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.

(WSBTV)   Home invasion ends with one of the intruders dying after leaping from one of the apartment windows. Must have been the fall guy   (wsbtv.com) divider line 60
    More: Fail, home invasions, fools, apartments  
•       •       •

3350 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Dec 2012 at 10:10 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-20 02:58:31 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: They just want no guns in the hands of mentally unstable or criminal or very young people.


This is what most of them say.
But then they start with magazine and bayonet bans.

...One's not going to have any effect on the other.

/The system for preventing sales to underage, mentally ill, or criminal buyers already exists.
/A lack of federal enforcement is leading to a bunch of restrictions written by the fashion police.
 
2012-12-20 03:09:24 PM  

wildbill0712: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Too Pretty For Prison: Welcome to the flip side of the gun debate. If the home owners renters hadn't been armed, who would be dead this morning?

So you either don't understand what the 'gun debate' is about, or you don't understand 'flipside'. I suspect both.

Gun debate is not about ERM MERH GERHD NO GUNS!! It's about what a reasonable person could expect to purchase for hunting and/or home protection or whatever is deemed, again, reasonable; where said guns should be stored (ie, you wanna fire your AK? keep in a supervised locker at the range); what the reasonable screening process is for acquiring a gun; what is reasonable for clip size and fire rate and whatever the fark else makes sense.

And yes, dumabass I know, this doesn't mean 'no more gun violence evar' it means a reasonable step in crafting a longer range policy that may help reduce farkup deaths for no reason

The problem with that thought process is, who defines what "reasonable" is? This year big brother decides 20 is a reasonable clip. And in 5 years, they say, well, you really only need 15. And so on.
I believe the gun owners are afraid of the slippery slope once the process begins.


We do, as a democratic society within constitutional bounds. If you want to go the 'all gov't = Big Bad Brother' route, then any reasonable person would never let the gov't do anything about anything or even exist. (Cue the Randheads screaming YEAH!). But if you believe there is any legitimacy to the gov't then as a democracy WE have a debate and ultimately decide what is reasonable. Just like with drug legalization, what cars are roadworthy, what pesticides are legal, what the speed limit is, limits on pollution, and every farking thing else in civilization.

And yes, I realize the above list also illustrates how we get things wrong sometimes, but that's teh point; reasonable evolves, changes and is for debate and vote, within constitutional bounds, which also change and evolve through interpretation (despite what farkface scalia believes).

Otherwise the thinking is: If the solution is not PERFECT we can't do ANYTHING about the problem.
 
2012-12-20 04:26:06 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Otherwise the thinking is: If the solution is not PERFECT we can't do ANYTHING about the problem.


Shoulder thing that goes up.
 
2012-12-20 04:26:21 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: ...And yes, I realize the above list also illustrates how we get things wrong sometimes, but that's teh point; reasonable evolves, changes and is for debate and vote, within constitutional bounds, which also change an ...


I appreciate a reasonable and well thought out response. Not many of those going around on either side of the fence these days. And, without open and civil communication, nothing will change for the better. My reference about "Big Brother" is more to a politicians knee jerk reaction after recent tragic events, and the "peoples" willingness to go along with it blindly. Because, "If we don't ban these guns, more kids will get killed." No one can say "no" to logic presented in a twisted way such as that.

There is a reasonable answer/solution somewhere in the middle, but the pendulum often swings much further than the middle in situations such as these. And I believe those against gun bans are afraid once the pendulum swings that far, it will be impossible to move back towards a middle/reasonable ground.
 
2012-12-20 04:31:22 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: dennerman: Serious Post on Serious Thread:
Gun debate is not about ERM MERH GERHD NO GUNS!! It's about what a reasonable person could expect to purchase for hunting and/or home protection or whatever is deemed, again, reasonable; where said guns should be stored (ie, you wanna fire your AK? keep in a supervised locker at the range); what the reasonable screening process is for acquiring a gun; what is reasonable for clip size and fire rate and whatever the fark else makes sense.

And yes, dumabass I know, this doesn't mean 'no more gun violence evar' it means a reasonable step in crafting a longer range policy that may help reduce farkup deaths for no reason

That is only one, quite reasonable imo, position in the larger gun debate. There any many who want a "no guns period" and still others who would start with your stated position and use it as a first step to move on to further restrictions once that initial line in the sand had been crossed. Many supporters of "gun rights" feel that it's easiest to take a stand against any restrictions to so that restrictions don't ever go further.

I'm one of the libbiest libs ever and I don't know anyone who wants all guns gone. (Except maybe in a "Jesus we'd be better off if we never invented guns/nukes/etc" kind of way.)

They just want no guns in the hands of mentally unstable or criminal or very young people. Seriously, that's the goal of every gun control position: not arming people who will attack others or themselves. And I haven't yet met someone cynical enough to think those descriptions cover everyone.


I hear what you're saying, I'm just telling you what I see as a key reason for widespread opposition to restrictions of any kind. There is a massive amount of people who fear that any restriction is just a "first step", which is why they will fight, tooth and nail, against what many would consider reasonable limitations or controls. Personally, I'm in favor of reasonable controls that will reduce the likelihood or capability of one nutter to slaughter large numbers of people in very small amounts of time. However, I think it's a perfectly legitimate concern that there are many who would in fact view that as a first step and would immediately begin work on banning the next most "reasonable" thing after the first measure was enacted.
 
2012-12-20 06:32:14 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: Seriously, that's the goal of every gun control position: not arming people who will attack others or themselves.


So why not try to craft something that might actually have a chance at doing that? Restricting types of guns or magazine capacities isn't going to do anything but stop people who are inclined to obey the law from buying them.
 
2012-12-20 06:49:12 PM  

YixilTesiphon: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Otherwise the thinking is: If the solution is not PERFECT we can't do ANYTHING about the problem.

Shoulder thing that goes up.


Uh, you mean 'shrug'? Ok.
 
2012-12-20 06:53:22 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Uh, you mean 'shrug'? Ok.


No. That was how a lawmaker who had no farking clue what she was talking about described a folding stock for a shotgun. She had no idea what it was or what it was used for and why, but it looked scary so By God she was going to ban it.
 
2012-12-21 07:13:09 AM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Uh, you mean 'shrug'? Ok.

No. That was how a lawmaker who had no farking clue what she was talking about described a folding stock for a shotgun. She had no idea what it was or what it was used for and why, but it looked scary so By God she was going to ban it.


K, as a citizen in a democracy, sounds like you need to educate your legislators. I know this is an imperfect, sometimes farked process, but life can be that way, as well as legislation & policy
 
2012-12-21 09:30:07 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: doloresonthedottedline: Seriously, that's the goal of every gun control position: not arming people who will attack others or themselves.

So why not try to craft something that might actually have a chance at doing that? Restricting types of guns or magazine capacities isn't going to do anything but stop people who are inclined to obey the law from buying them.


Nothing will accomplish that alone, but laws making it harder and the easiest tools less accessible work toward that goal.
 
Displayed 10 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | 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


Report