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 102
    More: Obvious, spoons, fat  
•       •       •

9568 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-30 02:43:28 PM
5 votes:
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 06:37:35 PM
4 votes:

beakerxf: //hard to have an actual debate when one side says "regulate" and the other side hears "ban"


It's hard to have a rational discussion where one side sees a tool and the other sees a "scary death machine of killing." Same way it's hard to have a rational discussion when one side sees a baby and the other side sees tissue. Just like it's hard to have a rational discussion when one side bases its concept of freedom on personal liberty and the other on subservience to a government. Also hard to have a rational discussion when one side talks about personal property ownership and the other side dismisses personal property ownership.

I suspect that you and I will never see eye to eye on this issue because we are both proceeding from fundamentally different assumptions.
2012-12-30 06:36:53 PM
4 votes:

stirfrybry: liberal view: Guns are responsible, not the person using the gun


The liberal view is actually: "The person is responsible. Therefore we need to ban guns so responsible people have no possible way of having them. We only want irresponsible lawbreakers having guns."
2012-12-30 06:01:21 PM
4 votes:
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 05:59:41 PM
4 votes:

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 05:55:54 PM
4 votes:
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 06:29:34 PM
3 votes:

Darth_Lukecash: a man who assumed his gun wasn't loaded and my dead friend had been in the way of a bullet.


The gun is loaded.  Always.

If you think the gun is not loaded, you are not just wrong, you are an idiot.
2012-12-30 06:20:22 PM
3 votes:
When a spoon is produced that can be used to instantly fatten unwilling victims from a distance, I'll consider banning it.
2012-12-30 06:02:25 PM
3 votes:
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 06:00:08 PM
3 votes:
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 05:59:13 PM
3 votes:
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 05:54:05 PM
3 votes:
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
2012-12-30 05:23:12 PM
3 votes:
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 03:30:01 PM
3 votes:
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.
2012-12-30 02:02:01 PM
3 votes:
Oh, I'm sure that guy is perfectly capable of getting fat just using his bare hands.
2012-12-30 08:21:46 PM
2 votes:
Applies to TONS of other rights too:

Just because I don't personally use a constitutional right doesn't mean I'm willing to give it up.
And just because someone DOES give THEIRS up, does NOT mean it's okay for them to take it away from anyone else.
2012-12-30 07:55:44 PM
2 votes:

chumboobler:

Wow. You really think you need to be afraid of the Jack Boots? You are a man that is full of fear.


Yeah, we're still the Land of the Free except for warrantless wiretaps and searches, political correctness, naked scanners, social network monitoring, patriotic group-think, police militarization, strip-searches, drone surveillance, indefinite detention without due process, military tribunals, GPS monitoring, assassination of citizens, and secret courts using secret evidence, etc. Don't be so paranoid.
2012-12-30 07:22:40 PM
2 votes:
There is no deal to be made, no compromise. The answer is no, you will not take my rights away.
2012-12-30 06:42:12 PM
2 votes:
Recently some guy was cooking meth that caused an exposion that killed himself and the couple in the neighboring apartment.

I think they should ban meth labs.

/ what ?
// meth labs are already illegal ?
/// nevermind.
2012-12-30 06:42:05 PM
2 votes:
Whenever someone mentions "regulation" the pro gun side screams "confiscation". They are not remotely the same thing. Guns are tools. They can be used to provide food, self defense, target shooting and other legal activities.

In my view, regulation would not mean confiscation. It would mean mandatory training in safe handling practices, legal responsibilities of ownership, proof of proper storage equipment to prevent theft or unauthorized access to the guns and the ability to pass a test based on those topics. Once you have proven that you have the knowledge to not accidentally shoot your neighbor, you can have a gun.

Perhaps a psychiatric assessment should also be done prior to ownership of something that has the potential to cause massive amounts of harm. Assuming people pass the evaluation they can proceed with the purchase of a firearm. These should be done at a minimum of every five years while people continue to own a firearm.

Cars are also just things. They can be deadly things if misused. We require training and licensing to ensure that people know how to operate them safely without risking others lives. Some people disregard this training but it is mostly beneficial to all people. We also require insurance for cars in case they are misused. Perhaps a gun owner should have to purchase liability insurance for their firearm just like a car. That might be a bit much but it would certainly force people to take gun ownership seriously.

I see no reason why we can't let people have their guns (I am in the army and I like to shoot at ranges, both civilian and military.), and still make safety the priority. There are many many owners that treat their guns like toys. I know many who do and if you are a gun owner and spent time in the gun community you have likely witnessed acts of stupidity that could have been deadly. They are not toys. They are tools that can be deadly in careless hands.
2012-12-30 06:31:27 PM
2 votes:

moothemagiccow: david_gaithersburg: 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?

.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.

Explain to us what the Second Amendment is about. Don't tell me the bill of rights gives you the power to overthrow the government. You're going to need more than an AR15 and a couple buddies mad about quartering troops.


Well, I'm glad you asked: 2A explained
2012-12-30 06:21:24 PM
2 votes:

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.


Both people involved in your friend's death broke Rule #1 (Every gun is ALWAYS loaded), Rule #2 (Never point a weapon at something you don't intend to destroy) and Rule #3 (Keep your finger off the trigger until you are prepared to fire). I'm sorry for the loss of your friend, but both people involved in that incident were being stupid.

Guns are inanimate tools that were designed to fire a steel, lead, brass or copper projectile at high rates of speed; that's it. The use a weapon is put to is defined by the person shooting it. Yes, people have used them to kill, and will continue to use them to kill, but those people who truly want to kill someone or something won't be stopped by any ban (note Britain's need to ban samurai swords a few years ago...). No, they'll just walk around the law and purchase a gun illegally, or they will pick up a baseball bat or a knife or a lead pipe or a crossbow or a pencil or an icicle or a ... Do you see? There are no shortage of lethal weapons lying around, and people being stupid can, and will, find a way to use the weapon which is easiest to procure.

Also: more people die every year from car accidents than from guns; should we write more driving laws? More people die every year from cigarette-related causes than from guns; should we write more laws against smoking? More people die from accidental drownings every year than from guns; should we ban swimming? More people die every year from alcohol-related causes than from guns; should we ban alcohol? No, actually, we've already tried that, and it didn't work. My point is that total bans don't work. I would love to see the mentally ill be able to get the treatment they need, so we could take care of the *actual* problem, but the Republicans won't allow that because it would require raising taxes. I would love to see "assault weapons" taken out of the hands of the civilian population, but, oh, wait -- they already are. An AR-15 is NOT an assault weapon, as it does not have a selector switch to swap between semi-automatic and fully-automatic. An M16, an AK-47, an M4... These, and weapons like them, are assault weapons, and you, as a civilian, cannot legally buy them without a special license for which you pay the federal government a freaking huge amount of money every year.

My suggestion is that we A) enforce the laws that are already on the books, and which are sufficient to prevent most illegal weapons-purchases, and B) we get Congress to get off their collective asses and determine a way to lower spending on the stupid stuff so we can afford the important stuff.
2012-12-30 06:19:58 PM
2 votes:
I weigh 300 pounds. (Seriously.) You know who I blame, don't you?

www.campusdish.com

On every corner? C'mon, let's unite and ban this societal oppressor!
2012-12-30 06:15:41 PM
2 votes:

mediablitz: 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?


blog.sarcasmsociety.com
"Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?"
2012-12-30 06:07:08 PM
2 votes:

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 06:06:10 PM
2 votes:

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 06:05:55 PM
2 votes:

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 05:58:35 PM
2 votes:
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 04:52:58 PM
2 votes:

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 04:49:23 PM
2 votes:
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 03:54:32 PM
2 votes:

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?
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-30 03:30:11 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-12-31 07:35:10 AM
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: Do you know for sure which of three people shooting is the bad guy and which is another good guy shooting at the bad guy?


If you can't tell, don't shoot him.
2012-12-30 11:57:24 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: Oblio13: Xcott: You're assuming it would end differently if they had a handgun somewhere.

If they had a concealed handgun and knew how to use it, it might have ended better and it wouldn't have ended any worse.

[people.virginia.edu image 500x75]


See, this is the problem right here, with all these arguments. Everyone dances around it and pretends and denies; but this is the real problem. Lots of people have guns and THINK they could use them in a bad situation but VERY VERY FEW PEOPLE ACTUALLY COULD. And even fewer are willing to admit that they couldn't.

In a thread yesterday, our very own resident combat vet Sgt. Otter gave his own experience of his first time under fire seeing another live person facing him and commented that it took another veteran soldier kicking him in the head and screaming at him to start shooting to make him start firing. This after years of practice and war games in the military, which is designed to turn men into killing machines AND being in a situation where it was kill or be killed and he knew it.

You can watch videos of people under fire from crazed killers on video clip shows and COPS and they all show the same thing: People scattering in panic and hiding under whatever is available. Even the people who have CCWs. The first thing anyone faced with a gun does is try to save his or her own life. Only a very few people know what ELSE to do when faced with a shooter, and that is what is needed. Just having a gun doesn't make you into some kind of hero. You have to know what to do NEXT, and going down to the range a few times a month isn't going to help any when the lead is falling. There were people who charged the Sandy Hook shooter. And died. There were people who tried to take down the Virginia Tech shooter, and died. But there were people with guns who took on the Texas Tower shooter who ALSO failed to kill him. Just having a gun did not help them. It still needed people with better tactics to come in behind him and take him out.

Five random people firing at a shooter without coordinated tactics might kill him--or they might only guarantee a few more victims caught in the crossfire. (probably both) Do you know for sure which of three people shooting is the bad guy and which is another good guy shooting at the bad guy? If not, you could be killing the wrong person. Can you be certain you'll hit the shooter and not the panicked mom dashing for her baby? Do you know where your backstop is? Do you know WHAT a backstop is? Because a lot of these weekend gun enthusiasts don't. And that's what has people like me worried. That too many gun freaks think shooting is like it is on TV, when extra rounds just vanish into the ether and don't continue through walls and into the kid hiding next door.
2012-12-30 11:38:08 PM
1 votes:

Xcott: fredklein: Okay, so they make switchblades illegal. Now, (ignoring the fact that, you know, CRIMINALS DON"T OBEY THE LAW,) let's assume that no one has any more switchblades. Now, criminals carry butterfly knives. So now the government declare those to be illegal. SO, now no one has any butterfly knives. So, now criminals move on to another type of knife. Maybe 'bad-ass hunting knives'? And those are declared illegal, and so on.

What's the end result? ALL knifes are illegal.

But that's obviously not what happened. Hunting knives weren't banned, pocket knives weren't banned, and cutlery isn't banned.


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110208012231AAkF7TJ
Is it legal to carry a large hunting knife in Texas?
It is illegal to carry an "illegal" knife. An illegal knife is a knife that is:
(6) "Illegal knife" means a:
(A) knife with a blade over five and one-half inches;
(B) hand instrument designed to cut or stab another by being thrown;
(C) dagger, including but not limited to a dirk, stiletto, and poniard;
(D) bowie knife;
(E) sword; or
(F) spear.


So, if that hunting knife has a 6" blade, YES, it is illegal. If it's a throwing knife, YES, it is illegal. If it's a bowie knife, YES, it is illegal.

But maybe it's different in other places?...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100113214451AAIhArZ
Hunting/ Survival/ Tactical knives in NYC?
You can own almost any knife you please...Carrying around is another matter... it is illegal to carry any knife at all openly and you have to keep them concealed. Yes, this is backwards from most places where a "concealed weapon" is a crime....
There is generally an exception for knives used for hunting/fish or a specific job (like a seafood chef), but you have to be going to or from that place where you do that activity....
It is generally illegal to carry any knife for self-defense. What that means to you is when a cop asks you why you have it, do not say that's your reason.


Hmm. Maybe the other coast?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080824155832AA8LUwM
Legal to carry hunting knives in CA?
As long as it is not concealed, and you don't carry it onto a school ground or into a public building or airport, you should be OK under State law.


-So, NOT concealed, as opposed to NYC, where it MUST be concealed. And there's a list of places you can't bring it.

As for "pocket knives":

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/06/12/knife-troub le -in-a-new-york-minute.html
Bible-college student's pocketknife spoils trip to New York City
In New York state, it's illegal to carry a "gravity knife" - a knife with a blade that is released from its handle by flicking a wrist and then locks into place....
The officer had seen the clip on Baltzer's pocket, which gave him cause to search him. He found the knife. In Baltzer's telling, the officer tried to flick it open and couldn't. He handed it to another officer, who did flick it open after several tries.

Baltzer was arrested...


http://www.knife-depot.com/blog/new-jersey-knife-laws-make-pocket-kn iv es-illegal/
New Jersey Knife Laws Make Pocket Knives Illegal
...the tale of a young man who was arrested at a random DUI checkpoint for possessing a pocket knife...
"he asked the judge to provide clarification of what law he'd violated, but received none".... "after asking a number of cops, judges and prosecutors, he failed to get a comprehensive answer."
"Because the state statutes are so vague, law enforcement can do just about whatever it wants, from taking the common-sense approach and letting the poor sod go, to incarceration, to astronomical fines, no matter how arbitrary and capricious their actions appear."

As for cutlery"

http://www.sierratradingpost.com/wusthof-scissor-set-5-piece~p~3102y /? filterString=flatware-and-cutlery~d~241%2F&colorFamily=99
Wusthof Scissor Set - 5-Piece
U.S. shipments only; cannot ship to New York state


http://www.giraffeboards.com/showthread.php?t=26624 provides an explanation:
It's probably because the total length is over 4"
In NYC, possession in public of a knife with a blade over 4" is illegal.


or this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8451369.stm
Myleene Klass has 'no regrets' over knife incident
"Hertfordshire Police officers told her that brandishing an "offensive weapon" was illegal."
"The 31-year-old was at her Potters Bar home on Friday with her daughter upstairs when she spotted the youths peering into the house. "

She had "grabbed a knife and banged the windows in an effort to get them to leave", and SHE was talked to by the police. Let's say that again, she has punks (chavs, yobbos, whatever) in her yard, looking in her windows, and SHE gets in trouble for grabbing a kitchen knife and scaring them off.

You're essentially proving that your paranoid belief system is wrong. You're predicting things that didn't happen, and you're making declarations that are directly contradicted by observable facts.

Um...
2012-12-30 11:20:52 PM
1 votes:

Doom MD: Counter proposals have been offered ad nauseum. Furthermore, the awb is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Rifles are used in a very small percentage of crime across the board.


But it's dumb to argue about percentages when a tragedy occurs. Every horrible tragedy is small in percentage terms. Do we need a secret service? A vanishingly small percentage of homicides are presidential assassinations. Did we need to do anything about 9/11? 3,000 is a tiny percentage of deaths.

Do we need do do anything about murder, of any kind? Even in Chicago you're far more likely to die from a car accident or influenza. Percentage-wise, the gang problem doesn't exist!
2012-12-30 11:02:20 PM
1 votes:

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: ... how about gun-ownership advocates respond to proposals like Feinstein's with counterproposals that would address the problems that she is trying and failing to solve. "How about no" isn't always the wrong response, but it isn't always the right one either.


If I want to pull out ten of your teeth, and you say "no", and then I offer to only pull out five of your teeth, and you still say "no", are you unwilling to compromise?
2012-12-30 11:01:32 PM
1 votes:

Oblio13: I suspect that the Sandy Hook teachers were anti-Second Amendment types, just judging from their demographic. But I think that if we could magically bring them back from the dead for a "do-over", they might not want to go out on their knees in a puddle of urine again.


Before you make horrifically shameful claims like that to further your cause upon the corpses of innocent men and women, it might do you well to know that every adult that died went out protecting their classroom, or trying to stop Lanza.
2012-12-30 10:37:24 PM
1 votes:

ParaHandy: Mock26: I wish idiots would stop bringing up the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment and asking where all the militias are today. These people are idiots and need to get with the times. The 2nd Amendment does not currently mean what it meant in 1791. It has changed over time.

So you're saying we are free to interpret it sensibly in the light of 21st century realities?

/ I am happy for any member of the National Guard to own as many muskets as they want


No. We the people are not free to interpret it. That is the job of the Supreme Court. And they have interpreted it so that today it is an individual right that is not limited to just muskets.
2012-12-30 10:35:49 PM
1 votes:

Spirit Hammer: Mock26: I wish idiots would stop bringing up the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment and asking where all the militias are today. These people are idiots and need to get with the times. The 2nd Amendment does not currently mean what it meant in 1791. It has changed over time.

Second Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Compare to:

"A well educated House of Representatives, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Do you believe this sentence says that only government officials can own and read books?


People get strange when conversation turns to guns.


The Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd Amendment over the years in such a way that the militia part really no longer has any validity. In today's America the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and the militia part is not required. This is not my opinion. This is for all intents and purposes fact of law.
2012-12-30 10:16:33 PM
1 votes:

mediablitz: ... 2/3rds of the killing weapons in Mexico come from the Untied States...


THIS is why I won't be turning in my rifles. Some of our highest officials pushed that outright lie to further their agenda, and Fast and Furious was designed to manufacture "evidence" for it.

Remember Hillary showing off the M60 machine guns, grenades and claymores supposedly "bought" in the US? Show me the gunstore.

Why would drug cartels buy expensive semi-automatic rifles one at a time north of their border, when they can get anything they want at a fraction of the price from their own army or south of their border?

Mexico's constitution gives citizens about the same right to keep and bear arms as ours does, in theory. But it's been so diluted that it's virtually impossible for them to actually do so. And yet the criminal elements are so well armed that they can take on military units and win.
2012-12-30 10:02:30 PM
1 votes:
What we need to ban is Florida.
2012-12-30 09:30:29 PM
1 votes:

chumboobler: In my view, regulation would not mean confiscation.


Unfortunately, the history of firearms regulation is working against you.

Instead of using hostile and aggressive terms, let's say people who support gun ownership recognize the strength of conviction among people who argue for tighter regulation, and know that the law is a process, not a single event.

Let's say the two sides get together and work out a middle ground that both can accept.. mandatory registration, ballistic fingerprinting, taggants in the propellant or projectile, whatever. The point is that it's a compromise where both sides agree to accept "less than everything I want" to reach an agreement. Let's further agree that both sides are sincere in their intent to cooperate.

So the compromise gets enacted as law. Then let's say someone comes along with a new piece of proposed legislation that will give the pro-regulation side more of what they want, at the cost of imposing restrictions the anti-regulation side doesn't want.

Put yourself in the position of someone who supports regulation. Will you vote against a law that does something you consider valuable in order to maintain the compromise you made previously, or will you vote for the law and renege on your side of the compromise?

The pro-regulation side has too long a history of making the second choice to be credible bargaining partners any more. Plenty of hardcore NRA members would be happy to live with stricter-but-still-moderate regulations, but will oppose those regulations because they've seen 'registration' turn into 'confiscation' too many times to think it won't happen again.
2012-12-30 09:25:08 PM
1 votes:

ParaHandy: This stuff's not hard to come by.

Nor is it in the UK, but aside from the PIRA I've never heard of anyone bothering.


The UK was able to confiscate most firearms because a.) There weren't that many to start with, and b.) Pardon me for saying it, but they have an obedient serf tradition as opposed to a rebellious frontier tradition.

And when they were done, their gun crime rate did indeed go down. But their overall violent crime rate went UP.

America has tens of millions of firearms. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of military veterans armed with semi-automatic versions of rifles they are very familiar with. There is a strong sub-culture of Constitutionalists who believe the Republic should be what the founders intended it to be. They simply aren't going to give up their rifles.

And not to minimize the tragedy of the murders we're all horrified by, but in a world of limited resources, let's keep it in perspective: odds of a student being intentionally killed at school, 1:1,887,500. Odds of a student dying on a bicycle, 1:4,472.
2012-12-30 08:25:27 PM
1 votes:

ParaHandy: They want their guns due to a fundamental emotional insecurity about the fact the world around them changes constantly and they can't control it.


And here I thought I wanted my guns so I could hunt deer, elk and other game. Thanks for telling me about my insecurity and clearing up what I think and feel.
2012-12-30 08:04:10 PM
1 votes:

Spare Me: How close to the abyss do you want to go and then act surprised when the jack boots come callin?


Ah yes, the jackboots again. There's a great way to win the public policy debate: cast your country as a jack-booted oppressor out of 1984. Regular people will totally see your logic instead of thinking, "this is a loon who wants guns so he can shoot cops and American soldiers."

The 2nd amendment is on the books so a well-armed populace can defend their country, not attack it in a paranoid fit after reading pamphlets about the admiralty flag and FEMA manacle boxcars.
2012-12-30 08:02:57 PM
1 votes:
I like the argument that is based on "Spoons make me fat ban spoons."
You can counter with "Do spoons make you make other people fat?" because if all the gunshot fatalities were self-inflicted I might be cool with no more regulation on guns. On the mental health issue, if we know someone is apt to hurt themselves or others we take all weapons of opportunity away from them. Having more and more guns in society makes for more and more weapons of opportunity.
We can say "Well if someone wants to kill someone, they will find a way.", but why make that search process easier?
I can point out numerous ways not to drown in a pool, but the most obvious is getting rid of the pool. Then there are other degrees of rational thought, restricting access to the pool (government regulations), more lifeguards (government regulation) or requiring everyone that has access to the pool be a certified a "Good Swimmer" (government regulation). When more and more people are drowning in the pool, screaming that there should be no more government regulation or saying that the regulations don't work, is akin to saying the only solution is to get rid of the pool.
I am not for getting rid of the pool, but failing to make it safe for everyone will eventually make it so no one can enjoy the pool.
2012-12-30 08:00:08 PM
1 votes:

Oblio13: chumboobler:

Wow. You really think you need to be afraid of the Jack Boots? You are a man that is full of fear.

Yeah, we're still the Land of the Free except for warrantless wiretaps and searches, political correctness, naked scanners, social network monitoring, patriotic group-think, police militarization, strip-searches, drone surveillance, indefinite detention without due process, military tribunals, GPS monitoring, assassination of citizens, and secret courts using secret evidence, etc. Don't be so paranoid.


I thought being armed to the teeth was supposed to protect us from Orwellian crap like the disgustingly misnamed "patroit act". Where were all the 2nd amendment fans when that shait went down?
2012-12-30 07:38:58 PM
1 votes:

Xcott: I bet you a thousand dollars that the grand majority of people that use guns in homicides do not possess machine shop tools or skills necessary to build their own guns.


Do they have the 'tools or skills' to BUY guns from others?
2012-12-30 07:29:59 PM
1 votes:

moothemagiccow:
Those countries' militaries combined are a pale shadow of the United States military. You are not taking over this country. You will be stopped before you get the chance to start...


True, armed peasants don't stand a chance against our military, that's why we won so quickly in Vietnam. Okay, bad example. But Lebanon. Wait. Somalia? Hang on, give me a minute. Iraq? Afghanistan? Let me get back to you on this.
2012-12-30 07:29:17 PM
1 votes:

chumboobler: Anybody who isn't afraid of common sense understands that regulation will likely just "regulate" the purchase, storage requirements and competency of those that wish to possess firearms. Why do people just go straight to the confiscation and loss of rights card? It is just regulation.


Citizen, papers please. Well...because it is a loss of Rights. Duhhhh.
2012-12-30 07:24:03 PM
1 votes:

chumboobler: stirfrybry: Spare Me: ParaHandy: I really like the liability insurance angle ... since guns are very safe when used properly, as the NRA tells us, the insurance premiums should be negligible. It also puts gun regulation into the free market, and allows benevolent corporations instead of nasty Dems to decide what they will and won't insure. Very bootstrappy. And it's working super well for healthcare, I'm told.

I think it's funny how people think "regulation" is some kind of punishment restriction. Regulation only means making a market "regular" for all the players. That's all "regulation" is.

anybody with an ounce of logic understands that regulations will be used to take rights

Anybody who isn't afraid of common sense understands that regulation will likely just "regulate" the purchase, storage requirements and competency of those that wish to possess firearms. Why do people just go straight to the confiscation and loss of rights card? It is just regulation.


it's called "learning from the past".
2012-12-30 07:15:13 PM
1 votes:

stirfrybry: Spare Me: ParaHandy: I really like the liability insurance angle ... since guns are very safe when used properly, as the NRA tells us, the insurance premiums should be negligible. It also puts gun regulation into the free market, and allows benevolent corporations instead of nasty Dems to decide what they will and won't insure. Very bootstrappy. And it's working super well for healthcare, I'm told.

I think it's funny how people think "regulation" is some kind of punishment restriction. Regulation only means making a market "regular" for all the players. That's all "regulation" is.

anybody with an ounce of logic understands that regulations will be used to take rights


Yep, and that's the rub.
2012-12-30 07:07:47 PM
1 votes:

Spare Me: ParaHandy: I really like the liability insurance angle ... since guns are very safe when used properly, as the NRA tells us, the insurance premiums should be negligible. It also puts gun regulation into the free market, and allows benevolent corporations instead of nasty Dems to decide what they will and won't insure. Very bootstrappy. And it's working super well for healthcare, I'm told.

I think it's funny how people think "regulation" is some kind of punishment restriction. Regulation only means making a market "regular" for all the players. That's all "regulation" is.


anybody with an ounce of logic understands that regulations will be used to take rights
2012-12-30 06:54:29 PM
1 votes:

Point02GPA: Flare guns were designed to save people.
Electron guns were used primarily to entertain people.
Potatoe guns were made for  Quayles.


Don't forget trebuche's and compressed air cannons. How else would be able to do a pumpkin siege. Trust me, you do not want to be on the receiving end.

1.bp.blogspot.com
2012-12-30 06:51:35 PM
1 votes:

stirfrybry: treecologist: Subby cannot make me fat with his spoon. I cannot make subby fat with my spoon.

Subby can kill me with his gun. I can kill subby with my gun.

Damn, subby, you're right! Spoons and guns are exactly the same!

///I would prefer that subby shot himself with his own gun, if he feels the need to shoot anyone.

Both require a user to make it happen. How about you blame the person


No idea. Check a gun and tell me. I just found it amusing that the fatty equated spoons with guns and missed the fact that his ammo in that analogy is heavily regulated by the government.

Imagine how much stricter the FDA would be if you could choose to take out a bunch of other people every time you had a lard induced coronary.
2012-12-30 06:47:10 PM
1 votes:
GiddeonFox: I could walk down to the gun show that's in my town right now and take home literally 100+ guns without a waiting period (loophole for gun shows!)

You do realize that "loophole" has nothing to do with gun shows and everything to do with sales/transfers between private individuals, right? That said, it's not a bad idea to give people the ability to run a background check for private sales. That would protect the seller as well as help ensure that firearms weren't going to unqualified people.
2012-12-30 06:46:37 PM
1 votes:
Why won't anti-gunners and the media learn what assault weapons are?
2012-12-30 06:45:30 PM
1 votes:
Nothing can be done about this. It is totally out of our control and you all know it.

Gun use, ownership and culture is a virus.
2012-12-30 06:40:57 PM
1 votes:
Flare guns were designed to save people.
Electron guns were used primarily to entertain people.
Potatoe guns were made for  Quayles.
2012-12-30 06:39:03 PM
1 votes:

treecologist: Subby cannot make me fat with his spoon. I cannot make subby fat with my spoon.

Subby can kill me with his gun. I can kill subby with my gun.

Damn, subby, you're right! Spoons and guns are exactly the same!

///I would prefer that subby shot himself with his own gun, if he feels the need to shoot anyone.


Both require a user to make it happen. How about you blame the person
2012-12-30 06:38:36 PM
1 votes:

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.


Yes, they do. As you have said, most of the time what they counter with is to ban something that has a use that outweighs the cost that banning it would impose. For example, cars. Cars do in fact kill more people than guns but the good that they bring to society makes it impractical to ban them. Apparently there is an acceptable number of kids that should die to allow people to keep their cars.

There are however, some things which have almost no practical benefit at all to society and should be banned because they are used to kill people. But when gun enthusiasts call for their banning, the gun grabber nuts come back with the same lame questions like what you asked. Apparently only gun grabbers are allowed to increase safety in this country by proposing banning things. Everybody else can go suck it. Does that sound about right?
2012-12-30 06:35:36 PM
1 votes:

fredklein: Knives 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 knives, fundamentally, are meant to destroy things. It's the only reason they are made.


Yes, and many states outlaw knives that are either intended to harm people, or which are too suitable for that purpose, e.g. butterfly knives.

'm not seeing the point of this argument---if anything, it affirms that you can selectively ban a dangerous thing based on how geared it is towards hurting or killing people.
2012-12-30 06:34:50 PM
1 votes:
GiddeonFox: That you can't say that "a device which causes objects to attain concentrated high energies and then transfer this energy to something else which generally cannot withstand such energy" is not fundamentally destructive. Argue all you want on other grounds, but "guns aren't destructive things by their nature unless people abuse them" is just wrong.

I'm sorry, you were simply following the progression of the thread. My question really should have been directed at Darth_Lukecash as he was the one who brought it up. Whether or not guns were meant to destroy is a stupid argument. Yes, the rounds generally destroy whatever they hit. Bringing that up is pointless.
2012-12-30 06:34:06 PM
1 votes:
Subby cannot make me fat with his spoon. I cannot make subby fat with my spoon.

Subby can kill me with his gun. I can kill subby with my gun.

Damn, subby, you're right! Spoons and guns are exactly the same!

///I would prefer that subby shot himself with his own gun, if he feels the need to shoot anyone.
2012-12-30 06:33:49 PM
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: El Brujo: more guns = more guns. You have a gun, so I need a gun.

if you extrapolate the gun nut's logic for a safe America, wherever more than one person is gathered, a firearm should be present.

This is farking out of control and there is no going back.

/thinking about getting a handgun.
//we're farked

When I hear about home invasions on the news I start to think that maybe I should buy a gun for protection. Then I start to think of all of the studies that say you are more likely to have your own gun used against you than successfully defend yourself against criminals, and the higher rates of gun violence among gun owners, as well as worrying that somebody might get drunk and start playing with it and cause a problem.

Therefore I think I should probably just buy a can of mace or pepper spray for protection.


Those studies that say the gun will be used against you aren't simply flawed, they are outright lies.  As for the higher rate of violence among gun owners, that's also a lie.  That particular study cherry picked the data to come up with the result they wanted.  For example, drug dealers and their customers are considered "friends" in that study.  Hard core gang-bangers were also included in the numbers.
2012-12-30 06:33:06 PM
1 votes:

moothemagiccow: david_gaithersburg: moothemagiccow: david_gaithersburg: 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?

.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.

Explain to us what the Second Amendment is about. Don't tell me the bill of rights gives you the power to overthrow the government. You're going to need more than an AR15 and a couple buddies mad about quartering troops.

.
A - You have said that you do not want to hear the actual answer.
B - Tell it to the Algerians, the Libyans, the Syrians, etc., etc.
C - With all of the recent uprisings against dictatorships, your fear is understandable comrade.

If that's your answer, you've got to be kidding.

Those countries' militaries combined are a pale shadow of the United States military. You are not taking over this country. You will be stopped before you get the chance to start.

I'm not afraid of you. What gave you that indication? Owning a gun is an indicator of fear. It says to me, "if I didn't have this gun, you might hurt me."


.
Here are a few hundred more examples from the past 100 years. Link

24.media.tumblr.com
2012-12-30 06:32:36 PM
1 votes:
I hate all the gun people's "you can't blame the gun!" "the gun didn't do anything wrong!" "guns don't kill anything, people do" "the real victim here is the poor gun!" "won't someone think of the gun" "guns are inanimate objects" drivel.

/not anti-gun
2012-12-30 06:30:38 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: 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.


How would that have helped prevent the Newtown massacre? The mentally ill kid wasn't the one who bought or owned the guns---he simply took them from his mother, who passed all the requisite background checks.

I'm sure it's sound policy, but as long as anyone can acquire an arsenal, a felon or maniac can simply kill that person and take his/her guns.

But then, it's really a matter of the raw numbers, induced by this daffy wingnut trend of acquiring pointlessly large arsenals for no legitimate reason. Now that it's commonplace to have giant arms stashes with assault rifles and extended magazines, you just have a greater proportion of sickos who can get their hands on them.

In an alternate universe, stockpiling weapons is still the domain of militia types hiding out in Montana, this guy's mom would have gotten into kite flying or playing the bodhran, and this kid at the very worst would have gone on to stab Garrison Keillor. Instead, we have half the country convinced that the world is ending and they have to be ready to defend themselves with assault rifles, gold coins and cylinders of heirloom seeds.
2012-12-30 06:29:38 PM
1 votes:

LordOfThePings: 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!


Came here for this, thanks for covering it.

If you're a journalist and you don't know what the First Amendment says, then you're not a journalist.
2012-12-30 06:28:29 PM
1 votes:

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: stirfrybry:
let's break it down:

liberal view: Guns are responsible, not the person using the gun

Congratulations on your total failure to understand your opponents.



yeah, right. Gun control? Ban guns? Totally not blaming guns at all! You win.
2012-12-30 06:25:57 PM
1 votes:

stirfrybry:
let's break it down:

liberal view: Guns are responsible, not the person using the gun


Congratulations on your total failure to understand your opponents.
2012-12-30 06:22:00 PM
1 votes:

moothemagiccow: david_gaithersburg: 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?

.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.

Explain to us what the Second Amendment is about. Don't tell me the bill of rights gives you the power to overthrow the government. You're going to need more than an AR15 and a couple buddies mad about quartering troops.


.
A - You have said that you do not want to hear the actual answer.
B - Tell it to the Algerians, the Libyans, the Syrians, etc., etc.
C - With all of the recent uprisings against dictatorships, your fear is understandable comrade.
2012-12-30 06:20:54 PM
1 votes:
Despite their opposing views on gun control, the people do agree on one thing - something needs to be done in hopes of preventing another tragic school shooting.

Sighs..you're not going to prevent shiat. You can take all the measures you want, but some people are just bat shiat crazy. They will continue to kill if they have a gun, a knife, or a bomb. All you can do is do your best to protect everyone, and yourself. If that means a few folks in the schools that are armed, i have no issue with this as long as they are properly trained. But don't expect some miracle "prevention" because you're going to be disappointed.
2012-12-30 06:18:17 PM
1 votes:
but you eat yogurt with a spoon. and you eat a mcrib with your hands
2012-12-30 06:18:14 PM
1 votes:
I am somehow reminded of Mark Twain's "War Prayer" Found here... http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/twain1.html

The salient point of which is...
"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle - be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it - for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen."
2012-12-30 06:16:47 PM
1 votes:

El Brujo: more guns = more guns. You have a gun, so I need a gun.

if you extrapolate the gun nut's logic for a safe America, wherever more than one person is gathered, a firearm should be present.

This is farking out of control and there is no going back.

/thinking about getting a handgun.
//we're farked


When I hear about home invasions on the news I start to think that maybe I should buy a gun for protection. Then I start to think of all of the studies that say you are more likely to have your own gun used against you than successfully defend yourself against criminals, and the higher rates of gun violence among gun owners, as well as worrying that somebody might get drunk and start playing with it and cause a problem.

Therefore I think I should probably just buy a can of mace or pepper spray for protection.
2012-12-30 06:15:47 PM
1 votes:

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.


let's break it down:

liberal view: Guns are responsible, not the person using the gun


Mocking the logic by blaming spoons for the fat person's behavior is supposed to be absurd
2012-12-30 06:14:54 PM
1 votes:
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.

What?

seriously? The fark?
2012-12-30 06:14:37 PM
1 votes:

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?


Yes, but money. The whole point of the doomsday prepper craze is to convince lots of people to obsessively acquire high-end expensive things. The killer's mother in the Newtown shooting had a pointlessly large arsenal of pointlessly powerful weapons, and she wasn't alone: enough people in the town were mimicking her behavior that residents complained of constant and gratuitous ka-booms from unlicensed shooting ranges.

If guns became these simple pedestrian things, if collecting guns became about as fun as collecting brooms, then it wastes all the marketing effort spent on creating "gun enthusiast" as a hobby.
2012-12-30 06:13:37 PM
1 votes:

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?


.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.
2012-12-30 06:13:11 PM
1 votes:
GiddeonFox: Sport is destructive. You are destroying targets or game. This is like arguing that a jackhammer is not fundamentally a destructive tool because you don't necessarially have to be aiming it at concrete.

Now that you've made that abundantly clear that high-velocity objects transfer a lot of energy when they strike something, just what point are you making here?
2012-12-30 06:11:42 PM
1 votes:

Xcott: 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.


A bolt-action rifle is designed to kill things. Assault rifles like the AR-15 are designed to wound things. The thinking is that a wounded soldier is better than a dead soldier outright because it takes 2-4 others to tend to an injured soldier while it takes 0-1 others to take care of a dead soldier. Also, smaller rounds are easier to transport and carry. Hence why the 9mm is also popular for some semi-automatics.

But yelling, "we need to ban weapons designed to wound people" doesn't have the same kick.
2012-12-30 06:11:25 PM
1 votes:
more guns = more guns. You have a gun, so I need a gun.

if you extrapolate the gun nut's logic for a safe America, wherever more than one person is gathered, a firearm should be present.

This is farking out of control and there is no going back.

/thinking about getting a handgun.
//we're farked
2012-12-30 06:09:49 PM
1 votes:

Bisu: 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.


Sport is destructive. You are destroying targets or game. This is like arguing that a jackhammer is not fundamentally a destructive tool because you don't necessarially have to be aiming it at concrete.
2012-12-30 06:09:14 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-30 06:08:46 PM
1 votes:

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 06:04:18 PM
1 votes:
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 05:56:57 PM
1 votes:
"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 05:56:43 PM
1 votes:

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 05:56:01 PM
1 votes:

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 05:53:33 PM
1 votes:
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 05:52:56 PM
1 votes:

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 05:48:31 PM
1 votes:
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 05:48:15 PM
1 votes:
elleandtheautognome.files.wordpress.com

Seriously guys, you're slacking.
2012-12-30 05:46:27 PM
1 votes:
Subby is a dick.
2012-12-30 04:55:09 PM
1 votes:

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 04:51:42 PM
1 votes:

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 04:37:41 PM
1 votes:
We should regulate weapons further because you have stupid friends?
2012-12-30 04:32:12 PM
1 votes:

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 03:43:37 PM
1 votes:

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 01:25:03 PM
1 votes:
That's the only thing that needs to be said.
 
Displayed 102 of 102 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report