If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

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

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



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-17 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.
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report