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  
•       •       •

33141 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jan 2013 at 2:18 AM (1 year 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 | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-01 09:55:05 AM

JSam21: 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 ...


Our borders are decidedly more sturdy and more carefully watched than Brazil's. And don't bring up the illegals. We want them here, so we turn a blind eye to their entering.

Secondly, you can't compare a handgun ban to Prohibition. Any retard with a still could make his own liquor and 'did' just that. But you can't grow distill gunpowder from corn. You can't refurbish a dishwasher and turn it into an AK-47. Will there be black marketeers bringing in guns? Certainly. But, even assuming a 'robust' black market you STILL have the case of people hiding these guns, lock them up, not bringing them out into public. Which only emphasizes the fact that the ban would 'work' at its purpose, removing guns from the public and making that public safer as a result.

So, even if people make their own guns and/or buy black market guns...we're still dealing with a society with dramatically reduced guns and resultant gun violence, and the problem will only decrease as time passes.
 
2013-01-01 09:56:02 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: kriegfusion: Better a mass shooting everyday killing a handful of people than throwing undesirables into ovens, starving millions through bad policy and neglect, or outright mass extermination through labor camps or ethnic cleansing. Yeah I wish these shootings didn't happen, but the alternative is infinitely worse. Let people be shot daily, I won't change my factually based, historically sound opinion one millimeter.

when unchecked tyranny comes, the gun control advocates will give up the arms their leaders will use to execute them with.

You could just say, "We need these things to shoot American soldiers."


They would be traitors at that point having violated posse comitatus
 
2013-01-01 09:57:06 AM

Mock26: 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 ...


I happen to agree with you about the alcohol, but I have my priorities and I see guns as being a bigger issue than alcohol.

All things in good time.
 
2013-01-01 09:57:23 AM

Infernalist: JSam21: 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 ...

Our borders are decidedly more sturdy and more carefully watched than Brazil's. And don't bring up the illegals. We want them here, so we turn a blind eye to their entering.

Secondly, you can't compare a handgun ban to Prohibition. Any retard with a still could make his own liquor and 'did' just that. But you can't grow distill gunpowder from corn. You can't refurbish a dishwasher and turn it into an AK-47. Will there be black marketeers bringing in guns? Certainly. But, even assuming a 'robust' black market you STILL have the case of people hiding these guns, lock them up, not bringing them out into public. Which only emphasizes the fact that the ban would 'work' at its purpose, removing guns from the public and making that public safer as a result.

So, even if people make their own guns and/or buy black market guns...we're still dealing with a society with dramatically reduced guns and resultant gun violence, and the problem will only decrease as time passes.


Oh a what a happy day it will be to wake up and live in fear of your own government for the choices you made not so long ago as a perfectly good citizen.
 
2013-01-01 09:58:00 AM

letrole: 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.


That would be...some retards cling to the past for no other reason than stupidity and tradition?
 
2013-01-01 09:59:56 AM

Infernalist: letrole: 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.

That would be...some retards cling to the past for no other reason than stupidity and tradition?


Ok wow I'm done with this one. 10/10. Ignore history? Guffaw!
 
2013-01-01 10:00:00 AM

Infernalist: The American people 'are' a docile herd of sheep.


-1/10

Searches thread for 'sheeple' : 0 Results

son, I am disappoint
 
2013-01-01 10:00:05 AM

DubtodaIll: Infernalist: JSam21: 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 co ...


And here come the delusional fears of a tyrannical government that doesn't exist. Your mental illness could be a problem, do you mind turning yourself into the authorities and turning over your weapons before you crack completely and open fire on a crowd of children?
 
2013-01-01 10:01:25 AM
Holy smokes. It's incredible how these stories get more and more convenient. The ban will be in place before the summer's out if the planners keep coming up with shocking headlines like this.
 
2013-01-01 10:01:47 AM

trappedspirit: Infernalist: The American people 'are' a docile herd of sheep.

-1/10

Searches thread for 'sheeple' : 0 Results

son, I am disappoint


Stagnant wages for 30 years, steadily eroded civil rights, environmental regulation and we just paid through the nose to bail out a bunch of billionaires.

The American people are brainless sheep.
 
2013-01-01 10:01:51 AM
Imagine how many people would be shiatting their pants when the news reports every instance of rape...

Firearm related homicide is on the decline....but media coverage of firearm related homicide is up.

I'd wager that more people died from alchohol poisoning than firearms last night...cause the statistics are in my favor....but farkers dont want to save lives if they would have to put the bottle down...

You dont really know how many red cars are on the road until you start counting them....
 
2013-01-01 10:02:27 AM
Infernalist: But, even assuming a 'robust' black market you STILL have the case of people hiding these guns, lock them up, not bringing them out into public. Which only emphasizes the fact that the ban would 'work' at its purpose, removing guns from the public and making that public safer as a result.

This doesn't make any sense. None of the recent -- or not so recent -- spree killers had been seen walking around in public carrying any sort of firearms. Are you saying that you're offended if you see a gun rack in a pickup truck at WalMart? Is that what you're hoping to squelch?

Now again, I've had a poke or two at you, mainly because you're such an easy mark, but really dude, I'm being serious here.

You don't have a fooken clue.
 
2013-01-01 10:02:39 AM

DubtodaIll: Infernalist: letrole: 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.

That would be...some retards cling to the past for no other reason than stupidity and tradition?

Ok wow I'm done with this one. 10/10. Ignore history? Guffaw!


I'll take that as your declaration of surrender.
 
2013-01-01 10:03:45 AM
Glad I went to bed.
 
2013-01-01 10:03:53 AM

letrole: Infernalist: But, even assuming a 'robust' black market you STILL have the case of people hiding these guns, lock them up, not bringing them out into public. Which only emphasizes the fact that the ban would 'work' at its purpose, removing guns from the public and making that public safer as a result.

This doesn't make any sense. None of the recent -- or not so recent -- spree killers had been seen walking around in public carrying any sort of firearms. Are you saying that you're offended if you see a gun rack in a pickup truck at WalMart? Is that what you're hoping to squelch?

Now again, I've had a poke or two at you, mainly because you're such an easy mark, but really dude, I'm being serious here.

You don't have a fooken clue.


I'm saying, and still am saying, that the only way to stop the gun violence problem is to remove the guns from society. You've yet to offer up anything that proves otherwise.
 
2013-01-01 10:04:06 AM

Infernalist: Mock26: 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 ...

I happen to agree with you about the alcohol, but I have my priorities and I see guns as being a bigger issue than alcohol.

All things in good time.


More people are killed by drunk drivers every year than by firearms and you see guns as being the bigger issue? Wow. That is seriously messed up.
 
2013-01-01 10:05:01 AM
Can I attempt to sum up the gun debate?

From the left: These devices are farkING DANGEROUS AS HELL and legal means are necessary to keep as many as possible out of the general population, which is full of idiots who otherwise wouldn't have such an impulsive, dangerous way to become a criminal in the first place. Maybe the number of shootings can be even cut in half? It's a worthy goal. We believe that the government, while run by human beings and thus open to corruption and incompetence, is still good at heart and efficacy overall, and can be trusted to carry out such actions. While we're at it, let's spend public money to try and help there to be fewer farking idiots, even if it means absurdly rich people will merely be adequately rich, because we believe it can actually make a noticeable difference, even if it takes several generations. We don't want a totally free society, just a good one, for Christ's sake. Now let's all get in a circle, hold hands, and sing, "Let There be Peace on Earth" and make some finger paintings...

From the right: There is nothing you can do about the massive number of farking idiots who comprise our society. They are going to exist in great abundance and that will never change no matter what we do, and attempts to try and amend that will only result in wasted money and efforts. The cream rises to the top, and to Hell with those who can't crawl out of it on their own. At the same time, the government will not be able to keep guns out of their hands no matter how hard they try. Therefore, each "good" citizen, should be allowed to also obtain one of these weapons to protect themselves, even if it means a large swath of the population "on the bubble" of being criminal or not will have an impulsive and very dangerous and immediate way to become one when they otherwise wouldn't. There aren't really that many gun incidents in the grand scheme of things, either, but when they do occur they're hyped up like crazy because it ultimately draws ratings for advertisers. Those of us who are "good" can always build bigger fences and purchase better weapons and move to better neighborhoods than the bad guys if we are left to take care of ourselves, and we don't care if the society that results resembles the time in "Back to the Future" when Biff takes over the world. Plus, guns are awesome and it makes us feel masculine, and it's jobs and largesse for the arms manufacturing industry. Jack Palance does a one-armed pushup and smirks in your direction. Murrica. and Jesus.

Do I have it right?
 
2013-01-01 10:05:14 AM

Giltric: Imagine how many people would be shiatting their pants when the news reports every instance of rape...

Firearm related homicide is on the decline....but media coverage of firearm related homicide is up.

I'd wager that more people died from alchohol poisoning than firearms last night...cause the statistics are in my favor....but farkers dont want to save lives if they would have to put the bottle down...

You dont really know how many red cars are on the road until you start counting them....


And we should ban red cars, because they cause prostate cancer in middle-aged men! Oh, and ice cream, too. It causes crime.

:-D
 
2013-01-01 10:05:45 AM

Mock26: Infernalist: Mock26: 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 ...


Alcohol isn't designed to kill people. Guns are designed solely with the intent to kill. People can misuse alcohol and cause the death of themselves or others, but alcohol, in and of itself, is not a tool of death.

Guns are.
 
2013-01-01 10:05:56 AM

Bathia_Mapes: Article with more details & video

"Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop," one witness said. "It sounded like a Glock."

Said a "witness" who reads entirely too much Dr. Seuss.
 
2013-01-01 10:06:01 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: m1gunr: California has the strictest gun laws in the country, how could this happen??

I always wonder about people like you. Do you think that the border is made of magic and people can't just ignore reasonable gun laws in one state by walking across the border to a state with unreasonable gun laws so as to arm themselves in ways that would otherwise have been illegal? Or do you just ignore the fact that "strictest" is relative and still relies heavily on the fact that it's by comparison to the rest of the country which, by and large, has no real restrictions to speak of until you start talking about things like anti tank guns and artillery?

Clarify your derp, please.


So people are going to recognize the 'reasonable gun laws' in the US and stop having them illegally shipped in from other countries through our borders, because it isn't like they are so porous that thousands upon thousands of drug shipments and millions of people haven't sneaked across...

Clarify your derp, please.
 
2013-01-01 10:06:10 AM

Infernalist: letrole: Infernalist: But, even assuming a 'robust' black market you STILL have the case of people hiding these guns, lock them up, not bringing them out into public. Which only emphasizes the fact that the ban would 'work' at its purpose, removing guns from the public and making that public safer as a result.

This doesn't make any sense. None of the recent -- or not so recent -- spree killers had been seen walking around in public carrying any sort of firearms. Are you saying that you're offended if you see a gun rack in a pickup truck at WalMart? Is that what you're hoping to squelch?

Now again, I've had a poke or two at you, mainly because you're such an easy mark, but really dude, I'm being serious here.

You don't have a fooken clue.

I'm saying, and still am saying, that the only way to stop the gun violence problem is to remove the guns from society. You've yet to offer up anything that proves otherwise.


You would have to remove ALL guns - from police, military, other countries, etc.
 
2013-01-01 10:06:51 AM

Infernalist: DubtodaIll: Infernalist: letrole: 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.

That would be...some retards cling to the past for no other reason than stupidity and tradition?

Ok wow I'm done with this one. 10/10. Ignore history? Guffaw!

I'll take that as your declaration of surrender.


We'll take that as your admission of ignorance
 
2013-01-01 10:07:13 AM

Infernalist: JSam21: 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 ...

Our borders are decidedly more sturdy and more carefully watched than Brazil's. And don't bring up the illegals. We want them here, so we turn a blind eye to their entering.

Secondly, you can't compare a handgun ban to Prohibition. Any retard with a still could make his own liquor and 'did' just that. But you can't grow distill gunpowder from corn. You can't refurbish a dishwasher and turn it into an AK-47. Will there be black marketeers bringing in guns? Certainly. But, even assuming a 'robust' black market you STILL have the case of people hiding these guns, lock them up, not bringing them out into public. Which only emphasizes the fact that the ban would 'work' at its purpose, removing guns from the public and making that public safer as a result.

So, even if people make their own guns and/or buy black market guns...we're still dealing with a society with dramatically reduced guns and resultant gun violence, and the problem will only decrease as time passes.


Or the people that have guns will then be tempted to enter the black market themselves when you bump the resale value of the weapons through the roof. If I could get $2000-$5000 for a handgun you're damn right I'm going to sell it.

If a "dumb redneck" could build a bomb out of legal components and blow up a federal building then why couldn't they make gun powder? It isn't that hard to make molds to form bullets and you can recycle brass casings for a long time. You can buy lead relatively cheap and you can store hundreds of thousands of primer caps in a very small space.

If I had the equipment and want to, I could make 300 rounds of ammo a day easy. If it became a full time job I could make 10x that and charge 10x the price of ammo today because I'd be the only guy doing it by your logic.
 
2013-01-01 10:07:13 AM

Mock26: Giltric: Imagine how many people would be shiatting their pants when the news reports every instance of rape...

Firearm related homicide is on the decline....but media coverage of firearm related homicide is up.

I'd wager that more people died from alchohol poisoning than firearms last night...cause the statistics are in my favor....but farkers dont want to save lives if they would have to put the bottle down...

You dont really know how many red cars are on the road until you start counting them....

And we should ban red cars, because they cause prostate cancer in middle-aged men! Oh, and ice cream, too. It causes crime.

:-D


Ummm no...ice cream causes polio.
 
2013-01-01 10:07:21 AM

Ow My Balls: Can I attempt to sum up the gun debate?

From the left: These devices are farkING DANGEROUS AS HELL and legal means are necessary to keep as many as possible out of the general population, which is full of idiots who otherwise wouldn't have such an impulsive, dangerous way to become a criminal in the first place. Maybe the number of shootings can be even cut in half? It's a worthy goal. We believe that the government, while run by human beings and thus open to corruption and incompetence, is still good at heart and efficacy overall, and can be trusted to carry out such actions. While we're at it, let's spend public money to try and help there to be fewer farking idiots, even if it means absurdly rich people will merely be adequately rich, because we believe it can actually make a noticeable difference, even if it takes several generations. We don't want a totally free society, just a good one, for Christ's sake. Now let's all get in a circle, hold hands, and sing, "Let There be Peace on Earth" and make some finger paintings...

From the right: There is nothing you can do about the massive number of farking idiots who comprise our society. They are going to exist in great abundance and that will never change no matter what we do, and attempts to try and amend that will only result in wasted money and efforts. The cream rises to the top, and to Hell with those who can't crawl out of it on their own. At the same time, the government will not be able to keep guns out of their hands no matter how hard they try. Therefore, each "good" citizen, should be allowed to also obtain one of these weapons to protect themselves, even if it means a large swath of the population "on the bubble" of being criminal or not will have an impulsive and very dangerous and immediate way to become one when they otherwise wouldn't. There aren't really that many gun incidents in the grand scheme of things, either, but when they do occur they're hyped up like crazy because it ultimately ...


I really don't like finger painting, though.
 
2013-01-01 10:07:27 AM

JonnyG: Holy smokes. It's incredible how these stories get more and more convenient. The ban will be in place before the summer's out if the planners keep coming up with shocking headlines like this.


Just to make sure I'm following you correctly: Are you suggesting that gun control advocates in some way staged this shooting to further their cause?
 
2013-01-01 10:07:39 AM

Infernalist: And here come the delusional fears of a tyrannical government that doesn't exist.


And never could again. amirite?
 
2013-01-01 10:09:54 AM

JSam21: Infernalist: JSam21: 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 co ...


And yet, for all your industrious dedication to breaking the law, your contributions would be insignificant compared to the amount of ammunition and guns that enter society every day while they remain legal.

I would gladly trade this world for that one. I would gladly allow you to sit in your basement and let you churn out your 300 rounds per day, knowing that you'll never do anything with them but sit around and masturbate to the sight of your 'self-reliance'.
 
2013-01-01 10:10:03 AM

blueswoman: wow. i can no longer tell how many of you are drunk, or really think that way.

*enlarges apocalypse cave*
*dives for cover*


happy new year, kid
 
2013-01-01 10:10:12 AM

Infernalist: Mock26: Infernalist: Mock26: 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 ...


So the police are armed so they can kill people?
 
2013-01-01 10:11:28 AM

stirfrybry: Infernalist: Mock26: Infernalist: Mock26: 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 remo ...


No actually, I'd be okay with the police getting outfitted with non-lethal weaponry. Tasers, batons, industrial strength pepper spray. The way the civilized world works.
 
2013-01-01 10:12:11 AM
The article referred to it as Old Sac. Now, I guess we can call it Nut Sac.
 
2013-01-01 10:12:12 AM
LouDobbsAwaaaay: JonnyG: Holy smokes. It's incredible how these stories get more and more convenient. The ban will be in place before the summer's out if the planners keep coming up with shocking headlines like this.

Just to make sure I'm following you correctly: Are you suggesting that gun control advocates in some way staged this shooting to further their cause?


The justice dept gave thousands of weapons to the cartels to try and get outrage over gun violence in mexico except it got found out. Sadly the sheeple are too busy keeping up with the Kardashians to demand heads roll for this.

I wouldn't put it past them to be giving weapons to people with mental health problems so they can gain political capital when said mental cases snap.
 
2013-01-01 10:13:58 AM

trappedspirit: Infernalist: And here come the delusional fears of a tyrannical government that doesn't exist.

And never could again. amirite?


Judging by the flow of history? No, not really. Unless you can point to a civilized nation that descended into anarchy and such in recent history. ps: The Roman Empire is not recent.

The paranoid fear of the government is a tool used by the NRA and gun makers to give 'reason' to buy their guns. Same with the fear of 'urban crime'.
 
2013-01-01 10:14:12 AM

Infernalist: Mock26: Infernalist: Mock26: 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 ...

Alcohol isn't designed to kill people. Guns are designed solely with the intent to kill. People can misuse alcohol and cause the death of themselves or others, but alcohol, in and of itself, is not a tool of death.

Guns are.


Ok... hold on and I might have to give a 10/10 here but..

Did you say disarm the populace then have the government scan them for mental defects and other less desirable traits?

Sounds familiar...
 
2013-01-01 10:15:24 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.

letrole: There might be a lesson in there about the unintended consequences of banning stuff.

Infernalist: That would be...some retards cling to the past for no other reason than stupidity and tradition?


I'll take a bit of extra effort with you here, since it seems like nobody else has bothered to explain to you either history or common courtesy.

The American Civil War was really bad. Lots of people died. It was bad. That's simple enough, even for you to understand.

The slaves were 100% dependent on their masters for all decisions. They were kept ignorant and manageable and raised like cattle. But the emancipation proclamation basically turned them all loose to fend for themselves without proper preparation. Their descendents still suffer from this.
 
2013-01-01 10:16:05 AM

JSam21: Infernalist: Mock26: Infernalist: Mock26: 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 remo ...


I was wondering if anyone would catch that. I was tongue-in-cheek about that 'mental' part. I do think that a vast overhaul in the nation's mental health system is needed, however.
 
2013-01-01 10:17:08 AM

letrole: 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.

letrole: There might be a lesson in there about the unintended consequences of banning stuff.

Infernalist: That would be...some retards cling to the past for no other reason than stupidity and tradition?


I'll take a bit of extra effort with you here, since it seems like nobody else has bothered to explain to you either history or common courtesy.

The American Civil War was really bad. Lots of people died. It was bad. That's simple enough, even for you to understand.

The slaves were 100% dependent on their masters for all decisions. They were kept ignorant and manageable and raised like cattle. But the emancipation proclamation basically turned them all loose to fend for themselves without proper preparation. Their descendents still suffer from this.


That's cute. I don't care. If you want to have a freaky discussion regarding slavery and its pros and cons, by all means, go do that with yourself, elsewhere. I don't give a single fark.
 
2013-01-01 10:18:39 AM

Infernalist: trappedspirit: Infernalist: And here come the delusional fears of a tyrannical government that doesn't exist.

And never could again. amirite?

Judging by the flow of history? No, not really. Unless you can point to a civilized nation that descended into anarchy and such in recent history. ps: The Roman Empire is not recent.

The paranoid fear of the government is a tool used by the NRA and gun makers to give 'reason' to buy their guns. Same with the fear of 'urban crime'.



anarchy is not the same as tyranny.
Ever heard of Stalin?
Pol Pot?
You are truly ignorant. Doomed to repeat the past, you are.
 
2013-01-01 10:19:12 AM

Oldiron_79: The justice dept gave thousands of weapons to the cartels to try and get outrage over gun violence in mexico except it got found out. Sadly the sheeple are too busy keeping up with the Kardashians to demand heads roll for this.

I wouldn't put it past them to be giving weapons to people with mental health problems so they can gain political capital when said mental cases snap.


So it's your position that, given the following two scenarios:

(a) Government officials secretly handed weapons out to people with a record of mental instability, hoping to cause mass-shootings to scare the public into backing what inevitably becomes a watered-down, ineffective weapons ban that at best encourages a black market

(b) A mentally unstable person managed to obtain a gun, legally or illegally, and shot people with it

(a) is more likely than (b). I want to make sure I'm not misrepresenting your position. Is this correct?
 
2013-01-01 10:20:01 AM
Someone here doesn't know that most guns are made overseas. It varies by model but many companies import parts for final assembly in the US (to skirt import bans).
Izhmash is Russia, Glock is Austria, FN is Belgium, Springfield is Croatia. Other makers like Utas don't even export to the US. Other nations buy plenty of weapons to keep the factories open.

The domestic gun ban plan doesn't stay on our side of the line. Which is why its about as realistic as a memo from the UN politely asking people to stop killing each other.
It's an ivory tower ideal that sounds like a great idea until you actually try implementing it. Then a bunch to other nations statesmen, crooks, and arms dealers are going to rub your nose in its impracticalities.
 
2013-01-01 10:22:24 AM

stirfrybry: Infernalist: trappedspirit: Infernalist: And here come the delusional fears of a tyrannical government that doesn't exist.

And never could again. amirite?

Judging by the flow of history? No, not really. Unless you can point to a civilized nation that descended into anarchy and such in recent history. ps: The Roman Empire is not recent.

The paranoid fear of the government is a tool used by the NRA and gun makers to give 'reason' to buy their guns. Same with the fear of 'urban crime'.


anarchy is not the same as tyranny.
Ever heard of Stalin?
Pol Pot?
You are truly ignorant. Doomed to repeat the past, you are.


Were these nations civilized nations that had given up their guns? No? Then they don't apply. They haven't reached the point where they can give up their guns safely.

No civilized nation that had given up their guns has descended back into anarchy and/or tyranny. Not one. It hasn't happened. It doesn't happen. It's identical to claiming that guns are meteor repellents.
 
2013-01-01 10:25:15 AM

way south: Someone here doesn't know that most guns are made overseas. It varies by model but many companies import parts for final assembly in the US (to skirt import bans).
Izhmash is Russia, Glock is Austria, FN is Belgium, Springfield is Croatia. Other makers like Utas don't even export to the US. Other nations buy plenty of weapons to keep the factories open.

The domestic gun ban plan doesn't stay on our side of the line. Which is why its about as realistic as a memo from the UN politely asking people to stop killing each other.
It's an ivory tower ideal that sounds like a great idea until you actually try implementing it. Then a bunch to other nations statesmen, crooks, and arms dealers are going to rub your nose in its impracticalities.


Other nations are pretty free and easy about the possession of powerful narcotics. Some even specialize in the creation of them and selling to other nations that outlaw them. Pretty much every civilized nation has banned these hard narcotics.

By your logic, we should simply make them all legal since black marketeers and foreign importers are going to get them into the country.

Guns are no different and should be treated no different.
 
2013-01-01 10:26:38 AM
letrole: You don't have a fooken clue.

Infernalist: I'm saying, and still am saying, that the only way to stop the gun violence problem is to remove the guns from society. You've yet to offer up anything that proves otherwise.

This fallacy is known as petitio principii, or "begging the question".

You've taken part of what you must prove, *the argument that guns must be banned*, and used it to support another part of what you must prove, *the proper way to ban guns*.

Guns are not the problem. Guns are a tool, nothing more. The problem is people.

Protractors and Triangles don't create blueprints, draughtsmen do.
 
2013-01-01 10:28:16 AM

Infernalist: JSam21: Infernalist: Mock26: Infernalist: Mock26: 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 remo ...

I was wondering if anyone would catch that. I was tongue-in-cheek about that 'mental' part. I do think that a vast overhaul in the nation's mental health system is needed, however.


Now the ammunition making thing has nothing to do with masturbatory fantasies of self reliance. Why wouldn't there be anything to do with it? In your plan there are still guns in the world... therefore there would be guns in America. There would still be ammunition supplies in the world, therefore they would be in America. While not as widespread as it is today you would still have guns and ammunition in America.

People that grow pot, or distilled liquor during prohibition, don't do it on the scale of todays grain farmer or alcohol conglomerates like AB/inBev, yet there are still drugs flooding the street and there was booze to be had if you wanted it.

Don't say you can't compare those things because you can. With fairly basic metal working tools you can make a fire arm. Hell with PVC pipe, hair spray and a large ball bearing I can make a lethal firearm. You're idea is a pipe dream so lets scrap it and come up with a realistic idea.
 
2013-01-01 10:29:05 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.


Well, I have the instrumental song "Popcorn" going through my head, but I have renamed it "Glockcorn"
 
2013-01-01 10:29:50 AM

letrole: letrole: You don't have a fooken clue.

Infernalist: I'm saying, and still am saying, that the only way to stop the gun violence problem is to remove the guns from society. You've yet to offer up anything that proves otherwise.

This fallacy is known as petitio principii, or "begging the question".

You've taken part of what you must prove, *the argument that guns must be banned*, and used it to support another part of what you must prove, *the proper way to ban guns*.

Guns are not the problem. Guns are a tool, nothing more. The problem is people.

Protractors and Triangles don't create blueprints, draughtsmen do.


They are indeed tools. Tools of murder and nothing more.

Can a draftsman create a blueprint without his triangle? Certainly. It's not as easy, but he can do it.

Can a murderer kill without a handgun? Certainly. It's not as easy, but he can do it.

Thank you for proving my point.
 
2013-01-01 10:31:26 AM

Infernalist: way south: Someone here doesn't know that most guns are made overseas. It varies by model but many companies import parts for final assembly in the US (to skirt import bans).
Izhmash is Russia, Glock is Austria, FN is Belgium, Springfield is Croatia. Other makers like Utas don't even export to the US. Other nations buy plenty of weapons to keep the factories open.

The domestic gun ban plan doesn't stay on our side of the line. Which is why its about as realistic as a memo from the UN politely asking people to stop killing each other.
It's an ivory tower ideal that sounds like a great idea until you actually try implementing it. Then a bunch to other nations statesmen, crooks, and arms dealers are going to rub your nose in its impracticalities.

Other nations are pretty free and easy about the possession of powerful narcotics. Some even specialize in the creation of them and selling to other nations that outlaw them. Pretty much every civilized nation has banned these hard narcotics.

By your logic, we should simply make them all legal since black marketeers and foreign importers are going to get them into the country.

Guns are no different and should be treated no different.


What are your views on self defense?

Does a person have a right to defend themself or does a person have to let the assault/rape/robbery happen to them because they have no right to self defense?
 
2013-01-01 10:32:45 AM

JSam21: Infernalist: JSam21: Infernalist: Mock26: Infernalist: Mock26: 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 ...


Would there still be guns in America with a ban on handguns and automatic rifles? Certainly. I never said otherwise. But the numbers would be immeasurably lower and that's the point. By reducing the supply to an insignificant trickle via the ban, the amount of gun violence would drop through the floor. Get rid of it completely? Not immediately, but then I'm not claiming it would, either.

The ban on narcotics doesn't remove drugs from society, but it does reduce the amount immeasurably and properly punishes those who would profit from those drugs. A gun ban would work the same way.
 
Displayed 50 of 822 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report