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.

(CBS4Denver - KCNC)   "Ban spoons, they make me fat"   (denver.cbslocal.com) divider line 372
    More: Obvious, spoons, fat  
•       •       •

9586 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Dec 2012 at 5:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-30 01:25:03 PM  
That's the only thing that needs to be said.
 
2012-12-30 01:59:19 PM  
i1079.photobucket.com
...save those big fat funky whales
we'll save all the whales,
but shoot the seals...
 
2012-12-30 02:02:01 PM  
Oh, I'm sure that guy is perfectly capable of getting fat just using his bare hands.
 
2012-12-30 02:43:28 PM  
I don't really hold feelings toward either side in this debate, but I do have to wonder, do gun enthusiasts offer any analogies that aren't completely off-base? "Lolz this innocuous elsewise-useful item might do some sort of harm maybe, obviously we need to ban it, ahyuck!" No, no zing points for you.
 
2012-12-30 03:30:01 PM  
It's sad to see two things here.
1) Gun were designed to destroy. You point it at something and it is destroyed.
Spoons were designed to aid in eating. What you eat makes you fat. Spoon has no effect on weight gain.

2) The beleif that anything manufactured is beyond regulation. When it's clear that anything sold can be abused, it needs to be regulated.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-30 03:30:11 PM  

wyltoknow: I don't really hold feelings toward either side in this debate, but I do have to wonder, do gun enthusiasts offer any analogies that aren't completely off-base? "Lolz this innocuous elsewise-useful item might do some sort of harm maybe, obviously we need to ban it, ahyuck!" No, no zing points for you.


No, not that I have seen.  But there is no anti gun lobby as far as I can tell, so they don't really have to have a message that makes sense.
 
2012-12-30 03:43:37 PM  

vpb: wyltoknow: I don't really hold feelings toward either side in this debate, but I do have to wonder, do gun enthusiasts offer any analogies that aren't completely off-base? "Lolz this innocuous elsewise-useful item might do some sort of harm maybe, obviously we need to ban it, ahyuck!" No, no zing points for you.

No, not that I have seen.  But there is no anti gun lobby as far as I can tell, so they don't really have to have a message that makes sense.




Democratic Party abandoned gun regulation as part of the fight they cannot win against Republicans. Most Americans firmly believe in their rights to own a too that was simply designed to destroy.
 
2012-12-30 03:54:32 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: It's sad to see two things here.
1) Gun were designed to destroy. You point it at something and it is destroyed.
Spoons were designed to aid in eating. What you eat makes you fat. Spoon has no effect on weight gain.

2) The beleif that anything manufactured is beyond regulation. When it's clear that anything sold can be abused, it needs to be regulated.


1. If guns destroyed anything they were pointed at there would be a ltd of holes in gun safes, walls, ceilings, and trunks. Inanimate objects are not capable of doing anything by themselves, it takes a human being to make a conscious decision to use and object. You missed the point of the headline.

2. Anything can be abused, everything should be regulated. Sadly, the belief that firearms are above regulation is correct. You can buy an 80% complete 1911 over the internet without an FFL or serial numbers because it isn't considered a gun. If you really think banning guns will get rid of guns, you probably voted for Reagan. Ask anyone below fifty about marijuana or cocaine. Ask any college kid below the age of 21 about drinking. You're ignorant of the way the world works.

How is the war on terror going? The war on drugs? The border war? Really anything the united states government is trying to put a stop to?
 
2012-12-30 04:32:12 PM  

duffblue: Darth_Lukecash: It's sad to see two things here.
1) Gun were designed to destroy. You point it at something and it is destroyed.
Spoons were designed to aid in eating. What you eat makes you fat. Spoon has no effect on weight gain.

2) The beleif that anything manufactured is beyond regulation. When it's clear that anything sold can be abused, it needs to be regulated.

1. If guns destroyed anything they were pointed at there would be a ltd of holes in gun safes, walls, ceilings, and trunks. Inanimate objects are not capable of doing anything by themselves, it takes a human being to make a conscious decision to use and object. You missed the point of the headline.

2. Anything can be abused, everything should be regulated. Sadly, the belief that firearms are above regulation is correct. You can buy an 80% complete 1911 over the internet without an FFL or serial numbers because it isn't considered a gun. If you really think banning guns will get rid of guns, you probably voted for Reagan. Ask anyone below fifty about marijuana or cocaine. Ask any college kid below the age of 21 about drinking. You're ignorant of the way the world works.

How is the war on terror going? The war on drugs? The border war? Really anything the united states government is trying to put a stop to?




My point remains that a gun is created to destroy.

I had a friend who died from a gun accident. He and his roommate were trained security guards who served in the military. Nothing intentional except a man who assumed his gun wasn't loaded and my dead friend had been in the way of a bullet.

Regulation is not banning. Obama has actually maid gains in deportation and immigration. The war on Al Quidea is pretty much done. The War on drugs are being fought on legislation. Things can change... But won't till you make the move
 
2012-12-30 04:37:41 PM  
We should regulate weapons further because you have stupid friends?
 
2012-12-30 04:49:23 PM  
People were filing in an out of the Tanner Gun Show proudly putting their First Amendment right to use. Some bought guns for hunting, others for protection.

Can't count? Career in TV journalism may be for you!
 
2012-12-30 04:51:42 PM  

duffblue: We should regulate weapons further because you have stupid friends?




No, I nearly refuted your point that a gun going off was always intentional.

Guns are just like any other intangible item-subject to the communities will.
 
2012-12-30 04:52:58 PM  

duffblue: Darth_Lukecash: It's sad to see two things here.
1) Gun were designed to destroy. You point it at something and it is destroyed.
Spoons were designed to aid in eating. What you eat makes you fat. Spoon has no effect on weight gain.

2) The beleif that anything manufactured is beyond regulation. When it's clear that anything sold can be abused, it needs to be regulated.

1. If guns destroyed anything they were pointed at there would be a ltd of holes in gun safes, walls, ceilings, and trunks. Inanimate objects are not capable of doing anything by themselves, it takes a human being to make a conscious decision to use and object. You missed the point of the headline.

2. Anything can be abused, everything should be regulated. Sadly, the belief that firearms are above regulation is correct. You can buy an 80% complete 1911 over the internet without an FFL or serial numbers because it isn't considered a gun. If you really think banning guns will get rid of guns, you probably voted for Reagan. Ask anyone below fifty about marijuana or cocaine. Ask any college kid below the age of 21 about drinking. You're ignorant of the way the world works.

How is the war on terror going? The war on drugs? The border war? Really anything the united states government is trying to put a stop to?


i306.photobucket.com

I don't think he mentioned banning guns, only regulating them.  Considering banning is unconstitutional as the second amendment is written today, and reasonable restriction on type and persons who do own firearms IS constitutional, I really don't see what you're trying to argue here except a creation of your own mind.

The argument about owning "80% complete" as well fails on the account that the cost of a metal lathe or three-dimension metal printer are beyond the ownership capabilities of almost every average citizen out there, and the fact that metalworking and shaping is a little harder than reading instructions on the internet on how to make something. The recipe to making meth is on the internet as well - funny how people who make it using that tend to blow themselves up.

duffblue: 1. If guns destroyed anything they were pointed at there would be a ltd of holes in gun safes, walls, ceilings, and trunks. Inanimate objects are not capable of doing anything by themselves, it takes a human being to make a conscious decision to use and object. You missed the point of the headline.


You missed the point yourself. The argument most rational people are making is not to outlaw guns, but to legitimately restrict who can own them (Maybe the mentally ill shouldn't own firearms?), and make regulations not only actually enforced, but more stringent than depending on the word alone of a buyer who's entire obstacle to purchase depends on them being honest.
 
2012-12-30 04:55:09 PM  

duffblue: We should regulate weapons further because you have stupid friends?


Wow. Classy.

The laws that currently restrict weapons sales aren't enforced well to begin with. You rarely ever hear about gun or pawn shops being persecuted for allowing straw buyers, or for blatantly telling people to lie on their background check forms about their mental health history. How about we start there?
 
2012-12-30 04:59:45 PM  
BronyMedic:

The argument about owning "80% complete" as well fails on the account that the cost of a metal lathe or three-dimension metal printer are beyond the ownership capabilities of almost every average citizen out there, and the fact that metalworking and shaping is a little harder than reading instructions on the internet on how to make so ...

I don't want to completely discount everything you have said, because you made a decent point at the end of your post, but please know what you're talking about before posting next time. We're not talking about some redneck designed potato gun that blows up in your hands on the first shot. You don't need a metal lathe or any sort of 3D printer. Just a dremel tool, a hammer and punch and $250. The stuff is out there, but for obvious reasons I'm not going to link it.
 
2012-12-30 05:23:12 PM  
Darth_Lukecash: Nothing intentional except a man who assumed his gun wasn't loaded and my dead friend had been in the way of a bullet.

I'm sorry about your friend but this is wholly irrelevant to the topic of gun regulation. Your friend hung out with idiots.
 
2012-12-30 05:35:23 PM  

ultraholland: Darth_Lukecash: Nothing intentional except a man who assumed his gun wasn't loaded and my dead friend had been in the way of a bullet.

I'm sorry about your friend but this is wholly irrelevant to the topic of gun regulation. Your friend hung out with idiots.



I pointed out that comparing the gun to a spoon was illogical because of the difference of use/design. Guns design was to destroy. That's all it's made for. A spoon can be used to eat healthy and unhealthy things.

He countered that it was the intent of the user.

I countered with the death of my friend, due to an accident-not intent.
 
2012-12-30 05:46:27 PM  
Subby is a dick.
 
2012-12-30 05:48:15 PM  
elleandtheautognome.files.wordpress.com

Seriously guys, you're slacking.
 
2012-12-30 05:48:31 PM  
It's not that gun control advocates are stupid. It's just all their ideas, thoughts, and opinions are just really stupid.
 
2012-12-30 05:49:15 PM  
Hardcore logic: That's the plain and simple truth, even if it's not true.
Just as stupid as the "legitimate rape" statement.
 
2012-12-30 05:49:54 PM  

BronyMedic:
The argument about owning "80% complete" as well fails on the account that the cost of a metal lathe or three-dimension metal printer are beyond the ownership capabilities of almost every average citizen out there, and the fact that metalworking and shaping is a little harder than reading instructions on the internet on how to make so ...


Has anyone made a Summon Space Bevets card yet?
 
2012-12-30 05:52:56 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: My point remains that a gun is created to destroy.


Incorrect. A gun is designed to fire a bullet when the trigger mechanism is, well, triggered.
 
2012-12-30 05:53:33 PM  
People were filing in an out of the Tanner Gun Show proudly putting their First Amendment right to use. Some bought guns for hunting, others for protection. They were met with opposition as one lone protester picketed out front in support of a ban on so called assault weapons.

/derp
 
2012-12-30 05:54:05 PM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-12-30 05:55:16 PM  
ajeeznotthisshiatagain..jpg
 
2012-12-30 05:55:54 PM  
Darth_Lukecash: I pointed out that comparing the gun to a spoon was illogical because of the difference of use/design. Guns design was to destroy. That's all it's made for. A spoon can be used to eat healthy and unhealthy things.

He countered that it was the intent of the user.

I countered with the death of my friend, due to an accident-not intent.


I know, I saw that. It's just that your friend's death was the result of an accident, regardless of what device lead to their death. I don't blame the car for taking my friend's life; I blame some negligence on the part of the driver and chalk it up to an overall accident.

I handled a Ruger 10/22 yesterday. The first thing I did was ensure that it was empty. I then put it back in its case. A short time later I again removed it from its case, and knowing full well that nobody had handled the weapon, I checked it yet again before further handling. Responsibility. Your friend's roommate didn't have it.
 
2012-12-30 05:56:01 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: ultraholland: Darth_Lukecash: Nothing intentional except a man who assumed his gun wasn't loaded and my dead friend had been in the way of a bullet.

I'm sorry about your friend but this is wholly irrelevant to the topic of gun regulation. Your friend hung out with idiots.


I pointed out that comparing the gun to a spoon was illogical because of the difference of use/design. Guns design was to destroy. That's all it's made for. A spoon can be used to eat healthy and unhealthy things.

He countered that it was the intent of the user.

I countered with the death of my friend, due to an accident-not intent.


Was the guy pointing his gun at your friend and pulled the trigger, assuming it was not loaded?
 
2012-12-30 05:56:19 PM  

foo monkey: People were filing in an out of the Tanner Gun Show proudly putting their First Amendment right to use. Some bought guns for hunting, others for protection. They were met with opposition as one lone protester picketed out front in support of a ban on so called assault weapons.

/derp


.
CBS liberal media reporter, cut them some slack.
 
2012-12-30 05:56:43 PM  

Mrbogey: It's not that gun control advocates are stupid. It's just all their ideas, thoughts, and opinions are just really stupid.


It's almost as if they know nothing about firearms.


hmmmmmm....

/and they wonder why nobody will debate with them.
 
2012-12-30 05:56:57 PM  
"Something snapped in me and I have to say something," the protester said.

Well at least he didn't have a gun.
 
2012-12-30 05:58:35 PM  
What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?
 
2012-12-30 05:59:13 PM  
I pointed out that comparing the gun to a spoon was illogical because of the difference of use/design. Guns design was to destroy.

No, a gun is designed to push little lead pellets at high velocity in the desired direction. The direction is up to the operator, not the gun. It can be used for good (defending yourself) or evil (attacking others).

Banning highly desired inanimate objects simply doesn't work. Didn't work for alcohol, not working for recreational drugs, WON'T work for guns. We need to do something that will work, not just feel good.
 
2012-12-30 05:59:41 PM  

kombat_unit: Hardcore logic: That's the plain and simple truth, even if it's not true.
Just as stupid as the "legitimate rape" statement.


FTA: That would explain why they're angry enough to buy a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

Sole purpose? Really? Every single person who buys an assault weapon intends only to use it to kill lots of people? Every single manufacturer builds them only so that buyers can kill lots of people?  Do people honestly think that such obscene exaggeration of a position to one side is going to convince those in the middle or those on the other side to change their minds?
 
2012-12-30 06:00:08 PM  
Spoons are a bad analogy. "Pure fat in a syringe injected right into my body that I carry around with me and sometimes 'accidentally' inject into other people" is a better one.
 
2012-12-30 06:00:33 PM  

fredklein: Darth_Lukecash: My point remains that a gun is created to destroy.

Incorrect. A gun is designed to fire a bullet when the trigger mechanism is, well, triggered.


So, for shiats sake, bullets are made to destroy! BAN BULLETS!!! You people will never agree on this you're like the big baby girls in congress regarding the fiscal cliff.
 
2012-12-30 06:01:21 PM  
Do spoons make you 4 times as likely to be involved in a homicide if you have them in your house? How about 10 times more likely to be used in a suicide if you have them in your house?

No? Then STFU, grow up, admit we as a country have an issue, and discuss it like an adult.
 
2012-12-30 06:01:28 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?


Just as soon as you uninvent the magazine and all the guns that use them.
 
2012-12-30 06:02:25 PM  
I try to stay out of these useless gun-debates most of the time. I'm a "dirty lib" who is also a gun owner. I grew up in a cop family, and was required to learn how to handle all manner of firearms safely. I was taught to shoot accurately, and I view a firearm as a tool.

That said, I believe that guns are much too easy to acquire in the US. I don't think that more people running around with concealed weapons will result in anything that is good for the whole of society. More guns in the hands of more people only benefits the manufacturers of weapons.
 
2012-12-30 06:04:18 PM  
Hey gun-advocates are too persecuted, this country is bristling with guns, You can be crazy and buy guns legally like Aurora shooter James Holmes did, but let's not treat guns with the same seriousness and regulation we treat vehicles.. let's act like children and make jokes about finding ways other than Wild West style shootouts and Orwellian police presences to limit the violence. Hey, a thug can still buy a weapon somehow, so lets keep it easy, no, let's make it easier to own weapons. A gun in every church, principals office, hospital, business. This country wont be safe from these heinous crimes until everyone, no matter who they are, gets a bullet-dispensing instrument of justice
 
2012-12-30 06:04:58 PM  

mark12A: I pointed out that comparing the gun to a spoon was illogical because of the difference of use/design. Guns design was to destroy.

No, a gun is designed to push little lead pellets at high velocity in the desired direction. The direction is up to the operator, not the gun. It can be used for good (defending yourself) or evil (attacking others).

Banning highly desired inanimate objects simply doesn't work. Didn't work for alcohol, not working for recreational drugs, WON'T work for guns. We need to do something that will work, not just feel good.


You do realize that "using them for good" and "using them for evil" are BOTH destructive actions, right? Even if you're destroying a "bad guy" you're still DESTROYING a bad guy. Guns were designed to destroy, and even if they destroy "for good" they are still destroying. Even if I don't bring up statistics or studies or anything else, you have to accept the fact that guns, fundamentally, are meant to destroy things. It's the only reason they are made.
 
2012-12-30 06:05:55 PM  

fredklein: Darth_Lukecash: My point remains that a gun is created to destroy.

Incorrect. A gun is designed to fire a bullet when the trigger mechanism is, well, triggered.


Yes, and humanity invented this thing originally for opening letters---the killing things part is a side effect that had nothing to do with its design.

There are some insightful arguments that one can make as an opponent of gun control. Denying the obvious reality that guns are essentially for killing things is not one of them. Pretending that a gun is just an abstract mechanical device that moves part A when one pushes part B, and that everything else is a user issue, that's just derpy.

As derpy as analogizing a gun to an arbitrary thing that doesn't kill things and isn't designed to kill things. Yes, we would ban spoons, if a bunch of lunatic "preppers" began filling their houses with special assault spoons designed primarily for killing people, so effectively that some idiot kid with voices in his head can go kill a few dozen kids by waving it around a playground while holding down the auto-scoop switch.
 
2012-12-30 06:05:56 PM  

lewismarktwo: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?

Just as soon as you uninvent the magazine and all the guns that use them.


We already uninvented Newsweek...it's a start
 
2012-12-30 06:06:10 PM  

ultraholland: Darth_Lukecash: I pointed out that comparing the gun to a spoon was illogical because of the difference of use/design. Guns design was to destroy. That's all it's made for. A spoon can be used to eat healthy and unhealthy things.

He countered that it was the intent of the user.

I countered with the death of my friend, due to an accident-not intent.

I know, I saw that. It's just that your friend's death was the result of an accident, regardless of what device lead to their death. I don't blame the car for taking my friend's life; I blame some negligence on the part of the driver and chalk it up to an overall accident.

I handled a Ruger 10/22 yesterday. The first thing I did was ensure that it was empty. I then put it back in its case. A short time later I again removed it from its case, and knowing full well that nobody had handled the weapon, I checked it yet again before further handling. Responsibility. Your friend's roommate didn't have it.


When I was 12 I was handed a pistol that was presumably unloaded. I was told as well that it was unloaded as I handled it.

It was loaded.

Luckily I was taught from the age of 7 to treat guns as if they were loaded and I checked the chamber before attempting to dry-fire it to get a feel for its trigger. As soon as I saw that cartridge I remarked, "yea, someone could have just been killed if I listened to you..." It was an adult that handed me the pistol also so they were a bit shocked.
 
2012-12-30 06:06:15 PM  

david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]


How'd that work out for him?
 
2012-12-30 06:07:08 PM  

GiddeonFox: mark12A: I pointed out that comparing the gun to a spoon was illogical because of the difference of use/design. Guns design was to destroy.

No, a gun is designed to push little lead pellets at high velocity in the desired direction. The direction is up to the operator, not the gun. It can be used for good (defending yourself) or evil (attacking others).

Banning highly desired inanimate objects simply doesn't work. Didn't work for alcohol, not working for recreational drugs, WON'T work for guns. We need to do something that will work, not just feel good.

You do realize that "using them for good" and "using them for evil" are BOTH destructive actions, right? Even if you're destroying a "bad guy" you're still DESTROYING a bad guy. Guns were designed to destroy, and even if they destroy "for good" they are still destroying. Even if I don't bring up statistics or studies or anything else, you have to accept the fact that guns, fundamentally, are meant to destroy things. It's the only reason they are made.


Actually, almost 100% of guns are made to make money off of their sale.  Some are used to destroy. Most are used for sport.
 
2012-12-30 06:07:31 PM  

david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]


I think JFK shot himself.
 
2012-12-30 06:07:53 PM  

GiddeonFox: Guns were designed to destroy



Nouns were designed to Verb.
 
2012-12-30 06:08:46 PM  

BronyMedic: The argument most rational people are making is not to outlaw guns, but to legitimately restrict who can own them (Maybe the mentally ill shouldn't own firearms?), and make regulations not only actually enforced, but more stringent than depending on the word alone of a buyer who's entire obstacle to purchase depends on them being honest.


Firstly, laws tend to be added to, not subtracted from. Government will increase its power, not give it away. A law that seems perfectly 'rational' today, will not be so rational in a few years when it's expanded in breadth and scope. And, since, as they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, It's easiest to stop laws from being passed, then to try to keep them from being mis/ab-used in the future.

Second, AFAIK, the mentally ill already cannot own guns legally. And, as I just said above, this leaves itself open for abuse- literally anyone can be declared 'mentally ill', and thus denied a gun. Afraid of heights? Mentally Ill. Saw a counselor when you were a rebellious teen? Mentally ill. Etc.
 
2012-12-30 06:09:14 PM  

duffblue: How is the war on terror going? The war on drugs? The border war? Really anything the united states government is trying to put a stop to?


The war on drugs isn't about drugs. It's about power. The war on terror isn't about terror. It's about funneling government spending to the likes of Halliburton, to the huzzahs of small government conservatives. It's also about power.
 
Displayed 50 of 372 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  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