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 most places, people don't randomly shoot each other while waiting for pizza, and then claim self-defense. And then there is Florida   (foxnews.com) divider line 224
    More: Florida  
•       •       •

5714 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Dec 2012 at 10:54 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-20 01:42:12 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Tatterdemalian: Is this really becoming a fad? Like happy slapping? I only ask because this exact same thing happened to me a while ago, while I was waiting in line at a pizza restaurant, and I got attacked from behind when I tried to ignore the person demanding I give up my place in line for them.

/maybe someone is trying to conduct social experiments on CCW licensees
//in my case, nobody got shot because I pussied out and decided to get my pizza somewhere else
///it would be funny if the whole incident was taped and is now floating around on FB somewhere, studied and imitated by a bunch of Trayvons-in-training

It is your duty to always back down when confronted. Don't give lip just be subservient. This way no one will be injured.


It isn't "subservient" to walk away (or better yet avoid in the first place) a confrontation with a belligerent fool. It's "smart."
 
2012-12-20 01:43:25 PM  

ansius: The last person I'd want wandering around the community with a gun in their possession is a person who feels so threatened by other people and so anxious day-to-day that they feel the need to arm themselves.

That's who I want carrying a gun: An anxious scared person with an over-inflated sense of their self-importance.


Hey that sounds like cops, plus the have armor that civilians can't get. So, you get what you want. Yay you.
 
2012-12-20 01:46:05 PM  

here to help: They want every citizen to be armed but don't want proper background checks. This means the mentally unstable would be able to have access to firearms even more easily than they do now.


Define "proper background checks". Not adjudicated to be mentally incompetent? Already part of the NICS check. Not a felon? Check. What more would you prefer? That anyone who attends therapy be unable to obtain firearms?
 
2012-12-20 01:46:33 PM  

Raoul Eaton: StoPPeRmobile: Tatterdemalian: Is this really becoming a fad? Like happy slapping? I only ask because this exact same thing happened to me a while ago, while I was waiting in line at a pizza restaurant, and I got attacked from behind when I tried to ignore the person demanding I give up my place in line for them.

/maybe someone is trying to conduct social experiments on CCW licensees
//in my case, nobody got shot because I pussied out and decided to get my pizza somewhere else
///it would be funny if the whole incident was taped and is now floating around on FB somewhere, studied and imitated by a bunch of Trayvons-in-training

It is your duty to always back down when confronted. Don't give lip just be subservient. This way no one will be injured.

It isn't "subservient" to walk away (or better yet avoid in the first place) a confrontation with a belligerent fool. It's "smart."


If that makes you feel better. As long as you comply.
 
2012-12-20 01:47:30 PM  

stevarooni: here to help: They want every citizen to be armed but don't want proper background checks. This means the mentally unstable would be able to have access to firearms even more easily than they do now.

Define "proper background checks". Not adjudicated to be mentally incompetent? Already part of the NICS check. Not a felon? Check. What more would you prefer? That anyone who attends therapy be unable to obtain firearms?


Yep. They should add anyone in a relationship to the list if they want a real witchhunt.
 
2012-12-20 01:50:24 PM  

here to help: GanjSmokr: I have seen exactly ZERO people say that they want to "arm every citizen despite mental and emotional defects"... maybe you can cite someone who has actually said that?

That's what the NRA derpers want. They just have very different standards for what constitutes a potentially dangerous mental health issue. Probably because they'd lose all those sweet membership fees.


I'm sure you could provide a link to someone actually saying this then? You know, someone saying they want to "arm every citizen despite mental and emotional defects" like you claim they want to?

If you can't provide a link to someone actually saying that, I'll understand.
 
2012-12-20 01:51:02 PM  

stevarooni: Define "proper background checks". Not adjudicated to be mentally incompetent? Already part of the NICS check. Not a felon? Check. What more would you prefer? That anyone who attends therapy be unable to obtain firearms?


You pay a fee to go through proper and extensive training. The trainers must be able to identify people with issues. If any red flags are raised... NO GUN FOR YOU!

And I don't mean Jack Yokel of Unionjacklivefreeordiesville with a monetary interest in hustling as many licenses through as possible. I mean real pros intent on doing a good job to keep guns out of the hands of whackadoodles.

Looks like the Obamster and Uncle Joe are stepping up to the plate on this so hopefully things can finally start getting better.
 
2012-12-20 01:52:17 PM  

GanjSmokr: I'm sure you could provide a link to someone actually saying this then? You know, someone saying they want to "arm every citizen despite mental and emotional defects" like you claim they want to?

If you can't provide a link to someone actually saying that, I'll understand.


It gets stated here all the time and elsewhere. Do your own homework. I don't play the citation troll game.
 
2012-12-20 01:54:51 PM  

here to help: You pay a fee to go through proper and extensive training. The trainers must be able to identify people with issues. If any red flags are raised... NO GUN FOR YOU!


No chance on that being abused. "He was a menace to all of us!" "Because he had a 'Don't tread on me' bumper sticker?" "It's better for all of us, sir, that he never be allowed near a gun. This is my judgment, and I'm sticking to it." "Funny that only Republicans have ever passed your course, isn't it?"

Uncle Joe? :D That's an appropriate name, I suppose. So will we split Berlin, this time, or just give the whole thing to 'em?
 
2012-12-20 01:55:46 PM  

here to help: GanjSmokr: I'm sure you could provide a link to someone actually saying this then? You know, someone saying they want to "arm every citizen despite mental and emotional defects" like you claim they want to?

If you can't provide a link to someone actually saying that, I'll understand.

It gets stated here all the time and elsewhere. Do your own homework. I don't play the citation troll game.


If it's stated here and elsewhere "all the time" then you should be able to find a citation easily. As it is, you play the quote-things-I-can't-prove-anyone-actually-said troll game, so you won't be able to find those quotes.

Game on, kiddo. Game on.
 
2012-12-20 01:56:35 PM  

here to help: It gets stated here all the time and elsewhere. Do your own homework. I don't play the citation troll game.


So you can't. That's fine, it just takes credence from your claim is all. It doesn't invalidate your arguments, it just detracts from them.
 
2012-12-20 01:58:33 PM  

here to help: You pay a fee to go through proper and extensive training. The trainers must be able to identify people with issues. If any red flags are raised... NO GUN FOR YOU!

And I don't mean Jack Yokel of Unionjacklivefreeordiesville with a monetary interest in hustling as many licenses through as possible. I mean real pros intent on doing a good job to keep guns out of the hands of whackadoodles.


Like cops?
 
2012-12-20 01:59:43 PM  

I'm an Egyptian!: Arkanaut: "An armed society is a polite society."

Just like Somalia! And Syria! And post invasion Iraq! And Afghanistan!


Hey! Somalis are a very polite people. Some of them will even pray for you after raping you and cutting off your lips.

//"Death to infidels" is a prayer, right?
 
2012-12-20 02:01:45 PM  

stevarooni: No chance on that being abused. "He was a menace to all of us!" "Because he had a 'Don't tread on me' bumper sticker?" "It's better for all of us, sir, that he never be allowed near a gun. This is my judgment, and I'm sticking to it." "Funny that only Republicans have ever passed your course, isn't it?"


If the trainers are are trained and certified professionals that should not come into play. There can be an appeals process and possibly a reapplication process. If somewhat at one point is deemed unfit in a final judgment they can come back in say 5 years or so to see if they've matured or sorted out their issues.

Anyone trainers abusing the system deal with harsh punishment just like any other government mandated position.

Seriously it can't be any worse then Billy Bob at Guns n Stuff making the judgment call for society.

Again I am not necessarily anti gun. I just want some common sense applied.
 
2012-12-20 02:05:29 PM  
Oh gimme a break. If you guys haven't seen people claiming that more people should be armed and restrictions should be watered down than you are either being disingenuous or have not been paying attention. I really don't care if you believe me or not.

Anyway... got some stuff to do. Maybe I'll be back later. Good convo though and I hope no matter what side of this debate you are on I got you guys thinking somewhat. This is going to be a very huge topic (even more so than it has been in the past) so let's start figuring out WTF can be done about it.

Peace.
 
2012-12-20 02:11:10 PM  

here to help: Oh gimme a break. If you guys haven't seen people claiming that more people should be armed and restrictions should be watered down than you are either being disingenuous or have not been paying attention. I really don't care if you believe me or not.

Anyway... got some stuff to do. Maybe I'll be back later. Good convo though and I hope no matter what side of this debate you are on I got you guys thinking somewhat. This is going to be a very huge topic (even more so than it has been in the past) so let's start figuring out WTF can be done about it.

Peace.


Teach farking MATH!
 
2012-12-20 02:16:40 PM  

here to help: Again I am not necessarily anti gun. I just want some common sense applied.


This phrase alone is enough to make me want to disregard everything you've written up to this point. The disparity of what's considered "common sense" means that anyone who uses that phrase is begging the question; whatever they say must be true, it's just common sense! Fie upon Thee, here to help.
 
2012-12-20 02:18:37 PM  

here to help: Oh gimme a break. If you guys haven't seen people claiming that more people should be armed and restrictions should be watered down than you are either being disingenuous or have not been paying attention. I really don't care if you believe me or not.


Okay, so you were using hyperbole before. Thanks for clarifying that. Which, again, weakens your argument. Your initial argument, that the NRA wanted guns in the hands of anyone with the dough no matter their mental state, was patently ludicrous. But when you weaken it to say that some Farkers have advocated loosening restrictions from...something to something else, why, that just makes this conversation pointless. I say to you, "Good day."
 
2012-12-20 02:36:03 PM  

stevarooni: A Shambling Mound: I will state for the record that I think assaulting someone [carrying] a gun is a perfectly good reason to get shot, however. Receiving injury (however disproportionate) is a risk you choose to take when you decide attempting to dispense injury is a good idea.

As long as you never have to put those words into practice, fine, but disproportionate use of force will get you charged with manslaughter or worse if you shoot someone for simple assault. If you think they're going to kill you (6 1/2 foot pro wrestler vs. 4 1/2 foot granny with a CCW, or if the guy's cracked the back of your favorite head against a barroom wall and asks, "Have you paid your dues, Jack?"), you're justified. But meeting non-deadly force with deadly force is a quick trip to jail en route to prison.


..and as I stated earlier in the thread, I agree with that entirely. The person that took the shot has learned that you're only allowed to shoot people who are actively trying to kill you and the person that ate the bullet has learned that maybe you shouldn't go around trying to beat people up because it might turn out poorly for you.

Although in practice, the former is much more likely than the latter. It's been my experience that people who go around trying to beat people up rarely learn anything at all, ever. The same may be true for those who shoot people for simple assault but I have less experience with that and can't say one way or another.
 
2012-12-20 04:12:05 PM  
What... did you guys all get bored without good ole hth to lash out at?

You know I'm right.

I'm always right.
 
2012-12-20 04:25:37 PM  
Oh and here's what your supposedly "sane" and elected leaders are saying about trying to come up with some solutions...

Leading House Republicans responded to the president's pledge in the aftermath of the Connecticut school massacre by restating their firm opposition to new limits on guns or ammunition, setting up the possibility of a bitter legislative battle and a philosophical clash over the Second Amendment soon after Mr. Obama's inauguration.

Essentially a bunch of kids are dead in yet ANOTHER mass shooting and these guys are gonna fight any attempts to try and come up with some solutions.

Now THAT is just the mainstream politicians.

Tell you what guys... why don't you all cite some proof that the pro gun folks have better solutions than I have mentioned here. Hell... show me ANY solution that people on that side of the debate have to get things under control.

Seriously. I am always willing to hear the other side of things. I can understand and occasionally agree with right wing policies. On this I have not seen even the tiniest bit of effort to try and curb sh*t aside from "MOAR JEBUS IN SCHOOL!" "NO HOMOS!!" "DHURRR BAN VIDEO GAMES!!!"
 
2012-12-20 06:07:45 PM  

here to help: Essentially a bunch of kids are dead in yet ANOTHER mass shooting and these guys are gonna fight any attempts to try and come up with some solutions.


You misstate the case, HtH. Refusing to compromise on fundamental human rights is not "fighting any attempt to try to come up with some solutions," it's refusing those solutions that involve abrogating fundamental human rights, especially when those would not have had an effect in this case.

here to help: Tell you what guys... why don't you all cite some proof that the pro gun folks have better solutions than I have mentioned here. Hell... show me ANY solution that people on that side of the debate have to get things under control.


* 1 credit hour of gun safety training required for a high school diploma. Not necessarily proficiency with weapons (though I wouldn't mind promoting shooting clubs associated with schools), but gun safety just makes sense.
* Train (or subsidize training for) teachers in CCW and allow them to carry on-campus. Don't announce who is and isn't armed, or even how many teachers are armed. This reduces the "(legal) gun-free zone" risks, because a potential attacker cannot know if or how many trained shooters he might face.
* Include information about firearms safety with discussions about mentally handicapped or autistic children; evaluating kids for the level of security required to keep guns safe around these kids might have helped in Newtown...or he might have caved her head in with a brick and pulled the gun safe key from a chain around her neck.

None of this will truly get things under control. Life is chaotic and even stricter gun control will not keep everyone safe, especially not in a way that's proportional to the lost rights.
 
2012-12-20 06:59:40 PM  

tricycleracer: Phinn: factoryconnection: This guy seemed to think he was going to get shoved to death.

Wow, you must have special access to unreported evidence.

Go ahead -- prove that the shooter did not reasonably believe the other man posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Take your time.

This is why the law is bullshiat.
 
1.  Talk shiat to someone.
2.  They walk towards you.
3.  Shoot them.


4. Survive.

Ta Da! Claim you were just standing your ground and its the dead guy' s fault. Since its Florida, they believe you because you shot first.
 
2012-12-20 07:09:43 PM  

irreverend mother: tricycleracer: Phinn: factoryconnection: This guy seemed to think he was going to get shoved to death.

Wow, you must have special access to unreported evidence.

Go ahead -- prove that the shooter did not reasonably believe the other man posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Take your time.

This is why the law is bullshiat.

1.  Talk shiat to someone.
2.  They walk towards you.
3.  Shoot them.

4. Survive.

Ta Da! Claim you were just standing your ground and its the dead guy' s fault. Since its Florida, they believe you because you shot first.


We are used to it since that's how it goes down with cops, all, the, time.
 
Displayed 24 of 224 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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report