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.

(Slate)   Slate is crowdsourcing all the gun deaths in the US since December 14   ( slate.com) divider line
    More: Sad, GunDeaths, gun deaths, New York Times Magazine  
•       •       •

13904 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Dec 2012 at 10:52 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-12-21 11:19:06 AM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Cars kill more people every day and it's not like we're moving to make those things autonomous so they're taken out of human hands amirite?


Seriously. And it's not like we have any regulations restricting who can legally drive a car, where they can legally drive, or how they must drive.

Then again, some people will always speed, drive drunk, and die in car accidents no matter what, so maybe all of our car regulations are completely pointless and we should get rid of all of them.
 
2012-12-21 11:19:11 AM  

tricycleracer: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Guess you're the type of person who pisses himself at the idea of drawing attention to the ugly side of your hobby.


Or maybe I saw how well the PATRIOT Act worked. You know who else was cool with warrantless wiretapping of citizens?

secretcomedy.com


Feel free to give up your rights, but don't go trying to retroactively criminalize those that manage to keep their heads out of their own asses.
 
2012-12-21 11:19:19 AM  

manimal2878: Carn: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I don't think he is. Answer one question: Does the amount of carnage one can inflict depend on the type of weapon one is using to commit said act of carnage?

Take all the time you need. There is only one correct answer. After you get it right we can have a meaningful conversation about gun control.

What does you question have to do with the anything? There is a difference between arms, small arms, ordinance, and destructive devices. After you understand that you can join the meaningful discussion.


It has everything to do with this particular issue. Answer the question and then I'll explain since you truly don't understand the connection or are just being obtuse.
 
2012-12-21 11:19:37 AM  

BokChoy: Vegan Meat Popsicle: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys. I mean, it's not like any other rights come with limitations on their use based on the impact it can have on other people or anything.

The REAL tragedy here, after all, is that somebody might have to wait an extra day or two to get a gun or reload slightly more often at the local range. Truly a historical atrocity with no equal.

Millions of law abiding citizens should not have their rights restricted in an attempt to target the few crazies or gang bangers who decide that shooting fellow human beings is a sport..


what of the millions of law abiding citizens that have had it up to here with crazies & gang bangers? they should have a voice. and the millions of people that want nothing to do with guns in their lives. i know more people that choose not to own firearms over those who own. IMHO an important issue isn't simply owning firearms. it's owning arms that shoot a crapload of ammo per second - don't know why people have to own them. but if they do have to maybe they should be kept locked at the shooting range and that's where owners can play with them. i understand a huge part of owning such things is just playing with it and bragging rights and the thing gets very little actual use. so what. it's a over the top kill machine and should be treated as such.
 
2012-12-21 11:20:14 AM  

Virtue: So you want people to go around taking guns from law abiding citizens?


Nobody said that except you, stop lying.

Virtue: Completely UNTRUE.....defensive gun use studies using FBI crime stats place DGU at 800K to 2.5 million per year.....the only people who decry these studies are the anti gun nuts.


Maybe if you want people to take you seriouisly you shouldn't reference a repeatedly discredited study from 1995.

Again, stop lying.

manimal2878: No, according to Fienstein, it was passed exactly the way her staff worded it without amendment.


Tell you what, let's go ahead and run with that.

It was a toothless piece of crap. It's funny though that you guys always try to wedge that into the debate as if "we don't do enough" is reason to not do anything.

Banning cosmetics isn't a fix for anything. Making people responsible for the outcomes of gun ownership is.
 
2012-12-21 11:20:58 AM  

manimal2878: Carn: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I don't think he is. Answer one question: Does the amount of carnage one can inflict depend on the type of weapon one is using to commit said act of carnage?

Take all the time you need. There is only one correct answer. After you get it right we can have a meaningful conversation about gun control.

What does you question have to do with the anything? There is a difference between arms, small arms, ordinance, and destructive devices. After you understand that you can join the meaningful discussion.


For real, you should know what those words mean in manimal's mind. He won't discuss anything with idiots who can't read his mind.
 
2012-12-21 11:21:53 AM  

manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.


I have a lighter. Now where the hell's my flamethrower??

/I hope you were joking
 
2012-12-21 11:22:42 AM  

manimal2878: Carn: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I don't think he is. Answer one question: Does the amount of carnage one can inflict depend on the type of weapon one is using to commit said act of carnage?

Take all the time you need. There is only one correct answer. After you get it right we can have a meaningful conversation about gun control.

What does you question have to do with the anything? There is a difference between arms, small arms, ordinance, and destructive devices. After you understand that you can join the meaningful discussion.



Also, I am not aware of anyone ever referring to nuclear weapons as nuclear "arms."

Oops - sorry manimal, it looks like your argument is stupid.
 
2012-12-21 11:23:04 AM  

Chummer45: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Cars kill more people every day and it's not like we're moving to make those things autonomous so they're taken out of human hands amirite?

Seriously. And it's not like we have any regulations restricting who can legally drive a car, where they can legally drive, or how they must drive.

Then again, some people will always speed, drive drunk, and die in car accidents no matter what, so maybe all of our car regulations are completely pointless and we should get rid of all of them.


Or maybe we have the laws in place and only punish those that break them. Not everyone that wants to own a certain thing.
 
2012-12-21 11:23:33 AM  
Is this even a meaningful stat? Simply how many died from guns? Shouldn't we rule out any that are suicides, or by police preventing crime, or people preventing crime, etc? The article specifically states that suicides are usually left out, like that's a bad thing. Why on earth should they count?

I am ok with assault weapons restrictions and permitting, etc. for the record. I just don't see how this single statistic is worthwhile.
 
2012-12-21 11:23:42 AM  

tricycleracer: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Guess you're the type of person who pisses himself at the idea of drawing attention to the ugly side of your hobby.


What ugly side? 75% of gun violence victims are criminals...the shooters have on average 4 arrests and 2 convictions......the other 25% of shooting victims dont have criminal records because they are minors and by law have no adult criminal record.....law abiding gun owners are involved in a very small amount of crimes.

Ther per capita gun violence rate is like 3 per 100k...in the african american community it soars to like 25 per 100k.

We dont have a gun problem...we have a ray lewis, jayson williams, biggie and tupoc problem..its obviously not because of socio-economics...millionaires are thugs too. We make role models out of thugs and murderers.

All my cites can be found at guncite.com
 
2012-12-21 11:24:01 AM  

Chummer45: manimal2878: Carn: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I don't think he is. Answer one question: Does the amount of carnage one can inflict depend on the type of weapon one is using to commit said act of carnage?

Take all the time you need. There is only one correct answer. After you get it right we can have a meaningful conversation about gun control.

What does you question have to do with the anything? There is a difference between arms, small arms, ordinance, and destructive devices. After you understand that you can join the meaningful discussion.


Also, I am not aware of anyone ever referring to nuclear weapons as nuclear "arms."

Oops - sorry manimal, it looks like your argument is stupid.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race
 
2012-12-21 11:24:59 AM  

Ready-set: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I have a lighter. Now where the hell's my flamethrower??

/I hope you were joking


Hey man, if the government gets all oppressive and starts restricting my rights to the point where I need to take up arms against them, I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?
 
2012-12-21 11:25:33 AM  
Making guns illegal will take them off the street, let's make coke and heroin illegal too. I can grow guns in soil and they change the biology of the users to make them use. Also people die drowning, let's ban pools of water. Guns also naturally form over 70% of the earth and their pooling is necessary for life. What's a false equivalency again?
 
2012-12-21 11:25:41 AM  
Suicides, which are estimated to make up as much as 60 percent of gun deaths, typically go unreported.

AND most suicides are reported by family, friends, medical examiners, etc. as accidental due to the stigma of suicide.  So the numbers of suicides by gun should be a lot more.  Add in the ones who don't want it to be labeled suicide so their family can get life insurance benefits.

Honestly, if someone really, truly wants to kill themself, I rather they use a gun and do it properly than those stupid movie-promoted methods like drowning, hanging, pills, cutting, etc.  They are slow, painful ways to die and don't always go as planned.  People who are contemplating suicide should definitely seek help with their problems.  But if they truly want to do it, that's their decision.  At least they can do it quickly and effectively.

Exactly how long do we have to endure the "GUNZ R EVIL" crap before the media moves on to some other ridiculous topic?  Guns don't kill people.  Stupid people kill people.
 
2012-12-21 11:25:53 AM  
I'd rather have a tiger around the house, but apparently I can't, because they're DANGEROUS.

/forming the National Tiger Assocation
 
2012-12-21 11:26:01 AM  

KrispyKritter: BokChoy: Vegan Meat Popsicle: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys. I mean, it's not like any other rights come with limitations on their use based on the impact it can have on other people or anything.

The REAL tragedy here, after all, is that somebody might have to wait an extra day or two to get a gun or reload slightly more often at the local range. Truly a historical atrocity with no equal.

Millions of law abiding citizens should not have their rights restricted in an attempt to target the few crazies or gang bangers who decide that shooting fellow human beings is a sport..

what of the millions of law abiding citizens that have had it up to here with crazies & gang bangers? they should have a voice. and the millions of people that want nothing to do with guns in their lives. i know more people that choose not to own firearms over those who own. IMHO an important issue isn't simply owning firearms. it's owning arms that shoot a crapload of ammo per second - don't know why people have to own them. but if they do have to maybe they should be kept locked at the shooting range and that's where owners can play with them. i understand a huge part of owning such things is just playing with it and bragging rights and the thing gets very little actual use. so what. it's a over the top kill machine and should be treated as such.



This. I would also add, every citizen is a "law abiding citizen" until they commit a crime. It looks like the sick fark who shot up that school was a "law abiding citizen" up until the point where he snapped and went on a shooting rampage.
 
2012-12-21 11:27:59 AM  

duffblue: guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.


And you're the kind of guy who get a bone from handling a deadly weapon....Better get used to it pro-gun people...the days of your side being in charge about this kinda shiat if farking over.
 
2012-12-21 11:28:00 AM  

QueenMamaBee: I'd rather have a tiger around the house, but apparently I can't, because they're DANGEROUS.

/forming the National Tiger Assocation


Tigers don't kill people... uh... won't get fooled again.
 
2012-12-21 11:28:32 AM  

tukatz: Exactly how long do we have to endure the "GUNZ R EVIL" crap before the media moves on to some other ridiculous topic?  Guns don't kill people.  Stupid people kill people.


I think most of us just want to make it harder for the stupid people to get the guns
 
2012-12-21 11:29:23 AM  

tukatz: Suicides, which are estimated to make up as much as 60 percent of gun deaths, typically go unreported.

AND most suicides are reported by family, friends, medical examiners, etc. as accidental due to the stigma of suicide.  So the numbers of suicides by gun should be a lot more.  Add in the ones who don't want it to be labeled suicide so their family can get life insurance benefits.

Honestly, if someone really, truly wants to kill themself, I rather they use a gun and do it properly than those stupid movie-promoted methods like drowning, hanging, pills, cutting, etc.  They are slow, painful ways to die and don't always go as planned.  People who are contemplating suicide should definitely seek help with their problems.  But if they truly want to do it, that's their decision.  At least they can do it quickly and effectively.

Exactly how long do we have to endure the "GUNZ R EVIL" crap before the media moves on to some other ridiculous topic?  Guns don't kill people.  Stupid people with guns kill people.


FTFY
 
2012-12-21 11:29:23 AM  
Did anybody notice they wanted to include suicides in gun deaths. Yes this is truly a death by gun, but it's different than someone shooting somebody else, well it is in my book. To me a suicide by gun doesn't hurt anybody else, other than the guy that shot himself, but if he say threw himself in front of a bus, then other people are affected.
 
2012-12-21 11:29:43 AM  
Slate has been putting out hits on people?
 
2012-12-21 11:29:59 AM  

manimal2878: Chummer45: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Cars kill more people every day and it's not like we're moving to make those things autonomous so they're taken out of human hands amirite?

Seriously. And it's not like we have any regulations restricting who can legally drive a car, where they can legally drive, or how they must drive.

Then again, some people will always speed, drive drunk, and die in car accidents no matter what, so maybe all of our car regulations are completely pointless and we should get rid of all of them.

Or maybe we have the laws in place and only punish those that break them. Not everyone that wants to own a certain thing.


You're talking about an entirely different thing. To you, any gun regulation that interferes with your "rights" is unacceptable. It's the equivalent of saying "I have a constitutional right to drive a car - therefore, any law regulating cars (i.e., requiring licensing, limiting speeds, requiring safety devices, etc.) is an unwarranted infringement of my fundamental rights."
I wouldn't support a ban on guns. But I do support legislation that recognizes the fact that guns are lethal killing devices, and regulates them as such.
 
2012-12-21 11:30:39 AM  
That number has gone up by two since I last checked it a couple of hours ago, making it 75 since Newtown. Includes things like this:

A 3-year-old child in Guthrie died Saturday, after accidentally shooting himself in the head, according to the Logan County Sheriff's office.

The shooting happened early Saturday afternoon in the 1500 block of Derby Lane in Guthrie.

Authorities are calling this a tragic accident after a 3-year-old boy got hold of a gun and accidentally shot himself in the head. Several agencies responded to the home just after noon.

News 9 is told the little boy was the homeowner's nephew. He was there just visiting.

The Logan County Sheriff's Office says this is clearly an accident and they aren't expecting criminal charges.


(emphasis mine)

If there is one thing I'd like to see, it is that criminal charges should be slapped against all gun owners whose guns are misused in such a manner. Safest way to cut down on accidental discharges and instil some responsibility in the owners.
 
2012-12-21 11:30:41 AM  

tukatz: Exactly how long do we have to endure the "GUNZ R EVIL" crap before the media moves on to some other ridiculous topic?


Probably once classrooms full of innocent children stop getting slaughtered by guns.
 
2012-12-21 11:30:47 AM  

Red_Fox: duffblue: guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

And you're the kind of guy who get a bone from handling a deadly weapon....Better get used to it pro-gun people...the days of your side being in charge about this kinda shiat if farking over.



you're right, I masturbate furiously to my chainsaw every fall.
 
2012-12-21 11:30:52 AM  

WhippingBoy: Hey man, if the government gets all oppressive and starts restricting my rights to the point where I need to take up arms against them, I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?


No, but why would you try to?
 
2012-12-21 11:30:52 AM  

WhippingBoy: Ready-set: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I have a lighter. Now where the hell's my flamethrower??

/I hope you were joking

Hey man, if the government gets all oppressive and starts restricting my rights to the point where I need to take up arms against them, I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?


No but the us government has shown it doesnt care about collateral damage. Do your neighbors own firearms?

Besides aircraft carriers will have their own internal security issues if the government ever decides to proceed with the liberal fantasy of killing americans with a differing opinion.
 
2012-12-21 11:31:29 AM  

QueenMamaBee: tukatz: Exactly how long do we have to endure the "GUNZ R EVIL" crap before the media moves on to some other ridiculous topic?  Guns don't kill people.  Stupid people kill people.

I think most of us just want to make it harder for the stupid people to get the guns


And the correct answer is stupid/insane/negligent people with guns kill people. (not that people don't kill in other ways, but having a gun makes it a hell of a lot easier).
 
2012-12-21 11:32:11 AM  

manimal2878: WhippingBoy: Hey man, if the government gets all oppressive and starts restricting my rights to the point where I need to take up arms against them, I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?

No, but why would you try to?


It's my right.
 
2012-12-21 11:33:44 AM  

WhippingBoy: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: Hey man, if the government gets all oppressive and starts restricting my rights to the point where I need to take up arms against them, I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?

No, but why would you try to?

It's my right.



So you're saying that if the government passes a law you consider "oppressive" and tries to enforce it against you, then you have a right to murder the police officers who come to enforce that law? That's what the constitution says, in your mind?
 
2012-12-21 11:33:57 AM  

Chummer45: To you, any gun regulation that interferes with your "rights" is unacceptable.


I never said that, in fact I'm more than happy to comply with many regulations that "interfere" with my rights. I think waiting periods, background checks, being required to keep things locked up or perfectly acceptable regultations. I would even be fine with closing the "gunshow loophole" if anyone could do the required check online from anywhere.

Again you guys are argueing strawmen for the most part.
 
2012-12-21 11:34:09 AM  
I'm a huge gun nut. Buidling AR's is one of my favorite things to do.

I'm ok with waiting a handful of extra days for a Lower or Firearm.

I'm not ok with banning "military style" firearms that only look like their military counterparts. Unless we ban Jeeps, Suburbans, Hummers and whole fleets of commercial aircraft becuase they have military uses as well.
 
2012-12-21 11:34:17 AM  
people say guns have no use in society, yet, it has more uses than alcohol. alcohol has zero benefit to society, it doesnt help in anyway and banning it would stop 1,000's of needless alcohol related deaths, and make america healthier. Drinkers have just as much responsibility as gun owners,kill just as many innocent people and we allow them to drive to bars full well knowing they will be drinking something that will impair their ability to get home
 
2012-12-21 11:34:39 AM  
Thats No Moose:

The Logan County Sheriff's Office says this is clearly an accident and they aren't expecting criminal charges.

(emphasis mine)

If there is one thing I'd like to see, it is that criminal charges should be slapped against all gun owners whose guns are misused in such a manner. Safest way to cut down on accidental discharges and instil some responsibility in the owners.


I agree completely, you should be responsible for the firearms in your care. The guys should get criminal negligence at the least.
 
2012-12-21 11:34:53 AM  

WhippingBoy: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: Hey man, if the government gets all oppressive and starts restricting my rights to the point where I need to take up arms against them, I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?

No, but why would you try to?

It's my right.


hurr durr
 
2012-12-21 11:34:55 AM  
As a gun control advocate that has carried a weapon for work and pleasure let me point something out.

Bans and prohibition do not work. Never have. But controls do work. You have to give a path for people to follow if you want them to do something. You want people to stop making their own alcohol because it is killing them? Don't ban it, regulate it. Deaths drop. Drug violence? Don't ban drugs, give a legitimate path to sales. Deaths should drop. Gun violence? Don't ban them, just make the path more controlled. Automatic weapons are not banned in America, but they also don't account for large numbers of deaths. Why? Because they are controlled and their value is placed out of reach of those with less control.

Gun control works. The populations of New York and California equals the pop of all of the Southern States and yet the raw numbers let alone the adjusted numbers are staggering. These red states can't even figure out how to lower the rate of teen pregnancies and now we are going to trust them with firearm safety?
 
2012-12-21 11:35:11 AM  

Chummer45: WhippingBoy: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: Hey man, if the government gets all oppressive and starts restricting my rights to the point where I need to take up arms against them, I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?

No, but why would you try to?

It's my right.


So you're saying that if the government passes a law you consider "oppressive" and tries to enforce it against you, then you have a right to murder the police officers who come to enforce that law? That's what the constitution says, in your mind?



FWIW, my previous statement was directed at manimal. I'll await his trolling response
 
2012-12-21 11:35:16 AM  

VantheMan: Did anybody notice they wanted to include suicides in gun deaths. Yes this is truly a death by gun, but it's different than someone shooting somebody else, well it is in my book. To me a suicide by gun doesn't hurt anybody else, other than the guy that shot himself, but if he say threw himself in front of a bus, then other people are affected.


Guns make it easy to commit suicide. If you don't have a gun in the house, it takes time to kill yourself from the moment you start to take action (go to the top of a building, slash your wrist, overdose on medicines). Enough time to reconsider or be caught in the act and the rescue personnel be called. The Israeli army cut suicides amongst 18-21 yr old soldiers by 60% by simply not allowing them to take their weapons home on weekends.
 
2012-12-21 11:36:22 AM  

WhippingBoy: Serious question:

Who's the bigger pussy? The guy afraid of gun violence, or the guy afraid to face life without his gun?


daviddemar.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-21 11:36:38 AM  

Semi-Sane: The problem is all of the victims were unarmed. If more people carried guns these type of violent crimes would cease to exist. Children need to be given guns and trained how to properly use them.



Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but....

If kids were shown how to use guns in a safe, controlled environment, it would take away the mystery of the gun and teach them to be responsible with weapons.  It would also promote generations who understand that a gun is just a tool and can only cause chaos when used by a moron with bad intentions.
 
2012-12-21 11:36:47 AM  

Chummer45: WhippingBoy: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: Hey man, if the government gets all oppressive and starts restricting my rights to the point where I need to take up arms against them, I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?

No, but why would you try to?

It's my right.


So you're saying that if the government passes a law you consider "oppressive" and tries to enforce it against you, then you have a right to murder the police officers who come to enforce that law? That's what the constitution says, in your mind?


"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
 
2012-12-21 11:36:59 AM  
Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. was tragic.
But does Slate separate the deaths that saved other peoples lives? Or do they lump the guy killed while doing a home invasion in with everyone else?
 
2012-12-21 11:37:09 AM  

manimal2878: Chummer45: To you, any gun regulation that interferes with your "rights" is unacceptable.

I never said that, in fact I'm more than happy to comply with many regulations that "interfere" with my rights. I think waiting periods, background checks, being required to keep things locked up or perfectly acceptable regultations. I would even be fine with closing the "gunshow loophole" if anyone could do the required check online from anywhere.

Again you guys are argueing strawmen for the most part.



So you're saying we don't really disagree on that stuff? Then why are you getting so pissy and trying to convince everyone that you have a constitutional right that shouldn't be interfered with by the government?

here's a good question - are you a member of the NRA? Because if so, you support an organization that opposes everything you just listed.
 
2012-12-21 11:37:24 AM  

Chummer45: Chummer45: WhippingBoy: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: Hey man, if the government gets all oppressive and starts restricting my rights to the point where I need to take up arms against them, I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?

No, but why would you try to?

It's my right.


So you're saying that if the government passes a law you consider "oppressive" and tries to enforce it against you, then you have a right to murder the police officers who come to enforce that law? That's what the constitution says, in your mind?


FWIW, my previous statement was directed at manimal. I'll await his trolling response


I'm the troll? You were the one that just claimed you have a right to shoot the people on an aircraft cairrer.
 
2012-12-21 11:37:59 AM  

Chummer45: Then why are you getting so pissy and trying to convince everyone that you have a constitutional right that shouldn't be interfered with by the government?


WHere did i do that?
 
2012-12-21 11:38:40 AM  

WhippingBoy: Chummer45: WhippingBoy: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: Hey man, if the government gets all oppressive and starts restricting my rights to the point where I need to take up arms against them, I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?

No, but why would you try to?

It's my right.


So you're saying that if the government passes a law you consider "oppressive" and tries to enforce it against you, then you have a right to murder the police officers who come to enforce that law? That's what the constitution says, in your mind?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."



Well, that settles everything. Join me in trying to free the next felon who is unconstitutionally convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
 
2012-12-21 11:39:19 AM  

Carn: manimal2878: Carn: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I don't think he is. Answer one question: Does the amount of carnage one can inflict depend on the type of weapon one is using to commit said act of carnage?

Take all the time you need. There is only one correct answer. After you get it right we can have a meaningful conversation about gun control.

What does you question have to do with the anything? There is a difference between arms, small arms, ordinance, and destructive devices. After you understand that you can join the meaningful discussion.

It has everything to do with this particular issue. Answer the question and then I'll explain since you truly don't understand the connection or are just being obtuse.


Since manimal doesn't want to answer the question, I'll do so for him and complete the logic puzzle for those who have difficulty with that sort of thing. The correct answer is yes, the type of weapon used in an act of carnage matters, in some cases a great deal, in the amount of carnage they are able to inflict. If the correct answer is no, then that means all weapons should be legal to all people, but this is obviously false, as handing out nuclear weapons to all citizenry would most certainly have a very bad outcome. Thus, by logical deduction, again, the correct answer is yes. Therefore, the debate should be centered around where to draw the line, and which weapons should be considered over that line and therefore not allowed. High capacity magazines and guns that use them are on the chopping block in this debate. In addition, stiffer regulations and checks and balances on legally purchasing all weapons are in order and should be up for consideration.
 
2012-12-21 11:42:06 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys. I mean, it's not like any other rights come with limitations on their use based on the impact it can have on other people or anything.

The REAL tragedy here, after all, is that somebody might have to wait an extra day or two to get a gun or reload slightly more often at the local range. Truly a historical atrocity with no equal.


The real tragedy is that people are falling for emotional appeals. Great, restrictions on law-abiding citizens, that wouldn't have changed what happened at Newtown, and it won't change the majority of gun-related deaths stemming from criminal activities. The US has a high gun death rate due in part to our proximity to the epicenter of the drug trade, and the routes it takes from that location to its various destinations.

Adding a few days wait time won't change that, and in the end, it won't change much other than causing a few people to wait an extra few days.
 
Displayed 50 of 461 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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