Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS Sacramento) NewsFlash Shots fired in Sacramento during NYE celebration, multiple people killed. Fireworks cancelled and Old Town Sacramento being evacuated. Subby on site (Updated article w/video)   (sacramento.cbslocal.com) divider line 822
    More: NewsFlash, nye, Old Town Sacramento, shots  
•       •       •

33154 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jan 2013 at 2:18 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-01 08:49:58 AM  
Because of the sensitivity of the issue. Expect every news story of a shooting to have the potential for chicken farking.
 
2013-01-01 08:53:40 AM  

letrole: Guns are part of America forever. Even if every firearm from BB gun up was banned, it would be a logistical impossibility to round them up and dispose of them.

The amusing thing here is the way that the sorts of people who are trying to make gun ownership immoral are the licentious ones who gave up any claim to morality long ago.

They're not bad people, mind you. They just scoffed at the idea of right and wrong existing in the first place. Everything is supposed to be relative. It depends on the situation, you see.

Except if the situation looks like a responsible, law abiding citizen having posession of a given inaminate object.

Whoa boy! Looks like somebody just got a case of the absolute right and wrongs.


This, so much this. Earlier we had someone say that all people that own guns should receive capital punishment. I realize it was just a reactionary statement and trying to get people to bite.
 
2013-01-01 08:54:54 AM  
If this was Drew's other website, I'd upload a pic of what an Old Sac might look like.


/Sacramento has never been a safe place
 
2013-01-01 08:55:59 AM  
And no, not with a self-portrait.
 
2013-01-01 08:59:58 AM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: mikaloyd: So did any of y'all know the victims?

As far as I know, they've not yet released the names of the victims. There were thousands of people down there though. There are every year for NYE. The chances I knew one of them are slim, to say the least. Honestly, I would have felt fairly safe there. It's Discovery Park that I would avoid during the boozy holidays, not Old Sac. I'd rampage Candy Heaven for the free samples, then hit Fanny Ann's for a burger and beer. It's just "the thing" to do, cuz it's fun. There's usually a fairly strong, though subtle, police presence on the K Street mall and in Old Sac with the mounted police and the bike cops, with the paddy wagon cruising around nearby. I would have felt totally safe and probably been very freaked out if I'd been there when that happened.

tinfoil-hat maggie: Wow, CSS : )

My ex's stuff was newly made but it was quality stuff i mean I've held replica swords and you can tell the weight difference, I guess it's the metals involved.

It's very cool you're so into history, well you're history : )

It took me a while to get into our history. My psycho uncle beat the crap out of me when I was six years old for "not embracing my Nordic heritage". He was mad I didn't speak Norwegian (I still don't, just a few words and phrases) My sis and I were dumped in Norway every summer as we were growing up, so we could stay with family for our vacation. I kicked and screamed, bit and scratched every time I had to go to psycho uncle's house. My Gran finally quit making me go and I'd just hang out at her place or another relative's house. I had a strong aversion to any of the original Germanic tribes, Scandinavian or otherwise, for a very long time because of that. Now that I'm in my 40's, I've embraced it more. Still hate the psycho uncle, told him if he ever came to Cali he's probably the only person I actually could shoot, but other Scandinavians do not deserve my scorn. So now if it's a weapon or shield or religious artifa ...


Wow, sorry about the psycho uncle, but the rest is cool and yea I think as we get older were appreciate our past more..
 
2013-01-01 09:03:26 AM  

HoityToity: The bystander who was quoted saying "It sounded like a Glock" needs to be slapped.

If there exists such a finely tuned ear within the human race that can tell the make of a hand gun just by its' sound, I would love to meet that person.

"That was a .38 special, ++p, coming out of a S&W Bodyguard, with.... yes... is that a Crimson Trace hand grip laser as well? Yeeesssssss......"


I'm betting the person was using 'Glock' like a lot of people use 'Scotch Tape'. A brand name that has turned into a generic name for any 9 mm (or similar) semi auto pistol.
 
2013-01-01 09:05:48 AM  

JSam21: Infernalist: Is this enough, people?

Have we had enough people killed by easy access handguns yet?

Have seen enough dead people yet?

How many people have to die before we finally admit that our obsession with handguns is to blame?

You're not Dirty Harry, John McClain, Rambo, or Jason Bourne. This is not a movie. The government is not going to turn into a dictatorship if handguns are banned.

How many people are we going to bury before we finally ban these things? Do you all need someone close to you shot and killed at one of these events before you'll see how destructive they are? Do you need to lose a wife? A child? A mother? A father? What's it going to take for you to abandon your gun fantasies?

How does that end anything?


Finally, a sensible question.

Banning handguns at the source(shutting down the factories) is a long term solution. The gun makers have spent 30+ years flooding this country with easy access handguns, saturating our society with guns and now turn around and use that very saturation as a reason to not ban guns. They've created this problem.

Banning the guns at the source will do little to stop gangland crime 'immediately'. But it 'will' stop it long term. Let me explain.

This is what would happen:

Handgun ban goes into effect. Immediately, all gun makers and gun sellers would be required to sell their guns at market cost to the government. They are allowed to sell single-shot hunting rifles, but no more handguns or automatic rifles.

Gun owners are given the chance to turn over their guns to be bought by the government, no questions asked, for full market cost. This buy-back would be a permanent feature of the ban. It would never end.

At this point, the government rolls in and takes down a few dozen wackjobs and survivalist compounds where there are verified stores of illegal weaponry. But, other than these lunatics, the government does nothing else to confiscate weapons from gun owners who refuse to turn over their guns.

Gun owners, fearful of losing their guns, would hide them away, out of sight and away from the public. Their very actions to save their guns from being confiscated will accomplish the same thing as confiscation: A lack of guns in public.

There would be no door-to-door search for guns. There'd be no great effort to ferret out gun owners. It would be very much like the way we treat drugs. Cops would do their jobs and if guns are found, then the owner is sited, the guns are taken and life goes on.

In a few decades, without a steady flood of new guns into society, gun crime would dry up. Criminals would still continue to commit crimes on each other and on the rest of us, but there wouldn't be anymore massacres. No more school shooting, movie shootings, daycare shootings.

So, no it wouldn't be quick, but it would work. It's the only thing that would work. Shut off the supply at the source.
 
2013-01-01 09:11:19 AM  
Don't ask me why, but after RTFA, I have "pop pop pop, it sounded like a Glock" going through my head with the tune, "Rappers Delight" going through my head.
 
2013-01-01 09:14:23 AM  

Infernalist: JSam21: Infernalist: Is this enough, people?

Have we had enough people killed by easy access handguns yet?

Have seen enough dead people yet?

How many people have to die before we finally admit that our obsession with handguns is to blame?

You're not Dirty Harry, John McClain, Rambo, or Jason Bourne. This is not a movie. The government is not going to turn into a dictatorship if handguns are banned.

How many people are we going to bury before we finally ban these things? Do you all need someone close to you shot and killed at one of these events before you'll see how destructive they are? Do you need to lose a wife? A child? A mother? A father? What's it going to take for you to abandon your gun fantasies?

How does that end anything?

Finally, a sensible question.

Banning handguns at the source(shutting down the factories) is a long term solution. The gun makers have spent 30+ years flooding this country with easy access handguns, saturating our society with guns and now turn around and use that very saturation as a reason to not ban guns. They've created this problem.

Banning the guns at the source will do little to stop gangland crime 'immediately'. But it 'will' stop it long term. Let me explain.

This is what would happen:

Handgun ban goes into effect. Immediately, all gun makers and gun sellers would be required to sell their guns at market cost to the government. They are allowed to sell single-shot hunting rifles, but no more handguns or automatic rifles.

Gun owners are given the chance to turn over their guns to be bought by the government, no questions asked, for full market cost. This buy-back would be a permanent feature of the ban. It would never end.

At this point, the government rolls in and takes down a few dozen wackjobs and survivalist compounds where there are verified stores of illegal weaponry. But, other than these lunatics, the government does nothing else to confiscate weapons from gun owners who refuse to turn over their guns.

Gun owners, fearful of losing their guns, would hide them away, out of sight and away from the public. Their very actions to save their guns from being confiscated will accomplish the same thing as confiscation: A lack of guns in public.

There would be no door-to-door search for guns. There'd be no great effort to ferret out gun owners. It would be very much like the way we treat drugs. Cops would do their jobs and if guns are found, then the owner is sited, the guns are taken and life goes on.

In a few decades, without a steady flood of new guns into society, gun crime would dry up. Criminals would still continue to commit crimes on each other and on the rest of us, but there wouldn't be anymore massacres. No more school shooting, movie shootings, daycare shootings.

So, no it wouldn't be quick, but it would work. It's the only thing that would work. Shut off the supply at the source.


You know I've been trying to think of how revolution could actually break out in this country. That would do it.
 
2013-01-01 09:16:33 AM  
It never fails to amaze me how quick some retards are to threaten revolution...Especially retards who proclaim themselves to be law-abiding gun owners.

If my solution was actually implemented, you'd do nothing more than hide your guns(If you actually have any), and complain loudly on Fark. Nothing more.
 
2013-01-01 09:18:58 AM  
It amazes me that you think I advocate bloody revolution. You're assuming a docile populous in your theory. If the recent event have proven anything we have a destabilizing populous. I've just been wondering how close we are to organized action, and that organized action will not happen without drastic action by the government to violate historical freedoms, which an action like banning hand guns would be.
 
2013-01-01 09:19:44 AM  

Scruffinator: JSam21: everyone from Spain runs with bulls, enjoys exploring the ocean via sailboat, and makes a mean paella.

They do? TO SPAIN!


Hey wait for me that sounds fun ; )
 
2013-01-01 09:20:28 AM  
Infernalist: So, no it wouldn't be quick, but it would work. It's the only thing that would work. Shut off the supply at the source.

Hence the current tactic of trying to denigrate those who own guns, and making it a temperence campaign. Something must be done to make all those gun owners *want* to give up arms.

The major flaw with using prohibition is that the vast majority of Americans don't share this morbid fear of mere precision machinery.

It's foolish to compare the future illicit gun trade with drug trade. The black market will flourish, the way that the black market flourished under the Soviets. All segments of society will participate. Why all segments? It's simple. Everybody wants guns.
 
2013-01-01 09:20:43 AM  

Farkomatic: Don't ask me why, but after RTFA, I have "pop pop pop, it sounded like a Glock" going through my head with the tune, "Rappers Delight" going through my head.


Maybe it's because I'm used to going to gun ranges, where everyone's shooting everything...but how the fark does one tell the sound of a Glock from other guns? Or is this a case of people using the gun charts that pop up here all the time to identify said Glock?
 
2013-01-01 09:21:11 AM  
Wait, Subby is the shooter?!

Sign of the times, man...
 
2013-01-01 09:21:11 AM  
Another progressive gone made, we need to disarm the blue states.
 
2013-01-01 09:21:32 AM  

Infernalist: JSam21: Infernalist: Is this enough, people?

Have we had enough people killed by easy access handguns yet?

Have seen enough dead people yet?

How many people have to die before we finally admit that our obsession with handguns is to blame?

You're not Dirty Harry, John McClain, Rambo, or Jason Bourne. This is not a movie. The government is not going to turn into a dictatorship if handguns are banned.

How many people are we going to bury before we finally ban these things? Do you all need someone close to you shot and killed at one of these events before you'll see how destructive they are? Do you need to lose a wife? A child? A mother? A father? What's it going to take for you to abandon your gun fantasies?

How does that end anything?

Finally, a sensible question.

Banning handguns at the source(shutting down the factories) is a long term solution. The gun makers have spent 30+ years flooding this country with easy access handguns, saturating our society with guns and now turn around and use that very saturation as a reason to not ban guns. They've created this problem.

Banning the guns at the source will do little to stop gangland crime 'immediately'. But it 'will' stop it long term. Let me explain.

This is what would happen:

Handgun ban goes into effect. Immediately, all gun makers and gun sellers would be required to sell their guns at market cost to the government. They are allowed to sell single-shot hunting rifles, but no more handguns or automatic rifles.

Gun owners are given the chance to turn over their guns to be bought by the government, no questions asked, for full market cost. This buy-back would be a permanent feature of the ban. It would never end.

At this point, the government rolls in and takes down a few dozen wackjobs and survivalist compounds where there are verified stores of illegal weaponry. But, other than these lunatics, the government does nothing else to confiscate weapons from gun owners who refuse to turn over their guns.

Gun owners, fearful of losing their guns, would hide them away, out of sight and away from the public. Their very actions to save their guns from being confiscated will accomplish the same thing as confiscation: A lack of guns in public.

There would be no door-to-door search for guns. There'd be no great effort to ferret out gun owners. It would be very much like the way we treat drugs. Cops would do their jobs and if guns are found, then the owner is sited, the guns are taken and life goes on.

In a few decades, without a steady flood of new guns into society, gun crime would dry up. Criminals would still continue to commit crimes on each other and on the rest of us, but there wouldn't be anymore massacres. No more school shooting, movie shootings, daycare shootings.

So, no it wouldn't be quick, but it would work. It's the only thing that would work. Shut off the supply at the source.


Ok... hold on a second. So you are calling for a worldwide ban of all semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons? What about military use?
 
2013-01-01 09:22:14 AM  
What odds are being given that this guy did not legally own the gun?
 
2013-01-01 09:22:19 AM  
Infernalist: If my solution was actually implemented,

Every man has at least one truly great idea that will not work.
 
2013-01-01 09:22:27 AM  
I blame not having Dick Clark
 
2013-01-01 09:22:51 AM  
Funny, tonight my Wife and I celebrated moving away from Sacramento this past year. I didn't hate it, but we just didn't know anyone and decided to move home.

I used to go to Old Town and didn't think it was unsafe in general (maybe if it flooded). FFS, anyplace is unsafe if you have gun toting arseholes.
 
2013-01-01 09:23:15 AM  

Cerebral Knievel: some people just want to watch the world burn....



Please pass the marshmallows.
 
2013-01-01 09:28:15 AM  

letrole: Infernalist: So, no it wouldn't be quick, but it would work. It's the only thing that would work. Shut off the supply at the source.

Hence the current tactic of trying to denigrate those who own guns, and making it a temperence campaign. Something must be done to make all those gun owners *want* to give up arms.

The major flaw with using prohibition is that the vast majority of Americans don't share this morbid fear of mere precision machinery.

It's foolish to compare the future illicit gun trade with drug trade. The black market will flourish, the way that the black market flourished under the Soviets. All segments of society will participate. Why all segments? It's simple. Everybody wants guns.


Reality disagrees with you. Polls show that over 55% of Americans are wanting stricter gun control laws. And I'm sure that in the short term, guns 'will' be traded through a black market, but without a supply, that market will dry up relatively quick.

After all, without ammunition factories churning out millions of bullets a year...where are you going to get the ammo for those black market guns? Make them yourself? Sure, some small fraction of the population will do this, but not in any significant amount and mostly just for themselves. Gangbangers aren't going to make their own bullets. Lunatics like Lanza won't be making their own bullets.

Kill the supply and within a few decades, the problem will be gone.
 
2013-01-01 09:29:12 AM  

JSam21: Infernalist: JSam21: Infernalist: Is this enough, people?

Have we had enough people killed by easy access handguns yet?

Have seen enough dead people yet?

How many people have to die before we finally admit that our obsession with handguns is to blame?

You're not Dirty Harry, John McClain, Rambo, or Jason Bourne. This is not a movie. The government is not going to turn into a dictatorship if handguns are banned.

How many people are we going to bury before we finally ban these things? Do you all need someone close to you shot and killed at one of these events before you'll see how destructive they are? Do you need to lose a wife? A child? A mother? A father? What's it going to take for you to abandon your gun fantasies?

How does that end anything?

Finally, a sensible question.

Banning handguns at the source(shutting down the factories) is a long term solution. The gun makers have spent 30+ years flooding this country with easy access handguns, saturating our society with guns and now turn around and use that very saturation as a reason to not ban guns. They've created this problem.

Banning the guns at the source will do little to stop gangland crime 'immediately'. But it 'will' stop it long term. Let me explain.

This is what would happen:

Handgun ban goes into effect. Immediately, all gun makers and gun sellers would be required to sell their guns at market cost to the government. They are allowed to sell single-shot hunting rifles, but no more handguns or automatic rifles.

Gun owners are given the chance to turn over their guns to be bought by the government, no questions asked, for full market cost. This buy-back would be a permanent feature of the ban. It would never end.

At this point, the government rolls in and takes down a few dozen wackjobs and survivalist compounds where there are verified stores of illegal weaponry. But, other than these lunatics, the government does nothing else to confiscate weapons from gun owners who refus ...


Nope, not saying world-wide at all.
 
2013-01-01 09:30:09 AM  

Infernalist: In a few decades, without a steady flood of new guns into society, gun crime would dry up. Criminals would still continue to commit crimes on each other and on the rest of us, but there wouldn't be anymore massacres. No more school shooting, movie shootings, daycare shootings.


So why exactly is it more tragic when multiple people are killed in a single incident instead of just a single person? Does the level of tragedy increase by a factor of 2 or something with every additional death? As in, 1 death is tragic, 2 deaths is twice as tragic, 3 deaths are four times as tragic? I am not trying to make light of any of those mass shootings, but they really are no more tragic than any other shooting. Trying to stop mass shootings is like putting a splint on someone's broken finger while they are bleeding from several gun shot wounds to the chest. Mass shootings are relatively rare events that have a negligible impact on firearm homicide rates in this country. The solution is NOT banning guns. That will not stop people from killing other people. And should we not be focused more on trying to stop that than cut down on the number of people that they kill? And that is what your basic argument boils down to. You are in essence saying, "Hey, go ahead and kill each other, just do it one at a time."
 
2013-01-01 09:30:43 AM  

Infernalist: JSam21: Infernalist: Is this enough, people?

Have we had enough people killed by easy access handguns yet?

Have seen enough dead people yet?

How many people have to die before we finally admit that our obsession with handguns is to blame?

You're not Dirty Harry, John McClain, Rambo, or Jason Bourne. This is not a movie. The government is not going to turn into a dictatorship if handguns are banned.

How many people are we going to bury before we finally ban these things? Do you all need someone close to you shot and killed at one of these events before you'll see how destructive they are? Do you need to lose a wife? A child? A mother? A father? What's it going to take for you to abandon your gun fantasies?

How does that end anything?

Finally, a sensible question.

Banning handguns at the source(shutting down the factories) is a long term solution. The gun makers have spent 30+ years flooding this country with easy access handguns, saturating our society with guns and now turn around and use that very saturation as a reason to not ban guns. They've created this problem.

Banning the guns at the source will do little to stop gangland crime 'immediately'. But it 'will' stop it long term. Let me explain.

This is what would happen:

Handgun ban goes into effect. Immediately, all gun makers and gun sellers would be required to sell their guns at market cost to the government. They are allowed to sell single-shot hunting rifles, but no more handguns or automatic rifles.

Gun owners are given the chance to turn over their guns to be bought by the government, no questions asked, for full market cost. This buy-back would be a permanent feature of the ban. It would never end.

At this point, the government rolls in and takes down a few dozen wackjobs and survivalist compounds where there are verified stores of illegal weaponry. But, other than these lunatics, the government does nothing else to confiscate weapons from gun owners who refuse to turn over their guns.

Gun owners, fearful of losing their guns, would hide them away, out of sight and away from the public. Their very actions to save their guns from being confiscated will accomplish the same thing as confiscation: A lack of guns in public.

There would be no door-to-door search for guns. There'd be no great effort to ferret out gun owners. It would be very much like the way we treat drugs. Cops would do their jobs and if guns are found, then the owner is sited, the guns are taken and life goes on.

In a few decades, without a steady flood of new guns into society, gun crime would dry up. Criminals would still continue to commit crimes on each other and on the rest of us, but there wouldn't be anymore massacres. No more school shooting, movie shootings, daycare shootings.

So, no it wouldn't be quick, but it would work. It's the only thing that would work. Shut off the supply at the source.


Here is the problem with your idea. You can't put the gun genie back in the bottle. Just like you can't put the nuclear weapon genie back in the bottle. It is widely known how to produce firearms. It is widely know how to produce ammunition. So what prevents someone or a group/gang from producing firearms to be placed on the black market?

What you would have to do is erase history and knowledge. You can't regulate knowledge. Once the knowledge on how to do or make something is out there, it never goes away.
 
2013-01-01 09:30:50 AM  

DubtodaIll: It amazes me that you think I advocate bloody revolution. You're assuming a docile populous in your theory. If the recent event have proven anything we have a destabilizing populous. I've just been wondering how close we are to organized action, and that organized action will not happen without drastic action by the government to violate historical freedoms, which an action like banning hand guns would be.


The American people 'are' a docile herd of sheep. And we both know it. And again, you're not going to do anything but complain on the internet when/if they ban guns.

And again, fyi, 'historical freedoms' are not sacred. Slavery was once a 'historical freedom'.
 
2013-01-01 09:31:44 AM  
I moved from California to the Midwest a year ago. I spent ten years in San Diego and hated almost every minute of it. It's like paying ten times more to live in a Mexican shiathole.
 
2013-01-01 09:32:48 AM  

Infernalist: DubtodaIll: It amazes me that you think I advocate bloody revolution. You're assuming a docile populous in your theory. If the recent event have proven anything we have a destabilizing populous. I've just been wondering how close we are to organized action, and that organized action will not happen without drastic action by the government to violate historical freedoms, which an action like banning hand guns would be.

The American people 'are' a docile herd of sheep. And we both know it. And again, you're not going to do anything but complain on the internet when/if they ban guns.

And again, fyi, 'historical freedoms' are not sacred. Slavery was once a 'historical freedom'.


And I vaguely remember millions of Americans dying over it.
 
2013-01-01 09:33:59 AM  
We should just cut off both hands of everyone at birth.
 
2013-01-01 09:35:04 AM  

Mock26: Infernalist: In a few decades, without a steady flood of new guns into society, gun crime would dry up. Criminals would still continue to commit crimes on each other and on the rest of us, but there wouldn't be anymore massacres. No more school shooting, movie shootings, daycare shootings.

So why exactly is it more tragic when multiple people are killed in a single incident instead of just a single person? Does the level of tragedy increase by a factor of 2 or something with every additional death? As in, 1 death is tragic, 2 deaths is twice as tragic, 3 deaths are four times as tragic? I am not trying to make light of any of those mass shootings, but they really are no more tragic than any other shooting. Trying to stop mass shootings is like putting a splint on someone's broken finger while they are bleeding from several gun shot wounds to the chest. Mass shootings are relatively rare events that have a negligible impact on firearm homicide rates in this country. The solution is NOT banning guns. That will not stop people from killing other people. And should we not be focused more on trying to stop that than cut down on the number of people that they kill? And that is what your basic argument boils down to. You are in essence saying, "Hey, go ahead and kill each other, just do it one at a time."


If I was suggestion a gun ban 'only', then you might have a point. But I'm sure that a massive upgrade to the government's ability to scan the populous for mental illness and remove the damaged from the larger population is also necessary.

No, banning guns won't make people stop trying to kill each other, but it'll make it a hell of a lot harder for people to kill each other. In China, the same day as the Lanza shootings, some lunatic stabbed 22 school children before he was killed by their police.

Not one child died.

My solution is one of damage-control and long term planning to remove the source of easy access handguns that make murder so very easy in this country. Men and women who easily shoot each other would probably have a much harder time killing people if they had to use a knife to do it.
 
2013-01-01 09:35:58 AM  

Infernalist: Banning handguns at the source(shutting down the factories) is a long term solution. The gun makers have spent 30+ years flooding this country with easy access handguns, saturating our society with guns and now turn around and use that very saturation as a reason to not ban guns. They've created this problem.

Banning the guns at the source will do little to stop gangland crime 'immediately'. But it 'will' stop it long term. Let me explain.

This is what would happen:

Handgun ban goes into effect. Immediately, all gun makers and gun sellers would be required to sell their guns at market cost to the government. They are allowed to sell single-shot hunting rifles, but no more handguns or automatic rifles.

Gun owners are given the chance to turn over their guns to be bought by the government, no questions asked, for full market cost. This buy-back would be a permanent feature of the ban. It would never end.

At this point, the government rolls in and takes down a few dozen wackjobs and survivalist compounds where there are verified stores of illegal weaponry. But, other than these lunatics, the government does nothing else to confiscate weapons from gun owners who refuse to turn over their guns.

Gun owners, fearful of losing their guns, would hide them away, out of sight and away from the public. Their very actions to save their guns from being confiscated will accomplish the same thing as confiscation: A lack of guns in public.

There would be no door-to-door search for guns. There'd be no great effort to ferret out gun owners. It would be very much like the way we treat drugs. Cops would do their jobs and if guns are found, then the owner is sited, the guns are taken and life goes on.

In a few decades, without a steady flood of new guns into society, gun crime would dry up. Criminals would still continue to commit crimes on each other and on the rest of us, but there wouldn't be anymore massacres. No more school shooting, movie shootings, daycare shootings.

So, no it wouldn't be quick, but it would work. It's the only thing that would work. Shut off the supply at the source.


But why is this even necessary? There are 88 guns per 100 people in this country, and with over 311 million people that means that there are roughly 270 million guns. And those 270 million guns are owned by approximately 100 million people, roughly a third of the country. And every single day in this country nearly every single one of those 100+ million people never use their firearms in an illegal manner. Over 100 million people NOT using over 270 million in an illegal manner. That is called responsibility. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners who never use their guns to commit a crime. So why would you want to punish over 100 million people because of a handful of people who are not responsible? That makes no sense.
 
2013-01-01 09:36:38 AM  

DubtodaIll: Infernalist: DubtodaIll: It amazes me that you think I advocate bloody revolution. You're assuming a docile populous in your theory. If the recent event have proven anything we have a destabilizing populous. I've just been wondering how close we are to organized action, and that organized action will not happen without drastic action by the government to violate historical freedoms, which an action like banning hand guns would be.

The American people 'are' a docile herd of sheep. And we both know it. And again, you're not going to do anything but complain on the internet when/if they ban guns.

And again, fyi, 'historical freedoms' are not sacred. Slavery was once a 'historical freedom'.

And I vaguely remember millions of Americans dying over it.


Wow, you're old.
 
2013-01-01 09:37:28 AM  

Infernalist: Mock26: Infernalist: In a few decades, without a steady flood of new guns into society, gun crime would dry up. Criminals would still continue to commit crimes on each other and on the rest of us, but there wouldn't be anymore massacres. No more school shooting, movie shootings, daycare shootings.

So why exactly is it more tragic when multiple people are killed in a single incident instead of just a single person? Does the level of tragedy increase by a factor of 2 or something with every additional death? As in, 1 death is tragic, 2 deaths is twice as tragic, 3 deaths are four times as tragic? I am not trying to make light of any of those mass shootings, but they really are no more tragic than any other shooting. Trying to stop mass shootings is like putting a splint on someone's broken finger while they are bleeding from several gun shot wounds to the chest. Mass shootings are relatively rare events that have a negligible impact on firearm homicide rates in this country. The solution is NOT banning guns. That will not stop people from killing other people. And should we not be focused more on trying to stop that than cut down on the number of people that they kill? And that is what your basic argument boils down to. You are in essence saying, "Hey, go ahead and kill each other, just do it one at a time."

If I was suggestion a gun ban 'only', then you might have a point. But I'm sure that a massive upgrade to the government's ability to scan the populous for mental illness and remove the damaged from the larger population is also necessary.

No, banning guns won't make people stop trying to kill each other, but it'll make it a hell of a lot harder for people to kill each other. In China, the same day as the Lanza shootings, some lunatic stabbed 22 school children before he was killed by their police.

Not one child died.

My solution is one of damage-control and long term planning to remove the source of easy access handguns that make murder so very e ...


Because it bears repeating, there are 88 guns per 100 people in this country, and with over 311 million people that means that there are roughly 270 million guns. And those 270 million guns are owned by approximately 100 million people, roughly a third of the country. And every single day in this country nearly every single one of those 100+ million people never use their firearms in an illegal manner. Over 100 million people NOT using over 270 million in an illegal manner. That is called responsibility. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners who never use their guns to commit a crime. So why would you want to punish over 100 million people because of a handful of people who are not responsible? That makes no sense.
 
2013-01-01 09:37:53 AM  
Infernalist: The gun makers have spent 30+ years flooding this country with easy access handguns, saturating our society with guns and now turn around and use that very saturation as a reason to not ban guns.


Sorry to seem like I'm picking on you, but you're regurgitating more than just a bit of the current accepted party line. Handguns have been mass produced in US since the end of the American Civil War. There have been hundreds of manufacturers large and small cranking out millions upon millions of handguns for seven or eight generations.

The time span you used,"30+ years", has no meaning, except to further reinforce the fallicious idea that this sort of gun crime is new, because the guns are a new phenomenom.

No dear, the guns have always been there. Those howwible howwible gun factories have been up and running for 150 years.
 
2013-01-01 09:38:33 AM  

JSam21: Infernalist: JSam21: Infernalist: Is this enough, people?

Have we had enough people killed by easy access handguns yet?

Have seen enough dead people yet?

How many people have to die before we finally admit that our obsession with handguns is to blame?

You're not Dirty Harry, John McClain, Rambo, or Jason Bourne. This is not a movie. The government is not going to turn into a dictatorship if handguns are banned.

How many people are we going to bury before we finally ban these things? Do you all need someone close to you shot and killed at one of these events before you'll see how destructive they are? Do you need to lose a wife? A child? A mother? A father? What's it going to take for you to abandon your gun fantasies?

How does that end anything?

Finally, a sensible question.

Banning handguns at the source(shutting down the factories) is a long term solution. The gun makers have spent 30+ years flooding this country with easy access handguns, saturating our society with guns and now turn around and use that very saturation as a reason to not ban guns. They've created this problem.

Banning the guns at the source will do little to stop gangland crime 'immediately'. But it 'will' stop it long term. Let me explain.

This is what would happen:

Handgun ban goes into effect. Immediately, all gun makers and gun sellers would be required to sell their guns at market cost to the government. They are allowed to sell single-shot hunting rifles, but no more handguns or automatic rifles.

Gun owners are given the chance to turn over their guns to be bought by the government, no questions asked, for full market cost. This buy-back would be a permanent feature of the ban. It would never end.

At this point, the government rolls in and takes down a few dozen wackjobs and survivalist compounds where there are verified stores of illegal weaponry. But, other than these lunatics, the government does nothing else to confiscate weapons from gun owners who refus ...


Gun tools are not common place and can easily be outlawed along with the handguns themselves. Making ammunition is not something you can do with common ordinary household items. They take particular ingredients that are not easily gotten, especially if the government goes out of its way to make it hard to get these things.

You refer to the 'nuclear genie'...A very apt point. We can't regulate that knowledge, but we 'do' keep flags on people who check out 'how to make a nuclear bomb' from a library. And we heavily regulate the 'parts' and 'tools' needed to make a nuclear bomb. The end result. A neatly 'caged' genie.

We can do the same with handgun technology and ammunition technology
 
2013-01-01 09:38:50 AM  
3.bp.blogspot.com


The question is not whether you can own a gun...because you can.

What you can't do is own ANY gun you want. A gun is a commercial product. It can be regulated, controlled, recalled, restricted...just like any other commercial product.

I for one am not going to sit here and listen to you bad MOUTH sensible gun restrictions. Gentlemen!
 
2013-01-01 09:39:11 AM  

HoityToity: The bystander who was quoted saying "It sounded like a Glock" needs to be slapped.

If there exists such a finely tuned ear within the human race that can tell the make of a hand gun just by its' sound, I would love to meet that person.

"That was a .38 special, ++p, coming out of a S&W Bodyguard, with.... yes... is that a Crimson Trace hand grip laser as well? Yeeesssssss......"


The listening monks are very good at this sort of thing.
 
2013-01-01 09:39:51 AM  

DubtodaIll: Infernalist: DubtodaIll: It amazes me that you think I advocate bloody revolution. You're assuming a docile populous in your theory. If the recent event have proven anything we have a destabilizing populous. I've just been wondering how close we are to organized action, and that organized action will not happen without drastic action by the government to violate historical freedoms, which an action like banning hand guns would be.

The American people 'are' a docile herd of sheep. And we both know it. And again, you're not going to do anything but complain on the internet when/if they ban guns.

And again, fyi, 'historical freedoms' are not sacred. Slavery was once a 'historical freedom'.

And I vaguely remember millions of Americans dying over it.


yes, millions of redneck retards went to war to protect the rights of a handful of rich white farks to buy and sell black people. The stupidity of the average redneck should never be underestimated.
 
2013-01-01 09:41:29 AM  
shoot. I forgot:

/blowjob...blowjob...eat me...eat me...blowjob
 
2013-01-01 09:42:04 AM  

letrole: Infernalist: The gun makers have spent 30+ years flooding this country with easy access handguns, saturating our society with guns and now turn around and use that very saturation as a reason to not ban guns.


Sorry to seem like I'm picking on you, but you're regurgitating more than just a bit of the current accepted party line. Handguns have been mass produced in US since the end of the American Civil War. There have been hundreds of manufacturers large and small cranking out millions upon millions of handguns for seven or eight generations.

The time span you used,"30+ years", has no meaning, except to further reinforce the fallicious idea that this sort of gun crime is new, because the guns are a new phenomenom.

No dear, the guns have always been there. Those howwible howwible gun factories have been up and running for 150 years.


All the more reason to emphasize that removing handguns from the population will not be easy or quick, but should be done all the same. They've had a hundred fifty years to flood our society, I don't see why people expect an easy and quick solution.
 
2013-01-01 09:42:56 AM  
Can't believe no one has posted this yet...

clandarkstar.com
 
2013-01-01 09:43:30 AM  

Infernalist: It never fails to amaze me how quick some retards are to threaten revolution...Especially retards who proclaim themselves to be law-abiding gun owners.

If my solution was actually implemented, you'd do nothing more than hide your guns(If you actually have any), and complain loudly on Fark. Nothing more


I'm not anti-gun, but can't we come up with legal solutions that demand more personal responsibility from gun owners?

Why do many gun owners claim to be "law abiding citizens" -- until someone talks about limiting said guns in any way? Then it's "to the Revolution-mobile!"

For those folks, seems like its less about being law-abiding high morality citizens, and more about peeing the bed.
 
2013-01-01 09:45:20 AM  

Mock26: Infernalist: Mock26: Infernalist: In a few decades, without a steady flood of new guns into society, gun crime would dry up. Criminals would still continue to commit crimes on each other and on the rest of us, but there wouldn't be anymore massacres. No more school shooting, movie shootings, daycare shootings.

So why exactly is it more tragic when multiple people are killed in a single incident instead of just a single person? Does the level of tragedy increase by a factor of 2 or something with every additional death? As in, 1 death is tragic, 2 deaths is twice as tragic, 3 deaths are four times as tragic? I am not trying to make light of any of those mass shootings, but they really are no more tragic than any other shooting. Trying to stop mass shootings is like putting a splint on someone's broken finger while they are bleeding from several gun shot wounds to the chest. Mass shootings are relatively rare events that have a negligible impact on firearm homicide rates in this country. The solution is NOT banning guns. That will not stop people from killing other people. And should we not be focused more on trying to stop that than cut down on the number of people that they kill? And that is what your basic argument boils down to. You are in essence saying, "Hey, go ahead and kill each other, just do it one at a time."

If I was suggestion a gun ban 'only', then you might have a point. But I'm sure that a massive upgrade to the government's ability to scan the populous for mental illness and remove the damaged from the larger population is also necessary.

No, banning guns won't make people stop trying to kill each other, but it'll make it a hell of a lot harder for people to kill each other. In China, the same day as the Lanza shootings, some lunatic stabbed 22 school children before he was killed by their police.

Not one child died.

My solution is one of damage-control and long term planning to remove the source of easy access handguns that make mur ...


It makes perfect sense. For all your talk of 'responsible owners', we never see stories of someone killing 20 kids with a machete or a hammer.

We never see schools terrorized with knives.

We, as a society, have 'failed' in our responsibilities. And we don't deserve these guns anymore. We've shown ourselves to be selfish, unthinking, wanting only to keep these lethal toys to ourselves, completely uncaring of what those same guns do to our society. It's a childish attitude and when children misbehave, you take away their farking toys.
 
2013-01-01 09:46:37 AM  
Just because you hold their actions in negative light doesn't make them any less real. Just as many noble, good, and otherwise completely innocent unionists bravely went to war and died for the right of the federal government to violate states' rights. You're making broad assumptions as to the attitude by which your proposals will be accepted, namely that everyone should agree with you, which is an obvious fallacy. I don't like it when people die in senseless or sensible acts of violence. However, you take away all tools of destructions from a madman he's still a madman with all the ingenuity of a human brain and will still make every effort to be noticed by the method of his choosing. Usually they'll sit in a corner. But if you decide to take away his teddy bear, well, he's going to take exception to that.
 
2013-01-01 09:47:48 AM  

DubtodaIll: Just because you hold their actions in negative light doesn't make them any less real. Just as many noble, good, and otherwise completely innocent unionists bravely went to war and died for the right of the federal government to violate states' rights. You're making broad assumptions as to the attitude by which your proposals will be accepted, namely that everyone should agree with you, which is an obvious fallacy. I don't like it when people die in senseless or sensible acts of violence. However, you take away all tools of destructions from a madman he's still a madman with all the ingenuity of a human brain and will still make every effort to be noticed by the method of his choosing. Usually they'll sit in a corner. But if you decide to take away his teddy bear, well, he's going to take exception to that.


Not going to get drawn into a Civil War debate/tangent/derailing. Your 'historical freedom' to guns is as relevant as the 'historical freedom' to buy slaves.
 
2013-01-01 09:48:50 AM  

Infernalist: JSam21: Infernalist: JSam21: Infernalist: Is this enough, people?

Have we had enough people killed by easy access handguns yet?

Have seen enough dead people yet?

How many people have to die before we finally admit that our obsession with handguns is to blame?

You're not Dirty Harry, John McClain, Rambo, or Jason Bourne. This is not a movie. The government is not going to turn into a dictatorship if handguns are banned.

How many people are we going to bury before we finally ban these things? Do you all need someone close to you shot and killed at one of these events before you'll see how destructive they are? Do you need to lose a wife? A child? A mother? A father? What's it going to take for you to abandon your gun fantasies?

How does that end anything?

Finally, a sensible question.

Banning handguns at the source(shutting down the factories) is a long term solution. The gun makers have spent 30+ years flooding this country with easy access handguns, saturating our society with guns and now turn around and use that very saturation as a reason to not ban guns. They've created this problem.

Banning the guns at the source will do little to stop gangland crime 'immediately'. But it 'will' stop it long term. Let me explain.

This is what would happen:

Handgun ban goes into effect. Immediately, all gun makers and gun sellers would be required to sell their guns at market cost to the government. They are allowed to sell single-shot hunting rifles, but no more handguns or automatic rifles.

Gun owners are given the chance to turn over their guns to be bought by the government, no questions asked, for full market cost. This buy-back would be a permanent feature of the ban. It would never end.

At this point, the government rolls in and takes down a few dozen wackjobs and survivalist compounds where there are verified stores of illegal weaponry. But, other than these lunatics, the government does nothing else to confiscate weapons from gun owners who refus ...

Nope, not saying world-wide at all.


Oh ok... so then you have now developed a very large and lucrative black market in a country with two large land borders and 3 massive coast lines.

With your plan the closet thing you have to that is Brazil. There are 17 million guns in Brazil. 9 million of those guns are illegal. The guns are smuggled into the country, stolen from legal owners, stolen from military bases and police stations or sold by corrupt military or police officers.

You've essentially have called for prohibition of firearms. We saw what happened with the prohibition of alcohol. It did nothing to make people not want the product. What it did do is make said product more valuable to those that wanted it. It made the people who had the product rich. It made the people who wanted to be rich violent. If they wanted to be richer they had to be more violent... circle continues

If guns are available anywhere they will get into the wrong hands. If you can't use firearms, people will develop a new weapon because weapons ARE needed for defense.
 
2013-01-01 09:49:45 AM  
Infernalist The gun makers have spent 30+ years flooding this country

Infernalist They've had a hundred fifty years to flood our society,


C'mon Tex, just fess up. You don't have a clue, but hey, you think your heart is made of gold.
 
2013-01-01 09:52:26 AM  
Infernalist: Not going to get drawn into a Civil War debate/tangent/derailing. Your 'historical freedom' to guns is as relevant as the 'historical freedom' to buy slaves.


There might be a lesson in there about the unintended consequences of banning stuff.
 
2013-01-01 09:53:59 AM  

Infernalist: Mock26: Infernalist: Mock26: Infernalist: In a few decades, without a steady flood of new guns into society, gun crime would dry up. Criminals would still continue to commit crimes on each other and on the rest of us, but there wouldn't be anymore massacres. No more school shooting, movie shootings, daycare shootings.

So why exactly is it more tragic when multiple people are killed in a single incident instead of just a single person? Does the level of tragedy increase by a factor of 2 or something with every additional death? As in, 1 death is tragic, 2 deaths is twice as tragic, 3 deaths are four times as tragic? I am not trying to make light of any of those mass shootings, but they really are no more tragic than any other shooting. Trying to stop mass shootings is like putting a splint on someone's broken finger while they are bleeding from several gun shot wounds to the chest. Mass shootings are relatively rare events that have a negligible impact on firearm homicide rates in this country. The solution is NOT banning guns. That will not stop people from killing other people. And should we not be focused more on trying to stop that than cut down on the number of people that they kill? And that is what your basic argument boils down to. You are in essence saying, "Hey, go ahead and kill each other, just do it one at a time."

If I was suggestion a gun ban 'only', then you might have a point. But I'm sure that a massive upgrade to the government's ability to scan the populous for mental illness and remove the damaged from the larger population is also necessary.

No, banning guns won't make people stop trying to kill each other, but it'll make it a hell of a lot harder for people to kill each other. In China, the same day as the Lanza shootings, some lunatic stabbed 22 school children before he was killed by their police.

Not one child died.

My solution is one of damage-control and long term planning to remove the source of easy access handguns that make mur ...

It makes perfect sense. For all your talk of 'responsible owners', we never see stories of someone killing 20 kids with a machete or a hammer.

We never see schools terrorized with knives.

We, as a society, have 'failed' in our responsibilities. And we don't deserve these guns anymore. We've shown ourselves to be selfish, unthinking, wanting only to keep these lethal toys to ourselves, completely uncaring of what those same guns do to our society. It's a childish attitude and when children misbehave, you take away their farking toys.


Wow. That is some seriously flawed logic there. Because of a few people (relatively speaking, of course) we should punish everyone else who has done nothing wrong? That is complete and utter crap.

But since you believe it to be true, let me ask you something. Would you say that we have "failed" in our responsibilities when it comes to alcohol and driving? More people are killed by drunk drivers every year than by firearms, so that shows that we have "failed" in our responsibilities, right? Somehow, though, I do not think that you believe that we should therefore ban alcohol and/or cars to prevent drunk driving deaths. Am I right?
 
Displayed 50 of 822 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report