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.

(WHAM Rochester) NewsFlash NRA yesterday: We should have armed guards at every school. NRA after this morning: We're gonna need armed guards at fires too   (13wham.com ) divider line 1070
    More: NewsFlash, Strong Memorial Hospital, fires, firefighters, morning  
•       •       •

19819 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Dec 2012 at 9:23 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

1070 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-24 03:15:53 PM  

BronyMedic: way south: The real argument for large magazines is the dirty secret the NRA doesn't like to talk about. Most guns sold are for self defense, and that job requires ammo.
Defense against a guy with a pistol means you want range, capacity, and accuracy.
These small caliber carbines are the perfect thing for keeping an armed crook at bay.

/that they look evil is good for intimidation.
/nothing says "get off my lawn" like a full sized bushmaster.

And a .223 round is a great way to go through your wall, and into your neighbors house when you do that.

If you want a gun for home defense, a Bushmaster is the last thing you want.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x290]

Load it with buckshot, or some rock salt rounds


50 grain .223 won't get very far after hitting something, but it is just enough to puncture a car door or other cover. It's about fifty yards from where I sit to the tree line, so I'm more worried about accuracy and smoking someone out the weeds.

I'd never count on a wall stopping a bullet as it is.
 
2012-12-24 03:15:55 PM  

Rockstone: Bontesla: I didn't realize you were talking about gun safety in a well-regulated militia? Technically, that's the only specifically-enumerated right you have. I'm talking about the use of guns in society at large (and not within a militia). My usage is accurate. Your hobby of gun collecting shouldn't usurp my right to life.


No it isn't. SCOTUS has interpreted the right to bear arms to mean the right to bear arms. The well regulated militia has no bearing on the fact you can own a firearm. Both are rights.

Your usage is wrong.

Anyway, no. Our right to own a firearm is more important than our right to be safe. Freedom is more important than Safety.

/ There are reasonable limitations to that


Ah. Yes. The old argument that SCOTUS is filled with demi-gods and all of their rulings will exist forever in the land of eternity.

Interpretation and meaning change as society evolves. Interpretation and meaning change as the justices are replaced. Further - just because SCOTUS has previously interpreted the Constitution to mean x doesn't necessarily mean the Constitution actually means x. It's a living document. Can you think of anything that used to be okay per SCOTUS but has since changed? Or vice versa? I'll give you a minute.

We're discussing whether or not we should regulate guns and how. To answer, "B-b-but SCOTUS" isn't a valid response. Congress has every right to enact laws they deem are constitutional and it's SCOTUS' job to evaluate those laws. We can submit challenges to current rulings - and we do every day. It's only a law until it ceases to be a law. You're going to need to root your response in actual logic.

And to address your comment, "There are reasonable limitations to that,": Yes. This is what we're talking about.
 
2012-12-24 03:16:47 PM  

Rockstone: Bontesla: Actually - the Constitution allows for the regulation of firearms. It actually uses the term "regulated".

This is news to me, and I took AP GOV and got a four on the exam in High School. Link? Source??


The second amendment states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To that end, the interpretation applied by most historical and current legal scholars is that this phrase, though awkward, is enforcing an individual right, and that's the same interpretation used by the Supreme Court.

However, even the Supreme Court had recognized that this right is subject to reasonable regulation. Even the first amendment applies within the framework of reasonable regulation (not yelling fire in a crowded theater, slander, etc.)

I think going forward most gun owners are willing to accept and work towards solving our problems without the need to ban, but I also think that an AWB of some sort will make it through.
 
2012-12-24 03:17:50 PM  

Bontesla: Ah. Yes. The old argument that SCOTUS is filled with demi-gods and all of their rulings will exist forever in the land of eternity.


Of course not, but that is their current ruling and their logic and legislative decisions make sense.They don't just randomly throw a ruling into a hat.
 
2012-12-24 03:17:56 PM  

chuckufarlie: Delecrious: I could care less about gun laws. Sure, I'd prefer keeping them legal so I can get them legitimately, but if they're banned... I'd still get one if I wanted one, fark the government.

nice to know that you are a law abiding citizen. Why is it that so many of you gun nuts are anti-government but you tell us that you are protecting the government and us?


I never said I'm protecting you from the government. I'm a libertarian with my own self values and morals. Which are close to none. Protect yourself and I'll protect myself. If you want the police to defend you, go for it. But I prefer to solve problems with my own solutions. I'm not a gun-nut. I just don't like having someone telling me what to do and not. If I /want/ to own a gun, I /will/.
 
2012-12-24 03:19:49 PM  

Catymogo1: Not sure what shooting the *firefighters* will accomplish, especially if you live in the neighborhood where they're trying to PUT OUT THE FIRE.



During the Rodney King Riots in LA, I remember firemen had to have a guy literally riding shotgun on board their trucks because they were driving into a virtual war zone to put out the fires started by the rioters. I don't really have a point to make, just a CSB.
 
2012-12-24 03:21:17 PM  

Bontesla: Rockstone: Bontesla: I didn't realize you were talking about gun safety in a well-regulated militia? Technically, that's the only specifically-enumerated right you have. I'm talking about the use of guns in society at large (and not within a militia). My usage is accurate. Your hobby of gun collecting shouldn't usurp my right to life.


No it isn't. SCOTUS has interpreted the right to bear arms to mean the right to bear arms. The well regulated militia has no bearing on the fact you can own a firearm. Both are rights.

Your usage is wrong.

Anyway, no. Our right to own a firearm is more important than our right to be safe. Freedom is more important than Safety.

/ There are reasonable limitations to that

Ah. Yes. The old argument that SCOTUS is filled with demi-gods and all of their rulings will exist forever in the land of eternity.

Interpretation and meaning change as society evolves. Interpretation and meaning change as the justices are replaced. Further - just because SCOTUS has previously interpreted the Constitution to mean x doesn't necessarily mean the Constitution actually means x. It's a living document. Can you think of anything that used to be okay per SCOTUS but has since changed? Or vice versa? I'll give you a minute.

We're discussing whether or not we should regulate guns and how. To answer, "B-b-but SCOTUS" isn't a valid response. Congress has every right to enact laws they deem are constitutional and it's SCOTUS' job to evaluate those laws. We can submit challenges to current rulings - and we do every day. It's only a law until it ceases to be a law. You're going to need to root your response in actual logic.

And to address your comment, "There are reasonable limitations to that,": Yes. This is what we're talking about.


And what is reasonable depends on which side you're in. To example I find very few of your proposals reasonable or logical.
 
2012-12-24 03:21:41 PM  

MisterTweak: I'd get a lot more benefit out of eating green vegetables one more time a day than I would from keeping my neighborhood dealer wealthy.


I once saw a guy get nearly beat to death over $10. They gave him brain damage because they ripped him off on a tiny amount of pot and he got mad about it. It was amazingly stupid and kinda sad.
 
2012-12-24 03:22:39 PM  

Delecrious: chuckufarlie: Delecrious: I could care less about gun laws. Sure, I'd prefer keeping them legal so I can get them legitimately, but if they're banned... I'd still get one if I wanted one, fark the government.

nice to know that you are a law abiding citizen. Why is it that so many of you gun nuts are anti-government but you tell us that you are protecting the government and us?

I never said I'm protecting you from the government. I'm a libertarian with my own self values and morals. Which are close to none. Protect yourself and I'll protect myself. If you want the police to defend you, go for it. But I prefer to solve problems with my own solutions. I'm not a gun-nut. I just don't like having someone telling me what to do and not. If I /want/ to own a gun, I /will/.


This
 
2012-12-24 03:22:47 PM  

KarmicDisaster: namatad:
How do you protect a society from a police state?
Chicago Police is a perfect example of an insipid police state. And little is being done to stop it.
My guess is that with the new guns laws in Chicago, the number of police shooting of citizens will skyrocket in the next 2 years.

incipid? Maybe you mean incipient?


WORSE, I probably committed a brain dead freudian slip which is even funnier.
as corrupt cops go, chicago cops are pretty insipid

/never fark while still asleep
/no wait, farking while sleeping is awesome
 
dh2
2012-12-24 03:23:05 PM  

BattleFrenchie28: /Scirocco took my soul with him


www.doc.govt.nz
Huh?
 
2012-12-24 03:23:09 PM  

Kit Fister: BronyMedic: way south: The real argument for large magazines is the dirty secret the NRA doesn't like to talk about. Most guns sold are for self defense, and that job requires ammo.
Defense against a guy with a pistol means you want range, capacity, and accuracy.
These small caliber carbines are the perfect thing for keeping an armed crook at bay.

/that they look evil is good for intimidation.
/nothing says "get off my lawn" like a full sized bushmaster.

And a .223 round is a great way to go through your wall, and into your neighbors house when you do that.

If you want a gun for home defense, a Bushmaster is the last thing you want.

Load it with buckshot, or some rock salt rounds

Actually, lighter varmint bullets for the .223 will fragment and fail to penetrate a wall in most cases, but are useful in self defense. Anything over 000 buck in a shotgun will punch through a wall. The balancing act with a shotgun, too, is that too large and it'll go through the wall, but be more effective, however smaller will be "safer" but less effective.

A load of birdshot to the chest will make a nasty flesh wound but won't make it into the chest cavity and disrupt vital organs. You'd hurt and bleed like hell, but you'd be moving and still capable of fighting.


Look up "Box o Truth".

Anything that is lethal (reliably so, anyway) will go through several walls, including external ones. Even a .22lr will, likewise, birdshot.

.223 and other similar sized high velocity rifle bullets will go through walls too, but have a better chance of breaking up if they hit a BODY than a shotgun slug or .357 or something like that.
 
2012-12-24 03:24:22 PM  

chuckufarlie: What you are saying is nothing more than your interpretation of what the 2nd Amendment means. And obviously your interpretation is wrong. There are lots of weapons in the hands of the military that you are not allowed to legally own,


That's where tempering the interpretation comes into play and should. But the reason the amendment is there has nothing to do with hunting.


No, the Constitution said nothing about hunting. But the only viable reason to own a rifle is for hunting. You can hunt four legged animals or you can hunt two legged animals. I am perfectly okay with people have the appropriate gun for hunting the four legged animals or the two legged animals that have wings. Those guns that only serve the purpose of killing people have no place in the homes of the people.


When the Constitution mentions "...security of a free State..." it's talking about just that. Another viable reason to own a rifle. And obviously your interpretation is wrong.
 
2012-12-24 03:24:26 PM  
We cannot control the bad guys, ever. We can control their tools. Starting with a complete ban on assault rifles (which were illegal until Bush came along). Those hostile deers wouldn't have an ounce of venison left after some bungalow Bill uses one on it.
 
2012-12-24 03:25:47 PM  

Delecrious: I never said I'm protecting you from the government. I'm a libertarian with my own self values and morals. Which are close to none. Protect yourself and I'll protect myself. If you want the police to defend you, go for it. But I prefer to solve problems with my own solutions. I'm not a gun-nut. I just don't like having someone telling me what to do and not. If I /want/ to own a gun, I /will/.



You prefer not to call the police or need other people... until you actually need them. But don't worry, we'll still be here when you're ready for help, with our tax dollars dutifully paying for it. Unless you drop dead right now, it is inevitable that you will eventually need assistance from the rest of us. You will get a disease that you can't pay for. You will have a police matter that actually does need police assistance. Your house will catch fire and you will need the fire department, or a friend/relative will have an emergency and need an ambulance and a hospital. And on and on and on. Unless you're in a shack in the mountains, you are in a civilized community of people, and we have laws to help us all get along together. Your line of thinking lost the argument 10,000 years ago when we left the caves and realized mankind could do better together.
 
2012-12-24 03:26:39 PM  

chuckufarlie: Kit Fister: jafiwam: ZeroPly: chuckufarlie: Rifles that use magazines serve one purpose - killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. You would still be able to go hunting or plink cans, you would just be limited in how many people you could kill in a short period of time. Is that so much to give up?

You've never been hunting, so you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. With a bigger animal like an elk, it can take 10-12 shots from an AR15 to drop it. A lot of times if it takes off after the first few rounds, you need to pursue it while firing. Try to run and fire from the hip without a magazine and then come talk to me. You're like someone who's never owned a computer saying it's stupid to buy a $500 graphics card.

.223 / 5.56 is not an ethical round to use against Elk. You need a .303, .308, 30.06 or something like that.

So, use an AR-10 if you want to use that platform, or one of the .308 ARs.

The ar10 is .308, 243, and other common short action calibers, including 300wsm and such, as well as some custom calibers.

Ar15, on the other hand, takes .223, .300 WSSM, and other shorter cartridges.

Here in MI, I suspect you could get away with 6.5mm Grendel or 6.8mm SPC on deer, and .223 is great for feral hogs and coyote. Plus pack varmints like that, having a larger mag and semi auto action is advantageous to get more of them before they can go to ground.

I have a feeling that he is more interested in killing than in hunting. I cannot imagine chasing after an animal and firing from the hip. That is just stupid.

I did not know that there are feral hogs in Michigan. What part of the state do you find them?


Mid to northern half of the lower peninsula has a massive hog problem. Not great to eat, but like the coyotes, they're causing a huge problem for farmers and such, so it's open season on them.
 
2012-12-24 03:28:34 PM  
Benjamin Orr

Meth lab?

Are you from Oklahoma, Ben? Meth is our #1 export.
 
2012-12-24 03:28:55 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Catymogo1: Not sure what shooting the *firefighters* will accomplish, especially if you live in the neighborhood where they're trying to PUT OUT THE FIRE.


During the Rodney King Riots in LA, I remember firemen had to have a guy literally riding shotgun on board their trucks because they were driving into a virtual war zone to put out the fires started by the rioters. I don't really have a point to make, just a CSB.


Shoulda got themselves some Koreans.

imageshack.us
/Don't see no police protecting them.
//That one on the right, that's a Mini-14, one the gun grabbers and Fudds here would have banned.
///Looks pretty useful to have at that moment to me.... for self defense.
 
2012-12-24 03:30:54 PM  
I know very few gun owners who feel the constitution does -- or even should -- protect an individuals "right" to own a grenade launcher or bazooka. These are "arms" in the same general terms as an assault rifle is, yet a clear "logical" distinction is made against general ownership of them. So it seems to me the root of this argument is NOT that there is no gray area or boundary allowed within the context of the 2nd Amendment, but rather its where exactly the line should be drawn. At what point is a given "arm" deemed too dangerous to be allowed by the genre populous to own and/or carry in public? At what point is a given armorment deemed acceptable to restrict and/or regulate?

As it pertains to another standard arguing point, it's similar to what constitutes a "safe" automobile and an "unsafe" one. Few people agree with the notion that automobiles should be banned because they cause a tremendous amount of death relative to their usage. But virtually everyone agrees that "unsafe" vehicles should not be allowed on the roads. So again, clearly there is a logical line being drawn in such a regard. The question is merely what does and does not constitute "safe"? It is never reduced to the same kind of black-and-white rhetoric typically at the forefront of 2nd Amendment debates.
 
2012-12-24 03:31:37 PM  

Delecrious: chuckufarlie: Delecrious: I could care less about gun laws. Sure, I'd prefer keeping them legal so I can get them legitimately, but if they're banned... I'd still get one if I wanted one, fark the government.

nice to know that you are a law abiding citizen. Why is it that so many of you gun nuts are anti-government but you tell us that you are protecting the government and us?

I never said I'm protecting you from the government. I'm a libertarian with my own self values and morals. Which are close to none. Protect yourself and I'll protect myself. If you want the police to defend you, go for it. But I prefer to solve problems with my own solutions. I'm not a gun-nut. I just don't like having someone telling me what to do and not. If I /want/ to own a gun, I /will/.


Libertarian might be one description, but there are others which might fit.
 
2012-12-24 03:32:57 PM  

BronyMedic: spelletrader: EMTs and firefighters won't be combing anything - "safing the scene" is going to become "wait for the cops to show up and establish a perimeter" - and that's going to cost lives.

Do you know how I know you have no clue what you're talking about?

The cops don't do that anymore. They move to directly engage the shooter, and have been doing it for about 10 years. They ignore EVERYTHING else, including the dead and wounded, to confront the person doing the killing.

They learned from the military - the best battlefield medicine is a magazine emptied into the asshole shooting your buddies.


I have over 15 years of front line Weeners training, from the military, counter-terror and IED among other training.

I'm not talking about when they know there is a shooter. If people are setting ambushes for emergency responders this will have to happen on every response to ensure that there isn't a secondary danger. This delays response and endangers additional lives, but if responders are being targeted this is what has to happen to ensure their safety.
 
2012-12-24 03:33:15 PM  

OKObserver: We cannot control the bad guys, ever. We can control their tools. Starting with a complete ban on assault rifles (which were illegal until Bush came along). Those hostile deers wouldn't have an ounce of venison left after some bungalow Bill uses one on it.


wow.... so very very wrong on that. Certain features on certain rifles were illegal going forward. Many so called "assault" rifles existed before, during and after the AWB.

but do carry on
 
2012-12-24 03:33:21 PM  

jafiwam: Kit Fister: BronyMedic: way south: The real argument for large magazines is the dirty secret the NRA doesn't like to talk about. Most guns sold are for self defense, and that job requires ammo.
Defense against a guy with a pistol means you want range, capacity, and accuracy.
These small caliber carbines are the perfect thing for keeping an armed crook at bay.

/that they look evil is good for intimidation.
/nothing says "get off my lawn" like a full sized bushmaster.

And a .223 round is a great way to go through your wall, and into your neighbors house when you do that.

If you want a gun for home defense, a Bushmaster is the last thing you want.

Load it with buckshot, or some rock salt rounds

Actually, lighter varmint bullets for the .223 will fragment and fail to penetrate a wall in most cases, but are useful in self defense. Anything over 000 buck in a shotgun will punch through a wall. The balancing act with a shotgun, too, is that too large and it'll go through the wall, but be more effective, however smaller will be "safer" but less effective.

A load of birdshot to the chest will make a nasty flesh wound but won't make it into the chest cavity and disrupt vital organs. You'd hurt and bleed like hell, but you'd be moving and still capable of fighting.

Look up "Box o Truth".

Anything that is lethal (reliably so, anyway) will go through several walls, including external ones. Even a .22lr will, likewise, birdshot.

.223 and other similar sized high velocity rifle bullets will go through walls too, but have a better chance of breaking up if they hit a BODY than a shotgun slug or .357 or something like that.


I'm well aware of what the box'o'poorly conducted tests says. I am also aware of what actual testing data by folks that do research on it says. Most agree that slugs and larger, heavier shot will punch throug more than one wall. Slugs like varmint rounds designed to expand and fragment tend to fail after wall board.
 
2012-12-24 03:35:49 PM  

Coastalgrl: Holy crap. I grew up a few miles from there on the same street. Street is filled with retirees and recluses. I guess a lot has changed in 12 years with the McMansions going up on that road for the lake view.

Violence of this nature in this town is unheard of.


Except that you are completely wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/firefighter-shot-at-scene-of- bl aze-in-western-ny-2-homes-burning-as-police-search-for-shooter/2012/12 /24/a73d0b34-4dd2-11e2-835b-02f92c0daa43_story.html

The gunman, William Spengler, had served more than 17 years in prison for beating his 92-year-old grandmother to death in 1980 at the house next to where Monday's attack happened,

This is completely normal behavior for this neighborhood/area. This is also completely normal and to be expected with our current society and views on mental health. The man beat his grandmother to death, why was he ever allowed out on the streets again? EVER?
Sorry, but if you are crazy enough to beat someone to death, you are too crazy to ever be allowed out on the streets again. EVER.

Guns dont kill people, crazy farks dont need guns to beat their grandmother to death ...
 
2012-12-24 03:38:23 PM  

chuckufarlie: Delecrious: I could care less about gun laws. Sure, I'd prefer keeping them legal so I can get them legitimately, but if they're banned... I'd still get one if I wanted one, fark the government.

nice to know that you are a law abiding citizen. Why is it that so many of you gun nuts are anti-government but you tell us that you are protecting the government and us?


LOL. Goddamn you're an idiot, chuck. Luckily, you're not alone in this thread.
 
2012-12-24 03:39:03 PM  

Singleballtheory: I know very few gun owners who feel the constitution does -- or even should -- protect an individuals "right" to own a grenade launcher or bazooka. These are "arms" in the same general terms as an assault rifle is, yet a clear "logical" distinction is made against general ownership of them. So it seems to me the root of this argument is NOT that there is no gray area or boundary allowed within the context of the 2nd Amendment, but rather its where exactly the line should be drawn. At what point is a given "arm" deemed too dangerous to be allowed by the genre populous to own and/or carry in public? At what point is a given armorment deemed acceptable to restrict and/or regulate?

As it pertains to another standard arguing point, it's similar to what constitutes a "safe" automobile and an "unsafe" one. Few people agree with the notion that automobiles should be banned because they cause a tremendous amount of death relative to their usage. But virtually everyone agrees that "unsafe" vehicles should not be allowed on the roads. So again, clearly there is a logical line being drawn in such a regard. The question is merely what does and does not constitute "safe"? It is never reduced to the same kind of black-and-white rhetoric typically at the forefront of 2nd Amendment debates.


Erm, you do know that things like active bazookas, 40mm grenade launchers and the rounds for them, etc are legal, provided you fill out the NFA paperwork and get your class three stamp for the gun and a stamp for each round of ammo...
 
2012-12-24 03:40:41 PM  
My brother, who takes pictures for firefighters, was actually shot in this exact same way.

A guy started a fire, then sat in wait across the street with a rifle. Hit my brother in his bicep, and another firefighter was saved by his oxygen tank (just dented it). At the time, my brother just felt a sudden sting in his arm, it wasn't until he was in the hospital that he realized there was a bullet lodged in his arm. He's fine now.
 
2012-12-24 03:44:27 PM  

trappedspirit: chuckufarlie: What you are saying is nothing more than your interpretation of what the 2nd Amendment means. And obviously your interpretation is wrong. There are lots of weapons in the hands of the military that you are not allowed to legally own,


That's where tempering the interpretation comes into play and should. But the reason the amendment is there has nothing to do with hunting.


No, the Constitution said nothing about hunting. But the only viable reason to own a rifle is for hunting. You can hunt four legged animals or you can hunt two legged animals. I am perfectly okay with people have the appropriate gun for hunting the four legged animals or the two legged animals that have wings. Those guns that only serve the purpose of killing people have no place in the homes of the people.

When the Constitution mentions "...security of a free State..." it's talking about just that. Another viable reason to own a rifle. And obviously your interpretation is wrong.


King George III is never coming back. No one is capable of invading America right now. The Reptilians and Illuminati don't exist. The government is not going to install a New World Order. The United Nations is not Satan.

We don't need everyone having a gun, armed guards around every building, and children packing heat. More grease on a grease fire won't put out the fire, more guns for everyone won't solve this problem.
 
2012-12-24 03:45:34 PM  

Blink: My brother, who takes pictures for firefighters, was actually shot in this exact same way.

A guy started a fire, then sat in wait across the street with a rifle. Hit my brother in his bicep, and another firefighter was saved by his oxygen tank (just dented it). At the time, my brother just felt a sudden sting in his arm, it wasn't until he was in the hospital that he realized there was a bullet lodged in his arm. He's fine now.


What happened to the shooter? Did they discover his motive?
 
2012-12-24 03:45:37 PM  

Blink: My brother, who takes pictures for firefighters, was actually shot in this exact same way.

A guy started a fire, then sat in wait across the street with a rifle. Hit my brother in his bicep, and another firefighter was saved by his oxygen tank (just dented it). At the time, my brother just felt a sudden sting in his arm, it wasn't until he was in the hospital that he realized there was a bullet lodged in his arm. He's fine now.


Glad to here he's fine. Did the shooter have a motive? Just crazy?
 
2012-12-24 03:46:13 PM  

computerguyUT: Natsumi: I don't know if this has been asked before and please be nice... I don't live in America...
What is it with people and guns in America? Really?
I mean we (in Namibia) are avid hunters and such but we don't really take it to this level.

It's being overblown by the media.
Yesterday somehow 319,999,999 people managed to not shoot anybody.


About 100 gun-related fatalities per day, so 319,999,899 or thereabouts didn't shoot anybody. Of course, about 60,000,000 of them are too young to handle a gun (except accidentally, on themselves), another 100,000,000 or so don't have guns, and another 70,000,000 are too old to have the arm strength to hold a gun.
 
2012-12-24 03:46:45 PM  

spelletrader: I have over 15 years of front line Weeners training, from the military, counter-terror and IED among other training.


catmacros.files.wordpress.com

:)
 
2012-12-24 03:47:31 PM  

ronaprhys: That is incorrect. There are many reasons we regulate them, danger is one of many.


I say that danger is a primary reason we regulate driving/cars and you say, "No, it's one of many." We're arguing the same thing - you're just stating it differently. Moving on....

The question then becomes will more regulations be more effective or not. That's the key question. However, which regulations have been effective?

Well, how many people purchase black market nuclear weapons? That seems to be a pretty good regulation. Seat belt laws have reduced the number of injuries resulting from a person being ejected from vehicles. The number of garment shops igniting has decreased since we've regulated the industry. The number of exploding vehicles has decreased since we've introduced minimum safety standards. Oh - so has overall survivability of a vehicular accident. How many unlicensed surgeons operate at hospitals? Do you know that stricter standards for anesthesiologists have reduced the number of fatalities and complications post-surgery? By now - I hope you get my point.

Okay, so if we're going to arbitrarily limit it to one thing, that's fine.

That word - "arbitrarily" - it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Show me which regulations have been useful here in the States.

Lemon Laws have been useful in protecting consumers. Educational standards have been useful in protecting students. Professional standards have been useful in protecting consumers. Industrial standards have been useful in protecting local residents, employees, and the environment. I can go on. Would you like me to continue?

That's not a slippery slope fallacy - it's a comparison. Nor have I argued that we shouldn't have reasonable regulation - I'm just waiting to hear your suggestions. So far all you've done is argue that there should be regulation and I've pointed out that regulation exists.

You've only actually asked me what my suggestions were once. I answered them when you asked. If this was your entire goal all along - you should have asked earlier. I'm happy to help. However, for that being your goal, you certainly spent a lot of time restating my arguments and inserting some of your own. That's neither here nor there. Moving on...

Do you have any stats to prove what? I made several claims - all verifiable. All basically illustrate that an armed society does not prevent crimes. Yes, I have stats. Between 2005-2010 - the FBI counted an avg. of 213 justified firearm homicides a year. Further - we tend to see homicides go down with greater gun control. Citations here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts - about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/  (the points are also cited)

However, wouldn't the argument that any level of violent crime against a person is unacceptable also apply here? If we enable more of these crimes by removing the tools from law-abiding citizens just wishing to protect themselves, aren't we doing a greater disservice by removing their ability to do so in the most effective manner possible?

No. My argument was that any level of unnecessary gun violence is an acceptable level.

Again, arms vs armaments. Realize that these terms have meanings. One is a right that you're born with and is protected by the Constitution. The other is an interesting argument. And no, nuclear weaponry isn't even comparable to firearms.

You're willfully ignoring my point. Again.
 
2012-12-24 03:48:48 PM  

namatad: Coastalgrl: Holy crap. I grew up a few miles from there on the same street. Street is filled with retirees and recluses. I guess a lot has changed in 12 years with the McMansions going up on that road for the lake view.

Violence of this nature in this town is unheard of.

Except that you are completely wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/firefighter-shot-at-scene-of- bl aze-in-western-ny-2-homes-burning-as-police-search-for-shooter/2012/12 /24/a73d0b34-4dd2-11e2-835b-02f92c0daa43_story.html

The gunman, William Spengler, had served more than 17 years in prison for beating his 92-year-old grandmother to death in 1980 at the house next to where Monday's attack happened,

This is completely normal behavior for this neighborhood/area. This is also completely normal and to be expected with our current society and views on mental health. The man beat his grandmother to death, why was he ever allowed out on the streets again? EVER?
Sorry, but if you are crazy enough to beat someone to death, you are too crazy to ever be allowed out on the streets again. EVER.

Guns dont kill people, crazy farks dont need guns to beat their grandmother to death ...


Crazy farks who beat their grandmother to death could be allowed to be out on the streets. They should not be allowed to have a gun, though. I think it's easier to restrict guns than to pay to keep this person locked up.
 
2012-12-24 03:48:55 PM  

Rockstone: Bontesla: Actually - the Constitution allows for the regulation of firearms. It actually uses the term "regulated".

This is news to me, and I took AP GOV and got a four on the exam in High School. Link? Source??


http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
 
2012-12-24 03:50:17 PM  

Skyd1v: ZeroPly: chuckufarlie: Rifles that use magazines serve one purpose - killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. You would still be able to go hunting or plink cans, you would just be limited in how many people you could kill in a short period of time. Is that so much to give up?

You've never been hunting, so you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. With a bigger animal like an elk, it can take 10-12 shots from an AR15 to drop it. A lot of times if it takes off after the first few rounds, you need to pursue it while firing. Try to run and fire from the hip without a magazine and then come talk to me. You're like someone who's never owned a computer saying it's stupid to buy a $500 graphics card.

Apparent ZeroPly is the FlyNavy of hunting.

ZeroPly, do you hunt mice with lawn darts? Do you slap mosquitoes by gently blowing at them?
 
2012-12-24 03:50:38 PM  

Kit Fister: Bontesla: Rockstone: Bontesla: I didn't realize you were talking about gun safety in a well-regulated militia? Technically, that's the only specifically-enumerated right you have. I'm talking about the use of guns in society at large (and not within a militia). My usage is accurate. Your hobby of gun collecting shouldn't usurp my right to life.


No it isn't. SCOTUS has interpreted the right to bear arms to mean the right to bear arms. The well regulated militia has no bearing on the fact you can own a firearm. Both are rights.

Your usage is wrong.

Anyway, no. Our right to own a firearm is more important than our right to be safe. Freedom is more important than Safety.

/ There are reasonable limitations to that

Ah. Yes. The old argument that SCOTUS is filled with demi-gods and all of their rulings will exist forever in the land of eternity.

Interpretation and meaning change as society evolves. Interpretation and meaning change as the justices are replaced. Further - just because SCOTUS has previously interpreted the Constitution to mean x doesn't necessarily mean the Constitution actually means x. It's a living document. Can you think of anything that used to be okay per SCOTUS but has since changed? Or vice versa? I'll give you a minute.

We're discussing whether or not we should regulate guns and how. To answer, "B-b-but SCOTUS" isn't a valid response. Congress has every right to enact laws they deem are constitutional and it's SCOTUS' job to evaluate those laws. We can submit challenges to current rulings - and we do every day. It's only a law until it ceases to be a law. You're going to need to root your response in actual logic.

And to address your comment, "There are reasonable limitations to that,": Yes. This is what we're talking about.

And what is reasonable depends on which side you're in. To example I find very few of your proposals reasonable or logical.


Such is life :)
 
2012-12-24 03:50:43 PM  

Bontesla: Rockstone: Bontesla: Actually - the Constitution allows for the regulation of firearms. It actually uses the term "regulated".

This is news to me, and I took AP GOV and got a four on the exam in High School. Link? Source??

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html


Nice
 
2012-12-24 03:51:38 PM  

BronyMedic: spelletrader: I have over 15 years of front line Weeners training, from the military, counter-terror and IED among other training.

[catmacros.files.wordpress.com image 500x385]

:)


Weeners training is the bestest training!
 
2012-12-24 03:53:00 PM  

Waxing_Chewbacca: Bontesla: Rockstone: Bontesla: Actually - the Constitution allows for the regulation of firearms. It actually uses the term "regulated".

This is news to me, and I took AP GOV and got a four on the exam in High School. Link? Source??

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Nice


Regulation refers to militia not guns.
 
2012-12-24 03:53:01 PM  

dericwater: namatad: Coastalgrl: Holy crap. I grew up a few miles from there on the same street. Street is filled with retirees and recluses. I guess a lot has changed in 12 years with the McMansions going up on that road for the lake view.

Violence of this nature in this town is unheard of.

Except that you are completely wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/firefighter-shot-at-scene-of- bl aze-in-western-ny-2-homes-burning-as-police-search-for-shooter/2012/12 /24/a73d0b34-4dd2-11e2-835b-02f92c0daa43_story.html

The gunman, William Spengler, had served more than 17 years in prison for beating his 92-year-old grandmother to death in 1980 at the house next to where Monday's attack happened,

This is completely normal behavior for this neighborhood/area. This is also completely normal and to be expected with our current society and views on mental health. The man beat his grandmother to death, why was he ever allowed out on the streets again? EVER?
Sorry, but if you are crazy enough to beat someone to death, you are too crazy to ever be allowed out on the streets again. EVER.

Guns dont kill people, crazy farks dont need guns to beat their grandmother to death ...

Crazy farks who beat their grandmother to death could be allowed to be out on the streets. They should not be allowed to have a gun, though. I think it's easier to restrict guns than to pay to keep this person locked up.


Except it was illegal for him to have a gun as a convicted felon. Are you going to argue that a crazy person who beat his own grandmother to death and apparently killed his own sister on top of that is going to obey laws?

Or do you think we can magically remove guns from the US somehow?
 
2012-12-24 03:53:37 PM  

dericwater: namatad: Coastalgrl: Holy crap. I grew up a few miles from there on the same street. Street is filled with retirees and recluses. I guess a lot has changed in 12 years with the McMansions going up on that road for the lake view.

Violence of this nature in this town is unheard of.

Except that you are completely wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/firefighter-shot-at-scene-of- bl aze-in-western-ny-2-homes-burning-as-police-search-for-shooter/2012/12 /24/a73d0b34-4dd2-11e2-835b-02f92c0daa43_story.html

The gunman, William Spengler, had served more than 17 years in prison for beating his 92-year-old grandmother to death in 1980 at the house next to where Monday's attack happened,

This is completely normal behavior for this neighborhood/area. This is also completely normal and to be expected with our current society and views on mental health. The man beat his grandmother to death, why was he ever allowed out on the streets again? EVER?
Sorry, but if you are crazy enough to beat someone to death, you are too crazy to ever be allowed out on the streets again. EVER.

Guns dont kill people, crazy farks dont need guns to beat their grandmother to death ...

Crazy farks who beat their grandmother to death could be allowed to be out on the streets. They should not be allowed to have a gun, though. I think it's easier to restrict guns than to pay to keep this person locked up.


But it's already illegal for him to own a gun, to vote, and other restrictions of rights based in his conviction. So, it's already restricted, which is nice.
 
2012-12-24 03:53:37 PM  

Rockstone: Bontesla: Ah. Yes. The old argument that SCOTUS is filled with demi-gods and all of their rulings will exist forever in the land of eternity.

Of course not, but that is their current ruling and their logic and legislative decisions make sense.They don't just randomly throw a ruling into a hat.


I think we'd all be surprised how many rulings are settled over a glass of brandy or a poker game.

My point was - we should talk about common sense gun regulation. Yes, SCOTUS previously said x and I think that we can create regulations that both help solve our issue while not overstepping the current understanding of the 2nd Amendment. Any new gun regulation is likely to be challenged and we'll see how SCOTUS feels once we arrive at that intersection.
 
2012-12-24 03:54:33 PM  

Waxing_Chewbacca: Bontesla


Thank you. I occasionally have a moment ;)
 
2012-12-24 03:56:02 PM  

Bontesla: The problem is - you're relying on people to be better than they are. Perhaps you give them much more credit than I do. Sure, we can say that the solution to all stupidity and violence is just asking people to be more responsible but what's your backup plan? How do you force the trait of responsibility - especially in situations where the assailant is acting out of character?


Actually, the vast majority of people are pretty good. The fact that the homicide rate hovers around 4/100,000, in spite of a 47% firearm ownership rate, backs me up on that one pretty well, no?

There must be another solution. I'm all for teaching responsibilities in schools but we need additional mechanisms that mitigate the potential for a single act of irresponsibility to become a tragedy that takes 27 lives.

There may be and there may not be.

Actually - the Constitution allows for the regulation of firearms. It actually uses the term "regulated". Further - our interpretation of what's constitutional evolves. It's not static nor permanent.

While I agree that it is a living document, the work regulated doesn't mean what you seem to think it does, with regards to your solutions. They're talking about the militia, not those owning the firearms. Two different things, that.

The biggest trap we could fall into is allowing non-experts to regulate guns. I'd much more prefer those who have extensively studied this - with complete forecasting models - propose common sense regulation. I don't want to over-regulate, under-regulate, or ineffectively regulate. I wouldn't mind discussing the following:

Yet, we're stuck with the Senate anyway.

1). Taxes on gun sales are used to pay for free gun training mandatory for all purchasing parties. How would you enforce this for private parties? How much would it cost? What would prevent it from being arbitrarily raised such that it becomes a defacto poll tax that prevents someone from exercising their rights?

2). A tiered licensing structure that require a certain level of training hours and testing for guns that carry greater risks to society.

Again, what's to stop someone from raising the bar on these levels of training? We already have a tiered licensing structure for anything that's an assault weapon or automatic weapon. How do you define "a greater risk to society"?

3). Certain types of weaponry only available to well-trained and regulated militias only permitted on bases for the militia so that, in the case of governments gone bad, the people have an army.

If you read US Code, all males over 18 and under 45 (or something like that) are in the militia. The concept of having such arms only on bases goes against the philosophy behind the amendment itself, so I disagree with this one entirely.

4). Better mental health funding to equip trained professionals in the school system, better support systems for adults, and resources for people who do have mental illness to receive cost-effective treatment. One of the things we've seen is a number of shooters that are excluded from society - not outcasts - but those literally living on the fringe of society. We could consider creating an outreach campaign for those members of society.

I definitely agree with better funding for the mental health issues. That's critical.

I'm open to a variety of suggestions - and again - there are professionals that study this. I don't. I'd rather they be the orators of debate and not necessarily me.

Well, as soon as you started posting in this thread (or anywhere else), you became part of the discussion. As for the professionals part, I don't agree. As a citizen, it's one of my civic duties to voice my opinion on matters such as this.
 
2012-12-24 03:56:28 PM  

ZeroPly: chuckufarlie: Rifles that use magazines serve one purpose - killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. You would still be able to go hunting or plink cans, you would just be limited in how many people you could kill in a short period of time. Is that so much to give up?

You've never been hunting, so you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. With a bigger animal like an elk, it can take 10-12 shots from an AR15 to drop it. A lot of times if it takes off after the first few rounds, you need to pursue it while firing. Try to run and fire from the hip without a magazine and then come talk to me. You're like someone who's never owned a computer saying it's stupid to buy a $500 graphics card.


www.tpwd.state.tx.us
Bro, did you take your hunters' ed?
 
2012-12-24 03:56:48 PM  

chuckufarlie: Angry Monkey


Revoking the 2nd amendment would be the least likely option to succeed.
The compulsion to secure your arms would lie in the threat of being liable for what happens if the guns are used without your supervision.
Don't feel comfortable with what your neighbor might do if he borrowed your gun? Don't loan them. Don't feel comfortable that someone in your house might flip out? Keep the guns secured like they should be.
 
2012-12-24 03:59:50 PM  

Rockstone: Waxing_Chewbacca: Bontesla: Rockstone: Bontesla: Actually - the Constitution allows for the regulation of firearms. It actually uses the term "regulated".

This is news to me, and I took AP GOV and got a four on the exam in High School. Link? Source??

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Nice

Regulation refers to militia not guns.


Yes. So... What about the militia where they talking about regulating? Uniforms? Secret handshake? Oh wait! Right after they talk about regulated militia they talk about firearms!!! Likely unrelated though... Had to be the handshake.
 
2012-12-24 04:00:23 PM  

ronaprhys: Bontesla: The problem is - you're relying on people to be better than they are. Perhaps you give them much more credit than I do. Sure, we can say that the solution to all stupidity and violence is just asking people to be more responsible but what's your backup plan? How do you force the trait of responsibility - especially in situations where the assailant is acting out of character?

Actually, the vast majority of people are pretty good. The fact that the homicide rate hovers around 4/100,000, in spite of a 47% firearm ownership rate, backs me up on that one pretty well, no?

There must be another solution. I'm all for teaching responsibilities in schools but we need additional mechanisms that mitigate the potential for a single act of irresponsibility to become a tragedy that takes 27 lives.

There may be and there may not be.

Actually - the Constitution allows for the regulation of firearms. It actually uses the term "regulated". Further - our interpretation of what's constitutional evolves. It's not static nor permanent.

While I agree that it is a living document, the work regulated doesn't mean what you seem to think it does, with regards to your solutions. They're talking about the militia, not those owning the firearms. Two different things, that.

The biggest trap we could fall into is allowing non-experts to regulate guns. I'd much more prefer those who have extensively studied this - with complete forecasting models - propose common sense regulation. I don't want to over-regulate, under-regulate, or ineffectively regulate. I wouldn't mind discussing the following:

Yet, we're stuck with the Senate anyway.

1). Taxes on gun sales are used to pay for free gun training mandatory for all purchasing parties. How would you enforce this for private parties? How much would it cost? What would prevent it from being arbitrarily raised such that it becomes a defacto poll tax that prevents someone from exercising their rights?

2). A tiered licensing structure that require a certain level of training hours and testing for guns that carry greater risks to society.

Again, what's to stop someone from raising the bar on these levels of training? We already have a tiered licensing structure for anything that's an assault weapon or automatic weapon. How do you define "a greater risk to society"?

3). Certain types of weaponry only available to well-trained and regulated militias only permitted on bases for the militia so that, in the case of governments gone bad, the people have an army.

If you read US Code, all males over 18 and under 45 (or something like that) are in the militia. The concept of having such arms only on bases goes against the philosophy behind the amendment itself, so I disagree with this one entirely.

4). Better mental health funding to equip trained professionals in the school system, better support systems for adults, and resources for people who do have mental illness to receive cost-effective treatment. One of the things we've seen is a number of shooters that are excluded from society - not outcasts - but those literally living on the fringe of society. We could consider creating an outreach campaign for those members of society.

I definitely agree with better funding for the mental health issues. That's critical.

I'm open to a variety of suggestions - and again - there are professionals that study this. I don't. I'd rather they be the orators of debate and not necessarily me.

Well, as soon as you started posting in this thread (or anywhere else), you became part of the discussion. As for the professionals part, I don't agree. As a citizen, it's one of my civic duties to voice my opinion on matters such as this.


Amen
 
2012-12-24 04:01:28 PM  

ZeroPly: chuckufarlie: Rifles that use magazines serve one purpose - killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. You would still be able to go hunting or plink cans, you would just be limited in how many people you could kill in a short period of time. Is that so much to give up?

You've never been hunting, so you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. With a bigger animal like an elk, it can take 10-12 shots from an AR15 to drop it. A lot of times if it takes off after the first few rounds, you need to pursue it while firing. Try to run and fire from the hip without a magazine and then come talk to me. You're like someone who's never owned a computer saying it's stupid to buy a $500 graphics card.


8/10. That got a lot more action than I would have guessed. I get the feeling that it wasn't even a troll as it was just being facetious, and all the idiots just ate it up.
 
Displayed 50 of 1070 comments

First | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | 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