regardless of wisdom parents are one of the few groups with more power than the gun lobby and there's no way they are going to get rid of "gun free" schools.


Yeah, because continuing to leave their children to be sitting ducks in class, instead of allowing a teacher to concealed carry with a fighting chance of stopping another school massacre, makes a lot of sense.
 
2012-12-17 08:29:45 PM  

stuhayes2010: Came for pics of that guy's daughter, found a gun discussion. Fark, I am disapoint.


/dumb show
//who pays $20,000 for a custom Henry repeater?


Yeah, I think this is how it's gonna be for the next month. Maybe more.

"GUNS ARE EBIL!!!"
"YOU GUN-GRABBIN' SOCIALIST!!!!"
Me, you and the rest of the site: "...Fark me."
 
2012-12-17 08:30:03 PM  

stuhayes2010: Came for pics of that guy's daughter, found a gun discussion. Fark, I am disapoint.


/dumb show
//who pays $20,000 for a custom Henry repeater?


A gun nut?
 
2012-12-17 08:31:07 PM  

Kuroshin: Mike Chewbacca: 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.

You're kidding, right?

So carrying more than one firearm isn't possible?

So using explosives isn't possible?

You know, even if I weren't a gun owner (I don't actually own, or want to own what many like to call "assault rifles"), I would be tearing open the holes in your logic. People who wish to carry out a mass-murder will find the most expedient way of doing so - legal or not (lulz). Once the tipping point has been reached where a person makes the final decision to go on a killing spree, they will not hesitate to use any means possible, and it is entirely impossible to impact their body count at that moment via legislation. You have to stop them before they make that final decision!

You can't impact lethality via legislation! Just because you're a scaredy cat who wants big brother to make the big bad world all safe, doesn't mean that it's at all possible. It's not even possible to put a dent in it. Why do places that have more guns manage to have less gun violence? Because they deal with their crazies! Why do places that have tougher gun laws end up with more gun violence? Because they don't manage their crazies! A person who wants a body count will always find a way to increase their lethality. Some are more effective than others, but what's important is that they made a decision that could have been avoided in the first place.

Anders Behring Breivik didn't merely use firearms. He used explosives in downtown Oslo. Explosives that were illegal. He chose to use firearms on the encampment, rather than explosives, due to his own personal desires. He had the access, but instead chose a lesser method (firearms) than the greater (explosives) that he had access to. This was a personal choice of a man who wanted to kill people.

You're arguing in favor of doing nothing to solve the probl ...


It is a HELL of a lot harder to procure the ingredients for a bomb and then successfully make it and then successfully detonate it than it is to just buy a gun with a large magazine and then go shoot up a mall. It also involves forethought and planning. When was the last time you heard of a spree bombing? Yeah, you don't, because it takes time to pull off a bombing.

Also, your response is a perfect example of why we can't have nice things. You are condescending, and your tone of voice makes people not want to engage you in discussion. You may have some valid points in there, but because you came across like an asshole, I didn't even bother reading everything you wrote. I realize this is Fark, but seriously, if you want people to actually listen to what you have to say, don't be a dick when you talk to them.
 
2012-12-17 08:33:18 PM  

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

OK, how about starting by getting rid of "gun free zones". Most of the mass shootings happen in the gun free zones because the cowards know there will be no one there that can fight back and stop them while they shoot to their heart's content.

You know that's not happening. Regardless of wisdom parents are one of the few groups with more power than the gun lobby and there's no way they are going to get rid of "gun free" schools.

Yeah, because continuing to leave their children to be sitting ducks in class, instead of allowing a teacher to concealed carry with a fighting chance of stopping another school massacre, makes a lot of sense.


You're attacking the messenger. Lunch lady wasn't espousing that belief, she was saying others do.
 
2012-12-17 08:34:34 PM  

3StratMan: 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....

What makes a rifle an "assault rifle" anyway?


It was designed for military use. I don't see why there's so much confusion over the term.
 
2012-12-17 08:36:08 PM  

kg2095: 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.


Question!

If I were to relate about the time I used a firearm to stop (without shooting) what was definitely Assault with Deadly and what was about to turn into a forcible rape, would you simply dismiss it out of hand, or try to turn it back on me saying that a single anecdote doesn't change anything?
 
2012-12-17 08:36:24 PM  

Lunchlady: You know that's not happening. Regardless of wisdom parents are one of the few groups with more power than the gun lobby and there's no way they are going to get rid of "gun free" schools.


Frankly, with as stupid as they are, I'm okay with them. Shootings aren't taking place at schools and hospitals specifically because they're "gun-free zones", but rather because they're target-rich environments. When I was in school, half the vehicles in the parking lot had loaded gun racks and several of us had various weapons stored in our lockers. Not because we intended to ever use them on our classmates (even those of us who were constantly bullied), but because we would leave school and go directly out into the hills for target practice and hunting. Even still, it was just a matter of convenience for us, as well as a "show and tell" opportunity when we got a fancy new shotgun for xmas.

Having lived in an open and free school, I can say that I don't really care either way. There were lots of stupid or inane rules we had to follow. Not bringing our guns onto the grounds would have just been one more. Nothing stopping us from simply going home to retrieve our rifles before heading into the woods.
 
2012-12-17 08:37:27 PM  
The sad part of all this is that the Internet Outrage typified in this thread will have about as much affect as it did on Penn State. Both situations are tragedies, just differing in scale.

Lots of people will get worked up and run around yelling with their virtual hands over their virtual heads.
mybfolder.com
Then, after the dust settles and all is said and done. nothing will really change. Why, you ask?

Just as with Penn State, the furor of the debate is driven by emotion, not facts or logic. Meanwhile, the chance to have a real effect on the root cause of the issue(s) will be lost because of assholes desperate for a pulpit.
 
2012-12-17 08:38:55 PM  

fusillade762: 3StratMan: 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....

What makes a rifle an "assault rifle" anyway?

It was designed for military use. I don't see why there's so much confusion over the term.


Examples? Or how about some characteristics or features? Otherwise you are showing you don't have much of a clue what it really is you want banned.
 
2012-12-17 08:46:22 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: It is a HELL of a lot harder to procure the ingredients for a bomb and then successfully make it and then successfully detonate it than it is to just buy a gun with a large magazine and then go shoot up a mall. It also involves forethought and planning. When was the last time you heard of a spree bombing? Yeah, you don't, because it takes time to pull off a bombing.

Also, your response is a perfect example of why we can't have nice things. You are condescending, and your tone of voice makes people not want to engage you in discussion. You may have some valid points in there, but because you came across like an asshole, I didn't even bother reading everything you wrote. I realize this is Fark, but seriously, if you want people to actually listen to what you have to say, don't be a dick when you talk to them.



No it isn't. Not even close. One trip to the hardware store is all it ever took for me and my friends to make enough explosives to blow some rather large chunks of concrete into rubble (family had a junk yard). We weren't even in high school yet. No finger prints or background check required. I understand things have changed a bit to catch people buying ingredients in bulk (unless they live on a farm), but even one pipe bomb can take out an entire classroom in a heart-beat.

I may come off as an asshole, but that's for two reasons: 1) I'm responding to assholes, and 2) I AM an asshole. Fark is a place for assholes. We've got the overly-emotional assholes who see bogey men in every inanimate chunk of metal that looks like it might be part of an arsenal, then we've got the overly-emotional assholes who recognize an inanimate chunk of metal for what it is. Let's not forget ourselves here. We aren't in any way, shape or form deciding national policy on these forums. We're just noisy assholes who do not and will never have any policy-affecting power. This is just an internet forum that tries to pretend that it's got more pull in the real world than 4chan.

Fact is, ban all the guns you want, you will never put a dent in the body count. Another fact is that if you don't ban anything, you also won't put a dent in the body count. You can never change anything if you don't go after the root cause of an issue. When someone wants to kill lots of people, they will do so. There is nothing you can ban that will change the outcome.
 
2012-12-17 08:47:48 PM  

AddictedToFoobies: The sad part of all this is that the Internet Outrage typified in this thread will have about as much affect as it did on Penn State. Both situations are tragedies, just differing in scale.

Lots of people will get worked up and run around yelling with their virtual hands over their virtual heads.
[mybfolder.com image 289x240]
Then, after the dust settles and all is said and done. nothing will really change. Why, you ask?

Just as with Penn State, the furor of the debate is driven by emotion, not facts or logic. Meanwhile, the chance to have a real effect on the root cause of the issue(s) will be lost because of assholes desperate for a pulpit.



Jesus Christ, THIS.
 
2012-12-17 08:51:16 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Stupid overreaction.


This.

'Reality' shows as a genre' are terrible but if Discovery thinks that this show had ANYTHING to do with Sandy Hook they are as stupid as they are pandering.

Idiots.
 
2012-12-17 08:51:21 PM  

Kuroshin: When someone wants to kill lots of people, they will do so.


The Columbine guys tried to kill people with bombs and failed miserably.
 
2012-12-17 08:52:20 PM  

FightDirector: kg2095: 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.

Question!

If I were to relate about the time I used a firearm to stop (without shooting) what was definitely Assault with Deadly and what was about to turn into a forcible rape, would you simply dismiss it out of hand, or try to turn it back on me saying that a single anecdote doesn't change anything?


That's pretty much the same as in my experience. For some people, their brain just 'clicks' when staring at a half-inch muzzle opening, even when facing a woman with an 11" chef's knife doesn't faze 'em. Crazy is as crazy does.
 
2012-12-17 08:53:09 PM  

12349876: Kuroshin: When someone wants to kill lots of people, they will do so.

The Columbine guys tried to kill people with bombs and failed miserably.


Do we need to go into the thousands of people who succeeded? History is littered with their victims.
 
2012-12-17 08:55:14 PM  

Kuroshin: 12349876: Kuroshin: When someone wants to kill lots of people, they will do so.

The Columbine guys tried to kill people with bombs and failed miserably.

Do we need to go into the thousands of people who succeeded? History is littered with their victims.


For the most part with these mass shootings we're talking about mentally deranged youngsters working alone or almost alone, not military and para-military types like Timothy McVeigh and Al-Qaeda.
 
2012-12-17 09:05:58 PM  

3StratMan: fusillade762: 3StratMan: 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....

What makes a rifle an "assault rifle" anyway?

It was designed for military use. I don't see why there's so much confusion over the term.

Examples? Or how about some characteristics or features? Otherwise you are showing you don't have much of a clue what it really is you want banned.


Jump to conclusions much? I never said anything about wanting anything banned. I was just pointing out what seems to me to be an obvious definition of "assault rifle". The AR-15 is a civilian version of the M-16. Unless you can tell me the M-16 was developed for hunting or home defense I think my point stands.
 
2012-12-17 09:14:28 PM  

fusillade762: 3StratMan: fusillade762: 3StratMan: 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....

What makes a rifle an "assault rifle" anyway?

It was designed for military use. I don't see why there's so much confusion over the term.

Examples? Or how about some characteristics or features? Otherwise you are showing you don't have much of a clue what it really is you want banned.

Jump to conclusions much? I never said anything about wanting anything banned. I was just pointing out what seems to me to be an obvious definition of "assault rifle". The AR-15 is a civilian version of the M-16. Unless you can tell me the M-16 was developed for hunting or home defense I think my point stands.


Can any gun enthusiast honestly not admit that a major problem with this whole debate is that YOU guys assume that anyone who wants to discuss the issue who obviously ISN'T a gun enthusiast is automatically either wanting to ban certain weapons or wants to do away with the 2nd amendment?

You straw man right out of the god damn gate, no wonder we go nowhere.

Facebook is awash with the circle jerking of gun nuts who think there is some credible threat to their 2nd amendment rights. By sheer force of economics, there is no f*cking way that could happen in your lifetime, nor has anything ANYTHING been eroded in the gun control lobby's favor in the past 8 years.

Gun nuts are the god damn problem not because of their guns, but because they have the rhetorical sense of a f*cking third grader.
 
2012-12-17 09:19:05 PM  

fusillade762: 3StratMan: fusillade762: 3StratMan: 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....

What makes a rifle an "assault rifle" anyway?

It was designed for military use. I don't see why there's so much confusion over the term.

Examples? Or how about some characteristics or features? Otherwise you are showing you don't have much of a clue what it really is you want banned.

Jump to conclusions much? I never said anything about wanting anything banned. I was just pointing out what seems to me to be an obvious definition of "assault rifle". The AR-15 is a civilian version of the M-16. Unless you can tell me the M-16 was developed for hunting or home defense I think my point stands.


Civilians were using AR15's all over New Orleans to protect their property after Katrina. You can bet people across the country protect their property with them as well. Pretty handy eliminating varmints like coyotes before they can harm farm animals as well.
 
2012-12-17 09:24:03 PM  

fusillade762: 3StratMan: fusillade762: 3StratMan: SmellsLikePoo: I was just pointing out what seems to me to be an obvious definition of "assault rifle"..


My Dodge Ram has a 345HP Hemi, looks cool, and can go over 100mph pretty easily. Does that make it a muscle car?
 
2012-12-17 09:32:21 PM  

3StratMan: fusillade762: 3StratMan: fusillade762: 3StratMan: SmellsLikePoo: I was just pointing out what seems to me to be an obvious definition of "assault rifle"..

My Dodge Ram has a 345HP Hemi, looks cool, and can go over 100mph pretty easily. Does that make it a muscle car?


You're arguing appearance and function. I'm talking about intent. Just because one thing can perform the task of another thing does not mean it was designed specifically to do so.
 
2012-12-17 09:39:42 PM  
wonders why all of tv is so full of gun violence (cough) various police shows, if everyone is so opposed to them?

somebody is making money
 
2012-12-17 09:42:04 PM  
That should put the metal dick crowd into a tizzy.
 
2012-12-17 09:42:21 PM  

FightDirector: kg2095: 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.

Question!

If I were to relate about the time I used a firearm to stop (without shooting) what was definitely Assault with Deadly and what was about to turn into a forcible rape, would you simply dismiss it out of hand, or try to turn it back on me saying that a single anecdote doesn't change anything?


Yes, I would argue that the occasional good outcome doesn't justify the countless deaths from rage shootings and accidental shootings.
 
2012-12-17 09:45:00 PM  

Kuroshin: kg2095: 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.

OK, lets see a link to the news story where you went all Dirty Harry and killed a bad man. Otherwise, I don't believe you.

Who said I killed him? Or even shot him?

Again, you're a dipshiat.


And you're obviously abusive and aggressive - exactly the sort of person who should not be let anywhere near a deadly weapon.
 
2012-12-17 09:45:35 PM  
BAN ALL GUBS
 
2012-12-17 09:45:51 PM  

Kuroshin: kg2095: 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.

OK, lets see a link to the news story where you went all Dirty Harry and killed a bad man. Otherwise, I don't believe you.

Who said I killed him? Or even shot him?

Again, you're a dipshiat.


Better question, did you ever actually have to use your gun in any way, shape or form? I'm not being a dick here, I'm asking you in full seriousness. Because if your gun never actually played a role in this incident you're describing then it doesn't really make for a good example.
 
2012-12-17 09:48:28 PM  

fusillade762: 3StratMan: 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....

What makes a rifle an "assault rifle" anyway?

It was designed for military use. I don't see why there's so much confusion over the term.


It's not technically an "assault" rifle until it has been made automatic, which is illegal. Owning an automatic machine gun in this country is already heavily regulated and requires a Clas III license. An AR-15 is just a sporting rifle with no more power than your average 9mm pistol. I have friends that use theirs on their property in WY to kill coyotes and small rodents. It is accurate at a farther distance due to the longer barrel. Everything else on them is basically cosmetic to make it look "military."
 
2012-12-17 09:49:18 PM  

Ravijn: [i.imgur.com image 600x321]


"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

/ The lightsaber is a good weapon if you can catch all the kids in an enclosed space.
// Have you ever tried to kill 20 younglings at 100 yards with a sword? They can RUN!
/// A blaster is WAY more efficient.
 
2012-12-17 09:53:04 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: /but don't call it a fetish


What? The number of times you've posedt that today?
 
2012-12-17 09:56:37 PM  
Those gun shows are terrible. Please cancel Sons of Guns. Idiots. All of them.
 
2012-12-17 09:57:28 PM  

3StratMan: kg2095: 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.

OK, lets see a link to the news story where you went all Dirty Harry and killed a bad man. Otherwise, I don't believe you.

Link


The linked story does not appear to have anything at all to do with you or your wife. I think you made that story up.

As for the article, it does give examples of incidents that would have been worse if armed bystanders didn't intervene. But that's precious little comfort to the loved ones of all those killed in temper tantrums that escalated to shootings - road rage for example. Or to those whose children were killed in a game of cops and robbers played with a real gun found under daddy's bed. And those victims far outnumber any saved by non-psychos carrying a weapon.

Among the world's 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids.

From here: Gun Deaths: A Familiar American Experience
 
2012-12-17 10:09:16 PM  

kg2095: Among the world's 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids.


That's a stupid and terrible stat that doesn't account for population size. The one you want is just before it:

A study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery found that the gun murder rate in the U.S. is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined.

Though I'd love to know a) why they cut things off at 23 nations and b) what America's rate is compared to the second-highest in that group.
 
2012-12-17 10:16:47 PM  

kg2095: FightDirector: kg2095: 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.

Question!

If I were to relate about the time I used a firearm to stop (without shooting) what was definitely Assault with Deadly and what was about to turn into a forcible rape, would you simply dismiss it out of hand, or try to turn it back on me saying that a single anecdote doesn't change anything?

Yes, I would argue that the occasional good outcome doesn't justify the countless deaths from rage shootings and accidental shootings.


Then I'd posit you aren't engaging in a debate, because you aren't willing to have your mind changed. Therefore, enjoy crapping up the thread. Good day.

*leaves thread*
 
2012-12-17 10:21:47 PM  

doglover: 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.

[assets.nydailynews.com image 850x280]

22 kids in Connecticut is a tragedy.

1000 people, many of them children, in Afganistan is a statisic.


I'm assuming you didn't support either Afghanistan or Iraq then, right? Because it would be pretty hypocritical to say something like that if you did.
 
2012-12-17 10:22:27 PM  

Giltric: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: /but don't call it a fetish

What? The number of times you've posedt that today?


thumbs.imagekind.com

better?
 
2012-12-17 10:23:19 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: /but don't call it a fetish

What? The number of times you've posedt that today?

[thumbs.imagekind.com image 464x650]

better?


Good graphic or greatest graphic ever?
 
2012-12-17 10:33:10 PM  

Kuroshin: You can never change anything if you don't go after the root cause of an issue.


This isn't directed at you personally but rather to everyone. What are the root causes of gun violence, or violence in general, in our society? I know, mental illness is an easy one, and it is a cause. But I'm guessing the majority of violence in this country is not due to mental illness. So other than mental illness, what are the other root causes of violence in this country? Because I agree, if putting more restrictions on guns won't solve the problem then let's really focus on the true causes.
 
2012-12-17 10:34:48 PM  

FightDirector: kg2095: FightDirector: kg2095: 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.

Question!

If I were to relate about the time I used a firearm to stop (without shooting) what was definitely Assault with Deadly and what was about to turn into a forcible rape, would you simply dismiss it out of hand, or try to turn it back on me saying that a single anecdote doesn't change anything?

Yes, I would argue that the occasional good outcome doesn't justify the countless deaths from rage shootings and accidental shootings.

Then I'd posit you aren't engaging in a debate, because you aren't willing to have your mind changed. Therefore, enjoy crapping up the thread. Good day.

*leaves thread*


Yes, I'm sure you're willing to have your mind changed aren't you? That's why you ran away from the argument.

What you need is a virtual e-gun so you can put danged pinko commie libruls like me in my place. Aint that right?
 
2012-12-17 10:37:36 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: kg2095: Among the world's 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids.

That's a stupid and terrible stat that doesn't account for population size. The one you want is just before it:

A study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery found that the gun murder rate in the U.S. is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined.

Though I'd love to know a) why they cut things off at 23 nations and b) what America's rate is compared to the second-highest in that group.


While it doesn't account for population size I think it's a pretty safe bet that the US does not account for 80% of the population of the world's 23 wealthiest nations.

I'll see what else I can find though.
 
2012-12-17 10:39:37 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Stupid overreaction.


Maybe, but giving them a pass, the last thing the US needs is another unless reality show. The crap on TV now is too close to Idiocracy as it is.
 
2012-12-17 10:43:00 PM  
My proposal (as a Connecticut handgun owner): If you are male, take an SSRI, and are under the age of 30, then as a condition of taking an SSRI, you must (a) live in a dwelling that has no guns in it (b) must have your drivers license marked as not permitting a gun purchase or any use of gun ranges etc (interestingly, Connecticut requires a photo ID to buy guns, alcohol and weirdest of all, to vote -- crazy I know)

Not saying this would have stopped Newtown, but it would have directly addressed the problem there (assuming we find out that little lord fauntelroy was on an SSRI, which seems very very likely).

Mom would have had to move the guns out of the house. He was denied a gun purchase earlier in the week any way. My law would literally have stopped the sequence of events, ASSUMING that the people involved were willing to comply with the law (which is mostly his mom, he clearly wasn't).
 
2012-12-17 10:45:17 PM  

Kuroshin: 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.


I agree the 30-06 is a lot more gun, yet people don't worry about something that has been around for a long time. If you haven't fired one, it would not impress you that my almost 80 year old aunt used to hunt with a M1 Garand. However, some guy flashes his new black painted toy that shoots a .223 round and everybody turns jealous or afraid. I don't know what my uncle carried, but he gave her the M1 because he knew she could handle that. I would be happy with the M1. She out hunted him one season.
 
2012-12-17 10:49:40 PM  

AddictedToFoobies: The sad part of all this is that the Internet Outrage typified in this thread will have about as much affect as it did on Penn State. Both situations are tragedies, just differing in scale.

Lots of people will get worked up and run around yelling with their virtual hands over their virtual heads.

Then, after the dust settles and all is said and done. nothing will really change. Why, you ask?

Just as with Penn State, the furor of the debate is driven by emotion, not facts or logic. Meanwhile, the chance to have a real effect on the root cause of the issue(s) will be lost because of assholes desperate for a pulpit.


I don't know how possible that is.

There's a strong and growing sense of nihilism in American culture, reflected in political movements, government policies, media, and entertainment. Tearing down, "deconstructing," rebelling for its own sake, making everything and everyone a target of ridicule, having no constructive ideas yet crying for the dismantling of every vital economic institution ... all of these join media and entertainment in demonstrating that American culture is committing suicide.

Don't get me wrong - I'm NOT one of these people blaming movies and video games. They're not causations; they're symptoms. And I'm definitely NOT going to say that praying to imaginary gods is the solution.

Americans needs to be inspired ... truly inspired. Not just feel-good stuff like some poor kid winning X Factor, or something attention-grabbing that a sports figure did, or electing a black president, or whatever this week's shiny new distraction is. We need to see men and women forge new paths, succeed on honor and merit, reach higher and higher, and do so with conviction and pride. We need an Apollo program, or a new technological development; we need a stronger economy, where people can actually achieve their dreams, rather than give up on them because they can make more money trying to up-sell apple pies to drive-thru customers.

I know it's not as easy as passing some useless law regarding clip size or a new bullet tax or some nonsense, but if you're really interested in doing something to prevent this kind violence, a good first step is: stop celebrating and encouraging nihilism. You do it far more than you know.
 
2012-12-17 10:51:23 PM  
Proposals to ban "assault weapons" come only from people who know nothing about guns, and yet, with absolutely no knowledge about the topic, and no ability to describe what an assault rifle is, know that banning them, whatever they are, will be a good thing.

They are lightweight, smaller, less powerful, semi-automatic rifles. As opposed to the heavier, more powerful, more deadly, semi-automatic rifles. (I know, real assault rifles are automatic, but those aren't available for sale - so we will go with the public's misconception).

If you ever have to choose between taking a shot from an M14 (big mean real semi-automatic rifle) or an M16 (assault rifle) and you want a hope of survival, choose the M16. Hell, it was designed to wound, not kill, so as to impose medical costs on the opponent.
 
2012-12-17 10:54:02 PM  
Interesting comment I read elsewhere:

When is the gun community going to address Newtown? When is the gay community going to address Penn State?
 
2012-12-17 10:59:36 PM  
I like guns but it was a terrible show- incompetent gunsmiths and ugly, overpriced guns. The head of the shop seemed like a self aggrandizing douche.
 
2012-12-17 11:01:45 PM  

DoctorOfLove: Interesting comment I read elsewhere:

When is the gun community going to address Newtown? When is the gay community going to address Penn State?


That's not interesting, it's trolling. Shame on you.
 
2012-12-17 11:04:26 PM  

Flappyhead: DoctorOfLove: Interesting comment I read elsewhere:

When is the gun community going to address Newtown? When is the gay community going to address Penn State?

That's not interesting, it's trolling. Shame on you.


It points out how ridiculous the Weeners is. Sorry it hit too close to home.
 
2012-12-17 11:08:32 PM  
The "right to bare arms" needs updating. It made sense 225 years ago when it was accepted you were using your rifle to hunt for food or kill marauding redcoats and injuns. "Sane people have the right to bare reasonable arms" makes more sense in modern society. If you need a semi-auto rifle to hunt you are a shiat hunter who shouldn't be in the goddamn woods to begin with. Deer, hogs, turkeys, ducks, quail, and even bears rarely shoot back. There is no reason for a sportsman hunter to have an AR-15 or equivalent. Guns don't kill people, but people with guns are a hell of a lot more proficient at killing people than people with knives or bows.
 
2012-12-17 11:08:32 PM  
It points out how ridiculous the Weeners is. Sorry it hit too close to home.
 
2012-12-17 11:08:59 PM  

coeyagi: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: /but don't call it a fetish

What? The number of times you've posedt that today?

[thumbs.imagekind.com image 464x650]

better?

Good graphic or greatest graphic ever?


Gross graphic even.
 
2012-12-17 11:10:28 PM  

BATMANATEE: The "right to bare arms" needs updating. It made sense 225 years ago when it was accepted you were using your rifle to hunt for food or kill marauding redcoats and injuns. "Sane people have the right to bare reasonable arms" makes more sense in modern society. If you need a semi-auto rifle to hunt you are a shiat hunter who shouldn't be in the goddamn woods to begin with. Deer, hogs, turkeys, ducks, quail, and even bears rarely shoot back. There is no reason for a sportsman hunter to have an AR-15 or equivalent. Guns don't kill people, but people with guns are a hell of a lot more proficient at killing people than people with knives or bows.


Rights have nothing to do with what other people think they "need". And the folks who wrote in the amendment were referring to arms, without restriction.
 
2012-12-17 11:19:21 PM  

Watching_Epoxy_Cure: Flappyhead: DoctorOfLove: Interesting comment I read elsewhere:

When is the gun community going to address Newtown? When is the gay community going to address Penn State?

That's not interesting, it's trolling. Shame on you.

It points out how ridiculous the Weeners is. Sorry it hit too close to home.


Except guns are directly related to Newtown.
 
2012-12-17 11:19:37 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: kg2095: Among the world's 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids.

That's a stupid and terrible stat that doesn't account for population size. The one you want is just before it:

A study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery found that the gun murder rate in the U.S. is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined.

Though I'd love to know a) why they cut things off at 23 nations and b) what America's rate is compared to the second-highest in that group.


Vital statistics from the U.S. were compared to those from 22 other high-income countries with populations over 1 million people that reported causes of mortality to WHO for 2003. Researchers relied on The World Bank's definition of a high income nation, which included countries that had a gross national income per capita of $12,276 or more for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011.

The most recent data, mostly from 2009, shows a gun homicide rate of 3.0 per 100,000 people in the U.S. and 0.2 in the 22 other countries used in the firearm fatality study. The U.S., with its decrease, had a rate around 15 times those of other countries.

It's not a comparison to the second highest but it is still a useful comparison - the US compared to the rate for all other countries in the survey. 20 times higher in 2003, dropping to 15 times higher in 2009.

Both quotes are from here: Politifact: Rep. Jim Moran says U.S. gun homicide rate 20 times higher than other western nations
 
2012-12-17 11:19:49 PM  

DoctorOfLove: My proposal (as a Connecticut handgun owner): If you are male, take an SSRI, and are under the age of 30, then as a condition of taking an SSRI, you must (a) live in a dwelling that has no guns in it (b) must have your drivers license marked as not permitting a gun purchase or any use of gun ranges etc (interestingly, Connecticut requires a photo ID to buy guns, alcohol and weirdest of all, to vote -- crazy I know)

Not saying this would have stopped Newtown, but it would have directly addressed the problem there (assuming we find out that little lord fauntelroy was on an SSRI, which seems very very likely).

Mom would have had to move the guns out of the house. He was denied a gun purchase earlier in the week any way. My law would literally have stopped the sequence of events, ASSUMING that the people involved were willing to comply with the law (which is mostly his mom, he clearly wasn't).


Only men. Sexist law. Unconstitutional.
 
2012-12-17 11:25:06 PM  

Watching_Epoxy_Cure: BATMANATEE: The "right to bare arms" needs updating. It made sense 225 years ago when it was accepted you were using your rifle to hunt for food or kill marauding redcoats and injuns. "Sane people have the right to bare reasonable arms" makes more sense in modern society. If you need a semi-auto rifle to hunt you are a shiat hunter who shouldn't be in the goddamn woods to begin with. Deer, hogs, turkeys, ducks, quail, and even bears rarely shoot back. There is no reason for a sportsman hunter to have an AR-15 or equivalent. Guns don't kill people, but people with guns are a hell of a lot more proficient at killing people than people with knives or bows.

Rights have nothing to do with what other people think they "need". And the folks who wrote in the amendment were referring to arms, without restriction.


Exactly. The "need" no longer applies to most citizens, so why should the right?
 
2012-12-17 11:25:26 PM  
This is right up there with blaming video games. So stupid.
 
2012-12-17 11:27:40 PM  

chapman: This is right up there with blaming video games. So stupid.


or

Cars?

/why don't we do that?
 
2012-12-17 11:30:26 PM  

DoctorOfLove: you want a hope of survival, choose the M16. Hell, it was designed to wound, not kill, so as to impose medical costs on the opponent.


Not a gun guy but this makes no sense.
 
2012-12-17 11:36:22 PM  

Watching_Epoxy_Cure: BATMANATEE: The "right to bare arms" needs updating. It made sense 225 years ago when it was accepted you were using your rifle to hunt for food or kill marauding redcoats and injuns. "Sane people have the right to bare reasonable arms" makes more sense in modern society. If you need a semi-auto rifle to hunt you are a shiat hunter who shouldn't be in the goddamn woods to begin with. Deer, hogs, turkeys, ducks, quail, and even bears rarely shoot back. There is no reason for a sportsman hunter to have an AR-15 or equivalent. Guns don't kill people, but people with guns are a hell of a lot more proficient at killing people than people with knives or bows.

Rights have nothing to do with what other people think they "need". And the folks who wrote in the amendment were referring to arms, without restriction.



These were the same people who also thought slavery and Letters of Marque were good ideas. Yes, our Constitution is a pretty amazing document but it wasn't handed down to us from God, and discussing changes to it is not blasphemy. Maybe, just maybe, the gun laws that worked for a sparsely populated agricultural society of 225 years ago don't really work today.
 
2012-12-17 11:38:01 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: kg2095: Among the world's 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids.

That's a stupid and terrible stat that doesn't account for population size. The one you want is just before it:

A study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery found that the gun murder rate in the U.S. is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined.

Though I'd love to know a) why they cut things off at 23 nations and b) what America's rate is compared to the second-highest in that group.


This may be of interest...


Rather than looking at the sheer number of deaths caused by firearms in the top ten exporters, a more accurate way to compare them is by gun deaths per 100,000 citizens. In that ranking, for those who break gun deaths out from their annual murder rate, the United States is again at the top of the list, this per the World Health Organization and the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime.

The United States in 2009 had 3 gun deaths for every 100,000 people over the course of the year, completely eclipsing the next nearest country's rate of .96, coming from Israel, by a wide margin. When you factor in the .243 rate of France, the second-highest gun owning country, the United States' gun troubles seem even more problematic. Notable in this context, in the aftermath of mass shootings, other countries have tightened their laws accordingly and seen a drop in gun violence.

From here: ThinkProgress: How does America's love of guns measure up internationally?

Note that the stats in that article are from the World Health Organization and the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime. I would think these are reputable sources to anyone but the most extreme.
 
2012-12-17 11:45:26 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: DoctorOfLove: you want a hope of survival, choose the M16. Hell, it was designed to wound, not kill, so as to impose medical costs on the opponent.

Not a gun guy but this makes no sense.


No

hbk72777: Say bye bye to these shows then

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 319x158]

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 257x196]

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 232x218]

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 295x171]


cdn2.sbnation.com

/ban nail guns
 
2012-12-17 11:53:07 PM  

vpb: Now how about their crappy "reality" shows that aren't about guns?


Yeah, what exactly needs to happen for us to lose "Ancient Aliens" and "American Pickers"?
 
2012-12-17 11:58:53 PM  
Get rid of all the shiatty "reality" shows. Bring back the older shows like Wild Discovery. Rerun classics like "Beyond 2000". And make some new content that actually matches the term "Discovery".

Seriously, this mindset of "Let's imitate what's most popular because it gets ratings!" really needs to stop. Especially when it's a bullshiat genre like "reality" TV.

/will never forgive "Survivor" and "Big Brother" for starting this dark road that led to "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo"
//also goes for History Channel, Military Channel, Nat Geo / Wild, and all the other documentary channels
 
2012-12-17 11:59:09 PM  
The show sucked I didn't like it from the begginning. Glad it's gone. I like SOG's lets keep it.
 
2012-12-18 12:20:01 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Seriously, this mindset of "Let's imitate what's most popular because it gets ratings!" really needs to stop.


It boggles the mind why anyone would do such a thing.


Igor Jakovsky: 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.


It's always had the elimination thing. I'm not sure what change you're talking about. Anyway, just fast-forward through all the talking. That's what I do.
 
2012-12-18 12:20:29 AM  

johnnyba: The show sucked I didn't like it from the begginning. Glad it's gone. I like SOG's lets keep it.


Enable spell check.
 
2012-12-18 12:26:57 AM  

fusillade762: Keizer_Ghidorah: Seriously, this mindset of "Let's imitate what's most popular because it gets ratings!" really needs to stop.

It boggles the mind why anyone would do such a thing.


Remember when Sci-Fi Channel actually had sci-fi? The guys who took over after the first few years (dunno if they're still in charge) stated that they didn't want Sci-Fi Channel to be seen as a channel for geeks, losers, and stereotypes, which is why they dropped as much sci-fi stuff as they could and replaced it with wrestling and other shiat.

Compared to that, imitating the current craze isn't too bad. Stupid as shiat, but not as bad.
 
2012-12-18 12:34:34 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: DoctorOfLove: you want a hope of survival, choose the M16. Hell, it was designed to wound, not kill, so as to impose medical costs on the opponent.

Not a gun guy but this makes no sense.


he's trying to say that the 7.62×51mm NATO round is designed to wound instead of kill. In reality it's just more efficient than the .30-06 Springfield it replaced.
 
2012-12-18 12:43:14 AM  

log_jammin: 7.62


5.56.
 
2012-12-18 12:49:59 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: log_jammin: 7.62

5.56.


yes
 
2012-12-18 01:06:03 AM  

kg2095: 3StratMan: kg2095: 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.

OK, lets see a link to the news story where you went all Dirty Harry and killed a bad man. Otherwise, I don't believe you.

Link

The linked story does not appear to have anything at all to do with you or your wife. I think you made that story up.

As for the article, it does give examples of incidents that would have been worse if armed bystanders didn't intervene. But that's precious little comfort to the loved ones of all those killed in temper tantrums that escalated to shootings - road rage for example. Or to those whose children were killed in a game of cops and robbers played with a real gun found under daddy's bed. And those victims far outnumber any saved by non-psychos carrying a weapon.

Among the world's 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids.

From here: Gun Deaths: A Familiar American Experience


That is a misleading article since they take the top 23 according to GDP per Capita.

Why is that a big deal, you ask? Well if you take it as just top economy by GDP without the per Capita which adds in a lot of the low population middle eastern countries and you exclude those with huge gun violence issues such as Brazil, which would drastically change the bullshiat they are trying to spout

There are numerous reasons for gun violence, mentally unstable people not getting help and large poor populations in the countries where the top half are rich.

In fact if you take it as just GDP you get only 7 that stay in the top 23 when you do it per Capita
, and drops out places like Mexico who have higher incidents of gun violence than the USA, again do not believe the bullshiat stats some put out, just like michael moore they twist the facts to fit their agenda.
 
2012-12-18 01:11:42 AM  

kg2095: Note that the stats in that article are from the World Health Organization and the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime. I would think these are reputable sources to anyone but the most extreme.


Again, stating legal gun owners and then factoring all kills in a stat that include illegal gun deaths is not the least bit biased at all.........

The biggest issue america has is they spend billions to keep shiat illegal.
 
2012-12-18 01:14:15 AM  
I'm sorry how did this not turn into a Paige Wyatt thread?
www.gunslot.com
chivethebrigade.files.wordpress.com
hotgirlsinhollywood.com
I damn well know no one is watching that show to see old fat guys yell at each other.
 
2012-12-18 02:00:22 AM  
Hey, kg, nice work finding all those stats while I was off in the football thread. Thanks!

kg2095: The United States in 2009 had 3 gun deaths for every 100,000 people over the course of the year, completely eclipsing the next nearest country's rate of .96, coming from Israel, by a wide margin.


This is the one that intrigues me the most. We're over three times as shooty as the nation that's been in a low-level war for decades. I mean, what the hell? (Though they may have us beat in deaths by bomb and/or rocket.)
 
2012-12-18 02:02:11 AM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Hey, kg, nice work finding all those stats while I was off in the football thread. Thanks!

kg2095: The United States in 2009 had 3 gun deaths for every 100,000 people over the course of the year, completely eclipsing the next nearest country's rate of .96, coming from Israel, by a wide margin.

This is the one that intrigues me the most. We're over three times as shooty as the nation that's been in a low-level war for decades. I mean, what the hell? (Though they may have us beat in deaths by bomb and/or rocket.)


How many Rhode Islands is Israel?
 
2012-12-18 02:28:51 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: How many Rhode Islands is Israel?


About 7, not that it matters. The citation given is shootiness per capita. (Per 100,000 capitas, technically.)
 
2012-12-18 03:12:54 AM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: StoPPeRmobile: How many Rhode Islands is Israel?

About 7, not that it matters. The citation given is shootiness per capita. (Per 100,000 capitas, technically.)


the citation also appears to be bullshiat.

PDF warning.

page 47, figure 3.7 tells a very different story than the one given.
 
2012-12-18 03:24:23 AM  
That guy is kind of a dick and is extremely unsafe. The show caters to the rich asshole gun enthusiasts though, not the white trash kind. Of course I'm sure it made the white trash kind think they were the rich kind. Anyway, It was probably up for cancellation for some time, they just happened to pull the trigger now and decided to say it's because of the shooting.
 
2012-12-18 03:45:12 AM  

hbk72777: Say bye bye to these shows then

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 319x158]

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 257x196]

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 232x218]

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 295x171]


Yeah, totally the same type of show. Totally!
 
2012-12-18 03:53:02 AM  

DonPeyote: 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.

And now my penis has a new nickname.


Which one?

Tickle rifle? Massive Bone?

I hear everyone else already calls it nanoseconds.
 
2012-12-18 04:25:49 AM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: StoPPeRmobile: How many Rhode Islands is Israel?

About 7, not that it matters. The citation given is shootiness per capita. (Per 100,000 capitas, technically.)


Why doesn't it matter?
 
2012-12-18 04:27:55 AM  

3StratMan: 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....

What makes a rifle an "assault rifle" anyway?


In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[4][5][6]

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

an AR-15 is an assault rifle and it always has been despite what The Troof hurts and rush limbaugh would have us believe.
 
2012-12-18 04:28:38 AM  
forgot the link

Link
 
2012-12-18 04:37:26 AM  

log_jammin: 3StratMan: 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....

What makes a rifle an "assault rifle" anyway?

In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[4][5][6]

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

an AR-15 is an assault rifle and it always has been despite what The Troof hurts and rush limbaugh would have us believe.


No selective fire on the AR-15. Semi auto only.
 
2012-12-18 04:47:16 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: No selective fire on the AR-15. Semi auto only.


that's because they have to be by law. Pre 1986 have selective fire.

regardless, it is an assault rifle.
 
2012-12-18 06:19:02 AM  
Can we all agree on one thing please: Paige is hawt.

/first time seeing her in this thread
//came for the gun law pontificating, leaving satisfied
 
2012-12-18 06:46:24 AM  
FTA: "Nonetheless this tragedy has as much to do about lawful use of guns as the lawful use of cars has to do with a car bombing."

Cars are not mentioned as a cause in car bombings because the bomb is what causes the explosion and killing power. In this tragedy, like others, the guns are what caused the high death toll. Guns are used because they are easier to acquire and use in a deadly fashion.
 
2012-12-18 06:53:24 AM  

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


Why? it was just used in a petty horrific assault now wasn't it?

Noting akes non-gun people roll their eyes at you faster than this ridiculous obsession with labels and nomenclature
 
2012-12-18 07:34:29 AM  
Yea that daughter is hot

Sad day indeed
 
2012-12-18 08:00:01 AM  
Well, once you start going down this road, where do you draw the line? What about the game assassins creed? It's commercials are of a sniper taking a head shot of some unwitting guy.
 
2012-12-18 08:47:01 AM  

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.


Bad news there, dude: it was canceled a few weeks ago. 

www.deadline.com/2012/11/discovery-channels-dirty-jobs-cancelled/
 
2012-12-18 08:55:18 AM  

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.


Um, I used my gun to protect myself. Did not have to fire it. Without my gun, I am sure I would have been beaten and robbed at the least. Maybe I would have been killed. I was away from home, so I would have been stranded. But yeah, protecting your own life is completely psychotic.
 
2012-12-18 09:14:55 AM  
But all the other reality shows highlighting and celebrating mental illness for fun and profit get to stay on. Good to know they've focused on the real problem here.
 
2012-12-18 09:37:49 AM  

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!


You obviously do not remember the 1980's or you were not born yet. D & D was blamed for deaths as well as Heavy Metal...or has everyone forgot Tipper Gore?
 
2012-12-18 09:40:31 AM  

Tickle Mittens: I'm sorry how did this not turn into a Paige Wyatt thread?
[www.gunslot.com image 640x800]
[chivethebrigade.files.wordpress.com image 850x1062]
[hotgirlsinhollywood.com image 519x640]
I damn well know no one is watching that show to see old fat guys yell at each other.


cdn.ebaumsworld.com
 
2012-12-18 09:56:36 AM  

doglover: 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.

[assets.nydailynews.com image 850x280]

22 kids in Connecticut is a tragedy.

1000 people, many of them children, in Afganistan is a statisic.


Not a statistic, FREEDOM.
 
2012-12-18 11:05:19 AM  

Thank You Black Jesus!: doglover: 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.

[assets.nydailynews.com image 850x280]

22 kids in Connecticut is a tragedy.

1000 people, many of them children, in Afganistan is a statisic.

Not a statistic, FREEDOM.


Drones have killed 180 kids in Pakistan, 69 in one go.

For freedom.

/it's okay when Obama does it.
 
2012-12-18 11:20:11 AM  

ferretman: 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!

You obviously do not remember the 1980's or you were not born yet. D & D was blamed for deaths as well as Heavy Metal...or has everyone forgot Tipper Gore?


Way to miss the point.

Fear of D&D is ridiculous, and D&D isn't a tool used to kill people. D&D is also mocked in the main stream.

Guns, on the other hand, ARE used to kill people, and our society worships both guns and violence.

Yes, D&D was included in the Satanic Panic of the 80s. However, it is not an apt comparison to calls for gun control in the wake of a mass shooting. Guns actually kill people, D&D does not.
 
2012-12-18 11:22:25 AM  
How most Farkers identify guns:

ttag.zippykidcdn.com
 
2012-12-18 11:25:02 AM  

Mike Chewbacca: Yes, D&D was included in the Satanic Panic of the 80s. However, it is not an apt comparison to calls for gun control in the wake of a mass shooting. Guns People actually kill people, D&D does not.


FTFY

We should ban mentally ill people from entering schools! Problem solved! Thank God for Laws!
 
2012-12-18 12:07:20 PM  
STANDARD capacity.
 
2012-12-18 12:13:24 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: chapman: This is right up there with blaming video games. So stupid.

or

Cars?

/why don't we do that?


Exactly, more people die from car accidents then guns every year.
When are they going to ban the Honda Civic, with some specific tweaks you can modify it into one of those (gasp) ricer cars.
That and Fast and the Furious, that movie just promotes the whole ricer mentality, movies like that and Gone in 60 Seconds promote dangerous driving.
Porsches, Ferraris and Lambos need to be banned or severely rev limited, no need to go over the 65 speed limit. Matter of fact maybe they should be restricted to 55 as it would be that much safer right? It may disuade some of these nutjobs from buying one.
Same logic
 
2012-12-18 12:28:08 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]


a solid eight
 
2012-12-18 02:59:03 PM  

log_jammin: regardless, it is an assault rifle.


Here's a nifty little ditty called "Armalite Rifle"

Armalite rifle police and ira
Armalite rifle use it everyday
Breaks down easy fits into a pram
A child can carry it do it no harm
Armalite rifle and the holy trinity
It's used against you for irish jokes and the bbc
Armalite rifle please skew the aim
Armalite rifle use it everyday
The rifle does harm it shoots for miles
If a bullet gets you in the heart destroys your insides
Armalite rifle police duty eh?
Armalite rifle use it everyday
It'll do you damage it'll do you harm
Blow your legs off blow your guts out
I disapprove of it so does dave
It'll do you damage it'll do you damage
Damage damage damage damage damage


//from 1978, hence the IRA references
 
2012-12-18 05:53:52 PM  

ChiliCon: Mike Chewbacca: Yes, D&D was included in the Satanic Panic of the 80s. However, it is not an apt comparison to calls for gun control in the wake of a mass shooting. Guns People actually kill people, D&D does not.

FTFY

We should ban mentally ill people from entering schools! Problem solved! Thank God for Laws!


People kill people, but guns make people a whole lot more efficient at it. Seriously, your argument is weak and without merit. We don't make laws only as a deterrent, but also to allow for punishment.
 
2012-12-18 07:07:11 PM  
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7490597/81364669#c81364669" target="_blank">Mike Chewbacca</a>:</b> <i>ferretman: 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!

You obviously do not remember the 1980's or you were not born yet. D & D was blamed for deaths as well as Heavy Metal...or has everyone forgot Tipper Gore?

Way to miss the point.

Fear of D&D is ridiculous, and D&D isn't a tool used to kill people. D&D is also mocked in the main stream.

Guns, on the other hand, ARE used to kill people, and our society worships both guns and violence.

Yes, D&D was included in the Satanic Panic of the 80s. However, it is not an apt comparison to calls for gun control in the wake of a mass shooting. Guns actually kill people, D&D does not.</i>

This thread is dead but m point was this, the article was about a TV show that got pulled because it was about guns and we just had a mass shooting. Comments by some of those interviewed in the article said Hollywood was partially to blame for gun violence. Back in the 80s metal and dnd were scapegoated. Movies no more killed anyone than those things did 30 years ago. The article is about blaming Hollywood for violence not gun control.
 
2012-12-18 07:12:24 PM  

cragmor: 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.

Um, I used my gun to protect myself. Did not have to fire it. Without my gun, I am sure I would have been beaten and robbed at the least. Maybe I would have been killed. I was away from home, so I would have been stranded. But yeah, protecting your own life is completely psychotic.


Well then you've won me over. I now realize we should just accept that every now and then a shiat load of people are going to be killed by a Rambo wannabe just so the occasional assault can be neutralized.
 
2012-12-18 07:13:57 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Olympic Trolling Judge: Hey, kg, nice work finding all those stats while I was off in the football thread. Thanks!

kg2095: The United States in 2009 had 3 gun deaths for every 100,000 people over the course of the year, completely eclipsing the next nearest country's rate of .96, coming from Israel, by a wide margin.

This is the one that intrigues me the most. We're over three times as shooty as the nation that's been in a low-level war for decades. I mean, what the hell? (Though they may have us beat in deaths by bomb and/or rocket.)

How many Rhode Islands is Israel?


Since these stats are deaths per 100,000 the population is not relevant.
 
2012-12-18 07:34:14 PM  

steamingpile: kg2095: 3StratMan: kg2095: 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.

OK, lets see a link to the news story where you went all Dirty Harry and killed a bad man. Otherwise, I don't believe you.

Link

The linked story does not appear to have anything at all to do with you or your wife. I think you made that story up.

As for the article, it does give examples of incidents that would have been worse if armed bystanders didn't intervene. But that's precious little comfort to the loved ones of all those killed in temper tantrums that escalated to shootings - road rage for example. Or to those whose children were killed in a game of cops and robbers played with a real gun found under daddy's bed. And those victims far outnumber any saved by non-psychos carrying a weapon.

Among the world's 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids.

From here: Gun Deaths: A Familiar American Experience

That is a misleading article since they take the top 23 according to GDP per Capita.

Why is that a big deal, you ask? Well if you take it as just top economy by GDP without the per Capita which adds in a lot of the low population middle eastern countries and you exclude those with huge gun violence issues such as Brazil, which would drastically change the bullshiat they are trying to spout



There are numerous reasons for gun violence, mentally unstable people not getting help and large poor populations in the countries where the top half are rich.


In fact if you take it as just GDP you get only 7 that stay in the top 23 when you do it per Capita, a ...



That is a misleading article since they take the top 23 according to GDP per Capita.

Why is that a big deal, you ask? Well if you take it as just top economy by GDP without the per Capita which adds in a lot of the low population middle eastern countries and you exclude those with huge gun violence issues such as Brazil, which would drastically change the bullshiat they are trying to spout


The reason for comparing rich countries is to compare like with like. It makes no sense to compare the United States with middle eastern hell holes or Brazil for that matter. Those countries are not peers of the US - the wealthy countries are peers.

So, it would in fact be meaningless bullshiat if you were trying to compare the US gun death rate with that in the middle east or dodgy South American countries.



There are numerous reasons for gun violence, mentally unstable people not getting help and large poor populations in the countries where the top half are rich.

That is correct - inequality of income and opportunity is a driving force behind crime. Add to that the easy availability of guns which means that what may otherwise be non lethal violence like a fist fight will very often escalate to a deadly gun fight.

In the other wealthy nations the gap between rich and poor has been kept in check by a combination of effective social security, sensible taxation and business regulations. That removes one of the two legs gun violence stands on.

The other leg is the availability of firearms, which is effectively restricted in most other wealthy nations. An interesting exception is Switzerland that has a very low rate of gun crime despite a heavily armed populace. The reason for this is that the inequality of income that is so severe in the United States is very much less in Switzerland. Also the population is very well educated so that there are less macho morons who fancy themselves as Dirty Harry or Rambo.
 
2012-12-18 07:37:34 PM  

steamingpile: kg2095: Note that the stats in that article are from the World Health Organization and the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime. I would think these are reputable sources to anyone but the most extreme.

Again, stating legal gun owners and then factoring all kills in a stat that include illegal gun deaths is not the least bit biased at all.........

The biggest issue america has is they spend billions to keep shiat illegal.


Gun deaths are gun deaths.

There is no getting around the fact that the United States rate of gun deaths is horrific compared to its peers. It's not just somewhat higher - it is astonishingly higher. And the one thing all the other nations have that the United States does not is strict gun control.
 
2012-12-19 11:21:17 AM  

kg2095: steamingpile: kg2095: 3StratMan: kg2095: Kuroshin: In fact if you take it as just GDP you get only 7 that stay in the top 23 when you do it p ...



Your red and green post put me in the xmas spirit.
 
2012-12-19 11:39:25 AM  

Mike Chewbacca: ...but also to allow for punishment


What part of murder is not punishable by the law? Your argument for MORE laws is even weaker. Do you really think that laws stop people from committing crimes?
 
2012-12-19 01:10:09 PM  
What if I could show you that by actual numbers that have been agreed upon, and factual statistics that with guns about 370,000 people were affected by violent crimes, but that without guns, a minimum of over 1,000,000 people would have been affected. Most likely, well over 2,000,000 would have been affected.
 
2012-12-19 09:20:49 PM  

stupiddream: kg2095: steamingpile: kg2095: 3StratMan: kg2095: Kuroshin: In fact if you take it as just GDP you get only 7 that stay in the top 23 when you do it p ...


Your red and green post put me in the xmas spirit.


You are more than welcome dear - oh and thanks for last night. You were fabulous!
 
Displayed 231 of 231 comments

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