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.

(Daily Mail)   Meanwhile, in the gunless utopia of Britain   (dailymail.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Scary, Britain, samurai sword, samurai  
•       •       •

25145 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Dec 2012 at 1:57 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


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

 
2012-12-25 05:52:10 AM  

simkatu: GB has like 36 gun deaths a year to our 15000 our whatever obscene number it is, even though they are 1/6 the size. Gun control works there. Even police are discouraged from carrying. However its too late for the US to institute gun control like that. We have 300 million guns out there. It's not possible to get those returned. There are sensible things we can do to help things, like refusing to sell to just released mental patients or to folks that don't have any training in gun safety.


I think you under estimate the power of a generous gun buy back.
 
2012-12-25 05:52:47 AM  
Masterful troll, subby. Masterful. I doff my Fez to thee, sir.

/+whatever the going rate is and an extra eleventy on top...
 
2012-12-25 05:54:06 AM  
What the issue is with gun debates is what people think is what one person thinks another person needs. If you don't feel the need to have a gun, don't buy one. But your opinion shouldn't infringe on the right of another to have the option to buy a gun.

Happy Holidays to everyone. Enjoy your families today.
 
2012-12-25 06:16:25 AM  

LeftOfLiberal: simkatu: GB has like 36 gun deaths a year to our 15000 our whatever obscene number it is, even though they are 1/6 the size. Gun control works there. Even police are discouraged from carrying. However its too late for the US to institute gun control like that. We have 300 million guns out there. It's not possible to get those returned. There are sensible things we can do to help things, like refusing to sell to just released mental patients or to folks that don't have any training in gun safety.

I think you under estimate the power of a generous gun buy back.


And preventing more from entering society.
 
2012-12-25 06:17:22 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Mrtraveler01: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: kmmontandon: phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.


So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.

Right. Now the big worry is a domestic power restricting our rights. Good thing those Founding Fathers saw fit to give us a means to not be enslaved by the government they built.

Oh for the love of Christ, do you actually think we're at a point where we need to violently topple the government we currently have in place now.

The one that was Democratically elected?

How are you going to stop this "domestic power restricting our rights" anyway?

The threat of violence quite often makes the use of violence unnecessary.


Are you suggesting that our past or present government has had tyrannical ideations that were unactionable in the face of our well-armed citizenry? Can you provide any evidence to support such a claim?
 
2012-12-25 06:35:51 AM  

starsrift: Mock26: Not being disingenuous at all. The call to ban military style semi-automatic rifles is stupid and will do no good (just as it did no good with the Brady Bill from 1994-2004). It is an irrational response to this latest shooting tragedy.

I'd like to think you stopped here.


You do realize, of course, that I was not actually calling for a ban on vodka or alcohol in general, right?
 
2012-12-25 06:52:29 AM  

Mock26: So, if you have never fired a gun before in your life, let alone an AK-47, then commenting on the accuracy of the AK-47 makes you a fool.


Lean what sarcasm is. You might find that identifying sarcasm would be beneficial to you.

Mock26: and the video proved you wrong.


also, the definition of "proof" and "proved" might help as well.
 
2012-12-25 06:54:30 AM  
I see a lot of people attacking the second amendment on this site. Consider the following - Obama is arming the Mexican drug dealers, he's arming the Muslim Brotherhood (guns and F16's), America is 16 Trillion in debt with no way to repay it (at some point China will call the note). When the dollar collapses do you believe the politicians want us armed or disarmed?

Apply logic to the situation not emotion.
 
2012-12-25 06:57:03 AM  

barron: I see a lot of people attacking the second amendment on this site. Consider the following - Obama is arming the Mexican drug dealers, he's arming the Muslim Brotherhood (guns and F16's), America is 16 Trillion in debt with no way to repay it (at some point China will call the note). When the dollar collapses do you believe the politicians want us armed or disarmed?

Apply logic to the situation not emotion.


It's like a stew of crazy.
 
2012-12-25 06:59:09 AM  

barron: I see a lot of people attacking the second amendment on this site. Consider the following - Obama is arming the Mexican drug dealers, he's arming the Muslim Brotherhood (guns and F16's), America is 16 Trillion in debt with no way to repay it (at some point China will call the note). When the dollar collapses do you believe the politicians want us armed or disarmed?

Apply logic to the situation not emotion.


Good advice.

When you get off that paranoid schizophrenia trip, do let us know how you find dealing with logic for the first time.
 
2012-12-25 07:02:07 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Isn't the Dragonuv a refitted AK-47(in origin at any rate) for larger caliber, longer barrel, and semi-auto?


Yes.
What makes the AK platform inaccurate is cheap manufacturing and poor fitting of the parts. The choice of round and the piston system don't help.
You can make a stamped receiver cheaply and leave lots of wiggle room (which keeps dirt and fouling from affecting what goes on under the hood). The gun will cost very little and run like a champ, but don't expect to win many matches at the hundred yard line.
Tighten the whole thing up and it becomes a pretty nice weapon.
...But the Armalite is still Americas iPod compared to Russias generic blue nokia.

As for the British, they are still working on gun control after the Cumbria shootings since the legislation after the Dunblane massacre was apparently incomplete.
They have reduced shootings, but this just means criminals are emboldened to attack with whatever is at hand.

/And I must say this mans knife collection is pathetic. I've seen better blades in a dime store.
/Spend some money on cold steel at least.
 
2012-12-25 07:08:10 AM  

barron: I see a lot of people attacking the second amendment on this site. Consider the following - Obama is arming the Mexican drug dealers, he's arming the Muslim Brotherhood (guns and F16's), America is 16 Trillion in debt with no way to repay it (at some point China will call the note). When the dollar collapses do you believe the politicians want us armed or disarmed?

Apply logic to the situation not emotion.


As opposed to the good old days when Reagan was merely selling arms to Iran in order to fund the Contras in Nicaragua, selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, and supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.

Both sides are bad, so vote Republican.
 
2012-12-25 07:11:30 AM  

Trapper439: As opposed to the good old days when Reagan was merely selling arms to Iran in order to fund the Contras in Nicaragua, selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, and supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.


and don't forget, he was also banning certain kinds of guns.
 
2012-12-25 07:13:12 AM  

Raptop: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Mrtraveler01: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: kmmontandon: phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.


So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.

Right. Now the big worry is a domestic power restricting our rights. Good thing those Founding Fathers saw fit to give us a means to not be enslaved by the government they built.

Oh for the love of Christ, do you actually think we're at a point where we need to violently topple the government we currently have in place now.

The one that was Democratically elected?

How are you going to stop this "domestic power restricting our rights" anyway?

The threat of violence quite often makes the use of violence unnecessary.

Are you suggesting that our past or present government has had tyrannical ideations that were unactionable in the face of our well-armed citizenry? Can you provide any evidence to support such a claim?


Sometime around 1776...
 
2012-12-25 07:17:37 AM  
i.dailymail.co.uk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-E u rope-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

The only category we outdo anybody in are deaths(USA, USA, USA!). And the drug war spilling over from Mexico easily accounts for that, which is why the drug legalization movement is snowballing. Granted, the data is whopping THREE WHOLE YEARS OLD, so I'm sure there's been a miracle happen since and the UK really is the gunless utopia of legend. America is the more violent society. Absolutely. Totally. For sure and for realsie.
 
2012-12-25 07:26:35 AM  
also in the UK, the government can jail you for racist things you put on the internet, and break apart your family based on your political affiliation.
 
2012-12-25 07:28:33 AM  

Jarhead_h: which is why the drug legalization movement is snowballing.


I honestly think if we ended the drug war and curtailed the number of foreign wars, our violence statistics would drop faster than a pigeon hit with a .223.
The gun control argument is easier when you start from a low violence culture.
 
2012-12-25 07:31:08 AM  

Jarhead_h: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x636]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-E u rope-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

The only category we outdo anybody in are deaths(USA, USA, USA!). And the drug war spilling over from Mexico easily accounts for that, which is why the drug legalization movement is snowballing. Granted, the data is whopping THREE WHOLE YEARS OLD, so I'm sure there's been a miracle happen since and the UK really is the gunless utopia of legend. America is the more violent society. Absolutely. Totally. For sure and for realsie.


A big part of the problem is that as the huge post-WWII generation has aged, crime has gone down all over the industrialized world - and any crackpot anywhere can claim success for any anti-crime measure that has been initiated because crime went down, right? Concurrence.
Often mistaken for causation.
 
2012-12-25 07:36:42 AM  

log_jammin: Trapper439: As opposed to the good old days when Reagan was merely selling arms to Iran in order to fund the Contras in Nicaragua, selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, and supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.

and don't forget, he was also banning certain kinds of guns.


Not entirely.
The AWB was Clinton's work, and closing the Machine gun registry was Charlie Rangal's fetish.
The Firearm owners protection act setup a method for instant background checks, banned gun registration, and allowed owners safe passage with their firearms (among other things).
It was really to reign in the ATF's abusive practices against owners and dealers.
The Hughes amendment was a fly in the ointment of otherwise good things.

/But I did not speak up, for I didn't own any machine guns.
 
2012-12-25 07:41:03 AM  

way south: The Hughes amendment was a fly in the ointment of otherwise good things.


maybe, but he still banned a type of gun.
 
2012-12-25 07:49:30 AM  

kmmontandon: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.


Therefor, no one convicted of a DUI should have their driver's license suspended.

After all, the car didn't commit the crime.


that was like epic dumb... lol
derpmeter to 15+...  thank you for the laugh.

/i hope that was intentional  O.o
 
2012-12-25 07:50:51 AM  

Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.


Looks up chart of logical fallacies -

- False Claim
- Ambiguity
- Strawman

Conclusion: 3/10 - weak troll.
 
2012-12-25 07:51:39 AM  
One thing is absolutely guaranteed here on Fark™...  If there is a gun thread, there will be an epic number of posts in a very short time and they will always almost perfectly mirror every single other gun thread that has ever been on Fark™.
 
2012-12-25 07:52:41 AM  
Your men can't kill women with a samurai sword? How friggin pathetic do you have to be to not be able to pull that off
 
2012-12-25 07:55:44 AM  

iserlohn: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Looks up chart of logical fallacies -

- False Claim
- Ambiguity
- Strawman

Conclusion: 3/10 - weak troll.


remember... you must account for bites as well...  i think the current going rate is 2 bites = .5 bonus troll points if i am not mistaken... but its a kind of scale though... so as the number of bites goes up, the number of points does at a much lower rate up to a max of 11/10.  Though i have to admit, i don't recall seeing anyone get that high except pocketninja.

/Sorry if i missed anyone.
 
2012-12-25 07:58:12 AM  
the best troll so far is subby's trolltastic headline... 226bites as of this post

subby: 9/10  so far....

Merry Christmas and may God keep and Bless you.
 
2012-12-25 07:58:52 AM  
I just love the argument "having guns keeps us from being over run by tyranny". Last I heard, Australia was not run by tyrants...How about those awfull Brits? Don't even get me started on those crazy Canadians!
 
2012-12-25 08:02:26 AM  

lj1330: I just love the argument "having guns keeps us from being over run by tyranny". Last I heard, Australia was not run by tyrants...How about those awfull Brits? Don't even get me started on those crazy Canadians!


you know what i love?  these cookies the wife made... tea cookies, snickerdoodles, rolo cookies (rolos in the middle of a chocolate cookie), rugala (apricot), thumbprints, kiss cookies (kind of like a thumbprint but with a hershey's kiss in the middle), and gingerbread...
 
2012-12-25 08:12:18 AM  

BeSerious: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Oh, like your guns will protect you from what this government has.

Good call.


So which is it? Guns are these Evil Incarnate devices, each imbued with the foreskin of satan (which explains the penis infatuation right)? Or are they the Nerf pea-shootersers you're claiming they are here?
 
2012-12-25 08:13:38 AM  

Mock26: Mrtraveler01: OscarTamerz: Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.

Oh look this lame talking point again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusti ng -israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They've been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they're not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

Any other lame debunked talking points you care to share with the rest of the class today?

Civilians still own 47.5 guns per 100 people.


Dear gun owners (of which I am one)

Please don't bother posting information about firearms in Switzerland (which is where I am posting this from). The info about the gun depots is not quite accurate. Storage of assault weapons at local armories is voluntary. Most marksmen and hunters do not do so since they would not be able to get them for training or competition.

Anyone who firmly believes that the most effective method of preventing abuse is to ban a commodity that is already available in huge quantities is not listening to anything. Save your breath.

After all, banning drugs and alcohol instantly and completely prevented their abuse, so I can see no reason why wouldn't it work equally well with firearms.
 
2012-12-25 08:16:38 AM  

JSam21: 12349876: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

And guns aren't going to do a damn thing about it. If a government is bent on killing its own civilians in mass numbers, there's fighter jets and nukes and mustard gas and submarines and aircraft carriers etc. etc. etc.

But it gives you a chance to at least fight. Look at Lybia...


Yeah, look at Lybia. They're livin' the high life now!
Anyone who truly thinks that every gun nut in the country combined would stand any kind of chance against the U.S. armed forces is a fool.
This is one of the many reasons people laugh at you.
This is one of the ways that we know you're incapable of reading a situation and coming to a realistic conclusion.
Your inability to understand such basic concepts is why you're not taken seriously.
You have every right to voice your opinions but be aware that airing such drivel tips off the rest of us to the fact that you're idiots and your opinions simply don't count.
 
2012-12-25 08:20:25 AM  

OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?


I have wondered about this. No-one appears to take into account the mass defections (at least) that would ensue if the Armed Forces were told to fire on their own people.
 
2012-12-25 08:39:45 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson


Well if that is the case, go to Congress and ask for that following arms be completely legalized: high explosives, booby traps, mines, etc. That is because small arms are pretty damn worthless against a modern military. IEDs and suicide bombers however can be effective against a modern military. Then go to your state legislature and demand that they form a state militia with high performance jet fighters, tanks, etc. uncontrolled by the national government and that they must get a stockpile of nuclear-armed missiles in order to keep Washington back.

If you don't do what I suggest, then I dare say that your claim that we need those guns to beat back tyrants is nothing more than a sham.
 
2012-12-25 08:41:32 AM  
Merry Christmas, subby! I got you the gift of go fark yourself.
 
2012-12-25 09:04:34 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.


And yet pools still kill more children a year than guns. Where is the irrational and emotional pleas to ban pools? They serve no purpose other than recreation and death.
 
2012-12-25 09:04:56 AM  

ZeroPly: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

This has only been brought up a few dozen times so far, and my response has become increasingly polished, so let me take a swing at this...

We are not talking about the government as it exists now or the army as it exists now. Obviously, there is no significant armed opposition to our army since very few think the status quo is so unbearable right now.

The point is that things change. There is no way to predict what the country will be like 5 years from now, much less 20. It could be plague, it could be civil war, it could be an asteroid strike. It could be indefinite martial law. It would be incredibly dense to try to plot these scenarios out - because if we could, we would just avoid them.


So you gun owners are all doomsday preppers? Do you also store food and medical supplies? After all, an army marches on its stomach.
 
2012-12-25 09:07:11 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.


How many of your "US gun fanatics" would decline the invite from the local sheriff to come to a day of training and shooting at the local gun range?
The lack of local governments in not having the training that is the reason for the "well regulated Militia" part of the 2nd Amendment is not a justification to take away the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" part.
 
2012-12-25 09:11:45 AM  
www.barnrunner.com
 
2012-12-25 09:18:55 AM  

MyRandomName: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

And yet pools still kill more children a year than guns. Where is the irrational and emotional pleas to ban pools? They serve no purpose other than recreation and death.


When was the last time a pool killed 26 children at once?
 
2012-12-25 09:21:37 AM  

MarkEC: Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.

How many of your "US gun fanatics" would decline the invite from the local sheriff to come to a day of training and shooting at the local gun range?
The lack of local governments in not having the training that is the reason for the "well regulated Militia" part of the 2nd Amendment is not a justification to take away the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" part.


Without the proper training and discipline, all you have is an unruly mob. That is hardly the type of organization that is going to protect us from whatever you think you are protecting us from. It is time that you take your responsibility seriously. You need to go to your local sheriff and tell him that you want him to organize a unit that is actually capable of defending all of us.

You are shirking your duties. You want all of us to believe that you are fine, loyal Americans and this is the chance to prove it.

It would also be a good idea for the sheriff to set up a armory where all of the weapons could be stored and ready for you when the big war starts. That is what all good militias do.
 
2012-12-25 09:25:30 AM  
This is a bit OT as I just avoid gun threads but considering that the store in question I am talking about is going to be open for business today and I worry about them, here we go.

In our neighborhood we have, for lack of a better term a bodega, although it is run by a nice family from Viet Nam (don't know the Vietnamese equivalent of convenience store, so it will have to suffice). Just a few months before I moved in with my old man, the bodega was robbed and yeah, we live in da 'hood, the store has iron bars over all the doors and windows, etc., but we shop there because it's close and they have good prices on soda, Arizona tea and cigarettes. So the old cat who owns the place was robbed at gunpoint one day in June (I moved here in September of last year). My old man was apparently walking in just as the robber was walking out and was questioned by police for a description. He couldn't really remember-we don't always pay attention to these things. But after he talked to the old cat, said hey you should get a gun. Old cat says, I don't want a gun, we're peaceful, etc., but we don't want to get robbed either. My old man brought in his glock to show the owners (there is also a wife and son who work the store at various times), brought it in unloaded and sans clip about a week later to show the store owner. Old cat decides to get a gun to protect himself and his business. Several months later, he has another robber try to rob him. Shoots the guy in the shoulder, calls the cops. Robber went to jail, old cat is still working at the store to this very day. I think the crook was surprised when a quiet, somewhat rude old guy pulled out a gun and just shot him for being a threat. Again, OT, really not to do with the horrible shootings and deaths we've had recently, but it it wasn't for a citizen's right to bear arms, including our immigrant citizens, there could've possibly been an awful, horrid tragedy. And while we only are shoppers at this bodega, we've gotten to know all of these folks and care about them, so a loss of any of them would have been a deep cause for grief and mourning in our house. Also, most assailants tend to be really shocked when a person actually fights back, whether it is self defence or any other means. They expect to intimidate and I think that the element of surprise and shock is what got my old store owner away alive.

/CSS
 
2012-12-25 09:29:51 AM  

Elzar: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.
if the woman had been packing heat, there would have been zero injuries... This is what a country gets when thy give up their right to bare arms. Thanks a lot obummer...


If she had been carrying a gun, that implies that there would be a lax gun law.

So there would have been thousands of victims.

---

Also she might have shot that dude, but he had it comming.
 
2012-12-25 09:30:24 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

And yet pools still kill more children a year than guns. Where is the irrational and emotional pleas to ban pools? They serve no purpose other than recreation and death.

When was the last time a pool killed 26 children at once?


Adana Turky, February of this year.
a damn burst killed ten workers.

/It was an "assault pool".
/killing children one at a time is better than doing it wholesale?
 
2012-12-25 09:31:43 AM  

MarkEC: Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.

How many of your "US gun fanatics" would decline the invite from the local sheriff to come to a day of training and shooting at the local gun range?
The lack of local governments in not having the training that is the reason for the "well regulated Militia" part of the 2nd Amendment is not a justification to take away the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" part.


Not a "gun fanatic" but I would take them up on that offer in a heartbeat.
 
2012-12-25 09:34:27 AM  

specialkae: This is a bit OT as I just avoid gun threads but considering that the store in question I am talking about is going to be open for business today and I worry about them, here we go.

In our neighborhood we have, for lack of a better term a bodega, although it is run by a nice family from Viet Nam (don't know the Vietnamese equivalent of convenience store, so it will have to suffice). Just a few months before I moved in with my old man, the bodega was robbed and yeah, we live in da 'hood, the store has iron bars over all the doors and windows, etc., but we shop there because it's close and they have good prices on soda, Arizona tea and cigarettes. So the old cat who owns the place was robbed at gunpoint one day in June (I moved here in September of last year). My old man was apparently walking in just as the robber was walking out and was questioned by police for a description. He couldn't really remember-we don't always pay attention to these things. But after he talked to the old cat, said hey you should get a gun. Old cat says, I don't want a gun, we're peaceful, etc., but we don't want to get robbed either. My old man brought in his glock to show the owners (there is also a wife and son who work the store at various times), brought it in unloaded and sans clip about a week later to show the store owner. Old cat decides to get a gun to protect himself and his business. Several months later, he has another robber try to rob him. Shoots the guy in the shoulder, calls the cops. Robber went to jail, old cat is still working at the store to this very day. I think the crook was surprised when a quiet, somewhat rude old guy pulled out a gun and just shot him for being a threat. Again, OT, really not to do with the horrible shootings and deaths we've had recently, but it it wasn't for a citizen's right to bear arms, including our immigrant citizens, there could've possibly been an awful, horrid tragedy. And while we only are shoppers at this bodega, we've gott ...


glad to hear that the family got through that.

You bring up a good point. Most crooks are going to be shocked when confronted by a person with a handgun. They are not prepared for a gun fight. Surveillance videos often show crooks fleeing the scene when the intended victim has a gun and shows a willingness to use it. Those videos show up on TV all the time.

That is why I find it so funny when the gun nutz tell us that they expect to get into a big shoot out with the people invading their homes. That is going to happen about one percent of the time. Unless, of course, you are running a meth lab in your house and the competition wants you out of the way.
 
2012-12-25 09:43:37 AM  

JSam21: MarkEC: Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.

How many of your "US gun fanatics" would decline the invite from the local sheriff to come to a day of training and shooting at the local gun range?
The lack of local governments in not having the training that is the reason for the "well regulated Militia" part of the 2nd Amendment is not a justification to take away the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" part.

Not a "gun fanatic" but I would take them up on that offer in a heartbeat.


Same here.
"You mean I get to go play with guns all day and its the law? sweet!"

Historical note tho: the bulk of the military force at the time the 2nd was crafted were militia forces. What the founders wanted was to standardize their training and ranks to make it easier to use them in wars.
The idea of keeping hundreds of thousands of paid enforcement officers would have been more alien to them than the modern rifle.

It was the lack of money for training that kept militia service from becoming more of a thing.

/dunno about stateside prices, but a box of 223 here will run you fifteen bucks.
/$120 to load one soldier with an absolute minimal, multiply that by a hundred guys and you're quickly talking real money.
/not counting the additional catering and equipment, plus compensation for their time if the training is mandatory.
 
2012-12-25 09:45:40 AM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-25 10:03:08 AM  

BeSerious: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Oh, like your guns will protect you from what this government has.

Good call.


A handful of hapless farmers against the might of the Royal British Empire?  Hmphh...

www.mnartists.org
 
2012-12-25 10:04:14 AM  
British people love disarmed peoples.

They loved poorly armed Indians, Africans, Arabs, and Asians.

They did not enjoy the company of well armed Americans.
 
2012-12-25 10:07:12 AM  
"Woman seriously hurt" vs. 20+ people dead.

I'll take it, subby.
 
Displayed 50 of 419 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | 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








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